Laserfiche WebLink
Motion carried. Voting Yes: Acting Vice Chairperson Max: Board Members Bentz, Hustvedt, <br />Olds and Sibilski. Voting No: None. Absent: Acting Chairperson McDilda and Board Member <br />Freeburg. <br /> <br />POLICY BOARD BUSINESS <br /> <br />Case #1: <br /> <br />Review of Presentation of the Wetland Buffer Ordinance to the Planning <br />Commission <br /> <br />Staff member Chris Anderson summarized the presentation of the Wetland Buffer Ordinance to <br />the Planning Commission on July 7th stating that the vote was 6-1 to move the ordinance forward <br />to City Council. He noted that Chairman Nixt voted no due to his concerns about the ability to <br />actually enforce the ordinance. He stated that he met with the City Attorney to discuss a concern <br />that was raised about this ordinance being a taking of land. He further explained that when the <br />City of Plymouth went through this process their staff thought they had everything covered <br />noting that the verbiage could possibly be successfully challenged in court because their <br />ordinance encompasses all lands versus only new developments. He noted that the Plymouth <br />City Staff indicated that the City was never formally challenged but they did hold several <br />workshops with a Developers Consortium to work through the verbiage until the ordinance was <br />finally adopted. He noted that several metro Cities already have similar ordinances in place <br />adding that he discussed the verbiage with the City Attorney due to the potential concern Staff <br />mentioned. He stated that the changes made to the document were only to create consistency <br />noting that in some areas of the document it references 'applicant' in the process and in other <br />areas it references 'developer' and it was suggested to choose one or the other to use throughout <br />the document to maintain consistency. He assured the Board that the changes were basically to <br />the framework of the document and to create consistency with vocabulary; it did not affect the <br />content of the proposed ordinance. He noted that there was one revision in Section 9.26.06. He <br />stated that the title of this section was 'Alternative Wetland Buffer Strips & Setbacks' but never <br />addressed setbacks within the section. He explained that this section was only applicable for <br />butt'er strips and the Planning Commission asked that the references to the setbacks be removed. <br />Itc stated that this change has been made and noted that the Planning Commission complimented <br />the Board, stating that overall the EPB did a good job on the proposed ordinance. <br /> <br />Case #2 <br /> <br />Discussion Regarding Introduction of the Wetland Buffer Ordinance to City <br />Council <br /> <br />Staff Member Chris Anderson stated that this would be introduced to Council for consideration. <br />He stated that City Council Member Strommen requested that this item be placed on the agenda <br />for the next City Council work session noting that this would give Council an opportunity to <br />review and discuss the ordinance prior to the next City Council meeting. He stated that it would <br />also be noted at the work session that the City has two proposals for consideration regarding a <br />wctlands inventory and assessment needed to implement this ordinance. He stated that it would <br />be explained that the City is also looking for funding that would potentially offset what the City <br />would have to fund for the Study. He stated that Staff would move forward with their <br />recommendation for Option 1 to the City Council and would also request that Peterson <br />Environmental be present at the next Council meeting for any questions they may have. <br /> <br />Environmental Policy Board / July 18, 2005 <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />