Laserfiche WebLink
MINLJTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION � <br /> Mondny, September 19,2005 � <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gundlach indica.ted there ai•e tlu•ee entrance points shown on the proposed plan,with the main entrance <br /> facing Sixth Avenue North and two secondary entrances off the parking lot, which face east. Staff does <br /> not anticipate that any new building mounted fighting would be near enough to the adjacent►•esidential <br /> property to cause any negative impacts. Should the lpplicant decide to add parking lot lighting in ihe <br /> futut•e, an additional conditioiial use permit must be reviewed and approved. <br /> The applicant is not proposing any new signage as part of this proposal. The applicant has also indicated <br /> they a�•e in compliance with the 30-foot height limitation, with a proposed height of 27 to 28 feet. <br /> Gundlach stated the applicant has submitted a grading a�ld di•ainage plan illustl•ating how the expanded <br /> parking and rate control pond will impact the existing topography. The City Engineer's preliminary <br /> comments are inchided in the Planning Commission packets. Gundlach noted the City Engineer is <br /> recommending that the pond be modified to include water quality treatment for the entire site and should <br /> satisfy NURP requirements. <br /> The nearest adjacent property to this site is to the west at a distance of approaimately 250 feet. This site <br /> is a group home and would not be negatively impacted by the proposed expansion as most of the <br /> improvements are on the east side of the property. Staff also does not foresee any negative impacts to the <br /> properties to the east or soutll. <br /> Staff recommends approval of the reqttested conditional use permit subject to the recommendations of the <br /> City Engineer and fui-ther subject to the following conditions: <br /> 1. The Planning Commission should detennine if a viable hardship exists to allow the expanded <br /> parking in tlie southwest corner of the site as a front ylyd packing setback variance would be required. <br /> 2. Prio►•to City Council review of tlle application, revised p(ans mtist be submitted incoi•porating tlle <br /> preliminary reconunendations of the City�ngineer. The applica�lt will also be required to comply with <br /> any other forthcoming comments from the City Engiiieer. <br /> Thiesse had nothing to add to Staffls report. <br /> PAGE 36 <br />