02/22/2005 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3085 Jul Ann,Inc.,Continued) Avenue for the lower level. Gundlach noted a letter was received from Mr.Keaveny indicating he would support a shared access for this use but that he does not want a binding agreement since he may be selling this property in the future. Staff feels the right of access should be formalized into an easement of some sort given the increase in traffic. Gundlach noted the parking requirements for this site were reviewed,with the building owner providing estimated floor plans of the existing businesses and the applicant providing a floor plan for the proposed beauty shop. Currently there are three existing businesses as well as four apartments. City Ordinance would require a total of 33 parking stalls,with 28 stalls currently being available. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the parking availability on site and the access to the rear of the building in making a recommendation to the City Council on this use. Gundlach stated the applicant is proposing to erect her current 14 square foot sign on the street side of the building,which brings the total amount of signage to be displayed on the street side of the building to 126 square feet. The applicant is also proposing to display a 1' by 4' sign on the backside of the building near the proposed entrance, which would increase the total amount of signage to 130 square feet. Gundlach noted the City's Zoning Ordinance does permit 185 square feet based on the street frontage of the lot. Gundlach recommended the Planning Commission consider the following issues: 1. The reasonableness of a parking variance for five stalls. 2. The necessity of a shared easement for access to the lower level. 3. Should compliance with City Code Sections 58-1 and 58-3 be required as part of this approval. 4. The impact of the potential future development of this site given the possibility the Keaveny property may be sold. Gundlach stated if the Planning Commission finds that parking and access requirements cannot be met, then a motion for denial is recommended. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve this permitted use,then a parking variance should be granted and the applicant should be directed to obtain a shared access agreement with the adjacent property owner and comply with Sections 58-1 and 58-3. Rahn asked for public comments. Andrew Freese, 2914 Casco Point Road, stated he is in favor of the application if it improves the appearance of the building. Freese indicated the parking lots are never full in this spot and that the appearance of the building is currently an eyesore. Liza Kreslie 3455 Shoreline Drive, indicated she is the owner of the existing beauty salon and that in her opinion there is a parking issue due to the lack of available parking. Kreslie indicated she would PAGE 12