12-11-2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8. The stormwater facilities for this development become an integral clement 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 detemiined to meet and in some respects exceed Minneh^a Creek Watershed District (MCWD) stormwater management requirements. Finally, the Development is subject to the MPCA “Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas”, a comprehensive set of standard practices for managing stormwater impacts and soil erosion both during and after site development. 7.In regards to Concern 2. Petition Statement “...the filling in of a wet land... The City Council flnds as follows: The 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 MCWD, investigated the site on 10-16-2000 and concluded that there are no wetlands present on the site, as documented in a memo from Jim Hafher of the MCWD to Paul Weinberger, City Planner dated October 19,2000. The Council finds that there will be no filling of a wetland as part of this project. In regards to Concern 3. Petition Statement:**...the irreversible damage of a section ofa *Big Woods ’, the last remaining Big Woods on Saga Hill \vith historical significance (see attached documents bv IMA ConsultinuV..” The City Council finds as follows: The petitioners have presented no specific evidence that the site contains a Big Woods remnant. In fact, aerial photographs from ca. 1955 clearly Page 5 of 8