My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-19-2003
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
11-19-2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2018 6:49:47 AM
Creation date
8/28/2018 6:49:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Minutes
GOVBOARD
Planning Commission
DOCTYPE
minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View Planning Commission November 19, 2003 <br />Regular Meeting Page 4 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />residents. She then asked if there are any other areas of the City that were developed on <br />wetlands and whether there was anything detrimental that came out of it. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that there was a house recently constructed south of this proposed <br />development and there were issues with settling as well as the fact that a basement was not <br />possible due to the soils. He then said that there is a risk that things may not be done right and <br />the City would need to take that into consideration. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller indicated that FEMA does not consider the area a flood plain and asked at <br />what point FEMA does consider an area a flood plain. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that FEMA makes that determination. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland indicated that the flood plain just means you need flood insurance but it <br />does not mean the property cannot be developed. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that the City cannot issue building permits to construct in a flood <br />plain but this is not an issue as this is not a FEMA flood plain. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland indicated the issue is that he has met the requirements for development <br />for the property so then it becomes an issue of whether Rice Creek will allow it and whether <br />there are any other issues the City needs to cover. He then said he is concerned about the effects <br />on neighboring residents as well as the people purchasing these homes. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated there would be a long-term maintenance bond on the project to make <br />the developer responsible for hydrology issues that directly impact a neighboring property. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated the City would need to make sure that the development agreement <br />spells out all the expectations so that all issues are addressed and all contingencies are covered. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that he has said that the request meets the criteria but that does not <br />mean that the City has to grant approval. He then said that if, in certain situations, the density <br />does not fit the specific piece of land because of environmental conditions there may need to be a <br />scaling back of the development because of issues with the property and/or traffic. He further <br />indicated that the City has the right to say it is too much even though minimum requirements are <br />met. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson asked if there were findings of fact to warrant denying this request as there is <br />limited information at this point from Rice Creek. <br /> <br />Commissioner Scotch commented that development would be nice but the concern is how large <br />and will there be water issues if it is allowed. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that whenever this moves forward the developer would have engineer <br />reports and Rice Creek would have an engineer report and so would the City to review and
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.