My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-14-1991 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
1990-1996 Microfilm
>
1991
>
01-14-1991 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2024 10:39:28 AM
Creation date
5/13/2024 10:35:58 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
405
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
r <br />y;'v <br />:i:r <br />OROMO COUNCIL MEETING HELD DECEMBER 10, 1990 <br />ZONING FILE «1334-REBERS CONTINUED <br />asking them to review this particular project. If that is what <br />is being suggested, I would not disagree. However, I do think <br />that the Planning Commission is capable of reviewing these <br />reguests without the need for Council review as well." <br />Callahan stated that the driveway requests should either <br />continue with a normal review process by Planning Commission and <br />Council, or the templates should be used. <br />Bellows stated that the Planning Commission has twice <br />rejected the idea of using templates. She said, "It is the <br />Planning Commission’s belief that it would be wrong for the City <br />to resort to such a method of review. Frankly, the Planning <br />Commission would prefer to see the typical review process used. <br />It was Mr. Pflaum that suggested the abbreviated review process, <br />requiring only Planning Commission review. The Planning <br />Commission was willing to go along with that concept only under <br />the condition that at least there was a Planning Commission <br />review. ** <br />Peterson stated that she would be inclined to approve the <br />abbreviated review process and eliminate the nesd for Council <br />review, except in the case of an appeal. <br />Mayor Grabek stated that he would favor whichever review <br />process would be least time consuming. He stated that he had <br />originally been in favor of having only City Staff involved with <br />these requests. <br />It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to allow <br />City Staff to use designated templates to work with the applicant <br />in reviewing and approving driveway locations in the Sugarwoods <br />subdivision. Motion, Ayes-2, Peterson, Goetten. Nay. Motion <br />failed. <br />It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Peterson, to <br />conceptually approve Option B with appropriate revisions by the <br />Planning Commission. S^iaff is to nocify the Council of the <br />revisions as soon as they are determined and Council will then <br />have the ability to approve or disapprove the revisions. Motion, <br />Ayes'3, Callahan. Nay. Motion passed. <br />#1473 JACQOBLYM KELLY, 2056 SHAOYNOOD ROAD <br />Arm-Tn-rACT vakiahcb <br />RB80LUTI0H #2915 <br />Mr. Dennis Johnson. Ms. Kelly's Attorney, was present <br />Bernhardson provided a brief review of this application and <br />the revised plan being presented to reduce hardcover and <br />encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line. He noted <br />that the revised plan cut the size of the deck so that it would <br />- 4 - <br />...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.