My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
07/23/2001 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2001
>
07/23/2001 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/24/2014 3:14:57 PM
Creation date
2/24/2014 10:17:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
07/23/2001
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
136
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
• <br />• <br />• <br />Jeff Smyser, City Planner <br />July 11, 2001 <br />Page 3 <br />Item 12 — Physical Impacts on Water Resources <br />There is some question of the rationale for proposing to fill a wetland so that there is better visibility from <br />the freeway frontage. Is this a hardship? The avoidance argument (page 15) is not very compelling as <br />there seems to be significant ability to develop the site to the west. Any wetland mitigation (page 16) <br />within the regional park would have to be a part of the existing master plan or a master plan update that <br />would require approval by the Council. There should be at least an equal amount of public parkland <br />purchased to replace the areas being used for wetland mitigation for this private development. Funding <br />should also be provided for on going maintenance and monitoring of the "created" wetlands. <br />Item 14— Water - related Land Use Management District <br />The flood plain of George Watch Lake in the Regional Park should be avoided instead of being filled. <br />Item 17— Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff <br />Existing site soil is of naturally high infiltration media, therefore the predevelopment 100 - <br />yr flood event results in a total site runoff rate of only 1.54 cfs. The applicant proposes to <br />maintain predevelopment runoff rates by addition of two stormwater ponds, a bio- retention <br />basin, and bio - swales. The runoff from the site will be collected in a 13.5 ac -ft detention <br />pond, which will outlet to George Watch Lake of Rice Creek Regional Park Reserve through <br />a 2 -inch and an 8 -inch pipe. Nutrient load simulations indicate a predevelopment <br />phosphorous load of 22 lbs. per year and a post - development load of 60 lbs. per year. The <br />draft EAW states the following: "while runoff rates will be maintained at predevelopment <br />rates, it is not known what, if any, impact will result from the increased volume of runoff <br />into the wetlands in the regional park reserve and George Watch Lake". <br />Council staff is concerned that the applicant has not determined the effects of projected <br />increased volume of stormwater discharge on the Rice Creek Regional Park Reserve <br />wetlands and George Watch Lake. Increased water levels in the park may significantly <br />alter shoreline plant ecology and habitat. Due to the potential for significant alteration to <br />plant communities in a regional park reserve, it is our opinion that an analysis of water <br />level changes in the park reserve due to increased runoff from the site must be completed <br />before an EIS determination can be made. <br />Council staff commends the applicant for inclusion of bio - filtration basins and bio - swales in <br />the plan. However due to the existing soil's high capacity for infiltration, much more can be <br />done to reduce the volume of runoff from the site. Rain - gardens can be added to infiltrate <br />much of the runoff from the buildings' roofs. Frequent placement of infiltration trenches in <br />the parking lot will also reduce runoff volumes. We recommend the applicant try to reduce <br />runoff volume, as well as runoff rate, to predevelopment conditions. As the applicant did <br />not include a site stormwater system map in the Draft EAW, it is not possible for us to <br />determine the placement of proposed bio- filtration basins and bio- swales. The applicant <br />should include this map in the final EAW. <br />Council staff is concerned about the potential for plugging of the two small diameter outlet <br />pipes of the large detention basin. It will be essential to install skimmers or other trash <br />collectors, and to frequently maintain the pipe inlets. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.