CCP 11-27-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The site plan review process will focus only on the proposcd landscaping, Although the applicant has included plans for the proposed dwelling, the dwelling is not included in this . review. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the dwelling does meet all requirements of the underlying R-2 Zone, including setbacks, impervious coverage limits (25%), and height. Additional Information Background: During the last part of July 2006, the property owner of 3433 Lake Johanna Blvd hired a trce cutting service to removc the trees from his property to prepare the site for construction of a ncw home, Prior to the clearing, the property was vacant. The property owner claims that he contacted the City to find out if a penllit was needed to remove trees, The City docs not requirc a pe1111it for removing trees; thereforc, it is quite possible that the propcrty owner was told he did not need a permit. Unfortunately, it was not made clear that this is a property within the shorc\and overlay zone. Tn addition to clearing the lot, the tree cutting service removed the trees in the Ramscy County right-of-way for Lake Johanna Blvd and may have removed trecs in the Fairvicw ^ vcnue right-of-way, which is dedicated to the City, Ramsey COlm(v: Ramsey County detenllined that since there was no damage to the road and erosion was under control, they did not have any legal recourse, Ramsey County did indicate that they would be supportive of the City's efforts to have thc property re-Iandscaped. Rice Creek Watershed District: The Rice Creek Watershed District (RcWD) investigated the scene after the clearing and found the erosion control measures in place to be sufficient and, thercfore, they did not have any cause for action. RCWD does not have any rcstrictions on . vegetation removal. RcWD is reviewing the property owner's building plans. Shore/and Ordinance Violation: The tcchnical violation of City Ordinances is clear-cutting in the Shorcland Overlay Zone, which is prohibited in Ordinance 334 Subd, 7.A,l, Clcar- cutting includcs completely removing a stand of trecs and other vegetation, City Options: The City has docs not have a violation like this on record, and there is not a defined process in place for resolving this type of violation, Since the vegetation is already gone, the City must look for the option that provides the best outcome for the City and the neighborhood. While the City could issue a citation or file a civil lawsuit, the City tries to work with property owner's before rcsol1ing to legal action. Even if the property owner enters a guilty plea, the court process can be long and expensive with potentially minimal results. It is quite possible that the City's legal costs would be more than a fine, and the court may simply order the property owner to work with the City to re-Iandscape the lot. Furthcl1llOre, taking the issue to court may actually delay implementing a landscaping plan. In this case, the property owner has been cooperative and open to Staff idcas. Should the property owner decide to not Ci(I' 0(:1 rd(,J/ J iiI Is PlaJ/J/iJ/g CommissioJ/ MeetiJ/g./i!l' Octoh('r 4. lOO(j \\f\tL'lm-inl'l./I.1'iardenhilL"PIII/1llillg\Plo/1/1illg Ca,les,200(d'o-(}28 Ngo Sile 1'/11/1 Rait'1\' Il'LNf)ING,'OY/306 - I'C reporT ,\go Sile 1'1(//1 . f!cl'iel\',dor Page 2 of7