My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-09-1989 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1989
>
01-09-1989 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2025 10:23:04 AM
Creation date
3/10/2025 10:20:36 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.
/
550
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
121388.4 <br />TOs Mayor and City Council <br />FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato <br />DATS: December 13, 1988 <br />SUBJECT: Zoning Amendment - Planned Development <br />COUNCIL mim <br />JAM -o'.ssa <br />CITY OF <br />Attachment: A. Comprehensive Plan Zoning Amendment Dated <br />November 22, 1988 <br />B. Planned Development/Traditionally Zoned <br />Subdivision Comparison <br />ISSUE <br />1. Presentation of issues and alternatives based on the November <br />28th discussion. <br />2. Request for Council policy direction in the areas discussed. <br />INTRODUCTION - At the Council*?. November 28, 1988 meeting a <br />review of Attachment A was made with the Council tabling the <br />matter to a future meeting. Subsequent to that meeting <br />Attachment B was prepared to further illustrate the difference <br />between a standard rezoning/subdivision and the planned <br />development approach. <br />DISCUSSION - As noted in the comparison the planned development <br />approach on the Reber's property gave an increased control with <br />standards for the subdivision substantially in excess of those of <br />a traditionally zoned subdivision. The movement from a planned <br />development as a conditional use permit to .a rezoning not only <br />requires a 4/5*s majority vote to make effective but is a <br />legislative act to which the Courts give the City broader <br />discretion than a CUP when the applicant meets the "standards**. <br />Standards can be included in the planned development ordinance in <br />the ways outlined in Attachment A. Any flexibility in these <br />standards is based on an improved "solution" requiring a 4/5th*s <br />vote to allow. Enforcement of a CUP/planned development is by <br />the terms of the developers/subdividers agreement. Enforcement <br />of a planned development as a rezoning can be by both a violation <br />of the zoning code and through the developer*s agreement. <br />ALTERNATIVES - <br />1. Discuss and give staff direction on each of the points <br />outlined on Attachment A. <br />2. Discuss and table for further discussion. <br />3-. Refer to Planning Commission. <br />4. Direct staff to amend the draft ordinance in line with the <br />Council*s suggestions on the issues to be tabled for adoption at
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.