Laserfiche WebLink
, � . , <br /> Christine Mattson <br /> Subject: 140 Leaf Street <br /> Attachments: resol 3374.pdf; RU EASMENT.PDF; DU EASEMENT.PDF; 140 Leaf aerial contours.pdf; 140 <br /> leaf sewer.pdf; 140 Leaf FIRM Map.pdf <br /> Hi Gary—I hope you're doing well. I received your voicemail on 140 Leaf Street and have some info for you. <br /> Pasted into the email is a snip of map layer info pulled from the attached map listing the general info about the lot: <br /> zoning district, floodplain, etc... I've also included a number of links to the City code requirements about the following <br /> info: <br /> RR-1B—setbacks = 50'front/street setback and 30'side yard setbacks plus 75'creek setback <br /> Shoreland/Creek Setback = 75'from creek OHWL- Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) means the boundary of public <br /> waters and wetlands, and shall be an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a <br /> sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation <br /> changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses,the ordinary high water level <br /> is the elevation of the top of the bank of the channel. For reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary high water level is <br /> the operating elevation of the normal summer pool. The designated OHWL has been determined by the state department <br /> of natural resources for certain water bodies as shown in section 78-1217. <br /> Hardcover Limits -Tier 1 = 25% <br /> Structural Coverage Limit = 15% <br /> Wetland Setbacks There is a wetland on the property in the general area of the creek. <br /> Please read through the information in this email and let me know if you have additional questions. We've been getting <br /> calls on this property recently so it would be helpful to get interested buyers the correct information up front. I'm happy <br /> to help. <br /> Also, I've attached an approval resolution from 1995 to allow an addition to the home to be built. This resolution had a <br /> condition (#1 on page 3)that the properly owners grant easements to the City as noted. I don't know how we <br /> proceeded in 1995 to allow the addition to be constructed as I cannot find confirmation in the file that these easements <br /> were actually recorded. I did find the easement documents as signed by the property owners (see attached). I suspect <br /> that the easements are still necessary and may become part of the discussion to rebuild a new home on this lot. If <br /> Jarnes still own the property are they amenable to signing new documents to grant the easements as required in 1995? <br /> Have a nice weekend. <br /> Melanie <br /> � <br />