09-13-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I * '« k I’ MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 23, 2004 7:00 o ’clock p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Jim Leslie Leslie indicated that he had no report but would remain tor questions. LMCD REPORT - Debora Halvorson The LMCD report was removed as Representative Halvorson was not prc.sent. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 3. #04-3029 MICHAEL KEAVENY, 3423/3425 SHORELINE DRI\’E - COM3IERCIAL SITE PLAN AND VARIANCES - DENIAL RESOLITION NO. 5218 Gundlach explained that the applicant had submitted an application for a conunercial site plan review in order to conduct improvements to the existing building. She :iu;*cated that the Planning Commission voted 7-0, at their July meeting, to deny the applicant’s request due to the proposed new use not being a permitted conditional or accessory use within the B-1 zoning distnet, and also based on not wanting to allow expansion of the existing non-conforming bowling alley use. Gundlach stated that staff would recommend the Council uphold the Planning Commission position for denial. Keaveny stated that he wished to amend his application, which would eliminate the construction of a new entrance or an expansion of the building, but instead would remodel the intenor of the bowling alley utilizing a storage garage w ithin the existing structure for further expansion of the bow'ling alley. Keaveny stated that these changes to the proposal would eliminate some of the original variance requests and. as he was told when he first approached the City, a remodel could be granted approval more readily. While remodelmg would likely be acceptable, Gundlach stated tha; the remodeling changes Mr. Keaveny mentioned should be submitted in a new application process and would need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. She was hesitant to comment on the game room, since this use would require an amendment to the existing code. Since the applicant was abandoning his original request. Attorney Barrett suggested that the City Council vote to deny the original application and allow him the opportunity to go back to staff to discuss the remodel submittal. Murphy thanked Mr. Keaveny for his efforts to improve the property; however, suggested he align himself with an attorney who would be able to advise him on what might be appropriate for the neighborhood. Having seen several proposals from Mr. Keavcn> in the past, and wanting to support a viable proposal. Murphy w ished Mr. Keaveny luck in developing a new plan. Murphy moved, McMiUaa sccooded, to adopt RESOLI TION NO. 5218, a Rcsolatioa deayiag a commercial site plan review for 3423/3425 Shoreline Drive. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 PAGE 2 of 9