10-21-2002 Planning Commission Minutes

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 21,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#3) #02-2834 ROBERT AND JULIE WIENS, 1425 BAY RIDGE ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 6:35 - 7:20 P.M. Robert Wiens,the Applicant, was present. As the item was removed from the consent agenda, Chair Smith asked for public comment. Norma Godfrey, 2060 North Shore Drive, questioned the appearance of the proposed berm and what a 3:1 slope would look like. She was concerned about the preservation of a large row of pine trees which screens her property from the applicants and wondered if the berm would be maintained on all sides. Lorraine Kaley, 1395 Brown Road South, indicated that she had many of the same questions as the first neighbor. Weinberger explained that the property owner had requested a conditional use permit to permit land alteration on the property over 500 cubic yards. The project would be to build a berm, behind the existing row of evergreen trees, along the northern border of the property parallel to North Shore Drive. The intent of the berm would be to screen traffic noise from North Shore Drive. Weinberger noted that the proposed berm would be approximately 8' at the highest point and curve around as shown on the survey. The existing row of smaller evergreens would be removed and replanted on the berm. He pointed out that the berm and plantings would have no impact on traffic sight-lines and would appear to have no negative impacts on site drainage. Weinberger stated that according to the City Engineer, since the property was two lots combined in 1995 and the portion of the lot where the proposed berm would fall was vacant, there is merely a sewer stub on the property with nothing connected to it. Weinberger added that the design was done by an engineer and reviewed by the City Engineer who had no negative comments or concerns. He stated that the widest width of the berm at 8' tall could be potentially 48' and still would not impact the stand of tall evergreen trees it would be located behind. Chair Smith reminded the applicant and Commission that the slope must not exceed a 3:1. Mabusth added that the manhole must be located and marked. Gaffron indicated that the contours of the design were misleading, and based upon his calculations the plan reflected a mere 1' scale versus the normal 2'. He questioned whether the design reflected a 4' or 8' high berm at its peak. Wiens stated that he believed the design reflected a 6' or 8' high peak, however, indicated his willingness to redesign the plan in order to address neighbors concerns. Chair Smith felt it was necessary to determine the true height of the berm with and/or without trees. Page 2