Laserfiche WebLink
developers had not changed substantially. He indicated that one reason that <br />discussions with concerned organizations and permit applications had not <br />proceeded were related to awaiting. the results of the present deliberations. <br />The engineering aspect of this plan proposes large, interconnected drywells. <br />From a first flush standpoint, it has greater capacity than other past <br />projects principally due to the elevation considerations. According to -Mr. <br />Bramlett, the pond presently fills with cold water from Juday creek and <br />discharges water warmed in the ponds back to Juday Creek. The reconfigured <br />pond will increase holding capacity, discharge cooler water, and create a <br />wetland to filter surface water. <br />Becki Moffett -Moore questioned whether there was any data indicating that the <br />proposed discharge system would discharge cold water. Mr. Bramlett indicated <br />that he had no such data. She then asked Mr. New whether the Army Corps <br />permits did not include a historical component. Mr. New responded that they <br />did, but to his knowledge, the list provided to him by the State Division of <br />Historic Preservation and Archaeology did not indicate that the site was not <br />listed in either the National or State Register. <br />Addressing Mr. Bramlett, Mr Davis stated that he was aware that this was not a <br />proper forum for water quality issues and did not want to hear excuses for not <br />having proper consultations regarding this process. <br />Mr. Oxian reinforced the view that the discussion needed to be limited to the <br />historical issues. He asked Mr. Bramlett to indicate on his plan where the <br />presently existing features of the Gardens remained. Mr. Bramlett indicated <br />that the only remaining architectural feature remaining was a retaining wall <br />west of the creek which is unaffected by the design. Fr. Bullene sensed that <br />• the response was not comprehending the question and clarified that the <br />commission wished to know what features remained extant at this time rather <br />than after completion of the proposed project. Mr. Bramlett allowed that he <br />had misunderstood the question. 'Mr. Fedder interjected that the river house <br />was gone, the walkways and walls have been removed and concluded that the only <br />remaining features were the aforementioned retaining wall and the ponds <br />themselves. Mr. Bramlett then roughly indicated the area of the present ponds, <br />noting that fill dirt had been piled high around them on the north, east, and <br />south. <br />Mr. Sporleder noted that this piling of fill was effectively eliminated the <br />possibility -of major flood mediation. <br />Fr. Bullene reiterated that the concern of this hearing was historical and not <br />to discuss other environmental issues. lie asked if there was anything of <br />historical value worth preserving at the site at this time. He did indicate <br />his sympathy with the concerns expressed regarding bad citizenship on the part <br />of the developers and the flood control' and ecological issues but felt the <br />commission needed to focus on its specified duties. Mr. Fedder indicated that <br />in his opinion there was nothing of value or importance left at this site. Mr. <br />Oxian reminded him of the wall remaining along the west side of the creek. Mr. <br />Shefer of the Ralph Wi11iams Associates produced a set of photographs showing <br />the conditions of the site in its deteriorated state and including said wall <br />which remains today. Mr.. Shefer indicated that all architectural elements <br />above the water line had been removed, but indicated that some concrete pond <br />borders were existing and some features might remain below the water level. <br />Mr. Oxian requested any other questions from the commission. Mr. Fine stated <br />that the Blake Gardens were listed on a statewide Survey of Planned ' <br />• Landscapes filed with the DHPA in 1994 or 1995 _which listed the site as <br />significant and therefore would indicate a review pursuant to Section 106 of <br />the Historic Preservation Act related to Army Corps of Engineers permit <br />process. <br />Mr. Talley spoke as a member of the special committee which had been appointed <br />.to meet with the developers regarding this proposed designation. Ile noted that <br />