Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-03-08 PC Minutes~ PROCEEDINGS OF THF. PLANMING CQMMISS:ON CITY Of tdOUNDS VIfW RAMSGY CQUNTY, MINNESOTA A regular meeEing of the Mounds View Planning Cortmission was called to order et 7:30 PM on Merch 8, 1978 aE the Mounds View G1ty Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds VieW, Minnesote. Members Presents Aiso Present: Chairperson Slaake Counci1member Beumgartner Comnission Member Mackeben Building and Zoning Official Rose Co~nis,ian Member Fedor Commission Member Glazer Comnlssion Membnr Burn~9lster Comniss•ion Member Blanchmrd Commission Member Foss MSP (Haake-Foss) to approve the minutes of the february 22, 1978 Pianning Commission Meeting as presented. 7 ayes MAJOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST OF KEITH NARSTAD - 8370 PLEASANT VIEW DRIVE ~~~ Cha~irperson Haake stated that since no one was present to repreaent Mr. liarstad, ~`"' his request would not be discussed. PRtlJECT 1978-! » RECOMMEN~ATION TO CITY COUNGIL Chairper~son Haake stated that a11 Comnission Members had receivad a copy of the minutes of the February 21, 1978 public hearing and had had a chance to review theni and opened the floor for questions and discussion on the proJect. Commission Member Fedor asked if the proposed syst:m would handle a rsin such as was experienced in 1975, if the system was to be a 5-year rAin system. Official Rose replled that the problems Pxperiencad in 1975 would hava been reduced Uut L•hat it would be very difficult and only an ~stimate what that amount would be, Cauncilmember Baumgartner reported that one of the citizens at thc pub71c hearing had checked with the weather bureau and found that the stotm in 1975 was classiri~d as a 50 year storm, which the proposed system would not be capable of handling. Chairperson Haake stated that no one can predlct the wea*.her and thus, they did not know when anoLher storm of that magnitude coutd be expected. Official Rose clarified that the main problem in 1975 was that the City did not possess the capecity of outlet needed, plus the absence of underground systems throughout the city. Commission Member Fedor asked if anyone had checked to see what Blaine would be ~ doing with their water problems. Official Rose reptied that µart of 8laine's drainage would be going through Mounds View and that Mounds View would assess March 8, 197d Page 2 ~ Blaine for their portion„of the benefit, Comnisslon Member Burmeister stated that she understood Blaine was lowering the ditch on their side of County Naad I. Counciimember Baumgartner replied that 8laine is invotved in a~udi~.iai pro~ect to lower the ditch, and that tt is a controlled system and wi11 be dattmed and meCered. Comnission Memher Glazer asked what other Cities water budgeis are for their drainege pro~ects. Official Rose replied that Blaine does not have a Comprehen- sive Plan, and since their land uses are not known yet, the flow could be changed greatly, but that the aice Creek Watershed District and City of Mounds View are anticipating it. Cotrrnl5sion Piemb~r Glazer asked if Mounds View li~s much to say about what goes o;~ ~utslde the City iimits. OFficia7 Rose replied that the Rice Creek Watershed District i, the contro111ng force, and telts each City what Chey can put lnto the sysLen. Comnission Member Glazer stated that at the February 21 publlc hearing a ~tatement was made that Che DPiR and Rice Creek Watershed Distri~t endorse the orofect but that he had since heard that the Rice Creek Watershed District does have some probl~ns with the pro~ect and askeP ?f the questian of how much water w911 go through had been resalved. Officint Rose replied that Rice Creek Watershed District's position is that they woutd iike Mounds View to induc~ the water as 1ow on Rice Creek as possible wlth controlled ~ flows. This is why the City is proposing seven holding areas. ~ Commission M~nber GTaznr questioned a statement in the engineers report on the pro~ect which stated that constructian of a stown sewer system in the City would aliow development of 7ands naL now open to dee~eiopment due ta poor drainage facilities. Official Rose replied that he belleved what the consultant wes referring to werp the areas such as the 0'Neil property where development would be unfavorable without improvements, or Northcrest Park. Commission Member Glazer questioned if sane of the unpTatted lands were declared flood plains and asked if the City would be aule to assess or tax a11 the benefitted 1and,,such as the Watson property at Caunty Foad J and Long Lake Road. Official Rose replied that the City has not yet looked into the legallt,y of assessing property. He added that approximately 50 percent of the Watson property was considered a fiood p7ein. Comnission Member Glazer state~ ehat he on7y found evidence of 23 wet basements in the engineer's report and asked if there war? any more in the City. Counc{1- member Baumgartner rep7led that during the meetings in 1975, 70 people signed a petition sayiirg that they ha~ water in their basemenCs. He added that the map in the repor4 shows areas, not individual homes, Ray Lang, 7435 Spring Lake park Road introduced himself as the spokesman for a citizens steering comnittee opposed to Profect 1978-i and read their statem2nt req~~esting that the proposed pro~ect be voted down. ' , Councilmember Baumgartner, in response to a claim made in the stateme~t read by ~~~/ Mr. Lang, ssated that property other than resfdentia7 would be ta~ed at appro- ximately double the rste of residential property, and thua the City wouid noC be unfairiy benefitting the commerclal and industriai l~~nd owners. Dir. Lang Marcl~ 8, i978 Page 3 repiied that even if the assessments were dauble, he felt the benefits reaped by ~ the businesses would be ~nuch greater. "~~".er Sargeant, 2268 H111view reaC a statement he had prevlously read at the ~ebruary 21 publie hearing, consisting of l0A signaturus, requesting thet tha City Council deny the pro~ect. He added that the steering comnitteo had e professionai geologist who had been researching the effects of the pro~ect for them and who would be making a statement at a later date regarding tha effects. Commission Member Glazer pointed out that there are quite a few Type 4 marshes throughout the City but that tha Type 2 and 3 marshes would likely 6e drained and the habitate lost. Councilmember Baumgartner asked Mr. Lang for a c1ar~iflcation of his statement thaC the citizens would have no alternative but to questions the C1ty Cnuncil's sense of fairness arid integrity in re~ards to the proposed pro~ect 1P it w~re approvad. He stated that the Council had ordered the study in 1975 because they were asked to dn it by a17 the citizens who attended th~ Council meetings and discussed their water problems, and also because they felt it was necessary. Ne added that th~ City Attorney had advised the Council on each step and that the State statute had been followed step by step to insure that everything was being done properiy. Mr. Lang replied that there does not seem to have been much contact between the City Councit Tnd the cit7zens, a~d that the citizens had not been given a~ opportunity Co say what they could afford. He added that he did not feel the City Council had shown respect to the citizens. !~ Cowicilm~nber Baumgartner replied that the pro~ect had b?en discussed at several City Council meetings and at various informational hearings and that legel notice had been published. He also reminded Mr. Lang that a11 Councll meetings and Agenda meetings are open ta the publlc and that the public is welcane to attend at any time and give their input. Dwayne McCarthy, 8060 iang Lake Road stated that he felt many business lands would be benefitted greatly by the pro~ect, eYen if they were taxed at double the residentia7 rate. Chairperson Haake replied that a professional firm had been hired to set the assessments and that the City was going by their recomnen- dation. Councilmember Baumgartner added that Eh7ers and Associates was the consultSng firm's name. Camiission Member Burmeister pointed out that at the public hearing e~~eryone was supposed to be 7lmited to three minutes speaking time buC that the Council went out of their way Lo be lenient and Jet everyone say what they had to say, whether it went over three minutes or not. Mr. Sargeant stated that the steering camiittee was circulating petitions and would have in excess of 6,000 signatures soon, of citiaens opposed to the prnposed pro~ect. Mr. Sargear~t added that the steering comnittee was canposed of 15 pro- f?ssional people, who were witling ta take the matter as far in court as necessary to win. Chairperson Haake asked if the steering committee was wiii9ng to come up with ~ 1 a list of alternatives to Che pro~ect to solve the water problems. Mr. Sargeant ~,r,~ replied that he would be willing to go to the lndividual hanes and make recommenda- tions on how they could solve their prablems. Mr. Sargeant also suggested putting in a scaled down test system of the pro~ect before spending all tFiat maney on the March 8, 197H Page 4 proaect. Councilmember Baumgartner replled that even a scaled down model would ~ run into the mtilions of dollars and questtoned spending thnt much money on a test aystem when the actual system could be put in for not too much more. Councllmember Baumgartner pointed ouE that Councilmember ZieGarth had stated at the last Councll meeting that he did noC went to wait until 51 percent of the people in ~dounds View had water problems before doing anything about it. He also added that one of the ground rules when the system was designed was that it not be overdesigned, and that he did agree ChaC there might be sc~ne alternetives !o the pro~ect. Engineer Hubbard arrived and presented a brief background of the pro~ect and I~cw it came about. He stated that aFt•~r the C1ty Council received so many requests fr•om cttizens in 1975 that something be done about their water probtems, thp City decided to have the st~dy done and after intervlewing nine firms and r~ceiving their bids, selected the firm of Short, E111ott and Hendrickson. Three informa- tional meetings were held in 1976 to inform the publlc of what was hap~ening and to solicite their input. In December 1915 test wells were put in, which the City h~s been monitoring ever since to kPep track of water tevals. Engineer Hubbard stated that the City Cauncil had held several work sessions befora accepting the report in November 1976, and then submitted the plan ta the DNR, Historical Society a~d Rice Creek Wrtershed District, and then ordered the feasibility study in August 1977, mnd approved that in Navenber 1977 and set the February 1978 public hearing. Chairperson Haake questioned if some of the we11s in the City might go dry if Che ~'""1 profect was approved. Englneer Hubbard replfed that t}iey hepe to lower the water ,~; table samewhat with the pro~ect but st91S hope to hol~ it at an average level. Counciimember Baumga~•tner added that the welts in the City are sand potnt wetls for outside watering and gardering, nat drinking. Comrission Member Glazer questioned huw much the water 1eve7 ~as expected to drop. Engineer Hubbard replied that they expect it to drop one to two feet. Chairperson Haake asked how Che vegetation would be affected. Eagineer Hubbard replied that the tree roots wau7d dtg themselves deeper but that a certaln amoun~ nf vegetation would be lost. Councilmember Baumgartner painted aut that the City Council has six monChs to approve the pro~ect, fron the date of the February 2I pubtic hearing. Chairpersan Haake added that if the City were to wait to approve the pra~ect, the cost would continue to increase, Commission Member Foss questioned the ~2,000 assesament figures Mr. Lang mentioned in the statement he head for a single family home and stated thaC he fe7t it was hiyher than what could be expected. He a7so pointed out that most single family lotx have been developed, ~vhile it would be extreme7y hard to deveTop large comnerclal areas without the pro~ect. Ne added that if the pro~ect was not approved and development does not take place, taxes wiTl be higher for ali single famity residen*.s. Mr. Sargeant asked if the increased tax money generated by the businesses would - y offset the cost of the pro~ect to the residents. Comnission Member Foss replied ~er/ that the issue would have to be stud!ed but that he personally felt that the deveiopment vrould more than offseL the tax increasa. March 8, 1978 Poae 5 Cathy Licke, 223a Lambart stated that she had a friend who lived in Fridle,v who ownad a home comparabie to her's who was payino higher taxes. ~ Wally Skiba, Y841 Long Lake Road staCed that part of the land by tlie Watson property was owned by the State and thus could not be taxed for the pro~ect, Official Rose repited the area in question is unserviced, which is why there have not been re- qucsts for development. Engineer Hubbard added that the State Nlghway Department awns that particular piece of land and that they would be taxed if the pro~ect were approved. The City has already notifie~ both the County and State of pending assessments. Ufiicial Rose added that if the lanJ becomes service~, the State most 1lkely would sell it and it would be developed. Bill Uondy, 3049 Bronsan Drive asked if the City would be paying to service lands for large companies. Comnission Member Foss replled Mounds View has a great deai of land that could be comnercially developed and that comnercial development wouid certainly generate more in taxes than single family residences. Official Rose statnd that Hounds View currently has sane large pl&ts pending, such as Northcrest Park, which is 53 acres, and the 0'Nei1 develoqnent, end thaC other businesses have contac:ed the City and shown t~terest in developing, but Chat the pro3ect would have to be appr~oved first. He added that Moun~s View does have the capacity for larqe companies. Mr. Lang stated that ane of the mafor reasons the citizens he represents were opposed to the pro~r.ct is that 96.3 percenL of the residents of the City would receive no direct benefit from the systern, but that the first phase wo~ild help the 0'Neil devslopment. ~wb,\ Official Rose stated that anyone who cunCributes to the problem benefits fran ( the pro~ect. He added that the first phase of the pro~ect was strangly recqm- ~.-' mended hy Short, Elliott. and Hendricksan in order to give the City its third and most vital outiQt to kice Creck und, at ±hn sanie time, give the City a holding area, bqth of wfiich are needed hefore the City Gan pro3ect conduits and catch basins to presently unsert~ed areas. He also stated that one aiter- nativp the City would have woutd be to avo7d the pro3ect and require each developer to put in his own services, but that would not take care of the preseot water probiems 9n residentlal areas and would leave their improvement much more expensive. Neil I.eeding, 5046 Long View Drive stated that the storm in 1975 was suppused to have been a 10 year storm rather than a 50 year storm. Mr. Loeding presented a map of the City showing where the 23 wet basem~ents from 1975 were located and 3tl yards with water and 42 property owners with drainage pr•oblems and pointed out that the problem area did not cover the whole map. He stated that iie was apposed to the pro,~ect because of the cost and he added that he did not feel the pro~:sct would accomplish what the City was saying it wouid. !4r. loeding added that he felt comn~ercial and industrial property owners would benefit at the expense of the single family tax payers. Engineer Hubbard repeated that any property zoned comnercial or industrial, whether developed or undeveloped would be assessed double that of single famity homes and added that the City was conslderi;~g a p]an of taxing he~'•y industriai prcperty at three times the rate of single fami7y homes, and light industriai at twtce the rate, which would enabTe 55 percent of thr_ pro~ect to be financed by comnerclal property , and 45 percent by singte fami7y residents. He added that 85 percent of the tax- ~ payers in Moun~.' 'iew are single family residents. Mr. Lceding questioned the 25 percent figure for engineering costs which was referred to by the City. Engineer Nubbard replied that that inctuded drafLtng costs and the casts involved in getting the pro~ect out for bid, as well as ~ust the engineering costs. March B, 1478 Page 6 Councllmember BaumgarCner stated that the Council has npplied for every ty pe of ~ financial assistanca avatiahle to cut the cost as much as possibie for the citisens. ~ MSF ji{aake-FoSS} to recomn2nd to the City Councii that they delay a dacision on the sewer scheduled for the March 27 meeting and Chat they form variaus study groups made up of various vocal cftizens and have them answers questions that er•e being ratsed and set a time limit as to when the studies would come in to help increase comnunication between the citlz=ns and Cow~cii. Z ayes 5 nays Comnission Member Giazer staCed that he felt the study thet had been done was very good and that the longer a decision was put ofF, Che harder it would be ta make later on whether or not to do the pro,~ect. Comntssion Member 8lanchard asked how much time the Counctl had before making a decision without being required to hoid another pu611c hearing. Councilmember ~aumgartner reptied that they had six months. Chairperson Naake added that the decfsion could be made any time within thot six munth period. Chairperson Haake stated Chat she fe'It a delay on the decision artd the creatian of a task force would a11ow the citizens tim~ ta sirraner down and time for the Counc9l to do some public relations work on the pro,~ect. Comnission Member Foss stated that 1n the iast two years the Cit.y had spent $20,000 ~'"~''~ u~dating the Camprehensive Plan and deciding how Mounds View should be developed <;~,~ and that ait the meetings were open to thz public and the course for development set for the next ten years. He added that it was then the fact that tlie utillties wouid havP to be updated was agreed upon and that now, when it was time far it to happen> the citizens were against it and asked why the cltlzens had not been present when the Comprehensive Plan was written to glve their optnions then. He added that if the preJecC is not approved, deveiopment wi11 ha1t. Mr. Sargeant replled that he had not had time to attend the m~:etings previausty but that he was there naw to speak out aga9nst the profect and say he couldn't afford i t. Phyiiis Scott, 5100 Red Oak Orive stated that the citizens had voted the Cm~ncil- members in to represent the citizens and tha.t she felt they should stop khe pro- ,~ect since the citizens did not want it. Mr. McCarthy stated Chat Mounds View taxes are already tow so the tax payers did not need commercial development to help tt~em. He added that the Comnission Meml~ers were there to rQpresent the peop]e and urged them to stap Pro~ect 3978-I. Councilmember Baumgartner stated that he was eTected to represent the people and that he did Y,ave the best interests of the people in mind. Ne added that the study was conducted to determine what wouTd be best for the City a~~d that Pro,~ect 1978-1 was the conclusi~n. He stated Lhat the study could be f9Yed and pul7ed out at a iater date but that the cost and need foi• the pro,~ect ~vould undoubtedly increase if iL w~s postponed. Councl7member Baumyartner also pointed out that each City ~ ~i~s required to do a Comprehensive N7an, and that the need for the pro,~ect was one `a/ of the resutts of Mounds W ew's Comprehensive Plan. Merch 8, t978 Page 7 Comnission Member Foss pointed out that thore seem to be several engineers on the ~ citlzens steering committee and stated that he would like to see them discuss their findings an the pro~ect and have them come up ~ith some recomnendations. Mr. Sergeant replied that he would be wiiling to if he was paid, MS (Glazer-Fedor} to recomnend to the Council that they either rework Pro~ect 1978-1 or not endorse it. Commission Member Giazer stated that the problem was a very complex one and that he had been bathered by the pro~ect slnce it could not guarantee that there would 6e no more problems and that he did not want to wait until an assessment hearing to work out who coutd be assessed -ince the pro~ect would atready bn completed. Comnission Member eurmeister questioned if Comnission Member Glazer felt tihe system would be inadequate for the City's needs. Comnission Member Glazer reptied that he fe7t it wouid be inadequate since it was not known what it's capabillties would be. He added that the DNR would also set conditions before approving the profect. Councilmember Baumgartner pointed out that tfie DNR had looked at the pro~ect and approved it. Comnission Member F'oss questioned if reworking Lhe pro~ect would mean coming up with an a"Iternative p7an. Con~ission Member Glazer repiied that that was his intent. Comnissian Member Foss asked if the pro~ect wouid use all the present small sewer ~ ltnes that are in the City. Engineer Hubbard replled that they would use as many ~ as possible. Comnission Member Gtazer asked if any sort of plan had Deen worked aut yet with the pe~p1e downstream as far as the amount of water that wouid be al7owed. tng4neer Hubbard replied that the Rice Cree~ Watershed District wouid be the carttrolling 6oc~ an~ thaC they hn4 studied the plan and approved the pro~ect already. Comnission Member Foss asked if there had been any discussion at Che public hearing on putting in a system to service the area between County Roads II and H2 and north of Maunds View Square now. Engineer Hubberd showed on a map of the pruposed system how those areas would be covered by Phase 2 of thQ pro~ect. Comr,95sion Member G1a[er stated that he was eiiCh~rawing his previous motion on Profect 1978-I. Comnission Nember Fedor agreed to withdraw h9s second of Chat motion. MSP (Glazer-fedor) to recomnend to the Council that Profect 1978-1 be reJected and Chat the Council solicite a more acceptahte plnn. ComnSssion Member Foss - nay Camnission Member Blanchard - nay Commission Member 8urmeister - nay Comnission Member Glazer - aye Cortmission Member Fador - aye Comoission Member Mackeben - aye '" ~ Chairperson Naake - aye 4,ayes ~ 3 nays March 8, 1978 Page 8 Commission Member Glazer stAted thaC he felt th9 ~ity could come uP w1Eh e scaled down system at a iower price Lhat wou1~ meet the raquirements of the City. ~ Cumnission Membzr fedor stated that if the pro~ect is set beck, it would allow other Cities time to finish writing their Comprehensive P1ans and perheps one na~or storm sewer system could be designed. Councilmember 8aumgartner asked haw much the citizens felt Chey could efford for a pro~ect, so the Council would have something to work on. Mr. Sorgeent replted that he could not afford 56,500,000 and would not state what he feit he could efford as an indSvidual. L1oyd Scott, 5100 Red Oak Drive stated that when he had butit his house seven years ago, the builder was responsible for all improvements and stated that he did nat see why everyone should have to pa; for th~m now. Ha alsa pointed out that one part of the proposed prn~ect was going to be drained away from Rice Creek. Englneer Huhbard replleE that in order to make that one section of the City adeyuate for a five year storin, it would have to be drained south rather than eaat. Chalrperson Heake thanked the citizens for their input into the storm sewer pro~ect. ZONING t4AP AND LAND USE PLAR UPDATE f.hairperson Haake sCated that discussion on ths zoning map and 7and use plah update would he tabled until the next meeting. ,rW+~ Ufficial Rose asked the Comnission Members for their wrltten cortmenta on each of the [ r 21 areas he had outline~ to 6e discussed and stated that he Wou1d r,onsoliAate att '`~•~ comnents before the next meeting. NEXT AGENDA AND PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL ACTION Officia7 Rose reported +,hnt the Council had tabled nil developments that wer•e presently being cunsidered by e9ther the Planning Camnission or Council at their tast meeting until a decision 1s mede on Pro~ect 1978-1 at the March 27 meoting, and that the Narthcrest Park hearing had been postponed until after thet decision has been maJe. MSP (Fedor-Glezer) to ad~ourn tlie meeting at 10:55 PM. 7 ay~s RespectFully submitted, ~~ Pnmele Young 7 Recording Secretary ~ r ~ ~~,~ f, s ` ~ There are 2,449 single family residenltsin Moundsview. This pro,~ect was proposed on the Dasts of ground water reTated canp1aSnts of 91 homeowners or businesses. 23 complatnts of water in basements, 26 had wet yard or standing water problefr.s and 42 more had other types oP drainege probte~ns. 7his means that 99.]% of the residents have no weC Easement prabiemc and thaC 96.9% of the residen~s have NO water pro6lems at aiT. Now these un~sffected residenEs should nut expect future prohlems unless intensive development of present water collection basins er.d seep areas takp piace. Bparing #n mind that the estimated r.ost of this profect is in exceSS of 6~t million dollars and, as gleaned from the consultants report 96.3lG of the residents have no water problems, it is obvious that the 9reatest amou~C of 6enefit wiTi accrue to owners of undeveloped property. All but a very smatl perc~ntage of such pr:;:%~rty is owned by a few large firms, and these Pirms will be assessed at the residcntial property hotders rates regardless of their intended use of this land or its poten21a1 vatue wiEh improvements,.-Such as high density housing or lfqht~t, or heavy inddstrial mar.ufacturing. ~~ Almost al] homeowners in the city-wide "benefitted" area can expect I ,-~ to pay in excess of E2,000 per sinple family dwelling 9n specia) ~ ~ assessments and property taxes. i:zeping ~1n r~rind that 96.3~ of the ,, _... homern~ners do not havn water related prablems in addition 2o having ; already paid for th~eir sewer improvements, iE ~s incomprchenslbl~ ( Lhat the city wi11 be abte to prave comnensurate benefiC to the ; haneowngrs of Moundsvtew. Knowing that the city, by 1aw, can ~ only ~+Yy and assess up to the increase in ueiue of the "banefltter" i properti~s and that, as proposed, the special essessment he~rin9 ' to decide this wSli take place if the pro,~ect 1s approved, we have no alternative but to quesNon the city cuuncil's sense ~f f~irness and integTSty in regards to this propused pro~ect. ; ~ lt is our understanding that the lnCensity of the drainage and Fondtng Plan wtll eliminate much of thz present wildllfe habitats with{n the city's bounderies. Conversion of marsh to deeper water holding bodies, tf overdone as proposed, will result in a toss of ' habitat diversity. What 1s contrived to be the °beneftt" to ~ controt Maundsviews occasional water problems wiTl, in ali likely- ' hood 6e detrimental to receiving waters. We wtil be pushing con- i centrated doses of our purported problems further down stream. i in addition, the bacterfal counts in storm water are stgnificant ~ and 1n sane cases are as high as in sanitary sewer water ahd this polluted water will be discharged into the receiving water with- i ouL treatmenL. ~~' V ~. • ~ Rapid run-off through inereesed dralnage anly serves ~e' compound this problemx d~nd pending onty to conaentrate iE. The natura~ fittration proeess whleh Lakes place with wide contact seep areas w111 ba serlously impaired under the proposed ptan. Ct should be emphasized that Moundsvieris untreeted run-ofP will ultimatety dlscharge into the Mississlpp! Rtver above the Mtnneapolls Water Treatment Plant. 7herefore, not with.standing that Moundsviews rpo11ut1on contributfon may he smail, it wiii never-thesless become part of a growing threat to human heai!h. Another unreconciled aspect of this proposal is thnt fnr this pro~ect to be successfu•1, the existing water table must be si~ni- ficantly lowered. Wn fear thaL surface wr.lls, trees and other • vegetaEion wilt be advered y affected. ' In regard~ to that portion of the proJect which cal'Isfar nerouting our starm water to a point be7ow Long Lake, ayain we ~oint out that the pro~ect as proposed will not cure the Dro~Tem but w111 redistribute it. More over the Rice Creek Watershed had passed on the same drainag~ paeterns it now wishes, Co change through this pro~'s4,t. ,7he city has conscientlausiy lbticited the water shed district's approval for alt recent '~ ~ maa~or developmants wiLM n iCs boundry.'„ ~ ,.' e ! ' t~ it is evident that natural drainage areas d~a'nat car~espohd ``^-'" '~1~'1.th the artifi.cial bou~dries inposed by our city' iimits. 'j Therefore, we fail to understand~how the City of Mounrlsvlew , can propose anything but,aq integraCed drainage ptan with its ne,~ghbors, especially since we are not apprised of their develop- mental plans. Pro~ect alternatiyes have not been offered ta the citizenry for doing the environmentaiTy o'f"economically better. Consultation and coord~nation With other government agencies has taken place ~ithout ciiixen invoivement, In clcsing I'd like to po9nt out that wa appreeiate your positions as responsibie members of this commuhity and we feel secure 1n the knowtedge that you are making an honest effort to decide what is best for thls camnunity and 1t's individual members. To reiterate, i'ro,iect 1478-1 is not in the besC interests of our individuai citizens. We, as a group, thank you members Gf the planning cnnsnission for atlowing us to have this opAortunity to pr~sent our case regarding this very touchy and important matter, 4~ j