My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-26-2007 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
11-26-2007 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2012 4:09:13 PM
Creation date
7/23/2012 3:59:56 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, November 26, 2007 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />( #07 -3310 Ryan Companies US, Inc., 2765 Wayzata Boulevard West — Continued) <br />Murphy indicated he is in agreement with the City Engineer that the anticipated work on the ditch be <br />completed up front. <br />White asked where the 72 percent figure comes from. <br />Moorse indicated it comes from both MnDOT and the Watershed District. <br />White stated one issue with requiring the work up front is that the applicant's plans could change in the <br />future and the ditch work might need to be redone. <br />McJilton stated they are in agreement on everything except for the timing of the ditch improvements. <br />The existing pond allows for up to 72 percent impervious and their plan calls for 85 percent. They are <br />• <br />asking that the language in the document be modified to be triggered by the 72 percent. Both the <br />MCWD and MnDOT have agreed to the 72 percent impervious, and that once that number is reached, • <br />they would go ahead and complete the work. McJilton commented their plans could change and they <br />may never reach the 72 percent impervious and that they would prefer not to spend money on <br />improvements that are not necessary. McJilton stated they do not plan to reach the 72 percent <br />impervious on the site until the last building is constructed, which could be five years into the future; <br />and that they would prefer the improvements be development driven. <br />McMillan asked whether there are any other reasons for delaying the improvements outside of financial. <br />McJilton stated they would prefer not to have to spend the money on the improvements until they are <br />necessary. McJilton noted there are a few safeguards already in place that would help to ensure the <br />improvements are completed at the time they are necessary. McJilton indicated she could provide a <br />-copy of the agreement with the MCWD to the City for their review and records and that the work could <br />be included as a condition of the development agreement. At the time the building permit is applied for <br />on the last building, they could be required to show the amount of impervious surface to the City. <br />Rahn stated he does not want to get into a situation where the improvements are not completed but that • <br />he can understand the reasons of the applicant for wanting to delay the work. <br />PAGE 6 of 32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.