My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1989/06/19
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
Agenda Packets - 1989/06/19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/16/2025 2:56:31 PM
Creation date
4/16/2025 2:56:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
6/19/1989
Description
Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
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
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL <br />PAGE TWO <br />JUNE 14, 1989 <br />to each property, addressed occupant, that we are aware <br />of or feel would be interested. This last mailing is a <br />good faith effort on the part of the City to inform as <br />many people as possible. <br />Staff has discussed the issue of a more descriptive <br />notice listing "significant aspects" of the proposal <br />among themselves and with City Attorney Karney. <br />Although no legal concerns exist in the opinion of City <br />Attorney Kar.ney, a common concern was voiced by all <br />that we wish to communicate to the Council. This <br />concern should not be viewed as an unwillingness on the <br />part of staff to expand our notices, but a concern that <br />such a notice might open us up to greater criticism. <br />The expansion of the notice to be more descriptive of <br />the proposal leaves to individual, subjective judgement <br />and possible criticism the determination of what is <br />significant. Also, a more descriptive notice could <br />instill a false sense of comfort in an individual that <br />they knew all they need to about the project when in <br />reality the description might leave out something they <br />would see as being important. <br />Staff is of the opinion that a public hearing notice <br />should provide enough information to communicate to the <br />receiver that a proposal is being considered in their <br />neighborhood and prompt them to take it up:n themselves <br />to find out the details. <br />'Lour direction on this matter is requested. <br />3. Wetland Alteration, residents voiced concern <br />regarding the possible loss of wildlife species <br />and/or return of wildlife after the work oas <br />occurred. <br />A review of the proposed wetiand alteration is being <br />conducted ny the Corps of Engineers, City of Mounds <br />View, and Rice Creek Watershed District as part of <br />the permitting process for each of these agencies. <br />The Corps of Engineers is reviewing the proposal in <br />consideration of a national permit. Notices <br />requesting comment were .sent out to over 100 <br />Federal, State and Local Agencies, private environ- <br />mental organizations and residents in the area of <br />the wetland. Attached is a copy of the Corps' <br />notice and mailing list for your review. Included <br />in the evaluation by the Corps are considerations of � <br />the project on wildlife. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.