Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1103 <br />February 12, 1987 <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />Staff has enclosed the hydrogeologic study. Exhibit J, for <br />your review. Although the report was coimnissioned by the <br />applicant for a proposed demolition dump use, much of the study <br />and reporting on existing conditions is excellent background for <br />this application although conducted some 14 years age Note the <br />1974 application would call for dumping in the surrounding wet­ <br />land area. Staff has enclosed a portion of a U.S.G.S. map that <br />designated the original dump site as a wetland area. Our current <br />wetland maps do not. <br />The Planning Commission will table all action on this <br />application until all agencies have had their opportunity to <br />review the proposal. Our task for this meeting will be to listen <br />to the comments of the neighbors and affected landowners, to <br />define the scope of the application and to answer any questions <br />of the public or applicant. <br />Issues to be resolved: <br />1. Impact of fill proposed on drainage retention and <br />downstream drainage to Stubbs Bay? <br />2. Will the fill have a negative impact on the existing <br />ecology or intensify seepage? <br />3. What special design features should be considered in the <br />review of a final grading plan? berming, ditching, slope <br />ratios? <br />4. Hov do we coordinate a fill project that will last a <br />year and a half? <br />a) <br />b) <br />c) <br />d) <br />Inspection schedule - staff - engineer <br />Staged fill areas - need to stablize ground cover <br />Erosion control <br />Testing - soil borings <br />5. Need to discuss execution of a developer's agreement and <br />letter of credit to assure completion of grading and <br />seeding. <br />6. Planning Commission comments. <br />J