Laserfiche WebLink
� •' r�uwTEs oF TxE <br /> ORONO CITY COUN+CIL MEETiNG <br /> � Monday,Janaary 12,2015 <br /> 7:QO o'clock p.m. <br /> (3. 2325 GLENDALE C(�YE—ENG.ROACHMENT ISSUE continued� <br /> Curtis stated to her ltnowledge the City will not be involved in that unless the Councal has a certain <br /> preference far what they would like to see planted in that area. Curtis staled to lier understandi�g the <br /> Watershed District will require native species. <br /> McMillan asked if the City would iiave required anything for the bu.ffer ar.ea as part of the subdivision <br /> even if there was no wall there. <br /> Gurtis stated at the time this deveiopment was created,the Watershed District had allowed some fillin�or <br /> some inipacts to w+etlands and wetland baffer areas. The areas ttiat were considered buffer replacement <br /> areas were expected to be vegetated by the MCWD and the City;which wasnot done in this ease. <br /> Levan�asked if the documer�cs sp�cify that. <br /> Curiis stated the Flouvage and Conservation Easemeut does specify that. <br /> Casey Hochn,property owner, stated they closed an their hause the end of January af 2014 and <br /> subsequently moved in. The retain'ing'walls were not part of the original survey from the builder since <br /> they were not sure what they were dealing wirh exactly. Hoehn stated in the spring they elected not to go <br /> with the bu�lder's landscaper and instead hired their own lands¢aper. <br /> Haelm indicated they then approached the Wat�rsl�r117istrict. Haehn stated since it was a wetland buffer <br /> area,it was his understanding the regulations of the Watershed District supersede the City's regulations. <br /> Tiiere was some back and forth with the Watershed District on the buffer area and they per#'ormed same <br /> site visits. Hoehn stated they informeii the Watershed District that they would like to construct a retaining <br /> wall in an attempt io address some sev�re erosion cantrols. Haehn indieated they did receive v�rbal <br /> approval from the Watershed District for that wali and tilaat it was not until after the final inspection by the <br /> City that they found out the wa:ll was an issue. <br /> Levang stated she appreciates the letter submit�ed by the H�e�'s a�d that it does appear tk�ey were <br /> pmactive in this matter. Levang stated she does have a question about their letter under the <br /> recommendatian�ction, Levang noted the letter states,"We will alsc�work witli the MCWD on a cast <br /> effective compromise with seeding natural gasses and vegefation in agreed upon loeations..." <br /> Levang st�ted in her uiew compromise is not ihe right t�rm and that they vu�ili ne.ed to comply with what <br /> the MCWD requires. Levang stated the Council needs to be assured that they will do wh�tever is <br /> n�cessary to protect the wetland and buffer aneas and that the l�nguage she read sounds a little <br /> equivocating. <br /> Haehn s#ated when he said compromise,he was spe�king more to a cost ef�c;ctive solution. Hoehn sta#ecI <br /> under the approval of the Watershed Districf,they were pmvid�d a boun�lary, which is depict�cl in the <br /> pictures as the second silt fenee.Hnehn indi.c�ted th�y then used that as our boundary. Hoeha stated he <br /> would be willing to replace cextain areas witti natural grass but that he has already ineurred the cost of sod <br /> and irrigafion. Hoehn sfated he was hopin�he�ould speak with the Watershed Distriet about a possible <br /> compramise w�ere he would not have to tear up all the sod. <br /> Page S of 19 <br />