05-22-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8,2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 16. #17-3922 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT: WETLANDS REGULATIONS — ORDINANCE NO. 196, Third Series. — continued Jones stated there is nothing that he can find on the City's website that there has been any detailed analysis of what is driving this change and what is causing it to be such a big issue. Jones stated if the City wants to address it on a case-by-case basis, that would be appropriate. Jones stated in reading through the proposal, he was kind of surprised when he read a statement on Lines 102 and 103 that states the four classifications for all properties except those zoned as residential. Jones stated he is unsure how that language actually applies to the issue that is before the Council tonight. Jones stated in his reading of the language, it appears to say that all of this is good and that the application of the management classes Preserve 1, 2, and 3 would apply going forward under this ordinance to everything that is not residential. Jones stated based on the language in the text amendment, it says except those zoned as residential, which would seem to suggest that houses are not going to be following this type of classification. Barnhart noted Lines 98 through 104 establishes the different types of wetland classifications except those zoned as residential. That language was added in there to reflect some changes recommended by the Watershed District. Barnhart noted wetlands are an overlay zone and are already governed by the Watershed District. Jones asked if it would apply to residential structures on properties or not. Barnhart stated based on the draft language, it would not since it is already governed by the Watershed District. Barnhart stated from that wetland designation, the Watershed District applies their buffers. Jones noted earlier this evening during the Eureka issue, Mayor Walsh stated the City does not want to give up control to the state, but yet here they are advocating giving up control to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Jones stated there is a contradiction there that he is struggling with. Walsh stated in his view they are a little different. Jones stated in his view philosophically they are not. Walsh stated they can agree to disagree on that. Jones asked if the 22 -foot setback would apply to Preserve Management Class 1, 2 and 3 or whether they would be treated differently. Barnhart stated originally the Planning Commission reviewed a version of the ordinance that had a different setback in it. Under Line 90, it says where no formal buffer exists and where the MCWD does not require a buffer, the City would require 35 feet. The Planning Commission saw a version that had the setback reduced to 22 feet. That number came from adding 12 feet to the MCWD's 12.5 feet. Barnhart noted wetland averaging would require a wetland delineation. Jones asked if the 22 feet would apply to all four management classes. Barnhart noted that is not before the City Council tonight. Page 27 of 34