Laserfiche WebLink
� MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,March 17, 2008 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#08-3350 Sven Gustafson with Stonewood, Continued) � <br /> Kempf stated one of the priorities of the City is to remove hardcover that is close to the lake whenever <br /> possible. In this par�icular situatiori,the neighbors'homes are well lakeward of the proposed tennis <br /> court and this project would not have a negative impact on their views. Kempf indicated given the <br /> very positive impact that it would have on the lake by moving the hardcover away from the lake,he <br /> � would be in favor of the application. <br /> Zullo noted two of the neighbors have expressed opposition to this project and that on the other <br /> application,where the neighbors where in support of the swimming pool,the Planning Commission <br /> voted to deny the application. <br /> Kempf stated comparison of the two applications is like comparing apples and oranges since the one <br /> application dealt with a structure in front of a principal residence. <br /> Kempf moved,Winer seconded,to recommend approval of Application#08-3350,J. Sven . <br /> Gustafson on behalf of Frederick Peters,3127 Casco Circle,granting of a location variance to <br /> place the tennis court between the house and the street; a side setback variance, and a hardcover <br /> variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Provision of rain gardens or other measures to . <br /> control the amount,rate,and quality of runoff(to be approved by the City Engineer before final <br /> • � approval is granted); 2. No additional hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone; 3. The tennis court <br /> not being enclosed by a_fence higher than 5'll"; 4. The fencing being dark-colored vinyl- <br /> covered chain link or equivalent with no windscreens; 5. The court not being used for parking <br /> vehicles,storage or other non-recreational purposes; 6. The area around the court being <br /> landscaped but not to t�►e extent the view of the house from the street is completely obscured; <br /> and 7. The grading plan being acceptable to the City Engineer before Council consideration of <br /> the application. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 2,Zullo and Rice Opposed. <br /> 4. 08-3351 BARRY TANNER ON BEHALF OF BROOK INVESTMENT GROUP,LLC, <br /> B-1 ZONING DISTRICT,ZONING CODE AMENDMENT,7:07 P.M.—7:40 P.M. <br /> Barry Tanner,Applicant,was present. <br /> Turner noted this application is not for a specific property but is a request to amend the City's Zoning <br /> Code to include bowling centers. Turner stated the applicant is requesting the B-1 retail sales business <br /> district regulations be amended to allow bowling centers as conditional uses. The applicant wishes to <br /> reopen a bowling alley that operated unti12003. Bowling alleys or centers are not allowed in the City; <br /> although there is a parking standard in the zoning code for bowling alleys and bowling centers are <br /> allowed to hold on-sale intoxicating liquor, on-sale 3.2 beer or set-up licenses. The bowling alley was <br /> . a non-conforming use. Once it ceased operating for a year,it could not reopen. <br /> In order for the bowling alley to reopen,the zoning code must be amended to allow a bowling center <br /> or alley as a permitted or conditional use in the B-1 zoning district. Zoning codes usually classify <br /> bowling alleys or centers as part of the broader category of commercial recreation. Also included in <br /> this category are cinemas,theatres, athletic clubs, amusement arcades, golf driving ranges,billiard <br /> PAGE 9 <br />