My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-28-1994 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
1994
>
11-28-1994 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2019 1:20:53 PM
Creation date
4/25/2019 1:20:53 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 28, 1991 <br />(#6 - #1968 - Bangert - Continued) <br />The Applicant's plan calls for a driveway of 8 -10% slope, entering at the east end of the • <br />lot with retaining walls to the rear. The driveway would run across the front of the <br />property and then turn back toward the building pad. After walking the property and <br />noting the large number of mature trees which would be destroyed by this plan, Gaffron <br />has developed another possible approach to the building pad. It was suggested that the <br />driveway come up the East side of the property to include retaining walls on both sides <br />creating a trench -like entry into the property. Less trees would be affected by this plan in <br />the 0 -75' zone. The amount of retaining wails would double, resulting in higher cost to <br />the applicant but would have less visual impact from the lakeshore. Gaffron said the <br />DNR is in favor of a lesser visual impact. The amount of hardcover in the 0 -75' zone <br />would decrease from 42% to 12% by this plan. The City Engineer has indicated both <br />plans are feasible. <br />Builder, Jerry Roelofs, said this plan had been considered but with the greater cut and <br />more retaining walls, the cost would increase substantially. Jabbour noted that financial <br />hardship cannot be taken into consideration in the decision. Roelofs said Staffs plan <br />would give the perception of a narrower lot with the deep tunnel -like cut. He is <br />concerned with the amount of soil to be removed and the run -off in the area. <br />Roelofs also noted the safety issue of cars using the driveway in inclement weather is <br />more of a problem with Stabs plan. There would be no safety net, i.e., a landing, to • <br />protect a car from sliding onto the roadway. The applicant's plan allows for a guard rail. <br />Cook said the applicant's plan with a driveway angle has safety benefits. <br />Hurr asked about the plan being changed from driveway access being 20' west of the <br />property line to now 39. It was commented that the original agreement with the County <br />approved of the driveway access point in the easterly 70' of the lot. <br />Kelley brought up the idea of acquiring an easement from a neighbor for a driveway. It <br />was noted that the City can only recommend this option. The applicants indicated that <br />the neighbors had been approached but neither were in favor of an easement. <br />Hurr moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Staff recommendation resulting in the <br />minimum variance necessary to accomplish access. Mrs. Larson, the property owner, <br />said the County Engineers recommended the cut as their plan presents. Larson said <br />preliminary approval had been obtained, and now Staff was presenting another plan at <br />this late date. Jabbour agreed with this noting that Staff was directed to go ahead with <br />finalizing the applicant's plan. Ayes 1, Hurr; Nays 3, Callahan, Kelley, and Jabbour. <br />Motion failed. <br />Jabbour moved, Callahan seconded, to adopt Resolution #3499 to grant the variances per <br />the resolution draft in the packets which conditionally approves applicant's plan. Ayes 3, <br />Callahan, Kelley, Jabbour; Nays I, Hurr. Motion carried. • <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.