06-15-1992 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

li .sl^/ i •♦= ■•■ ' ■ '^i % ' 'C ' p. ■ *« t' ■-•: ■', ^ 1il. v: 7 ;f > !• . ». 7: V-; .; ,•-.r yf^:- Zoning File #1738 June 11, 1992 Page 3 Neighboring property owners to the north, during the time of the comprehensive plan review, were aware of the more intense uses proposed within southern portions of the corridor^ but were promised a residential buffer along the north lot line. The current RR~1B zoning does permit certain quasi~commercia1 uses found to be compatible with single family residential zoning. In early discussions with the Planning Commission Chair, it was decided that it would be beneficial for the City to receive early input from adjacent property owners. The City staff advised the applicant of their concern for the proposed location in the northeast portion of the school property and questioned if they had asked for access and a site off of Old Crystal Bay Road. The applicant advised that the school district, based on their comprehensive development plan for the property. Exhibit N, noted the only suitable area available for sale would be the northeast portion of the property. The reviewing staff was also advised that members of the City Park Commission had discussions with the Orono School District about the leasing of lands for ballpark use. Ballpark use is not a formal part of this application. The applicant has provided an information packet that should answer many of your questions and provide background information on the applicant. Applicant has met with both staff and the Chair of the Park Commission and Planning Commission and was given guidelines as to the types of information that would be needed to complete at least this very preliminary stage in review. In the information packet submitted by applicants’ architect, note various other parcels of land were considered within the corridor and it was determined this site to be the most economical and suitable for their purpose. The a^olicant is a non-profit corporation and, based on a recent bill .^^^proved by the State, will be exempt from payment of real estate t ...e*". The very first objective for the Planning Commission is to determine the compatibility of use and to decide if it is similar enough to be considered under the conditional use permit section of the code. If the use is found acceptable but not specifically addressed in the code, would the Planning Commission recommend an amendment of the code to include this specific use? Staff has reviewed approximately 7-8 cities that have similar ice hockey arenas. The majority of them are on City-owned property within a municipal PUD with underlying residential zoning. Although owned by the cities, many are operated by private sports organizations. In reviewing the commercial sections of our code, there is no specific ice hockey arena use nor is there a section that deals with similar spoits-type arena uses. The majority of recreational uses in the Orono code are permitted under conditional use permits within residential zones. ■i •i 7^