|
Mounds View City Council January 10, 2000
<br />Regular Meeting Page 9
<br />
<br />spoken with the City Attorney regarding his concerns pertaining to the City’s possible liability, if
<br />the Council were to approve this item, and the property should flood.
<br />
<br />Mayor Coughlin stated he had received several telephone calls, and a variety of correspondence
<br />in this regard, and in light of this, it would be in order to clarify that the buffer is simply an area
<br />around a delineated wetland, which sets up a “trip-line” for the City. He explained that the City
<br />selected an arbitrary number of 100 feet within a wetland, and the City then, through its Code,
<br />claims the ability to utilize another level of scrutiny on development, so as to protect the
<br />wetlands.
<br />
<br />Mayor Coughlin stated he also had campaigned to protect the wetlands and woodlands, and
<br />being sensitive to the environment, having grown up on a farm, he was well aware that
<br />everything in nature is interrelated. He explained however, the Council must balance this, and a
<br />property owner’s right to develop his land for the best and highest use possible.
<br />
<br />Mayor Coughlin stated this is not an easy issue, and if it were, the Code would not be so
<br />voluminous, however, there has been some misunderstanding regarding the word “buffer.” He
<br />explained that if the Code had intended that no construction was to occur in the buffer, it would
<br />have simply indicated this, however, that is not the intent or the spirit of the Code. He pointed
<br />out that the buffer does not represent a “no-man’s land,” but simply that the City reserves for
<br />itself, the right to further scrutinize a site plan for building, so as to insure that the wetlands are
<br />not being affected.
<br />
<br />Mayor Coughlin stated he has had the opportunity to discuss this issue with Kate Drury, the head
<br />of the Rice Creek Watershed District, as well as a member of the Ramsey County Soil and Water
<br />Conservation group. He advised that although the Code currently indicates this, there appears to
<br />be a need to further clarify the language, therefore, he would amend the motion to indicate that
<br />the City requires that the amount of all additional surface water runoff created from the roofline
<br />footprint of the property and any additional impervious surface, will be calculated by City staff
<br />and the City Engineer, and require that within the Wetland Buffer Permit, this runoff be dealt
<br />with on-site, utilizing the best surface water management practices, which could include holding
<br />ponds, swales, and the like.
<br />
<br />Mayor Coughlin explained that the objective of this is in recognition that water running off of a
<br />roof or asphalt contains some contaminants, and this is water that previously fell down upon
<br />reeds and cattails, however, now must run elsewhere. He stated that in the past, when surface
<br />water was not addressed in terms of the larger picture, problems, such as flooding, have arisen.
<br />He explained that rather than dumping the water into the street or allowing it to run into the
<br />wetland, which would be a travesty, there should be an intermediate area, such as holding ponds,
<br />which would assist in the filtration of sediments as the water percolates down into the aquifer.
<br />He advised that wetlands should not be utilized for dumping water.
<br />
<br />Mayor Coughlin inquired if the Seconder would agree to amend the motion as indicated.
<br />
<br />Council Member Thomason agreed.
<br />
<br />Council Member Stigney noted that Page 2 of the resolution indicates that the replacement of
<br />flood storage capacity shall be at a minimum ratio of 1:1, however, the actual amount would be
|