Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,July 15,2019 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Thompson recommended the Planning Commission decline this particular application and Dale should <br /> say to his contractor that they are going to revisit this once they get some answers to the type of growth <br /> that will be in there to help hold the soil before putting in other structures. The water and dirt are washing <br /> into the lake right now since it is really loose soil, and the best thing to do is to apply some pressure on <br /> his contractor to get a solid plan. <br /> Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. <br /> Libby stated he would agree with Staff's recommendation. Libby commented he is very familiar with <br /> this design and that he has seen it on a steeper grade. In 2017,that structure was 80 years old and is still <br /> standing. <br /> Libby stated in his view this is a practical design, and if the City Engineer is satisfied and the <br /> Conservation District reviews it and approves it,he would tend to be in favor of this since this is a long- <br /> term correction that is way overdue. <br /> Ressler stated the action plan underneath the ground is pretty detailed but the plan for above ground needs <br /> some more detail. Overall it appears to be very well thought out. <br /> McCutcheon commented he appreciates the neighbor's concerns and that he would again encourage the <br /> applicant to have his engineer provide as much detailed information as possible. When there are failure <br /> points,there should be some redundancies in place to help prevent future failures. If the desired <br /> information is provided to the City Engineer, he would not have a problem with the application. <br /> Ressler asked if the Watershed District will look at this. <br /> Curtis indicated they would not necessarily review the walls but that they would look at the riprap and <br /> floodplain. Staff is working with the Watershed District in parallel with this application. Any further <br /> information can be submitted with the building permit application. <br /> Erickson commented this is the second time tonight that they have had an applicant step up and go the <br /> extra mile to come up with a long-term solution. As a result,he would be happy to support the <br /> application. <br /> Bollis stated he also is in support of it subject to the information being supplied to the City Engineer and <br /> him signing off on it. <br /> Gettman noted the Planning Commission is just approving the concept with the caveat that the <br /> information is provided to the City Engineer. <br /> Ressler stated as long as they are not changing the level of grading,that is what he is after, and that he <br /> wants to avoid any sort of approval that would dramatically change the slope. The applicant should stay <br /> in compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer and provide the requested information. If <br /> that is done,he would be in support of it. <br /> Gettman asked if they should wait until the City Engineer approves the final design before approving the <br /> request. <br /> Page 12 of 17 <br />