Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council Page 13 <br /> • Regular Meeting December 12 , 1994 <br /> area, he has seen houses built on property where there was standing <br /> water before. He felt that it was the responsibility of this <br /> Council to ensure that the remaining Wetlands and Buffer Zones are <br /> protected. The financial responsibility will be determined by the <br /> Courts. He reminded Councilmembers that the issue to be decided is <br /> whether to adopt a Resolution approving a Wetland Alteration <br /> Permit. That is the only issue to be considered at this hearing. <br /> Linke expressed his appreciation to Mr. Frits for his comments. <br /> Mayor Linke closed the public hearing at 8: 56 p.m. <br /> Linke read Resolution No. 4671 noting that it contained an area for <br /> contingencies to be applied by the Council. <br /> Trude asked City Attorney Thomson if there was legal justification <br /> for denial of this Resolution. She would prefer not to have more <br /> construction, landscaping and sod go into an area within ten feet <br /> of this Wetland. <br /> Thomson advised that there were probably grounds adequate to <br /> support a denial of the Permit. The problem he foresaw was that, <br /> • by denying the property owner of all economically viable use of the <br /> property, the City may have to pay the fair market value of the <br /> property. Essentially, the City would be acquiring the property <br /> for a governmental purpose, i.e. expansion of the Wetland. The <br /> fair market value of the property is based on the particular lot <br /> and what it is worth--not what some other lots are worth. There <br /> would be substantial legal fees involved with this process. <br /> Trude requested City Consulting Engineer Keene to clarify his <br /> perspective on the issue. <br /> Keene stated that he felt the proposed development would not have <br /> an adverse_ effect to the Wetland. <br /> Thomson commented that his perspective of the issue was that if a <br /> Permit were to be granted, the Engineer would recommend conditions <br /> to be imposed. Therefore, there would be no impact to the Wetlands <br /> based on the conditions that were imposed. <br /> Blanchard felt there was a commitment to the Wetlands as well as a <br /> commitment to the citizens. <br /> MOTION/SECOND: Blanchard/Trude to Direct City Attorney and Staff <br /> to Prepare a Resolution for Denial of the Request for a Wetland <br /> Alteration Permit for Louis Downing, Woodale and Longview <br /> • Quick stated that by denying this Resolution, the City assumes the <br /> risk of being forced to buy the property. He cited three similar <br />