The URL can be used to link to this page

2.5 Adoption of Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.2271100 Fax: 952.2271110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227 1180 Fax: 952.227 1190 Engineering Phone 952.227 1160 Fax: 952.2271170 Finance Phone: 952.2271140 Fax: 952.2271110 Park & Recreation Phone 952.227 1120 Fax 952.227 1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227 1400 Fax: 952.2271404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone 952.227 1130 Fax: 952.227 1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone 952.227 1300 Fax 952.2271310 Senior Center Phone 952.227 1125 Fax 952.227 1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us ~.5 MEMORANDUM To: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager From: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordmator ~ Date: August 28, 2006 Re: Adoption of Second GeneratIon Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) REQUESTED ACTION: Simple Majority Vote Required Staff recommends the City Council approve the resolution adopting the Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In November 2004, the City Council approved a contract with Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) for the completion of the Surface Water Management Plan update. Since then, City staff has been workmg with SEH to draft an updated plan that will guide the management of the City's lakes, creeks, wetlands and storm water mfrastructure for years to come. PublIc comment has been received on the plan and incorporated into the final draft of the plan. (The draft plan is available on the City's website at www.c1.chanhassen.mn.us.Alink to the Surface Water Management Plan Update page is available on the right-hand edge of the page under "What's New." A copy of the final draft of the plan will be available at the meeting.) The final step in the Surface Water Management Plan update process is for the plan to receive final approval from the City Council. Upon final approval, the plan WIll be printed and distributed. Then, City staff will begin rewriting applicable portions of City Code to ensure the City's regulations are consistent with the recommendations set forth in the plan. Staff anticipates the code revIsions will be complete by December 31, 2006. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Plannmg Commission held a public hearing on April 4, 2006 to review the draft Surface Water Management Plan and receive public comment. The public heanng was continued to the commission's May 2 meeting and was closed at that tIme. On August 15, the Planning Commission revIewed all publIc comment receIved dunng the comment period, as well as the responses The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. AdoptIon of Second Generation SWMP August 28, 2006 Page 2 of 2 prepared by staff to those comments. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan. RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motIon: "The City Council approves the resolution adopting the Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan." ATTACHMENTS 1. ResolutIOn Adopting the Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan. 2. Planning Commission staff report dated August 15,2006. G"\ENG\Lori\SWMP\2006 SWMP Update\Final Plan\Final Plan Adoption 082806 CC.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: AU2Ust 28. 2006 RESOLUTION NO: MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SECOND GENERATION SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS the 1994 Surface Water Management Plan no longer accurately reflects the conditIOn of and priontles for surface water management within the City; and WHEREAS the lakes, creeks, wetlands and ponds within Chanhassen provide multiple benefits to residents and businesses, including water quality, water quantity, habitat, recreation and open space; and WHEREAS the CIty CouncIl assigns great importance to the protection of life and property, as well as the quality of Chanhassen's surface waters for future generatIons; and WHEREAS the regulatory climate surrounding water resource management (specifically the management of stormwater) has changed SIgnificantly in the past twelve years, increaSIng the standards to which water resources must be protected and/or Improved; and WHEREAS this plan will assist the City In managing its surface waters, improVIng the city's existing infrastructure, and maximizing opportunities to protect and enhance waterbodies from this point forward; and WHEREAS the CIty Council recognizes the contributions of the Surface Water Management Plan Task Force In developing a plan that will be both practical and proactive with respect to surface water management; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chanhassen adopts the Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen CIty Council this 28th day of August, 2006. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor YES NO ABSENT g:\eng\lori\swmp\2006 swmp update\final plan\final plan resolution 082806.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227 1100 Fax 952.2271110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.2271180 Fax 952.227 1190 Engineering Phone: 952.2271160 Fax: 952.227 1170 Finance Phone 952.227 1140 Fax 952.2271110 Park & Recreation Phone 952.2271120 Fax 952.2271110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.2271400 Fax 952.227 1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone 952.2271130 Fax 952.2271110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone 952.227 1300 Fax 952.2271310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227 1125 Fax 952.2271110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us [!J MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Lori Haak, Water Resources CoordInator ~ 6Vd August 15, 2006 FROM: DA TE: RE: Adoption of Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) BACKGROUND The CIty of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) was completed in 1994. Its purpose is to set forth a strategy for the management of storm water, wetlands, lakes and creeks as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Since the City has grown substantially In the past 12 years, it was necessary for the City to reevaluate its approach to water resources management. Additionally, the City will be updating its Comprehensive Plan by 2008. The Second Generation SWMP will be a key pIece of that update. The draft plan is available on the City's website at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. A lInk to the Surface Water Management Plan Update page is available on the right -hand edge of the page under "What's New." A hard copy of the draft plan is also available for public review during normal business hours at City Hall. SWMP UPDATE PROCEDURE On Apnl4, 2006, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing on the agency review draft of the City's SWMP (Attachment 11). Comments were received from two members of the public. The public hearing was continued to the Planning Commission's May 2,2006 meeting (Attachment 12). No additional public comments were received at that time. The SWMP is appearing before the Planning Commission again for review of public comments and responses, and to receive the Planning Commission's recommendation for City Council approval. Following Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, the SWMP will be brought before the City Council for their final review and approval. The SWMP will then be adopted and printed. Staff will then begin rewriting appropriate sections of City Code to implement the recommendations set forth in the SWMP. The Planning Commission and City Council will reVIew the code The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a challl1ing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. SWMP Update Public Heanng August 15,2006 Page 2 of 3 amendments prior to adoption to ensure consistency with the goals and policies of the Second Generation SWMP. ANALYSIS The City also solicited comments from reviewing agencies, including Metropolitan Council, Carver County, Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. Written comments were received from several of the agencies (Attachments 5-9). Responses to those comments were written and sent to each commentmg agency (Attachments 1-4). The comments of the public and reviewmg agencIes have been considered by City staff and the City's consultant, SEH. Where appropriate, SEH incorporated the comments into the final version of the plan. City staff is confident that all appropriate comments have been addressed. One copy of the updated draft of the plan will be available at the meeting; however, another draft of the plan will not be distributed. The final printing of the plan will follow City Council approval and adoption of the plan. RECOMMENDA TION The Planning Commission should review the comments received from the public and the responses provided by SEH and City staff. Upon review of the comments and responses, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends the CIty Council approve the City of Chanhassen's Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan as revised." ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from E. Krueger to B. Obermeyer (RPBCWD), dated July 11,2006 2. Letter from E. Krueger to M. Wyatt (MCWD), dated July 12, 2006 3. Letter from E. Krueger to P. Moline (Carver County), dated July 13, 2006 4. Letter from E. Krueger to T. Schwalbe (LMRWD), dated August 1,2006 5. Memo from P. Moline (Carver County) to E. Krueger, dated May 8, 2006 6. Letter from W. Moore (Metropolitan Council) to T. Gerhardt, dated May 9, 2006 7. Letter from M. Wyatt (MCWD) to L. Haak, dated May 12, 2006 8. Letter from B. Obermeyer (RPBCWD) to L. Haak, dated May 26, 2006 9. Memo from D. Edgerton to T. Schwalbe (LMRWD), dated July 25, 2006 10. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Request for Board Action, dated July 20, 2006 G:\ENG\LoriISWMPI2006 SWMP Update\Agency Review Draft\081506 PC Staff Repon.doc ~ SEH July 11, 2006 RE: City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan Agency Review Comment Responses SEH No. A-CHANH0409.00 Bob Obermeyer District Engineer Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District 4 700 West 77th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803 Dear Mr. Obermeyer: Thank you for taking the time to complete a thorough review of the Chanhassen Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan (Plan). This letter is in response to your review comments dated May 26, 2006. Key members ofthe City/SEH project team met to discuss each item as presented in this letter. The format of our response provides the original comments from the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) letter followed by a description of how the City intends to address the comment in the final Plan. We have numbered the comments as they were numbered in your comment letter. The City understands that the RPBCWD will approve the fmal Plan contingent upon incorporation of these changes in the final document. 1. The Watershed District is in the process of preparing the Third Generation Water Management Plan. It is anticipated that this Plan will be completed and proceed through the review process in 2006. In accordance with Minnesota Statute 103B.235, the Local Water Management Plans must be approved by the District to ensure consistency with the Management objectives of the District's Plan. The City's Plan will require review, once the District's Plan is approved, to ensure the requirements of the District's Plan have been met. The City's Plan will be reviewed once the RPBCWD Third Generation Plan has been approved to ensure consistency. 2. The 1996 Water Management Plan of the District laid out a format and schedule for completing an inventory of the water resources throughout the District. To date, all of the Lake Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) for the lakes in the city of Chanhassen has been completed and this information has been provided to the City. These UAA 's provide a detailed assessment of the existing and future water quality of the resource and recommendation for achieving the water quality goal listed in the District's Management Plan. To ensure consistency with the District's 1996 Water Management Plan, the City's plan must provide and describe the recommendations of these UAA's and how the City proposes to achieve these goals. A summary of the recommendations from the RPBCWD UAA's for the lakes in Chanhassen have been added to Section IV part B. of the Plan. Tables 20 and 23 in Section IV of the Plan include Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive. St. Paul, MN 55 II 0-5196 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com I 651490.2000 I 800.3252055 I 651490.2150 fax Bob Obermeyer July 11, 2006 Page 2 the design standards and recommended projects for each lake in the City of Chanhassen. Appendix I contains a list of recommended storm water ponds in the City. The list includes storm water ponds that have been built since the 1994 Plan, and planning level cost estimates for ponds that have not been constructed yet. The City's proposed locations of storm water ponds are consistent with the RPBCWD's recommendations in the UAA's. The City will continue to work with the RPBCWD as opportunities arise to construct both Plans' recommended storm water ponds. The following paragraphs were added to Section IV part B of the Plan, under the summaries of each lake in the RPBCWD. Lake Ann The RPBCWD completed a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) for Lake Lucy and Lake Ann in 1999. The UAA set specific goals and recommendations for water quality and quantity in the Lake Ann Watershed. The following recommended BMPs were included in the UAA: · Preserve all existing wetlands in the watershed. · Add five ponds in the Lake Ann watershed in areas that contribute significant particulate phosphorus loads to each lake. · Provide infiltration basins throughout the Lake Ann watershed in areas that experience a significant change in impervious area between existing and future (Year 2020) land use conditions. · Manage the lake's macrophytes by continuing to survey communities in order to detect nuisance, non-native growths. Refer to Figure Ex-8 in the Lake Lucy and Lake Ann UAA for the proposed locations for upgraded and additional storm water ponds. Most of the recommended locations for additional storm water ponds in the Lake Ann watershed are addressed in Appendix I of the Plan. The City will continue to work with the RPBCWD as opportunities arise to construct the additional storm water treatment ponds in the Lake Ann watershed. Lotus Lake The RPBCWD completed a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) for Lotus Lake in 2005. The UAA set specific goals and recommendations for water quality in Lake Lotus. It was determined in the UAA that watershed loading provides approximately 23 percent of the annual total phosphorus to the lake, while internal loading (caused by direct release of phosphorus from lake sediments) provides approximately 62 percent of the annual total phosphorus to the lake. The UAA also states that improving the lake's water clarity will likely result in increased curlyleaf pondweed and Eurasian water rnilfoil unless a vegetation management program is completed first. Therefore following implementation plan was selected for the management of aquatic plants and water quality in Lotus Lake: · Herbicide treatment of curlyleaf pondweed and Eurasian watermilfoil for 4 years followed by 3 consecutive years of alum treatment. Bob Obermeyer July 11, 2006 Page 3 · Beetles (Galerucella pusilla, Galerucella calmariensis) will be introduced in purple loosestrife infested areas to control shoreline purple loosestrife and promote native vegetation. The City will continue to work with the RPBCWD on the implementation plan for the Lotus Lake. Lake Lucy The RPBCWD completed a Use AttainabilIty Analysis (UAA) for Lake Lucy and Lake Ann in 1999. The UAA set specific goals and recommendations for water quality and quantity in the Lake Lucy Watershed. The following recommended BMPs were included in the UAA: · Preservation of al existing wetlands in the Lake Lucy watershed. · Upgrade two ponds in the Lake Lucy watershed to provide more wet detention for stormwater treatment. · Add seven ponds in the Lake Lucy watershed areas that contribute significant particulate phosphorus loads to the lake. Refer to Figure Ex-8 in the Lake Lucy and Lake Ann UAA for the proposed locations for upgraded and additional storm water ponds. Most of the recommended locations for additional storm water ponds in the Lake Lucy watershed are addressed in Appendix I of the Plan. The City will continue to work with the RPBCWD as opportunities arise to construct the additional storm water treatment ponds in the Lake Lucy watershed. Rice Marsh Lake The RPBCWD completed a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) for Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Susan in 1999. The UAA set specific goals and recommendations for water quality and quantity in the Rice Marsh Lake watershed. The following recommended BMPs were included in the UAA: · Upgrade five ponds in the Rice Marsh Lake watershed. · Add four ponds in the Rice Marsh Lake watershed. · Treat Rice Marsh Lake with in-lake alum treatment. Refer to Figure Ex-7 in the Lake Susan and Rice Marsh Lake UAA for the proposed locations for upgraded and additional storm water ponds. Most of the recommended locations for additional storm water ponds in the Rice Marsh Lake watershed are addressed in Appendix I of the Plan. According to the 2005 wetland and storm water pond inventory, improvements have made at several locations within the Rice Marsh Lake watershed. The City will continue to work with the RPBCWD as opportunities arise to construct the additional storm water treatment ponds in the Rice Marsh Lake watershed. Lake Riley The RPBCWD completed a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) for Lake Riley in 2002. The UAA set specific goals and recommendations for water quality and quantity in the Lake Riley watershed. The following recommended BMPs were included in the UAA: Bob Obermeyer July 11,2006 Page 4 . Treat Rice Marsh Lake with alum and lime slurry. · Treat Lake Riley with alum. · Treat highway runoff by constructing three ponds in the Lake Riley watershed. Refer to Figure 14 in the Lake Riley UAA for the proposed locations for upgraded and additional storm water ponds. Most of the recommended locations for additional storm water ponds in the Lake Riley watershed are addressed in the TH 212 storm water management system. The City will continue to work with the RPBCWD as opportunities arise to construct the additional storm water treatment ponds in the Lake Riley watershed. Lake Susan The RPBCWD completed a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) for Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Susan in 1999. The UAA set specific goals and recommendations for water quality and quantity in the Rice Marsh Lake watershed. The following recommended BMPs were included in the UAA: · Upgrade or improve nine storm water ponds in the Lake Susan watershed. . Add eight storm water ponds in the Lake Susan watershed. · Treat Lake Susan with an in-lake alum treatment. Refer to Figure Ex-7 in the Lake Susan and Rice Marsh Lake UAA for the proposed locations for upgraded and additional storm water ponds. Most of the recommended locations for additional storm water ponds in the Lake Susan watershed are addressed in Appendix I of the Plan. In-lake alum treatment has been used in the past to provide improvement to Lake Susan's water quality. The City will continue to work with the RPBCWD as opportunities arise to construct the additional storm water treatment ponds and provide additional treatment in the Lake Susan watershed. 3. The 1996 Water Management Plan of the District provides a Physical and Ecological Use Classification of Purgatory, Riley, and Bluff Creeks. To ensure consistency with the District's 1996 Water Management Plan, the City's Plan must provide and describe a description of these stream classifications and how the City proposes to achieve the stream conditions as described. A summary of the physical and ecological use stream classifications from the RPBCWD Water Management Plan have been added to Section IV, part C of the Plan. The following text has been added to the Plan. The RPBCWD Water Management Plan (RPBCWD Plan) provides Physical and Ecological Use Classifications of Purgatory, Riley and Bluff Creeks. The classification system for physical classification is the David L. Rosgen system. According to the RPBCWD Plan, this system describes a stream on a reach-by-reach basis, and therefore one stream can have several different stream types. The stream type is defined by the shape, pattern, and profile of the reach. Please see Figures PC1 and PC2 in Appendix _ for an illustration of these parameters. Please refer to the RPBCWD Plan for more information on the classification methodology. Bob Obermeyer July 11, 2006 Page 5 According to the RPBCWD Plan, the classification system used for ecological classification of Purgatory, Riley and Bluff Creeks is based on procedures that have been developed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). The purpose ofthese procedures is to provide a scientific method for designating uses according to a stream's natural ability to support a certain biological community. Please see Tables EUCI and EUC2 in Appendix_ for the criteria used in the ecological classification of Purgatory, Riley and Bluff Creeks. Please refer to the RPBCWD Plan for more information on the classification methodology. The physical and ecological use classifications of Purgatory, Riley and Bluff Creeks was added to Section IV, part C of the Plan. The following paragraphs were added under each summary of the creeks. Bluff Creek The RPBCWD Plan physically classifies five reaches of Bluff Creek. Most of the creek consists ofC and E stream type, with some portions of type B and type F. The RPBCWD Plan states that · Improving the physical characteristics of Bluff Creek where necessary will improve the ability of the stream to convey surface waters without eroding and also improve the ecological characteristics and aesthetics of the stream. · Problems are described as follows: o B2 - Bank stability problems were observed, this is due party to wet clay soils and change in gradient o B3 - Loss of meandering due to straightening and grazing was observed o B4 - This reach is likely a degraded C stream type, resulting from the upstream railroad culvert and downstream channel straightening. The ecological classification for Bluff Creek is mostly Ecological Use Class D and E, according to the RPBCWD Plan. Habitat improvement in the downstream portion of Bluff Creek will result in an ecological use classification change from Class D to Class C. The RPBCWD Plan states that the ecological use of Bluff Creek is limited by its low flow and habitat conditions, but the stream provides habitat for many species of aquatic life. The RPBCWD Plan's main recommendation for preserving Bluff Creek as a valuable resource is to preserve a corridor of undeveloped land along Bluff Creek and preserving the biotic integrity ofthe stream. Purgatory Creek According to the RPBCWD Plan, the physical classification for Purgatory Creek in the reach that's located within Chanhassen is a Type C Channel. The RPBCWD Plan states that there was some loss of meandering observed at the reach located in Chanhassen. The RPBCWD Plan also states that the existing ecological use for Purgatory Creek within Chanhassen is Ecological Use Classification E. This is also the attainable ecological use class. Bob Obermeyer July 11,2006 Page 6 Riley Creek According to the RPBCWD Plan, four reference reaches of Riley Creek were physically classified. Most of the creek consists of type C and E stream, with some portions of type B stream. The RPBCWD Plan states that: · Improving the physical characteristics of Riley Creek where necessary will improve: (1) the ability of the stream to continue to naturally meander without eroding bank areas, and (2) the ecological characteristics and aesthetics of the stream. · Observations of problems at particular reference reaches are described as follows: o Rl - Stream bank erosion and slumping was observed; this is due to the natural meandering of the stream impinging upon the steep valley walls. o R2 - Channel downcutting was observed due to an upstream culvert concentrating overbank flows through the narrow valley. o R4 - Bank erosion and bed degradation due to upstream channel straightening. The ecological classification for Riley Creek is mostly Ecological Use Class D, with a small portion of Ecological Use Class E, according to the RPBCWD Plan. The attainable habitat improvements for ecological use in this stream are related to attainable changes in the physical stream conditions. The RPBCWD Plan identifies the following habitat improvements that can be attained by solving the creek's bank erosion and slumping problems in the downstream reaches: · Reduced watershed erosion · Reduced bank erosion · Improved bank erosion · Reduced lower bank deposition . Less bottom deposition · Improved bottom substrate and available cover · Improved depth in riffles/runs and pools. By attaining these habitat improvements the ecological use classification will change from Class E to Class C. Please refer to the RPBCWD Plan for more information regarding the physical and ecological use classification for Riley Creek. Table 20 in Section IV includes design standards and recommendations for improving the creeks in Chanhassen. Appendix D, Development Standards, also provides standards for designers to meet for proposed projects adjacent to the creeks. 4. The District has been managing development riparian to the streams since 1973. To ensure consistency with the District's 1996 Water Management Plan, the District flood profile must be included in the City's Plan. The District flood profile has been included in Section IV, part C of the Plan. Bob Obermeyer July 11,2006 Page 7 5. The Plan notes that a number of inconsistencies exist between the City's Plan and the Watershed District's Feasibility Study for Bluff Creek. The City's Plan should outline and describe the City's management plan and objectives for Bluff Creek. The City's goal is to de-list Bluff Creek on the State's list of impaired waters. The City will continue to work with RPBCWD on this process. Please contact me at 651.765.2933 if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. ~~ Proj ect Engineer ek c: Lori Haak s:\aelc\chanh\040900\draft-final swmp planslagency review - commentsl,pbcwd comments and infol,pbcwd response lelter.doc Jl.. SEH July 12,2006 RE: City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Surface Water Management Plan Agency Review Comment Responses SEH No. A-CHANH0409.00 Mr. Mike Wyatt MCWD PlannerlProgram Manager Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 Dear Mr. Wyatt: Thank you for taking the time to complete a thorough review of the Chanhassen Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan (Plan). This letter is in response to your review comments dated May 12,2006, and to our discussion on July 5,2006. Key members of the City/SEH project team met to discuss each item as presented in this letter. The format of our response provides the original comments from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) letter followed by a description of how the City intends to address the comment in the final Plan. We have numbered the comments as they were numbered in your comment letter. The City understands that the MCWD will approve the final Plan contingent upon incorporation of these changes in the final document. Attached to this letter is also the MCWD Final Draft Plan, in which all ofthe comments by the MCWD have been addressed. The City will continue with its Plan to be consistent with the MCWD's approved Second Generation Plan. Subp. 1 - Incomplete - The City should amend this section (on page 1) to address the purpose of multiple water management programs as dictated above. Please see sections IA and IB of the Plan for a discussion on the multiple water management programs. The following text has been added to section I.B.l.b, 'The Plan is geared towards meeting the mutual goals of all of the WMO's within the City'. Subp. 2 - Incomplete The City should include any water resources related agreements in the plan or state otherwise if no such agreements exist. The following text has been added to the Plan: 'The City of Chanhassen has an agreement with the Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District (CCSWCD) that states the CCSWCD will assist the City in performing Erosion and Sediment Control Inspections at construction projects in the City. The City also has an agreement for the Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) that includes monitoring at 4 lakes within the City; Lake St. Joe, Lotus Lake, Lake Susan, and Lake Riley.' Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110-5196 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com I 651490.2000 I 800.3252055 I 6514902150 fax Mr. Mike Wyatt July 12, 2006 Page 2 Subp. 4 -Incomplete, 8410.0060 requires each ofthefollowing. · Functional Assessment of Wetlands - Incomplete: Several wetlands within the City Wetland Inventory deviate significantly in size from the MCWD Inventory completed with the Functional Assessment of Wetlands (2003). Of particular concern are wetlands: 1. D116-23-05-005 2. D116-23-04-006 3. D116-23-09-001 4. D116-23-09-004 5. D116-23-16-004 Discrepancies between the City of Chanhassen and MCWD Inventories must be resolved prior to plan approval. The City will adopt the MCWD inventory and will use both the McRAM and the City's MnRAM data sets to assess wetlands in the area of the City that is within the MCWD. The following text has been added to section V.C.6 of the Plan. 'The City will have two sets of wetland inventories for the area of the City that is within the MCWD. The City will adopt the McRAM data that the MCWD completed in 2002, along with the City's MnRAM data that was completed in 2005. Both data sets will be used for wetland assessments in this area of the City' . · Summary table of peak discharges, 1 OO-year flood level, and flood profile of stormwater ponds and natural conveyances - Incomplete The City's model has been updated from the 1994 Plan, which modeled these areas as ponds. The following paragraph has been added to section IILA.1 of the Plan. 'There are several natural conveyances within the City, including the 5 streams discussed in this Plan. These streams are modeled as ponds or reaches in the HydroCAD model, since most streams are conveyed through wetlands that provide additional storage volume. Other more detailed hydrologic and hydraulic models are available for some ofthe natural conveyances within the City. · Identification of flood problem areas - Incomplete: Page 21 states the need for emergency overflows and flow paths through the City. These areas should be identified along with any other flood problem areas in the Plan. The City does not have any flood problem areas. The high water levels at Lotus Lake have been identified in the Plan. The City wishes to improve as a whole the maintenance of emergency overflow routes and ensure new ponds provide emergency overflow routes. The issues with the large storms that occurred in the fall of 2005 were at locations adjacent to construction sites or due to failure of infrastructure, such as a blocked outlet. The following text regarding land-locked basins has been added to section III. A. I. 'MCWD has identified four subwatersheds with land-locked basins located partially within the City of Chanhassen. The MCWD requires these basins to continue to be managed as land-locked basins'. · Listing of Flood Insurance Studies - Incomplete A list of the Flood Insurance Studies has been added to Section IILA. 'Water Quantity' of the Plan. Mr. Mike Wyatt July 12, 2006 Page 3 · Map or list of surface water monitoring sites - Incomplete A list of the surface water monitoring sites has been added to Section III B. 'Water Quality' of the Plan. · Groundwater resource data - Incomplete A 'Groundwater Resource Data' section was added to the Plan under section II.J. The following text was added, 'According to the RPBCWD Water Management Plan, the groundwater system is comprised of the glacial drift water table and the underlying bedrock aquifers which are partially in artesian condition, meaning water in the bedrock is maintained under pressure by confining upper layers. In many places, the Jordan Formation is a source of water to Riley, Purgatory and Bluff Creeks. · Fish and Wildlife Habitat - Incomplete: Plan should include conclusions and recommendations of available biological surveys as well as wildlife management plans A 'Fish and Wildlife Habitat' section was added to the Plan under section ILK. The following text was added, 'As Identified in Section II (Background, History, and Physical Environment) Part G (Unique Features and Scenic Areas) The City of Chanhassen has adopted a Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan to address the specific concerns of development along the creek corridor and bluff areas. There is also a Bluff Creek Overlay District, which would protect critical wildlife corridors and habitat. Section 5 (Wetlands), Part D (Functions and Values Assessment) of the SWMP also includes.a brief description of the critical resource areas that would be identified as outstanding fish and wildlife habitat. These sources include Seminary fen, Raguet Wildlife Management Area, Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge, and Assumption Creek. This section also discusses the results of the County Biological Survey completed for Carver, Hennepin, and Scott Counties, and the concentration of critical habitat, both upland and wetland, along the Minnesota River bluffs, and the occurrence of the least darter in Lake Minnewashta. The MCWD has identified wetlands along the eastern side of Lake Minnewashta as exceptional or high aesthetic value and exceptional or high wildlife habitat'. · Map of unique features and scenic areas - Incomplete: Plan should include a map of unique features and the City should also reconsider amending page 16 to also include Christmas Lake. Christmas Lake is one of the highest quality waters within the metropolitan area supporting a trout fishery and extremely high water clarity. Figure 7 has been updated to show the unique features in the City. The City agrees that Christmas Lake is a valued resource and considered including Christmas Lake as a unique feature, however that City has decided not to add it to this section of the Plan. · Pollutant sources - Incomplete: Plan must identify landfills, dumps, hazardous sites, feedlots, abandoned wells. Storage tanks, and permitted discharges The Plan references the MPCA website for information on pollutant sources in the City. The Plan will not identify the locations of these pollutant sources since these locations change frequently and the data is readily available from the MPCA. The following sentence has been added to Mr. Mike Wyatt July 12, 2006 Page 4 section II.A of the Plan. 'The City of Chanhassen does not have any landfills, dumps, hazardous sites, or feedlots within its boundaries' . Subp. 5 - Complete - The framework for water management is well done, however, MCWD encourages the City to reconsider the categorization of both Christmas Lake and Lake Minnewashta within the Improve-2 category. Given their high resource value, Christmas Lake in particular, warrants consideration of the Improve-l, if not the Preserve, level of management. The City considered changing the classification of Christmas Lake and Lake Minnewashta but decided to leave them as 'Improve-2' water bodies. The City is protecting and will continue to protect the water quality of both of these lakes. The City needs to prioritize and has decided to put higher prioritization and higher standards on lakes that have lower water quality and need considerable improvement. The City is willing to continue to work with the MCWD on projects in both of these subwatersheds, and will continue to require enhanced treatment in these areas as opportunities exist. Subp. 6 - Incomplete: The Plan lacks detail on existing and future problems related to water quantity and quality resultingfrom development. Future loading to area waters and increases in volume should be considered in order for the City to meet State requirements. The MCWD Third Generation Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan will address these issues (see discussion below). Consistency with this Plan will assist the City in meeting its requirements and allow for coordination of efforts between organizations in the future. Refer to Section III.A for a discussion on potential and existing problems related to water quality and quantity from development and a discussion on potential impacts from increases in volume. Subp. 7 - Incomplete: The recommendations identified in the Christmas Lake and Lake Minnewashta watersheds are not translated to capital projects in the Implementation section of the plan. For instance, the Christmas Lake recommendations cite the need to "Implement BMP 's in the Chanhassen areas tributary to the lake, " but the Implementation section lacks sufficient detail on the location, timeline, cost, or purpose of the proposed best management practices. MCWD is intent on coordinating efforts with local plans in the future. Providing detail within both the MCWD Third Generation Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan as well as the Local Surface Water Management Plan, will allow the two organizations to identifY and collaborate on projects which benefit shared resources. The City's intent is to work with the MCWD to implement projects on a cooperative basis. Because these opportunities are not typically well defined until well into a project, the City has not called out specific projects. Appendix I of the Plan contains a list of proposed storm water ponds within the City and a planning level cost estimate. Subp. 8 - Incomplete: See above. Many recommendations for corrective action and improvements are not translated to the Implementation Plan nor provided with an adequate budget. In addition, while the City has identified the projected costs of implementation for some of the proposed actions, more detail should be provided on how these proposed projects fit within the larger context of the City budget (refer to Statutory requirements cited above). The City's storm water program is an independent, self-supporting system. The City is committed to its current funding program/plan. An approximate total surface water management budget amount has been added to Section VI.B of the Plan. The following text was added to the Plan. 'The average annual budget Mr. Mike Wyatt July 12,2006 Page 5 for capitol improvements related to surface water management is approximately $1,000,000 +/- $400,000. The discrepancy is due to the different types of projects that are completed each year, which are often driven by the street improvement projects the City is completing. The operating budget is approximately $1,000,000. This number also varies from year to year. Subp. 9 - Incomplete: MCWD did not find reference to implementation priorities. A prioritized list will be included in Plan. However, the City will also review these priorities on an ongoing basis towards achieving the most benefit for the funding available at the time, and considering the changing needs of the water resources. Subp. 10 - Incomplete: Capital improvements should be evaluated to ensure that the goals of the plan are met and then prioritized for implementation. A prioritized list will be included in Plan. However, the City will also review these priorities on an ongoing basis towards achieving the most benefit for the funding available at the time, and considering the changing needs of the water resources. MCWD Second Generation Plan 11) Wetland Regulation: Incomplete · No net loss of wetland quality, quantity: Regulation must note that mitigation for WCA approved impacts is required within the same subwatershed. Within the City of Chanhassen, there are two subwatersheds: the Lake Virginia Subwatershed (including Lake Minnewashta) and the Christmas Lake Subwatershed. 1: 1 mitigation is also required for excavation within wetlands per MCWD Rule D. The following text has been added to the 'Wetland Elements' section in Appendix D of the Plan. 'Mitigation for WCA approved impacts is required within the same watershed. In the areas of the City that is within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, 1: 1 mitigation is required for excavation within wetlands. This will be addressed during ordinance adoption for the Wetland Ordinance. · Wetland Buffers: The City should be commended on its high standard for wetland buffers. Implementation of this action will result in a positive effect on the water quality of area resources as well as provide many secondary benefits. It is unclear, however, what constitutes a wetland buffer. MCWD defines buffer areas as undisturbed natural vegetation not subject to disturbance. Many communities extend this requirement to define a buffer as natural vegetation, free of exotic, invasive or nuisance species. Regardless of the direction that the City wishes to take, clarification is requested to differentiate between a buffer and a building setback. Refer to definition of 'buffer' in the Glossary on page B-2. Mr. Mike Wyatt July 12,2006 Page 6 Erosion and Sediment Controls: Incomplete . Standards should indicate when an erosion control permit is required. MCWD standards are greater than 5000 square feet of disturbance or 50 cubic yards of excavation The City's Development Standards in Appendix D ofthe Plan state that an erosion control plan shall be created for 'any land dIsturbing activity'. Local Shoreland and Floodplain Ordinances: Incomplete . The Plan must note the adoption of both sets of ordinances (MCWD assumes that efforts have been made in this regard, however, ordinances should be current with existing State requirements) The City has a Shoreland Management District (Section 20, Article VII) and a Floodplain Overlay District (Section 20, Article V) ordinances in effect that have been approved by the DNR. . MCWD Floodplain requirements: o Preservation of existing water storage below 1 OO-year flood elevations Policy 11: Preserve existing water storage volume below the 100-year flood elevation has been added to Goal 1: Water Quantity in Section III ofthe Plan. o Structures must be located a minimum of two-feet above the projected 1 OO-year flood elevation The City's requirement is to located structures a minimum of three-feet above the projected 100-year flood elevation. This is included in the Water Quantity Goals and Policies and in the Development Standards in Appendix D. Water Quality and Stormwater Performance Standards . In-Lake Nutrient Concentrations: Incomplete o Christmas Lake (> 20m Deep) = 30 j1g/L Plan must demonstrate how this concentration will be maintained with development o Lake Minnewashta (> 20m Deep) = 30 j1g/L Plan must demonstrate how this concentration will be achieved with development As per our discussion on July 5, a P8 model was created to determine the proposed storm water ponds that would need to be constructed in order to meet the MCWD's 3rd Generation Plan phosphorus loading reduction goals for Lake Minnewashta and Christmas Lake. The following text has been added to Section IV.B.2.b and e: The MCWD's 3rd Generation Water Management Plan, which is in the process of being completed, sets phosphorus loading reduction goals for the cities in the watershed. In the Christmas Lake subwatershed, the phosphorus loading reduction goal for Chanhassen is 7 lbs/year. By constructing two of the proposed ponds in Appendix I, ponds CL-Pl.2A and CL-P2.2, Chanhassen will be meeting this phosphorus reduction goal. Mr. Mike Wyatt July 12, 2006 Page 7 The MCWD's 3rd Generation Water Management Plan, which is in the process of being completed, sets phosphorus loading reduction goals for the cities in the watershed. In the Lake Minnewashta subwatershed, the phosphorus loading reduction goal for Chanhassen is 27 lbs/year. By constructing the first 10 prioritized ponds listed in Appendix I, Chanhassen will be meeting this phosphorus reduction goal. The 10 ponds include: . LM-P4.2 . LM-P5.2 . LM-P8.9 . LM-P1.l2 . LM-P3.l6 . LM-P5.20 . LM-P8.8 . LM-P1.5 . LM-P4.3 . LM-P8.10 . Maximum Permissible Runoff Rates: Incomplete o Existing peak rates should not be exceeded for 1, 10, and 100-year events in each subwatershed. Plan must demonstrate how this will be achieved with development. . Design Criteriafor Stormwater Outlet Structures: Incomplete o Stormwater facilities must remove jloatables from runoff of one-year event o Stormwater facilities must be located on drainage, utility and/or jlowage easements o Stormwater facilities must meet MPCA design standards for pollutant removal efficiency Refer to City's Development Standards in Appendix D, all of the above issues are included. . Best Management Practices: Incomplete o Street sweeping must be performed twice each year by the municipality on all streets and public ways; one in the spring after snowmelt and once in the autumn after leaf-fall. Street sweeping is addressed in the City's 2006 SWPPP, which is incorporated in Appendix J of the Plan. .. . Mr. Mike Wyatt July 12, 2006 Page 8 At this time the City will not be addressing the comments based on the MCWD 3rd Generation Plan, as the Plan has not yet been adopted. Please feel free to contact me at 651.765.2933 if you have any questions, comments or require additional information. Sincerely, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INe. ~Ktw~ Proj ect Engineer ek c: Lori Haak s:\ae\c\chanh\040900\draft-final swmp plans\agency review - comments\mcwd comments response letter.doc ~ SEH July 13, 2006 RE: City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan Agency Review Comment Responses SEH No. A-CHANH0409.00 Paul Moline Carver County Water Management Organization Government Center - Administration Building 600 East 4th Street Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Mr. Moline: Thank you for taking the time to complete a thorough review of the Chanhassen Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan (Plan). This letter is in response to your review comments dated May 8, 2006. Key members of the City/SEH project team met to discuss each item as presented in this letter. The format of our response provides the original comments from the Carver County Water Management Organization (CCWMO) memo followed by a description of how the City intends to address the comment in the final Plan. The City understands that the CCWMO will approve the final Plan contingent upon incorporation of these changes in the final document. 1. Goal 6 states that the City will adopt policies consistent with the Carver County WMo. It does not appear that the city will be seeking delegation from the County to implement the County plan in the CCWMO area. Based on this, the County will still review and approve projects in the CCWMO area. Because the drainage areas do not always map the political jurisdiction, the County will review projects which impact stormwater drainage into the CCWMo. The City intends for the County to continue to review projects which impact stormwater drainage into the CCWMO. 2. The boundaries on figure 2 do not match the Watershedjurisdictional boundaries. A shapefile has been sent to SEH for use in identifying the political boundary if desired. An additional figure, Figure 2A, will be added to the Plan which shows the jurisdictional boundaries of each watershed unit in Chanhassen. 3. Identification of ISTS issues and City goals, policies, and implementation could not be located in the plan. Mention is made of private system maintenance in Table 7, but no Appendix was referenced. Of particular interest to the County is the area west of Bluff Creek Drive within the CCWMo. The City also needs to be consistent with the County's ISTS ordinance (Chapter 52 of County Code). This is the one area that is not consistent with the County Plan. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive. 5t. Paul. MN 55 II 0-5 196 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com I 651490.2000 I 800.325.2055 I 6514902150 fax Paul Moline July 11, 2006 Page 2 Based on our review, the City's ISTS ordinance is consistent with the County's ISTS ordinance (Chapter 52 of the County Code). Please clarify any additional information on ISTS issues you are looking for in the plan. 4. Carver County should have a consistent reference in document. CCWMO is most appropriate as that is what the State calls us. Page 2 could reference that the CCWMO will update its plan by 2008. Both changes have been made in the SWMP. Please contact me at 651.765.2933 if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. ~~ Proj ect Engineer ek c: Lori Haak s:laelclchanhl040900ldraft-final swmp planslagency review - commentslcarver county commentslccwmo response letter.doc ~ SEH August 1, 2006 RE: City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan Agency Review Comment Responses SEH No. A-CHANH0409.00 Terry Schwalbe Administrator Lower Minnesota River Watershed District 1600 Bavaria Road Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Mr. Schwalbe: Thank you for taking the time to complete a thorough review of the Chanhassen Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan (Plan). This letter is in response to your review comments dated July 25, 2006. Key members of the City/SEH project team met to discuss each item as presented in this letter. The format of our response provides the original comments from the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (LMRWD) memo followed by a description of how the City intends to address the comment in the final Plan. The City understands the LMRWD will approve the final Plan contingent upon incorporation of these changes in the final document. 1. The WMP calls for the assessment of problems section to include those problems identified in the WMP that affect the local government. For Chanhassen, these specific problems are (1) water quality of Rice Lake (p. 4-9), (2) flooding at Hwy. 212 and railroad (p. 4-14), (3) bank erosion (p. 4-17). No discussion of water quality in Rice Lake is presented in the report as discussed in the WMP. Rice Marsh Lake is discussed, but this water body is outside of the LMRWD. The flooding problem, identified in the WMP at the intersection of Hwy. 212 and the railroad, and the bank erosion problem, identified in the WMP near the LRT trail, are not identified in the L WMP. However, these problems may already have been addressed elsewhere, specifically with the new Hwy. 212 realignment in progress. (1) The following text has been added to Section N .B.2.f of the Plan regarding water quality in Rice Lake. "Rice Lake is located in the southeast comer of the City of Chanhassen, on the border of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. The Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (LMRWD) Plan describes Rice Lake as a floodplain lake. Bluff Creek flows into Rice Lake, and it is located within the Raguet Wildlife Management Area. Very little water quality information is available on this lake. According the LMRWD Plan, floodwaters from the Minnesota River contribute a large portion of the overall nutrients and sediments to this lake, and once the flooding subsides the high sediment and nutrient loads are trapped in the lakes. The LMRWD Plan states that improvement to the Minnesota River water quality will help reduce this heavy sediment and nutrient loading to the floodplain lakes like Rice Lake". Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive. St. Paul. MN 55 II 0-5196 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com I 651490.2000 I 800.325.2055 I 651490.2150 fax Terry Schwalbe August I, 2006 Page 2 (2) The flooding problem at Highway 212 has been alleviated. The railroad bridge discussed in the 1994 Plan has been removed as the railroad grade is now the LRT trail. (3) The following text has been added to Section m.D of the Plan, "The Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (LMRWD) Plan identified a bank erosion problem adjacent to the LRT trail in the northeast quarter of Section 35 in Chanhassen. The City will continue to monitor erosion issues at this site and throughout the City and address these issues as necessary". The City's 'Erosion and Sediment Control' goal and policies address how the City will manage and implement the erosion and sediment control program in the City. ID 2 of the Implementation Plan also addresses how the City will explore opportunities for erosion protection and bank stabilization at key storm water conveyances and outlets. 2. The WMP requires that local governments outline their permitting process for land and wetland alteration work. The permitting process for wetland alteration work, including a recommended draft ordinance, is outlined in the L WMP. The permitting process for land alternation, asidefrom development standards (Appendix Dj, is not outlined in the LWMP. However, this may be included in the City's zoning ordinance. The permitting process for land alteration is included in the City's ordinances. 3. The WMP requires L WMPs to address disturbed shoreland issues. This is not included in the L WMP; however, it may be included in the Shoreland Management District Ordinance. This is included in the Shoreland Management District Ordinance. 4. The WMP calls for L WMPs to require preparation of Runoff Management Plans, as defined in Section 5.13. This is not explicitly included/required in the L WMP. However, detailed development standards (Appendix Dj that meet the overall goals and policies of the LMRWD are included. The City ofChanhassen's ordinances will address the development standards as proposed in Appendix D of the Plan. Once the Plan is adopted, the City's ordinances will be revised to include language and recommendations included in the Plan. 5. The WMP callsfor LWMPs to take on responsibility for operations and maintenance of drainageways. This is not included in the L WMP. The City is responsible for the operation and maintenance of drainageways within the City. Drainageways are considered a part of the City's storm water system and as part of the NPDES MS4 program the City is responsible for operation and maintenance of its storm water system. See Appendix J ofthe Plan for a copy of the City's NPDES permit. The City's website (www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us) also contains the latest information regarding the City's NPDES program. Terry Schwalbe August 1, 2006 Page 3 6. The WMP requires L WMPs to set intercommunity flow rates. These are not included in the LWMP. The City's development standards require existing peak flow rates to be equal to or less than proposed peak flow rates. The City does not have specific intercommunity flow rates identified. 7. The WMP requires LWMPs to consider control offlow rates crossing WMO boundaries or entering major waterbodies. These are not included in the L WMP. The City's development standards require existing peak flow rates to be equal to or less than proposed peak flow rates for all areas of the City. 8. The WMP requires L WMPs to identify Minnesota River bluffs, show steep slopes, and show areas of high erosion potential, and to adopt policies t() manage these areas. This is not included in the L WMP; however, it may be included in the Bluff Protection Ordinance. This is included in the City's Bluff Protection Ordinance. Sincerely, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. , L{ CL 1?]J, -15z tU~(7/ Z \ Erin Krueger, PE ' Proj ect Engineer ek c: Lori Haak, City of Chanhassen Dan Edgerton, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates s:laelclcbanhl040900Idraft-final swmp planslagency review - commentsllmrwmo commentsllmrwd response letter.doc ~ Carver County Land &. Water Services Division - Planning and Zoning GcNerrment Cent:a" - Adllnistration BLilding 600 East 4th Street Olaska, Minnesota 55318 Phone: (952)361-1820 Fax: (952)361-1828 www.co.carver.mn.uslwater Memo To: From: Date: Re: CC. Erin Krueger, SEH Paul Moline, Carver County Water Management 5/8/06 Chanhassen Local Water Management Plan Lori Haak, City of Chanhassen Enclosures: none The purpose of this letter is to summarize issues relating to the City's DRAFT Stormwater Management Plan submitted to the County. The County is performing a review based on requirements of MN Statute 103B.235 and MN Rules 8410.0160 and the County's adopted Water Management Plan. Overall, the plan is consistent with the Carver County Plan. Please contact me if there are any questions. OVERALL CIP and Fundina Reauests It appears that there are no capital requests in the limited CCWMO area. Uniform pOlicies Goal 6 states that the City will adopt policies consistent with the Carver County WMO. It does not appear that the city will be seeking delegation from the County to implement the County plan in the CCWMO area. B~sed on this, the County will still review and approve projects in the CCWMO area. Because the drainage areas do not always map the political jurisdiction, the County will review projects which impact stormwater drainage into the CCWMO. Fioure 2 The boundaries on figure 2 do not match the Watershed jurisdiction boundaries. A shapefile has been sent to SHE for use in identifying the political boundary if desired. ISTS Identification of ISTS issues and City goals, policies, and implementation could not be located in the plan. Mention is made of private system maintenance in Table 7, but no Appendix was referenced. Of particular interest to the County is the area west of Bluff creek Dr within the CCWMO. The City also needs to be consistent with the County's ISTS ordinance (Chapter 52 of County Code) This is the one area, that is not consistent with the County Plan. OTHER Carver County should have a consistent reference in document CCWMO (Carver County Water Resource Management Organization) is most appropriate as that it was the State calls us. Page 2 could reference that the CCWMO will update its plan by 2008. ~ Metropolitan Council Environmental Services May 9, 2006 MCEIVED MAY 1 1 2006 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Todd Gerhardt, City Manager City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Chanhassen Local Water Management Plan (LWMP) Dear Mr. Gerhardt: The MetropolItan Council has completed Its reVlew of the above plan dated March 28, 2006. The Council finds the plan to provIde an excellent framework for managmg storm water m the CIty. In Its 2030 Water Resources Management Policy Plan the CounclllaId out reqUIrements for all local water management plans. (See Attachment A). Smce the CIty'S local water management plan WIll be part of ItS 2008 ComprehensIve Plan, we are revIewmg thIS plan m accordance wIth the attached reqUIrements. It IS recommended that the followmg suggestIons be conSIdered before the plan IS approved by the CIty: 1. The plan calls for a wetland plan to be developed m the future. WIth the rapId growth Chanhassen IS expenencmg the wetland plan should be completed as soon as possible m order to protect the remammg wetlands. 2. The plan dIscusses the use of low Impact development (LID) and mfiltratIOn to mm1m1ze and treat stormwater. Based on the prelImmary modelIng that the Council has done on Bluff Creek, an ImpaIred water, It appears that the most cost effectIve measure to restore the creek IS the use of the above two best management practIces, espeCIally m the lower reaches of the creek. Also the nondegradatIOn reqUIrements of the CIty'S general stormwater permIt will strongly mfluence the use of LID and mfiltratIon. It IS therefore, suggested that these measures be gIVen greater emphaSIS m the plan. 3. Finally the plan notes mconsIstencIes between the CIty'S plan for Bluff Creek and the plans of RIley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed D1StnCt. It IS suggested that these mconsIstenc1es be resolved as soon as possible m order to fully protect Bluff Creek. Thank you for the opportumty to comment on the CIty'S L WMP. Agam the Council belIeves Chanhassen's LWMP IS an excellent framework to manage stormwater m the CIty. If you have any questIOns regardmg the Council's expectatIOns, please contact Jack Frost, of my staff. He can be reached at 651-602-1078. Smcere1y, CV~ WillIam G. Moore General Manager www.metrocouncl1.org Metro Info Line 602-1888 230 East Fifth Street . st. Paul. Minnesota 55101-1626 . (651) 602-1005 . Fax 602-1138 . TIT 291-0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer Attachment cc: Jules SmIth, Metropohtan Council DIstrIct 4 Bob Obermeyer, Barr Eng., Engmeer Rtley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed DIstrIct DaVId Drealan, Carver County WMO Terry Schwalbe, AdmmIstrator Lower Minnesota RIver Watershed DIstrIct Enc Evenson AdmmIstrator, MInnehaha Creek Watershed DIstrIct KeIth Buttleman, AssIstant General Manager, EnvIronmental Quahty Assurance Erin Krueger, Short, Elhott Hendnckson Jim Uttley, Metropohtan CouncIl Sector Representattve ATTACHMENT A Local Water Management Plans Background In the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, all cities and townships are covered by one or more watershed management organization (WMO). WMOs are required to prepare plans to address watershed management issues (see Minn. Stat. Sec. 103B.20l). Cities and townships are required to prepare local water management plans that are consistent with all applicable WMO plans (see Minn. Stat. 103B.235). In addition, Phase I and II NPDES MS4 permit communities are required to prepare stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs). Some MS4 communities are listed as nondegradation communities and required to provide information in their SWPPP related to nondegradation. With the multitude of planning requirements, there is a need to coordinate and consolidate all of these different planning documents. Comprehensive local water management plans (plans that address all of the water management planning requirements out there) are crucial in helping the region meet its goal of no adverse impact on area waterbodies. In 1995, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act was amended to require that each city and township's comprehensive plan include a local water management plan. Local water management plans need to be consistent with the requirements in Minnesota Statutes 103B and in the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Local water management plans are reviewed by the Metropolitan Council (Council) as part of the local comprehensive planning process prior to their approval by the WMO and adoption by the city or township. Local water management plans are crucial in helping the region meet the challenge of cost-effective management of water quality and quantity. Local Water Plan Requirements Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410 (Metropolitan Area Local Water Management), requires the local water management plans to address the specific elements. In the Council's 2030 Regional Development Framework, the Council adopted a water management goal for the region, "the quality of water leaving the metropolitan area is as good as the water quality entering the metropolitan area, and in compliance with federal and state regulations." To meet this goal, the Council has linked the control of pollution from point and nonpoint sources. The 2030 Water Resources Management Policy Plan states that if a community does not have a local water management plan as part of its 2008 comprehensive plan update, the comprehensive plan will be found incomplete for review. If the community has a plan that does not meet Council requirements for local water management plans, the Council will likely find the plan to have an impact on our system, thus requiring a plan modification. The following list is an expansion of the requirements under Chapter 8410. The list is intended to clarify, through additional detail, what communities should do to ensure that their local water management plan is consistent with the Council's 2030 Water Resources Management Policy Plan. 1. Purpose of plan 2. Water resource management related agreements 3. Executive summary 4. Land and water resources inventory (For this requirement and others that follow, communities are encouraged to use as much of the WMO plan as they can. The community should be aware that not all WMO plans will contain the level of detail needed for the community and in those instances, the community will need to provide additional information). 5. Establishment of policies and goals A. All communities need a strong policy statement to show that they are committed to a goal of no adverse impact (nondegradation) for area water resources. B. All communities need goals for their lakes consistent with Watershed Management Organization plan goals. C. The Council's 2030 Regional Development Framework classified communities as urban planning areas (developing and developed areas) and rural planning areas (rural centers, agricultural, diversified rural and rural residential areas). Communities classified as developed or developing and MS4 communities in the rural planning area need to include actions that show the community is committed to the goal of no adverse impact or nondegradation goal for area water resources. Actions should include: 1. Adopting erosion and sediment control ordinances that are consistent with NPDES Construction Stormwater permit and MS4 permit requirements 11. Preparing wetland management plans (refer to 8G for more details of what should be in a wetland management plan) 111. Adopting ordinances that control peak runoff (Suggested guidance - Minnesota Stormwater Manual) IV. Adopting best management practices for development that will result in TSS and TP reductions of 80% and 50% respectively v. Adopting best management practices for redevelopment that will result in TSS and TP reductions (Suggested guidance - Minnesota Stormwater Manual) VI. Including funding mechanisms that support implementation and enforcement D. Developing and developed communities that are a Phase I or Phase II NPDES MS4 permit community need to integrate their Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan policies and goals into their local water management plan, in accordance with MPCA requirements and schedules. E. Developed and developing communities listed as nondegradation communities as part of their NPDES MS4 permit need to revise their Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to include the required information for nondegradation. Nondegradation policies and goals should be summarized or integrated into their local water management plans. F. Rural planning area (rural centers, agricultural, diversified rural and rural residential) communities need to include actions that show the community is committed to the goal of no adverse impact (nondegradation goal) for area water resources. Actions should include: 1. Adopting erosion and sediment control ordinances that are consistent with NPDES Construction Stormwater permit and MS4 permit requirements where applicable 11. Preparing wetland management plans (refer to 8G for more details of what should be in a wetland management plan) 111. Adopting ordinances that control peak runoff IV. Including funding mechanisms that support implementation and enforcement 6. Assessment of problems and corrective actions for problems identified A. All communities need to assess the water quality and quantity related problems in their community, prioritize the problems and include actions to adequately solve the problems that were identified. B. All communities must acknowledge and list any impaired waters within their jurisdiction as shown on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters list. A TMDL is a calculation that determines the allowable pollutant load that can be discharged into the impaired water such that the water is not impaired. A community that discharges water to an impaired waterbody within or adjacent to the community, needs to explain how and ifit intends to be involved with the development of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study. 1. If a TMDL study is not completed, the city should identify the pnority it places on addressing impaired waters and how the city intends to participate in the development or implementation ofTMDL studies. 11. If the city is not directly involved in the TMDL study, the city should show how it intends to implement the study findings once the study is completed by the responsible party. 111. If a TMDL study is completed for the impaired water, the community needs to include an implementation strategy mcluding funding mechanisms that will allow them to carry out the TMDL requirements. More information on the MPCA's TMDL program can be found on the MPCA's web site at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmdllindex.html. 7. Financial considerations A. All communities need to include a 5-year CIP that includes funds to solve the problems identified in number 6 above. B. All communities need to include funding in their CIP or operating budget for ongoing maintenance of their stormwater infrastructure. 8. Implementation priorities and program A. Developed, developing and any MS4 communities in the rural planning area need to provide information on how they intend to manage stormwater: 1. Include an erosion and sediment control ordinance consistent with NPDES Construction Stormwater permit and MS4 permit requirements 11. Identify ways to control runoff rates (suggested guidance - Minnesota Stormwater Manual) so that land-altering activities do not increase peak stormwater flow from the site for a 24-hour precIpitation event with a return frequency of lor 2, lO, and lOO years. 111. Require criteria for wet detention basin mimmum pollutant removal efficiency to protect and improve stormwater runoff quality. Best management practices for development and redevelopment should result in TSS and TP reductions (suggested guidance - Minnesota Stormwater Manual). IV. Require infiltration of the first Y2 inch of runoff from the impervious areas created by new projects where there are A and B soils. Use of infiltration techniques is prohibited in some potential stormwater hotspot areas, e.g. vehicle fueling areas (suggested guidance - Minnesota Stormwater Manual). v. Recommend adding a soil amendment and requiring soil ripping 1 ~- 2 feet after mass grading is complete for all soil types. VI. Require infiltration in wellhead protections areas to be based on the community's wellhead protection plan and at the discretion of the local government. V11. Require pretreatment of stormwater pnor to discharge into all lakes and streams. B. Rural planning area communities, excluding MS4 communities, need to provide information on how they intend to manage stormwater: i. Include an erosion and sediment control ordinance consistent with NPDES Construction Stormwater permit requirements 11. Identify ways to control runoff rates so that land-altering activities do not increase peak stormwater flow from the site for a 24-hour precipitation event with a return frequency of lor 2 years 111. Require criteria for wet detention basin minimum pollutant removal efficiency to protect and improve stormwater runoff quality for areas where development is occurring. Best management practices for redevelopment (suggested guidance - Minnesota Stormwater Manual) should result in TSS and TP reductions. C. All communities with designated trout streams must identify actions in their plan to address the thermal pollution effects from development. D. All communities with special waters, such as outstanding resource value waters, need to meet state requirements for development near these waters (see Appendix A part B.l-8 of the Minnesota Construction General Permit for a list of these waters and Appendix A part C.l-5 for specific requirements). E. All communities need to consider the use of stormwater practices that promote infiltration/filtration and decrease impervious areas (better site design and integrated stormwater management), where practical. F. All communities need to include information on the types of best management practices to be used to improve stormwater quality and quantity and the maintenance schedule for the best management practices. G. All communities need to include a wetland management plan or a process and timeline to prepare a plan. At a minimum, the wetland management plan should incorporate a function and value assessment for wetlands. Other items to address in the plan include the pretreatment of stormwater prior to discharge into all wetland types, and the use of native vegetation as buffers for high quality wetlands. Buffers should be consistent with the functions and values identified in the plan. H. Developed and developing communities that are a Phase II NPDES MS4 permit community need to include information on how the community is meeting the permit conditions for required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans: 1. Public education and outreach 11. Public participation/involvement 111. Illicit discharge detection and elimination IV. Construction site runoff control v. Post-construction runoff control VI. Pollution prevention/good housekeeping. V11. Activities planned to be undertaken along with numencal goals, strategies, and time lines V111. Funding source for the various required activities. I. Developed and developing communities which are required to revise their Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to include the required nondegradation information as part of their NPDES MS4 permit need to summarize or integrate the nondegradation information into the local water management plan. 9. Amendment procedures A. Each local plan must include year the plan extends to and establishes the process by which amendments may be made. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District IS cOlll11lltted to a leadership role m protectmg, 11Ilprovmg, and managmg the swface waters and affihated groundwater resources withm the District, mcludmg their relatIOnships to the ecosystems of which they are anmtegral part, through regulatIOn, capital pro;ects, educatIOn, cooperatIVe endeavors, and other programs based on sound SCience, innovative thinking, an mformed and engaged constituency, and the cost effective use of pubhc funds. Minnehaha Creek. Watershed District Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life Established in 1967 RECEIVED MAY 1 8 2006 CITY OF CHANHASSEN May 12,2006 Lon Haak CIty of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: CIty ofChanhassen Surface Water Management Plan Ms Haak, Thank you for submIttmg the CIty of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan to MCWD for reVIew. It IS the understandmg of MCWD that the submItted plan is currently in draft form and wIll be reVIsed pnor to final approval. ThIS reVIew IS mtended to provIde general guIdance related to areas where the plan may lack sufficient detail or adequate actIOn to comply WIth State Statute as well as the MCWD ComprehensIve Water Resources Management Plan. The City ofChanhassen should be commended on the completIOn of thIS IteratIOn of the plan. MCWD seeks opportunIties to work WIth local commUnIties on ImplementatIOn of efforts to mamtam and Improve shared water resources: reVIew and approval of the Surface Water Management Plan IS the pnmary opportunIty to ensure consistency and coordmatIOn of these efforts m the future. After an mitial reVIew, It is eVIdent that the CIty of Chanhassen has taken great care m analyzing how stormwater IS managed throughout ItS JunsdlCtIOn. The analytIcal work, mode1mg, and deSIgn standards created and performed m conjunction with the plan IS very detaIled and will provIde the CIty WIth a great framework to manage eXIstmg and future stormwater mfrastructure to protect the valued water resources wIthm its boundanes. MCWD IS oblIgated under Statute to evaluate Local Surface Water Management Plans relative to two dIfferent sets of cnteria: 1. State Rules Chapter 8410 (authonzed by State Statute 103B.235) 2. MCWD ComprehensIve Water Resources Management Plan In addItion, MCWD IS currently m the process of completmg ItS Third Generation ComprehensIve Water Resources Management Plan. ThIS plan will address Issues related to water resource management, partIcularly Impaired Waters, whIch will affect all cities WIthin the DIstnct boundanes. Please note, Statute reqUIres that Local Water Management Plans (MUnICIpal Plans) be conSIstent withm two years of adoptIOn of a Watershed Plan. GIVen the SIgnIficant advancements m technIcal knowledge regardmg water resources wIthm the DIStrICt smce the Second Generation Water Resources Mana~ement Plan (1997), the MCWD ThIrd Generation Plan win address Issues m a much greater level of detail compared to the Second GeneratIOn 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Deephaven Minnesota 55391 . Phone: 952-471-0590 . Fax 952-471-0682 . www.minnehahacreek.org Plan. For thIS reason, MCWD strongly encourages the CIty of Chanhassen to reconsIder draftmg its Second GeneratIon Plan to be consIstent WIth the goals, policies and strategies hIghlighted m the upcommg ThIrd GeneratIOn Plan. ThIs has preVIOusly been communicated to CIty of Chanhassen Staff and consultants through the Techmcal Advisory CommIttee process. For the purposes of this reVIew, in addition to the two sets of review cntena noted above, thIS review will also contam mformatIOn related to the MCWD ThIrd GeneratIOn Plan. This letter will first assess comphance wIth State Rules Chapter 8410, then the MCWD ComprehensIve Water Resources Management Plan (1997), and finally the MCWD Third GeneratIon Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. State Rules Chapter 8410 reads as follows: 8410.0170 STRUCTURE. Subpart I Purpose. Each local plan must have a section entitled "Purpose" outlining the purposes of the water management programs required by Minnesota Statutes, sections I 03B.205 to 103B.255 Subp. 1 - Incomplete: the CIty should amend this sectIOn (on page 1) to address the purpose of multIple water management programs as dIctated above. Subp.2. Water resource management related agreements. Appropriate water resource management related agreements that have been entered into by the local community must be outlined, including joint powers agreements related to water management that the local community may be party to between itself and watershed management organizations, adjoining communities, or private parties. Available information concerning these agreements in general conformance with the content of joint powers agreements for organizations as outlined in part 8410.0030 must be included. Subp. 2 - Incomplete: the City should include any water resources related agreements m the plan or state otherwIse if no such agreements eXIst Subp. 3 Executive summary Each plan shall have a section entitled "Executive Summary" that generally summarizes the content of the local plan in a manner similar to that required for organization plans under part 8410.0050. Subp. 3 - Complete Subp. 4 Land and water resource inventory Each local plan must contain a composite land and water resource inventory containing all relevant data from organization plans affecting it consistent with the data required by part 8410.0060. Subp. 4 - Incomplete, 8410.0060 requires each of the following: . Pubhc Water/Pubhc Ditch Map - Complete . NWI Map - Complete . FunctIonal Assessment of Wetlands - Incomplete: Several wetlands wIthm the CIty Wetland Inventory deVIate slgmficantly m SIze from the MCWD Inventory completed WIth the FunctIonal Assessment of Wetlands (2003). Of partIcular concern are wetlands: 1. D116-23-05-005 2. D116-23-04-006 3. D116-23-09-001 4. D116-23-09-004 5. Dl16-23-l6-004 DIscrepancIes between the City of Chanhassen and MCWD InventOrIes must be resolved prior to plan approval. . Table of hydrologIc characteristIcs of PublIc Waters - Complete . Storm water system/pond/outfall map - Complete . Summary table of peak dIscharges, lOO-year flood level, and flood profile of stormwater ponds and natural convevances - Incomplete . IdentIficatIOn of flood problem areas - Incomplete: Page 21 states the need for emergency overflows and flow paths through the City. These areas should be Identified along wIth any other flood problem areas m the Plan. . Listmg of Flood Insurance Studies - Incomplete . Summary of water quality data - Complete . Map or lIst of surface water monitoring sItes - Incomplete . Groundwater resource data - Incomplete . Soil data - Complete . Land use and publIc utilItIes - Complete . Water-based recreatIOn areas and land ownership - Complete . FISh and Wildlife HabItat - Incomplete: Plan should mclude conclusIOns and recommendations of available bIOlogical surveys as well as wildlIfe management plans . Map of umque features and scenic areas - Incomplete: Plan should include a map of umque features and the CIty should also reconsider amending page 16 to also mclude Chnstmas Lake. ChrIstmas Lake is one ofthe highest quality waters withm the metropolItan area supporting a trout fishery and extremely high water clarity. . Pollutant sources - Incomplete: Plan must identIfy landfills, dumps, hazardous sites, feedlots, abandoned wells. Storage tanks, and permitted dIscharges Subp 5 Establishment of policies and goals. Each local plan must state specific goals and corresponding policies related to the purpose of these plans, be consistent with the policies and goals of the organization plans within the city or township, and address the relation of the local plan to the regional, state, and federal goals and programs outlined in part 8410.0070. Subp. 5 - Complete - The framework for water management is well done, however, MCWD encourages the CIty to reconsIder the categorizatIon of both Chnstmas Lake and Lake Mmnewashta withm the Improve-2 category. Given their hIgh resource value, Christmas Lake m partIcular, warrants consideratIOn of the Improve-I, Ifnot the Preserve, level of management. Subp. 6. Assessment of problems. Each plan must contain a summary assessment of existing or potential water resource related problems, including those identified in organization plans that affect the community The problem assessment must be completed for only those areas within the corporate limits of the community and meet the same content requirements as those outlined for organization plans under part 8410.0080, subparts 1 and 2. Subp. 6 - Incomplete: The Plan lacks detail on eXIsting and future problems related to water quantity and quality resultmg from development. Future loading to area waters and increases in volume should be conSIdered in order for the CIty to meet State reqUIrements. The MCWD ThIrd Generation ComprehensIve Water Resources Management Plan will address these issues (see dIscussIOn below). ConsIstency WIth this Plan will assIst the CIty in meeting ItS requirements and allow for coordmation of efforts between organizatIons m the future. Subp. 7 Corrective actions. Each local plan shall describe nonstructural, programmatic, and structural solutions to the problems identified in subpart 6. The mandatory actions for organi211tion plans outlined in part 8410.0100, subparts I to 6, shall be considered except that actions must be limited to those that can be implemented at a local level. All corrective actions must be consistent with the organization plans having jurisdiction in the municipality or township. Subp. 7 - Incomplete: The recommendatIOns identIfied in the ChrIstmas Lake and Lake Mmnewashta watersheds are not translated to capItal projects m the Implementation section of the plan. For mstance, the Christmas Lake recommendations cite the need to "Implement BMP's m the Chanhassen areas tributary to the lake," but the Implementation section lacks sufficient detail on the location, tIme line, cost, or purpose ofthe proposed best management practices. MCWD IS mtent on coordmatmg efforts with local plans in the future. Providing detaIl withm both the MCWD ThIrd GeneratIon Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan as well as the Local Surface Water Management Plan, will allow the two orgamzatIOns to IdentIfy and collaborate on projects whIch benefit shared resources. Subp.8. Financial considerations. Each local plan must contain an analysis of the financial impact of implementation of the proposed regulatory controls and programs identified under subpart 7 The analysis must include, at a minimum, the following items: A. the estimated cost of adoption and enforcement oflocal controls and standards for the local municipality; 8 the estimated annual cost of implementation of other specified programs to each local municipality; C. a discussion of local ability to fund adoption of and enforcement of local controls and standards, implementation of other specified programs, and capital improvements, including: (I) levy limit constraints; (2) effect on other city funding needs; (3) establishment of watershed management taxing districts; (4) creation of stormwater utilities; and (5) monetary impact against homes or farmsteads in affected community; o the impact on the local municipality of local implementation of each capital improvement project component if ad valorem financing is used; and E. a summary of grant funding that would likely be available to fund water management projects and programs. Subp. 8 - Incomplete: See above. Many recommendatIOns for correctIve actIon and Improvements are not translated to the Implementation Plan nor prOVIded with an adequate budget. In addItIon, while the City has identIfied the prOjected costs of Implementation for some of the proposed actIons, more detail should be prOVIded on how these proposed projects fit within the larger context of the CIty budget (refer to Statutory reqUlrements CIted above). Subp. 9 Implementation priorities. Each local plan must prioritize implementation components to make the best use of available local funding and prevent future water management problems from occurring to the maximum practical extent. Local plans must prioritize organization plan implementation components in line with organization priorities as outlined under part 8410.0120 only for implementation components that must be facilitated by the local municipality or township. Subp. 9 - Incomplete: MCWD did not find reference to implementatIon priontIes. Subp. 10 Implementation program. Each local plan must outline required implementation components that apply at a local level. These components shall be consistent with the required plan components outlined for organization plans under part 8410.0130. Official local controls must be enacted within six months of adoption of the local plan. Subp. 10 - Incomplete: Capital Improvements should be evaluated to ensure that the goals of the plan are met and then pnontlzed for Implementation. Subp. II Amendment procedures. Each local plan must contain a section entitled "Amendments to Plan" containing the year the plan extends to and establishes the process by which amendments may be made. The amendment procedure shall conform with the plan amendment procedure outlined in the organization plans that affect the community Local plan amendments must be forwarded to each organization affected by the local plan amendment for review and approval before adoption. Subp. 11 - Complete Subp. 12. Submittal and review After consideration and before adoption, the local plan shall be submitted to all affected organizations for review according to Minnesota Statutes, section 1038.235 Each local unit of government must also notify affected organizations within 30 days of adoption and implementation of the plan, including the adoption of necessary official controls. Subp. 12 - Complete STAT AUTH. MS s 1038.101, 1038.211, 1038.231, 1038.227 HIST 17 SR 146 Current as of 10/13/97 It appears that the comments are primarily focused on proVldmg clarificatIOn or addItIonal detail to the plan. The general policy requirements affirmed by the City mimic those of MCWD and should provide for an equal application of policy throughout the areas of the City withm MCWD (guidance on specIfic reqUlrements IS mcluded below). MCWD strongly recommends that the CIty consider joint ImplementatIon of the plan and memoriahze such a comtnltment in the final version of the plan. Consistency with the Third GeneratIon Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan IS critical to thIS effort. MCWD Second Generation Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (1997) In order to receIve approval from the MCWD Board of Managers and retam permitting authority, the Local Surface Water Management Plan must comply with these mmlmum reqUlrements: Wetland Regulation: Incomplete . No net loss of wetland quahty, quantity: Regulation must note that mItIgatIon for WCA approved impacts IS required WIthin the same subwatershed. Within the CIty of Chanhassen, there are two subwatersheds: the Lake Vlrgmla Subwatershed (mc1udmg Lake Minnewashta) and the Chnstmas Lake Subwatershed. 1: 1 mitigatIOn is also reqUlred for excavation wlthm wetlands per MCWD Rule D. . Wetland Buffers: The City should be commended on ItS high standard for wetland buffers. ImplementatIon of this action will result in a pOSItIve effect on the water quahty of area resources as well as provide many secondary benefits. It is unclear, however, what constitutes a wetland buffer. MCWD defines buffer areas as undIsturbed natural vegetatIon not subject to dIsturbance. Many commumtIes extend thIS requirement to define a buffer as natural vegetatIOn, free of exotic, mvasive or nUIsance specIes. Regardless of the dIrectIOn that the City wIshes to take, clanfication is requested to dIfferentiate between a buffer and a buildmg setback. Erosion and SedIment Controls: Incomplete . Standards should mdIcate when an erOSIOn control permit IS required. MCWD standards are greater than 5000 square feet of dIsturbance or 50 CUbIC yards of excavatIon Local Shoreland and Floodplam Ordmances: Incomplete . The Plan must note the adoptIOn of both sets of ordmances (MCWD assumes that efforts have been made m this regard, however, ordmances should be current wIth eXIstmg State requirements) . MCWD Floodplain reqUIrements: o Preservation of existing water storage below 100-year flood elevatIons o Structures must be located a mImmum of two-feet above the projected 100-year flood elevatIOn Water Quality and Stormwater Performance Standards . In-Lake Nutrient Concentrations: Incomplete o Christmas Lake (>20m Deep) = 30 ~g/L Plan must demonstrate how this concentratIon will be mamtamed wIth development o Lake Mmnewashta (>20m Deep) = 30 ~g/L Plan must demonstrate how thIS concentration will be achIeved with development . Maximum Permissible Runoff Rates: Incomplete o Existing peak rates should not be exceeded for 1, 10, and 100-year events in each subwatershed. Plan must demonstrate how thIS will be achIeved wIth development. . DesIgn Cntena for Stormwater Outlet Structures: Incomplete o Stormwater facihtIes must remove floatables from runoff of one-year event o Stormwater facihtIes must be located on drainage, utility and/or flowage easements o Stormwater facIlItIes must meet MPCA desIgn standards for pollutant removal efficIency . Best Management PractIces: Incomplete o Street sweeping must be performed twice each year by the municIpahty on all streets and public ways; one m the spring after snowmelt and once in the autumn after leaf-fall Metropohtan Council Comments: Complete, receIved May 11, 2006 MCWD ThIrd Generatton ComprehensIve Water Resources Management Plan As noted above, in order to maXImIze the ability of both the CIty and MCWD to collaborate on regulatton, projects and programs to address resource needs, the City of Chanhassen IS strongly encouraged to comply wIth the requirements of the MCWD ThIrd Generatton ComprehensIve Water Resources Management Plan. ThIS plan IS expected to be complete in the summer of 2006. If the CIty of Chanhassen does not choose to mcorporate these Issues into the current draft of the Local Surface Water Management Plan, MCWD expects that the necessary changes and amendments will be completed to comply wIth the MCWD Third GeneratIOn ComprehensIve Water Resources Management Plan Wlthm two years of adoptton by MCWD. Therefore, a sIgmficant level of tIme and expense can be saved through the incorporatton of these standards mto the current draft. AddItional requirements are as follows: NutrIent Loadmg . Christmas Lake Subwatershed (Goal = 15 ~g/L) Load allocation to Chanhassen = 7 lb reduction annually . Lake Virginia Subwatershed (Goal = 40 ~g/L) Load allocatIOn to Chanhassen = 27lb reduction annually Please note: Lake VIrgmia IS on the State ImpaIred Waters LISt whIch WIll reqUIre local commumty partICIpatIOn as a part of comphance with the NPDES Phase 2 requirements Land Conservatton . Primary land conservation comdors are addressed the subwatershed plans. The land conservation approach centers on hIgh priority resources and providmg connectivity of those resources through the DistrICt. The MCWD ThIrd GeneratIOn Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan will reqUIre local mumcipalities to acknowledge the value of these areas m local plans. GIS format is available for the City to mcorporate mto the current draft upon request. Land-locked basms . A portion ofLMC-7 (IdentIfied m the HHPLS, 2003) located in the northwest comer of the Lake Virgima Subwatershed IS landlocked and does not currently dIscharge to downstream basins under normal condIttons. Creatton of an outlet to this basm would be prohibited unless the City clearly demonstrated that thIS would not have an impact on downstream water quahty or quanttttes. . No land-locked basms were Identified WIthin the CIty of Chanhassen in the ChrIstmas Lake Subwatershed. Modeled High Water Locations . Over-topping of a driveway encountered on Lake Mmnewashta Creek traveling downstream of the T.R. 7 crossing (LV -4) is predIcted to overtop during 100-yr rainfall events. . Over-toppmg of a drIveway that forms a berm across the outlet ofLMC-4. The lowland modeled m LMC-4 flows mto the southern end of Lake Minnewashta through hIgh capacIty culverts under T.R. 5. . No floodmg areas were Identified m the Christmas Lake Subwatershed Implementation Program MCWD has IdentIfied the followmg: . Vegetation surveys, management plans and shorehne erOSIOn surveys for: o Lake Mmnewashta o Lake S1. Joe . CollaboratIve projects wIth: o CIty of Chanhassen to stabihze the dramage way m basin CL-l to Christmas Lake o Umversity of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum to Implement water quahty improvements . Wetland restoratIOn opportunities based on mformatIOn wIthm the MCWD Functional Assessment of Wetlands IncorporatIon of these issues m addItIon to the regulatory reqUlrements noted m the Second GeneratIOn Plan will maxImize the opportunities for collaboratIOn and cooperatIOn between orgamzatIOns m the future. In order to gam approval of the Local Surface Water Management Plan, MCWD will require, at a mmimum, comphance wIth both State Statute as well as the Items noted under the Second GeneratIOn Plan. Upon approval, the CIty of Chanhassen will be required to execute a Memorandum of Understanding between the CIty and MCWD to memorialize dutIes and obhgatIons for the future. Regardless of the form of the final Local Surface Water Management Plan, the MOU will stipulate that compliance Wlth the MCWD ThIrd GeneratIOn Water Resources Management Plan must be achIeved wIthin two years of approval. MCWD looks forward to reviewing the final verSIOn of the plan, and apprecIate your concern and continued dedication to Improving our shared water resources. Please let me know If you have questIons or concerns. /~-7 .,~~! / / MI ha tt MCWD Planner/Program Manager C: Enc Evenson, DistrICt AdmmIstrator Jack Frost, Metropohtan Councll Brad Wozney, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Barr Engineering Company 4700 West 77th Street . Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803 Phone: 952-832-2600 . Fax: 952-832-2601 . www.barr.com An EEO Employer BARR Minneapolis, MN . Hibbing, MN . Duluth, MN . Ann Arbor, MI . Jefferson City, MO May 26, 2006 Ms. Lori Haak City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Haak: Attached is a copy of the Riley-Purgatory-BluffCreek Watershed District's "draft" comments regarding the city ofChanhassen's Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan. As I mentioned in our telephone conservation, the comments will be finalized at the District's June 7, 2006 meeting however these "draft" comments are being submitted to meet the 60-day comment period. If you have any questions, please give me a cal at 952-832-2857. C: Board of Managers Paul Haik May 22, 2006 Ms. Lori Haak City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan: Chanhassen Dear Ms. Haak: The Riley-Purgatory-BluffCreek Watershed District has reviewed Draft No.2 of the Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan for the city of Chanhassen. The District has the following comments regarding the Plan: 1. The Watershed District is in the process of preparing the Third Generation Water Management Plan. It is anticipated that this Plan will be completed and proceed through the review process in 2006. In accordance with Minnesota Statute 103B.235, the Local Water Management Plans must be approved by the District to ensure consistency with the Management objectives of the District's Plan. The City's Plan will require review, once the District's Plan is approved, to ensure the requirements ofthe District's Plan have been met. 2. The 1996 Water Management Plan of the District laid out a format and schedule for completing an inventory ofthe water resources throughout the District. To date, all of the Lake Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) for the lakes in the city of Chanhassen has been completed and this information has been provided to the City. These UAA's provide a detailed assessment of the existing and future water quality of the resource and recommendation for achieving the water quality goal listed in the District's Management Plan. To ensure consistency with the District 1996 Water Management Plan, the City's plan must provide and describe the recommendations of these UAA's and how the City proposes to achieve these goals. 3. The 1996 Water Management Plan ofthe District provides a Physical and Ecological Use Classification of Purgatory, Riley and Bluff Creeks. To ensure consistency with the District's 1996 Water Management Plan, the City's Plan must provide and describe a description of these stream classifications and how the City proposes to achieve the stream conditions as described. 4. The District has been managing development riparian to the streams since 1973. To ensure consistency with the District's 1996 Water Management Plan, the District flood profile must be included in the City's Plan. 5. The Plan notes that a number of inconsistencies exist between the City's plan and the Watershed District's Feasibility Study for Bluff Creek. The City's Plan should outline and describe the City's management plan and objectives for Bluff Creek. May 22, 2006 Page 2 The District notes that Appendix C of the City's Plan provides a Literature citation to the District's 1996 Water Management Plan and the Lake UAA's. However to ensure consistency with the District's 1996 Water Management Plan, the City's Plan must be amended to address the District's comments. If you have any questions regarding the District's review comments, please contact us. Sincerely, Conrad B. Fiskness President, Board of Managers C: Board of Managers Paul Haik Bob Obermeyer Jack Frost Memo .11. Bonestroo .. Rosene -=- Anderlik & 1\11 Associates Engineers & Architects Project Name: Review of Chanhassen LWMP Client: LMRWD To: Terry Schwalbe File No: 1460-06-000 From: Dan Edgerton Date: 7/25/06 Re: LMRWD Review Summary Per your request, we have completed our review of the Chanhassen March 2006 Draft Local Water Management Plan (LWMP) for compliance with the LMRWD 1999 Water Management Plan (WMP). Specifically, we based our review on the requirements set forth in Section 6.5.1, Requirements for Local Water Management Plans, of the WMP. A summary of our review comments is presented below. 1. The WMP calls for the assessment of problems section to include those problems identified in the WMP that affect the local government. For Chanhassen, these specific problems are (1) water quality of Rice Lake (p. 4-9), (2) flooding at Hwy. 212 and railroad (p. 4-14), (3) bank erosion (p. 4-17). No discussion of the water quality in Rice Lake is presented in the report as discussed in the WMP. Rice Marsh Lake is discussed, but this waterbody is outside ofthe LMRWD. The flooding problem, identified in the WMP at the intersection of Hwy. 212 and the railroad, and the bank erosion problem, identified in the WMP near the LRT trail, are not identified in the LWMP. However, these problems may already have been addressed elsewhere, specifically with the new Hwy. 212 realignment in progress. 2. The WMP requires that local governments outline their permitting process for land and wetland alteration work. The permitting process for wetland alteration work, including a recommended draft ordinance, is outlined in the L WMP. The permitting process for land alternation, aside from development standards (Appendix D), is not outlined in the LWMP. However, this may be included in the City's zoning ordinance. 3. The WMP requires LWMPs to address disturbed shoreland issues. This is not included in the L WMP; however, it may be included in the Shoreland Management District Ordinance. 4. The WMP calls for L WMPs to require preparation of Runoff Management Plans, as defmed in Section 5.13. This is not explicitly included/required in the LWMP. However, detailed development standards (Appendix D) that meet the overall goals and policies of the LMRWD are included. 5. The WMP calls for LWMPs to take on responsibility for operations and maintenance of drainageways. This is not included in the L WMP. 6. The WMP requires L WMPs to set intercommunity flow rates. These are not included in the LWMP. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. 2335 West Highway 36 + St. Paul, MN 55113 + Phone: 651-636-4600 + Fax: 651-636-1311 Memo .11. Bonestroo ~ Rosene -=- Anderlik & 1\11 Associates Engineers & Architects 7. The WMP requires LWMPs to consider control of flow rates crossing WMO boundaries or entering major waterbodies. These are not included in the L WMP. 8. The WMP requires LWMPs to identify Minnesota River bluffs, show steep slopes, and show areas of high erosion potential, and to adopt policies to manage these areas. This is not included in the LWMP; however, it may be included in the Bluff Protection Ordinance. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. 2335 West Highway 36 + St. Paul, MN 55113 + Phone: 651-636-4600 + Fax: 651-636-1311 Memo .11. Bonestroo .... Rosene -=- Andertik & 1\11 Associates Engineers & Architects Client: LMRWD Project Name: Review of Chanhassen LWMP File No: 1460-06-000 To: Terry Schwalbe Date: 5/15/06 From: Jason Swenson Re: LMRWD Review Checklist Local Plan Review Checklist Each plan must have sections containing the following: . table of contents . executive summary . land and water resource inventory . goals and policies . assessment of problems . corrective actions . financial considerations . implementation priorities and program . amendment procedures Assessment of problems must include problems identified in the LMRWD in that local unit of government: . Water quality in Rice Lake . Bank erosion adjacent to the LRT trail in the NE 'l4 of Section 35 . Flooding problem at the intersection of Hwy. 212 and the railroad Must assess need for periodic maintenance: . street sweeping . inspection . adequacy of maintenance programs Must assess the need to have a waterbody classification different from the LMRWD's. Must assess the need for local spill containment cleanup plans. Must clearly identify when the management programs will go into effect. Each plan must contain the following: . describe existing and proposed environment and land use . define drainage areas and volumes, rates, and paths of runoff . identify areas and elevations for stormwater storage . define water quality protection methods . identify regulated areas . set forth an implementation program No Must outline the permitting process for land and wetland alteration work. No Must address disturbed shoreland areas. None Must show LMRWD existing and future dredge spoil sites. No Must address shoreland regulations. No Must require preparation of Runoff Management Plans. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. 2335 West Highway 36 + St. Paul, MN 55113 + Phone: 651-636-4600 + Fax: 651-636-1311 x No x x -- X -- X -- X Memo .11. Bonestroo ..I'JI Rosene 8 Anderlik & 1\11 Associates Engineers' Architects x -- X -- X -- No X -- No X -- X -- No No X -- X -- X X -- X -- X -- X X -- X -- X -- No X -- X Must include design standards for new stormwater ponds. Must describe respective roles oflocal government and LMRWD in floodplain regulation. Must delineate subwatersheds and present detailed hydrologic information. Must include maps showing existing and proposed stormwater system. Must consider the use of temporary surface storage and infiltration. Must take on responsibility for 0 & M of drainageways. Must include an inventory of lake and stream outlets into the Minnesota River. Must describe the local government's permit program. Must set intercommunity flow rates. Must consider control of flow rates crossing WMO boundaries or entering major waterbodies. Must require a minimum 5-year level of service. Must call for coordination with LMRWD in education efforts. Must encourage use of practices that enhance groundwater infiltration while protecting water quality. Must identify the LGU for WCA (preferably the local government). Must require planning and zoning authorities to maintain all wetland information. Must work with the LMRWD to develop criteria for prioritizing wetlands. Must consider the need for wetland buffers, describe the wetland permitting process, address the need for a wetland ordinance, describe a wetland management classification system, identify high priority wetlands for preservation and restoration, describe a method for assessing functions and values, and describe any local wetland banking programs. Must work with the LMRWD and others to protect trout streams. Must include requirements for preparation of erosion control plans. Must fully undertake erosion control inspection and enforcement. Must identify Minnesota River bluffs, show steep slopes, show areas of high erosion potential, and adopt policies to manage these areas. Must adopt ordinances to address erosion and sediment control. Must incorporate the standards and criteria presented in Section 5.13 of the LMRWD Plan. Bonestroo, Rosene, Ander/ik and Associates, Inc. 2335 West Highway 36 + St. Paul, MN 55113 + Phone: 651-636-4600 + Fax: 651-636-1311 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Date: 07/20/06 TITLE: City of Chanhassen Water Resources Management Plan - Approval ITEM TYPE: ~Action ~Consent DDiscussion Dlnformation PREPARED BY: Michael Wyatt TELEPHONE: 952-471-0590 E-MAIL: mwyatt@ minnehahacreek.org REVIEWED BY: 0 Administrator 0 Board Committee o Counsel 0 District Engineer o Consulting Engineer 0 District Technician ~ Planner/Program Mgr 0 Communications o Other FiscaVFTE Impact: ~ None o Amount included in current budget o Budget amendment requested o Project/program adjustment needed for FTE o FTE included in current complement o New FTE(s) requested o Other (include explanation in text). PURPOSE or ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of the City of Chanhassen Local Surface Water Management Plan SUMMARY: The City of Chanhassen has submitted a Second Generation Local Surface Water Management Plan for MCWD review and approval. The historic timeline of the review is as follows: . March 29, 2006: City of Chanhassen submits plan to MCWD for review . May 11, 2006: MCWD receives comments on the proposed plan from the Metropolitan Council . May 12, 2006: MCWD submits request for additional information and plan revisions to the City of Chanhassen . May 18, 2006: MCWD Board of Managers approves a sixty-day extension to the review period . July 12, 2006: City of Chanhassen submits required changes for approval The City of Chanhassen has updated the draft plan to be consistent with both State Rules Chapter 8410 as well as the policies identified in the 1997 MCWD Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. In addition, the City has incorporated the load allocations and the water quality requirements of the proposed MCWD Third Generation Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan in order to address water quality concerns within the City and downstream. The City has proposed to retain permitting and Local Government Unit authority for the Wetland Conservation Act and MCWD Rules B, C, D, and N. MCWD has verified that the Local Surface Water Management Plan is generally consistent with the goals and policies of MCWD with a few mandatory amendments to both the Plan and City Code (noted in the recommendation). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board approve the City of Chanhassen's local Surface Water Management effective on the occurrence of the following conditions: a. Incorporation of a prioritized capital improvements list into the Chanhassen SWMP within 120 days of MCW D approval b. Adoption of an amended wetland ordinance that the District determines to be at least as protective as MCWD Rule D within 6 months of execution of the Memorandum of Understanding c. Execute a Memorandum of Understanding establishing implementation responsibilities between the MCWD and the City. EXPLANATION OF FISCAUFTE IMPACT: Local water resource management plans reviews are budgeted for 2006 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NUMBER: TITLE: City of Chanhassen local Water Resources Management Plan - Approval WHEREAS, on June 12, 1997, the MCWD adopted amendments to its comprehensive watershed management plan under Minnesota Statutes ~ 1 03B.231, which, as amended, details the existing physical environment, land use and development in the watershed and established a plan to manage water resources and regulate water resource use to improve water quality, prevent flooding and otherwise achieve the goals of Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D; and WHEREAS, the MCWD Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, as amended incorporates the Rules adopted by the MCWD to protect water resources, improve water quality, prevent flooding and otherwise achieve the goals of Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D; and WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen completed a draft Surface Water Management Plan and submitted it to the MCWD for review and comment in 2006; and WHEREAS, MCWD reviewed the draft Plan and provided detailed review comments to the City for consideration and incorporation into the Plan and met with city representatives; and WHEREAS, MCWD reviewed the subsequent Plan revisions in accordance with Minnesota Statutes ~ 103B.235, subd.3, as to those portions of the City within MCWD boundaries, prepared comments and discussed with City representatives; and WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen subsequently prepared and submitted final revisions for the local Surface Water Management Plan to MCWD which incorporated MCWD review comments; and WHEREAS, the MCWD has determined that the final revised Plan, on occurrence of the conditions stated below, will be consistent with the MCWD Water Resources Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has received the Surface Water Management Plan and has provided its written comments to the MCWD in a letter on May 11,2006 and the District has fully considered the comments; and WHEREAS, the MCWD has determined that the Plan generally meets the requirements for local plan approval set forth in the MCWD Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, State Statute 103B.235, and Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410; WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen wishes to retain water resource regulatory authority within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes ~1 03B.211 , subd. 1 (a)(3), and assume sole permitting with respect to activities subject to MCWD Rules B: Erosion Control; Rule C: Floodplain Alteration; Rule D: Wetland Protection and Rule N: Stormwater Management; and WHEREAS the MCWD will continue to exercise its present authority with respect to Rule E: Dredging; Rule F: Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization; Rule G: Lake and Stream Crossings under authority provided by MCWD Rules and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and otherwise exercise its permitting and approval authority in accordance with the terms of Minnesota Statutes ~1 03B.211 (a)(3); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the MCWD hereby approves the City of Chanhassen Local Surface Water Management Plan, effective on the fulfillment of the following conditions: . Execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the MCWD establishing implementation responsibilities as between the two bodies. . Incorporate prioritized list of capital improvements into the Chanhassen SWMP within 120 days of MCWD approval . Adopt of wetland ordinance that the District determines to be at least as protective as the MCWD Rule D within 6 months of execution of the Memorandum of Understanding FINALLY, BE IT RESOLVED, that staff and consultants are directed to develop a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Chanhassen to be executed upon mutual agreement and MCWD Board approval. Resolution Number was moved by Manager , seconded by Manager . Motion to adopt the resolution _ ayes, _ nays, _ abstentions. Date: Julv 20. 2006 Date: Lee Keeley, Secretary CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone 952.227 1100 Fax 952.2271110 Building Inspections Phone 952.2271180 Fax 952.227 1190 Engineering Phone 952.227 1160 Fax 952.2271170 Finance Phone 952.2271140 Fax 952.2271110 Park & Recreation Phone 952.2271120 Fax 952.227 1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone 952.2271400 Fax 952.2271404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone 952.2271130 Fax 952.227 1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone 952.227 1300 Fax 952.2271310 Senior Center Phone 952.227 1125 Fax 952.2271110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us ,...., ~ IT] MEMORANDUM To: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director From: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator ~ Date: April 4, 2006 Re: Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Update Public Hearing BACKGROUND In November 2004, the City Council approved a contract with Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) for the completion of the Surface Water Management Plan update. During 2005 and into 2006, City staff worked wIth SEH and the SWMP Update Task Force to draft an updated plan to provide guidance on the management of the City's lakes, creeks, wetlands, storm water and storm water infrastructure for years to come. On February 13,2006, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint work session during which they received a report from SEH regarding the need for the plan, the plan update process and the anticipated timeline for plan completion. Since the joint work session, City staff and SEH have been working to prepare the agency review draft of the SWMP. This draft will not only be reviewed by the agencies that have commenting authority over the plan, but will also be available to the general public for review and comment. DRAFT PLAN The draft plan is available on the City's website at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. A link to the Surface Water Management Plan Update page is available on the nght-hand edge of the page under "What's New." If members of the public would like a copy of the draft plan on CD-ROM, a limited number are available at City Hall upon request. A hard copy of the draft plan is also aVaIlable for public review during normal business hours at City Hall. SEH WIll provide a brief summary of the planning process at the Planning CommIssion meeting prior to the public hearing. The summary IS anticipated to include the following items: 1) Why dId we update the plan? 2) What tools did we create or update to accomplish this? The City of Chanhassen . A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a Charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. "..., ~ SWMP Update Public Hearing Apn14,2006 Page 2 of 2 3) Outcomes and Program Implementation 4) Public Input Process 5) Anticipated timeline for completion of update 6) Highlight findings and recommendations of plan (including CIP) City staff will work with the consultant following the commencement of the public hearing to receive public comment and respond to those comments. Staff recommends that the public hearing be continued to the May 2, 2006 Planning Commission meeting to allow comments to be received until that time. RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and receive public comment on the draft Surface Water Management Plan. Upon receipt of comment from all persons present wishing to address the matter, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission continues the public hearing for the Surface Water Management Plan Update to the May 2, 2006 Planning Commission meeting." ATTACHMENTS 1. Tentative schedule for SWMP review and adoption 2. Draft SWMP, dated March 28, 2006 (CD-ROM) G'\ENG\Lori\SWMP\2006 SWMP Update\040406 PC PH Staff Report,doc ~ ~ Surface Water Management Plan Update Tentative Schedule for Review and Adoption As of March 28, 2006 ilJ\1:ilestoll~/~divity II~chedlll~ I Draft # I Ikll\ ered tn StaflJPC/C'C I January I x-.~()I ! PI ann i ng C\, n~r!1i~~I:~I!~:'~)U ne 11,_~~:i[:~_~?~_ll~~L..._,., ., J 1!~~l;~;{:;I)._~.~",J Ta~k Force MeetIng #7 ReVle\\ Commcnh 11J::cl)!'uary 15 Internal ReVJlO\\ Pr()lC~S C\m:plcted.,I:(!E.I.~raft,~I. 1~~:~:~ll~I}_~~ Re\ l~e and Revie\\ l)raft 1:'\:'l:I\I:('h ~?_ j Draft #2 . I)CIl\(~r hI :\gcnclc~ for Revlcw :IMarch 28 Il............ I I I _._~i..r..st.~!.~~nin~ Commission ~eetin~_=- _()p~Il~11.1:>lic H:arin~ ,.. i ~I?~~~,~" ! IL S_::_()Il~ Pla~~.~Il~..~().~~~~~ion Me~!in!t=Clo..~~_~11.1:>I~E.!!~~r.~ngJ l)\1l~x~___._...., II 60-Day Agency Review Peri()d~n~s. . II)\1Ia)' 5 lL__~.espond to Agenc.~_~()~~!1_ts, G~iIl_ ~ppro"-a.l~ ,.., ..". .._._.IIJ\1:a..)'~~, ... ..J 11..... F~Il~I..~!~~Ilill~~()mm~~!()Il.)\1Ie.,:tin~.=_S:lose PU1:>!iE!!~~i~~....J [!~me ... il~iIlal~ouncil )\1Ie.e.tings - Adoption of Plan !IJ11.Ile ilpra_f!.~.~=~:l~.~.e~y of Final Pla.n_<.~ft~r Ad.().P!i()Il.1:>~.C()~~c.iD... ,j 1!11.ly.. .. G'\ENG\Lori\SWMP\2006 SWMP Update\Timeline for Adoption 032806.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone 952.2271100 Fax 952.227 1110 Building Inspections Phone 952.2271180 Fax 952.2271190 Engineering Phone 952.2271160 Fax 952.2271170 Finance Phone 952.2271140 Fax 952.2271110 Park & Recreation Phone 952.227 1120 Fax 952.2271110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone 952.2271400 Fax 952.2271404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone 952.2271130 Fax 952.227 1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone 952.2271300 Fax 952.2271310 Senior Center Phone 952.2271125 Fax 952.227 1110 Web Site www.cl.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM To: Kate Aanenson, Commumty Development Director From: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordmator ~ Date: May 2, 2006 Re: Continuation of Public Hearing for Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Update BACKGROUND On April 4, 2006, the Planning Commission opened a pubhc hearing on the agency review draft of the CIty's Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). Comments were received from two members of the public. VerbatIm minutes are attached (Attachment 1). DRAFT PLAN The draft plan IS available on the City's website at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. A lmk to the Surface Water Management Plan Update page is available on the right-hand edge of the page under "What's New." If members of the public would like a copy of the draft plan on CD-ROM, a limited number are aVaIlable at CIty Hall upon request. A hard copy of the draft plan is also available for public review during normal business hours at CIty Hall. Comments will continue to be received until the end of the agency comment period on May 30, 2006. City staff will work WIth the consultant following the close of the public hearing to receive agency comment and respond to those comments. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive any additional public comment on the Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan. Upon receipt of comment from all persons present wishing to address the matter, staff recommends that the Planning Comrmssion close the public hearing, then make any comments they have on the plan. After all Planning Commissioners' comments are received, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission tables action on the Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan until all public and agency comments can be incorporated." ATTACHMENTS 1. April 4, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Verbatim Minutes 2. Comments from Park and RecreatIOn DIrector, dated April 7, 2006 3. Comments from EnVIronmental Resources Specialist, dated April 20, 2006 The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 4, 2006 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, and Deborah Zorn MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Thomas Schwartz 7376 Bent Bow Trail PUBLIC HEARING: SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: PUBLIC HEARING ON UPDATED PLAN. Public Present: Name Address Frank Mendez Steve Donen Greg Fletcher Erin Krueger Ron Leaf 7361 Kurvers Point Road 7341 FrontIer Trail 7616 South Shore Drive SEH SEH Sacchet: Lori, you giving us the staff report for that please. Haak: I WIll be introducing yes. Chairman Sacchet and Planning CommIssioners, as you're aware the city staff has been working with SEH to develop a draft surface water management plan. This plan is intended to update our inventory of all of our infrastructure as well as really guide surface water management in Chanhassen through the next 10 years or so. A draft plan is available on the city's web site at www.cl.chanhassen.mn.us.It.s underthe what's new heading and if members of the public would like copies of this, It'S available either on CD Rom or copies are available during business hours at Chanhassen City Hall and the Chanhassen Library. City staff is going to, tonight the purpose of tonight's public hearing is to receive comment on the draft plan and followmg the receipt of that comment, we will be developing responses to those comments. Staff is asking that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and then continue that public hearing to your May 2nd meeting so that we can receive any additional public comment that comes in in that time. So that's the recommendation from staff. At this Planning CommIssion Meeting - April 4, 2006 time I'd like to introduce and invite Ron Leaf from SEH to come up. Ron is going to share a little bit about the background of the plan and following that we'd be happy to take questions from the Planning Commission and we ask you at that time to open public hearing and then contmue it to the May 2nd meeting. Sacchet: Thank you Lori. Ron, do you want to jump in? Ron Leaf: Thank you Lori. Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I'm pleased to be here tonight to give you an overview of the draft surface water plan. I want to emphasize that this is a draft plan, as Lori did, and Lori mentioned we've been working with city staff to develop this draft but ultimately it becomes your plan and I think that's a key point in this public hearing process is that the public has a chance to comment. Staff then provides some comments and continue to do that. It really becomes a plan that the city will use in the years to come and it becomes your plan. Having said that, I am going to use the overhead camera here, if I'm on the right spot. We're going to talk about the surface water management plan and give you some background. Some insight into some of the information that's in the plan, and then what the plan intends to do as the city moves forward. Lori mentioned the plans and update to a plan that was first established in 1994. Really two main things that the plan has attempted to do. Achieve compliance with some regulatory programs. There's a state program. The Metropolitan Surface Water Management program, and a federal program which is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program. The plan really addresses the first item but because the items are so related, it incorporates many of the requirements of the NPDES program as well. Tries to achieve some efficiencies in that process. The second main item is really just to coordinate an overall surface water management plan by updating the goals and policies. These things change, surface water management programs have changed over time, and since 1994 really the state of the art and storm water management and some of the things that are being done and required are changing literally on the fly these days, so need to continually update these goals and policies. As part of that then, the next step is to update the goals. The development standards to support those goals and policies and in part to develop and create some new management tools, as Lon mentioned. An inventory of some of the infrastructure and the wetlands throughout the city. We'll touch on those briefly. Some of the new and refined tools that the plan, the planning process has developed include an inventory of the storm system, including ponds, storm sewer structures, and a number of treatment systems throughout the city. A hydrologic model update that will be used by city staff to review developments and evaluate the system response to proposed developments in the future. A wetland inventory and assessment which really covers a lot of ground. Field work that looked at nearly 400 wetlands throughout the city and evaluated the functions, the values, the type of wetland It was so that staff then can use that in the decision making process for projects again that come before the city. And finally, an update on the status of the city's lakes and surface water bodies was completed. I'm going to take just a minute to highlight some of the data that was collected to develop these tools. This is just a screen shot of the tool that city staff will have available. It's hard to see the specific storm points but what's important here is staff will have at their fingertips the ability to click on a storm structure for example and pull up some information that was collected. The type of structure and be able to use that in development reviews. This also was a key component in addressing the NPDES permit program because the city was required to inspect each of these structures on an annual basis and on a 5 year basis as required in different parts of the permit. Another one of the tools, 2 Planning Commission Meeting - April 4, 2006 that's just the data behind the inventory. Another one of the tools, I mentioned the hydrologIc model update. I don't intend to get into detail here but really breaking the city down into drainage areas and detention areas, treatment areas throughout the city in a comprehensive city wide hydrologic model. Also conducted a MnRAM assessment. Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for wetlands throughout the city and identified the type and locations and approximate boundaries of each of those nearly 400 wetlands. And again that will be available to the city in a data format that can be taken into account as developments come before the city. Another one of the tools is really just a process by which city staff can help make decisions on the priority basis of given projects. I won't go through this table in detail but it's both ES-2 in the Executive Summary of the plan. What it intends to do is identify some of the priority resources from a preserve level, which includes the crown jewels as the task force members identified. Seminary Fen and Assumption Creek. To improve one, improve two and improve three categories related to the status of those water bodies and the need to improve those and sets the bar for future treatment needs, both for city projects in order to set the example, and for development projects that come before the city. We also looked at the status of the surface waters throughout the city. I mentioned briefly that Assumption Creek and Seminary Fen, the crown jewels that as part of the evaluation, looking at the water quality trends, in general the trends are that the water bodies are improving, or at least steady. There are some Impaired waters, and as more waters are assessed by the MPCA, it's very possible that additional waters would be classified as impaired. But a couple of those key water bodies are Riley and Lotus Lakes. There is some work to be done in those watersheds and the plan addresses many projects that are potential improvements in water quality for those watersheds. And then at the bottom here, Bluff and Riley Creeks are also listed for turbidity which is another indicator of sedIment loading to a stream section. I think with that, Ijust wanted to give you an idea of what the lake trend analysis and just a snap shot looks like. What this looks at here is the water clarity of the given lake. In this case we're looking at Lotus Lake, and you can see that the data generally shows that the clarity, the secchi disk reading is increasing. It's going from roughly 2 feet in 1979-1980 to somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 feet. 4 to 5 feet in current years, so that trend is good. Is it there yet? Not qUIte. It still needs some improvement but this is the type of trend that we looked at to identify where a given lake fit within that priority system in the previous table. So with that analysis that was completed, look at what are the outcomes and program implementation activities of the plan. We mentioned NPDES permit compliance. Some of that's done. Some of that will be done on an ongoing basis. The staff continues to inspect the system. Maintain the system. Make improvements into the storm system. It also identIfies a prioritization of work plan items. Within the appendix is a detailed list of potential storm water ponding, treatment area projects that fit within each of the priority water bodies, and so staff can use that to develop a plan of attack. For a gIven project or for the city's own projects. There's a couple of ordinance updates that are required by the NPDES permit, but also that would be needed to fully implement the plan, including recommendations for wetland management and for storm water development standards. And finally one of the final items of the plan is really to establish some budgeting expectation. What is the capital improvements program look like to support the needs of the plan? In order to get there, there's some public input and technical review, which is continuing today and through the next couple of months. Task force meetings. There were 7 meetings that took place with a number of task force members. A technical committee meetings which made up of the watershed district staff that have responsibIhty and authority over portions of Chanhassen. And then this public hearing which is opening today and ending on May 2nd. 3 Planning CommissIon Meeting - April 4, 2006 Again just to highlight the plan as drafted is available on the city's web site under what's new. I also want to recognize the task force members. I won't mention them all by name but you see one of your very own here on the Planning Commission was a member of this task force and provided great mput into the process, and look forward to additional comments from that group as we move into the final stages of this plan. Quickly look at the expected time line for completion of the plan. There was initial draft that was sent internally to staff and the task force members in January. That resulted in some fairly substantial revisions and production of this agency review draft. What is this agency review draft mean? It means now it has also been submitted to the watershed districts, Riley-Purgatory Watershed District, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Carver and Hennepin County Watershed Agencies and the Metropolitan Council. Did I miss one? Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, thank you Lori. Since submitted to them they have 60 days to review the plan and provide comments to the city. That process then would officially close for those comments on May 30th. Staff and SEH would then respond to those comments and gain approvals from the watershed districts ideally in June and then come back to Planning Commission public meeting in June for recommendation from this group to the council to adopt the plan and again the plan at this point is to have that occur in June. Production and delivery of a final draft late June, possibly early July. So let's take a look at some of the, you know the meat and potatoes here of the work plan and what does the plan recommend. I've broken this down into the goals and policies section if you will, and just highlighted a few of the key recommendations. From a water quantity, of flooding, you know perspective, there's two key things and the first would be to continue to look at options for addressing the high water levels that occurred on Lotus Lake. Understand there is some information that was reviewed many years ago and we intend to take a closer look at that and see what's already been revIewed but something that still needs to be addressed. Also to review easements and emergency overflows on city ponds and drainage systems. You go back to October of last year, we had some storms in early October and again in mid October that were fairly substantial in many areas of the metropolitan area experienced some localized flooding as a result of these storms that were anywhere from 4 inches to 6 inches in some cases. Really highlighted the needs to review these easement coverages that is city drainage and utility easements and the need for emergency overflows so that properties surrounding these detention areas aren't inundated if an outlet pipe gets plugged or debris gets in the pipe and it's not functioning properly. So that's a key thing for city staff to look at as well. Water qualtty issues. Really to continue to protect those crown jewels, Seminary Fen and Assumption Creek and strive to improve Lotus, Riley Lakes, Bluff and Riley Creeks and I mentioned the table in the back of the appendIx that identifies the priority basis and lists the number of pond projects that are available for staff to pick and choose from as opportunities arise. And then to maintain the other water bodies as, to continue those steady trends. Obviously you'd like to address everything now but funding is limited. You can't take everything off at once so, looked to further prioritize the plan as we move forward in the next couple of months. Additional items in the work plan. Wetlands. We talked about the MnRAM data system. That will be used on an ongoing basis to guide future decisions and I mentioned an update to the wetland ordinance. Erosion and sediment control had a fair amount of discussion with task force on this item. Really just to try and get our hands more on the need to really put a much more focused effort on this. The city now works with some county staff to do this but really to understand where some other improvements could be made as some of these larger projects, Trunk Highway 12 come through, m addition to city led projects throughout the area. And then to identify some opportunities to 4 Planning Commission Meetmg - April 4, 2006 restore and stabilize scours at system outlets. Again as part of the drainage system inspection process, we didn't identify a lot of those but there are a few throughout the CIty that could use some attention. And again, the final thing here is the finance and regulatory responsibilities. The city wants to maintain adequate funding and you need to both to comply with your goals and achieve your goals but also to comply with the NPDES permit program. To continue to inspect and maintain your system. One thing that's not listed here, it was a late but very good addition to the plan, goals and policies was the public involvement and participation process. It really relates to all of these goal areas. That has to be a key part of everything and the city has some good activities and will continue to move ahead with educating the public, educatmg developers and educating internal staff and commission members like yourselves, so we all are on the same page with what needs to happen and what's feasible to happen in the field. As far as the implementation plan summary, I'm not sure if you can see that. Yeah, if you zoom in a little bit here. This is really just a summary of a larger table that's in the plans. Break it down into some groupings to give an order of magnitude as far as an annual need to maintain, to program and to achieve some of the goals for water quality. It's broken down into 3 categories, planning costs, capital construction costs and then ongoing operation and maintenance. It's not a full list. City staff has other costs that are putting other funding programs but what this is really intended to do is kind of identify on an annual basIs what's needed to support the ongoing construction, capital costs and planning costs as far as studies, reviewing easements, system upgrades for data management systems, that type of thing. In the final analysis that we came up with, it's somewhere in the neighborhood of $400,000 a year in total. About $350 of that would be for capital construction costs for pond projects. So the city could pick ponds off the list and on a prioritized basis and do about $350,000 of pond projects per year and complete the list in the plan within, the timeframe that we looked at was about 15 years so, that's the time horizon. So that's a quick snapshot at what's in the plan and kind of the details of the implementation plan, and that's really all I want to do is just a quick 15 minute overvIew of the plan and from there I'll leave it back to Lori or to the commIssion. Sacchet: Thank you. So our role tonight, to clarify with staff IS to hold the public heanng. Not so much to give comments ourselves because the public hearing is going to stay open and then at the end we make comment, is that more the idea? Haak: That's right. At this time staff would just like to get that first flush of public comment. Then we can take some time to review those comments and respond to those in writmg. Those will be included in your next packet and then at that next Planning Commission meeting, if the commission has questions, we'd like to answer those at that time. Sacchet: With that I'd like to open the public hearing on this topic. Is there anybody here who'd like to comment on the watershed plan for the city of Chanhassen? Yes. If you would state your name and address for the record please. You may want to pull the microphone towards you please. Gary Carlson: Thank you very much. Gary Carlson, 3891 West 62nd Street. We're here on another matter but you're mentioning your jewels. Our end of the city really appreciates Lake Minnewashta and you didn't mention that, and you didn't mention Minnewashta Creek that controls the level of Lake Minnewashta. It's the only outflow of Lake Mmnewashta. All of the 5 Planning Commission Meeting - April 4, 2006 Arboretum, University of Minnesota Arboretum, great part of the city, drains into Lake Minnewashta and it's outflow right now is just, it's outflow is determined only by whatever that beached level sand was left at last fall. And the river, whatever that, there could be some study there and I just wanted that to be as part of the emphasis because we're at the comer of the city. We don't get much attention and I know everyone up in our area would be really, really concerned about that. Thank you very much. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Do you want to say something to that Lori? Haak: Yeah, I can actually speak to that real briefly. The city has looked at that outlet in the past and that is something that we've considered doing. Really it's true, right now the outlet is controlled by a sandy area so we were looking, we actually had the DNR permit for it but weren't able to get that going, but we do intend to contmue to look at that outlet. Sacchet: Excellent. Anybody else would like to address this item? Please come forward. State your name and address for the record please and let us know what you have to say. Steve Donen: Yes, my name is Steve Donen and I live at 7341 Frontier Trail and I live basically on Lotus Lake and I guess first of all I was glad to see that you mentioned the outflow on Lotus Lake. I actually walked over it to it today and was disappointed in seeing how much flow was gomg out. The lake is, it's relatIvely high. I don't know the numbers. Obviously the ice is just starting to come off but it is high. It is not flowing well. I don't know whether it's plugged m there or what's going on, but it isn't flowing well. I didn't have a chance to call Lori today and let her know. She usually gets a call from me a couple times a year anyways but just doesn't look like, it doesn't look like any of the fish things are plugged up or, you know it looks like It'S purely the hole that leaves isn't big enough to manage the water flow. It does cause high waters and it does, and we haven't had a real wet season and the water is high this year agam, as last year was, so I'm glad to see that and if there's anything we can do. I do represent a few of us as Lotus Lake Clean Water Organization that we're just starting so we would like to be as much as we can involved in this whole process. We are glad to see you working on the process. I think as a community the 11 lakes in Chanhassen and all the wetlands and everything else are our crown jewels for everybody. For me especially Lotus Lake. I guess I have a couple things to mention in this whole plan. I've only been able to see the plan since what Monday or Tuesday of last week and I've been traveling so I haven't had a chance to read it in great detail, but I will. Okay. I had a few comments. First of all on the secchi disk reading, I'm not sure when they take those readings. I like, you know I've been on lakes where I can see my feet most the time and in Lotus Lake I, unless you are there right before the lake turns over in early spring, I can't see my belly button. So it's not very good. I'm not sure where we get 5 feet secchi disk from. It's just tIming on the data but I think the data is a little bit suspect personally. I spend about 250 hours a year on that lake. So Ijust thmk that we make sure our data's good because something seems to be not matching what I see. Secondly I guess as a big thing for me with working in the public. Not in public but in the private sector as an engineer, I get goals in my life. Every year I have goals. Every 3 to 5 years objectives and goals and all that kind of stuff and I see goals and what are kind of goals but I've been taught over the years that goals need to be smart goals so they're measurable. How are we doing against the goals? Since '92, as I read some of the introductions in this package, it's been flat. Slight increases. I don't know what the goal was. Did we do 6 Planmng Commission Meeting - April 4, 2006 good against the goals that we set back then? Did we not? So I guess I'd like to see as a part of your plan, kind of set yourselves some goals. How we doing? Okay, and maybe have some kind of reporting mechanism that we report it every year how we're doing against the goals. So measurable things that we can try to hit. The other thing is, there are some action plans. They tend to be, I thought they were pretty general and left a lot open for discussIon and again I'm going to volunteer myself and members of my group to, organization to maybe help with some of that work. On how to turn these things into actual plans that we go do, and if we need the help with funding or something else that we can help with, we'd obviously be willing to help. So I guess that's kind of the comments. We would just like to be involved and set goals and let's measure against them. Okay? And you guys are the Planning Commission. You have a real challenge in trying to match the plans and the ordinances and make sure we stick with those things as they go forward and as developers come in and try to do things. We need to make sure we stick with our standards and maintain those so, up to you guys and all of us to make sure it happens so thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Excellent comments. Anybody else who would like to address our surface water management plan and update? This is your chance. If there's nobody getting up, I'll bring It back here. We are leaving thIS hearing open, and as a matter of fact I'd like to ask if somebody would want to make a motion formally leave this hearing open so that we anchor that in. Larson: I can do that. You want to do it? Zorn: Go ahead. Larson: The Planning CommIssion continues the public hearing for surface water management plan update to the May 2, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Sacchet: So that's the motion that Debbie makes. Do we have a second? Zorn: Second. Larson moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission table the public hearing for the Surface Water Management Plan Update to the May 2, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. Sacchet: So this hearing stays open and I would expect that commissioners will have a chance to make comment on the May 2nd when thIS is addressed again as well. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT 2. BLOCK 2. CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK: REQUEST FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR REDUCED PARKING SETBACK AT SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING. APPLICANT. EDEN TRACE CORPORATION. PLANNING CASE NO. 06-11. 7 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone 952.2271100 Fax 952.227 1110 Building Inspections Phone 952.2271180 Fax 952.2271190 Engineering Phone 952.2271160 Fax 952.227 1170 Finance Phone 952.2271140 Fax 952.227 1110 Park & Recreation Phone 952.227 1120 Fax 952.2271110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone 952.2271400 Fax 952.2271404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone 952.2271130 Fax 952.2271110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone 952.2271300 Fax 952.2271310 Senior Center Phone 952.227 1125 Fax 952.2271110 Web Site www.cl.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator 111 FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and RecreatIon Director DATE: April 7, 2006 SUBJ: Review Comments - Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . ES-l: Bluff Creek runs nearly the entire length of the City of Chanhassen. . I wonder whether or not the Arboretum should be identified as a "park." Lake Ann Park is the most widely visited park within the City and should be called out. . A thought about priorities - labeling Assumption Creek and Seminary Fen as "crown jewels" may be misleading. The fen and Assumption Creek are highly sensitive and valuable natural resources; however, it is my belief that our eleven lakes, especially Minnewashta, Lucy, Ann, Lotus, Susan and Riley provide infinitely more value to our community. . ES-4: Should Lake Ann and Lake Lucy be classified as Recreational Development? . Acknowledgments: · All Department Heads are involved in the management of our water resources and should be acknowledged. INTRODUCTION . Vision Statement #3: · Same issue with the labeling of "crown jewels." The City of Chanhassen . A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A glBat place to live, work, and play. Ms. Lori Haak April 7, 2006 Page 2 BACKGROUND, HISTORY AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT . Page 9: . I wonder whether or not the Arboretum should be identified as a "park." Lake Ann Park is the most widely visited park within the City and should be called out. · The word "some" to describe areas of commercial and industrial land use is understated. The word numerous is a more accurate description. · The downtown is likely the largest contiguous area of commerciallindustrial use. However, the total area of commercial/industrial use outside the downtown is considerably larger. . Page 15: · The boat ramp at Lake St. Joe is not listed in Table 4. GOALS AND POLICIES . Page 21: . I think some, especially those involved in the repair process, would call the damage from last fall's rain significant. A number of structures remain damaged or are in the process of being repaired. SURFACE WATER RESOURCES: . Page 42, Table 22, Lake Physical Characteristics: . Lucy should list boating/swimming/fishing. St. Joe should list boating/swimming/fishing. . . Page 46, Lake Lucy: . The vast majority of land on Lake Lucy is privately owned. . Page 50: . Note that the public access for Lake Riley is located within an Eden Prairie City Park. . Page 51: . It should be noted that a wmter aeratIon system is utilized on Lake Susan in the event of low oxygen levels. It should be noted that the existing carp barrier IS marginally effective. . Ms. Lori Haak April 7, 2006 Page 3 . Page 57: . AssumptIon Creek: It should be noted that the present condition of some shoreline areas along Assumption Creek is far from pristine. A variety of dump sites (past and present) are located on the Assumption Creek property. . Bluff Creek: The presence of extensive public walking trails throughout the Bluff Creek corridor should be noted. These trails are integral to the future health of the corridor. When people are able to "experience" these settings, they are far more likely to participate in their preservation. It should be noted that two very significant escarpments exist in the lower section of Bluff Creek. These cliffs are quite spectacular in there size and form, but could create serious land management issues in the future. There is also a strong likelihood that the meandering process of Bluff Creek WIll reroute the creek away from the base of these cliffs slowing the erosion of their face walls. WETLAND MANAGEMENT . Page 83: · Comments will be provided upon receiving mapping for the parcel sites. MAPPING . The 32-acre parkland acquisition currently identified as the "Fox" parcel is not shown on the maps. G:\park\th\Surface Water Management Comments.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone 952.2271100 Fax 952.227 1110 Building Inspections Phone 952.2271180 Fax 952.2271190 Engineering Phone 952.2271160 Fax 952.2271170 Finance Phone 952.2271140 Fax 952.227 1110 Park & Recreation Phone 952.2271120 Fax 952.227 1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone 952.227 1400 Fax 952.2271404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone 952.2271130 Fax 952.227 1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone 952.2271300 Fax 952.2271310 Senior Center Phone 952.227 1125 Fax 952.227 1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Lori Haak, Wetland Resources Coordinator JIll Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist April 20, 2006 Surface Water Management Plan Update Draft review I was unable to complete a full review of the SWMP and so am unsure if these issues are already covered wIthin the plan. They are: Is the role of vegetation as an Important tool in slowmg runoff addressed withm the plan? Because of this importance, It is undesirable to remove wooded areas for the construction of stormwater ponds. Is their a prioritized list for sighting ponding and if so, do trees/vegetation have a ranking? Plantmg trees should be encouraged also as a way to reduce runoff and erosion. Is this part of the long-term implementation plan? Tree planting should be included in all new pond construction. I appreciate your consideration of these issues. The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. 11 at A prt41 .c review .-t'.(;. . . ... repWlr busbM$hoUt'J. .. terestliMlpenons a:re1nv1tedto~thlspub11chear1ni andexpress~9P1nionswithrespect to the propoeed})lan rev1s1ons. . .JArl Haak, Water Resources Coordlnator bail: lhlJAlttQlci.MtllfthARAAIl nm.us phone: 952-227-1135 (Publlshed in theCl1anhassen Villager on'J:'hursdaY, March 23,2006; No. 4637) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A, Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. ~ ?31 was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: .ocd"ghU~~c..~ Laurie A. Hartmann Subscribed and sworn before me on this ;J }~y of -d/UC~2006 e GWEN M. RADUENZ . NOTARY PUBUC - MINNESOTA My Commisslon Expires JaIl. 31, 2010 6.:?//;f~ RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space... $40.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter........................ .... $40.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter......................................... .... $11.51 per column inch j