05-12-1986 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7,oning File #991 & #loI8 May 5, 1986 Page 3 of 4 Planning Commission Recorwitendation - To deny the request to install 6 feet high berms along the street/lot line and to complete the restoration of the road right-of-way and the entire area restored to its original state. Area (4) ajor filling between Ulrich and former Blohorn properties - reTer to exhibits 0 & P. Clearly the filling within the Ulrich property 30 feet north of the original dividing line was not approved with the building permit. The original showed the lower elevations of 938 - 940 (remains of the old bowl area) that funneled drainage down to the lake. The is approved with th, building permit and current proposal show a dec,. ,e in drainage towards the lake and a shift in approximately 1.24 arras of drainage area to the ponding area to the south (see Exhibit J). Per Exhibit L, the applicant's engineer in his summary (page 3) notes the increa,.e in runoff to the pond would raise the pond level 0.4 feet in a 10: year storm and finds no appreciable effects on retention pond. 'he M.C.W.D. does not require permit review for the proposed shift in -a } riage. The applicant's consultant claims little effect on the pond and le watershed. Cook states (Exhibit M) the final grading plan is superior because the east 1/3 of the property drains to the pond before entering he main lake. The plans approved with the building permit provide for grassed slopes ranging from 946' to 938' elevations within 51 feet along the southern yard area (15% grade) Exhibit 0. Drainage from both the former Blohorn and Ulrich properties would drain down to the 938 elevation and out directly to the lake. The original banks along the north side of the Blohorn property would be much steeper than those proposed on Lhe Ulrich side of what would have become a ravine area. I have asked Cook to comme on the current plans proposed by the applicant. He contends tl _ aniform or flatter grades and gentle grassed slopes to lagoon provides a more suitable treatment area for surface dLainag_. We both agree the original bowl area was ideal - providing retention and flat grassed areas for surface water treatment but the house now resides in the bowl area. Planning Commission Recommenr' ion - To approve the final grades as proposed in site plan revised or. I/10/86 by Bruce W. Schmitt & Associates. City Engineer to review requ^st of Planning Commission to determine the feasability of creating greater retention area within the flat and higher elevations of Area 4. Brief review of excavations - changes in elevations Per Exh it H, tFi-e applicant's representative claims they have no knowledge of existing elevations prior to 11/84. Cook and I have attempted to recon- struct elevations as we remember them at the time of our two visits to the site in October and November of 1983. Exhibits N attempt to sh:}w the depth of excavations, changes in elevations and drainage shifts.