Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,January18,2010 66:30 o'clock p.m. Council Exhibit D 5. #09-3425 JAMES JOHNSON, 650 BIG ISLAND, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:38 P.M. -6:45 P.M. The Applicant was not present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an after-the-fact hardcover variance and an after-the-fact conditional use permit for retaining walls and a patio within the 0-75 f zone to remain as constructed. The request includes a hardcover variance to allow the hardcover associated with the retaining walls to remain when only 333 square feet of hardcover is allowed for lake access stairs within the 0-75 foot zone. . . The applicant's property has a steep lakeshore, with the top of the slope about 22Jeet above the lake. In 2008, the applicant hired two separate contractors to replace a failing sea wall with rip-rap, a walkway deck with a smaller patio walkway and lake access stairs. A permit for the rip-rap was obtained from the MCWD. Neither the contractor nor the applicant realized that City approvals were required as it was a replacement. Staff discovered the new walls on the annual shoreline inspection boat trip. The applicant was out of the state for a number of months and was unable tp be reached. Once the property owner was contacted, the wall contractor began to work with staff to submitaµ after-the-fact application. Following an initial meeting with staff and the City Engineer, the co~tra#9r stopped returning phone calls from staff and the property owner. At this time the property owner has stibmitte4 the necessary information with the exception of an engineered construction plan for th~ retajning wa11. Engineered plans are required for walls four feet in height or above which retain soil: Jhe\valls have a section that just exceeds the four foot limitation. · The City Engineer has reviewed the survey, the contractor's sketch, and feels that generally the walls are necessary to maintain the slope. It appears that the patiqwalkway and walls are a nearly in-kind replacement for the previously existing deck and seawalls. One recommendation option for after-the-fact reviews sucn.a.s this.is forequire the walls, patios, decking, etc., to be removed. In this situation, removal of the walJs and walk'way t§ I't)Store a vegetated slope down to the water would result in a lot of earth movement and larger area ofopen, un-vegetated ground. It appears that with the walls in place the slope is stable.·Re.storation and re-gpi~ing the slope would open up the potential to create an erosion problem. Staff would ~~cql):ll)J.end that the .\Valls be allowed to remain. However, the Planning Commission should discuss the size ci{t~~ patio walt'way which replaced the existing deck. The property owner has planted native grasses to helpt<:> screenthe walls from the lake. ',< <<~~ Planning Staff recommends approval of the CUP for the retaining walls and a variance for hardcover at a level the Planning Commission deems appropriate. An after-the-fact permit for grading and retaining walls is required to be obtained following any approvals. The applicant should be required to submit an engineer's opinion on the wall construction for the building permit. The evaluation likely cannot occur until the ground thaws. Additional vegetative screening should be provided to help to hide the walls when viewed from the lake. Page 2 --~-----~----·--------·--