12-11-2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t • r #2596 Brenshell Homes EAW Need Determination December 6,2000 Page 6 The stormwater facilities for this development become an integral element of the City ’s stormwater management system, and must be properly constructed and maintained in working condition. The City will, per its standard practice, require financial security from the developer in the form of a letter of credit to ensure the installation of roads, sewers, stormwater facilities, and required landscaping and erosion controls is carried out per the approved plans. Easements and development covenants will be required to ensure the permanent maintenance of stormwater management facilities by the property owners in this development. These documents will give the City authority to maintain the ponds, culverts and related stormwater facilities and assess the costs of same back to the property owners if the property owners do not maintain them. This project and the design plans have been determined to meet and in some respects exceed MC WD stormwater management requirements. Finally, this development as all developments in Orono are subject to the MPCA “Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas”, a comprehensive set of standard practices for managing stormwater both during and after site development. Concern 2. “...the filling in of a wet land...” Petitioners claim a wetland exists within Lot 1. The evidence provided by the petitioners and evidence provided by the developer has been reviewed by City staff and consultants, staff and consultants of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the developers consultants, and by a Technical Evaluation Panel appointed to resolve the conflicting wetland determinations filed by various parties. The Panel, consisting of representatives of the Hennepin Conservation District, Board of Water and Soil Resources and MC WD, investigated the site on 10-16-2000 and concluded that there are no wetlands present on the site. Therefore, there will be no filling of a wetland as part of this project. Concern 3. “...the irreversible damage of a section of a ‘Big Woods’, the last remaining Big Woods on Saga Hill with historical significance (see attached documents by IMA Consulting)...” The petitioners have presented no specific evidence that the site contains a Big Woods remnant. In fact, aerial photographs from ca. 1955 (Exhibit D-5) clearly indicate that the majority of the site, appro.ximately 6 of the 7 acres, w'as in open cultivated fields or orchard plots, and only the areas abutting the ravines were wooded at that time. The identifying characteristics of Big Woods include old growth mature hardwoods with long, straight trunks and a high dense canopy that limits light reaching the forest floor, resulting in minimal understory growth. The only portions of the site where such conditions are conceivably present is within the two ravine areas. Both ravine areas w ill be