02-20-1996 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996 •( #2 Proposed Zoning Amendment - Continued) Jim Grabek said he appreciated the association keeping the neighbors abreast of the information regarding the arena. Grabek then brought attention to a Staff memo dated 1/11/96 from Mabusth which notes phase I of the amendment revising the code to allow the ice arena use. Grabek notes that Mabusth said if the amendment was not done, she advised the code would not allow the arena use as proposed under the current code. He voiced concern with the City wanting the project done and not considering the philosophy behind amending the code. Grabek felt that before any vote was made to amend the code, it should be determined how the philosophy would influence the citizens and the school. He also noted that, although the Orono Boosters was a fine organization, it was unknown what the condition of the organization would be in two years and under whose responsibility the ice arena would fall, noting the significant financial contribution and the need to know the financial status of the association. He also felt the review of the Engineer should also be heard first before any amendment was made. Schroeder said some of the points brought up by Grabek have been previously discussed. He noted that the amendment was being considered at this time and the specifics of the application would be reviewed at a later date under the required conditional use review. Grabek opined that the specifics were pertinent to the code amendment. It was Grabek's opinion that the Commission was placing the "cart before the horse" and the amendment • was only being considered because of the specific application. Grabek noted that the specific proposal was not a state or taxpayer funded accessory use. Schroeder said the intricacies of the lease were presently not for debate. Grabek asked the Commission to think about amending the code for a non - taxpayer based organizational use. Grabek did note that the organization was open to discussing the issues. He added that he was not necessarily against the proposal but could not see any amendment to the code before the issues were debated. He asked that any conceptual support be carefully considered. Lindquist clarified that Grabek did not believe a vote should be taken on the amendment without further philosophical debate regarding the accessory use or the facility being owned or operated by a non -profit group. Grabek said he felt the specific use should be run by the school only and the issue sufficiently debated to determine that the taxpayers would not find themselves owning a facility. Melanie said that conceptually the best interest of the school would be to allow the use on the school property and understood the details would be debated at a later time. Grabek said if the discussion was about conceptual approval of the building by the school, the Planning Commission should make the same commitment to regulations of the frontage on Hwy 6 as it has to that on Hwy 12 This was a specific concern of his. Schroeder agreed that the building would be one of the largest in Orono, and this would • be the first attempt to lay out performance standards. 13