Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday, January 20, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST,3425 <br /> SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE <br /> PLAN REVIEW—Continued) <br /> restaurant must meet, other than items which protect the health, safety and general welfare <br /> of the surrounding community, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission <br /> consider"Hours of Operation" conditions for a Class II restaurant that serves alcohol, <br /> keeping in mind that the restaurant is adjacent to a residentially zoned area. Gundlach <br /> submitted two additional neighborhood inquiries into the record. <br /> Since the applicant is also proposing a trash receptacle be used in conjunction with the <br /> proposed restaurant, Gundlach reminded the applicant that it must be setback 10' from the <br /> south lot line and located further west than east, or against the building in an effort to keep <br /> it away from the residential dwelling adjacent to the property. It should also be <br /> sufficiently screened. <br /> Gundlach presented 9 issues for discussion amongst the Planning Commission: <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 /> 2. Should the City require that the existing gravel parking area be paved and striped? <br /> Should the existing lower parking area be re-striped? <br /> 3. Should the Planning Commission require specific exterior building materials for the <br /> proposed entrances, 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 /> 4. Should any additional screening be implemented along the southern property line? <br /> Should trash facilities be located adjacent to the building rather than near the <br /> residential lot line? <br /> 5. Should the sign located in the Kelly Avenue right-of-way be eliminated in exchange <br /> for a larger sign at the northeast corner of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue, which <br /> would incorporate all the businesses occupying the building? <br /> 6. Is the lighting plan appropriate? <br /> 7. Should the proposed sign at the northeast corner of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue <br /> be required to be a monument style sign rather than a pole style? Should it be oriented <br /> perpendicular to Shoreline Drive, or is the angled orientation proposed acceptable? <br /> 8. Should"Hours of Operation"be specified for the restaurant? If so, what hours are <br /> appropriate? <br /> PAGE 44 of 53 <br />