04-15-2013 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

, � • � BO L_TON 8� M � N K , I NC� . Consulting Engineers & Surveyors '� 2638 Shadow Lane, Suite 200 • Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Phone (952)448-8838 • Fax(952)448-8805 www.bolton-menk.com February 26, 2013 City of Orono Attn: Melanie Curtis PO Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 RE: Wetland Code Review Dear Melanie: As requested, we have completed a review of Orono's current Wetland Protection ordinance (City Code 78- 1601:1614). This review included a search for ambiguous or unclear statements and requirements not in alignment with generally accepted standards. The ordinance was also compared to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's (MCWD) Wetland Protection Rule for discrepancies between the two. We offer the following observations,comments, and recommendations for your consideration: 1. 78-1601.a: The Surface Water Management Plan is referenced here. A link could be provided here to redirect users accordingly. 2. 78-1601.c.3: Redevelopment is defined as "removal of the principal structure to the extent of more than 50% of its market value and volume and reconstruction on the same property". Do both the 50% thresholds of market value and volume have to be met? What is required if over 50% of market value is removed but less than 50% volume, or vice versa? Who determines market value? Is the assessed value used, or is it the responsibility of the applicant to have a value determined? If it is up to the applicant, what is the process for approval of market value determination? 3. 78-1601.c.4: "In the event that the wetland is on an adjacent property but near enough to the subject property so that buffers to said wetland would extend into the subject property,the buffer requirements apply". If the buffer is not maintained on the adjacent property so that a contiguous buffer into the subject property is possible, does it make sense to require a buffer on the subject property? Should the City consider modifying this section to account for such conditions accordingly? 4. 78-1602: This section details wetland types. Since these types are already detailed in Circular 39 and buffer widths are determined according to functional assessment, is it necessary to include them in the City code? Should this section be replaced with a description of functional assessment values (e.g. preserve, manage 1, manage 2, and manage 3)? 5. 78-1602: The first paragraph states "unless the wetland is within a shoreland district in which case the more restrictive rules regarding setbacks would apply". No mention of other setbacks is listed to override. 6. 78-1603: The official City Wetland Map (CWM) is referenced here. A link could be provided here to redirect users accordingly. 7. 78-1605: "The planning director will have the approved WCA wetland delineations shown on the official City Wetland Map". Is this being done? Should we be updating the official map on a regular basis,or should we plan on updating only during Comprehensive Plan updates? 8. 78-1605.b2.a: Undesirable plant species listed include reed canary grass. Reed canary grass is used by State agencies and the NRCS for cover crops and grassed waterways. It is also extremely difficult to eradicate if present. Should the City consider removing reed canary b ass from the list of undesirable plant species in Orono?