Agenda Packets - 2004/09/27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Spring Creek Basin Report September 27, 2004 Page 2 As the current guidelines allow for permit applications, and do not outright ban activities within the buffer, I do not find any benefit to reducing the buffer width. Most projects that would occur within the buffer should easily conform to the stated standards presented in Subdivision 4 of the Ordinance. Cases that would be more problematic given the stated conditions would likely be located closer to the wetland boundary, and would likely be encountered even if the buffer setback requirement were reduced. This observation certainly applies for yard waste, which is not allowed within the 100-foot buffer according to the ordinance, yet was very common very close to the wetland boundary, and would likely have to be regulated even under a 10-foot buffer requirement. The ordinance as it exists currently seems to be comprehensive and addresses most situations adequately. The language is clear and the goals are easily understood. Many of these rules are also enforced by the Rice Creek Watershed District, which certainly supports the City’s position. No major changes are recommended. Minor revisions to the ordinance may include language encouraging the enhancement of the buffer and wetland areas. Ideas that could be promoted include planting of native vegetation, buckthorn removal, or use of rain gardens to collect backyard runoff, just to name a few. These would be more of a positional statement than an enforcement procedure, but can still be used to promote good stewardship. SEH suggests that rather than making broad changes to the ordinance, the City would be better served if it were to simply send information to property owners adjacent to wetlands that communicates the City’s rules and regulations relating to the wetlands and wetland buffers. Staff agrees with this suggestion and will prepare a handout that will be delivered to residents adjacent to wetlands or wetland buffers. Responding to staff’s request for additional information, SEH submitted a proposal to update ALL of the City’s wetlands as it has done with the Spring Creek Basin. The benefit to such a project, aside from the very obvious clarification of wetland locations within the City, is that we would have a complete digitized wetland inventory that can be utilized and manipulated electronically within our GIS and AutoCad systems. Our present Wetland Zoning Maps have very limited utility. They are maintained on Mylar half section maps, which, for all intents and purposes, cannot be revised except by using an acid wash to “erase” lines and shading. New lines and shading can only be added by hand with a permanent ink pen. Last, streets and subdivisions and wetland alterations approved in the last 20 years are not reflected on the maps, which further limit their effectiveness as an “official” map. Recommendation: The results of the Spring Creek study demonstrate that the real world conditions present in the Spring Creek basin are not consistent with the City’s official Wetland Zoning Map. This is neither unexpected nor unanticipated given the fact that the maps were produced more than 20 years ago without any field verification of wetland locations. Similar inconsistencies are likely to be encountered for all of the non-field verified wetlands in the City.