09-22-2004 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 The Administrator reviewed the list of Conditions for Approval for the Gervais I-Tills Preliminary Plat that was included in the additions to the agenda. Ile noted that the primary condition causing consternation is d#l which requires the developer create an outlot over Lot 1, Block 1 to accommodate additional stone water pouding due to the environmentally sensitive nature of the area. This condition is made pursuant to Little Canada Subdivision Code 1006.060. The Administrator noted that this is an environmentally sensitive area. The Administrator indicated that staff has looked at possibilities to avoid this condition, but found no other option. The Administrator noted the drawing prepared by the City Engineer which shows the size pond which would be required in this area. The Administrator' also pointed out that this issue was raised in his letter of July 21, 2004 to the developer. Fahey agreed Yhat this is an environmentally sensitive area, and that he will err on the side of caution To ensure there is adequate storm water ponding. The City Engineer reported that he looked at the area within the development as well as the area as a whole. There are drainage problems along County Road B-2 which have existed for many years. The Watershed completed a project in this area about 4 or 5 years ago to try and address the drainage problems. However, there is more that can be done to improve the quality of water going into Lake Gervais. The Engineer indicated that there are two methods for improving water quality, one would be pouding and the other storm structures. The Engineer stated that the problem with a stone water structure is that it only is beneficial in small storms. A sizable storm will go right through a storm structure without any Treatment, while a storm water pond will provide for retention and settlement- 'the Engineer indicated that this is the basis for the recommendation that Lot 1 be turned into a storm water pond. The Engineer reported that this discussion was bad with The developer early in The process, however, the question was whether the pond could be smaller and still retain Lot ] . After a complete review of the proposal, the Engineer stated that he concluded the entire lot was necessary for a stone water pond. Jim Del3enedet, representing the developer, indicated that they have had a chance to review the conditions only briefly this evening. DeBeuedet commented, however, that it was their feeling that the storm water ponding design proposed by the developer exceeded what was necessary to control stone water from the Gervais Hills development. DeBenedet indicated that their proposal was designed to meet Watershed requirements, and in reviewing the Watershed stafPreport, they were 7