Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 <br />0 <br />( #14 - 92056 Michael & Barbara Wigley - Continued) <br />Gaffron reported that the application is for land alteration conditional use permit and <br />variance to excavate in the 0 -75' zone and to install boulder retaining walls. Code sections <br />prohibit grading within 75' of the lake, as well as any hardcover in that area, and requires a <br />CUP for lakeshore alteration. <br />The application proposes two tiers of boulder walls; one at the top of a 2:1 slope, the <br />other at the base of that slope in the flood plain next to the lake. The walls would taper to <br />a 3:1 slope. A retaining wall at the top of the slope would be extended to make the lawn <br />level. A MCWD permit is required to build within that flood plain. A previous contractor <br />had been turned down by MCWD when he applied for their permit. Gaffron said he had <br />spoken with the MCWD, who saw no need for the walls. Gaffron said he concurs with <br />the finding that the walls would provide no significant stabilization. Showing an elevation <br />sketch, Gaffron said the wall would be exposed 5 -112 of the 17' height at the lake. It <br />would be difficult to screen all of this wall. Gaffron said Staff sees little justification for <br />the walls unless there was imminent failure of the slopes. Walls are not normally approved <br />by the City for aesthetic reasons or for surface soil erosion. <br />The erosion occurring by the house is in the shaded area. Fill would make this area to the <br />north and south more level and could possible be screenable with vegetation. Staff <br />currently views the site has having a natural state of shoreline, and changing it as proposed <br />will yield a layered look of ornamental vegetation. The Engineer has found no problem <br />with the proposal from an engineering standpoint, but notes there is no evidence that the <br />slope is about to fail. <br />Gaffron said the hardcover had not been measured. There is mulch with fabric within the <br />0 -75', some of which Gaffron said should stay and some should be removed. There is <br />likely a need to stabilize the ground where no grass is growing to control the erosion. The <br />drainage around the house drains towards the neighbor and fans out. <br />Peterson asked the applicant why she felt the walls were needed. Mrs. Wigley said it was <br />her feeling that erosion was occurring on both sides of the house as well as being the issue <br />on the hill. Her main concern is for safety of her family noting the vegetation on the hill is <br />full of poison ivy and poison oak. Wigley did not wish to remove the natural look of the <br />hill with grass. She said she is a maintenance -type person, who likes to take care of the <br />problem before the hill falls down and would like to remove the poisong ivy and oak. <br />Schroeder said the applicant could replace the poison ivy and oak with other vegetation <br />without requiring boulder walls. Gaffron said the City feels there is no need to grade the <br />hillside to get rid of the poison ivy and oak, and there is no slope problem requiring the <br />wall. Gaffron did agree that leveling of the top area would be helpful. Schroeder said he <br />agreed that erosion was occurring on the sides of the house, and maybe at the top of the <br />slope, but did not see any erosion at the bottom. <br />19 <br />