My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-19-2002 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
08-19-2002 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2012 3:06:56 PM
Creation date
2/27/2012 3:06:56 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, August 19, 2002 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#02-2782 ORONO PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES, Continued) <br /> The Applicants also advised the City that they have signed a purchase agreement to acquire the <br /> adjacent 2.5 acre parcel to the east, which in the Revised Concept Plan indicates the potential for <br /> additional parking on that site as well as shared access to Kelley Parkway. <br /> Gaffron continued that, the latest issue with the purchase is that the applicants' environmental <br /> consultant has suggested that the site may contain small pockets of defined wetlands, although <br /> not originally mapped on the site. Gaffron noted that the City Engineer is currently reviewing <br /> the wetland status of the property and will provide staff with additional information soon. <br /> Gaffron reported that, John Smythe, the City wetland delineator, indicated that small pockets of <br /> wetland, approximately 50'X50' exist at the center of the property, although it cannot be <br /> concluded currently by slide analysis whether these have been man made from grading or <br /> naturally occurring. Gaffron implied that the Watershed District may require a small amount of <br /> mitigation off-site if the spot is found to contain wetlands regulated under the WCA rules. <br /> With regard to the Concept Plan, Gaffron pointed out 5 revisions: First, the building is 16,000 <br /> s.f. rather than the original 15,000 s.f.; Second, the front entrance of the building has been <br /> revised so that it faces northeast towards Kelley Parkway; Third, the easterly entrance to Kelley <br /> Parkway will be a full access shared entrance with the adjacent property directly across from the <br /> police station access as required by the City; Next, the westerly access from Kelley Parkway will <br /> be "in-only"which provides for easy patient drop-off and pick-up and less stacking backups; <br /> Finally, the easterly parking lots are connected by two "through"corridors to additional parking <br /> on the adjoining property. Based on the applicants' revised plan, 67 stalls are on site and 15 are <br /> provided on the adjacent property to meet the applicants expectation that 83 stalls will likely be <br /> necessary to adequately serve their intended use of the building. Gaffron added that the <br /> proposed parking on the adjoining property can be dealt with either by an easement or moving <br /> the lot line to include these within the property itself. <br /> Gaffron stated that the two options for allowing the required parking and shared access to occur <br /> outside the boundaries of the property are 1)require that parking easements or agreements be <br /> established between the two properties; or 2)require that the lot boundaries be adjusted so that <br /> all parking for the corner lot is within the corner lot. In any case, Gaffron acknowledged that the <br /> shared access location is appropriate to serve both sites, while likely an additional access to <br /> Kelley Parkway would be developed for the easterly parcel. <br /> As far as the trail along Highway 12, Gaffron indicated that there were a number of issues that <br /> should be taken into consideration: i.e., the safety aspect of proximity to Highway 12, as any <br /> trail should be significantly separated from the traveled right-of-way; aesthetic impacts; the <br /> impact of pedestrian traffic near the medical building windows; and topographic issues. <br /> PAGE 2 of 28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.