2018.06.04 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4/26/2018 Gmail - Oneka Place Joint Application MG mi l Ken Meek <esa332@gmail.com> Oneka Place Joint Application 1 message Tony Havranek <THavranek@wsbeng.com> Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 5:53 AM To: "esa332@gmail.com" <esa332@gmail.com>, Dan Seemon <denad@frontiernet.net>, "David. Hem pel@westwoodps.com" <David. Hem pel@westwood ps.com> Cc: "ben.meyer@state.mn.us" <ben.meyer@state.mn.us>, "Jay Riggs (JRiggs@mnwcd.org)" <JRiggs@mnwcd.org>, "RJuba@ci.hugo.mn.us" <RJuba@ci.hugo.mn.us>, Stephanie Hatten <SHatten@wsbeng.com> Ken, Below are my comments and request for edits/updates to the joint application and supporting docs. Rather than draft another addendum, and since I have not noticed the application yet, can you please update/edit the joint application? This will make things much clearer and easier to track for myself and others that are or may be involved. I think we had a good meeting yesterday and since we (WSB) have done much of the wetland review already, we should be good to go from a timeline perspective. 1. Please update the aquatic resource impact table (part 4 of the joint application) to reflect the correct amount of impact, correct watershed, and correct BSA #. 2. Take a look at attachment C, second paragraph, last sentence. I think you may need to update this. 3. As required under MN Rule 8420.0520, you must provide at least 2 alternatives that avoid all wetland impacts, one of which may be the no -build. I think your alternative location search would work for this, just couch it under the sequencing/avoidance section in attachment C. Since it appears that most of the wetland resources you propose to impact are degraded, they should be eligible for sequencing flexibility; with the exception of wetland L. For wetland L, you will need to provide one alternative that avoids any impact. That doesn't need to be the preferred alternative, but if you reject this alternative, you must provide a rationale based on Mn Rule 8420.0520 subpt. C. Remember that economic considerations alone do not make an alternative not feasible or prudent. 4. You did a good job on minimization, just slide that into attachment C-minimization. 5. You will need to have some discussion in your application that addresses each of the items in MN Rule 8420.0515- special considerations. You may need to either rely on the corps review under 106 to get this info or complete a NHIS review. As Rachel mentioned there may be a city AUAR that you may be able to get that information from as well. 6. You should request sequencing flexibility for all wetland impacts with the exception of wetland L. Please include a discussion that addresses MN Rule 8420.0520 subp. 7a. Please include a functional assessment of the replacement wetland so we have that documentation. 7. The addendum indicates that 0.91 acres of wetlands will be impacted. At a 2.5:1 replacement ratio that should be 2.28 acres. The addendum indicates 2.23. Please update this in the application and the draft purchase agreement. 8. The assessment report page, 1, section 2.0, second paragraph indicates impacts to 6 wetland sites; shouldn't this be 7? 9. In the assessment report section 3.0, the St Croix river basin is referenced, but this should be MS River -Twin cities #20. Also, please update the BSA and watershed in the MN RAM assessment sheets. Ben requested a discussion on the road in the SW portion of the site that indicates future expansion of this section of road will not result in future wetland impacts. Dave pointed out that if the road is extended, it will utilize the upland area to the south and west rather than be planned to extend into the large wetland complex to the west. Also, we discussed the existing easement on the eastern portion of the site. This easement will not necessarily be vacated, rather it will be modified. Both of these items could be added to part 3 of the joint application. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=82f6O75fl a&jsver=OeNArYUPo4g.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=162f74a0126ab045&siml=162f74a0126ab045