Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, October 20, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#6) #03-2923 STEVAN WAGNER, 3607 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued <br /> Although this property is almost entirely within the 500'-1000' hardcover zone, Foth <br /> indicated that currently there is 35,030 s.f. of hardcover constituting 72.75 %. Most of this <br /> hardcover is gravel and paved parking areas with buildings consisting of only 6,132.75 s.f. <br /> or 1/6 of the 72.75%. <br /> With regard to parking spaces and/or garages, these shall be located in areas other than the <br /> required yard; except that parking may be located in a rear yard to within three feet of the <br /> rear or side lot line unless the rear or side lot line is in common with an R district; in which <br /> case the setback distance shall be 35'. The applicant's property is irregularly shaped and <br /> surrounded at the rear and on the west side by residential property. The eastern side lot <br /> line abuts another B-1 district. Based on the size of the business, it is required to supply 11 <br /> parking stalls; however, currently there are 18 stalls. <br /> Foth noted that a drainage and surface water management plan should be submitted to the <br /> City for Engineer review prior to final approval with two-foot contour interval or spot <br /> elevations on a 100-foot grid if the two-foot contours are over 100 feet apart. <br /> The applicant has proposed additional vegetative screening between the west side of the <br /> proposed building and the western drive. In addition, a lighting plan has not been provided <br /> with the application. The applicant should address how or whether the individual <br /> buildings, entryways, or parking lot will be illuminated. <br /> With regard to the building quality, Foth explained that the applicant has proposed vertical <br /> wood siding with a field stone base for the exterior façade of the building. The Planning <br /> Commission should discuss whether these "residential" materials are appropriate for the B- <br /> 1 district. <br /> In conclusion, Foth presented a summary of issues for discussion: <br /> 1. Is the outdoor storage use non-conforming? Should it be allowed to be improved <br /> and/or expanded? <br /> 2. Should the building be constructed to accommodate all of the equipment storage for the <br /> business, including the equipment currently being stored outdoors? <br /> 3. Should one or both of the accessory structures be removed? <br /> 4. Should, if permitted to remain, the outdoor storage be restricted to a specific amount, <br /> type and location of equipment? Should additional screening be installed? <br /> 5. The west and south lots on the property are gravel. Is gravel an appropriate parking <br /> surface for a business district? Should all of the lots be provided with curb and gutter? <br /> Page 8 of 29 <br />