My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-28-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
03-28-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2023 4:07:34 PM
Creation date
1/11/2023 3:39:51 PM
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.
/
362
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
improve the situation but could create an erosion problem. Kemprslated he would be in favor of <br />retaining the one boulder wall that is still remaining since it does make the pro|)ei1y more useable and <br />would require less re-grading of the lot. <br />Lxsiie noted the applicants did not create this situation, but slated the Itoulders located in the upper area <br />appear to be more decorative than structural. Leslie stated he is unsure whether there is a direct <br />correlation between the ramp and the boulders, but that he is sensitive to Stairs recommendation and <br />the recommendation of die City Engineer that some stairs may be nece.ssary. Leslie slated retaining the <br />boulders is nut a solution. <br />Marotz stated this area was backfilled at one time and the boulders are retaining the ground. Marotz <br />indicated that area would need to be re-graded if the boulders are removed and would cause an erosion <br />issue until permanent plant eover could be c.stablishcd, which would be approximately two years. <br />Marol/. state I initially it was not necessary fur the wall to be located in that area but that fill was later <br />hauled in that now requires that wall. Marotz slated substantial work would need to be done if the wall <br />were removed and that erosion measures and extensive planting would need to be done. <br />Leslie stated the question is whether the ramp could be constructed without the boulders. <br />(#05-3074 Sean and Melissa Wambold, Continued) <br />Marotz commented cotisidcrable re-grading in that area would need to be done if the boulders arc <br />removed due to the prior backfilling. <br />Kahn stated he is in agreement with Staffs recommendation. <br />Marotz inquired whether the stairs arc excluded from the hardcover calculation. <br />Curtis stated stairs arc allowed in the 0-75* zone. <br />Kahn pointed out stairs to the lake would not Ik counted against any future project and that a stairway is <br />allowed in the 0-75 ’ area. <br />Frit/.ler stated he is aware that there are materials that can be used to pi event erosion and that there <br />probably has Ikcii a signillcanl amount of dirt that has washed down between the rocks and into the lake <br />already. <br />Kahn commented the applicants could take extra steps beyond what Is being recommended by tlie City <br />Engineer to prevent erosion if that is a major concern of theirs. <br />Maioi/. noted it would lake a couple of years Ibr any plantings to take root and become established and <br />that there would be a period of time where the applicants would not have full access to the lake. <br />Keinpf staled it is his understanding the applicants arc not osking to re-grade this back to the original <br />contours of the land.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.