Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/03/2007

Home

work plans, including a "kick-off' meeting with staff, complete review of existing data, an open house style meeting for the public, field work, updating the MLCCS data (from field work, aerial photography and Wetland Study data), ordinance review, draft report and presentation to the EPB, and fmal report and presentation to City Council. While similar in work plans, Bonestroo' s proposal provided greater detail concenling the outlined tasks as well as the necessary steps to complete each. Both proposals indicate tllat the fmal report would be completed and submitted to the City by the end of August, which is important as it will enable the City to utilize this information during the Comprehensive Plan update that is scheduled for completion in 2008. Enviromnental Coordinator Anderson stated staff presented both proposals to the EPB during a special meeting on March 15,2007. While the Board considered both proposals to be adequate, it was clear that several points stood out in the Bonestroo proposal. First, the Board noted tllat Bonestroo's proposal was more thorough and detailed and left no uncertainties as far as deliverables. Additionally, the Bonestroo proposal dedicates more time to "on the ground" field work, which the Board believes is a critical component oftl1is project. Finally, and maybe most important to the EPB, awarding the contract to Bonestroo for the NRI would create a synergy between this project and the Comprehensive Plan update. The EPB believes very strongly that the NRI and Comprehensive Plan update is an important relationship and that it warrants the additional cost. The EPB recommends that the City enter into a contract with Bonestroo to complete a Natural Resources Inventory for an amount not to exceed $34,646.00 Councilmember Look stated neither himself nor Councilmember Dehen were here in October when this was recommended. He requested an explanation of the net benefit to Ramsey in spending $35,000 to defme the Natural Resources Inventory, and infonnation on what type of allowance is in place for wetlands that may ultimately change. Environmental Coordinator Anderson replied part of the reconmlendation of the EPB with the Natural Resources Inventory was that it includes p~riodic updating of the report, which would lend itself to wetland changes over time. As far as the benefit to the City of Ranlsey, there are many positives from this. First and foremost, the City can take a more proactive approach to its natural resources. Rather than reacting to development proposals they can have the high priority areas identified and know what battles to fight as to what areas merit extreme protection and what might not be so critical to preserve. Councilmember Look stated seated in the audience is a person in the community that brought up the fact in a previous meeting that due to the buffer ordinance he could not. do anything with his property that was designated wetland, and that 'With the City restricting it without any purchase, the property owner has a net loss in the value oftheir property. Councilmember Look expressed concern regarding the possible negative impact to landowners if the City were to enforce this Natural Resources Inventory. Councilmember Strommen stated this is an inventory, not a policy. The issue is that they cannot make the policy or the choices about what should be preserved when they do not have the information. This has come up repeatedly as plats are reviewed of different developments. A lot is heard from neighbors about preserving trees or wetlands, but they currently do not have any information regarding the quality of the City's natural resources. This inventory will provide the City Council I March 27, 2007 Page 7 of 19 P51