My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-22-1991 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1991
>
07-22-1991 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/1/2024 10:57:49 AM
Creation date
7/1/2024 10:53:54 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.
/
405
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
.. -•1. ■V. <br />it- <br />I- <br />€ <br />ft <br />»•> -. <br />i: <br />i • -■•■ <br />b-':. " <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 22, 1991 <br />ZONING FILE #1604-ROOD CONTINUED <br />four feet." <br />Bellows suggested that it may be in Mr. Rood's best interest <br />to entirely forego the pillars. <br />Mr. Rood asked whether he could apply for a Variance to have <br />the pillars five feet high. <br />Kelley informed Mr. Rood that he had the right to submit a <br />Variance application if he wished to do so. He said, 'However, <br />Planning Commission has been fairly consistent in <br />raconraending that fences along public roadways be no more than <br />3.5 feet high." <br />#1605 DR. RICHARD LINDSTROM <br />1065 NEST FERNDALE ROAD <br />VARIANCES <br />CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING , <br />Charles Lindstrom, the applicant's brother, and Paul Bedker, <br />the applicant's contractor, were present. Conen stated that due <br />to his professional relationship with Charles Lindstrom, he woul- <br />Abstain from the discussion and voting on this matter. <br />Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 8:45 p m. <br />Gaffron distributed a <br />heights and floor elevations, <br />most part, have revised their <br />0*75' setback area. The only <br />the existing house. Changes <br />setback area. There must be a <br />line and I am concerned about <br />in relation to the flood plain <br />sketch showing the revis-»d roof <br />He said, "Th-» applicants, for the <br />plan to keep hardcover out of the <br />encroachment in that area is above <br />are still proposed for the 75-250' <br />30' pool setback from the side lot <br />the elevation of the basement floor <br />Mr. Badker 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, w#* propose <br />to construct the first level of the garage at the 932.6 <br />•XAvation. The second level of garage would be at 939.11, which <br />Xa 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. we are proposing to construct a <br />bjj^ick planter, approximately 40' long and 2* high, outside the <br />Slain entrance to accommodate the 2' difference in the garage <br />•lAvation. The driveway will slope up that additional two feet <br />along the 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 5t slope. <br />- 10 - <br />zo rkKc <br />i
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.