01/10/2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • Proximity to the OHW — The rink should be 100' from the OHW. Available information conflicts as to whether or not this setback has been met. Wetland Conservation Act — The Wetland Conservation Act regulates "impact" to wetlands not under the jurisdiction of the MNDNR. Impacts are defined as draining and filling activities in wetlands. Construction of the rink apparently did not have any "impacts" on the surrounding wetlands as defined by the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. This cannot be absolutely verified because a wetland determination was not conducted prior to construction of the rink. Lack of WCA "impacts" does not necessarily mean that there were no deleterious effects on surrounding wetlands from this project. Analysis would have to be done of the existing water quality pond to determine if treatment is adequate to protect the quality of the wetlands. If not, construction of the rink represents some lost opportunity to augment inadequate water quality treatment. Insufficient data are available to make a determination. Future Needs — Another issue to consider is the potential future need for additional storage and treatment of stormwater. As the MUSA expands, the opportunity and right for some property owners to further subdivide will be exercised and stormwater treatment will be needed. Purchase of easements to accommodate this in the future will be expensive. This property was put on the market and purchased with disclosure of the easement and the ability to determine the landuse restrictions that accompany the easement. The cost of this property was likely adjusted lower because of the existence of the easement. As such, the developer already paid for it. Should it be vacated, the city may want to consider receiving some compensation to allow for the future acquisition of a similar easement to meet future needs. Compensatory Storage — Compensatory storage for fill within the floodplain/floodfringe during the development was to have been accommodated in this area. Credit for compensatory storage can only be given for areas excavated above the normal water level and below the 100 year flood elevation. Apparently, fill may have been brought in to accommodate the construction of this rink. It seems that the rink could have been constructed without fill by excavating to just above the normal water level, thereby allowing for the rink and providing some compensatory storage. This may have been consistent with the intent of the easement to provide flood storage and could have been considered had the permitting process been followed. All too often, landowners are rewarded for not following protocols and procedures by receiving after -the -fact permits that otherwise would not have been granted. To reduce the likelihood of this occurring, it is the practice of the ACD to review after -the -fact project applications on their merits, as if no construction had occurred. ACD would have spoken out strongly against this ice rink if the area cleared for its construction was a