My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-09-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
05-09-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2023 9:06:22 AM
Creation date
1/12/2023 8:39:46 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.
/
326
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
pcmre* <br />7. W5-3074 SEAN AND MELISSA WAMBOLD, 1379 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCE <br />AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT <br />Curtis explained that the application was tabled at the March 28"* City Council in<*eting to allow <br />Engineer Tom Kellogg to review the applicants ’ request t(^ allow specific portions of the walls <br />within the 7S-2S0’ zone to remain. This area was also show;n,by the,Neighbor as an area requiring <br />some retaining walls to help manage storm water drainage and facilitate erosion control. Curtis <br />stated that it would be staffs recommendation that approval of a hardcover variance within the 0- <br />7S’ zone for 166 s.f. or 1.46% hardcover to allow po^qns of the existing retaining w^l to remain <br />for a grassed lake access path. Staff also recommends approval of a hardcover variance within the <br />'%'y ■ ’, <br />7S-2S0' zone to allow portions of an existing retaining wall to reihain to facililitate erosion control <br />as proposed by Tom Kellogg. 4 <br />Mr. Wambotd stated that he was not in'.tdtaLagi^inent with the Engineer ’s conclusion. By <br />reducing the retaining wall to the 942’/'Waihboid contended that they are opening up the area to <br />erosion problems again in the 0-7S’. A^ve the 942’ Wambold agreed the boulders and wall could <br />» *4 <br />be removed without problem. Af^iii, Wainboid sMed that v fhe new homeowner, nothing was on <br />file with the city which would ^ve flagged his attention diat there was a violation in t .rst place. <br />Wambold also stated that he wished to keep a portion of the new flagstone patio the previous <br />owner had recently completed te b^d in to a remodel they will be proposing this fall. <br />.. lift, <br />***::•.; <br />‘•’..-.-'■.a <br />Having recalled the previous conversation of March 28 , Murphy asked what portion of the wall <br />would be allowed to temain tin,order to deter further erosion problems for Wambold and his <br />{^Yoeighbor. <br />(iy-f <br />Kellogg stated that he felt most all of the wall could be removed a.iJ tlie entire grade legarded to a <br />3:1 slope, up to the, back of the home, or the City could require just a portion of the wall be <br />removed. <br />Wambold stated that since the original project took about 2 years to complete and was an annoying <br />noisy mess to the neighbors, he was hesitant to begin a long term project that would remove 300- <br />400 tons of rock and dirt to vsgrade the entire steep yard. <br />MeMlUin asked how high the wall was at the 942’ level and how regarding might alleviate the <br />i
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.