My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-21-2023 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2023
>
03-21-2023 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/17/2023 9:59:29 AM
Creation date
4/17/2023 9:58:50 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />March 13, 2023 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 6 of 21 <br /> <br /> <br />Walsh said he agreed. <br /> <br />Johnson moved, Seals seconded, to direct staff to draft a resolution approving an after-the-fact <br />variance for LA22-000070, 4085 WATERTOWN ROAD. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br /> <br />17. LA22-000068, VALDES LAWN CARE & SNOW REMOVAL O/B/O MARK & LISA <br />THOSTENSON, 2815 CASCO POINT ROAD, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES <br /> <br />Staff presented a summary packet of information. City Planner Curtis said in July the lake slope timber <br />walls and other improvements on this property were destroyed by a fire and a building permit was issued <br />to reconstruct the walls in-kind. During the installation of the walls staff observed that the construction <br />expanded beyond the previous footprint and as a result a stop work order was issued. Because the work <br />was halted prior to completion in November, the owner requested and received permission from the <br />Council to install a final wall as their engineer provided documentation showing that slope failure was <br />imminent and needed this emergency correction. The final wall has not been installed, rather the <br />applicant is now requesting approval to increase the height of the existing top wall to reach the correct <br />grade rather than installing an additional wall. The applicant is requesting after-the-fact setback variances <br />to address the wall footprint expansions in the bluff and lake yard. The changes to the configuration of the <br />retaining walls if approved will likely impact the applicant's ability to fully recapture the structural <br />footprints and dimensions of the previous existing deck and shed, which were also destroyed. In <br />February, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 4 to 1 to recommend approval of the <br />variances including the following conditions: prior to Council review, the applicant shall provide an <br />engineer's opinion regarding the necessity of the additional width of the installed walls and a vegetative <br />planting plan which will screen the walls from the lake. These have been provided in your packet. And <br />following completion of the project an as-built survey would be required. Comments from the public were <br />received. Replacement of the destroyed walls is essential to protect the bluff and steep nature of the slope <br />on the subject property as well as the immediately adjacent neighboring properties who also have steep <br />slope conditions. Staff finds that the variances to permit the expanded retaining wall structure within the <br />bluff and 75-foot setback are necessary to protect the slope stability of the surrounding properties and <br />once screened, will preserve the existing character of the area. Staff recommends approval of the setback <br />variances for the improvements and the conditions set by the Planning Commission. The contractor is <br />present this evening. <br /> <br />Seals asked for a refresher on what was approved at a previous meeting. Are we agreeing to other things <br />that were not intended? And are there any of those things in here? <br /> <br />Curtis said at the time of the emergency slope repair that was the only action the Council took. It was not <br />in any way an approval of the expanded walls, which is why we're here tonight. <br /> <br />Benson said she was trying to get her head around this because she wasn't on the Council in the beginning <br />when this when this started last year. When the slope repair emergency was granted did that enable the <br />contractor to continue working in that area in November to secure it? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.