My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-20-2005 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2005
>
06-20-2005 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/4/2012 11:34:51 AM
Creation date
4/4/2012 11:34:28 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
418
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
. MINIJTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> ` Monday,May 16,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Jurgens indicated he would prefer to see the specific plan �rior to approval. <br /> Rahn moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#OS-3102,Kathryn <br /> Alexander for Stonewoocl DesignBuild,920 Brown Road South, granting of a 20-foot side yard <br /> setback to the north and a 20-foot side yard setback to the south,with the understanding that the <br /> footprint proposed to be constructed is the one contained on page two of the handout and should be <br /> identical to that floor plan except with a reverse image. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Jurgens Opposed. <br /> Jurgens reiterated he would prefer to see the specific plan prior to approving it. <br /> NEW BUSINESS <br /> 3. #OS-3100 LARRY AND SHERYL PALM, 1146 WILDHURST TRAIL,VARIANCE AND <br /> CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,7:24 P.M.—8:25 P.M. <br /> Sheryl and Larry Palm,Applicants, and Blake Buchanich, West Lake Street, Orono,was present. <br /> Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting a lot area variance,a lot width variance, and a conditional use <br /> permit to allow retaining walls and grading within five feet of the adjoining lot line. Staff has concerns <br /> regarding the grading plan for this specific lot and tl�e number of retaining walls being proposed, some as <br /> high as 14 feet high. Gtmdlach stated the concerns deal with the height of tlie walls as well as <br /> maintenance of the walls and tlie need to construct a swale. <br /> Gundlach stated four grading plans have been submitted,with tlie City Engineering having reviewed two <br /> of them. Staff also has a concern that the current plan does not address construction on steep slopes. <br /> Gundlacl� indicated the City's code defiues a steep slo�e as"land having average slopes of 12 percent or <br /> greater as measured over horizontal distauces of 50 feet or tnore that are not bluffs." The Planning <br /> Commission should discuss whetlier screening should be required for any i•etaining walls and structures in <br /> an effort to preserve existing vegetation screening as viewed from the lake <br /> PAGE 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.