| construction plan approval that the issue of the storm water detention for |
|
| this project came up. It became evident that it would involve an outlet to the |
|
| wetland, which is a permitted activity. When the applicant was made aware |
|
| of this, he submitted a wetland use permit application requesting a |
|
| reduction in the wetland buffer. Ms. Goodwin also noted that, based on a |
|
| third review by Dr. Jaworski, City Wetlands Consultant, there is a wetland |
|
| use permit that will be needed. |
|
| Continuing, Ms. Goodwin said a Land Improvement Permit is almost ready |
|
| to be issued. The ordinance states that before the decision to grant or |
|
| deny a use permit, there must be a notice of at least 10 days. That notice |
|
| can take place either before the Planning Commission or before the City |
|
| Council because they are the reviewing authority. Dr. Jaworski has |
|
| recommended approval of the Natural Features Setback Reduction as well |
|
| as the small amount of activity that would take place within the wetland. |
|
| Based on the latest revised plan, the impact to the wetland is slightly less. |
|
| Mr. Davis noted that all of the activity is occurring at the north and |
|
| northeastern portion of the site. He explained that the original design |
|
| approved by the Planning Commission on August 1, 1995 had a |
|
| sedimentation basin which outletted directly into the wetland. At that time, |
|
| there was no encroachment whatsoever on any buffer requirement. Dr. |
|
| Jaworski raised some concern in his August 16, 1995 letter regarding the |
|
| amount of water that would go into the wetland and, in effect, cause a |
|
| change in the vegetation. At that point, they redesigned the entire storm |
|
| outletting system and re-routed their drainage system up to the northern |
|
| portion of the site just south of Milton Ave. They created a separate |
|
| detention basin which is located on the plan in the very northeastern corner |
|
| of the site directly east of the tennis courts. Their intention was to |
|
| completely bypass the wetland system and go directly from the detention |
|
| basin over to the existing drain, staying completely out of the wetland. Upon |
|
| a second review by Dr. Jaworski and as noted in his October 5, 1995 letter, |
|
| he comments that they weren't putting enough water into the wetland and he |
|
| was concerned that that also might cause a change in vegetation. Now, |
|
| they are on the third revision and they have followed Dr. Jaworski's |
|
| suggestion to re-route the system along the north and create a detention |
|
| basin in the northeast corner. They are now proposing to take water from |
|
| the detention basin and discharge that into the wetland at a controlled rate, |
|
| which is equal to the agricultural flow of 0.2 cfs. |
|
| Continuing, he noted that, on the north side, their storm line does encroach |
|
| on the 25-foot buffer because they are avoiding the right-of-way of Milton |
|
| Ave. They are not going into the wetland at all on the northern side of the |
|
| site. The only occurrence that requires a wetland permit from the DNR is |
|
| when they discharge from the detention facility into the wetland. Because of |
|
| the invert elevations and this control structure, they can't get water from the |
|
| detention basin into the wetland without creating a small swale. The |
|
| drawing shows it being about 60 feet long and involves an excavation of |
|
| about 35 cubic yards and is considered a minor permit application by the |
|
| MDNR. They are in the process of trying to get this project up and going as |
|
| soon as possible. He noted that this project has been on Planning |
|
| Commission agendas for many years. They got involved in this project |
|
| about a year ago and they have all of their funding in place; they are out to |
|
| bid right now; they have paid all their fees to the city and are in the process |
|
| of getting their bonds in place, and ground breaking is scheduled for next |
|
