Minutes - Council - 04/24/2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

affected by the development. Mr. Anderson advised staff and the EPB recommend that the municipal wetland management classification map be adopted in its entirety. Due to concerns regarding classifying wetlands that were not field verified, the Planning Commission recommended only adopting those portions of the municipal wetland management classification map that were physically inspected. Councilmember Strommen indicated she shares the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the accuracy of the data. She has tried to weigh that with what the impact will be. Part of her concern is if they follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and only adopt the map for those areas that were field checked the City will have an ordinance that refers to information that would not exist. There has been field verification of all the Preserve and Manage 1 wetlands, so the issue is really the classification on the Manage 2 and Manage 3 wetlands. With the Manage 3 wetlands there are two possible errors that could have occurred. These wetlands could actually be a higher quality wetland, which would be an error in favor of a landowner with the buffer width smaller than what would be required. The other error would be that it is not a wetland, and in that case it would be picked up in the routine delineation done in order to develop the property. She does not think there would be much of an issue with the Manage 3 wetlands. The issue comes to Manage 2 wetlands where it could be a Manage 1 or Preserve, in which case the classification could also be in favor of the landowner. The issue is if a Manage 2 wetland is really a Manage 3, and what the impact would be. The difference in the buffer from a Manage 2 to a Manage 3 is 10 feet. She suggested the Council's discussion focus on the possibility of a 10 foot error, putting into perspective that is the risk being taken. She indicated the City may want to look over time at completing the field verification on the wetlands that have not been verified. Acting Mayor Elvig clarified the discussion tonight is not regarding the wetland buffer ordinance, it is regarding the classification that helps verify how to use an existing ordinance. Councilmember Dehen questioned what the buffer means to a person that owns property in one of these categories. Councilmember Strommen replied it would not mean anything unless the property owner wants to subdivide and develop their property. The buffer requirements are only triggered when property is being subdivided. How that plays out would depend on what development proposal comes forward. Councilmember Dehen asked what would be posed to the property owners that paid money for that land and the City is now saying they want a certain part of this land to be non-developable because there is a buffer. Acting Mayor Elvig indicated there is an ordinance that is already in place. Councilmember Strommen was referring to the difference between a Manage 3 and a Manage 2, which might be the difference of 10 to 20 feet. The City has already determined the buffer. The focus of this discussion should be on the difference of 10 to 20 feet according to the classification of the wetlands. City Council / April 24, 2007 Page 17 of38