04-11-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

u 4' MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 28,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. (4, m-3074 SEAN AND MEUSSA WAMBOLD, 1379 PARK DRIVE, Continued) Mr. Wambold stated that the neighbor next door was present this evening and had voiced his support for maintaining the retaining walls in an effort to control the excessive erusion which was previously caused by their property to his. Wambold pointed out that he had only recently purchased the property to which the landscaping contributed to the parcel, and was unaware of any problems with the yard until he was contacti^ by the city. He did not anticipate spending an additional $50,000 to remove and relandscape the property when he bought it. Scott Marorz, the landscape architect, inteijected that the removal of the retaining wall and boulders would not be a good solution for ^e lake with regard to erosion and runoff. Steve Sigel, 1399 Park Drive, the next door neighbor stated that if the Wambolds were forced to regrade the slope, a number of large trees would have to be removed, further adding to the erosion problem he faced residing next door to the site. He urged the Council to allow the retaining walls to remain, since they slowed the velocity at which the runoff flowed from their elevation to his property, which was roughly a severe 30-40’ hillside slope. Mayor Peterson asked how long the walls had been in place. Sigel stated that the jnevious owner had spent two years on die project, with the city inspecting it at various phases. He questioned why the City red tagged the property now, only after the new owners have taken possession. Attorney Barrett asked if the new owners were aware that the property had been red tagged. Wambold stated duit he was unaware of the red tag until three days after he had taken possession when the City called him out of the biue after having been contacted by a realtor down the street. Curtis concurred, stating that the City was not aware that the work had been completed by the previous owner until that same realtor contacted them. Vang, the building inspector, had red tagged the work that it not proceed, therefore, nothing was on file at the City. Wambold stated that it was their intent to bring the property into as much compliance as possible, but would like some leniency since some of the walls are necessary to control erosion. Murphy viewed two distiiMt problems, though nothing should exist in the 0-75’ zone, the erosion problems seem to warrant their need so as to cause no further problems for the neighbor. He asked for the City Engineer ’s comments. Engineer Kellogg stated that it was his opinion that ail of the hardcover be removed from the 0-75’ zone except steps. He was unsure whether the mature trees would be removed, but admitted that a great deal of fill would be necessary to obtain the 3:1 slope up to the lake edge. Since the boulders at the top of the path were aesthetic, he recommended they be removed also and that an erosion control plan be submitted. He did not indicate that all of the boulders must be removed. McMillan asked whether the sloped hillside within the boulder retaining walls is landscaped. PAGE 4 of 14