02-23-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 20,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (U6) #03-2923 STEVAN WAGNER, 3607 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued ^though this property is almost entirely within the 500’-1000’ hardcover zonFoth indicated that currently there is 35,030 s.f. of hardcover constituting 72.75 %. Most of this hardcover is gravel and paved parking areas with buildings consisting of only 6,132 75 s f or 1/6 of the 72.75%. With regard to parking spaces and/or garages, these shall be located in areas other than the required yard; except that parking may be located in a rear yard to within three feet of the rear or side lot Ime unless the rear or side lot line is in common with an R district; in which case the setback distance shall be 35’. The applicant’s property is irregularly shaped and surrounded at Ae rear and on the west side by residential property. The eastern side lot Ime abuts another B-1 diilrici. Based on the size of the business, it is required to supply 11 parkmg stalls; however, cumently there are 18 stalls. Foth not^ that a drainage and surface water management plan should be submitted to the City for Engineer review pnor to final approval with two*foot contour interval or spot elevations on a 100-foot grid if the two-foot contours arc over 100 feet apart. The appHcant has proposed additional vegetative screening between the west side of the proposed building and the western drive. In addition, a lighting plan has not been provided with the application. The applicant should address how or whether the individual buildings, entryways, or parking lot will be illuminated. With reg^ to the building quality, Foth explained that the applicant has proposed vertical wood siding mrh a field stone base for the exterior fa?ade of the building. The Planning Co^ssion should discuss whether these “residential” materials are appropriate for the B- 1 district. In conclusion, Foth presented a summary of issues for discussion: 1. Is the outdoor storage use non-conforming? Should it be allowed to be improved and/or expanded? 2. Should the building be constructed to accommodate all of the equipment storage for the business, including the equipment currently being stored outdoors? 3. Should one or both of the accessory structures be removed? 4. Should, if permitted to remain, the outdoor storage be restricted to w specific amount type and location of equipment? Should additional screening be installed? 5. The west and south lots on the property are gravel. Is gravel an appropriate parking surface for a business district? Should all of the lots be provided with curb id gutter? iriiiiiiliiilAiililiiiiiiillia i