My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-14-1995 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1995
>
08-14-1995 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2023 12:01:09 PM
Creation date
10/6/2023 11:57:49 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.
/
365
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 />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />% <br />DATE: August 1, 1995 H <br />ITEM NO.: <br />Department Approral: <br />Name Jeanne A. Mabusih <br />Titte Building & Zoning Administrator <br />Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: <br />Zonine <br />Item Description: #2032 Michael and Lynne Gerlicher, 1375 Rest Point Road - Variances <br />Resolution <br />Zoning District: LR-IB <br />Approximate lot area = 30,634 s.f. or .7 acres <br />List of Exhibits <br />H - Neighboring Property Owner's Letter <br />I - Petition of Majority of Neighbors Approving Installation of Fence as <br />Proposed by Gerlicher <br />Brief Description of Request <br />Please refer to the enclosed staff memo dated July 5. 1995 and the Planning Commission <br />minutes of July 17th for more background and detail on this review. <br />^efcr to rxhibil D, the applicants seek height and setback variances for a 6 ’ privacy fence to <br />lie installed for an 80’ segment along the street lot line a.id 30’ along the side lot line located <br />v’ithin the street yard. Applicants were stopped in the process ot installing new privacy fencing <br />..t tlte same location as the former privacy fencing on the property. Sections of the fencing that <br />have been installed conform to the ordinance. <br />Planning Commission members were concerned with the safety issues created with the <br />installation of privacy fencing along a very limited and narrow roadway used by seseral property <br />owners. The ■’pplicants noted that fencing is only 3 1/2 ’ high at the entrance to the driveway. <br />Members were concerned with the intense vegetation in area noting the vegetation may present <br />a sighting problem for users of the driveway and the adjacent public road. <br />Three members of the four member Planning Commission recommended approval of the <br />application as proposed based on the unique findings and hardships set forth in the applicants ’ <br />hardship statement. They conditioned approval on applicants working with City staff to improve <br />sight lines at intersection by trimming back on the dense plantings. <br />The minority opinion opined that tl City code should be upheld because of the negative impact <br />with the creation of alley ways of fencing. If fencing was to be maintained at a 3 1/2 ’ height, <br />it would minimize the visual impact of the solid, 6 ’ high privacy fence.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.