07/15/2004 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

II SUMMARIES OF COMMENTS AND CITY RESPONSES • This section includes responses to substantive and timely comments on the EAW received by the indicated agencies and individuals. Summaries of the comments are listed with bullets. The City's responses follow the comments. The complete comment letters can be found in Attachment A.. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) A DNR letter from October 1, 2003 states that: • The bridge descriptions lack sufficient detail to allow for full and effective evaluation • The bridge partially described in the EAW is not the same as that authorized by the DNR bridge permit in 2001 • In 2002, state rules changed so that currently, the rules prohibit the construction of crossings over public waters that provide private access to an island. They also require that bridges be "consistent with the natural surroundings ". The letter also asks: • What assurances are there that the private bridge and private sanitary sewer forcemain will be properly inspected and maintained? • Questions regarding the effectiveness of the "preservation area" on the north side of the island (Item 12) cannot be answered without some knowledge of its size. • Item 12 states that each lot will be individually custom graded to preserve trees and minimize impacts. Figure 12 includes a statement "heavy duty silt fence to be installed after mass grading ". • During the review for the DNR bridge permit, the project proposer committed to a stipulation being recorded prohibiting homeowners from disturbing wetlands beyond 100 feet from the back of their homes. This agreement should be mentioned in the EAW. The developer provided additional information on the bridge in May and June 2004. A letter from DNR of May 10, 2004 states that the bridge in supplied drawings would be authorized by the existing public waters work permit. City Response: The City will require that the project obtain the necessary DNR bridge permit, and the May 2004 letter states that the proposed five -span bridge is acceptable to the DNR. The City has no authority over the DNR permitting process. The bridge, drive, and utilities would be owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. The City will require provisions in the development agreement to enable the City to step in and effect repairs, should the association fail to maintain the infrastructure, and assess the cost to the property owners. The City also could require an inspection and maintenance program. The specifics of these requirements have not yet been written. However, the importance of these issues cannot be overstated. DRAFT July 1, 2004 Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn. EAW Record of Decision page 9