03-20-2023 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. that. I don't want to re-engineer it here. But I'm just still not clear on next steps. I don't know how you make it structurally sound without making it be as intrusive as it is, because you have to hold back that earth. I do see the challenges of trying to build a retaining wall with no structure and burned timbers and trying to excavate and finding more dead, rotted timbers. Did they approach it the right way? My guess, even if they did it the right way, they would have started digging into it and found they had to come back. It's a very challenging project. And so I'm trying to figure out, is this a workable solution now where we're pretty close? Could they add some vegetation? Making sure that that doesn't encroach? Is this something that we can move forwards with? Or is it something that we need to start over with? Kirchner asked if it was necessary to have gone as wide with the wall from east to west. Bollis said you had a bluff previously, and a combination of a wall system, but there was also vegetation holding that. That vegetation is gone. There has to be something that's going to hold that up, which I think is the reason why this wall expanded in the spots that it did. I know they're supposed to build in-kind, and you look at that overlay, at first, it does not look like it's in-kind, but realistically, it's actually less hardcover than it was. And it's essentially doing the same thing. It's off by a couple feet here and there, but I don't know how you would do it any differently with the constraints of working on a steep slope like that, with not touching any vegetation on the sides on the neighbor lots. To tear it down I think would be worse. That'd be a giant step backwards and you'd end up with something very similar. Essentially, the new wall is very similar to what was there. It's just you couldn't see it because you had a storage shed, walls and stairs and bushes. I doubt there was any drainage behind the old wall. I don't see any outlets for any drain tile (in the photos), like the new wall has. Kirchner said as much as I do have frustration with how this was approached and how we landed here today, I also would firmly agree that are we going to do more damage by denying this and saying start over and the impact that would have on the bluff to try this again. I don't like this one all day long. But I'm concerned that we could potentially do more harm than good by saying go back to the drawing board. McCutcheon agreed it's a no-win situation for everybody involved. This slope is ridiculous. It's one of the steeper ones I've seen. The newer construction retaining walls are pretty obvious because they're built to code. Maybe there could have been a subtle change to make it less obvious but I think at the end it would still look like it does today. I tend to say move forward with it with making sure that those items staff mentioned are addressed. Libby it's very rare that he disagrees with the staff. But I think that this is an ill-fated project that actually was constructed and built different enough from what the council approved that it deserved the stop order. And except for the couple suggestions that I made that would actually bring it back to some of the original construction, I don't think it's redeemable. The original wall burned which is unfortunate. The way it was constructed is very different than what the City approved. The Council did not approve the design that got built. Curtis said I just want to clarify, they applied for a building permit. She explained the plan review was part of the building permit process. The Council saw an emergency slope repair to finish the top. That's basically all the council saw. Page 10 of 19