2019.04.15 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Zero Impact Alternatives: As required under MN Rule 8420 Subp.3.C.(1), two alternatives are considered that avoid all wetland impacts to this site. 1. No -Build: In this alternative the vacant lot zone for commercial development with existing city services and infrastructure to accommodate that development, would remain. The need for affordable single family housing in close proximity to the metro area would remain un-met. Therefore, the no -build alternative is rejected. 2. Alternate Locations: All wetland impacts to this site could be avoided by completing the project at an alternate location. The City has water, sewer and a vast network of city/county road that connect to I- 35E. This makes the commute (approximately 20 miles or less) to the Twin Cities metropolitan area a more favorable opportunity for potential renters than Anoka or Chisago Counties. Outside the city limits there would be viable property for sale. However, for a development this size the applicant needs city sewer and water, plus the road infrastructure for commuters to the Twin Cities. In addition there are few outlying areas zoned for this type of development. For these reasons, the applicant has rejected all off -site alternatives and proposes to develop the site selected, primarily because it offers City services, infrastructure and is zoned appropriately. Minimization. Both the CWA and the WCA require that all unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Discuss all features of the proposed project that have been modified to minimize the impacts to water resources (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 4): As mentioned above, the applicant has avoided and minimized wetland impacts where practicable. The attached sequencing exhibit further details where minimization has been achieved. First, by decreasing the size of the project from 57 living units and 65 outdoor parking stalls to 45 units and 45 parking stalls, wetland impact (fill) was decreased from 0.42 to 0.32 acres, as depicted in alternatives 1 and 2. Second, by shifting the building and outdoor parking area southward, wetland impact was further minimized to 0.30 acres (alternative 3). Finally, outdoor parking was decreased to 43 stalls and the finished floor grade elevation was decreased from 919' to 918.7'. These changes decreased the amount of fill material required around the facility, further minimizing wetland impact to 0.18 acres (alternative 4— preferred alternative). The applicant has demonstrated that the least damaging practicable alternative would be implemented to have the minimal effects on the aquatic resource. The applicant requests Sequencing Flexibility (MN R. 8420.0520 Subp. 7a.) The applicant requests sequencing flexibility for wetland impacts D and F. As indicated in the attached MnRAM analysis report, impacted wetlands D and F, located in the Areas East and West of the Conservation Easement, are degraded to the point where replacement would result in certain gain in function and public value. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 9 of 16