Laserfiche WebLink
L_ <br />•M-2f7I 322«>324tWaltn««aRMd <br />Jaaaary 14.2004 <br />Pagt4 <br />Wetland delineations and the OHUX detennination have established boundaries which have <br />a somewhat limiting effect on the buildablc area, especially of Lot I, due to nonbuildability <br />of wetland and the 26’ setback requirement. <br />The original approvals to constnKt a drivew ay w iihin existing Outlet A paralleling the creek, <br />and to construct a creek crossing, are no longer valid, because the driveway and creek <br />crossing were never constructed and new, more restrictive regulations have since been <br />adopted which would make such construction a violation of current codes. A number of <br />variances are required to allow the creek crossing. The speci fie issues with the dn vcw ay arc: <br />a) Portions will be within 75 ’of the OHWL of the creek where no hardcover or grading <br />is allowed except by variance per Section 78*1286; <br />Portions will be within a dclincaied wetland or within 26* of the wetland, requiring <br />variances from the City (a.-.y variance for this work granted with the final plat <br />**sed)' ** definition hav e expired w ithin one year of that approval if not <br />Grading and filling in or near a wetland, and crossing of the creek, are also subject <br />to WCA regulations adminiitcred for Orono by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed <br />Distncl. and variances to their regulations would likely be required. <br />As a related issue, note that the 1990 subdivision approval required that there be only one <br />access to \V atertowTi road for the tvvo lo3. i.c. a shared driveway is required. <br />Prcliminarv Plat Review <br />° Conformity to Zonins District and Comorth^Httv^ <br />The ptoposni subdirision lo create mideetial lots of wo acres in area or larger conforms to the <br />Q Ktiotionshio to Snrrouiidiiig Di^vflopmont <br />The proposed subdivision is consistent w ith surrounding rural-density residential development. <br />O Lot Layout amd Lot Standard^ <br />Lot area: Both lots exceed the minimum lot area stand-rd of the RR-IB District. <br />. <br />Lot uidth: Lot 2 more than meets the 200’ minimum w idth requirement. Lot I has a defined width <br />of only 105 at the rear of the required 75 ’ front yard, requiring a lot width variuce.