|
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
<br />• Regular Meeting Page 22
<br />wetland, even if the buildings were not constructed within the official wetland delineation. She
<br />stated they were within the 100-foot buffer, which is recommended to protect wetland areas.
<br />Terry Lulf, 2365 Pinewood Circle, stated he was a new resident to the area. He stated his property
<br />was adjacent to the proposed building site. He stated he had been affectionately dubbed the "Pit
<br />Boy," because of the pit in his backyard. He stated, in his understanding, his home had been vacant
<br />for at least two years, and some of his neighbors indicated they were not sure if anyone would ever
<br />be interested in purchasing the property. He stated the property currently meets his needs, however,
<br />he was not in favor of the proposed construction, which would be adjacent to his property, and would
<br />utilize another backyard pit. He stated he liked his home and neighbors as they are, and concurred
<br />with the Planning Commission in their recommendation of the matter.
<br />Greg Peterson, representing Oakwood Land Development and Peggy Haselius, stated Mrs. Haselius
<br />was not present at the meeting because, regardless of the outcome of this matter, she would still be
<br />neighbors with those present, and would like to remain on friendly terms with her neighbors, as best
<br />she can. He stated that Mrs. Haselius did not feel comfortable speaking in this environment.
<br />Mr. Peterson stated when the plat was developed in 1982, Mrs. Haselius agreed to dedicate the lots
<br />to the City for easement purposes, because the City and the County required that. He stated she, in
<br />• good faith, agreed to do that, as she believed there was nothing else she could do, and that they were
<br />the experts and made the decisions. He stated, since that time, they have become better informed
<br />in delineating wetlands. He stated that Rice Creek Watershed District had found that the subject lots
<br />are not located in the wetland. He stated that it was not uncommon that a permanent decision has
<br />been made, and upon the introduction of new facts, the decision is subsequently changed.
<br />Mr. Peterson stated he understood the neighbor's argument. He stated there were, however, two
<br />problems in this regard. He stated one problem was that they are not the landowner, and it was not
<br />their land being discussed. He stated the other problem is that they are not wetland delineation
<br />experts. He stated the neighbor's primary argument is that they like the property the way it is. He
<br />stated he understood this, however, in his opinion, it was really a land use question, and inquired
<br />how much right does a landowner have. He inquired, in light of these new facts, should Mrs.
<br />Haselius have the right to sell her land. He stated Mrs. Haselius has been a resident of Mounds View
<br />for 51 years. He stated he thought it was only fair to her to give her back what she had originally
<br />agreed was wetland, in consideration of the new facts.
<br />Mr. Peterson stated that he agreed that the flooding problem was not good. He stated, however, they
<br />were proposing to create three times the existing flood storage capacity, which should assist with the
<br />problem in that area.
<br />Mr. Peterson stated when Mrs. Haselius dedicated the easements to the City, it was voluntary, yet
<br />• she felt she did not have a choice. He stated in order to develop her property, she had to do this. He
<br />stated it was the City, the County and the Engineer's determination that these were wetlands. He
<br />stated that now they know they are not. He stated the buffer zone argument is the most valid, as the
<br />22C: W DM IN\M INUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
<br />
|