10-03-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

:V j li-J Zoning File #1305 September 28, 1988 Page 2 of 4 Reviev of Application - Please review Exhibit F, a letter from Robert Sorenson, Architect of the Vogt Corporation representing the applicant advising that the stockpiled earth was re->graded by the contractor in error. The contractor was stopped as soon as it was realized but at least 85% of the work was completed. The final grading has not been realized nor has the swale along the base of the newly graded area along the west lot line been installed. Staff has inspected the site on September 21st and can confirm that nothing has been done since the original inspection of the week of September 12th. Please review Exhibits B, D, and E, as staff noted in the first review, the quality of the run>off was not going to be a major concern as a result of the new addition and proposed grading. In light of the very sensitive drainage area that the property is located within, the Watershed District did ask for an analysis of the effects of the additional hardcover based on the 100 year storm event (pre and post development). The applicant was then advised that they would then be responsible for following the guidelines and standards of the District, which was that based on the pre and post calculations, with the new improvement, run-off could not leave the property at a greater rate than prior to the new improvement. McCombs Frank Roos Associates have prepared the necessary hydrolic information and have prepared the final drainage plan for the M.C.W.D. permit review. Tbe final approved drainage plan calls for the construction of a storage pond, constructed within along the proposed swale to the east of the re-graded area along the west side of the property, approximately 200* east of the west property line. The storage pond will be constructed by cleaning out and lowering the bottom of the existing drainage ditch in the area shown on the attached plans (Exhibit G). The retention pond shall flow along the south border to the southeast corner and outlet to the drainage ditch and finally to the railroad tracks. The drainage pattern is still the same as approved on the original plans (Exhibit C) except that we will not ask for a retention pond in the southeast corner. Approximately 90% of the drainage from the hardcover from the new addition is located in the 8+ acre watershed to the west and south of the building. d-: ' .d) m »»i. - -r h Zoning File #1305 September 28, 1988 Page 3 of 4 The applicant and the appl to answer any questions yoi Staff would request a to-s Frank Roos Associates, Ir typical cioss sections of Staff Recoamendati< To approve the cond. Scientific, Inc., for the | would permit the filling a of fill to be used in the property per grading plant 6/29/88, hydrolic analysis Associates dated 8/4/88, : Roos Associates dated 8/4/1 the dike, rip-rap specifi Associates, based on the fc 1. The proposed fill: with the intent of the in which the site is the City. 2. The filling and g detrimental to the pu! injurious to property 3. The proposed com applicable conditions the required standards This approval is subje 1. The area where fil grades are approved b^ 2. All work shall be the approved plans by