pf_03787 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment C Additional Council discussion ensued, with Mayor Klausing summarizing his interpretation of how to approach the suggested original wetland demarcation with a proposed expansion within the required setback; staff and the Variance Board finding no basis for a hardship by strict application of the code; and the Council's need to determine if there is a hardship that had not been perceived or the land could not be put to reasonable use without a variance. Mayor Klausing outlined another approach that the entire case was based on a faulty premise, and a determination could be made that the wetland setback is inaccurate; with additional information required to be provided by the applicant for consideration Mayor Klausing questioned the applicant as to what additional information or evidence he would be able to garner by hiring an expert. The applicant advised that he would seek evidence from an organization expert in delineating wetlands. Community Development Director John Stark clarified that the actual debate is not the 2006 wetland delineation, but the test for the Variance Board and City Council was to determine in 2006 if the applicant needed a variance from 2006 regulations. Mr. Stark noted that staff looked at the "as-builts," giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt, researching the property history, with a variance required based on today's conditions. Additional discussion included setback requirements; differing perceptions of the wetland delineation; validity of the various surveys and plats displayed; whether the City had made the problem worse through use of the wetland as part of the City's storm water management system; source information for Attachment D; whether the applicant had grounds for a variance for wetland issues beyond his control; storm water management for the entire area and development of the applicanYs property changing the flow of the property, thus naturally increasing the wetland area. Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City was obligated to protect and not encroach on wetlands, based on the Wetland Conservation Act. City Attomey Anderson opined that the burden was on the landowner to prove his case as to where the wetland was in 1996 and its relevancy to 2006; if the house was built up to the wetland boundary in 1995, then the situation with any hardship was created by the landowner; that functioning wetland and boundaries do change, and that there could be a change due to circumstances not created by the landowner, but by the City. Mr. Anderson concurred with previous Council discussion that, the change to the wetland as delineated in 2006, was definitely due in part to this property development and this landowner's own actions with the size and location of the house and its impact to impervious surface coverage and wetland expansion. Mayor Klausing opined that the wetland may have expanded due to the entire development, not solely as a result of the one property owner. Mayor Klausing addressed the applicant, and questioned individual Councilmembers on their preferences, advising that the City Council would need additional expert information provided by the applicant in order to make a determination on the original wetland boundary delineation. Councilmember Pust opined that she would need additional information to make a determination, including where the original delineation was, how did it increase in size, impacts to the applicanYs lot as well as adjoining lots, and would the wetland have developed and enlarged naturally.