My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-20-1996 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
02-20-1996 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 2:02:21 PM
Creation date
7/10/2019 2:02:20 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
• <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996 <br />( #2 Proposed Zoning Amendment - Continued) <br />Roger Zee, whose home is the second lot to the west from the proposed arena site, is <br />concerned with the 50' setback requirement for the school. Zee noted the arena was not a <br />school entity. Schroeder said the ice arena was the driving issue behind the amendment <br />but noted the other accessory uses also being considered, tennis facilities, field houses, and <br />gymnasiums. Zee asked what the code now says. Schroeder reiterated that these <br />accessory uses were not presently listed, but if proposed, the school would fall under the <br />conditional use permit for school use. Mabusth then reviewed the code as it now stands. <br />It was noted that there is presently a setback requirement of 50' for any building adjacent <br />to the residential district for school use. The code did not distinguish between access or <br />principal school uses. The amendment as proposed was noted relating the facilities under <br />consideration, as well as where such a facility could be located, the setback from any <br />residential lot, and by whom it shall be owned and/or operated by, namely the school or a <br />non -profit organization under a land lease arrangement with the school. <br />Zee remarked that the ice arena under consideration would not meet the acreage <br />requirements for such a building nor does it meet the height requirement. Mabusth said <br />any building would be subject to height restrictions listed in the residential code. <br />Zee questioned why another category was being added to the code to allow this usage. <br />• Schroeder said the City was contemplating expanding the code for such a facility on the <br />school land because of the non - profit group involvement. <br />Smith asked and received confirmation that if such a building or use was approved, the <br />facility would need to meet existing code. Smith then questioned why the setbacks would <br />be required in the amendment if it already exists in the code. She was informed it was <br />because the arena would be a new accessory use to what is presently. Smith then <br />questioned why a facility should be a certain number of feet away from the residential <br />district and whether the height restriction for the school should be used for such an <br />accessory use. Mabusth noted that this is what is being asked in the code amendment: Is <br />a 50' setback adequate for an ice arena? The height restriction is already addressed in the <br />code. <br />0 <br />Schroeder said performance standards could be set, or those standards already in place <br />could be satisfactory. <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.