My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-16-1996 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
01-16-1996 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 1:57:38 PM
Creation date
7/10/2019 1:57:36 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
C� <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 <br />#5 PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT ORONO MUNICIPAL ZONING <br />CODE SECTION 10.20, SUBD. 3 (A, C, E, AND F) - 9:14 -9:36 P.M. <br />The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. <br />Gaffron reported that the Planning Commission is being asked to review the compatibility <br />and suitability of specific conditional uses as to their impact on the adjacent residential <br />zones. The Planning Commission also would need to decide if there is a need to provide <br />additional performance standards or to eliminate specific uses to protect and ensure the <br />integrity of Orono's residential districts. Gaffron noted that the Rl A zoning allows a <br />number of uses via conditional use permits in residential uses. <br />Gaffron said the amendment proposal for Section 10.20, Subd. 3(A), regarding school <br />use, is whether to amend it to include a number of possible accessory uses associated with <br />school use. Setback requirements may need to be set for various non - residential uses <br />occurring in the residential zone. He noted that all residential zones refer to the R1A <br />standards. <br />Schroeder noted that amendments are normally looked at in work sessions and asked what <br />public interest there was in the amendment. <br />A member of the public reported concern with the enclosed hockey arena discussed <br />elsewhere on the agenda, noting the difference from a tennis court or open playing field, <br />and the need for at least 10 acres for such a large building, where the plot is only 4 acres. <br />The desire was for the land to remain "green." Schroeder asked if the speaker had been <br />present during that discussion. The speaker said he had not been informed of it. <br />Gaffron commented that the sketch plan review of the ice arena required no notification as <br />no action is taken on a sketch plan application. It is the time for the applicant to gain <br />feedback from the Commission on the proposal as to its viability. The plan is not <br />discussed in detail during a sketch plan review. Gaffron noted the public meeting <br />scheduled for January 24, Wednesday, regarding the ice arena. <br />Schroeder informed the audience that he was delighted that they were here in regards to <br />the arena as the Planning Commissioners were very interested in what they had to say. He <br />noted that the neighbors were to be notified of the upcoming meeting by the Boosters. <br />A person asked if the developers of the arena were a private party desiring to use public <br />land. Schroeder informed the person that it was a charitable, non -profit organization, who <br />would have a lease with the Orono School District to lease the land in order to build the <br />arena. <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.