My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2002/03/11
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
Agenda Packets - 2002/03/11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:53 PM
Creation date
8/15/2018 1:47:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
3/11/2002
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
3/11/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
107
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council February 25, 2002 <br />Regular Meeting Page 7 <br /> <br />environmental champion and has taken up a hard-core attitude. He further commented that the <br />second proposal is more damaging than the second and clearly shows disregard for the neighbors. <br /> <br />Mr. Zwirn indicated Mr. Harstad’s family had purchased the property 30 years ago and has not <br />developed it because of the problems involved with the wetland. He noted that using decades of <br />study and statistics the federal government has adopted rules for development but Mr. Harstad <br />claims he is being victimized by arbitrary and capricious rules specific only to him. <br /> <br />Mr. Harstad indicated there was a similar situation in Coon Rapids 12 years ago where homes <br />were built with wetland fill and foundations cracked, homes became weak and unsafe, and <br />residents had water problems. The insurance companies did not pay and the builders and <br />developers disappeared. He then asked Council not to yield to pushy, whiny, manipulative <br />contractors that have no concern for neighbors. He further stated that both plans have problems <br />for the neighbors and possible serious environmental impact. He further asked Council to stand <br />up for the community and show the residents that they listen to their voices. <br /> <br />Council Member Marty asked Mr. Harstad why he has come back with a plan for 26 lots on the <br />same property that the City turned down 11 lots. He further commented he feels this is a waste <br />of time. <br /> <br />Mr. Harstad indicated he was not before Council to whine or do anything else that he was just <br />accused of doing but said he is a property owner in the City of Mounds View and, had it not been <br />for the regulations put in place by the City, he would be allowed 26 lots on the property. He then <br />noted he had challenged City Staff to show him another property owner in the City that is as <br />affected by these regulations as he is and Staff has been unable to do so. He further stated that, <br />had this plat not had the wetlands, everything else would qualify for a subdivision within the City <br />of Mounds View. <br /> <br />Mr. Harstad asked Council to approve his plat. He then commented he brought to Council what <br />he felt was a good plat that took into consideration the health, safety, welfare, and environmental <br />issues. He also noted the plat had all the necessary governmental approvals by the Army Corp of <br />Engineers, Rice Creek Watershed District, and the DNR but was denied based on an ordinance <br />created by the City of Mounds View that has absolutely no adverse affect on another property <br />owner other than him. He further stated he wanted to bring this to the attention of Council and <br />get a vote on it. <br /> <br />Mayor Sonterre commented that the ordinance was put into place to protect other property <br />owners and may adversely affect Mr. Harstad’s property but with regard to the catastrophic loss <br />of wetland and water filtration areas there would be significant cause and effect to the <br />surrounding properties including roadways and other residential and commercial properties <br />nearby. He further clarified he felt the need to differentiate that the ordinance is not adverse to <br />Mr. Harstad but a protection for other property owners. <br /> <br />Mr. Harstad commented that the wetland acts as a storm sewer for Longview Drive and Silver <br />Lake Road and is not the high quality wetland that people think it is because it takes storm water
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.