Laserfiche WebLink
<br />of the pavilion, trash receptacles, canoe rack, and benches. He thought one of the best features <br />would be the interpretive signage for the park, which was developed in conjunction with a <br />Biology class from the Anoka-Hennepin Technical College. He advised of the six topics for the <br />signs, which would be displayed throughout the park. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda questioned if those are found in any other parks in the City. <br /> <br />Board Member Max advised of one interpretive sign that was developed by a Master Naturalist. <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson advised of another location, Titterud Park. He then <br />displayed a brief summary of the budget and possible funding for Sunfish Lake Park. He <br />explained that the park has not yet been approved, as it is currently in the bid process of the plan, <br />and thought that the item would be back before Council this spring for final approval. <br /> <br />Board Member Freeburg questioned if there was a plan to do any work along the shoreline. <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson advised that maintainingand/or restoring the natural <br />shoreline was a component of the park but was unsure at this point what may occur. <br /> <br />Case #3: <br /> <br />Wetland Buffer Ordinance Discussion <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson summarized that staff had been directed to bring forward a <br />case discussing the Wetland Buffer Ordinance for the Council, which took place the prior week. <br />He advised that a lot of the discussion focused on the constitutionality of the ordinance. He <br />advised that Staff was directed to bring forth a case for public hearing at the April 2nd Planning <br />Commission meeting to consider repealing the ordinance. <br /> <br />Board Member Sibilski questioned what the vote was. <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson advised that the vote was 5-1. He explained that it boils <br />down to whether this would be a taking of land or not. He advised that the City Attorney is <br />researching case law that may be applicable. <br /> <br />Board Member Max questioned when the City Attorney would have an opinion on that matter. <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson advised that the information found by the City Attorney <br />would be included in the case for the public hearing on April 2nd. <br /> <br />Board Member Sibilski advised that there are more cities and conservation districts out there <br />with similar ordinances and they have not been found unconstitutional. He questioned why some <br />Councilmembers approved of this when they approved the ordinance but now are in favor of <br />repealing the ordinance. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda advised that this is the view being taken by the existing Council, for <br />whatever reason, and encouraged the Board Members to be a part of the public hearing. He <br />explained that this would be their opportunity to speak and present the facts. He stated that the <br />discussion is to repeal an ordinance that has never been tested, as there has not been any <br />application to date. He advised that chapter nine of City Code covers just that point, of taking <br /> <br />Environmental Policy Board I March 2, 2009 <br />Page 5 of9 <br />