Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, July 13, 2020 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 9 of 19 <br /> <br />16. LA19-000050 – PAUL VOGSTROM O/B/O ERIC VOGSTROM, 2710 PENCE LANE, <br /> VARIANCES - AMENDED RESOLUTION/EXHIBIT – RESOLUTION NO. 7110 <br /> <br />Staff presented a summary of packet information. <br /> <br />Walsh asked Staff, who viewed the area, if it seemed fine because from the explanation everything <br />seemed like it made sense. <br /> <br />Barnhart said it seemed to conform with the concerns raised during the public hearing. Staff has the <br />benefit of the retaining walls being done, noting the contractor continued to work on the project against <br />his advice. There is an after -the-fact penalty associated with that. From an impact standpoint to the lake, <br />the structure is kind of embedded into the slope and is not a huge impact. Additionally, there will be more <br />landscaping provided as part of their slope maintenance program. He displayed a photo which showed the <br />retaining wall. He indicated the Applicant was not able to attend and that the matter could be tabled to the <br />next meeting if the Council wanted to speak with the Applicant. <br /> <br />Johnson stated it is annoying that the contractor/owner goes ahead and does the work anyway but did not <br />see anything that the Council would not approve. The elevations dictated how the retaining wall was <br />done. He asked if Engineering had looked at the plan. <br /> <br />Barnhart said there was not a review completed. The primary reason for the change is the owner wanted <br />to angle the stairs away from the tree at the top and protect the root structure. <br /> <br />Johnson noted that happened a long time ago and they figured that out. <br /> <br />Barnhart said he does not know when they figured it out but they started construction of the stairs about <br />1 ½ weeks ago. <br /> <br />Walsh asked if what they added/changed is the boulder walls behind the trees. <br /> <br />Seals stated it was the height. <br /> <br />Barnhart referenced the photo to show the area of the retaining wall that was not contemplated originally <br />and also an area of the retaining wall that is higher than originally contemplated. Originally it was 1-2 ½ <br />feet and now it is about 1-4 ½ feet. <br /> <br />Walsh asked if it is because the hill is that high. <br /> <br />Barnhart indicated Walsh was correct. <br /> <br />Johnson said everyone runs into issues like this and asked if this was an after-the-fact variance request. <br /> <br />Barnhart clarified it is an after-the-fact modification request. The City approved the stairs; the City has <br />not approved the modification to the stairs. There would be an adjustment to the stairs permit also. <br /> <br />Johnson asked if the boulder-type retaining wall shown on the photo was not previously approved. <br /> <br />Barnhart said the retaining wall in question is part of the new segment.