HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-28-2009El
D
C.
A)
E
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
6:30 p.m., Monday, September 28, 2009
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 19-09
CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to
order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Longrie.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Diana Longrie, Mayor Present
Erik Hjelle, Councilmember Present
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present
John Nephew, Councilmember Present
Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following items were added to the agenda by the city council.
H1. Budget Discussion — Councilmember Hjelle
H2. Update on the Campaign Hoax Letter sent to the BCA — Councilmember Hjelle
H3. Rush Line Corridor — Councilmember Rossbach
H4. Ramsey County League — Councilmember Rossbach
Mayor Longrie moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes — All
The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of September 14, 2009, Special Council Meeting Minutes
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the September 14, 2009, Special City Council
Meeting Minutes as submitted.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes — All
The motion passed.
Page 1 of 16
Approval of September 14, 2009, Council Meeting Minutes
Councilmember Nephew had a correction on page 4 or packet page 7 of 130, in the revised
motion made by Mayor Longrie, the hours should say 8:00 a.m. not p4n.
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the September 14, 2009, City Council Meeting
Minutes as amended.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes — All
The motion passed.
Approval of September 17, 2009, Special Council Meeting Minutes
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the September 17, 2009, Special City Council
Meeting Minutes as submitted.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach.
The motion passed.
Ayes — Mayor Longrie,
Councilmember Juenemann,
Nephew & Rossbach
Abstain — Councilmember Hjelle
Approval of September 17, 2009, Council Workshop Minutes
Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the September 17, 2009, City Council Workshop
Minutes as submitted.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew.
The motion passed.
F. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS — PART I
Ayes — Mayor Longrie,
Councilmember Juenemann,
Nephew & Rossbach
Abstain — Councilmember Hjelle
1. Mark Bradley, 2164 Woodlyn Avenue, Maplewood. Mr. Bradley said because the city of
Maplewood is losing businesses which is going to cause a decline in the tax base in
Maplewood. He is concerned about the debt in the city and financial troubles for the legacy
village development.
2. Ralph Sletten, 2747 Clarence Street North, Maplewood. Mr. Sletten said he put in a data
request for consultant fees and gave a report on the information to the council and asked
why the city has to pay consultant fees when the city has staff that can do the majority of the
work.
Page 2 of 16
G.
H
3. Ken Smart, 940 Bartelmy Lane, Maplewood. Mr. Smart said he appreciated the
professionalism of the employees at the City of Maplewood that he has had contact with. He
indicated that he was disappointed in his behavior at a past city council meeting during a
discussion with Councilmember Rossbach regarding social security and he apologized for
his behavior.
4. Elizabeth Sletten, 2747 Clarence Street North, Maplewood. Ms. Sletten also discussed the
amount of consultant fees the city pays. She also gave a transcript of a resident that called
911 for help that lost his life.
5. John Wykoff, 2345 Maryland Avenue East, Maplewood. Mr. Wykoff discussed issues that he
had with Councilmember Nephew's website and the opinions that were on the website
regarding Mr. Wykoff's views.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1. Reminder of Council Manager Work Session —October 5, 2009, at 5:00 p.m. —Topic:
2010 Budget — Presentation Of Public Works Budget Request And Presentation Of
Community Development — Parks Budget Request
a. Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl gave the report.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
1. Budget Discussion — Councilmember Hjelle
At the last council meeting Councilmember Hjelle brought up a comparison between the
budget of the City of Edina and the City of Maplewood and he discussed some of the
issues.
2. Update on the Campaign Hoax Letter sent to the BCA — Councilmember Hjelle
City Manager Antonen updated the council and City Attorney Kantrud addressed the
council.
3. Rush Line Corridor — Councilmember Rossbach
Councilmember Rossbach updated the council on the Rush Line Corridor meeting.
4. Ramsey County League — Councilmember Rossbach
Councilmember Rossbach updated the council on the Ramsey County League of Mn
Cities meeting. The next meeting is November 12, 2009.
APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Promotion Ceremony For Sergeant Paul Thienes
a. Maplewood Police Chief, Dave Thomalla gave the introduction and Sergeant Thienes'
son Ryan Thienes pinned him with his new police badge.
2. H1N1 Update
a. Maplewood Fire Chief, Steve Lukin gave the presentation and answered questions of
the council.
J. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Holloway And Stanich Highlands Area Improvements, Project 09-13
a. Assessment Hearing, 7:00 p.m.
b. Resolution Adopting Assessment Roll
c. Resolution Approving Parking Restrictions
i. City Engineer, Michael Thompson gave the presentation and answered
questions of the council.
Page 3 of 16
Mayor Longrie opened the public hearing
1. William Clark, 1921 Kingston Avenue, Maplewood.
2. Patrick Cregan, 1916 Price Avenue, Maplewood.
Mayor Longrie closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Resolution for the Adoption of the Assessment
Roll for the Holloway Avenue and Stanich Highlands Area Improvements, City Project 09-13,
plus the additional objections submitted this evening.
RESOLUTION 09-09-258
ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on August 24, 2009, calling for
a Public Hearing, the assessment roll for the Holloway Avenue and Stanich Highlands Area
Improvements, City Project 09-13, was presented in a Public Hearing format, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429, and
WHEREAS, the following property owners have filed objections to their assessments according
to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, summarized as follows:
1. Parcel 14.29.22.42.0023 — John R. Santos, 1907 Furness Street
Mr. Santos is objecting due to seeing no added property value from the project.
2. Parcel 14.29.22.34.0035 — William and Judy Clarke, 1921 Kingston Avenue
The Clarkes are objecting due to seeing no added property value from the project.
3. Parcel 14.29.22.34.0034 — Paul Berglund, 1929 Kingston Avenue
Mr. Berglund is objecting due to seeing no added property value from the project.
4. Parcel 14.29.22.34.0041 — Kathy Haley, 1930 Kingston Avenue
Ms. Haley is objecting due to seeing no added property value from the project.
5. Parcel 14.29.22.34.0038 — Margaret Haggerty, 1935 Kingston Avenue
Ms. Haggerty is objecting due to seeing no added property value from the project.
6. Parcel 14.29.22.34.0067 — Patrick Cregan, 1916 Price Avenue
Mr. Cregan is requesting a revision to his assessment, because he feels that his assessment
will include additional sidewalk costs.
7. Parcel 14.29.22.34.0104 — Eleanor VanLaningham, 1700 Ruth Street
Ms. VanLaningham is requesting a senior citizen deferment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA:
1. That the City Engineer and City Clerk are hereby instructed to review the objections received
and report to the City Council at the regular meeting on October 12, 2009, as to their
recommendations for adjustments.
2. The assessment roll for the Holloway Avenue and Stanich Highlands Area Improvements as
amended, without those property owners' assessments that have filed objections, a copy of
which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby adopted. Said assessment roll shall
constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land
therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of
the assessment levied against it.
Page 4 of 16
3. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15
years, the first installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2012 and
shall bear interest at the rate of 5.4 percent per annum for a date effective 2 years from the
adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the
entire assessment from September 28, 2011 until December 31, 2011. To each subsequent
installment when due, shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments.
4. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment
to the county auditor, but no later than October 1, 2011, pay the whole of the assessment on
such property, with interest accrued to the date of the payment, to the city clerk, except that no
interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 2 years from the adoption of this
resolution; and they may, at any time after October 1, 2011, pay to the county auditor the entire
amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year
in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before October 15 or interest will
be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year.
5. The city engineer and city clerk shall forthwith after October 1, 2009, but no later than October
15, 2009, transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended
on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over the
same manner as other municipal taxes.
Adopted by the council on this 28th day of September 2009.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes — Councilmembers Hjelle,
Juenemann, Nephew &
Rossbach
Nay — Mayor Longrie
The motion passed.
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Resolution Approving No Parking Restrictions
For Holloway Avenue.
RESOLUTION 09-09-259
HOLLOWAY AVENUE — "NO PARKING" RESTRICTIONS
WHEREAS, the city council approved the preparation of plans and specifications for the
Holloway Avenue and Stanich Highlands Area Improvements, City Project 09-13, in June 2009,
and
WHEREAS, the city will be expending Municipal State Aid funds on the improvement of
Holloway Avenue from North St. Paul Road to McKnight Road; and
WHEREAS, segments of said improvement do not conform to the approved State Aid
standard for unrestricted parking; and
WHEREAS, release of MSA funds is dependent on specified parking restrictions.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the city of Maplewood shall ban
the parking of motor vehicles on the south side of Holloway Avenue from Furness Street to
Howard Street.
Page 5 of 16
Adopted by the council on this 28th day of September, 2009.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes — All
The motion passed.
K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Public Review Of Proposed Revisions Of The Wetland Ordinance
a. City Manager, James Antonen gave the introduction.
b. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave the report.
c. Natural Resources Coordinator, Virginia Gaynor gave specifics of the report.
d. Sharon Sandeen, 1748 Gulden Place, Maplewood, gave a presentation.
e. Parks & Community Development Director, DuWayne Konewko answered questions of
the council.
f. City Attorney, Alan Kantrud answered questions of the council.
Mayor Longrie opened the discussion to the public.
1. Ralph Sletten, 2747 Clarence Street North, Maplewood.
2. Elizabeth Sletten, 2747 Clarence Street North, Maplewood.
3. John Wykoff, 2345 Maryland Avenue, Maplewood.
4. Dave Johnson, 2587 Lydia Avenue, Maplewood.
5. Linda Bryant, 1752 Gulden Place, Maplewood.
6. George Oxford, 2305 Linwood Avenue East, Maplewood.
7. Steve Bryant, 1752 Gulden Place, Maplewood.
City Manager, Antonen recommended taking the information provided by Professor Sandeen
and the city staff, along with the help of the City Attorney and bring the information back to the
city council in late November or early December for the city council to review at that time.
The city council took a brief recess.
The council reconvened.
2. Consider Resolution Revising Date For Public Hearing On Tax Increment Financing
For Redevelopment District No. 1-10 For The Shores Project Within Gladstone
Redevelopment Area
a. Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl gave the presentation.
Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve the resolution revising the date of the Public Hearing
from October 12, 2009, to November 9, 2009, for the purpose of discussing the Tax increment
Financing District for the Shores Development proposal.
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
HELD: September 28, 2009
Page 6 of 16
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall on Monday, the 28th day of
September, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. for the purpose, in part, of calling a public hearing on the proposed
modification of Municipal Development District No. 1 and the adoption of a Modification to Development
Program therefore, the proposed establishment of Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District
No. 1-10 (Lake Phalen Estates Project) within Development District No. 1 and the proposed adoption of
the Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto.
The following members were present: All
and the following were absent: None
Member Hjelle introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 09-09-260
CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1
AND THE ADOPTION OF A DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM THEREFORE, THE
PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
(REDEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT NO. 1-10 WITHIN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1
(LAKE PHALEN ESTATES PROJECT) AND THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATING THERETO
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council') of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the
"City"), as follows:
1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on November 9, 2009, at approximately
7:00 p.m., to hold a public hearing on the following matters: (a) proposed modification of
Municipal Development District No. 1, (b) the adoption of a Modification to Development
Program therefore, (c) the proposed establishment of Tax Increment Financing
(Redevelopment) District No. 1-10 (Lake Phalen Estates Project) (the "Tax Increment Financing
District") within Development District No. 1, and (d) the proposed adoption of a Tax Increment
Financing Plan relating thereto, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.124 through 469.134, both inclusive, as amended and Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.174 through 469.1799, both inclusive, as amended (collectively, the "Act").
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes — All
The motion passed.
Councilmember Hjelle moved that agenda item M7 Approval of Purchase For Building
Operations be heard next so that city staff can go home after it is heard.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes — All
The motion passed.
Page 7 of 16
M7. Approval Of Purchases For Building Operations (Heard out of order)
a. Chief Building Engineer, Larry Farr gave the report and answered questions of the council.
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve spending city funds from the general fund accounts
602-614: $78,283, 101-115: $29,828, TBD: $21,464 cement repairs. The listed projects are
planned for completion in the 2009 fiscal year unless delayed due to unforeseen circumstances
or rescheduling to future dates.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes — All
The motion passed.
3. Rescind Ordinance On Purchase Limits
a. City Attorney, Alan Kantrud gave the report.
Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the passage and waiver or second reading for the
ordinance repealing ordinance 868 that restricted the city manager's discretionary spending
authority to $5,000.00 or less.
ORDINANCE 893
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE 868 THAT RESTRICTED THE CITY
MANAGER'S DISCRETIONARY SPENDING AUTHORITY TO $5000.00 OR LESS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
THAT:
Section 2-102(G) of the Maplewood City Code, as codified by passage of Ordinance 868 (2006)
is hereby REPEALED.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009.
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
KAREN GUILFOILE, CITY CLERK
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann.
The motion passed.
DIANA LONGRIE, MAYOR
Page 8 of 16
Ayes — Councilmember Juenemann,
Nephew & Rossbach
Nays — Mayor Longrie
Councilmember Hjelle
L. 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. City Engineer, Deputy Public Works Director, Michael Thompson gave the report.
b. Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl answered questions of the
council.
Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve the resolution increasing the scope of the project and
also approve adjusting the not -to -exceed budget for the preparation of the feasibility study for
the Hills & Dales Area Street Improvements, Project 09-15.
RESOLUTION 09-09-261
INCREASING THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT AND BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR THE
PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY
WHEREAS, it is proposed to add the Howard/Ripley Area Streets as identified in the
adopted 2010 CIP to the scope of the Hills & Dales Area Street Improvements, City Project 09-
15 and to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA:
That the proposed improvement be referred to the city engineer for study and that he is
instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary
way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible and as to
whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement,
and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended.
FURTHERMORE, the funds in the amount $80,000, original established for the
preparation of the feasibility report for the Hills & Dales Area Street Improvements, shall be
increased by $20,000. Therefore the finance director is directed to appropriate a not -to -exceed
amount of $100,000 for the preparation of the Hills & Dales Area Street Improvements, which
now includes the expanded scope.
Approved this 14th day of September 2009.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes — Councilmembers Hjelle,
Juenemann, Nephew &
Rossbach
Nay — Mayor Longrie
The motion passed.
2. Council Affirmation Of Not Cutting Police And Fire Department Staffing And To
Maintain Full Staff Levels
a. Councilmember Erik Hjelle gave the report.
Councilmember Hjelle moved to support not cutting any police and fire department staff in the
2010 budget.
Page 9 of 16
Seconded by Mayor Longrie
Councilmember Rossbach made a motion to amend the motion that it is a priority to preserve
ways to maintain all the services that the city provides.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes — Councilmember Nephew
Nays — Councilmembers Hjelle,
Juenemann, Rossbach
Mayor Longrie
The motion failed.
Councilmember Hjelle moved to make it a priority to not cut any police or fire staff in the 2010
budget.
Seconded by Mayor Longrie. Ayes — All
The motion passed.
M. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve
items1-4.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann.
Ayes — All
The motion passed.
2. Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve
item 5.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew.
Ayes — All
The motion passed.
3. Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve
item 6.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann.
Ayes — All
The motion passed.
4. Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve
item 8.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew.
Ayes — All
The motion passed
Page 10 of 16
1. Approval of Claims
Councilmember Hjelle moved Approval of Claims.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE:
$ 64,035.63 Checks # 79331 thru # 79380
Dated 09/15/09
$ 301,541.89 Disbursements via debits to checking account
Dated 09/04/09 thru 09/11/09
$ 203,945.01 Checks # 79381 thru # 79422
Dated 09/14/09 thru 09/22/09
$ 125,014.71 Disbursements via debits to checking account
Dated 09/11/09 thru 09/18/09
$ 694,537.24 Total Accounts Payable
PAYROLL
$ 503,286.48 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 09/18/09
$ 2,129.75 Payroll Deduction check #1007678 thru #1007679
Dated 09/18/09
$ 505,416.23 Total Payroll
$ 1,199,953.47 GRAND TOTAL
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes — All
The motion passed.
2. Approval of Resolution Certifying Election Judges for the November 3, 2009, Municipal
General Election
Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve the resolution certifying election fudges for the
November 3, 2009 Municipal General Election.
RESOLUTION 09-09-262
ACCEPTING ELECTION JUDGES
RESOLVED, that the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, accepts the following list of
Election Judges for the 2009 Local General Election, to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2009.
Ahrens, Fran Anderson, Vivian Barrett, Marlis
Albu, Verle Ansari, Ahsan Bartelt, Joan
Anderson, Elsie Arnold, Ajla Bedor, David
Anderson, Suzanne Arnold, Carole Belland, Jaime
Page 11 of 16
Berg, Helen
Hilliard, Barb
McCann, John
Berry, Robert
Hines, Constance
McCarthy, Peggy
Bolden, Donita
Hinnenkamp, Gary
McCauley, Judy
Bortz, Albert
Horgan, Gerald
Mealey, Georgia
Bortz, Jeanne
Horgan, Sharon
Mechelke, Geraldine
Breidenstein, Anna Marie
Hulet, Jeanette
Mechelke, Mary Lou
Bunkowske, Bernice
Hulet, Robert
Meyer, Jackie
Carbone, Joyce
Huntoon, Lynn
Miller, Charlotte
Carle, Jeanette
Iversen, Mildred
Misgen, Joan
Cleland, Ann
Iversen, Thomas
Mossong, Betty
Connelly, Thomas
Jacobson, Scott
Motz, Betty
Connolly, Colleen
Jagoe, Carol
Mudek, Dolores
Cotter, Cathleen
Janacek, Jeffrey
Mudek, Leo
D'Arcio, India
Jefferson, Gwendolyn
Muraski, Gerry
Davidson, Marianne
Johannessen, Judith
Myster, Thomas
Deeg, Edward
Johnson, Barbara
Nephew, Shelly
Demko, Fred
Johnson, Mary
Nettleton, Janet
DeZelar, Phil
Johnson, Warren
Newcomb, Mary
Dickson, Helen Jean
Jones, Julia
Newcomb, Winifred
Droeger, Diane
Jones, Shirley
Nieters, Louise
DuCharme, Fred
Jurmu, Joyce
Nissen, Helen
Duellman, Audrey
Kirchoff, Harold
Niven, Amy
Eickhoff, Carolyn
Knauss, Carol
Norberg, Ann
Engel, Carol
Knutson, Lois
O'Brien, D. William (Bill)
Erickson, Elizabeth
Koch, Rosemary
Olson, Anita
Erickson, Eric
Kramer, Dennis
Olson, Lois
Feld, Robyn
Kramer, Patricia
Olson, Norman
Finch, Roberta
Krause, Bruce
Oslund, Kathryn
Fischer, Lorraine
Krekelberg, Mona Lou
Paddock, Ken
Fischer, Mary
Kroll, Lisa
Parent, Dian
Fischer, Peter
Kwapick, Clemence
Pehl, David
Fitzgerald, Delores
Lackner, Marvella
Peitzman, Lloyd
Fosburgh, Anne
Lampe, Charlotte
Peper, Marilyn
Fowler, Cynthia
Larson, Michelle
Popham, Mike
Francis, Gretchen
Lauren, Lorraine
Priefer, Bill
Francis, Robert
Lawrence, Donna
Rahn, Delbert
Franssen, Maryann
Leiter, Barbara
Rodriguez, Vincent
Franzen, James
Leo , Pati
Rohrbach, Charles
Freer, Mary Jo
Leo, Ann
Rohrbach, Elaine
Friedlein, Charlene
Leonard, Claudette
Roller, Carolyn
Friedlein, Richard
Lincowski, Steve
Ronholm, Mary
Fuller, Mary Katherine
Lincowski, Vi
Rudeen, Elaine
Galligher, Patricia
Lockwood, Jackie
Sandberg, Janet
Gebauer, Marilyn
Lodge, Audrey
Satriano, Pauline
Gebauer, Victor
Lofgren, Delores
Sauer, Elmer
Gierzak, Sister Clarice
Loipersbeck, Darlene
Sauer, Kathleen
Golaski, Diane
Lowe -Adams, Shari
Scheunemann, Marjorie
Gudknecht, Jamie
Luttrell, Shirley
Schiff, Marge
Gunn, Jaclynn
Mahowald, Valerie
Schluender, Cynthia
Guthrie, Rosie
Mahre, Jeri
Schmidt, Deb
Hart, Barbara
Manthey, John
Schneider, Mary Ann
Heininger, Gordon
Marsh, Delores
Schoenecker, Sandra
Herber, Darlene
Maskrey, Thomas
Schroepfer, Harriet
Hess, Harland
Mauston, Shelia
Schultz, Louise
Page 12 of 16
Shores, Teresa
Spangler, Bob
Spies, Louis
Stafki, Tim
Stenson, Karen
Stevens, Sandra
Storm, Mary
Taylor, Lorraine
Taylor, Rita
Thomforde, Faith
Tillman, Leila
Tolbert, Franklin
Trippler, Dale
Urbanski, Carolyn
Urbanski, Holly
Urbanski, Michelle
VanBlaricom, Beulah
Vanek, Mary
Vatne, Mary
Volkman, Phyllis
Wasmundt, Gayle
Weiland, Connie
Whitcomb, Larry
Willy, John
Witschen, Delores
Yorkovich, Cindy
Zacho, Karen
Zian, Helen
Page 13 of 16
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes — All
The motion passed.
3. Approval of Temporary Gambling Permit — Good Samaritan Society - Maplewood
Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve the resolution for a temporary gambling permit for the
Good Samaritan Society at 550 Roselawn Avenue East, Maplewood.
RESOLUTION 09-09-263
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the premises
permit for lawful gambling is approved for the Good Samaritan Society, 550 Roselawn Ave E, to
be used on November 20, 2009 at Good Samaritan Society, 550 Roselawn Ave E.
FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness of
application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute §349.213.
FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control Division
of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said permit application as being in compliance
with Minnesota Statute §349.213.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolved that this Resolution by the City Council of Maplewood,
Minnesota, be forwarded to the Gambling Control Division for their approval.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes — All
The motion passed.
4. Approval of Temporary Gambling Permit - Church of The Presentation Of the Blessed
Virgin Mary - Maplewood
Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve the resolution for a temporary gambling permit for
RESOLUTION 09-09-264
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the
temporary gambling permit for lawful gambling is approved for the Church of the Presentation of
the Blessed Virgin Mary, 1725 Kennard Street, to be used on November 21, 2009.
FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness
of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute §349.213.
FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control
Division of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said permit application as being in
compliance with Minnesota Statute §349.213.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolved that this Resolution by the City Council of
Maplewood, Minnesota, be forwarded to the Gambling Control Division for their approval.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes — All
The motion passed.
September 28, 2009 14
City Council Meeting Minutes
5. Resolution Adopting Retiree Health Savings Plan For LELS Police Sergeant Employees
Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve the resolution, VantageCare Retirement Health Savings
Plan Adoption Agreement, and (RHS) Plan for the LELS Sergeants employee group.
RESOLUTION 09-09-265
FOR ADOPTION OF THE
VANTAGECARE RETIREMENT HEALTH SEAVINGS (RHS) PLAN
Plan Number: 803121
Name of Employer: City of Maplewood State: Minnesota
Resolution of the above-named Employer (the "Employer"):
WHEREAS, the employer has employees rendering valuable services; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of a retiree health savings plan for such employees serves the
interests of the Employer by enabling it to provide reasonable security regarding such
employees' health needs during retirement, by providing increased flexibility in its personnel
management system, and by assisting in the attraction and retention of competent personnel;
and
WHEREAS, the Employer has determined that the establishment of the retiree health Savings
plan (the "Plan") serves the above objectives; and
WHEREAS, the Employer desires that its retiree health savings plan (the "Plan") be
administered by ICMA Retirement Corporation and/or its affiliates;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Employer hereby adopts the Plan in the form
of the ICMA Retirement Corporation's VantageCare Retirement Health Savings program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the assets of the Plan shall be held in trust, with the
Employer serving as the trustee ("Trustee") for the exclusive benefit of Plan participants and
their beneficiaries, and the assets of the Plan shall not be diverted to any other purpose.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Human Resource Coordinator shall be the coordinator
and contact for the Plan and shall receive necessary repots, notices, etc.
I, Karen Guilfoile, Clerk of the City of Maplewood, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution
was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting thereof assembled this 28th day of
September, 2009, by the Maplewood City Council.
City Clerk:
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes — All
The motion passed.
September 28, 2009 15
City Council Meeting Minutes
6. Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements, Project 08-10, Resolution Directing
Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, Change Order No. 3
Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve the resolution directing modification of existing
construction contract change order no. 3, for city project 08-10.
RESOLUTION 09-09-266
DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
PROJECT 08-10, CHANGE ORDER NO. 3
WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made
Improvement Project 08-10, Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements, and has let a construction
contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and
WHEREAS, it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as
Improvement Project 08-10, Change Order No. 3.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA that:
The mayor and city engineer are hereby a
contract by executing said Change Order
revised contract amount is $2,005,864.40,.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew.
The motion passed.
7. Approval Of Purchases For Bui
8. Approval of Invoice For
Councilmember Hjelle m
,d and directed to modify the existing
the amount of $21,557.50. The
BE
ons (heard out of order earlier in the meeting)
For Taste Of Maplewood Event Guide
rove the invoice for Imagewerks for the Taste of Maplewood
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann.
The motion passed.
N. AWARD OF BIDS
None.
O. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS — PART II
None.
P. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Longrie adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m.
September 28, 2009
City Council Meeting Minutes
Ayes — All
16
For The Permanent Record 1A) A, CL4 tv rx,
V
d � QU&4,/L&,'t at� Attachment 2
Meeting Date: / ,``,,
Agenda Item#: W.i(�1� 8'�i���,: Revised Draft
By Sharon Sandeen, July 24, 2009
[Annotated with comments and questions to be discussed further.]
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND CRITICAL AREA ARTICLE OF THE CITY CODE
The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances:
This amendment revises portions of Article VII. (Environmental Protection and Critical Area) dealing
with wetlands.
Section 1. Findings and Purposes. [Most of the language in this Section came from earlier
drafts, but the language was reorganized and streamlined to eliminate repetition and reduce
ambiguity. Ginny Gaynor wants to look at the language more closely to make sure nothing
importantinecessary was deleted.]
a. Wetlands serve a variety of beneficial functions that are integral to the city's environment
and critical to its health, safety, and general welfare. Depending upon their type, size,
and location within a watershed, they represent important physical, educational,
ecological, aesthetic, recreational, and economic assets of the city.
b. Wetlands help maintain water quality by filtering suspended solids and pollutants. They
reduce flooding and erosion. They provide food and habitat for wildlife and open space
for human interaction.
[Should we insert findings and purposes regarding streams or treat streams and lakes
separately in Shoreland Ordinance? Was the Council and the public aware that previous
draft Ordinance would have imposed a 100 foot buffer zone on all creeks and streams?]
Various existing state and federal laws restrict activities and development within
wetlands. The city finds that development adjacent to and surrounding wetlands may
also degrade and pollute wetlands or accelerate the aging or elimination of wetlands.
Regulating development and land use around wetlands is therefore in the public interest.
d. As defined and used herein, buffers are strips (or rings) of land of designated widths that
surround wetlands and are important for maintaining the health and valuable functions of
wetlands.
e. Buffers with native or naturalized vegetation serve the following functions:
(1) To stabilize soil and prevent erosion.
(2) To preserve and enhance surface water quality by reducing the input of
suspended solids, nutrients, and harmful chemical substances that may
adversely impact public health or aquatic habitat.
(3) To filter suspended solids, nutrients, pollutants, and harmful substances.
(4) To moderate water level fluctuations during storms.
(5) To protect beneficial plant life and provide habitat for wildlife.
(6) To provide shade to reduce the temperature of both stormwater runoff and the
wetland, thereby helping to maintain the conditions for healthy aquatic life.
(7) To reduce the adverse impacts of human activities on wetlands and thereby
preserve wetlands in a natural state.
f. The ability of a wetland to provide any of the foregoing benefits must be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis because of the uniqueness of local physiographic, biological,
cultural, and land use characteristics. Accordingly, the restrictions that are imposed by
this ordinance depend upon the applicable wetlands classification as described below.
g. In addition to regulating development and land use around wetlands, this ordinance is
intended to educate the public (including appraisers, owners, potential buyers, and
developers) about the importance of functions of wetlands and buffers and to encourage
property owners who live adjacent to and/or near wetlands to be responsible stewards of
wetlands by managing and enhancing the quality of buffers as hereinafter described,
Section 2. Definitions.
The following words, terms, and phrases when used in this section shall have the meanings ascribed to
them in this subsection, except where the context of the word, terms, and phrases clearly indicates a
different meaning.
Alteration means human action that adversely affects the vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or
wildlife habitat in a wetland or buffer, including: grading, filling, dumping, dredging, draining,
paving, construction, application of gravel, discharging pollutants (including herbicides and
pesticides), and compacting or disturbing soil through vehicle or equipment use. Alteration also
includes the mass removal of vegetation by means of cutting, pruning, topping, clearing,
relocating, or applying herbicides or any hazardous or toxic substance designed to kill plant life,
Alteration does not include the following:
Walking, passive recreation, fishing or other similar low -impact activities.
ii. Planting native vegetation that is listed on the city's list of approved native plants.
iii. The management of native plants and trees through selective cutting, pruning,
topping, clearing, and relocating. [This subsection, the next subsection and
the definition of "selective" is to be discussed further. Ginny Gaynor will
prepare chart showing proposed allowed and non -allowed activities before
meeting on August 5, 2009]
iv. The management of or removal of non-native plants and trees through selective
cutting, pruning, topping, clearing, and relocating.
V. The removal of trees or vegetation that are dead, diseased, noxious, or
hazardous.
vi. The removal of weeds and noxious weeds, including the use of herbicides to
destroy noxious weeds.
vii. Wetland and buffer enhancement measures which have been approved by other
regulatory bodies.
2
Best management practices (BMP's) mean measures taken to minimize negative effects of
stormwater runoff on the environment including, but not limited to, installation of rain gardens,
infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, retention basins, filters, sediment traps, swales, reduction
of impervious surfaces, planting of deep-rooted native plants, landscape and pavement
maintenance. [City Council Concern #2 regarding better definition of best management
practices is not addressed here but in revised organization of Ordinance into sections
dealing with construction and development and homeowner uses and in variance and
alternative minimum buffer provisions. (See below)]
Buffers are strips (or rings) of land surrounding wetlands in which development and land use are
restricted and in which the growth of native and naturalized plants and trees are to be preserved
and encouraged in accordance with this ordinance. [Should we include description of
applicable buffer widths here or does it make sense to just specify them in Section 3
(Applicability and Effective Date)?]
Enhancement means an action that increases the functions and values of a wetland or wetland
buffer.
Erosion means the movement of soil or rock fragments, or the wearing away of the land surface
by water, wind, ice, and gravity.
Infiltration basin means a pond or basin that captures stormwater and allows it to soak into the
ground. An infiltration basin will typically drain within forty eight (48) hours of a storm event.
Lake means an area of open, relatively deep water that is large enough to produce a wave -
swept shore. This definition includes the following Minnesota public waters located within the
city: Phalen Lake, Kohlman Lake, Keller Lake, Wakefield Lake, Beaver Lake.... [The second
sentence was added, in part, to address City Council concern V. This sentence,
together with later exemption of lakes would make it clear what lakes are not subject to
this Ordinance by naming them precisely.]
Lawn area means that area of a buffer which is not a native area or does not contain naturalized
vegetation, including areas of mowed turf grass or other areas used for the purpose of outdoor
enjoyment which may include gardening, nonpermanent structures, impervious patios, and play
areas.
Mitigation means an action that reduces, rectifies, eliminates, or compensates for the alteration
of a buffer or wetland.
Native area means an area where native vegetation exists.
Native vegetation means tree, shrub, grass, or other plant species that are indigenous to the
Twin Cities metropolitan area that could have been expected to naturally occur on the site.
Native vegetation does not include noxious weeds.
Naturalized area means an area where naturalized vegetation exists and does not include a
lawn area.
Naturalized vegetation means tree, shrub, grass, or other plant species that exists on a site
naturally without having been planted. It may be a native or non-native species. Some
naturalized species are appropriate in a buffer and some are considered weeds.
Noxious weed means plants listed as prohibited noxious weeds in the Minnesota Noxious Weed
Law. (See also weed.)
Ordinary high water mark (OHWM) means a mark delineating the highest water level
maintained for enough time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary high water
mark is commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic
to predominantly terrestrial.
Rain garden means an infiltration basin that is planted as a garden that allows water to infiltrate
within 48 hours of a storm event.
Restoration means returning a wetland, stream, or buffer to a condition that is similar to that
before development of the surrounding area.
Selective means [insert definition from Ginny Gaynor]. [Per note above under "Alterations,"
this will be discussed further. It is agreed that property owners can engage in various
"management" activities without City Approval but larger scale activities (to be defined)
may require City approval.]
Semipublic means land that is maintained by a private organization for public use.
Setback means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure and the nearest edge of
the buffer or wetland.
[If this Ordinance is to include streams, then we need to re-insert definition of streams here.]
Structure means anything constructed or erected that requires location on the ground or
attached to something having location on the ground.
Sustainable design means a development design which minimizes impacts on the landscape.
Temporary erosion control means methods of keeping soil stable during construction or grading.
Temporary erosion control measures include, but are not limited to, silt fencing, erosion control
blankets, bale slope barriers, or other best management erosion control methods approved by
the city.
Variance means a deviation from the standards of this section that is not specifically allowed.
Vegetation means any organic plant life growing at, below, or above the soil surface.
Water quality pond means a pond that has been created to capture stormwater runoff. These
are not natural wetlands. Stormwater is often piped into these ponds but may also enter through
sheet runoff. These are also called utility ponds.
Water gualitypond edge means the normal high water level for a water quality pond.
Weed means a plant which causes damage in some way to native vegetation or ecosystems.
(See also noxious weed.)
Wetlands means those areas of the city inundated or saturated by groundwater or surface water
at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas as defined in the (Army
Corps of Engineers regulations 33 CFR 328.3 1988). Where a person has removed or mostly
changed the vegetation, one shall determine a wetland by the presence or evidence of hydric or
organic soil and other documentation of the previous existence of wetland vegetation such as
aerial photographs. This definition does not include [insert reference to RWMWD ponds].
al
Wetland functions means the natural processes performed by wetlands, such as helping food
chain production, providing wildlife habitat, maintaining the availability and quality of water such
as purifying water, acting as a recharge and discharge area for groundwater aquifers, and
moderating surface water and stormwater flows, and performing other functions, including but
not limited to those set out in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations.
Wetland edge means the line delineating the outer edge of a wetland or stream. This One shall
establish this line by shall be established using the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands dated January 10, 1989, and jointly published by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. The applicable watershed district must verify
this line.
Section 3. Applicability and Effective Date [This language came from other parts of earlier
drafts of the Ordinance. The idea behind what is included is that this is where property owners
will look to determine if they are subject to the Ordinance in the first place. If they are, then they
should look to the other sections (4 or 5) to determine which restrictions apply.]
Except as is specified elsewhere in this ordinance, this ordinance shall apply to the following real
property located within the city limits of Maplewood:
a. All real property which is located in a wetland as determined by the [insert year]
Wetlands Map of the Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed District and within the
buffer that is applicable to such wetland. [Pursuant to our discussion, we need to
determine if we are referring to a specific (static) map or an ever changing map.
For due process reasons, Sharon Sandeen favors the former.]
b. The buffer widths for wetlands within the city are assigned in accordance the MN -RAM
wetland classification system used by the Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed
District, as follows: [As noted above: should the buffer widths be here or in the
definition section? Sharon Sandeen thinks they should be here because the
definition of buffer width immediately follows the use of the term "buffer" in the
preceding subsection.]
Manage A (exceptional and the highest -functioning wetlands): One -hundred (100) foot
buffer.
Manage 8 (high-quality wetlands): Seventy-five (75) foot buffer.
Manage C wetlands (moderate quality wetlands): Fifty (50) foot buffer.
Utility Class (defined as water quality ponds): Ten (1) foot buffer.
[If we add streams back into this ordinance, we should separately and clearly state the
buffer zones applicable to streams. In previous drafts, there is the statement that
streams will be treated as Manage A wetlands but not an express statement that streams
are subject to a 100 foot buffer.]
C. Lakes are exempt from this ordinance but are subject to other restrictions, including the
city's Shoreland Ordinance. [This exemption addresses City Council concern V. A
question was raised about whether it makes sense to include this and the next
exemption in Section 2 or elsewhere. Sharon Sandeen argues that Section 2 is
intended to identify the "real property" to which the restrictions do and do not
apply, whereas other exemptions (set forth in Sections 4 and 5) focus on the types
of uses of applicable property.]
5
Property which is located within a buffer, but is separate from the wetland by an existing
road.
e. When any provision of any city ordinance of applicable watershed district regulations
conflict with this ordinance, the provision that provides more protection for wetlands and
buffers shall apply unless specifically provided otherwise in this ordinance.
This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper.
[Shouldn't we just insert a specific date?]
Section 4. Restrictions on Development and Construction in Wetlands and Buffers. [Most of
the language in this Section came from earlier drafts, but the language was
reorganized and streamlined to eliminate repetition, reduce ambiguity, and make
the restrictions and exemptions clearer. The creation of this section was designed
to address City council concern #4 regarding the need for clarification regarding
the restrictions imposed on new construction and development versus
homeowner uses.]
a. Unless an exemption applies, the following development and construction activities are
not allowed in wetlands or buffers;
Alterations, including the filling of wetlands.
The .construction of structures.
iii. The conversion of native or naturalized areas to lawn area.
iv. The construction of stormwater drainage facilities, sedimentation ponds,
infiltration basins, and rain gardens within a buffer.
V. The discharging of stormwater to a wetland must comply with section 44-1245 of
the City of Maplewood ordinances (Storm Management).
vi. There is no requirement for a structure setback from the edge of a buffer for
Manage A, Manage B, and Manage C wetlands, but a 10 foot structure setback
from the edge of the buffer is required for all water quality ponds for a total
structure setback of 20 feet from the water quality pond. [This language is
designed to address City Council concern #3]
General Exemptions: the foregoing restrictions do not apply to the following activities:
Planting native vegetation that is listed on the city's list of approved native plants.
ii. The management of native plants and trees through selective cutting, pruning,
topping, clearing, and relocating. [See note under "Alterations" above for
discussion of issues yet to be resolved.]
iii. The management of or removal of non-native plants and trees through selective
cutting, pruning, topping, clearing, and relocating. [See note under
"Alterations" above for discussion of issues yet to be resolved.]
iv. The removal of trees or vegetation that are dead, diseased, noxious, or
hazardous.
V. The removal of weeds and noxious weeds, including the use of herbicides to
destroy noxious weeds.
on
vi. The implementation of wetland and buffer enhancement measures which have
been approved by other regulatory bodies.
vii. Public or semipublic streets and utilities. The city council may waive the
requirements of this ordinance for the construction or maintenance of public or
semipublic streets and utilities through buffers where it determines that there is a
greater public need for the project than to meet the requirement of this section.
The city council shall hold a public hearing before declaring such a waiver. The
city shall notify the property owners within 500 feet of the buffer at least ten days
before the hearing. In waiving these requirements the city council shall apply the
following standards:
(1) The city may only allow the construction of public or semipublic utilities
and streets through buffers where there is no other practical alternative.
(2) Before the city council acts on the waiver the planning commission and
the environmental and natural resources commission shall make a
recommendation to the city council. The planning commission shall hold a
public hearing for the waiver. The city staff shall notify the property
owners within five hundred (500) feet of the buffer at least ten days before
the hearing.
(3) Utility or street corridors shall not be allowed when endangered or
threatened species are found in the buffer.
(4) Utility or street corridors, including any allowed maintenance roads, shall
be as far from the wetland as possible.
(5) Utility or street corridor construction and maintenance shall protect the
wetland and buffer and avoid large trees as much as possible.
(6) The city shall not allow the use of pesticides herbicides or other
hazardous or toxic substances in buffers or wetlands, however, in some
situations the use of herbicides may be used if prior approval is obtained
from city staff.
(7) The owner or contractor shall replant utility or street corridors with
appropriate native vegetation, except trees, at preconstruction densities
or greater after construction ends. Trees shall be replaced as required by
city code.
(8) Any additional corridor access for maintenance shall be provided as much
as possible at specific points rather than to the road which is parallel to
the wetland edge. If parallel roads are necessary they shall be no greater
than fifteen (15) feet wide.
(9) The City Council, upon recommendation of the city staff, may require
additional mitigation actions as a condition of granting the waiver. [As
noted more fully below, the circumstances that may trigger
mitigation and restoration efforts need to be more clearly defined.]
viii. Public or semipublic trails. The City may waive the requirements of this ordinance
for the construction or maintenance of public or semipublic trails through buffers
where it determines that there is a greater public need for the project than to
meet the requirement of this section. In waiving these requirements the City shall
apply the following standards: [Consistent with earlier drafts, unlike
7
semipublic and public streets and utilities, semipublic and public trails
don't need City council approval but can be approved by staff.]
(1) Trails shall not be allowed when endangered or threatened species are
found to be present in the buffer.
(2) Buffers shall be expanded, where possible, equal to the width of the trail
corridor.
(3) The owner or contractor shall replant all disturbed areas next to the trail in
a timeframe approved by city staff.
(4) All necessary erosion control measures must be in place before
constructing a trail. The erosion control measures must also be
maintained and inspected by the city to ensure that the wetland or stream
is not compromised by trail construction activities.
(5) The trail must be designed and constructed with sustainable design
methods [and in compliance with the American's with Disabilities
Act?].
(6) The trail may provide one access point to the wetland but such an access
shall be no more than four (4) feet wide.
(7) Boardwalks are allowed within the buffer and shall be a maximum of six
(6) feet in width for semipublic use and twelve (12) feet in width for public
use.
(8) Trails or boardwalks shall not be constructed entirely around the wetland.
(9) City staff may require additional mitigation actions as specified below
(Mitigation and Restoration of Buffers). [As noted above and below, we
need to be clearer about what triggers mitigation and restoration.]
ix. A nonconforming single or double dwelling residential structure [i.e., one built
within the applicable buffer] which loses its nonconforming status as described
in Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subdivision 1(e) is allowed to be rebuilt
on its same footprint if the following conditions are met:
(1) temporary erosion control means are used during the reconstruction
process; and
(2) all other applicable building code requirements are met.
A variance or approved buffer averaging is required for any proposed
construction that deviates from the original footprint unless the area proposed for
construction is not in the buffer. [The entirety of this re -written section (b. ix.)
is designed to address City Council concern NJ
X. A nonconforming manufactured home which is located within a wetland buffer
can be replaced with a new manufactured home without approval of a variance
as long as the replacement meets with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes,
section 462.357, subd. 1.a.
A. Alternative Minimum and Average Buffers:
(1) Recognizing that there are instances where, because of the unique physical
characteristics of a specific parcel of land, alternative size buffers may be
necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the land, upon application to the city
staff as part of the building permit process, the following average buffer widths
may be allowed based upon an assessment of the following:
(a) Undue hardship would arise from not allowing the alternative, or
would otherwise not be in the public interest.
(b) Size of parcel.
(c) Configuration of existing roads and utilities.
(d) Percentage of parcel covered by wetland.
(e) Configuration of wetlands on the parcel.
(f) Will not cause degradation of the wetland or stream.
(g) Will ensure the protection or enhancement of portions of the buffer
which are found to be the most ecologically beneficial to the
wetland or stream.
(2) The following are the alternative average buffer widths:
Buffer Wetland Classes
Manage A
[& Streams] Manage 8 Manage C
Minimum Buffer Width 75 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft.
Average Buffer Width 100 ft. 75 ft. N/A
(3) The appropriateness of using the alternative average buffers will be
evaluated as part of the review of the contractor's or owner's
development application. The alternative average buffer used must be
within the spirit and intent of this Article.
(4) The approval of an application for buffer averaging will be granted to any
developer, contractor, or homeowner who agrees to restore and maintain
at least a 50 foot buffer with native plantings, provided that a restoration
plan agreement is submitted to and approved by city staff. The restoration
plan shall include the following:
(a) A description of existing vegetation.
(b) A description of the restoration methods to be used.
(c) A description of maintenance procedures proposed during first five
years after restoration, including the control of noxious weeds.
(d) A description of erosion control measures that will be ued.
(e) A list of native plants to be planted.
4
(f) The identity and qualifications of the proposed contractor. (Only
contractors with experience and success restoring wetland or
stream buffers or natural vegetation shall be approved.)
(g) A maintenance agreement which states that the owner will
maintain the buffer to its improved state for a period of five years.
[The foregoing provision, and the deletion of some language of earlier drafts,
addresses City Council concern #5 by making it clear that professionals are only
needed in limited circumstances when alternative buffer averaging is sought. In
addition, we may want to think about re -wording subsection (g) above to allow for
homeowner work in specified circumstances.]
(5) The approval of an application for buffer averaging will also be granted to
any developer, contractor, or homeowner who agrees to engage in best
management practices which [significantly?] reduce stormwater runoff
and/or improve the quality of stormwater runoff entering the adjacent
wetland. This may be achieved through the following strategies or other
staff approved best management practices for dealing with stormwater.
These practices are to be located outside of the wetland buffer.
(a)
Reduce amount of pavement on site (i.e. fewer parking stalls,
narrower driveways, shared parking with other businesses).
(b)
Use pervious pavement such as pavers or porous asphalt.
(c)
Use turf pavers or modified turf areas for overflow parking.
(d)
Install rain garden or infiltration basin.
(e)
Install rock trench or rock pit.
(f)
Install filter strip of grass or native vegetation.
(g)
Install surface sand filter or underground filter.
(h)
Install native plantings on site to reduce fertilizer use and improve
infiltration.
(i)
Install a green roof on buildings.
0)
Install grit chambers, sediment traps, or forebays.
(6) The city may require a cashescrow or letter of credit to cover 150 percent
of the work required in subsections A. (4) and xi. (5) above.
[The entirety of this section (b. A.) was re -worked to address City Council concern #1. In
keeping with City council concern #8, it also attempts to build in some incentives for builders
and developers in the form of the automatic grant of buffer averaging if they engage in
restoration efforts or the listed BMPs. We agreed to look more closely at this provision. Given
that the applicable buffers will be reduced if either restoration of bmp's occur, we may want to
define "significant" to be consistent with the stormwater that would otherwise be filtered in the
larger buffer area.]
10
xii. Nonconforming Buildings, Structures, and Properties: Any existing building or
structure [or any existing lawn area or use of property] not in conformity with the
regulations prescribed in this chapter as of its effective date shall be regarded as
nonconforming and may continue. [Continued use of such nonconforming lawn
area includes uses such as gardens or the placement of temporary structures.
Naturalized and native areas are not included in this nonconforming use clause.]
[Sharon Sandeen believes that in light of the clarification of what
homeowners can do in the buffer zone as described in Section 5 below, it is
inappropriate to describe such uses as "non -conforming." They aren't
non -conforming if they are specifically allowed! Thus, she proposes to
delete the language shown in brackets (above) so that the nonconforming
language only applies to building and structures that are situated in whole
or in part in a buffer.]
C. Construction Practices: Special construction practices shall be required on projects or
developments adjacent to wetlands and their buffers. Such practices (to be approved by
city staff before issuance of a grading or building permit) may include, but are not limited
to, grading, sequencing, vehicle tracking platforms, additional silt fences, and additional
sediment control. They may also include the following:
Fencing and sign standards: The city may require that a property owner or
developer install wetland signs before grading or starting construction. The
wetland signs will be placed on the boundary between a buffer and adjacent land
shall be identified using permanent signs. These signs shall mark the edge of
the buffer and shall state there shall be no mowing, cutting, filling, or dumping
beyond this point. These signs shall be installed at each lot line where it crosses
a wetland or stream buffer, and where needed to indicate the contour of the
buffer, with a maximum spacing of one -hundred (100) feet of wetland or stream
edge.
Erosion Control Installation: Before grading or construction, the owner or
contractor shall put into place erosion control measures around the borders of
buffers. Such erosion control measures must remain in place until the owner and
contractors have finished all development activities that may affect the buffer.
iii. Erosion Control Breaches: All erosion control measures must be maintained and
inspected to ensure compliance and protection of wetlands, streams, and buffers.
The contractor or owner shall be responsible for all erosion/sedimentation
breaches within the buffer and shall restore impacted areas to conditions present
prior to grading or construction activities.
iv. Platting: When platting or subdividing property, the plat or subdivision must show
thEl wetland boundaries as approved by the applicable watershed district.
V. Erosion Control Removal: After completion of grading or construction, the
contractor or owner may remove the erosion control measures only after
inspection and approval by the city and the applicable watershed district to
ensure the areas affected have been established per requirements.
vi. It is the responsibility of the owner to alleviate any erosion during and after
completion of grading or construction. The owner or contractor must remove
erosion control measures after final approved inspection by the city and the
applicable watershed district.
11
Mitigation and Restoration of Buffers: The city requires mitigation when a property
owner or contractor has altered or will alter a wetland or buffer. The property owner or
contractor shall submit a mitigation plan to city staff for approval. In reviewing the plan,
the city may require the following actions in descending order of preference:
Reducing or avoiding the impact by limiting the degree or amount of the action,
such as by using appropriate technology.
Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the woodland buffer.
iii. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by prevention and maintenance
operations during the life of the actions.
iv. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute
buffer land at up to a [two?] one-to-one ratio. [Which was meant?]
V. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.
vi.. Where the city requires restoration or replacement of a buffer, the owner or
contractor shall replant the buffer with native vegetation. at a similar density to
the amount before alteration A replanting plan must be approved by the city
before planting.
vii. Any additional conditions required by the applicable watershed district and/or the
soil and water conservation district shall apply.
viii. All strategies as listed in section b. A. (3) above.
[Sharon Sandeen stated that the Mitigation and Restoration provision seems inapplicable
or out of place in light of the fact that construction/development activities in the buffer
are prohibited. We need to make it clearer when such provisions apply, if ever. Aspects
are already part of the Variance and Alternative Minimum Buffer provisions. Arguably,
they make more sense as a remedy for failure to abide by the Ordinance, in which case
we need some due process built in before requiring the same. Perhaps move this
provision to the remedies provision?]
e. Variances: Procedures for granting variances from this section are as follows:
The city council may approve variances to the requirements in this section. All
variances must follow Section 44-13 of the city code and Minnesota Statutes.
Before the city council acts on a variance the environmental and natural
resources commission will make a recommendation to the planning commission,
who will in turn make a recommendation to the city council. The city council shall
hold a public hearing for the variance. The city staff shall notify property owners
within five hundred (500) feet of the buffer at least ten days before the hearing.
iii. The city may require the applicant to mitigate any wetland, stream, or buffer
alteration impacts with the approval of a variance, including but not limited to,
implementing one or more of the strategies listed in section b. A. (3) above.
iv. To approve a variance, the council must make the following findings:
(1) Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances
unique to the property under consideration. The term "undue hardship" as used
in granting a variance means the owner of the property in question cannot put it
12
to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls; the
plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not
created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential
character of the locality. Economic considerations alone are not an undue
hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this section.
(2) The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this section.
f. Wetland or Buffer Surety: The [building permit?] applicant shall post a wetland or
buffer mitigation surety with the city, such as a cash deposit or letter of credit, of one
hundred and fifty (150) percent of estimated cost for mitigation. The surety will be
required based on the size of the project as deemed necessary by staff. Funds will be
held by the city until successful completion of restoration as determined by the city after
a final inspection. Wetland or buffer mitigation surety does not include other sureties
required pursuant to any other provision of city code or city directive. [Again, the
enforcement and remedies provisions need to be re-examined.]
g. Enforcement: The city reserves the right to inspect the site or property during regular
city business hours or upon notice to the property owner or its designated representative
one business day in advance if the inspection is to occur at a different time for
compliance with this ordinance during development or alteration. The city shall be
responsible for the enforcement of this ordinance. Any person who fails to comply with
or violates any section of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and,
upon conviction, shall be subject to punishment in accordance with section 1-15. All
land use building and grading permits shall be suspended until the developer has
corrected the violation. Each day that a separate violation exists shall constitute a
separate offense. [Again, the enforcement and remedies provisions need to be re-
examined. As currently written in this draft, they only apply to construction and
development activities. We need to think about how best to enforce the
restrictions on homeowner use.]
Section 5. Restrictions on Residential Activities in Wetlands and Buffers. [Most of the
language in this Section came from earlier drafts, but the language was reorganized and
streamlined to eliminate repetition, reduce ambiguity, and make the restrictions and
exemptions clearer. The creation of this section was designed to address City council
concern #4 regarding the need for clarification regarding the restrictions imposed on new
construction and development versus homeowner uses.]
a. Unless an exemption applies, the following residential activities are not allowed in
wetlands and buffers;
Alterations, including the filling of wetlands.
The construction of structures.
iii. The conversion of native or naturalized areas to lawn area.
iv. The construction of stormwater drainage facilities, sedimentation ponds,
infiltration basins, and rain gardens within a buffer.
b. General Exemptions: the foregoing restrictions do not apply to the following activities:
Walking, passive recreation, fishing or other similar low -impact activities.
Planting native vegetation that is listed on the city's list of approved native plants.
13
iii. The management of native plants and trees through selective cutting, pruning,
topping, clearing, and relocating.
iv. The management of or removal of non-native plants and trees through selective
cutting, pruning, topping, clearing, and relocating.
V. The removal of trees or vegetation that are dead, diseased, noxious, or
hazardous.
vi. The use, maintenance, and alteration of lawn area for the purpose of outdoor
enjoyment which may include gardening, nonpermanent structures (including
swing sets and volleyball nets), impervious patios and play areas.
vii. Work within a wetland or buffer which was approved by the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources water permitting process and access to those
areas by a trail which is limited to the width of the permit.
viii. Large-scale native restoration projects as approved by city staff. Property owners
interested in voluntarily restoring their buffer to native plants should submit a
restoration plan to the city in accordance with published city quidelines.
C. Similar to the variance procedure that is available for development and construction
purposes as specified above, single-family residential homeowners who live next to
Manage A and Manage B wetlands may apply to the city for a reduction by one buffer
width of the buffer that is applicable to their property (i.e., from 100 feet to 75 feet or from
75 feet to 50 feet). Such application shall be reviewed by city staff and approved upon a
showing that the applicant is participating in best management practices which result in
a reduction of stormwater run-off entering the nearby wetland from their property. The
reduced buffer zones will be applicable for so long as the best management practices on
which the application is based remain in place. A decision by city staff to deny the
application may be appealed to the city council. [This provision was designed to
address City Council concern #6 concerning the development of incentives for the
implementation of BMP's by homeowners. This provision is to be discussed
further. One issue that needs to be addressed is whether this provision is needed
in light of the foregoing clarification of allowable homeowner uses. It also needs
to be determined if the city wants to include other incentives (in addition to
reduction of buffer widths) in the Ordinance.]
The city council approved the second reading of this ordinance on
Diana Longrie, Mayor
Attest:
Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk
14