Agenda - Council - 02/14/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CASE Background: REPORT OF SECTION #22 DRAINAGE By: Steve Jankowski, City Engineer In 1994, a ~'alnage issue in Section #22, which had been discussed some five years earlier, had .je. en brought to the City Council's attention by Mr. Terry Hendriksen. I had been directe~ to pursue a solution to the problem. Over the past months, I have undertaken the followinl; actions. First, I have arranged to have the culvert on 156th Avenue N.W., east of Rams ~y Boulevard N.W., lowered to facilitate better drainage at the low-lying area north of this .'oadway. Second, I h~.ve had surveyors stake the best location for the construction of a ditch connecting a~series of existing culverts to provide drainage throughout the area. A copy of the proposed drainage plat is attached. I personally have contacted property owners to verify that th~ ~ location of the staked route was the best route available, and provided them with baekgro md on the proposed project. I also indicated that I would relay any concerns they expressed to the City. Council. Third, I have applied for ~nvironmental permits for the consmacfion of the proposed ditch system. The :response to this application from the Anoka Conservation District was that the proposed dit:h project may cause wetlands peripheral to Wetland #656 to disappear because the h nproved drainage would eliminate short-term flooding on which the existence of these mar inal wetlands are dependent. This would be a violation of the Wetland Conservafiot Act. I responded to this position by applying for an exemption to the Wetland Con ~ervafion Act based on the fact that the City Council authorized this project during an alk)Wable window prior to the Wetland Conservation Act going into effect This exemption w ts approved by the Lower Rum River Water Management Organization on January 19, 995. However, this exemption limits the project to the scope of what had been approv~ in 1989, which would not include full scale ditching. Fourth, I have. taken advantage of the winter conditions to physically view the drainage system between 156th Avenue N.W. and County Road #5, which is difficult to access and view during ~ost of the year. The expenses, not including my time (in excess of $4,500 to date) assoeiat&l with the work, to date, include the following: Lowering culvert on 156th Avenue N.W. Survey work and drainage plat Permit application fees - Toial $3,000 $ 500 $8,500 Concerns of ~'~ted Property_ Owners Regardine Ditch Easement - - I have contac~l, either personally or via telephone, ten of the 14 property owners affected by the proposed project. Three properties do not have listed numbers, and I have not made contact with qne but intend to have contact before the meeting. There were two general concerns exl:~', essed by the property owners contacted. The fa'st of these concerns, expressed by four of the 6wners, was that the ditch created by the proposed project would sever their p~perty creating an obstacle to certain potential land uses, such as the running of horses. A ~e, cond general concern expressed by property owners, was that the proposed ditch could increase the Water flow into their area. It was their concern that if such a ditch were construc~d, the drainage downstream of them would also need to be improved. #4 /95