Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds view City Council <br />Regular Meeting <br />September 14, <br />Page Seven <br />•Mr. Thatcher responded to various technical' areas that had <br />been discussed, lie also pointed out that variances have <br />been given for the 100 foot buffer in the past. <br />Mr. Senden rebutted many of the points made throughout <br />the discussion and Ile reviewed Resolution No. 1653 and <br />the variance that was granted in 1983 for another developer <br />for the 100 foot setback, and he stated that when the <br />variance is granted, the 20,000 equare foot requirement <br />no longer applied. lie also pointed out that basements <br />that have been wet in the past will not be affected with <br />this development. lie added they intend to stay within <br />the letter and spirit of the law, and lie feels the birds <br />will be happy to use the 7.9 acreas of wetland that will <br />be available. <br />Mr. Senden stated he feels the opinions given by the Army <br />Corps of Engineers and Rice Creak Soil and Water Conservation <br />are accurate, and that while this wetland could be classified <br />a Type 3, it is due to the backing up of the ditch, which <br />has now been cleaned out• and will allow the area to drain. <br />He also pointed out the request Mr. Harstad had made to the <br />City in 1981 was not denied but rather put aside because <br />of the wetland issue and moritorium. lie added that Rice <br />Creek Watershed District has granted their approval. <br />Mr. Senden stated Mr. Harstad is not required to provide <br />a : deer or duck or pheasant habitat for the surrounding <br />neighbors as he has done for so many years, and if the <br />City does not want him to develop the property, they could <br />declare eminent domain, for just compensation. He added <br />they are willing to give 7.9 acres for no compensation, <br />in order to develop the property. <br />Mayor binke closed the public hearing and reopened the <br />regular meeting at 9:52 PM. <br />Councilmember Hankner stated that it seems there is mis- <br />inrormation on I:he streets. She cited examples of phone <br />calls she received. She explained that she personally had <br />spoken with Molly Shodeen or. the DNR to discuss her <br />findings. She stated that these examples and others have <br />raised many questions about the accuracy of: the information <br />that has been provided. She said that it seems there are <br />self-appointed experts but she has not seen their <br />credentials. She suggested t!.ere are three options open <br />to the Council, to vote for the development and not• feel, <br />certain il: is the right thing to do, or to vote the projecL <br />duwn, in order to maintain the integrity of the ordinance, <br />and possibly find the City in Cnurt, or to have the <br />rr.sidenLs huy the properLy and declare eminenl. domain <br />and assess the costs to the property owners. <br />1987 <br />Consideration <br />of Rslt. No. 2221 <br />ordinance No. 42! <br />and ordinance No, <br />424 <br />