Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 <br /> (#19 -#2326 Orono Development Continued) <br /> Gaffron indicated that fencing is not being proposed. Fencing is required, however, where <br /> the property abuts the residential district. A arborvitae hedge is being proposed. <br /> Landscape Architect Case suggested additional screening in the landscape plan. Gaffron <br /> asked the Commission to consider whether screening should be included along the Olive <br /> Avenue frontage. <br /> Gaffron reported that the City does not usually get involved with design, but the proposed <br /> buildings will be significant to the area. He reviewed the exterior finish. Elevation <br /> reviews must be provided to ensure a consistent appearance. In Staffs opinion, Gaffron <br /> said the building lacks character and consideration needs to be given to the expanse of <br /> uninterrupted roof. <br /> The only outbuilding will be a trash enclosure proposed 30' from Olive Avenue, which <br /> Gaffron feels may not be the best location. Screening of that enclosure is required and <br /> building exterior should also be compatible with the other buildings. <br /> A drainage plan has been submitted. A grading plan indicates an expansion of the <br /> retention pond existing on the site. The City Engineer has made recommendations, <br /> including the need to revisit the proposed storm sewer lines in that storm sewer and <br /> • ponding calculations need to be provided. The entire site will drain to this storm pond via <br /> grading and a series of catch basins and storm sewer lines. <br /> Gaffron said the City Engineer has commented on the grading plan submitted. He noted <br /> that design grades, especially down to Olive Avenue, are steep. Grades and slopes need <br /> to be examined and erosion control materials used. Plantings should strive for a 1:5 slope. <br /> The proposed retaining wall is over 10' in height. A pedestrian path had been discussed <br /> for location along the wall but eliminated due to the safety issue with the height of the <br /> wall. Concern was also voiced over the starkness of the wall as viewed from Olive <br /> Avenue. O'Sullivan had suggested the pedestrian path by the north lot line but felt this <br /> may be difficult to do. A path through the parking lot would need alot of review. Gaffron <br /> noted the wall would need to be screened. The building height meets requirements but the <br /> broad expanse of roof should be modified. <br /> 35 <br />