|
Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 1999
<br /> Regular Meeting Page 17
<br /> 0
<br /> development. He stated that he was not in favor of the loss of habitat for deer pheasant, birds, and
<br /> raccoons. He added that he believed the majority of the residents were overwhelmingly opposed to
<br /> this.
<br /> .&.,
<br /> Cathy Gryzmala, 2374 Pinewood Circle, stated that she lived directly across the stgot from one of
<br /> the proposed sites. She stated that she moved into her house in 1991, anslOppke,Otii her neighbor,
<br /> Mrs. Haselius, about constructing a stationary playground on the sOjtElg. She stated she
<br /> petitioned the Rice Creek Watershed District in 1995 in this regard She stated informed h.x
<br /> the Watershed that the entire lot was subject to drainage egloment, and no or structufrs
<br /> could be placed upon it. She stated that, with a proposal that might generate stitolipospAithey
<br /> appear to have changed their mind. She provided the "wmiss401t•with a copy010iiiitp for
<br /> Edgewood Square. She stated Mrs.Haselius' signed this document,•Which states, "...'iratlitUsed the
<br /> same to be surveyed,platted, and known as Edgewood Square,and dedicate to the public,
<br /> for the public use forever, the drainage and utility easements., drive the roads to be shown
<br /> on the plat." She stated that this map was dated April of 103. She stated she believed that Mrs.
<br /> Haselius learned she could make some money woRthsproperObtlitipged her mind about
<br /> dedicating it to the public. She stated that she hadalgOttcyy of the map after her initial proposal
<br /> to purchase her home,and was told by the RicopeA4,0010,Distri4 that those lots would never
<br /> be built upon.Mr. Meehan stated that he ha,,also been told wigiktealibr, these lots would never be
<br /> developed.
<br /> 5 Ar a
<br /> Gary Collis,2390 Pinewood Circle, he had attended the meeting on this matter, the prior year.
<br /> He stated the Mayor had asked the City Attorno4the City could keep the drainage ditch, and the City
<br /> Attorney stated they could., #90ted, at that time, reviewed all of the agreements made
<br /> at the tim-z:,ilt development of 114410'
<br /> 4...: 016,.. NISEIllk. moo,-
<br /> Mr. CollistMtowarea was a plot, considered wetland by the State of Minnesota. He
<br /> stated that if arNiiiiiittittaken awAilif WON mitigated. He added it appeared that Mounds View had •
<br /> laTOWV*,.. INNESS0 -
<br /> no other wetla0401040411is. Flelopd he was not in favor of damaging the wetland any further.
<br /> He statedSTIV410041.1tO it for drainage ponds on the north end of the wetland, and have
<br /> develos.7;:i'.1 street and al!,1416IS;Aturn around, which are within the wetland. He stated that this area
<br /> was 41;4 er replaced. He stated houses have been built with backyards encroaching upon the
<br /> wetlands. He stated that be brought this to the attention of staff, who stated this should have been
<br /> n
<br /> •:•:•: closely monitored, should not have been done. He stated that the proposed development
<br /> k.,
<br /> 41in''. encroach uportee wetland as well. He stated that the purpose of the wetland is to act as a
<br /> WM.. . . thatiplainmthe polluted water is filtered through the wetland to wells, which the residents
<br /> ,s., vg„,-
<br /> - : ::::::......... stated he is prepared to go to the State of Minnesota if the wetlands are not
<br /> riiit.„..,:::.:.f.i.L1A.4: :,!..,...:N.fi..,
<br /> Acting Chair Stevenson stated that he did not disagree, and that they did not want to lose any wetland
<br /> either. He stated the development of the homes, cul-de-sac,and Edgewood spur, was mitigated by the
<br /> dredging and deepening of the wetland, which created a pond. He stated this was reviewed by the
<br /> 5 Corps of Engineers.
<br />
|