Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-15 ENR Packet AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE COMMISSION Tuesday, July 15, 2008 5:15 p.m. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: a. May 20, 2008 (tabled from June 3 meeting) b. June 3, 2008 5. Unfinished Business: a. Wetland Ordinance Review 6. New Business 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Commission Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. Reschedule August 5 Meeting Due to Nationai Night Out Events b. National r,ight Out (August 5) - Recycling Bin Distribution c. Maplewood Nature Center Programs 10. Adjourn Agenda Item 4.a. ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 20,2008 COUNCIL CHAMBERS - MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST Chairperson Yingling called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. ATTENDANCE: Commissioner Carole Lynne Commissioner Carol Mason Sherrill Commissioner Frederica Musgrave Corn missioner Dale Trippler Chair Ginny Yingling Excused Present Present Present Present STAFF PRESENT Shann Finwall, Environrnental Planner VISITORS PRESENT Dr. Mike Manthei, President of SilverL.ake Improvement Association Wendy Crowel, Department of Natural Res.ources - Invasive Species Program Lincoln Fetcher, President pLValley Branch Watershed District APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chair Yingling made a motion to approVe the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Trippler. The motion carried by a vote of 4 to 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 21, 2008: A rnotion to adopt the April 21, 2008, minutes was made by Commissioner Musgrave, seconded by Chair Yingling. The motion carried by a vote of 4 to O. NEW BUSiNESS; Silver Lake Improvement Association -. Request for Herbicido Treatment Funding for the Control of Curlyloaf Pondweed and Eurasian Watormilfoil in Sliver Lake Commissioner Trippler - He is wondering why the city rejected the request last year? Planner Finwall - The ENR and Parks Commission recommended funding the treatment. but the city council ultimately denied the request. Commissioner Musgrave - Curious about what was disoovered regarding the fishing pier, there appeared to be a lot of questions left open by the parks commission regarding this. She also has questions regarding funding. Planner FInwal1 - Regarding boat ramp, the Parks Commission has applied for a grant from the Department of Natural Resources to help fund a fishing pier which is part of the Joy Park master plan. Additional slgnage has been installed near the boat ramp to help alleviate concerns about boats coming into the lake or exiting the lake with invasive species. Commissioner Musgrave - The recommendation by city staff last year included additional studies and shoreiine Improvement by the residents. Commissioner Mason Sherrill - What are homeowners on the lake doing regarding mitigation for this? What is their stake In this? Dr. Mike Manthei, President of Silver Lake Improvement Association - When we came to the city council for funding the city council denied our request. The mayor told him he should have gone to the ENR commission first which he then did. He remembered a staff person making the recommendations. Chair Yingling - Recalled the ENR Commission meeting where they discussed the item last year. Chair Yingling stated that the ENR Commission ultimately recommended approval. Dr. Manthei - Many Silver Lake residents attendedthe Nature Center's shoreline restoration session and one of theiesidents subsequently undertook planted native plantings of their shoreline. In addition, several residents have Installed rip-rap for erosion control. Dr. Manthei stated that this is an opportunity to help the quality of a lake before It becomes impaired. Chair Yingling - Wants to make sure that if the city assists in funding the treatment of the lake that there is a plan and commitment by all lake owners for improving the water quality by restoring the shoreline. Commissioner Mason Sherriii - Concerned that chemical treatment is also killing native plants and wondered what kind of an Impact that will have on aquatic animals? Can the killed natives be reintroduced at a later point? Dr. Manthei - Only a very slllall percentage of the native Northern milfoil was killed off iast year by the treatment. Wendy Crowel, DNR - there were severai native species that were reduced or killed following tmatment, which was unexpeoted. The D~JR will be doing the same plant survey again next year. We want so see the abundance and frequency of the plants. There is plenty of coontail In the lake, which oHers exceiient hablta'[ for many invertebrates. She thinks that the seed bank for l--JorthGrn milfoll IS already in the sediment of Silver Lake. If there are favorable conditions this year the plants will reappear and it won't be necessary to reintroduce them, 2 Commissioner Trippier - He didn't get a sense fram the DNR report to the legislature lIlat the treatment grant program was providing great benefit to the dollar. Ms. Crowel - The intent of the grant Is to take lakes with high amounts of invasive plants and be able to reduce the plants significantly. Their aim is not to eradicate the plant completely. In regards to ecological benefits, many of these projects have just started. We do not have the data yet to determine whether these ecological benefits can be achieved. Commissioner Trippler - Is anybody at the DNR looking at the comparative benefit of limiting nutrient input to the lake versus adding chemicals? Ms. Crowel - She does not know of any single person at the DNR trying to pull that data together. In many cases both will need to be done. Commissioner Musgrave - Concerned about the long term use of these products. Ms. Crowel - Part of what we are doing is monitoring the plant community. It is adaptive management. We are very cautious of how we put the herbicides in the water. Chair Yingling - You mentioned that the treatment has alrefl9Y been done this year. The ENR is therefore not voting on whether this should happen or not, we are voting on whether the city participates and has some say in how it is done. As such, what does this mean for the city's overall budget? Planner Finwall - does not know overall scheme olthe budget except to say that this item was not included in the 20013 budget. If approved, the funds would have to come from future EUF and PAC funds or bepuiled from another project. Commissioner Trippler - Why is Qity staff recommending funding one-half of the treatment? Planner Finwall - The ENR andParks Commission recommended that amount last year in order to show the city's initial support. City staff has followed suit this year since it is a tight budget year. Chair Yingling - Asked the question to the commissioners "Given all the other constraints, is this something we shouid be spending our funds on? What are our highest needs and priorities?" Commissioner Tripplef Feels that our first priority is to recommend to the city council whether we think doing lake treatment is worthwhile. The question of money is a policy decision for the city council. He was looking at this from the standpoint of what the request was, what the results show, and whether or not it was showing a benefit or causing damage. He vvould iike to know what the association is doing in terms of phosphorus limits on their shorelines. Ms. Crowel feund iess Eurasian watermilfoil this spring than last spring. She did not know whether it is a phosphorus or nitrogen limiting iake and is not aware of the association's efforts to restore shoreline. 3 Commissioner Musgrave - She received three e-mail questions: "Who is cleaning up the back waters? There may be run-off from illegal compost sites. Has a comparison been done to find out what neighboring cities are spending on preventing pollution? When we talk about money and contributing money what is the big picture?" Lincoln Fetcher, President of Valley Branch Watershed District - o Silver Lake is one of the cleanest and most pristine bodies of water in the watershed district. It is also one of the most heavily used recreation lakes in the metro area. It is a high priority area for the watershed district. The watershed district has put a lot of focus and energy in that lake in a number of ways including restoring part of the southeast shoreline and adding a bio retention site on the southwest corner that captures a significant amount of the run off. o Silver Lake has a lot of the storm water run off going directly in the lake from the street which is a challenge. The surrounding wetlands clean the water before it goes into the lake. The phosphorus loading is believed to be internal. o We have instigated a number of projects to improve run-off. We did a study on the water quality coming in from the north end. We will need to eventually do some restoration of that channel. o The biggest issue around the lake is the direct storm water runoff, which we are working with the City of North St. Paul to alleviate.and also to get them to stop mowing down to the edge of the lake in their park. o The boat ramp should not be associated with this funding issue as it is Ramsey County's. o With the 1.5 million dollar plan to dO.'Nork within Joy Park on the north side it seems like the focus on that would have to do with recreation. o It would make sense that part of thaUunding would be related to the water. Since the City of Maplewood owns the largest amount of shoreline on the lake, it is appropriate that the city be involved. Commissioner Musgravec- Looking at runoff, maintenance, and protection of shoreline-- is there some way of saying Maplewood is doing a better job in terms of stormwater runoff in spite of our having a larger proportion of shoreline. Mr. Fetcher - It appears that Maplewood's participation in this matter is needed. There is a serious shoreline erosion problem on the north side and elsewhere around the lake which is contributing to the problem. Geese population is reduced when there is a large amount of vegetation around the lake. Shoreline restoration within the park will provide a good demonstration and education for the public. Commissioner Yingling - Is this something we want to recommend to the city councii, that lake treatment is a good thing and that we support it? if so, do we want to make any recommendation about what kind of support they should be giving to it? Commissioner Mason Sherrill.. A positive recommendation to the city council is telling them yes, we think that water is Impo!iant and that the city needs to be doing sometlling< We can put it into words that are more explicit We need to be proactive and aggressive in taking care of our water. One thing that stands out to her regarding Silver t.ake is that we could get sarne very gooe1 data and information in treating our other impaimd waters. 4 Commissioner Musgrave Agreed willl sending a message in regards to being proactive about water quality, How are we going to go about it, how are we going to prioritize and where do we want to put our funding in the first step effort? Commissioner Mason Sherrill - Where the funding is coming from is not the ENR's responsibility to debate. Chair Yingling - The Joy Park Master Plan calls for some shoreline restoration on the park's shoreline, which would mean more native species and reducing erosion. Dr. Manthei - On the east side on the Joy Park shoreline there is a stormwater pipe. When the city is discussing storm water this should be addressed, He also mentioned that it is a spring fed lake. Commissioner Musgrave - I would like to have two motions from the ENR Commission, one that we are concerned about water quality and one that we do or don't support funding for the treatment of the lake. Chair Yingling - Do we have a consensus from the commission that we do support moving forward with these treatments? Commissioner Trippier - He does not like the general concept of poisoning something to make it better. He would recommend that the city provide some support to see if this is a way of dealing with these invasive species. He wou,ld also recommend that the city look into doing everything it possibly can to limit the amount of nutrients getting into the lake in the first place, monitoring the peopie who use the lake to make sure they don't keep bringing the invasive speciesin,.and haying a strong enforcement component so people get fined heavily for bringing inthe invasive species on their boats, Commissioner Trippler - Would like t6move the staff recommendation to support this study for this year at thisleyel. Chair Yingling - With the caveatthat the city needs to be looking at the input end both in terms of additional inputs from recreational users and getting our own house in order on storm water and other shoreline protection. Commissioner Trippler - four years from now when the study is over we can take a look at the invasive species section of the DNR to find out what their recommendations are and what they learned from this study. We won't want to put any more money into it if it is not wmking. A motion was made by Commissioner Trippler, seconded by Commissioner Mason Sherriil to fund the treatment of Silver Lake with herbicide to treat curly ieaf pondweed and Eurasian watermilfoil. Funding of the treatment would be $8,250, one-half to come from the EUF fund and the other haif from Pl\C. The motion passed by a vote of three to Olle, witll Commissioner Musgrave voting against the motion. Commissioner Musgrave stated that she didn't support funding the treatment during a tight budget year, but did support improvement of water quality in the city's lakes. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 5 Rules of Procedure Commissioner Musgrave had a question regarding section G - does it need to specify that if the chair can't attend the city council meeting then the vice chair should attend, and if the vice chair can't attend the chair will appoint someone to attend? Chair Yingling suggested that the language suggested by Commissioner Musgrave be added. The Commission discussed the final remaining section of the Rules of Procedure which included election of chair and vice chair. A motion was made by Commissioner Yingling, seconded by Commissioner Mason Sherrill to approve the election of chair and vice chair section of the ENR rules. The motion was carried by a vote of 4 to O. Following is the rules of procedure language previously adopted by the commission as well as the new language added during the May 20 meeting for the rules of procedure: ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE We, the members of the Environmental and NaturalR.esources Commission of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, created pursuant to DivisiOn 4, Sections 18.180 to 18.189 of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances, hereby adopt the following "Rules of Procedure," subject to the provisions of said Article, which.is hereby made a part of these Rules: A. APPOINTMENTS The city council shall make appointments to the environmental and natural resources commission by following the current city appointment policy. B. MEETINGS 1. All meetings shall be held in the council chambers in Maplewood City Hall, 1830 E. County Road B, unless otherwise directed by the chairperson or staff, in which case at ieast 24 hours notice will be given to all commissioners. 2. Regular meetings shall be heid at 5:15 p.m. on the tirst Tuesday of each calendar month, provided that when the meeting fails on a legal holiday or voting day, SUCll meeting shall be rescheduled. 3. Speciai meetings may be held upon cali by the chairperson or in his/her absence, by the vice chairperson, or by any other commissioner with the concurrence of 8 majority of the commissioners with at ieast 48 hours notice to all commissioners. C. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (, In addition to carrying out the duties prescribed in city ordinance the environmental planner or a designated replacement shall: 1. Prepare the agenda for each meeting. 2. Act as technical advisor on any matter which comes before the commission. 3. Make written recommendations to the commission on matters referred to the commission. 4. Schedule any matter with the city council that has been reviewed by the commission that requires city council approval. D. AGENDA 1. Copies of the agenda, together with pertinent staff reports and copies of the minutes of the previous meeting shall be made available to each member of the commission no later than three days prior to the next scheduled meeting. 2. The agenda format shall generally read as follows: a. Call to Order b. Roll Call c. Approval of Agenda d. Approvai of Minutes e. Unfinished Business f. New Business g. Visitor Presentations h. Commissioner Presentations i. Staff Presentations j. Adjournment E. QUORUM 1. A simple majority of the current membership of the commissioners shali constitute a quorum. 2. Any commissioner who abstains from voting on a particular question because of possible conflict of interest or other reason shall not be considered a member of the commission for the purpose of determining a quorum for the consideration of the issue. 3. Any action by the commission shall require a majority vote of the members present. F. ELECTION OF OFFICERS A chairperson and vice chairperson shall be elected at the first environmental and natural resources commission in January of each year and will serve until their successors have been elected. Nominations and members interested in serving as the chairperson or vice-chairperson shall be announced at the last meeting of the 7 year. The chairperson will cali for further nominations at the first meeting in January each year prior to the election. G. DUTIES OF THE CHAIRPERSON 1. In addition to the duties prescribed in the ordinance, the chair shall represent the commission at each city council meeting where a commission item is on the agenda, to present the commission's recommendations and to answer questions from the city council regarding the decision. If the chair is unavailable to attend the city council meeting, the chair will appoint a representative from the commission. H. CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON 1. The chairperson, vice chairperson, and such officers as the commission may decide shall be elected and assume duties according to the current ordinance. 2. In the absence of the chairperson, the vice chairperson shall perform all duties required of the chairperson. When both the chairperson and the vice chairperson are absent, the attending members shall elect a chairperson pro tem. 3. If the chairperson resigns from or is otherwise no longer on the commission, the vice chairperson shall becot)1e the acting chairperson until the commission can hold an election for new officers. If the vice chairperson resigns or is otherwise no longer on the comrni.Ssibn, the commission will elect a new vice chairperson at the next.possible commission meeting. I. TEMPORARY COMMITTEES 1. The commissiohshall elect by a majority vote such standing committees and temporary committe.es as may be required and such committees wiil be charged with the duties, examinations, investigations, and inquiries relative to subjects assigned by the chair. 2. No standing or temporary committee shall have the power to commit the commission to the endorsement of any plan or program without the express approval of the commissiono .1. VACANCIES The environmental and natural resources commission positions shall be vacated or recommended to the city councii for vacation according to the current environmental and naturai resources ordinances. K. AMENDMENT OR SUSPENSION OF RULES 1. Any of the foregoing rules Illay be temporarily suspended by a majority vote of the commissioners present. 8 2. The "Ruies of Procedure" may be amended at any regular meeting by a majority vote. L. RULES OF ORDER In all points not covered by these rules, the commission shall be governed in its procedures by Robert's Rules of Order, Revised. STAFF PRESENTATIONS: Items a. and c were tabled until the next meeting. b. Comprehensive Plan Open House (May 22): Planner Finwall reminded the Commission of the city's open house for the comprehensive plan to be held May 22 at the community center. ADJOURNMENT: 6:50 9 Agenda Item 4.b. ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2008 COUNCIL CHAMBERS - MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST Call to Order Chair Yingling called the meeting to order at 5:15 p,m. Roll Call: Frederica Musgrave Carole Lynne Carol Mason Sherrill Dale Trippler Ginny Yingling Present Present Present Present Excused Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Naturalist Approval of Agenda Commissioner Trippler made a motipn to approve the agenda as written, seconded by Commissioner Lynne. The motion carried by a vote of 4 to O. Approval of Minutes: a. May 6, 2008 Commissioner Musgrave commented that there was no explanation as to why she voted nay on the approval of these minutes. She felt that the visitor presentations should come eariier in the meeting and had a concern about the emergency meeting - short notice, Planner Finwall commented that a change was made to the April 21 minutes to reflect Commissioner Musgrave's reasoning and she will also add the above comments to the May 6 minutes. Commissioner Trippler stated that he would like the language changed from much to many and from giving to given on page 5, 3rd paragraph from the bottom. Commissioner Trippler made a motion to approve the May 6 minutes as modified, seconded by Commissioner Lynne. The motion carried by a vote of 3 to 0, with Commissioner Musgrave abstaining. Unfinished Business: a. Resolution of Appreciation for Margaret Behrens, John Mason, and Tom Moibi (tabled from 5-6-08 and 5-20-08 meetings) Commissioner Musgrave moved to approve the resolutions of appreciation. The motion failed for lack of second. Commissioner Trippler made a motion recommending that the city council adopt a resolution of appreciation policy that would formally appreciate board and commission members if they have served at least 1/3rd of their term. Seconded by Commissioner Mason Sherrill. Commissioner Lynne made a friendly amendment to include that the boards and commissions should show their appreciation of board and commissioners if they served less than that by sending a card of thanks. Commissioner Trippler approved the friendly amendment. The motion carried by vote of 3 to 0 with Commissioner Musgrave abstaining. b. Comprehensive Plan - Natural Resource Chapter Naturalist Gaynor discussed revisions to the chapter and stated that there is also a new implementation plan included in this review. Ms. Gaynor also mentioned that the city was awarded a $10,000 grant from theONR to conduct a plant inventory of the city to assist with the corridor identifications. Staffis.requesting that the commission review the draft natural resource chapter and make.final comments and recommendations. Commissioner Musgrave-Whatis the general philosophy regarding the master plan? Naturalist Gaynor statedlbat the philosophy is explained in the parks plan, but the intent is to watch for issues before they get out of hand such as invasive weeds. Commissioner TripiJler commented on the table and asked whether staff feels confident that they can reach these goals and objectives by this timeframe? Naturalist Gaynor stated that staff feels that we are on track to meet all of those timeframes. Commissioner Musgrave stated that she likes the Bioblitz idea. Commissioner Mason Sherrill commented that the Maplewood Forest Plan should be changed to the Tree Plan. Naturalist Gaynm discussed the concept ot having a buffer for greonways. Commissioner Musgrave asked if we could replace the word mandate with the word educate? Naturalist Gaynor stated that the city may want to mandate in some situations. 2 Commissioner Mason Sherrill asked if there is language on how we are going to coordinate those greenways with the neighboring communities. Naturalist Gaynor stated that there was a comment on one of the implementation strategies that we meet with our neighbors. Commissioner Trippler commented that he feels there needs to be some sort of transition or explanation up front which would bring Maplewood citizens in on how they become part of the natural resources plan. Maybe on the bottom of page one, after the paragraph that says the natural resource plan is a guide it could state that this plan will also provide citizens with an understanding of how they can playa role in achieving these goals and objectives through wise land use and management of their property. Naturalist Gaynor stated that she would add that language. Commissioner Trippler commented on bottom of page 2, goal number 9, second line reads "Natural areas, interpretation of natural resources." He feels this is language that people will not understand. Naturalist Gaynor responded that the definition of interpretation will be put in the Glossary. Commissioner Trippler commented on, page 8 under greenway challenges, second bullet it states that development is a seriousJhrealto the potential of this greenway. He asked if it should state unwise development or unplanned development. Naturalist Gaynor stated we eQuip add another bullet stating that it will be a challenge to preserve greenways but that weare doing conservation design and development in that area. We can also add a bulletwiththeaddition of unwise or unplanned development. Commissioner Musgrave commented on page 14, on the urban wildlife management, she would like to See something about education or proactive protection to sustain and improve the urban wildlife. She would prefer to see a bullet on page one regarding something more proactive in this regard. Commissioner Trippler stated that Commissioner Musgrave is suggesting a comment about educating citizens on the value of urban wildlife, why is it important to manage it, and how can they playa role in that management. Naturalist Gaynor commented that they could add a builet stating that educating the residents about the value and stewardship of urban wildlife. Commissioner Musgrave stated that she expected to see more of her suggestions In regard to the Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor. Naturalist Gaynor will take a look at those suggestions and add the infolmation. Commissioner Mason Sherrill made a recommendation that at the end of the meeting commissioners turn in their marked copies to staff for review. 3 Naturalist Gaynor commented that the next step in the process is to submit this to the planning commission. Commissioner Trippler made a motion that commissioners put their name on their memorandum that they received in their packet with suggested changes and give it to staff. Staff can look at those and incorporate the changes if appropriate and that the commission then can have staff pass this on to the planning commission for their meeting June 17. Commissioner Mason-Sherrill seconded. The motion carried by a vote of 3 to 0, with Commissioner Musgrave abstaining due to the fact that she felt she did not have time to study this in detail and get some feedback to check with people who are more knowledgeable than her. New Business: a. Comprehensive Plan - Sustainability Chapter Planner Finwall stated that the Community Design and Review Board recommended approval of the document. She commented that the Sustainability Chapter will be separate and distinctive from the Natural Resource Section and will deal with sustainability within the city's built environment. Commissioner Trippler questioned what type oftransportation the city would be developing in the near future? Planner Finwall stated that it is about promoting transportation options of citizens without cars. Commissioner Trippler statEid thEin that the term creating should be taken out. Commissioner Tripplercommehted that on page 4, second bullet, he doesn't see bio- diesel as being sUstainable. Commissioner MasClI1Sherrill suggested changing that to alternative fuels. Commissioner Musgrave made a suggestion to table discussion on the Sustainability Chapter for additional time to review. Commissioner Mason Sherrill stated that she would like a future discussion on bouievard trees when this item comes back before the commission. Commissioner Trippler made a motion to table the Sustainabiiity Chapter to the Ilext meeting, seconded by Commissioner Musgrave. The motion carried by a vote of 4 to O. Visitor Presentations Elizabetrl Sletten, 2747 Clarence Street, spoke about the proposed wetland ordinance and handed out infolmation pertaining to ir;lpaired within the 4 Commission Presentations a. Mercury and CFLs Commissioner Musgrave asked if we should do a general recommendation, motion of recommending that we have something about mercury and light bulb recycling, information on safety enclosed in either the monthly Maplewood Newsletter or if we could put something on our webslte to encourage Eureka recycling to get the information to the public about disposing of light bulbs with mercury. Planner Finwall feels It would be a good idea to put an article an upcoming City Newslettter. These types of iight bulbs have to be disposed of at the household hazardous waste site. Commissioner Trippler commented that florescent lights should also be included in the article as they have mercury also. b. U of M College of Natural Resources Environmental Capstone Project Commissioner Mason Sherrill explained graduating seniors qfthe Environmental Policy program and the University of Minnesota d6;;l>cap",tone project each year at various communities. They are interested in working with the City of Maplewood next fall. The city would need to present them with a well defined.issue. These students would then attend meetings and look at what we have~rd askqswhere do we want to go and how are we going to get there. They will then presentus with a project of an unbiased research based comprehensive portfolioJor some type of environmental policy issue in Maplewood. She asked the commissioners if they have any ideas. Commissioner Trippler statedthaHhegreenway corridors might be a good area for the students to look into. Naturalist Gaynor stated thatstaff will review the proposal and give it some thought also. Perhaps the blvd tree issue or irrigation could work as a project Commissioner Trippler stated that the commissioners should send ideas to Commissioner Mason Sherrill. Staff Presentations a. Schedule Second Meeting in June to Review Wetland Ordinance Tile Commissioners agreed on June 24 b Reschedule July 1 Meeting Due to Fourth 01 July Hoiiclay The Commissioners will check lI"leir schedules and get back to stafL c. Mapiewood Nature Center Report 5 Planner Finwall stated that the report is for the commissioner's information to give them an update on the nature center events and programs. d. Gladstone Savanna Contamination Planner Finwall stated that there is no action required on the contamination of the savanna until there is work completed on the site, at which time there will be a presentation for the commission. Adjourn 6 Agenda item 5.8. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner Wetland Ordinance Review July 9,2008 for the July 15 ENR Commission Meeting INTRODUCTION The city council approved the first reading of the proposed wetland ordinance on March 24, 2008. During the meeting they requested that staff look into several issues prior to the second reading as well as notify all property owners within 500 feet of a proposed Manage A wetland of the second reading of the ordinance. The attached April 21 staff report outlines the city council's concerns and staff's recommendations (Attachment 1). Of the 757 wetland notices mailed, approximately 20 residents or property owners attended the April 28 city council meeting, with 12 formally testifying (Attachment 2). Due to the concerns expressed during the meeting, the city council tabled the wetland ordinance and sent it back to the environmental and natural resources (ENR) commission for review. On June 24 the ENR commission took up the wetland ordinance review again as requested by the city council. The attached June 18 staff report submitted to commissioners prior to the June 24 meeting outlines the resident and property owner concerns expressed during the city council's second reading of the ordinance and staff's recommendations to those concerns (Attachment 3). In addition to the concerns expressed at the meeting, Bruce Olsen of 2444 Larpenteur Avenue submitted his comments regarding the ordinance in written form (Attachment 4). Approximately 30 people attended the June 24 ENR commission meeting with 12 people formally testifying, Including a representative of the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District, Julie Vigness-Pint, who was available to answer questions regarding the watershed district's wetland assessments. After two hours of testimony, the ENR commission tabled the wetland ordinance review until July 15, at which time the commission will begin addressing the concerns. DiSCUSSION Testimony In addition to the concerns outlined in tile June 18 staff report attached, foliowing is a iisl of residents or property owners who spoke at Ihe ,June 24 ENR oomrnission meeting and a summary of their concerns' 1. Sharon Sandeen, 1748 Gulden Piace, Maplewood: See attached power point presentation for Ms. Sandeen's concerns (Attachment 5). In general, the main concern relates to Ms. Sandeen's opinion that Maplewood as a city does not have the authority to regulate the edges of Wakefield Lake as wetland when the lake is defined as a public 1 water. Also, Ms. Sandeen recommends that the ENR commission review language in the ordinance to ensure less ambiguity and aliow for more active uses within buffer zones. 2. Steve Bryan, 1752 Gulden, Maplewood: Concerns with the water quality and current management practices of Wakefield Lake. 3. Linda Bryan, 1752 Gulden Place, Maplewood: Concerns with the water quality and current management practices of Wakefield Lake. 4. Tom Devnick, Attorney representing Gary Pearson, manager of the Beaver Lake Manufactured Home Park: Proposed language in the nonconforming portion of the wetland ordinance to allow manufactured homes to be removed and replaced if located within a buffer without a variance (Attachment 6). 5. Gary Pearson, manager of the Beaver Lake Manufactured Home Park, 1209 Antelope Way, Maplewood: Concerns with restrictions in existing and proposed wetland ordinance which would require some of the manufactured homes within the Beaver Lake Park and other manufactured home parks in the city to obtain variance approval from the city prior to relocation within a buffer. 6. Raiph Sletten, 2747 Clarence Street North, Maplewood: Concerns with the wetland located to the north of his property. Claims the wetland was man made and any impacts the proposed wetland ordinance might have on his property would not be valid. 7. Veronica Sletten, 2747 Clarence Street North, Maplewood: Concerns with the wetland located to the north of her property. 8. Steve Lukin, 1661 County Road C East, Maplewood: Concerns regarding the nonconforming portion of the existing and proposed ordinance which would require him to obtain a variance from the city to rebuild his house within a wetland buffer. 9. Elizabeth Sletten, 2747 Clarence Street North, Maplewood: Concerns with the wetland located to the north of her property. 10. Jean Strait, 1706 Barclay Street North, Maplewood: Concerns with the water quality and current management practices of Wakefield Lake. 11. Richard Charpeneau, Cope Avenue Vacant Property Owner: Concerns with upgraded classification of wetland on his vacant property and 75-foot buffer which may cause the property to be unbulldable. Summary In staff's opinion, the main items expressed during testimony which warrant review include: 1. Obtaining a legal opinion on the city's authority to regulate the edges of public waters, (which are classifiecl as wetlands in the MNRAM classification system) as wetlands within our wetland ordinance. The city attorney is compiiing [his information which will be presented to the commission on Tuesday night. 2 2. Addressing nonconformities within a buffer including manufactured homes, single family homes, use of buffer area as lawn, etc. 3, Reviewing exemptions within buffers for single family homes to determine if a more active use should be allowed. RECOMMENDA nON The ENR commission should review and comment on the resident and property owner concerns regarding the proposed wetland ordinance. The ENR commission recommendation will be forwarded onto the city council for final action. P:lcom-devlordlenvironmentallwetlandI7 -15-08 ENR Meeting Attachments: 1. April 21, 2008, City Council Wetland Ordinance Staff Report 2. April 28, 2008, City Council Minutes 3. June 18, 2008 ENR Commission Wetland Ordinance Staff Report 4. Bruce Olsen's May 7 Comments 5. Sharon Sandeen June 24 Power Point Outline 6. Tom Devnick, Attorney, Proposed Nonconforming Language 7. Wetland Ordinance (Redlined Version) 8. Wetland Ordinance (Clean Copy) 3 Attachment 1 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner and Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Naturalist Wetland Ordinance (Second Reading) April 21,2008 for the April 28 City Council Meeting INTRODUCTION The city council held the first reading of the proposed wetland ordinance on March 24, 2008. The wetland ordinance was drafted by the Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission after two years of research and study. The ENR Commission recommended approval of the wetland ordinance on January 29, 2008. DISCUSSION City Council Review The city council approved the first reading of the wetland ordinance by a vote of 5 to 0 with comments and concerns to be addressed prior to the second reading. Following are those comments/concerns and how they have been addressed: 1. Section 2 (Definitions): a. Issue: The term clearing is used in the ordinance. Retain the definition of clearing. Resolution: The definition of clearing has been added to the ordinance. b. Issue: Should the definition of a stream include drainage swales or ditches that channel intermittent stormwater runoff, or should these be exempt from the ordinance? Resolution: The proposed definition for a stream is "an area where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is land that clearly contains passage of water under normal summer conditions. This definition does not include drainage swales or ditches that channel intermittent stormvvater runoff" A swaie or a ditch is human-made intermittent storm water conveyance system wfllch is designed to route the appropriate hydraulic capacity of stormwater runoff fmm an area. Concern was expressed that the city would not be protecting some watercourse systems if we exciuded drainage swales and ditches. The Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District's (RWMWD) 2006 Management Plan states that they manage three streams in Maplewood including Fish Creek (located in south Maplewood), Battle Creek (located in 1 Sallie Creek Regionai Park), and Kohlman Creek (located in north Maplewood). The plan states that Fish and Battle Creek are perenniai streams and have always been managed as natural streams. Kohlman Creek is an intermittent stream which was previously considered a county ditch by the watershed district, and is actually recorded as County Ditch 18S with the county. In 2002 the RWMWD issued a permit for a 215-foot-long section of Kohlman Creek to be piped within the Markham Pond Office Building site (1570 Beam Avenue). The pipe was required to accommodate a parking lot and driveway. Due to the fact that the watershed district classified that portion of Kohlman Creek as a ditch with intermittent water flow, the city did not require the owner to comply with the stream setback requirements of the city's existing wetland ordinance (50-feet). The watershed district's rationale for the classification at that time was that Markham Pond, which is where the Kohlman Creek begins, has a human-made control structure that restricts flow to the waterway in dry weather conditions making the water flow intermittent. In 2002 there was opposition to the watershed district's classification of that portion of Kohlman Creek as a ditch. However, since the city did not have their own wetland expert on staff, they depended on the watershed district to accurately classify the waterway. According to the watershed district's 2006 Management Plan, it now appears that they would manage Kohlman Creek differently. Regardless, the question still remains should a stream include a drainage swale or ditch and should they be given the same protections as a stream, which is proposed to include a 100-foot buffer? Minnesota Statutes, at Chapter 103E (Drainage) defines a drainage system as "a system of ditch or tile, or both, to drain property, including laterals, improvements, and improvements of outlets, established and constructed by a drainage authority." These are large waterways which are designed to accommodate stormwater flow for large tracts of land and had historically been recorded with the county. Maplewood has four officially recorded ditches in its borders: County Ditch 18 (Kohlman Creek) - flows from Casey Lake to Kohlman Lake; County Ditch 17 - flows from Wicklander to Wakefield and then to Phalen (some areas are piped); County Ditch 6 - flows to Gerten Pond and flows along Maplewood Drive (mostly piped); and the St. Paul Beltline (Trout Brook) - located within the St. Paul Regional Water Service's (SPRWS) site. A ditch or drainage swale needs to be cleaned on occasion to ensure appropriate hydraulic capacity. It wouldn't seem warranted to require a 1 OO-foot setback to a ditch or drainage swale. However, there are areas of ditches which warrant that protection. An example of this is the city's approval of the SPRWS campus expansion in 2004 in which the city required SPRVl/S to maintain the required 50- foot buffer from the Sl. Paul Beltline (Trout Brook). That portion of the designated ditch was deemed wortllY of protection at that time Because of the various drainage swales and ditches found in Maplewood, staff recommends that we remove the exclusion of drainage swales and ditches from the stream definition as follows: "Stream means those areas where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is land that 2 clearly contains the constant passage of water under normal summer conditions. This dofinition dooe not includo drainogo swolos or ditchoc thal-cRamte1 intormiltont ctormwotor runoff. " This change would allow the city to review each stream, drainage swale, or ditch individually for protection requirements based on ecological need. 2. Section 4 (General Exemptions): a. Issue: The removal of trees that are dead or diseased is allowed within the wetland buffer as an exemption. Who decides if a tree is dead or diseased, the property owner or the city? Resolution: The city's diseased tree program requires that property owners work with the city on the removal of diseased trees. For this reason it is appropriate to add language to the general exemption which states that the property owner can remove trees that are dead or diseased within the buffer after city staff approval. b. Public or semipublic trails are allowed within the wetland buffer as an exemption. 1) Issue: Trails are allowed only if constructed of pervious material - should we allow public and semipublic impervious trails with the requirement for additional infiltration? Resolution: There is an additional requirement in the trail exemption which states that city staff may require additional mitigation actions for restoration of buffers with the construction of a trail. For this reason city staff would have adequate opportunity to review public or semipublic trails prior to construction to determine whether pervious or impervious material is appropriate, and if impervious what additional mitigation might be req uired to alleviate the impacts of the water runoff from the trail. For this reason, staff recommends removing the requirement that a trail must be constructed of pervious material only. 2) Issue: Trails are allowed only If not constructed entirely around a wetland - should we allow public or semipublic trails entirely around a wetland? Resolution: Not allowing trails entirely around a wetland buffer was intended to avoid cutting off critical wildlife habitat entirely by a trail. There is an additional requirement in this exemption which states that city staff may require additional mitigation actions for restoration of buffers with the construction of a trail. For this reason city staff would have adequate opportunity to review public or semipubiic trails prior to construction to determine whether the trail is appropriate around the entire wetland or whether there Is habitat which should be protected. For this reason, staff recommends removing the requirement that a tl'all cannot be constructed entirely aroulld the wetland. C. Issue: I.andowners interested in constructing an addition onto a nonconforming structure may be required to restore wetland buffers. The restoration plan must be drafted by a professional experienced in wetland restoration. Shouid we 3 require residential landowners to supply the same type of restoration plan as a commercial iandowner? Resolution: The professional restoration plan should be required for any large- scale wetiand buffer restoration. These types of restorations would usually be completed on commercial land, However, there may be instances where a residential landowner wants to restore a iarge tract of wetland buffer. To ensure large tracts of wetland buffers are restored appropriately, staff recommends adding flexible language with the restoration plan requirements which states that the plan must be drafted by a professional experienced in wetland or stream restoration based on the size of the restoration project as deemed necessary by city staff. 3. Seotion 9 (Wetland or Buffer Surety): Issue: Would we require residential landowners to submit a letter of credit or escrow (surety) for alterations to their wetlands? Resolution: If the residential landowner was restoring large tracts of wetiand buffer the requirement for a letter of credit or escrow would be warranted, but not for small projects. For this reason staff recommends adding flexible language with the surety req uirement which states that the applicant shall post a wetland buffer mitigation surety based on the size of the restoration project as deemed necessary by city staff. 4, Section 10 (Enforcement): Issue: This section states that it is a misdemeanor to violate the wetland ordinance. Ensure this is consistent with the city's enforcement code. Resolution: The city's enforcement code (Section 1-15) states that a violation of the city's ordinances can be declared a misdemeanor or a petty misdemeanor. Punishment for a misdemeanor cannot exceed a fine of $1,000 or by imprisonment not to exceed 90 days, or both. Punishment for a petty misdemeanor cannot exceed a fine of not more than $300. Since a major violation to the wetiand ordinance wouid more than likely be the result of a commercial development project, the city should have the authority to impose a more severe fine. Staff recommends retaining the misdemeanor language in the code. The city's current practice in regard to a violation of this manner wouid be to first work with the property owner. If that was not successful city staff would send out one letter notifying the property owner of the violation with a timeline for mitigation. If that was not successful city staff would send a second certified lettel' notifying the property owner of the violation again with a timeiine for mitigation and ultimate citation. And finally with no success the city would ultimateiy issue a citation which would be brought before the court " J. Miscellaneous comments: a. Issue: Numbering of the sections is hard to follow from page to page, Edit the code so it is easier to follow. 4 Resolution: Staff has modified the numbering on the ordinance so it is easier to follow. b. Issue: Notify all property owners within 200 feet of a Manage A wetland of the second reading of the ordinance. Resolution: All property owners within 200 feet of a Manage A wetland located within the RWMWD boundaries in Maplewood and a Ciass I wetland outside those boundaries were notified of the second reading of the ordinance scheduled for April 28, 2008. The city mailed out 757 notices (Attachment 4) which included information on the wetland ordinance amendments as well as a wetland buffer brochure with educational information on protecting wetlands. Since that time city staff has received several telephone calls from residents inquiring about possible impacts to their property. One resident, Sharon Sandeen, submitted a statement regarding concerns with the wetland ordinance (Attachment 5). City staff will be meeting with Ms. Sandeen to discuss her concerns and will update the city council during the city council meeting. Watershed District Comments Ramsev Washinqton Metro Watershed District (RWMWD): Attached find a letter submitted by the RWMWD in response to Maplewood's proposed wetland ordinance (Attachment 6). RWMWD states that they applaud the city in our continued leadership in the protection and enhancement of wetlands. The correspondence includes some suggestions and questions in regard to the ordinance. The one question staff would like to discuss here is the question about filling of wetlands. The Wetland Conservation Act allows property owners to fill wetlands as long as those wetlands are replaced in the amount of two to one on the property or within the district. The proposed ordinance prohibits the filling of wetlands. However, a property owner always has the right to apply for a variance from the city's ordinance in order to fill a wetland. The proposed ordinance would require that variances to any portion of the ordinance, including the filling of wetlands, be reviewed by the ENR commission and planning commission for recommendation to the city council. If approved, the property owner must also comply with the Wetland Conservation Act which requires the replacement of the wetlands. Capitol Reqion Watershed District: Attached find a letter submitted by the Capitol Region Watershed District (Attachment 7). Capitol Region states that the city's use of existing wetland data from RWMWD shows a commitment to collaboration and cost reduction, and that the buffer widths and setback requirements are an aggressive requirement by the city to provide habitat and much needed protection of the city's wetlands and streams. Capitol Region also poses the question of how Maplewood will classify wetlands which are not within the RWMWD boundaries There are approximately 15 Maplewood wetlands located in the Capitoi Region Watershed District and 4 Maplewood wetlands located in the Valley Branch Watershed District. With the reclassification of Maplewood's RWMWD wetlands. these two meas of the city located outside of that watershed district will retain the city's old wetland classification until the city, Valley Branch, and Capitol Region have had an opportunity to assess the wetlands using the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM). Valley Branch is currently assessing wetlands in their district and should have that information available to the city by this summer. Capitol Region is a smaller watershed district with less 5 staff avaiiabie to them for such assessments. The city will work with RWMWD and Capitol Regions over the summer to assess the wetlands within the Capitol Regions watershed district. Since the ordinance adopts the RWMWD classification system based on MnRAM, any changes made to wetland classes outside of the RWMWD boundaries that are based on that system could be changed on the official map, Vallev Branch Watershed District: Attached find a letter submitted by Valley Branch Watershed District (Attachment 8). Valley Branch states that Maplewood's proposed wetland ordinance will help protect the functions and values of the wetlands within the city. They also have several suggestions for bettering the ordinance, one of which was implemented in the ordinance as reflected on the redlined version attached (Attachment 3) including improving the definition of a buffer. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the proposed wetland ordinance (Attachment 2). This ordinance amends the city's wetland and stream regulations within the environmental protection and critical area ordinance at Article VII. This ordinance adopts the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District's wetland classification system and map by reference, Adoption of the proposed ordinance at this time would create the A+ classification definition only. City staff will present all wetlands found to be Class A+ to the city council for adoption into the city's wetland classification map at a later date If adopted, the ordinance would be effective after publishing of the ordinance on May 7, 2008. Attachments: P:lco m-devlo rdlenvironmentallwetlandI4-28-08 CC /:r: /2:.~ ;3~ :~. ,.,iY.' ~ .~r, )Y // ,J8~ Major Changes to the Wetland Ordinance Wetland Ordinance (Clean Copy) Wetland Ordinance (Redlined Version) Notice to Property Owners within 200 feet of a Manage A Wetland Sharon Sandeen Correspondence Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Correspondence Capitol Region Watershed District Correspondence Valley Branch Watershed District Correspondence Maplewood's Existing Wetland Classification Map (Separate Handout) Maplewood's Proposed Wetland Classification Map (Based on RWMWD's Classifications) (Separate Handout) 6 Attachment 2 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m., Monday, April 28, 2008 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 11-08 A. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Longrie. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL Diana Longrie, Mayor Erik Hjelle, Councilmember Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember John Nephew, Councilmember Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present Present Present Present Present K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Wetland Ordinance Second Reading a. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave the presentation. b. Maplewood Open Space Naturalist, Ginny Gaynor addressed and answered questions of the council. c. Environmental Manager, DuWayne Konewko answered questions of the council and public. Mayor Longrie opened the discussion to the public. 1. Bob Zick, 2515 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood. He asked if a developer came to the city with a development proposal and decides to create a pond or wetland for visual effects he asked if these requirements would apply since the developer decided to create the pond or wetland. 2. Mike Koopmeiners, 2514 Montana Avenue East. Maplewood. Mr. Koopmeiners supports protecting the wetlands. He has butterfly gardens and has removed buckthorn from his property and has tried to restore the wetlands. His concern is if the city decides to rate the wetlands he has pmperty that is 201 feet deep and he is concerned that he may have troubie selling his property to a family if this ordinance has certain limitations that could prevent someone from having a swing set on the property. 3. 8@.1Q,O.i'J.ell<2.Jh.1.747 c:J.wencgStreet North, IVlaplewood. Mr. Sletten commented on the maiiing he received regarding this ordinance that did not clearly state what this ordinance was and how it could affect him or his neighborhood. Mr. Sletten presented pictures on display to show the 1 council and described the property where the old compost site is and the history of the surrounding property. 4. Sharon Sandeen, 1748 Gulden Place. Maplewood. Ms. Sandeen said she is a member of Wakefield Watch and she lives on Wakefield Lake. She said she has many issues with the proposed wetland ordinance. The area where she lives will be affected by this proposed wetiand ordinance. She said she is in favor of wetlands and has two large wetlands on her property. Ms. Sandeen reviewed the document she had previously sent the council that was included in the staff report. 5. Linda Bryan, 1752 Gulden Place, Maplewood. Ms. Bryan spoke regarding the same area Ms. Sandeen spoke of and gave her concerns with the proposed wetland ordinance and concerns for Wakefield Lake. 6. Steve Brvan, 1752 Gulden Place, Maplewood. Mr. Bryan is the husband of Linda Bryan and he spoke about his wetland quality concerns and the Wakefield Lake area. 7, John Stine, 1398 Mvrtle Street, Maplewood. Mr. Stine spoke regarding balancing the use of private property and the protection, restoration and improvement of wetlands and native habitats. He said his career is in natural resources so he is very committed to these issues but he has learned that absolutes rarely work very well in terms of balancing interests. 8. Nancv Montpetit. 1742 Gulden Place, Maplewood. Ms. Montpetit said she has lived here for 36 years and she explained the consequences of this proposed wetland ordinance on her property. 9. Gary Pearson, 1209 Antelope Wav, Maplewood. Mr. Pearson spoke as a property owner and for the owners of Beaver Lake Estates on Maryland Avenue. He received information about this wetland ordinance and he has been aware of it through Planning Commission meetings. He was concerned about how the wetland ordinance would affect the Beaver Lake Estates area and how this ordinance would affect replacing older manufactured homes and replacing them with new homes in the same place in the proposed wetland buffer areas. 10. Bruce Olson, 2444 Laroenteur Avenue East, Maplewood. Mr. Olson said if you extend a buffer beyond 50 feet you need to take into account that it may extend across a drainage divide and into another wetland area. You need to take into account that you may not be in the drainage area of the wetland you are trying to protect, it might be in another area. 11. Craig Beske, 2449 Hillwood Drive, Maplewoocj. Mr. Beske said on his property Is a small pond, if you establish the buffer zones to protect the wetland and keep the sediments from flowing into the watershed, he has concerns because he has a storm sewer that dumps directly into the pond and there is no filtration. He is continuously picking cans, bottles and baseballs out of the pond. He doesn't want restrictions put on what he can do on his property. 12. GinDLYjD.9li.l}g~673 Dorland Road South, Map.l~\,/ood._Ms. Yingling serves as the Chair on the Environmental and i'latural Resources Commission and stated tbat there ilave been some excellent points made this evening she said. She said she previously spoken with some of the citizens that spoke during the pubiic testimony tonight. If the council wants to send this proposed wetland ordinance back to the Environmentai and Natural Resources Commission the commission would be open to 2 looking at the issues and concerns that have been raised this evening and work with staff on the issues that have been discussed. Mayor Longrie moved to table the (Second Readinq) of the Wetland Ordinance and send it back to the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission and staff to incorporate the comments that have been shared durinq the discussion. Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes - All Councilmember Juenemann made a friendly amendment to add and staff to the recommendation. The friendly amendment was accepted by both councllmembers. The motion to table passed. 3 Attachment 3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner Wetland Ordinance Review June 18, 2008 for the June 24 ENR Commission Meeting INTRODUCTION The city council approved the first reading of the proposed wetland ordinance on March 24, 2008. During the meeting they requested that staff look into several issues prior to the second reading as well as notify all property owners within 500 feet of a proposed Manage A wetland of the second reading of the ordinance. The attached April 21 staff report outlines the city council's concerns and staff's recommendations (Attachment 1). Of the 757 wetland notices mailed, 12 residents attended and spoke at the April 28 city council meeting (Attachment 2). Due to these resident's concerns, the city council tabled the wetland ordinance and sent it back to the environmental and natural resources (ENR) commission for review. DISCUSSION Following is a list of resident concerns and city staff response/recommendations: 1. Concern: If a developer fills a wetland and has to repiace it, will the wetland buffers apply to the new wetlands? Response: Section 5.a. (standards) of the ordinance prohibits wetland filling, unless approved as a variance from the code. If a variance is approved federal law requires the wetland be replaced at a two-to-one ratio. Any newly created wetland is automatically classified as a Manage A wetland by the watershed district. This is the highest quality wetland with the most protection. Recommendation: No changes recommended. 2. Concern: If a yard is maintained as turf grass adjacent a wetland and the ordinance is adopted with increased buffers, can a resident stili maintain this area as turf grass? Also, what other activities can take place in this area of the buffer? Response: Section 7 (nonconforming uses) of the ordinance would grandfather in the use of a property as tUli grass within a newly established buffer. According to the city's nonconforming ordinance and state statute this means thai the properiy's use would be considered a pre-exisfing legai nonconfmming use and would be able to continue to be maintained as turf grass. However, if an area of turf grass within a buffer is ever re~ established with native plantings, and the plantings were estabiished for one year or longer, the legal nonconforming use status is removed and the property owner would need a variance to mow or alter the buffer. Regarding other activities that can take place on turf grass within a buffer, the property owner can maintain this area as they wouid their yard and are able to place temporary structures including swing sets, benches, lawn equipment, or portable fire pits in this location. No permanent structures would be allowed such as a permanent fire pit, a poured concrete patio, garage, etc., without a variance to the ordinance. Recommendation: Define temporary versus permanent structure in the definitions and ensure this is clarified in the nonconforming use section. 3. Concern: The city should ensure that there is a balance between the protection of the wetlands and residential property owner rights. Response: Section 4 (exemptions) allow residential property owners to build additions onto existing structures within the wetland buffer, as long as the addition is built on the straight edge of the existing house and is located at least 25 feet from the wetland. In addition, a property owner can plant native plantings within the buffer, after approval of the planting plan by city staff. Section 7 (nonconforming uses) allows any property owner to maintain their existing turf grass within the buffer and place temporary structures within that area, These exemptions and noncoconforming allowances balance the protection of the wetland and residential property owner rights. Recommendation: The ENR commission may want to consider additional exemptions. Bruce Olsen, a resident at 2444 Larpenteur Avenue, submitted his review and recommendations of the proposed ordinance in writing after the city council meeting (Attachment 3). Mr. Olsen brings up useful information for the commission's review and discussion including allowing benches and footpaths within an established buffer (one that is not existing turf grass) as an exemption. 4. Concern: Several Wakefield Lake residents attended the city council meeting and expressed concern over the proposed ordinance. One of the concerns expressed had to do with the watershed district's regulations versus the city's wetland and shoreland regulations. Response: The edges of Wakefield Lake are currently classified as a Class 4 wetland with a minimum buffer of 20 feet. Wakefield Lake is also covered by the city's shoreland ordinance with a 50-foot building structure setback requirement to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), The watershed district's new ciassification system upgraded the wetland edges surrounding the iake to a Manage B wetland, The watershed district currently requires a 25-foot minimum and a 50-foot average buffer to this wetland. The city's proposed wetland ordinance would require a 75-foot buffer. Since the city's new wetland buffer would be more restrictive than the existing shoreiand structure setback and the watershed district's wetland buffer, the new 75-foot wetland buffer wouid apply, Recommendation: No changes mcommended. 5 Concern: Sharon Sandeen, 1748 Gulden Place, is one of the Wakefield Lake residents who spoke at the city council meeting. Ms. Sandeen will be present at the ENR commission meeting to present her concerns and recommendations. One of the 2 concerns staff would like to discuss here is the Department of Natural Resources' (DNR) permitting process for access to lakes. Response: In addition to the watershed district and city regulations, the DNR regulates aquatic plants and the water ways beyond the OHWM of the lake. Removal of emergent plants within Wakefield Lake and other lakes requires a DNR permit. The permit would allow a property owner to cut a 15-foot path through the emergent plant material for a dock or beach access. According to state law, DNR emergent plant permits cannot supersede other ordinances or regulations. Ms Sandeen was issued a permit to cut a 15-foot path of emergent plant material to gain access to the lake. During the permitting process it appears that the DNR did not recommend that she review the city or watershed district regulations, which would have prohibited the path through the buffer. Based on the DNR permit Ms. Sandeen has since cut the path through the existing wetland buffer into the emergent plant material for access to the lake. Ms. Sandeen has requested that the ENR commission consider allowing DNR permits for access to a lake as an exemption. Recommendation: Consider adding language in the exemptions which would allow cutting within the wetland buffer to gain access to a lake. 6. Concern: The city has four manufactured home parks; three of those parks are adjacent wetlands. Gary Pearson, manager of the Seaver Lake Manufactured Home Park on Maryland Avenue and a Mapiewood Planning Commissioner has concerns regarding how the existing and proposed ordinance would affect the park's property. Mr. Pearson recommends that the replacement of manufactured homes within a buffer be allowed as an exemption, similar to an addition on a single-family home. Response: There are two wetlands located to the east and north of the Beaver Lake Manufactured Home Park. These wetlands are both currently classified as Class 1 wetlands, the city's highest quality wetland classification. The watershed district's new classification would downgrade the wetland on the east side of the property to a Manage B and maintain the wetland on the north side as the highest classification, a Manage A in the watershed district system. The proposed wetland ordinance would require a 75-foot buffer from the Manage Band a 1 DO-foot buffer from the Manage A, which is the current buffer requirement for a Class 1 wetland. The proposed ordinance would have less of an impact on this property. However, if the Manage A wetland is found to be a Class A+ wetland in the future the required buffer for the wetland to the north would increase to 200 feet. Based on measurements from the watershed district's wetland maps, there are 9 manufactured homes located \/lithin the existing buffer. If the wetland to the north is reclassified as a Class A.+ in the future, there would be 12 manufactured homes iocated within the buffer. AIi of 1I1ese manufactured homes wiil be removed and replaced with newer !lomos in the upcoming yeal"S. Replacement of the homes requires removing the existing slab and pouring a new slab for the larger home. According to the city's nonconforming ordinance and state statute, once those structures are removed completely their status as a legal nonconforming use within the buffer is removed and a new structure would require a variance to be piaced in this area. 3 Recommendation: Consider adding language in the exemptions which would allow manufactured homes to be replaced within the buffer. 7. Concern: Should the wetland buffer be a contiguous distance from a wetland, or should drainage areas, bluffs, and other barriers be taken into account? Response: Wetland buffers not only provide for cleansing of storm water runoff prior to entering the wetland, they also provide wildlife habitat and separation of a wetland from human impacts. In addition, in order to enforce a wetland ordinance there needs to be a standardized buffer width. It would be too difficult to enforce and plan for development or other impacts to a wetland when the buffers are subjected to individual topography variables such as bluffs. Recommendation: No changes recommended. 8. Concern: Storm sewers located within the wetland buffers. Response: The existing wetland ordinance allowed for storm structures such as storm sewers or infiltration basins to be located within a required buffer. Section 4.e. of the proposed ordinance (general exemptions) only allows these structures if associated with a public or semi-public project where no other practical alternative is found for these structures. The ordinance requires the disturbed buffer area to be mitigated. Recommendation: No changes recommended. RECOMMENDATION The ENR commission should review and comment on the resident's concerns regarding the proposed wetland ordinance. The ENR commission's comments and recommendations will be forwarded to the city council for final action. P:\com-dev\ord\environmental\wetland\6-24-08 ENR Meeting Attachments: /1/ April 21, 2008, City Council Wetland Ordinance Staff RopOli April 28, 2008. City Council Minutes Wetland Ordinance Review Sublliltted by Bruce Olsen Wetland Ordinance (Redlined Version) ,<t:.,. Wetland Ordinance (Clean Copy) 4 May 7,2.008 Attachment 4 Comments Re; Maplewood Wetland Ordinance Draft 1-29-08 Bruee Olsen, 2444 East Larpenteuf Avenue (651) 770-2667 Overview - Protecting the city's wetlands from further degradation and improving water quality and wildlife habitat in high priority and high value wetlands should be goals of all eity residents. Updating the existing wetland ordinance for Maplewood is needed to rcflect our increased understanding of the value that wctlands provide for I) maintaining the quality and quantity of our water resourccs and 2) supporting the quality of life that city residents expcct. In general, I support the efforts by the city to update our wetland ordinance. However, I havc questions and concems about the approach that is being proposcd in the draft ordinance language that was discuss cd at the Maplewood city council meeting of April 28, 2008. Overarching comments - Item 1 - The city should develop a comprehensive wetlands management plan to support the development and implementation of its wetlands ordinance. Otherwise, there is not a sound teclmieal basis for expanding the city's authority to manage wctlands beyond that which already cxists through the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District ordinance. For example, the draft ordinance proposes a new A+ wetland classification but we currently do not have an inventory of such wetlands. Therefore, we do not have a clear understanding of the number of property owners that will be impacted nor the public and private sector costs that will be associated with implementing the proposed regLLlatory requirements for the new wetland classification. Furthe11110re, we have not evaluated whether all wetlands, regardless of their type, are being impaired or whether there is only a subset of them that actually need the expanded controls in the proposed ordinanec to improve water quality aml to increase watershed protection. The remainder of our wetlands may exhibit acceptable water quality conditions and beneficial use based upon their classification and maintaining their cun-cnt state can be achieved using the regulations that arc in place through the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watcrshed District. Item 2 - The applicability section of the proposed city ordinance states under sub-item 3.3 "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 applicable watershed district." The Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Rule E for wetlands states in Sub- item 2. b- "AUTHORITY WATERSHED LAW. The criterion below relates to wetland buffers and water quality and is adopted under the District's watershed auth01ity and applies whether or not thc District is the Wetland Conservation Act local government unit in thc municipality whcre; the wetland is located." I May 7, lO()8 There appears to be a contlict between the authority to regulate wetland buffers and water quality that is being proposed in the draft city ordinance and the existing authority that is vested with the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watcrshed District. This nceds to be clmified. Specific Comments - The following comments pertain to the Findings section, Item 3 - Undcr itcm La, the third sentence states "Wetlands are an important physical, educational, ccological, aesthetic, recreational, and economic assets to the city." However, does this statement apply ll11i formly to all wctlands within the city? For example, are Class C wetlands that are seasonal in naturc rcally important physical, recreational, and cconomic assets to the city? I suggest that this statement be modified to read "Wetlands, dcpcnding upgn their type, size, mld location within a watershed, mav represent important physical, educational, ecological, aesthetic, recreational, and economic assets to the city. However, the ahility of a wetland to provide any ofthcse henefits must be evaluated on case-by-case basis because of the uniquencss oflocal physiographic, biological, culturAL, mld land use characteristics." The fourth sentence in item 1 ,a states "They are critical to thc city's health, safety, and general welfare." This is a very broad statement and needs to be clarified. One can argue that mosquito control to reduce the spread of West Nile virus is largely focused on wetlands; so they may, under certain circumstances, present a risk to public health, safety, and general welfare. In fact, the early drainage laws in Minnesota were based, in part, on the risk that wetlands presented to public health. I suggest that you change this sentence to rcad "Properly managed wetlands are needed to support the city's efforts to reduce flooding and to protect public health, safety, and the gcneral welfare." Item 4 - Under item I .c, I suggest that the first sentence that defines a buffer be expanded to read "Buffers arc the lands that sUlTound wetlands and streams within a specified distance." As ClllTently written, this sentence and the definition of a buffer in Section 2 do include any mention of the geographic limits of a buffer, Under sub-item I.e. 4 - The last sentence sLates "The dissolved oxygen level mllst he maintained at a minimul11 level to maintain health aquctLic life". This is a very broad statement and imphes that hl1nan activities arc solely responsible for depletion of dissolved oxygen. However, even in an unaltered wctland, water depth and the thickness or organic sedimcnts may result in the depletion of dissolved oxygen and this likely varies anlong and bct\vccn vvctland classifications. Furthernlore~ drought or seasonal dry conditions may cause diminished dissolved oxygen levels even without human intervention. I suggcst that this sentence be modified to read, "x,cbs.mever practicable. t.he dissoh.red oxygen 1e';el fFHf"S+ be 111aintained at a B1-ini-r-n-al1c,/cl needed to support healthy aquatic Iife,l\ 2 7,2()()8 The following comments pertain to the Purposes section. Item 5 - The purposes ofthe ordinance should be designated as item "d". CUlTently, this is strickcn and thc purposcs arc included under item "c" which relates to buffcrs, Item 6 - Sub-item 3.d.a - This sentence refers to preserving wetlmlds and streams in a "natural" state. However, there is no definition of the term "natural" in the ordinance. As a result, anyone can apply their own version of what natural means depending upon their views of wetland or stream protection. Does "natural" refer to pre-settlement conditions of a wetland or stream, current conditions, a target condi tion that is based llpon improving the existing physical state, or something else? I suggest that the city clearly define the tenll "natural" as it applies to wetlands or streams, Item 7 - Sub-item3.d.b.- This sentence refers to regulating sUlTounding land uses but does not speci fy what the term "sulTollnding" means. Does this imply that the wetlands ordinmlce will become a land use control ordinance throughout the city or does it apply only to buffered areas adjacent to a wetland or stream? I suggest that this sub-item be modified to read "Preserve the beneficial functions of wetlands mld stremllS by r~1dlatil}g land uses within the buffered areas that me defined under this seetio[l." Item 8 - Sub-item 3.d.c - This sentence refers to stabilizing the soil "around" wetlands and streams to prevent erosion. There is no definition ofthe term "around" ami stabilizing soils may not completely prevent erosion because of slope, soil texture, and precipitation amounts. I suggest that this sub-item be modified to read "Reduce erosion and the resulting sediment loading to wetlands or streams by stabilizing the landscape within the buffered m'eas that are defined under this section." Item 9 - Sllh-item 3.d.d - This sentence refers to preserving and enhancing water quality by filtering suspended solids, nutrients, and "harmful substances" before they reach wetlands, streams, and "public waters", The benefits stated in this sentence are confusing, very broad, and not realistic. First, there is no definition of the terms "harmful substances" and "public waters" in the ordinmlce. Who or what will be harmed by thc substances in surface water or runoff that will be filtcred out by thc controls contained in the ordinancc? Will implementing the ordinance remove all hanllful substances including those that are dissolved in surface water sllch as pharmaceuticals or endocrine disrupting chemicals? Also, do butTers eliminate all ofthc nitrate nitrogen or ammonia that may be dissolved in nmoff from thc \/iatcrshed that drains into a stream or weiland? As written, this sentence promises more treatment than can be achieved through vegetated bum,rs and should be modi fied. T suggest Lhat this sentence be re-worded to state "SuPPDIti.ng the preseryati O!L31Ele}J.1.l311c"''lletlt~f"!;,11[f?ce_'Y::ttcrmlil)j!Y.QY [C_dlICillJs. the inp ut 0 f suspen derLsoljsL'i,. mr hi ents,_imd S11el11icilL~}fQ~!mKc~J]latl11rr\La(IY_crse1y ir11pae t p u h 1 i c I1cilHI19Ulqljiltie_ hilbitat. " Why is the term "public waters" included JJ1 this statement of purpose when it is not used elsewhere in the ordinance? Does the term "public waters' refer to other surface water 3 May 7, LOOR features that are I) defined lll1der Mimlcsota Statutes scction l03G.221 to l03G2773 and 2) regulated by the Minnesota Department of Natura! Resollfces? If so, then how does proposed wetland ordinance reflect the shoreland zoning ordinance requirements that arc specified for public waters of the state? Item 10 - Sub-item 3.d.f I suggest that this purpose be reworded to state "Reduce or prevent the flooding ofpubJic and Drivate QLopertv and to reduce or eliminate the costs that are associated with achieving the water qualitv imwovements necessarv to SUDPort the beneficial uses of impaired wetlands or streams." As cU1Tently written, this purpose implies that implementing the ordinance will always prevent flooding and always eliminate the costs of improving water quality, even where it is not needed. Item 11 - Sub-item 3.d.g - This purpose is worded too generally because it does not explain how implementing the draft wetland ordinance will protect property. What will it protect propcliy from and what eapahilities does it have to achieve this protection? Item 12 - Sub-item 3.d.i - I suggest this statement of purpose be reworded to "Educate thc public, inclllding appraisers, owners, potential buyers, or developers regarding the development limitations of wetlands, streams, or associated buffers that are defined under this section. As written, this PUlvose does not clearly communicate that the buffers rdcned to are those that are defined by the draft ordinance. The following comments pertain to the Definitions section Item 13 - The definition of alteration does not address wetland enhancement measures that would be approved by the city or other authorities such as the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District or the Ramsey Conservation District. As written, it implies that no changes to a buffer can be made at all. I suggest that a section be added to this definition that would identify the general categories of enhancement measures that are acceptable. I suggest that the following items be added to exemptions that would enhance a property owners' capabilities to utilize a wetland- 1. The placement of up to three bcnches by a property owner for the purposes of observing wildlife or enjoyment orthe outdoors. Benches are not to be longer than six feet Of wider than two feet and cannot be observed above the height of the vegetation that immediately surrounds it. Only the vegetated area immediately beneath the bench or used for the placement ofa person's feet can be impacted; 2. Footpaths through vegetation Ihat pennit property owners to observe wild1i Ie and to enjoy the outdoors providing that footpaths are produced only by walking and are not -maintained by 1110\vingl placing lllUIch or other materials used to kill vegdationj rernoving of vegetation that is approved under this section, or t1le application of hcrbicides or other substances that will adversely affect the wetland vegetation or wildli fe. 4 I\1ay '7; 2008 3. Tbe harvesting of vegetation by a propclty owncr for crall, [()oe!, 01" medicinal purposes providee! that tbis docs not impact the capability oftbe tmffer to perfonn its functions to protect tbe wetland, Item 14 - As mentioned under Item 4, the definition of a buffcr should be reworded to state "Buffers are the lands that sun'ound wetlands and streams within a speci fied distance." Item 15 - Is there really a need to create a separatc Class A + designation and impose addition land-usc controls over them? Can't these high value wetlands be designated as such using a comprehensive wetlands management plan and be protected by focusing our efforts on landowners and the public using existing rcgulatory controls and public education, outreach, and grant programs? The definition describing a Class Ai wetland includcs the statement, "These wetlands are special and deserve additional protcction to ensure that they remain in that state." The question is, if existing land use has not adversely impacted them and they are still of high value, thcn why are additional controls even neecssary? The following comments pertain to the Standards section. Item 16 - I am very concemed that the proposed buffer classes are not based on sound technical infomlation and are capricious. The city has not provided the public with infoll11ation stating why the buffer distances that arc cUlTently used by the Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District arc not adequate to meet the wetland protection purposes of the city's draft wetlands ordinance. Instcad, the draft ordinance increases all the minimum buffcr widths by two to three times that already required by the Ramsey- Washington Mctro Watershed District. Unless these increases can be technically justified, property owners will view the additional controls as infringing on their right for beneficial use of their private property and eonstitLlte an unjustified taking of this right. Tn particular, I question whether the decision to increase the butTer widths was based on including an evaluation 0 f the fo 110wing factors- . The adequacy ofthc buffers specified by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District to meet thc purpOSCS ofthe drafi ordinance; o The capabilities of soil conditions to infiltrate lTmofffrom precipitation or snowmelt water so it does not directly enter thc wetland; . The slope ofthc landscape sUlTounding the wetland, pmticularly when either the existing buffer distance or the proposed extended buffer distancc gocs past a topographic divide and surface water drains away Ii'om the wctland in question; . The capabilities to attenuate sediment and nutrient loading of adjacent wetlands that arc located up-slope and within Lhe eXlsting buffer distance; @ The design of the existing I\l1aplc\vood storm\fv'aler sewer systenl to direct precipitation or SilO\\I rnelt \vater av..ray ih.l.m the svetlal1d; 5 May 7) 2008 . Mitigating measures for re-dirccting stormwater away fi-om the wetland or treating stOlmwater runof1 prior to its entry to the wetland that would be proposed in a dcvelopment plan; and . The impacts that speci fic land uses within Maplewood currently have on water quality. Item 17 - Increasing the buffers as proposed will further rcducc potential development of a propeliy if the city docs not allow thc construction ofstOlmwater drainage facilities, sedimentation ponds, infiltration basins, and rain gardens within the buffer. These engineering meaSLLres are designed to reduce the sedimentation and nutricnt loading impacts on the wetland and should be considered, especially if they are beyond the topographic divide of the wetland but still within a buffer. The combination of an un- justified buffer distance beyond that already required by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District and refusing mitigating mcasurcs beyond a topographic divide would place undo hardship on a property owncr or developer. Item 18 - Sub-item 5.0. - Why docs the draft ordinance specify a tOO foot maximum distance between wetland notification signs instead of 200 feet as required by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District? Furthermore, there arc no specifications for the size of the sign or the size of the font that is to be used. Is it practical to expect rcsidcntiallandowners to make their own signs or should the city prepare signs and instructions for their placement? This could bc done as part of a public education effort for wetlands protection and encourage residential land owner participation. These comments pertain to Mitigation and Restoration of Buffers Item 19 - Items 5.k.3.a and section 6 specify tliat a property owner or contractor must submit a mitigation plan to the city for approval prior to mitigating or restoring a huffer. Also, section 9 requires that that applicants post a surety that is 150% of the cost with the city. These requirements would apply to all mitigation and restorative effOlis, regardless ofthe size of the area to be improved. This will discourage homeowners from paliicipating in wetland restoration eftolis and promote eunent abuses such as mowing the lawn to the waters edge. For example, ifT want to budget $500 to restoring a bufIer in my backyard, I will have [0 incur the additional expenses of 1) hiring a professional [0 prepare the mitigation plan and a weed control plan, 2) submit the pt<ms to the city which undoubtedly will inelude a processing fee, and 3) post a $750 surety bond. Furthermore, T will have to schedule inspections with thc city and 1 may have to correct allY deficiencies that the city inspector detects such as a weed control violation or failure to post or maintain signs along the edge ofthe buffer On top of all ofthis, ! will have to prepare and CoHo\v ;J, maintenance agreement v/hieh states that the OViner (this could be the next person ,,\tho purchases nl~l propcrt:y) ""!,,rill rnaintain the huffer ill inlproved sLate, This is a very draconian approach to having hOHle o'vvners participate in 'vvetlands protection. 6 May 7, 2008 I recommend that the city's wetland ordinance recognize the di ffefenee between an existing residential property and the owner's interest in wetlands restoration and the development or redevelopment of multiple lots when requiring a wetlands buffer mitigation or remediation plan. I recommend that the city's wetland ordinance include either 1) a threshold area of restor cd or mitigated buffer such as one half acre or 2) a minimum distance along the edge ofthe wetland such as 300 feel. that will trigger the requirement to submit a mitigation plan and all that goes with it. Otherwise, I feel very few residential propeliy owners will want to incur the expense and govemmental semtiny to re-establish a protective buffer. Item 20 - Enforcement - The draft ordinance proposes to give the city authority to inspect a site or property at any time. This should be reworded to state "The city reserves the right to inspect the site or property during regular city business hours or upon notice to the property owner or its designated representative one business day in advance if the i.Jl_~Rection is to occur at a different time." The city should not have unfettered access to personal property because a violation ofthe wetland ordinance is a misdemcanor and should not present an immanent threat to public safety. 7 ,L\.f ;~J \AJ, \ -~-~-*",- +-- . _'''C.-O'? tr1 r~ ~ ~ ~ """""'''', 0,,",,",;; TM "," ~. ,"-,-",.~. " t;~-=,-.-c ''"''''1; '/"~~----'" f""';'.,.,'''--'' . "'=.,~_ ,=,-~.." '-"_H"/ " --,- r~ ""n ;-"... ,,'\ "-.,,,",",,""'; ,~. -i , f'-~ o "'-"" ;r..-._' "'I"l ~"O V",J ~ (tl ,-l (f1 ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~s p:> ClJt-1 [~< , g 0 ClJH) p,:l =:s 0.. l"D (C =:s o ~ o """ ~ '''' cr'('D [8 >-+'00 o r-I-, ~ p,:l ~, '^ (C ~+, ;-i t (C _. 0.. ~ ~i o "., ;0'~~' o ~"'.=,,~ ."''--''',;'''- ;_'''~2..-, ,,_ ,.-~~ . ~-'" ~'~"...';"'. ~'ii~~'''''' ii"""""t'" v'~~ 1",,,,,."';' '''':-~-,.-*s,". ~"""~""''"' ~~ , ~ ~ tI1 n \.... <,.., ~Tj ~ ~ (') M- ~" o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ (JQ rJJ ch t~:ff ,;, c/") Cf) f~.d, ;=,~ ~ '--~.-"d, " ~'r; "" " r",'"'\ ",' ~ ~ ~ o 0 uo CDS S S ($ (t) ~ ~ ~ ~* o ~ ~ o rJJ o ~ -< (t) (fQ (D ~ (D ~ p:j ~iI ~\",""l "" [J i , ~~ ": tF'""""'~-""'" , \St '1' r~=~ ~, J;;;'",.c;;::< .J )w#_"'~-"_',6 0, L :c,E&ifi',iJO -eo '~'A '" i''"-'z"",,,,.,iL 1'7,0='= ,,,,", {f', '~"'A " ~~ ,-t.' ~."""'" .." ~~'" ,,", !O,' t1?'_~'9 0_""" .~ ~ ~''''' !<<....""~ " i~'-~ '-too' \"",,"^,,", o !:j',.i ?p\. '4,,' ~ o w ., to o ~ ~ . ~ (tl ., @ ~ ~ ~. (tl ~ il u o ~.I, ~., o t~ f'^.) ~~ f\~ fC"= W ~A:l W PJ 4-(~ 0U-~'(" ,P.< ~ '-' ""1 .-. ~ (D e-t -.;; ,."=-",,, ~ P"', '..x., "~"" CI:l Fe! ~Fj (') ~ ... t: [f) pe.. f, V . , .'h ~... [J "'. l-lJ ""i ('1J #' ~ <-, CD P"'C_+~ ~dI ~ ",,,,,,,.' ~s 0... (I"J I-F"i v :::: ~ ~J -- -, n Pi) ~ ('1J ~ VJ .'M""= 1=-."-'" ,;f: ~(D ~" ,pc" F+ lI:,t:f ,.....4 s:::,,'d PJ' ~ p" CI:l p,='" ~ :r-'''''j ',,11.< ;'.".'''' ~-~ ~ ~ st CD ~ ~" en ~ ~'" ~ o ~ ~" o ~ 'h.:;) 0 ~ p . :;0 - . h) (/j rl (') - . 0 ~ ;=~""f, rJ S ""'''''<1- M-- S I-' . """",-" , 0 1">'=" * ~ (D ~ u ~ ~..~ (D ~ M-- M-- ~ I-' . 0 (D ~ (D ~ M-- 0 f"""'C~-=---=l ~ (/j ~=.~~" (D 0 Ft. ~ ~ < ". ~ (D t:fj ~ 0.- "0 rJ) ~ ~ 0 . ;- , r::::r ~ ~ 0.- (D (,fj ~ 3 u ;,.""",,,,"",","_,.J ~ ""1 , (D ~. ~ ""~ I-' . ~ , (') , 'Ie b,,,," M-- U/'\ .~ (D 0", .",- ""'1 "" 0''''''''^ ~ f"'ft't~ "",,,,,,,,~ M' l~, (D ~ ,,~-='!' ~1 (/j (j"1 ~-, " , 0 - @ "'""j ~ ~ (D ~o :J;> ~ ~ ~ r-t "'@,) ~ "'" 0 ~ 0 ,-, ~ t:j - " y ~ '(JJ (C ~ '(JJ '1:j t:r 0 ~L ~ ~ , (D - 0 ~ - . ~; ~ ~J - . ~ c :::s f""'l ~ rJ;. - - - 'r (D ([Q (D ~ no ~ l ~ tre') "'" ~ ~ d-. :::s ~ ~ 0 (lJ ~ #"1' C'J 0 f\"1 " ,'$", ~~ r#"i - ~'<t ;"N-d:, uo ' <I - r::J rJ;. 5 '~"':Q\l:m~v'/ '," j<:*~- *' , ~~; 9 ;"""'N.~""'" o -- r~ ~"&--t- ~w,m, " '~'='~='. ;'-"'-~'-~~~~ -- ?e~ ~1J ~,;K7,:,al(l (D ~-,~" ~ ~~ C/Jm ~ vO ~~ jz >> rz ~n ~m ~> m(IJ ~~ j~ mtyj (lJr > ~ m VJ ., ~ (J ~ [J trj ~ '1::i ",.,A ;::t :> 0- c::: 0- M tTJ 1-" .,'" 0 0 X " " F"'" 1-4 0 0 (1) 0 ~. ~ """""J. tD s::u , (,Ii i::l (1) (1) (1) 0 . }wJ (1) F-~ ..",. <': (1) (JCi "U [fJ "~ [fJ 0 i'<tl t1; (1) ~-Fl (!) ,"''i~J (!) [fJ ~ (1) [fJ >-' . '::l fP po' :>~ >-' .g 0 ....... :::s :::s 0- :::s :::s (1) 'l~< '<:l ;-; ....... (1) ~ - >-' . M ~ (1) i::l 0 p::I ~ I-' . "'0 (D p::I ~* [fJ I>"""! ~ ? P""""'" ,..,,,,,A F+- - - - - - cr' ',J 0 (1) U ~ ,",,0 - '::t'l i"<"""$ ..... I-' . ~, p::I - 0 I~' I~ 0 >-' . 0 ~ (1) -, fZl 1-1 I"" "'~ 0 i::l - i<=a\ f,J t;j "'"' m 0- - ;::1'"1:l I-' '-./ i::l CfCi (1) ,... ~ -, 1-' b - "'~ o ld) ~ ell ~_s " ....... 0 ~ , - Pd.w .- 0 ~ Pd f=1...! - F~ (t) :=UJ el) ~ ~ "''''' ...nl ~ e~' "'", ~ r:FJ (j') {f...., ,. '.~ ~=",!. f"""f- .~ ,~~'''".\ \__1r! .~- ., 'JJ 9 ~ s ~ oP--~ n ~ >-- ~ s:.~ ~T 0 ",.., -<: """i =:..' 0.. ~< (tl ~. p-- 0.. ~ S p (tl 'T 0... l-"'"'- '-" ~ ~ ~ @ (l) g ~ e-: &\JQ & ~ ::4... (l) _. V2 vi (l) p 8 V2 @ ~ _,~ ~l""'t- ~ (l) cr"O ":-'~ ~ V2 . 0 (; p ~ ~ ~ """i l""'t- rD' (l) 'D (D 0... 8 (l) ~ (tl ~ """i ~ 8- ~ ~,..... 8 (l)' ~ ~ ~ o """i ",.., p '"d """i ",.., _. """i 'D (tl (tl _. l""'t- N (D (tl 0... ~ 8:: ~ :3 o' 0 S (tl s:- l""'t- 'D~(tl~P p"i::) ~V2 o '" ~ rl-- 8 ~ (l) ct. ~' -'. '- '" rl-- >--' .--., 0 yu ,--, ~ ~s-~e;[ ~ g.~ :3 0... (l) ~ (D ~ M- (Jq ~ _. -'r-... ~........ 0 o...~ p ~ ::...~ 8"' a ~ (D (l) ~ ~~ """i ~ = ~ g ~ _, ~ V2 0 ........ V2 ~ ~a 8..(D ~ ~ S' P -- (D-' J ~ t::t ::;:; r:r ~ p ~. w' 0' p u.' cJQ . ~ 0... (t ct. """i (tl 0 ~ OV2 """ip p::l gF-lJ ~. :3 S ~ crq ~ '" 0.. ~ """i - C' (D ~ q ~ (D <' (l) ~ ~ (l) V2 V2 (l) ~'" (l) p::l ,E ~ ~ ::J a ~ rl-- '-l '..; (D r:.n p::l '1j 0... (; (D p (D ::t H ~ ~ cTri' r:n 0 .- F'\ ::t (D p;' 0 ~ (D l-"'"'- """ ri'.. --' <:.; P (I;) 'I. '" .t" (D ri' <do t:l ~ >-t --- ''-. (D 'N (IJ "'I) ~o l-==1~<,pA \. ~ ... ~w#' "->"l'~ ~ ~- -' (IJ ;::;. ,...." ,_., (fP, .9'4 ~ 0... ~.19 I-! f~..,.J (') o p r:.n ~,. , o o o (IJ "'" ~ _. . (f) . ... """'" . S ~ ~ n M- o ::J ~ (D r.fJ. p...o . 0..- (D ::J M- p...o . ~ i--' ~ ~ o ~ (D ~ M- I~ 10 ~ i::J I~ II ("'1 . I i i i : i I , , I I , I I ~ (D n o S S (tl ::J 0..- ~ p...o . o :::s ("""to-- o r.fJ. o ~ < (D ~ ~ o CJ'" I--' (D S ~ (D I---' ~ M-- (D Ck. ~"""t. o i ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~~ o --< ~ 0 Se ~ ""rj ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ r ~ t:r"Cf'l ('D . ,........~ "? ~ ~ ( {, 7. Non-conforming Buildings, Structures and Properties: Any existing building or structure, or any existing use of property not in conformity with the regulations prescribed in this chapter as of the date of the adoption of such regulation shall be regarded as a pemlitted non-confOlming use and shall continue. After the date of adoption ofthis chapter, it shall be a pennitted non-conforming use to place any manufactured home on property that is, on the date ofthe adoption of this chapter, either occupied by a manufactured home or located in a manufactured home community. 124421_\\iPD Attachment 7 MAPLEWOOD WETLAND ORDINANCE DRAFT 4-28-08 (Changes to the city's current wetland ordinance are underlined if added and stricken if deleted. Text rcvised since the 3-24-08 First Reading arc iu Bold.) 1. Findings and pU111oses. Thc findings and PU1110ses of this section arc as follows: a. Wetlands serve a variety of beneficial functions. Wetlands maintain water qLmlity Qy filtering polJutants and reducing 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, acsthetic, recreational, and economic asset to the city. They are critical to the city's health, safety, and general wel fare. Surrounding development may degrade, pollute, or accelerate the aging of or eliminate wctlands. Regulating land use around wetlands is therefore in the public intcrcst. b. Streams are also significant elemcnts of the city's hydrologic system. Streams flow into wetlands and lakcs, provide food and habitat for wildlife, provide open space, and arc an integral part of the city's cnvirolm1ent. Like wctlands, streams are an important physical, educational, ecological, aesthetic, recreational~ and economic asset. Surrounding developmcnt may degrade, pollute, or damage streams and, in tUl1l, degrade other surface waters downstream. Regulating land use around streams is therefore in the public interest. ReqHiring buffers recognizes '.hat the ourroundint; Hplands relate to the woodland and otream quality and limction and, thcrcforG-;-ilfc in the public intmcst., e. Buffers are the lands that sutTound wetlands and streams. They are integral to maintaining the valuable functions many wetlands and streams perform and to maintaining a wetland's or stream's health. Rcquiring buffers recognizes that the SlltTounding uplands impact relate to the wetland's and stream's quality and function and, therefore, U, are in the public interest. Buffers have the following n.mctions: (l) RFeduce the impacts of sLlfrounding land Llse on wetlands and streams by stabilizing soil to prevent erosion bY5tel"mwat-er, and filtering suspended solids, nutrients, pollutants, and hannfui sLlbstanccs, Mederat",irtg- a water level fluctuations during stonns, ill (T ".;11 BUffel'snlf*i"Provide essential wildli fe habitat. L4l mW Providc sha,L~.J9_Ledlloe the tcmp_el"2ttlJxe 0 f both storrmY'lt.e::J"LlnO If and the vye.tl'll1'till stream. WaterJernperatllfc is onoofth",[actors controllil}g tl1e_<Jlli1ilY of water 1.0 hold.dissolved oxygen.. This abilitv decreascs y,'ilh increasing water temperatures. The .gissolved oxygen level must be maintaincg at a minimu1111evcl to maintain health v aquatic life. CD FffiBJ~y,s-ltfIGFfHReduee the adverse impacts of human activities on wetlands and streams. fd1The purposes of this section are to: [!, Preserve wetlands and streams in a natural state. ab. Preserve the beneficial functions of wetlands and streams by regulating the sunounding land use. Be,:. Stabilize the soil around wetlands and streams to prevent sffirmwafe1' erosion. e,ci. Preserve and enbanee water qualitv by Ffilleri!lg suspended solids, nutrients, and harmful substances before they ffem reaehffig wetlands, streams, and public waters. e~. Reduce human disturbances of wetlands and streams by viscmUy separating wetlands from yards. e[ Prevent flooding and the costs associated witl,-Bfreclaiming water quality. g. Protect property. fh. Protect beneficial plant and wildlife habitat. g).. Educate the public, including appraisers, owners, potential buyers, or developers,-ffi regarding the development limitations ofwellands, streams, and associated buffers. L Encourage property owners who live adiaeent 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 sabsBccion, except where the context clearly indicates a di fferent meaning. Alteration means any human action that adversely affects a buffer. Alterations include, but aTe not limited to, the following: grading, tilling, dumping, dredging, draining, cutting, pruning, topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation, applying hcrbieides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance, disclrttrgfngi"uHutants--&XC-ept--trtBfffiW-at0f, paving, construction, application of gravc1~dischilrgiDKPollutants, com[2fu;ting, or disturbing soil through vehicle or i'Cquipment llse. or any other hnman activity that adversely affects the vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat. Alteration does not include the following: a. Walking, passive recreation, rishing or other similar lQ_,v_-impilct activities. b. Planting fhattmBftl16ei native vcgetalioll,Sll1ce !l1(j~ntingJ2l,mis ap]JLQ~ied IrYcity strJI e. The selective clearing, pruning, ot'_e2ntrol of trees or vegetation that are dead, diseased, noxious, weeEl& or hazardous. 2 A\'C'''~bC'''B1ieer-widlh.-rHeaHs~--wiffifl.{)fft-bHf{cr within :: :;H-1g.ltHlevelopment, lot or pltas€, Best manazement lJractices (BMP's) mean measurcs taken to minimize ncgative 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. BOI! means a peatland with acidic pH as described in the Milmesota Land Covcr Classification Svstem. Buffer means a strewn or wetland...baffe, or the upland areas that are immediately adiacent and contiguous to wetlands and streams which contain a protective zone ofveget<ition--alfmg a-stream sr anlHud 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 wetlallil-b uff er. Erosion means the movement of soil or rock fragments, or the wearing away ofthc land surface by water, wind, ice, and gravity. Fen means a peatland fcd by ground water as described in tbe Minnesota Land Cover Classification System. Forested seasonal wetland means a wooded wetland with hydric soils that may haye standing water vear round or may drv UP seasonallY.c infiltrotion basin means a pond or basin that captures stonllwater and allows it to soak int9_ the ground. An infiltration basin will typically drain within 48 hours of a storm e\,ent. Mitigation means an action that reduces, rectifies, eliminates, or compensatcs for the alteration of a buffer, wetland, or stream. Native vegetation means tree, shrub, grass, or other plant species that are indigenous to the Twin Cities metropolitan area that could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. Native vegctation does not include noxious weeds. Naturalizedygge.tation means trcc,~?hIUlJ, grass, or othcLRi<i!11s-1,ecies that cxis.tS...Q.ll<.l site llaJural1y withoJ1LJUlving...lleen planted,~j1J.Ilily:l>e a nativcQUJon:uative speeics....Sgme 11atumIiz;ed species~arc.a,pp.!:opriate in a buffcr am] some are considered \veeds. lYp)(:jQJPr.!:t,~('g(l in C[U1Bglflnt.?__1if?J~5J~'1'LProhi b i ted JJ-Ojfi~2JJf~_~y.~cds in the MinD?5QL~L~~9X(Ql:l~_.YV~_~~i Law. iSc9.illsQ'Y.eed.) Olil!otro"hic ac:jd marsh means a shallowQuleep marsh with low J2k1 high dissolved QKyg<"ll, and low levels of nutrients. 3 Ordinary high ..vater ill ark (OIfWkfj means a mark delineating the highest water level maintained for enough time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary high water marl, is commonly that point where the natural vcgctation changes limn predominantly aquatic to predominantly telTestrial. Rain zgrden mcans an infiltration basinJhat is planted as a garden that allQ.10'~~atcr toinD1tr"te within 48 hours of a storm event, Restoration means retuming a wetland, stream, or buffer to a condition that is similar to that before development of the sUlTounding area. Sedze meadow means a wetland with saturated soils or standing water that contains a significant number of sedge species (Care~spp.), as defined as wet meadow in thc Mimlcsota Land Cover Classification System. Semivublic means land that is maintained by a private organization for public use. Setback means th~ minimum horizontal distance between a structure and the nearest edge ofthe buffer, wetland, or stream. Straizht-edze setback is measurement to determine the allowable setback of an addition to an existing 11O.use, gaTage, deck, or driveway which is located closcr to or within the requires! buffer setback. Straight-edge setback additions arc measured by using the existing edge ofthe house, gm:Age, deck, or driveway located nearest to the edge of a buffer, wetland, or s.tream and extending that line in a parallcl direction. No portion of the ad<:iition can encroach closer to the edge of a buffer, wetland, or stream than the existing structure. Stream means those areas wherc surface waters produce a defined channel or bed. A defined chmmel or bed is land that clearly contains the constant passage of water under normal summer conditions. ::Chis definition does not include drainago swales or ditches tlmt clmnncl intermittent storm',','ater runo ff. 8H_m huffcr means land that is in direct drainage :0 a stream and within the beandary described BY this mticlc. /, persen shall mcaSl:re all buffers from the-mdinary nig!l water Rlark (OHWM) as identificd i-a-tho field. If a person Calmot detefmi-Ho the OH\VM, the stream b:1ffcr shall-be from tho top oflhe stream ba~ St.r:lI{:tz{re,lTlJ'.::'ll}~'ll1ythi.!)g eonstructectQl: .erecleclJ.lJatX"9llires location on the QrQI1]J(,L(]L'ltl'lch~Q lQJiQm"thing having location onthe grmli!(L S.11~'iaina!Jle desiZl1 means a develoj)menLcic:sifill. which minimizes imj:l3c;ts,9JlJ1JSJ,mclscalL"'-' I.~I1J1).orar)i erosion conlrol meal},'; meth()Q~,ofke.Eill.i!1b.-soil stable during,constmction or grading. ]~QJn1?.Qrar-'/ erosion control IHylUtUresjgcludc,. but are not linlited lQ_L:?iH felKjng~ erosion con1rol blanketsJ2gJ!lc~h1pe__bmr.Lels~ or other best man,"gt;111~.nLer~!!,jQD control mcthodsm;>QrQY<oll.\:lytJW CllY~ Variance means a deviation from the standards of this section that is not specifically allowed. Vegetatiol1means any organic plant life growing at, below, or above the soil surface. 4 Water qYQlItv rond means a pond thai has be~l1 createdlQS0pturc stormwaicrrllno[T. _These a!:~ pot natural wetlands. Storrnwater is often piped into these pOl)ds but ll1IDT aiso enter thro1!lili sheet runoff These are also called utility ponds. Water aualitv pond ed![e means tl:te normal high water levcl for a water quality pond. -Wefl-and suffer means laHd thc.t is in direct drainage to a wetland within the bomdary descrillOO 13y-this 88cti01,. ,'.II b"ffers shall be mcas~~red o~ltward from the wetland oage, Weed means a plant which is causing damage in some way to native vegetation or ecosvstems. {See also noxious weed.) Wet vrairie means a wetland with saturated soils containing a significant number of plant species found in wet prairie communities as defined in the MiJ1l1esota Land Cover Classification System. Wetlands means those areas of the city inundated or saturated by groundwater or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generaJly include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas as defined in the tArmy Corps of Engineers regulations 33 CPR 328.3 1988). Whore a person has removed or mostly changed the vegetation, one shall detennine a wetland by the presence or evidence ofhydrie or organic soil and other documentation ofthc previous existence of wetland vegetation such as aerial photographs. Wetland classes. The city defines the wetland classes used in this section as follows: (a) Class 11','3tla:Jds means wG,lands assigned tho ~mique!outstandinb rating in the Ramsey Washil1gton Metro Watershed District W ctlaBds Inyentory, 1995. Class 1 wetlands are those wich conditions and fUll€,ioHS n:os, s1lScepti131c to hGman impacts, l1re most uniqae, hayc the hishest commanity resource significance and similar chamctcristi€& tS) Clsss ;7 ',,'etlmuls mean high value (definitiDn ba~,ed on Watershed wetlands invcHtory re&~ to) Ch;ss 3 v,'etl:J:uls mean wildlife habitat vahe. w---Gla8"J-4-wetlemHHl1Can moderato v"'}l-w.Hm-~ (0)-----f;t~,vetftm.d>l'--mOOJ+S-W-b"4lands as~.tflEK+i-ghl-Y-H'nfk'l0t0d--ffitiugir~~RiHns<ry- Wa-sltffigten-Nl-effo, V'ia'OJ'shed District Vi ctlan~"lIt&fy,---I.-99S,-GtHfrs!l-wet11l00s-flf8 tfleBe-wi-tfrBfmElitions and functio!13 most aHceted by human uctid-ties,witlr4e---least di~,vegelat-ion commaniti CG, 10a*€tHRmufl-i-ty---fe-&B-UfBS~si~'mc-e-HHdsmi-ktf et+aractcri :;Ii 6&,' r 1 " , . , ,,,. IT" C,'- __,.T ,,,'ld"+' P , , (''''___T''',' 1'1" '-.._.1, A"-Bf---t 1e_ptffp.f}-&e&~(::J+4n-}ei'--s-e&t;lffi1~-.'t::I-.-t'-~th,~'h-,~(tti:e--o-G-r~':lce :::--\;"_::f{ttrtrt:ttt{I,J-letK"H---.'r~--t-tHi-:tttS "." "... . . H. .1' , .f.i_- H' ! ?;' . puc f("mc ''1\!01 {{'~ m..1T_, , 1 HY'O\ ...' . ""kt-r="1,Watef--- ..8 lliatS--e -me--t'rntoc .. cates, ",.".vr=--I'71-~Wttt=wet -a~!'7r&,*H-atflS tR&~pt-i-eR&-rn'lGtffietegr-aflhs-ef \\"otland-€hl5se-s'Hfttl-suh&~ 'h Class A -I- means wetland tmes that arc verv rare in our community, are particularly sensitive to in1Daets from develomuent, and provide much needed habitat for wildE fe. These wetlands are special wetlands and deserve additionall1foteetion to ensure that they 5 r~rgilQLi!l that state. Class AI \7,,,,t1mds arc defilled as a Manage Gl-llii!' AwsJ1m.Q~ Itti-l-h4flg in the Ramsey_,_WasNngtoll Metro Watershed District Rules definition (which is based on the Milmesota Routine Assessment Methodology fMnR,A..Ml classification system) and f\lso are one of the following unique_,!!}d special types of wetlands in Map1ewood: 12 oligotrophic aci<:l marsh 2) wet12rairie 3) sedge meadow 4) forested seasonal wetland 5) full 6) bog b. Class A wetlands are defined as a Manage A wetland in the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Rules definition and based on the Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodologv (MnRAM) classification system. These wetlands are exceptional and the highest-functioning wetlands in Maotewood. All streams ill the City of Maolewood are also defined as Class A. f., Class B wetlands are defined as a Manage B wetland in the Ramsey-Washington M~tro Watershed District Rules definition and based on the Minnesota Routine Asse~~ment Methodology (MnRAM) classi fication system. These wetlands arc high-quality w<e.tlanQ~ d. Class C wetlands are defined as a Manage C wetland in the Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District Rules definition and based on the Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology (MnRAM) classification system. These wetlands provide moderate quality. e. Utility Class - Defined as water quality ponds. Wetland eascrncnt means a dcsignated area that includes the wctland or buffer where disturbance from mowing, cutting, or similar activities is prohibited. Wetland [zIl1Cliol18 mcans the natural processes performed by wetlands, such as helping food chain production, providing wildlife habitat, maintaining the avai lability and quality of water such as purifying \vater, acting as a recharge and discharge area for ground\vater aquifers, and moderating surface water and ston11\valer flows, and performing other Cunctions, including but not limited to those set out in U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers regulations at-'33-CFR :;Ml4(-13)(2)(1988}. Wetland or stream edge means the linc delineating the outer edge of a wetland or 5trOal11. This On6 shall establish this-line b-)' shall be established llsing the Federal Manual for Identi Cying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlancls dated January 10, I <)89, and j oint])' published by the U.S. Elwironmcntal Protection },g81'lC)', the U.S. fish--an4--3Nildlife Service, tIle U.S. l\rmy-C--0l'l'l&-Bf 6 Engineers-and the UScSBi+-Gel'lSorvation See, fee. The applicable watershed district must verify this line. 3. Applicahility: This section shall apply as follows: a. This section shall apply4Io any person or use that would alter a wetland, stream, or buffer after April 21, 19%--add date of adoption of new ordinance. h. When any provision of any ordinance conflicts with this section, the provision that provides 1110rc protection for buffers, wetlands, or streams shall appl y unless specifically provided otherwise in this section. This also applies to the al1plicable watershed district. &.-- Public and semipublic streets, ntilities, or trails, ,,'."hctho1" built by a publie agcncy or pri\,ate developer, shall he subject to this scctieJr. 4. General Exemptions: This section shall not apply to the following: '" Non-chemical control and removal of noxious weeds within the huffer. Refer to section S,k.3.b. (Manage Weeds in Buffer) regarding the use of chemical treatment. Q., Planting native plants within the wetland lmffer after apl1roved bv citv staff. c. Removal of limbs, brush, or branches that are dead or pose a safetv hazard. d. Removal of trees that are dead, diseased, or pose a safetv hazard after approval bv citv staff. a. The constmction or maintenance-Bfpublie or semipublic drainage facilities, sedimentation ponds, or crosion control facilities. b. The maintenance of public or semipul1lie facilities inel::ding streets, utilities and trai~&c e. Where the city eouneil waives these roqairements for the eonotruction of public and oomi- pllblic utilities or trails, whether buill by a pBblic agency or private doYcl~ h Pllblie or semipublic streets. utilities, and trails. The city OOHfleHmay waive the requirements (or constructien or maintenance of public or .semipublic. streets, utilities, and,trAils where there would be a greater puhlic need f()f the project than to meet the requirement of this section. The'-e-HTBHHR&~l-&fltt1.1-.h.BtEi a pUl.lie-hearing h",foHJ-ae&1-a,Fing such Q waiver. The €~tysh[ll! 1ll,tifylhe--prope"FtY-ew1Wrs within 35.()..rect of lhGLb:lff0r al teast.t-en day" hdero the h3ari11gc-In waiving these requirements the city 6ouR€-il..shall foliow the standards listed he1ow~ ffi...fm8-s00t~&f.lhis-se&tiHH7 (1) The city may oniy allow the construction ofuill1liC..QLs",miprl,bILc: utilities i!nd ~tg:~tB through huffers where there is no other practical altcmativc and the fi,\lowing requirements arc met: (a) :rhe city cOlllleil mllst arlRIove thcy,r,aiver to allow l)ublic or seminublic utilities or streets to be located within a buffer. Before the eitv council acts on the waiver the DlaJming commission and the environmental aJld natural resources commission shall make a recommendation to the citv 7 council. The planning commission shall hold [[public h~aringlm tl~e waiver. The citv staff shall notify the property owners within five hundred (500) feel ofthe buffer alleast ten days before the hea1'in& (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 wet1and 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 hcrbicicles or other hazardous or toxic substances in buffers, streams, or wetlands. Tn some situations the use ofherbieides mav be used if prior approval is obtained from city staff. (e) The owner or contractor shall replant utility or street corridors with appropriate native vegetation, except trees, at preconstruetion densities or greater after constmction ends. Trees shall be replaced as reqllired bv city code. (D Any additional corridor access for maintenance shall be provided as much as possible at specific points rather than to road which is narallc1lo wetland ed~ by jlarallel roads. Tfparallc1 roads are necessary they shall be no greater than fiftecn (15) fcet wide. ill} Miti ation actions must be met as s ecifred in scction 6 below Mitigation and Restoration of Buffers), (2) The city may allow public or semh1ublic private trails in buffers. Trails must be approvedJrrcitv staff and arc subject to the following guidelines: liD. Trails shall not be al10wcd when endangered or threatcned S11ecies are found to be present in the buffer. (b1 Th€4FaikkaH lIot be at" have a impewious surface materials. An elevate&-booHlwalk slllll-l-nE>~_Hl-e+"e~.vifms-!ffi!4aee. (b) Buffers shan he expanded.,wlwr€--j-loss-illie-; cqual to the width of the trail corridor. (e) The owner or c011tractor shall replant all disturbed areas next to the trail ill :Dim-,"Ji':''lJl-3S..illmrOY cSLbY_ c i tYJililf.t:.-aJWc-oomj3'!e-ttng+he-traih liD J:.-l1.D-ecc~sa(y eIQf)lon cOl1troLp::~~~0-~1!K~;JL!nv.;~t b,~_it.l_QJa(~,~ befqre eonstmcting a l.raiL_1}l~sros19riS-"ntrQIJ:ll~i!~uLeS nl'Jst 'lJso_bemaitltain~\ and insgected hv the city to ensure that the wetlam\..Qr.stream is llQ\ compromised bv trail construction activilicS;, LeD. The trail must be designed and constructed with sustainable desigq methods. 8 ill 1JteJrall rnay provide one ac~~",~"s~p-oint to the welland bUtSl.1eh~:YL?~C_CCSs shall be no more thanfour (4) feet wide. {g} BOaTdwalks arc allowed within thl;) buffer and shall be a maximum of six (6) feet in width for semipublic use and twelve (12) feet in width for public use. W Trails or boardwalks shall not be eOllstr-ueted entirely aroulld the wetland. llil City staff may require additional mitigation actions as speoifieg in section 6 below (Mitigation and Restoration of Buffers). 1T. Stmctures, ','cgctation and maintenance activities and praccices ill oxiste-nee-eJ+--tfle eHecti','o date of tho onlirmnco from ,-,-,hieh this secti01~ deri'los. I\. contractor or owner may remodel, reconotC.lCt or replace ~~ffccted stmcturos ifthe-ne'.v conscmctiofl doos not tal;e llj3 more buffer land-than tho structure ',:3ed bofore tho remodeling, recol1stllJction or replacement. €-c Whore this section wO:l1d de;})' all reasonable :13e of a lot of record. In sueh case, tfie owner or contractor shall constmct any bllilding to maximize the setbaok fi'om a baffer. Federal, state or watershed districc rules and regulations shall apply. }\ltorations to a buffer shall be-t-11o minimum nccessary to allow for tho reasonable use ofthc proper-tT- If/hcrc feasible, the oily may require the mitigation of any alceration of a buffer, f. Additions to a house, garage, deck, or drivcway using the existing straight-cdge setbacks to a wetland or stream if the following alJPly: ill Property is zoned or is being used as a single family residence. ill There is no other reasonable alternative than encroachment tOW21rd the wetland or stream withthc addition. ill The house, garage, deck, or driveway is a minimum oftwentv-five (25) feet from the wetland or stream edge. ill Addilion docs not cause degradation of the wetland, stream. or theexistingJ:mffcr. (~) Mitigation actions musl]J<c~m<'1_<:gL~]'Jggificd in section 6 l~elQ\-v(Mitigatio]LmLg Restoration of BuffcISl K }\Jlropertv which is located wi1bln~"wctland buffer, but is se:.pm1l.te:.JtQl11 the wetland!;>,)' an existing roaQ.~ 5. BufTer s.slandards: Standards fcll' this se~lioll bltffefs are as fellows: a. W ct I an (1.l'jIlil1g:Iltl;)_~ity dO..eflJJ.ot allow JheJl1[ing91.)'iI;)!land S ,WheFf)-t-h-e-.w acersh ee district has---rrwr-evBd a 'Aelland filling porm.j.~~t1i-t:y-&hall require mitigati8H-.fu1'--aflY distmbed buffor land. 9 b. Mininlllm Buffer Widths:_The minimum buffer widths shall apply to all wetlands, including those created, restored, relocated, replaced, or enhanced. L Maintenance of Buffers: . Buffers shall remain in a natural state with naturalized or native vegetation. d. Restoring Buffers: Landowners interested in restoring their buffer to native plants should submit a restoration plan as specified in section 5.k.3.a. (Restoration of Buffer with Native Plantings) to city staff for approval. e. Wetland, Stream, or Buffer Easements: The propeliy owner of any property affected by this section mav be required to slHill--reeord wetland, stream, or buffer easements with the county. These easements shall describe the boundaries ofthe 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 peJmit for an alTeeted property. The applicant shall submit proof that the owner or developer has filed the notice. [ StoDnwater: The disehar in of stormwater to a wetland or stream must com 1 with section 44-1245 ofthe City of Maplewood ordinances (Storm Management). g. Plantings in BLlffers: /.11 affe81ed property owner-shal! mairnain a baffer.- Any planting in a buffer shall be done with native vegetation after the planting plan has hcen approved by city staff. h. Alterations in Buffers: The city prohibits the alteration of buffers except as allowed in ~eneral exemptions. Th.,e city may waive this rcqairement where the 'Natc.mhed district __ as appro' cd a permit for filling all or part of a wetland. 1. Minimum buffers: The following are the minimum required buffer widths and structure ~setbacks: 13 uffer Wetland Classes Class ,1.J Class a~~-l & Streams Class !1.J Utilit)! Class C4- ~...(j A_l'aj!;&Wf[-elcW-illtlt' ~-GG--fl. 100 ft. 3D*' ,i-5-ft O-ftc Minimum Buffer Width 20j2WO ft. 100~) ft. 75,'1-5 ft. 2Q;1()- ft. lQO fL mik-ffitg--F'oocnEl-at.Bfl Structure Setback from Edge of Buffer to II to 11:. to ft. ]0 ft lOft. ].. ]3jlffcrMeasUrelrJcnJ; Bllffcrs sl}alL\:Jem~_a:;;_t1I9li hoXizqnifillDl:OIU_,,\LcllalJcLm: str",-'tnl edge, pot across the QUff<.~lJ.aJ1dsCflJ)q.J211~q[.9J2f~.&q~i9Lilml eightc_(m.Jl.~Lc~nt (18%) the buffer width shall be increased to 10 feet beyond the apcx ofthcsl()p~:xtension oJ the bulTer for steep slopes shall apply to all wetland classes. +fl.e.-c_HY_ffifl.y-re~e-fl-\'ariahle buffer ',';idth ~reteet adjaeent-flallitat that t]-,o city detoo.Hincs is vaffiable to the wetland, ffifeam, wi!44fu-ef ';egetation, 10 /\JtQrnativc Minimum and Average Buffers: Recognizing tll.'!L!ll"re-,"rejlls.tal1ces Wllyl:", because ofihe unique physical characteristics QL'l~PS.fjf!'(;j)arecl onand, alternative size buffers may be necessary to allow for the reasonable l!scgf the land, In such cases an alternative minimum anq average buffer width will be permitted on ten percent (10%) of the linem wetland buffer within the parcel. which will be compensated for bv increased buffer widths elsewhere in the same parcel to achieve the required average buffer width. Ql The altemative average buffer standards set forth below may be applied based on anassessment of the following: liD Undue hardship would arise from not allowing the alternative, or would otherwise not be in the Dublie interest. (Ql Size of Darcel. (Q) Configuration of existing roads and utitities. (el} Percentage of parcel covered hy wetland. (<0). Configuration of wetlands on the parecl. (fl Will not cause degradation of the wetland or stream. (g.l Will ensur~ the protection or enhancement of)10[tions of the hllffer which arc found to he the most ecologically beneficial to the, weJlan,t.Jrrstre'llll. ill Thc following are the altemative average huffer widths and structure setbacks: Buffer Wetland Classes Class A & Streams Class B Class C Minimum Buffer Width* 75 n. * 50 ft* 50 ft. Average Buffer Width 100 ft. 75 fi. N/A S!metlll~_Sctback From QllterEgge of Buffer 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft *The minimum ,I:lli..f"fer'.Vidth nlillJ2~.J1S.eil..Q!1.!lO_l"1:L()[,gJllitllJ () percent of the lineal: wctland bunc!' area located within the parcel. (ll The appropriateness of using tho alternativc aver'!g~j;llllJ~1LWill bliy.aluuL"d a~ part of Iho revIew of lJ.lY_c,o,ntrQQtox'-,,_org'yyne(s deYQ19J2mc.ntmmlication. The all&m01i'y-",_"v.~@ge huffer used must be within the spirit an.qjl"ll~DLoUhismc()d~ and must meet one or more of the r"-.CU!iLel'tl<::llLs_s_et,fQIt.h hY.1h",sjtyJQj[1Q!.t.lc!Q,lJ111 not limited (0, the following strategic.s,; ill Restoration of buffer with native plantings. Submittal of a buffer restoration plan. The plan may need to be drafted by a professional 11 experienced in wctlap.d or streamJ:f.storation based 011 the size_of the restoration project as deemed necessary by city staff including: 1. Existing vegetatiolh 2. Restoration methods. :L Maintenance procedures progosed during first threc years of establishment. 4. Erosion control measures. ;L List of plants to be planted, 6. Qualifications of contractor. Only contractors with experience and success restoring wetland or stream butTers or natural vegetatiol1 shall he approved. 1. Maintenance agreement which states that the owner will maintain the buffer to its improved state. lL The city may require a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150 percent of the required work. D2l Manage weeds in buffer. All weeds listed on the Minnesota noxious weed list must be controlled by the property owner. Owners are encouraged to control other weeds that are not on the noxious weed list but can threaten the health of a wetland. Submittal of a weed management plan draftedhY a professional experienced in wetland and stream restoration including: 1. Target weeds. 2. Appropriate management teelmiques, including the use of chemical treatment if approved by city staff as ))art of the management plan" :t ]\,1an,\g",mc[l11&bc~(lulc, 4, ]:otential erosion ftnd reseedingjima}ggement wilLgrc<1j<e.1arge :Jrea~s....Q.( deasL.I.''''~:ltioJ:l, 5, <;';'<lshc.serow or lctlcr (jf credit to cover 150 IJerc.ellt91' the fc_'l\lired y:'lork.. (<;;) Bcdu<;;tion ini?19n1J2{:JcteuunQ.fT~:lnd/or improvement of quali1:LQf stomlwatcr TUnalI entenng wetland or stream. This may i;le achi,y-"Q through the fono'wing stratcgies.or other staff approved best management practices for dealing with stomlwatcr. These practices are to be located outside ofthe wetland buffer. 12 .L Reduce amount ofpavelI1<::..nlon site (i.e. feweLQilllej,ng stalls. nan-ower d1"iveY{il..Y~Lsharcd parking wiJhother businesses). 2. Use DerviousJ=1avement such as Davers or porous aSDhatt. .1. Use turfDavers or modified turf areas for overflow l1arking. 4. Install rain garden or infiltration basin. 2.. Install rock trench or roek Dit. 6. Install filter striD of grass or native vegetation. L Install surface sand filter or underground filter. & Install native Dlantings on site to reduce fertilizer use and in1\1rove infiltration. 9. Install a green roof on buildings, ill Install grit chambers. sedimcnt traps. or forebays. h Stormwater Drainage Facilities: The city does not allow the construction of stonnwate, drainage facilities. sedimentation ponds. infiltration basins, and rain gardens within the bllffer. 111. Construction Practices: SDecial const11lction practices shall be required on Droiects or devclo)1ments next to wetlands or streams and their buffcrs. Practices to be aQProved by city staff before issuance of a grading or building Dennit ineluc[e. but are not limited to. the following: ill Grading. ill Sequencing. ill Vehicle tracking platfgrmsc ill AddiliQl1afJiilHcnces. 0J. Additional sediment control. 6;....-- ....-FeHsmg and Gign -ffifH1-aat;:i-s-:- !l,ft, .EJ:osion ConJmI.1n.i?1:,tIL"tion:. Before grading or construction, the owner or contractor shall put into place erosion controlmeasurcs around the borders of bllflers. SlIch .~LosiQ11 control measures must remain in place until the owner and contractors have finished a1l development activities that may affect the buffer. o.&c Wetland Signs: Before grading or starting constmction, the boundary between a buffer and adjacent land shall be identified using pennanent signs. These SigrlS shall mark the 13 edge of the buller and shan state there shall be no mowing, cutting, filJj ng, or dumping beyond this point. Jhese~ns shan be installed at each lot line where it crosses a wetland or stream buffer, and where needed to indicate the contour of the buller, wit!ut maximum spacing of one-hundred (100) feet of wetland or stream edge. ]L"" Erosion Control Breaches: All erosion control measures must be maintained and insnectcd to ensure coml1liance and protection ofwctlands, 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. g.d. Platting: When platting or subdividing property, the plat or sllbdivision mllst show the wetland boundaries as approved by the applicable watershed district. I&: Erosion Control Removal: After completion of grading or constmction, thc contractor or owner may remove the erosion control measures only after inspection and approval by the city and the applicable watershed district to ensure the areas affccted have been established ner requirements. s..fo It is the resl10nsibility of the owner to alleviate any crosion during and after completion of grading or construction. The owner or eonb'aetor must remove erosion control measures after final approved inspection by the city and the applicable watershed district. 6.+. Mitigation and Restoration of Buffers: The city requires mitigation when a property owner or contraetOT has altered OT will alter a wctland, stream, or buffer. The propcrty owncr or contractor shall submit a mitigation plan to city staff for approval. In reviewing the plan, the city may require the fe.l.lewi-Rg-actions below in descending order ofprefere1~ce. a. Redllcing 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 weOOtaOO buffer. c. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by prevention and maintenance operations during the life ofthe actions. d. Compensating [or the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute buffer land at HFts a llvQsne-to-onc ratio. e. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate conective measures. f. \Vhere the city reqllires restoration or replacement of a buner, the owner or contractor shall replant the buffier with lutive vegetation. at-a-Birei-lfH'-tleR&i+-y---te-+R~ITt-B-ef0Rl alWl-'a1:ten ,Ac replantlTlE,plmJ):nu'it hc.,:lJ2P!"()ve~J2ythe()itY,Qeji)I~j11,mtil}K g, Any additional conditions reffilired hv thc apolicaQl~'Y"I.".r.sl1ed.~istJj()L.<ll1cJLolthc.soil and water conseryation district shallilJ:lpJy, h. An strategies as listed in item 5 .k.]. ( Alternative Average Buffer). 14 2, NorLconfol1ningBuilclingsLStruc:-tures,_and Properties: }>.ny existing building.9r stnlcture, Ofaj!y existing use of property not in conformitv witb the regulations prcscribed in this chapler,as ofthe gate of tbe adoption of such regulation (inscrt datc of new ordinance) shall be regarQed a& nonconfol111ing and may continue. 8. Variances: Procedures for granting variances from this section arc as follows: a. The city council may approve variances to the requirements in this section. At) variances must follow Minnesota state law governing variances. b. Beforc the city council acts on a variance the environmental and natural resources commission will make a recommendation to the plal1l1ing commission, who will in turn make a recommendation to tbe citv council p12,nniHg commissi-efr.- The planning commission city coemoil shall hold a public hearing for tbe variance. bofore approving a variance. The--€Qity staff shall notify the property owners within five hundred (500) ~G feet ofthe buffer at least ten days before the hearing. f.., The city may require the applicant to mitigate any wetland, stream, or buffer aJ.tc-ratien impacts with thc approval of a variance, including but not limited to, implementing ono or more ofthe strate ies as listed in item 5.k.3. Alternative Avera e Buffer. 1T. +e-approvo a ':ariance, the COlUleH--.must mal~G the fo11o'<'I:ng tjr~dings: B Strict enf{)rCeHle-n! \voald ca~lse :mduG hardship bGc~:use of cireumotanees-tlJllij-He te-llw--property under cORsideration. The t01111 ":mdue hardsbp" as used in granting a variance meaHS ',he o',':ner of the proper ffi-;l reasonable ase if ~lsed under-€e~ewOO by the official ceffifels; the plight of the landowner is due:o eircGmstlH"eos unique to hisiffill3~eated-By tR~F,-flfld-the-varilHleo, if granted, will not alter tl18 essen:ial cbaffi6tel'-e.f tfl&leeati~OHomie consillemtiom alone are not an undue bar~-if reasonable ase for the property e):ists '.lntleHhe terms oftfiis-&eeti-efr. ~ +fIB variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent oftlris seeti-efr. 9. Wetland or Buffer Surety: The alJnlicant shaH post a wetland or buffer mitigation surety with the iCity, such as a cash deposit or letti;r of credit,_of onll hundred and fifty (150) percent of estimated cost for 111itig<ilion. The sU~'YiIl b~ICQuired based on the size of the project as deemed necessary by staff. Funds will be hcld bv the city tllltil successful cOJIlpletion ofrest9ration as detennined by tbe city alter. a tlnal inspection. Wetland or Quffer mitigationsurcty doesJl9.t (polud," oth~r sur~ties r,"quir<;-d pursuant to allY other provision of cit.Y-fQc!i; orsilY_c!irccti'.'G. 10. Enforcsrrlcnt: The citYJcservcs the right to Inspect the sitc OT pronerty at J111yJiJl)e for QOllli1l!ancQ_withJ.his .Q[(tinailc~_Iheillly'-,,-h~l.bL[esPQ[1sjhlyJ:QIJh" enf.Ql:"g,!)lent 91 this CH"Chf1'-lJIC_e.,.,AllYlli?D'gn ,Yl!9 faiLsto COD1J2\Y w\th.oL\::iol!!t~~ anysec.ti.(jJ.1...Q{this ()rdinagcc shean llydccmyd gjljJ1ygJ a l11isdcn,eanOLancL\JQ211 convlctiollo shallhc s.JlrJQ<:lto Pllllisi}ment in accordance with section 1-15. i\1l1and use j;lui1cling a[ld gril.l1ing penni.!s slulllJ2c SIl'illypdcd.\lntlI the devcloper has corrected the violation. Each clay iliat ajieparale violati()l1 exists shall constitute a senaratc offense. 15 Attachment 8 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WETLAND SECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (ARTICLE VB) The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This amendment revises Section 12-247 through 12-249 and Section 12-310 (wetland section ofthe enviromllcntal protection and Clitical area ordinance): 1. Findings and purposcs. The (indings ofthis section are as follows: a. Wetlands serve a variety ofbcnelicial functions. Wetlands maintain water quality by filtering pollutants and reducing flooding and crosion. They provide food and habitat for wildlifc, provide open space for human interaction, and are an integral part ofthe city's enviromllent. Wetlands arc an important physical, educational, ecological, aesthetic, recreational, and economic asset to the city. They arc critical (0 the city's health, safcty, and general welfare. Surrounding development may degrade, pollutc, or accelerate the aging of or eliminate wetlands. Regulating land use around wetlands is therefore in the public interest. b. StrcanlS are also significant elemcnts of the city's hydrologic systcm. Streams flow into wetlands and lakes, provide food and habitat for wildlife, provide open space, and arc 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. Regulating land use around streams is therefore in the public interest. c. Buffers are the lands that surround wetlands and strcams. They are integral to maintaining the valuable functions many wetlands and streams perfOllli and to maintaining a wetland's or stream's health. Requiring buffers recognizes that the surrounding uplands impacts thc wetland's and stream's quality and function and, therefore, is in thc public interest. Buffers have the following fimctions: (1) Reduce the impacts OCsulToul1ding land usc 011 wct18nds and streams by stabilizing soil to prevent erosion and filtering suspended solids, nutrients, pollutants, and hannful substances. (2) Moderate watcr level fluetuations during storms. (3) Provide essential Idhfe habitat. (4) Provide shade to reduee the temperature ofbot11 stormwater nmofT and the wetland or stream. Water temperature is one ofthe factors controlling the ability ofwater to hold dissolved oxygen. This ability decreases with increasing water temperatures. The dissolved oxygen level must be maintained at a minimum level to maintain healthy aquatic lIfe. I 1. Findings and purposes (cont.). (5) Reduce the adverse impacts of human activities on wetlands and streams. The purposes of this section are to: a. Preserve wetlands and sh'eams in a natural state. h. Preserve the beneficial functions ofwetlands and streams by regulating the surrounding land use. c. Stabilize the soil around wetlands and streams to prevent erosion. d. Preserve and enhance water quality by filtering suspcnded solids, nutrients, and harmful substances before they reach wetlands, streams, and public waters. e. Reduce human disturbances of wetlands and streams. f. Prevent flooding and the costs associated with reclaiming water quality. g. Protect property. h. Protect beneficial plant and wildlife habitat. 1. Educate the public, including appraisers, owners, potential buyers, or devclopcrs regarding the development limitations of wetlands, streams, and associated buffers. J. Encourage property owners who live adjacent to and/or near wetlands and streams to be responsible stewards including managing and cnhancing thc quality ofhuffers and restoring the bufIer to a diverse planting of deep-rooted native plants. 2. Definitions: The following words, tenns, and phrascs when used in this section shall have the meanings ascribed to them, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning. A iteration 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 herhicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance, paving, construction, application of gravel, discharging pol1nt,mts, compacting or disturbing soil through vehicle or equipment use, or any other human activity that adversely affects the vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habilat. Alteration does not include the following: a. Walking, passive recreation, fishing or other similar low-impact activities. b. Planting native vegetation, once the planting plan is approved by city staff. c, l'he se1cctl\/c clearing~ pruning~ or control of trees or vegetation that is dead~ diseased., noxlous, or hazardous. 2 2. Definitions (Cont.) Best management practices (RMP's) mean measures taken to minimize negative effects of stonmvater 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. Bog means a peatland with acidic pH as described in the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System. Buffer means the upland areas that are immediately adjacent and contiguous to wetland and streams which contain a protective zone of vegetation. Enhancement means an action that increases the functions and values of a wetland, stream, or buffer. Erosion means the movement of soil or rock fragments, or the wearing away of the land surface by water, wind, ice, and gravity. Fen means a peatland fed by grotmd water as described in the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System. Forested seasonal wetland means a wooded wetland with hydric soils that may have standing water year round or may dry up seasonally. Infiltration basin means a pond or basin that captures stonnwater and allows it to soak into the ground. An infiltration basin will typically drain within 48 hours of a storm event. Mitigation means an action that redLlces, rectifies, eliminates, or compensates for the alteration of a buffcr, wctland, or stream. Native vegetalion means tree, shrub, grass, or other plant species that are indigenous to the Twin Cities metropolitan area that could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. Native vegetation docs not include noxious weeds. Naturalized vegetation means tree, shrub, grass, or olher plant species that exists on a site naturally without having been planted. It may be a native or non-native species. Some naturalized species are appropriate in a buller and some arc considered weeds. Noxious weed means plants listcd as prohibited noxious weeds in the Minnesota Noxious Weed I.aw. (Sce also wccd.) Oligotrophic acid marsh means a shallow Of decp marsh with low pH, high dissolved oxygcn, and low levels of nutricnts. Ordinary high water mark (OHWM) means a mark delineating the highest watcr levcl maiutaincd for enough time to leave evidence l1pon the landscape. The ordinary high water mark is eOllli1l0nly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly tenestrial. 3 2. Dcfinitioi1s (Conl.) Rain garden means an infiltration basin that is planted as a garden that allows water to infiltrate within 48 hours of a storm event. Restoration means returning a wetland, stream, or buffer to a condition that is similar [0 that before development of the surrounding area. Sedge meadow means a wetland with saturated soils or standing water that contains a significant number of sedge species (Carex spp.), as defined as wet meadow in the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System. Selnipublie means land that is maintained by a private organization for Pllblic use. Setback means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure and the nearest edgc ofthe bLLffer, wetland, or stream. Straight-edge setback mcans a measurement to detennine the allowable setback of an addition to an existing house, garage, deck, or driveway which is located closer to or within the required buffer setback. Straight-edge setback additions aTe measured by llsing the existing edge of the house, garage, deck, or driveway located nearest to the edge of a !mffer, wetland, or stream and extending that line in a parallel direction. No portion oflhe addition can encroach closer to the edge of a buffer, wetland, or stream than the existing structure, UStralght Edge Diagrams J "I dd",oc PD5~iblehcr() ! II i , ~'- I I po,;:;iblr:t /---Odd;ti<.J[I~'-\ ,l-,-j-di I E~lsLin9 < 1(' I S\rC!:turn I ~_ _ I J \ _J'" [25 rcnlLfc.:j 50' bufier 1 possible addition -\ '\l ijJ ) 1 - leq,,,,d I 1/ ')0 JJrler ) [xl~tmq : ( S'n ,,'UJ<O Ii 1\ I' - 12~'~ ---"-'....:-"-. Ci,ASS C WCTLAND t.rNlrvlU~/ = 50' EXEMrTlor-J ror? SINGLE F.L.\W.Y HOV[ FXIST:HG I:m/L IS 15' TO :;>5' "RGH WCTlANL' :\OCI"":"IDH eM-J us'~ EXISTIHG :IS' STR.t',iCHi EDGE CLASS C WETLAi'iD t...1INIMlJM = 50' EXD/PTION FOr-~ SIi'!CLE r'AMILY H::::;~,1[ EXiSTHG HOM':: IS 2~i' FT\OH \1,'ETLJ..NrJ Stream means those areas whcre surface waters produce a defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is land that clearly contains the constant passage of water under nOlTIlal sununer conditions. This definition does not include drainage swales or ditches that chmmel intermittent stOlTIlwatcr nmo IT. Structure 111eans anything constructed or erected that requires location on the ground or attached to something having location on the ground, Sustainahle design means a development design which minimizes impacts on the landscape. 4 2. Definitions (Cont.) Temporary erosion control mcans methods ofkeeping soil stable during construction or grading. Tcmporary crosion control measures include, hut are not limited to, silt fencing, erosion control blankets, bale slope barriers, or other best management erosion controlmcthods approved by the city. Variance mcans a deviation from the standards of this section that is not specifically allowed. Vegetation means any plant life growing at, below, or above the soil smface. Water quality pond means a pond that has been created to capture stormwater runoff. These arc not natural wetlands. Stormwater is often piped into these ponds but may also enter through sheet runoff. These are also called utility ponds. Water quality pond edge means the n01111al high water level for a water quality pond. Weed means a plant which is causing damage in some way to nativc vegetation or ecosystems. (Sce also noxious weed.) Wetland classes. The city defines the wetland classes used in this section as follows: a. Class A + means wetland types that are very rare in our community, are particularly sensitive to impacts from developmcnt, and provide much needed habitat for wildlife. These wetlands are special wetlands and deserve additional protection to enSllfe that they remain in that state. Class A+ wetlands arc defined as a Manage A wetland in the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Rules definition (which is based on the Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology [MnRAM] classification system) and also are one of the following unique and special types of wetlands in Maplcwood: 1) oligotrophic acid marsh 2) wet prairie 3) sedge meadow 4) [orested seasonal wetland 5) fen 6) bog b. Class A wetlands arc deilned as a Manage A wetland in the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Rules definition and based on the Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology (MnRi\M) classification system. These wetlands are exceptional and the highest-funetioning wetlands in Maplewood. Al1 streams in the City ofl\ilaplewood are also defined as Class A. 5 2. Ddinitions (Cont.) c. Class B wetlands are dellned as a Manage B wetland in the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Rules definition and based on the Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology (MnRAM) classification system. These wetlands arc high-quality wetlands. d. Class C wetlands are defined as a Manage C wetland in the Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District Rules definition and based on the Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology (MnRAM) classification system. These wetlands provide moderate quality. e. Utility Class - Defined as watcr quality ponds. Wet prairie means a wetland with saturated soils containing a significant number ofplant spccies found in wct prairie communities as defincd in the Minnesota Land Covcr Classification System. Wetland easement means a designated arca that includes the wel1and or buffer where disturbance from mowing, cutting, or similar activities is prohibited. Wetland or stream edge means the line delineating the outer edge of a wetland or stream. This line shall be established using the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. The applicable watershed district must verify this line, Wetlandfill1ctions 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 pLlri fying water, acting as a recharge and discharge area for grDLllldwatcr aquifers, and moderating surface water and stOllliwater flows, and performing other functions, including but not limited to those set out in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations. Wetlands means those areas inundated or saturated by groundwater or surface water at a fi'equency and dLlration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands gcnerally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas as dcfined in the Army Corps of Engincers regulations. Where a pcrson has removed or mostly changcd the vegetation, one shall dete1111ine a wetland by the presence or evidencc of hydric or organic soil and othcr documentation ofthc previous existence of wetland vegetation such as aerial photographs, 3, Applicability: This section shall apply as follows: a. To any pcrson or use that would alter a wetland, stream, or buffer affer _____ (add date of adoption of new ordinance). b. \Vhen any provision of any ordinance ccmflicts v/ltl1 this scctiOXll the provision tnat provides more protection it)]" bullers, wetlands, or streams shal1 apply unless specificaliy provided otherwise in this section. This also applies to the applicable watershed district. 4. General Exemptions: This section shall not apply to the Ji:Jllowing: a, Non-chemical control and removal of noxious weeds within the buffer. Refer to section 5 ,k.3. b. (Manage Weeds in Buffer) regarding the use of chemical treatment. 6 4. General Exemptions (ConL). 11. Planting native plants within the wetland hllffer after approved by city stafr c. Removal of limbs, brush, or branches that are dead or pose a safety hazard. d. Removal of trees that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards after approval hy city staff. e. Public or semipublic streets, utilities, and trails. The city may waive the requirements for construction or maintenance of public or semipublic streets, utilities, and trails where there would be a greater public need for the project than to meet the requirement ofthis section. In waiving these requirements the city shall follow the standards listed below: (1) The city may only allow the construction of public or semipllhlic utilities and strccts through buffers where there is no other practical alternative and the following requirements are met: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) ( <5) \0 The city eouneilmust approve the waiver to allow public or semipublic utilitjes or streets to be located within a buffer. Before the city council acts on the waiver the planning commission and the environmental and natural resources commission shall make a recommendation to the city council. The planning commission shall hold a public hcaring for thc waiver. The city staff shall noti fy the property owners within five hundred (500) feet oftlle buffer at least ten days before the heming. Utility or street con'idors shalJ not be allowed when endangered or threatened species are found in the buffer. Utility or street corridors, including any allowed maintenance roads, shalJ be as far from the wetland or stremn as possible. Utility or street corridor eonstmction and maintenance shall protect the wetland, stream, or buffer and avoid large trees as much as possible. The city shalJ not alJow the use ofpesticides or other hazardous or toxic substmlces in buffers, streams, or wetlands. In some situations the use of herbicides may be used if prior approval is obtained from city staff. The owner or contractor shall replant utility or street corridors with appropriate native vegetation, except trees, at preeonstruction densities or greater after construction ends. Trees shall be replaced as required by city code. Any additional corridor access for maintenance shall be provided as much as possible at specific points rather than to road which is parallel to \vetland edge. Ifparalle1 roads arc necessary they shaU be no greater than Ii fleen (15) feel. wide. Mitigation actions must be met as speei fied in section 6 below (Mitigation mld Restoration of Buffers). 7 4 General Exemptions (Cont.). (2) The city may a\1ow public or semipublic trails in buffers. Trails must be approved by city staff and are subject to the following guidelines: (a) Trails shall not be a\1owed when endangered or threatened species are found to be present in the buffer. (b) Buffers shall be expanded equal to the width ofthe trail coni dol". (c) The owner or contractor shall replant a1\ disturbed areas next to the trail in a timefran1e approved by city staff. (d) All necessary erosion control measures must be in place before constructing a trail. The erosion control measures must also be maintaiued and inspected by the city to ensure that the wetland or stream is not compromised by trail construction activities. ( e) The trail must be designcd and constructed with sustainable design methods. (t) The trail may provide one access point to the wetland bLlt such an access shall be no more than four (4) feet wide. (g) Boardwalks are allowed within the buffer and shall be a maximum of six (6) feet in width for semipublic use and twelve (12) feet in width for public use. (h) City staff may require additional mitigation actions as specified in section 6 below (Mitigation and Restoration 0 f Buffers). f. Additions to a house, garage, deck, or driveway using the existing straight-edge setbacks to a wetland or stream if the following apply: (1) Property is zoned or is being used as a single family residence. (2) There is no other reasonable altemative than encroac1nnent toward the wetland or stream with the addition. (3) The house, garage, deck, or driveway is a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from the wetland Of streanl edge. (4) Addition does not cause degradation ofthe wetland, stream, or the existing buffer. (51 rvlitigation actions must be Inet as Restoration of Buffers). fled in section 6 below (Mitigation and g. A property which is located within a wetland buffer, but is separate from the wetiand by an existing foad. 8 5. Standards: Standards for this section are as fonows: a. Wetland Filling: The city docs not allow the fiJling of wetlands. b. Minimum Buffer Widths: The minimum bLlffer widths shall apply to all wetlands, including those created, restored, relocated, replaced, or enhanced. c. Maintenance of Buffers: Buffers shall remain in a natural state with naturalized or native vegetation. d. Restoring Buffers: Landowners interested in restOling their buffer to native plants should submit a restoration plan as specified in section 5.k.3.a. (Restoration of Buffer with Native Plantings) to city staff for approval. c. Wetland, Stream, or Buffer Easements: The property owner of any property affected by this section may be required to record wetland, stream, or buffer easements with the county. These easements shall describe the boundmies of the buffer and prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling, or dumping within the buffer, stream, or welland. The owner or developer shall record such easements with a final plat, with deeds from a lot division or before tbe city issues a building permit for an affected property. The applicant shall submit proof that the owner or developer has filed the notice. f. St0n11water: The discharging of stonnwater to a wetland or stream must comply with section 44-1245 of the City of Maple wood ordinances (Storm Management). g. Plantings in Buffers: Any planting in a buffer shall be done with native vegetation after the planting plan has been approved by city staff. h. Alterations in Buffers: The city prohibits the alteration ofbuffers except as allowed in general exemptions. 1. Minimum buffers: The following are the minimum required buffer widths and stmeture setbacks: Buffer Wetland Classes Class A ClassA+ & Streams Class B Class C Utility 200 ft. 100 ft. 75 ft, 50 ft. lOft. 10 ft. 10 fe 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 n. Minimum Buffer Width Stmcture Setback From Outcr Edge of Bllffer .I. BulTer Measurement: Buffers shall be measured horizontally ii'om wetland or stream edge) not across the buffer landscape, On slopes great(;l" than cighLeen percent (1srY~) the buffer width shall be increased to 10 teet beyond the apex ofthe slope. Extension of1he bufTer for steep slopes shall apply to all wetland classes. 9 5 Standards (Cont.) --"-"-~---------'---- -_...__._-_.--~----_.,_..._-- I Slope Setback Diagram Class B Wetland 75' Buf1er -~- ~p--------- sJ#Y l}d RuffElr ox\.",d" \0' be ''''~; slope " ~x ~--- (/- _,,__J 'jlope ;.. ~ B% 8uf""r me(]~u;'"d hv'I~<;,'()II,. ""ample' 70' buf'er roc Mdnaq" 8 wetiand~. S:.ope is 1D% so Ine buffer r.us\ ",,:lcnc 10' ""yt>nd II"" kLl wi lh" "i"I-'L L_ J k. Alternative Minimum and Average Buffers: Recognizing that there are instances where, because of the unique physical characteristics of a specific parcel ofland, alternative size buffers may be necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the land. In such cases an alternative minimum and average buffer width will be pcnnitted on ten percent (10%) of the linear wetland buffer within the parcel, which will be compensated for by increased buffer widths elsewhere in the same parcel to achieve the required average buffer width. (l) The alternative average buffer standards set forth below may be applied based on an assessment of the following: (a) Undue hardship would arise from not allowing the alternative, or would otherwise not be in the publie interest. (b) Size ofparcel. (c) Configuration of existing roads and utilities. (d) Perceutage of parcel covered by wetland. (e) Conllguralion of wetlands on the parcel. (f) Will not cause degradation of the wetland or stream. (g) Wil1 ensure the protection or enhancement ofportions of thc buffer which are found to be the most ecologically bcnetkial to the wetland or stream. 10 5. Standards (Cont.) (2) The following are the alternative average buffer widths and structure setbacks: Buffer Wetland Classes Class A & Streams Class B Class C 75 ft.* 50 ft* 50 ft. 100 ft. 75 ft. N/A 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. Minimum Buffer Width* Average Buffer Width Structure Setback From Outcr Edge of Buffer "The minimum buffer width may be used on no morc than 10 percent of the linear wetland buffer area located within the parcel. Averaging Diagram ~ ----- ~~ ----- ~--' ----- ---' Co:.mmarcjnl BlJlldin ----- -~-j_/ ---' ---- 7O',"'m'.m_____ ~~::,,,,a'"""mo''';'' 50' min, (only 10%) .--.l-nnnnt-----------------n- .,"",..010'",-"" CL.ASS 3 WETLAND ~jIN, "" SQ' AVG. "" 7~r (3) The appropriateness of using the allemaiive average buffers will be evaluated as part of the review of the conlractor's or owner's development application. The alternative average butTer used must be within the spirit and intent ofthis code and must meet one or more ofthe requirements set forth by thc cily to include, but nOllimited to, the following strategies: 11 5. Standards (Cont.) (a) Restoration of buffer with native plantings, Submillal of a buffer restoration plan drafted by a profcssional expericnced in welland or stream restoration based on the size ofthe restoration project as deemed necessary by city staff including: 1. Existing vegetation. 2. Restoration methods. 3, Maintenance procedures proposed during first three years of establishment. 4. Erosion control measures. 5. List of plants to be planted. 6. Qualifications of contractor. Only contractors with experience and success restoring wetland or stream buffers or natural vegetation shall be approvcd. 7. Maintcnance agreemcnt which states that the owncr will maintain the buffer to its improved state. 8. The city may require a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150 percent ofthe required work. (b) Manage weeds in buffer. All weeds listed on the Minnesota noxious weed list must be controlled by tbe property o\'''ner. Owners are encouraged to control other weeds that are not on the noxious weed list but can threaten the health of a wetland. Submittal of a weed management plan drafted by a professional experienced in well and and strcam restoration including: 1. Target wecds. 2. Appropriate management techniques, including the use of chemical treatment if approved by eity staff as part of the management plan. 3. Mmlagement schedule. 4. Potential erosion and res ceding ifmanagcmcnt wi11 create targc areas of de;'ldvcgetation. 5. Cash escrow or letter () f' credit to cover ISO percent () r the reqUIred work. 12 5. Standards (Cont.) (c) Reduction in stormwater runoff and/or improvement of quality of stonnwater runoff entering wetland or stream. This may be achieved through the following strategies or other staff approved best management practices for dealing with stormwater. Thesc practices are to bc located outside of the wetland buffer. 1. Reduce amount of pavement on site (i.e. fewer parking stalls, nan'ower driveways, shared parking with other businesses). 2. Use pervious pavement such as pavers or porous asphalt. 3. Use turf pavers or modified turf areas for overnow 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. 8. Install native plantings on site to reduce fertilizer use and improve infiltration. 9. Install a green roof on buildings. 10. Install grit chambers, sediment traps, or forebays. 1. StolTI1\vater Drainage Faci lities: The city does not allow the construction of stOlTIlwater drainage facilities, sedimentation ponds, infiltration basins, and rain gan!ens within the buffer. m. Construction Practices: Special construction practices shall be required on projects or developments next to wetlands or streams and their buffers. Practices to be approved by city staff be fore issuance of a grading or building permit include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Grading. (2) Sequencing. (3) Vehic1c tracking plalfonrs. (4) Additional silt fences. (5) Additional sediment control. 13 5. Standards (Cont.) n. Erosion Control Installation: Bef()rc 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 an development activities that may affect the buffer. o. Wetland Signs: Before grading or construction, the boundary between a buffer and adjacent land shall be identified using permanent signs. These signs shan mark the edge of the buffer and shall state there shan be no mowing, cutting, filling, or dumping beyond this point. These signs shan be installed at each lot line where it crosses a wetland or stream buffer, and where needed to indicate the contour of the buffer, with a maximum spacing of one-hundred (100) feet of wctland or strcam edge. p. Erosion Control Breaches: All erosion control measures must be maintained and inspected to ensure compliance and protection of wetlands, streams, and butTers. The contractor or owner shall be responsible for all erosion/sedimentation breaches within the bufTer and shall restore impacted areas to conditions present prior to grading or construction activities. q. Platting: When platting or subdividing propcrty, the plat or subdivision must show the wetland boundarics as approved by the applicable watershed district. r. Erosion Control Removal: After completion of grading or construction, the contractor or owner may remove the erosion control measures only after inspection and approval by the city and the applicable watershed district to ensure the areas affected have been established per requirements. s. It is the responsibility ofthe owner to alleviate any erosion during and after completion of grading or constmction. The owner or contractor must remove erosion control measures after final approved inspection by the city and the applicable watershed district. 6. Mitigation and Restoration ofBulTers: The city requires mitigation when a property owner or contractor has altered or will alter a wetland, sh'eam, or buffer. The property owner or contractor shall submit a mitigation plan to city staff for approval. 111 reviewing the plan, the city may require the actions below. 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, rchabilitatmg, or restoring the buffer. c. Rcducing or eliminating the impact over time by prevention and maintenance operations dming the Ii Ie of the actions. d. Compensating l'or the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing subslitutc buffer land at a two-to-one ratio. c. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. 14 6. Mitigation and Restoration of Buffers (ConL). f. Where thc city requires restoration or replacement of a buffer, the owncr or contractor shall replant the buffer with native vegetation. A replanting plan must he approved by the city before planting. g. Any additional conditions required by the applicable watershed district and/or the soil and water conservation district shall apply. h. All strategies as listed in itcm 5.k.3. (Alternative Average Buffer). 7. NonconfOlming Buildings, Structures, and Properties: Any existing building or structure, or any existing use of property not in conformity with the regulations prescribed in this chapter as of the date of the adoption of such regulation (insert date of new ordinance) shall be regarded as noneonf01l11ing and may continue. 8. Variances: Procedures for granting variances fi'om 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 goveming variances. b. Before the city council acts on a variance the environmental and natural resources commission will make a recommendation to the planning commission, who will in turn make a recommendation to the city council. The planning commission shall hold a public heming for the variance, City staff shall notify the property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the buffer at least ten days before the hearing. e. The city may req Llire the applicant to mitigate any wetland, stream, or buffer impacts with the approval of a variance, including but not limited to, implementing one or more oIthe strategies as listed in item 5.k.3. (Altcrnative Average Buffer). 9, Wetland or Buffer Surety: The applicant shall post a wetland or buffer mitigation surety with the city, such as a cash deposit or letter of credit, of one hundred and fifty (150) percent of estimated cosl for mitigation. The surety will be required based on the size of the project as deemed necessary by staff. Funds wi II be held by the city until successful completion of restoration as detemlined by the city after a final inspection. Wetland or buffer mitigation surety docs not inelude other sureties required pursuanlto any other provision of cily codc or city directive, 10. Enf')rccrncnt: The city reserves the right to inspect the site or property at any lime for compliance with this ordinance. The cily shall be responsible for the enforcement of this ordinance. Any person who fails to comply with or viohltes any section ofthis ordinance shall be deerncd guilty 01' a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be subject to punishment in accordance with section 1-15. All land use building and grading pennits shall be suspended until the developer corrected the violation, Each day that" separate violation exists shall constitut.e a separate offense. 15 Section 2. This ordinance shall take cffcct after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The City Council held the first reading on this ordinance on March 24, 2008. The City Council approved this ordinance on Mayor Attest: City Clerk 16 Agenda Item 9.b. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Shann Finwall, Environmcntal Plam1er Bill Priefer, Recycling Coordinator National Night Ont Recycling Bin Distribution July 10, 2008 Although National Night Out is primarily a public safety event, it also presents an opportunity to bring the recycling message to our citizens. Approximately 67% of Maplcwood's households are currcntly recycling which is a good number. However, the tonnage of recycled materials has becn fairly flat the last two years. This may be a reflection of the cconomy or maybe more education is necessary. Attachcd is a map that highlights the areas in Maplewood that have low participation in curbside recycling. lfthese areas have block parties dUling National Night Out, Eureka Recycling representatives and city staff will visit these locations to hand out literature and recycling bins. Uthe Environmental and Natural Resourccs COlmnission members would like to get involved, their help would certainly be appreciated. Also, the August edition of City News will have an article about our new initiative to increase recycling. We are challenging Maplewood's citizens to "Get Caught Recycling". Each month during August through December, an address in one of Maplewood's live trash hauling/recycling districts will be randomly selected. City sta1I will check to see if the residents at that address have recyelables out by 7 a.m. that morning. If they do, they win $50. Bill Pricfer