Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JULY 10, 2003 <br />Steve Brausen, Viking Drive, indicated that the developer did discuss the <br />development with him. However, he noted that early on the retaining wall <br />at the back of his property was proposed and then was taken out and is <br />now back in the plan. Brausen stated that he had two concerns with the <br />wall. The first is the impact on his property of looking at a 300 foot long <br />and 10-foot high concrete poured retaining wall in his back yard. <br />Secondly, was the hydraulics of the development and what will happen <br />with water coming down the hill and running into the corner of his <br />property. Brausen pointed out that it is proposed that his back yard now <br />be walled in, and asked how the drainage will be handled so that his <br />backyard is not flooded. Brausen indicated that to eliminate the necessity <br />of the retaining wall, he would be willing to work with the developer and <br />allow grading on his property. <br />McDonnell indicated that this is the first that he has heard of Brausen's <br />willingness to allow grading. If grading is allowed, it would be possible to <br />reduce the height of the retaining wall. <br />Brausen asked what the wall would be constructed of. McDonnell replied <br />that it would be poured concrete. McDonnell also explained that there <br />will be a catch basin installed to provide for drainage in the area of <br />Brausen's yard. Brausen was concerned about what would happen if the <br />catch basin were plugged. <br />Keis felt that Brausen's concerns about drainage were valid and pointed <br />out that the developer cannot do anything that will adversely impact <br />Brausen's property. <br />McDonnell also noted that the retaining wall could be landscaped to soften <br />its impact on the Brausen property. <br />Mrs. Hartigan noted that landscaping is only good for six months of the <br />year. <br />There were no other comments from those present <br />Keis noted that the number of lots has not changed from what was <br />proposed under the preliminary plat. Keis felt, however, that the vertical <br />changes, as the developer referred to them, were significant, and indicated <br />he was not comfortable acting on a final plat with the amount of changes <br />that have occurred since preliminaty plat approval. <br />Duray agreed and felt there are drastic changes to the final plat from the <br />approval granted to the preliminary plat. Duray felt the development <br />-12- <br />