2016.04.04 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LGU Findings and Conclusions (attach additional sheets as necessary): An application was received from Rob Bouta, Kjolhaug Environmental, On January _25,2016 and considered complete and noticed on February 2, 2016. As described above a TEP meeting was held on January 27, 2016. Seauencine The applicant provided a sequencing discussion in which 4 alternatives were discussed, one of which as the no -build alternative. Sequencing was evaluated using chapter 8420.0520 and 8420.0515. No special considerations were identified on this parcel which would require avoidance of all wetland impacts. Additionally, the project is not considered wetland dependent. While avoiding all wetland impacts, the no build alternative dos not meet the project need nor is it consistent with the City Land Use Plan or zoning for the site. The second wetland avoidance alternative, while avoiding all wetland impacts, does not satisfy the parking requirements mandated by city code not play area sizing requirements. Safety was also a consideration when evaluating this alternative, since children would be exposed to the steep sideslopes along the parking stalls and would be in close proximity to the play areas. A third project design was evaluated which was the original conceptual design from 2012. Under this scenario the building footprint was proposed to be 12,800 square feet with a complete build out of the lot. This design would have impacted an additional 7,190 square feet more than the proposed alternative. This design also increased impervious area by 40%, resulting in additional stonnwater facilities to eceive runoff which may have had an even greater impact on the site by reducing upland areas near the adjacent wetlands. Alternative sites were evaluated, but were not practical since they did not meet the needs of the project based on demographics and location of adjacent services. Additionally, wetlands were identified on portions of the adjacent parcels. These wetlands provided similar challenges for development as the proposed development area. The proposed alternative was selected as it meets the project needs and purpose, is consistent with local plans, zoning, and ordinances, and provides for safety and meets child care facility standards. No feasible and prudent alternatives exist based on MN Rule 8420.0520 subpart 3.C.(2)(c), (d), and (e). Minimization Wetland minimization was provided by eliminating the paved area around the facility, preserving natural drainage to the remaining on-site wetland (wetland A), and protecting existing wetlands by installing BMPs. See attached for Replacement and Conditions For Replacement Plans using credits from the State Wetland Bank: BWSR Forms 11-25-09 Page 3 of 4