09-21-82 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1982 -7- 8. ENGINEER'S REPORT B. Dean Johnston Continued - -=Bo rear --If the Paulsrud information is correct, the drainfield would have to pass under the driveway of the adjacent lot to the west (Bonestroo's) and a portion of the blacktop on the cul,de-sac. Bohrer referred to his September 15, letter, paragraph three, regarding his conversation with Mrs. Bloom. He also distributed a copy of in response to Mr. Johnston's the proposed septic system on systems. a letter from Roger Machmier question on the effect of the environment and nearby --Eder - questions to the Engineer - 1, in terms of the variance for the drainfield, septic tank area and driveway, is any more critical than the other? --Bohrer - do riot consider any of the variances being health related. --Novak - when a system is close to the street, does packed snow or snow removal affect the use or efficiency of the system? --Bohrer - variance is to place one leg of the drainfield closer to the righ?hof,-way.line, not up to the blacktop, Would not anticipate that area of the ground wo rld- be frozen. If the snow were completely removed and the area allowed to freeze, this would interfere with the operation of the system. Not in an area close to the blacktop or a-mormally exposed area. -Eder - 2. In your opinion, does the individual sewer treatment system proposed meet the minimum standards of the City's Code with respect to the installation of such system. --Bohrer - yes. The design and installation does meet the standards. 3. In your opinion, will the waste treatment function of this system be adequate to protect the health of adjacent property owners and the body of water, also adjacent to this property, which has the larger public interest. --Bohrer - Yes it does, in so:far that it meets the Code.; and the Code has safety.standards built into it to protect these items. 4, in your opinion, is the location of this system detrimental to the safety of adjacent property owners and the public in a way as to affect the footings of buildings, surface of driveways (ie the cul-de-sac), etc. --Bohrer - No, do not believe it would be detrimental. --Eder - clarified the purpose of his questions. -_ -Whittaker - read the Code requirement concerning off-street parking -location, --Bohrer - this requirement would not al-low-this:system,'as designed, to fit into the area proposed. Do not know if it could be redesigned to allow it. Would be very difficult to take away five feet and still have it fit. --Morgan - if the system were designed five feet smaller would it still meet the code. --Bohrer - do not think so. Driveway is only 10 ft. wide. --Eder - five feet is quite a bit of compromise from what is considered allot in the Tri-Lakes area - use to be 101.