Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council December 14, 1987 <br />Regular Meeting Page Seven <br />Councilmember Blanchard reiterated that she feels <br />there have been substantial changes made to the plat. <br />Mr. Senden asked that the Council be aware the <br />development must take place in winter, when the ground <br />is frozen, and if they are required to start over with <br />the Planning Commission, they will miss a full season <br />of development, and it would be a substantial hardship <br />for the developer, and would deny him the right to <br />develop his property. He pointed out they have <br />responded to all the City's requests, and have spent <br />a good deal of money doing so, and any changes made <br />have actually enhanced their proposal. He stated the <br />Council owes it to the developer to consider what <br />they have done, especially since the Council asked <br />them to do it. <br />Mayor Linke explained there are certain things that <br />cannot be done within the wetland ordinance, and it <br />is up to the Council to decide if what the developer <br />plans on doing goes along with the ordinance, and in <br />order to do that, they have asked for assistance from <br />an outside consultant. He added he can understand <br />the time constraints, but the Council does not want to <br />be hasty or make any bad decisions just for the sake <br />of expediency. He stated there have been major changes, <br />and while many were suggested by Staff or the consultant, <br />they must still take the time to review them and make <br />sure they meet the Code. <br />Motion /Second: Blanchard /Wuori to deny the preliminary <br />plat and wetlands alteration permit for Greenfield <br />Estates, based upon the following grounds, that the <br />Corps of Engineers has rescinded their original permit <br />for the plat, that the plat does not accurately reflect <br />the wetlands boundaries as determined by the consultants <br />and the Corps of Engineers, that the wetland, after <br />development, would not meet the phosphorous stripping <br />requirement of the wetlands ordinance, specifically <br />48.06, Subd. 3,A,2, and the lot size and frontage for <br />the development does not meet the minimum lot size and <br />frontage requirements of Chapter 48, specifically 48.05, <br />Subd. 5, A and B. Also, the proposed amendment of the <br />plat, as submitted by the developer, is in the opinion <br />of the Council, to have substantial changes in the plat <br />because the number of lots have changed, the wetland <br />boundaries have been altered, and the addition or change <br />in the size and location of the holding ponds. <br />4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried <br />