Laserfiche WebLink
U4' PP , OVED <br /> N <br /> Mounds View City Council Page 11 <br /> Regular Meeting December 12, 1994 <br /> 1 Thomson replied that many facts would have to be considered in <br /> 2 order for a determination to be made, however, he was concerned <br /> 3 that it would be considered a "taking" because the property owner <br /> 4 would be deprived of all economically viable use of the property. <br /> 5 In order to make that determination, the property owner would have <br /> 6 to make application to use the property for a specific purpose, <br /> 7 such as building a house. If, by denying a Wetland Alteration <br /> 8 Permit, the property owner has been denied all economically viable <br /> 9 use of the property, there is a possibility the action would be <br /> 10 considered aking. " <br /> 11 <br /> 12 Trude questioned what was specifically meant by economically viable <br /> 13 use. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 Harrington explained the only economically viable use for the <br /> 16 property would be a single family home, a duplex, or twin home <br /> 17 because the property is zoned R-2 . No businesses would be allowed. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 Mr. Tillmann said that the lot had been for sale since he moved in, <br /> 20 which was in 1991. He felt it was not a good lot and that's why it <br /> 21 has taken so long for the property to sell. <br /> 22 <br /> 23 Sherri Ruff, 1829 NW 127 Lane, Coon Rapids, explained that her <br /> 24 father owns the property in question, and felt that other issues <br /> 25 should not be a consideration at this public hearing. The only <br /> 26 issue to be considered should be the impact to the Wetland. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 Mary Feldner, 5168 Longview Drive, said she was not against a house <br /> 29 being built there, but felt there was not enough information <br /> 30 received to approve the Permit. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Todd McCall, 5164 Longview Drive, expressed concern that <br /> 33 landscaping changes to the property would be done after the house <br /> 34 was completed. He wanted assurance that the City would still have <br /> 35 control of the Buffer Zone and that approval for any changes would <br /> 36 have to be obtained from the City. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Linke explained that, by adopting this Resolution, the Council <br /> 39 could dictate how the grading will be done on the property. Those <br /> 40 plans cannot be changed without going through the process of <br /> 41 obtaining a Wetland Alteration Permit. He cited an example of <br /> 42 property owners in Mounds View who made alterations to their <br /> 43 property in a Buffer Zone without obtaining approval. The City <br /> 44 required them to remove those alterations and return the <br /> 45 landscaping to the original plan. <br /> 46 <br /> 47 Mr. Schelonka commented that it appeared as if there was going to <br /> 48 be a wall on the southeast corner of the proposed house. <br /> 49 <br />