Laserfiche WebLink
[ � 1 <br /> concern is that the site would be able to accommodate a total rainfall depth of 0.8 inches. <br /> Kellogg stated an additional conveyance system, like the previously approved swales,will be <br /> necessary to convey the excess runoff from storms larger than 0.8 inches. <br /> White inquired how the fence got constructed on the neighbor's property line. <br /> Hessburg stated he did not construct the fence and that his neighbor actually constructed the fence <br /> three feet into his property. Hessburg stated he did remove the fence thinking that it was his <br /> fence since it was on his property and that he did reimburse the neighbor for the materials after he <br /> found out that the fence was actually not his. <br /> Hessburg stated he was unaware that the City required a permit for the underground tiling system. <br /> Hessburg stated they realized after final grade had been achieved that they had a problem with <br /> water retention and that a four-inch drain tile system was installed for approximately 300 feet. <br /> According to his calculations, it would accommodate 20 percent hardcover. Hessburg noted 80 <br /> percent of the runoff goes into the drain tile system. <br /> Hessburg stated he did not realize he needed to obtain a conditional use permit for the staircase <br /> and that the boulder walls were constructed to help control the runoff into the lake. <br /> Hessburg stated the four interceptors on the gutter system should probably be screened to help <br /> ensure that the runoff goes into the drain tile system. Hessburg noted there have been some <br /> letters submitted from the neighbors,Mr. Okerstrom and.Todd and Terri Haugan, indicating they <br /> do not have any problems with the work performed on the properly. Hessburg stated he <br /> attempted to make his property safe and handle the runoff appropriately. <br /> White noted the entire reta.ining wall was not depicted on the original plan. <br /> Hessburg stated a portion of the retaining wall was pre-existing but that the section of the <br /> � retaining wall that is over four feet was constructed later. <br /> Curtis stated the approved drainage plan does not depict any retaining walls. <br /> Hessburg stated he could remove a portion of the retaining wall where it is lower and regrade the <br /> . property but that the higher portion of the wall should remain to help control the runoff. <br /> Hessburg stated the City's Code requires that they start at existing elevation and that the actual <br /> final elevation was higher than the proposed elevation. Hessburg commented he is unsure how <br /> that occurred. , <br /> Rahn inquired whether the house was constructed at the proper elevation. <br /> Hessburg stated the elevation of the floor was built to exactly what was proposed on the plan. <br /> Rahn sta.ted if the house were constructed as depicted, it should have been obvious that a boulder <br /> wall would be required. <br /> Kellogg stated what is missing from the grading plan are the evergreen trees,which prevent the <br /> slope from being graded unless the trees are removed. <br /> Hessburg concurred they would have had to have removed those trees if they did it as proposed. <br /> 2 <br />