08-18-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21.2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#16 W)3-2922 IMAGINAILITY ON BEHALF OF MIKE CASIIMAN, Complied) Thus, the applicant is requesting a wetland setback variance to allow the placement of two stone address monuments, one on each comer of the private drive. The existing split rail fence would be removed. Wetlands exist on each side of the private drive. Waataja stated that the applicants have submitted a survey showing property lines, easements and the proposed location of the stone monuments. The wetland boundaries shown on the survey are not the result of a w etland delineation but rather the wetland boundaries that w ere recognized w hen the property w as platted. AAer a site visit, staff has concluded that the wetland boundaries depicted on the surv ey are not accurate. The wetlands appeared to have gotten larger (especially on the western side of the drive) and staff believes both stone monuments w ould actually be closer to the w etland than what the survey is showing (15* and 17’). Waataja identified sev eral key issues for Consideration; 1 . Should a stone address monument be allowed within the wetland setback? 2. Should the sight visibility triangle be obstructed? 3. Due to the topography arid tree line, would the address monuments improve the visibility of the drive entrance, or does the split rail fence sufHcc? 4. Will the structural integrity of the monument be compromised due to the wet soils? 5. If the location of the w etlands and vegetation constitute a liardship, and approval of the variance is being considered, should a wetland delineation be conducted to confirm the magnitude of the variance? Based on these issues, Waataja indicated that staff recommends denial of the wetland setback variance because the applicant has not demonstrated that sight visibility issues would improve w ith the r lacement of address monuments in place of the existing split rail fence Omsicin stated that the current location of the address plaques makes it difficult to read them in the winter months. She stated that they often are knocked over and it is critical for emergency vehicles to be able to identify the addresses in the event of an emergency. She pointed out that most of Fox Street is lined with split rail fence and that there is little to distinguish this entrance Since entrance markers are allowed in the City Code. Omstein indicated that they would be open to follow ing staff rccommeitdations regarding the type of monument and footings to ensure their stability. She stated that she had visited the site and that the 1992 survey shows the monument would fit in the 30’ sight triangle. Chair Smith asked how the monument could be moved outside the w etiand setback zone. Gaffron indicated that it appears that the wetland has grown since the 1992 survey was performed. Mark Gronberg. Gronberg and Associates, indicated that they had identified a partially blocked culvert under the railroad tracks 10 years ago and suggested the City unclog the culvert since A could be some of the cause behind the backup issues faced by Fox Street. He questioned whether PAGE 28 of 37