My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Council_Minutes_1983_10_24
MoundsView
>
City Council
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
Council Minutes 1983
>
Council_Minutes_1983_10_24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/10/2011 3:00:37 PM
Creation date
2/7/2011 2:27:38 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
Mounds View City Council October 24, 1983 <br />Regular Meeting Page Three <br />of the area and their property is considerably higher <br />than the ditch on 85th Avenue. He stated if there <br />was a culvert there, the water would drain off. <br />John Miller noted that Mr. Kramer of Barr Engineering <br />had stated before that ,,ester would drain off the <br />property. <br />Jim Miller stated that reference had been made to <br />that fact in the wetlands alter_ ion permit <br />application. <br />Mayor McCarty expressed concern with having the <br />schematics entered into the minutes, as there were <br />too many ambiguities. <br />Councilmember Hankner noted that page 4 of the Barr <br />report addresses the issue of the culvert and <br />drainage. <br />Mayor McCarty closed the public hearing and reopened <br />the regular meeting at 8:04 PM. <br />Councilmember Linke stated he would prefer to deal <br />with 1 -22 separately, as the Braun Engineering <br />report states it does not function as a wetland. <br />Motion /Second: Linke /Hankner to direct Staff to <br />prepare an ordinance, to eliminate in its entirety, <br />the wetland now designated and shown as 1 -22. <br />4 ayes 1 nay <br />Councilmember Doty voted against the motion, stating <br />he did not believe the evidence warranted the motion <br />at this time. <br />Councilmember Linke stated his reasons for the motion <br />were that conditions have changed according to what <br />the City initially thought when the ordinance was <br />drafted, and there was an error when the report was <br />prepared. <br />There was considerable discussion among the Council <br />as to what documentation there is to support the <br />belief there were errors. Councilmember Linke <br />pointed out the two consulting firms have not put <br />in writing that errors were made, but they have <br />verbally stated it. <br />Mayor McCarty noted the report refers to run -off <br />for the development and has nothing to do with <br />1 -22. <br />Attorney Meyers reminded the Council a 4/5 vote <br />is required, and they must have a rational basis <br />Motion Carried <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.