02-22-1994 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File n^l901 January 14. 1994 Page 5 of 9 The issue for staff has been how do we provide proper notice to a landowner who purchases a lot with these undesignated wet'and types as they will not be shown as drainage easements. The final resolution will list the lots that have involvement but it will be necessary to create an instrument for the filing against the Chain of Title of each property that w ill include mapping and metes and bi’mnds descriptions of the location of the various type wetlands with a disclaimer that before any land alterations or structures arc proposed within those protected areas, that they first obtain the necessary approvals from the Corps and the MCWD. The City is in receipt of the drainage study prepared for the surface water controls. The Citv Engineer has been given the information and staff will provide a report on his comments at our meeting along with the preliminary comments of the Watershed District and Corps. In reviewing the first phase development of both parcels, there is very linle involvement of the ”undesignated" wetland types. The second phase of development will raise far more critical reviews in the development of a building site, specifically review the Dickey second phase Lots 17 and 18. It would be helpful at our meeting if the sur\eyor would designiite any mitigation areas not included within retention/treatment ponds to be designated as drainage easements and e.xcluded from lot areas. Types I and 2 mitigation areas will be included as dry buildable area. Review E.xhibit H. The property is located w ithin three major watersheds -l^ke Classen, Ma.xwell Bay and French Creek. The majority of drainage from the property flows to French Creek. Review preliminary' plans, the majority ot site drainage is routed through established drainageways onto adjacent properties. Per the preliminary plans, developier proposes outlet drainage at the southwest comer of the Cottm property and directing drainage along Luce Line to both the east and west. Major runoff areas will continue to flow at the southeast corner ot Coffin property and southwest comer of Dickey property. The City mast review the impact of downstream drainage im the established drainage routes. The DNR will review the proposal on January 14. They are concerned with the impact of two drainage retention basins adjacent to Luce Line. It has been their e.xperience that when this is allowed to happen, it results in the undermining of the trail bed. The high elevation ot the Luce Line at the southwest comer is 984. The invert elevation is at 987, three feel above the trail. This should be reviewed. Staff will relay any concerns of the DNR at your meeting. It is my understanding that they are also concerned with the drainage that outlets via Lot 6, Block 1 in the Dickey parcel outletting at the Thompson fami property and eventually to the DNR park. All land alteration will necessitate the installation ot erosion control and must remain installed and in place until groundcover is restored. As Engineer s report notes, the City code reijuires a 26 ” setback from designated wetlands tor all land alterations. He notes that there are two locations on the Coffin property, specifically the rei^uired grading of the southerly cul-de-sac shown at 7’ higher than the adjacent protected wetland. He notes the cul-de-sac can either be lowered or moved south to avoid the .setback encroachment. The other is in Lot 1, BkKk I at