08-21-1989 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

<7torLde ly B* 0 mm '■\ '': .1 •■:v^*,; \'mm^m si'i '- •• • •.- • ■ : ‘ 7'»v^' j7:'r7’ '7-^^ Kf« T.v->;; •jT'-:. ''' ;> !.;r^ ••- ■-•: « ■-'• = ■' ■ "r mm-rS h -«i\V ....- .:-•• '■. i'}^^:l;., •■ mmM '=■; • V •i^Ti ■•: V ;,*vv mm'-RlilM V Vi- .7 m-^.<*mr:-.-m:: aWTU,-** -it>?i *!,■•i7-| 7. ^■• tm P ^ '. : .r 'i-l- - '■■■ '■ ■■ . ■ : • ■ vr- !!•■ kippp^:p;p:;--. • • •••. ■ X - 'P ^ ,. \ V..;-V.::- *. ; ..•. , ^ ;.. ■•- 'i V ,% . , . it.;"' =■:■••■■■' 1^ %•■■'■ :J. ‘..li i.l v:* .•7;-.V 1!^ width variance but does front on a public roadway.Lot 2 will access from Leaf Street. Again, the assumed house site is to the rear, overlooking the creek. This lot also needs a width variance.It. DrainageDrainage is a concern on this property only in that provision must be made to protect significant drainageways that traverse the property. "Stubbs Bay Creek" follows along the northwest lot line of the property. A detailed flood study of the drainage area was done in the 1970*s and floodplain elevations have been defined. The City will require granting of a Conservation and Flowage Easement coinciding with the floodplain elevations along the creek. Staff's preliminary review indicates that lot areas east of the drainage easement will still exceed the required 2.0 acres in area by a wide margin. Both access corridors are traversed by a minor creek/gully leading from a pond east of Leaf Street. Culverts and driveway grading must be approved by the City Engineer to ensure no restrictions in flow through this drainageway. III. Setbacks Based on the Zoning Code definition of rear lot line and rear yard. Exhibit J indicates the setbacks that will be required for these lots. IV. Septic Concerns Applicant's Engineer has submitted soil testing information for primary and alternate sites. The clay soils on the site are mottled at a 2'-3’ depth, indicating mound systems will be neces:;ary. We have some concerns as follows: a.) Primary site for Lot 2 appears to be within a minor drainage swale from the property tm the northeast. The alternate site on Lot 2 is a much better site. Wo would prefer to see the primary site moved to a location away from the swale and further back from the southerly lot line, since a mound in this area will have a potential impact on the soil>water regime of the neighboring properties due to topog raphy. b.) The primary site for Lot 1 is not in a swale but should also bo moved nortnwesterly to reduce its impact on neighboring properties. c.) The alternate site for Lot 1 needs tc be better n't,: Ar ;-r: SSI "S' S-'r- Svi:^ ■'■1^ m, *' i: J :• .•■■■ . 'SS ' • • -J*---' vAA;fev- ; ! ''i-V > mm :-A - - .A '■ : ■ -.i. V ■;•/ •■•;■: VA.- A A- • :v ^ ' ■"S' <1. • ___ . ’ •. - V ^ »s.. i V.-- m\ : -m . A'a^.v. * SS.-:'‘Ai.SAV'>5J KS'VS- .:v' SAi I i v:y.r . :.SA m:mmm • V- > :T:- ‘ , i Area, subd i V There for on proper 0.9 ac potent L). Th no Ion' neighbr that tl determi study a Staff R Anderso tmmuMmm