12-12-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 3 December 7. 1994 Zoning File #1982 Butterfield, applicant’s contractor, has been mining peat within the same wetland for over thirty years and received ^>proval of a conditional use permit application in 1989 for the mining of 300 cubic yards of peat each year. ButtertlelJ now estimates that his business would use approximately 200 cubic yards of peat each season. Peat looses its physical value if not used within a short period of time. The current application proposes the removal of 200 cubic yards of peat each year. Review Exhibit P. Butterfield's property abuts the subject property at the northwest comer. Accer< to the sites will be achieved via this corridor. The materials will be excavated and stored in the upland areas on Bunertleld’s property' for use in his landscaping business. Butterfield advised that a half yard or possibly three quarter yard backhoe will be used to excavate materials. The land alterations can only be conducted during the winter months when the wetland is frozen. The excavations will be 6' deep and 50 ’ in diameter. Each excavation would have 5:1 slopes to the 6’ depth. Erosion control shall be maintained throughout the period of the disturbance along with the shaping of side slopes with each annual excavation. The Planning Commission questioned applicant as to the need to complete the excavations over a ten year period of time. Perkins advised that peat material was a valuable commodity which can in turn be used in Butterfield’s business. 200 cubic yards of peat is all that Mr. Butterfield would use in one season of operation. Perkins advised the operation is going to be conducted in the same way Mr. Butterfield has been mining peat on his own property. The major concern during this review has been the overall impact on the 150 acre wetland with a proposal that involves the annual alteration of that wetland over a ten year period of time as opposed to completing the project within one year. Staff has reviewed this concern with Glenn Cook. He notes that as long as the excavations are being conducted in the winter, there is no real negative impact upon the wetland. He did advise that the pond that was to be developed for an eight year period of time would require special environmenul controls. He recommends at the time of the third ye^. excavation of the larger pond that a silt curtain be installed to protect the earlier excavated open water areas. He advised that a ecosystem would already be developing within the open water area of the excavated ponion after a two year period of time and that there is a need to protect that ecosystem from potential sediment infiltration. The silt curtain must be installed upon the third year of the excavation for the larger pond. He added that the 5.000 s.f. pond to be excavated within two years would not require a silt curtain. Many of the original findings set forth in the resolution approving Butterfield’s conditional use permit still hold for the current application noted as follows: wildlife habitat would be enhanced: open water areas would provide sediment trap; varied design of slopes to the open water areas would encourage more beneficial wetland/aquatic vegetation; the existing over grown wetland provides little retention for runoff. The conditions of the original permit would still be valid for the current review. The City will require an annual land alteration permit before