12-10-1975 Council Meeting Minutes Special Mtg

Home Browse Search

h1II�JTES OF A SPECIAL A�ETING HELD DECEMf3ER 10, 1975 - PAGE 6 � properties. Consideratian was given to contract zoning, wi�hin NIJLTIPLE DWELLING CODE, the realm of the Comprehensive Plan if concept approval was given, cont. � so that a dev�eloper would not back out of a plan or zone to in- crease land value. The City Attorney disagreed. wi.th the concept due to previous court findings and because it was relatively un- tried in the court systems. The Attorney suggested that the dis- � trict allaw a "floating zone" with a perniitted use of single- family on i/2 acre sites and multiple dw�llings as a conditional use. (3) M-6 Density: Suggested for possible inclusion in the defining of a "gross acre" was the term "exclusive of w+etlands". It was also suggested "must be atta�hed wiits" or "a minimum of two Lmits per dwelling" be attached in the sentence concerning the maximum dwelling units per building. (4) M-6 Height: It was suggested that developers be allawed grEater height than 2 1/2 stories although same felt the appea- rance of a 2 1/2 story dwelling was better. It was suggested that the ordinance use no "story" designatian but change it to � a specific height allowance. Some felt this would lead to skimpy roof lines and bad design in the dwellings. (5) M-6 Hardcover: There see�d to be general agreement that, instead of 20�, a 30� hardcover be the allowance. It was felt that the height limitation would have to be increased if � only 20� were allaaed. It was noted that the Department of Natural Resources recommend 30� (6) M-6 Property Ownership: The City Attorney felt tha.t the Council should decide whether all tmits on a tract be held in a Homeowner's Association or whether they cauld be held in private ownership. Due to zmsettled questians relating to the • proposed code, the Council directed that another joint meeti.ng be held on December 16, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. in the Orono City Hall. S Cotmcilwanen Butler left at 9:45 P.M. The �yor explained that the current Village basis for collection PARK DEDICATION FEE of Park Dedicatian Fees were leading to counter productive aspects AMENI�MENT' a and for this reason a more desirable method was needed. The , Zoning Administrator's proposal consisted of assessing the fee on a greater or lesser percentage or raw land value to the extent of a each subdivisions density in relatian to the zoning code. Lou Oberha.user felt land v�lue should be a basis for the fee but a maxinaun fee limit per lot should be set. A1 Whitman felt that everyone should contribute to parks and costs should be included in the ad valorem tax for general City distribution. The City , Attorney cited the State Statutes that collection of Park Dedi- cation Fees could be mad.e only at the time of subdivision. An- other suggested by Mayor Searles was a fee per building lot. Brad Van Nest proposed that zones be forgotten and on a ba§is of ten acres divided by 10 for density the following percent of raw land value could be set with a maxir►nAn payment of $300 to $S00 per tmit: 0 to 1 at 2.5�; 1 to 2 at 5g; Z to 4 at 10�; � 4 to 6 at 12�; 6 to 8 at 14�; 8 and up add 1 1/2$ per unit. The percent amoi.mt could either be expressed in land or cash � Jalue. The Van Nest proposal seemed agreeable to the ma.jority of those present. Massengale moved, Paurus seconded, that far purposes of holding a Public Hearing the Couazcil direct the City Attorney to prepare a draft for amendment of the portion S of Ordinance No. 180, relating to the Park Dedication Fee to reflect the Fee Schedule resented by Brad Van Nest with the maxim�un fee to be set at $�500 per lot. Motian, Ayes (4) -Nays (0) .