07-26-1999 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 21,1999 (^f2492 RICK AND GAIL LUZAICH, CONTINUED)♦ • / existing residence as viewed from the lake. Bedker Is also recommending that the majority of the •; • ..existing stumps and root systems remain In place to.stabilize the slope, asv/ell as hand ~4anling of • . '• the trees to avoid disturbing the soli. Bedker has Indicated that the retaining v/all 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 wall. Gaffron noted that the Applicant’s revised proposal makes no attempt to, over tirriei restore the 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 retaid surface runoff and soil . erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clearcultlng will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, natural stone rip-rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. In addition, retentlpn of natural vegetatlori will limit the impact of urbanization 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 dearcutting 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 will be screened with natural vegetation. Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission has the option of denying th’" application, and sending . . It on to Council, noting that the revised landscape plan does not meet the reMpralion goals of the- *; ^ City; or this maU could be tabled to -allow the Applicant Ume to submit a revised plan In accordance • - with the City forester’s recommendations. ....... Reznlck commented that the Applicant’s revl d plan was submitted In May but that the CI^s forester was not provided with the necessary i >rmatlon until this past Friday. The Applicant’s landscape architect was not able to meet with t City ’s forester due to the short time period before tonight’s meeting. Reznlck stated that the four Inch diameter trees are too Jarge to bring In to be planted, and that the Applicant should not be penalized by having to plarijtrees In excess 6f $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 H would be unreasonable to expect restoration costs to exceed that amount. ♦ Reznlck ^ated |n his opinion the value of the trees .removed should not have a bearing on what Is. . .. being proposed for restoration and Is IrrelevanL-. Nygard stated that the number of the trees cut down Is completely relevant, noting that H Is agaln^ 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. Re^Ick stated 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 • •.M • •