04/19/2004 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#5. 04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—Continued) It incorporates a walk-up window on the north side, with three on-site parking spaces and proposes to keep the three-season porch and make it structurally sound. Chair Mabusth concurred with staff to support removal of the non-conforming three-season porch because it needs major structural repair, which would be adding more structure within a substandard setback. Ms. Valerius responded that in keeping the three-season porch the plan is 29% hardcover and the shed will be removed. Mr. Fisk acknowledged they understood the non-conforming setback issue. He reiterated they prefer the first plan as it meets some of their goals. Chair Mabusth invited more public comment. There being none, she opened the discussion to Planning Commission members. Kempf expressed his belief that the lot does not support a drive-through because of safety issues about cars turning in from Lyric and stacking up, even out to Co. Rd. 15 and has not seen anything that addressed the safety issues. Aesthetically, he observed that it would look bad due to the extent of paved road all around the building, and could not vote to support it. He felt less strongly about the screened porch but as a non-conforming use it should be removed. Kempf repeated he had not seen anything that works for the drive-through. Leslie stated there is no basis for allowing the drive-through feature on the site with many of the reasons to oppose a drive-through already mentioned in prior discussion. He is in agreement with the removal of the screened porch if the proposed addition takes place, and referred to Planning Commission continuity in requiring non-conforming elements to be removed from other applications that had major improvements or additions. Rahn agreed with the staff recommendation. He stated he did not think the subject lot is conducive to a drive-through feature, and also, he supported the removal of the three-season porch. Jurgens asked the applicants how strongly they wanted the drive-through to work and that he believed there is always some way to make something work. He did state he did not want to see curb/gutter/blacktop, as it would look like a giant parking lot extension. Jurgens suggested one option is a very well built paver system for the drive-through other than using black-top, then it would not look like a drive-through. He pointed out that was an opening on another building side to re-locate the screened porch instead of rebuilding it where there are setback issues. Jurgens stated he had an issue with the asphalt in the rear and asked for information about how it had been paved and if there is an easement over it. Gundlach explained the City took easements for the drive-aisles in the parking lot but how the 5' chunk got overlapped on the property line was unclear. Its purpose appears to be for residential tenant parking. Ms. Valerius responded that they own the 5' area. Page 26 of 49