Laserfiche WebLink
NIINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> _ Tuesday,January 17,2012 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Grading on the lot will have an environmental impact since many trees will be removed and grading near <br /> a large wetland will be occurring. However,the grading proposed is deemed by the applicant to be the <br /> minimum necessary to provide an ideal building pad for a future home. All trees being lost can legally be <br /> removed without the requested permit, so Staff cannot treat their loss as an.impact unique to the requested <br /> permit. Engineering has reviewed all of the information provided and did not find reason to believe the <br /> proposed grading changes would negatively impact the wetland. The proposed buffer should provide far <br /> better protection to the wetland than do existing conditions. <br /> Gozola noted a neighboring resident has alerted Staff to the presence of a culvert which runs underneath <br /> the driveway in the vicinity of the large wetland to the north of the property. Their concern was that the <br /> existing culvert does not function properly and should be fixed as a component of this project. <br /> As a condition of approval,Staff would recommend that the City Engineer inspect the culvert in question <br /> and determine what improvement can/should be made in relation to the proposed project given that proper <br /> functioning of the culvert is necessary to maintain access to the proposed fill site. <br /> Staff would recommend approval of the variance request and the conditional use permit subject to the <br /> conditions outlined in Staff's report. <br /> Schoenzeit stated based on his understanding of the code,the City would not allow them to change the <br /> zero point of their property for building height,but if they go through the additional steps for a CUP,they <br /> could change it to zero if they met the other conditions. <br /> Gozola indicated he does agree with that interpretation. Gozola stated that interpretation is very easy to <br /> make based on the code and that he would recommend the City look at revising that language. <br /> Levang asked what Staff recommends regarding the buckthorn. <br /> Gozola stated he would support the recommendations of John Smythe. <br /> Leskinen asked whether the City has had any other similar applications where the grade has been raised to <br /> construct a new home. <br /> Gaffron indicated the City has not had one in the case where someone wanted to raise the grade to <br /> construct a house to avoid the issue of a third story. There was a properly on Bohns Point that had to do <br /> with excess fill after the fact for a building permit but did not relate to the height. Gaffron commented <br /> this is a unique situation and that Staff has used this code on a fairly regular basis to tell people that they <br /> are not allowed to place fill against the house to artificially raise the grade. The code basically has the <br /> caveat that additional fill may not be brought on site in excess of 500 yards except for fill required to raise <br /> the grade to adequately protect the frost footings. The intent of the code was that structures shall not be <br /> raised artificially 6eyond the original topography. The code was intended as written to express to the <br /> Council and Planning Commission that there is an intent to not artificially raise the grade and that the <br /> Planning Commission should decide whether they are artificially raising the grade in this situation. <br /> Thiesse asked whether the existing house is on an artificially raised pad. Thiesse commented it appears <br /> that the flat spot the current house sits on is artificial. <br /> Gaffron indicated he does not have that information. <br /> Page <br /> 13 <br />