My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-12-1989 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1989
>
06-12-1989 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/21/2025 12:56:58 PM
Creation date
4/21/2025 12:51:29 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.
/
503
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
Zoning File #1391 <br />April 13, 1989 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />3. It is clear that low elevations on the neighbors' property cause him <br />potential basement water problems due to run-off from applicant's <br />property. The neighbors entire lakeshore yard appears to be between <br />elevation 930 and 931, very near lake level. Construction of the <br />retaining wall as proposed, along with a swale just in from <br />applicant's lot line at the top of the wall, will help direct drainage <br />away from the neighboring property. In order to accomplish this, a <br />portion of th retaining wall will have to be located in the 0-75' <br />zori6 • <br />4. City Engineer Glenn Cook has reviewed the site with the applicant and <br />suggests that the wall be shortened up somewhat from applicant's <br />proposal. The applicant feels that shortening it to the extent <br />suggested by the Engineer may not solve the maintenance problems <br />associated with mowing such a steep dropoff. <br />Discosslon - <br />As part of construction of this residence in 1984, applicant did some <br />necessary grading in the 0-75' zone to protect neighboring property from <br />drainage problems, however that grading was not completely effective in <br />keeping drainage off the neighbors' property, and resulted in a steep bank <br />applicant has a problem mowing. <br />Th© issue in this case is whether the City will allow structure and <br />fill in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. The Engineer feels that the area <br />where the -^all is proposed at 3' to 5' in height can be moved back to <br />approximately the setback of the neighbors' deck, to help reduce the visual <br />impact of the wall. This will leave a somewhat angled slope rather than the <br />uniform slope from side to side that the applicant hopes to obtain. The <br />other concern visually, is that if the wall is just inside the lot line as <br />proposed, it cannot be adequately screened by the applicant since any <br />bushes he would plant would be on the neighbors' property. Also, where the <br />retaining wall exceeds 30" above the lower grade, there is the concern that <br />some type of shrubbery should be planted as a barrier to keep people from <br />walking off the edge. <br />Applicant notes in his letter of request that with the wall in place <br />he will then be able to plant trees along the lot line without blocking his <br />view. As the grades currently run, he could not expect trees to grow on <br />the slope that exists, and would have to place them from 5 to 15' int%- the <br />lot at the crest of the existing slope. ^ <br />Applicant will not be at the meeting due to business conflicts, but <br />requests your review of the application since he is attempting to <br />coordinate obtaining fill from the Berrys, who are going to be constructing <br />a new residence directly west of the applicant this spring. Holding the <br />application back for a month may eliminate his opportunity to obtain excess <br />fill from the Berry project.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.