Laserfiche WebLink
MEt, i•ES OF TRE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />. MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 28, 1994 <br />(46 - #1968 - Bangert -Continued) <br />The Applicant's plan calls for a driveway of 8-10% slope, entering at the east end of the <br />lot with wing walls to the rear. The driveway would nm across the front of the <br />property and then turn back toward the building pad. After walking the Proper ty Gaon <br />noting the large number of mature trees which would be destroyed by Plan, <br />has developed another possible approach to the building pad- It was suggested that the <br />ay come up the East side of the property to dude retaining walls on both sides <br />Id be affected by this plan in <br />creating a trench -like entry into the property. Less trees wou <br />the 0-75' zone. The amount of retaining <br />halls would double, resulting in higher cost to <br />the applicant but would have less visual impact from the lakeshore. Gaffron said the <br />DICTA is in favor of a lesser visual impact. The amount of hardcover in the 0-75' zone <br />would decrease from 42% to 12% by this Plan- The City Engineer has indicated both <br />plans are feasible. <br />Builder, Jerry Roelofs, said this plan had beenconsidered but with the greater cut and <br />substantially- Jabbour noted that financial <br />more retaining walls, the cost would increase <br />hardship cannot be taken into consideration in the decision. Roelofs said Staff plan <br />would give the perception of a narrower lot with the deep tunnel -like cut- He is <br />concerned with the. amount of soil to be removed and the run-off in the area. <br />Roelofs also noted the safety issue of cars using the driveway in <br />ninclee , a Lanment do <br />is <br />more of a problem with Staffs plan. There would be no safety <br />a�f st Lori allows fora guard rail - <br />protect a car from sliding onto the roadway. The app p <br />Cook said the applicant's plan with a driveway angle has safety benefits - <br />west <br />Hurr asked about the plan being changed from driveway access being <br />20,enmt ith the County <br />of the <br />property line to now 30'. It was c�amm'erzted n the e�asttel ly 70horigiM � t• . <br />approved of the driveway a Point <br />Kelley brought up the idea of acquiring an easement from a neighbor for a driveway. It <br />was noted that the City can only recommend this option. The applicants indicated that <br />the neighbors had been approached but neither were in favor of an easement. <br />on resulting in the <br />Harr moved, Kelley seconded, to approve <br />lish ac�cess��s a� the property owner, <br />mini variance necessary to accomp <br />said the County Engineers recommended the cut as their plan presents. Larson said <br />preliminary approval had been obtained, and with this <br />taff Staffas Present"ing another plan 21 <br />directed to go ahead with <br />this late date. Jabbour agreed �th this noting Kelk and Jabbour. <br />finalizing the applicant`s plan. Ayes 1, Hurr; IN <br />3, Callahan, ey, <br />Motion failed_ <br />Jabbour moved, Callahan seconded, to adopt Resolution 93499 to nditionali approves appl��t � glan. Ayes 3er <br />varianc <br />the resolution draft in the packets which co y <br />Callahan, Kelley, Jabbour; Nays 1, Hurr. Motion carried. <br />�� 6 <br />