11-12-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 3 November 6, 19% Zoning File #2176 ___________ Review of Renewal Application Per directives set forth in approval resolution of 1995, Exhibit G. applicant has filed the required annual renewal permit for the mining of 200 cubic yards of peat within the designated wetland on his property. Refer to Exhibits D, L and M, in 1994/95 winter season applicant excavated approximately 200 cubic yards of peat from the southern pond located adjacent to applicant’s driveway. Applicant’s contractor did not mine peat within the 1995/% winter season. The current permit will complete the southern pond at approximately 5,000 s.f. in area. The larger pond located to the northwest is proposed at approximately 25,000 s f. 3.2 acres of wetland within applicant’s property is part of a contiguous wetland system consisting of 150 acres. The wetland is not a DNR protected wetland. Both the DNR and Watershed District will not require permits and the proposed scope of the excavation will tall under the Army Corps of Engineers Nation-wide Pennit (Refer to Exhibits J and K). Loren Butterfield, applicant’s contractor, has been mining peat within another part of this wetland for over thiny years and received approval of a conditional use permit application in 1989 for the mining of 300 cubic yards of peat each year within his own property. Butterfield, a landscape contractor, now estimates that his business w ould use approximately 200 cubic yards of peat each season Refer to Exhibit H, Butterfield ’s property abuts the subject property at the northwest comer. Access to the site wili be achieved via this corridor and not Bayside and Landmark Drive. All spoils will be stored in the upland areas on Butterfield ’s property for use during the spring and summer of 1997 as peat loses its physical value if not used within a short period of time. Staff report no problems with the first year’s excavation in the 1994/95 winter season. The City Engineer recommends that the same guidelines be followed as required in his report of 1994, Exhibit I. Since the original review, the wetland still remains an unprotected wetland by the DNR. The Watershed District will not require a permit and the Corps of Engineers would permit the excavation under a nation-w ide permit as in the earlier re' tcw. Refer to Exhibit N, applicant has asked the City to consider a five year conditional use permit as opposed to the armual conditional use permit acquired by City in 1994 approval. Applicant informed the Planning Commission that Mr. Butterfield only mines peat every other year on his property and asked for reconsideration on the duration of permit. Planning Commission ’s recommendation only dealt with an annual permit. Several members felt the question would be best addressed by Council. If mining only occurs every other year, it is doubtful whether a five year permit would be any more beneficial than an annual permit obtained every other year when mining is to take place. Members who visited the site of the earlier excavation noted that banks were not sloped to allow for the restoration of wetland vegetation. Members advised the applicant to have Mr. Butterfield reslope side banks with the current conditional use permit since the removal of 200 cubic yards will complete the southern open water pond area.