Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning CommissionMeeting <br />Minutes –Wednesday, December 2, 2015 <br />Page 5 <br />that Mr. Mueller keep his existing beautiful home and build one additional home onthe <br />198 <br />extra lot, similar to that done by others in that neighborhood. <br />199 <br />Engineer Chuck Plowe <br />200 <br />Regarding concerns raised during public comment about the level of groundwater in <br />201 <br />basins, Mr. Plowe reported that soil boring information indicated to engineers designing <br />202 <br />them, that their design should be 3’ or more below water basins for infiltration and for the <br />203 <br />drain tiles to function properly.Mr. Plowe noted that all of these designs would require <br />204 <br />review and approval by the City Engineer as well as engineers with the Watershed <br />205 <br />District.Regarding those levels, Mr. Plowe advised that they were typical for down water <br />206 <br />streams, with water infiltrating and percolating onto adjacent properties with tight soils, <br />207 <br />thus the reason for drain tiles without the advantage of sandy soils, negating the need for <br />208 <br />the drain tile system.Mr. Plowe clarified that engineered soil materials would be installed <br />209 <br />above those drain tiles with the intent to make the water drain down into that system. <br />210 <br />In response to Mr. Ramalingam’s questions related to the ponds, and whether they would <br />211 <br />be dry before the next rainfall event begins, Mr. Plowe responded that typically they <br />212 <br />would be as the soil media and drain tile draws that water level down over a 48-72 hour <br />213 <br />period; but again noted the City Engineer and Watershed District engineers would also <br />214 <br />review and ultimately approve the stormwater management plan. <br />215 <br />Specific to groundwater levels, Member Murphy sought clarification that in order for this <br />216 <br />design as proposed to pass muster, it needed to be at least 3’ less than the number <br />217 <br />needed; with Engineer Plowe responding affirmatively. <br />218 <br />Specific to the removal of trees and impacts to the soil evaporation rate, Member Murphy <br />219 <br />asked Mr. Plowe if that was a common consideration in site drainage plans. <br />220 <br />Mr. Plowe advised that it was, and in developing the whole design, both existing condition <br />221 <br />calculations and redesigned or proposed calculations were taken into consideration, <br />222 <br />including taking into account added impervious surfaces and how much additional runoff <br />223 <br />would occur and not be infiltrated; providing the overall system design. <br />224 <br />At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Plowe stated that removal of trees for grading and <br />225 <br />other redevelopment needs could not be specifically calculated at this time, but <br />226 <br />evaporation and runoff is taken into account. <br />227 <br />Chair Boguszewski asked if Mr. Plowe was confident that the 8” drain on Acorn Road <br />228 <br />would suffice. <br />229 <br />Mr. Plowe responded that he was confident; and when reviewing the basins and <br />230 <br />infrastructure, there would continue to be some overflow as there is today, but the intent <br />231 <br />was not to have a lot of flow go through the 8” infrastructure system, but available to <br />232 <br />handle a 2-year rain event.Mr. Plowe opined that the system would prove adequate for <br />233 <br />short-term ponding and with smaller storm events thatwould not be much water for any <br />234 <br />length of time, but that it was taken into consideration in designing the stormwater <br />235 <br />management system. <br />236 <br />As noted in the staff report, and confirmed by Mr. Plowe, Member Murphy stated that the <br />237 <br />City Engineer’s review of the plan and his input indicated the new pipe would still be <br />238 <br />accommodated by the existing downstream system on Acorn Road; with a minimal <br />239 <br />amount of additional water added to that storm sewer system and not creating any <br />240 <br />additional problem. <br />241 <br />C <br />hair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 7:15p.m.; no one else spoke. <br />242 <br />Member Cunningham noted that she had supported the last four proposals, and opined <br />243 <br />that this latest proposal from the applicant provided even more significant improvements <br />244 <br />and commended Mr. Mueller for listening to his neighbors and addressing their concerns. <br />245 <br />Member Cunningham stated her main concern in the past was with the road width and <br />246 <br />tree issues, as well as significant drainage issues; but again noted Mr. Mueller appeared <br />247 <br /> <br />