09-27-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 13,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (James Render, Appeal of Administrative Decision, Continued) Render stated in November of 1999, he moved into the residence located at 1315 Tonkawa, and in order to get the certificate of occupancy, the first liA of asphalt was put down on the newly built private road. Render indicated at that point in time they were proceeding ahead and replaning the property into Tonkawa Shores Second Addition. Render noted the improvements to the First Addition were not yet completed at that time. Render indicated he had discussions back in that time period with City Staff and City Engineer Kellogg regarding the fresh asphalt and the anticipated construction. Render stated to his recollection they had agreed that it made good sense to utilize the empty lot for the storage of e,xccss fill. In February of 2000, Render indicated the newly created lot was sold, with the contract stipulating that extra soil from the construction would be accommodated on his vacant lot as long as the area was flattened out and able to be mowed once the construction was completed. Render stated in May of 2000, the City approved the second addition plat. In June of 2000, the street construction was completed, with the last lift of asphalt being laid. In July of 2000, the City recorded the plat of the second addition. Render indicated there was no developer's agreement in place, no request for a grading plan, or anything else requested prior to the plat being recorded. In September of 2000, the letter of credit that was provided with the first addition expired. Render stated he inquired of the City on how to get the letter of credit reduced but was never given an answer. Render explained that in March of 2001, construction began on Lot 1,1335 Tonkawa Shores. Render indicated he again agreed at that time that the contractor could use the empty lot for the storage of any excess fill. Render stated no excess soil was generated from the construction but that some soil was actually removed from the vacant lot and put on Lot 1. Render stated the lot was never brought back up to the highest elevation that it was approved for under the first addition because he did not realize he was required to. Render stated he now finds himself in the situation where he is debating what the grade is with the City on this lot. Render stated in his opinion an understanding has to be reached on the grading before building height can be addressed. Render distributed information to the Council concerning the grading on the lot. McMillan inquired whether it was an oversight that no grading plan was included at the time of the second plat. Render indicated he just assumed that he had approval to go to those elevations that were approved with the first plat since all they were doing were making the lots bigger with the second plat. Render stated he was never informed that he would lose his approved grade if he did not complete it within a certain period of time. Render indicated he has researched the City ’s codes in an effort to determine when final grade must be established on a platted lot and was only able to find that final grade must be established prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Render stated he did not find an>lhing that indicated that his approved grade would expve after a certain period of time. Render stated in his view there are four different grades that could be discussed on this propert>', with the fir.st being historical grade. Render indicated a drawing prepared by the City clearly shows PAGE? 4