The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5C - Deerfield Ind. Park 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: JUNE 7, 2004 5C STEVE ALBRECHT, CITY ENGINEER CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN FOR DEERFIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK, CITY PROJECT 03-40. DISCUSSION: History On January 18, 1994, the City Council passed Resolution 94-01 adopting the permanent rules of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) of 1991. Along with this, the Council also assumed the role of local government unit (LGU) for making WCA determinations for landowners. The purpose of WCA is as follows: 1. Achieve a no net loss in the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's existing wetlands; 2. Increase the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's wetlands by restoring or enhancing diminished or drained wetlands; 3. Avoid direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of wetlands; and 4. Replace wetland values where avoidance of activity is not feasible or prudent. Current Circumstances As part of the Deerfield Industrial Park development plan, the developer has requested approval of a wetland replacement plan for the project. The plan proposes to fill 1.19 acres of degraded Type 1 wetland for development of the property. The wetland bisects the property from east to west. On May 19, 2004 a Technical Evaluation Panel (consisting of representatives from the City, the Soil & Water Conservation District, the DNR Board of Water & Soil Resources, Andi Moffatt of WSB, and Jim Petersen of Petersen Environmental) reviewed the application and determined that the proposed impacts were acceptable. Erosion, ditching, tiling and farming activities have severely degraded the functions and values of this wetland. The wetland impacts are proposed to be mitigated via wetland banking credits from a Credit River bank site and on-site public value credits as permitted by the Wetland Conservation Act. G:\Agenda\Agenda04\Deerfield Industrial Park wca.DOC www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 The final design calls for 1.19 acres of existing wetland type 1 to be filled. Mitigation is proposed by purchase and withdrawal of 1.19 acres of Type 1 wetland from an approved bank and 1.19 acres of on-site Public Value Credit (PVC) through creation of a storm water pond. The proposal meets the mitigation and sequencing criteria. No comments were received during the comment period. Attached is a copy of the TEP "Findings of Fact" for this project, which is the basis for the staff recommendation. Conclusion Staff recommends that the Council approve the Wetland Replacement Plan for Deerfield Industrial Park. ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives are as follows: 1. Adopt the attached resolution that approves the Wetland Replacement plan for Deerfield Industrial Park (City Project #03- 40). 2. Deny this item for a specific reason and provide staff with direction. 3. Table this item for specific reason. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Alter?:1Jf- Frank Boyles, City Manager REVIEWED BY: 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 RESOLUTION 04-XX RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN FOR DEERFIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT NO. 03-40 MOTION: SECONDED: WHEREAS, the developer has prepared plans that avoid unnecessary wetland filling on the project to the greatest extent possible; and WHEREAS, sequencing criteria has been met; and WHEREAS, mitigation is proposed through the following combination: 1.19 acres of new wetland credit from a approved wetland bank and 1.19 acres of on-site public value credit from the creation of a water quality basin. WHEREAS, the mitigation plan is in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act and City of Prior Lake ordinances. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VEO BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, that 1 . The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. 2. The Wetland Replacement Plan for Deerfield Industrial Park is hereby approved. Passed and adopted this ih day of June, 2004. YES NO Haugen Haugen Blom berg Blomberg LeMair LeMair Peterson Peterson Zieska Zieska {Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager G: \Reso] u ti on \Reso ]04 \deerfi e]d i nd wca .doc www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL FINDINGS OF FACT Date: Mav 19. 2004 LGU: City of Prior Lake County: Scott LGU Contact: Steve Albrecht Project Name/#: Deerfield Industrial Park Phone #: (952)447-9830 Location ofProject:NEl/4. Section 12. T114N. R22W Prior Lake. MN Scott County City County TEP Members (and others) who reviewed project: (Check if viewed project site) (X ) SWCD:Pete Beckius (X) BWSR: Les Lemm (site viewed bv Lvnda Peterson) (X ) LGU: Steve Albrecht ( ) CaE: Other Wetland Experts present: Andi Moffat (on behalf of LGU): Jim Arndt (Peterson Environmental) TEP requested by: City of Prior Lake 1. Type of TEP determination requested (check those that apply): Delineation check ~ Exemption Determination (WCA Exemption #5) N 0- Loss Determination ~ Replacement Plan 2. Description of Wetland with proposed impact: a. Wetland Type (Circular 39)1. 3 (Cowardin) b. Size of Proposed Impact (tenths of acre) 1.19 acres 3. Have sequencing requirements been addressed? _ yes ~ no TEP has requested additional information as to the potential for on-site mitigation. This will be addressed during the comment period by the applicant. 5/26/04 The applicant has provide information that indicates that utilizing banked wetland credits is an acceptable form of mitigation. 4. Is the proj ect consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and! or the watershed district plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? Yes (X) No ( ) 5. The project will affect the following wetland functions: Functions Floodwater Storage Nutrient Assimilation Sediment Entrapment Groundwater Recharge Low Flow Augmentation AestheticsIRecreation Shore land Anchoring Wildlife Habitat Fisheries Habitat Rare Plant! Animal Habitat Commercial Uses ImDact X_ No Imoact Imorove X_ X_ X_ X_ X_ X_ X_ X_ X_ X_ 6. For replacement plan or no-loss determinations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater level? Yes ( ) No ( ) To be determined during the comment period. 7. Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item I.? Yes 9\> No ( ) W I'~ ~'+;D'" C; If no, why? See below The following items summarize the results of the TEP discussion from May 19, 2004. The applicant requested an incidental exemption for 0.05 acres of Wetland G. There was disagreement on the TEP regarding the validity of this exemption for the portion of the Wetland G ditch that was claimed to have been dug through upland. It was determined that if the applicant wished to pursue this exemption, more clarification and investigation would be needed and may hold up the process. It was determined that Jim Arndt would find out if the applicant wished to pursue this exemption or include it in the impact. After the TEP meeting, the applicant indicated that he would include it in the impact amount. Peterson Environmental will provide revised pages to the application including this additional impact to Andi Moffatt. Exemption 2.D was previously obtained for portions of Wetland E and all of Wetland F. This exemption was clarified that once the drainage of these areas was reestablished and shown to be effectively draining the wetland, that these areas would not be considered jurisdictional. It was noted that not all of Wetland E was affected by the replaced drain tile and these areas remain jurisdictional as shown in the application. The TEP requested that wetland mitigation should be provided on-site, if possible. If this is not feasible, additional documentation from the applicant needs to be provided outlining the reasoning. The US Corps of Engineer's requirement of 1.5:1 New Wetland Credit was discussed. The applicant will need to work with the Corps to obtain a Corps permit. The status of the Mesenbrink wetland bank was discussed. Andi Moffatt will contact BWSR to determine the status of the bank and whether there are outstanding credits to be withdrawn from that account. 8. SIGNATURES (ifTEP decision is not a consensus, note with an asterisk and explain on the back o~t~is w.:IJI SWCD Representative (Date) BWSR Representative (Date) LG~;;-tative (Date) TEP Findings of Fact (2000)