01-18-1994 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1901 Januar>' 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 wetland types as they will not be shown as drainage easements. The final resolution will list the lots that have involvement but it will be necessaiy to create an instrument for the filing against the Chain of Title of each propeny that w ill include mapping and metes and bounds descriptions of the location of the various type wetlands with a disclaimer that betore any land alteratioic ..r structures are prc*posed within those protected areas, that they first obtain the necessary' app ; vals from the Corps and the MCWD. Tlie City is in receipt of the drainage study prepared for the surface water controls. The City Engineer has been given the information and staff will provide a report on his comments at our meeting along w ith the preliminary' comments of the Watershed District and Corps. In reviewing the first phase development of both parcels, there is very little involvement of the "undesignated" wetland types. The second phase of development will raise far more critical reviews in the development of a buildine site, specificallv review the Dickev second phase Lots 17 and 18. It would be helpful at our meeting if the surveyor would designate any mitigation areas not included within retention/treatinent ponds to be designated as drainage easements and excluded from lot areas. Types 1 and 2 mitigation areas will be included as dry buildable area. Review Exhibit II. The property is located within three major watersheds -Lake Classen. Maxwell Bay and French Creek. The majority of drainage from the property fiows to French Creek. Review preliminary plans, the majority of site drainage is routed through established drainagew'ays onto adjacent properties. Per the preliminary plans, developer proposes outlet drainage at the southwest comer ot the Coffin propeny and directing drainage along Luce Line to both the east and west. Major runoff areas will continue to flow at the southeast corner of Coffin property and southw'est corner of Dickey propeny. The City must review the impact of dow nstream drainage on the established drainage routes. The DNR will review the proposal on January 14. They are concerned w ith the impact of two drainage retention basins adjacent to Luce Line. It has been their experience that when this is allowed to happen, it results in the undermining of the trail bed. The high elevation of the Luce Line at the southwest comer is 984. The inven elevation is at 987, three feet 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 of erosion control and must remain installed and in place until groundcover is restored. As Engineer ’s report notes, the City code requires a 26* setback from designated wetlands for all land alterations. He notes that there are two locations on the Coffin property, specifically the required 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, Block 1 at