07-12-1993 Council Minutes2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

p Zoning Memo /S'1821 July 7, 1993 Page Z residence. The 12" culvert was plugged and underground tile and drainage swale were installed along the west side lot line redirecting drainage to the south and eventually to the drainageway that divides the proposed properties. This north to south drainageway must be tnaintained if the proposed septic areas are to remain conforming. It will be necessary to take a 20* drainage easement over the drainageway along the west lot line and then evenmally southeast as it extends ove*" the rear yard of proposed Lot 1. The major concern for the current review is the issue of the septic system as it relates to the well installed on proposed Lot 1. Review Exhibit 1, the on-site evaluator who completed the septic test review for the earlier 1990 subdivision application clearly advised that a future well was to be located to the south of Lot 1 in order to meet the 75’ required separation from tested drainfield areas to well. It is unfortunate that both the well inspector from the State H‘-j!th Department and well contractor failed to heed the City’s separation requirements. The well has been installed meeting the State’s 50’ separation setback from the principal septic system. Review Exhibit J, the alternate septic test site has been negated as it is located 40’ from the well and will now not even meet the State’s separation setback standard. The on-site septic manager has recommended to the Planning Commission that a covenant be filed in the chain of title of proposed Lot 1 placing a future property owner on notice that if the alternate site is to be utilized that a new well would have to be installed meeting the 75’ separation setback. The Plaiming Commission took the position that it was the current owner ’s responsibility as subdivider to adhere to standards noted during the earlier review and that the approval must be conditioned on the existing well on Lot 1 being abandoned and a new well installed meeting separation setback prior to final subdivision approval. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission voted to approve the two lot subdivision subject to the conditions set forth in the staff memo of May 10th, page 4. Approval of the lot width variaiKe for proposed Lot 2 was based on the following findings: A. Lots can be platted so that the required lot width can be met. B.Shared lot line has been defined along the meandering drainage way that intersects property fr'^m east to west. C. Lot lines reflect functional usage area for each property. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission recommendation. It is staffs understanding that applicants will ask for special consideration of the Council and have agreed to file a covenant against the chain of title of Lot 1 advising future owner of need to install new well if alternate septic site is to be utilized.