HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/25/2007 Env Bd PacketCity of Lino Lakes
Environmental Board Meeting
July 25, 2007
6:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes
June 27, 2007
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Open Mike
5. Action Items
No Action Items at this time.
6. Discussion Items
A. Rice Creek Watershed District Proposed Rules
B Main Street Village Concept Plan — Azure Properties — PUD
C. Blue Heron Days Parade
D. Updates
7. Adjourn
•
•
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2007
DATE
TIME STARTED
TIME ENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS ABSENT
STAFF PRESENT
1.
2.
CITY OF LINO LAKES
MINUTES
: June 27, 2007
. 6:30 P.M.
. 7:30 P.M.
: Mary Jo O'Dea, Peter Brown, Paula
Andrzejewski and Alan Traylor
: Barbara Bor, Martha DeHaven and Kimberly
Brouillet
: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson,
CALL TO ORDER
Ms. O'Dea called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 30, 2007
Ms. O'Dea had a change on page 2, seventh paragraph. Add the word sample,
sentence to read: Ms. O'Dea asked to review a conservation sample easement
document. Change on page 3, fourth paragraph. Change the word less to greater
Mrs. Andrzejewski had a change on page 5, first paragraph. Change to read Ms.
Brow n to Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown made a motion to approve the May 30, 2007 minutes with changes.
Ms. Andrzejewski seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
6. DISCUSSION ITEMS to be moved on agenda above 5. ACTION ITEMS.
Ms. Andrzejewski made a motion to approve amended agenda. Mr. Brown
seconded the motion to approve agenda. Motion carried unanimously
4. OPEN MIKE
Open mike closed at 6:37 p.m.
5. ACTION ITEMS
A. Moon Marsh
1
DRAFT MINUTES
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2007
Mr. Asleson presented his staff report and attachments. Mr. Wessel, developer
applied for a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development at 8300 East
Rondeau Lake Road, to subdivide his current property.
Mr. Asleson noted that Rice Creek Watershed has issued a Conditional Use
Permit for Moon Marsh pending changes.
Mr. Asleson presented and reviewed a report on the Results of Rare Plant Survey
by Jason Husveth of Critical Connections Ecological Services, Inc.
Mr. Husveth noted that the archeologically report has been completed along with
the SWPPP (Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan). All proposed infiltration
shall be protected and fenced off prior to construction.
Ms. O'Dea questioned if this area is in the conservation easement and if so will
there be restoration of this area. Mr. Asleson stated if Clean Water Act monies
become available, we would like to obtain the ability to do restoration. If money
does not become available, we could find money for a burn once in awhile.
Ms. O'Dea questioned if the existing septic system would stay. Mr. Wessel stated
his septic works very well. He will keep it in place until the system fails or
becomes a problem. At that time he will hook up to the community septic.
Mr. Wessel stated the homes on this property will have no basements. More than
likely the homes will have flat roofs to control the rain gardens and natural
landscaping. The intent is to have natural lawns not have manicured lawns.
Mr. Husveth stated there are higher quality wet lands on this property. It does not
take much management to bring some of these areas back from a low diversity
system to a high system, which were present 100 years ago. It is about taking
things from a natural state and ramping up the diversity. Mr. Wessel has been
working with Mr. Husveth on his expertise with wet land design. Mr. Husveth
recommends going with a shallow base and the city seed mix. He stated this site
is fantastic for a project like this. He stated the homes will be slab on grade
honoring the hydrology.
Ms. O'Dea questioned if there is a way to measure the natural high water. Mr.
Husveth stated the lakes have numbers assigned to them but at this time Rondeau
Lake does not. He thinks the issue on this property is a discrepancy of three feet.
It is very important to get these numbers right so more fill does not have to be
brought in.
Mr. Asleson stated a ten foot separation is required between a delineated wet land
and any type of structure. He stated minimize fill is critical.
2 DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2007
Ms. O'Dea and Mr. Brown stated this is a very nice plan.
Mr. Asleson stated the infiltration design may need to be modified.
Items to add to Staff Recommendations:
Estimate needed on high water — Mr. Asleson stated this item is up to the DNR to
provide this.
Mr. Brown made a motion to move forward to Planning & Zoning Board with
recommendation. Mrs. Andrzejewski seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
6. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Conservation Easement Marshan Meadows — Board members were
emailed and/or mailed a sample conservation easement agreement of Marshan
Meadows to review. Conservation easement agreement is a legal document. It is
an agreement to do certain things, restrict certain things and requires a reason why
you want to do it. Mr. Asleson stated this particular agreement is a little more
restricted than others.
Ms. O'Dea asked how many conservation easements the city is maintaining at this
time. Mr. Asleson stated maybe a half dozen at this time. We have stewardship
plans for some and maintenance plans for others.
Ms. Andrzejewski suggested before and after pictures of conservations easement
areas would be a good thing to put on the website.
B. Blue Heron Days — Mr. Asleson stated we could use the City's Polaris
Ranger ATV with cart for the parade. Walter's Recycling will donate rolling trash
bins for garbage. Ms. Hogstad will email Kira Brouillet to see if she would be
interested in making a sign. Mr. Brown mentioned he has an ATV if we need it.
C. Updates on the Blue Herons. Mr. Asleson stated there are newly flashed
trees. Six birds and two nests were destroyed during a recent storm that passed
through Lino Lakes.
7. ADJOURN
It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on July 25,
2007.
3 DRAFT MINUTES
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2007
There being no further business, Mr. Traylor moved to adjourn at 7:30 p.m. Mr.
Brown seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Transcribed by:
Lisa Hogstad
Community Development Secretary
4 DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
•
•
•
Memo
Environmental
To: Lino Lakes Environmental Board
From: Marty Asleson
Date: July 25, 2007
Re: Public Comments /Proposed New Rules and Regulations
The Rice Creek Watershed District proposed rule changes are out for public
comment. Comments must be received by August 1, 2007. A copy of the proposed
changes is enclosed, and comments from Connie Taillon of TKDA concerning the
rule changes. Connie will be at the Environmental Board meeting to go through the
proposed rule changes and address comments and concerns.
• Page 1
TKDA
0ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS
MEMORANDUM
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500
Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140
(651) 292-4400
(651) 292 -0083 Fax
www.tkda.com
To: James E. Studenski, P.E. Reference: Rice Creek Watershed District
Copies To: Proposed Rules
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Proj. No.: 13809.000
From: Connie J. Taillon, P.E. Routing:
Date: July 18, 2007
Below is a summary of proposed changes to the current Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) rules.
Attached are the documents that provide information on the proposed RCWD rules. They are entitled:
1. Rice Creek Watershed District Rules
2. Rice Creek Watershed District Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR)
The major revisions to the present RCWD rules, adopted August 12, 1998, are as follows:
Rule C: Stormwater Management Plans
Regulation
Current: New development, redevelopment, or additions to an existing site less that 2.5 acres for industrial,
commercial, and multi -unit residential, are exempt from the rules unless it is near a floodplain or specified
waterbody (Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 6(a)).
Proposed: The proposed rule would reduce the scope of the exemption so that it would apply to new
development, redevelopment, linear projects, or additions to an existing site at least 1 acre in size for
industrial, commercial, and multi -unit residential (Paragraph 2(a)).
Current: For site redevelopment at which less than 50% of the total site area (including any road right -or-
way) will be disturbed, water quality ponding will be required only for areas being disturbed (Section 6(d)).
Proposed: The proposed rule would require that water quality requirements will apply to all impervious
surfaces if the site redevelopment either (a) would disturb 50% or more of the impervious surfaces or (b)
would increase impervious surface by 50% or more. The extent of disturbance is defined as the area of
exposure to underlying soils (Paragraph 2(e)).
IllCurrent: There is no language in the current rules addressing mill and overlay projects.
An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity
Mr. James E. Studenski Page 2 July 18, 2007
Rice Creek Watershed District Rules
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Proposed: Mill and overlay work on roads or other linear projects that does not create additional impervious
surface are exempt from Rule C permit requirements (Paragraph 2(g)).
Water Quality and Volume Control
Current: The current rules require detention basins for water quality treatment (Paragraph 3(J)), and states a
preference for a regional approach to management (Paragraph 1(a)).
Proposed: The proposed rules focus on promoting on -site stormwater management by maximizing
infiltration on individual sites through Better Site Design practices and advanced stormwater management to
control runoff volume increases (Paragraph 1(a)). For certain site conditions where infiltration is not
feasible and detention basins are required, RCWD retains its preference for regional basins (Paragraph 3
(b)(i)(a)).
Current: Development resulting in the creation of impervious surfaces must infiltrate the impervious surface
runoff from the Minneapolis- St.Paul median storm (0.34 inches) in 72 hours (Paragraph 3(k)). A separate
provision requires treatment to the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standard of 50% phosphorus
removal through stormwater detention (Paragraph 30(1)).
Proposed: The proposed rules would combine these two criteria into a single standard requiring infiltration
or where not feasible, detention, that will infiltrate and/or retain the runoff generated by the two -year (2.8-
inch) storm event over the entire contributing area under proposed conditions (Paragraph 3(b)(ii)(b)).
Infiltration basins are required to draw down within 48 hours from the end of the storm event (Paragraph
3(c)(i)(b)). The specific requirements are as follows:
1) For sites with Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) soil type A or B, the stormwater management plan must
meet this criteria through infiltration for that part of the site where type A or B soils exists. (Paragraph
3 (b) (ii) (b)).
2) Where infiltration is not feasible (i.e. soils do not support infiltration, inadequate separation from the
groundwater table, presence of known or suspected contaminated soils), filtration is the preferred
treatment method. (Paragraph 3(b)(ii)(d)). For sites with soils that do not promote infiltration (type C
and D soils), the stormwater management plan shall focus on incorporation of water quality BMP's.
The order of preference for BMP's is biofiltration, filtration, wetland treatment system, extended
detention basin, and NURP Ponding (Paragraph 3(b)(ii)0).
3) The runoff volume infiltration/detention design standard for runoff from the 2.8 -inch storm event is
modified as follows:
a) Linear projects creating one (1) or more acres of increased impervious surface will be
required to employ BMP's designed to retain the volume equal to the runoff from a 2.8-
inch, 24 -hour storm under proposed conditions. (Paragraph 3(b)(ii)(J)).
•
•
•
. Mr. James E. Studenski Page 3 July 18, 2007
Rice Creek Watershed District Rules
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
•
b) For linear projects creating less than one (1) acre, rural to urban section and
expansion/reconstruction, the proposed rules would drop the infiltration requirement to
runoff from 0.8 inch rainfall event. (Paragraph 3(b)(ii)(c)).
c) For existing impervious surface required to be treated during redevelopment pursuant to
Paragraph 2(e), which states that water quality requirements will apply to all impervious
surfaces if the site redevelopment would disturb 50% or more of the impervious surfaces,
the standard is the 0.8 -inch event. (Paragraph 3(b)(ii)0).
Peak Flow Management
Current: Stormwater runoff rates for the proposed project must not exceed "pre- project" runoff rates for the
critical 1 -year or 2 -year and 100 -year frequency events (Paragraph 3(b)). Pre - project runoff rates are
currently calculated using curve numbers that correspond to the land use of the site just prior to development
or redevelopment (existing conditions).
Proposed: Stormwater runoff rates for the proposed project must not exceed "pre- settlement" runoff rates
for the critical 2 -year and 100 -year frequency events for those site areas not covered by impervious surfaces
in the pre - existing condition. The revised rule would define the pre- settlement condition as a prairie
with the following curve numbers: 30 for Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) A, 58 for HSG B, 71 for
•commuthty
HSG C, and 78 for HSG D soils (Paragraph 3(b)(iiz)).
•
Current: The current standards do not impose bounce or inundation period standards for wetlands except for
landlocked basins.
Proposed: RCWD is proposing storm bounce and inundation period restrictions for all wetlands within the
watershed district based on wetland susceptibility classes. Proposed bounce and inundation standards for the
RCWD wetland susceptibility classes are as follows (Paragraph 3(b)(iv)):
Highly
susceptible
wetland
Pre - development
Existing
Existing
Moderately
susceptible
Pre - development
+ 0.5 feet
Existing plus 1
day
Existing plus 2
days
Slightly
susceptible
wetland
Pre - development
+ 1.0 feet
Existing plus 2
days
Existing plus 14
days
Least - susceptible
wetland /Lake
No limit
Existing plus 7
days
Existing plus 21
days
Mr. James E. Studenski Page 4 July 18, 2007
Rice Creek Watershed District Rules
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Flood Protection for Structures
Current: Low floor elevations of all new construction maintain a separation of two feet (2') above the
100 -year event water elevation of a natural or artificial waterbody and 1 foot (1') above the emergency
overflow of the waterbody. Within landlocked basins, lowest floor elevations must be at least one foot above
the overflow elevation (Paragraph 30)).
Proposed: All new structures and stormwater basins must be constructed so that the lowest floor and lowest
entry elevations comply with the following table:
The proposed rule would also revise the land locked basin low floor requirement to allow a structure to be
permitted below the basin outlet if the low floor elevation is at least two feet (2') above the water level of
both the 100 -year, 10 -day snowmelt and back -to -back 100 -year, 24 hour events (Paragraph 3(c)(v)).
Rule D: Erosion Control Plans
Current: A permit and an erosion control plan are required for new development, redevelopment, or
additions to an existing site (Paragraph 2).
Proposed: A permit and an erosion control plan is required for the grading, excavation, filling, or stockpiling
of more than fifty(50) cubic yards of erosive material or the disturbance or removal of vegetation on five
thousand (5,000) square feet or more of land. Farming activity would be excepted (Paragraph 2).
Rule F: Wetland Alterations
Current: Any proposed wetland disturbance not subject to WCA is evaluated by the RCWD under general
criterion that prohibits activity that would "change the character" of a wetland without preserving wetland
quantity, quality, and biological diversity (Paragraph 3(d)).
Proposed: The proposed rule would subject such activities to specific WCA and additional criteria. The
terms of RCWD regulation would further be refined as follows:
Regional
Elevations
Local
Detention
Basins &
Wetlands
Infiltration Basins
Mottled
Soils
100 -yr
EOF
100 -yr
EOF
Bottom
100 -yr
EOF
per borings
Low
Floor
2 -ft
1 -ft
0 -ft
NA
0 -ft
NA
NA
3 -ft
Low
Entry
NA
NA
2 -ft
1 -ft
NA
2 -ft
1 -ft
NA
The proposed rule would also revise the land locked basin low floor requirement to allow a structure to be
permitted below the basin outlet if the low floor elevation is at least two feet (2') above the water level of
both the 100 -year, 10 -day snowmelt and back -to -back 100 -year, 24 hour events (Paragraph 3(c)(v)).
Rule D: Erosion Control Plans
Current: A permit and an erosion control plan are required for new development, redevelopment, or
additions to an existing site (Paragraph 2).
Proposed: A permit and an erosion control plan is required for the grading, excavation, filling, or stockpiling
of more than fifty(50) cubic yards of erosive material or the disturbance or removal of vegetation on five
thousand (5,000) square feet or more of land. Farming activity would be excepted (Paragraph 2).
Rule F: Wetland Alterations
Current: Any proposed wetland disturbance not subject to WCA is evaluated by the RCWD under general
criterion that prohibits activity that would "change the character" of a wetland without preserving wetland
quantity, quality, and biological diversity (Paragraph 3(d)).
Proposed: The proposed rule would subject such activities to specific WCA and additional criteria. The
terms of RCWD regulation would further be refined as follows:
. Mr. James E. Studenski Page 5 July 18, 2007
Rice Creek Watershed District Rules
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
(1) The District will regulate wetland alterations that do not require replacement under WCA rules and do
not qualify for one of the specific exemptions in Minnesota rules 8420.0122 according to the rules and
procedures of WCA, except as specifically provided in this Rule. Alteration under this paragraph
requires replacement to ensure no loss of wetland quantity, quality, or biological diversity.
Notwithstanding, replacement in the form of vegetative and hydrologic restoration of a degraded
wetland will be credited in the amount of twice the acreage restored (Paragraph 4(c)).
(2) A wetland alteration not subject to WCA that does not change the type or function of a wetland and
that preserves wetland quantity, quality, and biological diversity is exempt from the replacement
requirement (Paragraph 4(d)).
In addition to the wetland replacement plan components and procedures in WCA, the following criteria also
are proposed to apply to wetland replacement under both WCA and RCWD standards, as applicable:
(1) Sequencing avoidance minimization replacement analysis would be required to address each
contiguous wetland area separately (Paragraph 5(a)).
(2) At least 50% of the area of disturbed wetland would need to be replaced by wetland of the same type
(Paragraph 5(c)).
OP)
•
To receive New Wetland Credit, replacement wetland must be accompanied by protected vegetated
buffer at least 25 feet in width at all points (Paragraph 5(b)). The buffer may be credited as Public
Value Credit.
(4) To qualify for New Wetland Credit replacement, wetland must be designed to meet specified slope
limits at the wetland edge (Paragraph 5(e)).
Rule G: Bridges and Culvert Crossings
Current: Crossings must preserve hydraulic capacity equivalent to the existing condition (Paragraph 3).
Proposed: Where the Board of Managers has not established an official profile, the proposed rule would
state in the permit that the permittee bears the risk that the structure later may be found to be an obstruction
within the meaning of the ditch law, and, in the event it is later found that the structure lies above the official
profile, to protect benefited lands from a claim that the crossing structure was approved by the ditch
authority and therefore, not subject to the ditch authority's power of direct removal (Paragraph 3).
IRICIE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
June 13, 2007
4325 Pheasant Ridge Dr. NE #611 • Blaine, MN 55449 -4539
Phone: 763 - 398 -3070 • Fax: 763- 398 -3088
www.ricecreek.org
Notice of Public Comment Period and Public Hearing
Rice Creek Watershed District
Proposed Rules and Regulations
Contact Person: Carl Almer, Acting Administrator, 763- 398 -3070, calmer @eorinc.com
Enclosed for public review and comment are the proposed revised rules of the Rice Creek Watershed District.
Two rules documents are provided. One document shows the revised rules as they would appear if adopted.
The second is a redlined version showing proposed changes from the current rules. In addition, the enclosed
"Statement of Need and Reasonableness" (SONAR) is intended to facilitate public review by summarizing and
clarifying the proposed changes and the basis for those changes.
The current rules were adopted on August 12, 1998. Rule implementation since that time has led to
recognition of a number of issues that the rules do not address or do not address clearly. Many of the
proposed changes would refine and clarify the present rules. A number of other proposed changes reflect and
incorporate new Rice Creek watershed data and more effective approaches to water resource management as
they have evolved over the past nine years. The proposed changes are fairly comprehensive and the District
encourages the careful review and input of interested parties.'
The District invites submission of written comment on the proposed changes. Comments may be
submitted by mail, email or fax and must be received by August 1, 2007. Comments should be submitted
to:
Attn: Cart Almer, Acting Administrator
Rice Creek Watershed District
4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE, Suite 611
Blaine MN 55449 -4539
Fax: 763- 398 -3088 Email: calmer @eorinc.com
State and regional resource protection agencies, local governments and potentially regulated parties are
particularly invited to engage in a review of these proposed rules for the purpose of making them as resource -
protective as possible without creating excessive administrative costs or placing an undue burden on property
owners. Comments on specific provisions in the proposed rules and how they may apply in practice are most
useful. Similarly, criticisms are most valuable when accompanied by suggested alternative language or a
suggested alternative regulatory approach.
In addition to receiving written public comment, the District will hold a public hearing at the Council
Chambers, City of Shoreview, at 7:00 p.m. on July 11, 2007, at which time all interested persons will have
the opportunity to address the District Board of Managers concerning the proposed revisions. The
District will consider carefully all comments and make appropriate changes to the proposed revisions before
adoption.
Enclosures
1 No changes are proposed to Rule M or Rule RMP-1, adopted recently to govern activity within parts of the Anoka County Ditch 53-
62 system.
BOARD OF
MANAGERS
Barbara A. Haake
Ramsey County
Rick A. Mastell
Anoka County
Susan R. Oven Donald J. Steinke John J. Waller
Ramsey County Anoka County Washington County
Printed on 60% recycled. 30% posrconsumer paper using vegat sble based mks.
Rice Creek Watershed District
Proposed Rules and Regulations
Distribution List
RCWD Board of Managers
City Managers /Administrators /Clerks within RCWD
Townships within RCWD
Anoka County TMO
Hennepin County Public Works Facility
Chris Lord, Manager, Anoka Conservation District
Terry Johnson, County Administrator, Anoka County
Doug Fischer, County Engineer, Anoka County Highway
Department
Jeff Perry, Natural Resources Specialist, Anoka County
Parks & Rec.
Thomas Haluska, Assistant Anoka County Attorney
Steve Woods, Board Of Water And Soil Resources
Karen Kill, Administrator, Browns Creek Watershed
District
Mark Doneux, Administratoi, Capitol Region
Watershed District
John Bower, President, Carnelian- Marine Watershed
District
Jim Hafner, City of Blaine
Bryan Bear, City of Hugo
Tim Kelly, Administrator, Coon Creek Watershed
District
Leonard C. Ferrington Jr. Ph.D., University of Minnesota
Department of Entomology
Joe Kurcinka, Regional Director, Department of Natural
Resources
Travis Germundson, Department of Natural Resources
Gerald Larson, Department of Transportation
Paul Bolstad, University of Minnesota Dept. of Forest
Resources
Dick Stehr, Director, Engineering Services
Catherine Garra, EPA
Kevin Gray, Director, Finance and Administration,
MnDOT
Whitney Clark, Friends of the Mississippi River
Richard P. Johnson, Acting County Administrator,
Hennepin County
Beth D. Neuendorf, P.E., Metro District Water Resources
Engineer
Jack Frost, Metropolitan Council
Judy Sventek, Metropolitan Council
Eric Evenson, Administrator, Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District
Janette Brimmer, Minnesota Center for Environmental
Advocacy
Timothy Larson, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Lou Flynn, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Molly Zins, Minnesota Water
MN Department Of Agriculture
Art Persons, MN Dept Of Health
Kevin Bigalke, Administrator, Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District
Tom Petersen, Ramsey Conservation District
David J. Twa, Ramsey County Manager, Ramsey County
Court House
Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Director and County Engineer,
Ramsey County Public Works
Cliff Aichinger, Administrator, Ramsey - Washington
Metro WD
Tim Fell, Army Corps of Engineers
Tamara Cameron, Army Corps of Engineers
Michael Casanova, President, Riley- Purgatory Creek
Watershed District
Stephen Schneider, General Manager, Saint Paul
Regional Water Service
Steve Gatlin, Chair, Six Cities Water Management
Organization
Nick Rowse, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Stephanie McNamara, Administrator, Vadnais Lake
Area Water Management Organization
David Bucheck, President, Valley Branch Watershed
District
James Riggs, Washington Conservation District
Jyneen Thatcher, Washington Conservation District
James Schug, County Administrator, Washington
County
Amanda Goebel, Washington County Transp. &
Physical Dev.
Donald C. Wisniewski, P.E., Director, Washington
County Transp. & Physical Dev.
John Freitag, Washington County Transp. & Physical
Dev.
Donald J. Theisen, P.E., Washington County
Transportation Division
Richard S. Gwynn, RCWD Advisory Committee
Mary Jo Truchon, RCWD Advisory Committee
Gary Baumann, RCWD Advisory Committee
Barbara Liukkonen, RCWD Advisory Committee
Vince Niemczyk, RCWD Advisory Committee
Patricia Preiner, RCWD Advisory Committee
Karen Eckman, RCWD Advisory Committee
Douglas A. Hall, RCWD Advisory Committee
Thomas Hefty, RCWD Advisory Committee
Emil Kucera, RCWD Advisory Committee
Wayne LeBlanc, RCWD Advisory Committee
Dave Stibbe, RCWD Advisory Committee
•
•
•
•
•
•
RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
STATEMENT OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS
Proposed Revisions to Rice Creek Watershed District Rules
June 13, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON July 11, 2007
I. BACKGROUND
This Statement of Need and Reasonableness ( "SONAR ") presents a summary of
proposed changes to the following rules of the Rice Creek Watershed District:
• Rule A: Definitions
• Rule B: Procedural Requirements
• Rule C: Stormwater Management Plans
• Rule D: Erosion Control Plans
• Rule E: Floodplain Alteration
• Rule F: Wetland Alteration
• Rule G: Bridges and Culvert Crossings
• Rule H: Shoreland Development
• Rule I: Drainage Systems
• Rule L: Variances
A number of the proposed changes would simply clarify provisions of the present rules
and explicitly incorporate certain interpretations of the rules as they have been
consistently applied by District staff. In addition, a number of substantive rule
changes are proposed.
This document does not note a number of the more minor proposed changes or cover
all details of the proposed revisions. The interested reader is directed to the
accompanying rule text that shows all proposed changes in redline.
The District's present rules were adopted on August 12, 1998. A number of changes,
some more substantial and some less so, follow from the District's nine years of
experience applying those rules. Many of the proposed changes clarify present
standards, incorporate explicitly into the Rules interpretations that have developed
•
over time, and address gaps or specific problem areas that have come to light during
application of the rules over the past nine years.
The District invites all interested parties to submit written comment on the proposed
changes. Comments must be received by August 1, 2007. State and regional resource
protection agencies, local governments and potentially regulated parties are
particularly invited to engage in a review of these proposed rules for the purpose of
making them as resource - protective as possible without creating excessive
administrative costs or placing an undue burden on those subject to them. Comments
on specific provisions in the proposed rules and how they may apply in practice are
most useful. Similarly, criticisms are most valuable when accompanied by suggested
alternative language or a suggested alternative regulatory approach.
In addition to a 45 -day period for receipt of written comment, the District will hold a
public hearing at the Council Chambers, City of Shoreview, at 7:00 p.m. on July 11,
2007, at which time any interested person will have the opportunity to address the
District Board of Managers concerning the proposed revisions. The District will
consider carefully all comments and make appropriate changes to the proposed
revisions before adoption.
The legal authority for the District's Rules derives from Minnesota Statutes Chapters
103B and 103D. Under Minnesota Statutes § 103D.341, subdivision 1, watershed
districts must adopt rules "to accomplish the purposes of [the watershed act] and to
implement the powers of the managers." These purposes include, among others,
conservation of water for public uses; controlling erosion and siltation of lakes,
streams and wetlands; and protecting water quality in these bodies. Minn. Stat. §
103D.201, subd. 2. District managers are further authorized to regulate and control
the use of water within the watershed district and regulate the use of streams and
watercourses to prevent pollution. Id. § 103D.335, subds. 10 and 16. Finally,
watershed districts in the Twin Cities metropolitan area are authorized to regulate the
water resource impacts of land use and development where local government units
have not adopted district - approved local water management plans. Id. § 103B.211,
subd. 1; § 103D.335, subd. 23.
District rules, and revisions to those rules, must be adopted by a majority vote of the
Board of Managers, after public notice and hearing. Id. §103D.341, subd. 1(a). Before
adoption, a copy of the proposed rules must be provided to the Minnesota Board of
Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and all public transportation authorities for a 45 -day
period of review and comment. Id. §103D.341, subd. 1(b).
2
•
II. RULE A: DEFINITIONS
A number of minor changes are proposed to clarify language in the District's current
definitions. Specifically, the definition of "ordinary high water level" (OHWL) is
supplemented to state that where the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has
established an OHWL for a public water, the RCWD will consider that to be the OHWL.
In addition, the definition of setback would be modified to note that in some cases a
setback from a watercourse is measured from the OHWL, and in other cases from the
centerline.
Definitions also would be added for the following terms:
• Better Site Design
• Channel
• Mill and Overlay
• NPDES Permit
• Several terms would be deleted because with the proposed changes, those terms no
longer would appear in the Rules.
III. RULE B: PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
Clarification, simplification and the introduction of flexibility where appropriate
underlie the changes to Rule B.
The proposed rule urges property owners to contact RCWD staff to discuss the project
before submitting an application (Section 1). The RCWD would like to work proactively
with potential applicants as a way of making the permitting process more transparent
and effective for property owners. The rule also would add language (Section 3)
emphasizing that outstanding unfulfilled compliance items must be minimal before an
application is brought forward to the Board of Managers for permit approval. The
Board intends to adopt, by resolution, a policy more specifically governing when
applications will be considered ready for Board review and action.
The proposed rules include a number of other small changes and clarifications. These
include the following:
•
• The term "CAPROC" (Conditional Approval Pending Receipt of Changes) is
explained (Section 5). Until now a CAPROC has not explicitly been limited in
duration. Under the proposed rule, a CAPROC would expire in 12 months if
pending conditions are not met, requiring a property owner to reapply in order
to proceed with the work.
• The requirement to submit proof that permit applications have been submitted
to other regulatory entities (present Section 9) would be deleted. It is a property
owner's responsibility to identify and obtain all required permits.
• The present rule requires a complete application to include the project surety
(Section 3). Recognizing that the surety amount might not be determined until
the project design is finalized and that there is not a need for a surety before
work begins, the District proposes to delete this requirement. Instead, a surety
would need to be submitted before an approved permit is issued.
• Language would be added (Section 6) to clarify that the RCWD has the authority
to amend the conditions of a permit on renewal, if new circumstances warrant.
For the first renewal, a permit would not be subject to change due to a change
in the Rules themselves; in other words, for three years a permittee would be
assured that an approved development design is deemed in accordance with
District requirements.
• At present, any surety requirement of Tess than $5,000 must be met with a cash
surety for the purpose of administrative handling. The proposed rule would
raise this figure to $10,000 (Paragraph 9(b)).
• The proposed rule would provide for the Board of Managers, by resolution, to
delegate permitting authority to the District Administrator (Section 3). This
revision contemplates the Board's exploring permitting efficiencies by
authorizing District staff to issue permits for certain activities.
Finally, on April 27, 2005, the RCWD Board of Managers adopted Resolution 2005 -06
revising Rule B to remove the schedule of permit fees from the rule. Instead, the
permit fee schedule is adopted and adjusted from time to time by Board resolution.
The proposed rule would also remove surety amounts from the rule and provide,
similarly, for those amounts to be set and adjusted by Board resolution (Section 9).
4
•
•
IV. RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Proposed changes to the stormwater rule reflect advances in the science of and
approach to stormwater management generally and the technical recommendations of
the District Engineer in particular. The focus has shifted in part away from managing
the impacts of development at the "end of the pipe" to rethinking project design in
order to decrease the impacts that need to be managed. The emphasis on ponding
and regional treatment has given way to a better understanding of infiltration systems
and their ability to manage stormwater onsite. Under the proposed rule, stormwater
Best Management Practices would be evaluated with more sensitivity to site - specific
conditions, and specific terms for runoff volume and water quality management on
public roadway work and similarly constrained linear public projects would be added.
A. Introduction
Under pre - settlement conditions, a portion of any precipitation event infiltrates the soil
column. Water filtering into the soil recharges groundwater and feeds groundwater -
dependent natural resources. As the soil becomes saturated, excess water flows over
the land as runoff and collects in rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, and other low areas.
The type of soil and its vegetative cover can alter the volume of infiltration. Bare clay,
for instance, typically has a higher volume of runoff than sandy soil covered with dense
grass. Under developed conditions, less rainfall is able to filter into the soil column.
Roadways, roofs, sidewalks, compacted lawns and parking lots all reduce the amount
of water that can infiltrate into the soil.
Changing the course that water travels following a precipitation event amounts to an
alteration of the hydrologic cycle. Under pre - settlement conditions, only a small
percentage of total rainfall enters streams and other water bodies as surface runoff.
Most rainfall evaporates, is taken up by plants and released through transpiration, or
infiltrates. Infiltrated water either discharges to streams or travels deeper into soils to
replenish groundwater aquifers.
Development activities lead to the removal of vegetation and the creation of
impervious surfaces, resulting in less water moving though the system as interflow or
groundwater, and reduced evaporation /transpiration. The percent of rainfall entering
streams and other water bodies as surface runoff increases greatly as imperviousness
within the watershed increases. Increased volumes of surface runoff can degrade the
stability and function of rivers and streams, increase pollutant Toads, and lead to
flooding, especially in landlocked basins.
•
Conversely, increased runoff volume means decreased infiltration of water into the soil
and groundwater. Groundwater baseflow supports drinking water sources and the
function and value of groundwater- dependent natural resources. Percolation through
soils also allows natural systems to remove pollutants from groundwater that may be
withdrawn for use or that ultimately will emerge in surface waters.
The most substantial proposed changes are directed largely toward protecting the
integrity of the groundwater system.
B. Applicability
The stormwater rule would be reorganized to be more readily understandable. Instead
of a simple clause applying the permit requirement broadly, with substantial
exceptions at the end of the rule, the proposed rule would more carefully define permit
applicability up front and reduce the exceptions section substantially (Section 2). The
applicability section would specifically define the permit requirement for residential,
commercial and industrial development and redevelopment. The rule would continue
to apply to other forms of land disturbance (including roadways and trails) through the
broad introductory clause.
Two substantive changes would be made to the permit applicability language:
• Presently, industrial, commercial or multifamily residential development on a
site smaller than 2.5 acres is exempted from the rule unless it is near a
floodplain or specified waterbody. The proposed rule would reduce the scope
of this exemption so that it would apply only to development on a site smaller
than one acre (Paragraph 2(a)). The exception from the permit requirement for
single - family residential development would remain for sites smaller than five
acres (Paragraph 2(b)).
• In the case of site redevelopment where less than 50 percent of the site is being
disturbed, the present requirement to detain and treat the 2.5 -inch storm within
a basin applies only to that part of the site being disturbed. The rule proposes
to change this, so that the detention /infiltration requirement will apply to all
site hard surface if the proposal either (a) would disturb 50 percent or more of
existing hard surface or (b) would increase hard surface by 50 percent or more
(Paragraph 2(e)). However, while the additional hard surface would be subject to
6
•
•
the 2.8 -inch infiltration /retention standard, existing surface would be subject
only to an 0.8 -inch standard (Paragraph 3(b)(ii)(c).
Finally, the rule specifically would exempt pure mill and overlay work on roads or other
linear projects from the permit requirement (Paragraph 2(g)).
C. Volume Control and Water Quality
A prominent focus of this rule revision is to promote on -site stormwater management
for purposes of water quality and local water resource and habitat protection. In
addition, on -site management can be more cost - effective and require less
maintenance than downgradient "end of pipe" controls.
The present rules require construction of detention basins for stormwater management
(Paragraph 3(f)) and state a preference for a regional approach to management (Section
1). The proposed rules, instead, state a policy to "[m]aximize infiltration on individual
sites through Better Site Design practices and advanced stormwater management to
control runoff volume increases" (Section 1).
The rules, however, do recognize that for certain site conditions, it will be infeasible to
fully infiltrate on site and that water quality and peak flow management will require
use of a National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) pond (designed to hold the 2.5 -inch
storm event) or other basin. In this case, absent local groundwater concerns the
District retains its preference for regional basins as they are more efficient from a land
use perspective and more reliably maintained (Paragraph 3(b)(i)(a)).
Further, the District recognizes that some existing basins were designed, built and
funded to provide for regional treatment under certain build -out assumptions. While
this does not make development within the contributing area immune from the
evolution of stormwater management standards, the District intends to take these
circumstances into account (Paragraph 3(b)(i)(a)).
The present rule requires the use of Best Management Practices to meet the criterion of
infiltrating the median (0.34 -inch) storm within 72 hours (Paragraph 3(k)). A separate
provision (Paragraph 3(f)) requires treatment to the National Urban Runoff Program
(NURP) standard of 50 percent phosphorus removal through stormwater detention.
• Under the proposed rule, these criteria would be combined into a single standard
requiring infiltration, or where not feasible detention, of the two -year (2.8 -inch) storm
7
•
event (Paragraph 3(b)(ii)(b)). For sites with Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) soil types A
and B, the emphasis will be on infiltration. For sites with HSG soil types C and D,
biofiltration and detention will be permitted to a greater extent.
A property owner would be required to present an explicit analysis of site design
practices that will limit impervious cover, preserve natural areas and retain the natural
infiltration capacity of a property (Paragraph 3(b)(ii)(a)). If site volume retention and
water quality criteria cannot be met because of unsuitable soils, high groundwater or
circumstances that make infiltration undesirable (e.g., site contamination), a property
owner then should seek to utilize biofiltration or filtration methods. Only after those
methods have been explored may a property owner resort to detention in a natural or
artificial basin as a means of meeting water quality criteria (Paragraph 3(b)(ii)(a), (e)).
The existing requirement for use of a detention basin would be deleted.
A prominent addition to the stormwater rule would be a separate set of volume control
and water quality criteria for linear projects, such as roads and trails, built by road
authorities and other public bodies (Paragraph 3(b)(ii)(f)). Because these projects very
frequently involve constrained right -of -way in developed areas, infiltration may be
challenging. Further, roadways and similar linear surfaces require periodic resurfacing
or reconstruction and are subject to minor alterations. Applying the standard criteria
to these activities in many cases would impose an expense on communities
disproportionate to the work being undertaken and could create incentives for units of
government to defer ordinary infrastructure maintenance.
Accordingly, the proposed rule would subject a linear project to the standard criterion
- infiltrating or retaining the 2.8 -inch storm -- if the project would create an acre or
more of new impervious surface. However, if the project would not meet this
threshold, if it involves simply conversion to urban section (curb and gutter), or if it
involves expanding or reconstructing an existing roadway /trail, facilities need be sized
only to capture the 0.8 -inch rain event. Again, mill and overlay without an increase in
surface area would not be subject to the rule.
Proposed site design practices and Best Management Practices will need to conform to
standard reference documents. However, the proposed rule also would incorporate
certain specific design criteria.
First, pretreatment will be required before discharge to infiltration (Paragraph 3(c)(i)).
Pretreatment lengthens the performance period of an infiltration practice and reduces
its maintenance frequency. Numerous studies have observed that infiltration practices
are susceptible to soil clogging and can fail due to the absence of pretreatment.
8
Over time, an infiltration practice will need to be regularly maintained to restore its
original infiltration capacity. Restoration may include actions such as removal of the
top layer of material, removal and replacement of a gravel filter or deep tilling. The
purpose of the pretreatment requirement is to protect the infiltration system from
clogging before scheduled maintenance and to protect groundwater from
contamination. Pretreatment would include any Best Management Practice that
removes settleable or particulate material or other contaminating pollutants.
In addition, the proposed rule: (a) requires a 48 -hour drawdown time; (b) mandates at
least three feet of separation from the seasonal high water table; and (c) requires that
design provide for maintenance access (Paragraph 3(c)(i)).
D. Peak Flow Management
Under the present rule, a property owner must ensure that under the proposed
condition, the peak rate of stormwater runoff at the parcel boundary will not exceed
the "pre - project" rate for the one -, two- and 100 -year, 24 -hour storm events
(Paragraph 3(b)). The rule requires that an applicant use hydrologic modeling to
determine the difference in peak runoff rate from the pre - project to the proposed
condition, and take measures to maintain the rate at the pre - project condition.
The RCWD proposes to amend the rule to require post - project peak flow to be held to
the "pre- settlement," rather than "pre- project," peak rate (Paragraph 3(b)(iii)). The
goal of stormwater management is to mimic natural conditions -- and the natural
dynamic equilibrium -- as much as possible to cause the least impact to downstream
resources. Requiring proposals to meet the "pre- settlement" condition will provide a
higher level of protection that more closely approaches the conditions that sustained
the District's resources in the past. This modeling assumption will apply to those parts
of a site with hard cover. If the site already has hard cover in the pre - development
state, that hard cover may be reflected in modeling the pre - development condition.
"Pre- project" curve numbers (numbers reflecting the proportion of precipitation that
moves as surface runoff) typically are those for pasture, open space, and woods -grass
uses (Table 1).
9
Table 1: Curve Numbers Typically Used to Calculate Stormwater Runoff
Under Pre - Development Conditions
Hydrologic Sol/ Group
A
B
C
0
Runoff Curve Number for Pasture
in Good Condition
39
61
74
80
Runoff Curve Number for Open
Space in Good Condition
39
61
74
80
Runoff Curve Number for
Woods -Grass in Good Condition
32
58
72
79
The revised rules would define the "pre- settlement" condition as a prairie community
at the time preceding the European settlement of Minnesota, as defined by the
Marschner map (USDA, 1974). The Marschner map is used extensively in Minnesota as
a reliable reference on pre - settlement land condition. Specific curve numbers to be
used in modeling pre - settlement runoff are included in the rule and are as shown in
Table 2:
Table 2: Curve Numbers to be used to Calculate Stormwater Runoff from
Upland Areas Under Pre - Settlement Conditions
Hydrologic Soil Group
A
B
C
D
Runoff Curve Number for Prairie
Communities
30
58
71
78
The pre - settlement curve numbers proposed by the RCWD are slightly lower than
those identified for the pre - development condition, meaning that the revised rule will
result in lower maximum allowable peak flows. For permit applicants, the extent of
the burden resulting from this change will depend on the site's soil types, pre -
development condition, and proposed final land uses. Comments are solicited on the
impact of this modeling change on the feasibility and cost of stormwater management.
One impact of increased peak flow rates is disruption of a receiving waterbody's
natural pattern of water elevation fluctuation, which can destabilize vegetation,
promote erosion and injure highly valued fringe habitat. In addition to a peak flow
criterion, the proposed rule would protect against harmful elevation changes (bounce)
or increases in inundation directly by adopting the limits on increases in bounce and
inundation period recommended by the Minnesota Stormwater Advisory Group in its
10
•
•
"Stormwater and Wetlands Planning and Evaluation Guidelines for Addressing Potential
Impacts of Urban Stormwater and Snowmelt Runoff on Wetlands" (1997) (Paragraph
3(b)(iv)). This management schematic classifies wetlands into four categories of
vulnerability (susceptibility) and applies bounce and inundation period limits
accordingly.
E. Flood Protection for Structures
The present rule requires that the low floor of all new construction maintain a
separation of two feet above the 100- year -event water elevation of a natural or
artificial waterbody and of one foot above the emergency overflow of the waterbody
(Paragraph 3(j)). Within a landlocked basin, low floor elevations must be at least a foot
above the basin outlet.
The proposed rule would restate and somewhat revise these freeboard requirements
(Paragraph 3(c)(v)). As proposed, the requirement for separation above the 100 -year
high water elevation and above the emergency overflow must be met for both low floor
and low entry elevations. Four categories of water feature are specified, each with its
own requirements for low -floor and low -entry separation from water elevations:
regional flood elevations, local basins and wetlands, infiltration basins and mottled
soils.
In addition, the rule would allow more flexibility for building in landlocked basins. A
structure would be permitted below the basin outlot if the property owner
demonstrates that the low -floor elevation is at least two feet above the water level of
both the 100 -year, 10 -day runoff event and back -to -back 100 -year, 24 -hour rainfall
events.
Finally, the RCWD currently applies its freeboard requirements to the design of
stormwater treatment basins constructed adjacent to existing structures, although the
language of the rules is not fully clear on this. The proposed rule would clarify that the
freeboard rule applies in such situations.
F. Modeling Protocol
The proposed rule also would clarify and refine the protocol for modeling stormwater
flows as a part of the permitting process. The proposed changes include the following:
11
• Modeling must conform to Technical Release #20 of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and subsequent guidance,
and composite curve numbers may not include directly connected impervious
surface (Paragraph 3(a)(i)).
• The critical 100 -year precipitation events are explicitly defined as the 24 -hour
rainfall and the 10 -day snowmelt (Paragraph 3(a)(iii)).
• Stormwater modeling for the peak flow and volume criteria need only consider
the two -year and 100 -year critical events, and not the one -year event
(Paragraph 4(i)).
Also, application submittal requirements would be amended to require soil borings in
the locations of all proposed stormwater management facilities (Paragraph 4(d)).
G. Easement Requirements and Facility Maintenance Obligations
The stormwater rule presently requires an applicant to provide an easement for District
review and approval. The proposed rule would clarify the easement requirement
(Paragraph 4(m)). First, it would state clearly that a flowage easement is required over
the area inundated by the 100 -year, 24 -hour storm for all surface elements of the
stormwater system and all on -site floodplain.
Second, it would clarify that the easement is for the benefit of the land use authority,
in accordance with the nearly universal practice to require easement dedication as a
part of platting or municipal development approval. The District does not wish to
require property owners to convey duplicative easements.
Third, however, the rules would explicitly require that an easement on a public ditch be
a minimum of 33 feet on each side of centerline, and that the District's ability to
enforce this restriction be established. As ditch authority, the District holds right -of-
way for public ditch systems and must keep the area adjacent to its ditches clear so
that maintenance can be performed. It was widespread practice at the time the
District's public systems were established, early in the previous century, for right -of-
way to be set at 66 feet (four rods) on centerline for maintenance access. At this time,
some landowners may not be mindful of this constraint. The rule would provide a
reminder.
12
•
•
•
•
•
The proposed rule also would correct the existing provision concerning the obligation
to maintain stormwater management facilities. This provision imposes on the property
owner a perpetual maintenance responsibility, but says this may be fulfilled either
through a maintenance agreement or by municipal acceptance of "the required
easements." This language does not reflect the intent of the rule or how it has been
consistently applied. The correction (Paragraph 3(c)(vi)) would clarify:
• That property owner assumption of maintenance occurs through execution and
recordation of a declaration or similar instrument that establishes permanent
maintenance responsibility and runs with the property; and
• That municipal assumption of the perpetual maintenance responsibility does not
require an easement conveyance. Instead, a municipality that wishes to assume
responsibility must outline its maintenance program in the local water
management plan it is required by law to prepare, and the District must approve
the program. Thereafter, a simple written commitment to maintain the facilities
in question, by an appropriate municipal official, will suffice.
Finally, the rule would incorporate the existing, but not explicit, District requirement to
provide certified as -built surveys and drawings of stormwater facilities on final site
stabilization (Paragraph 3(c)(vii)). These confirm construction and installation in
accordance with the approved design and ensure that sedimentation and other
construction -phase disturbances have been rectified. They also provide a baseline for
later maintenance.
H. Exceptions
As noted earlier, the exceptions section will be greatly simplified by expanding the
applicability section of the rule.
In addition, two existing exemptions would be deleted. First, consistent with the
earlier- discussed shift from detention to infiltration, because a detention basin no
longer is required, the existing exemption from the detention basin requirement
(present Paragraph 6(g)) would be deleted. Secondly, the existing provision waiving
the freeboard requirement for certain short- duration floods (present Paragraph 6(h)) is
deleted and superseded by the comprehensive freeboard provisions of the proposed
rule.
13
V. RULE D: EROSION CONTROL PLANS
The present rule requires an approved erosion control plan and District permit for
"development, redevelopment or additions to an existing site" (Section 2). The terms
"development" and "redevelopment," in turn, are defined, broadly, to include all "land -
disturbing activity." This expansive language has created ambiguity, particularly in the
case of certain minor land- and vegetation- disturbing activities.
The District is proposing to replace this with a more definite standard that would
require an erosion control permit for the stockpiling or movement of 50 cubic yards or
more of erosive material or the disturbance of 5,000 square feet or more of soil or
vegetation (Section 2). Ordinary farming activity would be excepted.
These thresholds are one fairly common set of thresholds and, in the District's
perception, are fairly well calculated to exempt minor activities but still require careful
attention to some projects of limited scope, such as single - family house construction
or substantial house additions, that still can cause significant harm if exposed soils are
not managed thoughtfully.
Further proposed changes are primarily to emphasize that both limiting erosion and
limiting movement of sediments from disturbed sites are principal goals of erosion
control plans. Several changes would clarify the existing requirements or tighten them
in specific ways. In addition, the erosion control rule would be bolstered with the
addition of inspection specifications and requirements and a stronger link to the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency- administered construction program.
The rule would require a property owner to comply with the NPDES construction permit
for the development (Section 5). The construction permit is administered by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which has a limited ability to be vigilant as to local
activity. The effect of this provision would be to give RCWD inspectors the ability to
inspect for and respond to site control practices at odds with the NPDES permit.
Other proposed changes include the following:
• The erosion control plan would need to identify staging areas so that erosion
control protections for those areas can be property evaluated (Paragraph 4(f)).
• The present rule exempts certain activities from the requirement of an erosion
control plan, namely industrial, commercial and multifamily residential
14
•
•
•
development on a site smaller than 2.5 acres, and single - family residential
development on a site smaller than five acres (present Section 5). The proposed
rule would delete this exemption and require all development meeting the
applicable threshold to incorporate adequate erosion and sediment control
precautions.
• Permanent infiltration facilities require more care during construction to avoid
soil compaction, soil surface smearing and sedimentation. District practice has
been to include conditions in the permit for this purpose. The proposed rule
would explicitly require the erosion control plan to address this need (Paragraph
3(e)).
• The proposed rule clarifies the property owner's responsibility to inspect and
maintain erosion and sediment control practices until a site is finally stabilized
or the permit is assigned or transferred (Paragraph 6(c)). The specific
requirement to inspect after each 0.5 -inch rainfall would be deleted.
• A specific criterion for "final stabilization" - 70 percent density of vegetation and
. ground cover - would be established (Paragraph 7(a)).
• As proposed, the application would need to include a copy of any Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan the property owner has prepared pursuant to an NPDES
permit.
VI. RULE E: FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION
The primary change to the floodplain rule would be to substantially simplify it by
departing from the present approach, which establishes two separate floodplain
sectors within the watershed (present Section 3). Instead, the rule would impose a
uniform standard requiring replacement, within the same floodplain, of any flood
storage capacity lost by filling between the ordinary high water level and the 100 -year
flood elevation (Paragraph 3(a)).
The rule also would set explicit timing requirements on flood storage replacement: on-
site replacement would need to be provided within the permit term, while off -site
replacement would need to occur before any floodplain filling (Paragraph 3(a)).
• The proposed rule also poses a provision that would allow fill or encroachment within
the flood fringe where there is a formal delineation of floodway accepted by the
15
•
Federal Emergency Management Agency and the municipality regulates flood fringe
activity (Paragraph 3(a)). Comments are invited as to whether such an exception, or a
similar one, would properly balance respect for local land use interests with the flood
protection, safety and habitat benefits of preserving floodplain.
The rule also would align the easement requirement of Section 4 more closely with its
floodplain preservation purposes. The present rule limits the width of the required
flowage easement so that it many cases it will not encompass the entire protected
floodplain. Under the proposed rule, the easement would need to encompass the
floodplain. Further, presently minimum widths are prescribed for easements on Rice
Creek, Hardwood Creek, Clearwater Creek, public ditches and major drainageways
within the watershed (the last term defined in Rule A as "any drainageway having a
tributary area of 200 acres or greater "). The basis for the particular widths specified is
not clear. In the same way as is proposed for the stormwater rule (see above), the rule
would be revised to require a minimum easement width only on public ditches, and set
the minimum width at 33 feet each side of centerline. As explained above, the
purpose of this minimum width is to remind property owners of the need to keep ditch
right -of -way clear for maintenance access.
Finally, the following minor changes would be made:
• The policy statement (Section 1) would be refined.
• The existing prohibition on the construction of hard surface within the
designated groundwater recharge area of the Prairie du Chien Gordan formation
would be continued (Paragraph 3(b)). However, the exception would be
narrowed so that roads and trails, but not "other recreational improvements,"
would be permitted.
• The authority of the RCWD to require soil borings as part of an application
would be clarified (Paragraph 5(g)).
• The encroachment created by riprap or other shoreline stabilization structures
would not be treated as floodplain fill requiring replacement, provided the
structure has been approved by the District (Section 6). The rule indicates that
the District's approval will rest on its determination that the proposed structure
addresses a real stabilization need, that it is structurally sound, that it is
designed to encroach no further than necessary and that it will not adversely
change hydraulic forces as they may affect other properties. The reason for this
16
•
exception is to not discourage property owners from taking steps necessary to
protect shorelands from erosion and destabilization.
VII. RULE F: WETLAND ALTERATION
The wetlands rule would be extensively revised, in the main to reflect the field and
project- review experience of RCWD staff. A number of criteria, particularly concerning
the performance of wetland delineations and replacement requirements, would be
added to supplement the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and apply as well
to RCWD permitting of wetland disturbance not subject to WCA.
Under the present rule, any proposed wetland disturbance not subject to WCA is
evaluated by the RCWD under a general criterion that prohibits activity that would
"change the character" of a wetland without preserving wetland quantity, quality and
biological diversity (present Paragraph 3(d)). The proposed rule would subject such
activities to a replacement requirement subject to specific WCA and additional criteria
(Paragraph 3(b)). The terms of RCWD regulation would be further refined as follows:
• Replacement for non -WCA impacts would be required at a ratio of 1:1 (an acre
of replacement wetland for each acre of disturbed wetland) (Paragraph 3(c)).
However, replacement in the form of the restoration of degraded wetland would
receive double acreage credit. The purpose of this provision is to create an
incentive for wetland restoration. The RCWD believes that all other things being
equal, wetland restoration is more likely than new wetland creation to succeed,
and further that the function and value of restored wetland is more predictable.
The proposed replacement, though, still would need to demonstrate
preservation of wetland quality and function equivalent to that lost as a result of
the wetland disturbance.
• Replacement would not be required for a wetland disturbance that does not
change wetland type, function, quantity, quality or biological diversity
(Paragraph 3(d)).
The following criteria also are proposed to apply to wetland replacement under both
WCA and RCWD standards, as applicable:
• Sequencing (avoidance, minimization, replacement) analysis would be required
• to address each contiguous wetland area separately (Paragraph 5(a)).
17
•
• At least 50 percent of the area of disturbed wetland would need to be replaced
by wetland of the same type (Paragraph 5(c)).
• To receive New Wetland Credit, replacement wetland must be accompanied by
protected vegetated buffer at least 25 feet in width at all points (Paragraph 5(b)).
The buffer may be credited as Public Value Credit.
• To qualify for New Wetland Credit, replacement wetland must be designed to
meet specified slope limits at the wetland edge (Paragraph 5(e)).
The RCWD also proposes to require that where wetland disturbance is proposed for a
project involving subdivision, any replacement wetland must be located on an outlot
and protected from potential encroachment by a physical barrier such as an existing
wetland, stormwater facility or other permanent physical feature (Paragraph 5(d)). The
intent of this provision is to address the tendency for property owners or residents to
act on expectations of property access and use and gradually to encroach on "passive"
lands over time. Comment is particularly welcomed from developers and local units of
government on the extent to which this limitation would present platting or
development challenges.
The rule also would delete the existing specific criterion limiting use of wetlands for
stormwater storage or treatment (present Paragraph 3(c)). Instead, all such proposed
use would be reviewed by the RCWD under the general requirement of Paragraph 3(d)
limiting actions that would affect the character, quantity, quality or biological diversity
of wetlands.
The rule also would clarify that in order to be used for replacement for another project,
any replacement credits would need to be designated for banking, and properly
deposited, in accordance with WCA requirements (Paragraph 5(f)). This includes
designation for banking in an original banking plan prior to creation. The rule would
permit use of such credits before they actually are finally accepted for deposit into the
state wetland bank if the application for their use is submitted and complete Tess than
two years after their construction and the District finds that allowing the use is
appropriate after considering the comments of the WCA Technical Evaluation Panel.
Finally, the proposed rule would clarify the submittal requirements and the numbers of
copies of particular documents that must be submitted.
18
•
VIII. RULE G: BRIDGES AND CULVERT CROSSINGS
Proposed Rule G adds a clarification with respect to crossings or culverts on public
ditch systems (Section 3). The present rule requires structures to preserve hydraulic
capacity "equivalent [to the] existing condition." Benefited lands draining to a ditch
system, generally speaking, have a legal right to the hydraulic capacity corresponding
to the ditch as originally constructed. This may or may not correspond to the "existing
condition." For example, a culvert being replaced may have been installed erroneously
at an elevation above the as- constructed profile. Under state law, the owner of a
culvert or other crossing structure is responsible to ensure its structure does not
obstruct a public ditch and must bear the cost to remove an obstruction.
At the same time, if much time has passed since it last was necessary to reestablish
the full as- constructed profile, the details of this profile may not be immediately
available to the District as ditch authority, or the permittee. The District undertakes
formal proceedings to establish this official profile when necessary for larger -scale
hydraulic or hydrologic work within the contributing area of a ditch system, but these
proceedings and the engineering investigations on which they are based can be time
consuming and expensive. Accordingly, the District cannot perform this work for each
culvert crossing that is proposed.
Where the Board of Managers has not established the official profile, the District's
practice has been to advise the permittee of this and to state in the permit that the
permittee bears the risk that the structure later may be found to be an obstruction
within the meaning of the ditch law. The proposed rule would state this explicitly, to
ensure the applicant understands the risk it will assume, and - in the event it is later
found that the structure lies above the official profile -- to protect benefited lands
from a claim that the crossing structure was approved by the ditch authority and
therefore not subject to the ditch authority's power to direct removal.
IX. RULE H: SHORELAND DEVELOPMENT
The Shoreline Development rule has been entirely deleted, reflecting the effective
coverage of this area by municipal shoreland ordinances.
X. RULE I: DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
•
19
•
Rule I is unchanged, other than a clarification of exhibit dimensions and a reminder
that certain procedures and approvals under the ditch law, Minnesota Statutes Chapter
103E, may be required in addition to a District permit.
XI. RULE J: APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC WATERS
No change is proposed.
XII. RULE K: ENFORCEMENT
Rule K would be revised to clarify that if work is in violation of District permit
requirements, the District may issue an order both to cease non - complying work and
to take steps to remedy the violation and address any harms resulting from the
violation.
XIII. RULE L: VARIANCES
Rule L is amended to provide that a variance expires with the expiration of the CAPROC
or permit of which it is a part.
20
•
Rice
Watershed
istrict
RLES
DRAFT DOCUMENT
1
CERTIFICATION OFPROPOSED RULES
I, Andrew J. Cardinal, Sr., Secretary eMhe Rice Creek Watershed
copy of the Rules of the Rice Creek Waters
ado, • - : - ... . •agers of the R�� ioe -peck Watershed District.
and correct
Dated- August 26, 1998
(Issued for Public Review June 13, 2007)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION
GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT
RELATIONSHIP TO MUNICIPALITIES
RULE A: DEFINITIONS
RULE B: PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Application Required.
2. Forms.
3. Action by Board of Managers.
4. Issuance of Permits.
5. Permit Term.
6. Permit Assignment.
7. Permit Fees.
8. Performance Surety.
9. Other Permits and Approvals.
RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS
1. Policy.
2. Regulation.
3. Design Criteria for Stormwater Management Plans.
4. Required Exhibits.
5. Platting or Easement Documents.
6. Exceptions.
RULE D: EROSION CONTROL PLANS
1. Policy.
2. Regulation.
3. Design Criteria for Erosion Control Plans.
4. Required Exhibits.
5. Exceptions.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
2
Page #
4
4
5
5
7
10
13
•
•
•
•
•
RULE E: FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION
1. Policy.
2. Regulation.
3. Criteria for Floodplain Alteration.
4. Drainage Easements.
5. Required Exhibits.
RULE F: WETLAND ALTERATION
1. Policy.
2. Regulation.
3. Criteria.
4. Local Government Unit.
5. Required Exhibits.
6. Exceptions.
RULE G: BRIDGES AND CULVERT CROSSINGS
1. Policy.
2. Regulation.
3. Criteria.
4. Required Exhibits.
5. Exceptions.
RULE H: SHORELAND DEVELOPMENT
1- Policy.
2. Regulation.
3. Criteria.
4. Required Exhibits,
5-. Exceptions.
RULE I: DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
1. Policy.
2. Regulation.
3. Criteria.
4. Required Exhibits.
5. Exceptions.
1:44-L-E d: APPROPRIATION QF ° L-I-G ` "T AT€RS
4. Poticy.
2-: Rem.
3. Criteria,
RULE K: ENFORCEMENT
1. Violation of Rules a Misdemeanor.
2. District Court Action.
3. Administrative Order.
RULE L: VARIANCES
1. Variances Authorized.
2. Standard.
3. Term.
4. Violation.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
3
CERTIFICATION OF RULES
1, Susan Oven. Secretary of the Rice Creek Watershed
District Board of Managers, certify that the attached is a true and correct
copy of the Rules of the Rice Creek Watershed District having been properly
adopted by the Board of Managers of the Rice Creek Watershed District.
Dated:
GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT
The Rice Creek Watershed District (District) is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota,
established under the Minnesota Watershed Law. The District is also a watershed management
organization as defined under the Minnesota Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, and
is subject to the directives and authorizations in that Act. Under the Watershed Law and the
Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, the District exercises a series of powers to
accomplish its statutory purposes. The Districts general statutory purpose is to conserve
natural resources through development planning, flood control, and other conservation projects,
based upon sound scientific principles.
As required under the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, the District has adopted a
Watershed Management Plan, which contains the framework and guiding principles for the
District in carrying out its statutory purposes. It is the District's intent to implement the Plan's
principles and objectives in these rules.
Land alteration affects the rate, volume, and quality of surface water runoff which ultimately
must be accommodated by the existing surface water systems within the District. The
watershed is large, 201 square miles, and its outlet, Rice Creek, has limited capacity to carry
flows. Flooding problems already occur in the District's urbanized areas along lower Rice Creek
and other localized areas.
Land alteration and utilization also can degrade the quality of runoff entering the streams and
waterbodies of the District due to non -point source pollution. Lake and stream sedimentation
from ongoing erosion processes and construction activities reduces the hydraulic capacity of
waterbodies and degrades water quality. Water quality problems already exist in many of the
lakes and streams throughout the District.
Projects which increase the rate or volume of stormwater runoff can aggravate existing flooding
problems and contribute to new ones. Projects which degrade runoff quality can aggravate
existing water quality problems and contribute to new ones. Projects which fill floodplain or
wetland areas can aggravate existing flooding by reducing flood storage and hydraulic capacity
of waterbodies, and can degrade water quality by eliminating the filtering capacity of those
areas.
In these rules the District seeks to protect the public health and welfare and the natural
resources of the District by providing reasonable regulation of the modification or alteration of
the District's lands and waters to reduce the severity and frequency of flooding and high water,
to preserve floodplain and wetland storage capacity, to improve the chemical, physical and
biological quality of surface water, to reduce sedimentation, to preserve waterbodies' hydraulic
and navigational capacity, to preserve natural wetland and shoreland features, and to minimize
public expenditures to avoid or correct these problems in the future.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
4
•
•
RELATIONSHIP OF RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
TO MUNICIPALITIES
The District recognizes that the primary control and determination of appropriate land uses is
the responsibility of the municipalities. Accordingly, the District will coordinate permit application
reviews involving land development with the municipality where the land is located.
The District intends to be active in the regulatory process to ensure that its water resources are
managed in accordance with District goals and policies. Municipalities have the option of
assuming a more active role in the permitting process after adoption of a local water
management plan approved by the District and adoption and implementation of local ordinances
consistent with the approved plan.
The District will also review projects sponsored or undertaken by municipalities and other
governmental units, and generally will require permits et the for governmental
projects impacting water resources of the District. These projects include but are not limited to,
land development and redevelopment, road, trail, and utility construction and reconstruction.
The District desires to serve as technical advisor to the municipalities in their preparation of
local surface water management plans and the review of individual development proposals prior
to investment of significant public or private funds. To promote a coordinated review process
between the District and the municipalities, the District encourages the municipalities or
townships to contact the District early in the planning process.
RULE A
DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of these rules, the following words have the meanings set forth below.
References in these rules to specific sections of the Minnesota Statutes include any
amendments, revisions or recodification of those sections.
Beds of protected waters - all portions of pretestedpublic waters and public waters wetlands
located below the ordinary high water level.
Best management practices (BMPs) - measures taken to minimize negative effects on the
envirenmentwater resources and systems as documented in the Minnesota Construction Site
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (MBWSR, 1988) --andf Protecting Water
Quality in Urban Areas (MPCA, 1989) and the Minnesota Stormwater Manual (MPCA, 2006).
Better Site Design — a set of development or redevelopment site- design principles and
techniques that seek to mimic natural conditions by soaking water into the ground close to
where it falls, minimizing impervious areas to reduce overall runoff volume, reducing connected
impervious areas. and reservin natural drain e atterns and surfaces.
Channel — a perceptible natural or artificial depression, with a definite bed and banks that
confines and conducts water flowing either continuously or periodically.
Criteria - specific details, methods and specifications that apply to all permits and reviews and
that guide implementation of the District's goals and policies.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
5
•
•
•
•
•
Detention basin - any natural or man -made depression that stores storm - water runoff
temporarily.
Development - any proposal to subdivide land, any land disturbing activity or creation of
impervious surface, including but not limited to, municipal road construction or improvement and
construction or reconstruction of stormwater conveyance systems, except that plowing as part
of an en- goingongoing farming operation shall not be considered development.
District - the Rice Creek Watershed District established under the Minnesota Watershed Law,
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D.
Drainage system - a system of a ditch or tile, or both, to drain property, including laterals,
improvements, and improvements of outlets.
method of determining
flood sews
Excavation - the displacement or removal of sediment or other material.
Floodplain - the area adjoining a watercourse or natural or man -made water basin, including
the area around lakes, marshes and lowlands, that is inundated during a 100 -year flood.
Floodway - the channel of the watercourse, the bed of water basins, and those portions of the
adjoining floodplains that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 100 -year flood may be
carried without increasing the 100 -year flood elevation by more than 0.5 feet.
Floodway fringe - the area between the floodway and the boundary of the 100 -year flood.
Governmental project - projects sponsored or paid for by a governmental agency.
Landlocked basin - a basin that does not have a natural outlet at or below the 100 -year flood
elevation, as determined by the 100 -year ten -day runoff event.
Low floor - the lowest level of a structure, usually the basement or walk -out level.
Major drainageway - any drainageway having a tributary area of 200 acres or greater.
Mill and overlay — removal of the top layer of bituminous pavement of a roadway or street by
n
• - it lt• LL- i t- • 1•W-• • kt-
bituminous or concrete pavement.
Municipality - any city or township wholly or partly within the Rice Creek Watershed District.
NPDES Permit — General permit authorization to discharge storm water associated with
construction activity under the national Pollutant Disch. r• Elimi i• n stem NPDES).
issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
6
•
•
NURP - Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (sec Appendix).
Ordinary high water level (OHW) - the elevation delineating the highest water level which has
been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The
ar-dinaFy--high- water IeveIOHW is commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes
from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial If an OHW has been established for a
waterbody by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, that will constitute the OHW
under this definition.
Parcel - any quantity of and capable of being described with such definiteness that its location
and boundaries may be established.
Person - any natural person, partnership, unincorporated association, corporation, limited
liability company, municipal corporation, state agency, political subdivision of the State of
Minnesota.
Public ditch - a county or judicial ditch over which the District has jurisdiction, or a ditch or tile
established, constructed, or transferred to the District and over which the District has jurisdiction
under Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103D, 103E, or 103B.
Public waters - all waters identified as public waters under Minnesota Statutes section
103G.005, subdivision 15.
Public waters wetlands - all wetlands identified as public waters wetlands under Minnesota
Statutes section 103G.005, subdivision 15a.
Redevelopment - any proposal to subdivide•-er -re- subdivide land, or any land- disturbing activity
or creationaddition of impervious surface ent4 a developed site.
Sedimentation basin - a natural or man -made depression that temporarily stores storm -water
runoff for the purpose of allowing a portion of the suspended solids in the runoff to settle out.
- structure or
ordinary water mark -GF between a store -ef- sanitary facility and a road, may, -er
property line.
Shoreland zone - land areas within 1,000 feet of the OHWOHWL of a public waters lake or 300
feet of a public waters watercourse.
Standards
, - value.
Subdivision, subdivide - the separation of an area, parcel, or tract of land under single
ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, lots.
Waterbasin - an enclosed natural depression with definable banks capable of containing water,
that may be partly filled with waters of the state.
Watercourse - a channel that has definable beds and banks capable of conducting confined
• runoff from adjacent land.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
7
Wetland - arm -area identified as wetlandswetland under Minnesota Statutes section 103G.005,
subdivision 19.
RULE B
PERMIT PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
1. APPLICATION REQUIRED. Any person undertaking an activity for which a permit is
required by these rules chall,must obtain the required permit prior to commencing werk,- submit
tot District ' ,
exhibits-as- - - - - - - - - . the activity that is subject to District regulation
•olications for .ermit must be submitted to the District in accordance with the procedures
described in this rule. Required exhibits are specified for each substantive rule below.
A • olicants a e encouraged to contact District staff before submission of an application to review
and discuss a • olication re • uirements and the applicability of specific rules to a proposed
project. All permit applications must bear the original signature of the landowner; or the selected
contractor for governmental projects.
2. FORMS. Permit applications must be submitted on the form provided by the District.
Applicants may obtain these or:, --atan application form from the District office or from the
District web site at http: // ricecreek .org /permit/application.
3. ACTION BY BOARD OF MANAGERS. The Board of Managers shall act within sixty
days of receipt of a complete permit application. A complete permit application includes all
required information, exhibits, fees and surety.and fees. An application will not be ready for
Board consideration unless all substantial technical questions have been addressed and all
substantial • an revisions resulting from staff review have been accomplished. Permit decisions
4. ISSUANCE OF PERMITS. The Beard- e€- Mahage•c will is sue a permit will be issued
only after applicant has satisfied all requirements and conditions for the permit, has paid all
required District fees, and the District has received any required surety.
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL PENDING RECEIPT OF CHANGES (CAPROC
11- •i• '1- .•S • - .1 ..• , .I ..
111 -.. • . 1111- is 1 1-
issuance of a permit until all conditions precedent to the approval have been resolved. All
conditions must be satisfied within twelve (12) months of the date of conditional approval. If a
permit is not obtained within the 12 -month •eriod the a •• licant will be required to reapply for a
permit and pay applicable permit fees.
6. PERMIT TERM. Permits are valid for an eighteen -month period from the date of
issuance unless otherwise suspended or revoked. To extend a permit, the permittee must apply
to the District in writing, stating the reasons for extension. Any plan changes, and related
project documents must also be included in the extension application. The District must receive
this application at least thirty (.days prior to the permit's expiration date. The District may
imiose different or additional conditions on a renewal or deny the renewal in the event of a
material change in circumstances. On the first renewal. a permit will not be subject to change
because of a change in District rules
6:- PERMIT ASSIGNMENT. A permittee may assign a District permit to another party only
upon consent by -the-Beard e€ Managers.STANDARD. The -Beard of--Managers-may- grant the
assignment-ef-an issued permit-if-it findsapproval by the District and findings that the following
DRAFT DOCUMENT
8
•
•
•
•
•
•
conditions have been met:
(a) The proposed assignee in writing agrees to assume all the terms,
conditions and obligations of the permit as originally issued to the
permittee;;
(b) The proposed assignee has the ability to satisfy the terms and
conditions of the permit as originally issued
(c) The proposed assignee is not changing the project as originally
permitted:}
(d) There are no violations of the permit conditions as originally
issued :; and
(e) The District has received from the proposed
assignee any required surety to secure performance of the
assigned permit.
7. PERMIT FEES. -The- District will si arge
Land-Development-Ran
Less than 10 Tots 4250
10 99Iots $500
100 or more lots $750
Les, than 1 surface $150
Greater than 4-acre impervious surface $500
Bridge or Culvert Crossings on Creeks,
Public -Dit es, rn
Major Watco trcec� in the
t
District
4500
All other crossings - - - $150
Streets and Utilities $500
Appropriation of Surface Water $59
A Other Permit-Applications- $150
An -additional- $599- -fee--wilt--be charged -to- applicant -4 the - project -involves_ --mod
Replacement er-- Banking- Plan, or -a- crowing of Rice, Clearwater, - Hardwood Creeks, or -of -e
public ditch.
PROCEDURE AND PAYMENT OF FEE. -Appticant8 PERMIT FEES. The District will charge
applicants permit fees in accordance with a schedule that will be maintained and revised from
time to time by the Board of Managers to ensure that permit fees cover the District's actual
costs of administrating and enforcing permits The current fee schedule may be obtained from
the District office or the District web site at http. / /ricecreek org /permitffeeschedule An applicant
must submit the required permit fee to the District at the time it submits its permit application.
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES EXEMPT. The fees described above-wit-net No permit
fee will be charged to the federal government, the State of Minnesota or a political subdivision of
DRAFT DOCUMENT
9
the State of Minnesota.
&9. PERFORMANCE SURETY.
(a) POLICY.Policy: It is the policy of the Board of Managers to conserve the
District's water resources by assuring compliance with its rules.
assures compliance by requiring a bond or other surety to secure performance of the
permit conditions and thecompliance with District rules 4&
the- Oistrict's, as well as protection of District water resources, in the event of
noncompliance with permit conditions and/or rules..
(b) 'v
Description of Activity
1. Site development with less than 5 $1,500
acres mf disturbed area
area
�
' :'v
- ' ' '' ' ''.
4, 43,600
6,
~.....,'
500 feet
$3.500
Rice Creek or 500 -feet
- --' --- ------------ -$e7*++erparoxcl
distances 5Og feet ov
greater
0�
$250
-shereland-imprevernent projects
9, -Wetland
by WCA acne-
DRAFT DOCUMENT
10
•
•
•
kb_L______EeLftlfIlla110_511feiY_Refale111ent_o_r_agetieca,_wheirecUnuathe
submitted in a form acceptable to the District. The District will require applicants to
submit a surety or sureties in accordance with a schedule of types and amounts that will
be maintained and revised from time to time by the Board of Managers. The current
schedule of surety amounts and acceptable forms and sources may be obtained from
the District office or the District web site at httpi/ ricecreek .orq /permit/suretyschedule
An applicant may submit a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit to
the District to secure performance of permit conditions for activities for which the
required surety amount as determined above is in excess of $5 ,000- 10,000. The
performance bond or letter of credit must be submitted withbefore the permit
applicatienis issued.
(c) FORM AND CONTENTS OF PERFORMANCE BOND OR LETTER OF
CREDIT.
(c) Form and Contents of Performance Bond or Letter of Credit:
(1) The performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit must be in a form
acceptable to the District and from a surety licensed to do business in Minnesota.
(2) The performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit must be in favor of
the District and conditioned upon the performance of the party obtaining the
performance bond or letter of credit of the activities authorized in the permit, and
compliance with all applicable laws, including the District's rules, the terms and
conditions of the permit and payment when due of any fees or other charges required by
law, including the District's rules. The performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit
must provide that if the performance bond conditions are not met, the District may make
a claim against the performance bond or letter of credit.
{d} RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE SURETY. (d) Release of
Performance Surety. Upon written notification from permittee of completion of the
permitted project, the District will inspect the project to determine if it is constructed in
accordance with the terms of the permit and District rules. If the project is completed in
accordance with the terms of the permit and District rules and the party providing the
performance surety does not have an outstanding balance of money owed to the District
for the project, including but not limited to unpaid permit fees, the District will release the
performance bond or letter of credit, or return the cash surety if applicable. Staff, at- -their
discreation, Final inspection compliance includes, but is not limited to, confirmation that
all erosion and sediment control BMPs and stormwater management features have been
constructed or installed as desgned and are functioning properly, and completion of all
re• uired mon'torinq of wetland mitigation areas. Thp District may return a portion of
surety if +s found by the ihspestedlae.sursta it that a portion of the surety is no
longer warranted to assure compliance to RCWDwith District rules.
0. OTHER PERMITS -ANB APPROVALS. -It is the -- permit applicant's -responsibility to
cccuro all- permits and approvals that aro -required -by ether governmental dies;
and provide +� District- -pree€ that applicant has submitted
RULE C
STORM -WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers t&. - (a)
Managetomanage stormwater and snowmelt runoff on also/. regional or
DRAFT DOCUMENT
11
•
•
•
•
•
subwatershed basis and promote natural infiltration of runoff throughout the
District to:
(4- )__ Maximize infiltration on individual sites through Better Site
Design practices and advanced stormwater management to
control runoff volume increases,
(b) Provide effective water quality treatment and- LL-where
p - ovide -tr-eatment treatment prier- -tebefore discharge to
surface waterbodies and wetlands, while considering the historic
use of District water features.
(2c) Ensure that future peak rates of runoff are less than or
equal to existinffpre- settlement rates.
(3)
(d) Minimize land use impacts and improve operational and
maintenance efficiency by siting stormwater man - gement basins,
when needed, regionally unless local resources would be
adversely affected.
2. REGULATION. A permit andincorporating an approved stormwater management plan is
required under this rule for new development, redevelopment, or additions to an existing
site, consistent with the following
(a) A permit is required for industrial, commercial or multi -unit
residential development or redevelopment only for a site at least one acre
in size
(b) A permit is required for single- family residential development or
redevelopment only for a site at least five acres in size.
(c) Notwithstanding par -graph (b), a permit is not required for
construction of a single- family detached dwelling on an isolated lot.
(d) The site size thresholds of paragraphs (a) and (b) and the
exception of paragraph (c) do not apply if the site is:
(1) Within the 100 -year floodplain;
(2) Within 1.000 feet of a public water or protected wetland; or
(3) Within 300 feet of Rice Creek, Clearwater Creek,
Hardwood Creek or a public ditch.
(e) If redevelopment will (i) disturb fifty percent or more of existing impervious
surface or (J.) increase impervious surface by fifty percent or more, the
requirement of paragraph 3(b)(ii)(b) will apply to all impervious surface on the
site. For the purpose of this paragraph, the extent of disturbance is the area of
exposure of underlying soils
(f) A permit is not required for construction on an individual lot within
a residential subdivision if it conforms to a development plan approved by
the District
(g) A permit is not required for mill and overlay of a public roadway. sidewalk or trait
DRAFT DOCUMENT
12
1
that does not create additional impervious surface.
3. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS. - Stormwater
(a) Modeling.
PLAN REQUIREMENTS.
(ap A hydrograph method based sn--sound-hydroldgis-tnedryor
computer program based on Natural Resources Conservation Service
Technical Release #20 (TR-20) and subsequent guidance must be used
to analyze stormwater runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water
levels within and off the project site. Composite Curve Numbers shall not
include directly connected impervious surfaces.
Stormwater runoff rates for the proposed project must not exceed pre
• 1111 le Of f g 111111111
1
construction limits is to be shifted down one classification to account for
compaction and soil smearing.
(d) Analysis(iii) The 100-year critical event analysis of flood
levels, storage volumes, and flow rates for waterbodies and detention
fnelt--dufatiens
which — produces the critical (highest) flood levels- and
discharges.stormwater management basins must include both the 24-
hour rainfall and the 10-day snowmelt events.
Detenti-eh-besins must be designed to provide:
(1) An outlet structure to control the 1 year or 2 year -8g
(2)
11
cites.
■ 3:
: . . . • Z
storm event.
(3) Access for futurc maintenance.
(p) Standards.
(i)Management Plan Framework,
(a) When a stormwater basin is necessary, regional siting is
preferred when regional management would not divert supply
awayfroma local recharge area __.girgundwater-Aellendent
natural resource. In evaluating the appropriateness of peak flow
and water • ualit management in an existing regional basin the
District will consider whether it previously approved the basin and
whether the basin was designed for build-out of the site to the
DRAFT DOCUMENT
13
extent proposed.
(b) A stormwater management plan must conform to the District -
approved local water management plan.
(The proposed project must not adversely affect water level off
the site during ortf er construction.
(d) A landlocked basin may be provided an outlet only if it:
(1) Retains a hydrologic regime that complies with
District Wetland Alteration Rule F;
(2) Provides sufficient dead storage volume to
retain back -to -back 100 -year, 24 -hour rainfalls and
runoff; and
(3) Does not create adverse downstream flooding or water
quality conditions as a result of increased discharge rate or
volume or other factors.
(11) Water Quality and Volume Control.
(A) Activity creating impervious surface must explicitly address
the use of Better Site Design (BSD) techniques, as outlined in
Chapter 4, "Minnesota Stormwater Manual" (MPCA, 2006 and
subsequent revisions). Better Site Design involves techniques
applied early in the design process to reduce impervious cover,
conserve natural areas and use pervious areas to more effectively
treat stormwater runoff and promote a treatment train approach to
runoff management. An applicant must show that BSD
techniques were evaluated in developing the design of a proposed
project and demonstrate the infeasibility or inapplicability of
techniques that were rejected,
(b) Water quality and infiltration BMPs must be sized to infiltrate
and /or retain runoff volume generated within the contributing area
by a two -year (2.8 -inch) storm under the developed condition.
BMPs shall be selected on the basis of site - specific conditions,
including soil types, depth to water table and the presence of
known or suspected contaminated soils. A site with Hydrologic
Soil Group (HSG) soil type A or B must meet this standard
through infiltration for that part of the site where type A or B soil is
found.
r
redevelopment pursuant to paragraph 2(e) above, the standard is
the 0.8 -inch event rather than the 2.8 -inch event.
(d) Where infiltration is not feasible, filtration is preferred.
infiltration is considered not feasible where soils do not support
infiltration, documented soil contaminants preclude the use of
infiltration practices, or there is inadequate separation from the
water table.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
14
•
•
•
•
(e) For a site or part of a site characterized by HSG C or D soils,
the stormWater management plan shall focus on incorporation of
water quality BMPs. The order of preference for BMP's is
biofiltration, filtration, wetland treatment system, extended
detention basin, NURP ponding.
(f) The runoff volume infiltration/detention standard of paragraph
(b) is modified for public linear (roadway, sidewalk and trail)
projects as follows.
Type of Construction
Standard
Hydrologic Soil Group
New _.4,0 acre
No change.
impervious
New < 1.0 acre
BMPs must be sized for the runoff
if • - 11.11
Rural to Urban Section
volume generated from impervious
surface within the contributing area
n
Expansion/
by an 0.8-inch event.
— Reconstruction
11- 1 Ile 1■U Ill ■:. - II
Mill & Overlay ,
No permit required.
(iii) Peak Stormwater Runoff Control Stormwater runoff rates for the
proposed project must not exceed runoff rates for the critical two-year and
100-year frequency events. For those site areas not covered by hard
surface in the pre-existing condition, runoff rates are to be determined for
the pre-settlement condition. The following curve numbers shall be
utilized for pre-settlement condition modeling:
Curve Number for Use with Pre-Settlement Conditions
Hydrologic Soil Group
Runoff Curve Number*
A
3__Q
B
58
c
n
D
11- 1 Ile 1■U Ill ■:. - II
- It's"- —
(iv) Bounce and Inundation Period. The project must meet hydroperiod
standards adapted from "Stormwater and Wetlands Planning and
Evaluation Guidelines for Addressing Potential Impacts of Urban
Stormwater and Snowmeit Runoff on Wetlands," (Minnesota Stormwater
Advisory Group, June 1997), as follows:
La keNVetla nd
Susceptibility Class
Highly susceptible
inundation Period
Permitted Bounce ft Two-Year event
Pre-development
Existing
Inundation Period
for 10-Year or
Greater Event
Existing
DRAFT DOCUMENT
15
wetland
Moderately
susceptible
Pre - development +
0.5 feet
Existing plus 1 day Existing plus 2
days
Slightly susceptible Pre - development +
wetland 1.0 feet
Existing plus 2 days Existing plus 14
days
Least - susceptible
wetland /Lake
No limit
Existing plus 7 days Existing plus 21
days
(c) Design Criteria.
(i) Infiltration BMPs must be designed to provide:
(a) Adequate pretreatment measures before
discharge of runoff to the primary infiltration area
(b) Drawdown within 48 -hours from the end of a
storm event Soil infiltration rates shall be based on
the appropriate HSG classification and associated
infiltration rates (see Table 1 in Appendix C).
Infiltration area will be limited to the horizontal
areas subject to prolonged wetting; and
(c) A minimum of three feet of separation from
the seasonal high water table.
(fj) Permanent sedimentation and water quality ponds are- required
andmust be designed to provide:
(4-a) Water quality features
consistent with NURP criteria and District wet pond
criteria (see appendix)
.t
(2b) A permanent wet pool with
dead storage of at least equal to the runoff from a
2.5 -inch rainfall over the area tributary to the pond:;
an
(4) An outlet structure capable of
preventing migration of floating debris and oils for
at least the one -year storm.
during or after construction.
(h) Stermwate Management s under this -rule must confer -with
- - - - " - • - - - - - .. - Plans.
Detention basins must be designed to provide:
(a) An outlet structure to control the two -year &
100 -year frequency events to pre - settlement peak
runoff sites; and
bbl An identified overflow spillway sufficiently
stabilized to convey flows greater than the 100 -year
Qritical storm event.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
16
•
•
•
•
•
•
(i) —Outten- - - - • - - - -and
(iv) An outfall structure discharging to a
wetland, public water or public water wetland must incorporate a stilling -
basin, surge- basin, energy dissipater, placement of ungrouted natural
rock riprap or other devieesfeature'to minimize disturbance and erosion of
natural shoreline and bed resulting from stormwater discharges.
(}v) All new residential, commercial, industrial and other
habitable or non - habitable structures, and all stormwater basins, must be
constructed so that the lowest floor elevations-are a- mini-mum-of two -feet
above -he ^^+,coy o ens
st titer i„T -and lowest entry elevations comply with the following
table:
(k)
Within &landlocked bacincbasin, lowest floor elevations must be at least
one foot above the surveyed basin overflow elevation. Where a structure
is •r000sed below the runout elevation of a land- locked basin the low -
floor elevation will be a minimum of two feet above the high water level as
determined from an estimate of high water levels determined from the
•
f
- 11- -
r
-h
r r_infal
- -•
• •. ,- • -•. 11
will be used to derive a "normal" water elevation for the basin for the
purpose of computing the 100 -year elevation.
resulting -in—the- creation -of- -impervious surfaces must
to first limit the low,
of and second, -to- AnnitFate- runoff -w - -does ter- --ffain
impervious areas -o- The- extent feasible coffering- site speck conditions.
BMPs include -the- use -o€ vegetated cwales, -Rend outicts perched above
levels, use ef infiltration systems, roof drainage-to- pervious areas,
min-inium---e€ twenty percent pervious surface, usa
areas, and -mini --ef the number- and-width-of-par-king- stalls -and use of
deep- rested native- vegetation-, andnarrewer "rural section" roads.
The goal of these BM Pa is 4G ineerporate practices-into the design - which are
capable e+npewious surface -runoff from the Mpls St.Paul - mediae
storm (0.34 inches) in seventy two hours. - will -- bee - calculated
group classification and
rate from the table below.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
17
Regional
Local
Infiltration Basins
Mottled
Detention
Elevations
Basins &
Soils
Bottom
MAC
EOF
EOF
Wetlands
100 -vr
EDE
per borings
Low
2-ft
1_-ft
00ft
NA
Q ft
LIA
NA
141
Floor
Low
IyA
dA
Lft
LyA
Zit
1 ft
NA
Entry.
(k)
Within &landlocked bacincbasin, lowest floor elevations must be at least
one foot above the surveyed basin overflow elevation. Where a structure
is •r000sed below the runout elevation of a land- locked basin the low -
floor elevation will be a minimum of two feet above the high water level as
determined from an estimate of high water levels determined from the
•
f
- 11- -
r
-h
r r_infal
- -•
• •. ,- • -•. 11
will be used to derive a "normal" water elevation for the basin for the
purpose of computing the 100 -year elevation.
resulting -in—the- creation -of- -impervious surfaces must
to first limit the low,
of and second, -to- AnnitFate- runoff -w - -does ter- --ffain
impervious areas -o- The- extent feasible coffering- site speck conditions.
BMPs include -the- use -o€ vegetated cwales, -Rend outicts perched above
levels, use ef infiltration systems, roof drainage-to- pervious areas,
min-inium---e€ twenty percent pervious surface, usa
areas, and -mini --ef the number- and-width-of-par-king- stalls -and use of
deep- rested native- vegetation-, andnarrewer "rural section" roads.
The goal of these BM Pa is 4G ineerporate practices-into the design - which are
capable e+npewious surface -runoff from the Mpls St.Paul - mediae
storm (0.34 inches) in seventy two hours. - will -- bee - calculated
group classification and
rate from the table below.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
17
Hydreiegie--infi ltratien
A
—1-- 0.25 in /hr silt loam or loam
C 0.10 in /hr sandy clay loam
D 0.03 inlhr clay loam, silty clay loam,
silty clay, or clay
Source: Urban Hydrology -fer Sm
wetting:
June a 936.
ontal areas subject to prolonged
1
-Retain complies with District
Wetland- AtteFat -en- Rule -1=:
(2) dead storage volume to retain back to
(3)
Do not create adverse downstream flooding or water
(m) All stormwater management structures and facilities must
be designed for maintenance access and properly maintained in
perpetuity to assure that they continue to function as originally - designed.
Thi:sThe maintenance responsibility must be assumed---either--by--the
e,+ a ., +s
management --puFpeses-,- -OF by --the applicant- -executing—and - recording -a
maintenance
rrrrnrrcc�-rrn�vc-
property owner in a form acceptable to the District and recorded on the
deed. Alternatively, a municipality that has provided for assuming the
perpetual maintenance obligation in its District - approved local water
management plan may do so in a writing signed by an official with
authority
" " " ". 11 11• - • 1 _ ••
11 "1 "
-• •
1-
(vii) Before work under the permit is deemed complete, the permittee
must submit as- builts demonstrating that at the time of final stabilization,
stormwater facilities conform to design specifications.
4. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application.
One set, full size (22 inches by 34 inches); two sets, reduced to maximum size of 1147:"
inches by 17 inches.
(a) A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
()Property lines and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant.
(bc) Delineation of the subwatershed contributing runoff from off-site,
proposed and existing subwatersheds on-siteonsite, emergency overflows, and
drainageways.
(d)Geotechnical analysis including soil borings at all proposed stormwater
management facility locations.
(eg) Proposed and existing stormwater facilities' location, alignment
and elevation.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
18
•
•
•
(df) Delineation of existing on -site wetland, marshes, shoreland and /or
floodplain areas.
(eg) Identification of existing and proposed normal, and ordinary high
and 100 -year water elevations on -site.
(fh) Identification of existing and proposed site contour elevations
related to NGVD, 1929 datum.
(gi) Construction plans and specifications of all proposed stormwater
management facilities, including design details for outlet control structures.
( #�) Stormwater runoff volume and rate analyses for the enetwo- and
100 -year critical events, existingpre- settlement and proposed conditions.
(it) All hydrologic, water quality, and hydraulic computations
completed to design the proposed stormwater management facilities.
(fl) Narrative addressing incorporation of infiltration BMPs.
(k) Delineation
(m) Platting or easement documents showing conveyance to the local land
use authority of drainage and flowage easements over stormwater management
facilities, stormwater conveyances and on -site floodplain up to the 100 -year
event. An easement on a public ditch must be a minimum of 33 feet each side of
centerline and specify a District right of enforcement to that minimum width.
(n) Narrative explaining BSD techniques that were evaluated during the
development of the design for the project, the results of the evaluation of each
and, for any techniques that were deemed infeasible, the reasoning for the
determination.
5. PLATTING -0-14- EASEMENT DOCUMENTS. Applicant -must- provide- matting -or
- dite#es, --swa les , ,- wetlands -and
have two feet of fre^Trceboard- b T-the -- lowest -- #Isom -the-
_EXCEPTIONS.
(a) Rule -G- - and- -- -its- 4equicemente -will - net - apply -te- development or
Cedevclopmcnt of dal- cites - less- than 4.0 acrc size --fen- ductria?,
residential, -and- less than five acres -in- size -fen- single family resickntial, unless
such
(1)- -- 4s-within-the 100 year-fleedplain.
(2)
(3) --l.s within -389- feet -ef Rice Creek, Clearwater Creek,
Hardwood- Creek, or of a public ditch.
(b)- Rule -G and- its requirements -will- -apply- 4e- eo €tnuction of a single
#a • _ _ • - :. 41e -e14- isolated -let; unless such Elwelling
(1)
(2) Is-within 1 feet-of apublic water or protcctcd wetland.
(3)- __ _ 4s- within- 3g0- -feet of Rice Creek, - Clearwater Creek,
-er-e4 a Iic- ditch.
(c) Rule - and -its fequirements will -net apply to construction on individual
lots - within e -residential subdivision - ,approved by the District, unle:c The activity
does-net- ply with- the or-. . been superseded b
state law,
�y
-Ed} The requirements of paragraph {f} -of- Section -4- will -be modified for
DRAFT DOCUMENT
19
(ea) Subdivision of land without construction of
impervious curfaccasurface or structures will beis exempt from the requirements
of Section 3 and paragraphs ( lam), (i), (i) & (k) of Section 4. However, a
Rule C permit is reg drool when s Bch future development does- occurwili require a
Rule C permit.
(fb) Rate control criteria diseussed-4n- Section --aof paragraph 3(b)(iii)
may be waived if the site discharges directly to a water body with large storage
capacity (such as a public water) whichthat has a time -to -peak elevation greater
than that for an on -site pond and the volume discharged from the on -site pond is
negligible, relative to the volume of runoff entering the water body.
f
_
(i) In cases where structures are proper-betew the runout elevation-4 land
lode -base
levels-determined
fram4fie -# ighesf ^f ei +�zt� "e; e 100 year, ten day - ran -off -event or back to back 100
rainfalls. Aerial- photos, vegetation, soils, and topography
will be used to derive a "normal' water elevation fef the- basin for purposes of
eel puffing -the --1-00 year elevation.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
20
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appendix - Rule C
Table C1
Hydrologic
Soil Group
Si
lit
Textures*
Gravel, _sand,
sandy gravel,
silLgraveL
loamy sand,
sandy loam
Loam, silt
loam
Corresponding Unified Soil
Classification**
GW - We 11-gracled gravel or welL
graded_gravel with sand
graded GP - Poorlv araded gravel or poorly
GM - Silty gravel or silty_gravel with
sand
SW - Well-graded sand or well-
graded sandwith
cmpl_
s p — Poorly graded sand or poorly
graded sandwith
Gravel
SAL.-__.__...Siltysand or silty sand with
_gravel 0.6
ML Silt
OL - Organic silt or organic silt with
sand or gravel _or
gravelly organic silt
Infiltration Rate
Linches/hourl
0.3
Sandy_clay
loam
Clay, _clay
loam, silty
clay loam,
sandy clay,
silty clay
GC - Clayey gravel or clayey gravel
with sand
SC - Clayey sand or clayey sand with
gravel
CL - Lean clay_or lean clay with sand
or gravel or
gravelly lean clay
CH - Fat clay or fat clay with sand or
gravel or gravelly
fat clay
OH - Organic clay or organic clay with
sand or gravel
or gravelly organic clay
MH - Elastic silt or elastic silt with
sand or gravel
02
Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Thirty guidance
manuals and many other stormwater references were reviewed by the MPCA when it compiled
the recommended infiltration rates. All of these sources use the following studies as the basis
for their recommended infiltration rates: Rawls, Brakensiek and Saxton (1982): Rawls, Gimenez
and r. 1 • • : • w- , • zi - 1 • : • . n. rban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
(NRCS) The rates presented in this infiltration table use the information compiled from these
sources as well as eight years of infiltration rates collected in various infiltration pces
located in the South Washington Watershed District.
*U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2005. National Soil
Survey Handbook, title 430-VI. (Online) Available: http://soils usda.gov/technical/handbook/.
**ASTM standard D2487-00
DRAFT DOCUMENT
21
RULE D
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANS
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to prevent erosion of soil into surface
water systems by requiring preparation and implementation of erosion and sediment control
plans for land distt aece- disturbing activities.
REGULATION. A and required for new dev°lopment
redevel •- - - - -- -
2. REGULATION. An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted, and a permit
received from the District, for (a) the grading, excavation, filling or stockpiling of more than fifty
(50) cubic yards of earth or other erodible material; or (b) surface soil disturbance or removal of
vegetative cover on five thousand (5,000) square feet or more of land. This requirement does
not apply to plowing as part of an ongoing farming operation,
3. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR EROSION CONTROL PLANS. Erosion and Sediment Control
Plans must comply with the following criteria:
(a) Natural site topography and soil conditions must be
consideredspecifically addressed to reduce erosion and sedimentation during
construction and after project completion.
(b) Site erosion and sediment control practices must be consistent
with -of- • - _ - - - ' . _ • - -in- -the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's -" document "Protecting Water Quality in
Urban Areas," (1994), as amended, and District - specific written design guidance
and be sufficient to retain sediment on -site.
(c) (s)- Erosion an`l ceth en* - sf-be-- installed - prior --te
inspect- reject- sites after every —Fa—Wail—event _.mod
implement erosion -and-sediment addressed as needed, The
project must be phased as best possible to minimize disturbed areas and
removal of existing vegetation until necessary for project progress. In order to
e
• - - e•
(d) The District lnspestor may require the--permit
additional erosion control- .nm a& es- -where -site conditions warrant.additional
erosion and sediment control measures on areas with a continuous slope leading
to a sensitive, impaired or special water body, stream, ditch or wetland to assure
retention of sediment on site.
(d) ;Silt fences will be— removed after a#--- disturbed areas have been
f3ee
(e) The plan must include conditions adequate to protect facilities to be used
for post - construction stormwater infiltration,
4. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application.
One set, full size (22 inches by 34 inches); two sets, reduced to maximum size of 11'40 "
inches by 17 inches.
(a) An existing and proposed topographic map which clearly indicates all
hydrologic features and areas where grading will expose soils to erosive
conditions. The Plan must also indicate the direction of all site runoff.
(b) Tabulation of the construction implementation schedule.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
22
•
•
•
•
•
(c) Name, address and phone number of party responsible for maintenance
of all erosion and sediment control measures.
(d) Identif+sationClear identification of all temporary erosion and sediment
control measures which will remain in place until permanent vegetation is in
placeestablished. Examples of temporary measures include, but are not limited
to: Seedingseeding with perennial vegetation, mulching, sodding, silt fence,
erosion control matting, and hay bale filter barricrsblanketing, and stormwater
inlet protection devices.
(e) IdentifieatienClear identification of all permanent erosion control
measures such as outfall spillways and riprap shoreline protection, and their
lecationjocations.
(f) For projects over -five- acres -e graded arc, Clear
Identification of staging areas, as applicable.
(g) Documentation that the project applicant has applied for a National
Eliminati
Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), when applicable.
(h) A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for projects that require an
NPDES Permit,
(g) Tabulation . _ .. _ . _
Delineation of any floodplain volume and /or wetland area changes.
'' e-•- - - •• ai• I
5. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY REQUIREMENTS The Permittee must follow the
standards of the NPDES permit regarding erosion prevention, sediment contro
dewatering, and BMP maintenance for any project requiring a permit by the District.
i}. EXCEPTIONS.
unit residential -and- tecs than five acres in size for tingle family recidentia�
` '�"4st lil-1,000 feet of a
(3)- Is- within 300 -f, off Ric Creek,
6. INSPECTIONS
L)
The permittee will routinely inspect project sites as required by the
NPDES permit, implementing additional erosion and sediment control
measures, as conditions required to assure retention of sediment on site.
The permitte- will keep an inspection I• • on site as required by the
NPDES permit.
tpl The permittee shall be responsible for inspection maintenance and
effectiveness of all erosion and sediment control measures until final soil
stabilization full completion of the project, or permit assi • I u - I -
whichever comes first. (See Rule B for permit assignment requirements.)
COI in order to ensure that sediment is retained on -site. the District may
inspect the site and require the •ermittee to •rovide additional erosion
control measures where site conditions warrant.
7. FINAL STABILIZATION
W. Erosion and sediment control measures must be maintained until final
veae ation and ground cover is established to a density of 70 %,
DRAFT DOCUMENT
23
COI All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs will be removed after all
disturbed areas have been permanently stabilized.
RULE E
FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
{a) Protect the lives -and-property- .. - - - - - -the- Aeed
plc.
(a) Preserve existing water storage capacity in the 100 -year floodplain of all
waterbodies and wetlands in the watershed to minimize the frequency and
severity of high water.
(b) Enhance • - ' - - - - . • ' - - .. .
arc defined as thosefloodplain characteristics whislhthat promote the natural
'attenuation of high water, provide for
water quality treatment, and previdepromote groundwater recharge.
(c) • : - • - - .. - Preserve and enhance the natural
vegetation existing in fleed- plainfloodplain areas
effor fish and wildlife resourccahabitat•
(d) -Enhance- the flood plains'
include
-study-r- outdoor
2. REGULATION. No person may alter or fill land below the 100 -year flood elevation of
any public water, public water wetland or other wetlands without first obtaining a permit from the
District.
Sector A and Sector B. These sectors aid in
3. CRITERIA FOR FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION.
Permitting
Sector -A- contains -these where the 4a4stal• -area 1s
twelve• - percent --43F less, -ar►d- -the topography- terms -e€- a generalized slope - eendition is
predominantly greater than - twelve percent. €food - - -- Plain• Management Sector -A- dudes
cubwatcrshcd 4, 5, 7,-8, 13a, 14a, 14b, 14c, 14d, 14e, 15b and 16.
(a) Encroachment into and the placement of fill within the 100 -year floodplain
are prohibited unless fully compensatory storage at the same elevation is
provided. Creation of floodplain stor -ge capacity to offset fill must occur within
the floodplain of the same water body. and within the original permit term. If
offsetting storage capacity will be provided off site, it shall be created before any
floodplain filling by the applicant will be allowed Encroachment and /or filling will
be allowed in flood fringe defined by the municipality according to FEMA
procedures and for which encroachment is regulated by the municipality.
(a) Construction of impervious areas within Aeed-plain ar asfloodplain
will not be allowed within the designated groundwater recharge areas for the
Prairie du Chien - Jordan formation (as defined by Map 17 of the District's Water
Resource Management Plan) except for road construction; and trails, and ether
DRAFT DOCUMENT
24
•
•
•
•
•
(b) To protect water quality and the conveyance capacity of the flood plain,
the District will not permit site development whichthat would involve the outside
storage of soluble, toxic, or buoyant materials. Examples of acceptable --flood
plain uses include open space, golf
less than six inches of - flooding
(c) Encroachment within- the 100 year flood plain may occur if all -the
(1) The flood plain storage volume after encroachment is
Rule F.
flood - profile:
(4) Any structures, facilities,
plain-will—be- capable of passing the 100 year flood without
of two feet -above-the 100 year
Sector
the percentage -of -flood plain to total• area is
percent. Flood Plain- B includes
12b.
(a)
groundwater recharge ^ as of the Praii
read trails,
(b) - - - - - - . - - . - - - - ,
the- District - will -- not - permit -site development whi ^"
storage of soluble, toxic, or buoyant materials. Examples of acceptable --flood
plain uses include -open space, golf courses, and parking surfaces located
outside of designated recharge areas - with-- -less than -six. inches of -flooding
occurring over the surface.
(c) Encroachment may occur -in- the - -flood plain areas- of Flood-Plain-Management
Sector B if all the exist:
(1) The encroachment lies within --ef
the 100 year flood plain-in those areas were
identified, or +n the absence of an established -fioodway,
compensatory (live) storagc4s excavated.
(2) The encroachment does net- result °
year flood profile within- the -floodway portion of the -flood -plain by
more tthan 0.5 foot or create velocities exceeding 2.5 feet/second
or as determined by the District Engineer.
(3} The encroachment -does not violate the principle -et "equal
DRAFT DOCUMENT
25
(4) The does not result in -violation- -of- the
(5) (d) Structures and facilities subject to flood damage built within the 100 -year
fleedfloodplain will have two feet of freeboard between the lowest floor and the 100 -year
flood profile.
4. DRAINAGE EASEMENTS. Applicant will provide
easernents—ever-----fieed--plainfor District approval a flowage and drainage easement
conveyed to the land use authority over areas of public waters, public ditches, public
waters wetlands and other wetlands inundated
drainage/flowage—easements-
by the 100 -year flood. An easement
on a public ditch must be a minimum of 33 feet each side of centerline and specify a
District right of enforcement to that minimum width.
5. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application.
One set, full size (22 inches by 34 inches); two sets, reduced to maximum size of 11" inches x
17" inches.
(a) Site plan showing property lines, delineation of the work area, existing
elevation contours of the work area, ordinary high water elevation, and regional
flood elevation. All elevations must be reduced to NGVD (1929 datum).
(b) Grading plan showing any proposed elevation changes.
(c) Preliminary plat of any proposed land development.
(d) Determination by a professional engineer or qualified hydrologist of the
local 100 -year flood elevation before and after the project.
(e) Computation of change in flood storage capacity resulting from proposed
grading.
(f) Erosion Control Plan.
(g) Soil boring results —if—available, if specified by applicable rule provision or
requested by the District Engineer
EXCEPTION Restoration or stabilization of shoreline, approved by the District
as necessary for stabilization, structurally sound and designed to minimize
encroachment and alteration of hydraulic forces, is exempt from the
compensatory storage requirement of section 3(c)(1).
RULE F
WETLAND ALTERATION
1 POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
(a) Achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of
Minnesota's existing wetlands.
(b) Increase the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's
wetlands by restoring or enhancing diminished or drained wetlands.
(c) Avoid direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the
quantity, quality, and biological diversity of wetlands.
(d) Replace wetland values where avoidance of activity is not feasible and
prudent.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
26
•
•
•
•
•
2. REGULATION. No person may fill, drain, excavate or otherwise alter the character or
hydrology of a wetland without first obtaining a permit from the District.
1. CRITERIA.
et -forth in Minnesota_ Rules-- shapte & -84 0, a amen e aro
i+�sorporated as part of this rule a- e . e • . • . _ _ _ - . • _ " • • - District.
(` Excavations -ie- wetlands• -for# purposcs of wildlife eiihancernent must comply with the
Gr=it
Wetland- Alterations, included -in the ..pond;. of tho..e F to
4,-- --LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT. The District intends to serve as the "local
government unit" for administration of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), unless a
particular municipality in the District has elected to assume that rote in its jurisdictional area.
Notwithstanding the above, the District will continue to require wetland alteration permits under
this rule fo wetland- alteri • activities not re•ulated under WCA.
4—
CRITERIA.
.11 -1. -• .l. l
tl. -II-1 l• 1
h in
Minnesota Rules cha
ter 8420. as amended are incor
and govern District implementation of WCA.
Alterations in wetlands for the purposes of wildlife enhancement must
comply with the criteria described in General Desi•n Consideration for Wildlife
Pond Construction and Wetland Alterations, included in Appendix F‘
(g1 The District will regulate wetland alterations that do not require
re • lacement under WCA rules -nd do not qualify for one of the specific
exem•tions in Minnesota Rules 8420.0122 accordi • to the rules and procedures
of WCA, except as specifically provided in this R le Alteration under this
paragraph requires replacement to ensure no Toss of wetland quantity, quality or
biological diversity Notwithstanding, replacement in the form of vegetative and
orated
as part of this rule
1 •r. ••
I • . • • . • - • r . • - • • 1 11 • - - • 1 - • l 1 1 " . 1 1 , 1 1 . 1 •
f
twice the acreage restored
A wetland alteration not subject to WCA that does not cha •e the type or
function of a wetland and that preserves wetland quantity, quality and biol. • ical
diversity is exempt from the replacement requirement.
5. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS. In addition to the wetland replacement plan
n
n
11
District review of WCA and. except as indicated, non -WCA wetland alterations'
DRAFT DOCUMENT
27
Applicants must adequately explain and justify each individual contiguous
wetland alteration area in terms of impact avoidance and minimization alternatives
considered.
To be eligible for New Wetland Credit (NWC), replacement wetland adjacent to
upland must include upland buffer of native vegetation at least 25 feet in width adjacent
to the entire NWC area except where contiguous with existing wetland. The buffer must
meet WCA requirements for Public Value Credit (PVC).
Replacement wetland must be designed to replicate at least 50 percent of each
wetland community type (as defined in MnRAM 3.0 or subsequent revisions) being
altered.
Where the wetland alteration is proposed in the context of land subdivision, on-
site replacement wetland cannot be located on a buildable lot and must be separated
from buildable lots by a physical barrier such as a stormwater pond, infiltration basin,
existing wetland or other permanent physical feature that protects against future
encroachment into the replacement wetland.
e) The upland edge of new wetland creation must have an irregular apd uneven
slope The slope must be no steeper than 8:1 over the initial 25 feet upslope from the
projected wetland elevation contour along at least 50 percent of the upland /wetland
boundary and no steeper than 51 along the remaining 50 percent of the boundary.
f) The District will not allow excess credits to be used for replacement on a different
project unless the credits were designated for wetland banking purposes in the original
application in accordance with WCA rules and have been deposited into the WCA
wetland banking system The District may permit otherwise- conforming credits pot yet
deposited into the wetland banking system to be so used if construction was completed
within two nears of submittal of a complete application 20�osing to use them and on
District consideration of the recommendation of the Technical Evaluation Panel.
f, REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application.
One for both WCA and non -WCA wetland alterations. .
(a) Site Plan. An applicant must submit one set, full size; (22 inches by 34
inches) and two sets, reduced to maximum size of 11"x17" (a) Site inches by 17
inches, of a site plan showing:
(1) Property lines and corners and delineation of lands under
ownership of the applicant.
(2) Existing and proposed elevation contours, including the
existing runout elevation and flow capacity of the wetland outlet,
and spoil disposal areas.
(3) Area of the wetland portion to be filled, drained, excavated
or otherwise altered.
(b) Complete detineation of he existin
of the with -t ie-1 987 Manual..
(2) Identification of presence or absence of normal circumstances er- problem
conditions;
DRAFT DOCUMENT
28
•
•
•
•
•
•
lines, - • _ - - _ • ' '.. - features.
(b) Wetland Delineation Report. An applicant must submit at least three
co•i-s of a wetland delineation report conforming to a methodology authorized
for WCA use and otherwise consistent with Minnesota Board of Water & Soil
submittals of wetland delineation /determination reports to the District and
supplement the approved methodology and guidance:
_ .must I ve s# kes in the field d
Ce [X1 G� CC71 CGT"fITZTI Ci1TGT.f
review of the site. Wetland delineations should be
reviewed during the
Minnesota-{period of May 1 - October 15)-- Delineations15. The District may
accept delineations performed outside this time frame mayor -mme
to the cntiro
on a case -by -case basis. The District will determine if
there is sufficient information in the report and visible in the field at the time to
assess the three wetland parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils+
hvdroloavl in relatio to the placement of the wetland delineation line. I •roper
assessment of the delineation is not possible, the District may consider the
application incomplete until appropriate field verification is possible.
2
1 • 111 • 11
ll r• ...16 • • • . lil • 1 •
for the purpose of wetland delineation /determination must coordinate with the
District prior to initiati g the study.
r
For a site with row - cropped agricultural areas, the wetland delineation
for wetland signatures per Minnesota Wetland Mappi • Conventions for 1985
Food Security Act as Amended and Section 404 Clean Water Act or subsequent
State -a *proved guidance. This review is to be considered alon • . ' • f - • • -
and other •ertinent information and is not necessaril the only or primary basis
for a wetland determination in an agricultural row - cropped area,
The wetland delineation report must include;
(a) Items required by the Guidelines for Submitting Wetland
Delineations to the St. Paul District Corps of Engineers and Local Units of
Government in the State of Minnesota (1996) and subsequent updates.
(b) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map, Soil Survey Map. and
DRAFT DOCUMENT
29
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Protected Waters Map of the
area being delineated.
(c) Results of a field investigation of all areas indicated as potential
wetland by mapping sources including: NWI wetlands, hydric soil units,
poorly drained or depressional areas on the Soil Survey Map, and DNR
Protected Waters or Wetlands
(d) Cowardin and Circular 39 classifications of each delineated wetland
(e) A survey map (standard land survey methods or DGPS of delineated
wetland boundaries).
(c) Wetland Replacement Plan Application. An applicant submitting a plan involving
a wetland alteration must submit at least seven copies of a replacement plan application
and supporting materials conforming to WCA replacement plan application submittal
requirements and including the following additional documents'
1. Plan sheet(s) clearly identifying, delineating, and denoting the location
and size of each wetland impact area and replacement wetland area. including
stormwater features proposed for PVC
2. Plan sheet(s) with profile views and construction specifications of each
replacement wetland including proposed /estimated normal water level,
proposed /estimated boundary of replacement wetland, topsoiling specifications
if any), grading specifications, and wetland /buffer seeding specifications.
(d) -A Functions and Values Assessment. An applicant must submit a before -
and -after wetland functions and values assessment
project. -using a WCA - accepted methodology for a project involving at least one
acre of wetland impact requiring replacement.
(e) An- Erosion Control Plan. An applicant must submit an erosion and sediment
control plan in accordance with District Rule D.
6 -L EXCEPTIONS. Clearing of vegetation, plowing or pasturing in a wetland as part of an
existing and farming operation Mills not require a it endersubject to this
rule unless the activity results in draining or filling the wetland.
RULE G
BRIDGE AND CULVERT CROSSINGS
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to preserve the capacity of the
present drainage systems to accommodate future needs.
2. REGULATION. No person may construct, improve, repair or alter the hydraulic
characteristics of a bridge profile control or culvert structure on a creek, public ditch or major
watercourse in the District, without first obtaining a permit from the District.
3-. CRITERIA. Crossings must:
3. CRITERIA A crossing must preserve existing design hydraulic capacity or, if on a public
DRAFT DOCUMENT
30
•
•
•
•
•
ditch, hydraulic capacity conforming to the drainage right of benefited lands. Notwithstanding, a
permit application for a ditch crossing will not obligate the District, in its function as ditch
authority, to investigate or hold proceedings to establish the official profile of the affected ditch.
Permit issuance is not a warranty and the crossing owner will remain responsible should the
crossing at any time be found to be an obstruction under the drainage law. In addition, a
crossing must'
(a) ' - - - - - • - - - - - Retain existing condition, (b)
--Retain-existing-navigational capacity.
(e) Not adversely affect water quality.
(dp) Represent the "minimal impact" solution to a specific need with respect to
all other alternatives.
(ea) Allow for future erosion, scour, and sedimentation considerations.
4. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application.
One set, full size (22 inches by 34 inches); two sets, reduced to maximum size of 11' .41-7 :"
inches by 17 inches.
(a) Construction details showing:
(1) Existing and proposed flow line (invert) elevations.
(2) End details with flared end sections, wing walls and /or riprap
(energy dissipaters).
(3) Size and description of structure.
(4) Emergency overflow elevation and route.
(b) Construction schedule.
(c) Narrative describing construction methods.
(d) Erosion Control Plan.
(e) Computations of watershed area, peak flow rates and elevations, and
discussion of potential effects on water levels above and below the project area.
5. EXCEPTIONS.
(a) Criteria 3(a) may be waived if the applicant can demonstrate with supporting
hydrologic calculations: 1) the need for an increase in discharge rate in order to provide
for reasonable surface water management in the upstream area, and 2) that the
downstream impacts of the increased discharge rate can be reasonably accommodated
and will not exceed the existing rate at the municipal boundary.
RULE H
DEVELOPMENT
1. POLICY. It is the policy of 4he --Boast -e,.,f Ma'nagcrc -te- omete the adoption - of- -I-eeal
ehoreland ordinances based -eh --De tment of- Natural Resournec reinuIntinnc
2. REGULATION. to those cities which have net- adopted- state approved ehoreland
ordinances, the District requires -a- permit for eleveiopment, rading -ef+1 with-irlthe- ehoreland
zone -et liewate ea and streams.
3� CRITERIA. 4 deveio +,- grading -of- -- €+{ling within -the shoreland
zone : ... - . - . : - . • - . - - . - - - fellew i- --setl criteria.
(a) Structure Setback Criteria. The placement of structures $n- lots -is
sentrelled --th accordance-with the class of lie waters ae- faAewe:
DRAFT DOCUMENT
31
OHW for Tots not served by public sewer and at least 150 feet
(3) For general development waters, at least seventy five feet
(1)
feet.
(3) Where ground
4 REQUIRED EXHIBITS.
(a)
(b)
I EXCEPTIONS.
sanitaFy-fa-eilities,
Plan.
RULE I
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to regulate new construction,
improvement or repair of public or private drainage systems (open and tiled) for the following
purposes:
(a) To preserve the capacities of drainage systems to accommodate future
needs.
(b) To improve water quality and prevent localized flooding.
2. REGULATION. No drainage system may be constructed, improved or repaired without
first obtaining a permit from the District. The •ermit is in addition to an formal procedures or
District a.. rovals that ma be re uired under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103E or other ditch
law.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
32
•
•
•
3. CRITERIA. A permit applicant for construction, improvement or repair of a public or
private drainage system must:
(a) Comply with all federal, state and District wetland protection rules and
regulations.
(b) Demonstrate that such activity will not adversely impact down stream
water quality or quantity.
(c) Provide stable channel and ou'tfall.
(d) Demonstrate concurrence with regional pond or subdivision drainage plans
approved by the District, if applicable.
(e) Retain a hydrologic regime that complies with District Wetland Alteration
Rule F.
(f) If drainage system is proposed to outlet a landlocked basin, provide
sufficient dead storage volume to retain back -to -back 100 -year, twenty°fouf24-
hour rainfalls and runoff.
4. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application.
One set, full size (22 inches by 34 inches); two sets, reduced to maximum size of 11N-47.1°
inches by 17 inches.
(a) Map showing location of project and tributary area.
(b) Existing and proposed cross sections and profile of affected area.
(c) Description of bridges or culverts required.
(d) Narrative and calculations describing wetland impacts and affects on
water levels above and below the project area.
• 5. EXCEPTIONS. The Board of Managers may waive the requirement of a permit under
this rule for repair to a drainage system if the applicant proposes to repair a tiled system of less
than fifty feet in length, and where such repair would not alter the invert of the system.
•
POLICY.
waters -as-#eNows
2. REGULATION.
(a) A public watcr basin -or
than 500 acres in surface area.
(b) A
RULE J
PUBLIC Wn RS
has -e-
or Ramsey County which is Icsa
3 CRITERIA. A permits opriation -s€ as-described , above +must
complete-and-submit to the District an -ap epFietien checklist. The - appropriation checklist form
may be obtained from -the District office.
RULE K
ENFORCEMENT
1 VIOLATION OF RULES IS A MISDEMEANOR. Violation of these rules, a stipulation
DRAFT DOCUMENT
33
agreement made, or permit issued by the Board of Managers under these rules, is a
misdemeanor subject to a penalty as provided by law.
2. DISTRICT COURT ACTION. The District may exercise all powers conferred upon it by
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D in enforcing these rules, including criminal prosecution,
injunction, or action to compel performance, restoration or abatement.
3. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. The District may issue a cease and desist or compliance
order when it finds that a proposed or initiated project presents a serious threat of soil erosion,
sedimentation, or an adverse effect upon water quality or quantity, or violates any rule of the
District.
RULE L
VARIANCES
1. VARIANCES AUTHORIZED. The Board of Managers may hear requests for variances
from the literal provisions of these rules in instances when their strict enforcement would cause
undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. The
Board of Managers may grant variances where it is demonstrated that such action will be in
keeping with the spirit and intent of these rules. Such a request must be addressed to the
Board of Managers as part of a permit applicatiop and roust address the four standards for
variance consideration listed below,
2. STANDARD. In order to grant a variance the Board of Managers must determine that:
(a) Special conditions apply to the structure or land under consideration that
do not apply generally to other land or structures in the District.
(b) Because of the unique conditions of the property involved, undue
hardship to the applicant would result, as distinguished from mere
inconvenience, if the strict letter of the rules was carried out. Economic
considerations alone shall not constitute undue hardship if any reasonable use of
the property exists under the terms of the District's rules.
(c) The proposed activity for which the variance is sought will not adversely
affect the public health, safety, welfare, will not create extraordinary public expense, will
not adversely affect water quality, water control, drainage in the District. (d) The
intent of the District's rules is met.
3. TERM. A variance shall expire ene -yeaf -after the date it is granted, unless implemented
by applicant -within- that ene yea periodn expiration of the CAPROC approval or permit
associated with the variance request.
4. VIOLATION. A violation of any condition set forth in a variance shall be a violation of the
District rules, and shall automatically terminate the variance.
These Rules -ef- -the Rice Creek -Watershed Distfiet- were - adepted -b the Rico Creek
Watershed District Board ef- Managers - August 1? 1998.
Andrew -d: Cardinal,
Secretary
Board -of Manager�-a€#he
RICE CREEK WATERSHED STRICT
DRAFT DOCUMENT
34
•
•
•
•
•
Document comparison done by DeltaView on Wednesday, June 06, 2007 7:52:27 AM
Input:
Document 1
file: / /G: /clients /Rice Creek Watershed District (01325)/(200)
Rules, Permits, Enforcement/(201) Rulemaking /2007
Revision /Rules - 1998.doc
Document 2
file: / /G: /clients /Rice Creek Watershed District (01325)/(200)
Rules, Permits, Enforcement/(201) Rulemaking /2007
Revision /Rules - Proposed (6- 5- 07).doc
Standard
Rendering set
Legend:
Insertion
Deletion
Moved from
465
Deletions
Moved to
Moved from
Style change
Moved to
Format change
moved doietion
Inserted cell
Format changed
Deleted cell
Total changes
Moved cell
Split/Merged cell
Padding cell
Statistics:
Count
Insertions
465
Deletions
376
Moved from
35
Moved to
35
Style change
0
Format changed
0
Total changes
911
•
RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
PROPOSED RULES
(Issued for Public Review June 13, 2007)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page #
CERTIFICATION 3
GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT 3
RELATIONSHIP OF RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
TO MUNICIPALITIES 4
RULE A: DEFINITIONS 4
RULE B: PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 6
1. Application Required.
2. Forms.
3. Action by Board of Managers.
4. Issuance of Permits.
5. Permit Term.
6. Permit Assignment.
7. Permit Fees.
8. Performance Surety.
9. Other Permits and Approvals.
RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS
1. Policy.
2. Regulation.
3. Design Criteria for Stormwater Management Plans.
4. Required Exhibits.
5. Platting or Easement Documents.
6. Exceptions.
RULE D: EROSION CONTROL PLANS
1. Policy.
2. Regulation.
3. Design Criteria for Erosion Control Plans.
4. Required Exhibits.
5. Exceptions.
RULE E: FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION
1. Policy.
2. Regulation.
3. Criteria for Floodplain Alteration.
4. Drainage Easements.
5. Required Exhibits.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
1
9
17
18
RULE F: WETLAND ALTERATION
1. Policy.
2. Regulation.
3. Criteria.
4. Local Govemment Unit.
5. Required Exhibits.
6. Exceptions.
RULE G: BRIDGES AND CULVERT CROSSINGS
1. Policy.
2. Regulation.
3. Criteria.
4. Required Exhibits.
5. Exceptions.
RULE I: DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
1. Policy.
2. Regulation.
3. Criteria.
4. Required Exhibits.
5. Exceptions.
RULE K: ENFORCEMENT
1. Violation of Rules a Misdemeanor.
2. District Court Action.
3. Administrative Order.
RULE L: VARIANCES
1. Variances Authorized.
2. Standard.
3. Term.
4. Violation.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
2
20
23
24
25
26
•
•
•
•
•
CERTIFICATION OF RULES
1, Susan Oven, Secretary of the Rice Creek Watershed District
Board of Managers, certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of the
Rules of the Rice Creek Watershed District having been properly adopted
by the Board of Managers of the Rice Creek Watershed District.
Dated:
GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT
The Rice Creek Watershed District (District) is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota,
established under the Minnesota Watershed Law. The District is also a watershed management
organization as defined under the Minnesota Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, and is
subject to the directives and authorizations in that Act. Under the Watershed Law and the
Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, the District exercises a series of powers to
accomplish its statutory purposes. The District's general statutory purpose is to conserve natural
resources through development planning, flood control, and other conservation projects, based
upon sound scientific principles.
As required under the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, the District has adopted a
Watershed Management Plan, which contains the framework and guiding principles for the District
in carrying out its statutory purposes. It is the District's intent to implement the Plan's principles and
objectives in these rules.
Land alteration affects the rate, volume, and quality of surface water runoff which ultimately must
be accommodated by the existing surface water systems within the District. The watershed is
large, 201 square miles, and its outlet, Rice Creek, has limited capacity to carry flows. Flooding
problems already occur in the District's urbanized areas along lower Rice Creek and other localized
areas.
Land alteration and utilization also can degrade the quality of runoff entering the streams and
waterbodies of the District due to non -point source pollution. Lake and stream sedimentation from
ongoing erosion processes and construction activities reduces the hydraulic capacity of
waterbodies and degrades water quality. Water quality problems already exist in many of the lakes
and streams throughout the District.
Projects which increase the rate or volume of stormwater runoff can aggravate existing flooding
problems and contribute to new ones. Projects which degrade runoff quality can aggravate
existing water quality problems and contribute to new ones. Projects which fill floodplain or wetland
areas can aggravate existing flooding by reducing flood storage and hydraulic capacity of
waterbodies, and can degrade water quality by eliminating the filtering capacity of those areas.
In these rules the District seeks to protect the public health and welfare and the natural resources
of the District by providing reasonable regulation of the modification or alteration of the District's
lands and waters to reduce the severity and frequency of flooding and high water, to preserve
floodplain and wetland storage capacity, to improve the chemical, physical and biological quality of
surface water, to reduce sedimentation, to preserve waterbodies' hydraulic and navigational
capacity, to preserve natural wetland and shoreland features, and to minimize public expenditures
to avoid or correct these problems in the future.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
3
RELATIONSHIP OF RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
TO MUNICIPALITIES
The District recognizes that the primary control and determination of appropriate land uses is the
responsibility of the municipalities. Accordingly, the District will coordinate permit application
reviews involving land development with the municipality where the land is located.
The District intends to be active in the regulatory process to ensure that its water resources are
managed in accordance with District goals and policies. Municipalities have the option of
assuming a more active role in the permitting process after adoption of a local water management
plan approved by the District and adoption and implementation of local ordinances consistent with
the approved plan.
The District will also review projects sponsored or undertaken by municipalities and other
govemmental units, and generally will require permits for govemmental projects impacting water
resources of the District. These projects include but are not limited to, land development and
redevelopment, road, trail, and utility construction and reconstruction.
The District desires to serve as technical advisor to the municipalities in their preparation of local
surface water management plans and the review of individual development proposals prior to
investment of significant public or private funds. To promote a coordinated review process
between the District and the municipalities, the District encourages the municipalities or townships
to contact the District early in the planning process.
RULE A
DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of these rules, the following words have the meanings set forth below.
References in these rules to specific sections of the Minnesota Statutes include any amendments,
revisions or recodification of those sections.
Beds of protected waters - all portions of public waters and public waters wetlands located below
the ordinary high water level.
Best management practices (BMPs) - measures taken to minimize negative effects on water
resources and systems as documented in the Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment
Control Planning Handbook (MBWSR, 1988), Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas (MPCA,
1989) and the Minnesota Stormwater Manual (MPCA, 2006).
Better Site Design — a set of development or redevelopment site - design principles and techniques
that seek to mimic natural conditions by soaking water into the ground close to where it falls,
minimizing impervious areas to reduce overall runoff volume, reducing connected impervious
areas, and preserving natural drainage patterns and surfaces.
Channel — a perceptible natural or artificial depression, with a definite bed and banks that confines
and conducts water flowing either continuously or periodically.
Criteria - specific details, methods and specifications that apply to all permits and reviews and that
DRAFT DOCUMENT
4
•
•
•
guide implementation of the District's goals and policies.
Detention basin - any natural or man -made depression that stores storm -water runoff temporarily.
Development - any proposal to subdivide land, any land- disturbing activity or creation of
impervious surface, including but not limited to, municipal road construction or improvement and
construction or reconstruction of stormwater conveyance systems, except that plowing as part of
an ongoing farming operation shall not be considered development.
District - the Rice Creek Watershed District established under the Minnesota Watershed Law,
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D.
Drainage system - a system of a ditch or tile, or both, to drain property, including laterals,
improvements, and improvements of outlets.
Excavation - the displacement or removal of sediment or other material.
Floodplain - the area adjoining a watercourse or natural or man -made water basin, including the
area around lakes, marshes and lowlands, that is inundated during a 100 -year flood.
Floodway - the channel of the watercourse, the bed of water basins, and those portions of the
adjoining floodplains that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 100 -year flood may be
carried without increasing the 100 -year flood elevation by more than 0.5 feet
• Floodway fringe - the area between the floodway and the boundary of the 100 -year flood.
•
Governmental project - projects sponsored or paid for by a govemmental agency.
Landlocked basin - a basin that does not have a natural outlet at or below the 100 -year flood
elevation, as determined by the 100 -year ten -day runoff event.
Low floor - the lowest level of a structure, usually the basement or walk -out level.
Major drainageway - any drainageway having a tributary area of 200 acres or greater.
Mill and overlay — removal of the top layer of bituminous pavement of a roadway or street by the
grinding action of a large milling machine, followed by the placement of a new layer of bituminous
or concrete pavement.
Municipality - any city or township wholly or partly within the Rice Creek Watershed District.
NPDES Permit — General permit authorization to discharge storm water associated with
construction activity under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), issued
by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
NURP - Nationwide Urban Runoff Program.
Ordinary high water level (OHW) - the elevation delineating the highest water level which has
been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The OHW is
commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to
predominantly terrestrial. If an OHW has been established for a waterbody by the Minnesota
DRAFT DOCUMENT
5
Department of Natural Resources, that will constitute the OHW under this definition.
Parcel - any quantity of land capable of being described with such definiteness that its location and
boundaries may be established.
Person - any natural person, partnership, unincorporated association, corporation, limited liability
company, municipal corporation, state agency, political subdivision of the State of Minnesota.
Public ditch - a county or judicial ditch over which the District has jurisdiction, or a ditch or tile
established, constructed, or transferred to the District and over which the District has jurisdiction
under Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103D, 103E, or 103B.
Public waters - all waters identified as public waters under Minnesota Statutes section 103G.005,
subdivision 15.
Public waters wetlands - all wetlands identified as public waters wetlands under Minnesota
Statutes section 103G.005, subdivision 15a.
Redevelopment - any proposal to re- subdivide land, or any land- disturbing activity or addition of
impervious surface to a developed site.
Sedimentation basin - a natural or man -made depression that temporarily stores storm -water
runoff for the purpose of allowing a portion of the suspended solids in the runoff to settle out
Shoreland - land areas within 1,000 feet of the OHWL of a public waters lake or 300 feet of a
public waters watercourse.
Subdivision, subdivide - the separation of an area, parcel, or tract of land under single ownership
into two or more parcels, tracts, Tots.
Waterbasin - an enclosed natural depression with definable banks capable of containing water,
that may be partly filled with waters of the state.
Watercourse - a channel that has definable beds and banks capable of conducting confined runoff
from adjacent land.
Wetland - area identified as wetland under Minnesota Statutes section 103G.005, subdivision 19.
RULE B
PERMIT PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
1. APPLICATION REQUIRED. Any person undertaking an activity for which a permit is
required by these rules must obtain the required permit prior to commencing the activity that is
subject to District regulation. Applications for permit must be submitted to the District in accordance
with the procedures described in this rule. Required exhibits are specified for each substantive rule
below. Applicants are encouraged to contact District staff before submission of an application to
review and discuss application requirements and the applicability of specific rules to a proposed
project. All permit applications must bear the original signature of the landowner or the selected
contractor for govemmental projects.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
6
•
•
•
•
2. FORMS. Permit applications must be submitted on the form provided by the District.
Applicants may obtain an application form from the District office or from the District web site at
http:// ricecreek.org/permit/application.
3. ACTION BY BOARD OF MANAGERS. The Board of Managers shall act within sixty days
of receipt of a complete permit application. A complete permit application includes all required
information, exhibits, and fees. An application will not be ready for Board consideration unless all
substantial technical questions have been addressed and all substantial plan revisions resulting
from staff review have been accomplished. Permit decisions will be made by the Board except as
delegated to the Administrator by written resolution.
4. ISSUANCE OF PERMITS. The permit will be issued only after applicant has satisfied all
requirements and conditions for the permit, has paid all required District fees, and the District has
received any required surety.
5. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL PENDING RECEIPT OF CHANGES (CAPROC). The District
may conditionally approve an application, but such approval does not result in the issuance of a
permit until all conditions precedent to the approval have been resolved. All conditions must be
satisfied within twelve (12) months of the date of conditional approval. If a permit is not obtained
within the 12 -month period, the applicant will be required to reapply for a permit and pay applicable
permit fees.
6. PERMIT TERM. Permits are valid for an eighteen -month period from the date of issuance
unless otherwise suspended or revoked. To extend a permit, the permittee must apply to the
District in writing, stating the reasons for extension. Any plan changes, and related project
documents must also be included in the extension application. The District must receive this
application at least thirty (30) days prior to the permit expiration date. The District may impose
different or additional conditions on a renewal or deny the renewal in the event of a material
change in circumstances. On the first renewal, a permit will not be subject to change because of a
change in District rules.
7. PERMIT ASSIGNMENT. A permittee may assign a District permit to another party only
upon approval by the District and findings that the following conditions have been met:
(a) The proposed assignee in writing agrees to assume all the terms, conditions and
obligations of the permit as originally issued to the permittee;
(b) The proposed assignee has the ability to satisfy the terms and conditions of the
permit as originally issued;
(c) The proposed assignee is not changing the project as originally permitted;
(d) There are no violations of the permit conditions as originally issued; and
(e) The District has received from the proposed assignee any required surety to secure
performance of the assigned permit
8. PERMIT FEES. The District will charge applicants permit fees in accordance with a
schedule that will be maintained and revised from time to time by the Board of Managers to ensure
that permit fees cover the District's actual costs of administrating and enforcing permits. The
current fee schedule may be obtained from the District office or the District web site at
DRAFT DOCUMENT
7
http:// ricecreek .org/permit/feeschedule. An applicant must submit the required permit fee to the
District at the time it submits its permit application. No permit fee will be charged to the federal
govemment, the State of Minnesota or a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota.
9. PERFORMANCE SURETY.
(a) Policy: It is the policy of the Board of Managers to conserve the District's water
resources by assuring compliance with its rules. The District assures compliance by
requiring a bond or other surety to secure performance of permit conditions and compliance
with District rules, as well as protection of District water resources in the event of
noncompliance with permit conditions and/or rules..
(b) Performance Surety Requirement: A surety or sureties, when required, must be
submitted in a form acceptable to the District. The District will require applicants to submit a
surety or sureties in accordance with a schedule of types and amounts that will be
maintained and revised from time to time by the Board of Managers. The current schedule
of surety amounts and acceptable forms and sources may be obtained from the District
office or the District web site at http:// ricecreek .org /permit/suretyschedule.
An applicant may submit a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit to the District
to secure performance of permit conditions for activities for which the required surety
amount as determined above is in excess of $10,000. The performance bond or letter of
credit must be submitted before the permit is issued.
(c) Form and Contents of Performance Bond or Letter of Credit:
(1) The performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit must be in a form
acceptable to the District and from a surety licensed to do business in Minnesota.
(2) The performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit must be in favor of the
District and conditioned upon the performance of the party obtaining the
performance bond or letter of credit of the activities authorized in the permit, and
compliance with all applicable laws, including the District's rules, the terms and
conditions of the permit and payment when due of any fees or other charges
required by law, including the District's rules. The performance bond or irrevocable
letter of credit must provide that if the performance bond conditions are not met, the
District may make a claim against the performance bond or letter of credit.
(d) Release of Performance Surety. Upon written notification from permittee of
completion of the permitted project, the District will inspect the project to determine if it is
constructed in accordance with the terms of the permit and District rules. If the project is
completed in accordance with the terms of the permit and District rules and the party
providing the performance surety does not have an outstanding balance of money owed to
the District for the project, including but not limited to unpaid permit fees, the District will
release the performance bond or letter of credit, or retum the cash surety if applicable.
Final inspection compliance includes, but is not limited to, confirmation that all erosion
and sediment control BMPs and stormwater management features have been
constructed or installed as designed and are functioning properly, and completion of all
required monitoring of wetland mitigation areas. The District may retum a portion of the
surety if it finds that a portion of the surety is no longer warranted to assure compliance with
District rules.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
8
•
•
•
•
RULE C
STORM -WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to manage stormwater and snowmelt
runoff on a local, regional or subwatershed basis and promote natural infiltration of runoff
throughout the District to:
(a) Maximize infiltration on individual sites through Better Site Design practices and
advanced stormwater management to control runoff volume increases.
(b) Provide effective water quality treatment before discharge to surface waterbodies
and wetlands, while considering the historic use of District water features.
(c) Ensure that future peak rates of runoff are less than or equal to pre - settlement
rates.
(d) Minimize land use impacts and improve operational and maintenance efficiency by
siting stormwater management basins, when needed, regionally unless local resources
would be adversely affected.
2. REGULATION. A permit incorporating an approved stormwater management plan is
required under this rule for new development, redevelopment, or additions to an existing
site, consistent with the following:
(a) A permit is required for industrial, commercial or multi-unit residential development
or redevelopment only for a site at least one acre in size.
(b) A permit is required for single - family residential development or redevelopment only
for a site at least five acres in size.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b), a permit is not required for construction of a single -
family detached dwelling on an isolated lot.
(d) The site size thresholds of paragraphs (a) and (b) and the exception of paragraph
(c) do not apply if the site is:
(1) Within the 100 - yearfloodplain;
(2) Within 1,000 feet of a public water or protected wetland; or
(3) Within 300 feet of Rice Creek, Clearwater Creek, Hardwood Creek or a
public ditch.
(e) If redevelopment will (i) disturb fifty percent or more of existing impervious surface
or (ii) increase impervious surface by fifty percent or more, the requirement of paragraph
3(b)(ii)(b) will apply to all impervious surface on the site. For the purpose of this paragraph,
the extent of disturbance is the area of exposure of underlying soils.
(f) A permit is not required for construction on an individual lot within a residential
subdivision if it conforms to a development plan approved by the District.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
9
(g) A permit is not required for mill and overlay of a public roadway, sidewalk or trail
that does not create additional impervious surface.
3. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Modeling.
(i) A hydrograph method or computer program based on Natural Resources
Conservation Service Technical Release #20 (TR -20) and subsequent guidance
must be used to analyze stormwater runoff for the design or analysis of flows and
water levels within and off the project site. Composite Curve Numbers shall not
include directly connected impervious surfaces.
(ii) In determining Curve Numbers to model runoff in the post - development
condition, the Hydrologic Soil Type of areas within construction limits is to be shifted
down one classification to account for compaction and soil smearing.
(iii) The 100 -year critical event analysis of flood levels, storage volumes, and
flow rates for waterbodies and stormwater management basins must include both
the 24 -hour rainfall and the 10-day snowmelt events.
(b) Standards.
(i) Management Plan Framework.
(a) When a stormwater basin is necessary, regional siting is preferred
when regional management would not divert supply away from a local
recharge area or groundwater - dependent natural resource. In evaluating
the appropriateness of peak flow and water quality management in an
existing regional basin, the District will consider whether it previously
approved the basin and whether the basin was designed for build -out of the
site to the extent proposed.
(b) A stormwater management plan must conform to the District -
approved local water management plan.
(c) The proposed project must not adversely affect water level off the
site during or after construction.
(d) A landlocked basin may be provided an outlet only if it:
(1) Retains a hydrologic regime that complies with District
Wetland Alteration Rule F;
(2) Provides sufficient dead storage volume to retain back-to-
back 100 -year, 24 -hour rainfalls and runoff; and
(3) Does not create adverse downstream flooding or water
quality conditions as a result of increased discharge rate or volume,
or other factors.
(ii) Water Quality and Volume Control.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
10
•
•
•
•
•
(a) Activity creating impervious surface must explicitly address the
use of Better Site Design (BSD) techniques as outlined in Chapter 4,
"Minnesota Stormwater Manual" (MPCA, 2006 and subsequent
revisions). Better Site Design involves techniques applied early in the
design process to reduce impervious cover, conserve natural areas and
use pervious areas to more effectively treat stormwater runoff and
promote a treatment train approach to runoff management. An applicant
must show that BSD techniques were evaluated in developing the design
of a proposed project and demonstrate the infeasibility or inapplicability of
techniques that were rejected.
(b) Water quality and infiltration BMPs must be sized to infiltrate and /or
retain runoff volume generated within the contributing area by a two -year
(2.8 -inch) storm under the developed condition. BMPs shall be selected on
the basis of site - specific conditions, including soil types, depth to water table
and the presence of known or suspected contaminated soils. A site with
Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) soil type A or B must meet this standard
through infiltration for that part of the site where type A or B soil is found.
(c) For existing impervious surface required to be treated during
redevelopment pursuant to paragraph 2(e) above, the standard is the 0.8-
inch event rather than the 2.8 -inch event.
(d) Where infiltration is not feasible, filtration is preferred. Infiltration is
considered not feasible where soils do not support infiltration, documented
soil contaminants preclude the use of infiltration practices, or there is
inadequate separation from the water table.
(e) For a site or part of a site characterized by HSG C or D soils, the
stormwater management plan shall focus on incorporation of water quality
BMPs. The order of preference for BMP's is biofiltration, filtration, wetland
treatment system, extended detention basin, NURP ponding.
(f) The runoff volume infiltration /detention standard of paragraph (b) is
modified for public linear (roadway, sidewalk and trail) projects as follows:
New _> 1.0 acre impervious
No change.
New < 1.0 acre impervious
Rural to Urban Section
Expansion / Reconstruction
BMPs must be sized for the
runoff volume generated from
impervious surface within the
contributing area by an 0.8 -inch
event.
Mill & Overlay
No permit required.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
11
(iii) Peak Stormwater Runoff Control. Stormwater runoff rates for the proposed
project must not exceed runoff rates for the critical two-year and 100 -year frequency
events. For those site areas not covered by hard surface in the pre - existing
condition, runoff rates are to be determined for the pre - settlement condition. The
following curve numbers shall be utilized for pre - settlement condition modeling:
Hydrologic Soil Group
Runoff
Nam
A
30
B
58
C
71
D
78
* Curve numbers from USDA -NRCS, Technical Release 55
(iv) Bounce and Inundation Period. The project must meet hydroperiod
standards adapted from "Stormwater and Wetlands Planning and Evaluation
Guidelines for Addressing Potential Impacts of Urban Stormwater and Snowmelt
Runoff on Wetlands," (Minnesota Stormwater Advisory Group, June 1997), as
follows:
Highly
susceptible
wetland
Pre - development
Existing
Existing
Moderately
susceptible
Pre - development
+ 0.5 feet
Existing plus 1 Existing plus 2
day days
Slightly
susceptible
wetland
Pre - development
+ 1.0 feet
Existing plus 2 Existing plus 14
days days
Least - susceptible
wetland /Lake
No limit
Existing plus 7 Existing plus 21
days days
(c) Design Criteria.
(i) Infiltration BMPs must be designed to provide:
(a) Adequate pretreatment measures before discharge of runoff to the
primary infiltration area;
(b) Drawdown within 48 -hours from the end of a storm event Soil
infiltration rates shall be based on the appropriate HSG classification and
associated infiltration rates (see Table 1 in Appendix C). Infiltration area will
DRAFT DOCUMENT
12
•
•
•
•
•
be limited to the horizontal areas subject to prolonged wetting; and
(c) A minimum of three feet of separation from the seasonal high water
table.
(ii) Permanent sedimentation and water quality ponds must be designed to
provide:
(a) Water quality features consistent with NURP criteria and District wet
pond criteria;
(b) A permanent wet pool with dead storage at least equal to the runoff
from a 2.5 -inch rainfall over the area tributary to the pond; and
(c) An outlet structure capable of preventing migration of floating debris
and oils for at least the one -year storm.
(iii) Detention basins must be designed to provide:
(a) An outlet structure to control the two -year & 100 -year frequency
events to pre - settlement peak runoff sites; and
(b) An identified overflow spillway sufficiently stabilized to convey flows
greater than the 100 -year critical storm event.
(iv) An outfall structure discharging to a wetland, public water or public water
wetland must incorporate a stilling- basin, surge- basin, energy dissipater, placement
of ungrouted natural rock riprap or other feature to minimize disturbance and
erosion of natural shoreline and bed resulting from stormwater discharges.
(v) All new residential, commercial, industrial and other habitable or non -
habitable structures, and all stormwater basins, must be constructed so that the
lowest floor and lowest entry elevations comply with the following table:
Within a landlocked basin, lowest floor elevations must be at least one foot above
the surveyed basin overflow elevation. Where a structure is proposed below the
runout elevation of a land - locked basin, the low -floor elevation will be a minimum of
two feet above the high water level as determined from an estimate of high water
levels determined from the highest of either the 100 -year, ten -day runoff event or
back -to -back 100 -year, 24 -hour rainfalls. Aerial photos, vegetation, soils, and
DRAFT DOCUMENT
13
Regional
Elevations
Local
Detention
Basins &
Wetlands
Infiltration Basins
Mottled
Soils
100 -yr
EOF
100 -yr
EOF
Bottom
100 -yr
EOF
per borings
Low
Floor
2 -ft
1 -ft
0 -ft
NA
0 -ft
NA
NA
3 -ft
Low
Entry
NA
NA
2 -ft
1 -ft
NA
2 -ft
1 -ft
NA
Within a landlocked basin, lowest floor elevations must be at least one foot above
the surveyed basin overflow elevation. Where a structure is proposed below the
runout elevation of a land - locked basin, the low -floor elevation will be a minimum of
two feet above the high water level as determined from an estimate of high water
levels determined from the highest of either the 100 -year, ten -day runoff event or
back -to -back 100 -year, 24 -hour rainfalls. Aerial photos, vegetation, soils, and
DRAFT DOCUMENT
13
topography will be used to derive a "normal" water elevation for the basin for the
purpose of computing the 100 -year elevation.
(vi) All stormwater management structures and facilities must be designed for
maintenance access and properly maintained in perpetuity to assure that they
continue to function as designed. The maintenance responsibility must be
memorialized in a document executed by the property owner in a form acceptable
to the District and recorded on the deed. Altematively, a municipality that has
provided for assuming the perpetual maintenance obligation in its District- approved
local water management plan may do so in a writing signed by an official with
authority.
(vii) Before work under the permit is deemed complete, the permittee must
submit as- builts demonstrating that at the time of final stabilization, stormwater
facilities conform to design specifications.
4. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application.
One set, full size (22 inches by 34 inches); two sets, reduced to maximum size of 11 inches by 17
inches.
(a) A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
(b) Property lines and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant.
(c) Delineation of the subwatershed contributing runoff from off -site, proposed and
existing subwatersheds onsite, emergency overflows, and drainageways.
(d) Geotechnical analysis including soil borings at all proposed stormwater
management facility locations.
(e) Proposed and existing stormwater facilities' location, alignment and elevation.
(f) Delineation of existing on -site wetland, marshes, shoreland and/or floodplain areas.
(g) Identification of existing and proposed normal, and ordinary high and 100 -year
water elevations on -site.
(h) Identification of existing and proposed site contour elevations related to NGVD,
1929 datum.
(1) Construction plans and specifications of all proposed stormwater management
facilities, including design details for outlet control structures.
(j) Stormwater runoff volume and rate analyses for the two- and 100 -year critical
events, pre - settlement and proposed conditions.
(k) All hydrologic, water quality, and hydraulic computations completed to design the
proposed stormwater management facilities.
(1) Narrative addressing incorporation of infiltration BMPs.
(m) Platting or easement documents showing conveyance to the local land use
authority of drainage and flowage easements over stormwater management facilities,
stormwater conveyances and on -site floodplain up to the 100 -year event. An easement on
a public ditch must be a minimum of 33 feet each side of centerline and specify a District
right of enforcement to that minimum width.
(n) Narrative explaining BSD techniques that were evaluated during the development
of the design for the project, the results of the evaluation of each and, for any techniques
that were deemed infeasible, the reasoning for the determination.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
14
•
•
•
•
•
•
5. EXCEPTIONS.
(a) Subdivision of land without construction of impervious surface or structures is
exempt from the requirements of Section 3 and paragraphs (e), (i), (i) & (k) of Section 4.
However, future development will require a Rule C permit.
(b) Rate control criteria of paragraph 3(b)(iii) may be waived if the site discharges
directly to a water body with large storage capacity (such as a public water) that has a time -
to -peak elevation greater than that for an on -site pond and the volume discharged from the
on -site pond is negligible, relative to the volume of runoff entering the water body.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
15
Appendix — Rule C
Table C1
Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Thirty guidance
manuals and many other stormwater references were reviewed by the MPCA when it compiled
the recommended infiltration rates. All of these sources use the following studies as the basis
for their recommended infiltration rates: Rawls, Brakensiek and Saxton (1982); Rawls, Gimenez
and Grossman (1998); Bouwer and Rice (1984); and Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
(NRCS). The rates presented in this infiltration table use the information compiled from these
sources as well as eight years of infiltration rates collected in various infiltration practices
located in the South Washington Watershed District.
*U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2005. National Soil
Survey Handbook, title 430 -VI. (Online) Available: http: / /soils.usda.gov/technical /handbook/.
ASTM standard D2487 -00
DRAFT DOCUMENT
16
•
•
•
..®.`
a
A
Gravel, sand,
sandy gravel
silty gravel,
loamy sand,
sandy loam
GW — Well- graded gravel or well -
graded gravel with sand
GP — Poorly graded gravel or poorly
graded gravel with sand
1.63
GM — Silty gravel or silty gravel with
sand
SW — Well-graded sand or well -
graded sand with
gravel
SP — Poorly graded sand or poorly
graded sand with
Gravel
0.8
B
Loam, silt
loam
SM — Silty sand or silty sand with
gravel 0.6
0.3
ML — Silt
OL — Organic silt or organic silt with
sand or gravel or
gravelly organic silt
C
Sandy clay
loam
GC — Clayey gravel or clayey gravel
with sand
SC — Clayey sand or clayey sand with
gravel
0.2
D
Clay, clay
loam, silty
clay loam,
sandy clay,
silty clay
CL — Lean clay or lean clay with sand
or gravel or
gravelly lean clay
CH — Fat clay or fat clay with sand or
gravel or gravelly
fat clay
OH — Organic clay or organic clay with
sand or gravel
or gravelly organic clay
MH — Elastic silt or elastic silt with
sand or gravel
< 0.2
Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Thirty guidance
manuals and many other stormwater references were reviewed by the MPCA when it compiled
the recommended infiltration rates. All of these sources use the following studies as the basis
for their recommended infiltration rates: Rawls, Brakensiek and Saxton (1982); Rawls, Gimenez
and Grossman (1998); Bouwer and Rice (1984); and Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
(NRCS). The rates presented in this infiltration table use the information compiled from these
sources as well as eight years of infiltration rates collected in various infiltration practices
located in the South Washington Watershed District.
*U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2005. National Soil
Survey Handbook, title 430 -VI. (Online) Available: http: / /soils.usda.gov/technical /handbook/.
ASTM standard D2487 -00
DRAFT DOCUMENT
16
•
•
•
•
•
RULE D
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANS
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to prevent erosion of soil into surface
water systems by requiring preparation and implementation of erosion and sediment control plans
for land- disturbing activities.
2. REGULATION. An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted, and a permit
received from the District, for (a) the grading, excavation, filling or stockpiling of more than fifty (50)
cubic yards of earth or other erodible material; or (b) surface soil disturbance or removal of
vegetative cover on five thousand (5,000) square feet or more of land. This requirement does not
apply to plowing as part of an ongoing farming operation.
3. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR EROSION CONTROL PLANS. Erosion and Sediment Control
Plans must comply with the following criteria:
(a) Natural site topography and soil conditions must be specifically addressed to
reduce erosion and sedimentation during construction and after project completion.
(b) Site erosion and sediment control practices must be consistent with the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency document "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" (1994), as
amended, and District- specific written design guidance and be sufficient to retain sediment
on -site.
(c) The project must be phased as best possible to minimize disturbed areas and
removal of existing vegetation until necessary for project progress.
(d) The District may require additional erosion and sediment control measures on
areas with a continuous slope leading to a sensitive, impaired or special water body,
stream, ditch or wetland to assure retention of sediment on site.
(e) The plan must include conditions adequate to protect facilities to be used for post -
construction stormwater infiltration.
4. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application.
One set, full size (22 inches by 34 inches); two sets, reduced to maximum size of 11 inches by 17
inches.
(a) An existing and proposed topographic map which clearly indicates all hydrologic
features and areas where grading will expose soils to erosive conditions. The Plan must
also indicate the direction of all site runoff.
(b) Tabulation of the construction implementation schedule.
(c) Name, address and phone number of party responsible for maintenance of all
erosion and sediment control measures.
(d) Clear identification of all temporary erosion and sediment control measures which
will remain in place until permanent vegetation is established. Examples of temporary
measures include, but are not limited to: seeding with perennial vegetation, mulching,
sodding, silt fence, erosion control blanketing, and stormwater inlet protection devices.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
17
(e) Clear identification of all permanent erosion control measures such as outfall
spillways and riprap shoreline protection, and their locations.
(f) Clear Identification of staging areas, as applicable.
(g) Documentation that the project applicant has applied for the NPDES Permit from
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), when applicable.
(h) A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for projects that require an NPDES
Permit.
(1) Delineation of any floodplain and/or wetland area changes.
5. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY REQUIREMENTS. The Permittee must follow the standards
of the NPDES permit regarding erosion prevention, sediment control, dewatering, and BMP
maintenance for any project requiring a permit by the District.
6. INSPECTIONS.
(a) The permittee will routinely inspect project sites as required by the NPDES permit,
implementing additional erosion and sediment control measures, as conditions required to
assure retention of sediment on site.
(b) The permittee will keep an inspection log on site as required by the NPDES permit.
(c) The permittee shall be responsible for inspection, maintenance and effectiveness of
all erosion and sediment control measures until final soil stabilization, full completion of the
project, or permit assignment/transfer, whichever comes first. (See Rule B for permit
assignment requirements.)
(d) In order to ensure that sediment is retained on -site, the District may inspect the site
and require the permittee to provide additional erosion control measures where site
conditions warrant.
7. FINAL STABILIZATION.
(a) Erosion and sediment control measures must be maintained until final vegetation
and ground cover is established to a density of 70 %.
(b) All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs will be removed after all
disturbed areas have been permanently stabilized.
RULE E
FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
(a) Preserve existing water storage capacity in the 100 -year floodplain of all
waterbodies and wetlands in the watershed to minimize the frequency and severity of high
water.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
18
•
•
•
•
(b) Enhance floodplain characteristics that promote the natural attenuation of high
water, provide for water quality treatment, and promote groundwater recharge.
(c) Preserve and enhance the natural vegetation existing in floodplain areas for fish
and wildlife habitat.
2. REGULATION. No person may alter or fill land below the 100 -year flood elevation of any
public water, public water wetland or other wetlands without first obtaining a permit from the
District.
3. CRITERIA FOR FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION.
(a) Encroachment into and the placement of fill within the 100 -year floodplain are
prohibited unless fully compensatory storage at the same elevation is provided. Creation
of floodplain storage capacity to offset fill must occur within the floodplain of the same
water body, and within the original permit term. If offsetting storage capacity will be
provided off site, it shall be created before any floodplain filling by the applicant will be
allowed. Encroachment and /or filling will be allowed in flood fringe defined by the
municipality according to FEMA procedures and for which encroachment is regulated by
the municipality.
(b) Construction of impervious areas within floodplain will not be allowed within the
designated groundwater recharge areas for the Prairie du Chien - Jordan formation (as
defined by Map 17 of the District's Water Resource Management Plan) except for road
construction and trails.
(c) To protect water quality and the conveyance capacity of the flood plain, the District
will not permit site development that would involve the outside storage of soluble, toxic, or
buoyant materials.
(d) Structures and facilities subject to flood damage built within the 100 -year
floodplain will have two feet of freeboard between the lowest floor and the 100 -year flood
profile.
4. DRAINAGE EASEMENTS. Applicant will provide for District approval a flowage and
drainage easement conveyed to the and use authority over areas of public waters, public ditches,
public waters wetlands and other wetlands inundated by the 100 -year flood. An easement on a
public ditch must be a minimum of 33 feet each side of centerline and specify a District right of
enforcement to that minimum width.
5. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application.
One set, full size (22 inches by 34 inches); two sets, reduced to maximum size of 11 inches x 17
inches.
(a) Site plan showing property lines, delineation of the work area, existing elevation
contours of the work area, ordinary high water elevation, and regional flood elevation. All
elevations must be reduced to NGVD (1929 datum).
(b) Grading plan showing any proposed elevation changes.
(c) Preliminary plat of any proposed land development.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
19
(d) Determination by a professional engineer or qualified hydrologist of the local 100 -
year flood elevation before and after the project
(e) Computation of change in flood storage capacity resulting from proposed grading.
(f) Erosion Control Plan.
(g) Soil boring results, if specified by applicable rule provision or requested by the
District Engineer.
6. EXCEPTION. Restoration or stabilization of shoreline, approved by the District as
necessary for stabilization, structurally sound and designed to minimize encroachment and
alteration of hydraulic forces, is exempt from the compensatory storage requirement of
section 3(c)(1).
RULE F
WETLAND ALTERATION
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
(a) Achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's
existing wetlands.
(b) Increase the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's wetlands by
restoring or enhancing diminished or drained wetlands.
(c) Avoid direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the quantity,
quality, and biological diversity of wetlands.
(d) Replace wetland values where avoidance of activity is not feasible and prudent.
2. REGULATION. No person may fill, drain, excavate or otherwise alter the character or
hydrology of a wetland without first obtaining a permit from the District.
3. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT. The District intends to serve as the "local govemment unit"
for administration of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), unless a particular
municipality in the District has elected to assume that role in its jurisdictional area. Notwithstanding
the above, the District will continue to require wetland alteration permits under this rule for wetland -
altering activities not regulated under WCA.
4. CRITERIA.
(a) WCA, as amended, and the rules implementing WCA as set forth in Minnesota
Rules chapter 8420, as amended, are incorporated as part of this rule and govem District
implementation of WCA.
(b) Alterations in wetlands for the purposes of wildlife enhancement must comply with
the criteria described in General Design Consideration for Wildlife Pond Construction and
Wetland Alterations, included in Appendix F.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
20
•
•
•
•
•
(c) The District will regulate wetland alterations that do not require replacement
under WCA rules and do not qualify for one of the specific exemptions in Minnesota
Rules 8420.0122 according to the rules and procedures of WCA, except as specifically
provided in this Rule. Alteration under this paragraph requires replacement to ensure no
Toss of wetland quantity, quality or biological diversity. Notwithstanding, replacement in
the form of vegetative and hydrologic restoration of a degraded wetland will be credited
in the amount of twice the acreage restored.
(d) A wetland alteration not subject to WCA that does not change the type or
function of a wetland and that preserves wetland quantity, quality and biological diversity
is exempt from the replacement requirement.
5. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS. In addition to the wetland replacement plan
components and procedures in WCA, the following more specific requirements will apply to
District review of WCA and, except as indicated, non -WCA wetland alterations:
(a) Applicants must adequately explain and justify each individual contiguous
wetland alteration area in terms of impact avoidance and minimization alternatives
considered.
(b) To be eligible for New Wetland Credit (NWC), replacement wetland adjacent to
upland must include upland buffer of native vegetation at least 25 feet in width adjacent
to the entire NWC area except where contiguous with existing wetland. The buffer must
meet WCA requirements for Public Value Credit (PVC).
(c) Replacement wetland must be designed to replicate at least 50 percent of each
wetland community type (as defined in MnRAM 3.0 or subsequent revisions) being
altered.
(d) Where the wetland alteration is proposed in the context of land subdivision, on-
site replacement wetland cannot be located on a buildable lot and must be separated
from buildable lots by a physical barrier such as a stormwater pond, infiltration basin,
existing wetland or other permanent physical feature that protects against future
encroachment into the replacement wetland.
(e) The upland edge of new wetland creation must have an irregular and uneven
slope. The slope must be no steeper than 8:1 over the initial 25 feet upslope from the
projected wetland elevation contour along at least 50 percent of the upland/wetland
boundary and no steeper than 5:1 along the remaining 50 percent of the boundary.
(f) The District will not allow excess credits to be used for replacement on a different
project unless the credits were designated for wetland banking purposes in the original
application in accordance with WCA rules and have been deposited into the WCA
wetland banking system. The District may permit otherwise- conforming credits not yet
deposited into the wetland banking system to be so used if construction was completed
within two years of submittal of a complete application proposing to use them and on
District consideration of the recommendation of the Technical Evaluation Panel.
6. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany a permit application for
both WCA and non -WCA wetland alterations. .
DRAFT DOCUMENT
21
(a) Site Plan. An applicant must submit one set, full size (22 inches by 34 inches) and
two sets, reduced to maximum size of 11 inches by 17 inches, of a site plan showing:
(1) Property lines and comers and delineation of lands under ownership of the
applicant.
(2) Existing and proposed elevation contours, including the existing runout
elevation and flow capacity of the wetland outlet, and spoil disposal areas.
(3) Area of the wetland portion to be filled, drained, excavated or otherwise
altered.
(b) Wetland Delineation Report. An applicant must submit at least three copies of a
wetland delineation report conforming to a methodology authorized for WCA use and
otherwise consistent with Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources guidance. The
following requirements /clarifications apply to submittals of wetland
delineation /determination reports to the District and supplement the approved
methodology and guidance:
(1) Wetland delineations should be conducted and reviewed during the
period of May 1 - October 15. The District may accept delineations performed
outside this time frame on a case -by -case basis. The District will determine if
there is sufficient information in the report and visible in the field at the time to
assess the three wetland parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils,
hydrology) in relation to the placement of the wetland delineation line. If proper
assessment of the delineation is not possible, the District may consider the
application incomplete until appropriate field verification is possible.
(2) An applicant conducting short- or long -term wetland hydrology monitoring
for the purpose of wetland delineation /determination must coordinate with the
District prior to initiating the study.
(3) For a site with row - cropped agricultural areas, the wetland delineation
report must include a review of Farm Service Agency aerial slides (if available)
for wetland signatures per Minnesota Wetland Mapping Conventions for 1985
Food Security Act as Amended and Section 404 Clean Water Act or subsequent
State - approved guidance. This review is to be considered along with field data
and other pertinent information, and is not necessarily the only or primary basis
for a wetland determination in an agricultural row - cropped area.
(4) The wetland delineation report must include:
(a) Items required by the Guidelines for Submitting Wetland
Delineations to the St. Paul District Corps of Engineers and Local Units of
Govemment in the State of Minnesota (1996) and subsequent updates.
(b) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map, Soil Survey Map, and
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Protected Waters Map of the
area being delineated.
(c) Results of a field investigation of all areas indicated as potential
wetland by mapping sources including: NWI wetlands, hydric soil units,
poorly drained or depressional areas on the Soil Survey Map, and DNR
Protected Waters or Wetlands.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
22
•
•
•
(d) Cowardin and Circular 39 classifications of each delineated
wetland.
(e) A survey map (standard and survey methods or DGPS of
delineated wetland boundaries).
(c) Wetland Replacement Plan Application. An applicant submitting a plan involving
a wetland alteration must submit at least seven copies of a replacement plan application
and supporting materials conforming to WCA replacement plan application submittal
requirements and including the following additional documents:
(1) Plan sheet(s) clearly identifying, delineating, and denoting the location
and size of each wetland impact area and replacement wetland area. including
stormwater features proposed for PVC.
(2) Plan sheet(s) with profile views and construction specifications of each
replacement wetland including proposed/estimated normal water level,
proposed /estimated boundary of replacement wetland, topsoiling specifications
(if any), grading specifications, and wetland/buffer seeding specifications.
(d) Functions and Values Assessment. An applicant must submit a before -and -after
wetland functions and values assessment using a WCA - accepted methodology for a
project involving at least one acre of wetland impact requiring replacement.
(e) Erosion Control Plan. An applicant must submit an erosion and sediment control
410 plan in accordance with District Rule D.
7. EXCEPTIONS. Clearing of vegetation, plowing or pasturing in a wetland as part of an
existing and ongoing farming operation is not subject to this rule unless the activity results in
draining or filling the wetland.
RULE G
BRIDGE AND CULVERT CROSSINGS
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to preserve the capacity of the present
drainage systems to accommodate future needs.
2. REGULATION. No person may construct, improve, repair or alter the hydraulic
characteristics of a bridge profile control or culvert structure on a creek, public ditch or major
watercourse in the District, without first obtaining a permit from the District
3. CRITERIA. A crossing must preserve existing design hydraulic capacity or, if on a public
ditch, hydraulic capacity conforming to the drainage right of benefited lands_ Notwithstanding, a
permit application for a ditch crossing will not obligate the District, in its function as ditch authority,
to investigate or hold proceedings to establish the official profile of the affected ditch. Permit
issuance is not a warranty and the crossing owner will remain responsible should the crossing at
any time be found to be an obstruction under the drainage law. In addition, a crossing must:
(a) Retain existing navigational capacity.
• (b) Not adversely affect water quality.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
23
(c) Represent the "minimal impact" solution to a specific need with respect to all other
altematives.
(d) Allow for future erosion, scour, and sedimentation considerations.
4. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application.
One set, full size (22 inches by 34 inches); two sets, reduced to maximum size of 11 inches by 17
inches.
(a) Construction details showing:
(1) Existing and proposed flow line (invert) elevations.
(2) End details with flared end sections, wing walls and /or riprap (energy
dissipaters).
(3) Size and description of structure.
(4) Emergency overflow elevation and route.
(b) Construction schedule.
(c) Narrative describing construction methods.
(d) Erosion Control Plan.
(e) Computations of watershed area, peak flow rates and elevations, and discussion of
potential effects on water levels above and below the project area.
5. EXCEPTIONS.
(a) Criteria 3(a) may be waived if the applicant can demonstrate with supporting
hydrologic calculations: 1) the need for an increase in discharge rate in order to provide for
reasonable surface water management in the upstream area, and 2) that the downstream
impacts of the increased discharge rate can be reasonably accommodated and will not
exceed the existing rate at the municipal boundary.
RULE I
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to regulate new construction,
improvement or repair of public or private drainage systems (open and tiled) for the following
purposes:
(a) To preserve the capacities of drainage systems to accommodate future needs.
(b) To improve water quality and prevent localized flooding.
2. REGULATION. No drainage system may be constructed, improved or repaired without first
obtaining a permit from the District. The permit is in addition to any formal procedures or District
approvals that may be required under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103E or other ditch law.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
24
•
•
•
•
3. CRITERIA. A permit applicant for construction, improvement or repair of a public or private
drainage system must:
(a) Comply with all federal, state and District wetland protection rules and regulations.
(b) Demonstrate that such activity will not adversely impact down stream water quality
or quantity.
(c) Provide stable channel and outfall.
(d) Demonstrate concurrence with regional pond or subdivision drainage plans
approved by the District, if applicable.
(e) Retain a hydrologic regime that complies with District Wetland Alteration Rule F.
(f) If drainage system is proposed to outlet a landlocked basin, provide sufficient dead
storage volume to retain back - to-back 100 -year, 24 -hour rainfalls and runoff.
4. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application.
One set, full size (22 inches by 34 inches); two sets, reduced to maximum size of 11 inches by 17
inches.
(a) Map showing location of project and tributary area.
(b) Existing and proposed cross sections and profile of affected area.
(c) Description of badges or culverts required.
(d) Narrative and calculations describing wetland impacts and affects on water levels
above and below the project area.
5. EXCEPTIONS. The Board of Managers may waive the requirement of a permit under this
vale for repair to a drainage system if the applicant proposes to repair a tiled system of less than
fifty feet in length, and where such repair would not alter the invert of the system.
RULE K
ENFORCEMENT
1. VIOLATION OF RULES IS A MISDEMEANOR. Violation of these rules, a stipulation
agreement made, or permit issued by the Board of Managers under these rules, is a misdemeanor
subject to a penalty as provided by law.
2. DISTRICT COURT ACTION. The District may exercise all powers conferred upon it by
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D in enforcing these rules, including criminal prosecution,
injunction, or action to compel performance, restoration or abatement.
3. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. The District may issue a cease and desist or compliance
order when it finds that a proposed or initiated project presents a serious threat of soil erosion,
sedimentation, or an adverse effect upon water quality or quantity, or violates any rule of the
District.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
25
RULE L
VARIANCES
1. VARIANCES AUTHORIZED. The Board of Managers may hear requests for variances
from the literal provisions of these rules in instances when their strict enforcement would cause
undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. The Board
of Managers may grant variances where it is demonstrated that such action will be in keeping with
the spirit and intent of these rules. Such a request must be addressed to the Board of Managers
as part of a permit application and must address the four standards for variance consideration
listed below.
2. STANDARD. In order to grant a variance the Board of Managers must determine that:
(a) Special conditions apply to the structure or land under consideration that do not
apply generally to other land or structures in the District.
(b) Because of the unique conditions of the property involved, undue hardship to the
applicant would result, as distinguished from mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the
rules was carried out. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute undue hardship if
any reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of the District's rules.
(c) The proposed activity for which the variance is sought will not adversely affect the
public health, safety, welfare, will not create extraordinary public expense, will not adversely
affect water quality, water control, drainage in the District.
(d) The intent of the District's rules is met
3. TERM. A variance shall expire on expiration of the CAPROC approval or permit associated
with the variance request
4. VIOLATION. A violation of any condition set forth in a variance shall be a violation of the
District rules, and shall automatically terminate the variance.
DRAFT DOCUMENT
26
•
•
•
•
•
Memo
Environmental
To: Lino Lakes Environmental Board
From: Marty Asleson
Date: July 25, 2007
Re: Main Street Village Concept Review Review
Included as Item 6B is a preliminary review of Azure properties, Main Street Village,
and letter from Jeff Smyser explaining review process for this project. This will be an
informal concept review.
Marty Asleson
• Page 1
C 1 T OF
w LN
July 18, 2007
Tom Schutte
Azure Properties
95 South Owasso Boulevard West
St. Paul, MN 55117
Re: Main Street Village Application
Dear Tom:
We received your new application materials for the Main Street Village project. We have
performed a preliminary review of the submittal. Recall that my letter of May 23
included in the list of incomplete items the geotechnical information for the second
access route. This information is still lacking and therefore the application is incomplete.
The 60 -day review period does not begin without a complete application.
This access will be the main access for the entire development site in the future and thus
cannot be considered merely accessory. Without this access, the overall project cannot
function successfully. Without the geotechnical information, we cannot review the
engineering feasibility of the access route. In addition, we will require a commitment to
this access route in the form an easement, outlot, or other mechanism.
We will not schedule a public hearing yet. However, we will bring the project to several
review boards as the concept stage of a planned unit development. The Environmental
Board will discuss the project on July 25 at 6:30. The Planning & Zoning Board will
discuss the project on August 8 at 6:30. The discussions will be informal and not involve
decisions. Comments from the boards will aid in revisions to improve the project.
Please note that his letter does not represent a complete review of your submittal. Feel
free to contact me with any questions at (651)982 -2425 or via e -mail at
jeffsmyser @ci.lino- lakes.mn.us .
Sincerely,
Jeff Smyser, AICP
City Planner
600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1182
Phone: 651 -982 -2400 • Fax: 651- 982 -2499
• Agenda Item 6B
Environmental Board Meeting Date: May 30, 2007
Topic: Main Street Village
Background:
Request
The project proposal is located in the SE corner of Main Street/35E interchange
(Attachment 1).
The proposed project consists of a 6 -lot/ four -lot built commercial site to be
known as Main Street Village. Approximately 7.5 acres of the 30 acre site is
proposed to be developed.
Although the proposed review is only 7.5 acres out of 30 acres, staff maintains
that without some build out analysis, in particular proof (soil borings) that the
future southern road connection will work, that this project will fail to be approved,
and is thus determined to be incomplete.
Site Data
Total acres: 28.33
Number of Lots: 6
Existing Zoning: General Business
Proposed Zoning: General Business
Public Utilities: Sewer and Water
Proposed Businesses: Gas station /convenience store /car wash, retail strip.
Total Impervious Area: 4.94 Acres (57.4% of total).
Analysis:
Surface Water
The site is tributary to Clearwater Creek via stormsewer along Otter Lake Road.
The proposed stormwater management plan includes a NURP pond and a
biofiltration basin serving the western portion of the site and six bioflitration
basins serving the eastern portion of the site.
The six biofiltration basins serving the eastern portion of the site will discharge to
the city stormsewer system and ultimately to regional pond -2, constructed in
1998. The biofiltration areas satisfy RCWD infiltration requirements.
Development of this site is consistent with the sizing assumptions of Pond 2,
thereby satisfying District rate control and water treatment requirements for this
portion of the site.
Site access for maintenance reasons must be shown on the plan for all NURP
and biofiltration areas.
Rice Creek Watershed has issued a CAPROC or Conditional Approval Pending
Receipt of Changes. The changes include permanent signage to be placed
every 50 feet at the wetland - upland interface where lot backyards abut wetlands
Infiltration ponds must be separated from ground water by at least 3 feet. All
ponding areas (infiltration /filtration /NURP) should be designed with a
pretreatment area. All ponding /filtration /infiltration areas must have a public
access for maintenance reasons.
Environmental Site Plan Considerations
Additional water quality and quantity issues can be achieved by minimizing
parking spaces and consolidating planting parking lot planting islands into more
rain - garden type of landscaping.
Structural BMP's such as Evaporative Control Systems and /or Netlawn in these
areas would help to reduce water volumes and improve water quality, while at
the same time create a better condition for parking lot plants.
Any additional parking requested by the developer above minimum requirements
should be replaced with pervious type of paving.
The gas station and car wash should contain spill containment design. The gas
station should have a sump /trench to catch spill materials, and the car wash
should have a plan to capture phosphorous that may spill out of the building.
Since this area is in the AUAR area, and is expected to be of Conservation
Development design, the higher standards of water volume control and quality
improvement may be increased with the use of structural BMP's.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan must conform to Minnesota Rules
(Attachment 16). The following modifications should be made to the submitted
SWPPP and submitted to the City Engineer for inclusion in the plan
requirements:
1. A narrative of proposed construction activity should be included.
• 2. Receiving waters must be identified.
•
3. Identification of who will oversee the SWPPP and implementation of the
SWPPP, i.e., who will be responsible for inspections and maintenance.
4. Identify how large the disturbed area will be.
5. Identify the % impervious.
6. Construction sequence: Construction of infiltration areas should be done
at the end of the project and protected from sedimentation and
compaction.
7. Outlet protection must be identified. Outlet protection must be of the
Wimco, Infrasafe, or similar design.
8. Native seed mixes shall be to the City's specification. Seed labels must
be provided to the City.
9. A temporary sedimentation basin during construction is most desirable
and should be located on the SWPPP. A dewatering method approved by
the city must be indicated. No dewatering will be done with out City
approval.
10. A schedule for covering all disturbed soils must be provided.
11. Provide a description of installation and sequencing off all erosion
prevention and sediment control BMP's.
12. SWPPP must reflect all of the NPDES requirements.
Unique resources
Wetlands: There are 4 on the site Wetland A will be filled and is a Wetland
Conservation Act exempt wetland. Wetland C, non - exempt, will be filled in.
Wetland D, non - exempt, will be filled. Wetland B is proposed to have 21,000 feet
filled and is non - exempt. The wetland delineation has RCWD approval. The
wetland replacement plan has been approved.
Vegetation: No known or predicted.
Wildlife: No known or predicted.
Site Vegetation
The site vegetation consists mainly of non - native, short and tall grasses.
Tree Preservation
A tree inventory has been submitted. All trees are away from proposed soil
disturbance areas and outside of proposed silt fence areas. Tree preservation is
complete and adequate.
AUAR Considerations
This area is in the AUAR area. The property does not contain any of the City
Open Space and Trails Plan considerations.
•
•
The Area must achieve the runoff Volume requirements of the AUAR. A
discussion of the water quality and quantity leaving the site before and after the
project is built must be provided. One -foot contours must be provided.
AUAR area development proposals should follow the guidelines of the AUAR
document in having "no net release" total phosphorous. A P -8 predictive model
should be submitted as a part of this discussion.
Although RCWD seems to be satisfied with quantity and quality considerations, I
would request that the City Engineer look at AUAR/RCWD Curve numbers for
both grassland area and composite curves for this area as represented in our
AUAR.
The goal as stated in the AUAR of the implementation of best management
practices such as rain gardens, infiltration galleries, buffer strips, designed
wetlands, bio-swales, and sediment basins should be the no -net increase in total
phosphorous leaving a given development site.
The use of native plants in treatment areas play a vital role in creating
preferential infiltration and ground water recharge pathways through hardpan
layers. Hardpan layers are common under row crop land uses due to repeated
tillage of soil at the same depth.
Additional use of tree species planted through out the type C and D soils should
be used to capture the 1st 0.1 inches to 0.4 inches of rain, and evapo - transpirate
additional surface /and shallow ground water accumulations.
Proof of MPCA requirements for infiltrating runoff volumes from the mean rainfall
event (0.34 inches) within a 72 hour period be accomplished in a 48 hour period,
and that there is a 3 foot separation between infiltration facilities and groundwater
should be provided.
In general, there should be a narrative addressing all of the mitigation
strategies presented in the AUAR
Landscaping
Plant Schedule: Northwoods Red Maple should be replaced with a species
that will tolerate heavy soils. Northern Blaze Ash should be replaced with a non -
ash species. Little Leaf Linden should be replaced with American Linden such
as "Redmond ", or "Boulevard ", or Basswood.
More trees should be planted particularly in type C and D soils.
All sodded or landscape areas must be shown on the plan as irrigated.
All infiltration areas should be seeded with the city native seed mix.
All Native seed mix areas should be planted by a contractor on the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources list of contractors. The native areas should be
maintained for a minimum of 3 years by the approved contractor and if possible
burned at the end of 3 years.
•
Infiltration ponds and areas seeded by the City native seed mix should not have
aspen planted in them if future burning (as a tool) is anticipated. Instead plant
oak species that will survive the use of fire.
Attachments
1. Main Street Properties Cover Sheet
2. Existing Conditions and Resource Inventory
3. Preliminary Plat
4. Preliminary Site Plan
5. Preliminary Site Plan
6. Preliminary Utility Plan
7. Preliminary Utility Plan
8. Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control Plan
9. Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control Plan
10. Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control Plan
11. Preliminary Landscape Plan
12. Preliminary Landscape Details
13. Preliminary Infiltration Details.
14. Preliminary Lighting Plan
15. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation
ATTACHMENT 1
LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA
IH
LOCATION MAP
OUTLOT 8
SHEET INDEX
1. COVER SHEET
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS & RESOURCE INVENTORY
3. PRELIMINA.RY PLAT
4 & 5. PRELTIOINARY STAB PLAN
6 & 7. PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
8 -10. PRELIMINARY GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN
11. DETAILS
12. PREL1MINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
I3. PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPEDETAILS
14. PREL MINARYINFILTRAIIONDETAILS
15. PRELIMINARYLIGIITING PLAN
201 051th Cola MK
(703)710-16113 Pc7F3-1023
Rovisim
AZURE PROPERTIES
P.O. BOX 17630
ST. PAUL, MDBOSOrA551I7
MAIN STREET VILLAGE
LINO LAKES. MINNESOTA
iDD
GRAPHIC SCALE
D 50 100 2011
( Bt FFS6t )
1 mob - 100 ft
ci
N891142'ZZ'E
20.73
N
pN
smse-54'w
2112/1.05
N
OWNER
Radford J. Schreier
ycr ��- �r�,;t IG Ca HWY. R O-- P.r:, fi5L
S south r of Cma ty slate
`IS r Aid Igyhaoy No. 14 i
Sec. z 4.1310. 0221, - - --- - ✓ \ .,._ •..7: •56622'DS"W STREET) n
—
----- --- - e —NO — - 0— /4 NE1 -/4 ,.....7. e
gyp.
• v 1 D .w.a P 1B° I r
1_ 4 fig- / / / - I + , (...!'"—°---s..,
\
o / %' ` , Jam .�
- �7 ` 14 i A / � \ � ° l\ � 1 \
,r� f� � wEn.aN \ � 1, T°
wrr '' Ivf i/ / / ,/ - � � • /�r /�1 1 s'F/ 7�
cn
ni
;// /R /L1// ) \' —'�� L 1(/ /
— \ 298.22 "` / i / / --/..;
1 '''."\.. I 2.0 `.J i"„""i Arid li:9 5°ue, fine of
i \ 4wrfty iStole Aid ILghroy u C
li t ! i ti \ 1 ! 1 ( ' -
// / /m // i ` \ \_ \ 7
�
\
inr / '1 ' ! /\ /!/ I /t LY NCk
OWNER
Richard 1 Schreier
,e Amer
- v
/' /
250.0
or-
I n A,r-*
1 stale em,l
8)0 E f 3 --7
/
'/,'/,77" ,/ / \ -°8)p 1 - f _ i
7 �� 1 L I / 1 ON 1 f f.__.)
p� I 1 \
W
/ 1 ' I , i\ �` vad 7 // / N8a56 53`4 rr v.
c]
Li
OWNEit
loylr Corp. -y
—.0435
,fT
1
i
1
i :......61-ii Jo, I 1 �� •
�' 111/ J
I / / i
\ \ \\ ( l r / / 7 ./ �1 \_.� / - / —°e.\ , _ 1 • /
l ,h 1/-1
1 I ) 1 1 / L \ ( i / / / _ nr / ,, v/ 'y /_. /v h l/l I
` I ` I I r r / ' # �'/ % / //i /n.._n.
I 1
/ 1 ,// if /// //t21/,;,/;-/• /,/,:/- 'w
/ / /'. / //� ! /
r j// )/ \ \ i I 1 f
1//i r/ /� ,fl�, �', / �/ //) (/ 1f/�/1 1 W \(`1/p
/I j t'" /-/ / `. /.//1 (/ j'' ' /i __ go �`t;�rvc
/ / , / / 1 1 / / ' '1
fQ / / ` 1 1 / /„en'l /° J /1/ �`' /
/ ' /'j I
w�".= vo�svo�"fbO
�w.to
/ "" /— / alp.
/ d= hr neon, f J /.c ` 4 & i City of o irkae
\_ \
•K\\
/ west 1/4 Color of
•-•Sec_ 24, 731N. R22W
(Cast ion Man men )
PieNEERengineering
nowoolM s ,.,mn.wer ,.faww.waa wmaae.v�n
MC &gamble Drive
N5celwmai9 Aai551711
(611)68)--1914 4 F ¢91-MOM
n1`
z
-- J�4275
sw,,,r54'w /yd •111. _ l
--en— _ ......-N 1n--- --- .i , '�
s� 00NFit
Pend K M0-
South 1/4 Caner of
24. 1310. 0220
(Cast km Monument)
N..DL. A TTE C
• \
l -r \
■r
0
ATTACHMENT 2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Tract A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY N0 240, Anoka County, Minnesota. (Torrens)
AND
Description Per Dos. No. 1375258 (Abstroct)
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24, Township
31, Range 22 described as follows:
Beginning at the point of intersection of the South lime of County State Aid Highway
14 and the Easterly right -of -way lime of Interstate No. 3534 thence East along soid
South line of County State Aid Highway No. 14, o distance of 200 feet thence at a
right angle South 250 feet thence at a right one West 298.22 feet to the
easterly right of way line of Interstate Highway No. 35E., thence Northerly along said
Easterly right -of -way line 275.62 feet to the point of beginning, according to the
United States Government Survey thereof.
SiTE DATA
Overall Area= *1,234,066 Square Feet or *28.33 Acres
Total Upland = *1,011,200 Square Feat
or *23.21 Acres
Total Wetland = +777,365 Square Feet
or *5.12 Arses
NOTES
1. Existing conditions, topography & boundary information furnished by. Midwest Land
Surveyors & Civil Engineers, Inc.
2. No title commitment was furnished for this property, subject to all easements of record,
if any.
3. Site is vacant land.
4. Only VISIBLE improvements are shown hereon.
5. Beorings ore based on Anoko County Project Coordmote System, NAD63 (1996
Adjustment).
6. The underground utilities shown have been located from field survey information and
existing drawings. The surveyor makes no guarantee that the underground utilities shown
comprise oil such utilities in the area, either in service or abandoned, although he does
certify that they are located as oourotely as possible from information available_
7. Gopher State was not contacted for this survey.
B. Wetlands delineated by Kjolhoug Environmental Services, Co.
LEGEND
=Drove Denotes Catch Basin
Denotes Concrete .Surface
_— Denotes 2 Foot Contour Interval
-- vin -- Denotes 70 Foot Contour Interval
er Denotes Electric Manhole
=so Denotes Electric Box or Transformer
'V' Denotes Fire Hydrant
lb. Denotes Gas Meter
Denotes Guard Post
* Denotes Light Pole
▪ Denotes Power Pole
m Denotes Sanitary Sewer Manhole
— a— Denotes Sanitary Sewer
Denotes Sign
® Denotes Storm Sewer Manhole
—sr— Denotes Storm Sewer
1030 Denotes Telephone Box
— w— Denotes Watermain
9c Denotes Water valve
— a— Denotes Overhead Electric
— is— Denotes Underground Gas
—err— Denotes Underground Telephone
—w— Denotes Fiber Optics Cable
—o— Denotes Controlled Access
® Denotes Well
(ii> Denotes Anoka County Monument
• Denotes bon monument found
O Denotes 1/2 inch by 74 inch iron monument
set and marked with license number 20595
- ---- Denotes Delineated Wetland
D - Denotes Flared End Section
-a. a Denotes Underground Electric Line(s)
—Teo- -- Denotes Underground Gas Line(s)
--,n
Denotes Underground Telephone 'RECEIVED
---- -- Denotes Existing Storm Sewer
--s-- Denotes Existing Sanitary :ewer
I -- Denotes Existing Water Meer, JUL 1 0 2007
Coon Rapids Oface
201 60 Avow K.W.
QmBgeA. MN 55/33
(KC 783-18111) F¢782 -1867
am�tem*elsoI WO=los b
nnvtlrmy deem eym.kim and furl Nano
e adly&owed Lod Stream.
..ner d - lam r daS°m or hfmmn
>»
7eme>sE eakedrLm
>a� Ace emits
Rorikons
1. 7/10/07-Qty Common
ne 0511117/
Maimed 778
Dana
EXISTING CONDITIONS &
RESOURCE INVENTORY
AZURE PROPERTIES
P.D. BOX 17430
Sr. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117
CiTY OF LINO LAKES
MAIN STREET VILLAGE 2 of 15
LINO LAKES. MINNBSOTA
•
IDD
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 50 1DD
( BI FSWr )
1 man r 100 ft.
20D
PI$NEERneng
ova -w.m<SHIS urmn.rsewr urm.evmna u�•weo.e�
24:29wweras mw
Mrotires.Bogem, Ia115122
9151)651 -1914 Fr81 940
Coon Rapids Office
? L A T / E
COWER
Honore 1 Schreier
— _ — — —�1
Soot rite of County State I .F
Ad Highway Na 14 .q
0 tx. :: (&
t N r Lest µ1/4 P /4 , '' r'T 140, 's. s0 2 0D -- „ . 543.14
+8•4•F___ >f 109 '
so
ja
r,� R
1 �
4
•
Qes>,..1
o=_j
I =1
177,679 eq.fI
(Uplan• 61,9158 'sq.
,wa 55< f
A /:' STREET) \
SB822'05'W
14—
•
/ 1/
rL Nar23.12•E • `L Me tardier vrlth' (he South line al i ^-
r County State Aid Highway No. 14 I
I ( ^' ffnf
!If(�
t' ' I I 2 /� ./1 1 i-t-t/ v)
213
`i'eo: r L t ±151,983 sq ft.
y Ls:15 b /J (ITploni- ±114.9 sqn )1 j/ 1p ,
ET_ LI 2Y �� U. - /u ^Tr —pr—r/ t `/ ^gin`'
1' r
r•-1 24413111. 922W
(Car Iron Monument)
/ WETLAND
(Dutlot B
±5.368 sq. ft)
South 1/4 Comer of
24, T3191. R221Y
(Cast Iran Monument)
WETLAND
(Outlot B
±12.776 sq. ft)
Fa,-1 tr owes epees
aM enw f
Vl\ VL 1
= 1
116 I., ! X7790
•
r
1110
OUTLOT B
±659,622 sq.ft
(Upland— ±6B9,632 sq. ft)
/
Li1
—1-2.7) A /`T A
I 1 \!l V ! •l
1 PO f1
• A, e$'
/ 4e
)L•
,txt'l row r w°ii/4 a ROM,
r 1D /a No M DM. =MA
1
5,175 sq.
vV
Jiilil
! Iii ill 3
N ±57.577 s
11111 I =—
II' 1nf ii 1
9 �
/1
- -55
6`7 !11i:11_ill
R- 2.`35
25
OUTLOT A
±52,D30 sq.ft.
Richard 1 stivelc
- - - - - --
c vr.
.isWxtSW
Jp
op
op
op
�o
Z
S88'56'53-9 50
! A A lf1
I__ /-1 f VLi \
r 'I
i MAIM
j Line Laces If
State Bank -�
TL) A /•T
if \ /1vl
•
958•5'53'W
250.00
•
7 ,1 /l
°ry
/
/ J
J
S1
\..s.m ew r 1.x1 •
I11S MO. 2m
942.75
N8655'54'E
02061
Pouf K. Mar
P L A TT c
300.00
58855'54 _ W
DwNEIt
City of Lim Lakes
F_
L,j
t_
F_
<1
ToOor Corp.
124.
ATTACHMENT 3
SITE DATA
TOTAL BOUNDARY AREA 28.33 AC.
NUMBER OF LOTS 6
SMAI I FST LOT 35,175 SQ.FT.
LARGEST LOT 859,622 SQ.FT.
EXISTING ZONING GENERAL BUSINESS
PROPOSED ZONING GENERAL BUSINESS
PUBUC UTILITIES AVAILABLE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Treat A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 240, Anoka County, Minnesota. (Torrens)
AND
Description Per Doc No. 1375258 (Abstract)
That port of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24, Township
31, Ronge 22 deserted as follows
Beginning at the point of intersection of the South One of County State Aid Highway
14 and the Easterly right —of —way line of Interstate No. 355; thence East along said
South One of County State Aid Highway No. 14, o distance of 200 feet thence at o
right angle South 250 feet thence at a right angle West 298.22 feet to the
easterly right of way line of Interstate Highway No. 35E; thence Northerly along said
Easterly right —of —way line 275.62 feet to the point of beginning, according to the
United States Government Survey thereof.
RECEIVED
JUL 1 0 2007
crrY OF LINO LAKES
2M ISO Swam KW.
C•mRmirs.NDl SID
fr61)' 3-18® Fc723 -1823
Hamby madly thethk Om we prepuce M
after wdaw tosetmpenum and Nal Howe
®•ddyl®mlEare Sw.eyr
,damr ashen ores Swear hfemsnn
Reg. He
E
7e®eeE Remises,
20795 De. UMW
fierforms
1. -Gq Ccomees
11m 251031171
oeatd TIER
Down D1
PRELIMINARY PLAT
AZURE PROPERTIES
P.Q. BOX 17039
ST. PAUL, MINN2SO'TA 55117
MAIN STREET VILLAGE
LINO LAKES. MINNESOTA
3 OF 15 1
CSAH 14 MAIN ST
a
aeR PIt ill ERengineering
E �� ovo_a� wmeu� wmmrvsem owr�A�
AN 351]0 Coon Rapids Office CComBEI 3 1
(651)681- 1914 F -91R (753) 753-11010 TC310-1W119
u 1.
o a�
O.;
FC
11� I. P e !A
1 jj l— O'- T E T i A KE -ROAD
- -a- -! 1— - -L--I
i � I
\\
ATTACHMENT 4
I{I
1
D 75 � fN1
GRAPHIC SCATS UI FELT
1
� � I I it 1 I
11
/ im 1 rn 6 1 �
—J
r
I I 1 I ,^ 1 - - - - -1 1 I-
_
I SC
D+I
nl
P 1 03YO OTHERS) DOSING DRIVEWAY
EI
r
EXISTING
BUILDING
J
040P CURB
AT ¢ITCN BAST
DO /40
SIGN (ALT
CRETE
VALLEY
GUTTER
OUTLOT A
SEE AL
STCP i °I
ONE WAY
HO LEFT gal On 2)
SITE DATA
TOTAL SITE AREA — &BD AC.
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA — 4.94 AC (57.4% OF TOTAL)
PARKING SUMMARY FOR McDONALDS/RETAIL
70 PARKING STALLS
4 HANDICAP PARKING STALLS
74 TOTAL STALLS
•
0
DROP CURB
AT CATCH BASIN
SEE DETAL
VACONCRETE
CUTTER
SEE SHEET 5
CURB TYPES
DENOTES B612 TIP OUT
CURB & GUTTER
DENOTES B612
CURB & GUI1tK
NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE 10 BACK OF CURB.
1. CITY REVISIONS.
PARKING LOT
PAVEMENT SEC710N
8512 CONCRETE
CURE k GLITTER
FUTURE ACCESS
8512 CURB
d: CUTTER
w
Ib P.
I "
E
rc
DROP CURB
. P
LeK
DROP CURB AT CATCH BASIN
LS TYPE BITV/MOUS YEAR COURSE NVRE450358
81UNNOUS TAO< COAT
2• TYPE 8I1WINOUS BASE COURSE 151448350385
r CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE
I ber 2y von* Ihntc Oar was ;repeal by
von or mossy diva 5gvviJmSA tll1
=der 1 c1avrs et (=Slate Mamas. Bet- Am NW DM 5/3/07
sad
Reviviont
1 7F5W7
Dru 31385
T>mmd DAS
C . SAG
PRELIMINARY PLAN
AZURE PROPERTIES
P.O. SOX 17630
ST. PAUL- MINNESOTA 55I17
MAIN STREET VILLAGE
LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA
4 OF 15
•
J
T
CURB
AT CATCH BASIN
SEE DETAL
ATTACHMENT 5
CURB TYPES
DENOTES B612 TIP OUT
CURB & GUTTER
DENOTES B612
CURB & GUTTER
NOTE ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO BACK OF CURB.
GRAPHIC greTrr III gEET
SITE DATA
TOTAL SITE AREA — B$0 AC.
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA — 4.94 AC (57.4X OF TOTAL)
OUTLOT B PARKING SUMMARY FOR GAS STATION
20 PARKING STALLS
2 HANDICAP PARKING STALLS
22 TOTAL STALLS
PARKING SUMMARY FOR RETAIL BUILDING
101 PARKING STALLS
4 HANDICAP PARKING STALLS
105 TOTAL STALLS
DROP Cum
AT CATCH lugs
SEES
PARKING LOT
• PAVEMENT SECTION
8612 CON
CURB & GUTTER
1S' TYPE BITUMINOUS SEAR COURSE WM4E450358
BITUIUNOUS TACK CWT
2 TYPE BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE LUNY/35035S
r CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE
DROP CURB
DROP CURB AT CATCH BASIN
INSTALL STAKED SOD
FOR SOIL STABILIZATION
CATCH BASSI SECTION A —A
RIM ISIZ IORTo
ELEV., TOM
ELEV., BBD
PIZNEER>g
2C2 Ersapiw X55191
(fi51)68I -I 14 Fs.$IAIY
Coon Rapids Office
RECEIVED
JUL 1 0 2007
CITY OF LINO LAKES
I. CITY REVISIONS.
C 15m .MN 55433
1710) 719 -IBID IP7113-I183
rmem,mtll, �n B�1� =1 51
®6z ml dime wpewam and l N� s.
t
radar the lam
of Maoism. Rq.Iin 14511 Dr< S13/07
Revisiews
PRE tM1NARY Sli'E PLAN
AZURE PROPERTIES
P.O. BOX 17E3D
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 551'7
MAIN STREET VILLAGE
LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA
11
Inv. 916.2
A
c
COUNTY ROAD 84
JAee 1Z.�
$‘a
ATTACHMENT 6
C
h
EI_o o ==
E
Rc
0 25 20 110
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
=
-' `= ;
1 Li
z
L
0
0
A
;v
DRIVE THRU
MCDONALD'S
FF 921.5
�!J
EXISTING
BUILDING
OUTLOT B
RETAIL
FF 921.5
E 912
AT BUILDING
Pvc a EANOUr
CASING R -1976
RE 91L40
E 910.00
CBN7 12D
RE 910.10
i
CPE
.ee.
I 44 EB16
I I /
3(4r 16-14
RE 91S40t733 . J
E 906.00 -NORTH
E 967190 -EAST
E 907.70 SOUTH
CERNI • R
106 8.3 05 -2!
ERE 91252 -.79'9 E 912
E 912.40,21- E 912.52-1
E 9125 -{1rw 9171
E E 9!314 -76 j
9 -24
WETLAND
47 -24- p • t.26L
PI$NEERneng
LANDISJIMINE
7472 E eeiselb.e
Hmb.Ne 4h¢.N023C 1
051•11 -1914 Ax66144112
MAIN TILE CP1
E 916.6
® 121
RE BROD
El 014.50
pE 109-r PVC 220-35 • LOON
os • D.=
CL 52 VIM
106. 1
RE 917.00
E 971.32 -24' - - - --
°C E 9030 - - -- OUTLOT A
15-RY PVC Sears -O II46L
tDNNECT'f6EAST. Sslue
E7L E 896.22
TEENY N FlELD R.UG QA
1 E 896.62
AH- 1(48 -.I4)
_ -cLSC r-1733
1
E RE ®9166�. 0 -EAST
E 80637 -SOUTH
E 05 7506E7-80
10.30 W OUTSIDE MCP SECTION
rupd527w
I
rx r REDUCER
w --7S PE • 0.335
CB 115
RE 91010
E 91410
HYDRANT W/
6'CV &BOX
15'- -r DP CL 52
410_ d_ VIVA
• a35f �1
CM0I 177 IO 110
NE 915.0D RE MESS
E 913.29 -S E 913
E9130 29
4 -30
rx r 1EE
ry
I< lox
=NI 100
RE 911:10
91282 -1r
NSCATE
WATERMAN
r Gv
& BOX
2 -8'-45
. BENDS
• DRAR(I .E 1
O
i E RARRI4 VISA � \
(SEE SHEET 7
1. C]rY RBVISSM.
\
LEGEND
EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION
D4 H
D ►
0
•
O •
D ►
• •
HYDRANT(S)
GATE VALVE(S)
REDUCER(S)
EXISTING WATERMAIN
PROPOSED WATERMAIN
SANITARY MANHOLE(S)
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
CATCH BASIN
MANHOLE
FLARED END
BEEHIVE
EXISTING STORM SEWER
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
GENERAL NOTES
1. PRIOR 10 CONSII87CRON. TIE CONTRACTOR SHALL FELD 1■AFY ALL DOWNS U161TY LOCATOR
AND NVO00. 9409 4 OR NOT SHOW MIT DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PLANS AND FELL LOCATIONS
SHALL E REPORTED TO 111E PRMECT DEMO MEDIATELT.
2. CONTRACTOR IS 7D CONTACT -CORER STATE ONE CALL FOR UNITY =Knew (612 -454 -0002)
45 MUM P910t TO EXCAVA110N/C@6IRUCTEN.
3 ALL SANITARY SEVER. WATERMAN AND STORM SEVER CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFNOI 70 WE
C17 OF LND LMOS SP£CNRCA11011S. SWIM RECD E]ENS AND WE 'STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
FOR WATERMAN AND WINCE _ LIE FST LLATONS MD SANITARY AND SIORN SEVER NSTALLAIIOY
2000 MODE AS PREPARED BY THE CITY ENSIN ER5 ASSOCIATION OF I9519
S SANITARY SEVER PIPE SHALL BE STIR 30. & C SANITARY SERVICE PPE SHALL E SCL 40.
111.65 OTEERIIIM NOTED.
SEE OTT E LND LAKES STANDARD RATES FOR ADDITIONAL SANITART MYER INFORMATION.
S ALL WATERMAN SHALL E (DIP.) DUCTILE NON PPE CLASS 52 119.5 OBERES NOIEa
A ,MARY 0F ESA' COVER IS REWIRED CR ALL WATERMAN. ANDES 011959100 NOTED.
A UMW OF WY VORTICAL SEPARATION AND 1O NORI2XTATTAL SEPARATION 6 REDURED POR ALL U101iffS.
SEE OTT CF LEO ONES STANDARD RATES RE ADORONAL WATERMAN WFC TAME L
6 ALL STOW SERER SHALL E DUAL WALL PULYtTMBE PPE MUMS 0199595 MOTE.
SEE OTT OF 1N0 LAKES STANDARD PLA76 FOR ADDITIONAL STORM SEVER NFCFNATI0NL
COMIRACTDR SHALL VEER ALL HALO G SERVICE LOCATIONS 1TH OWEN.
Coon Rapids Office
201 !SS, Avem.KW.
ComSapid; NN 55133
C763/ 7113-111111/ P¢7/5-1116
lmhemhy certify dr 9re plan was Pied hl
reRmy dime rpvhie.sea WL1
m.ehal Limma PmIesiaml Bar
codcbeLxo et beSSlsd ATmm.
Nan
sra
Rq. Ale 19530 Dos 573107
RevArkes
871401
»� WES
Desitisal DAS
Dmm SAO
PRELTM3NARY UTILITY PLAN
AZURE PROPERTIES
P.O. BOX 17830
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117
MAIN STREET VILLAGE
LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA
6 OF 15
I r
W
I �
CPE
MANTLE ,
RE 916.10
1 914410
OUTLOT , „ „ .
waxwir I %jl� RE Ca 116
91610 9V kBO1C
75-6' DP 452
✓ CAD. EL, 919.0
DRAeIteE
E 9166
o-
Y BIND
y 5-X 6' REDUCER
to -15 PE 0 0355
SEE SHEET 6
z6 Yef
� tr
CNN 116
6E 91753
A..� -30• .1s PE `_ ' -6' PVC S- OR -35 a 1.005 e 0.355 r- 1j-- -> -
6 j7P d 52 Mill -
60P CL 52.14
6
a BOX
10 91�
PI$NEER ng
s •anmaa¢ eww4Aw,e. wrere..m+ 7.0ee220.e84a=6
ziANSVD
(031)91 -1914 rvc.S1.9eq
Coon Rapids Office
C9 113
11E 916.23
E 914.73
OL SEPARATOR
6E 91750
E 913.9
631
-15] PE
PEa
O 0.355
=MN 117 CS 119
RE 915.0D RE T29D
E 91329 -5 E 913.
E 81325 -E
E 914.15 -N
0
e
a
I]
725• -5 PVC
SLIR -35 O 0.405
0 GAS PUMPS
I
3 a ® Li gJ
OM 115
RE 919.70
E feces 1.n
08 i._ 1
05
1
\ ] I I
137 -15 PE e
17 -t5.
0 0505
CBIM 111
91833
\IE3N3.H3
6'X r 1E
6 CV
& 960
CNN 109
RE 91690
E 91232 -18-
A
XIH -t {4a pAa - --
- __cost Tr-1733
RE 91680
E 89678 -OAST
E 896.3& -90UTH
E 90657 -160014
1029 W 15515E DROP 5511014
NSIAME
WATERMAN
145' -16 PE
0.305
)
r
E -P623-
E 1913.74 -1514
E 513.53 -454
E 41353 -15"
KWIK TRIP
FF 920.5
E912.5-
AT 8619.0810
j •, P5
r, \may
7I_ c
CAR WASH
& 80X
6-43
REIN
ex a' TEE
HYDRANT W/�
8'Xwr ERmDUCER / 1H
25-5. IWP CL 52
919.0 '1
8.
e
i
bti
kic '!.i
1/� `-
\ \\
NN
OH 9 \
r RE
0913.40
ORAMLE
E 915.4 \'
6)&90
E 91320
2-151'
DRAWEE
\ \E 915.4
11H -4(45 WA.
CAST. R-
RE 91670
f-E 90670 -5 wi
E 908.06 -6' MIST !
1
E 90955
AT BUILDING
5'X r LEE
OP 052
196 SERVICE
RE 917.53 \
E 91433 \
6w
& BOX
•
WETLAND
•
143,
• s4,
1. CT'REVOGS
N. N.
/ • /N. \ \
//' / / �\
2tf51 CPFI
E 9145;
D4
RE 91610/
E 912.0
\ \ \.
15 -15 PE \\
0 0505 \
50 1
RE 916. IP
E 912.14
2-15 \4 TPE
E 914.6
RETAIL
FF 920.0
LOVER WAIPRXAN TO X.0145..014
15• S3'ARATICN SEMEN WAR MAN
AND SWIM SERER CTOSPNG
0
O 1)
r-45.
REIN
TRASH I
6 DP CL 52 151I
(5 FL 101. BURY)
I
CIF4L/
I I I y10.15 �01
5
CAM 153
RE 9165
E 91139
r.
r
m�
e�
IM 102
RE PIED
E 91092
OUTLOT B
1 �MMM CN & 905
HYDRANT
1 014
15-...91L4
6_ DIP ol. 52 WM
i �,� -$�6- 1EOULfR
1 515E
i • 1i DV
T tmR
tee" PLUG
24•-15 PE
O 0.795
O DET cornea.
SEE DEIAL
E 91030
15 PES W/ TRA91 GUARD
PLACE 3 Cr RP RAP. O.2
WL7F1 PUSH FANSC BLANKET
1E CAST 3 ,IONTS
POND
1
/
ATTACHMENT 7
16 E HD
GRAPHIC SCATS D7 FEET
LEGEND
DUSTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION
D4 P4
D ►
0
O •
•
D ►
HYDRAN1IS)
GATE VALVE -(S)
REDUCER(s)
EXISTING WATERMAN
PROPOSED WATERMAN
SANITARY MANHOLE(S)
EX611NG SANITARY SEWER
PROPOSED SANITARY SEVER
CATCH BASIN
MANHOLE
FLARED END
BEEHIVE
EXISTING STORM SEWER
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
STORM SEWER SCHEDULE
CB or
MH NO.
STRUCT.
SIZE
NEENAH
CASTING
or EQUAL
CBMH 101
48" DIA.
R- 3250 -A
MH 102
48" DIA.
R- 1642 -B
CBMH 103
4B" DIA.
R- 3250 -A
CBMH 104
46" DIA.
R- 3250 -A
CB 105
27" DIA.
R- 3250 -A
MH 106
60" DIA.
R- 1642 -B
CBMH 107
60" DIA.
R- 3250 -A
CBMH 108
60" DIA.
R- 3250 -A
CBMH 109
46" DIA_
R- 3250 -A
CBMH 110
46" DIA.
R- 3250 -A
CBMH 111
48" DIA_
R- 3250 -A
MH 112
48" DIA.
R- 1642 -B
CB 113
Zr DIA.
R- 3250 -A
CB 114
27" DIA.
R- 3250 -A
CBMH 115
45 DIA
R- 3250 -A
CBMH 116
46" DIA.
R- 3250 -A
MH 117
48" DIA.
R- 1642 -B
CB 11B
27" DIA.
R- 3250 -A
CB 119
27" DIA.
R- 3250 -A
CBMH 120
48" DIA
R- 3250 -A
CB 121
27" DIA
R-3250--A
CBMH 122
48" DIA.
R- 3250 -A
CB 123
27" DIA.
R- 3250 -A
CBMH 124
48" DIA
R- 3250 -A
CB 125
27" DIA.
R- 3250 -A
GENERAL NOTES
1. PRIOR 10 CSNSIR0C00N. 100 CONIRACCOC SHALL REID VERIFY ALL US19l5 UTIOY LOCATIONS
AND MERU, SOW OR NOT 9511. ANY DEC EPARCT EM MEN PLANS AND 5888 LOCATIONS
SHALL E RF3"OR152 7D 15E PRD.EGT ENO EER 99EDIA1E1Y_
2 C ON1RAC OR 6 10 corm= -00PIFR STA1E OPE CALL' FOR warm LOGV71055 (312- 454 -0002
48 HOURS P10R TO IXCAVA11014/OG61NUCTIOL
3. ALL SANITARY RENEW WATERMAN AND STONE SERER CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO TIE
OTT OF LINO LAKES S ECFICMIOI6. 1R.DN0 RECUIRISENTS 4160 101E "STANDARD SPECIRCA110C6
IRR WATERMAN AND SERA= IRE INSTALLATIONS AID SANITARY AND =NM SEWER MINIMUM'
211m =5l15 AS PREPARED BY WE OTT INGINEENS ASSOOA1108 OF 1815 TA.
4. 6 warmer 51009 PPE SHALL BE 95 35. 16 6 108187497 soxvicE PPE SHALL E SCHH. 40.
MESS =ERASE E 6107ED.
SEE O17 OF LINO LAM STANDARD PLATIS FOR AOD 1IO8AL SANITARY SERER IPPO MA106L
5. ALL WATERMAN SHALL E MP.) OUC4LE DON PPE cuss 52 imams OTNBRISE NOTED.
A MANIA IF &0' 501019 6 ECO ED ON ALL WATERMAN. LOESS 01ERNSE NOM.
A 11955119 OF 15" V ERCAl_ SEPARA71O1 A1D 15 HORIZONTAL SEPARATION 6 E9UWED FOR ALL =DES.
SEE 075 OF LORD LAKES STANDARD RATES FOC ADDITIONAL WATERMAN 91661 1A10K
6 ALL 1TORM SEWER 94401. E ORAL WALL POLYE1HIWE PIPE, UNLESS 010881990 NOTED.
SE OTT OF LINO LAKES STANDARD PLATES FOR AOD6RONAL STOW SEWER RFOR4AIIOIL
7. WNMA019l SHALL VERIFY ALL BINDING SERVICE LCCATIO6 15V OILIER
51931 A.ea 1LW.
Cam 11•0d414433433
CID) 713-I6D P¢183 -160
L weL. certify Am Weis pm we pepaed'
emr- esetlrarye eaparmmm ma
®a eee>y 6.;®m Eedede�ed
eadaee la. d11aAemd AS
-Dm
Sub]
RIO 4.. 10594 14594 Ore 31361
1. 7/10/171
WTI
D45 DAS
De..a SAO
PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
AZURE PROPERTIES
P.O. BOX I7530
SL_PAUL, MO4NESOTA55117
MAIN STREET VILLAGE
LTNOLARES, MINNESOTA
7 of 15
•
•
INFILTRATION BASIN 2
AREA =2,545 SF
(SEE NOTE)
4 o�i
U 4
WETLAND FILL
J
I I
hti
LAKE RGAID _ \.
ATTACHMENT 8
D 15 30 eo
GRAPHIC SCALE III FEET
Zl(SEE NOTE)
0—
SIN
ail$
i
F.F. = 921.5
xr
21.1
21.4
it
AREA =3,209 SF.
I\ / i(
I // fi
\�I
INFILTRA11ON
AREA =3,664
(SEE NOTE)
BASIN 1
SF
, •?
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
N
GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE
r</
/ /
I
INFILTRATION BASIN NOTES:
1. INSTALL SILT FENCE AROUND NFIL1RA1I08 BASN.
2. AVOID HEAVY EQUIPMENT TRAFFIC N BASIN AREA
3 EXCAVATE BASIN MTH BAOORE ALONG PERIMETER OF BASIN.
4. REMOVE TOPSOIL FR08 BASIN AIWA IF NEEDED FILL. 16' BELDW FNI91
GRADE WITH UNCOMPACIED ON SITE CLAYEY SAID OR SAND.
5. SIM LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR SMAE DETAIL AND PLANT NFIIRIAATON.
PItNEER neenng
taeA.ID[.m.s 10071.11SmtA xAemtavamt w616C.a
AMmtlm N: AAN3.94 F.611.9436 (551)6C-1514 Fc681ia
1..
Coon Rapids Office
LEGEND
CONTOURS
CATCH BASIN
STORM SEWER
SILT FENCE
RETAINING WALL
BOUNDARY IJNE
EX. WETLAND
PROPOSED
EXISTING
I. CITY NEV6f06.
•
/•
C•
•
•
n
U
\\ I N N 1
i
— \
: ' _ , \
— mom• \_' .\
�= -� \ \ /
-- � \ - -_ \ \ \
\
i' \\' .. N. .\ �� —
( —"....„.. \
i \\ \ \ \ \
1 \ \
\ \ , \
TREE SCHEDULE
(IN.)
TREE TYPE
NOTES /STATUS
(IN.)
(�N�
TREE TYPE
NOTES /STATUS
18
COTTON
SAVE
16
COTTON
SAVE
14
COTTON
SAVE
12
ASH
SAVE
10
ASH
SAVE
B
ASH
SAVE
10
ASH
SAVE
14
WILLOW
SAVE
B
ASH
SAVE
14
WILLOW
SAVE
10
ASH
SAVE
28
WILLOW
SAVE
10
ASH
SAVE
2B
COTTON
SAVE
10
ASH
SAVE
22
WILLOW
SAVE
10
ASH
SAVE
28
COTTON
SAVE
RECEIVED
JUL 1 0 2007
CITY OF LINO LAKES
BENCHMARK
BRASS DISK IN SE. CORNER OF BRIDGE
ABUTMENT.
ELEV. =-932D8
201 nth A.n.eN.W.
Cam Raps. PSSTs
1763i7113-1980 P¢715-d633
Dieeb, mtBl tlm this lla".)✓ by
a'dcaa' Altea eoay.hdm mdlhll
mda Weht.s dPoesmeaf ADmaoa
N.
sb
Res. rat 19534 n.a srsim
L 7(1537
D. WV
D Ap DAS
Dmm 1.141.
PRELIMINARY GRADING &
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
AZURE PROPERTIES
P.O. BOX I763D
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117
MAIN STREET VILLAGE
LINO TARES, MINNESOTA
8 OF 15
1 op
INCIDENTAL WETLAND
FILL BY COUNTY
ROAD PROJECT
MATCH DRIVE
ENTRANCE -
CONSTRUCTED BY
THE COUNTY
P
W
rip
APPROX. LOCATION OF
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS FOR
COUNTY MAIN STRLL I
UPGRADE PROJECT - REFLK
TO COUNTY PROJECT FOR
WETLAND IMPACT
—) 1
.INFILTRATION BASIN 4
•• AREA =3,666 SF
,�•• (SEE NOTE)
• •
ATTACHMENT 9
G 15 80 so
GEUIPHIC SCALE DI FEES
\
N \ /
/
— WETLAND F1LL
AREA =1,471 SF. / /
/
\ 7 /
N.
g •
��� � mow-•
•
•
•
•
•
• •,
INFILTRATION BASIN
AREA =1,5D6 SF
(SEE NOTE)
•/'
, WETLAND FILL
^Blr AREA =7,990 SF._ 7
IIIIIF4i1RI!
•
•
•
•
• \
PIZNEERengineering
2421Eawois Dow
Afiertion s>m
15517661 -1914 Fc.$144n
Coon Rapids Ofm
I /;�,
\� ' I i
,h1 916- 917
�i\ \�
20) ISO wvemNW.
Can 7q:iar. SIN 15(33
1763) 723-1881) P¢733 -1613
N.
-i'0 \ \"N" , 9N.
Itwitlew
1. 7110/07
RIP RAP OVERFLOW
\ SWALE. 911.5
DmwAA DAS
Dow LW&
PRELIMINARY GRADING &
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
AZURE PROPERTIES
P.O. BOX 17E30
ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55117
WEE 31116. TOE
-MOW 9w2,. E PLC .0C @0006
01 b ERECIGI PC EOWE21L
FENCE
groom Mow
601
n_
605
BENCHMARK
BRASS DISK IN SE. CORNER OF BRIDGE
ABUTMENT.
ELEV.= 932:08
GALVANIZED PLATE 6TLi7) 7R 6 VIER
4'21
WED2SECT1X4
9110
11113E DEIVED
92Fs JUL 1 0 2007
CRY OF LINO LAKES
9192
OUTLET CONTROL S1RUCTURE
MAIN STREET VILLAGE
LINO LASES, MINNESOTA
9 OF 15
•
•
916
914
912
910
908
906
9D4
A
r
ATTACHMENT 10
J
I
;
Hum
1 15
I
/
//
i
r
1
— ; —
GRAPHIC SCALE DT FEET
BENCHMARK
BRASS DISK IN SE. CORNER OF BRIDGE
ABUTMENT.
EL EV. =93208
m
rn
9
�N'
\ = \. / �J
,\
_11-6r.."- . \,% \ / - -- ---1—
Eil—' I.�im ---d it�r�-- s�ll5lii- -- 1-`°
i -X11 IISII � I�lij 1 '�i1 11Si1 � 11 / \'\ \ N.
— "'II�
• \ \\ \
\ �- \
to
p
▪ \ -\ \
\ `\\\ \ \
\ `\ \
\E
\\
UPLAND AREA
EXISTING
WETLAND
WETLAND
MITIGATION
EXISTDJG
GRADE UNWlLAnNG
PROD
GRADE
10
PI$NEER>e
nrl.am+r� wmeAMERS fAwtlmvttvs w9mCAmA,�
24225atmPimDri.e
Morino 1 -101914 P 1 MN 55770
(451001-1914 cNm-0IWI
Coon Rapids Office
20 3D 40 50 60 70 BO
SECTION A -A
VEAIICAL SCALE HORIZONTAL SGIF
0 I 2 0 5 10
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
1:5 CITY REVISIONS
A
��il�®._ :-'— a'=r�--
�irri --�: i�1sl�lli�ilr� Tit r:_� fir= .�IUI��' - =•:.
\11 i �J�IpNI"�1_ :fit: °•p•'1�1�.,�J�,,r�JlNjp.1
��•� 1 11�� ���� _ ;�11n51� �� �Sllriio�
co
GRADING /EROSION CONTROL NOTES:
1. WHERE SCR. CORRECTIONS AID /OR FOILING OCCUR 94711IN THE SIN11
RIGHT -OF -WAY. TIE BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 950. OF TIE
STANDARD MOISTURE DENSITY RE1AT1ON94P OF SOBS (AST)) D- 099 -70) EXCEPT
THE TOP THREE FELT (3) or THE BACX-FULL WHICH SHALL BE COMPACTED TO
1005 DENSITY. AN INDEPENDENT 11=11NG FIRM SHALL TEST THE STREET SECTION
94 FILL AREAS AND PROVIDE 711E RESULTS OF THESE TESTS TO 1HE QTY,
DIGNEER AND Tiff OLDIE.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL *STALL SILT FENCE PRIOR TD COMMENCING GRADING
ACTIVITIES AND SHALL MAINTAIN SAID FENCE FOR TIE DURATION OF
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIS
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LIMIT HIS ACTMTES 11) 11E GRADING LAOS SHOWN
ON 111E GRADING PLAN. ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE
LOCAL ORDINANCE
4. THE C'ON1RACIOR SHALL INSTALL SNOW FENCE AS DIRECTED BY THE
ENGINES; TO PROTECT TREE ROOTS
5. 111E CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE HS OPERATIONS TO MINIMIZE 1HE
O510)505D AREA AT ANY OVEN 1144E
B. AU. DISTURBED NON - STREET AREAS SHALL BE RESTORED N111 A MINIMUM OF
4' TOP SOIL AND SEED OR 5O7 AS OIRECIED BY THE ENGINEER WITHIN 72
HOURS OF COMPLETION OF THE GRADING ACITVIT' N THAT PEX0CULAR AREA
A ALL SEED SOU. MULCH AND FERTILIZER SHALL CONFORM NTH TFE
FOLLOWING MN/DOT SPEC&ICADONS. AS MODIFIED BELOW.
GEE
sop
situatcrros
FETRT 1.DISC ANCHORED)
GENERAL. PLACD4ENT
ZEGIEIGAMILIASEES
2575
B. SOD SHALL 90 PLAN BETHIND CURB NMEAOA1ELY FOLLOWING THE
BACORWWNG UNDER QTY STREET AND UTLJTY PROJECT.
C. THE SAD MIXTURE SHALL CONSIST OF A NN/DOT TYPE 500 UNLESS
NOTED ELSEIWEIE ON INS PLAN.
7. FOLLOWING anut) CONSTRUCTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL CLEAN TIE
S MOONS ON AN ONGOING BASS AS REWIRED BY 1110 CITY.
9. '.0011CAL GRADING TELERAN= SHALL BE WHIN 0.2 FEET OF THE QTY
APPROVED GRADING PLAN.
9. PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE TtF OF CURB UNLESS NOTED 07HERN50.
10. ND mom OF SANDY SOILS IN IN1IL1RATdN AREAS
0
N
SILT FENCE
•
i
— WETLAND BUFFLK AREA =2,700 S.F.
(SEED BUFFER WITH BWSR -U8
SEED MIX)
971
•
WETLAND MITIGATION
AREA = 12,862 S.F. -
SEE CROSS SECTION
(SEED MIX BWSR -W5
SEED MIX)
RECE ED
JUL 1 0 2007
CITY OF UNO
701 RNA M NW.
Cem7lodI P55733
P03) 7®-19® FCTD -1®
IMImby amity the NAL Nm as Ammo, 19
cruder no Woo mE01N1 N�
am only lae�PrNemmd lbp=
9W
=kr ho Lmtofth:SmeraM 6 Reg. NA. 19.504 Doc 57!57
Niemen
7/1057
Doc 5,355
DmFON DAS
Dom LAO.
PRELIMINARY GRADING &
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
AZURE PROPERTIES
P.O. BOX 17930
ST. PAUL, ° OTA55117
MAIN STREET VILLAGE
LI ND LAKES, MINNESOTA
10 OF 15
1 �
CO. ,WY _O, Ia' _ AT NO.
C. S. A. H. NO. 1A
- — ( M A I N S T R E E T )
—
— 1
N'
PIgNEER neI ng
ONILSNOR515 lANOPLAMPAS IA,m RBYHOI LNeGIHM�
LCD FlMpdMmM
1MI ILL. MN iSTm
(651)610 -I91i FN.$1i48S
Coon Rapids Office
g20
910-
02 I
I I
I I
I 910
ATTACHMENT 11
PLANT SCHEDULE
KEY
COMMON NAME/SCIENTIF1C NAME I QUANTITY I ROOT IINSTRUC11ONS
OVERST TREES
Q
NORTHWOOD MAPLE /Aee rubrum 'Northwood'
19
2i B&B
oar.
Ali
NORTHERN BLAZE ASH/fro:nus americana 'Jefnor
7
ii B&B
.
SUNBURST HONEYLOCUST /Gledisto triomnthoo vor. inermis 5uncole'
11
2S 81LB
_
LITRE LEAF LINDEN/Rio eordoto
10
25 B&B
ORNAMENTAL TREES
1
PRAIRIF1RE CRAB/sfalus'Proiffra
5
IS B&B
'ram
QUAKING ASPEN/PMpulus tremuloides
30
1- COST.
PLANING
444J"
0
AMUR CHOKECHERRY/Prunus mocok5l
13
1.5 B9
.
EVERGREEN TREES
0
BLACK HILLS SPRUCE/Pioea 9louco demote,
5
S' B&B
.. NOTE ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED
DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL
MN OUT Dino wM MD
TEAR ANWOR MEPGRIOD
TRILL IN Y01 r11r L
LEASER 00.001 PANT
063.
i RANT m
001,aM(D NATYC SI.
OR TCI101GRLT
COMPACTED BACIOLL
15.. INSTALL PLANT SO
TIE ROM FLARE 5 AT
OR D TD7AMINE TE
IRS GRADE
PLUM RANT N PLASTIC
MILE NM t0R6AP AM
RARE SA0I3. F 05331
MKT. 1000005. 11111111N
APggmA1El.T IT 6
TE 1Q 6 Tb0e4L
MIDL PLANT MAIM
lir 6 M BASKET
O SE 16 610
. tl®NTAL RAM
RIROEVER 5 STEMS
RfllOE ALL WNW NO
MASS PRm TD 5 6
T5. 0011 MARIE ALL
1RSE
MUM RIMS IOIOIAD
E RDAOVES ANO/GR
SIRNOREIED 02
SCAM1 fOPIW AM
SIM OF NEE PRIOR T1
PURIM.
NOT 10 SCALE
CONIFER TREE PLANTING DETAIL
TRIO OUT GRAD 000 Alm
WAX ARE/OR fl C
1MMS MUSD aa1 A
0.r0c 05_ PANT
=
SET PUNT m
umoSTuMED OR TCRO NILTTT�c sm
M1sA0E0 SAOeRL
SOIL INSTALL RANI SD
DE ROOT FLOE IS AT
OR Il TOT MOLE TIE
RN®Ec WOE
PLAE PLANT N RANmm
ROLE MIN MLR. NO
RRE 0MEQ1. K 0)001
NUM 000055. MMC
A IRIMOUIFLT 17 IF
11E TOP 6 R001061.
NAM PLANT. MAM
10P 0 6 115. 0AS1ET
005.100 110
14016911. NNOS.
WCIEYER 5 SWAM
M10E ALL BURLAP Arm
MARS AMTE BALL IB
TRNE
CRTOING RIMS MORS
E IIMADER M065
SIRAINITE1162 OUT.
*00 W
SOT1 Arm
MS 16 ROE PRIOR ID
P LANING.
NOT 10 SCALE
- Ave
• T —
2-3 1013 RAIL W■ETEA
WATER TO 'S;'.1O.E PUNTS NO
FILL NAM
NA100 MGRS Too MUMS OF
INSTAI05. n, MIBCNG
151
11 E SufFIC 017 W
T ERIRMIT SATURATE R.T
ELM AM PLANING NOTE.
RAE MIN 1111101 00 MOM
OF 1105=CM IMAM
UNLESS MIL NOISTDE 3
MOVIE
1111160® NOM NODI NM
109 (m Nor RAE
101151 ACYIS0 TRIIMI 6
IRE L
PUAe AID MAmOTi MN
5ACKFI 1 50d M@11L OM7
SEW 6 M0E MEN
BAL10111MG
— RECEIVED
JUL 1 0 2007
cmr OF LINO LAKES
GRAFHIC SCALE IN FEET
7016Sb ARMRSe1 W.
Coon R -iII9 PclE
f767) 7A -11410 P¢"/Ei -11/0
1Lem yeRdfymaDisPmwepepmedb7 1L�
me mtlermy diem mpvRmm and Mal
®atlNy LimmMdlmaimereAmbitem
.Tram Men eras 5111rn1f R. Hag. Nn Coe
1 D®ped DVS/PAL!
Lamm PAM
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
AZURE PROPERTIES
P.U. Box I7030
ST. PAUL, 16PIP ESOTA55117
MAIN STREET VILLAGE
LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA
12 OFI 15
•
•
•
ATTACHMENT 12
ISLAND DETAIL A TYP.
SCALE: 1a= 10' -0°
ISLAND DETAIL B TYP.
SCALE: 1"=10'— 0”
PIeNEER neenng
OvLD�6 YIp6MOR5 LUID na.ET� L}OdtEA.�
2422 Eam ertseAir
A rece.-19 Mere55190
(651)661 -1914 14 9,4561-9460
Coon Rapids Office
LANDSCAPE NOTES
- The Limeade Controctor sbdl see the predict site to become Mode with the existing conditions prior to .ObnRtinp a bid.
- The Landscape Contractor Noll notify the landscape Architect 01 proposed phy0cs start dote at tenet 7 days In odemes
- The Landscape Contractor sheA be responsible for the fed +e Lunation of all existing utility latatiens on the project Ate with Gopher State
One Can 1- 500-252 -t150 prier to commencing .ark The i omd.mpe Contractor than be re.ponawe ter the ProhMen and ,0nir of
misting utilities damage during construction at no amt to the Owe. Notify the Ianderape Mddtse of any conflicts to faelltate plant
rsacatiun.
- Cretin to be performed by others.
- No plant materiel shill be i staked until prsb,g and construction has been competed in the immeaate area.
- Al plant material shall meet the stone:was found in the M,rice Association of Nurseryman- Amriwn Stondrd For Nursery Stock-
- AA Centoinr moterid to be grown ih the contain a minimum of sin (6) months prior to planing on alto.
- Deciduous and conferee teem shall not be staked, but the Landscape Contractor must guarantor .tandobmty to o'wind speed of 50 Y.P.H.
- The Landscape Contrnetor shag guarantee new plant material through one (1) mlenaor year from the time of wrktsn acceptance of work
front the Owner. Guorentee shall be agreed upon by Ds+Napr/6uldr and Landscape Contractor.
- T e Landscape Architect rewws the right to reset any plants which are deemed unsatisfactory bebre, during or after installation.
- If them is a descrepancy between the number of plants Now an the pion ,d the number shown on the plant 1101. the number shown an
the plan 011 take precedence
- The Landscape Controctr Moll be respmable far a mulches and planting sal quontities to complete work shown on the pion. T
Londsoape Centrootr .hen verify all qum9ties shown on the plant melee,
- Commercial grade pay lawn edging shall be instated ewe note
- T s Landscape Cantroetr Nall raped all &cringe to the the caused by the planting operation 01 no cast to the Owner.
- The Londecope Contractor Nee ksp pe mneds stem unstained AO peastrim and Meet access to be maintained throughout construe -en
pernd. AO .rites Nall be prommtiy reenowel fern the etc Any demoge to existing iou-ities shall be mpdre .t the cemhaeter's
Open,
- The C05oclr she 5. responabs for .AnP1An9 .Nh al applicable cod, regulations and permits governing ire work.
- Storoge of malaise or epees an-elte el not be aimed.
PLANTING INSTRUCTIONS
- M planting beds Need hose the existing se remanded . 6h peal mom kh compliame .en NnDOT Standard 3677 Select Tame, Type B.
- A minimum of 6' of teasel to be placed in all planing beds. this 's in McKim to the pert moss amendment
- Ronteg sole far bees, shrubs and grrrnd ewers Noll be fertile Zoom mdoni,9 a liberal amount .f hums and capable of meeting
Vigorous plant growth. It shall comply lath MOOT Standard Select Topsail., Type B. SaSmictore Nan be free of noses Nandi hrdpmk
se, stones and earned& Sall rnsace shall ho.e o 10 -10-10 fielder at a rate of 3 lbs. pe_ cubic yard k r pH between 5.1 a 75.
Sea mishne Nob be incorporate throughout the entire bed by 'entitling its the existing 12' of soli
- Prepare porting beds by aplyne Reno -itip as per Inge directions to wed to eau meth n earning arms nate an site Allow
sufficient time for herbicide be take effect smelly pentkp areas to min depth of 6 . 6509 beds to erode, robe and remove me.
dads and reels t- in darner er greater. Thoroughly water-sot* all sail.
- Mar to dentin shrubs or perennials. Preen or equivalent shall be copied 0000045.; t0 Me mamrloctrr's hetmatiffe
- 00 plants should be heeler, vioerrs malarial. free at pasts and d
- Al trees shoed be straight- bunked sal full-boded and mss all specified requirements.
- AA tress and shrubs Nall, be plants and mulched as shown in the Magi
- Tl0erie el time tee al otmti., immetoaey after Menthe apply wets to scene plants errs m weds Tea construe r depth .0s
watering basin arced shrubs and bees_ rater thrw9hty within 2 hours Mulch Moil be applied within 48 hours of second watering,
amen .m moisture is seethe,
- 95da mdntenanir Manton a teetering schedule which ti thormrphly weer all plants once week i extremely hot or dry mother
water mart often as rewired by 0c Los of beat threes. Canboctr Nag make necessary mma.rnenb to meet watering
requirementr
- Malnteenee Nan begin needstely otter each portion of the work is In plane Pont motto Nall be premted and msntaied until the
Mediation al plantings is .mepte Maintenance shall include Rotating. 009100ti,9. Mulching, Removal and Replacement of deal or
deemed materisi montennn planes at proper grade and n o plum poet,
- Any plant material which Mss. defoliates r bens brawn ewe be emcee remove tram O. et. *ne reptmd wish mpettw et the come
meth, wealthy, see arid meet 5d planting sMdbmfiems.
R NOTE: ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED ate
SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL
000*01 Rmltlr AID to3
LC NOS teak TD PLASM .
T,OR oiler MS call) Ave
SEAS AM/Oli WORM
Ted 60 me OJT A
IE.000. go NOT PAM ME
ET FLOAT w00 5190
NATNE SQL 0e TDIDYO0.T
IMPACTED 0A000. SOIL
INSTALL RAW s0 TE MOT
FLARE AT be LPAY
AMC 1E m®® LRAM 'Y
REMn0E eLASOC, METAL
Pam OR P®1 CON0e81
Ave SCORE ORME te sin
MSS MN SHARP OWE
RANG CANE num el
m0M0AS5EE POT. TIE
COMIAMS MST E SLIT
19R7C LLT AT 6' .10mrA1S
NOT 10 SALE
PlIAS NO MOM, MM
A.cal1 soh
s.TDt 10 474E PLANTS
NO ett1. cps
1101 11 TWO Math r
0aTALLAIOL A'@UC
ROUST E5.15mR TO
TN0150. 91.061
ROOT GALL Ave 'LAWNS
ROLE
I _ PIA2 NLL01 risx 5
-ir InY IT .!— NOes OF 00 0..
Il- A+ ,? ATSeD uiea ma
i�.1.1� +,�...v,� II NmvRE a tatsrA
=.11 -. �I — � snmom Rom Nuar rL
.. I - -I I` LPL DIY C OFt9 �Dffi2 AA@
IC KZ. AWNS( S'IMr 6
r, ..- T— .R1V..2.1To �. r
2 -31.E5 SALL 0uE0
RECEWED
JUL 1 0 2007
cr►-r or- LIN° LAKES
201 651hM0N.W.
Corm RSpes.604551D
(761)763 -1860 P05710-1601
!booby earthy Bettie pietas pepsredb
Milt my lam emerviuen and Ban 1
.mead, tic ,5,1 sa e
MSis
mdc ctaws ells SssoCMvmese. Rq. Na
Ree®m
Om 4-12.07
Deemed DDS/PAM
D em PAM
PRELIMINARY NARY LANDSCAPE DETAILS
AZURE PROPERTIES
P.O. Boo 17830
ST. PAUL, )1LA 551I7
MAIN STREET VILLAGE
LAID LAKES, MINNESOTA
13 OF 15
PLANT SCHEDULE
KEY
1 COMMON NAME/Scentific name 1 ROOT 1OUANTITY INSTRUCTIONS
SHRUBS
RD
RED OSIER DOGWOOD /Corpus sericeo 'Cardinal'
g3 CONT.
-
5 O.C.
BJ
BUFFALO JUNIPER /Juniperus sabino 'Buffolo'
#5 CONT.
-
4' O.C.
LPS
UTILE PRINCESS SPIREA /Spiroeo japonica
13 CONT.
-
3' O.C.
DPP.
DWARF PAVEMENT ROSE/Roso 'Dwarf Pavement'
#3 CONT.
-
3' O.C.
PP
PURPLE PAVEMENT ROSE/Roso Purple Pavement'
g3 CONT.
-
3' O.C.
GRASSES
+
„
„
NATIVE WET PRAIRIE MIXTURE (W3)
B PLS
L?S /ACRE
-
INFILTRATION
AREAS
R NOTE: ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED ate
SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL
000*01 Rmltlr AID to3
LC NOS teak TD PLASM .
T,OR oiler MS call) Ave
SEAS AM/Oli WORM
Ted 60 me OJT A
IE.000. go NOT PAM ME
ET FLOAT w00 5190
NATNE SQL 0e TDIDYO0.T
IMPACTED 0A000. SOIL
INSTALL RAW s0 TE MOT
FLARE AT be LPAY
AMC 1E m®® LRAM 'Y
REMn0E eLASOC, METAL
Pam OR P®1 CON0e81
Ave SCORE ORME te sin
MSS MN SHARP OWE
RANG CANE num el
m0M0AS5EE POT. TIE
COMIAMS MST E SLIT
19R7C LLT AT 6' .10mrA1S
NOT 10 SALE
PlIAS NO MOM, MM
A.cal1 soh
s.TDt 10 474E PLANTS
NO ett1. cps
1101 11 TWO Math r
0aTALLAIOL A'@UC
ROUST E5.15mR TO
TN0150. 91.061
ROOT GALL Ave 'LAWNS
ROLE
I _ PIA2 NLL01 risx 5
-ir InY IT .!— NOes OF 00 0..
Il- A+ ,? ATSeD uiea ma
i�.1.1� +,�...v,� II NmvRE a tatsrA
=.11 -. �I — � snmom Rom Nuar rL
.. I - -I I` LPL DIY C OFt9 �Dffi2 AA@
IC KZ. AWNS( S'IMr 6
r, ..- T— .R1V..2.1To �. r
2 -31.E5 SALL 0uE0
RECEWED
JUL 1 0 2007
cr►-r or- LIN° LAKES
201 651hM0N.W.
Corm RSpes.604551D
(761)763 -1860 P05710-1601
!booby earthy Bettie pietas pepsredb
Milt my lam emerviuen and Ban 1
.mead, tic ,5,1 sa e
MSis
mdc ctaws ells SssoCMvmese. Rq. Na
Ree®m
Om 4-12.07
Deemed DDS/PAM
D em PAM
PRELIMINARY NARY LANDSCAPE DETAILS
AZURE PROPERTIES
P.O. Boo 17830
ST. PAUL, )1LA 551I7
MAIN STREET VILLAGE
LAID LAKES, MINNESOTA
13 OF 15
INFILTRATION DETAIL 1
SCALE: 1"=20' —0"
NATIVE WET PRAIRIE
(MIXTURE W3)
COMMON NAME
BOTANICAL NAME
WET STATUS % OF MIX
co BIG BLUESTEM
W AMERICAN SLDUGH GRASS
W FRINGED BROME
Q BLUE JOINT GRASS
¢O VIMGINIA W6.D -RYE
REED MANNA GRASS
FOWL MANNA GRASS
SWITCH GRASS
FOWL BLUEGRASS
INDIAN GRASS
PRARIE CORD GRASS
ANDROPOGON GERARDI
BECIOIANNI; SYLGACHNE
BROMLIS CIUATA
CALAMAGROST6 CANADENSIS
ELYMIJS VIRGNICUS
GLVCE iIA GRAIDIS
GLYCERIA STRATA
PANICUM VIRGATUM
POA PALUSTRIS
SORGHASTRIJM NUTANS
SPARTNA PECIINATA
FAG 6.0
O8L 24.0
FACW 5.0
OBL 10
FACW- 200
Off. 1.0
OBL 1.0
FAG 22
FACW+ 160
FACT 6.0
FACW+ 5.0
UP w TUSSOCK SEDGE
m x FOX SEDGE
Lu ei 0 GREEN BULRUSH
❑ CC WOOL GRASS
co 0 SOFT STEMMED BULRUSH
CO
CAREX STRICTA
CAREX VULPINE/IDEA
SCIRPUS ATROVIRB4S
SCIRPUS CYPERNUS
SCIRPIS VALJDUS
08L 03
081- 10
OBL 0.6
OBL 0.1
OBL 1D
CANADA ANEMONE
MARSH MOJCWEED
SWAMP ASTER
FLAT- TOPPED ASTER
an SHOWYTFGTREFOL
O JOE -PYE WEED
LL BO0IESET
GRASS - LEAVED GOLDENROD
SNEFZEWSED
SERRATED SUNFLOWER
EWE RAG IRS
MEADOW BLAZNGSTAR
TALL E.AZTAR
GREAT BLUE LOBELIA
MONIEY FLOWER
MOUNTAIN MINT
BLUE VERVAN
IRONWEED
CULVER'S ROOT
GOLDEN ALEXANDER'S
ANEMONE CANADENSIS
ASCLEPIAS NCARNATA
ASTER PIPBCEUS
ASTER UMBEL ATUS
OESMODIIM CANADENSE
EUPATORIUM MAOUATUM
EUPATORRIM PERFOLJATUM
EUTHMYA GRAMNIFOLJA
HE LENT M AJTUbNALE
r®.wmTNUs GRO SESERRATLJS
IRIS VERBCOLOR
L ATR6 UGLUSTYLS
L AIR6 PYCNOSTACHYA
LOBELIA IA SIPHLIDCA
MIMLLLS RINGERS
WCNANTHEMU I VIRGINIANUM
VERBENA HASTATA
VERONIA FASCCIJLATA
VERDNCASTRUM VIRGINIANUM
imAAUREA
FACW 0.4
OBL 10
OBI.
FACW 03
FACW 0.4
OBI. 0.4
FACW+ 02
FACW- 02
FACW+ 0.4
FACW- 0.0
OBI. 1.6
FACU+ 0.4
FAG 0.4
FACW+ 0.1
OBL 0.1
FACW+ 0.2
FACW+ 0.4
FACW 02
FAC 0.1
FAG 0.4
TOTAL 100.0
RATE. 8.D PLS Ibslacre
PI eNEERengineering
2422 HmapaaD i s
(651)611 - 1199144 ?IN
Coon Rapids Office
INFILTRATION DETAIL 2
SCALE: 1"=20'-0"
INFILTRATION DETAIL 3
SCALE: 1"=20'—D"
ATTACHMENT 13
INFILTRATION DETAIL 4
SCALE: 1"=20.-0"
INFILTRATION DETAIL 5
SCALE: 1 "= 20' -0"
PLANT SCHEDULE
KEY COMMON NAME/Scientific nave
1 ROOT OUANIRYINS1RUCTIONS
SHRUBS
RD
RED OSIER DOGWOOD /Comus sericea 'Cadnor
#3 CONT.
52
5 D.C.
BJ
BUFFALO JUNIPER /Juniperus sabino 'Buff ale'
5 CONT.
4' O.C.
IPS
LITTLE PRINCESS SPIREA/Spiroeo japonica
CONT.
3 D.C.
DPR
DWARF PAVEMENT ROSE/Roso Dwarf Pavement'
3 CONT.
3' D.C.
PP
PURPLE PAVEMENT ROSE/Rasa 'Purple Pavement'
#3 CONT.
3' D.C.
GRASSES
NATIVE NET PRAIRIE MIXTURE (W3)
8 PIS
LBS /ACRE
r RECEIVED
JUL 1 0 2007
INFILTRATION
AREAS
ww NOTE AU. LANDSCAPED AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED ww
orry OF LINO LAKES
201 0561 Aram NW.
Csm7lgd(4 MN 55613
CM) 7113 -1010 Pac7/5d663
1 bead, tea6, eta W's plawa ptmai by
toe a massy Ass ala•®.dam]
lea •cd1 lased Laresgs Asiden
sad= neawe erne 5aes alarmism. ftra.m
Das
Dm 4-12.0!
Amazed MN
1121401.8)4
PRELIMINARY
INFILTRATION DETAILS
AZURE PROPERTIES
PA. Box I7030
ST. PAUL, MINK SO2A55117
MAN STREET VILLAGE
LINO LAKES. MINNESOTA
14 ; 15
Ale..0
•
•
18'
E-230-APT-G-T-EjSXX TAPERED SQUARE
SPUN CONCRETE POLE BY STRESSCRETE
GRADE
///7//
KING LUMINAIRE - K210 MIDLAND MARINA
LUMINAIRE & R1VERGRASS ARM
PIeNEERengineering
11=11=MS•••• 0•7/13612•661:116 LAND Ii.L.7007.5 LAND 61.1gVE•C•3 1.172601.26110.1102CIS
•
2422 EacerptiseDein
Mb. W519)
(001)1011-1914 Fs.4_6814402
ATTACHMENT 14
1 ANOKA C,'0. F.' I c' 0- W FL T IVO. 5
C. S. A. H. IVO. 14
MAIN STREET )
- -
- • -
ll )).
! „;,3710;
t
I ; i 1 It . 1
--.. /1 X-
'
, ---- • y i
...... ,
/ •,' i
. ,
.-----7,------ ,4,1 /
, .
• 11.
/
.43; !••
1 1 1 / . . - - - - - - t i , . . . . . „ , to • I • , . . ) to I I. to t to /to" to la It t.
`.. I,.. H--1- , . , , e---1.
'4
i• to 4 • it' COILIM10111.7• • • lit • to
L.F r,L,_•_la be ■• • I • • 1o, . Pa i • 10 • • ', ••
- 1
1 I
1./ I. 1. 16.1•011,..
I
I I I ,.1 / .: • I • bo ,ie ;
/ i f i '1...:••4_,. / I
rco.,He-4. • to • I tni*, MI. I • I. S. 4 1 • 14
e• . ' N__
, , UUUUU 1 ilhilo 1.6.1 I I.
. ',lei" .-..•
.., 4 ,I• •• • 1.• g •
,,..,.... b •,...ii• 11 • ft • li I 1•
i',.
• I ,,, , ID b it
■•.:3-% • NEDE6M1025 I ft 1. bo
•■•'.... ‘•••
le .. - e• re .. / 17.•'..411)-614/•eiLtIV...64."4 I* • •• 46- 1113 .11,1 I• • • .46 •
./..
e I• 6,
b • l• • • 11/ l• I %
. ,
I. lif 4/■• 1414
! /:, ' 1 /6 •
41 L 1.
1 urpta. lo
4 ,g r 14.6
.. 5,411.7
..1: • Ic/F. •
1:1 k'
• ,
• • uuuu • -/- '-
n,.
• • r 7../A w 1...I'S' •
i
-Y
• S ..-1.--.-1. 4 ■•• I: \ As '''16 / : i ..., -r.
' I
Le 1 1.
/{", ' I
,. ,.
tti • . .I- ..'...
i't, • • ; / '
IF Fe
4.) 11 Ii L 11 14 1 • / 41 J . „,
•,
.i.
..i. 4-
.,;,.,...7., 121, b • • IP C16 ...
i
•.. .: • .. • ., •.., • ,,, .-o 4,
• •• • b .16 ' I I It ' ...., . '''."''.‘..L> . YeLf . - . r• I :
•• • i
lui J, 4/ 4 P•6.... JO St b • . ••■ S•• ‘ .....,,,, .-6•........i6. . .3 17...,, 6v...4&..L.7-.'.,• • • .... .....• . . ..... b i I I
,,,- . • le 4. ..
it 511
• : : s., : ,..• ..y.,.. ■..,1 : ,_.•,..__,....„)....z.5?......,.....--.1-• -•-•--.--it b ■• .,..,.....4...•
.....- 1... =.3 . t ..,- ... .h..... ••• - •-....- ra.4...-t- c -G-1. I. • • i • • le, 6 • % b I* •• . %, • i I f
„ : L..•
• Le • i le .
, 10,11% ••
it....i.T.
...1 A l• • •••• • i .. ■•.• 1 . X..- ■-741r,7,6).
'.... ...,. 2....... 10 • I •• ■• 10 n•-.. Z7 ''''..
/ / t...! • • l•
in.1.;. 1•A. Is • J!
,..... ,..,,, I
• •• - 6>
I, • IN 4 \
4 ...4 •.‘. •
• lc N ^
//.."
■
14 • .
_,_r , ...." ,
.. F.,,,,- I F. •
IF -r.,.....„1.. /,'
!
... . _ti
, t i
: s '
1/
u • .„ • • • l•
/ I. '.1 ....... --7.- •'r.) - -, I
,....,,,
/
1 1 H y 1
-
-Z
, • Fa ■•
1 I •
.".••■•, • Se •
.06" • • 2,, • uu u
1 I
/'
• C • •
• 17. •
•
• / 19,7! 1 =;r7
1. I `Is
Ai! „.• 1! I ..\.1.
,11, r
,,„ • • Y, t•
\\ 6 • • 6...
763: • • j IP •
el• lit • • • tle
7■••
• #1/4..
•
•
--
I
! ISF
r.
z / _
Lighting Plan Provided by:
JTH Lighting Alliance
6885 146th St. West
Apple Valley, 1v1N 55124
ALLIANCE.
L•roNare SUNK.
1•••■4, 1•1•••••• ••••••
Ito.otto
••••
LON
Laws
yoc
bourNIN
A
•
=KU
nue
LCD
a• NEB • M. MI
••71
40-•••••-111.1....
ItOCC.INS
MID
167•
•••••••■•■••.."-Se
4.4.4 Como,
1144116, J. LUNN ...a.
N•IN
troy..
MSC
Ncol4n
FYN Noe
r■••■••Ilt■
Fc
IZO
!LS
PCN•444 Lot
•••••Nce
tow Tee".
•■•••••••
lc
0.71
INCIONICC
Fc
812
•o
2119 NU
A
./
/
i
,••
„
• t- I I._ 9■7"1- ;
---11
Coon Rapids Office
2/21 650x Avarua KN.
Cam /tapids• MN 55432
(7E20 7101-11130 N.723-1100
Ibex*, s•ity 07s Ills pin wIls pummel toy
Naze
arvorkrvny *MCI WOMAN. end *al
ma 8 . 0 7 1 1 7 L A lsisbea.
seder tlacinvi of Sower / a m m o . R N o. Dec
kerisks.
UNMAN
Das 04-1247
D•77•7•1
PRELIMINARY LIGHTING PLAN
AZURE PROPERTIES
P.O. Box 1700
ST. PAIR- MINNESOTA 551I7
MAIN STREET VILLAGE
LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA
2053364S-1.212121712132744
•
r
girl R 1
, //
F •—
at
z 0
0
HL
g
z °z°
aatoa
0
i
1
!
FIGURE#