Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission June 22, 1988 <br /> Special Meeting Page Two <br /> 111 <br /> John Borovsky, of Barr Engineering, explained that <br /> they had responded as they thought appropriate to the <br /> developer ' s letter, but he realistically feels that <br /> passing judgment on this issue should be with the <br /> Planning Commission, City Council and legal counsel, <br /> as it relates not so much to technical issues as it <br /> does to community standards. <br /> Mr. Sabee reviewed the letter regarding the phosphorus <br /> stripping capacity, which interprets the intent of the <br /> ordinance to protect the potential of the wetland <br /> function, and he reviewed that interpretation. He <br /> explained there are no wetlands that can completely <br /> strip phosphorus from the water, and due to the time <br /> storm water spends in a typical wetland, there is not <br /> enough time to remove the phosphorus. He added they <br /> must also consider the intent of the ordinance, that <br /> development should have no impact on the wetland <br /> phosphorus stripping capacity as compared to the <br /> existing conditions of the wetland. <br /> Mr . Sabee recommended the Planning Commission consider <br /> a change in the standard that would result in a <br /> standard that states that whatever development or <br /> • alteration there is, it could not result in a decrease <br /> in the phosphorus stripping capacity, that it can only <br /> be maintained or improved. <br /> Mr. Sabee stated that in addressing the Planning <br /> Commission ' s concern about an average storm versus a <br /> critical storm, the Walker Method is an alternative <br /> that could be used for an average event, and he would <br /> recommend some modification of the Walker Method or <br /> another method be considered for critical storm <br /> events. He added that they have looked at this issue <br /> from a technical viewpoint and did not look at it as <br /> Mr. Borovsky added that with a particular development, <br /> when phosphorus stripping is a big hurdle, they should <br /> look at other methods for analyzing phosphorus stripping. <br /> Mr. Sabee cautioned that their letter dealt solely <br /> with considering the method and the attributes of <br /> such, and does not apply to how the method is applied <br /> to this development. <br /> Jim Merila, of Merila & Associates, questioned whether <br /> the representatives of Barr Engineering felt the <br /> developer ' s proposal strips phosphorus better than the <br /> • <br /> existing wetland using the Walker Model. <br /> Mr. Sabee replied using a different model than that <br /> required by the Code was dependent upon approval of <br /> the Planning Commission and Council , and they do not <br />