Agenda - Council - 05/05/1980 - Special

Home

'J'O TPY~P SI.]D]I.~EI.,IT (/,,N EI:~OS]ON AJ~D ?,ED]];.~ii, I,,,'.rAT'IOIg PLAN 5HA1,L BE 51.IBI~]TTED PE]OR TO 601.~YJ'J~UC'J']ON ON A1,L S],OF]~ GHEATER THAN 3~ E)~PJ~E.SS]NG TJ~E CA1.CUI.tYfED ~gTJC]PA'J'ED GHOSS SOIL LOSS (EXPRESSED ]N 3'OI~S/AC~E/YE~) BOTH D~}HING AND ~"fER CO1'~S'J'J~UCT]ON. Page 69, p~ragraph 2: The a~plicant can demonstrate that development d~r~ng and after constroc'tion can be accomplished without ~ncressing erosion, ~d ihat there is proper utilization of controls to. reduce ru~o£f to non-destroct~ve levels. ?age ?1, pa~.agraph ll: An erosion ~n5 sedimentation control plan ~ndicating the type~ ]ocat~on~ 'and necessary technical information on control measures %o be la~en both during and after construction including a stal.ement e>:press~ng the ca]cu]aled anticipated gross soil loss expressed in ton/acre/year both during and after construction.- ~In response to your paragraph l( c),o please refer .to page 71, paragraph ~ of referer~ce (a): ~ landscape plan drawn to an appropriate scale, including dimensions amd distances amd the location, t.~lpe, s~ze~ and description of all e>:]st]ng vegetaiion, clearly locating and describing ,.tony vegetation proposed for removal amd all proposed landscape materials w~ich be added to %he site as part of the 8eve]opment. Further, refer to page 72, paragraph ]Z~ and page 7~, "river setback" of referee]ce (a). ])age 72, pa~'agraph 14: A description of the method to be provided for vehj. mL~r and pedestrian access to the proposed development and public access to' the river and/or public river view op]~ort~mities both before' and after development; a de.scription of the development's imoact on e×isting views of and along the river. In respqnse to you~~ paragraph l(d), the City sees no need for a sea plane policy as the river is not navigatible for such a craft. In response 1. o your paragraph' 1 (e) 1, The City is realigning, defining smd ctel~neating this line on a map mud all of the Critical A~rca will be in the URB/~N SESVICE AREA.,. and the City is in the process of adopting 'the Wild a~]d Scenic Ordinance. -I~ response .to .your pmragraph l(e)2, the answer to this is that when the Urban Service ~Lrea line is changed the rural open space will be non- sppli cab] e. In response to your paragraph l(e)3, please refer to enclosure (1) and (2). In response to'your paragraph l(e)~, refer to page 40, paragraph. 1 -- (The C~ty intends to delete the 45 foot for con~nercial buildings as it is in conflict with otLr zoning code) , All residential development within the Critical A~ea shall ~e limited in height to 35 feet and ~5 feet for Commercial. Page 2