Agenda Packets - 1995/01/09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

U NI A rl s� f UF'JhirflUu� Mounds View City Council Page 8 Regular Meeting December 12, 1994 1 Harrington affirmed that soil borings had been done on the site, 2 however, the hydrology was not determined by those soil borings and 3 they could not be considered at this hearing. They would be used 4 if the house were actually to be constructed, because suitable soil 5 is required for the house to be built on. 6 7 Blanchard expressed concern about the soil being peat rather than 8 sand. 9 10 SfeveFeldner, 5168 Longview Drive, asked where the proposed 11 culvert would go in relation to the proposed house. He was 12 concerned that water would have to build up before the culvert 13 would be effective and stated that the area had standing water 14 seven months out of the year. He felt the maps were incorrect. 15 16 Keene explained the elevations and possible location of a culvert, 17 which would be at the natural ground elevation that presently 18 exists. 19 20 Dave Tillmann, 5166 Longview Drive, questioned when the Wetland 21 boundaries were drawn. He said that in 1992 there was a Wetland 22 Boundary Expansion Act done by the Federal government and he 23 believed this property could be part of a Wetland. 24 25 Harrington explained that when an application is made with the 26 City, the City's adopted maps are used to review the project. When 27 action is taken on Wetland Alteration Permits, contingencies in 28 those Resolutions require that the applicant approach Rice Creek 29 Watershed District, which operates separately from the City. 30 31 Linke said the original Wetland Ordinance was passed in 1982 and, 32 since that time, every Wetland redelineation has resulted in a 33 smaller Wetland area, not larger. 34 35 Mr. Tillmann asked if any Councilmember had physically seen this 36 lot in the summer. He said that nothing grows on the lot in the 37 early months of summer because of standing water. 38 39 Linke explained that the Council had two situations to consider, 40 the first being the Wetland Ordinance and how this pertains to it, 41 the second is the issue of a City doing a "taking" of the property 42 if this Resolution is denied. The reason the proposed building 43 site is located in the Buffer Zone is because NWCC put a massive 44 drain through there in the 1950's with a 30 foot easement which 45 takes up much of the lot that could have been built upon. 46 47 Harold Hjelle, 5161 Red Oak Drive, said the soil in the area 48 changes dramatically and questioned whether the proposed building 49 site was actually sand. He asked where the borings had been done