Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, July 21, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#16 #03-2922 IMAGINAILITY ON BEHALF OF MIKE CASHMAN, Continued) <br /> Thus, the applicant is requesting a wetland setback variance to allow the placement of two stone <br /> address monuments, one on each corner of the private drive. The existing split rail fence would <br /> be removed. Wetlands exist on each side of the private drive. Waataj a stated that the applicants <br /> have submitted a survey showing property lines, easements and the proposed location of the <br /> stone monuments. The wetland boundaries shown on the survey are not the result of a wetland <br /> delineation but rather the wetland boundaries that were recognized when the property was <br /> platted. After a site visit, staff has concluded that the wetland boundaries depicted on the survey <br /> are not accurate. The wetlands appeared to have gotten larger(especially on the western side of <br /> the drive) and staff believes both stone monuments would actually be closer to the wetland than <br /> what the survey is showing(15' and 17'). <br /> Waataja identified several key issues for Consideration; <br /> 1. Should a stone address monument be allowed within the wetland setback? <br /> 2. Should the sight visibility triangle be obstructed? <br /> 3. Due to the topography and tree line, would the address monuments improve the visibility of <br /> the drive entrance, or does the split rail fence suffice? <br /> 4. Will the structural integrity of the monument be compromised due to the wet soils? <br /> 5. If the location of the wetlands and vegetation constitute a hardship, and approval of the <br /> variance is being considered, should a wetland delineation be conducted to confirm the <br /> magnitude of the variance? <br /> Based on these issues, Waataj a indicated that staff recommends denial of the wetland setback <br /> variance because the applicant has not demonstrated that sight visibility issues would improve <br /> with the placement of address monuments in place of the existing split rail fence. <br /> Ornstein stated that the current location of the address plaques makes it difficult to read them in <br /> the winter months. She stated that they often are knocked over and it is critical for emergency <br /> vehicles to be able to identify the addresses in the event of an emergency. She pointed out that <br /> most of Fox Street is lined with split rail fence and that there is little to distinguish this entrance. <br /> Since entrance markers are allowed in the City Code, Ornstein indicated that they would be open <br /> to following staff recommendations regarding the type of monument and footings to ensure their <br /> stability. She stated that she had visited the site and that the 1992 survey shows the monument <br /> would fit in the 30' sight triangle. <br /> Chair Smith asked how the monument could be moved outside the wetland setback zone. <br /> Gaffron indicated that it appears that the wetland has grown since the 1992 survey was <br /> performed. <br /> Mark Gronberg, Gronberg and Associates, indicated that they had identified a partially blocked <br /> culvert under the railroad tracks 10 years ago and suggested the City unclog the culvert since it <br /> could be some of the cause behind the backup issues faced by Fox Street. He questioned whether <br /> PAGE 28 of 37 <br />