My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-17-1988 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1988
>
10-17-1988 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2024 11:09:55 AM
Creation date
12/20/2023 4:15:52 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.
/
321
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
ator <br />for security <br />an accessory <br />ige or other <br />:street lot <br />;s which have <br />accessory <br />jch lots are <br />Subdivision <br />10'from the <br />b and a turn- <br />lot apply to <br />a setback of <br />ry buildings <br />rth lot line <br />jht of a fence- <br />X <br />'I <br />gate for <br />ight is not <br />The entire <br />th. <br />nt roof peak on <br />WW <br />-A <br />Zoning File #1347 <br />October 12» 1988 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />fromTetT/ AveVue*!"hore^ <br />at 2710 and 2715 Pence Lane. <br />The 16* span between °t^uck^wi^^ side^mirrors to pass, <br />minimum 10- width f the residences served, <br />hence the gateway is j - third lot, the City would <br />However, if a future private road and the gateway <br />Although none of the P^®"° Vjl^p®sts^on either*side°^<f/the drivewayexisting wooden planter and sign posts on eitne <br />will be removed, <br />decorative fixture. <br />staff would note for the ^they**would**be^considered as an <br />rcces^o?" s«u=t°ure\^"d e w|uld he no need^for a variance.^^Since t_^e <br />:L"u“?4'i%%o:^t Vef?nef r^a^" lot ?ine, the variance is necessary. <br />5. <br />staff would drliLge and®utnity'ea\*'e®menYal°^9 <br />monument is psrtla^^y considered as a fence ®hructure, the City <br />the property border. If th..s 1 with a fence on a drainage and utility <br />would not normally A ^°*^onsidered an accessory structure, <br />easement. However, if jli-inaae and utility easements, and there ino structures are allowed in drainage ana ur utilities to the <br />potential for interference with^existing^^^ structure is “ <br />Structure within the 10* easement.•cure wj.uiia.1* ^ . <br />The applicant has suggested that 3^°^is^not^suf f icient to <br />that the maximum the°property owner. Itnrovide the security required by P intended to provide the type of <br />thriV fence height ordinance was "®J®*L^"^ho^ver? it may very well be <br />llgiUm\\e*‘to\rect a^CpoVing ” barrier^ t^^^traffic o°"uni®nviM5 <br />Sa “l around the entire property. <br />'M mi mm <br />X <br />Zoning File #13 <br />October 12,198 <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />The a Item <br />structure be 1 <br />requirements <br />might request <br />property bounds <br />not be obtrusi <br />measures requi <br />additional fenc <br />Staff Reo <br />Staff wou <br />condition that <br />City and other
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.