01-08-1979 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

los. 108. 110. 111. 114. 115. It is iiqiofsible for orono to defend its position legally in light of the Metro coiaicils urbanization policy after tiie interceptor has been constructed particularly when its designed has been justified on the basis of providing these services to an urbanized area. The interceptor will usae cause urbanization and adverse effects to the quality of lake mtka 106. This statenent is not justifeid and is inconsistent with the findings of orono. All areas of orono that presently present public health probleas and offensive odors have been sewered, to—xjpfartlarzi. . . . . . .. 107. Hackberry Hill ha as well as problen areas in the laisewered areas of the ninnetonka shoreline have been sewered and are presently no problen in this regard. This stateaient should be expanded to show that it is not consistenct with nrmos land use plan and theat the increased urbanization created because of the interceptor will have a deliterious effect to water quality of lake mtka because of poor quality storp water nainoff 109. Does construction of the orono • long lake interceptor via alternative 1 justify the conclusions reached in this statement or could it he in the public benefit to chose another alternative that would not have this adverse enviromental effect. It is inconvceiveable to Orono that short paragraph could be devoted to such a major environmental problem with its potential massive effects on the quality of lake mtka . THis statement should be greatly expanded and addressed in relationship to the possiblity of other altematAs to the design of the interceptor This statement is not justified is not supported and in fact orono expresses considerable concern to the emvironmental impacts of this interceptor not only in regard to the short rui and long nn effects to the wetlands in orono but to the long nn adverse emvironmental effects to lake mtka itself through poort quality storm water nnoff. 112. This statement should be considerable expanded again to reflect the long range potential adverse effects to lake mtka from sesults of urbanization . 113. This statement is not consistent with Orono land use coap. plans that preclude development to a greater density than can be supported by on>site septic systems in the uisewered areas of orono. This paragraph should be expanded to state that if the interceptor is installed as propos^ that the resulting urbanization wst be limited by public policy and planning to a point that would be consistent with a responsible storm water management so as not to cause irreversible damage to lake mtka. The potential cost to collect and cheaucally treat storm water runoff from an urbanized water shed such as lake mtka would present a problem that could not be financially justified, therefore, the levels of urbanization aust be controled . Orono feels that an additional chapter should be incorporated in this environment assessment . useing the data contained in the Harza Study , orono *s storm water manageamnt plan and other recant studies hhat will makax—aDaddDmqttx show the deliteriops eff^t of urbanization of the lake mtka watershed. would recommend uiat the services of Hiuok 6 ‘_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6 Associates would be invaluable in providing recent data in this regard. It must be clearly shown in this chapter that the original intent of the interceptor was to remove the phorpdws contained in the waste vrater effluent from the orono and long lake treatment plants.and that the adverse effects caused by urbanization could have a greater dilerterious effect on lake mtka than the reason