Agenda Packets - 2006/01/09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 pond. He stated that money is now gone and if the holding pond had been done, this wetland 1 delineation would not be necessary since the pond would have been eight feet deep. Mr. 2 Anderson asked what is the status of that project. He stated that the new buffer zone runs 3 through his swimming pool but it was not an issue when the pool was installed. He noted it 4 appears with his property the wetland line expanded, is more of an impact, and has decreased the 5 value of his property. 6 7 Director Ericson stated he cannot speak to the holding pond issue because it and the wetland 8 delineations are completely independent from each other. 9 10 Mr. Anderson asked if the additional water holding properties were needed for a road 11 improvement project. 12 13 Mayor Marty stated whether or not the pond went in would not have change where the wetland is 14 located. Public Works Director Lee stated that is correct, the delineation has no bearing on the 15 location of the regional pond. He explained that the pond was a requirement of the street projects 16 and the requirement for water treatment by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Since that project 17 did not go forward, the pond is on hold. 18 19 Councilmember Thomas stated back in April or May the City did receive the report and it will be 20 useful to the City for three to four years so the money is not “gone.” 21 22 Richard Comben, 2832 Woodcrest Drive, stated he is glad this issue came up and asked if the 23 determination of the wetland is done through soil testing. Director Ericson explained the 24 delineation of wetlands includes a very involved process by soil and water hydrologists. They 25 look at the type of soils present, the type of vegetation that exists, the presence of water, if there 26 is not water there could still be wetland vegetation, and subsurface soil modeling that determines 27 how the wetland delineation is projected. In the 1980s that process was not used. 28 29 Mr. Comben stated he has lived there since 1972 and depending on the year or decade, the 30 wetland area goes back and forth. He wondered how realistic the shaded area on the map and 31 buffer really are. He stated the buffer goes right up to his garage and he is suspicious why the 32 City is paying attention to this matter today. He asked if there is a building project that needs 33 more runoff area. Mr. Comben stated he would feel better if the City put a 100-foot radius 34 around every wetland and sinkhole so everyone can share in this “pain.” 35 36 Director Ericson explained that by Code, the purpose of the buffer adopted in the 1980s gave the 37 City the opportunity to review what is happening adjacent to a wetland. However, the 100-foot 38 buffer is not a “magic number” for a buffer. He explained that the City requires a 100-foot 39 setback and in some cases it creates no impact because of the distinct change in elevation. 40 Director Ericson explained that the City had several property owners ask why they had to get a 41 wetland buffer permit to redo their driveway or garage so the City went forward with this 42 delineation project. He noted that in the case of the Comben property, the line was pulled back, 43 as occurred with most properties. 44 45