02-23-1998 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 (#4 - #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) . Jabbour reported that during his visit to the site, he asked the applicant to have another alternative available to the retaining wall. Jabbour said the neighbors are being affected. Silus responded that when the original plan was designed, it was shown to the neighbors, who did not voice any objection at that time. Gaffron commented that the neighbors signed an acknowledgment letter, which does not indicate their agreement to the plan. Silus countered that if there was an objection, it should have been voiced at that time. Silus felt with the error in the topographical map and T change in elevation, the issues should have been brought forward sooner. Jabbour confirmed with Silus that the plan design approved by the Council and Planning Commission did not include a retaining wall. The plan with the retaining wall was signed by the building inspector. Jabbour clarified that the applicant is able to have his driveway up to the property line. Silus said he would leave the decision to the neighbors on what option to follow, the retaining wall or driveway to the property line. Kelley asked if Silus has spoken with the Spilseths. Silus said the neighbors did not wish to communicate with him. Kelley referenced the comment by the Spilseths in their letter regarding concern with snow removal. Kelley felt this issue could be resolved. Silus said there has been no problem in the past with snow removal and was not presented as an issue until the retaining wall objection arose. He noted this issue was discussed at the Planning Commission. • Jabbour questioned where the City's position currently lays. He noted that Lyle Oman signed the site plan with changes that had not received approval. Vang confirmed that Oman missed the detail of the boulder retaining wall in the plan. Vang noted no distance was shown for the retaining wall from the property line either. Silus said it was not shown as he was unaware of the 5' setback requirement. Vang said the builder was informed of the 5' setback at the time the footings were laid. Jabbour asked that such information be presented in writing in the future. This would enable an applicant to be placed on notice immediately. Goetten suggested information should be given to applicants notifying them that any changes to plans would trigger further review. Vang indicated that their department is considering the need for plans to be signed by all involved staff. 0 6