CC_Minutes_2016_0912 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 12, 2016 Page 15 Mr. Lloyd stated a petition in opposition was submitted by several of the nearby homeowners. That opposition is in recognition of concern for storm water and preferring no new residential subdivisions until the storm water situation is re- solved so it does not make an existing problem worse. He referenced the staff re- port section addressing that scenario as the application seeks to mitigate the storm water that would be created by a new residential development on the new parcel. Mr. Lloyd noted prohibiting subdivisions and new home development would min- imize impervious coverage but it would not eliminate impervious coverage im- mediately in this neighborhood or in the storm water subwatershed that leads to storm water pipes backing up in this neighborhood. He explained the benefit of a proposal like this is the possibility of attaching a condition of approval that does mitigate the additional storm water versus other possible improvements that don’t require permits or do need permits issued if there is no codified reason to deny. Mr. Lloyd stated given this information and despite the opposition to the subdivi- sion request, Planning and Public Works staff does recommend approval of the proposed subdivision subject to a series of conditions as listed in the staff report. At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Lloyd read the list of four recommended condi- tions and explained the need for each. Mayor Roe referenced the communication from a resident asking why this is back before the Council as it was previously denied and explained there is not a Code requirement that you cannot reapply. Mayor Roe stated the Council may want to look at that provision during the update of the Subdivision Code as in other sec- tions there is prohibition from making essentially the same proposal within a peri- od of time after a denial unless changes are made that meet the findings of the de- nial. He noted in this case, it can probably be argued that even without the re- quirement for a timeframe, the applicant is contending they have met the require- ments of the denial. Mayor Roe acknowledged two communications from residents as contained in the meeting packet, one from Carl and Sherry Willis and another from Brad and Jan Peterson. In addition, the Council received a bench handout from the applicant, Mr. Koland, clarifying the numbers in a previous communication. Councilmember Willmus referenced the Public Works Engineer Department memorandum and asked about the location of the approximate 2 percent of the new lot that would be located in the floodway. Mr. Freihammer displayed a slide that was based off the Ramsey County aerial and pointed out the far east corner. Councilmember McGehee asked whether Basin 1 is not within the wetland. Mr. Freihammer indicated it is conceptual in nature and very close but depending on how it is constructed it would or would not impact. Councilmember McGehee