Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,July 21,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Curtis indicated it would still be one application but an approval resolution would be recorded against <br /> each property separately. <br /> Lemke asked if the sketch plan is at the proper elevation. <br /> Curtis stated it is not and that Staff is expecting some revisions to be made to the plan. Staff is also <br /> requesting clarification on the scope of the retaining walls. <br /> Lemke noted the City Engineer states that retaining walls four feet or greater in height must be designed <br /> by a licensed professional engineer. Lemke noted Staff's report says the walls can be up to four feet. <br /> Lemke asked if the walls would be below four feet. <br /> Curtis stated her understanding is once a wall reaches four feet, it must be engineered. <br /> Gary Briggs,Applicant, stated in his view the application has been handled well by Staff and he does not <br /> have any additional comments. <br /> Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:40 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:40 p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit stated it is interesting that the two properties are combined into one application when the <br /> Sundstrom property does not have a plan that has been submitted. Schoenzeit stated he would like to see, <br /> when the drawings are submitted for the other property,that they have the same minimal amount of <br /> hardcover. <br /> Curtis stated it is the intent of the 1895 property owner to have fewer hardcover improvements than the <br /> Briggs property. Curtis noted the failure on the Sundstrom/Olausen property was not as severe as it was <br /> on the Briggs property. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the City can require that the overall goal is accomplished even if the wall does not <br /> require engineering. <br /> Thiesse stated in his opinion they are meeting the code but that meeting the minimal intent of the code <br /> does not necessarily provide a satisfactory answer. <br /> Schoenzeit stated his recommendation would be that the wall be engineered and that the overall system be <br /> looked at. <br /> Leskinen noted the Planning Commission has no authority to require that. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he would still like that to be a recommendation since it may be a public safety issue. <br /> Curtis stated the City Engineer's comments indicate that the scope of the failure and the existing <br /> conditions on the site should be better documented via a survey, which is currently underway. Staff is <br /> Page 3 of 30 <br />