11-10-1986 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning Fi' 01082 October 17j , i986 Page 2 of 2 Discussion: City Engineer, Glerr has reviewed the grading plan on trA site; and although he gei. has no problem with the proposal, has some reservations. 1: aa.h he feels t:ae pr.ojec': will not be •detrimental to the watershe he feels- it will not accomplish the applicant's purpose of el`minating the :_s,ckyard ponding at times when the storage pond is already full of water. The fill to be placed next to the drainfield may help the drainfield sur'ice inundation situation, although Glenn warns that the pond holding water most of the time might have some effect on the drainfield because it is not a free water surface with a need. And, there still may be occasional ponding directly south of the house, and this wi7.1 not solve Mariers si-4lar problem cf having unchannela' flow overload through ` r-; ; lard ne4,,: his grainfield. Glenn feels, and I concur, that a m c,)mprehensive swale and fill project would be ben_ ,cial to bo, `. homeown-rs as a more permanent solution. The applycant is aware of these concerns and realizes the prnnosal is not a cure-all. Staff Renowmendation : From an overall watershed viewpoint., the project is inconsequential and may even be of minor benefit. by providing s . ne additional short-term storag; 7rea. Give- that this is not a designated wetland, and that i ias ",een reviewed by the Watershed District, staff has no problem rec- n(.ng bpproval of the project. However, applicant is advised that .:he project might not be the final solution to the c.c,7as. )nal pond in the backyard, and depending an the level of the water in the po.i.. -i... g? ven time, might have some inpact on thc_ water table level near the a eld. Q, C , 1 n •Zo-R, (lECOMM�N�E� l'F'DrQ�I:.L. �..� i• r ''r I, TJ� VE c ('(�,�r-t �•^ h` �T :.. . n�S•e 4tIVA'T? o r, ! r a�F t�i+ •.