My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-13-2013 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2013
>
05-13-2013 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2015 10:29:50 AM
Creation date
4/7/2015 1:40:39 PM
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.
/
369
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, April 22, 2013 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> Page 7 of 18 <br />(5. Permit #2012-00424 - JAY AND ALYSSA KANIVE, 950 WILLOW VIEW DRIVE – APPEAL, <br />Continued) <br /> <br />It is the Kanives request that they would like the City to issue the permit for the sport court without the <br />conditions regarding the MCWD approval of the updated wetland delineation, without placement of the <br />updated wetland delineation on the as-built survey, without placement of the constructed patio and fire pit <br />areas on the as-built survey, and without relocating the fire pit should it be shown to be located within the <br />16.5 foot buffer from the updated wetland boundary. <br /> <br />Levang noted there are three triggers but they have not met all of those triggers. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated those three triggers together require the establishment of a buffer and Staff is not <br />requiring a buffer. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if it is normal to automatically require a delineation of a wetland. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated the answer is yes if there is not a delineation on file or approved by the Watershed <br />District within the past five years. Due to the proximity of the project to the wetland as well as the <br />apparent change in the wetland boundary, it is Staff’s position that a wetland delineation is required to <br />show the edge of the wetland to make sure the project is not built within the wetland and to help ensure <br />that future nonconformities are not created. <br /> <br />Jay Kanive thanked the City Council for spending time addressing this matter. Kanive stated unless the <br />City Council has any comments about the submission already done as part of the appeal process, he has <br />received Staff’s comments and he will go through their comments since there are some potential <br />inaccuracies. <br /> <br />Kanive stated the first paragraph in Staff’s report says, according to the Wetland Conservation Act, a <br />wetland delineation is valid for a period of up to five years, which is false. Wetlands located in <br />residential subdivisions, per the Minnehaha Watershed Creek, are actually perpetually in place for a <br />residential neighborhood and the Minnehaha Watershed District perpetually relies on them. <br />Kanive indicated he does have an e-mail from Catherine Bach at the Watershed District that states, <br />“However, for developments like Willow View, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District relies <br />perpetually on the location of the wetland boundary as approved with the development permit even <br />though it is over five years old.” Kanive stated their property does have the approved delineation. Orono <br />approved the permit for the development of the entire Willow View neighborhood based on the <br />delineations for each property. What happened during the development is that these delineations were <br />never recorded on the individual plots that were sold off to individual residents. <br /> <br />After the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District informed us that there was this plat, Kanive indicated he <br />came back to the City and provided the delineation. The City did agree it was on file. Kanive indicated <br />he is a little confused as to why Staff is still claiming that the Watershed District says that in five years it <br />expires when in fact the Watershed District says it relies on them perpetually. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Item #03 - CC Agenda - 05/13/2013 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 04/22/2013 [Page 7 of 18]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.