Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 18,2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.ru. <br /> (#04-3062 John Terrance Hoines, Continued) <br /> building and what happens between the parking lot and the st�eet with this grading change. The <br /> Planning Commission should deterniine whether the visual appearance of the building as a result of <br /> the added height is positively or negatively affected by the increased length of the buildii7g. <br /> Gaffron reconunended the Plaiming Coinmission ensure that ihe building materials and windows <br /> depicted on the plans be utilized in this plan. Gaffron stated he is very satisfied with the landscape <br /> plan for this development,but noted the City's landscape consultant will need to review the plan. <br /> Gaffron noted the developer would need to submit a lighting plan for this develo�ment as well as a <br /> signage plan. Gaffron stated the developer is one parking stall short and will need to define where the <br /> additional stall will be located. <br /> Gaffron stated the impervious surface coverage in the RPUD District is limited to 50 percent. While <br /> the Lofts site has 52.7 percent impervious area,the Stonebay project in its entirety has an impervious <br /> area well below the 50 percent limit. <br /> Gaffron noted this approval process is basically approval of Phase 2 of the Stonebay residential <br /> development. Gaffron requested the Planning Conm�ission discuss the acceptability of building <br /> expansion and its visual inlpacts,the increased building height, the proposed building materials and <br /> building design,the acceptability of the location in relation to the west lot line, and issues relating to <br /> signage, lighting,parking and landscaping. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Johnston pointed out that in a lot of ways the loft or condominium building was basically an unknown <br /> at the time original approval was granted. Johnston indicated they had a basic concept of what they <br /> wanted to build at the time of original approval but have since modified the plans to include some <br /> amenities that will help make the product more marketable. Johnston noted at the time of original <br /> proposal assumptions were also made concerning the size of the units and other items. <br /> Johnston stated they are addressing the Planning Coinmission tonight regarding a better-defined <br /> product, with a new architect being brought in on the project who deals with residential developments. <br /> Johnston indicated the architect made reconunendations dealing with the mix of the units and the <br /> marketability of the units. Johnston stated guest rooms, a hobby room, a busniess center, a family <br /> dining room, community room, car wash, library and exercise room are some of the amenities that <br /> have Ueen added to help increase the marketability of the units. Johnston stated the two buildings <br /> were coru7ected to acconunodate the proposed ameiiities and to address the waterproofing issues they <br /> would encounter with a portion of the underground parking garage being located below turf. <br /> Johnston stated in his view the proposed building is a more ath-active building,but aclrnowledged that <br /> it is a change in the visual appearance of the site. Johnston stated the biggest difference between the <br /> two plans is the elimination of the gap betweet�the two buildings, with the visual iin�act being most <br /> apparent along Kelley Parkway. Johnston stated the view of the proposed building from other angles <br /> PAGE 36 <br />