10-28-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I property ago suggested they will not It would have to be located n easement along the south ;ants don't want this due to es to how this affects the site e because of the easement. lat we have the ability to use o-w is problematic, we need rty, and this is the time to |>ropert>’ tin the property and partially •uld obtain an easement over rve the public. Buyers have lidewalk or have it within the ct this. ts of the City regarding trails )erty from a private party, the rt be eliminated from the total e Dahlstrom development is mblic street. The City is not dee of the land to reflect the le\ elopment fees (sewer and e) on the gross acreage of the #02-2843 October 25,2002 Page 3 The stormwater management plan for the site is to pipe all runoff to the Dahlstrom pond. Early inklings are that MCWD conceptually is OK with this, but hasn’t approved the Dahlstrom plan. Also, it is unknown whether MCWD will accept the wetland delineation and mitigation plan provided by Dahlstrom, or whether MCWD approvals will require any revisions to the Dahlstrom plan. The bottom line is that if there is no Dahlstrom pond to connect to when the dental office is completed, where does the water go? Staff Recommendation It is important that the City require a contingency plan. The applicants also need to advise us as to tlie status of any applications they have made to MCWD regarding stormwater plan or erosion control permit. The above issues are presented for Council to consider. We have suggested to the applicants that they be present to discuss these issues to avoid delays in their final approval process. They are still hoping to get started this year... More Background on Wetland Issue Determination by MCWD as to whether the apparent wetland on the property will be granted an exemption from Wetland Conservation Act mitigation requirements is underway but proceeding slowly. This wetland is at the center of the site a.id would be filled when the site is developed. John Smyth of Bonestroo reviewed the site in August. He and City staff at that time concluded that requesting an exemption would be more prudent than actually delineating the wetland. Smyth on the City’s behalf filed an application for exemption with the MCWD on or about September 1. The application contained substantial information supporting a determination that the wetland be considered as incidental’ and exempt from WCA rules. The basis for the exemption request is that aerial photo evidence suggests the site did not exhibit wetland characteristics until after 1991, and only exhibits such characteristics today due to high rainfall this summer and poor drainage due to past site disturbance. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) convened a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) on Monday October 7 to view the site and attempt to conclude whether the wetland is subject to mitigation requirements if it is filled. Neither staff nor Smyth were notified by MCWD of that meeting and therefore Smyth did not have the opportunity to discuss the merits of our request. As of this wTiting, Mike Wyatt of MCWD staffhas indicated he is inclined to recommend denial of the exemption. Smyth feels that there is stilt sufficient supportive information to change Wyatt’s mind.