Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,April 17,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Thiesse asked if some of those wetlands were created. <br /> Kinve indicated they were and some of them were a result of mitigation. Kinve stated the bigger issue is <br /> the current drainage system, which is not working right. <br /> Thiesse asked if there is a reason why a platted development with platted wetlands would not govern over <br /> everything. <br /> Curtis stated that is how the Watershed District treats it but it is not how WACA treats the wetlands. <br /> Barnhart noted the Watershed District does not require the setback but it does require a buffer in certain <br /> situations. Staff is proposing Option 2, which is kind of in the middle. <br /> Kinve stated it should depend on the type of structure that is being constructed on how far away from the <br /> buffer it should be. Kinve indicated there are water permeable materials that could be used if the <br /> structure is being constructed to the buffer. Kinve stated he would like it to be very transparent, and if <br /> there are delineations, a person should be able to rely on them for the purposes of planning without <br /> having to worry about an additional setback since it erodes a person's use of their property even more. <br /> Landgraver asked what he would prefer if he had a choice between having a fixed delineation when the <br /> properties are platted plus a buffer or whether it should be more of a dynamic one that can be changed <br /> periodically. <br /> Kinve stated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District treats it more as a permanent delineation unless <br /> there is a significant change. Kinve stated in his view Option 3 completely aligns Orono with the <br /> Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Kinve stated he is not for incrementalism simply for <br /> incrementalism's sake, which is what Option 2 is about. Kinve stated he would not be in favor of having <br /> the principal structure right up to the buffer but that other accessory structures could be built right up to <br /> the buffer. <br /> Thiesse commented the intent of the setback was to allow people some additional space in their back yard <br /> but then the setback prohibits them from doing much of anything in that area. <br /> Gaffron stated accessory structures could be right up to the edge of the buffer since people probably do <br /> not care that they cannot walk around the back of their shed or sports court. Gaffron stated the setback <br /> prohibits people from constructing anything in that area. <br /> Kinve stated if the principal structure is built right up to the buffer, it is likely people will incrementally <br /> move into the buffer. <br /> Gaffron noted the City had a 26-foot setback from the edge of the wetland from 1975 until 2005. From <br /> 2005 to 2013,there was a buffer requirement plus a setback and the City would determine the location of <br /> the buffer. In 2013, the City decided to go with the Watershed District's buffer along with a setback. <br /> Gaffron asked whether the Watershed District follows WACA rules. <br /> Barnhart stated to his knowledge they do but that he will verify that. <br /> Page 40 of 48 <br />