Laserfiche WebLink
Mounee View Planning Commission Juna 22, 1988 <br />Special Meeting Page Two <br />---------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />John Borovsky, of Barr Engineering, explained that <br />they had respc.,ded as they thought appropriate to the <br />developer's letter, but he realistically feels that <br />passing judgment on this issue should be with the <br />Planning Commission, City Council and legal counsel, <br />as it relates not so much to technical issues as it <br />does to community standards. <br />Mr. Sabee reviewed the letter regarding the pl.jsphorus <br />stripping capacity, which interprets the intent of the <br />ordinance to protect the potential of the wetland <br />function, and he reviewed Chet intetpretat!on. He <br />explained there are no wetlands that can completely <br />strip phosphorus from the water, and due to the time <br />storm water spends in a typical wetland, there is not <br />enough time to remove the phosphorus. He added they <br />must also consider the intent of ti,e or-.inance, that <br />development should have no impact on the wetland <br />phosphorus stripping capacity as compared to the <br />existing conditions of the wetland. <br />Mr. Sabee recommended the Planning Commission consider <br />a change in the standard that would result in a <br />s`andar4 that states that whatever development or <br />alteration there is, it could not result in a decrease <br />in the phosphorus stripping capacity, that it can only <br />be maintained or improved. <br />Mr. Sabee stated that in addressing the Planning <br />Commission's concern about an average storm versus a <br />critical storm, the Walker Method is an alternative <br />that could be used for an average event, and he would <br />recommend some modification of the Walker Method or <br />another method be considered for critical storm <br />events. He added that they have looked at this issue <br />from a technical viewpoint and did not look at it as <br />an issue of setting precedence. <br />Mr. Borovsky added that with a particular development, <br />when phosphorus stripping is a big hurdle, they should <br />look at other methods for analyzing phosphorus stripping. <br />Mr. Sabee cautioned that their letter dealt solely <br />with considering the method and the attributes of <br />such, and does nLt apply to how the method is applied <br />to this development. <br />Jim Merila, of Merila & Associates, questioned whether <br />the representatives of Barr Engineering felt the <br />developer's proposal. strips phosphorus better than the <br />existing wetland using the Walker Oodel. +� <br />Mr. Sabee replied using a different model than that <br />required by the Code was dependent upon approval of <br />the Planning Commission and Council, and they do not <br />