11-10-1997 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, rioonn -a L • f , , Page6 '� October 27, 1997III Mounds View City Council 1 the site several times with the Watershed Field personnel and gone through the entire Watershed process. 2 They have paid over$10,000 in taxes on the property over many years and the property was platted out into 3 three separate lots with the proposed scenario in mind-it was left to be owned privately. There will be more 4 ponding capacity after the development and they are providing more storage than what is presently provided. 5 6 Mayor McCarty asked what has changed since the original development so that the City no longer needs the 7 drainage easements. 8 9 Mr.Peterson stated he believes the land was considered to be wetland in 1982 and that is not so. He 10 wondered why the city would need an easement over upland that is not subject to flooding. He also wondered 11 why the property was platted into three separate lots if it was not for the possibility that in the future the 12 easement may not be needed by the city. If the purpose of the easement was storage,they will provide 13 additional storage. 14 15 Council member Koopmeiners asked if staff has any idea what the total acreage of the wetland is. Mr.Ericson 16 stated only when the wetland becomes delineated is that information available. Mr.Peterson reiterated that this 17 is totally irrelevant in this case as there is no encroachment into the wetland. 18 19 Council member Quick asked if the Rice Creek Watershed has signed off on this proposal. Mr.Ericson 20 responded that they had. 21Illk 22 After discussion,Mayor McCarty stated he believes there must have been some purpose for the drainage 23 easement in the agreement between the City and Good Value Homes,and feels the city needs more time to 24 check records to determine the validity and purpose of the easement and whether it is tied to storm water and 25 wetland issues. 26 27 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to table this item in order to obtain additional information. 28 29 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 30 31 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 32 33 Consideration of Resolution No.5168,a Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Mounds View Business 34 Park East Second Addition for Everest Group. 35 36 Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m. 37 38 Mr.Ericson explained that this plat was originally approved by the City Council on October 24, 1994. 39 Because the plat was not filed with Ramsey County within the time frame allowed,it needs to be reviewed and 40 re-approved by the City Council. The plat was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 15, 1997 41 and they recommended approval. The Building N site is approximately 6.89 acres and the proposed building 42 is approximately 100,000 square feet. Mr.Ericson noted that according to the city code,full platting is 43 required for all subdivisions and re-subdivisions. The two issues which need to be considered for any 44 subdivision of land are easements and park dedication requirements. The easement document will be 45 prepared before the plat is finalized. The staff has calculated that the appropriate park dedication fee for this 46 re-subdivision is$56,771 and this has been approved by the applicant. 47 • 48 Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 8:25 p.m.