Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL, <br />MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 26, 1996 <br />• ( 97 Zoning Amendment - Continued) <br />Gaffron said the Planning Commission feels performance standards should be attached to <br />the ice arena use. Staff recommended standards be established in order to control any <br />adverse impact on the adjoining residential property. The Planning Commission agreed <br />that the ice arena use should be considered an accessory use to the school. It was <br />recommended that the amendment be confined to just the ice arena and that this use <br />require a conditional use permit. <br />The Planning Commission did not feel it was critical that the arena be on the same tax <br />parcel as the school but only on property owned by the school. Staffs recommendation <br />was that the arena should be located on the same tax parcel as the principal high school <br />use. <br />Gaffron continued explaining that the Staff proposal for setbacks would not allow a <br />building to be less than 100' from an abutting residential lot line. The standard for the <br />school use is now 50' from any residential lot line. The existing code under the <br />conditional use section lists a category including clubs and camps that has a 100' setback <br />for any structures. Given the different types of uses, Staff recommended a 100' setback <br />guideline with the provision that if the Council should find conditions allowing a lesser <br />setback that tlus be allowed via a variance. Uattron noted it is ditilcult to ask a developer <br />to maintain a stricter guideline than is called for in the code. <br />• Another addition to the proposal was that all facilities should be owned or operated by <br />the school or under a land lease arrangement between the school and a non -profit <br />organization with final review and approval by the Planning Commission and Council. <br />Staff questioned whether the Council would want final approval of the lease as <br />recommended by the Planning Commission. <br />The notation was added by Staff, but not reviewed by the Planning Commission, that the <br />facility could not be separated from the school itself by any public roadway, but must be <br />accessible to and on the same property as the school. Callahan asked whether the <br />provision that the facility be located on the same tax parcel has the same effect as not <br />allowing any public road between the school and facility. Gaffron said the concern was <br />that the County tax office had the ability to combine parcels across public roads and <br />could negate that restriction. <br />Mark Engebretson of the Orono Hockey Boosters Association commented that the <br />Planning Commission recommended that no setback be listed in the amendment but <br />elected to make the setback a part of the performance standards, which his organization <br />preferred. <br />