Laserfiche WebLink
• Page 4 <br />October 27, 1997 <br />Mounds View City Council <br />Mr. Ericson, Planning Associate, explained that John Peterson, who represents Good Value Homes, Inc., is <br />requesting that the city approve a wetland alteration permit and a vacation of a portion of a drainage easement <br />that covers Lot 17 and 18 of Block 1, Edgewood Square. This easement was dedicated to the city as a result of <br />the initial platting in 1982. He noted that in order to build on the two lots, a wetland alteration permit would <br />be needed because work will be done within the City's wetland zoning district. Mr. Ericson noted that there <br />are standards which need to be met for a wetland alteration permit to be granted which were listed in the staff <br />report. All of these standards have been met. He noted that this project was reviewed by the City's engineer <br />who found them consistent with the City's Local Water Management Plan. <br />Peggy Little, 5539 St. Michael Street, stated she was under the understanding that there would be no more <br />encroachments on the wetland. There are only a few wetlands left and the city needs run-off places. She <br />stated the city agreed before that no more lots would be built on the wetland. <br />Lisa Gilpin, 2358 Pinewood Circle, stated as a parent she would like to appeal to the environmental effects of <br />this request. She stated as a family they have spent a lot of tune down there and have seen many fox and <br />beautiful birds in there. She does not understand how the wetlands will not be affected by putting houses on <br />those lots. <br />Annette Katzmerek, 7730 Edgewood Drive, stated she has concerns about the drainage at 7740 Edgewood <br />Drive. That property and the one directly behind it gets half flooded out after a rainfall. If the wetlands are <br />filled in, where will the water go? <br />Gary Collis, 2390 Pinewood Circle, stated the city does not even have the acreage of the wetland. The DNR <br />has informed him that if the wetland is over two acres, it is protected and must be replaced. He inquired as to <br />how much of the land on Lot 18 will be built on. He noted that 2/3 of Lot 18 is in the wetland. <br />Mr. Ericson explained that no work will occur within the wetland. He provided a diagram, showing the <br />wetland and Lots 17 and 18. He noted that the proposal is to dig out an additional hole for additional flood <br />storage capacity. The map which was sent out to residents does not accurately depict where the wetland <br />actually is, according to the Rice Creek Watershed District. The home, as proposed would be 35 feet from the <br />wetland. B~suse the wetland is not being encroached upon, the DNR requirements do not apply. <br />Mr. Collis commented that there is a lot of wildlife back in the wetlands and that by digging more holes, it will <br />ruin the land for the animals. <br />Joseph Milton Gilpin, 2358 Pinewood Circle, stated he has a lot of reservations about this project. The <br />property right next to the proposed lot has an abandoned home on it now (Lot 16). This home has been vacant <br />for a year and a half. He thinks perhaps one reason the home is vacant is that it has no back yard, only a <br />swamp, and homeowners cannot sell the property. He feels the same situation could occur if homes are built <br />on the other lots. He stated he is against the project and feels the city should keep the valuable open space. <br />Peggy Haselius, 2381 County Road I, stated she is the original owner of the undeveloped land on Edgewood <br />Square. When she sold it, she was told by staff at City Hall that they would take anything over five acres for <br />recreational development. ffMounds View owns the lots, how can Good Value Homes build there and make a <br />big profit`t Mayor McCarty explained that the city did not take title of the property, they merely took an <br />easement for surface water management. Ms. Haselius stated she has the certificate of title for those three lots <br />and she will not give them up. She wants the property left as it is. <br />