Laserfiche WebLink
I ' I Page 3 <br /> � p r _ <br /> , . _ <br /> _ �t <br /> i" , <br /> ���� `� �► <br /> �_.��.� ` �7 <br /> July 3, 1980 <br /> _ .OF, <br /> . ORpNO <br /> Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman <br /> P1etropolitan Council <br /> ; 300 Metro Square Building <br /> I St. Paul , MN 55101 <br /> Subject: City of Orono Comprehensive Plan Review <br /> � Dear Mr. Weaver: <br /> , The t�letropolitan Waste Control Commission has reviewed the subject plan <br /> against the requirements for a comprehensive sewer policy plan as out- <br /> ; lined in the Water Quality Management Policy Plan. The following <br /> � comments and recommendations are offered 6y the Commission: <br /> 1) Figure No. 11 describes an area tFiat is defined by what is <br /> referred to be the existing r1USA/MSSR line. This is not <br /> correct even though the line as shown may be established as <br /> the 1990 MUSA, the MSSR includes tfie entire community of <br /> ' Orono. Althougf� tF�e Orono-Long Lake Interceptor has limited <br /> � capacity to provide sanitary sewer service to the City of Orono, <br /> the downstream interceptors i�ave 6een designed with adequate <br /> capacity to provide sanitary sewer service to the entire City. <br /> 2) Figure No. 13 shows the expected sanitary sewer improvements <br /> within the City some (Areas 1, 2, and 3� of which are outside <br /> of the proposed MUSA 6oundary. No sanitary sewer service <br /> should be provided outside of tfie MUSA. Figure No. 12 <br /> sF�ows those areas of the Ci�ty tfiat are identified for an <br /> � alternative waste management study. This study has a central <br /> sewer system expressed as one of tfie alternatives. Since these <br /> areas are either planned or 6eing considered for a central <br /> sanitary sewer system, tf�ey should 6e included within the 1990 <br /> , MUSA. <br /> 3) The plan indicates that tFie City of Orono has intercommunity <br /> � agreements with Minnetonka Beach, [dayzata, Long Lake and ��edina. <br /> Tt is recommended that copies of tf�ese agreements be included <br /> ; � within the appendix of tf�is report. <br /> � I 4) The plan indicates tF�at a future Maple Plain interceptor is no <br /> 4 longer considered to be a viable alternative, This is not true; <br /> � I the MWCC 201 program recommends tf�at the Maple Plain treatment <br /> ; � ultimately be phased out via an 'interceptor to Long Lake and that <br /> . , the existing treatment plant 6e expanded as an interim improvemen <br /> , i <br /> ; i ' - <br /> I 350(TlETRO/OURRE BLDG. � <br /> � 7THbROBER7/TREEU ; <br /> � /RIf1T PRUL fTl(155101 j <br /> � 612 222•8423 � <br /> i , ! <br /> i , , � <br /> • • I <br /> � - - - - -- -- . <br />