03-12-18-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

From:Joe Federer To:Matthew Bachler Subject:PC 17-029 - Request for denial Date:Wednesday, February 07, 2018 5:28:20 PM Attachments:image.png Matt -- I've corrected some incorrect information since the last email I sent. I'd prefer if this email replaces the previous email I sent last time. Some examples include not knowing that the lift station was rebuilt in 2012 (I said it was still from 1971) and getting the new easement square footage incorrect... I still apologize for reference, spelling, or other errors... I did my best to be accurate, honest, and clear... but I only have so much time -- 3 kids, 2 dogs, 2 jobs, etc -- and the notices this time just went out with a few days lead time. I appreciate your patience. I only plan to read the last section if I speak. 17-029 should be recommended for denial for the following list of reasons: Incomplete plan application: Chapter 11 of city codes on necessary data when applying for a preliminary plat requires that "a one-hundred year flood plan study, including flood fringes and floodways" (1110.02 Subd 2, section B, item 8) be included with the plans. I do not see this. 1150.03 Subd1 would allow the commission to exempt the plan from this requirement: "The provisions from which the subdivision may be exempted shall be specified by the planning commission at its first meeting at which the subdivider's application under this paragraph is presented.". I don't see anything providing said exemption in the Jan 10 meeting notes. Wetland protection: The wetland protection plan in inadequate. It seems to be putting more water directly into the wetland and does not include a viable maintenance plan. First - by the submitted plans own hydrologic flow analysis, water that hits the lot 1 driveway will run down a steeply graded driveway (7.7 and 8.3 grade on driveway) away from the stormwater storage basin and then goes down an even steeper slope (steepened to allow for driveway) to wetland. I showed the plans to a hydrologist that specializes in groundwater-surface water interaction at a federal science agency and he indicates that almost none of the water that hits the driveways would infiltrate - this is backed up by the RCWD requiring filtration basins rather than infiltration basins - and none of it would make it into the southerly basin and, instead, would flow south of the basin "creating erosion and potential water quality issues and additional sedimentation in the wetland" for lot 1 and added flow to the street. He further notes that depending on the Lot 1 house design, water hitting that roof would flow unimpeded down into the extreme slope[11] wetland or onto the driveway. He notes the basins, particularly the southern one, are simply not located in the right places and appear to be crammed into the available location rather than an effective location (this statement further supported by the RCWD comments). I contacted RCWD directly about the appeal process or if they took the 2012 steepening of the grade into account but have not hear back. Secondly, and equally (more?) concerning: stormwater basins require maintenance. The city has stated multiple times they are not responsible for maintenance; the plan says the city is not responsible for maintenance; the RCWD simply says "there must BE a plan" but does not indicate what it is. What wording is being included to ensure they are maintained and inspected properly and what penalty is there for not doing so?