Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004 <br />Regular Meeting Page 9 <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated there is substantial cost for a full blown hydrology analysis and 1 <br />without preliminary plat approval it is unreasonable to expect it. 2 <br /> 3 <br />Director Ericson indicated that Staff concurs with the City Attorney’s recommendation to 4 <br />approve subject to the many conditions listed by Staff. He then indicated that if the plan were 5 <br />approved, the applicant would need to obtain a wetland alteration from the City and there are 6 <br />numerous requirements that would need to be met. 7 <br /> 8 <br />Mayor Linke asked if the City is covered through a development agreement with the developer to 9 <br />cover all Staff costs and engineering costs. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Director Ericson indicated the application that was included with the Staff report contains a 12 <br />disclaimer indicating that the applicant is responsible for the costs associated with the 13 <br />application. 14 <br /> 15 <br />Council Member Gunn told residents the preliminary plat approval contains 10 conditions and 16 <br />said that the document was in the public book if they wished to read them. 17 <br /> 18 <br />Mr. Harstad addressed Council and provided an overview of his development requests for this 19 <br />property. In 2001 he had before Council the 11 lot plat that required variances along Longview 20 <br />Drive as the lots did not meet the lot width requirements imposed by the wetland ordinance 21 <br />requirements. He then indicated that the City had requested Rice Creek Watershed District 22 <br />approval before he came to the City so he obtained that and was ultimately denied the variance. 23 <br />He further commented that the previous plan did not have any lots along Silver Lake Road and 24 <br />would have provided a tree buffer through a conservancy easement to maintain the block of trees 25 <br />that was 150 feet wide. 26 <br /> 27 <br />Mr. Harstad indicated that the site in general has not changed since 2001. It is the storm sewer 28 <br />for Silver Lake Road and Longview due to the lack of catch basins in the area. He further 29 <br />commented there is a culvert from Silver Lake Road that dumps onto this property. He then 30 <br />indicated that when the first proposal was before the watershed, the one thing that they were 31 <br />excited about was that the water would have been channeled to a pond to be treated before 32 <br />entering the wetland. 33 <br /> 34 <br />Mr. Harstad indicated that as part of the new project they would be treating storm water into a 35 <br />pond so the quality of the wetland would improve. He then said they would be doing some 36 <br />significant land modification staying under the half an acre requirement and will be replacing 37 <br />wetlands at a 2 to 1 ratio. He further indicated they would be filling .47 acres of land and 38 <br />recreating, along with credits for cleaning up storm water, 8.6 acres of wetland. 39 <br /> 40 <br />Mr. Harstad indicated that he has been asked whether he likes this development better than the 41 <br />first proposal and the honest answer is that he does not because he would prefer the buffer of 42 <br />trees but the Council and Planning Commission said they did not want the other development 43 <br />because it required a variance for lot width. 44 <br /> 45