Agenda - Council - 02/12/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

policy to exempt the wetland delineation and encumbrance requirement on any prOposed lots outside the Metropolitan Urban Service ,&rea that exceeds 10 acres in'size. The purpose of encumbenng wetlands with drainage easements is to let the owner know the b~ildable limits of their property and provide the City with the ability to run water over or through the area. During the November 13 discussion, Councilmember Hendriksen raised a concern that exempting the requ/rements for drainage and utility easements may cause difficulties due to the fact that additional runoff can be expected when property subdivides. Therefore the City has a responsibility to ensure that this runoff does not become problematic for adjacent properties. City Staff has added text to the proposed policy to clari~ that the wetland encumbrance exemption on lots exceeding 10 acres in size does not supercede the City's authority to require drainage easements when necessary to convey surface water. Council also requested that Staff survey other cities regarding wetland delineation and encumbrance. The cities of Ham Lake, Elk River, Blaine and Andover al!~oquire drainage easements to be placed over wedands during the plat-ting process. City Sta~¢~'~5~ended'adopting the policy as proposed. Cotmcilmember HendZ'r'isen inquired?if the policy presented included the ten-acre exemption. Community Development;~x~'¢tor Fr.,liI~'irePhed yes, explaining that lan=onage was added stating that when there [sa draina~2'~'patt~!{'6 fac/l'~fate surface water runoff it is not superceded by the exception. ~" ~2.~;~ ~f~ · Councilmember Hendriksen inquired ~:to how they ~ould know that.' Community Development Director Fr~5'~"~ed th~'~:' staff would rely on the opinion of the City Engineer. ' ~? _~ .... City En~neer OIson explained that the new p6h-.:~[ ~d~:place:':;~b. mewhat more responsibility on the City Eng-ineer, but reviewed that even it the ~{:['and:~as deI~ealed as a drainage and utility easement they would not be protecting all of the drainage °~the pr~i~. The drainage paEerns would have to be defined and 'protected. The current policy of ~ating ali wetlands with drainage and utility easements .does not resolve the Problem 'eith~.:? '~:,~.)- ' Councilmember Hendriksen stated that he did not understand' what they would be accomplishing with the exception. City En~neer Olson explained that anything encumbered with a drainage and utility, easement can ~ve the City more rights to the land, such-as dig=-dng a six foot deep pond, which would preclude the use of the land for ag-cicul.mral purposes. Councilmember Zimmerman stated that he failed to see what additional rights the City would be g-iven above and beyond what is stated on the plat. City En~neer Olson replied that encumbering the wetlands with a drainage and utility, easement does not preclude the homeowner from using the land for agricultural purposes, but if the land is City. Council/January 22, 2002 Page 5 of 27