Laserfiche WebLink
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 4406�vention plan to the <br /> City Engineer for review. Engineer Mike Rum as provided comments, <br /> including the following recommendations: ���� � <br /> a. While the plan sheets address sediment tr ing, in ,, <br /> ding inspection for <br /> ar., <br /> and removal of the same, we would�' t adding r6d onstruction <br /> entrances to the BMP's shown on. l'eet 1 of 2. <br /> b. From the plan view on sheet 1 d the pervious cal offs table <br /> on the same page, it appears that q ate ed walking tr1s are <br /> proposed. One of these is proposed 1 proximity to Sibley Lake. <br /> Presuming that this to ion is allowed r applicable State and City <br /> ordinances, we would t some type o meter sediment control, at <br /> a minimum be shown fob <br /> c. At such time as the ownei*nd/oaactor ham identified personnel that <br /> �., will be responsible for SWP plernn, contact information for <br /> these peke Id be provi 4, t��to the C of Pequot Lakes. <br /> The applic ame the SWP P,/,,,)plan to add the suggested rock construction <br /> entrances to re ve the walkin it in close proximity to Sibley Lake. <br /> 4. The applicant �k ub , ewage treatment design information to the City <br /> Eng' the En er :� �d the design and provided the following <br /> c en ! \ <br /> % a. The flx determ o .tor Phase 1 design was based on 300 gallons per <br /> /� a �� g p <br /> day (gpd)'w 2-BR,welling. Phases 2 and 3 were based on 450 gpd per <br /> 3-BR dwell The City should note the difference for these phases and <br /> i-M a <br /> b ware of floor plans for the units when building permits are issued. <br /> . <br /> "` s 1 3 are proposed as pressure trenches, while Phase 2 is <br /> pro <br /> gravity distribution. Phase 2 treatment field is very close to <br /> (if no at) the edge of bluff as shown in the drawings submitted. The <br /> setba k 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 />