10-02-1986 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1082 October 17, 1986 Page 2 of 2 Discussion: City Engineer, Glenn Cook has reviewed the grading plan on the site, and although he generally has no problem with the proposal, he has some reservations* Although he feels the project will not be detrimental to the watershed, he feels it will not accomplish the applicant's purpose of eliminating the backyard ponding at times when the storage pond is already full of water. The fill to be placed next to the drainfield may help the drainfield surface inundation situation, although Glenn warns that the pond holding water most of the time might have some effect on the drainfield because it is not a f^^®6^water surface with a need* And, there still may be occasional ponding directly south of the house, and this will not solve Mariers similar^ problem of having unchanneled flow overload through his backyard near his drainfield* Glenn feels, and I concur, that a more comprehensive swale and fill project would be beneficial to both homeowners as a more permanent solution* The applicant is aware of these concerns and realizes the proposal is not a cure-all* Staff Recommendation: Prom an overall watershed viewpoint, the project is inconseguentia 1 and may even be of minor benefit by providing some additional short-term storage area* Given that this is not a designated wetland, and that it has been reviewed by the Watershed District, staff has no problem recommending approval of the project* However, applicant is advised that the project might not be the final solution to the occasional pond in the backyard, and depending on the level of the water in the pond at a given time, might have some impact on the water table level near the drainfield* L.