Agenda Packets - 1995/01/09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� 9 r zit 5` E ,F f 1 k— i . y v ' E o u Mounds View City Council Page 14 Regular Meeting December 12, 1994 1 instances in which the Council approved Wetland Alteration Permits. 2 He felt that because of the similar instances, along with the fact 3 that the City Consulting Engineer gave testimony that this 4 development would not adversely impact the Wetland, the City could 5 not legally justify this denial. 6 7 Trude said that the Resolution should be drafted with very specific 8 contingencies and she would like to have the input of Rice Creek 9 Watershed District. 10 11 Linke commented that he would be voting against this motion for the 12 same reasons stated by Councilmember Quick. Linke also stated that 13 the Staff and City Consulting Engineer should spend adequate time 14 developing contingencies necessary for approval. 15 16 Trude suggested that if a Resolution to deny the Permit passed, the 17 City could then begin taking steps to acquire the property, thereby 18 avoiding legal expenses. 19 20 Councilmember Wuori stated that she was not in favor of denying the 21 Permit because of the possibility of legal action. The Courts are 22 not favorable to "takings" ; they are very much pro-ownership 23 throughout the country. Although the present laws are directed at 24 protecting Wetlands, this is not a Wetland--it's a Buffer Zone and 25 not a protected entity. She concurred that a better Resolution 26 should be drafted with more specific contingencies. Wuori advised 27 that she would be voting against the motion in its present form. 28 29 Keene offered that this Wetland issue should be put off until 30 spring because a field delineation cannot be performed until the 31 snow is gone. 32 33 Linke said that the issue of timing for building the house was not 34 a consideration for granting the Alteration Permit. His only 35 concern is to make the best decision for the Council, for the City, 36 and for the property owner. 37 38 Trude asked if a denial could be based on the fact that the 39 applicant failed to provide adequate evidence to the City to 40 support the granting of a Permit. The burden is on the applicant 41 to supply the City with supporting evidence. 42 43 Thomson replied that the obligation of the applicant was to comply 44 with what Municipal Code requires them to submit in order to get 45 the Permit. 46 47 Harrington said that all documentation required from the applicant 48 had, in fact, been received. 49 50