Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 <br />Regular Meeting Page Eight <br />Motion /Second: McCarty /Doty to amend the previous <br />motion to table Ordinance No. 350 for an indefinite <br />period of time, and give the developer time to <br />bring in the necessary documentation that this is <br />not a wetland. <br />3 ayes 2 nays <br />Councilmembers Linke and Hankner voted against the <br />motion. Councilmember Hankner reminded the Council <br />they are under a time restriction on this development. <br />John Miller also reminded the Council of the time <br />line, and he reviewed Chapter 48.01, Sub. 3 A, re- <br />garding the criteria of a functioning wetland. <br />Mayor McCarty replied that the experts have not said <br />it is not a functioning wetland. Mr. Miller stated <br />he would contact his consultant. <br />Jim Miller stated that under the same section, 48.01, <br />Sub. 3 A, it states the City is to adopt a map <br />designating the existing functional wetlands that are <br />to be protected. He pointed out it does not mention <br />anything about the type of wetland, and he read from <br />the letter of November 2 from RCS &WCD, which clearly <br />states there is little, if any, functioning wetland. <br />He also pointed out the ordinance asks a question of <br />value, referring to those that are to be protected. <br />Mr. Miller pointed out the October 31 letter from <br />Braun Engineering states very clearly that the area <br />does not function as a typical wetland, and does not <br />perform the functions of a wetland. <br />Councilmember Hankner questioned how far the protection <br />of a wetland goes, and pointed out there is so much <br />garbage on the land in question, that it could not <br />possibly function as a wetland. <br />Jim Miller also referred to the Barr letter, stating <br />that 1 -22 does not function as a wetland. He added <br />that in their proposal for the entire parcel of land, <br />they have two complete wetlands identified on the <br />property, with one wetland alteration permit applied <br />for. He stated they would like to replace the 1 -22 <br />designated area and establish an area on the eastern <br />portion of the property as a functioning wetland <br />habitat of a larger size, with all wetland functions, <br />and that the new wetland would be functioning on a <br />460 acre upland drainage area. He added they are <br />trying to provide some type of vehicle to provide <br />a wetland area, and they have been advised by Staff <br />of the steps needed to be taken. <br />Councilmember Linke suggested that instead of tabling <br />the ordinance, have the first reading, in order to keep <br />Motion Carried <br />