Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 <br />(#7 - #2327 Orono Development Ordinance Amendment - Continued) <br />Flint said he did not object to the use but only wanted some clarification He does not <br />bllieve everything can be listed but some guidelines are necessaiy for whatever is being <br />envisioned. <br />Jabbour reviewed for Staff that the Council supports the change to the ordinance and find <br />baneUnd c”ke shops appropriate uses The use could include cold and warm dnnks <br />Md a variety of muffins. The Council would like to see some limitations placed on <br />use to limit expansion. Inside and outside seating will also require review. <br />Goetten asked about a portable use. Barrett responded that the shop would still most <br />Liy ha- e a kitchen. He suggested Council consider whether food can be <br />order. Barrett suggested the possibility of adding another restaurant class. III, to limi <br />Jabbour suggested Staff review the matter with Barrett. <br />Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application #2327. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />O-kullivan asked about the time frame of the review and whether the entire B-5 use list <br />wll^be rerield noted that cellular phone sales was not Included on the list and <br />Za nossffi"nt. Jabbour informed O'Sullivan that the Council has other prionty <br />items that will take precedence before a full review is done of the ‘’'h/.'^he need <br />said the City would like to do a comprehensive review. Gafiron concurred t <br />,0 review such matters is necessao', but it will not happen in „„ <br />informed O'Sullivan that he can apply for any use, but approval wou ^ ^ <br />be Council and their viewpoint. Gaffron said if the use was a similar use, » <br />can appeal for a finding of similarity, if not similar, an applicant wou ave <br />anZd the code JabbSur noted that any use needs to fit in with the vision of the B-5. <br />m) #2326 BRUCE NEWTON, 3580 FREDERICK STREET - AFTER-THE- <br />FACT VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4044 <br />The Applicant was present. <br />Bressler distributed pictures of the property The aPpli««o" “ ““ <br />fact rear setback variance for a deck replacement that V <br />Commission recommended unanimous approval of the vanance As a condi ion of the <br />appTva the applicant has agreed to provide a <br />portion of the roadway crossing the property and the area 5 behind the curP as no leg y <br />SLribed easement has been recorded Bressler reported >ha his po^ of the road <br />been used by the City for many years, and the easement will clarify