Laserfiche WebLink
Item No: 7H <br />Meeting Date: April 23, 2007 <br />Type of Business: CB <br />Administrator Review : ____ <br />City of Mounds View Staff Report <br />To: Honorable Mayor and City Council <br />From: James Ericson, Community Development Director <br />Item Title/Subject: First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 786, an <br />Ordinance Amending Chapter 1010, Wetland Zoning <br />Code <br />Introduction: <br /> <br />Staff asked Kennedy & Graven to review the City’s Wetland Zoning Ordinance (Chapter <br />1010) in light of recent issues relating to normal maintenance within a buffer area and work <br />conducted by or at the request of the City within the buffer and also to strengthen the <br />violations provisions when work is conducted contrary to the code allowances. Staff <br />presented some of these changes to the Council at the March 5 worksession; the only <br />change to the proposed ordinance since then is the language added to Section 1010.14 <br />pertaining to violations. <br /> <br />Discussion: <br /> <br />Presently the Code is not clear with respect to whether property owners within a buffer <br />(within 100 feet of a wetland) need to apply for a permit to conduct normal ongoing <br />maintenance in their yard. The original intent of the ordinance, we assume, was not to <br />require a permit be issued anytime a home owner wanted to remove vegetation from the <br />maintained area of their lawn and Ordinance 786 helps clarify this. The second issue <br />addressed by the attached ordinance is to exempt the City of Mounds View or agents <br />working on its behalf from needing to obtain a wetland buffer or alteration permit when doing <br />municipal work near or within a wetland. An example of such an exemption would have <br />been the Silver Lake Road trailway (which did receive a RCWD permit) and the upcoming <br />trailway work on the south side of County Road 10 between Silver Lake Road and County <br />Road I. The final amendment contemplated by Ordinance 786 is to further emphasize the <br />consequences of violations to the ordinance. All of the proposed amendments have been <br />suggested and reviewed by the city attorney’s office. <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />Staff and the City Attorney recommend approval of the attached Ordinance 786 which <br />provides some clarity pertaining to activities exempt from needing a permit and strengthens <br />the section which addresses violations. The entirety of Chapter 1010 is also attached for the <br />Council’s reference. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />________________________ <br />James Ericson <br />Community Development Director <br />