Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. We have already discussed the issue of mound orientation but I might add that while we have delineated the primary and alternate sites as dividing the width of the lot half and half, in actuality, to meet the 3 to 1 slopes specified in our typical detail and to meet code, the primary mound would encroach into the alternate treatment area with its downhill slope. We note, however, that the portion of the slope that encroached into the alternate area would not deliver any effluent 1- that alternate area according to the design calculations and thus would not impair its ability to act as a future replacement site. We notice also that to achieve a 3 to 1 slope, the southwest slope on the end of the mound should extend further than shown and would encroach into the required 10 foot se'_5ack and perhaps a bit beyond. That boundary line is however with a street which has never been improved and used and has no prospects for improvement that we know of. Our drawings could be improved to correctly show those toe of slope conditions. Since their is no current proposal to build on the lot and the proposed home shown is only a concept at this time, no well location was shown but it probably would have been better to indicate a possible location that could have been adjusted if necessary when house location became known. Gene Mullenmeister of our cf:ice who discussed the issue of setbacks with you as you mentioned in your letter was led to believe that the City :night be less concerned about a variance from the requirement for setback from the pond than from the lake and this is what has led to this proposed design. If the City is not willing to grant such a variance, then now is the time to say so.