11/12/2003 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES was huge because this was the final spot th at drained hundreds of acres and noted this would destroy this area. He stated if construction was star ted next spring, this was the worst time for the nesting herons and once the herons were gone, they were gone. He stated for the first time in three years they were successful in heron nesting. Walt Eashenaur, Water Resources Engineer, stat ed one of the things they wanted to do when they analyzed the hydrau lics of realigning ditch 72, wa s to make sure what the drainage area was for this particular ditch. He stated they went to Anoka County records and noticed there was 9.6 miles of tile for this ditch and yet when they looked at what was originally commissioned as the drainage area, it was 590-600 plus acres. He noted ditch 55 drained to the east of 35E and connected to ditch 3. He stated ditch 55 did cross 35E to the south and there were no records showing connection betw een the two ditches. He noted together with the staff, Watershed District and the Board, there might be areas added for connections. He stated the extent of the area larger than 600 to 650 acres was not warranted with their investigations. Mr. Tralle requested for future meetings, th e ditch assessment be presented as a handout. Ron Marier stated a lot had happened sin ce 1972. He indicated there was a connection under 35E and he personally watched the conn ection being made. He stated tiles had been added and the City and County knew about this. He indicated this had all happened since 1972. Mr. Eashenaur replied the Wate rshed District was not aware of that connection. Chair Schaps recessed the meeting at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:47 p.m. Mr. Eashenaur stated when they looked at County ditches and when realignment was asked for, State Law required they examined the existing function of that ditch and then the benefiting parties could not be impacted. He stated they would maintain the existing functionality of the drain line, which would ma intain the exact same characteristics as the land had today. Mr. Rafferty stated if that was the Wa tershed’s recommendation, what about the impervious surfaces that was being added. He stated he was surprised that due to the impervious surface the line would not be enla rged. Mr. Eashenaur replied surface water from the proposed impervious surface went in to different directions and did not go into the tile line. He stated the water would drai n at the same rate. He noted the water would drain to the ponds and not the tile line. Barbara Bauman, volunteer with the church, st ated they were concerned about addressing the entire 92 acres to make sure things were done appropriatel y. She indicated they planned a prairie restoration. She stated a conservation easement was a legal binding agreement giving up the churches rights to de velop that area. She stated this was a perpetual agreement. She indicated they were not entering into this lightly because it was 14 acres out of the 92 acres a nd this was a large amount of land. She stated while they planned to put 14 acres into a conservation easement, they also planned to restore the entire area. She stated in addition to the contract, there would be a management plan, which included the restoration effort and manage ment efforts. She stated they had a draft