Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Wednesday,July 17,2002 <br /> 5:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued <br /> Bremer asked how much above 30' the loft unit building would be. <br /> Krall felt the loft building would fall within a 31-32' range for height if it had a flat roof, <br /> however, a parapet would need to be added so that people do not fall off the edge. On the other <br /> hand, if there is a sloped roof you gain an extra 9-10' of roof height without the parapet. <br /> Smith stated that she could not imagine a flat roof <br /> Gaffron noted that the numbers being discussed were based on the finished grade as the starting <br /> point for measuring height, although City code would normally use existing grade for height <br /> determination. <br /> Krall stated that, assuming the Commission would prefer a sloped roof, the slope would start at <br /> about 31' above finished grade. <br /> Gaffron presented a drawing showing the amount of fill needed to make this happen in the front. <br /> In the back, Gaffron was concerned that a great deal of fill would be necessary near the wetland <br /> to ease the transition from existing grade to the 1st story dwelling units. <br /> Johnston stated that, based on the grading plan, they would come out to the same grade <br /> relationship that is proposed in the front with sidewalk and retaining wall at the wetland. <br /> Gaffron felt that this suggestion made sense, because in order for the garage level to avoid being <br /> considered as a story, about a half of its wall area must be below grade. <br /> Krall stated that they wanted ground floor units to possess easy grade level access off the <br /> porches. <br /> Gaffron noted that a large retaining wall would be necessary in relation to the wetland since they <br /> are so close to the wetland buffer. If this proves to be too great a challenge, forcing the building <br /> to move forward, Gaffron acknowledged the applicant might have to deal with other issues. <br /> Krall stated that the applicant would be prepared to make the building 1-2' narrower if need be. <br /> Gaffron stated that he drew his sketches in order to compare what he saw, to what the applicant <br /> was proposing on Monday evening. He agreed with the applicants' comments that, with a flat <br /> roof, they are close to the height requirement. <br /> Rahn asked if Gaffron had noted how far it was to the peak of his illustration with the potential <br /> sloped roof <br /> PAGE 4 OF 22 <br />