04-12-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M4-299S March 10,2004 Pages T -alf«iliAw» VS Wetland Status . Staffinitially questioned whether this property shouldbeconsidered as a lakeshore lot, because of the existence of929.4 contour lines widiin the property boundaries, and the MCWD Functional Assessment ofWetlands • Hydrologic Setting classification as “Lacustrine Fringe*'. However, after further review and discussion, staffhas concluded that the wetlands ontheproperty for zoning administrative purposes should be considered as wetlands, and bs£ lakeshore, for &e following reasons: 1.The MCWD in its review fordie applicant ’s stormwater/erosion control permits considered this as wetland. 2.The DNR in its wetland inventories considers Femdale Marsh as Basin 8S2-P, separate from Lake Minnetonka which is Basin 133-P. 3.The ^iplicant ’s surveyor has noted that the points of929.4 elevation within the wetland are discontinuous due to thehummockynatureof the wetland, and it would be inqx>ssibleto accurately map any continuity if it did exist. 4.Althou^ a small channel and lagoon outside the property boundaries and three properties to the east allows boats to navigate to die north side ofFerodale Road, the applicant does not have any ability to access the lake, and properties between the navigable area and die property are owned by o&ers, including the Nature Conservancy. With its location across Femdale Road from Lake Miimetonka, the property cannot be considered as abutting Lake Minnetonka. 5.The City of Orono in past zoning applications for properties north of Femdale Road has consistently treated the wetlands as wetlands, not as lakeshore. Orono's wetland sediack requirement is 26'. While the proposed residence and amenities appear to more dian meet diis requirement, portions of the existing driveway are within 26' of the wetland Most of this encroachment is proposed to be eliminated, by removing the driveway and relocating it inland However, at the point where the driveway enters the alley, it is less than 26' setback. The two options to consider here are: grant a variance for this small area of existing encroachment to remain; or require that all portions of the driveway, including that portion in the alley to be vacated, berelocatedto meet the 26'setback. We would also note that the MCWDrequires a 3S' buffer, so it would be tqipropriatc to move the driveway so that it meets a 3 5' setback from wetland at all locations. Staffwould recommend Option B. This will avoid the need fora wetland sethaclc variance. Ilieapplicant should be asked whether there are any reasons this cannot be accomplished. * i i . I u i