08-23-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council August 23,1999 Regular Meeting Page 20 Planning Associate Ericson stated the lots no longer serve a purpose for drainage and utility. He stated that a wetland delineation has been done on the subject properties, which indicates the applicant's proposal would not impact the wetland, and that the construction would fall outside of the wetland. He stated Rice Creek Watershed District had verified this delineation, and has issued a permit for the proposal. Planning Associate Ericson stated the consideration is whether or not there the easement presents any public benefit. He stated upon speaking with the City Attorney, it was determined the City Council is not necessarily under any obligation to vacate the easement, particularly if there is a possibility that there is some present or future public benefit to be gained by retaining the easement. He stated this factor could also be considered in terms of the buffer between the developed area and the wetland. Planning Associate Ericson stated the delineation indicates the proposed construction would fall outside of the wetland, therefore, no impact or encroachment would be made to the wetland. He stated there would be some filling of area that has been set aside as flood storage, however, the applicant's plans indicate that they would create additional flood storage capacity on the back half of one of the subject lots. He stated this proposal would replace 11,000 cubic feet of flood storage capacity with 33,000 cubic feet of flood storage capacity. He stated in that regard, the City Engineer • had determined, there would be no impact to the water quality standards and water levels. He stated this was an issue of whether or not to allow the construction of two houses upon the vacant land, which acts as a buffer between the developed and undeveloped areas. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff is seeking the Council's direction, based upon the Planning Commission's discussion and recommendation on this matter. He stated there were two options available. One option would be to vacate the easement, as the applicant has requested, and approve the Wetland Alteration Permit. The other option would be to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial of the request. He stated there was an ordinance presently before the Council, which would approve the vacation of the easements, and would require two readings. He stated, in the event the Council felt there was just cause to vacate the easement, a public hearing had also been set. He stated that the First Reading of this ordinance could be held that date, if so desired. He stated the other option would be to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial of the vacation and Wetland Alteration Permit request. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant was present. Annette Gazmarek, 7730 Edgewood Drive, stated her home was located north of County Road I. She provided the Council with a picture of her neighbor's home, 7740 Edgewood Drive, which indicated the flooding problem in that area. She stated she was aware that the problem did not previously exist, however, the people that live down the road have recently sold their home, and that • having new residents in that area has contributed to the flooding problem. She stated the picture was taken July 30, 1999, and indicates that the flooding occurs up to the neighbor's shed. She stated that a small creek located behind the property turns into a lake every time it rains. She stated the new 20C:~ADMINIMINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC