HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-18 ENR Packet
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE COMMISSION
April 18, 2011
7 p.m.
Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road BEast
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes: March 21, 2011
5. New Business
a. Maplewood ShorelandlWetland Regulations - Capstone Project Presentation (30
m~.) .
. b. Western Hills Area Street Improvement Project - Wetland Impacts (20 min.)
c. Living Streets Policy (30 min.)
d. Annual Report (10 min.)
6. Unfinished Business
a. 2011 Goal Implementation Strategies (10 min.)
1) Trash Hauling
2) Greenways
3) Environmental Neighborhood Groups
b. Chicken Ordinance (20 min.)
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Commission Presentations
9. Staff Presentations
a. Spring Clean Up - April 30
b. Waterfest - May 21
c. Maplewood Nature Center Programs
10. Adjourn
(Approximate Times Given)
Agenda Item 4
MINUTES
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
7:00 p.m., Monday, March 21, 2011
Council Chambers, City Hall
1830 County Road BEast
A. CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chair Schreiner.
B. ROLL CALL
Bill Schreiner, Chair
Randee Edmundson, Vice Chair
Judith Johannessen, Commissioner
Carole Lynne, Commissioner
Carol Mason Sherrill, Commissioner
Dale Trippler, Commissioner
Ginny Yingling, Commissioner
Present
Present
Present
absent (Leave of Absence)
Pre t
P nt
t
Staff Present
Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
Ginny Yingling, Natural Resources Coor .
Andrew Hovland, City Consulting Foreste
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Staff requested moving Co
Presentations should be
tabling the Annual Rep
lysis Update ahead to New Business. Visitor
r Collection System Analysis Update. Staff requested
Go Is.
Commissioner Mason Sherri
Presentations.
ested adding Earth Hour 2011 under Commission
Commissioner Trippler moved to aDDrove the aoenda as amended.
Seconded by Commissioner Yingling.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Schreiner had a correction to page 2, item 1. Election of Chair and Vice Chair. Under the
4th paragraph it should say three votes for Commissioner Trippler and three votes for
Commissioner Schreiner.
Commissioner Trippler had a wording change to item H.1., the wording is vague and he
recommended changing it to read Commissioner Johannessen recommended that a
representative of the City Council come to an ENR meeting to give us direction on what type of
advisory role we should play and why the commission's recycling contractor recommendation
was not taken. Also on page 4, 1.1. the date should say 2011 not 2012. And 1.3. the date should
say 2011 as well.
March 21, 2011
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes
1
Commissioner Edmundson moved to approve the Januarv 13. 2011. Environmental and Natural
Resources Commission Meetino Minutes as amended.
Seconded by Commissioner Trippler.
Ayes-All
The motion passed.
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Collection System Analysis Update (moved to New Business)
a. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave the report and answered questions of the
commission.
b. Commissioner Schreiner asked if there were any visitor comments on this matter.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS (moved to follow Collection System Analysis)
a. Councilmember John Nephew, 628 East County Road B, Maplewood.
b. Dave Schelling, 1955 Greenbrier Street, Maplewood.
2. Maplewood ShorelandlWetland Regulations - Capstone Project Review
a. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave th ort.
Jana Haedtke, Graduate Student, Environme .
Maryland, gave a brililf update regarding th
Capstone Project and answered question
bility Intern Project Review
report.
3. Minnesota GreenStep Cities progr
a. Environmental Planner, Shann Fin
Hlee Moua, University of Mi
student gave a brief update
tural and Sustainability Studies Undergraduate
reenStep Cities Program.
4. Eureka Recycling
a. Environmental P
b. Recycling Coordina
n Finwall gave the introduction.
, reiffer gave a brief report.
Christopher Goodwin, Eureka Recycling gave the Year End Report and answered questions
of the commission. Mr. Goodwin reported that the city's multi-family program is very
successful, with an approximate 98 percent participation rate from multi-tenant properties.
Additionally, Mr. Goodwin discussed Eureka's public space recycling pilot project in St. Paul.
Eureka has completed the report and will share the results with Maplewood and other
communities. Mr. Goodwin went into Eureka Recycling's zero waste mission and their
availability to assist the city in this effort in the future.
The commission thanked Eureka Recycling for a job well done for the City of Maplewood and
thanked Mr. Goodwin for the good year end report.
5 Emerald Ash Borer Plan
a. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave the introduction.
b. Ginny Yingling, Natural Resources Coordinator and Andrew Hovland, Consulting City
Forester gave the Emerald Ash Borer Plan report and answered questions of the
commission.
March 21,2011
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes
2
The commission reviewed the report and made recommendations. The commission paid
particular attention to the proposed use of using insecticides to treat ash trees against the
invasion of Emerald Ash Borer.
Commissioner Trippler moved to recommend that the Environmental and Natural Resources
Commission is unanimouslv opposed to using chemicals on Emerald Ash Borer. Other than
that strong opposition to a portion of the plan. the commission recommends approval of the
Emerald Ash Borer plan.
Seconded by Commissioner Yingling.
Ayes-All
The motion passed.
Commissioner Mason Sherrill will be the ENR representative at the April 25, 2011, city council
meeting.
6. Western Hills Area Street Improvement Project - Wetland Impacts - Tabled
7. Annual Report - Tabled
F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. 2011 Goals -Implementation Strategies - T
G. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
1. Earth Hour 2011 - Commissioner
Commissioner Mason Sherrill said Ea
means of saving energy. Eart is
The request is that people
II
d in Sydney, Australia in 2007 as a
ray, March 26, 2011, from 8:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m.
ff for one hour to reduce energy costs.
H.
1. Renewable Energy Update - Environmental Planner Finwall gave an update on
the Renewable Energy e. The ordinance was reviewed by the City Council during a
workshop in March. The ouncil expressed support for the new regulations, particularly
promoting wind turbines in residential zoning districts. The ordinance will go back to the
Planning Commission in April, 2011.
2. Chicken Ordinance Update - Environmental Planner Finwall gave the Chicken Ordinance
Update. The ordinance was reviewed by the City Council during a workshop in March. The
City Council was supportive of the ordinance and requested that staff continue work on the
ordinance. The ordinance will now go back to the ENR Commission for final review and
recommendation to the City Council.
3. Recycling in the Parks Update - Environmental Planner Finwall said the city received a
grant from Ramsey County for 130 recycling bins to be placed in Maplewood parks. One half
of these bins will be delivered in the spring, and the remaining delivered in the fall.
4. Mow-Hi Pledge - Environmental Planner Finwall gave information on the Mow-Hi Pledge
Event & Lawn Care Seminar Thursday, April 7, 2011, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Ramsey County
Library for more information contact the Maplewood Nature Center.
March 21,2011
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes
3
5. Maplewood Nature Center Programs - Environmental Planner Finwall gave information on
programs at the Nature Center. Contact the Nature Center for more information or see the
city's website.
I. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Schreiner adjourned the meeting at 10:03 p.m.
March 21,2011
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes
4
Agenda Item 5.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
Maplewood ShorelandlWetland Capstone Project
April 13, 2011 for the April 18 ENR Commission Meeting
INTRODUCTION
Students from the University of Maryland University College (UMUC) have offered to provide the
City of Maplewood with an independent analysis of an environmental issue or challenge that t~e
city is facing as part of their environmental management masters capstone project. The
capstone project involves four students from various locations throughout the country, with at
least one student located in the Maplewood area. Most of the students are working adults,
some with experience in the environmental field.
DISCUSSION
State Shoreland Rules
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) conducted a rulemaking process in
2009 to update the statewide shoreland rules. The draft rules were sent to state agencies for
final review and adoption in 2010. On August 11, 2010, Governor Tim Pawlenty returned the
draft shoreland rules to the DNR for further engagement and discussion, especially with the
2011 Legislature. If the draft rules are adopted by the state, municipalities will be required to
review their shoreland ordinances to ensure they address the new regulations.
Citv Wetland and Shoreland Ordinances
The city council adopted a new wetland ordinance in December 2009. The ordinance includes
alternative buffer requirements for wetlands adjacent lakes. The alternative buffer requirements
will expire in 2012, or when the city revises the shoreland ordinance to include regulations for
these wetlands, whichever comes first. Because there is no specified timeline for the
completion of the state's shoreland rulemaking, the ENR Commission should review the city's
shoreland ordinance in 2011 to ensure wetlands adjacent lakes are regulated appropriately.
Environmental Management Capstone Proiect
The UMUC students have focused their capstone project on Maplewood's wetland/shoreland
regulations. In particular, the students compared wetlands adjacent lakes to freestanding
wetlands to determine if they are used or valued differently by the public and study whether the
functions of water quality, ecology, and wildlife habitat are different.
SUMMARY
The UMUC students have completed their Capstone paper titled Maplewood Wetland and
Shoreland Regulations for Wetlands Adjacent Lakes (Attachment 1). Jana Haedtke, one of
the UMUC environmental management students, will present the findings and
recommendations of the research during the April 18, 2011, ENR Commission meeting.
Attachment: Maplewood Wetland and Shoreland Regulations for Wetlands Adjacent Lakes (April 1 0, 2011).
(Attachment includes Appendices 1 through 4; Appendix 5 [Draft Shoreland Regulations] will be e-mailed to the
ENR Commission separately due to the size of the document.)
Maplewood, Minnesota:
Wetland and Shoreland Regulations for Wetlands Adjacent Lakes
(Capstone Project)
Jennifer House
Colleen Pennoyer Manrod
Anna Catherine Serrano
Jana Haedtke
University of Maryland University College
Graduate School of Management and Technology
ENVM 670, Section 9040, Semester 1102
Dr. J. Berkowitz
April 10, 2011
ii
Executive Snmmary
This Capstone Project was designed to research wetlands adjacent lakes in Maplewood,
Minnesota, their current regulation, and their differences compared to freestanding wetlands in
order to answer community and city concerns about the regulation of wetlands adjacent lakes
separately from freestanding wetlands as part of the city's shoreland ordinance.
Five lakes in Maplewood - Beaver Lake, Kohlman Lake, Lake Oehrline, Spoon Lake, and
Wakefield Lake - have wetlands in the form of shallow open waters, seasonally or permanently
flowed shallow marshes, seasonally flooded swamps, or saturated meadows adjacent to them that
are connected to the lakes or part of the lakes' edge. Healthy wetlands provide important
ecological functions, wildlife habitat, water quality protection, and social and economic benefits.
Regulators are concerned about the widths of and activity restrictions within the buffers of
wetlands adjacent lakes to preserve the integrity of the wetlands and lakes and still cater to the
needs of the property owners who have these wetlands adjacent to or on their properties. The city
of Maplewood currently regulates wetlands adjacent lakes less strictly than freestanding
wetlands through reduced minimum buffer width requirements in temporary sunset provisions in
the wetland ordinance. However, there is concern that these wetlands adjacent lakes may degrade
due to human activity and that the ecology, wildlife, water quality, and social and economic
functions of the lakes and adjacent wetlands may be negatively affected ifthe buffers are not
regulated as strictly as for freestanding wetlands.
Three of the five lakes with adjacent wetlands have residential areas: Beaver Lake, Lake
Oehrline, and Wakefield Lake. Limited citizen input has been collected from these areas through
questionnaires. Generally, the citizen input regarding the regulation of the wetlands adjacent
lakes indicates concerns for water quality and wildlife protection, but opinions among residents
jji
are split about making current buffers requirements more stringent. The questionnaire responses
also indicate the need to better educate affected residents. The citizens did show interest in
having pamphlets, workshops, or other educational tools available to them to create healthy
shorelines and wetlands. However, they did not want their activities on and access to the lakes
from their shore land properties to be restricted too severely. The property owners feel the
importance of healthy wetlands based on ecology, wildlife, water quality, and economic and
social aspects, but foremost, they want to be able to do what they feel is appropriate for their way
of life, before they consider the health of the wetlands.
There are differences in ecological, wildlife, water quality, and social and economic
functions between wetlands adjacent lakes and freestanding wetlands. The ecosystems of
wetlands adjacent lakes have adapted to being connected to surface waters and are more stable,
while freestanding wetlands regularly undergo rapid changes in abiotic conditions, which results
in frequent changes in the biotic community. Freestanding wetlands provide unique breeding and
habitat grounds for many species that have adapted to the frequent and often rapid changes in
abiotic conditions. Wetlands adjacent lakes are similarly important habitats for various species,
but unlike freestanding wetlands, they provide habitat for fish and other aquatic species of the
lakes. In terms of water quality, the natural vegetation buffers around wetlands filter out
sediments, excess nutrients, and other pollutants. For wetlands adjacent lakes, these buffers
protect the lakes as well. Freestanding wetlands themselves also filter out some pollutants and
moderate water flow to permit the settlement of sediments. In contrast, wetlands adjacent lakes
protect the lake's shoreline from erosion, and their vegetation takes up nutrients and other
pollutants and intercepts some of the sediment before entering the lakes' open water. Both types
of wetlands have important social and economic functions and benefits, but the main difference
iv
is that the lakes and surrounding shore lands are valued and used primarily for water- oriented
recreational purposes that require access to the shorelines, wetlands, and lakes.
Based upon ecological, wildlife, and water quality aspects, wetlands adjacent lakes
should be regulated just as strictly as freestanding wetlands, as all the positive benefits of having
a healthy ecological and wildlife system and good water quality are the same for both types of
wetlands, even though their functions may differ. Based solely on social and economic aspects,
particularly recreational uses and value, less stringent buffer requirements would be justified.
However, a decline in water quality, ecology, and wildlife due to recreational uses and other
human activities will greatly diminish recreational uses and value. Ifbuffer widths and
restrictions are reduced, the ecology, wildlife, and water quality will be negatively impacted,
which in turn, will decrease the quality of the wetlands and lakes and, along with it, the social,
economic, and recreational use and value. Thus, wetlands adjacent lakes should be regulated just
as strictly as freestanding wetlands.
In accordance with these recommendations, minimum buffers width requirements in the
shoreland ordinance should be set to 100 ft and 75 ft for Manage A and Manage B wetlands
adjacent lakes, respectively, which are the same minimum buffer widths required for the
corresponding types of freestanding wetlands. Additionally, the current activity restrictions and
other buffer requirements outlined in the wetland ordinance should be taken over in the
shoreland ordinance. These provisions provide a reasonable balance between preservation and
uses, and ensure that most desired shoreland property uses are possible even with greater buffer
widths. For the shoreland ordinance update process, it is important to gather more representative
citizen input and promote the active participation of affected residents, both in the public policy
process and in the shore land and wetland conservation process.
v
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction...................................................................................... I
2.0 Background Information on Wetlands Adjacent Lakes in Maplewood .................. 2
2.1 Wetlands - Types and Definitions...................................................... 3
2.2 Wetlands Adjacent Lakes in Maplewood .............................................. 6
2.3 Importance of Wetlands ................................................................ ... II
2.4 Current Regulation of Wetlands Adjacent Lakes in Maplewood .... . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. 12
3.0 Citizen Input..................................................................................... 18
4.0 Assessment of Differences between Wetlands Adjacent Lakes and Freestanding
Wetlands.......................................................................................... 22
4.1 Ecological Differences................................................................. .... 22
4.2 Differences in Wildlife Functions ......... ........................... ... ................ 24
4.3 Differences in Water Quality Functions................................................ 27
4.4 Social and Economic Differences ........................................................ 33
4.5 Conclusion..................................................... ............................. 34
5.0 Proposed Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Shoreland Rules............... 35
5.1 Status of Proposed Rules and Expected Timeline for Completion.................. 35
5.2 Major Proposed Parts Affecting the Regulation of Wetlands Adjacent Lakes.... 37
6.0 Recommendations for the Regulation of Wetlands Adjacent Lakes in Maplewood ... 41
6.1 Best Way to Regulate Wetlands Adjacent Lakes...................................... 41
6.2 Proposal for Update of Maple wood's Shoreland Ordinance ......................... 45
6.3 Recommended Future Citizen Participation .................. .......................... 49
7.0 Conclusion....................................................................................... 52
8.0 References........................................................................................ 53
Appendices Appendix -
Appendix I: Maplewood Wetland Ordinance....................... ....................... I
Appendix 2: Resident Questionnaire..................................................... .... 19
Appendix 3: List of Maple wood Residential Properties with Wetlands Adjacent
Lakes.................................................................,........ .... 21
Appendix 4: Questionnaire Responses...............................................,...... 22
Appendix 5: Draft of Proposed MN DNR Shore land Rules dated July 6, 20 I 0 ....... 28
List of Tables and Figures
Table I:
Figure I
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Table 2:
Figure 6:
Technical Definitions of Minnesota Wetland Types .............................. 4
Beaver Lake............................................................................ 6
Kohlman Lake......................................................................... 8
Lake Oehrline .......................................................................... 9
Spoon Lake............................................................................ 10
Wakefield Lake .................................................................... .... II
Comparison of Two Studies Assessing Buffer Effectiveness................ ... 29
Phosphorus Removal Efficiency and Buffer Widths .......... ................... 31
1
Maplewood, Minnesota:
Wetland and Shoreland Regulations for Wetlands Adjacent Lakes
1.0 Introduction
This Capstone Project was conducted by a team offour students from the University of
Maryland University College (UMUC) for the city of Maple wood, Minnesota (MN), addressing
the city's ongoing wetland-shoreland debate as it relates to wetlands adjacent lakes and their
regulation. Maplewood is doing a lot to protect its valuable natural resources, which include
numerous wetlands and lakes. Central to the protection of these resources are the city's wetland
and shoreland ordinances. Shoreland properties with wetlands adjacent lakes are affected by both
of these, often conflicting, regulations. Maplewood has five lakes with adjacent wetlands, three
of which have residential neighborhoods.
The city has updated its wetland ordinance last in 2009. During the update process,
residents have pointed out the conflicts surrounding the regulation of wetlands adjacent lakes.
Further, they argued for less restrictive buffer requirements for these wetlands compared to
freestanding wetlands, as the lakes and shore lands are used and valued for recreational
opportunities. The city has acknowledged that wetlands adjacent lakes should be viewed as part
of the overall lake system and thus ultimately be regulated through the shoreland ordinance
rather than the wetland ordinance. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR)
is currently working on updating Minnesota statewide shoreland rules. Required to meet or
exceed these statewide standards, the city will have to update its shoreland ordinance accordingly
once the rules have been finalized. At this time, the city plans to include the regulation of
wetlands adjacent lakes in the ordinance.
2
Until the shoreland ordinance is updated, Maplewood has created a sunset provision for
the regulation of wetlands adjacent lakes in the wetland ordinance, which expires either by the
end of20l2 or when a new shoreland ordinance is passed, whichever comes first. Addressing the
citizens' argument for less stringent buffer requirements, these provisions require reduced buffer
widths for wetlands adjacent lakes compared to freestanding ones. Although wetlands adjacent
lakes are regulated differently through these temporary provisions, it is necessary to determine
whether this is indeed the best way to regulate these wetlands permanently in the updated
shoreland ordinance. This project assesses whether wetlands adjacent lakes should be regulated
differently, i.e., less stringent, than or the same as freestanding wetlands, and provides
recommendations for updating the shoreland ordinance accordingly.
This report describes the types, locations, importance, and current regulation of wetlands
adjacent lakes in Maplewood; evaluates input received from citizens who live on property with
wetlands adjacent lakes; assesses the differences between wetlands adjacent lakes and
freestanding wetlands in terms of ecological differences, differences in wildlife functions,
differences in water quality functions, and social and economic differences; provides an
overview of applicable sections of the proposed MN DNR shoreland rules; and makes
recommendations for best regulating wetlands adjacent lakes as part ofthe shoreland ordinance
and future citizen participation, based on all of the aspects previously discussed.
2.0 Background Information on Wetlands Adjacent Lakes in Maplewood
In order to better understand the nature and regulatory context of wetlands adjacent lakes
in Maplewood, it is important to review the definition, types, location, and current regulation of
these wetlands.
3
2.1 Wetlands - Tvoes and Definitions
Wetlands are important ecosystems. They are characterized by specific hydrology, soil
conditions, and vegetation. Wetlands have water tables at or near the surface, often resulting in
. standing water or waterlogged conditions for most of the growing season; hydric soils that are
saturated in the upper parts for at least parts of the year, resulting in anaerobic conditions; and
hydrophytic vegetation that is adapted to the typical wetland hydrology and soils (DeBarry,
2004; MN BWSR, n.d.b). Wetlands have been officially defined under the Clean Water Act, as
listed in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EP A) regulations:
The term wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar
areas.
(40 C.F.R. 9230.3(t))
The city of Maplewood defines wetlands as follows:
Wetlands means those areas of the city inundated or saturated by groundwater or surface
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar
areas as defined. Where a person has removed or mostly changed the vegetation, one
shall determine a wetland by the presence or evidence of hydric or organic soil and other
documentation of the previous existence of wetland vegetation such as aerial
photographs. This definition does not include lakes or stormwater ponds as herein
defined.
(City of Maple wood, 2009, pp. 5-6)
Due to location-dependent differences in climate, hydrology, soil conditions, vegetation,
topography, land use, and similar factors, many different types of wetlands exist (U.S. EPA,
2010). Wetlands can be found both along the seacoast and inland. Coastal wetlands are typically
tidal marshes, while inland wetlands include non-tidal marshes, wet meadows, prairie potholes,
playa lakes, forested and shrub swamps, and bogs (U.S. EPA, 2010).
4
Wetland types that are commonly found in Minnesota include bogs or peatlands, shallow
and deep marshes, prairie potholes, shrub and wooded swamps, seasonal basins or flats, and wet
meadows (MN DNR, n.d.c). Although all of these exhibit the hydric soils, high water table, and
hydrophytic vegetation characteristic for wetlands, they differ in the vegetation and wildlife
species present, water levels, soil conditions, and location. Deep marshes typically have standing
water year round, while shallow marshes, swamps, and bogs, are waterlogged for most of the
growing season and seasonally flooded basins are completely dry for several months out of the
year. Most of these wetlands have type-specific vegetation: Wooded swamps are predominated
by hardwoods and conifers, shrub swamps by shrubs and small tress, marshes by grasses and
herbaceous plants, and shallow open waters by aquatic plants. Some of the wetlands can found in
shallow depressions or on flat terrains, others fill in lake basins, and again others border lakes or
streams. The MN DNR categorizes these wetlands as eight, distinct types based on their
hydrology, soil conditions, and vegetation (see Table I).
Table 1: Technieal Definitions of Minnesota Wetland Types
Type Soil Hydrology Vegetation Common Sites NWI
Svmbols
Type 1: Usually well- Covered with water Varies greatly according to Upland depressions, PEMA, PFOA,
Seasonally drained during or waterlogged season and duration of bottomland hardwoods PUS
Flooded much of the during variable flooding from bottomland (floodplain forests).
Basin or growing season. seasonal periods. hardwoods to herbaceous
Flat plants.
Type 2: Saturated or Usually without Grasses, sedges, rushes, May fill shallow basins, PEMB
Wet nearly saturated standing water various broad-leaved sloughs, or farmland
Meadow during most of during most ofthe plants. sags; may bolder
the growing growing season but shallow marshes on the
season. water logged within landward site and
at least a few inches include low prairies,
of the surface. sedge meadows, and
calcareous fens.
5
Type 3: Usually Often covered with Grasses; bulrush; May nearly fill shallow PEMC and F,
Shallow waterlogged 6 inches or more of spikerush; and various lake basins or sloughs: PSSH,PUBA
Marsh early during the water. other marsh plants, such as may border deep and C
growing season. cattail, arrowhead, marshes on landward
pickerelweed, and side, commonly as seep
smartweed. areas near irrigated
lands.
Type 4: Inundated. Usually covered Cattail, reed, bulrush, May completely fill L2ABF, L2EMF
Deep with 6 inches to 3 spikerush, and wild rice; shallow lake basins; and G, L2US,
Marsh feet or more of open areas may have potholes, limestone PABF and G,
water during pondweed, naiad, sinks, and sloughs; may PEMG and H,
growing season. waterweed, duckweed, border open water in PUBB and F
waterlilv, and spatterdock. such depressions.
Type 5: Inundated. Usually covered Fringe of emergent Shallow lake basins and L 1; L2ABG and
Shallow with less than 10- vegetation similar to open may border large open H; L2EMA, B,
Open foot deep water; areas of "Deep March". water basins. and H; L2RS:
Water includes shallow L2UB; PABH;
ponds and PUBG and H.
reservoirs.
Type 6: Usually Often covered with Includes alder, willow, Along sluggish streams, PSSA, C. F, and
Shrub waterlogged as much as 6 buttonbrush, dogwood, and drainage depressions, G; PSS1, 5, and
Swamp during growing inches of water; swamp privet. and occasionally on 6B
season. water table is at or flood plains.
near the suriace.
Type 7: Waterlogged Often covered with Hardwood and coniferous Mostly in shallow PF01, 5, and
Wooded within a few as much as 1 foot of swamps with tamarack, ancient lake basins, old 6B; PFOC and F
Swamp Inches of the water; water table is northern white cedar, black riverine oxbows, flat
suriace during at or near the spruce, balsam fir, balsam terrains. and along
the growing suriace. poplar, red maple, and sluggish streams.
season. black ash; deciduous sites
frequently support beds of
duckweed and smartweed.
Type 8: Usually Water table at or Woody, herbaceous, or Mostly on shallow PF02, 4, and
Bog waterlogged. near the suriace. both supporting a spongy glacial lake basins and 7B; PSS2, 3, 4.
covering of mosses; typical depressions, flat and 7B
plants are heath shrubs, terrains, and along
sphagnum mosses, sedges, sluggish streams.
leatherleaf, Labrador tea,
cranberry, and cottongrass;
may include stunted black
spruce and tamarack.
Adapted from "Technical definition of wetland types in Minnesota" by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
[MN DNR], n.d., http://www.dur.state.mn.us/wetlands/types_technicat.html.
Wetlands adjacent lakes are wetlands that are directly connected to lakes or part of the
lakes' edges. They are also commonly known as "fringe wetlands." Wetland types commonly
found adjacent lakes in Minnesota include shallow and deep marshes, as well as shallow open
water. Maplewood defines wetlands adjacent lakes as "those areas ofland or vegetation that have
6
been classified as wetlands by an applicable Watershed District in accordance with the
Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) system but which are attached to or part of
the edge of a lake as defined herein" (City of Maple wood MN, 2009b, p. 6).
2.2 Wetlands Adiacent Lakes in Maolewood
Five of the lakes in Maplewood have adjacent wetlands: Beaver Lake, Kohlman Lake,
Lake Oehrline, Spoon Lake, and Wakefield Lake. The figures below show the location of the
wetlands in relation to each lake in accordance with the city's Wetland Map, and the type of each
wetland in accordance with the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI).
Beaver Lake
The city classified the wetlands adjacent Beaver Lake as Manage A wetlands (shown in
red in Figure la). According to NWI, the lake is considered permanently flooded shallow water
(Ll UBH), while the adjacent wetlands are semi-permanently flooded shallow marshes (PEMF)
(see Figure lb) (U.S. FWS, n.d.). Some residential properties are located along these wetland and
the remaining areas are open space and county park areas (City of Maple wood MN, 2010).
Figare 1: Beaver Lake
1a) Wetland map of Beaver Lake. ExcerPt from "Wetland Map" by City of Maplewood MN, December 2009.
7
I b) Aerial Photographs of Beaver Lake. Taken from the USA National We!lands Inventory using Arcgis Mapping,
http://explorer.arcgis.com/.
Kohlman Lake
The wetlands adjacent Kohlman Lake are classified as Manage A wetlands by the city
(shown in red in Figure 2a). According to the NWI, the lake is considered permanently flooded
shallow open water (L I UBH), and the adjacent wetlands immediately surrounding it are
seasonally flooded shallow marshes (PEMC) (see Figure 2b). These wetlands, in turn, are
connected to partly drained/ditched, seasonally flooded forested swamps (PFOlCd) further
outward (see Figure 2b) (U.S. FWS, n.d). The wetlands are located in open space (City of
Maplewood MN, 2010).
8
Figure 2: Kohlman Lake
2.) Wetland map of Kohlman Lake. Excerpt from "Wetland Map" by City of Maplewood MN, December 2009.
2b) Aerial photographs of Kohlman Lake. Taken from the USA National Wetlands Inventory using Arcgis Mapping,
http://explorer.arcgis.coml.
Lake Oehrline
Maplewood classifies Lake Oehrline as Manage B wetland (shown in green in Figure 3a).
In accordance with the NWI, the lake is considered permanently flooded shallow open water
(PUBH) (see Figure 3b) (U.S. FWS, n.d.). The shoreland around the lake is fully developed with
residential properties (City of Maplewood MN, 2010).
9
Figure 3: Lake Oehrline
I R
3a) Wetland map of Lake Oehrline. Excerpt from "Wetland Map" by City of Maplewood MN, December 2009.
3b) Aerial photographs of Lake Oehrline. Taken from the USA National Wetlands Inventory nsing Arcgis Mapping,
http://explorer.arcgis.coml.
Spoon Lake
The city classifies the wetland adjacent Spoon Lake as Manage B wetland. According to
the NWI, the lake is considered an intermittent exposed shallow open water, while the adjacent
wetlands are seasonally flooded shallow marshes (PEMC) and, further outward, saturated
meadows (PEMB) and seasonally flooded shrub swamps (PSSlC) (see Figure 4b) (U.S. FWS,
n.d.). These wetlands are located in open space (City of Maplewood MN, 2010).
Figure 4: Spoou Lake
't-:J
. f<~"i~#....
1'4<1ilt~
4a)Wetlaud map of Spoon Lake. Excerpt from "Wetland Map" by City of Maplewood MN, December 2009.
4b) Aerial photographs of Spoon Lake. Taken from the USA National Wetlands Inventory using Arcgis Mapping,
http://expIorer.arcgis.com!.
Wakefield Lake
The wetlands adjacent Wakefield Lake are classified as Manage B wetlands by the city
(shown in green in Figure 5a). The lake is considered permanently flooded shallow open water
(Ll UBH), and the wetlands adjacent the lake are semi-permanently flooded shallow marshes
(PEMF) (see Figure 5b) (U.S. FWS, n.d.). Residential properties are located along the wetlands
in the southwest of the lake, while city park lands border the remaining wetland areas (City of
Maplewood MN, 2010).
10
11
Figure 5: Wakefield Lake
Sa) Wetland Map of Wakefield Lake. Excerpt from "Wetland Map" by City of Maptewood MN, December 2009.
5b) Aerial photographs of Wakefield Lake. Taken from the USA National Wetlands Inventory using Arcgis
Mapping, http://exptorer.arcgis.comJ.
2.3 Importance of Wetlands
"Wetlands are some of the most biologically productive natural ecosystems in the world,
comparable to tropical rain forests and coral reefs in their productivity and the diversity of
species they support" (U.S. EPA, 2001, p. 2). The chemical, biological, and physical processes
and traits ofa wetland are known as wetland functions. Some of the distinctive functions of
12
wetlands and their buffers are: wildlife habitat and food web support; nutrient transformation,
biological and mechanical filters preventing pollutants from entering lakes, rivers, and
groundwater; groundwater recharge and discharge; surface water retention or detention; and
flood control (MN DNR, n.d.a). Distinct from these inherent naturally occurring functions are
human uses of and interactions with wetlands, which affect the wetland's ecology, wildlife
function, water quality, and social and economical functions. Society also puts value on
wetlands, including the commercial value of fish and wildlife due to fishing and hunting,
recreational opportunities, supply of drinking water, filtration system for water quality, and flood
and erosion control (MN DNR, n.d.a).
The most common method for assessing individual wetland functionslvalues is to visit the
wetland and to assess possible functions on a function-by- function basis based upon observed
characteristics of the wetland and surrounding lands and waters. A variety of rapid, formal
wetland assessment methods have been developed by scientists to help evaluate the functions
and values of particular wetlands, such as MnRAM (Kusler, n.d.).
2.4 Current Regulation of Wetlands Adiacent Lakes in Maolewood
On December 14,2009, the city of Maplewood updated its wetlands ordinance
(Ordinance NO. 895), which adopts the wetland classification map based on a study conducted
using MnRAM and approved by all watershed districts, including the Ramsey-Washington
Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) in which all wetlands adjacent lakes in Maplewood are
located (City of Maple wood MN, 2009b; MN BWSR, n.d.a). The wetland ordinance is shown in
Appendix 1. Regulation of wetlands adjacent to lakes will follow this new ordinance until
December 31, 2012, or until the city adopts a new shore1and ordinance regulating these wetlands,
13
whichever occurs first (City of Maple wood MN, 2009b). If the shoreland ordinance is not
updated by the end of2012 and the sunset provisions are not extended, wetlands adjacent lakes
will be regulated again under the same provisions as the freestanding wetlands.
The purpose of Maple wood's wetland ordinance is to (City of Maplewood MN, 2009b):
Protect wetlands and streams from degradation, pollution, and the accelerations of aging
by regulating land use around wetlands and streams (Section I, Subsection d).
"Educate the public (including appraisers, owners, potential buyers, and developers)
about the importance of wetlands and streams and the functions of buffers" (Section I,
Subsection g).
"Encourage property owners who live adjacent to and/or near wetlands and streams to be
responsible stewards by managing and enhancing quality of buffers" (Section I,
Subsection g).
There are four classes of wetlands based on their quality and condition. Standard buffer zones are
assigned to each class, with different buffer zones for wetlands adjacent to lakes. Buffer zones
for these wetlands are smaller due to the fact that lakes perform different functions and are used
for different recreational purposes than freestanding wetlands. Wetlands classes and buffer
widths based on MnRAM as outlined in the wetland ordinance are:
Wetland classes are defined as follows:
Manal!e A-based on the "Preserve" wetlands classification as define in MnRAM.
These wetlands are exceptional and the highest-functioning wetlands.
Manal!e B- based on the "Manage I" wetland classification as defined in
MnRAM. These wetlands are high-quality wetlands.
Manal!e C- based on the "Manage 2" wetland classification as defined by
MnRAM. These wetlands provide moderate quality.
Stormwater Pond- These are ponds created for stormwater treatment. A
stormwater pond shall not include wetlands created to mitigate the loss of other
wetlands.
(City of Maplewood, 2009b, Section 2)
Wetland Minimum Minimum Buffer Structure
Classification Buffer Width Widths for Setback from
Wetlands Adjacent Edge of Buffer
Lakes
Manage A 100' 75' 0'
Mana"e B 75' 50' 0'
Manage C 50' 50' 0'
Stormwater Pond 10' N/A 10'
(City of Maplewood, 2009b, Section 4, Subsection a and Subsection d)
The following sections briefly outline other parts of the wetland ordinance, including
development and construction activities; activities in wetlands, streams, and buffers; best
management practices; and variances.
Development and Construction Activities
A wetland buffer management worksheet must be submitted to the City Council for
certain activities within a wetland buffer. According to the wetland ordinance, the following
activities are not allowed in wetlands, streams, or buffer, unless an exemption applies:
I. Alterations, including the filling of wetlands.
2. The construction of structures.
3. Projects which convert native or naturalized areas to lawn area.
4. The construction of stormwater drainage facilities, sedimentation ponds, infiltration
basins, and rain gardens within a buffer.
5. The discharging of storm water to a wetland must comply with the city's stormwater
management ordinance (Section 44-1245, or subsequent stormwater ordinances).
(City of Maplewood 2009b, Section 5, Subsection a).
The following activities are exempt:
I. Walking, passive recreation, fishing or other similar low-impact activities.
2. The maintenance of pre-existing, nonconforming lawn area.
3. The removal of trees or vegetation that is dead, dying, diseased, noxious, or
hazardous in a manner that does not cause the compacting or disturbing of soil
through vehicle or equipment use.
4. The removal of noxious weeds by non-chemical methods, or by means of
chemical treatment in accordance with application methods that prevent the
introduction of toxic chemicals into wetlands and streams.
14
5. The removal of non-native shrubs, such as buckthorn, if:
a) there is little chance of erosion; and
b) site is flat or generally has slopes less than 6 percent grade; and
c) cut and treat method of removal is used on shrubs more than one-half (y,)
inches in diameter (not pulling).
6. Selective management of vegetation as follows:
a) Selective pruning of trees or shrubs in order to enhance their health.
b) Selective removal of tree saplings (less than 2 inches in diameter) in
order to enhance wildlife value of the buffer.
c) Selective removal of non-native trees.
d) Selective removal of non-native weeds.
e) Selective seeding or planting of vegetation that is native to Minnesota.
7. Installation of temporary fencing without footings.
8. Projects within the buffer that are the subject of a wetland buffer management
worksheet approved by the administrator.
9. Public or semi-public streets and utilities. The city council may waive the
requirements of this ordinance for the construction or maintenance of public or
semipublic streets and utilities through buffers where it determines that there is a
greater public need for the project than to meet the requirement of this ordinance.
In waiving these requirements the city council shall apply the following standards:
a) The city may only allow the construction of public or semipublic utilities
and streets through buffers where there is no other practical alternative.
b) Before the city council acts on the waiver the planning commission and
the environmental and natural resources commission shall make a
recommendation to the city council. The planning commission shall hold a
public hearing for the waiver. The city shall notify the property owners
within five hundred (500) feet of the property for which the waiver is being
requested at least ten (10) days before the hearing.
c) Utility or street corridors shall not be allowed when endangered or
threatened species are found in the buffer.
d) Utility or street corridors, including any allowed maintenance roads, shall
be as far from the wetland as possible.
e) Utility or street corridor construction and maintenance shall protect the
wetland and buffer and avoid large trees as much as possible.
f) The city shall not allow the use of pesticides or other hazardous or toxic
substances in buffers or wetlands; however, in some situations the use of
herbicides may be used if prior approval is obtained from the
administrator.
g) The owner or contractor shall replant utility or street corridors with
appropriate native vegetation, except trees, at preconstruction densities
or greater after construction ends. Trees shall be replaced as required by
city ordinance.
h) Any additional corridor access for maintenance shall be provided as much
as possible at specific points rather than to the road which is parallel to
the wetland edge. If parallel roads are necessary they shall be no greater
than fifteen (15) feet wide.
15
16
i) The city council, upon recommendation of the administrator, may require
additional mitigation actions as a condition of granting the waiver.
10. Public or semipublic trails. The city may waive the requirements ofthis
ordinance for the construction or maintenance of public or semipublic trails
through buffers, and boardwalks in wetlands, where it determines that there is a
greater public need for the project than to meet the requirement of this ordinance.
In waiving these requirements the city shall apply the following standards:
a) Trails shall not be allowed when endangered or threatened species are
found to be present in the buffer.
b) Buffers shall be expanded, equal to the width of the trail corridor.
c) The owner or contractor shall replant all disturbed areas next to the trail in
a timeframe approved by the city.
d) All necessary erosion control measures must be in place before
constructing a trail. The erosion control measures must also be
maintained and inspected by the city to ensure that the wetland or stream
is not compromised by trail construction activities.
e) The trail must be designed and constructed with sustainable design
methods.
f) Boardwalks are allowed within the buffer and shall be a maximum of six
(6) feet in width for semipublic use and twelve (12) feet in width for public
use.
g) The administrator may require additional mitigation actions as specified in
Section 5.d. (Mitigation).
(City of Maplewood MN, 2009b, Section 5, Subsections a and b)
Special construction practices are required for construction near wetlands. All special
construction practices shall be approved by the administrator before issuance of a grading or
building permit. These practices can include grading, sequencing, vehicle tracking platforms,
additional silt fences, additional sediment control, wetland buffer sign standards, erosion control
installation, erosion control breaches, erosion control removal, and platting (City of Maplewood
MN, 2009b, Section 5, Subsection c). Mitigation may also be needed when a wetland or buffer
has been altered, a mitigation plan will be submitted to the administrator for approval.
Activities in Wetlands
A wetland buffer management worksheet must be submitted to the City Council for
certain activities within a wetland buffer. The same activities that are restricted for construction
and development projects apply here as well. In addition to the exemptions applying to
construction and development projects, the following activities are permitted:
1-8 are the same as for construction and development.
9. For properties that are zoned single or double-dwelling residential or are used as
a single or double-dwelling residential use:
a) The use, maintenance, and alteration of existing nonconforming lawn
area for the purpose of outdoor e~oyment which may include gardening,
nonpermanent structures (including such things as storage sheds under
120 square feet in area, swing sets and volleyball nets), impervious
patios, or fire pits.
b) Work within a wetland, stream, or buffer which was approved by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources water permitting process
and access to those areas by a trail which is limited to the width of the
permit.
(City of Maplewood MN, 2009b, Section 6, Subsection c).
Best Management Practices
When a property owner or contractor alters or will alter a wetland, stream, or buffer the
city promotes, or in some instances requires them, to use best management practices, such as
restoring buffers with native planting, managing weeds in buffer, reducing stormwater runoff
and/or improve the quality of stormwater runoff entering a wetland or stream (City of
Maplewood MN, 2009b, Section 7). These practices are used to minimize negative effects on
stormwater runoff and loss of wildlife habitat.
Variances
Variances must be recommended by the Environmental and Natural Resources
Commission to the Planning Commission, which will then take it to the City Council. The
Planning Conunission will then hold a public hearing, of which nearby property owners within
five hundred feet will be notified at least ten days in advance. Mitigation procedures may be
required of the applicant for any wetland, stream, or buffer alteration impact for the variance to
17
18
be approved (City of Maplewood MN, 2009b, Section 8). Variance approval goes along with the
following findings:
a) Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to
the property under consideration. The term "undue hardship" as used in granting a
variance means the owner of the property in question cannot put it to a reasonable use
if used under conditions allowed by the official controls; the plight of the landowner
is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner; and the
variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic
considerations alone are not an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property
exists under the terms of this ordinance.
b) The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this ordinance.
(City of Maplewood MN, 2009b, Section 8, Subsection aA).
3.0 Citizen Input
A questionnaire has been designed for Maplewood residents of properties with wetlands
adjacent lakes (see Appendix 2). On March 3, 2011, a total of 40 questionnaires were sent out to
the affected properties on Beaver Lake (11 questionnaires), Wakefield Lake (4 questionnaires),
and Lake Oehrline (25 questionnaires) (see Appendix 3). Two properties at Beaver Lake are
vacant, so that the questionnaire could not be forwarded, By the end of March, a total of 17
responses have been received, 7 from Beaver Lake, 8 from Lake Oehrline, and 2 from Wakefield
Lake (see Appendix 4). Additionally, input was received from a resident at Wakefield Lake
(personal communication, March 1, 2011).
Due to the limited number of responses received, a statistical analysis of the responses is
not feasible. However, some conclusions can be drawn:
1. Setbacks of non-water access oriented structures on these properties differ widely, as
does the proximity of lawn areas to the shoreline. This is likely due to the fact that these
properties have been developed at different times and thus subject to different setback
and buffer standards.
19
2. Some residents are in formal or informal groups involved in wetland, shoreland and
lake protection, as well as wildlife preservation. An association of residentslproperty
owners has been formed at Lake Oehrline for the purpose of controlling excess
submerged vegetation, such as algae and weeds. Additionally, the resident at Wakefield
Lake stated that a neighborhood group had been formed that was actively involved
when the city last updated its wetland ordinance.
3. Residents use their shore land properties for a variety ofrecreational purposes, including
watercraft access, recreation and picnic areas, campfires, and landscaping, as well as
fishing from the shore, wildlife enjoyment, and enjoyment ofthe scenery. On publicly
owned shore land properties, walkers, runners, and bikers enjoy paths close to the water
and anglers enjoy shore fishing or fishing from the dock. No respondent indicated that
the lakes are used for swimming. One respondent from Wakefield Lake states water
pollution due to stormwater drainage into the lake as reason why swimming is not
possible.
4. Many properties with wetlands adjacent lakes have large lawn areas. In some cases, the
lawn area extends very close to the actual shoreline. Responses also indicated that some
natural vegetation is often maintained. Shoreline alterations often involve the addition
of docks and related access paths, as well as removal of non-native species, such as
buckthorn. Fencing is sometimes used for wildlife control.
5. The limited responses indicate a tendency of residents to oppose new developments and
to favor landownerlresident workshops for shore land and wetland management and
regulation of the wetlands adjacent lakes as part of the shoreland ordinance. Opinions
are split regarding more stringent buffer requirements and allocating of city funds for
20
wetland preservation. Additionally, the responses indicate that residents overall rate
land and wetland preservation, wildlife protection, and water quality protection as
priorities, recreational uses as slight priorities, and new land developments as no
priorities. It is interesting to note that water quality protection is rated as a priority by
almost all respondents, while only about half favor more stringent buffer requirements,
even though buffer requirements directly affect water quality. Overall, these preferenc.es
and tendencies must be viewed carefully, as they are only based on few responses and
thus not representative of all affected residents.
6. Some residents are concerned about large populations of deer, duck, and geese,
indicating that these move very freely on shoreland properties and close to residential
structures.
7. Some residents have water quality concerns. Both Beaver Lake and Lake Oehrline have
weed problems. Residents indicate contradictions between activity restrictions on
private shore land properties to reduce water pollution and storm sewersl storm drains
that empty directly into the lakes. Many respondents severely criticize direct releases of
stormwater from storm sewersldrains into the lakes. One respondent also speaks of a
contradiction between private property use restrictions and uses of publicly owned
lakeshore properties. Pollution from recreational activities, such as fishing, has also
been indicated by a respondent. A respondent at Lake Oehrline indicates that water
quality improvements have been witnessed after the installation of rain gardens and
swales.
8. Residents indicate that a balance must be achieved between preservation and recreation.
The Wakefield Lake resident said the same. Regulating new developments seems
reasonable to many, but some residents question the effectiveness of activity restrictions
on already developed properties. Most of the property owners along the lakes and
subsequently along the wetlands purchased their property to take part in recreational
activities in the lake and to have lake access through the wetlands. Residents argue that
property owners should be able to use their properties as intended - as residences and
for recreational purposes.
9. Financial aspects need to be considered. One resident would appreciate financial
incentives for maintaining buffers, for example, in the form of tax benefits. Another
resident indicates that requirements for mitigation and restoration practices would be
difficult for many property owners to fulfill unless financial and technical assistance
were provided.
10. The received responses and personal conversation with the Wakefield Lake resident
indicate that more information and education is needed for residents of shore land
properties in general and properties with wetlands adjacent lakes in particular. Affected
residents need to be better informed what wetlands adjacent lakes exactly are and how
they "look". As the Wakefield Lake resident pointed out, wetlands adjacent lakes often
simply look like part of the lake. This information is necessary to show residents why
wetlands adjacent lakes need to be considered separately from the lakes. Additionally,
residents need to be better informed about what the thoughts are behind the planned
regulation of wetlands adjacent lakes under the shoreland ordinance instead of the
wetland ordinance, and how this would affect the residents of properties with these
wetlands. Moreover, residents must be better informed about the importance of buffers
and restrictions of certain activities in the buffer zone. Most of the respondents were in
21
22
favor of best management practice workshops for shoreland property owners.
Specifically, it is important to emphasize the enormous benefits these "backyard"
activities can have, even in comparison to problems caused by large-scale practices,
such as the direct release of stormwater into lakes. Residents view stormwater releases
as direct contradiction to what is expected from them. Thus, the city should also inform
residents about what the city does to control stormwater pollution and minimize the
problems resulting from stormwater releases.
4.0 Assessment of Differences between Wetlands Adjacent Lakes and Freestanding
Wetlands
Differences between wetlands adjacent lakes and freestanding wetlands generally result
from what wetlands adjacent lakes do for lakes and the wildlife of the lake and shoreland, how
wetlands adjacent lakes have adapted to being connected to lakes, and how wetlands adjacent
lakes are used a result of their proximity to the lakes. The following assesses differences in
ecology, wildlife, water quality, and social and economic value and use.
4.1 Ecological Differences
Freestanding wetlands are not usually connected to other wetlands or other water bodies
by surface water, but may become hydrologically linked to other wetlands if during extremely
wet seasons surface water overflows from one depressional wetland to another (Tiner, 2003).
Freestanding wetlands collect freshwater from precipitation, ground-water discharge, stream
flow, and overland flow, so the rate in which these wetlands store water depends upon season
fluctuations (U.S. GS, 1997). Most of these depressional wetlands dry out annually, which
23
excludes organisms that require permanent water, like fishes and many amphibians, and favors
species adapted to fluctuating water levels. These fluctuations cause variations in community
structure, as populations are replaced by species better adapted to abiotic conditions occurring at
the time (Liebowitz, 2003).
From an ecological standpoint, freestanding wetlands are among the country's most
significant biological resources (Comer et aI., 2005). In some areas, isolation has led to the
evolution of endemic species vital for the conservation of biodiversity (Comer et ai, 2005). Much
of the importance attributed to smaller, isolated wetlands is related to biodiversity. These
wetlands often have high species richness due to moisture gradients caused by gentle slopes and
seasonally varying moisture conditions (Liebowitz, 2003).
In other cases, their isolation and sheer numbers in a given locality have made these
wetlands crucial habitats for amphibian breeding and survival or for waterfowl and waterbird
breeding (Comer et aI., 2005). Plants and animals of freestanding wetlands have become very
well adjusted to the seasonal ebbs and flows of the water received in these wetlands and have
evolved to survive the different nutrient loads and water levels, which establishes a very
balanced ecology for the freestanding wetlands.
Being freestanding is also an important factor in evolutionary biology, population
genetics, source/sink dynamics, and metapopulation dynamics (Edwards & Sharitz, 2000;
Levins, 1970). Isolation may contribute to wetland function by supporting metapopulations.
Levins (1970) introduced the term "metapopulation" to refer toa population of populations.
"Metapopulation dynamics consist of local extinctions of individual populations within distinct
habitat patches, due to environmental or demographic stochasticity, and recolonization of this
habitat from neighboring patches through dispersal" (Levin, 1970). Ecological isolation may be
24
an important influence in determining certain community characteristics of freestanding
wetlands, such as in reducing competition and supporting metapopulations (Leibowitz, 2003).
The freestanding wetlands of Minnesota show these metapopulation dynamics, which make them
different from the wetlands adjacent lakes.
There are biotic connections that can occur between freestanding wetlands and other
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. For example, many animals, including amphibians require
both aquatic and terrestrial habitat at different life history stages (Gibbons, 2003). Freestanding
wetlands and their functions related to other wetlands seem to suggest: many of the biological
features of freestanding wetlands may result not from isolation per se, but from environmental
conditions that can also occur. in non-isolated wetlands (Liebowitz, 2003).
Unlike freestanding wetlands, wetlands adjacent lakes have a diverse species population
because their environment is not drastically changing. Because of the diverse and balanced
species populations, they are healthier as they are more resistant to disease and other changes in
the environment and shoreland areas provide a unique ecological zone that is required for certain
plant and animal species (MN DNR, 20 II), which freestanding wetlands do not have.
4.2 Differences in Wildlife Functions
According to the U.S. EPA, wetlands are favored by so many species because "they
attract wildlife for a number of reasons: I) their vegetative cover provides shelter from predators;
2) they provide ideal nesting conditions for many waterfowl; 3) they provide migratory birds
with a safe stop over location to rest during long migrations; 4) they provide essential spawning
and nursery habitat for commercially important fish and shellfish; and 5) many have an
extensive, complex food chain that supports numerous species, including man" (2011, p. 53).
25
'Wetlands provide vital habitat for a wide variety of species, which include waterfowl, birds,
mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and insects. Up to 45% of these wetland species are
endangered (U.S. EPA, 2011).
"A diverse assemblage of flora and fauna have adapted to, and are thus dependent on, the
historic abundance and seasonality of wetlands for their life history needs" (NRCS, 2006a, p.3).
Both freestanding wetlands and wetlands adjacent lakes support a huge population of waterfowl,
songbirds, shorebirds, wading birds, reptiles, amphibians, and many invertebrate species.
Wetland complexes containing a variety of wetland types, which include freestanding and
wetlands adjacent lakes, are needed to meet the various habitat requirements ofthese species
(NRCS, 2006a).
Even though freestanding wetlands are freestanding, they can be connected to each other
and to other aquatic systems by way of animals and plants. Animals, such as birds, rely on a
number of different wetlands types for food, shelter and protection, breeding, and other needs
(Yerkes, 2000) and different fauna can grow in different wetland types because of seed dispersal
by wind. For example, even though prairie potholes of Minnesota are freestanding, they are not
isolated habitats. They support "more than 200 species of migratory birds and produces more
than 50 percent of the ducks in North America, even though it accounts for only 10 percent of
the entire North American duck breeding area" (NRCS, 2006b, p.l). Most wetland plants and
animals found in the region, with the exception of species such as fish, have the mobility or
dispersability needed to spread rapidly from pothole to pothole (van der Valk & Pederson, 2003).
Geographically speaking, freestanding wetlands regularly include a wide range of
hydrologic conditions, such as shallow temporary ponds to deeper permanent waters, which
leads to a diversity of habitat types and quality, both within and among wetlands (Tiner, 2003).
26
According to the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS, 2006a):
Even seasonal and temporary wetlands provide critical habitat for wildlife adapted to
breeding exclusively in these areas. (...) Seasonal and temporary wetlands are ideal
nursing areas for developing amphibians because of the relatively warm water
temperatures, abundant microorganisms for food, and lack of predators. Temporary
wetlands provide ideal courtship and egg-laying location for amphibians because they
tend to dry out in the summer, making them unable to support fish, which are effective
predators of amphibian eggs, larvae, and adults. Like amphibians, many invertebrates
require the fish-free aquatic environments of wetland in which to lay eggs and/or go
through larval stages. Invertebrates also take advantage ofthe seasonality of wetlands as
their egg and larval stages often correspond to wet times of the year. Invertebrates are
vital to the survival of wetland ecosystems, as they form the base of the food chain.
(p.3)
Since wetlands water chemistry is a result of the geologic setting, water balance, quality
of entering water, type of soils and fauna, and human activity within or near the wetland and all
of these aspects play an important factor in the wildlife found in wetlands adjacent lakes.
Whether the wetlands are freestanding or adjacent lakes, the habitat the wetlands provide is
unquestionably necessary because some species spend their entire lives in wetlands, while other
species use them intermittently for feeding or rearing their offspring. The main difference is that
wetlands adjacent lakes support a population offish that freestanding wetlands do not. The
majority of fresh water fish are consideled dependent upon wetlands adjacent lakes. They
provide unique fringe habitat due to lower water depths, frequently warmer water temperatures,
and more dense vegetative cover. Fish depend on the wetlands for their food source and for
protection (MN DNR, n.d.a). Wetlands adjacent lakes provide protection for young fish and are
important for a spawning area for fish (MN DNR, n,d.a). They also provide habitat for mammals,
such as minks, raccoons, beavers, muskrats, and otters, offering food and thermal cover during
severe Minnesota winters (The Mitt Watershed Council, n.d.). For wildlife populations to be
healthy, they must be able to access their required habitats and if wildlife is limited in their
. ability to access their required habitats, the health of these populations can decline (NCRS,
27
2006). According to the community input the wetlands adjacent lakes are habitat for deer, geese,
and ducks and these animals are encroaching on the residential areas instead of maintaining and
acceptable distance within the buffers.
According to the U.S. EP A, "wetlands adjacent lakes can be thought of as 'biological
supermarkets'" (2008, Section 2). Wetlands adjacent lakes produce vast quantities of food that
attract many different species. These complex feeding relationships among the organisms that
inhabit wetlands are called food webs. "The combination of shallow water, high levels of
inorganic nutrients, and high rates of primary productivity (the synthesis of new plant biomass
through photosynthesis) in many wetlands is ideal for the development of organisms that form
the base of the food web" (U.S. EPA, 2008, Section 2).
4.3 Differences in Water Ouality Functions
According to the Clean Water Act, 40 CFR, MN Rule Chapter 7050, "water quality
standard defines the water quality goals of a water body, or thereof, by designating the use or
uses to be made of the water, by setting water quality criteria necessary to protect the uses, and
by preventing degradation of water quality through anti-degradation provisions. States adopt
water quality standards to protect public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water, and
serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act" (Minnesota Sea Grant, 2005). Like freestanding
wetlands, wetlands adjacent lakes are capable of removing pollutants, excess nutrients, and
sediments from the water that passes through them, but wetlands adjacent lakes also reduce
environmental problems, such as algal blooms, dead zones, and fish kills, which are linked to
excess nutrient loadings. However, the capacity of wetlands to function this way is not unlimited,
28
and too much surface runoff carrying sediments, nutrients, and other pollutants can degrade
wetlands and thus the societal services they provide (U.S. EP A, 2008).
In terms of water quality, it is important to distinguish between the water quality of the
wetland buffer and of the wetland itself. Water quality benefits of the buffer depend on the flow
pattern, vegetation type, percent of slope, soils type, surrounding land, pollutant types and
concentrations, and precipitation patterns. The type and intensity of the land use within the buffer
zone will have an effect on determining the water quality. If the land use in this buffer zone is
used for urbanization or agriculture then the amount of sediments and contaminants can change
the hydrology of the wetland (Environmental Law Institute, 2008). Wetland buffers of 50 ft to
100 ft are reasonable, and will remove more pollutants, protect from erosion, and be less likely to
be degraded due to human activities. A 50 ft buffer is considered to be absolute minimum
necessary for water quality control (Wenger, 1999; Emmons and Olivier Resources, Inc. 2001;
cited in Radomski, 2009). The MN Agriculture Feedback Summary states that a 50 ft buffer will
benefit water quality and water resources, and the water quality is dependent on this buffer
(Otterson, 2009), However, there are numerous studies showing that 75 ft to 100 ft would be
better.
Table 2 shows two studies that were published regarding buffer effectiveness in the
"Planner's Guide to Wetland Buffers for Local Government" and "Benefits of Wetland: A Study
of Functions, Values and Size". According to the two studies:
Removal of sediments or total suspended solids requires a niinimum buffer of 50 ft to be
effective. For finer sediments, a minimum buffer of about 70 ft is required. Wider buffers
are required for more consistent sediment and solid removal. Removal efficiencies of
80% and more require buffers of at least 100 ft.
29
Removal of total phosphorus also requires a minimum buffer of 50 ft. However, larger
buffers are recommended for higher removal efficiencies.
Removal of total nitrogen can be achieved in buffers below 50 ft, but a minimum of 50 ft
is recommended for effective removal and increases to up to 100 ft are recommended for
removal efficiencies of 90% and more.
Over longer periods oftime, shorter buffers can become saturated with sediments and this
will reduce the effectiveness of the buffer.
Table 2: Comparison of Two Stndies Assessing Bnffer Effectiveness.
From: Benefits of Wetland Buffers: A From: Planner's Guide to Wetland
Study of Functions, Values and Size Buffers for Local Governments
Removal of Sediments or U The reports...seem to reach a U A significant % of sediment in surface
Total Suspended Solids (TTS) consensus that "good" solids reduction flows may be removed in a 14-30' buffer,
begins with a buffer width of about 50'. but sediments may be more consistently
U ...the graphic indicates that remove by buffers of 30-100'.
TSS reductions of 70% and more begin U Course sediments are likely removed
to occur with certainty when buffer efficiently in the first 16-66' of a buffer
widths reach 50'. The graphic also and removal of finer particles may
shows that the lower limit of require buffer of at least 66'.
70% occurs for every instance when U Sediment removal efficiency decreases
100' of buffer is in place. as slope increases.
U The 100' line seems to be the bottom u Wider buffers also may be necessary to
width for which 80-100% removal maintain sediment removal efficiencies
occurs. over time as buffers become saturated
with sediments.
Removal ofT otal Phosphorous (TP) U In shallow slope situations, a 50' buffer D Much of the phosphorous may be
seems to be sufficient, but as slope removed with the first 13-30' of the
increase, a wider buffer (100') seems to buffer, but phosphorous may be more
be warranted. consistently removed by buffers of 30-
D ...50' again marks the transition 100'.
between relatively low TP removai and o Buffers can become saturated with
(with a few exceptions) higher removal phosphorous and generally cannot
(>65%). provide long term storage of
phosphorous.. .
30
Removal of Nitrogen U Although Figure 3 shows that U ...narrow buffers, 3.3-49.2', can be
substantial subsurface nitrate reduction effective at removing nitrogen, but wider
can occur in buffers less than 50', buffers, >164', more consistently remove
consistent reduction over 75% are significant amounts of nitrogen.
virtually assured over 50' and rise to the U ...50%, 75%, and 90% nitrogen
90%+ range when 100' of buffer are removal efficiencies... would occur in
provided. buffers of approximately 10'. 92', and
U The increase in surface nitrate removal 367' wide, respectively. depending on
with an Increase [in buffer width] from buffer characteristics and nitrate loading
50' to 100' is about 15%... rates.
U Based on a review of some of the same
literature, Wenger (1999) suggested that
a minimum of 50' is necessary for
effective nitrogen removal...
o ...Vidon and Hill (2004) found that a 50'
buffer was effective at removing 90% of
the nitrate at location with loamv soils...
Habitat for wildlife U (The following is a summary, not a U The Environmental Law Institute's
quotation). A 200-300' buffer is needed (2003) review of the science found that
to provide essential habitat for wetland effective buffer sizes for wildlife
associated species, especially if wetland protection may range from 33 to more
has open water. than 5000 feet, depending on the
species.
U Birds: from 49' to over 5000'
U Mammals: between 98' and 600'
U Reptiles and Amphibians: ... .core
terrestrial habitat for reptiles associated
with wetlands ranged between 417' and
948', and for amohibians 521' and 951'
Adapted from "Scientific basis for buffer width requirements" by D. Konewko, S. Finwall, and G. Gaynor, April
2009, Memorandum: Wetland ordinance amendments - First reading, pp. 5-6, Table 1.
More detailed data can be found in these two guides that the city has available for review.
Particularly important for water quality, is the removal of excess nutrients and sediments
carrying nutrients, particularly phosphorus, which is usually the limiting nutrient in surface
waters, in order to slow down eutrophication and reduce algae growth (DeBarry, 2004;
Radomski, 2009). Although removal efficiencies increase with buffer width, the removal
efficiency increases less with each additional increase in buffer width (Radomski, 2009).
Nevertheless, even small increases in pollutant removal can make a difference, especially for
high quality wetlands and lakes that are at particular risk of degradation, such as the Manage A
and Manage B wetlands adjacent lakes in Maplewood. For example, just "0.2 pounds of
phosphorus [added to a lake] can produce 100 pounds of algae" (Radomski, 2009, p. 21). As
Figure 6 shows, buffer widths up to 100 ft provide increases in phosphorus removal capacities
that are still reasonable in light ofthe required buffer widths increases,
Figure 6: Phosphorus Removal Efficieucy aud Buffer Widths
60% P Removal
7096 P Removal
8096 P Removal
115
27S
o
100 200 300
Buffer width in feet
400
Desbonlleletal.1995
6a) Average buffer width required for 60%, 70%, and 80% phosphorus removal. Adapted from "Shoreland
standards preliminary draft: Key proposals aud their reasoning", by P. Radmoski, 2009, p. 23,
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_ sectionlshorelandl6120 _draft _ April_ Key- Issues.pdf.
100
90
80
'0 _: :=:~:::::=::.. ..:~~....~... ~~.n~
60
SO -
40
30
20.
10
o.
e:
=
o
'.Q
"
:I
.",
..
..
,~
.e'"
.
.
.
,"I;:%8",(Nj + l&,ii'lS
Jt1,-(j:i1~s
\~~;::U,Jij~.i:it:!.ll'~
* tr~rn'1M
. Wpol1Y
,II;, "-UWl
E
i
.,
!I
,
,
i:
o
;0 100 150
BuIfei' zone width (ft}
~oo
6b) Perceutage of total phosphorous reductiou as a function of buffer width. Adapted from "Shoreland standards
preliminary draft: Key proposals and their reasoning", by P. Radmoski, 2009, p. 24,
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_ sectionlshorelandl6 t 20_ draft _ April_ Key- Issues.pdf.
31
32
Removal efficiencies not only depend on the buffer width, but also on the buffer slope
and buffer vegetation. Buffers on deeper slopes are less efficient in removing pollutants, as the
runoff flows faster over the area and is more difficult to intercept. Thus, higher buffer widths are
required with increasing slopes (Ramdomski, 2009). Natural vegetation is required for buffers to
function effectively. Lawn areas are ineffective as buffers. For example, "The "lawn to lake'
shoreline allows 7 to 9 times more phosphorus to enter the lake than a more natural native
vegetated shoreline" (Dennis, 1986; Bernthal, 1997; Graczyk et aI., 2003; cited in Radomski,
2009, p. 21). A variety of different native vegetation is preferred over single species and non-
native or even invasive plants.
Buffers also play an important role in providing wildlife habitat. Although habitat
requirements differ among species, large native buffers are preferred, as they provide wide
stretches of natural habitat for numerous species (Radomski, 2009). Optimal buffer widths can
reach thousands offeet for some species (see Table 2). Thus, although wildlife benefits support
wider buffer standards as well, it is unreasonable to base these standards on wildlife alone, as it
no longer provides a reasonable balance between protection and shore land uses.
Wetlands themselves also have important water quality functions, including storage of
nutrients, filtering out and removing pollutants, settling of suspended sediments, catching surface
runoff, and processing organic waste (U.S. EPA, 2008). Wetlands adjacent to lakes might not
provide sufficient sediment settling capacity due to the surface water connection with the lake
compared to freestanding wetland~. This emphasizes the need for sufficiently wide buffers that
are capable of removing sediments efficiently. Wetlands adjacent lakes additionally protect the
shoreline from erosion and sediment pollution originating from the shoreline (MN DNR, n.d.a).
Overall, wetlands adjacent lakes play an important role in protecting the lake by filtering out
33
pollutants and wastes prior to the pollutants making contact with the open water. N alural
vegetation along the shoreline provides additional protection from erosion (Radomski, 2009).
To maintain and protect the buffers and wetlands, activities on shore land properties need
to be restricted to reduce water pollution and protect natural vegetated buffers. The water quality
functions in freestanding wetlands are different than wetlands adjacent to lakes, because there is
no lake to be affected. The buffer around a wetland fulfills the same function for all wetland
types, no matter whether freestanding or attached to a lake. However, the buffers of wetlands
adjacent lakes protect not only the wetlands but also the lakes. Overall, larger buffers with
natural vegetation, managed by people with an understanding of the buffer and the wetlands
adjacent lakes, are considered to be more effective (Environmental Law Institute, 2008).
4.4 Social and Economic Differences
The main social differences with regard to wetlands adjacent lakes compared to
freestanding wetlands are that the lakes and surrounding areas are valued differently and used
primarily for recreational purposes. Property owners with access to lakes use their properties for
swimming, boating, fishing, watercraft access, picnic areas, camping, campfires, landscaping,
docks, and observing wildlife. The survey of affected Maplewood residents shows that they use
their properties for watercraft access, recreation and picnic areas, campfires, and landscaping, as
well as fishing from the shore, wildlife enjoyment, and enjoyment of the scenery. In contrast,
freestanding wetlands are used for more passive recreation, such as wildlife and nature
enjoyment. If a freestanding wetland is used in a recreational sense, it has a walking path usually
raised above the wetland to avoid disruptions. The social value placed on freestanding wetlands
usually focuses on wildlife, ecology, and scenic beauty.
34
Wetlands also fulfill important economic functions. In general, both types of wetlands
provide commodities, such as fish, wild rice, berries, timber, and game (MN DNR, n.d.a).
Freestanding wetlands can be used for crops and hunting practices, and this serves the
commercial community a product that can be sold to the public (U.S. EPA, 2008). Wetlands
adjacent lakes, in contrast, provide opportunities for commercial fishing. However, these
commercial commodities play less of a role in urban settings, such as the city of Maple wood.
Additionally, wetlands adjacent lakes and freestanding wetlands save cities a great deal of money
because of its functions as pollutant filter and flood storage and control area (U.S. EP A, 2008).
Economic differences between wetlands adjacent lakes and freestanding wetlands also
result from being differently valued and used for recreational purposes, as recreation and tourism
are an important economic sector. Wetlands adjacent lakes support water-oriented recreational
activities, such as fishing and boating, that can generate revenues. For example, sales of fishing
licenses are important State revenues. Buffers along wetlands adjacent lakes also have economic
significance. Studies have shown that natural greenways and buffers positively affect property
values. In Colorado, prices for housing associated with greenbelts were up to 32% higher than
without greenways (Correl et aI., 1978; cited in Radomski, 2009). The MN DNR expects the
same for buffers along shorelines (Radomski, 2009). Thus, it is reasonable to assume similar
positive effects for buffers along wetlands adjacent lakes.
4.5 Conclusion
No matter whether the wetlands are freestanding or adjacent lakes, their ecological,
wildlife, water quality, and economic and social benefits are of equal importance, even though
their functions may differ. Whether the wetlands are freestanding or adjacent lakes, wetlands
35
have incredible value in the natural and physical world. "As wetlands continue to be lost,
degraded, or isolated, the health and survival of many wildlife populations are at risk" (NCRS,
2006a, p.4). Both wetlands adjacent lakes and freestanding wetlands have important ecological
functions and provide important habitat for wildlife, including aquatic species, birds, and plants.
Wetlands adjacent lakes are particularly important as fish habitat, providing spawning grounds,
food sources, and protection. Both freestanding and wetlands adjacent lakes with their buffers
maintain and improve water quality by filtering contaminants, excessive nutrients and sediments.
Additionally, wetlands adjacent lakes protect shorelands from erosion and trap contaminants and
sediments running off from nearby uplands before they enter the adjacent lakes. Both types of
wetlands provide a source of economically valuable products, such as animals from hunting and
commercial fishing, and support recreational activities, which include fishing, hunting, nature
appreciation, bird watching, and hiking. Recreational activities associated with wetlands adjacent
lakes, however, typically require access or at least close proximity to the lake for fishing,
boating, swimming, and other shoreland uses.
5.0 Proposed Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Shoreland Rules
The "Shoreland Rules Update Project" was initiated in 2007, when the Minnesota State
Legislature directed the MN DNR to update the shoreland rule that were last revised in 1989
(MN DNR, 2008). The proposed rules exist currently as draft version, awaiting finalization.
5.1 Status of Proposed Rules and Expected Timeline for Completion
The latest version of the preliminary draft available on the MN DNR Web site for public
review is dated April 20, 2009. Since then, the MN DNR worked on several revisions of the draft
36
rules. The latest revision, "Proposed Permanent Rules Relating to Shore land Management," is
dated July 6, 2010. This version is not available online, but has been provided by Paul Radomski,
Senior Project Consultant and Research Scientist for the Shoreland Management Program at the
MN DNR, for the purpose of this project (see Appendix 5).
In August 20 I 0, Governor Pawlenty returned the draft rules. The Governor's primary
concems involved the sufficiency oflocal government flexibility, the problematic of the
predominant "one-size- fits-all" approach, the difficulty of finding a balance between adequate
protection and citizens' rights to e'1ioy and use their properties, and the potential impacts of
changing regulatory thresholds for basins near municipalities(MN DNR, 20IOa).
To accommodate local governments that are working on amendments or new shoreland
regulations until the final rules are passed, the "DNR will accept any local government's
ordinance amendments that follow the draft rules as substantially meeting the statutory and
regulatory requirements" (MN DNR, 2010a, p.l-2). As the draft rules are less stringent in certain
elements than the current shoreland rules, municipalities can follow the draft rules if they make
use of the flexibility provisions under the current rules by requesting flexibility approval from
the DNR and demonstrating that the alternative approach still meets the original intent of the
standards in the current rules (MN DNR, 2010a).
The official MN DNR Web site for the shoreland rule project has not been updated since
August 2010. P. Radomski (personal communication, March 1,2011) provided the following
update on the planned completion of the shoreland rules:
Following the 2010 Minnesota state elections, the MN DNR has a new leadership in the
form of a new governor and new commissioner.
Staff is currently updating the new leadership on the project.
No decisions have been made regarding what will be done next or what the decision on
the draft rules will be.
37
Legal uncertainties are involved. The time limit for the rulemaking process in accordance
with Minnesota state law requirements has been exceeded, so that it is currently
questionable whether the current shoreland rulemaking process can be completed.
Furthermore, P. Radomski (personal communication, March 8, 2011) confirmed that the draft
dated July 6, 20 I 0 is the latest version the MN DNR created and will likely be the basis for any
future revisions.
5.2 Maior Proposed Parts Affecting the Regulation of Wetlands Adiacent Lakes
According to P. Radomski (personal communication, March I, 2011), the issue of
wetlands adjacent lakes has been considered in the development of the proposed shore land rules.
Based on the draft rules dated July 6, 20 I 0 (MN DNR, 20 I Ob), the main parts affecting the
regulation of regulation of wetlands adjacent lakes include structure setback requirements from
public water wetlands, shoreline buffer zone requirements, requirements for walkways across
wetlands and for access lots, activity restrictions in wetlands, and special protection shoreland
overlay district provisions and advanced subdivision standards. These are briefly described
below. All references to draft rules and specific rule sections refer to the version dated July 6,
2010, unless otherwise noted.
Structure Setbacks from Wetlands
In accordance with the draft rules part 6120.3300, subp. 3, item A, subitem (3), a
minimum structure setback of 75 ft is required "from public waters wetlands having surface
water connections to public waters regulated under shoreland controls and located within a
shoreland overlay district." The setback is measured perpendicular from the transition zone from
predominantly hydrophytic vegetation to predominantly terrestrial vegetation, consistent with the
United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual of January 1987 (P.
38
Radomski, personal communication, March 9, 2011). This is designed to protect shallow and
deep marshes and shallow open waterlponds (P. Radomski, personal communication, March I,
20 II), which are the types of wetlands typically found adjacent lakes.
Shoreline BzifJer Zone
In accordance with the draft rules part 6120.3310, a minimum shoreline buffer of 50 ft is
required. The proposed rules define a buffer as "land that is used to protect adjacent lands and
waters from development and more intensive land uses. The land is kept in a natural state of
trees, shrubs, and low ground cover and understory of plants and functions to filter runoff,
control sediment and nutrient movement, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. (.. .)" (see part
6120.2850, subp. 13). The buffer covers all or part of the shore impact zone, which is the "land
located between the ordinary high water level of public waters and a line parallel to it at a
setback of 50 percent of the required structure setback, but not less than 50 feet" (see part
6120.2850, subp. 77).
Existing developments on "lots of record with structure" are regulated under part
6120.3310 subp. 6, and new developments on lots without pre-existing structures are regulated
under part 6120.3310 subp. 7. For existing developments, the shore impact zone is protected as
shoreline buffer, where intensive cutting is restricted. For new developments, a minimum buffer
of 50 ft, measured perpendicular to the ordinary high water level, of natural vegetation consisting
of "trees, shrubs, and low ground cover consisting of plants and understory" must be maintained.
Within these shoreline buffer zones, clearing of natural vegetation is generally not allowed, with
the exception of some limited vegetation removal to accommodate certain recreational uses and
water-oriented access and accessory structures, as long as certain requirements are meet. In case
39
of violations, re-planting of natural vegetation is required. For new developments, restoration
plans must be provided. (See also part 6120.3310 subp. 6 & part 6120.3310 subp. 7.)
As the buffer and shore impact zone are measured from the ordinary high water level,
wetlands adjacent lakes are only protected by these shoreland buffer provisions if the ordinary
high water level is on the landward side of the wetland. If the ordinary high water level is
lakeward of the of the wetland adjacent lake, these provisions do not apply and the wetland is
protected under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) (P. Radomski, personal communication,
March 1, 2011).
Walkways and Access Lots
Walkways must be used if wetlands need to be crossed in order to reach the public water
from the shore. According to the draft rules part 6120.3300, subp. 4a, item E, "walkways
landward of the ordinary high water level must be used in place of fill to bridge wetland areas to
reach the shore." These walkways must be at least 16 inches above the wetland surface and no
more than 8 ft wide. This provision is designed to minimize impacts of public water access o.n
wetlands landward of the ordinary high water level, thus attempting a reasonable balance
between wetland protection and public water access (P. Radomski, personal communication,
March 1,2011).
In accordance with the draft rules part 6120,4100, subp. 3, special access lots must
provided for public water access where "direct riparian access is not feasible due to the presence
of protected vegetation, extensive shallow water, wetlands, or other critical or wildlife
habitat."(See also MN DNR, 2010, Part 6120.3300, subp. 4a, item C for access lots in new
development subdivisions.) This section protects wetlands adjacent lakes providing sensitive or
40
critical habitat, even if located landward of the ordinary high water level. The goal is to minimize
disturbances for fish and other wildlife species and prevent bottom sediment suspension and
resulting degradation due to watercraft activities in areas not suitable for this purpose (P.
Radomski, personal communication, March 1,2011). Additionally, as outlined in part
6120.4100, subp.4, item C, the selected access lots "must be suitable in their natural state for the
intended activities" and required facilities "must be centralized and located in areas suitable for
them." The suitability assessment must consider the presence of wetlands among other important
environmental factors.
Activity Restrictions in Wetlands
In all wetlands in the shoreland overlay district, land alterations activities are restricted.
According to the draft rules part 6120.3320, subp. 2, item K, "construction and other land
alteration activities must avoid wetlands, unless authorized under chapter 8420." The restrictions
are in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act, Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420. This
affects wetlands adjacent lakes both lakeward and landward of the ordinary high water level.
Special Protection Shoreland Overlay District and Advanced Subdivision Standards
Under the draft rules part 6120.3250, subp. 3 provisions are included authorizing local
governments to create "special protection shoreland overlay districts." These might be used to
protect shoreline sections with adjacent wetlands, as long as the intended purpose, required
regulatory stringency, and establishment criteria for such districts are being met:
Part 6120.3250, subp. 3, item A: "A special shoreland protection overlay district is
intended to be used for three basic purposes. The first purpose is to limit and properly
manage development in areas that are generally unsuitable for development or use due to
flooding, erosion, limiting soil conditions, steep slopes, or other major physical
41
constraints. A second purpose is to manage and preserve areas with special historical,
natural, or biological characteristics. A third purpose is to protect sources of drinking
water for public water supply wells and surface water intakes,"
Part 6120.3250, subp. 3, item B: "Local governments may establish special protection
shoreland overlay districts for sensitive shoreland areas and other vulnerable areas and
these districts shall be regulated with controls that meet or exceed the natural
environment class standard."
Part 6120.3250, subp. 3, item C: "Criteria for establishing special protection shoreland
overlay districts for portions of lake shorelands include vulnerable or nutrient-susceptible
bays, areas adjoining inlets and outlets, and areas with broad and extensive littoral zones
or wetland fringes."
The proposed rules also include provisions for "shoreland conservation subdivisions" to
better conserve natural resources, including sensitive areas such as wetlands (see part 6120.4200,
subpart I). These provisions promote development designs that better conserve and protect
natural areas, including clustering developments and low impact development (Radomski, 2009).
The standards for the conservation subdivisions are outlined in the draft rules under part
6120.4200.
6.0 Recommendations for the Regulation of Wetlands Adjacent Lakes in Maplewood
From the research, wetlands adjacent lakes and freestanding wetlands need to be
regulated the same, with buffers being just as strict for both, when regulated under the city's
shore land ordinance. Additional, future citizen participation is highly recommended.
6.1 Best Wav to Regulate Wetlands Adiacent Lakes
The best way to regulate wetlands adjacent lakes needs to be assessed from ecological,
wildlife, water quality, and social and economic standpoints.
42
Ecology
Based on the assessment of differences, wetlands adjacent lakes should be regulated just
as strictly as freestanding wetlands from an ecological standpoint. According to the MN DNR
(20 II), shoreland areas provide a unique ecological zone that is required for certain plant and
animal species, and a larger buffer area could expound on this fact to create more diverse and
balanced species populations. As the citizen input shows, residents living along the wetlands also
want healthy ecological and vegetation systems. Requiring the same buffers for wetlands
adjacent lakes as for freestanding wetlands and upholding the same other buffer requirements
would maintain the health of the ecological system of both the wetlands and the adjacent lakes.
Wildlife
The health of the wildlife system runs parallel with the health ofthe ecological system.
Wildlife population health depends directly on the health of the wetland ecosystems. The
research on wildlife function differences supports that restrictions on freestanding wetlands
should be just as strict as on freestanding wetlands. All sorts of aquatic, semi-aquatic, and
terrestrial species use the wetlands adjacent lakes for nesting, breeding, protection, and as food
sources. Wildlife habitat quality increases with buffer width. However, existing developments
need to be accommodated. Deer, duck, and geese population seem to flourish around wetlands
adjacent lakes, indicating that reasonable buffers can be sufficient. Applying the current buffers
for freestanding wetlands to wetlands adjacent lakes as well will strike a reasonable balance and
preserve a healthy wildlife population.
43
Water Quality
Water quality of wetlands and wetlands adjacent lakes are each unique and serve a vital
purpose for the health of the ecosystem and the aquatic and terrestrials and vegetation of these
areas. Water quality in wetlands adjacent lakes should try to be maintained at the desired high
levels in order to maintain the high quality of the Manage A and Manage B wetlands adjacent
lakes. As supported by the research, when it comes to the water quality aspect, wetlands adjacent
lakes should be regulated just as strictly as freestanding wetlands. The wetlands adjacent lakes
should have a buffer of75 ft to 100 ft, just like the corresponding classes of freestanding
wetlands in Maplewood.
Social, Economic, and Recreational Aspects
Based solemnly on the research on social and economic functions, particularly the
recreational aspects of the wetlands, the buffers should not be regulated as strict as for
freestanding wetlands. Recreational functions are an important aspect of the wetlands adjacent
lakes and hold a high value to the residents. This is consistent with the city's reasoning behind
the reduced buffer widths adopted during the 2009 update of the wetland ordinance. However, if
the lake, its adjacent wetland, andlor its shoreline are in poor quality, the recreational aspect will
suffer and not be as valuable to the residents or the community. This, in contrast, supports just as
strict regulation of wetlands adjacent lakes as offreestanding wetlands.
Social responsibility of the residents will require more education and workshops from the
city of Maplewood to ensure the residents are informed as to what they need to do to protect and
preserve the flora, fauna, and wildlife on their property so they can continue to be educated and
become responsible and good environmental stewards to the wetlands and shore lands.
44
Overall Recommendation
If looking at all four of the aspects combined, wetlands adjacent lakes and freestanding
wetlands should be protected the same when it comes to ecology, wildlife, water quality, and
social and economic reasons. Thus, the current minimum buffer widths for Manage A and B
wetlands adjacent lakes should be increased from 75 ft and 50 ft, to 100 ft and 75 ft, respectively.
A buffer between 75 ft to 100 ft should provide ample protection for both wetlands adjacent
lakes and freestanding wetlands. Although the city of Maplewood currently supports 50 ft
buffers as absolute minimum, there is enough research to show that increasing buffers to 75 ft or
100 ft in most cases would greatly benefit the quality of wetlands.
Even though the research shows that the current buffers for wetlands adjacent lakes are
strict enough to uphold the recreational aspects of the lakes, the buffers should be as strict as for
freestanding wetlands to prevent a decline in the ecology, wildlife, and water quality, as such a
decline would degrade the recreational aspects of the lakes. The recreational purposes do not
outweigh the water quality, ecological, and wildlife issues; therefore, they do not justify the case
ofless strict buffers. If water quality, ecology, and wildlife are diminished by recreational
activities, then the lake and shore land will loose its appeal and ability to function for recreational
purposes and enjoyment. As indicated by the questionnaire responses, water quality problems
have already impacted recreational and other uses of the water bodies. For example, the affected
lakes are generally not used for swimming. The wider the buffer, the more it will do for the water
quality, ecology, wildlife, and in turn, recreational enjoyment.
Overall, the four aspects go hand in hand to create the beneficial quality of and prevent
the degradation of the lakes and the wetlands adjacent them. This recommendation is also
consistent with the city's overall goal "to ensure that the quality of buffers and wetlands
45
improves over time, rather than deteriorates" (Finwall, 20 II, p.I). Reasonable activity
restrictions, such as the ones agreed on by the city and affected residents during the 2009 update
of the wetland ordinance, ensure that the majority of residential and recreational activities
desired by the residents are possible on affected shoreland properties even with increased buffer
widths requirements.
6.2 Proposal for Update of Maple wood's Shoreland Ordinance
Several updates to the city's shore land ordinance are recommended in order to include
the regulation of wetlands adjacent lakes.
Definitions
Defmitions relating to wetlands adjacent lakes and their regulation need to be included in
the shore land ordinance. The definitions can be taken from Section 2 of the wetland ordinance
(see Appendix I) and can be either copied into or referenced by the shoreland ordinance. The
latter has the advantage that future updates of these definitions would not have to be made in
multiple ordinances.
Measurement of Wetland Buffers
Shore land buffers and setbacks are typically measured from the ordinary high water level,
which is considered to be the edge or boundary of the public water body. In accordance with the
city's shore land ordinance, the ordinary high water level is generally the elevation of "the
highest water level that has existed for a sufficient time to leave evidence upon the landscape"
46
indicated by "natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly
terrestrial" (City of Maplewood MN, 2003, Sec. 44-1238).
In contrast, wetland buffers are measured from the wetland edge. Wetlands are delineated
based on hydrology, soil conditions, and vegetation in accordance with the "Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands" published by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. EPA, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and U.S. Soil Conservation Service in 1989
(City of Maplewood, 2009b, p. 4). Thus, the edge of a wetland adjacent lake might differ from
the ordinary high water level. For many of the wetlands adjacent lakes in Maplewood, the
wetland edge is located landward of the ordinary high water level.
In order to avoid potential conflicts in the establishment of shoreline and wetland buffers
and setbacks on shore land properties with wetlands adjacent lakes, the shoreland ordinance
needs to clarify which boundary is used for the measurement of buffers on these properties.
Where wetlands adjacent lakes exist, it is recommended that the buffers is measured from the
boundary - wetland edge or ordinary high water level- that is the furthest landward, as this
would provide the best protection for both the shoreline and the wetland.
Wetland Buffers
In accordance with Maplewood's wetland ordinance, a minimum buffer of 50 ft is
needed. Studies reviewed for this project show that buffer widths of75 ft to 100 ft may be more
beneficial. Although a 50 ft buffer is the minimum needed for water quality control, increases to
75 ft or 100 ft can achieve reasonable improvements in pollutant removal efficiencies. Also,
widths of75 ft to 100 ft are particularly needed for high quality wetlands, such as the Manage A
and Manage B wetlands adjacent lakes in Maplewood, which are more sensitive to degradation,
47
and to provide better wildlife habitats. The shore land ordinance should use the definitions of
wetland classes in the wetland ordinance (see Appendix I), which are based on MnRAM, for the
basis of buffer zones and set the buffer requirements for Manage A and Manage B wetlands
adjacent lakes to 100 ft and 75 ft, respectively. Additionally, increased buffer widths for deep
slope areas should be required in accordance with Section 4, Subsection c ofthe current wetlands
ordinance (see Appendix I), as buffer effectiveness decreases with increasing slope. Overall, the
buffer and setback requirements for wetlands adjacent lakes in the shore land ordinance should
match the existing buffer requirements for freestanding wetlands:
Wetland Classification Minimum Buffer Structure Setback from
Width Edge of Buffer
Manage A 100' 0'
Manage B 75' 0'
Manage C 50' 0'
[Stormwater Pond 10' 10']
(City of Maplewood, 2009b, Section 4, Subsection a)
These buffer width recommendations are also consistent with the proposed MN DNR
shoreland rules. The rules require a minimum shoreline buffer of 50 ft (MN DNR, 20 I Ob). The
recommended wetland buffers of 100 ft and 75 ft for Manage A and B wetlands adjacent lakes,
respectively, will not conflict with this requirement when measured form the furthest landward
boundary, ordinary high water level or wetland edge. Further, the proposed rules require a 75 ft
minimum structure setback from the edge of wetlands adjacent lakes (MN DNR, 2010b). This
would be achieved by the recommended buffer width for both Manage A and B wetlands
adjacent lakes, which includes all of the affected wetlands in Maplewood.
48
Activity Restrictions and Other Requirements for Wetland Buffers
Freestanding wetlands and wetlands adjacent lakes should be regulated with the same
standards and activity restrictions in order to maintain water quality. The standards, restrictions,
and requirements outlined in Section 5 "Development and Construction," Section 6 "Activities in
Wetlands (...) and Buffers," Section 7 "Best Management Practices," and Section 8 "Variances"
of the current wetland ordinance (see Appendix I) should be either copied into or referenced by
the shore land ordinance. Again, the latter would avoid the need to revise multiple ordinances if
future changes are made to these provisions. The wetland ordinance restrictions are sufficiently
strict to ensure good water quality and protection of wildlife habitats, but also reasonable enough
to ensure that the rights of property owners are not infringed upon unnecessarily and most
desired residential and recreational activities still possible.
Application to Both Public and Private Lands
The standards pertaining to the regulation of wetlands adjacent lakes should apply to both
public and private lands. Although this is an implicit requirement, it should be emphasized in the
shoreland ordinance. This will help avoid any future controversies about private property use
restrictions and uses of publicly owned shore land properties.
Special Protection Shoreland Overlay Districts
The proposed MN DNR provisions for the creation of special protection shoreland
overlay districts might provide an opportunity to better protect currently undeveloped shore land
properties along wetlands adjacent lakes in Maplewood that might come under development
pressures in the future and already developed properties from future pressures to increase
49
development densities. In accordance with Maplewood's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, wetlands
are not in danger of being developed and the open space around Spoon Lake and the existing
park along Wakefield Lake are planned to be maintained (City of Maple wood MN, 2010, Figures
5.1 & 5.2). However, some areas close to the wetlands adjacent Kohlman and Beaver Lakes are
available for future developments (City of Maple wood MN, 2010, Figures 5.1 & 5.2). Special
protection shore land overlay districts could be established for these areas in order to ensure
proper protection of these wetland and shoreland areas by restricting developments to low-
impact designs.
The fully developed area around Lake Oehrline and the residential areas along the
wetlands adjacent Beaver Lake and Wakefield Lake might also come under pressure to be more
densely developed in the future. Special protection overlay districts might be used to limit
densities of both new developments and redevelopments. In general, more stringent development
standards in these special protection districts might be applied to all major redevelopments
involving the new construction of residences and other main structures. It is important to note
that the provisions for special protection shoreland overlay districts have not yet been finalized.
Thus, the recommendations presented here are tentative, awaiting the finalization of the new MN
DNR Shore land Rules.
6.3 Recommended Future Citizen Participation
In addition to gathering more representative input of the affected residents, it is important
to promote their active participation, both in the public policy process and in the shoreland and
wetland conservation process.
50
Shoreland Property Owner/Resident Input
As only limited resident input could be gathered within the scope and timeframe of this
project, it might be beneficial to send out additional surveys to gather more representative and
precise information for the update process of the shoreland ordinance. To avoid duplicate effort
and allow broader input, the survey could be targeted for all shoreland properties and not be
limited to properties with wetlands adjacent lakes. Additionally, focus groups could be created
for the residential areas at Beaver Lake, Lake Oehrline, and Wakefield Lake. Citizen input
received during this project indicates that affected residents are interested in voicing their
opinions and concerns and willing to form groups to address the issues at hand. These focus
groups can be used to disseminate information, gather feedback, address citizen concerns, and
encourage active participation in the public policy and preservation process.
Public Participation in Legislative and Regulatory Process
In order to promote more educated participation of the affected residents in the process of
updating the shore land ordinance, residents should have the opportunity to become better
informed about the issue at stake. For the ordinance update as it relates to wetlands adjacent
lakes, residents should be educated about the following issues:
What are wetlands adjacent lakes? How do these wetlands look?
What is the importance of these wetlands? How do they differ from freestanding
wetlands?
How are these wetlands affected by human development and lake and shoreland use?
Why is it important to regulate these wetlands?
51
What is the purpose of including the regulation of wetlands adjacent lakes into the
shore land ordinance?
What impact will the regulation of wetlands adjacent lakes under the shoreland ordinance
have on shoreland properties?
This information can be disseminated to affected residents and property owners through
brochures, Web pages, seminars, and focus groups. Sufficient time should be allowed for all
residents and property owners to access and review the information prior to the public hearings
to ensure informed participation of all the affected and involved parties.
Workshops
Workshops are useful to educate residents and owners of shoreland properties about how
to best manage the valuable natural resources of shorelands and wetlands. The majority of
residents that responded to the questionnaire were in favor of such workshops. Workshops could
address the following:
Best management practices for landscaping, beautification, and residential and
recreational uses of shoreland properties.
Hands-on-training for easy-to-do shoreland and wetland restoration projects.
financial incentives and programs available for shore land restoration, such as the MN
DNR's Shoreland Habitat Restoration Grant Program
(http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/habitat/shoreland.html).
Available technical assistance, such as the MN DNR's "Restore your Shore" online
multimedia program (http://www.dnr.state.fill.us/restoreyourshore/index.html).
Overall, the goal of such workshops should be not only to educate, but also to encourage
residents and property owners to implement easy restoration practices in their own backyards.
Including children in hands-on workshops is especially beneficial, as they playa huge role in
encouraging their parents to do similar projects at home.
7.0 Conclusion
In conclusion, this Capstone Project aims at assisting the city of Maple wood with their
ongoing wetland and shoreland debate as it relates to wetlands adjacent lakes. Based on the
research conducted for this project as described in this paper, the UMUC team concludes that
wetlands adjacent lakes should be regulated just as strictly as freestanding wetlands when
included in the shoreland ordinance. The buffer widths currently set for freestanding wetlands
and the activity restrictions and other buffer requirements outlined in the current wetland
ordinance are both adequate and reasonable to maintain the health and functions of the wetlands
adjacent lakes. In the Maplewood community, these wetlands are a vital part of the shoreline and
shore land ecosystems and provide important wildlife habitat and vital water quality functions for
these ecosystems. Further, there are many economic and social values, particularly in terms of
recreational uses, that these wetlands hold within the community. All these factors make
wetlands adjacent lakes a valuable natural resource that is worth being protected. Natural buffers
with native shrubs and trees playa central role in protecting these wetlands and the lakes. Just as
the city of Maple wood's wetland ordinance is designed to ensure the protection of its wetlands
and streams from degradation, pollution, and the acceleration of aging, the updated shoreland
ordinance should ensure the same for wetlands adjacent lakes by providing equally stringent
protection for these wetlands as the wetland ordinance provides for freestanding wetlands.
52
53
8.0 References
ArcOIS Explorer Online. (20 II). USA National Wetlands Inventory. Retrieved from
http://explorer.arcgis.com
City of Maple wood MN. (2010, January 25). Chapter 5: Land Use. In City of Maplewood MN,
2030 Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved from
http://www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/DocumentCenterii.aspx?FID~ II 0
City of Maplewood MN. (2009a, December 14). City of Maplewood: Wetland classifications
(Wetland Map). Retrieved from http://www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/index.aspx?NID~444
City of Maplewood MN. (2009b, December 14). Ordinance No. 895: An ordinance amending
the environmental protection and critical area article of the city code (Wetland
Ordinance). Retrieved from http://www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/index.aspx?NID~444
City of Maplewood MN. (2003). Article IX: Shoreland overlay district (Shoreland Ordinance).
In City of Maple wood MN, Code of Ordinances (Chapter 44, Sec. 44-1236 - 44-1250).
Retrieved from http://www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/index.aspx?NID~85
Comer, P. & Goodin, K., et al. (2005, December). Biodiversity values of geographically isolated
wetlands in the United States. Arlington, VA: NatureServe. Retrieved from
http://www.natureserve;org/library/isolated_wetlands_ 05/isolated _ wetlands.pdf
DeBarry, P. A. (2004). Watersheds: Processes, assessment, and management. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons. .
Definition Wetlands, 40 C.F.R. ~230.3(t) (1993).
Edwards, A., & Sharitz, R. (2000). Population genetics of two rare perennials in isolated
wetlands: Sagittaria isoetiformis and S.teres (Alismataceae). American Journal of Botany,
87,1147-1158. Retrieved from http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/87/8/ll47
Environmental Law Institute. (March 2008). Planner's guide to wetland buffers for local
governments. Retrieved from http://www.elistore.org/reports_detail.asp?ID~ 11272
Finwall, S. (2011, January 21). Maplewood. Minnesota: Wetland and shoreland regulations
(Capstone Project Description). Retrieved from S. Finwall, personal communication,
January 21,2011.
Gibbons, J. (2003). Terrestrial habitat: a vital component for herpetofauna of isolated wetlands.
Wetlands, 23, 630-635. Retrieved from
ftp:l/ftp.manomet.org/Water/For_DEP/Literature/Gibbons _ terrestrial_ habitat.pdf
54
Konewko, D., Finwall, S., & Gaynor, G. (2009, April 7). Memorandum: Wetland ordinance
amendments - First reading. Retrieved from S. Finwall, personal communication, March
2,2011.
Kusler, Jon. (n.d.) Common Questions: Wetland Guidancefor Engineers. Retrieved from
http://www.aswm.org/propub/17_engineers_6_26_06.pdf
Liebowitz, S. (2003, September). Isolated Wetlands and Their Functions: An Ecological
Perspective. Wetlands, 23(3),517-531. Retrieved from
htlp:// dusk.geo .orst.edu/prosem/PDF s/kfesler _isolated_wetland. pdf
Leibowitz, S. & Vining, K. (2003, March ). Temporal connectivity in a prairie pothole complex.
Wetlands, 23(1), 13-25. Retrieved from
https://illiad.umuc.edu/illiad/illiad.dll?SessionID=Y0743 3 57 61 G&Action= I O&F orrn=7 5 &
Value=96555
Levins, R. (1970). Extinction. Some Mathematical Questions in Biology, 75-107. Providence, RI:
American Mathematical Society.
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources [MN BWSR]. (n.d.a). Management Classification
Draft Guide. Retrieved from
http://www.bwsr.state.run.us/wetlands/mnramlMC_draft_guide.doc
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources [MN BWSR]. (n.d.b). Regulation of wetlands in
Minnesota. Retrieved from
http://www.bwsr.state.run.us/wetlands/publications/wetlandregulation2.htrnl
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources [MN DNR]. (2011). A Guidefor Buying and
Managing Shoreland. Retrieved from
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/shorelandmgmt/ guide/waterquality.htrnl
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources [MN DNR]. (20IOa, August). Shoreland rules
update project: August 2010 newsletter. Retrieved from
http://files.dnr.state.run.us/waters/waterrngmt_section/shoreland/shoreland Jules_update _ n
ewsletter _ 20l008.pdf
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources [MN DNR]. (20 lOb, July 6). Proposed permanent
rules related to shoreland management. Received from P. Radomski, personal
communication, March I, 20 II.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources [MN DNR]. (2008, May). Protecting our rivers and
lakes (Fact Sheet). Retrieved from
http://files.dnr, state. run. us/publications/waters/shoreland Jules _ fact_ sheet_origins. pdf
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources [MN DNR]. (n.d.a). Benefits of Wetlands. Retrieved
from http://www.dnr.state.run.us/wetlandslbenetits.htrnl
55
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources [MN DNR]. (n.d.b). Technical definitions of
wetland types in Minnesota. Retrieved from
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wetlands/types _ technical.html
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources [MN DNR]. (n.d.c). Types of wetlands. Retrieved
from http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wetlands/types.html
Minnesota Sea Grant. (2005). Glossary of the Great Lakes. Retrieved from
http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/pubs/ggl/w.html#W7
National Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]. (2006a, October). Ecologically Isolated
Wetlands. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from ftp://ftp-
fc.sc.egov.usda.govIWHMI/WEB/pdf/TechnicaILeaflets/Ecologically _Isolated _Wetlands_
Oct%2023.pdf
National Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]. (2006b, February). Cropped Wetlands and
Wildlife. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://policy.nrcs.usda.gov/OpenNonW ebContent.aspx?content= 18507. wba
Otterson, P (2009, April). Agricultural practices in shoreland areas. Retrieved from
http://files.dnr.state.mn. us/waters/watermgmt_ section/shorelandl agriculturatpractices _in _
shoreland _ areas.pdf
Prairie Wetlands Learning Center. (2001, February 7). Retrieved from
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/PWLCI
Radomski, P. (2009, April). Shoreland standards preliminary draft: Key proposals and their
reasoning. Retrieved from
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_ section/shoreland/6120 _draft _ April_Key _Is
sues.pdf
Sheldon, D., Granger, T., Hruby, T., Johnson, P., Harper, K., McMillan, A., Stanley, S., &
Stockdale, E. (2005, March). Wetlands in Washington State -Volume I: A Synthesis of the
Science. Department of Ecology's Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program.
Retrieved from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0506006.pdf
Tiner, R. (2003). Geographically Isolated Wetlands of the United States. Wetlands, 23(3),494-
516. Retrieved from
https://illiad.umuc.edu/illiad/illiad.dll?SessionID=Y0743 3 57 61 G&Action= I O&F orm=7 5 &
Value=96554.
The Mitt Watershed Council. (n.d.). Wetlandfunctions. Retrieved from
http://www . watershedcouncil.orglwater%20resources/wetlands/wetland - functionsl
United States Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA]. (2011). World in our backyard.
Retrieved from http://www .epa. govlnel students/teacher/world.html
56
United States Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA]. (2010). What are wetlands?
Retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/what.cfin
United States Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA]. (2008). Watershed academy web:
Wetlands functions and values. Retrieved from
http://www .epa. govl owow/watershedlwacademyl acad2000/wetlandsl
United States Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EP A]. (2001). Functions and values of
wetlands. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/fun_val.pdf
United States Fish and Wildlife Service [U.S. FWS]. (n.d.). Wetlands and deepwater habitats
classification. Retrieved from
http://www .fws. gov Iwetlandsl _ documentsl gNSD IIW etlandsDeepwaterHabitatsClassificati
on.pdf
United States Geological Survey [U.S. GS]. (1997). Technical aspects of wetlands: Wetland
hydrology, water quality, and associated functions. National water summary on wetlands.
Retrieved from http://water.usgs.gov/nwsumlWSP2425/hydrology.html
van der Valk, A. & Pederson, R. (2003, September). The SW ANCC Decision and its
Implications for Prairie Potholes. Wetlands23(3), 590-596. doi: 10.1672/0277-
5212(2003)023 [0590:TSDAII]2.0.CO;2
Yerkes, T. (2000, December). Nest-site characteristics and brood-habitat selection of redheads:
an association between wetland characteristics and success. Wetlands, 20(4),575-580.
Retrieved from
https://illiad.umuc.edu/illiad/illiad.dl1?SessionlD=Y0743 3 5761 G&Action= 1 O&F orm=7 5&
Value=96553.
APPENDICES
Appendix - 1
. Appendix 1: Maplewood Wetland Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. 895
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND CRITICAL AREA ARTICLE OF THE CITY CODE
The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances:
This amendment revises portions of Article VII. (Environmental Protection and Critical Area)
dealing w~h wetlands.
Section 1. Findings.
a. Wetlands serve a variety of beneficial functions. Wetlands help maintain water quality
by filtering suspended solids and pollutants. They reduce flooding and erosion, provide
open space for human interaction, and are an integral part of the city's environment.
Depending upon their type, size, and location within a watershed, they represent
important physical, educational, ecological, aesthetic, recreational, and economic assets
of the city. Properly managed wetlands are needed to support the city's efforts to reduce
flooding and to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare.
b. Wetlands and buffers provide habitat for aquatic, semi-aquatic, and terrestrial wildlife,
including rare, threatened, or endangered species. They provide breeding, nesting and
feeding grounds for many fOffilS of plant and animal life. Many species of wildlife require
both wetlands and their associated upland buffers for survival. Protecting wetlands and
buffers is essential for preserving the diversity of plant and animal species in the city.
c. Streams are also significant elements of the city's hydrologic system. Streams flow into
wetlands and lakes, provide food and habitat for wildlife, provide open space, and are an
integral part of the city's environment. Like wetlands, streams are an important physical,
ecological, aesthetic, recreational, and economic asset.
d. Various existing state and federal laws restrict activities and development within
wetlands and streams. The city finds that development adjacent to and surrounding
wetlands may also degrade and pollute wetlands or accelerate the aging or elimination
of wetlands and that development next to streams may degrade, pollute, or damage
streams and, in turn, degrade other surface waters downstream. Regulating
development and land use around wetlands and streams is therefore in the public
interest.
e. As defined and used herein, buffers are land areas adjacent to wetlands and streams
that are deemed important for maintaining the health and valuable functions of such
wetlands and streams. Restricting development of and land use in buffers recognizes
that the surrounding upland impacts the quality and functions of wetlands and streams
and, therefore, is in the public interest.
f. Buffers planted with native or naturalized vegetation serve the following functions:
(1} Stabilize soil and prevent erosion.
1
Appendix - 2
(2) Preserve and enhance the quality of surface water by reducing the input of
suspended solids, nutrients, and harmful chemical substances that may
adversely impact public health or aquatic habitat.
(3) Filter suspended solids, nutrients, pollutants, and harmful substances so that
they do not enter the wetland or stream.
(4) Moderate water level fluctuations during storms.
(5) Protect beneficial plant life and provide habitat for wildlife.
(6) Provide shade to reduce the temperature of both stormwater runoff and the
wetland, thereby helping to maintain the conditions for healthy aquatic life.
(7) Reduce the adverse impacts of human activities on wetlands and streams and
thereby preserve them in a natural state~
g. In addition to regulating development and land use around wetlands, this ordinance is
intended to educate the public (including appraisers, owners, potential buyers, and
developers) about the importance of wetlands and streams and the functions of buffers
and to encourage property owners who live adjacent to and/or near wetlands and
streams to be responsible stewards by managing and enhancing the quality of buffers as
hereinafter described.
Section 2. Definilions.
The following words, terms, and phrases when used in this ordinance shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this section, except where the context of the word, terms, and phrases
clearly indicates a different meaning.
Administrator means the director of the community development department or other person or
persons charged with the administration and enforcement of this ordinance.
Alteration means human action that adversely affects the vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or
wildlife habitat in a wetland, stream or buffer, including grading, filling, dumping, dredging,
draining, paving, construction, application of gravel, discharging pollutants (including herbicides
and pesticides), and compacting or disturbing soil through vehicle or equipment use~ Alteration
also includes the mass removal or mass planting of vegetation by means of cutting, pruning,
topping, clearing, relocating, or applying herbicides or any hazardous or toxic substance
designed to kill plant life. Alteration does not include the following activities in a buffer:
a. Walking, passive recreation, fishing, or other similar low-impact activities~
b. The maintenance of pre-existing, nonconforming lawn area.
c. The removal of trees or vegetation that is dead, dying, diseased, noxious, or hazardous
in a manner that does not cause the compacting or disturbing of soil through vehicle or
equipment use.
2
Appendix - 3
d. The removal of noxious weeds by non-chemical methods, or by means of chemical
treatment in accordance with application methods that prevent the introduction of toxic
chemicals into wetlands and streams.
e. The removal of non-native shrubs, such as buckthorn, if:
'1. there is little chance of erosion; and
2. site is flat or generally has slopes less than 6 percent grade; and
3. cut and treat method of removal is used on shrubs more than one-half (%) inches
in diameter (not pulling).
f Selective management of vegetation as follows:
1. Selective pruning of trees or shrubs in order to enhance their health.
2. Selective removal of tree saplings (less than 2 inches in diameter) in order to
enhance wildlife value of the butler.
3. Selective removal of non-native trees.
4. Selective removal of non-native weeds.
5. Selective seeding or planting of vegetation that is native to Minnesota.
g. Installation of temporary fencing without footings.
h. Projects within the buffer that are the subject of a wetland buffer management worksheet
approved by the administrator.
Best manaaement oraclices (BMP's) mean measures taken to minimize negative etlects of
stormwater runoff on the environment including, but not limited to, installation of rain gardens,
infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, retention basins, filters, sediment traps, swales, reduction
of impervious surfaces, planting of deep-rooted native plants, landscape and pavement
maintenance.
BlJffers are land areas adjacent to wetlands and streams in which development and land use
are restricted as set forth herein and in which the growth of native and naturalized plants and
trees are to be preserved and encouraged in accordance with this ordinance.
Clearino means the cutting or removal of vegetation.
Enhancement means an action that increases the functions and values of a wetland, stream, or
buffer.
Erosion means the movement of soil or rock fragments, or the wearing away of the land surface
by water, wind, ice, and gravity.
Infiltration basin means a pond or basin that captures stormwater and allows it to soak into the
ground. An infiltration basin will typically drain within forty-eight (48) hours of a storm event.
Lake means an area of open, relatively deep water that is large enough to produce a wave-
swept shore. Lake shall also be defined as a "public water" as delineated and listed in the city's
shoreland ordinance (Article IX).
3
Appendix - 4
Laroe-scale oroiect means a vegetation maintenance, control, removal, mitigation or restoration
project that will affect more than fifty percent (50%) of a buffer located on a piece of property.
Lawn area means that area within a buffer with maintained landscape, including areas of
mowed turf grass, gardens, play areas, work areas, patios, play structures, and nonpemnanent
structures. Lawn area does not include: (1) areas within a buffer consisting of native or
naturalized vegetation; and (2) the land area that is outside of a buffer.
Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAMI is a scientific methodology to assess the
quality of wetlands.
Mitioation means an action that reduces, rectifies, eliminates, or compensates for the alteration
of a buffer or wetland.
Native area means an area where native vegetation exists.
Native veqetation means tree, shrub, grass, or other plant species that are indigenous to the
Twin Cities metropolitan area and that could have been expected to naturally occur on the site.
Native vegetation does not include noxious weeds.
Naturalized area means an area where naturalized vegetation exists and does not include a
lawn area.
Naturalized veoetation means tree, shrub, grass, or other plant species that exists on a site
naturally wrthout having been planted or maintained as a lawn area. It may be a native or non-
native species.
Nonconforminq lawn area means that area within a buffer with maintained landscape (lawn
area) as of the date of adoption of this ordinance. Once a nonconfomning lawn area is
converted to native or naturalized buffer, it loses its legal nonconfomning status and may not
thereafter be treated as a nonconforming lawn area.
Noxious weed means plants listed as prohibited noxious weeds in the Minnesota Noxious Weed
Law. (See also weed.)
Ordinarv Ilioh water mark (OHWM) means a mark delineating the highest water level
maintained for enough time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary high water
mark is commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic
to predominantly terrestrial.
Public waters means water basins assigned a shoreline management classification by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources commissioner under Minnesota Statutes, sections
103F.201 to 103F.221, except wetlands less than 80 acres in size that are classified as natural
environment lakes.
Rain oarden means an infiltration basin that is planted as a garden that allows water to infiltrate
within forty-eight (48) hours of a storm event
Restoration means restoring a wetland, stream, or buffer in whole or in part to a condition that is
similar to that before development of the surrounding area.
4
Appendix - 5
Selective means vegetation management done in a naturalized or native buffer, where a
minimal amount of vegetation is altered, with the goal of improving ecological quality of the
buffer and/or its ability to filter stormwater runoff.
Semipublic means land that is maintained by a private organization for public use.
Setback means the minimum hori;wntal distance between a structure and the nearest edge of
the wetland, stream, or buffer.
SlaDe means the inclination of the natural surface of the land from the horizontal; commonly
described as a ratio of the length to the height
Stormwater oond means a pond that has been created to capture stormwater runoff. It is a
natural wetland. Stormwater is often piped into stornlWater ponds but may also enter through
sheet runoff.
Stormwater pond edqe means the normal high water level for a stormwater pond.
Straiaht-edqe setback is a measurement to determine the allowable setback of an addition to an
existing house, garage, deck or driveway which is located closer to or within the required buffer.
Straight-edge setback additions are measured by using the existing edge of the house, garage,
deck, or driveway located nearest to the edge of a buffer, wetland, or stream and extending that
line in a parallel direction. No portion of the addition can encroach closer to the edge of a buffer,
wetland, or stream than the existing structure.
Stream means those areas where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed. A defined
channel or bed is land that clearly contains the constant passage of water under normal
summer conditions.
Stn/cture means anything constructed or erected that requires location on the ground or
attached to something having location on the ground.
Sllstainable desian means a development design which minimizes impacts on the landscape.
Tempora/V erosion control means methods of keeping soil stable during construction or grading.
Temporary erosion control measures include, but are not limited to, siltfencing, erosion control
blankets, bale slope barriers, or other best management erosion control methods approved by
the city.
Valiance means a deviation from the standards of this ordinance that is not specifically allowed.
Veaetation means any plant life growing at, below, or above the soil surface.
Weed means a plant which causes damage in some way to native vegetation or ecosystems.
(See also noxious weed.)
Wetlands means those areas of the city inundated or saturated by groundwater or surface water
at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, ami that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas as defined. Where a
person has removed or mostly changed the vegetation, one shall determine a wetland by the
5
Appendix - 6
presence or evidence of hydric or organic soil and other documentation of the previous
existence of wetland vegetation such as aerial photographs. This definition does not include
lakes or stormwater ponds as herein defined.
Wetlands adiacent to lakes means those areas of land or vegetation that have been classified
as wetlands by an applicable Watershed District in accordance with the Minnesota Routine
Assessment Method (MnRAM) system but which are attached 10 or part of the edge of a lake as
defined herein.
Wetland classes are defined follows:
a. ManaGe A wetlands are based on the "Preserve" wetland classification as defined in
MnRAM. These wetlands are exceptional and the highest-functioning wetlands in
Maplewood.
b. Manaae B wetlands are based on the "Manage 1" wetland classifications as defined in
MnRAM. These wetlands are high-{Juality wetlands.
c. ManaGe C wetlands are based on the "Manage 2" wetland classifications as defined in
MnRAM. These wetlands provide moderate quality.
d. Stormwater Pond - These are ponds created for stormwater treatment A stormwater
pond shall not include wetlands created to mitigate the loss of other wetlands.
Wetland functions mean the natural processes performed by wetlands. These include providing
wildlife food and habitat, maintaining the availability of water, purifying water, acting as a
recharge and discharge area for groundwater aquifers, moderating the flow of surface water and
stormwater, and performing other functions including but not limited to those set out in U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers regulations.
Wetland buffer manaGement workslJeet is a printed form available through the community
development department which is required to be completed by a property owner who wishes to
undertake certain activities in a wetland or stream buffer. The activities proposed by the
property owner on the worksheet must be approved by the administrator prior to any work in the
buffer.
Wetland or stream edae means the line delineating the outer edge of a wetland or stream. The
wetland edge shall be established using the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands dated January 10, 1989, and jointly published by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, or succeeding publication that is adopted by the Federal
Government. The applicable watershed district must verify this line.
Section 3. Applicability and Effective Date.
a. Applicability.
'1. This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official
newspaper.
6
Appendix - 7
2. Except as specified elsewhere in this ordinance, this ordinance shall apply to all
real property which is located in a wetland, stream, or buffer or any person or use
that would alter a wetland, stream, or buffer after adoption of this ordinance
(December 14, 2009).
3. The city adopts the wetland classification map dated December 14, 2009, which
is based on wetland classifications from the MnRAM studies and assigned by the
applicable watershed district Other wetland classification regulations are as
follows:
a. The city council will adopt changes to the wetland map which are based
on MnRAM studies conducted and approved by watershed districts.
b. Any wetland not currently assigned a classification based on MnRAM
studies as ofthe date of the adoption ofthis ordinance (December 14,
2009) shall carry over the city's April 24, 1995, wetland classifications and
shall be assigned the following management classes:
1) Class 1 wetlands are defined as Manage A wetlands.
2) Class 2 wetlands are defined as Manage A wetlands.
3) Class 3 wetlands are defined as Manage B wetlands.
4) Class 4 wetlands are defined as Manage C wetlands.
5) Class 5 wetlands are defined as stormwater ponds.
c. Wetlands adjacent to lakes will be regulated by this ordinance until
December 31, 2012, or until the city adopts a new shore land ordinance
that includes the regulation of these wetlands, whichever occurs first
d. Appeals to the wetland classifications are within the jurisdiction of the
applicable watershed district and shall be filed and heard pursuant to the
administrative review proceSS of that district In the event that an appeal
is granted, the city will recognize the results of that appeal for purposes of
the classification of wetlands within the city.
4. When any provision of any ordinance conflicts with this ordinance, the provision
that provides more protection for buffers, wetlands, or streams shall apply unless
specifically provided otherwise in this ordinance. This also applies to the
applicable watershed district regulations.
b. Exemptions. This section does not apply to the following property located in the city
limits of Maplewood:
1. Property which is located within a buffer, but is separated from the wetland or
stream by an existing road.
7
Appendix - 8
2. Buildings and structures not in conformity with the regulations presclibed in this
ordinance as' of its effective date shall be regarded as nonconforming and may
continue.
3. Lawn areas not in conformity with regulations presclibed in this ordinance as of
its effective date shall be regarded as nonconforming and may continue. A
nonconforming lawn area will lose its legal nonconforming status if it is converted
to native or naturalized buffer and may not thereafter be treated as a lawn area.
Section 4. Buffer Width~ and Requirements.
a, Minimum buffers. The following are the minimum required buffer widths and structure
setbacks:
Buffer
Wetland Classes
Manage A Stormwater
& Streams Manage B Manage C Pond
Minimum Buffer Width
100ft.
75ft.
50 ft.
10 ft
Structure Setback from
Edge of Buffer
o
o
o
10 It
b. Buffer measurement. Buffers shall be measured from the wetland or stream edge.
c. Buffers containing slopes. For new development or construction on slopes greater
than eighteen percent (18%) that are within a buffer, the buffer width shall be increased
to ten PO} feet beyond the apex oflhe slope. Extension of the buffer for steep slopes
shall apply to all wetiand classes.
d. Buffers for wetlands adjacent to lakes. In light of the fact that lakes perform different
functions than wetlands and streams and are used for different recreational purposes,
wetlands adjacent to lakes and their designated buffers shall have alternative buffers.
The following alternative buffers for wetlands adjacent to lakes will apply until
December 31,2012, or until the city adopts a new shoreland ordinance that includes the
regulation of these wetlands, whichever comes first
Buffer
Wetland Classes (for Wetlands Adjacent to lakes)
Manage A Manage B Manage C
Minimum Buffer Width
75ft.
50 ft.
50ft.
e. Average Buffers: Recognizing that there are instances where, because of the unique
physical characteristics of a specific parcel of land, the averaging of buffer width for the
entire parcel may be necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the land during a
development or construction project In such cases decreasing the minimum buffer
width will be compensated for by increased buffer widths elsewhere in the same parcel
to achieve the required average buffer width.
8
Appendix - 9
1. The average buffer standards set forth below may be applied based on an
assessment of the following:
a) Undue hardship would arise from not allowing the average buffer. or
would otherwise not be in the public interest.
b) Size of parcel.
c) Configuration of existing roads and utilities.
d) Percentage of parcel covered by wetland.
e) Configuration of wetlands on the parcel.
I) Averaging will not cause degradation of the wetland or stream.
g) Averaging will ensure the protection or enhancement of portions of the
buffer which are found tc be the most ecologically beneficial to the
wetland or stream.
2. The following are the average buffer widths:
Buffer
Wetland Classes
Manage A
& Streams Manage B Manage C
Minimum Buffer Width
75ft.
50ft.
75ft.
50 ft.
Average Buffer Width
100 ft.
NIA
3. Average buffer measurement. Average buffer measurement shall be determined
by averaging the buffer along the wetland edge situated on the subject property,
not the entire wetland.
4. A mitigation plan is required for construction of development projects which meet
the requirements described in Section 5.d. (Mitigation).
5. The appropriateness of using average buffers will be evaluated as part of the
review of the contractor's or owner's development application. The average
buffer used must be within the spirit and intent of this ordinance and must meet
one or more of the requirements described in Section 7 (Best Management
Practices).
B. The administrator must approve the average buffer.
7. If an average buffer is denied by the administrator, an applicant may appeal the
denial by submitting a written appeal request to the administrator within fifteen
("15) days of the administrator's written denial of the average buffer. The
administrator shall send appeals of average buffers to the environmental and
natural resources commission for review.
9
Appendix - 10
8. If an average buffer is denied by the environmental and natural resources
commission, an applicant may appeal the denial by submitting a written appeal
request to the administrator within fifteen (15) days of the commission's denial of
the average buffer. The administrator shall send these appeals to the city council
for final review.
Section 5. Development and Construction.
a. Unless an exemption applies, the following development and construction activities are
not allowed in wetlands, streams, or buffers:
'1. Alterations, including the filling of wetlands.
2. The construction of structures.
3. Projects which convert native or naturalized areas to lawn area.
4. The construction of stormwater drainage facilities, sedimentation ponds,
infiltration basins, and rain gardens within a buffer.
5. Discharge of stormwater to a wetland not in compliance with the city's
stormwater management ordinance (Section 44-1245, or subsequent
ordinances).
b. Exemptions. This section does not apply to the following activities in a buffer:
1. Walking, passive recreation, fishing or other similar low-impact activities.
2. The maintenance of pre-existing, nonconforming lawn area.
3. The removal of trees or vegetation that is dead, dying, diseased, noxious, or
hazardous in a manner that does not cause the compacting or disturbing of soil
through vehicle or equipment use.
4. The removal of noxious weeds by non-chemical methods, or by means of
chemical treatment in accordance with application methods that prevent the
introduction oftoxic chemicals into wetlands and streams.
5. The removal of non-native shrubs, such as buckthorn, if:
a) there is little chance of erosion; and
b) site is flat or generally has slopes less than 6 percent grade; and
c) cut and treat method of removal is used on shrubs more than one-half (Y2)
inches in diameter (not pulling).
6. Selective management of vegetation as follows:
a) Selective pruning of trees or shrubs in order to enhance their health.
b) Selective removal of tree saplings (less than 2 inches in diameter) in
order to enhance wildlife value of the buffer.
c) Selective removal of non-native trees.
10
Appendix - II
d) Selective removal of non-native weeds.
e) Selective seeding or planting of vegetation that is native to Minnesota.
7. Installation of temporary fencing without footings.
8. Projects within the buffer that are the subject of a wetland buffer management
worksheet approved by the administrator.
9. Public or semi-public streets and utilities. The city council may waive the
requirements of this ordinance for the construction or maintenance of public or
semipublic streets and utilities through buffers where it determines that there is a
greater public need for the project than to meet the requirement of this ordinance.
In waiving these requirements the city council shall apply the following standards:
a) The city may only allow the construction of public or semipublic utilities
and streets through buffers where there is no other practical alternative.
b) Before the city council acts on the waiver the planning commission and
the environmental and natural resources commission shall make a
recommendation to the city council. The planning commission shall hold a
public hearing for the waiver. The city shall notify the property owners
within five hundred (500) feet of the property for which the waiver is being
requested at least ten (10) days before the hearing.
c) Utility or street corridors shall not be allowed when endangered or
threatened species are found in'the buffer.
d) Utility or street corridors, including any allowed maintenance roads, shall
be as far from the wetland as possible.
e) Utility or street corridor construction and maintenance shall protect the
wetland and buffer and avoid large trees as much as possible.
f) The city shall not allow the use of pesticides or other hazardous or toxic
substances in buffers or wetlands; however, in some situations the use of
herbicides may be used if prior approval is obtained from the
administrator.
g) The owner or contractor shall replant utility or street corridors with
appropriate native vegetation, except trees, at preconstruction densities
or greater after construction ends. Trees shall be replaced as required by
city ordinance.
h) Any additional corridor access for maintenance shall be provided as much
as possible at specific points rather than to the road which is parallel to
the wetland edge. If parallel roads are necessary they shall be no greater
than fifteen (15) feet wide.
i) The city council, upon recommendation of the administrator, may require
additional mitigation actions as a condition of granting the waiver.
11
Appendix - 12
10. Public or semipublic trails. The city may waive the requirements of this
ordinance for the construction Of maintenance of public or semipublic trails
through buffers, and boardwalks in wetlands, where it determines that there is a
greater public need for the project than to meet the requirement of this ordinance.
In waiving these requirements the city shall apply the following standards:
a) Trails shall not be allowed when endangered or threatened species afe
found to be present in the buffer.
b) Buffers shall be expanded, equal to the width of the trail corridor.
c) The owner or contractor shall replant all disturbed areas next to the trail in
a timeframe approved by the city.
d) All necessary erosion control measures must be in place before
constructing a trail. The erosion control measures must also be
maintained and inspected by the city to ensure that the wetland or stream
is not compromised by trail construction activities.
e) The trail must be designed and constructed with sustainable design
methods.
f) Boardwalks are allowed within the buffer and shall be a maximum of six
(6) feet in width for semipublic use and twelve (12) feet in width for public
use.
g) The administrator may require additional mitigation actions as specified in
Section 5.d. (Mitigation).
c. Construction Practices. Special construction practices shall be required on projects or
developments adjacent to wetlands and adjacent to and in their buffers. Special
construction practices shall be approved by the administrator before issuance of a
grading or building permit Such practices may include, but are not limited to, grading,
sequencing, vehicle tracking platforms, additional sill fences, and addijional sediment
control. They may also include the following:
1. Wetland Buffer Sign Standards: The city may require that a property owner or
developef install wetland signs before grading or starting construction. The buffer
will be identified by installing wetland signs on the boundary between a buffer
and adjacent land. These signs shall mark the edge of the buffer and shall state
there shall be no building, mowing, cutting, filling, or dumping beyond this point
These signs shall be installed at each lot line where it crosses a wetland or
stream buffer, and where needed to indicate the contour of the buffer, with a
maximum spacing of one-hundred (100) feet of wetland or stream edge.
2. Erosion Control Installation: Before grading or construction, the owner or
contractor shall put into place erosion control measures around the borders of
buffers. Such erosion control measures must remain in place until the owner and
contractor have finished all development activities that may affect the buffer.
12
Appendix - 13
3. Erosion Control Breaches: All erosion control measures must be maintained and
inspected to ensure compliance and protection of wellands, streams, and buffers.
The owner or contractor shall be responsible for all erosion/sedimentation
breaches within the buffer and shall restore impacted areas to conditions present
prior to grading or construction activities.
4. Erosion Control Removal: After completion of grading or construction, the
contractor or owner may remove the erosion control measures only after
inspection and approval by the city and the applicable watershed district to
ensure the areas affected have been established per requirements.
5. Platting: When platting or subdividing property, the plat or subdivision must show
the wetland boundaries as approved by the applicable watershed district.
6. It is the responsibility of the owner to alleviate any erosion during and after
completion of grading or construction. The owner or contractor must remove
erosion control measures after final approved inspection by the city and the
applicable watershed district.
d. Mitigation. For large-scale projects or new development or construction, the city
requires mitigation when a property owner or contractor has altered or will alter a
wetland or buffer. The property owner or contractor shall submit a m~igation plan to the
administrator for approval. In reviewing the plan, the city may require one or more of the
following actions:
1. Reducing or avoiding the impact by limiting the degree or amount of the action,
such as by using appropriate technology.
2. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the buffer.
3. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by prevention and maintenance
operations during the life of the actions.
4. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute
buffer land at a two-to-one ratio.
5. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.
6. Where the city requires restoration or replacement of a buffer, the owner or
contractor shall replant the buffer with native vegetation. A restoration plan must
be approved by the city before planting.
7. Any additional cond~ions required by the applicable watershed district and/or the
soil and water conservation district shall apply.
8. A wetland or buffer mitigation surety, such as a cash deposit or letter of credit, of
one hundred and fifty percent (150%) of estimated cost for mitigation. The surety
will be required based on the size of the project as deemed necessary by the
administrator. Funds will be held by the city until successful completion of
restoration as determined by the city after a final inspection. Wetland or buffer
13
Appendix - 14
mitigation surety does not include other sureties required pursuant to any other
provision of city ordinance or city directive.
Section 6. Activities in Wetlands, Streams, and Buffers.
a. Unless an exemption applies, the following activities are not allowed in wetlands,
streams, or buffers:
1. Alterations, including the filling of wetlands.
2. The construction of structures.
3. Projects which convert native or naturalized areas to lawn area.
4. The construction of stormwater drainage facilities, sedimentation ponds,
infiltration basins, and rain gardens within a buffer.
5. The discharging of stormwater to a wetland must comply with the city's
stormwater management ordinance (Section 44-1245, or subsequent stormwater
ordinances).
b. Wetland buffer management worksheet. A wetland buffer management worksheet is
required for certain activities wUlhin a wetland and stream buffer:
1. The administrator must approve wetland buffer management worksheets.
2. If a weiland buffer management worksheet is denied by the administrator, an
applicant may appeal the denial by submitting a written appeal request to the
administrator within fifteen (15) days of the administrator's written denial of the
average buffer. The administrator shall send appeals of average buffers to the
environmental and natural resources commission for review.
3. If a wetland buffer management worksheet is denied by the environmental and
natural resources commission, an applicant may appeal the denial by submitting
a written appeal request to the administrator within fifteen (15) days of the
commission's denial of the average buffer. The administrator shall send these
appeals to the city council for final review.
c. Exemptions. This section does not apply to the following activities in a buffer:
1. Walking, passive recreation, fishing or other similar low-impact activities.
2. The maintenance of pre-existing, nonconforming lawn area.
3. The removal of trees or vegetation that is dead, dying, diseased, noxious, or
hazardous in a manner that does not cause the compacting or disturbing of soil
through vehicle or equipment use.
4. The removal of noxious weeds by non-chemical methods, or by means of
chemical treatment in accordance with application methods that prevent the
introduction of toxic chemicals into wetlands and streams.
14
Appendix - 15
5. The removal of non-native shrubs, such as buckthorn, if:
a) there is little chance of erosion; and
b) site is flat or generally has slopes less than 6 percent grade; and
c) cut and treat method of removal is used on shrubs more than one-half (y,)
inches in diameter (not pulling).
6. Selective management of vegetation as follows:
a) Selective pruning of trees or shrubs in order to enhance their health.
b) Selective removal of tree saplings (less than 2 inches in diameter) in
order to enhance wildlife value of the buffer.
c) Selective removal of non-native trees.
d) Selective removal of non-native weeds.
e) Selective seeding or planting of vegetation that is native to Minnesota.
7. Installation of temporary fencing without footings.
6. Projects within the buffer that are the subject of a wetland buffer management
worksheet approved by the administrator.
9. For properties that are zoned single or double-dwelling residential or are used as
a single or double-dwelling residential use:
a) The use, maintenance, and alteration of existing nonconforming lawn
area for the purpose of outdoor enjoyment which may include gardening,
nonpermanent structures (including such things as storage sheds under
120 square feet in area, swing sets and volleyball nets), impervious
patios, or fire pits.
b) Work within a wetland, stream, or butter which was approved by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources water permitting process
and access to those areas by a trail which is limited to the width of the
permit
S&ction 7. B&st Manag&m&nt Practic&S.
The city encourages and in some cases requires that best management practices be
implemented to minimize negative effects of stormwater runoff on the environment and the loss
of wildlife habitat when a property owner or contractor has altered or will alter a wetland, stream,
or buffer. Best management practices may include the following:
a. Restor& buffer with native plantings. For large-scale projects or new development or
construction refer to Section 5.d. (Mitigation).
b. Manag& weeds in buffer. Pursuant to state law, all weeds listed on the Minnesota
noxious weed list must be controlled by the property owner. Owners are encouraged to
control other weeds that are not on the noxious weed list but can threaten the health of a
wetland. Submittal of a wetland buffer management worksheet is required for
management of weeds within the native and naturalized areas of bUffers, except for
selective treatment In addition, a management plan drafted by a professional
'15
Appendix - 16
experienced in wetland and stream restoration may be needed for large-scale projects or
new development including:
1. Target weeds.
2 Appropriate management techniques, including the use of chemical treatment if
approved by the administrator as part of the management plan.
3. Management schedule.
4. Erosion control and reseeding if management will create large areas of dead
vegetation.
5. Cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150 percent of the required work.
c. Reduce stormwater runoff and/or improve the quality of stormwater runoff
entering a wetland or stream. This may be achieved through the following strategies
or other administrator approved best management practices for dealing WITh stormwater.
These practices are to be located outside of the wetland buffer.
'I. Reduce amount of pavement on site (Le. fewer parking stalls, narrower
driveways, shared parking with other businesses).
2 Use pervious pavement such as pavers or porous asphalt.
3. Use turf pavers or modified turf areas for overflow parking.
4. Install rain garden or infiltration basin.
5. Install rock trench or rock pit.
6. Install filter strip of grass or native vegetation.
7. Install surface sand filter or underground filter.
B. Install native plantings on SITe to reduce fertilizer use and improve infiltration.
9. Install a green roof on t>uildings.
10. Install gIit chambers, sediment traps, or foret>ays.
Section 8. Variances.
a. Procedures. Procedures for granting variances from this ordinance are as follows:
1. The city council may approve variances to the requirements in this ordinance.
2. Before the city council acts on a variance the environmental and natural
resources commission will make a recommendation to the planning commission,
who will in turn make a recommendation to the city council. The planning
commission shall hold a put>lic hearing for the variance. The city shall notify
16
Appendix - 17
property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the property for which the
variance is being requested at least ten (10) days before the hearing.
3. The city may require the applicant to mitigate any wetland, stream, or buffer
alteration impacts with the approval of a variance, including but not limited to,
implementing one or more of the strategies listed in Section 5.d. (Mitigation).
4. To approve a variance, the council must make the following findings as depicted
in Minnesota Statutes, section 44-13:
a) Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of
circumstances unique to the property under consideration. The term
"undue hardship" as used in granting a variance means the owner of the
property in question cannot put it to a reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by the official controls; the plight of the landowner is
due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the
landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential
character of the locality. Economic considerations alone are not an undue
hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this
ordinance.
b) The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this
ordinance.
b. Exemptions to Variances. Variances are not needed for the following:
1. A nonconforming single or double-dwelling residential structure which loses its
nonconforming status as described in Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357,
subdivision 1 (e) is allowed to be rebuilt on its same footprint in its entirety
(including foundations and decks) in the buffer if the new single or double-
dwelling family residential structure meets the following conditions:
a) Best management practices are implemented to help protect the wetland
as described in Section 7 (Best Management Practices). The
administrator approves the location and best management practices
through the building permit process.
b) All other applicable building ordinance requirements are met.
2. A nonconforming manufactured home which is located within a wetland buffer
can be replaced with a new manufactured home without approval of a variance
as long as the replacement meets with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes,
section 462.357, subdivision 1 (a).
3. Additions to a nonconforming single or double-dwelling family house, garage,
deck, or driveway using the existing straight-edge setbacks to a wetland or
stream if the following apply:
a) Property that is zoned single or double-dwelling residential or is being
used as a single or double-dwelling residence.
17
Appendix - 18
b) There is no other reasonable alternative than encroachment toward the
wetland or stream witl1 the addition.
c) The new addition of the house, garage, deck, or driveway is a minimum of
twenty-five (25) feet from the wetland or stream edge.
d) The process of constructing the addition does not cause degradation of
the wetland, stream, or tI1e existing buffer.
e) Mitigation actions must be met as specified in Section 5.d. (Mitigation).
Section 9. Enforcement.
The city reserves the right to inspect the site or property during regular city business hours or
upon notice to the property owner or its designated representative one business day in advance
if tI1e inspection is to occur at a different time for compliance witl1 this ordinance during
development or construction or alteration pursuant to an approved wetland buffer management
worksheet or plan.
The city shall be responsible for the enforcement of this ordinance. Any person who fails to
comply with or violates any section of this ordinance may be charged with a misdemeanor and,
upon conviction, shall be subject to punishment in accordance with misdemeanor level
convictions as set by State Statute. The violator may be civilly fined and/or liable for restoration
costs as well. All land use building and grading pemnits shall be suspended until the developer
has corrected the violation. Each day that a separate violation exists shall constitute a separate
offense.
The city council approved the first reading of this ordinance on November 9, 2009.
The city council approved tI1e second reading of tI1is ordinance on December 14, 2009.
Signed:
Will Rossbach, Mayor
Date
Attest:
Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk
Adapted from "Ordinance No. 895: An ordinance amending the environmental protection and critical area article of
the city code (Wetland Ordinance)" by City of Maplewood MN, December 14, 2009,
http://www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/index.aspx?NID~44.
Appendix - 19
Appendix 2: Resident Questionnaire
Questionnaire for
Maplewood Residents of Shoreland Properties
with Wetlands Adjacent Lakes
This questionnaire was developed by graduate students in the environmental management program at the University ot
Maryland University College, Graduate Schooi ot Management and Technology, for the Capstone Project conducted tor the
CityotMaplewood, MN, in Spring 2011.
1. Which lake are you living at?
2. Please estimate the proximity of the welland/lake to:
a) Your residence: _ ft
b) Recreational structures (dock, gazebo, shed, etc.): _ ft
c) Lawn area: _ ft
3. Are you in any formal or informal group(s) involved in wetland protection, shoreland protection, wildlife
preservation, or related subjects?
DYes.
DNa.
If yes, please describe:
4. What are you using your shoreland property for, besides as a residence?
(Please check all that apply.)
D Access forlto motorized watercrafts
D Access forlto non-motorized watercraft
D Swimming
D Recreationlpicnic area
D Campfires
D Landscaping
D Other:
5. What type of landscaping do you have on your shoreland property within about 100 feet of the
wetlandllake?
(Please checklname applicable.)
a) Predominantly natural vegetationllandscape: DYes D No
b) Large lawn area(s): DYes D No
c) Rain garden(s): DYes D No
If yes, how many: _
d) Shoreline: D Natural D Altered
If altered, please describe alteration:
e) Fencing: DYes D No
If yes, please describe the type of fencing used:
f)Other:
Appendix - 20
6. Do you favor or oppose the following?
(Please check appropriate box.)
a) More stringent buffer requirements to protect wetiandsllakes.
b) New developments near wetlands.
c) Allocating more city funds to ensure the quality of wetlands.
d) Landownerlresident workshops for managing shoreland areas and wetlands.
e) Regulation of wetlands adjacent lakes as part of shoreland regulations rather
than wetland regulations.
Favor Oppose
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
7. How would you rate the following priorities relating to the regulation of wetlands adjacent lakes?
(Please mark appropriate rating.)
High Priority Priority Neutral Little Priority No Priority
Land and wetland preservation 1 2 3 4 5
Promoting land development 1 2 3 4 5
Water quality protection 1 2 3 4 5
Wildlife protection 1 2 3 4 5
Recreational shoreland uses 1 2 3 4 5
00 you have any other priorities relating to wetlands adjacent lakes?
8. Have there been any issues with the wetland near you in terms of water quality problems, wildlife habitat
destruction, or overall degradation of the wetland?
9. Have there been any activities or accidents near the wetlandllake that (could) have negatively affected
the wetland, lake, andlor wildlife in the area?
10. Do you have any concerns/ideas regarding the regulation of wetlands adjacent lakes?
Thank you for your participation.
Appendix - 21
Appendix 3: List of Maplewood Residential Properties with Wetlands Adjacent Lakes
Wakefield Lake 14 properties):
1712 Barclay Avenue, Maplewood, MN 55109
1742,1748,1752 Gulden Place, Maplewood, MN 55109
Beaver Lake 111 properties, 2 vacant):
1099 Lakewood Drive North (vacant), Maplewood, MN 55119
2357,2351,2347 (vacant), 2323, 2275, 2317, 2311, 2291, 2287 and 2249 Case Avenue, Maplewood, MN
55119 '
Oehrline Lake (25 properties)
2087,2093 and 2027 Greenbrier Street North, Maplewood, MN 55117
2001 Lee Street North, Maplewood, MN 55117
686,686,670 and 660 Eldridge Avenue East, Maplewood, MN 55117
2170,2166,21602094,2086,2074,2054,2044,2032, 2010 Edgerton Street North, Maplewood, MN
55117
1989, 1994 Payne Avenue North, Maplewood, MN 55117
666,660,650,655,661,673 Belmont Lane East, Maplewood, MN 55117
Adapted from: S. Finwall, personal communication, March 2, 2011.
Appendix - 22
Appendix 4: Questionnaire Responses
1. Which lake are you living at?
Number of Responses Received ~etters Ret~ned Number of Sent Questionnaires
Vacant Lots
Wakefield Lake 2 - 4
Seaver Lake 7 2 11
Lake Oehrline 8 - 25
I Total 17 2 40
2. Please estimate the proximity 01 the wetlandllake to:
al Your residence:
Distance Number of resoonses
50 3
70 1
75 2
125-150 1
140 1
200 1
250 1
300 5
400 1
500 1
No response: 0; Multiple answers: 0
bl Recreational structures (dock, oazebo,
Distance Number of resnonses
0 6 (dock in water)
25 1
40 2
250 1
400 1
shed, etc.):
No response: 6; Multiple answers: 1
c) Lawn area'
Distance Number of responses
0 1
3 1
5 1
6 1
10 1
12-15 1
20 1
30 1
100 2
200 1
4000 1
No response: 5; Multiple answers: 0
Appendix - 23
3. Are you in any formal or informal group(s) involved in wetland protection, shoreland protection, wildlife preservation,
or related subjects?
Yes 8
No 8
No Response 1
If answered yes, description of group(s):
Informal group/association of property owners at Lake Oehrline for control of excess submerged vegetation
(algae/weeds)'(4 respondents form Lake Oehrline)
Nature Conservancy and Natural Wildlife Federation (1 respondent from Lake Oehrline)
At work - restoration of 55 acres of wetland and subsequent banking of credits; environmental education as volunteer
work (1 respondent from Lake Oehrline)
Wakefield Watch (1 respondent from Wakefietd Lake)
Lake Wapogasset Association (Wisconsin) (1 respondent from Beaver Lake)
Comment to "No Response":
y/n Ramsey County Engineer; Maplewood Council some meetings.
4. What are you using your shoreland property for, besides as a residence?
Access for/to motorized watercrafts 1
Access for/to non-motorized watercraft 10
Swimmino -
Recreation/picnic area 6
Campfires 5
Landscapino 8
Other:
Ice fishing (1 respondent)
Fishing (2 respondents)
Wildlife enjoyment (3 respondents)
Aesthetics/scenery enjoyment (1 respondent)
Lawn area (1 respondent)
Leave it wild (1 respondent)
Comment(s):
To swimming: Water is too polluted, thanks to decision to use Wakefield as a stormwater filter so Lake Phalen can be
clean.
5. What type of landscaping do you have on your shoreland property within about 100 feet olthe wetlandtlake?
a\ Predomlnantlv natural veoetatio
Yes 13
No 1
No Response 3
n/landscape:
Additional information provided: Natural vegetation along shoreline:
3-5 Ii (1 respondent)
5-6 Ii (1 respondent)
Up to 10 Ii (1 respondent)
12-15 Ii (1 respondent)
Appendix - 24
13
1
3
c) Rain
Yes 4
No 7
No Response 6
If answered es, how man rain ardens:
Rain arden s Res ondents
1 3
2 1
d) Shoreline:
Altered 2
Natural 12
No Response 3
If answered yes, description of alteration:
Stairway to dock (1 respondent)
Rockwall prior to lake level increase (1 respondent)
If answered no or no response:
Although much reed canary, we work on buckthorn removal (1 respondent)
Native and non-native vegetation (1 respondent)
3
10
4
If answered yes, description of fencing type:
4ft high chain link along lake about 3-5 ft from shoreline (1 respondent)
3ft high wire fence to keep out geese (1 respondent)
18" wood fence to keep geese away (1 respondent)
f) Other:
Appendix - 25
6. Do you favor or oppose the following?
Number of Respondents
in Favor Opposing In between No
reSDonses ResDonse
a) More strinoent buffer requirements to protect wetlands/lakes. 6 9 - 2
b) New developments near wetlands. 3 13 1 -
c) AllocatinQ more citv funds to ensure the Qualitv of wetlands. 9 6 - 2
d) Landowner/resident workshops for managing shoreland areas 13 2 1 1
and wetlands.
e) Regulation of wetlands adjacent lakes as part of shoreland 10 2 - 5
regulations rather than wetland regulations.
,Additional comments provided:
"Unsure" to option (a) (1 respondent)
Question mark (?) to option (c) (1 respondent)
'Water quality, not wetlands - more a job for the state" to option (c) (1 respondent)
"I really do not know what shoreland is" to option (e) (1 respondent)
"What does this mean?" to option (e) (1 respondent)
Question mark (?) to option (e) (2 respondent)
"No Idea" to option (e) (1 respondent)
7. How would you rate the following priorities relating to the regulation of wetlands adjacent lakes?
Number of Respondents
High Priority Priority Neutral Little Priority No Priority No
Response
Land and wetland preservation 6 5 5 - 1 -
Promoting land development - 1 5 4 7 -
Water quality protection 8 6 1 1 1 -
Wildlife protection 7 5 2 1 2 -
Recreational shoreland uses 1 5 6 3 2 -
Do you have any other priorities relating to wetlands adjacent lakes?
Geese - would like population reduced,
Deer - we have 12-16 regularly in yard. They don't cause problems but some fear future incidents with cars or kids.
Shoot some deer! 28 this year. 42 next year.
Clean up the debris from public fishing dock that ends up on shoreline.
No private docks of structures for storage near shore. Unless large body of water & motorized, no docks or ramps.
Water quality - reducing runoff of fertilizers etc. into water - we've had fish kill problems & weed overgrowth related to
this.
Appendix - 26
Education - involving local schools & scout groups.
Ramsey county engineers using state standards are doing an excellent job.
In the abstract, protecting land & wetlands is a great idea, but consideration must be given to the already developed
land uses.
8. Have there been any issues with the wetland near you in terms of water quality problems, wildlife habitat destruction,
or overall degradation of the wetland?
Beaver Lake is so weedy from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Over last 10 years, it has been harder to fish because of
weeds.
(Beaver Lake) taken over by seaweeds in summer.
I believe this "lake" (Lake Oehrfine) was created as a drainage pond - not naturally fed. Very shallow. Becomes green
late in the summer. Issues with controlling curly pond weed - whether to treat with chemicals pros/cons. Decisions
being made by neighbors with limited information & diverse priorities.
The city tried to drain down Oehrline's over 50% of average depths - once in December and once in April. Our sense
of the city's judgment is dim. Either action would have been detrimental- and needless.
Shoot some deer or make them pay taxes, then they'll ieave.
Neighbor has cut trees down & allowed them to fall into lake. Trimmed trees & bushes for better view.
Stormwater drainage into the lake -I try to be sure that water off my lawn is as clean as possible, but the street water
goes right in.
No destruction of wetlands, but poor water quality due to city & county's decision to use a natural lake as a storm drain
filter (Wakefield Lake)
See above (Water quafity - reducing runoff of ferlifizers etc. into water - we've had fish kill problems & weed
overgrowth related to this). In addition, a nearby meth lab polluted the lake & caused fish kill.
Yes, but we've seen improvement in water quality & wildlife population since raingardens & swales were installed.
(Lake Oehrline neighborhood)
9. Have there been any activities or accidents near the wetland/lake that (could) have negatively affected the wetland,
lake, andlor wildlife in the area?
There are 28 deer living around here (Beaver Lake). You ponder the negative actions of these large rats.
The activity described in #8 (Neighbor has cut trees down & allowed them to fall inlo lake. Trimmed Irees & bushes for
better view). However, the power & telephone lines or poles have also caused much damage. Usually because they
have trimmed trees & bush with little concern to clean-up or maintain off roadways or walks.
A large meth lab 8 years ago. Many wood ducks & other wildlife died. No treatment of the lake.
Overflow storm drain runs unfiltered & directly into lake, creating silt, sand, fill in & degradation of water & lake bottom.
No specific incidents that i know of. I'm sure it is affected by fertilizer & other runoff (Lake Oehriine).
Appendix - 27
10. Do you have any concernslideas regarding the regulation of wetlands adjacent lakes?
There has to be a balance between preservation and recreation.
Too many deer! How can a person garden when there are too many deer! A child was run over by a deer a few months
ago. What happens when a deer hits a car on Lakewood Drive?
Regulation for new development is sensible. Claims that massive alteration of shoreline will affect water quality for an
11-acre stormwater retention system like Oehrline's is dubious since 90-144 acres (the city is unsure ofthe acreage)
runs into the drains that empty into the lake. I very much doubt that relandscaping less than 10 acres around the lake
will impact its water quality significantly. I am unconvinced and therefore unsupportive of regulations for landowners in
ours and in similar situations.
There are 9 homes with private property on this lake (Wakefield Lake). The remainder is publicly owned. I have grave
concerns that the city wants to regulate homeowner rights, but has not taken responsibility regarding public land &
more specifically - regulated runoff from storm drains into lake.
City should focus its land & wetlands protection efforts on undeveloped land or land which it can purchase and not try
to turn-back the clock on development. Reasonable regulations on developed land is ok, but people should be able to
use their land for the purpose for which it was developed. Extremeiy wide buffer zones on residential property don't
make sense in light of residential uses. Also, people with houses on lakes (public waters) should be able to use the
lakes.
I would support more stringent buffer requirements only if it was part of a broader more comprehensive effort to reduce
all sources of phosphorus contribution to lake water In the case of Beaver Lake, most phosphorus coming into the lake
is from street runoff over a wider area than the few homeowners of lake property.
Watershed districts or controllers seem to be multiplying. Just for revenge of fees. Government or administrators are
over zealous. Cities within a county should be responsible to that county and state regulations. Watershed districts
have overlapped each other or better yet just over populated to charge fees. Example: Rice Creek Watershed 1945
area is now divided into several. Yet Mississippi & St. Croix rivers still collect its run-off. I've lived and witnessed.
Many neighbors have lawns or rip-raps. I'd like to see a tax benefit to natural buffers. Maybe a benefit of shoreline x
buffer depth in $. More education of shoreline owners. List of "approved vendors" for lawn services & lake weed
treatments.
Puzzling thing is I think we have all heard about mainlaining some natural habitat along edges of water to help detox
and provide some habitat - yet, above half the owners still mow right to the water edge and still apply lawn chemicals
similarly - right along the water. Weird!
If regulation requires homeowners to mitigate, it would be very difficult to do without monetary and technical support.
Beaver lake has improved immenseiy as a result of the Ramsey county engineers. Dean Anklan increased water level
& dredges the St. Paul side. The dike holding the refuse broke terminating the project. Open space reduced.
Landowners improved lakeshore. Sewage was terminated! The construction of a path around the lake has vastly
increased lake use. We have a year round stream of walkers, bikers, runners, wheel chairs, baby buggies, etc. - travel
is extensive & very-very valuable to a large area of users. Wildlife is proliferating - too many deer - vast numbers of
honkers & other birds. Let's not forget that the county manifests & sustains a fish population - also a fishing dock.
Congratulations again to Dean Anklan & the county engineers.
You should define better the team "wetlands adjacent lakes." For the lay person, it sounds as if il is more technical than
it appears.
Appendix 5: Draft of Proposed MN DNR Shoreland Rules dated July 6, 2010
Attached as separate pdffile to this report: rd3879DRAFT20100706.pdf
Appendix - 28
Agenda Report 5.b.
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer II
Western-Hills Area Street Improvement Project - Wetland Impacts
April 13, 2011 for the April 18 ENR Commission Meeting
INTRODUCTION
Engineering staff are currently in the process of preparing plans and specifications for the upcoming
Western Hills Area Street Improvement (City Project 10-14). The area of proposed street
improvement is bounded by Roselawn Avenue to the north, 1-35E to the east, Larpenteur Avenue to
the south, and Rice Street on the west along with the Edgemont-Arkwright-Kingston loop on the east
side of 1-35E (Attachment 1).
Staff is proposing improvements to the "Jackson Hole" wetland buffer, located on a City-owned
parcel on the northwest corner of the intersection of Jackson Street and Larpenteur Avenue.
Pursuant to the City's Wetland Ordinance at Section 5b(9), staff is seeking a recommendation of
approval from the Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission to conduct public
improvements to the Jackson Hole wetland buffer.
DESCRIPTION
Jackson Hole, as it has been named for reference, is a land-locked area located near the northwest
corner of Jackson Street and Larpenteur Avenue. The elevation difference from the intersection to
the bottom of the low area is about 30 feet. The low area receives storm water drainage from 3
pOints:
A 24-inch concrete pipe off the end of Beaumont Lane (NW corner of the basin) which drains
a portion of the Western Hills neighborhood west of Jackson Street.
A 24-inch corrugated metal pipe off of low point catch basins on Jackson street about 300
feet north of Larpenteur Avenue (NE corner of the basin) which captures overland flow from
the neighborhood.
An 18-inch corrugated metal pipe off of low point catch basins in Larpenteur Avenue about
300 feet west of Jackson Street.
City staff has conducted a number of studies on the basin. First, the Wetland Delination study was
completed on November 11, 2011 by S.E.H. The wetland limits were delineated on October 2011 by
S.E.H. Subsequently, city staff surveyed the flag locations, resulting in the double-dashed wetland
boundary shown on the attached exhibit.
Second, staff has been conducting a hydrologic study and monitoring on the basin to gain a bench
mark for its operation as storm water enters. No-outlet basins are challenging to predict behavior
since draw-down of the basin is dependent on infiltration. It is difficult to gage a constant flow rate
out of the basin since soil types and infiltration rates vary widely throughout the area. Staff has
queried several residents adjacent to the basin to get an idea of its current operation. Based on the
anecdotal stories, the basin level has not exceeded more than 1/3rd of its total depth. The wetland
delineation report, based on visual evidence of vegetation in the area, indicates a maximum depth of
2 feet. City maintenance staff indicates that there have been no current flooding issues associated
with the basin water level. It is evident that the basin has a fast draw down rate.
Third, on February 11, 2011, staff commissioned a geotechnical engineer to conduct hand-auger
borings within the basin. Eight to nine foot borings were taken in the basin. Preliminary results
indicate that the soils are silty sands and are very loose. The loose soils in the basin are likely the
reason for the high infiltration rate.
Finally, staff is conducting an environmental study on the basin. Staff has commissioned S.E.H. for
the study. This is to assure that any' spoils from the basin excavation or moving of soils is properly
disposed if there is contamination. Staff suspects that the basin was formerly a borrow pit for the
construction of 1-35E, and that the basin was backfilled with concrete and asphalt rubble. Over the
years, trash has collected in the basin due to illegal dumping.
DISCUSSION
Jackson Hole is classified as a Manage B wetland not adjacent to a lake. The ordinance requires a
75-foot averaged buffer from the delineated line. Because the 75-foot buffer extends into slopes
steeper than 18%, the buffer extends to 10-feet beyond the apex of all surveyed slopes. For the
purposes of design, staff assumes the entire City-owned parcel is within the required buffer. To
improve the current' wetland area within the basin, staff is requesting the ENR Commission
recommend an exemption to use the buffer for storm water improvements pursuant to Ordinance
895 Section 5b(9).
Basin Improvements
As part of the Western Hills improvements, staff is proposing a storm drainage basin as well as slope
and wetland improvements within the basin. Refer to Attachment 3 to view the improvements which
will include the following:
1) Excavation of a secondary basin east of the current delineated wetland area. Storm
sewer runoff from Jackson and Beaumont Streets will be directed into this new basin.
2) Establishment of the secondary basin with a Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR)
approved wetland seed mix and planting of sedges. The proposed design will utilize a
compost bed with a bonded-fiber matrix to ensure quick establishment of vegetation.
3) Repairs of severely eroded areas resulting from storm drainage. This is two-fold:
a. Storm sewers will be designed to discharge at the lowest elevation of the basin,
minimizing velocities and future erosion. Rip-rap and erosion control matting will
be utilized for permanent stabilization and energy dissipation.
b. Fill in eroded areas, establish with a BWSR approved seed mix and bonded-fiber
matrix.
2
4) Select removal, clearing and treatment of low-quality trees or invasive species and
removal of deadfall within the basin. Staff will devise a tree replacement plan to follow
Tree Preservation Ordinance guidelines. City staff will work with the Natural Resources
Coordinator and Environmental Planner for proper clearing of select trees and planting of
new trees according to regulations.
5) Removal of surface trash and refuse that has collected in the basin.
Storm Water Management
Staff will utilize Jackson Hole as part of overall neighborhood storm water management. Its current
status as a no-outlet basin is beneficial to area water bodies as it appears that the basin fully
infiltrates all runoff flowing to the basin. Staff also feels that the current wetland condition needs
improvement.
To augment the storm water infiltration and treatment that occurs in the basin, staff is proposing to
install several underground storm water treatment devices upstream of the pipe discharge pOints in
the basin. These treatment manholes will enable capture of larger sediment particles, debris and
floatable garbage, which will ease in collection by maintenance staff. The manholes will reduce
cleaning and maintenance needed for the ponding basin itself.
Commission Review
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 15, 2011, as required by the city's wetland
ordinance. One adjacent property owner attended the public hearing, Jacob Popp. Mr. Popp spoke
in favor of the project. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the wetland impacts.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff believes that the proposed improvements constructed within the wetland buffer of the basin will
enhance the current Manage B wetland. Staff requests the ENR Commission recommend
construction of public utilities and storm water improvements within the wetland buffer of the Jackson
Hole basin and move this recommendation forward to the City Council. The City Council's review is
scheduled for April 25, 2011.
Attachments
1. Site Location Map
2. Basin Improvements Plan
3
AUachment 1
:s:
~
~ ~ ~I~~
!U!h ~t~iJ
~j] ~i! J J ~i ~~, ~
1I!l!~ \'\'\\0,
"
.~
..
'5
.
"
o
"0
o
"
<S
~
o
." ;:;
Iii c
Ii
'~.i>~
ss.!
<8"'~
.S ~~
"'~ e:.g
]5.:9
e2n!
'E~-o
i=:~ a
.g f:l]
~.e ~
~." S
o :t s
0'0
. " 0
.~~.e
",.9
E.~8
.~]N
~ .
, ~ '
~ 0 a
0.0_
'" '" . ~
<ljo:l.!
-g~~
:go{j
ol,).g ~
s.ffe
-g]
." "'"
. ~ 0
0"''''
.: @-o
g 6 a
.~ ~Q)
'g.g ~
.0
>>."
~ Iii 5
:88
...IE ~
oo~
0__
g.~o
E."N
-0<.2-:
"."M
] Iii g
e~ ~
i::>1ii~
~b;
" 5 0
~or.'5
lil u~ 0
-s.~~
"0) u ~
;:g ~
.- O..J
g..~ Sol
e>E=:
",.5 ft
~]~
..0:10
ffi gN~
~s;:;:;
-.
<."
"'
u
'"
is
Q)
S
Q)
~
:
~
-
=
==
=
=
'"'
~
CJ -
= Q)
..., 1:j
<Zl
,:;
0
'"
."i
u
..
....
"
~
'"
~oo~~c<O!
~g~~fTl~!Qg~
" lIl;:Oz~elll-l
l;};aVi~Oi~::;:;~~
?5f5g::o l!!~~z
lD-IZ 01"1;00
i!)6sa ~OIll:;U-l
!"1Z[J} OfTIl)-I'
:;::t.ri -IlllfTlO
~o 8Bl~Rl
~..., ~'"'l~:;::
1i -IeJ ~
~ ~~
Ill> (T'IUl ~
~ ~
~
I
r
I
I
,
-,
-',
I
)-
I -,
'--
"""- '\'.
"
I "
I -
I
L_
f'
o
~
<
~
"
i2
~
o
~
o
~
~
GumL~J
:;UfTIOfTI;S:OUlIZ
~ ~H:!Jg~piip~
o:;::z-ofTIfTIfTI
<~I"'1"O;o~().'
1"'1-1)>~NI"'1"-l
o 8;:;:Jz1"10oX
~"~;~"i~1
;;o~~5~:t~
~~~~~I"'1r-
II ooo~!;tRl
.....tDmzo~~
gFTlg ;o~;;
Z :c1"'1,.-
~ ~iUOi
?<! ~5
"
o
,
(
fl1tq<.hff1~n1- l.
[S]
Ulliill
~
II II
~~
o,q
~~
,.c
~~
~~
~~
NN
MM
f- ~-
o
O;;O:;::51"'1z
z8~(;)eJ~
oee Ul)>
!;t~~~6F
-I1'l():J>z
';ti~e~(')g
, Z;oOO;:o
-IfTl Zr-
Ul:;u"O-I1"'1
l/lI"'1;;oX
q ;;o~
roMz~1
S;::;;OUl:3
Z~~d
a~FS
. o~~ 1:1
o~x
z'
-I.....u.
" ~
o 0
r -
lDUZNl:IIO
~~~ .~~
O.f>.:J>gUlC
~oNF;::::.n;;o
:c "0' ~
:!!=<~O~O
~"O""""~fTl-o
;ol"'18mo=o
;S:lXl-l~!;1"'1
~ ^X~
;:!;! I"'1CZ
?< ;-I;-J'":1
ro~z-"rol
t;;:;oUlNr-;."
2:0-1 ':J>:<=
^~~(')~V1
':1gr-!;tUliU
. ':e-l1'Tl
8?l~g~
~~. ~o,
~:... @~
~
~
0'2i51'
o2'S!<
L...
171
'r
,,~
~~ - --
0,
;;/ii
r",
c/ii
~'"
~~
i"
~
"
'"
M
:;-.~
"'1______..
'I
1M'
J
-@-r
o ,
JACKSON ST,
>
'1'.'-
rr-
(jJ
I; !
"')'0 ,,<;;:;
, I 1 -,";"'\""
;" II 1
+
~i...J~'
\:1 i
'"
D
,
,
,
<"\j
"J
JACKSON-LARPENTEUR LOW PT. )
'00
Iii
~~ ~
>
,
,.-".."....""'".,......... 6 Ci(yofMaplewood
"""""",,,,",,O'UIlIDI"''''''''T
",..'..."'11."""''''.....'''''-, , DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
UCEl<lrn__ut<<JI
,., .......Of'TH' ST.<-Tt "'~O/I43OT.<-
ENGINEERING DIVlSJON
SlMN c. KU"""E~, p.E. 'IIDI!Counly_Otml
__...........10 "'09
"".!i.!U1l --""'- (&51)2';-2_ FAl<(55')Z.g-2OOII
WETLAND IMPROVEMENT
PONDING SITE
Agenda Item S.c.
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
FROM:
Michael Thompson, City Engineer / Dep. Director of Public Works
Steve Love, Assistant City Engineer
Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer II
Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer I
Troy Brink, Streets Crew Chief
Ann Hutchinson, Naturalist
Virginia Gaynor, Naturalist
Mike Martin, City Planner
SUBJECT: Living Streets Policy
DATE:
April 14, 2011, for the April 18 ENR Commission Meeting
INTRODUCTION
The Complete Streets sustainability work group was charged with studying the concepts of
complete streets/green streets and making recommendations to the commissions and council.
The group has prepared background information, an overview of current operations and policies
for city streets for both new development and street reconstruction, and presents its
recommendations herein.
BACKGROUND
The Complete Streets group met April 28, 2010, June 29,2010, and September 30,2010. At
the June 29th meeting Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District and Barr Engineering
presented the Living Streets case study they are conducting with North Saint Paul. Over the
entire period group members provided individuai contributions and furthered their knowledge on
the topic. A few members attended Complete Streets workshops in Ramsey and Hennepin
Counties.
Terminology surrounding this topic can be confusing. Complete Streets typically refers to 'street
design that provides for multiple modes of transportation (auto, mass transit, pedestrian, bike).
Green Streets typically refers to street design that reduces environmental impacts by reducing
impervious surface, managing stormwater, and providing shade. Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed District and North St Paul are using the term Living Streets to combine these
definitions.
Complete Streets Legislation
The State of Minnesota passed Complete Streets legislation in 2010. The Commissioner of
Transportation has committed the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) to
implement a complete street vision for the trunk highway system. Cities are encouraged to
adopt policies to meet their unique needs; however it is not a mandate.
According to Mn/DOT, Complete Streets does not mean "all modes on all roads"; rather, the goal
of Complete Streets should be to:
1) Develop a balanced transportation system that integrates all modes via planning
inciusive of each mode of transportation (Le., transit, freight, automobile, bicycle and
pedestrian)
2) Include transportation users of all types, ages and abilities.
Examples of Complete Streets goals and principles listed in the report to the legislature include:
1) Reduce crash rates and severity of crashes.
2) Improve mobility and accessibility of all individuals including those with disabilities in
accordance with the legal requirements of the ADA.
3) Encourage mode shift to non-motorized transportation and transit
4) Reduce air and water pollution and reduce noise impacts.
5) Increase transportation network connectivity.
6) Maximize the efficient use of existing facilities.
7) Strive for tax supported investments to provide maximum benefits to the community
and all user groups.
8) Safely integrate intermodal connections across the transportation network.
9) Promote safe and convenient access and travel for all users (pedestrians, bicyclists,
transit riders) and people of all abilities as well as freight and motor vehicle drivers.
The City of Maplewood finds some of these examples useful. The City, however, wants to go
further in addressing the environment and active living instead of focusing solely on a
transportation vision.
Minnesota GreenStep City
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has launched the Minnesota GreenStep City
program. This is a challenge, assistance and recognition program to help cities achieve their
sustainability goals through implementation of 28 best practices. The actions related to
complete streets/green streets include:
1) Adopt a complete streets policy that addresses street trees and stormwater, and modify
street standards accordingly.
2) Adopt zoning language for a selected area/project that is substantially equivalent to the
LEED for Neighborhood Development credits for Walkable Streets or Street Network.
3) Document the installation of trees, and green storm)/Vater infrastructure, and utility
renovations as needed (sewer, water, electric, telecommunications) as part of at least
one complete street reconstruction project
4) Identify and remedy non-complete street segments by, for example, adding a bike
route/lane or sidewalk.
5) Identify and remedy street-trail gaps (at least one) between city streets and trails/bike
trails to better facilitate walking and biking.
6) Implement traffic calming measures in at least one street redevelopment project
The discussion portion of this report will focus on:
1) Actions or practices that have the most impact on the environment or associated
operations;
2) Assessing our operations to determine methods to become more sustainable and reduce
impacts on the environment;
3) Determining if the modifications will be practical, economical, and meet community
needs.
DISCUSSION
Livina Streets
Landscape Architect Fred Rozumalski from Barr Engineering and RWMWD Administrator Cliff
Aichinger gave the work group a very informative presentation on the Living Streets concepts
they developed for North St Paul. Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (WMWD)
2
Administrator has given staff permission to use information from their report and presentation.
The following discussion uses materials from the North St Paul project
Living Streets pulls together the concepts of complete streets, green streets, and puts additional
focus on quality of life aspects for city residents. Figure 1 below shows the components of
Living Streets. The model balances the "green" components (environment and social factors)
and the "grey" components (transportation and utilities) of the system.
Stormwater capture and use
Trees
Pedestrians movement
Pedestrian safety
Bikes
Community
Aesthetic character
Traffic
Speed
Sewers
Gas
Electric
Telecom
Storm water drainage
INFRASTRUCTURE
FIGURE 1 - RWMWD/BARR REPORT
The work group thinks a Living Streets concept better fits our goals than a Complete Streets
concept Maplewood's goals are similar to those developed by RWMWD and Barr Engineering
for North Saint Paul. We believe our Living Streets policy should:
1) Improve stormwater quality through expansion of the rain garden program, reducing
the impervious footprint, and meeting or exceeding the 1" infiltration standard.
2) Implement traffic calming measures through the use of techniques best suited for site
conditions.
3) Improve biking and walking conditions along natural connector routes and collector
streets through designation of bike lanes, sidewalks, or multi-purpose trails.
4) Create boulevard tree standards that provide environmental benefits (stormwater
management, shade to reduce heating and cooling costs, filtering air pollutants),
enhance quality of life, and are practical and affordable.
5) Minimize construction costs while also ensuring future maintenance and replacement
costs are equal to or less than that of a standard street section.
Greatest Impact Items and Assessinq Operations
The following items are high impact items that should be further assessed in order to become
more sustainable with the living streets concept:
1) Rain gardens - The city's rain garden program has represented Maplewood well in the
eyes of communities throughout the U.S. in terms of sustainability and "going green:'
Our program includes installing rain gardens as part of street reconstruction projects,
conducting educational programs to support residents that install rain gardens on their
own, and promoting the use of rain gardens in new development
The early street reconstruction projects that included rain gardens had high
resident participation and thus made a significant impact reducing stormwater volume.
But the number of residents requesting rain gardens on street reconstruction projects
has decreased over the years. In 2009-2010 staff made two changes on the Hills and
3
Dale project to try to increase resident participation and redirect staff resources: 1) have
contractor plant the home gardens, and 2) test a new "whole street" planting design.
Participation in the home rain garden program has increased dramatically on this project
In coming years, rather than devoting so much staff time to supporting planting of the
home gardens (placing plant orders, sorting orders, delivery, coordinating planting day,
mulching), staff can now focus on education support for maintaining the gardens. We
believe nothing promotes rain gardens better than attractive, well-maintained gardens
from previous projects.
Staff recommends that we continue to investigate ways to increase resident
participation in rain garden programs, including ideas such as adjusting the
Environmental Utility Fee creditslincentives for qualifying best management practices
Pros-
Minimal maintenance required by city for home gardens, reduces
pollutants to lakes and wetlands, provides aesthetic enhancements to
neighborhoods, reduces volume of water within the system thereby
increasing existing capacity, can reduce storm piping infrastructure
requirements
Cons-
Need to determine a long-term maintenance policy for residential gardens
(e.g. residents sign a form that they will maintain, etc), need ongoing
educational support for home gardens, large city gardens require
maintenance and an experienced gardener, a garden could be filled in by
a resident in the future, cannot count on rain gardens because the
program is voluntary
2) Street sections - Currently our standard urban street section calls for a 32' wide street
sections and cul-de-sacs require a diameter of 93'. Reducing the width of streets
reduces the amount of impervious surface and lessens the environmental impact Over
the past years, the city has allowed for narrower streets in some new developments and
has incorporated parking bays and traffic calming designs (narrowing of street) on some
street reconstruction projects (Beam Avenue, English Street, Hazelwood Street). Our
Engineering Department will be exploring some of these design concepts on the Western
Hills street reconstruction project in 2010-2011.
A majority of vehicles have a width of 8.S' or less including fire trucks, school buses, and
garbage trucks. The required turning diameter for a fire truck or school bus is about 93'
which matches the current requirement for city cul-de-sac standards. However many
school buses no longer enter into cul-de-sac locations for pickup but rather pick children
up at the nearest cross street Also, fire trucks and safety vehicles can maneuver within
cul-de-sacs with a much tighter diameter.
As seen in Figure 2, a street section of 22' can accommodate parking on one side of the
street with two cars comfortably passing one another on a residential street A 22' street
section with parking on one side can also accommodate larger vehicles but there may be
some yielding when vehicles must pass one another near a parked vehicle.
4
FIGURE 2 - RWMWD/BARR REPORT
If parking is needed on both sides of a residential street then a street section of 26' can
accommodate two parked cars and a passing vehicle in between, with yielding required
at the pinch points. This concept is shown in Figure 3.
FIGURE 3 - RESIDENTIAL STREET - RWMWD/BARR REPORT
5
A general windshield survey showed that not many cars are parked along city streets
during the day. City ordinance prohibits cars parked on city streets from 2:00 a.m. to
6:00 a.m. The work group recommends we reevaluate street parking in Maplewood and
develop guidelines about levels of street parking that should be provided in different
scenarios.
On current street reconstruction projects, residents are sometimes asked whether they
would like the street narrowed. In the past, few neighborhoods have wanted to decrease
street width. The work group recommends that the city thoroughly explores street widths,
cul-de-sac diameters, street parking, street standards, and develop a policy that helps
minimize environmental impacts. This should include educating residents about the
costs and benefits associated with street widths and exploring incentives for
neighborhoods that reduce street width during street reconstruction projects.
Pros-
Reduces impervious area, reduces pollutants and runoff volume, slows
traffic by narrowing, reduces future replacement costs and maintenance
because the footprint would be smaller than current standards
Cons-
Reduces area for on-street pedestrians if no sidewalk exists or is wanted
in the boulevard, safety vehicle needs, idea may not be accepted by
residents
3) Active Living Opportunities - Providing a designated system of sidewalks, trails, and
bike lanes increases the likelihood for walking and biking. During development of
Maplewood's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the city evaluated our sidewalk and trail system
and identified future trails and connections needed. Currently City Code requires
sidewalk installation adjacent to collector streets, however, it will be important to start
providing on-street bikeways to promote active lifestyles in addition to sidewalks. Figure
4 depicts a typical layout of a collector street with biking and pedestrian facilities.
FIGURE 4 - COLLECTOR STREET - RWMWD/BARR REPORT
This typical collector street section would accommodate parking on one side of the street
in addition to biking lanes on either side. A sidewalk would also be placed on one side
6
of the street. Bump outs would be provided for traffic calming and would also provide
additional opportunities for stormwater treatment. A review and revisio'n of standards
would need to be conducted to determine the type of street best suited for this treatment.
Pros-
Promotes walking and riding bikes, reduces need for vehicle use on short
trips if proper infrastructure is in place, traffic calming using bump outs
Cons-
May require wider streets to accommodate biking lanes, impacts into
boulevards, additional costs for striping and maintenance, difficult to plow
and maintain in winter especially with bump outs
4) Pervious Pavement- Maplewood has installed pervious asphalt parking lots at the
public works building and at Geranium Park. Both are functioning well, but studies are
still ongoing to determine life expectancy and maintenance protocols for this type of
system. The City of Shoreview recently installed pervious concrete on a roadway in a
smaller neighborhood and to date considers the project a success. It is important that
the city continue to explore the latest infrastructure technologies.
Pros-
Reduces need for storm sewer pipes, reduces pollutants and volume of
runoff, quieter when driven on compared to regular pavement, firmer
stable walking surface
Cons-
High cost, maintenance issues, predictability
5) Tree Plantings - Trees provide many benefits to the community. They help treat
stormwater, filter air pollutants, provide shade which can lower energy consumption, add
value to homes and enhance the aesthetics of a neighborhood. The city's current right-
of-way ordinance does not allow tree plantings within public rights of waylboulevards,
however, the city typically requires planting boulevard trees on Planned Unit
Development projects. The city has no policy regarding replanting trees that die. In
addition to boulevards, trees could be considered within cul-de-sac islands as a green
street feature. The work group recommends that we review the city's policies on
boulevard trees. A review should include cost estimates for tree planting and
maintenance and ensure the policy is affordable.
Pros-
Provides shade to homes thereby reducing energy needs, provides a
neighborhood feel, aesthetically pleasing, trees utilize excess runoff and
act as a filter, shades pavement which reduces hot/cold cycles increasing
pavement longevity
Cons-
Conflicts with utilities in the boulevard, requires ongoing
maintenance/pruning/removal/replanting if diseased
RECOMMENDA liON
It is recommended that the Community Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission provide input on objectives and developing a
successful framework in which to create and recommend a Living Streets policy to the city
council.
Attachments:
1. North Sl. Paul Living Streets Policy
2. Summary of the March 15, 2011, Planning Commission Living Streets Review
7
Ai{, \
@
I
This document was developed by Barr Engineering Co. for Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed District in partnership with the City of North St. Paul.
A special thank you goes to the Citizens Task Force who participated in this project.
For more information
City of North St. Paul
2400 Margaret Street
North St. Paul, MN 55109
651-747-2400
www.ci.north-saint-paul.mn.us
Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District
2665 Noel Drive
Little Canada, MN 55117
651-792-7950
www.rwmwd.org
Barr Engineering Co.
Fred Rozumalski, Landscape Ecologist
frozumalski@barr.com
www.barr.com
To download a copy of this document go to www.ci.north-saint-pauLmn.us
Ie ef Co
1.0 Background ,." "".. ....., """...".." ,,".. "'"',, " . ".",,,. '"'' '.,., '"'' "."" .,,"., "".. ""..". "".",,, 1
Surface Water Quality-A Critical Element of Minnesota's Way of Life""",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,, 1
Understanding Living Streets """""""""."".""".""."".""...",,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,.,,.,,,,,,,"., 6
Why Plan for Living Streets Today?"'"""""'"""""'"""',,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,....,,,,,,,,,,"'.,,,,"'.,,,, 8
Benefits of Living Streets"""""".",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"'.. 1 0
Policy Basis for Living Streets,,,,,,..,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 13
Community Task Force Involvement",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,.,,,,,,,,.,.,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,.,, 16
The Vision ,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,,,,'.,.,,,,..,,..,,,,.,,"'.,,,,.,,,,.,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,.,,..,,,,, 18
2.0 Living Streets Plan '''''''' """ ""''' " ".". ",. """ "" ""'''' " """" ""'" " '" ""'"'''''''''''''''''' 19
Assessment of Existing Streets "",,,,,,,,,,,,. "'''' " " """ ".."'." """ " "" """,,"'" "" """''' "" 19
Types of Living Streets ",,'" " " "" ","'""","'." "". """ """ "" " """ """''''''''..''''''''''. """ 20
Residential Streets,. "."" ,,,..,,. "". ."". ". ,,,... """.". "",' ".'" ."". "".. ."". "..., ".. "".".. 22
North-South Arterial/Collectors '"'' ",,"'" "'" """. ,,,.. ."., "".,,, ".. ,,,,,. """ ,"., '"'' ,,,.,.. 24
East-West Arterial/Col lectors.,,,...,,....,,, "., "... ,,,,,. "". .""", "". "". ""." "" ,,,.., "" ,,,.,, 2 6
The Parkway.""" """ ",,'" ,.. '''' ,,,.,, ""." ,,'. ,. "".. "". ,,,. ",,"'. """ ,,,., "",., ".., '"'' ".."., 2 8
Cost of Living Streets ,,,,,,. """""""""""."'. "'"'''''''' """". ".".. """""".".""."'""""" . 30
3.0 Design Guidelines ,,,...,,,,..,,,,,.,,...,,,,....,,.,,.,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,,,...,"..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,""""""".,,, 31
Overall Design Approach ""'.".""'".'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''..''.''''''''''''''',,,,,,..,,,,, 31
Design Process for Planning a Street Reconstruction Project ".,,,,."',,.,,,,,,"',,,,,,,,,,..,,,, 33
4.0 Implementation. '''' "".. ""..".",. "" '''''' '" "".. "" '''''' "" "",.". "" "" "'''''' "". "". "., ". '" 3 7
Staff and Council Directed Implementation Programs """""""'"",,. " """'''''''''''''''" " 37
Implementation Items Requiring Citizen Involvement and Participation,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,.,, 41
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines."..,,,,,,.,,,,,,.,,,,....,,,,,,,,.,,.,,,,,,,,.,,,.,,,,,,,,..,,.,A-1
Appendix B-Living Streets Communications Plan",,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,.,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, B-1
Appendix C-Draft Bicycle and Sidewalk Plan .",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,C-1
Appendix D~Grant Funding Sources",,,,,,,.,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,, D-1
I B
This section provides an explanation as to the reasons behind the "Living Streets" project It details
the water-quality problems facing North 51. Paul and how these problems can be alleviated with the
implementation of stormwater best-management practices that are an integral component of living
streets, as defined in this document It also discusses the deteriorating state of North 51. Paul's drinking
water pipe system and the imminent need to rip up streets to replace water mains, Lastly, this section
defines Living Streets and how they solve multiple problems facing North 51. Paul.
Lakes with high water quality provide
a valuable recreational resource to a
community.
Surface Water Quality-A Critical
Element of Minnesota's Way of Life
Our lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands are an essential element
of what it means to live in Minnesota, They define our landscape,
offer recreational opportunities, and provide habitat for wildlife.
In recent years, more attention has been paid to the declining
water quality of our lakes, streams, and wetlands, Many of us
have become aware of the subtle and not-sa-subtle changes in
water qual ity through our personal experiences. For others, the
growing list of polluted waters (known as the Impaired Waters
List), documented by the Minnesota Pollution Control agency, is
the evidence.
Section 1.0 Background
The MPCA's Impaired
Waters List
The MPCA's Impaired Waters
List is created by sampl ing water
in Minnesota's lakes, Lakes are
placed on the list when they
exceed established pollutant
level maximums. Legislation has
put local units of government in
charge of cleaning up impaired
waters, The RWMWD and cities
in the district (including North
51. Paul) are the local units of
government responsible for
cleaning up Kohlman Lake.
In North St Paul, most of the polluted stormwater from city streets
is discharged into Kohlman Creek and then into Kohlman lake,
a shallow water body located in Maplewood, Kohlman lake is
the first lake in the Phalen Chain of Lakes (Kohlman, Gervais,
Keller and Phalen). Water from these lakes eventually flows into
the Mississippi River, Kohlman Lake is listed on the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency's Impaired Waters list due to excessive
nutrients (see side bar). The Kohlman Lake watershed covers
approximately 7,500 acres comprised of portions of North St Paul,
Maplewood, Gem Lake, White Bear lake, Vadnais Heights, little
Canada and Oakdale, A majority of North St Paul (89%) drains to
Kohlman Lake. The remainder drains to Silver Lake. See map on
the next page.
How is water quality degraded?
2
Section 1.0 Background
Most of North St. Paul drains to Kohlman Lake. Stormwater drains into the storm sewer system, which empties into Kohlman Creek
and down to the lake. Water flows from lake to lake, making its way to Lake Phalen and the Mississippi River. The best place to
clean the water running to our lakes is at its source: every street, driveway and parking lot.
The Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD), the
City of North St Paul and other area cities are charged with the
task of reducing pollution flowing into area lakes and improving
their water quality. The RWMWD has taken the lead in this effort
by completing several studies of Kohlman Lake and its watershed
in order to develop strategies for improving the lake's water
quality. As a partner in this effort, the City of North St Paul is
helping the District implement these strategies.
3
Section 1.0 Background
Streetside treatment of
stormwater will reduce
poUution
The problem of runoff pollution
is solved most easily by soaking
stormwater into the ground.
One effective method is to
create rainwater gardens that
collect stormwater. In North St,
Paul, rainwater gardens will run
alongside streets. Stormwater
from streets and driveways wi II
drain into the rainwater gardens
where it will be filtered as it
soaks into the ground, Great
numbers of these small gardens
placed along North St. Paul's
streets will ~ignificantly remove
pollutants and enhance the
aesthetic image of the city,
Rainwater gardens are filled with
plants that thrive in both wet and dry
conditions, providing summer-long
beauty.
4
One proven strategy for reducing urban runoff pollution from
entering area lakes is soaking stormwater runoff into the ground
where it is naturally filtered. This is a great alternative to sending it
into pipes that drain untreated into lakes, There are many ways to
do this, but one of the most effective and attractive methods is with
rainwater gardens, which infiltrate the water into the ground close
to where the water is shed (from hard surfaces). Rainwater gardens
are constructed along streets as attractive community features that
also water street trees and create a great neighborhood "feel:'
With the city's aging drinking water and sanitary sewer pipes,
and some streets in need of replacement over the next 20 years,
the city has an opportunity to re-invent the function of its streets,
As streets undergo reconstruction, we have an opportunity to
incorporate stormwater treatment features as well as other features
that improve transportation mobility,
safety and quality of life. We refer
to a vision of street reinvention
as "Living Streets:' The rest of this
report discusses th is concept and
approach for re-inventing the
streets of North St Paul.
The city has a
unique opportunity
to re-invent its
streets.
An opening in a curb allows water to flow from the street into a rainwater garden
for a triple benefit: stormwater is prevented from reaching storm drains; it is filtered
as it soaks into the ground; and it provides water to the plants and trees in the
garden. The result is a highly functional and attractive neighborhood amenity.
Section 1.0 Background
How do rainwater gardens work?
Rainwater gardens become beautiful neighborhood amenities (the curb cut is located out of the picture frame to the left).
5
Section 1.0 Background
What is a Living Street!
"Living Streets" is a term
used to describe efficient use
of the public rights-of-way.
It is about enhancing the
functionality ofthese public
corridors, It starts by preserving
the important function of
accommodating traffic,
parking, and underground
utilities, but additionally
improves accommodations for
pedestrians, bicycles and nature
in the form of street trees and
rainwater gardens.
Living Streets provide safe passage
for pedestrians. Many citizens of
North St. Paul don't have cars or
would enjoy better opportunities to
get outside and walk.
6
Understanding Living Streets
The streets of North SI. Paul play an integral role in the life of our
citizens, They are intended for everyone-young or old, motorist or
bicyclist, walker or wheelchair user, bus rider or shopkeeper, We
can improve on the current design to better accommodate walkers,
bikes and public transportation, Our streets and public right-of-
way could also better accommodate the cleansing power of nature
for stormwater, and the protection and beauty that trees provide.
Streets in the past were designed and built in an era where the
focus was only on moving cars quickly and efficiently. Today we
have the opportunity to design multi-purpose streets,
Living Streets is a term that addresses these livability and
environmental needs of our community and describes a design
approach for rebuilding streets, Communities across the country
are embracing this design approach and asking their planners and
engineers to build road networks that are safer for pedestrians,
slow traffic, provide neighborhood cohesiveness, provide aesthetic
value, and improve the quality of our lakes and streams by reducing
stormwater pollution.
Living Streets are designed to balance convenience for motorists with bike and
pedestrian safety, water-quality protection, and the beauty of street trees.
~
o
'g'
.:!
&
1
u
o
o
{
"
l
m
I
~
g
~
Right.9f,.Way
I
Sidewalk
conc~tte Curb
al Gutter
,
II
The primary elements of a Living Street.
Section 1.0 Background
What does a living
Street look like?
Each Living Street is unique.
Ingredients that may be found
on a complete green street
include:
. sidewalks
. bike lanes (or wide paved
shoulders)
. parking where needed
. comfortable and accessible
transit stops
. marked crossing
opportunities
. pedestrian signals
. curb extensions
. rainwater gardens
. trees
. vegetation
They are designed to balance
safety and conven ience for
everyone using the street along
with water quality protection,
This Living Street features curb
extensions, a bike lane, sidewalks,
and trees.
"
o
1
~
!
u
o
o
~
.
1
~
"
.
"
~
~
7
Section 1,0 Background
North St. Paul will have to replace
deteriorating water mains. This is
the perfect opportunity to redesign
streets to accommodate people's
needs and create a' healthier, cleaner
environment.
Why Plan for living Streets Today?
North St Paul's drinking water pipes are beginning to deteriorate,
Some are up to 75 years old; many are likely to fail soon. The
sanitary sewer system is also aging, although not so significantly.
Replacing water mains most often requires that streets be
demolished for access, This disruption of streets creates an
opportunity to reinvent North St Paul's streets to better fit the
needs of today's and future residents,
Similar to a home remodeling project, the design of these street
projects will consider the needs of the city's future residents and
businesses to ensure the city remains an attractive and competitive
place to live and do business compared to other options that exist
in the north metro area.
By integrating the transportation, environmental and quality of life
needs into a Living Streets framework now, the design work for
individual street reconstruction projects will be implemented more
efficiently and at lower cost
The goal is to create a balance between the important functions
oftraffic conveyance and utilities with the important functions of
nature,
Storm\1(
ater Capt
.,. Urea d
Ped . I rees n IIse
estr,an m
Pedestrian OVement
/I'k safety
I es
Com
4esthet.' mllnity
IC Character
Traffic
Speed
, Sewers
GilS
Eleetr,
r. Ie
Storm eleeoth
ater dril'
Iflage
Infrastructure
. Traditionally there has been an imbalance between differing uses of public streets.
8
Section 1.0 Background
When ut;J;ties, cars, people and nature are all taken into account, streets take on greater community value.
Stormwater capture and use
Trees
Pedestrian movement
Pedestrian safety
Bikes
Community
Aesthetic character
Traffic
Speed
Sewers
Gas
Electric
Telecom
Stormwater drainage
Infrastructure
This plan is an effort to balance the important role of streets to move traffic and accommodate utmties with the equally important
need for alternative forms of transportation and a cleaner environment.
9
Section 1,0 Background
Benefits of living Streets
Most of us think of America as the land of choices, Yet, in just about any community built in the last
50 years, there is pretty much one choice for transportation: the car. North St Paul isn't any different
than most American cities in this regard. Living Streets provide many transportation choices to the
diverse range of city residents and it balances those choices to provide community, environmental and
economic benefits as well.
Walkable streets raise
home values
Studies show that
homes in more walkable
neighborhoods have higher
values than similar homes
in less-walkable areas. The
report, "Walking the Walk:
How Walkability Raises
Housing Values in U.S,
Cities" by Joseph Cortright,
analyzed aata from 94,000
real estate transactions in
15 major markets and found
that in 13 of 1 5 markets,
higher levels of walkability
were directly linked to higher
home values,
Surveys indicate that shoppers spend
more time and money in commercial
districts with tree-lined streets.
10
I.iving Streets have economic benefits because
they:
Make Fiscal Sense. Smaller streets, less pavement and fewer
underground storm sewer pipes cost less to build, These are
savings that residents will notice on special assessments associated
with their street reconstruction project
Lower Long Term Maintenance Costs. Smaller streets also cost
less to plow and repair benefiting the city's annual budget and
taxpayers,
Increase Property Values. Walkable communities with tree lined
streets and slowed traffic increases neighborhood desirability and
property value, an asset residents will realize at the time of sale,
Spark Economic Revitalization. By making local businesses
more accessible to bicyclists and walkers, residents are more likely
to shop locally and encouraging local business investment and job
growth, Research shows that shoppers are attracted to businesses
with tree lined streets.
Good bike and pedestrian access to downtown could help business.
living Streets build community because they:
Help Children. Streets that provide room for safe walking and
biking help children get physical activity and gain independence,
More children walk to school where there are sidewalks, and
children who have safe walking and bicycling routes have a more
positive view of their neighborhood,
Improve Public Health. By offering easy opportunities for
walking and bicycling, living streets encourage a healthy life-style
for people of all ages, especially the elderly, and are an important
strategy to combat obesity.
Increase Safety. Traffic.calming elements like curb extensions,
bump-outs and narrowed streets improve safety by reducing
traffic speeds. Streets are safer for walkers, bicyclists, children, the
elderly, as well as for drivers,
Enhance Neighborhood Beauty and Strengthen a Sense
of Community. By making room for the planting of trees and
rainwater gardens, our neighborhoods become more beautiful and
attract young families that make communities thrive,
living Streets improve environmental quality
because they:
Improve Water Quality of lakes and Streams. Rainwater
gardens along roads intercept and filter stormwater runoff, Much of
it soaks into the ground to water street trees while over flow water
during big storms is filtered by plants before making its way to
the storm sewer pipe that takes it to Kohlman lake and ultimately
further downstream to the Mississippi River.
Improve Air Quality. By providing space for walking and biking,
complete green streets reduce the emissions of CO, and other
pollutants harmful to the planet and human health. Trees also filter
the air, trapping dust.
Reduce the Urban Heat Island Affect. Less asphalt and more
street trees reduce heat build-up in pavement and in the ambient
air during hot summer days making outdoor activities more
comfortable and reducing air conditioning costs in our homes and
businesses,
Reduce Raw Material aml Energy Used in Street
Construction. Smaller streets require less asphalt, gravel beneath
the street and other natural resources, and requires less energy
used for their construction than larger conventional streets, This
reduces the pollution and greenhouse gases emitted during the
manufacturing and transporting of these materials,
Section [.0 Background
Safety for children is a primary
concern. Living Streets will provide
safe walking and bicycling routes.
High speeds lead to
greater chance of
serious injury
and death
o
"
~
85% ~
~
'S
~
~
o
~
~
l
~
,
~
~
i
]
..
r
~
,
~
~
Pedestrians' chances of death if
hit by a motor vehicle at different
speeds.
II
Section 1.0 Background
What are the benefits of street trees?
Living Streets promote the planting of street trees, Trees provide many benefits to the
environment and community. The past few decades of tree research has focused on
documenting and quantifying the benefits of trees. Early on, researchers were quantifying
the amount of greenhouse gases trees remove from the atmosphere (about '/2 ton of
carbon dioxide per tree per year) and pollutants (about 43 pounds of pollutants per
tree per year). Since then, researchers have begun to document an ever growing list of
benefits that may not be so obvious.
Environmental Benefits
In addition to the direct removal of
greenhouse gases and pollutants,
mentioned above, trees:
. Reduce temperatures by shading
streets, sidewalks and other
hardscapes, resulting in
of electricity,
Increase the am
reaches the gr
helping water soa
Intercept rai
branches, red
water that reac
. Add organic ma
further improves
capacity of the s
. Improve the resili;,
respond to rain ev
tree can capture 0
water in a year.
.
of water that
, ater table by
'into the ground.
.
. In whole, treesca
by about 2% for
12
Community Benefits
Trees help promote pride in the
community and a sense of place, as well
as providing a long list of other direct and
indirect benefits,
. Street trees are an important factor in
reducing road maintenance costs, by
shading the pavement from the sun.
. Tree-filled neighborhoods show lower
levels of domestic violence.
. Street trees can calm traffic and lower
traffic speed by reducing the perceived
width of street
. Trees help reduce noise levels.
. Trees are known to shorten hospital
stays and reduce workplace stress.
. Trees can be used to screen unsightly
views.
. Healthy trees in neighborhoods
enhance property values, increasing
sale prices by 1 % for each large front-
yard tree and 1O% for a specimen tree.
are al so ood
Section 1.0 Background
Policy Basis for Living Streets
Inspiration from Other Cities and Agencies
Communities across the country are realizing the "green" potential of their streets. Making our
transportation system more sustainable involves many policies and practices that minimize
environmental impact and create streets that are safe and comfortable for everyone regardless of age,
ability, or mode of transportation,
In Minnesota, a number of communities and transportation organizations have already begun the
process of reinventing the street
The City of Rochester, for example, has implemented a comprehensive and detailed complete streets
policy in 2009 after a multi-year review of policy options and implementation approaches by their city
council and city stafL
13
Section 1.0 Background
Many cities are making an effort to
cultivate and support a way of life
that encourages physical activity.
The City of Sf. Paul passed a complete streets resolution in 2009
directing staff to complete an implementation plan in 2010.
Implementation of a complete streets philosophy is an integral
component of "Access Minneapolis," the City of Minneapolis'
transportation plan,
In 2005, Ramsey County Active living (AlRC) was created,
This collaborative effort of county, city, school, health plans and
residents is working to bring about and sustain changes in design,
transportation, and public/private policies to cultivate and support
a way of life that integrates physical activity into daily lives,
14
Hennepin COllnty developed a complete streets policy in 2009.
The policy applies to all corridors under county jurisdiction,
The County is committed to working with other transportation
agencies to incorporate a complete streets philosophy in adjacent
jurisdictions,
The State of Minnesota adopted a complete streets policy on
May 15, 2010, The policy is intended to promote context-sensitive
street designs on state-aid roadways, This is the first such state
policy in the nation,
living Streets Implements the North St. Paul
Comprehensive Plan
This project is an expression of the goals contained in North
St Paul's Comprehensive Plan, which is the city's guide for
development, redevelopment and preservation of the community,
Living streets provide a comprehensive and effective strategy
for realizing the city's vision of becoming "an extraordinary
small town in the Cities!" and achieving many goals of the
Comprehensive Plan. This Living Streets plan will help North St.
Paul achieve five of the Comprehensive Plan's nine goals:
Goal I: Image
Develop themes, prepare plans, and implement plans which
will enhance and improve the image of the city in downtown,
the highway 36 corridor, and in each of the city's residential
neighborhoods,
Goal 4: Transportation
Achieve a functional, aesthetic, and'balanced system which
includes pedestrian ways, sidewalks, trails, local streets, collectors,
arterials, a freeway and transit.
Goal 7: Parks, Open Spaces and Trails
Enhance and expand the park, open space and trail system,
especially in the highway 36 corridor.
Goal 8: Environment
Protect and enhance the lakes, wetlands, woods, and wildlife
and promote actions, practices and developments which tend to
sustain the environment.
Goal 9: Active Living
Establish a climate and an urban pattern for active living to
create and sustain changes in land use design, building design,
transportation, public policies and project to cultivate, support and
integrate physical activity into daily life.
Section 1.0 Background
Youth and seniors are
growing proportion
of North St. Paul's
population
Population projections
for Ramsey County show
that the percentage of the
population that is both
under 20 and 65 and older
will grow significantly over
the next 25 years. These
populations are the most
dependent on alternatives to
the car for mobility. The age
distribution of the population
for North St. Paul was very
similar to that of Ramsey
County in the 2000 Census
and is assumed to be similar
to the projections for Ramsey
County,
Source: 2000 Census and MN Department of Adminis-
tration/Office of Geographic and Demographic Analysis
for 1010, 2010, and 2035 Ramsey County projections.
15
Section 1.0 Background
The IS-member task force toured the
streets of North St. Paul.
16
Community Task Force Involvement
It was important from the start to have citizen involvement in
the creation of this plan. Feedback from those who will use and
maintain the streets was critical. The City Council appointed a task
force to guide the development of this plan. The 15-member task
force was comprised of North St Paul residents, businesses, city
staff and a council representative. The task force met six times from
June through October 2009, Involvement of the task force focused
on:
. learning about living streets. The task force reviewed
studies and literature about green streets, discussed current
opportunities for walkers and bikers, shared ideas about
environmental quality, discussed costs and benefits, and
conducted a field trip to inspect local examples in the Twin
Cities.
. Developing Design Objectives. This process included
identifying community concerns and needs, This discussion
was followed by clarifying Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies into specific project design objectives that would
address the identified concerns and needs. The design
objectives guided the development of recommended design
guidelines in Section 2,
. Identifying locations and priorities lor bike trails and
sidewalks to better connect the community. The bike trail
and sidewalk plan will supplement the transportation plan
chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, (Refer to Appendix C)
. Reviewing and giving feedback on proposed design
strategies for different types of streets found in North
St. Paul. The design objectives developed by the task force
were used to evaluated design alternatives and for making
recommendations on preferred design alternatives,
Section 1.0 Background
17
Section 1.0 Background
The Vision
By incorporating North St.
Paul's values, needs and
concerns expressed by
the Task Force, this plan
envisions the city becoming:
A city with
healthy residents
and attractive,
safe streets
characterized by
natural systems
that integrate
throughout the
city. Through the
use of vegetation
and a reduction in
paved surface, the
city makes room
for nature and its
restorative benefits
for people of all
ages and ability
to travel safely
throughout the
city.
18
(to Li
ng
I
This section describes the plan for making improvements to the city's street system, It describes the
various street types found in North St. Paul and the opportunities for converting these streets, over time,
into Living Streets.
Assessment of Existing Streets
It is important to understand the different types of streets (based on
traffic volume) that exist in North St. Paul. The successful creation
of Living Streets will respond to the important needs of moving
traffic, accommodating differences in neighborhood character,
supporting land use type (residential, commercial, industrial)
and improving environmental quality, This plan recognizes the
existing functional classification of the city's streets as determined
by Minnesota transportation agencies and officials, This plan
emphasizes the importance of retaining "functional" classification
of streets and an emphasis on vehicle mobility, North St. Paul's
streets are generally classified as either local (residential streets),
oIlector streets (busier streets like Margaret or 17th St.), and
rial (\iery busy streets like McKnight Rd, and Century Ave,),
19
Section 2.0 Living Streets Plan
Residential Street-15th Ave. E.
North-south ArtedallCollector-
Margaret Street
East-West Arterial/Collector-17th
Ave. E.
20
Types of living Streets
This plan considers three general street types currently found in
North St. Paul. The street types are described below and shown in
the map on the opposite page,
Residential Streets-Low traffic streets with slower speeds,
North-South Arterials/Collectors-Higher traffic streets that
connect neighborhoods with commercial areas, downtown and
adjacent communities, (e.g" McKnight Rd" Margaret St., Helen
St., First St., Century Ave.)
East-West Arterials/Collectors-Higher traffic streets that
connect neighborhoods with commercial areas and adjacent
communities. (e.g" 17th Ave., South Ave, and Holoway Ave,)
This plan also creates a new street type:
The l'arkway-A visually prominent recreational corridor
that includes bike trails, sidewalks, stormwater treatment, and
enhanced vegetation, It will create a central parkway though town
connecting Casey Lake Park to Polar Park to downtown and down
to Southwood Nature Preserve,
The map on the following page illustrates the pattern of Living
Streets for North St. Paul. Each of these street types is described on
the following pages.
This plan does not currently address the city's downtown
main street (7th Avenue) or new streets envisioned as part of
the Diversified District. These street types are very important
elements within the fabric of the current and future city However,
a separate concentrated effort is required to develop living
street concepts to address the unique challenges in these two
environments, These areas are not included in this report.
Section 2.0 Living Streets Plan
legend
L__J main street
_ north/south arterial
_ north/south collector
_ east/west collector/arterial
L-..J parkway
street templates map
21
Section 2.0 Living Streets Plan
Streets, such as this one, present
the greatest opportunity ta create
new landscape space far starmwater
treatment and trees, and sidewalks
for pedestrians.
Yield Streets
A yield lane can be used
where traffic flow is low
to accommodate two-lane
traffic with a single lane, One
vehicle passes the other by
slowing and waiting in the
parking lane for the other
vehicle to pass.
R.esidential Streets
As the most common street type in North St Paul, residential
streets offer the best opportunities for living streets design
solutions, These streets have the fewest conflicts with underground
utilities and have under-used parking zones. As a result, they
present the greatest opportunity to create new landscape space
for stormwater treatment and trees, and sidewalks for pedestrians.
Most residential streets will be reconstructed in the near future as
water mains are replaced and sanitary sewers are repaired.
Recommended features of Living Streets include:
. Street trees
. Rainwater gardens flanking the street
. Sidewalks on one side of the street (as per the Draft Bicycle
and Sidewalk Plan-see Appendix C)
. Street width of 22 feet to accommodate one parking lane and a
single yield lane (queuing lane)
. Curbs
. Public art/artful design
Existing residential street layout
22
Proposed residential street layout
Section 2.0 Living Streets Plan
z5
< Existi ng
Stre~! t;dge
Right-of-Way
23
Section 2,0 Living Streets Plan
Margaret Street- a North-South
Arterial/Collector street
The plan w;tJ safely accommodate
pedesrdans and people on bikes and
in whee/chairs on the drys busier
streets.
North-South Collectors
These roads connect residential areas to schools and commercial
areas, However, many of these roads are without sidewalks and
bike facilities which present safety concerns for walkers and
bicyclists, These roads are State Highways or State Aid roads
and thus reconstruction plans must also meet design standards
determined by the Ramsey County and the State of Minnesota.
Because of the configuration of North SI. Paul's blocks (primary
streets run east-west), most homes and businesses face east-west
streets, Most parking demand is on these streets. Conversely,
parking demand on north-south streets is fairly low because few
homes or businesses face them, This creates opportunities to
convert existing and often unused parking areas on north-south
streets to bike lanes, sidewalks, street trees and rainwater gardens,
Features of the North-South arterial/collector streets include:
. Street trees
. Rainwater gardens flanking the street
. Bike lanes on both sides of the street
. Sidewalks on at least one side of the street
. Parking where needed by adjacent property owners (e.g.,
churches, businesses); otherwise, no parking. Parking created
by extending curb into the right-of-way,
. Two 1 o-foot driving lanes
. Arterial streets like McKnight Rd. and Century Ave, have very
high traffic and are not considered part of the Living Street
system,
4' 1l0UlfVAlID
WAUl RA1NGARDEN
24
ROADWAYW1DTll VARIES
BOUlEVARD 4'
RAlNGARDEN WAlK
66'TYPICAl.R1GHT-OFWAV
NOTE: State Aid Roadways will require special coordination
with jurisdictional authorities retarding design criteria.
Section 2.0 Living Streets Plan
. !"'~
f?"\
"","'~, "- -',
Z ",/\,
C<^J"\
(
Existing
Street Edge
2S
Section 2,0 Living Streets Plan
17th Ave, an East-West Arterial!
Collector street
17th Ave, an East-West Arterial!
Collector street
South Ave, an East-West Arterial!
Collector street
l!J
BOULEVARD
RAINGAROEN
26
East- West Arterial/Collectors
These higher traffic volume streets serve to connect North S1. Paul
to adjacent cities and connect residential areas to schools and
commercial areas. Portions of these roads are currently without
sidewalks and bike facilities, This presents safety concerns for
walkers and bicyclists wishing to travel these routes, These roads
are State Highways or State Aid facilities and thus reconstruction
plans must also meet design standards created by Ramsey County
and the State of Minnesota,
Homes and businesses front on these streets, creating some
parking demand. However, parking demand is relatively low
and parking is banned during the winter. Since these streets are
not used heavily for parking, opportunities exist to convert some
existing parking to bike lanes, sidewalks, street trees and rainwater
gardens,
Features of the East-West arterial/collector streets include:
. Street trees
. Rainwater gardens flanking the street
. Bike lanes on both sides of the street
. Sidewalks on one side of the street
. Parking on one side of the street, contained within curb
extensions
. Two 1 O-foot driving lanes
5'.{;'
I 10' DRIVE
AN lANE
5'-6' 8'-9'
to'DRlVE PARKIN
lANE N lANE
ROADWAY WIDTH VARIES
66' TYf'ICAl.RIGHT-Of'.WAY
NOTE: State Aid Roadways will require special coordination
with jurisdictional authorities regarding design criteria.
Section 2.0 Living Streets Plan
Existing
Str, et Edge
I
1I
:1
,
:,Str~et Trees
Righ~:Qf.Way
,
Sidewalk
I
.1
Concr~te Curb
an, Gutter
~If-"'<""
Existing ~
Street Edge
C
17
Section 2.0 Living Streets Plan
The trail will stretch through
Southwood Nature Preserve.
28
The Parkway
A north-south recreational parkway is proposed to connect Casey
Lake Park and Polar Park to downtown and down to Southwood
Nature Preserve (see figure on the facing page). The intent is to
create a beautiful North St Paul amenity that links walkers and
bikers to primary destinations (businesses and parks) and adds value
to the city, This central green spine through the city is meant to
easily and safely bring people to three schools and into downtown,
It will also serve as the perfect location for an evening stroll or a safe
bikeway for families with small children,
The greenway will look as described above as North-South
Collectors, but will be inherently quieter because it runs through
residential neighborhoods, It will vary, however, depending on the
neighborhood through which it passes, For example, the southern
reach does not accommodate cars but provides for continuous
biking,
Features of the parkway include:
. Street trees
. Rainwater gardens flanking the street
. Bike lanes on both sides of the street
. Sidewalks on one side of the street
. Two 1 O-foot driving lanes
. A 1 O-foot walk/bikeway where paths are created through parks
and public lands.
"
o
11
.
"
~
!
u
o
o
~
"
,
,
~
~
~
1;
~
~
~
Section 2.0 Living Streets Plan
legend
I proposed parkway
19
Section 2.0 Living Streets Plan
Cost of Living Streets
North St Paul streets will require reconstruction to replace water mains and pavement It is of primary
concern to the citizen task force that Living Streets not be more expensive than reconstructing streets as
they exist today,
This is indeed the case, There are trade-offs between what is gained with Living Streets and what is
eliminated in the streets that exist today. The advantages of Living Streets are numerous. The expense
of constructing new elements such as rainwater gardens (now required by law), sidewalks, public art
and trees is compensated by savings accomplished through eliminating parking on one side of the
street For example, a savings of 15% or more on pave~ent (the most expensive ticket item on a street
reconstruction project) occurs by reducing the width of a residential street from 30 feet to 22 feet
By building less roadway, future maintenance and replacement costs are also reduced. For example,
narrowing a residential street from 30 feet to 22 feet could result in a 25% reduction in maintenance
costs; as much as $1,000 per mile per year, These ongoing savings provide financial resources from
which to provide maintenance for street trees and other green infrastructure if needed,
Typical street maintenance costs include:
. Crack fill/seal coat within five years of initial construction
. Mill/overlay at around 20-25 years
. Crack fill/seal coat within 5 years of mill/overlay
Based on the assumptions above, the city could realize $50,000 in life-cycle
maintenance cost savings per mile of roadway overthe life of the road. There
would be additional saving in the cost of snow plowing since there would be
less street to plow.
Like every street, each reconstruction project is unique, Costs will vary
depending on the scope of each project
30
De
.
I
uideli
This section describes guidelines to be used to direct the design and construction process for street
reconstruction projects. They are intended to supplement and guide standing practices related to City of
North Saint Paul streets, The street templates and guidelines are to be implemented in a flexible manner
on a project-by-project basis to achieve impervious surface reduction and stormwater treatment in the
right-of-way, and to create less resource consumptive streets that serve the people of North 51. Paul.
Overall Design Approach
In partnership, the City, Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed
District (RWMWD) and the people of North 51. Paul will create
Living Streets for the health of their citizens and the watershed.
The City and RWMWD will work together through the design
process to share ideas, facilitate public engagement, and
coordinate roadway reconstruction with stormwater pollution
prevention.
A holistic re-invention of North Saint Paul Streets is intended, Three
principles set the individual project design team's direction and
priorities regarding design, material selections, construction and
ongoing stewardship of the public realm. Design elements used in
the streetscape should be planned in the spirit of these principles
(see next page).
Section 3.0 Design Guidelines
Specific Design Elements
Detailed guidelines for
specific design elements
are included in Appendix
A, Elements discussed there
include:
1. Design Process
2. Street Design
3. Infiltration Basins
4. Filtration Basins
5, Soil Preparation and Soil
Amendments
6. Planti ngs and StreetTrees
7. Curbs and Curb
Extensions
8, Sidewalks and Crosswalks
9. Bicycle Lanes
10, Public Art
11, Utilities
32
Design Principles for North Saint Paul Streets
1. Every street reconstruction project will create valuable
places for neighborhood activity and active living.
. Connect neighborhoods and daily destinations with a
comfortable, safe walking and biking network for people of
all ages and abilities.
. Calm auto traffic.
. Identify and build upon the assets of each neighborhood in
every project
. Showcase natural resources in the streetscape.
2. Design infrastructure to mimic the natural hydrologic
cycle.
. Manage precipitation where it falls by promoting
infiltration into conditioned soils with deep-rooted'
vegetation.
. Reduce hard surface area (pavement),
. Manage rainwater as a resource, not a waste product
. Practice water conservation (reduce irrigation) to reduce
drinking water treatment and to save energy.
3. Establish living systems to function as infrastructure.
. Utilize the robust natural processes of trees, deep-rooted
vegetation and soil life to treat pollutants in stormwater and
the atmosphere, combat urban heat island effect, sequester
carbon and reduce runoff.
. Promote habitat connectivity and biodiversity,
. Properly utilize sun and shade to reduce energy
consumption in buildings,
. Utilize construction materials and methods with reduced
ecological footprints, including material recycling
practices.
Section 3.0 Design Guidelines
Design Process for Planning a Street Reconstruction Project
The following general design process is intended to be flexible. It is intended to identify the major steps
that apply to each street segment reconstruction, but is not considered all inclusive. The design process
must be considered in conjunction with the implementation process set forth in the public participation
and Living Streets Design and Implementation Process featured in Section 4.0 of this document.
Depending on the extent of reconstruction required for any given street, projects could typically take on
ofthe following forms:
Once a reconstruction project is identified, a four-step design
sequence should be used, Start off on the right path by involving
a design team with experienced engineer(s) and landscape
architect(s) from the beginning.
Step 1 - Conduct Public Meeting-The city announces its
intent to reconstruct a street:
. Conduct a public meeting to announce the project, to inform
citizens about the Living Streets approach, and to obtain public
"buy-in."
Step 2 - Site Analysis-The site analysis will gather necessary
data and identify key design constraints and opportunities for the
street:
. Using the appropriate street template presented in this plan
as a starting point, perform site analysis for the concept street
layout,
. If a street under consideration is in the jurisdiction of a non-
city entity (such as county, state or federal), begin project
discussions with those entities as early as possible in the design
process to discuss roadway design criteria such as lane widths,
relative to legal standards. Determine if a variance to standards
is necessary, and identify an authorization path forward,
33
Section 3.0 Design Guidelines
34
. Obtain detailed existing topographic, existing utility and soils
data,
. Identify any special roadway needs related to traffic,
pavements, intersections, parking, etL
. Identify storm sewer overflow locations for storm flows. Reuse
the existing system of storm sewer catch basins, manholes and
pipes if possible.
. Identify permitting requirements for the reconstruction project
. Determine BMP sizing requirements based on RWMWD
criteria.
. Perform infiltration BMP site sensitivity analysis and determine
in concept the locations of stormwater BMPs in the street right-
of-way,
. Identify utility conflicts, Practice avoidance as a first step to
resolving utility conflicts, If necessary, meet with utility entities
and discuss if relocation or utility upgrades are necessary, and
can be coordinated with the street reconstruction,
. Identify how mature trees will be protected during construction
and where new street trees will be planted,
Step 3 - Design Development-Develop a preliminary design
considering constraints, criteria and opportunities identified in
Step 1,
. Customize the concept street layout to the context and citizen
needs of the particular street For more information regarding
specific streetscape elements, refer to the Appendix A: Design
Guidelines,
. Identify opportunities for public art and for residents to
creatively contribute to design features.
. Conduct a design meeting with RWMWD:
Discuss the concept street layout and results of the site
analysis,
Consider if there are opportunities to add supplemental
stormwater BMPs to the design, above the minimums
required by the District These BMPs could be paid for by
the District This meeting and information exchange is not
for permitting, but for design development
Incorporate these additional stormwater BMPs into the
preliminary design,
. Perform stormwater modeling, if necessary,
. Determine the level of maintenance acceptable forthe hard
features, BMPs and landscape. Determine how this will be
funded and who will conduct the maintenance work. Put this
into budget plans
. Create a preliminary design and construction cost estimate,
Step 4 - Conduct Public Meeting
. Proceed with public engagement of the neighborhood
for resident education and input as described in the
Implementation section of this document
. Conduct public meeting for the street reconstruction project
. Incorporate stakeholder feedback and contributions as
appropri ate,
Step 5 - Proceed with Final Design and Construction
. Proceed with final detailed design of all project features,
. Write a management plan pertaining to "Green" features,
. Proceed with the permitting process, including RWMWD
permitting,
. Proceed with construction documents, contracting and
construction.
. Implement management plan.
Section 3.0 Design Guidelines
A
3S
Section 3.0 Design Guidelines
36
I
n
*
I
This section looks at specific ways the city can implement Living Streets. There are two types of
implementation programs described below. The first includes items that the city can implement through
city staff or through direct involvement of City CounciL The second group of items are tasks to be
stewarded by engaged citizens.
Special Assessments
A special assessment is a
charge imposed on real
property to help pay for
a local improvement that
benefits the property, The
state constitution allows the
legislature to authorize local
governments to use special
assessments to help pay for
local improvements based on
the benefit the improvement
gives the property MN statutes
authorize cities, towns,
urban towns, and counties to
make specific improvements,
including: streets, sidewalks,
pavement, gutters, curbs,
vehicle parking strips, grading,
trees, beautification, and storm
sewers including holding areas
and ponds, or other street
drainage and connections from
sewer, water or similar mains to
curb lines,
Staff and Council Directed
Implementation Programs
Use Assessment Policy to Communicate the
Cost Savings of Living Streets Compared to
Conventional Streets
As in most cities, North St. Paul uses Special Assessments to help
finance street reconstruction projects. The street reconstruction
and assessment processes the city uses could be enhanced to
communicate the lower costs for Living Streets compared to a
conventional street project. During this process, residents are
keenly aware of the project and what it is going to cost them
in special assessments. This heightened level of awareness can
be used to communicate that the City's policy of replacing
conventional streets with living streets is helping to keep street
construction costs, and hence assessments as low as possible, For
example, the narrower streets associated with Living Streets have
lower construction costs than reconstructing streets to their current
width because less pavement is put down.
Section 4.0 Implementation
Develop and Implement a Living Street
Reconstruction Process
Converting city streets into Living Streets represents change to the
landscape with which city residents and business owners are so
familiar. It is important to build awareness of living streets when it
comes time for their street to be reconstructed, Involving citizens
early in the process promotes civic vitality, fosters ownership and
allows room for unique expressions of neighborhood identity, The
following public participation implementation and design process
is suggested for all Living Street reconstruction projects.
'Each element is included in the Appendix or on the web site.
38
Develop an Asset Management Plan
The overall purpose of an Asset Management Plan is to both
properly maintain the City's infrastructure and to manage related
finances in a sustainable manner. It looks into the future and
provides direction on the repair and replacement of utilities, sewer
and street infrastructure, It is important to plan ahead for the
maintenance of new green infrastructure elements in town such
as street trees and rainwater gardens. An Asset Management Plan
includes an inventory of the infrastructure and evaluates these
assets in terms of what and when they will require repairs and/or
replacement It also identifies expansion areas and what new
assets are needed to serve expansion or new service capabilities.
The Asset Management Plan is a capital budgeting tool and is used
for updating the city's capital improvement plan,
This report recommends an Asset Management Plan be produced
for the infrastructure (including green infrastructure) of North St
Paul.
Section 4.0 Implementation
It is important to plan ahead for
maintenance items, such as pruning
street trees.
39
Section 4.0 Implementation
Determine Appropriate and Feasible Municipal
Funding Mechanisms for I.iving Street Elements
There are various funding mechanisms for different elements
within Living Streets. Funding options are illustrated in the table
below. Funding these elements from different sources is a policy
decision of the city and the RWMWD. Both parties should
discuss these funding options for potential projects and develop a
mutually supportive policy to fund and therefore implement Living
Streets in the city,
X'" Existing funding approach
. '" Potential funding approach with broader perspective for goal achievement
~For sidewalks along state aid roads
'Includes bike facilities: on-street and off-road trail
Other Funding Sources (Grant Programs)
40
Living Streets are comprised of many elements (streets, sidewalks,
bike facilities, stormwater treatment facilities, landscaping,
signage, and art), There are many approaches to funding Living
Streets, Some approaches will work for individual elements while
other approaches could apply to multiple elements or entire
projects, With city resources in tight supply, a creative approach
to funding will be needed. A variety of local, state and federal
programs are available for funding many of the elements found in
Living Streets, A summary of currently known programs, and how
they might contribute to funding Living Street projects, is located
in Appendix D,
Implementation Items Requiring
Citizen Involvement and Participation
Create an Advisory Board for Pian Stewardship
The success of implementing Living Streets is highly dependent on
involving citizens in their implementation, The creation of a citizen
advisory board or some other citizen group that meets regularly is
recommended to provide oversight and on-going stewardship of
these implementation items, A new advisory group could be formed
using the Citizen Task Force that oversaw the creation of this Living
Streets Plan, Providing stewardship responsibility to the Planning
Commission, the Environmental Commission, or a special joint
committee of these two existing advisory groups is also an option,
Implement a City-Wide Communications
Program
The awareness and support for the benefits of Living Streets among
city residents is also critical to the successful implementation of
specific Living Street reconstruction projects. A comprehensive
and consistent communications/education campaign is needed to
create broad support A strategy for such a campaign is included in
Appendix B, The communications plan includes key action steps
and the materials/tools needed to build awareness and community
support It is anticipated that an advisory board and RWMWD staff
will share implementation responsibility,
Develop a Comprehensive Sidewalk and
Bicycle Plan
Sidewalks and bike facilities are key elements of Living Streets,
They are a critical element in creating a safe community accessible
to all. This plan does not indicate exactly where sidewalks or bike
lanes should be placed in North St Paul, but recommends that a
separate study be conducted to create a city-wide plan to specify
placement of sidewalks and bike facilities, Such a plan should
be developed through a community engagement process which
is especially important given previous conflicts over sidewalk
construction,
As part of this planning process, the Citizen Task Force that
oversaw the creation of this Living Streets plan developed a
preliminary sidewalk and bike plan, found in Appendix C This
preliminary plan is a starting point for a future effort to develop a
city-wide sidewalk and bike plan. The preliminary plan developed
goals and strategies, and suggests specific locations for facilities
based on the local knowledge of the Task Force members,
Section 4.0 Implementation
Citizen involvement is critical to
the success of implementing Living
Streets.
This plan incfudes a oreliminarv
sidewalk and bike plan, found in
Appendix C.
41
Section 4.0 Implementation
42
App
.
I
.
I
.
51
I
m
n
eli
5
Design guidelines for each street design element have been broken down into four categories:
. Design Objective-the primary intent of the element.
. Design Standard-the intent is to make this standard practice fOr street reconstruction work in the
City of North Saint Paul public right-of-way,
. Design Considerations-the intent is to provide additional alternatives, resources and strategies,
Though not required for every project, these strategies may reduce system conflicts, aide system
compatibility, add value, promote sustainability and inform the designer.
. Construction and Maintenance Considerations-the intent is to provide additional alternatives,
resources and strategies to apply to the construction, operation and maintenance of the design
element.
Design elements must be considered in an integrated approach to maximize streetscape beneHts.
A-I
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
A-2
Street Design
See the Design Summary Table at the end of this section for a
summary of street guidelines,
Design Objective
. To minimize impervious surface area while providing essential
auto transportation services in a safe environment Reduce
pavement impervious area where possible.
. Integrate roadway, pedestrian/bike and green infrastructure
elements to accomplish multiple functions,
. Provide on-street parking in appropriate quantity only where
necessary,
. Provide driveway and alleyway extensions to connect to
narrowed roadways.
. Improve the sustainability of paving practices with material
recycling practices.
. Reduce urban heat island effect by reducing the thermal impact
of pavement
. Improve durability to extend the usable life of reconstructed
pavement
Design St:;mdal"d
. Evaluate pedestrian, automobile and bicycle traffic needs on
a project-by-project basis to determine safety requirements,
especially at intersections and on Collector/Arterial streets.
Prioritize the needs and safety of pedestrians and bicyclists,
. Roadways must be designed for safe intersection turning and
passage of emergency vehicles, school buses, occasional
garbage collection trucks, del ivery trucks, etc.
. Design cross slopes and curb profile to move stormwater to
vegetated BMPs with i n the right-of-way,
. Perform soil correction where roads are narrowed and green
space is created, Loosen or replace compacted soil under
the removed roadway section or areas compacted during
construction, See Soil Preparation and Soil Amendment Design
Guidelines.
. Identify where new street trees will be planted and how mature
trees will be protected when designing the street layout
. Educate landowners on the street design approach prior
to design, Establish a public engagement process, Engage
community leaders first
For Residential (Local) Roads:
A street width of 22 feet is recommended for low traffic
local streets (ADT <400).
A single drive lane (a[so known as a queue lane or yield
lane) of 15 foot width is recommended,
Provide on-street parking on one side of the street only, at
a width of 7 feet At each intersection approach, enforce a
no-parking zone to provide space for vehicle turning.
Provide for safe intersection turning by utilizing large curb
radii and/or slight widening of approaches to intersections.
This is particularly important where local streets meet
collector/arterial streets.
Additional parking can be provided in the form of 7
or 8 foot wide parking bays near institution locations,
businesses or multifami[y housing, if necessary,
Provide space to install storm water treatment BMPs in the
ri"ht-of-w"v,
~_~__~f'L.~.J!!.:.!:\!L~t~~__~_
For Collector/Arterial Roads:
Drive lane width of 10 feet is recommended. On state-aid
roadways, 11 feet is the minimum drive lane width by MN
Rules. Efforts across Minnesota are underway to make 10
foot wide drive lanes and complete streets possible. Drive
lanes of 10 feet width should be pursued, if al[owed by law
in the future. Alternatively, 10 feet wide drive lanes could
be pursued through a state-aid variance process,
Install bicycle lanes. See Bicycle Lanes Design Guidelines
for additional information,
Install curb extensions at the ends of blocks, and between
parking bays mid-block. See Curbs and Curb Extensions
Design Guidelines for additional information,
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
An example of a 22~foot local street
with parking on one side.
Narrow streets are snow plowable.
Parking bay example.
Loca! roads present opportunWes
for impervious surface reduction
through narrowing.
A-3
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
Minimum Allowable
Posted Speed Limit
30 mph is currently the
minimum allowable posted
speed limit on local roads
by MN Statute 169,14, A
speed limit of 25 mph can
be posted provided the local
road authority erects signs
designating the speed limit and
indicating the beginning and
end of the specific residential
roadway segment on which the
speed limit applies,
Coordination and
Permitting
Reconstruction work on state-
aid roadways as shown in this
plan will require coordination
and permitting with Ramsey
County and MN/DOT, See the
MN/DOT State Aid web site for
additional information.
http://www.dotstate.mn.us/
stateaid/indeKhtml
http://www.dotstate.mn.us/
stateaid/manual/samO 71
chapter1/1.7.html
A-4
Dimensional criteria for on-street parking, bicycle lanes
and drive lanes should be determined by the context and
traffic level of each street segment For example, wider
parking bays may be desirabl,e in front of businesses.
Provide space to install storm water treatment BMPs in the
right-of-way.
Design Considerations
For Collector/Arterial Roads:
Consider on-street parking bay width of 8 feet for streets
where ADT <10,000 and 10 feet for streets where ADT
> or equal to 10,000 or where frequent use is expected,
such as in front of businesses,
The necessity, dimensions and coordination of turn
lanes, signal ization and signage must be approached on
a project-by-project basis,
Consider a maximum speed limit of 30 mph,
. Consider using a curbless "rural residential section" where
curb currently does not exist
. Reorganizing the right-of-way to accommodate sidewalks,
rain gardens and trees may require relocation of existing
underground utilities, catch basins, hydrants, valves and
sanitary sewer manholes, This reorganization should be
addressed on a project-by-project basis.
. Consider using decorative pervious pavers at pedestrian drop-
off areas and transit stops for a visual indicator of pedestrian
activity,
. Consider carrying sidewalks through driveways with a visual
cue such as a pavement material change to alert drivers and
improve safety.
. Consider strictly enforcing soils compaction, aggregate
specifications, and pavement specifications where roadway
sections are replaced due to uti! ity cuts,
. Consider encouraging homeowners to eliminate street
accessible driveways if an alleyway accessible driveway exists
or is proposed on the same property.
. If homeowners request additional parking, consider providing
a parking space in a widened portion of the driveway as
opposed to an on-street parallel-parking bay. A driveway space
could (in some cases) be constructed for a lower cost and
generate less impervious surface than on on-street parking bay.
Such driveways could be a potential location for installing
pervious pavers. For example, a disabled resident may require
an accessible parking space,
. Consider enhancing the sustainability of paving practices by:
Evaluating existing materials and performing selective
demolition. Recycle valuable materials such as base
aggregate materials and pavement whenever possible.
Specifying recycled materials in pavement sub-base
aggregates, such as recycled concrete aggregate or other
recycled materials,
Minimizing the use of construction materials that are
emitting high levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Modifying pavement mixes to achieve a higher albedo, and
absorb less solar radiation.
Specifying asphalt mixtures that utilize appropriate
amounts of recycled materials in asphalt pavements, such
as recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) or other materials.
Specifying Portland cement concrete mixtures that utilize
appropriate amounts of recycled materials, such as
recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) ,
. Consider utilizing pervious pavements in select locations:
Using pervious pavements and underlying aggregates to
infiltrate rainwater where it falls on pedestrian areas, low-
traffic roads or parking areas. Give preference to low-traffic
locations where pavement will not be frequently dirtied,
salted or overly costly to maintain,
When considering pervious pavements for larger
applications, compare the increased cost of pervious
pavements/pavers and underlying aggregate reservoirs with
the cost tradeoff of reduced storm water infrastructure,
- Avoid using pervious pavements in areas subject to
significant amounts of sedimentation and large amounts of
traffic
Pervious pavements require seasonal maintenance, such as
vacuuming or water jet cleaning.
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
Recycling Options
For additional information about
recycling pavement, waste
reduction and construction
and demolition (C&D) debris
recycling see:
. Minnesota Asphalt Pavement
Association at http://www.
asphaltisbestcom/
. The State of Minnesota
Sustainable Building
Guidelines at www,msdg,
umn.edu/
. Asphalt Recycl ing and
Reclamation Association at
www.arra.org
. Concrete reeye! ing at www.
concreterecycl i ng.org
. The Environmental Council
of Concrete Organizations
(ECCO) at www,ecco,org
. Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency at http://www,
pca,state,mn.us/oea/
greenbu i I ding/waste .cfm
. Minnesota -Materials
Exchange
. Twin Cities FreeMarket for
recycling construction wastes
Pervious pavers ;nstafled at the
Headwaters on Tryon Creek in Portland,
OR,
A-S
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
A-6
Construction and Maintenance Considerations
. Recycle valuable materials such as bituminous pavement,
metals, aggregates and concrete generated during construction,
Compost removed vegetation,
. Properly sequence construction and drainage to avoid soil
compaction, erosion and sedimentation in green space and
stormwater treatment areas,
. Consider reducing sand and salt application during winter to
save money, promote stormwater BMP functionality, lessen
pavement degradation and reduce this source of stormwater
poll ution,
. Minimize or eliminate the application of sand and salt in
porous pavement areas,
. Sweep streets as early as possible in spring, following
snowmelt and before rains wash sediment downstream.
. Consider sweeping in June, following the drop of tree seeds
and flowers,
. Sweep sediment generating hot spots, such as near
construction sites and aggregate/salt stockpile transfer sites.
. Vacuum sweepers are preferable to broom sweepers,
. Consider convertible sweeping equipment that can perform
cleaning as well as plowing, or other functions,
Infiltration Basins
Design Objective
. To harvest street runoff to water street trees,
. To provide a place for soil life and plant life to treat storm
water,
. To achieve water quality treatment and volume reduction
goals,
. To reduce the rate of stormwater runoff by retaining stormwater
in the gardens,
Design Standard
. Perform a site analysis to determine site suitability for
infi Itration.
. Use information in the RWMWD Kohlman Infiltration Study to
help plan infiltration basin locations,
. Perform soil boring(s) to confirm on-site soils are suitable for
infiltration. Plan locations of infiltration systems where soils
allow infiltration. Hydrologic soil groups A & B typically allow
for the construction of infiltration basins whereas C & D soils
typically require filtration basins.
. Obtain detailed site topographic information, including the
elevations of low openings for existing habitable adjacent
buildings,
. Prevent the unwanted migration of stormwater into sensitive
areas, such as basements and road gravel base material. A
vertical impermeable barrier can help direct water downward
and away from a sensitive area as opposed to laterally or
toward it
. A desirable length to width ratio for an infiltration basin is 3:1
or greater.
. Basin side slopes should be 4H:1 V or flatter. Construct a
retaining wall if space is limited.
. The depth of ponding in the shallow depression shall not
exceed 1 8 inches.
. Stormwater runoff must be pretreated to remove solids before
discharging to infiltration basins to maintain their long-term
viability, At inlets to basins install easily maintainable sediment
pre-treatment devices (forebays, catch basin sumps, grit
chambers and turf filter strips are options),
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
Infiltration areas promote robust
plant growth.
Rainwater gardens in boulevards
along residential streets
A-7
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
Infiltration BMPs
Design and placement of
infiltration 8MPs shall be
done in accordance with the
Minnesota Department of Health
guidance called "Evaluating
Proposed Stormwater Infiltration
Projects in Vulnerable Wellhead
Protection Areas."
A-B
. Design the basin to safely overflow and be bypassed by flood
flows. Do not create flow-through rainwater gardens,
. Install a minimum of 12 inches percolation-friendly planting
soil.
. Plant perennials and shrubs rather than turf grass,
. Place edging around rainwater gardens,
Design Ccmsiderations
. Plants in the gardens should be selected to allow for low
maintenance,
. Consider using shredded hardwood mulch around plantings,
. Consider installing retaining walls On the side opposite the
street edge to maximize storage volume or accommodate a
smaller footprint
Construction and Maintenance Considerations
. Prevent rainwater garden soil compaction during construction.
Do not allow construction equipment into basins during or
after their construction.
. Properly sequence construction work to avoid rainwater garden
inundation and sedimentation prior to plant establishment
. Divert stormwater, especially large flows, around basin during
vegetation establishment period,
. Apply shredded hardwood mulch to the surface of rainwater
gardens as necessary (typically every second year), Decaying
mulch will add to the fertility of the soil.
. Bring basin on-line once vegetation is established and not
before upstream portions of the site are stabilized,
. Sediment pre-treatment devices (forebays, catch basin sumps,
grit chambers and filter strips) will require periodic sediment
removal to maintain filtering ability, Clean them at least
annually, and more often as necessary.
. Basins will require weeding at least monthly during the first 2
years of establishment
. Maintenance after establishment period will include cutting
back standing herbaceous material in the spring along with
weeding and mulching. After that walk through the garden
about every six weeks and pull weeds.
Infiltration basins may require soil corrections, such as the sand trench shown
above, to promote infiltration into subsoils.
Some infiltration basins may be constructed in percolation-friendly soils without the
need for a sand trench or other soil corrections, as shown above.
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
A-9
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
A-IO
filtration Basins
Design Objective
. Filtration basins are used when soils do not allow for
stormwater infiltration.
. To provide a place for soil life and plant life to treat
stormwater,
. To ach ieve water qual ity treatment goals by fi Iteri ng storm water
rather than infiltrating stormwater as accomplished by
infiltration basins.
. To reduce the rate of stormwater runoff by retaining stormwater
in the gardens.
Design Standard
. Filtration basins are similar to infiltration basins, but are
constructed with an underdrain which flows to the storm sewer
system or daylights to grade.
. See Infiltration Basins Design Guidelines for all other
standards.
Design Considerations
. See Infiltration Basins Design Guidelines for considerations,
Construction and Maintenance Considerations
. See Infiltration Basins Design Guidelines for considerations,
A filtration basin collects stormwater in an underdrain system for discharge
downstream.
Soil Preparation and Soil Amendments
Design Objective
. Create rainwater garden soil environments teaming with
microorganisms and plant roots to treat stormwater.
. Create permeable top soils and sub-soils that readily infiltrate
stormwater, and allow plant roots to extend deep into the soil.
. Create fertile, loose soils along road sides that support robust
trees, shrubs and perennials,
Image courtesy of Soils for Salmon: www.soilsforsafmon.org
Design Standard
. Loosen sub-soils at the bottom of rainwater gardens to a
minimum depth of 18" before planting soils are placed, Do this
from the side of the basin with a backhoe, or equivalent
. Place 12" of percolation-friendly planting soil within rainwater
gardens,
. Where possible amend existing top soils with locally available,
sustainably produced amendments, such as organic compost to
produce planting soils.
. Avoid the use of synthetic fertilizers. Instead, compost planting
areas,
. Soils along roadsides should be loosened to a minimum depth
of 24" after road construction is complete, and a minimum of
6" of topsoil should be placed in order to allow stormwater
infiltration and to allow for the healthy growth of trees.
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
A-II
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
A-12
. Keep mechanical equipment off loosened soils to prevent
recompaction,
Design Considerations
. Consider sourcing compost locally whenever possible,
Construction and Maintenance Considerations
. During construction do not allow mechanical equipment into
rainwater gardens, All work should be done from the side to
avoid soil compaction,
. Apply shredded hardwood mulch to the surface of rainwater
gardens as necessary (typically every second year), Decaying
mulch will add to the fertility of the soil.
. Compost dead or cut vegetation.
Plantings and Street Trees
Design Objective
. Shade pavement during summer months to reduce ambient air
temperatures, increase comfort and reduce urban heat island
effect.
. Design easy to maintain yet beautiful rainwater garden plantings,
. Create a unified feel between rainwater gardens along a given
street.
. Plant street trees to create a canopy over the street.
Design Standard
. Plant a diversity of street trees to avoid complete die-out from
rampant disease,
. Street tree species should be selected to avoid those that tend to
heave pavement or penetrate utility pipes, Avoid using species
like elm, birch and poplars. Plant species such as oaks, Kentucky
coffee tree, honey locust and basswood.
. Avoid planting trees where they will interfere with driver sight
lines and adequate street lighting.
. Design simple rainwater garden plantings that are easy to
maintain. Consider the ability and time constraints of property
owners that will maintain rainwater gardens. Most gardens
should be planted with just a few species of robust horticultural
perennials and low growing shrubs to keep maintenance low.
. Native herbaceous plants are difficult to manage to a neat and
tidy appearance, They should be considered high maintenance
gardens, Native herbaceous plants should only be planted
for individuals that fully understand their maintenance
requirements,
. Repeat a few of the boldest species in every garden in a
neighborhood, This will provide visual unity and tie the
neighborhood together in a pleasing appearance,
. Install edging around rainwater gardens to keep lawn from
moving into the garden and therefore reducing maintenance.
. In the bidding documents, request experience qualifications
from contractors, in particular landscaping contractors.
. Protect existing vegetation during construction. Avoid soil
compaction over roots during construction,
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
A-13
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
A-14
.
Plant and seed following proper soil preparation work. See Soil
Preparation and Soil Amendment Guidelines,
Design Cc:msiderations
. Consider using a dominance of ornamental grasses such as
Feather Reed Grass "Karl Foerster" or selections of Switchgass
such as "Heavy Metal" in rainwater gardens, They are deep
rooted, form a good weed barrier, look great, and are simple to
maintain,
Construction and Maintenance Considerations
. Replant vegetated areas as necessary,
. Street trees must be planted as per MN/DOT's standard
planting details, Soils must be properly prepared as described
above.
. Street trees should be pruned regularly; especially during the
first five years after planting, This will extend the life of the
trees,
. Cut back herbaceous plants in rainwater gardens each spring.
At this time also weed and refresh shredded hardwood mulch,
Rainwater gardens should be weeded regularly. Weeding
frequency may be reduced to three or four times per growing
season with proper mulching,
Rainwater garden at Swede Hollow Cafe in St. Paul.
Curbs and Curb Extensions
Design Objective
. Narrow streets widths and reduce impervious surfaces using
curb extensions,
. Curb extensions provide space for stormwater treatment
facilities and reduce pedestrian crossing distance.
Design Standard
. Consider a curbless road section on residential streets that do
not have curbs,
., Concrete curb and gutter should be given preference over
bituminous curb.
. Design roadway cross slopes and curb profile to move
stormwater first to pretreatment areas, then vegetated BMPs in
the right-of-way, Allow excess storm flows to safely overflow
down the gutter line to the storm sewer without unacceptable
roadway inundation. Size overflow structures accordingly.
. Provide catch basin drop inlet structures as inlets to rainwater
garden pretreatment where appropriate,
. Curb cut inlets (curbless sections) should have a minimum
bottom opening length of 4 feet (notincluding tapers), Provide
a minimum 4" drop from gutter elevation into the edge of
the pretreatment facility, Protect this drop area from erosion
with appropriate material, such as splash blocks or a concrete
transition,
. For street edges along bike lanes, choose catch basin inlet
grates that are not hazards to bicyclists
. Where a curb extension is installed, the extension shall be
offset from the incoming curb line a minimum of 4 feet to aide
visibility to oncoming drivers and snow plows. A minimum
transition length of 12 feet shall be used for transitions from
straight curb lines, The minimum back-of-curb radius for the
transition shall be 10 feet Other transition lengths and shapes
can be configured on a project-by-project basis.
. Design curb extensions to best accommodate snow plowing,
Avoid blunt edges and sharp corners, Consider using gradual
curves for the transitions, Consider modified curb designs to
reduce snowplow blade impacts,
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
An example of a curb cut inlet.
Curb extensions can be used to
reduce pedestrian crossing distance.
A-IS
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
A-16
Design Considerations
. Consider marking curb extension transitions with visual cues
for traffic and snow plows, such as vegetation changes or other
design elements,
. Design curb inlet to prevent flow-by, Depress the curb inlet
slightly. Take measures to prevent the creation of hazards for
bicyclists,
. Consider mountable and vertical curb designs for flexibility.
Construction and Maintenance Considerations
. Snow plowing patterns will need to be modified to account for
curb extensions,
Curb extensions are an integra! part of organizing intersections for the needs of
pedestrians and bicycfists, and to provide space for stormwater treatment.
Sidewalks and Crosswalks
Design Objective
. To encourage walking,
. To provide safe walking outside of the roadway
. To organize intersections for safe use by all users.
Design Standard
. Sidewalks shall be a minimum width of 4 feet This is intended
to accommodate walkers and reduce cost while avoiding the
over-creation of impervious surfaces,
. The costs of sidewalks should be shared project.wide and not
allocated to individual homeowners.
. Sidewalks on one side of the street on single family residential
streets are recommended. Institutions may require sidewalk on
both sides,
. Sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, ramp slopes, walkways and
surfacing should be ADA-compliant and in accordance with
statute.
. Avoid obstructions to pedestrian areas.
. Top of sidewalk elevation must be set above rainwater garden
inlet and outlet elevations,
. Utilize curb extensions to slow traffic and shorten pedestrian
crossing distance at intersections and crossings, See Curb and
Curb Extensions design guidelines.
. Plant appropriate tree species that will not heave sidewalks,
See Plantings and StreetTrees design guidelines,
. Coordinate pedestrian ramp locations with stormwater
management facilities to avoid conflicts and unacceptable
inundation of walking areas and waiting areas,
. Intersections must function safely for bicyclists, pedestrians
and drivers, Safety should be the design priority.
. Use recycled materials where possible, such as in aggregates,
pavement materials, bridge materials, wall materials, etc
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
A-17
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
lighting Considerations
Install adequate lighting in the
streetscape, Lighting should
be addressed on a project by
project basis, For additional
information refer to:
. MN/DOT Roadway Lighting
Design Manual (2003)
. Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America
(IESNA) Lighting Handbook,
Recommended Practice
for Roadway Lighting (RP-
8-00) and Recommended
Practice: Lighting for Exterior
Environments (RP-33.99),
A-IS
Design Considerations
. Signalization must be considered on a project-by-project basis
to enhance safety at higher-traffic intersections.
. Place sidewalks a minimum of 6 feet from the curb, unless it is
a drop-off/pick up location,
. Consider enhancing higher-traffic pedestrian nodes (such as
drop-offs, transit stops, and waiting areas) with decorative
pervious pavers, trash receptacles, seating and enhanced
landscaping, Provide tree shade at these locations,
. Where possible, use pedestrian waiting locations at pedestrian
nodes as opportunities to showcase green infrastructure by
contrasting places of human activity with natural green space,
especially stormwater-treatment areas.
. Consider installing miniature pedestrian bridges over rainwater
gardens and swales to enhance streetscape aesthetics and
allow for a continuous storm water treatment area beneath the
bridge,
. Consider placing artistic way finding signage, artistic
neighborhood identifiers or publ ic art at pedestrian nodes
and along key routes. Source imagery for this kind of creative
product locally whenever possible within the North Saint Paul
arts community and, if at all possible, by the citizens actually
living on that street
. Take advantage of intersections and pedestrian routes as
gateways to neighborhoods and individual streets. Consider
placing decorative neighborhood identifiers, retaining walls or
public art at intersections,
Construction and Maintenance Considerations
. Temporary offsetting of roadway centerlines may occur as
individual streets are narrowed, and perhaps shifted within the
right-of-way. Consistency and predictability of the streetscape
will increase as more streets are reconstructed in the spirit of
this plan.
. Construct sidewalks before excavating rainwater gardens.
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
Bicycle Lanes
Design Objective
. To encourage bicycling as an alternative to automobile driving,
. To provide safe bicycling routes for people of all abilities
throughout North Saint Paul.
. To reduce the number of cars on the road, lessening dependence
on street parking, and reducing impervious surfaces,
Design Standard
. Create bike lanes 5 feet wide where ADT <5,000 and 6 feet wide
where ADT>5,000 on 2-lane Collector/Arterial streets, per the
MN/DOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual.
. Design intersections for the safe waiting, turning and movement
of bicycles, especially in higher-traffic areas. Address this priority
prior to addressing automobile needs,
. Accommodate bicycles at intersections, particularly in high-
traffic areas. Provide pavement markings and signage to alert
drivers to their presence,
. Install appropriate sign age, signalization and pavement
markings,
. For street edges along bike lanes, select storm water grates that
prevent bike tires from becoming trapped.
A-19
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
Coordination and
Permitting
Reconstruction work on state-
aid roadways as shown in this
plan, including adding bicycle
lanes, will require coordination
and permitting with Ramsey
County and MN/DOT, Under
current practices, narrowed
drive lanes and bicycle
lanes on any county or state
aid road would require an
Administrative Variance. See
the website for MN/DOT State
Aid for additional information,
Future implementation of the
MN Complete Streets policy
may provide other methods to
accomplish this,
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/
stateaidlindex.html
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/
stateaid/man ual/samO 71
chapterl/1.7,html
A-20
Design Considerations
.
For safety, consider narrowing automobile lanes and lowering
posted speeds to accommodate on-street bicycle lanes,
where feasible, See Street Design Guidelines for additional
information,
.
Consider installing vegetated soil reinforcement pavers at
bicycle storage rack locations to infiltrate stormwateL
Install bicycle storage racks in the right-of-way near businesses
and institutions,
.
.
Ensure bicycle storage rack areas are well-lit for safety.
Construction and Maintenance Considerations
.
Bicycle markings, signage, and signalization require periodic
maintenance and adjustment
~~CJ>oP.f>>/JtAM)'S
n
EXISTING
<; lUlmfUft}
i
,
,="
f"O,"','
i;'''':I'~Cl..l1&~
Um
..,
llJI~ft
~
42m
~,.,
.,..""
PROPOSED
!
~
>Om
~,.,
-""
it r5"t5 T,
:. \~~~
'1.5m lJtti"
(5ffl Pill
*It.M~IM'<l
hsign Waqulnn'rHlm.
f'4tk1ngStript
r--- ~l~~
jOOmm{41Il)ft~1id_
i
BikflLMfIsttipi
f'av$llWfltIOO!!<iflg!ioo
ffiOlIlI1!14Wwldt$OmfyMle
8iuLaMSynWo!&Arrow
Pffl.b.fPiAWtb/'~
pa~l'lUlti!l!l$
tSm16ftj
1.an{Gft)
1.111'1(4<<)
Um(6ft}
14m(4fll
"'~.~1JR)'17
Ins\i!:W.17~igm~oC
..Hotto,lkal~;' pa'l1lAWllJr,1llOO1SIIt~
itlWwi:stlioogtl1lltm:ydelant.
Note: C~J'X!I60't.M;jMUCJU liltlifi';Gki~b~W*;md ~ro.~~!ili;~(t$,
~","e4'1&
CM$lmtn<rl R.(I,W, vAfu I'nrkJl'l$ Cw>e $ (~l Rlyl1t-<ltoWlIY)
....""
IiiNDOT8fhwI.l'FJ:/i}JyDi$/gll1Uttwf
An example of a design aide from the MnlDOT Bikeway Facility
Design Manual.
Public Art
Design Objective
. Use street reconstruction projects as opportunities to improve
neighborhood aesthetics and express local identity,
. Accomplish watershed-wide community art initiatives.
Design Standard
. Integrate public art into public-realm infrastructure when
appropriate, Public art in infrastructure tan be creatively
designed site elements, individual art pieces, experiences or
any other product of creativity of the residents, designers and
artists involved in the project Public art consists of:
Work resulting from or including artists or artful designers
on professional design teams
Physical works of art, including site-specific objects that
beautify the public realm and express the creativity and
identity of the community
Experiential works of art, including site-specific activities
and experiences of various forms and media
. Identify and discuss opportunities during the street design
process to incorporate public art Public art should be included
in the initial stages of design and included in the processes of
public engagement early in the design process,
Design Considerations
. Consider art as an opportunity to celebrate unique
neighborhood identities by encouraging an eclectic mix of
aesthetic styles,
. Consider collaborative city partnerships with community
groups, nonprofit arts organizations and educational
institutions to identify opportunities for art to be integrated into
reconstruction projects,
. Consider showcasing natural resources by developing public
art that make stormwater treatment facilities and natural
systems educational and Interesting,
Construction and Maintenance Considerations
. Request contractor qualifications when issuing a project for bid
that incorporates public art or artful design,
. Designate an entity to perform public art maintenance.
. Consider city insurance policies in selecting public art
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
Public art should beautify the public
realm and express the creativity and
identity of the community.
Public art can include individual art
pieces.
An example of artful stormwater
design from the South Waterfront in
Portland, OR,
A-11
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
A-22
Utilities
Design Objective
. Coordinate the locations of water supply pipes, sanitary sewer
pipes, shallow buried utilities and other utilities with the
reorganization of other "Green" right-of-way elements to avoid
conflicts.
. Minimize costs associated with construction.
. Improve utility location and coordination for less intrusive
access, maintenance and replacement
. Reduce the cost, inconvenience and degradation caused by
uti I ity cuts in roadways,
Design Standard
. Identify locations of all underground utilities when planning
stormwater BMP locations. Discuss with utility entities any
necessary upgrades to buried utilities,
. Practice avoidance as a first alternative to expensive relocation,
Protect in-place utilities that are in good condition, and design
work to accommodate them whenever possible,
. Consider grouping shallow buried utilities in a narrowed
corridor along one side of single-family residential streets,
When utilities are located, every effort will be made to
consolidate in a combined utility trench,
. Avoid placing sanitary manholes within storm water basins
or where vegetation obstructs access, Ensure manholes are
accessible.
. Where possible, install sanitary manhole covers above
inundation levels. Where inundation appears likely, install
bolted watertight castings to inhibit inflow,
. Avoid placing water service valves, curb stops, isolation valves
or fire hydrants within stormwater basins or where vegetation
obstructs access.
. Avoid placing street light poles within stormwater basins.
. Avoid placing shallow buried utilities beneath stormwater
basins or tree plantings whenever possible,
. Avoid placing utility vaults where they could be flooded by
stormwater management facilities,
. Strictly enforce soils compaction, aggregate specifications, and
pavement specifications where roadway sections are replaced
due to utility cuts.
Design Considerations
. Consider minimum cover requirements over all underground
utilities when planning stormwater basin grading,
. Consider techniques to prevent water service pipe freezing,
such as insulation, to better locate bioretention facilities within
the right-of-way.
. Consider the use of impermeable liners to protect utilities
where infiltration is proposed, A vertical impermeable barrier
can help direct water downward and away from a utility as
opposed to laterally or toward it
. Avoid significant grading where shallow buried utilities are
present, such as gas service (particularly laterals), fiber optic,
etc whenever possible, Work with utility-owning entities to
relocate utilities if necessary.
. Consider in-place replacement or rehabilitation of pipes and
manholes.
. Certain projects may warrant the use of a utility duct to group
and contain important buried utilities. This method is attractive
if frequent maintenance to the utility is necessary or space,is
limited,
Construction and Maintenance Considerations
. Wherever possible, practice avoidance as an alternative to
expensive removal and replacement of stormwater facilities
when utility maintenance is required,
. Establ ish a common practice for how the city is compensated
by utility companies for the unexpected repair of stormwater
facilities and landscaping damaged during unexpected utility
cut activities.
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
A-23
Appendix A-Design Element Guidelines
A-24
di
i
om
.
1
.
10
s
I
Goal
Implement Living Street reconstruction projects consistent with the design guidelines of this plan,
Objectives
. Achieve broad community awareness and support of Living Streets and their benefits
. Achieve active and visible support of Living Streets among target audiences
Action Items
1, Create key messages, Build broad community awareness and support for Living Streets by using key
messages (and slogans) and images in all communication programs (e,g., posters, mailers, websites).
. The key messages will emphasize that Living Streets will encourage physical movement and
health, that every neighborhood will benefit, and that Living Streets will connect neighborhoods
to each other and create and a distinct image for the city.
. This message will be delivered through the Living Street image below,
8-1
Appendix B---Living Streets Communications Plan
2. Direct communications and outreach efforts should be directed to the target audiences listed below.
Messages in these outreach efforts should specifically highlight the identified benefits of living
streets for each audience.
B-2
Appendix B-Living Streets Communications Plan
3, Build coalitions with, and get endorsements from supportive organizations. Examples include:
a. The 16 neighborhood watch groups
b, Law enforcement agencies
c Civic groups (Lions, Rotary, KCs, VFW)
d. Downtown Business Assoc
e, PTA
r Arts Counci I
g, Health Partners
h, Blue Cross Blue Shield
i, Principal and teachers at city schools
j. Beam Avenue residents
k, Active Living Ramsey County
I. Seniors at Southwood Nature Preserve
m, North St. Paul Master Naturalists
n. District 622 School Staff (principals and grounds staff)
0, North St. Paul Greens
4. Build awareness and understanding of Living Streets:
a, at special events:
L "Night Out" block/house parties
i L School open houses
iiL Car show
iv. Highway 36 planting initiative
b, Through existing communications
L City utility bill newsletter and quarterly brochure
iL NSPtodatorg
iii. City website
c Other opportunities:
L Community center bulletin boards
iL Patches on kid's backpacks
iii. Kids' contest to create complete green streets images
5. Use the Living Streets Fact Sheet to communicate the basic information about living streets and their
benefits,
6. Use the Living Street Construction Process Fact Sheet to communicate the street design and
assessment process the city uses for managing each street construction project.
8-1
Appendix B--Livlng Streets Communications Plan
The fact sheets are included as part of this plan on the following pages,
8-4
(;jhat do Lldna ~treet! look Ilk?
Living streets will vary depending on the street function
and location in the city. The Living Streets Plan includes
design templates for three different types of streets (see
residential concept at right) and concepts for busier
collector streets.
Residential design concept
Living Streets are designed to balance safety and
convenience for everyone using the street Elements of
a Living Street may include:
. sidewalks on one side .
. bike lanes (or wide
paved shoulders)
. parking .
. marked street .
crossings .
. pedestrian signals
comfortable and
accessible
transit stops
rainwater gardens
trees
vegetation
Existing
residential
street layout
Proposed
residential
street layout
fJ)hat are the Benef/'6! of LiYlna ~treetr.?
. Living Streets have economic benefits because they:
- Cost less to build
- Reduce long-term maintenance costs
- Increase property values
- Spark economic revitalization
. Living Streets build community because they:
- Increase safety by incorporating traffic-calming and speed-reducing
elements
- Help children by providing room for safe walking and biking
- Improve public health by encouraging a healthy life-style for people
of all ages
- Enhance neighborhood beauty and strengthen a sense of community
. Living Streets improve environmental quality because they:
- Improve water quality of lakes and streams with addition of
rainwater gardens
- Improve air quality by providing the means to reduce CO, emissions
and other poll utants
- Reduce summer heat generated by streets by using less asphalt and
more street trees
- Reduce raw material and energy used in street construction by
building smaller street surfaces
fJ)hen rolll ml.{ heel; become a Lid>>
," ".... ",'.."..,..;....,.... ,";'" " "...."", '.." ",....",0..;;::
{;jhd Is !treet recon!tramon?
Street reconstruction involves removing and replacing
all asphalt, concrete and aggregate base on a roadway
segment A street reconstruction project may also
include removing and replacing or constructing new
curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, It may also include traffic
control improvements, adding streetlights, and drainage
improvements, Water and sewer improvements may be
completed in conjunction with a street reconstruction
project, although they are noti ntegral to the roadway.
Streets, such as this one, present the greatest opportunity to create new
landscape space for stormwater treatment and trees, and sidewalks for
pedestrians.
{;jhd happens after the !tr~
are selected?
Infrastructure improvements, including streets and
utilities, are approved by the Council in the 5-year
Capital Improvement Plan (ClP). Each year, a specific
dollar amount is approved for these improvements,
Under the authority granted by Minnesota Statues,
Chapter 429, staff begins the process of determining
the feasibility of each project
fJJhdJ & the ti(plcat proce!! for recondrndlon?
The typical process from start to finish is one to two years.
MARCH
The City begins a preliminary
design and feasibility study, This
includes an evaluation of the
street and utility infrastructure,
street lighting, and bike and
pedestrian accessibility.
ill
l~'~IW,l
"
JULY
Information on the project is
mailed to affected residents
and businesses, including
an announcement of a
neighborhood open house,
Information includes the
estimated special assessment
to the property owners,
information on Living Streets, and estimated dates for public hearings,
..,,]5t1!i$X~![J
AAlN{'oMWrn
__~;M':,iL~!:If~~,_",""__,_.
~N~~n-~.1i1~
~{tlLB-~___
MID-SEPT
NOVEMBER
A neighborhood information meeting is held to discuss neighborhood concerns and design
issues. This information is used to complete the preliminary design and feasibility study,
The City completes the preliminary design and feasibility study,
A publichearing is held before the City Council to discuss the design and feasibility
study. This will include information on estimated project costs and preliminary special
assessments for property owners. Affected residents and businesses are notified per state
law, Residents can speak publicly regarding the project The Council will decide if the
project is warranted,
If the Council
A
e
*
IX
Bi
I
.
I
I
Plan Goals
Early in the Living Streets planning process, the Citizen Task Force developed a preliminary city-wide
bicycle and sidewalk Plan, This draft plan is intended to be a starting point for a larger comprehensive
effort to develop a city-wide bicycle and sidewalk plan, Prior to mapping potential locations for bike
facilities and sidewalks, the Task Force identified goals for new bike facilities and sidewalks:
. Develop safe and convenient links to schools, commercial hubs, employment centers, institutions,
and transit facilities.
. Develop recreational pathways that link neighborhoods to parks and natural areas, especially the
Gateway trail.
The plan shown in the following map is a compilation of "mapped" ideas from all Task Force members,
The plan was created based on member's knowledge of local conditions, Specific mapping of bike
facilities and sidewalk locations were intended to:
. Improve safety on busy streets
. Fill gaps in existing sidewalks
. Provide safe routes to schools and major destinations
. Connect neighborhoods to parks and natural areas
. Separate pedestrians from areas of high bicycle activity
The Task Force recognized that sidewalks are not needed on both sides of every street. The Task Force
worked with the idea of developing a "right size" network that prioritizes needs.
C-I
') I lYO"'AVE /
J ~( ~ .;'V P.1'~
l . ./
-
J,)
~) ~ Do,
r )
L",w^,
~-,~ ---I
--"''"~ , l ' ~~
~ ~ . (<
, MESABI ~-
~ l -
0",- SHAWN
t~ & ""<<ill
,
I h ,.THAVE
, i 0
i
'--' ~
~ MO~^~KRO .~ "
CO""," , /
-- . .. .
i~ R",a t<I.;,,, '_ Gre;w.o
,.THAVEE EI"", ":.'1 .SL~"I"'.
" "...,,0:. ~
" I
0
l 1~THAVENW
lOTCl~ , 14TH AVE . 'oTH""
W
. ,
m 13THAVE
~ M",I;', h
,
"'-t'JWDE/lS 12TllAVEE
;'";''' w V
TH:'(.oa .""
""-.. . ,
. .'.
\ N,,,'" ,
:"-1l Ki9hO , -
." .~-~ -
9T1-l/WE
!~ .r''',~''l Centr
Park '"
: ,~R'''' MCKNIGHT-HWYJ!.UM~~ " ~'"
~IGHWA'Ml6' /-"~,,w.'
:t w
, v'* 4TH AVE
, ~
~ ~ ~;
" " "
-'-'" ..'"
y' '7 ' o 0
LA\JI'lIE I> -- · , . 2NDAVE
. - -
~ ,,#~ i ,
, ,
I c;c#"- , ,
,
I ,
I .- r.....,.. .......'.. ~ 0 .~;';w"n ~
!~ a Sli",o; 8\JRKEAVE p~.~.
KEAVE tr
/" Tot ElORIOGEAVEE ~
/~ LOt ELCflIOllEAVE ~EE
= , ~ II
Colb ,:fltll$ /' 0 B~ !
. ,
i;"~,,~w~ "\.. BEjONTLN
MANAI<E
. ~
I G , , . """". nWlOOO~' SHRYE
w Ii
/* .~~:;:~:'. ~ r 1 ~ No d
, ,
" ,$ ; II 1
; - -
- - I !
.
. ! ,
I .~~;~ 0
,
o~~ ,
. ~anF,,;,;,; ~...v" !
l ( ~
Bike & Pedestrian System
-EXISTINGFOOTPATH
-EXISTlNGSIDEWALK
.... . PROPOSED SIDEWALK
w",oPROPOSEDSIDEWALK.2
_EXlSTINGBIKELANE
u='PROPOSEDBIKELANE
_8<ISTINGTRAIL
......GPROPOSEDTRAIL
"'''''=PROPOSEDPARKWAY
GreonSp""e
Su~aceWat"r
. CommunllyFacllil;es
Kohlman Creek Subwatershed
Greenlnfrastruc\\JreProject
CilyofNorthSaintPBul,MN
"d
Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed District
~'~"
Nz')'RTH
" $I.PAIII.
o
Draft Bicycle and Sidewalk Plan
Appendix C
"am~Q1-waGnl"",""'M_"
1IJ~~-,".,
4"j
-
~
o
450
goo
1,800
Feet
.
I
un
.
I
continued on the next page
D-I
Appendix D-Grant Funding Sources
D-2
Appendix D-Grant Funding Sources
D-3
Attachment 2
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
LIVING STREETS DISCUSSION
MARCH 15, 2011
The following is a recap of the March 15, 2011, planning commission discussion items during the Living
Streets Policy review:
1, City Engineer Michael Thompson gave an introduction of Living Streets. He then introduced the
guest speaker.
2. Cliff Aichinger, Administrator for the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, guest speaker,
gave a presentation on Living Streets and the recent process undertaken in North Saint Paul. The
PowerPoint presentation discussed goals and benefits of Living Streets and practical examples.
3, Questions of the Commission then commenced:
a, Concerns with 22' wide street and how snow plows can navigate the streets.
b. Talk of bump-outs and how plows would need to maneuver to correctly plow the streets
c, Another concern with 22' wide street Michael Thompson reminded the Commission that we
were not proposing a standard but rather fostering discussion and the feedback on concerns
is very helpful in guiding future discussion and policy language, Policies are flexible and
could allow for context sensitive solutions,
d, A member brought up a concern about emergency vehicles, Cliff responded saying that all
fire personnel in N. St Paul was part of the plan writing and reviewed the standards and
said they would make it work, Cliff showed slides of vehicles successfully maneuvering
narrow streets of 22'. Also the Commissioner asked if Maplewood had any 22' wide streets,
Michael Thompson responded yes, that Skillman Ave in the Kenwood neighborhood was 22'
with no restricted parking, There have been no complaints from residents or emergency
crews over the past 4 years since its installation,
e, There was a concern about trees being planted in the boulevard and that they should not be
too thick because this could hinder visibility for drivers and pedestrians,
f. Discussion on winter maintenance and parking restrictions.
g. Discussion about becoming greener with building practices such as utilizing pavers,
h, Recognition by a member that narrower streets in fact do slow traffic, Further stated that
most residents complain about traffic speeds, yet many do not want to narrow streets and
install sidewalks to improve safety, A mind set change must occur.
i. Concern that sidewalks would add to resident plowing duties, Responded that benefits
greatly outweigh" "N. St Paul has a "help your neighbor" program. This further fosters
community interaction, etc.
j. Make sure costs are at or less than that to reinstall a full width street Cliff discussed that
when you reduce a road from 32' to 22' there is a significant cost savings that allows
investments into rain gardens, trees, bump-outs, etc.,. .In conformance with Living Streets
concepts,
k, Mention that we really need to have a long range plan for sidewalk and trail connections and
this would be a good policy to start its implementation, This would help with promoting
active living,
4, Michael thanked the Commissioners for the feedback and that these items would be presented to
the other Boards and Commissions to give an idea of the conversation. The plan is to return again
to the PC for further discussion after going to the ENRC (April) and CDRB (March),
This summary was drafted by Michael Thompson,
Agenda Item 5.d.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission 2010 Annual
Report
April 14, 2011 for the April 18 ENR Commission Meeting
INTRODUCTION
Annually the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission submits a report to the city council
which outlines the actions and activities taken by the commission during the preceding year,
recommendations needed to existing ordinances or policies based on past reviews, and goals
envisioned for the upcoming year. The report serves as a means of relaying important information
to the City Council on the Commission's accomplishments and obtaining feedback on proposed
goals,
RECOMMENDATION
Review and offer feedback/comment on the attached ENR Commission 2010 Annual Report,
Attachment: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission 2010 Annual Report
Attachment
City of Maplewood
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
2010 Annual Report
April 18, 2011
Preface
The Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission is charged with protecting,
preserving and enhancing the environment of the City of Maplewood,
Members
The ENR Commission consists of seven members appointed by the City Council. Membership
terms are for three years, with extensions for additional terms approved by the City Council. The
current membership is as follows:
Board Member
Membership Beqan
Term Expires
Bill Schreiner
Judith Johannesen
Dale Trippler
Randee Edmundson
Carole Lynne
Carol Mason Sherrill
Ginny Yingling
06/09/08
07/14/08
02/25/08
02/08/10
11/27/06
11/27/06
11/30/06
09/30/11
09/30/11
09/30/12
09/30/12
09/30/13
09/30/13
09/30/13
Chair and Vice Chair
Each year the commission appoints commissioners to serve as chair and vice chair of the
commission, On January 13, 2011, the commission appointed Commissioner Schreiner to be the
chair and Commissioner Edmundson to be the vice chair. In 2010 the chair was Commissioner
Trippler and the vice chair was Commissioner Schreiner,
Meetings
The ENR Commission's meetings are held the third Monday of every month at 7:00 p,m. In 2009,
the ENR Commission held 13 meetings, Twelve of those meetings were regularly scheduled
monthly meetings, and one was a special meeting - recycling contractor informational meeting prior
to the release of the city's request for proposal for a new recycling contract
2010 Attendance
Commissioner
Attendance
Dale Trippler
Carol Mason Sherrill
Randee Edmundson
Ginny Yingling
Judith Johannesen
Carole Lynne
Bill Schreiner
13 of 13
12 of 13
12 of 13
12 of 13
11 of 13
08 of 13
08 of 13
Reviews and Accomplishments
The ENR Commission is a strong element to the city's environmental planning, One of the
commission's missions is to develop and promote sustainable practices for city policies and
procedures, In 2010 the ENR Commission worked on the following environmental issues:
1, Chicken Ordinance to Encourage Sustainable Foods
2, Stormwater Ordinance
3, Fish Creek Greenway Ad-Hoc Commission
4, Eureka Recycling 2009 Year-End Recycling Report
5. Recycling Contract Request for Proposal
6, Flood Plain Ordinance
7. Renewable Energy Ordinance
8, Extreme Green Makeover Judging
9, Review of two wetland variances,
10. Review of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
11, Emerald Ash Borer
12. Greenways
13. Collection System Analysis
14, Neighborhood Environmental Groups
15, Maplewood 2011 Street Project - Western Hills Area
Outside Activities
1. Waterfest
2. Community Development and Parks Tour
3. National Night Out Recycling Bin Distribution
4. Collaborative Joy Park Buckthorn Removal Project
5. Spring and Fall Clean Ups
Goals
During the ENR Commission's January 13, 2011, Goal Setting Meeting, the commission chose to
carry over their 2010 goals to 2011 as follows:
1. Trash Hauling (Organized Collection)
2, Greenways
3. Neighborhood Environmental Groups
On April 19, 2010, the commission created subcommittees to assist in the implementation of these
goals, with two to three commissioners appointed to each subcommittee (Organized Collection -
Commissioners Trippler, Lynne, Schreiner; Greenways - Commissioners Yingling and
Johannesen; Neighborhood Environmental Groups - Commissioners Mason Sherrill, Edmundson,
and Johannesen), The subcommittees will conduct research, interviews, and assist staff in review
of the goals and report back to the full commission, The full commission will make
recommendations on any policies proposed for these goals.
2
Conclusion
The ENR Commission will continue to carry out the mission of the commission as follows:
1. Establish environmental priorities for the city.
2, Make recommendations on policies, procedures and ordinances that control, protect,
preserve, and enhance the city's environmental assets,
3, Participate in the mission and goal of the Maplewood Nature Center and Neighborhood
Preserves,
4, Promote greater use and appreciation of the city's environmental assets,
5, Sponsor environmental projects to enhance, repair, replace, or restore neglected or
deteriorating environmental assets of the city.
6. Develop educational programs that foster the mission of the commission,
7, Develop and promote sustainable practices for city policies and procedures,
3
Agenda Item 6,a,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
2011 Goals. Implementation Strategies
April 14, 2011 for the April 18 ENR Commission Meeting
INTRODUCTION
On January 13, 2011, the Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission held a goal
setting meeting, During the meeting the commission chose to carry over the 2010 goals for
continued implementation in 2011 including greenways, neighborhood environmental groups, and
trash hauling, In addition, the commission wants to increase environmental public outreach efforts
and continue work on the wetland, shoreland, slope, and Mississippi Critical Area regulations in
2011, This memorandum will review options for implementing the 2011 goals,
DISCUSSION
Status of Goals
1. Trash Hauling: The trash hauling subcommittee attended city council workshops and
meetings to testify on the research and findings of organized versus open systems of trash
hauling, The subcommittee also assisted with public education by appearing in the
Spotlight on Maplewood cable show in August 2010 that highlighted goals and objectives
for reviewing the city's current open system of trash hauling,
On March 28, 2011, the city council adopted a resolution of intent to organize trash
collection, which is required by state statute in order to begin the organized planning
process. The statute requires that the city dedicate 60 days to planning and 60 days to
negotiations prior to approval of an organized system. Staff will present a scope of work to
the city council on April 25, 2011, which will outline the city's strategy for accomplishing the
statutory requirements.
Part of the strategy includes the formation of a Trash Hauling Working Group, This group
will be made up of two city council members and a maximum of three ENR Commissioners,
During the April 4 city council workshop, the council appointed Councilmembers Nephew
and Juenemann to be on the working group, The working group will meet approximately
twice a month for three months to conduct analysis and review of various collection
systems. The working group will report their findings to the full city council.
2. Greenways: The greenways subcommittee began planning for programming in the
Holloway/Beaver Creek Greenway, This greenway was chosen because of the natural
resource projects which will take place in the greenway in 2011,
The subcommittee scheduled a greenway neighborhood event for Saturday, May 14, 2011,
at Hill Murray High School (which is located in the Holloway/Beaver Creek Greenway), The
subcommittee will invite all residents living in or near the greenway to the event, which will
include a presentation on basic greenway concepts and the ecology of the Holloway/Beaver
1
Creek Greenway, as well as a bus tour to view successes and challenges in the greenway,
The subcommittee also began designing a greenway brochure which will give an overview
of greenways and include maps and photographs specific to each greenway,
3. Neighborhood Environmental Groups: The neighborhood environmental subcommittee was
formed to look at ways to support neighborhoods in taking action to improve their
environment In 2010 the subcommittee focused on energy efficiency and conservation by
partnering with Metro Clean Energy Resource Team and Xcel Energy to present an energy
efficiency workshop, During the workshop energy experts gave a presentation on simple
ways to save money and energy in homes and discussed energy efficiency programs and
rebates offered by Xcel Energy, The energy workshop was a good start to engaging
residents in the energy and neighborhood environmental group dialogue.
During the last subcommittee meeting, the group discussed expanding efforts into other
environmental areas. . One idea includes working with the greenways subcommittee to
focus on environmental neighborhood programs going on in the Holloway/Beaver Creek
Neighborhood in 2011,
Additionally, the subcommittee will have an opportunity to discuss their neighborhood
environmental group efforts during the April 2011 Spotlight on Maplewood cable show.
During the show the city will spotlight energy efficiency and conservation goals and
objectives, The subcommittee will be interviewed on ways neighbors can join together to
improve energy efficiency in their homes and the community as a whole.
Events
During the goal setting meeting the commission stated they would like to place more emphasis on
environmental public outreach in 2011. To achieve this, the commission has agreed to review a
calendar of events, and request that commissioners sign up to assist staff in the planning and
participation of the event Following are events to consider for participation:
Calendar Year - 2011
April
. 9 (Saturday): Maplewood Park Clean Up
. 30 (Saturday): Spring Clean Up
May
. 7 (Saturday): Rain Barrel/Compost Bin
Sales
. 7 (Saturday): Treemendous/Arbor Day
Event
. 14 (Saturday): Greenway
Presentation/Bus Tour
. 21 (Saturday): Waterfest
June
. 11 (Saturday): National Get Outdoors
Day
Ju/y
. 13-17 (Wed, - Sun) Ramsey Co. Fair
August
. 2 (Tuesday): National Night Out
. 19 and 20? (FriJSat) - Taste of
Maplewood
September
. End of Sept (Saturday): Friends of
Maplewood Nature Annual Picnic
October
. 15 or 22 (Saturday): Fall Clean Up
. End of Oct, Beginning of Nov,
(Saturday): Public Buckthorn Removal
Event
2
RECOMMENDATIONS
Review the 2011 goals and determine how best to implement them throughout the year. If the
ENR Commission chooses to continue implementation of the Greenways and Neighborhood
Environmental Group goals through subcommittees; commissioners should determine if the same
or new commissioners are appointed to each subcommittee. If no subcommittees are planned for
these two goals, the existing subcommittees should be disbanded as recommended in the
Commission Handbook. Additionally, the commission should disband the Trash Hauling
subcommittee, and determine if the same or new commissioners are appointed to the newly
formed Trash Hauling Working Group.
3
Agenda Item 6.b.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
Chicken Ordinance
April 14, 2011 for the April 18 ENR Commission Meeting
INTRODUCTION
Urban communities throughout the country are considering allowing chickens in residential
areas as a way of promoting urban agriculture and sustainability. There has been an interest by
some Maplewood residents and the Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission
to allow chickens in Maplewood for this purpose as well. Maplewood's zoning code prohibits
the raising or handling of poultry (including chickens) in all single dwelling residential zoning
districts.
BACKGROUND
In October 2009 the ENR Commission began to review the feasibility of allowing chickens in
residential zoning districts as a means of promoting more sustainable food products. Since that
time the Commission has reviewed comments from residents, the Maplewood Animal Control
Officer, Chief of Police, and Health Officer in regard to this matter. Staff has conducted
research on other cities in the metropolitan area that have developed chicken ordinances.
The comments reflected both positive and negative impacts due to the raising of chickens in
residential areas. Positive impacts include homeowners producing their own organic eggs and
using the manure for garden fertilizer. The main negative impacts outlined by staff were
possible nuisance complaints from neighbors.
After review of the research and comments, the ENR Commission recommended approval of an
ordinance on July 19, 2010, which would allow up to ten chickens on a residential lot of any size
with a permit. The permit can only be approved if at least 75 percent of the property owners
within 150 feet consent to the permit. The ENR Commission attempted to address all of the
possible negative impacts of raising chickens in residential areas with regulations such as
prohibiting roosters (noise impacts), requiring chickens to be housed in chicken coops located in
the back yard, requiring chickens to be contained in a fenced area, requiring chickens to be
banded for identification in the event they get loose, and prohibiting the slaughtering of chickens
on the property.
In August and September 201 0, the Planning Commission reviewed the chicken ordinance
(Refer to Attachment 1 and 2). Several issues were raised by the Commission during the
review including requiring larger lot sizes, requiring 100 percent of the neighbors to approve of a
permit, concerns about permit cost, and chicken coop and run placement. After two meetings,
the Planning Commission recommended denial of the ordinance by a vote of four to three, with
some of the commissioners who voted against the ordinance indicating they would be more
supportive of the ordinance if additional protections were built in for surrounding residential
properties such as requiring larger lots for the keeping of chickens, etc.
1
On March 7, 2011, the City Council held a workshop to discuss the proposed chicken ordinance
(Refer to Attachment 3). Following is a summary of their discussion:
1. Comment: What would Hillcrest Animal Hospital do with an unclaimed chicken?
Response: By law the city is required to hold a domestic animal for seven days. After
those seven days, the animal becomes the property of the Hillcrest Animal Hospital, as
outlined in the city's animal boarding contract with Hillcrest. Hillcrest Animal Hospital
attempts to find homes for animals that are unclaimed. However, if they are unable to
find a home for an animal they do euthanize animals. That would cost the city an
additional $58 on top of drop off and boarding fees. There was discussion among the
City Council that it would be easy for Hillcrest Animal Hospital to find a new home for
chickens if they are still producing eggs.
2. What if a neighbor signs a petition, and then determines after the fact that it is a
nuisance and no longer wants the chickens next to their property?
Response: The requirement is for the property owner to obtain a yearly permit. The city
could notify the adjoining property owners prior to issuance of a yearly permit to
determine if there are any complaints. However, staff does not recommend that a yearly
permit require the same neighborhood petition. Property owners must invest in a
chicken coop, fencing, and chickens prior to the issuance of the first permit. It would not
be fair to pull that permit and take away a property owner's investment because a new
neighbor did not support the use. The permit should be reissued if there are no ongoing
nuisance issues.
3. Ten chickens on any size lot may not be fair. The city should look into allowing chickens
based on a sliding scale depending on lot size.
Response: The City of Minneapolis allows chickens in residential zoning with a permit.
The permit allows a maximum of 25 chickens, which is determined by a chicken per
square foot calculation.
In closing, a majority of the City Council expressed support for allowing chickens in residential
zoning districts. The City Council requested that staff bring the ordinance back before the ENR
Commission for final review and recommendation.
DISCUSSION
Following is research and information the ENR Commission has previously reviewed and
submitted here for your information.
Cities Which Permit Chickens in Residential Zoning Districts
1. Minneapolis
. Permit requirements:
o Fee- $50 (first year) and $30 (any renewals)
o Map showing chicken coop location in the yard
o Up to 25 chickens are allowed, determined by a chicken/square foot
calculation
2
o Permit must be approved by at least 80 percent of neighbors within 100 feet
of the property
o Chickens are allowed in garages
o Roosters are prohibited
. Inspection: required before issuing permit and renewal
. The city has not received any complaints about loose chickens
2. St. Paul
. Permit requirements:
o Fee- $25 (first year) and $15 (any renewals)
o Fee increases if a household has four or more chickens-$72
o Map showing location of chicken coop in the yard
o No maximum number of chickens is specified in the St. Paul ordinance
o Permit must be approved by at least 75 percent of neighbors within 150 feet
of the property
o Chickens are allowed in garages
o Rodent proof food containers are required
. Impounding costs:
o Initially: $55
o Additional days: $18 per day
. 5 complaints a week-households that own chickens but do not have a permit
3. Oakdale:
. Permit requirements:
o Permit must be approved by at least 75 percent of neighbors within 150 feet
of the property
o No maximum number of chickens is specified in the Oakdale ordinance
. Inspection: required before issuing permit
. The city has not received any complaints about loose chickens.
. Currently the City of Oakdale only has one permit issued for chickens.
4. Shoreview:
. Permit requirements:
o Fee- $30
o Up to four chickens are allowed on residential property of two acres in size or
less.
o More than four chickens are allowed on residential property greater than two
acres in size
o Map showing location of chicken coop in the yard
o Roosters are prohibited
o Slaughtering of chickens is prohibited
. Inspection: required before issuing permit and renewal
5. Burnsville:
. Permit requirements:
o Fee- $50
o Up to four chickens are allowed on residential property
o Map showing location of chicken coop in yard
o Chickens are not allowed to be stored inside garages or attached structures
to homes.
3
a The city provides leg bands for the chickens to be identified if a chicken goes
missing.
o Chickens must be fenced
6. Rosemount:
. Permit requirements:
a Up to three chickens allowed on a residential property, no permit required
a License is required in order to have chickens and is issued on an annual
basis.
a Residents must be informed of the proposed chicken coop
a Rodent proof food containers are requires.
o Map showing location of chicken coop in yard
o The chicken coop must be 75 feet from any other residential structure and ten
feet from the property line.
a The chickens must be raised in a manner not to cause injury or annoyance to
persons on other property in the vicinity by reason of noise, odor, or filth.
. Inspection: required before issuing a license
. A chicken may be humanely euthanized or sold after it has been impounded for a
violation of the ordinance and no owner has claimed the chicken within five business
days.
Permit Cost
Before the ENR Commission proceeded with the review of allowing chickens in residential
zoning districts, they wanted to ensure the ordinance would not cost taxpayers money. They
requested that staff estimate the time and costs associated with administration and enforcement
of chicken permits. Following are the costs associated with impounding and boarding a stray
chicken, the Animal Control Officer's fee schedule, and estimates on administrative time and
costs for processing a permit:
Enforcement: In the case of a chicken nuisance in Maplewood, the Animal Control Officer
would address the issue. It may be necessary to impound the chicken after a complaint. The
City of Maplewood sends all stray domestic animals to the Hillcrest Animal Hospital. Fees for
the cost of enforcement and impounding of a chicken are listed below:
Fee Charge
Animal Control Officer Time (hourly fee) $38.00/hour
Animal Control Officer Time (call out fee) $82.00
Impound Chicken (Hillcrest Animal Hospital) $42.00
BoardinQ Chicken (Hillcrest Animal Hospital) 18.00/day or $1 02-for UP to 6 days
If the Animal Control Officer had to pick up and impound a stray chicken, the cost would be $82
for a call out fee and $42 to impound the chicken ($124). If an owner did not pick up a chicken
that same day, the fee would increase $18 a day, for a maximum of six days (up to $232). After
six days the animal becomes the property of Hillcrest Animal Hospital, who would attempt to find
a home for the animal. On some occasions, however, an animal may need to be euthanized.
4
Permit: The permit process would include a property owner submitting an application and fee to
the Community Development Department. City Planners would review the permit to determine
if all required materials were submitted including a review of the zoning and neighborhood
consents. Once the permit is reviewed, the City Planners would forward the permit to the
Animal Control Officer for an initial inspection. If the inspection was approved, the City Planner
would sign off on the permit and submit it to the city's Licensing Clerk, who would process the
permit and ensure annual reviews.
Staff estimates that it would take a City Planner approximately one hour to complete their work,
the Animal Control Officer's review and inspection would take one hour, and the Licensing Clerk
would take one hour to input and process the permit. Overall staff time is estimating that it
would take three hours to process a chicken permit on average. Based on this estimate and
using the Animal Control Officer's hourly fee of $32 an hour, the city should charge $96 for an
initial permit in order to recoup costs. Less could be charged for the annual renewals as that
would not require as much time to process.
If a chicken ordinance were adopted with a permit requirement, the City Council would set the
fees associated with permitting on an annual basis. After review of the above estimates, the
ENR Commission stated that a fee of $96 would be cost prohibitive for an applicant and the city
could probably process the permits for less time and money. They based this on research from
cities that allow chickens with a permit. The ENR Commission recommended Maplewood
charge the fees currently being charged by the City of Minneapolis, $50 for a permit and $30 for
a renewal. Minneapolis representatives have stated these fees cover their costs. The ENR
Commission recommended the city monitor the fees to ensure coverage of administrative and
enforcement costs. If the fees are found to be too low, the City Council could adjust the fees
during their annual fee reviews.
Since the ENR Commission's recommendation, staff reviewed the process and fees associated
with dog and cat permits for comparison. The city issues a dog or cat permit at city hall or by
mail. An applicant submits an application, fee, and proof of rabies vaccination and the city
issues the permit. Permits run for two years with a fee of $21.00 for a non-spayed or non-
neutered dog or cat ($19.00 if the owner is a senior) and $18.00 for a spayed or neutered dog or
cat ($16.00 if the owner is a senior). The dog and cat permit process takes less time than the
proposed chicken permitting process, which would require verification of neighbor consent and
a site inspection.
Proposed Ordinance Amendment
Residential Zoninq:
1. Following is an amendment proposed to the Maplewood Zoning Code that would allow
chickens in residential areas (additions are underlined and deletions are stricken from
the original ordinance):
Chapter 44 (Zoning), Article II (District Regulations), Division 3 (R-1 Residence District)
Sec. 44-6. Definitions.
Poultry means domesticated birds that serve as a source of eggs or meat and that
include among commercially important kinds, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, peafowl,
pigeons, pheasants and others.
5
Sec. 44-103. Prohibited uses.
The following uses are prohibited in the R-1 Residence district:
(1) The raising or handling of livestock, poultry (except for chickens as outlined in
Sections 10-476 throuqh 10-487. Chickens) or animals causing a nuisance,
except for licensed kennels.
2. Most of the city's single dwelling residential zoning districts have a permitted and
prohibited uses section. The R-1 zoning district lists the specific uses, and subsequent
single dwelling zoning districts should refer to those same uses as well. There are five
single dwelling residential zoning districts as follows: R-1, R-1 S, RE-30,000, RE 40,000,
and R-1R. Two of those single dwelling zoning districts (R-1R and R-1S) do not have
the reference to permitted or prohibited uses, and as such require an amendment as
follows:
Chapter 44 (Zoning), Article II (District Regulations), Division 5 (R-1 S Small-lot Single
Dwelling District)
Sec. 44-192. Permitted uUses.
ill Permitted uses. The only permitted uses allowed in the R-1S small-lot single-
dwelling district are the permitted uses in the R-1 district.
@. Prohibited uses.
@} Accessorv buildinQs without an associated dwellinq on the same
premises.
{Ql The raisinq or handlinQ of livestock. poultrv (except for chickens as
outlined in Sections 10-476 throuqh 10-487. Chickens) or animals
causinQ a nuisance. except for licensed kennels.
Chapter 44 (Zoning), Article II (District Regulations), Division 3.5 (R-1 R Rural
Conservation Dwelling District)
Sec. 44-118. Uses.
(a)
(b)
(c) Prohibited uses. The city prohibits the following uses in the R-1 R zoning
district:
(1) Accessory buildings without an associated single dwelling on the
same property.
@. The raisinQ or handlinq of livestock. poultry (except for chickens
as outlined in Sections 10-476 throuqh 10-487. Chickens) or
animals causinq a nuisance. except for licensed kennels.
Animals:
Following is proposed language which would specify the permitting requirements for chickens in
residential areas. All of the proposed language is new and would be added to the animal
chapter of the city code. Much of the language is reflective of the city's existing dog section of
the animal ordinance.
6
Chapter 10 (Animals), Article IX (Chickens)
Sec. 10-476. Definitions.
Brooding means the period of chicken growth when supplemental heat must be
provided, due to the bird's inability to generate enough body heat.
Chicken means a domesticated bird that serves as a source of eggs or meat.
Coop means the structure for the keeping or housing of chickens permitted by the
ordinance. Coop may be permitted with or without a run.
Hen means a female chicken.
Officer means any person designated by the city manager as an enforcement officer.
Rooster means a male chicken.
Run means a fully enclosed and covered area attached to a coop where the chickens
can roam.
Sec. 10-477. Purpose.
It is recognized that the ability to cultivate one's own food is a sustainable activity that
can also be a rewarding past time. Therefore, it is the purpose and intent of this
ordinance to permit the keeping and maintenance of hens in a clean and sanitary
manner that is not a nuisance to or detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare
of the community.
Sec. 10-478. Investigation and Enforcement.
Officers designated by the city manager shall have authority in the investigation and
enforcement of this article, and no person shall interfere with, hinder or molest any such
officer in the exercise of such powers. The officer shall make investigations as is
necessary and may grant, deny, or refuse to renew any application for permit, or
terminate an existing permit under this article.
Sec. 10-479. Limitations for each dwelling unit in residential zones.
(1) No more than ten (10) hens shall be housed or kept on any one residential lot in
any area of the city zoned for single dwelling residential with a permit as outlined
below.
(2) Roosters are prohibited.
(3) Slaughtering of chickens on the property is prohibited.
(4) Leg banding of all chickens is required. The bands must identify the owner and
the owner's address and telephone number.
(5) A separate coop is required to house the chickens.
7
(6) Chickens must not be housed in a residential house or attached or detached
garage, except for brooding purposes only.
(7) Chicken coops and runs are limited to the rear yard only.
(8) Chicken coops and runs require at least a five (5) foot setback to the side and
rear property line.
(9) All premises on which hens are kept or maintained shall be kept reasonably
clean from filth, garbage, and any substances which attract rodents. The coop
and its surrounding must be cleaned frequently enough to control odor. Manure
shall not be allowed to accumulate in a way that causes an unsanitary condition
or causes odors detectible on another property. Failure to comply with these
conditions may result in the officer removing chickens from the premises or
revoking a chicken permit.
(10) The coop must be constructed and maintained so as to be rodent proof.
(11) All grain and food stored for the use of the hens on a premise with a chicken
permit shall be kept in a rodent proof container.
(12) Hens shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance to the
occupants of adjacent property.
Sec. 10-480. Permit required.
The officer shall grant a permit for chickens after the applicant has sought the written
consent of seventy-five (75) percent of the owners or occupants of privately or publicly
owned real estate within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the outer boundaries of the
premises for which the permit is being requested, or in the alternative, proof that the
applicant's property lines are one hundred fifty (150) feet or more from any structure.
Consent is also required where a street separates the premises for which the permit is
being requested from other neighboring property if it meets the distance requirements
specified above. Where a property within one hundred fifty (150) feet consists of a
multiple dwelling or multi-tenant property, the applicant need obtain only the written
consent of the owner or manager, or other person in charge of the building. Such written
consent shall be required on the initial application and as often thereafter as the officer
deems necessary.
Sec. 10-481. Application.
Any person desiring a permit required under the provisions of this article shall make
written application to the city clerk upon a form prescribed by and containing such
information as required by the city clerk and officer. Among other things, the application
shall contain the following information:
(1) A description of the real property upon which it is desired to keep the chickens.
(2) The breed and number of chickens to be maintained on the premises.
8
(3) A site plan of the property showing the location and size of the proposed chicken
coop, setbacks from the chicken coop to surrounding buildings (including houses
and buildings on adjacent lots, and the location, style, and height of fencing
proposed to contain the chickens). Portable coops and cages are allowed, but
portable locations must be included with the site plan.
(4) Statements that the applicant will at all times keep the animals in accordance
with all of the conditions prescribed by the officer, or modification thereof, and
that failure to obey such conditions will constitute a violation of the provisions of
this chapter and grounds for cancellation of the permit.
(5) Such other and further information as may be required by the officer.
Sec. 10-482. Permit conditions.
(1) If granted, the permit shall be issued by the city clerk and officer and shall state
the conditions, if any, imposed upon the permitted for the keeping of chickens
under this permit. The permit shall specify the restrictions, limitations, conditions
and prohibitions which the officer deems reasonably necessary to protect any
person or neighboring use from unsanitary conditions, unreasonable noise or
odors, or annoyance, or to protect the public health and safety. Such permit may
be modified from time to time or revoked by the officer for failure to conform to
such restrictions, limitations, prohibitions. Such modification or revocation shall
be effective after ten (10) days following the mailing of written notice thereof by
certified mail to the person or persons keeping or maintain such chickens.
Sec. 10-483. Violations.
(1) Any person violating any of the sections of this article shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be punished in accordance with section
1-15. (Section 1-15 states that a person found guilty of violating this section
could be charged with a misdemeanor or a petty misdemeanor. A fine not
exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 90 days or both could result in
violation of a misdemeanor. A fine not exceeding $300 could result in a petty
misdemeanor.)
(2) If any person is found guilty by a court for violation of this section, their permit to
own, keep, harbor, or have custody of chickens shall be deemed automatically
revoked and no new permit may be issued for a period of one year.
(3) Any person violating any conditions of this permit shall reimburse the city for all
costs borne by the city to enforce the conditions of the permit including but not
limited to the pick up and impounding of chickens.
Sec. 10-484. Required; exceptions.
No person shall (without first obtaining a permit in writing from the city clerk) own, keep,
harbor or have custody of any live chicken.
Sec. 10-485. Fees; issuance.
9
For each residential site the fee for a permit is as may be imposed, set, established and
fixed by the City Council, by resolution, from time to time.
Sec. 10-486. Term.
The permit period under this section shall expire one year from the date the permit is
issued.
Sec. 10-487. Revocation.
The city manager may revoke any permit issued under this division if the person holding
the permit refuses or fails to comply with this article, with any regulations promulgated by
the council pursuant to this article, or with any state or local law governing cruelty to
animals or the keeping of animals. Any person whose permit is revoked shall, within ten
days thereafter, humanely dispose of all chickens being owned, kept or harbored by
such person, and no part of the permit fee shall be refunded.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the Planning Commission and City Council minutes and comments on the proposed
chicken ordinance. Discuss how their questions and concerns can be addressed. Once the
ENR Commission completes their review and revised recommendation on the chicken
ordinance, the ordinance will be brought to a City Council meeting for final review.
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Minutes (Partial)
2. Planning Commission Minutes (Partial)
3. March 7, 2011, City Council Workshop Minutes (Partial)
10
Attachment 1
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2010
(Partial)
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioner AI Bierbaum
Commissioner Joseph Boeser
Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai
Chairperson Lorraine Fischer
Commissioner Robert Martin
Commissioner Tanya Nuss
Commissioner Gary Pearson
Commissioner Dale Trippler
Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner; Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Ordinance Review to Consider Allowing the Keeping of Chickens in Residential
Areas
Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner, and Melissa Weigant, Community Development
Intern, presented the proposed ordinance that has been under development by the
environmental and natural resources commission (ENR) since October 2009. The purpose of
the ordinance is to promote urban agriculture and sustainability. Current zoning code
prohibits the raising of poultry in all zoning districts.
In the development of the ordinance, the ENR researched the ordinances of six other cities
that allow chickens to be kept in residential areas; these cities are: Minneapolis, Saint Paul,
Shoreview, Rosemount, Oakdale and Burnsville. The ENR also spoke with health experts as
well as citizens who either own or have owned chickens at their residence.
The ENR recommended approval of this ordinance on July 19, 2010. The proposed
ordinance carries the following restrictions:
1. Up to 10 chickens would be allowed on any size lot with a permit.
2. Applicant must have approval of 75% of home owners within 150 feet of the
applicant's property.
3. No roosters can be kept.
August 17, 2010
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1
4. Chickens must be kept in a separate coop; no chickens may be kept in human-use
buildings, including garages, etc.
5. Leg banding is required as a means of identifying ownership of each chicken
6. Slaughtering of chickens is prohibited.
Additional application requirements are also included in the ordinance.
The following questions/issues were raised and discussed:
1. Allergies among neighbors
2. Make the ordinance specific in requiring chickens to be kept in the back yard
3. All adjacent neighbors must approve
4. Cost to the city/tax payers versus permit fees:
. Commissioner Trippler noted that, as the ENR was developing the ordinance, it
was always stressed that it should not cost the tax payers to allow people to have
chickens, yet, while the costs to process would be approximately $115, the ENR
commission is recommending a fee of $50. The ordinance does not actually state
what the fees would be.
5. Assess fees per chicken like it is for dogs.
6. How will the ordinance be policed?
7. What are the requirements for dealing with feces and deceased chickens? How will
that be regulated?
8. What are the set backs for the location of the coops?
9. Some questioned the "sustainability" of keeping only hens.
1 O. Concern that allowing chickens will lead to residents wanting to keep other types of
livestock.
Ms. Finwall made the following clarifications:
1. The ordinance would be policed the same as any other animal ordinance. Leg bands
are intended to reduce the cost of boarding stray chickens. Slaughtering can be done
by an outside company with the chicken is no longer producing eggs. Similar to the
policing of other ordinances, policing would be done based on complaints received.
2. Portable chicken coops are quite innovative and a practical way to keep them, so the
ordinance allows for the use of these portable coops; therefore, there are no specific
setbacks included.
3. ENR heard from people have concerns about the eggs they are buying in the store.
They are people who prefer to grown their own food on their own property. Ms.
Finwall believes this ordinance will be used only by people who know what they are
getting into. Sustainable agriculture is also preferred by a large part of the immigrant
cultures.
Commission members agreed to review and consider the ordinance again if the following
changes are made:
1. Include language to address the handling of feces and deceased chickens.
2. Include specific language on how the ordinance will be policed.
3. Define "officer" to distinguish between animal control and police.
4. Add the word "live" to references of keeping chickens.
August17,2010
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2
5. Require the approval of 100% of adjacent neighbors.
6. Require the approval of neighbors as part of the annual permit renewal.
7. Increase the distance for neighbor approval to 300 feet.
8. Limit the number of chickens based on the lot size using a ratio of chickens to
area.
9. Establish set-backs.
10. Address disposal of a deceased chicken and the waste.
11. Make the fees strong enough to make people serious about doing it.
12. Require rodent-proof coops.
A guest raised concerns about the city being at risk for law suits filed due to incidents that
occur with chickens. Commissioner Boeser recommended that the liability issue be
investigated.
The ENR will modify the ordinance as discussed and present this updated ordinance to the
Planning Commission at a future meeting.
August 17, 2010
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
3
Attachment 2
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21,2010
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioner AI Bierbaum
Commissioner Joseph Boeser
Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai
Chairperson Lorraine Fischer
Commissioner Robert Martin
Commissioner Tanya Nuss
Commissioner Gary Pearson
Commissioner Dale Trippler
Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present (Arrived at 7:07)
Present (Arrived at 7:05)
Present
Present
Absent
Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Ordinance Review to Consider Allowing the Keeping of Chickens in Residential
Areas (heard out of order)
Ms. Finwall presented the revised ordinance and led the discussion. Ms. Finwall addressed
the Planning Commission's previous concerns from their August 17, 2010 meeting from that
meeting. Additional questions and concerns were discussed.
Mr. Ekstrand requested a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Ms. Finwall
explained that this ordinance requires review by the Planning Commission because it involves
the City's zoning code. The Planning Commission is being asked to review it from the
perspective of if it is an appropriate use of residential land and if it is in the best interest of the
health and safety of the public.
Commissioner Trippler moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council not move forward with this ordinance.
Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion.
Ayes 4 (Bierbaum, Desai, Pearson and Trippler); Nays 3 ( Fischer, Martin, Nuss)
Motion carries.
Chair Fischer and Commissioner Nuss explained that, although they voted against the
motion, they do not necessarily support the ordinance as is it currently written.
Ms. Finwall has not yet scheduled this ordinance to go before the City Council.
September 21,2010
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1
Attachment 3
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD. CITY COUNCIL
MANAGER WORKSHOP
5:15 p.m., Monday, March 7, 2011
Council Chambers, City Hall
(Partial)
A. CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order
at 5:15 p.m. by Mayor Rossbach.
B. ROLL CALL
Will Rossbach, Mayor
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember
Marvin Koppen, Councilmember
James Llanas, Councilmember
John Nephew, Councilmember
Present
Present
Present
Present until 6:45 p.m.
Present
C. NEW BUSINESS
1. Chicken Ordinance Update
a. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave the update on the Chicken Ordinance and
answered questions of the council.
b. Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Member, Ginny Yingling addressed
the council regarding the Chicken Ordinance.
c. Maplewood Police Chief, Dave Thomalla answered questions of the council.
d. City Attorney, Alan Kantrud answered questions of the council.
March 7, 2011
City Council Manager Workshop Minutes
1