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
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANI�TING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> ` Monday,May 16,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Buchanich stated the closest portion of the wall would be located 150 feet from the lake. <br /> Rahn stated he would prefer to see a more detailed lake elevation showing the walls and the screening for <br /> the walls. Rahn inquired whether a decision has been made on the type of materials for the walls. <br /> Palin stated their choices are block, boulder or Keystone, <br /> Rahn stated another option would be a poured wall, noting that the potential failure of fhe wall is another <br /> concern. <br /> Palm stated they originally considered a poured wall but changed to a keystone wall because they did uot <br /> thiuk the City would approve a poured wall. Palm stated a Keystone wall would be an engineered wall. <br /> Bremer stated one of the concerns with the retaining wall is the appearat�ce from the lake,the screening, <br /> and the amount of distance between the two walls. <br /> Kempf suggested the applicant consider planting shrubs along one of the tiers. <br /> Palm stated their intent is to plant arborvitaes to help screen the wall. <br /> Jurgens stated another point to consider is the fact that at one point the wall would not be perpendicular to <br /> the lake but rather to the neighboring property and that some type of screening for the neighbor would be <br /> desirous. Jurgens iiidicated he did visit the site and in his opinion,givev flle slope, some type of retaining <br /> wall is uecessary. <br /> Jurgens expressed a concern regarding a small collection basin on the north end of the garage with a <br /> 12-inch pipe over to the swale. Jurgens questioned whether the swale would be able to handle all the <br /> runoff if the 12-inch pipe is fiill and requested the City Engineer review tt�at issue. <br /> Jurgens noted trees over sia inches were removed from this proUerty and questioned whether a <br /> replacement plan has been proposed or is uecessary. <br /> Gundlach stated every tree that has been removed is not protected by City code. <br /> Buchanich stated Gronberg has done fiill runoff calculations for this site, including the neighbor's runoff. <br /> Buchanich pointed out the site itself l�as a greater than five percent slope,which makes it difficult to <br /> create slopes that are less than five percent. <br /> PAGE 16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.