My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-14-1994 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1994
>
02-14-1994 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/8/2023 12:59:23 PM
Creation date
12/8/2023 12:52:28 PM
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.
/
362
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
lEQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />DATE: <br />ITEM NO <br />Departmoit Approval: <br />N mic Ifannc A. Mabusth <br />Title ftulding & Z(»iiig AdministriKg <br />AHminUtratnr RevicWCd:AcndaSjBl^; <br />Zoning <br />Item Descriptioa: #1818 Russell Lund Estate/ Barbara Lund Estate. 905 Tonkawa Road - Final <br />Subdivision - Resolution <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Resolution #3277 - Granting Preliminary Approval of Subdivision <br />B Final Plat <br />C - Report by Dennis Marhula of Westwood Engineering Plus Exhibits <br />D - Shawn Gustafson Report 11/8/93 <br />E • Plan for Access Stair by Muonio Construction <br />F - Gustafson Report of 6/8/93 <br />G > Council Minutes 5/10/93 <br />The applicant has paid the required fees as set forth in resolution including the park dedication <br />fee of $25,200,00. The applicants have not been able to complete the removal of debris on Lot <br />1 nor has cement base of independent antenna been removed. The antenna base located within <br />ihe kennel has been altered to meet City’s directive. The early snowfall and constant extreme <br />cold weather this winter has prevented any further work in the exterior yard. <br />The directives of the Council at preliminary approval was to have the asphalt ramp removed <br />within the lakeshore yard. Since preliminary approval, applicants have submitted at least two <br />plans prepared by their contractor, review Exhibit E. The final plan submitted by applicants’ <br />contractor was not accepted by the City Engineer because it would have created potential erosion <br />problems and did not address the special needs of the sensitive drainage area. The asphalt ramp <br />serves to carry all drainage from the local watershed to lake. Applicants have hired an engineer <br />to review the area and consider alternatives of providing access and impact of the removal of <br />the ramp. Please review Exhibits C and D. Both engineers concur that we are dealing with a <br />highly sensitive area and that any disturbance may, if not addressed properly, will create major <br />erosion problems. The City E^ineer has provided Council with at least four alternatives in <br />dealing with the asphalt ramp. Glenn Cook will be present to answer any questions members <br />of the Council may have. <br />Options of Acl <br />1.Allow asphalt ramp to remain in place and restrict vehicle access <br />I
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.