Minutes from 1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LRRWMO Meeting Minutes December 15, 1994 Page 10 projects involve a more intense land use than Hakanson-Anderson assumed when designing the basin so the ponds were modified. Schultz used a map to review the area, location of buildings, ponds, storm sewer alignment, etc. The original storm sewer study was done by SEH and then updated by Hakanson- Anderson. The ponds were expanded and it is felt they will result in an amenity to the area since they are aesthetically pleasing, low maintenance, and seeded with wild flowers. Beduhn explained the ponds were redesigned to account for the more intense land use. Also, erosion and sedimentation control plans were submitted that are generally acceptable. Beduhn reviewed that the LRRWMO approved the plans contingent upon his review and approval but Schultz has raised an issue regarding internal drainage of the facility since the loading dock is not being serviced by outlets which will result in short-term flooding during heavy rainfalls. Beduhn stated he reviewed their plan, found they had an overflow and that the building would not flood, and felt internal drainage was a City issue. It was noted that Schultz has indicated the City does have some concerns and question whether the "C Value" is appropriate considering full development. Beduhn advised that he did contact their engineer regarding these issues and they sent a letter addressing the three projects, storage capacity, and indicated the land owners are aware there could be some temporary flooding in the parking lot and are "okay with it". Weaver read a portion of the letter from Dennis Brown, representative of the owner, which indicated that "temporary flooding is acceptable by the owner" but noted the letter is not signed by the owner. Schultz stated he would rather the owner not put themselves in this position but if the owner agrees, there is probably nothing the City can do about it. He agreed the owner, not the builder, should sign off on this stipulation. Weaver commented that allowing this to happen on a small three acre parcel is one thing, but if another development is allowed on the same basis a potential for problems in the future could exist. He preferred requiring a design so there is no flooding anticipated. Weaver questioned the cost to increase the size of the pipe and inlet capacity. Beduhn stated he has not calculated this. Schultz speculated they would probably have to go up one size larger. Schultz stated he wants to make sure the owners understand there could be potential problems and suggested that the Anoka City Engineering Department make this recommendation.