02-20-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1996 (#S - Proposed Zoning Amendment - Continued) Engebretson reminded the public of the upcoming meeting regarding the arena. Smith asked what prompted the agenda hem regarding the amendment. Galiron said the issue, perhaps, goes back to the Orono Baseball Association proposal for ball fields md the need to determine if they are not strictly associated with the school, how they fit in with the residential zoning. Then, with the additional proposal for an ice arena, these two issues prompted the need to look at a possible amendment. Mabusth advised that if the school was to come in and apply for a conditional use permit for an ice arena, it could be done under the school umbrella. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table the proposed zoning code amendment to allow for a work session to discuss all the items prior to approval of any arena construction. He noted the need for approval of a conditional use permit for an araia. Schroeder said interested parties would be notified of the work session. It was fiirthw noted that a pubi.c nearing would be scheduled prior to any vote on an ice arena. Smith commented that the neighboring area would be given notice of the public hearing. Schroeder also noted that the non-profit organization is holding the neighborhood meeting and that is separate from a public hearing, which would be held in the future. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#6) PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT, MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBD. 9 (C) - 9:36-9:50 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Schroeder commented that this proposed zoning amendment is in regards to oversized accessory structures. He asked if the ice arena would be affected. Gaffion siud no, noting that the arena is not an "accessory" structure unless the school came in with the application. Schroeder e.\plained that the tabic that refers to the allowable sizes of accessory structures does not relate to properties over 9 acres. Gaffion reported on the code as it presently is written and the table regarding accessory structure sizes. For any accessory structure over 1000 s.f, there used to be a need for a variance until the current code was established. Exhibit C, Gaffion explained, lays out the proposal to expand the table relating structure size limits to lot size for properties over 10 acres. Option #1 is based on lot area percentage, where Option 2 is generated by additional increments of square footage with additional acreage. Gaffion asked the Planning Commission to make a comparison of the two and decide on the appropriate measure or suggest other alternatives. The buffer stipulation requires more land surrounding a larger building. i j-