09-19-2011 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

� MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING . • Monday,August 15,2011 _ 6:30 o'clock p.m. . The buildi.ng design and construction is intended to mimic or continue the existing appearance of the , building. The height of the addition will be conforming in height and setbacks. The rooftop equipment shall be screened from view from the ground at the property line with vertical extensions of the building walls or with parapets or other azchitectural design features. The rooftop equipment will be located in the center of the building,which will prevent it from being seen. The form and proportion of the buildings shall be consistent or compatible with the scale,form and proportion of existing development in the immediate area. It will not look like an addition when completed. In terms of architectural design,there will be a flat roof that meets the City's standards. They have also provided the required number of parking islands. The applicant is providing 109 parking stalls,with parking at one end of the building with a drive aisle next to the building. Code requires that those be screened from view. The applicant is proposing a landscape plan that would add some additional plantings near the road so the need for screening is minimal to meet the City's Code. Gaf&on indicated in his view it would not be an issue if the plantings were not done. The existing building is expected to sta.y in.this area and meets all of the required standards. • The original plat includecl circulation that would continue the parking to the next lot to the south. This plan does not include connections to the next lot but there is potential to connect parking lots if need be in the future. There is also potential for truck traffic to continue on through the site to the south. The applicant has been asked to template the truck tuming movements. They will be adding a fourth loading dock and they have demonstrated that there is ample room for trucks. As it relates to utilities,they will be relocating a water line and vacating the existing waterline easement, which is a nonissue but does technically require vacation of the easement and dedication of a new easement. In terms of landscaping,the applicant is continuing essentially the same pattern of landscaping to the south and along the front of the building. The lighting plan shows that they will be using similar lighting that is currently on the site. Signage is a basic monument sign and meets City Code. The Industrial District zoning code standards do not have specific requirements for trash handling. The applicant is proposing trash containers at the place where the addition meets the old building. The intent of the Code is to have dumpsters located where they can serve the building and does not require screeni.ng. Staff is questioning whether there is any need to screen the trash contai.ners. There is a view of the trash containers from the corridor off of Highway 12. One of the options would be to require a wing wall to fully enclose the dumpsters,but that would be an item for Planning Commission to determine if it is necessary. Issues for consideration: 1. Is there any mechanical equipment proposed on the roof? If so,how will it be screened? 2. Does the landscape plan provide adequate screening for the parking area at the south end of the building? ' Page 9