Laserfiche WebLink
<br />February 6, 1980 Park Board rlinutes Page 5 <br />• ~. <br />A resident commented that after a rain. the kids go out <br />with boats. It would be dangerous to have 2~ feet of <br />water in the park. He likes plan.#3. Inquired if the <br />water running down the hill .from Rice Creek Road would <br />also run into the holding pond. He stated at-times there <br />have been two feet of water in the back yards of homes <br />for two days. It doesn4t runoff that fast,. <br />Gunderman'stated it was. his, understanding that the land <br />would be 5 acres of usable park land. What is now planned <br />was not what was originally given. <br />Citron asked what would be done with the water if there <br />was no park. <br />Proper stated the developer would have to handle the water <br />problem, either by :ponds on the ..property or dry basins. <br />He commented that-plan #3 could have been done 5 years ago <br />but not now with the 6~?atershed District control. <br />Van Hatter asked a question of the engineers what is <br />happening to the water now? <br />Responses The present undeveloped .land provides very <br />little run off, most of the water. is absorbed into the <br />ground. <br />A. resident stated the park should be kept. and have the <br />developer take care of the holding pond. t+Je were given the <br />park, now we are asked to give part of it back. The de- <br />veloper is using the park for monetary gain. <br />A Planning Commission members Roger t~lilliams, stated the <br />developer gave the City the park so the park is actually <br />the developers too. <br />Hogan asked DeBenedet where the-water was-going before <br />the development of the condition. <br />DeBenedet Stated there may have been unintentional ponding. <br />Tt was called flooding.. <br />Larry Baker suggested that the additional sewer in plan <br />#4 be added to plan #1 which would reduce the grade. This <br />would be a bigger pond with less slope. <br />Grimshaw is in favor of #3; against the park holding any <br />water because of a safety and use stand point. <br />• Hogan liked plan #3 as the best alternative for the Park <br />Board but the Watershed will not go along with it. He <br />fee1G this should go back ~~+~ the Council with Park 1;oard <br />disapproval. <br />