Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, March 15, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#12. #04-2995 BOB CARLSON,JYLAND HOMES, 1070 W. FERNDALE ROAD, LOT <br /> AREA AND WIDTH VARIANCES—Continued) <br /> Gaffron noted that the survey presented does not match the tax parcel dimensions shown on <br /> County plat maps. The northerly part of Lot 4, all wetland, is owned by the Nature Conservancy <br /> according to Hennepin County. A revised, corrected survey will be required, or evidence that the <br /> survey is correct. <br /> Gaffron noted that the need for a lot width variance was identified by staff during the variance <br /> review. He explained how lot width was measured for this oddly-shaped site. Gaffron indicated <br /> that the wetlands on the property are shown based on the City's 1974 wetland maps and to some <br /> extent on the topography, using the 929.4' contour. Topography is not shown for the entire site, <br /> however. No wetland delineation has been completed, due to winter conditions. The wetland <br /> boundary shown on applicant's survey appears to be consistent with the topography of the site <br /> based on the City's topo map. The exact area of wetland cannot be determined unless or until a <br /> wetland delineation and survey is completed. The exact location of the wetland boundary and <br /> the exact area of wetlands is probably not critical to the application, in that whether the site <br /> contains 1.6 or 1.7 or 1.8 acres dry buildable, it is still `buildable' for residence purposes in <br /> staff's opinion. However, at any location where construction approaches less than, say, 40' from <br /> the perceived wetland, it would be critical to know the exact boundary. A wetland delineation <br /> should be conducted as soon as weather permits to allow for verification of the boundary. <br /> However, I do not believe it is necessary to delay this variance application process for the <br /> delineation. <br /> Gaffron noted the reasons why this property is considered as abutting a wetland and is not <br /> considered as lakeshore. He notes that Orono's wetland setback requirement is 26'. While the <br /> proposed residence and amenities appear to more than meet this requirement, portions of the <br /> existing driveway are within 26' of the wetland. Most of this encroachment is proposed to be <br /> eliminated, by removing the driveway and relocating it inland. However, at the point where the <br /> driveway enters the alley, it is less than 26' setback. He suggested two options to consider: <br /> A) Grant a variance for this small area of existing encroachment to remain; or <br /> B) Require that all portions of the driveway, including that portion in the alley to be <br /> vacated, be relocated to meet the 26' setback. Because the MCWD requires a 35' buffer, <br /> it would be appropriate to move the driveway so that it meets a 35' setback from wetland <br /> at all locations. <br /> Gaffron stated that Staff would recommend Option B. This will avoid the need for a wetland <br /> setback variance. The applicant should be asked whether there are any reasons this cannot be <br /> accomplished. <br /> Gaffron summarized the hardships that support the lot area and width variances. However, he <br /> noted that Staff does not find any hardship that would support a wetland setback variance to <br /> continue the driveway in its nonconforming location, and would recommend its relocation to <br /> avoid the variance. <br /> Page 36 of 48 <br />