HomeMy WebLinkAbout018-2001-10-000 (2)
E7 , -
w MAY 0 2 200
Wisconsin Oepa t of ~U@R@JX G0UN-1, SOIL EVALUATION REPORT Page of J
Division of Satery a Bul~'co ING QF I
an wlh Comm 85. Ms. Adm. Code
. county (
Allach complete site plan on paper not less than 8 112 x 11 Inches In size. Plan must
Include, but not limited to: vertical and horizontal reference point (8M), direction and P
percent slope, scale or dimensions, north arrow, and location and distance to nearest road. V
Please print all Information. Revle by Date
Persone+ rnfonnetlon you provide may be used for aeconeary purposes (Privacy Law, a. 1S-04 (1) (m)). ~X D
Property Owner Property Location /
E 1/45W t/d S l~ T4 N R -w
Property Owners Malting Address Lot If Block If Subd. Name or CSM#
1114 bJ, DNJtS10N sc , ~a o►R~.S-r Q►-~ F-5TATES
city State Zp Code Phone Number City ❑ Village X1 Town Nearest Road
RWEA FALLS WE 5402-24 (715 42-(o-Lf8o H Nip a.r.H: E
New Construction User Residential / Number of bedrooms Code derived design flow rate GPO
❑ Replacement / Pubilc or commercial - Describe: ( -
Parent material -.-r I ~t~(J117.k1AS~ Flood Plain elevation if applicable ~___L~.>~. _ _ _ n•
General comments
1P 0
L~FivL~ rr
and recommendations: dVi GiiWO SrSTEM I a bOt SANA F 1 LS. /7LO
I~ fit LX-
04 L.CA101110- RAAq--
Boring d iEl Boring 'y 7 /
)a„ pit Ground surface elev. _UYE~ft. / Depth to limiting factor -:4- in.
Soil Application Rate
Horizon Depth Dominant Color Redox Description Texture Structure Consistence Boundary Roots GP
in. Munsell Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Gr. Sz. Sh. 'Eff#1 'Eff#2
I o- ~oVr;~Z - 3_C:w\sWi~ a 5 0as 0.%
Z ' dsh 4-CC .S a.
jLj -A- - ruts fn tr' CS -0- rs b
.Y 3 9- I`I V ►23
I -zy to 49 ' S sit "Sr- c tJ - o . 0,
S 7-4-Z7 1 art t ~c~ .0
o r~
Boring # ❑ Boring
5-51 Pit Ground twrtECe elev. ft. Depth to li niting factor In.
Sol Appka lion Rate
Horizon Depth Dominant Cc Redox Description Texture Structure Consistence Boundary Roofs GPD11?
In. Munsell Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Gr. Sz. Sh. 'Eff#I 'Eff#2
l 0-57 tb z - _ t- .5 t). If
Z- -I 0.S
adm 3 !Z Z~} 3 51 r c 0,
2V-2-% to 3 - 51 k
ti 1 LA L-:5 w
I
Effluent #1 = BOO > 30 < 220 rngfL and TSS >30 < 150 mgA. ' Eflu nt 02 BOD < 30 mg/L and TSS < 30 mg/L
CST Name (Please Pr1nt) Signature CST Nunter
AA 10 H LL STF- 2Z 37-
Address Date Evskualion Conducted TelephOfle Ntxrltler
W9fi15 I°go~~!+ R1yE1~ FAt ls~ WI 5902Z low 014 OZ "7tS 14 46-1'175
fZE~,sED : 09-18-OZ
Property owner ~u Parcel ID # -LiNt~ 1 cl- Pa of 3
51 LA,
E Boring # ❑ Boring
Ground surface etev. 1110-,W ft. Depth to limiting factor . in.
SoH Nation Rete
Pit
Horizon Depth Dominani Color Radar Oesuxiption Texture structure Consistence Boundary Roots 'EfF#G~Eff#2
in. Munsell Ou. Sz. Cont. Color Gr. Sz. Sh.
R3 fir-am 0~5 d•B
~q
lox L
;10 3 Z =9-MW-A~ 01k ~ 4 0 r5
Z- -13
11 104 5 MWY ol 0' Z- 543
.Z 3 s l v OA 0.6
S~ ZI- d J i
Le"It
a Boring # Baring
❑ Ground surface elev., ft. Depth to limiting factor In.
Pit Soll Icatlon Rate
Horizon Depth Dominant Color Redox Description Texture Structure Consistence Boundary Roots GPOIN
Gr. Sz. Sh. 'Eff#1 'Eft#2
In. MunseH Qu. Sz. Cont. Color
C
❑ Boring (d ` ~ ! / in.
Boring # Ground El Pit 5" tion Rate
d ~
Deptli Dominant Color GL (TU7 U GOy~ f ice Baandey Roots GPDM
in. Munsell / 'Eff#1 'E(f#2 A44 I-0- 11-t loo, q v Effluent #1 = 800; > 30< 220 mg/L and TSS >30 < 150 m9/L ' Effluent #2 = BOO, < 30 mg/l.. and TSS <
30 mglL
' _ _
The Department of Commerce is an equal opportunity service provider and employer. If you need assistance to access services or
need material in an alternate format, please contact the department at 608-266-3151 or TTY 608-264-8777-
seD-8310 (RAM)
I
P
PLO*r PLAN
A-gf-- f
s
OF PVC FIFIF 1. vE
I file
S
HS •
St-C. $40 T29A kl.-MUA) 2= / s►~
Qti GoRDIRw/
OROM
C cz~
?9m- o 1
~a
DC;
9 ~ ob ~
Up'
E
. - r
No. Y./4 AF. \ _'_L O ~~1•~jb /
O
_ ~ I t 11 5\ ~~5t,42t W 4'aX
10 *1
1 \ \ \ \ \ N
Nca
Rn x ~MQT\l 0
W \ 1173.3 \
\ h \ \ \ 1 JP264 S.F. _IV.B_ 4-38204 S.F.~
\ \ \ \ \ 3.17 Ac. N. B. 3.17 0
\ m \ \ \ \ - LA 1 rn
I \ \ \ \ - ' . 1 3 11 312 - /
\ -I I
\ \ \ L- 89'52'29" E 576.40; _ - - /
N \ '
/
~1 \ \ 1 \ \ P-
O, P-B P-B
D \ ` P-B - ` rT. B: 136861 S. - I
~I' P 136861- S.\F N. B. 3.14 Ac. c
® `3.14 Ac. I ' '
-B -
~Z \ 11 1~ - - - N ~N 89'5229" E >675$Y \I Q
i
y \ \ /
1 I 80' kADWS TEMPORARY -c-UL- -SACy I .6
\ tt i 40T 12 EASEMENT (TO BE REMOVED UP O.
\ I SOUTHERLY EXTENSON' OF ROAD) , p
I I r ~j 14,497 ° ~ a l
\ r I N.B., 29216 S.F.
I \ 1 5Ac_ ~ I 11337
\ 1 \ - "N.B. - 2.97 Ac. rn \ 111* 44
I-- . Q d
r
I 1154.6 157.
-573.V 0
\ 1 P-82 J 1154.6
\ \ _ SOU TAI VfN E OF T14E NE 1 IL
N 89052'30" E 1
UNPLATTED LANDS
j ZONED AG.-RESIDEN
_ _
O
O
Ld Z
O
LL. H
= O
d' U)
ST. CROIX COUNTY
WISCONSIN
- - PLANNING & ZONING DEPT.
ST. CROIX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
A, A 1101 Carmichael Road
Hudson, WI 54016-7710
(715) 386-4680 FAX (715) 386-4684
April 25, 2005
Ms. Mary ]o Hollister, CST #224832
Hollister's Soil Testing
W9875 690"' Ave.
River Falls, WI 54022
Re: Revisions for Soil Evaluation Reports - Forest Ridge Estates, Hammond Twp.
Dear Ms. Hollister:
On April 21st I performed on-site verifications of data reported for lots 27, 28, 29 and 30 to determine
the cause of discrepancies between the engineer's preliminary plat elevations and those on the soil
reports. There was an error in your method for calculating the benchmark elevations in relation to mean
sea level contours, which resulted in the contours not matching the elevations described for soil borings
and test pits. While on the site, I walked all four lots and found that some of the distances between test
pits and hand borings did not match measurements represented the scale used for their associated plot
plans. In order for mound systems to be designed, corrections need to be made.
To summarize my findings:
1. All lots whose reports used mean sea level elevations need to be revised so that the benchmarks
are based on an assumed 100.0 ft elevation. This will require using your field notes and,
starting with every BM #1, add the back-sight rod reading to 100'to give a new height of
instrument. Then re-calculate (subtract from HI) all the foresight rod readings to obtain test pit
and/or boring elevations related to the BM #1 and draw up new plot planeso, respond with
the new contours. Lots reported using mean sea level were 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 21, 24, 26,
271 28, and 29.
~J 31lf c f
2. D o not exclude any previously reported test pits. They must be included in revised~tions -I~(~`
and shown on the plot plans. This will help avoid confusion when locations for mound contours
are being established. The distances between test pits within tested areas need to be updated
from the original 2002 plot plans.
3. Original signed and dated revised reports must be submitted to our office so that they can be
attached to the previous submittals to track changes made.
4. I evaluated a hand boring on lot 28 that was next to a test pit that had been marked with a lathe
labeled "29A" (from the original lot numbering). It was approx. 95' southwest of the corner
benchmarks and 20 ft. west of the test pit you now show as "A". The original site was an
excavated pit, not a hand boring, as evidenced by backfill. Regardless, both test pits were
Hollister - Page 2
described as having redox features within 3 inches of the A-horizon. I found mottling in the
sample I examined just below the A-horizon boundary, so am requiring that any mound design
be restricted to the northerly test pits B, C, and E.
5. Based on the soil evaluation for lot 28, all four lots fronting on Cty. Rd. E appear to have serious
limitations for POWTS installation other than the tested areas already documented. This means
that as damage to existing tested areas may eliminate the possibility of POWTS installation,
unless an A+0" mound design is approved by the Dept. of Commerce after the requisite on-site
evaluation by Leroy Jansky. I will send a copy of this letter to the current owner of the lot to
forewarn him of this situation. Would you please re-establish the marking tape to indicate the
locations of these areas, since you are more familiar with the terrain?
Sanitary permits cannot be issued for the lots referenced above until the soil reports in question have
been corrected and/or completed.
If you have any questions regarding the above requested changes and/or additions to the soil reports,
please feel free to contact me at the Zoning office number and schedule a meeting to discuss the soil
data for Forest Ridge Estates.
Sin
c
Pamela Quinn, qCST665054
Zoning Specialist
Cc: Mark Sylla, Developer
Kernon Bast, Edina Realty
Leroy Jansky, Dept. of Commerce POWTS Wastewater Specialist
Subdivision file
Parcel 018-2001-10-000 12/03/2004 12:37 PM
PAGE 1 OF 1
Alt. Parcel M 14.29.17.874 018 -TOWN OF HAMMOND
Current ❑ ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN
Creation Date Historical Date Map # Sales Area Application # Permit # Permit Type
00 0
Tax Address: Owner(s): = Current Owner
RICHARD CONSTRUCTION INC
RICHARD CONSTRUCTION INC
1619 COVEY DR
RIVER FALLS WI 54022
Districts: SC = School SP = Special Property Address(es): • = Primary
Type Dist # Description * 928 193RD ST
SC 2422 ST CROIX CENTRAL
SP 1700 WITC
Legal Description: Acres: 3.170 Plat: 1961-FOREST RIDGE EST 1/30 018/03
SEC 14 T29N R17W PT NE SW FOREST RIDGE Block/Condo Bldg: LOT 10
ESTATES LOT 10 (3.170AC)
Tract(s): (Sec-Twn-Rng 401/4 1601/4)
14-29N-17W NE SW
Notes: Parcel History:
Date Doc # Vol/Page Type
02/03/2003 707925 2128/030 WD
01/14/2003 705829 9/46 PLAT
2004 SUMMARY Bill M Fair Market Value: Assessed with:
271,200
Valuations: Last Changed: 07/16/2004
Description Class Acres Land Improve Total State Reason
RESIDENTIAL G1 3.170 44,300 0 44,300 NO
Totals for 2004:
General Property 3.170 44,300 0 44,300
Woodland 0.000 0 0
Lottery Credit: Claim Count: 0 Certification Date: Batch
Specials:
User Special Code Category Amount
Special Assessments Special Charges Delinquent Charges
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
ERECEIVED
HOLLISTER'S SOIL TESTING Mary Jo Hollister
W9875 690th Avenue
River Falls, WI 54022 (715) 426-1775 ~M
I
II
• 004
St. Croix County Zoning
Pam Quinn, Zoning Specialist
1101 Carmichael Road
Hudson, WI 54016-7710
RE: Soil Evaluation Reports for Forest Ridge Estates, Town of Hammond
Dear Ms. Quinn,
After our meeting on February 13th and further review of the reports that were submitted
here are the findings and facts:
1.) Lots 4, 5, 6 and 28 will need to be extended to allow for the 0.2 loading rate for longer
mound systems. We have agreed to do this with hand borings that will be completed as
soon as possible. The position of the driveway for Lot 30 can be worked around. A
licensed plumber has reviewed and stated that lots 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18 have enough
area for a system.
2.) As per our discussion, driveway locations were not an issue at the time the tests were
completed as it was requested by the County to complete these tests before approval.
These will have to be addressed at the time the driveways are located. ALL mound
areas were staked and taped as requested previously. 2 IGVA ►r
5.~.,' I ( -
3.) Elevations were corrected on lots 7, 16, an~l~nd have been resubmitted. For
many years now, m reports have had t e acc readings for BM #2 based on
informati~r> fiom your office Now I will report them a different Aq) . new report for lot V4U
15 was submitted on 11-25-03 due to location- of lot line. The elevations for lots 20 & 21
are not the same due to different readin loctions of the boring (Le. upslope vs.
ownslope side) due to site clearance. 0 U v~ e's
5 kl~ V,-
4.) The notations for the Structures were corrected in the office. The "L" for "large"
structure instead of "CO" has been reported on my reports for years. Thank you for
clarifying that for me.
If you have any further questions or comments, please call. Thank you for your time and
attention to this matter.
i
Page 2 Forest Ridge Estates Sincerely,
~~LV
Mary Jo Hollister
CST #224832
Cc: Mark Sylla, property owner
Leroy Jansky, State of Wisconsin Wastewater Specialist