Laserfiche WebLink
Case #4: <br /> <br />Consider Proposal to Study and Address a Potential Floodplain <br />Zoning Violation <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski explained the City was made aware of a possible violation of <br />floodplain regulations in a May 12, 2005 letter from Mr. David Scheim of FEMA. This <br />letter resulted from an investigation of a request by Mr. Joel Bums, 9421 Ermine <br />Boulevard NW for a letter of Map Revision in November 2003. Subsequent to this May <br />12, 2005 letter City staff met with Mr. Tom Hovey and Ms. Ceil Strauss of the Minnesota <br />Department of Natural Resoumes on June 27, 2005 to discuss this particular matter as <br />well as general floodplain zoning implementation procedures. He reviewed the following <br />information regarding City records and the chronology for the development on this <br />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 />City Engineer Jankowski noted the building permit was issued on the same day as the <br />footing inspection was conducted for the residence. It would appear that the fill would <br />have had to be in place prior to City inspection of the site, possibly for some time. The <br />certificate of survey consisted only of the legal boundaries of the property and contained <br />no topographic information. The floodplain map in this area is unusual in that the <br />floodway does not follow the ditchline of Trott Brook but instead spills over Ermine <br />Street in the location of the subject property, a distance 600 to 900 feet west of the Trott <br />Brook. This anomaly, coupled with the fact that the map designation of the floodway is <br />the same as that for the area outside the floodplain, may explain why a reviewer checking <br />the FEMA panel may have not identified this as being within the floodplain from the <br />certificate of survey accompanying the permit application. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski indicated staff has requested a proposal from the Polaris Group <br />Inc. to assist in resolving this issue. A copy of that proposal is attached to this case. <br />Funding for this work is proposed to be from the Storm Water Utility. He advised it is <br />the recommendation of staff that the Public Works Committee recommend to City <br />Council that it accept the proposal from the Polaris Group to provide services necessary <br />to resolve this possible floodplain violation issue with funding for this work to be from <br />the Storm Water Utility, in an amount not to exceed $2,200. <br /> <br />Chairperson Elvig inquired about the possible remedies. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied the model could be analyzed to be sure the floodway is <br />located in the appropriate location. Another option would be to increase the size of the <br />pipe crossing, which would reduce the floodway in the area it goes across the map. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/July 19, 2005 <br /> Page 7 of 11 <br /> <br /> <br />