Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2279 <br />August 14, 1997 <br />Page 6 <br />80’ paved cul-de-sac, could have a significant impact on the character of the neighborhood. <br />Summary of Required Variances <br />1. <br />2, <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />6. <br />7. <br />8 <br />Lot width for Lot 1. <br />Lot width for Lot 2. <br />Lot width for Lot 3. <br />Drainfield setback from Basin C for primar>' and alternate sites in Lot 1. <br />Drainfield setback from Basin E for alternate site on Lot 2. <br />Drainfield setback from Basin E for alternate site on Lot 3. <br />Lack of alternate drainfield site for Lot 4. <br />Wetland setback variance for excavation to create NURP pond adjacent to Basin E. <br />Additional Information Necessary for Application to be Considered Complete <br />1.Septic testing reports showing the viability of the drainfield sites as oriented and shaped as <br />showTi on the provided plat and grading and drainage plans, OR re\ ise the plat to match the <br />information in the reports already on file. <br />2.Complete wetland delineation report (the information provided on the boundary and <br />topographic survey appears to be excerpts from such a report). <br />Issues for Consideration <br />Will the City grant the necessary lot width variances for Lots 1,2 and 3? <br />Will the City inspector grant the necessary variances for proposed drainfield sites in Lots 1, <br />2 and 3? This determination relies on having accurate and complete septic information... <br />Given that there is no precedent to support the request for platting of Lot 4 absent an <br />alternate drainfield site, should the City even consider this as a legitimate proposed <br />subdivision? <br />Given that the drainfield sites as presented on the preliminary plat do not match the shape <br />or orientation of sites in the septic testing reports on file, and given that applicants' site <br />evaluator has confirmed that the sites as presented in a number of eases will not work, how <br />can the City continue its review without that infomiation? <br />Given the potential impacts on the adjacent house to the southwest, is there any justification <br />to allow Outlot B to become merely a narrow driveway corridor, and grant variances for lot <br />area for Lot 2, which cannot meet 150% of the lot area requirement due to a lack of total <br />i