Laserfiche WebLink
Lsion 19 <br />application <br />skating pond <br />luded in DNR <br />equired for <br />11 (maximum <br />Manager Lake. <br />-6*. <br />wetland: <br />t - required <br />y Hill plat <br />5 within the <br />> and F). The <br />jred from site <br />.gnated in the <br />ketch that he <br />M elevation— <br />ount of spoils <br />islands in the <br />th what kind of <br />be used in the <br />ications, the <br />^he designated <br />o wetlands and <br />#852 Gregory Page 2 <br />Review Criteria <br />Puroose of Wetland - The northern wetland functions as ma^or <br />retl^tion area for drainage covering from north providing <br />with a final "clean up" before reaching main lake through <br />The most southern wetland takes the overflow ^elow <br />elevation. This kind of storagehigh assimilative capacities—providing <br />during wet periods. How will application affect the wetland? <br />Location of Wetland - We have no inf ormation as elevation <br />watershed involved here, but the culvert at the 929 elevatio <br />flows directly into Lake Minnetonka. <br />Replacement Factor - As we have no dimension for the northern pond <br />to^be created—we cannot determine the amount of area needed to <br />replace the pond area that once provided assi^milative <br />assure that the quality and quantity of the runoff leaving t <br />property remains the same. This may also involve enlarging the <br />defined protected area and amending the Conservation and Flowag <br />easement filed against the property. <br />Purpose of the Application - The purpose of the application is two <br />fold? First, to create a wildlife pond—it would appear tlwt the <br />area will provide good nesting and breeding areas for wildlife, <br />second, to providl a decorative skating pond The P®nd will <br />retain water at a controlled height but what of ^^® <br />capacity. It would be ZERO as a skating pond. Is the applicant <br />able to provide an equal replacement area? <br />Options of Action <br />Denial based on the following findings: <br />1. To deny the application finding the proposal in complete conflict <br />with the true intent of the City's Ordinances. <br />2. Establish negative precedent for similar reviews. <br />3. The alterations proposed are two great and too extensive and would <br />require major alterations of sensitive wetland areas. <br />4. Proximity to main lake—direct flow into Lake Minnetonka. <br />these areas. <br />6. The building envelope and use of the property can continue without <br />the proposed alterations. <br />m. <br />I <br />4 <br />j l-f' <br />m <br />#852Pag€ <br />Pari <br />To a <br />proi <br />Tab; <br />foi: <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />Tab <br />pon <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />Dii <br />Se< <br />Co] <br />lo<