My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1992/07/13
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
Agenda Packets - 1992/07/13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:48:59 PM
Creation date
7/17/2018 6:32:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
7/13/1992
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
7/13/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
86
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council Page Ten <br /> Regular Meeting July 13, 19111 <br /> the wetland for multi functional purposes. Everyone benefits from them. <br /> Mayor Linke gave an example of a case in Eagan where the City Council denied <br /> a developer full use of his land and the developer sued the City. The Court <br /> decided what the developer's land was worth, approximately twice the amount. <br /> Kay Weseman stated that the City finds funds for good uses such as the water <br /> tower and in her opinion wetlands meet that criteria. Weseman stated that <br /> she is sympathetic to the developer as he deserves to be compensated for the <br /> land he pays taxes on. Weseman stated that the City does studies and <br /> purveys on everything-else-with the-taxpayers money. - <br /> Mayor Linke stated that water towers and wetlands is like trying to compare <br /> apples and oranges. He asked Ms. Weseman which wetland should the City buy. <br /> Kay Weseman asked if the City of Egan had a wetland ordinance. Weseman <br /> stated that the City has rights and did Mayor Linke believe that the federal <br /> government would shoot us down for upholding our rights. <br /> Duane McCarty asked how this project would be affected by House File 1, <br /> the Wetland Conservation Act. <br /> Sabee stated that he couldn't give a definite answer. Most projects as of • <br /> the passage of that law need to address or meet conditions of the law. <br /> There is a grandfather provision within the law. Mr. Sabee stated that as <br /> he understands the law, it is for projects that have superstructures in <br /> place or that have been improved. <br /> Mr. McCarty gave Mr. Sabee a copy of House File 1 and asked him to read it <br /> carefully before any decisions were made. <br /> Ric Minetor stated that Rice Creek Watershed would be the responsible unit <br /> of government according to the law. Should the development be approved, <br /> then it needs Rice Creek Watershed permits. <br /> McCarty stated that Rice Creek Watershed District should do their process <br /> before the City finishes theirs. <br /> Mr. Roos stated that it is a tennis game. Rice Creek Watershed is aware of <br /> the project but will do nothing until it is approved by the City. <br /> Sandy Krogh, 7827 Bona Road, asked if the wetland map had been amended. <br /> Mayor Linke stated that it was part of the resolution for the development. <br /> Sandy Krogh asked if there was a process to follow in amending the wetland <br /> map. <br /> 411 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.