My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1983/12/08
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
Agenda Packets - 1983/12/08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 1:38:22 PM
Creation date
3/17/2025 11:31:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
12/8/1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
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
November 29, 1983 <br />Mounds View City Council Page Two <br />Regular Meeting ------- <br />-------- ------------------------------- <br />Considerable discussion tool: 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, lie 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 rand he culvert <br />has no bearing on the wetland n its present <br />lie 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 />• Miller replied tL <br />a,. Phaa:e Ti iF; conceptual in <br />„ <br />XWLure, and has nothing to do with Phase I. <br />Mayor McCarty replied he must have a comparative <br />analysis. <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 engi.neer'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 cut 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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.