03-11-1996 Council Minutes2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 26, 1996 (#7 Zoning Amendment - Continued) Gaffron said the Planning Commission feels performance standards should be attached to the ice arena use. Staff recommended standards be established in order to control any adverse impact on the adjoining residential property. The Planning Commission agreed that the ice arena use should be considered an accessory use to the school. It was recommended that the amendment be confined to just the ice arena and that this use require a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission did not feel it was critical that the arena be on the same tax parcel as the school but only on property owned by the school. Staffs recommendation was that the arena should be located on the same tax parcel as the principal high school use Gaffron continued explaining that the Staff proposal for setbacks would not allow a building to be less than 100' from an abutting residential lot line. The standard for the school use is now 50 ’ from any residential lot line. The existing code under the condit ’orJ use section lists a category including clubs and camps that has a 100' setback for any structures. Given the different types of uses. Staff recommended a 100 setback guideline with the provision that if the Council should find conditions allowing a lesser setback that this be allowed via a variance. Ciattron noted it is ditticult to ask a developer to maintain a stricter guideline than is called for in the code. Another addition to the proposal was that all facilities should be owned or operated by the school or under a land lease arrangement between the school and a non-profit organization with final review and approval by the Planning Commission and Council. Staff questioned whether the Council would want final approval of the lease as recommended by the Planning Commission. The notation was added by Staff, but not reviewed by the Planning Commission, that the facility could not be separated from the school itself by any public roadway, but must be accessible to and on the same property as the school. Callahan asked whether the provision that the facility be located on the same tax parcel has the same effect as not allowing any public road between the school and facility Gaffron said the concern was that the County tax office had the ability to combine parcels across public roads and could negate that restriction Mark Engebretson of the Orono Hockey Boosters Association commented that the Planning Commission recommended that no setback be listed in the amendment but elected to make the setback a pan of the performance standards, which his organization preferred.