Agenda Packets - 1995/01/09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

B9 7 E' t tr7 1.1 I g Mounds View City Council Page 13 Regular Meeting December 12, 1994 1 area, he has seen houses built on property where there was standing 2 water before. He felt that it was the responsibility of this 3 Council to ensure that the remaining Wetlands and Buffer Zones are 4 protected. The financial responsibility will be determined by the 5 Courts. He reminded Councilmembers that the issue to be decided is 6 whether to adopt a Resolution approving a Wetland Alteration 7 Permit. That is the only issue to be considered at this hearing. 8 9 Linke expressed his appreciation to Mr. Frits for his comments. 10 11 Mayor Linke closed the public hearing at 8:56 p.m. 12 13 Linke read Resolution No. 4671 noting that it contained an area for 14 contingencies to be applied by the Council. 15 16 Trude asked City Attorney Thomson if there was legal justification 17 for denial of this Resolution. She would prefer not to have more 18 construction, landscaping and sod go into an area within ten feet 19 of this Wetland. 20 21 Thomson advised that there were probably grounds adequate to 22 support a denial of the Permit. The problem he foresaw was that, 23 by denying the property owner of all economically viable use of the 24 property, the City may have to pay the fair market value of the 25 property. Essentially, the City would be acquiring the property 26 for a governmental purpose, i.e. expansion of the Wetland. The 27 fair market value of the property is based on the particular lot 28 and what it is worth--not what some other lots are worth. There 29 would be substantial legal fees involved with this process. 30 31 Trude requested City Consulting Engineer Keene to clarify his 32 perspective on the issue. 33 34 Keene stated that he felt the proposed development would not have 35 an adverse effect to the Wetland. 36 37 Thomson commented that his perspective of the issue was that if a 38 Permit were to be granted, the Engineer would recommend conditions 39 to be imposed. Therefore, there would be no impact to the Wetlands 40 based on the conditions that were imposed. 41 42 Blanchard felt there was a commitment to the Wetlands as well as a 43 commitment to the citizens. 44 45 MOTION/SECOND: Blanchard/Trude to Direct City Attorney and Staff 46 to Prepare a Resolution for Denial of the Request for a Wetland 47 Alteration Permit for Louis Downing, Woodale and Longview 48 49 Quick stated that by denying this Resolution, the City assumes the 50 risk of being forced to buy the property. He cited three similar