2013_0819_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

representatives of the church last fall to resolve drainage issues; however, due to a transition in staffing at 44 the church, they asked staff to delay further discussions until new leadership was in place. 45 As a result, Ms. Bloom advised that those meetings had resumed about 1.5 months ago, with the 46 proposal by staff for a similar basi n as installed for the Skillman Pond. Ms. Bloom advised that the church 47 leadership was currently reviewing those proposal s with an anticipated congregational meeting in 48 September of 2013, and she anticipated having a solution for installation by next year. Ms. Bloom advised 49 that she would probably attend their meeting; and had already met with the church’s administrator and 50 maintenance personnel. 51 Ms. Bloom noted that the swale on Eldridge addresse d by Ms. Merrill was a result of when the church 52 properties were developed approximately twenty (20) y ears ago, and given the large amount of flat area, 53 had been a chronic issue for staff. 54 Under the City of Roseville’s current Stormwater Management Pl an, Ms. Bloom advised that any 55 additional impervious surface was required to be addres sed with volume reduction mitigation. Ms. Bloom 56 noted that the real issue was the ar ea immediately adjacent to the catch basin, with water ponding. With 57 this proposed development, Ms. Bloom advised that the church would be required to install a biofiltration 58 basis as part of the building, which would include tr ench, rock and drain tile to connect to the existing 59 storm basin in that area. Ms. Bloom advised that th e improvement would be entirely on church property 60 as a grassy area and maintained 100% by the chur ch; and opined that this mitigation should serve to 61 eliminate the bog area in adjacent back yards. Ms. Bloom advised that a solution was in process, with her 62 reviewing plans last week, which seemed to be su fficient to mitigate their existing and proposed hard 63 surface volumes. 64 Member Murphy questioned if, at the end of the thre e (3) year period when the st ructure was removed, if 65 the impervious surface would remain. 66 Ms. Bloom responded that it would probably not re main. However, Ms. Bloom reiterated that this 67 stormwater management solution would continue to help in the long-term; and would operate effectively 68 like a farm field drain tile (French drain), with st ormwater soaking into the ground versus sitting above 69 ground. 70 At the request of Member Murphy, Ms. Bloom advised t hat this proposed mitigation specific to this project 71 will not address the larger drainage issue, as it was only required to address thos e issues created by the 72 proposed permit. 73 In addressing the overall drainage problems in this area, Ms. Bloom advised that there were sixteen (16) 74 areas south of Highway 36 that needed mitigated. Ms. Bloom noted that a similar re-use system was 75 being proposed for Acorn Park as part of the Park Renewal Program. Ms. Bloom noted that it was a 76 challenge to mitigate the drainage issues for this area without taking out houses; with a pond site 77 overwhelming the area; thus the r eason for breaking the area into sub-watersheds. Ms. Bloom noted that 78 something similar to this had been accomplished thro ugh volunteers at Midland Hills and installation of 79 rain gardens. 80 If the Interim Use is granted, Member Murphy sought assurance, with Ms. Bloom confirming it, that the 81 proposed project would not make the problem worse tomorrow than it already is. 82 Mr. Lloyd referenced the Site Plan (Attachment C), noting that the original intent was for a six foot (6’) 83 separation between the existing building and temporar y structure. However, Mr. Lloyd advised that 84 building code requirements necessitated the separation would actually need to be thirty feet (30’). 85 Attachment E Page 2 of 5