04-25-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

41 Zoning File #1233 Page 3 of 4 Current Review The Planning Commission was asked to review the current plan prior to presenting the final plan before the Council. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission refused to act because there was no one representing the applicant present at the meeting. The purpose of the review was merely as an informative item to provide the Planning Commis-zion the opportunit..- to review the revised plan that would no longer require a Conditional Use Permit or Variance for an underground pipe. The drainage that would collect in the bowl area in front of the walkout would now be drained via a trench drain, which would drain to a sump pit/pump station below the basement floor and discharge to the west of the house about 90' up from the lakeshore providing natural surface flow over the grassed lakeshore bank to the lake below. In his letter of 4/20/88, Cook confirms the system as proposed will provide for discharge of the storm water in an acceptable manner. In addition, he recommends venting of the installation to the roof and that it have a sealed access cover. It should be noted that the final plan requires only approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the retaining walls to be replaced within the lakeshore protected area. The drainage from the bowl area created by existing higher elevations in front of the walkout are now being treated outside of the 75' setback area, requiring no land alteration within the protected area. The real problem for the Planning Commission for this review has been the issue of the degree and intensity of the land alterations required to install the walkout with the given elevations. In reviewing Exhibit K, the applicant advises that some 350 cubic yards of sand will be brought in as the base under the concrete floor slabs required in Minneosota to prevent frost heaving, located inside or under the proposed structure. 130 cubic yards of fill will be brought to the site to provide foundation protection and the approximate 582 cubic yards excavated from foundation preparation shall be used to also provide the additional foundation protection znd necessary back -filling to provide adaquate drainage away from the house. Note, that in Cook's letter of 2/24/88 he notes that the direction of run- off from the site will not be significantly effected by the filling. A staff member has confirmed that the height elevation noted at 27' is correct as there is less than 50% of the lower level exposed. In consideration of the recent amendment that defined unusual grading for the building staff, staff finds that the application does not involve unusual grading levels. Frost footing/foundation protection involves not only grading to protect stability of a foundation, but also involves protection of that foundation and structure from surface drainage/infiltration problems. Back filling is part of the footing foundation protection. The applicant does not propose any changes in elevations within 10' of the lot line and no excessive amounts of fill have been brought in, except to provide the adaquate foundation protection and back -filling demands for the project. The Flanning Commission members were most concerned that in the future an owner would come in and attempt to excavate the lakeshore yard, in order to do away with the bowl situation and problems associated with the drainage.