09-26-07 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 Himmelbach reported that in the early to mid-1980's he was south of the existing pond in this area digging night crawlers. He dug a latrine, did his business, and in filling the latrine looked at the rocks and noticed that some had notches in their sides. Himmelbach reported that in discussing this with 7 or 8 State archeologists, they indicated that these could be children's implements or arrowheads of stun and prey technology. Himmelbach also indicated that these could have used by adults that were the very small in size, which would indicated a society much older than 1,000 to 3,000 years. Blesener asked if the State Historical Society has done any digging in this area. Himmelbach reported that he brought the artifacts to the University of Minnesota. People at the U of M indicated that the artifacts appear to be real. Himmelbach stated that if they are genuine this could rewrite history. Himmelbach reported that this occurred in the mid-1980's and he has not followed up. Himmelbach felt that in anticipation of digging up the area, the City should be sure that this was not an ancient burial ground. Howard Roston, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Gores and some of the neighboring property owners, indicated that he was present to object to approval of the Preliminary Plat for Richie Place based on process and substance. Roston reported that he has looked at the City's Zoning Code which are the rules that govern how development occurs in the City. Roston reported that the Zoning Code limits cul-de-sac length to 500 feet, and does not say that temporary cul-de-sacs can be longer than 500 feet. With regard to process, Roston stated that in order to deviate from the Zoning Code, the City must follow the Variance process which is mandated by State Statute. Roston reported that in order to warrant the granting of a Variance, State Statute requires that an undue hardship must exist, and noted that there is a statutory definition of undue hardship. Roston noted that one of the key factors in consideration of a Variance, is that economic considerations cannot be utilized as the basis for granting a Variance. Roston stated that the longer cul-de-sac being presented is a Variance that everyone has decided not to call a Variance. Roston stated that it was his belief that the cul-de-sac as proposed would have to go through the Variance process and that there needs to be an evaluation as to whether or not there is an undue hardship to warrant granting the Variance. Roston stated that he respectfully disagrees with the opinion of the City Attorney that a Variance is not needed given a decision that the City made in 1984 relative to another development. Roston stated that if the City took an action 20 years ago that violated its Zoning Code, that was not the basis to violate it now. 11