07-23-2007 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• C: ORONO CITY f Monday 7:00 c ( #05 -3143 Dan Hessburg, Continued) Within the 75 -250 foot zone, there is 30.3 percent Additionally, the applicant constructed a wooden f meanders across the property line. City Code allot the fence must be constructed on one property and OF THE rNCIL MEETING y 23, 2007 ck p.m. •dcover where 27.2 percent was permitted. ,e along the northern side lot line. This fence construction of privacy fences without a permit but iy not cross onto another. The applicant altered the approved grading plan by ,, conducting unpermitted grading, installing unpermitted boulder retaining walls, and installing an unpermitted underground drain -tile system. The City's Engineer has reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant's landscape contractor regarding the drain tile system and those comments are reflected yin Exhibit C of the Staff memo. Planning Staff recommends the applicant be refers d back to the Planning Commission for after- the -fact consideration and approval of the excess 380 square feet total site hardcover. McMillan inquired whether the 75 -250 foot hardcover excess is the boulder walls Curtis stated to her understanding the hardcover White inquired whether the City Engineer has Kellogg stated he has visited the site and that the bi what was approved. Kellogg noted Exhibit C outli: site would be able to accommodate a total rainfall c conveyance system, like the previously approved s' from storms larger than 0.8 inches. White inquired how the fence got constructed on & Hessburg stated he did not construct the fence and feet into his property. Hessburg stated he did rem(' on his property and that he did reimburse the neigh was actually not his. Hessburg stated he was unaware that the City requi Hessburg stated they realized after final grade had 1 retention and that a four -inch drain tile system was his calculations, it would accommodate 20 percent goes into the drain tile system. is a result of the boulder walls. the site and reviewed the drainage. :st concern is that the drainage plan does not match his concerns and that the main concern is that the h of 0.8 inches. Kellogg stated an additional -s, will be necessary to convey the excess runoff neighbor's property line. his neighbor actually constructed the fence three the fence thinking that it was his fence since it was for the materials after he found out that the fence a permit for the underground tiling system. L achieved that they had a problem with water alled for approximately 300 feet. According to icover. Hessburg noted 80 percent of the runoff Hessburg stated he did not realize he needed to obtain a conditional use permit for the staircase and that the boulder walls were constructed to help control the runoff into the lake. Hessburg stated the four interceptors on the gutter system should probably be screened to help ensure that the runoff goes into the drain tile system. Hessbur ' noted there have been some letters submitted from the neighbors, Mr. Okerstrom and Todd and Terri Haugan, indicating they do not have any problems with 40 I the work performed on the property. Hessburg statd he attempted to make his property safe and handle the runoff appropriately. '1 PAGE 3of17