2001-098 Council Resolution - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

up the watershed that drains to the chain of lakes in the park reserve. This applies equally to the statement about the water temperature of the runoff. The City does not consider the runoff from this project to be a major threat. 3. The Wetland Conservation Act requires avoidance as the first step of compliance. This plan is proposing to fill 3.64 acres. Replacement wetlands typically have significantly less diversity than natural wetlands and therefore have significantly less natural resource value. The proposed wetland area to be filled was directly part of the wetland complex in the regional park. It has been severed by the construction of Interstate 35W but it likely still functions in conjunction with the regional park through subsurface waters and well as plant and wildlife interaction on the surface. (4.88 acres of wetland reduced to 1.24 acres) Is there a hardship that merits the filling of 3.64 acres of wetland, cutting down 1.64 acres of forest with a proposed removal of 474 significant trees adjacent to a regional park? Also the removal of 32.3 acres of Brush/grass land and creating 2.82 acres of sterile storm ponds that will have virtually no natural resource value. (Pages 9 and 10). City response: Wetland impacts are governed under the Wetland Conservation Act by the Rice Creek Watershed District. The project will require a permit from the RCWD as well as from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act. 4. The loss of a significant amount of trees adjacent to the park will result in a loss of `.. habitat for birds and wildlife that use this area in addition to the park area. City response: A sense of scale is necessary in considering this comment as well as comments regarding runoff. The site is 40+ acres of land guided and zoned for intense commercial development. The regional park reserve is over 2600 acres. The loss of about two acres of woodland must be compared to the larger picture. • Met Council states that from a parks and open space perspective, the wetland and tree covered property on the east side of the property should be left undisturbed and the development concentrated on the western portion of the property. The remaining natural areas should be restored to a higher quality native vegetation state. The upland forest oaks that are 24" to 30" should be preserved. Why is the city asking for removal of 21 significant cottonwood and aspen? Is this an attempt to manage the forest type? City response: From a larger urban planning perspective, areas of the City are guided for specific land uses. The project site is planned for intense commercial development. Other areas of the City and the regional park reserve are planned for parks and open space. Open space is considered in reviewing all development projects, but open space is not the only consideration. Nor is open space appropriate on every development project. As to parks, the City has a comprehensive park plan that guides park planning. Responses to Comments On Lino Lakes Marketplace EAW page 8 of 11