07-28-1986 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

... d�+.': , . fit• _ To: Orono Council Members �Ul_ 2 1�c6 From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: July 23, 1986 Subject: #1054 Steven Schnebly, 2555 Countryside Drive - Variance - Resolution The applicant is requesting variances to permit the construction of ornamental walls flanking his driveway entrance. He constructed these under the assumption that they are part of the fence, for which we require no permit. However, the walls do exceed the 42" maximum sleight allowance for a fence, and might be considered as an accessory structure. Planning Commission reviewed this application on 7-21-86, and in general, Planning Commission members found that the walls are neither an eyesore nor a safety hazard. However, the recommendation for approval was a 3-2 vote, with the minority opinion being that a similar type of structure was recently disapproved on Brackett's Point (Pillsbury's serpentine wall) and approval of the Countryside Dri ve application would be inconsistent. Planning Commission was not interested in considering a zoning code amendment to allow these "gateway" type structures under certain conditions. Staff would only note that the existing code is not clear as to the status of, say, a 6" diameter steel pole 6'-8' high with a light globe, versus a 1 ight globe on a 6"x6" masonry pedestal, versus a 12"xl2" mansonry pedestal versus a 24"x24" masonry pedestal. . . when does an ornamental feature become a structure requiring a permit meeting setbacks and height limitations, etc.? - Staff would recommend approval of the ; ably request, and require only that a building permit be obtaii d for the walls in question, with no penalty fees assessed. A resolution of approval is attached for your review.