PCP 09-06-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ramsey County Violation: During my last conversation with Ramsey County, they determined . that since thcre was no damage to the road and erosion was under control, they did not have . any legal recourse. While Ramsey County indicated that they may investigate the situation further, it appears that they have closed the ease. They did say that the Connty would support the City's efforts to have the property re-Iandscaped. Rice Creek Watershed District Violation: The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) investigated the scene and found the erosion eontrol measures in place to be sufficient and, therefore, they did not have any cause for action. RCWD does not have any restrictions on vegetation removal. RCWD will be reviewing the property owner's building plans; however, at this point, it is quite likely that RCWD will approve thc building plans. City Violation: The technical violation of City Ordinances is clear.cutting in the Shoreland Overlay Zone, which is prohibited in Ordinance 334 Subd. 7.A. I. Clear.cutting includes completely removing a stand of trees and other vcgetation. City Options: The City has not had a violation like this in anyone's recent memory, and there is not a defined process in place for resolving this type of violation. Since the vegetation is already gone, thc City must look for the option that provides the best outcome for the City and the neighborhood. While the City could issuc a citation or file a civil lawsuit, we try to work with thc property owner before taking the owner to court. Even if the property owner enters a guilty plea, the court process can be long and expensive with minimal results. It is quite possible that the City's Icgal eosts would be more than a fine, and the court may just order the property owner to work with the City to re-Iandscape the lot. Furthermore, taking the issue to court may . delay implementing a landscaping plan. In this case, the property owner has been cooperative and open to Staff ideas. Should the property owner decide to not work with the City, we can pursue legal options. Unfortunately, the City does not have an administrative eitation process at this time, which means we cannot simply fine the property owner without taking him to court. Property Owner Agreement: In a meeting with the property owner, Staff suggested that he volunteer to have his landscaping plan reviewed through the site plan review process, which would require review by the Planning Commission and City Couneil along with the $400 site plan review fee. In most cases, a residential property would not be subject to the site plan review process or a landscaping review. Mr. Ngo has volunteered to go through the site plan review process and be subject to whatever conditions are placed on the landseaping plan. He was made awarc that the City would be looking for an extensive landscaping plan that should include the Ramsey County right-of.way (provided that the County is supportive of the new landscaping in the right.of.way). Since it is not practical to fully installlandseaping before the home is constructed, Mr. Ngo will be submitting an escrow to the City for the estimated cost of the landscaping to ensurc that the landscaping is completed prior to issuing any building pcrmits. Due to the timing and dcadline dates for the Planning Commission, the site plan review will likely take place in October. The City oj Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 6, 2006 . \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Commisslon\New-Old Business\2006\083006 Ngo Violation Landscaping Review.doc Page 2 of3