10-16-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2031 June 13, 1995 Page 2 Review of Application The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of Lx>t 2. Block 1, Bill Kelleys Land. It is staffs understanding that Lot I, the most western lot, will be retained for a possible resubdivision. Lot 2, the most easterly lot, measures 195’ at street lot line, and not 165.44’ as shown. Lot line can be slightly altered so that lot width is increased 5’ at the 50’ setback line. As already noted, the driveway easement will have a major impact on the potential division of Lot 1 in the future. Based upon the directives of the code, the area of the vehicular easement must be excluded from dry land area Lot 4, adjusted at 3.74 acres. Review Exhibit F, Engineer reports, that he would approve the shared access at this controlled intersection, but the shared easement would have a negative impact on future subdivision plans. Staff reviewed a potential curb cut at the east lot line of Lot 2 at the top of the hill. Engineer notes that an alternate access at the easterly lot line would satisfy sight distance requirements. Weekman ’s report. Exhibit G, recommends that the application be tabled until applicante ccniultant provides additional septic testing along with scaled drawings indicating the drain field dimensions, lot lines, hardcover, and well setbacks. The consultant has also recommended that the existing system that serves the house now located on Ix)t 2 be used to serve the proposed new residence. The consultant has labeled the system as a mound system. Weekman notes that based on the presumed year of installation (1960’s) that mound systems did not exist in that day. The consultant has not provided diagrams to scale showing the exact size, location, orientation of the site or the property line setbacks. The surveyor should also locate the soU borings and perc tests holes on the preliminary plan as requested in preliminary appUcation information. Another prime concern is the fact that we have not received a preliminary plat survey signed by a licensed surveyor. Existing structures have not been determined from field inspections but from the City ’s topographic maps. Review Exhibit E 1-3, the application information clearly asks for detailed survey information when filing preliminary plat. Staff Recommendation Staff must recommend the tabling of the application until we are in receipt of a preliminary survey and additional septic testing and mapping so that we are able to confirm all code requirements have been met. Staff will attempt to meet with the applicant prior to our meeting so that we may discuss in more detail the issues that must be addressed by applicant. jb