HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Work PLANNER 10/9/2008
Development Issues Meeting
ZON2008-00038 Hyland Business Park (30th Street)
October 9, 2008
I. City staff have expressed openness to the concept of removing the deed restriction if it
can be demonstrated that it is in the community interest to do so.
What is the community interest?
Part of that community interest is defined by state and federal statutes. The law says that
wetland preservation is in the environmental interest of the community and the nation.
These statutes make provisions for fill and mitigation on the assumption that some lower
value wetlands may be sacrificed in if there was mitigation to offset the lost resource.
The existing status of the parcels as "wetland mitigation areas" sterns from the required
mitigation for the fill and development of a complex of wetlands that were located within
the larger Jeff Parker Subdivision. The wetlands were judged to have low function in
many cases, as summarized in "Table I. Summary Table of Hydrogeomorphic (HGM
Based Assessment Functional Capacity of Existing Wetlands to Be Impacted." Table I
shows that the "Impacted Wetlands" were of "Low" functional capacity. The "Mitigation
Wetlands," as designed, were intended to increase functionality to a "Moderate" level by
the same HGM measure.
Date Received:
Planner: MM
to/'f 1wJ(
The design for the approved constructed mitigation wetlands called for the planting and
maintenance ofa variety of wetland plant species. Few of these species can be found on
the parcels in numbers would demonstrate that the mitigation original plan was
implemented or maintained. The property owner is required to maintain these plantings
for a minimum of five years. The mitigation plan includes provisions for a 5-yr
monitoring period.
The question is can the loss of these "Wetland Mitigation Areas" be mitigated and ifso,
how does the applicant proposed to do so?
- ,=-,._ gO'.!1mer~ial Aile
.~.J,."-~"~"'''''::''-Io.",.,."..&:;~
Other elements of the community interest can include economic, social, irifrastructure
and public safety interests of the community. The presence of transients, illegal dumping
and theft and vandalism on or near the mitigation sites is a recognized problem.
Preventing these problems is a property owner's responsibility with the city offering
some support through its limited policing resources. Can it be demonstrated that the
development of the Wetland Mitigation Areas will be of greater community benefit than / ~
Date ReceiVed:~ 00
Planner: MM I
leaving them in place? This is the purpose of the ESEE analysis that is often required as
part of making such determinations.
2. The Wetland Mitigation Areas replaced the existing wetland functions. It was clear
that the existing wetlands that were mitigated were not part of a well connected wetland
complex. They had Low functionality for water storage and delay; sediment stabilization
and phosphorous retention; and nitrogen removal.
V/,
't
.'
(- -
,/ I
~/i
The wetlands formed in shallow depressions that probably formed as the result of uneven
fill in the past. The constructed Wetland Mitigation Areas mirror the replaced wetlands
in that they capture water from a restricted area and percolate that water into the ground
without conveyance or outfall. For this reason, the stormwater functions are limited.
They match the function of the filled wetlands.
Does this mean that the Wetland Mitigation Areas could not be made more functional?
No. If properly designed they could be hydrologically connected to the larger stormwater
system in the area. Connecting these mitigation areas to the existing system may not
increase the stormwater functionality of the system as a whole, so what would be the
community interest in doing so?
3. No specific site development has been proposed. The concept drawing provided by
the applicant has the potential for providing the needed pretreatment for development on
the site. Since the Wetland Mitigation Areas are not functionally connected to the larger
city stormwater system through intake or outfalls, development on the site, if properly
engineered would have little effect on the larger system.
4. As mentioned in Response #1, prevention of the problems of trespassing, vandalism
and illegal dumping is largely a property owner responsibility. The City has limited
policing resources. Few staff would say that the existing situation is something that
should be continued. Additional development of those properties bordering the site may
Date ReceiVed:-12/i.!OY
Planner: MM
r
help. Use of the nearby lots as an unattended construction, storage yard dm!s not provide
the "presence" nec,essary to discourage trespass and vandalism.
\
Date Received: friO / or,
Planner: MM ~