08-11-1986 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

G To: Brian Fulmer and Jeanne Mabusth From: Michael P. Saffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date: September 20, 1984 Subjects Soil f .d Site Conditions For Dog House Kennel Proposal Res Septic Systems - Site west of garage slab is not nearly big enough for a mound or any system. - Garage slab is over existing grainfield serving the house! My official recommendation is that the garage slab be removed. - Because of 75' well setback, there is very little alternate drainfield potential at this site, and what little there is should be preserved for alternate site to serve existing house. - Site east of proposed kennel was bored by Schermers and found co be fill material over peat/organic soils. Water table on 9/17/84 was at 3' +/- during the driest time this year. Schermers noted that the soil was mott:ed to the surface and likely would be saturated to very near ice in the spring. He indicated he would not want to recomme. an a mound without a better knowledge of the high seasonal water table, ,robably by monitoring a number of inspection wells for a year. - In a conversation with Dr. James L. Anderson of the U. of M. Agrculture Extension Service, he suggested that the existing lei system be investigated further to determine how well it is tioning, and relate it's effluent quality in the tank to what be found with a human waste load. code requires "extensively detailed site and soil .vl .ions" on fill soils, and where peat sails are encountered, woul.. allow a system under only the most extreme conditions -_ to existing lot cgnfigUratign, The City is under no obli. to Apr ove a system on these soils. If a system was allow. would , subject to metering of inflows and periodic groundwat.r quality testing. I do not believe the City should allow a anew system to be constructed for a new or expanded use unless the minimum acceptable soil conditions exist, so that we aran't creating a agy problem where none appears to exist now. - As for th wisting kennel system, we have been repeat -IV told that no an: .al fecal materials are introduced into the system, and that the only discharge is from spraying out tnu kennel stalls and from dog wash water, hence we would expect a low - intensity effluent which might not form a sludge or a biomat. If *tiis is found to be the case, and no apparent problems with groundwater quality or liquid volume disposal are noted, I would feel fairly comfortable in allowing this type of a system to be installed for the Iennel for the existing type of use, without the human sewage element, i.e. can't hook us an apartment to it.