Agenda - Council - 10/28/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~ 3) , 4) That in Area B, the north side of Lot 5 of Block 3 be staked and the oak trees be cleared within 15 feet of that line. If possible, a root saw should be used to sever the root mass prior to grubbing and excavating for the wall construction. That the developer's proposal to remove trees in Area C be allowed and that a minimum of five coniferous trees a minimum of six feet high be planted to reestablish screenings. Tom Roof, 1436¢ Waco Street NW, Ramsey, stated that his son lives at 14680 Potassium Street NW, and any ad~tional dirt that is moved further to the east will only create more problems with drainage behind ~is son's property. Assistant DirectoTr of Public Works Olson reviewed the area in question explaining that during the public hearin~ there was some concern about the levels in the pond so the City required the developer to redesign the drainage area. The original drainage area was 12.3 acres v~ith-some of the drainage cor~ing from the Chestnut R,..idge development. When staff requested that the developer limit t~e amount of water runoff into the pond the developer only allowed for drainage from rooftops and reduced the drainage area to. 4.01 acres and added an outlet. Mr. Olson reviewed the dep!hs of the two outlets and explained that the problem is that there is a retaining wall that is aboul~ a foot below the location of the outlet pipe. One option would be to leave the r outlet pipe as is, :Or they could require the developer to reconstruct the pipe in a completely flat condition, but the~.re would be an increased risk of sedimentation to occur. Mr. Roof stated ~hat he had previously met with Mr. Jankowski from the City to discuss the location of the odtlet pipe and to show him that his son's yard is now wet. Mr. Jank, owski agreed that before water!would go through the new overflow pipe a good portion ofh/s son s yard would be under water. ~ Mr. Roof also noted that the contours that were shown to the City did not include the retaining wall. Assistant Director of Public Works Otson stated that that was true that the retaining wall was not included on the pJans submitted to the City,. which is something that.should have been updated by the developer. Mr. Roof stated~ that he did meet with the developer about their concerns. The developer explained to himithat it was an engineering mistake not their mistake so the City would have to address the issue. Mr. Roof stated that it was his understanding that it is illegal to change hydrology, whici) means that it i,s illegal to drain water-onto someone else's property. People should be respected and they don t want their property flooded. Everybody seems to agree there is a problem and ~e just wants it fixed. Assistant Direct4r of Public Works Olson explained that the only option would be to drop the outlet pipe by 9/l;0ths of a foot, but he did not believe that would give them the results they were looking for. City Council/October 14, 2003 Page 7 of 30 -59-