Laserfiche WebLink
June 14, 1976 Page 7 <br />The Revenue Sharing Public Hearing was recessed and Mayor Johnson <br />called to order the 9:03 p.m. public hearing on Public Improvement <br />Project 1975 -4A, Mounds View Square Shopping Center drainage. <br />Mayor Johnson asked Gerald Frisch to introduce his steno. Atty <br />Frisch stated that she is transcribing his minutes for him for <br />his personal record. Mayor Johnson stated that he would like to <br />call Council's attention to the fact that there is a steno taking <br />notes. The Mayor then asked Mr. Frisch for his comments regarding <br />the report. Further, he asked him if he did not promise to have <br />a response within 10 days? <br />Mr. Frisch replied that, yes, he did; but thought tonight would <br />be an adequate time. Mr. Frisch then introduced Robert M. <br />Gottsacker, 4826 Chicago, Minneapolis, the drainage engineer <br />for the shopping center development, and enumerated his credentials. <br />He stated that Mr. Gottsacker would respond to the preliminary <br />report. <br />Mr. Gottsacker spoke to the Council; he displayed a plat of the <br />shopping center development, revision date 8 -9 -73. He stated that <br />he was asked by the owners to look at the problem and give a <br />report to Council. He has had a survey crew in the ponds. He <br />stated the real problem is who is going to pay for the improvement <br />of the drainage ditch. <br />Last year there was flooding at this intersection. It was reported <br />to be due to the pond and the catch basin. The original design <br />criteria was to hold at a 100 year storm on the site and released <br />slowly. We did obtain a permit and met the requirements. One <br />of the things that caused the problem was just two driveways <br />were cut in, after his relationship with the project was over. <br />Mr. Paster did obtain permits from the state and met with their <br />requirements. The solution for June 20, 1974, was to provide an <br />outlet for the water that was trapped. Unfortunately, the culvert <br />was no more than 6" more than the grade. As plans developed <br />it became apparent it was necessary to lower the culvert to <br />provide better drainage. By lowering this culvert approximately <br />a foot a great deal more work and a great deal more cost was <br />created. This eventaully became the subject of a report of July, <br />1974. A trench was to be dug which requires much work to make <br />it acceptable to the Highway Dept. What was a simple solution <br />is now very expensive. Council did authorize us to go ahead and <br />there was some discussion about the letter Mr. Paster had written <br />to the Council. Finally on October 29 it was lowered 200 feet to <br />establish drainage out to the east. He went back and checked <br />and the two culverts have been lowered. A very deep ditch will <br />require more expense and the Highway Dept. recognized that with <br />the first major rain storm the curb will be washed away. It <br />is really a storm sewer in there, not a ditch anymore. The <br />really best engineering solution is to put a storm sewer in, <br />which adds another $10,000 to the project. The developer was <br />willing originally to pay his fair share of the costs - $6,500. <br />Much different from the $16- 20,000 we are talking about now. The <br />problem does exist, it has been admitted that we may have con- <br />tributed to it. But the solution forced upon us is astronomical <br />