Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 10/23/06 <br />Minutes - Page 26 <br /> <br />the applicant needed a variance from 2006 regulations. Mr. Stark <br />noted that staff looked at the "as-builts," giving the applicant the <br />benefit of the doubt, researching the property history, with a <br />variance required based on today's conditions. <br /> <br />Additional discussion included setback requirements; differing <br />perceptions of the wetland delineation; validity of the various <br />surveys and plats displayed; whether the City had made the <br />problem worse through use of the wetland as part of the City's <br />storm water management system; source information for <br />Attachment D; whether the applicant had grounds for a variance <br />for wetland issues beyond his control; storm water management <br />for the entire area and development of the applicant's property <br />changing the flow of the property, thus naturally increasing the <br />wetland area. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City was obligated to <br />protect and not encroach on wetlands, based on the Wetland <br />Conservation Act. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson opined that the burden was on the <br />landowner to prove his case as to where the wetland was in 1996 <br />and its relevancy to 2006; if the house was built up to the wetland <br />boundary in 1995, then the situation with any hardship was <br />created by the landowner; that functioning wetland and <br />boundaries do change, and that there could be a change due to <br />circumstances not created by the landowner, but by the City. Mr. <br />AndprcoTI f'f'TIf'l1rrpr! ,,,ith nrpviouc Cmmf'l'l dicf'l1Ccirm that thF' <br />iJU.... v.... .I. ...,........ ""...........""..... 0'\'........ .t'''-'-''''''' '-' ...................... ........_..........u................. , ........ <br />change to the wetland as delineated in 2006, was definitely due in <br />part to this property development and this landowner's own <br />actions with the size and location of the house and its impact to <br />impervious surface coverage and wetland expansion. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing opined that the wetland may have expanded due <br />to the entire development, not solely as a result of the one <br />property owner. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing addressed the applicant, and questioned <br />individual Councilmembers on their preferences, advising that the <br />City Council would need additional expert information provided <br />by the applicant in order to make a determination on the original <br />