My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 2006/10/09
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
Minutes - 2006/10/09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2025 1:48:13 PM
Creation date
3/6/2025 1:48:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
10/9/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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 October 9, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 6 <br />1 Director Ericson stated that moving forward, there have been numerous examples where the <br />2 wetlands mapped in 1982 are not consistent with current wetlands. He stated it could create <br />3 problems with residents and developers. <br />4 <br />5 Director Ericson said that the old maps could not be updated electronically, but the current series <br />6 of maps are easily changed and modified to better represent current wetlands. He pointed out <br />7 several areas of change in four different areas. Director Ericson explained that he is more than <br />8 happy to print maps for residents illustrating their properties. <br />9 <br />l0 Director Ericson explained the four primary changes. He said in the northwest corner of the City, <br />11 there is a very small wetland completely in Spring Lake Park and a 100-foot buffer extends into <br />12 Mounds View. He asked if the City would like to enforce a setback on a wetland that is not <br />13 within the City property. <br />14 <br />15 Director Ericson noted on the north side of Section 6 there is a wetland area that was identified in <br />16 the east half of the section along Long Lake Road. He stated that the area has been wet for a <br />17 significant time, there is evidence of wetland characteristics, however the wetland is new on the <br />18 current map. He pointed out the new wetland on the map. <br />19 <br />20 Director Ericson stated there are a couple of lots on the corner of Spring Lake Road and County <br />21 Road 10 that have been set aside under a Storm Water Easement. He stated the wetland is a <br />22 storm water pond and has undertaken several criteria of a wetland and has now been classified as <br />23 one. He also noted a drainage ditch along County Road 10 that has been designated as protected, <br />24 but said he was not sure that the intent of the code was to buffer drainage ditches. <br />25 <br />26 Director Ericson stated the other wetland that was added was Spring Lake. He stated it is not a <br />27 wetland, it is a lake, which was how it was shown in the original map. He stated the Council has <br />28 some latitude to determine if the lake should be designated as a wetland on the maps. <br />29 <br />3o Director Ericson explained that there are two to three areas where drainage ditches in the County <br />31 Road 10 corridor were listed as protected wetlands and again asked if it was the original intent of <br />32 the code to buffer such areas. <br />33 <br />34 Director Ericson stated that the code was originally intended to protect the significant wetlands. <br />35 He said the Council acted proactively by adopting such regulations in 1982. He stated a notice <br />36 was mailed to all property owners adjoining the wetlands, as such residents may not be familiar <br />37 with the 100-foot buffer area. <br />38 <br />39 Director Ericson explained that the buffer area was created to establish an area in which the City <br />40 could review what was built in the area. He stated that it allows the City to review any <br />41 construction in the buffer area. He explained that development up to the edge of the wetland <br />42 often causes degradation. He stated some property owners might question the boundaries and <br />43 buffer areas. He recommended the Council continue the public hearing through the next meeting <br />44 so all residents can have a chance to review the maps and ordinance. <br />45 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.