My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-23-1997 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1997
>
06-23-1997 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2023 4:15:20 PM
Creation date
7/31/2023 4:08:14 PM
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.
/
348
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
H <br />n <br />■i. <br />1^' <br />:?• r-:•i: - <br />hV <br />t <br />#2240 - Waters Sketch Plan <br />June 11,1997 <br />Page 2 <br />impacts on the park. On the minus side, it yields less flexibility as to options for accessing the park <br />or Hennessey properties. <br />Staff ha. ♦ound no additional clues as to the reasoning behind the current MUSA boundary, except <br />that it matches the zoning district boundary created in 1975. Staff still believes that this group of <br />properties can only be developed to the currently zoned densities if sewer is provided. <br />Applicant should define the type of housing envisioned for each of the concept plans. Both are single <br />family home oriented, but the smaller 80 ’ wide lots of Sketch 4 provide less flexibility in <br />design. <br />Park Commission Review <br />The origmal concept plans (1 and 2) were reviewed by the Park Commission at their June meeting. <br />While no concensus was reached as to whether land dedication should be required as opposed to a <br />park fee. Park Commission did encourage the use of clustering to preserve blocks of open space. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Planning Commission should review the 2 new concept plans and provide applicant with direction <br />regarding: <br />- Whether proposed overall density is acceptable <br />- Whether proposed general lot layout and sizing is acceptable <br />- Whether Planning Commission would support a rezoning and MUSA/Comp Plan <br />amendments to accomplish either plan <br />■ Whether the open space preservation as proposed meets with Planning Commission’s <br />goals for this area <br />- Any other development items that should be addressed <br />Note: This item will be presented to Park Commission again at their next meeting, and also will <br />be scheduled as a sketch plan for Council review at its next meeting.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.