Laserfiche WebLink
2U>nin2 File #1799 <br />February 8. 1993 <br />Page 3 <br />silt fence for ermion control. It has also been suggested that some of the excavated matenats <br />can be used by the City in constructing the embankments along Fox Street It would be staffs <br />recommendation that an\ organic materials be placed at least 75 ’ from the wetland. The ixiilet <br />area adjacent to culvert should be protected with silt fencing and that entire area be restored to <br />native grasses. <br />Applicants have expresad concern that the current permit will expire on April of 1W3. <br />If the land alteration is expanded to include the City’s needs, the City will be required to present <br />an amended proposal to the DNR and Watershed District under its current part. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />Absent the City’s needs if the original MCTO permit approving the subdivision <br />required land alterations within the low wooded area w(wiid the additional <br />excavations have an impact on your recommendation? <br />Is the application more acceptable if areas disturbed arc rcsiorcci to their former <br />natural state? <br />How do you feel about the pigg>backing of Uie City’s needs upon a private <br />ow *^rs proposed improvement? If the Cit> had a storm water management plan, <br />this type of request from the City Engineer would be common place. <br />Hardship Statement <br />Review Exhibit A. It is the position of the applicant that land alterations have to take <br />place within the lower area to meet the guidelines of the MCWD. The deeper elevations will <br />allow for standing water and als4> function as a sediment trap.