My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-17-2021 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2021
>
05-17-2021 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/18/2021 8:48:52 AM
Creation date
5/18/2021 8:35:36 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
156
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
/i <br /> (O 64-4 <br /> • <br /> to CITY of ORONO <br /> A <br /> "< <br /> i;,l to �G'� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> �/CESH.04' NO. 4 4 2 0 <br /> entrance rather than a typical interior entrance associated with other <br /> malls. It may be appropriate to approve additional signage based on this <br /> need. <br /> C. Highway 12 will be relocated from the existing location reducing the <br /> amount of regional traffic to local traffic. The signage along old <br /> Highway 12 should be in character with the local traffic use and <br /> pedestrian users. <br /> D. The Conoco pylon shall not be located closer than 10 feet to any lot line. <br /> 4. The existing pole for the previous pylon sign is located on the front property <br /> line. The proposed sign would be located 4 feet from the property line. The <br /> sign could not replace the existing pylon and meet the required setback from the <br /> front property line. If the pylon is located off the property line 10 feet it would <br /> be located in an existing drive and parking area. The sign could have been • <br /> relocated further to the west, however relocating the sign would require the only <br /> tree remaining on the property to be removed. The tree would obstruct the view <br /> of the sign for westbound traffic. <br /> 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar <br /> to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that <br /> granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor <br /> pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely <br /> serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a <br /> demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial <br /> property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and <br /> intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br /> 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br /> recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments <br /> by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety <br /> and welfare of the community. <br /> i <br /> Page 3 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.