11-16-2015 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

#15-3791 MUSA Amendment November 12,2015 Page 2 Process The public hearing is the first step in the process for comple�ting a Comprehensive Plan amendment to revise the MUSA. Once Planning Commi.ssion has completed the Public Hearing and recommended approval, a Resolution will be presented to the City Council for conditional adoption of the amendment subject to Met Council approval. The proposed amendment will be submitted to Met Council on their standard forms with supporting information. Once Met Council has approved the amendment, the City can formally adopt it by resolution. After the amendment takes ef�ect, canstruction of the sewer connec�ion line and the assessment for it are topics primarily dealt with by the Cauncil with no further Planniag Commission action required. Basis for Amendment The primary intent of this amendment is to make it possible for the property at 480 Russell Avenue to be atlowed to connect to the municipal sewer. The existing house was built in 1939 according to County records. The property does not have sites available for aonstruction of a replacement septic system. This property was initially anticipated to be included within the 198U Minnetonka Blui�s municipal sewer service project area,. At the time the project was being designed, properties on the fringe of the project area were given the choice of"opting out" of the pro}ect, based on their potential ability to use septic systems on a permanent basis. The owners of the property at 480 Russell Avenue requested to not be 'sncluded in the project based on the 1.8-acre size of the property, unless they we;re granted 2 sewer unats. Due to the 2-acre zoning, the City Council determined to not provide sewer to the property and it was not assessed for sewer. See Resolution No. 1176 (Eahibit H-1). In 1999 the properry owner requested that the property be allowed to connect to the municipal sewer, as it was detezmined by the City inspector to have a non-compliant septic system (too close to the seasonally saturated soil zone based on actual borings at the system location) and no options for replacement due to topography issues. At that time the City had an agreement with Met Councii (dating to 1996) that would allow up to 50 sewer connections for properties adjacent to City sewer lines but nat in the MUSA. The City Council on October 11, 1999 granted approval �or the connection, subject to the City Engineer approving the design for the connection and all costs ta be paid by the pmperty owner. The owner did not proceed vv�th the connection. The system was again inspected in 2002, 2004 and 2006, each inspection noting that the system must be brought into compliance or connected to sewer no later than December 31, 2010 — the date chosen by the City Council for all non-Shoreland non-compliant systems to be upgra.ded. On May 10, 2010 City Inspector Willie Gibbs sent a letter correctly advising the owner that the option for connecting to sewer was no langer available due to current Met Council policies, which had cl�anged siutce the 1999 approval. The owner was advised to have a septic system designed for the property. The owner proceeded to hire a site evaluator who determined that the property has only limited space for a replacement septic system due to fill soils, steep slopes, and compacted and excavated soils. The only system that could be installed would be limited to a 2-bedroom design and would be a Type IV system (experimental system not allowed by Orono Code). See Eghibit B. The site evaluator recommended that connection to sewer would be the best solution for the property, canfirming the conclusions City staf�had reached in 1999.