My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
Ordinance 17-99
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Ordinances
>
1999
>
Ordinance 17-99
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/20/2015 11:13:36 AM
Creation date
7/20/2015 11:03:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Ordinances
Meeting Date
02/14/2000
Council Meeting Type
Regular
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).
View images
View plain text
By enlarging the pond, we added to the storage capacity of the easement. In <br />his memorandum to the City Council, Mr. Powell has indicated that the pond <br />has an area of 6,000 square feet. We think this is a conservative estimate, <br />but we will use that figure for the time -being. Assuming an average depth of <br />2', the pond holds 12,000 cubic feet of water. There are 8 gallons of water in a <br />cubic foot. That means the pond now holds at least 96,000 gallons of water. <br />In the file at the Rice Creek Watershed District, the notes indicate that the <br />entire easement is required to hold 96,000 gallons of water. The requirement <br />for compensatory storage is fully satisfied by the pond alone. <br />Building the hockey rink has had no effect on the drainage capacity of the <br />easement. The hockey rink was built on the highest ground within the <br />easement area. While fill was taken from one area and moved to another <br />area, there was no net change. An engineer we retained has given an opinion <br />that the hockey rink has only a negligible effect on drainage. We have seen <br />no evidence from anyone contradicting this. <br />WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE WE BUILT OUR HOUSE IS RELEVANT ONLY TO <br />DETERMINE HOW MUCH STORAGE IS NEEDED. <br />In Mr. Powell's memorandum to the council, he makes an issue of the fact <br />that the developer did not grade the easement area according to the proposed <br />grading plan. He refers incorrectly to "storage already missing" and things <br />being made worse by the addition of a swale and the changes to the pond. <br />There is no fire under all this smoke. <br />The developer was required to replace any storage displaced by fill on the rest <br />of the Peninsula. At the time of the proposal, he was estimating how much <br />fill would be needed for the road. In the end, he needed less than 60% of that <br />fill, so he was not required to provide the entire amount of storage in the <br />original plan. There was no "missing storage" before we built on the <br />property. The addition of the swale which was built to accommodate the <br />Schwartz's would have had no negative impact on storage. If anything, <br />digging that out added to the storage capacity. As I explained above, the <br />changes to the pond increased the storage capacity. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.