My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-29-2021 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2021
>
03-29-2021 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/15/2021 9:22:22 AM
Creation date
4/15/2021 9:20:37 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
85
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 CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, March 8, 2021 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 6 of 23 <br /> <br />like that, speak up so the City can at least look at it and understand if there are any changes on the fly that <br />need to be made as they want to be sure they do it right the first time. <br /> <br />Seals moved, Printup seconded, to approve the 2021 Road Maintenance Project Award. VOTE: <br />Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br /> <br />23. PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY APPROVAL OF UTILITY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN <br /> <br />Edwards said this is something they may normally see on Consent Agenda. This item is to conduct the <br />design and engineering for connecting water and sewer lines from the existing sewer and water system <br />down underneath Highway 12, the railroad track, and then back up into the new parcel the City procured <br />early this year for a future potential public works facility. Normally they would go with their already <br />established engineering firm Bolton and Menk, and in this case they solicited proposals from two firms: <br />Bolton and Menk and WSB. The two proposals came in pretty close, WSB at $28,736 and Bolton and <br />Menk at $29,000. He is requesting authorization to move forward. His initial staff recommendation <br />would be to go with WSB as they have the lower number; however, the Council may want to consider <br />keeping it with the existing engineering firm due to the low difference and ease of someone they already <br />have on projects. <br /> <br />Walsh noted that essentially the bids are the same. He would suggest going with Bolton and Menk as <br />they are the City Engineering firm and they have a good working relationship. If WSB came in at $8,000 <br />less or something dramatic, but for a couple hundred bucks, if they can match that sounds reasonable. <br /> <br />Crosby stated if they will match it, yes. <br /> <br />Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to accept the bid from Bolton and Menk for the Public Works <br />Facility Approval of Utility Engineering and Design. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br /> <br />Dave Martini from Bolton and Menk thanked the Council and said they really appreciate the partnership <br />they have had for a lot of years. They enjoy working on fun projects like this and he thinks they have put <br />together a good team to manage this as well as the City’s Staff. <br /> <br />PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT <br /> <br />25. LA21-000010 CHAMBERLAIN FINE CUSTOM HOMES, 133 CHEVY CHASE VARIANCE <br /> <br />Staff presented a summary packet of information. Tonight, the Council will consider a variance <br />application for a rear-yard setback encroachment and will provide Staff with direction for a resolution. <br />The Applicants are looking to add a screened in porch to the rear of their home, which sits on a curved <br />road with neighbors on either side and Wayzata Country Club to the north of the property on the rear <br />property line. Staff, through their practical difficulty analysis, found that the practical difficulties were <br />not met. The proposed addition would have minimal impact to the neighbors and would not alter the <br />character of the neighborhood. However, the property owner has adequate use of the lot currently for a <br />single-family home and there are other locations for a conforming addition. The proposed addition acts <br />as a convenience to the property and not a necessity to the use of the lot. The Planning Commission held <br />a public hearing on February 16, 2021 with no verbal comments. The Commission reviewed Staff’s <br />analysis and the Applicant’s narrative; after discussion with the property owners and reviewing the 12 <br />letters of support from the neighborhood, the Commissioners found that due to the existing location of the
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.