09-13-1999 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 23 David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated he would like to caution the Council regarding a similar wetland issue, which had previously arisen. He stated the City had and a contractor had engaged in a dispute regarding that matter, and he did not believe the City won that argument. Ms. Gilpin stated Mrs. Haselius was present at the very first meeting they had, and fought against the proposal. She stated all of the people present had purchased property in this area, and were told that those lots would not be built upon. She stated the proposal would have an impact on them. Mr. Peterson stated the reason Mrs. Haselius fought against the proposal the fist time, was because she thought the City owned the land and was attempting to sell it to the developer. He stated they thought they owned the land and were attempting to develop it, and when Mrs.Haselius learned that she owned the land, she decided to sell it. Ms. Gazmarek, stated she did not believe any of the residents present were attempting to take away Mrs. Haselius' right to sell the land. She stated,what they were opposed to,was allowing her to sell the land under the contingency that the developers have to build two houses on the property. There was no further public input. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 8:54 p.m. Council Member Stigney stated the developer had stated this proposal would not infringe upon the wetland,however,it would infringe upon the buffer. He stated the purpose of the buffer was to have something in between the improvement and the wetland, therefore he was very opposed to building within a buffer. He stated the proposal to mitigate the wetland with ponds was not, in his opinion, the most desirable manner of mitigation. Council Member Stigney stated the people who purchased into the developed project, did so under the assumption that the drainage and utilities easements would be there forever. He stated the residents had the right to expect that this was what happens to the property. He stated in order to develop the area,the property had to be set aside, for drainage and utility easements. He stated when Mrs. Haselius originally sold the property, she sold it with that condition, forever. He stated that nobody was preventing her from selling her property for whatever the market indicates. He stated the market would be much less if they are not allowed to build houses upon it, and that is what the developer would like to do. He stated he had no problem with Mrs. Haselius selling the property, however, not for houses. Council Member Stigney stated he was opposed to granting the vacation of the easements. He stated he had been a member of the City Council in 1997, when the matter first came forward. He stated he had heard Mrs. Haselius state that she gave the easement to the City and did not want any construction upon that property, until she learned she was the property owner. He stated he understands her position, however, he understands the residents present have rights as well. He stated he believed the right that was granted to them when the bought their property was that there 23C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC