Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 20 <br /> He stated this factor could also be considered in terms of the buffer between the developed area and <br /> the wetland. <br /> Planning Associate Ericson stated the delineation indicates the proposed construction would fall <br /> outside of the wetland, therefore, no impact or encroachment would be made to the wetland. He <br /> stated there would be some filling of area that has been set aside as flood storage, however, the <br /> applicant's plans indicate that they would create additional flood storage capacity on the back half <br /> of one of the subject lots. He stated this proposal would replace 11,000 cubic feet of flood storage <br /> capacity with 33,000 cubic feet of flood storage capacity. He stated in that regard,the City Engineer <br /> had determined, there would be no impact to the water quality standards and water levels. He stated <br /> this was an issue of whether or not to allow the construction of two houses upon the vacant land, <br /> which acts as a buffer between the developed and undeveloped areas. <br /> Planning Associate Ericson stated staff is seeking the Council's direction, based upon the Planning <br /> Commission's discussion and recommendation on this matter. He stated there were two options <br /> available. One option would be to vacate the easement, as the applicant has requested, and approve <br /> the Wetland Alteration Permit. The other option would be to direct staff to prepare a resolution of <br /> denial of the request. He stated there was an ordinance presently before the Council, which would <br /> approve the vacation of the easements, and would require two readings. He stated, in the event the <br /> Council felt there was just cause to vacate the easement, a public hearing had also been set. He <br /> stated that the First Reading of this ordinance could be held that date, if so desired. He stated the <br /> other option would be to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial of the vacation and Wetland <br /> Alteration Permit request. <br /> Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant was present. <br /> Annette Gazmarek, 7730 Edgewood Drive, stated her home was located north of County Road I. <br /> She provided the Council with a picture of her neighbor's home, 7740 Edgewood Drive, which <br /> indicated the flooding problem in that area. She stated she was aware that the problem did not <br /> previously exist,however,the people that live down the road have recently sold their home, and that <br /> having new residents in that area has contributed to the flooding problem. She stated the picture was <br /> taken July 30, 1999, and indicates that the flooding occurs up to the neighbor's shed. She stated that <br /> a small creek located behind the property turns into a lake every time it rains. She stated the new <br /> homeowner's were very unhappy about the flooding problems. She stated her neighbor at 7740 <br /> Edgewood Drive has had his property re-graded and re-sodded, however, this did not solve the <br /> problem. She inquired, in light of this type of flooding, how could they justify building two more <br /> homes in that area. She stated the backyard of the home on the very edge of the proposed <br /> construction was basically a swamp. She stated this house was vacant from the time she moved into <br /> her home, 31/2 years prior, until 61/2 months ago. She stated she could not see how this proposal <br /> would help this situation. <br /> Kathy Gryzmala, 2374 Pinewood Circle, stated her home was directly across the street from the <br /> proposed building site. She stated she purchased her home in 1992, and at that time, she contacted <br /> 20C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC <br />