09-18-1989 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

:':. y - ; immB■]M£M;^:--;;-V 'T ■'■' ••':•' :L'‘iillL w« •■■■ ■ i ??Fr i,•; i /,:;. • ^';t C:''ii"--.Vy^^y’’:-'■•• !■** ■ . ;.i.&MyyM : m PT5W 7 ■ •ET^ m-’ .■ U.; •• i1^^^::'S':i:S-^;: V-> --:V^ li, ■■■■. ' V- . :■ •:":*■ - ^' ’ 8^ v^-': 'V" .■ >, Kv...;/ S.il'.'i''S . ':'l^.i8HB^’'i‘-' ':^ illmym mu y :- - m tmm i^y . 4wmm ■ijasmm li m ll;::'- mm' ills'•: /:mii •A :.y,^MmBmm W^m^M Byrmmy r>. • ^^-^rnym :W ;: ■ ■ ■^;- .f s‘^: -: |S-SiSS'«5«® ;'0'' :>;-H^:■.^^'i;'W^ S'/•-r/S////'^ ;//;;\S:c^H! Zoning Fil« #1457 September 15» 1989 Page 4 of 8in both Sund.. roport and .ppUc.nt'.F), th.y note that the portion of tha **,road location does not contain cattails and vegetation found in marsh-like wetland **^**** ^5? ^j.„cticnasked that this consideration be made only for the nf rh* roadway through the wetland and is not asking rfdeslgnation of the wetland nor for additional gjjff the 970- elevation for residential or septic <3evelop«ent. Staff would have to question Mr. Carlson’s position that ®J lection of section 10.55 does not l.nclude a ®* wetlands based on vegetation and soil types. Please review tho pertinent sections within Section 10*55 noted above* The Flannin? Coemiesion may seek more the actual aoila clas.ification. within the road corridor to »ake a final determination. The various watersheds that make up the Property have been deplc«3 Jn the drain.,, .ketch (Exhibit P). IJ. ’^iority ct the northern portion of the property drains to the vest. **ote the ^rf^fined drainaoeway in Lot 2, Block 3 at the northeast corner. 152 Ui«in| dr.in.,«ay will be «!<>««'!/“«''« ”52 S?.iVa,".S2y ‘d°r/i“n2‘?r*4 ^"h'2^2;t2th‘f.t ?2 srocrif ‘5of.*3r2^r55\rBi^o2j east and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 drain predominantly to the sedlnienb pond in bhe southeast corner. Brief Review of Hardships and Findings Hoted by AppllcMt and ^Ue25t'."<»ault«.t in con.lder.tlon of WarKoce for BQcroaclseiit of Wetlands -* 1 Increased hardcover from a road 2-3 times lof^er would create more storm water run-off and environmental burden on surrounding land. The use of 1/2 acre of ^^e wooded area will have less environmental impact on the / In addition, applicant will provide .3 acres of replacement for further retention. 2. Lose of major portion, of treea if peripheral road ie constructed. Major visual and aesthetic impact on adjacent ^ the east as there are no plantings to P*^®^J^® ^ roadway and the lower elevations along east lot line. 3. mmrny By'r::mB-'B:ymy;i. ': A-' ;■:■ ik.' B-'-m-€- s,a 'a/'-'a : bb a.; / ^ mm •• ..;•va-..; :::.-^-f-.: b B' i #:■ ,.w . ■ •■ - ,:A