My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
03/13/2002 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2002
>
03/13/2002 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2014 3:14:01 PM
Creation date
6/5/2014 9:41:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
03/13/2002
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
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).
View images
View plain text
• <br />• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />January 9, 2002 <br />Page 16 <br />Mr. Lyden questioned the Department of Natural Resources' jurisdiction compared to the <br />jurisdiction of the Rice Creek Watershed District for granting approval of this <br />development. He also asked if the Rice Creek Watershed District had a more current <br />detailed report on their opinion regarding this application. <br />Mr. Wallick stated the Rice Creek Watershed District has approved the development <br />plans, subject to the approval of the City. He indicated the Watershed District wants <br />more information regarding the design of the bridge. <br />Mr. Smyser stated the Department of Natural Resources has jurisdiction over any project <br />on any public waterway in the State below the ordinary high water level. He stated the <br />Rice Creek Watershed District has jurisdiction over the wetland conservation. He <br />indicated a wetland may or may not be located within the ordinary hi :h water level area <br />and this must be determined on an individual basis. He stated <br />extends into the ordinary high water level area, then the Wa <br />jurisdiction there under the Wetland Conservation Act. <br />Mr. Rafferty expressed concern for the limited inf <br />noted the island cannot be accessed by vehicles ith <br />major issue. He questioned whether the appli <br />design the bridge until the project concep rove <br />e, if the wetland <br />ict would have <br />Mr. Andrews indicated the current apple ion w <br />typical to not submit the final sc cs °'e final plans are submitted to the City <br />Engineer. <br />ng the bridge. He <br />e, which he felt was a <br />t wish to expend the money to <br />for a preliminary plat and it would be <br />Mr. Rafferty noted the d <br />grading and erosion c <br />He questioned wh <br />om +ucks Associates numbered C3 -1 showed the <br />rmation but showed no details for the proposed bridge. <br />should be considered as a secondary issue. <br />Mr. Andrews _ they $ a "" e considered a number of options for access to the island, <br />however, they h v . receiving conflicting recommendations. He stated they did not <br />want to design th bridge prior to determining whether the project would meet the PDO <br />guidelines and MSA criteria. He stated he did not agree with the statement in the staff <br />report that the result of this PDO would not be a superior product. He believed the <br />applications met the intent of the PDO. <br />Mr. Lyden requested confirmation that the Department of Natural Resources has issued a <br />permit for the construction of a bridge and the Rice Creek Watershed District has <br />approved the current design of the project. Mr. Andrews stated this was correct. <br />Mr. Hyden asked how the water will be treated after reaching the storm water pond. Mr. <br />Wallick stated the pond will have an outlet at a certain level so that when water reaches <br />that level it will drain toward the wetland. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.