My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-20-1996 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
02-20-1996 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 2:02:21 PM
Creation date
7/10/2019 2:02:20 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
0 <br />• <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996 <br />( #1 - #2017 John O'Sullivan - Continued) <br />Mabusth said Gustafson is concerned with the traffic lanes and the need for additional area <br />for a right turn lane. Coen said the parking and standard dimensions were discussed with <br />Glenn Cook. O'Sullivan said he spoke with Gustafson and asked for detail and was told <br />Gustafson!s remarks were only an observation as he had not closely studied the plan. <br />Mabusth noted that this was not what Gustafson's report advised the City Staff. <br />Hawn inquired about the car wash operation with the projected use of 50 gallons of water <br />per car and 170 cars washed daily. O'Sullivan said the system will treat the water before <br />sending it to the retention pond and would go into the sanitary sewer system. He noted <br />that all chemicals used would be biodegradable. Coen added that the outside drain would <br />catch the water dripping from the cars and send it to the sanitary sewer. Thompson also <br />noted the driers in the car wash which would minimize the dripping. Hawn said the <br />amount of water used per car wash seemed to be a large amount. O'Sullivan said the <br />amount was moderate. <br />Lindquist remarked that, although he recognized what the applicant was attempting to <br />accomplish, the different uses appeared to be alot for such a small lot and questioned the <br />need. The question also arose whether the car wash was a principal or accessory use. <br />The car wash as proposed was considered a principal use. <br />Lindquist asked if 35% of the lot would be hardcover but was told only a small portion of <br />property was included in the hardcover zone. <br />Schroeder inquired about the function of the B -l. Mabusth commented that as long as <br />stormwater retention was provided, the project would meet the use and retention <br />requirements. This was theoretical as the facts have not been reviewed. Mabusth <br />informed Lindquist that the calculations would be reviewed before any approval was made <br />of the application. <br />Schroeder said he saw a difference in the use from the one property with a deli, auto <br />repair, and oil change with the number of cars that would frequent from a restaurant use. <br />The restaurant would present a maximum number of cars moving through the property at <br />certain busy time periods. Schroeder said he could view the project without the car wash. <br />O'Sullivan told Schroeder that when analyzed, the car wash was necessary. He felt the <br />itensity would be reduced with two sites providing similar products. He did not believe he <br />would gain new business and would not be as equally busy. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.