02-11-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1630 January 17, 1991 Page 7 Please review Exhibit U. The City recommends moving existing access on County Road 15 to a Kelly Avenue access and moving tho current access at County Road 19 to the sourthern property ' in*;. Applicant may be able to gain additional parking snails with the realignment of accesses. Topography at the south lot line may restrict moving access to southern lot line. This is an issue that would be best resolved by City Enginear and staff working with applicant. Drainage The City Engineer's r.-^nor"' -.f’.ects the opinion of the City staff. The storm sewer prc* en s ' f Kelly Avenue cannot be solved by this property owner on.y. Storm sewer problems may best be addressed with a comprehensive study at the time of redevelopment proposals for Navarre. There is no doubt that this property is a major contributor to the surface run-off but at the same timv' this property will also be assessed for this project based on the amounts of surface run-off that originates from this site and enter the watershed. Cook confirms that the retention pond will treat all run-off that results from the proposed addition. The City Engineer was asked if making the pond deeper would allow for greater retention. In this case Cook responded chat by deepening the pond you would encourage standing water and in cases of storms, this standing water would already occupy the lower retention ar«a providing no additional retention capabilities on site. Ron Quanbeck of the MCWD has confirmed that run-off from the addition will be handled by the proposed retention pond. There is no structural damage with the seasonal flooding that takes p]ace within the spring and fall of ^ t year. The storm sewer issue is one matter that will be acjiessed in either a redevelopment project for this area or by an independent storm sewer project. Issues to be Resolved by Applicant Per directives of the Planning Commission, plese review Exhibit C, the applicant has prepared position papers responding to concerns of thw Commission covering excessive side street setback variance sought at west property line, impact of the retaining wall along west property line, elevations of structure, relocation of internal improvements, relocation of receiving dock and compactor. The applicant has submit* ed cement elevations of the addition as it .elates to the existing structure. Review Exhibit AA), the retaining wall is shown at a maximum height of 17' from final grade. Staff does not understand the import of tie relocating of the ramp at the receiving dock. Applicant should be asked to respond. Applicant's contention is that the wall will not only provide a >'isual buffer to the residence to the immediate southwest but also a noise barrier. IL.