Laserfiche WebLink
width varianco but 1­s front on a p ubl ir• r ,adway, <br />Lot 2 will access from %eaf Stroat. Again, the assumed <br />house site is to the rear, over looking thr, creek. This lot also <br />needs a width variance. <br />II. Drainage <br />Drainage is a conce-n on this property only in that <br />provision must be made to Prot^ct significant drainageways that <br />traverse the property. 'Stubb^ pay Creek' follows along the <br />northwest lot line of the property. A detailed flood study of <br />the drainage area was done in the 1970's and f loodplain <br />elevations have been defined. The City will require granting of <br />a Conservation and Flowage Easement coinciding with the <br />floodplain elevations along the creek. Staffs preliminary <br />review indicates that lot areas cast of the drainage easement <br />will still exceed the required 2.0 acres in area by a wide <br />margin. <br />Both access corridors ire traversed by a minor <br />creek/gully leading from a pond east of Leaf Street. Culverts <br />and drivewa.-I grading must be approved by the City Engineer to <br />ensure no restrictions in flow through this drainageway. <br />III. Setbacks <br />Based on the Zoning code definition of rear lot line and <br />rear yard, Exhibit J indicates the setbacks that will be required <br />for these lots. <br />IV. Septic Concerns <br />Applicant's Engineer has submitted soil testinc, <br />information for primary and alternate sites. The clay coils on <br />the site are mottled at 3 -3' depth, indicating mound systems <br />will be necessary. <br />Wr� have some concerns as follows: <br />a.) Primary site for Lot 2 appears to be within a minor <br />drainage Swale from the propeL•y +n the northeast. <br />The alternate site on Lot 2 is a much better site. <br />We would prefer to see the primary site moved to a <br />location away from the swale and further back from <br />the southerly lot line, since a mou: d in this area <br />will have a potential impact on the soil -water <br />regime of the neighboring property^s due to <br />topography. <br />The primary site for Lot 1 is not in a Swale but <br />should ilso he movre,i nortnwesteriy to reduce its <br />impact on neighboring properties. <br />c.) The alternate sit^ for Lot 1 needs to be better <br />