My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-12-2002 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2002
>
11-12-2002 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 9:54:22 AM
Creation date
2/9/2023 9:51:27 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
179
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, October 28,2002 <br />7:00 o*clock p.m. <br />(802-2843, PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, Continued) <br />The watershed district has said that, conceptually, they agree with that plan but they have not yet <br />approved the Dahlstrom plan cither. In fact, that pond has not <br />been approved and may not be there when this property is ready to give stormwater off from it, <br />and given the way the wetlands were looked at recently, GafTron was given the impression that <br />the watershed may not accept the Dahlstrom development wetland delineation and stormwater <br />plan either. There are many unknowns and GafTron felt there should be a contingency plan <br />available for the MCWD so that they are comfortable with where the water wilt go if the big <br />pond does not get built. <br />Dr. Berg stated that they have been working with Vickie Lindahl, of Landforms,. to develop a <br />stormwater backup plan, with two options, first to use the property next door and dig a hole in it <br />for collection, the other would be to drain the water over to the MnDOT pond. In any scenario, <br />Dr. Berg noted that no paving would be done until next spring, and the wetland would not be <br />affected until then. <br />Gaffron reiterated that mitigation is MCWD’s issue, although the City could work on behalf of <br />the developer with the MCWD to some up with viable solutions. <br />Since the City has been offered a development that it likes and one that fits all of our needs. <br />White maintained that the City should make an effort to let MCWD know this is important to us. <br />Mayor Peterson asked why the MCWD did not like this proposal. <br />Moorse indicated that it wasn't a matter of them liking the proposal, there is a certain process to <br />the way they look at their issues. <br />Murphy asked whether the City should go to worst case scenario and back a plan that finds a <br />mitigable plan to move this forward. <br />While not unwise to prepare a back up plan, Gaffron felt the consultant still had a case for the <br />incidental wetland. <br />Sansevere asked who, besides the stafi'person Wyatt, was saying no to the application. <br />Gaffron noted that Wyatt put together a TLP panel to look at this application, in doing so due to <br />lack of representation for our side, which is a point of contention for the City, they only heard <br />Wyatt’s perspective. <br />Murphy suggested, once again, that the City make an official attempt to get on the MCWD <br />agenda for November 7,2002. <br />PAGE 16 of 20 <br />1 <br />I
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.