My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-13-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
05-13-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2023 10:12:05 AM
Creation date
9/5/2023 10:07:05 AM
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.
/
292
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 COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 19% <br />(#9 - #2128 Orono Hockey Boosters - Continued) <br />Peterson asked about the walkway between the arena and school The path will be <br />setback from Old Cry stal Bay Road. 40' in length, and of bituminous materials The lease <br />calls for the path to be maintained by the school and replacement costs paid for by the <br />Boosters Karin 7eeh said the students will use the hill inside of the path taking the <br />shortest route possible <br />The fencing placement and material, separating the arena from the residential area, will be <br />detemiined once the building is erected with direction provided from Gerry Timm as to <br />the type. <br />Jim Grabek, 3050 Jamestown Road, said the project has been underway for years, yet the <br />neighbors have only been involved since January. He said the setback was changed to <br />accommodate the project He feels the lot is inadequate tor the number of parking spaces <br />and will create parking problems during major events Grabek said, with the shortcoming <br />of the school budget, he objects to spending $175,000 He said the building placement is <br />inconsistent with the comprehensive plan He noted the plan calls for the promotion of <br />development w ith that of a neighborhood and not in conflict with a neighborhood. He <br />said he is not opposed to the arena but feels the site is not appropriate to the <br />neighborhood or for the City Grabek said the arena is inconsistent with the open space <br />plan. <br />Grabek reviewed pictures taken of the site with the Commission in relation to CoRd 6. <br />He asked that the Commission consider moving the building to provide more protection <br />for the neighbors Grabek said the soil borings are not conclusive that the building could <br />not be moved to the south <br />Engebretson said he had informed Grabek that if money was the issue, the Boosters would <br />move the arena to the south I le said they reviewed it from an aesthetic and functionality <br />standpoint. <br />Roseboom noted that the building has a corporate look, not that of a building with many <br />loading doors. Roseboom said the preference is not to place a parking lot in front of the <br />door He noted the receipt of sunlight is the functional factor with a south facing building <br />being the best Grabek asked about an entrance to the east or the southeast side. <br />Roseboom said arenas work best with entrances on the ends of the building. Grabek <br />suggested entering across the wetland and asked for additional soil borings. Engebretson <br />said there is no reason for additional soil borings as it is not an is.sue of soils or cost but <br />one of aesthetics and functionality
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.