Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission June 5, 2002 <br />Regular Meeting Page 5 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson indicated he had an issue with rezoning any of the property. He then <br />said that notice is provided of changes to the City’s Code and the change affected this property <br />owner because he did not proceed with an approved plat when the approval was received. He <br />further stated that he feels some of the blame lies with Mr. Harstad for not acting on the plat <br />when it was approved 27 years ago. <br /> <br />Commissioner Scotch agreed with Commissioner Johnson and noted that there are significant <br />wetland issues involved now that were not an issue 27 years ago. She then asked if there was <br />something else that could be developed on the property. <br /> <br />Mr. Harstad said, no, not the way the title sits today. <br /> <br />Mr. Harstad asked the Commission not to lose sight of the fact that a lot of people own houses <br />with vacant land next to them and think the land should stay undeveloped. He then said he does <br />not live in Mounds View and would not have access to community wide notification specific <br />only to Mounds View. He further commented that he has a right to build on his property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland commented that no one has said they are against developing the property <br />and said he would be happy if it could be developed according to the zoning that it has. He <br />further commented that the Zoning Code change precludes Mr. Harstad from doing what was <br />planned 27 years ago but that does not mean that there is not a way to develop the property. It is <br />a matter of economics for the builder and that is not an issue for the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Harstad commented that he pays taxes like everyone else. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson commented that he has never liked when residents come and say they do <br />not want to lose the trees next to them because he does not feel it is fair for a neighboring <br />property owner to say they do not want to lose trees when they are not the ones paying taxes to <br />own those trees. He then said he understands the issues with platting on this property and noted <br />there is a Commissioner on this board that lived next to a vacant lot that is now developed. He <br />further commented that the Commission is attempting to be fair to all parties but needs to follow <br />the guidelines and this development does not fit the property. <br /> <br />Julian Sprunck of 2649 Louisa Avenue indicated he owns Lot 6, Block 1 Red Oak Estates No. 2 <br />which is the property directly abutting the property in question tonight. He then said he <br />respectfully disagrees with Staff that the development of the lots on H2 would not affect the <br />surrounding properties because in 1998 he had contacted Rice Creek Watershed and a Tony <br />Brough came out and surveyed the entire area from his backyard and informed him that if <br />townhomes were to be built, the ground would need to be raised 6 inches and doing so would <br />cause severe flooding for 15 properties in the area. <br /> <br />Mr. Sprunck provided copies of pictures of his backyard with rainfall amounts of 4 to 6 inches. <br />He also handed out the originals for review. He then commented that the pictures were from two <br />separate rainfalls happening three years apart. <br />