HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2001-274CITY OF PLYMOUTH;
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-274
APPROVING WETLAND MITIGATION AND REPLACEMENT PLAN
JPI DEVELOPMENT: JEFFERSON AT PLYMOUTH (2001040)
NW '/4 Sec. 2, T118N, R22W
WHEREAS, JPI Development is proposing to fill wetlands for the Jefferson At Plymouth
Apartments; and
WHEREAS, there are no reasonable alternatives for the location of this development ; and
WHEREAS, a Replacement Application Plan was prepared replacing the wetlands on-site and in
kind at a 2 to 1 ratio which is required by the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA: That the Mayor is authorized to execute the LGU'S Findings
of Facts, approving the filling of wetlands, and the Replacement Plan Application for the Jefferson
At Plymouth Apartments subject to the following conditions:
1. The replacement wetland must be monitored for a five (5) year period from the date of
completion,
2. The developer's wetland consultant shall be consulted and conduct periodic inspections during
the constriction of all the newly created wetland basins.
3. The developer's wetland consultant shall submit an annual monitoring report to the City of
Plymouth on the anniversary date of the completion of the replacement wetland for a period of
five (5) years containing information required in WCA rile 8420.0620.
4. The replacement wetland must be constricted concurrently with site grading.
5. Prior to disturbing any wetland area, the developer shall submit a letter of credit in the amount
of the cost of the Replacement Plan. The letter of credit shall extend until completion of the
five year monitoring period. If during the five year period the replacement wetland does not
perform as proposed in the plan, work as necessary shall be undertaken by the developer to
bring it into conformance.
6. A deed creating a restrictive covenant running with the land for the replacement area must be
recorded. The deed shall be submitted to the City for approval before recording.
7. The developer shall comply with the City of Plymouth Ordinance 95-2 (Wetland Buffer
Standards)
Adopted by the City Council on June 26, 2001
Page 1 of 4
Resolution No. 2001-274
(2001040)
Page 2 of 4
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS.
The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth,
Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the
Plymouth City Council on June 26, 2001, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the
same is a correct transcription thereof.
WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this
day of
City Clerk
Resolution No. 2001-274
(2001040)
Page 3 of 4
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
SEQUENCING FINDINGS OF FACT
WETLAND COMERVATIONACT
Name of Applicant: Mr. Brian Fritz
Address: JPI Development
1444 Wazee St., Suite 333
Denver, Colorado 80202
Phone No.: 952-857-2590
Project Name: JPI Development
Type of Application (check one):
Application Number: 2001040
❑Exemption ® Replacement Plan ❑ WCA Jurisdiction Determination ❑No
Loss ❑Banking Plan
Date of Application: April 20, 2001 Location of Project: NW '/4 Sec. 2, T 118N-R22W
L DETERMINATION OF IMPACT AVOIDANCE
1) Is project wetland dependent? yes X no
(If yes, ,lap items 2 and 3)
2) Has applicant provided at least 2 alternatives in addition to the proposed project such
as:
Alternate sites des no
Alternative project configurations X yes no
No build alternative X yes no
a) Are the 2 alternatives considered good faith efforts? X yes no
Why or why not?
(Ifnq proposal must be denied)
b) Have all feasible andnp ident alternatives available that would avoid impacts to
wetlands been considered?
X yes no. I&iq proposal const be detued, if yes, proceed to items II -IV)
3) Is Sequencing Flexibility being invoked? yes X no. If yes, e�plavicomp ance«itt�n�N
Rule 8420 0520, Subp. -a on aii attaclanent)
IL DETERMINATION OF IMPACT MINIMIZATION
1) Has the applicant demonstrated an effort
considering modification of the project?
Size: X Yes No Not Feasible
Scope: X Y N NF
Configuration: X Y N NF
Density: N N X NF
to minimize impacts to wetlands by
2) If any are answered no, explain objections (Applicant ha, 30 days to modify proposal if warranted, of it is denied)
III. DETERMINATION OF IMPACT RECTIFICATION
1) An activity may qualify for a no -loss determination if all of the questions below are
answered yes.
a) Will all of the physical characteristics of the affected wetland be restored to pre -project
conditions?
Resolution No. 2001-274
(2001040)
Page 4 of 4
yes X no
b) Will the physical characteristics of the wetland be restored within 6 months?
yes X no
c) Has the applicant provided a performance bond sufficient to cover costs of restoring
the wetland? yes X no
IV. DETERMINATION OF REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION OF IMPACTS OVER TIME
1) Will additional wetland impacts be reduced/eliminated through sound project operation
and maintenance? X yes _ no
2) Will best management practices be used to protect wetland fiinctions and values? X
yes no
V. UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
1) Will unavoidable wetland impacts be replaced? X yes no
Conclusion - Based on the information above:
Sequencing is Adequately Addressed? X Yes No
Authorized LGU Official LGU Date