Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OK THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Moaday, October 18,2004 <br />6:00 o’clock p,ni. <br />(•04-3062 Mia Terraoce Homm, Cootiooed) <br />Rahn suggested addressing the seven bullet points contained m suff s report. Rahn noted Item No. I <br />deal vkiih the acceptability of the building expansion and the attachment of the central core. Rahn <br />stated he understands the \isual impact from the difTerem angles but that he has a concern about <br />increasing the size of the structure. <br />Jurgens noted the butV of «hat is being fiUcd in within the units is not amenities but rather just an <br />increase in the size of the units. Jurgens stated he would like a breakdown of the amenities being <br />added and the increase in the size of the uniu. <br />Johnston suted there is a letter to Gaffroo dated September 2r that addresses the amenities and the <br />size of the units. Johnston stated some of the units isere increased but there w ere also a number of <br />mid-size units that were added. Johnston pointed out the w idth of the hal'.w ay has also been <br />increased. <br />Jurgens reiterated he would like to see a breakdown between the anKnitics added and the increased <br />size of the units. <br />Vitlard stated in his opinion the breakdown between the two is probably 50 50. <br />Jurgens stated another comment he would like to make regarding this application is that the we>t end <br />of the building was onginally proposed at two stones, and that he would prefer lo see the west end of <br />the building again reduced to two stones, w hich would help to balaiKC the building. <br />Villard stated once >’OU start reducing things in one section of the building, the rest of the building <br />would also be impacted. Villard staled issues regarding egress and ingress would have to be re­ <br />evaluated. Villard indicated the number of units was not decreased due lo financial considerations. <br />Leslie inquired whether the increased value of the units and added amenities would allow .or a <br />reduction in the number of units. <br />Johnston staled the cost to construct the units has increased with the amenities bemg added. <br />Leslie slated in his opinion if economics are the driving force for the amenities, the economics would <br />become more fax-orablc with fewer units. <br />Villard stated the size of the units help ofTscl the cost of the amenities that are being added and not as <br />many amenities could be added if the number of units is decreased. Villard staled they also do not <br />want to compete with the ramblers and the two-story residential strucnires constructed w ithm the same <br />dc\«Iopment. <br />Bremer commented in her \icw the amenities w ill help to sell the units, but she has a concern w ith the <br />sisual impact of the proposed building. Bremer mdicaied she was not aware of the underground <br />parking being connected between the tw o buildings and the potential issues associated with having the <br />area above ihe underground parking being open space. Bremer noted the stepping down of the <br />PAGE 38