Council_Minutes_1983_11_14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Seven District (RCS &WCD) to address specifically the state- ment that 1 -22 does not fully function as a wetland, and that while the City has received responses from them, none of them directly prove that 1 -22 is not a wetland. He reviewed the Barr Engineering letter of November 7, 1983, the terminology used in the response from Braun Engineering, and the .'Tact that RCS &WCD states that the area does exhibit approximately 1.1 acres of type 2 wetland habitat. He stated he does not feel the City has sufficient proof to show that 1 -22 is not a wetland. Councilmember Linke reviewed statements made in the Braun report, that to be considered a wetland would be stretching the point. Councilmember Doty stated there is no statement from the experts, stating that it is no longer a wetland, and they must determine what type of wetland it is, not its function. Councilmember Hankner stated that in the ordinance, it refers to a functioning wetland and protection of that functioning wetland and the value of the wetland, and they must decide if it is best to protect that wetland or if a proposed development would provide a better quality of life for wildlife habitat. She pointed out that the Miller proposal calls for the creation of another wetland, and they must discuss the value and function of the wetland. Mayor McCarty pointed out the intent of the ordinance is to protect the wetland, and they still do not have proof from the consultants that this is not a wetland. Councilmember Blanchard questioned if the new boundries are set whether it would reduce the size to a point where it would no longer be effected, or below the criteria for being on the wetlands map. Director Johnson replied that if it is left on the map, the boundries would be adjusted according to expert opinion, but that the size would remain the same, the area would just be redeliniated. Mayor McCarty stated he was concerned that anyone who owns a type 2 wetland could come in, based on action the Council might take on this item, so they must be careful in setting a precedent. He added they need proof positive whether or not 1 -22 is a wetland. Attorney Meyers advised that whatever criteria is used in this case must be used in future cases, and the question seems to De the word "functioning and the liberal versus strict interpretation. He advised the Council they must require definite evidence if a wet- land is no longer a wetland.