06-16-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 4110 damage occurring to the structures themselves because there is no drainage from the area. He stated that a wetland exists two properties to the south that could theoretically accommodate any runoff from the area, but noted that there was no way to divert the water to the wetland, at this point, due to changes in elevation. He explained that it was believed that by constructing a channel, one to two feet deep, directionally toward the wetlands to the south, the excess drainage could be accommodated. He noted that this would be contingent upon the cooperation of the adjacent property owners. He stated that the Certificate of Survey had been forwarded to the City Engineer who agreed that the drainage issues would have to be addressed before the issuance of a building permit. He stated that the matter before the Commission was consideration of granting the Subdivision, and that the drainage considerations would not preclude this. He explained, however, that the applicant should be aware that the granting of the Subdivision would not necessarily mean that a building permit could be issued. Ericson stated that the Certificate of Survey would require revision to a form that would be acceptable to the County, and there were also issues regarding highway and roadway easements. He stated that those would need to be shown on the plat as rights of way,as opposed to easement areas, which would affect the way the plat was drafted. He stated that staff had not provided a resolution at this time, as they would require more information regarding preparation of the final draft. Ericson stated that when the application was first submitted, there had been discussion regarding the possibility of a variance for a non-conforming lot, and that the applicant had chosen to avoid that process at that time. He stated that it was possible that a variance might be a better approach to the situation, noting that a hardship may exist as the County had taken some of the subject property along County Road I, for improvements. He stated that had this not been done,the applicant would have been able to subdivide the property in a more conventional fashion. Ericson requested that the Commission direct staff on how to proceed with the matter in regard to drafting the resolution, and what other information would be required to be submitted with the application. Commissioner Hegland asked if the elevation of the wetland was lower than that of the property. Ericson stated that the wetland elevation was 899, while the lowest elevation of the subject property was 904,and most of the backyard area was 906. Commissioner Hegland noted that he had seen the water accumulation at the location,and was aware that the property required pumping. He noted that the addition of another twin home would make the flooding worse, impacting the property owner to the south. He asked what type of drainage plan and implementation would be required to resolve this. Ericson stated that according to the City Engineer,grading a swale along the back side of the property to the wetland would provide a workable solution. He stated that this would require the approval of the adjacent property owners, and if that was not possible, there was the option of installing a storm sewer or catch basin along County Road I or Silver Lake Road. He stated that this would be a costly solution, but reiterated that without properly addressing the drainage issues, there would be no possibility of the issuance of a building permit. Commissioner Hegland asked for clarification regarding the legal issues of denying or accepting the subdivision prior to the proposed construction. Ericson stated that granting the subdivision may indicate to the applicant, who's intention it was to develop the property, that she could obtain a • building permit, which was not necessarily the case in this situation.