Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> 1. The City Attorney has reviewed the documents provided. Mr. Sandelin has <br /> concerns regarding the status of the plat, whether it is being done as a Common <br /> Interest Community or not. He has also requested some additional information, <br /> including, <br /> a. Current title work, <br /> b. Homeowners Association Documents, <br /> c. Copies of exhibits to be attached to the declaration. <br /> The title work has been provided and is being reviewed by Mr. Sandelin. <br /> 2. There are no lights to be placed within the shore impact zone, therefore a lighting <br /> plan is not required. <br /> 3. The applicant has submitted a stormwater pollution and prevention plan to the <br /> City Engineer for review. Engineer Mike Rude has provided comments, <br /> including the following recommendations: <br /> a. While the plan sheets address sediment tracking, including inspection for <br /> and removal of the same, we would suggest adding rock construction <br /> entrances to the BMP's shown on sheet 1 of 2. <br /> b. From the plan view on sheet 1 of 2 and the impervious calculations table <br /> on the same page, it appears that 3 separate paved walking trails are <br /> proposed. One of these is proposed in close proximity to Sibley Lake. <br /> Presuming that this location is allowed under applicable State and City <br /> ordinances, we would suggest some type of perimeter sediment control, at <br /> a minimum, be shown for this trail. <br /> c. At such time as the owner and/or contractor have identified personnel that <br /> will be responsible for SWPPP implementation, contact information for <br /> these people should be provided to the City of Pequot Lakes. <br /> The applicant has amended the SWPP plan to add the suggested rock construction <br /> entrances and also to remove the walking trail in close proximity to Sibley Lake. <br /> 4. The applicant has submitted sewage treatment design information to the City <br /> Engineer. The Engineer has reviewed the design and provided the following <br /> comments: <br /> a. The flow determination for Phase 1 design was based on 300 gallons per <br /> day (gpd) per 2-BR dwelling. Phases 2 and 3 were based on 450 gpd per <br /> 3-BR dwelling. The City should note the difference for these phases and <br /> be aware of the floor plans for the units when building permits are issued. <br /> b. Phases 1 and 3 are proposed as pressure trenches, while Phase 2 is <br /> proposed as gravity distribution. Phase 2 treatment field is very close to <br /> (if not at) the edge of bluff as shown in the drawings submitted. The <br /> setback required between a building structure and a treatment area is 20 <br /> feet. If this system can be moved away from the edge of bluff at all, this <br /> would minimize the potential for surfacing at this bluff location. The City <br /> may also consider allowing the building setback from Unit 10 to be <br /> reduced as warranted by site conditions, but no less than a 10 foot setback <br /> is recommended. <br /> c. The primary and secondary treatment areas should be protected from <br /> compaction due to construction activities, and after construction by <br /> Planning Commission Minutes 2 <br /> January 18, 2007 <br />