Agenda - 03-17-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

v, I .• -'' 'r ■0, , ..••• (I IVAPe"Wei° PLAIN P4 l 01 & 80• A/ ■AI OTE .., At ri v K y i&', 092._ Polatty said there was agreement on all aspects of the project except sewer service which was still under discussion. AGENDA ITEM 5: Luce indicated the additional 6. 23. 10.4 and 6.23. 4 to their zoning language. Irvin felt there was still a problem with the buffer calcluation on 6.23.1. He understood that the width of the fuffer was the quantity to be determined, but that variable "X" was unknown in the measurement of vertical rise. He requested the formula be clari- fied. The buffer is to be calculated by taking the average elevation of the vertical rise 250 feet from the flood plan, and multiplying it by 4 and adding the minimum 50 feet. Irvin seconded the motion. MOTION AMENDED: Irvin clarified that the 250 feet extended from the center of the stream, not the flood plain. Kizer noted taking the highest measurement or spot measurements would not suit. Shanklig suggested that a fixed buffer be set with the S&E specialist responsible for altering the _..., minimum for a particular site. He inquired why we should have a specialist if we do not use her. Luce noted 6.23.1 addresses that issue. Polatty indicated state law required an adequate buffer to prevent sedimentation but that no one known what adequate is. Kizer felt, that even with a specialist a formula was needed to avoid arbitrariness and allow public to be informed. Shanklin suggested it should be measured from the flood plan. Wilson noted the problem with steep vs. shallow banks. Kizer questioned the measurement formula noting the problem with contour change. He suggested taking the average elevation for calculation purposes, not 50 feet.