03-27-1989 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1366 March 23, 1989 Page 4 of 4 The applicant requested that the City Attorney provide an opinion regarding his rights to unhindered continuation of uses which have always been occurring accessory to his principal conditional use. City Attorney advised staff of the estimated $1,000 fee to make such an opinion, and staff advised applicant he would have to foot the bill. At this point, applicant apparently has not given the attorney the go-ahead to make that opinion. Staff contends that an opinion is not necessary, and that restrictions imposed by the wetlands ordinance take precedence over the pre-existing activities made illegal by that ordinance. Also, the City Engineer was requested by staff to review the public benefits associated with each of the two wetland areas, to determine whether Conservation & Plowage Easement language can reasonably be revised to protect both the applicant and the City. That recommendation has yet to be received as of this writing, however the preliminary indications are that the upper pond could be covered under a drainage easement and that the continued ponding and reuse of water is not detrimental but perhaps is beneficial to the watershed. Regardi*^ the lower wetland, although the need for a conditional use permit is obvious, the continued removal of peat at a low level of use as in the past, would likely not be detrimental to the wetland but is probably beneficial to wildlife. Staff Wta i>—omiwt i iin — Under the assumption that the above will reflect the recommendations of the City Engineer, staff would recommend the following be considered for conditions of final plat approval; 1. Applicant shall grant a drainage easement over the northerly pond. The easement wording will allow continued withdrawal of water from the northerly pond, and will require that the pond be maintained in its present condition. 2. For the southerly pond, applicant shall grant a Conservation & Flowage Easement, the conditions of which will be referenced as being contained in the conditional use permit for peat removal. The conditional use permit shall be applied for and the approval process completed prior to final plat approval. (This will allow applicant some flexibility in his future possibilities for use of property while giving the City a permanent easement for protection of the wetland.) SuBBary of issues to be addressed by Council: A. Does Council wish to allow accessory structures south of the Luce Line in either Outlets A or B? B. Does Council agree with above recommendations for protection of the wetlands? Staff will re-draft the proposed preliminary plat approval resolution based on Council's directives. Does Council have any questions regarding the other conditions of preliminary plat approval (see Exhibit K)?