06-16-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 Commissioner Berke asked if there had been any input from the neighboring property owners, and if it was required that they be notified. Ericson stated that he had not received any input regarding the matter from the property owners, and that it was not required that they be notified. He stated, however,that staff was attempting to communicate with the property owner to the south regarding the proposed subdivision. Commissioner Laube stated the adjacent neighbor to the west, on County Road I, should be notified, as he or she may be impacted by the proposed subdivision. He stated his concern regarding the possible necessity of a retaining wall between the adjacent properties, and whether or not an easement would be required for that purpose.Ericson stated that staff would notify the adjacent property owners, and ask for their input on the proposed development. Commissioner Berke asked if the drainage area to the south was situated on private land. Ericson said it was and stated that there were two intervening properties, in addition to the twin home located to the south. He stated that there was a through-lot,and a vacant lot adjacent to Silver Lake Road, which he believed was not buildable due to the wetland on the property and a wetland easement covers most of that property. He stated that staff believed that, although they could work with the applicant in notifying the adjacent property owners, it was the applicant's responsibility to come to an agreement with the property owners. Commissioner Berke asked if the area would accommodate the additional runoff, if the developer of • the homes located further to the south continued to build. Ericson stated that it should be sufficient, given that it is a large area with the elevation of 899. He added that there was also an outlet under Silver Lake Road to assist with the drainage. Commissioner Miller suggested that the applicant should work on this aspect of the drainage plan, prior to the Commission acting upon the subdivision. Chair Peterson stated that he would be uncomfortable until all aspects of the possible impact to the other property owners were resolved. He stated that he was uncertain that the various drainage issues could be properly resolved,and that by granting the subdivision, the City may be faced with potential problems. He added that, although the subdivision was a legal possibility, it might not be an ideal so u ion "or a neig •or oo•. Commissioner Kaden stated that he concurred with the other Commissioners regarding the drainage issues,and was concerned regarding the impact to the two properties to the west. Ericson stated that staff would contact the applicant and ask him to come forward with evidence the drainage issues could be resolved. He stated that staff was aware of the sixty day deadline, and with this in mind, would continue to gather information regarding the issues to present to the Commission at a future meeting. He added that staff could obtain an extension of the deadline, if necessary. 7. Planning Case No. 561-99 • Property Involved: 7613-7619 Woodlawn Drive Consideration of a development review request for a four-unit residential rental dwelling