09-06-1989 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

iiaiii-i>n of a retention from the roadway Block 1 to the drains as staff id eventually to Major drainage 1 the shared lot llcant has also I of the wetlands t intersections outlet to the ea 3 eventually 1 £ay Road and al<*-1 yards and ate north of the to Area 5f which to Maxwell Bay. 1 outlets review been defined at water mark. The tion on minimum retention areas, sements over all in addition the rainage ways and lys) protecting opment. nee detail are .1 be filled to i will remain i this property lling of Lots 2 c areas within 1^ equipment is ( reviewed ^:.he n. I have also to demonstrate le excavations, that provides )af Street. In divided in the ge. Fleming within interior will work with ig the interior mm mimm ■ r..' 'l-• . ' w•. . •• • .•.. . mmmmMrn Mmm ■ I' . ■ ‘WvVi^ Wmmmm ai" ‘^v. ^.■ ^w i.6. * . iyf i: Kl i’* ■ fee 9' mm:\ '■ '•: fcv j ■; ^ ?. >;:v::h:.:< - • f'^m: i 'mm.k - :«;C W- ^mJi'>■■1 K-.'-,';:.mm■■it mm Av.i . v\- ■ •■' ' ■:>v • •:■"•-• ; f C:?:l " V-7:/r: m m K. *■ f? • % .! :•.iiifra iia :•■ . ■ ws: :.- ',i-y ^vv: ^ zoning Pile #1411 September Ir 1989 Page 4 of 9SepticGaffron's report confirms that all lots have been tested and have been found to have suitable areas for on-site sewage treatment systemsr both primary and alternate sites. As with most of our rural subdivlslonsr the majority of lots will require mound septic systems. The septic report calls for snow fence staking of the following lots prior to road construction or land alteration creating detention ponds: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, Block 1, Lots 1, 4, 6, 7f Block 2, Lot 2, Block 3. Snow fencing must be installed 20 feet from the boundaries of each dralnfield system. Staff has discussed the process of staking with the on-site septic evaluator and he has agreed to provide an employee to do the necessary stadcing if the applicant wishes him to do so. Drainage Rq>ort The City Engineer has reviewed the final drainage summarys submitted by applicant's engineer, review Exhibit T. The actual drainage summary is lengthy if any member cares to review it at the City offices, it is available for your review. Staff will have it at the meeting for further comment. Cook finds the report acceptable and recommends approval subject to the Watershed's final comments. I have talked with Ron Quanbeck who is responsible for the review of this application at the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Mr. Quanbeck has been unable to review the additional information submitted by applicant's engineer and will be unable to provide final review comments by your meeting as he will be on vacation. He reviewed some of the first concerns that the Watershed District had at the first review, it would appear in view of the drainage plan submitted by applicant that these may have already been addressed. It is my understanding that Glenn Cook has also been in contact with Mr. Quanbeck. Cook's only concern in the report is that the pond in Lot 3, Block 2 has no outlet below the County Road elevations. This condition would exist today in the undeveloped state as this pond is an overflow from drainage that comes from the south side of Pox Street. In two back to back 100 year storms, with no defined outlet to the south and the higher elevations op the south side, the roadway would now flood. Cook advises that because the City would now have public drainage easements over the retention areas that the roadway could be pumped into either the retention areas in Area 1 or Area 5. (review Exhibit W) The formal review by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be finalized in the third week of September. The plat will not be scheduled for Council action until staff has reviewed the final comments from the Watershed District. ispte-- V- '.'i ■ •; ■ ■*' ,r .• -..Cj P •: ^ ■ mrMM ' ' . •* • • * *.