Laserfiche WebLink
#529 Steve Wellack <br />Painter Creek Subdivision <br />Page 2 <br />Block 2 Lot 3 - Contains mainly Hamel soils in a <br />wide swail facing the wetland to the north. Again <br />we could expect at best a mound system with house <br />location in a high water table soil. <br />Block 2 Lot 4 - Wetlands map shows extension of wet­ <br />land into this lot where not shown on developer's <br />proposal. Hamel, Glencoe, and Lerdal soils will <br />limit this site. We would expect to see a mound <br />system here. <br />Block 2 Lots 5 and 6 - These lots are mainly high <br />ground with Erin soils which may support either a <br />standard or mound system. <br />Block 3 Lots 1 and 2 - There is barely 2 acres of <br />contiguous dry buildable on these two lots combined. <br />Soils include Peaty muck over loam, Erin and Glencoe. <br />Lots 1 and 2 should be combined to form at best one <br />building site. The resulting lot should definitely <br />have soil testing done. <br />Block 3 Lot 3 - Road should be moved eastward to <br />take advantage of Erin soils and ensure that at <br />least 2 acres of contiguous dry buildable are included. <br />My reaction to the over-all sketch plan is that the road should <br />be placed to skirt the wetlands and leave the best dry buildable <br />land within the building lots. There are probably not as <br />many buildable 5 acre lots as the developer wants due to soils <br />and topography. Soil testing should be required on all lots <br />with the possible exception of the two nearest County Road 6. <br />Lot boundary changes should be made to include as much high, <br />dry land as possible in each lot. We should carefully consider <br />whether soil types such as Hamel and Glencoe can be considered <br />as high and dry land since they can be expected to be seasonally <br />saturated at or near the surface.