2018.06.04 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Project Name and/or Number: Attachment C Avoidance and Minimization Project Purpose, Need, and Requirements. Clearly state the purpose of your project and need for your project. Also include a description of any specific requirements of the project as they relate to project location, project footprint, water management, and any other applicable requirements. Attach an overhead plan sheet showing all relevant features of the project (buildings, roads, etc.), aquati resource features (impact areas noted) and construction details (grading plans, storm water management plans, etc.), referencing these as necessary: The applicant proposes to construct the Oneka Place residential development consisting of approximately '/z acre lots on 120 acres of agricultural land. There would be 17 6 single-family homes. The project would consist of 4 phases. Phase 1 would be slab -on -grade homes for senior retirees. The final 3 phases would be full basement homes. There would be 8 stormwater ponds to control imperious surface runoff as required by the City of Hugo (see grading plans). The need for the residential development comes from the lack of affordable single-family homes in the City of Hugo area. The closeness to the Twin City metropolitan area makes Hugo and idea distance for commuting, while providing the services of a large metropolitan area. Therefore, the applicant is striving to provide affordable housing where there is a demand. Avoidance. Both the CWA and the WCA require that impacts to aquatic resources be avoided if practicable alternatives exist. Clearly describe all on -site measures considered to avoid impacts to aquatic resources and discuss at least two project alternatives that avoid al impacts to aquatic resources on the site. These alternatives may include alternative site plans, alternate sites, and/or not doing the project. Alternatives should be feasible and prudent (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 2 C). Applicants are encouraged to attach drawings and plans to support their analysis: There have been five concepVgrading plans since 2005 (see wetland sequencing exhibit). The wetland delineation was done during the growing season in 2017 and approved in the summer of 2017. As the table shows in 2005 there were proposed impacts of 2.86 acres. In the 3 / 2 9 / 18 proposal that has decreased to 0.91 acres. Instead of affecting 14 wetland areas in 2005, the applicant has decreased that to 7 wetland areas. Half as many wetland areas impacted and decrease of over 1 '/z acres of total wetland impact (see exhibits). The applicant has demonstrated that the least damaging practicable alternative (3 / 2 9 / 18) would be implemented to have the minimal effects on the aquatic resource. The Applicant has exerted further effort to reduce wetland impact (See 3/29/18 Wetland Impact Plan). In this plan, wetland impact is reduced by 6650 square feet, or from 1.07 to 0.91 acres, compared to the 3/19/18 Plan (See attached Wetland Sequencing Exhibit spreadsheet). Impact to wetland B has been reduced from 0.07 to 0.01 acres by eliminating Lot 10, Block 1, along the north side of Street 1. Impact to wetland P has been reduced from 0.14 to 0.04 acres in wetland P, in the southeast part of the development, by use of a retaining wall rather than a side slope below the cul—de—sac. Additional impact reduction is not feasible from engineering and safety standpoints. The existing elevation of wetland BB is higher than adjacent Street 1 and stormwater Pond 8. Therefore, the hydrology to BB, which is surface water dependent, would be cut—off by the development of the surrounding land. The elevation of Pond 8 is dictated by run—on drainage from the south and the elevation of Street 1 is dictated by the elevation of Wetland B. Impact avoidance to wetland L, in the back yard of Lot 12 along the east side of Street 3, could be achieved by installing a retaining wall at that Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 10 of 19