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