08-14-2006 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 0 f MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 14, 206 7:00 o'clock p.m. ( #05 -3076 Grading Plan Review —1280 Spruce Curtis stated in January 2005, the applicant submitt( process, revising plans in response to Planning Corr. building plans and site plan which the Planning Cor variances for a house with a conditional use permit to remove a lake access stair and the existing home, final inspections, Bruce Vang, Orono's building ins match the grading plan submitted and the hardcover Continued) d plans and worked through the variance review nission concerns. Based on a specific set of mission found acceptable, lot area and lot width allow grading within the 0 -75 foot zone in order were granted in January 2005. At the time of the sector, noted that the finished site grading did not level exceeded 25 percent as required. Today's plan reflects 3,179 square feet or 29.2 percent hardcover within the 75 -250 foot zone where 2,737 or 25 percent was proposed. Per the conditions of the Resolution, Staff is requesting Council review of the revised proposal for a determination of whether the increases in hardcover are the result of unforeseen grading issues and are still in keeping with the intent of the variance and CUP approval or if corrections and hardcover reductions should be mace. The existing hardcover and grading is reflected on the newly submitted as- built. While the gradingiappears to work, the hardcover exceeds the level that was approved. The additions in hardcover are essentially boulder retaining walls which were not originally proposed, but may have been the result of choices in home design, site grading, and placement of the home on the property, without understanding the ramifications of those choices. Planning Staff recommends the applicant be refer consideration and approval of the excess 442 squ 5282 to allow the excess 442 square feet without Jeffrey Gustafson stated as it relates to 1280 Spru landscaping, the city engineer, and the building it order to accommodate the runoff from the adjoini done. The owner was requested to grant a drainal appropriately. Gustafson stated they are over on the hardcover accomplish proper drainage and grading on the ss boulder work was done that was not depicted on to handle some runoff from the property to the s, to the Planning Commission for after - the -fact feet hardcover or direct Staff to amend Resolution :her review. Place, the landscaper worked with the owner on the ector on the grading. It was determined that in residences, some grading and filling had to be easement, which was done, and the area was graded that they did what they felt was minimally needed to On the south side of the property some extra plan to help divert water away from the house and Chris stated the driveway was constructed slightly bigger than what was depicted on the plan because the site plan was very difficult to read. Chris indicated the driveway does not go out to the edge of the garage and that he constructed the driveway to allow for reasonable access not realizing that it was wider than what was approved, which did increase the hardcover. Chris commented this site was very challenging to handle the drainage and that on the north side they were required to stay out of the drainage easement. As a result, the retaining walls were built close to the house. Chris indicated they only constructed what was necessary to handle the drainage. Gustafson stated the drainage plan approved for the neighbor to the north depicted their drainage remaining on their property, but in reality the drain spouts on the house divert the water towards this PAGE 3 1