05-27-2008 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, May 27, 2008 7:00 o'clock p.m. • (4. #03 -3351 BARRY TAAWIER ONBEHALF OF BROOSINVESTMENT, B -1 ZONING DISTRICT — ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, Continued) Bremer stated she is in agreement with the criteria developed by the Planning Commission for Items 1 and 2, but that she has a question on No. 3 regarding the serving of alcohol. Bremer asked why wine and beer consumption were recommended but liquor was not. Kroeger stated typically people like to enjoy a beer or a glass of wine while at a bowling center and that the majority of bowling centers do not serve alcohol. The Planning Commission also took a broader look at the category of commercial recreation and did not limit it to bowling alleys. Bremer stated it appears that the uses that would probably serve alcohol would be the pool, billiards, and the bowling center. Bremer asked whether the fitness center located in the Otten building is currently allowed. Gaffron stated some of the uses located in the Otten building were not contemplated within the B -6 zoning, and through the years were allowed to occur as reasonable uses but are not specifically listed in the code. Gaffron stated throughout the City there are some uses that have appeared. In some cases there were formal actions by the City Council approving those uses and in some cases they just appeared. Bremer asked if those places contacted the City and asked if they could be located there. Gaffron indicated he is not aware whether they have contacted the City. • Rahn asked whether uses similar to the uses listed would also be allowed. Gaffron indicated the list could be amended if the Council felt it appropriate. Murphy asked if the City is limiting itself by listing certain uses. Mattick stated if it is not on the list, you would not be allowed to do it and that only uses that are listed would be allowed. Mattick stated there are two approaches that could be taken. One would be to keep the categories broad and the other would be to list specific uses. Murphy noted the initial application was regarding a bowling alley, and at the public hearing some of the neighbors showed up and expressed concern regarding noise, parking, etc. Murphy asked where those complaints would fit in on this application. Gaffron stated this current application is a request by the owner of a specific site but he is asking for a use to be approved for the entire district. Staff did discuss whether this should be a joint application with the city since it affects more than just his property but in the end the applicant decided to submit the application on his own. All property owners within the B -1 zoning district and 350 feet of this property were notified of the public hearing and there were residents that attended the meeting from all parts of the City. If the list is approved and the zoning code is amended, a specific application for this site would be brought back before the Planning Commission and City Council. • PAGE 6 of 12