04-25-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

To: Planning Commission i From: Michael P. Gaffr n, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date: April 13, 1988 Subject: #1211 Gerald Nes1und/James McCaffrey, 1225 Orono O.,ks Drive - C.U.P./Variance - Request for Revised Location The applicants were granted a Conditional Use Permit and variance to construct a driveway directly through a wetland in order to access their property on Orono Oaks Drive. The intent of the approval was to allow for a straight driveway that would disrupt the least amount of wetland. Their preliminary engineering work by McCombs/Knutson indicated a driveway could suitably be constructed using sand fill and geotechnical fa.j:-i^ to "float" the driveway over the wetland, which appeared to be a shrubby swamp and relatively stable. As construction of the driveway progressed, it became clear that the wetland was not as stable as had been thought, and the sand f ill is sinking away, leaving a large pond. It appears that the costs of continuing the driveway in this location will be prohibitive, and not feasible given the hundreds, perhaps thousands of yards of material that might have to placed i:i the wetland area to create a driveway access. The applicants are proposing to remove as much of the placed fill as possible, allowing the wetland to return to its previous state, id relocate the driveway further west on an easement over Lot #8. This proposed driveway location is on a higher elevation at the west end of the wetland, at the base of the hill on Lot 8. There will need to be a crossing of a drainage way and the appl'^ants note there is alr,-- a culvert in place. Applicants note that they had originally discussed this driveway location with the Neslunds, who also own Lot 8, but were unable to obtain such an easement until now, due to the unique circumstances. The McCaffrey's request and soil boring report have been submitted to City Engineer, Glenn Cook for review. As of this writ ,.rig, we have not heard back from Glenn with his recommendation on this r.: er. Staff Recommendation Because the applicants would not technically need nditional Use Permit or variance to construct a rl- eway that me . crosses a narrow drainageway as is now propose and because _h• rnposod driveway is greater than 26 from the edge if the wet Iar,O, as currently defined by drainage easements on Lot 8, it woA-Li appear that formal approval of the revised propo ' is not neces:.arily required. There still remains the question of w. it the wetland easement on r•ot 8 is extensive enou-r', to contain the en. wetland, however, it does i,ot seem appropriate at this time to request. ]itional wetland easement on Lot 8, since there is no request for an improvement that benefits Lot 8. Sta "` ••oli ld recommend that Planning Commission recommend conceptual app, for the new proposed driveway easement, subject to whatever rond: s are suggested by the City Engineer. This item will be scheduled for !'c u,ici 1 review at their meeting of April 25. l