02-12-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

‘'^ayor and city co • //1988’** ^°"tinuatio„" Of Public u^earinant ^^^^*foo<3 s^cr'“«Uon Of tHolin rVo°“r‘^'n« i'P'-il 25 ° “"-in'-talce «nns%S|?°""ueV tt "eeting ^ongrieV®”ettlng*'‘®^"thi ‘ :ea^-ane r"i"-T-2”92? Poe. Pnobia ’’® and <li recteV?'’”®"‘ C ti, ®inca tn ^ couno,. ‘Oe ®i"ce tn " '’“'’iiPiVro ”''- Snner eSf‘1' di.-■sS.te:.a-vAr':. '"■ Sineer ’’^od of J® the « ho “u^‘| 'IV^^'iC‘^***i«ing* ‘‘‘■'‘side -M Of rs-oi„. " ®''®a. Th?'’ in5''“°" Of ?i"9 ‘he Who] this not 1 D. Instead of putting in a new pipe by digging a trench through County Road 19, look at "jacking" the pipe under Highwood. This however is about $10,000 more expensive than trenching.Water Qua 1ity - As far as water quality is concerned, the bay these properties front on. West Arm, has been problematic from a v#ater quality standpoint for a substantial period of time. The principal concern has been that the Painter's Creek Watershed does drain into Jennings Bay and West Arm and has had significant phosphate contributitions. One contributor is the Maple Plain Treatment Plant and the second the agricultural run-off in the watershed. The Maple Plain plant contribution has been removed through the interceptor. Coupling that with the fact that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has put a settling basin project in the Painter’s Creek area should help improve the situation. (Removal of the treatment plants around the lake has improved the general quality of the lake.) As for this local Watershed, most of it is an area of natural growth with the only exceptions being drainage off County Road 19, Highwood Road and the grassed area on the back of the Sauer property. (A detention area is principally for storm water temporary storage and is what was initially proposed. Detention refers to water being held for a period of time, but is eventually drained off with retention being an area that there is always water in at least part of the storage basin. Retention areas are generally associated with attempts to improve water quality.) The actual measure of the water quality coming out of this pipe has not been done. MISCELLANEOUS - The question had been raised regarding the possibility that the back part of the current Sauer property was at one time owned by the City. This is not the case, as best the City can tell from its records. The City is unsure the extent to which this may have been a wetlands at some point in the past. The Council should be aware of the fact that although proposed as one project there are two facets to it. The first is handling the existing storm water ponding basin as it presently exists taking care of the water quantity. The second aspect is addressing the water quantity problem as it relates to Highwood Avenue itself and water draining off Highwood to the properties principally to the east of Highwood. The project as proposed would re-grade the street in order to direct the storm water away from the garages and properties and down to use the same storm water system. The first phase, that being controlling the existing storm water in the watershed can be done independently of the second, but not vise versa as redirecting the flow from Highwood in this basin without making the necessary improvements on the basin would only exacerbate the existing problem. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council undertake a solution to this problem which would be Option. I, a 21" pipe on