HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 09-26-1994 SpecialEXECUTIVE SESSION
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1994
I. EXECUTIVE SESSION (closed session) - City Manager's Evaluation 6:00 P.M.
Public Safety Library)
II. SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M.
Public Safety Conference Room)
A. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission on Wetlands Ordinance
B. Discuss format for October Ward Meetings
C. Establish date for City Attorney Interviews
PSI
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Counc
FROM: Barb Sennes, Consulting Team, and Planning Commission
DATE: September 2:,19941994
SUBJECT: Development of the Wetlands Ordinance
Through our workshops regarding the development of a wetlands ordinance, we have identified
several issues which are crucial to defining an ordinance which will serve the best interests of the
community. Outlined below are items which we are suggesting for discussion to discuss at
Monday evening's meeting. Included with this packet you will find supplemental material
including: Ordinance Objec Ives, Wetland Classifications, Setback Options, and Areas Consumed
by an Example Wetland Buer and Setback.
Goals: There has een some debate over the primary goal(s) of the ordinance. While
there is little debate!:garding the attached list of objectives, there has significant
discussion whether improved water quality is really the primary goal of the ordinance.
Existing DevelopT,ent: Several opinions exist on this issue. Some believe that existing
development should not be affected by any new setbacks or buffer standards, others that
new standards should apply - but not as stringent as those for new development.
Value of property: How will the value of property be affected by this ordinance? Will it
be more valuable, will different land use types be affected differently? The Consultants
will be prepared to I iscuss this issue.
Balance of Land Uses within the City: The City Staff and Consultants have been
exploring options to minimize the impact of a Wetlands Ordinance on future development
opportunities in theqty. Several ideas include modifying front yard setbacks and
changing Land Use Guide Plan Classifications.
Size of the Setbacks and Buffers: What should drive the size of the setbacks and
buffers? Currently the consultants have defined four unique wetland classifications in the
City of Plymouth. Attached are setback examples for each wetland classification which
have been developeq in the workshops. The consultants will present some findings
regarding setback d buffer size and function at the meeting.
Takings: The ordinance needs to be defensible so that the setbacks and buffers can not
be construed as a taking of property. How does the Council see the risks that might be
incurred as a result?
9
CITY OF PLYMOUTH WETLAND DEFINITIONS
Wetlands, Exceptional Quality Exceptional Quality wetlands contain an abundance of different
plant species with dominance evenly spread among several species. Such wetlands may support
some rare or unusual plant species. Invasive or exotic plant species are either absent or limited
to small areas where some disturbance has occurred. This higher level of plant species diversity
generally provides high wildlife habitat value and may also support rare wildlife species. The
shoreline of excellent quality wetlands are natural, unaffected by erosion, and they exhibit no
evidence of significant man induced water level fluctuation Exceptional Quality wetlands provide
excellent water quality protection, high aesthetic quality, and provide excellent opportunities for
educational and scientific activities within the community.
Wetlands, High Onality High quality wetlands are still generally in their natural state and tend to
show less evidence of adverse effects of surrounding land uses. Exotic and invasive plant species
may be present and species dominance may not be evenly distributed among several species,
however, a minimum of twenty different species were observed within the basin. There tends to
be little evidence of water level fluctuation due to storms and their shorelines are stable with little
evidence of erosion. The combination of these factors result in these wetlands being judged as
providing a greater level of water quality protection and significantly better wildlife habitat. They
show little if any evidence of human influences and their greater levels of species diversity,
wildlife habitat and ecological stability results in higher aesthetic quality. These characteristics
also offer opportunities for educational or scientific value to the community.
Wetlandg, Lowuality Wetlands included in this category have been substantially altered by
agricultural or urban development that caused over nutrification, soil erosion, sedimentation and
water quality degradation. As a result of these factors these wetlands exhibit low levels of plant
species diversity and the overcrowding and dominance of such invasive species as reed canary
grass and a related reduction in the quality of wildlife habitat. These wetlands may also tend to
exhibit extreme water level fluctuations in response to storms and show, evidence of shoreline
erosion. The combination of these characteristics cause these wetlands to provide low levels of
water quality protection and to have poor aesthetic quality. They often exhibit evidence of
significant human influences and they are deemed to be of little educational or scientific value to
the community.
Wetlands, Medium Quality Medium quality wetlands have a slightly higher number of plant
species present than Low Quality wetlands, often with small pockets of indigenous species within
larger areas dominated by invasive or exotic species. Their relatively greater species diversity
results in slightly better wildlife habitat. They exhibit evidence of relatively less fluctuation in
water level in response to storms and less evidence of shoreline erosion. As a result of these
characteristics, these wetlands provide somewhat better water quality protection. They also
exhibit relatively less evidence of human influences and therefore, tend to be of a higher aesthetic
quality. These wetlands are still judged to be of limited educational or scientific value to the
community.
City Of Plymouth Background Material
45, , W1 L A V
THROUGH THE ADOPTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ARTICLE, THE
CITY SHALL PROMOTE THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND
WELFARE OF ITS RESIDENTS BY BOTH CONSERVING AND
PROTECTING WETLANDS AND REQUIRING SOUND MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES AND MITIGATION WHEN DEVELOPMENT OCCURS IN THE
VICINITY OF WETLANDS. THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS
ORDINANCE, THE CITY SEEKS TO ACCOMPLISH THE FOLLOWING
PURPOSES:
To satisfy the requirements of the wetlands conservation act of 1991 [Minn.
Stat. 103g.221 et seq.(hereafter referenced to as WCA)] and, thereby,
achieve no net loss of wetlands within the city;
To balance the needs to preserve and protect natural resources and systems
with both the Rights of private property owners and the need to support the
efficient use of developable land within the city;
To preserve the natural character of the landscape through the maintenance
of wetland ecosystems;
To promote water quality By maintaining wetlands ability to recharge
ground water and receive the discharge of ground water, to retain sediment
and toxicants and filter and strip nutrients from surface water runoff Before
it discharges into community lakes and streams, thus avoiding the
contamination and eutrophication of these water features;
To provide wildlife habitat and thereby support the maintenance of
Diversity Of both plant and animal species within the city.
AFFECT OF A 25 FOOT SETBACK ON EXISTING LOTS
Number of lots in the City of Plymouth M000
Approx. Number of Lots Affected by 25' Setback 3,740
Approx. Number of Existing Structures Encroaching on Setback 194
Percentage Affected by Setback
Percentage of Non -Conforming Lots Based on Total Lots in City
Note: These numbers do not include some portions around Medicine Lake - Section 36
CLASSIFICATION OF WETLANDS:
T"e Number Percent
Unclassified 546 77.2%
Low Quality 16 2.2%
Medium Quality 103 14.6%
High Quality 28 4.0%
Exceptional Quality 14 2.0%
Total Mapped 707 100%
5.2%
1.1%
City of Plymouth Wetlands Ordinance Background Material August 30, 1994
WETLAND AND BUFFER SETBACK OPTIONS
WETLAND CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Buffer Area (Min.): 100' 40'
Wetland Buffer Area (Max.): 100' 60'
Wetland Buffer Average: 100' 50'
Structure Setback (from Buffer): 2U 2U
Total: 125' 65'-85'
10 M1 MEM"IFIM,
20' 0'
40' 10'
30' 5'
2-U 25'
45'-65' 25'-35'
WETLAND CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Buffer Area (Min.): 75' 30' 10' 0'
Wetland Buffer Area (Max.): 100' 50' 20' 0'
Wetland Buffer Average: 87.5' 40' 15' 0'
Structure Setback (from Buffer): 2U 2U 2U 2U
Total: *100'-125' 55'-75' 35'-45' 25'
Indicates a meandering buffer is allowed.
SETBACKS FOR EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD:
Exceptional _ High Medium Low
Setback from Wetland 25' 25' 25' 25'
Area consumed by buffers with the following standards:
COMBINED BUFFER AND SETBACK (EXAMPLE)
LOW and UNCLASSIFIED = 25 feet
MEDIUM = 40 feet
HIGH = 60 feet
EXCEPTIONAL = 125 feet
LAND USE GUIDE PLAN ACRES
NONE LA4 0.10
CHUR CL 1.01
CHUR LAI 4.54
CHUR LA3 0.42
CITY CC 0.14
CITY LAI 0.84
CITY LA3 0.16
CITY LA4 0.47
CMED CL 0.53
CMED CS 0.30
COFF CC 0.83
COFF CL 12.57
COFF CR2 0.22
COFF IP 0.28
CPRK CC 2.42
CPRK IP 1.02
CPRK LAI 5.73
CPRK LA2 2.25
CPRK LA3 1.98
CPRK LA4 0.30
CPRK LAR 4.30
CPRK OPEN 42.61
CRET CC 1.06
CRET CL 1.94
CRET CR1 0.15
CRET CR2 4.18
CRET CS 3.24
CRET IP 0.66
CRET LAI 0.00
CRET LAR 0.00
CTRL LAI 1.65
CTRL LA2 1.91
CTRL LA3 1.35
CTRL OPEN 0.18
DUP LAI 0.27
DUP LA2 0.46
GOVT CC 0.13
GOVT CL 0.02
GOVT IP 0.92
GOVT LA1 0.33
GOVT LA2 0.76
GOVT LA3 0.86
GOVT OPEN 1.07
IGEN CS 0.02
IGEN IP 5.24
IGEN LA2 0.05
IMFG CL 1.35
IMFG IP 11.19
INST IP 0.49
INST LA1 2.37
INST OPEN 0.18
IWHS CL 0.31
IWHS IP 3.21
LAKE LAKE 14.11
M-8 LA3 0.04
M001 LA1 0.62
M 10 LA3 0.55
M104 LA3 2.34
M12 LA2 1.49
M120 LA4 1.19
M125 LA3 1.46
M125 LA4 0.13
Ml 32 LA4 0.02
M153 LA4 0.02
M160 LA4 0.19
M185 LA3 0.59
M200 LA3 2.06
M208 LA4 0.16
M22 LA3 0.40
M224 LA4 0.90
M248 LA2 0.55
M26 LA1 0.15
M334 LA4 0.51
M72 LA4 0.02
M75 LA4 0.06
M8 LA2 0.13
M81 LA3 0.32
M92 LA3 0.25
P P 0.23
REC CR2 0.09
REC LA1 15.47
REC LA2 11.18
REC LA3 3.73
REC LA4 1.77
REC LAR 1.26
REC OPEN 18.83
ROW ROW 87.33
RPRK IP 0.57
RPRK LA3 0.45
RPRK OPEN 25.94
RTRL IP 0.23
RTRL LA1 1.91
RTRL LA2 2.70
RTRL LAR 0.27
SCHL CL 1.37
SCHL LA2 1.05
SCHL OPEN 4.32
SFA LA1 2.98
SFA LA2 2.90
SFA LA3 8.00
SFA LA4 0.77
SFD CL 0.71
SFD CR2 2.84
SFD CS 1.84
SFD IP 3.07
SFD LA1 188.52
SFD LA2 25.28
SFD LA3 4.56
SFD LA4 0.40
SFD LAR 168.40
SFD OPEN 7.45
VACT CC 0.82
VACT CL 17.01
VACT CR1 0.23
VACT CR2 2.97
VACT CS 3.91
VACT IP 23.31
VACT LA1 54.97
VACT LA2 50.27
VACT LA3 8.04
VACT LA4 2.08
VACT LAR 78.73
VACT OPEN 0.08
TOTAL 1,004.47
U_I_51u s
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
DATE: September 6, 1994
TO: Plymouth Planning Commission
FROM: Barbara Senness, Planning Supervisor
SUBJECT: REVISED Wetland Ordinance Schedule
On August 29, 1994, the City Council authorized $50,900 to complete the field verification of
all the wetlands in the City as the Planning Commission recommended. As a consequence of
that action, staff and the consultant team have prepared a revised schedule for completion of
the wetland ordinance. The proposed schedule is as follows:
Wednesday, September 7: Review of Community and Developer Meetings
Monday, September 26: Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting on
wetland ordinance (special meeting)
Friday, October 14: Field verification complete
Wednesday, October 26: Consultant presentation to Planning Commission on
results of field verification
Developer Presentation to Planning Commission
Wednesday, November 9: Planning Commission review of final draft of wetland
ordinance
Tuesday, November 29: Planning Commission Public Hearing on wetland
ordinance
Monday, December 19: City Council adoption (Alternative: the Council may
choose to hold a special meeting on Dec. 12 to
consider the ordinance)
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
DATE: September 21, 1994
TO: Plymouth Planning Commission
FROM: Barbara Senness, Planning Supervisor
SUBJECT: Detailed Summary of Community and Developer Meetings
Following the three public meetings to discuss progress on the wetland ordinance I prepared a
brief summary of questions and concerns raised at the meetings. The following is a more
detailed summary of each of those meetings. Each meeting began with an overview of
technical and policy -related materials prepared by the consultants.
Parker's Lake Pavilion August 30 1994
Nine Plymouth residents attended this meeting. In addition, Planning Commissioners Albro,
Black and Ribbe attended as well as City staff members Dwight Johnson, Anne Hurlburt,
Barba Senness and Fred Moore. John Shardlow and Lynn Rabuse of Dahlgren, Shardlow and
Uban (DSU) attended as well as Ron Peterson, Peterson Environmental Consulting.
One resident indicated that he was concerned about "taking" of property and stated that
whatever ordinance was in effect at the time of platting a property should carry through
thereafter.
Another resident stated that over time we have learned more about wetlands and their functions
and in other parts of the country, people are paying for the burden of filling and otherwise
degrading wetlands. She suggested that perhaps we need to change front and side yard
setbacks to allow lots to develop, but still protect the wetland. She further suggested that we
negotiate with developers on these changes. People want the wetlands --that is why they
purchase lots with wetlands. When the wetland is lost, they have lost what they were looking
for.
When the consultants reviewed their data about how existing lots would be effected by a 25 -
foot structure setback from wetlands, it was noted that the five percent figure for affected lots
was probably low because it did not address how many lots might be affected by the addition
of three -season porches, etc. The consultant noted the need to revisit the building envelope
used in this analysis.
Another resident asked how much more severe this ordinance would be than what the DNR
and the Corps of Engineers regulates. The consultant responded that the Corps has no buffers.
The DNR has several sets of rules for lakes and types 3, 4 and 5 wetlands over 2.5 acres.
However, they only regulate changes below the Ordinary High Water mark --they also do not
have buffers. On the other hand, state shoreland regulations do require setbacks.
In response to the question of how much land will be affected if a buffer is put in place, the
consultant stated that using a buffer and setback ranging from 25 to 125 feet, (depending on the
quality of the wetland) that figure is about 1,005 acres.
Another question addressed what kind of restrictions would there be in the buffer area --what
could you do and not do.
It was also suggested that in the case of buffers around exceptional wetlands, the City would
really be altering the Zoning Ordinance and creating a very large lot. To address this problem,
at the same time the wetland ordinance is being developed, the City needs to look at changes to
the Zoning Ordinance for setbacks, possible purchase of pristine wetlands as open space, etc.
Several residents discussed concerns about wildlife. One resident indicated a need to control
wildlife as a safety measure for residents. He noted that he has heard nothing from City staff
about this and it is a hazard. Another resident suggested that we need to achieve a balance
between wetland protection and wildlife. It was noted that we can do away with all wetlands
and still have geese and deer problems. However, wetlands are important to migratory birds
and they are worth saving. A question was raised about what kind of setback is needed to
rejuvenate areas that have been mowed to the edge. The consultant responded that the numbers
in the literature vary greatly regarding wildlife habitat.
One resident stated that he needed education about what to do about his wetland and asked if
the City will provide this information. He further noted that as a resident, he did not have
enough education to determine if a proposed setback and buffer is appropriate. In response to
the first comment, it was noted that some simple things will help--e.g. plant native species
instead of sterile, non-native plants that don't provide food. Work with developers to make
these changes which would not be costly. One resident noted the article in the Sun/Sailor
about the use of fertilizer and indicated that we need more of this type of article. Public
agencies' use of salt was noted as well as the need for citizens to raise this as an issue with
appropriate officials.
A question was raised about how the ordinance would affect the person who bought a lot and
expected to build a house. These people spent good money that may in the future be a
worthless investment. In response, a resident asked if other ordinances didn't allow for
variances. Another stated that builders automatically ask for variances (e.g. on cul-de-sacs)
and once they are allowed, it is difficult to hold the line. The consultant suggested in addition
to a variance procedure, he would recommend setting forth requirements for lots that cannot
meet the established setback. ,
One resident noted that it is OK if this ordinance causes developers to lose a few lots because
they have run rampant to this point and now it's time to pay back. Another noted that most
Pa
big developments are done under the PUD ordinance where anything goes, so this ordinance
will only affect the little guys.
City Center, August 31, 1994
Nine developers or representatives of developers attended this meeting. In addition, Mayor
Tierney, Planning Commissioners Albro, Black, Ribbe and Stimson and staff members Dwight
Johnson, Anne Hurlburt, John Keho, Fred Moore and Barb Senness attended. John Shardlow
and Ron Peterson also attended.
Initially, one representative stated that information needs to be made available so developers
can determine how this ordinance is affecting them before the date of the public hearing.
A question was raised about why the wetland assessment method was not quantitative. The
consultant responded that the assessment method selected was related to the time available to
complete the work and that field reviewers use their professional judgment. The consultant
also responded that wetland classifications could be arbitrated.
A question was also raised about why buffers are being proposed for new developments, but
not for existing. One developer stated that wetlands have not been taken care of properly, so
the city is moving forward to put more restrictions on vacant land, but existing areas will
remain as is. The future 25 percent will pay for the already developed 75 percent. The
consultant responded that restriction on existing development is still an open question and
further that the ordinance is only one of the tools that can be used to address wetland
protection. Acquisition, park dedication, etc. are other tools that could also be used.
One developer asked if wetlands around existing development are in bad shape and is that what
is warranting this ordinance. The consultant responded that is premature to fully answer this,
but the field reviewers have seen some wetland degradation. In response to a question about
what causes degradation, the consultant noted that it can be from a variety of sources.
An industrial developer noted that this work seems tailored to residential development and can
there be any distinction made for commercial/industrial developments that are being master
planned. The consultant suggested that they forward information to us on specific examples.
A question was raised whether developers need to worry about a buffer being added in existing
areas. The consultant responded that this had not been part of the proposal to date, but that the
issue has had some discussion.
One developer asked if the City has considered that developers have invested huge sums of
money based on existing regulations in the City and that this ordinance could have a huge
effect economically and it could affect employment. He said that he thought the two main
points were 1) business decisions have been based on existing ordinances and 2) there is no
universally acceptable answer regarding the scientific basis for protecting wetlands.
In response to a request for sharing attorney's opinions on the wetland ordinance, staff stated
that this information was privileged, but would double check that status with the City
Attorney,
3
A general concern was raised about what to tell potential home buyers about the pending
ordinance and how it might affect them. This was noted as a dilemma.
Staff responded to the question of what is the purpose of a buffer by stating that most of the
discussion to date has been focused on water quality protection, but things such as wildlife
habitat have also been included in the proposed ordinance objectives.
It was asked if we would not be better off banning phosphates than introducing buffers,
because dogs, cats and kids are going to run wildlife out, etc. and in general, the ordinance
doesn't grasp the whole picture. The consultant responded that a ban is being considered, but
that atmospheric phosphorus will still exist, plus the construction process affects phosphorus
levels.
One developer stated that he was not against a setback, but was concerned about big buffers.
In looking at how we might best evaluate the effect on existing lots and homes, the developers
indicated that a good building envelope to use is 60 x 60. Staff noted that it would be helpful
and necessary to get the perspective of developers in a presentation addressing the worst case
scenarios of impact.
One developer stated that in general developers are all trying to protect wetlands and that this
is not something new. There was consensus in the group that they would like to make a
presentation to the Planning Commission. To prepare for such a presentation, the group
agreed to convene the Plymouth Developer's Forum. The consultant agreed to provide
background information to the group so they can give the City facts on the implications of the
ordinance from the developer's perspective. This presentation was tentatively scheduled for
the October 26 Planning Commission meeting. The City staff agreed to provide the
Developer's Forum mailing list.
It was stated that although protecting the environment is a noble cause, there is a staggering
price to society to accomplish the goal. Furthermore, no net loss is impractical if we still want
to meet other needs of society.
It was also suggested money might better be spent by focusing on the 75 percent developed
lands and getting NURP ponds in these areas. The consultant did confirm that a major part of
the pollution problem comes from impervious as opposed to pervious areas.
One developer asked if there is any incentive -based component in the ordinance. The
consultant responded that this has been looked at in general terms only at this point. The
developer noted that definitive distances take away creativity.
The consultant agreed to provide classification information to the developers.
The developers asked that the City be fair on the time line for completion of the ordinance
4
Church of the Epiphany. September 1. 1994
Sixteen residents attended this meeting. Planning Commissioners Black and Ribbe attended as
well as staff members John Keho and Barb Senness. John Shardlow and Scott Krych (Peterson
Environmental) represented the consultants.
One resident asked if the aerial photographs used for the wetland inventory were taken during
wet or dry years. The consultant responded that they were years that represented a good
coverage of wetland area.
At several points during the meeting, a realtor representing his church noted problems at the
site the church owns that relate to increased water flow into the propert;y from the City's water
treatment plant. He stated that the City Public Works Director denies the problem. He
suggested that the City compare sites based on conditions that existed when the land was tilled
versus current conditions. Staff indicated that they would follow up on this gentleman's
concerns.
Another resident asked how the consultant identified Type 1 and 2 wetlands that don't show up
at this time of year. The consultant responded that these wetlands do leave a certain signature
and that in farmed areas, the map of hydric soils helped in this identification.
It was also asked if a lower quality wetland is protected, will they improve in quality. The
consultant stated that it is difficult to eradicate invasive species and that in most cases, low
quality basins are beyond repair. Whether or not somewhat higher quality wetlands can
improve depends on a number of variables. However, Plymouth soils are such that it is tough
to reestablish native species.
In response to the question of what is the purpose of a setback and what does it protect, the
consultant responded it slows down runoff and bottom line, it improves water quality. He
noted that the buffer goes one step further than a setback.
One resident stated that he thought a variable buffer makes a lot of sense, particularly when
slopes are considered. Another resident asked who establishes and how are meandering buffers
established and who loses. The consultant responded that you need to maintain an average
buffer width within a minimum and maximum width. He noted that it is not necessarily easier
to enforce a standard buffer.
A question was raised about whether manicured buffers are going to be allowed. This was
noted as a concern because it damages wetlands. The consultant noted that a created buffer
gets at the issue of whether a buffer can perform the function to which it was intended. He
noted that there are cases where an engineered buffer may perform better than a natural buffer.
How it would be determined when an engineered buffer would be allowed is an open subject.
A concern was noted that developers might make changes in topography to meet a housing type
desired by the market.
Another concern raised regarded the lack of protection proposed for low quality wetlands.
One resident was worried about nutrients in low quality wetlands going into high quality
5
wetlands and degrading them. The consultant responded that all the City's efforts need to be
linked --the surface water management plan, buffers, erosion control, etc.
Further discussion on whether or not to provide protection for low quality wetlands brought a
comment that it's important for everything to be protected. The Swan Lake development was
cited as a good case in point, where a low quality wetland sends a stream of red soil directly to
Medicine Lake. The consultant pointed out that erosion control would best help this problem.
The comment was also made that NURP ponds are not a panacea, but rather one element in
addressing the problem.
It was noted that developers should have the responsibility to maintain erosion barriers, etc.
over a certain period of time. It was further noted that the City Engineer recently stated that
the City had no way of enforcing erosion control.
A question was raised about what the difference is in land loss between the two buffer options.
If this difference is small, the more restrictive buffer should be adopted.
One resident noted that the economic impact on the average person can be great as a result of
the proposed ordinance and must be taken into consideration. There is a need to balance
environmental protection and the private property owner --how will this trade off be made.
This is a key question. The City needs to provide as much empirical information as possible
and then take testimony about what residents think and go back to the objective of balance.
Another resident asked if the City will be recommending minimum lot sizes. He also asked if
the City will take drainage plans in developed areas into account. The consultant responded
that the City's surface water management plan will address this.
A question was raised about encouraging restoration of wetlands. The consultant responded
that there is nothing proposed to compel such action. A further question was raised about
mitigation and whether it could be directed to restoration. There is a role for public education
in this area.
One resident said he would like to see Plymouth be a model for wetlands --all the easily
developed land is used up. He stated he was worried about the individual more than the
speculators and that the community should not penalize the individual. People who buy land
for development are speculating --they can win or lose.
In approaching wetland protection, two residents suggested that the City err on the side of
conservatism to compensate for the damage already done.
Another resident stated for lots of record a 25 -foot setback is good, but we will need some
grandfathering. However, don't give a lot of variances to help developers out of a corner --
don't always let them maximize. We live with developer's mistakes.
r
It was stated that people with buffer and setbacks won't have wet basements.
It was noted that some consideration must be given for the costs of what we are doing here.
How much higher do we want to go.
6
A question was raised as to whether the City will assess landowners for the costs of this
ordinance.
It was noted that developers always ask for variances and non -conforming lots should not be
allowed. The consultant stated that acknowledging standards would be a preferable approach.
At the close of the meeting, those present acknowledged the good work that has been done in
the effor to put an ordinance in place and thanked staff and the consultants for their efforts.
z2)
DATE: September 22, 1994
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dwight Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: Ward Meeting Format
Purpose: Approve the Ward Meeting Format and Provide Input on Role of
Councilmembers in Ward Meetings
Preparations continue for October's ward meetings. The brochures are being mailed
this week. Staff has discussed the format for the meetings with a goal of maximizing
citizen interaction and providing information in an interesting way. We have a
tentative agenda in mind. However, we would like some input from you on this format
and on how you want to participate in the meeting.
Meeting Format
The ward meetings will fall into two main segments. In the first part, we plan on
giving brief overviews of several key areas: City Council Goals and Objectives, the
1995 Budget (video), Wetlands Ordinance, Open Space Acquisition, and Northwest
Plymouth Planning. We would also talk briefly about any improvements projects going
on in a particular ward. Maps and visual aids will be used as much as possible. The
time frame for the first portion of the meeting is 30 - 45 minutes.
The second portion of the meeting will be questions and answers from citizens. We
would anticipate around 30 - 45 minutes, as needed.
At the conclusion of the meeting, staff will be available to talk more in depth with
citizens about questions and concerns. Citizens also will have the opportunity to submit
additional questions in writing (for a follow-up response) and to give us some feedback
on the meeting itself.
We also may set up information booths in the atrium, so that citizens can pick up
additional information on items which may not be specifically addressed in the meeting.
Meeting Agenda Schedule
Listed below is a possible outline of the meeting and roles:
7 - 7:45 PM Welcome and Introductions Ward Councilmember
Introductions City Manager
Council Goals and Objectives Councilmember(s)
1995 Budget City Manager
Wetlands Ordinance Staff
Open Space Acquisition Staff
Northwest Plymouth Planning Staff
Ward -specific issues Staff
7:45 - 8:30 PM Audience Questions and Answers City Manager to
serve as moderator
8:30 PM Wrap-up Ward Councilmember
This is one possibility. Because we have not had wards before, we are uncertain how
much or how little councilmembers wish to participate in the meetings. While the role
of the ward councilmember is somewhat clear, the role of the mayor and At -large
councilmembers is less clear. Thus we would appreciate your input!
DATE: September 22, 1994
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kathy Lueckert, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Select Dates for City Attorney Interviews
The City Attorney Selection Sub -committee has narrowed the field of twenty-one down
to a field of three. The three firms will have an interview with staff on October 7.
The next step will be interviews with the entire City Council.
We indicated to the firms interviewed last week that we hope to complete this process
by the end of October. Thus we need to establish an interview date(s). Unfortunately,
the October schedule is rather full because of ward meetings. There are, however, a
few choices, generally on Tuesday and Thursday evenings:
Tuesday, October 11
Thursday, October 13
Thursday, October 20 (this would be three evenings out that week)
Tuesday, October 25
Thursday, October 27
It is best to allow an hour and a half for each interview. Several options are possible.
Three interviews on one evening. It would be possible to conduct three interviews
in one evening, for example 5:30, 7:00, and 8:30 PM.
Interviews on two evenings. Interviews with the full Council may take longer than
90 minutes. Two evenings are a possibility, with two interviews conducted on one
evening, and one on the second with time for discussion after the last interview.
Saturday. Another option might be a Saturday morning.
If dates are chosen Monday evening, an item will be placed on the agenda for October
3 to establish the interview dates.