04/19/2004 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (2. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, "STONEBAY MARKETPLACE," NW QUADRANT HWY 12/WILLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAL PUD DEVELOPMENT—Continued) Chair Mabusth asked if staff had any problem with the lot coverage issue on the site. Gaffron stated the lot coverage is similar to other commercial properties and is a Planning Commission decision if it needs to be addressed further. He cited the example of Snyder Drug in Navarre, which is over 20%. As this is a new use and along Hwy 12, Chair Mabusth inquired if office uses need a lot coverage variance. Staff reported on recent examples that did need lot coverage variances but cited the dental office on Hwy 12 and Kelley Parkway did not because it was on a 2.5 acre site. Rahn expressed his reservations about granting a lot coverage variance because residential lots appear to be held to strict interpretations and this commercial site may be granted a variance. Also, he noted that an existing conforming lot is becoming two non-conforming lots, which leads to lot coverage issues, a little bit less parking and, also, trash enclosures that are an unknown presently. Chair Mabusth asked if trash enclosures are included in lot coverage calculations. Staff explained they were expecting an enclosed brick and mortar design with four sides, which would count for lot coverage accounting for about 100 s.f., less than 1% s.f. and not a significant amount. Gaffron confirmed the Walgreens structural coverage is at 19.9% and the westerly lot is 16.1%. Rahn asked for a description of the trash enclosure locations. In reply, Gaffron expects there to be at least two trash enclosures but it is unknown until the applicant provides this information. Ms. Van Dell clarified the trash enclosure locations, with three trash enclosures. Rahn emphasized the need to know the exact dimensions of the trash enclosures as a part of the lot coverage. He reiterated his reservations about making a conforming lot into two non-conforming lots and then increasing lot coverage. Gaffron pointed out that applying B-6 standards which are primarily for office rather than retail uses results in the setback variance with the trash enclosure within the 35' setback, and, technically, a parking variance being 6 spaces short of the Code standard, too. Upon question from Chair Mabusth, Gaffron stated that the total of parking spaces proposed is 167 if all proof-of-parking spaces are used in the calculations; it results in about 24% greenspace if all proof-of-parking is built out when the goal 25%. Bremer commented that she did not have a problem with the lot area or lot widths but questioned having the trash enclosure too close to residential areas for noise concerns. Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that is not required by the Orono Code but could be looked at as part of the reguiding from office to commercial to incorporate trash facilities within a building. Mr. Trautz responded the applicant prefers not to enclose in the buildings, as having it outside works easier for the trash hauler. Also, there will be berming and a fair amount of screening to mitigate the noise to nearby residents. Chair Mabusth indicated it will be very helpful to have the applicant's elevations for subsequent discussions. Page 6 of 49