Laserfiche WebLink
Request for Council Action continued <br /> Page 2 <br /> September 17, 1996 <br /> City Sewer Request, John Maresh, 2085 Sixth Avenue North <br /> While a mound system could be constructed on the site identified by S-P <br /> Testing, that system would by State code definition be considered "experimental" <br /> based on some portions of the site having disturbed soils and not meeting the <br /> 12" to mottling criteria. Unfortunately for the homeowner, an experimental <br /> system would be installed entirely at the risk of the homeowner and if it was <br /> later found to be failing or causing a pollution problem, neither the site evaluator <br /> nor the system installer would be held responsible. This leaves the property <br /> owner with no recourse at that point. <br /> Options for Consideration <br /> 1. Maresh could legally combine the vacant lot with the residence pazcel. This gives him <br /> the alternate site he needs, but eliminates future use of the vacant lot as a building site. <br /> 2. Maresh could proceed with a lot line rearrangement, with the goal of giving his <br /> residence an alternate site while maintaining 2 acres and 2 septic sites in the vacant <br /> lot. This might be feasible but likely would yield a gerrymandered lot line. <br /> 3. The City might allow Maresh to create an easement within the vacant lot, in which to <br /> install a system serving the residence lot. This technically would require subdivision <br /> approval to create the easement, and is not a practice which the City has allowed <br /> previously except when pre-existing systems were later found to be over a lot <br /> line. <br /> 4. The City could provide municipal sewer to the residence parcel as part of the Long <br /> Lake Country Club Addition project proposed for 1997. This would presumably use <br /> one of the 50 units Met Council is expected to approve for use by existing problem <br /> residences. The difficulty here is that there is no justification for providing sewer to <br /> the vacant lot abutting Brown Road, and Mr. Mazesh is proposing that an easement be <br /> created for sewer purposes across the vacant lot, but not serving the vacant lot. This will <br /> appear as a 'leap-frog' provision of sewer, perhaps not a good precedent to set. <br /> 5. The City could refuse sewer to the property, forcing Mr. Mazesh to either accept an <br /> 'experimental' system or pursue options 1,2 or 3. <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Sta.ff acknowledges there is a potential risk placed on the homeowner in allowing an <br /> experimental system on the S-P Testing proposed site. It appears that other potentially suitable <br />