Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004 <br />Regular Meeting Page 15 <br /> <br /> 1 <br />Mayor Linke indicated he was suggesting the two to one tree replacement. 2 <br /> 3 <br />Council Member Stigney indicated there is no written wording within the City to require two to 4 <br />one replacement. 5 <br /> 6 <br />Mr. Kuhl of 5176 Longview said he believes the Minnesota Wetland Regulations do suggest, if 7 <br />not regulate, two to one replacement. 8 <br /> 9 <br />Mayor Linke explained that is wetland replacement but that is not replacement of the trees. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Mr. Kuhl indicated that in 1974 residents came to a different Council because there was a 12 <br />commercial development proposed on Silver Lake Road with the utility entrances on Longview 13 <br />and residents had 485 signatures that said please do not do that. And, at that time, there was a 14 <br />Ramsey County Greenspace Group and that is why Ms. Koziak understood this ground was not 15 <br />to be touched. He then said that there is also an easement on the west side of Longview for an 16 <br />interpark trail and suggested the City look into it. 17 <br /> 18 <br />Council Member Quick asked for a review of any added conditions. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Council Member Gunn indicated she agreed with Council Member Marty that the City is not 21 <br />thrilled with this but the conditions that are listed will control whether or not this is a doable 22 <br />development. 23 <br /> 24 <br />Ms. Koziak asked if the hydrology report refers to the ability of the ground to support the home. 25 <br /> 26 <br />Mayor Linke indicated that the soil boring test would determine whether the soils could support a 27 <br />home. 28 <br /> 29 <br />Jonathon Thomas of 8040 Groveland Road indicated he has a background in these types of 30 <br />projects and, if the citizens petition the Planning Commission and City Council to reconsider the 31 <br />variance on the other project, could the plan be revised by the developer. 32 <br /> 33 <br />Mayor Linke indicated the developer can do whatever he wants. 34 <br /> 35 <br />Mr. Thomas commented that if the only reason the plan was denied was because of the 125 foot 36 <br />lot requirements, if petitioned, the City could reconsider. 37 <br /> 38 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6145, a 39 <br />Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plat for Longview Estates Major Subdivision. 40 <br /> 41 <br />Council Member Stigney commented that based upon the developer following the requirements 42 <br />of the City Code there is no basis for denying the preliminary plat approval. 43 <br /> 44 <br /> Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 45