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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Moaday, May 16,2005 <br />6:00 o*clock p.ia. <br />Rahn stated he probably would be in agreement with the proposal if the city engineer approves the <br />drainage plan and that it is difficult to act on an application without that approval. <br />Bremer stated in her opinion this is a buildable lot and that she would be in hivor of the lot area and lot <br />width variances. Bremer stated she also is in agreement with allowing the retaining wall to go up to the <br />property line. <br />Rahn stated he does not want to hear later that the drainage plan may not work given the length of the <br />house. <br />Palm stated he would be able to save a month if he is allowed to go before the City Council with a <br />drainage plan that has been approved by the city engineer and staff. <br />Wink^ inquired whether there is anything else that Rahn is concerned about should the city engineer <br />approve the drainage plan. Winkey indicated he would not be opposed to moving the application forward <br />to the CHy Council subject to staff approval of the drainage plan. <br />Kempf indicated he is not opposed to the lot width and lot area variances. Kempf noted a letter from <br />Bruce Vang has been received which says the extreme topography of this lot makes it one of the most <br />difficult lots to construct on in Orono. Kempf stated in his view it is valuable to see elevations of what <br />will be seen fhxn the lakeshore and tfiat it would be valuable to have information concoming the type of <br />materials the wall would be constructed of <br />Kempf noted if the wail ever did fail, the neighboring house located below the wall could face potential <br />devastation and life-threatening impacts to that property owner. Kempf stated he would prefer to see a <br />poured wall with some type of texture. Kempf indicated he would prefer to see more information on the <br />proposal before moving it forward to the Council. <br />Gundlach noted Staffs recommendation and the City engineer’s letter has stated the wall should be <br />located at least five feet off the property line. Gundlach inquired what conditions would be imposed if the <br />wall is located within five feet of the property line. <br />Palm stated they would prefer having the wall flare towards the property line. <br />PAGE 18 <br />1 <br />I s <br />i t <br />i
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.