Laserfiche WebLink
k <br />Zoning File #1604 <br />July 2, 1991 <br />Page 2 <br />City approval, granted, should <br />app <br />oth <br />licant gaining approval and meeting all <br />be conditioned on <br />requirements of the <br />er jurisdictional agencies. <br />In reviewing similar applications to determine what specific <br />conditions of approval might be appropriate in addition to those <br />recosnnended by Planning Commission, staff reviewed the somewhat <br />similar application request by :he Gregorys on County Road 15 in <br />1905. In general, that review suggested that if specific <br />findings can *?e made with regard to alteration of designated <br />wetlands, thos*. alterations would not set a negative precedent or <br />have negative impacts on the lake if the following findings can <br />made: <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />6. <br />7. <br />B. <br />Small size of wetlands altered. <br />Small size of watershed served. <br />Limited flow into the lake. <br />Wetlands have matured to a steady state. <br />Alteration of storm water ponding characteristics to <br />increase retention time. <br />Expected benefits far outweigh risks. <br />Magnitude of risks in relationship to the lake are <br />minor. <br />No #r few others are occurring during the same <br />timeframe. <br />With regard to the current project under cons i-deration, 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 characteristics 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 />sedisMnt 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 />he in concert with a finding that there will be no negative <br />impact on the lake. <br />PlmBBing rommlesion ndation <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 <br />I Art -T