08-04-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 14 • Ericson stated that staff was seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission in regard to the granting of this easement vacation to allow for the two additional building sites, or if the drainage easements should stand, as was the original intent of the subdivision. Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the current owner of Lots 17 and 18, and if they had been compensated for granting the drainage easements. Ericson stated that the owner of the property was Peggy Haselius, and he was not certain if she had been compensated. He stated that he believed Ms. Haselius owned all of the surrounding property at that time, and the easement was granted as a condition of the approval of the subdivision. He stated that the subdivision would not have been approved, were it not for the granting of these easements, as it was believed at that time, the lots were located within the wetland, and that in providing the easements, the impact to the wetland would be minimal. John Peterson, applicant and owner of Oakwood Land Development, stated his company develops properties throughout the metropolitan area, primarily in Blaine and the northern suburbs. He stated that he was also speaking on behalf of Peggy Haselius, who has resided in the same house in Mounds View for 51 years. He stated the manner in which his company became involved in this issue was rather unique. He explained that another developer had begun the process years ago, ran into financial • difficulties,and his company bailed that developer out and completed the process. He stated that his company believed they owned these lots for many years, however, in 1997 they determined the lots were owned by Ms. Haselius. He stated that it would have been easy for them to walk away from the matter at that point,however, it became somewhat of a personal cause for him. He stated Ms. Haselius retired 11 years prior, and lives on a fixed income. He stated, in his opinion, she has the good faith right to develop the lots, and to receive 37,000 dollars from his company for them. Mr. Peterson stated the City Attorney had previously determined that the City had the easements, and could keep them if they so desired. He stated that, due to the expense to his company and Ms. Haselius, he does not desire to resolve the matter through the court system. He added that it would not be worth it for these two lots. He stated, however, many things have changed since the 1980's. He explained that the interpretation of wetland has been clearly defined and agreed upon by the • .. ... -. • . II • . . . i. - .. . . .. I . I. .. . .11 agree upon what a wetland is. He stated this was not the case in 1981 when this plat went through Mr. Peterson stated they hired an expert to go to the site and tell them where the wetland was. He stated they then contacted Rice Creek Watershed District and requested they confirm these findings, and they did. He stated that their proposal to develop Ms. Haselius' lots will not touch any wetland. He stated that the proposal fills 11,850 cubic feet of flood storage in that area, however, it creates 39,500 cubic feet of flood storage. He stated that these lots have already been platted, and the street is already in. He stated that the net effect of vacating this easement, and allowing Ms. Haselius to sell the land to his company so that he can prepare it for houses, is almost a 30,000 cubic foot gain in flood storage capacity in that basin. He stated that the Watershed District will confirm this. have obtained the Rice Creek Watershed District permit. He stated that Mr. Peterson stated that they a water is not the issue. He stated the issue is open space, and the development of the property. He