Loading...
1993 Storm Water CROSS REFERENCE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 499 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE MINUTES Meeting #5 October 19, 1993 PRESENT: Mr. Bill Keefe, New Hope Citizen Mr. Pat Conrad, New Hope Citizen ~ Mr. Richard Larson, New Hope Citizen , Peter Enck, City Councilmember - Shari French, City Director of Parks/Recreation ~ Paul Coone, City Public Works Street Leadworker ~ Kirk McDonald, Management Asst./Community Development Coordinator · Mark Hanso. n, City Engineer, Bonestroo & Associates ~ Cecilio Olivier, Bonestroo & Associates ~ Brett Emmons, Bonestroo & Associates Steve McComas, Bonestroo & Associates I. INTRODUCTION Kirk McDonald opened the meeting and noted the members present and asked Mr. McComas to introduce himself and he explained he was a lake diver. McDonald called for corrections or additions to the minutes from the August 31st meeting. French noted a correction to the 3rd paragraph in #2, changing the word "conversation" to "conservation". Motion to approve the minutes, as corrected, by Enck, seconded by French, unanimously passed. No additions to or deletions from the agenda. McDonald passed out additional material received prior to the meeting from the Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resosumes regarding water retention guidelines for impervious surfaces. II. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES Enck questioned why the term "storm" water had been used in the educational newsletter instead of the term "surface" water. McDonald explained the task fome is referred to as the "Stormwater Task Force" so staff felt the newsletter terminolgy should be consistent with the name of the task force. Discussion followed with the group indicating that the management involves more than stormwater and the general consensus was to change and use the term "surface" water in future information that was distributed. Olivier presented the fourth draft of New Hope's Surface Water Management Plan Goals and Policies for final approval. Enck questioned Water Quality Policy #5 and asked if there was a due date for priorty ranking. Policy 5 Focus management activities and capital improvements based on the priority ranking scheme presented in the Surface Water Management Plan. ~ Olivier commented that the ranking will be based on priority waterbodies that have been identified in terms of efficiency and cost of improvements, and when the plan is ready and adopted by the City, it will be included in the plan. Hanson commented that priorities may be ever-changing and Olivier agreed, but noted that it will be included in final draft report at next meeting. Enck went on to discuss Water Quality, Policy #11, which states that the cost of sweeping streets in an area undergoing construction should be borne by developer and/or home builder. He indicated that he felt that the language "and/or owner" should be added, giving leverage on the property in case of an inability to collect from developer/builder. The rest of the task force agreed with this recommendation and the policy was rewritten as follows: Policy 11 Establish an inspection program for construction sites to ensure compliance with the City's Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations. In areas undergoing construction activities, the cost of sweeping sediment from the street generated by development shall be borne by the developer and/or home builder and/or owner. The program shall include inspection following installation, severe rain storms, and prior to seeding deadlines. Enck referred to Water Quality Policy #12, which states that stores should have available phosphorous- free fertilizer, and suggested that the term "and information on same for lawn applications" be added to the statement. The task force was in agreement with this suggestion and the policy was rewritten as follows: Policy '12 Lawn care companies and retail stores operating in New Hope should have available phosphorus free fertilizer and information on same for lawn applications. Conrad made a motion to approve the goals/policies with the recommended changes and Paul Coone seconded the motion. The task force voted unanimous approval for the revised goals/policies. II1. PRESENTATION ON LAKES AND WATER QUALITY Steve McComas distributed a chart with an overview of how the physical/chemical factors of lakes and wetlands impact the habitat, such as aquatic weeds, bottom conditions, etc. He explained how nutrients stimulate algae and how the right types of increased algae allows the growth of zoe plankton, which in turn eat algae and allow more small fish to survive, but also how the wrong kind of algae which can't be eaten by zoe plankton adversely affects the small fish population and rough fish then do better. He pointed out that stormwater management planning helps by regulating the nutrients to provide right kind of algae, and also by keeping sediment and erosion from entering lakes helps maintain and improve habitat. He explained the eco-regions and reviewed lakes located within each region, and noted some lakes with Iow phosphorous and in relatively good shape, however New Hope's lakes are not there currently, having been degraded over a period of time. He showed a video with comments on several lakes outside the area and New Hope's lakes. He discussed Meadow Lake and Northwood Lake, and a wetland below Northwood which has been invaded by cattails. Northwood's transperency is only about 1 foot, and contains significant nutrient levels, algae, and aquatic insects that live without oxygen, which indicates a Iow level of oxygen and is also a cause of winter kill. McDonald questioned if good stormwater management practices over time would clean the lakes up or if they would eventually return to the current status. McComas emphasized that to maintain clearwater, wetland plants and aquatic plants could be transplanted, possibly after dredging and after a stormwater management practice is in place. He noted that there is a good nutrient-rich soft sediment at the bottom of Northwood. Hanson confirmed that a good part of the entire lake needs to be dredged and drag line removal would be the preferable way of removal. McComas indicated that they could establish a number of alternatives dependent upon the goals and objectives for the various lakes. He added that they could do some things with fish and aquatic plants and wild life, such as winter aeration, etc. He stated that what would work for Northwood would work for Meadow Lake. McComas presented a U.S. Land Survey from 1856 showing swamps, timber, prairie, and predevelopment conditions of the area, and indicating that perhaps Northwood and Meadow Lake were constructed rather than naturally created and are rather new on the landscape. Keefe questioned cost of dredging. Eh(~k pointed Out ihat the major benefits of these lakes for New Hope residents was for aesthetic purposes; The next item discussed was ponding to reduce peak flows. Sometimes it is more cost effective to upgrade ponds versus replacing large pipe. The City needs t° take advantage of every ponding area, and the consultants looked for available ponding areas within the drainage system (downstream more efficient than upstream) that would be considered small regional ponds. They pointed out the difference between water quality and water quantity ponds. They proposed 3 new ponds and expanded ponds (wider area, not deeper). Hanson pointed out that all recommendations would be in the comp plan and in time decisions will have to be made regarding what improvments to pursue. All considerations will have been identified and documented. There are a limited number of options in New Hope, but being able to show that improving water quality is a priority is important. Olivier stated that at the next meeting he will present the entire report with an overall color-coded map for the City and possibly smaller individual, easily identifiable, maps for each district, plus other pertinent information. Conrad questioned if the document should be sent to local watersheds and inquired if the task force should tour the areas proposed for improvements personally. Enck requested that all costs be documented. Olivier stated that the report would include optimum recommendations for a 5-year plan. The Council will need to decide priorities. Enck reminded the task force that their charge by City was to develop a water quantity and water quality plan. The City Council will decide priorities based on the availability of the budget. Emmons wrapped up his presentation with figures on concentrations, increased flows, etc. IV. PROJECT UPDATE Emmons and Olivier demonstrated maps and models for water quantity and water quality and reviewed aspects of example problem districts. He pointed out the trunk system noting that the initial objective was to see if the system could meet 5-year design criteria. He indicated the problem areas, documenting existing systems and flow and outlining the districts. He emphasized the results showed that 80% to 90% of the system is undersized for a 5-year storm, but is not uncommon for an older developed city. He outlined the priorities for solving the problems, such as redirecting drainage to other districts, adding parallel pipes to an existing undersized pipe or replace with larger pipe, or creating ponding to reduce peak flows. He emphasized the use of catch basins and the importance of having enough of them properly located and maintained. Emmons and Olivier outlined recommendations for upgrading specific areas. V. NEXT MEETING Olivier reviewed the plans for next meeting which will include the draft report for review. The next meeting date was left open until it is certain that the report is complete, but it is anticipated that the task force will not meet until at least January. McDonald will coordinate a meeting date with task force members once the draft plan is ready for review. Enck motioned to adjourn the meeting and the motion was seconded by Coone. Task force members unanimously agreed and the meeting was adjourned 8:50 p.m. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator CITY OF NEW HOPE · 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE MINUTES Meeting #4 August 31, 1993 PRESENT: Mr. Bill Keefe, New Hope Citizen Mr. Pat Conrad, New Hope Citizen Mr. Richard Larson, New Hope Citizen Peter Enck, City Councilmember Kirk McDonald, Management Asst./Community Development Coordinator Mark Hanson, City Engineer, Bonestroo & Associates Cecilio Olivier, Bonestroo & Associates Brett Emmons, Bonestroo & Associates I. INTRODUCTION Kirk McDonald opened the meeting and noted that all members were present with the exception of Paul Coone, Public Works Street Lead Worker. McDonald called for corrections or additions to the minutes from the July 13th meeting. French suggested adding the golf course to the list of problem areas that were noted under Item III. She noted that there has been noticeable erosion around the ponds this year. Motion to approve the minutes, as amended, by Conrad, second by Keefe, unanimously passed. No additions to or deletions from the agenda. II. UPDATED SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES Olivier indicated that the third draft of New Hope's Surface Water Management Plan Goals and Policies had been distributed with the agenda packet and asked for comments or discussion on it before approval and preparation of the final version. Enck raised a question regarding a stormwater/pollution protection plan to require certain industries, such as salvage yards, to submit plans for review so they can be checked for phosphorous leaking into streams. There was discussion regarding phosphorous deposits in parking lots from car exhausts. Enck suggested that erosion control requirements for maintenance of ponding areas, street sweeping in construction areas, etc. be implemented with costs billed back to contractor. It was the consensus of the Task Force that Policies #11 and #17 under Water Quality Protection would be tied together and reworded to address this matter. Larson questioned Flood Protection, Policy II, and asked for clarification. The policy stated "Develop a flood rapid-response program for the City to minimize damage to property". Larson asked if this meant the City would have sand and sand bags available for residents, to which the answer was affirmative. Enck questioned the reference to the Manual of Standards handbook referenced in Ordinance 90-7, the City's existing erosion and sediment control ordinance. He indicated that he felt Policy #3 under Water Quality Protection should be revised to state that Hennepin County Conversation Best Management Practices shall apply. Conrad pointed out that Policy #1 under Flood Protection that states "a freeboard of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level is desirable" appears to be in conflict with the City's current Flood Plain Ordinance (4.185(2)), which states that no structure shall be placed at an elevation such that the lowest floor is less than 3 feet above the highest known water level". It was the general consensus of the group that the ordinance would need to be amended at the time the Storm Water Management Plan is adopted. Conrad indicated that a new wetlands ordinance had been completed by the Department of Natural Resources and it was recommended that the DNR be contacted so that a copy of the ordinance could be reviewed by the Task Force. Enck referred to Policy #12 under Water Quality, which stated that "lawn care companies and retail stores operating in New Hope should have available phosphorus-free fertilizer for lawn applications". He questioned if other cities have banned the sale of phosphorous fertilizers and if that would help alleviate the problem. McDonald asked how such a policy would be enforced if adopted. Discussion continued about the educational process needed to encourage people to purchase fertilizers that will not impair water quality standards. The use of nitrogen fertilizers and leaving mulch on lawns was also discussed. McDonald presented the information he had obtained from the two Watershed Districts regarding water quality costs. Both Bassett and Shingle Creek Watershed Districts indicated that information could be shared so that there is not a duplication of services. However, Shingle Creek indicated that the costs for water quality monitoring would be borne by them, while Bassett Creek indicated that these services may have to be individually contracted. Jim Herbert from Barr Engineering indicated that Bassett Creek Watershed District had budgeted $18,000 to monitor 3 water bodies in 1993 and he thought $6,000 per water body was reasonable, depending on the type of tests conducted. Dale Claridge from James Montgomery Engineering stated that Shingle Creek Watershed District budgets $20,000 - $30,000 per year for special projects regarding water quality monitoring. Olivier stated that he would need to know the number of water bodies that should be sampled in New Hope and Hanson responded that most likely it would be two water bodies: Northwood Lake and Meadow Lake. A number of other small ponds in the City were reviewed by the Task Force, including the Egan McKay Pond, Old Dutch Pond, and the 49th Avenue wetlands. Enck questioned exactly what type of sampling/tests should be conducted. Olivier recommended testing for phosphorous, nitrogen, chlorophyll A, and transparency/heavy metals. Enck recommended that we include these four tests as a minimum in the plan and check with neighboring cities to see what they are testing for and compare/coordinate efforts once all plans are in place. Task Force members questioned what is done with the test results once they are gathered and McDonald indicated he thought that the data would be entered on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's computerized water quality data management system, STORET. Enck questioned what items the Watersheds are testing for now and Olivier indicated that they are testing for phosphorous, nitrogen, and heavy metals. Olivier stated that different tests would be conducted for wetlands and lakes, as lakes need to be tested for clarity and suspended solids. Larson stated that he thought wetlands located near industrial areas should be checked for heavy metals. Conrad questioned what parameters the wetland water quality tests would be compared to and Olivier explained that there were different quality factors for each wetland and lake, depending on their classification and the variety of plant life. It was the general consensus of the Task Force that the comments made during the discussion should be incorporated into another final draft of the policies, which will be reviewed at the next meeting. III. DISCUSSION OF PRIORITY WATER BODIES Mark Hanson, City Engineer, proceeded to review with Task Force members the identification of lakes and wetlands in New Hope that were of importance to the community. A number of water bodies and wetlands were identified and discussed, including Hidden Valley Pond, Old Dutch Pond, Fred Sims Holding Pond, Northwood Lake, Meadow Lake, and the ponds at the Golf Course, near Egan McKay and north/south of 49th Avenue near New Hope Athletic Field. Other areas discussed included Bass Creek, Dorothy Mary Pond, Victory Park wetland, the ponds near Honeywell and 5000 Winnetka, vacant property north of 42nd Avenue on Nevada, Gethsemane Cemetery property, and the wetlands near the apartment complexes between 45th and Xylon and Winnetka Avenues. Hanson indicated that he felt the 4 major water bodies that need to be tested and monitored, two in each Watershed District, included Hidden Valley Pond and Northwood Lake (Bassett Creek Watershed) and Meadow Lake and the ponds located at the Golf Course (Shingle Creek Watershed). There was discussion about the need to also test water bodies up and down stream from New Hope, such as Medicine Lake and Twin Lake. Larson said he was concerned about self-contained ponds in New Hope and felt that they should be routinely tested. Keefe excused himself from the meeting at 8:15 p.m. IV. REVIEW DRAFT OF NEWSLETTER Olivier reviewed the purpose of the stormwater newsletter, distributed a draft newsletter for New Hope, and requested that Task Force members review the newsletter and send comments/recommendations for changes to him by September 10th. It was determined that if a second draft is necessary, it would be sent to McDonald, who in turn will distribute it to Task Force members. McDonald indicated that the deadline for the November 15th City newsletter was October 15th and it was agreed that all revisions would be completed by that time. Bonestroo will provide the artwork and the City will coordinate the pdnting with the regular City newsletter. The stormwater newsletter will be inserted with the regular newsletter and McDonald indicated that 9,600 newsletters are mailed and includes all apartments and businesses. McDonald agreed to provide information on the yard waste collection site and to provide several photos of Northwood Pond. There will also be a second newsletter sent out near the first of the year which can be more specific in addressing the goals and issues in New Hope and contain a map identifying major water bodies in New Hope. The first newsletter is rather general in its informational content and will address water quality. Quantity will be discussed in the second newsletter issue. V. NEXT MEETING The general consensus of the group was to schedule the next meeting for 7:00 p.m. on October 19th. Olivier indicated that he felt 2 - 3 additional meetings with the Task Force would be necessary. Topics to be included on the next agenda include final review of stormwater goals/policies, review of the first newsletter, project update, and preliminary results of modeling. There being no further business, Conrad moved, French seconded, to adjourn the meeting and it was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE MINUTES Meeting #3 July 13, 1993 PRESENT: Mr. Bill Keefe, New Hope Citizen Mr. Pat Conrad, New Hope Citizen Peter Enck, City Councilmember Kirk McDonald, Management Asst./Community Development Coordinator Paul Coone, Street Superintendent Mark Hanson, City Engineer, Bonestroo & Associates Cecilio Olivier, Bonestroo & Associates Brett Emmons, Bonestroo & Associates I. INTRODUCTION Kirk McDonald opened the meeting and noted that all members were present with the exception of Richard Larson, citizen representative, and Shad French, Director of Parks & Recreation (on vacation). McDonald asked if there were any corrections to be made to the minutes from the May 25th meeting. There being none, Conrad moved, Keefe seconded approval of the minutes as written and the minutes were unanimously approved. McDonald asked if there were any additions or deletions to the agenda and the consensus of the group was that the agenda was fine, as presented. II. UPDATED SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES The original draft of New Hope's Surface Water Management Plan Goals and Policies had been distributed to members prior to this meeting and Task Force members had submitted comments/recommendations for revisions or additions and the second draft was distributed for review at this meeting. Olivier reviewed the draft of the goals/policies, and noted the comments and changes that were proposed by the Task Force members. Enck asked for an assessment of the suggestions that were received and Olivier stated there were some good suggestions. McDonald indicated that he had sent the draft to the Planner and Building Official and they had responded with recommendations. The Task Force stated they would like to review each specific policy where a change was recommended and discussion continued on the following goals/policies: FLOOD PROTECTION Policy 1: Establish ........ ~',,;~'~;--'0 ''~_._._*;'--o ...... allowable elevations for buildings adjacent to poinding areas and floodplains ........ ,~ .... ' ..... when drainage facilities are constructed for an area. A freeboard of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level is desirable. Conrad recommended that "elevation" be defined as the "lowest floor" or the point where water physically enters the house. Keefe questioned the 2 feet of freeboard and was informed that some cities (Chanhassen and Eagan) use 3 feet of freeboard in their plans. It was agreed that the policy should be enforced equally but be written in such a way as to allow some flexibility. Hanson indicated that rules for building and remodeling were reviewed individually and that the Building Official would have to work with each specific situation. It was determined that the purpose of the policy was to prevent people from building in water courses and obstructing flood flows and Enck pointed out that the current floodplain ordinance prohibits such construction. It was the consensus of the group that the policy should be revised to include the wording "establish allowable elevations for lowest floor of buildings". Policy 5: Properly design, operate, and maintain the surface water system. Strictly enforce City ordinances regulating floodplain development. Several members questioned the wording "strictly enforce" but it was determined to leave this policy, as written. Policy 6: Develop and improve ponds located upstream of priority waterbodies. Ponds should be designed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan to reduce downstream flooding. Olivier questioned the purpose of Policy 6 and suggested that it might be inserted into the "quality section" of the plan. Enck and Hanson explained the need for upstream ponds and recommended that the policy remain as written. Policy 7: Require new developments of vacant land and redevelopment of existing sites to install detention poinding, culverts, ditches, etc. in conformance with the Surface Water Management Plan. As re- development and/or reconstruction of public infrastructure occurs, non-conforming areas =.rt._-"-!__. shall be brought into compliance. Members questioned if "shall" was mandatory and if that conflicted with Policy 1. Enck recommended that the wording be changed to "should" or "shall where practical" to which the members present agreed on "shall". Enck continued that residents could use the variance process if a hardship is proven that water quality requirements cannot be met. Policy 8: Develop and implement a financing strategy for surface water improvements utilizing a combination of dedicated City revenues, stormwater utility funds, special assessments, and development fees. McDonald indicated he had added stormwater utility funds as a suggested financing tool. Policy 11: Develop a flood rapid-response program for City personnel to prevent damage to property. Enck had suggested this policy and Coone questioned whether the City had adequate personnel, sandbags, etc. to develop such a program. Keefe stated he felt the effort should be directed at organizing/coordinating neighborhood groups. The consensus of the group was to eliminate the term "City personnel" and instead just state that a program would be developed for the City. Most felt that this was a good overall recommendation and wanted to include it in the plan. WATER QUALITY PROTECTION Policy 2: =~q'"'-~ e:_-'-_!_--n =na_ ~,..~i.,~., c~ntr_-'! Enforce the existing erosion control ordinance on all construction sites with a development agreement and an appropriate bond. m~ Require erosion and sediment control on other sites experiencing erosion problems. Minimize runoff velocities and maximize natural cover to reduce erosion. Task Force members indicated that they would like to review the Cit's existing erosion control ordinance and McDonald indicated that he would include it in the next packet. Policy 3: Establish an on-going public education program designed to educate- !=n~ ~':.'ne:_- in promote sensitive water quality management practices, especially with regards to reduction of phosphorus loadings to waterbodies. There was discussion among members regarding what a public education program would include and Bonestroo representatives indicated it would include articles in newsletters, videos and other media formats to increase residents awareness of water quality issues. Policy 4: Implement a program to monitor the long-term water quality trends on prioritized waterbodies and update the Surface Water Management Plan when necessary. Concerns were raised by Enck and others about the cost of implementing a monitoring program and it was suggested that this be done in conjunction with the Watershed Districts and the policy was amended to include such language. McDonald will check with the Watershed Districts to see if New Hope could piggyback with their monitoring efforts and try to bring back specific costs to the next meeting. Enck indicated he would want that information before adopting either policy 4 or 6. Hanson and Coone were requested to find out the number of ponds within the City that would need to be sampled. Policy 6: Evaluate the progress of surface water management on an annual basis with a comprehensive program review every five years. There also was a considerable amount of discussion on this policy revolving around who will do the evaluating, how much will it cost, etc. and could this also be done in conjunction with the Watersheds. Several minor wording changes were made, including adding the word "plan" after surface water management. Policy 7: Limit phosphorus levels from new developments and redevelopment of existing sites to n=t'_':=! pre-development concentrations. There was discussion regarding the definition of "pre-development concentrations" and the consensus of the group was to add the wording "if feasible- and required by the City based upon the results of the Surface Water Management Plan" to the end of the statement. ..... ~''~'~'''~ ~ ''~''~''~ ~' ...... r ....... ~''~ ~'r~ ~- ~-~--'~ It was the unanimous consensus of the group to delete Policy 8 and replace it with Policy 11, as follows: Policy 11: If the City determines that on-site ponding is not feasible due to site or efficiency limitations, the developer will be responsible for a cash dedication equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed to reduce phosphorus export to undeveloped conditions. Policy 9: Nutrient retention ponds shall be sized and designed based on the Walker Pond Net model and shall provide for a minimum of 60% phosphorus assimilation. These ponds shall be designed with an outlet control structure that effectively prevents trash and floating debris form entering the downstream conveyance system. Outlet control structures were discussed and it was determined to leave the policy, as written. Policy 12: In areas undergoing construction activities, the cost of sweeping sediment from the streets generated by development shall be borne by the developer and/or home builder. The question was raised to whether developers are currently billed for street sweeping and Coone replied they were not. Policy 13: Lawn care companies and retail stores operating in New Hope shall have available phosphorus free fertilizer for lawn applications. Task Force members recommended that this statement include the language "should" and there was discussion regarding the fact that some cities pay retail stores to carry phosphorus free fertilizer. Policy '14: Prohibit the discharge of foreign material into the stormwater system. Such material shall include, but not be limited to waste oil, paint, grass clippings, leaves, and m~seRa~eu~-ecologically harmful chemicals. Keefe recommended the "ecologically harmful" language, to which other members agreed. Policy 16: Develop a training program for all City staff, especially Public Works, regarding threats to water quality and how best to address the problem. Enck recommended the addition of this policy to increase the sensitivity of Public Works personnel to water quality issues. WETLAND PROTECTION Policy 1: Develop and maintain an official wetlands map that classifies wetlands by desired function, and-value,- The consensus of the group was to revise the language to classify wetlands by "type" rather than "desired function". It was agreed that these policies/goals would be revised with the final draft to be reviewed/ approved at the next Task Force meeting. II1. PROBLEM AREAS IN THE EXISTING STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM The next topic of discussion was to review known problem areas in the City's existing stormwater drainage system. Hanson and Coone identified the following problem areas: 1. Boone Avenue & Northwood Parkway. 2. Under the railroad bridge on 42nd Avenue -when this area is redeveloped the storm sewer needs to be rerouted. 3. 56th & Boone Avenues - development of the Adult Day Care facility will resolve this problem. 4. Park Acres Townhomes, 8007-801'1 Bass Lake Road -garage flooding. 5. 58th & Sumter Avenues - north of Wincrest Apartments. 6. 60th & Quebec Avenues 7. West Broadway at Quebec - and to the east. 8. Begin Park 9. 47-1/2 & Flag Avenues 10. New Hope Elementary School 11. 45th & Xylon Avenues 12. Fred Sims Park 13. 42nd & Xylon Avenues 14. 36-'1/2 Circle 15. Intersection of 36th & Winnetka Avenues 16. Hidden Valley Park 17. J.C. Park 18. Yonkers Park 19. Medicine Lake Road & Rosalyn Court IV. EXPECTATIONS OF TASK FORCE FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Olivier questioned Task Force members as to the type of information they want included in the plan, as they want to prepare the proper product for New Hope. He presented samples of plans from other cities and stated that the plans usually include maps of the piping system, ponding areas and requirements, a list of priorities and problem areas, and recommendations for solving the problems. The three major plan elements include wetlands, water quality and water quantity. Enck indicated that he felt the plan should set benchmark goals (what will be achieved in 5 years), have color coded maps consistent with the Watershed Districts, and include a systems map. He felt that the wetlands did not require a separate map, but could be included on the water quality map. Enck also stated that monitoring compliance with the plan was important. Enck moved, Conrad seconded, that Policy #3 public education, be referred to the Citizen Advisory Commission for implementation and the Task Force unanimously approved the motion. Topics for the next meeting will include reviewing the revised goals/policies, discussing newsletters/public education, and prioritizing water bodies. The consensus was to set the next meeting date for Tuesday, August 31st, at 7:00 p.m. There being no further business, Enck moved, Coone seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE MINUTES Meeting #2 May 25, 1993 PRESENT: Mr. Bill Keefe, New Hope Citizen Mr. Pat Conrad, New Hope Citizen Mr. Richard Larson, New Hope Citizen Peter Enck, City Councilmember Dan Donahue, City Manager Kirk McDonald, Management Asst./Community Development Coordinator Paul Coone, Street Superintendent Shad French, Director, Parks & Recreation Mark Hanson, City Engineer, Bonestroo & Associates Daniel Edgerton, Bonestroo & Associates Cecilio Olivier, Bonestroo & Associates I. INTRODUCTION Kirk McDonald opened the meeting and noted that all members were present with the exception of the City Manager, who intended to serve only as an ex-officio member of the Task Force and who would not be present at this meeting. McDonald asked if there were any corrections to be made to the minutes from the April 13th meeting. There being none, French moved, Enck seconded approval of the minutes as written and the minutes were unanimously approved. McDonald asked if there were any additions or deletions to the agenda and the consensus of the group was that the agenda was fine, as presented. II. AGENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS A. Final Plan Approval Process Mr. Olivier explained the final Stormwater Management Plan approval process, noting that in 1987 the Legislature approved the Metropolitan Water Management Act and the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BOWSR) is in charge of implementation of the MWMA. New Hope has 2 watershed management organizations, Shingle Creek and Bassett Creek, which in turn have commissions which are basically in charge of developing a local plan for the watershed that will be consistent with Metropolitan Water Management Act. The Commissions developed their plans in 1990 and local plans are to be prepared within 3 years after the adoption of the Watershed Commission plans. There was general discussion on when other cities were developing their plans and the role of BOWSR. Olivier indicated that BOWSR make the rules and sees that the plans are implemented. McDonald questioned if the Watershed District plans covered broader issues and if the City plan was to be more specific and the answer was affirmative. If the New Hope plan is submitted to both Watersheds and accepted, that is the end of the approval process; the plan does not need to be submitted to BOWSR. However, the Watershed Districts have 60 days to submit comments on local plans and may require some modifications. Keefe questioned what would happen if New Hope submitted a plan before Plymouth, for example, and Plymouth based their plan on different flows/ assumptions than New Hope, would the New Hope plan then need to be modified. Hanson indicated that he would hope those types of inconsistencies could be worked out before submittal and that the assumptions in the plans are based on pipes functioning at full capacity. B. Summary of Watershed Management Orqanizations Requirements Olivier reviewed two tables with Task Force members showing that there are different, but similar, local water management plan requirements for both the Shingle Creek and Bassett Creek Watershed Commissions. The tables compared New Hope with other area cities and identified regulations, standards, and programs that either currently comply or that need to be developed or modified. -2- Under the Shingle Creek requirements, an erosion and sediment control and stormwater treatment program need to be developed and the shoreland, wetland, and floodplain regulations will need to be modified. Under the Bassett Creek requirements, shoreland and erosion regulations and a stormwater management policy will need to be developed. The written requirements for the two Watershed Management organizations were also reviewed and Enck and Hanson explained the differences between watershed organizations and district and described the authority to levy taxes, C. Examples of Stormwater Management Plan Goals and Policies Olivier distributed two samples of stormwater management plan goals and policies, each with a different format, from the cities of Brooklyn Center and Chanhassen. The Brooklyn Center format listed 11 different goals with several different policies listed under each goal. The Chanhassen format listed 3 major general goals (flood protection, water quality protection, and wetland protection) and then listed a number of specific policies under each goal. Olivier requested input for the Task Force on which format they preferred, as Bonestroo intended to develop a draft of New Hope's Stormwater Management Plan Goals and Policies and mail it to Task Force members for their comments prior to the next meeting. McDonald and Keefe both indicated that they preferred the Chanhassen format where a general goal is stated and a number of specific policies follow. The other Task Force members were in general agreement with this recommendation, therefore the preliminary draft will follow the Chanhassen format. After Task Force members respond to the initial draft with comments, a second draft of New Hope's policies and goals will be prepared and included in the packet for the next meeting. Enck pointed out that the plans, policies, and goals would have to conform to the 509 Water Quality and Water Management Requirements and that the Task Force may not have a great deal of input except how the rules and regulations were managed to preserve and improve the natural resources. He also indicated that the Task Force could make more stringent requirements, if the desire to do so. He stated that the plan could propose and prioritize specific improvements, but the actual financing decisions things to be accomplished would be up to the City Council. 3. STORMWATER QUANTITY/QUALITY MODELING The Task Force next reviewed a map of New Hope that would be one of the working documents used to compile the plan and identify problem area in the City. Olivier pointed out that the map was divided into two major districts (Shingle Creek and Bassett Creek), subdistricts, and mini-districts of 10-15 acres. When completed the map will identify all wetlands and ponding areas, overland drainage routes, and storm sewer pipes/inlets. Three types of models will be completed: 1) 100-year storm, 2) 5-year storm, and 3) 2-year storm, with the water quality aspect to address nutrient loads based on phosphorus estimates. Hanson reported that the storm sewer record plan index was 75% completed and Enck reported that the City Council had approved adding the quality component to the plan. It was estimated that the quantity models would be completed over the next two months and that the quality components would follow. General consensus of Task Force members was to meet about every six weeks and the next meeting was scheduled for July 13th at 7:00 p.m. The agenda topics for the next meeting will include reviewing proposed goals and policies, a discussion of issues/problem areas in the City, and expectations of the Task Force for a final product. Enck suggested having the City's Planning Consultant review the goals/policies and McDonald confirmed he would have the Planner review the proposed goals/policies for input. There being no further business, French moved to adjourn the meeting and Coone seconded. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE MINUTES Meeting #1 April 13, 1993 PRESENT: Mr. Bill Keefe, New Hope Citizen Mr. Pat Conrad, New Hope Citizen Mr. Richard Larson, New Hope Citizen Peter Enck, City Councamember Dan Donahue, City Manager Kirk McDonald, Management Asst./Community Development Coordinator Paul Coone, Street Superintendent Shari French, Director, Parks & Recreation Mark Hanson, City Engineer, Bonestroo & Associates Daniel Edgerton, Bonestroo & Associates Cecilio Olivier, Bonestroo & Associates Following introductions among members of the Task Force Mr. Donahue stated that under State Law a stormwater management plan is mandated and the New Hope City Council has directed that a Task Force be formed to assemble a plan, review ~e requirements for a stormwater plan, determine what the plan should include, and advise Council on the adoption of a plan. He explained that the City has contracted with Bonestroo to aid the Task Force in formulating am:l assembliflg the plan, and added that New Hope is located in two Water- shed Districts, Shingle Creek and Bassett Creek. He stated that the committee will review the progress of Bonestroo's work. He suggested that the first few meetings be educational in nature and after that the committee can proceed in a more knowledgeable fashion. He indicated that he felt the Task Force would need to. meet at least 5 times to prepare the plan. He questioned the members if the scope of services summary which they received sufficiently laid out the plan and task. Mark Hanson stated that he will be the water resources team leader and will be providing guidance, that Cecilio Olivier will be serving as the Project Manager, and Dan Edgerton will review the work and provide supervision. He gave an overview of the Watershed Districts located within New Hope, noting he represents Shingle Creek Watershed and Peter Enck represents Bassett Creek Watershed. He stated there are 9 communities associated with each district, but the Task Force is responsible for a local plan only. He noted that the City developed a comprehensive plan in 1960, which identifies ponding areas to be protected and the storm sewers that flow into them, but there is a need to do a more technical plan now that the City is fully developed. He indicated that one of the tools to be utilized in the development of the plan would be the new 2-foot contour maps that show elevations and define drainage boundary areas for the entire City. He noted the City is currently updating the storm sewer record plan index, since ),ears ago some storm sewers were built by private developers and some by the City, and that task should be completed by early summer. He indicated that the Task Force needs to evaluate storm sewer capacities, identify deficiencies and areas that need upgrading, and resolve existing flooding problems. He reviewed the p~nning objectives and the costs included and stated the goal was to form a Task Force first and then evaluate what sections to work on. Consensus among members was that water quality is as much of a concern now as is water quantity, and it will be a future concern so people in the .community need to be educated on what adversely affects water quality. Mr. Donahue stated the basic plan does not include the quality component and the Task Force will have to make a recommendation to modify the workplan if they want it to also address water quality. Statutes now require watersheds to address the issue of water quality, whereas back in 1960 the management of flooding and water quantity was more of a mandate. One of the components of the plan will be to talk about the flooding aspects, and the Task Force also will be revie,~,ing methods to separate solids and particles out before they get back into the stormwater system. Peter Enck discussed the 509 Statutes and the increasing requirements for the establishment of retention/holding ponds. Mark Hanson stated that the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission is in the process of completing a study on drainage areas tributary to Twin Lake, as there is real concern to improve the quality of Twin Lake. The water quality of Medicine Lake is also being studied and a small area in the southwest portion of New Hope drains into it. There are also real concerns with Northwood Lake and Meadow Lake water quality and how to improve it. The consensus was that c-~mmunities must share information. The members agreed that one of the first things to do before a plan can be initiated is to collect and review the requirements and standards of all involved agencies, such as the DNR, Corps of Engineers, PCA, and Board of Water & Soils Resources, since all have different rules. Stormwater Task Force Meeting #1 April 13, 1993 Page -2- The Task Force members agreed that their responsibility is to identify issues, develop and define goals and policies, design criteria, set priorities for areas of study, review samples of plans that have been completed in other cities, and provide feedback. The Task Force also needs to make recommendations regarding where to spend dollars for improvements and prepare/review cost estimates for those improvements, with an overall goal of presenting a prioritized list to the City Council. They questioned what the deadline was to accomplish this task, if any plan has been submitted thus far, and who approves final plan. Mark Hanson acknowledged that something in draft form should be ready by right after the first of the year. Donahue, Hanson, and Enck explained to Task Force members that to date the City Council had only authorized a portion of the expenditures necessary to complete the stormwater plan, and that this included updating the storm sewer index and the quantity portion of the plan; it did not include the quality component. Donahue indicated that the Task Force should make a recommendation on whether they wanted to include quality as a component of the plan or not and forward said recommendation to the Council. Cecilio Olivier stated that quantity could be studied first with quality to follow, but that it would be preferable to study both aspects at the same time. Task Force members questioned how the plan was being financed and McDonald indicated it was being funded out of the Storm Sewer Utility Fund and that the additional cost for the quality component would cost an additional $21,000. The Task Force members were in agreement that the quality component should be included in the plan. MOTION by Larson, SECOND by Conrad, to make a recommendation to Council to spend an additional $21,000 to study water quality; UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. It was determined that City staff would place this item on the next Council agenda. Donahue suggested a chairperson be appointed. Members agreed it should be someone with access to secretarial staff so that minutes, agendas/packets could be prepared and distributed. Kirk McDonald was unanimously approved and he will coordinate the meeting schedules, prepare minutes, and assist with agenda preparation, with Bonestroo's help. Donahue stated that an agenda should be compiled for the next meeting that establishes the goals and addresses the expectations of the Task Force. It was determined that the next agenda would include a discussion of requirements from various agencies for local storm water management plans, a discussion on stormwater quantity/quality modeling, and that a report would be given regarding the City Council decision on the expenditure for the quality component of the plan. The next meeting was scheduled for 7.'00 p.m. on May 25th. Meeting unanimously adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator