Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 17,2006 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#06-3173 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ZONING STANDARDS,CONTINUED) <br /> Johnson stated the ordinance change is being driven somewhat by the Ryan application and that he would <br /> like some feedback regarding the timing requirements for when this ordinance would be finalized. <br /> Johnson noted under the parking provision there is a requirement for a parking island every 20 spaces. <br /> Johnson indicated they have different types of parking on their site and that the screening requirements <br /> should reflect what use is being made of the parking area and whether it is public parking or private <br /> parking. Johnson stated it would be impractical for them to have a parking island every 20 stalls since <br /> they are in the business of storing cars. <br /> Johnson stated they have 40 rooftop units on their building at the present time and that they would have to <br /> incur a substantial expense to screen those units. Johnson stated they would like to see a grandfather <br /> clause for those units and that no screening would need to be added unless there is a major renovation <br /> done to the building. <br /> Johnson noted there is no reference for outdoor sales lots, and inquired whether it is still a conditional use <br /> or not. Johnson noted they currently do have a conditional use permit for outside storage and outside <br /> display. <br /> Johnson stated he also does not see any definition for automotive services,noting that Morrie's has a <br /> large body shop but that they do not have as many customer visits as a retail automotive service center <br /> would have. <br /> Leslie inquired whether Mr. Johnson was comfortable with the language contained under 78-822, Item <br /> A(1) <br /> Johnson stated the parking section defines a parking requirement of three parking spaces for each service <br /> stall,but that they do not feel they need three customer slots for that use. <br /> Johnson stated they have presented the issue of signage,noting they have a 23-acre site with a single <br /> pedestal sign. Johnson stated the scale of the sign does not match the scale of the operation, and that they <br /> would like to see the size standard for the signage reflect more closely the size of the operation. <br /> Johnson noted a number of the suggestions that they made at the planning sessions have been <br /> implemented but that they would like further consideration given to the suggestions made tonight. <br /> Johnson stated their main objective is to maintain the rights they do have on the site and that there will be <br /> more applications in the future regarding expansion on this site. <br /> Bremer noted if the Planning Commission forwards this application to the City Council tonight, it would <br /> be on the agenda for the January 23`d meeting. <br /> PAGE 5 <br />