Laserfiche WebLink
'W'■r <br />•r' <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, April 25,2005 <br />7:00 o ’clock p.m. <br />PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Charlie Krogness <br />As the Park Commission would not be meeting until next week, Krogness had nothing new to <br />report. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Roland Jurgens <br />Jurgens stated tliat he had nothingio report, but.would remain for questions. <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS <br />There were none. <br />ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT <br />*5. #04-3008 VALEK AND PALMER, 4720-4750 TONKAVIEW LANE - LOT LINE <br />REARRANGEMENT (RE-PLAT) - RESOLUTION NO. 5313 <br />Morphy moved, Whtte seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5313, a Resolution <br />approving the Plat of Valefcs Saga Hill Addition, creating 3 lots where 5 lots currently exist at <br />4720/4750 Tonitaview Lane. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br />*6. #04-3010 TED CAPRA, 3534 IVY PLACE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5314 <br />Morphy moved. White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5314, a Resolution approving <br />a hardcover variance for the 75-250’ zone at 30% hardcover and denying a 0-75’ zone <br />hardcover variance for 3534 Ivy Place. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br />7. #05-3074 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 meeting to allow <br />Engineer Tom Kellogg to review the applicants’ request to allow specific portions of the walls <br />within the 75-250’ zone to remain. This area was also shown 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 staff's recommendation that approval of a hardcover variance within the 0- <br />75’ zone for 166 s.f. or 1.46% hardcover to allow portions of the existing retaining wall to remain <br />for a grassed lake access path. Staff also recommends approval of a hardcover variance within the <br />75-250’ zone to allow portions of an existing retaining wall to remain to facilitate erosion control <br />as proposed by Tom Kellogg. <br />Mr. Wambold stated that he was not in total agreement witii the Engineer’s conclusion. By <br />reducing the retaining wall to the 942’, Wambold contended that they are opening up the area to <br />erosion problems again in flte 0-75’. Above the 942’ Wambold agreed the boulders and wall could <br />be removed without problem. Again, Wambold staled that as the new homeowner, nothing was on <br />file with the city which would have flagged his attention that there was a violation in the first place. <br />PAGE 3 of 10 <br />J