Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - Packet 5/19/2025

Home Browse Search

FILE # LA25-000016 21 April 2025 Page 4 of 5 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access: The proposal is not anticipated to create excessive traffic burdens on the nearby road network. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact: The proposed retaining walls have a larger footprint and take up a larger portion of the slope than the existing condition, and do not appear to be the minimum size necessary to stabilize the slope leading to the lakeshore. This criterion is not met. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of- way or neighboring residential uses or districts: The proposal does not include the installation of any exterior lighting. 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare: Staff finds the proposal does not come at a detriment to the public health, safety, or welfare of residents and landowners of the City of Orono. This criterion is met. A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally, a CUP shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. Public Comments No input from the public regarding this application has been received by staff as of the writing of this report. Planning Staff Recommendation Screening the impacts of development, as it is viewed from the lake has long been a goal within the Comprehensive Plan. The land use chapter states that “natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes and retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation”. The significant increase in the size and coverage of the walls, combined with the limited screening does not meet the conditional use criteria nor the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to shoreland management. The applicant has not provided the necessary justification for the proposed walls and stairs, nor have they established an existing failing condition that is to be solved by the proposed design. Shoreland management regulations stipulate that the improvements placed within the lake setback should be screened from view by vegetation. As proposed, the stairs and walls will be the most visible from the lake. The applicant should revisit their design with a greater focus on minimizing the amount of disturbance, reducing the number of walls, and increasing the opportunities to screen the improvements as much as possible. Staff recommends denial as applied. The planning commission should consider the following motions: 1. Deny the application as applied. 2. Table. The application should be tabled to allow the applicant to revise the design and provide the necessary engineering support and justification for the wall design meeting the conditional use criteria. 12