08-15-1988 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MIHDTBS of the PLANNIIIG COfOCESSIOE TIHG HELD AOGUST l5, 1988 ZONING FILE #1309 CONTINI water collected in those areasr however^ it still did not solve the problem. In his opinion, the fill that was brought in along the edge of the water to the stone wall was the reason for the problem. Mr. Lohmar is a civil engineer and he took transit readings of the level of fill and determined that there is 9" of fill at one point in front- of the rock wall. When the house was built, all of the excavation was piled up in front where the house now sits and the whole frozrt area was built up with 4* of dirt. Later it was discovered that the dirt had to be removed, but in doing so, 0~9” of dirt was left behind. Mr. Lohmar is only concerned with drainage. He felt that what the Nelsons have done is the best possible solution to the problem and has improved the site 100%. Mabusth noted a certificate of occupancy could never have been issued to the property because of several building code violations and the drainage problem along the south lot line. A certificate of occupancy was issued only after Lyman Lumber, actual owner of the property at the time of issuance, executed an attested disclaimer assuming all responsibility for the corrective drainage work. Kelley reiterated his desire to table the matter until more research could be done to solve the problem. He would like a report from the City Engineer stating the best possible solution to the drainage problem. Mabusth asked for specific direction regarding the five points set forth in the August 11, 1988 memo. Kelley addressed each of these five issues. Bellows stated that there was a need for a demonstrated hardship pertaining to the pond. One major issue to be addressed by the City Engineer is how much impact restoration of the yard to its original state will have on the entire area. Applicant presented pictures showing the elevation of the berm on the adjacent property which is 3 or 4 times higher than his and asked why that was acceptable. Bellows explained that the difference is due to the Nelsons' berm lying within the flood plain. The issue is alteration of land within the flood plain. The issue of the vegetation was discussed. Mr. Nelson stated that he has no access to remove the other 20* pines should they also die. Bellows suggested that should the Nelsons plant vegetation in the flood area, they choose vegetation that can withstand excessive water. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Bellows to table #1309. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays^O, Motion passed.