My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-09-2002 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2002
>
12-09-2002 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/4/2025 12:35:47 PM
Creation date
2/9/2023 9:56:06 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.
/
310
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 />Monday, November 18,2002 <br />6:30 o’clock pan. <br />4) plans should identify the boulder sizes and types to be used for retaining walls <br />5) prop<2sed plant types should be identified on the plans <br />6) elevations should include the proposed native plantings to review the amount of <br />screening provided <br />7) all tree and plant removals should be identified on the plan <br />8) more detail, including materials, drainage area served, storm event sizing, etc. should be <br />provided regarding the ‘Tirst Flush Drain Zone” <br />9) plans should identify erosion control measures proposed to protect the lake during <br />construction <br />10) plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for review and <br />I <br />comment <br />Gafifron pointed out that the proposed boulders will add a significant amount of hardcover <br />to the west 0-75’ zone (39.5% per the submittal calculation). <br />Gaffron maintained that the current proposal appears to continue the applicants’ apparent <br />goal of creating a wide yard that walks out from the new door elevations where a narrow, <br />higher yard previously existed. He encouraged the Plaiming Commission to review the <br />pre- and post- construction photos, which further show the amount of clearcutting that has <br />resulted from the grading work in the west 0-75’ yard. Gaflfron displayed a sketch <br />depicting the grade changes that had been made. <br />Notwithstanding the obvious need to protect the undercut shoreline from further eros^, <br />Gaffron noted that the current plan has a number of aspects, which require Plarming <br />Commission consideration so as to, direct the applicant how to proceed. Gaffron <br />encouraged the Commission to consider the following three options or questions when <br />reviewing the boulder wall/landscaping plan. <br />1) Should the grade be returned to their pre-construction status as part of the boulder wall <br />project? Impacts of which would be <br />PAGE 22 of 28
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.