The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-11-04 PACKET 08.C.F2EQUESl` OF CITY COUNCI� ACTIOR! COUNCIL AGENDA NiEETIPJG ITENf # DATE 11 /4/98 � PREP,4REt3 BY: Commun� Develapment Kim Lindquist CJRIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR ��e.b��.��.s=�.�..��.«�...�a�e....s��..�*>�� COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST :- -. .�. .un-� • -. � EUDGET IMPLICATION ; � eT��i7_1��[�1�1►�1 ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION ■•. ■- : ■• : .- ■••• . . . . ■ . . . .- ■ . . s7c�r<<reril•z.IR�t��r�.� f7�3� REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 � ACTUALAMOUNT APPROVED a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O � MEMO/LEl Memo from Kim Lindquist dated 1112/98 (wiii be included in the �' � ■ ►:1. . � �. �.� . . � • • �• • OTHER: 1) 6th Draft SWWD F2ules 2) �etter from David Jessup, City of Wnodbury, dafed 9!3/98 3} Letter from Brian Bachmeier, City of Oakdale, dated 9!9/98 4} Letter from David Jessup, Gity of Woodbury, dated 9/24/98 5) Memo from Jack Clin4on dated 10/12/98 Monday packet) • ►• • ADNIINI�TRATORS GOf+�f�RE@V`�S ... � � } Cify Adrnir�istratcrr Da�� .��.�g��.��,.x��.�.��«�.��.��x��.�� cou��iL �� ra��: � :��r�c�v�� C�I ��r��c� � ra�t��a �3GRQUPS�PL?�NNING\9998\C{"P'YGf�UN15MIW� �itl� draft nales cr>ver.dcr: 6T� DRAFT SWWD RULES TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION L PURPOSES __;� �� ;f OC' ' , a � Introduction .................................................................. General Policy Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Relation of Watershed District to Municipalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Subd.l Policies .......................................................... Subd.2 Standards ........................................................ Subd.3 Application ....................................................... SECTION II. Subd. 1 Subd. 2 Subd. 3 Subd.4 Subd. 5 Subd. 6 Subd. 7 Subd.B Subd. 9 Subd. 10 Subd. 11 Subd. 12 Subd. 13 Subd. 14 Subd. 15 Subd. 16 Subd. 17 Subd. 18 Subd. 19 Subd. 20 Subd. 21 Subd. 22 Subd. 23 Subd. 24 Subd. 25 Subd. 26 Subd. 27 Subd. 28 DEFINITIONS District.......................................................... Drainage System .................................................. Fl High Priority Wetland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Infiltration Basin .................................................. Lake Au�mentation ................................................ Landlocked....................................................... LGU............................................................ Local Watershed Managernent Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Minimum Building Grade Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 100-yearFlood Event ............................................... 100-yearFlood Leve1 ............................................... Person........................................................... APlan ........................................................... APlat ........................................................... Public health, safety and welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Rateof Runoff .................................................... R Runoff..................................e....................... Semi-landlocked .................................................. SCS............................................................ Storage Volume ................................................... Technical Professional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Volume of Runoff ....................................e............ Watershed Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Water Resources of the District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Watershed....................................................... Waterway........................................................6 Subd .29 WCA ........................................................... Subd.30 WCA Rules ...........................................,.......... SECTION III. GENERAL POLICY Subd. 1 Implementation ................................................... Subd.2 Regulation ....................................................... SECTION TV. ADMINISTRATtVE PROCEDURE Subd.l Permitreceived ................................................... Subd.2 Review .......................................................... Subd.3 Notification ...................................................... Subd. 4 Board notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Subd.S Action ........................................................... SECTION V. Subd. 1 Subd. 2 Subd. 3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSISILITY P o licies .......................................................... 9 R Standards for Locai Watershed Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 SECTION VI. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Subd.l Policies .......................................................... Subd.2 Regu]ations ..................................................... Subd.3 Standards ....................................................... SECTION VIL SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL Subd.l Polic 12 y .......................................................... 13 Subd.2 Regulations ..................................................... Subd.3 Standards ....................................................... SECTION VIII. APPROPRIATION OF WATERS Subd.l Policies ......................................................... Subd.2 Regulations ..................................................... SECTION IX. STORMWATER RUNOFF AND DISCHARGES WITHIN THE DISTRICT Subd. 1 Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 .............................. • Subd.2 Regulations ..................................................... Subd.3 Standards ....................................................... ii SECTION X. Subd. 1 Subd. 2 Subd. 3 Subd. 5 Subd. 6 Subd. 7 Subd. 8 WETLAND5 MANAGEAIENT Policy..........................................................17 Application......................................................17 Regulations.....................................................18 Technical Evaluation Pane1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Standards.......................................................19 Appea) .........................................................21 Criteria......................................................... SECTIOn` XI. WATER QUALITY MANAGEME;VT Subd.l Policies ......................................................... Subd.2 Regulations ..................................................... Subd.3 Standards ....................................................... SECTION XII. PERFORMANCE BONDS Subd.l Posting of Bond .................................................. Subd.2 AdditionalPosting ................................................ SECTION XIII. VARIANCES Subd.l Policies ......................................................... Subd.2 Regulations ..................................................... SECTION XIV. ENFORCEMENT AND SEVERABILITY Subd. 1 Subd. 2 Subd. 3 Subd. 4 Subd. 5 Subd. 6 DistrictPowers ................................................... Validity........................................................ Minnesota Law Conformation .......................................23 Violation....................................................... District Court Action .............................................. Administrative Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 SECTION XV. APPELLATE PROCEDURE AND REVIEW Subd.l Aggrievence ..................................................... SECTION XVI. AMENDMENT PROCEDURE Subd.l Petition ......................................................... Subd.2 Initiation ........................................................ iii SECTION I. PURPOSES INTRODUCTION The South Washington Watershed District (the "District") adopts the rules and regulations as required by Minnesota Statute 103D341 to accomplish the purposes in Chapter 103D, implement the powers of the managers, and the policies of the District as contained in the District Watershed Management Plan (the "Plan"). GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT Under the Watershed Act, the South Washington Watershed District exercises a series of powers to accomplish its statutory purpose. The �cgis�atorlegislature has recognized the need to conserve natural resources and preserve and infiltrate storm water based on sound scientific principals. Land alteration affects the rate, volume, and quality of surface runoff, which evaporation ultimately must be maintained in the District through a combination of evaporation and infittration of stormwater and, if necessary, designing and constructing pipes and ponds to outlet stormwater to the Mississippi River at the southerly boundary of District. Land alteration and utilization also can degrade the quality of runoff entering water bodies of the District due to non-point source pollution. Sedimentation in lakes and streams from on-going erosional processes and construction activities reduces the hydraulic capacity of water bodies and degrades water quality. Projects which increases the rate of stormwater runoff or degrade runoff quality increases the need for storage and can aggravate existing water quality problems and contribute to new ones. Projects which fill floodplain or wetland acresareas can increase the need for storage by reducing storm water storage and hydraulic capacity of water bodies and degrade water quality by eliminating the filtering capacity of such areas. Dredging projects can also degrade water quality and eliminate the natural apg�earance of shoreland areas. These rules seek to protect the public health, weifare and natural resources of the District, reduce the need for additionai storage capacity and the potential need for the construction of pipes and ponding to convey storm water to the Mississippi River, preserve flood pIains and wetland storage capacity, maintain or improve the chemica] and physical quality of surface and groundwater, reduce sedimentation, preserve the hydraulic and navigational capacity of water bodies, preserve natural shoreland features, and minimize the public expendature to avoid or correet sueh problems in the future. Revised 10-09-98 RELATION OF WATERSHED DISTFtICT TO MUNICIPALITIES The District recoguzeds that the primary control and determination of appropriate land uses is the responsibiliry of the municipalities. Accordingly, the dDistrict will review permit applications involving land development only after it is first demonstrated that the application has been submitted to the city where the land is located '�Li�=� It is the intention of the managers to ensure that development of land within the District proceeds in conformity with these rRules, in addition to conforming with the deve]opment guides and plans adopted by municipalities. The District shall exercise control over development by its permit program described in these rules to ensure the maintenance of needed natural water storage areas, their shorelines, and protection of existing natural topography and vegetative features in order to preserve them for present and future beneficial uses. The managers also desire to serve as technical advisors to the municipal officials in the preparation of local surface water management plans and the review of individual development proposals prior to investment of significant public or private funds. To promote a coordinated review process between the District and the municipalities, the managers request that the cities submit preliminary plats to the District. The municipality shall indicate, in a preliminary way, the criteria which will be used by the District in reviewing a future permii application. The District's comments do not eliminate the need for permit review and approval if otherwise required under these rules. The District urges municipalities to develop, as rapidly as possible, local surface water management plans, providing a coordinated system of managing surface water on a regional or subwatershed basis consistent with the Local Surface Water Management Plan and these zRules. Where such a municipal plan is adopted, the requirements of the District's rules which aze met by the rnunicipal plan shall be deemed satisfied upon the City providing documentation that a project is' considered compliant with the City's plana • • ' ' ' ' ' ' . In such cases, individual site-by-site permits for deve(opments in areas covered by a municipal plan satisfies these rules. In the absence of surface water management pians on a municipal or subwatershed level, the managers will continue to require individual site-by-site permits for projects involving land development. Subd. 1 oli ies The rules are adopted t�o implement the purposes for which the District was formedt3�e-ru�cs-nre-adopted: A. To cazry out the policies contained in the Watershed Management Plan. Revised 10-09-98 2 B. To coordinate the District's activities with other governmental agencies. C. To ensure that the water and natural resources are considered, protected and preserved within the District. D. To ensure that future regional water management needs are considered in the development of individual subdivisions, developments and local water management plans. E. To protect the public health, safety and welfare. Subd.2 Standards Standard in the Rules are adopted as standards for the District to accomplish the following: A. To aid the Managers in their review process. B. To inform the Managers' staff of the criteria on which they should base their review and recommendations. C. To inform permit applicants of the criteria against which their proposed developments will be reviewed. D. To provide the communities with guidelines for the development of local �vatershed management plans. ubd. AoDlication Application for a grading permit from the District wiil be required for the foliowing: A. General activities that require a South Washington Watershed District permit: 1. Land alterations, such as grading or filling which remove, cover, or disturb a surface area of 1 acre or more. 2. All work within the Waters and floodplain of the District (Section V., Subd. 2.B). 3. All subdivisions, plats, and developments within a floodplain except subsequent phases of a previously reviewed submittal (Section V., Subd. 2.A). Revised 10-09-98 3 4. All projects which result in lake augmenCation. B. Fees required with a District appIication: All permit applicants shall submit an escrow deposit to be used to defray the DistricPs review, administrative, and inspections costs. 2. Application Fee will be used to defray the District's review, inspection, and administration costs. The amount of the escrow deposit to be used shall be determined by the Managers and this information is available upon request. The amount of the application fee is set by the Managers annually. Any cosu incurred by the DistricC greater than the escrow balance will be biIled to the applicant. Any unused portion of the escrow deposit will be retumed to the applicant. 3. Cash Surety Charge will be determined proportion to the size and type of disturbed area to ensure the project is completed in accordance with the approved conditions. C. These Rules and Regulations shall not require permits within municipalities which have a Local Water Management Plan approved by the District and have local controls in place, except when the District is the LGU for administering the Wetland Conservation Act for that portion of a community within the District. SECTION II. DEFINITIONS For the purpose of these Rules and Regulations, the terrns defined in this section shall have the meaning attached to them: uS bd. I 13istrict means the South Washington Watershed District. Subd. 2 Drainage System means those features of the watershed such as lakes, ponds, streams and waterways, nifrastructure, andpumps which contain and convey water resources of the District Subd. 3 Floodplain is the azea along channeis and waterways, including the area azound lakes, marshes, lowiands , and ponding areas whieh wou]d become inundated as the result of a flood occurring on the average once every 100 yeazs. Revised IO-09-98 4 Subd. 4 High Priority Wetlands are wetlands with high functional values as identified in the Watershed Management Plan. Subd. 5 Infiltration Basins aze depressions that when inundated with surface water runoff have the capacity to pass water down into the subsurface at a relatively high rate. Subd. 6 Lake Augmentation is any artificiai addition of water to a lake, or a project which diverts water to a lake which did not previously drain naturally to the lake. ubd. Landlocked area corresponds to a depression where there is no readily available surface overflow for stormwater drainage during a 100-year or larger event. Subd. LGU means Local Government Unit. Subd. 9 Locat Water Management Pian is the plan adopted by a municipality which is the criteria used by each city to address stormwater management. Subd.10 Minimum Building Grade Elevation is the lowest �round elevation next to a building or struchue which is demonstrated on E�chibit 1 which is made a part of these Rules. Subd. ll 100-year Flood Event means the amount of runoff as defined by SCS hydrology that has a one percent chance of occurring at a given location within a one year time period. uS bd. 12 100-year Flood Level is the peak elevation of a water body resulting from a 100-year flood event. uS bd. 13 Person means an individual, firm, pazmership, association, private corporation, eity, village, county, town, school district or other political subdivzsions. Subd. 14 A Plan is the map or drawing and supporting data indicating the proposed layout of a subdivision, development, new construction, changes or alterations to construction or to land contours. Subd• I S A Plat is a legal document used to subdivide property which includes a drawing or map of the subdivision, meeting all the requirements of the applicable Minnesota Statutes. Sub . Pubtic heatth, safety and welfare extends to and includes any act or thing tending to improve or benefit or in any way affect the general public either as a whole or as to a particulaz community or part thereof. This definition Revised 10-09-98 5 is to be construed liberatly to give meaning and effect to the goals and purposes of the South Washington Watershed District and also statutes and ordinances relating to floodplain management and shoreland use. Subd. 17 .. : Subd. 19 Rate oF Runoff is the peak volume of runoff per unit of time for a given storm event. Rules means the Rules and Regulations of the South Washington Watershed District Runoff ineans the amount of excess precipitation or snowmelt that is not permanently stored in depressional areas or infiltrated into the soil. Subd. 20 Semi-landlocked area corresponds to a depression where there is no available surface overflow or outlet for stormwater drainage up to a 25-year storm. ubS d. 21 Subd. 22 ubS d. 23 Subd. 24 Subd. 25 Subd. 26 SCS means Soil Conservation Service or Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Storage Volume is the maximum quantity of water that is stored in a ponding azea during a storm event. Technical Professional is the qualified representative designated by the Managers for the work being reviewed or performed. Volume of runoff is the amount of cxccssnuioff in cubic units often noted as acre-feet. Watershed Management Plan is the District's watershed management plan, as defined by Minnesota Statutes 103B.231. Water Resources of the District include lakes, ponds, streams, wetlands, landlocked and semi-landlocked areas, and other water features. Subd 2 Watershed means an area bounded peripherally by a drainage divide, which collects precipitation and provides runoff to a particular drainage system. Subd. 2 Waterway means any natural or artificial channel including associated flood plains which provides a course for water flowing either continuously or intermittently. .. 3' WCA means Wetland Conservation (Minnesota Laws 1991 Chapter 354, as amended}. Revised 10-09•98 6 Subd. 30 WCA Rules means Minnesota Boazd of Water and Soil Resources (BR'SR) Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420, as amended. SECTION III. IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERAL POLICY uS bd. I To impiement the purposes of these Rules and Regulations, the Managers intend to do the following: A. Assist municipal officials in the preparation of local water management plans and land development �uides. B. Review permit applications filed with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter ] OS . The District desire to become informed of improvements and land development proposals during the early plannin� stages. It is the intent of the District that the communities be the primary vehicles for submission of proposed improvements to the District. The District will review proposed improvements in conjunction with the City preliminary plat revie C. It is the intent of the Managers to exercise control over proposed developments only to the extent necessary to protect water resources and associated natural resources of the District from unreasonable impacts which are inconsistent with the policies contained in the Watershed Management Plan and these Rules and Regulations. D. The Managers will submit recommendations, requirements, and all District actions regarding proposed improvements to the permit applicantcammunitics. E. The Managers will coordinate their review with the communities and, when appropriate, with Counties, Minnesota Department of Nata*al Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and other appropriate State and Federal agencies. F. The review; administration, and inspection costs of any proposed project requiring a District permit shall be borne by the permit applicant, unless otherwise approved by the Managers. Revised l0-09-98 � Subd. Reeulations p, Any person undertaking any activity for which a permit is required by these Rules shall first submit for review a permit application, engineering design data and such other information to the District as may be required by these Rules to determine whether the improvements are in compliance with the criteria established by these Rules. B, All permits issued by the District shall remain valid unless: (1) the work is not initiated within one yeaz of permit issuance, (2) work is idle for 12 consecutive months, or (3) work is not completed within 3 years of permit issuance date, whichever occurs first. C. Permit application by Governmental Units to the District - No fee or escrow deposit is required by governmental units applying for a permit. If the permit is approved, the contractor doing the work for the governmental unit must submit an escrow deposit and other cash sureties that the Managers may require. SECTION IVi�. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE Subd. I The District Technical Professional must receive from the appIicant a complete permit application, all necessary supgorting documents, and the escrow deposit 14 days prior to a meeting at which the application is to be considered. u�bd, 2 The District Technical Professional will review each permit request with respect to South Washington Watershed District policies, standards, and criteria. S bd. The District Technicat Professianal will notify the agplicant concemang: A. Applicable District criteria, standazds, and policies. R. Additional required information where necessary with copies to the appropriate community and other concerned agencies. Subd. 4 The District Technical Professional will place the development proposal on the agenda when ail the required information is received and all South Washington Watershed District policies aze met or a variance is requested and supporting written documentation is submitted. The Technical Professional will then submit a written report to the Managers at least two (2} days prior to the Managers meeting. Revised 10.09-98 S Subd. The Managers will act on a complete permit application within 60 days of receipt or as required by the Rules of the Wetland Conservation Act. SECTION V. LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY Subd.l Policies A. The communities are responsible for: l. Land use plans and zoning ordinances. 2. Local watershed management plans . 3. Shore land and floodplain ordinances. 4. Enforcing minimum building elevations established by the District. The Managers will review these plans and documents to minimize adverse impacts to the water resources of the District and to ensure regional water management needs are included in local water management plans. Subd.2 Reeulations A. The communities shall file with the Managers for their review and comment all ordinances, plans and development guides relating to: 1. Land alteration. 2. Surface drainage. 3. Floodplain management. 4. Shore land management. Su d. 3 Standards £or Local Water Management Plans A. Local water management plans are required to conform to Minnesota Statute 103B.235, Minnesota Rules 8410.0160 and the District's goals and policies contained in the watershed management plan. g. The local goveming unit's permitting process for land and wetland alteration work shall be contained in the city zoning ordinanc • Revised 10-09-98 SECTION VI. Subd.l Polic A. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT It is in the best interest of the public health, safety and weifare that the Managers regulate the development and the use of floodplains. B. Alterations or work within the floodplain or water resources of the District wi11 be reviewed to: Control floodplain encroachments. Subd. 2 Subd. 1. Ultimate development of the tributary watershed or a more critical interim situation shall be assumed. 2. For flood leve] determination, the design criteria shall be the 2, 10, and 100-year storms. When using SCS methodologies for event modeling, the Type II storm distribution shail be used. A 100-yeaz 10-day snowmelt et�ent shail also be madeled. The artificial 100-year event shall either be the 24-hour or 10-day event, whichever is greater. 2, Prevent adverse environmentai impact. C. The Managers will review all proposed subdivisions, plats and developments to reserve right-of-way for future water management needs. Reeulations A. Expect for developments in cities with approved and adopted local water management plans, all subdivisions, plats and developments require the approval of the Board of Managers of District. B. All work within the waters and floodplain of the District require a District permit. C. Issuance or denial of a permit shall be based on the policies set forth in the Watershed Management Plan, these Rules and ` Regulations, and appiicable State policies��1 la � Stan d A, Flood Level Determination. Revised 16-09-98 �� Flood levels shall be provided, if available, by the District Technical Professional or the city engineer upon request. B. Minimum Building Elevations. Adjacent to all water resources of the District, the minimum buildin� grade elevation will be at least three feet above the ] 00-yeaz flood elevation or two feet above the emergency overflow of the basin, whichever is �reater. The minimum building elevation for each lot shall be noted on the grading plan. C. Floodplain Preservation and Uses. Floodplains adjacent to existing and future waters and waterways shali be preserved by dedication and/or perpetual easement to the community in which they are located. These easements shall cover those portions of the property which are adjacent to the water or waterway and which lie below one (1) foot above the ] 00-year flood elevation. The local governing unit shall be responsib]e for all necessary stormwater maintenance within the drainage easement unless otherwise designated by the Managers for rcgiom� facilities. 2. Filting and crossing of water resources of the District. a. In lakes, ponds and other areas for runoff stora�e, fill and mitigation shall be done so that the 100- year flood level wi(1 not be raised. b. In waterways, fill and other alterations shall be limited so that the cumulative effect of all possible alterations shail not increase the existing 100-year flood levei more than 0.5 foot. The Boazd of Managers may determine that certain areas of the District are, or wili be, in a flood situation and will not aliow any filling until the situation has been corrected. 4. CTses of floodplain adjacent to water resources of the Distzict. a. Buildings or other improvements to be located in the floodplain or materials to be stored in the floodplain will be permitted only when: Revised 10-09-98 � � It can be shown that the building or improvements to be located in the floodplain will not be si�nificantly damaged by flooding; or 2. It can be shown that the improvements and materials will not unreasonably endanger life or property; or It can be shown that the improvements and materials will not unreasonably affect the water resource. D. Floodplain Alterations. The following floodplain alterations are prohibited: Alterations which are not consistent and in conformance with the Plan and wiil unreasonably impact other communities or resources, will not be permitted. Such alterations may include the outletting of (andlocked areas and modifying lake outlet elevations or increasing lake/pond outlet size and discharge rate. 2. Alterations, which will unnecessarily impact the water resources of the District. 3. Alterations not in conformance with applicable Minnesota Law. 4. In subwatersheds that drain to landlocked areas, the w°atershed shall review all development plans for water quantity changes. Any alterations shail not limit the water storage capacity below the naturai overflow elevation. SECTION VII. SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL u�bd� Policv A. To minimize the erosion which can occur as a resuit of land alteration, the Managers will require that all projects which may affect the water resources of the District, have temporary and permanent erosion control measures. The permit applicant shall be responsible for removal of all temporary measures upon protection of the site and completion of the project. Revised 10-09-98 1z ubd.2 Reeulations A. Land alterations such as gradin� or filling which remove or cover surface vegetation of 1 acre or more will require a DisCrict Pernlit. B. A permit will not be required for conventional agricultural practices as defined by the local SWCD, but the District will coordinate with the local SWCD to encourage good conservation measures. C. If an erosion problem develops, Yhe Managers wil] require action to correct the problem and prevent reoccurrence. D. The issuance or denial of a permit shall be based on the policies and eriteria contained in the Pian and these Rules. E. In areas that drain to landlocked or semi-landlocked depressions and that are identified by the District as regional infiltration areas, erosion and sediment reachin� the landlocked depression must be minimized to the greatest practicable extent. F. All cities must identify an Erosion Control Inspector/Specialist as defined by the Plan. Subd.3 Standards A. Projects which require a temporary erosion and sediment control plan. Projects which remove or cover more than 1 acre of surface vegetation. 2. Projects which could reasonably be expected to introduce sediment to the water resources of the District. B. Standards for temporary erosion and sediment control plans. All areas disturbed or altered by grading shall be prepared and maintained as set forth within the "SWWD Grading Permit Conditions for Erosion and Sediment Control". 2. Plans shall include commoniy accepted erosion control and restoration methods as defined by the MPCA's erosion and sediment control policies and standards. Revised 10-09-98 13 3. Each City shall develop an erosion and sediment control ordinance and incorporate erosion and sediment control standards into the City's �ui�� inspection process and ensure that vegetative cover or comparable protection is established before a lot is certified by the city. 4. In all construction sites that will have more than one acre of exposed soil entering the winter season shall restore or protect those areas. The seed and mulch is required where grading activities are completedbefore October 1 5. Dormant seed and mulch iswi$-be required oirarexs where grading activities are completed afier October 1. 6. Areas where grading is not completed by winter, but is to continue promptly the following spring, will be covered by a heavy coat of straw mulch. 7. Atl erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed prior to alteration and maintained until turf is estabIished. The District Technical Professional shal] be notified three days prior to commencement of grading to schedule an inspection of the project's erosion controls. The erosion controls must be in place and properly installed before grading wiil be percnitted. 8. All construction-related sediment shall be removed from all ponding azeas every two years as the development is constructed. All construction related sediment shall be removed fram alI ponding azeas upon completion of construction. "Completion of construction" occurs when 85% of all buildings shown on the final grading plan have been constructed and a certificate of occupancy is issued for said buildings. 9. Under no circumstances wi14 erosion and siltation of rcgiorm� infiltration basins be allowed . The developer wiIl be responsible for any cleanup that is the resuit of development and siltation of these azeas to restore them to their original condition and infiltration capacity. Revised IO-09-98 14 SECTIOIV VIII. APPROPRIATION OF WATERS Subd.l Policies A. To manage the water resources of the District, the Managers must be informed of the proposed appropriation of surface and/or groundwaters. B. The Mana�ers require that the effect of the proposed appropriation be defined before approval is granted. Subd.2 Re�ulations A. In all cases of appropriated waters requiring a Department of Natural Resources permit, a copy of the permit application must be filed with the Managers for their review and approval. B. The Managers will act on the Department of Natural Resources permit application within 60 days afrer receipt of the complete application. SECTION IX. STORMWATER RUNOFF AND DISCHARGES WITHIN THE DISTRICT Subd.l Policie A. To carry out the responsibility of managing the District's water resources, the Managers must be informed of all water discharges within the District. This includes stormwater runoff, lake augmentation and any dischazge that requires a Nationa( Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program (NPDES) permit. B. All discharges and related improvements must conform to the applicable requirements of State and Federai agencies. C. All stormwater discharges must be in general conformance with the Districts' and Communities' Water Management Plans. D. All discharges and related improvements shall not unreasonably raise water levels or degrade water quality of the water resources of the District. Revised 10-09-98 � I S Subd. 2 Re�u� lations Subd. � : C. Land alterations such as grading or filling which remove, cover, or disturb a surface area of 1 acre or more will require a District Permit. Issuance or denia] of a permit will be based on the policies set forth in the Plan and these Rules and Regulations. The Managers will act within 60 days of receipt of the complete permit application. D. In case of emergency action performed without a District Permit, the Managers shall be notified of the action and pertinent facts as soon as possible. A retroactive permit shatl be required in such cases. In the event the Managers determine the facts do not warrant issuance of a permit (retroactive), the action will be considered a violation of these Rules and Regulations and treated accordingly. E. In landlocked and semi-landlocked subwatersheds, the watershed wili require water quantity and quality alterations be limited to preserve the predevelopment conditions until specific infiltration standazds are developed for all new developments. F. Until a solutiorrto the central draw storm water management issue is resolved, no outlets from landiocked or semi-landlocked watersheds wili be permitted. tandar A. Any permitted activity shall be consistent with Local Water Management Plans and the District's AIlowable Peak Flow Rate Standards in its Plan for 100-year events. g, The determination of whether a design will result in an erosion problem shall be based on generally accepted engineering design manuals or practices such as the MPCA's manual "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas". Y . �+.�Y . •. .. ... .• • • �•A •.. ..�� • • �Ii • � � • • � • • • � • � •. ------=D: Best Management Pracfices shali meet the standards established in the Watershed Management Plan for runoff water quantity and quality management and erosion conuol plans. Revised 10-09•98 16 DE. The following Interim InfiltraCion Standards wil! apply to landlocked and semi-land locked subwatersheds until subwatershed specific infiltration standards are developed. Maintain the quality and quantity of runoff to predeveloprnent levels. 2. Stormwater quantity must be limited to predevelopment volumes only Co be adjusted by the watershed where pre- existing land-use zoning makes minor increases necessary. In ail cases, infiltration management techniques should be used to maximize infiltration. SECTION X. WETLANDS MANAGEMENT Subd.l � Aolic A. The DisCrict has adopted the Wetland Conservation Act, and the accompanying rules of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) (Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420. as amended), herein referred to as the WCA and the WCA Rules, respectively. B. The District has adopted standards for the water quality of stormwater entering wetlands of the District as well as standards for buffer zones around wetlands based on their functionai value. The standards are described in the Watershed Management Plan. C. The following activities may require a District permit: l. Filling a wetland. 2. Drainsng a wetland. 3. Ditching a wetland . 4. Dredging a wetland. 5. Altering the vegetation or grades of the buffer zone surrounding a wetland. Subd.2 Aoplication These Rules appiy to those waters in the District that are defined under the WCA Rules. Subd. Reeulations A. Regulations as provided by the WCA Rules will apply except as defined in these subsequent regulations. Revised 10-09-98 17 B. These Rules revise WCA Rules Chapter 8420.0150 scope to include dredging, ditching, and excavation for District high priority wetlands. These activities are considered wetland impacts by the District and require avoidance, minimization, and replacement as outlined in the WCA Rules. These are in addition to draining and filling of a wetland per the WCA and WCA Rules. C. All mitigation or replacement wetlands shall be located within the District, except for modification or expansion of existing public roads. D. Mitigation banking described in WCA Rules Chapter 8420.0730 through 8420.0740 can be used by the applicant provided that replacement locations adhere to requirements stated in these rules. E. Decisions regarding sequencing, replacement plans, and banking shall particularly favor preservation, restoration, and creation of wetlands and associated buffers in high priority areas as identified by the District and the WCA Ru1es part 8420.0350. High priority areas in the District include but aze not exclusive to the following areas: Areas defined as high priority by the Plan. 2. Minor watersheds having less than 50 percent of original wetlands, diminished wetlands, eliminated wetlands, and areas once occupied by wetiands. Additional high priority areas defined by the local water management glans where preservation, enhancement, restoration, and estabIishment of wetlands would have high public value by providing benefits for water quality, flood water retention, pubIic recreation, commercial use, and other public uses. S t d. Technical Evaluation Panei The District shali appaint a person to serve on the technical evaluation panel in accordance with WCA Rules part 8420.0240. The person must be a technical professional with expertise in water resouzces management. When appiicable, a professional employee of the local municipality will be considered as a member of the technical evaluation panel. ReviseA 10.09-98 1$ The Dastrict shali seek and consider recommendations made by the technical evaluation panel in making replacement plan decisions. u� bd. 6 tan ar AcCivities that involve w�etland impacts must comply withrequirc the following�nroccc}ures: A. Exemption and no-loss determinations. Exemption and no-loss determinations under Minnesota Rules parts 8420.0210 and 8420.0220 shall be made by the LGU. The LGU shall seek the advice of the technical evaluation panel on questions of wetland delineation and type. The LGU'S decision is final unless appealed within thirty (30) days of its decision. B. Sequencing and replacement plan decisions. Sequencing and replacement plan decisions under Minnesota Rule part 8420.0520 - .0550 shall be made following the same procedures as for District permit review plus the additional notice and time requirements of part 8420.0230. If the amount of wetland to be drained, ditched, dredged, excavated, or filled is less than one-tenth of an acre, the sequencing determination under the WCA Rules part 8420.0520 shall be made by the LGU. C. Monitoring. The District shall assure that the replacement plan monitoring and enforcement requirements of the WCA Rules part 8420.0600 - .0630 are fulfilled. D. Stora�e votume. The alteration shall not reduce the existing storage volume in the immediate watershed. Storage volume will be determined as stated elsewhere in these Rules. E. Recording. The applicant is to provide all copies needed for proper distribution and recording at the Cime the permit is issued . F. Any requirements or conditions the District deems necessary to ensure the procedures of this section are carried out. G. The District wili permlt excavation in existing wetiands when:. The District wetland standards for functions and values apply as defined by the Watershed Management Plan. �'��aii�ww�sinw��•� ••yunv��nw�iii�v��Y�ts��lu�i.r•�+ai)� ReviseA 10-09-98 � 9 A buffer strip is required for District identified high priority wetlands as described in the Plan around the delineated wetland boundazy. H. For unavoidable wetland impacts to District high priority wetlands, the associated buffer impact must also be mitigated or created in addition to the wetland mitigation. Subd.8 Criteri The functional values and acreage fost as a resuit of a wetland alteration shatl be replaced according to the following criteria: A. Wetland impact shall be replaced as required by the WCA Rules. B. The applicant shali post a cash security or letter of credit equivalent to I50 percent of the estimated construction cost of the replacement wetland, to be determined by the permit appiicant and approved by the District Technical Professional. Additional cash sureties may be required based upon conditions imposed on the applicant by the District. C. Replacement wetlands will require monitoring and annual reporting for 5 yeazs after completion with possible extensions defined in the WCA Rules part 8420.0600-.0630. Monitoring programs aze the responsibility of the applicant and are to be performed according to the WCA Rules. The District may perform this moni+.oring, under some circumstances, at the expense of the applicant. D. A completed replacement wetland is defined as: Supports predominantly wetland vegetation under normal condition and has established the targeted replacement wetland type plant coverage of at least 80 percent. 2. Predominance of hydric soils. E�ibits inundated or saturated conditions by surface or ground water sufficient to constitute the targeted wetland hydrology. 4. Conforms to the Corps of Engineers 1987 "Wetiand Delineation Manual" and the "Federal Manual For Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands" (January 1989). Revised IOA9-98 20 Subd. 7 A�_, oeal The decision of the District to approve, approve with condi[ions, or reject a wetland replacement plan becomes final thirty (30) days afrer the date on which the decision is mailed to those required to receive notice of the decision. The determination, application, or decision made under these Rules may be appealed to the District under WCA Rules part 8420.0250. SECTION XI. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT Subd.l Policies A. To implement the goals and policies of the District's Plan. B. All activities requiring a District permit shall meet the requirements of all applicable State and Federal Agencies including, but not limited to, Minnesota Rules Chapter 9410, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency stormwater permit requirements, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources permit requirements. uS bd. 2 Reeulations A. All projects which require a District permit as defined by these Rules and Regulations shali meet the goals and policies set forth in the District's Plan. B. Issuance or denial of a permit will be based on the policies set forth in the P'lan and these Rules and Regulations. Subd.3 Standards p,. Any permitce� activity conducted pursuant to a permit must ma�c meet the runoff water quality management standards and criteria set forth in the Plan both for wetlands and waterbodies. B, Where runoff from lands that are urban or suburban in character is contributing to the pollution of the water resources of the District, every effort shouId be made to abate the impurities po}}atian at its source including the use of i�ltration practices. Where this proves to be impractical or impossible, an effective system of filters, ponds, or constructed treatment wetlands;'wheie pcacfical, will-sha�� be constructed and maintained by the project appiicant or the locai municipality. Revised 10-09-98 21 C. Stormwater ponds draining into DNR protected wetlands, District priority wetlands, or infiltration basins shall incorporate a skimming device capable of retaining floating liquids and debris. In pond networks, it may be adequate to provide the skimming device in the most downstream pond as determined by the District Technical Professional. D. Stormwater ponds will require long-term maintenance by the pond owner or designated responsible entity including the following: Field inspection every five years by pond owner to determine functioning condition. If a pond is not performing to its full design potentiai, the owner must return the pond to a good functioning condition. 2. Inlets and outlets will be inspected every tyvo (2),yeazs atid the needed reqnirc-maintenance performed cvery*t�sro pcars-by the pond owner as necessary. SECTION XII. PERFORMANCE BONDS u�bd. 1 To assure compliance with these Rules and Regulations, the Managers may require the posting of a performance bond or other security where it is shown to be reasonable and necessary under the particular circumstances of any permit appiication filed with the District. Subd. 2 Where a municipality or other governmental agency includes in its requirements that the appiicant furnish a performance bond or other security, the District may require an additional performance bond from fhe applicant. SECTIOIV' XIIL VARIANCES Subd.l Policies A. The Managers may grant variances from these Rules and Regulations when they find that due to unique physical conditions of the land or waters involved, extraordinary and unnecessary hardship may resuit from strict compliance. Such variances will not have the effect of nuliifying the intent and purpose of these Rules and Regulations, or the Watershed Management Plan. Revised 10-09-48 22 , a �'�Rc TT"d�CS1'ILt21'�'}'dII: Subd. 2 Reeulations A. An application for a variance shall be submitted to the Managers and shall document the exceptional conditions and peculiar hardship ciaimed and resulting impacts from approval of the variance. B. The Managers shall apgrove or deny the variance within 60 days of receipt of a complete variance application. C. A variance shall become void one year after granted unless used. D. A violation of any conditions set forth in a variance shall be a violation of the District rules and shall automatically terminate the variance. SECTION XIV. ENFORCEMENT AND SEVERABILITY Subd. D'estrict Powers. The District may exercise all powers conferred upon it by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103, in enforcing these Rules and Regulations. Sub . 2 Vatidity. If for any reason a section or subdivision of these Rules and Regulations should be held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining Rules and Regulations. Subd. Minnesota Law Conformation. These Rules and Regulations shail conform Yo Minnesota Law and if inconsistent therewith, the latter shall govem. Subd. 4 Violation. Violation of these rules, a stipulation, agreement made, or permit issued by the Board of Managers pursuant to these rules, is a misdemeanor subject to a penalty as provided by law. Subd. 5 District Court Action. The District all powers confeaed upon it by Minn.Stat Chapter 103D in enforcing the rules adopting hereunder, including criminal prosecution, injunction, or action to compel performance, restoration, or abatement. S d. Administrative Order. The District may issue a cease and desist order when it finds that a proposed or initiated project presents a serious threat of soil erosion, sedimenYation, or adverse effect upon water quality or violates any rule of the District. Revised 10-09-98 23 SECTION XV. APPELLATE PROCEDURE AND REVIEW Subd. 1 Any Person aggrieved by enforcement of these Rules and Regulations or by any Order of the District may appeal therefrom in accordance with the appellate procedure and review as provided in Minnesota Statutes Chapter ]03D. SECTION XVI. AM�NDMENT PROCEDURE Subd. ] Any Person may petition the Managers for the purpose of amending or changing these Rules and Regulations. �ubd• 2 The Mana�ers may initiate changes or amendments in these Rules and Regulations. Revised 10-09-98 24 8301 Valley Creek Road • Woodbury, Minnesota 55125-3330 • http://www.ci.woodbury.mn.us 612/714-3500 • TDD 612/714-3568 • FAX 612/714-3501 September 3, 1998 Mr. 7ack Clinton Fluegel, Moynihan & Clinton, P.A. 1303 South Frontage Road — Suite 5 Hasfings, MN 55033-2477 Re: South Washington Watershed District Draft Rules Dear Mr. Clinton: The Woodbury City staff has had an opportuniry to review the South Washington Watershed Disnict (SWWD) proposed draft mles and wish to offer the following commencs. Due to the tirrung of the review process, these comments have noC been reviewed by the City Council. Therefoie, they should be considered "stafP' couunents. As the zeview and adoption process continues, staff will further review the proposed rules and review same with the City Council prior to your October 14, 1998 hearing. The Woodbury staff appreciates the opportuniCy to participate in the development of the draPt rules through the Technical Advisory Committee and supports the efforts of the SWWD to develop its rules. The ciry encouia�es the SWWD to play an active role m the managemene of the wateished dis4ict and its resources. The city is concemed however that adequate administrative and Yechnical resources be provided by the SWWD to carry out these functions in a rimely manner. IC is imperadve the SWWD commit sufficienT resources to effectively conducY ffie activities and zeviews set forth in the rules which are ul2imately adopted. In Section l, subdivision 3. A. 3.; it is stated that the watershed district will require a permit for all subdivisions, p1aYS, and developmenfs within a floodplain. Does this mean that the district actually intends [o issue permits for p1aYS, or is it referring Yo permits for grading plans? IC was our understanding thaY the Watershed Distnct would review plats concurcently with the Ciry review process, and submii eomments to the City. The City would then incoiporate these comments into the condition of approval for the plats. The intent of this section should be clarified. Since most projects involve some type of on-site ponding, which technically constimtes work in the flood plain, vutually all subdivisions, plats and developments would require watershed district review and a permit. While such review and pemvtting is not necessarily bad, it does reinforce a need for the watershed dishict to have adequate resources to perform these reviews in a timely manner. The draft rules exempt a city from payment of the permit fee. The ciry appreciates tlus special consideration. The draft rules do not include a definition of "Lake Au�mentation". Section VI, Subdivision 2(A.) has a typographicai error the word "expecP' should be "except Under the subtitle Flood Plain P�eservaeion and Uses, page 14, the draR rules require easaments be dedicated over those portions of property which are adjacent to the water or waterway which lie below the one hundred yeaz flood elevation. The City suggests the easements should encompass an area one foot above the one hundred year flood elevation. T'his paragraph goes on to state the easement shall be dedicated to and maintained by the city unless otherwise designated by the Managers for regional facilities. Neither the SWWD or these draft rules define the criteria for a regional facility. S�;ch a definition needs to be developed and concurred in by the member communities. •Heloful •Elfectiue •Lookina Ahead •Professional Page 2 of 3 September 3, 1998 iVIr. Jack Clinton Several paragraphs in the draft rules deal with landlocked areas. These paragraphs state "any alteration shall not lunit the water storage capacity below a natural overflow elevation". The city does not support this posirion. In most cases, an outlet facility will be conshucted to these landlocked faciliries. In many cases the normal and lugh water elevations for these landlocked azeas will be well below the natural overflow elevarions which exist under pre-development condirions. To not allow development within the area is overly resh An example of this would be the Bailey Lake area. The natural overflow from this azea is approximately 15 to 20 feet higher than the one hundred year high water elevarion established by the Bailey Lake lifY station. If all land lying between these two elevarions weie not available foz development, it would represenY a significant taking of property azound the perimeter of Bailey Lake. Paragraph 3 under Standards for Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control P1ans, page 17, states that the city shall develop an erosion and sediment con4ol ordinance. The city supports this requirement However the paragraph goes on to state that these standards shall be incorporated into the building inspecrion process. The city feels it should have the flexibility of implementing such an ordinance consistent with iCs organizarional structure which may be unique for each individual community rather than specifying the building inspecrion process. This pazagraph further states "to ensure that vegetation cover or comparible protecrion is established before a lot is certified by the city". I believe this paragraph should say "certified to the city" rather than "certified by the city". Pacagraph E, on page 19, under Yhe subrirle Regularions states "water quanrity and quality alCerations be lunited to pieserve the pie-development eonditions until specific infiltration standaids aze developed for all new developments". The city is concemed with this paragraph for hvo reasons. Fust, the city supports the urilization of infiltrarion to confrol storm water quanrity rnnoff wherever reasonable and prudent. HoweveT, the city does not support relying on infiltration as a subsritute for providing storm water outlets to subwatersheds. The city feels the SWWD is placing too much emphasis on infilfration without fully evaluating the long term effectiveness of such a straYegy. Befoie mles of this type are adopTed, the SWWD should evaluate the long term potenrial of infiltration within the subwatersheds, the change in efficiency of infiltration due to maturity of the infiluarian basins due to siltarion, plant growth and other environmental factors, the method, reasonableness and cost of maintaining infiltrarion rates within a pond, and the districts fmancial responsibility for maintauung infiltration rates should they require the system be developed on the basis of urilizing infiltrarion as a water quanriry management technique. The second area of concern of this paragraph is lizniring alterarions to preserve the pre-development condirions. Depending upon the time table for developing infiluation standards for each landlocked or semi-tandlocked subwatershed, this is an overiy restricrive condirion to p:ace upcn F:operty within tha watersked �'istdct. Paragraph G, 2 under the title Wetland Management, page 22, states "the dishict will peimit excavation in existing wetlands when all conriguous property owners join in the application". If this is meant to requue that all property owners contiguous to an exisring wetland must agree to the application before any work can be performed, the city does not support this requirement. In many cases, it will be virtually impossible to gain such a consensus. Such a requuement may result in the inability to perform excavarion in a wetland which would be deemed posirive by the SWWD from a water quanfity, quality or habitat perspecrive. Paragraph 3, B nnder the subtitle Water Quality Management, page 24, states "when runoff from lands that are urban cannot be pracricaily abated at its source,... "an effecrive system of filters, ponds, or constxucted trea4ment wetlands shall be constructed by the project applicant or the local municipality". The city supports the objectives of this standazd. Aowever the word "shall" should be changed to "shouid, if practical". It is inappropriate to state a city or applicant shall have to retrofit existing systems to address water quality issues. In many cases there may be physical constraints which make such facilities impractical or economically infeasibie. Page 3 of 3 September 3, 1998 Mr. Jack Clinton Paragraph 2, D under the subtitle Water Quality Management, page 24, states "inlets and outlets will be inspected and the needed required maintenance performed every two years by ihe pond owner". The city supports the requirement for periodic inspecrion and maintenance of the ponding azeas. However the interval betv✓een inspecrions should be determined on a locarion by locarion basis rather than requiring a sti two year cycle. Again, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft rnles. The city would be happy to meet with the SWWD and its consultants to further discuss and clarify the city's comments. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions regarding the city's comments or to establish a coordinarion meeting. Sincerely, ��e �� David R. Jessu D'uector of P ic Works CC: Sarry P. Johnson Steve Kemik Warren Tracy DRJfamw G:\USERS\COMMON�PWORKS�StormWaterUtitiry\SWWD-Draft Rules 93-98 DRl.doc CITY OF OAKI3ALE 15t34 Hadley Avenue Notth Oakdaie, Minne.ota 5512R 6l2/739�50R6 G1S30�'?A.'0 FAR September 9, 1998 AZr. Jack Clinton S W WD Attorney SOUTH WASHINGTON WATERSHED DISTRICT 1303 South Frontage Road, Suite 5 Hastings, MN 55033-2477 RE: CITY OF OAKDALE SWWD STH DRAFT OF RULES SEH NO. A-OAKDA9603.00 Dear Mr. Clinton: .�: ��.::.. ; �I , ; �• • . � . - -," __ ._. . OCT I 4 I°9S I have re��iewed the Sth Draft of the SWWD Rules and offer the following comments for your consideration: 1) 2) In general the dischazge rate, flood level, and runoff volume controls should be directly linked to damage potential and notjust meeting the existing conditions. The landlocked basin criteria should be related to damage potential. 3) The minimum building elevation of 3 ft levei about the 100-yr is inconsistent with the existing Oakdale SWMP criteria. How this criteria be applied within the Ciry of Oakdale/ Will the revised SWMP beheld to this criteria. The implication of this would be to have two differing lowest floor elevation criteria within the City of Oakdale depending upon when the Pladpermit application was received. 4) What basis is used to require the curve number for developed conditions to be greater than undeveloped conditions? A recent development in Oakdale within the District included the conversion of a soybean field without conservation tillage practices to a residential./golf course development. The conversion of a bean field to a fully turfed golf course is an example of a developed conditions having a curve number less than the undeveloped condition. 5) On Page 6 of the Rules it states: "Where such a municipal P7an is adopted, the requirements of the DistricYs rules which are met by the municipal pJan shall be deemed satisfied upon showing of complaance by an individual developer wiihin �he municipal plan." (wntinued) RECEIVED SEP " �ggg Oa6dak doec nof drs<nmi+wte on !be basis of rare, color, rwfiona/ ongin, szr, rehgron. qge or dlsabilit}• status in employrnenr or pzri�on ojsenice. m,.�wa��w�,- PAGE 2 SOUTH WASHINGTON WATERSHED DISTRICT This should be revised to ensure the City remains the implemen[ing agency of its plan. It is suggested the sentence be altered to: "W'here such a municipa! Plan is adopted, the requirements of !he District's rules which are met by the municip-al plan shall be deemed satisfied upon tlie City proriding docun:entation d:at the project is considered complianP with tke Ciry's p1an." 6) Modifying lake outlet elevations and construction of an outlet for landlocked areas is prohibited by the Plan. If the proposed modifica[ion is consistent with Mn/DNR permit criteria and the City'slocal plan (as approved by the SWWD), the proposed modification should be permitted. 7) As commented on the WRMP language on several occasions, the water quality standazds shouid recognize the receiving waterbody's morphology, existing conditions, and uses to establish treatment criteria. This was not adequately addressed in the WRMP but shouid be addressed as a criteria for review of applications in the proposed rules. I have also enciosed a copy of the Sth Draft of the S W WD Rules with some written comments. c: Marty Rye, SEH S:\BRIAMCORRESPO�S W W D.SAM CITY ENGINEER // dbur mn us 8301 Vailey Creek Road • Woodbury, Minnesota 55125-3330 • http. www.ci.woo y. 612/714-3500 • TDD 612/714-3568 • FAX 612/714-3501 n �� U`V Septembec 2A, 1998 Mr. Jack Clinton Fluegel, Moynihan & Clinion, P.A. 1303 South Frontage Road — Suite 5 Hastings, MN 55033-2477 g�: South Washington Watershed Disuict Draft Rules Dear Mr. Clinton: ��i� � Q �� On Septembec 23, 1998, the Woodbury City Council reviewed the South \Vashington Watershed District (SWWD) proposed draft Rules. The City wishes to offer the following comments to be considered at your October 14, 1998 public hearing. Woodbury appreciates the opportuniry to participate in the development of the dcaft Rules through the Technicat Advisory Committee (TAC) and supports Che efforts of the SWWD to develop iYS rules. The City encourages the SWWD to play an active role in the management of the Watershed District and its resources. The City is concemed, however, that adequate administrative and technical cesources must be provided by the SWWD to carry out these functions in a timely manner. It is imperative the SWWD commit sutficient resources to effectively conduct the activ{ties and re�•ievrs set forth in the Rules. Under the subtitle General Activities That Require a SWWD Ferrc it, page 7, it is stated that the Watershed DisnicY will require a permit for all subdivisions, plats, and developments within a floodplain. Does this mean that the Disuict actually intends to issue permits for plats, or is it refening to pemdts for grading plans? It was ouc understanding that the Watershed Distnct would review plats concurrently with the Ciry ieview pcocess, aod submit commenu to the Ciry. The Ciry would then incorporate these comments into the condition of approval for the plats. The inient of this secfion should be clarified. Since most projects involve some type of on-site ponding, which technically constitutes work in the flood plain, virtually all subdivisions, plats and developments wout3 require Wa:ersFed Disnict review and a pemut. :� such revi�w nnd pe :aittu.g is aoi r.ecess2r:iy bad, i: does rei2force a r.eed fer the V,'stershed District ro have adequate resources to perform these reviews in a timely manner. The dxafi Rules exempt a city from payment of the pemut fee. The City appreciates this special consideration. The draft Rules do not include a defmition of "Lake Augmentation". Section VI, Subdivision 2 A. has a typographicai eaor - the word "expect" should be "except Under the subtitle Flood Plain Preservarion and Uses, page 14, the draft Rules require easements be dedicated over those portions of property which are adjacent to the water oi waterway which lie below the one hundred yeaz flood elevation. The Ciry suggests the easements should encompass an area one-foot above the one-hundred year flood elevation. This paragraph goes on to state the easement shall be dedicated to and maintained by the city unless otherwise designated by the Managers for regional facilities. Neither the SWWD nor these dratt Rules define the criteria tor a regional facitity. Such a deflnition needs to be developed and concurred in by the member communities. C,G�� L �� -_` � ----'- j 7�? { � \`� �..- � �,`1 �_.. � � � -- � SEP 2 8 1998 •Helnful •Effective •Looking Ahead •Professional Mr. Jack Clinton September 24, 1998 Page 2 Severat paragraphs in the draft Rules deai with landlocked areas. These paragraphs state that any alteration shali not iimit the water storage capacity below a natural overflow elevation. The Ciry does not support this position. In most cases, an outlet faci(iry will be constructed to these tandlocked facilities. In many cases the nor[nal and high water elevations for these landlocked areas will be well belou the natural overflow elevations which exist under pre-development conditions. To not allow developmem within the area is overly rastnctive. An example of this would be die Bailey Lake area. The natural overttow from this area is approximately IS to 20 feet higher than the one-hundred yeaz high water elevation established by the Bailey Lake IiR station. If all land lyi�g betvreen t6ese two elevations were not a�•ailable foi development, it would represent a significant taking of property around the perimeter of Bailey Iake. Under the subtitle Standards, page 19, adding the intenm requirement of pre-development volumes of stormwater runoff in landlocked basins to the proposed water storage limitation would severely restrict any development in these areas. This would essentialty require oversized holding ponds, constructed above any existing natwal storm water basins, or else construction of localized in£iltration basins. In light of the fact that there is very little developable land in the SWWD wrthin the MUSA boundary at present, it makes little sense to place such a severe restciction on a few parcets of tand, when the overall effect on the storm water management system would be �egtigible. Paragraph 3 under Standards for Tem�orarv Erosion and Sediment Control Plans, page 17, states that the city shall develop an erosion and sediment control ordinance. The City snpports this requirement. However the paragraph goes on to state that these standards shall be incocporated into the building inspection process. The City feels it should have the flexibility of implemenring such an ordinance coosistent with its organizational structure, which may be unique for each individual community rather than specifying the building inspection process. This paragraph further states "...to ensure that vegetation cover or compatible protection is established before a lot is certified by the city." I betieve this paragraph should say "certified to the city" rather than "certified by the city". Paragraph E, on page 19, under the subtitle Reeulations states "water quantity and quality alterations be limited to preserve the pre-development conditions unril specific infiltration standards are developed for all new developments". The City is concemed with this paragraph for tw'o reasons. First, the City supports the utilization of infiltration to control storm water quantity runoff wherever reasonable and prudent. Aowever, the City does not support relying on infiltration as a substitute for providing storm water outlets to subwatersheds. The City feels the SWWD is placing too muc6 emphasis on infiltration, without fulty evaluating the long-term effeMiveness of such a strategy. Before Rules of tlils type are adopted, the S\�JWD should evaluate the Iong-term potenrial of infiltranon within the subwatersheds, the change in efficiency of infiltration over time due to silt2tion, plsnt gro«�th and other envuonmenYal factors, the method, reasonableness and cost of maintaining infiltrarion rates within a pond, and the Districts fmancial responsibility for maintaining infiltration rates should this type of system be required. The second area of concem of this paragraph is luniting alterations to preserve the pre-development conditions. Depending upon the timetable tor developing infiltration standards for each landlocked or semi- landlocked subwatershed, this is an overly restrictive condition to ptace upon property within t6e Watershed Distric[. Paragraph G. 2. under the title Wetland Mana ee ment, page 22, states "The District will permit excavation in existing wetlands when all contiguous property owners join in the application." If this is meant to require that alt property owners contiguous to an existing wetiand must agree to t6e application before any work can be performed, the City does not support this requiremenL In many cases, it will be virtually impossible to gain such a consensus. Such a requirement may result in the inabiliry to pedorm excavation in a wetland which would be deemed posidve by the SWWD from a water quanrity, quality or habitat perspecrive. Mr. lack Clinton September 24, 1998 Page 3 Paragraph 3. B. under the subtitle Water Oualitv 1vfana >ec ment, page 24, stares that when runoff from lands that are urban cannot be practica(ly abated at its source, "...an effective system of filters, ponds, or constructed treahnent wetlaiids shalt be constructed by fhe project applicant or the local municipality." The City supports the objectives of this standard. However, this gives the Watershed District the power to order changes to the City storm water system, with tl�e costs to be paid entirely 6y the City. Council believes this would be an unworkable situation. In addition, Council believes that in certain situations practical considerations would prectude any retrofitting of the storm water management system. The language in the Rules should be softened ro only require additional storm water management projects if it is practical to do so, and if the Watershed District agrees to participate in the cost. Paragraph 2. D. under the subtide Water Oualirv Mana eQ ment, page 24, states "Inlets and outlets will be inspected and the needed required maintenance performed every rivo years by the pond owner." The City sapports the requirement for periodic inspection and maintenance of the ponding areas. However the interval between inspections should be determined on a location-by-locarion basis rathet than requiring a strict two-year cycle. Again, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Rules. The City would be happy to meet with the SWWD and its consultants to further discuss and clarify the City's comments. It is our understanding these commenu will be considered at the SWWD meeting on October 14, 1998. T'herefore, the City tequests a response ro these comments by October 23, 1998. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions regarding the City's comments or to establish a coordination meeting. Sincecely, e DavidR. sup� Director of Public Works cc: Barry P. Johnson, City of Woodhury Steve Kernik, City of Woodbury Wasen Tracy, City of Woodbury James Wessman, SWWD Brett Emmons, Emmons Resources \�CITYNALL\VOLI\USEItS�COMMOtNW OR%S�PROlECT96�iDa�g1CLMTON.Lena Rcviud 9-24-98.doc FLUEGEL, MOYNTHA.I� & CLINTON, P.A. Attorneys At Law Donald J. Fluegel * 1303 South Frontage Road, Suite 5 Te:ephone 612-438-977� Shawn M. Movnihan Hastings, MN 55033-2477 Fax 612-438-977 Jack W. Clinton "* Joan M.Fluegel MEMO TO: SOUTH WASHiNGTON WATERSHED DISTRICT MANAGERS FROM: JACK W. CLINTON RE: WATERSHED DISTRICT RULES-6TH DRAFT - — �� DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1998 —� OCT I �t 19°8 INTRODUCTION ---- _____------...__ ,,.. Enclosed are letters received from the cities of Woodbury and Oakdale concerningYtieir comments on the draft Rules. We have a(so received from Cottage Crrove a copy of the Rules with notations concerning questions, and I have summarized the points of substance. This memo will address changes that aze being sug�ested by EOR, Matt Moore and me based on the comments received from the informal review process. lease note that all references in this memo are to the 6th Draft. The comments of each of the cities are addressed, except Afton and Lake Elmo who did not submit comments. Woodburv Comments. 1. Pa�e 3, Subd. 3 Applicatioq A3. The intent is for the Watershed District to be able to comment upon plats. Thus, there will not be a Watershed District permit for a plat. There will be permits required for gradin�. The draft of the Rule has been modified to specify the permit will be for "grading." 2. Page 5, Subd. 6 Lake Augmentation. The definition for "Lake Augmentation" has been incorporated. The intent is to encompass any artificial addition of water to a lake (i.e. pumping), or if a project results in drainage of water to a lake that previously did not drain to the lake. * Also admitted to practice in A-Vismnsin '* Certified as a Real Propert� t_a�c Specialist L+�� Minnesota State Bax Acsociation Page 2 October 12, 1998 3. Page I 1, Subd. 3 Standard, C1. The elevation will be changed to be 1' above the 100-year flood elevation. 4. Page 11, Subd. 3 Standazd, C.I. The reference to `Yegionai" facilities will be deleted. Therefore, if the change is adopted, the Watershed District will designate facilities where the maintenance will be the Watershed District responsibility. 5. Page 12, Subd. 3 Standard, D. Floodplain Alterations. 4. The provision would restrict construction in landlocked and semi-landlocked areas below the natural overflow elevation. The concern is that this will unreasonably restrict development. The purpose of this section is to prevent buiiding within an elevation that is the natural overflow elevation. It is possible for the 100-year flood elevation to be lower and a designed outlet elevation lower yet. EOR has looked at the landlocked areas, and those azeas are limited in number. The specific azeas wili be reviewed with the Managers at the October 14 meeting. From EOR's review, the impact on land wili be limited and the land areas affected will not be great. It is acknowledged that the Rule requirement may require dedication of more land for ponding. The question could be raised whether the amount of ponding is reasonable, or if the amount of land necessary creates a"taking" question. In the platting process, Minn. Stat. § 462.358, Subd. 2{b) ailows the City to require dedication of "a reasonable portion" of the subdivision for storm water drainage and holdin� areas or ponds. A"reasonableness" test requires a case by case evaluation, and I cannot offer an opinion on a specific piece of property in the conte� of a development. Therefore, if there is a question raised on a particular dedication, it would have to be evaluated at that time. If the impact is to great, there are two options. One option is a variance application to consider a lesser dedication reguirement. The secoad option is for the additional land to be purchased. From a practical standpoint, in one development there may be no storm water holding facilities, and in another adjacent development a natural pond area exists that cannot be developed. Developers commonly account for this, and I believe any taking issue will have to be evaluated at the time development occurs. If the Managers agree with the policy in the proposed Rufe, I believe gener�jjy it wili not create an issue legally. If the Rule creates a problem in a particular development, the variance process or purohase of land would be alternatives to be evaluated. Page 3 October 12, 1998 It is expected that upon adoption of the Local Water Management Plan and proof that the development of building can be done without: (a) unreasonable exposure of property to flood damage, (b) that human health and welfare will not be jeopardized, and (c) it can be demonstrated that there is no further need for capital expenditures that would be required to protect property from flooding, then construction will be permitted. Compliance with item (c) will look to the future need for facilities Chat would be required to allow building below the given elevation. In summary, upon the adoption of the Locat Water Management Plan that will control over the Plan. In the absence of a Local Water Management Plan, the foregoing criteria will be appiied to evaluate the building. 6. Page 14, Subd. 3 Standards, B3. In drafting this provision, it was expected that the City wouid incorporate this into their inspection process. From the District's perspective, the mechanics of accomplishing the inspection are not critical, and the cities can certainly accomplish this in another way. The District's goal is to see that the inspection occurs and a verification of compliance prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for a lot. The language has been so modified. 7. Page 16, Subd. 2 Regulations, F. The second concern raised is limiting the alterations to preserve predevelopment conditions and the time table for developing infiltration standards for the landlocked and semi-landlocked areas of the Watershed. The approach taken in the Rules is expected to be used untii completion of the infiltration study. In order to address this issue, an addition to Subd. 3 concerning "Standard," a new paragraph F. will read as follows: "F. Until a solution to the central draw storm water mana�ement issue is resolved, no outlets from landlocked or semi-landlocked watersheds will be permitted." 8. Page 19, Subd. 6 Standards, G.2. will be deleted in its entirety. Paragraph G. l. will be modified to read as foilows: "1. The District wetland standards functions and values apply as defined by the Watershed Management Plan." 9. Page 22, Subd. 3 Standards, B. The intent of the pazagraph is to provide for methods to remove naturally occurring impurities from the water that will cause degradation of the water resources. Therefore, the language has been changed to remove the term Page 4 October 12, 1998 "pollution." ffthe infiltration practices will not work, then altemative systems are to be implemented if they are practical. 10. Page 22, Subd. 3 Standards, D.2. The wording is revised to provide for inspections every two years and then cleanup as necessary. Oakdale Comments 1. The runoff and volume controls will take into consideration the damage potentiat which will be part of the evaluation of the infiltration information and design of a�y system. 2. The issue of landlocked basins is addressed concerning the Woodbury comments, and will not be repeated. 3. The building elevation of 3' above the 100-year elevation is inconsistent with the Oakdale Storm Water Mana�ement Plan. In developing the Rules, the effort was made to be consistent with the other watershed districts affecting the five municipalities. Ramsey/Washington has a 3' elevation and Valley Branch has a 2' elevation. The 3' was used in the Rules to be consistent with the more restrictive provisions of Ramsey/Washington. It is recommended that the 3' specification remain. 4. Page 16, Subd. 3 Standards, C. was incorporated to follow Valiey Branch. As noted above in the Woodbury comments it is recommended that it be deleted in its entirety. 5. The recommended chan�e concerning the language in paragraph 6 has been incorporated as suggested. 6. The landlocked basins has previously been addressed under intent of "Woodbury Comments." ('nrraee Grove Comments Cottage Grove submitted the Sth draft of the Rules with notations, and I will summarize those notations, a number of which will require Board discussion and direction. 1. Page 4, Section II, Subd. 2. Infrastructure and pumps have been added to the definition of "Drainage System." Page 5 October 12, 1998 2, Page 5, Section II, Subd. 10. A drawing will be added as Exhibit 1 to the Rules. 3. Page 5, Section II, Subd. I l. I will add SCS terminology to further explain the 100- year flood event. 4. Page 6, Section II, Subd. 24. The term "excess" is to be deleted in order to simplify the definition. 5. Page 7, Section III, Subd. 1 B. The second paragraph has been reworded so that the DistricYs review will be done as part of the City's preliminary plat review and approval process. 6. Page 7, Section III, Subd. 1 D. The District will submit its recommendation requirements to the permit applicant rather than the community. 7. Pa�e 8, Section III, Subd. 2 Regulations A In the third line it refers to "other information" being submitted to the District. Cottage Grove wants a list of specific items that could be included. This is going to be reviewed with EOR to try to list specific items. In any event, the `bther informatiod' wording will be retained. 8. Page 8, Section III, Subd. 2 Regulations C. The Rule provides for a permit by a governmental unit to be exempt from fees, but if the permit is approved, the contractor doin� the work for the govemmental unit is required to submit an escrow deposit. Cottage rrove is questioning why the escrow deposit would be required. Depending upon the size of the project, statute does require a municipality to obtain a Payment and Perfottnance Bond. The poticy question the Board should discuss �s whether there is a need or purpose for requiring the contracfor to submit an escrow deposit. 9. Page 8, Section IV, Subd. 3 B. There is a reference to "agencies." Cottage Grove is requesting that the agencies be listed. EOR has advised me that depending upon the project there could be as ma�ry as 35 agencies who might have to be provided copies. EOR did not feel listing all of those agencies was necessary considering that only a few of them wouid be involved in any particular project. Page 6 October 12, 1998 10. Page 9, Section V., Subd. 2 Regulations, A. The section dealing with "Local Government Responsibility" under the "Regulations" section provides for the communities to file with the District ordinances, pians, and development guides relating to land alterations. Cottage Grove was questioning, what "Land atteration" includes, and whether this is simply the zoning ordinance, or if it is to cover pavfng and grading. i l. Page 9, Section V. Subd. 3 B. This provides for the local government unit's permitting process to be in the Local Water Management Plan. Cottage Grove is indicating there permitting process will be in the zoning ordinance. This language has been modified. 12. Page 10, Section VI, Subd. 2 Regulations, C. We aze deleting the reference to criteria in the District Standards since those should be encompassed in the Plan and Rules which are already referenced. 13. Page 10, Section VI, Subd. 3 Standards, A.1. What does the terminology "more critical interim situation" refer to. EOR is following up on ttus. 14. Page 11, Section VI, Subd. 3, C.4. This section addresses uses of floodplain. Cottage Grove has permitted the construction of decks within the floodplain where only the supports would get wet from flooding. This would be consistent with the intention of this section. 15. Page 13, Section VII, Subd. 2 Regu(ations, B. Conventional agricultural practices will not require a permit. In the context of the issue that was raised concerning the drainage from Bailey Nurseries, would the Watershed want to regulate that? EOR is following up with the Soi1 and Water Conservation District to clarify their interpretation and whether Bailey Nurseries is considered a conventional agricuitural practice. 16. Page 13, Section VII, Subd. 3 Standards, A. This area will be reviewed and determined if the items in this section that are not related to temporary erosion control can be moved or deleted. 17. Page 20, Section X, Subd.6 Standards H. The second sentence is being deleted since it does not add to the first sentence. Page 7 October 12, 1998 18. Page 21, Section XI, Subd. 3 Standards, A. The language concerning "permitted activity" is that referring to permissive, or what is done under a permit? The intent is to refer to activity conducted pursuant to a permit. 19. Page 23, Section XIII, Subd. 1 Policies, B. wiil be deleted since the Management Plan is included as one ofthe factors under paragraph A. BWSR Comments. A copy of the Sth Draft of the Rules has been forwarded BWSR for their review and comment. The BWSR comments will forwarded directly to you on Friday. Enclosed is the 6th "Dratt of the Rules which have been redlined with the changes from the Sth Draft. A copy of this memo, together with the 6th Draft is being transmitted to the City Administrators and the Technical Advisory Committee members. • � 1 • �► The Board should review the Rules, together with the comments received from the cities, and discuss them at the meeting on October 14. The Board can provide its input and comments which can be incorporated. The hearing on the matter will be scheduled for the November t 1 Board meeting, unless the Board decides to change its meetin� date. JWC:cIj SOU70446-0009 Enclosures �� i .-, November 2, 1998 South Washington Watershed District Managers 8301 valiey Creek rod Woodbury, MN 55125 Dear Board Managers, This letter is to serve as the City of Cottage Grove's input into the public hearing regarding the draft rules for the Watershed. The copy reviewed is the sixth draft, which has a revision date of 10-9-98. City staff had already forwarded many comments to the District's Attorney and requested changes have been addressed primarily in a memorandum dated October 12, 1998. It is my understanding that two issues raised by the City were discussed at the last board meeting and are not reflected in the draft. The two issues are the definition of agricultural uses and the regulation of Iand-locked basins. Regarding the former, the Gity would like clarification because of the differing agricultural uses found within our boundaries. Some of these uses through the course of their operation have changed the surface water drainage system without benefit of city review. This has caused problems of erosion and damage to infrastructure. Regarding the restriction on land-locked basins, the City wants to clarify whether permission within the rules aliows by right the ability to link land-locked basins within the MUSA to existing systems. Obviously the concern is that the Central Draw Study may propose alternatives which could alter the current plans for these basins. The City is concemed that the rules may enable upstream communities to continue under their current plans which may be inconsistent with the findings of the study. Wouid then, the changes needed to implement the Central Draw Study be paid for by the Watershed since it is requiring a rnodification from that permitted by the rules? The City is also concemed about the actual administration of the rules and the ability of the Watershed to review permits in a timely manner. By law, the City must take action on a zoning permit within 60 days. This can be extended to 120 days should the City need additional time and the applicant is duly notified. However, the City tries to accommodate development within the community by expediting permits which are non-controversial or are consistent with ordinance criteria. In fact, the City ordinance permits administrative review of site plans if no variances or conditional use permits are required. We hope that the Watershed will ba able to put a system in place where the applicant may be able to expect similar treatment. Also relating to administration, the City intends to make any approved project receive a permit from the watershed, if applicabie. The City through iYs current process will review site grading and construction and will assess whether there is compiiance with City and perhaps, Watershed regulations. However, it is unclear what occurs if the Watershed be�ieves the app�icant has not fuifilled the permit requirements. This should be clarified. The City continues to have concern over the 1 acre threshold for requiring a grading permit. The reason is that in the rural areas 1 acre could be disrupted through the normal course of house construction. The City would like the Watershed to relook at this issue and perhaps exempt land alterations relating to the construction of one single family residence. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 458-2824. A representative of the City will also be in attendance at the public hearing. Sincerely, Kim Lindquist, AICP Community Development Director Cc; Mayor and City Council Members Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator