Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999 <br />Regular Meeting Page 29 <br />Mrs. DeGross stated their property is located on the west side of the woods, and they have no <br />reason to be on the east side, and were not aware that the land was for sale. She stated they were <br />only recently informed that the owner of the subject property had gone to the neighbors and <br />offered the land to them, and had they known this, they would have purchased the property. <br />• <br />Mrs. DeGross stated the buffer area was essentially the wetland, and with the current <br />development in Mounds View, they have already taken so many wetlands from Mounds View. <br />She requested the Council carefully consider their vote upon this matter. She reiterated she was <br />not aware of the Environmental Protection Agency's involvement in this matter, and she was <br />very concerned. <br />Mayor Coughlin stated the Council is not dealing with wetlands. He clarified this consideration <br />pertains to the buffer, and it is within the City's purview to set the amount of buffer area. He <br />explained that Mounds View's wetland buffer, at 100-feet, is actually quite large compared to <br />most cities in the Metropolitan area, and this is simply a buffer zone to highlight the fact that <br />there is a wetland in the area. He reiterated that the land in question is not a wetland, and the <br />Council Members, as they have indicated on many occasions, are very sympathetic to the <br />wetland issue. <br />Council Member Quick advised the buffer is primarily an area which provides another layer of <br />scrutiny over the property, and its primary function is to provide the City further opportunity to <br />scrutinize any development in the area. He stated he was not aware of any loss of wetlands in <br />the City within the last 15 years. He added that with the Rice Creek Watershed District <br />regulations, and other laws that have come down, if anything, the wetlands have increased. He <br />noted since he has been on the Council, the City either controls, or has purchased through <br />different means, a large portion of the wetlands, therefore, they are in public hands. <br />Council Member Marty inquired if this property was not also discussed in the spring of the year, <br />and another applicant had wanted to construct a driveway, however, that request was denied <br />because through the paving of the driveway it would become a City street. <br />Mayor Coughlin explained that the land was not as well delineated at that time, and there was <br />some question as to where the buffer zone was located. <br />Council Member Marty inquired if the delineation was current, and being performed by John <br />Hammerschmidt. <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated the delineation before the Council was current as of <br />September or October. He pointed out this was not Mr. Hammerschmidt's project, which would <br />be a reflection of the entire watershed area, which will look at the boundaries and the buffer for <br />north and south of new Highway 10. <br />Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Marty) Motion carried. <br />~J <br />F. Approval of Amendment to City Attorney Retainer and Non-Retainer <br />Agreement. <br />City Administrator Whiting stated staff spent some time with City Attorneys Bob Long and Scott <br />Riggs during the last several weeks attempting to address some issues related to retainer and <br />