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. KEAVENV REV. TRUST, 3425 SHORELINE DRI\T, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Continued) restaurant must meet, other than items which protect the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding community, staff would recommend that the Plarciir.g Commission consider “Hours of Operation" conditions for a Class II restaurant that serves alcohol, keeping in mind that the restaurant is adjacent to a residentially zoned area. Gundlach submitted two additional neighborhood inquiries into the record. Since the applicant is also proposing a trash receptacle be used in ccnjuncticn w ith the proposed restaurant, Gundlach reminded the applicant that it must be setback 10' from the south lot Ime and located further west than east, or against the building in an effort to keep it away from the residential dwelling adjacent to the property. I: should also be sufficiently screened. Gundlach presented 9 issues for discussion amongst the Pla.’ming Corrunission: 1. Should greater setbacks be required for the existing gravel parking lot to allow establishment of a fonnal green-space yard? If so, w hat is appropr.ate? How many parking stalls arc needed lo adequately serve the site? 2. Snould the City require that the existing gravel parking area be paved and sthped? Should the existing lower parking area be re-striped? 3. Should the Planning Commission require specific exterior building materials for the proposed entrances, or should the applicant be free to submit plans for a building permit using any of the materials outlined in Section 78-646 (B)? 4. Should any additional screening be .mplcmcntcd along the southern property line? Should trash facilities be located adjacent to the budding rather than near the residential lot line? 5. Should the sign located in the Kelly Avenue right-of-way be eliminated in exchange for a larger sign at the northeast comer r f Shoreline Dnvc and Kelly Avenue, which w ould incorporate all the businesses occupying the building? 6. Is the lighting plan appropriate? 7. Should the proposed sign at the northeast comer cf Shcrclme Drive and Kelly Avenue be required to be a monument style sign rather than a pole style? Should it be oriented perpendicular to Shoreline Drive, or is the angled or.entation proposed acceptable? 8. Should “Hours of Operation" be specified for the restaura.nt? If so, w hat hours are appropriate? PAGE 44 of S3 I