02-09-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 I I I I I i I I I lots within the platExhibit A, Page 1, Paragraph Number 4. The grade plan was, in fact, and approved and, had the plan been enforced, the easements contained therein would have properly addressed the drainage issue. The finish grades on the property of Mr. Waade, however, are definitely out of compliance with the City’s grade plan. That puts Mr. Waade in violation of Resolution 4125, and it has caused the destruction of my property and its diminution in value. In May of 2000,1 met with Lyle Oman about these issues, and he told me that he would talk with Mr. Waade. Two years later, however, when I met with Mr. Oman and the City Engineer Tom Kelly, they did not provide me with a copy of the approved drainage grade plan. Instead, simply relied on a hand-drawn grade summary, which did not reflect the grades on the original preliminary plan, let alone the approved grade plan. They insisted that they had to follow that summary, that my property was in a "low spot," that the "low spot" was my problem, not the City’s problem, and that if 1 chose to sue, the City has "a lot of attorneys." Although it may be accurate that the City has a lot of attorneys, nothing else conuuned in ^t statement was true. Up to that point, no one had even bothered to locate a copy of the approved plan, but it was clear that Mr. Waade’s development had the support of the City, regardless of what had been officially iqiproved. I subsequently located the plans at the Minnehaha Water District, where they are available for public review. I found that the grades that currently exist on the Maxwell Landing property, as developed, vary quite significantly from the grades specified on the approved plan. The obvious conclusion is that no one at the City seems to care. A careful look at the preliminary plan of the proposed Maxwell Landing development clearly shows the grade and water flow, which was to drain out through an easement on Mr. Waade’s property. See preliminary plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A review of the final drainage grade plan approved by the City and the W'ater District, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C, makes it even more evident that the drainage water was supposed to flow into the drainage easement leading to a drainage pond with a bottom elevation of 926.75 feet. The top elevation of the pond was to have been 930.75 feet. My adjoining property has an elevation of 933. feet, which means that the improved drainage would have flowed away from my property into the drainage easement and pond. That easement and pond are located on Mr. Waade’s property. Instead, however, Mr. Waade has diverted the drainage by artificially raising the grade on his property and building a berm, as well as a non*confonning fence, so that water flows directly onto my property and causes flooding. See pictures of berm and fence, and resulting standing water on my property, attached as Exhibit D. Similar evidence shows the lower grade prior to the development, and the fact that after the Miimehaha Water District came to the property and approved the Maxwell Landing grading, Mr. Waade altered the grading. See pictures on Exhibit E. Resolution 4125 specifically provides that "No grading within the 0 - 75' lakeshore setback zone will be allowed except as needed to accommodate the drainage plan." See Exhibit A, Page 3, Paragraph Number 5. Mr. Waade’s grading is within 75 feet of the lakeshore setback zone. The raised grade of Mr. Waade’s property and the berm ob>dously do nothing to accommodate the drainage plan, rather, they actually cause water flow away from the drainage pond prescribed in the drainage plan. Clearly, this is additional evidence of Mr. Waade’s intentional violation of Resolution 4125. Pursuant to the City’s fence regulations, qo fence is allowed within 75 feet of the lake shoreline, and on a lakeshore lot, a side yard fence behind an average setback line is to be rx> more than 6