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 /> Jurgens stated it does say fully screened view of a public right-of-way. Jurgens stated the new freeway <br /> would not be viewing this site,but that he does have a concern regarding the view of the adjacent <br /> neighbors across the road rather than the people traveling along 394. <br /> Shouting stated the next item he would like to discuss is on page 10, Item Q (4)under the parking section. <br /> Item Q (4), which reads as follows: On-site parking shall only occur in areas designed and constructed <br /> for parking in accordance with this Section. The area reserved as"proof-of-parking" shall be sodded or <br /> seeded and maintained as green space. No permanent buildings shall be permitted in the "proof-of- <br /> parking"area. Shouting stated in their practice it is more common to consider paved areas that might be <br /> used far trucking as parking; and that if more parking is necessary, those areas become striped. Shouting <br /> suggested language be inserted regarding areas such as a truck port. <br /> Grittman stated the idea of deferment of parking is that somebody might be developing the site with a <br /> building that one use might require a large amount of parking but that another use would not require as <br /> much parking as a building would otherwise need. Grittman stated the City could approve a proof-of- <br /> parking agreement with the understanding that if there becomes a need for additional parking, that there is <br /> parking available. Grittman stated this deals with the reservation of parking far future needs. <br /> Bremer stated she agrees that the area should stay green if it is not needed for parking, and inquired <br /> whether an area that was at one time being utilized for parking would need to be converted back into <br /> green space if the parking is no longer needed. <br /> Grittman stated most cities would not require the parking to be converted back into green space if the <br /> parking was not required. <br /> Shouting stated typically at the time they appear before the Council they do not lrnow the exact tenants of <br /> a building and the exact parking needs. Shouting indicated the trucking area could be used for parking in <br /> the event additional parking is required. <br /> Bremer stated it appears that that situation would be allowed. <br /> Shouting stated his final comments deal with the section on signage. Shouting indicated Items 1, 2, and 3 <br /> have to do with freestanding monument signs and Items 4, 5, and 6 have to do with building signs. <br /> Shouting recommended the City consider including language that would cover the situation where a <br /> single building has a single tenant and that the single tenant may have two or three signs or a sign larger <br /> than 32 square feet. Shouting suggested the Planning Commission consider putting like a five percent <br /> limit based on the square footage of the building but that it is up to the properiy owner or the tenants to <br /> allocate that five percent. <br /> Bremer noted that topic was discussed at the work session. Bremer stated Items 4 and 5 are building <br /> signs and that Item 6 is more of a directional type sign, which is a different type of sign. <br /> Grittman stated those could be subtitled to make it clearer. <br /> PAGE 8 <br />