Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996 <br />( #2 Proposed Zoning Amendment - Continued) <br />Rick Keemon, a board member of the Orono Baseball Association, said he sees the facility <br />as a community and multiple use facility and as a community issue. He noted the need for <br />gymnasium space for spring practice and other community activities. Schroeder said he <br />understood this but said the debate was over land use, the specifics of which will take care <br />of the facility and the neighbors' perspective. <br />Zee again questioned the acreage needed to build such a facility and whether the parcel <br />was treated as one or separate lots. Mabusth said the 4+ acres must be legally combined <br />with the school property and that the residential code only requires 2 acres for a permitted <br />or conditional use. <br />Grabek commented that the arena was a large building placed in a large acreage with alot <br />of setbacks from the roadway and open space. He saw the approach as being different <br />than that of a school. Grabek said he is concerned with the aesthetics from Hwy 6 noting <br />it would appear to be more commercialized than what is expected in a residential zone or <br />school area. He felt these issues should be answered before proceeding ahead with any <br />amendment or variances. <br />Zee said the neighborhood meeting was successful. He said the issues discussed were <br />• hours of operation, the wetlands, noise, parking, road improvements. He noted the <br />concern over finances, and if any such problems arose, questioned whether the facility <br />would be used in the middle of the night. <br />Lindquist asked if any issues were resolved to the neighbors' satisfaction. Vee said a <br />sketch plan was viewed but nothing was resolved. Lindquist said the Commission was <br />looking for a win -win situation. Vee said there were a broad number of questions and <br />hurdles to go through before any resolutions could be made. <br />Lindquist asked when the Hockey Boosters expect to have answers or resolutions to the <br />issues that have been voiced. Engebretson said the agenda for the neighborhood meeting <br />was only a start in the process. The plan is to submit a complete application in March <br />with another meeting with the neighbors early in March to address their concerns. <br />Engebretson noted the association needs the neighbors' approval for the project to be <br />successful. Lindquist said he would have to be satisfied that the issues brought forward by <br />the neighbors were resolved before he could recommend any approval. Engebretson said <br />he agreed noting they were working on those concerns. Lindquist said he was not <br />comfortable voting on the issue until the issues were resolved. Engebretson noted the <br />need to respond to a time frame. The fund raising was based on being able to provide <br />information to those willing to contribute their support. Lindquist responded that he <br />understood that concern but was responsible for looking at all of the issues. Mabusth <br />advised many of the specific concerns raised by neighbors are more typically addressed in <br />• the conditional use permit review. <br />15 <br />