Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 <br />ZONING FILE #1555 - LANDSTAR, INC. CONTINUED <br />Mabusth reminds that this area received <br />1979 with the Lafayette Dredging project. <br />outlined in Exhibit N. Proposed house sites <br />fill areas. Soil borings will be required wi <br />permit to determine the types of foundations to <br />fill in 1978 and • <br />Those areas are <br />are not in these <br />th every building <br />be installed. <br />Mr. MacKinnon replied that many of these concerns had been <br />raised with the Planning Commission at previous meetings. <br />Because of that, additional engineering work had been done <br />including total recalculation of the watershed area. The Corps <br />of Engineers, the City Engineer and their engineer were all <br />involved. Even if you go to the 934' mark there is still dry <br />contiguous soils well in excess of the requirement. <br />Nettles asked Mabusth if the building envelope that is <br />separated by a drainageway is treated as a contiguous envelope. <br />She replied yes, because it is a drainageway and it is not <br />defined as a designated wetland. However, if someone wanted to <br />build on that site it would require a conditional use permit and <br />variance because you would be crossing over drainageways. The <br />drainageway would also require a 26' setback. The dry buildable, <br />area calcs, are everything above the 932 elevation. The building <br />envelope is not the area calcs and is much more restrictive. <br />Nettles <br />replied, <br />"I <br />don't <br />see any way <br />we can turn it down." <br />• <br />Goetten <br />asked if <br />we <br />have a <br />history on <br />this property. <br />Mabusth replied the only history we have is the Old <br />Lafayette Dredging project and they filled in areas with the <br />dredged spoils. No building envelopes are shown within that <br />filled area, but there is nothing that says they could not build <br />in that area if they want to pay for the expensive foundation <br />that would have to be built. Mabusth states both she and the <br />applicant seek direction from the Council regarding the <br />improvement of Old Beach Road. <br />Councilmember Peterson asked, "Isn't that two separate <br />issues ?" <br />Goetten replied not really because it all comes along with <br />the whole subdivision process. <br />Peterson states that if you are going to assess adjacent <br />property owners, they would also have to be notified. <br />Mabusth states that's why John Gerhardson was asked to <br />address this issue. <br />Goetten asked, "If the road would have to be repaired and <br />upgraded purely because of the fact that the developer is putting • <br />in these houses if that is approved, then explain why the <br />adjacent property owners would have to pay for it." <br />13 <br />