My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-27-2003 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
01-27-2003 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/16/2012 9:49:18 AM
Creation date
5/16/2012 9:49:18 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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 <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, January 27, 2003 <br />• 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />( #02- 2789/02 -2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued) <br />Sansevere indicated that he would hesitate to assign precise numbers and felt the City <br />should maintain a way to back out should the work session indicate a different direction. <br />Dahlstrom stated that, while he could build units, the City would need a program for <br />affordability to go along with them. <br />Murphy questioned what additional units would do to the other issues, wetlands, parking, <br />etc. <br />Mayor Peterson questioned whether this would, in essence, be forcing the developer to <br />start over. <br />Dahlstrom indicated that would not be the case. <br />Once again, Murphy repeated his motion, pointing out that capital (could mean units) and <br />encouraged the Council to trust the developer to be true to his word to work with the City <br />on the issue. <br />is Sansevere asked if capital could truly mean units. <br />Nygard indicated he preferred to state a number of units. <br />Dahlstrom asked where space for 5+ units would work best. <br />Johnston indicated that two more units could be added to both levels of the loft building, <br />gaining four more units. <br />Sansevere asked Attorney Barrett which motion gave the City the most flexibility. <br />Barrett pointed out that the motion made by Murphy gives the most amount of flexibility. <br />Nygard stated that White's mandate would provide long term results. <br />Sansevere stated that if the original motion made by Murphy could take the form of what <br />White's mandate proposed, if the Council so chose, he would support that. <br />Barrett agreed the motion contained enough flexibility to do so. <br />Johnston stated that he believed they could add units to make affordable housing work, <br />however, he felt the problem with the motion was that it left the contribution totally <br />• undefined. He maintained that the developer would need to have an idea of a cap, as the <br />motion was too ambiguous. <br />PAGE 17 of 28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.