My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-25-1991 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1991
>
11-25-1991 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/26/2024 12:40:35 PM
Creation date
7/26/2024 12:38:13 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.
/
256
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
HTNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OP NOVEMBER lit 1911 <br />#1691 & #1702 - CONT. <br />Johnson asked if the lagoon would be treated as a wetland area <br />with the same setback requirements, and noted the affect upon the <br />lagoon because of the roadwev <br />Squire noted that Ceil Strauss of the <br />approved some filling of the lagoon in <br />gradual slope. <br />DNP. had conceptually <br />order to maintain a <br />Bellows asked if the roadway would meet the 26' setback from the <br />lagoon. <br />Mabusth noted that the road is alreacy .ocated within the 26 toot <br />setback and that further encroachment would require variance <br />approval. She noted that the applican.^ are working with the Army <br />Corp of Engineers and the DNR for approval. and indicated that <br />the road will be reviewed and developed by the City of Long Lake. <br />She indicated that the current loalway is right at the edge of <br />the lagouu. <br />Bellows asked how they could not deal with a major aspect of the <br />development such as the roadway. She asked what would happen if <br />the Watershed did not allow the increase in flow. Mabusth <br />indicated that a new plan would have to be s::bmitted. <br />Johnson recommended refinement of the drainage plan affecting the <br />property to the east. He felt that drainage m-y increase with <br />more vegetation planted and additional hard surface in the area. <br />Bellows asked that the covenant include maintenance <br />veg' \tion within Lh» ' setback area. <br />of natural <br />Squire indicated *.h'« per the comments of residents of Orono <br />Oaks, berms may be constructed between the properties to reduce <br />impact of the development. <br />Schroeder noted he was not comfortable and wanted to know what <br />wou-d be included within the covenant. <br />Rowlette i-nderstood that lot irea variances h*’ never been <br />granted ir a PRD development before and felt it w s a negative <br />precedent. <br />Mabusth felt there were unique findings in this s-:uation. <br />Rowlette indicated the need to protect Orono residents along the <br />property boundaries. <br />Bellows noted that if a berm were to b«^ constructed it would only <br />work on half of the boundary line because of the elevation of the <br />property. <br />Mabusth proposed that a swale may be developed on the second half <br />of the line. She asked if landscaping issues should be <br />addressed in the covenants.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.