My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-15-1996 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1996
>
04-15-1996 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/7/2023 2:48:16 PM
Creation date
9/7/2023 2:42:11 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.
/
283
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
f <br />minutes of the orono planning commission <br />MEETING HELD ON MARCH 18, 1996 <br />(#3 - #2'' ' > Gerald and Candace Rowlette - Continued) <br />Mabusth advised that she would have Mike Gaffix>n reconfinn his hardcover findings <br />before schedulii^ the application before the Council. <br />Smith moved, Schroeder ^nded, to recommend approval for the deck replacement with <br />removal of the Russian olive area underlain with plastic and located within County right of <br />way. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />(#4) #2107 ERWIN SMITH/JOHN O’SULLIVAN, 3340 SHORELINE DRIVE - <br />REQUEST BY APPLICANTS TO BE REFERRED BACK TO PLANNING <br />COMMISSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION - 7:21-7:55 P.M. <br />A. VACATION OF PUBLIC STREET <br />B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, VARIANCES, COMMERCIAL SITE <br />PLAN REVIEW <br />The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted, <br />The Applicants, John O’Sullivan and Mr. & Mrs. Erwin Smith, along with Consultants, <br />Rob Thompson and Tim Coen, were present. <br />Mabusth reported that the ori^al application was presented at the February meeting of <br />the Planning Commission The comments rel^ng to the proposal were then discussed <br />with the Applicant, Staff, Engineer, and Consultants to include the internal traffic issues. <br />Changes were made in the proposal to answer the concerns brought up by the Commission <br />and others. <br />Mabusth continued that the application is for three variances. One variance is for a 30* <br />setback for the car wash. The neighbors in the Lafayette Ridge area support the proposal <br />in view of the wetland separation from their residences. The car wash location was <br />considered to reduce the effect of noise and lighting. Another setback variance is required <br />for parking area adjacent to residential lot line requiring a 10 ’ setback. The parking is set <br />to be at 3' for a 7* variance. The third variance is for structural coverage excess over the <br />allowed 15% proposed at 20.2%. A fourth variance has been added for signage area. <br />With the footage of the front lot line, 100 s.f. of signage is allowed. The applicant is <br />asking for 308 s.f of signage for a 208 s.f variance. <br />1 <br />I <br />!
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.