07-22-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 FREDRIKSON & BYRON, R A. Attonuyi and Advimt Barbara Peterson, Mayor City Council Members July 3,2002 Page 2 despite performing the delineation in a month with near record rainfall. If the final revised delineation confinns initial observations, then no fill lies within the actual buffer area, and in fact, the re-seeding performed by Revis has substantially increased the size, and improved the quality, of the natural buffer. With confirmation of our expectations, no variance would be necessary. Revis has decided that rather than immediately withdrawing the variance request, he would prefer that the City Council authorize City staff to meet on site to review the refined delineation when it is complete. Assuming relevant staff members concur with the refined delineation, the variance request relating to encroachment in the buffer area would be withdrawn. 2. Breadth of Fill: The City inspection revealed that some fill has been placed beyond the approved ‘’width" for the project, and in fact, has in part been placed on the immediately adjacent properties. Both impacted property owners have consented to the placement of that fill, as indicated in letters previously submitted to the City. The primary purpose for the expansion of the fill area was to improve drainage for all parties involved, and to avoid excessive lateral run off. Given the logical rationale for the expansion, and the adjacent property owners ’ consents, an amendment of the CUP to allow the completed project to remain is the most prudent alternative. At a minimum, it is requested that the City Council direct the City Engineer to examine the relevant areas to assess this asserted improvement to the initial plan, and if found acceptable, the requested CUP amendment could be addressed at the next scheduled City Council meeting. 3. Final Grade of Slone : The City inspection further revealed a slight discrepancy to the required 3 to 1 finished grade. That result was unintended. The finished grade appears to be approximately 2.9 to 1. Revis admits that the result does not comply with the initial CUP requirements, but it should be recognized thafthe slope is a significant improvement over the pre-project slope, and the discrepancy is minor. As the slope settles over time, it is likely that the grade will reach or e.xceed the required 3 to 1 ratio. Additionally, the natural grasses planted on the slope have “taken ” quite well, and the slope has remained very stable despite dramatic recent rainfall. More recent results examining the final slope will hopefully be available for the July 8, 2002 Council meeting. Any re-grading at this point may risk destabilization of the slope, and ih'^ end result would provide little difference. The proposed amendment to the CUP, under the circumstances, is reasonable. Previous correspondence to the City has painted Revis as a devious landowner, but that is simply not the case. Revis recognizes that he is responsible for the project. He has remained in contact with the adjacent landowners and City Staff throughout the project. He has not filled the wetland. He has not violated a “stop 'vork order”. He has complied with his proposed landscaping plan, and has improved the safety and aesthetics of the yard. He has enhanced the natural wetland buffer, improved the quality of forestation, and improved the drainage in the area. While Revis recognizes that he may not be “entitled” to the requested amendment to the