Laserfiche WebLink
x <br />c <br />i <br />February 6, 1980 Park Board rlinutes <br />Page 5 <br />A resident commented that after a rain the kids go out <br />with boats. Tt would Le dangerous to have 22 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 doesnot run off 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 ~~'atershed District control. <br />Van Hatten asked a question of the engineers; what is <br />happening to the water now? <br />c <br />Response: The present undeveloped land provides very <br />little run .off, most of the water is absorbed into the <br />Around. <br />~ resident stated the park should be kept and have the <br />developer take care of the holding pond. t~1e were given the <br />park, now we are asked to give part of it back. The de- <br />veloper is using thepark for monetary gain. <br />A Planning Commission member, F.o~er Williams, 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 />It 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 #3w 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. I-Ie <br />f. eels this should go ;back ~:~~ the Council_ with Par. k Poard <br />disapproval. <br />