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

Home

foot buffer they are looking at 7-~ to 8 acres of land that is lost. No matter what is taken, if the City puts a monument on his property that shows ownership, and if the City of Ramsey wants to put ownership on his property they have to pay him for it; without payment they cannot have it. What the City is doing here is illegal; they cannot show ownership unless they pay someone or offer a tax break or something. He realizes the buffer goes into effect when the property is developed, but a developer will be out a lot of money on his parcel. With his property it would be approximately $1,000,000. He should not have to lose $1,000,000 in property he pays taxes for. He does not feel this engineering firm that did this work is very reputable. Everything could be thrown out in a court of law for several reasons, including not having the water to the right level and the current emergent vegetation. Acting Mayor Elvig indicated this relates to delineation, which is not being debated tonight. Mr. Enstrom stated he has 40 acres that was delineated on his property that has changed. This classification map has to have some kind of provision that it will change with the ground water. The City of Ramsey is draining wetlands at an enormous rate. They need to start saving the water before the wetlands. The parking ramps were built with no retail space to fill it up. There is already ponding that is done for every project and rain water gardens save the water from running into the wetlands. These are state accepted engineering design requirements. He questioned why they need to put more requirements in. Councilmember Dehen stated he likes the idea of preserving the quality of wetlands, but he is not convinced there is proper designation of all the wetland classifications. They heard from Mr. Hunt that he feels his particular wetland is improperly designated, and he is concerned that there is a process to resolve that issue. He likes the idea, but thinks the details need to be worked out. Councilmember Strommen indicated there are two provisions in the ordinance. One is that if someone wants to dispute the classification there is an appeal process. Second, if someone feels that the imposition of this buffer is a hardship to the development of their property there is a hardship provision that allows them to apply for a variance. It is totally within the realm of feasibility that if someone comes in with a PUD they. may still get the same number of lots. There are provisions in the ordinance that give them the tools to make that evaluation when the time comes. If there are questions on the ordinance, members of the EPB would be happy to walk through the process. Councilmember Look stressed the following three points. One is that there was improper timing on the assessment; it does not fall within good timing of the year and leads to errors. Second, there was insufficient verifying of the wetlands to determine the classification; he does not want to back up this map when there are errors. Third, this map does not address the preservation of wetlands; the invasive species are destroying the wetlands. Any wetland you drive by in Ramsey is cattails and the wildlife is not using them. Councilmember Strommen stated the timing was discussed. There is a difference in delineation and the functions and values, which does not have the same time constraints. Regarding the field work, an established process was used, and there is no other established process to make these determinations. City Council / April 24, 2007 Page 23 of 38