Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />March 13,2023 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />letter states the design option to add height to the existing sixth wall was done on December 9,2022.But <br />there are no details in this information packet to support the design analysis.Also,this letter states that <br />adding height to the existing sixth wall is I quote,a good option to reduce the steepness of the slope. <br />However,this conclusion to me seems rather vague,and it does not indicate the total gradient and how to <br />mitigate the effects of a steep slope. The letter also states that adding height to the sixth wall versus <br />building a seventh wall,could,I quote,result in less soil disturbance and excavation. However,the bluff <br />has already been disturbed and excavated with a backhoe,basically digging out the entire bluff <br />throughout this retaining wall rebuild project.It is my concern that the Criterium-Schimnowski engineer <br />does not provide any details of how to mitigate the slope from the neighboring properties with respect to <br />adding 1.7 feet of height to the sixth wall,and how that is comparable to building the seventh wall that <br />was in the original plans.But all is explained if you review the original plans of the retaining wall by this <br />engineer, dated August 24,2022.In the design limitations section,there is a statement, quote, site layout <br />and grading design are not included in wall design services. Those services are the responsibility of the <br />site civil engineer end quote. So that begs the question,who is the civil engineer on this project that can <br />assure that the grading is done properly,to mitigate the bluff grading to adjacent properties?Based on the <br />property surveys,the elevation level of my adjacent property near the very top of the bluff is at 963 feet. <br />The survey in Council Exhibit A depicts the current top of the sixth wall at 957 feet foot elevation,a <br />difference of six feet. By adding 1.7 feet to the sixth wall,the resulting elevation gradient would be 4.3 <br />feet. There is a photo on page 26 of this information packet that does show the existing slope of the <br />property to my property that currently exists. The plans provided in this information packet Council <br />Exhibit E show plants and flowers that will be planted in this area.This depiction also shows a wall on <br />both the west and east side of the property.I am not certain if these walls are the existing wood timber <br />walls that run along the side property lines or some other wall that will be built to replace the wooden <br />timbers.However,my concern is will this depiction in Exhibit E be sufficient to mitigate the 4.3 foot <br />slope differential that currently would exist?As a comparison reference,there are photos included in the <br />letter from Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers dated November 18,2022 regarding the timber retaining <br />wall upper tier,and that closely resembles the current condition of the bluff with the exception of the <br />snow on the ground. The photo had an outline superimposed for the placement of the seventh timber wall. <br />The outline on the seventh wall did extend along the adjacent property lines to hold back the dirt. The <br />engineer stated in this letter that the final seventh wall height will increase to about four feet tall near each <br />end where the existing slope increases.And a follow-up letter dated November 22,2022,the engineer <br />states that quote,the slopes of the top of the timber retaining walls constructed to date are much steeper <br />than originally designed. Thus again,my concerns of the steep slopes.The City Council has a very <br />difficult task to decide on the next course of action or reaction for this after-the-fact variance request. The <br />request to increase the height of the top sixth wall to reach the correct grade height rather than installing <br />an additional wall has my concerns.As the property owner on the west side,the elevation gradient to the <br />top of the bluff seems quite steep with regard to adding only 1.7 feet to the top of the sixth retaining wall. <br />Should the City Council authorize construction of the added heights to the sixth wall,I would request that <br />the City Council approval would require an as-built survey following completion of the walls and <br />restoration of the grades. This could be ambiguous considering the top of the bluff and the side elevation <br />grading to the adjacent properties have been altered from the original grades. That is before the fire <br />occurred on the bluff and burned the original retaining walls. I would also ask the City Council to require <br />that containment measures must be implemented to compensate for the change in elevation from the <br />applicant's property to the adjacent east and west properties such that erosion is mitigated and controlled. <br />Page 10 of 21