My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-15-2004 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2004
>
11-15-2004 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2023 1:26:30 PM
Creation date
1/26/2023 1:21:05 PM
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.
/
341
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 />MINITES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, October 18,2004 <br />6:00 o ’doefc p.m. <br />(M04-3042 Pillar Hornet, Contlnaed) <br />intullal'.on of ihe dram tile, along wuh ihe other additional information that has been pruxidcd. <br />appears to be an acceptable solution to the drainage for this properly. <br />Tupper stated the position of the pool and the pool deck is not any different today than what is <br />depicted on the sur\xy. <br />Jurgens inquired why 938* is shown around the front of the pool and now- it is 942 and a 943*. which is <br />four or five higher than what was shown on the original plan. Jurgens stated there is a substantial hill <br />in that area and it appears the piMil is higher. <br />Tupper stated F.xhibil C docs not contain any elevations for the pool or the pool deck, but that it is <br />clear the pool could not be constructed without some type of a retaining wall around it because of the <br />contours of the surrounding ground <br />Jurgens noted a retaining wall was not constructed and instead din was hauled in on three sides. <br />Jurgens stated the basement is higher by seven-tenths, with the ht>u.se as constructed being one f»nit <br />higher than it should be. with considerably mote fill in the front Jurgens slated there also is a swale <br />that appears to have been constructed across someone else’s propeny. which also was not proposed <br />onginally. Jurgens inquired what the hardcover was at the time this application was approved <br />Gundlach indicated they did not e.xceed the ma.\imum allowed for hardcover. <br />Tupper suted according to his calculations the hardcover was at 24 $6 percent. <br />Jurgens staled in his opinion it appears this lot is over the hardcover limit. Jurgens requested the <br />hardcover be v-enfied as well as the building height. <br />Shcrmack staled the height of the roof did not increase. <br />Tupper suted the hardcover that is on record is exactly what has been built wiihm the 75-250* zone <br />Gundlach noted in the 250-500* /one they arc at 14.5 percent <br />Jurgens noted a letter has been submitted regarding the swale, v. htch needs to be addressed <br />Shermack indicated he would be w illmg to resolve that w ith the City Engineer and requested that it be <br />documented that the end grade of the swale was pre-existing grade Shermack indicated the water <br />automatically went that direction pnor to eonstruetion. <br />Jurgens inquired what should be done w ith the e.xcess AIL <br />PAGE 12
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.