Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23, 1995 <br />( 97 - #2041 Phil and Darcy Otto - Continued) <br />Mabusth explained that the neighbor to the east, Mr. Sauer, was concerned with runoff <br />• <br />from the Otto property, due to the excavation and filling, collecting in his yard. Drainage <br />has been a problem in the past in this neighborhood. Due to this concern, the application <br />was tabled at the July meeting until the Engineer could make a determination. The <br />Engineer has reported that no change should occur from the 150 cubic yards of fill. Staff <br />has recommended approval. <br />Callahan asked if Sauer was satisified with the findings. Mabusth said a letter was sent to <br />Sauer informing him of the Engineer's determination, and Sauer did not appear at the <br />Planning Commission meeting to voice any further concern. <br />Hurr inquired, if the application was after- the -fact, why the fee was not doubled. <br />Nl'abusth said the land alteration fee of $200 should have been doubled. This is in <br />addition to the charge for the application. Mabusth said the additional fee would go <br />towards the costs incurred by Mabusth and the Engineer. No credit would be given for <br />any difference. <br />Hurr moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution 93623 with the notation that the land <br />alteration fee would be doubled and the Engineer's cost incurred from the application <br />would be charged to the applicants in addition to the normal fees. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />(#8) #2056 MICHAEL AND BARBARA WIGLEY, 1035 TONKAWA ROAD - • <br />VARIANCE /CUP - RESOLUTION #3624 <br />The Applicants were represented by Landscape Designer, Matt Laue. <br />Gaf&on reported that the request is for a conditional use permit and variance for land <br />alteration to construct a boulder wall in the 0 -75' zone. The 75` line is approximately at <br />the location of the house. The original application requested a boulder wall at the base of <br />the slope as well as the top of the slope and for grading and revegetation of the slope <br />where poison ivy is growing. The Planning Commission asked that no grading be done <br />and saw no justification for the wall at the base of the slope as there was no visible <br />erosion. The application was tabled to allow the applicants to revisit their plan. <br />• <br />6 <br />