05-13-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15. 1996 (#9 - #2128 Orono Hockey Boosters - Continued) Grabek said the areas of contention need to be discussed. Peterson said the Commission takes the engineering standards and review it. Grabek said engineering and stalTare inconsistent Mabusth noted exhibit F, which stated the engineering comments on the soil borings, paragraph 4, page 2, last sentence, which was read Grabek said he w as told the borings were not conclusive. Grabek asked if a shadow print has been done on the building. Mabusth asked the Commission if they would recommend one Peterson said it has not been done in the past. Peterson noted that the Commission looks at the information that they are provided in determining the viability of an application and finalized by the City StatT, Engineer, and applicant's engineer. Grabek noted that the wall would be 20' high. 160' long, and located 50* from CoRd 6 Roseboom said he w ould be more concerned if the building w as moved to the south as it would affect the southern exposure for the residents Grabek said the arena infringes on the Timms and others and blocks the sun from the Timms Haw n commented if the building affects the east sun and the view, what else would be learned from a shadow print. Hawn said that all concerned have agreed that the arena will affect the Timm property. Grabek questioned the amount of funding necessary before construction. Engebretson reiterated that the City adopted a zoning code calling for 80% of funds raised prior to construction but the lease will not be signed without 100°"o of the funds raised. Grabek commented that the "push down, push in" of the building would have the same effect if the building would be moved 150' south. Grabek asked if there would be absolutely no noise from the louvers. Engebretson said there would be some noise from the louvers Grabek commented that whether the Timms moved to this particular location should not make any difference, and the City should not have free rein to place it where they want. Engebretson said he objected to this statement. He said it is not neighborly to say the residents should not have moved there or if they knew what w ould be going into the area. He said the Boosters ow e the residents a top job on how it is constructed. He reiterated that the code was always 50' setback from the residential lot line and was proposed at the 100' Grabek said the 50' setback was passed to accommodate the building Engebretson said it was maintained to keep the setback the same as for a school. Hawn said Grabek was incorrect She noted there was no vehicle by which to deal with the building. With the school setback at 50’, the ordinance clarified the school uses and its use by a non-profit organization.