My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-27-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
06-27-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2023 9:48:03 AM
Creation date
1/12/2023 9:14:01 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.
/
348
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
t . <br />I <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MoMiay, May 16,2005 <br />6:00 o’clock p.ai. <br />Biichanich stated the closest portion of the wall would be located I SO feet from the lake. <br />Rahn stated he would prefer to see a more detailed lake elevation showing ,he walls and the screening for <br />the walls. Rahn inquired whether a decision has been made on the type of materials for the walls. <br />Palm stated their choices are block, boulder or Keystone. <br />Rahn stated another option would be a poured wall, noting that the potential failure of the wall is another <br />concern. <br />Palm staled they originally considered a poured wall but changed to a keystone wall because they did not <br />think the City would approve a poured wall. Palm stated a Keystone wall would be an engineered wall. <br />Bremer stated one of the concerns with the retaining wall is the appearance from the lake, the screening. <br />and the rnnount of distance between the two walls. <br />Kempf suggested the applicant consider planting shrubs along one of the tiers. <br />Palm slated their intent is to plant arborvitaes to help screen the wall. <br />Jurgens stated anodier point to consider is the fact that at one point the wall would not be perpendicular to <br />the lake but rather to the neighboring property and that some type of screening for the neighbor would be <br />desirous. Jurgens indicated he did visit die site and in his opinion, given the slope, some type of retaining <br />wail is necessary. <br />Jurgens expressed a concern regarding a small collection basin on the north end of the garage with a <br />12-inch pipe over to the swale. Jurgens questioned whether the swale would be able to handle all the <br />runoff if the 12-inch pipe is full and requested the City Engineer review that issue. <br />Jurgens noted trees over six inches were removed from this property and questioned whether a <br />replacement plan has been proposed or is necessary. <br />Gundlach stated every tree that has been removed is not protected by City code. <br />Buchanich stated Oronberg has done full runoff calculations for this site, including the neighbor’s runoff. <br />Buchanich pointed out the site itself has a greater than five percent sir pe, which makes it difficult to <br />create slopes that are less than five percent <br />PAGE 16
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.