My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-10-1991 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
1990-1996 Microfilm
>
1991
>
06-10-1991 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/17/2024 2:20:02 PM
Creation date
6/17/2024 2:17:12 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.
/
304
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
r*If <br />r <br />Cook indicated that the storm sewer project would hive <br />impact on the Cottonwood trees as they should receivec sufticier.t <br />waterina from normal runoff in the arei. <br />Pam Peters, 364'" Togo Road, expressed concern abo.it the City <br />following through with its plans to establish a swale along the <br />property line of the Jehovah's Witness Churcn and to clean out <br />the existing drainage ditch. Sne said, "That has not yet been <br />done. I would just ask that the City take care of the downstream <br />people before more water is sent to us via the new storm sewer." <br />Gerhardson stated that he has delayed that project, pending <br />the outcome of this Public Haaring. <br />Beth Escher, 3556 Livingston Avenue, stated that she had sent a <br />letter to the City expressing her opposition to this project. <br />She stated that she had circulated a petition opposing the storm <br />sewer and it was signed by 66% of the residents, representing 72% <br />of the lots in the area. She said, "Since the temporary swale <br />has been installed by the City, there has been no water ponding <br />in the low area, even with the heavy rains we have had recently. <br />It is the consensus of the neighborhood that something above <br />ground can be done to alleviate the problem." <br />Karen Cuff, 3f»72 Livingston Avenue, advised that their lot h.is <br />been diug up in conjunction with a construction project they are <br />now doing. She stated that their property is now serving as an <br />additional source for the water to go. Cuff indicated that the <br />ground is totally saturated and that it is impossible for them to <br />get any equipment in to restore the yard back to its original <br />condition. <br />Attorney, Robert Mitchell, representing many of the neighbors <br />opposing the storm sew project, sta »d that his clients do <br />intend to appeal the a •. sment all • adopted. He asked Cook <br />if the storm sewer pipe w*ia v ti!t natural drainage pattern. <br />Cook stated that the pipe would basically follow the <br />existing drainage pattern, with the excepti-an of some minor <br />changes which will result from "squaring-off" on the corner of <br />certain property lines. <br />Mitchell asked Cook if it would be correct to say that a <br />drainage solution could be achieved on the ground surface, as <br />opposed to underground. <br />Cook replied, "As long as it crosses Lot 17 diagonally. If <br />yoxx were to try to direct the water along the same alignment as <br />the pipe, there would be a need to put an extremely deep ditch up <br />in that corner. The swale would have to be located pretty much <br />where it is now." <br />Mitchell asked, "Would it be safe to say that tne water is <br />following its natural drainage pattern at this time?" <br />- 2 - <br />% r.l r.*, t
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.