Laserfiche WebLink
<br />because they were experiencing high water level in the wetland last fall when conditions were <br />generally dry. At that time it was noted that a partial explanation for the high water being <br />observed may have been attributable to a dewatering operation being discharged through wetland <br />114P which is located about 300 feet to the east. The Public Works Committee recommended <br />that the water tables be reviewed again in June and July of this year. The purpose of this case is <br />to comply with that directive. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski indicated staffhas visited the backyard at 14680 Potassium Street on <br />three occasions and found the following information: <br /> <br />. May 10th - The area occupied by wetland vegetation was dry but spongy. <br /> <br />. June 1st - Following the heavy precipitation received though the Memorial Day weekend, <br />standing water was observed in the area which has wetland vegetation. <br /> <br />. June 7th - Standing water was observed in the area which has wetland vegetation. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski stated the May of 2004 has been one of the wettest on record, and it <br />should not be unexpected to see standing water within the wetland area. The major concern of <br />the residents was over the ability to continue using the lower lying portions of their backyards. In <br />spite of the recent wet weather those areas of their yards appear to remain useable. He advised <br />copies ofthis Public Works agenda and this case were delivered to the residents at 14680, 14660, <br />14640 Potassium Street and 6001 146th Avenue. <br /> <br />Steve Ruth, 14680 Potassium Street, informed the Committee he just walked back there tonight, <br />and the area is wet and spongy, but usable. The water is staying within the wetland at this point <br />in time. Regarding the developer dropping off fill, if he remembers correctly last fall they were <br />not talking about a lot offill in his yard, possibly two to three inches. To him it is not worth two <br />or three inches of fill the way the yard looks now. He questioned if the sod would be replaced <br />and laid down by the City or the developer, or if he wouldjust be given the supplies and have to <br />do the work himself. He inquired how much monetary value is assessed with purchasing the <br />easement. <br /> <br />Chairperson Zimmerman noted there are three options. The first is that the City or developer <br />would delineate the wetland boundaries in the rear yards. Such yards may be filled in <br />compliance with the wetland regulations. Second is that the City or developer would deliver fill <br />material to those yards and enable the residents to raise portions of their yard in the delineated <br />wetland area. The third option is the purchase of additional easements from the area. <br /> <br />.r <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook asked Mr. Ruth if the situation has improved since the dewatering stopped <br />beyond the road. <br /> <br />Mr. Ruth replied there is more water in the wetland currently than there was last fall, which he <br />would probably attribute to the rain this spring. He would not be able to say it was from the <br />dewatering. His concern would be when there is more impervious surface back there. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/June 15,2004 <br />Page 2 of 17 <br />