07-07-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 IIIICountyRoad Ito relieve the floodingwhich has been a longstandingproblem. He indicated that staff was concerned about the possibility of flooding, not only in the backyards, but the possibility of water 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 is point, due ' g to changes in elevation. He explained that it was believed that by constructa ch , `et, one to two feet deep, directionally toward the wetlands to the south, the a '' ss anage could be accommodated. He noted that this would be contingent uc•n the <.•:•;r: .lon of the adjacent property owners. He stated that the Certificate of Survey h6.e-n forA6'''.V.14. e City Engineer who agreed that the drainage issues would have to be ads:ressed befog tl a '. >a: of a buil. g permit. He stated that the matter before the Comm. 'ion was .. _>nsidera< .::` . a: t V the �:, �. . ;►-�_-, �Iry . Subdivision, and that the drainage considerations would:of rec_ude this. He e p : : h .q0 ever, that the applicant should be aware that the granting of the .division would not necessarily mean that a building permit could be issued. }:> "' Ericson stated that the Certificate of Survey would require r iii':''": ::...a form that would be acceptable to the County, and there were also issues ;e� $;'nn_ highway=l`: 'k :dway easements. He stated that those would need to be shown on the 1=':: .'. _ way, asbposed to easement areas, .x:�tyagy which would affect the way the plat was draft . He .at dx at taff a not provided a resolution at this time, as they would require more inf 'ation redr din p p r on of the final draft. Ericson stated that when the application was: st submitted, thread been discussion regarding the possibility of a variance for a non-r n rming ht and thal e applicant had chosen to avoid that process at that time. He stated thaas pos § e that a variance might be a better approach to the situation, noting that a hardship *y exist =..: .:.e Co. thad taken some of the subject property along Coun 'oad I, for i : � ti nts. He at :`:-!Chad this not been done, the applicant would have bee ...flsubdivi a :, erty in a 1eonventional fashion. Ericson requested that the Commis` f aff on i. .; :ceed with the matter in regard to drafting the resolution, and what other : '<"x..i. woul• . -. to be submitted with the application. "WNNOft, Alger Commission- : , : :pf if the ion of the wetland was lower than that of the property. Ericson st, `that the s ::,: l vat -vation was 899, while the lowest elevation of the subject property was 90 ... --0 : --i :; :'';.*area was 906. Commissioner Hegland noted that he had seen the water ccumulation at th;- toltion, and was aware that the property required pumping. He noted th,4,',:lie addition of anoth e twin home would make the flooding worse, impacting the property owner t!lial,south. He asked" at type of drainage plan and implementation would be required to resolve lett, cson stated is according to the City Engineer, grading a swale along the back side of the �it • 4 _~ and would provide a workable solution. He stated that this would require the a�$ : o :�:djacent property owners, and if that was not possible, there was the option of in PO t .y"`orm 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