Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council November 29, 1983 <br />Regular Meeting gage Two <br />Considerable discussion took place before the vote <br />was called for on the previous motion. <br />Councilmember Linke stated he was in agreement with <br />the supporting data outlined in the memo from Director <br />Johnson, dated November 23. <br />Councilmember Doty stated that in the supporting docu- <br />mentation for eliminating 1 -22 as a wetland, he did <br />not feel it gave adequate reason for eliminating it. <br />He pointed it out it deals with a culvert that does <br />not work, and was put in 50 years ago, and the culvert <br />has no bearing on the wetland in its present conditions. <br />He added it compares this wetland with other non- <br />specific wetlands, not the same size, and he did not <br />feel the terms were specific enough, nor the documen- <br />tation sufficient to say the wetland does not function <br />specifically as a wetland. <br />Mayor McCarty stated it was his understanding from the <br />discussion at the November 14 meeting and the last <br />agenda session that the Council was to receive specific <br />data, preferrably a comparative analysis to support <br />the generalizations the City has received so far. He <br />added he was also looking for something from the <br />developer that would provide comparative data, with <br />specifics, and requested Mr. Miller outline Phase II. <br />Mr. Miller replied that Phase <br />nature, and has nothing to do <br />Mayor McCarty replied he must <br />analysis. <br />II is conceptual in <br />with Phase I. <br />have a comparative <br />Councilmember Hankner stated the Council has that <br />comparative analysis from the three reports that <br />have been received. She reminded the Council that <br />they paid $5,000 for an engineer's report, and <br />he has provided site specific information to the <br />City, as requested. She reviewed excerpts from <br />the Braun Report, from their letter of October 31, <br />concerning 1 -22 not functioning as a wetland. <br />She also pointed out that the culvert has been the <br />cause of 1 -22 being in the condition it is in. <br />Councilmember Hankner stated she felt the Council <br />has the information they have requested, and it is <br />very specific and adequate enough to redelineate <br />the lines for 1 -23 and eliminate what has been <br />classified as 1 -22. <br />