My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-08-1992 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1992
>
06-08-1992 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2024 11:30:42 AM
Creation date
3/29/2024 11:27:12 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.
/
271
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
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />HELD MAY 10, 1992 <br />(#6) #1731 CLAIR ROOD, <br />2215 KENWOOD WAY - <br />VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 - 7:48 P.M. <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mai ling were noted. <br />Clair Rood was present for this application. <br />Mabusth explained that the applicant was given an opportunity <br />during the conditional use permit approval process to come back and <br />add on a variance request to that application seeking approval of <br />the monuments In excess of 3 1/2'. It was determined at a prior <br />meeting that because the structures were adjacent to a right-of- <br />way, they could only be 3 1/2’. Mabusth referred to sections of <br />the code denting with fences or walls. She stated that final <br />determination must bo cased on property iines resulting from lot <br />line rearrangement. 'e are now dealing with front/street and side <br />street yards. AppIic»int agreed to alter fencing to 3 1/2’ in the <br />front yard area and to adjust fencing in traffic visibility area <br />to 3’. She asked the Commission if they would approve a 4 1/2’ <br />high fence structure adjacent to a side street yard. The road wi I I <br />never be upgraded to a public or private road and will only serve <br />two residences based on current zoning. <br />Johnson asked if the original intent was for the pillars to be 6’ <br />high. <br />Rood stated that along Navarre Lane the poles are within the front <br />yard and will be 3 1/2’ high. He stated his intent is to plant a <br />4’ high hedge between the properties and wants the pillars to be <br />a little higher than the hedge. He felt that it would be <br />aesthetically pleasing to have the pillars a bit higher than the <br />heLge. <br />Rcwlette asked if this is considered a fence. <br />Mabusth stated that was the recommendation or finding of the <br />Planning Commission last year. She noted the fence and wal I section <br />of the code doesn’t distinguish between side or rear yards adjacent <br />to streets. The Planning Commission determined that if next to a <br />public right-of-way, the height cannot exceed 3 1/2’. <br />Cohen asked if this was the application that Chair Kelley was <br />adamant about adhering to the height requirement of 3 1/2’. Cohen <br />asked the applicant what height he is proposing for the fence. <br />Rood said he thought the request was for a 5’ high fence.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.