03-15-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M4-299S Mtrck 11.2004 PagtS T VS Wetland Status. Staff initially questioned whether this property should be considered as a bkeshore lot. because of the existence of929.4 contour lines v^ithin the property boundaries, and the MC WD Functional Assessment ofW'etlands • Hydrologic S etting classification as “Lacustrine Fringe**. However, after further review and discussion, staffhas concluded that the wetlands on the property for zoning administrative purposes should be considered as wetlands, and jqs& lakeshore. for the following reasons: 1. The MCWD in its review for the applicant’s stormwaler/erosion control permits considered this as wetland. 2. The DNR in its wetland invemoiies considers Femdale Marsh as Basin 852-P, separate from Lake Miiuietonka which is Basin 133-P. 3. The applicant’s surveyor has noted that the points of929.4 elevation within the wetland are discontinuous due to the hummocky nature of the wetland, and it would be impossible to accurately map any continuity if it did exist. 4 Although a small channel and lagoonoutside the property boundaries and three properties to the cart allows boats to navigate to the north side ofFenidale Road, the applicam does not have any ability to access the lake, and ptopeities between the navigable area arid the property are owned by others, including the Nature Conservancy. With its location across Femdale Road from Lake Minnetonka, the property cannot be considered as abutting Lake .Minnetonka. 5. The City of Orono in past zoning applications for properties north of Fondale Road has conaistaitly treated the wetlands as wetlands, not as lakeshore. Orono’s wetland setback requirement is 26'. While the proposed residence and amenities appear to more than meet this requirement, portions of the existing driveway are within 26* of the wetland. Most of this encroachment is proposed to be eliminated, by removing the ^veway and relocating it inland. Howeva. at the point where the driveway enters the alley, it is less than 26' setback. The two options to consider here are: A) grant a variance for this small area of existing encroachment to remain; or B) requirethatallportionsofthedriveway.includingthatportioninthealleytobe vacated, be relocated to meet the 26* setback We would also note that the MCWD requires a 35 ’ buffer, so it would be appropriate to move the dii vewr^ so that it meets a 35 ’ s^ack from wetland at all locations. Staff would recommoid OptionB. This will avoid the need for a wetland setback variance. The applicant should be asked whether there are any reasons this cannot be accomplished.