CC_Minutes_2016_0711 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 11, 2016 Page 31 tions for a considerable amount of time, and stormwater rising almost to the level of his storage shed. Mr. McLoon stated he had researched the definition of a fed- eral wetland area, and opined this body of water certainly qualified, and further opined the wetland area in the back was only the tip of the iceberg. If adding an- other 1,000 square feet of roof alone multiplied by two, Mr. McLoon opined would not be inconsequential. Mr. McLoon asked to see a hydrologist's report or have stormwater drainage issues addressed through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for drainage and tree removal that would be lost with either de- velopment and the benefit of their leaf canopies. Mr. McLoon noted he and his wife had initially moved to this area from a short distance away due to the amount of tree cover and lack of traffic; and opined that every home constructed would reduce trees and increase traffic. If the rationale of the property owners was based on economics, Mr. McLoon suggested they simply sell their entire property as is and relocate to a property suiting their needs better. As examples, Mr. McLoon opined the recently-constructed home at 1931 Gluek Lane didn't fit the neighborhood at all; and even though his property would support five homes if subdivided, it would also not belong in this neighborhood. Jim House, 1895 Gluek Lane (Written comments receivecl as part of the record). Bordering both properties being considered for subdivision tonight, and as a sen- ior member of the neighborhood for over forty years and one of the last original lots as developed for this plat, Mr. House noted there had been other property splits through the years, including subdivision of his lot at one point. Mr. House addressed the easement, culvert and catch basins located in several places, but noted the issue isn't sufficiently addressed through vertical appearance of dis- played maps, but rather on a topographical map showing depth and ability to ac- commodate water in a holding area. Mr. House noted the location of his home was on a fairly high lot, and based on studies when his lot was subdivided, the neighbor property was already running two sump pumps in their full basement; and since then other developments had tried to address drainage issues, since the original stormwater system was built (in the late 1950's?). As noted in their written comments, Mr. House advised that they had no objection to the proposed subdivisions, but agreed that some of the points raised by Dr. McLoon were relevant; but more importantly this area was designed around a low area to accommodate water and deal with the flow from the Ramsey County wa- tershed area. Mr. House opined that additional fill would need to be accommo- dated by additional excavation or water holding capacity, even with a small rain and street flooding experience, if no accommodation was made for that larger square mile drainage need, it would be problematic. Mr. House further opined that anything built would create the need for major excavation of peat and major fill to elevate homes so there were not dramatically below the water level. There- fore, Mr. House further opined that design and building recommendations would need to be complex and in turn costly to address that issue. Mr. House agreed that