My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-12-2017 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2017
>
06-12-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/24/2019 3:05:12 PM
Creation date
5/24/2019 2:54:51 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
351
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
CITY OF ORONO <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, May 15,2017 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />Thiesse stated they would run a stability analysis. <br />Leskinen noted the Planning Commission is not requiring retaining walls be put in and that they are just <br />requiring that the plan that is presented be certified by a professional engineer. <br />Schoenzeit stated on the flip side, the City almost has nothing to say about it when it has been reviewed at <br />that high level, which is the purpose of the engineer's signature. <br />Schwingler stated in his view it is a well thought out solution and that it is landscaping. <br />Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission would even see this if they were not moving that much ground <br />in the 75 -foot setback. <br />Curtis indicated that is correct. Curtis noted within the 75 -foot setback, the administrative threshold is 50 <br />cubic yards. Within the Shoreland beyond the 75 -foot setback, the administrative threshold is 500 cubic <br />yards. Curtis stated the permitting threshold is 50 cubic yards and that anything less than that outside of <br />the 75 -foot setback would not require a permit. Curtis stated it is the proximity to the lake and the <br />amount of material that is proposed to be moved that triggers the conditional use permit. <br />Curtis stated because there were solutions proposed such as the drainage pipe and the catch basin devices, <br />Staff advised the applicant that he needs an engineer. Curtis stated once those engineering solutions were <br />proposed, Staff requires an engineering review. <br />Barnhart stated the City wants some assurance that it solves the problem and at this point Staff has no <br />confidence that it will. Barnhart stated Staff wants to make sure it does not do further damage to the <br />slope. <br />Leskinen stated given the amount of analysis that is needed, she is inclined to go along with Staff s <br />recommendation and would err on the side of caution. <br />Thiesse indicated he also is leaning that way. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.