Laserfiche WebLink
k <br />r <br />Zoning File #1670 <br />August 13, 1991 <br />Page 2 <br />In letters dated April 9 and 19, 1991, City staff advised <br />the property owners that if they wished to resolve this <br />encroachment, their options would include a lot line <br />rearrangement or the creation of an easement. It was staff's <br />recommendation that the mound not be reworked to place i\. within <br />the property boundaries, because such work would have high <br />potential for damaging the entire system from construction <br />traffic and site compaction (see staff letters of April 9 and <br />19). It was also determined that removal of portions of the toe <br />of the mound without a major revision to the rock bed and <br />downhill slope, could potentially result in seepage towards the <br />property line. <br />The two property owners were able to work out an agreement <br />for the creation of an easement within the Young property. The <br />Young's will still get credit for this area for zoning purposes, <br />and this will avoid the problem of the complex reconfiguration of <br />lot lines which would be necessary to result in no lot area <br />revise CMS, since Grabek's lot is just 2.0 acres. <br />Staff Recoamendation <br />Staff recommends approval of the proposed easement as the <br />most reasonable solution for this septic system encroachment. <br />(This situation anti one o< In-i on Si] vet Keadow Drive have <br />prompted the Inspections Department to require additional lot <br />line staking for all new septic system installations and repairs, <br />so that the potential for future similar situations will be <br />reduced.} <br />Isv <br />X