08-21-2017 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

, MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke asked why there was not a second entrance. Gori stated the main reason for not having a second entrance was circulation and wanting to avoid causing confusion with two entrances. Gori stated he understands planning staff usually likes to see one entrance in and out. Gori noted this facility will not generate traffic on the scale of an office building and that other similar projects he has worked on usually only have one entrance/exit. Larry Schultz,2670 Kelley Parkway, stated as he looks at the plan,he sees Kelley Parkway going through there and that he sees parking spots facing Kelley Parkway. Schultz asked whether there will be any amenities or trees or foliage so there will be a buffer between Kelley Parkway and the parking lot. Barnhart noted Kelley Parkway is north of the site and that there are some trees between Kelley Parkway and the parking lot. Barnhart stated there are trees also along Kelley Parkway that are not shown on the plan. Barnhart stated the intent with the landscaping was not to screen the building. Thiesse commented it would be no different than the parking spots in front of the condominiums. Schultz asked how far back the building would be from Kelley. Barnhart stated the distance between the corner of the building and the driveway is 44 feet,with Kelley Parkway being another 15 feet beyond that. Barnhart stated to his understanding it is 65 feet to the curb. Thiesse noted Item No. 5 in Staff's report asks whether the Conservation Design requirements should be waived. Thiesse asked whether the Planning Commission can encourage the applicant to plant some trees. Barnhart stated in his view a Conservation Plan is not necessary but that the Planning Commission can recommend some additional trees be planted. Landgraver stated in his view a more robust landscaping plan should be developed prior to going to the City Council. Landgraver stated he is not sure whether there would be a benefit to angle the parking lot to diminish headlights going into the condominiums. Barnhart stated landscaping is part of an RPUD and would be reviewed as part of the final Master Plan. Aggarwal noted the floor level of the condominium is much higher up than this building and that headlights and so forth should not shine into the condominiums. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission feels there is justification for the CMP amendment and rezoning. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that there is. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission feels there is sufficient justification for flexibility. Schoenzeit stated there could be flexibility on some of it. Page 6 of 20