07-07-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 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. 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 ire.ut regarding the matter from the property owners, and that it was not required that they be no ' +. He stated, however, that staff was attempting to communicate with the property ow : ,,to south regarding the proposed subdivision. 41, Commissioner Laube stated the adjacent neighbor to the wes on Count. .:Road; .. :: ld be noti. : , as he or she may be impacted by the proposed subdivi :n. He sta e' his c i _`r">>ero. the possible necessityof a retainingwall between the adjacent o.:� rtie tiRd whether i 'ement would be required for that purpose. Ericson stated thatt .`x' '®,:uld notify the adr.tetif property owners, and ask for their input on the proposed developm` = `ri4<aY- Commissioner Berke asked if the drainage area to the south wasi:$tlt's .A: private land. Ericson said it was and stated that there were two intervening pr �:;,sties, in ad t " :,the twin home located to the south. He stated that there was a througioroTkAcpt lot adjacent to Silver Lake Road, which he believed was not buildable due to 'e wetl n n: ;pro y and a wetland easement covers most of that property. He stated t:'- staff believe: :a t x . gh they could work with the applicant in notifying the adjacent properly owner it was tx '3 cant's responsibility to come to an agreement with the property owt. A Commissioner Berke asked if the'area wou.e>.:;<com tate the additional runoff, if the developer of the hoar located furt4 '. t he south l o build. Ericson stated that it should be sufficient; <.at it is#:*:110f, with the =`; ?ation of 899. He added that there was an also an outlet u t ake Ro :d' t t with the drainage. ate. Commissioner vtlott4,ested tkYT-Zirplicant should work on this aspect of the drainage plan, prior to the 4!%.04: , .: a: upo' ,< .e subdivision . Chair ' u d be uncomfortable until all aspects of thepossible impact to the rson stated th l%;.x- p p othe '#`�.roperty owners solved. He stated that he was uncertain that the various drainage is . `�` ��'could be ro erl solved, and that bygrantingthe subdivision, the Citymaybe faced with p p Y ," v ial problems. H-',`dded that, although the subdivision was a legal possibility, it might not be solution for. 4i neighborhood. w i,i*. w sen stated that he concurred with the other Commissioners regarding the drainage issu-• as 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. 110