02-23-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

H04-298S February 12,2004 Pafc4 required, and the State regulations applicable to wetlands, thi s hardship requirement would tend to make it difficult to approve many wetland alteration projects which may in fact have positive impacts but are not specifically supported by hardship. While Orono’s past history of ‘just saying no’ to most wetland filling requests has served the City fairly well, the current regulatory climate suggests that we may need to consider code revisions that allow for positive wetland alterations, without the finding of hardship. That being said, the question to be asked is whether the current application is in fact apositive wetland alteration. Staffs initial reaction to the early queries about filling the wetland to create a berm to plant trees to screen the applicant from his neighbor's home, was that thi s didn* t seem to be a reasonable request, and wouldn't be reconunended for approval. However, the current request has been highly refined to meet the WC A guidelines, and has been the subject of much scrutiny by the MCWD staff and consultants as well as aTechnical Evaluation Panel (TEP) consisting of representatives from the MCWD, the Board of Soil and Water Resources (BWSR), and Hennepin County Environmental Services. It passes muster with the other agencies as resulting in positive impacts to the wetland. In terms of a hardship. Planning Commission may wish to consider whether the hardship is simply that this wetland was altered in the past, and that the project will restore it to a condition more closely resembling its natural state. Issues for Consideration 1. 4. Are there any aspects of this project that will be detrimental to the neighborhood? Is Planning Commission satisfied that the project is appropriate? Does it matter whether the project is ‘necessary’ or not ? (i.e. what would be the negative or positive impacts of doing nothing... perhaps the applicant should be asked this question...) 3. Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Reconunendation Staff is satisfied that the basic considerations regarding the functions and values of this wetland have been taken into consideration by the variety of reviewers of this proposal, all of whom have recommended or granted approval. Staff recommends approval of the variance and CUP to allow the wetland alteration project including filling of a portion of the wetland and excavation within 26 ’ of the wetland, per the plan approved by the MCWD and subject to the conditions thereof, and subject to the following provisions as recommended by the City wetlands consultant: that the City receive a copy of the executed buffer preservation declaration required by the MCWD, and that the City be provided with the required ongoing monitoring reports. Staff would further reconunend that the applicant be required to execute the standard Flowage and Conservation Easement over the wetland and its MCWD-requited buffers (see Exhibit O). i’- I