06-28-06 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JUNE 28, 2006 want any more water on his property. Sculley felt there must be a way to drain the water to Kohlman Lake and dry up some of his property. Blesener noted that even if that is possible, the property that is designaCed as a wetland will remain as a wetland. The City Administrator noted that the Watershed has used aerial surveys from the 1940's to show wetland locations in looking at this area. While some of these wetland areas may not have had much water, they are still wetlands. The Administrator agreed that more water has been diverted into this area as the result of surrounding development, especially the adjacent development in Maplewood. Sculley asked if more water will come into his property as the result of Che Unweave the Weave project. The Administrator replied that more wafer will be diverted Coward the freeway resulting in less water into the Sculley property. Sculley stated that it is frustrating that Che Watershed will be developing new rules in September without consulting the property owners and taxpayers that are being impacted. Sculley indicated that Che Constitution provides people the right to own and use Cheir property, and now the Watershed will take away or control the use of people's property. Sculley felt Yhat if the Watershed wants Che property, they should pay for it. The Administrator indicated that the new water quality standards are the result of Federal Legislation, and pointed out the NPDES standards that govern storm water systems. The Watershed is trying to get their policies into ordinance form in order Co ensure compliance with these standards. The Watershed has held extensive meetings with counties and cities on this issue. The Administrator did not know that the Watershed will have its ordinances in place by September, but noted that a lot of changes will be made and treatmenC standards will be changed. The Administrator stated that he did not think the standards would change to the degree that the Johnson development could not happen. Sculley pointed out that no one cared what happened to his property when development was occurring to Che north and south of him. Sculley reported Chat as a result of Chat development, property ChaC was day is now wet. The Administrator agreed that the developmenC that occurred in Maplewood in the 1980's could not occur in the same manner Coday. Sculley pointed out Chat a development cannot hinder the value of adjoining property. The Administrator pointed out that if the Johnson