Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Peterson replied the functions and values that are assigned are a benchmark and could <br />change over time. Also, an applicant could provide newer or better information to the City. <br /> <br />Council member Strommen explained if the applicant has information they' believe is in conflict <br />with the City inventory, they need to come in with the information and the burden of proof is on <br />them. <br /> <br />John Enstrom, 8702 - I8Ist Avenue NW, stated he is appalled at the idea of wetland buffering, <br />and there is a lot that has not been considered. He is more impacted by this any resident in the <br />City of Ramsey, with 160 acres of property and only 50 acres that is not wetland and can be <br />developed. If he loses more land for a buffer his property will be devalued enormously. He has <br />developcdand built a large pond on his property, and it is completely landscaped and seeded <br />with all kinds of native vegetation, including wildflower plants and all kinds of varieties in the <br />water. He stated the best methods to take care of noxious weeds are fire, herbicide and mowing. <br />There are not any herbicides that can be used on wetlands. }Mowing is the most effective' <br />method, and the City is now saying they cannot mow wetlands. He questioned if he is not <br />allowed to mow the sod field he has develpped on his wetland. He expressed concern with fire <br />safety in this ordinance. He questioned if parks and trails would end up in a buffer zone. He <br />stated much of the vegetation in the City's wetlands is reed canary grass, which is not a desirable <br />species fol' a wetland, and the Watershed District wants it eliminated. The' best way to control <br />canary grass is to mow it, and it is an invasive species of grass. He thinks this ordinance is <br />touching on something that will be totally out of hand with no way to control it. He gets lots of <br />poison oak in the wetland, and if he cannot control that it will be disastrous. He also gets <br />buckthorn, which is invasive. He stated the City is trying to save wetlands by not mowing them, <br />but the grass will take away more water than if it is mowed, and this ordinance will be promoting <br />drying up wetlands. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec suggested Mr. Enstrom come into the City and meet with staff regarding his <br />concerns. <br /> <br />CouncilmemberStrommen encouraged Mr. Enstrom to talk with Chris Anderson at the City. <br />She explained a lot of his concerns are addressed in the ordinance, and there is a provision to <br />have a maintenance plan that would be approved by the City, which might ~low mowing and <br />cutting vegetation. . <br /> <br />Councilmcmber Cook explained this ordinance would not do anything with land Mr. Enstrom <br />currently has, such as his sod farm. The ordinance would go into effect when the land is <br />developed, at which time the sod farm would not be there any longer. He explained one of the <br />reasons for the buffer is to have less silt and undesirable nutrients in the wetland, because people <br />mow right up to the wetlands and allow phosphorous and nitrates to go into the wetland. Also, <br />he is a certified pesticide applicator and there are methods that can be used for control, but if the <br />best practice is to mow that would be allowed. <br /> <br />Mr. Enstrom stated his project will be dedicated within one year, and he has invited senators and <br />governors, all the way to George Bush. Under this ordinance he will have to destroy his project. <br /> <br />City Council I July 26, 2005 <br />Page 27 of35 <br /> <br />51 <br />