My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-25-2013 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2013
>
02-25-2013 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2021 3:05:00 PM
Creation date
4/7/2015 12:43:11 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.
/
286
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, February 11, 2013 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> Page 14 of 24 <br /> <br /> <br />(6. #12-3582 COLSON CUSTOM HOMES ON BEHALF OF BWB HOLDINGS, LLC, 4731 <br />NORTH SHORE DRIVE – VARIANCE – RESOLUTION – TABLED, Continued) <br /> <br />Gaffron noted there are still slopes of 20 percent in the area where the house is located. If you were to try <br />to meet the setback, the lot would be barely buildable. Exhibit B shows a 12-foot setback for the house <br />and then a deck that is shown within a couple of feet from the top of bluff on posts. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated he would caution the builder that they are close to the bluff and that they will have to have <br />some good engineering and be knowledgeable about what they are doing. <br /> <br />Struve stated he would also recommend that the applicant submit engineering to prove the stability of the <br />slope. <br /> <br />Levang asked if that bluff has failed previously. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated approximately 20 plus years ago there was a failure on this property that was repaired with <br />internal bracing and tiebacks. With the recent situation next door where there was a failure, the area had <br />been walled years and years ago. There is no indication at this point what the condition is of that existing <br />wall and at the moment it appears to be stable. <br /> <br />Levang asked what accounts for the differences between the 2006 survey and the newest survey. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated it is simply two different surveyors doing two different versions of the topography. <br />Gaffron stated Staff has to go by what is presented by the surveyors and that they are not aware of any <br />changes made to the slope between the old survey and the newer one. <br /> <br />Bremer stated the question is whether the Planning Commission should review this application again, but <br />that the topography does not look that much different on the two surveys and that it comes down to the <br />location of the bluff line. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the difference between the contours is half on one survey than on the other, which <br />significantly changes the percent of slope. <br /> <br />Bremer commented the angles at which they were done appear similar and that there could be a variation <br />of nature that could have changed it. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted the drainage on both surveys is basically the same. <br /> <br />Rodney Colson, Colson Custom Homes, stated the aerial photograph does show the property and the <br />bluff. The reason the bluff line has changed is due to the unimproved street from North Shore Drive <br />down to the lake, which essentially has its own ravine or ditch running straight down to the water. The <br />contour line dips up, the bluff line turns and goes through where the building pad is, and then follows a <br />different line other than the water line. Colson stated to his understanding it is a15-foot unimproved street <br />to the lake. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated it might be 30 feet. <br /> <br /> <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 02/25/2013 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 02/11/2013 <br />[Page 14 of 24]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.