The URL can be used to link to this page

87-1357 WHITE - CITV CLERK PINK -�INANCE G I TY O F SA I NT PA U L Council �'��s7 Cl.YARV - DEPARTMENT BLUE - MAVOR File NO. Council Resolution Presented By � Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, The Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act of 1982 provides for review of watershed management plans by all cities having territory within the watershed, and states that any city which expects that substantial amendment of its local comprehensive plan will be necessary in order to bring local water management into conformance with the watershed plan shall describe as specifically as possible, within its corr�nents, the amendments to the local plan which it expects will be necessary; and WHEREAS, The City's Planning Commission ordinance provides that the Planning Commission shall serve as an advisory body to the Mayor and City Council on municipal planning matters; and WHEREAS, The Saint Paul Planning Corrrnnission has reviewed the proposed Central Ramsey Watershed Management Plan for compliance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and for issues of municipal planning concern; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has found the proposed watershed management plan to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Saint Paul City Council supports the adoption of the proposed Central Ramsey Watershed Management Plan and recommends forwarding the following comments to the Central Ramsey Watershed Management Organization (WMO): 1.) the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan does not require amendment in order to bring local water management into conformance with the proposed Watershed Management Organization plan; 2.) proposed solutions to flooding problems should be based on 100-year events and should provide adequate estimates of costs incurred by a 100-year event and equitable proposals for cost-sharing among affected communities; 3.) sufficient data should be provided to enable public bodies to plan for intercommunity flow of runoff; COU[VCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays ? [n Favor De artment of P i o i t _ __ Against Form ov d y City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY � By / Approved by Mayor: Date _ Approve ayor for Submi 'o to Counoil By _ BY WNITE - CITV CLERK PINK � FINANCE G I TY OF SA I NT PAIT L Council �7`/�� C�{1NARV - DEPARTMENT BLUE . - MAVOR File NO. Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date 4.) stormwater runoff management costs to affected public bodies should be estimated where appropriate and a procedure should be developed for sharing costs where intercommunity flows are involved; 5.) the Watershed Management Organization plan should be as specific as possible in defining its standards for controlling and treating various types of runoff; 6.) before finally adopting special requirements for stormwater management plans in critical areas, the Watershed Management Organization should make sure that the implementation of new regulations is feasible and that both small and large developers can readily obtain the engineering expertise needed to develop stormwater management plans; 7.) the Watershed Management Organization should provide adequate training for City inspectors and plan reviewers in enforcing stormwater runoff and water quality management requirements; 8.) the City supports the retrofitting of existing conveyance systems with settling basins when feasible, but recognizes potential problems with obtaining suitable land and public acceptance; 9.) the City supports Watershed Management Organization studies to determine what capital improvements are needed and how they will be financed; and FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Council 's recommendations be transmitted to the Water Resources Board. C�UNCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Dr'2W Nays Nicosia �_ �n Favor De artment of Plannin and Economic Develo ment Rettman Scheibel p Sonnen __ A gai n s t BY Weida W1130ri SEP 16 1987 Form Approve y City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified V•ss by ounc.il Se a BY sy Appro by .Vlavor: Date �SE� 1 7 �8 Appro d ayor for Subm' ion t CounCil By P�IS�p �E=P ? 6 1987 � � . F„ b 1� ,i fii . �{ .�1�� 4 �: � f �y v t _ �r �j � 1 . �� " .�+�f�l�7i��t'��I Tr'��,Y��C�Oe},� � � � f �y r,e7 �r ry � ,�.i-:1�f.t r �r' � ,y �� f� � � � '4 k..��x i�il n�`��; 1*��tV�4� �I ��,��t�64�^yyfi� �i�•�{ffM� f tfi''� � /� K.�O �.�'.�..ilOV`Y�Yb �_ d ,. �, ..r . . ,. v.a,� �r .!" ;r '�. PECI--PI anning ;. � _.DEPARTMLNT ,. _ ` � -.��--, �" Mark Vander Schaaf CONTACT NAME 3373 , _ PHONE . � August �. 1987 . DATE _' • ::' ASSIGN NUMBER FOR ROtTTING ORDER (See raverse side ) ,�, � �A ��tt . . �. '� � '.: �S�, d �� '��. a ��1":A ^�^r r �t ! ', � N'�t�'�„T�.�F�.�.:t ? ,.. . � .'��t � ,��: �F;��"� t.Y r�� k�,� �' � epartment �Director � ��' : ,Y F� �,�',� Mayor �or Assistant) ' ,', ` . , '�: .. " � , ,_ _ Finance and Management Services Director P,° ��%'�.:City Clerk `� ;;'..�� Budget Director ;� , ; �;�� },� , �1,�r; � ; ,;,��,��F� � z�� cting De�au�y Directnr for Planning � city atto�,ey � �"� 'z�(�x:. ,� �H;:r� ''- '� ` � t. �}� „� �ty Sovnci 1 . �rr r - ; �`��`��rk��. ��K$`I�:}� �u��j� �`A,-.r c '+� °or .1. a«�� f�'�� . w.e.. t ��.S# l ;�;-,.r,ry��a��4� T ',::' - ��.m �t d.. , '",.., . . . . �..,. - .*'�i��`t�Y`�. TOTAL NIIMBER OF SIGNATURF PAGES 5 (Clip alI locations for signature ) ' ' �,, , J 4 ' . t. . ..�Lu,g,, t1 Y"4 1 �< e (- ��k�" ae..< <r^4 1.-,. i <a4 M:sw`r��' � .;+ t�i �3?a° #FS�:,� �,, ;,. , _.: �"`'�-i��!�{ �;,... � � ry . � z. .+� ,. ., .. r�., . �.. � , �",".� .. . . T , . . +�r �#+:��`' .: • • , .°x '�-�� WHAT WILL BE ACHIEVED BY TAKING ACTION ON THE ATTACHED MATERIALS? (Purpose%Ratiortale� Attached.:are �Planning .Commission resolutions and staff�reports concerning the , n _ Watershed ��lanagement Plan and the Southwest Ramsey� Watershed Management Plan. e i •y is-- required to4review watershed management �plans as :pa�rt�of'�the process of plan adoption. The` Planning Commiss.ion has begun this review with its, resolutions. The review process wiit 6e cor�p]ete when� the�City Cauncil passes a resolution .to .forward the Planning Corr�nission's � comnents to the 'appropriate Watershed Management Organiiations and to the Water Resources Board. ��' � ``,� Y�i-y t w • t ,_,�,� �i�� `.T, �+i, �<<*S e.r ,s � � � ��r �y -' � � � ~�°�'��. � >.�. Y*i"�7M r i...' _.. .:I�'X" LZ'4�fy� i'�..'-• �.>..`i4, '�s .'��t f..�..p.. ,�.;, s � 4 � � ; COST/BENEFIT. BU�GETARY. 'AND PERSONNEL IMPACTS AN,T�CIPATED. �'. F '";��;� � ;��t��`�` �t�. : t ' tt t IIT� '.i�{�� 'kT11+ � t^4 +it�1 k F 1 1 h Ai";C i '�Y�i T 4C"�t' z . `.'. �{ { �}�F ` ll t�f ; �b}��r ^2 �� C� F J 5.i'�iw'� : ''..h �4E, 4) � i d P . r 'f� r .� �`P,E ' �� +,� t . !` �' a ��. xz� �A.b �' '� � ��it+A�t ��:,, 't�R 1t rP 1�{'� None �� ,� ,� .�„ ��,.� , �, k� �,. , ��,y� _ ri.,u r� �� '� �� '�r,� �, 1 - 5 t ..��A+Y J �. �b . Y Y M1� 'kJ^ k+'�f�! ' t ktt� �` ' 'i �2 ,. . � �" � i'.�r�,,W�2'ttw�t!_'1"�r,�� \ . ��t�� /'R7'��`�� rt��f..�� F>+' � �� ,�{ iv,'�!�I��` ��j�� 'r � - ��f > i:v�r� . �s� .,+..�� t.�' k? � «F".,n a N,:.w�Y. \� Mr} .; x , �'��` {7�'�� °' d�' t �'i�� <v� 1 . � 1 � � '� 1/}�i�,�.F}� �'. . / - . � � � "' M1�N`r�� F'\,f� 1 a-1 �\ .,..: ,�� f . . ..• a v,: �i^t�� f u�4.A&�.'�kS y F1T:,� .nr ' /�\�� (� (�� .'r � r 3r !�� l'�a ,1g87�. � ,�•. � 'k �' u t �� `�;. ��a?', �,� �R�r� i;S� -. t t.: t + w �� k . c� �.' �{.:+ . ��:. w'' S4 Ltt 3' ., ,� y+-.:: 7'..:. p � ;", i.}��i .. � � ;rt#'h*'�N.,rs�t . �!'ca�#7 .y..�i .j,.; �.,... .. ;,� ;; ,.k_ . , :. �. .; , ,: ; , Y l4TT(3�i�.�� . FINANCING SOURCE AND BUDGET ACTIVITY NUMBER CHARGED OR CREDITED: ,� (Mayor's signature not required if under; $10,000 ) ""�,/�� Y , � ti�� .:�..� , .:. ,yA��:�. � .� :..,. j��/4r¢�ti�sy��L�e '�Y�aa&i �.4 ;f� � iZ+:��i 4s'x�.l b r�#i ��4�'S...., :� 'Ly�,eT�yy$ ��ri/YR/r .- ��ta&`�.. :%GJ��G�� h �f� 4 � ' • a;, 'S,",'r *' N�� Total 13mount of Transaction � F ��,�+�� F Activity Number �" �f �� " �`�?� ' a�. i` �`na.yLei.�.�ank�A�� r�5 f � 7,.ti �[ ^ . . .. 7�� # '�`:t .��;it .s�ftY\�"� g t1,f',� W �'� ��y"�nt'�,.�1��;_�! �R,>Rd � �rl��kj, f�' � �p qn�}^�.^.�'�� t�i.i� "�t.'„A�+,q^Uiic � ,. . t .,"�4�.. .., i3 �. � � {�� i ��j��k'F .:i � c v:_�� a.f��11"t��%�7}� S L`�,#`�S� �"r�-��. .� � Funding :'ource s E ' r ,r�a; (��q,�� r T� � r t . • �ft �'��; �r�+� ° " 'i��it �,�y#,f r='s�i 5i r p*�s��'S h �! S ��' �1�4 . �{� y� 1 �� f z � d.�a ' 1a:S3 i,��x' �,�r-S, y,� �rt 9 4��VO� •�'.�. t f g �*�: t i.y I��i�y�}xf, ��,1�lsl�:e�r� ��'�j&� �*x:5., r g�t��.y . k � ""�7�( �` . ;m • 4,T i � � � �� µ ... � � �� .�3 f 1� � ��. � �r _ a 3 �: n, '- t i �t7 t��.��i � J g� i 3� t t.� �y s� ..-� i� `t " Y�le,��'�t�'�p'�M trM�t�.h�4��+Yc!f'��'7 �x`3YbA ��p . ��{�i�kj4�N��7Ri��.� �!9k i.��µ �x�l,:. ATTACHMENTS ,(List..and 'nwnber all� attachments.) � � ' �� :�� " k�� '��' � ' a,��p , . .�•! �-'��.-i��` ' r ?r$' =: '°, �,�� 1. Letter transmitting.material from Mayor to City Council (1} �. Pr��se� Citv Counc�l resqlutions (2 2-pac�e forms� �.� _ . '�. . ; � . 3. Cen ra1� Ramsey_ materials �10 copies of,each� : a. lanning. "Comnission Resolution 87-93; b. Staff report; c: Copy of proposed C�ty Council resolution 4. Southwest Ramsey materials (10 copies` of each): a. Planning Comnission Resalution 87-94; b. Staff repnrt; c. Copy of proposed City �ouncil resolution . . �. „ �t�ac�. t a !'rF��f� ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES � '` � # � r a�� . � �� ' .. .��:�; , , - . . � j! t �..�`'�a •t i � ��r . . ... � - � ��.�!s i= � � . � . ... ��' r ,��:i` �� . . . . •b , l;: >', . �. � +rtt ��.. .xy..; a ?htYS�.' _Yes , �,No Rules,. Regulations, Procedures, or Budget Amendment required? " _Yes No `If 'yes; �are:they or timetable attached? � �:� — + , , , . DEPARTMENT REVIEW ;�t ;_ � ;?i� � } �� r��;,5;g �; - �a CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW , • _'.�4 +�r`��t;�Y� .�`r`"l2,`t 2 w+�y�y'EK'��,} '7�i f�r9C�',��5 i bf''� 1"3 ..'��'J�''S.�w�,.��J i:� .,-!•�,: � ":'i��`j GrS.;�,��,''.::�. , r � :fs�r� �._. ...:t ..r,�i; � , -. % hF.•v�.. r�; . � �� . '! •.x �7 �!j .., .. . . ..r_�v-.. A � . , X Yes `,�` No �Council resolution required? , ;Resolution required? Y Yes� _No _Yes -��No ::�Insurance�:required?_ ;,�m' � � ; ` ,,; ,�`�,�,�.'Insurance sufficient��_Yes _No :. i d��:•i-�� •_ "j �, Yy�� 4 r,�� .� ; r:..'� y�' .. i Yes �,No �Insurance`�attached?� <,� :,, ,�r�« � `:�� .t�,.,�J+ � ;.�,�� ' , �^. ,� t �� , � , r d� �.,4,� ,; . , t a aF �, ,�.. # , i- .: 1� �,�•-�j 1�j r a � i s��16...r 4' 9� ,�L� ,� ��.. `j�� (c4 � ' i '7 /�J��'*`F�� 9��"' '�'S� � � S �Rd }�«W�li'R��W��i��4�k � �� F�� S}' ..� �YY� ,f,e"t/ Y a s � �,t, � r ua.$ �„ '�jy��t,�.,�.t,rvAR �� .� j , r a 7�' j�y, 4 f��,� .r . �,.r zr �� F�� r �� yi�irFt�� ' '��:�: ��f�"H7d�>� f � � , t S�� s�y''' '{ i � �`.�� . �Z / . .�� K�jy R ._�� ._}� '?s , : � t :' ,�)I k�. . ' � � ��/ Q.A!.4 � �� aV r� "��SP yy� ��,� ♦ ,' '� ':'��.tf'�''%#t�., �� f '� � . .a��y'k'T"ar- :_:,� �.r,s�. a} ,�iA.� '� '�,Y� �s�v � �� .��'� 14,0. : :S. �� f __ .._ .. . + -.:.. >ei� . '.. �' � . �� t**o� ' GITY OF SAINT PAUL . � :� '; � OFFICE OF THE MAYOR e a ' I�i i i 1° : . .� �� ,... , 347 CITY HALL SAIN7' PAllL, MINNESOTA 55102 GEORGE LATIMER (612) 298-4323 MAYOR August 19, 1987 , President John Drew and Members of the City Co�ncil 713 City Hall Dear President Drew and Members of the City Council: The Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act of 1982 requires that water management in the Twin Cities area be guided by watershed plans which encourage intergovernmental cooperation. Each watershed is to have its own plan, created by its watershed management organization or district. Cities within each watershed participate in the creation and review of each plan. When all applicable watershed plans have been adopted, each city must then revise its plans and/or procedures to cc,nform to all applicable watershed plans. Saint Paul will be subject to five watershed management plans. One plan, the Ramsey-Washington Metro District Plan, has already been adopted. The City has now reached the stage of reviewing two additional plans, those of the Central Ramse_y and Southwest Ramsey Watershed Management Organizations. The Planning Commission has found each of these plans to be consistent with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and has identified several issues of municipal planning concern which should be forwarded to the respective watershed management organizations. The areas of planning concern involve ways in which the watershed management organization can be more helpful in providing information and guidance to member communities. I am pleased �o transmit to you the Planning Commission resolution and accompanying staff report for each plan. I recommend that they be supported and forwarded to the relevant watershed management organization and to the Water Resources Board. Very truly yours, � �� ) eorg atimer Mayor GL/bp !��b��48 . �� * ' �" � . . , (>,��y�.9-� city of saint paui planning commission resolution file number 8 7-9 3 C�te AUgust �4, �9s� WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act of 1982 provides for review of watershed management plans by all cities having territory within the watershed, and states that any city which expects that substantial amendment of its local comprehensive plan will be necessary in order to bring local water management into conformance with the watershed plan shall describe as specifically as possible, within its comments, the amendments to the local plan which it expects will be necessary; and WHEREAS, the City's Planning Commission ordinance provides that the Planning Commission shall serve as an advisory body to the Mayor and City Council on municipal planning matters; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed Central Ramsey Watershed Management Plan for compliance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and for issues of municipal planning concern; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found the proposed watershed management plan to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Commission supports the adoption of the proposed Central Ramsey Watershed Management Plan and recommends forwarding the following comments to the Central Ramsey Watershed Management Organization (WMO) : 1. ) the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan does not require amendment in order to bring local water management into conformance with the t proposed Watershed Management Organization plan; 2. ) proposed solutions to flooding problems should be based on 100-year events and should provide adequate estimates of costs incurred by a 100-year event and equitable proposals for cost-sharing among affected communities; 3. ) sufficient data should be provided to enable public bodies to plan for intercommunity flow of runoff; moved by� MC DON_F. ,L _ �a'1�J�d � �MADDOX _ in fav�or Un._.an_us against- . . . . G�- �7�.�� 4. ) stormwater runoff management costs to affected public bodies should be estimated where appropriate and a procedure should be developed for sharing costs where intercommunity flows are involved; 5. ) the Watershed Management Organization plan should be as specific as possible in defining its standards for controlling and treating various types of runoff; 6. ) before finally adopting special requirements for stormwater management plans in critical areas, the Watershed Management Organization should make sure that the implementation of new regulations is feasible and that both small and large developers can readily obtain the engineering expertise needed to develop stormwater management plans; 7. ) the Watershed Management Organization should provide adequate training for City inspectors and plan reviewers in enforcing stormwater runoff and water quality management requirements; 8. ) the City supports the retrofitting of existing conveyance systems with settling basins when feasible, but recognizes potential problems with obtaining suitable land and public acceptance; 9. ) the City supports Watershed Management Organization studies to determine what capital improvements are needed and how they will be financed; and FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission's recommendations be transmitted to the Mayor and City Council for their consideration. ��.�s7 R°`CttTrO•:, .. � , CITY OF SAINT PAUL ; �;��„„ ; DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT `.�� _� �� „o DIVISION OF PLANNING 25 West Fourfh Sheet,Sainf Paui,Minnesota 55102 ,•s• 612-22&3270 GEORGE UTIMER MAYOR STAFF REPORT T0: Planning Commission FROM: Mark Vander Schaaf 1"i- �/ SUBJECT: Planning Commission Review of the Central Ramsey Watershed Management Plan DATE: August 6, 1987 INTRODUCTION The Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act of 1982 (Chapter 509, Minnesota Statutes Section 473.875 to 473.883) establishes watershed management organizations (WMOs) and directs each WMO to prepare and implement a watershed management plan. Local units of government having territory within a particular WMO are required to adopt a local water management plan, a capital improvement program, and official controls as necessary to bring local water management into conformance with each relevant watershed plan. Six separate watersheds cover territory within Saint Paul's city limits. Saint Paul is expected to conform with WMO plans for five of these watersheds. The only land in Saint Paul included in the sixth watershed is Pike Island (State-owned and undeveloped) ; thus, Saint Paul is not required to conform to the WMO plan for this watershed. Of the five t�'?��10 plans governing Saint Paul, only one has been adopted. The plan for the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District was approved by the Water Resources Board and adopted by the District early in 1987. Plans for the Central Ramsey and Southwest Ramsey WMOs are now being reviewed by member municipalities. The plans for Saint Paul's other two watersheds have not yet been released for review. The following staff report addresses the draft Stormwater Runoff and Water Quality Management Plan which the Central Ramsey Watershed Management Organization transmitted to the City of Saint Paul for review and comment. The Central Ramsey WMO includes portions of four municipalities in central Ramsey County--Saint Paul, Roseville, Maplewood and Falcon Heights (see attached map) . In Saint Paul, it includes all of Planning Districts 6, 7 and 17, and portions of Districts 4, S, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 16. To conform to each WMO plan, Saint Paul may need to revise its Zoning Code and its site plan review process. The Saint Paul Sewer Division will have the primary responsibility for developing new City water management plan requirements and new Zoning Code provisions. The Sewer Division, along with . . ��-�.�-� August 6, 1987 Page Two the Division of Housing and Building Code Enforcement, will also be responsible for enforcing the new requirements through the building and site plan review processes. � AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW The Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act of 1982 provides for review of watershed management plans by all cities having territory within each watershed. It further directs that any city which expects that substantial amendment of its local comprehensive plan will be necessary in order to bring local water management into conformance with the watershed plan shall describe as specifically as possible, within its comments, the amendments to the local plan which it expects will be necessary. The City's Planning Commission ordinance provides that the Planning Commission shall serve as an advisory body to the Mayor and City Council on municipal planning matters. MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND STRATEGIES The Central Ramsey WMO has identified four surface water management issues and has devised strategies for dealing with each issue. The following summarizes each issue and considers to what extent each corresponds to issues and strategies identified in the Saint Paul Comprehensive Sewer Plan. 1. Combined Sewer Overflow - Issue: The City of Saint Paul's Comprehensive Sewer Plan--Part I, Stormwater Management, March 1984, identifies where combined sewers are located and what problems are associated with them. The City's plan also provides a summary of proposed solutions and cost estirnates for these solutions. A central component of Saint Paul's plan is a vigorous program to separate sanitary and storm sewers. This program also requires separate sanitary and storm interceptors (large sewer lines which collect sewage from a number of trunk lines) . Currently, a major project involves the Trout Brook interceptor which is currently a combined interceptor owned by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) . The MWCC is building a new Trout Brook sanitary interceptor approximately parallel to the existing combined interceptor. When the new interceptor is completed, the current interceptor will be returned to the City of Saint Paul and will be used only for stormwater drainage. The turn-back agreement for the old interceptor has not yet been negotiated, however. - WMO Management Strategy: Support Saint Paul's effort; be aware of Saint Paul projects that may benefit intercommunity stormwater management; assist in negotiating a turn-back agreement for the Trout Brook interceptor. . - , �� 7 /.�7 August 6, 1987 Page Three - Relationship to Saint Paul ComprEhensive Plan: The City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan on stormwater management (March 1984) recommends separate sewers in all new construction and a program of sewer separation in areas of the city served by combined sewers (Recommendations #1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 11 and 14; pp. 123, 124) . The same plan also makes other recommendations regarding solutions to problems of combined sewer overflow, including a roof drain disconnection program, a program for developing regional stormwater ponding areas, and a program to minimize stormwater runoff on construction sites (Recommendations #12, 13, 15 and 16; pp. 123, 124) . Finally, the plan recommends that the MWCC construct a new Trout Brook sanitary interceptor and sell the existing facilities back to Saint Paul (Recommendation #8, p. 123) . An amendment to the Comprehensive Sewer Plan on stormwater management (January 1986) establishes an accelerated ten year sewer separation program funded at $15.4 million per year with Saint Paul's share fixed at $4.8 million per year (p. 30) . This amendment was a result of new State and federal mandates and funding commitments. 2. Intercommunity Stormwater Runoff Management - Issue: Four areas of inter-community drainage problems were identified using HYDRO, a computer model developed by the City of Saint Paul to analyze depth and volume of runoff and rates of peak inflow and outflow for minor watersheds. First, Godfried Pit in Roseville will generate excess runoff that floods Larpenteur Avenue and some adjacent development, and will drain into Saint Paul's sewer system. Water depths during a 100-year, 24-hour storm could be as much as 10 feet in some apartments and homes on Larpenteur. Second, McCarrons Lake in Roseville will cause flooding up to the edge of Rice Street and runoff combined with this outflow will create a shallow flow of water across Rice Street. Third, there are three minor watersheds having no outlet for stormwater runoff--one in Falcon Heights and two in Roseville. Fourth, there are several entry points where the combined sanitary/storm sewer capacity will be exceeded during a heavy storm, causing water to collect at low points or flow on street surfaces to re-enter downstream storm drains. - WMO Management Strategy: The WMO plan identifies alternative solutions for each of the four problems mentioned above. It also recommends a specific alternative in each case. . . . l��-i.�-�r August 6, 1987 Page Four First, the plan recommends expanding Godfried Pit to provide adequate storage for the 5-year, 24-hour storm. Second, the plan recommends increasing the outlet capacity under Rice Street to handle outflow from McCarrons Lake. Third, the plan makes no recommendation concerning minor watersheds with no outlet because these watersheds are within individual communities and have not caused flooding problems in the past. Fourth, the plan recommends the development of detention basins in situations where there are entry point capacity problems. - Relationship to Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan: The City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan on stormwater management (March 1984) recommends that Saint Paul seek the cooperation of the State of Minnesota, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, the Metropolitan Council and suburban communities in reaching the most beneficial solution to watershed problems which affect numerous governmental agencies (Recommendation #4, p. 123) . 3. Lake Management - Issue: Two lakes--McCarrons Lake (Roseville) and Lake Como (Saint Paul)--require management to improve their water quality. For both lakes, the central water quality concerns are water clarity and accelerated eutrophication (excessive nutrients and lack of oxygen) . Under the Federal Clean Lakes Program, water quality projects have been initiated for both lakes. For McCarrons Lake, the City of Roseville was the cooperating agency in developing a series of sedimentation basins and wetland treatment areas. The Metropolitan Council has contracted with the City of Roseville for post-project monitoring. For Lake Como, a program has been initiated with Ramsey County as the cooperating agency. This program will include two sedimentation basins, a system for diverting stormwater drainage, and an aeration system. Ramsey County will also be responsible for post-project monitoring. - WMO Management Strategy: The WMO will be a passive participant, reviewing and determining the efficiency of remedial programs undertaken by local government units. - Relationship to Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan: Not specifically addressed in the City's Comprehensive Plan because the Lake Como program is under federal direction with Ramsey County as the cooperating agency. . . , ��3� August 6, 1987 Page Five 4. Water Quality Management - Issue: Water quality should be protected in the protected waters and wetlands of the watershed. Protected waters consist of Lake Como, McCarrons Lake, Trout Brook and the Mississippi River. There are also three wetlands--two in Roseville and one in Saint Paul (Loeb Lake in Marydale Park) . - WMO Management Strategy: Each city should develop plans for housekeeping, source controls and construction site management. - Relationship to Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan: The City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan on stormwater management (March 1984) contains numerous recommendations such as those made by the WMO, including a roof drain disconnection program, the development of regional stormwater ponding, development and redevelopment site requirements, the introduction of new technologies to protect the environment, street sweeping and the cleaning of catch basin sumps. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Saint Paul Sewer Division will have the primary responsibility for developing and enforcing new city requirements to implement the watershed district plan. Sewer Division staff has reviewed the proposed watershed management plan and recommends that the City of Saint Paul support the adoption of the plan. Specific Sewer Division recommendations are contained in the attached memo from Roy Bredahl to Al Lovejoy dated July 27, 1987. Planning Division staff also recommends that the City of Saint Paul support the adoption of the proposed Central Ramsey Watershed Management Plan and recommends forwarding the following comments to the Watershed Management Organization: 1. The Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan does not require amendment in order to bring local water management into conformance with the proposed Watershed Management Organization plan. 2. Proposed solutions to flooding problems should be based on 100-year events and should provide adequate estimates of costs incurred by a 100-year event and equitable proposals for cost-sharing among affected communities. 3. Sufficient data should be provided to enable public bodies to plan for intercommunity flow of runoff. 4. Stormwater runoff management costs to affected public bodies should be estimated where appropriate and a procedure should be developed for sharing costs where intercommunity flows are involved. . . �,c��i..�7 August 6, 1987 Page Six 5. The Watershed Management Organization plan should be as specific as possible in defining its standards for controlling and treating various types of runoff. 6. Before finally adopting special requirements for stormwater management plans in critical areas, the Watershed Management Organization should make sure that the implementation of new regulations is feasible and that both small and large developers can readily obtain the engineering expertise needed to develop stormwater management plans. 7. The Watershed Management Organization should provide adequate training for City inspectors and plan reviewers in enforcing stormwater runoff and water quality management requirements. 8. The City supports the retrofitting of existing conveyance systems with settling basins when feasible, but recognizes potential problems with obtaining suitable land and public acceptance. 9. The City supports Watershed Management Organization studies to determine what capital improvements are needed and how they will be financed. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ACTION At its meeting of August 5, 1987, the Economic Development Committee discussed a draft staff report and draft recommendations with Planning Division and Sewer Division staff. The recommendations have been revised in accordance with discussion at that meeting. The committee unanimously recommended approval of the proposed resolution, as revised. z } o W Z 2 � o W " Q Z � ,�, o � � M � � O J W � � 'a c Q �, e� o � Y � � o ` Q � ° Y r � � V r Z3 � _ � W ~ � i � V � _ ui 3 f i - _ �a r- � . �� _ ��l .� . =< < � - _ __� � . _ � � � - ,. - _ - � �,�) - c: �_-- - , i __._ �=-- - ' �� _ _� I `�, /'T� � f " � ZF �j � �_ � � :�1 - . � " "�"'_" l` _ . ,� - � � ._. %. , ' �.r � , t� r;� � �I �-'` . ' ri f -�" . � � � _�1 - .�, '_..._� � __ .,...s � •"'-_..! `� _ ___ _ . _... , 6` . •� . , � �-- _ ' : ' ,�; - ►1�� 1 � . � ' . � '.�.% " _ . _ � � _ ;��_ ��, , ; - - �--- � -. �r � _ ` : . - = � '�. ; . < � �� :.�, ;�.o_;'.. -_. . - ; > " �: ��<;` Vk:. - � .- � " ` ` i' �, - � - `X � . l� - .- -�. c. F—'_� } E � �. �. � \ ' r� -_ - � _ `�, `_'._ �r �( � _- \`,, �» _ " � �_ �.t �� : � : _ , : �I - .,_,_ �;, . . . � � �r. � l T �1- �� ` r. � .�. � _�. .. . . . ^�.. ~ �� . S_�: � � 1 p"'r • r� � a a � _ � � � - 1 o : - � - . . , _ _ ; � _ .�, � � ' ` a . : � ��i a __ � � - • ° - _ � ,r : '` � �(! � .� ._,�.j... �-- � � �----�—� i � J� � : z�- � . � � ; Q_.., x ,, �� QW �^.�, . . . �� CITY OF SAINT PAUL INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: A1 Lovejoy Planning & Economic Development 1100 City Hall Annex FROM: Roy Bredahl Rj � Department of Public Works �` 700 City Hall Annex DATE: July 27, 1987 SUBJECT: Central Ramsey and Southwest Ramsey Watershed Management Plans � � The Department of Public Works submits the following comments for your staff report to the Economic Development Committee of the Planning Commission: General Observations The plans provide a basic document for meeting the requirements of the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act. These Watershed Management Organizations (WMO's) are admittedly loosely organized relying on the individual member communities to perform most regulatory, administration and construction functions. As planning organizations, the WMO's set general guidelines for the local activities, provide forums to settle disputes and oversee conformance with the plans. In reviewing the plans, the Sewer Division tried to anticipate the requirements of other agencies and certain city needs that have to be addressed. Therefore, we submit the followinq recommendations: These Watersheds have lost many wetlands to land development. Therefore, the remaining water resources are particularly.precious. Certain guidelines are needed to protect these resources in terms of quantity and quality. CENTRAL RAMSEY WATERSHED Our comments center around Chapter V of the Plan. 1. Combined Sewer Overflows The WMO is not directly involved in St. Paul's sewer separation except as it relates to the management of intercommunity flows. There should be a procedure for determining the cost sharing for structures that serve intercommunity flows. 2. Intercommunity Stormwater Runoff Management a. Solutions to the Godfried Pit overflow problem (P. V-10) appear to be based on a 5-year storm design. This may not be appropriate because normally such ponding areas are designed for a 100 year event. This project could create hidden costs to St. Paul if it results in more overflow from Lake Conio. ��-�-��s� b. The proposed solution to the McCarrons Lake overflow problem may conflict with St. Paul's plan for the Arlington-Jackson Pond and Trout Brook separation. It is unclear what would happen during a 100 year event and unclear whether St. Paul will be providing extra storage capacity in the pond for additional overflow. Mention should be made of the role of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. _ c. The discussion on the Arlington-Jackson Pond (P. V-18) should mention cost sharing of a joint-used facility. d. The section on Intercommunity Stormwater Runoff Management (p.V-20) contains no section estimating the costs to the Central Ramsey (WMO) . e. The plan does not contain sufficient data for St. Paul to design and plan for intercommunity flows. 3 . LAKE MANAGEMENT It is true that the Clean Lakes Program for Lakes Como and McCarrons are being controlled by others. The WMO should have an active policy of monitoring the progress of these efforts. 4 . WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT a. The section on source controls of pollutants is vague. There should be guidelines. St. Paul may not be in the position to provide for the control and treatment of 1 year storm runoff on new developments or redevelopments (p. V-23) . Is there some minimum acreage limitation applicable to this standard? b. It will be difficult to prepare a plan for control of road deicing chemicals and construction site management to maintain water quality (p.V-23) , unless reasonable guidelines are established. SOUTHWEST RAMSEY WATERSHED Our comments center on Chapters V and VI of the plans. 1. Intermember Stormwater Runoff Management The plan does not contain sufficient data for St. Paul to design and plan for intermember stormwater flows (p. V-2) . 2. Combined Sewer Overflow The WMO is not directly involved in St. Paul's sewer separation except as it relates to the management of intercommunity flows (p. V-16) . There should be a procedure for determining the cost sharing for the St. Anthony Park facilities that serve several members of this watershed. 3. Fairgrounds Runoff Water Quality The plan indicates that a portion of the Fairgrounds will remain served by combined sewers because of water quality problems V-19) . This matter will have to be studied further. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency should be involved in establishing these criteria. St. Paul is concerned because the excessive inflow of stormwater into existing regional sanitary interceptor could cause problems in St. Paul's system. ��i�7 4 . Hidden Falls-Crosby Lake Regional Park There should be a list of specific steps which the city should take to perform the work required for Crosby to provide recreational opportunities (to meet the 2B Classification P.V-24) . Excessive runoff may not be the problem. 5. Water Quality Management The section on source controls on pollutants is vague (p. V-27) . There should be guidelines. This is especially important as it relates to road deicing chemical control and construction site management. 6. Chapter VI - Implementation (Page VI-I - Item 2) The statement is made that the city should meet guidelines relatinq to stormwater detention and treatment. These guidelines have not been established in this report. The Minnesota Department of Transportation is involved in this matter also. Also attached are some recommended changes to your memo to the Planning Commission. REB/RJH/ck Attachments ��-�3�-� --------------- AGEI�A ITEMS ---------------------____________ _��;��T�� ID�: [224 ] DATE REC.: [08/31/87] AGEI�A DATE: [00/00/00] ITEM #: [ ] SUBJECT: [CENTRAL RAMSEY WATERSI�D MANAGEhIENT PLAN ] STAFF ASSIGI�D: [ 'TT► � Cl�� ] SIG:[ ]OUT—[ ] TO CLERK:f98f88�a4] a�/°`�/�� ORI6INATOR:[PED ] CONTACT:[VANDER SCHAAF (3373) ] ACTION:[ ] [ ] ORD/RES �:[ ] FILED:[00/�/00 ] LOC.:C ] • +e +� r +� ■ +e +e +� � � � s +� FILE II�O: [RESOLUTI�I <2P6S)/TRANSMITTAL LETTER FROM MAYOR/10 COPIES STAFF ] [REPORT/10 COPIES PLAt�V. C�1 RESOL. 87-93 ] [ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ �' �� ;�,%`` ,� � � WHITE - CITV CLERK PINK - FINANCE G I TY OF SA I NT PALT L Council 7��3�� CANARV -yEPARTMENT BLUE -MAVOR File NO. �. , Co jil Resolution - - Presented By � � Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS , on April 3, 1987 P.S.R. , Inc. was notified by the City' s Building Inspection and Design Division, Department of Community Services , �hat its use of the property located at 840 Beech Street dia no� comply wi'th the zoning requirements and that unless the Planning Commission determined that the use of this property was similar to other uses permitted in the RT-1 zoning district, such use must be discontinued; and WHEREAS , P.S.R. , Inc. made applica-tion to the Planning Commission for a determination of similar use pursuant to Section 62.113 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code and in said application stated the following: "P.S.R. , Inc . , is a for-profit 1�7innesota corporation operat- an ernergency shelter which provides shelter and referral services to temporarily displaced persons. Clients of P.S.R. include �'amilies , single women with chilciren, and other persons wno are experiencing an emergency that leaves them without a safe and clean place to live temporarily. Only persons referred to P.S .R. , Inc. by the Emergency Social Service Division of the American Red Cross are allowed to stay a� P.S .R. Some persons referred to P. S.R. by the Emergency Social Service Division are capable of paying their bill , but generally, Ramsey Coun'cy :-iuman Community Services pays for the persons referred to P.S.R. by E.S.S . "P.S.R. has been in business since 1981 , and has served over 4, 800 referrals. A typical stay at P.S.R. is between three and six days. During the time persons stay at P.S .R. , they are referred to public and social service agencies for assistance, and are assisted in attempting to locate their own permanent housing. P.S .R, also assists individuals COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays [n Favor Against BY Form Approve b�y City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY By `� A►pproved by Mavor: Date Appro ed by Mayor for bmission to Council B B v Y Y . � _ � � �r-.�.�s�' in finding employment and provides instruction in personal money management and independent living skills . "The building at 840 Beech Street is a five-unit apartment building with a small office in the basement. Each apartment can provide lodging with shared kitchen and bathroom facili- ties for six persons . Laundry facilities are also available. "P.S.R. is located on a bus line which allows easy access to downtown Saint Paul . When persons are referred by P.S .R. to agencies located downtown, P.S .R. provides individ- uals with bus tokens to facilitate their getting to the agencies that can provide the help they need. "P. S .R. is in the process of finding a location closer to downtown Saint Paul . Since P. S .R. requires a large facility, it is anticipated that the search for a downtown location for P.S.R. will be lengthy. P.S .R. anticipates being in its present location for approximately three years . " WHEREAS , the application of P.S.R. was heard by the Zoning Committee , a subcommittee of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul , on June 18 , 1987 at which time the applicant and other persons were given an opportunity to be heard and, following the public hearing, the Zoning Committee recommended that the Planning Commission find and determine that P.S.R. is most similar to a community residential facility which is a use permitted in the RT-1 zoning district subject to complying with specified conditions and restrictions and recommended that the special condition use permit be denied to P.S.R. on the grounds that the property did not meet the conditions as specified in the RT-1 zoning district; and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul after considering the application, the evidence submitted to its Zoning Committee and the recommendation of its Zoning Committee , found and determined that the use made of the property by P.S .R. at 840 Beech Street was most similar to a community 2 . � � , ��i�8' residential facility and denied the granting of the required special condition use permit for the community residential facility at this location based upon the findings and conclusions contained in the Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-71 dated June 6, 1987 , some of the pertinent findings being as follows : (1 ) The building at 840 Beech Street has legal nonconforming status for five dwelling units , four two-bedroom and one one- bedroom unit. (2) P.S .R, moved its shelter from its previous location on West Seventh Street to the present location on Beech Street on April 1 , 1987 . P.S .R. provides a transitional living situation for between three to six days for families and single women with children and other single persons . Residents are those who are referred to P.S.R. by the Emergency Social Service Division of the Red Cross , or less frequently brought in by a police call ; on average, 15 to 25 people a night are served. According to the applicant, a maximum of 31 clients can be accepted. ( 3) P.S .R. offers lodging, permanent housing assistance and job referral , to its residents ; instruction in personal money management and independent living skills may also be available. (4) Permitted uses in the RT-1 zoning district, in which the subject property is located, include one and two-family residences , schools , colleges , municipal buildings , churches and similar places of worship, foster homes serving six or fewer residents , community residential facilities and clustered developments . ( 5) The use of the subject property by P. S .R. does not meet any of the above defined and permitted uses in the RT-1 district and therefore the Planning Cornmission is authorized to determine if a use is similar to other uses permitted in that district and make the findings as specified in Section 62. 113 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code as follows : 3 . . .� , G�=�-i.�s-� Clause A. The use of the property by P.S.R. is similar in character to one or more of the principal uses permitted in the RT-1 district. The residential use is most similar to the residential use found in a community residential facility, including supervision, some education and training and screening of residents. It is dissimilar to a community residential facility in that (1 ) it does not serve persons who are mentally retarded, physically handicapped, mentally ill or chemically dependent, (2) residents are not placed there by a court or other correctional agency, ( 3) no rehabilitation or treatment occurs on site, and (4) no state licensing is required. B. That the traffic generated by this use is similar to one or more of the principal uses permitted. A transitional living residence for 15 to 25 persons , some of whom do not own a vehicle and some of whom are children, will probably generate traffic similar to a community residential facility where clients leave in the day for treatment and return in the evening for lodging. C. The use is not first permitted in a less restricted zoning district. A community residential facility serving seven or more residents is first permitted in the RT-1 zoning district. D. That the use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (6) The conditions and standards that must be met in order for a community residential facility may be located in an RT-1 zoning district are not met by P.S .R. in the following partic- ulars : (a) A resident population of less than 16 persons is permitted and the proposal is for housing up to 31 persons . (b) A minimum lot size requirement for a facility with 25 residents is 10 , 700 sq. ft. and the 840 Beech Street property has 5 , 209 sq. ft. 4. . _ �f�_,.�s� (c) A minimum distance requirement of 1 , 320 feet between community residential facilities is required and the property at 840 Beech Street is located approximately 900 feet from Wicklough, a licensed program for mentally retarded adults. (d) Off-street parking is required at the rate of one space for every two residents and with 25 residents proposed, 12 off-street parking spaces would be required. The property at 840 Beech has a parking lot for six vehicles . WHEREAS , acting pursuant to the provisions of Section 64.205 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, P.S .R. , Inc. , duly filed its appeal from this determination made by the Planning Commission and requested that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Commission; and WHEREAS , acting pursuant to Sections 64.205 through 64. 208 , and upon notice to appellant and other affected property owners , a public hearing was duly conducted before the Council of the City of 5aint Paul on August 6 , 1987 and August 11 , 1987 , at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS , the Council , having heard the statements made, and having considered the application for determination of similar use , the record of the hearing conducted by the Zoning Committee , the findings and recommendation of the Zoning Com- mittee , and the findings and determination made by the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul , does hereby RESOLVE , that the Council of the Saint Paul does hereby affirm the decision of the Planning Commission in this matter and does hereby find and determine that the Planning Commission did not commit an error ; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby concur and adopt the findings and conclusions made by the Planning Commission as set forth in its Resolution No. 87-71 , dated June 26 , 1987 ; and, be it 5. .