02/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 17, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#3) #04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES, INC., 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT—Continued) 8. Subject to the area southeast of the creek within Lot 1 with slopes of 18% or greater being deemed as non-buildable. 9. Final plat approval shall not be granted until MCWD permits have been approved. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) #04-2983 JAMES AND JEAN ECHTENKAMP, 2800 PHEASANT ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, (7:54-8:05 P.M.) James and Jean Echtenkamp, the Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated that the applicant requests CUP approval for filling within 75'of the lake to avoid construction of a retaining wall at the 75' setback line adjacent to the driveway. Briefly, this property was granted hardcover variances in 2002 for a rebuild. The basis to allow the hardcover excesses was primarily related to the peninsula shape of the lot, leaving about 1.5 acres of the 2-acre lot in the 0-75'zone; and the placement of house and driveway which allows for an unusually substantial area of lawn in the runoff flow path for infiltration. In order to avoid filling in the 0-75'zone to accommodate the driveway, the applicant was approved for a retaining wall adjacent to the driveway. Now that the house is completed and final grades established, applicant has concerns about the necessary height of the retaining wall. From staff's perspective, safety is the primary factor which suggests that eliminating the wall may be appropriate. The wall as approved was right at the edge of the driveway, with an immediate drop of 2.5', then a 1:1 downslope for another 3-4', with gradual slope after that. The driveway functionally is about 6' above original grade at this point, and filling/grading would have stopped at the 75' setback line. This immediate grade change in an area that will have pedestrian traffic, children playing, etc. is less than ideal. The visual impacts of the wall would be primarily as it is viewed from the lagoon. Grading the slope and vegetating it would provide a softer and more natural view from the lagoon than a 64'long, 2'-6" high wall. The driveway itself will not be very visible from the lagoon regardless of whether the wall is built. Applicant has suggested that creating a slope from the driveway(elev. 942') to the existing grade(934')would eliminate 64'of retaining wall, or approximately 50-60 s.f. of hardcover, which would allow for a better situation in terms of runoff. The trade-off is that rainfall that would have fallen on a relatively flat lawn surface at the base of the wall, will now fall on a slope and be somewhat more prone to run off than soak in during certain storm events. It's probably an even trade. PAGE 11 of 19