09-24-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

To: From: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Dernhardson 9 Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator ^Stf- 2'1 September 20, 1990 #1334 Rebers' Construction - Sugarwoods Plat - Of (ij^ONO Reconsideration of Conditions of PRD Approval List of Exhibits « ^ Exhibit A - Memo to Planning Commission 9/12/90 Exhibit B - Original Packet Submitted for Council's Review 9/10/90 Meeting As directed, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff resolution that set forth a procedure for review of all building permits where houses were placed at front/str»-et setbacks and front street yard improvements consisted of more than the allowe 20' wide access drive. The resolution also provided for an abbreviated review procedure, as set forth on Page 3 of that same resolution. The abbreviated review would require staff approvals only if building contractor was willing to accept either one of the limited improvement proposals as illustrated on Pages 5, 6 and 7 of that same resolution. The Planning Commission, in a 6-1 vote, once again recommended that each individual request to ^:ter from the allowed 20' wide driveway within a front/street setback yard be reviewed by both Planning Commission and Council. The Planning Commission felt that to transfer the responsibility or authority to staff in the review of these matters may negate the true intent of the oriainal PRD approval. The majority opinion strongly recommends that you review each request individually. The minority opinion felt that the illustrations obviously reflect minimal impact based on a three car garage backout needs. It was suggested that the abbreviated procedure could be considered or employed a carrot or reward and thereby reduce potential for expanded "Vs, "T-s or loops with special requests. Options of Action - 1. To amend the staff resolution presented for Council actior^ by removing the section that allowed for an abbreviated review procedure and to require that all requests be reviewed under the procedure set forth on Pages 1 and 2 of the staff resolution. In response to the developer's concern for delay in the building permit review process. Council may consider an additional ■»mc*ndment of that resolution that would allow such requests to be dealt with solely by the Planning Commission, with right of appeal to the Council if a contractor disagreed with the Planning Commission s recommendation; or