My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Request for CC action/encroachment issue
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
G
>
Glendale Cove Lane
>
2325 Glendale Cove Lane - 34-118-23-33-0065
>
Misc
>
Request for CC action/encroachment issue
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 4:57:03 PM
Creation date
7/26/2018 2:02:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
2325
Street Name
Glendale Cove
Street Type
Lane
Address
2325 Glendale Cove Lane
Document Type
Misc
PIN
3411823330065
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Jill and Casey Hoehn <br /> 2325 Glendale Cove Lane <br /> Orono,MN 55356 <br /> November 13,2014 <br /> Melanie Curtis <br /> 2750 Kelley Parkway <br /> Orono, MN 55356 <br /> Dear Ms.Curtis— <br /> This letter is in response to our recent meeting on November 7, 2014 as well as the ori�inal letter we <br /> received dated September 15, 2014. The letter requested that we remove a boulder wall we recently <br /> built as part of our landscaping in late August. According to City documents, the wall is within a City <br /> desi�nated Drainage and Utility Easement area, and also within portions of a Wetland Buffer <br /> Replacement and Wetland Buffer area. <br /> Backaround• <br /> We knew a portion of our property was up against or within a wetland buffer. Therefore, before putting <br /> together a landscaping plan or beginning any landscaping, we proactively inquired about who we <br /> needed to talk with. Under the advice of our Project Manager, we were directed to seek out the <br /> Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) for answers and approvals on what our landscaping <br /> options and boundaries could be. <br /> Our communication/interaction with the MCWD started on June 30th (which we did in-person at their <br /> offices in Minnetonka). In that initial interaction, we simply validated that they were the appropriate <br /> and governing agency to be speaking with given the involvement of the wetland buffer areas on our <br /> property. They acknowledged that they were. With that information,we then told them that we were <br /> seeking their input to determine what our landscaping options and boundaries could be. We provided <br /> them with our Grading Plan Site Copy and discussed the locations of the two silt fences present on the <br /> property. We also shared with them the severe grade challenges that our backyard presented, and the <br /> recommendation of our landscaper that a retaining wall would be the most effective landscaping <br /> alternative to address erosion concerns if that was decided to be an allowable option. Over the next 12 <br /> days, we had no less than 7 interactions with the MCWD. Within that timeframe they came out on a <br /> couple occasions to conduct site visits on our property,taking pictures and (we assumed)measurements <br /> as well. Ultimately they gave us the verbal go ahead to start our landscaping and said we were able to <br /> landscape anything inside the silt fence that ran along the vegetation/tree line (which included the <br /> option to construct a retaining wall if desired). <br /> Over the 12 day period (June 30—July 11) in the interactions with the MCWD,there was no mention of <br /> the absence of wetland delineation marker signs, nor a map provided highlighting the buffer <br /> areas/locations or a suggestion made that we also needed to contact the City. All of these items we <br /> learned about only after the fact in the aforementioned letter from the City. <br /> Working under what we believed to be the appropriate jurisdiction approval,we began our landscaping. <br /> As part of the landscaping plan, after much consideration simply from a cost perspective,we did decide <br /> to include a retaining wall as part of that. Although the wall was a substantial cost (accounting for well <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.