Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
� Cit� �of ORONO <br /> • - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> � NO. 2292 <br /> � <br /> ' • - • • <br /> A. The drainage issue was never raised in the original review of <br /> Application No. #1129 and yet the Council is now asked to believe <br /> that drainage is of major concern in the final restoration of the <br /> property. <br /> B. The City Engineer, Glenn Cook, has advised the Council tha� <br /> their decision need not be based on the environmental preferenece <br /> over an underground pipe vs the ground swale option since there <br /> is little difference in the effect on quality of water being <br /> discharged into the Iake. Given the fact that applicant has <br /> removed an existing drain tile, Cook does recommend that the <br /> method of maintaining drainage in the area must be addressed <br /> since previous retention area has been altered and underground <br /> tile �liminated. <br /> • C. Approval of the existing conditions would be a total <br /> disregard of the City's Iakeshore regulations and would be in <br /> complete conf lict of the City's Community Management Plan. <br /> D. Approval of this application would establish a negative <br /> precedent in the review of future land use applications that <br /> involve major land alteration within the lakeshore protected area <br /> and changes in existing drainage. <br /> 27. The applicants contend that their project has sustained serious <br /> delays and greater financial burden because the City failed to note <br /> grade changes. <br /> 28. Contrary to applicants' assertion, the substantial grading that <br /> has taken place on this` property would not have been realized by the <br /> mere discovery of a walkout during the plan review or by some <br /> irregularity in the excavations at the time of a footing inspection. <br /> 29. Retaining walls are considered structure and are classified as, <br /> hardcover. If such walls were original Iy planned, the applicants had <br /> the responsibility or obligation under the City's Ordinances to <br /> include the wall.s as hardcover in the application. The applicants <br /> and/or their contractor failed to provide this information with their <br /> original land use application or building permit application. <br /> 30. The applicants and/or their agents have removed trees within O to <br /> • 75 feet of the lakeshore without first obtaining a permit from the <br /> City, in violation of Section 10.22, Subdivision 3. The applicant has <br /> not submitted any information to the City as to the number and type of <br /> replacement plantings also required by that same Section of the Code. <br /> Page 8 of 13 <br />