My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-11-1997 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1997
>
08-11-1997 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2023 9:00:11 AM
Creation date
8/1/2023 8:53:40 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.
/
296
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 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 <br />(#23- #2263 Brook Park Realty - Continued) <br />Gaffron reviewed the memo regarding wetlands, hardcover limitations, engineering issues, and <br />sewer and water connection charges. There is a concern about possible wetland <br />along the west side. The wetlands require confirmation and may require some <br />is a 35% hardcover limit for a PRD in the LR-IC District. A letter is included from the City <br />engineer regarding the proposal. The preliminary determination for sewer and water connection <br />charges is approximately $3800 per unit. The memo also outlines PRD standards for <br />consideration Gaffron informed the Commissioners that under a PRD foey have the oppoi^ity <br />to create what they would like to see for such a development and give direction to the developer. <br />The applicants were asked to comment. <br />Bill Gleason indicated that they had been unaware of the limitations on the property iKing <br />adiacent to the LR District. It is their plan to develop affordable housing through higher densi^- <br />A Zion of the development plan is laid out on neighboring property not yet acquired or part of <br />fhClai He noted there is a driveway currently crossing over wetlands. The wetlands will <br />be preserved. Entry into the property would be from Livingston Avenue. <br />Gleason said his goal is to provide a lower unit cost through higher density. He proposes a unit <br />would cost about $135,000 or less if the 48 unit density was allowed. Gleason said t ey wou <br />redo the plan if the 48 unit plan was not allowed. Each unit will ‘""'ZZZTf^Tfrom entry <br />bathrooms, a double garage, central air conditioning, and appliances, <br />with garage entry on the other side. There will be four units per building. <br />There were no public comments. <br />Smith asked if the applicant had reviewed the letter from the City Engineer. Gleason said he had <br />no issue with the contents of the letter. He said he thought the driveway may be a problem. <br />John Gleason asked what would be involved tvith restoration. Gaffton said •* <br />include reexcavation and revegetation. Gaffron said the driveway has been a = <br />for the City as it encroaches on property being developed and needs to be resolved. He f <br />was resolvable. <br />Hawn asked what the cost figures arc for affordable housing. “ ““ <br />affordable range is a $120,000 valuation, which results m the estimated c p <br />not meeting the affordable criteria. More density would be required to reduce the cost.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.