My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-03-2000 CC
MoundsView
>
City Council
>
City Council
>
Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
01-03-2000 CC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/29/2018 2:44:10 PM
Creation date
8/29/2018 2:43:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
1/3/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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).
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council December 13, 1999 <br />Regular Meeting Page 22 <br /> <br />event of such a flood, therefore, it would not impact the proposed house to be constructed on the <br />site. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated although a public hearing is not required for the Wetland <br />Buffer Permit, staff has notified the residents on Ridge Lane of this impending action, and has <br />received a letter from a neighbor who is very concerned, and does not want the buffer permit to <br />be approved. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated that given the information provided by the City Engineer, and <br />the Rice Creek Watershed District, and the grading plans that have been supplied, staff has <br />drafted a resolution approving the Wetland Buffer Permit request. He indicated that if the <br />Council chooses to act upon this matter at this time, there is language on Page 2, Item 5 of the <br />resolution, which indicates “No grading shall be allowed within the City’s drainage easement <br />along the property’s western boundary,” and this language requires revision. He explained there <br />is there is a storm sewer pipe in this area, and staff was concerned that the applicant not bring fill <br />in over the exiting pipe, however, it is located on the adjoining property, and there would be no <br />problem bringing in some fill from this location. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated there is sufficient concern with this proposal that if the <br />Council feels it is necessary, staff could attempt to obtain additional input from the City <br />Engineer, and the Council could hold over action until a later date. He indicated the property <br />owner and the prospective homeowner were present to answer any questions. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin stated there were many issues presented with this proposal, and some of the <br />information contained in the packet may not have been quite germane to the Wetland Buffer <br />Permit request. He explained that he would like the opportunity to discuss this matter in a Work <br />Session environment, where they can attempt to resolve some of the issues. He indicated that the <br />property owners have property rights, and a vested interest in this discussion, however, he would <br />rather ere on side of caution, than rush forward without fully addressing the issues. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney stated the letter submitted by Susan Hugglestead indicates there is a <br />culvert running under the lot, and inquired regarding the significance of this. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson explained that the City has a 45-foot wide drainage easement along <br />both 2551 and 2555 Ridge Lane, under which there is a storm sewer that connects to the wetland, <br />and empties out onto Ridge Lane. He commented he was uncertain why this was such a large <br />easement, as there would be no overland drainage at this point, and because of the change in <br />elevation, any water or run off from this site would occur toward the corner of Ridge Lane and <br />Long Lake Road. He explained that the easement is in place for the underground storm sewer, <br />which acts as an outlet for the wetland. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney inquired if the culvert would be disturbed. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated it would not, however, there is some concern that the culvert is <br />not operational, and that any activity on the site could create additional problems in this regard. <br />He indicated that he believed this was simply a matter of the City insuring that the culvert stays <br />open and operational. He stated it has come to his attention that this culvert has not been <br />properly maintained by the City, however, this is something that staff can examine on an <br />ongoing basis in the future.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.