(A) Applicant shall attempt to comply fully with the appropriate performance standards described above. Alternatives considered and presented shall examine the merits of relocating project elements to address, varying soil conditions and other constraints across the site.
(B) If full compliance is not possible due to any of the factors listed below, the applicant must document the reason. If site constraints or restrictions limit the full treatment goal, the following flexible treatment alternatives shall be used.
(1) Applicant shall document the flexible treatment alternatives sequence starting with Alternative #1. If Alternative #1 cannot be met, then Alternative #2 shall be analyzed. Applicants must document the specific reasons why Alternative #1 cannot be met based on the factors listed below.
(2) If Alternative #2 cannot be met, then Alternative #3 shall be met. Applicants must document the specific reasons why Alternative #2 cannot be met based on the factors listed below.
(3) When all of the conditions are fulfilled within an alternative, this sequence is completed.
(C) Volume reduction techniques considered shall include infiltration, reuse and rainwater harvesting and canopy interception and evapotranspiration and/or additional techniques included in the MIDS calculator and the state’s Stormwater Manual.
(D) Higher priority shall be given to BMPs that include volume reduction. Secondary preference is to employ filtration techniques, followed by rate control BMPs. Factors to be considered for each alternative will include:
(1) Karst geology;
(2) Shallow bedrock;
(3) High groundwater;
(4) Hotspots or contaminated soils;
(5) Drinking water source management areas or within 200 feet of drinking water well;
(6) Zoning, setbacks or other land use requirements; and
(7) Poor soils (infiltration rates that are too low or too high, problematic urban soils).
(E) Alternative #1. Applicant attempts to comply with the following conditions:
(1) Achieve at least fifty-five hundredths inches volume reduction from all impervious surfaces if the site is new development or from the new and/or fully reconstructed impervious surfaces for a redevelopment or linear development site;
(2) Remove 75% of the annual TP load from all impervious surfaces if the site is new development or from the new and/or fully reconstructed impervious surfaces for a redevelopment site; and
(3) Options considered and presented shall examine the merits of relocating project elements to address, varying soil conditions and other constraints across the site.
(F) Alternative #2. Applicant attempts to comply with the following conditions:
(1) Achieve volume reduction to the maximum extent practicable;
(2) Remove 60% of the annual TP load from all impervious surfaces if the site is new development or from the new and/or fully reconstructed impervious surfaces for a redevelopment site; and
(3) Options considered and presented shall examine the merits of relocating project elements to address, varying soil conditions and other constraints across the site.
(G) Alternative #3. Off-site treatment.
(1) Mitigation equivalent to the performance of one and one-tenth inches of volume reduction for new development, linear development or redevelopment as described above in this section, (including banking or cash) can be performed off-site to protect the receiving waterbody.
(2) Off-site treatment shall be achieved in areas selected in the following order of preference:
(a) Locations that yield benefits to the same receiving water that receives runoff from the original construction activity;
(b) Locations within the same Department of Natural Resource (DNR) catchment area (Hydrologic Unit 08) as the original construction activity;
(c) Locations within the next adjacent DNR catchment area upstream; and
(d) Locations anywhere within the city’s jurisdiction.
(3) The MIDS design sequence flowchart can be found in the state’s Stormwater Manual, available at http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Flexible_treatment_options.
(Ord. 03-2017, passed 3-21-2017)