05/29/2001 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

and provide public values cannot reasonably be maintained through other land use controls or mechanisms; The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has similar sequencing flexibility guidance, set forth in Regulatory Guidance Letter 93 -2 Guidance on Flexibility of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines and Mitigation Banking (RGL 93 -2) which states that the degree of scrutiny of project alternatives should be commensurate with the severity of the project impact and that different wetlands have varying functions and values. This guidance provides that "...for projects that would cause only minor or negligible impacts, a detailed analysis of project alternatives should not be conducted ". This document further states that minor impacts have one, and frequently more, of the following characteristics: (1) they occur in wetlands which perform limited functions, (2) they are small in size (less than one acre), (3) they have little potential for secondary or cumulative impacts, and /or (4) only cause temporary impacts (less than one year). Due to the drainage impacts that the affected wetland has incurred, the applicant submits that sequencing flexibility appropriately applies in this case. Based on the distribution of vegetation in and around the wetland, Basin A has been substantially reduced in size and in its ecological integrity. As described above, all but one or two of the tamaracks that fringed the wetland now lie on uplands. Non - hydrophytic woody vegetation has invaded a substantial portion of the wetland. In particular, paper birch (Betula papyrifera; FACU +) has become dominant in the southwest portion of Basin A. Cottonwoods (Populus deltoides; FAC +), trembling aspen (P. tremuloides; FAC) and box elder (Acer negundo; FACW -) have also moved into the substantial portions of the wetland. The central part of the wetland has become a reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea; FACW +) monotype. The applicant has applied MinRAM 2.0 to analyze the functions and values of the affected wetland versus the mitigation sites described below under Compensatory Mitiqation)(see Appendix C). Based on the results of these analyses, the applicant submits that the proposed replacement wetlands will result in a certain gain in function and public value over the affected wetland. Avoidance Alternatives Notwithstanding the applicability of sequencing flexibility, the applicant has endeavored to avoid and minimize wetland impacts on the project site to the extent practicable. The applicant considered two alternatives that would totally avoid wetland impacts. These alternatives are: No Action Alternative: One alternative is the no action alternative, which would result in the project site remaining undeveloped. The applicant considers this alternative infeasible because it is; (1) inconsistent with the City's long -term plans and zoning for the project site and (2) would defeat the reasonable investment - backed expectations of the applicant. The City of Lino Lakes has zoned the project site SC — Shopping Center and has designated it part of its Town Center Planning and Development Area. Surrounding properties to the south and west are also planned and zoned for retail and other commercial uses. Total Avoidance Build Alternative: The applicant has considered developing the site in a manner that totally avoids the two wetlands on the site. Under this scenario, the footprint of the proposed Target store and its parking facilities would need to be shifted about 323 feet to the west. This would; (1) require the elimination of the Kohl's store, (2) would place the proposed Target in a location with insufficient depth north to south to accommodate the building footprint and its associated parking facilities and (3) substantially reduce frontage on and visibility from I- 35W. The exception properties in the northwest and southwest corners of the site substantially reduce the north -south depth of the project site at its western end. Due to this limited depth, the western end of the site is suitable only for commercial uses with much smaller building footprints. The applicant submits that these constraints render a westerly shift of the development impractical, particularly when the degraded state of the affected wetland is considered as a factor. Page 15 of 28 Draft EAW Lino Lakes Marketplace May 11, 2001