Laserfiche WebLink
CITIZEN INPUT <br /> <br />John A. Freeburg, 6356 Riverdale Drive NW, questioned the purpose of the detention pond. Mr. <br />Jankowski stated that the intent of the detention pond was to enhance the water quality. Mr. <br />Jankowski stated that another purpose of the detention pond was to provide detention so surface <br />water was released into the storm sewer at a lower rate. Mr. Jankowski summarized that water <br />quality was the main issue in this case versus storm sewer capacity. Mr. Freeburg asked how the <br />water gets out of the pond. Mr. Jankowski explained that there was an inlet and an outlet. He also <br />explained that the water can soak into the ground or evaporate. <br /> <br />Bill Dubats, 6800 Riverdale and 6740 Highway 10, stated that he was urging approval of this <br />variance. Mr. Dubats stated that this development was appropriate for this zoning and for Ramsey, <br />and 30% impervious was incompatible with a commercial development. <br /> <br />A property owner at 6838 Riverdale Drive, stated that he spoke with Mr. Collett of the DNR in <br />reference to serious reservations from the DNR, and urged further communications. He also stated <br />that he was concerned with truck traffic interfering with the natural drive. Craig Miller, representing <br />Miller Architects and Builders, stated that access would be from Sunfish Lake Boulevard and <br />Riverdale Drive and that there were no proposed truck docks. Mr. Miller added that small packages <br />would be delivered via UPS, Federal Express, etc. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski stated that the proposed pond was in the southeast comer of the property and there <br />was berming and landscaping along Riverdale Drive. Mr. Jankowski notedthat the issue at hand was <br />the impervious surface area. <br /> <br />Mr. Freeburg stated that he would like future research done regarding the flow of excess rainfall, as <br />he is concerned with flooding. Mr. Freeburg added that he believes an approval of this variance <br />would be for financial masons and the Commission should stick with the guidelines. Mr. Jankowski <br />stated that the Critical River Overlay District boundaries are located along section lines and if this <br />development were to be located across the street, there would be no problem. Mr. Jankowski added <br />that guidelines should be a minimum distance rather than section lines for overlay districts. <br />Chairperson Deemer stated that these guidelines were of the DNR and not the City. Mr. Freeburg <br />stated that he was requesting that the Commission follow the set guidelines. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmes, 6360 Riverdale Drive, stated that a 47% deviation was very significant. Chairperson <br />Deemer stated that Riverdale Drive itself exceeds the guideline by 100% with no detention pond, <br />draining into the river. Mr. Farmes asked if the developer was aware of the Impervious Surface <br />Restriction when the property was purchased. Mr. Miller replied that the developer was not aware <br />of the restriction. <br /> <br />Mr. Freeburg stated that because Riverdale Drive was exceeding guidelines by 100%, this variance <br />would make the situation worse. Chairperson Deemer clarified that Riverdale Drive was to be the <br />commercial service drive for the area south of Highway 10 and was a City project. <br /> <br />Public Hearing/Board of Adjustment/June 4, 1996 <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />