My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-08-1997 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
12-08-1997 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/28/2012 4:06:42 PM
Creation date
12/28/2012 4:06:42 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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 />• ( #10 - #2314 Hoyt Development - Continued) <br />40 <br />Jabbour said he feels there is a density issue in why the outlot was developed initially. <br />He thought the purpose was to ensure that the homeowners association does not have <br />riparian rights to the property in front of them and to ensure that the lagoon would not <br />have a large number of docks on it. Hoyt noted that there was about 135' of lakeshore <br />for the subject property and about 220' for the adjacent property. <br />Kelley asked what prevents the applicant from combining the property with the Kelly <br />Cove Townhouse Development and maintaining a building envelope. Jabbour said 6 <br />acres would be required. Kelley questioned whether the northern property received <br />variances. He noted the need to determine the dry buildable. <br />Jabbour noted that Council Member Kelley has not wanted to see a PRD around the <br />lake. He questioned how 1/2 acre zoning was not allowed here and done elsewhere, <br />citing property located between two marinas. It was determined that the zoning was <br />different. <br />Bessesen asked if the existing structure could be added onto and then removed <br />afterwards. Van Zomeren said the property could not be expanded due to its non- <br />conforming status. <br />Bessesen said the Planning Commission was not sure of the distance from the zoning for <br />duplex credit and recalculated it. The distance determined was found to only affect this <br />parcel and would be considered adjacent property. The distance is 200' to the property <br />and 250' to the middle point of the property. He indicated this would clean up the <br />zoning and achieve improving this property without adversely affecting any other <br />property. <br />Jabbour indicated that the application triggered the thought process that staff thought <br />would benefit the zoning without doing spot zoning but achieving more for the city in <br />correcting issues of zoning. <br />Kelley asked about combining with the lots to the north without doing a PRD and being <br />within 200'. Van Zomeren indicated that the duplex itself would not be within the 200'. <br />Kelley noted that the common area would include property both in and out of the duplex <br />area. Hoyt said he was not in favor of any combinations. <br />17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.