Agenda Packets - 1988/07/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 15, 1988 Public Meeting Page Two --------------------------------------------------------- he feels would be acceptable with the Corps of Engineers. It would require excavation of -,,proximately 10' nea, _ne inlet to the wetland which would be moved to the south. Mr. Merila showed the plan that was originally proposed in 1981, which was for 24 lots. He explained the appli- cation was submitted three days before the moritorium was created, thus tabling the proposal. N.dgewood Square was being developed at that time and Mr. Harstad asked for access to the southern corner of his lots at that time, and when it was not given, four to five lots were cut off and land locked. Mr. Merila stated they are now looKing for an amendment to have the wetland boundaries modified to their correct location, then a wetland alteration permit for 1.6 acres, as well as a variance for buildLag within 100' setback, and a variance from the 20,000 square foot lot size require- ment and variance from the 125 foot lot width. Mr. hirila stated that in a survey they did of 45 metro communities, 80 percent do not have a wetland ordinance, and of those that do, only two besides Mounds View have a minimum lot size, both of which are 16,000 square feet. He added only Mounds V" ew has a minimum lot width in the . wetland are that is greater than the rest of the City, as well as greater setback requirements. He added the Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over any development by less than 10 acres and he feels their interpretation would be merit for modification of the City's wetland ordinance. Mr. Merila explained the process they plan for phosphorus removal, with the use of sedimentation ponds. The method they suggest for analtztng phosphorus stripping is the method currently being used by the St. Paul Water Works. Planner Herman presented a list of the issues that have been raised, and called upon the representacives from Barr Engineez- Ing to give their responses. She added <;hey had read the memo sent tc •ne Planning Commission and fe.t comfortable with the technical assumptions made in it. John. Borovsky, of Barr Engineering, discussed the phosphorus removal options avatla'le and explained the difference between dry and wet wetisnds. He explained the developer could meet the requirements of the ordinanne by methods that could be contrary to the intent of the ordinance, the Planning Commis- sion and City Council. He stated he is concerned at this time with recommending the Wrlkar method due to possibly setting u precedent in the community. He added that the principles involved in the Walker method are consistent with what they believe the City should consider, and he explained the assump- tions involved. He advised the City Attorney address the issue of precedence that may be set, and if it could be worked out, this type of approach would be acceptable.