Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />Planning Commission Chairman Kelley <br />Orono Planning Commission Members <br />City Administrator Bernhardson <br />0 <br />From:Michael P. Gaffron» Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />Date:June 13, 1991 <br />Subject: #1604 Clair and Lynn Rood - 2215 Kenwood Way - <br />Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Third Review <br />Additional Detail <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A <br />Exhibit B <br />Exhibit C <br />Exhibit D <br />Exhibit E <br />Exhibit F <br />Revised Topographical Survey Showing Walls <br />Revised Revegetation Plan Showing Pillars <br />Construction Detail, Walls 6 Pillars <br />City Engineer Letter 5/20/91 <br />Planning Commission Action Notice 5/22/91 <br />Memo & Exhibits of 5/15/91 <br />Discussion <br />This item was tabled at Planning Commission's May meeting <br />in order for applicant to provide additional detail regarding the <br />brick pillars and the proposed retaining walls. <br />The additional information provided indicates (on the <br />Revegetation Plan) the approximate location of pillars along <br />"Hillside Place". The diagram doesn't indicate that pillars are <br />also proposed (and in place) along Navarre Lane and along the <br />northeast lot line back from Navarre Lane. Applicant has <br />provided an elevation view of his proposed hedge between the <br />pillars, with the pillars at both the Planning Commission's <br />3-1/2' recommended height and at applicants proposed pillar <br />height of 4'-6". <br />Regarding the retaining walls, two walls each of 100' length <br />and 3'-8" height are proposed at the northwest and southwest <br />quadrants of the lot respectively, apparently for the purpose of <br />reducing the bank slope of spoils to be deposited. The Building <br />Inspection Department has advised that at this height, these <br />walls don't require a building permit, but will be included as <br />part of the land alteration permit if approved. The Building <br />Inspectors also note that no safety railing or barrier is <br />required for these walls because they are not adjacent to the <br />house. <br />It is staff's understanding that the concrete wall blocks <br />giZB a split~face stone design, more aesthetically pleasing than <br />standard foundation blocks. The City Engineer has been asked to <br />review the revised grading plan and retaining wall plan, however, <br />we have no report from him as of this writing. No significant <br />changes from his comments in the May 20th letter are anticipated.