11-10-1997 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Pages • October 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council 1 Mr.Ericson stated it was his understanding that Good Value Homes was the owner of the property and that 2 they have been paying the taxes on the property,however this has not been verified with the County. 3 4 Mr.Little,5539 St.Michael Street, stated he understood that after the original homes were built in that area, 5 there would be some land left over. At the time,they submitted a petition around to have members of the 6 community vote as to whether or not they would be in favor of the development of the land. That request was 7 turned down. He feels the city should do what's right for future generations and that the property should be 8 left as it is. 9 10 Jim Gryzmala,2374 Pinewood Circle,stated at one time he inquired about purchasing the two lots there,but 11 the Rice Creek Watershed District sent them a letter stating that Lot 17 was subject to drainage easements and 12 that no construction could be placed on it. 13 14 Tim Meehan,2382 Pinewood Circle,stated he is against the property as he feels it would be destroying the 15 wetlands and that a hole in the ground is not the same as preserving the wetland-it is just a holding pond. The 16 home on Lot 16 has absolutely no background,no grasses,no trees-just a deep hole in the backyard. That is 17 exactly what would happen on these lots. He compared this situation to the Lake Calhoun problem,where 18 continual building has affected the water quality. Now they are trying to convert a lot of the area back into 19 wetlands now. 4 20 21 Kathy Gryzmala,2374 Pinewood Circle,stated they looked into purchasing the two lots approximately two 22 years ago and at that time there were back-taxes of over$1,600 on the property. She would propose that 23 rather than building more homes there,residents should be given the option of purchasing it to leave it as it is. 24 25 Bill Doty,3049 Bronson Drive,stated over the years the designations for wetlands have been ignored. 26 Wetlands were meant to be preserved and not just substituted with a hole in the ground. He understood that 27 Lot 16 was never supposed to be built on. Now a home on that lot stands vacant with a hole in the backyard. 28 He feels the Council should consider the original intent of wetland preservation and leave the lots as they are. 29 When development occurs in wetlands,it is merely substituted with holding ponds and the city needs to 30 preserve what is left. 31 32 Council member Quick explained that all laws,regulations,covenants and agencies have been satisfied before 33 development has taken place in the City. 34 35 Leah Hager,2387 County Road I,stated she is not in favor of the proposal. 36 37 Scott Dumouceoux,2359 Pinewood Circle,stated he also is not in favor of the proposal. 38 39 The Public Hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m. 40 41 COUNCIL BUSINESS: 42 43 B. Consideration of Resolution No.5173,a Resolution Approving the Wetland Alteration Permit on 44 Lots 17 and 18 of Edgewood Square for Good Value Homes. 45 ilk 46 John Peterson,President of Good Value Homes,stated they are the owners of the property and have been for 47 many years. They purchased the property from the original developer of the property. He explained that they 48 do not propose to do anything to the wetlands. The land in Lots 17 and 18 is not wetland. They have walked