My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-28-2002 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
10-28-2002 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 10:18:44 AM
Creation date
2/9/2023 9:50:51 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.
/
309
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
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MONDAY, OCTOBER 14,2002 <br />10. Appeal of Administrative Decision—Fox Street Driveway—Continued <br />Moorsestated they needed a grading plan to see how the trees would actually be affected <br />by the driveway installation. <br />Boyer stated they were anxious to begin construction on the house. Barrett stated that the <br />Council could table the application and the applicant would have to revise the plat. They <br />could still begin construction, but not on the driveway. <br />Nygard suggested they change the house’s design to accommodate the grade, put a drive <br />off the shared access, and save the trees. <br />Johnson stated that they had received verbal approval for the plan. Prosa stated the plans <br />were approved until they went for the building permit. <br />Nygard stated they might not be able to save the trees anyway. <br />Weinberger and Gaffron stated they had a grading plan, but it was insufficient and they <br />needed more detail. <br />White stated construction on the house could be started, but the curb cut was tabled. <br />Murphy stated that construction access would be allowed through the shared access drive <br />only. <br />Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to table Item 10, Appeal of Administrative <br />Decision—Fox Street Driveway. <br />Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />4. #02*2764 Commercial Planned Unit Development <br />Weinberger stated that the City considered a CPl'D district following a request for a <br />proposed office development on a vacant property in Navarre. The multi-unit office <br />complex would create individual office buildings, each held in private ownership. Such a <br />development is currently not possible in the B-4 district based on the minimum lot size <br />and width standards. The CPUD would create a district for the proposed development, <br />and would create a district that would allow other development options in the commercial <br />areas of the City where strict compliance to the underlying zoning ordinance is not <br />practical. <br />Weinberger stated that the CPUD would not affect the B-2 district, as B-2 is lakefront <br />property that has been reserved for marina use. The benefits of the CPUD are that it <br />would allow approval of each site plan with individual performance standards written into <br />the final development document. If the project were not completed, then the property <br />■ f <br />'i i <br />1 I <br />ii <br />? I <br />» <br />i <br />- i <br />■■ i <br />■i <br />;1 <br />n1 <br />Mn <br />‘ ^ <br />I i <br />I I <br />i ^
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.