Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Peterson concurred. He indicated MnRAM 3.0 is the process the state has developed with <br />coordination of the Core of Engineers, the DNR, and other state agencies. There is not another <br />functions and values method that is applicable in Minnesota. That is not to say this method is <br />perfect, but they answer the questions that MnRAM asks. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look questioned how many property owners might have the same concern as <br />Mr. Hunt about classifying their wetland without stepping onto their property. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson replied Mr. Hunt restricted them from his property. <br /> <br />Mr. Hunt stated that is totally incorrect. He did not restrict access. There are only pictures with <br />no samplings. <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson indicated there was confusion at the Planning Commission <br />meeting in April. Mr. Hunt has posed his concern about the lack of accessing his property, but <br />there were three different access points that the sampling was done at. Regarding the concern of <br />timing, if he understands correctly there were only four or five wetlands that went through the <br />full MnRAM process after mid-October and would have been outside of the legal time for <br />delineation. However, that timeframe is not applicable to a functions and values study. <br /> <br />Mr. Bob Sibilski, Member of the EPB, stated not all of these wetlands have been field studied, <br />but the majority left are Manage 2 and Manage 3, which require less buffering. This is a <br />conservative approach and he believes a number of these Manage 2 and Manage 3 wetlands <br />would move up to Manage 1 or Preserve. He has a Class 3 wetland on his property and based on <br />the criteria he would move it up to a Class 1 or Class 2. They are taking a conservative approach <br />by keeping the Class 2 and Class 3 wetlands in this map that they are asking to be approved. Mr. <br />Sibilski stated there is an appeal process included in the ordinance. It is a good idea to require <br />developers to ground proof wetlands that have not been verified. He would think the developers <br />would want to protect the wetlands, studies show that wetlands as well as other natural resources <br />raises the property value of these lots. He is trying to understand that a couple of individuals can <br />drive the Planning Commission and possibly this Council to reconsider portions of the City's <br />wetlands. He questioned why the City has spent the money to develop this map and the natural <br />resources inventory if they are not willing to protect the natural resources in the City. Mr. <br />Sibiliski stated open space, parks, natural resources and wetlands are listed as the best things in <br />Ramsey in the Ramsey3 process and surveys. They are blessed in their community to have the <br />Mississippi and Rum Rivers and Trott Brook running through the City. They need to protect <br />these, as well as the other wonderful wetlands they all enjoy looking at. They need to protect it <br />for their children and generations to come. As a member of the EPB he is asking the Council to <br />vote in favor of this map. <br /> <br />Councilmember Olson stated she does not believe this map is perfect, but they have to start <br />somewhere. It is their obligation to protect the wetlands and natural resources for future <br />generations, and this map is a starting place for doing that. <br /> <br />City Council / April 24, 2007 <br />~ Page 24 of 38 <br />