Agenda - Council - 05/26/2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

claimant, the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment- backed expectations and the character of the government regulations. Chairperson Nixt explained that if the character of the government regulation was only applicable to one or two landowners it would be more likely deemed unconstitutional, if it is applicable to all similarly situated landowners, as this ordinance seems to be, the burden is much higher for a landowner to show that the character of the government regulation constitutes a taking. Robert Sibilski, 7240 166 Avenue NW. Mr. Sibilski, in response to Commission Brauer's letter clarified where his comments in his letter to the editor came from regarding the Mayor's stating as fact regarding the unconstitutionality of the ordinance. He agrees with Commissioner Brauer in that this should have been looked at through the Environmental Policy Board and within the community not at a public hearing. The City has not had an opportunity to see if the ordinance works. The ordinance gives the developer an opportunity to apply for a variance. As a citizen he looks at this as a way to protect our natural resources. He would like to see the City give this an opportunity to see if this ordinance works once development comes back to our city. Sarah Strommen, 14546 Krypton St NW. Ms. Strommen presented the origin of the ordinance. This ordinance goes back to 2000 -2001 and began out of a citizen initiative when The . Ponds development was developed. There was a task force established, which now is the Environmental Policy Board. The task force began with a tree preservation ordinance and moved on to the wetland buffer ordinance. Ms. Strommen stated she has not seen a group more committed to studying the issue, to careful thought and planning and has not seen an ordinance vetted to that extent. They brought in representatives from the DNR, Anoka Conservation District, and the Builders Association. Ms. Strommen continued that this ordinance didn't happen over night and unfortunately the city. has not had the opportunity to see how it works. She stated there is an economic benefit to wetlands, Ms. Strommen gave examples of the value that wetlands have. John Freeburg, 6356 Riverdale Drive. As a member of the Environment Policy Board, he brings the technical data to the Board. Mr. Freeburg gave examples of newspaper articles that showed the importance of wetlands. He has copies of the articles if anyone is interested in reading them. John Engstrom, 8702 181" Avenue NW. Mr. Engstrom is not in favor of the ordinance. He stated every wetland has its own natural buffer, trees, cattails, brush, open water. He stated the Federal Government would mandate buffers if it was necessary. Mr. Engstrom stated that this ordinance supersedes the state and federal ordinances. - Discussion ensued as to ways the ordinance would affect development of properties. Mr. Engstrom reiterated that wetlands have their natural buffer. Planning Commission /April 2, 2009 Page 6 of 13