My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-14-1994
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Economic Development Authority
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1994
>
11-14-1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2025 9:07:44 AM
Creation date
6/14/2018 2:14:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
Economic Development Authority
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
11/14/1994
Commission Doc Number (Ord & Res)
0
Supplemental fields
Date
11/14/1994
EDA Document Type
Council Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
EDA Page 7 <br /> . Meeting No. 9 November 14, 1994 <br /> enhancing a wetland and replanting it when the vegetation <br /> already growing there is so nice. <br /> Commissioner Quick remarked that, to his recollection, the <br /> wetland did not exist until County Road I was built and the <br /> owner of the property excavated it. He said the wetland <br /> appears man-made. <br /> Paul Harrington, Community Development Coordinator, commented <br /> that the maps used by the City to determine buildable property <br /> do not show a wetland area at this location and that RCWD <br /> raised the issue of the wetland. <br /> Cathy Bennett said that this approval would not take any <br /> precedence to the building approval. The project is still <br /> required to go through the process. <br /> Linke explained that the EDA must determine whether the <br /> developers actually did what they said they would at the <br /> preliminary hearing and consider approval of the layouts. <br /> Executive Director Samantha Orduno said that it was made clear <br /> 1111 to Jeff Huggett and other members of the development team that <br /> this project would be under close scrutiny, particularly with <br /> respect to drainage problems. It was also made clear this <br /> would be a viable development, that there would not be a <br /> situation where there would be water in that underground <br /> garage. Orduno felt that the development team has complied. <br /> She also felt they were aware of the City's concerns as well <br /> as the concerns of the RCWD and local residents. The items <br /> that the developer said they would provide are now on record <br /> and the City will definitely hold them accountable. <br /> Keene explained the 10: 1 side slope recommendation for the <br /> retention pond. He cited the safety factor since this area is <br /> located in a residential district. He also addressed the <br /> minimum building elevation criteria, and was satisfied with <br /> that. <br /> Keene said he had talked to a RCWD engineer and was told there <br /> was no high water elevation in the wetland located to the west <br /> of the project. <br /> Keene discussed the subject of retention ponding. It is the <br /> philosophy of the City to do nothing about a retention pond <br /> when it turns green. The pond has been built for one purpose- <br /> -to remove the sedimentation. <br /> S <br /> Keene referred to a letter he had written to Paul Harrington <br /> dated November 11, 1994 , in which seven recommendations were <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.