Laserfiche WebLink
388 <br /> uly 24,1991 (7) <br /> Roll was called with Jall councilnmn voting yes except <br /> Councilman Overstreet who was not in attendance. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> Allan Ciffen, Planning Department, summarized the issues <br /> discussed as follows: <br /> 1. Consider alternatives to Category IV wetland and stream 0 <br /> standards so fewer homeowners and builders are subject to <br /> the preservation and buffer requirements. <br /> 2. Consider lowering the wetland alteration mitigation ratios. <br />! 3. Clarify the features that would be exempted from stream and, <br /> wetland requirements, such as grass-lined swales,detention <br /> facilities,drainage ditches,etc. <br /> 4. tLIff;Nuirement for a construction activity <br /> 5. Reconsider excluding the ESA's from the calculation of <br /> minimum lot area for single family zones. <br /> 6. Reconsider the current let size averaging section of the <br /> code to give developers more incentive to save ESA's and <br /> still be able to develop single family lots, using the 1 <br /> County's ordinance as an example, with the possibility of <br /> allowing lots to be as small as 5,000 square feet. <br /> .8'inD"emergen,,""DObllo agencY,""public utilitY." <br /> 8. Reconsider the "wetland mitigation banking" provisions <br /> related out of basin or watershed locations. <br /> 9. Consider exempting shoreline areas from City wetland <br /> standards when proposals would be subject to the Corps cf <br /> Engineers 404(B)Permit re.ew 0 <br /> 10.Consider other methods to allow the transfer of development <br /> rights (TOR) to occur in single family zones besides the <br /> Planned Residential Development(PED)process. <br /> 11.=.2gt1d7hrmottieon:fl:luenateme". re""ing "net " <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br />