Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-20-1991 Stubbs Bay Sewer Hearing MinutesMINUTES OF THE STUBBS BAY SEWER HEARING — NOVEMBER 20, 1991 ROLL The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson, Councilmembers J. Diann Goetten, Gabriel Jabbour, Edward Callahan and Mary Butler. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Ron' Moorse, Public Works Director John Gerhardson, Finance Director Tom Kuehn, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, City Engineer Glenn Cook, Septic Manager Stephen Weckman, and City Recorder Teri Naab. Mayor Peterson called the hearing to order at 7:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Mayor Peterson explained that this is an informational meeting on the proposed Stubbs Bay Sewer Project with concurrent meetings to be scheduled to determine areas of the project and assessments and finances. She introduced Michael Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator, to give a history and needs assessment of the project. Gaffron explained that the septic system issues were first studied in 1975 when the City rezoned many of its zones from 1/2 acre to 2 acre zones. The Council's intent at the time was to create an area that surrounds Lake Minnetonka with low density to limit the amount of urban runoff. They felt that by keeping the low density in rural areas of Orono, Lake Minnetonka would be kept as clean as it possibly could. The Council felt that by forcing properties around the lake to connect to municipal sewer, it forced higher density development to pay for the sewer which would result in more runoff and more pollutants to the lake. The Council agreed that 2 acres would give property owners generally enough acreage to allow a functioning septic system and still allow for the residential structure and outbuildings needed. The 1980 Comprehensive Plan addressed five developed areas with higher density that did not fit that mold: Stubbs Bay, North Shore Drive, Crystal Bay area, Minnetonka Bluffs, West Ferndale /Windward Marine area. He noted that during the 1980s four of those five areas went through a review process and it was determined that municipal sewer was the most appropriate way to solve existing septic system problems. Gaffron noted that in 1975 the City started looking at the Stubbs Bay area and found that it is a small, shallow bay sensitive to nutrient inputs. In 1975, the City went through a study on how to serve the area with a collector system, which was never realized and by today's standards probably would not be approved by the DNR or the PCA. Another option was to supply a-*forcemain to the "Orono /Long Lake interceptor" which was never built. In 1985 the City commenced an alternative waste management study for the Stubbs Bay area which was completed in 1988. He noted that the study looked at each characteristic of the properties involved in the study. The area was then expanded further which a . MUTES OF THE STUBBS BAY SEWER HEARING — NOVEMBER 20, 1991 resulted in a feasibility study for the area. Gaffron stated that -in 1990 a proposal was sent to affected properties owners that suggested the City would install a trunk and lateral system that would divide the cost of the trunk system up equally by the number of total units and would price out the lateral system to serve each area individually. The Council at the time noted to the residents that those who waive their right to appeal would have the whole amount assessed over 15 years rather than charging lateral costs as a connection charge. He noted plan that did not gain much favor with affected residents. Gaffron explained that in late 1990, a few citizens from the area who were in favor of the sewer project, proposed to the Council establishment of a committee to work towards the installation of sewer in the area. That Committee reported that the residents felt the cost was too much, but that it was also needed. Gaffron went on to explain how both a trench and mound septic system work. He explained that studies show that a 36" separation between the highest seasonal water table from the bottom of the trench system is required for proper functioning. He stated that a mound system will make allowances by forming an artificial system of unsaturated area. Gaffron noted that the Stubbs Bay area has high water tables. He noted that when reviewing the soils map, much of Stubbs Bay would need a mound system or the map indicated no system would function in the soil conditions. Gaffron indicated that Oxford Road does note better soil conditions, unfortunately it has been found that the maps are not always right and many of these properties would probably still require mound systems. Gaffron pointed out that nutrients in the effluent must be properly treated. Phosphorus, goes into the ground and adsorbs onto soil particles. When all the nearby soil particles have adsorbed as much as they can, the phosphorus moves further away from the system, which may cause phosphorus accumulations reaching the lake eventually. Another concern is nitrates, which start in an ammonia form, which are soluble, and move with the ground water. He stated that they may be a problem with private water supplies. Biological concerns and viruses are other concerns but do not generally affect Orono's lakes or water supplies partially because of the clay soil present in the area. Gaffron noted that there are State and local code requirements for septic systems: 75' from the lake; 10' from property lines; 10' from buildings and driveways, Orono requires 20'; 50' from wells, Orono requires 75'; and 3' above the seasonal watertable in order to keep the biomat degrading so water continues to move through it. However, he noted that codes have changed and continue to do so, and therefore older systems would not meet current standards. 2 MINUTES OF THE STUBBS BAY SEWER HEARING — NOVEMBER 20, 1991 Gaffron noted that on Page 5 of the handout, it explains categories of existing systems within the Stubbs Bay area. He noted that currently 1/5 of the systems are conforming, however with the proposed new DNR shoreland regulations, some of those may no longer be conforming. Gaffron stated that about 50% of the systems in the area are substandard, about 10% are near failure, about 8% are currently failing, 2% of the properties are on holding tanks; 4 cabins do not have plumbing; and 8% of the systems are too close to the lake and are less than 3' above the lake elevation. Gaffron noted that some alternatives include: alter water use, repair or replace current systems, innovative joint on —site systems, collection systems with off —site treatment, individual holding tanks, selective condemnation or demolition, and sanitary sewer. Sanitary sewer is the best, permanent solution. He explained that the DNR regulations will force adoption of the State Septic Code, which will require when a resident proposes improvements or additions to his property, the septic system would have to be in compliance with current code. Gaffron reiterated Council's past position, that areas that become- sewered will not be rezoned from a 2 acre standard to allow higher densities. Gene Deterling, 240 Cygnet Place, asked if water quality studies had been done to determine where the real problem lies, such as how many fish are dying. Gaffron explained that in 1975 soil borings were done in the Stubbs Bay Northeast area, which told them that there was untreated sewage in the near — surface ground water. He stated that there are a number of systems near the lake in sandy soils that are undoubtedly contributing to effluent entering the lake. He pointed out that the areas near the lake and the streams are of biggest concern. Deterling suggested that the City has concerns but they are not able to put an exact measurement on those concerns. Gaffron noted that much greater effort and expense would be incurred in attempting to quantify the problem, and to date the City's determination of the extent of actual pollution has relied an inferences based on relative compliance with code standards. Jane Behrman, 340 Leaf Street, stated that she felt the expense of additional testing would be worth it prior to spending home owners' money for sewer. Joe DeMeo, 400 Oxford'Road, `agreed with Behrman. Jabbour pointed out that if the City is forced by the State to enforce such regulations, what can the City do about the issue. 3 MINUTES OF THE STUBBS BAY SEWER HEARING - NOVEMBER 20, 1991 Gaffron noted that is correct, and said that the State, when requiring repairs to a system are not requiring the City to show a pollution problem, but rather if the system does not meet their code it must be fixed. Deterling felt that the City could appeal the DNR and PCA requirements. Pat Crane, 285 Leaf Street, noted that the proposed regulations by the DNR basically apply to lakeshore. Gaffron explained that they affect properties within 1000' of Lake Minnetonka, and include properties 300' either side of creeks designated by either the DNR or the City. Crane noted that as of this time, neither the State nor the City has designated the creek which runs through the Cygnet Place neighborhood. Gaffron concurred. Fred Blanch, Bayside Road, felt that there was a relatively small number of properties which are creating a general preoccupation with the sewer system. Gaffron noted that there are two levels of problems, the first being those systems which are failing or about to fail, and the second being properties too small to allow for a . future conforming system should the existing system fail. Blanch felt that they did not have enough information on the need. He noted that it was a lot of money and felt it may be better to do one large project instead of smaller, more costly projects. Dennis Shaw, 405 Oxford Road, stated that the site on Oxford Road that has a failing system, the owner has agreed to rebuild the system to a conforming system. Gaffron stated that they have gone through each property and noted _:capabilities of replacement of the septic system, separation of septic system from well, whether the system is a conforming system, lot sizes, and schematics of potential secondary systems. Scott Anderson, 3415 Eastlake Street, stated that there are 9 cabins on Eastlake Street which have been turned into homes. Of those, 4 have 2 people living in them, 4 have 1 person living there and 1 has no plumbing. He felt the need for sewer is not there. He stated that only 1 of those homes is valued over $50,000 and the assessment for the project would be about 1/4 of the property value. He noted that he is on a holding tank and is pumping about 4 times a year. 21 , MINUTES OF THE STUBBS BAY SEWER HEARING — NOVEMBER 20, 1991 Bill Levering, 3180 Ridgewood Circle, felt there is a need in some areas, but felt that properties with 2 acres or more should be allowed to remain on septic systems. He stated that property owners should be allowed individual alternatives on how they handle their septic concerns. He noted that the City has required alternative septic systems, and properties that have such, will still be required to hook up to sanitary sewer. He felt that the cost of the project should be assessed to the entire City to eliminate possible health and environmental concerns in the area. Goetten noted the Council has not determined how the system will be paid for and in the past, the philosophy of the City has been that those who benefit will bear the burden. Jabbour stated that he understands the public's position as in 1972 he bought a home for $25,000 and was assessed $7,800 for sanitary sewer, which was reduced to $5,000 through the courts. He felt it is inappropriate to assess the whole amount. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan, which is adopted by the Metropolitan Council, does provide for sewer in the Stubbs Bay area. He reiterated that the entire City will probably not be sewered for many years as the MUSA line does not extend to the entire City. Also, the City is assessed only so many sewer units, so for those who feel they can hook —up later, that may not be so. Jabbour pointed out that the DNR regulations will be adopted in early 1992 which will implement more restrictive controls. He noted that homes cannot normally be sold without certification of the septic system. Levering suggested that the Council give as much choice to individual property owners as possible. Goetten noted that the City has spent years compiling information on the project, and sewer is not a positive thing. Loren Klitzke, 555 Oxford Road, noted that the Council is asking the residents to foot a $2,000,000 bill without current water quality information of the Lake. He explained he has contacted State agencies for their studies, and he found out they have omitted Stubbs Bay from their studies. He felt they were being forced into this situation by regulatory agencies. Gaffron said they could come back with a proposal 'on water quality studies if Council desires. Jabbour stated that the water quality in the area doesn't matter because if the regulations find a septic system in violation and there is no alternate on the site, what is the relevance to the water quality of the bay in front of the house. Klitzke felt it becomes an issue of a specific home and its situation. G MINUTES OF THE STUBBS BAY SEWER HEARING — NOVEMBER 201 10911 Jabbour concurred but reminded him that there are many homes which currently are percolating sewage to the surface and these homes have no alternate drainfield site. Klitzke noted that they should be looking at the -whole drainfield that goes into Lake Minnetonka, including those beyond 1000'. Callahan stated that State agencies are doing just that. Mayor Peterson introduced Glenn Cook, the City Engineer, and asked him to explain the different areas and costs. Cook explained the property being considered has been divided into seven areas, which would all hook up to the forcemain on Tonkawa Road. Cook indicated that the trunk cost would. be divided equally among all properties in the project, and the lateral costs which are used to serve a particular neighborhood would be paid for by the homes served in that area. Cook noted that the lateral lines would go down the middle of the street, which is why the cost may seem higher, because the street would need to be replaced. He estimated the trunk portion of the project to cost $830,090, and the lateral portion to cost $1,114,885. Cook showed a table which divided the cost amoung areas proposed. A resident asked why the lateral costs could not be spread equally amoung those involved. Cook stated that could be done, but there are some areas where there is little or no street replacement, thus reducing the cost. Klitzke noted that on Oxford Road, the line is proposed to go through the front /lake yards rather than through the street, which would allow for five more houses to be included. Cook noted that would be a possibility. He indicated that if the project is approved, work could start in April of 1992 with completion in August of 1992. Which means the area would be disrupted for the entire summer of 1992. Mayor Peterson introduced Dave Peterson, Chair of the Citizens Committee, which was appointed by Council in April of 1991. Peterson explained that he and members of the Committee have taken a random, door —to —door sampling of feelings of the project. He noted that no one is excited and some of the comments were: sewer should have been in years ago, cost too much, City should help pay, don't need it but would help to defray the cost. Peterson explained that he is not within the proposed sewered area, but recently his septic system failed and an alternate system could not be located on his 2+ acre lot. He also reiterated that under the new regulations, any home improvement or sale of a home would require the septic system to be brought 2 MINUTES OF THE STUBBS BAY SEWER HEARING — NOVEMBER.20,•1991 up to code compliance. He stated tfiat a sewer project will only get more expensive. He felt that the project is long past due. Peterson indicated that Committee members have tried to find alternative financing, but currently to no avail. He suggested that the sewer would probably add $125/150 onto the monthly house payment, which may be near the cost of a holding tanks, which may be the only other alternative for some residences. Peterson introduced the Committee: Todd Ziesmer, 3440 Bayside Road; John Burger, 3750 Bayside Road; Candi Rowlette, 3775 Bayside Road; John Thiesse, 3845 Bayside Road. A resident suggested that along with alternative financing, the City consider paying for the street repair portion of the project as the street has a life expectancy of 20 years. A resident asked if Peterson lived in the area. Peterson noted that his mother lives in the Stubbs Bay area and that is how he became involved. Deterling noted that a petition has been submitted expressing 100% opposition to the project for properties on Cygnet Place and Leaf Street. He also felt that Orono shouldn't accept legislation by State agencies. All can be contested, which he suggested the Council do for the citizens. Jabbour noted that State codes are mandated to all communities within Minnesota, and he would be embarrased to confront State agencies with opposition to septic codes when there are failing systems in the City. Levering felt the City has a covenant to not assess more than the value of the home allows. He stated that if people feel the assessment is fair there will be no court cases. Mayor Peterson reminded them that they are not here to discuss financing of the project, but rather the merits of the project. She noted that most Council members have directly been involved with a sewer project in their area so they are well aware of the concerns. Dave Peterson' felt the problem isn't so much the pollution aspect, but rather how are you going to flush your toilets when systems continue to fail. Mayor Peterson confirmed that the City staff has also been looking for alternative financing for the project.. Mayor Peterson indicated questions would now be taken by area, starting with Stubbs Bay Northwest. 7 MINUTES OF THE STUBBS BAY SEWER HEARING — NOVEMBER 29, 101 Fred Blanch, 3965 Bayside Road, asked if there was a possibility of service extending westward, and felt if a large area were to be done it would be more cost effective than sewering smaller areas. Gaffron announced that the City has looked at densely developed areas, and the City has sewered as necessary those developments. The City has also decided not to sewer the 2 or 5 acre rural zones. He stated that his personal opinion is a 2 acre lot, in a number of cases, may not be large enough to provide for both a primary and secondary septic system. Blanch asked if soon the Painters Creek area would need sewer. Gaffron noted that those lots are,2 acres, which do not need immediate attention. Blanch asked that the City consider doing a sewer project efficiently for a change. Cook explained that the existing sewer system downstream has a limited capacity of 200 units. The Stubbs Bay area may take about 135 units. To go beyond those units, everything downstream would need to be replaced. Blanch asked that if sewer is provided, they run it along the other side of the street near his property so as to save the oak trees on his property. Candi Rowlette, 3775 Bayside Road, responding to a previous comment about the fact that all the Committee members live on Bayside Road, agreed that all members of the Committee live on Bayside, and reminded the public that anyone could have and still could volunteer for the Committee. She noted the members have volunteered a lot of time. She explained that the cost of litigation has been built into the cost of the system, and if not needed; may reduce the cost of the project. Scott,�Anderson, Eastlake Street, asked why the project is being considered if the testing to prove it is necessary has not been done. Mayor Peterson noted that further testing could be done. She reiterated that the project has not been ordered yet. Callahan stated it was his understanding that 25 -35% of the systems in existence are already failing or on the verge of failing, regardless whether they are discharging directly into the lake or not. Jabbour indicated that the project has been broken down into different districts and people should try to isolate their area and determine just that areas' need. He noted that Lake' Street is one of the areas that requires immediate attention. 8 MINUTES OF THE STUBBS BAY SEWER HEARING — NOVEMBER 20,••1991 Anderson agreed that Eastlake Street is probably the worst spot on the lake. He offered that most homes in that area are only 400 -500 s.f. and could never house more than a couple of people. He felt there may be a cheaper option. John Pidgon noted he has a 2 acre, vacant property in the area. He felt sewer is inevitable, and it may as well go in now. He stated he is in favor of the project. Rowlette noted that Mr. Ziesmer, a Committee member, is currently in a new home with a holding tank. She noted that he has spent more on the holding tank and .pumpouts in the last three years than the monthly assessment will cost him. Thiesse suggested the Council find out who is in favor of the sewer project if the price is fair. Mayor Peterson called for a show of hands of those in this area who are in favor of the project, absent the cost.issue: 7 for; 2 against. Steve Gardiner, 3770 Bayside Road, asked why the pipe is proposed to go through the middle of his property. Cook agreed it could be moved. John Burger, 3750 Bayside Road, noted that he has a 10 acre parcel with a functioning system, but he is for the project. He felt it is time to realize the need in order to leave the world a better place for future generations. Jeff Mueller, 222 Bederwood Rd, suggested those people that voted for the project may change their mind when the actual cost is added into the question. Mayor Peterson called for questions from the Bayside North area. Sherokee Isles, 3630 Eileen Street, asked about the statistics for her area. Gaffron explained there were 4 properties, 1 with a failing system, and 1 vacant lot. Isles felt that people who need the sewer should be provided with it, but for persons who meet certain criteria, they should have the option not to hook up. She felt that perhaps the project should be spread out further to defray the cost. Gaffron agreed that you can pick out any 2 acre lot in the area and argue that they do not need sewer. Isles asked why other developments are not included. She felt that a choice should be offered for those parcels that are on the fringe and meet criteria. She was also concerned about the large amount of tree loss due to the project, and felt that the City should do all they can to minimize this loss. Stephen Whitman, 3620 Eileen Street, noted he has a near 2 acre lot with a primary and alternate site for septic and wanted to E MINUT g OF THE STUBBS BAY SEWER HEARING — NOVEMBER 20, 1991 know why he was included. He said he would be willing to covenant restrictions against building on those sites. Gaffron noted that they will be taking a closer look at properties that will be included. Mayor Peterson called for questions from the Stubbs Bay Northeast area. Vince Larson, 3500 Stubbs Bay Road, has a 2 acre site that has been preliminarily tested for a mound system. He explained that 6 years ago he purchased a home on North Arm Drive because it had sewer and sold that property easily because it had sewer available. If the sewer is put in, 20 years from now no one will say it -cost too much but only realize the benefit of sewer. Charlie Balgaard, 3435 Eastlake Street, noted that he was in sticker shock. He wanted to know why the cost was double the national average cost for sewer projects. He felt that cost is a big part of this issue. Mr. Glenn, 3465 Eastlake Street, noted that he lives right on the lake and would prefer sewer. He felt that it will go in one way or another. Todd Ziesmer, 3440 Bayside Road, stated that what Ms. Rowlette said was true about his property and could not see how anyone could get by paying less for a holding tank. He noted that he has a 2,000 gallon tank and it needed to be pumped every 3 weeks. He said he cannot afford to continue to wait for the City to decide on this property. He felt the City should look at the big picture to make their decision. He stated that he cannot afford to install a septic system at this time, and in the near future also pay a sewer assessment to hook up. Charlie Balgaard asked again why the cost is double the national average. Jabbou'r noted that this area has smaller lots, a high water table and poor soil conditions. He assured Mr. Belgaard that the City will not be making money on this project. Cook explained that there is a need for a relatively high length of trunk line and many areas where laterals cannot be used. He also indicated topography, lake levels, and the need to restore roads all drive the cost higher. Dan Esters, 3400 Bayside Road, noted there would be lift station in his front yard and asked about that. Cook explained that there would be an electrical panel, with casting of 9 -10' in diameter. Typically there would be no odor emitted. 10 MINUTES OF THE STUBBS BAY SEWER HEARING — NOVEMBER 20;.1991 Esters felt that a compromise could be made that 50% of the project be paid by all at first and then as hook ups are made as systems fail, the additional 50% be paid. Butler felt it would be hard to convince the bank that the bill would ever get paid. Esters noted it would be easier for property owners if the cost were segmented. Gaffron reviewed the fees: trunk and lateral fees to be assessed, SAC charge to be paid when hooked up, permit fee and contractor cost for connection. He felt that deferring connections would lead to the City requiring hookup as systems fail and the property owner claiming they do not have the money to hookup at that time. Jabbour noted the City doesn't have the money to fund the project, and would sell bonds which need to be repaid from the assessment income. Tom Kuehn, Finance Director, said a general obligation bond can be assessed at a certain percentage, with the rest being levied. Additional charges could be assessed later. The City in effect could defer those costs. Levering suggested a deadline of hookup within 10 years after project has been started to insure compliance.. Blanch felt it would make the project more palatable. Jabbour asked what would happen if a person protests the assessment at a later date as not receiving any benefit. Callahan felt that maybe it could be worked out. He felt they need to balance the financing to make it generally fair to all affected owners. Perhaps it could be deferred if the need was not current. He noted the City does have restrictions when they levy a bond and it cannot be tailored to individual needs. He noted that right now 2 areas need sewer, and something needs to be done. Mayor Peterson invited questions from the Oxford area. Shaw asked again about the route of the lateral, and suggested by going down the road it would save trees. Gaffron noted that the way it stands, 2 lots abutting Oxford Road would not be served. Klitzke felt that the Council needs to consider adding to the project those 5 extra units in the Oxford /Leaf Street area. He also commented on the recent subdivision to the east which has created 2 drainageways through the Oxford plat, which creates a bigger problem for those residents. He felt that they should 11 MINUT ES OF THE STUBBS BAY SEWER HEARING — NOVEMBER 20, 1991 look closely at the criteria for being involved in the project. He wanted the lateral to be run down the street to avoid tree loss. Cook noted that could be done. Klitzke noted that all Oxford residents oppose the project. He felt there was no need to fix a problem that doesn't exist. He felt that those not meeting the restrictions of the ordinance should be forced to do so. Goetten noted that the City has hired a septic inspector who will be involved with these issues. She noted the City does follow up on complaints by neighbors regarding septic problems. Klitzke felt that was good and the citizens needed that kind of support. He noted the long —term fix can be expensive. Jabbour explained that Oxford Road and Cygnet Place came in at the end of the study, and he would need further clarification from staff that the areas need sewer before he would vote for it in those areas. Goetten noted that Oxford Road was included because the lots are on lakeshore. She too concurred with Jabbour regarding the need for sewer*in this area. Arnie Robins, 3211 Bayside Road, agreed with the Oxford Road residents. He noted that he has a 3 —year old house and wanted to know why Fox Bend plat and the church weren't included. Goetten explained the Council has considered criteria for inclusion /exclusion. Teri Robins felt that Fox Bend should be assessed for possible future hookup. Butler noted they won't get the benefit of the project. Robins µnoted that because they were putting in miles of pipe, they may as,well benefit and they should have to pay. Jabbour noted he had a hard time requiring a new development that has been required to provide for primary and alternate septic testing to also be required to hook up to sewer. He noted that if they are to hook up at a later date, they will have to pay for it at that time. Klitzke noted that about 40 homes will not increase in value the amount of the assessment, and this concern needs to be addressed. He felt that the Council needs to decide how to finance the project and doesn't feel that how it was done in the past is necessarily the best way to go about it now. T. Robins asked what outside funds have been looked at. 12 MINUTES OF THE STUBBS BAY SEWER HEARING — NOVEMBER 20, 1991 Mayor Peterson suggested she call.the City Administrator for information on this question. She called for questions from the Bayside East area. Susan Hillman, 400 Leaf Street, noted she lives by the new development and stated they have already experienced additional water problems because of that development. She noted they are on a holding tank which they pump every 3 weeks. . She would prefer to have the sewer installed as opposed to installing a mound system. Jane Behrman, 340 Leaf Street, pointed out a petition which she submitted noting 10 of out 12 residents opposing the sewer. She felt the money is the biggest issue. Sue Nyhammer, 3280 Bayside Road, noted they just bought their home and cannot afford to do any improvements with increased assessments. She stated part of the reason they bought their home was because of the trees and wished to keep those. Don Boylan, 3240 Bayside Road, noted he is generally in favor of the project. He noted that because of a potential sale of his property, the financial aspect is a big issue for him. He stated that when the Oxford development went in, during the digging of the basements they were filled with water. Behrman noted that if the project is commenced, there needs to be some leeway as to when properties need to be connected. Mayor Peterson invited questions from the Cygnet Place area. Bob Provo, 220 Cygnet Place, noted that the estimate for Cygnet Place is the highest of all and it is obvious to him that Cygnet Place was thrown in at the last minute to help defray costs for everyone else. He noted that Cygnet Place was just repaved last year and it would be a waste to dig it up to put in the sewer. Gene Deterling noted that even if the sewer were free he would be opposed because it destroys the rural atmosphere of the area and encourages further development. He stated that in New England there are homes that are on septic systems for hundreds of years with no problem. Goetten reiterated that if sewer is installed, there would be no rezoning of the area. Mrs. Deterling asked how a unit is defined. Cook explained that it is a house on acreage. Pat Crane, 295 Leaf Street, asked if the gentleman with 10 acres would be assessed 5 units because it is in 2 acre zoning. 13 MfNWT9§ OF THE STUBBS BAY SEWER HEARING — NOVEMBER 20, 1991 Gaffron indicated that if the lot were approved to be split in half now, he would be assessed for 2 units. He reviewed that Mr. Crane is suggesting that anyone with the ability to subdivide should get assessed for those possible future lots. He noted that Mr. Burger is the only owner with property that has the ability to subdivide under current zoning. Dean Moline, 248 Cygnet Place, stressed that there are 2 lots on Cygnet with 2 acres and therefore should be assessed 2 units each. Gaffron noted that in both cases, one lot is vacant and used by the principal residence and therefore only assessed one unit. Moline felt that the project was bad timing as the Highway 12 corridor has not yet been determined, which may run right through his lof" if the southern corridor is picked. Behrman noted that they do not even have an opportunity to sell their property because the highway issue has buyers scared off. Doug Merz, 3195 Watertown Road, stated that he had a failing system and just recently put in a mound system at the cost of $10,000. He noted he is for for the sewer but not at that cost. He asked about the status of the subdivision of the Panuska property. Gaffron stated that the subdivider, Mr. Carlson had a problem with the Army Corp of Engineers, which is still being worked out. The preliminary plat approval is about to expire and Carlson will either have to apply for an extension or refile a new plat. Crane stated he was surprised to see his property was included as the original study did not include property north of the Luce Line. He felt that because residents asked the dollar amount to be reduced, the City included this area. He stated that according to the handout, laterals to his property will not even be installed immediately, but those properties will be assessed immediately for the project. Gaffron noted that only areas with laterals installed immediately would be assessed for those laterals. Crane reviewed that his property does not need the sewer, but was included to reduce the trunk portion of the cost for other. He felt there was no way his property would benefit $19,000 for the installation of sewer. He felt that the total cost of the project should be divided equally which would put the cost at about $14,500 for everyone. He thought it interesting that areas that need the sewer the most have the lowest cost for the project. Rowlette explained that is not why the cost of others went down. 14 MINUTES OF THE STUBBS BAY SEWER HEARING — NOVEMBER 20, 1991 Crane replied that she can say that because she will be served immediately with sewer. Cook explained that the inclusion of Cygnet did reduce the amount somewhat, but not equivalent to 29 times. He noted that by taking out Cygnet Place,,the trunk cost probably would be reduced by $80,000. Jabbour observed that Crane is assuming that the City is doing everything wrong and that the City will not assume any additional cost. Crane felt that the line should be installed immediately for hookup, and later assessed for incremental cost. Goetten explained that when looking at the area, they looked at areas that were close to the lake that were having problems. She noted there are some failing systems on Cygnet Place. Crane noted that Cygnet Place was included in the project without the benefit of the general study. He noted that the City did not review each property individually. He felt the cost implication of adding in this area is so detrimental to them that there is no way to justify it, especially when there is no intent to supply the lateral. Cook noted the report recommends certain areas for immediate hookup. The report does not make a decision on who is included or excluded from the project. He noted that if the full amount is assessed, the property would be able to hook up. Crane noted that if only assessed for the trunk charge, he would be unable to hook up, and felt his property was only included in the project to reduce the trunk cost for everyone else. Don Gronberg, 110 Leaf Street, noted his property is vacant land on which they had plans to build a retirement home. His property is 3/4 of an acre and asked if he would need variance approval to build. Goetten noted that if the lot was determined to be unbuildable, there would be no assessment. Gaffron reviewed that it is a substandard lot which would require variance approval to build. It should be determined by .both the City and owner prior to assessment whether the lot would be approved as buildable. Frank St. Lawrence, 253 Cygnet Place, asked if the cost could be reduced if all agreed to the assessment by reducing the litigation factor. Mayor Peterson agreed that it would be reduced if all agreed to the project and assessment. 15 MINUTES OF THE STUBBS BAY SEWER HEARING - NOVEMBER,20t 19B1 Jim Brownlee, 250 Cygnet Place, asked how many systems are failing on Cygnet Place. He noted that he recently constructed a mound system because of a failing system, and at that time was under the opinion that his was the only failing system..._ Gaf f ron explained that on Cygnet Place' ­_about " systems have been replaced in the past 14 years, systems. He noted that in some cases this leave: site. He noted the soils in that area are suggested it is prudent for the City to "provide a the future use of the neighborhood. 40 -50% of the many with mound s no alternative also wet, and trunk line for Provo noted his house is for sale, and wanted to know to do so, should an alternate site be provided. He felt that he should not have to pay for future needs with his retirement equity. Mayor Peterson noted there is a deferral option for senior citizens, which is available until the house is sold. Provo noted that he had counted on this money for retirement. Behrman asked if the City has a record of those properties with failing systems. Gaffron noted the report has been updated to include properties on Leaf Street and Cygnet Place. He noted that on paper Cygnet Place is not in as much trouble as other areas. However, the report does not address all issues which affect the septic system, so other factors could be involved. D. Peterson noted that even though Oxford and Cygnet were originally not included, the City needs to look at what point those systems will fail and they will need sewer provided. Crane noted that he would rather participate in the project but objected to the cost. He felt it is important for the Council to look at individual property issues, and offer an opportunity to elect out of the project if criteria is met. He felt that the Council needs to come up with some method to have all properties included for the benefit of the lake and Orono citizens. Mayor Peterson closed the public hearing at 10:30 p.m. It was moved by Mayor Peterson, seconded by Butler, to order plans and specifications and bids to be drafted by the City Engineer for the Stubbs Bay Sewer Project. Ayes 5, nays 0. 16 J y v MINUTES OF THE STUBBS BAY SEWER HEARING — NOVEMBER 20, 1991 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Jabbour, to adjourn the regular meeting of the Council at 10:32 p.m. i r ity Clerk 17 .r Barbara A, Peterson, Mayor NQTBEOFMEEnNGcnvoFonoNo NOTICE it hMfer «i«w> Otunol of Omw, MhmttoK* wT htaring in twOrano CtwitI (' fNetm Road Soutti. oi C‘, V •■ ''C --------- ^ ----------------..Th# ^fOpMMd IB bo Bttttttd «Dr aucfi ~7gy^ *y»»> ot ifi* B^r Arar and It dttaM ot Mom: ' iggag- tSSi^BF ProportM ir. tw Eat! IM of tw Nwjh^QutrMofSwaion S.J.V.7 li. R. 23 tMtiien abut Laaf SoaeL M ptopany in tw Watt half of tht NPffhMtl 9uaftarolSaoioR4.T.n7N.. R.23 Vi. V. MpiopanyintiaNonhMfoftfw Soudioatl outrtar ol SacBon S, T. 117 N.. K 23 W. idMh nOutt Oxtord Road or BoyMaRoad. Tha aaiimatad coal ol auch Improvamant It $1,044,075.00 Such parMns aa daaira lo ba haard with rafaranca to tha propoMd improvamam will ba havd at iMa moating. /a/Lmda S Vaa Deputy Clerii (Publiahad in Tha Lakar and Ptonaer Nov * and Nov. 11.1991) h'-m fh i A.4;- Pf-:: sei. Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota. County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER. Mound. Min­ nesota, and has full Knowledge of the facts which are stated below; A.) The newspaper has complied with all the require­ ments constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02. 331 A.07. and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed ./ rii'frn- ■‘Ji-.'Kilhifl':/! llTS:i-f' n' which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and w^printed and published once each week for___________________successive weeks: U was first published Monday, the / day of londay. lied and publ /// and WPS thereafter printed and published every Monday, [o and including y,onday. d day of / h-1)'. •the n.-. ^Authorized Agent KRISTI HOLM i NOTARY »<JBUC • MINNESOTA f HENNEPIN COUNTY My ccmmMton expires 7-10-97 Subscribed and sworn tojr\e on this ft 3y: hfir.k—//.'ll day of ddr dr'IjrJ !il.y.lL Notary Public Rate Information (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users 'or compar ­ able space: $10.76 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by taw for above manor; $10.76. (3' Rale actually charged lor above matter. $5 84 per inch Each addibonai successive week: $4 C2.