My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-12-2016 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2016
>
09-12-2016 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2019 1:34:55 PM
Creation date
4/4/2017 3:54:06 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.
/
812
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 PLANNING COWNMSION MEETING <br />Monday, August 15, 2016 <br />6:30 Web ek pm. <br />In regards to the drainage, Staff does not believe that is an issue. The adjoining neighbor to the <br />immediate west has stated to the applicant that the retaining wall as constructed does not affect him and <br />that it may serve to reduce drainage onto his property, which he views as positive. <br />If the City Council approves the conditional use permit, the property owners will be required to enter inw <br />an. encroachment agreement with the City, to be filed with the title of the property. The encroachment <br />agreement notifies the property owner that the City has the right to remove the retaining wall should the <br />easement area ever been needed. <br />Gaffron displayed photographs of the retaining wall and adjoining area, <br />Staff has reviewed the wall as constructed and observed its relationship to the driveway and neighboring <br />property. The approved plan had the wall directly abutting the edge of *e driveway, which is allowable <br />by code but creates a less -than perfect safety condition by creating an immediate drop-off that leaves no <br />room for driver error. While the wail was not constructed according to the approved plan, it serves the <br />function of retaining earth to allow for a functional driveway while not being located at the very edge of <br />the driveway. This would appear to be a safer situation than the approved plan. <br />Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the existing retaining wall as <br />currently located, subject to the property owner entering into an encroachment agreement establishing <br />parameters for the continued existence of the wall within the drainage and utility easement. <br />Thiesse asked whether the wall could be replaced in kind in the future in its current location. <br />Oaffron indicated they would require a permit if the wall is relocated and that the City would likely also <br />require a review of the conditional use permit if the wall is rebuilt in the same location. <br />Thiesse asked if the properly owners could build a similar wall in a different location if the City decided <br />that it needed that area for a drainage way. <br />Page 2 of 32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.