09-06-1989 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning Fil« #1411 September 1, 1989 Page 5 of 9Additional Staff CoHaentsGeneral IssnesPlease review Exhibit R the Planning Commission minutes that note many of the concerns of the adjacent neighbor that attended the public hearing on June 19. Many of these issues have been addressed above by staff. In regard to the questions of wildlife habitats staff would suggest that the existing ponding areas will be protected and that the wetlands in Area 4 or the eastern wetland detention area in Area 3 can be altered with the appropriate permits from the City to encourage wildlife habitat. Staff has met out on the site with applicant's engineer and on site evaluator and performed the necessary borings to confirm the soils type and profile of the specific wetlands on the property. As previously noted seme of the wetland areas have been created by informal underground drainage tile systems installed by the farmers who farmed the land. The wetland to the mid-north and the southwest are classified as protected wetland areas. All wetland areas will function as detention ponds. The City would prefer leaving the protected wetlands in their natural state. (Area I and Area III northern wetland) In regard to the question of lawn fertalizers from the proposed 17 lots being detrimental to the quality of run-off to the lake, staff has advised the applicants consultant to contact the D.S. Soils Office to questions the staff Limhologist for conunent on the degree of pollution from residential lawns as compared to an agricultural farm field. Mr. Gronberg will provide that information at our meeting. Staff CcBiments Specific Issues Please review Exhibit M. Remember at your last meeting the Lawtons questioned the defined boundry line along the northeast side that runs approximately 143.82 feet along their west boundary. Gronberg notes the old Auditor's Subdivisions provided no surveying out in the field. It was a matter of merely creating a legal description to define a property's boundaries. Whenever we deal with properties created by Auditor's Subivisions we find major descrepencles in the boundry lines. We have advised the applicant's consultant that this issue must be resolved prior to final plat approval. The City Attorney's has confirmed that the preliminary approval does not have to be held up because of this issue. Mr. Gronberg and the developer will resolve this matter with the Lawtons prior to final plat approval. If Planning Commission members want more detail as to how this can be resolved staff will happy to respond at the meeting. ; ‘ mmm wm-mwmm M- .1 -V •ft. :iiiWi I'.:’ i-H:m s s:*' 'xmxmn mmmm'V. mm-■yvm r '• .W 0®ilmmn. i #• * .%• .-•• • V^-»j£ f V C . ■ -VvV. r V ■ • , ^ m.- J:' : I- : r; y::/ymmy mymym,y :;v-- /-vv.; ZorSeEPacPl< Its 6 ] cor on."th la> the duz and Dia sta tha onl res Cit inc sur rai est thi was wit Pis sub Unf pro; per pre no app wel ado opt mem res: adv mor stai soi Eroi ele- is 1 pom thii ■Kau;-'' mmm: . ••• • • •. • •