HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-09-02 ENR Packet
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE COMMISSION
Tuesday, September 2, 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 - August 19, 2008 Minutes Not Yet Available
5. Unfinished Business
a. Wetland Ordinance Discussion
6. New Business
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Commission Presentations
a. Carole Lynne - Plastic Bag Presentation
9. Staff Presentations
a. Schedule Wetland Workshop Meeting if Needed (Possible Dates: Thursdays--
Sept. 11, 18, 25 or Tuesday - Sept. 30)
b. Fall Clean Up - Saturday, October 18
c. Eureka City Campus Recycling Assessment and Trash Sort Update
d. I'Jational Night Out I''{ecycling Bin Distribution Review
e. Mapiewood Nature Center Programs
10. Adjourn
Agenda Item 5.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner and Ginny Gaynor, Open
Space Naturalist
Wetland Ordinance Review
August 28, 2008 for the September 2 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. On April 28, 2008, city council held the second reading of
the ordinance, and due to concerns expressed by residents in attendance at the meeting, the
city council tabled the wetland ordinance and sent it back to the Environmental and Natural
Resources (ENR) Commission for review.
BACKGROUND
June 24, 2008: The ENR Commission continued the wetland ordinance discussion and heard
from 12 people who expressed concern over the proposed ordinance (Attachment 1).
July 15, 2008: The ENR Commission continued the wetland ordinance discussion and
proposed modifications to the ordinance. The ENR Commission tabled further action on the
ordinance for a future meeting (Attachment 2).
DISCUSSION
Following is a recap of the ENR Commission's discussion and proposed action during the July
15 meeting as well as proposals on how to address remaining citizen concerns regarding the
proposed wetland ordinance:
1. Nonconforming Manufactured Homes: Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subdivision
1.a. states that "a municipality must not enact, amend, or enforce a zoning ordinance
that has the effect of altering the existing density, lot-size requirements, or manufactured
home setback requirements in any manufactured home park constructed before
January 1, 1995, if the manufactured home park, when constructed, complied with the
then existing density, lot-size and setback requirement."
Alan Kantrud, city attorney, finds that this language would allow manufactured home
parks within the city (all constructed prior to 1995) to replace older-style manufactured
homes within an existing or proposed wetland buffer, with a new manufactured home, as
long as the new manufactured home did not encroach closer to the wetland than the
original "setback requirement" approved when the manufactured home park was
approved by the city council years ago.
1
Thomas DeVincke, attorney for Beaver Lake Estates Manufactured Home Park, states
that he does not feel that such a prohibition is merely a setback requirement that violates
the statute and as such is still recommending that the city add language to the ordinance
which states that: "It shall be a permitted non-conforming use to place any
manufactured home on property that is either occupied by a manufactured home or
located in a manufactured home community." After review of this argument, Mr. Kantrud
still asserts that the statute would allow for the replacement of the nonconforming
manufactured homes and states that additional language would be superfluous given all
of the protections already afforded by state statute.
2. Nonconforming Single Family Homes: Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, subdivision
1 (e) states that "if a nonconforming building, structure or use is destroyed by fire or other
peril to the extent of greater than fifty (50) percent of its market value and no building
permit has been applied for within one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date the
building, structure, or use was damaged, subsequent use of such building or land shall
be in conformity with this chapter. The city may impose reasonable conditions upon a
building permit sought in order to maintain a damaged nonconforming building, structure,
or use in order to mitigate any newly created impact upon adjacent property." This
means that if a single family house located in an existing or proposed wetland buffer
were to be destroyed to more than 50 percent of its fair market value, it could not be
rebuilt in the exact location (within a buffer) unless a variance is approved by the city.
The ENR Commission recommended language be added in the proposed wetland
ordinance that would allow nonconforming single family homes within a buffer that were
destroyed by a natural disaster to greater than 50 percent of their fair market value to be
rebuilt without a variance with the following conditions: a) new house must maintain at
least a 50-foot setback (buffer) from the wetland; and b) the homeowner implemented
best management practices to improve the buffer.
3. Bruce Olsen Concerns: The ENR Commission recommended that the following
changes be made to the ordinance based on Bruce Olsen's May 7, 2008, memo
(Attachment 3):
a. Modify item Findings (a) third sentence to state: Wetlands, dependina upon their
type, size, and location within a watershed, may represent are an important
physical, educational, ecological, aesthetic, recreational, and economic assets to
the city. However, the ability of a wetland to provide any of these benefits must
be evaluated on case-by-case basis because of the uniaueness of local
physioaraphic, bioloaical, cultural, and land use characteristics.
b. Modify Findings (a) fourth sentence to state: "Properly manaaed wetlands are
needed to support the city's efforts to reduce floodina and to protect public +!ley
are srilisalle the sily'E: health, safety, and general welfare."
c. Modify Findings (c) first sentence to state: "Buffer are the lands that surround
wetlands and streams which contain a protective zone of veaetation within a
specified distance."
d. Modify Purpose (b) to state: "Preserve the beneficial functions of wetlands and
streams by regulating the surrounding land uses within the buffered areas that
are defined under this section."
2
e. Modify Purpose (c) to state: "Reduce erosion and the resultina sediment loadina
to wetlands or streams by stabilizina the landscape within the buffered areas that
are defined under this section. ataBilize the E:eil arellna wetlanaE: ana E:lreamE: te
I3revent ereE:ien."
f. Modify Purpose (d) to state: "PreE:erve ana enhanse waler l:lllality BY fiIlerin!j
SupportinQ the preservation and enhancement of surface water quality by
reducinq the input of suspended solids, nutrients, and harmflll chemical
substances Befere they reash wetlaRas, streams, aRa I3llBlis waters that may
adversely impact public health or aquatic habitat."
g. Modify Purpose (f) to state: "Reduce or prevent the flooding ami of public and
private property and to reduce or eliminate the costs that are associated with
reslaimin!j water quality improvements necessarv to support the beneficial uses
of impaired wetlands or streams."
h. Modify Purpose (i) to state: "Educate the public, including appraisers, owners,
potential buyers, or developers regarding the development limitations of
wetlands, streams, ami or associated buffers that are defined under this section.
i. Modify Definitions (Buffer) to state: "Buffer means the 1Ipland~ afeaS that afe
immeaiately aajasent ana senli!jllellE: te surround wetlands and streams which
contain a protective zone of vegetation within a specified distance."
j. Modify Enforcement to state: "The city reserves the right to inspect the site or
property durinq reqular city business hours or upon notice to the property owner
or its desiqnated representative one business day in advance if the inspection is
to occur at a different time for compliance with this ordinance..."
4. Nonconforming Use of Property: The proposed ordinance states that "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 nonconforming and may continue." This language was
meant to cover existing properties where the owner had mowed and was maintaining the
existing or proposed buffer as lawn to be able to continue that use after the ordinance
was adopted as a pre-existing, nonconforming use. Citizens who spoke to this matter
expressed concern that the language was too vague and did not clarify activities that
could take place in an existing maintained lawn area within a buffer versus a naturalized
buffer.
Staff proposes adding a definition for lawn areas (areas of mowed turf grass used for the
purpose of outdoor enjoyment), naturalized areas (areas where non-native plant species
have grown and are not maintained), and native areas (areas where native plant species
have grown). In addition, the nonconforming section should clarify the types of activities
which can take place within these areas as follows: "any existing building or structure, or
any existing lawn area or 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 nonconforming and may continue. Continued use of such nonconforminq
lawn area includes the use of this lawn area for qardens and placement of temporarv
3
structures. Naturalized and native areas are not included in this nonconforminQ use
clause.
5. Sharon Sandeen Summary of Issues: City staff met with Sharon Sandeen to discuss the
July 12, 2008, summary of concerned citizen issues memo submitted to the ENR
Commission (Attachment 4). Following is a summary of the proposed resolutions to
these issues:
a. Is it enough to create a list of exceptions or would it be better to adopt buffer
widths and restrictions that would keep the need for such exception to a
minimum?
1. Ms. Sandeen's Proposed Solution: Adopt the new wetland classifications
of the watershed district, but keep the city's existing buffer widths.
Staff Response: Staff does not agree with Ms. Sandeen's proposed
solution. We support the buffer widths in the proposed ordinance. The
Wetland Ordinance Committee and the Environmental Commission
proposed these widths based on two concepts: a) a minimum 50' buffer is
needed to effectively remove pollutants, and b) higher quality wetlands
deserve wider buffers. The proposed buffer widths were developed after
review of literature on buffers, review of buffer ordinances in the metro
area, and extensive discussion.
2. Proposed Solution: Amend the description of activities that are allowed in
the buffer zone to allow for low-impact uses that are typically associated
with the enjoyment of private residential property.
Staff Response: Staff agrees with Ms. Sandeen that this section needs to
be clearer. We believe some of the opposition from residents was due to
a misunderstanding of what the ordinance permitted them to do. Staff
supports the language proposed in #4 above (Nonconforming Use of
Property), on page 3 and 4. This will mean that if land in the buffer is
currently lawn, garden, patio, or play area then those uses, as well as
other uses typical for yards, would be permitted. For example, the
following would be permitted: remove lawn to plant a vegetable or flower
garden, install swing set or play structure in area that is currently lawn or
garden, establish lawn in an area that is currently garden, install a fire pit
or sitting area in an existing lawn area. Uses not permitted would include
activities such as installing structures that require a building permit or
converting existing naturalized or native vegetation to lawn or gardens.
Ms. Sandeen shared language from model ordinance for permitted uses
in the buffer. Staff disagrees with this language because it is impossible
to list all permitted uses. We believe the ordinance should list prohibited
uses and a brochure for residents can provide examples of types of uses
and activities that are permitted.
3. Proposed Solution: Adopt an exception that allows residential property
owners to be free from buffer zone restrictions within X feet of their
homes.
4
Staff Response: Staff disagrees this proposed solution. The purpose of
the ordinance is to protect and enhance Maplewood wetlands. In new
development, allowing people to landscape into the buffer could be
extremely detrimental, For example, the development north of
Applewood Preserve required a 100' buffer from the pond. Due to lot
constraints, this will leave some home sites with 10' or 20' strip behind
their home that may be landscaped. These lots will appeal to people that
enjoy a backyard natural area, rather than a manicured lawn. Upholding
the 100' buffer on this project is absolutely essential to the health of this
unique wetland. In existing existing development, if people are using the
area behind their home as yard, they may continue to do so. If residents
feel they have unique circumstances, they can seek a variance to the
buffer restrictions.
4. Proposed Solution: Adopt an exception that would allow for the
replacement of existing structures under specified conditions.
Representatives of Beaver Lakes Estates submitted some suggested
language to deal with the unique nature of manufactured homes, but a
broader exception is needed to deal with other existing structures (e.g.,
existing homeowners should be able to replace their homes if they are
destroyed even if they are located in a buffer zone).
Staff Response: Staff agrees the ordinance needs to allow for rebuilding
a home following a natural disaster. We support the concepts proposed
by the Environmental Commission under discussion item #2
(Nonconforming Single Family Homes) on page 2 of this memo.
b. Is there sufficient public policy and scientific support for the recommendation to
increase buffer widths?
1. Proposed Solution: Don't modify the existing buffer zone widths, except
to change the numbering to be consistent with the watershed district
designations.
Staff Response: Staff disagrees with keeping the city's existing buffer
widths (see comments in 5-a-1 above). However, we do agree that the
numbering needs to be consistent with the watershed district. The terms
"Class A," "Class B," and "Class C" should be changed to "Manage A, "
"Manage B," and "Manage C. "
2. Proposed Solution: Consider adopting the state's recommended buffer
widths in order to provide greater support for the city's decision as to
buffer widths.
Staff Response: The state guidelines are in draft form and as far as we
know have not been approved. Staff disagrees with adopting the state's
draft buffer widths for the reasons presented in 5-a-1 above.
5
c. Are all restrictions within a buffer necessary to achieve the alleged water quality
and wildlife habitat benefits of such buffers?
1. Proposed Solution: Amend the description of activities that are allowed in
the buffer zone to allow for low-impact uses that are typically associated
with the enjoyment of private residential property to specifically include
the maintenance of lawns and gardens.
Staff Response: See responses in 5-a-1 and 5-a-2 above.
2. Proposed Solution: Allow property owners to apply for a reduction in their
buffer widths to the extent they are willing to plant native plants or install
rainwater gardens (e.g., for each 100 square feet of rainwater gardens
installed, the applicable buffer zone will be reduced by 200 square feet).
Staff Response: Staff disagrees with the above proposal, Best
management practices (BMP's) elsewhere on the site may not be located
properly to capture or filter pollutants that are making their way to the
wetland. The ordinance encourages BMP's but we do not believe BMP's
should replace buffer width requirements. We believe educational
programs and programs offering residents technical support or grant
support for using BMP's on private property will result in more successful
use of BMP's in the community. The variance process is available if
property owners feel they have special circumstances that merit a
reduction in buffer width.
d. Does it make sense to prohibit all filling of wetlands?
1. Proposed Solution: Don't adopt an absolute no-fill policy.
Staff Response: Staff disagrees with this proposal, The objective of the
wetland ordinance is to protect wetlands and filling is the ultimate
destruction of a wetland. By prohibiting filling, projects that want to fill a
wetland will have to go through our variance process. In granting a
variance the city council can impose mitigation requirements, including
various BMP's.
2. Proposed Solution: If the city wants a policy that is more aggressive than
that allowed under state law, then it should adopt the two-to-one policy of
the RWMWD (although arguably it doesn't need to adopt and administer
such policy since RWMWD will also have jurisdiction over the matter).
Staff Response: The proposed ordinance does not set a replacement
policy ratio. The project would need to meet state and watershed district
requirements.
3. Proposed Solution: Specify the exact version or date of the RWMWD
maps to be relied upon by the city for the purposes of identifying and
classifying wetlands within its boundaries.
6
Staff Response: Staff disagrees and would prefer to reference "current
RWMWD classifications." This means we would not have to update and
approve the ordinance each time RWMWD reclassifies a wetland.
e. Should public waters be included in the wetland ordinance when they are already
dealt with in the shoreland ordinance (I.e., edges of Wakefield, Beaver, and
Kohlman Lakes)?
1. Proposed Solution: Add a provision to the proposed wetland ordinance
that makes it clear that it does not apply to wetland areas within or
immediately adjacent to public waters, but which states that such
wetlands are governed by the city's shoreland ordinance.
Staff Response: Staff does not support this proposal, We believe areas
of shoreline that are classified as wetland should be subjected to the
wetland ordinance.
2. Proposed Solution: Add a provision that makes it clear that property
owners on public waters can: (a) obtain a permit from the DNR to remove
emergent vegetation in order to access public waters; (b) install a dock in
such public waters as allowed by the DNR; and (c) cut and maintain a
path through the buffer zone to access the public waters and the dock.
Staff Response: Staff agrees that property owners on public waters
should be allowed to install a dock to access the water, even if it means
going through a wetland. We propose that we add language to the
wetland ordinance that clarifies this.
RECOMMENDATION
The ENR commission should review and comment on the summary of issues above. The ENR
commission recommendations will be forwarded onto the city council for final action.
P:lcom-devlordlenvironmentallvvetlandI9-2-08 ENR Meeting
Attachments:
1. June 24, 2008 ENR Commission Minutes
2. July 15, 2008 ENR Commission Minutes
3. Bruce Olsen's May 7 Memorandum
4. Sharon Sandeen July 12, 2008, Summary of Issues Raised by Citizen
5. Wetland Ordinance (Redlined Version - above-mentioned changes not added)
6. Wetland Ordinance (Clean Copy - above-mentioned changes not added)
7
Attachment 1
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Wetland Ordinance
Planner Finwall discussed the staff report and discussed several issues to include:
1. If a yard is maintained as turf grass adjacent to a wetland and the ordinance is adopted with
increased buffers can a resident still maintain this area as turf grass? Also, what other
activities can take place within this area of the buffer? There is a need to clarify temporary
and permanent structures in the definitions as well as added uses.
2. The edges of Wakefield Lake are currently classified as a Class 4. The watershed districts
new classification would upgrade the wetland to a Manage B. The proposed wetland
ordinance would require a 75 foot buffer frorn a Manage B wetland. Wakefield Lake is also
located within the shoreland overlay district. So there is also a 50-foot building setback from
the ordinary high water mark of Wakefield Lake within this district.
3. The City of Maplewood had four manufactured homes that are adjacent wetland buffers.
The way the current wetland ordinance is written, the removal and replacement of one of
these manufactured homes within a required buffer would require a variance.
COMMENTS AND CONCERNS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE
ORDINANCE:
1. Sharon Sandeen, 1748 Gulden Place, Maplewood: Her 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 water. Also, Ms.
Sandeen recommends that the ENR commission review language in the ordinance to
ensure less ambiguity and allow for more active uses within buffer zones.
2. Steve Bryan, 1752 Gulden Place, Maplewood: He has concerns with water quality and
current management practices of Wakefield Lake.
3. Linda Bryan, 1752 Gulden Place, Maplewood: She has concerns with water quality and
CJrrent 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. Ralpll Sletten, 2747 Clarence Street North, Maplewood: Has concerns with the wetland
located to the north of his property. He claims wetland was manmade and any impacts the
proposed wetland ordinance might have on his property would not be valid.
6_ Veronica Sletten, 2747 Clarence Street North, Maplewood: Concerns with the wetland
located to the north of her property.
7 Steve Lukin, 1661 County Road C East, Maplewood: Has 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.
8. Elizabeth Sletten, 2747 Clarence Street North, Maplewood: Concerns with the wetland
located to the north of her property.
2.
9. Jean Strait, 1706 Barclay Street North, Maplewood. Concerns with the water quality and
current management practices of Wakefield Lake.
10. Richard Charpeneau, 1751 E. Cope Avenue - Vacant Property Owner: Concerns with
upgraded classification of wetland on his vacant property and a 75-foot buffer which may
cause the property to be unbuildable.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS REGARDING PUBLIC INPUT
The commissioners thanked the public for their input.
Planner Finwall commented that rnany of these concerns can be addressed at the July 15
meeting.
Chair Yingling commented that this ordinance will continue to be revised with improvements in
language. She also mentioned that the goal is to find a balanced approach. She stated that the
Commission appreciates the input the public provided.
Chair Yingling made a motion to table further wetland ordinance discussion to the July 15
meeting, Carol Mason Sherrill seconded. The motion carried by a vote of 5-1, with Commission
Trippler voting against the motion.
Attachment 2:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JULY 15, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Wetland Ordinance
Planner Finwall gave a brief summary of the public testimony from the last meeting.
Discussion on Mobile Home Park Issue:
Chair Yingling wondered if there should be some reference in the wetland ordinance regarding
Minnesota statute discussed by Planner Finwall which would allow manufactured homes to be
rebuilt with their existing setbacks.
Discussion on Nonconforming Single Family Homes:
Chair Yingling asked what is done about a home that is destroyed such as by fire or a natural
disaster when it is a nonconforming property. If the plan is to rebuild on the existing foundation
how does that apply the wetland ordinance? Is it prohibited because it is nonconforming
structure or is there an exemption?
Planner Finwall responded that if an ordinance is adopted and the structure becomes
nonconforming and is destroyed to more than 50 percent of its fair market value then it could not
be rebuilt without a yariance.
Planner Finwall commented that if homes within wetland buffers are damaged by a natural
disaster and the property owner wants to rebuild, then the city would have the opportunity to
review the request and make improvements such as increasing or irnproving the buffer through
the variance process. She asked if the commission wanted to review language that would allow
those homes to be rebuilt without a variance if they met a minirnum setback and if
improvements were made to the buffer?
Commissioner Trippler stated that the variance process would allow the city controls over the
new house's location and conditions to improve on the buffer
Commissioner Schreiner commented that from a homeowner's perspective he would like to see
some kind of language that wouid protect the homeowner's ability to rebuild their house rather
than ieaving it in the hands ot an elected counciL Maybe some kind of language such as it the
home is totally destroyed that nothing gets any closer to the buffer than the existing foundation
was.
Chair Yingling responded that we woulel need te set some minimum requirements.
Commissioner Mason Sherrill mentioned that we need to consider the damage of business as
well as homes.
Chair Yingling suggested language that would provide people with some level of comfort
regarding what they can rebuild on their property.
2
Commissioner Trippler commented that we need to put together a wetland ordinance that
protects the wetlands and if there is a disaster that people will be reasonable enough to work
out a compromise so that everyone is satisfied.
Councilrnember Kathleen Juenemann approached the podium and suggested standards for
allowing rebuilding of homes within the buffer.
Sharon Sandeen, resident at 1748 Gulden Place, approached the podium and made some
suggestions and comments:
. The more restriction you impose by an ordinance the more issues you haye affecting
property owners.
. For some property owners existing buffers are being tripled.
. The whole width of buffer zones is an important component to this because if the
recommended widths aren't adopted then the result will be the tripling and doubling of
buffers.
. You have to consider the existing setback requirements for homes.
. If the city's current buffer widths currently exceed the states guidelines what is the rational
and the basis for going beyond that?
Chair Yingling stated that she would like to see language which would allow homeowners to
rebuild as long as they were a minimum of 50 feet to the wetland.
Commissioner Trippler would like a clear distinction made between setback and buffer
requirements on a lake yersus a wetland. A setback to the lake as required in the shoreland
ordinance refers to how far a structure can be built from the lake and offers protection to the
water quality of the lake. Buffers are areas which cannot be mowed or cut in addition to areas
where structures cannot be built. They are intended to protect water quality and to provide
some passage way, living space, etc., for wildlife. That is why our proposed wetland buffers
exceed the shoreland setbacks. If a property Is within the 50 foot setback and it gets destroyed
it is up to the ruling body whether a variance is issued. He would not like to see language in the
ordinance which would allow those properties to be rebuilt.
Chair Yingling suggested that there be a minimum setback of 50 feet to be able to rebuild
without a variance.
Chairperson Trippler asked what happens if they are in an area that has a 100-foot buffer? He
feels If they are in a setback or buffer tllen they shouid IJe required to come in for a variance.
Chair Yingling made a motion to put in language to give homeowners some assurances.
Commissioner Mason Sherrill suggested that this might be an opportunity to enhance the
wetland working with the city for the same goal.
Commissioner Trlppler will second the motion if it includes staff working with homeowners to
develop best management practices to improve the] buffer.
Chair YIngiing suggested that we use whatever the legal definition et a destroyed building. If
the home is outside of that 50-foot buffer or setback area then they won't need to come in for a
variance as long as they work with staff to improve Ihe buffer.
.,
,
Naturalist Gaynor stated that if they are grandfathered in they can use that existing setback as
long as it is within 50 feet of a wetland.
Planner Finwall responded that this would apply to Manage A and B wetlands only because
Manage C wetlands require a 50-foot buffer.
Commissioner Schreiner stated that the language should cover destruction of homes by natural
disaster only, so that we are not creating a loophole for someone to destroy their home by
tearing it down just to rebuild.
The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0 with Commissioner Johannessen abstaining. Staff will
draft language and bring it back for the commission's review.
Discussion on Issues Raised by Resident Bruce Olsen in his May 7, 2008, Memorandum:
Chair Yingling suggested taking a look at some of the recommendations that were submitted by
Bruce Olsen. Chair Yingling suggested adopting the changes in language as follows:
1. Page 2, second paragraph, item three.
2. Change in language as suggested on page 3, item 7.
3. Change in language as suggested in Item 8.
4. Change in language as suggested in Item 9.
5. Change in language as suggested in Item 10.
6. Items 12 and 14.
7. Item 20
Chair Yingling made a motion to adopt the changes as specified, seconded by Commissioner
Trippler. The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0 with Commissioner Johannessen abstaining.
Commissioner Yingling suggested that the commission take a look at the memo from Sharon
Sandeen. She also proposed that time is set aside to haye a workshop. She reviewed the
issues that were brought up in the memo. She feels it is worth looking at exemptions of what
people can do within their existing mowed lawn. What practical things we can suggest for
exemptions for activities on properties that are already deyeloped.
Commissioner Trippler stated that the purpose of having the buffer is to provide wildlife an area
to move from one wetland to another and to create habitat. He feels that common sense would
dictate what a 110llleowner can do within the buffer as long as it allows wildlife the freedom to
move about. He is hoping that staff can come up with suggestions,
Planner Finwall stated that maybe there needs to be some clarification regarding what a
homeowner can do with their mowed yard tllat is in a buffer versus what is allowed within a
naturalized buffer.
Chair Yingling feels there needs to some language that gives people ciarification that thers
are activities in that maintained lawn area,
Naturaiist Gaynor stated that we arc tall{ing about people whe are grandfathered in with their
lawn. We need to be clear about lawns that are grandfathered in.
Commissioner Trippler would like to see the city staff work with property owners who have
mowed lawns within a wetland buffer about installing a rain garden.
4
Naturalist Gaynor asked wflether the commission needs a definition of what is meant by yard
activities.
Chair Yingling commented that we need to differentiate between the lawn areas versus,
naturalized areas, versus native areas.
Ginny Gaynor stated that what she is hearing is that gardens and temporary structures should
be okay in an existing lawn area that is grandfathered in. But a patio with a foundation would
not be okay in a buffer. Would a bench, fire pit, or compost pile be okay in the buffer?
Commissioner Lynne thinks that portable objects are fine but not something permanent on the
property.
Commissioner Schreiner is concerned with sheds in the buffer.
Commissioners directed staff to come up with language for specific items and to schedule a
wetland workshop in August to complete the review
[vlay 7, 2008
Attadm~lent 3
Comments Re: Maplewood Wetland Ordinance Draft 1.,29-08
Bruce Olsen, 2444 East Larpenteur Avenue (651) 770-2667
Overview., Protecting the city's wetlands ii-om further degradation and improving
water quality and wildlife habitat in high priority and high value wetlands should be goals
of all city residents. Updating the existing wetland ordinance for Maplewood is needed
to reflect our increased understanding of the value that wetlands provide for 1)
maintaining the quality and quantity of our water resources and 2) suppOliing the quality
oflife that city residents expect. In gencral, T support the efforts by the city to update our
wetland ordinance. However, 1 have questions and concems about the approach that is
being proposcd in the draft ordinance language that was discussed 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 implcmentation of its wctlands ordinance. Otherwise, there is not a
sound technical basis for expanding the city's authority to manage wetlands beyond that
which already exists through the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District
ordinance. For example, the draft ordinance proposes a new Ai wetland classification but
we cll1Tently do not have an inventory of such wetlands. Therefore, we do not have a
clear undcrstanding of the number of property owners that will be impacted nor the
publie and private sector costs that will be associated with implementing the proposed
regulatory requirements for the new wctland classification. Furthcrmore, we have not
evaluated whether all wetlands, regardless of their type, arc being impaired or whether
there is only a subset of them that actually need the expanded controls in the proposed
ordinance to improve water quality and to increase watershed protection. The remaindcr
of our wetlands may exhibit acceptable water quality conditions and beneficial use based
upon their classification and maintaining their current state can be achievcd using the
regulations that are in place through the Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District.
Item 2 - The applicability section of the proposed city ordinance statcs under sub-item
3.a "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 vvatershed district."
The Ran'isey-Washingtoll Metro Watershed District Rule E lOT wetlands states in Suh-
item 2, b-
"AUTHORITY UNTJER WATERSHED LA W. The criterion below relates
to wetland buffers and water quality and is adopted under the District's
watershed authority and applies whether or not the District is the Welland
Conservatw1'1 Act local government unit in the municipality where the wetland
is located."
1
May 7, 2()()8
Attachment 3
There appears to be a conflict 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 Watershed District. This needs to be
c1aTified.
Specific Comments -
The following comments pertain to the Findings section,
Item 3 - Under item l.a, the third sentence states "Wetlands aTe an important physical,
educational, ecological, aesthetic, recreational, and economic assets to the city."
However, does this statement apply unifOlTIlly to all wetlands within the city? FOT
example, arc Class C wetlands that aTe seasonal in nature really important physical,
recreational, and economic assets to the city? I suggest that this statement be modificd to
read "Wetlands, depending upon their type, size, and location within a watershed, mav
represent important physical, educational, ecological, aesthetic, recreational, and
economic assets to the city. However, the abilitv ofa wetland to provide any of these
bencfits must bc evaluatcd on easc-by-case basis because of the uniqueness oflocal
phvsiographie, biological, cultural, and land use characteristics."
The fourth sentcnce in itcm l.a states "They are critical to the city's health, safety, and
general welfare." This is a very broad statement and necds to be c1arificd. One can argue
that mosquito control to reduce the spread of West Nile virus is largely focused on
wetlands; so they may, undcr certain circmnstanccs, present a risk to public health,
safety, and general welfaTe. In fact, tlle eaTly drainage laws in Mi111lesota were based, in
part, on thc risk that wetlands presented to public health. I suggest that you change this
sentence to read "Properly managed wetlands are needed to SU\1port the city's efforts to
reduce flooding and to protect public health, safetv, and the general welfare."
Item 4 - Under item J.e, I suggest that the first sentence that defines a buffcr bc expanded
to read "Buffers are the lands that surround wetlands and streams within a specified
distance." As currently 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 states "The dissolved oxygen level must be
maintained at a minimum level to maintain health aquatic li fe", This is a very hroad
statement and implies that hnman activities are solely responsible for depletion of
dissolved oxygen. However, even in an unaltered wetland, water depth and the thiclmess
of organic sediments may result in the depletion of dissolved oxygen and this likely
varies among and between wetland classifications. Fllrthennore, drought or seasonal dry
conditions may cause dirnl111shed dissolved oxygen even \vithout hUITlan
intervention. I suggest that this sentence be modified to read, "Whenever practicable, the
dissolved oxygen lev-e-l must be maintained at a Hltalma-llcvel needed to support healthy
aquatic life."
2
May 7, 2008
Attachment :1
The following comments pertain to the Purposes section.
Item 5 - The purposes of the ordinance should be designated as item "d". Currently, this
is stJickcn and the purposes are included under item "e" which relates to buffers.
Item 6 - Sub-item 3.d.a - This sentence refers to preserving wetlands and streams in a
"natural" state. However, there is no definition of the tem1 "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 condition that is based
upon improving the existing physical state, or somcthing else? I suggest that the city
clearly define the term "natural" as it applies to wetlands or streams.
Item 7 - Sub-item 3.d.b - This sentence refers to rcgulating surrounding land uses but
does not specify what the tcrm "surrounding" means. Does this imply that the wetlands
ordinance will become a land use control ordinance throughout the city or does it apply
only to buffered areas adjacent to a wctland or strcam? I suggest that this sub-item be
modified to read "Preserve the beneficial functions of wetlands and streams by regulating
land uses within the buffered areas that are defined under this section."
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 of the tcrm "around" and
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 buffcrcd areas that arc defined undcr this section."
Item 9 - Sub-item 3.d.d - This sentcnee refers to prescrving and enhancing water quality
by filtering suspended solids, nutrients, amI "hannful substances" before they reach
wetlands, strearns, and "public waters". The benefits stated in this sentence are
confusing, vcrybroad, and not realistic. First, there is no definition of the tenns "hannful
substances" and "public waters" in the ordinance. Who or what will be harmed by the
substances in surface water or runoff that will be filtered out by the controls contained in
the ordinance? Will implementing the ordinance remove all hamlful suhstanees including
those that are dissolved in surface water such as phannaccuticals or endocrine disrupting
chemicals? Also, do humors eliminate all of the nitrate nitrogen or ammonia that may be
dissolved in nlnoff from the watershed that drains into a stream or wetland? As written,
this sentence promises more treatment than can be achieved through vegetated buffers
and should be modified. 1 suggest that this sentence be re-worded to state "SuJ2gQrting
the preservation and enhancement of surface water qualitv by reducing the inputof
~usPenrJe_d_ ~QJi,ts,.lllJ1rl.~nt~,3n(lgl1eI11ic:.el~\11:J~t'lnee,~ th.;gm!l.)'5'lgYe.r~elyj111Pilc:.t.P.lll:Jljg
health or aCluatic habitat."
Why is the term "public waters" included in this statement of purpose when it is not used
elscwhere in the ordinance? Docs the term "public waters' refer to other surface water
3
May 7, 2008
Attachment 3
features that arc l) deiined under Minnesota Statutes section 103G.221 to 103G.2773 and
2) regulated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources? If so, then how docs
proposed wetland ordinance reflect the shoreland zoning ordinance requirements that are
specified for public waters ofthe state?
Item 10 - Sub-item3.d.f -I suggest that this purpose be reworded to state "Reduce or
prevent the flooding of public and private property and to reduce or eliminate the costs
that are associated with achieving the water quality improvements necessary to support
the beneficial uscs of impaired wetlands or streams." As currently written, this purpose
implies that implementing the ordinance will always prevent flooding and always
climinatc 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 property from and what capabilities does it have to achieve this protection?
Item 12 - Sub-item 3.d,; - I suggest this statement of purpose he reworded to "Educate
the public, including appraisers, owners, potential buyers, or developers regarding the
dcvclopment limitations of wetlands, streams, or associated huffers that arc dcfined under
this section. As written, this purpose does not clearly communicate that the huffers
rcferrcd to are those that aTe defined by the draft ordinauee.
The following comments pertain to the Definitions section
Item 13 - The definition of alteration does not address wetland enhancement measures
that would be approved hy the city or other authorities such as the Ranlsey- Washington
Metro Watershed District or the Ramsey Conservation District As written, it implies
that no changes to a buffer can be made at aIL I suggest that a section be added to this
definition that would identify the gcncral categories of enhancement measures that are
acccptable.
I suggest that the following items he addcd to cxcmptions that would enhance a property
owners' capabilities to utilize a wetland-
I. The placement of up to three henches by a property owner for the purposes of
observing wildlife or enjoyment of the outdoors. Benches arc not to be longer
than six feet or wider than two fect and Calillot be observed above the height of
the vegetation that immediately surrounds it. Only the vegetated area immediately
beneath the bench or lIsed for the placement of a person's feet can he impacted;
2. Footpaths through vegetation that permit property owners to obsel"ve wildlife and
to enjoy the outdoors providing that footpaths are produced only by walking and
aro not maintained by mowing, placing mulch or other materials tlsed to ki'l1
vegetation, removing of vegetation that is approved under this section, or the
application of herbicides or other substaneer; that wi]] adversely allcct thc wetland
vegetation or wi I elli fe.
4
May 7,2008
Attachment 3
3. The harvesting of vegetation by a property owner for crall, food, or medicinal
purposes provided that this docs not impact the capability of the buffer to perft1Dll
its functions to protcct the wetland.
Item 14 - As mentioned under Item 4, the definition of a buffer should be reworded to
state "Buffers are the lands that surround wetlands and streams within a specified
distance."
Item 15 - Is there really a need to create a separate Class A+ designation and impose
addition land-use controls over them? Can't thesc high value wetlands be dcsignated as
such using a comprehensive wetlands management phm and be protected by focusing our
effOlis on landowners and the public using existing regulatory controls and public
education, outreach, and grant programs? The definition describing a Class A' wetland
includes the statement, "These wetlands are special and deserve additional protection to
ensure that they remain in that state." The qucstion is, if existing land use has not
adversely impacted them and they arc still of high value, then why are additional controls
even necessary?
The following comments pertain to the Standards section.
Item 16 - I am very eoncemed that the proposed buffer classcs are not based on sound
tcehnical infonnation and are capricious. The city has not provided the public with
information stating why the buffer distances that are cU1Tently used by the Ramsey-
Washington Metro Watershed District arc not adeqllate to meet the wetland protection
purposes of the city's draft wetlands ordinance. Instead, the draft ordinance increases all
the minimum buffer widths by two to three timcs that already required by the Ramsey-
Washington Metro Watershed District. Unless these increases can be technically
justified, propeliy owners will view the additional controls as infringing on their right for
beneficial use of their private property and constitute an unjustified taking of this right.
In p31iicular, I question whether the decision to increase the buffer widths was based on
including an evaluation of the following factors-
· The adequacy of the buffers specified by the Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed District to meet the purposes of the draft ordinance;
. The capabilities of soil conditions to infiltrate mnofC fTOm precipitation or
snowmelt water so it does not directly enter the wetland;
. The slope ofthe landscllpe surronnding the wetland, pmticularly when either the
existing buffer distance or the proposed extended bufCer distance goes past a
topographic divide and snrfilee water drains away from the wetland in question;
· The capabilities to attenuate sediment and nutrient loading of adjacent wetlands
th'lt are located up-slope and within the existing buffer distance;
· The design ofthe existing Mapiewood stormwater sewer system to direct
precipitation or snow melt water away from the wetland;
5
May 7,2008
Attachment 3
e Mitigating measures for re--directing st01111water away from the wetland or
treating stormwater mnoffprior to its entry to the wetland that would be proposed
in a development plan; and
o The impacts that specific land uses within Maplewood currently have on waler
quality.
Item 17 - Increasing the buffers as proposed will further reduce potential dcvclopment of
a property ifthc city does not allow the construction of storm water drainage facilities,
sedimentation ponds, infiltration basins, and rain gardens within the buffer. These
engineering measures are designed to reduce the sedimentation and nutrient 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 Ramscy- Washington Metro
Watershed District and refusing mitigating measures beyond a topographic divide would
place undo hardship on a property owner or developer.
Item 18 - Sub-item 5.0. - Wby does the draft ordinance spccify a 100 foot maximum
distance between wetland notification signs instead of 200 feet as required by the
Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District? Furthermore, thcre arc no
specifications for the size of the sign or the size ofthe font that is to be llsed.
Is it practical to expect residential landowners to make their own signs or shOldd the city
prepare signs and instructions for tbeir placement? This could be done as part of a public
cdueation effort for wetlands protection and encourage residential land owner
participation.
These comments pertain to Mitigation and Restoration of Bnffers
Item 19 - Items 5.k.3.a and section 6 specify that a property owner or contractor must
submit a mitigation plan to the city for approval prior to mitigating or restoring a buffer.
Also, section 9 requires that that applicants post a surcty that is 150% of the cost with the
city. These requirements would apply to all mitigation and restorative efforts, regardless
ofthc sizc ofthc area to be improved. This will discourage homeowners from
participating in wetland restoration efforts and promote current abuses such as mowing
the lawn to the waters edge. For example, iff want to budget $500 to restoring a buffer
in my backyard, I will have to incur the additional expenses 0 f 1) hiring a professional to
prepare the mitigation plan and a weed conlrol plan, 2) submit the plans to thc city which
undoubtedly will include a processing fee, and 3) post a $7S0 surcty bond. Furthennore,
I will have to schedulc inspeotions with the cily and 1 may have to correct any
deficienoies that the city inspector detect" such as a weed control violation or failure to
post or maintain signs along the edge of the buffer. On top 0 f all of I.hi S, 1 wi II to
prepare and follow a maintenance agreement which states that the owner (this could be
the nexl person who purchases my property) wm maintain tho buffer in its improved
stale" This is a very draconian approach to having home owners participate in wetlands
protection.
6
May 7, 2008
Attachment 3
1 recommend that the city's wetland ordinance recogni"e the difference between an
existing residential property and the owner's interest in wetlands restoration and the
development or redevelopmcnt 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 restored or mitigated buffer such as one half acre or 2) a
minimum distance along the edge of the wetland such as 300 feet that will trigger the
requirement to submit a mitigation plan and all that gocs with it. Otherwise, I fcel very
few residential property owners will want to incur the expense and governmental scrutiny
to re-establish a protective bllffer.
Item 20 - Enforcement- The draft ordinance proposes to give the city authority to
inspect a site or properiy at any time. This should be reworded to state "The city reserves
the right to inspect the site or propeliy during regular citv business hours or upon notice
to the propertv owner or its designated representative one business dav in advance ifthe
inspcction is to occur at a different time." The city should not have unfettered access to
personal property because a violation of the wetland ordinance is a misdemeanor and
should not present an immanent threat to public safety.
7
Attachment 4
SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED BY CONCERNED CITIZENS REGARDING
THE PROPOSED MAPLEWOOD WETLAND ORDINANCE (in no particular
order) FOLLOWED BY AN ANALYSIS OF EACH ISSUE AND SUGGESTED
SOLUTIONS. (Prepared by ShaTon Sandeen, July 12,2008)
Issue A:
How should the Wetland Ordinance seek to accommodatc existing (and replacement)
uses of developed property that would be inconsistent with the proposed new wetland
classifications and buffer widths? Is it enough merely to create a list of exceptions or
"grandfather Ollt" such uses or, in light of the number of exceptions that would be needed
and the staff time that would be required to implement several of them, or would it be
better to adopt buffer widths and restrictions that would keep the need for such
exceptions to a minimum?
Issue B:
Is there sufficient public policy and scientific SUPPOlt for the recommendation of the
ENR Commission to increase buffer widths, particularly given that: (1) thc changc in the
wetland classification system used will already result in an increase in buffer widths
(under existing standards) for 128 wetlands (with 55 downgraded and 60 to remain the
same); and (2) such standards exceed the recommended guidelines of the State of
Minnesota?
Issue C:
Arc all of the restrictions on what can occur within a wetland buffer necessary to achieve
the alleged water quality benefits of such buffers? What scientific support is there for the
suggestion that existing manicured lawns don't serve such a buffering function?
Issue.J2~
Docs it make sense to prohibit all filling of wetlands, even low quality wetlands, when
federal and state policy calls for "no nct loss of wetlands" and allows for the filling of
wetlands pursuant to a pennitting process that rcquires the restoration of wetlands
elsewhere? Why override the existing policy of the Watershed District that allows
property owners to fill wetlands as long as those wetlands are replaced in the amount of
two to one, i.e., why replace a policy that results in the creation of more wetlands for one
that docs not?
!Sj:Jd"J;:~
How and where should the City of Maple wood treat "public waters" and "public water
wetlands," as defined by Minnesota State Law? Because they are explicitly exempted
from coverage by the MinncsotaWetlands Conservation Act (WCA), should they be
included in thc Wetland Ordinance at all or dealt with solely in the Shoreland Ordinance?
Is it good public policy to draft ordinances in slIch a way that multiple ordinances apply
to the same piece of property?
ANALYSIS
ISSUE A:
How should the Wetland Ordinance seck to accommodate existing (and replacement)
uses of developed propeliy that would be inconsistent with the proposed new wetland
classi ucations and buffer widths? Is it enough merely to create a list of exceptions or
"grandfather out" such uscs or, in light of the number of exceptions that would be needed
and the staff time that would be required to implement several of them, or would it be
bettcr to adopt buffer widths and restl;ctions that would keep the need for such
exceptions to a minimum?
BACKGROUND:
A number of property owners voiced their conccrns about how the proposed Wetland
Ordinance will adversely impact the use and enjoymcnt oftheir propeliies. The concern
relates to three provisions ofthe proposed Ordinance which, together, serve to greatly
increase the size of the area that is subject to restriction and to prevcnt uses typically
engaged in by homeowners. First, thc change in the wetland classification system used
has rcsulted in 128 wetlands receiving an upgrade in classification which at least doubles
the area of property that is subject to restriction. Second, as if the upgrade in
classification were not enough, the change in huffer widths has fmiher increased the area
subject to regulation. For instance, in the case ofthe residents of Wakefield Lake, this
double-whammy has resulted in a tripling of the area subject to use restrictions (from 25
to 75 feet or, given the width of the lots, roughly 3000 sq. ft. to 9000 sq. ft.). Because
some existing homes are closer to the wetlands than others (given the cxisting 50 ft.
setback requirement), the Ordinance would precludc some homcowners from being able
to fully enjoy thc property that is located immediately outside of their back doors.
Finally, thc type 0 f activities that call be conducted in buffer zones do not allow for a
variety of low-impact uses typically enjoyed by homeowners, such as gardening,
recreational activities and mowing.
Up to this point, City staff has responded to the foregoing concerns by pointing to the
"grandfather clause" and Val;OUS exceptions (allowed non-confonlling uses). However, a
number of citizens voiced coneem that such provisions do not go far enough and, in any
event, are poorly worded. Representatives of Beaver Lake Estates, for instance, have
repeatedly pointed out that such exceptions would not allow for existing structures to be
replaced (even if the existing structures are destroyed by fire or a tomado} Other,
cilizens, including Nancy Montpetit, expressed concern about the impact the expanded
buffer zones will have on the value of their homes given that future owners of their
propeliy will be more restricted in what they can do on the propeliy. There is oJso the
practical concern that, years from now when the assurances concerning the "low-impact"
ofthe Ordinance on existing property owners are long f()rgotten, fi.1ture City stalJ'vill
interpret the ordinancc more strictly.
The last concern highlights the public policy problems that ale associated with cxeeptions
and grandfather clauses. They are subject to interpretation and, for propcrty owners, can
result in uncertainty and a lack of predictability. As a general rule of thumb, it seems that
2
if an Ordinance requires a lot of exemptions in order to accommodate existing uses of
private property, policy makers would be wise to consider whether the underlying
restrictions are too broad.
SOLUTIONS:
1. Adopt the new Wetland Classifications of the RWMWD, but keep the City's
existing buffer widths. (See also discussion of buffer widths under Issue B below.) For at
least 128 wctlands, this will result in a doubling of the existing buffer widths.
2. Tn addition to the foregoing, amend the description of activities that are allowed in
the buffer zone to allow for low-impact uses that are typically associated with the
enjoymcnt of private residential property. The language of Section 8 of the first draft
(datcd May 14, 2007) of a model ordinance prepared by thc Association of State W ctland
Managers, Inc. is suggested as an altemativc because, among other things, it allows for
recreational and gardening uses. (See also discussion of buffer restrictions under Issue C
below. )
3. In addition to the foregoing, adopt an exception that allows residential property
owners to be free from buffer zone restrictions within X feet of their homes. (Note: if
existing setback requirements have been followed consistently for a long period of time,
this mle will only apply to homes that are subject to a bnffer zone that is greater than the
setback plus X,)
4. In addition to thc foregoing, adopt an exception that would allow for the
replacement of existing structures under specified conditions. Represcntatives of Beaver
Lakcs Estates submitted some suggested language to deal with the unique nature of
manufactured homes, hut a broader exception is needed to deal with other existing
stmctures (e.g., existing homeowners should be able to replace their homes if they are
destroyed even if they are located in a buffer zone).
ISSUE B:
Is thcrc sufficient public policy and scientific support for the recommendation of the
ENR COlllmission to incrcase buffer widths, particularly given that: (I) the change in the
wetland classification system used will already result in an increase in buffer widths
(under existing standards) for 128 wetlands (with 55 downgraded and 60 to remain the
same); (2) sueh standards exceed the recommended guidelines of the State of Mil me sola;
and (3) the City's existing buffer zones already exceed state guidelines?
BACK,GROUND:
It is a fundamentai principle onaw that govemmental bodies cannot regulate private
activity without a sufiicient public purpose. Additional1y, local governments like the City
of Maplcwood can't regulate at all without state authority As discussed in issue E helow,
the proposed Maplewood Wetland Ordinance raises a number of questions concerning
the source of state authority. Is it the Wetland Conservation Act (INCA), the taw
governing shoreland, or the City's general zoning power? Whatever the source of its
power to adopt a wetland ordinance, however, the restrictions that the City seeks to
3
impose on property owners (particularly with respect to already vested property rights)
should be well-reasoned and snpported.
Based upon the wording of the ordinance and its supporting documentation, the City
asserts two principat justifications for the protection of wetlands and buffers: to maintain
water quality and to provide food and habitat for wildlife. The bigger question, however,
is: what is the justification for the specific buffcr widths that are recommended?
There is no existing law, federal or state, that reqllires the establislmlent of buffer zones,
let alone ofthc widths recommended by the ENR Commission. A review of literature
cited by the ENR Commission and available on the Internet reveals that the whole idea of
buffer zones is rclatively new (within the last 20 years) and that no noml has developed
conceming the ideal or prefetTed width of buffer zones. One reason for this is obvious;
the ideal width of buffer zones requires considcration of the conditions that actually cxist
on the ground. For instance, with respect to wanting to improve water quality, one should
consider wherc the water comes from and wherc it goes. With respect to the desire to
preserve habitat for wildlife, one should consider the actual wildlife habitat to bc
protected and whethcr the preservation or cxpansion of sllch habitat is compatiblc with
city living. (Note: the MCWD report cited by the ENR Commission details many more
variables that need to be considered, including the topography of the land, its cxisting
uses, and which animals arc sought to be protected).
Interestingly, although the ENR Conmlission report on thc proposed ordinancc
acknowledges the weaknesses in the existing scientific studies, and states that they
depended most on a report prepared by an environmental consulting firm at the behest of
thc Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, it is recommending buffer widths that far
exceed those actually adopted by MCWD (16.5 to 35 feet) and that double those
recommended by the State of Mirmesota in its "Recommended Wetland Management
Classification System (draft dated 4/26/2008)." According to the State of Minnesota,
whieh presumably has more expertise than the City of Maplewood in these matters, the
maximum buffer zone should be 50 feet for Class A-Preserve wetlands (100-300 feet if
the goal is to protect wildlife habitat); 35-50 feet for Class B; 25-35 for Class C; and 25
fcet for Class D. Even the buffer zones that cxist under Maplcwood's current ordinance
exceed these state guidelines.
SOLUJ]ON.S,
1. Don't modify the existing buffer zone widths, except to change the numbering to
be consistent with the RWMViD designations. (Note: Although it appears that the
Ordinance adopted the lettering system of the state, since the Ordinance proposes to rely
on RWMWD wetlands olassifieations, it is reoommemled that the City adopt the exact
same labels that arc used by RWMVlD).
2. Consider adopting the State's recommended buffer widths in order to provide
greater support for the City's decision as to bufrer widths.
4
ISSUE C:
Are all of the restrictions on what can occur within a wetland buffer necessary to achieve
the alleged water quality and wildlife habitat beneilts of such butlers? What scientific
support is there for the suggestion that existing manicured lawns don't serve sneh a
buffering function?
BACKGROUND
An underlying but unstated factual assumption of the proposed ordinance is that
manicured lawns and gardens of non-native plants do not serve any of the desircd watcr
quality and wildlife habitat functions of buffers. For this reason, the ordinance seeks to
ban both activities within buffer zones. Admittedly, because of their long root systems,
many native plants have better filtering capabilities, but to suggest that lawns, vegetable
gardens, and gardens of non-native trees and plants have no filtering or wildlife habitat
benefits is not accurate. While in an ideal world it would be great if existing lawns next to
wetlands COllld be replaced with native plants, there is nothing in the Ordinance that
provides any incentive for property owners to do so. Rather, as currently written, the
Ordinance would encourage property owncrs not to maintain the buffer area at all.
SOLUTIONS:
1. Amend the description of activities that are allowed in the buffer zone to allow for
low-impact uses that are typically associated with the enjoyment ofplivate residential
property to specifically include the maintenance of lawns and gardens.
2. Allow property owners to apply for a reduction in thcir buffer widths to the extent
they are willing to plant native plants or install rainwater gardens (e.g., for each 100
square feet ofrainwater gardens installed, the applicable buffer zone will be reduced by
200 square feet).
ISSUE D:
Does it make sense to prohibit all filling of wetlands, cven low quality wetlands, when
federal and statc policy calls for "no net loss of wetlands" and allows for the filling of
wetlands pursuant to a penllitting process that requires the restoration ofwctlands
elsewhere? Why override the existing policy of the Watcrshed District that allows
property owners to fill wetlands as long as those wetlands are replaced in the amount of
two to one, i.e., why replace a policy that results in the creation of111ore wetlands for one
that does not?
J3.J\~-;I~.,gRQ1)N D:
Several homeowners expressed coneem that the proposed Ordinance would place
restrictions on them even though the wetlands on their property are "man.made" or
"accidental." These residents understand the desire to preserve natural, pre-settlement
wetlands, but they do not understand why they should be subject [0 restrictions based
upDn the mere happenstance that past development activities changed thc nahlral. course
of water so that it now pools on their property. It was also noted that, by relying on the
RWlvIWD wetland maps, the applicability of the Ordinance to Maplewood residents
5
might change every time the maps change, without involvement and deliberation hy the
City of Maplewood and its residents.
While it is apparent that both federal and state laws make no distinction between natural,
restored, and accidental wetlands, in effect, they provide an accommodation for thc
concerns related to accidental wetlands by allowing wetlands to be fillcd under prescribed
conditions. Pursuant to MilIDesota state law, the filled wetland must be replaced one to
one. Pursuant to RWMWD policy, the filled wetland must be replaced two-to one. Thus,
a property owner who owns property where a non-natural wetland exists has a potential
means of developing his property and the risks to the City of a takings claim are reduced
thereby.
Clearly, the ENR Commission thought it was proposing a more aggressive envirOlIDlental
policy by prohibiting the filling of all wetlands. However, not all wetlands are descrYing
of that level of protection. The value of wetlands depends in large part upon wherc they
are located, how big they are, and what is around them. For example, the property on
Cope Avenue that one property owner described as in the class of an accidental wetland,
is a likely candidate for filling given its small size and location between Hwy. 36 and
Cope Avenue. By not allowing this propcrty owner a rcasonable option for the
development of his property as zoned, an unintended consequence of an absolute no-fill
policy is to expose the City of Maple wood to liability for thc taking of private property.
Wouldn't it be better to providc an inccntive for such property owner to pay for the
restoration of wetlands in areas where they would make more sense?
SOLUTIONS:
1. Don't adopt an absolute no-fill policy.
2. If the City wants a policy that is more aggressive than that allowed under state
law, then it should adopt the two-to-one policy of the RWMWD (although arguably it
doesn't need to adopt and administer such policy since RWMWD will also have
jurisdiction over the matter).
3. Specify the exact version or date of the RWMWD maps to be relied upon by the
City for thc purposes of identifying and classifying wetlands within its boundaries.
IsslIe E:
How and where should the City of Maplewood treat "public waters" and "public water
wetlands," as defined hy Minnesota State Law? BeCatlSe they aTe explicitly exempted
from coverage by the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA), should they be
includcd in the Wetland Ordinance at all or dealt with solely 111 the Shereland Ordinance?
Is it good public policy to draft ordinances in such a way that multiple ordinances apply
to the same picce of property?
BACKGE,(llJN.R;
It is clear under state law that wetlands are treated and regulated differently than "public
waters" and "public waters wetlands." There are important his(01ie and public policy
6
reasons for this. In particular, a long-standing principle OfPllblic access attaches to public
waters that does not necessmily attach to wetlands. Also, pLlblic waters typically sustain
IlsheIies that are managed by the DNR. For these reasons, among others, the State of
Minnesota exerts essentially exclusive jurisdiction over public waters up to the Ordinary
High Water Line (OHWL).
Recently, the Maplewood City Attomey confinned the assertion of Sharon Sandeen that
the regulation of public waters, such as Wakefield Lake, is not authoIized by the Wetlmld
Conservation Act (WCA). However, in his opinion, the shoreland above the OHWL may
be regulated by the City of Maple wood according to either its general zoning power or
the authority given to the City to regulate "shoreland" as defined by Mirmesota law. Pure
wctlands (i.e., those that are not part ofpllblic waters), are to be regulated in accordance
with the WCA.
The policy question presented by the foregoing situation is whether the City wants to
regulate shorcland in its shoreland ordinance only, or ifit also wants to regulate
shorelmld properties in its wetland ordinance. Sharon Sandcen has urged for the first
approach because the considerations goveming the use and managcment of public waters
are different from the considcrations governing the use and management of wetlands.
Among other things, property owners like Ms. Sandeen cannot be denied access to such
waters. Thus, it would be appropriate to allow lakeside property owners to cut a path
through a buffer zone in ordcr to gain access to public waters, particularly if the DNR has
granted a pemlit that allows for the removal of cmergent vegetation within the OHWL.
Another reason to treat the two regulatory schemes differently is because the adoption of
a shoreland ordinance vs. a wetlmld ordinance involves a different set of state statutes and
oversight. Finally, therc is less likelihood of confusion and inconsistency in regulatory
oversight and enforcement if the two types of water bodies are treated separately.
SOLUTIONS
1. Add a provision to the proposed Wetland Ordinance that makes it elear that it
does not apply to wetland areas within or immediately adjacent to public waters, but
which states that such wetlands are govemed by the City's Shoreland Ordinance.
) Or, add a provision to the proposed Wctland Ordinance that makes it clem' that
property owners on public waters can: (a) obtain a permit from the DNR to remove
emergent vegetation in order to access public waters; (2) install a dock in such public
waters as allowed by the DNR; and (3) eut and maintain a path through the buffer zone to
access the public waters and the dock.
7
A ttachlIlcnt :5
MAPLE WOOD WETLAND ORDINANCE
DRAFT 4..28-08
(Changes to the city's current wetland ordinance are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.
Text revised since the 3-24-08 First Reading are in Bold.)
1. Findings and purposes.
The findings and purposes of this section arc as follows:
a. Wetlands serve a variety ofbcncficial functions. Wetlands maintain water quality hY
filtcring pollutants and reducirrg flooding and erosion~, They provide food and habitat for
wildlife, providc open space for human interaction, and are an integral part of the city's
environment. Wetlands are an important physical, educational, ecological, aesthetic,
recreational, and economic asset to the city. They arc critical to the city's health, safety,
and general welfare. SurrOlmding development may degrade, pollute, or accelerate the
aging of or eliminate wetlands. Regulating land use around wetlands is therefore in the
public interest.
b. Streams arc also significant elements of the city's hydrologic system. Streams flow into
wetlands and lakes, provide food and habitat for wildlife, provide open space, and arc an
integral part of the city's environmcnt. Like wetlands, streams arc an imp01tant physical,
educational, ecological, aesthetic, recreational, and economic asset. Surrounding
development may degrade, pollutc, or damage streams and, in turn, degrade other surface
waters downstream. Regulating land use around streams is therefore in the public
interest. Reqlliring buffers recognizes that the surrounding uplands relate to tho
woodland and strearR quality and function and, therefore, arc in the public intereGt.
c. Buffers are the lands that surround wetlands and streams. They are integral to
maintaining the valuable functions many wetlands and streams perfonn and to
maintaining a wetland's or stream's health. Requiring buffers rccognizes that the
surrounding uplands impact relate to the wetland's and streanl's quality and function and,
therefore, i~ are in the public interest. Buffers have the following functions:
\.U EJeduce the impacts of surrounding land use on wetlands and streams by
stabilizing soil to prevent erosion ~;{em-1W.atBF; and filtering suspended solids,
nutrient.sj polluUmts, and harn1ful substances.
111 Moderat03ffig-ilwater level nuctuations during storms.
CD BRffef&rr!so-p).'rovide essential wildlife habitat.
(41 amll'I9vido .;;b-1lQ.~ tgr~Quce the lo,illl19mllrr(C.ClOJQtll.stolll1Water runoff am1..thc:
IV etl and 0 r j;1LQilrn~1.Yi1t~rJ:~rnperalllre i s .o.n"-Q[th.~J'aQ1Qrs contra 11 i 11 g th eat! li tv
of water to hold dissolved OXY~IL.This ability decreases wjtb increasing water
temperatmes. The dissolved oxygen level must be maintained at a minimum level
to maintain healthy aquatic life.
1
Gll FinalPy,-13u-ffBi'&-fReduce the adverse impacts of human activities on wetlands and
strcaUi s.
f61The purposes ofthis section are to:
a. Preserve wetlands and streams in a natural state.
fib. Preserve the beneficial functions of wctlands and streams by regulating the surrounding
land use.
13". Stabilize the soil around wetlands and streams to prevent st01111water erosion.
eg. Preserve and enhance water quality by Ffilterffig suspended solids, nutrients, and harmful
substances before they from reaching wetlands, streams, and public waters.
a". Reduce human dishlrbances of wetlands and streams by visually separating wetlands
:!fem yards.
ef. Prevent flooding and thc costs associated with-efreclaiming water quality.
g. Protect properly.
th. Protect beneficial plant and wildlife habitat.
gL Educate the public, including appraisers, owners, potential buyers, or developers,.tB
regarding the development limitations of wetlands, sh'eams, and associated buffers.
L Encourage property owners who live adjacent to and/or near wetlands and streams to be
responsible stewards including managing and enhancing the quality ofbuJJers and
restoring the buffer to a diverse planting of deep-rooted nativc plants.
2. Definitions: The following words, terms, and phrases when used in this section shall have the
meanings asclibed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a
different meaning.
Alteration mcans any human action that adversely affects a buffer. Alterations include, but are
not limited to, the following: grading, filling, dumping, dredging, draining, cutting, pruning,
topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation, applying herbicides or pesticides or any
hazardous or toxic substance, d~s-Ghat'gfflg-p&nH!~lm'ffiw-al-eF; paving, construction,
application of gravel, dischargiruz pollutant~5.Qlllil:lcting,QL9.i~llfbing soil through vehicle or
eqlljpment llse, or any other human activity that adversely affects the vegetation, hydrology,
wildlife or wildlife habitat Alteration does not include the following:
a. Walking, passive recreatioll, fishing or other similar 10\\i-i1Jl1J.!j&! activities.
b. Planting thDt erJlanGe& native vegetation, once the planting p]il1l.!El.OoPtJrQy,:"L9,yCI.tystaff.
C. The selective clearing, pruning,QL9ontr.ol oftrccs or vegetation that are dead, diseased,
noxious, weeds or hazardous.
2
~wit#h-+H~ih')-if'CHFage-w-ittlhof~a.buft:er-w#R-in if sing! e dev'*'JW~lei-ef
rhas,,"
Best mqnazement Dractices (BMF's) mean measures taken to minimize negative effects of
stormwatcr runoff on the environment including, but not limited to, installation of rain gardens.
infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, retention basins, filters, sediment traps, swafes. reduction
ofimperviolls surfaces, planting of deep-rooted native plants, landscape and pavemcnt
maintenance.
BOf! means a peatland with acidic pH as described in the Minnesota Land Cover Classification
System.
Btiffer means a stream or wetland lmffuf.-& the upland areas that are immediately adiacent
and contiguous to wetlands and streams which contain a protcctive zone of vegetation--aHmg
a stream or around a wetland.
Clearing means the cutting or removal of vegetation.
Enhancement means an action that incrcascs the functions and values of a wetland, strcam, or
wctland buffer.
Erosion mcans 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 ground water as described in the Minnesota Land Cover
Classification System.
Forested seasonal wetland means a woodcd wetland with hydric soils that may have standing
watcr ycar round or may dry UP seasonally.
Infiltration basin means a pond or basin that captures st0ll11water and allows it to soak into the
ground. An infiltration basin will typically drain within 48 hours of a stom} event.
Mitigation means an action that reduces, rectifies, eliminates, or compensates for the alteration of
a buffer, wetland, or stream.
Native vegetatiollmeans tree, shrub, grass, or other plant species that arc indigenous to the Twin
Cities metropolitan area that could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. Native
vegetation dces not include noxious weeds.
Naturalized vezetgtion means tree, shrub, grass, or other plant species that exists on a site
naturally without hav.i.Ug be"!l.Q\anted. It may be a native or non.cll'!tiv~_~p~_cies. Some
rraturalized species arc appropriate iE. a buffer and some arc considered .weeds.
Noxious ly.eed mcaJt~..Rlant.~Jisl,,~t,ls prohibited noxlous,weeds irl.111Q Ivn.l1-nes9t~t:lgxious IN eed
L,llLiSee '!ls(LWeed.)
Olie:otrovhic as;,ifi Inft[.sh,means a shallow or deep marsh w.i.tblo\"J2tl, high dissolved oxygcn,
and low levels of nutrients.
3
Ordinary high water mark (OHTY/Ii!) means a mark delineating the highest water level
maintained {(X enough time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary higb water mark
is commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to
predomi nantly tenestriaL
Rain I':arden means an infiltration basin that is planted as a gardcn that allows water to infiltrate
within 48 hours of a storm event.
Restoration means returning a wetland, strcam, or buffer to a condition that is similar to that
bcfore development ofthe sLUTOunding area.
Sedrze meadow means a wetland with saturated soils or standing water that contains a significant
number of sedgc species (Carex sPP.), as defined as wet meadow in the Minnesota Land Cover
Classification System.
Semipublic means land that is maintained by a private organization for public usc.
Setback means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure and the nearcst edge of the
buffer, wetland, or strcam.
Straizht-edl':e setback is measurement to determine the allowablc setback of an addition to an
cxisting house, garage, deck, or driveway which is located closer to or within the required buffer
setback. Straight-edge setback additions are measured by using the existing edge ofthe house,
garage, deck, or driveway located nearest to the edge of a buffer. wetland, or stream and
extending that line in a parallel direction. No portion of the addition can encroach closer to the
edge of a huffer, wetland, or stTeam than the existing structure.
Stream means those areas where surface waters producc a delined channel or bed. A defined
channel or bed is land that clearly contains the constant passage ofwatcr under nOl1na] summer
conditions. This definition does Rot include dminabe swales or ditches that channel intermilleRt
stonnwater nmoff.
StrC<lm 3uffc:- means land that is in direct drainabe to a stream and withiR the boundary descrihed
by this ill1iclo. /\ persoR slmll measare all bafrcrs from the on:liuill'y hibh ',','ater mill'le (OHWM)
as identified in the lield. If a person cannot determine the OH\VM, the stream huffor shall be
from tho top of the scream bank
SJruQture means anythiJ}gS.QX1!il1'llgt()dor erected that requires loc.ation on the g[QundQr,3ttached
10 somelhin,g,l1;iYIDS.J9.fation on tl}e_g):Q.Und.
Sustainable design means a (Jev_eloPill.Qf!1 design wll!r;h minimizes impact~Q.ll.thc landsc<lP-".,
Temporm'Lerosion control means methods ofkeepil1!,( soil stable duril}g,,construetion or grading.
Ty~n.Q.Qr~,ry cn2~ion COl!n:2J__lJ.l~f!.sJ.ITg~~_includ~~__but 1:1-.1:(:, not IlJlliteq IQ" silt fencing, c:.rosio.[L~ontroJ
hl<llJ](ets, Q"I",slQl2.eJ??JTiQfs. or otb"rb"llitm'!1IagCmeJlL~IosiQl1 control met!lQ,Js..?JlprOvccLQylh",
city.
Variance means a deviation ti'om the standards of this section that is not specifically allowed.
Vegetation means any eFgf\fl'fB plant life growing at, below, or above the soil surface.
4
Wafer qualitv i'ona'.l11~.ans a R.9nd that has been createcL.tQ..cl1ptufc stonnwaLer runoff Theiie31'S'
Dot natural wetlands. Stonmvater is oi;l"!LPlpej into these ponds but may al.so enter through
sheet I]1J10f[' Those are also called utility 129nds.
Water qualit)! i'ond edze means the nonnal high water level for a water quality pond.
Wet!a:u! buffer means land that is in direct draina;;o to a wctland within the bound",:y described
13)' this scction. ,'.11 buffers shall be measmed outward from tho '",ctland edse.
Weed means a plant which is causing damage in some way to native vegetation or ecosystems.
(See also noxious weed.)
Wet vrairie means a wctland with saturated soils containing a significant number of plant species
found in wet prairie communities as defined in the Minnesota Land Cover Classificatioll System.
Wetlands means those areas of tHe cit)' inundated or saturated by groundwater or surface water at
a frequency and dllration sufficient to support, and that undcr nonnal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for lifc in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally ineludc swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas as defined in the fAmlY Corps of
Enginecrs regulations 33 CPR 328.3 1(88). Where a person has removed or mostly changed the
vegetation, one shall determine a wetland by the presence or evidence of hydric or organic soil
and other documentation of the previous existence of wetland vegetation such as aerial
photographs.
Wetland classes. The city defines the wetland elasscs used in this section as follows:
(a) Class! lV3t!-al'lds meml" wetlands assignod--thc unique/ou,stmlding rating in the Ramsc-y-
Washington Metro Watershed Dis,riet Wetlm;ds !nyefrtory, 1995. Class 1 wetlands are
thosc with conditions and func,ions most suseeptil31e to human impacts, arc most unique,
have the highest COI'RffiHHity resource significance and similar charaetelisties.
fh) Class 2 y.'othmds n:ean hiSh ':aluG (definition based on Watershed we,lands inventory
results).
(c) C!c7SS 3 '.'.'ctl:mds lllean wildlifc habitat 'laIH&.
(d) Cess f ]votlands me-ilfl-flle<3effite--varno impao:s.
(e) CltrB-s-ci"-wetlandHFlBafl&."vetlands assigned the highlY-HHI*&tea--mltng-tn the Rll1mey
Wa,;hington M elro Watershed Distriet-Wetllmd&.hwBnter.y, 1995. Class 5 wetlands DIe
thoo&w-i-t-h-eBnd i ti on3 mtd-ftHletKIl1s-.mest-a.fl:ee-ted-hyhtl1lHiiH!e ,1 ','1 ti es, witlHfle-!east
diverse vogetf\lli:m-HBmmllffit~"-GBffif11Unity re:;omce significanee.ana---si-milar
eRaffieteR.stlc&c
F L f."'R II" U:~l .' W'!dlf~ . 'r'lfl . ~"'-W' I d
'Of'''roiffilTlooe:: o. thlS sectlOtl;--f e-,'cC>7'T-llitHm.a--.; 'e,eA"1Ce s ~.aSSl .caltefhn Htmls
fl'R{1 D ccpwateJ'.Habit-affi-ef.the-t+rnte4-ShE:es;--FWSIG'B8~79-/31{Geward-it1et-ill, 1 979) '''''1Rtam;;
t-lw--tleOO'fit;t}C'lls-and"phetHgF'dphs-B-f-wetlmltH21asws.t1lldBubclas&€&-.-
a. Class A + means wetland tvpes that arc vcry rare in our community, are particularly
sensitive to impacts from development, and provide much needed habitat for wildlife.
These wetlands are special wetlands and deserve additional protection to ensure that they
5
remain in that state. ClassA.-+:. wetlands arc defined as a ManagyJ2:~_8- wctlalJds
Jililizil1g in lllS.RmnSCy- Washington Metro WatersllS.cLDisttict Rules deljnition (which is
based on the Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology.lMnRAMl classification
system) and also are one of the following unique and special types ofwetlands in
Maplewood:
D oligotrophic acid marsh
2) wet prairie
3) sedge meadow
4) forestcd seasonal wetland
5) fen
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 thc Minnesota Routine Assessment
Methodology (MnRAM) classification system. Thcsc wetlands are exceptional and the
highest-functioning wetlands in Maplewood. All streams in the City of Maple wood are
also defined as Class A.
c. Class B wetlands are defined 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 are high-quality
wetlands.
d. Class Cwetlands are defincd as a Manage C wetland in the Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed District Rules definition and based on thc Minnesota Routine Assessment
Methodology (MnRAM) classification system. These wetlands provide moderate
quality.
",. Utilitv Class -. Defined as water quality ponds.
Wetland easement means a designated area that includes the wetland or but1cr whcre disturbance
ITom mowing, cutting, or similar activities is prohibited.
Wetll1ndfimctions means the natural processes performed by wetlands, such as helping food
chain production, providing wildlifc habitat, maintaining the availability and quality of water
such as purifying water, acting as a recharge and discharge area for groundwater aquifers, and
moderating BurlDce water and stOl1nwater flows, and perfol1ning othcr functions, including hut
not limited to those set out in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations al: 33 CF1'_
31~+A (ll)E2)fJ-9-&&').
Wetland or stream edge means the line delincating the outer edge of a wel:land or stream. This
Gne shall cstablish-lfHs.1ine ll-y shall be established using the Federal Manual for Idcntifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands dotod JaRl1ary 10, 19&9, and jointly publishod by tho US.
Environmontal ProtectioH Agoney, tho U.S. Fish and Wildlifc Scr.ieo, tho US. ,A,ITHY Corps of
6
Engineeffi-aoo.l-he--UB..--Sf)i+-G~1tieH'&~--S, The appHcahle watershed district musl verify
this line,
3, Applicability: This scction sbaH apply as follows:
a. This section Ghall apply tIo any person or use that would alter a wetland, stream, or
buffer aftcr April 24, 1995 add date of adoption of new ordinance.
b. When any provision of any ordinance conflicts with this section, the provision that
provides more protection for buffers, wetlands, or streams shall apply lmless specifically
provided otherwise in this section. This also applies to the applicable watershed distJict.
c. Public afld semipublic streets, utilities, cr trails, whether built by a pablie agency or
pri':atc developer, shall be sul3ject to this section.
4. General Exemptions: This section shall not apply to the following:
a. Non-chemical control and rcmoval of noxious weeds within the buffer. Refer to section
5.k.3.b. (Manage Wecds in Buffer) regarding the use of chcmical treatment.
b. Planting native plants within the wctland huffer after approved bv city staff.
f" Removal of limbs, brush, or branches that are dead or pose a safety hazard.
d. Removal of trees that are dead, diseased, or pose a safety hazard after approval by
city staff.
a. The constmetion or maintenance ofplHllic or semipublic drainage facilities,
sodimentatiol1 ponds, or orooion control facilitics.
b. The mainteeance of public or semipublic facilitios including strccto, utilities and trail&
c. Whorc tho city cOlmcil wai'los these requirements for the construction ofpl:blie and somi--
pablic utilities or trails, whether lmilt by a public agency or pri'/ate doveloper.
~ Public or semipublic streets, utilities, a11d trails. The city councilmay waive the
requirements for construction or maintenanec of public or semil1ublic streets, utilities,
illcl<Lt[<lil~. where there would bc a greater public need for the project than to meet the
requirement ofthis section. +he cit:; coune-i+shall-imld u pubtk-heafing--a-efure-Joch'lFing
titt€h-a'wfrive!~he city shui.l,flOti.fy-t-l-1€--j3roperty owners-within 350.fBBj"f the buffer ~,t
leaBt--tBn days before the-flearffig'c-.ln waiving these reqmrements thc city counci! shall
follow the standards listed below~ m.subsec:ion (0) Gf--ffiis-Boction.
(I) The city may only allow the constmetion of Ql1lJlj.Q.()r semipll.t:>l1(; utilitics and
~Xre~1.~ through buffers where there lS no other practical alternati"vc and the
following requirements are met:
(a) ~J]l(),(:ity councilmllSJ.JlIlprove the:waiYcr to anow puJl.li.c:__QrsQ11lirwhIic
utilities or streets to be localiod within a buffer. Bcfore the city...Q.Qllncil
acts on thc waiver the p!alll1ing commission and the environmental and
natural resources commission shall make a recommendation [0 the cjty
7
council. The planning <':'9.mmission shall hold a public hearing for the
\'11l1Y"LIJ!",_r.:ity staff shall notify the property owners withilLfiYJ31umdreg
illillJ"_,,tofthe buffer at least ten days before the hearing,
(b) Utility or street corridors shall not be allowed when endangered or
threatened species are found in thc buffer.
(c) Utility or street corridors, including any allowed maintcnancc roads, shall
be as far from the wetland or stream as possible.
(d) Utility or street corridor construction and maintenance shall protect thc
wetland, stream, or buffer and avoid large trees as n1Llch as possible. The
city shall not allow the use of pesticides horbicides or other hazardous or
toxic substances in buffers, streams, or wetlands. In some situations the
use of herbicides may be used if prior approval is obtained from city staff
(e) The owner or contractor shall replant utility or street corridors with
appropriate native vegetation, except trees, at preconstruction densities or
greater after construction ends. Trees shall be replaced as required by city
code.
(f) Any additional corridor access for maintenance shall be provided as much
as possible at specific points rathcr than to road which is parallel to
wetland edge. by parallcl roads,-Ifparallel roads are necessary they shall
be no greater than fifteen (15) feet wide.
(g} Mitigation actions must bc mct as specified in section 6 below (Mitigation
and Restoration of Buffers).
(2) The city may allow public or semipublic private trails in buffers. Trails must bc
approved by city staff and are subject to the following guidelines:
ill Trails shall not be allowcd whcn cndangered or threatened snecies are
found to bc nrcscnt in the buffer.
W The trail shall Hot be sfhaye a impervioHs sHFfilee materials. All
elevated bsardv,'llll, sllallllot-be.eenstde~lI-imflervi()lIs sllrfaee.
(b) Butlers shall be expanded,-wlteHJ.pessfbIe-,- equal to the width of the trail
corridor.
(c) The owner or contractor shall replant all disturhed areas next to the trail il1.
'LtiIl1"fi-aI1le_3J?p.r:.9.Y,,!:LiJ..Y.filY.~llin;-a-ft-iJf.€omplet-ir1g.tllli-tfaih
{cD AJLll"C_"~'illrY_"L<B.LQ!1f.QWro!mQaj:l!fCS must 1;lc illI'Lacc_bcCorc
cOllsl.r:.ucting a trail. The erosi9.lLCOlllr,QLm":asl1ry.5Lml~1.0I~Qj?e_mALrLt:alJlQ(1
and inspected byJhC.l:i!Y.19 ensure that tQ,,_"YQ1.land..oI strcill..t11j~ no!
compromised by trail construction activities.
lcl The trail must be desi gned and constructed with sustainable design
methods.
8
ill The tr;riI may provide _()J:le access point to the wetland hut such .01Lil&g,c;SS
shi}ll be no more than four (4) feet wide,
W flgardwalks are aliowed within the bllffer and sha]] be a maximum of six
(6) feet in width for semipublic use and twelve (12) feet in width fClr
public use.
fit Trails ar baardwalks shall Bat be eaBstruetea eBtirely arauHd the
wetland,
D:0 City staff may require additional mitigation actions as specified in scction
6 below (Mitigation and Restoration of Buffers).
Ir. Structures, vegetatiol1 and maintenance activities and practices in existence on tbe
eff-cctive date of the ordinancc from which this scction dcrives. f, contractor or OViner
may remodel, reeonstruct or re-place affcctcd structures ifthe new conslmctien docs net
take up more buffer land than the structure used bef{)re the remodeling, reconstructiofl-ffi'
replacement.
e, W11cre !l1is section would aen)' all rcasonable- use of a lot of record. In sHch cas&,-#le
owner or c01~traetor shall construct SRY building to ma;[imize the setback from a buffer.
Federal, state or watershed district rules and regulations shall apply. ,".Iterations to-a
bHffor shall be the minimum necessaT)' to allow for the reasonable :13e of the propmiy.
Where feasihlc, the city may reqairc !lie mitigation of any alteration of a buffer.
f. Additions to a house, garage, deck, or driveway using the existing straight-edge setbacks
to a wetland or stream if thc following apply:
ill Properly is zoned or is being used as a single family residence.
ill There is no other rcasonable alternative than encroachment toward the wetland or
stream with the addition.
ill The house, garage, deck, or driveway is a minimum of twenty- five (25) fect from
the wetland or stream edge.
.C'U Addition does not cause degradation of the wetland, stream, Qr thc existing buff~L
(:i} Mitigation actions must be met as specified in scctio1J_()J:c~19~\viMjtigatLolliiI!.(!
Restoration,of Buffers ).
g,A property which is located within a wetland bu.fferLbut is separate fi'om the wetland by
,m existiqgIQi!Q.
5. Bu-ffer ,),standards: Standards for thi~.scetion BHHers arc as icllloWS:
a, W~J911dJ;i1ling: The_citycjQQ~J:1ot allo'Nt!,l",JlIllng,cJf:"wet)i}m!s.WIl€fc the water:;hod
difjtrkt-has--f\flfl-RWee--awetllH'ltl-Hj.!ffig'penntb-J:~-Hfla.j.H'ettffir-e--m i ti gati on fo;an-y
diGtur~)ed buffer Ian4
9
b. MininmIl1 Buffer Widths: The minimum buffer widths shall apply to an wetlands,
including those created, restored, relocated, replaced, or enhanced.
,"" Maintenance of Buffe]'s:_Buffers shall remainin a natural state with naturalized or native
vegetation.
d. Restoring Buffers: Landowners interested in restOling their buffer to native plants should
submit a rcstoration nlan as snecified in section 5.k.3.a. (Restoration of Buffer with
Native Plantings) to citv staff for approval.
e. Wetland, Stream, or Buffer Easements: Thc property owner of any property affected by
this section may be required to sflatI--record wetland, streanl, or buffer easements with the
county. These easements shall desclibe the boundarics of the buffer and prohibit any
building, mowing, cutting, filling, or dumping within the buffer, stream, or wetland. The
owner or developer shall record such easements with a final plat, with deeds from a lot
division or before the city issues a building permit for an affected property. The
applicant shall submit proof that the owner or developer has filed the notice.
f. StOlIDwater: The discharging of stOl1nwater to a wetland or stream must comply with
section 44-1245 of the City of Maple wood ordinances (StOlID Management).
g. Plantings in Buffers: ,^,n affected property ovmer shall maintain a buffer.-- Any planting
in a buffer shall be done with native vegetation after the nlanting plan has been approved
by city staff.
h. Alterations in Buffers: The city prohibits the alteration of buffers except as allowed in
general exemptions. Tho city may waive tIlis requirement whore the waterched distRBt
has appro'/cd apo1111it for filling all or part ofa wotland.
L Minimum buffers: The following are the minimum required buffer widths and stl1Jcture
building fmmdation setbacks:
Buffer
Wetland Classes
Class f1;!
Class A +--1- & Streams Class Ii}
Utilitv
Class C-4- C-l~
^ vemgc bttffer.willt:l!'
lOO--ft. +00 ft.
*-lh
'B-ft.
q.&
Minimum Buffer Width
200+00 ft. 100S1:) ft.
75'B fe
5.Q20ft
lQO n.
Buildingl~tif)H Stmcture
Setback from Edge of Buffer 10 ft.
10 [1.
10 ft.
10 n.
10ft.
J, Buffer Measurement: Bllffers ~hall be measured hori;Z:QlltllHyJi'oIll wetland oLstJ:~alJl
edg~Ll)Q tllQr.Q~~..tl1e butTe) I andscaJ?""Qll.~l.QQQ"J-",rcater th an eiglXtee!1.p'",rccnt (h'lJ.il.tb,e
buff~L'0!jQth,shall be increa~S'.d_to.I 0 Jeet b"J1ondJhe apex oftheslQQe. Extension anD",
buffer for steep slopes shall applv to all wetland classes. The--cit-y--m-ay-retltltre a variable
buffer ',,'idth to protoct udj-aeent habitat that the eit-y--detOlIDincG is yaluabt<:-1:&-t-lw-weUalld,
stream, ',,'ildlifo or vogetation.
10
1" l\lternative Minimum and Average Buffers:B-ecogpizing that th~re are instances where.
because ofthe unique..nhY.'ii9.:JLgmracteristies of a specific parcel ofland, alt~matiy',,-si,,9
buffers may be necessary to allow tor the reasonable use of the hmd. .In suchsases all
alternative minimum and average butTer width will be pennitted (,In ten percent 00%) of
the linear wctland butTcr within the parcel. which will be compensated for by increased
buffer widths elsewhere in the same parcel to achieve the required average buffer width.
(1) The alternative average huffer standards set forth below may be applied based on
an assessment of the following:
W Undue hardship would arise from not allowing the alternativc, or would
otherwise not be in the public interest.
(Ql Size of parcel.
(0. Configuration of existing roads and utilities.
(ill. Percentage of parcel covered bv wetland.
(0 Configuration of wetlands on the Darcel.
(f) Wi1lnot cause degradation of the wetland or stream.
(g) Will ensure the lwotection or enhancement of portions of the buffer which
are found to be the most ecologically hcncficial to the wetland or streal1l'
ill The following aTe the alternative averagc buffer widths and structure setbacks:
Buffer
W ctland Classes
Class A
& Streams
Class B
Class C
Minimum Buffer Width*
75 ft. *
50 ft*.
Average Buffer Widtll
100 ft.
75 ft.
50 ft.
N/A
Slruct\lx.",S_ctbacK From
Duter Ed"c of Billfer
10ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
*The minimum buffer width may be ILsed on no more than 10 peni'Qnt onhe linear
wetl1!rld bJ1ifer aI"i!JQGat~d within,th'i'.pareeL
CD Th_e:.;mPIQillllitene~.s of using the alternative average buff~~ wilL1:>-,,_eva!uated as
P!lKt.9flb-".X'::viC',v of tb e contrac tor' s or_()wIl,,-r',~dey'elQ121LlSlJt All.!) li Cat19IIJh"
ftIt5Tnativc aver'h.';;tlbllffer llsed nmst be within th-".1ill.irit and intent ofthillfQ,l",
and must meet one 9r morc_9fthe requirements set forth by the city to incluc!9.Llml
not limitedtQLtJ.JSlQUgwinR strategies
W Restoration of buffer with native p!antings. Submittal of a buffer
restoratiolu;rlan. The plan may need to be drafted by awfessional
11
,,2illyrienced in wetland or stream rcstoration.lJased on the size of the
restoration project as deemed necessary by city staff iEcluding:.
.L Ex; sting vegetation.
b Restoration methods.
1, Maintenance procedures proposed during first threc years..9i
establishmcnt
4. Erosion controt measures.
.ic List of plants to be planted.
,(i... Qualifications of contractor. Only contractors with experience and
~uccess restoring wetland or stream buffcrs or natural vegctation
shall be approved.
1. Maintenance agreement which states that thc owncr will maintain
the buffer to its improved state.
.a" The eitv may require a cash escrow or letter of credit to cQve.rJ5Q
percent of the required work.
fQl Manage wccds in buffcr. All weeds listed on the Minnesota noxious weed
list must be controlled by the property owner. Owners are encouraged (0
control other weeds that are not on the noxious weed list but can threatcn
the health of a wetland. Submittal of a wccd management plan drafted by
a professional experienced in wetland and stream restoration including:
1. Target weeds.
2. Appropriate management techniques, including the use of chemical
treatment if approved by city staff as part of the management plan.
1, Miill-llgemelltsch"cllll".
4. Potcntial erosion and rcseeding ifmanagemenl will create lar~
areas of dead vegetation.
i, Cash escrow or lelte[pj crediJ,N._cover 150 p_erC5'1!tQ.LtI1'''Ie9l1Ire.Q
work.
lfl Kec(illcli.QlllnJit0l1l1\yater mnotI and/oLimprovement of quality of
stormwater runo ff entering wetland or strealIL TllilimJ:lyJ2.e.achi~y'"d
thm.u,gh_lhe(Qllo wlggJi.trategies .9 r other.?tal1mmroved bcst managcrncn t
practices for dealing with st0l111wa(er. These practices are to be located
outside of the wetland buffer.
12
L Reduc~.amount ()fpavem~nt on site (i.c. fewyLj.mrkmg stalls,
nan-owcr driv",ways~ shared Q<JIlcll1g with other busiIlysses ).
2. Use pervious pavement such as Pavers.(}r porous asphalt.
l" Use turfnavers or modified turf areas for overflow parking.
4. Install rain garden or infiltration basin.
2, Install rock trench or rock nit.
6. Install filter strin of grass or native vcgetation.
L Install surfacc sand filter or underground filter.
8. Install native nlantings on site to reduce fertilizer use and improve
infiltration.
9. Install a grecn roof on buildings.
l(L Install grit chambers, sediment tranS, or forebays.
1 Stormwater Drainage Facilities: The city does not allow the constmction of stollllwater
drainage facilities, sedimentation nonds, infiltration basins, and rain gardcns within the
buffer.
n1. Construction Practiccs: Special construction practices shall be required on proiects or
develonments next to wetlands or streams and their buffers. Practices to be anProved by
city staff before issuance of a grading or building ncrmit include, but are not limited to,
theJollowin g:
ill
Gradin g.
ill
Sequencing.
ill
Vehicle tracking,pJ.:1j:foml s.
ill
Additional silti"'.mcejh
r"
ili
Additiol1al sediment control.
ib--...fienein',; and 0 i gn.staHtlm'Eltr.
rUl, ,Erosion Control h.1CitaJ.!atio!l: Before grading or eonstmetlOn, the owner or contractor
shall put into place erosion control measures around the borders of buffers. Such .QTosiQD
control mea.CiQ,res must remain in plaee until the owner and contractors havc finished all
development activities that may affect the buffer.
o.&' Wetland Signs: Before grading or strn.ting constlUction, the boundary between a buffer
and adjacent land shall be identified using permanent signs. These signs shall mark the
13
edge of the huner and shall state there shall be no mowing, cutting, filling, or dumping
beyond this point. These signs shalll?9)nstalled at each lo.tllnc where it crosses_"
wetland oLstream buffer. and where needed to indicate the !;pntour of the buffer, witQ1l
lpaximum spacing of one-hllndred (l00) feet of wetland or stream e(~
~€-c Erosion Control Breaches: All erosion control measures must be maintained and
inspected to cnsure compliance and protection of wetlands, streams, and buffers. The
contractor or owner shall be responslble 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 propeliy, the plat or subdivision must show the
wetland boundaries as approved by the applicable watershed district.
r.€-c Erosion Control Removal: After comnletion of grading or construction, the contractor or
owner may remove the erosion control measures on ly after inspection and annroval by
the city and the annlicable watershed district to ensure the areas affected have been
established per requirements.
s.-/; It is the resnonsibility of the owner to alleviate any erosion during and after complction
of grading or construction. The owncr or contractor 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
contractor has altered or wi11 alter a wetland, stream, or buffer. The property owner or contractor
shall submit a mitigation plan to city staff for approval. In rcviewing the plan, the city may
require the following actions below in descending ordor of preference.
a. Reducing or avoiding the impact by limiting the degree or amount ofthe action, such as
by using appropriate technology.
b. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the weecllaml bLlffer.
c. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by prevention and maintenance operations
during the life of the actions.
d. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute buffer hmd
at Bp-fe a tWQBlliJ-to--one ratio.
e. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate eerrective measures.
f Where the city requires restoration or replacement of a buffer, the owner or contractor
shall replant the buffer with native vegetation. llt'a-s-imi-l-af-'~8ity to the amOHHf-BefJ:+re
alteratiell A rcDlanting Pl'lJJlllll.'itlJ.,,-ill2psovQ'.LlJv the (ityheJpI9plantillK
g, L\ny additional <:QmlitiQ.i1.Q reguired by the applicabj<:ivatershed distrj,~tandLQI.1he soil
jJ11dW<lt51' cPL1.servation district5h,IIl,.i!Q(2lY,
Q. All strategies as listed in item S.k.3. (Altemative Average Buffer).
14
7.., Nonconforming Buildings. Si11IQt\lI~.S, and Properties: Any existing QgIIdillg,Qr structure. or any
existinKJJ!ie of prol'YLty QQtjn conformity with the reg1JJation~..prY_s.9.ribcd in this chapter as of the
date ofthe adoption Q.tBuch regulation (insert date of new_9gJin.a1l9.c) shall be regarded as
n011,,().nfonning and may continue.
8. Variances: Procedures for granting variances from this section are as follows:
a. The city council may approve variances to the requirements in this section. ,Allyariances
must follow Minncsota state law govel11ing variances.
b. Before the city council acts on a variance the environmental and natural resources
commission wi11make a recOlllinendation to the planning commission, who will in tUl11
make a recommendation to the city council p-lanning commission. The planning
cOlllinission city council shall hold a public heaTing for the variance. bcfore-apprm'ing a
variancc. The c!:;ity staff shall notify the property owners within five hundrcd (500) ~
fcct ofthe buffer at least ten days before the hearing.
"'- The city may require the applicant to mitigate any wctland, stream, or buffer alteration
impacts with the approval of a variance, including but not limited to, implementing one
or more ofthe sh'ategies as listed in item 5.k.3. (Altel11ative Average Buffer).
b, Te appro'/c a variance, the couneilmust make the following findings:
-Ii Shict enforcement woald caase undue hardship because of circumstances uniqoo
to the property andor cOHsidera:ion. The tcnn "undue hardohip" as used in
granting a ','ariance means tae owner of thc property in question cannot put it to a
roasonable use ifuscd undor conditions allO',yod by tho official oontrols; the plight
of tho lundownor is duo to eircHI1lstanoos ~mique to his property, not creatod by
tho ]ando'.vl~er; and tac variancc, if gruntocl,-will not [\](0'1' the essential character of
the locality. Economic considerations alone are not an undue hafElship if
reasonable use for :he property cxists under the te-rms ofthis soction.
~ Th€-variance would !JO il1 keepiBg wita the spirit and iflteBt-ofthis section.
9. Wetland or Buffer Surety: The applicant shallllost a wetland or buffer mitigation surcty with the
citv, such as a cash deposit or lctter of credit, of one hundred imd fiftv (150) perecnt of estimated
cost for mitigation. The surety will hI; t~lll!!!ed based on the size ofrhe nroiect as !leemed
!lecessarv b:Lstaff. J2~l)mls will be_held by the city until suceessfulcomg]ytion of restoration ill'
determined by the city after [\ final in:m~ctiQJ.}. Wetl9.!l.d or buffer mitigation surety does HQl
include other sureties requiredp!lfsl1ant to anY_QthQLQrovision of cily code or ci.ty_~iil'"etive.
1 O. Enfc)fcement: The g,itYIcs_el:ves the rii!J)tJo inspccl.!he site or propertv at any_timy.f()j'
LQill]Jlianee with this ordinance. The city shall I)"I~.onsiQJy.for the enforcement ofthis
ordinance. Anv person ','fJJSJ,I'lllst9"9!J.lP.!ywi.1h..Clf violates anv section o.LiJmL()rdll1-'lDg~~I].~l1
tl~.lt(),em~g.gui1ty of a lYli.sg~mcanOrilrld'cuP()1l.Q9n\lichono shal1.!Je sUPKrJ19 punishment in
accordance With sectIon 1-12.,. Ail1and.1l~e Q.llilding and grading permits shaH be suspelJ(leg.1mtil
t.he ~level()jJ.~r.has cOIJ"e"t.ed th(';..:yI.9JIitiOl}. Each day that a separate vi.Qhltioll_.5'Kistsl'hall
constitute a separate offense.
IS
Attachment 6
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WETLAND SECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AND CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (ARTICLE VII)
The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Codc of Ordinances:
Section 1. This amendment revises Section 12-247 through 12-249 and Scction 12-310 (wetland section
of the environmental protection and critical area ordinance):
I. Findings and purposes.
The findings of this seetion are as follows:
a. Wetlands servc a variety of beneficial functions. Wetlands maintain water quality by
filtering pollutants and redueing flooding and erosion. They provide food and habitat for
wildlife, provide open space for human interaction, and are an integral part ofthe city's
environment. Wetlands are an important physical, cducational, ecological, aesthetic,
recreational, and economic asset to the city. They are critical to the city's health, safcty,
and gcncral wclfarc. Surrounding dcvclopment may degrade, pollute, or accelerate the
aging 0 f or eliminate wetlands. Regulating land use around wetlands is therefore in the
public interest.
b. Streams are also significant elements ofthe city's hydrologic systcm. Streams flow into
wetlands and lakes, provide food and habitat for wildlife, provide open space, and are an
integral part of the city's enviromnent. Like wetlands, streams are an important physical,
educational, ecological, aesthetic, recrcational, and economic asset. Surrounding
development may degrade, pollute, or damage streams and, in turn, dcgrade other surface
waters downstreanl. Regulating land use around streams is thercfore in thc public
intcrcst.
c. Buffers are the lands that surround wctlands and streams. They are integral to
maintaining the valuable functions many wetlands and streams perform and to
maintaining a wetland's or strcam's health. Requiring buffers recognizes that the
sun-ounding uplands impacts the wetland's and stream's quality and function and,
therefore, is in the public interest. Bnffers have the following functions:
(I) Reduce the impacts of sUlTounding land use on wetlands and streams by
stabilizing soil to prevent crosion and f1ltering suspended solids, nutrients,
po1lutants, and harmful substances.
(2) Moderate water level fluctuations during stornlS.
(3) Provide essential wildlife hahitat.
(4) Provide shade to reduce the temperature of both stormwaler runoff and the
wetland or stream. Water temperature is one of the factors controlling the ability
of water to hold dissolved oxygen. This ability decreases with increasing water
temperatures. Thc dissolved oxygen level must be maintained at a minimum level
to maintain healthy aquatic life.
L Findings and purposes (cont)
(5) Reduce the adverse impacts of human activities on wetlands and streams.
The purposes ofthis section arc to:
a. Preserve wetlands and streams in a natural statc.
b. Prcserve the beneficial functions ofwet]ands 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 suspended solids, nutrients, and hannful
substances before they reach wetlands, streams, and public waters.
e. Reducc 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.
J. Educate the public, including appraiscrs, owners, potential buyers, or developers
regarding the development limitations of wetlands, sh'eams, and associated buffers.
J. Encouragc property owners who livc adjacent to and/or near wetlands and stTeams 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, tenns, and phrases when used in this section shall have the
meanings ascribed to them, except where the context cleaTly indicatcs a different meaning.
Alteration means any human action that adversely affects a buffer. Alterations include, but are
not limited to, the following: grading, filling, dumping, c1J-edging, draining, cutting, pruning,
topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation, applying herbicides or pesticides or any
hazardous or toxic substance, paving, construction, application of gravel, discharging pollutants,
compacting or disturbing soil through vehicle or equipment use, or any other lmman activity that
adversely affects the vegetation, hydrology, wild]jfe or wildhfe habitat. Alteration docs not
include the following:
a. Walking, passive recreation, fishing or othcr similar Jow-impact activities.
b. Planting native vegetation, once the plaxlting p]m] is approved by city staff.
e. The selective clearing, pruning, or control of trees or vegetation that is dead, diseased,
noxious, or hal,ardous.
2
2. Definitions (C0111)
Best management practices (BMP's) mean measures taken to minimize negative effects of
stormwater runoff on the environment including, but not limited to, installation ofrain gardens,
infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, retention basins, filters, sediment traps, swales, reduction
ofimpervious surfaces, planting of deep-rooted native plants, landscape and pavement
maintcnance.
Bog mcans a peatland with acidic pH as described in the Minnesota Land Cover Classification
System.
Buffer means the upland areas that arc 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.
Erosiol1means the movement of soil or rock fragments, or the wearing away of the land smface
by water, wind, ice, and gravity.
Fen means a peatland fed by ground 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 rOlmd or may dry up seasonaJly.
Infiltration basin means a pond or basin that captures stormwater and aJlows it to soak into the
ground. An infiltration basin wiJl typicaJly drain within 48 hours of a stOlID event.
Mitigation means an action that reduces, recti fies, eliminates, or compensatcs for the alteration of
a buffer, wettand, or stream.
Native vegetation means tree, shrub, grass, or other plant specics that are indigenous to thc Twin
Cities metropolitan area that could have been expectcd to naturaJly OCCLlr on the site. Native
vegetation does not include noxious weeds.
Naturalized vegetation means tree, smub, grass, or other plant species that cxists on a site
naturally without having been planted. It may be a native or non-native species. Some
naturalized species are appropliate in a buffer and sorne are considered weeds.
Noxious weed means plants listed as prohibited noxious weeds in the Minnesota Noxious Wced
Law. (See also weed.)
Oligotrophic acid marsh means a shallow or deep marsh with low pH, Illgh dissolved oxygen,
and low levels of nutrients.
Ordinary high water (OlIFf/ivf) means a mark delineating the highest water level
maintained for enQugh time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary high water mark
is commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to
predominantly terrestriaL
3
2. Detlnitioils (Cont.)
Rain garden means an infiltration basin that is planted as a garden that allows water to inJlltrate
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 slmounding 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 mcadow in the Milmesota Land Cover
Classification System.
Semipublic means land that is maintained by a private organization for public use.
Setback means the minimum horizontal distance bctwccn a structure and the nearest edge of the
buffer, wetland, or stream.
Straight-edge setback means a measuremcnt to determine the allowable setback of an addition to
an existing house, garage, deck, or driveway which is located closer to or within the required
buffer setback. Straight-edge setback additions aTe measured by using thc existing cdge of the
house, garage, deck, or driveway located nearest to the edge of a buffer, wetland, or stream and
extending that line in a parallel direction. No portion of the addition can encroach closer to the
edge of a buffer, wetland, or stream than the existing structure.
Straight Edge Diagrams
I
f1~ addition
pas ible here,--~
)
Existing
StnJctl....-E
possible
additi:Jn\
.Il
; . required
i(50belle>
~
,/
")
~
25'
possible
( adcfitions--\
;'~-""__J11 h ('
";olioq .'
I Structure :
L_ __._______1
125 [25
required
5:)' buffs'
';,
'/--,--",
CLASS C WETLAND
1~IN!f..jUM = 50'
EXEf,1PTION FOR SII'iGLF FAiv\I!.Y H:J!v'E
EXISTiHG HO\.'F !S 15' TO /'5' t:"RCf,1 WETLAND I
fo.)[mION CAN USE E'xISTI~lG 2::1' STR/'.IGHT [[lee!
,
CL.ASS C WETLAND
f.,iiNII;~UM = 50'
[XEIvWnO\l FOR SINGLE FA.MIL Y HOIIilE
;::)(IST!NG HOIIilE IS 25' FRmA 'NETl/iND
ADDITlm..; ({.Jj U:;F FXSmlG STRI\IGHT EDGE
Stream means those areas where surface waters produce 11 defined channel or bed. A defined
channel or bed is land that clearly contains the constant passage ofwatcr under normal summer
conditions. This definition does not include drainage swales or ditches that channel intermittent
stOlmwater runoff.
Structure means anything constructed or erected that requires location on the ground or attached
to something having location on the ground.
Sustainable design means a development design which minimizes impacts on the landscape.
4
2. Definitions (Cont.)
Temporary erosion control means methods of keeping soil stable during construction or grading.
Temporary erosion control measures include, but are not limited to, silt fencing, erosion control
blankets, bale slope barriers, or other best management erosion control methods approved by the
city.
Variance means a deviation fi'om the standards of this section that is not specifically allowed.
Vegetation means any plant life growing at, below, or above thc soil surface.
Water qualify 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 normal high water level for a water quality pond.
Weed means a plant which is causing damage in some way to native vegetation or ecosystems.
(See also noxious wecd.)
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, arc particularly
sensitive to impacts from development, and provide much needed habitat for wildlife.
These wetlands are special wetlands and dcscrve additional protection to ensure that they
remain in that state. Class A+ wetlands are defined as a Managc A wetland in the
Ramsey-Washington Metro Watcrshed District Rules definition (which is bascd on the
Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology [MnRA1\1] classification system) and also
are one of the following unique and special types of wetlands in Maplewood:
1) oligotrophic acid marsh
2) wet prairie
3) sedge meadow
4) forested seasonal wetland
5) fen
6) bog
b. Class A wetlands are defined as a Manage A wetland in the Rmllsey-Washington Metro
Watershed District Rules deflnition and based on the Minnesota Routine Assessment
Methodology (MnRAlvl) ehlsS1fication system. wetlands are exceptienal and the
highest-fu11ctioning wel1ands in Maplewood. Ail streams in the City ol'lvlaplewood arc
also defined as Class A.
5
2. Definitions (Cont)
C. Class B wetlands arc defined 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 are high-quality
wetlands.
d. Class Cwetlands are defined as a Manage C wetland in the Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed District Rules dcfinition and based on the Minnesota Routine Assessment
Methodology (MnRAM) classification system. These wetlands provide moderate
quality.
e. Utility Class - Defined as water quality ponds.
Wet prairie means a wetland with saturated soils containing a significant number 0 f plant spccics
found in wet prailie communities as defined in the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System.
Wetland easement means a designated area that includes the wetland or buffer where disturbance
from mowing, cutting, or similar activities is prohibited.
Wetland or stream edge means the line delineating the outcr cdge of a wetland or stream. This
line shall be established using the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands. The applicable watershed district mnst verify this line.
Wetland fimctions means the natural processes perfonned by wetlands, such as hclping food
chain production, providing wildlife habitat, maintaining the availability and quality of water
such as purifying water, acting as a recharge and discharge area for groundwater aquifers, and
moderating surface water and stonnwater flows, and performing other functions, including but
not limited to those set out in U.S. A1111Y Corps of Engineers regulations.
Wetlands means thosc areas inundated or saturated by groundwater or surface water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under n0TI11al circumstances do support, a
prcvalence of vegetation typically adaptcd for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas as defined in the Army Corps of
Engineers regulations. Where a person has removed or mostly changed the vegetation, one shall
dctcrmine a wetland by the presence or evidence of hydric or organic soil and other
documentation of the previous existence of wetland vegetation such as aerial photographs.
3. Applicability: This section shall apply as follows
a. To any person or use that would alter a wetland, stream, or buffer after __...
(add date ofadoptioll of new ordinance).
b, Vlhen any provision of any ordinance conflicts with this section, the provision that
provides more protection for buffers, wetlands, or streams shall apply unless sped ficaJ1y
provided otherwise in this section. This also applies to the applicable watershed district
4. General Exemptions: This section shan not apply to the following:
a. Non-chemical control and removal of noxious weeds within thc buffer. Refer to section
5.k.3.b. (Manage Weeds in Buffer) regarding the use of chemical treatment.
6
4. General Exemptions (Cont).
b, Planting native plants within the wetland buffer after approved by cily staff.
c. Removal of limbs, brush, or branches that are dead or pose a safcty hazard,
d. Removal of trees that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards after approval by city
staff.
e. Public or semipublic streets, utilities, and trails. The city may waive the requiremcnts for
construction or maintenance of public or semipub lic streets, utilities, and trails where
there would be a greater public need for the project than to meet the requirement of this
section. In waiving these requirements the city shall follow the standards listed below:
(1) The city may only allow the construction of public or semipublic lltilities and
streets through buffers where thcrc is no other practical alternative and thc
following requirements are mct:
(a) The city council must approve the waiver to allow public or semipublic
utilities or strects to be located within a buffer. Beforc the city council
acts on the waiver the plamling commission and the enviromnental and
natural resources cOlllinission shall make a recommendation to the city
council. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing for the
waiver. The city staff shall notify the property owners within five hundred
(500) feet ofthc buffer at least ten days before the hcaring.
(b) Utility or street c01Tidors shall not be allowed when endangered or
threatened species arc found in the buffer.
(c) Utility or strect corridors, including any allowed maintenance roads, shall
be as far from the wetland or sh'eam as possible.
(d) Utility or street co1Tidor construction and maintenance shall protect the
wetland, sh'eam, or buffer and avoid large trces as much as possible. Thc
city shall not allow the use of pesticides or other hazardous or toxic
substances in buffers, streams, or wetlands. In some sitlwtions the use of
herbicides may 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 prcconstruetion densities or
greater after eOl1stmetion ends, Trees shall be replaced as required by city
code.
(f) Any additional eonidor access for maintenance shall be provided as much
as possible at specitlc points rather than to road which is para]]e] to
wctland cdge, If parallel roads are ncccssary Ihey shall he no greater than
f1 [teen (15) feet wide.
(g) Mitigation actions must be met as specified in section 6 below (Mitigation
and Restoration of Buffers).
7
4. General Exemptions (Cont.).
(2) The city may allow 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 allowed when endangered or threatened species are
found to be present in the buffcr.
(b) Buffers shall be expanded equal to the width ofthe trail corridor.
(c) The owner or contractor shall replant all disturbed areas next to thc trail in
a timeframe approved by city staff.
(d) All necessary erosion control mcasures must be in place before
constructing a trail. The erosion control measures must also be maintaincd
and inspected by the city to ensure that the wctland or stream is not
compromised by trail construction activities.
(e) The trail must be designed and constructed with sustainable design
methods.
(f) The trail may provide one access point to the wetland but 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 ofBLlffers).
f. Additions to a house, garage, deck, or driveway using the existing straight-edge setbacks
to a wetland or stream ifthc following apply:
(1) Property is zoned or is being used as a single family residence.
(2) There is no other reasonable alternative than encroachment toward the wetland or
stream with the addition.
(3) The house, garage, deck, or driveway is a minimum oftwenty-Ilvc (25) feet from
the wetland or stream edge.
(4) Addition does not cause degradation of the wetland, stream, or the existing butTcr.
(5) Mitigation actions must mct as specified in section 6 below (MitigatlOfl and
Restoration of Buffers).
g. A property which is located within a wetland hufter, but is separate f1'om the wetland by
an existing road.
8
5. Standards: Standards for this section arc as follows:
a. Wetland Filling: The city docs not allow the filling of wetlands.
b. Minimum Buffer Widths: The minimum buffer widths shall apply to all wetlands,
including those ereated, restored, relocated, replaced, or cnhanced.
c. Maintenance of Buffers: Buffers shall remain in a natnral state with natnralized or native
vegetation.
d. Restoring Buffers: Landowners interested in restOling their buffer to native plants should
submit a restoration plan as specificd in scction 5.k3.a. (Rcstoration of Buffcr with
Native Plantings) to city staff for approval.
c. Wetland, Stream, or Buffer Easements: The property owner of any property affected by
tlus section may be required to record wetland, stream, or buffer easements with the
county. Thcse easemcnts shall describe the boundaries of the buffer and prohibit any
building, mowing, cutting, filling, or dumping within the buffer, stream, or wetland. The
owner or developer shall record such easements with a final plat, with deeds from a lot
division or before the city issncs a building pcrmit for an affcctcd propcrty. Thc
applicant shall submit proof that the owner or developer has tiled the notice.
f. Stonnwater: The discharging of st0n11water to a wetland or stream must comply with
section 44-1245 of the City of Maple wood ordinances (Stonn Management).
g. Plantings in Buffcrs: 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 of buffers except as allowed in
general exemptions.
L Minimum bufTers: The following are the minimum required buffer widths and structure
setbacks:
Buffer
Wetland Classes
Class A
Class A + & Streams Class B
Class C
Uiility
Minimum Buner Width
20() It.
100ft.
75 it
50 n.
10 Ct
Structurc Setback From
Outer Edge of Buffer
10 n.
]() It
]0 ft.
]0 ft.
10ft.
J. Buffer Measurement: Buffers shall be measured horizontally from wetland or stream
edge, not across the bufTer landscape. On slopes greater than eighteen percent (18%) the
buffer width shall be increased to 10 feet beyond the apex of the slope. Extension of the
bufl'er for steep slopes shall apply to all wetland classes.
9
5, Standards (Con!.)
Slope Setback Diagram
/'r>"~
Class B WetlOr\d
-7G'Suffe'
-----.--
""'~.!"~-
-p-
Buffar axtflnrhi 1e"( b.. ""et ,,10 .. a ex
--------------
1
1_.
Slope> 11:Hb
/,,'
[xomple: 75' buffer lor ~~Qnog<: 8 ",dl""d,..
Slope,s 19% so ihc bunar must ""Iene 10'
bayol1<.1 !h~ lu!, :of ,he slop..
Buffu/ ",^,o~.."",d horizonoll}'
I
L.__
i
--.I
Ie Alternative Minimum and Average Buffers: Recognizing that there arc 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 pern1itted 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 achicve the required average buffer width.
(1) The a1temative average buffer standards set forth below may be applied bascd on
an assessment of the following:
(a) Undue hardship would arise from not allowing the alternative, or would
otherwise not be in the public interest.
(b) Size of parceL
(c) Configuration of existing roads and utilities.
(d) Percentage of parcel covered by wetland.
(e) Configuration of wetlands on the parcel.
(I) \Vill not cause degradatiol1 of the welland or stream.
(g) Will ensure thc protection or enhancement of portions of the which
are found to bc the most ecologically beneficial to the weiland or stream.
10
5. Standards (Cont.)
(2) The following arc the alternative average buffer widths and structure setbacks:
Buffer
A verage Buffer Width
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*
Structure Setback From
Outer Edge of Buffer
*The minimum buffer width may be used on no more than 10 percent of the linear
wetland buffer area located within the parcel.
I . ,~.
. Avcragmg Diagram
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Commercial Bulld]r1
75'o,."ge...........,"__,.,....m,~~";';"""mo"c'"'
50' min. (or>iy 10~) .---l~.:~J---------+~-_~-m-_-
-~-
..----
~
CLASS B WETLAND
MIN. '" 50'
ING. '" 75'
(3) The appropriateness ofusillg the altemative average buffers will be evaluated as
part oflhe review oflhe contractor's or owner's development application. The
aHen1ative average buffer used rnust be witl11n the Spilit and intent of this code
and must meet one or morc of the requirements set forth by the city to ineludc, hut
not limited to, the following strategies:
11
6. Mitigation and Restoration of Buffers (Cont.).
f. Where the city requires restoration or replacement of a buffer, the owner or contractor
shall replant the buffer with native vegetation. A replanting plan must be approved by
the city beforc planting.
g. Any additional conditions required by the applicable watcrshcd district and/or the soil
and water conservation district shall apply.
h. All strategies as listed in item 5.k.3. (Altemativc Avcragc Buffer).
7. Nonconf01111ing 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 thc adoption of such regulation (insert datc of ncw ordinance) shall be regarded as
nonconforming and may continue.
8. Varianccs: Procedures for granting variances from this section are as follows:
a. Thc city council may approve variances to thc rcquirements 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 rcsources
commission will make a recommendation to thc planning commission, who will in tum
make a recommcndation to the city council. The planning commission shall hold a
public hearing for the variance. City staff shall notify the property owners within fivc
hundred (500) feet of the buffer at least ten days before the hearing.
e. The city may require the applicant to mitigate any wetland, stream, or buffer impacts with
the approval of a variance, including but not limited to, implementing one or marc of thc
strategies as listed in item 5.k.3. (Altemative Average Buffcr).
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
cost for mitigation. The surety will be required based on thc size of the project as deemed
necessary by staff. Funds will be held by the city until successful completion ofrcstoration as
detennined by the city after a final inspection. Wetland or buffer mitigation surety does not
include other sureties required pursuant to any other provision of city code or city directive.
10. Ent(Jrcemcnt: The city reserves the right to inspcct the site or property at any time for
compliance with this ordinance. The city sha11 be responsible for the enforcement ofthi8
ordinance. Any person who fails to comply with or violates any section of this ordinance shall
be deemed gnilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be subject t.o punishment in
accordance with section ] -15. All land use building and gradi ng permits shall be suspended until
developer has corrected the violation. Each day that a separate violation exists shall
constitute a separate offense.
15
S" Standards (Conl.)
(a) Restoration of buffer with native plantings. Submittal of a buffer
restoration plan drafted by a professional experienced in wetland or stream
restoration based on the size of the restoration project as dccmed
necessary by city staff including:
1. Existing vegetation.
2. Restoration mcthods.
3. Maintenance procedures proposed during first three years of
cstablislmlent.
4. Erosion control measures.
5. List of plants to be planted.
6. Qualifications of contractor. Only contractors with cxpcricnce and
success restOling wetland or stream buffers or natural vegetation
shal1 be approved.
7. Maintcnance agreement which states that the owncr will maintain
thc buffer to its improved state.
8. The city may require a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover ISO
percent of the required work.
(b) Managc weeds in buffer. All weeds listed on the Minnesota noxious weed
list must be controlled by the propeliy owner. Owners are encouraged to
control other weeds that are not on the noxious wccd list but can threaten
the health of a wetland. Submittal of a weed management plan drafted by
a professional expelienced in wetland and stream restoration including:
1. Target weeds.
2. Appropriate management techniques, including the use of chemical
treatment if approvcd by city staff as part of the management plan.
3. Management schedule.
4. Potential crosion and reseeding if management will create large
m'cas of dead vegetation"
5. Cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150 percent of the required
work.
12
5. Standards (ConL)
(c) Reduction in stormwater runoffand/or improvement of quality of
stonnwater nmoff entering wetland or stream. This may be achieved
through the following strategies or other staff approved best management
practices for dealing with stonllwater. These practices are to be located
outside of the wetland buffer.
1. Reduce amount of pavement on site (i.e. fcwer parking stalls,
narrower driveways, shared parking with other businesscs).
2. Use pervious pavement such as pavers or porous asphalt.
3. Use turf pavers or modified turf areas for overflow parking.
4. Install rain garden or infiltration basin.
5. Install rock trench or rock pit.
6. Install filtcr strip of grass or nativc vcgctation.
7. Install surface sand filter or underground filter.
8. Install native plantings on site to reduce fertilizer use and improve
infiltration.
9. Install a grccn roof on buildings.
10. Install grit chambers, sediment traps, or forebays.
1. St01111water Drainage Facilities: The city does not allow the construction of stonnwater
drainage facilities, sedimentation ponds, infiltration basins, and rain gardens within thc
buffer.
m. Construction Practices: Spceial constmction practices shall be required on projects or
developments next to wetlands or streams and their buffers. Practices to be approved by
city staff before issuance of a grading or building permit include, but arc not limited to,
the following:
(l) Grading.
(2) Sequencing.
(3) Vehiele tracking platfiJrrns
(4) Additional silt fences.
(5) Additional sediment control.
13
5. Standards (Cont.)
n. Erosion Control Installation: Before grading or constmction, the owner or contractor
sha11 put into place erosion control measures around the borders of buffers. Such erosion
control measures must remain in place until the owner and contractors have finished all
development activities that may affcct the buffer.
o. Wetland Signs: Before grading or construction, the boundary between a buffer and
adjacent land sha1J be identified using pcrmanent signs. These signs shall mark the edge
ofthe buffer and sha11 state there shall bc no mowing, cutting, filling, or dumping beyond
this point. These signs shall be installed at each lot line where it crosses a wetland or
stream buffer, and where needed to indicate the contour ofthe buffer, with a maximum
spacing of one-hundred (100) fcet of wetland or stream edge.
p. Erosion Control Breaches: All erosion control measures must be maintained and
inspected to ensure compliance and protection of wetlands, strcams, and buffers. The
contractor or owner shall be responsible for a1J erosionlscdimcntation breaches within the
Imffer and shall rcstore impacted areas to conditions present prior to grading or
construction activitics.
q. Platting: When platting or subdividing proper1y, the plat or subdivision must show the
wetland boundaries as approved by the applicable watershed district.
r. Erosion Control Removal: After completion of grading or construction, the contractor or
owner may rcmovc the erosion control measures only after inspection and approval by
the city and the applicablc watershcd district to ensure the areas affected have been
established per requirements.
s. It is the responsibility of the owner to a1Jeviatc any erosion during and after completion
of grading or construction. The owner or contractor must remove erosion control
measures after final approvcd inspcction by the city and the applicable watershed district.
6. Mitigation and Restoration oCBuCfers: The city requires mitigation when a proper1y ovmer or
contractor has altered or will alter a wetland, stream, or buffer. The property owner or contractor
shall submit a mitigation plan to city staff for approval. In reviewing the plan, the city may
require the actions below.
a. Rcducing or avoiding the impact by limiting the degree or amount of the action, such as
by using appropriate technology
b. Rectifying tbe impact by repairing, rchabilitating, or restoring the buffer.
c. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by prevention and maintenance operations
during the life of the actions,
d. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancmg, or providing Sub'llitate baiTer iand
at a tvvo""to-onc ratio,
e. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate correcti ve measures.
14
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect 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