_B-1. Avienda WCA Staff Report01 DIVA 0)k� 1 u
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Chanhassen is a Community for Life -Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Andi Moffatt, WSB & Assoc. Env. Planning & Natural Resources Group Mgr.
DATE: December 18, 2017 Ci�
SUBJ: Wetland Conservation Act Review of Avienda
PROPOSED MOTION
"The City Council approves the WCA replacement application and sequencing flexibility
with conditions for the Avienda project."
City Council approval requires a simple majority vote of the City Council present.
The City of Chanhassen is the Local Government Unit (LGU) for the Wetland Conservation
Act (WCA). Outlined below is the review and findings of the Avienda WCA application. The
City as the LGU for WCA must ensure that the applicant has met the requirements of Minnesota
Rule 8420. The applicant must demonstrate to the LGU that the plan complies with the WCA. The
only rule being evaluated with this review is the Wetland Conservation Act rule.
A. OVERVIEW OF PROJECT
Level 7 Development, LLC, has applied for a WCA permit with the City of Chanhassen as the
LGU for the WCA for the proposed Avienda project. The project is a 115 -acre development
project for a Regional Lifestyle Center. The developer is proposing to impact 4.5878 acres of
WCA regulated wetland. There is also 1,429 square feet of waterway impact, but this is not
regulated by WCA as it is not a WCA wetland. Wetland mitigation is proposed through the
purchase of wetland bank credit. Three banks and one back-up bank have been identified. These banks
are within the same Bank Service Area (BSA) as the project.
Items in underline have been attached to this memo. Other items are available upon request.
1. Applicant submitted an application February 15, 2017 with preliminary stormwater
modeling information on February 21, 2017.
2. City determined the application was incomplete on March 10, 2017. This determination
was reviewed with the applicant on March 9, 2017. (WSB Memo dated March 10, 2017).
PH 952.227.1100 • www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us • FX 952.227.1110
7700 MARKET BOULEVARD • PO BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN • MINNESOTA 55317
Todd Gerhardt
WCA Review of Avienda
December 18, 2017
Page 2
3. Applicant submitted revisions on March 14, 2017. (Kjolhaus memo dated March 14,
2017).
4. City determined the application was complete on March 17, 2017. A Wetland
Conservation Act Notice of Application (NOA) was sent to the Technical Evaluation
Panel (TEP) on March 17, 2017. While the application was technically complete, the
NOA and Application checklist indicated that the applicant may want to provide
additional supporting information to allow the LGU to review the application for
conformance with WCA (WCA Notice of Application dated March 17.20171.
5. The first 60 -day timeline ended May 13, 2017. The LGU extended that timeline in
writing for 60 additional days. The LGU indicated that if the applicant wanted to extend
the timeline again, the City needed this extension in writing. The following summarizes
the subsequent extensions.
Date of Extension Notice
Date Extension Expires
First 60 -Day Timeline
May 13, 2017
Second 60 -Day Timeline — April 21, 2017
July 12, 2017
June 19, 2017
September 10, 2017
September 6, 2017
October 10, 2017
October 3, 2017
December 10, 2017
November 20, 2017
February 8, 2018
6. On June 5, the applicant submitted information to the US Corps of Engineers (COE)
and copied the City in response to the COE comments. (Kjolhaus memo dated
June 5, 2017 with attachments).
7. The TEP, city staff, applicant, and staff from Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek (RPBCWD)
met on July 11, 2017 to review the application and project. (The TEP includes staff
from the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), the Soil and Water
Conservation District, and the LGU. The purpose of the TEP is to provide guidance
on WCA items, if requested by the LGU to do so). As a result of that meeting,
information was clarified by the applicant. The LGU and TEP indicated they were still
awaiting other information. The meeting notes from that meeting are attached. (WSB
Memo Dated July 21, 2017 and Revised August 1, 2017 to reflect review and comment
of the meeting attendees
The applicant submitted additional information to the City on October 9, 2017 with
revised project plans. The project proposes to impact 4.5878 acres of wetland (This is a
reduction of 0.309 acres of impact from the original application). (Kiolhaug memo dated
October 9, 2017).
Todd Gerhardt
WCA Review of Avienda
December 18, 2017
Page 3
Table 1. Summary of Proposed Wetland Impacts
Wetland
Number
Wetland
Type
Wetland
Acreage
Impact
Acreage (fill
and
excavate
Fill or
Excavate
Wetland
Management
Class
Wetland 1
1,3
1.1001
1.1001
F
Manage 2
Wetland 1/2
1,2
0.1860
0.1860
F
Manage 2
Wetland 2
1, 2, 5
2.2569
2.2569
F
Manage 2
Wetland 3 1
1
0.6696
0
NA
Manage 2
Wetland 4
1
0.1253
0
F
Manage 2
Wetland 5
1
0.3483
0.3483
F
Manage 3
Wetland 6
1
0.5302
0.4986
F
Manage 2
Wetland 6
1
0.2514
0
Manage 2
Wetland 7
1
0.0150
0.0150
F
Manage 3
Wetland 8
1
0.0844
0.0844
F
Manage 3
Wetland 9
1
0.0985
0.0985
F
Manage 3
Wetland 10
1
0.0740
0
NA
Preserve
TOTAL
5.6406
4.5878
9. On October 26, 2017, the applicant submitted a revised application to the COE
pertaining to reduced jurisdictional status of the COE wetlands as well as reduced
wetland impacts. This submittal contained the grading plan which also informed the
WCA review. (Kiolhaug memo dated October 26, 2017).
10. On November 20, 2017, the applicant submitted a request and supporting information
for sequencing flexibility within the WCA rules. This submittal, along with the
October 9, 2017 memo responding to the TEP meeting from July and a memo dated
June 5, 2017 responding to COE comments, was provided to the TEP and others for
review and comment on November 20, 2017. Revised stormwater modeling and
analysis accompanied this memo. (Kiolhaug memo dated November 20, 2017; Draft
Stormwater Management Plan — DP5.5 dated November 20, 2017).
11. On November 30, 2017, members of the TEP and City staff met to review the
sequencing flexibility request. At this meeting, the TEP reviewed and discussed that
the applicant appeared to meet the sequencing flexibility in WCA and acknowledged
that the project was still out for comments and the stormwater review was still pending
from the City. An email from BWSR staff is attached to this memo that documents
BWSR's comments on the application and that they support the sequencing flexibility
application. (Email dated December 1, 2017 from Ben Carlson, BWSR TEP member).
12. A revised draft stormwater management plan and model was provided for review on
December 11, 2017 based on questions from WSB & Associates during the review
period.
Todd Gerhardt
WCA Review of Avienda
December 18, 2017
Page 4
13. Comments were received from the RPBCWD on December 7, 2017. (Riley-Purgatory-
Bluff
Riley-PurgatoryBluff Creek letter dated December 7, 2017).
14. A response from the applicant was received on December 13, 2017 in response to
RPBCWD comments. (Larkin Hoffman memo dated December 13, 2018).
B. WCA REVIEW AND FINDINGS
1. Wetland Boundary, Type and Classification: The LGU reviewed the wetland
delineation, typing, and MnRAM classifications. This information is summarized below.
The LGU and TEP concurred with the wetland delineation, wetland typing, and
Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) classifications as noted below and in
the application.
Table 2. Wetland Type and Management Classification Summary
Findings: The LGU and TEP concur with the wetland boundary, type, and management classification as
outlined in the current application and summarized in the Table 2.
2. Sequencing Flexibility
The applicant has requested sequencing flexibility pursuant to Minnesota Rules
8420.0520 Subp 7a. Flexibility in application of the sequencing steps (i.e. avoid and
minimize impacts) may be allowed at the discretion of the Local Government Unit
2016 Application
City's Plan
2014 Report
Cowardin Circular' Management
39 Class
Management
Class
Cowardin Circular
39
Wetland 1
PEMAd
Tl
M2
M2
PEMB
T2
PEMCd
T3
Wetland 2
T5
M2 - - -
M2
PEMB
T2
T4 --
—�-�—
_PUBG
PEMBd
PEMAd
— T2
Tl
PUBFx
Wetland 3
PEMA
Tl
M2
M3
PEMB
T2
Wetland 4
PEMAd
Tl
M2
PEMB
T2
Wetland 5
PEMAd
Tl
M3
PEMA
Tl
Wetland 6
PEMAd
Tl
M2
M2
PFOlA
Tl
Wetland 7/8
PEMAd
Tl
M3
Wetland 9
PEMAd
Tl
M3
Wetland 10
PF01A
Tl
P
Findings: The LGU and TEP concur with the wetland boundary, type, and management classification as
outlined in the current application and summarized in the Table 2.
2. Sequencing Flexibility
The applicant has requested sequencing flexibility pursuant to Minnesota Rules
8420.0520 Subp 7a. Flexibility in application of the sequencing steps (i.e. avoid and
minimize impacts) may be allowed at the discretion of the Local Government Unit
Todd Gerhardt
WCA Review of Avienda
December 18, 2017
Page 5
subject to one of the following conditions. If sequencing flexibility is allowed, the
requirements of MR 8420.0520 Subp 1-7 that require specific avoidance and
minimization criteria do not apply. Below is a review of whether the applicant has met
one of these conditions to be eligible for sequencing flexibility.
Subpart 7a. A.1. Sequencing flexibility can be allowed by the LGU if the wetland
impacted has been degraded to the point where replacement of it would result in a
certain gain in function and public value.
Findings: A MnRAM assessment is a State approved method for evaluating the
functions and values of wetlands. Based on the results of a MnRAM assessment,
wetlands are classified as Preserve, Manage 1, Manage 2, or Manage 3, with the
highest functions and values in the Preserve category and the lowest functions
and values in the Manage 3 category.
The MnRAM assessment has been completed for the on-site wetlands as well as the
proposed wetland bank wetlands, which are proposed for wetland mitigation. The on-
site wetlands have been degraded from agricultural activities and apparent manipulation
such as grading (as evidenced from the aerial photos). The on-site wetlands are Manage
2s and 3s as noted in the Table 2 above. The MnRAM assessments of the wetland bank
sites show that the proposed wetland replacement is of better function and value than
wetlands proposed to be impacted. The wetland bank sites are ranked as Preserve.
The TEP concurred that based on the MnRAM assessments, the replacement wetlands
would result in a gain in function and value within the same Bank Service Area (BSA).
This meets the requirements of WCA so sequencing flexibility is met.
While the WCA requires wetlands to be replaced in the same Bank Service Area and the
project meets this requirement, the city acknowledges lost functions and values within
the City of Chanhassen. Therefore, the city is requiring an escrow of $300,000 to fund a
future wetland/water quality project within the city in the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek
Watershed. Three projects at this time have been identified to use these funds:
1. Iron enhanced sand filter bench at Lake Susan
2. Water reuse project at Lake Susan
3. Land acquisition for future wetland improvements at the Northwest corner of
Highway 101 and Pioneer Trail
Subpart 7a.A.2. Sequencing flexibility can be allowed by the LGU if avoidance of a
wetland would result in severe degradation of the wetland's ability to function and
provide public value. This could occur if surrounding land uses or implementation of
BMP's cannot reasonably maintain the wetland's ability to provide functions and values.
Todd Gerhardt
WCA Review of Avienda
December 18, 2017
Page 6
Findings: While some information related to the difficulty to maintain the
existing function and value of the on-site wetlands was alluded to in the original
application (Page 19 of January 12, 2017 application), the applicant has not
supplied further documentation regarding this item. Therefore, this item does not
apply.
Subpart 7a.A.3. Sequencing flexibility can be allowed by the LGU if the only feasible
and prudent upland site available for the project or replacement has greater ecosystem
function and public value than the wetland. This may be appropriate only if the
applicant demonstrates impact minimization to the wetland agrees to perpetually
preserve the designated update site, and completely replaces the impacted wetland's
functions and values.
Findings: There is a 20 -acre high quality wooded area within the Bluff Creek
Overlay District (BCOD) in the southwest portion of the project site. This area
provides ecosystem value to the area by protecting the bluff and providing a high
quality, vegetated wooded area that contains a diversity of native vegetation (red
and bur oak, sugar maple, basswood, American elm, and black cherry that appear
to have not been clear cut based on aerial photos that go back to 1940). The area
will be placed into a perpetual conservation easement to preserve it in perpetuity.
Additionally, alternatives supplied by the applicant indicate alternative sites
either have similar or potentially greater ecosystem impact.
The TEP concurred with this finding and this project meets the requirements of
WCA for sequencing flexibility for this subpart.
Subpart 7a.A.4. Sequencing flexibility can be allowed by the LGU if the wetland is a
site where human health and safety is a factor.
Findings: Health and human safety of the wetlands being impacted is not a
factor. This condition does not apply.
Subpart 7a.B. Flexibility in the order and application of sequencing standards must not
be implemented unless alternatives have been considered and the proposed replacement
wetland is certain to provide equal or greater public values.
Findings: In the February 15, 2017 documentation, the applicant provides an
alternatives analysis that looks at alternative locations within the city as well as
alternative configurations for development within the chosen project site. In
Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of the Avienda Wetland Permit Application dated January
12, 2017 (and resubmitted February 15, 2017), two avoidance alternatives are
provided. One is the no -build and the other is a development plan that avoids
wetland impacts. The applicant also provided alternative site alternatives. The
Todd Gerhardt
WCA Review of Avienda
December 18, 2017
Page 7
alternative sites either had similar impacts or greater impacts to wetlands or
natural resources. Alternatives have been considered.
Regarding the replacement wetland, as stated in B.2 above, the applicant has completed
MnRAM assessments of the on-site and replacement wetlands. The information has
been reviewed by the TEP. The information indicates that the replacement wetlands will
provide greater function and value than the existing wetlands within the same Bank
Service Area.
The applicant will also provide a $300,000 escrow to fund a future wetland/water quality
project(s) within the city.
Additionally, the stormwater management plan has been reviewed. Based on the review
of the Draft Stormwater Management Plan — DP5.5 dated November 20, 2017, there
were questions regarding the nondegradation analysis and the hydrology analysis for
some of wetlands. These questions were brought to the applicant and changes were
made to the design. Based on the review of the Draft Stormwater Management Plan —
DP5.5 dated December 11, 2017, these questions were addressed. This review has
taken into account the hydrology impacts and water quality impacts on the remaining
wetlands (Wetland 3, 4, and 6) as well as the downstream MnDOT wetlands. Based on
the stormwater management plan, the project plan will not negatively impact the
remaining on-site or downstream MnDOT wetlands from a hydrological or water quality
perspective. It is important to note that this review was based on WCA requirements,
and not requirements that may need to be met by other permitting agencies. Therefore,
this subpart of the sequencing flexibility has been met.
Water Quality and Nondegradation
The project area is within the Lake Susan watershed and the Bluff Creek watershed.
These receiving waters are listed as impaired and as such need to show the project meets
nondegradation standards. While detailed engineering design plans have not been
provided, the modeling of the design plans indicates the project will meet the
nondegradation requirements. The engineering plans will need to meet the results
provided in the model. The data below is based on WSB's review of the model.
Todd Gerhardt
WCA Review of Avienda
December 18, 2017
Page 8
IAKESUSAN
City's Non -De uaclationSumanary
Proposed Site Information
Subwatershe
d Max
Subwatershe Subwatershe Allowable TSS Subwatershed
d Name dArea 2020 Average TSS
Subwatershe
d Name
Subwatershe
Subwatershe dMax Subwatershed
dArea Allowable Average Flow
Estimate of Max
Areawithin Allowable PS Surface
Subwatershed• Flowwithin Outflow•'
[ac] [lbsl [lbs]
IS 2-1
[ac] [ao-ft] I [ac -ft per ac]
[ac] [ac -ft] [ac -ft]
LS 2-2
LS 2-1
28.96 42.1 '1.45
30.7 44.6
57.39 10252 178.64
L52-2
51.03 68.4 1.34
5.4 7.2
39.7 14132.0 356.11 Meeting Requirement
LS 2-4
57.39 41.5 0.72
3.6 2.6
TOTALS
39.7 54.5 BAB
Meeting Requirement
BLUFF CREEK
City's Non -De radation Summary
Proposed Site Information
Subwatershe
d Max
Subwatershe Subwatershe Allowable TSS Subwatershed
d Name dArea 2020 Average TSS
Allowable
Estimate of TSS within
Area within Subwatershe P8Surface
Subwatershed•If Outflow TSS•'
ac] [lbs] lbs peracl
[acl [lbsl [lbs]
BC -A5.11
102.15 38263 374.58
50.3 18841.2
BC -A5.2
BLUFF CREEK
City's Non -De traclation Summary
Proposed Site Information
53.75 13017 242.18
Subwatershe
If Name
d Max
Subwatershe Allowable Subwatershed
dArea Flow2D20 Average Flow
Estimate of Allowable
Area within Flowwithin PBSurface
Subwatershed-Subwatershe Outflow--
utflow"[ac]
71 25826.7 522.2 Meeting Re uirement
[ac][ac -fry [ac -ft per acl
[ac] ac -ft] [ac -ft]
BC -A5.11
102.15 148.6 1.45
50.3 73.2
BC -A5.2
1 35.38 49.8 1.41
16.2 22.8
BC -A5.7
53.75 51.6 0.96
4.5 4.3
TOTALS
71 100.3 10.41
Meeting Requirement
*Estimates were determined from georeferencing documents into ArcGIS and should not be considered exact
" Determined only comparing the surface outflow and using the reported drainage areas from page 8 of the stormwater management plan
LAKESUSAN
Ci 's Non -Degradation Summary
Proposed Site Information
Subwatershe
d Max
Subwatershe Subwatershe Allowable TSS Subwatershed
d Name dArea 2020 Average TSS
Max
Estimate of Allowable
Area within 755 within PB Surface
Subwatershed"Subwatershe Outflow TSS*'
[ac] [lbs] [lbs perac]
[ac] [lbsl [lbs]
IS 2-1
28.96 10967 378.69
30.7 11625.9
LS 2-2
51.03 17605 344.99
5.4 1863.0
L5 2-4
57.39 10252 178.64
3.6 643.1
TOTALS
1
39.7 14132.0 356.11 Meeting Requirement
BLUFF CREEK
City's Non -De radation Summary
Proposed Site Information
Subwatershe
d Max
Subwatershe Subwatershe Allowable TSS Subwatershed
d Name dArea 2020 Average TSS
Allowable
Estimate of TSS within
Area within Subwatershe P8Surface
Subwatershed•If Outflow TSS•'
ac] [lbs] lbs peracl
[acl [lbsl [lbs]
BC -A5.11
102.15 38263 374.58
50.3 18841.2
BC -A5.2
35.38 12876 363.93
16.2 5895.7
BC -A5.7
53.75 13017 242.18
4.5 1069.8
TOTALS
71 25826.7 522.2 Meeting Re uirement
'Estimates were determined from georeferencing documents into ArcG15 and should not be considered exact
•' Determined onlycomparing the surface outflow and usin thereported drainage areas from page 8 of the stormwater management Ian
Todd Gerhardt
WCA Review of Avienda
December 18, 2017
Page 9
IAKESUSAN
Ci 's Non -De radation Summary
Proposed Site Information
Subwatershe
d Max
Subwatershe Subwatershe Allowable TSS Subwatershed
d Name dArea 2020 Average TSS
Max
Estimate of Allowable
Area within TSSwithin Pe Surface
Subwatershed*Subwatershe Outflow TSS**
[ac) [lbs] [lbs erac]
[ac] [lbs] [lbs]
L52-1
28.96 10967 378.69
30.7 11625.9
L52-2
51.03 17605 344.99
5.4 1863.0
LS 2-4
57.39 10252 178.64
3.6 643.1
TOTALS
1
39.7 14132.0 356.11 Meeting Requirement
BLUFF CREEK
City's Non -De adation Summary
Proposed Site Information
Subwatershe
d Max
Subwatershe Subwatershe Allowable TSS Subwatershed
d Name dArea 2020 Average TSS
Allowable
Estimate of TSS within
Area within Subwatershe PB Surface
Subwatershed*d Outflow TSS**
[ac] [lbs] [lbs erac]
[ac] [lbs] [lbs[
BC -A5.11
102.15 38263 374.58
50.3 18841.2
BC -A5.2
35.38 12876 363.93
16.2 5895.7
BC-AS7
53.75 13017 242.18
4.5 1089.8
TOTALS
71 25826.7 522.2 Meeting Requirement
`Estimates were determined from georeferenci ng documents into ArcG15 and should not be considered exact
**Determined only comparing the surface outflow and usin thereported drainage areas from page 8 of the stormwater managementplan
LAKE SUSAN
City's Non -De radation Summary
Pmposed Site Information
Subwatershe
d Max
Subwatershe Subwatershe Allowable TP Subwatershed
d Name dArea 2020 Ave rage TP
Max
Estimate of Allowable TP
Area within within PSSurface
Subwatershed* Subwatershe Outflow TP**
[ac] [lbs] [lbs erac]
[ac] [lbs] [lbs]
LS 2-1
28.96 36.7 1.27
30.7 38.9
LS 2-2
51.03 59.4 1.16
5.4 6.3
L52-4
57.39 34.8 0.61
3.6 2.2
TOTALS
39.7 47A 4.91 Meeting Require ment
BLU FF CREEK
City's Non -De redation Summary
Proposed Site information
Subwatershe
d Max
Subwatershe Subwatershe Allowable TP Subwatershed
d Name clArea 2020 Average TP
Allowable TP
Estimate of within
Areawithin Subwatershe PSSurface
Subwatershed*d Outflow TP**
[ac] [lbs] [lbs perac]
[ac] [lbs] [lbs]
BC -A5.11
102.15 128.4 1.26
50.3 63.2
BC -A5.2
35.38 43.1 1.22
16.2 19.7
BC -A5.7
53.75 44 0.82
4.5 3.7
TOTALS
71 86.6 6.9 Meeting Requirement
*Estimates were determined from georeferencin documents into ArcGIS and should not be considered exact EV
**Determined only com arin the surface outflow and usin thereported drainage areas from page 8 ofthe stormwater management plan
Todd Gerhardt
WCA Review of Avienda
December 18, 2017
Page 10
Hydrology
Based on a review of the hydrology impacts (see table below), the project will not
significantly alter or negatively impact the hydrology of the remaining on-site
wetlands (Wetland 3, 4, and 6) nor the downstream MnDOT wetlands. It should be
noted that Wetland 3 is proposed to have a culvert outlet placed at the elevation of the
existing wetland (about 921). In practice, the wetland is expected to remain at that
elevation or up to one foot above that elevation. Therefore, the project is not anticipated
to negatively impact the hydrology of the wetland.
Todd Gerhardt
WCA Review of Avienda
December 18, 2017
Page 11
Discharge Rates Entering wetlands
Uisfing Conditions
Pro sed Conditions
CMn
2- ear X,ar
2- ar 16
ar
x
b e 16 e
xfs Cfa
ds es
4h [d,1ar
Wetlands
am
I&N
7.02
19.17
036
am
Wetland3
936
19.05
9.H
17.
-0107
-1.99
W¢tland4
3163
62.]9
16.01
41]
-15.62
-21.58
Downstream wetland
14NWTM9
U57
174.15
56.81
158.25
-2T76
-15.90
DOwnitr¢am W¢dana
MNWTMID
2086
5497
20.59
53.65
-0.27
-132
Inflow Volume
6xisti Conditions
Proposecconditions
on.
2 -year 1DWarar
atour
M
Wedand6
an
1.M
1.46
2.95
TOa2o.�
Wedand3
D.74
145
an
1.40
Welland4
3.18
6.06
4.09
6.
Down ton.W.dxwMNWTM9
11.84
22.3911
Downsd¢am W¢deM
MNWTMIO
9.26
1&41
30.3fi
20.14
1.10
L73
Water Levels
Exisdn Conditions
Proposed Conditions
Change
NWL 2- arHWL
NWL
2- arML ]b azHWI
NWL ? ¢efHWL ] eerHWL
Wanted
885.35
585.4]
885.64
am 0.12
0.15
Wedead3
920. 921.09
q9:21.97
920
921.3
921.63
am -0.3
-0.WMIand4
84.03 M71
89403
884.
884]9
am -0.1]
-0.13DownstreamWeiland
MNWTM9
869.5 8]049
86950
M.49
8]1.33
am am
0.Downstreamwetiand
MNWTMIO
891.00 89160
MLW
891.78
892.70
1 OA 0.10
0.14
Bounce
Exisdn Conaitions
Pm .sed Conditions
Chan e
2- a ens 1 aa vent
f e
2- earevent ] vent
xevent 1 earevent
Wetiand6
LM
149
L47
LM
012
0.15
Wetiand3
am
Ll]
0.56
0.®
-1132
-0.30
Wetland
0.68
an
0.51
D.
-0,17
-an
DownstreaoWedaea
MNWTM9
On
1.79
0.93
LM
0.07
OW
Dnwnetreamwedend
MNWTMIO
0.
LM
0.7
L7d
0.10
0.14
Bounce Duretiona
Exietln Conditions
Pro see Conditions
clan e
b earevent 1Dlaaulnaot
2.nevem d arevent
2- earevent ] earevent
M hi
[hin M1r
11,11 [hit
Wetlands
12
13
14
14
2.07
111
Wetlands
n
24
23.00
24.00
Wetland4
13
14
B
x
6.m
sm.
Dowmtream Wedana
MNDOThM
IFOI
2111
211
203
24m
30.00
Downrtream W¢dand
MNDOTMIO
194
227
1
233
400
6.m
Yriterla used to determine duration:
- Start at the time elevation Mos above the NWL
- Duration continues until elevation returns to within one tenth of a fee abovethe NWL
Todd Gerhardt
WCA Review of Avienda
December 18, 2017
Page 12
C. RPBCWD COMMENTS AND RESPONSE
The RPBCWD provided comments during the comment period for the recent submittal. These
comments are attached and responses provided below.
Sequencing Application: The District feels that the application is not in conformance with the
requirements of sequencing in MR 8420.0520.
Response: The applicant has requested sequencing flexibility. Therefore, per the WCA rules,
compliance with 8420.0520 Subp 1-7 (sequencing) is not required if sequencing flexibility is
met.
Sequencing Flexibility: The District disagrees that the project meets the sequencing flexibility
requirements.
Response: The LGU and TEP met and have determined that the project meets two of the four
sequencing flexibility conditions per MR 8420.0520 Subp 7a. Only one of these conditions is
required to be met in order for the LGU to grant sequencing flexibility. These findings are
outlined in Item B.2 above.
The District commented on the location of wetland mitigation in Blue Earth, Stevens, or Rice
County. The WCA rules allow for mitigation to be within the same BSA. These mitigation
credits are within the same BSA #9 as the wetland impact and therefore meet the requirements
of WCA.
The District commented on the type of wetland and credit being provided within the banks and
that these wetlands (or upland) credit are different than the wetlands impacted. Providing the
same type of wetland credit is not a requirement of the WCA.
D. RECOMMENDATIONS WITH CONDITIONS
Based on the review of the project for conformance with the Wetland Conservation Act, the
project meets the requirements for sequencing flexibility and therefore we recommend approval
of this application based on these conditions. These conditions must be met before wetland
impact can occur:
The 20 -acre Bluff Overlay District in the southwest of the project area be preserved in
perpetuity through a conservation easement.
4. A $300,000 escrow be provided by the applicant for a future wetland/stormwater
improvement project(s) in the city.
5. Complete the Withdrawal of Banking Credits form for LGU review and signature.
Todd Gerhardt
WCA Review of Avienda
December 18, 2017
Page 13
6. Provide proof of withdrawal of the wetland banking credits from the banks once the
withdrawal is completed.
7. Engineering plans of the design of the stormwater system that at least meets the
outcomes of the stormwater model provided with the WCA application be submitted to
the City Engineer for review and approval prior to grading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. WSB Memo dated March 10, 2017.
2. Kjolhaug memo dated March 14, 2017.
3. WCA Notice of Application dated March 17, 2017.
4. Kjolhaug memo dated June 5, 2017.
5. WSB Memo Dated July 21, 2017 and Revised August 1, 2017.
6. Kjolhaug memo dated October 9, 2017.
7. Kjolhaug memo dated October 26, 2017.
8. Kjolhaug memo dated November 20, 2017; Draft Stormwater Management Plan — DP5.5
dated November 20, 2017.
9. Email dated December 1, 2017 from Ben Carlson, BWSR TEP member.
10. Riley -Purgatory Bluff Creek letter dated December 7, 2017.
11. Larkin Hoffinan memo dated December 13, 1017
12. Preliminary Plat Approval Requirements
gi\ g4WojwsN e�\118117 bkgd w�&w Tmi dd