Laserfiche WebLink
1L <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 1990 <br />REBERS CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED <br />for approval which would require only Planning <br />approval and eliminate the need for Council review." <br />Commission <br />Planning Commission members thanked Mr. PfJaum for his <br />comments. <br />Kelley stated that with either proposal, the drivev;ay width <br />is more than 20' within the 50' front street setback line. <br />Mabusth showed hov/ Staff had measured the driveway v/idth. <br />She said, "There is a triangular section that was taken out <br />because it did e^itend beyond the allowed 20 foot width." <br />Kelley stated that he v;ould have measured the driveway using <br />a different method. <br />Hanson clarified, "Staff measured perpendicular to <br />center line of the drivev/ay, as opposed oo 20' straight in." <br />the <br />Bellows stated that it was the intent of the Planning <br />Commission to keep the driveway width as narrow as possible. <br />She said, "It was my understanding that tne drivev/ay would be a <br />straight shot, and would consume the least amount of that area as <br />possible." <br />.Mr. Pflaum stated that the curved drivev/ay configuration <br />resulted from the topography. <br />Kelley said, "The curve may be appropriate for this lot. <br />However, in the future, I want Staff to understand that the <br />Planning Commission would like the dcivev/ays to come in a 5 <br />straight as possible to the building pad. Beyond that point, the <br />homeowner may do as he/she wishes." <br />Mabusth asked whether it would be necessary to have the <br />Planning Commission raview each driveway that did not come <br />straight into the property. <br />Kelley and Cohen believed that it should be left to Staff's <br />discretion. <br />Bellows objected. She said, "I am very disturbed to see <br />that we are being presented with these after-tho-fact. It should <br />have been vary clear at the permit stage that this did not meet <br />our objectives and requirements. I agrae that the homeowner <br />should not have had to put the turn-around in his front yard. <br />However, the house plans should have been adjusted accordingly, <br />rather than asking the City to adjust its standards. Ti-.at is why <br />I am concerned about leavi-ig this type of decision to Staff's <br />discretion." <br />- 18 -