Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,April 21,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen noted the property owners are allowed to replace the stairs. <br /> Thiesse stated he does not want to design it for them,but that it is a question of whether the stairs can be <br /> constructed without the wall. <br /> Leskinen asked if the grading for the stairs will weaken the slope. <br /> Thiesse stated it would be nice to have an edge along the stairs, which the wall will provide,but that there <br /> are other people in the community that have constructed stairs without a wall. <br /> Lemke asked what the negatives are with the wall. <br /> Thiesse stated the wall is a good idea but that there might be other ways of doing it that would meet the <br /> codes of the City without the need for a variance. <br /> Landgraver stated he agrees the Planning Commission has to review anything that is going into the 0-75 <br /> foot zone very closely. Landgraver stated without having an engineering background, in his view the geo <br /> block provides some further stability and slows the erosion,which is a benefit. Landgraver stated he <br /> cannot contrast the wall to plantings and whether that would maintain the existing slope. <br /> Sedgwick stated plantings would be able to accomplish the holding or integrity of the slope,but that it is <br /> very likely someone else will be at the podium to propose a retaining wall to hold the slope since over <br /> time it will encounter the same issues. <br /> Sedgwick stated as it relates to the geo block cells, on this application the geo block can be placed directly <br /> on the soil and then the cells would be filled with soil. Sedgwick noted one of the comments from the <br /> Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was that a sub cut of roughly eight inches would be good as well as <br /> three-quarter clear rock beneath the geo cells. The purpose of that is it then would act as a chimney drain <br /> allowing waters that travel all the way up from the new foundation to have a perk rate,which is what the <br /> Watershed District was very interested in an. That perk rate would allow the waters to find some relief on <br /> the hillside prior to the continual erosion down the hillside. Sedgwick stated if that application were <br /> done, it might be possible to keep the finished elevation of the wall lower since some of the erosion <br /> would be stopped before it goes down the slope. <br /> Thiesse stated he does not have a problem with the height of the proposed wall but that he has a problem <br /> with granting a hardcover variance for the 0-75 foot zone. Thiesse stated the question is whether the <br /> problem is totally being fixed. <br /> Sedgwick stated if they review the adjacent shoreline properties,they will find that one of the properties <br /> has a small retaining wall for the same reasons. <br /> Thiesse asked if it for the same reason or to create a flat spot down by the lake. <br /> Sedgwick stated she cannot answer that. <br /> Thiesse stated he does not have a problem with the wall but that the Planning Commission needs to <br /> thoroughly discuss whether a hardcover variance should be granted in the 0-75 foot zone. Thiesse <br /> indicated he cannot say the wall is not necessary. <br /> Page 12 of 19 <br />