HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe: sewer connection denial REGULAR MEETING
June 171 -1986
A Regular Meeting of the City Council , Long Lake, Hennepin
County, Minnesota was held in said City on Tuesday, June
17, 1986 at City Hall .
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kunze called the Meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m.
Members Present : Kunze, Schaefer, Day, Swartwood, Patch
Members Absent: None
APPROVE MINUTES Motion by Member Patch, second by Member Swartwood to
REGULAR MEETING approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 3, 1986
6,3/86 as written. All voted in favor . Motion carried.
PERRY'S SIGN Motion by Member Patch, second by Member Swartwood to
PERMIT GRANTED approve Rick Perry' s sign request to replace the current
pylon- sign at his station at 2205 W. Wayzata Blvd.
displaying the Deep Rock Logo with a Texaco sign as he is
changing suppliers. The new sign will be the same size or
slightly smaller than the current one. Approval is
granted with the knowledge that if the signage on his
property does not conform to the new Sign Ordinance he
will be required to change it at that time. Approval is
on the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
All voted in favor. Motion carried.
SANITARY SEWER On October 2, 1985 Anne B. McCourt, owner of the property at
1124 UNDERHILL 1124 Underhill Circle, was sent a letter advising her that
she would have to comply with the City Ordinance and connect
to the City Sanitary Sewer System. Since she had just
recently purchsed the property, she was given until June 1,
1986 to comply. To date this has not been done, therefore
the City Attorney was directed to write a letter, giving Ms. a
McCourt 45 days to comply, or further legal action
will be taken and to advise her of the penalities that will be
applied according to the City Ordinance.
4ATER/SEWER Motion by Member Schaefer, second by Member Day to approve
1OOK-UP FOR the hook-up to the Long Lake Water/Sewer System request of
7ANEECKHOUT Eugene & Tana Roehl for the property they are purchasing � G1
RANTED from Vaneeckhout at 650 North Brown Road, and to use one G1 .�
of the Long Lake SAC Units and to bill the Roehl ' s
directly for water and sewer used, based on the following
findings :
The property at 650 North Brown Road has been soil tested 6
and found to have very poor potential for a standard
Septic System or or ' a an-
system for ost reasons and because of the proximity of 3
e property to Long Lake, a septic system could pose a
Csubstantial environmental and health problem to the Lake.
ouncil fur n s e C ty o on ake is \
willing to allow adjacent properties in Orono to connect
to its Sanitary Sewer System in appropiate cases. These
applicants have proven financial hardship and health/
environmental hardship. Compared to the cost of
connecting to the Long Lake Sanitary Sewer, which is
readily available, the cost of a Septic System would be
4 to 5 times higher . A letter regarding this decision
and these findings is to be sent to the City of Orono,
Vaneeckout Corp. , Jeff Stebbins, and Eugene & Tana Roehl .
All voted in favor. Motion carried .
WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENTi,�,Q�'-�,�
W/12/81
J10
P
Council policy is not to provide metropolitan built at local rather than metropolitan \O`
services in the Rural Service Area and to require expense.` o,
local units of government to solve their own
Develop-
local pollution problems. To do so in the case of This position is supported by the general Develop
private commercial and residential treatment ment Framework policy that metropolitan urban
facilities, local units of government must assume services, including sewers, will not be provided
some responsibility in the regulatory system, just to the Rural Service Area.
as the local government is responsible for
approving land uses and issuing building permits In addition, the 1975 Waste Management Policy
for those developments requiring sewer services. Plan contained policies providing fora management
The decision on land use should be directly related and control program for on-site systems. The
to responsibility fcr potential water pollution on-site policies contained in the Waste Management
problems within the local government's jurisdiction. Policy Plan describe generally the necessary
elements of an effective local ordinancing program.
In 1980 the Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Further, in a set of procedures adopted with the
Waste Control Commission and Minnesota 1975 Waste Management Policy Plan, the
Pollution Control Agency reached agreement on a Metropolitan Council established guidelines for
process for reviewing proposed NPDES permits the content of local comprehensive sewer policy
and SDS permit programs. plans, including provisions dealing with on-site
sewer systems.
Policies The 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act �11
37. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency establishes a system of coordinated land planning
should issue National Pollution Discharge involving the Metropolitan Council and local units
Elimination System permits and/or State of government within the Seven-County Region.
Disposal System permits only for facilities By virtue of this statute, the Metropolitan Council
serving development consistent with a local plays a major role in overseeing how land use
land use plan approved by the Metropolitan planning affects construction of on-site systems
Council and/or a comprehensive sewer plan in the Metropolitan Area.
approved by the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission. The 1980 agreement on the Furthermore, under Section 208 of the federal
review process involving the three agencies Water Pollution Control Ac: (Public Law 92-500),
should be implemented and monitored for the Metropolitan Council must adopt and ensure
effectiveness. implementation of a 20-year staged water quality
management plan. Federal water quality
management guidelines require that an effective
ON-SITE TREATMENT SYSTEMS management structure be established to implement
Section 208 planning activities. All aspects of
The Metropolitan Council's interest in the proper implementation are to be addressed, including
functioning of on-site waste treatment facilities is engineering, construction, operation and
closely linked to the issue of the premature maintenance, monitoring, enforcement and
extension of metropolitan sewer service should financing.
on-site systems fail. On this matter, the Council
has established the following guidelines in support Finally, the Council is concerned about the proper
of the Rural Service Area policies: functioning of on-site systems from the perspective
of potential metropolitan significance. Rules and
The Council will support the adoption and Regulations for the Review of Matters Alleged to
enforcement of state and local health and B6 19M8) staoli as one standard for detn Significance ermining
January n
safety regulations for on-site disposal systems
for nonfarm development in the Metropolitan metropolitan significance the "construction of any
Area. Pollution problems which result from
failure to enforce adequate health and safety `Development Framework Guide chapter
standards will be solved by local facilities (DF/2/78). p• 49B•
20
i
WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
\ W/12/81
t
r
s
public sewer facility in conflict with an approved regional mechanisms are not oriented toward
local comprehensive sewer plan or a metropolitan enforcement or implementation, but rather
sewer plan." A widespread, unanticipated failure of toward review and comment on local actions
on-site systems could necessitate the construction and providing assistance.
of a public facility meeting that standard.
— Most management and control activity has been
On-site systems have been widely used in the and continues to be performed by local govern-
Metropolitan Area. A substantial proportion of mental units and individual system owners.
recent residential construction has occurred in
i the Rural Service Area. It is estimated that over — Existing local management and control programs
60,000 units are in use in the Metropolitan Area are extremely varied in scope, degree of involve-
at present, and data indicates that about 12 percent ment and content. Questions exist about the
of all new homes built in the Metropolitan Area adequacy of local administrative capabilities,
from 1970 through 1979 rely on on-site systems local ordinance provisions and financial resources
for waste disposal. The percentage has declined necessary to carry out a management and
{ since the mid-1970s. control program in a cost-effective fashion.
Despite the widespread use of on-site systems in — Management and control of on-site systems are,
the Metropolitan Area, relatively few studies have to a degree, oriented toward dealing with crisis
investigated the impacts of on-site systems in this or problem situations, with attention given such
Region. General information is available on systems primarily when problems occur.
technical engineering and design of such systems,
suitable soil and hydrological conditions for on-site — Although federal, state and regional involvement
systems, how and why systems fail, and the long- is increasing in management and control
and short-term effects of system failure on water programs (as evidenced by WPC 40 and Section
quality. This information is beginning to be used in 208 of the Clean Water Act amendments), there
the Metropolitan Area in a systematic manner. is still uncertainty about what specific responsi-
Additional analysis, planning and program bilities the various levels of government should
development should relate this general information have. There also is a need to establish adequate
to the specific conditions in the Metropolitan enforcement standards for this Region.
Area, to the incidence and pattern of on-site
system use, and to the adequacy of local on-site — The Metropolitan Land Planning Act, the Metro-
system management and control programs. politan Significance regulations, and Section 208
of the Clean Water Act amendments are a help-
In the past, local units have typically allowed and ful basis to define an adequate on-site system
supervised the installation of on-site systems with management and control program for local
little, if any, guidance. Frequently, an informal governmental units. The Land Planning Act also
review and approval of installation occurs as establishes mechanisms for local-metropolitan
part of the building permit issuance process. Local coordination.
supervision, in part, has been based on the model
local code for on-site systems first published by — The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
the State Department of Health in 1960. (MPCA) is the lead state agency in dealing with
on-site systems. The Minnesota Department of
More recent studies and reports confirm the Health also has authority for on-site systems
following findings: as they affect drinking water quality. The MPCA
has adopted the first statewide regulations for
— Nearly every level of government involved has on-site systems. This represents a significant
legal ability to implement a more comprehensive step forward in establishing technical and design
management and control program than exists standards for such systems and in coordinating
now. state agency efforts involving the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), the state building
— For a variety of reasons (primarily because of code, the Department of Health, etc., in
the traditional local role of exercising police the Region. The regulations, however, directly
power over on-site systems), existing state and control only larger-scale on-site facilities or
21
WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
W/12/81
limited geographic areas, such as shorelines, Policies
leaving the regulation of most on-site systems up
to the local governmental units. 38. Thaon*ftWstm maimigement and control
program for4twWlat opoiitan Arm should'be
Following extensive study and analysis, the MPCA .designed to_Rrgt,and promote water
adopted a regulation governing a sizable share of all quality_ d6 otect and-promote
the health,
on-site systems. This regulation, WPC 40 (6 MCAR safety,. d-wel pf all Metropole
_� .. � ton:&ea
48040), became effective on August 21, 1978. It
applies only to large-scale systems and state facility -,q,.,,+¢�,� ,;,a:,,.. ,,•�. �, _
installations. The provisions will be used by the 39. The on-site system management and control'
DNR in determining the adequacy of local program for the Metropolitan Area should be
ordinances and programs for shorelands and cost-effective,simple, understandable
floodplains. Nevertheless, most on-site system and sufficiently uniform to ensure simple and
installations are still not regulated by the State of consistent administration throughout the
Minnesota. However, the MPCA and others Metropolitan Area.
recommend that WPC 40 be used as a model for a
local program of on-site system management and 40. The on-site system management and control
control. program for the Metropolitan Area should
promote public and private activities designed
WPC 40 provides an excellent solution to a large to provide for the appropriate utilization of
part of the management and control program needs such systems, minimize the risk of problems
involving on-site systems throughout the state. resulting from the use of such systems,and
correct existing on-site system-related
WPC 40 establishes technical and design require- problems.
ments for new on-site systems, both standard and
alternative types, and their installation.
Phases of a Local On-site Management Program
It does not, however, provide a total solution to
the needs either within the Metropolitan Area or Planning or Preinstallation Phase
elsewhere. The regulation does not deal with
existing on-site systems, including recertification The first step in developing an effective local
of such systems. Nor does it provide for the management program is to relate the use of on-site
monitoring, maintenance or inspection of new systems to a community's general land use pian
systems, or establish provisions for local program and development program, including density
administration, enforcement, remedial actions, of developments. Communities are responsible for
planning, etc. It is important that any management developing a comprehensive development plan
and control program for any part of the state be under the requirements of the Metropolitan Land
consistent with the provisions of WPC 40. Planning Act. A community's land use plan and
Although duplication might be possible, it would land use controls should address the issue of what
be inappropriate and impractical legally to have role on-site systems should plan in a community's
on-site requirements that vary substantially from future development.
those contained in WPC 40.
Rural areas that have and intend to continue rural
An examination of the past history-of on-site development densities (that is, a range of one unit
systems reveals that failures can and do happen. per 10 acres to one per 40 acres) will not be
The existing metropolitan-wide management expected to have as stringent a program covering
structure for on-site systems is perhaps best operation, maintenance and postinstallation
described as loose and uncoordinated, although inspection as rural areas having or proposing urban
there are some exceptions. This combination gives or urban-like development densities (that is, a
the public poor assurance that pollution or public range of one unit per 21/2 to one per five acres). All
health hazards caused by on-site systems will not communities are expected to adopt the require-
occur in the future. ments of WPC 40 for new installations, regardless
of development density (see Table 1).
22
M
• Bruce P. Carlson
5439 Zumbra Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
October 7, 1986
Orono City Council
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
RE: REQUEST TO HOOK-UP TO SEWER PROVIDED BY LONG LAKE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2165 WATERTOWN ROAD, ORONO, MN
Dear Members of the Council :
I am hereby requesting permission from the City of Orono, the right to
connect my proposed new residence at the above-mentioned address, to the
Long Lake City sewer system.
The City of Long Lake has written in their minutes of meeting held on June
17, 1986: (see attachment)
"The Council further finds that the City of Long Lake is willing to
allow adjacent properties in Orono to connect to its Sanitary Sewer
System in appropriate cases."
O Reasons for sewer:
A. A public sewer system has a greatly reduced probability for problems,
B. public sewer is considered as a permanent system,
C. public sewer is treated with continued upgrading of effluent,
D. public sewer reduces liability of soil contamination to property owner
and municipality,
E. public sewer assures best protection for water and environment quality,
F. phosphates and nitrates are not left in the soils,
G. there are high water tables on the subject property,
H. there are fluctuations in the water table on the subject property, and
after conversations with over 30 people in municipal , county, state, and
federal agencies, the consensus is that sewer is the best and most common
sense answer to this situation.
While most concerned groups are not extremely interested in making sub-
stantiated statements or "getting involved in a municipal matter", my research
in the Industry shows strong favoritism of public sewer over a septic system
as supported by the following:
DNR / Steve Preston / 297-2404
Sewer is "the preferred system". Public sewer to be used when avaiyfble
or feasible with no differentiation of who owns systems. "Precedence for
public sewer over septic system has been set.
DNR / Howard Kroschr/ 296-0778 a�
Prefers sewer. Precedence has been set for sewer over septic system.
SOCIETY FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
Sewer is best.
METRO WASTE COMMISSION / Carl Forrester, Engineer / 222-8423
Preference for sewer.
Bruce Carlson
• October 7, 1986
Page 2.
METRO COUNCIL / Carl Brandt / 291-6359 it It
Sewer is best and is permanent. The mound system is viewed as a 10 year P ,� '
interim system. Precedence has been set for sewer over septic system. ,d N
(See attachment.)
WATER COMPLAINTS / Leslie Goldsmith / 296-7364 (advocate of the mound system)
Sewer is best and the precedence has been set.
WATER STANDARDS / David Maschowitz / 296-7252
Sewer is best. The precedence has been set for sewer over septic system.
HENNEPIN COUNTY (PLYMOUTH) / Diane / 559-4321
By far, the best way to go is sewer. Precedence for sewer has been set.
The list can continue on and on. The fact of the matter concerning septic
systems boils down to the following:
If extreme care is taken in selecting a contractor who is certified, who
does the installations with properly trained people and equipment,
following to the letter the Guidelines, and it is properly inspected by a
competent inspector, and then maintained b andpc c iced,
there is good probability of a successf interim anT ry sy tem
However, there are no guarantees the syst work, particularly after
the first year. Is the City of Orono willing to accept liability for an
Interim system?
Two examples of what can happen are the Ham Lake and Scott County areas which
are experiencing problems with their mound septic systems.
Sewer is permanent, there is greatly reduced liability, and the ground water
Integrity is maintained. Updated technology is more economical and feasible
to upgrade with a public sewer.
Orono has been more effective at good on-site waste treatment systems than
most, if not all , communities in the metro area. The fact remains that there
is not a better alternative than sewer, and that there is sewer available
within reasonable distance of the subject property.
In reference to your reply to Jeffrey Stebbins request (see attached
Resolution ##1884) I would like to make the following comments:
Point ##1 I shall not request the property to be subdivided into a (� Y
higher density population area. Long Lake sewer is in the easement. [ �
Point ##3 - The City can expect the on-site system to work but they do not
guarantee that it will . Is the City of Orono willing to guarantee the
system as a permanent Instal l at i on? 0 FCou Ks F /VC77-
11
Point ##4 - There Is no extension of municipal to provide this
property with sewer. The Long Lake Sanitary Sewer System is in place and
In operation. The City of Long Lake is willing to allow this property to
be converted to sewer with no cost or obligation to the City of Orono.
Bruce Carlson
October 7, 1986 ��2r�
Page 3. G JV gl VAN�/
NA ekgCheA0"'T_
Point #5 - The City of Orono would be wise fz:j- �Lr
to amend the Community Management Plan to allow residents to hook up to
sewer when adjacent to their property. It is the common sense approach
� in view of both long and short term aspects of the issue.
The subject site is marginal at best with the flowage and
conservation easement (see attachment) , especially considering the pond
that flows into nearby lake via stream and the high water t --Agat ,
t e mound se may be expectedo" f a interi system,
not as permanent system.
If the Orono City Council in fact does approach the petition in view of the
common good, they shall approve this request to further reduce future risk of
malfunctioning on-site septic systems.
Sin erely,
BRUCE CARLSON
BC/aec I
Attachments.
r
A RESOLUTION
DENYING CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL SEWER
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
2165 WATERTOWN ROAD
WHEREAS, Bruce Carlson (hereinafter "the applicant") has an
interest in property located at 2165 Watertown Road within the City of
Orono (hereinafter "City) and legally described as Lot 1, Block 1,
Balsawood; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Orono Municipal Code Section
3.05, Subdivision 7 (B), the applicant has requested that he be
allowed to connect the proposed house on said property to the Long
Lake Municipal Sewer System located adjacent to the property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendations
of the staff and the comments and written statements of the applicant
regarding this request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the
City of Orono hereby denies the requested sewer connection for the
property described above based upon one or more of the following
findings of fact concerning this property:
1. The property is located in the RR-1B Single Family Rural
Residential 2-Acre unsevered zoning district.
2. The property was created according to and in conformance with
all the standards of the RR-1B district through a subdivision
approved by the City Council per Resolution No. 1706 on December
10. 1984.
3. At the time the property was subdivided, the developer's
engineer submitted soil testing reports and on-site sewage treat-
ment system design data indicating a suitable on-site system can
be installed on the property to serve the proposed house and can
be expected to function satisfactorily.
4. The City Council adopted the Orono Community Management Plan
in June, 1980 as a guide to the orderly and economic development
of the City. Chapter 6 of the Community Management Plan, known
as the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan, contains the City's Rural
Sewage Treatment Policies, and indicates that residential sewage
generated in the rural zoning districts is intended to be treated
on-site without extension of municipal utilities.
Page 1 of 2
5. Allowing the applicant to connect to the Long Lake sewer
adjacent to the property would set a precendent, to the extent
that the City has heretofore required all new residential
development in the "RR-" rural residential zoning districts to
make use of private on-site sewage treatment facilities, when
such facilities are technically feasible. The City has
identified numerous properties which border on sewered areas and
which could be expected to make a similar request to that of the
applicant if the current request is approved. Allowing such
connections would require an amendment to the Community
Management Plan.
6. The fact has been established that a suitable on-site sewage
treatment system can be installed on the property, hence
connection to the municipal sewer is not required because of
hardship, but merely as a economic convenience to the applicant.
7. The City previously denied connection of the sewer to this
property on November 12, 1985 per Resolution No. 1884.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota
at a regular meeting held October 27, 1986.
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Mary C. Butler, Mayor
Page 2 of 2
101786.9
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator
DATE: October 17, 1986
SUBJECT: Carlson Request for Sewer-Denial
ISSUE - Approval of Resolution denying sewer response to
Carlson's request.
DISCUSSION - Attached please find the resolution to 'deny sewer to
the above requested property.
PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by M, seconded by Y, to adopt
resolution # to deny sewer to Mr. Bruce Carlson and for the
property at Ayes ^, Nays _.
i
t � /
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administratov,
DATE: October 23, 1985
SUBJECT: Stebbins' Sewer Matter
Since last Council, meeting Mike Gaffron has reviewed the proposed
sepic tank site together with the soil borings that were done for
the house location on the road side, opposite where the sewer is
supposed to go, and has determined that a septic system is feasible.
While such a system will require more maintenance than a sewered
property, this particular property will not cause in inordinate
amount of maintenance, if it is properly installed by the
contractor. This opinion is concurred with by Mark Gronberg,
Mr. Stebbins' surveyor.
We have attempted to get in contact with Mr. Stebbins to indicate
this, but he has been out of town and will be out of town till
Monday (we have sent a letter this week to him regarding the
matter.) (We had requested that he call us during the next few
days after the last Council meeting, however did not receive such
a call.)
PROPOSED MO s moved b , seconded byr *4 , that the
City Council resolution o deny Mr. SteB-Si' request
for hookup to th Lon Lake s wer for his property at 2165
Watertown Road. A es � Nays�.
d I U -ZUvur\W01
CITYof ORONO
Post Office Bo:66•Crystal Bay,Minnesota&sm•MuniciW(f kas
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
October 21, 1985
Jeff Stebbins
1860 Fox Street
Wayzata, MN 55391
Dear Jeffs
We have re-scheduled your formal request to hook up to
municipal sewer for Council action at their meeting of October
28, 1985.
Staff's recommendation remains the same. It is staff's
opinion that it is technically feasible using common practices to
provide a relatively trouble-free on-site sewage treatment system
to serve your proposed residence.
Please contact my office if you have any questions prior to
the meeting.
Sincerely,
Jeanne A. Mabusth,
Zoning Administrator
BUILDING&ZONING—473.7357 • ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE—473.73SS • PUBLIC WORKS—473-7359
ASSESSING
To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator
From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Date: September 19, 1985
Subject: Stebbin's Request to Connect to Long Lake Sewer
I would like to comment on certain points in Jeff Stebbin's
letter regarding the septic system v.s. sewer options:
Point 1. The concerns are valid. The groundwater
potentially can get into the tanks and is more critical in a
situation such as this when a pump tank is used. However,
it has been demonstrated that with careful attention, the
tanks can be made waterproof to a degree that minimizes
problems.
Point 2. It is, of course, true that the proposed mound
system east of the driveway will require a pump near the
house. Pumps are mechanical and can fail, although again
careful installation and design will eliminate most
problems.
Point 3. It is not clear what sewer easement he is referring
to, but is appears that it will be necessary to cross the
existing driveway regardless of which sewer system is used.
Note that we have not had any documented problems of mound
systems "freezing" when properly constructed and adequate
soil cover over piping.
Point 6. Agreed. However, note many Orono properties are
in a similar situation, i.e. in close proximity to Municpal
sewer lines but not allowed to connect. In fact, in this
immediate vicinity (2340, 2350 Watertown Road) we have
properties which are crossed by sewer lines on easements but
to which the property owners are not allowed to connect.
One of these just this summer installed a new $8,000 mound
system to replace his failing system. He would rather have
connected to sewer.
If Stebbins gets approval, you can expect a flood of similar
requests in virtually every area of the City where sewer lines
border unsewered property. Also, how would we determine the
dollar amount of the connection fee?
TO: Mark E. Bernhardson
FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator
DATE: 10-8-85
SUBJECT: Review of Stebbins' foundation boring report
I have read the above referenced report, which indicates that the
location Stebbins proposes to place his house has a potential for seasonally high
water tables. This is not a unique situation with new construction in Orono.
It is not apparent from the building plans submitted at exactly what
elevation the basement floor is proposed in relation to the pond area. However,
it has been my experience that with the use of a few precautionary waterproofing
measures, septic tanks and pump tanks can be made relatively infiltration-free by
a conscientious contractor. Stebbins also has the option of placing the tanks at
a higher elevation, using a sewage ejector pump for the basement and gravity flow
from the main floor, and if need be install a tile drain around the 1-piece precast
tanks, which would virtually eliminate all seepage of groundwater into the tanks.
Note that the foundation report did not review soils at the actual
drainfield site east of the driveway. The report by Mark Gronberg dated 6-20-84
indicates percolation rates and indicated water table depths which are within the
acceptable parameters for a mound-type drainf ield system. Many such systems are
currently being successfully used in Orono under similar soil and site
conditions.
I am convinced based on the information at hand that it is technically
feasible using common practices to provide a relatively trouble-free on-site
sewage treatment system to serve this property.
CITY of ORONO
Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay,Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
October 21, 1985
Jeff Stebbins
1860 Fox Street
Wayzata, MN 55391
Dear Jeff :
We have re-scheduled your formal request to hook up to
municipal sewer for Council action at their meeting of October
28, 1985 .
Staff's recommendation remains the same. It is staff's
opinion that it is technically feasible using common practices to
provide a relatively trouble-free on-site sewage treatment system
to serve your proposed residence.
Please contact my office if you have any questions prior to
the meeting.
Sincerely,
Jeanne A. Mabusth,
Zoning Administrator
BUILDING&ZONING—473-7357 • ADMINISTRATION&FINANCE—473-7358 • PUBLIC WORKS—473-7359
ASSESSING
) q
MITI G
OCT 2 81985
TO: Mayor and City Council CITY OF a GN®
FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator'Ch
DATE: October 23, 1985
SUBJECT: Stebbins' Sewer Matter
Since last Council, meeting Mike Gaffron has reviewed the proposed
sepic tank site together with the soil borings that were done for
the house location on the road side, opposite where the sewer is
supposed to go, and has determined that a septic system is feasible.
While such a system will require more maintenance than a sewered
property, this particular property will not cause in inordinate
amount of maintenance, if it is properly installed by the
contractor. This opinion is concurred with by Mark Gronberg,
Mr. Stebbins ' surveyor.
We have attempted to get in contact with Mr. Stebbins to indicate
this, but he has been out of town and will be out of town till
Monday (we have sent a letter this week to him regarding the
matter.) (We had requested that he call us during the next few
days after the last Council meeting, however did not receive such
a call.)
PROPOSED MOTION - It was moved by , seconded by , that the
City Council approve resolution # to deny Mr. Steb ibib ns request
for hookup to the Long Lake sewer for his property at 2165
Watertown Road. Ayes _, Nays
i
SEP 1919
CITY OF p
ONO c
Mr. Jeffrey Stebbins
1860 Fox Street
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
September 18, 1985
Orono City Council
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
Dear Members of the Council:
I am hereby requesting the permission fraan the City of Orono, the right to
connect my residence to the Long Lake City sewer system.
I have been in contact with three officials from the City of Long Lake.
They being: Fred Patch, City Planner; Skip McCombs, City Engineer; Mary
Wurzer, head of Sewer and Water Department. The purpose of my contacting
them, was to find out whether the idea was feasible, as well as, acceptable.
All parties agreed that there wouldn't be any problems, and encouraged me to
seek Orono's approval.
There are a number of reasons why this connection would be more.favorable to
the installation of the septic system. Please refer to the drawing I have
enclosed for your benefit.
1. I have taken soil borings on the building site. These borings show
the water table higher than was originally anticipated. This problem can be
taken care of for the structure. However, I have concern over the installation
and future performance of the septic system, i.e., flooding and disturbance of
the tank due to fluctuations of seasonal ground water.
2. As you can see, the septic tank will be on the west side of the drive-
way, and the primary and secondary drain field sites are on the east side. This
would require the pumping of the effluent up hill and across the drive, creating
a nuisance to neighbors during construction, as well as creating more opportunity
for eventual problems with continued operation.
3. Please note the location of the sever easement to the property line
and location of existing manhole. Installing the pipe could be achieved with-
out disturbing the established easement. Also, because the piping is connected
to the sewer system, the chance of freezing becomes greatly reduced.
4. Mary Wuzer has indicated that one SAC unit can be used from the
Orono City Council
September 18, 1985
Page 2
Hackberry area, which eliminates the need for bargaining for additional units.
5. Orono is termed "country" with it's two acre building sites. However,
the close proximity of my lot to higher density Long Lake properties, I feel
that connecting to the sewer is beneficial to all.
6. As you may know, the septic system planned is acceptable, but by
no means without potential -problem in years to cane. The connection to an
established and proven metro system would help guarantee the smooth operation
in years to cam.
I would hope that with Long Lake's willingness, you would seriously consider
and approve my petition.
I appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter, and if you
should have any questions, please call meat work 473-1683, or at here 475-0495.
Thank you again, and I am looking forward to your next council meeting.
Respec . Y,
INS
JS:vl
enc.
I ' t
w
t
North I j.. s
r'`r
o z
I '
4A P.
w �o
N0°03'15"W _�._ 396.18 'I !
175.98ge
'�•.-•- - c
220.o�
CD
z z 196 0Qo ClOZ1. MUd $-
ouloi I a_'
0 .1
v° N aso� 1 N'
N I F e0 ri,,`�
o . o
4� o
0
N N v
w �L i
a a I I
I Vp 795
N00.03'J5" i 396.18 a°
!
X.
220. -75.98 `a 0
1981431
� LIN?
-�L
M
c Q 1 Iw oc-, 36
c o I N I I 1. Na z
1 0+ • 0 1�
I w 0 0
Z N 11 1�� I� O � 7 n0 1•
1p
U
>E c
1,
1
C U O 1•' O
o . Zr � -•
y � i
A '
F _
� w .,wo I 198.14
1 ao ,* ---N 0°03'15'•W -- - i.i• ....,,,,.:
LM
N0003,15"w �1. 198.04 :• 19_8.14
I 39G.18
N „
O &
w I m,p 1
F i j•
N *12 o
O ��
N 0003'15"W 396.18 -` 3
o
it
g Qoo`
N � 1
.__ NO°03'l5..W _ �' i na vo
o "
S
- o