03-20-2023 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. forward, they're operating within the structure and the constructs of our Orono City bluff ordinance, which is very focused on preservation and conservation. I don't see much of that here. The operators did what they were told. They worked from a plan, but I think was a very faulty plan to start with. Erickson said he felt Commissioner Libby's comments are well said. What stands out for me is that the staff does not recommend approval of any walls which encroach into neighboring properties. He quoted the staff recommendation. The issue here is was there encroachment? And if there was then I concur that the neighboring property owners should be involved in the process with their consent. I would add that to the concerns that Commissioner Kirschner and Commissioner Libby have raised. McCutcheon said what we have now is holding back earth. What would we give them for guidance if we did have them go back to planning stage. Do you have any thoughts on that? Libby said his only suggestion would be to put that top bluff wall back. I'm not an engineer, but I have probably eight years of working with the bluff ordinance. I also have some on-site experience on Tanager Lake, in green trees, were in almost identical circumstances existed, except for the fire. And that wall had to be replaced four times in the course of seven years because we had a number of 100 -year rain events. A very reputable, well-known designer of that sort of construction, and reputable veteran construction operators, maybe like yourself, came in and thought it would work. But the engineering lacked what it needed to stabilize it. Like Mrs. Price mentioned -- numbers, metrics, calculations, design and engineering. I don't think that there was enough of it here. One solution would be to not have created a new slope, if that could be corrected. And once again, I think that top left wall needs to be there. Kirchner asked had this come before us as a blank slate, what would some of the feedback have been? The contractor stated that he initially had proposed a boulder wall. I don't know if that would have allowed for less intrusion from east to west across the front of the bluff. I believe that the issue was hardcover. Curtis clarified the issue was it wasn't in-kind, and they couldn't do it with a building permit at that time. I think it was a time issue. Retaining walls are listed as hardcover but they don't count against your property's hardcover total. She added that the engineers spent a great deal of time on the design. Bollis said he had been concerned that there wasn't enough engineering, but looking through there (the packet information), there's quite a bit. Curtis said the City stopped the work on the project, then we asked that the engineer give us his opinion on what was constructed. And did they follow the engineering of his initial design. With the extended wall now, adding 10 more feet to a length of wall isn't going to necessarily change his metrics to use the same word. But he did confirm that and has done considerable amount of work. He's not here tonight, but I've spoken with him and he was at the council meeting. So he has thoroughly reviewed the project. McCutchen said he felt he was looking at a situation where it's structurally sound. It's engineering approved, except for the one last modification with the staff's recommendation of adding vegetation and making sure that the wall doesn't encroach on neighbor's properties. We definitely would need to verify Page 9 of 19