Minutes - Environmental Policy Board - 01/25/2016

Home

Community Development Director Gladhill explained the drainfield is larger than the septic system. He said the Planning Commission thought there was enough room for both. The stormwater pond is typical size, and the storage capacity amount is common. Board Member Valentine commented the drainfield seems too close to the stormwater pond. Community Development Director Gladhill suggested they may work with the distance, and see how far away it can be placed. Board Member Bentz commented there may not be sufficient space for a heavy downpour. Community Development Director Gladhill said that is something that needs to be discussed in detail. That will come with the final City Engineer review. Board Member Lewis asked if it would be better if the holding pond would move to the east and become an infiltration pond. Community Development Director Gladhill replied he will check to see what can be done. Board Member Bentz expressed concern with the distance between the back of the house and the drainfield. He said he understood nothing was to be built on the drainfield. Community Development Director Gladhill confirmed there are constraints and a drainfield cannot be driven over or built on. The setback must be 10 feet from the structure to the tank, and 20 feet from the structure to the drainfield. Board Member Valentine questioned where the drinking water wells were. Community Development Director Gladhill stated they are at least 50 feet from the drainfield or the tanks. City Planner Anderson noted the locations of these could potentially change, but they have to meet the minimum state standards. Community Development Director Gladhill summarized the discussion, noting he will bring the following concerns to the Planning Commission: The NRI information, drainfield proximity to pond, size and future plans for Lot 4 regarding proximity of stormwater pond; aerobic and anaerobic septic systems; drawing up an FAQ document for septic systems in general. Board Member Lewis asked for clarification regarding a communal versus independent septic system. He said he believed it would be advantageous to have a communal system. It would free the land up for sheds or future developments. He said it didn't seem there would be any major economic impact from making it a communal system. He understood there may be some additional costs and maintenance, but it wouldn't be astronomical. Community Development Director Gladhill explained staff had discussed this option with the developer and they decided to proceed with the four individual systems. He said they had requested two proposals; one with individual systems, and another with shared systems. There was a concern of who would be responsible for the shared system. This development is part of an HOA and the HOA was not interested in exploring a shared system. This group can make a Environmental Policy Board / January 25, 2016 Page 4 of 6