02-19-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wcdacsday, Jaaaary 22,2003 0:30 a'dock p.n« (M^2t54 KE\1N .\IANLEY, CoBHaacd) Option I creates a half-osal (kpreased area at e1e\ation 937.5 next to the house, then re-establishes the pre-existing walkout elevation with a ‘step-up' wall 3-6* lakeward from the house. GafTron noted that an underground drainpipe is proposed to remove runoff from the depression area next to the house, outlening just below the crest of the sh^line boulder wall. Option 2 omits the depression area, but establishes a slope starting at the walkout door elevation dropping to 937.0* at the shoreline boulder wall. While this avoids the depression anra. GafYron indicated that it does little to le-establish the pre-existing grade levels. Option 3 also omits the depression, hut establishes a slightly ilaner lawn slope than Options I or 2. and somewhat changes the shape and orientation of the lakcshore stairway. Again. Gaffron noted that this Option docs not re-establi^ the lakeshore yard elevations that existed previously. After rev lew mg the three Options, and their hardcover impacu. GafTron reported that staff and the City Engineer concluded that only Option 1 meets the goal of restonng the flat part of the lakeshore y ard back to the pre-existing walkout elevation. However. Gafliron slated there may be no plan that puts back the sideslopes to their pre-existmg grades without adding more retaming walls or reducing the soil insubility inherent in the former slopes. In discussion with the applicant with regard to drainage. Gaffron pointed out that gutters and downspouts wnuld be added to the house to catch rainfall and direct it past the depression. Gaffron stated that another aspect of Option I is that it provides vegetative screening across the facade of the house to help soften and r^uce the vertical nature of the amount of house wall exposed to lake view. Whereas, none of the Options proposes tree plantings that w ould further soften the facade as view ed from the lake. Other than the obvious need to protect the undercut shoreline from further erosion. GafTron identified 6 issues for consideration by the Plarming Commission in reviewing the proposed boulder wall /landscaping plan. According to Gaffron. if the Planning Commission concludes that the boulder w all sy'stem is appropriate fur restoration of this sue. slafl'would recommend approving Option 1. with the addition of gutters and downspouts, because it bangs the walkout level elevation hack to what it was onginally. Gaffron noted that, from a precedent standpoint, staff would prefer that the sideslopes also be restore^ howeva. the negativ e aspects of such restoration may outw eigh the positiv e maintenance and stability aspects of the more gradual slopes resulting from Options 1-3. GafTron fuaher identified three items for inclusion in any motion made by the Planning Commission, including stnci adherence to the rev egetation and planting plan to ensure adequate screening or softening of the wall system as well as the building facade, and to provide long term soil stability" second, construction of the boulder wall system be performed by a highly qualified contractor and or under direct supervision of the same; and third, adherence to the required grades, and proper construction of the “flnt- flush** system and installation of guners'downspouts to resuh in the degree of water quality control the plan intends to accomplish. Chair Smith asked w hat restonng the side slopes would mean to the erosion problems. PAGE 2 of 29