Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />October 17, 2001 <br />Page 7 <br />habitat and wildlife meaning any time there is an alteration it is a big deal. He further <br />commented that the City is very aware of the impact and the loss of the wetland. <br />Community Development Director Ericson spoke to the comment made by a reside��t that they <br />could not believe the City would want to allow the development of a natural area by saying that <br />the City would lilce the wetland to be left as it is but said the land is not owned by the City and <br />the City cannot afford to purchase these types of properties to keep them from being developed. <br />He further noted that, until a couple of months ago, this proposal was proceeding according to <br />Code bnt said the City does have quite a few weilands and has a part of the Code specifically <br />designed to protect those wetlands. He then said that if Rice Creek Watershed District felt it was <br />not a good idea they would not approve the proposaL <br />Chair Stevenson asked the rationale behind Chapter 1010 and the 125-foot minimum lot width <br />requirement. <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated he could only interpret that the City <br />intended to fizrther protect the wetland areas with more stringent"requirements in a wetland <br />district. <br />Chair Stevenson indicated he knew the answer but asked for a-reason. He then indicated that the <br />City was concerned for the pressuresplaced on tlie wetlands by allowing too many houses to be <br />� built on thern. He further indicated that he is concerned that ihis development would create more <br />water pressure for the neighhorhood for water runoff._ <br />Mr. Feldner uidicated there are no storm sewers in that entire loop and said that two thirds {2/3) <br />of the way up the road it breaks and goes in either direction. He then indicated that, at tha# point, <br />water runs off toward ihe corner and the`rest runs dovsm the whole street and it is all being <br />absorbed by the wetlands. He further indicated that if a house is located there it would <br />necessitate the need for storm sewers and curb and gutter: He further commented that right now <br />runoff is handled the natural way but said that, if the wetland is allowed to develop, the City <br />would need to make arrangements for doing things the mechanical way with curb and gutter and <br />storm sewers. <br />Mr. Severson stated that if the law is 125 feet for frontage then the developer should have to <br />stick to that because he has seen no information presented that would justify changing the rules. <br />Vemon Larson,of 2760 Woodale Drive indicated that when the hole was dug to install hzs <br />utilities'a pump was used to pump aIl the water out of the ground before tney could be <br />coztnected. He then indicated that, when the area dried out, his driveway sank a half an inch and <br />had to be replaced which cost him $2,500. <br />Mr. Harstad said he was torn as to how to respond to some of the residents' comments. He then <br />said his family has awned the property for many years and in 1992 the City of Mounds View <br />enacted the new wetland buffer ordinance. He further indicated that other cities have enacted <br />similar ordinances and said that government regulation was created and a local governing unit is <br />