My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-27-2006 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2006
>
11-27-2006 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2012 4:40:29 PM
Creation date
7/25/2012 4:40:29 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
4 r <br />• <br />ORONO CITY <br />Monday, P <br />7:00 <br />(5. #05 -3135 ALLEN MUNSON, 3165 <br />McMillan inquired whether any of the existing <br />Munson stated the City would not allow him to <br />would be required. <br />White requested a clarification on the fill. <br />ES OF THE <br />OUNCIL MEETING <br />vember 27, 2006 <br />clock p.m. <br />SHORE DRIVE, Continued) <br />ion is going to be utilized. <br />the existing foundation due to the variances that <br />Gaffron stated the applicant is working with the Mandels to obtain an easement in order to create a <br />drainage swale to direct the drainage more in its natural flow across the Mandel property. Gaffron <br />indicated the Mandels are not opposed to the ease mlent. <br />Gaffron stated there is an underground garage with a circular driveway above it. The current survey <br />suggests that there will be grading right up to the lot line rather than five feet off of the property line. The <br />impact of stopping the grading five feet from the property line would result in a ditch along the property <br />line and would have some impact on how the runoff would flow past the neighbor's retaining wall. <br />Kellogg stated he did briefly review the grading plans prior to tonight's meeting and that it appears the <br />proposed drainage would work but that there is a question on the exact location of the retaining wall. The <br />fill brought in would be lower than the top of the all but would raise the grade on the Munson side. <br />Kellogg recommended the location of the retaimngwall be clarified. <br />is Gaffron stated the City has a code that restricts grading within five feet of the property line except if it is <br />to create a drainage swale. The issue is that there is filling proposed up against the lot line to create the <br />drainage swale rather than cutting away the dirt. Gaffron stated the elevation would still be lower on the <br />Munson property. <br />White inquired how high the fill would go. <br />Munson stated it would be approximately two feet higher and that he is keeping it one foot below the <br />retaining wall. <br />McMillan inquired whether there would be <br />Kellogg stated that is the only way that a swale <br />eventually go away once vegetation becomes e; <br />without the fill <br />be established in that area and that the erosion will <br />McMillan commented it appears that without the fill there would be a big drop -off on the one side of the <br />structure. <br />Munson stated some water from the property to <br />attempting to correct that situation. <br />White stated in a situation where there is grading <br />permission of the adjoining property owner. <br />Murphy stated he is hesitant to approve a six-foot <br />there is an agreement by the affected adjoining pr, <br />north drains onto his property and that he is <br />to the lot line, the Council generally requires the <br />ce into the average lakeshore setback even if <br />owner. <br />PAGE 5 of 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.