My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/22/2005 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
02/22/2005 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2012 9:20:59 AM
Creation date
3/9/2012 9:20:57 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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 PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,February 22,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#05-3074 Sean and Melissa Wambold,Continued) <br /> Marotz stated if some grading is to occur, it could be graded in such a way that a portion of the wall <br /> could be retained. <br /> Rahn stated in his view one of the issues is the visual impact from the lake and that typically all that is <br /> seen from the lake are boulders. Rahn stated the City Engineer has determined that the boulder wall is <br /> not necessary and that the applicants are not required to have a stairway down to the lake. <br /> Leslie noted the stairway being discussed by the Planning Commission and the City Engineer would be <br /> allowed in the 0-75' zone and not in the area where the ramp is being proposed. <br /> Wambold commented if the objective is to reduce the hardcover below 168 square feet of hardcover <br /> within the 0-75' zone, leaving a portion of the boulder wall and having a ramp would be better than <br /> constructing stairs. <br /> Rahn stated if the stairs are not necessary at all,then the Planning Commission would prefer no stairs. <br /> Fritzler commented in his view this slope may not need a stairway. <br /> Marotz noted the City Engineer did recommend that stairs be allowed on this property due to the slope. <br /> Wambold stated they would rather have a ramp than stairs. Wambold asked if they are able to reduce <br /> the hardcover to below 168 square feet, whether they would be permitted to leave a portion of the <br /> boulder wall. <br /> Rahn inquired where the 168 square feet figure comes from. <br /> Marotz indicated that is the amount they calculated would be needed to construct a stairway to the lake. <br /> Kempf commented functionally the boulder wall is probably less disruptive to the whole yard as far as <br /> erosion control than to re-grade and that the same objective could be achieved by reducing the boulder <br /> wall to 168 square feet or less, with removal of the fire pit. Kempf stated in his view there is nothing <br /> particularly offensive with having one boulder wall. <br /> Rahn inquired how the length of the wall would be shortened. <br /> Marotz stated down at the bottom of the wall they would not be able to remove any of the boulders but <br /> that they could relocate some of the dirt towards the top and eliminate possibly the first 15 feet of the <br /> wall. <br /> Rahn stated in his view there still is the visual affect of the wall from the lake. <br /> Curtis noted in past situations where a retaining wall has been allowed to remain the City has required <br /> vegetative screening of the wall. <br /> PAGE 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.