My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-27-1997
MoundsView
>
City Council
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
Council Minutes 1997
>
10-27-1997
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2007 4:10:19 PM
Creation date
7/31/2007 4:10:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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).
View images
View plain text
• Page 5 <br />October 27, 1997 <br />Mounds View City Council <br />Mr. Ericson stated it was his understanding that Good Value Homes was the owner of the property and that <br />they have been paying the taxes on the property, however this has not been verified with the County. <br />Mr. Little, 5539 St. Michael Street, stated he understood that after the original homes were built in that area, <br />there would be some land left over. At the time, they submitted a petition around to have members of the <br />community vote as to whether or not they would be in favor of the development of the land. That request was <br />fumed down. He feels the city should do what's right for future generations and that the property should be <br />left as it is. <br />Jim Crryzmala, 2374 Pinewood Circle, stated at one time he inquired about purchasing the two lots there, but <br />the Rice Creek Watershed District sent them a letter stating that Lot 17 was subject to drainage easements and <br />that no construction could be placed on it. <br />Tim Meehan, 2382 Pinewood Circle, stated he is against the property as he feels it would be destroying the <br />wetlands and that a hole in the ground is not the same as preserving the wetland - it is just a holding pond. The <br />home on Lot 16 has absolutely no background, no grasses, no trees - just a deep hole in the backyard. That is <br />exactly what would happen on these lots. He compared this situation to the Lake Calhoun problem, where <br />continual building has affected the water quality. Now they are trying to convert a lot of the area back into <br />wetlands now. <br />• Kathy CTrytmala, 2374 Pinewood Circle, stated they looked into purchasing the two lots approximately two <br />years ago and at that time there were back-taxes of over $1,600 on the property. She would propose that <br />rather than building more homes there, residents should be given the option of purchasing it to leave it as it is. <br />Bill Doty, 3049 Bronson Drive, stated over the years the designations for wetlands have been ignored. <br />Wetlands were meant to be preserved and not just substituted with a hole in the ground. He understood that <br />Lot 16 was never supposed to be built on. Now a home on that lot stands vacant with a hole in the backyard. <br />He feels the Council should consider the original intent of wetland preservation and leave the lots as they are. <br />When development occurs in wetlands, it is merely substituted with holding ponds and the city needs to <br />preserve what is left. <br />Council member Quick explained that all laws, regulations, covenants and agencies have been satisfied before <br />development has taken place in the City. <br />Leah Hager, 2387 County Road I, stated she is not in favor of the proposal. <br />Scott Dumouceoux, 2359 Pinewood Circle, stated he also is not in favor of the proposal. <br />The Public Hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m. <br />COUNCII, BUSINE5S• <br />B. Consideration of Resolution No. 5173, a Resolution Approving the Wetland Alteration Permit on <br />Lots 17 and 18 of Edgewood Square for Good Value Homes. <br />John Peterson, President of Good Value Homes, stated they are the owners of the property and have been far <br />many years. They purchased the property from the original developer of the property. He explained that they <br />do not propose to do anything to the wetlands. The land in Lots 17 and 18 is not wetland. They have walked <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.