My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-13-1992 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1992
>
04-13-1992 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2024 10:27:16 AM
Creation date
3/12/2024 10:23:16 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
329
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. <br />LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT <br />MI NOTES <br />TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (TRC) <br />Meeting of Feb. 27, 1992. 8:00-10:00 A.M <br />Norwesl Bank Building Conference Room <br />900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata <br />Minutes of 10/3/91 and agenda for 2/27/92 appro\ed. <br />(Attendence list for 2/27/92 attached; <br />II. Flexibility Requesis <br />Ed Fick began by summarizing flexibility provisions in the <br />DNR Shoreland Regs, and referring members to the pertinent <br />sections. Ed then distributed copies of several pages from <br />an internal DNR Operations Manual which provides additional <br />guidance on the issue. He also explained that an official <br />request for flexibility should be in the form of a letter <br />from the city to Ceil Strauss. Area Hydrologist, explaining <br />which particular provisions in the Regs, cannot be met. why. <br />and how the city proposes to address the issue using <br />different standards or approaches. <br />Ed next gave a couple of examples of cities which have <br />requested flexibility. One involved a density transfer <br />concept where the City is proposing to ensure lower than <br />required impervious 1 imits in some areas in exchange for <br />being allowed higher limits elsewhere. They are ^.Iso <br />proposing a comprehensive stormwater management plan which <br />would be implemented over time. The second example involves <br />the City of Winona, which is requesting reduction of the <br />I, 000 foot shoreland area to the top of a flood wall which <br />protects the primary developed area of the City, including <br />its central business district. The surface drainage <br />situation beyond the flood wall is being investigated prior <br />to a decision on the request. Someone inquired about this <br />approach involving the relinquishing of height limits beyond <br />the flood wall. Ed responded that the Regs, only require <br />limits in "residential" districts, and that most oi the area <br />proposec for exclusion in this example is not residential. <br />B. Status of Cities. <br />Orono - C. Strauss reported that they are well along in <br />developing a draft, but that she has not yet received it. <br />J. Hurr confirmed this, mentioned that it is her impression <br />the draft will meet or exceed most DNR standards, and that <br />it should be ready in a couple of months.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.