Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-15 ENR Minutes ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 15, 2008 COUNCIL CHAMBERS - MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Yingling called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Ginny Yingling, Chair Commissioner Judith Johannessen Commissioner Carole Lynne Commissioner Carol Mason Sherrill Commissioner Frederica Musgrave Commissioner Bill Schreiner Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present City Council Liaison Present: Councilmember Kathleen Juenemann Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner and Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Naturalist III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler made motioned to approve the agenda, seconded by Mason Sherrill. The motion carried by a vote of 6 to 0 with Commissioner Johannessen abstaining because this is her first meeting with the commission. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. May 20, 2008: Commissioner Trippler made a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Chair Yingling. The motion carried by a vote of 4 to 0 with two commissioners abstaining (Commissioner Lynne and Commissioner Johannessen) b. June 3, 2008: Commissioner Trippler made a motion to approve the minutes with one correction including changing Commission Musgrave's vote from abstain to no in the resolution of appreciation item and modifying the language on the CFL item to read florescent lights should also be included in the article as they have mercury also, seconded by Commissioner Mason Sherrill. The motion carried by a vote of 3 to 0 with three commissioners abstaining (Yingling, Schreiner and Johannessen). V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Wetland Ordinance Planner Finwall gave a brief summary of the public testimony from the last meeting. Discussion on Mobile Home Park Issue: Chair Yingling wondered if there should be some reference in the wetland ordinance regarding Minnesota statute discussed by Planner Finwall which would allow manufactured homes to be rebuilt with their existing setbacks. 2 Discussion on Nonconforming Single Family Homes: Chair Yingling asked what is done about a home that is destroyed such as by fire or a natural disaster when it is a nonconforming property. If the plan is to rebuild on the existing foundation how does that apply the wetland ordinance? Is it prohibited because it is nonconforming structure or is there an exemption? Planner Finwall responded that if an ordinance is adopted and the structure becomes nonconforming and is destroyed to more than 50 percent of its fair market value then it could not be rebuilt without a variance. Planner Finwall commented that if homes within wetland buffers are damaged by a natural disaster and the property owner wants to rebuild, then the city would have the opportunity to review the request and make improvements such as increasing or improving the buffer through the variance process. She asked if the commission wanted to review language that would allow those homes to be rebuilt without a variance if they met a minimum setback and if improvements were made to the buffer? Commissioner Trippler stated that the variance process would allow the city controls over the new house's location and conditions to improve on the buffer. Commissioner Schreiner commented that from a homeowner's perspective he would like to see some kind of language that would protect the homeowner's ability to rebuild their house rather than leaving it in the hands of an elected council. Maybe some kind of language such as if the home is totally destroyed that nothing gets any closer to the buffer than the existing foundation was. Chair Yingling responded that we would need to set some minimum requirements. Commissioner Mason Sherrill mentioned that we need to consider the damage of business as well as homes. Chair Yingling suggested language that would provide people with some level of comfort regarding what they can rebuild on their property. Commissioner Trippler commented that we need to put together a wetland ordinance that protects the wetlands and if there is a disaster that people will be reasonable enough to work out a compromise so that everyone is satisfied. Councilmember Kathleen Juenemann approached the podium and suggested standards for allowing rebuilding of homes within the buffer. Sharon Sandeen, resident at 1748 Gulden Place, approached the podium and made some suggestions and comments: . The more restriction you impose by an ordinance the more issues you have affecting property owners. . For some property owners existing buffers are being tripled. . The whole width of buffer zones is an important component to this because if the recommended widths aren't adopted then the result will be the tripling and doubling of buffers. . You have to consider the existing setback requirements for homes. 3 . If the city's current buffer widths currently exceed the states guidelines what is the rational and the basis for going beyond that? Chair Yingling stated that she would like to see language which would allow homeowners to rebuild as long as they were a minimum of 50 feet to the wetland. Commissioner Trippler would like a clear distinction made between setback and buffer requirements on a lake versus a wetland. A setback to the lake as required in the shoreland ordinance refers to how far a structure can be built from the lake and offers protection to the water quality of the lake. Buffers are areas which cannot be mowed or cut in addition to areas where structures cannot be built. They are intended to protect water quality and to provide some passage way, living space, etc., for wildlife. That is why our proposed wetland buffers exceed the shoreland setbacks. If a property is within the 50 foot setback and it gets destroyed it is up to the ruling body whether a variance is issued. He would not like to see language in the ordinance which would allow those properties to be rebuilt. Chair Yingling suggested that there be a minimum setback of 50 feet to be able to rebuild without a variance. Chairperson Trippler asked what happens if they are in an area that has a 100-foot buffer? He feels if they are in a setback or buffer then they should be required to come in for a variance. Chair Yingling made a motion to put in language to give homeowners some assurances. Commissioner Mason Sherrill suggested that this might be an opportunity to enhance the wetland working with the city for the same goal. Commissioner Trippler will second the motion if it includes staff working with homeowners to develop best management practices to improve the buffer. Chair Yingling suggested that we use whatever the legal definition of a destroyed building. If the home is outside of that 50-foot buffer or setback area then they won't need to come in for a variance as long as they work with staff to improve the buffer. Naturalist Gaynor stated that if they are grandfathered in they can use that existing setback as long as it is within 50 feet of a wetland. Planner Finwall responded that this would apply to Manage A and B wetlands only because Manage C wetlands require a 50-foot buffer. Commissioner Schreiner stated that the language should cover destruction of homes by natural disaster only, so that we are not creating a loophole for someone to destroy their home by tearing it down just to rebuild. The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0 with Commissioner Johannessen abstaining. Staff will draft language and bring it back for the commission's review. Discussion on Issues Raised by Resident Bruce Olsen in his May 7, 2008, Memorandum: Chair Yingling suggested taking a look at some of the recommendations that were submitted by Bruce Olsen. Chair Yingling suggested adopting the changes in language as follows: 4 1. Page 2, second paragraph, item three. 2. Change in language as suggested on page 3, item 7. 3. Change in language as suggested in Item 8. 4. Change in language as suggested in Item 9. 5. Change in language as suggested in Item 10. 6. Items 12 and 14. 7. Item 20 Chair Yingling made a motion to adopt the changes as specified, seconded by Commissioner Trippler. The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0 with Commissioner Johannessen abstaining. Commissioner Yingling suggested that the commission take a look at the memo from Sharon Sandeen. She also proposed that time is set aside to have a workshop. She reviewed the issues that were brought up in the memo. She feels it is worth looking at exemptions of what people can do within their existing mowed lawn. What practical things we can suggest for exemptions for activities on properties that are already developed. Commissioner Trippler stated that the purpose of having the buffer is to provide wildlife an area to move from one wetland to another and to create habitat. He feels that common sense would dictate what a homeowner can do within the buffer as long as it allows wildlife the freedom to move about. He is hoping that staff can come up with suggestions. Planner Finwall stated that maybe there needs to be some clarification regarding what a homeowner can do with their mowed yard that is in a buffer versus what is allowed within a naturalized buffer. Chair Yingling feels there needs to be some language that gives people clarification that there are activities in that maintained lawn area. Naturalist Gaynor stated that we are talking about people who are grandfathered in with their lawn. We need to be clear about lawns that are grandfathered in. Commissioner Trippler would like to see the city staff work with property owners who have mowed lawns within a wetland buffer about installing a rain garden. Naturalist Gaynor asked whether the commission needs a definition of what is meant by yard activities. Chair Yingling commented that we need to differentiate between the lawn areas versus, naturalized areas, versus native areas. Ginny Gaynor stated that what she is hearing is that gardens and temporary structures should be okay in an existing lawn area that is grandfathered in. But a patio with a foundation would not be okay in a buffer. Would a bench, fire pit, or compost pile be okay in the buffer? Commissioner Lynne thinks that portable objects are fine but not something permanent on the property. Commissioner Schreiner is concerned with sheds in the buffer. Commissioners directed staff to come up with language for specific items and to schedule a wetland workshop in August to complete the review. 5 b. Comprehensive Plan - Sustainability Chapter Commissioner Mason Sherrill wanted to add two points. Under tree issue, goals, number 5, adopt urban tree program, down under implementation strategies there is nothing mentioned on trees. She wants to add something under the education, partnership, implementation and strategies "to establish and maintain our urban tree program" we need to implement the USDA forest research service program and tools. Under polices ordinances and programs she would like to see a point stating that we will enforce our current tree ordinance, she doesn't feel it is being enforced well. Commissioner Schreiner suggested under goals item 4, he would like to see the word encourage be replaced with the word require. Commissioner Schreiner under education partnerships, he wants to change the wording to "coordinate with mass transit providers." Commissioner Schreiner would like to see one item added; a requirement that any and all new developments provide access to available mass transit. Commissioner Lynne under page three on the top the wording is not strong enough. It does not mention how you would have efficient trash hauling. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Planner Finwall mentioned the following:- o National Night Out is August 5. o Alternate dates for the next Commission meeting. o Recycling bin distribution by Eureka during National Night Out. o Maplewood nature center programs - mentioned programs, digital dragonflies in an analog world which is scheduled for August 23. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.