Agenda - Council - 02/26/2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Comment #3. Comments received from Anoka County during the review period, as it relates to authorization to use the corridor. What are the design specifics of the drainage corridor between the RTC site and the Mississippi River? What if the County does not agree to let this corridor be used for drainage? Response. A follow-up report on the design details of the County -owned outlet route south of TH 10 has been prepared, and will be added as Appendix J in the revised AUAR. The report will be presented to the County Public Works and Parks Committees in early June. If these Committees agree that the route can be used, a recommendation will go to the County Board for action. Negotiations for development of the corridor for drainage and parks use would then begin in earnest among the County, City and RTC developer. If the County -owned route is not allowed, alternative routes will need to be pursued. The draft AUAR did not specify a route, other than a suggestion that the current route southeastward along TH 10 could be pursued (Item 17, Runoff Under Developed Conditions). This discussion is expanded in the AUAR revision to identify two possible outlets, in addition to the TH 10 route. The Rivenwick Development to the southeast of the RTC site and the Alpaca Development to the southwest both have small outlet pipes draining the immediate developments. Discussions with the City and its consultant engineer have identified these as two possible connections between RTC and the River. Details on these two connections will be evaluated if discussions with the County on the original outlet do not lead to County approval to use the route. Response addendum. In response to the information in Appendix J and a supplemental memorandum, the County in early June 2003 proposed to include the outlet as part of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) prepared between the County and the City of Ramsey. Although official County Board action will be needed to make acceptance official, the County has agreed in concept on the use of its land as a drainage route. This decision does recognize, however, the ultimate authority of the County to revert the land back to a transportation corridor if it is needed for a river crossing in the future, at which time alternative drainage features would be needed. Comment #4. In response to changes made in Item 18 requested by MCES, Bolton & Menk, Inc. (David Martini) reviewed the Item and Appendix G on behalf of the City of Ramsey and submitted the following comments: Comment 4.1: Section 18b. Paragraph 2 - The Sewer plan refers to an available capacity in the downstream facilities of 2.8 MGD. 7.87 MGD is the ultimate flow at full build out shown in the (1991) Comprehensive Sewer Plan and is the flow that has been used to design the existing system. Response: Paragraph 2 of Section 18.b has been modified as follows: "The City's Comprehensive Plan documented MCES Projected Wastewater flows for the City of Ramsey to be between 542 and 668 MGY or a maximum of 1.8 MGD. The Sewer Plan indicated that at full build out, including Rural Areas, 34-2