01-14-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Vi- li fer tr u- h * :-i- "-■ tv- ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD DECEMBER 10, 1990 ZONING FILE 11334-REBERS CONTINUED be a review process. If the Planning Commission is to be the sole reviewing body, we feel that the draft resolJtion should be revised. W.j are uncomfortable with the language and believe that the five items listed are too loosely worded. With the exception of item #1, all other items should be tightened up. It is precisely these problems that we are seeing over and over again. The Planning Commission is concerned that a house is being designed first and then, after all the money and effort is put into design, a representation is made that there is only one location for a driveway. That puts everyone in a difficult position. The Planning Commission believes that the review process ought to take place sufficiently early in the design process to allow the opportunity for change. If the Planning Commission does not find there to be adequate reasons for a house to placed as presented, we reserve the right to ask the builder to ftart over. We are asking that at least the Planning Commission review these requests and that we are not having the review at a point where nothing else can be done." Mr. Pflaum clarified that if Council agrees to have only the Planning Commission review these requests, that the abbreviated process would be limited only to requests for driveway locations. He said, "I believe Council suggested this review method as a compromise to having only City Staff review these requests. My client does not have any objection to any language changes that the Planning Commission may wish to make. It is my understanding that the Planning Commission would like to use tneir own initiative to determine whether there is sufficient criteria to warrant deviating from the straight. 29-foot wide drivev.-^ We are vary comfortable with tailoring the language the resolution to meet the concerns of th:.- Planning Commissi^:.. t process is requested by the applicant and will speed uu . . approval process of at least driveways. There are three separate builders in this subdivision. Our main concern is that once they have obtained a customer, thay want the building design and permit process to occur as quickly as possible. One of the resolutions presented this evening would shorten the review process of driveways." Callahan said, "The Planning Commission is an advisory body. If they insist that it is their duty to advise on each of these driveway requests, individually, then I can say, as a CounciImember, it is my duty to decide on each individually. Consequently, unfortunate as it may be, I cannot permit this to 90 without passing on each case individually." C^atten stated that she had initially supported the suggestion of having only the Planning Commission review these ^•9'***t*« She said, "Perhaps it is premature to consider that. It may be appropriate to do some revising of the Planning COBimission agenda, as far as what they can and cannot do, before - 3 -