11-10-2014 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 10, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 31 (4. #14-3669 MARK AND KRISTEN ANDERSON, 3850 WATERTOWN ROAD – REVISED GRADING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLAN, Continued) McMillan asked if there is a culvert going underneath Watertown Road or whether it is all drain tile. Anderson stated 30 to 40 years ago the original drain tile was constructed out of 6-inch clay pipe. The drain tile went to the pond that was created in 1992 by Steve Harris and goes directly to the south toward the Butterfield property. In addition, the Butterfields have a pond on the back side of their property. McMillan asked if the new drain tile is in the same location. Anderson indicated it is in the same location and at the same elevation because that was the direction of the runoff. Anderson stated the drain tile connects exactly where the drain tile opening was good, which was at Watertown Road. McMillan asked if any engineering was done on the drain tile. Anderson indicated he can provide the documentation on the drain tile and that the work was performed by a company who has been in business for 40 years. Printup noted of the nine bullet points in the City’s consulting engineer’s report touched on the five bullet points that the neighbor’s concerns related to. Martini indicated that is correct and the only thing that may be different is that the Hedbergs have asked for something to document the current condition showing the difference in the amount of fill. Staff now has a handle on the amount of fill on the site but that his report did not touch on the intermediate placement of the fill. Martini indicated Staff is aware of what the existing conditions were and that they are now attempting to reconcile the proposed grading with the existing conditions to ensure the adjacent properties are not affected. Martini indicated the Watershed District has concurred with the requests that the Hedbergs made. McMillan asked if this would require an amendment to the CUP. Mattick stated the original CUP contemplates a specific amount of fill. Staff has discussed that provision in other contexts and has questioned whether that implies that someone can simply bring in this much fill or whether that is a generalized statement about the scope of the project. There are also provisions in the CUP that address how the plans must be approved by the City Engineer. Mattick stated in this particular instance, when they are talking about doubling the amount of fill brought in, it is hard to contemplate meeting the original approval and in his opinion it is going to need to come back for an amendment to the CUP. Mattick stated if they look at what is recorded right now against the property, it does not look anything like what is being contemplated now and that it exceeded the approvals in the original CUP. Mattick stated it makes sense for the applicant to take the Consulting City Engineer’s comments into consideration and then incorporate those into a revised plan to be reviewed by the City Council. Mattick