Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 (#16) Item #1968 - Bangert - Continued Gaffron said this is a two acre vacant, lakeshore lot on Bayside Road to be served by public sewer_ Applicant is requesting variances for lot area, lot width (165' where 200' is needed), and grading and tree removal in the 0-75' Lakeshore setback zone for construction of a driveway and a single family residence. W. Roloffs has evaluated several schemes for access to the lot. There is a steep slope in the front of the property, 15'-20' high with a 1:1-112 slope. The best of three plans involves a driveway running along the front of the property and then turning toward the back. Roloff stated the initial slope is 8.5%, with turn at natural grade and continues due north at 6.5% slope. There would be a retaining wall across the back of the driveway. Engineering concerns were 1)drainage with a culvert to prevent water going into Bayside Road, 2)approval by a registered engineer because of a wall higher than 4', 3)a guard rail on the west side, 4)headlight control on the east side, and 5)slope stabilization, erosion control, revegetation, and preservation with loss of large oak and other trees. Gaffron noted a letter received from Hennepin County Public Works stated the proposed curb cut is in the most acceptable access location of all choices, but none of the possible locations are very good along the 165' frontage. All other access possibilities require obtaining easements through neighboring properties. The building site at the top of the hill is potentially considered a bluff and the DNR has been asked to address this consideration. Roloffs asked for conceptual approval of the plan. Roloffs showed the schematics of the different proposals. A straight driveway up the east side proposed a major grade differential. The easement possibilities created major expense. Smith commented on the alternative easement route having the advantage of no major loss of vegetation. Nolan also reiterated this along with the safety problems involved in the steep driveway plan. Mr. Bangert stated he was not interested in a driveway on an easement over neighboring property. Neighbor to the east, Matt Manley, related the problems of drainage, a blind corner, loss of trees. Manley, personally, did not wish to deal with an easement issue as his property is for sale. Peterson questioned whether the lot was buildable without the proper access and noted the Commission's need for DNR input in resolving the bluff issue. Planning Commission urged the applicant to explore access through adjacent properties. Peterson moved, Nolan seconded, to deny Item #1968. Ayes 4, Nays 0.