Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves Waters Edge Phase 9 PUD despite questions about recorded maps and drainage
Summary
Garden City Council approved the Waters Edge Phase 9 planned-unit development after discussion over phase numbering, HOA structure, wetlands and drainage; a developer representative said engineering includes retaining walls, sand fills and monitored swales.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Councilors asked detailed questions before voting to approve the Waters Edge Phase 9 planned-unit development, probing whether maps and recordings for earlier phases were correctly filed and how stormwater and groundwater discharges would be handled.
A project representative described lot coverage limits and open-space requirements, saying "only 30% of the lot can be built upon and 70% open space," and outlined construction plans including retaining walls, sand fill and grass swales intended to manage runoff. A consultant on the phone identified himself as Norm and described monitoring conducted for elevator groundwater discharges and drainage routes.
Council members raised paperwork questions about a folder marked Phase 9 dated 2015 that did not appear in county online records; staff and the developer said the final documents had been approved by courts and recorded but that some map updates had not yet been reflected online. Council also discussed HOA structure: the PUD will be one PUD but the phases will have separate homeowners associations rather than a single master HOA.
Questions about wetlands on Lot 6 prompted the project representative to confirm a wet corner would remain protected and that existing storm-drainage outfalls near the lake create localized wetland conditions.
After discussion, a councilor moved to approve the Phase 9 PUD for Waters Edge and the motion carried by voice vote. The approval clears the subdivision phase subject to the recorded plan and standard conditions; councilors recorded no additional contingencies in the public meeting.
