My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/19/2004 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
04/19/2004 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2012 10:58:29 AM
Creation date
3/9/2012 10:58:29 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> #5. 04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE, <br /> CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (8:30-9:20 p.m.) <br /> Christine Valerius and Phil Fisk, the applicants, were present. <br /> Gundlach explained the applicants' request for a conditional use permit to operate a coffee <br /> shop/bakery/restaurant at 2377 Shadywood Road. In conjunction with the conditional use permit a <br /> commercial site plan review is required. The application was originally heard at the March 15, 2004 <br /> Planning Commission meeting where it was tabled so that the numerous drive-through plans could be <br /> reviewed by the City Engineer and so the architecture of the proposed addition could be further <br /> refined. The applicant submitted two plans, one with a drive-through that has been reviewed by the <br /> City Engineer, and one without a drive-through lane feature. She advised that variances are <br /> inevitable due to the site's existing building and the orientation on the lot to the City-owned parking <br /> lot. <br /> Gundlach summarized that at the Planning Commission's March 15, 2004 meeting support was <br /> indicated for the building setback variance so the applicant can construct an addition. However, the <br /> extent of the requested variances depends on the incorporation of a drive-through on the site. <br /> With the drive-through plan, an additional front-yard parking setback variance and a hardcover <br /> variance are required. Without a drive-through feature, these variances could be avoided. <br /> Gundlach advised the Planning Commission to discuss the two plans, what approvals are necessary <br /> for each and determine what plan to approve or not to approve. <br /> Gundlach reported that the applicant was required to submit more detailed plans of the proposed <br /> exterior finish and was encouraged to incorporate a pitched-roof element to the proposed addition. <br /> The submitted color renderings were displayed for Planning Commission review and comment. <br /> Gundlach advised that the applicant is proposing to keep the brick on the entire front of the façade <br /> and extend the stone along the bottom of the two sides and rear. Two different patterns of hardy <br /> board plank siding are proposed for the rest of the façade finish in a tanish-brown color to <br /> complement the white stone. She advised that a pitched-roof now has been incorporated. <br /> Gundlach recommended the Planning Commission discuss these elevations, the materials and color <br /> scheme to determine if they are appropriate for approval. <br /> Gundlach recommended denial of the plan incorporating the drive-through due to the unnecessary <br /> variances required to achieve it. Staff maintains that a drive-through should be allowed only if the <br /> site could support it. <br /> She advised staff would support the plan without the drive-through; however, the screened porch <br /> should be removed in an effort to decrease non-conformities. With the drive-through plan, Gundlach <br /> noted the applicant is prepared to tear down the three-season porch to facilitate the drive aisle around <br /> the building, but wants to keep the porch if the drive-through feature is not permitted. <br /> Gundlach explained her basis for recommending removal of the screened porch is that the building <br /> will be extended to a non-conforming setback to the property line. In allowing the building extension, <br /> staff believes it is an appropriate trade to remove the screened porch because it adds to the excessive <br /> non-conformity of the side street building setback. <br /> Page 23 of 49 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.