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