Laserfiche WebLink
-yiicrr^: <br />To;Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator <br />Prom: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />Date:March 13, 1991 <br />Subject: Crystal Creek Subdi/ision - Version #9 (3/12/91) <br />I have reviewed the revised subdivision and grading plan, <br />and would make the following comments; <br />Lot 1, Block 1 - At the northwest corner, the plan now shows <br />a swale along the north and west lot lines. This swale does <br />not appear to continue far enough towards Watertown Road to <br />divert water away from the Senn drainfield sites. This <br />needs to be rectified. During construction of this swale, <br />the northwest drainfield site must be protected by fencing. <br />At the south end, a berm located approximately 20' north of <br />the fence line appears to be proposed. While the grading <br />lines do not touch' the drainfield site, this site must also <br />be fenced and protected from grading traffic during <br />construction of the berms and the private road. I am not <br />sure why the berm is necessary given the already existing <br />road bank, and the mere fact that the berms are proposed <br />creates potential for disruption of the drainfield site. <br />Lot 2, Block 1 - Only one of the two previously proposed <br />drainfield sites is shown. I presume this is an oversight. <br />The second site must be added to the map. Both sites need <br />to be protected from any construction traffic that is <br />involved in removal of the existing driveway. <br />Lot 3, Block 1 - Drainfield sites are shown exactly as <br />previously, and should pose not problems for locating a <br />house on the property. <br />Lot 4f Block 1 - Drainfield sites are still shown at the <br />base of the hill, and are above the 970* floodplain contour. <br />Because applicant's field work resulted in redefinition of <br />the 970' contour line between versions #6 and #7, both sites <br />are suitable for sewage treatment systems with no hazard of <br />flooding. <br />Lot 5r Block 1 - The same comments apply here as for Lot 4, <br />Bl-^ck 1. I would note that this grading plan shows a berm <br />and •» Iv' rt as a flood control measure just upstream from <br />the tltajinfield sites as had been previously discussed. This <br />should provide additional protection of these mound sites. <br />Lot 1, Block 2 (was Lot 6, Block 4) - The south end of these <br />sites should be fenced off to protect them from damage <br />during road construction. <br />UM. WWf ' 1