HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-2010 Planning Commission Packet PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE e � /L�
i
❑ COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION
OTHER
Please complete the following information for City records.
PRESENT FOR(from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
V:1(LEGAL FORMS)\(FORMS)\PUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC
I}�'
AGENDA
City of Orono Planning Commission Meeting Set for Monday, October 18, 2010; 6:30 PM
Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
952-249-4600 /www.ci.orono.mn.us
Council Representative: Jim Murphy
Audience Members:
Please sign in for the public record if you wish to address the Planning Commission. The sign in sheet is in the
lobby. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet— located in the lobby near
the sign in sheet.
Items on the Consent Agenda, including (*) asterisk items, are reviewed in total by the Planning Commission and
may be approved through one motion with no further discussion by the Planning Commission. Any items may be
removed by any Planning Commission Member, staff member or person from the public for separate
consideration. If you wish to remove any item from the Consent Agenda, please state the item number and
description of the item.
Applicants will be asked to move to the podium to answer questions after staff presents the application.
The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda,
they will be scheduled for an upcoming City Council meeting.
Consent Agenda
* 1. Approval of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 20, 2010.
New Business
2. Storm Water Management Plan (Staff: Mike Gaffron)
Planning Commission Comments
3. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending City Council meetings on
September 27, 2010 and October 11, 2010.
4. Other issues for discussion.
5. Selection of representatives to attend City Council meetings on October 25, 2010 and
November 8, 2010.
ADJOURNMENT
1
I
Date Application Received: NA
Date Application Considered as Complete: NA
60-Day Review Period Expires: NA
To: Chair Kang and Planning Commissioners
Jessica Loftus, City Administrator
From: Mike Gaffron,Asst. City Administrato
Date: October 14, 2010
Subject: Orono Surface Water Management Plan(SWMP) Update -Public Hearing
Attachments:
A-Draft SWMP (CD version) as submitted to MCWD in June 2010
B -MCWD Comment Letter-August 17, 2010
C -Met Council Comment Letter-June 17, 2010
D -Bonestroo Response to MCWD Comments - September 22, 2010
E -Additional Revisions to Section 9.4 - email exchange- October 5-6, 2010
F - Minutes/Memo/Exh. C from Council Work Session January 13, 2009
G-Memo and Minutes from Council Work Session August 1 l, 2009
H- Table 9.3: 10-Year Phosphorus Reduction Plan
I- Table 9.2: Surface Water Management Plan SWPPP Implementation
J- Map: 10-year CIP Projects
Enclosed for your review is a CD of the draft Surface Water Management Plan that was
submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) for comment and acceptance
prior to adoption by the City CounciL
Background
As required by State law, the City has been updating its 2002 Surface Water Management Plan
to be in conformance with the updated MCWD Comprehensive Water Resources Management
Plan. Council authorized Bonestroo to update the Plan in January 2009. Their work was
substantially completed by Bob Barth in late 2009 prior to his leaving the firm, but submittal to
MCWD was delayed by staff pending work on the Comp Plan. Jesse Carlson of Bonestroo has
taken over for Bob and completed final Plan details earlier this year. The draft plan was
submitted to MCWD and Met Council for comment in June 2010. Comments from those
agencies are in Attachments B and C. Jesse Carlson prepared final materials to address the
MCWD comment letter and subsequent discussion points, and those additions/revisions
(documented in Atta.chments D & E) were submitted to MCWD. The MCWD board is
scheduled to approve the Plan at their meeting on October 14 (on Consent Agenda as of this
writing).
SWMP City Adoption Process
Because the updated SWMP is technically an amendment of the 2002 SWMP, a public hearing at
the Planning Commission is required and has been scheduled for the October 18 PC meeting.
Legal notice for the hearing was published on October 7 and October 14. Plaluung Commission
should hold the public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. Formal
adoption by Council is anticipated to follow on October 25. This schedule is necessary to have
the SWMP in effect by November l, which is a requirement of the BWSR Clean Water Fund
Grant application process for FY-2011. This timing is related to a grant request for the Stubbs
Bay Ra.vine restoration project(CIP-1 as indicated in Exhibits H-I-J).
SWMP Update
October 14,2010
Page 2
SWMP Contents Summary '
The plan is organized as follows:
1. Section 1 offers an introduction to and purpose of the Plan, including a location map of
Orono, an overview of Orono's land use and philosophy of ecologically based planning.
2. Section 2 of this Plan provides an inventory of land and water resources within the City
including a description of the physical setting, available and pertinent water resources data,
and important natural and conservation areas.
3. Section 3 includes a comprehensive documentation of the regulatory agencies influencing
the management of surface water resources in Orona
4. Section 4 provides a current assessment of surface water management in Orono, including
stormwater modeling, NPDES permitting process, comparison of regulatory standazds, and
identification of issues and corrective actions.
5. Section 5 describes in detail Orono's surface drainage system.
6. Section 6 presents Orono's wetland management program and identifies wetland restoration
and enhancement opportunities.
7. Section 7 provides technical background for designing surface water management systems in
Orono.
8. Section 8 lists the goals and policies identified to address surface water management needs in
the City.
9. Section 9 summarizes capital projects currently planned with known funding sources to
implement the goals and policies listed in Section 8, as well as potential activities and
funding mechanisms including the MCWDs modeling program, Orono's MS4 permits, and
an identification of potential issues and corrective actions. The capital improvement program
plan items institute a series of projects over the next 10 years to reduce Orono's phosphorus
discharge.
10. Section 10 outlines the continued administration of this plan with respect to plan updates and
amendments, as well as annual reporting requirements to Minnehaha Creek Watershed
(MCWD).
Items for Discussion
Please particularly read through Chapter 9 of the SWMP, as it contains the implementation
elements of the Plan. In order to meet MCWD requirements for phosphorus removal, a number
of stormwater system improvement projects have been identified and placed in a 10-year CIP
that is fairly ambitious, but necessary given that many of these projects were included in the
2002 SWMP CIP but never were accomplished, due to a variety of factors. Orono's Stormwater
Utility generates approximately $135,000 per year, while the proposed CIP has an annual cost of
$250,000-300,000. Options for making up this deficit may include limited increases to the
stormwater utility rates, partnering with MCWD or others, and a more aggressive approach to
pursuit of grant money.
Additionally, note that while MCWD currently administers the Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA) for Orono, proposed Water Resources Management Policy 8.Sa on page 90 of the
SWMP indicates Orono will within the next 12 months consider the option of assuxning
administration of WCA responsibilities to ensure no net loss of wetland functions and values.
SWMP Update
October 14,2010
Page 3
Perhaps the most difficult issue to address is meeting the numerical phosphorus reduction goals
established for Orono by MCWD. While the draft Phosphorus Reduction Plan (Attachment H)
meets or exceeds the goals for the Long Lake Creek and Painters Creek subwatersheds, meeting
the goals for the Lake Minnetonka Direct subwatershed is more difficult. This is due to most of
that area being developed with relatively small lots and having short direct runoff patterns,
limiting the opportunities for projects that are cost-effective in terms of pounds of phosphorus
reduced per dollar expended. Because both the Long Lake Creek and Painters Creek
subwatersheds ultimately drain to Lake Minnetonka, the Plan proposes that MCWD allow credit
toward Lake Minnetonka Direct for any excess reductions proposed for these two subwatersheds.
The Plan also proposes that Orono will assist in funding of MCWD projects that result in
phosphorus reduction exceeding the goals established for a given project, in exchange for credit
for the excess P reduction amounts, especially within the Painters Creek subwatershed.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission should hold the public hearing, accept any public comments, discuss any
concerns with the Plan, and make a recommendation to the City Council. StafF recommends
approval of the Plan as presented.
A
10/14/10
DRAFf SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN -JUNE 2010
CD - ATfACHED
OR VIEW AT
http://docs.ci.orono.mn.us/PlanningPackets2010/PlanninaLeqalNotices2010/DraftSurfaceWaterManaqementPlanOr
ono/DraftOronoSurfaceWaterManagementPlan060210withMap.pdf
� �
� , /a/y/�
lVl1NNEHAHA CREEK � WATERSHED DISTRICT
QUALiTY OF WATER QUALITY OF L1FE
TO: Milce Gaffron,�ity of Orono
3esse Carlson,Bonesfcoo
FROM: Beaky Houdelc,Minneliaha Creek Waterslied District
DAT�: Au�ust 1'1,2010
SUBJ]ECT: City of Orono Draft Looal Water Management Plan
Thank you for subrnitting tha City of Oro»o Loca11?�ater Management Plan(Plan)to MCWD for ceview.
MCWD has completed a review intended to prov.ide goneral guidance related to ar.eas where the plan may
lack sufficient detail or adequate action to co�nply with State Statuie and Administrfltive Rules as well as
the MCWD Compre�ensive Water Resouroes Maiiageinent Plan(CWRMP).MCWD eucourages tl�e City
to revise the Local WaYer Management Plan and resubmit for MCWD final approval. �
MCWD seeks t�pp�itunities to worlc with local communities on implementation of effarts to maintain and
. improve shared water rosotlrcas,Revierv and appi•ovAl of fl1e Local Water MAnageraent Plan is tlte
. primary opportunity to ensura eonsistency and coordination oftl�ese efforts in the future.Below is a
summary Qf our review of tite City's P1an dated Jnna 2010. ,
COMII�NTS
The Plan doas a�ood job of ideattifying problems and solutions and meeting t�ie reqiiirements for a Loca1
Water Managemeut Plan,with�well thought ont and articulafed Implementation Fla�i.However•,tha Plan
does not meei statu#ory/adminisfrative raleslMCWD��equiroments in the following areas:
Minnesota Stahrte 103B Reg�iire�ne�lts
1. Des�ribe the exrsting and pf'oposecl pltysical envi��onment.arad Ic,��d zrse. Inventary iterns that are not
included in tha draft Pfaii include:
■ A listu�g and/or map of ail pennittad sui�faoe water appropriations in the City;
� A map of all public park and open space in the City and an inventory of al]water-based recreation
locations;
■ Verify that Table 2.3 refle�ts the 20I0 303(d) listed impaired waters;ar�d
■ A discussion aud a map of polhitant soui�ces including but not limited to landfills,dumps,
hazardous�vaste sites,feadlots,starage taulcs.
2. Idesat{f'y spec�c steps to achieve the rntnaral phosphortrs loac�redarctions assigned ro the City in the
MCWD CWIZII�'. The phosphorus i�ed�iction plan as proposed meets the Long Lake Creek and
Painteis Creak reduc�ions,but the Lake Minnetoi�lca Direct falls short of the requu•ed reduction.The
Plan must identify additional projects or practi.ces the City�ould implem�nt to meet the load
reducfion for this subwatershed.
Psge 1 of 3
. , � . i
�i
� � I
�
;
�
. ;
We havo reviewed the proposed capital projects and have the following comments: • '
I
■ Projects CII'-Cl (Offerman Ditch),CIP-CS(Casco Point Swale .CIP-1 (Stubbs Bay Ravine . ;
Stabilization�,and CIl'-7(Long�Lake Ravine Stabilization� �
The Direct Volume method of calculating load redu�tion by st��eam stabilization is.an acceptable ,
method,however,more detail sliould be provided to justify the"volume voided"and"years"
variables.Actttal face area measurements and justif'ication for recession ratos should be pravided.
The calcula�ions in the appendix for the Stubbs.Bay project included only the vagetative • '
stabilization portion of the project;no calculations are shown for the proposed repair of the i
caiastraphic failure portion of the project. �
' ' i
• CII'-11 �Contribution to South Katrina Marsh Project�
Each subwatershed plan in the CWRMP u�cludes load reductions from regulation,LGU assigned �
load reduedon,and District external and internal load projects.The South Katrina Marsh project ;
is part of the District's Jennings Bay external load reductian plan,thus it cannot be used to satisfy '
the LGU load reductions.To do so would"double count"the reduction.(Note:The City has �
propased additional BMPs suf�cient to meet the required reduction for the Painter Ci•eek �
subwatei�hed.} �
. I
■ Ordinance Revisions
The MCWD's Stormwater Management Rule is curt•ently undergoing revision and is scheduled to i
be complated by the end of the year.The City and MCWD will need to coordinate to determune i
how much of a reduotion the Ciiy can be credited with for their proposed ord'uiance. j
. 3. Ideni�Key Conservation�reas(KCA)artd assess adequacy of local policies and controls to �
corrserve their hydrologic rnul ecological values, A figure showing the KCAs should be added to the .
Plan,as well as additional discussion describing more specifically how tha City intends to achieve �
this management goal. �
Minnesota Rulas 8410 Requirements . �
� �
4. Purpose. Staivte requires each plan to contain a section titled"Purpose,"which explains the pntpose �
of water management planning.This information is contAineri in section 1,1 ofthe Plan,which could �
simply be renamed"Purpose"instead of"Background." �
. � 5. Financial corrsiderations, The Plan states that the primary source of funding for the Implementation i
Plan(Il'}activities is the City's stormwater utility.,which currently generates about$135,400 per
� . year.Tt is stated that the utility plus othar£unds such as grants should be sufficient to fund tho IP.
However,the annual cost of IP activities varies$232,400-$331,400,The Pian should include a � �
discussion of how tha City would prioritize aotivities if su�cient funds are not available,or whether ' �
the City would considar raising its utility raees to generate more revenue, i
. b. Amendmentprocedarre. Section 10.3 should note that the City niust complete any amendments to its
Local Plan within two years aftor the adoption of CVPRMP revisions or the naxt CWRMP.
Additionat MCWD CWRMP Rec�uirements • !
� 7. Park and open space integration. Discussion should be added to tit►e Plan describin�how water
resources plaunuig will be incorporated witll parks and opan space planning.
. i
Page 2 of 3 i
i
' I
.. ' .� �
8. Resolving conflicts betr��eerr ciiy code anc�v��uter r�esoarrces req�riren2e�tts. The Plan should discuss
how conflicts between zoning codes,such as setbaoks,and water resources management rec�uirements
wiU be addressed.
4. Revrew of prelinrir�ary plats, The Plan si:ates that the City curreiitly forwards pi�eliminaiy plafs to the
. District for raviaw,but does n�t indicafe whether that is an infoi�na]process or whether, as re9uired, �
the subdivision ordinance requu•es this informational review. . �
If you have qtiiestions or would lika to ineet to discuss�ny of the above comments,pYe�se�eel free to
contact Becky Houdek at: bhoudek�a,minnehahacreek.org or 952-471-0590 ext.229 �
Yege 3 of 3
l__..
���/s1 fr0
�� Metropolitan Council
u
Fnvironmental SerUices
June 17, 2010
Mr. Eric Evenson, Administrator
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
18202 Minnetonka Blvd.
Deepliaven, MN �5391
RE: Orono Surface Water Management Plan (OSWMP)
Referral File No. 207�9-1
Dear Mr. Evenson:
The Metropolitan Council (Council) has completed its review of the OSWMP dated June 2010.
The Council finds the above plaii to be consistent with its ZU30 Wuter Resources Mnnagemeizt
Polic��Plan. The plan provides an excellent framework for the city to successfully inanage its
water resources. In addition, the plan does an excellent joh of integrating the many diverse siorm
water programs and requireinents such as impaired waters, non-degradation, quantifiable water
quality goals and wetland management.
If you have any questions regarding the Council's comments, please contact Jack Frost at 651-
602-1078. After the city adopts its SWMP; a final copy should be forwarded to the Council
along with the date the watershed district approves the plan and the date when the city adopts the
final plan.
Sincerely, �
�
William G. Moore
General Manager
cc: Robert McFarlin, Metropolitan Council District 3
Jesse Carlson, Bonesiroc� Engineering
Keith Buttleman, Assistant General Manager,Environmental Quality Assurance
Jim Uttley, Metropolitan Council Sector Representative
Jack Frost, Metropolitan Council Watershed Coordinator '
www.metrocouncil.org
390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 • (651) 602-1005 • Fax(651) 602-1477 . T'I'Y(651) 291-0904
. An Egual OpportunitJ Emptayer
D
/D/���0
2335 hfighway 36 W
St.Paul,MN 55113
Te1651-636-4600
Fax 651-636-1311
www.bonestroo.com
�Bonestroo
September 22, 2010
Becky Houdek
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
18202 Minnetonka BLVD
Deephaven, MN 55391 .
Re: Orono SWMP
Client Name: City of Orono
Bonestroo Project No.: 139-09034-0 ,
Dear Becky:
Thank you for taking the time to review and provide comments on Orono's Surface Water
Management Plan (SWMP).The comments below are in response to your comments provided in
your review memo. We have annotated the review memo to illustrate what comments we are
responding to and that document is provided as an attachment.
Comment 1a: Figure 2.3 has been updated to include all surface water appropriations identified
within the City of Orono.
Comment ib: Figure 2.5 has been added and includes all public parks and open space and all
water-based recreation locations.
Comment 1c: Table 2.3 reflects the 303d list of impaired waters. A note has been added at the
end of the table to identify the list that is the source of data for this summary table.
Comment id: A map has been added, which identifies all pollutant sources(Appendix H)and a
discussion has been added as Section 4.6 that states the following: The MPCA has an inventory
of all the potential pollutant sources within Minnesota available on their website under. What's In
My Neighborhood; (www.pca.state.mn.us). The potential pollutantsources include feedlots, air
permits, hazardous wastes, investigation and dean up sites, tanks and leaks, solid waste, and
water quality. In the City of Orono the primary issues are investigation and c%an up sites, tanks
and leaks, water quality issues, and hazardous wastes(Appendix H). The City can use this
database to determine if there are any potential areas that may be contaminated prior to
initiating any infiltration projects or if there are any potential pollubnt sources that are causing
water quality problems.
Comment 2: The following discussion has been added to Section 9.4 of the SWMP: Table 9.3
indicates a reduction that meets the overall goal of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's
(MGWD)required removal of 230/bs/yea� The City has taken extensive effort to attempt to
identify projec�s that meet the phosphorus reduction goals in each of the subwatersheds;
however, not all the removals are occurring in the specific subwatershed as reguired in the
MCWD Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan(CWRMP). The Lake Minnetonka basin
Gty of Orono Page 2
SWMP ReNsions Date
is the specific subwatershed that is showing a shortfall and contains the bays of Maxwel% North
Arm, North Lower,Jennings Bay,South Lower,Spring Park,Stubbs, and WestArm.
The subwatersheds for which the Plan indicates excess phosphorus removal are Painters Creek
and Long Lake Creek.All these subwatersheds ultimately tlow into Lake Minnetonka; therefo�e,
the City proposes that this excess from the Painters Creek and Long Lake Creek subwatersheds
count towards meeting the overall required reduction.
This should be viewed as a trading of phosphorus removal reduction requirements between
subwatersheds that all ultimately flow into the same basin, Lake Minnetonka. This will allow the
City of Orono to meet its pollutant reduction requirements in the most cost-e�cient manner as
funding becomes available. Table 9.2 demonstrates the City already faces a budget shorlfall and
will have to rely on other funding sources to meet the phosphorus reduction reguirements;
therefore, being able to rely on this trading strategy is a key e%ment in meefing the reduction
goals.
Comment 2a: The foliowing discussion has been added to Section 9.4: Another method being
used to reduce the phosphorus loading is implementation of ravine stabilization projects. These
ravines have likely been showing minor signs of erosion for hundreds of years;however,
deve%pment of fhe areas without appropriate stormwater controls has led to an increase in
erosion and ultimately the need for ravine restoration/stabilization projects. We are basing our
phosphorous reduction estimate on when erosion began to increase or worsen and is the
justification for the timeframes se%cted. The values provided should also be viewed as a
planning level estimate and a detailed analysis will be provided once fhe projects are completed.
The resuli�will be provided in the annual report to the MCWD.
In addition to this discussion revisions were made to the discussions regarding QP-C1, QP-1,
and CIP-7.The underlined and struck out text represents those revisions.
QP-Ci: The "Offerman Ditch"Ravine Stabilization project(CIP-C1)entailed the repair of
approximately 700'of an eroding swale. The volume voided is based on the cross section
provided in Appendix F. This swale is assumed to have been e�oding since deve%pment occurred
in the 1970's, which altered the drainage patterns and did not provide any on-site storage. The
calculated phosphorus reduction for this activity is presented in Appendix F and totals 26.3/b/yr.
QP-1: The Stubbs Bay ravine stabilization(QP-1)calculation is presented in Appendix F. There
are actually two calcula�ons:one for restoration of a catastrophic failure immediately east of
Tonkawa Road and another for vegetation management(se%ct tree cutting and planting of
grasses and forbs)to the west of Tonkawa Road. The primary failure is 200 feet long, 10 feet in
depth, and IS feet in width. We estimate that the failure has been in the process since this area
deve%ped in the late 1980s and have used 20 years for our phosphorus reduction estimate.�e
`���•� ��`���'���'�`��`The estimated phospho�us load�eduction that can be achieved as a result of
this project is 30.2/b/yr.
CIP-7: The Long Lake ravine stabilization (QP-7)calculation is presented in Appendix F. Here
ravine erosion occurs along the entire 250-foot length with an approximately 8-foot wide by 3-
foot deep failure zone. This area was deve%ped without any stormwater mana4ement controls in
place and it is estimated that the erosion has been occurrin4 for approximately 30 years.-iNe
Gty of Orono Page 3
SWMP ReNsions Date
h�.,� ���;M��-��'°'��'-The estimated phosphorus load reduction that can be achieved as a result of
this proiect is 8/b/vr.
Comment 2b: The following discussion has been added to Section 9.4: In Table 9.3 two projects
are identified for which the City proposes to part-ner with the MGWD to meet the phosphorus
reduction goals. These projects a�e the Katrina Marsh and Long Lake Corridor improvements. The
phosphorus removals we are requesting credit for are only a portion of the removals fihat are
anticipated with these two p�ojects. It is the City's intent to contribute the dollar amount
identi�ed in Table 9.2 and receive the reductions in Table 9.3; therefore not double counting
towards the removal goal.
It is the intent of the City to meet the phosphorus reduction requirements;however, this likely
will not be feasible without partnering with the watershed on one or more projects.If the City is
unable to meef the phosphorus�eduction requi�ements with these two projects rhe City will
commit to working with MCWD on other potential projects to ultimately meet the phosphorus
reduction requirements or identify other projects the City could do.
In addition to this discussion revisions were made to the discussion regarding QP-C1, QP-1, and
QP-7.
CIP-11: Under QP-11, Orono proposes to contribute to a MCWD identified project from the
Painters Creek Subwatershed Plan—the South Katrina Marsh Improvements. The City proposes
to contribute$100,000 to this project in exchange for 50/b/yr phosphorus reduction credit for
the contribution. This shall be viewed as a partial daim towards the anticipated 384/b/vr
phosphorus reduction for this Aroiect. "°^^'^ �^'��^^�'���""`, .�" '� '°"'h'„_°"°""`""'.,"
. �
,
. . .
Comment 2c: The City acknowledges that they will have to work with the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District to determine what level of removal they expect to get once their rules are
complete.The 20% reduction from existing conditions is intended to go beyond MCWD's
proposed anti-degradation requirements.The removals reported in Table 9.3 are planning level
estimates and more accurate information will have to be submitted with each yea�'s annual
report once a development occurs. No changes to the SWMP were made to address this
comment.
Comment 3: A discussion regarding key conservation areas is provided in Section 2.8 as well as
Policy 8.6f.The discussion references the Key Conservation Areas provided on Figure 33 of
MCWD's CINRMP.This Figure has been provided as Appendix I.
� Comment 4: This section has been re-titled as°Purpose".
Comment 5: The following revisions have been made to Section 9.5: The Stormwater Utility
annually generates approximately$135,000; therefore, the City will need to utilize other funding
mechanisms to make up the difference for the estimated$232,000 to$331,000 SWMP
implementation costs. These costs will be made up by reviewing the annual Stormwater Utility
fee and making adjustments to the fee,prioritizing projects, and utilizing the funding sources in
the list be%w. If the City needs to prioritize funding towards speci�c projects it will place highest
Gty of Orono Page 4
SWMP Revislons Date
priority on those projects that give the City the best opportunity to meet the phosphorus
reduction goals required by the MCWD.
Comment 6: A statement has been added to Section 10.3 to say: Plan amendments will be
incorporated by fol%wing the review and adoption steps outlined above and be completed within
iwo years after the MGWD CWRMP revision or the next MCWD CWRMP.
Comment 7: The following discussion was added to Section 2.8 regarding park and open space
integration: The City of Orono has a number of areas designated for park and open space within
its corporate boundaries, owned and control%d by a variety of entities including the City,
Hennepin County, Three Rivers Park District and the State of Minnesota, as well as some areas in
private ownership. The typical uses at these facilities may include recreation, walking,swimming,
and passive uses(Figure 2.5). A number of these parks and open spaces have areas set aside in
conservation easements or are designated to have minimal to limited deve%pment that will result
in preservation of natural areas that will provide both eco%gical and water quality benefits. The
' most recent examples of such pa�ks are the Lurton Park Property and Big Island Nature Park.
Comment 8: Section 4.5, Comparison of Regulatory Standards, and Section 8, Goals and Policies,
describes how the City will resolve conflicts between City Code and Water Resource
Requirements.
Comment 9: Section 3.4 was revised to reference the City Code(82-113(�)that states: the
zoning administration shall contact other government agencies or jurisdictions as may be
appropriate to seek staff assistance, information, and comments.
The City has worked diligently to develop a phosphorus reduction strategy.This strategy is
centered on the development of a post-construction stormwater management ordinance,
incorporating stormwater improvements with �ty projects, restoration of eroding ravines, and
restoring degraded wetlands.
Please contact Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4622 or myself at 651-967-4643 if you have any
questions. We trust these responses will adequately address the comments presented in your
memo dated August 17, 2010.
Sincerely, •
BONESTR00
� � ��
Jesse Carlson, CPESC, CPSWQ
Project Manager
651-967-4643
Attachments: MCWD Annotated Letter
Copy: Mike Gaffron, City of Orono
Tom Kellogg, Bonestroo
Dan Edgerton, Bonestroo
��;,;,�;:.
�9R��f�����A CR��� � V���'�RS&��� ���°�R6c�T
QUALITY OF WATER "':;,^°—`�� Q U A LI T Y O F L I F E
TO: Mike C�afli•on.Cit�• �f(h•ono
.lesse Carlson. E3c>nestroo
P'ROM: E3eckp I�oudek, iViinnehaha C'reel< Vdatershed �istrict
vATC: Aur►ist I i, 2(l i 0
SUBJCCT: Ciry•of Urc�no I�raft Local Vv'ater Management 1'lan
,
�'hank you for submitting the City of Urono Local �'ater Management Plan(Plan)to ViCVJf)for revie�{�.
MC'N�D has c�mplcted a re��ie���intcnded to provide�.encral guidance related to areas�vhere lhe��lan ma�•
lack sufficient detail or adequacc actic�n �c.�comply with Statc Statute and t�dministrativc Rules as well �s
the MCWU Comprehensive Wa[er Resourccs Mar�agemem Plan(CIVRMPj. NiC'Wi�cncoura�es lhc Cit�
to revise lhe l,ocal 1��ater Managei�ient Plan and rrsubmit for f��1CVVD final apprrn�al.
MC'1���D seeks opportunities lu tiuork a-ith lucal ee�utinunities un i�n�lemcntation of effo��ts to mainiain and
imrrove shared water resources, Re�die»•and appro�•a!of'the Lc�cal Water I�9ana�;erricni. Plun iti the
primary opportunity to ensure consistenc�•and coordinati�n of these efforfs in the Puture, F3elow is a
summary nf our review oF the Gin�'s Plan dated June 2010. �
GUMIw7�1�`TS
Tl�e t'lan does a good job oi'idcntifyi�ig E�roblems and solufic>ns and meeting the r•eyuirements for a Loca)
Water Mana�ement Plan, �vith a well thuugh[c�uc and articulated Implememation Plan. Ho�'ever,the Plan
does not meet statuto�y/adminis�rativc cules/MC:1�VD requiremen�s in the(ollo�ingareas:
Minnesota Stat�ite 103B Requirements
l. I�escribe tlie e�:is�i�tg rn�d�n•upvsed p1?y.sical etzrrrunme�u und lu►�d use, fnventor}' items Chat are not
included in the draft {'lan includc:
{a,. Q A listing andlor map of all pe►-mitied surface watcr appropriations in the C'it�;
�b. � A map of all public park and open space in the.Cit}�a��d an inventory�f all water-based recreation
lUCations;
�C„ • Verify thot Tablc 2.3 reilec�s the 2010 303(d)liited impaired ��°aters; and
�a_---� A discussic�n and a map ofpullutant s��ui�ces including but nc�t liiuited lu land(ills,dumps,
hazardous���aste sites,feedlols,storage tanks.
-L_ 2. /cle.ntifj�spec�ijic.cren.c ro uclrieve�he unr�uul phu:�f�hortrs lr�i�J r��dz�c�ir»�.s•cr.�:��in,red ro the C.'iil�ir1 ihe
�19C'ND C'N R111P. The phosphortis reduction plau a� �roposed meeis the Long l.ake Creel< and
Painters Creek reduetions, but the Lake Minnetcmk�i f)irecr fHll�sho�� ofthe required reductiun.The
Wlan must identiij=additional projects or pr�clices thc C:it� could im�lemcnt to meet the load
reductiou for this subw'atershecl.
i�:3�e;,>r.
�We hu�e reviewed the proposed capital projects and have the follow�ing comments:
-1,��. � Praiects CIA-Cl (�Offerman Ditchl, CIP-C�(Casco Point Swale)_CiP-1 (Stubbs Bo��Ravine
Stabilization},and CIP-7 (L,on�,L.akc Ravine Stabili-r_ati�n)
The Direct \�olume method of calculating load reduction by strcam stahilization is an acceptahle
method,however, more detail should be provided to justify�the'`volume voided'�and"years"
variables. Acwal face area measurements and justifiicati�n for recession rates should be provided.
The calculations in the appendix for the Stubbs l3ay pr�ject included only the vegetative
stabilization portion of the project; no calculat.ions are shown Fc�r the pr�posed repair af the
catastrophic failure portion ofthe projeci.
�b_ • C1P-1 I (Contribution lo South Katrina Marsh 4'roject)
Each subwatershed J�lan in the CWRMP includes load reductions from regulation,LGU assigned
load reduction,and nistri�t.e�ternal and internal load prajects. The South Katrina Marsh project
is pari of th'e District's Jennings Bay extemal load reduction plan,thus it cannot be used to satisfy
the LGU load reductions.T'o do so would'`double caunt"the reduction.(Note: The Ciry has
proposed :�dclitional BM7's sufficient to meet the required reduction for the Painter Crcek
sub�vatershed.)
2�_ — • Ordinance Revisions
The MCWD's Stonmvater Managcmeni Rule is currently undergoing revision and is scheduled to
be completed by the end of the year.'l�he City and MCWD will need to coordinate to detennine
how much of a reduction the City can be credited with for their proposed ordinance.
�_— 3. ldent��Key Conseri�ariori Areus(l.'C:A)n��d ase•ess ndeyaracy of loca!polrcres and cont�•ols to
c�ons�rve their hydrulu��ic al�cl ecr�logical values. A figure showing thc KCAs should be added to the
Plan,as well as additional discussion describinb more specifcallv how lhe City intends to achieve
this management goal.
Minnesota Rules 841U Requirements
�-, -- 4. Panposc. Statute requires each plan to contain a section titled '`Purpose,"whieh explains the purpose
of water management planning. This information is contain�d in section I.1 of the Plan,which could
simply be renamed"Yurpose" instead of"Backg�•ound."
$_ 5. Fina�icia/coiasideratiw7s. The Plan states tl�at the primar��sourc�of funding for the Imple►nentation
Plan(II'}activities is the City's stormwater utility, which currently generates about $135,000 per
year. It is stated that the utility plus otlier funds such as grants should be sufficient to Fund the IP.
Ho�vever,the�nnua!cost of IP activities varies�232,400-$331,400.The Plan should include a
discussion of how the Cit��would prioritize acti�-ities if sufficient funds are noe available,or whether
lhe Giry would consider raising its utility rates to generate more revenue.
�_ 6. Amendmen�procedu�•e. Section 10.3 should note thai the Gity must complete airy amendmcnts to its
Local Plan within rivo years after the adoption of CWRMI'revisions or the next CWRMP.
Additional MCWD CWRMP Reauircmcnts
-�.-- 7. Par•k and operr space integratio�l. Discussion should be added to the Plan desci•ibing how water
resources planning will be incorporated with parks and open space planning.
Pagc z ot3
e�, 8. K��.rolri,�g c�r»flict5 hrnecr�rr c•i�}�ruclr c�i1d i+�urc�r re.�•rs�rr�•e.c re�y��rreura�rt�.� The f'lan shc,uld discuss
how contlices ber��•�en zrm�ng codes. such as seihacks, and «�ater resc�urces management requiremerits
�ti�ill be a�ldressed.
�_ 9. R��rieti, ojprelimincn���?lc�t�. I hc Pian sfate5 lhat the C�i�y eurrentl�� (t�r��ard, preiiminar�'pl�.�ts te�the
Uisu•ict for revieu�. hut does n.x inciicate�vhether ciiat i�an inf'��rmsl pr��ce�s��r��hcthcr.as required.
the subdi�-ision nrdi��ance requires this inFormational re�ie«.
11'yc�u I�a�c yucsticros c�r would ►ike i�� mecl tc�diseuss any at�the ah���e comnients, ntcasc fecl fr�c ic�
cont�ct Reckv HoudCk �t: I•�li.,ucl�i,<r���in�i�_(.i.zL�u rrcl� ,�r�nr 95�_a.�i-n;��o e��. ?2y
{'agr 3 oI;i
�.
/Q�N�!a
Mike Gaffron
From: Mike Gaffron
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 2:12 PM
To: 'Becky Houdek'; Carlson, Jesse D
Cc: Tom Keliogg; Edgerton, Daniel J
Subject: RE: Orono SWMP Response to Comments
Becky—
Jesse, Dan and I have reviewed your suggested language changes and we are OK with it except for one
sentence we would like to tweak for clarity.The sentence that reads:
"The Painters Creek Subwatershed Plan identifies a phosphorus reduction goal of 384 Ib/yr,therefore,the
City would be able to contribute to and receive credit for any reductions beyond that amount."
We would like it to read:
"The Painters Creek Subwatershed Plan identifies an anticipated phosphorus reduction of 384 Ib/yr for this
project,therefore,the City would be able to contribute to and receive credit for any reductions beyond that
amount."
Let me know if there is anything else you need. Both Jesse and I plan to attend your meeting on the 14tn
Mike
Michael P.Gaffron
Assistant City Administrator/Long Term Strategy
City of Orono
(Street Address)2750 Kelley Parkway
(MailingAddress)P.O.Box 66,Crystal Bay,MN 55323
Phone:(952)249-4600
Fax: (952)249-4616
From: Becky Houdek[mailto:BHoudek@minnehahacreek.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 2:38 PM
To: Carlson,Jesse D; Mike Gaffron
Cc: Tom Kellogg; Edgerton, Daniel J
Subject: RE: Orono SWMP Response to Comments
Jesse, Mike,
Thank you for your cooperation in making the requested revisions to Orono's Local Water Plan. I have reviewed your
response letter and am happy with the changes that have been made. My one recommendation is that I would like to
see a little more clari�cation of the "double-counting" issue for the Katrina Marsh and Long Lake Corridor projects in
Section 9.4. I apologize if I did not explain this clearly at our meeting. I have suggested some language below:
"In Table 9.3 two projects are identified for which the City proposes to partner with the MCWD to
meet the phosphorus reduction goals. These projects are the Katrina Marsh and Long Lake
Corridor improvements.
1
. It is the City's intent to contribute
the dollar amount identified in Table 9.2 and receive the reductions in Table 9.3; `����F��� ��`�
.The City understands that the MCWD Subwatershed
Plans assign separate phosphorus load reduction goals for the MCWD and the LGUs and that.
where specific projects and associated phosphorus reductions are identified as part of the MCWD's
contribution toward meeting a reduction goal, additional phosphorus reductions would need to be
achieved in order for the City to receive credits.
It is the intent of the City to meet the phosphorus reduction requirements; however, this likely
will not be feasible without partnering with the watershed on one or more projects. If the City is
unable to meet the phosphorus reduction requirements with these two projects the City will
commit to working with MCWD on other potential projects to ultimately meet the phosphorus
reduction requirements or identify other projects the City could do.
Under CIP-11, Orono proposes to contribute to a MCWD identified project from the Painters
Creek Subwatershed Plan —the South Katrina Marsh Improvements.The City proposes to
contribute $100,000 to this project in exchange for 50 Ib/yr phosphorus reduction credit for the
contribution.
. The Painters Creek Subwatershed Plan identifies a phos�horus reduction
goal of 384 Ib/yr,therefore, the City would be able to contribute to and receive credit for any
reductions beyond that amount.
CIP-12, the Long Lake Creek Corridor improvements, represents a contribution to a suite of
watershed identified projects from the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed Plan. These potential
projects occur along the creek corridor from Long Lake south to Tanager Lake and include
wetland and stream restorations and the creation of treatment ponds. Orono proposes
contributing approximately $60,000 for at least 20 Ib/year phosphorus credit.This contribution
could go toward either the restoration activities or toward phosphorus reductions achieved by
the two proposed treatment ponds, LLC-48 or LLC-51, beyond MCWD's goal of t,v#ic-I�eget�e�
72 Ib/year��►ert�."
Please let me know if this makes sense and if you are comfortable with this,or similar, language. Because additional
project elements and additional opportunities for phosphorus reductions can often be identified during the feasibility
phase of a project, I believe that this is a reasonable approach for the City to take.
There is one other minor revision that should be made under the second paragraph of section 9.4 and in Table 9.1.The
Lake Minnetonka basins should also include Browns, Carmens, Crystal, East Upper, and Lafayette.
After you have had a chance to review the above language,feel free to call me with any questions. I will be working on
pulling together a summary of the plan to send out to the Board this Thursday or Friday, so I will try to get in touch with
you before then to make sure you are comfortable with these changes.
Thank you,
Becky Houdek
MCWD Planning Technician
18202 Minnetonka Blvd.
Deephaven,MN 55391
952.471.0590 x229
www.minnehahacreek.orq
2
�
...�.r
MINNENAHA CREfK
WATERSMED DIST81Ci
From: Carlson,Jesse D [mailto:jesse.carlson@bonestroo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 10:41 AM
To: Becky Houdek
Cc: Mike Gaffron; Kellogg,Tom P; Edgerton, Daniel J
Subject: Orono SWMP Response to Comments
Becky,
The attached is the City of Orono's response to comments. An electronic version of the revised SWMP is going to be sent
to you via our FfP site. Please let us know if you find these comments adequate.
Thanks,
7esse Carlson, CPESC, CPSWQ .
Direct 651-967-4643
Cell 651-783-6583
jesse.carlson@bonestroo.com
�B�vnes�roo
2335 Highway 36 W
St. Paul, MN 55113
Tel 651-636-4600
Fax 651-636-1311
www.bonestroo.com
Visit the new Bonestroo.com to sign-up for SourceONE, � �
our upcoming newsletter.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:This e-mail is confidential and may contain legally privileged information.If you are not the intended recipient,you should not copy,
distribute,disclose or use the information it contains.please e-mail the sender immediately and delete this message from your system.Note:e-mails are
susceptible to corruption,interception and unauthorized amendment;we do not accept liability for any such changes,or for their consequences.You should be
aware that we may monitor your e-mails and their content.
3
�
Cou1.N�t�l—(�o�-I� �sslorJ �t ruwr�S �3/p 9 —
/o�i��/o
range of fees charged for similar permits and licenses. Staff attempts to keep fees comparable
to other cities and avoid extreme increases in one year. Various permits related to building,
such as mechanical and plumbing, have not been increased in 5 years.
• Sewer and water connection fees are unique to Orono and are based on initial construction
costs of a project. An inflation factor is considered each year,generally in the range of 3%.
• A 3%increase in sewer and water rates has been standard over last several years. An annual
increase avoids a large increase in one year.
• The Police Special Services rate is for an Officer who is paid at the overtime rate to provide
special services at private functions or at Lord Fletcher's. A fair amount of revenue is collected
over the year.
• Planning and zoning fees have not been increased since 2004. A review was completed in 2003
when the basic application fee was$250. After the analysis, staff determined that a more
accurate fee for the complete zoning application process was over$600,and the fee was
increased in 2004 to$600. Staff felt it was an appropriate time to establish another increase.
An option would be to increase these fees annually at 3%. Zoning application fees probably
never totally cover the cost of staff time involved in the application process.
• Council Members indicated the proposed changes to the 2009 fee schedule were acceptable.
4. Surface Water Management Plan Update—Authorize Commencement of Work
• Bonestroo completed a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP)for the City in 2001. There
are a number of mandates that have occurred since formal approval of the plan that need to b
addressed. A significant change is the requirement to meet specified levels of phosphorus
reduction.
• Because of the level of expertise required to address these changes, staff has discussed a
proposal to update the SWMP with Bonestroo. The intent would be to complete the update of
the SWMP in conjunction with the update of the Comp Plan.
• The update could be funded from the Stormwater Fund. This Fund has 2 sources of revenue—
quarterly fees and new development. Not much revenue in the future will be generated from
development. The City will need to spend $20-25,000 to get the plan up-to-date.
• Another element for consideration is to create a Design Guide that can be given to developers
planning to work in the City. Bonestroo has two levels that could be done. Another option
would be to have staff work on a Design Guide as time permits.
• Council Members indicated approval to proceed with Bonestroo to work on the SWMP update
and Phosphorus Reduction Plan,with formal action at the January 26th meeting. Staff will give
further consideration as to how and at what level the Design Guide should proceed.
• Part of the SWMP includes a CIP for$2,500,000 of stormwater improvements. Very little work
has commenced, and the City has fallen behind in stormwater emphasis. The first 5 years of
projects were priorities that the City identified, with most involving remedial work that needs to
be done. Some ofthe Casco Point reconstruction work will involve stormwater improvements.
5. Process for Visioning and Strategic Goal Setting
• Discussion with the Council and City Administrator.
� 1VIENiORA1VDUM:_ ` ' �'_ � �a, � < � '
;s
To: Mayor and City Council
Bill Wells, City Administrator
Ton Kellogg, City Engineer
�� .
From: Mike Gaffron, Asst..City Admin. - Long Term Strategy �y
Date: January 12, 2009 �
Subject: Surface Water Management Plan Update- Authorization to Commence
. (For January 13 Work Session-Formal Action January 26)
List of Attachments �
A- Bonestroo Proposal Dated 1-8-09
B - Excerpts from Met Counci12030 Water Resources Management Policy Plan: Pp. 83-87
� --�- C- MCWD Mandate & Checklists .
SWMP Update Required. The Orono Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) was
completed in 2001 by Bonestroo &Associates and received formal Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District approval in 2002. There are a number of regulatory changes that have occurred since
2002 that we are required by statute to address, as well as mandates from Metropolitan Council
as described in their 2030 Water Resources Management Policy Plan (see excerpts, pp. 83-87
from that doctunent). A significant change since 2002 is the requirement to meet specified levels
of phosphorus reduction.
Because the level of expertise required to address these changes is beyond that available in-
house,the attached proposal to update the SWMP was requested of Bonestroo &Associates. The
intent is to bring the SWMP into compliance in a timeframe commensurate with completion of
the Comp Plan. ��
Scope. This proposal has received a significant level of scrutiny by staff to ensure that,the
required mandates are addressed without excessive expenditures. For instance, we have had iwo
meetings with Bob Barth of Bonestroo regarding the specific elements to be updated, and have
met with MCWD staff to clarify the level of detail and range of options for meeting our
phosphorus reduction requirements.
The atta.ched proposal has been reduced in scope and cost from an earlier version received in
December 2008, eliminating review of the CSPP (Sewer Plan) Chapter which sta.ff believes is
unnecessary. The proposal also converts the Phosphorus Reduction Plan.work to an hourly rate
which provides some flexibility in the collaboration between staff, City Engineer and MCWD in
" the iterative process needed to devise an acceptable plan. Further, the creation of a Design Guide
providing detail for developers planning to work in the City has been sepaxately priced as an
option,with two levels of detail (see page 4 of proposal). Staff believes that either the Level 1 or •
Level 2 Design Guide would be very valuable in providing the justification that developers have
begun to demand relative to stormwater management requirements and fees given the�current
economic climate; however,the creation of the Design Guide is not as time-critical as the SWMP
update. .
SWMP Update
January 9,2009
Page 2
Funding. Base cost of the SWMP update is $18,900, with additional time as needed at standard
Bonestroo hourly rates for work on the Phosphorus Reduction Plan. The Level 1 or Level 2
Design Guidelines would be an additional $2,500 or $3,600 respectively should Council choose
to add that to the mix.
This mandatory update will be funded from the Stormwater Fund, which currently is at a level of �
approximately $727,000. The Stormwater fund has two input components: the quarterly
Stormwater Utility Fees which generate approximately $120,000 per year; and the Stormwater&
Drainage Trunk Fees paid by new development, which generates variable amounts from year to .
year depending on the level of development activity. For eaample, development of Stonebay
Outlot A will generate approximately $25,000 in SW&D Trunk Fees. Note that expenditures
from the Stormwater Fund have�been minimal to date, and we have not made much progress
toward implementing projects in the 5-year Stormwater CIP that was established in 2002. As
part of the update,the Stormwater CIP will be revisited. �
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST
Sta.ff requests Council authorization at the January 13 work session for Bonestroo to proceed
immediately with work .on the SWMP update and Phosphorus Reduction Plan, with formal
action at your January 26 meeting. �
Additionally, Council should provide direction as to whether a Design Guide should be prepared
at this time. �
, �
Orono
The City of Orono has land in the Painter Creek, Long Lake Creek, and Lake Minnetonka
subwatersheds. In addition to the general requirements for Local Management Plans, the
following items must be addressed in the city's Local Plan.
l 3 • !' a 12 i �,.��. ` .. , , }-� .. �--, C- �� . �f�r 'G J, � �E7�P i-.;
�^ � , a�
'� n d� r _. _._ ,�. ___,r �`' '� .; t�fd0�� �,,.�✓t
_.. •��c - �'t P.Nvate�Drive,� ' z_ "�6 �^;� r f: 1
_ `'•o�� � -/���'r ;i� Priv�te Drive � � '� -{.• �.. �� �.4�
^ ;� I � 1 1 r " P ymbuth
`Indepen �nce :�`���-• �� - l��s �,�f��Atr ��?'1!"�` -
' � ` '� ti �`, ,,;' ' ''�LO G� c? •'>� Ea�t Long ke Road j "�`-
. .� .., _ �'
� ^•' ' �`��� 1 .� �*fas�±a;�� -.+ ...� �'�n .�
� ��� !• �� '�, � .ILony'La 1 /'" �st Long,L`�kei� � �,n
. -...�. � ' �.�- � � �.,4 '; � - ''�.— ��,
at iy'••., � '.. , � Lu �L?n'e 1fa11�` 4 w, ".�� �j '' t � }`�'`, '` ���
J '�: � '��—`• .. � � � ' _ . i.��'� (/{�f 1ir' '' �I � � � '• �S;
;� � �"�_ t ` ` r'I. _� `�' J. i '% � ",tir1 I�A3
� : •, �`�}�i . ...rOrono �i o~..,, . .r�: % �-� Wayzatal �w�'' r
.r� , '�:��}7 i ��l'�r'£�p7�I � � � � ;r''' , ' � � � "
� S� � � ' � `y r "��'g'`,��.�°� � ',
I� �`. . , '�����'��lBA�� � ....-�� p7cn. t i���` �..` � i^�) �.r��h'�.c_k 1. .'�
' �57'�� a �i:TC�r Fol(St.• ¢��r -M� -( &,
�--Mi n`tris�a .,� �����?�` �Ma?cwei'L� � � ` ��t���-� ��,�N,,: a�a�t���7r'ay ��" �
' �4, �t, ea . ;..� +�,�?�N�s }���.,��nd��i,�+��a � ' .I�,���`�'�
1 . � � � '}����.��tc SE�e � Y,�c't *1T '�. Y ��j��''Fq� � �yw 'iF r . ,}{��'��+B� S
. �` � � l OREST� "'l�OR,Ti�N` fiY�t�� � . a�°.�� y / . ��,'C'*��, �'4� - a<�oSa��� t�'�"i,�,�'�' �
` � '�' �`• . .Dr7 �� � /1RM � i?'}��.-j�`,c�;l'�`1%� f` !' a�+ i� +��i�������it���k bs' jf��l�}^�. 0116-'�i
I 2�i Jn�k� �,� 'yd'.��'' s� -.-1� ��° �r ,� k. �''sl� ° -� ��}c r �r�"� �r�''�14�� d��,
ENNI G9'BA�'� . � i s—tr' �� ,A�i, .. "��v �k���. � � ,"' �
.;` F� `v�,�k / � � '�a� �ts �„���'''�,31 7 �4�. � � t '�� r4}� '���f ' < /'-��Y� a�
,�� ,7�`,� � �5 cRV�ra � �,Y ����^ �g c��� ,Wdodland_ � �
���- WtS,T b� .��W v�'��` iti.B Xj! 75 �E u..�� � �� �.�. �
hj f?�� ��'t��'ttih 4�RM�'�' }{�.�is.s � ��� �', � q'[�� ''k'''"t���'�c°`�,tVs �t ''����7 _!�-'��,
y�.• �. IC�'���" ���"3. �'� �,� �^ '� � :. tl � j � � �'^t}[A E e �4v P�r�..�� � �'
� �� ti �`�i�b1� � � ��!'�' � ��P�������'���� � �� � ���, �,� ^.�,# b�sz ���� "��e �f� . :.
1 ar � x � � PJ t � s �,•.'.'- /
5 L ���'�J�-�.w1������'��u C�. �y��yM�nnetonka Be. ch �`+� � �, ���;�y, � r T 1_ .tAbai�hWDistrieLaqdBound�ry
t �� )��_.C i�.5� �x � � 3 s�S �� � � 3aio'e Beundo
�c3 � �:+ _' S'pFing�P�ark `` =`` s. 3 �i " r�;i i .t �� �' �s?�� �r � kr e n
j �� �� ' ,�,,�.,,, "e� ; �a� 4. �,f'� L i 4r � �.'i:��m<a,e�n,�.�«�n.a.
��'� MoJntl � � r tR�`�,�1� ��'�# a t�'���' "�'�j i ''��� '��.� __•ea,�y oea�
r x �: ��x�'� t'
�r AL 5�p at fa ��a ����p�'��� �'� ` �1`����`�..��,_,_ � t�Y� F � u ��' . G�inaq�lsw�a
3i�9
—��g'��'4(�"r.�y �.�y.�F > � �. .t'�i':a , � �1a� r� •����� �'
��s4�' 4�ttaay�i� �. L r. ,rSPPoXIG`� a � � 'k�ll \�'+� V � 1, J�`+,�,.
�6o�s� z� �� �- ��PI+R1T�c � t���'�,i��'��, r�,� A � � 6
°�'k ���*`�' ��f '` .� , 'Rx �c��Y���`� V ��¢°� .��� �a{�Y��foWERa�> ,�:�i �! • 0.50.25 0 o.s �
di ���'�;k�..f� u �i.ki#Sf�:.t+-� h�r .��,�f{'�'t' .i� � , iRFy fn4-e�a1.AK�SOU�s�s�,� �MdeS�
.� .. � .rp4YrT 1. ��+e�e'.�i.a .'3 .Nr:.w,�...�..zan ,T�.R+kr.< _.7� . �ir.,_.�?�:A,i,r.a✓+.s � tt+k. TPW
Figure 1. S�rbivatershed drainage areas aiid reponed or modeled drainage issues.
Phosphorus Load Reduction
The Local Plan must include strategies and specific steps for the achievement of the following
load reductions assigned to the City of Orono. These strategies may include operational, land
use, and capital improvements implemented since 2000, and those planned for the future. The
Plan must also include a provision for annually reporting progress towards this goal. �
Table 1. Re uired Annual Phos horus Load Reductions,Cit of Orono(in ounds).
Subwatershed Receivin Waters Annual Reduction
Lake Minnetonka Maxwell,North Arm,North Lower,Jennings Bay, 152
South Lower,S rin Park, Stubbs,West Arm
Painters Creek Jennin s Ba 12
Long Lake Creek U stream of LonQ Lake 35
Long Lake Creek Long Lake to Tanager Lake 31
Total 230
Landlocked Basins
The HHPLS identified several landlocked subwatershed units in the city (see Figure 1). The
Local Plan must identify any significant non-outletting areas; discuss and incorporate strategies
to minimize new volumes and address any flooding issues.
Floodin�or Modeled High Water Locations
The HHPLS identified three specific locations in Orono where there are known or modeled
flooding issues (see Figure 1 and Table 2). The Local Plan must identify these and any other
known flooding areas; evaluate the associated risks to public health, safety, and property; assess
whether the risk of occasional flooding is acceptable; and set forth a plan to address the flooding
issues.
Table 2. Known or modeled floodin issues,Cit of Orono (source:HHPLS).
Descri tion Modeled Event
Fox Street 100- ear
East Lon Lake 100- ear
Private Drive South of HWY 6 100- ear
Flow Velocity and Erosion
The HHPLS identified three locations where the model indicates existing and future high pipe
peak flow velocities may require erosion control measures or energy dissipaters at inlets and
outlets (see Figure 1 and Table 3). The Local Plan must assess the need for erosion control at
this location and any other locations where excessive velocities may be contributing to localized
erosion.
Table 3. Known or modeled eak i e flow velocities issues,City of Orono(source:HAPLS).
Descri tion Modeled Event
LLG16 Private Drive 100- ear
LLC-48 Luce Line trail 100- ear
LLG24 East Lon Lake 100- ear •
Land Conservation
Large areas of Orono have been identified as Key Conservation Areas (see Figure 2). These
areas include the Long Lake Creek and Classen Creek corridors; key riparian wetlands to the
lakes and streams in the city; and other wetland, tributary, and upland connections between those
corridors and Lake Minnetonka. The Local Plan must identify these areas and the strategies the
city will use to protect and conserve the hydrologic and ecologic values of these areas and other
natural areas in the city.
Operations and Maintenance: Previous Pro_iects
The District has previously completed construction of a detention pond at the outlet into Long
Lake downstream of County Road 6, and retains responsibility for inspecting, maintaining and
dredging the pond. �
r
` P � woe �. f •. `
� Ma le PI,in :r�,� Medma�F;, "� '� t � ij i�s��oeR ,,
� u� ' r� :a /.�;% �/ �y !
" " :%/�/� 'i, � , �
: �� . / .
in ep nd n . , ,c ��z . �r Y'� . � ' Ptymout .,
� .
�y � ' , f
��.3' , . ��R9 tlF�,y [t . � �.u. %j` ��� ..c
j _ � ixys .
� 3 � L: �" k f,f r� ; = ri '
�� Q 9t � �, . .. � <ti>"`a -,.. �
� f �, � G k��
1 �g- �_ ,�.�, '' ,4� ,,�'' , ' P
a�� � s�µ`.� 1 . .�l' t> "� .��+..
' `'F L�w1 k�.
� �. � ' •:r.. D aYia ! i°
`� r �y T ���'��: '.� �, ' ��
1/
�� r1 '�` � ..
n ��
:e. fk� �,,�5 �' s STUBBS � � �. - �{.::{7 . 1�� .�
. � F�k,:«s a 57� �� .. . ��� �� IIO�,y�* �.. �'��y��t..i� �< a::ii� .. -�:1i9,.�•'y , .
i netr`i�ta �' sr Y"'1'Kk rM:XWE r� ��=i'}st ,�y �i��{ _ ..v �����5 �. 1
S` '9c �-. .r s, �A �g,A 3a �',� . � i 4 `MAG �L�p,�,��� (_�VbUi�heUDnuklLegalBcun,iary � � �'J
` � � . T�f$kn ..A� Y °7 t �4 :�S4` �v�H�; Q H Nob BanMr � ?�t�;� �^{,'^
� p�.�{T �� '� � ". ���r.,� �� Y � � MS a a,..
��� �� � �� S��;Mp F 1 � � � . � z�{�� �la�1bCAeJaWxalais�vi�H f, . p�i�}iti
�W� rT � � *.k ��`,� ;
�N�11IaG�8 Y ��:Y P d 51 - -: ���Y Fy�NeyCaroervawnAiaa� rk " -�.`� � y}�BB
i (� t�:� � .�U1- 5 4,,g�_� 'l��� ���'� n�,� t �� ..�}Ij� �GStuRFnwMiieas : �) �n�
r�. f �, . ,� �� c 9�srn} �r f iand_ v, ��
, , I � :9 t.� A0.�l � � , �� �xk�t ana tlatvoiar�as
Yv: � '�..wPt�'�.�'RM F��7� 7�` �S �.. � i. �� 16 �� Pfi�S�ndCMnSP��e , i j �
�t�t� �'' �v�: ���r�x�.�s�r�"'t n`�7v`�i r�j��"�� i' �� "a;�,h.k�V�l,���ty ,�' :'��
.� ` ,�, �
.. �� .� 1.. - �'�l � � .. .:n'n, . :-�.
�"*k'7
7 !�.��¢ tv' 4°f� k� .r, : -0I..
s �' ���;�� ����; •'�:�`�n �a'�x,,;' irin��k��i _ch � �° .� o�azs�o.. ,.:,.o.5�w' S
� o
�� l ' �.
.
� � Mb , � I
. � �t� , r�fl��`�,��`��`^ f� � " a�+��� "�`a�, Miles
c q: • � p�nng Pari _ ,, , �' +
�q I�lound� � � +� c � '���s,�i � � , �a�-d ; ; � � �3 �
z ry� � '��,��a�t* k�p ��:,'� � 1� a . ����,���k ro� �Dee,p . e
�, �° � ��'�u���� �'� t s��`�' ��� �.�'s'<` ,lk= .
�
:'.�������� �' q�� if��_yLj j���:.j S . ���C'� �Lrti s��.,�v._�`�u'� /�%�
"�l ;�
CQOKS�"�'�'�c r � PARK�S�T� ��5'+n � �t� , '1� 1f r ni 9e`'�k.., �,� ..
;�,K;eA��i i�d ..o �� r8�Y ��� �rk�� �.`kt� �e �R ��+' �, � a . -
�r''��'��''�Y ' � �i ���` " �'i �r�,, �k ss ` TO ka',�L �ESb� �'h�'��M1� .�xh^.
&�E.a ��fiaur' i.K.�d���E....:�.�.w:u " v�,_�F�,�'3kx:�"-'u..�f.7°_�1�� ♦ eF '�T�h�.t��`�4..�<� 1,..:.r
Figure 3. Key Conservarion Areas in Orono aid ndjncenr areas. �
Potential Caaital Pro_iects
Several potential improvement projects have been identified (see Figure 3), including:
�
• Long Lake Creek Stream Restoration • Stubbs Bay Internal Load Management
• LLC-48 Detention Pond • Swan Lake Pond
� Classen Creek Stream Restoration • LLC-2 Regional Infiltration
• Wetland Restorations • CLC-2 Regional Infiltration
• Katrina Marsh Restoration • NA-LM Regional Infiltration
The Plan should acknowledge how the township intends to work together with the District to
identify and evaluate potential projects.
u 29 �' �_�,Medina : .•;v�� �w�FFm ;��- t `r.� f r r•� � _ �
�• 1 k..,��'1 �
� �Wetland Restoration t�. - `\ r^ � r� �� �S���R�
'1 � ~-�• �Z •, LLC-2 lnfiltmtion' ����... •-:r.) i 6 �r, +r ��,.� r U,r
�i'� - -•"-� .�'r � —� '";':��� �, ��
�' _ � i Katrin�MSrsh �'3'�� i Z� ti ' �� _<%�"'� � 1
P"� - ,,r••'Restorallon �':'�-' �� � ���f' '�•�Fa'-�,, Plytttoutfi
V Ind' end8nce � . . ,. � .
� L,.� �i 1'— _ �F .�' ��y'"� 1.� � �- �I.
i Katrina NWrsh --'• �1 '•� .=�L . �'�4��kn�olvGt.+ � y i. `'` ___J � .. ��
j `,Outlet5trudure -'v.,, CLG2� `— . ,„„_ �' _ � u
Stubbs Bay ; ! . � _� �
; • Inflltration �,- � Lohg'La e �� " •i '` �'.. c
--�- �^-, InternalCoad_`� • .l -� ' i_,
� r _Classen.Creek {y "/ a - t
� NA LM�i �nagement L,f_ � , ��agement „ j i�� ��
� Intlltration r ,� �_,r=``�{�Ster am •• ' ��� � r2`t
� � � i .;�"�i 1....� r -'�O�CLLC-48".Y �=f ��Resto�atlon�'Z t L�.`..;,..� � �
� � i� c . /• � '•� Vllayzata ;�
�.._!, `,..�j _� ' ��C�� S1�van LakePond _, f 1� ,,� � t � � f� -
`+ '� �,^• �:;� s� gstf}... ,..SPbnd ��� � 4;�y= �. ,�,.� 4. ( , ` ..
t •., �Su� 1p� . - .—� , ' y � �. � a9t�`i4.� � , !
i � eA9� Exea4a(Flon ti;.. `"1 e�..� ' . �,a -�
"� .Minn tnsta � 51 � i' ��� �,�� �a�g�. —t-� / ���`rs��'�'� r �
_y �`�r , ;1 � '° .,; �'a `�*, , , :� �,��i��aYz�r,� 'F"�;.
.`� �� �� � ���"� � �� ������; "".r ��I n��.� �������� ��`'��h��'`}�����'s���`
j- � ,�''i� V 1 ORE i ORi s '" �'�,., y° Wetland ��'y k + µ r (� .. .
,- \ _ ,� ���3°t-, �-�t� �-� ��.�+�1 .. o�i Restora'tion F �� ���,�fL� -,�'� , ��'' �'�`�i�-�
�t �lw�� ��,��y��s.. A�. �.j�°.�j �o'�� ��..,� � c *� ' ���'�'�`�T�x`,t?�"�_ `�}�,n���.y,o�k'�'
'C�.� � ,7�ENMNGS.B;y��"g '�.,f ��+ '� .` _ d .,`0 57 r � .�E., �,��y�,����� �� ��,',��, �,
.t- - �C �� �Z��: ��'x�'4�r5�, � ��y��'`'e � N3�i�r������y tS '�y�r���t+�j� r J? � �'�=� � �}
..'^-.� � f � 3 n� YR dt ( °' CR ST 1 � �+ �+' 7� 'Y � R xj 1
p f r � �� � � °� L"� r � a��, ,� ;Woodland � y
L�.�i��i�+}.,.�ST'r'i�� {��'S^'xnF' �I B �`�^"4� N 15 '�'�1p� �``.� y"e�tt +3� 7y�A`,t r�:;� �.
. � � L.��� qRMS�/ '�,, '���,�`� ,�'�,����'��- �k �*f' n X�M ��0��,ag ����,��Snr ,��fi'�i f C/�a
t!: ..'��, :z,^�S'.��"L'i�;"'3e��'� !�'�. �'k�'�A;J+�u�"�k���'�i ��~���mx `��.Ak���"F ti a�t��`1"�,?�f yf•r� y�,:�t
�' ���,.,�tkr �.,� ,.s a.,, � 9 �' � � a 4 � €�� � �'� i^ 1
"�'r;4����,+i�'y iF�,• Nw ��-ci�>� Ar.y,r. ��y�T ,� NOR�1'i�� '� t*w _•:l ,i� r., � �
PotendalPro)ects �'R{ i�sy��t3 Tg� 1`�P � innetonkaBe Ch�����s� + �� ��i'}��n�u y� � •
d �_ 'tl�/� ���i Y . t�1} !�h ��'�"M1 �.�j �S
� Initrratlaf i" Y '� -�2'�,.r, 'i"tl� ^��Z y: �<'�4 (�+��F�1 1� Y�Ytash�dd�dle9�I8oinMry
• hraanmura �ingPar � � �,�'��`„�i�fi t� �+"���gl�'��5,� t�s�,��� �Hr�ao�Ke«��aa�Y
����,5,FtY ���pt � � � p QLnnd�ockedSubwal�r:ham
. � intan�l load hWml �2������{ �' L��j,;y,��� � ��3�y���-� y�t a� e� ��•caunti Dtcn
y. RSUdlanwu: q,�� L74�-jt' � t�p���:Y �'�1 r tr »1�c.
7� ft� : ?�" �`�:�µ ��, r�A .i�i� � �'��'"� g�� ' C � N�vw�f�Canryi�bOPrq�a�
. vww � � '�S�f�NG ,y�' �-��31,'.��i�'�^y�q _�!��,��1 1-r�j�,��;�^ i�� ��y ��^"� :
• �� �'�.�'``' ����IH��475 .1"/�� � �.t4�y'd,�•\. � �! ::..'G � ti
VJetlandReaaaum r i ��d wBd t.}� 6�' 3� -! �xh �ryp 1 �"4�'
�,ry'Z.,(,}i,M�' }�4��4� J �h1��+3�� �14 on�ta��� ¢� .,k�os¢" ��`�� 4 ° o:so.25 a o.s ,
'�' 9ream Remaatim ��y a�i �.q. r �� H ��'a 0 T���` t
'.��,'.SR���,��4F �:�,a�;",;��r���,'t�' � �>'�`���kwE`^�.Q�.`I;!�,�°i�� �f ew �Miles I
,�*
Figt�re 3. Pote�:tial Districr capital projects in Orono.
Other Issues
Cities must prepare and submit annually to the District, in a format approved by the MPCA and
District, a report detailing actions taken in the previous year to implement the requirements of
the WRMP.
Areas in Orono drain to Long Lake, Tanager Lake,Jennings Bay, and West Arm, lakes that do
not currently meet state nutrient standards and which may be in the future designated as Impaired
Waters. At such time as that may occur, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study would be
prepared. The capital improvements program, operating programs, and watershed nutrient
reduction goals in this Plan may need to be revised to achieve the load reductions that would be
identified in the TMDL. Once that TMDL is finalized and approved by the MPCA and EPA, the
City would have 18 months to revise its NPDES permit to include TMDL implementation
activities.
The District will periodically evaluate conditions in Painter Creek and Classen Creek and will
work cooperatively with the City to spot repair erosion that is contributing to downstream
sediment conveyance.
G
. �o%y/��
5.y, ,�,.. �R=' '`,`Cp^ '+�""�M ,��a�� t �'Y IX „�n u�� E
aW i�,Y�i���{�n�r'�C„ ek+{���1����3't,� �,��,,,,�`.�
To: Mayor& Council
From: Mike Gaffron,Asst. City Administrator/Long Term Strategy
Date: August 10, 2009
Subject: Work Session Discussion: Assumption of MCWD Permitting Functions
Attachments: �
Bob Barth Memo 8-10-09
Council has directed staff to begin investigating the potential for and ramifications of
taking over certain surface water management permitting functions that are currently
under the authority of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District(MCWD). This direction
was partially the result of the City's recent experiences in dealing with the MCWD .
permitting process for the Casco Point Reconstruction Project.
The attached memo from Bob Barth of Bonestroo &Associates briefly reviews the
specific areas in which the City could assume authority, and the processes involved.
Council is asked to review the memo and discuss with staff whether such authority
should be pursued further.
Memorandum �Bonestroo
Project: Orono Permitting 2335 Highway 36 W
To: Mike Gaffron Authority Date: 8-10-09 St Paul,MN 55113
Tel 651-636-4600
From: Bob Barth Client: City of Orono Fax 651-636-1311
www.bonestroo.com
Re: Assuming Certain MCWD Permitting Functions File No: 139-09000-0
Twelve different rules support Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's permitting
program. A few of these define the administration of the watershed's permitting
program while others define performance requirements for regulated activities. These
performance-based rules include:
Rule B: Erosion Control
Rule C: Floodplain Alteration
Rule D: Wetland Protection
Rule E: Dredging
Rule G: Waterbody Crossings and Structures
Rule N: Stormwater Management for Land Development Projects
According to the Watershed, Orono can take over permitting authority for rules B, C,
D, and N - shown in bold-faced type above. Rules E and G cannot be assumed by a
municipality. The following discusses the steps necessary for Orono to assume
authority of these four rules.
Rule B: Erosion Control
Orono added chapter 79, Construction Site Runoff Control, to its City Code in April,
2009. This erosion control ordinance was written to be consistent with the NPDES
construction stormwater permit. MCWD is currently revising its Rule B to likewise be
consistent with the NPDES permit. Consequently, the rule and Orono's ordinance will
be quite similar. However, certain minor modifications to Orono's ordinance are
anticipated in areas such as applicability, exemptions, submittals, and notifications.
Other than ordinance, the primary aspect to assuming erosion control authority is
reviewing erosion control plans and having an inspection program. Orono currently
covers both these functions, so the impact to Orono of assuming formal authority for
Rule B should be minimal.
Rule C: Floodplain Alteration
Orono amended chapter 78, Zoning Regulations, of its City Code in 2004 to add a
floodplain ordinance based on the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources model
ordinance. Having a municipal ordinance based on the model is necessary for Orono
to assume MCWD authority under the Floodplain Alteration Rule. Proposed alterations
to floodplain usually occur in the course of development or other land alteration
projects. Since Orono already reviews projects for compliance with City Code, there
MGalfron RBarth^Orono LGU Discussion 8-10-09.doc
should be no significant increase in staff workload or cost to add floodplain alteration
to the City's current review items for projects not along the Lake Minnetonka
shoreline. For projects on Lake Minnetonka, however, there might be a significant
increase in staff time since administering floodplain alteration rules becomes more
complicated among the many older homes and lots along the lakeshore.
Typically, the costs for reviewing projects under the floodplain alteration rule would be
recovered by Orono through fees or the submittal of escrow by the project proposer.
Rule D: Wetland Protection
The City of Orono passed its Wetland Ordinance on August 22, 2005. Ordinance
revisions are not anticipated as part of assuming the Rule D permitting authority.
Orono's wetland ordinance provides water quality protection of wetlands from
adjacent land-use utilizing native vegetated buffers, setbacks and water quality
treatment requirements. Prior to the City developing and passing a wetland ordinance,
wetland protection from adjacent land-use was under the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District jurisdiction.
Though the City of Orono has taken on the responsibility for protecting wetlands from
adjacent land-use, the authority to protect the wetlands themselves resides with the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and their administration of the State Wetland
Conservation Act(WCA). To take over authority under Rule D, Orono would be
assuming the new position as the Local Governmental Unit(LGU)for this state law.
The WCA protects wetlands from draining, filling, and in some cases excavation. In
cases where wetland protection is not feasible, wetland mitigation is required.
The responsibilities of the LGU (Orono) for WCA include:
1. Wetland delineation review and record of decision
2. Wetland permit, no loss and exemption review and records of decision �
3. Wetland Replacement Site Monitoring Report Review (submitted by
applicants, these are post construction reports for wetland replacement sites
that show how wetlands are developing).
4. Providing knowledgeable and trained staff with expertise in water resource
management to manage the program or securing a qualified delegate
(consultant).
The administration of the Wetland Conservation Act would add to the current work
load though some tasks, such as wetland delineation review, would be incorporated
into the buffer review to minimize the additional time. The main addition to staff time
and/or consultant cost would involve the review of permits, exemptions, and no loss
certifications for compliance with the Wetland Conservation Act rules and for
reviewing monitoring reports. These activities are typically billed back to the applicant
either through an escrow set up for longer duration activities or a combined escrow
and fee for shorter duration activities.
MGafi�on RBarth^Orono LGU Discussion 8-10-09.doc Page 2 of3
Rule N: Stormwater Management for Land Development Projects
MCWD Rule N covers many subject areas including rate control and water quality
protection. Many of the performance stipulations within Rule N will be presented in
Orono's Local Surface Water Management Plan update, which will soon be submitted
for Watershed review. However, Orono will require a stormwater management
ordinance to make these performance stipulations part of City Code. In writing this
ordinance,the City must also search out and strike any previous ordinance provisions
for stormwater system performance that might occur in other ordinance chapters.
Administration of Rule N by Orono requires special expertise in hydrologic, hydraulic,
and water quality analysis that cannot be provided by current City staff.
Consequently, Orono will likely use a consultant to assist in administering this rule.
Typically, Orono will use Rule N for development projects. Staff and consultant time
to review projects under this and other rules should be reimbursed by the project
proposer as part of an escrow payment to the City.
Summary:
According to MCWD staff, five municipalities have assumed authority for one or more
of the four rules identified above. These include Wayzata, Mound, Minnetonka,
Richfield and Chanhassen. The key factors that allow these municipalities to assume
and maintain the permit�ing authority are:
❑ Ordinances were adopted or revised that conformed to Rules
approved by the MCWD,
❑ Ordinances have been enforced and MCWD approval of variances
sought,
❑ Technical expertise and program resources have been maintained,
❑ Compliance is monitored and periodically reviewed with MCWD.
Since MCWD has rewritten rules B and C and will soon adopt these revisions, Orono
should wait a few months before initiating the ordinance revisions necessary to
assume authority under these rules. A prospective schedule for all activities necessary
to assume authority for MCWD Rules B, C, D and N is as follows:
❑ Fall, 2009: Obtain MCWD approval of Orono's Local SurFace Water
Management Plan with text in the Plan stating that Orono intends to
assume authority for Rules B, C, D and N.
❑ Winter, 2009-2010: Orono and MCWD enter into a Memorandum �
of Understanding for implementing the Plan.
� ❑ Spring, 2010: Orono revises it ordinances as needed to make
ordinance consistent with MCWD rules.
❑ Spring, 2010: Orono and MCWD revised their MOU to allow Orono
permitting authority for the rules Orono wishes to administer.
MGaffron RBarth^Orono LGU Discussion 8-10-09.doc Page 3 of3
Orono City Council
Committee of the Whole
August 11,2009, Following Council Meeting
Orono City Council Chambers
Present: Mayor Jim White, Council Members Cynthia Bremer, Doug Franchot, Lili McMillan and Jim
Murphy; Police Chief Correy Farniok, Finance Director Ron Olson,Assistant City Administrator
for Long-Term Strategy Mike Gaffron, City Clerk Lin Vee, Zoning and Planning Coordinator
Melanie Curtis, Building Official Lyle Oman, Public Works Supervisors Don DeBaere and Scott
Oberaigner and City Engineer Tom Kellogg
1. Trail Crossings Update
• Hennepin County is in the process of removing crosswalk stripes in next 3 weeks.
• Correy spoke with Boe Carlson and Three Rivers Park District is still reviewing Orono Orchard
Road crossing.
• Three Rivers Park District has been doing educational stops with warnings given on the Dakota
Rail Trail. Warnings have been given regarding speed and rudeness of bikers. The Park District
will transition to enforcement/citations rather than warnings per request from Minnetonka
Beach and Mound.
• Orono would need to adopt the Three Rivers Park District park rules for the City to also enforce.
• All the stripings in crosswalks for the Dakota Rail Trail will be removed in Orono. This is
consistent at crosswalks from Wayzata through Mound.
• Miscellaneous trail information
o Staff is reviewing the County Rd 6/Old Crystal Bay Rd crossing. The striping may also be
removed at this intersection as it can be confusing to vehicles as to whether the vehicle is
stopped to make a turn or to allow pedestrian crossings.
o Mike has been working on scheduling a meeting to present plans for the County Rd 19 trail
with the cities of Shorewood,Tonka Bay and Orono,Three Rivers Park District and Hennepin
County. The meeting could include up to 40 people. Since there may be some scheduling
issues at the Freshwater Center, Cou.ncil suggested holding an early morning meeting in the
Orono Council Chambers.
o Correy and Don attended a Hennepin County meeting regarding an electronic sign that will
be installed in the next few weeks at the transition point for a speed change near Orono
Orchard Road and County Rd 15. They requested that the sign be moved back about 100
feet from the proposed location. The sign is part of a grant. If additional funding is
available,similar signage could be placed on County Road 6 when highway work is done in
Maple Plain.
2. Discussion Regarding Consideration to Become LGU for Wetland Conservation Act and Other MCWD
Jurisdictional Areas
• In 2002, Council approved a stormwater management plan. According to the MCWD,once an
erosion control ordinance is in place,the city is eligible to take over 4 different permitting
functions as described in the memo provided by Bob Barth, Bonestroo.
• Pros for the City assuming permitting functions:
o Better control over Orono projects; examples would be the Stonebay wetlands and
frustration with Casco Point project.
o Permitting process would take less time and be less expensive.
o Decisions would be more timely as the Watershed staff sends most issues to the Board for
final approval.
Page 1 of 4
� Cons for the City assuming permitting functions:
o Additional workload for current staff. Staff would administer some of the program and rely
on others with expertise.
o Staff would need some training. Bonestroo staff is an additional resource.
• Council questioned if concerns have been communicated to the MCWD. Staff has attempted to
discuss issues with the MCDW.
• Council directed staff to prepare a list of issues to provide to the MCWD with an opportunity for �
the MCWD to discuss and respond. McMillan and Murphy would be willing to meet with Eric of
the MCWD and Orono staff. The MCWD receives tax money, and it would be preferable that
they are involved in local watershed issues and the permitting process.
3. Casco Point Reconstruction Project Update
• Casco Point Proiect Schedule. Plans are to start the toughtest piece on Casco Point next week.
Because CenterPoint Energy got in late to do their work, it affected the contractor's work
schedule. The City probably owes the contractor some additional time. Provided the weather
holds,the substantial completion date is August 28. The goal is to have the project done before
school starts. The road should be rocked and ready to drive on by September 8; if not,
provisions will need to be made to be able to get buses in and out. Weekly updates are posted
on Mondays on the City website with a review of the previous week's work and plan for work of
current week. Staff has considered having the contractor bring in an additional crew, but this
would create more inconveniences for the neighborhood and may generate more complaints.
The neighborhood may see two crews to maintain the completion schedule as be acceptable
and worth the inconvenience. Further discussion may be needed. It is important to keep
people informed. The bag of information that is distributed from door-to-door has been very
helpful. Add a reminder to go to the website for additional information. The last portion of soil
remediation will be completed next week. Council noted that residents have received
knowledgeable, polite and efficient responses to their questions.
• Schedule for Mill and Overlav. The project includes mill and overlay this yearfor a portion ofthe
road from Casco Avenue to Casco Circle. The mill and overly work is non-intrusive and would
take 2—3 days. Staff has discussed delaying this work until next year to allow one freeze/thaw
cycle. The price for bituminous was included with this year's bid. Waiting until next year adds
the risk for prices to be higher and the neighborhood may object to another disruption. Staff
noted that waiting until next year will provide a better job overall, and that the contractor
would come back next year to fix settlements and do the final course. Council directed staff to
delay the mill and overlay for this project until next year.
• Insurance Claims Discussion. In the past, staff has been directed to be proactive and get a
cleaning crew out right away when a home has damage from a sewer backup. In the recent
insurance claims,the City's insurance adjuster recommended the property owner contact their
own insurance company first. The League's insurance will not pay if the damage is not the City's
fault. Staff noted that the City may need to be more proactive with sewer issues. It is important
to be consistent in handling these situations. Fundamentally it is not the City's responsibility to
call a cleaning crew unless we know it's the City's fault. The homeowner's insurance company
may use specific companies and there is some liability to the City when entering a home without
proper releases. It was determined that the policy will be to have the homeowner call their own
insurance company first unless City staff believes the City has any liability in the damage.
� Mvrtlewood Utilitv Proiect Update. All pipes are in the ground and are being tested. Site
restoration is in process. The contractor is ahead of schedule. Fire hydrants are installed in the
Myrtlewood neighborhood and at the Comforts of Home property. An additional valve that was
not in the original plans has been added. Staff commented that the contractor's crew was very
good at cleaning up the site as work progressed.
Page 2 of 4
. �
/o�iy�o
Table 9.3- 10-Year Phosphorus Reduction Plan
Long Lake Creek ,
Phosphorus Lake Painters
Reduction(Ib/yr) Minnetonka Creek
ID Activity Description Phosphorus Phosphorus Totals
Upstream LO�9 Reduction Reduction
of Long �ke to (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr)
Lake Tanager
Lake
CIP-Ci °OfFerman Ditch"Ravine 26.3 26.3
Stabilization
Fox Street near western
CIP-C2 terminus dry pond/ 0.7 0.7
infiltration
North Shore Drive and
�P�3 Shad Road rain arden 0.7 0.7
QP-C4 Bracketts Pt. Road nd 0.7 0.7
Casco Point rain gardens,
CIP-05 sump manholes, restored 1.5 1.5
swale
CIP-1 Stubbs Bay ravine 32 32
stabilization
CIP-2 Stubbs Bay Wetiand 15 15
Restoration
CIP-3 Wiilow Drive Roadside BMPs 2.7 2.7
Fox Street/Old Crystal Bay
QP-4 Road Ponding and 1.7 1.7
Conve ance Im rovements
�P_5 Orono Orchard Road 4.0 4
Roadside BMPs
CIP-6 Long Lake Wetland 16 16
Restoration
CIP-7 Long Lake Ravine 12 12
Stabilization
West Lafayette Road
CIP-8 Roadside BMPs and Water 1.6 1.6
uali Im rovements
QP_9 Forest Lake Landing Water 0.38 0.38
uali Im rovements
CIP-10 Old Crystal Bay Road 2 5 2.5 5
Roadside BMPs
CIP-11 Contributions to South 55 55
Katrina Marsh Im rovements
aP_12 Long Lake Creek Corridor 20 20
Im rovements
�_1 Stormwater Ordinance 20% 0.93 0.89 12 0.18 14
P-reduction
OM-1 Street Swee in 9.0 9.0 19 9.0 46
OM-2 Sum Manhole Cleanin 1.4 1.4
Total Obtained Ib/ r 67 35 88 67 257
Total R uired Ib r 35 31 152 12 230
Note:CIP-C#refers to comp/eted capital imp�ovements
Gry of Orono ' � BOIIeStr00 Page S00
Surface Water Management Plan
a
Q
Table 9.2-Surface Water Management Program,SWPPP Implementation
ID Description Project Impetus Funding 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015-2020
Source
MS4-1 Annual NPDES Permit and NPDES MS4 SWPPP SWU $3,900 $3,900 $3,900 $3,900 $3,900 $19,500
SWPPP Updates MCM-1
"Lets keep it clean"
contributions newsletter NPDES MS4 SWPPP
MS4-2 Website,administrative,� MCM-1 SWU $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000
. etc.
Adopt a Park Program NPDES MS4 SWPPP SWU $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $2,500
Administration MCM-2 and MCM-3
MS4-3 Updates to Storm Sewer MCM-3 SWU $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $5,000
System Map
Inspections of illicit NPDES MS4 SWPPP SWU/
MS4-4 discharges,ponds, storm � MCM-3 and MCM-6 Other Funds $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $15,000
sewer and culverts
MS4-5 I�licit Septic System NPDES MS4 SWPPP SWU/ �$g�000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $40,000
Discharge and Detection MCM-3 Other Funds
Annual clean up day, bi- NPDES MS4 SWPPP
MS4-6 annual leaf and grass MCM-3 General Fund $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000
disposal
� MS4-7 Organics Recycling NPDES MS4 SWPPP General Fund $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $12,500
Pragram MCM-3
� MS4-8 Construction Site MCM-4 Developer $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000
Inspection Program Funded
MS4-9 Erosion Control NPDES MS4 SWPPP SWU $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $12,500
Management Training MCM-4 •
Stubbs Bay Ravine �aKe MinnetonKa
�P-1 Stabilization Subwatershed P- SWU/Grants - $120,000 - - - -
reduction
Stubbs Bay Wetland Lake Minnetonka
�P�2 Res#oration Subwatershed P- SWU/Grants $70,000 - - - - -
reduction
Willow Drive Roadside Lake Minnetonka
�P-3 BMPs Subwatershed P- SWU/Grants $65,000 - - - - -
reduction
Fox Street/Old Crystal Bay Drainage Issue,
�IP� Road Ponding and Minnetonka SWU/Grants - $55,000 - - - -
Conveyance Subwatershed P-
Im rovements reductions
Orono Orchard Road Lake Minnetonka
CIP-5 Roadside BMPs Subwatershed P- SWU/Grants - - $130,000 - - -
reduction
Long Lake Creek
CIP-6 Long Lake Wetland (upstream of Long SWU/Grants - - - $60,000 - -
Res#oration Lake)Subwatershed P- �
reduction
Long Lake Creek
CIP-7 Long Lake Ravine (upstream of Long SWU/Grants - - - $40,000 - -
Stabilization Lake)Subwatershed P-
reduction
West Lafayette Road Lake Minnetonka
CIP-8 Roadside BMPs and Water Subwatershed P- SWU/Grants - - - - $54,000 -
uali Im rovements reduction
Forest Lake Landing Lake Minnetonka
CIP-9 Water Quality Subwatershed P- SWU/Grants - - - - $20,000 $120,000
Im rovement reduction
Painters Creek and Lake
CIP-10 Old Crystal Bay Road Minnetonka SWU/Grants - - - - - $33,000
Roadside BMPs Subwatershed P-
reduction
Contributions to South Painters Creek
CIP-11 Katrina Marsh • Subwatershed P- SWU/Grants - - - - $50,000 $50,000
Improvements reduction
CIP-12 Long Lake Creek Corridor MCWD Phosphorus SWU - 30,000 30,000 - - -
r Improvements Reduction
CIP-13 Shoreline Buffering and MCWD Phosphorus SWU/Grants $10,000 $10,OQ0 $10,000 '$10,000 $10,000 $50,000
Stabilization Reduction
CIP-14 Private Rain Garden/ MCWD Phosphorus Watershed �5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000
BMP Implementation Reduction Funded
General Maintenance of NPDES M54.nsWePe__ .____Swu/,.___.�. _._
OM-1 �Pond;Storrn 5evaer,anil - � MCM-3 and MCM-6 Privately Funded $30,000 -$30,000 $30,000 $40,000 -$40,000 : $200,000- _-
Culverts
OM-2 Street Sweeping MCWD Phosphorus SWU $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $5,000
Reduction
OC-1 ISTS Program City Wide Phosphorus program Funds $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000
Reduction
Construction Site Erosion
�_2 Control Ordinance City Wide Sediment Developer �Z0,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $100,000
Implementation and Load Reductions Funded
� � u ates if necessa
Wetland Buffer Ordinance City Wide Phosphorus Developer
OC-3 Impl�nentation Reduction Funded $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $75,000
OC-4 Stormwater Management SWU - $4,000 - - - -
Ordinance
TOTAL Annual Cost $257,400 $331,400 $282,400 $232,400 $256,400 $865,000
Costs in 2009 dollars
• �
_ 0
� (�
� 1 l
�
,�..� . ���1 , � u. �. :: � L� -
. , ` -
,� � ,f -r! {�I � .. �:�::: _l� ' - - �c. rs
:.f
t" I r
. . �.,,1���. . .��..� :.�.1 :`� �-.rb L � 1�.. � �
' r � . . ....� ..� '(• v ,
I'� ,��1���` I ��� i r 1 ��� �;f �� _ —1
. .
` �•,��'� ���; , �i g
�..�..�..�..�r� }��;;.1� ��� � ." . ... , �`� -,,?) ._ - -
,� , � , _. __
. .. , � � :..
. .-...
:
...
..
. ; . _
�.,� �y��:���
:. ,. .
� . .. _
, ,: :
. . . 1 : �:� -
, ��� i
� ��,� �,. ��� . . . . .
.. �
�� � � r,� ���-_' ��J '. ��� ._�_ _ ���
� �:,':.� m 1'� ,I � � .� � ' / � 1
3 umi �� �''� 10i � . " .
� �'' .
�,���� - - '` ���� . ��� � ��1��:_�.� .,,� G
�.�•`� �yr r�� r, � - � ��, � ._,.r J.��.��� .. � ; �--��
��I i �t ��� '� .. I �� �I � .�. I I
�� ��� � ` � � . . -�'�t . - . U�� �_- _ V�� ,'w- , E:E f' _ ( �
� : ,. .�. F . _ ' � �� N � ') �./.
. • �. . � r � .1
� , �.�.':`�, �� " ���Illl� 4L���'i .1� -1� �t i/— �: _I�,�. '
� '•, ° , �'#�}�ti °'M�t�� -% ,,o � :,� ,�,�I��U�� �� �, � � �i 1 :_
�� � -�,� - �i�i� � a + � � ,
,� . ��:� � .� � _ _
. �� . ,. � �(�, �:--
� < � � �
-
��rii _y, ♦ rLL - ,, .c� -�.� ..:
� /i� 1 �
' I �.. ��. �p !?;�� r� �� I
���'t1 ' � = ����r..s � i l ..�` �,c�, _ + _ _ �+y.�i� ,, i _—_ �
� ' ' � �
,, P ', I��, I �� _1� _�,�..' ��41T1-i�II �..� ��.�0� �1 �YY ,.� \
'" �� �i _�. - at�
,:� i.. � _ � d�, ,,:� .
>
" TY��`�'�(' �� ,.�.�'���"���1; `..*���i�1i�' u ,�, �� ,�������;� � ��� —'N I r:y �
�
`� � „v�� t����ti. . 4��� ��� ljt.f f �l\ `� J, L �— 1��ukb� lr e I � . _�....� Z
�� > `�' � 11�9 1 �� , • o I
`„� � y y' �� �(.y '1 HF� � j/ �'.' � ,�.^'`��1ir`�����Ill�r�� r.,'� � `� �*../ i�� �II �-T /{3�{� .._
, -
' .�.
��:����� � � ���1�� � �� .�-�...�� � - �� � � �,� � � ��
' � � -� ��
t� ��.�� ,,,�.p � �„ .
:. �. � , _
` , . y� � - �� :.��y o _ .. � ` � r ::: :.:
' �� A9' L,�. P���l � n$_io.,i i � � , __a�; �
� � r , �
I s� `, � ,�.......:�:.:�?.:° /f
. � _ I
t .r .�,.. �, x �J. : :i'E E:i E''. 1`,, n�
�,"�� �. �• V���'�V> � � �� ' fSt__� � � � �� ��i
. �., �,. : =F- '� _ L _ �
�; i , m m �
y r.• w���r r�i,�iy -�- +� � �
'6:l �1/�. �.� � ��- . ;, - =t.`.—.
- i
� �` v�� .: ��` ��
�,-.��"��7p-� �`,_i�..�°�+. ' � � :.;:: °� : i � ���.' sl
♦ � r. !'� .. .:.:.� . �� � ��.. . _ _.
�!S'> ,. .
♦ , '`� � •
•� j�"1/ � i � :; . ' �'i-� I I L � �
:.:. Y
•.::.
, ', ,..e. o r' �■
� �.,Y . r� . � �E: : . E' ` i r �1�
1 ' ��
♦ ♦ �
�n � `'i:i.. , - � . .:
♦ �'
._ ._� _ � � �.: I -'� ... :.!
♦ . 't'�':,.� • �1 (� `.` � I I r #�,., �.
,����'�'ti �-� ; ,���, �y � : �`: ��. 1 �l �AdrC� t a l7 _i : � _ _ — `�.: I'".� i�
�� r� � ; -€: � 1 � i�:
.
� ��
� ,- ; z �, �... ��,1�7 � � �-1�
� �, �W � �� - _ ��Y�. � I �i � _ _
" � �� �.-1i —� ,� � a
. , ;.� .
: t- � - �� : , ,. l� .. ' � , ��� '.'� �..� �,� � � ...
_ _. � • � -, �:
/ � 1 �I � - ti . `. � o o �
: : . . �.. .��.�.
. (.
I I � ��> : - ���� _ I " '�"�P�� i( ����� j
. . _: ,t7 I Ittl � N
_
---
�°� .�...� � �� a�- _- � , IIWIt�,1;; - . �� �J f �L
_ �i c<3 i
'� ,,� .. � l . ... W . it��ip .. . � � --
�� �� �� �� ��,_ r _• ��_ n � � � L� rJ(i� ��n �
� ,
I� �IO �! � � � " � ',.� � _ - j f� W�ti' ��� �� .�
� '. � j '�-�-� ' � ^
. �� � � L
N'�-�����7 �....u.... �. :. ���� 4'� � � � �� �� i�<`'', ��t"'��L s� T�[-1 ",��� �� �jrl
.
rlpi���_ �j)T � " "`'`' ,
� •�'-��r� � ,,�h�������J, 1 !��'""lJl��ll _ r y�7,m� \ ' : �� .. .,:��1 'r� ��� � �; ��7�i` �`� �`�
1� `. .� +
. , {1
� —v— — '�., ��` 'j'�(�'� � •.:' ��LI� ;g,6G�,�' �, ���. ��� ' — 1:.�
- � • °
' ' . I _ .. . • �" _ �
� � � '`�'�.'t.: ' 1 I � U� � �o
' /�l%" �' .��ii \ �In 1. l 1„�� 1:.�-,�}. , � 1 r I -1
. . �„ , �
l .
. ._,
1 �/, �� ,�,� �,�1,� p �N �� ��a� ,�� ,�- �� !
. „ .
. � _ .� ,'�� � ' � �:;::
. :.. _... ..� — _ I. � 't'J1.. fD , .
e :.: - m� <c,;:- -� ,� �r �s. 1 �%;
..:,. :.
: I t:E;:E•:F..... Oi 3, : o �. .. �� /;
� � ��
1 .:�:.�:.:�:.:^.:�:. �c
, .......:•:.:�:.:�:. ? . .`�. �_,: .
... ;.:.:i�i:i• _
� . ' ' � __— ., �
. .. _ \ __ � � , .
' ;� '` —, y _ _ t
` \;g ij. C�,�, m� ' �� �.,.,`� ,,' �/ .
, ,����� �._1 t1�__ �,o ' __I .n,� ,, '� -�t li-�
.;.:;.
__.. {
�_ ,
�� Cl. � � � _ m �, :E:;,'I ��� �
::.. � .. �-. . ��.�
..
.. - �,.I ` � �': -
�
::.
/ � - , .._ ��!
}� rm �' . � ��■ � + -- - _..
_ �, � � r _ -.,_ " � ✓ a1 .. �...1, --- ����c
_ � �
r � m — .. � o
, ; . � �,�,`�::. � �r��� �: — �`--
,• --. l; �-m �,�•�,�y : .�. _ . i o
.. . � � �� ... �:-- : . ��
, .�
� � � � m° � �`'��� � cn �� i„� j.. �� � �l._
, ,.:
_.
..' N �O I�A�`1 �r � . : .i �C�:. ; � '�-
pi f (`� ��F,.. 1� . � ' � N (7 ,_� � ...
� � . :. ,, ��.. � ��lRu1 �.�,. ..
t
_—
ti yY¢ �. � � �`ti�..:' +�'�
♦ �'r� ,�fN"G � T I �n, �, .°�
• �r , f
.
�., � � �. : �... . *� �.... ; v � ,
<<._ ;.:. :-.::.. �
� 1
�' :��' � ���'q i::i � t _i'`v � ` • :: °."
0
, /� ... � �
.� ...
�tin�n�u�u�n�n�n�n�n�n�n�n�n�tr�t��v�n�u�n� �4�J�+ 7YU����iY :�. -� � � ...... _... ��--�/
. _ � �.:�JI:.:E�i:E�E:i:i�i:...
� ..
�.. .
���/� ....:.: '
W . . __, :.i..• _ \
p e
� �..�... ,� . . i._.._ � :. ..
+ _'
.. ...
�
Q ... ,\�: . ..1.�' � l.
�
O ' ry
� �:�:.:•:•• "&l �
•....
�.:' .r. : �.�. � _
,
o �
'_E ' . ' � `�c _... _.. ,.:
_r .-�Y' ;.?k::W�'i•.. .,'t.1 �� `' _�__- :.
■'�:__ . /��`
V1 '
O � .� . �,.� �.
... •
.. ! i :. .' h ,
" tLll � �� _
o �' � � ,'r�S�r `� !�' 1
r° � I, 'I _ � �, �' � °0 1
;`�,'
•:'�� ; . . .�` ;.��:��
w
°o
0
1
� �J' 0�� � � � � �
� �� � �(�+ Z C� � o � � � o v n�i � N c
� � � � m Q � v n� < <
� m w � � � n�i � � n m m � ��! �
o � �m c � n� � n O � < (n � V ^ p�—j N
� � � � m m � p � � � � � Q < � � ` ' _ � � �
Gl � � .� in m � n> � <p l� � '� C d ;a O
O < . O .Z1 �p N � '6 .,q w5r E� YQ,
Vl Q� � � (D ,�„ N � SU fD .�4., .
� rn v� z -° � o �n � � � � o c3D [�D �� �� a-,.,.' O;;
� N ,W o a. � o m � � � �D � P'f u � �*e� , ��'
� d (n � /\� N� Tr
� 0 'w ��• � � � �' � aY ...
� V�
T
�}' m N � � � � •_ l�D(D
� � � �
� � ai m � n m �"� r�D
n � � � � ' � 7
� rt
v Q n p' .O
�
� » 7 \
x a � �
a �
a