Laserfiche WebLink
• 13u(fcrs put in by the developer to ensure that property owners are aware of the buffer <br />when purchasing the property <br />o l;nforcemcnt of the buffer maintenance <br />~alabil(ty of the landowner's property if the allowable number o£ lots are reduced versus <br />increased value due to proximity to the wetland and buffer <br />w (tcstricted activities on the buffer <br />• r>t Jn's <br />Nlcrki.l~ ! (itlit, resident, presented an aerial photograph of his property. He expressed concern that <br />the ilnpfcmcntation of this ordinance would eliminate the ability for part of his property to be <br />built on. I-Ic stated the DNR protects wetlands and has defined 2 of his 40 acres as wetland. <br />Nc)w t}ic City wants to take more of his property, and he will be losing all of his high land. He <br />cxpressccl concern in how this ordinance will affect the value of his property. He stated if this <br />Ol'd1ll~inCC is passed a developer will not pay nearly as much for his property. He expressed <br />concern with the spreading of noxious weeds in the buffer zone. <br />Counci(n,ember Strommen stressed the need to be careful about writing this ordinance for the <br />cxcc~~tiotl, r~ither than the rule. She noted there is a variance process for situations that are out of <br />the ordinary. <br />.(0(111 I ;nstrom, resident, expressed concern with the. proposed ordinance and the devaluing of his <br />property if the. ordinance is passed. He stated his property contains two miles of wetland <br />shor-cland, and this buffer. would require him to give up a lot of his land as not being developable. <br />I [c stated if this ordinance is adapted there will be no way to control the weeds. Mother Nature <br />has built in a buffer and the City is trying to put in a buffer to protect a buffer.. He stated. the <br />entire cause is to save the water; the City should save the water and purify it so it does not run <br />of-f "['(tis could be done with better topsoil being required .and with mandatory topsoil <br />arnendmcnts that are being used in other communities, or by determining other measures to save <br />the w~ttcr. <br />Mayor C;amec comincnted some of these properties may need to be looked at individually. <br />Community ,Development Director Trudgeon indicated staff would like direction from the <br />C~~uncil i f substantial changes should be made to the ordinance. <br />n resident expressed concern that the City does not own these properties and the Landowner that <br />is p~iyillg taxes will have a limited use. <br />Mr: l~alstrom requested the City Council to visit and view his property before making any <br />clccisions regarding this ordinance. <br />Mayo1• (Tamcc suggested the Councilmembers can individually visit Mr. Enstrom's property. <br />"['hc consensus of the Council was to move the Wetland Buffer Ordinance forward for the <br />c:crosidcration of adoption by the Council <br />Coninaunity Development Director Trudgeon indicated the ordinance will be on the agenda of <br />the next Council meeting. <br />City Council Work Session /September 24, 2405 <br />Page 5 of 7 <br />-176- <br />