My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1997/06/02
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
Agenda Packets - 1997/06/02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:48:15 PM
Creation date
6/28/2018 2:54:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
6/2/1997
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
6/2/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
190
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
• <br /> -sal• MEMORANDUM <br /> • ST.PAUL,MN ❑ MINNEAPOLIS,MN a ST CLOUD.MN C CHIPPEWA FALLS, WI ❑ MADISON, WI <br /> TO: Pamela Sheldon, City of Mounds View <br /> / <br /> FROM: Rocky Keehn t/ <br /> DATE: May 22, 1997 <br /> RE: Mounds View, Minnesota <br /> Review of PUD for Silver Lake Road and Highway 10 <br /> SEH No. A-MOUND9701.00 <br /> The PUD area is located in the southeast corner of T.H. Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road. The <br /> developer completed a preliminary layout of a proposed development for the City to review. As part <br /> of the site plan, there was a proposed Service Station, Condo Building, Restaurant, and Office <br /> Building (see attached figure). Besides the building areas, the developer proposed two sediment <br /> • ponds. One was located in the east end of the property(east pond) and the other in middle of the site <br /> (central pond). Also part of the site plan is an existing office building and wetland. <br /> There are four aspects of the project that were reviewed. They were: the wetland protection <br /> measures presented, wetland buffer requirements, internal drainage and impacts to the current water <br /> elevations in the adjacent wetland. <br /> General Comments <br /> The calculations sent to us for review did not take into account the existing office building. This <br /> building's runoff would need to be added to any calculations for the ponding requirements. Also, <br /> the site is a DNR protected waters (62-258 W). Since this is a DNR protected waters, an additional <br /> permit and other construction restriction will be required. The developer should also request that <br /> the DNR determine an Ordinary Highwater (OHW) for the site. The OHW should then be shown <br /> on any future development plans. <br /> Wetland Protection <br /> The site plan presented for the PUD contains two locations for a NURP or sediment pond (the <br /> developer's engineer used NERP which is incorrect). We feel that the east pond is not feasible. In <br /> order for the stormwater to reach the east pond from the site, a ditch or pipe must be installed. If it <br /> is piped, the existing culvert under Highway 10 would be blocked. If it is ditched, water from the <br /> Highway 10 culvert will also be diverted to the treatment pond. The pond would need to be sized <br /> • to accommodate drainage from an additional 26 acres. With the additional 26 acres, the proposed <br /> pond is more than likely too small. Also,the conveyance system, whether it be ditch or piped,would <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.