My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Project Packet
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
B
>
Big Island
>
210 Big Island - PID: 23-117-23-23-0034
>
Land Use
>
07-3323, VAR
>
Project Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/18/2025 2:48:31 PM
Creation date
12/18/2025 2:46:32 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
119
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Tuesday, November 13, 2007 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />6. #07-3323 STRUC'IJ JRES UNLIMITED ON BEHALF OF JUDSON AND ALEYA <br />CHAMPLIN, 210 BIG ISLAND -VARIAN CE -RESOLUTION NO. 5687 <br />Ross Langhans, Structures Unlimited, was present. <br />Bremer indicated she would recuse herself from this application because she personally lmows Aleya <br />Champlin . <br />Rahn asked how the retaining wall has gone from 48 inches, as reflected in the minutes and the <br />planner's report, to seven feet in some places. <br />Langhans explained the retaining wall is required due to the septic work and that there is a portion <br />where the wall may be seven feet high. Langhans indicated the wall has to be engineered and that they <br />are confident that the wall would be of quality construction: · <br />Rahn stated normally the city engineer determines whether the wall is necessary. <br />Langhans stated to his understanding there is no standard limiting him to the 48 inches and that it is also <br />. his underst anding there is a special condition regarding retaining walls for Big Island. Langhans <br />. indicated the retaining wall became necessary due to the work on the septic system. Langhans indicated <br />:he did attempt to change the grade in that area to comply with the 48 inches but that it would require the <br />removal of a large number of trees . <br />Murphy noted the last page in the Council packet shows the area that Mr. Langhans has discussed and <br />that it appears the wall would be constructed up to the existing grade. Murphy recommended that the <br />wall be high enough that the water not run over the wall and into the septic system or the comer of the <br />house: <br />Langhans stated it is their intent to construct the wall up to the existing grade. A tiered wall was <br />considered but would need to be dismantled if the septic tank ever had to be removed. <br />Rahn inquired whether the city engineer has reviewed whether this retaining wall is necessary at the <br />proposed height. <br />Langhans stated in his view the design of the septic system was not a good design and did not take into <br />account the contours of the grade, which has resulted in the need for the retaining wall. · <br />Murphy asked whether there is going to be any runoff that will go toward the comer of the house with <br />or without the retaining wall. <br />Turner displayed the original plan that was proposed and explained that the reason the retaining wall <br />needs to extend past the house is that a swale has to be constructed as well as a tree removed to handle <br />the runoff. <br />McMillan asked whether the swale has been completed. <br />Langhans indicated the swale has been constructed and that the only thing that remains to be done is <br />construction of the retaining wall. <br />PAGE 7 of 14
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.