Laserfiche WebLink
r, <br />To: Orono Court-i l Members <br />From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zonin., Admini ,trator <br />Date: October. 24, 1985 <br />Subject: #910 James Hoff, 2056 Shadywood Road - <br />Conditional Use Permit <br />Liat of Exhibits <br />Exhibit. A - Staff Memo of 6/4/85 <br />T.xhibit- B - Revised Survey and Soil Boring Results <br />Exhibit C - Landscape and trading Plan <br />Exhibit D - Planning Commi.; on Minutes 5/20/85 <br />Exhibit E - Council Minutes 6/10/85 <br />ETING <br />3;15 <br />nil% <br />This - tem was tabled at your. June 10, 1985 meeting in order to <br />al.l�'v the applicant an opportunity to provide additional supportive <br />data regarding his request to regrade portions of his lakeshore yard. <br />T�,e applicant has submitted a report of soil borings performed by <br />Mark Gronberg which indicates that near the center of the lot at the <br />crest of the slope, up to 3' oi. fill was placed at ,ome previous date. <br />A land. -,cape plan by Lan -De -Con Inc. has been r.ubmitced whic.1 <br />indicates that the only area to be regraded will be the sharp crest of <br />the hill, or a strip appr.oxima ply 35' wide- across the lot, and <br />showing no grading -7loser than '44" to tl-^ shoreline. The estimated <br />maximum cut area is _' veep at the ere. <br />Nrte a-, so ti.�it the is iscape plan indicates the placement of n. <br />tzees nd shrubber) where ,w.je exists now. The proposed stairway with <br />wood chip platforms will replace: the existing 27" wide stairway. <br />Using a porous weed seat. b, low the chips, th-z�me .s no resultant in- <br />crease in the minimal- (1.5�.: existino 0-75' hardcover. <br />This revise.i p..an a-oear. to be less extensive than the original <br />plan and disrupts a mucus smaller area of yard than was originally <br />proposed. Silt mats to prevent sediment from entering the lake can be <br />placed about halfway up the slope 30' hack from the lake. Staff would <br />anticipate no erosion problems with this now plan as ionq as proper <br />prac, ces are adhered to. <br />As the Counci lmembei s stated in .June, do engineering case could <br />be made on troth sides of the issue of whether this project is a <br />benefit from a run-off standpoint. C Lt y Lngineer, G '. e,sr. Cook, has <br />stated that the project will not be detrimental. to run-off <br />situation. Finally, noting that iowerinq the steep slope 1 tend to <br />make maintenance of the grassed slope less hazar-lous, statt submits o <br />draft resolution of approvai for your review, incorpor-Ming findings <br />and conditions pertinAnt to the project. <br />