Laserfiche WebLink
4 . We have already discussed the issue of mound <br /> orientation but I might add that while we have <br /> delineated the primary and alternate sites as dividing <br /> the width of the lot half and half, in actuality, to <br /> meet the 3 to 1 slopes specified in our typical detail <br /> and to meet code, the primary mound would encroach into <br /> the alternate treatment area with its downhill slope. <br /> We note, however, that the portion of the slope that <br /> encroached into the alternate area would not deliver <br /> any effluent to that alternate area according to the <br /> design calculations and thus would not impair its <br /> ability to act as a future replacement site. We notice <br /> also that to achieve a 3 to 1 slope, the southwest <br /> slope on the end of the mound should extend further <br /> than shown and would encroach into the required 10 foot <br /> setback and perhaps a bit beyond. That boundary line <br /> is however with a street which has never been improved <br /> and used and has no prospects for improvement that we <br /> know of. Our drawings could be improved to correctly <br /> show those toe of slope conditions. <br /> Since their is no current proposal to build on the lot <br /> and the proposed home shown is only a concept at this <br /> time, no well location was shown but it probably would <br /> have been better to indicate a possible location that <br /> could have been adjusted if necessary when house <br /> location became known. <br /> Gene Mullenmeister of our office who discussed the issue of <br /> setbacks with you as you mentioned in your letter was led to <br /> believe that the City might be less concerned about a <br /> variance from the requirement for setback from the pond than <br /> from the lake and this is what has led to this proposed <br /> design. If the City is not willing to grant such a <br /> variance, then now is the time to say so. <br />