9 - Minutes 011807 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. The City Attorney has reviewed the documents provided. Mr. Sandelin has �• concerns regarding the status of the plat, whether it is being done as a Common Interest Community or not. He has also requested some additional information, including, a. Current title work, b. Homeowners Association Documents, c. Copies of exhibits to be attached to the declaration. The title work has been provided and is being reviewed by Mr. Sandelin. 2. There are no lights to be placed within the shore impact zone, therefore a lighting plan is not required. 3. The applicant has submitted a stormwater pollution a ention plan to the City Engineer for review. Engineer Mike Wmu "'I as provided comments, including the following recommendations: ' .,.a. While the plan sheets address sediment trcing, ing inspection for and removal of the same, we would t'adding r y construction entrances to the BMP's shown on ,�et 1 of 2. 'n b. From the plan view on sheet 1 ;, d the ', pervious capons table on the same page, it appears that ate ed walking trails are proposed. One of these is proposed i proximity to Sibley Lake. Presuming that this lo c tion is allowed applicable State and City ordinances,we would t some type o ;meter sediment control, at a minimum, be shown c. At such time as the owne o e ctor ha identified personnel that will be responsible for S P ' ple on, contact information for these p, Id be provi to the C- of Pequot Lakes. The applic gasame the SWP Ian to add the suggested rock construction entrances to re ve the walki ail in close proximity to Sibley Lake. 4. The applicant ub ,SQ.ewage atment design information to the City Engineer e E erd the design and provided the following coven a. The fl determ #40 r Phase 1 design was based on 300 gallons per y (gpd) day 2-BR elling. Phases 2 and 3 were based on 450 gpd per ,, l 3-BR dwel- The City should note the difference for these phases and aware of e floor plans for the units when building permits are issued. b. s 1 atad 3 are proposed as pressure trenches, while Phase 2 is pro distribution. Phase 2 treatment field is very close to (if no- t) the edge of bluff as shown in the drawings submitted. The setba k required between a building structure and a treatment area is 20 feet. If this system can be moved away from the edge of bluff at all, this would minimize the potential for surfacing at this bluff location. The City may also consider allowing the building setback from Unit 10 to be reduced as warranted by site conditions, but no less than a 10 foot setback is recommended. c. The primary and secondary treatment areas should be protected from compaction due to construction activities, and after construction by Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 18, 2007