10-10-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r m MMIlt 1«mIS,2MS npi)«ri4 H. Ctwurdil aa4 MulHal dtvtitfwt wW not bt pcrniittod tm adYtmiy aOteC Miflib«rtog mldMttol prtf irty. Tht tocation. tcale and types of comimrcisl and irakiMrial devetopment will be eoouolled to at not to icfDach spon or adversely impact the pruriry residential land itass in Orono. WlMiever poanble. natuial land fennt or buffers will be required bstwoan difibreoi land uses.** Additionally, the Land Use Plan section reprdinf Urban Commercial Land Use makes the Ibllowint statement refarding Navarre: The ma|or commercial center uf Orono erill continue to be the croanoads center of Navane. This am will provide aufTkient opportunity for neighborhood retail and aarviea businaase a, plus adequate profea^.ial offices, to serve the needs of moat Orono rodents. Acce isory functiont such as offices and owneiHiccupied living units or limited multi*family & ret opmeots will be coostdered appropriate in or near the Navane commer cial eras. The scale and type of retail uses in a pedeatrian-fKcndly eavironmanl ia tha moat important dev el opment paranxser for the Navarre oommcfctal aiea. The City will encotaage redev el opment of individual commer cial ailai in Navane to allow fbr an espande d range of neigh horhood acrvicaa and local email bustfieaa opportunitiea.*' The peaaibla regional draw of the entertainmant aapects of the e xpanded uae ahould be conaidered in determining whether the propoaed uae hea the potential to bec ome incorapatible with the Ctty*i goala Ibr Navarre or with the aunounding rcaldcfitiil devtlopmcot The expmton may push the tin or magnitude of the uae beyond the acale that it compatible with the aonoun^g neighborhood. If the acale of propoaed uae ia detiimined to be appropriate for the area, slafT would make ths fbllm ng rscommtndations with regards to tht site plan and the site operation: 1. The propoaed use ahould be required to incorporate a two-door system for §0 cntrencs and exit points, skmg with opcrationel re quiraraen u that auch doors remain cloeed during thnea of musical or other noise producing entertainment, to mifurnize or eUmiMie noiae impact! to tha suirounding neighborhood. 2. Tha pfopoaad vaatibula that would cxiand into the City*i sidawalk esaamawt Aould be dented, and a similar vaatibula ahould be developed within the walte of the extadng building. 3. The propoead kitchen expansion at tha NE comer of the buildiiig ahould be redesign^ to be oAei el least S* waatward along the north side of the building, so that Che visusl end ftinctionsi seporition between die Nanows buikting and the adtjoining icrvicc elation does not decrease. 4. The propoe ad decorative walla surrounding the rear patio arts should be acceptable ndgect to confirmation by the applicant that ih^ will not violate any exMting tes amania. Tha propoae d plantar boxes require i vwiance as they are * m>3i2i jMcis.2ses rit»i4«n4 considered an eacroachment of the required 30* rear yard. Other than the watts and planter boxes, the propoaed small vestibule and the relocated kitchen •ddiiiois, no other permanent structures should be allowed to the rear of the building. Planning Commission should consider whether the propose d taodioping plan at the rear of the building is acceptable as a barrier or buffer to the parking lot and/or the residential neighborhood to the Donhwest, if such barrier or buffer is needed. 5. Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed exv<*rior seating both to the front and rear of the building is appropriate for ifte ?-l District, and under what standards or limiuttons such use sliould be allowed. Potential limitations or conditions could address appropriate numbers and location of seating in relation to lot lines, easements, bu.*ding walls, etc.; hours of allowed outdoor sealing use; lighting of outdoor seating; fencing fbr outdoor sealing; the use of umbrellas or other amenities; whether and where such outside seating may be appropriate fbr liquor service, and how such service is controlled (this may be a more appropriate Auictkm for the liquor license approval process); and any other aspects of outckx>r seating that should be reviewed. 6. PUnniiig Commission dunild consider whether expansion of lot ooveragp by stnictuies from approximately 36S to approximately 38S (where 15% is allowed) is justified by the commercial use an^or by the off-site parking. 7. Planning Commisskm ahould consider whether parking fbr the propose d use is adequate, and if not, what plan revisions/reductions or use limitations might be needed to make parking work. Planning Commission may wish to consider requesting that applicant hire a consultant to provide a detailed parking study to shw whether parking is an issue. 8. Planning Commission should review whether the proposed signage, lighting and trash handlin^screening focilitiet are adequate. 9. Planning Conunistion should contider whether the current limits on hours of operation are appropriate under the e.\panded use. 10. Planning Commireion should review the written and oral public corrmwnts to determine if there are other issues not identified that need to be addressed.