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 propert>’ <br />owner with no recourse at that point. <br />Options for Consideration <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />Maresh could legally combine the vacant lot with the residence parcel. This gives him <br />the alternate site he needs, but eliminates future use of the vacant lot as a building site. <br />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 />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 w'ould 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 />*1. 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. Maresh is proposing that an easement be <br />created for sewer purposes across the vacant lot, but not serv ing 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. Maresh to either accept an <br />'experimental' system or pursue options 1,2 or 3. <br />Recommendation <br />Staff 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