CC 08-23-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. along a ditch and in the culvert system ,and eventually out into Bethel ditch. These systems were inadequate, primarily because of all the development that has taken place in the whole area. At one time it was probably adequate, certainly, but as the area developed - not only north of 694, but south of 694 - it became apparent that new drainage structures were going to be needed. This is considering the whole drainage area as ultimately developed and not as it is today - ultimately developed. There are a lot of undeveloped pieces of property. By the way, they're treated equally as the developed pieces. The current plan calls for all of the drainage in Arden Hills on the north side of 694 and a good majority of the drainage in Shoreview, north of 694, to be routed to ponding in Arden Hills, some ponding in Shoreview - it comes to north of 694 and is carried westerly, which reverses the flow, into a new detention basin that the state has under construction right now, and it dis- charges through this detention basin and into this existing storm sewer - no increase in the size of the pipe. In other words, all of this flow, because of ponding, has been reduced. The storm sewer you see on Lexington Avenue, south of 694, carries a portion of the highway right-of-way and the remaining portion south of 694. So the drainage that's occurring south of 694 is going into this storm sewer. This storm sewer is designed for the ultimate develop- ment of the whole area and everybody contributes water to this storm sewer. You say it was adequate before - you'll recall we placed along Grey Fox Road - there is an existing storm sewer pipe in Grey Fox Road and we constructed another one parallel to it - a larger size - so it carried all of this water. So if you're saying that the water north of 694 is causing the problem down here - that is not true. The water north of 694 now is carried over to detention basins which ultimately discharge it into existing culvert/ditch systems. ~mYOR WOODBURN: Anything further from the Council? COu~CIL~mN MULCAHY: I have a question for Mr. Steilen. In your letter - which I realize you wrote today, perhaps under short notice - did you say on page 2 - I just want you to clarify what you mean by the statement where you said yOU asked for a meeting with the City staff to discuss the assessments and were denied. I don't understand that. . ~m. STEILEN: Councilman Mulcahy, I commented upon this. Actually this letter was written by my partner Bruce, who met with the landowners this morning and then tried to meet with the City. That was my reference at the beginning of my comments - that we tried to arrange a meeting with the City staff but it didn't work out. I think I said that I wasn't meaning to criticize the City staff because it's hard to work out a meeting on one day's notice or two day's notice - whatever it was. COD~CIL~illN MULCAHY: That's what I thought you said. So the statement about being denied a meeting is not really accurate. 18