July - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council Page Eleven ~egular Meeting July 13, 1992 Paul Harrington stated that if one thing is denied, certain properties would go through. Sandy Krogh, four or five houses are in the wetland. Shouldn't the map amendment be considered first. Paul Harrington, stated this is dealt with as one property. Mayor Linke stated that the resolution has several "whereas "'. One requires a 4/5 vote. Sandy Krogh, stated Harstad purchased a as this speculating would be worth mone~ Harstad stated that 3, and now 13? Ms. that, in her opinion, Harstad is under no hardship. swamp as a swamp. Harstad had bought several areas such that when all the good land was built on these swamps Y. Bona Road was part of the original land purchased. three lots were land locked, and he wanted 17 houses for Krogh wanted to know why he is so greedy. Mr. Roos commented that Harstad made every attempt to comply with the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mr. Roos stated that they have not declared a hardship. Mr. Roos further states that there were 21 condition that were stipulated in the ordinance that had to be met. Mounds View has a very restrictive ~etland ordinance. Mr. Roos stated that even with the variance they are requesting, improvements will not negatively impact the wetlands. Councilmember Rickaby commented that she recalled in 86 or 87 wrote a letter in the Mounds View court case that we would have to a lawsuit. Rickaby stated that sh and this case would not have made development and Harstad has sued present .lawsuit that has been dis newsletter that there was a allow Harstad to develop or Mayor Linke new supreme we would suffer e studied this particular case in school the City allow Harstad to do the us in the past and hasn't won. There is a missed for the present time. Councilmember Quick stated that the case that was referred to in Eagan had to do with a rare species of plant. This plant was in danger so the City would not let the land be developed. The City of Eagan had to pay for the loss of the development. Our ordinance states that the City has to be reasonable. Mayor Linke stated that he does not remember the newsletter article and asked Councilmember Rickaby to bring it in. Mayor Linke also stated that our experts stated that the proposal meets the City's ordinance and Mayor Linke stated he must weight the benefits and effects for the entire community. Mayor Linke stated that he voted against the proposed development for legal reasons and they wer defensible in a court of law. The City cannot be arbitrary or capricious in regards to these matters. Supposition will not hold up in a court of law. i