Laserfiche WebLink
Rat i fy the recommendation of the Public Works Committee. <br /> <br />CASE #4 <br /> <br />Consider Proposal to Study and Address a Potential Floodplain Zoning <br />Violation <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />In a May 12, 2005 letter from Mr. David Scheim of FEMA, the City was made aware ora <br />possible violation of floodplain regulations. This letter resulted from an investigation of a <br />request by Mr. Joel Bums, 9421 Ermine Boulevard NW for a letter of Map Revision in <br />November 2003. Subsequent to this May 12, 2005 letter City staff met with Mr. Tom <br />Hovcy and Ms. Ceil Strauss of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources on June <br />27, 2005 to discuss this particular matter as well as general floodplain zoning <br />implcmentation procedures. The following is a review of information regarding City <br />rccords and the chronology for the development on this property: <br /> <br />· 10/20/87 Building permit application by Weicht & Associates <br />· 10/23/87 Certificate of Survey completed by John Oliver & Associates <br />· 11/3/87 Building permit was approved by City <br />· 11/3/87 Footing inspection was made by City <br />· 6/30/88 Occupancy permit was issued by the City <br /> <br />It was noted the building permit was issued on the same day as the footing inspection was <br />conducted for the residence. It would appear that the fill would have had to be in place <br />prior to City inspection of the site, possibly for some time. The certificate of survey <br />consisted only of the legal boundaries of the property and contained no topographic <br />information. The floodplain map in this area is unusual in that the floodway does not <br />follow the ditchline of Trott Brook but instead spills over Ermine Street in the location of <br />the subject property, a distance 600 to 900 feet west of the Trott Brook. This anomaly, <br />coupled with the fact that the map designation of the floodway is the same as that for the <br />area outside the floodplain, may explain why a reviewer checking the FEMA panel may <br />have not identified this as being within the floodplain from the certificate of survey <br />accompanying the permit application. <br /> <br />Staff has requested a proposal from the Polaris Group Inc. to assist in resolving this issue. <br />Funding for this work is proposed to be from the Storm Water Utility. It is the <br />rccommendation of staff that the Public Works Committee recommend to City Council <br />that it accept the proposal from the Polaris Group to provide services necessary to resolve <br />this possible floodplain violation issue with funding for this work to be from the Storm <br />Water Utility, in an amount not to exceed $2,200. <br /> <br />Motion to recommend to City Council that it accept the proposal from the Polaris Group to <br />provide services necessary to resolve this possible floodplain violation issue with funding <br />flor this work to be from the Storm Water Utility in an amount not to exceed $2,200. <br /> <br /> <br />