Laserfiche WebLink
11 t <br /> 1- j _:, <br /> Page 6 • <br /> October 27, 1997 <br /> Mounds View City Council <br /> the site several times with the Watershed Field personnel and gone through the entire Watershed process. <br /> They have paid over$10,000 in taxes on the property over many years and the property was platted out into <br /> three separate lots with the proposed scenario in mind-it was left to be owned privately. There will be more <br /> ponding capacity after the development and they are providing more storage than what is presently provided. <br /> Mayor McCarty asked what has changed since the original development so that the City no longer needs the <br /> drainage easements. <br /> Mr.Peterson stated he believes the land was considered to be wetland in 1982 and that is not so. He <br /> wondered why the city would need an easement over upland that is not subject to flooding. He also wondered <br /> why the property was platted into three separate lots if it was not for the possibility that in the future the <br /> easement may not be needed by the city. If the purpose of the easement was storage,they will provide <br /> additional storage. <br /> Council member Koopmeiners asked if staff has any idea what the total acreage of the wetland is. Mr.Ericson <br /> stated only when the wetland becomes delineated is that information available. Mr.Peterson reiterated that this <br /> is totally irrelevant in this case as there is no encroachment into the wetland. <br /> Council member Quick asked if the Rice Creek Watershed has signed off on this proposal. Mr.Ericson <br /> responded that they had. <br /> 11111 <br /> After discussion,Mayor McCarty stated he believes there must have been some purpose for the drainage <br /> easement in the agreement between the City and Good Value Homes,and feels the city needs more time to <br /> check records to determine the validity and purpose of the easement and whether it is tied to storm water and <br /> wetland issues. <br /> MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to table this item in order to obtain additional information. <br /> VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried <br /> PUBLIC HEARINGS: <br /> Consideration of Resolution No.5168,a Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Mounds View Business <br /> Park East Second Addition for Everest Group. <br /> Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m. <br /> Mr.Ericson explained that this plat was originally approved by the City Council on October 24, 1994. <br /> Because the plat was not filed with Ramsey County within the time frame allowed,it needs to be reviewed and <br /> re-approved by the City Council. The plat was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 15, 1997 <br /> and they recommended approval. The Building N site is approximately 6.89 acres and the proposed building <br /> is approximately 100,000 square feet. Mr.Ericson noted that according to the city code,full platting is <br /> required for all subdivisions and re-subdivisions. The two issues which need to be considered for any <br /> subdivision of land are easements and park dedication requirements. The easement document will be <br /> prepared before the plat is finalized. The staff has calculated that the appropriate park dedication fee for this <br /> re-subdivision is$56,771 and this has been approved by the applicant. <br /> • <br /> Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 8:25 p.m. <br />