My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-21-2011 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
11-21-2011 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2012 4:53:07 PM
Creation date
8/15/2012 4:52:54 PM
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.
/
250
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
. • <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSISON MEETING <br /> Monday,October 17,2011 ' <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Koehler indicated it is. <br /> . Schoenzeit asked if the City has any engineering reports on the retaining wall. <br /> Curtis stated Staff does not have any engineering specific to the wall. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if they can request an opinion from an engineer on the wall. <br /> Curtis stated the wall would likely need to be taken apart to find out what is undemeath it and that it <br /> would be difficult to obtain an engineering opinion. <br /> Koehler stated he would have expected someone to have pulled permits on the retaining wall and <br /> evaluated at the time it was constructed. <br /> Curtis stated it was probably pernutted at the time the foundation of the house was constructed. <br /> Robinson stated it likely was engineered given the size of the stones. <br /> Koehler commented it is a massive structure and gets larger as it goes towards the back of the house. <br /> Gaffron stated he is not personally familiaz with property but that on the original approved plan it shows <br /> the top of the wall at 948'. It was also depicted as a 6-foot high wall proposed which ended up being nine <br /> feet. <br /> Leskinen commented additional problems with the drainage could be created by removing a portion of the <br /> retaining wall. <br /> Landgraver asked as it relates to the turnaround, given the angle of the driveway,if the applicant has <br /> considered putting the turnaround in front of the existing garage. <br /> Koehler indicated that would be an option but that he is not sure how that would impact the hardcover. <br /> Schoenzeit noted he would be pushing the hardcover further out into another zone. <br /> Koehler stated he does not need all of the proposed turnaround and that he originally included it for <br /> aesthetic reasons. Koehler state the turnaround could be shortened and relocated. <br /> Landgraver stated given the hardcover restrictions,the applicant may want to relocate the turnaround. <br /> Levang asked whether portions of the driveway could be heated. <br /> Robinson indicated the driveway would then need to be tom out and replaced. <br /> Thiesse commented the current turnaround is difficult to use with a lazger vehicle. <br /> Koehler indicated they have gotten stuck in the driveway a couple of times this past winter. According to <br /> Code,they are required to have a turnaround. Koehler indicated they have to back the car stxaight back <br /> Page 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.