|
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
<br /> Regular Meeting Page 13
<br /> •
<br /> Greg Peterson,representing Oakwood Land Development,has requested that the City vacate a portion
<br /> of a drainage easement that covers Lots 17 & 18 of Edgewood Square, which had been dedicated to
<br /> the City as a result of the initial platting in 1982. Even though wetlands are present over parts of Lots
<br /> 17& 18 and all of Lot 19, drainage easements were dedicated for the entirety of the three lots. This
<br /> was done to satisfy Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation District concerns.and City< `ncerns about
<br /> the potential for flooding and runoff in this area. In addition to the easement ,acation, to build on the
<br /> two lots, a wetland alteration permit is also being requested atlt would t e d to be obtained because
<br /> work would be done within the wetland as shown on theiy's off` jand Zoning Map
<br /> Approval is also needed from the Rice Creek Watershed Di 'trict. . €` :: '3.:;, As
<br /> 6v VilliilkNew
<br /> Ericson stated theapplicant made a similar request wit(1='lr and tr '4these two lotsion pt ber 9,
<br /> 1997. He stated,however,the request was denied by the Councilo December 8, 1 4710 if was felt
<br /> that the easements were granted in good faith and that the lots'w r ° ever intended to be built upon,
<br /> due to the possibilityof detriment to tho wetland.
<br /> :::ski:
<br /> i time, applicantin me ctio _='"' ' '` '°re were no changes in
<br /> Ericson stated,at this the is request �.tkt�;s� a na»,s'l, ;, 7�r
<br /> regard to the plans submitted. He provided the.:::.. " t cion with a 614 'f the delineation of the
<br /> wetland upon Lots 17 and 18, which was mad% =199i7,:ipfurther verifi..ed by Rice Creek Watershed
<br /> District to be accurate. He stated, however,the delineation<" oe ne a ree with the City's official
<br /> Wetland Zoning Map,explaining that at the time ofsi,i'nakitiggfillOilands were not delineated, but
<br /> defined to fall within a certain elevatiro =`<He stated>the area that is proposed to be filled, falls within
<br /> • the 904-foot elevation, which has bs 1>deeme hood storage capacity. He stated that the applicant
<br /> has proposed to create an additi :":' °holding`; nd on t e back half of Lot 17, to replace the flood
<br /> storage capacity. He stated..thisould alleva,ean::.� ies in regard to lessening the flood storage
<br /> capacity, a 'aaultimaecre�te additional floQd storage.
<br /> �� h � .v. F:i " ;
<br /> Ericson stat`threal issr
<br /> ether or not the easements serve a public purpose, and if not,
<br /> should they be e stated a:;MAgoe ti
<br /> to , me, consideration should be given to whether or not
<br /> the preservationf' Rile e.:vironnient should continue as it is, a buffer between the existing
<br /> . as'r?�� <: <A<:.� <:v:<235�:„a:�;f �,ni::i>i:>Y�
<br /> neighborhoo ,the worms r�o`adway, and the lots to the north of the wetland. He stated the issue is
<br /> in regard? the appropriat ess eating the drainage easement to allow for two`more homes in the
<br /> area. e stated that the $tr y.is zoned appropriately for the proposal, however, there would be
<br /> so .etdisruption to the nei bdrhood and to the natural area. He stated that it is not-indicated that the
<br /> w::aid would be impacted, although the construction would occur on the perimeter and outside of
<br /> $ _'l lineated area. •
<br /> to: :`,,to.'!6-ttikTrOdirfbritall residents within 350 feet of the proposal were notified by staff, and had
<br /> p - 4:> merous comments, unfavorable to the proosal, and indicating concerns regarding the
<br /> detriment to the neighborhood and drainage system, with the exception of one resident who was in
<br /> favor of the proposal. He provided the Commission with a letter from a resident who was not able to
<br /> attend the meeting, however, indicated that the residents were not in favor of the proposal.
<br /> •
<br />
|