Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 3 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
All the Planning Commission members thought that some adjustment to the lots would be needed (in order to meet ordinance requirements on slope),” said Luke.
Compton responded that he’d asked Goode’s engineers “to double check to make sure everything was in order (before applying for final plat approval) and they told me it was.’’
Erosion Controls Proposed
In addition to the planners’ findings that the proposed subdivision doesn’t comply with ordinance regulations on slopes, Luke reported on a second letter—this one from soil conservationist Bill Adams — recommending changes in Goode’s erosion and sedimentation control plan for Mountain Slopes. Adams's suggestions included building an earthen perimeter dike between the Jordan River and subdivision home sites, reseeding bare space on three lots, graveling the sub-base in the road and mulching road banks immediately following grading, and treating gullies on two lots.
“Unfortunately, we weren’t told of these suggestions until today,” said Compton. He maintained that there could be no question on approving his client’s rezoning application and added that any questions on slopes in the subdivision lots could be worked out jointly between Goode’s engineers and county engineer Fanning Baumgardner.
“The slope question has never come up before," Compton continued. “We though any problems had been solved by dropping that 15th lot.”
(At the May 18 meeting of the Planning Commission—two months after the 15th lot had been deleted from Goode’s final plat—the planners discussed excessive slopes with Goode’s engineer Jim Harris. At that time, Harris maintained that the intent of the ordinance was to
T
92.6%