01-19-2000 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

•. % ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (n?) U2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELL YA VEMJE • Continued information regarding cut and fill calculations to determine the amount of land alteration on the property. Although the property owner stated he had not done any land alteration at that time, it is staff s belief that land alteration had occurred simply because building a retaining wall in most cases would require some land alteration. The retaining wall and slope area are located within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. Weinberger stated the code requirements for granting a conditional use permit in this case would also require approval of variances. The variances required would be for hardcover within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. The applicant has not submitted an application for a variance. Weinberger said the notices for the public hearing before the Planning Commission did note that variances were being requested because staff felt the application for variances would be submitted; however, the variance application has not been submitted up to this time. Weinberger cited the three sections of the code that would require variances in order for the retaining wall to be approved. Section 10.22, Subd. 2, Section 10.55, Subd. 8, and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L). Weinberger said this application is only for the retaining wall. The Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 15 th and recommended denial of the application for the Conditional Use Permit based on not having enough information to proceed with the application. They did not have an application for variances to review. The applicant’s request did not meet the requirements of the code; therefore, the Planning Commission was not in a position to make a recommendation of approval. The Planning Commission commented that additional information such as photos and information from the contractor would be helpful. Weinberger said that typically, if a resident were to make an application for the work that was completed on this property prior to it being an after-the-fact situation, staff would have required a current survey showing all existing grades on the property, a survey showing the proposed topographic changes, additional engineering details on the walls, and a drainage study. Weinberger said that staff recommends the application for an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit be denied or, if the applicant requests, to table and revise the application. He requested that the applicant provide a variance application for the hardcover within the 75 ’ lakeshore setback, additional information regarding the property conditions prior to construction of the wall such as plans submitted to the contractor, photos and site survey, and information relating to the contractor and plans the contractor used for the project. The information that the contractor would have used would be very important in determining hardship on the property as well as the impact of the conditional use permit. Jabbour stated that filing an application for a permit does not ensure it will be approved. Rick Sheridan stated that Mr. Hoyt is present at the meeting. Sheridan said he wanted to clarify some points from the staff report. He referred to the first paragraph of the report which Page 4