Laserfiche WebLink
I ij.l. a I.' <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 <br />(#5 - Proposed Zoning Amendment - Continued) <br />Engebretson reminded the pubBc of the upcoming meeting regarding the arena. <br />Smith asked what prompted the agenda hem regarding the amendment_ JJ® <br />issue perhaps, go« back to the Orono Baseball Assocanon proposal for baU fields and <br />the need to determine if they are not strictly associated with the school, how •'’“f ® *" <br />with the residential zoning. Then, with the additional proposal for an ice arena, these two <br />issues prompted the need to look at a possible amendment. <br />Mabusth advised that if the school was to come in and apply for a conditional use permit <br />for an ice arena, it could be done under the school umbrella. <br />Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table the proposed zoning code amendment to <br />allow for a work session to discuss all the items pnor to approval of any arena <br />constniaion. He noted the need for approval of a conditional use permit for an arena^ <br />Schroeder said interested panies would be notified of the work session. It was furthj <br />noted that a public hearing would be scheduled prior to any vote on an ice arena. Smith <br />commented that the neighboring area would be given notice of the public heanng^ <br />Schroeder also noted that the non-profit organization is holding the neighborhood meeting <br />and that is separate from a public hearing, which would be held m the future. Vote. Ayes <br />4, Nays 0. <br />(H6) PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT, MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE <br />SECTION 10.03, SUBD. 9 (C) - 9:36-9:50 P.M. <br />The Cenificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. <br />Schioeder commented that this proposed zoning amendment is in regards to oversized <br />accessory structures. He asked if the ice arena would be aftected. Gallron sad no, noting <br />that the arena is not an "accessory" structure unless the school came m wth the <br />appUcation. Schroeder e.\plained that the table that refers to the aUowable sizes of <br />accessory structures does not relate to properties over 9 acres. <br />Gafrron reported on the code as it presently is written and the table regarding acc^sory <br />-maure sLes For any accesson' structure over 1000 s.f, there used to be a need fora <br />variance until me current code was established. Exhioit C, Gaffron explained, lays out the <br />proposal to expand the table relating structure size limits to lot size for properties over 10 <br />Lres Option #1 is based on lot area percentage, where Option 2 is generated by <br />additional increments of square footage with additional acreage. Gaffron asked the <br />Planning Commission to make a comparison of the two and decide on the appropriate <br />measure or suggest other alternatives. The buffer stipulation requires more land <br />surrounding a larger building.