bkgd 121817 WCA aviendaCITY OF CHANHASSEN
Chanhassen is a Community for Life -Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
MEMORANDUM
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 ~
SUBJ: Wetland Conservation Act Review of A vienda
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
W CA 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.
l. Applicant submitted an application February 15, 2017 with preliminary stormwater
modeling information on February 21, 2017.
I IT !Clit,,_..,
2. City determined the application was incomplete on March I 0, 2017. This detennination
was reviewed with the applicant on March 9, 2017. (WSB Memo dated March 10, 2017).
PH 952 .221.1100 • www.ci.chanhassen.mn .us • FX952 .221.1110
77 0 0 MAR KET BOUL EVAR D • PO BOX 147 •CH A NH ASS EN • MI NN ESOTA 553 1 7
Todd Gerhardt
WCA Review of Avienda
December 18 , 2017
Page 2
3 . Applicant submitted revisions on March 14, 2017. (Kjolhaug memo dated March 14,
2017).
4. City dete1mined the application was complete on March 17, 2017. AW etland
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, 2017).
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. Tue following summarizes
the subsequent extensions.
Date of Extension Notice Date Extension Expires
First 60-Day Timeline May 13 ,2017
Second 60-Day Timeline -Aoril 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 informa tion to the US Corps of Engineers (CO E)
and copied the City in response to the COE comments. (Kjolhaug 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 W ater 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,
infom1ation was clarifi ed by the applicant. The LGU and TEP indicated they were still
awaiting other infonnation. 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).
8. 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). (Kjolhaug memo dated
October 9, 2017).
Todd Gerhardt
WCA Review of A vienda
December 18 , 2017
Page 3
Table 1. Summary of Proposed Wetland Impacts
Impact
Wetland Wetland Wetland Acreage (fill
N umber Type Acreage and
excavate)
Wetland 1 1, 3 1.1001 1.1001
Wetland 1/2 1, 2 0.1860 0.1860
Wetland 2 1, 2, 5 2.2569 2.2569
Wetland 3 1 0.6696 0
Wetland 4 1 0.1253 0
Wetland 5 1 0.3483 0.3483
Wetland 6 1 0.5302 0.4986
Wetland 6 1 0.2514 0
Wetland 7 1 0.0150 0 .0150
Wetland 8 1 0.0844 0.0844
Wetland 9 1 0.0985 0.0985
Wetland 10 1 0.0740 0
TOTAL 5.6406 4.5878
Fill or Wetland
Excavate Management
Class
F Manage 2
F Manage 2
F Manage 2
NA Manage 2
F Manage 2
F Manage 3
F Manage 2
Manage 2
F Manage 3
F Manage 3
F Manage 3
NA Preserve
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. (Kjolhaug memo dated October 26, 2017).
10. On November 20, 2017, the applicant submitted a request and supp01iing information
for sequencing flexibility within the WCA rules. This submittal , a long 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 stonnwater modeling and
analysis accompanied this memo. (Kjolhaug memo dated November 20, 20 17: Draft
Stormwater Management Plan -DP5.5 dated November 20, 2017).
11. On November 30, 2017 , members of the TEP and Ci t y staff met to review the
sequencing flexibilit y 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 m emo 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 stonnwater management plan and model was provided for revi ew on
December 11 , 2017 based on questions from WSB & Associates during the review
period.
Todd G erhardt
WCA R eview of A vienda
December 18, 2017
Page 4
13 . Comments were received from the RPBCWD on December 7, 2017. (Ril ey-Purgatory-
Bl u ff Creek l etter dated December 7, 2017).
14. A response from the applicant was received on December 13, 2017 in response to
RPBCWD comments. (Lar kin 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
I 2016 Appl ication City's Plan 2014 Report I
I -----------------·-
I Cowardin! Circul ar ' Management Management Cowardin I Circular
I I 39 I Class C l ass I 39 I I I
Wetland 1 PEMAd Tl M2 M2 PEMB T2
-·--. --------·-------·· -------------- -----------
PEMCd T3
Wetland 2 PUBG TS M2 M2 PEMB T2 ---------------· -----·---
PEMBd T2 PUBFx T4
--·---·-·------~---------------·---~ ·-------------""··--
PEMAd Tl
Wetland 3 PEMA Tl M2 M3 PEMB T2
Wetland 4 PEMAd Tl M2 PEMB T2
Wetl and 5 PEMAd Tl M3 PEMA Tl
Wetl and 6 PEMAd T l M2 M2 PFOlA Tl
Wetland 7/8 PEMAd Tl M3
Wetland 9 PEMAd Tl M3
Wetland 10 PFOIA T l p
Findings: The LGU and TEP concur with the wetland boundary, type, and management class ification as
outlined in the current application and summarized in the Table 2.
2. Sequencing Flexibility
The applicant has requested sequencing flex ib ility 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 , 201 7
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 propo sed wetland replacement i s 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 lo st 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 reu se project at Lake Susan
3. Land acquisition for future wetland improvements at the Northwest comer 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 A vienda
December 18 , 2017
Page 6
Findings: While some infonnation 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 si milar or potentially greater ecosystem impact.
The TEP concurred with this finding and this project meets the requirements of
WCA for sequencing flexibility for thi s subpart.
Subpart 7a.A.4 . Sequencing fle xibi lity 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 de velopment within the chosen project site. In
Sections 5 .2 and 5.3 of the Avienda Wetland Pennit 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 A vienda
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 Storm water 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 negativel y impact the
remaining on-site or down stream MnDOT wetlands from a hydrological or water quality
perspective. It is important to note that this review was ba sed on WCA requirements,
and not requirements that may need to be met by other p em1itting agencies. Therefore,
this subpart of the sequencing flexibilit y has been met.
Water Quality and Nondegradation
The project area is within the Lake Susan watershed and the Bluff Creek watershed.
These recei ving 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 r eview of the model.
Todd Gerhardt
WCA Review of Avienda
December 18, 2017
Page 8
LAKE SUSAN Citv's Non-De uadation Summarv
Subwatershe
Subwatershe Subwatershe dMax Subwatershed
d Name dArea Allowable Average Flow
[ac] [ac-ft] [ac-ft per ac]
LS 2-1 28.96 4 2.1 1.45
LS 2-2 51.03 68.4 1.34
LS 2-4 57.39 41.5 0.72
TOTALS
BLUFF CREEK Citv's Non-De radation Summarv
dMax
Subwatershe Subwatershe Allowable Subwatershed
d Nam e dArea Flow2020 Average Flow
[ac] [ac-ft) [ac-ft oe r ac]
BC·A5.11 102.15 148.6 1.45
BC-A5.2 35.38 49.8 1.41
BC-A5.7 53.75 51.6 0.96
TOTALS
ProDosed Site Information
Estimate of Max
Area within Allowable PS Surface
Subwatershed* Flow within Outflow**
[ac] [ac-ft] [ac-ft]
30.7 44.6
5.4 7.2
3.6 2.6
39.7 54.5 13.03
ProDosed Site Information
Estimate of Allowable
Area within Flow within PS Surface
Subwatershed* Subwate rshe Outflow••
[ac] [ac-ft] [ac -ft]
50.3 73.2
16.2 22.8
4.5 4.3
71 100.3 10.41
*Estimates were determined from georeferencing documents into ArcGIS and should not be consi dered exact
Meeting ReQuirement
Meeting ReQuirement
•• Determ ined o nly co mparing the surface outfl ow and u si ng the repo rted drai nage areas from page 8 of the sto rmwater management plan
LAKE SUSAN Citv's Non-De radation Summary ProDosed Site Information
Subwatershe Max
d M ax Estimate of Allowable
Subwatershe Su bwatershe All owab le TSS Subwatershed Area within TSS within PS Surface
dName dArea 2020 Average TSS Subwate rs hed* Subwatershe Outflow Tss••
[ac] [lbs] [lbs per ac] [ac] [lbs) [l bs]
LS 2-1 28.96 1D967 378.69 30.7 11625.9
LS 2-2 51.03 17605 344.99 5.4 1863 .0
LS 2-4 57.39 10252 178.64 3.6 643.1
TOTALS 39.7 14132.0 356 .1 Meeting Req uirement
BLUFF CREEK Citv's Non-De radation Summ ary ProDosed Site Information
Subwatershe Allowable
dMax Estimate of TSSwithin
Subwate rshe Subwate rshe Allowable TSS Subwatershed Area within Subwat ers he PS Surface
dName dArea 2020 Average TSS Subwatershed• d outfl ow Tss••
[ac] [lbs) [lbs oe r ac] [ac) [lbs) [lbs)
BC-A 5.11 102.15 38 263 374.58 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 1089.8
TOTALS 71 25826 .7 522.2 Meeting Reauirement
*Es t imates were d ete rm ine d fro m georeferencing document s i nt o ArcG I S and sho ul d not be conside red e xa ct
•• De t ermined on l y co mpar ing th e surface ou tfl ow and usi ng the re ported d rainage are as from page 8 of the sto rm water managem ent plan
Todd Gerhardt
WCA Review of A v ienda
December 18, 201 7
Page 9
LAKE SUSAN Citv 's Non-De radation Summarv
Subwatershe
dMax
Subwatershe Sub watershe Allo wabl e TSS Subwatershed
dName d Area 2020 Average TSS
[ac ) [lbs] [lbs per ac]
LS2-l 28.96 10967 378.69
LS 2-2 51.03 17605 344.99
LS2-4 57.39 10252 178 .64
TOTALS
BLUFF CREEK Citv's Non-De radation Summarv
Subwate rshe
dMax
Subwatershe Subwatershe Allowable TSS Subwatershed
dName dArea 2020 Avera ge TSS
[ac] [lbs] [l bs o e r ac )
BC-A5.11 102.15 38263 374 .58
BC-A 5.2 35.38 12876 363 .93
BC-A5.7 53.75 13017 242.18
TOTALS
Proposed Site Information
Max
Estimate of Allowabl e
Area w ithin TSSwith i n PS Surface
Subw atershed* Subwatershe Outflow TSS**
[ac] [lbs] [l b s)
30.7 11625.9
5.4 1863.0
3.6 643 .1
39.7 14132.0 356.1
Prooosed Site Information
All owable
Estim at e of TSS w ithin
Area within Subwatershe PS Surface
Subwatershed* d Outflow TS S**
[a c) [lbs) [lbs[
50.3 1884 1.2
16.2 5895.7
4.5 1089.8
71 25826.7 522.2
*Estimates we re determ ine d fro m geo referencing documents int o ArcGIS and should not be considered exact
Meeting Requirement
Meeting Requirement
•• Determi ned only com pari ng th e surface o utflow and usi ng the reporte d drai nage are as from pag e 8 of the stormwater mana ge ment pl an
LAKE SUS AN Citv's Non-De ra dat ion Summarv Propos ed Sit e I nfo rmation
Subwaters he Max
d Max Estimat e of All owab le TP
Subwat ershe Subwate rshe All owabl e TP Subwaters hed Area within withi n PS Surface
dName dArea 2020 Average TP Subwatershe d* Subwate rs he Outflow TP • •
[ac) [l bs) [lbs p er ac] [ac ) [l bs] [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
LS2-4 57.39 34.8 0.61 3.6 2.2
TOTALS 39.7 47.4 4.9 M eeting Requi rement
BLUFF CREEK Citv 's Non-De rad ation Summ arv Pro oose d Site Info rm atio n
Subwatershe Allowabl e TP
dMax Estimate of within
Subwatershe Subwate rshe Allowabl e TP Subwate rshe d Area within Subwaters he PS Surface
dName d Area 2020 Ave ra2e TP Subwate rs hed* d Outfl ow TP**
[ac] [lbs) [lbs per ac) [a c) [lbs) [l bs)
BC-A5.ll 102.15 128.4 1.26 50.3 63 .2
BC-A5.2 35.38 43.1 1.22 16.2 19.7
BC-A 5.7 53.75 44 0.82 4.5 3.7
TO TALS 71 86.6 6.9 M ee ting Require ment
*Esti mates were determ i ned f rom georeferencing d ocument s into ArcG IS an d s hould not be con sidered exact
•• Determined only com pari ng the surface outflo w and usi ng the repo rte d dr ain age areas fro m page 8 of the st ormwater management pla n
Todd Gerhardt
WCA Review of A vienda
December 18, 2017
Page 10
Hydrology
Based on a rev iew 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
Existinir Conditions
2-vear
lldsl
Wetland6 6.66
Wetland3 9.36
Wetland4 31.63
Downstream Wetland
IIMNDOTM9) 84.57
Downstream Wetland
IIMNDOTMlOI 20.86
Inflow Volum e
Existint Condit ions
2-vear
llafl
Wetland6 0.79
Wetland3 0.74
Wetland4 3.U
Downstream Wetland
IMNDOTM91 11.84
Downstream Wetland
(MNDOTMlO) 9.26
W ater Levels
Existina Conditions
NWL 2-vearHWL
W etland6 884 885.35
We tland 3 920.80 921.68
Wetland4 884.03 884. 71
Downstream Wetland
IMNDOTM91 869.SO 870.49
Downstream W etland
IMNDOTMlO) 891.00 89L68
Bounce
ExistinR Co nditio ns
2-\/earevent
Wetland6 1.35
Wetland 3 0.88
Wetland 4 0.68
Downst ream Wetland
IIMN DOTM91 0.99
Downstream Wetland
IIM NDOTMlOl 0.68
Bounce Duration •
EMistint Conditions
2-v ear e vent
lihrl
Wetland6 12
Wetland3
Wetland4 13
Downstream Wet land
lfMN DOTM91 187
Downstream Wetland
lfMNOOT MlOI 194
*Criteria used t o det ermine duration:
t~vear
lldsl
18.19
19.05
62.79
174.15
54.97
10-vear
""" 1.86
1.4S
6.06
22.39
18.41
10-vearHWL
885.49
921.97
884.92
87L29
892 .S6
10-\/ear event
1.49
U7
0.89
1 .79
1.56
10-veareve nt
lihrl
13
14
213
227
-Start at t he t ime elevat ion .:t oes above the NWL
Proposed Conditions
Prooosed Conditions
Pro0osed Condit ions
NWL
884
920.80
884.03
869.50
89LOO
Prooosed C<mditions
Prooosed Conditions
-Duration cont fnues until elevat ion ret urns t o within one t enth of a foot above the NWL
Change
2-vear 10-ve ar 2-vear 10-vear
cfs l cfsl cfsl ldsl
7.02 19.17 0.36 0.98
9.29 17.06 -0.07 -1.99
16.01 41.71 -15.62 -21.08
56.81 158.25 -27.76 -1 5.90
20.59 53.6S -0.27 ·1.32
Chanu
2-vear 10-vear 2-vear tO-vear
llafl all ran liafl
1.46 2.9S 0.67 1.09
0.77 1.40 O.Q2 -0.05
4.09 6.64 0.92 0.58
11.94 23.27 0.10 0.88
10.36 20.14 1.10 1.73
Chan2e
2-ve:arHWL 10-vearHWL NWL 2-vearHWL 10-vearHWL
885.47 885.64 0.00 0.12 0.1S
921.36 921.63 0.00 -0.32 -0.34
884.54 884.79 0.00 -0.17 ·0.13
870.49 871.33 0.00 0.00 0.04
891 .7! 892.70 0.00 0.10 0.14
Chan11:e
2-\/earevent 10-vear eve nt 2-vear event 10-vear event
1.47 1.64 0.12 0.15
0.56 0 .83 -0.32 -0.34
0.51 0.76 -0 .17 ·0.13
0.99 1 .83 0.00 0.04
0.7! 1.70 0.10 0.14
Chan2:e
2-vear event 10-vear event 2-vearevent 10-vear event
hrl llh rl lihrl hrl
14 14 2.00 1.00
23 24 23.00 24.00
19 20 6.00 6.00
211 243 24.00 30.00
198 233 4.00 6.00
Todd Gerhardt
WCA Review of A vienda
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 requirement s
ofWCA.
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:
1. The 20-acre Bluff Overlay District in the so uthwe st of the project area be preserved in
perpetuity through a conservation easement.
4 . A $3 00 ,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 storm water 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 Hoffman memo dated December 13, 2017
12.Preliminary Plat Approval Requirements
g:\cl1g\prnjoc1s\2l-e\lJ.\li.wd11\l281 l? bkgd wc.i\avicud.t wt-!Ht.."Vlr."w,c\ocx