04-26-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12, 2004 7;00 o ’clock p.m. (20. STUDY REGARDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - ORDINANCE NO. 6, J*® SERIES, continued) Murphy asked if it was fair to say that one of the reasons for the proposed moratorium was this pending proposal. GaHron explained that the City Council ’s vision for Stonebay has had a substantial impact in terms its appearance versus the City Council ’s expectations for the housing product there. It drove the discussion about the reality of 6 units/acrc and whether this is what should be guided elsewhere in Orono. He further explained that the Stonebay project being the first such project in Orono has led to more awareness of the realities of higher density developments, including potential 2-4 units/acre development at Mr. James’ property and in the area of the Long Lake Fire Station on Willow Drive. Gaffron concluded that there are no existing Orono ordinance standards for this t>'pe of residential site development. Attorney Barrett pointed out that since 1975 frequently moratoria are exercised by City Council ’s facing development about which they are uncertain or do not have zoning controls in place and are aware of pending applications. Murphy expressed his view that a moratorium should be in place for less than six (6) months. He commented that he did not think that the City Council and Planning Commission were of one voice on the vision of affordable housing or what affordable housing or density means in Orono. In the interest of being fair, Murphy suggested the possibility of following a parallel path with an informal process that would allow the pending application review process to bring forth ideas from James/Brenshall/LaGran that would benefit the development of regulatory standards. Attorney Barrett advised that the moratorium statute prevents imposing a moratorium once a Preliminary Subdivision has been granted. With the consent of the developers and with the disclosures the City has made to the developers, it might be possible to consider a dual track if the City Council desires to do so. Attorney Barrett stated that the City could do that consistent with the City’s moratorium authority without waiving it and may be a helpful process. Sansevere asked for clarification from Mr. James regarding if Mr. James thinks a fast one is being pulled on him. Mr. Johnston denied that he thought that charaeterization was correct but could only speak for himself, though he reiterated that they had only been aware of the moratorium agenda topic for about 3 hours and had not come with any unified voice. Sansevere pointed out the City Council had only been aware of the possibility since last Thursday’s work session and asked for clarification from Moorse and Gaffron if the topic had only recently occurred to them or had it been under discussion for some time. He asked them to provide a satisfactory reason for the apparent short amount of time to consider imposing a moratorium. Page 15 of 20 J