The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/20/2007 AMENDED AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. November 5, 2007 5. Public Hearings None 6. New Business a. Wetland Ordinance Update b. Conditional Use Permit - Clear Channel Outdoor Billboard Height Increase (1790 Gervais Court) 7. Unfinished Business a. Sign Code Amendment - Dynamic Display Sign Ordinance 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations November 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Boeser December 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood ?? December 17 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer 10. Staff Presentations 11.Adjournment 13 00 Ie AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. November 5, 2007 5. Public Hearings None 6. New Business a. Wetland Ordinance Update 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations November 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Boeser December 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood ?? December 17 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5,2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Joe Walton Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Commissioner Robert Martin Commissioner Joseph Boeser Staff Present: Absent Present Present Present Absent Absent Present Present Present Ken Roberts, Planner Alan Kantrud, City Attorney III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Boeser seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. October 2, 2007 Ayes - all Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the minutes of October 2,2007, as submitted. Commissioner Boeser seconded The motion passed. b. October 16, 2007 Ayes - all Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the amended minutes, deleting Commissioner Yarwood's comments before adjournment on page four and adding the following to the end of the third paragraph on page 2: "Commissioners....and iterated the importance of public safety in the design." Commissioner Hess seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all Planning Commission Minutes of 11-5-07 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 Lot Width Variance and Lot Division (1805 Arcade Street) Planner Roberts presented the staff report. Dick Smith of Jendi Properties addressed the commission and explained his request. The public hearing was opened to the public. Tony Savanya, 1787 Arcade Street and adjacent to the applicant, asked that the gate on the applicant's rear property at the end of the Mr. Savanya's driveway be removed or closed off. There were no other comments from the public. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yarwood moved the planning commission recommend: 1. Adoption of the variance resolution. This resolution approves a 15-foot lot width variance for the property at 1811 Arcade Street. The city is basing this approval on the fact that the lot area and lot width variance are in keeping with the surrounding properties and the ability of the applicant to prove a specific hardship for the lot width variance that meets state law requirements including: a. The problem requiring the lot width variance in this circumstance is a problem that the current owner did not cause (I.e., location of the existing house). b. The new lot width will be in keeping with the two single-family properties to the south, which both have 50-foot-wide lots. c. The variance and creation of separate lots for the existing houses in this location will not change the character of the area as surrounding properties are all single family houses with similar lot sizes. 2. Approval of the lot division site plan date-stamped September 21,2007, for a lot division request to subdivide the 57,945 square-foot single-family lot located at 1805 Arcade Street into two single-family lots. Lot division approval is based on code requirements (Section 34-14 -lot divisions) and is subject to the following: a. Submit a revised survey to staff for approval which shows that Parcel B maintains a lot width of at least 60 feet. b. Submit a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150 percent of the following: 1) Removal of all portions of the existing driveway which are within five feet of the shared property line. 2) Construction of a new driveway for Parcel A. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-5-07 -3- 3) Construction of a new garage door to be located on the east side of the attached garage on Parcel A. 4) Conversion of the existing house or construction of a new single family house on Parcel A to meet city zoning and building code requirements. c. Lot A must be combined with Parcel B. d. If the lots are to be sold or deeded to another party, deeds describing the two new legal descriptions for both lots. e. Once the above-mentioned conditions are met, the city will stamp the surveyor deeds. These must be recorded with Ramsey County within one year of the date of the lot division approval or the lot split will become null and void (city code requirement). f. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for any improvements to Parcel A or Parcel B, the following must be submitted to staff for approval: 1) Proof that Ramsey County has recorded the lot division. 2) A signed certificate of survey showing the location of all property lines and the location of the improvements which must maintain all required setbacks. Commissioner Hess seconded Ayes - all Commissioner Boeser asked staff to respond to the neighbor's request to remove the gate at the rear of the applicant's property. Planner Roberts said that staff will review the gate issue with the applicant. 7:30 Conditional Use Permit - Commercial Truck Parking (1003 Century Avenue North) Planner Roberts presented the staff report. The commission discussed with staff the issue of setting precedence and the history of CUP permit approvals for commercial truck parking. The applicant Tom Tachney was present and addressed the commission. Mr. Tachney explained he leases the truck he uses from Ryder Transportation in Roseville. His job is to visit businesses to pick up used printing rollers from printing presses. He then palletizes them for transport out of the state to be reconditioned and resold. The commission discussed that Mr. Tachney is attempting with his application to resolve this issue and whether approval of the CUP would set a precedent for parking a commercial vehicle in a residential area. Commissioner Pearson suggested that the CUP might be approved for one year only to encourage the company to find another solution to the truck parking problem. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-5-07 -4- City attorney Kantrud explained that once the CUP is approved, there would need to be a change in the conditions in order to revoke the permit. The public hearing was opened to the public. There were no comments from the public so the public hearing was closed. Staff read the city code about conditional use permits for commercial vehicles in R-1 areas. The commission noted the neighboring property owners are in favor of the truck being parked on the applicant's property. The commission also discussed what code limits might apply to deny the permit. The commission considered how they might allocate a period of time to allow the applicant to find another place to park the truck. Commissioner Boeser moved the planning commission recommend approval of the resolution approving a conditional use permit for Mr. Thomas Tachney to store or park one heavy commercial vehicle (one enclosed delivery truck) on the property at 1003 Century Avenue North. This permit shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner or operator of the truck doing the following: a. Residing on the property. b. Parking the truck on the existing driveway or on the gravel parking pad. c. Not parking the truck on a public street. d. Maintaining the driveway and parking pad in good condition. 2. The owner or operator shall not let the truck's engine idle for more than thirty (30) minutes in anyone (1) hour period. In no circumstances may the owner or operator idle the engine for more than two periods, lasting thirty (30) minutes each, in one twenty-four (24) hour period. There shall not be any engine idling that disturbs the neighbors between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. 3. The owner or operator shall not do any maintenance or repair of the truck or commercial equipment on the property. 4. The owner or operator shall not load or unload the truck on the property or on adjacent properties. 5. The city council shall review this permit in six months. 6. No hazardous materials shall be stored in the truck while on the applicant's property. Commissioner Martin seconded Ayes - Fischer, Boeser, Martin Nays - Hess, Yarwood, Pearson Commissioner Fischer noted her reasons for voting for approval of this CUP are that this is a permitted use with conditions under city code and it meets those conditions under the ordinance, and that there have not been any complaints on this property. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-5-07 -5- Commissioner Hess said his reasons for voting for denial of the CUP are that he feels that this has already changed the neighborhood and he noted in the neighborhood a "commercial- looking" truck parked on Century Avenue and a pickup truck with a flatbed parked on the street, that the "general flavor" of the neighborhood is changing and that "if it is allowed here, we can also do it" and this is not what the neighborhood wants to see. VI. NEW BUSINESS None VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Ordinance Amendment - Dynamic Signs Planner Roberts presented the staff report and responded to questions from the commission. Planner Roberts said the Eagan city code has not yet been fully reviewed by staff, but there will likely be modifications the commission may want to review and recommend to the design review board and the city council. The commission discussed the driver distraction factor of the size and setback location of the sign and the size of the lettering. City attorney Kantrud noted that there are existing standards set in the code for factors such as setbacks relating to text size. Tom McCarver of Clear Channel explained that on a sign malfunction issue there is a power cutoff switch installed which can be remotely switched to deactivate the sign. Mr. McCarver noted that with a sign malfunction, the sign will never move any faster than originally programmed, but a malfunction could turn off a portion of the sign. Commissioner Yarwood moved to recommend that the community design review board draft a dynamic display code amendment based on the Eagan code, particularly taking into account the maximum amount of time a sign can change. The proposed change should also address prohibited signs. Commissioner Hess seconded. Commissioner Boeser recommended the following friendly amendment to the motion to include the following language as part of the motion: "The planning commission delegates the drafting and recommendation of the code amendment authority to the community design review board. When the board considers this they should take under consideration on and off-site dynamic display signs." The friendly amendment was accepted. The commission then voted: The motion passed. Ayes - all Planning Commission Minutes of 11-5-07 -6- VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. October 22 Council meeting: Commissioner Martin reported on the meeting. b. November 12 Council meeting - No Meeting c. November 26 - Council Meeting: Commissioner Boeser d. December 10 Council meeting: Commissioner Yarwood e. Commissioner Martin reported on the November 3 walking tour in south Maplewood. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Planner Roberts reminded the commission of the election on the 6th. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Greg Copeland, City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Wetland Ordinance Update Nov. 14, 2007 for the Nov. 20 Planning Commission Meeting INTRODUCTION A committee of Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commissioners and city staff were formed in 2006 to begin review of the city's existing wetland ordinance. The committee was formed to review modifications which may be needed to the wetland ordinance due to the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District's new wetland classification system. The committee completed their review in November 2006. The full ENR Commission has been reviewing the changes proposed by committee over the last few months and are now requesting review by the Planning Commission. Attached is a memorandum written by Ginny Gaynor, open space naturalist, and the proposed amendments to the ordinance. The memorandum was written last year after the committee completed their review, but will give the planning commission valuable background information for most of the proposed changes. Since that time the full ENR Commission has also addressed the following changes to the ordinance: 1. Trails 2. Exemptions 3. Averaging 4. Variances 5. Stormwater 6. Restoration and management requirements if averaging used. RECOMMENDATION ENR Commissioners and city staff will present the proposed wetland ordinance amendments to the planning commission at the November 20 meeting. The planning commission should review and give comments and feedback on these proposed changes. Attachments: 1. November 15, 2006, Wetland Ordinance Background Memorandum 2. Draft November 20, 2006, Wetland Ordinance Amendments MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: DuWayne Konewko, Environmental Committee Ginny Gaynor November 15,2006 Wetland Ordinance Below is a summary of our recommendations for the wetland ordinance. Let's consider the following as we review this and begin the next steps: 1. We need to make final decision on how to approach trails. 2. Reconsider slope decision. Our current ordinance prohibits building on slopes> 18% if in direct drainage to a protected water. (Protected waters are public waters defined in MN Stats.) 3. What should our review process be? Below is the process we initially outlined. Do we still want this approach? 4. We planned to begin review process with concepts only, not actual language. Do we still want this approach? 5. What is the most effective way to present this material? This memo summarizes many of our discussion points, is this much detail and discussion needed? How much ofthe material below should be in the packet? What else should be included? 6. How much of the packet should be available on the web? Is it adequate to use links to references or do we need to scan articles? Background The Wetland Ordinance Committee was appointed in 2006 to: 1. Recommend changes in Maplewood Code to accommodate Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District's (RWMWD) new wetland classifications, adopted by RWMWD in November 2005. 2. Recommend buffer widths for the new classifications. 3. Recommend other changes to ensure that the ordinance is effective in protecting Maplewood wetlands. The Wetland Ordinance Committee includes: City Staff: Shann Finwall- Planner Virginia Gaynor - Open Space Coordinator & Rain Garden Horticulturalist Env Committee: Cammie Johnson - Metropolitan Council, Waste Water Treatment Dale Trippler - retired MPCA, Principle Planner, Closed Landfill Program 1 Resident: Jim Beardsley - 3M Company, Senior Environmental health, Safety & Regulatory Specialist Mark Gernes - MPCA, Research Scientist R WMWD staff provided information and participated in several meetings: Tina Carstens - Permit Program Coordinator Julie Vigness-Pint - District Technician Bill Bartodziej - Natural Resources Specialist The Committee adopted the following process: 1. Develop recommendations 1) Study current code 2) Compare code to other communities and determine where our code is lacking 3) Review science on selected topics 4) Prepare recommendations 2. Review Process (adjustments made after review by each entity) 1) Environmental Committee reviews 2) Staff and attorney reviews 3) Developers, stakeholders, and public review (use website, targeted mailing, and local paper to solicit input) 4) Environmental Committee reviews 5) Planning Commission and Design Review Board review Planning commission would include a public hearing at this stage 3. Present recommendations to City Council for vote (keep council appraised via formal memos before submitting recommendations) Scientific Support for Proposed Ordinance Changes Much research on wetland and stream buffers was done in the 1980's and 1990's. The Wetland Ordinance Committee studied literature reviews of buffer research, rather than reading the actual scientific papers. In particular, we reviewed: 1. Benefits of Wetland Buffers: A Study of Functions, Values and Size, Preparedfor the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, by Emmons and Olivier Resources, Inc. (EOR), December 2001. 2. Wetland and Stream Buffer Size Requirements - A Review, A.J. Castelle, A.W. Johnson, and C. Conolly, published in Journal of Environmental Quality 23:878-882, 1994. 3. Use of Best Available Science in City of Everett (WA) Buffer Regulations, prepared by Pentec Environmental, 2001. 4. Buffer Zones and Beyond, Lynn Boyd, University ofMA, 2001. 5. A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent and Vegetation, Seth Wenger, for the University of Georgia, 1999. There are several limitations to the scientific studies: 2 1. Many of the studies were for agricultural areas with runoff from fields, not urban areas. 2. Many buffer variables are not reported. For example, the sUmmaries do not always distinguish between type of vegetation in the buffer or activities adjacent to the buffer. 3. Many of the studies were for streams and riparian systems. However, as the report for Minnehaha Creek Watershed District points out, this information should be applicable to wetlands. 4. Most scientific studies study a single buffer width. Those that compared widths only compared a few widths. The report prepared by EOR for Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was of special interest to the Wetland Ordinance Committee since their recommendations are for an urban watershed in our region. Recommendations The Wetland Ordinance Committee has studied the issues, reviewed ordinances from cities in the metropolitan area, and developed recommendations. This document presents the recommendations for content changes regarding wetland classification, buffer width, and activities in the buffer. After discussion of content changes by staff, Environmental Committee and stakeholders, staff will draft changes in ordinance language. 1. Wetland Purpose Recommendation. Keep the content of the existing ordinance regarding purpose of wetlands and ordinance. Discussion. The committee reviewed purpose statements from many other communities and found Maplewood's current statement is well stated and comprehensive. 2. Wetland Classification System Recommendation. The committee recommends adopting the new RWMWD classification system. Discussion. a. RWMWD has adopted the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) classification system. MnRAM classifies wetlands Manage A, Manage B, Manage C, with Manage A being the highest quality. This system has become a standard in our region. If classification is ever questioned, wetland consultants are experienced with this system. b. In 2003-2005, RWMWD staff visited the 243 wetlands in Maplewood, used MnRAM to conduct assessments, and determined a classification for each wetland. c. The old classification system used by RWMWD was much more subjective than MnRAM. d. In changing from the old system to the new system: 128 Maplewood wetlands were upgraded, 55 were downgraded, and 60 remained the same. The main reasons wetlands were downgraded were: 3 i. Wetland degraded since 1995. n. The 1995 classification was more subjective than the new system. In addition, the inventory work in 1995 was done by one staff person and five interns and thus may not have been as accurate. iii. In the 1995 classification, forested wetlands were automatically placed in PROTECT Class (highest class), regardless of quality. iv. In the 1995 classification, many wetlands at schools or in natural areas received a PROTECT class, regardless of quality. e. If the City does not adopt the new R WMWD classifications we have the responsibility of classifying wetlands. This is not good use of city resources since RWMWD performs this service. 3. Addition of Wetland Class A+ Recommendation. Create an additional A+ classification for special wetlands that meet the following criteria: a. Must be a Class A wetland as defmed by RWMWD classification system. b. Is one of the following unique and special types of wetlands in Maplewood: i. oligotrophic acid marsh (low pH, high dissolved oxygen, low nutrients) ii. fen (rich fen, poor fen, calcareous fen) iii. wet prairie iv. sedge meadow v. forested seasonal wetland (wooded wetlands that may dry up in summer) Discussion. Currently Maplewood has one more wetland class than RWMWD. The committee believes there are a handful of very special wetlands that merit extra protection. These are wetland types that are rare in our community or types that are particularly sensitive to impacts from development. a. Committee discussed the wetland at Woodhill development. This was one of Maplewood's SO wetlands that are currently rated Class 1 (highest class). Despite rigorous erosion control measures and nearly daily monitoring by staff, this unique wetland was negatively impacted by development in 2006. Staff, RWMWD, and council knew this was a very unique wetland. But our classification structure did not single out those one to two dozen wetlands that were most precious and our ordinance did not give them extra protection. Class A + will help insure that most unique wetlands have the extra protection they deserve. b. Committee discussed other high quality or unique wetlands in Maplewood that have the potential of being impacted by new development or re-development in the future. We strongly believe these are deserving of the highest level of protection possible so they are not degraded due to development activities or new adjacent uses. c. In addition, the committee strongly believes that some wetlands in Maplewood should provide adequate habitat for wildlife. Many reptiles, amphibians, and mammals that depend on wetlands require a very large buffer of upland adjacent to the wetland. (See discussion below on buffer width requirements for wildlife.) It is not feasible to have adequate buffers for wildlife around all our wetlands, so the committee recommends that Class A+ wetlands, our highest quality wetlands, serve the function of providing habitat for wildlife. 4 d. MnRAM does not identify Class A+ wetlands so the City will need to identify these. Information on wetland type is available in the MnRAM data collected by RWMWD but it is limited. For example, large wetland complexes may be identified as shallow marshes if that is the dominant wetland type at the site, but the wetland may include portions of sedge meadow, wet prairie, etc. Staff and R WMWD are aware of some of our unique wetlands. As we leam of more, those would be added to Maplewood' s list of Class A + wetlands. The City hopes to initiate a volunteer wetland monitoring program with Nature Center Staff in 2007 targeting several south Maplewood wetlands to determine if there are more oligotrophic wetlands in that area. 4. Buffer Widths Recommendation. The committee recommends following buffer widths: Recommended Buffer Class A+ 200' Class A 100' Class B 75' Class C 50' Utility 10' Current Ordinance Class 1: 100' avg, 100' min Class 2: 100' avg, SO' min Class 3: SO' avg, 25' min Class 4: 25' avg, 20' min Class 5: 0' New RWMWD rules 75' avg, 37.5' min SO' avg, 25' min 25' avg, 12.5' min 10' a. Buffer shall be measured horizontally from wetland edge, not across the landscape. b. On slopes> 20% the buffer width shall be increased to 10' beyond the apex of the slope. Extention of the buffer for steep slopes shall apply to all wetland classes. c. Setback. There shall be a 10' structure setback from the buffer edge for all wetland classes. Apex : Buffer extends 10' beyond slope apex Slope> 20% 75' Example: 75' buffer for Manage B wetlands. Slope> 20% so must extend buffer 10' beyond top of slope. Discussion. The Committee reviewed literature on the buffer width necessary to reduce sediments and solids, phosphorus, nitrogen, pesticides and metals, organic matter and biological contaminants. a. Committee agreed that based on the scientific information available today, a SO' buffer is the minimum buffer needed to adequately reduce the sediments and 5 pollutants entering wetlands. This was also the conclusion and recommendation of EOR for Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. b. To protect Maplewood wetlands, buffers must be wide enough to adequately capture sediments and pollutants. The committee believes that all Maplewood wetlands deserve a buffer that provides the function of capturing pollutants - a minimum of SO'. c. Wetlands that are less disturbed, higher quality, or more sensitive to pollutants require and deserve wider buffers. Our current ordinance uses this approach, as do RWMWD and most cities in our area. With a minimum SO' buffer set for Class C wetlands (lowest quality), the committee believes a 75' buffer for Class B wetlands and a 100' buffer for Class C wetlands is appropriate. d. Committee encouraged RWMWD to increase their buffer widths so we would have the same buffer width requirements. They were not willing to increase the widths. Committee felt strongly that RWMWD requirements were not adequate and Maplewood should set its own. e. Committee member Mark Gemes (Wetland Biologist, MPCA) prepared a review of buffer widths necessary to provide habitat for wildlife. Many species of wildlife need a very wide buffer for habitat. For example, the Common Snapping Turtle nests a mean distance of 1000 m from the wetland. The Painted Turtle's means nesting distance is 60 m from the wetland. The committee believes strongly that some of our wetlands need to provide habitat for wildlife. We agreed that 200' is a minimum buffer width for this function. Though not adequate for many species, a buffer larger than this would create undo hardship for property owners. f. Committee realized a 200' buffer on all wetlands was not feasible and decided that this buffer width should apply to our highest quality wetlands only, Class A+ wetlands. g. Current Maplewood ordinance and RWMWD rules allow for averaging. The committee does not support this. If a minimum SO' is needed to capture pollutants, this should happen all around the wetland, not just on a portion of the wetland. h. In discussing issue of slope, the committee reviewed the project at Woodhill development. Here the slopes were steep, the buffer stopped midslope in areas, and erosion control measures were not able to protect the wetland. We believe that steep slopes adjacent to wetlands should not be disturbed at all. Scientific literature indicates that steeper slopes reduce effectiveness of buffers because runoff moves too quickly for filtration and infiltration. Thus a wider buffer is needed on slopes to capture pollutants. Researchers' opinions vary on what should be considered steep, from 10% to 40% slopes. The committed decided 20% slope (5:1) should be our cutoff. Our current ordinance (article V, Section 12-308 Slopes) prohibits development on slopes of 18% or greater which are in direct drainage to a protected water. 5. Activities in Buffer Recommendation. The committee recommends the following: a. Keep existing ordinance content regarding activity in buffers. Current ordinance prohibits alteration of buffer. "Alteration means any human action that adversely affects a buffer. Alterations include but are not limited to the following: grading, 6 filling, dumping, dredging, draining, cutting, pruning, topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation, applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance.... " b. Structures, fue pits, patios, and decks shall not be permitted in the buffer. c. Vegetation. Keep existing content: "Any planting in a buffer shall be from native vegetation." In addition, expand upon this section of ordinance to clarify that areas of the buffer that are naturalized shall remain so and residents are encouraged to restore buffer areas to native vegetation. d. Trails. Current ordinance allows for trails in the buffer ifthe buffer width is increased and the trail is not impervious. Committee recommends changing this to allow trails in the buffer only on public lands or in situations where the trail will benefit the public. e. Applicability. Keep current ordinance's approach to applicability. Applicability shall apply to anyone altering the buffer after the adoption of the ordinance. In current ordinance applicability applies to anyone that would alter wetland or buffer after April 24, 1995. This means vegetation and structures in place before adoption could remam. Discussion. Except for trails, the committee is not recommending substantial content changes in activities. However, we do want to make this section of the ordinance clearer. We also want to add language in this section encouraging residents to improve their buffers by establishing native vegetation and lessening impact of passive recreation in the buffer. The committee believes the ordinance should not only protect wetlands but encourage enhancement of wetlands. Additional Materials Available Upon Request Minutes from Committee meetings Maps indicating wetland classes (old and new) Summary of buffer needs for several species of animals Internet links to City Codes from other cities Internet links to many of the references used Internet links to MnRAM classification system 7 MAPLEWOOD WETLAND ORDINANCE DRAFT 11-20-07 (Changes to the city's current wetland ordinance are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.) 1. Findings and purposes. The findings and 13lJl1loses of this section are as follows: a. Wetlands serve a variety of beneficial functions. Wetlands maintain water quality by filtering pollutants, reduce flooding and erosion, Thev provide food and habitat for wildlife, provide open space for human interaction and are an integral part of the city's environment. Wetlands are an important physical, educational, ecological, aesthetic, recreational and economic asset to the city. They are critical to the city's health, safety, and general welfare. Surrounding development may degrade, pollute, accelerate the aging of or eliminate wetlands. Regulating land use around wetlands is therefore in the public interest. b. 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, educational, ecological, aesthetic, recreational and economic asset. Surrounding development may degrade, pollute or damage streams and, in turn, degrade other surface waters downstream. Requiring buffers recognizes that the surrounding uplands relate to the woodland and stream quality and function and, therefore, are in the public interest. c. Buffers are the lands that surround wetlands and streams. They are integral to maintaining the valuable functions many wetlands and streams perform and to maintaining a wetland or stream's health. Requiring wetland buffers recognizes that the surrounding uplands relate to the wetland and stream's quality and function and, therefore, are in the public interest. Buffers have the following functions: ill Rreduce the impacts of surrounding land use on wetlands and streams by stabilizing soil to prevent erosion by storm-water; and filtering suspended solids, nutrients, pollutants, and harmful substances. ill Moderating water level fluctuations during storms. ill Buffers also 13.!.'.rovide essential wildlife habitat. ill and Provide shade to reduce the temperature of both stormwater runoff and the wetland. (Water temperature is one of the factors controlling the ability of water to hold dissolved oxvgen. This ability decreases with increasing water temperatures. The dissolved oxvgen level must be maintained at a minimum level to maintain healthv aquatic life.) ill Finally, buffers rReduce the adverse impacts of human activities on wetlands and streams. 1 WThe purposes of this section are to: a. Preserve wetlands and streams in a natural state. ab. Preserve the beneficial functions of wetlands and streams by regulating the surrounding land use. ~. Stabilize the soil around wetlands and streams to prevent stomHvater erosion. eg. Enhance and preserve water quality bv F[llter!ng suspended solids, nutrients and harmful substances before thev Hem reaching wetlands, streams and public waters. 6!e. Reduce human disturbances of wetlands and streams by yisaally separating wetlands from yards. ef" Prevent flooding and the costs of reclaiming water quality. g. Protect property. th. Protect beneficial plant and wildlife habitat. gi.. Educate the public, including appraisers, owners, potential buyers or developers, to the development limitations of wetlands, streams and associated buffers. .1. Encourage property owners who live adiacent to and/or near wetlands and streams to be responsible stewards including managing and enhancing the quality of buffers and restoring the buffer to a diverse planting of deep-rooted native plants. 2. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subseetion, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Alteration means any human action that adversely affects a buffer. Alterations include but are not limited to the following: grading, filling, dumping, dredging, draining, cutting, pruning, topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation, applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance, discharging 1l0llatants Clleept stormwater, paving, construction, application of gravel. discharging pollutants except stormwater or any other human activity that adversely affects the vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat. Alteration does not include the following: a. Walking, passive recreation, fishing or other similar low impact activities. b. Planting that enhances native vegetation. c. The selective clearing, pruning or control oftrees or vegetation that are dead, diseased, noxious vreeds or hazardous. A1l8:'age buffer ;I'idth means the ayerage width of a lmff.cr within a single de'lelopment, lot or phase. 2 Best manaf!ement vractices (EMF's) mean measures taken to minimize negative effects 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. BOf! means a peatland with acidic pH as described in the Minnesota Land Cover Classification Svstem. Buffer means a stream or wetland bllffe-r or the protective zone of vegetation along a stream or around a wetland. Clearing means the cutting or removal of vegetation. Enhancement means an action that increases the functions and values of a wetland, stream or wetland buffer. Erosion means the movement of soil or rock fragments, or the wearing awav of the land surface bv water. wind, ice. and gravity. Fen means a peatland fed bv ground water as described in the Minnesota Land Cover Classification Svstem, including but not limited to, calcareous fens, rich fens, and poor fens. Forested seasonal wetland means a wooded wetland with hvdric soils that mav have standing water vear round or mav dry UP seasonallv. Infiltration basin means a pond or basin that captures stormwater and allows it to soak into the ground. An infiltration basin will tyoicallv drain within 48 hours of a storm event. Mitigation means an action that reduces, rectifies, eliminates or compensates for the alteration of a buffer, wetland or stream. Native vegetation means tree, shrub, grass or other plant species that are is indigenous to the Twin Cities metropolitan area that could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. Native vegetation does not include noxious weeds. Naturalized vef!etation means tree, shrub, grass or other plant species that exists on a site naturallv, without having been planted. It may be a native or non-native species. Some naturalized species are appropriate in a buffer and some are considered weeds. Olif!otrovhic acid marsh means a shallow or deep marsh with low pH. high dissolved oxvgen, and low levels of nutrients. Ordinary high 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. Rain f!arden means an infiltration basin that is planted as a garden and allows water to infiltrate within 48 hours of a storm event. 3 Restoration means returning a wetland, stream or buffer to a condition that is similar to that before development of the surrounding area. Sedze meadow means a wetland with saturated soils or standing water that contains a significant number of plant species associated with sedge meadow, defined as wet meadow in the Minnesota Land Cover Classification Svstem. Semivublic means land that is maintained bv a private organization for public use. Setback means the minimal horizontal distance between a structure and the nearest edge of the buffer, wetland, or stream. Straight-edge setback is a means of determining the allowable setback of an addition to an existing house. garage, deck, or drivewav which is located closer to or within the required buffer setback as specified in item 6.e. (minimum buffers). Straight-edge setback additions are measured bv using the existing edge of the house, garage, deck, or drivewav 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. Stream means those areas where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed. A defIDed channel or bed is land that clearly contains the constant passage of water under normal summer conditions. This definition does not include drainage swales or ditches that channel intermittent stormwater runoff. Strc"m huffer means land that is in direet drainage to a stream and within the boundary deseribed by this artiele. f. persofl shall measure all buffers from the ordiRary high water mark (OHWM) as ideRtified in the field. If a person ear.not determine the OHWM, the stream buffer shall be from the top of the stream bailie. Structure means anything constructed or erected that requires location on the ground or attached to something having location on the ground. Sustainable desizn means a development that is designed to protect and/or restore the natural environment of the land on which it is developed. Temvorarv erosion control is a method of keeping soil in its original location during construction or grading. Temoorary erosion control measures include, but are not limited to, silt fencing, erosion control blankets, bale slope barriers, or other best management erosion control methods approved by the city. Variance means a deviation from the standards of this section that is not specifically allowed. Vegetation means any organic plant life growing at, below or above the soil surface. Water QualifY vond means a pond that that has been created to capture stormwater runoff. These are not natural wetlands. Stormwater is often piped into these ponds but mav also enter through sheet runoff. Water QualifY vond edze means the normal high water level for a utility pond. 4 Wct!an& Imffir meaflS land that is in direet drainage to a wetland witilln the boundary deseribed by this section. f.ll buffers shall be measured oatward from the wetland edge. Weed means a plant which is causing damage in some wav to native vegetation or ecosvstems. Wetland classes. The city defines the wetland classes used in this section as follows: (a) Class 1 wetlands means wetlands assigned the aniqlole!outstanding rating in the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District Wetlands Inyeatory, 1995. Class 1 wetlands are those with eonditions and funetions most susceptible to human impaets, are most uniqlole, ha'le the highest community nJsouree sigHifieanee and sifnilar eharaeteristies. (b) Class 2 wetlands mean high valae (definition based on Watershed wetlands iW/entory reslllts) . (c) Class 3 wetlands mean '.vildlife habitat valae. (d) Class if wetlands mean moderate '/alue impacts. (e) Class 5 ',vetlt111ds means wetlands assigned the highly impaeted rating in the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed Distriet Wetlands Hr'.'entory, 1995. Class 5 wetlands are those with eonditioRs and fimetions most affeeted by hwnan aetivities, with the least diyerse vegetation eORlIlWillties, least eommunity resouree signifieanee and similar characteristies. For the purposes of this seetion, the U.S. fish and Wildlife Serviee's Classifieation of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, FWS/OHS 79/31 (Cowardin et ai, 1979) eoRtains the desei'iptions and photographs of wetland classes and sooclasses. a. Class A+ means wetland types that are verv rare in our community. are particularly sensitive to impacts from development. and provide much needed habitat for wildlife. These wetlands are special wetlands and deserve additional protection to ensure that thev remain in that status. These wetlands will provide much needed habitat for wildlife. Class A+ wetlands are Class A wetlands utilizing Ramsev Washington Metro Watershed District classification svstem plus wetlands that follow unique and special types of wetlands in Maplewood: D oligotrophic acid marsh. 2) wet prairie 3) sedge meadow 4) forested seasonal wetland 5) bog b. Class A - Defined as a Class A wetland utilizing Ramsev Washington Metro Watershed District classification svstem. All streams in the City of Maplewood are also derIDed as Class A. These wetlands and streams are exceptional and the highest-functioning 5 wetlands in Maplewood. These wetlands and streams should be preserved and in some cases enhanced to achieve the highest functioning value. c. Class B - Defined as a Class B wetland utilizing Ramsev Washington Metro Watershed District classification svstem. These wetlands are high-Qualitv wetlands that should be protected from development and other pressures of increased use, including indirect effects. Maintaining natural buffers will help retain the significant function these wetlands provide. These wetlands also provide optimal restoration opportunities. d. Class C - Defined as a Class C wetland utilizing Ramsev Washington Metro Watershed District classification system. These wetlands provide medium functional levels and the wetland extent should be maintained. Maintaining natural buffers will help retain the significant function these wetlands provide. These wetlands also provide optimal restoration opportunities. e. Utility Class ~ Defined as water Qualitv ponds. Wet vrairie means a wetland with saturated soils. containing a significant number of plant species found in wet prairie communities as derIDed in the Minnesota Land Cover Classification Svstem. Wetland easement means a designated area that includes the wetland or buffer where disturbance from mowing, cutting or similar activities is excluded. Wetland and stream edge means the line delineating the outer edge of a wetland. One shall establish this line by using the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands dated January 10, 1989, and jointly published by tl1.e U.S. Environmental Proteetion f.gefley, the U.S. fish and Wildlife Serliee, the U.S. filmy Corps of Engineers and the U.s. Soil Conservation Serviee. The applicable watershed board must verify this line. Wetlandfunctions means the natural processes performed by wetlands, such as helping food chain production, providing wildlife habitat, maintaining the availability and quality of water such as purifying water, acting as a recharge and discharge area for groundwater aquifers and moderating surface water and stormwater flows and performing other functions, including but not limited to those set out in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations at 33 CfR 320.4 (ll. )(2)(198&). Wetlands means those areas of the eity inundated or saturated by groundwater or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to suppOli and that under nOlmal 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 derIDed in the fArmy Corps of Engineers Regulation 33 CPR 32lU 1988). 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. 3. Applicability. This section shall apply as follows: a. This section shall apply to any person or use that would alter a wetland, stream or wetland buffer after f.priI24, 1995 add date of adoption of new ordinance. 6 b. When any provision of any ordinance conflicts with this section, the provision that provides more protection for buffers, wetlands or streams shall apply unless specifically provided otherwise in this section. This also applies to the appropriate Watershed District. c. Public and semipublic streets, utilities or trails, whether built by a public agency or private developer, shall be subject to this section. 4. General exemptions. This section shall not apply to the following: a. The constmction or maintcnance of p!'.ublic or semi-public Eirainage facilities, sedimcntation pEmds, or eresion control facilities streets, utilities. and trails. b. The maintellaflce ofp14lic or semip14lic facilities including streets, utilities and trails. c. Where the eity council waives these requirements for the construction of public and semi public utilities or trails, whether built by a publie agency or pri'iate de>ieloper, tIhe city ceuneil may waive the requirements for these facilities where there would be a greater public need for the project than to meet the requirement of this section. The city cOllRcil shall hold a public hearing before declaring such a wai'ier. The eity shall notifY the property ovmers within 350 2QQ f-cet efthe buff-cr at least ten days befere the hearing. In waiving these requirements, the city council shall follow the following standards~ in s14section (e) of this sectien. (1) The city may only allow the constmction of public or semi-public utilities and streets through buffers where there is no other practical alternative and the following requirements are met: (a) The city council must approve the waiver to allow public or semi-public utilities or streets to be located within a wetland buffer. Before the citv 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 citv staff shall notify the property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the buffer at least ten davs before the hearing. (b) Utility or street corridors shall not be allowed when endangered or threatened species are found in the buffer. (c) Utility or street corridors, including any allowed maintenance roads, shall be as far from the wetland or stream as possible. (d) Utility or street corridor construction and maintenance shall protect the wetland, stream or buffer and avoid large trees as much as possible. The city shall not allow the use of pesticides, herbicides or other hazardous or toxic substances in buffers, streams or wetlands. In some situations the use of herbicides may be used if prior approval is obtained from staff. (e) The owner or contractor shall replant utility or street corridors with appropriate native vegetation, except trees, at preconstruction densities or 7 greater after construction ends. Trees shall be replaced as required bv city code. (f) Any additional corridor access for maintenance shall be provided as much as possible at specific points rather than by parallel roads. If parallel roads are necessary they shall be no greater than fifteen (15) feet wide. {gl Mitigation actions must be met as specified in item 8 below (mitigation and restoration of buffers). (2) The city may allow public or semi-public pri'/ate trails in buffers. Trails must be approved by staff and are subject to the following guidelines: W Trails shall not be installed when endangered or threatened species are found to be present in the buffer. (b) The trail shall net be constructed of impervious materials. f Jl eleyated beardwalk shall not be conoidcred an impervioas surface. ( c) Buffers shall be expanded, where possible, equal to the width of the trail corridor. (d) The owner or contractor shall replant all disturbed areas next to the trail in a timeframe approved bv staff. aftcr completing the trail. W All necessarv erosion control measures must be in place prior to developing the trail. The erosion control measures must also be maintained and inspected to ensure that the wetland is not compromised bv trail construction activities. ill Trail must be constructed with sustainable design methods. {gl Trail mav provide one access point to the wetland but should be no more than four four (4) feet wide. (h) Boardwalks are allowed within the buffer and shall be a maximum of six (6) feet in width for semi-public use and twelve (12) feet in width for public use. ill Trails or boardwalks shall not be constructed entirelv around the wetland. ill Mitigation actions must be met as specified in item 8 below (mitigation and restoration of buffers). &.- Structures, yegctation aad maintenance acti'/ities and practices in ellistence on the effective date of the ordinance from ",moo this section deriyes. /\ contractor or O'llller may remodel, reconstruct or replace affected strucmres if the new construction does not takc up more buffer land than the structure uscd before the remodcling, reconstruction or replacement. 8 e, Where this section would deny all reasonable use of a lot of reeord. In sueh ease, the owner or eontrae-tor shall eonstrue-t any building to maJdmize the setbaek from a buffer. Federal, state or watemhed diatrie-t rules und regulations shall apply. !,lterations to a bllff-cr shaH be the minimum neeessary to allow for the reasonable use of the property. Where feasible, the eity may require the mitigation of any alteration of a bllffer. c. Additions to a house, garage, deck. drivewav using the existing straight-edge setbacks to a wetland if the following applv: ill Property is zoned or currentlv being used as single family residential. ill There is no other reasonable alternative than encroachment toward the wetland with the addition. ill The house, garage, deck. or drivewav is a minimum oftwentv-five (25) feet from the wetland edge. ill Addition does not cause degradation ofthe wetland, stream, or the existing buffer. ill Mitigation actions must be met as specified in item 8 below (mitigation and restoration of buffers). d. Non-chemical control and removal of noxious weeds within the buffer. Removal plan to be approved bv staff. e. Planting native plants within the wetland buffer; planting plan to be approved bv staff. f. Removal of trees, limbs, brush or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safetv hazards. 5. Variances. Procedures for granting variances from this section are as follows: a. The city council may approve variances to the requirements in this section. All variances must follow Minnesota state law governing variances. b. Before the city council acts on a variance the planning commission and the environmental and natural resources commission shall make a recommendation to the city council. The planning commission city eOllneil shall hold a public hearing for the variance. before approving a yarianee. The city staff shall notify the property owners within five hundred 500 ~ feet of the buffer at least ten days before the hearing. c. The city may require the applicant to mitigate any buffer alteration with the approval of a variance, including but not limited to. implementing one or more of the strategies as listed in item f.d.. (alternative average buffer). lr. To approve a variance, the eouneillffilst mak{J the f-ollowing findings: -B Strie-t enforcement ',vould eallse nndue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property nnder eonsideration. The term "lIl1due hardsmp" as lIsed in granting a variance means the owner of the property in question eannot put it to a reasonable lIse if used under eonditions allowed by the offieial eontrols; the plight 9 of the landowner is due to circllillstanccs unique to his propcrty, not created by the landovmer; and the ',ariance, if granted, will not alter the cssential cJ3.aracter of the locality. Economic considerations alone arc not an undue hardship if reasonable use f{)f the property ~dsts under the tcrms ofthis sec-tion. ~ The ',ariance would be in keeping '.vith the spiri-t and intent of this sec-tion. 6. Buffer .s.standards. Standards for this section buffers are as follows: a. Wetland or stream easement. The property owner of any property affected by this section shall record wetland or stream easements with the county. The easements shall cover any wetlands, streams or wetland buffers. These easements shall describe the boundaries of the buffer and prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer, stream or wetland. The owner or developer shall record such easements with a final plat, with deeds from a lot division or before the city issues a building permit for an affected property. The applicant shall submit proof that the owner or developer has filed the notice. b. Treatment of stormwater: ill All stormwater must be treated to the following water quality standards prior to discharge to a Class A+, Class A, Class B and Class C wetlands: 90% sediment removal and 60% phosphorus removal. ill Stormwater must not infiltrate into a wetland at a rate greater than one (1 ) inch. ill Stormwater must be treated before being discharged into a wetland. c. An affected property owner shall maintain a buffer. Any planting in a buffer shall be from native vegetation. d. The city prohibits the alteration of buffers. The city may waive this requirement where the watershed district has approved a permit for filling all or part of a wetland. e. Minimum buffers. The following are the minimum required buffer widths and structure building foundation setbacks: Buffer Wetland Classes Class 4,6 Class A +-J & Streams Class fl.J Class C-4- Utilitv Class 5 f. "crage buff-cr '.vidth ~ .J.OO-ft. -1-00 ft. W-ft, U-ft. G--ft. Minimum Buffer Width 200-1-00 ft. 100W ft. 75~ ft. 50;w...ft. 109 ft. Building Foundation Structure Setback From 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. Outer Edge of Buffer 10 f. Alternative average buffers. Recognizing that there are instances where. because ofthe unique phvsical characteristics of a specific parcel of land. alternative buffers mav be necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the land. ill The alternative average buffer standards set forth below mav be applied based on an assessment of the following: fill Undue hardship would arise from not allowing the alternative. or would otherwise not be in the public interest. (Ql Size of parcel. (2l Configuration of existing roads and utilities. @ Percentage of parcel covered by wetland. (>i). Configuration of wetlands on the parcel. ill Will not cause degradation of the wetland or stream. (gl Will ensure the protection or enhancement of portions of the buffer which are found to be the most ecologicallv beneficial to the wetland or stream. ill The following are the alternative average buffer widths and structure ImildiIll:: foundati,JIl setbacks: Buffer Wetland Classes Class A & Streams Class B Minimum Buffer Width 75 ft. SO ft. Alternative Avg. Buffer Width* 100 ft. 75 ft. Structure Setback From 10 ft. 10 ft. Outer Edge of Buffer *No more than 10 percent of the wetland buffer area may be used for averaging. ill The appropriateness of using the alternative average buffers will be evaluated as part of the review ofthe contractor or owner's development application. The alternative average buffer used must be within the spirit and intent of this code and must meet requirements set forth bv the city to include. but are not limited to, the following strategies: fill Restoration of buffer to native plantings. Submittal of a buffer restoration plan drafted by a professional experienced in wetland restoration including: 11 L Existing vegetation. 2. Restoration methods. 1. Maintenance procedures proposed during fIrst three years of establishment. 4. Erosion control measures. 2.., List of plants to be planted. 6. Oualifications of contractor. Onlv contractors with experience and success restoring wetland buffers or natural vegetation shall be approved. 7. Maintenance agreement which states that the owner will maintain the buffer to its improved state. Ji" Cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150 percent of the required work. ill Manage weeds in buffer. All weeds listed on the Minnesota noxious weed list must be controlled. Other problematic weeds which are not on the noxious weed list but can threaten the health of a wetland must also be controlled. Submittal of a weed management plan drafted bv a professional experienced in wetland restoration including: L Target weeds. 2. Appropriate management techniques. 1. Management schedule. 4. Potential erosion and reseeding if management will create large areas of dead vegetation. 5. Cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 1 SO percent of the required work. (f} Reduction in stormwater runoff and/or improvement of quality of stormwater runoff entering wetland or stream. This illav be achieved through the following strategies or other staff approved best management practices for dealing with stormwater. These practices to be located outside of the wetland buffer. L Reduce amount of pavement on site (i.e. fewer parking stalls, narrower drivewavs. shared parking with other businesses). 2. Use pervious pavement such as pavers or porous asphalt. 12 1, 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. ~ Install native plantings on site to reduce fertilizer use and improve infiltration. 9. Install green roof on building. ill Install grit chambers, sediment traps, or forebavs. & Special construction practices shall be required on proiects adiacent to wetlands. Practices to be approved bv staff prior to issuance of a grading or building permit including, but not limited to, the following: ill Grading. ill Sequencing. ill Vehicle tracking platforms. ill Additional silt fences. ill Additional sediment control. h. Buffer measurement. Buffers shall be measured horizontallv from wetland edge, not across the buffer landscape. On slopes greater than 18% the buffer width shall be increased to 10 feet bevond the apex of the slope. Extension of the buffer for steep slopes shall apply to all wetland classes. The city may require a variable buffer width to protect adjacent habitat that the city determines is valuable to the wetland, stream, wildlife or vegetation. h The citv does not allow the construction of stormwater drainage facilities, sedimentation ponds, infiltration basins, and rain water gardens within the buffer, except as allowed in general exceptions. j. The minimum buffer widths shall apply to all wetlands, including those created, restored, relocated, replaced or enhanced. k. Buffer shall remain in natural state with naturalized or native vegetation. I. Where the watershed district has approved a wetland filling permit. The city shall require mitigation for any disturbed buffer land. 13 moo Landowners interested in restoring their buffer to native plants should submit a restoration plan as specified in item 6.f.3.a. (restoration of buffer to native plantings) to city staff for approval. 7. Fcncing Erosion control. sign, and platting standards: a. 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 contractors have finished all development activities that may affect the buffer. b. Before grading or starting construction, the boundary between a buffer and adjacent land shall be identified using permanent signs. These signs shall mark the edge of the buffer and shall state there shall be no mowing, cutting, filling or dumping beyond this point. These signs shall be installed at each lot line where it crosses a wetland buffer. and where needed to indicate the contour of the buffer. with a maximum spacing of 100' feet of wetland edge. c. All erosion control measures must be maintained and inspected to ensure compliance and protection of wetlands, streams, and buffers. The contractor or owner 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. d. When platting or subdividing property, the plat or subdivision must show the wetland boundaries as approved by the watershed district. e. After completion of grading or construction the contractor or owner mav remove the erosion control measures onlv after inspection and approval bv the city and watershed district to ensure the areas affected have been established per requirements. t It is the responsibility of the owner to alleviate anv erosion occurring after completion of grading or construction. inspection bv the city and watershed district. and removal of erosion control measures. 8. Mitigation and restoration of buffers. The city requires mitigation when a property owner or contractor has altered or will alter a buffer. The property owner or contractor shall submit a mitigation plan to the city staff for their approval. In reviewing the plan, the city may require the following actions below in deseending ordel' of pref.crcnce. a. Reducing or avoiding the impact by limiting the degree or amount of the action, such as by using appropriate technology. b. RectifYing the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the woodland buffer. c. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by prevention and maintenance operations during the life ofthe actions. d. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing or providing substitute buffer land at up to a twoene-to-one ratio. e. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. 14 f. Where the city requires restoration or replacement, the owner or contractor shall replant the buffer with native vegetation. at a similar density to the amount before alteration A replanting plan must be approved bv the city prior to planting. &. Anv additional requirements by the appropriate watershed district as well as the soil and water conservation shall applv. h. All strategies as listed in item fJ. (alternative average buffer) 9 . Wetland buffer mitigation surety required. The applicant shall post a wetland buffer mitigation surety with the city. such as a cash deposit or letter of credit. of one hundred and fiftv (150) percent of estimated cost for mitigation. Funds will be held bv the city until successful completion of restoration. Wetland buffer mitigation surety does not include other sureties required pursuant to anv other provision of city code or citv directive. .lQ., Enforcement. The citv reserves the right to inspect the site at anv time for compliance with this ordinance. lL The city shall be responsible for the enforcement of this ordinance. Anv person who fails to complv with or violates anv section of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and. upon conviction. shall be subiect to punishment in accordance with section 1-15. All land use building and grading permits shall be suspended until the developer has corrected the violation. Each dav that a separate violation exists shall constitute a separate offense. 15 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner and Alan Kantrud, City Attorney Sign Code Amendment-Dynamic Display Sign Ordinance November 20, 2007 INTRODUCTION Over the past several months, city staff, attorney, advisory committees and council have been involved in settling compliance issues with a billboard operator regarding their newly operational, "dynamic display," sign-face south of Highwood Avenue along 1-494. On October 22,2007, the City Council entered into an Agreement with Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., the owner/operator of this sign, allowing them to continue use of this sign. This Agreement also allowed Clear Channel Outdoor to upgrade to, "dynamic display," one of their existing billboards on Highway 36 and White Bear Avenue. Request Under consideration currently is a sign-code amendment that would allow this new form of dynamic sign display and regulate such devices going forward. As the background data below indicates, this matter has been discussed several times already by both the planning commission (PC) and the community design review board (CDRB). Staff is bringing this matter back again to the planning commission for the following reasons. The City is taking the more conservative interpretation of the ordinance regarding changes to the zoning code (specifically, in this case, the sign code) by finding that only the planning commission has the proper advisory authority to the city council on land use and zoning matters of this nature. On November 5th it was the opinion of the City Attorney that the planning commission could delegate their review powers to the CDRB, but since there is no specific authority given by code regarding any right of delegation by the planning commission, we are bringing this issue back before the planning commission for their recommendation to the city council. Maplewood Code-Review Authority Maplewood Code, Section 44-1161, provides that, "an amendment not initiated by the planning commission shall be referred to the planning commission for study and report and may not be acted upon by the city council until it has received the recommendation of the planning commission on the proposed amendment or until 60 days have elapsed." That section of the code is modeled from Minnesota Statute, Section 462.357, subdivision 4. In the state statute, however, the language is broader in that a city's governing body cannot act until the proper, "planning agency," has reviewed the changes proposed-with no specific reference to a particular body being made. Maplewood has specifically delegated that duty to the planning commission, as referenced above. In reading the Maplewood Code section enabling the planning commission (Section 2-246, et seq.), the authority to delegate responsibilities of the planning commission is not clearly granted in the section outlining the duties and responsibilities of the commission (Section 2-252). In fact, unless required or necessary it appears that there is no delegation authority whatsoever. Similarly, the grant of authority to the CDRB (Section 2-281 et. seq.) does not include the authority to handle matters referred to it by the planning commission either. The Board is charged with review of the plans for buildings and is focused on, "major construction projects," that require a building permit. In fact, section 2-285 limits the city's ability to issue a building permit until the board has reviewed the application and applied its standards. So the matter is back before the PC due to the requirement imposed by the Maplewood Code. Reason for the Proposed Code Revision Clear Channel Outdoor's upgrades to their billboard on the west side of 1-494 on the Carver General Repair site were regarded by the City as a violation of the City's sign ordinance which generally prohibited signs the changed in brightness or color. In staff's opinion, their new, "dynamic display," sign-face changed in, "brightness and color." On October 22, 2007, the City Council approved an Agreement with Clear Channel Outdoor to let them keep their sign, but the Ordinance still needs to be changed. Scheduled Council Review This matter is scheduled for city council review on November 26, 2007. BACKGROUND October 8, 2007: The city council: . Gave 1" reading to the "Prohibited Signs" ordinance amendment that would delete, "signs that change in brightness and color" as a generally prohibited sign. . Referred the code amendment regarding dynamic display signs to the planning commission and CDRB. . Directed that the council move forward regarding the sign at the Maplewood Community Center. October 9, 2007: The CDRB discussed and recommended that the board work with the planning commission and city council to adopt the proposed changes to the prohibited signs and draft the dynamic sign language. The board further recommended that any settlement the city may make with Clear Channel should not involve the erection of more dynamic signs. October 16, 2007: The planning commission discussed the dynamic display sign ordinance and tabled this matter to allow more time to study this issue. October 22, 2007: The city council: . Approved the Clear Channel agreement. . Moved to have the sign ordinance amendment brought forward the council's review. November 5, 2007: The planning commission reviewed the Eagan dynamic sign ordinance amendment for possible incorporation into the Maplewood sign ordinance. The planning commission moved to delegate this matter to the CDRB for their review and recommendation to the city council. November 13, 2007: The CDRB tabled this matter and requested that staff provide additional information for their further evaluation of this issue. The materials the board requested are: . A listing of the existing billboards in Maplewood. . A copy of the City of St. Paul's billboard ordinance. . Clear Channel's studies of billboard lighting that Mr. McGovern referred to in his comments to the board. DISCUSSION This ordinance amendment is forwarded to the planning commission for their review and recommendation to the city council. The proposed ordinance is largely based on the newly- adopted Dynamic Display Sign Ordinance by the City of Eagan. This proposed amendment is also to follow-up with the city councils October 22,d commitment to Clear Channel to amend the ordinance, thence permitting dynamic display signs. RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached sign ordinance amendment to allow dynamic display billboards. p:ord/LED Billboards files/sign code memo Clear Channel te ak 11 2007 Attachments: 1. Existing Billboards in Maplewood 2. CDRB Meeting Comments of November 13,2007 3. Dynamic Display Sign Ordinance Amendment Attachment 1 EXISTING MAPLEWOOD BILLBOARDS 11/20/07 Maplewood's existing billboard ordinance was adopted in 1982 and permits billboards as follows: located within commercial zoning districts: maximum size of 450 square feet: maximum height of 35 feet: 200 feet to another billboard: 100 feet to commercial building: 200 feet to residential district or 500 feet to residence: 300 feet to interchange: 500 feet to park: 10 feet to property line. Maplewood has five billboards, all of which were constructed prior to the city's billboard ordinance. All five billboards are considered legal nonconforming billboards because they exceed one of the billboard ordinance's requirements for size or setbacks. Following is a breakdown of the five billboards located within the city limits: 1. 1-494 and Highwood Avenue (2714 Highwood Avenue): a. Southwesterly corner of Highwood Avenue and Century Avenue, adjacent to 1-494. b. Zoning District: Zoned Business Commercial c. Existing Use: Business and Single Family Home d. Lot Size: 2.1 Acres e. Billboard Height: 35 feet f. Billboard Sign Face Size: 14 feet by 50 feet (700 square feet) 2. Highway 36 (1790 Gervais): a. North side of Highway 36, west of White Bear Avenue, south of Gervais Avenue (within the Cook's Auto Body Repair property) b. Zoning District: Light Manufacturing c. Existing Use: Auto Body Shop d. Lot Size: 2.20 Acres e. Billboard Height: 35 feet f. Billboard Sign Face Size: 14 feet by 50 feet (700 square feet) 3. Highway 36 (1661 Cope Avenue): a. South side of Highway 36, west of Hazelwood Avenue, north of Cope Avenue (within the City County Credit Union property) b. Zoning District: Light Manufacturing c. Existing Use: Credit Union d. Lot Size: 4.59 Acres e. Billboard Height: 35 feet f. Billboard Sign Face Size: 10.5 feet by 36 feet (378 square feet) 4. Highway 36 (1255 Highway 36): a. North side of Highway 36, west of Highway 61, south of Gervais Avenue (within the Metcalf Moving Storage property) b. Zoning District: Light Manufacturing c. Existing Use: Trucking/Storage Company d. Lot Size: 3.53 Acres e. Billboard Height: 35 feet f. Billboard Sign Face Size: 14 feet by 50 feet (700 square feet) 5. Beam Avenue: a. South side of Beam Avenue, west of Highway 61, east of Hazelwood Avenue (within the KSTP radio tower property) b. Zoning District: Light Manufacturing c. Existing Use: Radio Towers/Wetland d. Lot Size: 43.21 Acres e. Billboard Height: (NO CITY RECORDS FOUND) f. Billboard Sign Face Size: (NO CITY RECORDS FOUND) te desk top/maplewood billboards 11 07 provided by SF 11 20 07 Attachment 2 COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REVIEW COMMENTS OF NOVEMBER 13, 2007 Clear Channel Liahtina Studies City staff contacted Tom McCarver for a copy of the lighting studies he has. We haven't received them, but previously had received comments from SRF Consulting Group. That study stated that, at a minimum, it is important for communities to require all dynamic display signs be equipped with a dimmer control. A requirement for both a dimmer control and a photo cell which constantly keeps track of ambient light conditions and adjusts sigh brightness accordingly, is optimal. Eagan's dynamic display ordinance addresses this requirement. On-Site Dvnamic Disolav Sians: Eagan's dynamic display sign code allows dynamic displays for on-site and off-site signs. Maplewood's existing sign code only allows such signs which change in brightness or color (though the city council gave first reading of a code amendment to delete this language) on on-site signage if used primarily for a public service message. Primarily has been interpreted to mean at least 31 minutes out of every hour. This portion of Maplewood's sign code was adopted in 1972 and was designed to address the old style of bank signs which had light bulbs that could display time and temperature. Since that time technology has changed and the prices of the newer electronic signs and LED signs have come down to the point that it is affordable for commercial businesses. For this reason the city has received four sign permit applications for such signage in the last seven years. Only two of the applicants were interested in installing a sign once they were aware of the code requirement for displaying primarily public service messaging (Bremer Bank and Days Inn). The CDRB discussed whether the dynamic display sign code amendment should include on- premise signs as well as off-premise signs. It was determined that the CDRB would prefer to take the time needed to review on-site signs with the overall draft sign code amendment the city council has directed the CDRB to resurrect in the next coming months. For this reason, staff recommends portions of the Eagan dynamic display sign code which pertain to off-premise signs only. Setbacks: The CDRB also discussed requiring setbacks for off-premise dynamic display signs residential windows. As noted in the section describing existing billboards, however, the only billboard which is situated close to a residential window is the billboard at 1-494 and Highwood, which is the location of Clear Channel's existing dynamic display sign. For this reason, staff did not include setback requirements for the off-premise dynamic displays. Dvnamic Disolav Sian Definition: After the installation of the Myth's LED sign approximately two years ago the CDRB reviewed the new LED sign technology. Based on the city attorney's comments at the time, it was determined that the new style of electronic message board signs (LED signs - outdoor televisions) was different enough from anything that has come before that it needed its own category in the sign code. The CDRB recommended a definition for the dynamic display signs (previously called outdoor televisions by the board): they also recommended that those styles of signs be prohibited in the city. Staff therefore is recommending the CDRB's proposed definition of the dynamic display signs be included in the ordinance as opposed to Eagan's definition. Attachment 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BILLBOARD REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO DYNAMIC DISPLAY OFF-SITE ADVERTISING SIGNS THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO THE MAPLEWOOD CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING BILLBOARD ADVERTISING SIGNS: Section 1. This section adds Section 44-842 (previously "reserved") as follows: Dynamic Display Signs. a. Findings. Studies show that there is a correlation between dynamic displays on signs and the distraction of highway drivers. Distraction can lead to traffic accidents. Drivers can be distracted not only by a changing message, but also by knowing that the sign has a changing message. Drivers may watch a sign waiting for the next change to occur. Drivers are also distracted by messages that do not tell the full story in one look. People have a natural desire to see the end of the story and will continue to look at the sign in order to wait for the end. Additionally, drivers are more distracted by special effects used to change the message, such as fade-ins and fade-outs. Finally, drivers are generally more distracted by messages that are too small to be clearly seen or that contain more than a simple message. Time and temperature signs appear to be an exception to these concerns because the messages are short, easily absorbed, and become inaccurate without frequent changes. Despite these public safety concerns, there is merit to allowing new technologies to easily update messages. Except as prohibited by state or federal law, sign owners should have the opportunity to use these technologies with certain restrictions. The restrictions are intended to minimize potential driver distraction and to minimize proliferation in residential districts where signs can adversely impact residential character. Local spacing requirements could interfere with the equal opportunity to use such technologies and are not included. Without those requirements, however, there is the potential for numerous dynamic displays to exist along any roadway. If more than one dynamic display can be seen from a given location on a road, the minimum display time becomes critical. If the display time is too short, a driver could be subjected to a view that appears to have constant movement. This impact would obviously be compounded in a corridor with multiple signs. If dynamic displays become pervasive and there are no meaningful limitations on each sign's ability to change frequently, drivers may be subjected to an unsafe degree of distraction and sensory overload. Therefore, a longer display time is appropriate. A constant message is typically needed on a sign so that the public can use it to identify and find an intended destination. Changing messages detract from this way-finding purpose and could adversely affect driving conduct through last- second lane changes, stops, or turns, which could result in traffic accidents. Accordingly, dynamic displays generally should not be allowed to occupy the entire copy and graphic area of a sign. In conclusion, the city finds that dynamic displays should be allowed on off- premise signs but with significant controls to minimize their proliferation and their potential threats to public safety. b. Dynamic display sign means any sign designed for outdoor use which is capable of displaying a video display, including, but not limited to, cathode-ray tubes (CRTs), light-emitting diode (LED) displays, plasma displays, liquid-crystal displays (LCDs), or other such technologies. c. Dynamic display signs are allowed subject to the following conditions: 1. The images and messages displayed must be static, and the transition from one static display to another must be instantaneous without any special effects: 2. The images and messages displayed must be complete in themselves, without continuation in content to the next image or message or to any other sign: 3. Dynamic display signs must be designed and equipped to freeze the device in one position if a malfunction occurs. The displays must also be equipped with a means to immediately discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner must immediately stop the dynamic display when notified by the city that it is not complying with the standards of this ordinance: 4. Dynamic display signs must comply with the brightness standards contained in subdivision (e) below: d. Incentives. Off-premises signs do not need to serve the same on-site directional or way-finding function as do on-premises signs. This clause is intended to provide an incentive option for the voluntary and uncompensated removal of off- premise signs in certain settings. This removal results in an overall advancement of one or more of the goals set forth in this section that should more than offset any additional burden caused by the incentives. These provisions are also based on the recognition that the incentives create an opportunity to consolidate outdoor advertising services that would otherwise remain distributed throughout the community and expand the function of off-premises signs to serve a public purpose by providing community and public service messages. (1) Incentive Option A - Reduction of Sign Surfaces (a) A person may obtain a permit for an enhanced dynamic display sign on one surface of an existing off-premises sign if the following requirements are met: 1) The applicant agrees in writing to reduce its off-premise sign surfaces by one by permanently removing, within 15 days after issuance of the permit, one surface of an off- premises sign in the city that is owned or leased by the applicant, which sign surface must satisfy the criteria of parts (2) and (3) of this subsection. This removal must include the complete removal of the structure and foundation supporting each removed sign surface. The applicant must agree that the city may remove the sign surface if the applicant does not timely do so, and the application must identify the sign surface to be removed and be accompanied by a cash deposit or letter of credit acceptable to the city attorney sufficient to pay the city's costs for that removal. The applicant must also agree that it is removing the sign surface voluntarily and that it has no right to compensation for the removed sign surface under any law. Replacement of an existing sign surface of an off- premises sign with an enhanced dynamic display sign does not constitute a removal of a sign surface. 2) The city has not previously issued a dynamic display sign permit based on the removal of the particular sign surface relied upon in this permit application. 3) If the removed sign surface is one for which a state permit is required by state law, the applicant must surrendered its permit to the state upon removal of the sign surface. The sign that is the subject of the dynamic display sign permit cannot begin to operate until proof is provided to the city that the state permit has been surrendered. (b) If the applicant complies with the permit requirements noted above, the city will issue an enhanced dynamic display sign permit for the designated off-premises sign. This permit will allow a dynamic display to occupy 100 percent of the potential copy and graphic area and to change no more frequently than once every eight seconds. The designated sign must meet all other requirements of this ordinance. (2) Incentive Option B - Provision of Community and Public Service Messaging (a) A person may obtain a permit for an enhanced dynamic display sign on one surface of an existing off-premise sign if the following requirements are met: 1) The enhanced dynamic display sign replaces an existing surface of an existing off-premise sign: 2) The city has not previously issued a dynamic display sign permit based on the replacement of the particular sign surface relied upon in this permit application. 3) The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the city to provide to the city no less than 5 hours (2250 eight-second spots) per month per enhanced dynamic display sign face in the city for community and public service messages at such times as shall be determined by the city. (b) If the applicant complies with the permit requirements noted above, the city will issue an enhanced dynamic display sign permit for the designated off-premise sign. This permit will allow a dynamic display to occupy 100 percent of the potential copy and graphic area of an existing sign face and to change no more frequently than once every eight seconds. The designated sign must meet all other requirements of this ordinance. e. Brightness Standards. (1) All signs must meet the following brightness standards: (a) No sign may be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility. (b) No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a motor vehicle driver with average eyesight or to otherwise interfere with the driver's operation of a motor vehicle. (c) No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal. (2) The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the sign to meet the brightness standards in accordance with the city's instructions. The adjustment must be made immediately upon notice of non-compliance from the city. (3) All dynamic display_signs installed after (insert the effective date of this ordinance) that will have Illumination by a means other than natural light must be equipped with a mechanism that automatically adjusts the brightness in response to ambient conditions. These signs must also be equipped with a means to immediately turn off the display or lighting if it malfunctions, and the sign owner or operator must immediately turn off the sign or lighting when notified by the city that it is not complying with the standards in this section. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on Attest: City Clerk Mayor