07-12-1999 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 21,1999 (#2492 RICK AND GAIL LUZAICH, CONTINUED) existing residence as viev/ed from the lake. Bedker is also recommending that the majority of the existing stumps and root systems remain in place to stabilize the slope, as v/ell as hand planting of the trees to avoid disturbing the soil. Bedker has indicated that the retaining wall at the base of the slope Is not necessary for stabilization of the slope. Gaffron stated the Applicant Is proposing four birch clumps at the base of the slope and a half-dozen maples along the two sides of the site, along with other proposed shrubbery along the edges of the lot or on the lake side of the retaining wail. Gaffron noted that the Applicant’s revised proposal makes no attempt to, over time, restore the site to Its original appearance in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code which states: Lake shorelines will be protected from alteration. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved Insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clearcutting will be prohibited in areas of soil or wave action erosion, natural stone rip-rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. In addition, retention of natural vegetation will limit the impact of urbanization as visible from the lake. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes. Retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they wiii be screened with natural vegetation. Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission has the option of denying this application, and sending It on to Council, noting that the revised landscape plan does not meet the restoration goals of the City: or this matter could be tabled to allow the Applicant time to submit a revised plan In accordance with the City forester’s recommendations. Reznlck commented that the Applicant's revised plan was submitted In May but that the City's forester was not provided with the necessary information until this past Friday. The Applicant’s landscape architect was not able to meet with the City's fores*‘?r due to the short lime period before tonight’s meeting. Reznlck staled that the four inch diameter trees are too large to bring In to be planted, and that the Applicant should not be penalized by having to planflrees In excess of $48,100. Stoddard remarked that the Applicant Is not being requested to plant trees In excess of $4^100, noting that the forester states that it would be unreasonable to expect restoration costs to exceed that amount. Reznlck stated In his opinion the value of the trees removed should not have a bearing on what Is being proposed for restoration and Is Irrelevant. Nygard stated that the number of the trees cut down Is completely relevant, noting that It Is against City's regulations regarding clearcutting of property. Reznlck stated the Issue before the Planning Commission Is what to do with the property now and that the Applicant should not be requested to plant more trees than what was removed. Reznlck commented that a majority of the trees to be replanted are located within the site line from the house to the lake and that the property owner does have a right to trim the trees located within the sight line. Reznlck staled that the trees removed were removed to provide a view to the lake. Luzalch commented that their revised plan is a compromise by providing reforestation as well as Page 4