Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSISON MEETING <br /> Monday,October 17,2011 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> aware that crushed gravel was considered hardcover. They had akeady constructed the retaining walls <br /> when they found out there was a problem. <br /> Koehler noted the patio was already existing when the house was constructed and that there is an outdoor <br /> grill that is also in that area. The patio was heaving and needed replacement. Koehler stated they asked <br /> the builder to replace the patio and fix the grill azea. It was supposed to be the exact same size. It was his <br /> understanding that the crushed stone was okay for the little walkway. Koehler stated they later found out <br /> from Staff that the other patio was supposed to be removed as part of the agreement with the City,so they <br /> are now proposing to remove that. <br /> The retaining wall was also constructed with the house and they later found out that it was not approved. <br /> Their goal is to address the access issues. Koehler stated the driveway does not need to be the full length <br /> of the garage but that it seemed to be a logical and aesthetically pleasing way to do it. Koehler.stated in <br /> his view the driveway could be shortened,which would reduce the hardcover by 336 squaze feet from <br /> what they aze requesting. The hardcover in the 250-500 foot zone would then be reduced to 2,986 square <br /> feet. In addition,there would be 73 square feet removed at the bottom. <br /> Koehler stated the Tetaining wall cost approximately$100,000 to construct and consists of a 10-foot wall <br /> that basically holds up the entire side of the property. Koehler indicated he is not sure whether they can <br /> get equipment in there to remove it and that he did not expect that to be a problem. <br /> Leskinen asked if the retaining wall was there when he purchased the property. <br /> Koehler indicated it was. <br /> Levang asked what Staff would like to see happen with the retaining wall. <br /> • Curtis stated a variance would need to be approved for the retaining wall,the retaining wall removed,or <br /> brought into compliance. Currently it appears there may be portions that can be brought into compliance. <br /> Levang stated the piece that goes directly to the lot line would probably need to be removed. <br /> Curtis indicated that is correct and that the rest of the retaining wall appeazs to meet the 5-foot setback <br /> based on the survey. <br /> Landgraver commented the wall is fairly tall. <br /> Koehler indicated it is nine feet high. <br /> Schoenzeit stated removal of the wall does not seem practical given the cost. <br /> Gaffron asked how the drainage works on the property. <br /> Koehler indicated the drainage from his lot and the neighbor's runs down a swale that goes the entire <br /> length of the lot down to the lake. <br /> Gaffron asked if it is a shared drainage way. <br /> Page 8 <br />