The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001 06-14 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER June 14, 2001 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - May 31, 2001 4. Chairperson's Explanation , The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5.* Architectural Alliance .2001-014 i Request for Site and Building Plan approval to construct a 2,505 square foot covered walkway for Medtronic at their Shingle Creek Parkway complex. 6. Presentation a. Watershed Second Generation Plan (Diane Spector, Director of Public Works) 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment • Application Filed on 5 -31 -01 City Council Action Should Be • Taken By 7 -30 -01 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2001 -014 Applicant: Architectural Alliance (for Medtronic, Inc.) Location: 6700 - 6800 Shingle Creek Pkwy Request: Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant, Architectural Alliance on behalf of Medtronic, Inc., is seeking site and building plan approval for a 2,505 sq. ft. covered walkway structure to be built in the parking lot between 6700 Shingle Creek Parkway and 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway, two buildings owned by Medtronic. The property in question is zoned I -1 (General Industry) and is bounded on the north by 69` Avenue; on the east by the Earle Brown Farm Apartments and the Hiawatha Rubber site; on the south by 67` Avenue; and on the east by Shingle Creek Parkway. The Medtronic facilities are considered a permitted use in this zoning district. The parcels under consideration were the subject of two Planning Commission Applications which were approved by the City Council earlier this year. One application was No. 2001 -002, which was a preliminary plat proposing to combine three parcels of land, 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway, 6700 Shingle Creek Parkway and a parking lot parcel located between these two sites, • into a single lot for Medtronic. The City Council has approved the final plat for Medtronic but the plat has yet to be filed with Hennepin County. The other application was No. 2001 -003 for site and building plan approval for a 9,974 sq. ft. addition to 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway. At the time of the processing of these applications, the site was reviewed for compliance with current ordinance requirements such as landscaping, drainage, etc. Therefore, no further review of these matters is being undertaken at this time other than as these matters would relate to this particular proposal. The plan is to construct an approximate 13 ft. wide by 193 ft. long enclosed walkway running in a north/south direction in the approximate center of the parking lot between the two buildings. The facility would be a metal and glass structure, approximately 9 ft. in height along the sides and about 13 ft.' high at the peak of the gable roof. It is in the same location as an at -grade walkway running through the parking lot, which is separated from a drive lane by various concrete planters. The structure has four doors evenly spaced on each side of the structure and double doors on each end. An open elevated walkway is located on the south end of the structure connecting to the curb line on the north side of the 6700 building. It will be like a speed bump requiring automobile traffic to slow when crossing this area. It would be appropriate to sign this area a pedestrian walkway and possibly have a stop sign on either side. A walkway through the berm on the north side of the parking lot is also planned. • 6 -14 -01 Page 1 The structure is not oin to be heated g g e and is ramped to accommodate the descending elevation from north to south. Doors will swing out. It is recommended that some type of physical protection be provided by doorways, particularly on the east side of the facility where curb cuts are shown. The site plan shows a 27 ft. wide drive lane. The door will swing approximately 3 ft. into this area. Planters, flowers or some other device would be appropriate in this area. The structure exceeds 2,000 sq. ft. in area. Buildings in excess of 2,000 sq. ft. in commercial and industrial zones are required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. The Building Official and Fire Chief have reviewed this proposal and will not require a fire sprinkler system. The structure is made of non - combustible materials and is not considered a high fire risk. Fire extinguishers will be required and the number and location shall be as approved by the Fire Chief. It should be noted that if this walkway were connected to a building, a fire sprinkler system would have been required. If the structure is connected to either of the two buildings, such a system will have to be installed to meet NFPA standards. As mentioned previously, the structure is to be metal and glass. No color for the metal finish has been indicated on the plans. A copy of the plans have been submitted to the City Engineer for his review. He has indicated that there is very little affecting grading, drainage, utilities or other matters which he reviews. No formal report will be submitted with respect to this application. RECOMMENDATTnN The plans appear to be in order and approval is recommended subject to the following conditions: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading and drainage plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. The structure is not required to have a fire sprinkler system at this time. Fire extinguishers shall be provided in a number and location approved by the Fire Chief. 4. The applicant shall provide appropriate protection for doorway openings adjacent to drive lanes as well as appropriate cautionary signs. 5. The building permit for this structure shall not be issued until the final plat comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 2001 -002 has been filed with Hennepin County. 6 -14 -01 • Page 2 i ti r I f y 1 m 111111 �i�� I is ii il�♦♦♦rl•1 \i r _ i i NA MOM L 1 , puu 111 ..�♦ � � � � off C 1a . agog man FWA t'� l /II�i�►�� . GM SEIMCK CDMR 110111 mm mm Ulan WAWA on 0 ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE May 31, 2001 400 CLIFTON AVENUE SOUTH Mr. Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55403 -3299 City of Brooklyn Center TELEPHONE (612) 871 -5703 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 FAX 16121 871-7212 Re: Medtronic ECC Facility Site and Building Plan Approval for Proposed Covered Walkway Structure Dear Mr. Warren: Please find enclosed the Site and Building Plan Application for the proposed 2,505 square foot covered walkway structure to be built at Medtronic's Energy and Components Center (MECC) facility at 6700/6800 Shingle Creek Parkway in Brooklyn Center. Please note that Medtronic has submitted the $500 filing fee under separate cover. Background Medtronic wishes to provide an enclosure between (but independent of) its two buildings at the MECC facility at Shingle Creek Parkway. The enclosure will provide shelter for individuals walking between the two buildings. In January of 2001 Medtronic applied for a subdivision approval (Planning Commission Application No.2001- 002) of the contiguous 6700 and 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway sites. (This subdivision /replatting project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on 02/15/01 and approved by City Council on 05/29/01). Also in January of 2001, Medtronic applied for Site and Building plan approval (Planning Commission Application No. 2001 -003) for a 9,974 square foot addition to its 6800 Shingle Creek facility. (This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on 02/15/01 and approved by City Council on 02/26/01). Project Purpose/ Building System The purpose of the proposed covered walkway structure is to shelter pedestrians from the weather when they walk between the two buildings on site. The walkway structure will be designed and constructed by C.S.P., the Commercial Division of Patio Enclosures. Mr. Ron Warren May 31, 2001 Page 2 ofeZ , Water Management Considerations The proposed structure will not change the hydrology of the site. Landscape Considerations As noted in the attached February 6, 2001 letter to you in reference to Planning Commission File No. 2001 -003, the existing landscape inventory yields 1088 landscape points versus a requirement of 995.2 points. Enclosed Plans We are submitting (4) full size, (1) 8-1/2 x 11 reduced copy and (1) 8-1/2 x 11 transparency of each of the following drawings: Site Survey (from Preliminary Plat Application. Howard S. Johnson (HSJ) Drawing No. 1- 3- 5826A) A 0.02 Site Plan A 0.03 Partial Site Plan Drawings 1 through 8 from C.S.P. (Cover sheet, specifications, plans, elevations, sections and details) Please contact me at (612) 8744110 if you have any questions or desire additional information. Sincerely, PETER VESTERHOLT, AIA Principal Encl.: 02/06/01 Letter to Mr. Ron Warren Drawings Cc: Wolfe Scherling Halligan File HAHQ PROJECTS\2001\2001132 \Correspondence\ 0531 01BrooklynCenterApplication.doc 1 82 TA Ayv% a � w 127653 5 4'54 E I � : r I, Lu � . k ¢ n "�` V A` 1 ,t `�' n r J V I ' ' .: if It '4- SCALE: 1 INCH 60 FEET f' � \\ W � � � E.' 1, �+ � _ ✓� � l i,,;�'- it � � � � � :uv ANCHI Tro VELOM Ll � ;•y � � ��_ ' S.' I - -' . /� -' �G � .. �. ,r• a P W,V { .:I 0 / x I I { LEGAL DESCRIPTION EGFNO m w n.no .s w, moa ,. �onmYC Ya.uE asst .ommx 1 - - f '[). ✓ frY GENERAL NOTES I el«e.�. 0'2 '30' w 646 OB m -r.cr ca.0 sra a4 uu " .r era r.•oroi vNMa a ' • Slarm 4 . iweP »nut � -� , *eun.,a1 w cly a E.own unn. -v 1 r• a� » eaew aYN wr b«up In � se osae. wo saxmf. casa uc ' I O 4. Y Pmt sY. - oc CmcreL Wru a aY sw 1a w ,N • aU w.n. rM - tn, wY. _ p'lip SPe• E�e.ofm O ' . _ _ _rn9�n) - f�nlinp Cwleur C..rlr uu awn b eeeaf n avm�n .nrn ea•ee Yon � . . . �ro w nK'o^� n� .r a)w Yh sr ✓ +r FY« su OF t CUENT PROJECr —E PRgtCt LOC "IIfY! BOCK k b.M N0. NSJ 1Y.0 N0. I Ne.eor —Uf that thm San Yaa r p— nr a,e o. my - _ _._ _ —_.._ SI;R�EY PREFAREO 6Y: 556/34 2001 11 Z cYaae w on Poe that i aP, P awy morster.a m "a :o y a. - - - - -- HARRY S. JOHNSON CO., INC. ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 8700.5800 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY cm N� oast m i f ne s r la om — - -- - - --- o y HSJ LAND SURVEYORS BROOKLYN CENTER, MN. L _.. _.— 770 'N. 79TH ,T. . ';;t I7 L. l.�.,ll . ly.l li�i�. �- HENNEPIN COUNTY oROr ores P . OXC n 0 E BLOOMINGTON, MN. 55420 �� Oats. L� 23 eav,4rr4InN .. s NW ' f1�: c G� :. 5$Et NO 1'3 xo- sr wrE nEwtsgrs (952} BB4 - 5341 AlCHITRINAAIALLIANCE W LlulU 4YpW I[tl1Y MiN1UY144 Mu.F11111M1FUp I T!![YYIY! 11111TIM I I 14! 411111 -1. 1 y� IIYYY tiIwP1 _ 4_ Memel A zz w1 I \ / I i •� ' i I A _ it 1 1 EI r1Yrx1r1 1 i y \\ I Medtronic ECC I I I • / Covered Walkway I t One — ( ' anP area ruw e X6 a 0.02 rwwrrw.Iwwlm YUO AILNITIVIIAI ALLIANCE naarweww nlw .wmwwu rolwrs.Y w nun. Irew1 M. Yx1.UMY4 YW IIw1IYNww r.ernYYrYa ° w"r'w+` Twnn.e nnrnan. 6A TREM aE GTM ivr." of oo zz � I 1 \ \ n.r rrlr Medtronic ECC Covered Walkway 3 B!"kb. cars, 0 �N / PARTIAL SITE PLAN I ` 1 arm PLAN 0.03 ��P . MANUFACTURERS AND 1 \ . , INSTALLERS OF �KJ o • SUNROQMS The Commercial Division * SOLARIUMS III Of Patio enclosures; Inc. * STOREFRONTS "Au Employee Owned Company" � BLINDS'AND SHADES 720EAST"HT-GHLAND. ROAD MACEDONI 4405,6' (800) 468 -0720 FAX (330) 467 -4297 JOB N AME: MEDTRONIC AL LVIE W WALKWAY LOCATION: BROOKLYN CENTRE, MINNESOTA O WNER : M EDTRONICS, INC. AR CUS ME DTRONICS, INC. �i� wnaw.r wwoue, swrar+,nxs Paver1 GHVERAI. r1101 /fILT erE.talcATwrg.wAlAtwAr [5.1. PEI SBALAM 5.1. will lutalah eealente for the installation at the wa lkway.. All asdanb garnished shall mast or exceed L PRODUCT DESCRIPTION federal specifications TTS- 001543L I.I. The PEI walkway depicted on these drawings b s structure composed of pro- fabrloeted, pre- 5.2. The color f the sealants will be similar to the adhering surfaces, unless Specified otherwise by the Ambitect, r. mill eed aluminum frames with glazing. Owner and /or Manufacturer. I.I.I. The aluminum frames may include steal romforotng for specific loading conditions. 1.12. All walkway %pporla include welded steel tube inserts at the mitered joint [ GI,A7DYG 2. PERFORIWANCE 8.1. All glazing shall be tampered safely glass (ANSI Z97.1 -1884 and CPSC 16 CPR 1201) 2.1. PEI walkways have been designed, and tested where Indicated. to meet or exceed the fallowing 8.2. Insulated glen units shall be V overall thickness. req --is'. 8.3. Optional glazing contigmatiom, as specified by the Architect/General Contnator /Owns'. are not indicated 2.1.1. Deflection - Load - bearing members, under my design lead combination (including deedload), on these drawings. will deflect no a than 1/180 of then' respective clear span. 2.1.2. Nind loading -Kind loading calculations based on ANSI- A58.1 /ASCE -7 guidelines. 2.1.2.1. 50 year mean recurrence interval assumed for basic wind speed PART4PAQICATWN 2.1.3. Live /mow loading - Vertical roof load - 1- 1.11ons ufiRae 40 pat roof wow load based n Minnesota State Building Code guideline.. Chapter 1305. LFABRICATION 2.1.3.150 year mean recurrence lat—al .seamed for ground sow load I.I. PEI will drill and /or Pnneb all major assembly hole,. weepege holes at the factory. 22. No allowance has b ess een made for loads resulting from the attachment of ancillary equipment L FINISH to the walkway unl Indicated otherwise. 29. Installation of exaMary equipment onto the walkway or drilling hulas in the walkway structure 2.1. PEI will furnish all visible aluminum with en axterlor grade of PPG d b dycroa pain is prohibited without the written consent from PEI. Such alterstlons, without itten consent, will void the warranty. 2.2. Petal finish on extruded notions .hell be eleotrostaticelly PDBed, ad baked. wr 18UH►RITALS 3.1. PEI will hereby submit dnwiags (Shop Drawing.) to the Architect/General Contractor /Owner for review. PART 5 DELlVQV, S17E INSFUMON AND DifffAI]AIION These drawings will include pertinent details for Installation, evchorege af framing members, 91-AM. sealing end flashing. 3.1.1. All submittal drawings will be clearly marked indicating their intended purpose. I. DEL[VOIY secure above grade staging and storage location for w 9.1.2. Fabrication shall not begin uuW m approved set of shop drawings b 1.1. The General Contractor /Owner shall provide a returned to PSI with the required signatures. r The signature box L located above the Utie box PEI material at to job ilia. p 3.2. PEI Engineering CdNlations will be submitted to the Architect /General Contractor /Owner, if requested. 1.2. PEI tumbled material will be delivered to the jobelte in manWrer's packaging. z 3.2.1. Engineering Calculations shall be stamped and certMed by . Registered Professional Engineer attesting adequacy of I.S. PEI will supply the necessary labor to unload all PE furnished material. the PEI walkway, to meet required loads. 3.3. A sample comer will be supplied I, the Architect /General Contractor /Owner for review, U requested, to represent I. SITS IlW9�flON urro minimum quabty of work. 2.1. PO installation crew shall examines ding structure and the conditions coder which the work is J 9.4. A 12 -inch long section of extrusion will be supplied to the Architect /General Contractor /Owner for review. M requested. to be performed. and notify the Architect /General Con4actor /Owner in writing of any conditions detrimental a to represent color of aluminum finish. to the proper and timely completion of the job. 2.2, Erection shall not proceed until any and all unsatisfactory conditions have been corrected in a meaner _ &WARRAN Y ....ptable to the walkway installation crew r -I-- ~ o 4.1. PEI provides a —plat. manufacturer's warranty; 5 years on defects in materials and one year on labor as delineated 2.3. Surrounding and adjoining structures (b.-mall. building wall• etc.) shall b, plumb. level and square• plus o In the PEI Terms and Conditions. L INSTALLATION \ z 3.1. Shan be In accordance with meaufaeta-es installation instructions and current PEI engineering data that 1. Y o PART 2 SCOPE OF WORK applic.ble to this project. Q j 4. CLEANING - m L SCOPE OF WORK 4.1. After each workday. PEI installation crew will leave the immediate work area meat and dean. I.I. The walkway and the necessary fasteners required for structural attachment as shown on these drawings comprise the 4.2. PEI installation crew will remove as c ass sealant compounds from aluminum and glass eurfacas Promptly after completion. complete scope of work. 4.3. Final claming of the glass surface. .hall be performed by others. o aa o 1.2. Structural analysis of the existing structure to determine its adequacy to support loads imposed by the PEI walkway is dg Y beyond "' scope of work end I. not included. i3 $o 1.3. Additional discipline.. encompassing any electrical/mechanical system. I. beyond the scope of work and is not included. �� Q$°, $.r 1.4. Soil hearing analysis is beyond the scope of work and is not included. , 1.5. The scope of work does not include the assessment of the project for compliance with fire protection, mama of agrees. ADA, g rgg s conaatwetion or other regulatory issues. P"! 1.8. Pali. , Encloures, Inc. recommends consulting a design professional to determine the impact that regulatory requirements have to the structure. The design professional shall also consider specific requirements of the building department and other governing .genie. having jurisdiction an the project. V 1.7. The securing and payment, of all permits required by the governing agancies having jurisdiction aver this project will be by the General Contractor /Owner si3 >nE PART 3 MA TERIALS L STRUCTURAL SECTIONS ii s I.I. All extended aluminum section that are furnished as part of the walkway are formed from 8080, 8081. 8005 or 8106 alloys. _ w� Tempera are T5 or T8 12. Steel reinforcing will be AMU 500 Grade B. Provision, have bean made to pr-art. dissimilar corrosion using s combination of galvanizing. riot plating. insulating tape sad / or paint. 2. FINISH 2.1. The finish applied on all PEI furnished aluminum seeuane meets or exceeds the physical tad requirements of AAMA o>r a .pecificatione 803.8. s m 3. GASKETS 3.1. Gaskets that are furnished m part of the walkway are EPDM and are compatible with all contact materials. r/ , 3.2. Gaskets furnished by others that are in contact with the walkway shall be EPDM and shall be eompntible with all v' ontact material. 3.3. PEI furnished glazing tape le Arlon 810.1 -92 type 1 U u~Oi 4. FASTENERS 7 w 4.1. PEI Will furnlan all fasteners required to a9aemble the walkway. L Z 4.1.1. Threaded footmen required to attach the walkway sbell be stainless steel. ASTN standard A276, unless indicated otherwise. u O 4.1.2. Tag so- hall be plated low carbon steel. U Z J O W . • . O W m r ^ SNEET Z OF B i N 1 UT T k UE-10x 1 I! i I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TLFI I I {IKXO<al- Yret -l.r {a �f0<- L.r {0L..1.rX 0GrJw.L'.<- LvXOC -4-rr0 -1.r - LrJ'eG- Isla[ -l-rf OG- 1.r {eG..1.,J'et. -l-rf OL 4-sf 1 MJk•IO N,Mau,ia I I - - � I I I W aawmi xx I ___ - - _ — I Yd tO xuwmw I 1 -- 1 I I 1 Y- ,p W�'wnolw I I I 1 I TT -+Ir— ora�r: WPY II- PLAIT VIEW Of 21610 YAW LAYOUT _'ll Iro � I 7 7 Y 7 B F— F= _ 3 I I J _ E , ud f , 4 -____ 1 ____ __ 1 wu xxruw C Xw w,xus In r{ I xr _ � u-,Yna - -- 410E ELEVATIOII Of 21610 Pe" LAYOUT a a k £g a2 Ixwn as I Wa CA �7 xaa a.m. ow U ,, - - ------------- �= — - - -- Root MAW _=i if r� �1T a a { ,.• r ` = 1- r w r ! , -°.` ,:`l u:, t �i1-- 1^rwr- - r ..rc�t -r w`! - ' - i -- .v W - tw`! t '�,n - t^ - �:w 4- - + �;t; w.WEa - 'r - '. r c 'w`.. w . ui! - 'n`. - m r1 r w, w e- �w ,ro�.elaro,. �rolaWx ax x W.. a,x..rona a I �.aw+ro..uawxn Wxmr i u --me lewa 3 s � u.•Wn m,n.wmtxn urawa. u.ro Ww >+,rwwar romw wr....tw. wn ow,:wa aw wn Wlalu - -.._ —_ ___ -- --- i as vlw. wn wW,ew na �am roWen um...w.�tw, awn.om.ml x.ne rorame LU x I K +lau w w +w aiu,. -5109 ELEVAYIOO1. a m ..T 3 8 I AIEVIEW GAftE eECTpNS 4114. a" LOU6 LA011M PILM60 W 5C2EW5 (5) 2EQU1&0 A EACH COME P05f OW A6 EALH GABLE 9W TYPICAL Y AI AZ A3 A4 AS A� AS I � 1 1 b b T _ / I I 5 5 / 5 A 1 I i 0 „ e I 3 _ 0 �� z I z I b b _ li_0n i ----- - --- -- ---------- ---- -- 1— I,a' In a" d 2AMP fi -- ---� ,. ELEVATION 9ENWE J 11 � 11 FeAME6 A 6A&g EUO ELEVAfIOM Y a A 3 AI A2 A3 %5 WAIL V PA69 6 FOE w 6" ALUM UUM 2106E BEAM 6ML I'M OEtAILS �� J 2106E SgAM 5UPP02f MACW I Z4" DEEP . z 1/2" WIDE IJOfCH AS T ttPILAL .. i IU 210 BE fYPiLAI 2' -6" 2 -6" 3-6" 3-b -- i °. v P a � y. a m 4 �- I eos. V9\ a , 0 ., T 6 q 0 I 4'-4" o i 9' -0" CLCE I T-4 0 o V SLOPED QAMP 5U2FALE j I e, -- - , - - -L VA21E5 a _ -- -- — - - - - -- f II '. II OPP051 fE SABLE EUO ELEVAfIOU 510E ELEVAfIOU OF 21610 KAME TYPICAL 21610 KAME 0EfA1L 510E ELEVAfIOM OF 21610 WAME Z lAYOUf F20M ''A8 to 'Y' PA2fIAL LAYOUf ROM "A" NO e SABLE "A" la 6A9LE "E" 13 wwul awl ww www mr rw E e '� oo�6.W GV �� lraw acv ay. raw sa vrrr �3�a�� 9: e _ _ __ ._ I a.nlc vl. - r vw rwv. � I — ri• ° � F H, �8 I wwcclvrcw� I aw vuw row.vr, rws j, rrow vwlw W o 1 q�,p' , 6 7 u W row mlviu !c Ta a Ii I e<a�x u rrum a4 aaa s.� w+a ` aaulu evw aee IE 3 L -- CAM? SLOPE 3 I b w L 4" H16H LU2B 3 W o OFP051fE GABLE EUO (5 �WALKWAY 5EC'fIOU 6HOWIU6 (O WALL SELfIOtl (ofYPICAI 5WIU6 0002 6 LAUOIUG -Wf10U 2 �fYPICAL OWLIT6 6 FOAM WIU6 PANEL OOU SLE SWIUG 0002 6 FOAM WW PAUEL ` 2 F2AME5 A8'' and 'B 2 2 o SHEET � OF S 8'LOWL. MA50W¢Y #8x I /2" foe 6L¢EW5 ALLVIEW DETAILS (ZhtlOx3 /4" PAU NEAO 5L¢EW5 � TOP, M10A.E, t BOTfOM 'o` I I/T EALN 510E d 8 LOWC. MA501J¢Y -I #Bxl /2" foe 61?M a EACH SILL CLIP CODU. 3 I 112" ® 8" Ot. TV. A201.11.19 TEEL �. r/ n A I I/2 zk "x3/16" S A fUBE ELBOW a I PE¢IMIfE¢ OF KUEEWALL PAUELS i AIUMIUUM 511.1. CLIP 6LAZIU6 6A¢ FRAME soy GLAZIUG BA¢ FAME #Sxl /Z fEK SCREWS o� I (¢63830) VA0 NEAO #IZx I /Z' NEX NEAO LAP s 69 0 ' L ' ttPILAI, I ¢E01- 601115, ¢E01- 601115, 6, fYP. Qo I 2 AULNO¢5 (¢83830) EEO NEAO ALL A¢ODUO FOAM a 5L¢EW5 8 .51795L 1 TO 0 ¢E01 -BOBS ttP. 0IJ o KUEEWALL PAUE1. 6LAZI 8A¢ LOUWELTI j ALUMIUUM SILL CLIP a, pl4x 4 LOW6 CAOIUM o x o ar 1 PLAM fEK SCREWS r n d (5) PE¢ L02UE¢ POSE i ": 7s - 2 } TV. SEE ELEVATIOU `- �' .I I/Z - •(;}o " `�' I - ..� A in o mo o M o I �I SEE VIUYL 6LAZIW6 Wdf - 14" 01A. x 1 4" LOW ZAMAL WAILIU / / x on. I CO¢UE¢ P05f SASH W016K 5fA e AUCNO¢5 a IU O.C IATE POI XPAU UfS 3" FOAM KUEEWALL a �� SL¢EEU NEI6Nf LO¢UE¢ P05f 66E¢EO a 18' O.L. �' FOAM KUEEWALL OE¢ 6 P05f Y � #8x2" fee SCREW MF JAMB 2 AULNO¢5 ttP. 3" FOAM KUEEWALL TOP, W01.9.4 BOTTOM 1.3 EXPALME 0 P06T EXPAUOE¢ ®POSE EXPAUOE¢ a P061' I =c #IOx 1/2" NEX NEAO 0010x3/4" PAW HEAD 5L¢EW5 L OIN I /2" NEX NEAO MACH UE SLEW � MALNIUE SCREW 3 �-3 1/2" 2" A EALN 51LL CLIP COMM. 2" ° #IOx I/2" NEX NEAO MALNIUE SCREW _3 KWEEWALL WIOfN - -FOAM KUEEWALL WIOTN ---- � _ '" (2hlBxl /2" fEK SCREWS �3 MASfE¢ FAME WIOfH - ----- Woaxl /2" fEK SCREW I 641610 01511 AW61W6 0151 a ® tOP, I /3rd OOWU, FOAM KWEEWAL_ WIOfN- - -� 60"0M, AWO 1/5"T UP GAWGIWG OiSf a TOP, 1 /3rd OOWW, 6AW6iW6 016T (2W.VP" fEK SC¢EW5 6LAZIU6 BA¢ FAME 1`141=966 6LAZI06 BA¢ FAME fNICKUE55 BOffOM, A 1 /3rd UP a fop, I 13rd OOWU, 0 0 9XPAW09E a 6¢AOE 6LAZIU6 BA¢ FAME fNILKUE55 o i BOffOM, AW0 I /3rd UP ALLVIEW 510E WAIL - ALLVIEW 510E TYPI CAL OM 51%6 ALLVIEW 510E WALL TYPICAL WALL OF ¢1610 FAME m o I LOPAlE2 90 fYftAL 2 L02) P05t TYPICAL 3 ALLVIEW IIJI.W COMMl CTIOQ IVILAL 5 a 9LIOIAI6 t FIXED W00W6 AT "'A" Eu0 5 6 FOAM Uu 5WALL6 Af "A" NO 5 a FOAM Wf 9 WALL g Y 4r #B-Z' fEK 5L¢EW6, 5fA66E¢EO a TOP, 1 /3rd VOWU, AWO AT - A 64-t —I Silicone 6-1-t s i w BOTTOM, 1 /3rd IV I I/2 "x4"x3 /I6" STEEL �I ° JJJ444��A TUBE ELBOW 3" Roof Panal �n w �9 € ¢1610 FAME GI.AZIWG BA¢ FAME \../ (¢63830) READ N EAO VIWYL GLAZiU6 6A54Ef . - -- � SASH WIo c a g a 5L¢EEU wl WIOTN � MF SILL STEEL TUBE ELBOW Bg y o �" 5UPP0¢1 IM610E FAME $ #8x 1 /2" T04 5L¢EW6 TYP. • —.�. 08x1/2" fEK 5L¢EW5 a 8" O.L. --- VE¢HAW6 ALL A¢OUWO KWEEWALL PAIEL o = K g Q i Structural 5iiicono 6"Wirt , Fascia 1 ;„ o OU 8011A 51005 TYPICAL _ -- -- 1 j 11 08 x 1/2" T04 54rcwa, (2) at cash I - Beam, (p of Each End of H-Jd '—}— _ I Ncad"r Arm - #8x1 I /2" TEK 5L¢EW VIWYL. GLAZIWG BASKET VIWri 61.AZIW6 GASKET � 08 x I /Z fEK 5crnwe, (2 t Each SPACED 18" Ot. 5A5N HEI6Nf s 1 - Bcam, And (p At Each End Nmdcr I ° N 5A6H HEIGHT 5L¢EEU HE16141 I w ° W JAMB < N"adxr Assembly U w MF JAMB SASH W10TW ( I N Z z 012x I /2" NEX NEAO LAP SCREWS 010. 1 /2" NEX NEAO MALHIWE 5L¢EW v VIUri GLAZIW6 GASKET 1 z s a STEEL TUBE TO 6LAZIU6 BA¢ GLAZIWG BA¢ GAP SL¢EEW wim I w CODUELTIOU w Y W -- -FOAM KUEEWALL WIOfN 2 1H - -� 1 GLAZIW6 W FAME FOAM KWEEWALL WIO GAWGIWG 01ST 6AW61W6 0151' 6LAZIU6 BA¢ FAME 1NIGK1,1E55 x. 3 6LAZIW6 BA¢ LAP x ALLVIEW 510E WALL TYPICAL w w °p (2:)ALLVIEW ilJLIAIE L wW 6fIOAI fYPILA 5 ALLVIEW GILL LQUQ 56flN fYPILAL b ALLV NEAM CQQQE61`10I 5 a FIXED t SLIOIAI6 WI00m 5 a 51. OW6 WIIJ00W t FOAM af�E WALL 5 a 5LIOIQ6 WIIJOOW a SHEET 5 OF • , FOAM WIM6 PAUEL USE (2) 1 14" x I" M SCMW6 TH¢OU6H AIUMIMUM Auvi[w oEraas B KILL CLIP AMO Ix3 EXPAMOE¢ IAIfO SIDE FOE AMCOQA69 B (Q63830) ¢EAO HEAO OF ¢1610 FRAME f0 COMUM FOUNOAfIOM AT SEEP 09 TYP. PEI 6" ALUMIUUM 91069 BEAM — 6LAZIN6 BA¢ FRAME WITH STEEL 9180W 9w OF (OWUM 815E (Z) #8 x 1/2" fEK SGQEW 6 TOP, 1'-0" RISE FROM PREVIOUS BAY o fUBULA¢ STEEL 1 I ELBOW I WE I/3 OOWM, BOTTOM, AMO I/3 UP fYP. I :o ROOF PAUEL NAM6E NSEQf PANEL LAP - "�- 1 I AT QI06E TYPICAL 6 QOOF I I .4 3" FOAM ROOF PANEL III 8 x I/2" fEK 5L¢9W5 4" x 3/16" 5f9EL fUBE ELBOW SPAGEO 4 8" O.C. •• N� `¢001; BELOW #Bx 2" TEK SCREW I VINYL 6LAZIM6 6A6df � 1 3/4"- w €Q� TOP, MIOOLE,t BOTTOM a 6A-5H NE16HT 1/4" OIA. x I I/4" lOM6 ZAMAL MAILIM d AMCHOQ4 6 INTE EOIAfE POINTS " x 3' EXPAMOE¢ ®LONE. - �- SLREEM HEIGHT _ 'o MF JAMB STA6GEQ9O 6 I OL. #10x 1 12" HEX NEAO MACHINE 5LR9W 4 a - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3" FOAM KM9EWALL 9XPAkV9f 6 iQU65 #8xi /2" TEK 56¢EW6 6 18" O.L. #8x1/2" TEK SCREWS MIM.(2) 1 14 "da x I I/4" ZAMAL MAILIN J g SPALEO 6 8" O.C. 6LAZIM6 BAf FRAME 3 - ANC1 NfOU64 VEQfILAL 1.5 9XPAWVI! t� 5 � 010. I/2" NEX NEAO MACHINE 5L¢9W 2 I" x 3" 9XPAMOEQ 6 COIL. SfA1ML W B IM F¢OM B FACE OF CONE. t f 0OY, W STEEL, 60415 WITH MUT t WASHE¢, fYP. w >%'1 " UOTTOM t Z" OOM ROM TOP S =�a #IZx 1/7' NEX NEAO LAP -MASfEQ FAME WON TYPICAL AT GOMLREfE SfEP a 3/8"�a. x 3 1/4" 6fAINLE55 6LQEW5, (4) LOLAfIOMh ON EACH PANEL CAP MIfEQ CUT 6 ¢OOF PIfCN STEEL, SfRUCfUQAI MAN L96 OF EACH ELBOW fYP. 510E t FQOUT FASCIA BOLf6 WIN MUf t WASHER, fYP. v TYPICAL BAY LEM6fN WITH 3" FOAM ROOF PANftS AILVIEW 6109 WALL 4"x3 "x3'xl /4" WELO90 ¢1069 SUPPORT B¢ALKEf m N o FASCIA 3 W W ALLVIEW 510E WALL I MPLAW VIEW OF 200E SEEP 8 PLAA VIEW Or' FEAME AQQ EXPAI'0E2 9 2106E BEAM 00J56T10Q At 21610 KAME5 b AUO WUJ6 PANEL Af WALL 6 AQCHO AGE t0 LOUL2ETE MA50�12Y b A d. 012 HEX H9AO LAP 5LR9W6 � + 8" 601,16, MA-5OkJEY— P j' WITH WA5N9R5 TYPICAL AT # z _ —1 1/2" QIO6E BEAM ALl RI06E ELBOWS ANO UPPE¢ Ax ! io 6LAZIN6 BAQ FRAME �3" I OV9¢HAM6 - i f E 3" FOAM KMEEWALI L96 OF EAV9 ELBOWS s d - - ' - '-----'- -'__- -- - � u = __ - -_ - Rio Z � - - - - -- - -'_-- - - �r i Q V` HU 9XPAN09¢ 6 COLIC. 0MR E. MA5Y - a y �21�' I. �m 1/4% I I /k" ZAMAL uAILIM g ° - -- -- T -- oHog � o AMCH00 6TA66EQ 6 18" O.L. uO cH 08x1/2" fEK SCREWS I ° I x 4 =G' SPACEO 6 8" O.L. 501.10 LOUCQEf9 MASOIJ¢Y n n x 1 (2) 9 /0' OIA. x 1 1/2" LON6 WITH QEIMFO¢GIM6 A5 QEO. - - - - -- -- C° o ? N SfA1NLE66 STEEL BOLTS WITH (BY ON695) I I I I o' r N ( MUf t WA61 TYPICAL I I I IQ I �< x 1 0060 BEAM f0 FRAME CONNEGfIOM FOUMOAf10U A5 MUIQEO 1 I I m ,� a t o F -3" (2) 3/B" OIA. x 3 I/4" lON6 ° r (6Y OfNEQ5) I 1 I o I m b 6fAINL965 5T99L BOLf5 WIN w ° MUf t WA5N9¢ TYPICAL U z II If � Z WALKWAY RAMP I I ( HEI6Hf VAQIES) 11 I I - - I ¢1610 FRAME I 8 W ¢1069 BEAM f0 ¢1069 SUPPORT BRAC49f CONNECTION F ! i ,� WOW90 RIO6E SUPPORf BRACKET Q I I I I (2) 318" OIA. x I I12" LOM6 MAIML955 STEEL BOLTS I`Z ` WITH NUf t WASHER TYPICAL 5"x2" ALUMINUM TUBE LR065 BQACE �2 "� 3 W Y o WIN 114" THICK 5199E 6U559f PLATE I I I I a= BOW 51095 t AT EACH NO OF P¢AME L m 10 FOAM &6JE WALL AA II McHAQ6 At 2106E BEAM SEEP >___ 12 TY PICAL 2106E LOAIIJELfIOAI 6 LOA n MA50Al2Y G 0610 KAME LOIJUE6'f100 6 d 21610 KAME I 812 149X NEAO LAP 6mWh ALLVIEW DETAILS WITH WA5NEe5 I I/Z x 4" x 3/16" 2 5 S 8" OV92NAU STEEL TUBE ELBOW J — -- 08 x I/2" T9K 6ONW5 ------------------ a ®18" Ot. CoLwfEefte WIU6 PAUEI m I AT BOLE WCAVOO TYP. r 3' FASCIA / 1 CAP I /2" DEEP x t 1/4" WIO9 #8x1/2" Tee --- a UOfCN IU ¢1009 BEAM 6MW5, Ve. 3" FOAM ° #8 I /r' fEK I AT 21610 Fe" TV. - " - WIUG PAUEL r ri . 1�'_0�.- PAUEL LAP ii I a o PAU9L LAP ® 200E _ (2) 3/8" 01A. x I I/2" LOL16 BALK TO BA(X ` 3" FOAM i i' PAUEL GAPS Q 0 3' FOAM WIU6 PAUEI WIUG PAL19L - #8x1,'2" Tole CAULK AeODUO GLAZIUG BA9 F9AM9 - 2106E BEAM TOP AT #8 x I/2" f9K 5L9EW5 5L29Wh, ttP,- \ - _ FOAM WIL16 PAJkL o 0 IT' Ot. TOP E BOfTOM 2106E BEAM f0 RAME WUU9LfI0U (2) 3/8" OIA. x 3 I14" LOU6 z SfAIWL956 STEEL 60Lf5 WITH • 1 • r a LIU'f E WA6N9e TYPICAL �� I • 3 m / • I Y m PAMEL CAP B e00F ( _- -- - • ; FASCIA COVE2 \ • • 3" FOAM 900F PAU9L • I • • -- AUJMIUUM "P BEAM I � APPLY CAULK f0 200E -- - ` • I s I • • a UUOE2 PAUEI CAP ttP. F02 • i WEATNE2 Pe200F SEAL t- ¢1069 BEAM TO 2100E BEAM 5UPP02f \ i UOfE: (2) 6U559T PLATES 29QUIUO o V °. ° 62ALKEf (2) 3/8 VIA. x I 1 /T LOU6 (2) 310' x 3 1/4" SfAIULESS - - - - v - - - - - - - - - — AT EAW EUO OF LeOhS BAe SUPPOef o SfAlUL955 hfEEl 90Lf5 WITH STEEL SfeULTUEAL 6eAO9 BOLTS a ° ( I OU EACH SIDE OF OALN E1610 > v nl ~ UUf 6 WASNEe TYPICAL WIN UUf E WA51 TYP. o " I FEAME TYPICAL.) i 5EL (IOA1 OF (YPILAL 2100E BEAM LO�IAlELt10lJ E W106 PAM �� a R F20�11 VIEW OF '(YPILAI. 2106E BEAM C OMA TIO o ° i E WW6 PAM AT FOIJQOAf1OU htEP y • � p 6� d 4 p H -�. 3" FOAM e00F PAUEL m AI 08 x 1/2" TEK 5CUW5 (2) AT EACN "< 5" 6LAZIUG BAe WITH W o r I I /2" x 4" x 3 /I6" i -BEAM, (1) AT 9ACH 61,10 OF HOA092 I - -5 9/1b"- QI fE9l TU69 E180W 4 I/2' --{ #8 x I /T' TOE LP9W5 fNeOUGN 1 510E I I =C06 S -q OF EACH I -BEAM IUTO NEAOE2 1 0 6LAZI06 9A2 FeAME I 8 - #8x1 /2"fEK SCeEWS (2)d 04H "I" 99AM FASCIA ° OOOe SfOP I g (I)d 9ALN NO OF 09AOEe '� - 5" TYP. i ALUMIUUM 0009 PAUEL CAP °. 5" 6LAZIU6 9A2 WITH (Ui5) �<ss=> . 3 FOAM WIU6 PAUEI o I I/2' x 4" x 3116" hfEEL fUBE ELBOW 3 WALKWAY FL009 #Bxl /2" TEK hLeEWS I 3 0 a s AT LAUOIUG s g 08 x 112" fEK 5CEEW5 (2) AT EACH 0 0 1 1 -9EAM, AUO (U AT EACN EIJO OF NEAOE2 n o e z's A n 5" 6LAZIU6 9A2 WITH I I I/2" x 4" x 3116" #8 x I/2" fgK SLeEWS, (2) Af EACN 51`991. TU69 ELBOW 1 -9EAM, AUO (1) AT 9ALN NO OF N9AOEe o H9A%f ASSEMBLY F � m ®- sox 2" TEK hLEWS fYP. 5" TYP. PAU9L CAP IUTO HEAOEe a x •. 10 0 cn (4) 9AW BAY WIPTN _ w 5) WITH LIP 9EMOVE0 16 #8 x I/2" f64 Screws, (2) of sa 3" FOAM TmwU i a t A5f9UE96 A5 N U z I -Beam, (1) at Each End of Neadcr PAUEI LAP IUTO "N" 1 < ° ° 2E0VO ` ° z Neader Arm I hUPPOef WIN LIP 2EMOVEO F j___ W O w #8 x I/2" TEK Screw., (2) of Each a ALUMIUUM 0009 H9A0 I -Beam, And (0 At Each End Of Header 3 H V I'Isader Assembly 0009 5A6H WIOfN ALUMIUUM 0009 a 3 VIUYL 6LAZIU6 6A5KN a ° i+m 3 w o 21GI0 FOAMS I 4 I/2 ° - I + W ° hLe G D eki ¢TAME 9/16 " ---I _ + �8" LOUL. - -i m IS TYP16AL SAVE OETAII, OF WW6 PAM I6 WTIOQ TN20U6N WO 0002 NEAO 6 00025 AT POIJ OA - riot STEP AQO T2AM50M 6 SAVE 7 SHEET 7 of S - ALLVIEW DETAILS A 7180 fEK SLEEWy 6LAZIU6 ITM FEAME 5PALE0 6 18" I 1 /2 (3) 1/8 " 4" x � /I6" STEEL NBE EL OL. 3" FOAM W106WALl \ CA 08 x I /Z" M 5L2E05 SfEU HEAL hILiLOU SEAIAUf " 1NIcK x _% i b�� ' ' '!3" 1 r 5,_6 ! 6 8" OL. ALL AE 2 7/8" WIDE ODUO #8 x I/Z fEK SLEEWh x y?PUU •_-13' �' 7 i' O,. Yo L 5pA COIN 51095 12Ff. LOUG SfEEL r 12" O.C. PLATES WEAPPEO lu a f ' O ti? O .• .�- Y O" I .. l6aATIOU TAPE. ' o � 13" / m #Bxl /2" fEK SCEEWy' SPACED 6 8" O.C. BOfN h i0E5 - -- i- I I WELO ALL AEODUO _ 8" fYP. I _ 8x z' Me 6CEEWS 1 I 6ALVAUI5E0 SI N fEEBE 1 1 m I (KIN SfAGGE9E0 6 12 O.G. f__ 1 I I FOE CODUELfIOU OF 6ML EL9OW6 ° 3" FOAM EOOF PAUEI 'U" 5UPP0¢f f0 5" 6lAZ1u6 BASS, U5E (2) 012x I/2" - 'v m MF NEAO a a Ile I I NEX NEAO LAP 6CUW-5 WIN WA5NEE5 I j _ 6i 8" FOAM WIU6 PALIEL yASN WIOTN ° I I I ZZ 6 EALN LOCAfIOU TV. 1 I 8110 P9AME GABLE Eu0 ° _ t 6 _ - o y � F VILM 6I t.ZIU6 6A696f o I 8 1 _ Z IB ALLVIEW FOAM W106 PAM 19 TYPICAL HEAO DET L� 3 B 6 GABLE EUO WALL t 8 6 GABLE NO � DETAILS OF Ia-I � T 3 w ZI WELDED STEEL TUBE ELBOvJh 6LAZIU6 9M MME 8 SCALE :.25 : 1 ,^ z•_ s VIMYL 6LAZIU6 6AhKEf I 6A6N WIOTN a ' 0 0 � x BOW � °. Sri •' MF NEAO #12 x I /2" NEX NEAO a WELO ALL AEODUO GAP 6U69Wh z ° SUPPOEt PLATE 11MV6 _I a W " g / 3 H 3 / /8 4 � y NEX rEAO MALNIUE 6,f9W 3/' A #8x1/2" f9v 6MWS SPALEO 6 6' O.L. _ BOrN 51095 1 T� I NI — GLAI E CAP �JG BAE FEAM 8 g s m x S 3" FOAM VIJEEWALL I I - \ , O I/4„ I � dlo. NO 1 I/4" AIUMIUU PLATE BEAUTY LAP IQ TOP t BAU PLATES LO: '1 OF 6LAZIM6 9A2 KAME U (MV1 KILL DETAIL a 22 STEEL TUBE P20FILE /233 e106E 5UPP02f RAUEf - (3 VIEWS) OMIL 24 � STEEL fUBE ELBOW VEOTICAL LE6 fYP. B GABLE EIJO FOAM klJEEWALL 8 8 2 I /4" No? x 2 vz' WIN CUT our 6CALE :2: I (2)- 1/4" (NICK ALUMIUUM 6U6%f PLATES UOfCN IM BOTTOM OF 9106E BEAM TYPICAL 2 F IMQUI EO AT EACH EUO OF LE055 SUPFOEfh J �\ (Dug OW CAN FACE OF E1610 MAME) 012x I /Z NEX HEM LAP 6C9EW5 f I P t I/2" x 4" x 3/16" F90M uOTLN TO LEUfEE OF 3/8" " ALUMIUUM EIO6E BEAM STEEL TUBE HOLE TOP OF 6 lu EIOGE B _ N p z F A ELBOW � _ ((( 9AM l( \b' — \ I \�40�IV2., 4 ` 0 l -- - - - - - -- ----- -- - - -- -r 2 1/4" DEEP CUT OUT UOfLN IU Z1069 BAM BOTTOM TYP. ° r 90' I �, 1 ` .. 1 (2) 3/8" OtA. x 1 1 /9' LOU6 c v O 9106E SUPPOEf 89ACKEfS NP. — } - TOP OF 9106E SUPPOEI BEALKEIS -- - -- SfAIULEh5 51M 90Lf6 � w 7 WITN OUT t WA61450 lz i i �I /2' \ 6 "------- f- - -- - -8 3/I6 " - - -- o E1069 BEAM f0 F9AME LOIJLIELfIOU a Q z GLAZIUG 9A9 FEAME 1 0 3/8" OIA. x 3 114" lOUG 3 STEEL 80Lf5 WIN 3 w o OUT E WASNEE fYPILAL J m 25 ALU MIKIUM C2055 VALE 6U55Ef OETAIL I 26 2106E B EAM t 2106EE SUPPOeT KACKEf C OQK15C fIN a 8 Of H • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning Commission Secretary SUBJECT: Planning Commission Agenda for June 14, 2001 DATE: June 12, 2001 Attached for your review is a June 6, 2001, memo from Public Works Director, Diane Spector, regarding Watershed Second Generation Plans and various attachments relating to this matter. Ms. Spector will be presenting this information for review and discussion at our Thursday evening meeting. Also attached is a copy of Page 1 of Directions a Metropolitan Council publication, discussing various local workshops relating to Smart Growth initiatives. There is a workshop being held at Constitution Hall on Thursday, June 14, between 6:00 and 9:30 p.m. I was unaware of this • workshop, therefore, agenda items were already scheduled and committed to on June 14. Commission members may wish to attend the beginning portion of the workshop. Sorry about the conflict. • I MEMORANDUM • DATE: June 6, 2001 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Diane Spector, Director of Public Work SUBJECT: Staff Report RE: Watershed Second Generation Plan Since 1984 Brooklyn Center has been a member of the joint powers Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions, which are state - mandated watershed management organizations. The Commissions prepared and in 1988 received approval of their required Watershed Management Plans, which establish various standards regarding water resources in the watersheds, and which are then.used by cities to establish their Local Water Management Plans. Now by law the Commissions must update their plans, a process which is known as "second generation planning." The purpose of the second generation plan is guide the next ten years of water resources efforts. Since the original 1982 Surface Water Management Act there have been numerous changes in the laws and rules governing water resources. There have also been changes in approach, changes in focus, and changes in priorities, both at the watershed and local levels. There has been considerable work accomplished during the 17 years the Commissions have been formally organized that should • be recognized, but there is considerable work yet to be accomplished. This second generation plan will be a substantial investment of time and resources. The estimated cost of this second generation plan between the two Commissions is about $200,000, paid for from Commission cash reserves accumulated for this purpose and from member assessments. The plan process will take about 1 -1/2 years, and require significant staff, council, advisory Commission, agency, and community participation. The Commissions have appointed a Steering Committee to oversee this process, and have elected me to chair this Steering Committee. The Commissions will hosting a large "public forum" in July to provide decision makers and the public with background information on the Commission's activities, and to identify problems and issues that should be addressed in this next ten year plan. Commissions Ask for Input I The Commissions have asked for local input prior to that public forum, to identify issues that are important to decision makers and the public. To that end, the Commission has prepared a "Second Generation Planning Process" one -pager with some background information and a worksheet with three questions intended to stimulate discussion. This one -pager is attached, as well as a background paper prepared last fall, called "Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Organizations: History and Activities." This information is presented to the Planning Commission for review and discussion at the June 14, 2001 Commission meeting. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS 3001 Harbor Lane • Suite 150 • Plymouth, MN 55447 • Telephone (763) 553 -1144 • Fax (763) 553 -9326 May 14, 2001 Member City Managers Hennepin County Commissioners Minnesota State Senators Minnesota State Representatives Gentlemen and Ladies: The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions are required by law to update their 1988 Watershed Management Plans, a process known as "Second- Generation Planning." This process began in April 2001 and will take about 1 -1/2 years. The requirements of these plans are laid out in Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410. The development of these plans will require a substantial commitment of your staff s time, as well as discussions with your City Council, advisory commissions, and residents. There will be a substantial cost as well, but we expect that the cost of updating the management plans will be funded in total from reserve funds being accumulated for this purpose, and that this should notrequire an increase in the annual apportionments. As one of the first steps in this process, the Commissions will be holding a large "public forum" in July 2001 to provide decision makers and the public with background information on the Commission's activities, and to identify problems and issues that should be addressed in this next ten year management plan. Prior to this large public meeting, we ask your help in identifying issues that are important to decision makers and the public in your community. The purpose of this exercise is to identify issues that are likely to be raised at the July meeting so the Commission can be ready to respond to those concerns. To assist you in this process, we have prepared a "one pager" that summarizes the second generation planning process and a worksheet with three questions intended to stimulate discussion. We would appreciate your response by Thursday, June 14, 2001, or as soon as possible thereafter. This first step unfortunately has a short timeframe, so we understand that many cities will notbe able to go through a formal review process. You may choose to review this at the staff level and, if you have time available, obtain input from your Council and/or advisory commissions. We have provided some additional background material for you to use as you see fit, including a "History • SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BROOKLYN CENTER • BROOKLYN PARK • CRYSTAL • MAPLE GROVE • MINNEAPOLIS • NEW HOPE • OSSEO • PLYMOUTH • ROBBINSDALE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BROOKLYN CENTER • BROOKLYN PARK • CHAMPLIN • MAPLE GROVE • OSSEO WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Second Generation Planning • May 14, 2001 page 2 of the Watershed" document that provides a good summary of what the watershed commissions are, why they are joint powers organizations, and what they do. Your watershed Commissioner has more background and information on this process. If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact me at 763 -509 -5525 or the Steering Committee Chair, Diane Spector, at 763- 569 -3340. I look forward to continuing to work with you through this process, and appreciate your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Ronald S. Quanbeck Shingle Creek Commission Chair RSQ jaa cc: Mayors J�C�WA7' ERSHE� SHINGLF.G�$ECOND 1�[E1'CERI3.WPD • SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BROOKLYN CENTER • BROOKLYN PARK • CRYSTAL • MAPLE GROVE • MINNEAPOLIS • NEW HOPE • OSSEO • PLYMOUTH • ROBBINSDALE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BROOKLYN CENTER • BROOKLYN PARK • CHAMPLIN • MAPLE GROVE • OSSEO Second- Generation Plan Planning Process • Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management ement Commissions The 1982 Minnesota Legislature adopted the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act mandating that all watersheds within the seven county metropolitan area be governed by a watershed management organization. The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions are Joint Powers Organizations charged with setting standards for and managing surface water in their respective watersheds. The members of Shingle Creek are: Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Maple Grove, Minneapolis, New Hope, Osseo, Plymouth, and Robbinsdale. The members of West Mississippi are: Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Champlin, Maple Grove, and Osseo. The Commissions are required by law to update their 1988 Watershed Management Plans, a process known as "Second- Generation Planning." This process began in April 2001 and will take about 1 -2 years. Minnesota Statutes and Administrative Rules prescribe very specific items that must be addressed in these Plans. However, the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and other agencies such as the DNR and the Met Council that oversee this process want these plans to be locally driven and to reflect local issues and concerns. It is very important to get local input at all stages of this planning process. This is especially important as with a Joint Powers type of organization, the Commissions simply establish minimum standards and the cities are responsible for implementation. This planning process is now underway. The Commissions have appointed a Steering Committee and have developed a policy document to guide this process. The Commissions will hold a public forum in July 2001 to obtain general public input. To help prepare for that meeting, the Commissions would like input from cities as to specific issues and concerns. The general issues to be discussed as a part of this process will include: • How well the Commissions have met the goals established in the first generation management plan; the development of future goals, and strategies and tactics for achieving them; and a process to monitor future performance. • Understanding the condition of water bodies in the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds; setting goals for future water quality; and establishing a process to monitor future performance. ■ Reviewing and evaluating the runoff collection system and storm water management for quantity and quality; control of erosion; protection of wetlands; prevention of flooding; protection of wildlife and fish habitat; and protection of groundwater resources. • Evaluating the effect of development and redevelopment on water quality and quantity in the watersheds. • Determining the role of the commission relative to other groups, organizations, agencies and boards that have a stake and a role in management of water in the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds. • Identifying and prioritizing improvements in the watershed for action by the Commissions and recommending action by other agencies or organizations. • Developing and implementing a comprehensive public information program. • 1. Areas managed by the Watershed Commissions are: • Runoff management (adequate storm sewer systems, standards for amount of discharge between communities, stormwater detention and storage, resolve and prevent flooding problems) • Floodplain management (prohibit encroachment, maintain flood storage capacity) • Shoreland management (local shoreland management ordinances) • Water quality monitoring (comprehensive and systematic monitoring • Erosion and sedimentation control (local erosion control ordinances) • Stormwater treatment (standards for treatment, standards for quality of discharge between communities) • Wetlands management (preserve protected waters, administer Wetlands Conservation Act) • Groundwater protection (local groundwater protection ordinances) Thinking Big Picture, what do you think are the most important issues to be addressed in the next ten years in the watershed? (For example: preserve and protect water quality in lakes; retrofitting developed areas with stormwater treatment ponds; building more storm sewers; preserve and protect wetlands; control erosion of Mississippi River riverbanks.) 2. What do you think are the most important issues to be addressed in the next ten years in your city? 3. What are the kinds of issues people in your community think are important? What kinds of concerns have you heard from residents, property owners, developers, etc.? • Please return this questionnaire by June 14, 2001 to your community's Commission representative or the Second Generation Steering Committee via fax 763.569.3494 or email dspector @ci.brooklyn- center.mn.us J:\ CLIENTS \W \ WATERSHE \SHINGLECSECOND- i \QUESTNS. WPD m Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Organizations . History and Activities In 1982 the Minnesota Legislature adopted the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act mandating that all watersheds within the seven county area be governed by a watershed management organization (WMO). The nine cities with land in the Shingle Creek watershed and five cities with land in the West Mississippi watershed entered into Joint Powers Agreements forming watershed management organizations charged with certain surface and ground water management functions. These charges include: • Alleviate damage from flood waters by requiring construction of facilities to drain or pond storm waters; • Improve creek channels for drainage; • Assist in planning for land use; • Assist in water conservation and the abatement of water pollution and the improvement of water quality; • Promote groundwater recharge; and • Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities. History Although the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions were formally established as WMOs under the basis of Joint Powers Agreements in 1984, the roots of these organizations go back to the early 1970's, when seven communities organized to jointly sponsor and fund the development of the 1974 Shingle Creek Basin Management Plan, "the Barr study." This management plan was developed largely in response to a USGS study of the metro area for the National Flood Insurance Program. Various city engineers and staff members believed parts of the USGS study establishing 100 and 500 -year flood elevations were in error and did not fully take into account local conditions such as the anticipated fully developed condition. During their discussions, they decided that a joint management study should be undertaken to more fully understand the nature of the watershed and its hydrology. The study recognized that future development in what were then largely undeveloped upstream communities such as Brooklyn Park, Champlin, Maple Grove, and Plymouth would have a dramatic impact on flood elevations in downstream, developed communities such as Minneapolis, Brooklyn Center, Robbinsdale, Crystal, New Hope, and Osseo. After the Barr study was completed and outstanding issues with the Flood Insurance Program resolved, the communities struggled with the next step. They were clearly interested in jointly managing the watershed through the application of common standards. They were also clearly interested in monitoring the entire watershed to assure the preservation of water quality and to reduce flooding potential. In the late 1970s Minnesota Statutes authorized communities to establish watershed management organizations, which could be accomplished by establishment of either a watershed district or a joint powers commission. Each of these types of organizations has its strengths and weaknesses. After extensive discussions, in 1979 the cities decided to form joint powers commissions for the following reasons: ■ The cities were very clear that they did not wish to create "another layer of government," or more importantly, another taxing body. • • The cities desired to create a planning group that would develop the expertise to design and adopt water resource policies. They preferred that cities carry out the implementation of the overall watershed plan in accordance with uniform standards agreed to by all the cities. • The cities were concerned that with a District, they would lose local representation and local control over issues that are often of great importance to their residents. • The cities also did not want to create another bureaucracy with its own staff and equipment, duplicating what cities already have. Watershed Districts usually employ full time staff, and have extensive engineering and legal budgets. For example, for 2001 the Minnehaha Creek WMD has approved a budget of just over $5 million; administrative costs are budgeted at about $727,000, and improvement projects at about $3.8 million. Administrative costs (costs not related to capital projects or programs) are about 14.5 percent of the budget. By contrast, in 2001 the City of Brooklyn Center has budgeted $978,346 in its Storm Drainage Utility for administration, operations, programs, and capital projects. Administrative costs at $60,579 are about six percent of the total. This administrative cost includes the city's share of Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watershed management expenses. The joint powers type of organization was selected, in summary, because the cities believed that it provided the best balance for the establishment of watershed wide policies and strategies for meeting watershed management requirements while at the same time retaining the most flexibility and local input at the lowest cost. When the Minnesota Legislature mandated watershed governance, the specific organizational charges, financing, and governance of the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watershed management organizations were debated and joint powers agreements approved. The Barr study had identified not only management strategies but also capital improvements, some of which the local communities had already implemented. The Commissions selected the engineering firm of Hickock & Associates to update the Barr study and to expand it to meet the new requirements established in Chapter 509. The Commissions' Water Management Plans were completed in 1988. The Surface Water Management Act also required that local governments adopt and implement Local Water Management Plans in conformance with the Watershed Management Plans. All but two cities in Shingle Creek/West Mississippi have completed these plans. Both of those cities are in the plan development process. Activities The Commissions meet monthly to conduct a variety of business. These activities are summarized in an annual report which is distributed to each city and other interested parties. Annually the Commissions review 20 -30 projects a year for residential and commercial development to ensure that discharged runoff meets the water quality standards for the Commission and flooding problems do not occur. The Commissions also act as responsible LGUs (Local Government Units) for Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) wetland activities for about half the watershed member cities, who do not have such specialists on their staffs. The Commissioners share information, meet with representatives from agencies such as the Hennepin Conservation District, the Board of Water and Soil Resources, the DNR, and the MPCA and review other related information. In addition to regular activities, the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi WMOs have completed numerous special studies. These include: ■ The Shingle Creek WMO annually conducts extensive water quality monitoring at three Shingle Creek locations. Shingle Creely West Mississippi History and Activities p 2 Y • A USGS special study of Shingle Creek in 1996 found elevated levels of chloride in the creek during the winter months, which was enough to designate Shingle Creek as an impaired water for chlorides. There is some evidence that this may be a metro -wide problem, but there has been no systematic study of this phenomenon. Shingle Creek has initiated a regular sampling and testing program for chlorides, and is in the early stages of working with various agencies to do a wider diagnosis and analysis. Early indications are that the higher levels of chlorides can be traced to road salt use. • All of the water quality basins constructed in both watersheds as part of residential and commercial developments are inspected after construction to assure compliance with Commission requirements. Results of the inspection are passed on to the member community's engineering departments and they assure that any necessary work is completed.. The local community generally requires a performance bond or other surety from the developer to assure that the work will be constructed satisfactorily. • The Shingle Creek WMO is participating in the Citizen - Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) through the MPCA and every year monitors five to six lakes on a rotating basis. • A profile survey and an inspection of Shingle Creek was recently performed, noting erosion, blockages, bank failures, and the need for repairs as well as the conveyance capacity of the channel. Local communities constructed improvements where necessary. • The Shingle Creek WMO funded a shoreline workshop in 1998 to promote aquascaping around lakes. • Both WMOs annually coordinate with, and provide financial support to, the Hennepin Conservation District for macroinvertebrate monitoring. The Shingle Creek WMO has also conducted its own biological monitoring at the three water - quality sampling sites. • • A hydrologic model has been created and calibrated for the entire Shingle Creek watershed • A diagnostic /feasibility study for Twin Lakes has been completed, including a nutrient budget and recommendations for water quality improvements to Twin Lakes. Several grant applications for improvements have been prepared and are still pending. ■ A review of water quality treatment provided by storm water detention ponds was recently performed for the entire Shingle Creek watershed, with an analysis of where new or expanded treatment could have the most impact on water quality in surface waters. Local Implementation The implementation of water resources management takes place at the local level, and the scale and nature of activity in the cities within the watershed varies from city to city and from year to year based on their unique circumstances: developing, fully developed, or redeveloping; emphasis on private projects versus regional public projects; and fiscal capacity. Cities actively reconstructing streets and utilities have unique opportunities to retrofit existing systems with ponds or other facilities on a very cost effective basis. Some of the cities in the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds are currently actively constructing or reconstructing infrastructure. Other cities may have completed a cycle of construction or reconstruction, and are currently in the mode of maintaining their systems. Some actively developing cities require private developers to construct all the infrastructure improvements and thus may not need to construct public improvement projects. All of these activities are consistent with the overall water resource goals of the commissions. SWe Creek/West Mississippi History and Activities p4e 3 Cities also routinely perform maintenance BMPs (Best Management Practices) such as routine street sweeping (usually 2 -3 times per year), catch basin and storm sewer cleaning, and maintenance of outfalls and ponds. These maintenance activities not only protect the City's investment in infrastructure and improve water quality, they can reduce private property damage during extreme runoff events by maximizing storm water storage and flow. Major storm drainage /water quality projects undertaken in the past few years by cities • Brooklyn Center has recently completed installation of a series of six V2B 1 underground treatment devices as a part of its 2000 Neighborhood Street and Utility Reconstruction project, at a cost of $160,000. These devices were installed just above the stormwater outlet into Shingle Creek. The devices could be a very useful addition to the water quality BMP toolbox, as they can provide water quality treatment in developed areas with no land to spare for conventional ponds. They will be monitored for effectiveness. In the past several years Brooklyn Center has constructed six regional treatment ponds in connection with street and utility reconstruction projects, at a cost of about $200,000. These projects were funded by a combination of Storm Drainage Utility funds and special assessments. Two major regional ponds are the Cahlander Park and Pond at 65th Avenue and I -694, constructed at a cost of about $600,000, and the Brooklyn Center portion of the Shingle Creek Regional Pond system. • Brooklyn Park requires private developers to construct storm drainage/water quality projects in accordance with the watershed commission standards. All of the water quality treatment has been constructed by those developers at their expense, minimizing public expense. • Crystal has dredged natural and man-made ponds to improve their water treatment effectiveness. • Maple Grove developed a detailed and thorough storm water management plan for its Arbor Lakes development area. This includes construction of a series of regional storm water ponds and ground water ponds that serve to treat storm water and recharge the aquifer. • Minneapolis has completed its portion of the Shingle Creek Regional Pond system. This project cost approximately $4 million, of which $2 million was provided through a grant from the Department of Trade and Economic Development, $1 million from Brooklyn Center, $100,000 from LCMR grant funds, and $900,000 from Minneapolis. Minneapolis has also completed numerous regional treatment facilities citywide, including Cedar Meadows, Calhoun Wetland, 60th Street East at First Avenue South, and at least 75 grit chambers and other sumps. • Plymouth, as does most cities, considers storm water runoff in all City projects. Storm water management features are designed into all projects. For example, the City's 1998 Street Reconstruction Project included the excavation of a large basin to enhance wetland characteristics and provide water quality treatment for the surrounding neighborhoods, at a cost of over $60,000. Ponds were constructed as a part of projects to construct a nearly one mile long segment of Schmidt Lake Road and the reconstruction of Zachary Lane. In 1999 a street project improved a drainage system with flooding problems that serves Minnetonka as well as Plymouth. At a cost of about $160,000, Plymouth completed a pond excavation/wetland enhancement project to provide storm water treatment for much of its central commercial area. • In 2000, Robbinsdale constructed a $150,000 pond project serving the new Hubbard Marketplace. Shingle CreeklWest Mississippi History and Activities page 4 Storm water /water quality projects undertaken by developers • All cities enforce the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi requirements regarding water, detention and treatment. All private development exceeding certain size requirements must provide detention and treatment on site or demonstrate that adequate detention and treatment is available in a regional or other facility. The cities within the watersheds are evenly split as to whether they require the watershed standards or the slightly more stringent NURP standards for pond facilities. Another requirement that all private developers must meet is adequate erosion control. Each project is reviewed by the commissions and includes water control features to ensure the water management goals of the watershed are met. • Brooklyn Center developers have constructed several ponds to satisfy local and watershed requirements, including: Hennepin County Government Center; Regal Theater; TGIFridays /Country Inn Suites; Extended Stay America/Motel 6/Franz Engineering; Wickes Distribution Center and Rainbow Foods. • Brooklyn Park has required private developers to construct storm water detention and treatment for over 450 acres of commercial and industrial property in Shingle Creek and 1,100 acres (residential) and 420 acres (commercial) in West Mississippi. • Recent private projects in Crystal where storm water treatment was required include: Industrial Equities; Project for Pride in Living; and Parkside Addition, a development of single family homes. • New Hope in its existing industrial parks has required building expansions to include water quality improvements in accordance with Shingle Creek Commission requirements. • Numerous ponds have been constructed in Plymouth by private developers. In addition, Plymouth has enacted a wetland buffer ordinance that restricts development adjacent to wetlands. All developers are required to show how they are minimizing runoff and increasing on -site water infiltration beyond the minimum NURP and erosion control requirements. Finally, Plymouth monitors and inspects over 200 sites annually for erosion control purposes, and requires noted deficiencies to be convected Surface water quality projects Almost all the cities have constructed numerous public and/or private facilities that control runoff and treat storm water. These have a beneficial effect on the quality of surface waters, substantially reducing pollutants. However, additional projects have been completed or are contemplated specifically to provide benefits to lakes or to Shingle Creek itself. ■ Brooklyn Center has started construction on a project intended as a first phase in improving water quality in Palmer Lake. Several storm sewers discharge directly into Palmer Lake. At some outfalls storm water will be directed into new ponds. At other outfalls, existing channels will be dredged so they function more effectively. The cost of this project is about $250,000. ■ Minneapolis has accomplished numerous projects to improve the quality of surface waters. A major project is the completion after 34 years of the elimination of combined sewer overflows and separation of storm water from sanitary sewer. In other watersheds, Minneapolis has also participated in the Clean Water Partnership at the Chain of Lakes, along with Minneapolis Park Board, St. Louis Park, • and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Minneapolis also participates in the Blue Water Commission, which focuses on Lakes Nokomis and Hiawatha. Shingle Cree VWest Mississippi History and Activities pam, 5 ■ Plymouth has been an active manager of its surface waters. In 2000, the City initiated a water- quality monitoring program at seven locations throughout the City to assess surface water quality, at a cost of $30,000 per year. Plymouth is also performing a hydrologic and hydraulic study in an undeveloped area of the Shingle Creek watershed to determine the effect of development and to implement best management practices to compensate for any impact. Plymouth's Engineering and Parks Departments collaborated with the Hennepin Conservation District and area volunteers to bioengineer the restoration of a portion of eroded banks of Elm Creek. Finally, at Plymouth Creek Park a wetland is being improved to enhance the habitat and improve water quality. Planned projects The cities within the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watersheds are in varying stages of development and redevelopment. Some cities are actively constructing street and utility improvements, while others have already completed reconstruction or are just gearing up. A number of improvements are currently in the active planning stage. Not to be discounted are other agencies such as Mn/DOT, which is planning or completing extensive storm water detention and treatment on major projects such as the construction of TH610 and the reconstruction of THIN and I- 94/694. • Brooklyn Center has a number of projects identified in its CIP for construction in the next few years. These include: participation in a multi jurisdiction wetland restoration project identified in the Commission's Twin Lake Study to potentially provide a major improvement to water quality in Upper Twin Lake; dredging and embankment improvements in Shingle Creek; future phases of Palmer Lake improvements to enhance wetland quality and restore storage; and several ponds or other facilities to be constructed along with neighborhood street project drainage improvements. • Robbinsdale has been working with Mn/DOT on Phase III of the THIN Reconstruction to provide additional ponding in Graeser Park to accommodate City storm water. • Several cities in the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds are also members of other watershed management organizations. Within the Bassett Creek watershed Plymouth is investigating ways to perform improvements in the Medicine Lake watershed in the near future. It will also be performing a lake management and watershed management study for Parker's Lake, anticipating that improvements will be constructed shortly after completion. Outreach Many of the cities within the watersheds have active outreach programs. These range from assisting Lakeshore associations, to promoting use of phosphorus free fertilizer, to providing educational materials to schools. All of the cities have some type of a citizen commission that reviews and provides recommendations to their city councils on environmental matters, such as a park commission or an environmental commission. All of the cities have planning commissions that review private developments and that make recommendations on land use and zoning matters. Shingle CreeVWest Mississippi History and Activities page 6 ■ Brooklyn Center has an active Adopt -A -Park Program that includes frequent creek cleanups. Water • quality information is occasionally included in the city newsletter. The City staff is in the very early stages of discussing a phosphorus free fertilizer ordinance. ■ Brooklyn Park through its Park and Recreation Department organizes an annual Shingle Creek clean up. The Operations and Maintenance Department has worked together with Hennepin Parks on a storm drain stenciling project. ■ Minneapolis has an extensive outreach program Catch basin stenciling has been performed since 1993. Clean Water Partnership educational materials were developed for the Chain of Lakes project. Minneapolis sponsors an annual Earth Day Watershed Cleanup, which includes Shingle Creek. The Lake Harriet Pesticide Project has helped educate residents about proper use of pesticides to reduce impacts on surface waters. Minneapolis sponsors a Citizen's Water Quality Education Committee that puts together and distributes educational materials. Water quality information is occasionally included in Solid Waste collection literature, the City Calendar, and on City Cable Channel. ■ Plymouth is also very active in outreach. The Plymouth Environmental Quality Committee appointed by the City Council is responsible for many water quality initiatives. About $35,000 is budged for various educational programs in 2001. The past five years Plymouth has conducted an environmental fair in cooperation with area schools. The City has adopted and implemented a phosphorus free fertilizer ordinance that bans the use of phosphate based fertilizer throughout the City. Other cities are now following Plymouth's lead. Plymouth has performed some catch basin stenciling and in 2001 will continue the program around Medicine Lake. Finally, Plymouth publishes the Environmental Extra, dedicated solely to environmental issues. This two page section is published and distributed along with the City's newsletter. ■ Robbinsdale is working with citizen's groups to form lake associations. One of the goals of this activity is to educate residents about phosphorus free fertilizers. The city does plan to enact such an ordinance after suitable public education has taken place and residents are comfortable with the concept. Other Efforts Effective water resources management requires cities to enact various municipal controls. Several cities are actively preparing or have completed Erosion Control ordinances and Shoreland Management ordinances. In accordance with EPA requirements, Minneapolis was issued a NPDES Phase I permit on November 30, 2000. The other cities in the watersheds fall under the requirements of NPDES Phase H and will be focusing future efforts on meeting those requirements. Both Shingle Creek and West Mississippi will begin development of their second - generation management plans in 2001. Shingle Crec4lWest Mississippi History and Activities page 7 4 Second- Generation Plan Planning Process Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Introduction The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions are required by law to update their Watershed Management Plans, a process known as "Second- Generation Planning." The Commissions have appointed a Steering Committee and have developed this policy document to guide this process. Major Issues As the second - generation management plans are developed, the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions will consider a large number of water - management related issues. One of the most critical outcomes of the second generation planning process will be a renewed focus on the key water - management issues in the watersheds. To develop that focus, the planning process will prioritize the issues and make a determination about the appropriate role for the Commissions in addressing them in coming years. . Broadly, the issues to be discussed as a part of this process will include: o How well the Commissions have met the goals established in the first generation management plan; the development of future goals, and strategies and tactics for achieving them; and a process to monitor future performance. o Understanding the condition of water bodies in the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds; setting goals for future water quality; and establishing a process to monitor future performance. o Reviewing and evaluating the runoff collection system and storm water management for quantity and quality; control of erosion; protection of wetlands; prevention of flooding; protection of wildlife and fish habitat; and protection of groundwater resources. o Evaluating the effect of development and redevelopment on water quality and quantity in the watershed. o The role of the commission relative to other groups, organizations, agencies and boards that have a stake and a role in management of water in the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds. o Identifying and prioritizing improvements in the watershed for action by the commission and recommending action by other agencies or organizations. o The development and implementation of a comprehensive public information program. The following sections include a preliminary list of requirements and issues that need to be reviewed and possibly resolved as part of the Commissions' second generation planning process. The issues identified in the following list are a starting point. The list is neither comprehensive nor definitive. The issues included have not been prioritized and the order of presentation does not indicate priority. • p Regulatory Requirements • 1. The existing water management plan must be revised by July, 2002. 2. The plan must contain a Land and Water Resource Inventory, including: o An inventory of water resources and physical factors affecting the water resources; o Precipitation data; o General geology and topographic data; o Surface water resource data, including: • A map of the public waters and public ditch systems, including the location of existing dams and control structures; • A copy of the National Wetlands Inventory Map; • An inventory of the functional values of the wetlands present, or details of the process by which that inventory will be completed and when; • A table of the major hydrologic characteristics of public waters; • Maps showing the areas served by each existing stormwater system that identify existing stormwater ponds and the location of all stormwater outfalls; • A table summarizing available information on the 100 -year flood levels and peak discharges of existing and proposed stormwater ponds and flood profile information that corresponds to the peak discharges of channelized flow passing through the watershed • A general discussion of, or a map showing areas of, known flooding problems not identified as flood -prone in a published flood insurance study; • A listing of the existing flood insurance maps; • A summary of water quality; • A map or list, if available, showing the location of known existing and abandoned surface water quality and quantity monitoring sites; • A list of municipalities with approved shoreland ordinances and projected completion dates for those without ordinances; and • A table listing the amounts and locations of all surface water appropriations as permitted by the Department of Natural Resources and provided to the organization. o Groundwater information as required by County Groundwater Plan. If no groundwater plan is in place, groundwater issues must be addressed as necessary; o Soils data; o Land use, both existing and anticipated, and MUSA location; o Water -based recreation areas and land ownership; o Fish and wildlife habitat, including lake and stream ecological and management classifications; o Unique features and scenic areas; and o Pollutant sources. 3. The plan must collect policies and goals of each review authority, take into account those goals and policies when drafting the plan, and reconcile inconsistent goals and policies. 4. Specific goal statements and policies must be provided in sufficient detail to provide direction regarding what the policies should accomplish, provide direction to the commissions, and allow for the success or failure of the goals and policies to be quantified. At the minimum, the following issues must be addressed: 2 o Water quantity. Management of stormwater runoff, allowable peak runoff. o Water quality. Specific goals for lake and stream water quality. o Recreation and fish and wildlife. Protecting recreational activities and wildlife interests, classification of water resources for management purposes. o Flooding and stormwater rate control; o Enhancement of public participation, information, and education. Advisory committees and public information programs. o Public ditch systems. Relationship to ditch authority, evaluate managing ditch systems. o Groundwater. Goals and policies as appropriate to county groundwater plan. o Wetlands. High priorities for wetland preservation and restoration, wetland banking. o Erosion. Policies to control erosion. 5. Each plan must include an assessment of existing and potential water resource related problems. 6. Each plan must include an implementation program consisting of nonstructural, structural and programmatic solutions to identified problems, issues and goals. The program must identify appropriate regulatory controls, design performance standards, information programs, data collection programs, and management programs. The responsibilities of the Commissions and the cities in carrying out the implementation program needs to be defined. • 7. The plan must review existing local controls and programs and the administrative and financial ability of the local units of government to adopt and enforce needed controls and programs. The analysis of financial impact of the implementation of regulatory controls and programs on cities should include an estimate of costs and possible sources of funds. 8. The plan must develop a prioritized schedule for implementation of needed controls or programs by the Commission or local units of governments. The plan must include a Capital Improvement program. The plan must identify the procedure to be followed to enforce violations of controls of the Commissions and the local units of government. 9. The plan must specify a process for its amendment. Recommendations from Other Agencies The Board of Water and Soil Resources/Metropolitan Council recommends that: 1. The plans concisely state the current and future role and philosophy of the Commissions. 2. The plans include a listing of specific problems and issue areas as well as areas of opportunity. 3. There is an earnest opportunity for stakeholder involvement, including citizen input. 4. The plans identify and address plans for areas of exceptional resources, such as Twin Lakes. 3 _ 5. The plans include a detailed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) covering the various agencies within the watersheds, showing who will do what project when and for how much, and how those projects would be funded. 6. The plans identify methods for measuring success and for revising strategies over time. 7. The Commissions create an annual or biannual cycle to review and update the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). 8. The Shingle Creek plan should address the chloride issue, detailing the action plan. 9. The plans should feel free to reference work already completed, with no need to reinvent or revisit issues adequately addressed previously. 10. If required components of the plans are not completed at the time of the plan, the plan should include details of the schedule and methods for completion of that work. Issues Identified by Citizens, Commissioners, and Cities 1. The plans should clarify operational requirements so they are consistent and easily identifiable. 2. The plans should set realistic standards for water bodies. 3. The plans should be realistic about availability of resources. 4. The plans should utilize existing information and policies to the greatest extent practical. 4 Shingle Creek Water Management Organization • West Mississippi Water Management Organization Statement of Purpose and Strategy The Shingle Creek Water Management Commission ( SCWMC) and the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission ( WMWMC) were established as joint powers organizations in 1984, in response to the requirements of the Surface Water Management Act. The roots of these organizations go back to the early 1970's, when seven communities organized to jointly sponsor and fund the development of the 1974 Shingle Creek Basin Management Plan, which was developed largely in response to the USGS study of the Metro area for the National Flood Insurance Program. The SCWMC and WMWMC continue to work closely with their member cities to assign responsibility for water resource issues seeking to efficiently and effectively use the cities' and the Commissions' planning and implementation resources. In an effort to enhance past and current initiatives, the Commissions will continue to assist citizens and communities with the management of water resources, in the following areas: o Partner with member communities in the management of surface and groundwater for the benefit of citizens within the watershed and region. o Work with citizens, citizen advisory groups and member communities to establish goals and prioritize and implement initiatives that will preserve and improve water resources within the watershed. • o Collect, develop, and distribute information regarding watershed surface water and groundwater in the watershed to assist citizens and watershed communities in the preparation of local plans for the management of water resources. 1. Water Resource Management The Commissions will look to member communities for primary management of runoff and water management issues. The Commissions will provide leadership and assist member communities with the following water management issues: Coordinate intercommunity stormwater runoff planning and design Commissions will: (a) review community water resource management plans for consistency with Commission goals and intercommunity consistency, and (b) assist in calculating or calculate when necessary, the apportionment of costs between adjoining communities for water resource projects with intercommunity participation. This role applies to both water quantity and water quality issues. Water quality — Commissions will require implementation of best management practices (BMPs) that will improve the quality of stormwater runoff wherever possible. Commissions, in cooperation with the member communities, will continue to set reasonably attainable goals and identify areas where improved BMPs are desirable and will have the greatest effect. • 5 This effort will continue to include monitoring of stormwater runoff to collect data about the • quality of water in lakes, streams, and storm sewers within the watersheds to create a water quality database. This database will be used to develop intercommunity water quality models for the purpose of planning watershed-based initiatives to improve runoff water quality, and to assess the success of past and future municipal water quality initiatives and applied BMPs. The member communities can also use the water quality database to do more localized water quality modeling. Lake and stream mans ement —The Commissions and member cities will, with input from the public, set goals for streams and water bodies in the watershed. The Commissions will implement water management activities and water quality improvement projects for water bodies with regional significance based on feasibility, prioritization, and available funding. The Shingle Creek WMC has performed lake monitoring to determine the condition and use attainability of these major resources, classified the water resources according to their current and attainable uses (based on the data collected, municipal water management plans, and regional goals), and is developing management plans fbr these water bodies to help these priority resources meet their intended use. Management activities include recommendations for land -use controls, plans for integrated water resource management (parks/nature centers, etc.), and passive or active water treatment projects or facilities Wetland manaizern — Unless assistance is requested from the Commissions, cities will manage wetlands in accordance with the Wetlands Conservation Act. 2. Local Water Management Activity Assessment The Commissions will work with member communities to assess each community's progress toward agreed upon expectations. The Commissions will use the following assessment process: The Commissions and the cities will identify and prioritize initiatives that support outcome- based goals of the Commissions' water management plan. Outcome -based goals might include phosphorus limits for specific water resources, turbidity limits in streams, implementation of BMPs, education programs, etc. Together, the cities and the Commissions will set expectations of performance in terms of effort and schedule. The water quality of the watershed's water resources will continue to be monitored. The monitoring program will be reviewed annually, or as needed, to determine progress. Successes will be celebrated, and failures will be brought to the attention of policy makers to encourage meeting the Commissions goals. The Commissions will work to support the staff and elected officials to meet the agreed upon expectations. 3. Public Education and Participation in Water Management A general goal of the Commissions is to increase watershed awareness among residents and provide them with information. The strategy of the Commissions is to work within existing education ' . programs whenever possible and not duplicate the education efforts of others. Another general goal of the Commissions is to continue to provide its member communities with useful information about 6 the Commissions, its activities, and water resource management. In addition to its required annual • report and ongoing education efforts (e.g. brochures, news releases, internet website, citizen participation in resource monitoring), other efforts might include creating a standing citizens advisory group, establishing guides and issuing/distributing technical memoranda, and promoting active training (e.g., targeted presentations to neighborhood or public organizations). During the planning process, the Commissions will be looking for recommendations from citizens regarding the development of an effective long -term public information and public involvement program. 7 Work Plan This work plan describes tasks that are necessary in preparing the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions' second - generation watershed management plans (WMP)• This work plan is not an outline of the WMP, only of the work. Most water management plans follow the format inferred by MN Rules 8410: an inventory of resources and related infrastructure; identification of issues or problems; establishment of standards, goals and policies relating to the issues; and description of implementation initiatives (including costs and financing) and capital improvement schedules. Within this format, the plan must present information regarding precipitation, geology, topography, ditches, wetlands, the hydrologic system, groundwater, soils, land use, parks and recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, unique features, and pollutant sources. Although MN Rules 8410 describes the appropriate content of a WMP, rules allow the Commission to vary the format to best meet our needs. This work plan focuses on issues key to Commissions rather than a presumed report format. This method allows the inventories, problem assessments, policies, and implementation plans to be built around the key issues. The key issues identified to date are: Plan Emphasis o Water quality in lakes, ponds and streams o Management of surface water flows and flooding • o Development and redevelopment issues o Development of a system of accountability and performance evaluation for the WMO and member communities o Development/continuation of public information program Work Plan Outline Task Description Schedule 1.0 Develop Work Plan, Budget, and Planning Handbook A 2001 2.0 Continue Evaluation- of Draft Statement of Purpose and May 2001 Strate 3.0 1 Review Existing Water Quality Goals and Policies May-June 2001 4.0 Identify Past, Current, and Potential Flooding Issues July 2001 -April 2002 5.0 Establish a Method for Monitoring and Evaluating Plan July 2001 -April 2002 Implementation 6.0 Develop Effective, Long -Term Public Information July 2001 -April 2002 Program 7.0 Review and Address Wetland and Groundwater Goals, July 2001 -April 2002 Characterize Watershed Climate, Topography and Soils, and Other Water Resource Elements 8.0 Define Structural and Nonstructural Programs Needed to March 2002 -May 2002 Address Issues 9.0 Develop and Adopt Watershed Management Plan Aril 2001 -June 2002 8 Organizational Structure Commission Steering Committee Overall Responsibility For All Tasks Keeps Work on Track, Provides Assistance to Committees, Compiles Work Product Technical Advisory Committee Advisory Committee (AC) (TA C) Provides Stakeholders` Provides City Engineer's and Perspective, including City Agency Perspective Managers and Elected Officials, Property Owners and Developers, Provides Data, Prepares Special and the General Public Studies, Defines Goals and Policies, Defines Capital Debates Goals, Policies, Improvement Program Priorities, Functions, Resources, Information, and Outreach 9 Planning Process Commission Appoints Second Generation Plan Committee Second Generation Plan Committee Prepares Draft Planning Process Prepares Draft Work Plan Develops Proposed Organizational Structure Commission Reviews and Approves Planning Process and Work Plan Creates Advisory Committees and Defines Responsibilities Steering Committee Develops Agendas, Background Papers, and Work Plans for Advisory Committees Provides Direction for Advisory Committees Liaison between Advisory Committees and Commission Technical Advisory Advisory Committee Committee Develops Policies Addresses Technical Issues Prioritizes Goals and Work Plans Prepares Capital Improvement Develops Public Information Program Program Establishes Performance Monitoring Prepares Financing Plan Steering Committee Receives Recommendations from Advisory Committees Prepares Goals, Strategies, Work Plans, and Capital Improvement Program Drafts Plan Commission 'Responds to Comments and Recommendations . Reviews/Revises Plan Conducts Public Meetings on Proposed Plan Approves Plan 10