My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-19-2004 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2004
>
04-19-2004 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2023 11:42:11 AM
Creation date
1/26/2023 11:34:17 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
381
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Tuesday, January 20, 2004 <br />6:00 o'clock p.n. <br />(MIKE KEAVENY on BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEANENY REV. TRUST. 3425 <br />SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE <br />PLAN REVIEW - Continued) <br />Evans questioned whether the parking ratios as laid out were accurate. <br />Rahn stated that the plan doesn't reflect w'hat’s precisely required for parking and <br />landscaping to determine whether these are adequate and requested funner information. <br />Evans noted that stafThas merely estimated a reduction of 1 1 spaces to allow’ for green <br />space. He reiterated that 94 spaces below, and 53 spaces above for a total of 147 spaces is <br />what IS required by zoning ordinance. <br />Acting Chair Mabusth maintained that a further detailed study would need to be provided <br />to determine specific amounts, which would enable the Commissicn to base its judgment. <br />While not uncommon for commercial pioperty, Gundlach recognized that a parking <br />variance may be required, especially, m light of the differences m the hours of operation of <br />all the individual businesses on site. <br />Although a parking variance might be four^ acceptable now, Evans encouraged the <br />Commission to consider what the future use of this site m.ight be. For instance, if used as <br />retail the site might require even more additional parking. He nuinuincd that, when he and <br />his neighbors purchased their hones, there wp„s simply a howling alley with limited use <br />which resided at this location, he never would have imagined a full liquor licensed <br />restaurant use would move in next door. <br />As the next door neighbor most affected, Bertagnoli a.s'iccd where the venting for the <br />restaurant w’ould be. <br />Keaveny stated that he would work with the franchisee and the City cn the ventilation and <br />air conditioning placement. <br />Ode reiterated diat, in order to be successful bowling alleys need this combir.aticn of <br />services; restaurant, liquor license, and bow ling alley. <br />Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Rahn seconded, to table Application «04-2977, <br />Michael Keaveny, 3425 Shoreline Drive, a Commercial Site Plan Review and <br />Conditional Use Permit., subject to receiving a complete site plan, parking plan and <br />analysis of needs, locate loading areas, ty pe of lighting, signage locations, minimum <br />green space of 10* along both avenues, landscaping plan, staircase repair, ty pe of <br />exterior materials and elevations, proposed improvements to the structure, and <br />exhaust fan location. VOTE: Ayes 5, .Nays 0. <br />PAGE 52 of 53
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.