01-16-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2102 January 10, 1996 Page 3 Applicants propose the dredging of approximately 1,000 cubic yards of spoils to be used in the filling of the bank adjacent to the wetland. The slope of the restored bank will be at approximately 12-13%. Review Exhibits B and C, applicant has also provided photos of the area taken before the snows. Staff met with the applicants on site in mid-fkll to review the failing retaining wall. The wall has completely failed and erosion of the bank had begun. Applicant is concerned with the sharp 8' drop from gentle-sloped grassed yard area and is concerned with the issue of safety. The excavated material will be used in the filling of the slope. Applicants note, "It would be difficult to bring fiU to this area and by conducting the excavation activities in the winter with careful storage of spoils through spring until material is suitable for filling and grading." This will minimize any negative impact upon the wetland. Seeding would take place in early May or June. It is unfortunate that members of the Planning Commission could not have visited the site during the fall season. The upland area (adjacent to bank or wall) did not appear as a wetland. As one moved funher south. Purple Loosestrife in the main wetland area was very obvious, and there were signs of Umited cattail growth within transition area of the wetland. Applicants’ consultant confirms. Exhibit D, Prairie Restoration’s mix of native grasses will reduce the ability of Reed Canary Gr^s and Purple Loosestrife to colonize this area of the wetland again (Type 3 area closest to wetland). The upland area (Type 1) will be planted with native grasses in order to control any non-pomt source mnofffrom entering into the wetland. It will also increase the biological diversity and value of this non-wetland area. Review Exhibit P, the wetland is not a designated wetland of the DNR. Review Exhibits Q and R, the wetland is sho^ in the National Wetlands Inventory Map and U.S. Soils Delineation report has the wetland as a marsh (MA) The Corps of Engineers and Watershed District are also in the process of reviewing the proposal. Construction Plan Review Exhibits H and U. Note Gustafson finds that the creation of an open water area in this type of wetland to be beneficial and that ponds constructed in the transition or fringe area of the wetland will help reduce the Reed Canary Grass or Purple Loosestrife. He notes the Corps of Engineers has a general permit #18 for the excavation of wildlife ponds. The plan is currently proposed with 1.^1 slope and at a maximum depth of 8’. The pond would never be approved under this permit. He recommends that the City not approve the application unless the pond is revised to show more graduated slopes, specifically 8:1, and a depth not to exceed 3.5-1.5 ■ He te included a section of permit #18 guidelines for your review. He also notes that the Corps will not require additional mitigation if conducted under the guidelines of the permitting for wildlife ponds. Staff asks that you review Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 J. 5 (A-K). If pond is to be altered per the guidelines of the Corps of Engineers' permit and per City Engineer's report all pertinent standards of this section have either been met based on the information submitted with application and conditions or guidelines established for conducting the land alteration.