My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-10-1975 Special Council Meeting Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1975
>
12-10-1975 Special Council Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/16/2023 8:39:36 AM
Creation date
2/16/2023 8:39:26 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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).
View images
View plain text
MIMIXES OF A SPECIAL MEETING HELD DECEMBER 10, 1975 . page 6 <br />0^°rJ^V «<"W not back out of a pla^*^?^^ fj!®"* <br />^^rease land value. The City Attorney disagreed with the concent <br />because it was reUtiv^^! <br />tri« Attorney suggested that th^ dis- <br />floating zone” with a peimitted use of sinele- <br />•^ly on 1/2 acre sites and multiple dwellings as a conditional <br />defSine’L°ff.^*^‘ ®“8gested for possible inclusion in the <br />Jwo’^ f ®° ^ “"it®” o^-a aS^f'the attached in the sentence ccaiceming™ dwelling units per building. ^ <br />ereaieAli^hi^J' developers be allowed <br />^ Stones ait.''.agh sane felt the appea- <br />dwelling was better. It was suggerted <br />tha^e ordi^ce i^e no "story" designatiai but chanre^it to <br />^^s would lead to skimpy design in the dwellings. Kiinpy <br />, ^ J .^"5 seemed to be general agreement <br />^ Iwrdcover be the allowaSeTlt was <br />oniv 701^ height limitation would have to be increased if <br />^??P^^,^®*^hip: The City Attorney felt that the <br />shoi^d deci^ i^ether all units on a tract be held in <br />^mrovner s ^sociation or whether they could be held in <br />^ ^ unsettled questions relating to the <br />prc^red co^, the Comcil directed that another joint^meeting <br />^held on December 16, 1975. at 7:30 P.M. in the Orono City 7-* <br />current Village basis for collection PARK DEDICATION FEB <br />Zoning Administrator's proposal consisted of assessing the fee on <br />lesser percentage or raw land value to the extent of <br />^h subdivisions density in relation to the zoning code. Lou <br />Oberhauser felt land value should be a basis for the fee but a <br />maxinun fee limit per lot should be set. A1 Whitman felt that <br />eve^ne shoidd contribute to parks and costs should be included <br />in the ad valorem tax for general City distribution. The City <br />Attoiney cited the State Statutes that collection of Park Dedi <br />cation Fees coi^d be made only at the time of subdivision. An- <br />other su^ested by Mayor Searles was a fee per building lot. <br />Brat* Van Nest pro^red that zones be forgotten and on a basis <br />of ten ^res divided by 10 for density the following percent of <br />r^ land value could be set with a maximum payment of $300 to <br />$500 per mit: 0 to 1 at 2.51; 1 to 2 at 5»; 2 to 4 at 101; <br />4 to 6 at 124; 6 to 8 at 144; 8 and up add 1 1/24 per unit. <br />^Nfc*^e perc(^t amount could either be expressed in land or cash <br />Vw^alue. The Van Nest proposal seemed agreeable to the majority <br />of those present. Massengale moved, Paurus seconded, that for <br />^rposes of holding a Public Hearing the Council direct the <br />Attorney to prepare a draft for amendment of the portion <br />of^inmce No. 180, relating to the Park Dedication fee to <br />reflect the Fee Schedule-------^ ’ ’ ~ * - <br />maximum fee to be set at <br />1 ^ <br />< * <br />I! <br />presented by Brad Van Nest with the <br />$500 per lot. Motion, Ayes (4) -Nays (0).
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.