Laserfiche WebLink
Greg Perl, 309 Westlake Street <br />October 14, 1987 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />In regards to Item #1, I have reviewed your septic design by Advanced <br />Surveying and Engineering and note that that site evaluation report finds <br />soils that are not suitable for a trench type septic system. However, the <br />site evaluator did recommend construction of additional drainfield trenches <br />which normally would not be acceptable. We are treating this as an interim <br />case because sewer is contemplated for the Westlake Street area. Normally <br />with the type of soils and the depth to water table indicated a mound type <br />of drainfield system would be appropriate, however, given the sewer <br />situation, i\- would seem appropriate to add less costly trenches to the <br />existing system as an interim measure that would not be expected to solve <br />the existing problem on a long term basis. <br />Note that the Planning Commission did not recommend that the septic <br />system interim repairs be completed prior to continuing the review, only <br />that a report be submitted. We would expect that interim repairs take <br />place this fall or next spring if necessary. <br />Under Item #2, we have yet to receive a revised set of plans showing <br />the house attached to the garage, although I understand you have those <br />available or will have those available shortly. They should be submitted <br />as soon as possible. <br />Regarding Item #5, the home occupation problems have not re-occurred <br />and appear to no longer be an issue on the property. <br />Regarding Item #6, we have yet to receive a scale set of plans and we <br />presume that you will be resubmitting a revised set that are of a workable? <br />scale. Also, before the application can continue you must provide an <br />updated survey verifying the location of the existing garage. The survey <br />submitted previously did not accurately depict the existing garage and that <br />is critical to this application. <br />Regarding Item #7, if your new design does not eliminate the need for <br />a height variance, please address in writing the reasons why tb^t variance <br />should be approved, i.e. show why you cannot redesign the house to meet the <br />standards. <br />Once the items noted above have been completed and submitted, I will <br />be pleased to bring this application back to the Planning Commission for <br />continuation of the review. It would be helpful for all your information <br />to be submitted at least 2 weeks prior tc the Planning Commission meeting. <br />The next meeting that yo i could feasibly be scheduled for would bo November <br />16th. I would need all information in by Monday, November 2nd.