10-21-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2176 October 8, 1996 Page 2 Brief Review of Renewal Application Per directives set forth in aj^roval 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 proposed southern poral 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 wetlaiKl, Both the DNR and Watershed District will not require permits and the proposed scope of the excavation will fall under the Army Corps of Engineers Nation-wide Permit (Refer to Exhibits J and K). Loren Butterfield, applicant's contractor, has been mining peat within another part of this wetland for over thirty years and received approval of a conditional use permit application in 1989 for the mining of 3(X) cubic yards of peat each year within his own property. Butterfield, a landscape contractor, now estimates that his business would 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 will 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 ot time. Staff can report no problems with the first year’s excavation in the 1994/95 winter season. The City Engineer recot.unends 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 w ill not requ* . a permit and the Corps of Engineers would permit the excavation under a nation-wide permit as in the earlier review. Issues for Consideration 1.Wildlife habitat would be enhanced, open water areas will provide a sediment trap, the variety of slopes to open water area would encourage more beneficial wetland/aquatic vegetation, retention of mnoff would be increased as a result of the excavation — Are there any issues that should be addressed in the current 1996/97 application? Options of Action To approve per the findings and conditions of the original resolution granting a conditional use permit and variance in the 1994/95 winter season; or Denial. If the application is to be denied for this current season, members should list necessary findings and may refer to Section 10.55, Subd. 12(D1-12) and Section 10.08, Subd. 3(A1-12). ch 1 « I