03-18-2002 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2755 Long Lake Fire Station, Continued) Gaffron stated development of the fire station site results in approximately 60 percent of Lot 1 being hardsurfaced and will require some stormwater ponding. Smith inquired whether the tower could be further explained. GafTron stated the tower is located in the southeast comer of the building. The hose tower height is necessary for it to perform a number of functions. Its primary purpose is for firefighter training, and will contain stairways, windows and a door to the roof that will allow for a variety of realistic firefighting and rescue scenarios to be staged. Its secondary use is to elevate hoses for drying. Gaffron noted this tower will only be constructed if the budget allows. Gaffron stated hose towers are sometimes treated as an important architectural design element of fire stations where the location makes it suitable for use as a clock tower or signature design feature. The Long Lake Station will be located in a neighborhood setting rather than a “town center" setting, and reducing the prominence of the tow er will minimize its visual impact on the neighborhood. Gaffron stated the tower is proposed to be 35’ tall where 30* is the normal maximum allow ed. Its flat roof w ill extend approximately 12 ’ above the 23 ’ flat roof height of the majority of the station building. The 20 ’ by 22 ’ area of the tower covers just under 3 percent of the total roof area of the station and is a relatively small feature in the context of the overall visual impact of the station. Staff is recommending that no signage be allowed on the tower and that its facade materials match the rest of the building so that it does not become unnecessarily noticeable, and the tower itself will not be lighted. Gabriel Jabbour, Building Committee, stated the exterior materials arc similar to the bricks utilized on the Pioneer Museum. Smith inquired what impact there would be on the training if the height of the tower is kept to 30’, Jabbour stated at the present time the sixth bay and hose tow er may not be constructed unless the budget allows for it follow ing opening of the bids. Jabbour stated the committee did discuss reducing the height of the tower, but noted the costs to construct a smaller tow er arc higher. Gaffron stated the issues for consideration by the Planning Commission include whether any other conditions are necessary other than those proposed by Staff in order to allow the 35’ tower; w hether the hardships stated in Staffs report support the granting of the setback variance, and whether there are any significant impacts of the 40 ’ setback that should be mitigated by anaching specific conditions to the variance approval. In addition, the Planning Commission should consider whether there are any issues regarding the proposed plat of tne two lots. Mabusth stated it was her understanding the fire station was to have three acres. Jabbour stated it is a three-acre lot when the road, ponding, and wetland mitigation are considered. Jabbour stated there should not be a problem w ith the setback since the road is 60’ w ide instead of the standard 50’. Hawn noted if the sixth bay is not constructed, the setback variance would not be required. Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments relating to this application. PAGE 15