My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-28-2005 CC
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
11-28-2005 CC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:51:18 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 1:00:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
11/28/2005
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
11/28/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
160
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council November 14, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 12 <br /> <br />Councilmember Flaherty asked for an explanation of the RCWD requirement for a $60,000 cash 1 <br />surety. Director Ericson explained that with every application the Watershed District requires a 2 <br />cash surety, which they hold to assure the developer completes the tasks necessary to the wetland 3 <br />permit, provides the mitigation, restores the wetland, and places proper seed. If the developers 4 <br />do not follow through with those provisions, the RCWD has enough surety to complete the work 5 <br />themselves. He noted this is much higher than you typically see and may relate to the size of the 6 <br />parcel. 7 <br /> 8 <br />Councilmember Flaherty referenced language in Resolution 6632 indicating: “The proposed 9 <br />alteration will not decrease the flood storage capacity of the site but will instead increase capacity 10 <br />by a four to one ratio. The proposed alteration will not reduce the existing wildlife habitat value. 11 <br />Because of the mitigation efforts and ditch realignment, wildlife habitat should be enhanced.” 12 <br />He noted that these are benefits to the City. 13 <br /> 14 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6635, 15 <br />Approving Medtronic CRM Final Plat; Planning Case MA2005-002. 16 <br /> 17 <br />Mayor Marty stated he has asked in the past if there will be a berm around Outlot A to keep the 18 <br />water on that site. He noted they have created an access and NURP ponds but in looking at 19 <br />Exhibit 4, it is far to the east where it is controlled on the property. He stated he wants to assure 20 <br />there is no runoff into that pond. 21 <br /> 22 <br />Director Ericson stated no run off generated from this site will go to the pond on Outlot A. He 23 <br />explained that all of the impervious area drains into the interior storm water management 24 <br />ponding of Medtronic. He stated as Public Works Director Lee indicated at the previous 25 <br />meeting, the City probably does not want to create a situation where the pond gets absolutely no 26 <br />recharge because it may dry up. He also explained that a berm is not necessary because all of the 27 <br />drainage from the Medtronic impervious surface drains into their internal system. 28 <br /> 29 <br />Director Ericson stated that BRAA reviewed the storm water management plan with a “fine tooth 30 <br />comb” and made recommendations that were addressed to protect the City from any storm water 31 <br />management issues. 32 <br /> 33 <br /> Ayes-4 Nay-1 (Marty) Motion carried. 34 <br /> 35 <br />2. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 764 Rezoning Medtronic 36 <br />Site from Industrial (I-1) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) 37 <br /> 38 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To waive the second reading and adopt Ordinance 764 39 <br />Approving a Rezoning of the Medtronic CRM Development Area from Light Industrial (I-1) to 40 <br />Planned Unit Development (PUD) and authorize staff to publish a summary. 41 <br /> 42 <br />Mayor Marty referenced Page 3 of the staff report, item 2.(2) indicating the geographic area 43 <br />involved and that nearly 16 acres of the project area is in the City of Blaine. He stated that while 44 <br />this is not an “apples-to-apples” comparison, Mounds View sold 72 acres for $8.6 million and 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.