My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-11-1991 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1991
>
02-11-1991 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/20/2024 11:12:41 AM
Creation date
5/20/2024 11:07:13 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.
/
603
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
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 22, 1991 <br />ZONING FILS #1604-R000 CONTINUED <br />four feet." <br />3ellows su^^esteci triec it rney be in Mr. Rooci s best interest <br />to entirely forego t.be pillars. <br />Mr. Rood asked wnetner he could apply for a Variance to have <br />tne pillars five feet high. <br />Kelley infornied Mr. Rood tnat ha had the right to submit a <br />Variance application if he wished to do so. He said, "However, <br />the Planning Commission has been fairly consistent in <br />recommending that fences along public roadways be no more than <br />3.5 feet high." <br />#1605 DR. RICHARD LINDSTROM <br />1065 WEST FERNOALE ROAD <br />VARIAHCES <br />CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING <br />Charles Lindstrom, the applicant's brother, and Paul Bedker, <br />the applicant's contractor, were present. Cohen stated that due <br />to his professional relationship with Charles Lindstrom, he would <br />abstain fr>om the discussion and voting on this matter. <br />Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 8:45 pm. <br />Gaffron distributed a sketch showing the revised roo: <br />^^ights and floor elevations. He said, "The applicants, for uhe <br />most part, have revised their plan to keep hardcover out of the <br />0-75' setback area. The only encroachment in that area is above <br />the existing house. Changes are still proposed for the 75-250' <br />3gtback area. ’ lere must be a 30' pool setback from the side lot <br />line and I am c n 'ernec. .bout the elevation of the basement floor <br />in relation to the f^ood plain." <br />Mr. Bedker referred the Planning Commission to the sketch <br />that Gaffron had distributed. He said, "You can see that the <br />existing basement is below the flood plain elevation. v/e propose <br />to construct the first level of the garage at the 932.6 <br />elevation. The second level of garage would be at 939.11, which <br />is approximately two feet above the existing main floor. The <br />second floor addition would even out across the garage addition <br />and the existing structure. 'Je are proposing to construct a <br />brick planter, approximately 40' long and 2' high, outside the <br />main entrance to accommodate the 2* difference in the garage <br />elevation. The driveway will slope up that additional two feet <br />along tne planter up to the garage." <br />Bellows asked Mr. Bedker what the slope is coming out of the <br />lower garage. <br />Mr. Bedker replied, "We are proposing a 5i slope." <br />- 10 -
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.