Minutes - 1994/12/12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1111 Mounds View City Council Page 10 Regular Meeting December 12, 1994 Joel Sheldon, 5143 Red Oak Drive, pointed out on the map the lot which he lives on. He questioned the effectiveness of a culvert to be used for drainage. Trude said that she would like to see the soil borings that were done on the property. She was also concerned that this variance was applied for in the winter so the on-site inspection would be more difficult to perform. Harrington explained that the soil borings were done to determine if the soils could support a foundation and were required by the Building Inspector. The results of those borings would not be pertinent to a Wetland Alteration Permit. Although application was made for this permit two months ago, notice of a public hearing was required which pushed this item into the winter months. Harrington also commented that there were instances in the past, in which Council directed specific projects to be done under the general direction of the City's Consulting Engineer. Keene advised that a detailed grading plan would be required because the drainage issues were so critical. The property owner 1111 would have to demonstrate that, in deed, he was protecting his neighbors. Monitoring the construction of the home would be the responsibility of the Building Inspector. Upon completion of construction, the City would verify that the plan was followed as proposed. Trude asked if the property owner could alter the landscaping in the Buffer Zone after the building was completed. Keene explained that every time the property owner wanted to make changes in the Buffer Zone, a Wetland Alteration Permit would have to be applied for. - -- -Trude requested the- City- Attorney - to clarify the latitude the Council had regarding the discretion to grant a variance. Jim Thomson, City Attorney, said that the Council did, in fact, have discretion regarding the variance. The problem in this particular case was that the City has approved the Plat. By approving the Plat, they have approved the lot as a buildable lot. If, by the City's action, the property owner cannot build on the lot the City has deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the lot. If compensation was received by the property owner at the time the MWCC created the easement, rendering the property unbuildable, then compensation has already been received and cannot again be received for the property. Linke asked if a variance was denied, would that be considered a "taking" by the City.