Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 10/23/1989

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1411 September 1, 1989 Page 6 of 9 Please review Exhibit L, -he Dixon letter dated June 26, 1989 Items 1 through 6. Staff feels that Items 1 through 3 and 5 and 6 have been answered by either staff or the applicant's consultant. The issue raised in Item 4 deserves to be expanded on. Many of the neighbors have expressed the same concern "this has been a very dry period for the last few years and the lake level is down 3 to 4 inches and i the developer providing the appropriate drainage plan tLat ca., address drainage needs during wet years". Calculations provided in the drainage plan and in the drainage calculations submitted for the Watershed District and the City Engineer's office deal with established standards for areas at defined flood periods. Please note that the drainage plan where detention ponds are defined show not only the normal water elevation but a flood elevation. It is the responsibility of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City per its flood plain and wetlands ordinances to insure that increased run-off resulting from development will not impact the surrounding existing development with flooding during heaving rains. The guidelines for such drainage reports are standards established by Federal and State authorities and agencies. In this specific review the 100 year and 1 year phenomena forr+at was addressed. The proposed drainage plan will clearly function without a negative impact in wetter years. Please refer to Exhibit Q. A group of concerned neighbors have submitted a 15 lot plat drafted by BRW for consideration. Unfortunately, the City staff has no authority to review the proposal as the current owner of the property has not given staff permission. A representative or the neighbors may clearly present this proposal to the developer, but once again staff has no authority to address this proposal under the review of application #1411 Sussex Square Development. The neighbors are %elcome to contact the developer and if the developer wishes to z.dopt any of the elements of the plan, that is the developers option. Aj to the second issue, staff must once again remind members we are not dealing with an LR District, this is a rural residential subdivision and hardcover is not a consideration. I advised the neighbors that very often the larger lots receive more intense development. Staff does not understand the statement that claims this area is particularily sensitive to soil erosion and run-off because of the ponds and low areas. Erosion usually takes place where there are extreme variations in elevations. This is predominatly a moderate to flat area that is under consideration for development. The presence of ponds or ponding areas does not suggest erosion problems. I think the third issue has been addressed by staff and the applicant.