Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. Buffersput in by'the developer to ensure that property owners' are aWflIe of the buffer <br />wh~n purchasing the property <br />. l~nforcement of the buffer maintenance <br />. Sal.ability of the landowner's property if the allowable number oflots are reduced versus <br />increased value due to proximity to the wetland and buffer <br />Q Restricted activities on the buffer <br />III PUD's <br /> <br />Merli.n ] Iunt, resident, presented an aerial photograph of his property. He expressed concern that <br />the implementation of this ordinance would eliminate the ability for part of his property to be <br />built on. I-Ie stated the DNR protects wetlands and has defined 2 of his 40 acres as wetland. <br />Now the City wants to take more of his property, and he will be losing all of his high land. He <br />ex pressed concern in how this ordinance will affect the value of his property. He stated if this <br />ordinance is passed a developer will not pay nearly as much for his property. He expressed <br />. . <br />concern with the spreading of noxious weeds in the buffer zone. <br /> <br />CounciJl1lembcrStrommen stressed the need to be careful about writing this ordinance for the <br />exception. rather than the rule. She noted there is a variance process for situations that are out of <br />the ordinary. <br /> <br />John Enstrom, resident, expressed concern with the proposed ordinance and the devaluing of his <br />properly if the ordinance is passed. He stated his property contains two miles of wetland' <br />shorclaml, and this buffer would require him to give up a lot of his land as not being developable. <br />lIe stated if this ordinance is adopted 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 calise is to save the water; the City should save the water and purify it so it does not run <br />off. This could be done with better topsoil being required and with mandatory topsoil <br />amendmcnts that are being used in other communities, Of by determining other measures to save <br />the water. <br /> <br />Mayor (iClmcc commented some ofthese properties may need to be looked at individually. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon indicated staff would like direction from the <br />Council if substantial changes should be made to the ordinance. <br /> <br />A resident cxpressed concern that the City does not own these properties and the landowner that <br />is paying taxes will have a limited use. <br /> <br />Mr. Ellstrom requested the City Council to visit and view his property before making any <br />decisions regarding this ordinance. <br /> <br />Mayor (jamcc suggested the Councilmembers can individually visit Mr. Enstrom's property. <br /> <br />The consensus of the Council was to move the Wetland Buffer Ordinance forward for the <br />c011sidcration of adoption by the Council. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon indicated the ordinance will be on the agenda of <br />. the next Council meeting. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session / September 20,2005 <br />Page 5 of7 <br /> <br />55 <br />