03-28-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #11.223 March 23, 1988 Page 2 of 3 D. The Planning Commission did not address approval or denial of the method of piping roof drainage directly to the lakeshore bank in their recommendation. The majority of the Planning Commission generally felt that the additional excavation to create a 3' deep cut extending to the foundation wall was not appropriate. It was sugges=ed that a less extensive cut that would blend with the grade to the property to the north might be appropriate visually. The minority opinion was that since the impact on lake water quality is neutral and that the visual impact with this method was relatively minor, and that this method is supported by the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District, that this was an approp-iate method. Staff has noted in its memo of March 8th that from a technical standpoint, the ultimate effect on lake water quality and run-off quality is essentially neutral with this proposed method as compared to other possible methods of bank restoration. The issue then comes down to one of visual impact and general character of the shoreline. The majority of the Planning Commission members present felt that the impact would be significant, and they obviously felt: that the visual impact was a significant issue. The visual impact issue is validated in the Community Management Plan in the General Lane Use Policy No. 6 and Urban Land Use Policy No. 13 (both appear on page 4 of the previously proposed denial resolution), which discuss shoreland areas as "sensitive environmental features with significant impact on . . . aesthetic values", and "espouse limiting the impact of urbanization as visible from the lake." Regarding the roof run-off question, you may recall that applicant has extended a solid pipe from the outlet of his rain gutters to the edge of the lake: pore bank, which is intended to remove the roof run-off from his yard area and avoid a recurrence of the major erosion caused by saturation of the soil at the top of the bank. From a technical standpoint there is no reasonable way to measure the relative value of the reduced propensity for soil to become saturated versus the reduction in run-off water quality by not having it percolate through the flat yard area. From a policy standpoint, it has been the City's philosophy that maximizing ground infiltration of run-off waters will enhance lake water quality. However, because applicant's roof run-off water did soak into the ground, his Lake- shore bank slumped into the lake, having a negative impact on lake water quality probably equivalent to many years of normal run-off carrying its normal sediment lrad. Presuming whatever "pollutants" from the roof run- off may have absorbed into the yard area over the years, some of them ended up in the lake anyhow.