03-18-1991 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1457 March 14, 1991 Page 4 of 8 Review Exhibit L, staff's sketch of drainageway along eastern boundaries of Lot 5, Block 3 and Lot 1, Block 2. Now that road is realigned to the east, a 15" underground pipeculvert is propsed from the retention area on the south side of road outlot to the north of the proposed house and septic locations on Lot 1, Block 2. In fact, the culvert would be placed between house and septic. The area of this 15' wide drainage easement must also be excluded from dry buildable of Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 5, Block 3. Review staff sketch. There are two alternatives for redirecting drainage from this area (Exhibit L). The best of the alternatives would be to obtain an easement through A. Stubbs property and channelize drainage ’ ^ veen the shared lot lines of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. The area o tne drainage easements would not be excluded from the dry buildable area of each lot. If applicant is unable to obtain the necessary easements through the Stubbs property, then it may run along the lot lines. If none of the alternatives are acceptable, applicant's engineer may provide another solution, but, clearly, where you have lots that are at the minimum required 2 acres in area, the issue of drainage easements encroaching ouildable envelopes will create a major impact on the dry buildable area. Drainage easements must be shown over all wetland/flood plain areas at or below 970 elevation within the outlots. This should also include Outlot E along the east boundary of the property that is intersected by the drainage from the Goldsmith property. As already noted earlier, the plat road will no longer encroach the wetlands/flood plain areas at or below the 970 elevation. The land alterations proposed in Outlot C and Outlot D will be reviewed under the conditional use permit/variance phase of the application. As for the grading proposed along the southwest boundari- of the property, it is not clear whether the proposed land alterations will successfully carry run-off to the drainage ditch on Watertown Road. In any case, this is the requirement of the City. Please note the. area of the pond easement or drainage easeent within Lot 1, Block 3 has been excluded from the dry buildable envelope. Septic Please review Exhibit D, Mike Gaffron's comments concerning the revised 12-lot plat. Gaffron asks for additional documentation from the site evaluator indicating that the shift in drainfield sites is feasible for both Lot 2, Block 2 and Lot 5, Block 3. Although he has not noted it is his memo, he is concerned that the drainage culvert is shown between the proposed house and septic sites on Lot 1, Block 2. His memo asks that the second drainfield site on Lot 2, Block 1 be shown on the preliminary plan, with the revised plan he asks that the following septic sites be fenced and protected prior to any land alterations as follows: J