Laserfiche WebLink
4» <br />«02-2860 <br />January 13,2003 <br />Page 4 <br />Sewer vs Septic <br />The existing residence per the original plans is considered as a 4-bcdroom home. The existing septic <br />system has served the residence well but its actual fhsign capacity is unclear based on a lack of <br />information from the drainfield replacement done in 1982. The City has considered this as a <br />confoiming system, and it has been functioning well under the prior owner’s usage pattern. <br />It appears unlikely that the property contains an alternate site meeting setback requirements from lot <br />lines, structures, well and wetlands. Therefore, applicant has indicated that it would be most <br />appropriate to connect the residence to the municipal sewer. The property is in the MUSA and has <br />two possible options for connecting to sewer: 1) installing a 700' pressure line eastward under <br />Heritage Drive to the existing Foxhill sewer; or 2) installing a 250' pressure line under the Dakota <br />Rail corridor to the existing Crystal Bay sewer. Either option has the potential to involve cost­ <br />sharing by neighboring properties, and it is unknown at this time which option is most cost-effective. <br />It may be reasonable to allow the new structure to be reconnected to the existing septic system for <br />the time being; however, the lack of an alternate site suggests that the applicant should work toward <br />getting sewer connected as part of the rebuild, rather than forcing that cost onto a new buyer if the <br />old system should fail. If the existing system is rc-usca, it will need a thorough analysis to confirm <br />it meets all current City and Stale standards. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />Is there sufficient justification shown for granting the lot area variance to construct a new <br />home to replace the existing home on the property? <br />Is there sufficient hardship demonstrated that supports the side setback variance for the <br />attached garage with “bonus room” above? <br />Should the future potential use of the Dakota Rail corridor as a regional trail be a factor in <br />detennining appropriate setbacks from that corridor? <br />Should variance approval(s) be subject to connection of the new home to municipal sewer? <br />Docs Planning Commission have any issues with continuing the existing substandard setback <br />from the cul-de-sac? <br />Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />u) <br />b) <br />c) <br />0 <br />d) <br />Staff recommends approval of the lot area variance. <br />Staff recommends denial of the side setback variance. <br />Staff recommends that the front setback variance be approved relative to the ‘alternate’ plan <br />but not for the proposal that requires the side setback variance. <br />Stall recommends that the new home be connected to municipal sewer rather than <br />reconnected to the existing septic system. <br />Staff recommends that the applicant be required to have the wetland delineated prior to <br />construction of the 2nd-story deck to ensure it meets the minimum wetland setback.