04-15-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DNR METRO REGION TEL:612-772-7977 Apr 12.96 13:34 No.013 P.02 I ^HONENO. STATE OF 772-7910 FW.E NO, Ml Km) r . April 12.1996 Ms. JemiM M* bustli CityofOrooo P.O. Bok 66 CiyMsl Bay, MimiMoU 5S323 RE: LAND USE APPUCATIONS, CITY OP ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY Da^ Ma Mabuath: 1 have oofmnomsoD the fbUowing land use spplicatkns on the Planning Coflunisaion agenda for April IS, 1996. #2125. Rhfrawi P AT6Q Noftli Shore Drive Minnitonka - Jepninys Bav. 27»133»16) Orsdlng for a proposed residence would go 3 feet into the blufTimpea zone. It is my understaiKling that the ranoffftoai the site would actually be slowed down, and possil^ ponded on the site a bit, with the regradinf and that the doiriineittal impacts on the blulT would be reduced. Given the ciroumstances for the proposed grading, we do not otjeci to the city approving grading in the bluff impact zone. #2130. Noffaert Johnson. 1181 Wildhuts* Bpgtf fTpiyat Lake 27.139V The applic^ lequests approval of a 5«k>t residential aubdiviskm on undeveloped land. It is my understanding that no variances are required. I have no objectioa to the subdivision being approved, however, I do see some concerns with the stormwater management on the property and grading in the area of the existing ravine. 1.In the currently proposed grading plan, the stormwater would be directed to a **NURP*' pond in the smaller ravine on the south side of the propeity. We strongly encourage the city to work with the developer to (^alternatives for management of the runoff. Riuining the wetar to one of the steepest and moat erosive parts of the site is not a good idea. In addition, the proposed pood excavation would be in a location wdiere the necessary gi^ng would diaturb an area that already has steep slopes and is sensitive to disturbance. The feasibility of diverting the runoff to a ponding area in a flatter area (prefienbly not a heavily wooded area) should be seriously pursued, including the possibility of u coordinated effort with a neighboring property owner. 2.Based on review of the proposed grading plan, it appears that the grading for lot 3 may extend into the larger naitval ravine. The extent of the grading should be Held verifled. If the grading does extend into the ravine, the city should work with the applicant to avoid such disturbance, using retaining walls or steeper slopes, u appropriate. 3,Wo iBuksWid that an easement will be placed over the larger ravine (that tuns from the western to the northern portion of the property), although that did not appear on the copy of the jp-ading plan I reviewed. We strongly support placing a protective eaaement over this ravine, which is a si^iificont natural resource within the City of Orono and a great amenity to the properties within the proposed subdiviaion. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER >* • % « • •• • ••••.«• .*• 5 ... . ... > m-