Laserfiche WebLink
renue <br />Lon <br />100 <br />.tional <br />L <br />B3) <br />k session <br />n this <br />.cation <br />oposed <br />uary. <br />:he sanctuary <br />I a seating <br />) 1 stall). <br />■ r-M <br />V.. <br />I — . <br />oil. <br />um <br />I <br />Page 2 <br />Schoell and Madson has provided the necessary drainage calculations <br />and has determined the storage requirement after development <br />to be 5,040 cubic feet. Based on the allowable discharge rate <br />of 9.3 cubic feet, they have determined that a retention pond <br />could be located on the site to contain the runoff. I question <br />the use of a pipe to carry off the runoff• The City in previous <br />j^eviews has always required runoff drain over a grassed area. <br />The City Engineer will review and report by your action meeting. <br />The hardcover variance is excessive. The retention pond will <br />control runoff but what of the quality! Previous to this review, <br />we were advised that the church was considering the purchase <br />of residential property to the immediate south. We should <br />be advised of the status of the purchase. If the church cannot <br />purchase the property now Planning Commission may consider <br />asking the applicant to obtain an option on the land as a means <br />to alleviate the excessive hardcover resulting from the improvement. <br />The applicant must obtain a permit from the M.C.W.D. for the <br />retention pond. <br />mmm <br />.. . <br />,u.i- <br />-A <br />•V^