Laserfiche WebLink
Board Member Lewis clarified this agenda item is to request endorsement of determining the <br />feasibility of putting together a report to see what needs to be done. He suggested using the word <br />"partners" and identifying who they are so they can be used appropriately as needed. <br />Board Member Bentz advised this will rely on the cooperation of the landowners along the way. <br />City Planner Anderson agreed. He noted some previous discussions have been around finding out <br />the condition of the riverbanks and also getting buy -in from the landowners. <br />Chairperson Stodola noted this work would not mean spending any money, except for the City <br />Planner's time. Since staff came to the board with it, it would seem Staff would think it is worth <br />the time. He suggested contacting the DNR and asking them to be a communication point. If there <br />are calls and concerns from residents, they should be directed to the DNR for further information. <br />Motion by Board Member Valentine to recommend that Staff explore completing a shoreline <br />inventory to establish a baseline data set of current conditions and use that data to prioritize <br />potential project sites, proactively contact those property owners, and engage other public agencies <br />to discuss development of a comprehensive program to assist riparian land owners with erosion <br />concerns. <br />Further discussion: Board Member Lewis suggested adding the language of "and identify potential <br />partnerships". <br />Motion seconded by Board Member Bentz. <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Stodola, Board Member Valentine, Bentz, Lewis, and <br />Covart. Voting No: None. Absent: Board Members Bernard, and Hiatt. <br />Councilmember LeTourneau stated this will continue to be discussed with the community while <br />being considerate of how it is discussed. The City wants to be part of a solution and not part of a <br />problem, so public perception will be important. <br />City Planner Anderson reminded the Board that shoreline erosion is a detriment to the river and <br />thus there is a public benefit to assessing the current condition of the riverbank and identifying <br />priority sites for possible stabilization. Also, the DNR is working through potential rule revisions <br />to the river. This could heighten the public's perception of what the City could do and the level of <br />involvement the public would like to have. <br />5.03: Discuss Potential Policy to Address Buildable Area on Parcels with Floodplains and <br />Wetlands <br />City Planner Anderson presented the staff report. He provided an example of a case in which a <br />building permit was issued for a new home that met all zoning standards but was very near to a <br />drainage and utility easement and wetland. Since it met all the standards and criteria, and the City <br />could not deny the permit even though it was evident that a future deck would be problematic due <br />to the proximity to the easement and wetland. Ultimately, the homeowner had to go to several <br />agencies to get permission to put a few holes in the ground for the deck. This type of situation is <br />becoming more common as more challenging and/or less desirable lots are now being built out. <br />Environmental Policy Board / August 17, 2015 <br />Page 5of11 <br />