Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council January 10, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 10 <br /> <br />1.2 to 1.1. He inquired regarding the City’s standards for the replacement of flood storage <br />capacity, and if the resolution should be amended to indicate the actual replacement ratio. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Jopke explained that the fourth stipulation of the resolution <br />indicates that the flood storage capacity shall be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio, and the <br />applicant would exceed that amount with this proposal. He stated that if the Council desires to <br />amend the resolution to indicate the actual replacement ratio of 1.1 to 1.2, this would be <br />acceptable. He advised that City standards require a 1:1 ratio for the replacement of flood <br />storage capacity. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney stated he also had a brief discussion with the City Attorney regarding <br />the City’s potential liability, if flooding occurred on this property. He inquired if something <br />could be included in the permit process or the application for the permit to hold the City <br />harmless, in the event of such an occurrence. He advised that this should be over and above <br />what the property owner is doing, in that if the property is sold, the new owner should be made <br />aware that there may be some potential for flooding in the future, and if this occurs, the City <br />would be held harmless. <br /> <br />City Attorney Long advised that if the City issues a Wetland Buffer Permit, in this or any other <br />case, and there is some resulting damage, they would always take the position that the City is <br />protected by the Doctrine of Discretion and Immunity. He pointed out however, this does not <br />imply that someone might not attempt to sue the City, and the City would be forced to litigate, <br />therefore, as Council Member Stigney had suggested, they might consider creating some form of <br />a hold harmless clause in the language of the permit. <br /> <br />City Attorney Long explained that although not normally utilized for Single Family residential <br />development, this would typically be accomplished through Section 1006.06 of the City Code, <br />which contains development contracts that set forth all of the conditions eluded to by Mayor <br />Coughlin, pertaining to additional stormwater runoff. He added that the development contracts <br />typically include an Indemnification and Hold Harmless clause against the City. <br /> <br />City Attorney Long advised that one means to address this matter would be to go one step <br />beyond the permit, and utilize a development contract that would spell out the issues related to <br />the storm water runoff, and include an indemnification clause. He noted that this is fairly <br />standard practice with other types of developments, because this type of language does not exist <br />in the Wetland Buffer Permit, per se. He advised that they could further direct staff to execute a <br />development contract with this particular developer, and include the development controls and <br />indemnification in that document. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin inquired if the Council would therefore include a stipulation that this matter <br />would be contingent upon the development contract. <br /> <br />City Attorney Long explained that the Council could add a seventh stipulation to the resolution, <br />indicating that the applicant or property owner would enter into a development contract with the <br />City, and specifying the orderly development of the property, and also an eighth stipulation, <br />containing the indemnification clause. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin inquired if Council Member Stigney would agree to offer this as a friendly <br />amendment.