My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 10/14/2003
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
2003
>
Minutes - Council - 10/14/2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/24/2025 4:12:35 PM
Creation date
2/9/2004 8:39:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
10/14/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
3) That in Area B, the north side of Lot 5 of Block 3 be staked and the <br />oak trees be cleared within 15 feet of that line. If possible, a root <br />saw should be used to sever the root mass prior to grubbing and <br />excavating for the wall construction. <br />4) That the developer's proposal to remove trees in Area C be <br />allowed and that a minimum of five coniferous trees a minimum of <br />six feet high be planted to reestablish screenings. <br />Tom Roof, 14369 Waco Street NW, Ramsey, stated that his son lives at 14680 Potassium Street <br />NW, and any additional dirt that is moved further to the east will only create more problems with <br />drainage behind his son's property. <br />Assistant Director of Public Works Olson reviewed the area in question explaining that during <br />the public hearing there was some concern about the levels in the pond so the City required the <br />developer to redesign the drainage area. The original drainage area was 12.3 acres with some of <br />the drainage coming from the Chestnut Ridge development. When staff requested that the <br />developer limit the amount of water runoff into the pond the developer only allowed for drainage <br />from rooftops and reduced the drainage area to 4.01 acres and added an outlet. Mr. Olson <br />reviewed the depths of the two outlets and explained that the problem is that there is a retaining <br />wall that is about a foot below the location of the outlet pipe. One option would be to leave the <br />outlet pipe as is, or they could require the developer to reconstruct the pipe in a completely flat <br />condition, but there would be an increased risk of sedimentation to occur. <br />Mr. Roof' stated that he had previously met with Mr. Jankowski from the City to discuss the <br />location of the outlet pipe and to show him that his son's yard is now wet. Mr. Jankowski agreed <br />that before water would go through the new overflow pipe a good portion of his son's yard would <br />be under water. Mr. Roof also noted that the contours that were shown to the City did not <br />include the retaining wall. <br />Assistant Director of Public Works Olson stated that that was true that the retaining wall was not <br />included on the plans submitted to the City, which is something that should have been updated by <br />the developer. <br />Mr. Roof stated that he did meet with the developer about their concerns. The developer <br />explained to him that it was an engineering mistake not their mistake so the City would have to <br />address the issue. Mr. Roof stated that it was his understanding that it is illegal to change <br />hydrology, which means that it is illegal to drain water onto someone else's property. People <br />should be respected and they don't want their property flooded. Everybody seems to agree there <br />is a problem and he just wants it fixed. <br />Assistant Director of Public Works Olson explained that the only option would be to drop the <br />outlet pipe by 9 /10ths of a foot, but he did not believe that would give them the results they were <br />looking for. <br />City Council /October 14, 2003 <br />Page 7 of 30 <br />6� 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.