My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-12-1998 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1998
>
01-12-1998 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2024 2:29:14 PM
Creation date
6/5/2024 2:23:06 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.
/
217
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
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 <br />(#9 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) <br />Goetlen asked Barrett if it was fairly conclusive that approval should be granted as <br />meeting conditions. Barrett said that was true as far as density is concerned. <br />Gleason noted that the goal was for affordability and cost would increase if two <br />buildings were eliminated and a cul-de-sac added. He felt the private driveway aids <br />affordability. He noted the encumbrance of trees as well noting he was trying to meet a <br />lot of criteria with the plan. <br />mceJabbour said the code is specific in its regard to cul-de-sacs. He noted the market pri< <br />is already over the limit of affordable housing. Jabbour indicated no hardship was <br />shown. Jabbour said either the code should be adhered to or the code changed. Jabbour <br />concluded that because of the density allowed by code and with the cul-de-sac, it would <br />result in a loss of trees. <br />Kelley noted the cul-de-sac would be located at the end of the private driveway. If unit <br />#7 was eliminated, there w'ould be room for a cul-de-sac. Gleason said he understood <br />that but was tr> ing to accommodate several trees but would support the cul-de-sac. <br />Flint asked how the traffic flow w'orked. The road and paved walkways were noted. <br />Gleason said if the units were staggered, a ser\dce door could be provided. He said he <br />normall}r builds courtyards into the project. Gleason said two separated walkways are <br />being provided where one w'ould normally be shown. This is being done in order to save <br />trees. <br />Kelley was informed that there would be a homeowners association. He asked about <br />outdoor storage. Gleason said no outdoor storage would be allowed. No boats could be <br />placed in the drivew'ay and cars would be allowed in the driveways only temporarily. <br />Van Zomeren referenced the restrictive covenant document noted under #7 on page 6 of <br />the resolution. Kelley questioned whether the Council should review that document. <br />Gleason said the homeowners association document would be submitted with the final <br />plat. Kelley said he would not want to wait until that point and have the Council deny it. <br />Jabbour said it would be more appropriate to give direction now on what is e.xpected. <br />Jabbour informed Goetten that the Council can make conditions on a homeowners <br />association. Gleason said he would submit the document to staff. It was questioned <br />how that would assist enforcement since the document can be modified. Jabbour said <br />modifications would have to be part of the resolution. Gleason said a modification <br />would also require 100% approval, one denial would totally deny it, and would require <br />Council approval. While there is a time limit to the document, it is for 30 years. <br />Jabbour noted the document can be renewed for an additional six years. <br />Jabbour noted that there was a very limited street side to the units. I le would like to <br />ensure that there is adequate parking.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.