My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-11-2017 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2017
>
09-11-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2019 8:02:13 AM
Creation date
5/29/2019 7:49:04 AM
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.
/
242
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 <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, August 21, 2017 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />Lemke asked if all the water runoff will be away from the neighbor's property and oriented towards the <br />lake. <br />Fretham stated the biggest runoff will be from the rooftops and that the gutters will direct it towards the <br />storm management system. Fretham stated there will be some treatment by the driveway and the only <br />water that is going to end up between the two houses will just be surface water. The other runoff will end <br />up in the shady area. Fretham noted the arrows on the plan depict the direction of the surface water and <br />not off the roof. <br />Peter Graffunder, 3630 Casco Avenue, asked if there will be any attempt to mitigate the hardcover <br />stormwater that comes off the driveway and straight into the lake. Graffunder noted that runoff will have <br />salt from Ivy Place and in his view that should also be handled with some type of treatment. <br />Thiesse noted it is not being handled now. <br />Landgraver asked if the Planning Commission has settled on a 12 -foot road. <br />Thiesse noted that is what is shown, and if it is approved, they would require a variance. <br />Barnhart indicated that would need to be approved as part of preliminary plat and that it has been <br />identified as an issue. <br />Schoenzeit stated the City should go in thinking it is going to be 12 feet wide because they do not want <br />someone to build a nonfunctional road and then be forced to deal with it after the fact. Schoenzeit stated <br />eight feet is not functional. <br />Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission would like to table the application. <br />Lemke stated he does not need to see the additional information. <br />Schoenzeit commented it would be nice to have the top number for fill limited to 1,250 cubic yards. <br />Page 16 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.