Laserfiche WebLink
; <br /> . <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANrTING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,January 18,2010 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> 5. #09-3425 JAMES JOHNSON,650 BIG ISLAND,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND <br /> CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:38 P.M.—6:45 P.M. <br /> The Applicant was not present. <br /> Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an after-the-fact hardcover variance and an after-the-fact <br /> conditional use permit for retaining walls and a patio within the 0-75 f zone to remain as constructed. <br /> The request includes a hardcover variance to allow the hardcover associated with the retaining walls to <br /> remain when only 333 square feet of hardcover is allowed for lake access stairs within the 0-75 foot <br /> zone. <br /> The applicanYs property has a steep lakeshore,with the top of the slope about 22 feet above the lake. In <br /> 2008,the applicant hired two separate contractors to replace a failing sea wall with rip-rap, a walkway <br /> deck with a smaller patio walkway and lake access stairs. A permit for the rip-rap was obtained from the <br /> MCWD. Neither the contractor nor the applicant realized that City approvals were required as it was a <br /> replacement. <br /> Staff discovered the new walls on the annual shoreline inspection boat trip. The applicant was out of the <br /> state for a number of months and was unable to be reached. Once the property owner was contacted,the <br /> wall contractor began to work with staff to submit an after-the-fact application. Following an initial <br /> meeting with staff and the City Engineer,the contractor stopped returning phone calls from staff and the <br /> property owner. At this time the property owner has submitted the necessary information with the <br /> exception of an engineered construction plan for the retaining wall. Engineered plans are required for <br /> walls four feet in height or above which retain soil. The walls have a section that just exceeds the four <br /> foot limitation. <br /> The City Engineer has reviewed the survey,the contractor's sketch,and feels that generally the walls are <br /> necessary to maintain the slope. It appears that the patio walkway and walls are a nearly in-kind <br /> replacement for the previously existing deck and seawalls. One recommendation option for after-the-fact <br /> reviews such as this is to require the walls,patios, decldng, etc.,to be removed. In this situation,removal <br /> of the walls and walkway to restore a vegetated slope down to the water would result in a lot of earth <br /> movement and larger area of open,un-vegetated ground. It appears that with the walls in place the slope <br /> is stable. Restoration and re-grading the slope would open up the potential to create an erosion problem. <br /> Staff would recommend that the walls be allowed to remain. However,the Planning Commission should <br /> discuss the size of the patio walkway which replaced the existing deck. The property owner has planted <br /> native grasses to help to screen the walls from the lake. <br /> Planning Staff recommends approval of the CUP for the retaining walls and a variance for hardcover at a <br /> level the Planning Commission deems appropriate. <br /> An after-the-fact permit for grading and retaining walls is required to be obtained following any <br /> approvals. The applicant should be required to submit an engineer's opinion on the wall construction for <br /> the building permit. The evaluation likely cannot occur until the ground thaws. Additional vegetative <br /> screening should be provided to help to hide the walls when viewed from the lake. <br /> Rice asked where the additional vegetative screening should be planted. <br /> Page 2 <br />