Laserfiche WebLink
Q• <br />Was Maplewood asked to participate in this discussion? The City Administrator stated that they were <br />sent a notice of this meeting as a property owner within 350 feet but no other contact has been initi <br />at this time. <br />Q. How are wetland boundaries determined? The City Engineer explained that topographical survey <br />information is combined with current vegetative growth in the area to make a decision. Basically, if an <br />area is wet at the time of the delineation, it will be considered a wetland. <br />John Sculley commented on the expansion of the wetland on his mother's property that has occurred as a <br />result of the City of Mapiewood's development decisions. He feels that Maplewood should not be allowed <br />to negatively impact the Sculley property. He feels that this issue needs to be resolved before any <br />thoroughfare plan is considered for this area. Staff acknowledged the fact that this issue should be resolves <br />before any wetland delineation is attempted. <br />Another resident asked why property owners would want to see their backyards developed? Mayor Fahey <br />indicated he would and felt others may wish to develop also. <br />Another major concern that was expressed was the impact any potential development would have upon <br />drainage, especially to the properties with lower elevations. This same individual stated that he has noticed <br />a significant deterioration in water quality since last year. He felt further development would only <br />exacerbate that situation and questioned if development should occur at all in this area. The City Engineer <br />stated grading and drainage evaluations would be key issues reviewed in any subdivision proposal. <br />Another resident stated that this is a beautiful area and highly desirable lots could be created from it. <br />Another property owner questioned land ownership in this area and was informed the City of Maplewood <br />has purchased land in this area that may preclude further development due to access limitations. Staff state& <br />that the Maplewood property is south of the access point off of Arcade. <br />Q. What constitutes a buildable lot? The City Planner stated that an interior lot needs 10,000 square feet of <br />area and a minimum lot width of 75 feet. <br />Another member of the audience stated that the Watershed needs to be involved in further discussions of thi <br />topic. Staff agreed their involvement is needed if we decide to move forward with this concept. <br />A question was again raised as to why we are having this meeting without more detailed information being <br />available. The City Administrator explained that creating that information would be an expensive <br />undertaking. There would be no sense in doing so if affected property owners are not interested in this <br />concept. <br />Q. Is this the only layout that will be considered? The City Planner stated that other concepts may be <br />possible and that determination would be made when more detailed information is available. <br />Q. A representative of the Sculley family asked if their property could be rezoned to agriculture. The City <br />Planner stated that decision rests with the City Council. Mayor Fahey expressed his reservations wi'- <br />that idea. <br />72 4= 104 <br />