Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
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 /> and Item Q under required parking talks about if evidence is provided demonstrating that the parking <br /> requirements of the proposed use will be less than the parking required under this section during the peak <br /> demand period. Shouting inquired whether that language would allow a company to have less parking <br /> than the formulas would mandate if a conditional use permit were granted. <br /> Bremer stated that is how she understands the language and that the parking requirement could be <br /> deferred. <br /> Shouting inquired if the City would prefer that be a condition of use. <br /> Bremer stated yes. <br /> Shouting stated page seven under Item 9 under Building Design and Construction covers materials and <br /> reads, "use of substantial amounts of masonry materials (face brick, stucco, stone) is encouraged." <br /> Shouting indicated there are many different types of masonry materials and inquired whether the masonry <br /> materials are being limited to these tl�ree materials listed or whether other materials could be utilized. <br /> The Planning Commission indicated other materials could be proposed. <br /> Shouting stated page seven, footnote three says, "within adjoining industrial developments,private access <br /> and undivided parking areas may be permitted provided that each individual parcel meets all other district <br /> requirements. Shouting inquired what is intended by that language. Shouting inquired if two buildings <br /> back up to one another, whether the City would allow zero lot line allowances. Shouting inquired <br /> whether that is what is intended by that section. <br /> Grittman stated that is the intent of the language and that in that situation you would not need the setback. <br /> Shouting stated Item 2 refers to the obligation of a property owner to fully screen from a public right-of- <br /> way a proposed parking area if the parking area does not have a 10-foot setback from the building. <br /> Shouting stated the particular site they are looking at has a southern exposure and that it is probable that <br /> the building will have a truck port area that faces Highway 394 and that it would not make sense to put <br /> green space between the building and asphalt. Shouting inquired whether they would have to screen the <br /> entire southern portion of that site,noting that it is a preriy substantial area. Shouting stated the road is <br /> lower than the site. <br /> Bremer stated in her view it is too premature for the Planning Commission to decide that without having <br /> the opportunity to review exactly what is being proposed far the site. Bremer stated she personally would <br /> like to adhere to the ordinance as much as possible. <br /> Shouting inquired if extra landscaping would be preferable rather than a wall. <br /> PAGE 7 <br />