Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 21, 1990 <br />ZONING FILE #1334-REBERS CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED <br />must wait for the Planning Commission to meet before obtaining a <br />permit. <br />Mr. Kost said that he and City staff have attempted to <br />establish objective criteria that would provide staff with the <br />ability to determine whether a proposal is acceptable. He staged <br />that it is difficult to establish a basic criteria because of the <br />location of trees and other factors unique to each lot. <br />Kelley believed that because each lot lS unique, each <br />proposal should be reviewed separately. Kelley said <br />nninion the Planning Commission compromised quite a bit when <br />tht; ap'provtd tte subdivision. He objected to the request to <br />change the "rules of the game" at this point. <br />Bellows stated that the houses can be designed to comply <br />with the standards established with subdivision approval. <br />Mr. Kost said that the City awd the Developer have <br />interpreted some of the standards differently, particularly in <br />regard to the driveways. He stated that the standar s ° <br />sScIfy that there be only one curb cut for driveway ^ Mr <br />Kost said that in situations of a tuck under lot. it is likely <br />tZt the house will be placed at the 50' setback lihe If the <br />house is placed at the front yard setback line, only a 20 <br />drivLay will be allowed. A 20' driveway will not adequately <br />serve a three-car garage. <br />Bellows reiterated that in <br />necessary to design a house <br />consideration. <br />those situations, it will be <br />that will take that into <br />Kelley asked Mr. Kost if he would like to continue to v/ork <br />with staff^to prepare criteria that will mutually satisfactory. <br />Johnson questioned whether allowing no ^ <br />force the builder to excessive grading in order to locate th <br />hcSn U such , way to allow for additlohal driveway area. Ho <br />suggested that may have more of a negative impact on thv. lot, <br />than allowing a loop drivev/ay. <br />Bellows said that is another reason for asking to review <br />each lot individually. She stated that the developer is <br />essLtially asking for a vari ince from the original standards and <br />that variances require Planning Commission review. <br />It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that there <br />be ho emehdoent to kesolutioh .2652 <br />h.iilder has a hardship and cannot comply with the standaras sec <br />forth, he/she should have to come before the Planning Commission. <br />- 18 -