|
._.... __ .. _—. . '_ c__. --..:,�__.� If._'.__ _ -- _ . ..__. -. __--_____ _._ .. � _..__._ _'___— �_ 7.� ._, " .. . .
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission Ii�ay 3, 2000
<br />Regalar Meeting Page 3
<br />Ms. Peterson reviewed the requirements of the four bodies of government that set,���rz�th the
<br />reyuirements of the contents of the Local Water Management Plan. These irt�l�ad� S�t�� Statute
<br />103B, Minnesota Rule 8410, the Metropolitan Council's rec�uirement �°�i�• ��. ��ecal Water
<br />Management Plan, and the Watershed District requirement .�ki� notet� F��,��: iay�: x�ice Creek
<br />Watershed District and Metropolitan Council's requirements �'br the Local ':�tnrj �'����r�a,�ement
<br />f� �
<br />Plan were the same. °�
<br />,f�=>.�
<br />: s ,:. �� o. , : . ff� ,.
<br />Ms. Peterson indicated the requirements set forth by t�EA T���;�%i o��c�la�an Council a� c; ����� s��c��i: '`
<br />detailed of the requirements for the Local Water Manage�-���� �''l�,s:�. ��he discussed e�.cl� ����' �R►t���
<br />requirements and explained that each of these requirement�; �:����f� bf;�n specifically listed and
<br />addressed in the plan. ,
<br />Mr. Keehn indicated that during the current reviev� ��rar.���, t���y hacl ;+`���<<a;��.�-�. ������-narily upon the
<br />Rice Creek Watershed District permitting rules. ��ti� �.������ �,�;r� ��1��� k:�d_�e ;����-�����s ��elate to rate
<br />controls for any residential and development 'p���� �,� ��at� a�(��rz `� E�� � E��x; �����a.Y�d industrial and
<br />commercial areas greater than Z.5 acres I���tated �}�c �4,�,'��� �°�z�sscd ��is�r.`�ct continues to permit
<br />water quality or wetland impact based upon the lca��, w1�ta�,f� i�,s F� ����ch smaller requirement,
<br />. .;:
<br />therefore, with the plan as proposed, Rj�e Creek �atei-shc�� ��r ���r;�' would continue to permit
<br />these activities based upon these acre�:g±� z`equirem,erits.
<br />Mr. Keehn advised that the Rice
<br />all proposals that come i�d�c� �.�:3�
<br />Water-shet� `D�strict does r�s�� r��;�
<br />tvaicall`�i �`�a��nrf���� a. coa� ��� ���a;
<br />reviews � �r��'g��4���; tl»�, �� �
<br />presents a ����,���������:� ,� ��1��� ��
<br />District consic��� � � � ��.v E��� wel
<br />involved m tk�;� E;��.���-;�i�a�di�t� �
<br />City. I��,��plain�ci i�&�,��. ��ar ��
<br />�'%�
<br />only,k�.�ve regulatory aif��c�i���
<br />�
<br />�k Water��a�^�,rl I�istnct.�tas the opportunity to comment upon
<br />nmunity, ��t�a��:�� a.:�l���� #o� these issues. He indicated that if the
<br />�ent upo��, ����°���r���i, the City's Planning Department would
<br />��a �o 5�.�-�;� ���� t�l�»ir review. He explained that when SEH
<br />s> ;������all impact to the site, and whether or not the proposal
<br />��IcX.I����l; or area adjacent to it. He noted that the Watershed
<br />�}���s =� they permit a project, SEH does not tend to become
<br />th� ���;:�i�;%3 �pecifics, but rather, in terms of the overall impact to the
<br />mos� par-t, the Watershed District does not comment, because they
<br />t���� ihe property that is being developed.
<br />; ;s
<br />.� Keehn stated SEhI �So i°�views buffer related issues, and the typical recommendation is that
<br />�.�ay residential developtxient within the buffer be set back 10 to 15-foot from the wetland, and this
<br />���ti�w relates prima���+`�to the wetland's impact is to the system. He explained that if this is a
<br />,���:
<br />���r`�;t�:�.���1 at the top;,��°the watershed, which will run through several wetlands before it reaches
<br />��� �� f� fg;�ctt, s h���dncern is more of a local issue, and providing a smaller buffer. He stated there
<br /><���, ����������1� �l��t they consider a bit more sensitive, and in these cases, they have recommended to
<br />`c��� �"p�;? 3�,�'c a larger buffer be provided. He added that in situations where an individual has
<br />constructed a driveway or increased the impervious surface directly adjacent to a wetland, they
<br />recommend an increase in the buffer. He pointed out that these projects are reviewed on a case-
<br />by-case basis, which provides some flexibility in situations that might otherwise require variances.
<br />
|