|
and th•_ right :)f way needed it requested approval .r:;m the of€ected units of ;o*ierrn+ent, rarrely the
<br />cities of Orcnp and Long Laka.. Praviously, the nvo communities ••had•expressed their approvol.of
<br />' Alternate 1 through letters and -resolutions urging action on the Environmental Assessment of the
<br />facility. However,'ir: December 1975 as part of the public hearing held to meet federal requirements,
<br />the city of Orono requested a re-evaluation of the project -on the basis of their recently adopted
<br />comprehensive land use plan. The city felt the gravity facility was no longer consistent with the•
<br />community's goals for environmental quality and controlled growth.. The city was concerned that
<br />a gravity facility would unduly facilitate trunk connections contraryto local growth policy and
<br />be less cost-effective, that resultant excessive urbanizatianwodld increase stormwater runoff
<br />and require a higher level of municipal services, and that'the impact of both construction of the ".
<br />and urbanization upon the wetlands prevalent in the city's-area'would be'negative. In
<br />response to these concerns, the 1`fWCC submitted an amended environmental assessment and
<br />subseq;rertiy the addendum to.the preliminary engineeringvepor: which is under review at this .
<br />time.
<br />1 III. Project Description
<br />y,
<br />The Addendum tothe Prelimihary Encineerino Report on'the Orono -Lona -Lake discussed the alternatives
<br />y1 v- 'and cost estimates for the proposed facility only on the basis.of�nviroameiatalJmpact•and not considering
<br />-
<br />_the cost benefit any alternative ?a 2it!:e: "m ruiityr=•Q er, factors in the revised analysis inciude'u--
<br />-.revised flows based on the population projections for the service area -from the Development Framework
<br />';.,. and effect of alternatives •on possible future interceptors.from Maple Plain and Medina: Given this
<br />analysis, .the•recommendarion is,for Alternate A withAlterna.te•C being equally,acceptable pending a
<br />more detailed investigation of site and soil statability.':,Theses.alterrutiyes are shown -in Figure i..
<br />":The recommended facility. now consists -of two lift stations and forcemai`n..'Alift station at -the Orono
<br />,'.Treatment "plant would pump the sewage from this poi .t along `County Road `84,to County Road 51; then
<br />east on County Road 51 to County. Road 15 and "iiortheasteri} -along County Road 15 to the existing
<br />�` r* Wayzata pumping •station. -:Another lift station would p isouth .inm the Long Lake:plaat site along
<br />`Orono Orchard Road -to County Road i5 where it .would c6naect to the previously described forcemaia,
<br />;•:u:F, _ An advantage of this routing is the provision of lmmediate'accessibility.to the''sewer.in the developed'
<br />: -areas of Orono along Lake:Minnet' jlka* however, ihe.lienpopin.County Hi ghw"ay'Departmert has indi-
<br />' =
<br />-sated that constrvctioa;along County Road `15 would clave, to.preserve the`drivina surface of tare roadwa
<br />9 prdj7y
<br />during the ect: _
<br />Alternate C is recommended as a. possible variation because it appears to be equivalent ir, cost .to
<br />Alterpate A"but-instead rovides'a short stretch Df
<br />, ••�._ p gravity sewer from the Orono -Treatment, plant • to
<br />County Rued 51 and then'"east nn County 3ioad: 51 for 18D0 ileal whetie a lift station would be constructed
<br />to pump •the •flow to Wayzata .. The .,,ravity section would .allow' iirect connection for the homes a long •' :
<br />Lake i+3innetonka •but would require' -piling for:the deeper line'.and'tbe acquisitiori'of a' lift station site. -
<br />s, :blong the route of the_i•nterceptor instead -of at the existing,plant;.site. s.w
<br />aith Alternate A.- :The MWCC
<br />y< t •dates this altema� would require idditionai site analysis before verifying its potential. -'The
<br />.estimated construction cost forAiterriaie k $3,600-,'383 arc& for -'Alternate C !s 53;.596,746.. -
<br />y"'f iY Prolact Evaluation „
<br />_Consistency with 'Waste Vianager•rentY6licv Plan and Development Framework
<br />a - , ,f, "�':y�.:='�t.-.tea—':.: .� __'.�', • .% ; :..2c`".:' ..,- .. • ^z _� 7 .,. .-::._ _G. ` .: .• JL '_ _ . r �.�.' _- ..
<br />"`- "As -discussed above,• this interceptor -is included in •the--' il,;S-Waste Management isoiicy Plan as a system
<br />i e ` 4mprovement,•project=approved for construction. :Ir.;1976 The Orono=I6fig 'La ke fadility was also approved -in
<br />Riie.3�iA'CC 197b'Capital'Smprovemetrt 8uc3get'and was programmed •oy the'iviinne'sota Pollution'Controi Age --icy
<br />.w t S to 3eceive F1''I6 Federal and stale i#rat>} funds totalling lip to ,90% , the project -post -r• ;
<br />r
<br />-The Orono Long Lakeintefcepto; service a]ea was esta8lishei3r; fhe initia`S review of the' prelr nlnary•
<br />`engineering tepoF[�=•?be`.service•area;progosed ti;ihe'Addendum is ba'si"cal;•y 6e' ie except for'reduction
<br />cif.the•atea`in Meuira iasera an the°1v7edina.Comprehensive'Sewei'Plen (May 1974).`-'-Tbzee subaisuicts are
<br />�i �, < dsirtiiied as'shown ori figure i.% ';-Subdistrict I3o.rl.comfirises:.most of•central;and western•Ororc; I?o; 3 .
<br />comprises southeastern;[irono'to the',c#ty bviir arytvi'th;•Wayzata ,'$Obdistrict'i�To::2'is sesmented ;one
<br />;part is corMiguous:.to`subdistricts=l•3nt3 3 a'nd'cuniprtses ihe' north ern'tier'of.Oronb`, 611 of the cut, f :
<br />Lake., And a sma?l urea-ef less itiari-a square mile }n extreme. •souther;i'Mediria
<br />l ledina portion includes "the 'Morningside -area and theL Site of the'recently propo sed Hennepin County
<br />-Tech School. ",Thee would possibly -be served by an indicated proposed Medina interceptor connecting
<br />'the- Ororo -bong Take- facility
<br />The other part of subdistrict i.o. 2 includes the city of Maiple'Plain, a part of Morris Baker Par.: Reserve
<br />and the Independence Beach Area of Medina.
<br />
|