HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-08-17 ENR Packet
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE COMMISSION
Monday, August 17, 2009
7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road BEast
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes:
a. July 20, 2009 (Tabled Until September)
5. Unfinished Business
a. Trash Hauling - Analysis of Waste and Recyclable Materials Collection Arrangements:
Presentation by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Representatives (Sig Scheurle and Peder
Sandhei)
b Wind Turbine Ordinance
c. Surface Water Management Plan and Storm Water Ordinance
6. New Business
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Commission Presentations
a. Subcommittee Reports
1) Stormwater
2) Greenways
3) Trash Hauling
b. Fish Creek Greenway Ad-Hoc Commission - Update by Commissioner Yingling
9. Staff Presentations
a. Slope Tour Dates (suggested date is Tuesday, September 29 after 5 p.m. or alternative days or
evenings during the end of September or in October)
b. Environmental and Natural Resources Calendar
c. Wetland Ordinance Update
d. Upcoming Conferences
e. Nature Center Programs
10. Adjourn
Agenda Item 5.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
Trash Hauling - Analysis of Waste and Recyclable Materials Collection
Arrangements
August 12, 2009 for the August 17 ENR Meeting
BACKGROUND
One of the Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission 2009 goals was to review
environmental impacts of having multi-trash haulers within the city limits. Commissioners
Trippler and Lynne volunteered to serve on the Trash Hauling subcommittee in order to do
research on the topic and bring that information back to the full commission for review.
In June Commissioners Trippler and Lynne presented the attached "Waste Hauling-in
Maplewood Outline from the Sub-committee" document (Attachment 1) which discusses their
findings to date. In July the subcommittee was informed about a research project the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has conducted in regard to this subject. Jeff Schneider of the
MPCA conducted a study to develop quantifiable data comparing open and organized waste
and recycling collection as it relates to economics, impacts on the environment, efficiency and
effectiveness, and energy reductions. The results of this study will assist the ENR Commission
in review of multi-trash hauling issues for the city. As such, city staff has invited MPCA
representatives to the present the results of the study to the ENR Commission.
CONCLUSION
Jeff Schneider is no longer with the MPCA, but Sigrud Scheurle and Peder Sandhei of the
MPCA have offered to attend the August 17 ENR Commission meeting to give a power point
presentation on the findings and recommendations of the open and organized waste and
recycling collection study.
Attachment: Waste Hauling in Maplewood Outline from the Sub-committee
Attachment 1
Waste Hauling in Maplewood
Outline from the Sub-committee
By Commissioners: Carole Lynne and Dale Trippler
May 5, 2009
I. Waste Generation and Disposal Facts: Background
information.
Minnesota taxpayers own 93 closed landfills located throughout the state. So far
you have paid over $76 M in general obligation bonds to repair and maintain 52
LFs. The state has recovered $17M through cost recovery efforts. Last year the
MPCA spent $18 M working on those LFs in the Closed Landfill Program. So
far, the state has spent over $290 M on those closed landfills.
(Go to www.pca.state.mn.usto find the Annual Report to the Legislature from the
CLP for more information on this issue.)
II. Best way to go?
A. Do not generate the waste in the first place.
B. Minimize waste generation as much as possible.
C. Recycle as much as you can.
III. Principle Factors Affecting Waste Hauling Options.
A. Economic Considerations
B. Environmental Considerations
C. Aesthetic Considerations
D. Greater Control over QA/QC
IV. Economic Considerations.
A. Cost savings on road repairs
B. Lower Cost per Customer based on Competitive Bidding.
V. Environmental Considerations.
A. Less gas and/or diesel burned
B. Less CO emitted into the atmosphere
C. Able to direct waste to best environmental destination
VI. Aesthetics and QAlQC
A. Less traffic, noise, and dust
B. Safer streets
C. Better look during collection days
D. Greater leverage to correct any problems with service
Agenda Item 5.b.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
Wind Turbine Ordinance
August 13, 2009, for the August 17 ENR Meeting
BACKGROUND
With the increase in energy costs more businesses and single family homes are turning
to alternative forms of energy, including wind powered energy. The City of Maplewood
has had several inquiries frorn commercial and residential property owners on the
feasibility of constructing wind towers over the last few months. The city does not have
an ordinance allowing wind turbines. However, our tower ordinance could be
interpreted to allow wind turbine "towers" in commercial zoning districts with a
conditional use permit, but would not allow thern in a residential zoning district.
DISCUSSION
Felicia Szott, undergraduate in environmental studies with Harnline University,
completed a three-month internship with the city in May. Ms. Szott researched wind
energy and wind tower regulations in order to make a recornmendation on how the City
of Maplewood should regulate this technology. Ms. Szott presented her findings at the
May 5 ENR Commission meeting. Since that tirne Ms. Szott completed a Wind Turbine
Ordinance Research brief which is attached for your review (Attachment 1). The key
factors to include in a wind turbine ordinance, as described in Ms. Szott's brief, are as
follows:
1. Commercial versus non-commercial turbines
2. Necessary permits
3. Establish setbacks
4. Establish safety standards
5. Establish design standards
6. Establish other applicable standards, i.e., noise, electrical codes, FAA
regulations
7. Minimize infrastructure impacts
The City of Woodbury began reviewing standards for allowing wind turbines in their city
earlier this year. This review carne after a request by the Woodbury School District to
install a turbine at the new East Ridge Senior High School. Since they began their
review, the scope of the project has grown to include regulations for all forms of
alternative energy sources which currently include ground source heat pump systems
(geothermal), wind energy systerns, and solar energy systems (refer to Woodbury's
July 6, 2009, staff report and draft alternative energy systems ordinance attached -
Attachments 2 and 3). The City of Maplewood does not have ordinances that regulate
geothermal or solar energy systems and as such should consider including these
energy sources into a more cornprehensive and broad ordinance which would also
include wind energy.
RECOMMENDATION
Review Felicia Szott's Wind Turbine Ordinance Research and Woodbury's alternative
energy source documents attached and be prepared to begin compiling data for a
similar ordinance in Maplewood.
Attachment
1. Felicia Szott's Wind Turbine Ordinance Research
2. Woodbury's July 6, 2009, Alternative Energy Staff Report
3. Woodbury's July 6, 2009, Draft Alternative Energy Ordinance
Attachment 1
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Internship Brief
July 15, 2009
Felicia Szott
Environmental Law Intern
Wind Turbine Ordinance Research
Introduction
Although wind energy has been utilized in the United States for centuries, only
in the last thirty years have technological advances truly allowed wind energy to be a
large aspect of the national energy blend. Wind projects vary in size, from small
projects involving one turbine to illrge projects involving multiple turbines (Tetra
Tech 1-1,2-1). As technology has advanced, it has made small wind turbines quieter,
more reliable, and better able to blend in with the local environment (Stimmel 2).
Small wind turbines are being utilized for energy uses progressively on the
resident and citizen level in small communities and urban environments. Small wind
turbines allow different groups, like homeowners, small business owners, and even
farmers, the ability to generate their own reliable energy on-site. Permitting processes
can be daunting for counties, towns, and cities (Stimmel 1). Making the process of
permitting for small wind turbines efficient and affordable is in the best interests of
the community, environment, and consumer.
What is wind
energy?
A wind turbine is a device that generates electricity from the wind (Stimmel 2).
People have harnessed the wind's energy since ancient times. Over 5,000 years ago the
ancient Egyptians used wind to sail ships on the Nile River. Later, people built
1
windmills to grind wheat and other grains. American colonists used small windmills in
the 1920's to generate electricity in rural areas without electric service. In the 1980's
wind energy took off in California. Since then, support for wind development has
spread to multiple other states.
In 2006, wind turbines in the United States generated a total of 26.6 billion
kWh per year of electricity, which is enough to service more than 2.4 million
households (Department of Energy). The states with the most wind production are
Texas, California, Iowa, Minnesota and Oklahoma (Energy Information
Administration). At the end of 2008 United States wind capacity was 25,170 MW or
enough to serve the equivalent of over 7 million average United States households (17
million people) (American Wind Energy Association 1).
Increases in wind capacity are due to new technologies decreasing the cost of
producing electricity from the wind. Additionally, wind power has been encouraged
through tax breaks for renewable energy and green pricing programs. Many utilities
around the country offer green pricing options that allow customers the choice to pay
more for electricity that comes from renewable sources.
The largest benefit of this energy source is that it is a clean fuel. Wind farms
produce no air or water pollution because no fuel is burned (Department of Energy).
The most serious environmental drawbacks and concerns with wind energy include
the negative effect on wild bird populations and the visual impact on landscape.
Additional recent concerns with negative medical effects have been identified and
those effects are being studied. The negative impacts of wind energy and how best to
address these impacts will be discussed in a separate section.
2
A wind turbine system generally includes three major mechanical parts to
function; the tower, nacelle and rotor. The rotor consists of three blades that extend
out of the central hub. Most turbines mount the rotor to a driveshaft within the
nacelle. The nacelle is the larger boxing that sits at the top of the tower near the rotor.
The tower supports the rotor and nacelle from underneath and is commonly made of
steeL Once power is generated, by a turbine, it is transferred to a transformer located
in the nacelle (Tetra Tech 2-6). From there power is carried through cables to a
substation that transfers the power to the regional power grid (Tetra Tech 2-7). See
the figure below for a general diagram of how a wind turbine works.
~!ll:t:
---
Wind eausM;. btadu to rotate.
@ Shuft turns gQnf!irator to proo.uoG .af~ctrrcal energy.
@ A transformer eotW0rts Rto hlgh-voltngg.
@ Ehaotrfc!ty transmlUed via pownr grid.
A small wind turbine is a miniaturized version of a wind turbine. Small wind
turbines often consist of two to three blades that are two to fifteen feet in length. The
turbine usually is mounted on a tower that can range anywhere from thirty-five to
one-hundred and forty feet in height. There are some small wind energy system
models that eliminate traditional wind turbine modes of function. They feature
cylinder shaped components that revolve like a corkscrew. These non-traditional
3
systems are known as vertical axis wind turbines because the plane of rotation is
perpendicular to the ground (Stimmel 1). Figure two demonstrates the difference
between a horizontal and vertical axis wind turbine.
Figure 2
Axoo
Rtch
Rotor-,,"I"
EiIade
Tower
Gearbo~
I-fligtrt
I
I
:
---'
./(;)enerator
I ..
~\X
~.eler
~or
- Blade
Qlarl:x;tx
Qlnerator
:/ /"'f\bceI1e
Horizontal Axis
Vertical Axis
Wind TUl'biue CiJlifiguratiiJ1fS
In recent years technology has advanced, resulting in quieter, more reliable and
better blending small wind turbines (Stimmel 2). The result is tens of thousands of
homes, farms, small businesses, schools and other institutions using small wind energy
to lower their electricity bills. Small wind systems are often used primarily on-site to
provide power for a singular user. Topography and wind measurements determine
where and how high a turbine must be installed to maximize electrical output.
Installation takes anywhere from two to ten days. Wind turbine owners often must
make deliberate efforts to take all reasonable measures to minimize the impacts on
neighbors whether or not permitting is in place (Stimmel 3).
The following pictures are small wind turbines that I found in the article Wind
on the Edge written by Lyn Corum that outlines startup companies that have made
technological leaps through the creation of unique urban wind systems that require no
4
towers and fit in urban settings.
Figure 3: AeroVironment's wind turbine installation at Boston Logan
International Air ort
Figure 4: AeroVironment's Architectural Wind turbine installation at the
A uarium in Camden, New Jerse .
Why Permit?
Conununity leaders are often hesitant to be the first to enact regulations that
address new issues or movements. Zoning officials should not fear being involved in
the small wind energy movement, as there are tens of thousands of small wind
turbines in the United States today. Thousands of townships, counties and cities have
had small wind zoning regulations available for residents for decades (Stimmel 4).
Conununity leaders should be moved to institute permitting standards for
5
small wind energy systems so communities are prepared, retain autonomy, conserve
public resources and gain personal and public benefits from wind energy. The return
for setting up permitting processes for small wind energy systems can benefit both the
community in general and the individual district, neighborhood or area where a small
wind turbine might be placed.
Community leaders should institute permitting standards to be prepared for
small wind energy systems. Citizens or residents could spend months researching the
feasibility of installing and operating a smilll wind energy system only to find, when
applying for a building permit, that the county office has never even heard of small
wind energy systems. If the county received an application without a set process for
permitting in place, officials would need to find the information to treat the request
(StinuneI4). For citizens, a lack of preparation results in the process taking an
extensive period of time and should be prevented with community leaders proactively
permitting for small wind energy systems.
Community leaders should institute permitting standards to retain local
autonomy. Often states craft incentive programs for consumers to purchase small
wind energy systems. Without permitting processes in place, the county either stands
in the way of the system's installation, or stands beside the system's installation. States
also create statewide rules for the permitting of small wind systems that define key
characteristics of the permitting process (StinuneIS). To preserve local autonomy and
independence community leaders should enact permitting processes to control how,
what, and where small wind energy systems can be located in their jurisdiction.
Community leaders should institute permitting standards to conserve public
6
resources. Case by case applications for small wind energy systems that include
individual reviews and hearings cost time and money. Small communities like counties
and cities do not have the resources to truly work on a case by case basis (Stimmel 5).
To conserve precious public resources, community leaders should proactively prepare
and plan permitting processes for small wind energy systems.
Community leaders should institute permitting standards to provide personal
benefits for citizens and residents. The personal gains that small wind energy system
owners benefit from include: personal energy independence, free electricity after
recouping costs, relief from high and volatile prices of other forms of electricity,
reliable electricity, ability to support clean energy and fight global warming in a
tangible way and increased property value (Stimmel 5). Community leaders should be
vested in the benefits they can offer the citizens in their community. The benefits for
small wind energy systems are wide and varied. Community leaders should proactively
permit for small wind energy systems to allow their citizens the maximum benefits of
owning small wind energy systems.
Community leaders should institute permitting standards to provide public
benefits for the community. The benefits of wind power extend through the entire
community, despite the fact that small wind energy systems usually supply only on-site
energy. The community can benefit from a reduced pressure on the local electricity
grid, local energy independence and increased security of backup power for a strategic
location, like the police department or hospital. Additional community benefits
include: reduced peak power demands, increased in-state electricity generation and
diversified energy portfolios (Stimmel 5). Community leaders should proactively
7
permit for small wind energy systems because this technology has public benefits.
Conununity leaders should institute permitting standards for small wind
energy systems so the conununities that they lead are prepared, retain autonomy,
conserve public resources and gain personal and public benefits from wind energy.
Proactive preparation of standards and permitting processes for small wind energy
systems can benefit the conununity and the individual. When counties equip
themselves with wind energy ordinances and permitting processes, they offer
community members the ability to approach development proactively (Martin 1).
Community leaders need to take action to allow conununity members to reap the
benefits of small wind energy systems.
How to
Permit
Enacting county or city ordinances is the most effective way to set standards
and permitting processes for small wind energy systems. Model Zoning Ordinances
are tools offered by the American Wind Energy Association, and locally the Southwest
Regional Development Commission, to help local officials enact ordinances to govern
small wind turbines. Model ordinances or templates assist local conununity leaders by
giving them a starting point at which to begin small wind energy system permitting.
Conunuruty leaders can use model ordinances word for word, use model ordinances
with fine-tuning to accommodate their conununity, or create their own unique and
accommodating ordinances (Asmus 29).
Wind energy ordinances in general address the economic benefits, application
for permit, design and installation guidelines, setback guidelines, use of public roads,
operations, liability insurance, and decommissioning of wind energy equipment
(Martin 2). Considering all the information that must be included, in an ordinance for
8
it to be effective at regulating small wind energy systems, community leaders should
contact local government organizations in counties that have already developed wind
energy ordinances. Community leaders should seek out information to prevent
starring the process from scratch (Martin 2).
Community leaders could also create energy task forces to develop local
energy efficiency and clean energy projects. The City of Northfield Minnesota created
a task force composed of eight Northfield area volunteers that report to the
Environmental Quality COnun1ssion. This task force was instrumental in the
development of creating municipal electric utility and special districts to achieve the
goal of protecting the community from future energy prices and supply instabilities
(Northfield MN Energy Task Force Report 4). Task forces allow for the development
of a local action plan, implementation of policies and procedures, and monitoring of
the results of those policies. (Northfield MN Energy Task Force Report 8).
The local action plan that the task forces can assist in developing, describes
policies and measures that local governments can take to ensure energy goals are
reached. The plans often include timelines, descriptions of financing mechanisms, and
assignments of projects to different departments and staff. Local action plans as
created by task forces are a positive way to incorporate public awareness and
education efforts. They also benefit local communities by getting the community
started on the process of implementing policies and procedures for small wind
systems and checking to ensure those policies are functional for the community
(Northfield MN Energy Task Force Report 8).
Community leaders should also seek information from the citizens and
9
residents of the community. The City of Northfield Minnesota created Citizen
Working Groups that keyed in on community advice for policies and procedures.
Citizens were invited to all-community meetings that allowed attendees to speak for
about one minute. The attendance rate for this in the Northfield community
demonsttates how effective involving the community can be when developing new
policies. Northfield had over forty-five citizens attend and during the meeting over
seventy-five different ideas were voiced and recorded (Northfield MN Energy Task
Force Report 12). Community leaders developing permitting processes and standards
for small wind turbine systems should give weight to the input of local citizens
because it fosters additional brainstorming and public education.
Taking citizen input in Northfield allowed for the creation of a wind turbine
work group that was instrumental in assisting the City of N orthfield when developing
their policies for small wind systems. Small wind turbine production became the focus
of this working group (Rohn 66). This group identified a need in the community for
accessible information on small wind turbine systems and pursued the issue with
recommendations to the Environmental Task Force (Rohn 68). Community leaders
can benefit from the creation of working groups because they create accessible
information for citizens interested in small wind energy systems.
Permit
Research
Interest in and development of wind energy has increased in Minnesota and
over time zoning issues have arisen (Bill 1). Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 394.21,
counties, cities, and townships are enabled to regulate land use for the purpose of:
"promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community."
The key factors in the permitting and ordinance creation process are to:
10
1) distinguish between commercial and non-commercial wind turbines;
2) define necessary pennits;
3) establish setbacks;
4) establish safety standards;
5) establish design standards;
6) establish other application standards; and
7) tninimize infrastructure impacts.
I identified three different types of ordinances in Minnesota based on
ordinances reviewed. The first group included ordinances that followed the Minnesota
Model Wind Ordinance (2005) exactly. The second group identified were ordinances
that were based on the Minnesota Model Wind Ordinance (2005) with changes
specific to a particular Minnesota county or city. The third group included ordinances
that were written by the individual county or city, but not based on any model I found
through my research.
Additionally, in my research I determined that some areas of Minnesota
instituted pennitting processes on different jurisdictional levels. Some Minnesota wind
turbine ordinances are for specific cities and others are broader and define rules for
entire counties. The county wind turbine ordinances I located included: Big Stone,
Brown, Fillmore, Lyon and Martin Counties. The city wind turbine ordinances I
located included: the Cities of Madison, Mountain Lake City, Hutchinson, Fergus
Falls, Arlington, Woodbury, Cottage Grove, Montrose, Maple Grove, Oakdale,
Lakeville and Chanlutssen.
All of the ordinances I reviewed included the key factors in the pennitting and
11
ordinance creation process, whereby the general regulations of permits, setbacks,
design standards, safety standards, and infrastructure impacts were addressed. The
differences between the ordinances came down to the actual organization and
thoroughness of the ordinance. Ordinances that were based on the Minnesota Model
Wind Ordinance were more thorough, because they provided definitions for key
terms in the ordinance. Ordinances that were created or written by the individual
county or city were often shorter and did not include additional information to help
the reader understand small energy wind systems.
Key Factors
The key factors that can be found in wind energy ordinances around the state
include: defining and distinguishing between conunercial and non-conunercial
turbines, necessary permits, setbacks, design standards, safety standards, and
infrastructure impacts. Each of these factors needs to be addressed in the Maplewood
Wind Energy Ordinance because they all contribute to the city's ability to successfully
permit for wind energy.
Dr:fine and Distinguish between Commercia! and Non-Commercia! Turbines
The first key factor to address is defining and distinguishing between
conunercial and non conunercial wind turbines. A conunercial wind turbine separates
more than or equal to 40kW to 100 kW of energy. Usually these turbines have towers
that are one hundred and twenty feet high and higher. A non-conunercw. wind
turbine separates less than 40kW to 100 kW of energy. These turbines often are
around 60 feet in height. A micro turbine is a newer concept in wind energy. They
usually separate less than 1 kW and are often on a short tower about nineteen to
twenty feet high.
12
Necessary Permits
Next, the ordinance should identify what kind of permit is required. Tills
should be addressed for commercial, non-commercial and micro wind turbines. For
each of these different size turbines, a different permit may be required, allowing
different size turbines in different areas of the city.
Commercial wind turbines are often addressed in ordinances as requiring
conditional use permits in Agricultural and Industrial Zones. For conservation areas it
should be assessed whether allowing commercial wind turbines follows the purpose of
the district. Commercial wind turbines are not often permitted in other areas,
including shoreland or wild and scenic river districts.
Non-commercial turbines are permitted in agricultural and industrial zones and
conditionally permitted in rural, residential, illghway commercial, urban expansion,
shoreland, and wild and scenic river districts. They are usually not permitted for in
rural town sites (small lot residential areas) and general business districts.
Establish Setbacks
The ordinance will next need to establish the setbacks. A setback is the
distance a wind turbine needs to be from another structure or a specific area.
Commercial and non-commercial turbines often have similar setbacks. Setbacks for
homes are established at 750 feet, conservation lands and wetlands are established at
600 feet, scenic river bluffs are established at 500 to 1340 feet depending on the
specific area. Property lines are usually setback at 1.1 - 1.25 times the total height of
the turbine, along with road rights of way being 1 times the total height of the turbine.
13
Establish Safety Standards
The next key factor the ordinance will need to address is the safety standards
for turbines. Usually this is completed efficiently by requiring that all turbines have an
engineer's certification on the system. Additionally ordinances have required that there
is at least 12' ground clearance and marking on guy wire cables.
Establish Design Standards
The next key factor is similar to the safety standards and involves establishing
the standards for wind turbine designs. Commercial towers require tubular towers. All
turbines should be white, grey or a non-obtrusive color with considerations for
aviation warning on met towers. Lighting should be limited to FAA requirements.
Signage on the towers should be limited to appropriate warnings and turbine owner
designation on the nacelle. Power lines should be required to be buried, including the
lines between projects and off-site substations. Finally, the ordinance should address
as a design standard the process for discontinued use and decommissioning. Usually a
turbine is considered abandoned after one year of no production and then must be
removed within 90 days. Another design requirement is often the specific plan for
removal.
Estahlish Other Applicable Standards
Another key factor is other applicable standards to wind turbines that should
be addressed. These other standards include topics such as noise, electrical codes, and
FAA regulations. Ordinances typically address these by stating that wind turbines
comply with state noise rules, the 2008 National Electrical Code, and all FAA
regulations.
14
Minimize Infrastructure Impacts
The final key factor is to minimize infrastructure impacts to prevent any
problems if the wind turbine were to fall over or damage the surrounding area. This is
addressed in ordinances by requiring road damage mitigation and drainage system
damage mitigation and a specific plan for mitigation if a road or drainage system is
damaged.
Wind
Turbine
Issues
Throughout my research, I identified key issues with wind turbines including:
rooftop turbines and urban environments, noise, shadow flicker, visual landscape
affects, fences/attractive nuisances, birds and bats, icing, electrical signal interference,
lightning strikes, and stray voltage. These issues will need further research into their
relevance and relation to creating an actual permitting process and ordinance. I have
identified important aspects to consider in each of these individllill issues.
Rorrftop Turbines and Urban Environments
As of September 2008, rooftop turbines accounted for one percent of all the
applications of wind energy. The interest in this patticular type of wind turbine is
increasing. What is important for this issue is the actual siting or where the rooftop
turbine will be placed on the rooftop. This is important because a turbine must be
precisely sited to gain access to wind of a sufficient quality. The overarching goal of
rooftop turbines as it relates to a permitting and/or an ordinance issue is in the height,
as it is the key to maximize wind quality. Regardless of this, no additional standards
would be necessary or required in an ordinance.
15
Noise
Tills issue has been present in wind turbine discussion since the creation and
first implernentation of this technology. Noise as an issue can be direcrly correlated
with the level and age of technology being used. Modem wind turbines have better
insulation, lower rotation speeds, fewer rnoving parts, no gearboxes, and rnore
efficient blades that rnake thern quieter. It is only during short term events like a
severe thunderstorm or utility outage where turbines rnake distinctive sounds.
To reduce the potential of noise as an issue for residents of Maplewood, it
should be clearly stated in the Maplewood wind energy ordinance that srnall wind
systerns are installed and operated such that the sound's pressure levels do not exceed
the definition of "nuisance noise" as established by law. By rnandating that noise
cannot exceed nuisance levels, it can proactively prevent noise frorn being an issue.
Sbadow Flicker
Shadow flicker is when low sunlight passes through a rnoving turbine rotor
and casts visible shadows on the ground or surrounding structures. I have identified
that this particular issue pertains almost exclusively to large scale utility turbines like
those located on wind farms. Norrnal setback distances frorn property lines mitigates,
if not entirely eliminates, this potential nuisance for srnall wind systerns.
Visual Landscape Affects
For a wind turbine to be effective in harnessing energy frorn the wind, the
turbines rnust be tall and unobstructed. At a distance these wind turbines often can be
seen standing alone. To prevent residents frorn having issue with the visual landscape
effect of wind turbines, it would require community leaders to legislate taste or
16
appearance. Regulating aesthetics requires balancing the perceived or desired character
of a cotn1nunity, with the benefits of a clean and renewable energy and the property
rights of all parties. This is difficult to do, if not impossible. There are steps that have
been taken by other cotn1nunities to help handle this issue. Some towns regulate
appearance by prohibiting the use of cotn1nercial markings, messages, or banners on
the turbine itself, to reduce the visual impairment on the landscape.
Feltces/ Attractive Nuisaltce
Attractive nuisance pertains to the temptation to unauthorized climbers to
attempt to climb a wind turbine. To prevent unauthorized climbing, some ordinances
have tllilndated the following: removing the climbing foot rungs on the lower 10 to 12
feet of the tower, fastening sheets of metal or wood to the lower part of the tower to
cover all hand and foot holes on lattice towers, and displaying "Danger - High
Voltage" or "Caution - Electrical Shock Hazard" signs to the sides of the tower. Few
towers or wind turbines are mandated to be fenced in and for that reason few are
actually fenced, but all are posted with signs.
Birds /8ats
Through my research I identified this as one of the larger issues involved in
wind energy. No study has been performed that has specifically addressed avian
effects of small wind turbines. However, utility scale wind farms grouped closely
together have been studied to their effects on birds. All together, utility scale wind
turbines account for less than .003% of all human-caused bird deaths.
17
Icing
Turbines that are located in colder climates face the additional issue of icing of
the wind turbine blades. Turbines in cold climates can become covered with ice, which
can become a safety concern. However, in order for a turbine to operate at any
significant speed, the turbine blade must be free of ice buildup. Additionally, weight
and aerodynamic interference of ice, when ice is on the blade, slows the blade's
rotation to a near standstill, making ice fall straight downward rather than being
thrown. This particular issue is specific to certain geographic areas including
Maplewood, however no additional step would need to be taken in the permitting
process in regard to icing, the design standards and safety standards would be
sufficient to prevent icing from becoming an issue.
Electrical Signal Inteiference
Electrical signal interference involves citizen concerns that signals from a wind
turbine will interfere with other signals commonly sent. However, small wind turbines
are made from materials that are invisible to radio frequencies and cannot cause
interference problems. In addition, any structure that is shorter than 200 feet is too
short to interfere with civilian or military radar. In the past, turbines constructed out
of metal created unwanted radio or television interference, but the wind turbine
industry has long since abandoned the use of metal in turbine construction.
Lightning Strikes
Wind turbines are grounded, meaning static electricity, or lightning, is
grounded, which prevents build ups that could cause lightning strikes. Though wind
turbines do not attract lightning, strikes are still possible. The best protection an
18
ordinance can offer for this issue is requiring turbines adhere to industry standards.
They offer the best protection available in the form of surge and lightning arrestors,
which work similar to a computer power surge strip.
Stray Voltage
Stray voltage occurs when an electrical system is not properly wired and occurs
in the place where the system is grounded. It is a very rare occurrence and is caused
specifically by the electrical system of a particular home, farm, etc. Stray voltage
cannot be transferred from one property to another. This is important to note when
considering neighboring properties to wind turbines. Though this is a concern in the
wind turbine realm, it is exclusively an on-site problem that stems from electrical
distribution or wiring and not the generation itself of electricity.
Conclusion
Wind energy technology has been advancing rapidly, making small wind
turbines quieter, more reliable, and better able to blend in with the local environment.
Small wind turbines allow different groups of citizens to generate their own on-site
energy. Community leaders should make the process of permitting efficient and
affordable because it is in the best interest of the commuuity, environment, and
consumer.
Community leaders should institute permitting standards for small wind
energy systems so that their communities are prepared, retain independence, conserve
public resources and gain personal and public benefits from wind energy. Community
leaders should involve task forces, citizens, and work groups to effectively complete
the process of enacting permitting standards for wind energy. Community leaders
need to take action because making the process of permitting for strutll wind turbines
19
efficient and affordable is in the best interests of the community, environment, and
consumer.
20
SOURCES
American Wind Energy Association. Wind Energy Basics. February 2009.
Asmus, Peter, and Kevin Fullerton. Permitting Small Wind Turbines: A Handbook.
Learning from the California Experience. California Energy Commission:
2003.
Bait, Annette, et. ale "Model Wind Ordinance - 2005." Southwest Regional
Development Commission.
Energy Information Administration. Energy Kid's Page. Last Revised July 2008.
Visited May 5 2009.
<http://www.eia.doe.gov /kids/ energyfacts/ sources/ renewable/wind.html>
Corum, Lyn. "Wind on the Edge." Distributed Energy. January/February 2009.
Martin, Chad, and Klein Llelegi. "The Wind Energy Ordinance Process for Local
Governments." Purdue Extension. 407-W (2008).
Rohn, Matt. "Citizen Report: Small & Large Wind Turbines/WTWG (Wind Turbine
Work Group)." Northfield MN Energy Task Force Report. City of Northfield:
66-70 (2008).
Stinunel, Ron. In the Public Interest: How and Why to Permit for Small Wind
Systems. American Wind Energy Association: 2008.
Tetra Tech EC, Inc & Nixon Peabody LLP. Wind Energy Siting Handbook. American
Wind Energy Association: 2008.
''With Hope: A Resilient Community; An Action Plan for Northfield Area Energy
Sustainability." Northfield MN Energy Task Force Report. City of Northfield:
2008.
21
Attachment 2
.....
.....,.
\Woo2ll5ury
Memorandum
Planning Commission Memorandum 2009-15
To: Planning Commission
From:
Melissa Douglas, Senior Planner
Date:
July 6, 2009
Re:
Alternative Energy Ordinance
Background
Last year, City staff began the process of developing zoning ordinance amendments to regulate
the types of wind turbines allowed in the community prompted by the South Washington School
District's interest in installing a wind turbine at East Ridge High School. The City Council
discussed the issue at their September 2008 workshop and directed staff to expand the scope of
the discussion to address all forms of alternative energy generation including wind, solar,
biomass and geothermal. The City Council indicated the Planning Commission should take the
lead in developing this ordinance. In December 2008, the City Council visited two sites using
alternative energy in the Twin Cities and directed staff to also consider energy efficiency as part
of the overall strategy for addressing alternative energy generators.
The Planning Commission approved a schedule for developing this ordinance and to date has
discussed solar energy, geothermal, biomass and wind energy at separate meetings. On May
18th, the Planning Commission and the Environmental Advisory Commission met jointly in a
workshop setting to review and discuss the draft ordinance. Staff revised the draft ordinance
based on comments at the workshop, and the Planning Commission reviewed these changes at
their June 1st meeting. On Jnne 15th, the Planning Commission heard community comments on
the draft ordinance. At their June workshop, the City Council reviewed and discussed the draft
ordinance.
Community Meeting Comments
The following table summarizes and responds to the comments received at the June 15, 2009
community meeting. For more detail on comments made at the June 15th meeting, please review
the draft minutes included in your packet.
Attachment 2
Alternative Energy Ordinance - Draft
July 6, 2009
Comment Summary Response
Larger and taller wind turbines should be At this time, standards are only being
allowed In the urban residential area for developed for residential wind turbines,
institutional uses. defined as turbines with a generating capacity
of 10 kilowatts or less. Allowable locations for
larger wind turbines will be determined when
standards are developed next year. No change
was made to the draft ordinance in response to
this comment.
Why is less height permitted In urban The draft ordinance proposes allowing
residential areas when a larger lot Size is residential wind turbines in rural residential
required? areas with a minimum lot size of three (3)
acres and in urban residential areas with a
minimum lot size of 20 acres. The permitted
height for wind turbines is proposed as 60 feet
in the R-l, Urban Reserve, zoning district with
up to 120 feet allowed through an Interim
Conditional Use Permit (ICUP). In the R-2,
Rural Estate, and R-4, Urban Residential,
zoning districts, the draft ordinance proposes a
permitted height for wind turbines of 45 feet
with up to 75 feet allowed through an ICUP.
The driving factor behind this approach is the
density of the surrounding land use and
potential impacts on surrounding properties.
Since the Urban Reserve area is the least dense
and primarily agricultural, greater height is
proposed for this zoning district. No change
was made to the draft ordinance in response to
this comment.
The draft ordinance must address the issue that Please see the following section In this
many Homeowners' Associations prohibit memorandum for further discussion.
solar energy systems and other alternative
energy systems.
The wording in the draft ordinance related to Staff revised this section of the draft ordinance
aesthetics of solar energy systems is vague. to include more specific standards.
Write language to preserve association rights. Please see the following section In this
memorandum for further discussion.
Solar hot water heaters have a high failure rate City staff could not find any research or
and should not be permitted. documentation that would suggest widespread
problems with solar hot water heaters.
Research did suggest that installation could be
more problematic in cold climates. Solar hot
water heaters currently offer the most
economiC benefits and shortest payback
periods of any solar energy system.
2
Attachment 2
Alternative Energy Ordinance - Draft
July 6, 2009
The City should license solar energy system The City does not license any contractors at
sellers and installers. this time but relies on the State for licensing.
Installation of a large majority of solar systems
would likely involve a licensed electrician or
licensed plumber. However, homeowners
always have the option of self-installation.
The time period for a wind turbine to be Staff revised the draft ordinance so that the
considered abandoned should be extended abandonment period was one year for all
beyond six months. alternative energy svstems.
Vertical axis wind turbines and roof-mounted Vertical axis turbines are permitted in the draft
wind turbines should be allowed on urban ordinance subject to the same standards as
residential lots less than 20 acres. horizontal axIS wind turbines. Although
research does suggest that the vertical axis
turbines are generally quieter than horizontal
axis turbines, the technology is less proven.
Staff does not see a compelling reason at this
time to differentiate between vertical and
horizontal axis wind turbines. Roof-monnted
turbines appear to be an attractive option at
first glance, but wind turbulence caused by the
structure severely reduces efficiency. In staff s
opinion, at their current state of technological
development, roof-mounted wind turbines are
not a viable technology.
The City should show leadership to the Please see the following section m this
Homeowners' Associations m the area of memorandum for further discussion.
alternative energy production.
Common Interest Community Associations
The City Attorney confirmed that the City does have the legal authority to require both existing
and new common interest community associations to allow alternative energy systems. Staffhas
drafted proposed language in the attached revised ordinance that would allow associations to
regulate but not ban alternative energy systems. Staff would like further discussion and feedback
from the Planning Commission on this topic at the July 6, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.
City Council Workshop
Staff reviewed the draft ordinance with the City Council at their June 17th workshop. The
Council indicated their general agreement to the approach in the draft ordinance. The Council
indicated their agreement with the proposed allowed height for residential wind turbines and
with a greater setback requirement for ground-mounted solar energy systems.
Attachment
Alternative Energy Ordinance, Draft - July 6, 2009
3
Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance
Draft - July 6, 2009
4't>:~1:
~ury
Attachment 3
Chapter 24 ZONING
Article VI. Supplemental Performance Standards
Division 5. Alternative Energy Systems
24-401
Scope.
This division applies to alternative energy systems in all zoning districts.
24-402
Pnrpose and intent.
It is the goal of the city council, as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan, to provide a
sustainable quality of life for the city's residents, making careful and effective use of available
natural, human and economic resources and ensuring that resources exist to maintain and
enhance the quality of life for future residents. In accordance with that goal, the city fmds that it
is in the public interest to encourage alternative energy systems that have a positive impact on
energy production and conservation while not having an adverse impact on the community.
Therefore, the purposes of this ordinance include:
(a) To promote rather than restrict development of alternative energy sources by removing
regulatory barriers and creating a clear regulatory path for approving alternative energy systems.
(b) To create a livable community where development incorporates sustainable design
elements such as resource and energy conservation and use of renewable energy.
( c) To protect and enhance air quality, limit the effects of climate change and decrease use of
fossil fuels.
(d) To encourage alternative energy development in locations where the technology is viable
and environmental, economic and social impacts can be mitigated.
24-403
Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this section:
Accessory means a system designed as a secondary use to existing buildings or facilities, wherein
the power generated is used primarily for on-site consumption.
Alternative energy system means a ground source heat pump, wind or solar energy system.
Attachment 3
Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance
Draft - Juty 6, 2009
Building-integrated solar energy system means a solar energy system that is an integral part
of a principal or accessory building, rather than a separate mechanical device, replacing or
substituting for an architectural or structural component of the building including, but not limited
to, photovoltaic or hot water solar systems contained within roofmg materials, windows,
skylights and awnings.
Closed loop ground source heat pump system means a system that circulates a heat transfer
fluid, typically food-grade antifreeze, through pipes or coils buried beneath the land surface or
anchored to the bottom in a body of water.
Ground source heat pump system means a system that uses the relatively constant
temperature ofthe earth or a body of water to provide heating in the winter and cooling in the
summer. System components include open or closed loops of pipe, coils or plates; a fluid that
absorbs and transfers heat; and a heat pump unit that processes heat for use or disperses heat for
cooling; and an air distribution system.
Horizontal ground source heat pump system means a closed loop ground source heat pump
system where the loops or coils are installed horizontally in a trench or series of trenches no
more than 20 feet below the land surface.
Heat transfer fluid means a non-toxic and food grade fluid such as potable water, aqueous
solutions of propylene glycol not to exceed 20% by weight or aqueous solutions of potassium
acetate not to exceed 20% by weight.
Horizontal axis wind turbine means a wind turbine design in which the rotor shaft is parallel
to the ground and the blades are perpendicular to the ground.
Hub means the center of a wind generator rotor, which holds the blades in place and attaches
to the shaft.
!
1bt<l1
Slade
G>arbO><
~
/ fl\ace1Je
Ibtof
Clarl'O\er
Hub
Fixed
Fltcl1
Ibtof-
Blade
-TCM.i-er
Horizontal Axis
Vertical AXis
Wind Turbine Cotifigumtimrs
Hub height means the distance measured from natural grade to the center of the turbine hub.
2
Attachment 3
Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance
Draft - July 6, 2009
Attachment 3
Monopole tower means a tower constructed of tapered tubes that fit together symmetrically
and are stacked one section on top of another and bolted to a concrete foundation without support
cables.
Open loop ground source heat pump system means a system that uses groundwater as a heat
transfer fluid by drawing groundwater from a well to a heat pump and then discharging the water
over land, directly in a water body or into an injection well.
Passive solar energy system means a system that captures solar light or heat without
transforming it to another form of energy or transferring the energy via a heat exchanger.
Photovoltaic system means a solar energy system that converts solar energy directly into
electricity.
Residential wind turbine means a wind turbine of 10 kilowatt (kW) nameplate generating
capacity or less.
Small wind turbine means a wind turbine of 100 kW nameplate generating capacity or less.
Solar energy system means a device or structural design feature, a substantial purpose of
which is to provide daylight for interior lighting or provide for the collection, storage and
distribution of solar energy for space heating or cooling, electricity generation or water heating.
Total height means the highest point above natural grade reached by a rotor tip or any other
part of a wind turbine.
Tower means a vertical structure that supports a wind turbine.
Utility wind twbine means a wind turbine of more than 100 kW nameplate generating
capacity .
Vertical axis wind turbine means a type of wind turbine where the main rotor shaft runs
vertically.
Vertical ground source heat pump system means a closed loop ground source heat pump
system where the loops or coils are installed vertically in one or more borings below the land
surface.
Wind energy system means an electrical generating facility that consists of a wind turbine,
feeder line(s), associated controls and may include a tower.
Wind turbine means any piece of electrical generating equipment that converts the kinetic energy
of blowing wind into electrical energy through the use of airfoils or similar devices to capture the
wind.
~ - -.. - ~l Formatted: Bullets and Numbering I
3
Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance
Draft - July 6, 2009
Attachment 3
24-404
Common Interest Comm.unities.
(3) Notwithstanding any provision in the communitv documents. an association shall not
prohibit the installation or use of an altemative energy system as defined in Section 24-403.
(b) An association may adopt rules regulating the placement of altemative energy systems
provided those rules do not prevent the installation of alternative energy systems or unreasonably
impair the function. restrict the use. affect the cost or reduce the efficiency of such systems.
24-405
Ground source heat pump systems.
<1. - ... ---{ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering l
(a) Zoning districts. Ground source heat pump systems in accordance with the standards in
this section are allowed as a permitted accessory use in all zoning districts.
(b) Standards.
(1) System requirements.
a. Only closed loop ground source heat pump systems utilizing heat transfer fluids as
defined in Section 24-403 are permitted. Open loop ground source heat pump
systems are not permitted.
b. Ground source heat pump systems in public waters may be permitted as an
interim conditional use in accordance with Section 24-40,1isubjecttoapproval ....- .{ Deleted: 7
from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in accordance with
Minnesota Rules Chapter 6115.0211, Subp. 6b and subject to written consent of
all property owners and/or approval by an association in accordance with its
adopted bylaws.
c. Ground source heat pump systems in water bodies owned or managed by the City
of Woodbury are not permitted.
(2) Setbacks.
a. All components of ground source heat pump systems including pumps, borings
and loops shall be set back at least 5 feet from interior side lot lines and at least 10
feet from rear lot lines.
b. Ground source heat pumps shall not be installed in the front yard of any lot or the
side yard of a comer lot adjacent to a public right-of-way and shall meet all
required setbacks for the applicable zoning district.
(3) Easements. Ground source heat prnnp systems shall not encroach on public drainage,
utility roadway or trail easements.
(4) Noise. Ground source heat pump systems shall comply with Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency standards outlined in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7030.
4
Atternative Energy Systems Ordinance
Draft - Juty 6, 2009
Attachment 3
(5) Screening. Ground source heat pumps are considered mechanical equipment and
subject to the requirements of Section 24-307(a)(1O).
(6) Deviations. Any deviation from the required standards of this ordinance may be
permitted through an interim conditional use permit in accordance with Section 24-40~ _ _ ._ _ --1 Deleted: 7
(d) Safety. Ground source heat pumps shall be certified by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
and meet the requirements ofthe International Electric Code.
(e) Abandonment. lfthe ground source heat pump system remains nonfunctional or inoperative
for a continuous period of one year, the system shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall
constitute a public nuisance. The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their expense
after a demolition permit has been obtained in accordance with the following:
(1) The heat pump and any external mechanical equipment shall be removed.
(2) Pipes or coils below the land surface shall be filled with grout to displace the heat
transfer fluid. The heat transfer fluid shall be captured and disposed of in accordance
with state and federal regulations. The top of the pipe, coil or boring shall be
uncovered and grouted.
(3) Lake ground source heat pump systems shall be completely removed from the bottom
of the body of water.
(f) Permits. A building permit and iuterim conditional use permit, if required, shall be obtained
for any ground source heat pump system prior to installation. Borings for vertical systems are
subject to approval from the Minnesota Department of Public Health.
24-406
Wind energy systems.
~ ... - m -I Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 1
(a) Zoning districts. Residential wind turbines in accordance with the standards in this
section are permitted accessory uses on lots at least 3 acres in size in the R -1, Urban Reserve; R-
2, Urban Estate; and on lots at least 20 acres in size in the R-4, Urban Residential zoning
districts. Wind energy systems are not permitted in any other zoning districts.
(b) Standards.
(l) Number. No more than one wind energy system is permitted per parcel.
(2) Height. In the R-I, Urban Reserve, zoning district, a maximum hub height of60 feet
is allowed as a permitted accessory use; additional height, up to 120 feet in total
height, may be permitted as an interim conditional use in accordance with Section 24-
207. In the R-2, Rural Estate, and R-4, Urban Residential, zoning districts, a
maximum hub height of 45 feet is allowed as a permitted accessory use. Additional
height, up to 75 feet in total height, may be permitted as an interim conditional use in
accordance with Section 24-207.
5
Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance
Draft - July 6, 2009
(3) Blade length. A maximum blade length of 15 feet is permitted.
(4) Roofmounting. Roofmounted wind turbines are not permitted.
(5) Setbacks. The base of the wind turbine tower shall be set back from all property lines
a distance equal to the hub height. Wind energy systems shall not be installed in the
front yard of any lot or in the side yard of a comer lot adjacent to a public right-of-
way.
(6) Easements. Wind energy systems shall not encroach on public drainage, utility
roadway or trail easements.
(7) Noise. Wind energy systems shall comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
standards outlined in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7030 at all property lines.
(8) Screening. Wind energy systems are exempt from the requirements of Section 24-
307(a)(10).
(9) Aesthetics. All portions of the wind energy system shall be a non-reflective, non-
obtrusive color, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Only
monopole towers are permitted. The appearance of the turbine, tower and any other
related components shall be maintained throughout the life of the wind energy system
pursuant to industry standards. Systems shall not be used for displaying any advertising.
Systems shall not be illuminated.
(10)Feeder lines. The electrical collection system shall be placed underground within the
interior of each parcel. The collection system may be placed overhead near substations or
points of interconnection to the electric grid.
(ll)Deviations. Any deviation from the required standards of this ordinance may be
permitted through an interim conditional use permit in accordance with Section 24-401\.._ _
(d) Safety.
(1) Standards and Certification.
a. Standards. Wind energy systems shall meet the minimum standards outlined by
the International Electrotechnical Commission (me) in IEC 61400-2 or the
American Wind Energy Association's (A WEA) Small Wind Turbine Performance
and Safety Standard.
b. Certification. Wind energy systems shall be certified by Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc. and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Small
Wind Certification Councilor other body determined to be acceptable by the
Community Development Director for conformance to lEC or A WEA standards.
The City reserves the right to deny a building permit for proposed wind energy
systems deemed to have inadequate certification or inadequate testing for
operation in a severe winter climate.
6
Attachment 3
-1 Deleted: 7
Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance
Draft - July 6, 2009
c. Maintenance. Wind energy systems shall be maintained under an agreement or
contract by the manufacturer or other qualified entity.
(2) Utility Connection. All grid connected systems shall have a completed contractual
agreement with the local utility prior to the issuance of a building permit. A visible
external disconnect must be provided if required by the utility.
(e) Abandonment. If the wind energy system remains nonfunctional or inoperative for a
continuous period Of.f?;.l~, Y~,~.r~"t!:t~ ~ys!e"~ .~l?:~n,~e_ <!e~Ip_e_~ J:~ 1>~ ~~<'!ll_d9~~d_ ~d_sp-!Jl19<21~S!j.!l!:t~ ~...
public nuisance. The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their expense after a demolition
permit has been obtained. Removal includes the entire structure including foundations to below
natural grade and transmission equipment.
(1) Permits. A building permit and interim conditional use permit, if required, shall be obtained
for any wind energy system prior to installation.
24-407
Solar energy systems.
(a) Zoning districts. Solar energy systems in accordance with the standards in this section
are allowed as a permitted accessory use in all zoning districts.
(b) Standards.
(1) Exemption. Passive or building-integrated solar energy systems are exempt from the
requirements of this section and shall be regulated as any other building element.
(2) Minimum Lot Size. In the R-4, Urban Residential Zoning District, a minimum lot size
of 8,000 square feet is required for ground-mounted solar energy systems.
(3) Height. Roof-mounted solar energy systems shall comply with the maximum height
requirements in the applicable zoning district. Ground-mounted solar energy systems
shall not exceed 15 feet in height.
(4) Location. In residential zoning districts, ground-mounted solar energy systems are
limited to the rear yard. In non-residential zoning districts, ground-mounted solar
energy systems may be permitted in the front yard of any lot or the side yards on
comer lots but shall not encroach in the minimum 20- foot landscaped area adjacent to
public rights-of-way.
(5) Setbacks. Ground-mounted solar energy systems shall~set b'lck a minimum of 15.
feet ii'om all propertv lines. Roof-mounted systems shall comply with all building
setbacks in the applicable zoning district and shall not extend beyond the exterior
perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted.
(6) Roo/mounting. Roof-mounted solar collectors shall be flush mounted on pitched
roofs unless the roof pitch is determined to be inadequate for optimum performance
7
Attachment 3
.' .- .{ Deleted: six months
- "1 Formatted: Bullets and Numb~
Deleted: comply with all accessory
structure sctbacksin the applicable
zoningdislrict
Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance
Draft - July 6, 2009
of the solar energy system in which case the pitch of the solar collector may exceed
the pitch of the roofup to 5% but in no case shall be bigher than 10 inches above the
roof. Solar collectors may be bracket-mounted on flat roofs.
(7) Easements. Solar energy systems shall not encroach on public drainage, utility
roadway or trail easements.
(8) Screening. Solar energy systems shall be screened from view to the extent possible
without impacting their function, but are exempt from the strict requirements of
Section 24-307(a)(IO).
(9) Maximum Area. In the R-4, Urban Residential, zoning district, ground-mounted solar
energy systems shall be limited to a maxinnun area of 200 square feet. In other
residential zoning districts, ground-mounted solar energy systems shall be limited to a
maximum area consistent with the accessory structure limitations in Section 24-
281(b) or no more than 25 percent of the rear yard, whichever is less.
(IO)Aesthetics. All solar energy systems shall use colors thatPle.nd~with the color of the _
roof .1)1" other structurejllld~terials that minimize glare towards vehicular traffic
and adjacent properties.-- -- - _______n_n_______
(l1)Feeder lines. The electrical collection system shall be placed underground within the
interior of each parcel. The collection system may be placed overhead near substations or
points of interconnection to the electric grid.
Attachment 3
Deleted: be designed to
Deleted: into
',' - ,?eleted: the architecture of the building
\. ". Deleted: to the extent possible without J
''. negatively impacting the performance of
'-. the system
j Deleted"o )
(12)Deviations. Any deviation from the required standards of this ordinance may be
permitted through an interim conditional use permit in accordance with Section 24-40.a._ __ _ _ r --I Deleted: 7
(d) Safety.
(I) Standards and Certification.
a. Standards. Solar energy systems shall meet the minimum standards outlined by
the International Electrotechnical Commission (lEe) ,the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), ASTM
International, British Standards Institution (BSI), International Electrotechnical
Commission (lEe), International Organization for Standardization (ISO),
Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) and/or the Solar Rating and Certification
Corporation (SRCe).
b. Certification. Solar energy systems shall be certified by Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc. and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Solar
Rating and Certification Corporation or other body determined to be acceptable
by the Community Development Director for conformance to IEC or A WEA
standards. The City reserves the right to deny a building permit for proposed
solar energy systems deemed to have inadequate certification.
8
)
Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance
Draft - July 6, 2009
Attachment 3
(2) Utility Connection. All grid connected systems shall have a completed contractual
agreement with the local utility prior to the issuance of a building permit. A visible
external disconnect must be provided.
(e) Abandonment. If the solar energy system remains nonfunctional or inoperative for a
continuous period offU!"~.Y~l!!,_t!1~ ~ys!~,~ ,~4a..q" ~~_ <!e~'P-_e~_~~ pe _~~~n_d9:g~,4" '.t:~,d..,~~~l) ~<.?~s!i~t~ ~ _ __ -- '1 Deleted: six months
public nuisance. The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their expense after a demolition
permit has been obtained. Removal includes the entire structure including transmission equipment.
(I) Permits. A building permit and interim conditional use permit, ifrequired, shall be obtained
for any solar energy system prior to installation.
24-408
Interim conditional use permit.
<I .. - "- 1 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering]
Deviations to the standards in this division may be permitted as an interim conditional use in
accordance with Section 24-45. In granting an interim conditional use permit, the city council
shall consider the criteria in Sections 24-43 and 24-45 and the following additional criteria
unique to alternative energy systems:
(a) That the deviation is required to allow for the improved operation of the alternative
energy system;
(b) That the alternative energy system has a net energy gain;
(c) That the alternative energy system does not adversely affect solar access to adjacent
properties;
(d) That the alternative energy system complies with all other engineering, building, safety
and fire regulations; and
(e) That the alternative energy system is found to not have any adverse impacts on the area,
including the health, safety and general welfare of occupants of neighboring properties and users
of public rights-of-way.
24-409
Interpretation.
-- -i Formatted: Bullets and Numbering ]
In interpreting this ordinance and its application, the provisions of these regulations shall be
held to be the minimum requirements for the protection of public health, safety and general
welfare. This ordinance shall be construed broadly to promote the purposes for which it was
adopted.
24-410
Conflict.
.. - - - -,I Formatted: Bullets and Numbering ]
This ordinance is not intended to interfere with, abrogate or annul any other ordinance, rule
or regulation, statute or other provision oflaw except as provided herein. If any provision of this
ordinance imposes restrictions different from any other ordinance, rule or regulation, statute or
provision oflaw, the provision that is more restrictive or imposes high standards shall control.
9
Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance
Draft - July 6, 2009
Attachment 3
Separability.
'+ _.- -1 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering J
24-411
If any part or provision of this ordinance or its application to any developer or circumstance
is judged invalid by any competent jurisdiction, the judgment shall be confined in its operation to
the part, provision or application directly involved in the controversy in which the judgment shall
be rendered and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of these regulations or the
application of them to other developers or circumstances.
10
Agenda Item 5.c.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
Surface Water Management Plan and Storm Water Management
Ordinance
August 13, 2009 for the August 17 ENR Meeting
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission should review the final surface
water management plan and begin discussing the implementation requirements of the plan, in
particular the requirement for the city to update our storm water management ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Surface Water Management Plan
The ENR Commission reviewed the city's draft surface water management plan as part of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan (refer to the executive summary attached - Attachment 1). On
August 6, 2009, the Metropolitan Council completed its review of the plan and states that the
plan "has the potential to provide an overall framework for the city to successfully manage its
water resources and is an excellent example of integrating the various federal, state, and local
requirements of the plan" (refer to Metropolitan Council letter attached - Attachment 2). Ron
Leaf, the city's storm water management consultant with Short, Elliot, Hendrickson (SEH), is
making minor revisions to the plan as requested by the Metropolitan Council for final review by
the city council in September. As of the writing of this staff report, those revisions were not
available to forward to the commission. However, staff will present the minor revisions to the
ENR Commission during the August 17 meeting for feedback prior to city council approval.
Storm Water Management Ordinance
In addition to the final review of the surface water management plan, the ENR Commission
should continue discussing the implementation requirements of the plan, in particular the
requirement to update the city's storm water ordinance. Surface water management plans must
comply with the following criteria:
1. Runoff Rate. Runoff rates for the proposed activity shall not exceed existing runoff rates
for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year critical storm events, and runoff rates may be
restricted to less than the existing rates when the capacity of downstream conveyance
systems is limited.
2. Runoff Volume. Storm water runoff volume retention shall be achieved onsite in the
amount equivalent to the runoff generated from a one inch rainfall over the impervious
surfaces of the development. The required stormwater runoff volume reduction shall be
calculated as follows: Required Volume (ft3) = Impervious surfaces (ft2) x 1.0 (in) x 0.9
coefficient x 1/12 (ftlin).
3. Water Quality. Developments shall incorporate effective non-point source pollution
reduction best management practices (BMPs) to achieve 90% total suspended solids
removal from the runoff generated by a National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) water
quality storm (2.5" rainfall). Runoff volume reduction BMPs may be considered and
included in the calculations showing compliance with achieving the 90% total suspended
solids (TSS) removal requirement. Water quality calculations, documentation and/or
water quality modeling shall be submitted to verify compliance with the standard.
The city's surface water management plan covers this information; however, the city's
ordinances and rules should be updated to ensure compliance with these criteria. The
implementation projects listed in the surface water management plan on page 10-9 of the
attached executive summary states that the city will update our storm water ordinances to
ensure consistency with all watershed district rules and compliance with the above-mentioned
criteria. In particular, the city should review all watershed district rules, city ordinances and
standards pertaining to storm water, and begin drafting a comprehensive storm water
management ordinance.
To begin the process, staff has included the city's current storm water management ordinance
(Section 12-307(f)) (Attachment 3), the city's storm water pond engineering standards
(Attachment 4), and the three watershed district's storm water management rules (Attachments
5 through 7). The pertinent requirements should be lifted from each of these documents and
compiled into a separate storm water management ordinance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
City staff will review the attached documents with the ENR Commission at the August 17
meeting and discuss the pertinent requirements that should be included in a separate storm
water management ordinance. In addition, staff will review the minor revisions made to the
city's surface water management plan for feedback from the commission prior to city council
review in September. .
Attachments:
1. Surface Water Management Plan Executive Summary
2. Metropolitan Council Approval of Maplewood's Surface Water Management Plan
3. Maplewood Stormwater Management Ordinance
4. Maplewood Stormwater Management Engineering Standards
5. Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District Stormwater Management Rules
6. Valley Branch Watershed District Stormwater Management Rules
7. Capitol Region Watershed District Stormwater Management Rules
2
Aitlkhmev1t I
..M~r~~~qq~
rOCU!THI!I!WI!CAN
Surface Water Management Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Maplewood (City) has completed a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP or
Plan) to establish a more functional and up-to-date guide for future surface water management
activities throughout the City. The Plan builds on the City's previous plan, its National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) program and related Non-Degradation Plan and
addresses several key issues related to storm water management that the City is likely to
encounter in the coming years. This executive summary provides a brief description of the
purpose and basis for this updated Plan, followed by a presentation of the overriding goals that
were used to guide development of the Plan. This executive summary closes by highlighting the
key issues the City intends to address as part of this Plan. The full Plan is provided as a
separate document.
Purpose of the Plan
The purpose of the Plan is to establish the framework of a comprehensive program that does
more than simply protect and improve the quality of existing water resources within the City.
The Plan also recognizes that development and redevelopment must and will continue well into
the future, and will serve as a guide for City staff to follow as they evaluate the potential impacts
of a given project on these quality resources. The Plan will serve as a toolbox for the City that
includes the best available water resource data at the time it was completed, up-to-date policies
and design standards, and a process to adjust goals and policies as new data is collected and
evaluated or as complimentary programs change. With this guidance specific to surface water
as well as the broader guidance provide in the City's Comprehensive Plan, this Surface Water
Management Plan will serve to:
. Provide for the use, management, improvement and protection of the City's surface
water resources
. Contribute to the quality of life by preserving and enhancing the high environmental
quality of the community
. Protect public investments and private properly related to or affected by surface water
. Help to understand the larger context of surface water management issues in relation to
land use and land use policy
. Balance environmental protection and enhancement needs with economic needs and
capabilities
. Meet regulatory requirements
City of Maplewood
Surface Water Management Plan
10-1
May 2009
Basis for the Plan
There are two primary programs that establish the regulatory need to update the City's Surface
Water Management Plan. First, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 103B.201 to 103B.255 and
Minnesota Rule, Chapter 8410 comprise the State's Metropolitan Surface Water Management
Program (MSWMP). These Statutes and Rules require the preparation of watershed plans by
watershed management organizations (WMOs) and the preparation of local (Le., city) water
management plans that are consistent with the respective WMO plans. Second, upon adoption
by Council, the policies and standards presented in this Plan become a part of the City's overall
Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the MSWMP is that through policies and thoughtful
program implementation, goals for proper water and wetland resource management can be
realized and water quality can be protected. Through proper planning and implementation,
informed decisions can be made which allow for the protection and/or enhancement of water
quality, prevention of ground water degradation, and reduction of local flooding.
A third regulatory program, very much related to the goals, policies and standards of this Plan,
is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Storm Water Permit
Program (Phase II Program). While this program is not directly a driving force for updating the
City's Plan, similarities between the MSWMP and NPDES Phase II programs are such that the
City intends to realize efficiencies in managing the two separate programs as a single
comprehensive surface water management program.
The NPDES Phase II Storm Water Permit Program is a federal regulatory program that requires
owners of Municipally Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) to prepare and implement a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) and apply for the permit with the
administrative agency. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) administers the MS4
program in the state. The City submitted their original permit application and SWPPP on
March 10, 2003, and submitted an updated SWPP in 2006 to comply with the MPCA program
requirements. The City has completed their NPDES program in conformance to the SWPPP
since submittal in 2003, including conducting annual public meetings and completing a Loading
Assessment and Nondegradation Report (November 2007) as required by theMS4 Permit. This
SWMP incorporates the best management practices (BMPs) that were identified in the City's
2006 SWPPP as and Appendix to the Plan and also identifies several specific projects that are
not specified in the City's NPDES Program SWPPP.
Surface water management programs throughout the country, state and locally have seen
significant changes in recent years and are expected to continue evolving as the regulatory
programs expand and/or change. For example, the impaired waters and Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) studies reaching as far downstream as Lake Pepin, changes to the Wetland
Conservation Act and a shift towards lower impact development approaches will likely have
some ongoing impact on how Maplewood manages surface waters in the future. One local
example is in the recent adoption of volume reduction and infiltration requirements by the City
as part of the Maplewood Mall Area Transportation Improvements (MMA TI) project. The City
established a 1-inch infiltration standard for developments and city projects proposed in the area
as a first step towards achieving enhanced storm water treatment. The local watershed
organizations soon followed suit in adopting similar i-inch infiltration and volume control
standards.
City of Maplewood
Surface Water Management Plan
10-2
May 2009
Plan Overview
The Full Plan contains an Introduction (Section I), a brief Background and History and
description of the existing physical environment (Section II); specific Goals and Policies
(Section III) developed by the City; specific information regarding key Surface Water Resources
within the City (Section IV) and an Implementation Plan (Section V) that summarizes some of
the ongoing management activities and future projects for the protection and enhancement of
the City's water and wetland resources. Using the goals summarized in Table 10-1, the Plan is
intended to guide surface water and water resource management activities through about the
year 2030.
Table 10-1. Maplewood Storm Water Management Plan Goals
Goal Goal Goal Statement
Number
1 Water Quality Enhance the water quality of Maplewood's surface waters relative to
current conditions and strive to achieve water quality improvements.
Runoff Preserve, maintain, utilize and enhance the storm water storage and
2 Management and detention systems to control excessive volumes and rates of runoff,
Flood Control control flooding, protect public health and safety, and to minimize
necessary public capital expenditures.
Achieve no net loss of wetlands, including acreage, functions and
3 Wetlands values. Where practicable, improve the functions, values,
biodiversity and acreage of wetlands and their buffer areas.
Erosion and Protect capacity of storm water system, prevent flooding and
4 Sed Iment Control maintain water quality by preventing erosion and sedimentation from
occurring, and correct existing erosion and sedimentation problems.
Protect the quality and quantity of groundwater resources and
develop a cooperative program with t.he watershed district to identify
5 Groundwater infiltration-sensitive areas. Protect the public health, safety and
welfare through a comprehensive ISTS ordinance that requires
properly designed and maintained ISTS systems.
Education and Increase pubiic and city official awareness, understanding and
6 Public Involvement involvement in water and natural resource management issues.
7 Financing Establish and maintain funding sources to finance surface water
management activities.
Preserve function and performance of public infrastructure through
continued implementation of a maintenance and Inspection program.
Maintenance and Develop a city-maintenance plan for the inspection of all ponds,
8 Inspection outlet structures and inlet facilities and consider initiating a pond
delta removal program. Such a program should consider
improvements to reduce sediment loads to ponds, wetlands and
lakes to help prioritize critical improvement areas.
Regulatory Maintain primary responsibility for managing water resources at the
9 Responsibility local level but continue coordination and cooperation with other
agencies and organizations.
City of Maplewood
Surface Water Management Plan
10-3
May 2009
Though long term in focus, the Plan has numerous future decision points related to
recommended capital improvements and ongoing inspection, maintenance and monitoring
activities. The Plan was developed recognizing the need for proper land utilization and growth
and, at the same time, emphasizing the need to prioritize management actions and decisions
based on the assigned category of a receiving water body (i.e., lake or wetland).
This updated SWMP addresses each of the required elements in Minnesota Statutes and Rules
and is consistent with the Metropolitan Council's guidelines for Water Management Plans. The
Plan is also consistent with the watershed districts having jurisdiction in portions of Maplewood:
the Ramsey-Washington-Metro Watershed District (RWMWD); the Capitol Region Watershed
District (CRWD); and the Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD).
The criteria set forth in this Plan, as a minimum, establish the degree of performance necessary
to achieve the City's water quality and water quantity management goals and meet the
applicable regulatory requirements. These criteria are not intended to dictate or preempt the
design process, but rather provide guidelines to proper development and redevelopment.
Key Water Resources Issues
This Plan identifies several key issues related to storm water management that the City is likely
to encounter in the coming years. These issues include: meeting the requirements of
nondegradation standards and impaired waters programs; addressing localized flooding
problems and meeting the challenges of an increased need for maintenance of the public and
private stormwater system and coordinating efforts with natural resource improvement areas to
find more cost-effective approaches. The issues will require a need for continued long-term
financial commitments and likely increased funding for the surface water management program
into the future.
Water Qualitv and Impaired Waters
This Plan is being completed in conjunction with the City's 2008 update to its Comprehensive
Plan. As part of this Comprehensive Plan, the City.is conducting a preliminary evaluation of the
entire storm water system and building on recent efforts under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), Municipally Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit
program, including the Loading Assessment and Non-Degradation Report (Non-Deg Report)
completed by the City in November 2007. The Non-Deg Report concluded that
. The City will experience a reduction in total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids
(TSS) load by the year 2020, but will experience an increase in the runoff volume.
. The reduction in loading of TP and TSS through 2020 relates directly to continuing to
implement the i-inch volume control standard on new and redevelopment projects.
. Runoff Volume reduction is a relatively new area to the storm water management arena.
Potential adverse effects are still being studied and debated. The most common impacts
cited in connection with the runoff volume increase are a pronounced degradation of the
natural stream banks and more frequent inundation of the wetlands. No significant
issues were known at the time of finalizing the Non-Deg report. Since completion of the
Non-Deg Report, input has been obtained from staff and watershed representatives that
there may be some volume-related issues to address in south Maplewood and other
localized areas.
City of Maplewood
Surface Water Management Plan
10-4
May 2009
Relative to impaired waters, Maplewood has twelve waters on the 2008 draft list prepared by
the MPCA and submitted to the US Environmental Protection Agency for approval. Table 10-2a
provides a summary of the affected use and impairments for each of these waters.
Table 10-2a. Drafl200B TMDL Listed Impaired Waters in Maplewood
Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOs)
in Fish Tissue
Aquatic Recreation N utrient/Eutrophication Yes
Biological Indicators
Aquatic Consumption Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOs)
in Fish Tissue
Aquatic Consumption Mercury in Fish Tissue
Aquatic Consumption Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOs)
in Fish Tissue
Aquatic Recreation Nutrient/Eutrophication Yes
Biological Indicators
Aquatic Consumption Perfluorooctane Suifonate (PFOs)
in Fish Tissue
Aquatic Recreation Nutrient/Eutrophication Yes
Biological Indicators
Aquatic Recreation Nutrient/Eutrophication Yes
Biological Indicators
Aquatic Consumption Perfluorooctane Suifonate (PFOs)
in Fish Tissue
Aquatic Consumption Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOs)
in Fish Tissue
Aquatic Recreation Nutrient/Eutrophication Yes
Biological Indicators
Aquatic Consumption Mercury in Fish Tissue
Aquatic Consumption Mercury in Fish Tissue
Aquatic Life Chloride
Aquatic Recreation Nutrient/Eutrophication
Biological Indicators
Aquatic Recreation Nutrient/Eutrophication
Biological Indicators
Aquatic Consumption Mercury in Fish Tissue
City of Maplewood
Surface Water Management Plan
10-5
May 2009
Of the listed pollutants in Table 10-2a, the City is really only in a position to address the nutrient
(Le., phosphorus) impairments and the chloride impairments as listed in Table 10-2b. PFO
impairments are still very new to the impaired waters program and the City will need to maintain
contact with MPCA and the local watershed organizations as more information is available on
the plan for these impairments. According to the MPCA's Statewide Mercury TMDL Study, most
of the mercury in Minnesota's fish comes from atmospheric deposition, with approximately 90
percent originating from outside the state. Because mercury has regional TMDL implications,
little effort will be placed on TMDL recommendations related to mercury for these waters as part
of this planning effort. The City will continue to review recommendations for mercury that may
be offered by EPA and/or MPCA to see if the regional approach to mercury has any future
implications on the City. More detail on the progress of the statewide mercury TMDL process
can be found on the MPCA's website.
Table 10-2b. Impaired Waters Focus in Maplewood
NutrienUEutrophication Biological Indicators (Phosphorus)
NutrienUEutrophication Biological Indicators (Phosphorus) Yes
Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators (Phosphorus) Yes
NutrienUEutrophication Biological Indicators (Phosphorus) Yes
NutrienUEutrophication Biological Indicators (Phosphorus) Yes
Chloride
Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators (Phosphorus)
NutrienUEutrophication Biologicai Indicators (Phosphorus)
Statewide, approximately 8 percent of Minnesota's river miles and 14 percent of Minnesota's
lakes have been tested for pollution problems. Approximately 40 percent of those tested are
polluted with human and animal waste, phosphorus, suspended solids, mercury and other
pollutants. As more of the states' surface waters are tested for pollution problems, it is
reasonable to assume that more waters will be listed as impaired in subsequent biennial cycles.
When Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies are completed, the TMDLs will likely be used
by the MPCA and local entities to further prioritize management actions and establish additional
regulatory controls.
The City will consider the listing of the lakes in Table 10-2b in future management decisions and
actively manage the activities in the contributing watersheds to limit the delivery of these
pollutants (primarily nutrients, sediment and chlorides) to these waters. Infiltration best
management practices have a higher level of total phosphorus removal than the traditional wet
stormwater ponds and the City's infiltration requirement will help with the reduction of
phosphorus entering the receiving waters.
City of Maplewood
Surface Water Management Plan
10-6
May 2009
Floodina and Maintenance of the Svstem
The City will need to continue to address localized flooding areas to protect life and property
and reduce the burden of maintaining the system. As weather trends are showing higher
intensity storm events, the potential for localized flooding will continue, if not increase. Along
with this realization is that it places a higher level of urgency on the need to maintain the storm
water conveyance system so that it functions well during the design events as well as extreme
events. While some debris blockages of pipes and structures will almost certainly continue to
occur, the efforts placed on identifying problem areas and conducting maintenance and/or
installing physical improvements, will reduce the potential for problems or reduce the extent of
damages.
Coordinatina Efforts with Natural Resources
The City of Maplewood intends to achieve its vision and goals for natural resources using a
comprehensive approach. Coordinating surface water management needs and opportunities
with natural resources management and improvement projects will help to maximize the overall
environmental benefits and the return on City investments. There are four main parts to the
Natural Resource Plan.
. Natural Area Greenways. Natural Area Greenways are large contiguous areas of
habitat that cross ownership boundaries. They protect and expand ecosystem services
and habitat for species that are gone or are disappearing from the City.
. Local Habitats. Local Habitats are individual natural areas and backyard habitat
connections. They serve the needs of people wanting to enjoy and learn about wild
habitat near their homes and also provide ecosystem services and wildlife habitat locally.
. Active Parks and Trails. Active Parks and Trails connect greenways and preserves but
also give people places to play sports, picnic, and bike.
. Natural Resource Issues. Other natural resources issues are addressed city-side
through individual programs.
Partnerships and Fundina
The final critical area of focus will be the continued close coordination with the local watershed
organizations, Ramsey County, and other project-specific partners to take full advantage of
opportunities to gain water quality improvements and enhance other natural resources at the
same time. These efforts will be needed and a priority for the City on public capital improvement
projects, storm water system and utility maintenance activities, public outreach and education
activities and on private development projects. This cooperative approach will allow the City to
leverage the limited funding that is currently available.
Maintaining a financing strategy for surface water improvements relates very closely to the
cooperative approach to projects and activities. The City will need to continue using a
combination of environmental utility fees, special assessments, connection charges, and storm
water program grant funds to realize the goals of this Plan. The City will need to evaluate the
need for increases in storm water utility charges that serves as the primary dedicated source for
funding the wide range of storm water program activities and capital projects.
City of Maplewood
Surface Water Management Plan
10-7
May 2009
Implementation Plan
Development of the implementation program follows the guidelines in Minnesota Rules Chapter
8410, the WMOs and Metropolitan Council. City staff identified a wide range of issues or
problems related to the various goal sections, developed solutions or approaches to addressing
each of the issues, and development specific action steps, including identification of possible
resources, measurements, approximate schedules and planning level costs.
The overall implementation program includes a mixture of capital improvement projects, studies,
ongoing maintenance, inspection, monitoring and other management activities recommended
over the next 10 or more years. Estimated planning-level costs of recommended actions are
provided with a cautionary note that they are not intended to set unrealistic expectations of the
actual costs of projects and/or activities. The costs provided are intended to serve as an order-
of-magnitude look at what the activity may require. Notations are also provided where the
activity can be completed by City staff.
The City's water bodies and wetlands are truly exceptional resources for City residents and thus
water quality is one of the priority areas for future program efforts. City lakes and water
resources offer a range of recreational opportunities and some are truly exceptional resources
from a water quality perspective. Others are impaired by various pollutants and have a reduced
value due to those impairments. One of the most recognized and valued resources is Lake
Phalen. Phalen is one of the four lakes in the City not impaired for excess nutrients (i.e.,
phosphorus). One of the City's challenges in the years ahead will be to successfully implement
this Plan to maintain the quality of lakes like Phalen, and at the same time work towards
improvements in the seven lakes that are impaired by excess nutrients (phosphorus).
Water Quantity, or flooding, issues are another key area for the City to focus efforts on in the
coming years. While no major flooding-related issues exist, there are several areas throughout
the City where localized flooding can be addressed by infrastructure improvements associated
with street reconstruction and/or development projects. These localized flooding improvements
are in areas like Valley View in south Maplewood that was hit with localized flooding from
extreme rainfall events in the fall of 2005.
Except for the activities that are taken from the City NPDES SWPPP, the Implementation Plan
is not a hard and fast commitment to complete each and every activity in the time frame
suggested. Rather, it is a suggested course of action that will accomplish the major goal of this
plan; to accommodate new development, in-fill development and redevelopment in the
community while protecting and improving Maplewood's surface water resources. Infrastructure
replacements and/or additions will be reviewed, approved and administered in accordance with
Maplewood's Capital Improvement Program.
City of Maplewood
Surface Water Management Plan
10:8
May 2009
Table 10-3. Implementation Program Priority Projects and Activities
Project Name Description Year
ID
Explore opportunities for water quality Identify where water quality Annual
improvements can be made beyond
1 improvement projects and install BMPs in the minimum required of public and
key watersheds private projects.
RWMWD, VBWD and CRWD
2 Update storm water ordinance Standards, Codify 1-inch volume 2009
control requirements
3 Update wetland ordinance Complete update to wetland ordinance,
classifications and buffer standards 2009
. Review Shingle creek study results and
Review and implement Chloride use and work with watershed district to 2009-2012
4 management alternatives for the Battle implement best practices in drainage
Creek watershed area
areas
Work with watershed organizations to Annual
5 Participate in TMDL Studies deveiop feasible implementation
programs
Complete infiltration/volume control Intent to get ahead of volume control
with a more cost effective 2009-2010
6 feasibility study for future street implementation effort and possibility of
reconstruction areas banking credits
Explore opportunities for discharge rate Evaluate flows coming from the east
7 reductions or hydrograph modifications in 2010-2011
the Fish and Snake Creek Svstems
8 Compile hydrologic models in key 2009-2011
Hydrologic Model Development areas not covered by watershed
models
9 Implement Annual wetland mitigation site Track ongoing monitoring and Annual
maintenance needs on created
monitoring and maintenance program wetlands, establish ongoing budget.
10 Develop and implement a refined system Inspection form and data in GIS format 2009
to track and record NPDES pond and for more efficient Annual
BMP maintenance activities
Amendments to the Plan
The NPDES SWPPP activities will be reviewed and evaluated annually in a public meeting and
the permit program itself is scheduled to be updated in 2011 and every five years after that. For
this Plan to remain dynamic, an avenue must be available to implement new information, ideas,
methods, standards, management practices, and any other changes which may affect the intent
and/or results of the Plan. Amendment proposals can be requested any time by any person or
persons either residing or having business within the City.
Proposed amendments are reviewed by staff, and if determined to be a reasonable and
necessary amendment the need for a public hearing shall be considered at a regular or special
Council meeting. Council and the watershed organizations have an opportunity to determine
whether or not to approve of the proposed amendments.
City of Maplewood
Surface Water Management Plan
10-9
May 2009
Annual Report to Council
An annual report will be completed by City staff summarizing water resource management
activities that have been completed over each calendar year. To the extent practicable, and to
avoid duplication of efforts, the annual report will be coordinated with preparation of the NPDES
MS4 program annual report that must be submitted to MPCA by June 30th of each year. The
NPDES annual report includes a public notice, meeting and comment process prior to finalizing
the annual report. The City will use this annual reporting process to evaluate the overall storm
water management program.
Staffs intent is to revisit the goals, policies, tools and progress of the Plan on a three to five year
basis. Water quality trends will be reviewed with input from the Watershed Districts, the
effectiveness of regulatory programs will be evaluated, and the success of public improvement
projects will be assessed. Based on these subsequent reviews, the SWMP will be updated to
produce a truly dynamic plan.
City of Maplewood
Surface Water Management Plan
10-10
May 2009
. Atk.Gh m er'\t L
~ Metropolitan Council
..;l..;l
Environmental Services
August 6, 2009
Mr. Cliff Aichinger
Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District
2665 Noel Drive
Little Canada, MN 55117
RE: Maplewood Surface Water Management Plan
Review File No. 20496-1
Dear Mr. Aichinger:
The Metropolitan Council has completed its review of the city ofMaplewood's revised Surface
Water Management Plan (SWMP). The revised SWMP has the potential to provide an overall
framework for the city to successfully manage its water resources arid is an excellent example of
integrating the various federal, state, and local requirements into a local plan. The above revised
plan is generally consistent with Council policy and the Council's Water Resource Management
Policy Plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the city's revised S WMP. If you have any
questions regarding the Council's expectations, please contact Judy Sventek, at 651-602-1156.
Sincerely,
Ji;;tt3~
(~v-- William G. Moore)
General Manager
--"
cc: DuWayne Konewko, City of Maplewood
Ron Leaf, SEH
Sherry Broecker, Metropolitan Council District 12
Keith Buttleman, Assistant General Manager, Environmental Quality Assurance
Lisa Barajas, Metropolitan Council Sector Representative
Judy Sventek, Metropolitan Council Watershed Coordinator
Cheryl Olsen, Metropolitan Council Reviews Coordinator
www.metrocounciLorg
390 Robert Street North. St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 . (651) 602-1005 . Fax (651) 602-1477 . TrY (651) 291-0904
An Equal Opportunity Employer
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 175 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:31:102003
Ifirstlpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _ full
A~~hmtf\13
BUILDINGS AND BillLDING REGULATIONS
~ 12-308
Sees. 12-280-12-306. Reserved.
DIVISION 3. APPROVAL STANDARDS
Sec. 12-307. Scope.
(a) Under this article all plans and the conduct of all grading, landscaping, structure
placement, and street routing shall be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, and for
development in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, the Maplewood Critical Area
Plan.
(b) The proposed development shall not lessen existing public access to and along a
protected water.
(c) The proposed development shall be designed, constructed and maintained to avoid
causing:
(1) Erosion.
(2) Pollution, contamination or siltation of water bodies or storm sewers.
(3) Flooding.
(4) Groundwater contamination.
(5) Alteration of significant natural features.
x
(d) Development shall not substantially diminish the scientific, historical, educational,
recreational or aesthetic value of unique natural areas, plants. and animals, which are
registered with the state as such, and shall not substantially alter their reproductive cycles.
(e) Views of protected waters from buildings or public streets shall not be impaired by the
placement of advertising signs.
(f) Where feasible, all new storrnwater detention ponds shall be designed and constructed
to meet the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) design criteria of removing at least 60
percent of the phosphorous. The engineer or designer may use the Walker pondnet model or
/'
the Pitt pond model when designing storrnwater ponds, as noted by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas manual. The applicant or
. applicant's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the necessary calculations to verify
the pond design.
(Code 1982, ~ 9-193; Ord. No. 811, ~ 1, 3-26-2001)
Sec. 12-308. Slopes.
(a) No development shall be permitted on existing slopes of 18 percent or greater which are
in direct drainage to a protected water.
(b) In areas not in direct drainage to a protected water, no development shall be allowed on
existing slopes greater than 40 percent.
CD12:33
AitCtL\-)v11ell+ ~
MAPLEWOOD
ENGINEERING STANDARDS
City of Maplewood
Engineering Division
1902 County Road BEast
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
3.9 Restoration of Ponding Areas .........................................................................................3-5
3.10 Turf Establishment.... .............. ....... ..... ....... ..... .... ..... ................. ..... ............ ......... .......... ..3-6
SECTION 4. STREET DESIGN
4.1 References ... ..... ....... ....... ..... ....... ....... ....... ..... ..... .... ..... ........... ....... .............................. ..4-2
4.2 Maximum/Minimum Grades ...... ............................. ............................. ............ ......... .......4-2
4.3 Vertical Curves........... ..... ........ ...... ............ ................ ................ ................. ......... .......... .4-2
4.4 Intersection Landings... ................... ........................................ ............ ............ ......... .......4-2
4.5 Intersection Design........... ....... ........... ....... ................. ............... .......................... .......... ..4-2
4.6 Horizontal Curves......... ............ ....... ..... ............ ........... .......... ................ .......... ......... .......4-3
4.7 Pavement Section.... ....... .... .............. ............ ..... ....... ......... ....... .......................... .......... ..4-3
4.8 Street Lighting.... .............. .................. ........ ............................ ........... ............ ......... ........ ..4-3
4.9 Street Sawing, Striping, and Signing...............................................................................4-4
4.10 Trails...................... ....... ..... ..................................... ....................... ................... ............. .4-4
SECTION 5. STORM SEWERS
5.1 References. ..... ............ ............ ...... ..... ................... ........... ............ ....... ............ ......... ..... .5-2
5.2 Inlets........................................................................................................................ ....... .5-2
5.3 Lateral System Design ....................................................................................................5-3
5.4 Subsurface Drains. ....... ............................... ............ ...... ..... ....... ..... .......... ......... ............ ..5-4
~ G-;~~~~~~g~.:::::::.:::::::::::::::::~~.~:~~~::::~~::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::"::::::::::::::::_:~~
5.7 Energy Dissipaters...... ....................... ....... ............................... ................. ....... ......... ..... ..5-8
SECTION 6. SANITARY SEWER
6.1 References...... ..... ........... ................... ....... ............ .................. .............. .......... ......... ..... .6-2
6.2 Sewer Main Location ......................................................................................................6-2
6.3 Services........................................................................................................................... 6-2
6.4 Materials.. ........... ... ....... ..... ....... ..... ....... ....... ........... ....... ....... ..... ................. ....... ......... .....6-2
6.4 Private Systems........................... ............ ....... .... ............... ....... ..... ....... .......... ......... ..... ..6-3
iii
10/2004
5.4 SUBSURFACE DRAINS
Perforated PE drain tile with geotextile sock and fine filter aggregate (MnIDOT Specifications 2502
and 3149J) shall be placed laterally across streets at low points and/or CB leads as well as
longitudinally along the curb line, as required. See Maplewood Standard Plates 310 and 311 for
placement details.
5.5 TRUNK SYSTEM DESIGN
Storm sewers that carry discharge from ponding areas shall be designed based on SCS TR55
hydrography methodology. The city uses HydroCAD for modeling trunk storm sewers and ponding
areas. The developer's engineer shall submit a map of the entire tributary with the limits of the
various hydrologic soils classifications delineated. The maximum time of concentration for each
subcatchment shall be 25 minutes plus the length of storm sewer to the farthest inlet divided by 3
ps (0.9 mps).
Modeling shall be done with an antecedent moisture condition of two. Generally, soils are Type B.
In this case, the CN for residential areas shall be 72 (1/3-acre [0.13 ha] lots). Park or open space
with Type B soils would be 61 (good condition grass). The design shall encompass the entire
tributary area, not just the particular subdivision.
When a trunk storm sewer conveys a pond outlet plus direct runoff, It shall be designed for the
maximum of two conditions. The first condition is the 10-year runoff for direct runoff areas, plus the
capacity of the first stage outlet of the pond as a base flow. The capacity of the first stage is the flow
rate when the pond level is just below the second stage outlet. If the pond only has a single outlet
capable of conveying the 1 DO-year event, then the base flow would be that resulting when pond
level reaches the top of the outlet pipe.
The second condition is the 1 DO-year event pond discharge alone. The maximum of these two
conditions would be used as the design flow rate. This is intended to avoid both the overly
conservative method of modeling pond outlet and direct runoff area with a 1 DO-year event.
The philosophy of these procedures for storm sewer design is not that they are theoretically correct
in all cases. The intent is rather to produce a storm sewer system throughout the city that is
consistent and reasonable.
5.6 STORM WATER PONDS
To meet storm water runoff and water quality objectives, the use of on-site detention basins is
required. On-site detention basins apply to project sites greater than 5 acres (2 halo When wet
detention basins are required, these basins must be designed to comply with the appropriate
criteria of the basin type identified below for the development situation. If sites meet more than one
site characteristic, the more restrictive requirement applies. The Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed District staff will assist in determining site characteristics within said watershed.
5-4
10/2004
Site Characteristics
Basin Design Required
All construction sites with greater than 5 acres (2 ha) of
disturbance in one drainage area
Temporary dual purpose basin (TOPB)
Site drainage tributary to wetiand on-site or immediateiy
off-site wetiand category:
Least sensitive, highly impacted
None
Slightly sensitive, moderate to highly impacted,
nonsignificant resource
Permanent dual purpose (POP B) or wet detention
basin (WOB)
Moderately sensitive, moderateiy impacted,
nonsignficant resource
WOB
Highiy sensitive, moderate to no impact,
significant resource
WOB with restricted outlet
Site upstream of existing or proposed regional water
quality basin of adequate size to meet drainage area
needs.
None
Site upstream of existing or proposed water quaiity basin
not adequately sized to meet drainage area needs.
POPB or WOB
Site in drainage area without existing or proposed regional
water quality basin.
POPB or WOB
Site in drainage area where water quality and flood control
are required, but land area is limited.
POPB
Site upstream of adequate water quality basin,
but 1 DO-year storm event detention required.
Ory storm water detention basin (OSOB)
1. TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT DUAL PURPOSE BASIN
Designs shall be consistent with the most current version of the Ramsey County Soil Erosion
and Sediment Control Handbook. A dual-purpose basin does not have a permanent standing
pool of water. In a dual purpose basin, the outlet structure is modified to pool 100% of the 1-
year, 1-hour rainfall runoff from the drainage area and allows it to slowly flow from the basin
through a granular filter andlor perforated riser outlet structure. PDPBs must provide at least a
l' (0.3 m) deep zone along the base of basin for accumulated sediments. The outlet structure
for both permanent and temporary basins must include an overflow structure to allow excess
flows from larger storm events to leave the basin. The required 1-year and 1 DO-year storm
event storage is provided above the l' (0.3 m) deep sediment storage zone. Permanent basin
requirements are:
a. Long-Term Suspended Solids Removal Efficiency
Total suspended solids (T88) removal of 80%. Total phosphorus (TP) removal of 60%.
5.5
10/2004
b. Peak Discharge Rate
Shall not exceed the predevelopment peak rate of runoff or the rate as defined in this
plan for all critical duration events up to and including the 1 DO-year event.
c. Routing Procedures
Reservoir routing procedures and critical storm events shall be used for design of
detention basins and outlets.
d. Pond Shape
Maximize length/width ratio. Prevent short-circuiting and minimize potential of
resuspension of sediments.
e. Slopes
Above normal water level (NWL) slopes 3:1 or flatter. Pond shelf width of 10' (3.0 m), l'
(0.3 m) below NWL. Other slopes in pond 4:1 or flatter.
f. Inlet/Outlet
Inlets at or below NWL. Emergency spillway for storms over 1 DO-year event. One 100-
year storm event to be handled by the pond outlet without using the emergency spillway.
Energy dissipation to be provided at inlets and outlets. Outlet structure design must:
(1) Incorporate facilities that will remove floating debris from the existing water.
(2) Provide for adequate access for maintenance and repairs.
g. Other
Maintain site access for pond maintenance. Provide draw-down device to drain the
permanent pool. For smaller basins a portable pump may be used as the draw-down
device. Plant native aquatic vegetation over shelf area. Basin upland buffer should be
planted with native water-tolerant grasses, shrubs, and trees. If a temporary dual purpose
basin is to be converted to the permanent dual- purpose basin, the pond shall be excavated to
provide the required volumes at the prescribed levels in the most current version of the Ramsey
County Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook manual, following stabilization of the site
and prior to final landscaping.
h. Maintenance
Sediment basins should be excavated to original design configuration when storage
capacity is reduced by more than 10%.
2. WET DETENTION WATER QUALITY BASIN (WDB):
The following requirements shall apply:
a. Long-Term Phosphorus and Suspended Solids Removal Efficiency
Total phosphorus (TP) removal of 60% and total suspended solids (TSS) removal of
85%.
b. Peak Discharge Rate
Shall be controlled to restrict flows to ensure the required treatment is achieved.
5-6
10/2004
c. Routing Procedures
Reservoir routing procedures and critical storm events shall be used for design of
detention basins and outlets.
d. Pond NWL Surface Area
At least 0.5% of the total watershed. If runoff from part of the watershed is being
effectively treated by an upstream basin, that part of the watershed may be excluded
from the basin-sizing requirement.
e. Pond Depth
Average at least 4' (1.2 m). Maximum depth less than 10' (3.0 m) unless fish habitat is
part of the design.
f. Pond Volume
Dead storage at least 0.5" (13 mm) of runoff from the entire drainage area (0.4" [10 mm]
for water quality treatment and an additional 25% or 0.1" [3 mm] for sediment storage).
g. Pond Shape
Maximize length/width ratio. Prevent short-circuiting and minimize potential of
resuspension of sediments.
h. Slopes
Above NWL slopes 3:1 or flatter. Pond shelf width of 10' (3.0 m), l' (0.3 m) below NWL.
Other slopes in pond 4:1 or flatter.
I. InletlOutlet
Inlets at or below NWL. Emergency spillway for stonms over 100-year event. Onehundred
year storm event to be handled by the pond outlet without using the emergency
spillway. Energy dissipation to be provided at inlets and outlets. Outlet structure designs
must:
(1) Incorporate facilities that will remove floating debris from the existing water.
(2) Provide for adequate access for maintenance and repairs.
i. Other
Maintain site access for pond maintenance. Provide draw-down device to drain the
permanent pool. For smaller basins a portable pump may be used as the draw-down
device. Plant native aquatic vegetation over shelf area. Basin upland buffer should be
planted with native water tolerant grasses, shrubs, and trees. If the temporary sediment
basin Is to be converted to the penmanent basin, the pond shall be excavated to the
original planned contours following stabilization of the site and prior to final landscaping.
j. Maintenance
Water quality basins should be excavated to original design configuration when storage
capacity is reduced by more than 25%.
5-7
1012004
3. WET DETENTION WATER QUALITY BASIN (WDB) WITH RESTRICTED OUTLET
The standards for wet detention water quality basins apply to this basin type with the addition of
provisions to further limit the total peak-rate water volume discharged from the basin. The
peak rate of discharge shall not exceed the predevelopment peak runoff rate for the tributary
watershed or the peak rate defined in the comprehensive storm water plan for all critical events
up to and including the 1 OO-year event. In some cases this may be accomplished by allowing
only a portion of the new storm water volume to discharge to the basin and diverting the
remainder of the flow around the wetland basin. Limitation of the drainage volume can also be
accomplished through redesign of the project site drainage areas. Care must be given to
assure continued hydrology for the natural wetland basin. Therefore, care must be given to the
location and type of flow distribution to the natural wetland after development of the site.
4. DRY STORM WATER DETENTION BASIN
Dry detention basins are designed strictly for flood (water quantity) control. Water quality is not
a consideration in the design. The peak discharge rate must not exceed the peak rate defined
in the comprehensive storm water plan for the critical 1 OO-year event. Basin slopes shall be
3: 1 or flatter.
A summary of the comprehensive storm water plan pond volume and peak flow rate values is
available when requested. The engineering department maintains a current version of the
HydroCAD model for the city. The model Is updated as development or improvements occur.
Therefore, it is important to confirm allowable flow rates before designing a ponding system.
Complete records of the design parameters must be provided so that the model can be maintained.
The design stage-storage relationship must be verified through a survey at the completion of
construction.
Ponding easement or fee title ownership of ponding areas shall be provided to the city. The limits of
easement shall include 2 vertical feet (0.6 m) of freeboard above the 100-year-high water level. The
100-year high water level shall be determined by SCS methodology (eitherTR55 or HydroCAD). A
5.9" (150 mm), 24-hour, Type II distribution rainfall event shall be used. The antecedent moisture
condition shall be 2. The entire tributary area shall be included in the calculations. The CN values
shall be based on ultimate development as given in the city's land use plan.
The entire perimeter of the fee title pond or easement, 1 o acres (4 ha) in area or less, shall be
fenced unless it meets the criteria stated below. The fence shall be minimum 5' (1.5 m) high
vinylclad, chain-link conforming to MnlDOT Design 60-9322 Type IV. At least one double vehicular
gate shall be provided for access near the pond inlet. A 15' (4.6 m) wide maintenance access shall
be benched into the pond side slope near the vehicular gate.
If there Is sufficient area available, it is desirable to grade the entire perimeter of the pond and
eliminate fencing. No fence is required if the entire wet bench (area between normal and high water
levels) perimeter is graded to ten horizontal and one vertical (10: 1).
Appropriate native vegetation, trees and shrubs shall be incorporated into the pond landscape
design.
------------'-~_.,
5.7 ENERGY DISSIPATERS
Energy dissipaters are any devices designed to protect downstream areas from erosion by reducing
the velocity of flow to acceptable limits. The culvert exit velocity should be consistent with the riprap
design and maximum velocity in the natural channel or should be mitigated. The dissipater type
selected for a site must be appropriate to the location. An external dissipater is located outside of
the culvert and an internal dissipater is located within the culvert barrel.
5-8
10/2004
. AAAdl vY\ef\t S-
Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Rules
Adopted 09/0612006
Revised 03/05/2008
Revised 02/04/2009
Table of Contents
Certification of Rules 2
General Policy Statement 2
Relationship to Municipalities 3
Rule A. Definitions 3
Rule B. Permit Procedural Requirements 9
~ ! Rule C. Stormwater Management 12 1
Rule D. Flood Control 19
Rule E. Wetland Management 22
Rule F. Erosion and Sediment Control 28
Rule G. Illicit Discharge and Connection 30
Rule H. Enforcement 35
Rule 1. Variances 36
Rule J. Severability 37
RWMWD Rule
02/04/2009
1
investigation of such activity, including services of engineering, legal and
other consultants. The field inspection fee shall be payable within 10 calendar
days after issuance of a statement by the District. No permit shall be issued
for the activity if there are any unpaid field inspection fees or other
outstanding violations of these Rules.
14. PERFORMANCE SURETY. To assure compliance with these Rules, the
District may requITe permit applicants to post a performance surety where the
District determines that it is reasonable and necessary under the particular
circumstances of any permit application filed with the District. In determining
whether a performance surety is reasonable or necessary, the District may
consider a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the size and scope of
the proposed project, the proximity of the proposed project to waterbodies and
the permit applicant's past compliance with these Rules. The District shall
determine the amount of any performance surety. A performance surety will
not be required of the federal government, the State of Minnesota, or a
political subdivision of the State of Minnesota.
15. OTHER PERMITS AND APPROVALS. The applicant shall promptly
provide the District with copies of all environmental permits and approvals
required by other governmental entities, upon request.
~
Rule C:
STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
(a) Reduce runoff rates to levels that allow for stable conveyance of flow through
watersheds in the District.
(b) Require rate control practices on development to preserve runoff rates at a
level that shall not cause the degradation of the watershed.
(c) Limit runoff volumes by utilizing site designs that limit impervious surfaces
or incorporate volume control practices such as infiltration.
(d) Minimize connectivity of impervious surfaces to the stormwater system.
(e) Require the use of effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs in
development projects.
(f) Protect and maintain downstream drainage systems to provide permanent and
safe conveyance of stormwater. Reduce the frequency and/or duration of
potential downstream flooding.
(g) Reduce the total volume of stormwater runoff to protect surface water quality
and provide recharge to groundwater.
RWMWD Rule
02/04/2009
12
(h) Remove sediment, pollutants, and nutrients from stormwater to protect surface
water quality.
2. REGULATION. No person or political subdivision shall commence a land
disturbing activity or the development of land one acre or greater, unless
specifically exempted by Paragraph 5 below, without first obtaining a permit
from the District that incorporates and approves a stormwater management plan
for the activity or development.
3. CRITERIA. Stormwater management plans must comply with the following
criteria:
(a) Hydrograph Method. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic
theory shall be used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and
water levels.
(b) Runoff Rate. Runoff rates for the proposed activity shall not exceed existing
runoff rates for the 2-year, lO-year, and 100-year critical storm events, and
runoff rates may be restricted to less than the existing rates when the capacity
of downstream conveyance systems is limited.
(c) Runoff Volume. Stormwater runoff volume retention shall be achieved onsite
in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from a one inch rainfall over
the impervious surfaces of the development. The required stormwater runoff
volume reduction shall be calculated as follows:
Required Volume (ft') = Impervious surfaces (ft') x 1.0 (in) x 0.9 coefficient x 1/12 (ftlin)
(1) When using infiltration for volume reduction, the following
requirements must be met:
(i) Infiltration volumes and facility sizes shall be calculated using
the appropriate hydrological soil group classification and design
infiltration rate from Table 1. Select the design infiltration rate
from Table 1 based on the least permeable soil horizon within the
first five feet below the bottom elevation of the proposed
infiltration BMP.
(ii) The applicant may complete double-ring infiltrometer to the
requirements of ASTM D3385 or other District approved
infiltration test measurements at the proposed bottom elevation
of the infiltration BMP. The measured infiltration rate shall be
divided by the appropriate correction factor selected from the
Minnesota Stormwater Manual. This test must be completed by
a licensed soil scientist or engineer.
RWMWD Rule
02/04/2009
13
Soil Group Soil Textures ASTM Unified Soil Rate
Class Symbols
A Gravel, sand, sandy gravel, silty GW,GP 1. 63 inlhr
gravel, loamy sand, sandy loam GM, SW, SP 0.80 inlhr
B Loam, silt loam SM 0.60 inlhr
ML,OL 0.30 inlhr
C Sandy clay loam GC,SC 0.20 inlhr
D Clay, clay loam, silty clay loam, CL, CH, OH, MH 0.00 inlhr
sandy clay, silty clay Source: Minnesota Stormwater Manual, November 2005.
(iii) The infiltration area shall be capable of infiltrating the required
volume within 48 hours for surface and subsurface BMPs.
(iv) Infiltration areas shall be limited to the horizontal areas subject
to prolonged wetting.
(v) Areas of permanent pools tend to lose infiltration capacity over
time and shall not be accepted as an infiltration practice.
(vi) Stormwater runoff must be pretreated to remove solids before
discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long term
viability of the infiltration areas.
(vii) Design and placement of infiltration BMPs shall be done in
accordance with the Minnesota Department of Health guidance
called "Evaluating Proposed Stormwater Infiltration Projects in
Vulnerable Wellhead Protection Areas." (Final version to
govern. )
(viii) Specific site conditions may make infiltration difficult,
undesirable, or impossible. Some of these conditions are listed
in Table 2 and may qualify the applicant for Alternative
Compliance Sequencing. The applicant may also submit a
request to the District for Alternative Compliance Sequencing for
site conditions not listed below. All requests shall indicate the
specific site conditions present and a grading plan, utility plan,
and the submittal requirement listed in the table below.
RWMWD Rule
02/04/2009
14
Table 2. Alternative Compliance Site Conditions*
Type Specific Site Conditions Submittal Requirements
Potential Stormwater Hotspots PSH locations and flow paths
Potential Contamination (PSHs)
Contaminated Soils State Pennitted Brownfield
Documentation, Soil Borings
Low Permeability (Tvpe D Soils) Soil Borings
Bedrock within 3 vertical feet of Soil Borings
bottom of infiltration area
Physical Limitations Seasonal High Groundwater Soil Borings
within 3 vertical feet of bottom of
infiltration area
Karst Areas Soil Borings
Land Use Limitations I Utility Locations I Site Map
I Adjacent Wells I Well Locations
* Alternative Compliance is allowed for the volume reduction portion of Rule Conly.
(2) Alternative Compliance Sequencing. To the maximum extent
practicable, the volume reduction standard shall be fully met onsite. If
it is not possible because of site conditions listed above, the following
Alternative Compliance Sequencing steps shall be taken in the order
shown:
(i) First, the applicant shall comply or partially comply with the
volume reduction standard to the maximum extent practicable
on-site through alternative volume reduction methods as listed in
the application guidance materials or as approved by the District.
(ii) Second, for the remaining volume reduction required to fully
meet the standard, the applicant shall comply or partially comply
with the volume reduction standard at an offsite location or
through the use of qualified banking credits as determined by
Rule C - 3.c.4.
· Volume reduction may be accomplished at another site
outside of the project area or through the use of banked
credits as long as it yields the same volume reduction
benefit, and is approved by the District. When possible,
offsite compliance and banking credits shall be
achieved in the same drainage area or sub-watershed as
the project site.
(ii) Third, as a last alternative, for the remaining volume reduction
required, the applicant shall pay into the District's Stormwater
Impact Fund to cover the cost of implementing equivalent
volume reduction elsewhere in the watershed. The required
amount to contribute to the Stormwater Impact Fund shall be set
by the Board annually.
RWMWD Rule
02/04/2009
15
· Money contributed to the Stormwater Impact Fund
from a local government unit shall be spent within that
local government unit's jurisdiction to the extent
possible.
· Money contributed to the Stormwater Impact Fund
shall be allocated to volume reduction projects by the
District according to the Stormwater Impact Fund
Implementation Plan as approved by the District Board.
The volume reduction achieved by these projects shall
offset the volume reduction that was not achieved on
the permitted development.
(2) Excess volume reduction may be banked for use on another project.
Excess banked volume reduction amounts shall not exceed the volume
of two inches over the total drainage area to the BMP.
(3) If an applicant determines during the course of planning, design or
construction of a linear project that the required volume reduction
cannot be achieved onsite and the applicant does not posses sufficient
excess volume reduction credits to offset the volume required, the
District may allow the applicant to defer the construction of volume
reduction BMPs to a future identified project that the applicant will
complete within two years of the date of the permit application.
Failure to provide the required volume reduction by that date would
obligate the applicant to pay into the stormwater impact fund at the
rate applicable at the time payment is made into the fund.
(b) Water Quality. Developments shall incorporate effective non-point source
pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solids removal
from the runoff generated by a NURP water quality storm (2.5" rainfall).
Runoff volume reduction BMPs may be considered and included in the
calculations showing compliance with achieving the 90% TSS removal
requirement. Water quality calculations, documentation and/or water quality
modeling shall be submitted to verify compliance with the standard.
(1) Drainage areas that directly discharge to a wetland shall meet the
water quality standard onsite.
(2) For linear projects utilizing offsite locations, banking credits, or the
stormwater impact fund to meet the volume reduction standard:
(i) If any portion of the development falls within a Special Interest
Subwatershed as shown on the map in the application guidance
materials, the development shall meet the water quality standard
onsite. Offsite or banked BMPs located within the same Special
Interest Subwatershed as the development may be considered.
(ii) If the entire development falls outside of a Special Interest
Subwatershed, the water quality standard shall be met onsite to
RWMWD Rule
02/04/2009
16
the maximum extent practicable as determined by the District.
At a minimum, BMPs shall be placed in each drainage area of a
development to remove gross pollutants.
(c) For linear projects, costs specific to satisfying the volume reduction and water
quality standards shall not exceed a cost cap which will be set by the Board
annually. The cap shall apply to costs directly associated with the design,
testing, land acquisition, and construction of the volume reduction and water
quality stormwater BMPs only. Unit costs for construction costs shall be set
by the Board annually and shall be used to determine the cost of the volume
reduction and water quality BMPs. The District may contribute the amount
above the cap in order to meet the volume reduction and water quality
standards or it may allow the applicant to partially comply with the standards
when the cap is met.
(d) Maintenance. All stormwater water management structures and facilities,
including volume reduction BMPs, shall be maintained to assure that the
structures and facilities function as originally designed. The maintenance
responsibilities must be assumed by either the municipality's acceptance of
the required easements dedicated to stormwater management purposes or by
the applicant executing and recording a maintenance agreement acceptable to
the District. The recordable executed agreement must be submitted to the
District prior to issuance of permit. Public developments shall require a
maintenance agreement in the form of a Memorandum of Agreement or an
approved Local Water Management Plan that details the methods, schedule
and responsible parties for maintenance of stormwater management facilities
for permitted development. A single Memorandum of Agreement for each
local government unit may be used to cover all stormwater management
structures and facilities required herein, including volume reduction BMPs,
within the LGU's jurisdiction.
4. EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application.
One set, full size; one set, reduced to 11 "xI7"; and a copy of all submittals in
electronic .pdf format.
(a) Property lines and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant.
(b) Delineation of the drainage areas contributing runoff from off-site, proposed
and existing sub-watersheds onsite, emergency overflows, and drainage ways.
(c) Aerial photo showing the locations of water bodies downstream of site.
(d) Proposed and existing stormwater facilities location, alignment, and elevation.
(e) Delineation of existing onsite wetland, marshes, shoreland, and floodplain
areas.
(f) Identification of existing and proposed normal, ordinary high and 100- year
water elevations onsite.
RWMWD Rule
02/04/2009
17
(g) Identification of existing and proposed site contour elevations with at least a
2- foot contour interval including offsite contours where overflows are
directed.
(h) Construction plans and specifications of all proposed stormwater management
facilities, including design details for outlet control structures.
(i) Stormwater runoff volume and rate analysis for the 2-year, lO-year, and 100-
year critical storm events, existing and proposed.
(j) All hydrologic, water quality and hydraulic computations completed to design
the proposed stormwater management facilities.
(k) Narrative addressing incorporation of stormwater BMPs.
(I) Onsite soil borings indicating soil type for purposes of infiltration area design.
(m)For applications proposing infiltration area(s), information shall include
identification, description (soil group and texture), and field evaluation of soil
permeability in accordance with ASTM 3385 procedure and delineation of site
soils to determine existing and proposed conditions suitable for percolation of
stormwater runoff from impervious areas.
(n) For applications proposing alternative compliance sequencing, the required
exhibits listed in Table 2.
(0) District Volume Reduction Worksheet.
(p) All plan sheets shall be signed by a Minnesota licensed professional
appropriate for the project.
5. EXCEPTIONS.
(a) Rule C and its requirements shall not apply to land disturbing activity or the
development of land that post construction creates 100% pervious surfaces
unless the land disturbing activity or the development of land alters the
drainage boundaries shown in the District's Watershed Management Plan.
(b) Rule C and its requirements shall not apply to development less than I acre in
size for all land uses unless part of a common plan of development or sale that
will ultimately exceed one acre in size.
(c) Rule C and its requirements shall not apply to construction on individual lots
within a residential subdivision approved by the District, provided the activity
complies with the original common plan of development.
(d) Rule C and its requirements shall not apply to bridges.
(e) Rule C and its requirements shall not apply to annually cultivated land used
for farming, research, or horticulture.
RWMWD Rule
02/04/2009
18
AltC''L(. n me I\t lo
VALLEY BRANCH WATERSHED DISTRICT
RULES AND REGULATIONS
January 25, 2007
Table of Contents
FORWARD ......................................................................................................................................... I
Introduction.................................................................................................................... ................. I
Rule-Making Process.... .................... ...................................................... .................... ....... .............. I
Authority.......................................... ...... ..................................................................... ...... .............. I
Need .................. .............................. .................. .......... ............................... ................. .................... 2
Justification .... .... ...... .......... ..... ..... .... ........ ..... ..... ...... ...... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ....... ...... ........ ........ .... ........ 2
Organization.................................................................................................................. .................. 3
GENERAL ..........................................................................................................................................4
Purposes .............................................................................................................................. ............ 4
Policies....... .................... ............... ............................ ..... .................... ............. ............................4
Purpose of Standards ...................................................................................................................4
Application....... .......................................... ............................................ .............. ....................... 5
General Policies ...... .... ..... .... .... .......... ........ .... ...... ...... ...... ...... .... ...... .... ......:. ...... ...... ...... .... ..... ..... .... 5
Key Definitions and Acronyms........................................................................................................ 6
RULE I : ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ............................................................................... 10
Required Submittals and Exhibits.................................................................................................. 10
Permit Application Process............................................................................................................ II
Enforcement and Severability ........................................................................................................ 12
Appellate Procedure and Review .................................................................................................... 12
Amendment Procedure................... ...... ............ ............ ..... .......... ........... ........................... ............ 12
Permit Close-Out................................. ............ ...... ...... ...... ..................... ....... ...... ........ ...... ............ 12
RULE 2: STORMW A TER MANAGEMENT ................................................................................... 13
Policies ......................... .......................................................... ........... ..... ..................... .................. 13
Standards................................................................ ................. ............... ...................... ....... .......... 14
~
RULE J:
& SEDIMENTATION CONTROL.................................................................. 18
Policies................. ................................. ................. ...... ...... ...................... .................... ................. I 8
Standards .... ......... ............................ ...... ........... ...... ...... ............................ ...... ...... ......... ...... .......... 18
RULE 4: WETLAND MANAGEMENT & VEGETATIVE BUFFERS ........................................... 18
Policies............. .................. .............. ...... ...... ...................................... ........................... ................ 18
Standards and Procedures .............................................................................................................. 19
RULES 5, 6, 7, 8: FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ...................................................................... 22
Policies ..... ........................................................... ....................................... ........... ........................ 22
Standards................................. ........................... .................................................... ....................... 23
RULE 9: GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ............................................................................... 25
Policies.............................................. ............ ................... ...... ............................... ........................ 25
Valley Branch Watershed District Rules
of an element of a project (partial completion), the permit holder must provide documented
proof that all components of the completed project are built according to the approved plan,
which may include recording of documents (including but not limited to easements) and as-
built drawings.
A. The as-built drawings must include:
i. the surveyed bottom elevations, water levels, and general topography of all
basins;
11. the size, type, and surveyed invert elevations of all pond outlets;
iii. the surveyed elevations of all pond, street, and other emergency overflows; and
iv. other important features to show that the project was constructed as approved by the
Managers and protects the public health, welfare, and safety.
B. Additionally, the as-built drawings must show:
i. the surveyed minimum floor elevations of constructed structures;
ii. the required minimum floor elevations for all lots and un-built structures; and
iii. the locations and elevations of septic systems, if they have been constructed.
All surveys must be certified by a registered land surveyor. The Managers will not release
the permit holder's remaining fee and performance bond or other security until all of
information is submitted, all temporary erosion prevention and sediment controls (such as silt
fence) are removed, and stormwater ponds and pipes are free of sediment. No activity will be
certified as complete ifthere are any unpaid fees or other outstanding permit violations.
RULE 2: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Policies
I. To carry out the responsibility of managing the VBWD's water resources and to implement the
goals and policies of the VBWD's Watershed Management Plan, the Managers must be
informed of all water and wastewater discharges within the VBWD. This includes stormwater
runoff, municipal and industrial wastewater discharges, lake augmentation, and any discharge that
requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program (NPDES) permit.
2. All discharges and related improvements must conform to the applicable requirements of State
and Federal agencies including, but not limited to, Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410, MPCA
storm water permit requirements, and DNR permit requirements.
3. All stormwater discharges must be in general conformance with the VBWD's Watershed
Management Plan and local watershed management plans.
4. All discharges and related improvements shall not unreasonably raise water levels or degrade the
water quality of the waters of the VBWD.
5. Rate Control: Stormwater and snowmelt runoff rates will be managed so that future peak
rates of runoff crossing community boundaries and/or leaving a development are below or
equal to existing rates.
6. Volume Control: Stormwater volume will be controlled so that surface water and
groundwater quantity and quality are protected.
Valley Branch Watershed District Rules
13
7. Water Quality:
A. All stormwater runoff will be treated at the time of development.
B. Developers are encouraged to try new and innovative stormwater management
techniques.
C. The VBWD will work with local government units to adopt/revise ordinances to
allow for runoff pollution prevention methods (e.g., narrower streets, smaller parking
lots).
D. Projects and development plans will be reviewed to evaluate compliance with VBWD
standards.
E. Other public agencies will be required to conform to VBWD stormwater quality
requirements.
F. Local watershed management plans will be reviewed for compliance with the VBWD
Watershed Management Plan.
8. Submittals will be required for VBWD-permitted projects that must show how the project
will meet VBWD requirements for stormwater quality treatment, storm water rate and volume
management, and erosion control.
Standards
1. Any permitted activity shall meet the management policies, standards, and criteria set forth in
the VBWD Watershed Management Plan.
2. The permit applicant must comply with the requirements of the NPDES Construction
Stormwater Permit. For trout streams (projects within the Lake Edith and Valley Creek
watersheds), these requirements include temperature control measures ranging from
minimizing impervious surfaces (most preferred) to special pond designs.
3. The permit applicant shall complete analyses of storm water runoff volumes and rates, and
flood levels for existing and proposed conditions. Analyses must include the 2-year, 10-year,
and 100-year 24-hour storms with Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Type II time distribution;
the 100-year 10-day snowmelt event; and the VBWD simplified method for landlocked
basins (or an approved alternative). Section 4.5 of the VBWD Plan and Rule 7 provides more
information about the VBWD simplified method and floodplain management requirements
for permit review in general.
4. The following computer programs will be accepted: HydroCAD, XP-SWMM, and TR-20.
Other programs may be accepted, but the permit applicant must inquire prior to submitting
the computations. Reservoir routing procedures and critical duration runoff events shall be
used for design of detention basins and outlets.
5. The peak rate of stormwater runoff from the developed site shall not exceed the existing peak
rate of runoff for all critical duration events, up to and including the 1 OO-year return
frequency storm event for all points where discharges leave a site during all phases of
development. Design criteria shall be the 2-, 10-, and 100-year 24-hour storms with SCS
Type II time distribution and the 100-year 10-day snowmelt event. The runoff curve number
for existing agriculture areas shall be less than or equal to the developed condition curve
number. If storm sewer systems are designed for an event less than a 100-year event, the
plans and computer modeling analyses must include secondary overflows for events
exceeding the storm sewer systems level-of-service up through the critical 100-year event.
Valley Branch Watershed District Rules
14
6. The stormwater runoff volume must be controlled. The permit applicant must complete the
VBWD's stormwater volume checklist (see Appendix A). Sites within the Valley Creek and
Lake Edith Watersheds ultimately drain to a trout stream, and must comply with the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Construction General Permit standards. The
VBWD design standards for controlling storm water runoff volumes are the following:
Sites Outside of Valley Creek and Lake Sites Within the Valley Creek or Lake
Edith Watersheds Edith Watersheds
The greater of: All of the below:
a. For the 1-inch 24-hour design storm a. For the 1-year (2.2-inch) and 2-year
event, the stormwater runoff volume from (2.g-inch) 24-hour design events, the
the developed site shall not exceed the stormwater runoff volume from the
existing runoff volume at all points where developed site shall not exceed the
discharges leave a site. existing runoff volume at all points where
discharges leave a site, and
b. Runoff equal to one half inch from the b. Infiltration systems shall be sufficient to
new impervious surfaces created from infiltrate a water quality volume of one
the project must be infiltrated. inch of runoff from the new impervious
surfaces created by the project.
Infiltration facilities must drain down within 48 hours, as required by the MPCA
Construction Storm water Permit. The period of inundation is defined by the VBWD as the
time the high water level in the facility is above 0.2 feet from the bottom of the facility.
Infiltration facilities should be located in permeable soils and a minimum 3-foot distance is
required from the bottom of the practice to the seasonally high water table, bedrock or other
impeding layer per the MPCA Construction Stormwater Permit.
Infiltration facilities must conform to the minimum setbacks required by the Minnesota
Department of Health, as summarized below:
Minimum
Setback From Distance (feet)
Property Line 10
Building Foundation (with slopes 10
directed away from building)
Private Well and Public Water Well 50
Septic System Tank/Leach Field 35
For an infiltration facility with a tributary area of two acres and less, and with less than 0.7
acres of impervious surfaces, at least 50% of the in-flow volume from impervious surfaces
must be pre-treated prior to entering the feature. Pre-treatment can consist of vegetative
swales, filter strips, sediment forebays/traps, grit chambers or other measures.
For an infiltration facility with a tributary area of greater than two acres or 0.7 acres or more
of impervious surfaces, 100% of the in-flow volume from impervious surfaces must be pre-
treated prior to entering the feature. Pre-treatment for these facilities must be designed to
remove at least 25% ofthe inflow sediment loads.
Valley Branch Watershed District Rules
15
For proposed infiltration facilities with drainage areas of two acres or more or with 0.7 acres
or more of impervions surfaces, a soil boring will be required. The soil boring will be
required to go to a depth of at least five feet below the proposed bottom of the infiltration
facility. If fractured bedrock is suspected, the soil boring should go to a depth of at least ten
feet below the proposed bottom of the infiltration facility. The soils will be classified using
the Unified Soil Classification system. The least permeable soils horizon will dictate the
infiltration rate.
The permit applicants are encouraged to make detailed analyses and accurately determine the
infiltration rates of the proposed infiltration facility. However, in the absence ofa detailed
analysis, the VBWD Engineer's recommendations and requirements shall be based upon the
following rates:
Proposed Infiltration Facility with Proposed Infiltration Facility with
Drainage Area Less than 2 Acres Drainage Area 2 Acres or More
And Or
Less than 0.7 Acres of Impervious 0.7 Acres or More of Impervious
Surfaces Surfaces
Hydrologic Soil Infiltration Rate Unified Soil Infiltration Rate
Group Based on (inches/hour) Classification (inches/hour)
Soil Survey
A 0.8 GW, GP, SW 1.6
B 0.3 SP 0.8
C 0.2 GMd', SMd' 0.5
D Infiltration not All Others Infiltration not
feasible. See feasible or unlikely
Footnote 1. to be successful
without soil
corrections. See
Footnote 1.
The permit applicant needs to make soil corrections and/or investigate other iocations on the
site for feasible Infiltration locations. If the applicant claims that infiltration Is not feasible on-
site, the applicant must provide supporting documentation to the VBWD. If the VBWD agrees
that infiltration is not feasible, the applicant shall design alternative stormwater runoff
treatment method, which includes, but is not limited to, off-site infiltration and on-site wet
detention. For sites outside of the Valley Creek and Lake Edith watersheds, see Standard 7.
, GM and SM soils should be grouped by subdivisions of d and u. Subdivision is on the basis
of the Atterberg limits: suffix d (e.g. GMd) is used when the liquid limit is 25 or less and the
plasticity index is 5 or less; the suffix u is used otherwise.
An infiltration facility must be designed so that volumes in excess of the design volume are
safely conveyed into the downstream stormwater system.
To prevent soil compaction, the proposed infiltration facility must be staked off and marked
during construction to prevent heavy equipment and traffic from traveling over it. If
infiltration facilities are in-place during construction activities, sediment and runoff must be
kept away the facility, using practices such as diversion berms and vegetating around the
facility's perimeter. Infiltration facilities must not be excavated to final grade until the
contributing drainage area has been constructed and fully stabilized. The final phase of
excavation should remove all accumulated sediment and be done by light tracked equipment
to avoid compaction of the basin floor. To provide a well-aerated, highly porous surface, the
soils of the basin floor should be loosened to a depth of at least 24 inches to a maximum
Valley Branch Watershed District Rules
16
compaction of 85% standard proctor density prior to planting. The upper 10 inches of soil
should also be tilled prior to planting.
7. For sites outside of the Valley Creek and Lake Edith Watersheds, where infiltration facilities
are not feasible, the following water quality treatment design criteria are required:
A. A permanent pool volume ("dead storage") below the principal spillway (normal outlet)
shall be provided that is greater than or equal to the runoff from a 2.5-inch 24-hour storm
over the entire contributing drainage area. assuming full development.
B. A permanent pool average depth (basin volume/basin area) shall be ~ 4 feet, with a
maximum depth of:;:: 10 feet.
C. An emergency spillway (emergency outlet) that is adequate to safely pass the 100-year
frequency, critical-duration rainfall or runoff event.
D. Basin side slopes above the normal water level should be no steeper than three feet
horizontal to one foot vertical (3H: 1 V), and preferably flatter. A basin shelf with a
minimum width of I 0 feet and 1 foot deep below the normal water level is needed to
enhance wildlife habitat, reduce potential safety hazards, and improve access for long-
term maintenance.
E. To prevent short-circuiting, the distance between the major inlets and normal outlet shall
be maximized.
F. Effective energy dissipation devices shall be provided that reduce outlet velocities to
4 feet per second (fps) or less. These devices shall consist of stilling basins or other such
measures to prevent erosion at all stormwater outfalls into the basin and at the detention
basin outlet.
G. Trash and floatable debris skimming devices shall be placed on the outlet of all on-site
detention basins to provide treatment up to the critical duration 5-year storm event. These
devices can consist of baffled weirs, submerged outlets or other such measures.
Velocities through baffled weir devices shall be less than 0.5 fps.
H. All inlets to detention basins, wetlands, etc., shall be placed at or below the normal water
level.
8. The determination of whether a design will result in an erosion problem shall be based on
generally accepted engineering design manuals or practices.
9. Best Management Practices shall meet the standards established in the VBWD Watershed
Management Plan for runoff water quality management and erosion control plans.
10. A maintenance agreement in the general format of Appendix B as revised and updated by the
VBWD (attorney) is required prior to issuance ofa VBWD permit.
11. Land used for storm water management facilities shall be preserved by dedication and/or
perpetual easement to the Valley Branch Watershed District. These easements shall cover
those portions of the property which are adjacent to the facility and which lie below the 100-
year flood elevation. Adequate access must be provided to all stormwater management
facilities for inspection, maintenance, and landscaping upkeep, including appropriateQequipment and vehicles. .
Valley Branch Watershed District Rules
17
A1titch tf\elvt 7
Capitol Region Watershed District Rules
Adopted 09/06/2006
Effective 10/01/2006
Revised 01/07/2009
Table of Contents
Certification of Rules
2
General Policy Statement
2
Relationship to Municipalities
3
Rule A. Definitions
4
Rule B. Pennit Procedural Requirements
-\ r Rule C. Stormwater Management
Rule D. Flood Control
10
13
(
20
Rule E. Wetland Management
23
Rule F. Erosion and Sediment Control
26
Rule G. Illicit Discharge and Connection
28
Rule H. Enforcement
34
Rule I. Variances
34
RuleJ. Severability
35
CRWD RULES
01/07/2009
1
District, shall pay, in addition to such fines, court costs or other amonnts as may
be payable by law as a result of such violation, a field inspection fee equal to the
actual cost of the District for field inspections, monitoring and investigation of
such activity, including services of engineering, legal and other consultants. The
field inspection fee shall be payable within 10 calendar days after issuance of a
statement by the District. No permit shall be issued for the activity if there are
any unpaid field inspection fees or other outstanding violations of these Rules.
14. PERFORMANCE SURETY. To assure compliance with these Rules, the Board
may require the posting of a performance surety where it is shown to be
reasonable and necessary under the particular circumstances of any permit
application filed with the District. A performance surety will be not be required of
the federal government, the State of Minnesota, or a political subdivision of the
State of Minnesota.
15. OTHER PERMITS AND APPROVALS. The applicant shall promptly
provide the District with copies of all environmental permits and approvals
required by other goverrnnental entities, upon request.
Rule C:
STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
( a) Reduce runoff rates to levels that allow for stable conveyance of flow
throughout the water resources of the District.
(b) Require rate control practices on development to preserve runoff rates at a
level that will not cause the degradation of water resources.
(c) Limit runoff volumes by utilizing site designs that limit impervious surfaces
or incorporate volume control practices such as infiltration.
(d) Minimize connectivity of impervious surfaces to the stormwater system.
(e) Require the use of effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs in
development projects.
(f) Protect and maintain downstream drainage systems to provide permanent and
safe conveyance of stormwater. Reduce the frequency and/or duration of
potential downstream flooding.
(g) Reduce the total volume of stormwater runoff to protect surface water quality
and provide recharge to gronndwater.
CRWD RULES
01/07/2009
13
(h) Remove sediment, pollutants, and nutrients from stormwater to protect surface
water quality.
2. REGULATION. No person or political subdivision shall commence a land
disturbing activity or the development of land one acre or greater, unless
specifically exempted by Paragraph 5 below, without first obtaining a permit
from the District that incorporates and approves a stormwater management plan
for the activity or development.
3. CRITERIA. Stormwater management plans must comply with the following
criteria:
(a) HYDROGRAPH METHOD -- A hydrograph method based on sound
hydrologic theory shall be used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of
flows and water levels.
(b) RUNOFF RATE -- Runoff rates for the proposed activity shall not exceed
existing runoff rates for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year critical storm
events, and runoff rates may be restricted to less than the existing rates when
the capacity of downstream conveyance systems is limited.
(c) RUNOFF VOLUME -- Stormwater runoff volume retention shall be achieved
onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from one inch rainfall
over the impervious surfaces of the development. The required stormwater
runoff volume reduction shall be calculated as follows:
Required Volume (fe) = Impervious surfaces (fe) x 1.0 (in) x 0.9 coefficient x
1/12 (ft/in)
(1) When using infiltration for volume reduction, the following
requirements must be met:
(i) Infiltration volumes and facility sizes shall be calculated using
the appropriate hydrological soil group classification and design
infiltration rate from Table I. Select the design infiltration rate
from Table 1 based on the least permeable soil horizon within the
first five feet below the bottom elevation of the proposed
infiltration BMP.
(ii) The applicant may complete double-ring infiltrometer test to the
requirements of ASTM D3385 or other District approved
infiltration test measurements at the proposed bottom elevation
of the infiltration BMP. The measured infiltration rate shall be
divided by the appropriate correction factor selected from the
Minnesota Stormwater Manual. This test must be completed by
a licensed soil scientist or engineer.
CRWD RULES
o I/07/2009
14
TABLE I--Design Infiltration Rates
Soil Group Soil Textures ASTM Unified Soil Rate
Class Symbols
A Gravel, sand, sandy gravel, silty GW,GP 1.63 in/hr
gravel, loamy sand, sandy loam GM, SW, SP 0.80 in/hr
B Loam, silt loam SM 0.60 inlhr
ML,OL 0.30 inIhr
C Sandy clay loam GC,SC 0.20 in/hr
D Clay, clay loam, silty clay loam, CL, CH, OH, MH 0.00 inIhr
sandy clay, silty clay Source: Minnesota Stormwater Manual, November 2005.
(iii) The infiltration area shall be capable of inflltrating the required
volume within 48 hours for surface and subsurface BMPs.
(iv) Infiltration areas shall be limited to the horizontal areas subject
to prolonged wetting.
(v) Areas of permanent pools tend to lose infiltration capacity over
time and will not be accepted as an infiltration practice.
(vi) Stormwater runoff must be pretreated to remove solids before
discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long term
viability of the infiltration areas.
(vii) Design and placement of infiltration BMPs shall be done in
accordance with the Minnesota Department of Health guidance
called "Evaluating Proposed Stormwater Infiltration Projects in
Vulnerable Wellhead Protection Areas." (Final version to
govern)
(viii) Specific site conditions may make infiltration difficult,
undesirable, or impossible. Some of these conditions are listed
in Table 2 and may qualify the applicant for Alternative
Compliance Sequencing. The applicant may also submit a
request to the District for Alternative Compliance Sequencing for
site conditions not listed below. All requests shall indicate the
specific site conditions present and a grading plan, utility plan,
and the submittal requirement listed in Table 2.
CRWD RULES
01/07/2009
15
TABLE 2--Alternative Compliance Site Conditions*
Type Specific Site Conditions Submittal Requirements
Potential Stormwater Hotspots PSH locations and flow paths
Potential Contamination (PSHs)
Contaminated Soils State Permitted Brownfield
Documentation, Soil Borings
Low Permeability (Tvoe D Soils) Soil Borings
Bedrock within 3 vertical feet of Soil Borings
bottom of infiltration area
Physical Limitations Seasonal High Groundwater Soil Borings
within 3 vertical feet of bottom of
infiltration area
Karst Areas Soil Borings
Land Use Limitations I Utility Locations I Site Map
I Adjacent Wells I Well Locations
* Alternative Compliance is allowed for the volume rednction portion of Rule Conly.
(2) Alternative Compliance Sequencing. To the maximum extent
practicable, the volume reduction standard shall be fully met onsite. If
it is not possible because of site conditions listed above, the following
Alternative Compliance Sequencing steps shall be taken in the order
shown:
(i) First, the applicant shall comply or partially comply with the
volume reduction standard to the maximum extent practicable
on-site through alternative volume reduction methods as listed in
the application guidance materials or as approved by the District.
(ii) Second, for the remaining volume reduction required to fully
meet the standard, the applicant shall comply or partially comply
with the volume reduction standard at an offsite location or
through the use of qualified banking credits as determined by
Rule C - 3.c.4.
. Volume reduction may be accomplished at another site
outside of the project area or through the use of banked
creclits as long as it yields the same volume reduction
benefit, and is approved by the District. When possible,
offsite compliance and banking credits shall be
achieved in the same drainage area as the project site in
the same sub-watershed as the project site.
(iii) Third, as a last alternative, for the remaining volume reduction
required, the applicant shall pay into the District's Stormwater
Impact Fund to cover the cost of implementing equivalent
CRWD RULES
01/07/2009
16
volume reduction elsewhere in the watershed. The required
amount to contribute to the Stormwater Impact Fund will be set
by the Board annually.
. Money contributed to the Stormwater Impact Fund
from a local government unit shall be spent within that
local government unit's jurisdiction to the extent
possible.
. Money contributed to the Stormwater Impact Fund
shall be allocated to volume reduction projects by the
District according to the Stormwater Impact Fund
Implementation Plan as approved by the District Board.
The volume reduction achieved by these projects will
offset the volume reduction that was not achieved on
the permitted development.
(3) Excess volume reduction may be banked for use on another project.
Excess banked volume reduction amounts shall not exceed the volume
of two inches over the total drainage area to the BMP.
(4) If an applicant determines during the course of planning, design or
construction of a linear project that the required volume reduction
cannot be achieved onsite and the applicant does not posses sufficient
excess volume reduction credits to offset the volume required, the
District may allow the applicant to defer the construction of volume
reduction BMPs to a future identified project that the applicant will
complete within two years of the date of the permit application.
Failure to provide the required volume reduction by that date would
obligate the applicant to pay into the stormwater impact fund at the
rate applicable at the time payment is made into the fund.
(d) WATER QUALITY -- Developments shall incorporate effective non-point
source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solids
removal from the runoff generated by a NURP water quality storm (2.5"
rainfall). Runoff volume reduction BMPs may be considered and included in
the calculations showing compliance with achieving the 90% TSS removal
requirement. Water quality calculations, documentation and/or water quality
modeling shall be submitted to verify compliance with the standard.
(I) For linear projects utilizing offsite locations, banking credits, or the
stormwater impact fund to meet the volume reduction standard;
(i) If any portion of the development falls within a Special Interest
Subwatershed as shown on the map in the application guidance
material, the development shall meet the water quality standard
CRWD RULES
01/07/2009
17
onsite. Offsite or banked BMPs located within the same Special
Interest Subwatershed as the development may be considered.
(ii) If the entire development falls outside of a Special Interest
Subwatershed, the water quality standard shall be met onsite to
the maximum extent practicable as determined by the District.
At a minimum, BMPs shall be placed in each drainage area of a
development to remove gross pollutants.
(e) For linear projects, costs specific to satisfying the volume reduction and water
quality standards shall not exceed a cost cap which will be set by the Board
annually. The cap shall apply to costs directly associated with the design,
testing, land acquisition, and construction of the volume reduction and water
quality stormwater BMPs only. Unit costs for construction shall be set by the
Board annually and shall be used to determine the cost of the volume
reduction and water quality BMPs. The District may contribute the amount
above the cap in order to meet the volume reduction and water quality
standards or it may allow the applicant to partially comply with the standards
when the cap is met.
(:I) MAINTENANCE -- All stormwater water management structures and
facilities, including volume reduction BMPs, shall be maintained to assure
that the structures and facilities function as originally designed. The
maintenance responsibilities must be assumed by either the municipality's
acceptance of the required easements dedicated to stormwater management
purposes or by the applicant executing and recording a maintenance
agreement acceptable to the District. The recordable executed agreement must
be submitted to the District prior to issuance of permit. Public developments
will require a maintenance agreement in the form of a Memorandum of
Agreement or an approved Local Water Management Plan that details the
methods, schedule and responsible parties for maintenance of stormwater
management facilities for permitted development. A single Memorandum of
Agreement for each local government unit may be used to cover all
stormwater management structures and facilities required herein, including
volume reduction BMPs, within the LGU's jurisdiction.
4. EXIDBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application.
One set, full size; one set, reduced to 11 "xl 7"; and a copy of all submittals in
electronic .pdfformat.
(a) Property lines and delineation oflands under ownership ofthe applicant.
(b) Delineation of the drainage areas contributing runoff from off-site, proposed
and existing sub-watersheds onsite, emergency overflows, and drainage ways./
CRWD RULES
01/07/2009
18
(c) Aerial photo showing the locations of water bodies downstream of site.
(d) Proposed and existing stormwater facilities location, alignment, and elevation.
(e) Delineation of existing onsite wetland, marshes, shoreland, and floodplain
areas.
(f) Identification of existing and proposed normal, ordinary high and 100-year
water elevations onsite.
(g) Identification of existing and proposed site contour elevations with at least a
2- foot contour interval including offsite contours where overflows are
directed.
(h) Construction plans and specifications of all proposed stormwater management
facilities, including design details for outlet control structures.
(i) Stormwater runoff volume and rate analysis for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-
year critical storm events, existing and proposed.
G) All hydrologic, water quality and hydraulic computations completed to design
the proposed stormwater management facilities.
(k) Narrative addressing incorporation of stormwater BMPs.
(I) Onsite soil borings indicating soil type for purposes of infiltration design.
(m) For applications proposing infiltration area(s), information shall include
identification, description (soil group and texture), and field evaluation of soil
permeability in accordance with ASTM 3385 procedure and delineation of site
soils to determine existing and proposed conditions suitable for percolation of
stormwater runoff from impervious areas.
(n) For applications proposing alternative compliance sequencing, the required
exhibits listed in Table 2.
(0) District Volume Reduction Worksheet.
(P) All plan sheets shall be signed by a Minnesota licensed professional
appropriate for the project.
5. EXCEPTIONS.
(a) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to development less than 1 acre in
size for all land uses unless the development:
(i) Is part of a common plan of development or sale that will ultimately
exceed one acre in size.
CRWD RULES
o I/07/2009
19
(ii) Is greater than 10,000 square feet and is adjacent to a public water
wetland, public water or wetland.
(b) Rule C and its requirements shall not apply to land disturbing activity or the
development of land that post construction creates 100% pervious surfaces
unless the land disturbing activity or the development of land alters the
drainage boundaries shown in the District's Watershed Management Plan.
(c) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to construction on individual lots
within a residential subdivision approved by the District, provided the activity
complies with the original common plan of development.
(d) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to bridges.
(e) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to annually cultivated land used for
farming, research, or horticulture.
Rule D:
FLOOD CONTROL
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
(a) Encourage water quantity controls to ensure no net increase in the impacts or
potential for flooding on or off the site and encourage, where practical,
controls to address existing flooding problems.
(b) Discourage floodplain filling for new non-river dependent developments.
(c) Only allow floodplain development in a manner that is compatible with the
dynamic nature of floodplains.
2. REGULATION. No person or political subdivision shall alter or fill land below
the 100-year flood elevation of any water body, public water, or public water
wetland without first obtaining a permit from the District.
3. CRITERIA.
(a) Placement offill within the 100-year floodplain is prohibited unless
compensatory storage is provided. Compensatory storage must be provided
on the development or immediately adjacent to the development within the
affected floodplain.
(I) Compensatory storage shall result in the creation of floodplain storage
to fully offset the loss of floodplain storage. Compensatory storage
shall be created prior to or concurrently to the permitted floodplain
filling.
CRWD RULES
01/07/2009
20
Agenda Item 8;CL'~)
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner and the Greenway
Subcommittee
Greenways Subcommittee Report
August 13, 2009 for the August 17 ENR Meeting
The Greenways Subcommittee met on August 11, 2009. The subcommittee brainstormed
possible incentives the city could offer for encouraging conservation development within a
greenway overlay district. Conservation development within one of the city's four greenways
could include portions or all of a property being placed in a conservation easement or low
impact development which includes conservation principles. Following are the incentives
proposed:
Commercial
1. Allow property owners to vary from strict codes.
2. Reduced or eliminated fees (planning, building, park fees).
3. Reduced taxes.
4. Tax increment financing.
5. Cost share programs.
6. Stewardship programs.
Residential
1. Density bonuses.
2. Allow property owner to vary from strict codes.
3. Reduced or eliminated fees (planning, building, park fees).
4. Reduced taxes.
5. Tax increment financing.
5. Purchase and transfer of development rights.
6. Cost share programs.
7. Stewardship programs.
The Greenway Subcommittee requests a review and feedback of these incentives by the
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission. The subcommittee's next meeting will
include a discussion on possible funding mechanisms for these incentives.
Agenda Item 9.b.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Calendar
August 12, 2009 for the August 17 ENR Meeting
BACKGROUND
During the July Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission meeting
Commissioner Musgrave requested a schedule of items that the ENR will be reviewing during
each month of the year. The ENR Commission deals with a wide variety of environmental
issues, most of the items come up without warning and the city and commission must review
and respond accordingly.
During the 2009 Goal Setting Meeting, which was held in November 2008, the commission did
list the review items that would need to be addressed throughout the year. Refer to the
attached Goal Setting Meeting minutes (Attachment 1) and the following list of items:
a. Eureka Year End Report and New Year Work Report (January)
b. Annual Report (February)
c. Silver Lake Herbicide Treatment (March)
d. Clean Up Days (Spring and Fall)
e. Arbor Day (April)
f. Water Fest (May)
g. Community Development Tour (July)
h. Taste of Maplewood (August)
i. Buckthorn Removal (Fall)
j. Tree City USA (Fall)
k. Environmental Ordinance (To Be Complete 2009)
I. South Maplewood (To Be Complete 2009)
m. Revisit Rules and Procedures (Once City Council Procedures Manual Complete)
RECOMMENDATION
Review the above-mentioned 2009 review items to determine if the commission has completed
or still needs to complete the items, and be prepared to discuss any additional scheduling or
calendar arrangements needed for the commission in the future.
Attachment: November 18, 2008, ENR Minutes (Partial)
Attachment 1
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES
GOALS MEETING
(Partial Minutes) Tuesday, November 18, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present
Commissioner Ginny Yingling
Commissioner Carol Mason Sherrill
Commissioner Judith Johannessen
Commissioner Carole Lynne
Commissioner Dale Trippler
Commissioner Bill Schreiner
Absent
Commissioner Federica Musgrave
Staff
Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Naturalist
Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
Ann Hutchinson, Lead Naturalist
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Visitor
Ron Cockriel
4. GOAL SETTING
Environmental priorities
a. Environmental ordinance review
b. New environmental ordinances
c. Promote environmental awareness
d. Promote environmental assets
e. Utilize assistance from other groups
f. Sponsor environmental projects
g. Environmental education
h. Develop/promote sustainable practice
1
Work to complete
a. Silver Lake (March)
b. Annual report (February)
c. Eureka (January report/contract is up 2010)
d. Arbor Day (April)
e. Buckthorn Removal (fall)
f. Clean up days (spring & fall)
g. Environmental ordinance
h. Tree City USA
i. Revisit rules & procedures
j. South Maplewood
Goal Brainstorming
a. Greenways/overlay ordinance
b. Waste reduction issue
c. Educate on danger of plastic bags and bottles
d. Increase awareness of litter
e. Composting
f. Waste Hauling
g. Review Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
h. Wind/Solar Energy Collectors
i. Storm water management
j. Winter salt use
k. Parking lot/street design
I. Mass transit
m. Community garden
n. Noise & light pollution
Top Three 2009 Goals, Committee Members, and Timelines
a. Greenways - Carol Mason Sherrill, Judith Johannessen
May - Field Trip
June 2009 - Ordinance Review
July 2009 - Outreach
b. Waste Hauling - Dale Trippler, Carole Lynne
c. Storm Water - Ginny Yingling, Bill Schreiner
Chair Yingling and Commissioner Johannesseen will also be reviewing
environmental neighborhood groups.
2