Laserfiche WebLink
U nited Properties <br />February 9,1999 <br />iiiiiiiiiiiiiim. ___ <br />R0OI l$faf0 S0r^K0l <br />n\l UN <br />Mike Gafron <br />City of Orono <br />Post Office Box 66 <br />Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 <br />Bruce W. Palmer, CCM <br />Senior Vice President <br />Construction Munagcment Services <br />3500 West 80th Street Minneapolis. Minnesota 55431 <br />612 893-8821 Fax:612 893-8814 <br />e-mail; bpalmer^ upropcnies.cnm <br />RE: 465/485 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD <br />Mike: <br />TJe purpose of this letter is to request permission to hook up the properties referenced <br />above to the City sewer system. We are making this request because we believe that the <br />property meets the City’s criteria as outlined by you last fall. The criteria is as follows: ‘ <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />Property must be an existing residence; the Hamm family has owned and resided at <br />this property since 1948 and plan to continue to own the property for many years to <br />The existing system needs to be failing; per the City’s reports dated July 23, 1998 <br />the septic systems on the site have, in fact, failed. <br />Property must be adjacent to the sewer; this property is within one block of a <br />sewer connection which, as we understand it, would be located at the intersection of <br />Barrett Avenue and Dickenson Street. <br />No other alternatives must be available on the property; per a report from S-P <br />Testing, Inc. dated December 23,1996, Steve Shirmer had recommended a location <br />for a new mound system for the property. Since that time, as indicated in S-P <br />Testing’s letter dated February 4,1999, this location is no longer suitable due to the <br />fact that equipmrat has driven over the area to remove trees after the storm that <br />occurred last spring. Also, in S-P Testing’s letter dated February 4, 1999, they <br />indicate one possible area south of the driveway or northeast of the main house <br />However, these locations are very near the residence and would require removal of <br />several l^ge trees in order to accommodate an acceptable system to the City. We <br />don’t believe that these locations would be satisfactory to the City or the Hamm <br />family and would not be a permanent solution to correcting this problem. As <br />indicated in S-P Testing’s letter, there is no other area on the propert\' that could be <br />considered for a mound system due to slopes and also the fact that the property has <br />quite a bit of wetland associated with it. <br />A