My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-10-1997 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
1997
>
03-10-1997 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/27/2012 3:06:42 PM
Creation date
9/27/2012 3:06:42 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON MARCH 10, 1997 <br />( #7 - #2202 County Road 15 Reconstruction - Continued) <br />Joel Settles explained where the mitigation would occur. The stormwater treatment <br />would occur in the Excelsior pond. The wetland mitigation would occur at Painters <br />Creek. The other mitigation is under the jurisdiction of the State and would occur at a <br />2:1 ratio in an undetermined location_ The flood plain mitigation will occur on site. <br />Goetten inquired about the mitigation ratios. Settles said the DNR requires 1:1 <br />replacement which will occur in Independence and approved by the MC-VVD. The <br />Wetland Conservation Act requires a 2:1 replacement. The City does not have <br />requirements in place regarding replacement ratios. Jabbour indicated that the CUP <br />relates to the movement of earth and not to mitigation. Gaffron noted the City has a <br />prohibition of filling wetlands but has no standards developed and follows the standards <br />developed by other agencies. <br />Jabbour asked the Council to indicate to the County their opinion for or against the <br />project. <br />Kelley said he was in favor of the project. His concern regards the lack of informing the <br />City about the requirement of an EAW. Discussion then centered on this lack of <br />communication. The County representatives said they were unaware that the City was <br />not familiar with the EAW requirement for such projects. It is a typical procedure • <br />followed by their department. It was noted that two comments have been received to <br />date regarding the document. The comment portion of the process closes on March 12. <br />Jim Grube and Vern Genslinger of Hennepin County DOT have the authority to sign the <br />EANV. Knowlan said re, along with two other people, write the EAW and make <br />recommendations. <br />Flint expressed his concern that the County viewed only a narrow corridor and did not <br />consider all of the options in the design to minimize wetland impacts. Jabbour noted that <br />even with 100% treatment, mitigation was still required. Gaffron said the County does <br />not own the land necessary to make such changes. Knowlan also indicated that <br />elevations are a concern. Settles noted that the County had to show evidence that there <br />was no ponding site available before the contribution was allowed by the MCWD toward <br />the regional ponding. <br />Flint asked what information will be seen as a result of the EAW. Settles said the <br />comments received indicate the Met Council saw no need for an EIS. The Pollution <br />Control Agency encouraged the County to review ways to treatment stormwater.. <br />Settles said the MCWD reviews their needs in the planning stage rather than through the <br />vehicle of the EAW. <br />0 <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.