My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Application Completeness Review
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2015
>
PDT 15-3
>
Application Completeness Review
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/23/2015 4:00:35 PM
Creation date
12/22/2015 8:39:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
15
File Sequence Number
3
Application Name
Wendell Canyon
Document Type
Application Completeness Review
Document_Date
12/17/2015
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Table 2 of the arborist report. Please also provide additional discussion regarding the <br />proposed tree removals within the "Tract A" wetland. Why are these trees being removed? <br />South Hills Study: The proposal does not appear to be consistent with relevant policies from <br />the South Hills Study. The most notable policies encourage clustering of development in areas <br />with shallowest slopes, lowest elevations, least amount of vegetation,-and lowest visual <br />impact. The proposed grouping of lots on the south side of "Tract A" appear to substantially. <br />comply with these policies; however, the most northeastern and northwestern lots (north of <br />the existing east-west Wendell Lane segment) are sited at relatively high elevations and within <br />areas that include a combination of significant trees and/or natural features. As discussed <br />above, it also appears that a number of proposed lots fall within Goal 5 conservation areas; <br />this contradicts the overarching goals of the South Hills Study. <br />Site Restoration/Maintenance: Staff recommends that the proposal addresses site restoration <br />and the long-term maintenance of open space areas. For example, the narrative and wetland <br />delineation suggest the site is ridden with invasive species (i.e. non-native blackberries and <br />poison oak). Continuous management of invasive/toxic species could prove to make the site <br />more accessible for recreational and maintenance purposes. Further, replantings should be <br />proposed within open space areas to mitigate removal of significant trees. <br />• Standards Review: A Standards Review will be required because the proposed north-south <br />street will intersect a Goal 5 conservation area. Additional components of the project may <br />also require standards review, such as any private access crossings and discharge of <br />stormwater to protected streams. Further, it appears that the application will need to <br />address requirements of the Water Quality (WQ) overlay for the stream segment in the <br />northwest portion of the site. <br />• Elevation Drawings: Please include notes on Sheets A2 and A3 indicating earth tone paint <br />colors and proposed roof pitch. <br />• Fencing and Landscaping: On the site plans, please show the type and size of existing or <br />proposed fencing and/or landscape buffering. Note that fencing is not allowed within WR <br />setback areas. <br />• Duplicate Plan Sheets: The plan set includes duplicate copies of various plan sheets. Please <br />eliminate the redundancy. <br />• Attached Documents: A revised narrative does not need to include a full copy of the South <br />Hills Study. <br />• Stormwater: A public stormwater system along rear lot lines and the piping of a natural <br />drainage way will not be supported by the Public Works Department (see full comment on <br />page 2 of the Public Works Completeness Review Form). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.