09-08-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

1 Michael Grochala From:Nicholas Tomczik <ntomczik@ricecreek.org> Sent:Thursday, July 23, 2015 2:30 PM To:Michael Grochala; Diane Hankee; Pete Willenbring; Katy Thompson Cc:Phil Belfiori; Mark Deutschman Subject:Lino Lakes Proposed Outlet 7/21 Meeting (RCWD 15-009) Michael, Thank you for meeting with the District regarding Lino Lakes’ proposed outlet for the ACD 55/72 area. The following is a summary of the information needed following the 7/21 meeting with the City’s team to be included in a future permit application. (As the group discussed from the information to date, the proposed stormsewer outlet pipe will cause an adverse impact in the absence of mitigating measures in excess of those required from the RCWD regulations. Those proposed mitigating measures are an expected condition of a Rule I (Drainage Systems) permit application. That condition needing to be definitively defined, processed, and memorialized for RCWD approval in a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (CSMP).) Again, here is a list of the information recognized as needed from the meeting. Obviously, there may be likely other information needs in application submittal/review. •A final model from the Applicant is needed. This model should be free from errors and accurately reflect the performance standards and infrastructure being proposed by the City, on which a determination of no adverse impact is predicated. The model parameters and inputs (e.g., amount of live storage) should match what is in the report. •An operating plan, which describes and reasonably assures the RCWD that it is feasible to implement. The operating plan should include the criteria and standard the City plans to use to ensure no rise on Peltier Lake and address the safety factor(s) needed should back to back precipitation events occur and the potential for localized flooding. •Phasing discussion / plan – the City needs to provide sufficient detail describing how the mitigation proposed (i.e., live storage, dead storage, water reuse, impact to drainage system, other issues), which is now conceptual in nature, will be implemented on the ground, to ensure compliance with Rule C.6 and C.7 and avoid adverse impact under Rule I; •Construction plans which reflect the infrastructure and performance characteristics from the model, in sufficient detail such that reliance on the model during review by the RCWD is no longer necessary. •Demonstrate communication with Hugo of the proposed outlet project, intended 65cfs Hugo limit and its eventual binding nature. (As we touched on in the meeting, the RCWD recognizes its authority to address/specify intercommunity flows and will exercise that authority in a conclusive way in the future in conjunction with review of Lino Lake’s definitive submittal/application. However, in the interim it is best that Lino Lakes communicate with its neighbor Hugo/Administrator Bryan Bear and preempt any potential issues.) •Describe public drainage system alterations necessary for LL to implement the outlet project, the drainage proceedings by which LL intends to accomplish this, and the timing and other coordination of these proceedings with the project to demonstrate how the City plans to ensure drainage to benefitted lands, given that the project intersects benefitted lands and may be constructed in phases. (RCWD as drainage authority will ultimately consider petitions, notice, process and order changes/management of the public drainage system. However, Lino Lakes submittal needs to address their intended 103E approach concurrent with regulatory approach to reduce the likelihood of issues late in this processing under RCWD’s authorities.)