My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
gr00090_000050_pg131
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
MNHistoricalSocietyFiles (CC Minutes page-by-page 1958-1981)
>
gr00090_000050
>
gr00090_000050_pg131
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2011 7:08:23 PM
Creation date
4/12/2011 11:02:43 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
June 11, 1979 Page 3 <br />Official Rose stated that Staff would recommend that Council give the <br />applicant direction as to ponds, public right-of-way, and culverts. <br />Councilmember Ziebarth questioned how much ponding would be on public <br />property and how wide the ditch would be. Official Rose indicated it would <br />be 1 or 2 feet above the bank on street right-of-way. The ditch would have <br />a 5-foot base with 3 to 1 slopes and would be approximately 2 to 3 feet <br />deep. The opening at the top would be 8 or 9 feet. <br />Councilmember Ziebarth stated he had a problem with the manner in which <br />to proceed. The developer could present several proposals and it becomes <br />a matter of what the city can live with. He suggested the Council should <br />indicate what they disapprove of and the engineer could use that to base <br />his recommendation. He felt the size of the ponds would allow the water <br />to stand for some time and create mosquito problems, etc. He didn't think <br />the slopes would be as great. <br />Councilmember Rowley expressed concern with the standing water and, when <br />the pond is full, where would the water go. It would be undesirable should <br />pumps be required. She stated she was not pleased with the ponding partially on <br />the public easement; she felt it should all be on private property. <br />Mayor McCarty and Councilmember Forslund both indicated they thought the <br />plan should employ a gentle slope rather than a deep ditch. <br />MS (Forslund/McCarty) to have Short -Elliott-Hendrickson review the plans <br />and specifications for a recommendation and input, since this is a first <br />step in this direction. This review would be done at developer's expense. <br />MS (McCarty/Ziebarth) to amend the motion to add that Building & Zoning <br />Official Rose be instructed to give SEH information as to the type of <br />system that Council desires. <br />Keith Nelson, Duane C. Olson Engineers, clarified the applicant's proposal. <br />He stated the applicant is proposing a 3 to 1 slope which is 3-feet hori- <br />zontal to 1-foot vertical. The ditch would have a 5-foot bottom and would <br />be 28-feet from the back of the curb. It would be 2 to 3 feet higher than <br />the street along Ardan Avenue. The ditch could handle 10 to 30" per day <br />and could retain for three days after a 100-year event. When the ponds <br />were full, they would overflow into the street and the storm sewer could <br />take the overflow. Mr. Nelson stated he couldn't see the merits of <br />installing culverts. <br />Councilmember Ziebarth questioned where the water lines would run. Mr. <br />Nelson indicated there may be a portion of the 4" bituminous curb removed <br />and replaced. The sewer would be 20 feet inside the property line and <br />would have adequate depth with 7-foot cover to protect from freezing. <br />At this point, City Administrator Nelson suggested the applicant should <br />delineate what he intends to do, since what he indicated tonight and what <br />he had indicated to Staff previously were two different things. <br />Mayor McCarty asked whether it would be feasible to employ gentle slopes <br />rather than a ditch. Mr. Nelson indicated they were concerned with the <br />aesthetics of the lots; they didn't want a low swail constantly full of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.