08-18-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 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 they had been . compensated for granting the drainage easements. Ericson stated that the Wner he property was PeggyHaselius, and he was not certain if she had been compensated. Heys a d flat he believed Mrs. Haselius owned all of the surrounding property at that tim.:Ohd the e s ment*w as granted as Al condition of the approval of the subdivision. He stated tat"the subdivision;� ould .of have been approved,were it not for the grantingof these easements, •::::tt was believed at that=te 1. t:s'>' ere � 4��4`��<; <�;� k,� located within the wetland, and that in providing the ease ents, themripact to the` d ould be minimal. NIMPIPPIN John Peterson, applicant and owner of Oakwood Land Dettpxtej stated his company develops properties throughout the metropolitan area, primarily in Slaine a ej ort ern suburbs. He stated that he was also speaking on behalf of Peggy Haselius. o has resided.111kOme house in Mounds h manner in wh'_ i cot n beca volved in this issue was View for 51 years. He stated the �ei��j..,:.:��y ,...,.. rather unique. He explained that another developer'had i e 'he roces ears ago, ran into financial difficulties,and his company bailed that developer out nd % p t lithe process. He stated that his ""' w ::er..: in 1997 theydetermined the lots company believed they owned these lotsri�r many ears, hovi��<::: were owned by Mrs. Haselius. He stat ' at it wat1d have be easy for them to walk away from the Aiik matter at that point, however, it became soy vhat of a,personal cause for him. He stated Mrs. lip Haselius retired 11 years prior, Olives ort i xed in ne. He stated, in his opinion, she has the good faith rim t to developthe;dots, and to r' e €° F:'.00 dollars from his company for them. 40•11vmoner- ,''<:-,,h-Fez;`<'.? ��:. 4 "�''' Mr.Pet > t n n �•.,the Cit ttorn Thad previously determined that the City had the easements, and could keep t e ift ey so'desired ` ;e stated that, due to the expense to his company and Mrs. Haselius, he d. `<" '.::.esire to resoiet matter through the court system. He added that it would NNgritail not be worth itf :1 t:.:::; lots. H`estted, however, many things have changed since the 1980's. Aangetwi He explained'�tha thesnprtation` f wetland has been clearly defined and agreed upon by the . -. a a ��-. . ... .11 1 .:'� <w�>. > �� .I ni the legislators and the .oliticians who now all agre lo'n what a wetland wetlandiSine stated this was not the case in 1981 when this plat went through . ®eterson stated theyi ired an expert to go to the site and tell them where the wetland was. He ..r :athey then contacted Rice Creek Watershed District and requested they confirm these findings, o l .id. He staff that their proposal to develop Mrs. Haselius' lots will not touch any wetland. ettipSaila:rp oposal fills 11,850 cubic feet of flood storage in that area, however, it creates 3 , t . ; '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 Mrs. 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. Mr.Peterson stated that they have obtained the Rice Creek Watershed District permit. He stated that • water is not the issue. He stated the issue is open space, and the development of the property. He