Laserfiche WebLink
# ^'Ci r mare located f the road, ?bably could ively small Ltes need to iff of them. <br />both being <br />end of the <br />ntours vary <br />I range from <br />to be more <br />need to be <br />:tlon. <br />ifleld sites <br />Both sites <br />for great <br />Leld sites, <br />tie property, <br />ie-sac. The <br />locations. <br />Leld sites, <br />y corner of <br />fenced off <br />ime "short- <br />sites are <br />y, leaving <br />tes are not <br />dways. <br />centrally <br />: effect on <br />Lpated the <br />3use placed <br />ement will <br />Both sites <br />- '-F -: - <br />aii <br />mmm. <br />'■'•^rl,Preliminary Plat of Fox Bend - Septic System Testing August 22, 1989 Page 4 of 4General Coeamnts -Each proposed lot appears to have suitable primary and alternate drainfield sites. On some lots, the i-im^ry and <br />alternate sites shotm are the only possible sites avai.a *le. On <br />other lota, it is likely that additional testing could find a <br />number of potential sites, allowing additional flexibility in <br />house placement. <br />In each case, drainfield sites have been designed to meet <br />the minimum 20' setback from property lines, and 75* setbacks <br />from designated wetlands. <br />On the majority of lots, extreme caution must be taken <br />during construction of improvements to the property. Road <br />construction will take place within 50' of tested drainfield <br />sites on at least 6 of 17 lots, and on 2 lots the sites are <br />relatively near the area proposed to be graded to provide a <br />detention basin. I would reconmend that each lot have drainfield <br />sites protected by snow fence totally surrounding the drainfield <br />sites at a distance 20' from the boundaries of each drainiield <br />system. Additionally, when road construction plans are <br />submitted, I would like to review them to determine where road <br />cut would have a potential impact on drainfield sites. <br />Summary - <br />Out of 34 drainfield sites tested, 29 require mound systems <br />and 5 would allow a trench-type system. Each lot has primary and <br />alternate sites designated. It would not be surprising if as <br />many as 20% of the sites ultimately will have to be re-tested due <br />to the buyer's preference for house sites near or conflicting <br />with drainfields. Some lots are extremely limited for potential <br />drainfield sites, others provide a degree of flexibility in house <br />placement. <br />Given the abovu facts, concerns, and constraints, I would <br />recommend approval of the subdivision as proposed. Accompanying <br />this memo is a topographic survey of the preliminary plat showin~ <br />potential house locations and locations of both primary an <br />alternate drainfield sites. <br />piilM