Laserfiche WebLink
NIHUTBS OP THE PIAMNIHG COMMISSION MEETING HOyEMBBR 21, 1988 <br />IJZONING PILE #1302-CITT OP ORONO CONTIN1 <br />proposed to leave the wall exposed and plant vegetation on the <br />other side to provide screening. <br />Planning Commission member Bellows stated that there should <br />not be any controversy with this matter. The simple fact is that <br />the City has a duty to repair a dangerous situation. She further <br />stated that since the City did not own the property beyond the <br />road and proposed retaining wallsr and the City did not cause the <br />problem but was attempting to correct it, that the property <br />owners, individually, should be responsible for restoration of <br />their property. <br />Chairman Kelley inquired as to whether there would be a 1:1 <br />slope on Mr. Erger's property. City Engineer Cook confirmed <br />that, and added that the only way to do that would be to put <br />fabric or some type of wall. Kelley asked how much wall would be <br />exposed if there was a 3:1 slope? Cook replied 5* to 6*. Kelley <br />asked what supported the bank before it was washed away? Cook <br />answered that natural vegetation held it. Planning Commission <br />member Brown inquired about the workability of a 2:1 slope. Cook <br />said that wculd work and would reduce the wall by a couple of <br />feet. <br />Ms. Connie Schibilla stated that despite the several <br />meetings with City, she had nothing on paper indicating what <br />exactly was being proposed. <br />Chairman Kelley stated that he would have no problem <br />recommending the 2:1 slope. Planning Commission member Cohen <br />concurred. Bellows stated that easements necessary for <br />construction of the wall was a technical issue that still needed <br />to be addressed. She said that the Planning Commission should <br />set a guideline as to how much wall can be exposed. The Planning <br />Commission concurred that 5' maximum would be allowed. Mr. Erger <br />then asked how much of a shoulder would be required from the road <br />so that a guardrail would not be necessary. The residents <br />concurred that they did not want a guardrail. Kelley asked what <br />was needed to make the area safe? Cook said that there was no <br />set guideline, but in a normal situation, a guardrail would be <br />required. Anything over 30” would require a guardrail. Cohen <br />explained to the residents the City's problem with liability <br />should someone fall over the edge. Rich Anderson interjected <br />that that was the controversey. Bellows said it was a matter of <br />a guardrail or keeping the drop-off below 30”. She said that <br />legally the City could install a guardrail into the pavement <br />because of the drop-off currently being more than 30”. Cohen <br />concurred. Mr. Erger suggested placing the posts 1' or 2' off of <br />the shoulder so that they could prevent anything from going off <br />of the edge. The Planning Commission as a whole agreed that <br />would not meet the City's safety standards. <br />Mr. Wolfe asked how the City could place a guardrail on