My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PC report/encroachment issue
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
G
>
Glendale Cove Lane
>
2325 Glendale Cove Lane - 34-118-23-33-0065
>
Misc
>
PC report/encroachment issue
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 4:57:01 PM
Creation date
7/26/2018 1:55:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
2325
Street Name
Glendale Cove
Street Type
Lane
Address
2325 Glendale Cove Lane
Document Type
Misc
PIN
3411823330065
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCII,MEETING <br /> Monday,January 12,2015 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Printnp moved,Walsh seconded,to direct Staff to draft an encroachment agreement allowing the <br /> entire retaining wall subject to compliance with the regulations that the Minnehaha Creek <br /> Watershed District would require for establishment of the native vegetation,with waiver of the <br /> after-the-fact permit fees. <br /> Printup stated what he hears loud and clear from this application is that it is very familiar to another <br /> application that had a fire pit encroachment. Printup stated his concern is that the municipality is not <br /> coordinating well with the Watershed District. Printup stated he would prefer to ermr on the side of <br /> people who aze being proactive and attempting to do the right thing only to be stopped in their tracks by <br /> all of the bureaucratic paperwork. Printup stated the question is how the City can work better with the <br /> Watershed District. Printup nvted the City Council has talked about that before and that is what concerns <br /> him with applications of this type. <br /> Levang stated Staff has been working hard over the years to establish a good working relationship with <br /> the Watershed District. Levang stated if someone looks at the flowage and covenants,it was very clear <br /> what should have happened with the property and that the property owners should have realized it was <br /> their responsibility to understand all the conservation easements and covenants and that the property <br /> owners should have been apprised of those things at the time they purchased the property. I.evang stated <br /> the property owners need to understand exactly where their properiy boundaries are and that Staff has <br /> worked very hard to develop a strong relationship with the Watecshed District. <br /> Mack stated he does not see this issue as a conflict with the Watershed District. Mack stated the Planning <br /> Department has discussed this very thoroughly and have actually instituted some measures that will help <br /> prevent this&om happening in the future. Mack stat�the changes have to do with the way landscaping <br /> occurs on a site and whether it is part of the original building permit or not. Mack stated those changes <br /> will help make sure the homeowners are not caught in this type of situation in the future. Mack stated this <br /> situation involved different contractors and a lack of clear understanding of what was on the survey. <br /> McMitlan stated at times the developers fail to inform the property owners that certain areas have <br /> covenants over them or fail to notify them of a wetland buffer. McMillan stated it is very difficult for the <br /> average person to understand how those lines are formed since they are often determined by soil types <br /> and that when the lots are sold,they are not always marked. <br /> McMillan asked for clarification on the fee. <br /> Cudis stated a building permit is required for the wall exceeding four feet in height as well as a wning <br /> permit for the lower wall. The zoning permit is a$50 permii and the building permit is a sliding fee based <br /> on the cost of the pmject. Curtis stated the double fee is for the after-the-fact permits. <br /> VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. <br /> Mattick noted this application will be brought back before the City Council at the time a plan is finalized <br /> with the Watershed District. <br /> Page 8 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.