My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-21-2013 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
10-21-2013 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/20/2018 3:40:12 PM
Creation date
4/6/2015 3:35:19 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.
/
431
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, September 16, 2016 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 5 of 34 <br /> <br />Planning Commission feels the grading plan is appropriate in light of what the comprehensive plan and <br />code requires, the Planning Commission can recommend approval of the application and move it before <br />the City Council. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if the circular area is a big concrete paver patio area. <br /> <br />Curtis stated that was depicted on the previous plan as well. <br /> <br />Lin Yan indicated the patio is outside of the 75-foot setback. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated the heavy black line is the 75-foot setback and that some of the patio is new. <br /> <br />Leskinen questioned whether that patio would contribute to the runoff. <br /> <br />Thiesse noted the applicant is below the 25 percent hardcover limit and that the patio is outside of the 0- <br />75 foot zone. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated in his view the Planning Commission is strongly encouraged to prevent grading <br />changes that close to the shoreline. Judging by the size of the tree growing on top of the ridge, it appears <br />that the ridge has been there for a number of years and has not been heavily impacted by heavy rains. <br />Landgraver stated because of that, he would not recommend approval and that he would prefer the <br />application be tabled. <br /> <br />Lin Yan noted there was a beech tree in that area and that they had received permission to remove it. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated he understands that but that the point of his comment was that the hill has been there <br />for a number of years. <br /> <br />Lin Yan commented the soil in that area is loose and that the roots were exposed in the last storm which <br />necessitated the removal of the tree. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated it should not be the homeowner’s problem to take care of the City’s water coming off the <br />easement but that he is not sure the landowner should divert his runoff into the lake. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated that was the purpose behind her questioning the patio area. Leskinen asked if the patio <br />will carve into the hill area. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated that area is already flat and is the area where the water pools. <br /> <br />Dutra noted the darker area around the house is not all paver and consists largely of mulch. The patio is <br />only the circular area. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated until there is agreement between the City Engineer and the applicant’s engineer, it <br />seems premature for the Planning Commission to move the application forward. <br /> <br />Thiesse commented he would not argue with that. Thiesse asked whether the City allows a maximum of <br />four feet width on the stairs and whether the walls are intended to protect people from falling off the stairs <br />or what their purpose is. <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 10/21/2013 <br />Approval of PC Minutes 09/16/2013 [Page 5 of 34]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.