My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 1/11/1988
Orono
>
City Council
>
1988
>
Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 1/11/1988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2025 10:14:45 AM
Creation date
8/12/2025 10:40:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Admin Doc Type
Agenda Packet CC
Section
City Council
Subject
regular meeting
Document Date
1/11/1988
Retention Effective Date
8/12/2025
Retention
Permanent After File Date
Protection
Public
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.
/
398
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
iiilbelink/Vogt - Site Evaluation for Proposed Subdivision <br />December 22, 1987 <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />Lot S, ,Block +1 <br />Both sites need mounds; the boring logs suggest that something <br />other than Hamel soil is present, and some sand pockets were <br />found. <br />Lot ,1, _ Block 2 <br />Primary site proposes trenches in an area mapped as Lester loam, <br />which is consistent with that. soil type. Alternate mound site is <br />in area of deeper topsoil lout probably not a Hamel as mapped, <br />more likely a I.erdal o.- LeSesr 1.oam based on the soils indicated <br />by the boring logs.. <br />Lot__2,,,_§lock. 2 <br />Same comments a, for Lot 1, Filock 2. Primary site - trenches are <br />consistent with soil types mapped anti indicated on borings. <br />Alternate mound site is also consistent for those soils. <br />Lot 1, Block 3 <br />Primary site - trenches. Staff will do confirmative boring; <br />apparent sandy pocket is shown on soil survey. Alternate mound <br />site seems OK and leaves a number of locations for house <br />placemen'-. May be the best lot of the bunch. . . <br />Sua ry: <br />In general, the report provides :he minimum basic information needed <br />to approve the septic sites; however, --hat information is poorly presented. <br />Some of the hole locations are inaccurate based on the site inspection, and <br />dimensioned incorrectly; and no re'ati%e hole elevations were given, which, <br />except for the fact thsc a topographical map is a ✓ai lable, is something <br />that should be provided in every case. I am recommending that the City <br />require that certain lots undergo additional testing to find better <br />alternate sites to free up some res`rictive building envelopes (and in one <br />case to find an alternate site that is on higher, dryer ground). I have <br />also recommended that the east/west road south of Lot 6, Block 1 be moved <br />50' to the south in order to give that lot some flexibility. <br />I have also recommended that this item not be brought to the Council <br />for preliminary plat approval until the changes and additional testing <br />noted a-e complete nor until a copy of the proposed plat (with topography) <br />showing the actual surveyed locations of all boring holes has been <br />submitted. ^ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.