01/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES INC., 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD, LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT—Continued) 4. The original approvals to construct a driveway within existing Outlot A paralleling the creek, and to construct a creek crossing, are no longer valid,because the driveway and creek crossing were never constructed and new, more restrictive regulations have since been adopted which would make such construction a violation of current codes. A number of variances are required to allow the creek crossing. The specific issues with the driveway are: a) Portions will be within 75' of the OHWL of the creek where no hardcover or grading is allowed except by variance per Section 78-1286; b) Portions will be within a delineated wetland or within 26' of the wetland, requiring variances from the 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). c) 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 subdivision 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 primary issue for development of Lot 1 is access. The proposed access along the easterly boundary of Lot 2 has impacts on the shape and development potential of Lot 2. The current proposal correctly assumes that variances would not be granted to allow the driveway to parallel the creek within the 75'hardcover/grading setback. Assuming that a wetland/creek crossing within Lot 1 would ultimately 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 a reasonable plan. However, in order for the driveway to skirt the hill and not encroach into Lot 2, Outlot A is shortened 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 design for the driveway has not been submitted and such a design would entail variances which cannot be quantified without such a design for review, the application remains incomplete and the driveway information will have to be provided and reviewed before preliminary plat approval can be granted. Furthermore, Gaffron explained that a park fee of$200 was paid for the existing Lot 1 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 basis that Lot 2 previously had a house on it. Thirteen years later, the structure on Lot 2 is still there but has not been lived. PAGE 22 of 53