My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-06-1989 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1989
>
09-06-1989 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2023 4:11:47 PM
Creation date
11/22/2023 12:22:39 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
178
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
I minutes that note that attended the Issues have been stlons of wildlife <br />ponding areas will <br />4 or the easterr <br />iltered with the <br />wildlife habitat, <br />engineer and on- <br />ngs to confirm the <br />s on the property, <br />have been creat^ <br />Installed by the <br />bhe mid-north and <br />tland areas. All <br />I. The City would <br />ir natural state. <br />from the proposed <br />i-off to the lake^ <br />0 contact the U.S. <br />for comment on <br />as compared to an <br />11 provide that <br />last meeting the <br />9ng the northeast <br />long their west <br />ivisions provided <br />tatter of merely <br />trty's boundaries. <br />1 by Auditor's <br />oundry lines. We <br />lis issue must be <br />City Attorney's <br />ral does not have <br />ironberg and the <br />Lawtons prior to <br />lembers want more <br />happy to respond <br />.T- <br />f <br />■Mnt"mm L.X.mmm.:■m-m.mmr.f <br />f <br />V, :;;v - <br />V- <br />¥f <br />A'-* <br />fir. <br />^ -.v- • '•:■•:-v <br />-■ Tt-.l <br />t - T-4 - > J .- - <br />J ^•:m mmm': <br />ir"^; • <br />fa.mmmmy: <br />•vW--: V -:Jmm-4 <br />:> <br />- m4 1' n;«IM■ ■■mm m c- I--.:Kmft,mm <br />^mmmrny............... <br />^■ V • : ^ V- <br />wmrnBmmh <br />k-T- - . ■if ,-;.,..- <br />k^tc^ l&v , S:i-'' fc' C "1^ <br />^7-' <br />mm <br />iiiii <br />,ri <br />. **»'-' >■.- • •• <br />:3.s4 <br />i •■m <br />'1‘ <br />f- <br />p^m <br />■ -S-- *• .•\-.--:-y .--v <br />mm <br />. mmmm-i%miAy mmmm:-Zoning Pile #1411 September 1, 1989 Page 6 of 9Please review Exhibit L, the Dixon letter dated June 26r 1989 It«ns 1 through 6. Staff feels that Items 1 through 3 and 5 and 6 have been answered by either staff or the applicant's consultant. The issue raised in Item 4 deserves to be expanded on. Many of the neighbors have expressed the same concern "this has been a very dry period for the last few years and the laUce level is down 3 to 4 inches and is the developer providing <br />the appropriate drainage plan that can address drainage needs <br />during wet years". Calculations provided in the drainage plan <br />and in the drainage calculations submitted for the Watershed <br />District and the City Engineer's office deal with established <br />standards for areas at defined flood periods. Please note <br />that the drainage plan where detention ponds are defined show not <br />only the normal water elevation but a flood elevation. It is the <br />responsibility of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the <br />City per its flood plain and wetlands ordinances to insure that <br />increased run-off resulting from development will not impact the <br />surrounding existing development with flooding during heaving <br />rains. The guidelines for such drainage reports are standards <br />established by Federal and State authorities and agencies. In <br />this specific review the 100 year and 1 year phenomena format <br />was addressed. The proposed drainage plan will clearly function <br />without a negative impact in wetter years. <br />Please refer to Exhibit Q. A group of concerned neighbors have <br />submitted a 15 lot plat drafted by BRW fr' consideration. <br />Unfortunatelyr the City staff has no author: uy to review the <br />proposal as the current cwnei of the property h.is not given staff <br />permission. A representative of the neighbors may clearly <br />present this proposal to the developer, but once again staff has <br />no authority to address this proposal under the review of <br />application #1411 Sussex Square Development. The neighbors are <br />welcome to contact the developer and if the developer wishes to <br />adopt any of the elements of the plan, that is the developers <br />option. As to the second issue, staff must once again remind <br />members we are not dealing with an LR District, this is a rural <br />residential subdivision and hardcover is not a consideration. I <br />advised the neighbors that very often the larger lots receive <br />more intense development. Staff does not understand the <br />statement that claims this area is particularily sensitive to <br />soil erosion and run-off because of the ponds and low areas. <br />Erosion usually teJces place where there are extreme variations in <br />elevations. This is predominatly a moderate to flat area that <br />is under consideration for development. The presence of ponds or <br />ponding areas does not suggest erosion problems. I think the <br />third issue has been addressed by staff and the applicant. <br />yy:.- -y. <br />It <br />yyy-mmm <br />i I ■ <br />mi <br />"rmm. <br />m:m-yV.'m ’umijrj ’-m..U.: -'-it*' <br />iteiii 6mJy- <br />m- '.:^0S^4y y .: . ■ '•''nv-■. <br />■V---. ^ .• ■ J <br />:H;='■m:rnMmm <br />rn-m
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.