My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2005/09/12
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
Agenda Packets - 2005/09/12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:50:00 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 8:38:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
9/12/2005
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
9/12/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
178
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 August 8, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 9 <br /> <br />information back to the Rice Creek Watershed District. He stated that once the information has 1 <br />been received and the permit is approved the City would receive a fax from Rice Creek 2 <br />Watershed upon issuance of the permit. He assured the Council that the City would know, in 3 <br />advance, about any activities that would be occurring on that site. 4 <br /> 5 <br />Mayor Marty asked if the Rice Creek Watershed would receive the results from the soil borings 6 <br />for the footprints of the building locations and would the information be forwarded to Rice Creek 7 <br />Watershed if the area is deemed to be a wetland area. 8 <br /> 9 <br />Director Ericson stated that the Rice Creek Watershed would not receive the results from the soil 10 <br />borings because it is a City issue. He explained that the judges ruling indicated that the City’s 11 <br />wetland zoning provisions, the alteration provisions and the buffer provisions are not applicable 12 <br />in this case. He stated that the judges ruling looked at it from a 1972/73 perspective indicating 13 <br />that anything adopted since then should not apply to this case, with the exception of the building 14 <br />and fire codes. He stated that when the City receives the plans for the buildings Staff would 15 <br />review them based on the current codes. He assured Council that Staff would review them very 16 <br />closely to make sure they do satisfy all requirements for a building of that size. 17 <br /> 18 <br />Mayor Marty asked if the Rice Creek Watershed district would have anything to say about the 19 <br />developer being able to build within a wetland or could the developer actually fill and build 20 <br />within a wetland area. 21 <br /> 22 <br />Director Ericson stated that the developer provided a wetland delineation report to the Rice 23 <br />Creek Watershed District and the Rice Creek Watershed did accept that delineation. He 24 <br />explained that there is some mitigation that would be occurring with that site and Rice Creek 25 <br />Watershed has approved the mitigation plan for that development. He stated that in terms of 26 <br />finding wetland that is not going to occur because they have already identified where the wetland 27 <br />areas are located. He noted that the soil borings could result in unsuitable land or soil and they 28 <br />would then have to do some engineering to provide stability for the homes or they could 29 <br />determine that it would not be cost effective to build a home due to poor soil. He stated that they 30 <br />could opt to leave that sit rather than construct on the poor soil. 31 <br /> 32 <br />Mayor Marty stated that it was originally reported to the Council that if there were any changes to 33 <br />the original plat that the original justification or approval would be null and void and asked if this 34 <br />is correct. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Director Ericson stated that this was not correct and explained that if there are any changes to the 37 <br />site plan that would relate to drainage, runoff, location of the drive aisles or anything that affects 38 <br />the approved stormwater management plan for that site would have to go back through the Rice 39 <br />Creek Watershed Board of Commissioners for review and approval. He stated that it would not 40 <br />negate the permit but it would require that the Board review the changes and address any issues 41 <br />at that time. 42 <br /> 43 <br />Council Member Thomas stated that this discussion has gone beyond the scope of public input 44 <br />and suggested that this item be included on the agenda for the next Council work session. 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.