02-17-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, January 20,2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. required to allow the creek crossing. The specific issues with the driveway are: Portions will be within 75* of the OHWL of the creek where no hardcover or pading is allowed except by variance per Section 78*1286; Portions will be within a delineated wetland or within 26* of the wetland, requiring variances from die City (any variance for this work granted with the final plat approval would by definition have expired within one year of that approval if not used). Grading and filling in or near a wetland, and crossing of the creek, are also subject to WCA regulations administered for Orono by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and variances to their regulations would likely be required. As a related issue, Gaffron noted that the 1990 subdiiision approval required that there be only one access to Watertown road for the two lots. i.e. a shared driveway is required. Gaffron pointed out that a pnmary issue for development of Lot 1 is access. The proposed access along the easterly boundary of Lot 2 has inqiactt on the shape and development potential of Lot 2. The current proposal correctly assumes that variances would not be granted to allow the dnveway to parallel the creek within the 75' hardcover/grading setback. Assuming that a wetlandcreek crossing withm Lot 1 would ulUmately be approved, then the proposed 30' corridor along the east boundary of Lot 2 and skirting the hillside in the south half of Lot 1, is treasonable plan. However, in order for the (kiveway to skirt die hill and not encroach into Lot 2, Outlot A is shonened and Lot 1 extends southward past the base of the hill. This is the hardship basis that supports the lot width variance for Lot 1. As a desipi for the driveway hu not been submitted and such a design would entail variances which cannot be quantified without such a design for review, the ^iplication remains incomplete and the dnveway information will have to be provided and reviewed before preliminary plat approval can be granted. Furthermore, Gaffron explained that a park fee of S2d0 was paid for the existing Lot I when it was created in 1990 per the ordinance in place at that time, and no park fee was paid for Lot 2, on the PAGE 27 of 64