Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MONDAY, JULY 19,2004 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />Berg asked about a potential loss of parking spaces. Gundlach replied the applicant indicated he was <br />willing to shorten the addition to 14’ to save parking spaces. Mr. Keaveny stated he had no problem <br />w’ith shortening the addition to 14’. <br />Chair Rahn asked for any public comments. <br />Austin Evans, 2497 Kelly Avenue, identified himself as the representative of Neighbors for a Better <br />Navarre. Mr. Evans stated their group’s intent is to expand its representation with more people from <br />Navarre. He referred to the Issues for Consideration, itemized in the July 19,2004 Staff Report, <br />citing Issue #2 which points out the game room proposed is not a permitted, accessory or conditional <br />use within the B-l zoning district or in any other zoning district tluoughout the City. Mr. Evans <br />summarized that the games use should not be in a B-l District and if allowed by Ordinance, it should <br />be in a sepaate district. <br />Mr. Evans referred to Issue #3, asking if the games room use is one deemed similar to the permitted <br />uses in a B-l retail sales business district. He quoted from Section 78-643 of the Zoning Ordinance <br />for use permitted, such as neighborhood retail sal and commodities, neighborhood service business. <br />He stated tliat a games room does not come within the existing Ordinance definitions. It is <br />entertainment different enough to require its own criteria. Mr. Evans pointed out the subject property <br />is as close to the residential neighborhood as the distance between a pitcher’s mound and home plate. <br />Referring to Issue //I, Mr. Evans asked how the bowling alley could still be a non-conforming use <br />since it had been closed for over one year. He suggested that there an effort is underway with the <br />City Council to find a non-conforming use that would be feasible on the site, noting the staff s <br />statement about the applicant working with the City to develop a plan for the use of the property and <br />based on his attendance at city meetings. <br />Citing from paragraph 1, on page 3, under Issue #1, Mr. Evans asked what is ‘strict enforcement of <br />this section’ (of City Code), indicating he believed a use either is or is not a legal non-conforming <br />use. He concluded that the bowling alley is no longer a permitted, legal non-conforming use as it has <br />been closed for over one year and the Code does not allow for exceptions. <br />r <br />Page 8 of 18