2015-00849 - land alteration - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 22,2015 7:00 o'clock p.m. Mark Anderson,Applicant,was present. Curtis stated last June the City Council granted approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the import of approximately 10,000 cubic yards of fill to the site. This grading was to correct an erosion issue,to create both a level paddock for their horses west of the barn, and create a more gradual slope from the barn to the wetland to east in planting a crop. During the course of the project,the amount of material imported to the site exceeded the approved amount by 7,000 cubic yards. The property owner has provided a revised plan,which addresses the additional fill brought to the site and further requests approval to import approximately 3,000 cubic yards more to complete the project. On June 15,the Planning Commission held a public hearing where they heard from the applicant and members of the public. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 on a motion to approve the CUP to allow the importing of 10,000 cubic yards of material, with 7,000 cubic yards being after the fact, subject to a number of conditions that are outlined in Staff's memo. Staff recommends approval of the CUP subject to the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. An approval resolution has been drafted for Council consideration. Curtis noted the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District still has a requirement for a restoration plan to be submitted and approved before work can begin on the property. Tonight the Council should consider adopting or amending the approval resolution. The property owner is present this evening Levang noted Item No. 6 on Page 2 of the Planning Commission recommendations refers to a 60-day limit on the hauling activity. Levang stated she understands the hauling will not begin until Staff receives the right documentation and a preconstruction meeting is held. Levang asked what the process will be if the project takes more than 60 days and whether the applicant will have to apply for an extension. Curtis indicated the applicant should notify the City ahead of the 60 days expiration and then Council will consider an extension or allow Staff to extend it. Curtis stated the Planning Commission was clear about wanting an end date for the neighborhood,which is why it was incorporated into the conditions. Levang stated it seems that the 60 days is more than reasonable given the length of the project, but that she had a concern that a process be in place in the event the project exceeds the 60 days. Levang asked if that should be included in the resolution. Mattick stated the resolution could spell out what the process is. Mattick stated the applicant could provide a 10 to 15 day notice if the project is going to exceed the 60 days. Mattick stated Staff could extend it by another 10 to 15 days if the Council determines that is appropriate. Levang asked whether Item No. 9 regarding the retaining walls is a second violation. Curtis stated to her understanding the walls were constructed during this process and permits were not obtained. Curtis indicated the retaining walls were not included in the original plan. The applicant has now resolved that and has submitted the required information to obtain an after-the-fact permit. Levang asked if there is a double fine associated with the after-the-fact variance. Curtis indicated there is. Page 6 of 19