Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1604 <br />July 2, 1991 <br />Page 2 <br />City approval, if granted, should be conditioned on <br />applicant gaining approval and meeting all requirements of the <br />other jurisdictional agencies. <br />In reviewing similar applications to determine what specific <br />conditions of approval might be appropriate in addition to those <br />recommended by Planning Coiruiiission, staff reviewed the somewhat <br />similar application request by the Gregorys on County Road 15 in <br />1985. In general, that review suggested that if specific <br />findings can be made with regard to alteration of designated <br />wetlands,those alterations would not set a negative precedent or <br />have negative impacts on the lake if the following findings can <br />be made: <br />1.Small size of wetlands altered. <br />2.Small size of watershed served. <br />3.Limited flow into the lake. <br />4.Wetlands have matured to a steady state. <br />5.Alteration of storm water ponding characteristics to <br />increase retention time. <br />6.Expected benefits far outweigh risks. <br />7.Magnitude of risks in relationship to the lake are <br />minor. <br />8.No or few others are occurring during the same <br />timeframe. <br />With regard to the current project under consideration, this <br />1.5 acre wetland with a 24 acre watershed is relatively small <br />compared to many of the wetland complexes which feed into Lake <br />Minnetonka. The culvert leading under the railroad tracks <br />provides limited flow to Lake Minnetonka, however, the elevation <br />of the tile suggests that the wetland will fluctuate closely with <br />fluctuations in Minnetonka. The applicants are proposing to <br />slightly increase the storm water ponding characte* sties as a <br />result of their excavation and filling, and opening up one-third <br />of the wetland area to pond status will provide additional <br />sediment storage in the basin. Neither the City Engineer or the <br />Watershed District feel the impact of spoils disposal on the <br />site will be of consequence. In general, this project appears to <br />be in concert with a finding that there will be no negative <br />impact on the lake. <br />Planning Co—ission Reconnendation <br />The Planning Commission was concerned that the original <br />plans did not include a comprehensive restoration plan for the <br />site. The applicant then provided a restoration/revegetation <br />planting schedule and diagram along with detail on the proposed <br />retaining walls. The Planning Commission at their June meeting <br />voted 5 to 1 to grant approval of the variance/conditional use <br />permit for work in the wetland, finding that based on the <br />proposed plans and stated intent of the applicant, this project