07-19-1982 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f I ' itj .ill :‘l ,1 fi L #693 Hlneline Page 2 Conditional Use Permit 4 -In September of 1978, staff and applicant's engineer met on the site to discuss the subject wetland. Staff (Gaffron, Jacobs & Mabusth) advised that the wetland (now designated on City maps) was indeed a rightful wetlands based on surrounding elevations and local watershed and the green vegetation. Knudson, applicant's engineer, refused to accept staff opinion finding no standing water and stated he trould take the matter directly to Council. The issue was dropped, the wetlands undesignated on the formal plat. Staff somewhat relieved knowing that a house primary and alternate septic area had been located on each involved lot. 5 -Since approval in 1978, the subject wetland has contained a large volume of standing water - staff has slides 1980 and snap shots 1981 and a site Inspection today will reveal the same volume of water. Present Application The applicant proposes the excavation and "reshaping" of the designated wetlands involving Lots 11, 12 6 13, Block 1, of the Orono Oaks plat to create a wildlife pond and in the applicant's mind an aestheticly more appealing one than the natural, undisturbed wetlands. Ordlnemce 31.831 prohibits the alteration of such protected areas so applicant must be advised of the need to apply for a variance also. The watershed is extensive, please refer to my rough drawing (Exhibit E) that designates the drainageway. The City Engineer has been asked to review the proposal 2md the effects it may have on an important reservoir or retention pond for the drainage system. If at the work session, ^lantung Commission feels the pond suitable for wildlife use, the applicant will be ashed to submit his plan for review by the U.S. Hennepin County Soils Department Office (similar to the agency^s review of the Veon wildlife pond). The M.C.W.D. has also been informed of the proposed application and has been asked for early imput for your review. The wetland today, if you refer to the plan for proposed pond is approximately at the 942 elevation. The applicant proposes to excavate to the 932 elevation and with an invert elevation/culvert at 939.2 the pla would be to decrease the area of the pond by making it deeper. Is the retention capacity affected? Lot 12 in its present state is unbuildable because of the setback requirements from the 942 elevation. Lots 11 and 13 are already developed. i