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
F)k <br />jMwiry 30.2004 <br />Pagt 10 of 11 <br />recommend thit the Planning Commission consider **Kours of Operation” conditions, <br />keeping in mind that the restaurant is adjacent to a residentiary zoned area. <br />The applicant is also proposing a trash receptacle to be used in conjunction with the <br />proposed restaurant. It must be setback 10* from the south lot line and located further <br />west east, or against the building in an effort to keep it away from the residential <br />dwelling adjacent to the property. It should also be sufficiently screened <br />Issues for Dlicuuioo <br />1. Should greater setbacks be required for the existing gravel parking lot to allow <br />establishment of a formal green-space yard? If so, what is appropriate? How many <br />parking stalls are needed to adequately serve the site? <br />Should the City require that the existing gravel parking area be paved and striped? <br />Should the existing lower parking area be re-strip^? <br />3.Should the Platming Commission requite specific exterior building materials for the <br />proposed entrajKes, 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 />Should any additional screening be implemented along the southern property line? <br />Should trash facilities be located adjacent to the buildmg radter than near the <br />residential lot line? <br />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 />Should the proposed sign at the northeast comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly <br />Avenue be required to be a monument style sign rather than a pole style? Should it <br />be oriented perpendicular to Shoreline Drive, or is the angled orientation proposed <br />acceptable? <br />8. Should “Hours of Operation** be specified for the restaurant? If so. what hours are <br />appropriate? <br />9. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Planning Department staff recommends the following: <br />1) Approval of a commercial site plan incorporating the following: <br />a) The upper gravel parking lot be further refined in accordance with the <br />Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the amount of green <br />space to be estabUsbed and the number of new stalls to be constructed.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.