Citizen's Environmental Quality Committee
Regular MeetingWinona, MN · April 7, 2022
Minutes
CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES
DATE: Thursday April 7, 2022
TIME: Scheduled for 4:30 pm in the City Hall Council Chambers
PRESENT: Lynette Power, Julie Fassbender, Niki Ciulla, David Ruff and Dan Hall
GUESTS: Gabe Ericksen
STAFF: John Howard
1. Call to Order: Call to order at 4:32 PM by Dan Hall (Chair).
2. Review and Approval of Feb. 2022 Meeting Minutes: Motion by Julie, second by Dan. Approval unanimous.
3. Amendment to Land Disturbance Policy for Invasive Species Control: John asked Gabe to introduce himself.
Gabe works as an ecological restoration contractor as well as landscaping. He described his work in
Cobblestone Creek area and interest in more restoration work. He said there has been some conflict with
homeowners desiring to undertake restoration work such as invasive species control, but have been
hampered by city prohibition in protected areas. Gabe believes the policy change is a good start, but
additional flexibility for restoration would be better.
Gabe said invasive buckthorn is the most common plant, followed by boxelder. Chain sawing the buckthorn
and some boxelder would aid in restoration by opening canopy cover. Julie asked if this was work was
principally on public or private lands. John said it would mostly be private for Cobblestone, but Gabe
clarified that changes would be useful in other areas in the public realm such as bluffs.
John shared a map showing the bluff areas and shoreland areas as defined in City code. Currently any
significant restoration work in bluffs requires a land disturbance permit, which carries a $225 application fee
and requires a hearing with the Planning Commission. John stated that the proposed changes would allow
for restoration contractors to submit a plan in lieu of the land disturbance permit, and get approval in a
matter of days. This will allow for more timely work when seasonal constraints require work in a small
timeframe, such as ecological burning.
John said there is also protections for land areas called Natural State Area, which can be in the bluffs, but
also include wetlands and natural vegetation. Currently homeowners can do restoration work in these areas
without a permit so long as it is with hand equipment but not mechanical equipment. This makes the scale
of work smaller.
Another dimension to consider is shoreland and stream protections, which are outlined in a separate section
of code. The UDC has provisions that no vegetative alteration work is allowed within 50 -75 feet of waterway
(specific categorization determines which distance). There is not a permit to allow the work like the NSA or
bluff areas.
Julie made a motion to approve the code changes, seconded by David.
Niki asked if Gabe had any recommendations for the revised language? Gabe asked about whether chain
saws are allowed? John said they would be under the proposed changes, but the City would need a plan to
approve the work. Discussion ensued about herbicide spraying. Lynette asked about whether a list of
permissible of herbicides will be provided, or to prohibit certain pesticides? John said specifying a herbicide
has not been required, other than saying appropriate use of herbicide. Gabe says the label says quite a bit of
how herbicide can be used. David said commercial pesticide applicators are regulated. David suggests saying
selective spraying.
Niki said the cost of the permit looked like it could be a problem. John explained that under the proposed
changes, the fee would not apply to most work since the land disturbance permit would be replaced by an
administrative review. It would apply for work in the top 50 feet of the bluff. David suggests including the
top 50 feet as that can have trickle down effects. Julie asked about the rationale for not including the top 50
feet. John said screening is the main consideration.
Gabe asked about restoration projects involving removing out of place native species, such as cedars in bluff
prairies. John said that the changes don’t apply to native species removal, so a land disturbance permit
would still be required. John said City staff is wary of bad actors abusing the clearing ability if native species
are allowed to be removed as part of restoration. Julie suggests adapting code if bad actors are abusing the
situation rather than potentially holding up good actors through overly restrictive practices. Niki believes
code can be written in such a way as to allow clearing without abuse. David suggests staff review could
make sense of whether the removal makes ecological sense.
Julie retracted her initial motion, and rephrased to “accept revisions to code as stated, with the addition of
permitting the top 50 feet of a bluff to be cleared of invasive species without a land disturbance permit”.
David seconded, all in favor.
4. Air Quality Concerns with Residential Woodburning: John described a situation where a resident has
expressed concern over their neighbor’s perpetual wood burning, but not a clear violation of any City Code.
The resident believes it is a nuisance, but without additional clarification in code, the City is not likely to do
enforcement.
Dan was reluctant to support prohibiting outdoor burning since it is a common and cherished activity by
residents. Lynette noted her relative’s experience with smoke entering their house, and how it can be
pervasive. David understands the interest in burning, but from a pure public health and environmental
health dimension, it can be a nuisance. No firm resolution to the situation.
5. Other Business:
Niki announced the St. Mary’s Making Waves event on 4/12 in the Toner Center. All are welcome.
Julie asked that the City provide an update on the community garden process, as it has been over a year
since the CEQC input session.
6. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 5:56 pm. Unanimous.
Notes prepared by John Howard.
Agenda
April 4, 2022
Citizens Environmental Quality Committee
Winona, Minnesota 55987
Dear Committee Members:
The next meeting of the Citizens Environmental Quality Committee meeting will be held
on Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall.
1. Call to Order
2. Review of February Meeting Minutes
3. Amendment to Land Disturbance Policy for Invasive Species Control (15
minutes)
4. Air Quality Concerns with Residential Woodburning (15 Minutes)
5. Sustainability Plan Update (5 minutes)
6. Other Business (5 minutes)
7. Adjournment
Sincerely,
John Howard
Natural Resources Sustainability Coordinator
CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES
DATE: Thursday February 3, 2022
TIME: Scheduled for 4:30 pm in the City Hall Council Chambers
PRESENT: Lynette Power, Julie Fassbender and Dan Hall
GUESTS:
STAFF: John Howard
1. Call to Order: Call to order at 4:39 PM by Dan Hall (Chair). Chair Hall asked for clarification on remote
meeting policy.
2. Review and Approval of Jan. 2022 Meeting Minutes: Motion by Julie, second by Dan. John noted that he
needed to update the date to 2022 from 2021. Approval unanimous.
3. Sustainability Plan Update:
John provided an update on new progress on the sustainability plan. The steering committee met and
provided some edits for figures for the consultant to complete. There is still work needed on the strategies
section, which will be up to the City to complete.
John said the draft will be going before the Council once complete, and he asked if the CEQC wants to see
the draft prior to it going to the Council? Julie indicated that it would be good to see it so long as the CEQC
review does not hold up the timeline. Dan agrees with that sentiment. Julie asked for clarification on the
general sequence of who would see the draft. John said that it would be CEQC, then Council, and open to
the public for their review. Then it would go back to Council for approval.
Julie asked for John to provide some summary talking points for the CEQC to communicate to the public
regarding the plan.
4. We Are Water:
John invited the CEQC to attend the open house for the exhibit on March 3, which would take the place of
the March CEQC meeting. Julie noted that the History Center does a nice job with their events.
John also asked if any members of the CEQC would be interested in serving as docents at the exhibit. This
would likely be during a weekend of their choosing. Dan expressed interest as did Julie. John will share the
sign up with the CEQC.
Lynette asked for more details on what is included and who developed the exhibit. John said the topics span
state topics with some local facets. The MPCA is the main coordinator and works with a variety of other
state organizations.
A discussion of microplastics and general properties of common plastics ensued.
5. Water Bill Insert:
John asked for CEQC comments on the message. Dan liked the insert, and loved the delivery and directness.
Cost savings is good message. Julie similarly likes the directness – quick. Julie suggests add recycling logo and
define “We” in the red text – taxpayers, whoever. Lynette suggests directly saying storm sewer. Julie
wondered who created the insert? John said it was mostly a Healthy Lake Winona product. Lynette suggests
being very clear on where the runoff goes. Lynette very moved by storm sewer work undertaken by
volunteers. Include some call to action or contact.
6. Other Business:
Julie asked how the CEQC can voice support for sustainable building design. Dan suggests LEED type
standard for new City buildings. Retrofits are a more expensive and difficult endeavor. Julie wonders if the
CEQC should push for sustainable design. Lynette supports having a good example for building. John said the
CEQC could produce a resolution to encourage sustainable building, which would go to the Planning
Commission for their approval, and then it would proceed to the City Council.
7. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 5:16 pm. Unanimous.
Notes prepared by John Howard.
CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM: 3. Amendment to Land Disturbance Policy for Invasive Species
Control
PREPARED BY: John Howard
DATE: April 7, 2022
In October 2019, the CEQC considered amendments to City Code so residents can more
easily undertake invasive species control projects on their properties. Staff intended to take
the CEQC’s recommendations to the Planning Commission for discussion and a public
hearing, but due to cancellations related to the outbreak of the pandemic, and uncertainty of
public engagement, the item was tabled. Staff would like to renew the discussion of this topic
for a code amendment.
Currently the City’s code requires a Land Disturbance Permit for work in bluffs, Natural State
Areas, and aquatic areas such as shorelines and wetlands. This permit is triggered by the
use of mechanical equipment or widespread clearing. The objective is to protect sensitive
habitats by stipulating conditions in the permit, and allowing for public comment so all issues
are addressed. However, the permit process and cost ($200) are purportedly keeping
landowners and their contractors from undertaking invasive species removal projects.
Staff recommends a change to alter the permit as discussed in 2019 to simply a staff review
for invasive species removal projects. This would ensure the work is in line with best
practices for limiting environmental damage, and expedite the process. No permit fee would
be charged.
The caveat of still needing a permit within the top 50 feet of the bluff was included out of
concerns for loss of screening. Staff would like input on this point.
43.02.32 Bluffland Protection Overlay District
C) 3)
3) Exemptions. The scope of this section shall not apply to the following, provided that any exempted
activity shall fully comply with all other applicable laws and/or permitting requirements of the City. If
located within a High Potential Burial and Archaeological Site Area, all activities shall adhere to
provisions of MS 307.08 of Minnesota’s Private Cemeteries Act:
g) Control and removal of invasive noxious weeds not within 50 feet of the top of a bluff
necessary to promote the overall health and sustainability of the land. All such activity conducted
by contractors shall follow best management practices and be guided by a plan submitted to and
approved by the Community Development department. Individual property owners may conduct
these activities by non-mechanical means without submitting a plan to the Community
Development department.
…..
6. Exceptions- Bluff Impact Overlay Districts. The following activities may be permitted within Bluff
Impact Overlay Districts, if preceded by the approval of a Land Disturbance Activity Permit:
c)Native vegetation restoration projects, and the control and removal of invasive plant species,
and noxious weeds (by mechanical means) within 50 feet of the Top of the Bluff , provided that:
i.The Planning Commission (Commission) finds that the activity, and method of carrying it out, is
necessary to maintain the overall health and sustainability of forest land, and will not
compromise the purpose and intent of this section. In making this finding, the Commission shall
consider expert or state agency comments and recommendations.
ii.The activity is carried out in conformance with any applicable local or state laws and
permitting requirements, including the City of Winona Stormwater Management Ordinance.
iii.If occurring within a distance of 50 feet from either side of a Top of Bluff, the Commission
shall determine whether, or not, the activity will result in the loss of substantial screening
benefits both from and towards, any structural use of land located upland of the activity. If it
determines that substantial screening benefits will be lost, it may apply conditions requiring the
planting of native trees within 50 feet either side of a Top of Bluff.
iiiv.A site vegetative restoration plan is prepared by a qualified person and includes the use of
native plant materials.
43.04.26Natural State Areas (NSA)
B)Disturbance. Once designated, no person shall conduct any land disturbance activity, within an NSA,
unless in accordance with this section and Section 43.02.32. The term “Land Disturbance Activity” shall
be defined as a change in the use of land that would result in any form of topographic modification,
increase in impervious surface coverage, or vegetative alteration.
1) Land Disturbance activity shall include, but not be limited to:
A) Any grading, grubbing, filling, and excavating
b)The construction of any structure, building, impervious walk/path, swimming pool, deck,
patio, driveway, street, retaining wall, and public/private utility.
c) The establishment of formal lawns and gardens, or the cutting, thinning, and/or removal of
existing living and dead native vegetation.
2)This term Land Disturbance within an NSA shall not include:
a)…..
b) Native species restoration projects or Tthe removal of noxious weeds , as defined by
Minnesota Rules Section 1505.0751, subp. 8 from a designated NSA, provided that the method
of workremoval conforms to a plan submitted to and approved by the Community Development
department and does not occur within 50 feet of the top of a bluff. Individual property owners
may conduct these activities by non-mechanical means without submitting a plan to the
Community Development department.is by hand pulling, hand cutting, and/or the hand
application, excluding sprays, of appropriate herbicides. If the method of noxious weed removal
involves the use of motorized or mechanical equipment, spraying, or the disturbance of
vegetation which is not classified as noxious, approval shall be required.
CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM: 4. Air Quality Concerns with Residential Woodburning
PREPARED BY: John Howard
DATE: April 7, 2022
In recent months, City staff have received calls of concern about woodsmoke trespassing
into neighbor’s homes. City code has sections about nuisances and air discharges, but does
not explicitly categorize smoke from wood burning as a nuisance. Thus neighbors have been
left to resolve the disagreements, and not to the satisfaction of all parties.
Staff would like CEQC input on whether wood smoke should be considered a nuisance or air
pollutant, and how Code should be amended if considered a nuisance/pollutant.
Article 03 Development Standards
Division 1 Performance Standards
43.01.11 Applicability
A) Compliance with Regulations. No land or building in any district shall be used or occupied in any
manner so as to create any dangerous, injurious, noxious, or otherwise objectionable fire, explosive
or other hazard, noise or vibration, smoke, dust, odor or other form of air pollution, heat, cold, Commented [JH1]: Explicitly listing wood smoke
dampness, electrical or other substance, condition or element in such a manner or in such amount as would allow the City to address wood burning
to adversely affect the surrounding area or adjoining premises (referred to herein as "dangerous or complaints more readily.
objectionable elements"). For proposed new uses where there is a question about whether there will
be compliance with the performance standards, the applicant shall submit a plan of the proposed
construction or development, including a description of the proposed machinery, processes, products
and specifications for the mechanisms and techniques to be used in restricting the emission of
dangerous and objectionable elements.
B) Report by Specialists. If, in the Community Development Department’s opinion, the proposed use
may cause the emission of dangerous or objectionable elements, the Community Development
Department may refer the application to one or more specialists qualified to advise as to whether a
proposed use will conform to the applicable performance standards. Such consultant shall report as
promptly as possible after his receipt of such application. A copy of such report shall be promptly
furnished to the applicant.
C) Locations where Determinations are to be made for Enforcement of Performance Standards. The
determination of the existence of any dangerous and objectionable elements shall be made at the
location of the use creating the same and at any points where the existence of such elements may be
more apparent (herein referred to as “at any point"); provided, however, that the measurements
necessary for enforcement of performance standards set forth in this section shall be taken at
different points in different districts in relation to the establishment or use creating the element being
measured (herein referred to as "point of measurement") as follows:
1) In any R, MU, B-1, and B-2 Districts. Twenty-five feet from the establishment or use or at the lot
line of the use, if closer to the establishment or use.
2) In B-3, AG/NR, and I Districts. At the boundary of the district or at any point within an adjacent R
district.
D) Continued Enforcement. The Community Development Department shall investigate any purported
violation of performance standards. If there has been a violation of the performance standards and
the applicant has not complied within 30 days of notification, the Community Development
Department shall document the violation/s and forward such information to the City Attorney’s office. .
If the City Attorney finds that a violation occurred or exists, subsequent action shall be taken as
appropriate by the City Attorney’s office. The services of any qualified experts employed by the
commission to advise in establishing a violation shall be paid by the violator if such violation is
established, otherwise by the city.
43.01.12 General Performance Standards
A) General Performance Standards, Regulations. The following provisions, standards and specifications
shall apply to all uses:
1) Fire and explosion hazard. All activities involving and all storage of inflammable and explosive
materials shall be provided at any point with adequate safety devices against the hazard of fire
and explosion and adequate firefighting and fire suppression equipment and devices standards
in the industry. Burning of waste materials in open fire shall be prohibited. The relevant
provisions of state and local laws and regulations shall also apply.
2) Radioactivity or electrical disturbance. No activities shall be permitted which emit dangerous
radioactivity at any point or electrical disturbance adversely affecting the operation at any point
of any equipment other than that of the creator of such disturbance.
3) Noise. In accordance with and measured at locations stated in Chapter 39.
4) Vibration. No vibration which is discernible without instruments shall be permitted at the points
of measurement specified in subsection (C) above.
5) Smoke. The emission of smoke by any use shall be in compliance with state statutes and the
rules of the Minnesota State Pollution Control Agency, as may be amended.
6) Odors. No emission shall be permitted of odorous gases or other odorous matter in such
quantities as to be offensive at the points of measurement specified in subsection ( C) above.
Any process which may involve the creation or emission of any odors shall be provided with a
secondary safeguard system, so that control will be maintained if the primary safeguard system
should fail. All activities producing odors shall be in compliance with state statutes and the rules
of the Minnesota State Pollution Control Agency, as may be amended.
7) Fly ash, dust, fumes, vapors, gases, and other forms of air pollution. No emission shall be Commented [JH2]: Clarifying to include wood smoke
permitted which can cause any damage to health, to animals, vegetation or other forms of as air pollution would be one option to address
property, or which can cause any excessive soiling, at any point; and in no event any emission, nuisance complaints.
from any chimney or otherwise, of any solid or liquid particles in concentrations exceeding 3/10
grains per cubic foot of the conveying gas at any point. For measurement of the amo unt of
particles in gases resulting from combustion, standard corrections shall be applied to a stack
temperature of 500 degrees Fahrenheit and 50 percent excess air. All activities shall comply
with applicable state law, rules and local ordinances for dust and Particulate Matter generation,
and any stockpiles (including sand and dirt) which produce windblown dust shall be covered. A
fugitive dust control plan may be required detailing dust control measures both on -site and off-
site. Moisture testing of sand or other materials with the potential to produce Particulate Matter
emissions may be required to ensure that moisture levels are above 2.5%. Moisture testing is
not required for fully enclosed processing, stockpiling, equipment, or transportation faci lities. A
substitute for moisture testing is air quality monitoring completed in correspondence with the
MPCA and according to applicable state regulations.
Get email alerts for Winona
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.