|
<br />.
<br />
<br />
<br />uilders.
<br />nfusing regulations ,increasingly
<br />at only huge companies can afford
<br />ouses, said Phil Muessig of the
<br />Office of Environmental Assis-
<br />the regulations can sometimes
<br />'!lay of ~oing things right," he
<br />
<br />,......... .,' ", "',,
<br />
<br />eral government says redundant
<br />ntal rules cripple efforts to build
<br />. g~ A 2004 report by the
<br />of Housing and Urban
<br />cited, regulation - mostly
<br />as boosting housing costs
<br />to 17 percent .
<br />iltal planning began on the
<br />perty three years ago. '
<br />. 'onmental damage would be
<br />2,100 homes and 45 miles of
<br />~ays~ Until the research
<br />plete, no one knew.
<br />the answer was surprising.
<br />
<br />SHORTCUT FOUND
<br />
<br />bothersome are the regulations?'
<br />ough, said Bassert; so that homes
<br />,gIy are built where builders can
<br />aVOid . nmental hassles.
<br />.', Indeed, it was an exemption from some
<br />regulati(jns that jump-started. the entire
<br />Brandtj,enproject. ,
<br />, 2oo2~ EdfiIa-based Tradition Develop-
<br />Co. had partnered with the owner of a
<br />, I quarry in Lakeville. The mine would
<br />ed in 10 years, and the owners
<br />it into' a multi-use develop-
<br />'. " " ,~...,
<br />
<br />ut an obstacle loomed. Such i project
<br />
<br />
<br />would require an Environmental Impact
<br />Statement - the Mount Everest of environ-
<br />mental hurdles. It's a document that can be
<br />as thick as a phone book and take as long as
<br />two years to complete.
<br />In 2003, Tradition project manager Rob
<br />Wachholz found a letter in a dusty file cabi-
<br />net at Lakeville City Hall. It cited a 29-year-
<br />old ruling that when it was time to redevel-
<br />op the quarry, the site wouldn't require the
<br />full-fledged study, only a much 'shorter
<br />worksheet.
<br />It was Wachholz's "eureka" moment.
<br />The shortcut likely made no environ-
<br />mental difference - Wachholz's plans
<br />would have passed any set of rules. But that
<br />shortcut saved Tradition time and money,
<br />so ,Wachholz could begin a thoroughly
<br />planned development with pocket parks,
<br />roundabouts, garages away from main
<br />streets, sidewalks and a restored dairy barn
<br />for a clubhouse.
<br />If he had to complete the Environmental
<br />Impact Statement, Wachholz said, "Those
<br />things could have been casualties. We'd
<br />probably be tinkering with the EIS right
<br />now."
<br />
<br />WETLAND OR LOW SPOT?'
<br />
<br />Tn 2003, Wachholz turned to Westwood
<br />J.Frofessional Services of Eden Prairie. Its
<br />mission was to cut the red tape and com-
<br />plete the environmental worksheet
<br />Westwood immediately . tackled the
<br />biggest problem- wetlands.
<br />Wetlands are Mother Nature's naughty
<br />children. They come and go as they please,
<br />never with clear boundaries like rivers or
<br />l~es. They can be moved, destroyed or
<br />recreated by changing soil or water levels.
<br />Their ephemeral nature can drive plan-
<br />ners crazy.
<br />"The value of a wetland is sometimes
<br />defended with crocodile tears. 'Oh my gosh,
<br />you are destroying a wetland,' " said Marc
<br />Putman, designer of the Brandtjen project
<br />He said legitimate habitat for wildlife
<br />should be protected, but the law doesn't dis-
<br />cern between those places and "low spots in
<br />a field." .
<br />In Minnesota, any builder who destroys a
<br />wetland has to create another one twice as
<br />big. .
<br />This makes it essential, to map them
<br />precisely. So, foot by foot, Westwood sur-
<br />veyed three wetlands on the Brandtjen
<br />site.
<br />They studied plant life. Reed canary
<br />grass, currant and stinging nettle were
<br />signs of wetland. Smooth brome, yarrow,
<br />aster or red cedar showed more dry condi-
<br />tions. The wetland boundary was always
<br />somewhere between the two zones of
<br />plants.
<br />They studied the water tables. They
<br />examined the soil itself to make sure it
<br />could support habitat
<br />Without the right combination of water,
<br />plants and soil, said Dwight Jelle, a princi-
<br />pal at Westwood, "It can look like a wetland
<br />and smell like a wetland, but it isn't a wet-
<br />land."
<br />The company submitted. iP,ee '''Wetlands
<br />Delineation Report" to LaIlivrue' in May
<br />2003.
<br />
<br />PRE-EMPTIVE RESEARCH
<br />
<br />
<br />Environmental groups say that although
<br />many agencies might oversee a certain
<br />site, only a handful usually are involved.
<br />That's because officials at some agencies
<br />might choose totake a pass on certain proj-
<br />ects, but also because people like Jelle antic-
<br />ipate their questions.
<br />Take the issue of traffic. Jelle knew traf-
<br />fic congestion is a pet issue for the Metro-
<br />politan Council and the city of Lakeville.
<br />So Jelle's projections of future traffic
<br />growth were meticulously detailed. They
<br />looked at 13 intersections in the neighbor-
<br />hood, studying the likely number of vehi-
<br />cles, where they would drive, even where
<br />and how they would turn.
<br />Jelle projected, for example, a 26 percent
<br />increase in traffic at Pilot Knob Road and
<br />160th Street from 2004 to 2011.
<br />Or take erosion control.
<br />Jelle knew that was a key issue with the
<br />federal Environmental Protection Agency
<br />and the Dakota: County Soil and Water Dis-
<br />trict
<br />Westwood's wetland experts walked the
<br />site in July 2004. They split the land use into
<br />14 types, reporting that there were 126 acres
<br />of farm crops, 5 acres of shrub-land and 12
<br />other varieties of land covers.
<br />They analyzed the soil types, finding
<br />varieties of soil that would just be dirt to
<br />most people - such as 26.5 acres of Ken-
<br />nebec silt loam and 4.8 acres of Palms Muck.
<br />They did the same with runoff pollution.
<br />using thorough pre-emptive research to
<br />anticipate the questions.
<br />Jelle knew the Department of Natural
<br />Resources and Minnesota Pollution Control
<br />Agency would worry that rainstorms could
<br />wash lawn chemicals or' hazardous dust
<br />into storm sewers, polluting the rivers.
<br />He predicted that in rainfalls of 2.4 inch-
<br />es or less, no water would flow from the
<br />site. The water would be caught in a sys-
<br />tem of retaining ponds and a centralized
<br />lake. Compared with the original farm, this
<br />, made the project a pollution sponge, sop-
<br />ping up chemicals instead of passing them
<br />along.
<br />In all, Westwood answered 39 questions.
<br />It analyzed the history of the land. It out-
<br />lined 22 "groundwater protection strate-
<br />gies." It listed the 18 permits it would
<br />acquire before work began.
<br />The draft was complete. It was published
<br />in the state Environmental Quality Board's
<br />Monitor for comments.
<br />
<br />RED FLAG POPS UP
<br />
<br />None of the 14 agencies commented
<br />about Wetland A, which covered 7
<br />acres. Same with Wetland B, 8 acres.
<br />But Wetland No. 19-349W was a red flag.
<br />Water from that wetland could flow one
<br />mile to a small creek. That creek flowed
<br />four miles into the Vermillion River, which
<br />flowed more than 60 miles into (hello, Army
<br />Corps of Engineers!) the Mississippi River.
<br />The Corps is charged with protecting
<br />navigable waters and tributaries, so it
<br />claimed jurisdiction oveI:-. the wetland. The
<br />~.
<br />RRO TAPR QA
<br />
|