Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/2009

Home

He stated the City has been aware of what he has been doing, and he was not given the courtesy of being asked to attend the meetings. Council member Strommen explained this ordinance was in front of the Planning Commission twice, and she apologizes Mr. Enstrom was not aware of the meetings. Merlin Hunt, 17860 Nowthen Boulevard, stated approximately 10 of his 40 acres is highland, . and this buffering will require him to lose another 20 percent of his acres. The ,Planning Commission assured him there will not be an additional setback required by these buffers. H.owever, he has been reading the paper every day it comes out, and he now fmds there has been an addition of 15 feet for fire protection. He understands the need for fire protection, but 15 feet is not a lot of area, and he thinks this unmowed area is very dangerous. He stated insurance rates will go up because of that. He knows the ordinance is just for developers, but a developer will look at his land and the buffers, and he will lose a fair amount of value on his land. He stated back in the 1950's the people asked the farmers to allow a certain strip ofland to not be farmed for habitat, and a number of farmers did that, then within two years they were asked to cut it because of the noxious weeds. He has been trying to keep the marijuana down in his marsh, and it grows very quickly. With this ordinance there will be people deciding they have a good place for marijuana, and the City will not be ble to see it, and will have an enforcement problerri with marijuana. He stated a much better approach would be to give each owner a sense of ownership for their buffer zone and inform them of options for the buffer. He stated this ordinance is a mistake, and ten years down the road there will be a strip of junk around all the wetlands, and people will know Ramsey as a bunch of wetland with weeds around it. He stated people think if you leave things to nature everything will be good, but that is not what will happen, and weeds will come up. There are state rules and federal rules for wetlands, and now they will be adding City rules as well. He stated everyone of the proposals requires mitigation for wetlands, and the funds nceded to define the wetlands will involve a lot of money in developing a system for .a man.agement class of wetlands and to keep on maintaining the iriformation on the wetlands. Also, thcre will be a wetland fee applied, which he calls a tax. Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Councilmember Strommen, to introduce the proposed wetland buffer ordinance. Further discussion: Councilmember Elvig stated many people are looking for a balance 'between parks, trails, wetlands, greenspace and development. He would like to discuss some of the details of this ordinance, but he thinks it is worthy to move forward, especially with the concerns of about 90% of the constituents that he answers to. Councilmember Pearson commented that Mr. IIunt made a point that you cannot just leave things. He stated he has seen wetlands in the City that were mowed and burned periodically, and they were beautiful. One of these was the Shade Tree project that was just discussed. That area was a wide open meadow with trees around it, and it was gorgeous. The water flowed through there because it was minimally . maintained. Also, he has a wooded area on his farm that was like a park when he had cattle in there, and now you cannot walk in there, and it is worthless. He stated some maintaining needs to be done with the wetlands, although that may be covered in this ordinance. Councilmember Strommen explained the maintenance concerns are addressed in the ordinance. Mayor Gamec stated to some extent he has not looked at this ordinance in detail. If the ordinance is introduced City Council I July 26, 2005 Page 28 of 35 52