Minutes - 2000/05/08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 • in the wetland, itself, and a retaining wall would be constructed pursuant to Rice Creek Watershed District requirements. He indicated the applicant would also be required to submit a $1,000 letter of credit, cash surety, or bond, which would further protect the wetland and prevent against any unauthorized filling. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant, the contractor, and the surveyor have all reviewed the stipulations, and they are in agreement with them. He explained that these conditions would require a bit more work on their part, however, in the sense that this is a wetland, and wetlands play an important role in the City's hydrology, it is the City's intent to do everything within its power to protect them. He stated he believed the resolution before the Council accomplishes this objective. Council Member Quick inquired if staff was aware of any problems that have occurred with regard to the footings or foundations of any of the structures the Council has considered, that are located in close proximity to a wetland. Planning Associate Ericson stated he was not aware of any problems that relate to the issuance of a wetland buffer permit. He indicated he has heard there could be some problems with the property located directly north of the subject property, in terms of a wet basement. Council Member Quick stated his concern was not with regard to wet basements, as this is a somewhat typical occurrence, but rather, with regard to the' settling or cracking of footings or foundations. Planning Associate Ericson stated to his knowledge, there were no problems of this nature. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve Resolution No.5437, a Resolution Approving a Wetland Buffer Permit for Victor Loeffler, 7654 Woodlawn Drive; Mounds View Planning Case WB00-002. Council Member Marty requested clarification regarding Stipulation No. 9, which indicates "Any loss of flood storage capacity in the area below the 902 elevation shall be replaced elsewhere on the lot at a minimum of one-to-one for the affected areas clearly shown on the grading plan, including the areas of fill listed in cubic feet." He inquired where this replacement would be located. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the wetland angles away from the proposed structure, therefore, there is a significant area on the property that could be set aside for additional flood storage capacity. He indicated the contractor has stated that maintaining the 902 protection would not be a problem, and does not anticipate that there would be any filling below that contour. He explained that in the event that something must be done with regard to the western corner of the proposed structure, there is significant space to the south that could be utilized for this purpose. • Ma or Cou hlin stated this was the recommendation of SEH Pro'ect En ineer, Beth Peterson. Y g J g