Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,February 22, 2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#05-3074 Sean and Melissa Wambold,Continued) <br /> and approval of a conditional use permit in order to remove existing hardcover and to re-grade the lake <br /> yard. <br /> Mr.Wambold stated the reason for retaining one wall is that there are areas where it is necessary to hold <br /> back ground and that it would be necessary to re-grade and construct steps in the area. Wambold <br /> indicated they do have a grandmother that would not be able to use the steps, which is the reason for the <br /> grassy ramp. <br /> Wambold commented there are other property owners around the lake who currently who have boulder <br /> and/or wood retaining walls, and requested that one portion of the boulder wall be allowed to remain. <br /> Fritzler stated the Planning Commission usually does not address what other property owners have on <br /> their property until the property owner approaches the City for some type of permit but that the City <br /> does typically require property owners to conform to all the regulations. <br /> Fritzler indicated he is in agreement with denial of the after-the-fact variance,but that he would be <br /> against leaving any of the hardcover within the 0-75' zone that is not necessary. Fritzler stated he <br /> would be in favor of re-grading the area. <br /> Kempf stated he is happy that a majority of the boulders have been removed,but noted that the fire pit is <br /> not necessary and should be removed in the 0-75' zone. Kempf indicated in his view the existing <br /> boulder wall running down the side of the ramp appears to be functionally good for the lot since it <br /> allows for a flatter area above it as well as the ramp that is going down at an angle. Kempf stated the <br /> hardcover would not be improved if steps were constructed in this area and that re-grading may not <br /> improve the situation but could create an erosion problem. Kempf stated he would be in favor of <br /> retaining the one boulder wall that is still remaining since it does make the property more useable and <br /> would require less re-grading of the lot. <br /> Leslie noted the applicants did not create this situation,but stated the boulders located in the upper area <br /> appear to be more decorative than structural. Leslie stated he is unsure whether there is a direct <br /> correlation between the ramp and the boulders,but that he is sensitive to Staffs recommendation and <br /> the recommendation of the City Engineer that some stairs may be necessary. Leslie stated retaining the <br /> boulders is not a solution. <br /> Marotz stated this area was backfilled at one time and the boulders are retaining the ground. Marotz <br /> indicated that area would need to be re-graded if the boulders are removed and would cause an erosion <br /> issue until permanent plant cover could be established,which would be approximately two years. <br /> Marotz stated initially it was not necessary for the wall to be located in that area but that fill was later <br /> hauled in that now requires that wall. Marotz stated substantial work would need to be done if the wall <br /> were removed and that erosion measures and extensive planting would need to be done. <br /> Leslie stated the question is whether the ramp could be constructed without the boulders. <br /> PAGE 2 <br />