Laserfiche WebLink
. » <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, January 20,2004 <br />6:00 o ’clock p.m. <br />required to allow die creek crossing. The specific issues with the driveway are: <br />Portions will be within 75' of the OHWL of the creek where no hardcover or <br />grading is allowed except by variarce per Section 78*1286; <br />Portions will be widiin a delineated wetland or within 26* of the wetland, requiring <br />variances from the City (any variance for this work granted with the final plat <br />approval would by definition have expired within one year of that ^proval if not <br />used). <br />Grading and filling in or near a wetland, and crossing of the creek, are also subject <br />to WCA regulations administered for Orono by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed <br />District, and variances to fiieir regulations would likely be required. <br />As a related issue, Gaffron noted that the 1990 subdivision approval required that there be only one <br />access to Watertown road for the two lots, i.e. a shared driveway is required. <br />Gaffron pointed out diat a primary issue for development of Lot 1 is access. The proposed access <br />along the easterly boundary of Lot 2 has in^acts on the shape and development potential of Lot 2. <br />The current proposal correctly assumes dut variances would not be granted to allow the driveway <br />to parallel the creek within the 75' hardcover/grading setback. Assuming dut a wetland/creek <br />crossing within Lot 1 would ultimately be approved, then the proposed 30' corridor along die east <br />boundary of Lot 2 and skirting the hillside in the southhalf of Lot 1, is ateasonable plan. However, <br />in order for die driveway to skirt the hill and not encroach into Lot 2, Outlot A is shortened and Lot <br />I extends southward past die base of the hill. This is the hardship basis diat supports the lot widdi <br />variance for Lot 1. As a design for the driveway has not been submitted and such a design would <br />entail variances which cannot be quantified without such a design for review, die application <br />remains incomplete and the driveway information will have to be provided and reviewed before <br />preliminary plat approval can be granted. <br />Furthermore, Gaffron explained that a park fee of $200 was paid for the existing Lot I when it was <br />created in 1990 per the ordinance in place at that time, and no park fee wu paid for Lot 2, on die <br />PAGE 27 of 64 <br />(