Laserfiche WebLink
Page 6 <br />October 27, 1997 <br />Mounds View City Council <br />the site several times with the Watershed Field personnel and gone through the entire Watershed process. <br />They have paid over $10,000 in taxes on the property over many years and the property was platted out into <br />three separate lots with the proposed scenario in mind - it was left to be owned privately. There will be more <br />ponding capacity after the development and they are providing more storage than what is presently provided. <br />Mayor McCarty asked what has changed since the original development so that the City no longer needs the <br />drainage easements. <br />Mr. Peterson stated he believes the land was considered to be wetland in 1982 and that is not so. He <br />wondered why the city would need an easement over upland that is not subject to flooding. He also wondered <br />why the property was platted into three separate lots if it was not for the possibility that in the future the <br />easement may not be needed by the city. If the purpose of the easement was storage, they will provide <br />additional storage. <br />Council member Koopmeiners asked if staff has any idea what the total acreage of the wetland is. Mr. Ericson <br />stated only when the wetland becomes delineated is that information available. Mr. Peterson reiterated that this <br />is totally irrelevant in this case as there is no encroachment into the wetland. <br />Council member Quick asked if the Rice Creek Watershed has signed off on this proposal. Mr. Ericson <br />responded that they had. <br />After discussion, Mayor McCarty stated he believes there must have been some purpose for the drainage <br />easement in the agreement between the City and Good Value Homes, and feels the city needs more tune to <br />check records to determine the validity and purpose of the easement and whether it is tied to storm water and <br />wetland issues. <br />MOTIONISECOND: QuickJKoopmeiners to table this item in order to obtain additional information. <br />VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried <br />PUBLIC HEARINGSā€¢ <br />Consideration of Resolution No. 5168, a Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Mounds View Business <br />Park East S~ond Addition for Everest Group. <br />Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m. <br />Mr. Ericson explained that this plat was originally approved by the City Council on October 24, 1994. <br />Because the plat was not filed with Ramsey County within the time frame allowed, it needs to be reviewed and <br />re-approved by the City Council. The plat was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 15,1997 <br />and they recommended approval. The Building N site is approximately 6.89 acres and the proposed building <br />is approximately 100,000 square feet. Mr. Ericson noted that according to the city code, full platting is <br />required for all subdivisions and re-subdivisions. The two issues which need to be considered for any <br />subdivision of land are easements and park dedication requirements. The easement document will be <br />prepared before the plat is finalized. The staffhas calculated that the appropriate park dedication fee for this <br />re-subdivision is $56, 771 and this has been approved by the applicant. <br />Ma or McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 8:25 p.m. <br />Y <br />