Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Council Information Memorandum 04-15-2011
CITY OF PLYMOUTH rp) COUNCIL INFO MEMO April 15, 2011 UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS League of MN Cities Annual Conference 06/15 — 06/17/2011............................................................ Page 1 Planning Commission Agenda 04/20/11.............................................................................................. Page 6 Taste for Wayzata Public Schools 04/20/11......................................................................................... Page 7 Magnet School Information Meeting ISD 28104/27/11 ...................................................................... Page 8 April, May, June 2011 Official City Meeting Calendars..................................................................... Page 9 Tentative List of Agenda Items for Future City Council Meetings ................................................... Page 12 INFORMATION News Articles, Releases, Publications, Etc ... Plymouth Middle School Students Awarded for Essays on Human Rights, Article, ISD 281 News. Page 13 Plymouth Gets a Spring Cleaning as General Mills Employees Volunteer, News Release ............... Page 14 CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Minnehaha Creek WSD, RE: Future meeting opportunity ............................................ Page 15 Letter from AMLAC, RE: Fish Lake boat ramp............................................................................... Page 16 Letter from CenterPoint Energy, RE: MN PUC Order establishing franchise fee filing requirements.......... ........................................................................................................................................................... Page 17 Letter from Senator Olson, RE: SF 13.............................................................................................. Page 18 Letter from City of Hopkins, RE: 2011 Step to it Challenge............................................................. Page 19 REPORTS Police Dept. Statistics 2011 First Quarter......................................................................................... Page 20 ATTACHMENTS DRAFT — Minnehaha Creek WSD, Stormwater Management & Administrative Rule Comments .. Page 24 LMc Annual Conference and Marketplace June 15-17 • Rochester, MN Mayo Civic Center 4 fill (u; inr'ile/�/oc� sense of be/o .lr I sybeauti)G, �aP�EGDGE otstodoQ N Register now: www.Imc.org/AC36 Join your colleagues at this year's Annual Conference and Marketplace to celebrate all the things that make our cities great and share ideas for preserving what we love about our cities 11 I stlla9 marrrs/i s ve We �flo�-• ��,ccs to 5milJ La<era!; X05' �P l "Vj5XOl10Ea �tf��� r� R r I�I�IDOM Safe and vibrant neighborhoods. Places to gather and play. Bustling business areas. Caring community. It's hard work to make a city feel like home, but it's worth the time, energy, and love you put into it. Attend this unique, one -stop -shop conference to learn more about trust and leadership, city budgeting, financial planning and human resource issues, as well as timely topics like creative service delivery, how to encourage public input in your city's decisions, and ways to save money on technology. You'll leave this conference equipped with the information, tools, and resources you'll need to keep the city you love moving forward. Wednesday, June 15 Thursday, June 16 7 a.m.-7 p.m. Registration Open 9 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Pre -Conference Workshops • Asking Your police and Fire Chief the Right Questions to Get the Right Answers • Dealing with Difficult Personalities 6-9 p.m. MWCG/MAOSC Evening Reception 7 a. m. 7 p, rn. Registration Open 9-11 a.m. Opening Ceremony, Awards, and Keynote Speaker David Horsager 11:15 a.m.- 72:30 p.m, Concurrent Sessions I 12.30-2:30 p.m. LMC Awards Luncheon and Annual Meeting 3-4:30 p.m. 2011 Legislative Recap and Policy Preview 4:30-7:30 p.m. Marketplace Event 7:30-10 p.m. City Night Friday, June 12 7 a. m.- 72 p.rn. Registration Open 7.30-8:30 a.m. Hot Breakfast 8:45-10 a. in. Concurrent Sessions II 10:15-11:30 a.m. Concurrent Sessions III 11:45 a.m.-1:30 p.m. Closing Luncheon: How toTalk with the Public About City Services and Funding Register now at www.Imc.org/AC36 Wednesday, June 15 9 a.m.-4:30 p.m. There is an additional fee for these workshops. ICMA University Workshop Asking Your Police and Fire Chief the Right Questions to Get the Right Answers Every city department has to operate effectively and efficiently. But somehow asking the tough questions about police and fire can be hard --the field is filled with jargon, operations are complex, emotions can run high.Two seasoned public safety practitioners, now faculty with the ICMA Center for Public Safety Management, will help you establish goals and priorities, quantify workloads, identify the equipment that is really necessary, and apply strategies to follow the path of continuous improvement. NLC Leadership Training Institute (LTI) Workshop* Dealing with Difficult Personalities Difficult times seem to bring out even more difficult people! Master new tools and Pearn new ways to enhance group collaboration by letting people know that their needs matter. Ex- amine what your hot buttons are and why we often avoid 7 confrontation. Create positive long-term results. Gainp life ski€Is that you can use in your work as a City official as well as in your personal life. n . *Leadership Training Institute (LTI) Participants in this event earn 4 credits toward the National Lengue of Gties' Certiftcrate of Achievemenr in Lendership progrmti in the competency orea of "Collaborator." Get more info or www.nic.org. �� lip I 1ruv1.' /)LC Thursday, June 16 71:15 mrn,- 12:30p.m. Creative Service Delivery What options are there for innovation and redesign in the way that your city delivers services? Learn about a new resource for local government officials that sets out several redesign approaches. The author of Navigating the New Normal: A Minnesota Local Government Innovation and Redesign Guide will describe a five-step problem -solving approach cities can use in thinking through innovation ideas. Land Use Law and Logistics Planning, zoning, and other land use issues can create sticky situations for your city. Make sure you understand your city's land use roles and responsibilities. In this session, you'll review the purpose and process for creating and amending comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances, and get the latest updates about laws related to variances. Plus, learn how the League's online land use training course can save your city money! Trends in Economic Development Tax increment financing (TIF) may be your city's ticket to economic development—or maybe not. Get an overview of TIF, discover the new ways cities are using it, and learn why it may or may not be the right approach for your city. If you're new to city government—or simply need a refresher on eco- nomic development tools—you'll want to attend this session. New Approaches to Budgeting There's more than one way to craft a budget. Discover new ways to fund City services and tools to plan for and develop operating budgets as city budgeting experts share their knowledge and expertise on a variety of budgeting approaches, Hot Topic Roundtable Conversations Here's your chance to engage with facilitators and peers on the latest issues facing cities. Choose from among several roundtable topics submitted by conference attendees. CONCURRENT SES _ .._ Frifday, ]uae 17 8:45-10 a. m. Partnering for Success Regional service delivery is all the rage in these uncertain times. But how do you get started? Learn all about joint powers agreements, including the process for putting one together, important issues to address, and liability concerns that may arise. Hear from city colleagues about their experi- ences in regional service delivery. HR Roundtables: Tough TimesJough Decisions Get the scoop on tough employment issues, including furloughs, layoffs, early retirement incentives, and managing employee performance. During this session, experts will be available to answer questions on a variety of employment challenges in a tough economy. You Got Questions? We Got Answers! Haven't you aiways wanted to know if a husband and wife can really be on a council together? Or what all the fuss is about posting notice for special meetings? These are just two of the common questions that the League researchers will cover in this fun and informative session! Come learn the answers to these and other common questions that the LMC Research Department answers. You will also get to know more about the researchers and what they can do for you and your city. Analyzing Trends for Long -Term Planning Surviving in today's economic environment means more than just paying the bills this year—you'll need a plan for the long-term financial viability of your community. Learn how to move to multi-year financial planning; the role of trend analysis in getting you there; and the where, who, and how of getting started. Mobile Tour: Complete Streets and Public Works Building In the spring of 2009, Rochester adopted a Complete Streets Policy. During this bus tour, you'll see how implementation of this policy is beginning to transform the design of the city's roadways. Participants will also tour Rochester's new public works facility, and learn how this new facility will streamline department operations and maintenance, and improve service delivery. ease of belonging peopfe smile beautiful parks lots toclo Register now at wwW,Imc.org/AC3E *iaa") 2011 ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND MARKETPLACE These conference registration fees Include admission to all confer- ence sessions and networking and meal events. Pre -conference workshops and lodging are not included in these fees. Regular Attendee Fee: $295 Late Registration (after May 6,2011):$350 First -Time Attendee Fee: $9'9 Late Registration (after May 6,2011):$350 Cities with Population Under 1,000 Fee: 5195 Late Registralion (after May 6, 2[711): $350 Company Representative i ec: $550 (for company representatives who are not participating in the exhibitor program) PRE -CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS ICMA University Workshop Asking Your Police and Fire Chief the Right Questions to Get the Right Answers Fee: $100 Late Reglstrution (after May 6,2071):$ 120 National League of Cities Leadership Training Institute Workshop Dealing with Difficult Personalities Fee: $100 Late Registration (after May 6, 2017): $120 CONFERENCE WITHIN A CONFERENCE Clerks'Orientation Conference Fee: $245 This registration fee includes admission to all Clerks'Orientation sessions and networking andmeal events, Lodging Is not induded in this fee. Page 3 Friday, Jude 14 10:15-11:30 a.m. Harnessing the Power of Public Input Local elected officials and staff often think they need to have all the answers. But recent experience with direct citizen engagement suggests that, with a good process, citizens are happy to lend their insights and perspectives. Learn ways to encourage your citizens tojoin city officials as partners in facing up to, addressing, and even solving difficult problems. United We Stand? What Elected Officials Need to Know about Unions Union missteps by your city can have disastrous long-term effects. What types of decisions do you have to negotiate? What rights does management have? What should you do if your employees are thinking of joining a union? Attend this session to explore these questions, and more. Affordable Technology for the Non -Geek If you know nothing (or next to nothing) about technology, this session is for you! You'll explore the pros and cons of various methods of procuring and maintaining your technol- ogy environment, and learn more about purchasing from the state contract, cloud computing (what is it and is it right for us?), and how to keep technology cost-effective. Finding Money for Infrastructure Streets, sewers, water systems, and parks are vital to your city's economic well-being and quality of life. Yet in difficult times, construction and maintenance of infrastruc- ture can take a back seat to maintaining daily operations. What options do you have for financing infrastructure, who are your potential partners, and how do you get citizen buy -in to invest in these critical community resources? Hot Topic Roundtable Conversations Here's another chance to engage with facilitators and peers on the latest issues facing cities.. Choose from among several roundtable topics submitted by conference attendees. Thursday, June 16 9-11 a.m. Opening Session: Keynote Speaker David Horsager Trust -it's not just a good idea or a personal character quality, it's essential to effective leadership! Minnesota author and popular speaker David Horsager opens the conference by presenting the eight skill -based pillars of trust that can transform you into a leader who gets results, W^ 3-4:30p.m. 2011 Legislative Recap and Policy Preview 'Plt1 i Joon the League's Intergovernmental Relalions 10 (IGR) staff for a fun and informative look at the ROUND LA outcomes of the 2011 legislative session, Onamia and learn what's ahead for cities in 2012. fl!c UedelYiew -Aori.mod � NISSWR Friday, June 17 FINSSL�Mva �- 11.45 a.m.- 1:30 p.m. Mount intron Closing Session; Un.derwo How to Talk with the Public About City Services and Funding ONTRI Tough budget decisions can lead to anger 771 and no-win solutions unless we get the public C engaged. In this volatile political environment,' the very words we use and how we talk about the H role of the public sector makes all the difference Z in whether citizens see the city as just another Ot bureaucracy or a partner in sustaining : U a community's quality of life. Attend Ac= this closing session to r p learn how to make your g,. x �� �30 conversations with the ��°Cr t'P� public more meaningful �7``�" A E_ - and effective. �.,[[��., w bra G ❑��p� �36 PEOPLI CARS fc place Ta t7ve �1�rrces In Iutr thnirriirJ erriux� �tetcc� i s lc;�x,yt 611511111 r@ra inion of a brr 47VA1 re NEWR Page 4 L SESSIONS Thursday, June 16 9-11 a.m. Opening Session: Keynote Speaker David Horsager Trust -it's not just a good idea or a personal character quality, it's essential to effective leadership! Minnesota author and popular speaker David Horsager opens the conference by presenting the eight skill -based pillars of trust that can transform you into a leader who gets results, W^ 3-4:30p.m. 2011 Legislative Recap and Policy Preview 'Plt1 i Joon the League's Intergovernmental Relalions 10 (IGR) staff for a fun and informative look at the ROUND LA outcomes of the 2011 legislative session, Onamia and learn what's ahead for cities in 2012. fl!c UedelYiew -Aori.mod � NISSWR Friday, June 17 FINSSL�Mva �- 11.45 a.m.- 1:30 p.m. Mount intron Closing Session; Un.derwo How to Talk with the Public About City Services and Funding ONTRI Tough budget decisions can lead to anger 771 and no-win solutions unless we get the public C engaged. In this volatile political environment,' the very words we use and how we talk about the H role of the public sector makes all the difference Z in whether citizens see the city as just another Ot bureaucracy or a partner in sustaining : U a community's quality of life. Attend Ac= this closing session to r p learn how to make your g,. x �� �30 conversations with the ��°Cr t'P� public more meaningful �7``�" A E_ - and effective. �.,[[��., w bra G ❑��p� �36 PEOPLI CARS fc place Ta t7ve �1�rrces In Iutr thnirriirJ erriux� �tetcc� i s lc;�x,yt 611511111 r@ra inion of a brr 47VA1 re NEWR Page 4 Here are just a few of the numerous networking opportunities throughout the conference for you to meet and talk with your city colleagues, League staff, and vendors. Whether at meal functions, the marketplace event, roundtable sessions or out on the town, you'll want to take the time to tap the creative minds of others, and share your own ideas. MWCGIMAOSC Reception with Speaker Patricia Simmons Wednesday, June 15 6-9 p.m. Minnesota Women in City Government and the Minnesota Association of Small Cities host a reception with Patricia Simmons, a physician and professor of Pediatrics in the Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine at the Mayo Clinic, and a member of the University of Minnesota Board of Regents.. Marketplace Event Thursday, June 16 4:30-7:30 p.m. We V cities! Our Marketplace vendors love cities as much as we do! Enjoy heavy hors d'oeuvres, music, and more in the 2011 Market- place. No other networking event in the state allows you to connect with as many dedicated city vendors. Discover innova- tive products and services, engage with old friends, and learn how vendors can help make your city a great place to live, work, and play! City Night Thursday, June 16 7.30-10 p, m. "Thursdays on First and Third"Street Festival Don't miss this year's City Night festivities after the market- place event! You'll hear live music by the Buckinghams, visit arts and crafts vendors, and enjoy the best in local food and drink during the Rochester Downtown Alliance's ongoing "Thursdays on First and Third" street festival and bazaar. "Thursdays on First and Third"takes ,place every week during the months of June, July, and August each year and has become known as the -place -to -be for music, food, libation, and fun. Come and join the party in Rochester's vibrant, "happening" downtown! Conference Within a Conference Clerks'Orientation Conference Wednesday, June 15 -Friday June 17 The League's popular three-day conference for new city clerks will be held during this year's Annual Conference. In addition to the usual orientation program, new clerks will have the opportunity to attend some Annual Confer- ence sessions and networking events, Check out the complete conference agenda for this event designed for new clerks at www.Imc.orcg/clerks2Ol 1. U (0 LEAGUEoh MINNESDTA CITIES LMe Annual Conference and Marketplace Tune 15-14 • Rochester, MN Mayo Civic Center Register now at www.Imc.org/AC36 SPONSORS 4 2011 LMC BUSINESS PARTNERS ■ PLATINUM LEVEL: RBC Dain Rauscher ---4M Fw;d Administrator ■ GOLD LEVEL: Xcel Energy PMA Financial Network —dna Fund Administrator RBC Global Asset Management —4M Fund Administrator ■ SILVER LEVEL: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Ehlers Springsted Incorporated ■ BRONZE LEVEL: American Engineering Testing, Inc. Briggs and Morgan, P.A. Do-Good.biz hlamline University School of Business Johnston Fargo Culvert Kennedy & Graven, Chartered Northland Securities, Inc. 14efaject ���`cJ f�u1rIYS�K�� bP � �1Q�Q�abrightfUf�r GLrglj? zautifWp wQqLg to do �rw•+• � pr1►1 r•ie.« a u� YCC i',1 -o AA@azbUrooAd�r �Ffl�. 6�rDaYlc�r e� a t#G'gn�a� zppn. t aha ' I F>E7LD n prryy fa ;� .o a .Yilr"Rnevil�tt ire o PC.EU r— a ERTM ltr BA�11 ►i _ ? ��.I\.,G�c�L1sY1Ja) us if r �o��r,1MMVRILI lA -yv/IMAAI;NMA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY, April 20, 2011 WHERE: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Plymouth City Hall 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 CONSENT AGENDA All items listed on the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner, citizen or petitioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in normal sequence on the agenda. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC FORUM 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve the March 16, 2011 Planning Commission meeting minutes. B. Inspec, Inc. Approve site plan amendment for a parking lot expansion for bus staging at Wayzata East Middle School located at 12000 Ridgemount Avenue North. (2011006) 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. ADJOURNMENT Page 6 TASTE FOR Wednesday -April 20th, 2011 6:30-9 PM Comfort Inn 3000 Harbor Lane, Plymouth, AIN Tickets $30 Available at m%,w. WPSEF. org Enjoy de idous samples from these restaurants Inifia Tafi7cc 3 Restaurant & Bar % e4m e, re4 t. 4 1 17 A L' R 4N T I P I A Jake 77 13 < LW 1EA VC. > CITY 9 ILLE _ For more information go to www.WPSEF.org Hosted by, WAYZA IA K IQ R - SL : f [()()I S Sponsoredby FDLVA 1_10.10'NDA HON ROTARYCLUE OFLWAYZ.TA All =z : -7w =..= :__: .: r: = w kv—Z-F - Iyj;sz; is a f -,I doft ha Mor== ... cz�-_LE!, Page 7 Magnet School Informational Meeting scheduled (Robbinsdale 281 School District dews) Robbinsdale Area Schools is hosting a Magnet School Informational Meeting to give the public more information on possible magnet schools and the process with which the district has been working, and to give th get some of their questions answered. p.m. in the 3rd floor Board Room, at the Winnetka Ave.. N. in New Hope. e public a chance to respond to questions and Please join us on Wed., April 27, 6 - 7:30 Educational Services Center (ESC), 4148 Page 8 r� Plymouth Adding Quality to Life April 2011 Modified on 04/15/ 11 Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cancelled 7 8 6;00-8:00 PM 99:00 AM -1:00 PM PLANNING YARD Et GARDEN YARD Et GARDEN COMMISSION EXPO EXPO MEETING Plymouth Creek Plymouth Creek Council Chambers Center Fieldhouse Center Fieldhouse 10 11 6:00 PM 12 BOARD OF 13 14 15 16 5:00-9:00 PM 10:00 AM— EQUALIZATION Council Chambers 7:00 PM PRIMAVERA 4:00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL Plymouth Fine PRIMAVERA 7:00 PM QUALITY Arts Council Plymouth Fine REGULAR COUNCIL COMMITTEE Show Arts Council MEETING (EQC) MEETING Plymouth Creek Show Council Chambers Council Chambers Center Plymouth Creek SPECIAL COUNCIL Center MEETING Immediately Following 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1:00-4:00 PM 10:00 AM -4:00 PM 10:00 AM -4:00 PM 7:00 PM PLANNING PRIMAVERA 7:00 PM -8:30 PM PRIMAVERA COMMISSION Plymouth Fine PRIMAVERA Plymouth Fine MEETING Arts Council Plymouth Fine Arts Council Council Chambers Show Arts Council Show Plymouth Creek Show Plymouth Creek Center Plymouth Creek Center Passover Begins 24 at un 25 26 27 28 29 30 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Board of HRA MEETING Equalization Parkers Lake Roam Reconvened Council Chambers 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Easter Sunday Council Chambers ' U , ate with City Manager Modified on 04/15/ 11 Page 9 rib PiYmoucn Adding Quality to Life May 2011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7:00 PM 7:00 PM HUMAN RIGHTS PLANNING COMMITTEE COMMISSION MEETING MEETING Parkers Lake Room Medicine Lake Room 8 9 10 5:00 PM 11 12 5;30-8:00 PM 13 14 SPECIAL COUNCIL 7:00 PM ENVITRONMENIR MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY FAIR Medicine Lake Room QUALITY Zacharay Lane Discuss Future of COMMITTEE Elementary School Park System (EQC) MEETING 7:00 PM 7100 PM Parkers Lake Room PARK & REC REGULAR COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING (PRAC) MEETING Medicine Lake Room Parkers Lake Rjjj]m 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 7:00 PM PLANNING 7:30 AM -2:00 PM COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING DROP OFF DAY Medicine Lake Room Plymouth Maintenance Facility 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM PLYMOUTH HRA MEETING REGULAR COUNCIL ADVISORY Parkers Lake Room MEETING COMMITTEE ON Medicine Lake Roam TRANSIT (PACT) MEETING Parkers Lake Room 29 30 � 31 MEMORIAL DAY Observed CITY OFFICES CLOSED Mortified on 04115111 Page 10 City of Plymouth Adding Quality to Life June 2011 Modified on 041151 It Page 11 1 2 3 4 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Medicine Lake Room 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 7:00 PM 7:00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL PARK Et REC QUALITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMISSION (EQC) MEETING (PRAC) MEETING Parkers Lake Room Plymouth Creek Center 12 13 14 15 7:00 PM 16 17 18 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING COMMISSION Medicine Lake Room MEETING Medicine Lake Room 19 20 21 22 2 3 24 2 5 8:00 AM 7:00 PM HRA MEETING MUSIC IN Parkers Lake Room PLYMOUTH 5K RUN Hilde Performance Center 26 27 28 29 30 7:00 PM 5:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MUSIC IN MEETING PLYMOUTH Medicine Lake Room Hilde Performance Center Modified on 041151 It Page 11 Tentative Schedule for City Council Agenda Items April 26, Board of Equalization Reconvened, 6:00 p.m., Council Chambers April 26, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Assessment Hearin6 for South Shore Drive Rehabilitation Project (10002) • Public Hearing for Off -Sale Liquor License for Mcinz, LLC (owners Scan Murphy and Michele Murphy), d/b/a Bass Lake Wine and Spirits, 11540 Bass Lake Road, Suite 41 • Approve Tobacco License for Meinz, LLC (owners Sean Murphy and Michele Murphy), d/bfa Bass Lake Wine and Spirits, 11510 Bass Lake Road, Suite 41 • Approve Chane Order No. 1 for the scheduled replacement of athletic field lighting and improvements • Approve South Shore Drive bridge replacement project agreement of grant ten -ns and conditions for ll UNI DOT bridge bonds 4 • Project hearing for Sun Court Mill and Overlay Project (1 1006) and award contract May 10, Special, 5:00 p.m., Medicine lake Room • Discuss future of park system May 10, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Announce Special Recycling Drop Off Event on Nlay 21 from 7:50 a.m.-2:00 p.m. at the Plymouth Maintenance Facility May 24, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers June 14, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Announce 5K Run on June 25 and. Music in Plymouth on June 29 June 28, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers July 12, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers July 26, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers August 9, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers August 23, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers Note: Special Xleetin,, topics have been set bt' Council; all other topics are tentath-e. Page 12 Plymouth Middle School Students Awarded for Essays on Human Rights (Robbinsdale 281 School District News) How do Human Rights apply to you and your peers in your school and community? That was the topic of this year's League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissions (LMHRC) statewide essay contest, for which students from Plymouth Middle School won honors. This is the ninth year that the City of New Hope has sponsored the statewide essay contest in cooperation with Plymouth Middle School eighth grade teachers Sue Lundquist, Lieschen Schoenert, Malinda Swalboski and Justin Moe, who weave the topic into their curriculum to make it more relevant for their students. Statewide, sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students are eligible to participate by submitting one entry. Essays are typically one to three pages in length, and students learn a lot by engaging in this reflective practice of writing about their experiences. This year, first place honors went to Katie Cudo of Minneapolis; Jamie Johnson of Plymouth won second place, and Ellie Sjordal of Golden Valley won third place. Honorable mentions were given to Tiela Banks of Robbinsdale, Chris Bradbury of Crystal, Tim Hill of Golden Valley, Alexander Creswell of Plymouth, and Jack Wozniak of New Hope. The first, second and third place winners receive a monetary reward, and those students are invited to read their essays to the audience. The first place winning essay is forwarded to the LMHRC to compete against the other winning submissions from around the state. All students, including honorable mention winners, are recognized with a certificate. The ceremony will be held April 11, 7 p.m. in the New Hope Council Chambers. Page 13 News Release & Photo City of Plymouth For Immediate Release April 19, 2011 For More Information: Jackie Maas, 763-509-5230 Plymouth Gets a Spring Cleaning as General ,Mills Employees "Think Global, Volunteer Local" More than 70 General Mills employees participated in projects throughout Plymouth on April 13 as part of the company's "Think Global Volunteer Local" program that runs from April 11- 22. The City of Plymouth had no problem finding work for the General Mills employees, according to City of Plymouth Volunteer Coordinator Jackie Maas. Volunteers pulled buckthorn from Maple Creek Park, spread a fresh layer of mulch on City Hall landscaping and cleaned up Plymouth Creek Park, the Millennium Garden and the grounds at Plymouth Creek Center, City Nall, Hilde Performance Center, Life Time Fitness and the Plymouth Ice Center. The City of Plymouth volunteer program benefits from the work of both individuals and groups. In 2010, the more than 1,400 volunteers donated over 27,000 hours of service to the city. A General Mills survey reports that 82 percent of the company's U.S. employees volunteer either through company programs or independently. Nearly 60 percent of employees spend up to five hours a month serving in their communities. Page 14 MINN EHAHA CREEK I The Minoehaha Creek Watershed District is committed to a leadership role in protecting, improving and manoging the surface waters and affiliated groundwater resources within the District, including their relationships to the ecosystems of which they ore an integral part. We achieve. our mission through regulation, capital projects; education, cooperative endeavors, and. other programs based on � sound science, innovative thinking, an informed and engaged constituency, and the cost effective use of public funds. QUALITY OF WATER April 12, 2011 Ms. Kelli Slavik, Mayor City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Mayor Slavik, WATERSHED DISTRICT QUALITY OF LIFE APR 14 2011 Later this month, staff from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be contacting you to schedule a short breakfast or lunch meeting between MCWD Board members, elected officials and their administrators or managers. The purpose of these meetings is to provide a way for elected officials and MCWD Board members to get better acquainted, to discuss opportunities for collaboration, and to talk about natural resource issues that you feel are important in your community. We'll likely meet in small groups at different times and at a number of locations throughout the watershed. To help us schedule these meetings, will you please: - Provide us the name and contact information of your city's liaison, (if not you). - Let us know the best time for you to meet (early am, lunch, evening) I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Page 15 .. AM LAC Association of Medicine Lake Area Citizens April 11, 2011 ATTENTION: Commissioner Sara Wyatt, Director of Natural Resources John Barten Dear Three Rivers Parks District: We are aware that Fish Lake asked for their boat ramp to be closed when nobody is staffing inspections. We are also aware that the park decided that this would be inconvenient for patrons. It is our position that the health of the lake is more important than the convenience of patrons. AMLAC has worked for many years to ensure the health of this lake by ensuring that plant Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) in the lake has been treated. Citizens have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat plant AIS. Funding has come primarily from the citizens of Plymouth through the Surface Water Management Fee, the citizens of Medicine Lake and residents in the Bassett Creek Watershed through the ad valorem tax as well as grants from the MN DNR, not from Three Rivers Parks District (TRPD). Medicine Lake was infected with Eurasion water milfoil two years after it was first found in the state in Lake Minnetonka. We are the second largest lake in Hennepin County with many boats coming from Minnetonka and Mille Lac which are now considered to be "super spreaders" of zebra mussels. We know that we are at very high risk of infection through your ramp. We believe that TRPD must make policy decisions based on the long-term health of the lake rather than taking the easy, short-term stance of satisfying today's boaters. If the lake becomes infested with zebra mussels, its appeal to patrons diminishes and as a result, so does support to keep the lake as healthy as possible. We respectfully assert our right to decide about putting Medicine Lake at unneeded risk of a zebra -mussel infection and insist on a policy of closing the ramp unless inspectors are present. Unlike plant AIS, there is no remedy for zebra mussels. We also request a policy be instituted as soon as possible that asks boaters if they have been in infected water in the last week and if they have, to be rejected for launch. Boater education is absolutely necessary and of immediate need. Signs should be posted now at the park entrance letting boaters know that TRPD is seriously working to prevent a zebra mussel infestation in Medicine Lake. Sincerely, AMLAC Board of Directors CC: City of Plymouth, City of Medicine Lake, Bassett Creek Watershed Management Organization, Hennepin County Commissioners, Metropolitan Council, State of Minnesota DNR, Senator Terri Bonoff, Representative Sarah Anderson Page 16 CenterPoint, Energy April 7, 2011 Ms. Laurie Ahrens Plymouth - City Manager 3400 Plymouth Blvd Plymouth, MN 55447-1448 800 LaSalle Avenue PO Box 59038 Minneapolis, MN 55459-0038 APR %11 2.011 Re: Minnesota PUC Order Establishing Franchise Fee Filing Requirements CenterPoint Energy asks cities to provide 90 day lead-time for new/revised franchise fees Dear Ms. Ahrens: The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) recently issued an Order establishing new reporting requirements that natural gas and electric utilities need to follow when cities impose new or modify existing franchise fees in their communities. The Order and a copy of the Compliance Filing outlining the franchise fee language that CenterPoint Energy intends to use on customer notices and/or bills is enclosed for your information. The Order does not require the MPUC to formally approve franchise fee changes. It does, however, require that utilities provide the MPUC with a "tariff filing," along with a copy of the municipality's approved franchise fee ordinance 60 days prior to the fee being implemented on customer utility bills. Given this requirement, we're asking communities to give CenterPoint Energy a minimum of 90 days lead-time from the date a new or modified franchise fee has been approved by the city council, to ensure that the tariff filing describing the new fee can be made in accordance with the MPUC Order, and the fee itself can be implemented within a schedule that works for all concerned. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions or would like to discuss in greater detail, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, 4zlL -L 4zel�,_ Roger Brandel Area Manager 763-754-4184 roger,brandel@CcnterPointEnergy.com Enc. Page 17 Gen Olson Senator District 33 235 State Capitol Building 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155-1606 Office Phone: (651) 296-1282 Fax: (651) 767-0925 E-mail: sen.gen.olsonC&senate.mn Home: 6750 County Road 110 West Minnetrista, MN 55364 (952) 472-3306 Cal Portner Administrative Services Director 3400 Plymouth Blvd Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Mr. Portner, itli Il�i[,ila iu-f 1 �I(G !11111. %E1#11Film — rrirr>fsr�f >i X'irkrirTfa"rrr—� A. '1— Senate State of Minnesota April 4, 2011 With budget bill deadlines, hearings and floor actions these last two weeks, sixteen hour days have become the norm, not the exception. When this flurry is behind us, I expect committees will be able to schedule policy matters again as they have later deadlines. I understand that discussion on compromise continues, I hope we can go forward on SF 13 soon. Thanks for communicating your views and position. Gen Olson State Senator District 33 cc: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager A COMMITTEES: Education • Finance • State Government Innovation & Veterans • Zo Recyrred Paper SERVING: Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Independence, Long Lake, Loretto, Maple Plain, Medina, 3rn ttsr- Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, MinneLtista, Mound, Orono, Plymouth, St. Bonifacius, Shorewood, Spring Pa f age 18 Cmemmer Fiber Tonka Bay, Wayzata, Woodland OW OD,© � JOfI �Xy City of qIopkans Office of the Mayor 1010 First Street South • Hopkins, MN 55343-7573 0 -Tho e: 952-935-8474 • Fad• 952-935-1834 Web address: www.hopkinsmn.com Dear Mayor Slavik: would like to challenge you and your Council members in the 2011 Step to It Challenge. Hopkins City Council has won "Most Active City Council" for the past two years, and we plan on making it a third. The Step to If Challenge, a physical fitness competition sponsored by Hennepin County and the Minnesota Twins, begins on May 9 and goes through June 5. Hopkins and Plymouth are among 22 suburbs that will be competing this year. Residents and city officials alike have praised the way the challenge has inspired them to get out and exercise and socialize with neighbors after a long winter. For many, "stepping to it" becomes part of their daily routine in the spring. As City officials, you and I have a unique leadership role to play in the challenge. Participants who completed post -challenge surveys said it was great to see City officials connecting with their communities and getting involved in this event—to the point where it actually inspired them and their families to take part. More than 3,300 residents in 18 cities took part in 2010. I hope that you and your Council will "step up" to the challenge this year. See if you can take the trophy away from us! You can register online at wvww.steptoit_org anytime. Hope you can join in the fun. Sincerely, &Z = ' P�' lt� Eugene Maxwell Mayor Partnering with the Community to Enhance the Quality of Life • Inspire • Educate • Involve • Communicate • Page 19 PLYMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT STATISTICS 1st Quarter Part I Crimes Page 20 Pall 11 Crimes - -stiort Assaults 1 V. 1 ®..,. 14 16 26 16 20 21 Forgery 3 2 2 5 1 11l 3 12 Drugs/Controlled Substance Offenses 11l 19 10 12 Crime Against Family 3r 2 3 7 4 0 Criminal Sexual Conduct I 3 0 2 53 4 DWI 9 17 20; 13 91 0 2 11 0� 1 Underage drinking & driving 21 1 2 1 Juvenile -Alcohol offender - Under 18 years 0 i 2 21 Juvenile -Controlled substance offender 2 01 0 3 0 0 0— 3 1 4 Liquor -sell to or procure liquor for a minor 0 0 1 0 Liquor -underage consumption 18-21 3i 0 - --0 1 Furnishing of tobacco to children 01 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juvenile use/possession of tobacco 0 1 0 1 Gambling 01 0 0. 0 0 1 3 0 1 12 Disturb Peace -emergency telephone calls 11 3 0 1 Disturb Peace -Disorderly Conduct 14 13 9 10 Disturb Peace -Harassing communications 171 13 22 23 11 0 10 10 0 10 0 Disturb Peace-Harass/Stalk 1 2 0 0 Violation order (harass, restraining, protection) 2 11 8 5 IPropertydamage/littering or garbage 0 01 0 0 rProperty Damage/Vandalism 161 13 30 14 _0 171 15 Trespass 0� 0 2 01 0 61 8 0 4 $ Theft 5 4 4 8 Fraud 9 13 15 10 Possession Stolen Property 2 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 5 Crime against government 1 0 1 2 Crime against administration of justice 6 2 1 11 Sex Related (prostitution - indecent exposure) 3 1 2 31 3 1� Weapons - possession firearm 21 2 3 1 0 3 2 2 114 31 Other 0 1 0 21 129 13:7 165 147 % change over previous year TOTAL FOR PERIOD 425 M 392 -7.8% Page 21 Other Reports (9000's) .'Pali.o MV FATAL CRASH 1� MV PERSONAL INJURY CRASH 15 0 13 0 0 D 1 12 14 3 6 MV PROPERTY DAMAGE CRASH 79 88 45 110 86 59 ADMIN INQUIRY 3 4 D —. 60 78 4I 1 2 LOCKOUT CAR/HOUSE 1 0 0 44 77 0 1 FALSE ALARM RESIDENCE FALSE ALARM BUSINESS 40 71 34 53 43 67 35 72 FALSE ALARM OTHER 321 26t__25 42 .251 24 ANIMALISSUES 761 711 144 48 821 119 ASSIST OTHER AGENCY 40 42 31 45 44 43 MOTORIST ASSIST 13 5 0 16 10 3 ASSIST PUBLIC 49 20 38 41, 58 28 DEATH INVESTIGATION 2 3 3 9 6� 4 DISTURBANCE - DOMESTIC/VERBAL 43 311 39 38 41 60 DISTURBANCE - NOISE 32 32 38 46 45 40 DISTURBANCE - NEIGHBORHOOD 0 3 5 3 4 3 DISTURBANCE - UNWANTED PERSON FIRES 2 15 1 18 10 10 7 171 6 1D 10 10 GAS ODOR/LEAK 2 4 3 3 4 1 FOUND PROPERTY 11 7 15 6 19 21 JUVENILE PROBLEM 2 4 13 131 8 12 K9 ASSISTS 17 17 10 12 17 20 LOST/MISSING PERSON 2 6� 2 1 2 2 LOST PROPERTY 6 10 10 6 20 4 MEDICAL 274 209 285 288 262 294 ABANDONED/JUNK VEHICLE 1 0 4 21 D 2 CIVIL MATTER 17 15 17 211 321 14 TRAFFIC DETAILS --�--- 81 125 68 89 149 93 EXTRA PATROL 5 01 2 4 2 1 911 HANGUP VEHICLE IMPOUND 66 0 50 0 49 0. 43 0_ 56 0 47 0 MISCELLANEOUS INFO 264 282 358 2421 230 287 LICENSE PLATE PU/IMPOUND _ D 0 1 11 0 0 ORDER FOR PROTECTION 4 4 9 11i__. 6 12 TRESPASS NOTICE SERVICE 2 5 4 0 2 2 WARRANT ARREST 26 17 26. 15, 9 13 LOUD PARTY/NOISE VIOLATION 41 5 9. 4 51 8 ALL OTHER CITY ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS 11 7 70 31 19 18 RECOVERED MOTOR VEHICLE 0 D 0 1 1 1 SUSPICIOUS PERSON/ACTIVITY 99 63 138 92 104 120 TOTAL <_ 1,4t38� , 1,2.74 1,6 1 1,446. ' 1,478 1,492 % change over previous year 2.7%1 16.0% -8.5% -- —.— ... TOTAL FOR QUAKI LK Page 22 Citations Hazardous moving Speed 298 245 394 276 364 455 Careless/Reckless 1 4 20 36 16 10 Disobey Signs & Signals 33 37 20 55 34 64 Stop Sign 40 25 16 29 19 17 Improper Passing 4 4 2 2 9 4 Improper Turning 5 01 1. 10 11 16 Improper Lane Usage/Wrong Way/HOV 8 2 8 18 4 8 Fail to Yield 17 5 11 26 21 20 Following Too Closely 1 1 1 5 0 5 Improper/No Signal 4 2 2 0 01 0 Open Bottle 3 1 2 0 0 0 Defective/Improper Equipment 20 20 26. 85 81 85 Inattentive Driving 16 17 16 2 5 3 School Bus Stop Arm 3 3 3 2 0 0 Other Hazardous 0 2 1 17 10 _ 9 -� TOTAL HAZARDOUS MOVING 4531 368 505 563 574 696 Non -Moving Fire Lane/Fire Hydrant 12 22 14 13 20 16 2 am to 5 am parking/over 12 hours 77 19 60 120 68 49 ilHandicapped Parking 8 31 9 10 14 3 Other Parking 3 ill 8 14 8 3 Junk/Abandoned Vehicles 2 0 0 11 0 0 Other Non-moving violations 11 1 0 0 1 1 TOTAL NON-MOVING 103 66 91 158 111 72 Non -Hazardous Moving DAR/DAS/QAC 1011 75 96 91 65 84 INo MN DL/No MN DL within 60 days 14 16 13 11 18 20 Other DL violations 141 18 17 36 161 33 Improper Registration 1051 54 67 209 90 127 MC Requirement D 0 0---0 0 0 Overwidth/overweight 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Blocking & Obstructing 0 0 0 0 Leaky/Unsecured Load 0 2 2 0 2 4 Unreasonable Acceleration 0 01 0 0 0 0 Seat Belts 37 75 120 82 46 62 Child restraints 0 0 0� 1 0 0 No Insurance 7 16 26 20 18 i1 Crosswalk/Fail to Yield to Pedestrian 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Non -Hazardous Moving 0 1 0: 5 2 7 TOTAL NON -HAZARDOUS MOVING 279 2581 343 455 257 348 TONAL~O. F ALL CITATIONS , O 835: 692 = 939: 1;176 94'Z 1,:115 TOTAL FOR QUARTER 2,466 W 3,234 31.1% Page 23 The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is committed to a leadership role in protecting, improving and managing the surface waters and affiliated groundwater resources within the District, including their relationships to the (ecosystems of which they are an integral part. We achieve our mission through regulation, copital projects, education, cooperative endeava,s, and other programs based on sound science, innovative thinking, an informed and engaged constituency, and the cost effective use of public funds. MINNEHAHA CREEK QUALITY OF WATER April 8, 2011 The Honorable Kelli Slavik Mayor of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 I WATERSHED DISTRICT QUALITY OF LIFE Re: DRAFT Stormwater Management and Administrative Rule Comments Dear Mayor SIavik, Thursday, March 31, 2011 marked the conclusion of the 45 -day public comment period for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's draft revisions to its Stormwater Management and Administrative rules. This 45 -day comment period was another step in the multi-year process used to develop water resource regulations that incorporate input from local communities, the public and other affected stakeholders, while also protecting water quality and managing our valuable water resources responsibly. The Board of Managers reviewed and discussed the cormnents submitted during the April 7, 2011 Board meeting, and is issuing this letter in response to the comments received. Enclosed, please find a document that contains each comment submitted and the District's response. For easy reference comments have been grouped into common themes and are labeled based on who submitted them. On April 14, 2011 the Board of Managers will meet to discuss potential changes to the draft Stormwater and Administrative rules in response to the comments received. At this time, the Board may also decide to schedule a public hearing for May 5, 2011. Should the Board of Managers decide to schedule a public hearing on that date, a public notice will be distributed along with redlined and clean copies of the most recent draft Stormwater Management and Administrative rules. The public hearing represents another opportunity for stakeholders to provide feedback on the draft rules prior to their adoption. Please share this information with your city council members. This information is also being sent directly to your city administrator and the city staff members involved in the Watershed District's Rule Making Task Force and Technical Advisory Committee. If you have questions about the rule revision process, you are encouraged to contact: James Wisker at Jwisker@mhmehahacreek.org or 952-641 Page 24 18202 Minnetonka Boutevard, Deephaven, MN 55391 • 952-471-0590 • Fax: 952-471-0682 • www.minnehahacreek.orq COMMENTS ON STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DEFINITIONS: 1. Minneapolis - Abstraction: Add "interception" to the list of practices. a. Interception " will be added to the definition of Abstraction in response to this comment. 2. Minnetrista - Definition of Impervious. Defining impervious by including all compacted soil is a deviation from the commonly accepted definition, and impacts the ability to relatively easily determine "impervious" changes. Who would be responsible for making that determine? A site visit would no doubt be necessary to truly determine the extent of compaction. Proposed Solution: Remove "compacted soil" from the list of impervious surface inclusion or clarify what is meant by the term. a. "Compacted soil" is no longer in the definition of Impervious. Mn/DOT .. Linear Reconstruction Project: The definition of rehabilitation should be revised. When Mn/DOT Metro does mill and overlay projects and the while the pavement surface is removed, we also include replacement of deteriorated culverts, deteriorated stormwater pipes and deteriorated catch basins/manholes: We do this to avoid having to have patches in the pavement later on, to avoid excessive disruption to the traveling public and to save on costs. When we replace this drainage infrastructure, we disturb the soils underneath the pavement to remove the old structures and put the new ones in. We are not changing the quantity of impervious surface above these structures, we are simply replacing deteriorated drainage infrastructure. The replacement with new, intact structures also prevents sediment from getting in and thus, reduces sediment deposition in drainage areas. We are requesting that "or the exposure of underlying soils" be removed from the definition of rehabilitation. a. Linear. Reconstruction Projects that do not increase impervious surface more than. 10, 000 square feet are exempt, pursuant to Section 2: Regulation d(1). Therefore, in response to this comment the following language will be removed from the definition of Linear Reconstruction Project: "rehabilitation, including mill and overlay, of a road, sidewalk or trail within existing right of way in a manner that disturbs andlor replaces only the existingpavement and does not involve the addition of impervious surface area or the exposure of underlying soils is not considered a Linear Reconstruction Project" 4. MPRB - The definitions of linear reconstruction project and linear transportation projects should be able to stand alone. The one definition references the other but does not help clarify what the definition of a Linear Transportation Project is. Each definition should be clear. Please clarify these definitions so it is more easily understandable what falls under a Linear Reconstruction Project and a Linear Transportation Project. a. Linear Transportation Projects are defined as the new construction or reconstruction of a road, trail or sidewalk. Linear Reconstruction Projects are a subset of Linear Transportation Projects, and based on feedbackfrom the Technical Advisory Committee, a separate. more specific definition was included in the rule for these reconstruction projects. Page 25 5. Plymouth - Definition "Impervious refers to surfaces that are compacted or covered with a layer of material .such that it is highly resistant to infiltration of runoff including but not limited to gravel, rock, asphalt, concrete and non -pervious paver systems." The term "highly resistant" is subjective and open to interpretation. Has the MCWD considered a numeric standard? Why is a numeric standard for impervious surface not being applied? a. The District considered applying a numeric standard to define impervious surface, however since numeric definitions of impervious surface are variable, the District selected a definition that describes imperviousness and provides examples of several man made impervious surfaces. This definition is consistent with other metro watershed definitions of impervious surface. 6. Victoria - The definitions section provides a definition for Development and Redevelopment, but the rules provide requirements specifically for New Development and Redevelopment. The definition section should be changed to New Development to match the rules, or the rules should be changed to Development in order to be consistent. a. The definitions section will be changed to New Development in response to this comment. COMMENTS ON STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SECTION 2: REGULATION: 7. Minneapolis - Definitions and elsewhere: Clarify removing and replacing impervious surface is not "creating" impervious surface. For example, you could modify "creates ... impervious surface" to say "creates additional ... impervious surface". a. During discussions, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) noted that, depending on the size of parcel and area of disturbance, opportunities to improve stormwater management exist on redeveloping sites. Consequently, the TAC recommended regulating removal and replacement of -impervious surface in various redevelopment scenarios, as outlined in Section 4 and 5. The definition of Redevelopment and Section 2: Regulation will be revised to read "creates new or replaces existin impervious surface. .. " in response to this comment. 8. Mound -What is the significance and documented scientific evidence for the 20%, the 10%, and the 40% threshold values as they relate to development and land cover? a. Gerald Kauffman and Tammy Brant in a 2000 report titled, "The Rale of Impervious Cover as a_ Watershed -based Zoning Tool to Protect water Quality in the Christina River Basin of Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Maryland", cited numerous studies (Arnold and Gibbons, 1996; Maxted and Shaver, 1994; Booth, 1991; Schueler, 1995; Galli, 1993; Pelley, 1997; Brant, 1999) that document water resource degradation occurring at relatively low levels of watershed imperviousness between 8 and 15%. Following discussion with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), 20% impervious cover on parcels larger than 1 acre was established as a reasonable threshold for stormwater management regulation. b: During discussions the TAC agreed that the stormwater management regulation should provide incentives for redevelopment that reduces overall impervious cover. Based on the collective experience in land use planning and water -resource engineering, the TAC agreed that a 10% reduction in impervious cover represented a reduction substantial Page 26 enough. to provide water quality and,water quantity improvements, while remaining an achievable standard by the development community. c. During discussion on stormwater management for redeveloping parcels, the TAC agreed that the opportunityfor stormwater management on a site increased as the percentage of site disturbance increased. It was agreed that thresholds and requirements of the . stormwater rule should be structured according these increasing levels of opportunity. In response, the District analyzed what percentage of a redeveloping site's disturbed area would need to he allocated for stormwater management in relation to percentage site disturbance. It was found that for site disturbances less than 40910, the percentage of the area disturbed needed for stormwater management increased sharply, while for site disturbances between 40 and 70% the percentage of disturbed area needed for stormwater ranged hetween 7.8% and 4.5% respectively. Therefore, 40% was selected a reasonable standard of site disturbance requiring stormwater management for redeveloping sites. It should be noted that this analysis did not include the possibility of sub -surface stormwater management, which would reduce the surface area needed to'be occupied by stormwater management facilities. 9. Richfield - (SS 2.c.2.) Any proposed activity disturbing less than 50% of the site and at least a ten percent reduction in impervious surface should be exempt. (SS 4.b. & c.) The trigger should be 50% or more of the site. (SS 5.b & c.) The trigger should be 50% or more of the site. a. During discussion on stormwater management for redeveloping parcels, the TAC agreed that the opportunityfor stormwater management on a site increased as the percentage of site disturbance increased. It was agreed that thresholds and requirements of the stormwater rule should be structured according these increasing levels of opportunity. In response, the District analyzed what percentage of a redeveloping sites disturbed area would need to be allocated for stormwater management in relation to percentage site disturbance. It was found that for site disturbances less than 40% the percentage of the area disturbed needed for stormwater management increased sharply, while for site disturbances between 40 and 70%, the percentage of disturbed area needed for stormwater ranged between 7.8916 and 4.5% respectively. Therefore, 40% was selected a reasonable standard of site disturbance requiring stormwater management for redeveloping sites. It should be noted that this analysis did not include the possibility of sub -surface stormwater management, which would reduce the surface area needed to be occupied by stormwater management facilities. 10. Chanhassen - It would be naive to argue that linear projects do not contribute to the degradation of surface waters. However, we strongly encourage you to reconsider a minimum threshold of 10,000 square feet in favor of a more attainable minimum threshold of one acre. Throughout Chanhassen are numerous areas that were developed long before today's engineering standards and practices came to be ... In many of these areas roads would need to be widened -by as much as 13 feet just to meet design criteria for safety considerations. Compounding the issue is the fact that these areas are already deficient in right-of-way; making areas for treatment difficult to come by. If the threshold was to be increased, limited City resources could be better allocated to those projects that would result in the greatest benefit per dollar spent. a. During discussion of stormwater management for Linear Transportation Projects, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) acknowledged constraints associated with limited right-of-way, utilities and costs, The TAC discussed the need far de minimis exemptions 3 Page 27 from stormwater requirements for small scale road projects, while acknowledging that public projects should be held to similar standards as those established for private development and redevelopment (20% impervious on 1 acre parcel). After discussing the need to exempt small intersection, turn lane, or alley improvement projects, the TAC identified three Linear Transportation Project tiers (1) projects that result in a minor increase in impervious; (2) projects that result in a substantial increase in impervious; and (3) new road construction where no previous road existed. After discussion, the TAC suggested a 10, 000 square foot threshold for de minimis Linear Transportation Projects. 10 000 square feet represents a decrease in the regy1atoa threshold #om the current stormwater management rule, parallels thresholds for private development, and appears to be a reasonable threshold for public Linear Transportation Projects. Finally based on recommendations frons the TAC, the draft Stormwater Management rule includes provisions for regional treatment that serve to provide additional flexibility for public Linear Transportation Projects. 11. Minnetonka - Section 6(b), A standard engineering design for streets usually calls for a total width of 30 to 32 feet. The standard used by the city of Minnetonka for all of our new developments and street reconstruction projects.is a face to face width of just 26 feet. The city of Minnetonka has a very robust street reconstruction program and the city usually reconstructs approximately two to four miles of streets every single year. In the past, we have had to reconstruct streets as narrow at 18 feet in width in a very limited right-of-way. Despite the fact that the city's standard is a siQ if cantly narrower street width than is common practice; we still have increases in impervious surface. By allowing an increase in impervious surface of only 10,000 square feet before phosphorus and rate control requirement are triggered, the city's ability to reconstruct our street may be limited. The city believes that the trigger from requiring phosphorus, rate control and volume should be one acre of new impervious surface. Any new impervious surface below that threshold should just require the installation of BMPs. a. During discussion of stormwater management for Linear Transportation Projects, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) acknowledged constraints associated with limited right-of-way, utilities and costs. The TAC discussed the need for de minimis exemptions from stormwater requirements for small scale road projects, while acknowledging that public projects should be held to similar standards as those established for private development and redevelopment (20% impervious on 1. acre parcel). After discussing the need to exempt small intersection, turn lane, or alley improvementprojects, the TAC identified three Linear Transportation Project tiers (1) projects that result in a minor increase in impervious; (2) projects that result in a substantial increase in impervious; and (3) new road construction where no previous road existed. After discussion, the TAC suggested a 10, 000 square foot threshold for de minimis Linear Transportation Projects. 10.000 sazaare feet represents a decrease in the regulatory threshold from the current stormwater management rule, parallels thresholds for private development, and appears to be a reasonable threshold for public Linear Transportation Projects. Finally based on recommendations from the TAC, the draft Stormwater Management rude includes provisions for regional treatment that serve to provide additional flexibility far public Linear Transportation Projects. 12. Mn/DOT - Section 2 Regulation, part d, 1: Why does the requirement for transportation projects go down so low and not equally as low as for commercial, industrial and residential? This is not fair and needs to be made equal. Please either use 1 acre for transportation projects as well or use 10,000 square feet for residential, commercial and industrial. In -addition, 4 Page 28 transportation right-of-way is used for many things and is Iimited in size. For example, it is used for utilities, drainage ditches carrying both on-site and off-site water, public safety, transportation and stormwater treatment. a. During discussion of stormwater management for Linear Transportation Projects, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) acknowledged constraints associated with limited right-of-way, utilities and costs. The TAC discussed the need for de minimis exemptions from stormwater requirements for small scale road projects, while acknowledging that public projects should be held to similar standards as those established for private development and redevelopment (20% impervious on 1 acre parcel). After discussing the need to exempt small intersection, turn lane, or alley improvement projects, the TAC identified three Linear Transportation Project tiers (1) projects that result in a minor increase in impervious; (2) projects that result in a substantial increase in impervious; and (3) new road construction where no previous road existed. After discussion, the TAC suggested a 10, 000 square foot threshold for de minimis Linear Transportation Projects. 10 000 square feet represents a decrease in the regulatoty threshold om the current stormwater manygement rule parallels thresholds forprivate development,. and appears to be a reasonable threshold for public Linear Transportation Projects. Finally based on recommendations from the TAC, .the draft Stormwater Management rule includes provisions for regional treatment that serve to provide additional flexibility for public Linear Transportation Projects. 13. Mn/DOT - Section 6, part a: Why does the requirement for transportation projects go down so low and not equally as low as for commercial, industrial and residential? This is not fair and needs to be made equal. Either use 1 acre for transportation projects as well or use 10,000 square feet for residential, commercial and industrial. a. The threshold for commercial, industrial and residential is a 1 acre parcel size with 20% impervious surface, or approximately 8,000 square feet. This threshold of impervious surface is consistent with the impervious threshold for Linear Transportation Projects of 10, 000 square feet. 14. Mn/DOT - Section 6, part b: Seem to be looking at the small stuff for transportation projects. Our concern is that we will end up with little treatment areas all over the place and not have the staff to inspect and -maintain all of them. We prefer large treatment locations that can be adequately inspected and maintained. For example, this small square footage requirement will trigger treatment for our overhead sign equipment inspection pads and State patrol pull -off pads. What kinds of BMP's can be used for these small areas of pavement? Why isn't equal scrutiny being given to other land uses? Trigger should be the same as others, 1 acre. a. See previous answer (10 a) regarding 10, 000 square foot threshold for Linear Transportation Projects and opportunity to utilize regional treatmentfacilities. 15. Richfield - (SS 2.d.1.) The 10,000 square feet of impervious surface exemption should be increased to at least 20,000 square feet for Linear projects. 10,000 SF is the equivalent of constructing a 6' wide sidewalk on two and one-half blocks. In a developed city like Richfield there is limited right-of-way which prevents boulevard space between the sidewalk and roadway. This trigger prohibits advancing the City's goal to provide positive quality of life changes through safety and mobility improvements and subsequently denies the public improved livability because the improvements become cost and/or space prohibitive. 5 Page 29 a. During discussion of stormwater management for Linear Transportation Projects, the ,Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) acknowledged constraints associated with limited right-of-way, utilities and costs. The TAC discussed the need for de minimis exemptions from stormwater requirements for small scale road projects, while acknowledging that public projects should be held to similar standards as those established for private development and redevelopment (20% impervious on 1 acre parcel). After discussing the need to exempt small intersection, turn lane, or alley improvementprojects, the TAC identified three Linear Transportation Project tiers (1) projects that result in a minor increase in impervious; (2) projects that result in a substantial increase in impervious; and (3) new road construction where no previous road existed. After discussion, the TAC suggested a 10,000 square foot threshold for de minimis Linear Transportation Projects. 10.000 square feet represents an increase in the re ulato?y threshold from the current stormwater manMment rule parallel thresholds for private development, and appears to be a reasonable threshold for public Linear Transportation Projects. Finally based on recommendations from the TAC, the draft Stormwater Management rule includes provisions for regional treatment that serve to provide additional f lexibility for public Linear Transportation Projects. 16. Orono - 2(d) Linear Transportation Project: The rule states that sites that are less than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface are exempt from the requirements of this rule. This requirement is specific to new road construction and the reconstruction of an existing road, sidewalk, or other linear transportation project. This requirement is more restrictive than the current version of the MCWD stormwater rule. Concern: It is unclear from the rule if the 10,000 square foot exemption for a. reconstructed road, sidewalk, or other linear transportation project applies only to the increase in the impervious surface or if it applies based on the amount of the road that is being reconstructed. Proposed solution: We suggest that clarification be provided to this statement. Specifically, due to the difficulty in applying these requirements to linear transportation projects suggest that the requirement only apply to the new or additional impervious surface that is created at the project site. a. Stormwater management requirements for Linear Transportation Projects that increase impervious surface more than 10, 000 square feet apply only to the area of increased impervious surface. Section 6: Linear Transportation Project Requirements states that stormwater requirements apply to the "area of increased impervious surface" 17. Minnetrista - Linear Transportation Projects. The rule reads that any linear transportation project creating more than 10,000 sq. ft of impervious shall be subject to permitting. Proposed Solution: In order to clearly capture the intent as it is understood, adding the word "new" between "of' and "impervious" will clarify. a. Language within Section 6: Linear Transportation Project Requirements will be changed to include this clarifying language. 18. Mound - Why would the act of subdividing a parcel of land greater than 1 acre in size require a stormwater management plan to be created? It would be more relevant to place a hold on a building permit without development of a stormwater management plan. Please explain. D Page 30 a. The District has long had a policy of encouraging the framing of stormwater management plans early in the development or redevelopment process. Doing so avoids the complexities associated with locating stormwater management facilities after a site plan has been completed. Review and approval of a stormwater plan at the subdivision stage also ensures that an integrated stormwater-management plan is provided far the development or redevelopment of a large area into individual residential parcels. Seeking to "hold" building permits pending completion of a stormwater management plan would unduly delay project planning and be more likely to create unnecessary conflicts that could be avoided by integrated planning earlier in the process. To ensure, to the greatest degree possible, that the regulation of subdivision is not in conflict with the exemption for single-family home construction or reconstruction, the District will add language clara; ging that only subdivision _ofaproperty into three or more parcels is subject to the permit requirement. 19. Plymouth - The act of subdividing a property does not result in impacts water resources. What is the purpose of requiring a Stormwater Management permit and stormwater management plan meeting phosphorus, rate, and volume requirements from property owners who simply intend to subdivide their property? What are examples of information that would be required by the MCWD to be in a stormwater management plan in such a situation? a. Please see response 15a above. Further, -the stormwater plan for subdivision would provide for stormwater management for the planned development or redevelopment of the subdivided property. 20. Victoria - A definition of subdivision may be needed. It is unclear if an owner were to do a lot split (defined as a minor subdivision by the City of Victoria) and only one additional single family lot were created if a stormwater management plan would be required. Under the current language that appears to be the case for parcels larger than one acre, but this seems onerous to require for the creation of one lot. At the time of the lot split, the amount of impervious surface will not be known, so the applicant would not be able to state whether or not they meet the exemption under (b)(1). a. Please see response 15a above. The District understands subdivision to be the legal reconfiguration of a single property into multiple properties. Consistent with the desire to ensure early consideration of stormwater management requirements, a subdivision application could provide stormwater treatment far a likely development or redevelopment scenario --- with additional details to he determined as plans evolve. To ensure, to the greatest degree possible, that the regulation of subdivision is not in conflict with the exemption for single-family home construction or reconstruction, the District will add lanZLia clarifying that only subdivision of a property into three or more parcels is subject to the permit_ requirement. The purpose is to ensure that stormwater management plans are created and implemented for substantial development or redevelopment of land, not to regulate lot splits under which.a single-family home is huilt on a property partitioned from another, larger one. Page 31 21. Mound - Please explain the intent of the Common Scheme of Development paragraph and how it will be applied. It would appear the MPCA Construction Permit does a better job at defining a "Common Plan of Development" and should be referenced. How is a gain or loss of ownership of an adjacent parcel affected before or after the date this rule takes affect? Your rule raises interpretive legal questions. If an adjacent parcel is owned by a common owner to a project parcel, but not part of the project it should not be affected by this rule simply by reason of who owns it. a. The Common Scheme of Development language represents no change from the District's existing stormwater management rule. The purpose of this language is to ensure that development occurring across multiple parcels under common ownership is not exempt from regulation because the proposed activity takes place on separate parcels that individually -do not meet: regulatory thresholds. 22. Victoria - Should the date the rule took effect remain June 2005, or should it be updated to reflect the adoption of the updated rules? a. The Common Scheme of Development language is within the current stormwater management rule, adopted in January 2005. Therefore, common or related ownership analysis will be applied back to January 2005. COMMENTS ON STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SECTION 3: REQUIREMENTS 23. Minneapolis - 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(2) There is an inconsistency between 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(2). For phosphorus control in 3(c)(2) we think you intend that the applicant should provide for phosphorus control in an amount equivalent to that which would be achieved through the abstraction of the first one inch of rainfall from the site's impervious surface [as in 3(c)(1)I, rather than the abstraction of one inch of runoff from the site's impervious surfaces. a. Language within these sections will be modifiedfor consistency. 24. Mn/DOT - Section 3, part a, 1: Please add "on-site" to the sentence — "projects shall result in no :net increase in phosphorous loading from existing on-site conditions." Projects should not have to treat for off-site loading.. a. The intent of this section of the rule is to ensure no increase in phosphorus loading from existing conditions. Unless alterations are made by an applicant that change offsite loading rates, the no net increase requirement will apply to on site changes that modify loading. Therefore, no change will be made. 25. Mn/DOT - Section 3, part c, 2: I don't understand why the last sentence is needed when no net increase in phosphorous is already required in part a, 1 already. Please explain or please remove "and phosphorus control in an amount equivalent to that which would be achieved through abstraction of 1 inch of runoff from the site's impervious surfaces." a. language in Section 3, part c, 2, provides an alternative framework for compliance with the volume control requirements, where an applicant demonstrates that abstraction of I inch of rainfall is infeasible. To ensure nondegradation of downstream waterbodies, subsection 3(c)(2) requires phosphorus control in an amount equivalent to that obtained through one inch of volume control. For example, in the event that a redeveloping parcel E:3 Page 32 between 1-5 acres that disturbs greater than 40% of the site and does not obtain a 10°fo reduction in impervious surface but cannot meet the volume control standard, phosphorus control in an equivalent amount is still required Since new roads and road reconstructions that increase impervious surface more than 10, 000 square feet are subject to no net increase in phosphorus requirements, this language would not apply to Linear Transportation Projects. Therefore, no change will be made to this section. 26. Minnetrista - Phosphorus Control. The City supports the proposal to require a reduction in phosphorus loading when agricultural property re -develops. Phosphorus reduction is a critical component to water quality degradation in Lake Minnetonka, and conversion of land is a good time to apply a standard. However, we do not support using "meadow condition" as a baseline for nondegradation. Furthermore; we argue with the use of .04 mg/l as the phosphorus load baseline V for meadows. Thisholds development in cities like Minnetrista that have primarily ag conversion to a unreasonably high standard, thus negatively impacting growth opportunities and potentially impacting the quality of discretionary aspects of development. Also, under the proposed rule, row crops are held to a higher standard. than no net -increase, but what about land use conversions like point -source polluters or. feedlots? Why are those types of uses not considered for a higher standard? Proposed Solution: Set a specific goal for phosphorus reduction per acre of property redeveloped, and provide flexibility in the achievement of that goal (regional management, infiltration, assisted filtration, or other means). a. During discussion of New Development standards in. agricultural settings, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) recommended the use of meadow condition to define phosphorus loading standards as it is already being used by some communities. The event mean concentration of 0.04 mg/L is a standard used in both the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's MNStormwater Manual and a concentration used in the Districts Hydraulic, Hydrologic and Pollutant Loading Study. Since the event mean concentration of 0.04 mg/L being used for row crop lands is the same as would be used for meadow conditions and similar to concentrations used for other natural landscapes (forest, prairie), row crop lands are not being held to a higher standard. Feedlots have been added to row crops agricultural lands referenced under New Development, Section 3(a)(1)i. 27. Minnetrista - The city would like written confirmation from the District that any phosphorus reduction on previously agricultural land above the previous rule (no net increase) will be counted toward the city's allocation of phosphorus reduction, as previously verbalized many times. (This would provide a further incentive for cities to encourage developers to do better). Also, the city questions what standard will be used for future TMDL implementation -the pre -development condition or post -development condition? a. During the development of the District's Y'd generation 2007 Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan, loading allocations and MCWD capital improvements were based on the assumption that the District would adopt a no net increase in loading standard. Staff will recommend that load reductions achieved through development beyond no net increase be credited to the LGU via the surface water rnanagenaent plan. However, please note that future municipal projects will still be required to satisfy regulatory requirements and that credit will not be granted far load reductions achieved through MCWD financial contributions. 0 Page 33 28. Minnetrista - Rate Control. The- city is uncertain how depressions that have not historically out - flowed will be treated when analyzing rate and volume control. Will there be no additional water permitted to over -flow, when needed for flood control purposes? a. The Districts current Stormwater Management rule contains language that states, "The volume of runoff may not increase due to the project when the receiving area of said runoff is landlocked and not capable of handling the increased volume of runoff. In addition, the applicant shall either own or have proper rights over the landlocked property to handle water from the development. Back-to-back 100 year runoff events will be used to analyze holding capacity and freeboard for landlocked areas. " The District will include this language in the proposed draft Stormwater Management rule. _29. Orono - 3(c)(2) - Volume Control: The rule states "where an applicant demonstrates that it is infeasible to meet the one inch abstraction requirement through the use of volume control credits pursuant to subsection 3(c)(1), the stormwater management plan must provide for the abstraction of the runoff to the greatest extent feasible, and at least 0.5 inches, and phosphorus control in an amount equivalent to that which would be achieved through the abstraction of one inch of runoff from the site's imperious surfaces. Concern: Implementing this requirement does not align with the phosphorus reduction requirement of the rule stating that projects shall result in no net increase in phosphorus loading from existing conditions. Proposed Solution: We suggest that the rule be changed to state the following "and phosphorus control equivalent to matching the phosphorus Ioading for the existing conditions." a. During discussion by the Technical Advisory Committee it was agreed that as parcel size and percentage disturbance increases for redevelopment, so does the opportunity to improve water quality through management of the sites stormwater runoff. Therefore, based on site disturbance for medium to large redeveloping parcels, volume control is required. In the event these redevelopmentprojects are unable to meet the volume control requirement, phosphorus control in an equivalent amount is still required. Therefore, no change will be made to this section. 30. BATC - The alternative method for compliance with the one inch abstraction requirement is an absolute necessity given the varying site conditions throughout the district. While the alternative provides for much-needed flexibility in the abstraction requirement, the 0.5 inch abstraction minimum requirement leaves legitimate feasibility questions for many projects throughout the district. BATC supports volume control goals and incentives, but remains opposed to fixed, numerical standards which are particularly onerous in lower grade soils. This could render projects infeasible and add significant costs throughout the district. Flexibility to account for limits on-site, which range from soil classification to zoning requirements, are an absolute must from an applicant's perspective. To ameliorate this issue, the rule should be amended to allow an applicant, at its own cost, to demonstrate that it's infeasible to meet the one inch abstraction requirement through the use of volume control, but without the subsequent 0.5 -inch minimum requirement. In certain site conditions, the 0.5 -inch requirement is simply not feasible. This change would keep the 1 -inch goal in place where feasible, but it would also encourage alternatives while limiting feasibility and cost challenges that are tied to a fixed requirement over the district's diverse landscape. 10 Page 34 a. The development of the District's volume control standard is consistent with other municipal and watershed standards across the metro and is based on generally accepted principles that managing for volume control moves watershed systems towards their historic hydrology, thus providing benefits beyond improved water quality including enhanced stream base flow and groundwater recharge. In recognition of varied soil conditions and other site constraints, the District has included numerous alternative volume control practices including, underground infiltration (subsurface soils are often different than surficial soils), tree preservation, soil amendments, capture -reuse, enhancement of pervious areas and filtration. Where an applicant demonstrates, under the alternative compliance pathway in subsection 3(c)(2), that site constraints .are such there are no feasible means of abstracting 1 inch of rainfall, the stormwater plan must provide the maximum possible abstraction (and at least 0.5 inches) and phosphorus reduction. equivalent to that achieved thr_ough_.1. inch of abstraction. Given the proposed level offlexibility, consistency with other metro standards, the many options available to achieve volume control and that the District is providing 50% volume control credit towards use offiltration, achieving 0.5 inch of volume control on a site has been determined to be a reasonable alternative minimum standard. For sites unable to utilize any of these options, the District has an Exception rule that allows for even further flexibility in how applicants choose to meet District standards. For sites where Exceptions fail to provide sufficient options, applicants can pursue a variance. 31. Minneapolis - 3(c)(2) Delete " ... and at least 0.5 inches ... ". The statement already says "to the greatest extent feasible", thus an amount is unnecessary. In fact, for Type D soils, this 0.5 inch requirement may render sites non -developable. To illustrate this infeasibility, I am enclosing three slides prepared by Bar Engineering for the MIDS process that is being led by the MPCA. Note on the first slide that, in order to drain within 48 hours, a BMP on D soils needs to be extremely shallow. The third slide provides an example of a 10 -acre, 80% impervious commercial site, where infiltration of one inch from impervious surfaces would require 2/3 of the site. a. The development of the District's volume control standard is consistent with other municipal and watershed standards across the metro and is based on generally accepted principles that managing for volume control moves watershed systems towards their historic hydrology, thus providing benefits beyond improved water quality including enhanced stream base -flow and groundwater recharge. In recognition of varied soil conditions and other site constraints, the District has included numerous alternative volume control practices including, underground infiltration (subsurface soils are often different than surficial soils), tree preservation, soil amendments, capture -reuse, enhancement of pervious areas and filtration Where the applicant demonstrates, tinder the alternative compliance pathway in subsection 3(c)(2), that site constraints are such there are no feasible means of abstracting 1 inch of rainfall, the stormwater plan must provide the maximum possible abstraction (and at least 0.5 inches) and phosphorus reduction equivalent to that achieved through 1 inch of abstraction. Given the proposed level of flexibility, consistency with other metro standards, the many options available to achieve volume control and that the District is providing 50% volume control credit towards use of filtration, achieving 0.5 inch of volume control on a site has been determined to be a reasonable standard. For sites unable to utilize any of these options, the District has an Exception rule that allows for even further flexibility in II Page 3 5 how applicants choose to meet District standards. For sites where Exceptions fail to provide sufficient options, applicants can pursue a variance. 32. Mound - What is the purpose of having the minimum be "to the greatest extent feasible" AND 0.5 inch? The two values, when used in this manner, appear to be in conflict. Is it "to the greatest extent feasible" or is it a minimum of 0.5 inch? Please explain. a. The District has established a goal of achieving 1 inch of volume control for various development scenarios. In the event that applicants are unable to achieve this standard due to site-specific constraints, the District has provided an alternative compliance pathway in subsection 3(c)(2) whereby the stormwater plan must provide the maximum possible abstraction (and at least 0.5 inches) and phosphorus reduction equivalent to that achieved through I inch of abstraction. Therefore, applicants are required to provide as much volume control as feasible up to 1.0 inch but not less than 0.5 inch. For example, an applicant may demonstrate that 1.0 inch of volume control is infeasible, however.they may be able to provide 0: 75 inches of volume control. 33. Victoria - The rule requires abstraction of the first one inch of rainfall from the sites impervious surface and provides a framework for conditions where it becomes infeasible to meet that requirement. In Victoria, the majority of the soil is type C and D. We do not have an understanding as to how developers will meet this standard and we are extremely concerned about the cost/ability for developers and land owners to do so. a. The development of the District's volume control standard is consistent with other municipal and watershed standards across the metro and is based on generally accepted principles that managing for volume control moves watershed systems towards their historic hydrology, thus providing benefits beyond improved water quality including enhanced stream base flow and groundwater recharge. In recognition of varied soil conditions and other site constraints, the District has included numerous alternative volume control practices including, underground infiltration (subsurface soils are often different than surficial soils), tree preservation, soil amendments, capture -reuse, enhancement of pervious areas and filtration. Given the proposed level of flexibility, consistency with other metro standards, the many options available to achieve volume control and that the District is providing 50% volume control credit towards use of filtration, achieving 0.5 inch of volume control on a site has been determined to be a reasonable standard. For sites unable to utilize any of these options, the District has an Exception rule that allows for even further flexibility in how applicants choose to meet District standards. For sites where Exceptions fail to provide sufficient options, applicants can pursue variances by demonstrating the hardships that are unique to the site. 34. Minnetrista - Volume Control. The City finds the requirement to control the volume of the first inch of rainfall, despite soil type, onerous for Minnetrista, given its Bard -to -infiltrate soils. While it is appreciated to specify credits and provide for .5 inch of volume control under certain circumstances, soil type and associated infiltration capacity is not specifically considered as part of the rule. Proposed Solution: Provide a different standard for volume control (and associated phosphorus control) when C and D soils (.5 inch of rainfall) consist of the majority of the site (more than 70%). 12 Page 36 a. The development of the District's volume control standard is consistent with other municipal and watershed standards across the metro and is based on generally accepted principles that managingfor volume control moves watershed systems towards their historic hydrology, thus providing benefits beyond improved water quality including enhanced stream base flow and groundwater recharge. In recognition of varied soil conditions and other site constraints, the District has included numerous alternative volume control practices, including, underground infiltration (subsurface soils are often different thansurfrcial soils), tree preservation, soil amendments, capture -reuse, enhancement of pervious areas and filtration. Given the proposed level of flexibility, consistency with other metro standards, the many options available to achieve volume control and that the District is_providing 50% volume control credit towards use of filtration, achieving 0.5 inch of volume control on a site has been determined to be a reasonable standard. For sites unable to utilize any of these options, the District has an Exception rule that allows for even further flexibility in . how applicants choose to meet District standards. For sites where Exceptions fail to provide sufficient options, applicants can pursue variances by demonstrating the hardships that are unique to the site. 35. Minneapolis - 3(c) We view infiltration as a methodology for removing pollutants. We would prefer that the pollutants be regulated, and not the methods for removing them. The proposer and not the regulator should be responsible for determining the method, using cost -benefit analysis and the proposer's judgment and decision making.'In a fiiIly built city, which was developed to drain quickly to storm sewers, there are many unknowns about changes that will occur with increased infiltration, and we advocate a cautionary approach. a. The development of the District's volume control standard -is consistent with other municipal and watershed standards across the metro and is based on generally accepted principles that managing for volume control moves watershed systems towards their historic hydrology, thus providing benefits beyond improved water quality including enhanced stream base flow and groundwater recharge. Given the additional benefits volume control has on surface and ground waters, it was determined that the stormwater management rule should include provisions for both pollutant loading and for volume control. 36. Orono — 3(c)(1) -Volume Control: The rule states "the stormwater plan must provide for the abstraction of the first one inch of rainfall from the site's impervious surface" Concern: Volume control requirements in general are starting to be called into question. It's our understanding that the Minnesota Cities Storm water Coalition will be pushing back to the MPCA on proposed volume control requirements in the upcoming MS4 General Permit update. There are concerns about groundwater contamination, dewatering of wetlands, costs of facilities, and the need for volume control at all. Proposed Solution: Volume control may not be necessary if rate control and water quality control criteria can be met. The volume control criteria should only be required in areas that have sensitive streams downstream that could be subject to erosion. Beyond that, volume control should be encouraged as a BMP to meet the water quality criteria in instances where infiltration is feasible and mares good engineering and scientific sense. 13 Page 37 a. The development of the District's volume control standard is consistent with other municipal and watershed standards across the metro and is based on generally accepted principles that managingfor volume control moves watershed systems towards their historic hydrology, thus providing benefits beyond improved water quality including enhanced stream base -flow and .groundwater recharge. Given the additional benefits volume control has on surface and ground waters, it was determined that the stormwater management rule should include provisions for both pollutant loading and for volume control. 37. Minneapolis - 3.(c)(2)(i.) To the list of variables, please add storm water hotspots*, and proximity to structures. * The MPCA has defined "storm -water hoispot" as "any land use or activity that may generate a higher concentration_ of (hydrocarbons, .trace metals, or toxic pollutants than are found in typical stormwater runoff. a. Section 3(c)(2)(1) states that variables that limit the feasibility of volume control "may include but are not limited to unified soil classification, soil contamination, proximity to bedrock proximity to groundwater, zoning requirements and financial considerations. " Since the list of defined variables is not exclusive, an applicant has the ability to reference additional variables that limit the feasibility of volume control. Therefore, no change will he made to this section. 38. Mound - Projects that result in an increase in impervious surface will be required to infiltrate or "abstract" 1 inch of runoff from the sites impervious surface. Please clarify if that is referring to existing or proposed impervious surface. a. The volume control requirements apply to a future proposed' condition. However, depending on the size of the parcel, and percent of the site disturbed, volume control of 1 inch of runoff may be required from impervious surfaces that existed prior to the redevelopment activity. For example, in some situations volume control is required only for new additional impervious surface, whereas in other cases volume control may be required across the entire site's impervious surface. 39. MPRB - The Minneapolis Paris and Recreation Board (MPRB) supports the abstraction of 1 inch of rainfall as a goal. This may be very challenging to obtain in urban areas that have highly disturbed and compacted soils. The abstraction sequence outlined in 3(c) (2) for sites that have infiltration issues does lessen this abstraction to 0.5 inches. The MPRB's concern is that at sites where the 1 inch abstraction is not attainable, the provision in the rule that calls for phosphorus control in an amount equivalent to the one inch of rain abstraction is very difficult to obtain. If it is not possible to infiltrate on the site, it may be very difficult and unreasonable to meet the phosphorus reduction that would result from a 1 inch abstraction. a. Based on evaluation of precipitation frequency curves for the metro, the AIPCA estimates that providing volume control up to 1 inch captures 80 -90% of annual storm events. Therefore, 1 inch of volume control will reduce 80-90% of annual nutrient loading. In instances where providing the full 1 inch of volume control is infeasible, a variety of other alternatives may he used to provide a equivalent level of phosphorus reduction. This level of treatment can be achieved by providing a combination of volume control, filtration, standard detention practices and newer practices such as the use of iron filings, therefore the District has determined this phosphorus control standard to be reasonable. 14 Page 38 40. Orono - 3(c)(1) The rule states "the stormwater plan must piovide for the abstraction of the first one inch of rainfall from the site's impervious surface". Concern: There is no guidance provided to determine the volume of water that is to be abstracted. Typically abstraction requirements are calculated in the following fashion: • Abstraction Volume Required = site area * rainfall amount * runoff coefficient Proposed solution: We suggest that the method used to determine the abstraction volume be provided in the rule and that it includes the runoff coefficient that shall be used in the calculation. We suggest using a runoff coefficient of 0.9. a. The District has not adopted a prescriptive methodology in how applicants calculate the volume of runoff generated from a sites impervious surface. A variety of runoff models, runoff coefficients and curve numbers exist. In order to provide maximum flexibility for applicants the District has not prescribed one specific method. 41. Plymouth - The draft Stormwater Management Rule does not mention well head protection or well head vulnerability areas. How will the District apply the Stormwater Management Rule to well head protection or well head vulnerability areas? a. Given that wellhead sensitivity exhibits spatial variation and the Minnesota Department of Health requires d fferent wellhead protection requirements for d ffeeent classifications of public water systems across the State, the District will address wellhead protection issues as they relate to the Stormwater Management ride on a case by case basis using all available information about a given development and the surrounding wellhead protection area. 42. Bancor - This new rule will result in a tripling of the amount of land required for storm water treatment. If a development such as Woodland Cove, which has 32% of the site as open space, is finding it difficult to meet your new rales, how is it going to be possible for other applicants to comply? a. The District carefully analyzed and considered, with substantial input from its advisory bodies, the practical consequences of its revised management standards. The rule 's applicability sections (4-8) were carefully crafted to balance the burden ofstormwater management on development/redevelopment plans, and the extent to which the standards are imposed increases as the extent of land disturbance increases (and the project proponent has consequentially greater opportunity to provide stormwater management). Further, the rule sets standards while providing applicants with greatflexibility in how they meet the standards. The District is satisfied that the revised rule does not unreasonably burden development and redevelopment projects, and where unique circumstances present hardship, the District will consider exception or variance requests. SECTION 3(d) BAIPs: 43. Minneapolis - 3(e) The draft language exposes people to variation in financial risks and safety risks. We recommend that the requirement for the vertical difference between low opening of 15 Page 39 structures and the -100 -year high water elevation of stormwater BMPs be equal to the height required to store the volume of runoff from a 2 -year event. a. This language -represents no substantive change from the existing rule and follows generally accepted engineering principles -that low openings of structures be located 2 vertical feet above .100 year flood elevations of waterbodies, including stormwater management facilities to prevent flooding during high water. In areas of retrofit, applicants have historically met this requirement by creating 2 feet of separation through use of berms around the perimeter of the stormwater facility. Therefore, no change will be made to this section. 44. Richfield - (SS 3.e.1.) Richfield was fully developed prior to any guidance on high water elevations relating to building structure openings. The requirement of two vertical feet of separatidn is not an achievable or realistic goal for linear projects or any site improvements that do not require a full rebuild. This rule could prevent improvement within the City that the City fully encourages property owners to make. a. This language represents no substantive change from the' existing rule and follows generally accepted engineeringprinciples that low openings of structures be located 2 vertical feet above .100 year flood elevations of waterbodies, including stormwater management facilities to prevent flooding during high water. In areas of retrofit, applicants have historically met this requirement by creating 2 feet of separation through use of berms around the perimeter of the stormwater facility. Therefore, no change will be made to this section. 45. Richfield - (SS 4.a.) Best Management Practices should be "encouraged where practical" rather than required. a. Best Management Practices (BAV 's) are required for small scale projects under the existing version of the District's Stortnwater Management rule and the District has always provided flexibility in the types of BMPs that can be used to meet this requirement. Therefore no change will be made to this section. COMMENTS ON STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SECTION 4: REDEVELOPMENT 46. Orono — Sections 4 and 5 - Redevelopment Requirements: The stormwater rule has language to specify when stormwater requirements apply during redevelopment. Concern: The rule language in Sections 4 and 5 is not consistent with Tables 2 and 3. The tables have more specific language and are easier to understand. Proposed Solution: We suggest that the language under Sections 4 and 5 be removed and be replaced with Tables 2 and 3. a. The regulatory thresholds and exceptions in section 2 of the rade, as well as the applicability provisions in sections 4 and 5, are incorporated into tables 2 and 3 to ensure that the tables present a comprehensive picture of the rule's regulatory scheme. 16 Page 40 47. Plymouth - Tables 2 & 3 are very helpful in understanding how the Stormwater Management Rule will be applied for redevelopment projects. Tables should also be provided for development and linear transportation projects. a. - The District will consider adding additional tables to the draft Stormwater Management rule. COMMENTS ON STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SECTION 6: TRANSPORTATION 48. Met Council - The MCES considers it pipelines similar to "Linear Transportation Facilities" and would request the District include our facilities in those definitions as shown in the attachment. The MCES often constructs underground facilities under the ground surface on property owned and. maintained by others,, resulting. in the permitting and construction of storm water structures by MCES which are owned and maintained by others. In those cases, the MCES does not have the right to record maintenance plans, nor guarantee perpetual maintenance as those responsibilities would transfer to the underlying owner. As a result, the MCES requests a separate category for these types of situations. a. Underground utilities such as those installed by MCES will be included in the definition of Linear Transportation and Ltk Projects as requested. However, since the District enters,' to projects specific maintenance agreements with a variety ofpublic entities, language specific to MCES maintenance provisions will not be included. The District will continue to work on a case by case basis- to develop maintenance agreements with public entities that re, jlect the unique nature of each project. 49. Orono — 6(b) - The rule states "Linear reconstruction projects that will create between 10,000 square feet and one acre of impervious surface must meet the phosphorus control requirements in accordance with subsection 3(a) and rate control requirements in accordance with subsection 3(b) for the area of increased impervious surface". - 6( c) - The rule states "Linear Reconstruction Projects that will create more than one acre of impervious surface must meet the phosphonis control requirements in accordance with subsection 3(a), rate control requirements in accordance with subsection 3(b), and volume control requirements in accordance with subsection 3(c) for the area of increased impervious surface." Concern: It is unclear from these statements if the trigger for requiring storinwater treatment is based on new impervious surface or the reconstructed impervious surface. Proposed Solution: We assume that the trigger for requiring stormwater treatment is based on new impervious surface; however, the rule should be revised for clarity. a. Stormwater Management requirements far Linear Transportation Projects are triggered by the addition of new impervious surface. This section of the rule will be revised to clarify based on this comment. 50. Victoria - The word "additional" should be stated prior to impervious surface under the exemptions and in Linear Reconstruction Projects (b) and (c) under 6. LINEAR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT REQUIREMENTS. . 17 Page 4.1 a. Stormwater Management requirements for Linear Transportation Projects are triggered by the addition of new impervious surface. This section of the rule will be revised to clarify based on this comment 51. Plymouth - Trail construction projects by municipal Parks and Recreation Departments or Park Districts appear to require a Stormwater Management permit, however, many trail systems are remote, constructed through existing open space, are designed to minimize other environmental impacts (ex. wetlands and trees), conform to existing contours and slopes, and are not otherwise associated with development or redevelopment projects. How would an applicant meet phosphorus, rate, and volume control requirements in such situations? a. Trails that are in remote areas and are constructed through open space would be able to meet the criteria of paragraph 2(d)(2) which exempts trails that do not exceed 12 feet in width and are bordered on the downgradient side (s) by a pervious buffer averaging at least one-half the width of the trail. 52. Minnetrista - Linear Transportation Projects. Requiring rate, volume, and phosphorus control for all new roads, sidewalks, or trails (or re -construction creating more than 1 acre of impervious) significantly increases the costs of such projects due to the land necessary for Best Management Practices (BMPS). The City strongly opposes such requirements because they run counter to design requirements set forth by MnDOT that cannot vary. This puts the city in a situation where the dollars provided for road upgrades cannot be used unless they meet specific design/safety criteria, which run counter to the District's goals. Proposed Solution: Eliminate the requirement for volume, rate, and phosphorus control for linear transportation projects or setting a higher threshold for increased impervious. a. During discussion of stormwater management for Linear Transportation Projects, the Technical Advisory Committee ('TAC) acknowledged constraints associated with limited right-of-way, utilities and costs. The TAC discussed exemption standards for Linear Transportation Projects and generally agreed that new roads and reconstruction projects -that resulted in large increases in impervious surface should be required to provide treatment far phosphorus, volume and rates. .The TAC also acknowledged that public projects should be held to similar standards as those established for private development and redevelopment. After discussing the need to exempt small intersection, turn lane, or alley improvementprojects, the TAC identified three Linear Transportation Project tiers (1) projects that result in a minor increase in impervious; (2) projects that result in a substantial increase in impervious; and (3) new road construction where no previous road existed. After discussion, the TAC suggested a 10, 000 square foot threshold for de minimis Linear Transportation Projects and I acre of additional impervious surface as a second tier threshold. The District is satisfied that 1 acre of additional impervious surface on Linear Transportation Projects represents a reasonable threshold far the application of stormwater management requirements. 53. Mn/DOT - Section 3: To be clear, please add that the Storinwater Management PIan trust meet Sections 6-8 for linear transportation projects, not sections 4-8, as stated on page 3. a. Section 3 of the Stormwater Management rule outlines general requirements for phosphorus control, rate control, volume control, .best management practices and high water elevations. How these apply specifically to Linear Transportation Projects is 18 Page 42 outlined in Section 6: Linear Transportation Project Requirements. Additional provisions for Regional Stormwater Management, Downstream Waterbodies, and Maintenance are provided in Section 7, 8 and 10 respectively. Therefore, no change will be made to this section. 54. MnIDOT - Section 3, part a, 1: Having Linear Transportation in this section is confusing, please remove from this section. There is already a separate section 6 for linear transportation -project requirements that explains the process really well. a. The purpose of referencing Linear Transportation Projects in 3(a)(1) is to differentiate between the phosphorus control standard for Linear Transportation Projects as compared to Redevelopment, and was requested by members of the Technical Advisory -Committee,. Section 6 does not describe the phosphorus control standard (i.e. no net increase), it only describes the thresholds that trigger the need to provide phosphorus control on Linear Transportation Projects. Therefore, no change will be made to this section. 55. Mn/DOT - Section 3, part c, 2, ii and iii: Public projects on established corridors should be exempt from these parts. For example, linear public highway transportation project improvements are based on increasing safety and mobility and on State and Federal road design standards, so reducing the size and scope and configuration is not possible. a. These design constraints could he explained by MNDOT in Section 3, part c, 2, i, which requires a narrative be submitted to the District explaining variables that limit the feasibility of providing I inch of volume control. The District will work on a case by case basis with MNDOT on future projects to determine what design constraints exist. Therefore, no change will be made to this section. 56. Mn/DOT - Section 10, part f: This section only seems pertinent to non -State projects. For State projects, we do not need municipal consent in all instances. Please add exemption for 'State projects. a. This requirement represents no change from the existing Stormwater Management rule. If aproject does not require municipal consent, an explanation can be provided with the permit application. Therefore, no exemption language will be added far State projects in this section. 57. Mn/DOT - Section 10, part g: Our construction contractors must sign the MPCA permit form and send it in to the MPCA. We cannot award our projects to a contractor without watershed district permits in hand. The process we have been using is: Mn/DOT fills out the MPCA NPDES permit application form and signs it; we send it along to contractor with our plans and specifications for the project. Then after project award to the contractor, they sign the application and send it in to the MPCA. In short, we can send the watershed district our signed application form, but it will not have the contractor signature on it yet. So, can sending our filled out form to the District qualify as proof that we ilitend to send the permit application to the MPCA via contractor as outlined above? Just need clarification and perhaps clarification in this section of the Rule. Process has been working fine as is for all these years now. a. The District will continue to work with the existing established process for MNDOT's NPDES permits. 19 Page 43 58..Mn/DOT - Section 11:1 would like a chance to review the District's Standard Maintenance Declaration while Rule N is still in draft format. Due to the size of Mn/DOT Metro's drainage system and based on our existing Agreement with the District which needed to have modifications to fit Mu/DOT's unique situation and the fact that we have drainage infrastructure in 35 watersheds within the Metro area, I am thinking that there are items in the proposed declaration that Mn/DOT will not be able to meet. a. The District entered into a Cooperative Agreement with MNDOT in 2006 which details maintenance provisions for wetland buffers and stormwater management facilities. This agreement may need updating to reflect changes within this draft stormwater management rule. However, public entities will retain the option of entering into programmatic agreements for maintenance rather than recording declarations. COMMENTS ON STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SECTION 7: REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: 59. Orono - 7(c) -Regional Stormwater Manageinent: The rule states "individual project sites utilizing a regional facility to meet phosphorus, rate, or volume control requirements must incorporate BMPs". Concern: Regional stormwater management is an approach that cities can use to meet stormwater management requirements on a regional rather than local (on-site) level. The requirement to include BMPs in addition to providing regional phosphorus, rate, and volume control goes above and beyond the requirements of the rule. Proposed Solution: If an applicant is able to successfully demonstrate that they are able to meet the requirements for phosphorus, rate, and volume control using regional storm water management within the same drainage area, they should not have to provide additional on-site BMPs. a. The District recognizes that use of regional facilities remains an important strategy for municipal management of stormwater runoff and has included provisions within the draft Stormwater Management rule that allows their continued use to meet volume control, phosphorus and rate control standards. However, managing stormwater runoff on an individual site basis provides henefits that cannot always he achieved on a large scale, regional hasis. These may include the protection of waterhodies that exist hetween development and the regional facility, infiltration of water locally for plant uptake and local groundwater/wetland recharge. Therefore, the District has included language that requires individual site B11lIP's, that do not have to meet the volume/pollutant loading standards, to provide these localized henefits. 60. Victoria - This is an important tool for providing cost effective stormwater management particularly in areas of significant redevelopment often occurring over time. It is not clear how the District will evaluate and measure the criteria in section 7b, 1 and 2. Additional BMPs should only be required in accordance with the rest of the rule criteria. a. The District recognizes that use of regional facilities remains an important strategyfor municipal management of stormwater runoff and has included provisions within the draft Stormwater Management rule that allows their continued use to meet volume control, phosphorus and rate control standards. However, managing stormwater runoff on an individual site hasis provides benefits that cannot always he achieved on a large scale, 20 Page 44 regional basis. These may include the protection of waterbodies that exist between development and the regional facility, infiltration of water locally for plant uptake and local groundwater/wetland recharge. Therefore, the District has included language that requires individual site BAIP's, that do not have to meet the volume/pollutant loading standards, to provide these localized benefits. COMMENTS ON STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SECTION S: DOWNSTREAM WATERBODIES: 61. Minnetrista - Bounce Allowances. Are the bounce allowances on a per -project basis, or overall bounce allowed? For example, if a project propgsed a bounce of the maximum allowable, would subsequent permits be allowed no additional. bounce, or would it be a pro- rated percentage based on drainage tributary? a. Bounce allowances are based on a waterbodies sensitivity and are therefore overall allowances, not issued on aper -project basis. The District has historically applied the bounce allowances as needed, with future projects being further limited in their ability to create water level bounce within receiving waters. 62. Orono - Table 1 - The rule requires that bounce must match existing conditions for the 1-, 10-, and -100-year event for lakes. Concern: This requirement would be difficult to prove for an applicant and could require the development of a detailed hydrologic model. Proposed Solution: The requirement for rate and volume control should be sufficient to control increases in bounce to lakes. We recommend that this requirement be removed from the storm water rule. a. It is important far some flood sensitive lakes to not exhibit any increase in 100 year flood elevations as a result of upstream development. The District has a detailed hydrologic model for its entire drainage area that includes most.of the takes. This model in addition to site-specific model provided by the applicant can be used to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. Therefore, no change will be made to this section. COMMENTS ON STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SECTION 10: REQUIRED EXHIBITS: 63. Bancor - Paragraph 10(b) requires soil borings to be taken prior to approval, 5 feet below the bottom of the proposed storm water infiltration area. This is not feasible or practical in areas where there will be.grade changes, i.e. if you need to test ten feet below the surface you would have a hole at least 20 feet wide. a. The proposed draft language requires applicants to submit a soil sampling plan and the resulting identification, description, permeability and approximate delineittion of site soils. While the layout, number of samples and format of the sampling plan is flexible, the resulting samples are critical to document infiltration rates in areas proposed for stormwater management on a site and therefore cannot be waived. Soil borings are required to extend S feet below the bottom of a proposed infiltration area as sail profiles and hydrologic soil groups that determine permeability vary vertically. For example, highly permeable soils may lie below impermeable clay soils. These borings will determine if, through excavation, suitable soils can be reached and utilized for 21 Page 45 infiltration practices. Further, soil borings do not have to be conducted through use of open pits, augered samples can also be supplied. 64. MPRB - Several times throughout the Stormwater Rule, the rule references following design practices and guidance from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Minnesota Stormwater Manual and subsequent revisions. Where this reference is made and where applicable (such as section 3 (d) (2) and section 10 (d)), the Rule should also reference forthcoming guidance and outcomes from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) process. a. The District=s rule cannot reference guidance that has not yet been completed and reviewed by the District The rule may be revised in the future to reference the MDS guidance once it is completed. COMMENTS ON STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SECTION 1.1.: MAINTENANCE: 65. Minnetonka - Section I I(a), "A public entity assuming the maintenance obligation may do so by filing with the District a document signed by an official with authority. " Maintenance of public stormwater management structures and facilities is already a requirement of the city's MS4 permit. Requiring additional maintenance agreements be filed with the District for every single new BMP is an unnecessary burden on cities and it creates additional paperwork and red -tape that isn't needed. a. The District does not have the authority to enforce M34 maintenance requirements, therefore a separate maintenance agreement has historically been required for all permitted facilities. Public entities have the option of entering into programmatic maintenance agreements for all facilities permitted by the District to alleviate the need for project specific agreements. Further, the language references is intended to allow public entities such as municipalities to assume control over private facilities, should they desire to do so. COMMENTS ON STORMWATER MANAGEMENT APPENDIX A: 66. Minnetonka — Appendix A, "Enhancement of Pervious Area (wetland buffer not subject to Rule D, forest or prairie conservation or restoration) " Research has demonstrated that wetland buffers have a benefit to the water quality of the down -gradient water body. Regardless of the reason why a wetland buffer is installed there should still be a volume credit applied. Just because a wetland buffer is required by the district's rule doesn't mean that the water quality benefit is any less and that should be reflected in the stormwater credit given. a. The District will incorporate volume control credits associated with wetland buffers into Appendix A: Enhancement of Pervious Areas. 67. Plymouth - Appendix A: Enhancement of Pervious Area. It appears that wetland buffer subject to Rule D could not be applied to vohune abstraction credits. Wetland buffers provide several benefits including habitat, nutrient assimilation, and volume control. Why would _applicants not be allowed to utilize wetland buffers for multiple requirements such as meeting the requirements of the Wetland Rule while also meeting requirements of the Stormwater Rule? 22 Page 46 a. The District will incorporate volume control credits associated with wetland buffers into Appendix A: Enhancement o f Pervious Areas. 68. Bancor - The new wetland buffer requirements increased the amount of wetland buffers on this site by at least 25%. a. The District will incorporate volume control credits associated with wetland buffers into Appendix A: Enhancement of Pervious Areas. This will provide overlap between the amount of areas required for wetland buffers and stormwater 'management. 69. AVRB - Appendix A lists a table with associated credits. The WRB is concerned that enhancements of pervious areas will not be credited if there is any likely human traffic such as pedestrians, bicycles or vehicles. The MPRB operates in a highly urbanized area where it cannot control all human access. The 11QRB believes these credits should still be available if there is human access. a. The intent of the Enhancement of Pervious Area volume control alternative is to provide credit forpractices that would improve infiltration in pervious areas, such as replacing turf grass with deep-rooted prairie plantings. Areas that are subject to motorized vehicle, bike and foot traffic would become compacted and would notprovide as much capacity for infiltration, therefore, they would not receive credit, as noted in footnote 7 of Appendix A. 70. Bancor - I would also like to address the proposed credits. Again using the Woodland Cove site we have calculated the approximate cost of creating one acre foot credit as follows: Infiltration -Costs $ 25,000 -$100,000 per acre foot credit. (1 acre of land needed) • Infiltration Trench - $135,000 per acre foot credit (3/5 acre of land needed) ■ Saving Trees - Need to save 120 acres of trees for 1 acre foot credit PIanting New Trees - Need to plant 15,000 2 1/2, trees (15'radius) at $ 250 each = $3,750,000 for 1 acre foot credit (300- 500 Acres) - • Amended Soils - Depends on amendment requirements - $4,500 an acre to amend - Amend 25+- acres = $112,500 = 1 acre foot credit (uses a lot of land/maintenance costs) - (25 Acres) Filtration - $150,000 - $200,000 per acre foot credit - (depends on engineered soils) (2 Acres) (Please note that none of these cost estimates include the cost of land, so in reality the costs would be far greater than the amount estimated above.) As you can see, these credits can be very expensive to create. The result is that they may not be a very practical alternative. a. The District realizes that compliance with stormwater management requirernents,can be a significant cost for a development or redevelopment project. The District, with input from the advisory committees, carefully analyzed and considered the practical consequences of the abstraction (volume control) -standard. Subsection 3(c) and Appendix A were designed to provide applicants ivith the flexibility necessary to find the most effective manner possible to meet the applied standard. The District is satisfied that the revised rule does not unreasonably burden development and redevelopmentprojects, and where unique circumstances present hardship, the District will consider exception or variance requests. 23 Page 47 71. Mn/DOT - Appendix A, Soil Amendments: I am not clear on what is meant by soil amendments and how crediting will be done. Does this refer to bringing in engineered soils as a BW for abstraction credit? Could examples of what types of soil amendments the District is thinking of be included? For example, I am assuming that if soils become compacted during construction and are uncompacted prior to project completion that no additional treatment is required and this is not apart of the impervious calculations. Mn/DOT Specification 2105.3 Construction Requirements, Part G Finishing Operations, requires that subsoiling to a depth of 20 inches is done to reduce soil compaction in all areas where turf establishment is shown on the Plan. Please confirm that my assumptions are correct. a. The W Stormwater Manual provides specifications for soil amendments that serve to reduce runoff volumes and typically involve decompaction in addition to the incorporation of organic matter in the form of compost. Decompaction alone will not count as a soil amendment under the draft Stormwater Management rule. 72. Mn/DOT - Appendix A, Filtration: Why only providing 50% credit for filtration practices? If water quality objectives for TSS and phosphorous are met and rate control is provided so that downstream erosion is not an issue, then why not give 100% credit?. a. Appendix A provides volume reduction creditfor a variety of practices. Since filtration does notprovide volume control in an amount equivalent to infiltration, it is only afforded 50% volume control credit. However; filtration also provides water quality benefits, which will he credited towards an applicant based on the estimated pollutant removal rates supplied during the application process. 73. NEnnetrista - Abstraction Credit Schedule. More credit should be given for infiltration during storm events. A piece of property can abstract a large amount of water during a rain event before runoff occurs. This credit could cause un -duly large stormwater infrastructure to be constructed. Proposed Solution: Credit should be void volume provided plus amount of infiltration during storm event. a. See footnote 2 on Appendix A. Infiltration of rainfall during a storm event is not credited in order to ensure that a basin is designed conservatively to meet storage capacity and treatment requirements. As more information becomes available, the District may reconsider this approach. Therefore, no change will be made to the Appendix,4 at this time. 74. Orono - Appendix A; Footnote 2 - MCWD Volume Abstraction Credit Schedule: The rule states "volume infiltrated during a rainfall event shall not be credited towards the abstraction volume requirement". Concern: This does not consider that rainfall will be infiltrating during a stormfall event. This may result in minimal impacts for small projects; however, a large development resulting in a large increase in impervious surface will require the volume control Bws to occupy a large footprint and therefore the potential to infiltrate during a stormfall event. 24 Page 48 Proposed Solution: We recommend that the watershed explore this issue in further detail and allow the volume infiltrated during a rainfall event to be credited towards the abstraction volume. a. See footnote 2 on Appendix A. Infiltration of rainfall during a storm event is not credited in order to ensure that a basin is designed conservatively to meet storage capacity and treatment requirements.. As more information becomes available, the District may reconsider this approach. Therefore, no change will be made to the Appendix A at this time. 25 Page 49 COMMENTS ON ADMINSTRATIVE RULES: PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS RULE Orono - Action on Permit Application: The rule states "the district shall act within 45 days of receipt of a complete application". Concern: There is no mention of the timeframe for the District to notify applicants that the application is considered complete or incomplete. Proposed Solution: We recommend that the District notify applicants within 10 days of receipt of an application that it is considered complete or incomplete. a. State law (Minnesota Statutes section 15.99), requires the District to alert an applicant within 15 business days thatan application is incomplete. The District will continue to process applications in compliance with this requirement and endeavor to alert applicants as quickly as possible when an application is incomplete. If the District does not notes the applicant of incompleteness within the 15 -business dayperiod, the application is deemed complete. PERMIT FEES RULE 2. Orono -The wording in L(c) of the Permit Fees Rule can be interpreted to mean that the District expects the entire set of taxpayers in the watershed to pay for a violation investigation, not just the violator. a. Paragraph 1(c) of the rule will he corrected to clarify that watershed property owners should not pay costs caused violations. VARIANCES AND EXCEPTIONS RULE 3. Victoria - For the purposes of this rule, how is hardship determined? Does the District have a definition for hardship? a. Section 2. (a -e) identifies the standards that need to be met in order for a variance to he granted. These standards focus on the site speck conditions that create hardship and thus limit an applicant's ahilityto meet requirements of District rules. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES RULE Victoria - Section 4 considers conditions for financial release. It seems like the specific items for final 'inspection compliance should be called out in a permit approval and not in the actual rule. a. The requirements for financial assonance release are included in Section 4 in order to idents when projects will be eligible for the release of fiends. 26 Page 50