Agenda Packets - 1995/01/09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NAPPA Mounds View City Council Page 10 Regular Meeting December 12, 1994 1 Joel Sheldon, 5143 Red Oak Drive, pointed out on the map the lot 2 which he lives on. He questioned the effectiveness of a culvert to 3 be used for drainage. 4 5 Trude said that she would like to see the soil borings that were 6 done on the property. She was also concerned that this variance 7 was applied for in the winter so the on-site inspection would be 8 more difficult to perform. 9 10 Harrington explained that the soil borings were done to determine 11 if the soils could support a foundation and were required by the 12 Building Inspector. The results of those borings would not be 13 pertinent to a Wetland Alteration Permit. Although application was 14 made for this permit two months ago, notice of a public hearing was 15 required which pushed this item into the winter months. Harrington 16 also commented that there were instances in the past, in which 17 Council directed specific projects to be done under the general 18 direction of the City's Consulting Engineer. 19 20 Keene advised that a detailed grading plan would be required 21 because the drainage issues were so critical. The property owner 22 would have to demonstrate that, in deed, he was protecting his 23 neighbors. Monitoring the construction of the home would be the 24 responsibility of the Building Inspector. Upon completion of 25 construction, the City would verify that the plan was followed as 26 proposed. 27 28 Trude asked if the property owner could alter the landscaping in 29 the Buffer Zone after the building was completed. 30 31 Keene explained that every time the property owner wanted to make 32 changes in the Buffer Zone, a Wetland Alteration Permit would have 33 to be applied for. 34 35 Trude requested the City Attorney to clarify the latitude the 36 Council had regarding the discretion to grant a variance. 37 38 Jim Thomson, City Attorney, said that the Council did, in fact, 39 have discretion regarding the variance. The problem in this 40 particular case was that the City has approved the Plat. By 41 approving the Plat, they have approved the lot as a buildable lot. 42 If, by the City's action, the property owner cannot build on the 43 lot the City has deprived the owner of all economically viable use 44 of the lot. If compensation was received by the property owner at 45 the time the NWCC created the easement, rendering the property 46 unbuildable, then compensation has already been received and cannot 47 again be received for the property. 48 49 Linke asked if a variance was denied, would that be considered a 50 "taking" by the City.