08-23-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 23 construction would be within the buffer zone. He stated he did not believe it uncommon for City Councils and Planning Commissions to allow people to build within those buffer zones. He stated he believed this matter was intrinsic to land use rights. He stated Mrs. Haselius paid taxes on the subject property for many years, and when Good Value and Oakwood Land Development thought they owned the land, they paid the taxes on it as well. He stated it has not been the City's property, it is their property, which the City uses for drainage. Mr. Peterson stated that they were requesting that Mrs. Haselius be allowed to sell her property. He stated it was her property, and there is no wetland or water drainage issue, they were simply requesting that Mrs. Haselius be allowed to sell her land. David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated he would like to caution the Council regarding a similar wetland issue, which had previously arisen. He stated the City had and a contractor had engaged in a dispute regarding that matter, and he did not believe the City won that argument. Ms. Gilpin stated Mrs. Haselius was present at the very first meeting they had, and fought against the proposal. She stated all of the people present had purchased property in this area, and were told that those lots would not be built upon. She stated the proposal would have an impact on them. • Mr. Peterson stated the reason Mrs. Haselius fought against the proposal the fist time, was because she thought the City owned the land and was attempting to sell it to the developer. He stated they thought they owned the land and were attempting to develop it, and when Mrs. Haselius learned that she owned the land, she decided to sell it. Ms. Gazmarek, stated she did not believe any of the residents present were attempting to take away Mrs. Haselius' right to sell the land. She stated, what they were opposed to, was allowing her to sell the land under the contingency that the developers have to build two houses on the property. There was no further public input. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 8:54 p.m. Council Member Stigney stated the developer had stated this proposal would not infringe upon the wetland, however, it would infringe upon the buffer. He stated the purpose of the buffer was to have something in between the improvement and the wetland, therefore he was very opposed to building within a buffer. He stated the proposal to mitigate the wetland with ponds was not, in his opinion, the most desirable manner of mitigation. Council Member Stigney stated the people who purchased into the developed project, did so under the assumption that the drainage and utilities easements would be there forever. He stated the residents had the right to expect that this was what happens to the property. He stated in order to develop the area, the property had to be set aside, for drainage and utility easements. He stated when Mrs. Haselius originally sold the property, she sold it with that condition, forever. He stated that 23C:~ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC