Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 7 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />habitat and wildlife meaning any time there is an alteration it is a big deal. He further <br />commented that the City is very aware of the impact and the loss of the wetland. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson spoke to the comment made by a resident that they <br />could not believe the City would want to allow the development of a natural area by saying that <br />the City would like the wetland to be left as it is but said the land is not owned by the City and <br />the City cannot afford to purchase these types of properties to keep them from being developed. <br />He further noted that, until a couple of months ago, this proposal was proceeding according to <br />Code but said the City does have quite a few wetlands and has a part of the Code specifically <br />designed to protect those wetlands. He then said that if Rice Creek Watershed District felt it was <br />not a good idea they would not approve the proposal. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson asked the rationale behind Chapter 1010 and the 125-foot minimum lot width <br />requirement. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated he could only interpret that the City <br />intended to further protect the wetland areas with more stringent requirements in a wetland <br />district. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson indicated he knew the answer but asked for a reason. He then indicated that the <br />City was concerned for the pressures placed on the wetlands by allowing too many houses to be <br />built on them. He further indicated that he is concerned that this development would create more <br />water pressure for the neighborhood for water runoff. <br /> <br />Mr. Feldner indicated there are no storm sewers in that entire loop and said that two thirds (2/3) <br />of the way up the road it breaks and goes in either direction. He then indicated that, at that point, <br />water runs off toward the corner and the rest runs down the whole street and it is all being <br />absorbed by the wetlands. He further indicated that if a house is located there it would <br />necessitate the need for storm sewers and curb and gutter. He further commented that right now <br />runoff is handled the natural way but said that, if the wetland is allowed to develop, the City <br />would need to make arrangements for doing things the mechanical way with curb and gutter and <br />storm sewers. <br /> <br />Mr. Severson stated that if the law is 125 feet for frontage then the developer should have to <br />stick to that because he has seen no information presented that would justify changing the rules. <br /> <br />Vernon Larson of 2760 Woodale Drive indicated that when the hole was dug to install his <br />utilities a pump was used to pump all the water out of the ground before they could be <br />connected. He then indicated that, when the area dried out, his driveway sank a half an inch and <br />had to be replaced which cost him $2,500. <br /> <br />Mr. Harstad said he was torn as to how to respond to some of the residents’ comments. He then <br />said his family has owned the property for many years and in 1992 the City of Mounds View <br />enacted the new wetland buffer ordinance. He further indicated that other cities have enacted <br />similar ordinances and said that government regulation was created and a local governing unit is