|
Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999
<br /> Regular Meeting Page 19
<br /> the proposal to create additional flood storage capacity would more than compensate for the proposed
<br /> fill. He stated these same plans were provided to the City Engineers, the prior month, and staff
<br /> received the same response,which was that there would be no impact to the wetland in regard to flood
<br /> storage. He added that, from a land use perspective, the depression at the rear of the lot for flood
<br /> storage would probably not work very well.
<br /> Mr. Collis stated that three homes located on the corner of the Edgewood subdivision, pumped water
<br /> out 24 hours per day, in order to pass inspection,and obtain a building permit. He stated that all three
<br /> of these houses have sump pumps running, and one property owner has his running steadily to keep
<br /> water from the house. He stated the storm sewer drains into the wetland at that location. He stated
<br /> they should keep all of the drainage easements they have, and consider that the proposed construction
<br /> might suffer the same problems.
<br /> Terry Lulf, 2375 Pinewood Circle, stated he was a new resident with property adjacent to the
<br /> proposed building site. He stated that he had looked at many properties prior to selecting his house,
<br /> and chose his property because of the neighborhood, adding that people in this neighborhood take care
<br /> of their yards, and are concerned with the appearance of their properties. He stated that he was the
<br /> person with the pit in his backyard. He explained that he chose this property in spite of the pit, as it
<br /> was the last house on the cul-de-sac, surrounded by woods and a pond. He stated that the proposed
<br /> • construction would alter these qualities of his property, yet, the pit would remain.
<br /> Mr.Peterson stated that there was no question that Ms. Haselius and the other parties agreed that there
<br /> should be drainage and utility easement under the rules that were in effect at that time. He stated there
<br /> are different rules at this time, Ms. Haselius owns the property, and the taxes have been paid until
<br /> recently. He stated, in his opinion, it would not be in good faith for the City to deny her variance,
<br /> because all of the water issues have not only been resolved, but also improved. He reiterated that there
<br /> would be no impact to the wetland, and additional storage would be provided for the community. He
<br /> stated he was prepared to pay Ms. Haselius $37,000 for the property, and if the neighbors were willing
<br /> to pay her that amount of money he would remove himself from the equation.
<br /> Mr.Peterson stated the only reason he would pay that amount of money was that he could sell the lots,
<br /> however, he would not be disappointed if the people in attendance purchased the land from Ms.
<br /> Haselius, and owned the open space themselves. He stated their children could then play on their
<br /> land, not hers. He stated it was a matter of fundamental fairness, and good faith.
<br /> Mr. Meehan inquired regarding the average price of a lot in Mounds View. Mr. Peterson stated that
<br /> there was substantial grading required on this site, impacted by the sewer and water, and a lot of costs
<br /> in surveying,the engineering that have already been invested, as well as the taxes. He estimated that
<br /> the value of these lots was approximately $40,000. He stated, however, he was not an appraiser. Mr.
<br /> Miskowiec stated that these lots were unbuildable, and therefore, this was an unreasonable price. Mr.
<br /> Peterson stated,if the City was willing to vacate the easement, it would be a fair price, but agreed, in
<br /> • their current condition the lots are worth nothing to Ms. Haselius.
<br />
|