09/12/1995 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

?\ + look at what is there now. Councilman Miller stated that if Rice ditch were expanded to above ground retention there would be soaked property, property that would not drain properly wherein mori mosquitoes would breed. He believed that the underground retention system would be more expensive and leave a large portion of the land undeveloped which could be used for playing fields to be used by the whole community. He reminded the members that the previous plans for above grou.nd retention on this site had been rejected. He stated that the engineering requirements on a below ground system would be the same as if it would be above ground. He believed that a below ground facility would benefit the city and would not present a hazard. He urged that the commission not put a potential burden on the future tax payers of the city. Mrs. Spaulding believed that the city has put the cart before the horse: the question should be, what is going to alleviate the water problems in the area. It should not be a patch work system, the city should be looking at the retention in the whole city, the ordinances only address a particular subdivision, not a regional system. The city needs to look on a broader scale, none of the city entities are looking at it. The commercial property went through all of the city boards and Council and no one spoke up. She believed that someoue would have to have backbone to say that the city problems must be eluninated before new problems are added. Councilman Musial had told her that it was a domino effect and she maintained that the first domino has fallen by allowing the commercial development whose retention is emptying into Rice creek. There is a big difference between 100 gallons of water falling on open land, and 100 gallons of water landing on the same square footage covered with asphalt, roofs, and concrete and being channeled into a ditch or a pipe and it is not comparable. She believed that the plan should be rejected and sent back to the developer because it fails to follow the statutes. The city should then look at the problem in the entire area, and only after the it knows what amou.nt of drainage can be handled by Rice creek and the storm sewers on Clague Road, can it tell the developer how much run off can be allowed. Mr. Deichmann stated that this administration requested and council passed the storm water retentioi ordinance last year, and he does not believe that the residents understand tliat, under that ordinance the ruL off on the site is restricted to 90% of the run off of an undeveloped parceL So what she is asking for has been incorporated in the ordiuance. Mrs. Spaulding had a demonstration which she did not bring because she was told that water would not be an issue this evening. She explained her demonstration wherein she has a four cup measure of water which she pours into a pipe, she cannot pour all the water in because the pipe fills up and there would be flooding. She reduces the water in the measure by 10%, but when it is poured in it still overIlows. She maintained that until it is lmown what the present system can hold, it cannot be laiow how much water can be allowed. A resident on Frank Street had the plans for the sewer improvements on Clague Road which showed that the 30 inch pipe at the west end of Frank Street which empties into a 12 inch pipe on Clague Road. She stated that if water that was channeled into a 30 inch pipe on Frank Street could not get into the Clague Road pipe, it would go into the basements of Frank Street. Mr. Dubelko advised that he did tell Mrs. Spaulding that the water problems would not be an issue at this time, since drainage issues are not to be addressed with a preluniuary plan. However, the new ordinance does give some authority to the planning commission to approve or disapprove above grou.nd retention. It does not give planniug commissiou the authority to visit the issue of above ground retention with the preliminary plan. There are two issues before the commission, approve or disapprove a preliminary plan, and if the plan does not include the information listed previously, the commission can disapprove it. The only issue to be approved in the preliuunary plan is that the lots and streets that are created do not violate the zoning codes. Any above ground or below ground retention should be approved or disapproved on the basis of health and safety. The Engiueer should canvass the entire area to see if it is an adequate system. Mr. Tallon advised that they were trying to get some input on the preference of the neighbors for either an above ground or below ground system. Mr. Dubelko stated that when the cominission makes it recommendatiou for a use, it must be made on the basis of health and safety of the residents. Mr. Tallon stated that they were trying to determine if the residents had some opinions on health and safety pertaining to the two systems. Councihnan Miller responded that the prior plan for above ground retention was 6