HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-19 ENR Packet
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE COMMISSION
Tuesdav. January 19, 2010
5:00 p.m.
Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road BEast
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes:
a. December 21, 2009 (5 minutes)
5. Unfinished Business
a. Chickens in Residential Zoning Districts (30 minutes)
b. Stormwater Ordinance (30 minutes)
6. New Business
a. Fish Creek Greenway Ad-Hoc Commission Report (30 minutes)
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Commission Presentations
9. Staff Presentations (10 minutes)
a. Mississippi River Critical Area Rulemaking Project
b. Minnesota Shoreland Rulemaking Project
c. Reappointments and Appointments
d. ENR Commission Calendar
e. Reschedule February 15, 2010, Meeting Due to President's Day Holiday
(Possible Dates - Wed. 2/37 p.m.; Thurs. 2/11 7 p.m.; Tue. 2/16 5 to 7 p.m.;
Wed. 2/247 p.m.; Thurs. 2/25 7 p.m.)
f. Schedule Goal Setting Meeting (Possible Dates - See Above)
g. Maplewood Nature Center Programs
10. Adjourn (must adjourn by 6:50 p.m.)
Agenda Item 4.a.
DRAFT
MINUTES
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
7:00 p.m., Monday, December 21, 2009
Council Chambers, City Hall
1830 County Road BEast
A. CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission was called to order at 7:02
p.m. by Chair Mason Sherrill.
B. ROLL CALL
Carol Mason Sherrill, Chair
Carole Lynne, Commissioner
Frederica Musgrave, Commissioner
Bill Schreiner, Commissioner
Dale Trippler, Commissioner
Ginny Yingling, Commissioner
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Staff Present
Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
Steve Love, Civil Engineer II
Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer I
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Ms. Finwall added I.b. under Staff Presentations to reschedule the January 18, 2010 ENR
Commission meeting due to Martin Luther King Holiday.
Commissioner Lynne moved to approve the aqenda as amended.
Seconded by Commissioner Yingling.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the October 19,2009 ENR Minutes
Commissioner Trippler said on page 2, 4th paragraph, in the middle of the paragraph - change
the word dependent to reliant. On page 4, 4th paragraph, the sentence needs to be restructured.
Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the October 19. 2009. Environmental and Natural
Resources Commission Meetinq Minutes as amended.
December 21, 2009
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes
1
Seconded by Commissioner Schreiner.
Ayes - Commissioners Mason Sherrill,
Lynne, Schreiner, Trippler, Yingling,
Schreiner
Abstention - Commissioner Yingling
The motion passed.
Approval of the November 16, 2009, ENR Minutes
Commissioner Yingling said on Page 2, item F, E1. she didn't say what "type" of fire fighting
chemicals would be used on this site and clarified what she meant.
Commissioner Schreiner had a correction on page 2, under new business, item L, it should say
what year did the Marshland Group start meeting, and item L should say where will the
contaminants be relocated to?
Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the November 16. 2009. ENR Minutes as amended.
Seconded by Commissioner Schreiner.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Hills & Dales Area Street Improvements, Project 09-15, Resolution Adjusting Project
Scope (add Howard/Ripley area) and Adjusting Budget for the Preparation of the
Feasibility Study
a. Civil Engineer II, Steve Love gave a presentation and answered questions of the
commission.
The commissioners made comments regarding curbing, sidewalks, width of the streets, cul-de-
sacs, pervious pavement, and how this project would affect the environment, trees, roots, erosion
concerns and wetland areas.
2. Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Appointment Questions
a. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall discussed possible questions to pass along to the
city council for the ENR Commission interviews which she will forward to the city council.
F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Review of Commission Handbook and Amendment to the Environmental and Natural
Resources Commission Rules
Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall discussed the handbook and changes needed to the
commission rules.
Commissioner Yingling made a motion to revise the commission rules in reqard to meetinq
times and tvpe of rules qoverninq meetinqs.
Seconded by Commissioner Schreiner.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
December 21, 2009
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes
2
b. Review of Goals/Unfinished Business and Status of Subcommittees
Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall discussed goals/unfinished business. The commission
determined they would schedule a goal setting meeting after the appointment of
commissioners by the city council.
Commissioner Yingling made a motion to disband the three subcommittees set UP in 2009,
and reappoint subcommittees if needed after the 2010 qoal sellinq meetinq.
Seconded by Commissioner Schreiner.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
G. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
1. Jay Jeanetta, 1507 County Road BEast, Maplewood. Mr. Jeanetta discussed his interest in
raising chickens on his residential property. He stated he would work with staff on a proposed
ordinance amendment to allow chickens in residential zoning districts and come back before
the commission in January 2010.
H. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
a. December 12,2009, City Council Meeting (Wetland Ordinance, Energy Strategy)-
Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall and Chair Mason Sherrill gave a brief update on the
Wetland Ordinance and the Energy Strategy approved by the city council on December 12,
2009.
b. Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway Ad-Hoc Commission -
Commissioner Yingling gave a short update regarding the Fish Creek Greenway Ad Hoc
Commission
I. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. Maplewood Nature Center Programs
Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall discussed some of the upcoming programs offered at
the Maplewood Nature Center.
b. he January 18, 2010, ENR Meeting is rescheduled to Tuesday, January 19, 2010, from 5
to 7 p.m. due to the Martin Luther King holiday.
A. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Mason Sherrill adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
December 21,2009
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes
3
Agenda Item 5.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
Chickens in Residential Zoning Districts
January 12, 2010 for the January 19 ENR Commission Meeting
BACKGROUND
The Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission and two Maplewood residents have
expressed an interest in researching the feasibility of permitting chickens in residential zoning
districts. Maplewood's ordinance currently prohibits poultry, including chickens, in residential
zoning districts (Attachment 1). Urban communities throughout the country are considering
allowing chickens in residential areas as a way of promoting urban agriculture and sustainability.
DISCUSSION
Resident Interest
Two Maplewood residents spoke to the commission about their desire to raise chickens on their
residential property. Jeremy Decker attended the October 2009 commission meeting and spoke of
his experience raising chickens in Maplewood before he was notified that the practice was
prohibited. He also spoke of his desire to see the city's ordinance amended to allow for chickens.
Jay Jeanetta attended the December 2009 commission meeting and spoke of his desire to raise
chickens for their egg production. Since that time Mr. Jeanetta has done additional research on
the raising of chickens and on regulations required in cities that allow chickens.
Cities Which Permit Chickens in Residential Zoning Districts
Following is a summary of Mr. Jeanetta's research into regulations required by the Cities of
Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Oakdale for the raising of chickens on residential property. Also
included is information obtained by staff on the City of Shoreview's regulations.
1. Minneapolis (Attachment 2): More than one chicken requires a permit. No maximum
number of chickens specified in the ordinance. Permit must be approved by at least 80
percent of neighbors within 100 feet of the property. The city conducts an investigation of
the location and shelter prior to approval of the permit. Currently the City of Minneapolis
has 150 permits for chickens.
2. St. Paul (Attachment 3): More than one chicken requires a permit. No maximum number of
chickens specified in the ordinance. Permit must be approved by at least 75 percent of
neighbors within 150 feet of the property. The city conducts an investigation of the location
and shelter prior to approval of the permit. Currently the City of St. Paul has 75 to 100
permits for chickens.
3. Oakdale (Attachment 4): More than one chicken requires a permit. No maximum number
of chickens specified in the ordinance. Permit must be approved by at least 75 percent of
neighbors within 150 feet of the property. The city conducts an investigation of the location
and shelter prior to approval of the permit. Currently the City of Oakdale has one permit for
chickens.
4. Shoreview (Attachment 5): Shoreview adopted an ordinance allowing chickens in
residential areas in 2009. The ordinance allows a maximum of four hens on a residential
property that is 2 acres in size or less with a permit. Roosters are prohibited. Residential
properties greater than 2 acres are allowed more than four chickens with the approval of a
conditional use permit. Slaughtering of chickens is prohibited. Chicken coops must be at
least 30 feet from an adjacent principal dwelling, and must be placed in the rear yard.
Since adoption of the ordinance last year, the city has issued three permits.
Summary
Jay Jeanetta, Maplewood resident, will attend the January 19, 2010, ENR Commission meeting to
discuss his research into raising chickens and the other cities' regulations for allowing chickens in
residential areas. If the ENR Commission finds the keeping of chickens in residential areas
appropriate for Maplewood, city staff will draft an ordinance for the ENR and Planning
Commission's review and recommendation to the city council.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the attached ordinances which allow chickens in residential areas and be prepared to
discuss the feasibility of allowing chickens in Maplewood for the purpose of urban agriculture and
sustainability.
Attachments:
1. City of Maplewood Residential Zoning Uses Prohibited
2. City of Minneapolis Chicken Ordinance
3. City of Sl. Paul Chicken Ordinance
4. City of Oakdale Chicken Ordinance
5. City of Shoreview Chicken Ordinance
2
AitO,( h<Y\etB- \
JQBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 618 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003
/first/pubdocs/mcc/31l1217 _ full
~ 44-6
MAPLEWOOD CODE
designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to
the required utilities and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical
systems contained therein. The term includes any structure which meets all the requirements
and with respect to which the manufacturer voluntarily files a certification required by the
Secretary and complies with the standards established under chapter 365 of the 1981
Minnesota State session laws. As used in this definition, the term "Secretary" means the
Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development or the head of
any successor agency with responsibility for enforcement of federal laws relating to manufac-
tured homes.
Mining means the surface or subsurface removal of sand, gravel, rock, industrial minerals,
other nomnetallic minerals and peat not regnlated under state law.
Minor motor fuel station means a retail business engaged in the sale of motor vehicle fuels
with a maximum of three dispensers. Fuel dispensers shall be designed to serve only two cars
at once.
Motor vehicle accessory installation center means a place to install equipment sold on the
premises in a motor vehicle, where the following conditions are met:
(1) No petroleum products would be added to, applied to, or removed from the vehicle.
(2) There would be no maintenance, servicing or repair of vehicles or parts of vehicles,
including car washing.
(3) There would be no vehicle hoist or lift.
(4) There would be no noxious materials used.
Motor vehicle wash means a bnilding for washing motor vehicles. This definition does not
include the occasional handwashing of vehicles stored'in a parking garage.
Nonconforming building or use means a building or a use of land or of a building, existing
at the effective date of any section of this chapter, which does not conform with the
requirements of such section of this chapter, or a use authorized under article V of this chapter.
Outlot means any parcel of land designated as an outlot on any plat in the city.
Parlling space means an open space or a garage on a lot, used for parking motor vehicles, to
which there is access from a street or alley.
Planned unit development (PUD) means a type of development characterized by a unified
site design, with two or more principal uses or structures. A PUD may include townhouses,
apartments, multiple-use structures such as an apartment with commercial shops, or similar
PUDs must have at least five dwelling units or dwelling sites.
Poultry means domesticated birds that serve as a source of eggs or meat and that include,
among commercially important kinds, chickens', . turkeys, ducks, geese, peafowl, pigeons,
pheasants and others.
CD44:16
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 641 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003
/first/pubdocs/mcc/3/l1217 _full
ZONING
~ 44-104
3. Noise from idling the engine shall not exceed the L50 standards provided for
in state statutes. The owner or operator shall not let the vehicle's engine idle
for more than 30 minutes in anyone-hour period. In no circumstance may
the owner or operator run or let the engine idle for more than two periods,
lasting 30 minutes each, in one 24-hour period.
b. The following are exceptions to subsection (l)a of this section:
1. Those commercial vehicles or commercial equipment used for authorized
on-site construction, repair or service at the residence.
2. Any motor truck, pickup truck, or other commercial vehicle being used by a
public utility, moving company, or similar company, which is being used to
service a residence not belonging to or occupied by the operator of the
vehicle.
3. Any vehicle that is making a pickup or delivery at the location where the
driver or operator has parked it. Parking shall not be for the time beyond
that the driver or operator needs to make such a pickup or delivery and shall
only be for the time necessary to complete the pickup or the delivery.
4. Lawful nonconforming and permitted uses.
(2) Golf courses.
(3) Antennas and towers as requested by section 44-1327.
(Code 1982, ~ 36-66(b); Ord. No. 790, ~ 2, 5-11-1998)
Sec. 44-103. Prohibited uses.
The following uses are prohibited in the R-1 residence district: 1\ Q.::>J de Ifhg )
@The raising or handling oflivestock, poultry or animals causing a nuisance, except for
licensed kennels. .
(2) Accessory bnildings without an associated dwelling on the same premises.
(3) Commercial plant nurseries, commercial greenhouses, farms or any structure for the
sale or display of commercial products, when not on a property with a residential use.
(Code 1982, ~ 36-66(c))
Sec. 44-104. Minimum foundation areas; room requirements.
(a) The foundation area for any single dwelling in the R-1 residence district shall not be less
than the following:
(1) A one-story dwelling, 950 square feet.
(2) A P/z-story dwelling, 720 square feet.
(3) A bilevel dwelling, 816 square feet.
(4) A trilevel dwelling, 765 square feet.
(5) A two-story dwelling, 528 square feet.
CD44:39
CHAPTER 70. FOWL, PIGEONS, AND OTHER SMALL ANIMALS*
Page 1 of 1
Athhhtr\(!(d Z-
Mlnf\~o\ts
CHAPTER 70. FOWL, PIGEONS, AND OTHER SMALL ANIMALS"
"Editor's note: Ord. No. 2005-0r-085, ~ 1, adopted Sept. 23, 2005, amended the title of Ch. 70 to
read as herein set out. See also the Code Comparative Table.
70.10. Permit required. (a) No person shall anywhere in the city keep, harbor, or maintain
care, custody, or control over any small animal or any fowl such as a chicken, turkey, duck, or
pigeon, without obtaining a permit issued by Minneapolis Animal Care and Control.
(b) The Manager of Minneapolis Animal Care and Control may grant permit pursuant to this
section after the applicant has sought the written consent of at least eighty (80) percent of the
occupants of the several descriptions of real estate situated within one hundred (100) feet of the
applicant's real estate. Such written consent shall be required on the initial application and as
often thereafter as the Manager of Minneapolis Animal Care and Control deems necessary.
(c) No permit shall be granted to keep any animal, fowl, or pigeon within a dwelling unit or part
thereof, nor on any real estate which contains three (3) or more dwelling units.
(d) This section shall not apply to dogs, cats, ferrets, or rabbits nor to veterinarians or licensed
pet shops or licensed kennels. (e) Application for permit. Any person desiring a permit under
this chapter shall make written application to Minneapolis Animal Care and Control Approval of
application is subject to conditions prescribed by Minneapolis Animal Care and Control. Failure
to adhere to conditions is cause for cancellation of the permit and/or result in an administrative
fine.
(f) Duration of permit. All permits issued shall expire on January 31 of the following year after
its issuance unless sooner revoked. The annual fee for such permit shall be thirty dollars
($30.00) which shall be paid at time of application, Minneapolis Animal Care and Control will
inspect the premise annually or as deemed necessary.
(g) Refusal to grant permit. Minneapolis Animal Care and Control may refuse a permit to keep
or maintain animals or fowl hereunder for failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter,
and shall refuse a permit if such animals or fowl should not be kept upon the premises
described in the application for the permit. If any such permit is refused, the fee paid with the
application shall be retained by Minneapolis Animal Care and Control. (h) Enforcement.
Minneapolis Animal Care and Control shall enforce the provisions of this chapter. (Code 1960,
As Amend., ~ 814.010; Ord. of 6-13-75, ~ 2; Ord. of 3-12-76, ~ 1; 85-0r-040, ~ 1, 2-22-85;
2005-0r-085, ~ 2,9-23-05; 2006-0r-143, ~ 1, 12-22-06)
70-20--70.70. Reserved.
Editor's note: 2006-0r-143, ~~ 2--7, adopted December 22,2006, repealed ~~ 70.20 through 70.70,
which pertained to: application for permit; duration of permit; fee; conditions for keeping animals or fowl;
revocation of permit; refusal to grant permit; dispersal of permit fees; and enforcement. See also the
Code Comparative Table.
http://library1.municode.com/default -test/Doc View/11490/1/66/72?hilite=chickens;chicken; 1/12/2010
Chapter 198. Keeping of Animals*
Page 1 of 5
~c.-ht'\'\t'r')+ 3
st.1'~v \
Chapter 198. Keeping of Animals*
*Editor's note: This chapter is derived from Code 1956, SS 327.01--327.06; and from Ord. No.
17121, adopted March 22,1984; and Ord. No. 17214, adopted Feb. 19, 1985.
Sec. 198.01. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the terms defined in this section shall have the meanings ascribed to
them:
Environmenta/ health officer. "Environmental health officer" means the environmental health
officer or inspector of the City of Saint Paul.
Regulated animal. "Regulated animal" means:
(1) All members of theFelidae family including but not limited to, lions, tigers, cougars,
leopards, cheetahs, ocelots, and servais, but not including domestic cats or cats
recognized as a domestic breed, registered as a domestic breed, and shown as a
domestic breed by a national or international multi breed cat registry association;
(2) Bears;
(3) All nonhuman primates, including, but not limited to lemurs, monkeys, chimpanzees,
gorillas, orangutans, marmosets, lorises, and tamarins; and
(4) Any hybrid or cross between an animal listed herein and a domestic animal, and
any offspring from all subsequent generations of those crosses or hybrids.
Wild or exotic animal. "Wild animal" or "exotic animal" means any mammal, amphibian, reptile
or bird which is of a species not usually domesticated, and of a species which, due to size, wild nature
or other characteristic, is dangerous to humans. The term includes animals and birds, the keeping of
which is licensed by the state or federal government, such as wolves, raptors and pheasants. By way of
example and not of limitation, the term includes: snakes, eagles, weasels, badgers, deer and bison.
The term also includes crossbreeds such as the cross between dogs and coyotes and dogs and
wolves. Any wild or exotic animal which also fits the definition of a "regulated animal" shall be treated
as a regulated animal for the purpose of this chapter.
(C.F. No. 97-285, S 1,4-9-97; C.F. No. 05-630, S 1, 8-10-05)
'/ Sec. 198.02. Permits required; exceptions.
(a) Hoofed animals. No person shall stable, keep or permit any hoofed animal to remain on
any lot or premises within the city without a permit.
@ Small animals and birds of the orders Anseriformes and Galliformes. No person shall keep
or permit more than one (1) live rabbit, or any mink, ferret, chicken, turkey, duck, goose or
pigeon or similar small animal or bird, in any dwelling or on the same lot or premises with a
dwelling or other premises within the city without a permit. This paragraph does not apply to any
single dove or any other small bird, or any chinchilla, hamster, gerbil, white rat, mouse or guinea
pig maintained as a pet.
http://library1.municode.com/44 72/Doc View/1 0061/1/218/222
1/13/2010
Chapter 198. Keeping of Animals'
Page 2 of 5
(c) Public health and safety. To protect any person or neighboring use, or to protect the public
health and safety, the environmental health officer may require permits for any animals being
kept or maintained in a manner or number that may result in unsanitary conditions,
unreasonable noise or odors, or annoyance, or the attraction of rodents or insects.
(d) Bees. No person shall keep or allow to be kept any hive or other facility for the housing of
bees within the city without a permit.
(e) Wild or exotic animals. No person shall keep or allow to be kept any wild or exotic animal
within the city without a permit, whether or not the keeping of such animal is licensed by the
state or federal government.
(f) Maximum number of cats. No person shall keep, harbor or maintain more than three (3)
cats of over the age of three (3) months within any individual dwelling unit within the city without
a permit.
(g) Exceptions. This section does not apply to animals which are temporarily brought into the
city for the purpose of participating in any circus or show; nor does it apply to any public zoo, or
persons temporarily keeping animals for a public zoo as volunteers, docents or otherwise; nor to
any bona fide research institution, or veterinary hospital, provided protective devices adequate
to prevent such animal from escaping or injuring the public are provided.
(C.F. No. 93-231, S 1, 3-18-93; C.F. No. 97-285, S 2, 4-9-97)
Sec. 198.03. Keeping of certain animals absolutely prohibited; exceptions.
(a) Prohibited animals. No person shall keep, maintain, sell or harbor within the City of Saint
Paul any of the following animals:
(1) Any animal or species prohibited by federal or Minnesota law.
(2) Any exotic animal or species when kept in such numbers or in such a way as to
constitute a likelihood of harm to the animals themselves, to human beings or to the
property of human beings, or which constitutes a public or private nuisance.
(3) Any skunk, whether captured in the wild, domestically raised, descented or not
descented, vaccinated against rabies or not vaccinated against rabies.
(4) Any regulated animal obtained after January 1, 2005.
(5) Any member of the family Canidae, such as wolves, dingoes, coyotes and jackals,
except domesticated dogs.
(6) Any crossbreed such as the crossbreed between dogs and coyotes and dogs and
wolves.
(7) Any raccoon.
(8) Any req-eared turtle (Pseudemys scriptae-/egans ) with a shell length of less than
four (4) inches.
(9) Any sugar glider (Fetauras breviceps ).
Any person keeping any prohibited animal identified above may have it seized immediately by
animal control.
(b) Exceptions.
(1) This section does not apply to animals which are temporarily brought into the city for
the purpose of participating in any circus or show; nor does it apply to any public zoo, or
persons keeping animals for a public zoo as volunteers, docents or otherwise; nor to any
http://libraryl.municode.com/44 72/Doc View/l 006111/218/222
1!l312010
Chapter 198. Keeping of Anirnals*
Page 3 of5
bona fide research institution, or veterinary hospital, provided protective devices
adequate to prevent such animal from escaping or injuring the public are provided.
(2) In the case of regulated animals, those exemptions listed in Minn. Stat. S 346.155,
subd. 7 shall apply.
(e.F. No. 93-231, S 1,3-18-93; C.F. No. 97-285, S 3, 4-9-97; C.F. No. 05-630, S 1,8-10-05; C.F. No.
07-1147, S 1,12-26-07)
7sec.198.04. Permit; application, procedures, term and fee.
(a) Application. Any person desiring a permit required under the provisions of section 198.02
shall make written application therefor to the environmental health officer upon a form
prescribed by and containing such information as required by the environmental health officer.
Among other things, the application shall contain the following information:
(1) A description of the real property upon which it is desired to keep the animal or
animals.
(2) The species and number of animals to be maintained on the premises.
(3) A statement that the applicant/permittee will at all times keep the animals in
accordance with all the conditions prescribed by the environmental health officer, or
modification thereof, and that failure to obey such conditions will constitute a violation of
the provisions of this chapter and grounds for cancellation of the permit.
(4) Such other and further information as may be required by the environmental health
officer.
(b) Consent. The applicant for any permit required under the provisions of section 198.02 shall
provide with the application the written consent of seventy-five (75) percent of the owners or
occupants of privately or publicly owned real estate within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the
outer boundaries of the premises for which the permit is being requested or, in the alternative,
proof that applicant's property lines are one hundred fifty (150) feet or more from any structure.
However, where a street separates the premises for which the permit is being requested from
other neighboring property, no consent is required from the owners or occupants of property
located on the opposite side of the street. Where a property within one hundred fifty (150) feet
consists of a multiple dwelling, the applicant need obtain only the written consent of the owner
or manager, or other person in charge of the building.
(c) Fees; term of permit. For all permits issued hereunder, the fee shall be established by
ordinance as provided in section 310.09(b) of the Legislative Code. The term of the permit shall
be one (1) year from date of issuance, and the permit may be renewed from year to year with
payment of an additional fee, established by ordinance as provided in section 310.09(b) of the
Legislative Code, upon application to the environmental health officer; provided, however, that
upon any adverse action or violation of the conditions of the permit or substantial amendment to
the permit application as originally described, a new application, fee and investigation may be
required before the granting of a permit or renewal thereof.
(d) Investigation by environmental health officer; may grant permit. The environmental health
officer shall make such investigation as is necessary and may grant, deny or refuse to renew
any application for permit under this chapter.
(e) Permit; conditions. If granted, the permit shall be issued by the environmental health officer
and shall state the conditions, if any, imposed upon the permittee for the keeping of animals
under the permit. The permit shall specify the restrictions, limitations, conditions and prohibitions
which the environmental health officer deems reasonably necessary to protect any person or
neighboring use from unsanitary conditions, unreasonable noise or odors, or annoyance, or to
http://library1.municode_com/4472/DocView/10061/1/218/222
1/13/2010
Chapter 198. Keeping of Animals*
Page 4 of5
protect the public health and safety. Such permit may be modified from time to time or revoked
by the environmental health officer for failure to conform to such restrictions, limitations or
prohibitions. Such modification or revocation shall be effective from and after ten (10) days
following the mailing of written notice thereof by certified mail to the person or persons keeping
or maintaining such animals.
(f) Refusa/ to grant or renew a permit. The environmental health officer may refuse a permit to
keep or maintain animals hereunder for failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter, if
the facilities for the keeping of the animals are or become inadequate for their purpose, if the
conditions of the permit are not met, if a nuisance condition is created, or if the public health and
safety would be unreasonably endangered by the granting of such permit.
(g) Numbers of animals; species. The permit shall state the maximum number and species of
animals which may be maintained on the premises. The permittee shall not exceed the
maximum number of animals allowed on the permit or substitute the animals with different
species. A permittee that wishes to increase the number of animals allowed or to substitute or
add a different species to those listed on the permit, shall be required to apply for a new permit
and pay the appropriate fee.
(C.F. No. 95-520, S 1,6-7-95; C.F. No. 97-285, S 4, 4-9-97)
Sec. 198.05. Rules and regulations; conditions of permits.
(a) Rules and regulations. The environmental health officer shall promulgate rules and
regulations prescribing the general conditions, limitations and prohibitions applicable to the
keeping of animals or classes of animals under permits granted pursuant to the provisions of
this chapter. Such rules and regulations, and any amendments thereto, are effective twenty (20)
days after filing with the city clerk.
(b) Special conditions. The environmental health officer may prescribe specific conditions,
limitations and prohibitions pertaining to the keeping of particular animals under any permit
granted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter as the environmental health officer deems
reasonably necessary to protect any person or neighboring use from unsanitary conditions,
unreasonable noise or odors, or annoyance, or for the control of rodents and insects, or to
protect the public health and safety.
(C.F. No. 97-285, S 5, 4-9-97)
Sec. 198.055. Regulated animal registration.
(a) Within 60 days after January 1, 2005, a person who possesses a regulated animal must
notify in writing the animal control officer using a registration form prepared by the Minnesota
Animal Control Association and approved by the board of animal health. The notification shall
include the person's name, address, telephone number, and a complete inventory of each
regulated animal that the person possesses. The inventory shall include the following
information: number and species of each regulated animal; the microchip number and
manufacturer for each regulated animal if available; the exact location where each regulated
animal is kept; and age, sex, color, weight, scars, and any distinguishing marks of each
regulated animal. A certificate of registration shall be issued to the possessor upon payment of
the registration fee, and if necessary, the site inspection fee. Fees for registration and site
inspections shall be in the amounts as set forth in S 310.18.
(b) A person who possesses a regulated animal must notify animal control in writing within ten
(10) days of a change in address or location where the regulated animal is kept.
(c) A person with a United States Department of Agriculture license for regulated animals shall
http://library1.municode.com/44 72/Doc View/10061/1/218/222
1/13/2010
Chapter 198. Keeping of Animals*
Page 5 of5
forward a copy of the USDA inspection report to animal control within thirty (30) days of receipt
of the inspection report.
(d) If a person who possesses a regulated animal has a microchip implanted in the animal for
identification, the name of the microchip manufacturer and the identification number of the
microchip must be provided to the local animal control authority. If a regulated animal is sedated
for any reason and the animal does not have a microchip implanted, a microchip must be
implanted in the regulated animal. Within thirty (30) days after the microchip is implanted, the
name of the microchip manufacturer and the identification number of the microchip must be
provided to the local animal control authority. A person selling or transferring ownership of
offspring under six (6) months of age as provided in Minn. Stat. S 346.155, subd. 2, para. (e), is
encouraged to have a microchip implanted in the animal prior to the sale or transfer. Within 30
days of acquisition, a person acquiring ownership of an offspring with a microchip implanted
shall comply with microchip information reporting requirements under this section.
(C.F. No. 05-630, S 1, 8-10-05)
Sec. 198.06. Nuisance.
No person shall keep any animal, bird or other living thing in such a manner as to constitute a
nuisance.
Sec. 198.07. Enforcement.
The environmental health officer shall enforce the provisions of this chapter.
(C.F. No. 97-285, S 6, 4-9-97)
Sec. 198.08. Violation; penalty.
Any person who violates any provision of sections 198.02,198.03,198.055 or 198.06 is guilty of
a misdemeanor.
(C.F. No. 05-630, S 1, 8-10-05)
http://library1.municode_com/4472/DocView/10061/1/218/222
1/13/2010
Ol\Kdct'e..
A*C\c.hM~Y\t '-t
. Wild or exotic animal: means any mammal, amphibian, reptile or bird that is of a species not
usually domesticated, and of a species that, due to size, wild nature or other characteristic, is
dangerous to humans. The term includes animals and birds the keeping of which is licensed by the
state or federal government, such as wolves, raptors and pheasants. By way of example and not of
limitation, the term includes: eagles, ocelots, jaguars, cougars, weasels, ferrets, badgers, monkeys,
chimpanzees, deer and bison. The term also includes: crossbreeds such as the cross between dogs
and coyotes and dogs and wolves; poisonous snakes such as rattlesnakes, coral snakes, water
moccasin, puff adder or cobra; and any other snake or reptile which by its size, vicious nature or
other characteristic is dangerous to human beings.
/Sec.4-18. Permits Required; Exceptious.
. Hoofed animals: No person shall stable, keep or permit any hoofed animal to remain on any lot or
premises within the city without a permit.
o Small animals and birds of the orders Anseriforms and Galliformes: No person shall keep or
permit more than one live rabbit, or any chinchilla, mink, chicken, turkey, duck, goose, pigeon, or
similar small animal or bird, in any dwelling or on the same lot or premises as a dwelling or other
such premise within the city without a permit. This paragraph does not apply to any hamster,
gerbil, white rat, mouse or guinea pig maintained as a pet.
. Bees: No person shall keep or allow to be kept any man-made or manufactured hive or other
facility for the housing of bees within the city without a permit.
. Wild or exotic animals: No person shall keep or allow to be kept any wild or exotic animal within
the city without a permit, whether or not the keeping of such animal is licensed by the state or
federal government.
. Maximum number of cats and dogs: No person shall keep, harbor or maintain more than three cats
or dogs of more than three months of age within any individual dwelling units within the city
without a permit.
. Exceptions: This section does not apply to animals which are temporarily brought into the city for
the purpose of participating in any circus or show; nor does it apply to any public zoo, or persons
keeping animals for a public zoo as volunteers, docents or otherwise; nor to any bonafide research
institution, or veterinary hospital, provided protective devices adequate to prevent such animal
from escaping or injuring the public are provided.
Sec. 4-19. Keepiug of Certain Animals Absolutely Prohibited; Exceptions.
I. No person shall keep, maintain or harbor within the city any ofthe following animals:
(a) Any animal or species prohibited by federal or Minnesota law.
(b) Any exotic animal or species when kept in such numbers or in such a way as to promote
the likelihood of harm to the animals themselves, to human beings or to the property of
human beings, or which constitutes a public nuisance.
(c) Any skunk, whether captured in the wild, domestically raised, descented or not
descented, vaccinated against rabies or not vaccinated against rabies.
(d) Any large cat or members of the family Felidae, such as lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards,
cougars, lynx, bobcats, and ocelots, except commonly domesticated cats.
(e) Any member of the family Canidae, such as wolves, dingoes, coyotes and jackals,
except domesticated dogs.
(f) Any crossbreed such as the crossbreed between dogs and coyotes and dogs and wolves.
Chapter 4 - Page 4
(g) Any raccoon.
(h) Any red-eared turtle (Pseudemys scriptaelegans) with a shell length of less than four
inches.
2. Exceptions: This section does not apply to animals which are temporarily brought into the city
for the purpose of participating in any circus or show; nor does it apply to any public zoo, or
persons keeping animals for a public zoo as volunteers, docents or otherwise; nor to any
bonafide research institution, or veterinary hospital, provided protective devices adequate to
prevent such animal from escaping or injuring the public are provided. Any person keeping an
animal for a purpose other than a bonafide research institution or veterinary hospital shall
obtain a permit from the Police Department and shall provide proof of sufficient
liability/casualty insurance. The required limits of this coverage shall be established by the
Finance Department following consultation with the city's insurance provider.
7Sec.4-20. Permit; Application, Procedures, Term aud Fee.
I. Application: Any person desiring a permit required under the provisions of this Chapter shall
make written application to the Police Department upon a form designated for this purpose.
The application form will include information such as, but not limited to, the description of the
property where the animal is to be kept; the species and number of animals to be kept; and any
special conditions which must be complied with by the keeper of the animal.
2. Consent: Upon submitting the designated application form, the applicant shall also provide the
written consent of seventy-five (75) percent ofthe owners or occupants of privately or publicly
owned real estate within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the outer boundaries of the premises for
which the permit is being requested or, in the alternative, proof that the applicant's property
lines are one hundred fifty (150) feet or more from any structure. However, where a street
separates the premises for which the permit is being requested from other neighboring property,
no consent is required from the owners or occupants located on the opposite side of the street.
Where a property within one hundred fifty (150) feet consists of a multiple dwelling, the
applicant need obtain only the written consent of the owner or manager, or other person in
charge of the building. .
3. Fees; term of permit. The City Council shall determine a fee for the permit required in this
Chapter. The term of the permit shall be one year from the date of issuance and shall require
annual consideration for renewal. A permit and fee shall be required for each individual
animal.
4. Investigation of application. The Police Department shall make such investigation as necessary
and may grant, deny or refuse to renew any application for permit under this Chapter.
5. Permit; conditions. If granted, the permit issued by the Police Department shall state the
conditions, if any, imposed upon the permitee for the keeping of animals under the permit. The
permit shall specify the restrictions, limitations, conditions, and prohibitions that the Police
Department deems reasonably necessary to' protect any person or neighboring use from
unsanitary conditions, unreasonable noise or odors, or annoyance, or to protect the public
health and safety. Such permit may be modified from time to time or revoked by the Police
Department for failure to conform to such restrictions, limitations or prohibitions. Such
modification or revocation shall be effective from and after three (3) days following the mailing
of written notice thereof by certified mail to the person or persons keeping or maintaining such
animals.
6. Refusal to grant or renew a permit. The Police Department may refuse a permit to keep or
maintain animals hereunder for failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter, if the
Chapter 4 - Page 5
facilities for the keeping of the animals are or become inadequate for their purpose, if the
conditions of the permit are not met, if a nuisance condition is created, or if the public health
and safety would be unreasonably endangered by the granting of such permit.
7. Numbers of animals; species; notice to Police Department. The permit shall state the number
of animals and type of animals that may be maintained on the premises. The permittee shall
immediately inform the Police Department in writing when the number of animals maintained
on the premises exceeds the number allowed by the permit.
Sec. 4-21. Violation; Penalty. Any person who violates the provisions of this Article is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
ARTICLE m. DANGEROUS DOGS
Sec. 4-22. Regulation of Dangerous Dogs. The city shall, by reference, adopt the provisions of
- Minnesota Statute 347.50-347.55 with respect to the regulation of dangerous dogs. Where statute
makes reference to "county" regulating authority it is the intention of the city to adopt a reference to
"city" regulating authority.
ARTICLE IV. DISEASED ANIMALS
Sec. 4-23. Regulation of Diseased Animals.
I. No person shall possess, harbor or allow to run at large any diseased animal that is not under
the treatment of a veterinarian.
2. The term "diseased animal" includes conditions such as rabies, distemper, panleucopenia, feline
leukemia and other conditions or diseases that are dangerous or communicable to humans or
animals.
Chapter 4 - Page 6
A*tkhtne'",t S
City of Shoreview, Minnesota
Chicken Licenses
Chickens may be kept within the City limits on residential properties located in the RE,
Residential Estate Zoning District and the RI, Detached Residential District, subject to the
following conditions:
. On residential properties less than 2 acres in size can have a maximum of (4) hen
chickens or pullets. Roosters are prohibited.
. On residential properties more than 2 acres, must have a conditional use permit for more
than (4) hen chickens or pullets. Roosters are prohibited.
. The butchering of chickens is prohibited
. The butchering of chickens is prohibited
. Chickens shall be fully contained on the property at all times through the use of fencing.
. Shelters must comply with all requirements of the Development Code.
. Food materials are stored outside shall be in closed containers with lids
. All containment areas and shelters shall be maintained in a clean, sanitary, and odor free
environment and shall be free from the presence of rodents or vermin at all times.
. Chickens shall not be raised or kept for fighting. Cockfighting is prohibited.
License: No person shall keep, maintain or breed chickens on property located in Shoreview
unless a license is obtained pursuant the provisions of the City Code, Chapter 600. License fees
are $19.
~-,--
"
Shorevtew
Benjamin Withhart Sworn in as City Councilmember
Benjamin Withhart was sworn into office as the winner of the special
election on November 4, 2008, to fill a two-year Council term. Withhart
will compete the term of former Councilmember Larry Morrisette, who
passed away earlier this year. Withhart had been appointed by the Council
in June to serve as the interim Councilmember until the special election.
City Council Adopted Ordinance to Permit the Keeping of Chickens in
Residential Areas
The City Council approved ordinance revisions that will allow a maximum
offour chicken hens or pullets on single-family residential property.
Residents interested in keeping chickens must receive a bi-annuallicense
from the City and comply with the following requirements:
o Shelters for housing chickens are permitted, but must comply with
existing setback regulations for accessory structures. They cannot be
in the front, side or side yard abutting a street and must be setback a
minimum oDD-feet from an adjacent principal dwelling.
o Chickens must be contained on the property at all times through the
use of fencing.
o This ordinance does -prohibit slaughtering or cockfighting.
o No roosters are permitted.
o Chicken coops must be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition.
Council Approves Agreement with Brauer & Associates Ltd
The City Council authorized the hiring of Brauer & Associates to prepare
plans and specifications for improvements to Sitzer Park. The
improvements are consistent with a new Park Master Plan that will include
a revised parking area, new playground areas, a park shelter, landscape
improvements and trail expansions. The City is expected to take bids for the
project late in Spring and construction will likely begin in mid to late July.
Upcoming Events
City Budget Hearing set for December 1
Shoreview will hold its official Budget Hearing on Monday, December I at
7 p.m. at City Hall. The City's gross tax levy is proposed to increase 3.9%.
Agenda Item 5.b.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
Michael Thompson, City Engineer
Stormwater Ordinance
January 13, 2010 for the January 19 ENR Commission Meeting
TO:
FROM:
INTRODUCTION
Last year the Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission reviewed and
recommended approval of the surface water management plan as part of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan. In December 2009, the Metropolitan Council approved the city's
Comprehensive Plan. The City Council is scheduled to formally adopt the Comprehensive Plan
on January 25, 2010.
State statute requires that the city adopt new policies and ordinances pertaining to the
Comprehensive Plan nine months after adoption of the plan. Implementation requirements of
the surface water management plan call for an update to the city's stormwater management
policies to ensure all requirements of the plan are being met. The ENR Commission, in your
2009 goal setting meeting, also specified stormwater management as one of the commission's
top priorities. Over the next few months staff will be working with the ENR Commission to
update the city's stormwater management policies as required by state statute and to meet
stormwater management goals set by the ENR Commission in 2009.
DISCUSSION
Existing Stormwater Management Policies
Stormwater management is touched on briefly in the city's environmental protection ordinance
(Attachment 1) and more in depth in the city's engineering standards (Attachment 2). The
stormwater ordinance is an authoritative rule which a land owner or developer must comply
with, unless a variance from the ordinance is obtained from the city council. Engineering
standards are guidelines for development including the preparation of engineering plans for
construction in the city.
To begin the stormwater management policy updates, city staff has drafted new stormwater
management standards (Attachment 3). These standards are detailed and designed to ensure
developers submit the appropriate engineering plans and comply with the city's construction
guidelines. The stormwater standards will be implemented into the overall engineering
standards, with the main points being implemented into a new stormwater ordinance.
Proposed Changes to the Stormwater Management Standards
Following are some of the major changes proposed to the city's stormwater management
standards, and the main points that staff recommends being included in a new stormwater
ordinance:
1. Applicability. The city's existing stormwater management standards apply to new
development on properties of one acre or more. The proposed standards would now
apply to projects which result in 21,780 square feet or more of disturbed area or 5,000
square feet or more of new impervious surface. This requirement will ensure water
quality treatment and rate control requirements are now being met on redevelopment
projects, as well as new smaller development projects.
2. Runoff Rate. The new standards specify that the runoff rates for the proposed activity
cannot exceed the runoff rates for the 2-year, 10-year, and 1 OO-year critical storm
events.
3. Water Quality. The city's existing standards require the removal of 80% total suspended
solids. The new standards require that developments must now incorporate effective
non-point source pollution reduction best management practices (BMPs) to achieve the
removal of 90% total suspended solids.
Summary
Michael Thompson, City Engineer, will be available during the January 19, 2010, ENR
Commission meeting to discuss the proposed stormwater management standards with the
commission. Once feedback on the standards has been received by the ENR Commission,
staff will draft a new stormwater management ordinance which pulls together the main points
from the standards. Staff will bring the new stormwater ordinance to the ENR Commission for
review prior to approval by the city council.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the revised stormwater management standards (Attachment 3) and offer feedback on
the changes and main points that should be included in a stormwater ordinance. This
information will be used to draft a new stormwater management ordinance which complies with
the city's surface water management plan.
Attachments:
1. Maplewood Stormwater Management Ordinance (March 2001)
2. Maplewood Stormwater Management Engineering Standards (October 2004)
3. Proposed Stormwater Management Engineering Standards
2
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 175 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:10 2003
Ifirst/pubdocs/mcc/3/11217 jull
\ !hqpieV\JOld S-forrrlVuq1tV'-
O(\Q\(\Cjnce
BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATION? I b!
.
~ 12-308
,
Sees. 12-280-12-306. Reserved.
DIVISION 3. APPROVAL STANDARDS
Sec. 12-307. Scope.
(a) Under this article all plans and the conduct of all grading, landscaping, structure
placement, and street routing shall be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, and for
development in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, the Maplewood Critical Area
Plan.
(b) The proposed development shall not lessen existing public access to and along a
protected water.
(c) The proposed development shall be designed, constrncted and maintained to avoid
causing:
*
(1) Erosion.
(2) Pollution, contamination or siltation of water bodies or storm sewers.
(3) Flooding.
(4) Groundwater contamination.
(5) Alteration of significant natural features.
(d) Development shall not substantially diminish the scientific, historical, educational,
recreational or aesthetic value of unique natural areas, plants and animals, which are
registered with the state as such, and shall not substantially alter their reproductive cycles.
(e) Views of protected waters from bnildings or public streets shall not be impaired by the
placement of advertising signs.
(f) Where feasible, all new stormwater detention ponds shall be designed and constructed
to meet the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) design criteria of removing at least 60
percent of the phosphorous. The engineer or designer may use the Walker pondnet model or
the Pitt pond model when designing stormwater ponds, as noted by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas manual. The applicant or
applicant's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the necessary calculations to veritY
the pond design.
(Code 1982, ~ 9-193; Ord. No. 811, ~ 1, 3-26-2001)
Sec. 12-308. Slopes.
(a) No development shall be permitted on existing slopes of 18 percent or greater which are
in direct drainage to a protected water.
(b) In areas not in direct drainage to a protected water, no development shall be allowed on
existing slopes greater than 40 percent.
CD12:33
A1tClch YYlellt
*
5.4
(Y14fleV-.Jaud ~if)ee(l')
::)1zt{)cbris
0tb."<7\ W1te (' ftr4s
~
Perforated PE drain tile with geotextile sock and fine filter aggregate (MliIDOT Specifications 2502
and 3149J) shall be placed laterally across streets at low points and/or CB leads as well as
longitudinally along the curb line, as required. See Maplewood Standard Plates 310 and 311 for
placement details.
SUBSURFACE DRAINS
5.5
TRUNK SYSTEM DESIGN
Stonm sewers that carry discharge from ponding areas shall be designed based on SCS TR55
hydrography methodology. The city uses HydroCAD for modeling trunk storm sewers and ponding
areas. The developer's engineer shall submit a map of the entire tributary with the limits of the
various hydrologic soils classifications delineated. The maximum time of concentration for each
subcatchment shall be 25 minutes plus the length of storm sewer to the farthest inlet divided by 3
ps (0.9 mps).
Modeling shall be done with an antecedent moisture condition of two. Generally, soils are Type B.
In this case, the CN for residential areas shall be 72 (1/3-acre [0.13 ha] lots). Park or open space
with Type B soils would be 61 (good condition grass). The design shall encompass the entire
tributary area, not just the particular subdivision.
When atrunk storm sewer conveys a pond outlet plus direct runoff, it shall be designed for the
maximum of two conditions. The first condition is the 10-year runoff for direct runoff areas, plus the
capacity of the first stage outlet of the pond as a base flow. The capacity of the first stage is the flow
rate when the pond level is just below the second stage outlet. If the pond only has a single outlet
capable of conveying the 100-year event, then the base flow would be that resulting when pond
level reaches the top of the outlet pipe.
The second condition is the 100-year event pond discharge alone. The maximum of these two
conditions would be used as the design flow rate. This is intended to avoid both the overly
conservative method of modeling pond outlet and direct runoff area with a 100-year event.
The philosophy of these procedures for stonm sewer design is not that they are theoretically correct
in all cases. The intent is rather to produce a stonm sewer system throughout the city that is
consistent and reasonable.
5.6
STORM WATER PONDS
To meet storm water runoff and water quality objectives, the use of on-site detention basins is
required. On-site detention basins apply to project sites greater than 5 acres (2 halo When wet
detention basins are required, these basins must be designed to comply with the appropriate
criteria of the basin type identified below for the development situation. If sites meet more than one
site characteristic, the more restrictive requirement applies. The Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed District staff will assist in detenmining site characteristics within said watershed.
5-4
10/2004
~hmet1t L
Site Characteristics
All construction sites with greater than 5 acres (2 ha) of
disturbance in one drainage area
Site drainage tributary to wetland on-site or immediately
off-site wetland category:
Least sensitive, highly impacted
Siightly sensitive, moderate to highly impacted,
nonsignificant resource
Moderately sensitive, moderately impacted,
nonsignficant resource
Highly sensitive, moderate to no impact,
significant resource
Site upstream of existing or proposed regional water
quality basin of adequate size to meet drainage area
needs.
Site upstream of existing or proposed water quality basin
not adequately sized to meet drainage area needs.
Site in drainage area without existing or proposed regional
water quality basin.
Site in drainage area where water quality and flood control
are required, but land area is limited.
Site upstream of adequate water quaiity basin,
but 100-year storm event detention required.
1. TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT DUAL PURPOSE BAStN
Basin Design Required
Temporary dual purpose basin (TDPB)
None
Permanent duai purpose (PDPS) or wet detention
basin (WDS)
WDS
WDS with res1ricted outlet
None
PDPS orWDS
PDPS orWDS
PDPS
Dry storm water detention basin (DSDS)
Designs shall be consistent with the most current version of the Ramsey County Soil Erosion
and Sediment Control Handbook. A dual-purpose basin does not have a penmanent standing
pool of water. In a dual purpose basin, the outlet structure is modified to pool 100% of the 1-
year, 1-hour rainfall runoff from the drainage area and allows it to slowly flow from the basin
through a granular filter and/or perforated riser outlet structure. PDPSs must provide at least a
l' (0.3 m) deep zone along the base of basin for accumulated sediments. The outlet structure
for both permanent and temporary basins must include an overflow structure to allow excess
flows from larger storm events to leave the basin. The required 1-year and 100-year stonm
event storage is provided above the l' (0.3 m) deep sediment storage zone. Penmanent basin
requirements are:
a. Long-Term Suspended Solids Removal Efficiency
Total suspended solids (TSS) removal of 80%. Total phosphorus (TP) removal of 60%.
5-5
10/2004
t
b. Peak Discharge Rate
Shall not exceed the predevelopment peak rate of runoff or the rate as defined in this
plan for all critical duration events up to and including the 100-year event.
c. Routing Procedures
Reservoir routing procedures and critical storm events shall be used for design of
detention basins and outlets.
d. Pond Shape
Maximize length/width ratio. Prevent short-circuiting and minimize potential of
resuspension of sediments.
e. Slopes
Above nonmal water level (NWL) slopes 3:1 or flatter. Pond shelf width of 10' (3.0 m), l'
(0.3 m) below NWL. Other slopes in pond 4:1 or flatter.
f. Inlet/Outlet
Inlets at or below NWL. Emergency spillway for stonms over 100-year event. One 100-
year storm event to be handled by the pond outlet without using the emergency spillway.
Energy dissipation to be provided at inlets and outlets. Outlet structure design must:
(1) Incorporate facilities that will remove floating debris from the existing water.
(2) Provide for adequate access for maintenance and repairs.
g. Other
Maintain site access for pond maintenance. Provide draw-down device to drain the
permanent pool. For smaller basins a portable pump may be used as the draw-down
device. Plant native aquatic vegetation over shelf area. Basin upland buffer should be
planted with native water-tolerant grasses, shrubs, and trees. If a temporary dualpurpose
basin is to be converted to the permanent dual- purpose basin, the pond shall be excavated to
provide the required volumes at the prescribed levels in the most current version of the Ramsey
County Soil Erosion and Sediment Controt Handbook manual, following stabilization of the site
and prior to final landscaping.
h. Maintenance
Sediment basins should be excavated to original design configuration when storage
capacity is reduced by more than 10%.
2. WET DETENTtON WATER QUALITY BASIN (WDB):
The following requirements shall apply:
a. Long-Term Phosphorus and Suspended Solids Removal Efficiency
Total phosphorus (TP) removal of 60% and total suspended solids (TSS) removal of
85%.
b. Peak Discharge Rate
Shall be controlled to restrict flows to ensure the required treatment is achieved.
5-6
10/2004
c. Routing Procedures
Reservoir routing procedures and critical storm events shall be used for design of
detention basins and outlets.
d. Pond NWL Surface Area
At least 0.5% of the total watershed. If runoff from part of the watershed is being
effectively treated by an upstream basin, that part of the watershed may be excluded
from the basin-sizing requirement.
e. Pond Depth
Average at least 4' (1.2 m). Maximum depth less than 10' (3.0 m) unless fish habitat is
part of the design.
f. Pond Volume
Dead storage at least 0.5" (13 mm) of runoff from the entire drainage area (0.4" [10 mm]
for water quality treatment and an additional 25% or 0.1" [3 mm] for sediment storage).
g. Pond Shape
Maximize length/width ratio. Prevent short-circuiting and minimize potential of
resuspension of sediments.
h. Slopes
Above NWL slopes 3:1 or flatter. Pond shelf width of 10' (3.0 m), l' (0.3 m) below NWL.
Other slopes in pond 4:1 orflatler.
I. Inlet/Outlet
Inlets at or below NWL. Emergency spillway for storms over 100-year event. Onehundred
year storm event to be handled by the pond outlet without using the emergency
spillway. Energy dissipation to be provided at inlets'and outlets. Outlet structure designs
must:
(1) Incorporate facilities that will remove floating debris from the existing water.
(2) Provide for adequate access for maintenance and repairs.
i. Other
Maintain site access for pond maintenance. Provide draw-down device to drain the
permanent pool. For smaller basins a portable pump may be used as the draw-down
device. Plant native aquatic vegetation over shelf area. Basin upland buffer should be
planted with native water tolerant grasses, shrubs, and trees. If the temporary sediment
basin is to be converted to the permanent basin, the pond shall be excavated to the
original planned contours fOllowing stabilization of the site and prior to final landscaping.
j. Maintenance
Water quality basins should be excavated to original design configuration when storage
capacity is reduced by more than 25%.
5-7
1012004
3. WET DETENTION WATER QUALITY BASIN (WDB) WITH RESTRICTED OUTLET
The standards for wet detention water quality basins apply to this basin type with the addition of
provisions to further limit the total peak-rate water volume discharged from the basin. The
peak rate of discharge shall not exceed the predevelopment peak runoff rate for the tributary
watershed or the peak rate defined in the comprehensive storm water plan for all critical events
up to and including the 100-year event. In some cases this may be accomplished by allowing
only a portion of the new storm water volume to discharge to the basin and diverting the
remainder of the flow around the wetland basin. Limitation of the drainage volume can also be
accomplished through redesign of the project site drainage areas. Care must be given to
assure continued hydrology for the natural wetland basin. Therefore, care must be given to the
location and type of flow distribution to the natural wetland after development of the site.
4. DRY STORM WATER DETENTION BASIN
Dry detention basins are designed strictly for flood (water quantity) control. Water quality is not
a consideration in the design. The peak discharge rate must not exceed the peak rate defined
in the comprehensive stonm water plan for the critical 1 OO-year event. Basin slopes shall be
3:1 or flatter.
A summary of the comprehensive stonm water plan pond volume and peak flow rate values is
available when requested. The engineering department maintains a current version of the
HydroCAD model for the city. The model is updated as development or improvements occur.
Therefore, it is important to confinm allowable flow rates before designing a ponding system.
Complete records of the design parameters must be provided so that the model can be maintained.
The design stage-storage relationship must be verified through a survey at the completion of
construction.
Ponding easement or fee title ownership of ponding areas shall be provided to the city. The limits of
easement shall include 2 vertical feet (0.6 m) of freeboard above the 100-year-high water level. The
100-year high water level shall be detenmined by SCS methodology (either TR55 or HydroCAD). A
5.9" (150 mm), 24-hour, Type II distribution rainfall event shall be used. The antecedent moisture
condition shall be 2. The entire tributary area shall be included in the calculations. The CN values
shall be based on ultimate development as given in the city's land use plan.
The entire perimeter of the fee title pond or easement, 1.0 acres (4 ha) in area or less, shall be
fenced unless it meets the criteria stated below. The fence shall be minimum 5' (1.5 m) high
vinylclad, chain-link confonming to Mn/DOT Design 60-9322 Type IV. At least one double vehicular
gate shall be provided for access near the pond inlet. A 15' (4.6 m) wide maintenance access shall
be benched into the pond side slope near the vehicular gate.
If there is sufficient area available, it is desirable to grade the entire perimeter of the pond and
eliminate fencing. No fence is required if the entire wet bench (area between normal and high water
levels) perimeter is graded to ten horizontal and one vertical (10:1).
Appropriate native vegetation, trees and shrubs shall be incorporated into the pond landscape
design.
5.7 ENERGY DISSIPATERS
Energy dissipaters are any devices designed to protect downstream areas from erosion by reducing
the velocity of flow to acceptable limits. The culvert exit velocity should be consistent with the riprap
design and maximum velocity in the natural channel or should be mitigated. The dissipater type
selected for a site must be appropriate to the location. An external dissipater is located outside of
the culvert and an internal dissipater is located within the culvert barrel.
5-8
10/2004
Draft Engineering Regulations
Stormwater Management Standards
January 12, 2010
Maplewood Stormwater Management Standards
The City of Maplewood has developed specific requirements in this section that apply to
development and redevelopment projects. These standards are intended to help achieve
the water resource goals of the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) and help
the City maintain compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) municipal permit program. These standards highlight important aspects of the
requirements for stormwater quality, discharge rate and volume control, erosion control,
and illicit discharge.
These standards do not replace or supersede City orclinances, watershed district
regulations, state and federal rules or permits required for the project. For a more
detailed listing of requirements see the specific policies of the City's SWMP and the
applicable City orclinances, or consult with City staff on your specific project.
To accomplish the goals of the SWMP, it is important to the City to have consistent
approaches to evaluating proposed development projects. Therefore, all hydrologic,
hydraulic and water quality analyses must be prepared and submitted in a format that will
allow for a timely and efficient review by City staff.
Project designers and/or developers are encouraged to schedule and complete a pre-
design meeting with the City before any data will be accepted. The purpose of the
meeting is to specifically address approvals and permits, pond requirements, trunk storm
drain analysis, wetland impacts, water quality treatment, erosion control and clischarge to
lakes and sensitive wetland resources.
I) General
a) Erosion control standards apply to all land disturbance activity unless specifically
exempted by the definition of the term "land disturbance activity" in the City's
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
b) The City's water quality treatment and rate control requirements apply to projects
which result in 21,780 square feet or more of disturbed area or 5,000 square feet
or more of new impervious surface, and
c) Projects conducting mill and overlay or surface pavement replacement on existing
impervious areas are exempt from the City's water quality treatment and rate
control requirements. However, requirements must be met if the project impacts
the base and or sub-base materials for 21,780 square feet or more of clisturbed
area.
1
Attachment 3
d) Projects in the Floodplain Overlay District or Shoreland Overlay District may
have additional requirements which are defined in the City's Floodplain and
Shoreland Ordinances.
e) Any work within a wetland, surface water, or Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) designated floodplain may require permits to be obtained from,
but not limited to the City, watershed district, Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) and Corps of Engineers. All applicable permits for the specific project
must be obtained prior to commencing construction, grading, clearing, or filling
activities.
f) The owner shall submit the information listed in Section 8 of these Standards to
the City for review.
2) Water Oualitv Treatment.
a) Infiltration/Volume Control Requirement:
1) For all new impervious portions ofa project, a runoff volume of 1.0 inch must
be treated through infiltration practices.
2) For all redevelopment impervious portions of a project, a runoff volume of 1.0
inch must be treated through infiltration practices.
3) For projects that have a combination of new and redevelopment, the treatment
practices can be combined for the overall site, provided the overall combined
treatment level meets or exceeds the levels above.
4) Filtration practices that are designed for partial recharge (i.e., bioretention
basin with under drains) shall receive 70% credit for infiltration/volume
control.
b) Pollutant Removal Requirements. For' projects that have met the
infiltration/volume control requirements above, the pollutant removal
requirements are considered to be met. For projects where infiltration is
prohibited (see Item 5.a.), the following pollutant removal standards apply prior to
reaching a downstream receiving water:
1) For new development portions of a site, provide treatment to remove 90%
total suspended solids (TSS) and 60% total phosphorus (TP) as modeled on an
annual basis.
2) For redevelopment portions of a site, provide treatment to remove 70% TSS
and 30% TP as modeled on an annual basis.
3) For projects that have a combination of new and redevelopment, the treatment
practices can be combined for the overall site, provided the overall combined
treatment level meet or exceed the levels above.
2
Attachment 3
3) Rate Control.
a) Discharge rates leaving the site must not exceed the current rates for the 2, 10 and
100-year, critical duration (24-hour) storm events, using a Type II storm
distribution and antecedent moisture conditions 2 (AMC-2).
b) On-site rate controls may not be needed if downstream (regional) facilities can be
shown to adequately detain/retain the runoff to existing conditions. In this case,
the developer or design engineer shall submit a technical evaluation completed by
a qualified engineer or hydrologist which must be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer.
c) Where a flow rate variance involves inter-community issues or significant water
bodies, the regulatory jurisdiction shall have a review role. Any variances shall
be reflected in subsequent plan submittals.
4) Design Computations.
a) All hydrologic data shall be completed using NRCS methodology; i.e. HydroCAD
or TR20/TR55, XP-SWMM or a comparable, City approved method. Hydraulic
calculations will be accepted in the rational method format or in commonly used
software packages such as FHW A HY-8, Eagle Point or XP-SWMM or a
compatible, City approved method. These computations shall be submitted to the
City upon request.
b) Rainfall amounts for hydrologic analysis shall be based on Hershfield, D.M.,
1961, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States for Duration of30 Minutes to
24 Hours and Return Periods from 1 to 100 Years. Technical Publication No. 40
(TP-40). Maplewood analyses shall use the values in the following table.
Rainfall Freanencv Rainfall (Inches)
2-Year 24-Hour . 2.9
10- Year 24-Hour 4.3
100-Year 24-Hour 6.0
c) For projects that do not meet the infiltration/volume control requirement, design
engineers and developers shall determine the pollutant removal efficiency of the
best management practices (BMPs) incorporated into the site plan using the
available industry standard models including P8 (and using a standard Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program [NURP] particle size distribution for the analysis) or a
comparable model approved by the City. As an alternative to preparing a site-
specific model, the development may provide a treatment volume (dead storage)
of not less than 2.5 inches multiplied by the runoff coefficient calculated over the
contributing drainage area to the pond. For example, a I-acre impervious site
with a runoff coefficient of 0.90 that drains to a common treatment pond would be
required to provide a dead storage volume of 0.19 acre-feet or 8,200 cubic feet.
The Natural Resources Conservation Method may also be used upon City
approval.
3
Attachment 3
d) The volume reduction (in cubic feet) provided by surface infiltration practices
shall be computed with the following equation: BMP Area (ft2) x Infiltration Rate
(in/hr) x 4.
e) Local storm sewer systems shall be designed for the lO-year storm event. The
Rational Method shall be the preferred methodology for the design of local
systems. Culvert crossings or storm systems in County or State right-of-way may
have a design frequency which differs from the City's 10-year design storm. The
designer shall contact each agency/unit of government to determine the
appropriate design frequency for hydrologically-connected systems.
f) For culvert outlet velocities less than or equal to 4 frames per second (:Ips), check
shear stress to determine if vegetation or riprap will be adequate. If vegetation is
used, temporary erosion control during and immediately follow construction shall
be used until vegetation becomes established_ For velocities greater than 4 :Ips,
energy dissipaters shall be designed in accordance with Mn/DOT Design Criteria.
g) Available storage volume of landlocked areas shall be established by first
estimating the normal or initial water surface elevation at the begiuning of a
rainfall event using a documented water budget, evidence of mottled soil, and/or
an established ordinary high water level. The available storage analysis will be
based on runoff volume resulting from a 100-year/10-day runoff (7.2 inches) and
saturated or frozen soil conditions (CN=lOO) and/or the runoff resulting from a
lOO-year back to back event (6.0 inches followed by 6.0 inches)_
5) Volume Control/Infiltration Practices Design Criteria.
a) Infiltration systems are prohibited:
1) Where the bottom of the infiltration basin is less than 3 feet to bedrock or the
seasonally high water table;
2) Low permeability soils (i.e., Hydrologic Soil Group D soils) or where a
confining layer exists below the proposed basin;
3) Within 50 feet of a public or private water supply well (Minn. Rules, Chapter
4725);
4) Potential stormwater hotspots or contaminated soils;
5) Within 10 feet of a property line or building foundation; and
6) Within 35 feet of a septic system tank or drain field.
b) Infiltration practices must be designed to draw down to the bottom elevation of
the practice within 48 hours. The ponding depth shall be based on the soil
infiltration rate determined from site-specific soils investigation data taken from
the location of proposed infiltration practices on the site. The maximum ponding
depth, regardless of infiltration rate shall be 2 feet unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer. The soils investigation requirement may be waived for
residential property practices where the maximum ponding depth is one (1) foot
4
Attachment 3
or less. The following infiltration rates shall be used for the most restrictive
underlying soil unless otherwise supported with and in-situ infiltration test:
Soil ASTM Unified
Group Rate Soil Textures Soil Class
Symbols
A 1.63 in/hr Gravel, sand, sandy gravel, silty GW,GP
0.80 in/hr gravel, loamy sand, sandy loam GM, SW, SP
B 0.60 in/hr Loam, silt loam SM
0.30 in/hr ML,OL
C 0.20 in/hr Sandy clay loam GC,SC
D 0.00 in/hr Clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy CL, CH, OH,
clay, silty clay, or clay MH
Source: Minnesota Stormwater Manual, November 2005.
c) Infiltration practices shall have provisions for pretreatment of the runoff.
Examples of pretreatment include: a mowed grass strip between a curb-cut and a
small rain garden, a sump manhole or manufactured sediment trap prior to an
infiltration basin, and a sediment forebay as the first cell of a two-cell treatment
system. Where the infiltration system captures only clean runoff (e.g., from a
rooftop) pretreatment may not be required_
d) The design shall incorporate a diversion or other method to keep construction site
sediment from entering the infiltration system prior to final stabilization of the
entire contributing drainage area.
e) The design shall incorporate provisions that will prohibit construction equipment
from compacting the soils where infiltration practices are proposed.
f) A plan for maintenance of the system must be submitted that identifies the
maintenance activities and frequency of activities for each infiltration practice on
the site. A signed maintenance agreement will be required by the City.
6) Pond and Additional Infiltration Svstem Design Criteria. Newly constructed or
expanded/modified ponds and basins shall be designed and constructed to meet the
following:
a) All ponds or basins shall:
1) Have a 3:1 maximum slope (above the normal water level [NWL] and below
the 10:1 bench, if a wet pond);
2) Maximize the separation between inlet and outlet points to prevent short-
circuiting of storm flows;
3) Have an emergency overflow spillway identified and designed to convey
storm flows from events greater than the 100-year event; and
5
Attachment 3
4) Be made accessible for maintenance and not be entirely surrounded by steep
slopes or retaining walls which limit the type of equipment that can be used
for maintenance. Vehicle access lane(s) of at least 10 feet shall be provided, at
a slope less than 15% from the access point on the street or parking area to the
pond, to accommodate maintenance vehicles. Maintenance agreements will be
required when the pond is not located on City property.
b) All wet ponds shall:
I) Have an aquatic bench having a 10: 1 (H:V) slope for the first 10 feet from the
NWL into the basin;
2) Have inlets be placed at or below the NWL;
3) Have a skimming device designed to remove oils and floatable materials up to
a five (5) year frequency event. The skimmer shall be set a minimum of 12
inches below the normal surface water elevation and shall control the
discharge velocity to 0.5 feet per second.
4) Have an average four (4) feet of permanent pool depth (dead storage depth).
This constraint may not be feasible for small ponds (less than about three [3]
acre-feet in volume or less). In such cases, depths of three to four (3-4) feet
may be used. To prevent development of thermal stratification, loss of
oxygen, and nutrient recycling from bottom sediments, the maximum depth of
the permanent pool should be less than or equal to 10 feet.
7) Erosion and Sediment Control.
a) The City's Erosion Control Ordinance shall be followed for all projects, including
those not regulated under the NPDES construction permit.
b) Prior to the start of any excavation or land disturbing activity for the site, the
owner or contractor must have in place and functional an approved method of
erosion and sediment control. The contractor must have received authorization
from the City prior to commencing construction activities.
c) Development projects shall meet the requirements of the NPDES construction
permit program, including the requirement to prepare and follow a storm water
pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The owner shall submit proof of receipt and
approval by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and/or watershed district of the
permit application prior to commencing construction if required. A copy of the
SWPPP prepared in accordance with the NPDES permit requirements, shall be
submitted to the City if requested by the City Engineer.
8) Storm Water Plan Submittals.
a) Property lines and delineation of lands under ownership of the project proposer.
b) Delineation of the subwatersheds contributing runoff from off-site, and proposed
and existing subwatersheds on-site.
c) Location, alignment and elevation of proposed and existing stormwater facilities.
6
Attachment 3
d) Delineation of eXlstmg on-site wetlands, shoreland and/or floodplain areas.
Removal or disturbance of stream bank and shoreland vegetation should be
avoided. The plan shall address how unavoidable disturbances to this vegetation
will be mitigated.
e) Existing and proposed inlet and outlet elevations
f) The IO-year and I DO-year water elevations on-site.
g) Existing and proposed site contour elevations related to NGVD, 1929 datum.
h) Construction plans and specifications of all proposed stormwater management
facilities.
i) Stormwater runoff volume and rate analyses for existing and proposed conditions.
j) All hydrologic and hydraulic computations completed to design the proposed
stormwater quality management facilities. Computations shall include a summary
of existing and proposed impervious areas.
k) All pollutant removal computations for practices not meeting the volume
control/infiltration requirement.
I) Provision of outlots or easements for maintenance access to detention basins,
retention basins, constructed wetlands, and/or other stormwater management
facilities.
m) Maintenance agreement between developer and City which addresses sweeping,
pond inspection, sediment removal and disposal, etc.
n) Inlets to detention basins, wetlands, etc., shown at or below the outlet elevation.
0) Identification of receiving water bodies (lakes, streams, wetlands, etc).
p) Documentation indicating conformance with these standards.
9) Prohibition of Illicit Discharges. No person shall throw, drain, or otherwise discharge,
cause, or allow others under its control to throw, drain, or otherwise discharge into
the municipal separate storm sewer system any pollutants or waters c.ontaining any
pollutants other than stormwater, i.e., swimming pool water which contains pollutants
not found in stormwater. The following discharges are exempt from the prohibition
provision above:
a) Water line flushing performed by a government agency, other potable water
sources, landscape irrigation or lawn watering, diverted stream flows, rising
ground water, ground water infiltration to storm drains, uncontaminated pumped
ground water, foundation or footing drains (not including active groundwater
dewatering systems), crawl space pumps, air conditioning condensation, springs,
natural riparian habitat or wetland flows, and any other water source not
containing pollutants;
7
Attachment 3
b) Discharges or flows from fire fighting, and other discharges specified in writing
by the City as being necessary to protect public health and safety;
c) The prohibition provision above shall not apply to any non-stormwater discharge
permitted under an NPDES permit or order issued to the discharger and
administered under the authority ofthe State and the Federal Environmental
Protection Agency, provided that the discharger is in full compliance with all
requirements of the permit, waiver, or order and other applicable laws and
regulations, and provided that written approval has been granted for any discharge
to the (municipal/county) separate storm sewer system.
8
Attachment 3
Agenda Item 6.a.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Ginny Gaynor, Maplewood Natural Resources Coordinator
Ginny Yingling, Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway Ad-Hoc Commission Chair
Review Recommendations for Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway
January 11, 2010 for January 19, 2010 meeting
TO:
FROM:
INTRODUCTION
In May 2009, Maplewood City Council appointed an ad-hoc commission to develop recommendations
for protection and recreation in the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway. The Fish Creek Natural Area
Greenway Commission met ten times in 2010 and developed recommendations. Ginny Yingling, Chair
of the ad-hoc commission, will present these recommendations to the Environmental and Natural
Resources Commission and solicit input.
DISCUSSION
The Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway Commission's task was to:
. Develop recommendations and priorities for protecting natural lands in the Fish Creek Natural Area
Greenway, including:
1. Acquisition of private land;
2. Conservation easement on private land;
3. Conservation subdivision options for properties that want to develop;
4. Funding options.
. Identify issues and opportunities for passive recreation in Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway and
develop recommendations for passive recreation that does not degrade natural resources in the
greenway. .
(Refer to the Vision for Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway Brochure attached (Attachment 1 )).
The Commission's report is attached (Attachment 2). It recommends that the city protect as much
natural habitat as possible in this area via acquisition, conservation subdivision, conservation
easements on private lands, stewardship, and existing ordinances. We recommend that the city
acquire approximately 80 acres of land to protect a critical corridor and enhance recreational
opportunities. Seventy acres of this are the parcels formerly owned by CoPar Development. An
additional 10 acres are parcels along Fish Creek that are in private ownership.
The commission recommends that the City work with Ramsey County to create the Fish Creek Hiking
Trail, extending from Point Douglas Road in St. Paul to Carver Lake Beach Park in Woodbury. This
would be a rustic trail in natural areas with sections of sidewalk or off-road hardsurface trail connecting
the natural areas. We envision this as a hiking/walking trail with connections to local and regional bike
trails. To make this trail a reality the city needs to acquire, through fee title or easement, a 3.4-acre
parcel of land north of Fish Creek, west of Henry Lane.
If the City were to acquire the parcels formerly owned by CoPar Development (70 acres), passive
recreation opportunities would increase significantly in this area. Not only would there be opportunities
to have an accessible trail to the Mississippi River bluffs and loop trails throughout this property, but it
would provide access points that make existing county open space more accessible to hikers.
In January 2010, Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway Ad-Hoc Commissioners will present their
recommendations to Maplewood Parks and Recreation Commission, Maplewood Environmental and
Natural Resources Commission, Ramsey County's Parks and Recreation Commission, and Friends of
Maplewood Nature. On February 1, the Commission will present the report to City Council during a
council workshop. On February 8, we will ask council for action on this issue. If council approves
recommendations, staff will begin implementing recommendations in 2010.
Commissioner Yingling will provide an overview of the report and take questions, comments, and
discussion.
RECOMMENDATION
Environmental and Natural Resources Commissioners are asked to provide input and comment on the
recommendations for Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway. No action is required.
Attachments:
1. Vision for Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway
2. Report: Recommendations and Opportunities for Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway
2
'Attachm'ent 1
Vision for Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway
" " , .i',' _',_ ", '.: ,_I' "" ,";
, ' , ,
g . " .
.
Fish c~eek meanders through wetlands andfloweri~g
meadow!!, qefore descending into shady oak wood-
, lands, gaining speed as it tumbles over rock ledges in .
o mossY5andstone gor!Je. Above the creek wooded
slopes give woy torollirig upland meadows, home to
. white-tail deer, turkey and red fox. Hawks and ea-
rjies soar oV,er the grasslands searching fQr prey and
nest in thfi? wooded bluffs. Looking out from those '.
Muffs, you con gllr;npse the Mississippi Rive~flowing
quietly 6ji.
. . This is the Fish Creek N<jtural Area' Green\l\(ay in south Mapi"ew06d. Containing some of the last l<'1rge par-
cels of privately held, undeveloped lands in I{am~ey County, this area has i~spired Maplewood residents
, for over 25 years to' seek its permanent protectio'j, as open space and parkland; a place where everYone
can enjoy the beauty of the Mississippi River bluffs, connect with the changing seasons, and explore our
natl!ral and cultural heritage..1hat goal is still within our reach. .
"",- "
- . , ,
, . , '-, .
, , - ' , I '
,While most of the creek itself flows through
'Ramsey County land' and is managed as open
'space, approximately 1/4 mile of tl)e creek and
. . . many acres of critical woods.and.fneadbws re,
.:main unprotected from development. These are.
the final pieces needed to create: a contiguous
corridbr for trilils and wildlife Mbitat: Much of
this land, previously slated forhousing, may ~:>nce
again be
available for
purchase
and protec-.
tion.
- " '
" .-
Recreation opportunities beyond walking/
. . hiking are also possible, While the slopes of
existing courity open space lands cannot sup~ .
'. " " "",: -"", ,J, _ '''' ";'
port bike paths or wider maintained trails, the
upland -meadows.south of th:e 'creek could ac-
, ,. - " ':. ""
. commod'ate a loop trail acces.sible to bikes and .
wheelchairs. The rolling hills thereare ideal'.
for snowshoeing and off-trail cross-country
skiing in the winter.
c'"
i-/
t"
, - ", ': :~ .-:' '; ~, ":- ,," , "-' ", '- "-",,, -." '-, ,":,,: ;/:,-': ",
Map of Fish Creek Natura . Greenway. The greenway extends
fro~ Point QotigJas R~ad:o~ the west,t'o CarMer Lak~- on the east.
. ..' '- - ';' ',-' -' """ 'j .
" " - - , " -,
" ' , ,
Protecting more land around F.ish Creek Will also help
protect the many investments alreapy made to im-
prqve water'quality in the'creek, and by extension;the
:Misslssippi River.. More development, no matter how
: carefully planned; will result in fuftherdegradation of.
water quality and changes to the natural hydrology of
.the areil. 'Additional. developmeot in the area also
likely means more use'of the Fish Creek open space,
res~lting in further damage. Acquiring addi.tionalland
. would help spread out recreational aCtivities and mini-
,," , :'-,',,', .-"',' ' ",', .,", ','-""':'-'-, ,,'.
miz.e impacts.
Attachment 2
Recommendations and Opportunities for
Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway
Report to Maplewood City Council from
Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway Ad-Hoc Commission
January 11, 2010
Executive Summary ..............mm.n.mn.............mmmn.....mmmm..........mmmmm......... 1
I. Introduction and Background Information mnmmnn__mnnnmnnn.nnnnnmnmnm 3
II. Protection Strategies mmmnnmmmmm.m__.nmmm_.__.mnm.m__nmmmmnmmnm 6
III. Protection and Acquisition Priorities .mmnn__mmnmn__mmmmmm__n__.m.mmmm 11
IV. Recreation .nmmmmmmn.mn.mmnm.mmm.....m.mmm...mmmmmnmn.m..mmnn 14
V. Partnerships .m.mnmnnmmmmnnmnm.mmm....nmmmm....mmmmmmm..mmmn 16
VI. Funding mmnnmnnmmmm.mmmn____.mmmmmmn__nmmmm____mmmmmmmm.n. 17
VII. Summary of Recommendations m____...mmmmmm__mmmmm____...mmmmmmm__. 21
VIII. Appendices
A. Map of Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway mmmn__....mmmmm__.__n...mmmn 24
B. Map of land Cover Classifications for South Maplewood mmnm____...nmmnn 2S
C. Resident Questionnaire Results nnnnnm....nmnmnnmmmnnmnn....nm.nnnm 27
D. Map of Parcels with Priority for Acquisition mmm....nmmmmmm.....nmnnnn 31
Page Intentionally left Blank
2
Recommendations and Opportunities for
Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway
January 11, 2010
Purpose of Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway Commission
In May 2009, Maplewood City Council established the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway Ad-Hoc
Commission to develop recommendations and priorities for protecting natural lands in the Fish Creek
Natural Area Greenway, and to identify issues and opportunities for passive recreation in the greenway.
Significance of the Greenway
Maplewood's Natural Area Greenways are large contiguous patches of habitat that cross property
boundaries, and include both public and private land. The Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway is located
in the southern tip of Maplewood and spills into St. Paul and Woodbury. It includes 142 acres of Ramsey
County open space, 37 acres of City of Maplewood preserve and parkland, the lS0'acre Carver Lake
Beach Park in Woodbury, and many more acres of natural land in private ownership. Fish Creek is the
heart of the greenway and flows through grasslands and woodlands as it makes its way from Carver Lake
to the Mississippi River. There are oak woodlands, a few small pockets of maple-basswood forest, and a
few tiny prairie remnants in the greenway. Steep slopes provide dramatic vistas and the area has a very
natural character. Portions of the greenway have been used by humans since pre-settlement time and
small Depression-era dams along Fish Creek built by the WPA add to the areas cultural heritage. Part of
the green way lies within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area boundaries.
Protection strategies
There are approximately 329 acres of public land in the greenway (including Carver Lake Beach Park),
but many acres of privately-owned natural land may someday be developed. Thirty-six private parcels
in the greenway are over two acres and combined these private sites total 238 acres, much of which is in
a natural state. The commission's vision is to protect the natural state of as much private land as
feasible so SO years hence the greenway is still intact. We recommend that the city use several
strategies for protection.
Acquisition. The commission recommends acquisition of the most important parcels of land. Not
only will this protect natural resources and the integrity of the greenway, but it provides significant
opportunities for recreation in the area.
Conservation Subdivision. Many landowners will want to develop their land someday and the
commission recommends that the city encourages the use of low impact development and
conservation design for development in the greenway. For large parcels (over 15 acres) that cannot
be acquired or otherwise protected from development, the city should work closely with developers
to use a conservation development approach to preserve the most significant natural features of a
site.
Conservation Easement. Some landowners may want to preserve their land. The commission
recommends that the city encourages the use of conservation easements by private landowners and
supports homeowners in those efforts.
Stewardship. Urban natural areas that are not cared for will degrade over time. Our vision is that in
50 years the natural areas in the greenway will be ecologically healthier than they are today. The
1
commission recommends that the city encourage and support stewardship efforts on both private
and public lands in the greenway.
Ordinance. Existing city ordinances addressing slopes, wetlands, and trees will help protect natural
resources in the greenway. The city is currently reviewing and considering changes to the slope
ordinance.
Acquisition Priorities
The commission recommends that the city acquire approximately 81 acres of land in the greenway. The
core of this is the 70'acre parcel south of Carver Avenue (site owned by lakeland Construction &
Finance, llC), and surrounded by Ramsey County Open Space. Acquisition of a 9-acre parcel north of
Carver Avenue would protect approximately % mile of the creek that is still in private ownership. And an
additional 2 acres of acquisition would increase buffers along one section of the creek. Acquisition of
these parcels protects significant ecological resources in the greenway and greatly increases access to
public lands and recreation in south Maplewood. Priorities for acquisition are: a) remaining private
lands that contain Fish Creek, b) 600' creek corridor, c) Mississippi River blufflands, d) land which
provides recreational opportunities, e) land of high ecological quality, and f) land adjacent to existing
public lands.
Recreation
The commission envisions this area for local and neighborhood use, with connections to the nearby
regional network of trails. We propose creating the Fish Creek Hiking Trail from Highway 61 to Carver
lake. Sections along Fish Creek and through natural areas would be narrow (4'-wide or less), soft-
surface trails, restricted to walking and hiking. Other sections would be on sidewalks or coincide with
bike trails. Currently, due to terrain and roadways, access to the county open space is limited. Ifthe 70-
acre site south of Carver Avenue is acquired, recreational opportunities expand significantly. Not only
does that become open to trails but it makes trails possible on the adjacent county lands, as well as
connections to local and regional bike trails. With the purchase of these 70 acres, this site would
become a premier urban natural area of 158 contiguous acres. Future trails or sidewalks would connect
this preserve to another 240 acres of existing public land throughout the greenway (53 acres of Ramsey
County Open Space, 37 acres of Maplewood park and preserve lands, and the 150-acre Carver lake
Beach Park owned by Woodbury).
Partners
The commission has talked with many partners and all have been supportive of the project and our
vision. Continuing these partnerships will be essential for carrying out the vision for the Fish Creek
Natural Area Greenway.
Funding
A diverse funding strategy will be necessary to carry out the vision for Fish Creek Natural Area
Greenway. The city should seek grants and legislative funds for acquisition. In order to be a serious
candidate for grants and legislative funding, the city will need to provide significant seed money to
demonstrate the importance of this project to Maplewood. The commission proposes that the city hold
a bonding referendum to provide funds for land acquisition and management. We encourage the city to
seek the assistance of Trust for Public land in crafting a referendum.
2
Purpose of Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway Commission
Maplewood City Council established the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway Ad-Hoc Commission in May
2009 to:
. Develop recommendations and priorities for protecting natural lands in the Fish Creek Natural Area
Greenway, including:
1. Acquisition of private land;
2. Conservation easement on private land;
3. Conservation subdivision options for properties that want to develop;
4. Funding options.
. Identify issues and opportunities for passive recreation in Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway and
develop recommendations for passive recreation that does not degrade the natural resources in the
greenway.
Features of Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway
Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway was mapped in 2008 (see Appendix A: Map of Fish Creek Natural Area
Greenway) and incorporated into Maplewood's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The greenway is a large
contiguous area of natural habitat that crosses property boundaries and includes both public and private
lands.
Fish Creek is the heart of this greenway, running from Carver Lake in Woodbury to Highway 61 in St.
Paul, and then connecting under the highway to the Mississippi River. There is much natural land and
the greenway has a very rural and undeveloped character. There are several parcels of city and county
public open space in this area and many private parcels have large areas of habitat.
Some of the special features of the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway include:
. Fish Creek. The creek runs through woodlands, grasslands, and emergent and open water marshes
before cutting through a scenic ravine and tumbling over boulders on its way to join the Mississippi
River. Most of the creek lies within Ramsey County Fish <;:reek Open Space.
. Snake Creek. Snake Creek begins on the west edge of the Bailey Nursery property and runs through
private lands. Portions of the creek have steep rock cliffs.
. Woodlands. The greenway has several stands of oak woodland, some with large patches of native
groundcovers including ferns, sedges, and wildflowers. There are a few small stands of maple-
basswood forest (mostly in St. Paul), a plant community that is uncommon in Maplewood.
. Wetlands. Wetlands in the greenway provide habitat and are important to local hydrology and
water quality.
. Grasslands. Open grasslands in the greenway contribute to the rural character of the area. Most
are old fields with a few tiny remnants of native prairie.
. Mississippi River Bluffs. The greenway contains Mississippi River bluff lands and vistas.
. Ecological Significance. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) identifies parts of
the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway as part of the Metro Conservation Corridor, as a Regionally
Significant Ecological Area, and as a Site of Biodiversity Significance in the Minnesota County
Biological Survey.
. Scenic Views. The greenway has several steep hills which open to panoramic views, including the
Mississippi River valley.
3
. Connection to Mississippi River. The creeks and the greenway connect to the Mississippi River. The
highways sever ecological connections for many species, but the greenway is part of Mississippi
River flyway.
. Trail Connections. The greenway connects to regional and local trail systems.
. Historic and Cultural Significance. A 2005 archaeological survey of a site in the greenway found
pre-contact artifacts 100' from Fish Creek, which included ceramics, lithics (stone tools or stone
artifacts), and faunal remains. The site appears to be a campsite and dates between 2500 and 375
years ago. The archeologist conducting the study recommended the site as "potentially eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places."
. Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. Part of the Fish Creek Greenway lies within the
Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA). This is one of the National Park Service's
(NPS) partner parks - a park which relies on strong partnerships with local municipalities. The
MNRRA boundary includes 54,000 acres along 72 miles ofthe river. NP5 owns just 35 acres but
works with other agencies and communities to preserve and enhance the area within the park
boundaries. The NP5 guidebook on open space protection opportunities for MNRAA ranks portions
of the greenway within MNRRA as "high" and "moderate" ecological quality.
. Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. The Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) was
designated over 30 years ago by Executive Order 79-19. Its boundaries co-inside with the MNRRA
boundaries. Local governments are responsible for protecting this area, with state, regional, and
federal agencies providing oversight and assistance.
. Ecological Significance. The Minnesota DNR identifies parts of the Fish Creek Natural Area
Greenway as part of the Metro Conservatian Carridar, as a Regionally Significant Ecological Area,
and as a Site of Biodiversity Significance in the Minnesota County Biological Survey.
Appendix A shows a map of the greenway and Appendix B shows land cover classifications for south
Maplewood.
Land Use Plan
In 2006, Maplewood issued a moratorium on development in south Maplewood in order to study land
use of all parcels south of Carver Avenue. Consultants 5choell Madson were hired to facilitate the
study. A report outlining options for the area was submitted to Maplewood City Council. This
information was helpful in developing the land use plan for this area that is part of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan. The 2030 Plan proposes Rural/Low Density Residential (.5-1.5 units/acre) for most
of the undeveloped natural areas in the greenway and Mixed Use (6 - 31 units/acre) for the Bailey
Nursery site.
Past Protection Efforts
For over 25 years, residents have advocated for public acquisition of additional land in this area. Land
south of Carver Avenue was one of the top priorities for acquisition identified by the Maplewood Open
Space Committee after the passing of the 1993 Open Space bonding referendum. However, at that time
the landowner was not interested in selling this land to the city.
4
Commission Process
Commission members included:
. Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway Ad-Hoc Commission members:
Chair Ginny Yingling, Environment and Natural Resources Commission
Vice-Chair Ron Cockriel, Friends of Maplewood Nature
Carolyn Peterson, Parks and Recreation Commission
John Moriarty, Ramsey County Parks
Cliff Aichinger, Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District
Ginny Gaynor, City of Maplewood
. Active Ex-Officio members:
Bob Spauling, Friends of the Mississippi
Jim Von Haden, National Park Service
Mary Beth Block, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
. Invited guests. In addition, several guests were invited to participate in discussions throughout the
process.
The commission held ten commission meetings between July 10, 2009 and December 18, 2009. All
meetings were open to the public, posted in advance, and videotaped. In addition, the commission had
one field trip to the greenway.
To engage residents and solicit public input, the commission:
. Held one public meeting (11 people attended);
. Held one public tour (20 people attended);
. Published two articles in Maplewood's city newsletter;
. Posted announcements regarding the public meeting and tour in the Maplewood Review;
. Sent two mailings to approximately 220 households in the greenway to inform people about the
commission, announce the meetings and tour, and send a questionnaire;
. Hosted a web page;
. Posted an on.line questionnaire and mailed the questionnaire to 220 households. 60 questionnaires
were completed (see Appendix C: Resident Questionnaire Results). This was not conducted as a
scientific survey and there was no mechanism to ensure people submitted only one survey, thus the
results need to be interpreted with this in mind.
. Commission members provided informal updates of the commission work to their relevant
commissions or entities;
. Scheduled presentations in January 2010 for Maplewood's Environmental and Natural Resources
Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission, for Ramsey County's Parks and Recreation
Commission, and for Friends of Maplewood Nature
5
The Need for Protection
The Natural Area Greenway map is a snapshot in time, showing the natural areas that exist in 2008.
Much of the natural land in the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway is in private ownership, and owners
of some private parcels may someday develop their land. Long-term viability of the greenway depends
on protection of natural resources on both public and private lands. Strategies for protection include
acquisition, conservation development, conservation easement, and stewardship.
Recommendation #1. The commission recommends that the city support a diverse protection
strategy for the greenway that includes acquisition, conservation development, conservation
easement, and stewardship.
Acquisition
Acquiring land for public ownership is an effective strategy for protection. In addition to protecting
natural resources, land acquired for public ownership provides new opportunities for hiking and passive
recreation. Results of the questionnaire indicated 78% respondents supported acquisition of land in the
greenway (10% were not sure, 12% did not support acquisition). The questionnaire did not pose
questions on how we would pay for land.
The benefits of acquiring additional public land in the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway include:
. Ensures protection of more land in the greenway;
. Protects core pieces of land that will be essential long-term for maintaining a wildlife corridor;
. Provides new options for hiking and passive recreation. With no land acquisition, there are
opportunities to add rustic trails to one county site and one city site. If key parcels are acquired, the
opportunities for trails and trail connections are dramatically enhanced. (See IV-Recreation).
Ramsey County Park staff is supportive of acquisition of additional public land in this area. The county is
happy to partner on protection initiatives for this area. However, if the city wants to acquire land, the
city will need to be the lead agency for acquisition efforts.
If land is acquired, the city may not be the best public entity to own and manage it. The intended use of
an acquired site should drive the decision on who owns and manages the land. In some situations, a
joint management partnership may be ideal. These decisions would be made when a site is purchased,
during development of a master site plan.
The questionnaire solicited comments regarding concerns people may have with the city acquiring
additional land. The main concerns listed are discussed below:
. Cost. Land acquisition in south Maplewood will be expensive and some residents expressed
concern about tax increases and the city being able to afford additional land. Section VI-Funding
addresses funding strategies.
. Affect on tax base. A few residents raised concerns about how acquiring land would affect the tax
base. In 2005, the Twin-Cities based non-profit group Embrace Open Space commissioned a report
titled The Economic Value of Open Space: Implications far Land Use Decisions (Anton, 2005). The
study points out three elements that are often overlooked in evaluating the costs of open space:
. Increased property tax revenue due to increase in property values adjacent to and near open
space;
6
. Cost of services and infrastructure required for developed areas;
. Potential cost savings from better storm water management.
The fiscal impacts will differ for every situation, but in some scenarios the costs of infrastructure and
public services exceed the tax revenue provided by development. The report provides information
on three different tools that communities can use to determine fiscal impact of a given
development.
Another study commissioned by Embrace Open Space in 2009 studied the economic impacts of
open space impacts on property values in Hennepin County (www.embraceopenspace.org). It found
property values increased for homes within 200' of open space, except for homes in high-income
areas or homes on lots larger than one acre. There were several interesting conclusions in this study
that help provide an understanding of the economic value of open space to residents and to the
community as a whole.
. Ability to manage additional land. A few residents were concerned that the city could not afford to
manage additional land. The Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway currently includes 37 acres of city
preserve and parkland and 142 acres of county open space. Acquisition of land requires the ability
to manage it. Management costs for natural areas vary tremendously depending on existing site
conditions and the level of management desired. At the Maplewood Neighborhood Preserves and
premier natural areas in the city, goals include active management of invasive species and where
feasible restoring native plant communities. Management goals for the county open space are not
as intensive. Providing recreational trails increases costs for installation, maintenance, and for
associated services (ex: enforcement). Dakota County addressed the upfront management costs by
setting aside 10% of the acquisition and easement funding for management and "site
developmenfJ.
The commission believes the benefits of more public land in this area are worth the costs associated
with land management and providing additional opportunities for passive recreation.
. Impacts of increasing visitors to area. Some residents expressed concerns that acquiring more
public land will bring more people into the area. They cite the potential for trespassing on private
land, more degradation of public land due to increased visitation, increased traffic in the area, and
more crime.
The commission does not envision Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway as a regional park or regional
preserve, with the type of trails and amenities those designations would suggest. We envision the
greenway as a local and neighborhood natural area, with regional significance. Acquiring additional
public land will enhance opportunities for hiking and passive recreation and we anticipate that use
of the area will increase somewhat if access is improved. Impacts of increased use should be
addressed in a site master plan. Considerations such as placement of trails (proximity to homes),
type oftrail, boundary markers, signage, monitoring and enforcement can help lessen impacts. It is
important to note that in some situations increased visitation actually helps decrease crime because
there are more people using the site and watching out for it.
The Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway Commission believes that the benefits to the community of
acquiring public land outweigh the potential negative impacts of increased visitation to the area.
7
Recommendation #2. The commission recommends that the city acquire additional land in the Fish
Creek Natural Area Greenway. Priorities for acquisition are presented in Section III.
Conservation Subdivision
Conservation subdivision is a development approach that preserves open space within a development,
and typically includes decreasing lot size and clustering homes. The open space in the subdivision may
be owned and managed by a homeowner association, a municipality, a non-profit organization or other
group. The purpose of the open space and management requirements are set forth when the
development is approved. If a homeowner association owns the open space, they may restrict access to
homeowners in the subdivision only. If a municipality owns the site, it is typically open to public access.
Conservation subdivision is an important protection strategy for the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway.
In 2009, Maplewood City Council approved a conservation ordinance to serve as a stop-gap ordinance
until the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is approved and the new land Use Plan is effective. This ordinance
provides density bonuses for developers using conservation strategies.
Conservation subdivision is most effective on larger parcels but the concept of protecting the high
quality natural areas and clustering homes can sometimes be implemented on smaller parcels. There
are several parcels in the greenway where conservation subdivision could be used to preserve open
space if acquisition is not possible.
. lakeland Construction & Finance llC parcels (formerly owned by CoPar Development llC). This
site consists of six parcels, totaling 70 acres, south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry lane. If this
site is developed, a conservation subdivision approach could be used to protect ecologically
sensitive parts of the site (creek and buffer, bluffs, slopes, wetlands, high quality woodlands), while
homes could be clustered on smaller lots on the rest of the site. Existing Maplewood ordinances
protect slopes, wetlands, and trees and the city should ensure that any development complies with
these ordinances.
If a conservation subdivision approach were used on the site owned by lakeland Construction &
Finance, it would be ideal to negotiate an agreement for .the open space to be owned by the city or
the county. This would greatly improve options for passive recreation and access to existing public
lands in the area. In particular, this could provide an opportunity: 1) to have an overlook on the
Mississippi River bluff, 2) to connect the existing footpath along Fish Creek to Henry lane, 3) to have
trail access from the development to the county open space to the south, and 4) to create a trail
loop through the development. If the open space were owned and managed by a homeowner
association and not open to the public, it would help achieve some protection goals but not
recreation goals.
. 2591 Carver Avenue East. The 9-acre parcel owned by the Libby family will be more difficult to
develop as a conservation subdivision but there may be some potential to cluster homes, while
preserving a creek corridor larger than that required by Maplewood's existing wetland ordinance.
. Smaller parcels. Smaller parcels may have some options for preserving open space and using
principals of conservation development.
Recommendation #3. The commission recommends that the city not reauthorize the development
agreement that the city had with CoPar Development llC. If the land is to be developed, the
8
commission recommends the city work closely with the developer to use a conservation subdivision
approach which protects the most sensitive natural features of the site.
Recommendation #4. The commission recommends that the use of low-impact development and
conservation design principles be explored for all parcels that are developed in the greenway. The
commission further recommends that the city take a proactive approach in encouraging the use of
conservation development principals including:
. Assemble a packet of information on these concepts and make this available to Maplewood
sellers and developers.
. Explore the use of a pre-approval process for working with developers on lands in the
greenways to discuss concepts before design phase commences.
. Ensure that Maplewood's land use plan, zoning, and ordinances encourage the use of
conservation subdivision.
Conservation Easement
A conservation easement is a binding legal agreement that permanently protects land from
development. Sometimes existing buildings and yard areas are exempt from the easement and
sometimes provisions are made so a portion of the site can be developed. The commission is aware of
two conservation easements in Maplewood: 1) the Haller's Woods development in south Maplewood
has a conservation easement on the open space owned by their association, and 2) the city granted a
conservation easement to Minnesota land Trust for the Priory Neighborhood Preserve. The commission
believes the best use of conservation easements in the Fish Creek greenway are for private lands and
conservation subdivisions.
Many residents in south Maplewood have a strong connection to their land. A few land owners in
Maplewood may be in a position where they will not need orwant to sell their land. Minnesota land
Trust (MlT) works with landowners to preserve natural lands via conservation easements. Because of
the logistics and costs involved, they typically work with larger parcels of land. However, Ml T staff
indicated that if several owners of small holdings in an area are interested in granting conservation
easements, the land Trust may be able to work with them.
The 18.7-acre parcel at 1230 Sterling Street South (ski jump site) is owned by the non-profit agency St.
Paul Education Foundation. This site has steep wooded slopes and would be very difficult to develop.
This site could be a good candidate for protection via conservation easement ifthe owner is interested.
Recommendation #S. The commission recommends that the city encourage the use of
conservation easements by private landowners and in conjunction with conservation subdivisions
that set aside open space. The commission further recommends that this be achieved through:
. Assembling information on conservation easements and making it available to landowners and
developers in the greenway.
. Facilitating a meeting between Minnesota land Trust and interested landowners.
. Helping developers make the connections necessary to successfully enter into conservation
easements on land that will be owned by an association or other group.
Stewardship
Stewardship and management of existing natural areas is essential for the long-term protection of the
Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway. Without care, most of our natural areas will degrade due to
9
pollutants, invasive species, altered hydrology, and removal of natural forces such as fire. Because of
the large amount of private natural land in the greenway, private landowners can play an important role
in stewardship of the greenway. It was gratifying to see the responses in the questionnaire to questions
about stewardship. 94% of respondents indicated they would likely or very likely remove buckthorn or
other invasive species in their yard.
Recommendation #6. The commission recommends that the city take a proactive approach to
managing natural resources on public lands in the greenway including:
. Develop a restoration and management plan for Carver Neighborhood Preserve.
. Develop a restoration and management plan for the natural areas at Pleasantview Park.
. Seek opportunities to partner with and support the county in management efforts on county
open space.
Recommendation #7. The commission recommends that the city take a proactive approach to
encouraging and supporting private landowners in the greenway to manage natural resources on
their land including:
. Continue to present education programs on ecology and stewardship.
. Continue to promote watershed district cost-share programs for implementing best
management practices.
. Enhance stewardship information on the city website.
. Explore the feasibility of and develop programs to support residents in enhancing habitat on
private lands throughout Maplewood including:
. Provide education and technical support;
. Provide technical advice and coordination to help residents combine smaller projects into
larger projects to gain efficiencies (ex: neighborhood-wide buckthorn removal);
. Provide cost-share for habitat enhancement;
. Help residents make connections with neighbors interested in working together;
. Facilitate award and recognition programs such as non.binding registries.
Ordinance
Existing city ordinances can help protect some natural resources in the Fish Creek Natural Area
Greenway. Cooperation will be needed during the development process to ensure planned unit
developments and variances approved by council result in as much protection as the ordinances
provide.
. Slopes. Maplewood's slope ordinance addresses development on slopes. It prohibits
development on slopes greater than 18% that are in direct drainage to a protected water; it
prohibits development on slopes greater than 40% that are not in direct drainage to a protected
water. Certain requirements must be met for all development on slopes greater than 12%. In
addition, the ordinance requires that, within the Mississippi River Critical Area, slopes viewed
from the Mississippi River or from the opposite river bank must look natural and undeveloped.
. Wetlands. Maplewood's wetland ordinance addresses development near wetlands. It prohibits
disturbance and alteration of land and vegetation within 100' of a stream and within 50'-100' of
a wetland, depending on the wetland classification.
. Trees. Maplewood's tree ordinance helps protects trees and woodlands in the city. It requires a
Tree Preservation Plan for any development project that requires land use, grading, or building
permits, excluding minor home additions. Tree removal is permitted; however, it must be
mitigated by replanting according to the replacement formula in the ordinance.
10
Several large parcels of land in the Fish Creek corridor are, or may be, available for acquisition. The
commission, and the majority of respondents to the questionnaire, support acquiring significant acreage
to provide permanent protection for Fish Creek and its adjoining upland areas and to maximize public
recreational opportunities in the area. However, recognizing that it may not be possible to acquire all of
the potentially available land, the commission recognized the need to identify priorities, both for
acquisition and other protection options.
To evaluate and prioritize land in the Fish Creek greenway, the commission developed several criteria:
. Creek crosses the property
. Adjacent to the creek, expands creek corridor to 600' (300' on each side)
. Ecological value
. Water quality improvement/protection value
. Contains Mississippi River bluffs
. Adjacent to existing public lands, provides connectivity
. Access for public passive recreational use
. Scenic value and/or vistas
In the public meeting and through the mail and on-line questionnaire, residents were asked to rate how
important these criteria are in terms of protection and/or acquisition of lands in the Fish Creek
green way (see results in Appendix C). Both the commission and public input ranked highest the
acquisition/protection of the creek itself and adjoining lands to increase the creek buffer. Accessibility
for public passive recreational use and connectivity with existing public lands and trail systems also
ranked very high.
Using these criteria and the public feedback, the commission identified and prioritized 10 sub-parcels in
the corridor (see map in Appendix D):
. Parcel A (5 acres): This parcel has been developed and has lower ecological value, but may become
available only as part of a larger property that includes Parcel B.
. Parcel B (4 acres): This parcel contains the last major section of Fish Creek in private ownership and
may become available only as part of a larger property that includes Parcel A.
. Parcel C (1.5 acres): This parcel contains a segment of Fish Creek and adjoins county land. It could
provide a potential access point from Carver Avenue to those lands, but is not currently available for
acquisition.
. Parcel D (1.3 acres): This parcel abuts a portion of Fish Creek east of 1-494 that is in county
ownership but has minimal buffer, but is not currently available for acquisition.
. Parcel E (0.8 acres): This parcel also abuts a portion of Fish Creek east of 1-494 that is in county
ownership but has minimal buffer, but is not currently available for acquisition.
. Parcel F (3.4 acres): This parcel is located at the bluff edge above the north bank of Fish Creek west
of 1-494 and could provide additional buffering for the creek, erosion control for the bluff, and trail
access to Henry Lane. This parcel is part of a larger property that also includes parcels G, H, I, and J.
. Parcel G (9.8 acres): This parcel is located at the bluff edge above the south bank of Fish Creek west
of 1-494 and could provide additional buffering for the creek, protection of upland woods, erosion
control at the top of the bluff, and trail access to the upland and Mississippi River bluff areas south
of the creek. This parcel is part of a larger property that also includes parcels F, H, I, and J.
. Parcel H (7.0 acres): This parcel includes Mississippi River bluffs and scenic vistas and adjoins
county owned land. This parcel is part of a larger property that also includes parcels F, G, I and J.
11
. Parcell (31.7 acres): This parcel has rolling upland grasslands and degraded oak savannah and could
provide the space for trails that support a variety of passive recreation. This parcel is part of a larger
property that also includes parcels F, G, H, and J.
. Parcel J (17.7 acres): This parcel has wetland meadows, which are already protected from
development, and some upland grasslands along Henry Lane and Carver Avenue. This parcel is part
of a larger property that also includes parcels F, G, H and I.
These parcels were combined to create a "Preferred Acquisition Plan" and four alternatives. The
Preferred Acquisition Plan encompasses the priorities identified by public input and commission
discussions to create a 158-acre publicly-owned natural area in south Maplewood, managed through a
city-county partnership. The Preferred Acquisition Plan would place the entirety of Fish Creek in public
ownership, protect large contiguous areas of natural habitat, provide a variety of passive recreational
opportunities for residents, and allow for connection to the surrounding network of trails and public
lands via local bike and pedestrian pathways.
Acknowledging that acquisition is dependent on many factors that may not be within the control of the
city, the commission also created four alternatives to help the city identify priorities for acquisition
should the Preferred Acquisition Plan not be feasible, or immediately achievable. The preferred plan
and alternatives are described below, with the specific parcels to be acquired for each outlined in the
table on page 13.
Preferred Acquisition Plan - Creek and Uplands Protection and Maximize Public Recreation:
. Whole creek in public ownership
. 600' protected corridor for nearly all Fish Creek (300' on each bank)
. Fish Creek Hiking Trail from Point Douglas Road to Carver Lake through natural areas and along
sidewalks/bike trails
. Public access to scenic vistas along the Mississippi River bluffs
. Connectivity for existing trails and public lands
. Provide large nature park of 158 acres contiguous (requires acquisition of additional 70 acres),
with additional public lands along trail
. Protect woodlands, grasslands, wetlands
. Maximize trails and passive recreational opportunities
. Use of low impact development and conservation design principles on developed lands
. Some private parcels with conservation easement
. Residents, city, and county engaged in stewardship activities
Alternative 1- Creek and Mississippi River Bluffs Protection:
. 600' protected corridor for nearly all of Fish Creek (300' on each bank)
. Nearly all of Fish Creek in public ownership
. Provide Fish Creek Hiking Trail from Point Douglas Road to Carver Lake through natural areas
and along sidewalks
. Provide public access to scenic vistas along the Mississippi River bluffs
. Work with developers to protect ecologically significant areas within developments
Alternative 2 - Creek Protection:
. 600' protected corridor for nearly all of Fish Creek (300' on each bank)
. Nearly all of creek in public ownership
. Provide Fish Creek trail access from Henry Lane
12
. Work with developers to protect ecologically significant areas within developments
Alternative 3 - Conservation Easements and Conservation Development:
. City acquires conservation easements protecting 600' creek corridor
. Negotiate with developer for a trail connection to Henry Lane (this segment is required to have
a through-trail from Point Douglas Road to Henry Lane)
. Work with developers to protect ecologically significant areas within developments
Alternative 4 - No Acquisitions (i.e. funds are not available to acquire either property or easements):
. City works with private landowners to identify possible voluntary projects to protect 600' creek
corridor and other ecologically significant areas
. Negotiate with developer for trail connecting to Henry Lane
. Work with developers to protect ecologically significant areas within developments
Parcels Included in Preferred and Alternative Acquisition Plans
The table below indicates which parcels would have to be acquired (A) or have easements (E) in order to
accomplish the Preferred Acquisition Plan or alternatives. The map in Appendix D shows location of
each parcel.
Parcel A 8' C D E F2 G H I J
Preferred Plan A A A A A A A A A A
Alt. 1 A AlE AlE A A A
Alt. 2 A AlE AlE A A
Alt. 3 E E E E E E
Alt. 4
A = acquire parcel E = purchase conservation easement
'Likely requires purchase of parcel A as well
2 Likely requires purchase of parcel J as well
Recommendation #8: The commission recommends the city pursue the Preferred Acquisition Plan
as this provides the highest protection for Fish Creek and adjoining upland areas, provides the
greatest connectivity of public lands and trails, and maximizes passive recreation opportunities.
13
Public access and recreational opportunities were a key consideration in the commission's development
of the protection priorities and options outlined in Section II and III. Fish Creek provides Maplewood
residents, as well as residents of adjoining communities, with the opportunity to recreate in a unique
natural environment. However, there is a downside to increased recreation in the area. Even with
careful management, as the number of people using the area increases, so to does the potential for
damage to the very resources that draw people to Fish Creek. This is particularly important given future
development in the area will increase use of parks and open space sites in the greenway.
The vast majority of respondents to the questionnaire and participants at the public meeting supported
only minimal development of the Fish Creek area, urging that it be "left alone" and that any
management activities focus on restoring or enhancing ecological quality of land. In particular, they
urged that trails be either narrow (1'-2' wide), un-maintained footpaths or narrow, soft-surfaced, graded
rustic trails (4' wide). Some respondents also indicated that some amenities, such as benches, parking,
and interpretive signage, would improve their experience of the Fish Creek area.
Existing recreation in the greenway includes:
. Pleasantview Park -14.4-acre neighborhood park owned by Maplewood, full park amenities,
including ballfields, tennis court, playground, trail and some natural vegetation;
. Carver Neighborhood Preserve - 22.3-acre open space site owned by Maplewood, with non-
maintained foot trails;
. Fish Creek Open Space - 142.acres of open space owned by Ramsey County, with non-maintained
foot trails;
. Carver Lake Beach -lSD-acre natural resource-based park owned by the City of Woodbury, full park
amenities including swimming beach, playground, picnic facilities, and trails;
. In addition, there are numerous existing or planned bike trails in the greenway.
Current Recreation Opportunities
Currently, a non-maintained footpath on Ramsey County ope.n space land provides access for passive
recreation along Fish Creek, starting at Point Douglas Road and stopping just west of Henry Lane.
Residents report using this area primarily for walking/hiking, bird-watching, cross-country skiing,
snowshoeing, and other passive activities. While some respondents indicated they use the area for
mountain biking, such activities are not sustainable on the steep slopes within the county land. The
commission felt strongly that any1hing beyond a narrow trail or footpath in the Fish Creek gorge would
damage the resources and the experience provided by the area. However, the existing trail could be
improved to address existing erosion problems and provide either an "out-and-back" or loop trail within
the county property.
Potential Recreation Opportunities
If additional lands are acquired, trail connections could significantly increase the recreational
opportunities for residents and help to spread out use to minimize impacts. While specific recreation
plans would be developed as part of a larger master planning process that involves the public and land
management partners, acquisition of the "Preferred Acquisition Plan" lands could allow for:
. A large natural area consisting of 1S8 acres contiguous (88 acres of existing county land and 70 acres
of newly acquired land). 128 acres of the park would be in Maplewood and 30 acres would be in St.
Paul. The acquired land would provide opportunities for access and recreation that do not currently
exist due to the terrain and location of the existing county land.
14
. Public access to the Mississippi River bluff and grand vistas.
. Opportunities for trails and connections:
. Walking trail from Point Douglas Road to Carver Lake Beach (along roads these would coincide
with bike trail or sidewalk). This trail requires acquisition or easement of a 3.4 acre parcel north
of Fish Creek and west of Henry Lane.
. Extending the existing Fish Creek footpath to Henry Lane, providing a second access point for
the public. Routing of this trail extension should be sensitive to the archeological site.
. Trails in the upland areas south of the creek and west of 1-494 could provide for biking,
wheelchair access, and a variety of other uses such as snowshoeing and cross.country skiing
(ungroomed).
. Connecting the local trails of the Fish Creek greenway, via Carver, Sterling, and Century Avenues
to the larger network of bike trails in the area, such as those on Bailey Road and the Mississippi
River Trail along Point Douglas Road.
While some of these recreational opportunities would exist under the other options outlined in Section
III, only the Preferred Acquisition Plan would provide the opportunity for bike and wheelchair accessible
trails and the space to reduce impacts to the resource.
Recommendation #9: The commission recommends that there be a narrow (4'-wide or less), soft-
surface trail along Fish Creek that is restricted to walking or hiking, in order to preserve the natural
experience of visitors. Other types of trails, such as bike paths, could be considered elsewhere in
the Fish Creek greenway, where ecologically sustainable.
Recommendation #10: The commission recommends that trails throughout the Fish Creek
greenway be considered local trails, with neighborhood bike trails connecting the greenway to the
larger nearby trail systems.
Recommendation #11: The commission recommends that, if land is acquired in the greenway, the
city and county work together to develop a master park and trail plan.
15
Strong partnerships are crucial for successful protection of natural resources and enhanced hiking
opportunities in the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway. One legislator indicated to commissioners that
a cohesive vision for the greenway that is supported by city officials, residents, adjacent communities,
and other partners is critical if the city wants to seek legislative support for acquisition and protection.
Some of the key partners for the city on this project are listed below.
. Ramsey County
. Washington County
. Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District
. City of Woodbury
. City of Newport
. City of St. Paul
. St. Paul District 1 Council
. Friends of St. Paul and Ramsey County Parks and Trails
. National Park Service
. Trails and Open Space Partnership (TOSP)
. Friends ofthe Mississippi River
. Minnesota land Trust
. Trust for Public land
. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
. Environmental and Sports Groups
Recommendation #12. The commission recommends that the city continue developing strong
partnerships for preservation of the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway.
16
General Approach
To carry out the vision for Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway, funding will be needed for:
. Acquisition
. Trail development and maintenance
. Restoration and management
. Education and support programs for stewardship on private land.
To successfully garner funding we need to:
. Have a diverse funding strategy including: legislative funding, grants, donations, partnerships,
and city funds.
. Provide seed money for land acquisition to demonstrate to grantors and legislature the
importance of this project to the city.
. Seek funding support from partners.
. Explore the possibility of land exchange.
Grants
The city is eligible to apply for various grants. In addition to state and federal grant programs there are
many foundations and non.profit organizations that offer grants. Two of the key state funding programs
for natural resources grants are explained below.
1. Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund. The Trust Fund was established in 1989 and is
funded by 40% of proceeds from the state lottery, until 202S. The fund is set up as an endowment
and after 2025, 5.5% will be available annually. The Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota
Resources (LCCMR) administers this grant program. Proposals are accepted once each year. This
grant is for "public purpose of protection, conservation, preservation, enhancement of the state's
air, water, land, fish, wildlife and other natural resources." Maplewood is eligible to apply for this
grant and could use it for land acquisition, restoration, and management.
2. Clean Water, Land, and Legacy Amendment. In 2008, Minnesota voters passed the Clean Water,
Land, and Legacy Amendment. The amendment increases sales tax 3/8 of one percent to generate
funds to be used as described below.
. 33% to Sams-Lessard Outdoor Heritage Fund to "restore, protect, and enhance wetlands,
prairies, forests, and habitat for game, fish, and wildlife." Some of these funds are routed to
other grant programs such as the Minnesota DNR's Lessard-Sams Conservation Partners Legacy
Grants. Currently, funds for acquisition of public land will only be granted for lands that are
open to public hunting and fishing, which makes most of the Twin Cities ineligible, Legislators
are working with agencies and citizens to re-evaluate these criteria, so the metropolitan area
can also access these funds. The grant is, however, appropriate for restoration and
enhancement of natural habitat in Maplewood.
. 33% to Clean Water Fund to "protect, enhance, and restore water quality in lakes, rivers,
streams, and groundwater, with at least 5% of the fund spent to protect drinking water
sources." These funds are distributed through grant programs run by several different agencies.
Some of these programs do not take applications from cities, but they do from watershed
17
districts and other agencies so Maplewood could potentially have access to this funding through
partnerships.
. 14.25% to a Parks and Trails Fund to "support parks and trails of regional or statewide
significance." Maplewood does not own or manage any regional parks or trails. However, this
trail funding can be used to connect local trails and parks to regional trails, so this grant may
have some applicability.
. 19.75% to Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund for "arts, arts education, and arts access, and to
preserve Minnesota's history and cultural heritage."
Recommendation #13: The commission recommends that the city apply for grants for Fish Creek
Natural Area Greenway for land acquisition, trails, restoration, and management.
City Funds and Fees
Protection of the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway will require funding from the city. The General
Fund, Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Park Access Charge (PAC), and Environmental Utility Fee
(EUF) are the primary city funds that could be considered. The table below lists which funds may be
most feasible for various activities.
Project General Fund CIP PAC EUF
Funds to match acquisition grants X X
General maintenance and X X
management (if water related)
Large restoration and X X
management projects (if water related)
Install trails and amenities X X
Education and stewardship X X X
programs on private lands (if water related)
Recommendation #14. The commission recommends that the city acknowledges that city funds
should be part of the funding equation for protection of Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway.
Referendum
If the city wishes to acquire a large amount of land, such as the Lakeland Construction and Finance site,
it will need significant funds to match potential grants. A bonding referendum is one option for raising
significant funds. Jenna Fletcher from Trust for Public Land addressed the commission and indicated
that even with the economic downturn, open space referendums continue to be passed by
communities. Maplewood's 1993 $5 million bonding referendum runs from 1992-2014.
The commission thinks a referendum is essential if the city wants to acquire the Lakeland Construction
and Finance site. To broaden the support for a referendum, it should be coupled with other park, open
space, and/or greenway projects in the city, including funds for restoration and management of those
areas. If the city pursues a referendum, the commission recommends the city seek assistance and
expertise from Trust for Public Land (TPL). TPL has worked on open space referendums and public land
acquisition nationwide.
18
TPL can provide the following support to communities: 1) assist in conducting a public opinion survey to
test support for bonding at different levels offunding, 2) develop referendum ballot language, and 3)
develop strategies for garnering community support for bonding.
Recommendation #15: The commission recommends that the city have a bonding referendum to
raise funds for open space acquisition and management and seek the services of Trust for Public
Land to assist with the referendum.
Funding from Partners
The vision for the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway is being driven by the City of Maplewood and its
residents. Our partners are supportive of the project, but we anticipate the city will need to be the
driving force on this project. Partners will provide funding for greenway projects via:
1. Existing grant programs (Ex: RWMWD BMP Cost-share program).
2. CIP and operating funds (Ex: county manages Fish Creek Open Space).
3. Applying for grants that the city cannot apply for directly (Ex: National Park Service transportation
funding).
Donations
Donations of land do occur in some communities, but cannot be counted on to happen. More typically,
a donation may be a portion of a negotiated land sale. There are tax benefits to sellers that donate a
portion of their land. An organization like TPL can help sellers understand the tax ramifications and
breaks associated with land donation.
Recommendation #16: The commission recommends that the city encourage individuals interested
in selling or donating land to the city to work with the City and with Trust for Public Land.
Land Exchange
One option for land acquisition may be land exchange. A land exchange would require the city having a
parcel of land it was willing to give up and an owner/developer willing to trade their land in the Fish
Creek area for that parcel. The commission did not study existing opportunities for this type of
exchange but encourages the city to be open to this concept. Maplewood's 2030 Comprehensive Plan
has a no-net loss policy for land classified as Neighborhood Preserve, but no restrictions on sale or
exchange of other city property.
Legislature and Congress
In 2009, Maplewood worked with legislators on bills appropriating funds for land acquisition in the Fish
Creek area. Representatives Nora Slawik and Leon Lillie authored the House bills and Senator Leon Lillie
authored the Senate bills. The bills had a first reading and were referred to Environment and Natural
Resources Finance Division (House) or Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Budget Division
(Senate).
. House File No. 2055/ Senate File No. 1821 appropriated $2,400,000 in fiscal year 2010 from the
parks and trails fund for acquisition of land along Fish Creek.
. House File No. 2054/ Senate File No. 1822 appropriated $2,400,000 in fiscal year 2010 from the
outdoor heritage fund for acquisition of land along Fish Creek.
Representative Lillie attended the commission's public meeting in October 2009 and indicated to
commissioners that he and other legislators would work towards legislative funding for land acquisition
19
in the Fish Creek area if we develop a strong vision for the area that has support from residents, city
council, surrounding communities, and other partners.
As part of the MNRAA corridor, the lakeland Construction & Finance llC parcels could be eligible for
federal congressional funding. If legislators were to seek funding for protection of land in MNRAA
corridor, these parcels might be included.
Recommendation #17: The commission recommends that the city seek funding support from
Minnesota legislature for protection of Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway.
Recommendation #18: The commission recommends that the city continue it partnership with
National Park Service and with the Trails and Open Space Partnership to further explore the
possibility of funding by congress.
20
Protection Recommendations
Recommendation #1. The commission recommends that the city support a diverse protection strategy
for the greenway that includes acquisition, conservation development, conservation easement, and
stewardship.
Recommendation #2. The commission recommends that the city acquire additional land in the Fish
Creek Natural Area Greenway. Priorities for acquisition are presented in Section III.
Recommendation #3. The commission recommends that the city not reauthorize the development
agreement that the city had with CoPar Development llC. If the land is to be developed, the
commission recommends the city work closely with a developer to use a conservation subdivision
approach which protects the most sensitive natural features of the site.
Recommendation #4. The commission recommends that the use of low-impact development and
conservation design principles be explored for all parcels that are developed in the greenway. The
commission further recommends that the city take a proactive approach in encouraging the use of
conservation development principals including:
. Assemble a packet of information on these concepts and make this available to Maplewood sellers
and developers.
. Explore the use of a pre.approval process for working with developers on lands in the greenways to
discuss concepts before design phase commences.
. Ensure that Maplewood's land use plan, zoning, and ordinances encourage the use of conservation
subdivision.
Recommendation #5. The commission recommends that the city encourage the use of conservation
easements by private landowners and in conjunction with conservation subdivisions that set aside open
space. The commission further recommends that this be achjeved through:
. Assembling information on conservation easements and making it available to landowners and
developers in the greenway.
. Facilitating a meeting between Minnesota land Trust and interested landowners.
. Helping developers make the connections necessary to successfully enter into conservation
easements on land that will be owned by an association or other group.
Recommendation #6. The commission recommends that the city take a proactive approach to
managing natural resources on public lands in the greenway including:
. Develop a restoration and management plan for Carver Neighborhood Preserve.
. Develop a restoration and management plan for the natural areas at Pleasantview Park.
. Seek opportunities to partner with and support the county in management efforts on county
open space.
Recommendation #7. The commission recommends that the city take a proactive approach to
encouraging and supporting private landowners in the greenway to manage natural resources on their
land including:
. Continue to present education programs on ecology and stewardship.
21
. Continue to promote watershed district cost-share programs for implementing best
management practices.
. Enhance stewardship information on the city website.
. Explore the feasibility of and develop programs to support residents in enhancing habitat on
private lands throughout Maplewood including:
. Provide education and technical support;
. Provide technical advice and coordination to help residents combine smaller projects into
larger projects to gain efficiencies (ex: neighborhood-wide buckthorn removal);
. Provide cost-share for habitat enhancement;
. Help residents make connections with neighbors interested in working together;
. Facilitate award and recognition programs such as non-binding registries.
Acquisition Recommendations
Recommendation #8: The commission recommends the city pursue the Preferred Acquisition Plan, as
this provides the highest protection for Fish Creek and adjoining upland areas, provides the greatest
connectivity of public lands and trails, and maximizes passive recreation opportunities.
Recreation Recommendations
Recommendation #9: The commission recommends that there be a narrow (4' -wide or less), soft-
surface trail along Fish Creek that is restricted to walking or hiking, in order to preserve the natural
experience of visitors. Other types of trails, such as bike paths, could be considered elsewhere in the
Fish Creek greenway, where ecologically sustainable.
Recommendation #10: The commission recommends that trails throughout the Fish Creek greenway be
considered local trails, with neighborhood bike trails connecting the greenway to the larger adjacent
trail systems.
Recommendation #11: The commission recommends that, if land is acquired in the greenway, the city
and county work together to develop a master park and trail plan.
Partner and Funding Recommendations
Recommendation #12. The commission recommends that the city continue developing strong
partnerships for preservation of the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway.
Recommendation #13: The commission recommends that the city apply for grants for Fish Creek
Natural Area Greenway for land acquisition, trails, restoration, and management.
Recommendation #14. The commission recommends that the city acknowledge that city funds should
be part of the funding equation for protection of Fish Creek Natural Area.
22
Recommendation #15: The commission recommends that the city have a bonding referendum to raise
funds for open space acquisition and management and seek the services of Trust for Public Land to
assist with the referendum.
Recommendation #16: The commission recommends that the city encourage individuals interested in
selling or donating land to the city to work with the City and with Trust for Public Land.
Recommendation #17: The commission recommends that the city seek funding support from
Minnesota Legislature for protection of Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway.
Recommendation #18: The commission recommends that the city continue it partnership with National
Park Service and with the Trails and Open Space Partnership to further explore the possibility of funding
by congress.
23
Appendix A: Map of Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway (with Battle Creek Natural Area Greenway)
.La
"+"-""'"
,-"~
M-
'2
0>-
Maplewood
Natural Area Greenways
24
Appendix B: Map of Land Cover Classifications for South Maplewood
See next page for descriptions of codes.
.L'"
'-..-
. , .
- f<~_1fuT~I:::m:
25
Minnesota Land Cover Classification Codes
Code
11220
11221
11230
11231
11240
11241
11310
13115
13124
13125
13134
13144
13221
13231
14122
14214
21110
21113
21213
23111
23210
23212
32110
32112
32150
32170
32220
42110
42120
42130
61220
61330
61480
61530
61620
62140
93300
Description of Land Cover
11% to 25% impervious cover with deciduous trees
Oak (forest or woodland) with 11- 25% impervious cover
26% to 50% impervious cover with deciduous trees
Oak (forest or woodland) with 26-50% impervious cover
51% to 75% impervious cover with deciduous trees
Oak (forest or woodland) with 51-75% impervious cover
4% to 10% impervious cover with mixed coniferous/deciduous trees
Long grasses and mixed trees with 4-10% impervious cover
5hort grasses and mixed trees with 11-25% impervious cover
Long grasses and mixed trees with 11-25% impervious cover
5hort grasses and mixed trees with 26-50% impervious cover
5hort grasses and mixed trees with 51-75% impervious cover
5hort grasses with 11-25% impervious cover
Short grasses with 26-50% impervious cover
Pavement with 91-100% impervious cover
Other exposed/transitional land with 0-10% impervious cover
Upland soils with planted, maintained, or cultivated coniferous trees
Red pine trees on upland soils
Deciduous trees on upland soils
Short grasses with sparse tree cover on upland soils
Upland soils with planted or maintained grasses
Long grasses on upland soils
Oak forest
Oak forest mesic subtype
Maple-basswood forest
Altered/non-native deciduous forest
Lowland hardwood forest
Aspen woodland
Oak woodland-brush land
Altered/non-native deciduous woodland
Medium-tall grass altered/non-native dominated grassland
Temporarily flooded altered/non-native dominated grassland
Saturated altered/non-native dominated graminoid vegetation
Seasonally flooded altered/non-native dominated emergent vegetation
Mixed emergent marsh
Grassland with sparse deciduous trees - altered/non-native dominated vegetation
Palustrine open water
26
Appendix C: Resident Questionnaire Results
This is a tally of resident questionnaires received October 1 through December 31, 2009. 45
questionnaires were received prior to November 30, 2009, most of which were in response to a
mailing sent to 220 residences in south Maplewood. An additional 15 questionnaires were
received in December, after an article in the December 2009 City News. This is not a scientific
survey and there were no controls to prevent a person from responding more than one time.
TOTAL respondents: 60 (35 on-line, 25 hard-copy)
1. Are you a Maplewood resident?
2L yes -L no
2. How far do you live from Fish Creek or from the Ramsey County Fish Creek open space?
..lL property is adjacent
..1Q....less than Y, mile
.11... y, mile - 2 miles
-.!!L more than 2 miles
3. How often do you visit Fish Creek or the Ramsey County Fish Creek open space?
~ daily or weekly
17 a few times per month
-2- a few times per year
--2-. rarely
...ll never
3.... not sure where it is
4. If you use the Ramsey County Fish Creek open space, what activities do you do there? Check all
that apply.
...1L walking/hiking
...lL bird watching
-2- cross.country skiing
....&.... snowshoeing
....&.... mountain biking
-2.... other, please describe: (respondents indicted berry picking, paint ball, photography,
animal wotching)
11 I don't use the area
5. Do you think the city should purchase additional land in the Fish Creek greenway?
~ yes ~ no ....2....- not sure
6. Do you have any concerns about having more land in this area in public ownership?
-1L yes .2L no ~ not sure
If yes, please explain: see last page
7. If funding is available for the city to purchase land in this area;what type of lands should have
priority for acquisition? Please select your three top priorities from the list below. Number them
with 1= highest priority, 2=second in priority, 3=third in priority.
.2L Purchase sections of creek that are in private ownership (with goal of having whole creek in
public ownership, currently all but one section of the creek is on public land)
27
~ Purchase land adjacent to creek to expand the creek buffer beyond the current 100' no-
disturb area
~ Purchase land with highest ecological quality
2L Purchase Mississippi River bluff land (there is one section of bluff land in private ownership)
~ Purchase land with potential for public access for passive recreation (ex: hiking)
~ Purchase land adjacent to existing public lands or that connects existing public lands
~ Purchase land with scenic views or scenic value
~ Don't purchase any
8. How would you like to see existing public land in this area used? Check all that apply.
...1L Leave it as it is, no further amenities, no change in management activities
Provide trails:
~ Footpaths -1' -2' wide, not graded, not maintained
~ Narrow rustic trail- 4' wide, graded, maintained, soft surface trail (mowed, soil,
woodchipped)
~ Asphalt hiking/biking trail- 8' -10' wide
~ Provide benches
..JL.. Provide parking
-1L Provide interpretive/educational signage
~ Restore and/or manage public lands to enhance ecological quality
_ Other, please explain:
9. Do you own land that has some wildlife habitat (i.e. land that is not manicured lawn or gardens)?
2L yes
...lL no
10. Ifthe city were to provide programs and support, how likely would you be to participate in the
following activities?
Very likely Likely Not likely
14 27 15
~ 20 23
~ 14 36
13 24 18 d.
~ 26 17 e.
~ 20 24 f.
~ 26 17 g.
~ 15 29 h.
19 22 13 i.
28 20 3 j.
~ 7 38 k.
a. Attend an educational program on enhancing habitat
b. Attend a program on conservation easements
c. Attend a program on conservation subdivision (for those
considering developing their land)
Enhance habitat on your land
Take advantage of technical support provided by city or other
entity
Take advantage of a cost-share program
Partner with other neighbors interested in enhancing habitat on
their land
Participate in a land registry program (non.binding agreement
to care for land)
Plant native plants in your yard or gardens
Remove buckthorn or other invasive species in your yard
Allow a publicly accessible foot trail on your property-if part of
larger trail system
28
Written comments received on the questionnaire
#6 Do you have any concerns about having more land in this area in pubic ownership?
. Yes. More exposure to public exposes our homes to theft.
. Yes. Main concern is that we take care of the land.
. Yes. More traffic, busier.
. Yes. We like our property the way it is-without more people.
. Yes. It must stay out of the political rip rap.
. Yes. Who would come up with the dollars, the property taxes used to pay the county-or would the
tax dollars that were lost be divided among the remaining private property owners?
. Yes. Maplewood should buy Schlomka property!
. Yes. No developments, no parks.
. Yes. Taxes to pay for it. Taxes lost because of it.
. No. I would like to see the Fish Creek area preserved as an undeveloped park.
. Yes. We need more green spaces in Maplewood. Maplewood is almost 100% urban and due to that
we travel to other cities to hike. Fish Creek would also be an ideal area for a new elementary or high
school, while still preserving the bluffs around it.
. Yes. Please let us develop it the right way for ourfuture generations.
. Yes. More land for which you cannot adequately care. Concentrate on what you already own. I see
buckthorn and other invasive species running wild on property you already own. Concentrate on
that. Use publicproperty to limit usage on private property.
. Yes. The city should concentrate on lowering property taxes. Removing land from the tax rolls will
not help.
. What real benefit does this area have to Maplewood as a whole?
. If the city buys more land, where will the money come from to properly maintain it?
Other General Comments
. The Fish Creek property is abused by operators of A TV's, dirt bikes and snowmobiles. Citizen
vigilance along with the cooperation of the city has helped to some degree but the problem still
exists. How about some signs and enforcement?
. We want it to stay as is. No need to make a park. There is a nice park Y, mile away-Pleasant View.
. Find ways to fund more land to acquire. Conservation easements for private and public lands. Keep
land development in the area to a minimum.
. We've really appreciated the city picking up buckthorn on our street, but we also know that pick ups
can be expensive, so we've also appreciated being able to bring the buckthorn to the fire station on
Londin Lane.
. We attended the meeting at Maplewood City Hall on October 1", and we were very impressed with
the Commission's caring concern about maintaining the beauty of Fish Creek and also maintaining
that beauty forfuture generations. So, hats off to you all!!!
. Protect, protect, protect-Too many things fall apart as time marches on-plan and protect for the
long term.
. Libby property would be a good choice [for acquisition].
. Regarding wildlife in the area-Last week we had turkeys and hawks on our deck railing; possum,
raccoon, deer, ground hogs, and I think a weasel all within 50 feet of the house. Don't encourage
any more wildlife. Breeding seems to take care of it.
. Should acquire additional land, providing it doesn't increase taxes.
. Leave it the way it is.
29
. Funding is NOT available. We're short now! We can't afford what we're doing now. In my family
budget, if you can't afford it you can't do it. I wish government could understand that!!
. So little open space in metro area and this is one of the few areas locally we can enjoy nature that's
undisturbed, not developed, not ruined! It's like being in the country while in the city. It's gorgeous
the way it is.
. As far as wildlife habitat on our land, we just own a small tree line, so not much of it could be used
for anything. We do live half a block from Fish Creek Canyon and our children used it all the time
when they were growing up here. We loved it! I still use it for an occasional walk, but the access
has much overgrown brush and weeds, so it is hard to get down there from Dorland Road.
. The 5chlumpka property now owned (I believe) by the CoPar company should be purchased by the
city in its entirety. Once developed its potential is gone forever. The land would be a jewel of the
Maplewood park system and its citizens.
. Fish Creek is a valuable resource to allow future generations to appreciate nature in a more natural
state than most parks. I would like to see it remain in a primitive status. It would be good to see
some of the invasive vegetation removed, as in buckthorn.
. We need to make hiking and biking safer by providing sidewalks and trails to get off the streets. We
need to connect to trails/parks as neighboring cities do. We need to connect to our neighboring
city's park so we can safely get to their trails since ours suck.
. We need a sidewalk that runs along with Highwood. My kids have to walk down that dangerous
road to their bus stop daily and if there were a sidewalk, more residents would get out and more
involved with their surroundings.
. For land adjacent to Fish Creek area, support single-family dwellings on 2-acre plots only and not
multiple.family dwellings (e.g. high rises, condos, etc.).
. Do not over step your bounds. Be prepared to properly remunerate adjacent property owners if
your policies limit their ability to utilize their property as they see fit.
. let's concentrate on lowering property taxes.
. Keep new housing at low density, especially on the CoPar development property (1 house/2 acres).
I'm concerned with rain runoff and additional traffic in the area, in addition to the rural feel of the
neighborhoods south of Carver Avenue. These 3 points would definitely have an effect on the Fish
Creek Area.
. Please take advantage of the opportunities that are available in the form of grants (from federal
government and other agencies) etc. Money that can support protecting the natural resources in
this area. Please research and above all apply.
. [Type oftrails] depend on where. If on top ofthe bluff of CoPar land, where the road goes, then an
asphalt trail for a little ways on top for the view. Then when it heads toward Fish Creek and above
the creek, a foot-path is appropriate. Where the bluff connects with the Ramsey County open space
south (40 acres) a "narrow rustic trail" is good.
. The tracts in our area are a wildlife habitat with most neighbors having a 3-4 acre tract and no plans
to develop it. We have lots of deer, 30 plus wild turkey and a variety of small animals. They are
enjoyed by the people who walk the trail along the back of our land. So I can understand the
concerns residents there might have.
30
Appendix D: Map of Parcels with Priority for Acquisition
[INSERT PROFESSIONAllY RENDERED MAP AND DELETE MAP BELOW]
31
Agenda Item 9.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
Mississippi River Critical Area Rulemaking Project
January 12, 2010 for the January 19 ENR Commission Meeting
Last year the Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission began a review of the
remaining portions of the city's environmental protection ordinance, which includes regulations on
slopes throughout the city as well as regulations for the city's portion of the Mississippi River
Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) in south Maplewood (Attachment 1).
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is beginning a rulemaking project for the MRCCA.
Funding for the rulemaking project is for calendar years 2010 and 2011, so completion of the rules
could take place anytime during these two years. For more information review the rulemaking
process as highlighted on Attachment 2.
The DNR is seeking applications for work groups that will meet three to four times from March
2010 to September 201 0 to provide input on the rulemaking for the MRCCRA. Individuals and
organizations interested in participating in a work group must complete the attached form to be
considered (Attachment 3). Deadline for submittal is Friday, January 22, 2010.
The ENR Commission may want to appoint a commissioner to apply for one of the MRCCA
rulemaking work groups. If not, staff will continue to follow the rulemaking process and keep the
commission updated. Once the rulemaking is complete, the city will be required to review our
MRCCA regulations and make necessary changes to meet the new rules.
Attachments
Attachment 2
DNR seeks comments on rulemaking for Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area
(Re/eased December 14,2009)
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is soliciting public comment on
rulemaking for the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA).
The 2009 Legislature directed the DNR to establish new districts - and develop
guidelines and standards for each district - which local governments will incorporate into
their community plans and land use ordinances. The new rules will ensure that the river
corridor is managed as a multi-purpose resource, and that key resources and features in
the river corridor are protected.
First designated a state critical area by Gov. Wendell Anderson in 1976, the MRCCA
includes the Mississippi River and approximately 5,400 adjacent acres along a 72-mile
reach spanning the Twin Cities metropolitan area from Dayton and Ramsey in the north
to the confluence with the St. Croix River in the south. Gov. AI Quie continued the critical
area designation in 1979, and it was made permanent by the Metropolitan Council the
same year. Since then, planning and development in the corridor has been guided by
districts and standards in the Gov. Quie's 1979 Executive Order.
Some 30 communities have jurisdiction in the MRCCA - includin9 21 cities, five counties,
and four townships. They have included the districts and standards in their
comprehensive plans and ordinances. By law, the DNR must conduct rulemaking to
establish new districts and standards that protect key identified resources and features,
while considering existing plans, policies, ordinances, and conditions.
The DNR encourages interested parties to comment on the subject matter of the rules.
While the department does not have a draft rule available for review at this time, staff
invites suggestions regarding rulemaking issues and topics of particular concern. These
will be helpful in the rule development process, Written and oral comments will be
accepted through March 22, 2010. A request for comments was published in the Dec. 14,
2009 State Register.
The DNR will work closely with the MRCCA communities, the National Park Service,
Metropolitan Council, U.s. Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies and stakeholders
over the next year as it develops draft rules. The DNR plans to convene one or more
advisory committees to provide additional review and feedback.
Individuals or organizations interested in serving on an advisory committee are
encouraged to submit a statement of interest by filling out the form posted on the project
Web site. It is also available upon request.
Comments on the proposed rulemaking and requests to be included on the DNR's mailing
list should be directed to: Jeffrey Berg, MRCCA Rules Coordinator, Box 32, DNR, 500
Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4032; phone: 651-259-5729; fax: 651-296-0445;
and e-mail: MRCCArulemakinallildnr.state.mn.us.
The DNR has established a project Web site and an electronic mailing list. For additional
information on the MRCCA rulemaking project, or to subscribe to project updates,
interested parties are encouraged to visit the Web site.
Att()H:,,~yY\e.'\ t -3
Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Rulemaking Project
Work Group Statement of Interest/Self Nomination Form
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
The DNR is considering convening 1 to 4 work groups that will each meet 3 or 4 times from
March 2010 - September 2010 to provide input on rulemaking for the Mississippi River Corridor
Critical Area (MRCCA). Participation in the work groups will be determined by the DNR.
Individuals and organizations interested in participating in a work group (or groups) must
complete this form to be considered. Based on anticipated interest, not all individuals or
organizations that submit a form will be selected to participate. Each work group will be limited
to 15-20 people and selection will be based on representation that balances a variety of
interests and viewpoints, including local governments, and environmental, recreation, business,
transportation, infrastructure, development, and other local/regional interests.
*DEADLlNE: Submit this completed form by FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 2010*
The form may be submitted via mail, e-mail, fax, or in person to:
MRCCA Rulemaking Project, Minnesota DNR
500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155
MRCCArulemakinl!(1ildnr.state.mn.us
Fax: 651-296-0445 Phone: 651-259-5727/5729
CONTACT INFORMATION/AVAILABILITY
Name:
.
Date:
Affiliation/Title:
Address:
(Street Address)
(City)
(State)
(Zip)
Phone: Daytime
Evening
E-mail:
How do you prefer to be contacted?
Avjilla,bility (all work group meetings will be held during the week):
U Morning
D Afternoon Preferred Weekday(s):
D Evenings
MRCCA Rlllemakillg Project. Work Group Self Nomination Formll
INTERESTS/BACKGROUND
If the DNR convenes geographically-based work groups, which area(s) are you interested in?
You may check more than one:
D Area 1 - Northwest: Cities of Ramsey, Dayton, Anoka, Champlin, Coon Rapids, Brooklyn
Park, Fridley, and Brooklyn Center; and Anoka and Hennepin Counties
D Area 2 - Urban West: City of Minneapolis - including the MSP Airport, the University of
Minnesota, and Fort Snelling - and Hennepin County
D Area 3 - Urban East: Cities of St. Paul, lilydale, Mendota Heights, and Mendota; and
Ramsey and Dakota Counties
D Area 4 - Southeast: Cities of Maplewood, South St. Paul, St. Paul Park, Inver Grove
Heights, Newport, Cottage Grove, Rosemount, and Hastings; Townships of Denmark, Grey
Cloud Island, Nininger, and Ravenna; and Dakota and Washington Counties
If you checked more than one, which one is your first preference?
ase check the interest group(s) that you
Local Government Unit (LGU)
Environment
Recreation
Watershed Management
Neighborhood Group
ost closely affiliated with:
Tra nsportation/I nfrastructure
Commercia 1/1 ndustrial
Development/Real Estate
MRCCA Resident
Other:
Are you representing yourself, an LGU, business, or organization?
If representing an LGU, business, or organization:
What is the name ofthe LGU/business/organization?
Is there an alternate that could attend in your absence? Provide name(s) below:
What issues are you most concerned about within the MRCCA?
Briefly describe your background and experience related to the MRCCA and/or rulemaking:
(Feel free to attach additional sheets if you need more space)
MRCCARuJemaking Project - \Vork Group Self Nomination Forml2
Agenda Item 9.b.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
Minnesota Shoreland Rulemaking Project
January 12, 2010 for the January 19 ENR Commission Meeting
The 2007 Minnesota Legislature directed the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to
commence rulemaking to update the statewide minimum shoreland development standards. Local
government units (counties, cities, and towns) are responsible for the implementation,
administration, and enforcement of shoreland management standards through their planning and
zoning controls. The state's shoreland rules were last revised in 1989.
The DNR has completed a preliminary draft of the rules in April 2009. Highlights of the 87 -page
draft rule can be found on Attachment 1. Public hearings for the rules will begin in late spring or
early summer 2010 (Attachment 2). Once the rules become final, the city will be required to
update our shoreland rules to match any new regulations proposed. In addition to new regulations
proposed by the state, the city must include regulations to protect wetlands adjacent to lakes, as
called out in the recently adopted wetland ordinance.
Staff will continue to monitor and update the commission on the shoreland rulemaking project.
Attachments
Amchvyvr'\t \
~
Minnesota's Shoreland Rules:
Standards for Lake and River Conservation
April 20, 2009
DEPAfl"TMfmTOf
N~ReSOURCE$
Highlights of Proposed Rules
A. Proposed Sewage Treatment Standards
For new sewage treatment systems, setbacks from the ordinary high water level are
proposed to increase to 100 feet for recreational development shorelands up from 75
feet and 75 feet for general development lake shorelands up from 50 feet. For general
development lakes, if an approved phosphorus best management practice is employed,
the 75 feet may be reduced to 50 feet. The proposal also requires work to obtain a
certificate of compliance with conveyance of lot and issuance of any permit or variance.
Such approaches are needed to ensure that nonconforming systems are upgraded and
functioning properly. These additions will have long-term positive impacts towards the
protection, improvement, and preservation of shoreland area natural resources,
specifically surface waters and groundwater.
B. Proposed Sediment Control and Storm water Standards
Sediment control
The proposed standards for land alteration to control sediment from reaching public
waters uses two threshold areas of disturbance. The first threshold is 3,000 square
feet, which is about the size of disturbance due to building a new home. Disturbing
3,000 square feet or more would require using common best management practices
(e.g., stabilize soils, use of mulches and silt fences, etc.). Second, per existing state
rule, construction activities that result in land disturbance of equal to or greater than 1
acre, including the disturbance of less than 1 acre of total land area that is part of a
larger common plan of development or sale if the larger common plan will ultimately
disturb equal to or greater than 1 acre would require a stormwater permit from the
Pollution Control Agency.
Stormwater Management
Two stormwater management options are proposed. The first option relies on the use
of impervious surface coverage caps. The second option is for local governments with
technical expertise to manage stormwater based on performance standards. With this
option and for large projects under the first option, local governments use the following
permanent stormwater management requirements based on the impervious surfaces
located on the project site:
Permanent treatment of 1" of runoff from the impervious surfaces created by
development or redevelopment is required. Preference must be given to volume
reduction techniques that include infiltration basins, rain gardens, enhanced infiltration
Minnesota DNR - Division of Waters
Aprii 20, 2009
1
swales, filter strips, disconnected impervious areas, and other conservation designs.
For those areas of a project where there is no feasible way to meet the treatment
requirements, other treatment, such as grassed swales, grit chambers, vegetated filter
strips, bioretention areas, off-line retention areas, and natural depressions for
infiltration, is required prior to the runoff leaving the project site or entering surface
waters.
The proposed standards rely on Minnesota's Stormwater Management Manual
(http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/stormwater/stormwater-manual.html).This manual
provides best management practices that are specially adapted to Minnesota use, and
the proposed standards require the local government to direct property owners,
developers, and contractors to incorporate those best management practices.
In addition, the proposed standards allow credit for permeable pavement systems that
meet the Minnesota Stormwater Manual best management practices criteria. Only
half the area with such material would be credited as permeable surface. Long-term
studies on permeable materials have yet to be conducted, so the PCA advised such a
credit until such time evidence supports a higher credit.
C. Proposed Shoreline Buffer Standards for New Developments
For an existinq lot with a home. no chanqes in shoreline buffer standards are proposed
(Le., intensive cutting is not allowed). For new development on previously undeveloped
parcels, a 50 feet shoreline buffer consisting of trees, shrubs, and ground cover of
plants and understory in a natural state, is required. Removal of trees and shrubs
necessary to accommodate stairways, landings, chairlifts, access paths, and
recreational use areas can occur. Except for the access path and recreational use
area, a natural ground cover must be preserved or established in the 50 feet area near
shore. Openings and lawns in the shoreline buffer that are not allowed must be
replanted or left unmowed.
D. Greater Protection of Vulnerable Waters
Trout streams
The proposal creates a separate river class for designated trout streams to provide
these sensitive public waters additional protection. The existing statewide minimum
standards place trout stream in the tributary river class, the least protective river class.
Given future development demands and the vulnerable nature of coldwater streams, it
is reasonable and needed to move these public waters into a class with higher
development standards.
Multiple shoreland classification
A new section is proposed that intends to provide local governments with the option of
having more than one classification on a given water body; for example, within a
general development lake to have a natural environment bay. This proposal is
consistent with the existing rule that allows the commissioner to expand the shoreland
Minnesota DNR - Division of Waters
April 20, 2009
2
classification system. Different development standards in bays and areas with critical
fish and wildlife habitat are warranted and needed given documented and predicted
losses to habitat from development.
E. Conservation Subdivisions
The proposed standards include conservation subdivisions. These draft provisions
attempt to address the shortcomings of conventional subdivisions and to promote
developments that are less expensive to developers, more desired by potential buyers,
and that offer greater protection and conservation of natural resources in the
shorelands. Such provisions are reasonable and can be found elsewhere in the United
States.
F. Planned Unit Developments
Planned unit developments (PUDs) were envisioned to achieve the same benefits as
conservation subdivisions; however, the 1970s-era open space standards were
ambiguous and weak. Thus, many of the open space amenity benefits were never
realized.
Many people have sought higher standards for PUDs. Most significantly, the proposed
standards incorporate elements from a new and better approach to residential
development. That new approach is conservation subdivisions. Conservation
subdivisions are an important tool used elsewhere to provide better lots for homeowners
while protecting water quality, promoting economic development, and creating open
space for recreational use, wildlife, and preserving riparian buffers. Second, to address
the now realized shortcomings of the existing PUD standards, the proposed standards
have new provisions for PUDs that:
. Define 'clustering' or 'clustered';
. Define and specifies the quality of open space standards;
. Clarify the PUD definition.
G. Development within Cities, Planned Unit Development Options, and
the Use of Mitigation
The proposal provides flexibility in development, with use of several different
development options. First, where land dedication or a land preservation agreement of
the riparian area is elected or required, density and the minimum lot width and lot size
may be the same as for the underlying zoning district. The City of Woodbury has used
this approach to protect sensitive riparian areas while providing developers the
opportunity to create more lots and build more homes on a project site. Second, the lot
size and density may be the same as for the underlying zoning district for cities (1) in
areas served by sewer; (2) the stormwater facilities within the area have adequate
maintenance standards and the city has identified the responsible parties for such
maintenance; and (3) the area is within an existing residential area having at least 3
Minnesota DNR - Division of Waters
April 20, 2009
3
dwelling units per acre, a downtown area, a brownfield area, or a previous industrial
area. Cities that wish to expand areas of high density may do so if they meet the
following specific standards: (1) the comprehensive land use plan has identified the
area for higher density development; (2) Minnesota licensed Professional Engineer, with
expertise in stormwater management and appropriate training, and certified personnel
in Design of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans are on staff or contract, and they
review development plans and implementation of stormwater management best
management practices to meet or exceed performance standards; (3) a comprehensive
stormwater management plan and a stormwater ordinance have been adopted and
effectively implemented; and (4) a natural resource priority map for their jurisdiction.
In addition, a public values-driven collaborative development track is provided within the
PUD options to give local governments flexibility in development standards. Provisions
on the process and the review requirements exist. Flexibility in development standards
may be allowed when the development proposes and will provide additional tangible
public benefits and advanced environmental and natural resource protections.
The proposed draft allows a local government to mitigate impacts on a property with a
structure that cannot meet the required setbacks to public waters and use a 'string test',
provided the building is not in the shore impact zone, rather than use a variance
process. A mitigation process can also be used as an option; for example, where
stormwater performance standards are not possible to meet.
H.Resorts
The proposed standards for resorts were based on the Minnesota's Alternative
Shoreland Management Standards that were created in 2005. These standards have
meaningful measures that preserve, restore, and enhance the quality of water and
habitat; conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shoreland, and
provide for wise use of water and shore lands by resort owners and their guests. The
proposed standards also give flexibility to resorts for cabin replacement or expansion.
The State's interest was to modify these voluntary standards to address some
shortcomings that local governments have found with their use.
DNR Contact Information
This handout provides background and support for some of the proposed standards.
For complete listing of proposed provisions consult the shoreland standards preliminary
draft. For further information on the proposed Shoreland Standards, contact the staff at
DNR Waters:
Peder Otterson, Shoreland Update Project Manager, (651) 259-5697
Felicia Barnes, Planner, (651) 259-5716
Web site: http://mndnr.qov/waters/shoreland.html
Email: shorelandupdate@dnr.state.mn.us
rt
Il!!'I.I!'TUI!HT*
NA'lUIIALIlESOORca:
Minnesota DNR - Division of Waters
April 20, 2009
4
A--t+cttft 0\Qflt 1-
Creating Standards for Lake and River Conservation
December 2009 Newsletter
Revisor Draft of Shoreland Rules and accompanying
Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR).
The draft rules and SONAR are steadily moving through an internal review that
is required before they can proceed to public hearings. This is a time-intensive
process, but it is worth the added effort to ensure clarity and quality in the final
product. Once the draft rules and SONAR have been approved for public
hearings, we will place them up on the Web site along with accompanying
documents.
Public Hearings on Proposed Rules
It is hard to say exactly when the public hearings might occur. A late spring or
early summer 2010 time frame is expected which should allow time for both
seasonal and permanent shoreland property owners and other interest groups
to participate. You can expect a series of perhaps eight public hearings in four
locations across the state (afternoon and evening sessions) for those who may
have conflicts with a given time or location. For those who cannot attend a
hearing, we will be providing the same information on our Web site as well as
information on how to submit comments into the record during the hearing
period.
Rule Implementation.
Once the rules become final, DNR will begin working with local governments
across the state on their implementation, focusing technical assistance on a
workload basis to those communities having the greatest need for assistance.
As required by law, we will be drafting model ordinances and other support
materials to assist local governments in the amendment of their shoreland
ordinances. Meanwhile, nothing precludes a local government from initiating its
own ordinance amendments even now while the draft rules are not et final.
Agenda Item 9.d.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
ENR Commission Calendar
January 11, 2010 for the January 19 ENR Commission Meeting
To help coordinate the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission meetings and
calendars, following is a list of known agenda items or events the commission will be asked to
review or attend in 2010:
Calendar Year - 2010
January
Agenda Items:
. Chickens in Residential Zoning Districts
. Stormwater Ordinance
. Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway
Events:
February
Agenda Items:
. Recycling Contract Discussion Begins
. Election of ChairNice Chair
. Annual Report
. Goal Setting Meeting
Events:
March
Agenda Items:
. Eureka Recycling Year-End Report
. Continue Slope Ordinance
. Continue Alternative Energy Ordinance
Events:
. Extreme Green Yard Makeover Kick-Off
Event, Nature Center, March 18, 6:30 - 8
p.m
. Rain Garden Class Series Begins,
Ramsey County Library (Maplewood
Branch), March 24
April
Agenda Items:
. Silver Lake Improvement Association
Request for Herbicide Treatment Funding
. Tree Program Update
Events:
. Rain Garden Series Continues, Field
Session, April 15
. Earth Day - April 22
. Spring Clean Up - April 24
. Rain Garden Series Continues, Nature
Center, April 29
May
Agenda Items:
Events:
. Arbor Day Event, May 1, 2 - 4 p.m.
. Rain Garden Series Continues, Field
Session, May 6
. Fish Creek Wildflower and Information
Hike - May 8
. Rain Barrel Installation Demonstration,
Nature Center, May 11, 6:30 p.m.
. Waterfest - May 22
Calendar Year - 2010
June
Agenda Items:
. Recycling Contract RFP Must Be
Complete
. Continue Trash Hauling Discussion
Events:
. Community Development and Parks
Department Tour
. Nature Center: Extremely Green
Summer Fun Night - June 11, 5 - 9 p.m.
July
Agenda Items:
. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Annual Report
Events:
. Ramsey County Fair - July 14 - 18
. Jr. Volunteer Potluck Awards Ceremony,
Nature Center, July 29, 6:30 - 8 p.m.
August
Agenda Items:
Events:
. National Night Out - August 3
. Taste of Maplewood - August 6 and 7
September
Agenda Items:
Events:
. Extreme Green Yard Makeover
installation - 2nd or third week in Sept.
. Friends Board Annual Picnic, Nature
Center, Third or Fourth Saturday in Sept.
October
Agenda Items:
Events:
. Public Buckthorn Removal Event
. Fall Clean Up
November
Agenda Items:
Events:
December
Agenda Items:
. 2011 Street Project Review
Events:
2