February 1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. and that his clients had commissioned J.F. New and Associates and Peirce Associates to perform necessary engineering and design. He noted that representatives of those firms were present. He indicated that the anticipated designs would result in environmental quality superior 'to the present situation for those downstream along Juday Creek and requested the commission tobring this issue to .,a conclusion by not recommending the site for designation and, indicating that the engineering consultants had brief comments, yielded the floor to them. Mike Bramlett of Peirce and Associates, civil engineers, stated that the proposed site plan is feasible from an engineering condition and indicated that the ponds in their proposed reconfiguration will improve environmental conditions along Juday Creek. Justin New of J.F. New & Associates echoed Mr. Bramlett's comments, indicating that storm water handling will improve the water quality engineering at Juday creek and that the proposed ponding will equal or improve the mitigation of such water, thus concluding the owners objections to designation as a Local Landmark. Mr. Oxian requested others attending the meeting wishing to address this issue to do so. J.C. Sporleder, representing the St. Joseph Chapter of the Izak Walton League, read a prepared letter from the Izak Walton League which is attached to these minutes. Mr Fedder indicated that he would like Mr. New to respond to this letter. However Mr. Oxian denied this request. Mr. Davis of the Izak Walton League and Friends of Juday Creek indicated that • over the past five years he had been involved in citizen activities regarding many developments which would affect the environment along Juday. Creek. Of all the projects of which lie was aware, this was the only case in which the developer had proceeded with significant sitework and in which the developers and their designers had failed to meet with and cooperate with these organizations in addressing their concerns. He further noted that another engineering firm associated with the present development had met with their group and subsequently relieved of responsibility regarding this project. Noting that he had worked well in the past with Mr. Bramlett and Peirce Engineering, concluded that this developer was uncooperative. He further indicated that according to his information there were presently no permit applications yet filed for this project and thus no indication of the developer's proposal or intentions for the property or the protection of affected environments. He indicated that plans which he had seen indicated extensive coverage of the site with pavement and little remaining land area for mediation of storm water. Mr. Oxian stated that at the time that the commission. undertook consideration of this designation, lie had specifically appointed a special committee to work with the developer, in consultation with his attorney. Instead of having cooperation of the developer the commission finds itself in a compromised situation of considering a demolished site for Landmark designation. He discussed the issue of the powers and standards for Landmarks as opposed to register listings. lie indicated that he was disturbed at having been dealt with in such poor faith by the developer. He then indicated that Mr. Fedder might now have an opportunity to respond to the preceding public comment. Mr. Fedder asked Mr. Bramlett to address the comments about the floodway and permits. Mr. Bramlett brought forward his site plan board. He stated that at this time all permits had been applied for which were required to be applied for regarding the activities undertaken at the site to date. lie noted that there were several permits yet to be applied for including Department of Natural Resources Construction in a floodway permit, Army Corps of Engineers wetland fill permit. He indicated that the plan brought to him by the