Laserfiche WebLink
<br />question regarding the wetlands that have not been field verified is valid, but due to budget <br />concerns there was a need to be selective about the areas to be ground proofed. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated the most concen1ing thing to him is that the ordinance keys off the <br />classifications to the wetlands. Six of the two highest tiers were downgraded to be non-wetlands, <br />and in those situations buffers would have been required from 25 to 50 feet. He inquired how <br />old the empirical data is that the study was based on. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson replied the National Wetland Inventory maps are dated 1985 and are based on 1980 <br />aerial photographs. However, they have brand new aerial photographs that were used for <br />verification. With regards to the areas that tulned out not to be wetland, anytime a subdivision is <br />to be done in the City there is a requirement for wetland delineation. If it is concluded not to be a <br />wetland, the area would be taken off the map, assuming the City and TEP Panel agree with that. <br />At tllat time the buffer requirement would go away as well. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer indicated the concern is with property owners being told they will need to <br />buffer their wetland based on this map if it is approved. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson explai11ed the ordinance does not require the buffers if the property is not being <br />developed; this would only apply if there is a subdivision of the property and development. <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson stated in addition, the ordinance that was adopted provides <br />for variances in terms of hardslnp and includes a provision that if a property owner that disputes <br />the classification can present information to the contrary, and if it is verified, the map would need <br />to be amended as such. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hunt asked if there is a list of the properties and wetlands that were walked and <br />inspected that a landowner could review to determine if their property was inspected. <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson indicated one of the exhibits ill this case includes the fmal <br />classification map that was produced by WPS. Each wetland was given a unique identification <br />number, and with that a list can be generated of the wetlands tllat have been field verified. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hunt stated looking at the map and knowing some of these areas intimately <br />having lived in Ramsey almost his whole life, some of the classifications do not make sense. He <br />would question why a couple of tllese are classified as a wetland rather than a creek or stream, <br />and Thorn Lake is classified as a Manage 2. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson explained wetlands come with all different kinds of hydrologic regimes; there are <br />many that have much dryer hydrologic, regimes or only have water for short times durillg the <br />, <br />year, and some of them can be high quality. There are a number of functions of the wetlands that <br />do not have anything to do with how deep the water is. <br /> <br />Commissioner Levine asked if WPS or other finns have done this type of sampling with accurate <br />results or if this is sometlnng new they are working on with statistical sampling. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/AprilS, 2007 <br />Page 10 of22 <br /> <br />P10 <br />