My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1999/08/23
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
Agenda Packets - 1999/08/23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:49:38 PM
Creation date
6/14/2018 6:43:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
8/23/1999
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
8/23/1999
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
231
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 Planning Commission August 4, 1999 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 13 <br /> Greg Peterson,representing Oakwood Land Development,has requested that the City vacate a portion <br /> of a drainage easement that covers Lots 17 & 18 of Edgewood Square, which had been dedicated to <br /> the City as a result of the initial platting in 1982. Even though wetlands are present over parts of Lots <br /> 17& 18 and all of Lot 19, drainage easements were dedicated for the entirety of the three lots. This <br /> was done to satisfy Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation District concerns and City concerns about <br /> the potential for flooding and runoff in this area. In addition to the easement vacation, to build on the <br /> two lots,a wetland alteration permit is also being requested and would need to be obtained because <br /> work would be done within the wetland as shown on the City's official Wetland Zoning Map. <br /> Approval is also needed from the Rice Creek Watershed District. <br /> Ericson stated the applicant made a similar request with regard to these two lots on September 9, <br /> 1997. He stated,however,the request was denied by the Council on December 8, 1997, as it was felt <br /> that the easements were granted in good faith and that the lots were never intended to be built upon, <br /> due to the possibility of detriment to the wetland. <br /> Ericson stated,at this time,the applicant is requesting the same action, and there were no changes in <br /> regard to the plans submitted. He provided the Commission with a copy of the delineation of the <br /> wetland upon Lots 17 and 18,which was made in 1997,and further verified by Rice Creek Watershed <br /> District to be accurate. He stated, however, the delineation does not agree with the City's official <br /> Wetland Zoning Map, explaining that at the time of its making, the wetlands were not delineated, but <br /> defined to fall within a certain elevation. He stated the area that is proposed to be filled, falls within <br /> the 904-foot elevation, which has been deemed flood storage capacity. He stated that the applicant <br /> has proposed to create an additional holding pond on the back half of Lot 17, to replace the flood <br /> storage capacity. He stated this would alleviate any issues in regard to lessening the flood storage <br /> capacity, and may ultimately create additional flood storage. <br /> Ericson stated that the real issue is whether or not the easements serve a public purpose, and if not, <br /> should they be vacated. He stated, at the same time, consideration should be given to whether or not <br /> the preservation of the environment should continue as it is, a buffer between the existing <br /> neighborhood,the wetland, roadway, and the lots to the north of the wetland. He stated the issue is <br /> in regard to the appropriateness of vacating the drainage easement to allow for two more homes in the <br /> area. He stated that the property is zoned appropriately for the proposal, however, there would be <br /> some disruption to the neighborhood and to the natural area. He stated that it is not indicated that the <br /> wetland would be impacted, although the construction would occur on the perimeter and outside of <br /> the delineated area. <br /> Ericson stated that all residents within 350 feet of the proposal were notified by staff, and had <br /> presented numerous comments, unfavorable to the proposal, and indicating concerns regarding the <br /> detriment to the neighborhood and drainage system, with the exception of one resident who was in <br /> favor of the proposal. He provided the Commission with a letter from a resident who was not able to <br /> attend the meeting, however, indicated that the residents were not in favor of the proposal. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.