08-18-2014 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 30 Curtis indicated it would still be one application but an approval resolution would be recorded against each property separately. Lemke asked if the sketch plan is at the proper elevation. Curtis stated it is not and that Staff is expecting some revisions to be made to the plan. Staff is also requesting clarification on the scope of the retaining walls. Lemke noted the City Engineer states that retaining walls four feet or greater in height must be designed by a licensed professional engineer. Lemke noted Staff’s report says the walls can be up to four feet. Lemke asked if the walls would be below four feet. Curtis stated her understanding is once a wall reaches four feet, it must be engineered. Gary Briggs, Applicant, stated in his view the application has been handled well by Staff and he does not have any additional comments. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:40 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:40 p.m. Schoenzeit stated it is interesting that the two properties are combined into one application when the Sundstrom property does not have a plan that has been submitted. Schoenzeit stated he would like to see, when the drawings are submitted for the other property, that they have the same minimal amount of hardcover. Curtis stated it is the intent of the 1895 property owner to have fewer hardcover improvements than the Briggs property. Curtis noted the failure on the Sundstrom/Olausen property was not as severe as it was on the Briggs property. Schoenzeit asked if the City can require that the overall goal is accomplished even if the wall does not require engineering. Thiesse stated in his opinion they are meeting the code but that meeting the minimal intent of the code does not necessarily provide a satisfactory answer. Schoenzeit stated his recommendation would be that the wall be engineered and that the overall system be looked at. Leskinen noted the Planning Commission has no authority to require that. Schoenzeit stated he would still like that to be a recommendation since it may be a public safety issue. Curtis stated the City Engineer’s comments indicate that the scope of the failure and the existing conditions on the site should be better documented via a survey, which is currently underway. Staff is Item #01 - PC Agenda - 08/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 3 of 30]