Laserfiche WebLink
N02-2793 Revis Stephenson <br />1 850 Fox Ridge Ro^ <br />Pane 2 ofl------------------ <br />would not have to be destroyed. The concerns with this option would be that it would be somewhat <br />inconsistent with the ordinances that protect the wetland buflcr areas, and would be inconsistent with <br />the general recommendation that finished slopes are not steeper than 3:1. <br />2.Approve an to the Conditional Use Permit and not variances. This option would require <br />removal of any fill that has been added within 26* of the wetland. This would require much of the <br />hillside to be regraded since the toe of the hill would have to be moved further from the wetland. <br />Ultimately, this would require some fill to be hauled away from the site. <br />3.Approve a combination of I and 2. This would allow the fill at the base of the hill remain but <br />requite the upper portion of the hill be lowered and cut the slope to 3:1 . <br />4.Deny the application and require the finished grades to match the approvals granted in the original <br />Conditional Use Permit. <br />Please review the July 2,2002 staff memo for additional background on this request. <br />Planning Commissioa Review aud Rccommcudatioa <br />The Planning Commission reviewed this on June 1 7, 2002. To review the Commission had been given <br />information that the application to permit fill on the adjacent properties had not been applied and new <br />applications would be required to be submitted. Mr. Thomas Barrett, City Attorney, has.reviewed the <br />application and has determined the application is legal as presented. That determination is based on the fact <br />that the adjacent property owners did not do the land alteration and were not aware that the work had <br />occurred on their properties until after the alteration had occurred. The conclusion is the adjacent property <br />owners are not required to obiain permits. However, the adjacent property owners after-the-fact consent is <br />vital to the request. <br />Bv a vote of 6 to ft Planning Commission recommended denial of the application. Denial of the <br />application would require the applicant restore the property to the elevations previously approved by the <br />2001 Conditional Use Permit <br />The Planning Commission recommended denial of the application to permit an after-the-fact variance and <br />conditional use permit for land alteration within 26* of the wetland, the denial includes any altera^ beyond <br />the previously approved elevations. No recommendation was provided regarding the land alteration over the <br />property lines and on the neighboring properties. This resulted from the information that was provided <br />regarding the le^lity of the application.