HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-03 PACKET 08.E.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTIOPV COU(VCIL AGENQA
MEE�If�G ITEIVI # �
C7ATE 6/3/98 ,
PREPARED 6Y: Corrrrriuni4y Developrrien4 Kim Lindquist
OF2IGINATlNG DEPARTMEtdT STftFF AUTHOR
.A.�.�4��,A�..�w�<#a....�...a.AS4��.....��..4�m�
t , s • *
Direct staff to send a letter to the Watershed Board explaining Cottage Grove's position on the
role of the District in permitting of projects.
: � � � • •
: � • • •
ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTlON
■ '
■ % .
■ •'
■ "' � ' • �
■ • ' '
■ �, • � � t-
■
�.
REVIEWED
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
.
. . •
DEfVIED
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
►� � * • , .. �. .. .;
■ ' • • `:
■ •'� ,.
■ � � y � � ���� ���.:
■ � � .� �,��� � ,..
/1 � �. � • . . • ' i �. . ♦ �:' '. i � � i ±
� * �:�� �..a.: �� ��� f�.��� � ��
�, � � . t � ,...
APPROVED
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
��J
City Administrator Date
�������������«a�m���#����g��*�«�d����«����������
C:Ol11VGiL Fe��"BQiV T'AI(Enl: ❑ o4F'PF2Q!/�[� ❑ DE[dIEC� ❑(�1"E-��F2
M+ . .-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorabie Mayor and City Council
Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator
FROM: Kim Lindquist, Community Deveiopment Director
DATE: May 27, 1998
RE: Watershed District Permitting Rule
INTRODUCTION
On May 11, 1998, City staff received a letter from the South Washington Watershed
Distriet requesting input from the Council regarding the role af the Watershed. In
particular, the District is requesting member cities to indicate whether they support
District permitting of projects or if cities should be the only permitting authority. In the
interim, until all member cities adopt locai controis and have a local water management
plan consistent with the Watershed Pian, the District will be a permitting and
enforcement authority.
DISCUSSION
The discussion of who should have permitting authority has come up on several
occasions at the Technical Advisory meetings. It is understood that the District will
review all projects if the City does not have an adopted surface water management plan
that complies with the Watershed standards. However, it is not clear how that oversight
function would be administered in cities which have outdated plans versus the newer
regulations or when the plan does not cover the entire community. For exampie, the
Cottage Grove plan does not cover portions of the city, particularly properties in the
east. Would the Watershed have permitting authority for the more remote areas of the
community, which are not currently covered by the plan? Likewise, the City of
Woodbury apparently has drainage district plans which were adopted over time. Some
of these plans do not contain the water quality standards dictated in the District pian.
Will the Watershed monitor approvals in those areas to ensure conformance or would
the City of Woodbury? These types of questions have not been answered by District
personnel.
My understanding is, initially, Cottage Grove did not support Watershed intervention into
the current approval process. Concerns were the potential for delay of approvals and
the additional layer of bureaucracy. However, as the District letter states, there may be
Watershed District Permitting Rule
May 27, 1998
Page 2
some perceived benefit to having Watershed review. Benefits could include assurance
of even and fair application of standards within the entire Watershed and aid in analysis
pf complicated projects. My previous e�erience has been that the Watershed
functioned as a separate permitting authority. In general, this additional approval did
not delay project approval. The main difference would be that Cottage Grove, by
ordina�ce, allows administrative approval of specific types of development and requiring
Watershed approval would most likely delay staff-approved projects.
�
Based on Council direction, I have attended the last two Watershed District meetings.
Presently, the Board has only three members. At the last meeting, Board members
discussed District priorities. Attached is the agenda item dealing with the proposed
p�ojects and programs for 1998-99. The third page lists the projects and programs.
The top project continues to be the central draw outlet study and infiltration
management study. The District consultants gave a rough estimate of the timeframe for
each phase of the study and the Board members briefly discussed the study. Board
members emphasized that the District must monitor the Met Councii sewage treatrnent
piant project to ensure they capitalize on any opportunities the project may present.
The very last item under the Central Draw Outlet Study is the 1-94 Timing Study. The I-
94 storm water project was initially lower in the capital improvement plan within the
Watershed District plan. I believe both Woodbury and Lake Eimo have requested that
installation of the project be sooner. The Watershed consultants are recommending that
a preliminary study of the issue, inGuding the documentation of the need and timing for
the improvement, be conducted.
The Board had previously discussed hiring an administrator. 0t appears that a staff
member of the Board of Soil and Water Conservation (BSWR) may serve as an interim
administrator until the new fiscal year. The details of this arrangement would need to be
finalized and most likely the assistance would occur around the time of budget
preparation. The Board was interested in having budget preparation assistance from
someone who couid not financially gain from funded projects and programs.
RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to send a letter to the Watershed Board explaining Cottage Grove's position
of the role of the District in permitting of projects.
;/ v'
� a
� ' �- Ir
T�:
RE:
I \`,_ I � '_ i
� ' i'
�
i! II
, 7„�._. ii� ��
.._.. ;i� il
' �;
City Administrators
Cities in the SWWD
Requested Input from Cities on the SWWD's Role in Permitting
i ���
Development of Rules
In December 1997, the SWWD began developing Rules for the SWWD area. The Rules are the
legal equivalent to ciCy ordinances for implementing the watershed's standards. Tt�e watershed's
standards are specified in the recently adopted Watershed Management Plan. The standards
generally cover the following issues: aIIowable peak runoff flow rates, flood control, water
quality, wetlands, erosion and sediment control, and stormwater Best Management Practices
(BMPs).
As you may recall from our November 24, 19971etter to you, we have been working very closely
with local city staff members to develop the Rule language through our Technical Advisory
Committee ("I'AC). The TAC has been very helpful in providing hands-on input in how the rules
can be written and the standatds enforced The list of TAC members is as follows:
Name
Tom Prew
Alan Larson
Kim LindquisC
Steve Kernik
Warren Tracy
Keith Lappegaard
Jim Luge�
Citv/County
L,ake Elmo
Cottage Grove
Cottage Grove
Woodbury
Woodbury
Oakdale
Washington County
DepartmenY
Engineering
Engineering
Planning
Planning
Engineeting
Engineering
Parks/Planning
We have also been active in discussing the general approach to the Rules and their implementation
with our Citizens Advisorv Committee (CACI. Both committees have been very helpful and we
greatly appreciate the input and effort they have provided and the Cities' involvement thus far.
It is anticipated that sunIlar to cities' review processes, financing of SWWD reviews would come
from project proposers/developers, not from the residenYs taxes.
Permittimg Approach
The SWWD will likely have Rules ready for public comment in the next two months followed by
final revisions and then adoption. The next big issue is how those Rules and standards will be
enforced. The SWWD understands that it has a responsibility to persnit/enforce the Rules in the
interim unCil the cities have adopted consistent local controls and have their L.ocal Water
Management Plans completed incorporating the standards in the SWWD Water Management Plan.
The Watershed Board has discussed the enforcement and pernutting issue on several occasions.
The general discussion has favored a"hands-offl' approach where the cities are the lead pernutting
entity.
8301 Va11ey Creek Road • Woodbury, MN 55125 • (612) 739-5972 • Pax (612) 731-5791
Page 2
May S, 199
City Administrators
During our discussions with the TAC and the CAC there has been significant support for the
Watershed to maintain a role in the permitting process for the foreseeable future. The SWWD
involvement would ideally be streamlined to only include larger projects and/or being involved
mainly at the early stages of review with the Cities responsible for final review, unless significant
changes occuned to the proposed development. The factors sited for the need for continued
SWWD involvement in pernutting were:
• Assist cities in enforcing standards in difficulY or complicaCed projects affecting water
resources
• Ensure consistent enforcement of the standards from city to city
• Prevent intercommunity friction from the perception of lack of enforcement by any city
• Consistency with adjacent Watersheds to prevent different requirements within one city
The issue o£ consistency with adjacent watersheds is to reduce the confusion over different
requirements within the same ciCy. A survey of adjacent Watershed Districts found that permitting
by watershed districts was required for developments disturbing an area of one (1) acre or more.
The draft SWWD Rules are consistent with one (1) acre threshold for SWWD review and
permitting.
SWWD Requested Response from Cities
The SWWD Board continues to struggle with the best approach to minfrnize review procedures
while ensuring quality water resources review of projects and consistent review and
implementation o£ standards throughout Che watershed.
The Watershed Board therefore is requesting feedback from the member cities at a policy level, on
how and to what level the Watershed should be involved in long-term permitting. What ue the
reasons why the Watershed District should be less (or more) active in the permitCing process?
Thank your for your time and input on this nnportant topic. We look forward to receiving your
feedback as soon as possible as we move forward on finalizing the SWWD Rules and look ahead
to the their implementation. It would be appieciated if you could address your comments in written
format to the SWWD Board. If you would like to discuss the issue directly with the SWWD
Board, they meet the 2° Wednesday of each month in the Woodbury Public Works Building.
Note: the June 1998 meeting will likely be rescheduled.
If you have any questions or need further clarification please feel free to contact me at 770-8448.
Sincerely,
�r�-�' Ct�• �
Brett H. Emmons
Technical Administrator, SWWD
�� V�
�
.��
Summary Merriorandum
Date: May 7` 1998
To: SWWD Managers
From: Brett H. Emmons, Cecilio Olivier
Re: Determining Projects and Programs Priorities
Background
At the last SWWU meeting we discussed the need to provide up-to-date information regarding
prioritization of Projects and Programs. Due to the lack of levied money during the first half of
1998, some projects and prob ams was slowed down or delayed untii the first levied amount
would be released by the end of July, 1998. This was reflected in the project timing and
budgeting information presented to the Board at the June, 1997 meeting (see attached tables) and
used to develop the 1998 levy amount.
Issues U�date
With the first upcoming release of levied funds at the end of July 1998, the Board needs to
reevaluate priorities and timing for the proposed projects. Also, since the 1999 SWWD budget
needs to be submitted by the end of August 1998, it would be the right time to define priorities
and guidelines for the 1999 projects and programs.
We are presenting a first-cut priority list for discussion by the Board. We have included al] the
projects and programs proposed in the 1998 budget, and highiighted the ones that, for a number
of reasons, can be considered high priority.
Requested Actions
l. Discuss and evaluate overall project priorities and timing for 1998/1949 projects and
programs.
2. Define short-term and medium-term priorities and needs.
VI. Managemeni Standards and Implementazion Program
rr..ti�„ cn_u rs-�oram and Proiect Imnlementation Timeline
�
�
�
�
�
�
K
�
�
Activity
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Programs
l, Water Quality and Quantity I, E I, E I, E I, E I, E
Monitoring
2. Public Education I, E I I, B I I, E
3. Groundwa[er Monitoring and P
D�I i,g I I,E
Protecdon
4. Erosion and Sediment Control P, I I, E E E E
5. Interim Review of Development P, I. B I, E E E E
Plans
Projects
1. Central Draw Outiet Study � P, I, E T, E To be detemuned later
2. West Draw Drainage Improvements I E
3. Central Draw Interim Ponding P P, I I, E I, E, M E, M
4. Wetland Assessment and P, I �, E E
Management Plan '
5. Public Education Leaming Centers P, I E, I E, I
6, Powers Lake Management Plan P, I, E
7. Lake Assessment Studies P� I I E
8. Greenway Concept Plan P E, I
9. PondlWetland Treatment System in P, E R, D I, M
Westerly Drainageway
P = Planning
E = Evaluation
R = Regulatory Pemutting
D = Design
I = Implementation
M = Maintenance/On-Going Operations
South Washington Watershed District
�n.g�
VI-63
������)��� ��""'�- ' _/����, �Jd�i
SWWD Proposed Projects and Programs for 1998/1999 and Priorities
ro'ects
Central Draw Outlet StudyJlnfiltration Management Study (IMS)
• IMS Phase I: Install infiltration monitoring syste� (see Sutnmary Memorandum and '
Proposal} and collect infiltration data �`�� ,cJ'
� IMS Phase II: Scope as defined and shaped by the Infiltration Technical Advisory �`
Committee (ITAC) based on results and available data from Phase I
' IMS Phase III: Scope covering management options and recommendations to foilow a year
from now based on resuits of Phase I& II 1� ��
( � Special program for CD-P85 evaluating the performance of the infiltration pilot project �
�" • CD-P86: Acquisition and Management Options, such as Sand and Gravel Mining project �
_� �r � Keeping in touch — wit ; h� th MCES interceptor planning rocess
I-94 Timin Stud k(,st��a�n�.am�.s� �,J �,p,q�-� �,�`�"
� �Wetland ,Assessment and Managemen`t Plan � ..��J•
���. ���
• Field inventory and evaluation of wetland functional values \�� �
• Evaluate wetland management strategies
• Adopt wetland management p:an
Public Education Learning Centers
• Contact interested schools, such as Qakdale
• Develop concept plan for school sites
• Identify funding sources to inscail sites
Powers Lake Management Plan
• Assess timing and extent of development impacts to the lake
• Field survey of resources in and around the lake
• Develop management goals and alternatives for the lake
Programs
Water Qualify/Quantity Monitoring
• Continue on-going program
Public Information and Education
• Newsletters
• Workshops with local officials
• I.ocal fairs
• Guest columns in local newspapers
Groundwater Monitoring and Protection
• Establish monitoring sites in existing we11s
� �
�
�
• Coordinate with Infiltration Study to establish background water quality in shallow aquifers
Erosion and Sediment Control
• Establish process as part of Development Reviews
• Develop method for enforcement
Rules
• Finalize Rules, including public hearings
• Develop standardized review process check list for development reviews
• Evaluation of Rules and review process after one year
• Carry out development reviews
�
b
�
O
E
m
c
n
m
d
a
u
v
�
�
m
F
0
�L`
m
c
�o
m
n
9
G
�
�O
�
�
0
�
�
n
6
c"
�
d
�
M
O
O
O
m
O
O
O
N
J
0
O
O
O
V
O
O
O
O
M
N
W
O
O
O
Y
O
O
O
O
O
N
m
O
O
O
�
V
�
�
G
O
E
m
C
n
�
m
0
N
9
d
�
V
d
�
h N
T
V
�
�0 N
� p
N
N
N
V
r
w
N
v 9
� m
-. <
'm o
V 4
�
�
�
�
�
0
x
m
�
a
�
m
a
N
C
N
�
U
d
�
m
w
�
V
b
�
�
x
�
¢
�
a
N
9
m
<
N
m
�
< r
m�
�9 � m
N
; o m
m � m
x �
m m m
ry y. �
7 � 7
� d a
m ..� N
N
7 H Q
a y
y a
m ? �
N N �
O d
y O �
� � O
m
C �
y O
c =p
d �
r �
N �
0 �
a �
3 �
O d
0 �
S �
N �
� �
f
N Q
V p
N 10
� ^
� o
o �
L
� G
N �G
d
O �
C m
N
?
t0
m
m
�
m
m
N
O
O
N
N
?
N
z
O
N
9
N
2
m
�
N
d
�
O
0
° o
O
N
O
0
N
�
m
�
9
3
�
n
6
d
C
�
0
m
N
N
2
6
N
_
�
�
�
a
¢
m
m
-�
O
�
D
r
N
N
O
N
N
a
0
O
Vf
N
O
O
O
O
�
m
0
0
0
41
N
W
N
O
O
f
F
c
i