My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2007/04/09
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
Agenda Packets - 2007/04/09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:47:21 PM
Creation date
7/17/2018 2:48:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
4/9/2007
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
4/9/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
140
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council March 12, 2007 <br />Regular Meeting Page 7 <br /> <br />Council Member Flaherty asked whether a wetland alteration permit was required for Red Oak 1 <br />Estates. 2 <br /> 3 <br />Mr. Harstad indicated that the judge did not require it. 4 <br /> 5 <br />Council Member Flaherty explained that the permit states that no fill shall be brought onto the 6 <br />site. He then said that the permit requested will allow only for tree removal from the Longview 7 <br />tract of land and nothing else is permitted. He further asked if that includes removal of stumps. 8 <br /> 9 <br />Mr. Harstad said that is controlled by the local governing unit and that would be Rice Creek. He 10 <br />then said that trees can be removed in the winter but you must leave the stump. He further said 11 <br />that if you look at the site you will see stumps in the wetland area and the stumps outside of the 12 <br />wetland were ground. 13 <br /> 14 <br />Mayor Marty said he feels a little uneasy about the language concerning increasing flow and he is 15 <br />concerned about removing cottonwoods because a mature cottonwood can take upwards of 500 16 <br />gallons of water per day. He then said that even though they are scrub trees they are useful and 17 <br />he is concerned for the future and removing the water vacuums may create some impact to the 18 <br />water table in the low lying areas. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Director Ericson said that he asked Rice Creek Watershed District that question and then said 21 <br />that he has a response from them by email. He further said that larger trees do absorb a certain 22 <br />quantity of water but he does not feel that they will impact flood storage or water to be contained 23 <br />in a certain area. 24 <br /> 25 <br />Mr. Harstad explained that there are inlets to the property but there is also an outlet and the 26 <br />wetland will not change a whole lot because it is usually at capacity due to the inlets. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Council Member Flaherty said that he would like Council to consider in the future that there was 29 <br />only 48 hours between when the notification was made to the City and the commencing of the 30 <br />work. 31 <br /> 32 <br />Mr. Harstad apologized for that but said that this project has been a long process and there have 33 <br />been numerous meetings and said that he feels it was made clear that he wanted to develop his 34 <br />property. He then said that the delineation flags were out and he did call the City and the 35 <br />watershed district and the chair of the watershed and then he proceeded. 36 <br /> 37 <br />Pete Severson of 5172 Longview Drive said that he just heard a Council Member speaking for 38 <br />him and he would prefer that does not happen. He then said that he does not have a very good 39 <br />neighbor in regards to protecting the earth and providing habitat for the animals. He further said 40 <br />that it was a surprise when the big trees started coming down. 41 <br /> 42 <br />Mr. Severson said he would like to know how the City handles landowners who ignore the rules 43 <br />and landowners who ignore the process. He then asked if the City feels that this developer really 44 <br />did not know the rules. He further said that this should have been handled differently. 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.