Laserfiche WebLink
;u^8 for th® <br />8 for Lots 2» <br />the proposed <br />5 protect the <br />I area within <br />Lot 3, Block <br />i septic test <br />)f the septic <br />staff would <br />>y the roadway <br />le relocated <br />hwest within <br />tail on the <br />Lot I, Block <br />le southeast <br />sust provide <br />and 7, Block <br />Block 3» end <br />8 review of <br />ovided silt <br />adjacent to <br />jd along the <br />at are to be <br />nt has been <br />ince to the <br />I approved by <br />review land” <br />the proposed <br />to the review <br />must provide <br />I preliminary <br />S’* ■. ~ i- ■ . iw .. <br />ptic report, <br />lat he cannot <br />rsptember 25th. <br />id because the <br />examination <br />•’.••sV..'" ' ( V ' <br />.■0';mMtm <br />Zoning File #1457 Septeiaber 15, 1989 Page 7 of 8The area for development of this property is severely limited by the wetlands area to the north and the severe slopes of the property. All of the systems have been tested out as <br />mounds. It is most important to locate systems within areas of <br />0-6% slope. We run into more risks of failure where mounds are <br />placed on 6-12% slopes. Such mound systems also require greater <br />downslope dimensions and sandy soils. This property does not <br />contain such sandy soils. Mike Caffron has also noted to me that <br />where septic systems have been placed on lots that exceed 6% <br />slope, the septic areas have not been expanded to reflect the <br />expansion of downslope dimensions. All septic systems have been <br />placed on the property with the exact same size septic envelope. <br />Staff has reviewed the preliminary grading plans in relation <br />to proposed septic sites and the proposed density of development <br />now pushed to its maximum. We must caution applicant that if <br />septic systems are destroyed either through road construction or <br />later on with house construction, that these severely limited <br />"tight" lots may be rendered unbuildable. Gaffron confirms that <br />the septic test sites are good but they may be the only available <br />areas for septic development based on the location of wetlands, <br />severe slope conditions, and the proposed land alterations within <br />certain lots of the subdivision. <br />As usual, staff will require snow fencing around the septic <br />test sites prior to any land alterations or. the property but it <br />may become even more important to the developer and seller of <br />these properties that future land owners ^e made aware of the <br />limits of these proposed building sites. Wnat are the Planning <br />Commission's concerns regarding this issue? <br />Dralnaqe/Storm Water Review - <br />Staff has yet to receive a copy of the report filed with the <br />Minnehaha Creek Watershed District that would allow an evaluation <br />of the storm water treatment plan. There is adequate detention <br />in the northern portions of the property. Staff is concerned <br />that the detention pond in the southeast corner needs special <br />evaluation and review. Cook may have already received the <br />information and will be able to provide additional information to <br />staff prior to your meeting. <br />Final Review Ccsneents - <br />In summarizing the review of this preliminary subdivision <br />application, staff notes the following xey issues to be resolved <br />by the Planning Commission; <br />7 <br />.-.v • 7 j i <br />f- V: V.- <br />t: . <br />...