10-10-1988 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 iHIGHWAY 12 ZONING AMENDMENT CONTINUED concept approval is given, the planning and development =zoning would have already been granted. The density would have been established. Once the applicant has achieved concept approval, they would then obtain their final plat, engineering, architect, civil engineering drawings, etc. When the applicant comes back for final approval of the Planned Unit Development, that would be the time they would submit their performance bond and detailed engineering drawings. It would be during this concept stage that the City's approval or non - approval would be determined. Mayor Grabek asked how the PUD process varied from the current process. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the current process was as specifically detailed in stages. The current review process does not allow as much flexibility. The PUD would provide for more staff input. Currently there are very limited meetings or exchanges that occur between the applicant and staff before the matter is heard by the Planning Commission. Sharadlow stated that providing concerns, ideas and criticism will allow the- applicant to more efficiently develop a concept plan. If the applicant prepares a good concept plan, there should be enough information presented to decide whether to approve the application at that point. Mayor Grabek asked if the PUD would replace the PRD? Mr. • Shardlow stated that there was no intent for the PUD to be a substitute to the PRD. However, the PUD does perform everything the PRD would, plus some additional functions. Mabusth also asked for clarification as to whether the Planned Residential Development would be the same as the PUD, or would the PRD format be allowed as well? City Administrator Bernhardson stated that the City would need to decide whether they would repeal the PRD or not. Grabek asked whether the PRD served the same purpose as the PUD? Bernhardson replied not necessarily. There is not as much flexibility or..input in a PRD. Shardlow explained that the PRD allowed for some flexibility in density and provides for an official acceptance or approval of private open space. A PUD would allow for those functions in addition to others. Mayor Grabek requested a comparison and suggestions as to whether both the PRD and PUD would need to exist. The revision and changing aspect of the PUD process has yet to be addressed. The Planning Commission is not satisfied with the current language proposed. There is general acceptance of the idea that there be room for minor administrative changes without the need to go back through.the entire process. The current language says that minor changes in the location, placement and height of structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee. The Development Review Committee will be defined by ordinance as the City Administrator, Zoning • Administrator and /or other persons as depicted by the City Administrator. Shardlow said if this provision were not included, the City would be operating in violation of the City's N