Agenda Packets - 1986/12/15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development/�� DATE: December 10, 1986 �/ SUBJECT: RED OAK PARK SUBDIVISION Attached please find the following: 1) Proposed final plat of Red oak Park Subdivision 2) Development plan for Red Oak Park Subdivision 3) Grading and drainage plan for Red Oak Park Subdivision 4) Proposed Development Agreement No. 86-78 for the Red Oak Park Subdivision The Developer is requesting final plat approval. Prior to final plat approval, I would like to discuss with you the grading and drainage plan and development plan. The Development plan indicates that the sanitary sewer inverts for the houses on lots 8 through 12 cannot be any lo:.er than the approximate 909 eleva- tion. The development plan also indicates that the developer is proposing to construct a temporary retention pond in the area of lot 2. The developer is proposing this temporary retention pond in order to secure approval to construct houses on lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 15 and 16. The temporary retention pond is not addressed in the City's Surface Water Drainage Ordinance, Chapter 49A. Since temporary retention ponds are not addressed, I have indicated to the developer that I cannot approve it. However, if he wants to come to the City Council and request a code appeal, he can do that. He has indicated to me that he will be coming to the City Council meeting on Monday, December 15, 1986, to discuss this issue. The grading and drainage plan indicates the size and shape of the proposed detension pond in the rear of lots 9 and 10. The deten- sion pond meets City Code requirements and has an emergency over- flow elevation of 910.8. The minimum building opening elevation for this development is 911.8 or one foot above the, pond emer- gency overflow elevation. When the pond is full, water depth will be 4.5 feet at its deepest area. The slope from the houses on lots 9 and 10 down to the pond is 5 feet horizontal to one foot verticle or approximately 20 per- cent. This slope is not as steep as the slope on the back of the house at 2375 Pinewood Circle. Is this slope acceptable to you? I recommend that we study the possibility of requiring all future ponds to be placed on a separate lot so that these ponds will not be in someone's back yard. At the present time, the City Code does not address where these ponds shall be located. The development includes a small ditch on the east side of lots 10 and 11. I look forward to meeting with you on Monday night and discussing this project. SWT/bac