09-05-89 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

David Bucheck submitted,the follow n� at September 5, 1989 City Council Meeting September 5, 1989 theAPPENDI ti A i We have reviewed the information and reports that have been received regarding the proposed Third Addition of Packard Park, We have a number of concerns and questions regarding this -- continued development. 1 F have opposed the Third Addition since the request for rezoning" took place. According to R •olution 83-56, dated September 6, 1983, this area was to "be planned for General Rural Use ugh 1990" and we feel the city of Lake Elmo should abide by these carefully planned rules. 2. The Downs Lake Study Addendum, dated 4-24-89, �repared by the VBWD, states: "it is anticipated that water levels on the lake would rise as a result of increased development in the upstream watershed, As the upstream watershed develops, more impervious area is created, which causes more water to flow downstream." As evidenced by the flooding which occurred last winter in the Downs Lake area we are only too aware of how close we came to having a flood in the Eden Park development. Packard Park's water runoff is within the Downs Lake sub watershed and we feel the water problem needs to be addressed, before any more development occurs. Again we ask that the problem be alleviated before any more development is allowed. 3. We had many concerns regarding the holding pond which was built during the Second Addition of Packard Park. We now know that the pond as constructed does not perc and in fact has a clay bottom which will not allow water to drain, Both last year (a drought year) and this year, there was standing water in the pond at all times. This decreases the capacity of the pond and will lead to excess runoff during extreme rainfall events. This non-functioning pond is not acceptable. The Third Addition should not be approved until functional ponding and drainage is created for the Third Addition. The public welfare of adjacent land -owners needs to be considered in this flood prone area. 4. Pictures of the Second Addition holding pond taken July 9, 1989 (the pond's second year) show that several areas of erosion have taken place. Erosion and sediment could fill the pond, decreasing its capacity. Then this lack of matntanence could lead to excess runoff. The developer should be required to post a bond, quaranteeing maintanance of the future performance of any holding ponds. 5. Since the area of the holding pond has well demonstrated that its soil will not perculate water, there is concern that the soil survey map is in error and other lots adjacent to the pond may also have poor perculation such that building may be prohibited. We ask the Council to require all adjacent lots to be perc tested before platting is approved, If any of the lots in question do not pass the perc test, it may be necessary for the developer to reconfigure his platting to allow buildable lots. 6. The developer has already been advised to plan a "right turn" lane for the entrance to 24th Street off of Lake Elmo Avenue. For citizen safety, there should also be a "left turn" lane provided on Lake ElmoAvenue. These issues are being overlooked in the rush to approve this development. We, the citizens who live adjacent to the Addition, ask the city to move carefully. An already sensitive flood area can be aggravated by the problems mentioned above.