My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-25-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
03-25-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/31/2023 4:15:25 PM
Creation date
8/31/2023 4:10:51 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
265
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
minutes of the ORONO planning COMNflSSION <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 ot which will take care <br />of the facility and the neighbors' perspective <br />Zee auain questioned the acreage needed to build such a tacility and whether the parcel <br />w'as 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 roadw ay 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 tacility <br />would be used in the middle of the night. <br />Lindquist asked if any issues were resolved to the neighbors' satisfaction. V'^ee 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 />Enuebretson noted the association needs the neighbors' approval tor the project to be <br />successful. Lindquist said he would have to be satisfied that the issues brought forward by <br />the neiuhbors 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 fimd 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 ot 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
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.