My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-11-2017 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2017
>
12-11-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2019 11:13:20 AM
Creation date
5/29/2019 10:50:36 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.
/
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
17-3988, 17-3989, 17-3990 <br />November 20, 2017 <br />Page 9 of 10 <br />is subject to a floodplain alteration permit governed by the MCWD. The applicant has submitted <br />an application to the MCWD along with the required plans and engineering. Staff finds the <br />proposed vacation and CUPS for the project reasonable with meeting all the requirements for a <br />condition use permit for grading the floodplain and land alterations. <br />Staff does not support the filling of the wetland for beach improvements. <br />Engineer Comments <br />The engineer has given comments at the time of preliminary plat, see attached Exhibit F, which <br />must be met before final plats can be approved. The engineer gave an addition comment to <br />ensure the newly created easement over the city sewer line is at minimum 10 feet wide on either <br />side of pipe, which totals a 20 foot wide easement needed. <br />Public Comments <br />To date, no public comments have been received. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. The Planning Commission should discuss the impact of trucking and hauling earth to <br />and from this site, as the applicant proposed a range of 130-230 total trucks to <br />complete the project. <br />2. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the <br />property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br />3. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the <br />essential character of the neighborhood? <br />4. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the <br />impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? <br />5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Planning Staff Recommendation <br />The Planning Commission may consider the following motions and make them separately as they <br />pertain to their application number: <br />1. 17-3988: Approval of the wetland setback approval of a variance for a driveway <br />exceeding the 8' maximum width for driveways in the shoreland setback variances <br />contingent on the following <br />a. Final Plat Approval <br />b. MCWD Aprpoval of the wetland buffer impact <br />2. 17-3989: Staff recommend approval of the proposed driveway and underground <br />utility easement vacation with the replacement of a new utility easement contingent <br />the following <br />a. Final Plat Approval <br />b. Engineering Comments <br />c. Replacement with new utility easement on final plat approval and all <br />engineering comments are met. <br />3. 17-3990: Approval for the proposed Conditional Use Permits for filling 1000+CY of fill <br />in the floodplain, moving over 50 CY of earth within the 75 foot lakeyard, and 500 CY <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.