Laserfiche WebLink
F MINUTES OF THE ORONO PL.\NNING COND^OSSION <br />MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21. 1995 <br />{#14 - #2056 Michael & Barbara Wigic>' • Connnued) <br />Gaffi-on reponed that the application is for land akeraiion conditional use permit and <br />variance to excavate in the 0-75' zone and to install boulder retaining wails. Code secnons <br />prohibit grading within '5' of the lake, as well as any hardcover in that area, and requires a <br />CUT* for lakeshore aiterauon <br />The application proposes pao tiers of boulder wails, one at the top of a 2.1 slope, the <br />other at the base of that slope in the flood plain next to the lake The walls would taper to <br />a 3 1 slope. A retaining wall at the top of the slope would be extended to make the lawn <br />level. A MCWT) permit is required to build within that flood plain A previous contraaor <br />had been turned down by .MCUX) when he applied for their permit Gafifron said he hjrf <br />spoken with the MCWT), who saw no need for the walls ^ Gaffron said he concurs with <br />the finding that the walls would provide no significant stabiiizaition Showing an elevation <br />sketch. Gaf&on said the wall would be exposed 5-1 2 of the I J' height at thejake. It ^ <br />would be difiRcult to screen all of this wall GatTron said Stall'sees little justihcation tor <br />the walls unless there was immment failure of the slopes. Walls are not normally approved <br />by the City for aesthetic reasons or for surface soil erosion. <br />The erosion occurrina bv the house is in the shaded area. Fill would make this arM to the <br />nonh and south more”leCel and could possible be screenable with vegetation. Staff <br />currently views the site has having a natural state of shoreline, and changing it as p^posed <br />will yield a layered look of ornamental vegetation. The Engineer has found no problem <br />with the proposal fi-om an engmeermg standpoint, but notes there is no evidence that the <br />slope is about to fail. <br />Gaffi-on said the hardcover had not been measured. There is mulch with fabric within the <br />0-75’ some of which Gaffion said should suy and some should be removed. There is <br />likely a need to stabilize the ground where no grass is growing to control the erosion. The <br />drainage around the house drains towards the neighbor and fans out. <br />Peterson asked the applicant why she felt the walls were needed. Mrs. Wigley said it was <br />her feeling that erosion was occurring on both sides of the house as well as bemg the issue <br />on the hiU Her main concern is for safety of her famUy noting the vegetauon on the h^ is <br />full of poison iw and poison oak. Wigley did not wish to remove the natural look ot the <br />hiU with zrass She said she is a maintenance-type person, who likes to take care of the <br />problem before the hill faUs down and would like to remove the poisong ivy and oak. <br />Schroeder said the applicant could leplace the poison ivy and oak with other vegetation <br />without requiring boulder walls. Gaffion said the City' feels there is no need to ^ade the <br />hillside to get rid of the poison ivy and oak, and there is no slope problem requmng ^e <br />wall Gaffion did agree that leveling ofthe top area would be helpful. Schroeder said he <br />agreed that erosion was occurring on the sides of the house, and maybe at the top ofthe <br />slope, but did not see any erosion at the bottom.