My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/20/2005 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
06/20/2005 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2012 9:31:00 AM
Creation date
3/9/2012 9:30:57 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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,June 20,2005 <br /> • 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#05-3115 WJM Properties, Continued) <br /> Johnson stated at the time the building upgrades were originally proposed, a new face on the north side <br /> and the east side was put on the building,but because there were significant grade changes and screening <br /> on the south and west side,those areas remained painted block exterior walls. Johnson indicated the <br /> language of the code does not fit perfectly in this situation because it talks about the architect's original <br /> design concept. The design concept that was originally conceived was to put a new face on the front or <br /> public side of the building. Johnson indicated the building is essentially an industrial building and that <br /> the rear of the building is essentially screened from the public. <br /> Rahn inquired whether the steel siding would continue to make the two buildings look like one. <br /> Johnson stated that specific matter has not been discussed with his client and that he is unsure at this time <br /> whether it is his client's intent to reside the entire building. <br /> Rahn inquired whether there were any public comments. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Rahn stated at the very least he would like the buildings to match. <br /> Bremer inquired whether paint would be acceptable. <br /> Rahn stated he is unsure whether paint would be sufficient and that he would like the buildings to match. <br /> Kempf noted the back of the building is rather run-down and inquired whether customers are ever in that <br /> area. <br /> Johnson stated the rear of the building is not designed as a public area but that there are circumstances <br /> when customers could be in that area. Johnson stated that area is designed for wrecked cars. Johnson <br /> stated the truck garage would be accessed from the south and the existing building has its doors located to <br /> the north. <br /> Jurgens inquired what type of fence would be installed in the secured area. <br /> Johnson stated it is his understanding it is a six-foot semi-opaque fence that is required in the conditional <br /> use permit. <br /> Gaffron illustrated the existing fence on the overhead. <br /> Johnson stated the existing conditional use permit does not allow them to store wrecked cars in the <br /> eastern lot. Johnson indicated they are willing to stipulate that the new lot would not house wrecked cars. <br /> Kempf indicated he would prefer to see the new siding material on the new portion of the building <br /> continue around the existing portion for aesthetic reasons. <br /> PAGE 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.