Agenda - Council - 04/14/2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

placing structures, mowing, and filling are prohibited within the buffer area without a City - approved management plan intended to improve /enhance the buffer area. The Planning Commission conducted the public hearing on April 2, 2009 and received both verbal and written comments on the ordinance. Several of the concerns raised at the public hearing questioned the constitutionality of the ordinance and whether it represented a taking of land. Per City Council direction, the City Attorney researched case law on this and in his opinion, the ordinance is not unconstitutional; however, in certain instances a landowner could potentially claim a regulatory taking based on case specific facts. The City Attorney's legal opinion is attached. Other issues that were raised included: • The City purchases right -of -way and easements, why wouldn't the City purchase buffer areas? • Placing a monument on a property implies ownership. • Similar ordinances have been repealed in other communities including both Plymouth and Maple Grove. • Concern of fire safety with unmaintained vegetation right up to structures. • Noxious weeds will take over areas if they aren't maintained; mowing is preferred to herbicides due to proximity to water. As a condition of development, a developer is required to dedicate public road rights -of -way and provide drainage and utility easements. These are not purchased by the City unless it is outside the realm of a proposed development. Also, the responsibility of installing the buffer monuments is that of the developer and at the time of installation, the property would still be owned by the developer. Staff has researched Plymouth's and Maple Grove's code of ordinances and both communities still have a wetland buffer requirement. Plymouth's ordinance applies to all lots . created after January 3, 1995 Maple Grove's ordinance applies to all lots created after June 16, 1993. In fact, Plymouth's minimum buffer width for exceptional quality wetlands is fifty (50) feet, which matches Ramsey's maximum required buffer width for exceptional quality wetlands. As for the concerns regarding fire safety and noxious weeds, the. Wetland Protection Ordinance, as written, does address these concerns. The additional structure setback from the buffer was included to provide a minimum separation between the natural area and a building. In fact, this requirement was added after input from the initial public hearing back in 2005. Also, while property owners are not required to actively maintain a buffer area, the ordinance states that certain activities, such as mowing or herbicide application to eliminate noxious weeds, may be allowed if they are a part of an active maintenance plan approved by the City. A representative from the Anoka Conservation District also provided some input on the Wetland Protection Ordinance. In his experience, for an ordinance of this type to be successful, it must allow for some flexibility. In his opinion, Ramsey's Wetland Protection Ordinance does just that by including provisions for alternative buffer standards, variances to the requirement and the ability for a property owner to dispute the management classification of a wetland. Furthermore, he stated that Ramsey' s ordinance is consistent with many other communities and water management organizations' regulations, of which there are almost forty (40) just in the north metro area. He did, however, identify possible opportunities for compromise including —200—