Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEMERSON ACRES SUBDIVISION - MINOR SUB - 22-88 - CORRESPONDENCE - MEETING COMMUNICATION (3)0 . MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney Matt Baker, Civil Engineer II Glenn Schlueter, Civil Engineer II FROM: Ted Shepard .� 1 DATE: July 5, 1988 RE: July 5, 1988 Meeting with Metcalf, Einarsen, and Dickinson on Emerson Staff offered to construct an energy dissipater at the outlet of the culvert on the Provincetowne Channel to a point approximately where the old clay tile pipe used to outlet. From this point on to the confluence of Stanton Creek, and Stanton Creek to the north property line, there would be no improvements or channelization to the 100 year floodplain or floodway. The specifications of the energy dissipater must be designed. Keep in mind that a HEC II analysis has not been done for the Provincetowne Channel. It is very likely that the width of the dissipater will be less than the 50 feet shown on the floodplain map prepared by Parson's Engineering. This width is esti- mated to be excessive. Reducing this width will add more usable lot area to Lot 3. It was pointed out to Mr. Metcalf that any channelization of Stanton Creek would require permission of the Army Corps of Engineers. Channelization is discouraged as being expensive and environmentally damaging. Mr. Metcalf was concerned about development proceeding in Provincetowne and the possibility of bankruptcy occurring before the storm detention ponds are constructed. This would cause runoff onto the Dickinson property that would exceed the two year historic flow. Glen Schlueter explained that our standard policy is to allow no more than 25% of the building permits per filing to be issued without the construction of the storm drainage improvements. In cases where there is a threat to neighboring property, the storm drainage improve- ments may be required before any building permits are issued. Mr. Einarsen inquired if the Parks and Recreation Department would be inter- ested in purchasing the Stanton Creek floodplain for a future trail. Such a trail is not part of the P & R Master Plan. Fossil Creek is designated as a future trail that would lead from Portner Reservoir to Fossil Creek Reservoir. This would preclude the need for a trail along Stanton Creek. It was suggested by Glen Schlueter that Mr. Metcalf inquire with the City Natural Resources Department about the purchase of the wetlands on the north of Lot 5. Although Natural Resources does not have the budget for such a purchase, funds may exists from the Stormwater Utility. It was discussed that in order to proceed with the Minor Subdivision request, the following action should be taken: 1. Delete all references to the 65 and 50 foot "channels" on the plat. 2. The plat should include the legal description of the 100-year floodplain for Stanton Creek. This legal description has already been prepared by Parson's and Associates. It does not need to be re -surveyed. 3. A "master" drainage report must be prepared per the specifications of the Stormwater Utility. Whoever the applicant chooses to do the report should contact Glen Schlueter as to the details. 4. The 100-year floodplain for Stanton Creek and the area of the energy dissipater for the Provincetowne Channel must be shown on the plat as either an easement or dedication to the City. An easement would allow the lot owner the use and maintenance of the land within the easement. A dedication would not allow the lot owner to use the land but the City, not the lot owner, would assume the maintenance. The choice of easement versus dedication is up to Mr. Dickinson. 5. The City is concerned about fencing in the floodplain. In order to not inhibit storm flows, any fencing in the floodplain must be of a break- away type. The specification for such a fence is available. It has been used in other projects that had fencing in the floodplain. 6. It has been decided by Mr. Dickinson that the zoning shall remain r-1-p (lower case) which means that a P.U.D. condition exists on the property. For any development to occur, including traditional single family uses, there must be a P.U.D. filed with the City. It was then decided by Mike Herzig that the standard soils report required for subdivisions could be postponed until such time as each lot develops under the P.U.D. procedure. Glen Schlueter also decided that the more detailed drainage report that is also typically required with a subdivision could also be postponed until each lot develops under the P.U.D. This does not relieve the requirement for a "master" drainage study as mentioned in #3 above. Mr. Metcalf notified Paul Eckman after the meeting that the terms are accept- able to Mr. Dickinson. The applicants will proceed to submit the required drainage information to get the request moving again. The applicants are aware that it takes about 10 days after final review to post the property and file legal notice in the paper. Also, there is a 14 day appeal period after approval prior to recording with the County Clerk.