Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #179J <br />January 14, 1993 <br />Page 4 <br />Staff has referenced specific section of both the loning and <br />subdivision regulations that deal with wetlands. Orono's code <br />holds that wetlands shall remain in their natural state. The code <br />provides little direction or standards for the alteration of <br />wetlands. It was the intent and desire of the City to keep <br />wetlands and adjacent areas in their original or natural state. <br />The code does not encourage the makeover into finely manicured, <br />formal lawns. One thing is clear in tha National Wetlands <br />Conservation Act, and that is that there shall be no filling within <br />a defined wetland area. Applicants cannot place any of the spoils <br />within the protected area nor is there room for berms on the <br />severely restricted residential lots because of the need to <br />preserve future on-site septic area. If a pond is approved, all <br />spoils would have to be removed from the site. <br />The City of Minnetonka has just completed a comprehensive <br />amendment to their wetland ordinances governing maintenance of <br />wetlands. The ordinamce provides standards for environmentally <br />acceptable alterations of wetland areas. The City has asked for a <br />copy of the ordinance and hopefully will be available for our <br />meeting. <br />Staff has received several calls from adjacent neighbors. The <br />neighbors all concur that they are completely against the <br />installation of the pond and want the area to remain in its natural <br />state and all disturbed areas to be restored. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />A. The Engineer has confirmed that the pond is not necessary to <br />solve basement flooding problems of applicant and neighbor. <br />The On-site Septic Manager has confirmed that there is no <br />other suitable land outside of the easement area to install a <br />pond. Do the findings of consultants and other agencies have <br />any bearing on your decision making? <br />B. What changes or additions would make the application more <br />acceptable? - disregarding, of course, the fact that applicant <br />proceeded with the alterations with the full knowledge that <br />the actions were in violation of the Flcwage and Conservation <br />Easement filed in the Chain of Title. <br />C. Would you approve a smaller open water area within the wetland <br />as long as original vegetation of a fresh meadow is restored <br />around the pond and all spoils removed from site? <br />Hardship Statement <br />Applicant has not provided a hardship statement. The <br />consultant's addendum deals with the surface runoff from the road