My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-12-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
03-12-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/8/2024 10:35:23 AM
Creation date
10/8/2024 10:19:51 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
820
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
To; <br />Front: <br />Date; <br />Jeanne A. Habusth, Building & Zoning Administrator <br />Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />March 7, 1990 <br />Subject: Indian Creek, Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 - Additional septic <br />Information <br />Steve Schermers has submitted additional information for <br />Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Indian Creek. His field work included a <br />site analysis of the topography, which resulted in the revision <br />of the topographic map, which had been Incorrect. <br />The revised information indicates the following: <br />Alternate drainfield sites on both Lots 4 and 5 appear <br />to be above the 970' contour line which has been established <br />as the flood plain for design purposes of this subdivision. <br />Note that we had previously expressed concerns that, without <br />the total berm system, no lowering of the flood plain <br />elevation in the area of Lots 4 and 5 would be possible. <br />The new information indicates that even with the flood plain <br />at 970', these sites are not within the flood plain. <br />2. In Lot 4, the primary site is at a slope of 6%. The <br />future expansion site has a slope of 8%, which I approved at <br />our last meeting with the developer. <br />3. The slopes at the primary and alternate sites on Lot 5 <br />are both in the range of 4%, posing no problems. <br />4. Note that for both Lots 4 and 5, the location of lot <br />lines and the extent of proposed grading are such that these <br />systems could not be extended beyond a four bedroom home <br />capacity without reducing the availability of an equivalent <br />alternate site. With the proposed lot lines, it would <br />appear that the remaining lots do not share this <br />restriction. <br />Based on the information submitted, I would recommend approval of <br />the proposed drainfield sites, with the condition that the <br />easterly end of the easterly site in Lot 5 must be fenced prior <br />to any grading within that area. The grading plan shows the <br />limits of grading within a few feet of the easterly drainfield <br />traffic can be allowed to encroach into that <br />drainfield site during berm or road construction. <br />O <br /># <br />.4 <br />A <br />H
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.