Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (8. #04-3002 G & L LAND INVESTMENT, LLC, 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE,VARIANCE — <br /> Continued) <br /> Gundlach confirmed that was the answer she got from her inquiry with the Public Works Department. <br /> Gaffron agreed with Gundlach's report that the City Engineer will only review another engineer's <br /> report on the risks. He indicated that it is probably not usual for the City to accept responsibility for <br /> damage done by someone else to City property, this might be a unique case and one that ought to be <br /> brought to the City Council for resolution. Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission limit <br /> their recommendation to whether or not the boathouse should be removed with some caveats that the <br /> City Council, the City Engineer and others may need to look at what the ramifications and impacts <br /> are of having the boathouse removed, or the Planning Commission could table the matter and await <br /> the engineering information before making a decision on the application. <br /> Chair Mabusth requested the applicant to express his opinion on whether to have the Planning <br /> Commission make a decision with or without the engineering risk assessment report. <br /> Mr. Guilfoil responded that he was not in favor of tabling the matter and would like to keep the <br /> process moving forward. In the meantime he would like to initiate a dialogue with staff and would <br /> like to have input into the final City Council decision. <br /> Rahn mentioned that it is an industry standard for demolition contractors to be insured for <br /> damage/repair issues and provide a bond to the City prior to commencing work. <br /> Mr. Guilfoil noted that two contractors have already passed on providing a quote for the work. <br /> Chair Mabusth asked for information about the condition of the wall that is into the slope. <br /> Mr. Guilfoil explained it was not a freestanding wall but part of the boathouse structure. <br /> Gaffron clarified the Chair's question by asking if the back concrete wall of the boathouse is viable to <br /> support the slope. <br /> Gundlach referred to a photograph that shows how the boathouse sits in relation to the slope bottom. <br /> In her view, a small retaining wall may be necessary after the removal of the boathouse, and staff can <br /> work with the applicant. <br /> Rahn believed there was about four(4') of foundation sticking up beyond the grade. <br /> Mr. Guilfoil asked for a procedural clarification regarding whether staff is empowered to work this <br /> out with them or go to the City Council. Berg indicated the matter will always proceed to the City <br /> Council. Mr. Guilfoil suggested the Planning Commission move forward with the motion on the <br /> boathouse and then he will work with staff to come up with a proposal that could be recommended to <br /> the City Council. <br /> Chair Mabusth asked for any further public comments. There were none. <br /> Page 39 of 49 <br />