Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJANUARY 29, 2003 <br />7APPROVED MINUTES <br />should lower the volumes, maintain required rates, and reduce nutrient loading in <br />the Surface Water Management because of its location in a Lake Protection Area. <br />He indicated that there was no opportunity to infiltrate and that NURP ponding <br />might be best. The developer should do a model on phosphorus. There was also <br />a concern about erosion with infiltration. The site was sensitive to groundwater <br />pollution due to the high water table of only 2-4 feet. He did not know if <br />infiltration could take place anywhere on site because it needed a 3-foot minimum <br />separation between the seasonally high water table. The concern could be <br />minimized if the proposed pond could contain all the water in a 100-year event. <br />An agreement for development and post-development should be required and <br />would address soil and tree protection, maintenance for the parking area, and <br />pond maintenance. All topsoil should remain on site. Importing soils must have <br />City approval and be reviewed by the RCWD. He introduced John Johnson the <br />Project Engineer who represented the developer. <br />Mr. Johnson indicated that he was at the meeting to receive input from the Board. <br />The site included 33 acres of land, five of which were planned for commercial <br />purposes. There was already a right-of-way present. He distributed updated <br />maps to the Board. He stated with the existing ditches, 29-30 acres end up in <br />Baldwin Lake, while after the development under 18 acres would flow into the <br />lake. The ponds would improve water quality, control the rate water left the site, <br />and separate the commercial and residential areas of the site. <br />Asleson noted that the second pond was not on his maps. Mr. Johnson stated that <br />1.25 acres of wetland would be created. In terms of rate control, Pond B <br />presently had a rate of 73 cfs, while after development it would drop to 5 cfs. <br />Pond C had similar rate decreases. He pointed out that even though there was <br />more water, the rate had decreased. In terms of water quality, Pond B went from <br />92% total suspended solids to 68%, again with similar numbers for Pond C. Mr. <br />Johnson outlined the options available. First the rate of flow to the west could be <br />decreased. Second, they could take the water north then west. Third, more water <br />could be directed into Rice Lake. <br />Asleson inquired about the possibility of taking the water north and keeping it <br />there. Mr. Johnson indicated that he could not answer that question. <br />Asleson stated that if more was done with infiltration, there would be concerns <br />with erosion with a trough. Catch basins were suggested as an option. He <br />inquired about the plans for water treatment in the residential areas. Mr. Johnson <br />answered that if rezoning went forward, the common areas would be significant <br />areas for infiltration. He addressed the possibility of using Netlawn with the <br />experts did not believe it would work in the long-term. He indicated that the two <br />trees discussed were in the residential section, and the tree suggestions were <br />acceptable. He assured the Board that the bluegrass areas would be irrigated. <br />The ornamental lights in the lighting plan were the concern, and would be <br />addressed. The gas station canopy would have recessed lighting.