My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-21-1982 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1982
>
06-21-1982 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2023 10:57:56 AM
Creation date
2/15/2023 10:56:22 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
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
t. T' <br />TOt Planning Commission <br />FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth <br />DATE:June 17, 1982 <br />SUBJECT:#690 Erwin Martin, <br />Site Plan Review <br />Zoning District - B-1 <br />Application - request for building permit to construct five <br />storage sheds <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A - Application ' <br />Exhibit B - Survey <br />Exhibit C - Building elevation of single units <br />Exhibit D - Site Plan <br />\> <br />Martin requests a building permit to construct five storage sheds <br />to the rear of the station property. The largest of the five sheds <br />measuring 22* x 45* will house police impounds of cars and motorcycles <br />and the wreckers for the station. The remaining four sheds he <br />plans to rent out as storage space. <br />Storage on this scale is not specifically addressed under the B-1 <br />section of the Code. Warehousing is listed as a permitted use in the <br />Industrial Zone. Does the Planning Comnission feel this scale <br />(mini storage) of use is acceptable in the commercial zone? Is <br />this use compatible with the service station use? Is there <br />discernible difference between mini storage use and warehouse use? <br />Should we amend the code to Include such use in the B-l Zone? <br />Martin claims there is a big demand by people for the storage of <br />special cars and boats, seasonal sports gear, etc. <br />There is no question that there is room on the site to meet the <br />structural setbacks and access lane requirements. 1 have reviewed <br />the applicable ordinances and have the following comments to make <br />on the site plan: <br />1 -All structures must be setback 35* from rear and front <br />(street) property lines. Staff sees no problem with the <br />designated 15* setback to the side or rear lot line (code <br />requires 15* setback from side property lines). The <br />Building Code requires a 20* setback for this type of <br />occupancy (B-l)and if that setback is not met a firewall <br />will be required. <br />2 -tilth the introduction addition of this new use, staff would recommend <br />upgrading the accesses to property by defined cxurb cuts - <br />similar to the improvements proposed at Ken*s Union 76. <br />There is sufficient area on the site for access lanes.to rear <br />storaqe sheds. The City will require pavinq of those lanes. <br />X <br />-i-
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.