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