09-22-2004 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 prepared to meet the conditions imposed by the Watershed. Therefore, they requested approva( of the Preliminary Plat on that basis. Fahey noted the Park Commission's recommendation that, if necessary, the City take land in [ieu of a park charge because of concerns with storm water. Fahey pointed out that that was not a Watershed issue, but rather a City issue that the City has a right to insist upon. Jon Whitcomb, Jon Wesley Investments, the developer of the property, indicated that the Park Commission initially recommended a cash park charge rather than land. 'Based on the City Administrator's recommendation, the Park Commission reheard the issue and is not reconvnending land. Whitcomb questioned whether storm water pondiug could be considered a park use. Whitcomb noted that the taking of Lot 1 is to resolve a regional issue rather than an issue related to the development. Whitcomb noted that the storm water pondiug that they are proposing handles the water from the Gervais Hills development as well as beyond. Allan indicated that she discussed the development with the Watershed and was told that the developer is working to finish up their application and that the Watershed may have some additional submittal requirements prior to the October Board meeting. Whitcomb indicated that the outstanding issues are technical aspects of elevations for outlets and other minor adjustments. Whitcomb indicated that they have no problem with the approval conditions prepared by City staff except for #~] ] . Fahey stated that he understands the developers reluctance to give up a lot for what he views as a regional pouding issue. Fahey asked if the City could require the lot in lieu of a cash park charge and then use it as a pouding area. 7"he City Attorney indicated rather than taking the property in lieu of a cash park charge, the City can require the additional pondiug under Section 1006.060 which addresses environmentally sensitive areas. Whitcomb pointed out that they had a wetland delineation prepared for the property, and this area was not indicated as a wetland. Whitcomb questioned w}~ether taking this lot and making it a pond would protect the area. Allan noted that the area of Lot I is where the residents indicate that Lake George existed. Allan feh that given the soil deposits and the water levels in this area, she supports setting the area aside as a pond. 8