Loading...
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.