Request for CC action/encroachment issue

Home Browse Search

� , MINL7TES OF TIiE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monda,y,January 12,2015 7:00 o'clock p.m. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 3. 2325 GLENDALE COVE—ENCROACRMENT 1SSUE Curtis stated a buiidin�p�rmit for the new home at 2325 Glendale Cover was issued in September of 2013 and a temporary Certificate of C}ecupancy allowing the properiy awners ta n�ove into the residence was issued i7i January of 2014. Due to winter conditia.ns,the site was not completed at that time. The City-approved site plan associated with the permit izicluded ane pro��sed retaining wall near the west side at�the l�ame. When the �nal a.s-built survey��as submitted in August of 2�14, it was noted�hat three additional walls were constz�ucted around the hom�. One wall extending the width of the property was constructed within the wetland buffer and the drainage and utility easement had been constnacted without City review or appraval. An addiii�nal wall exceedinb four feet in hei�;ht was consUucted on the west side of the home and a building permit is also required due to the height. Typically landscape features w}aich vary from th�permit-approved Iandscape plan should have City approval and a zoning permit, which was not done iia this case. The wetland buffer area is covered by City canservation and flowa�e easement and a MCVvD wetland buffer declara�ion. Both dacuments prohibit canstructiarr of structures wifhin the wetland buffer. Upon review of the as-built survey, Staff notified the property owners that one wall was lacated wiihiii the easement area and that it should be removed. Staff furiher met with the property owners ar�d MCWD siaff on Noveanber 7 to discuss resolution to the encroaehment violation and the final C.ertificate of Occupancy, which conrinu�s to be w.ithheld until the issues are resolved. At that time the Watershed District was wzlling to offer a ct�mpramise soluiion which invahfed reinoving turf and planting native vegetatian in ti�e required buffer area but aliocving the wall to rernain. l�allowing that meetiaag, the property or��ners chose to make a forcnal request for an encraachment agreement with the Gity. �3ased on ihe Watershed District's propasal, Staff is agreeable to ailowing a11 or some of the retainin�; wall witliin fhe easement area to remain subject to the requirernent that che property owners enter into an encr�ach�nent agreement with the City. The encroachment agreement wauld aliow the City to require the property owners to remave the encroachments if the encroachments beeome an issue in Lhe future. If the wall remains,the property owners should comply with the requirements of the MCWD regarding esiablishment af native buffer vegetazion. The property owners have provided a statement from a siructural en�ineer regarding the wall exceedizig faur feet in hei.ght on the west side af the home as requested. The property owners should apply f�r zoning and buiiding pennits and pay the after-the-.fact fees ta address the walls constructed tl�at were not shown on the approved building pennit survey. If tl�e Council determines it to be appropriate,the�ity Attarney can draft an eneroachment agreement for consideration at a subsequent meetin�. Curtis stated Staff is looking fnr direction regarding the encraachznent agreement. McMillan asked if the buffer specifications will be warked out with tl�e Watershed District and n�t involve the City. Page 4 of 19