Laserfiche WebLink
w <br />i's <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Tuesday, January 20,2004 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />(MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 <br />SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE <br />PLAN REVIEW - Continued) <br />restaurant must meet, other than items which protect the health, safety and general welfare <br />of the surrounding community, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission <br />consider “Hours of Operation” conditions for a Class II restaurant that serves alcohol, <br />keeping in mind that the restaurant is adjacent to a residentially zoned area. Gundlach <br />submitted two additional neighborhood inquiries into the record. <br />Since the applicant is also proposing a trash receptacle be used in conjunction with the <br />proposed restaurant, Gundlach reminded the applicant that it must be setback 10’ from the <br />south lot line and located further west than east, or against the building in an effort to keep <br />it away from the residential dwelling adjacent to the property. It should also be <br />sufficiently screened. <br />Gundlach presented 9 issues for discussion amongst the Planning Commission: <br />1. Should greater setbacks be required for the existing gravel parking lot to allow <br />establishment of a fonnal green-space yard? If so, what is appropriate? How many <br />parking stalls are needed to adequately serve the site? <br />2. Should the City require that the existing gravel parking area be paved and striped? <br />Should the existing lower parking area be re-striped? <br />3. Should the Planning Commission require specific exterior building materials for the <br />proposed entrances, or should the applicant be free to submit plans for a building <br />permit using any of the materials outlined in Section 78-646 (B)? <br />4. Should any additional screening be implemented along the southern property line? <br />Should trash facilities be located adjacent to the building rather than near the <br />residential lot line? <br />5. Should the sign located in the Kelly Avenue right-of-way be eliminated in exchange <br />for a larger sign at the northeast comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue, which <br />would incorporate all the businesses occupying the building? <br />6. Is the lighting plan appropriate? <br />7. Should the proposed sign at the northeast comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue <br />be required to be a monument style sign rather than a pole style? Should it be oriented <br />perpendicular to Shoreline Drive, or is the angled orientation proposed acceptable? <br />8. Should “Hours of Operation" be specified for the restaurant? If so, what hours are <br />appropriate? <br />PAGE 44 of 53 <br />i