My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-12-1985 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1985
>
11-12-1985 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2025 10:10:29 AM
Creation date
12/11/2025 10:01:19 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.
/
279
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
additional inspections during the construction of cur monitoring pro- <br />vided that they seal off the culvert during construction and also <br />should it be determined is at some point significant contributor to <br />nutrient loading into the lake that no further dredging will be <br />allowed and that if detrimental, prohibit further harvesting of plznt <br />life or chemical treatment to the pond. <br />RECOMMENDATIONS <br />It is the s a f's recommendation that given the relatively minor <br />nature of both the wetland and the risk when coupled with the benefit <br />anticipated from the alteration that it be permitted to go ahead under <br />the following conditions: <br />- Construction be done in the winter and that the culvert be <br />sealed off during the entire construction time <br />- The spoils that are hauled away be utilized as top soil, at <br />a minimum they must be placed above 931.5 per MCWD <br />- The restrictions mentioned under restoration be included <br />both during the construction and on an ongoing basis <br />- No monitoring is necessary following the alteration apart <br />from the ongoing data from Brown's Bay by Minnehaha <br />Watershed <br />PRECEDENT <br />Primary concern from Council and staff's standpoint is the precedent <br />that this sets in the . %,iewing of future applications that involve <br />the alteration of designated wetlands. Our contributing experts con- <br />firm that if specific findings can be made in these reviews there is <br />no danger of negative precedent setting. The following list suggests <br />some of these necessary findings: <br />- Small size of wetlands altered <br />- Small size of watershed served <br />- Limited flow into the lake <br />maturity of wetlands to a steady <br />A. ration of storm water ponding <br />inc--ease retention time <br />Expected benefits far out weigh risks <br />state <br />characteristics to <br />- Magnitude of risk in relationship to the lake are. minor <br />- No or few others are occurring during the same time frjme <br />Should you have further questions or comments please feel free to <br />contact me. <br />PROPOSED MOTION - It was mo �. ead by i_ , seconded by _ that t ne City <br />Council conceptually approves of the wetland alteration and directs <br />staff to develop that appropriate resolution and work with the <br />applicant to prepare a developer's agreement and appropriate security. <br />Once prepared :staff is direu-t- d to bring knack to Council for final <br />considerations. Ayes Nays _ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.