04-19-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday. January 20. 2004 6;00 o’clock p.m. (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) the upper parking area to the bowling alley and restaurant. The City Engineer found no causes for concern with this plan, however, the applicant will be subject to any building cede requirements at the time of building permit with respect to the staircase and proposed w alls. Gundlach noted that staff finds this connection to be aesthetically pleasing and a ftinctional connection for the upper gravel lot to the lower parking lot, bow ling alley, and restaurant entrances. Gurallach reported that the subject property is allowed 529 s.f. of signage, based on City Code standards. Section 78-1468. Additionally, no individual sign may exceed 50 s.f The applicants proposed signage meets all the city code requirements. Wliile the applicant has not provided a landscape plan, Gundlach pointed cut that there are three potential areas for landscaping; 1) The area between the 2-tier retaining wall system separating the upper gravel parking lot from the lower parking lot 2) The planter boxes proposed at the top of the proposed stairway system, and, 3) The planter box proposed for the signage at the nonheast comer of the lot. She recommended the Pla.nning Ccmm.ission discuss requiring implcm.cntation of some type of landscaping in these three areas in an effort to provide additional green space on the property. Additionally, as noted previously, the provision of 20710’ green space yards along Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue should be considered for the gravel lot. This area has been functionally a “no-man's land" and overflow parking for many years, and its formalization as a parking facility should trigger establishment of green space that, approaches City Code Standards. With regard to lighting, Gundlach stated that the applicant has provided a written description of the proposed lighting. The lighting for the current low er parking lot seems adequate, although it may need some repair, which the applicant has proposed to do. Staff would not reconunend any further lighting in this area as the lot abuts rcsidentially zoned property. In addition, the City's Public Services Director has requested that a 100 s.f. easement be granted to the city to allow the cunent bus shelter near D'Vinci’s restaurant to be relocated to the northeast comer of the applicant’s site. A 10’ x 10’ easement in the northeast comer of the site is proposed. WTiile the City Council has authorized re-location of the shelter, Gundlach suggested the Planning Commission determine whether this should be included with approval of the conunercial site plan review, and how this will impact the applicant's signage or par’idng plan. While the Zoning Ordinance doesn’t specifically outline conditions which the proposed PAGE 43 of 53 • -rfii »- -r