Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-14-1995 Council Packet Special MeetingCQJ*%CiL t/iE^ip^Q NOV 1 4 J995 cm Of ORoiiio SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1995, 8:00 A.M. Orono CouncU Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, Minnesota ROLL CALL 1. 2. Livable Communities Act - Resolution Status of Potential Neighborhood Sewer Projects and MUSA Amendment Application 3.Potential Availability of the Hennepin County Library Property at Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12 ADJOURN ■ ------------------------------------------------------ ^ TO;Mayor and City Couikt U FROM: Ron Moorsc, City Administrator ny/ DATE:November 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Livable Communities Act Requirements Attachments: 1. 2. COUNCIL 1.;., NOV 1 4 1J.:> CmfOf Ohi;Kj Resolution - Election to Participate Housing Section of the Orono Community Management Plan with the Following Sections Highlighted: A. Housing Improvement Goals ( p. 5-11) B. Housing Improvement Plan (p. 5-14 to 5-16) 2. 3. 4. Election to Participate 1. In order to participate in the Livable Communities Act program for 1996, cities must make an election to panicipate by November 15. The election m participate is made by the adoption ot a resolution, (a prop^'^se d resolution is attached) The city negotiates long term (10 to 15 years) life cycle and affordable housing goals with the Met Council. ^ The housing goals must be approved by the Met Council by January 15, 1996. The housing section of the city ’s Community Management Plan includes a set of housing improvement goals that appear to address the issues of concern to the Met Council, (see listing below). Once the housing goals are established, an action plan for achievement of the goals is prepared. The action plan must be prepared by June 30, 1996. The city ’s Community Management Plan also includes an action plan regarding housing improvements (attached). The Met Council does not have to approve the action plan but will comment on it. 5. Beginning in 1998 the city ’s progress toward the housing goals will be measured on an annual basis against the annual goals set out in the action plan. Housing Goals . , • . ^ The long term life cycle and af fordable housing goals set out m the city s Community Management Plan are as follows:. 1 To improve the housing conditions of persons residing in substandard housing. 2. To provide safe, healthful, and blight-free residences and neighborhoods. liTahie Communities Act Requirements Continued November 8, 1995 page 2 3. 4. 5. To provide cq^rtunities for a mix of housing types, locations, and cost ranges which will meet the needs and provide ^lequate housing for all age and family groups. To provide housing types and residential densities consistent with environmental and land use plans and with the availability of public services aiKl facilities. To provide immediately beneficial housing programs for the greatest number of needy Orono residents. Potential Short Term Action Steps Prior to establishing an action plan for achieving the city’s housing goals, the Council may want to collect and analyze information regarding the community’s current and fiinire housing needs. A set of short term action steps that could provide this information are as follows: 1. Hold neighborhood meetings for the areas of affordable housing to find out what the plans and needs of the residents are in relation to maintaining the affordable housing stock and maintaining quality neighborhoods. 2. Work with public and private organizations to develop strategies and identify potential resources for maintaining the city's existing affordable housing stock. 3. Conduct a housing needs analysis: A. Life cycle housing 1. ) Survey empty-nesters or empty-nesters-to-be to determine if they plan or want to stay in Orono, and if they want to stay in their existing home or move to a different type of housing (smaller). 2. ) Conduct a survey to identify senior housing wants and needs. B. Affordable housing 1.) Conduct an analysis of Orono’s current affordable housing stock to determine the level of maintenance and rehabilitation needed to preserve the housing stock, and to make die housing stock and the neighborhoods attractive to those looking to purchase homes in the price range of Orono’s affordable housing stock. rniincil Action If the Council decides to participate in the Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Prouram, the action required is to adopt a resolution indicating the city’s election to participate. ^r- r^. A RESOLUTION OF PARTICIPATION IN THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life cycle housing goals for that municipality, that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council, as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide, and goals: WHEREAS, the City of Orono Community Management Plan includes the following 1. 2. To improve the housing conditions of persons residing in substandard housing. To provide safe, healthful and blight free residences and neighborhoods. 3.To provide opportunities for a mix of housing types, locations, and cost ranges which wUl meet the needs and provide adequate housing for age and family groups. 4.To provide housing types and residential densities consistent with environmental and land use plans and with the availability of public services and facilities. 5.To provide immediately beneficial housing programs for the greatest number of needy Orono residents. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Orono City Council that the City of Orono does hereby elect to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Program during calendar year 1996. Adopted this 14th day of November. 1995 ATTEST:Edward J. Callahan, Jr.. Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk ‘I r JUNE, 1980 ijQUSim thi. Hou.ln, ,l.n 1. .n indication o, th. on,=in, o£ Orono residents toward solving our own ^ established is a refinement and restatement of the plann 9 prepared and In the 1974 Orono village Comprehensive Guide Plan and xs p. P presented for the following purposes: 1.THE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PLAN IS ^pecLlly one T.l.T.1 llllill r.nlit.. that orono is not a typical "new" suburb of middle income monotony. 2.THE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PLAN IS j^c^I^j^ER^TED^n'^IMPROVING CITY OFFICIALS, CITY STAFF OTHER PARTIES THE CONDITION OF ORONO'S AVAILABLE HOUSINSUPPL. housing Housing Plan includes goals and h^^sing needs. improvement consistent with ou ^ and moderate income and the Metropolitan Council’s policies for low a housing. THE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PLAN IS THE S^NEED^A^D intentions The Metropolitan Councrl^rs^ responsible 'Tency charged^-ith^revie plans and programs for the are housina situation, our the Metropolitan Council of our exi proposed programs for meeting analysis of local housing needs and our proposed p g those needs. SCQ£E the time framework op the HOUSmi imp , SfTf ■ s iharh:t ’::“ ’ -“ii-hrLrtr.ro -eTeL.l^ive^.anda. plan^Ior ^^-^1^:0;; iirri TJrtir LLrirTorLdrirsILLh; dillerent needs of both the urban and rural areas of Orono. CMP 5-2 Psiges 5-3 to 5-10 were intraitionolly excluded. HOUilNS JUNE, 1980 ORONO'S LOCAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROGRAM HAS IDENTIFIED A STRONG NEED FOR ELDERLY ASSISTANCE AND A STRONG NEED FOR SUBSTANTIAL HOUSING REHABILITATION. In many cases, this is the identical need which has been generated by the major development surge that occurred in Orono between 1946 and 1955. These post war years were when most of our population increase occurred as returning servicemen purchased former seasonal lake cottages and turned them into year-round residences. They raised families and stayed in their home. These people are now retired and on fixed incomes. They are often widows or widowers without ready resources. This phenomenon also accounts for Orono*s relatively low persons per household figure as used in the CSPP. These long term Orono residents are living in substandard conditions by todays standards. They need help or they will be forced from their homes with no where to go. Thus, Orono has identified our greatest need as housing rehabilitation for elderly homeowners and for alternative elderly housing accommodations in the immediate lake area. HOUSING IMPROVEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES Orono*s Housing Improvement Plan is based upon the following Goals and Policies which are designed to be consistent with our regional housing responsibilities and with the Goals, Policies and Plans of the other elements of the Community Management Plan. -^HOUSING improvement GOALS 1. TO IMPROVE THE HOUSING CONDITIONS OF PERSONS RESIDING IN SUBSTANDARD HOUSING. 2. TO PROVIDE SAFE, HEALTHFUL, AND BLIGHT-FREE RESIDENCES AND NEIGHBORHOODS. 3. TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR A MIX OF HOUSING TYPES, LOCATIONS, AND COST RANGES WHICH WILL MEET THE NEEDS AND PROVIDE ADECUATE HOUSING FOR ALL AGE AND FAMILY GROUPS. 4. TO PROVIDE HOUSING TYPES AND RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES CONSISTENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND USE PLANS AND WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES. 5. TO PROVIDE IMMEDIATELY BENEFICIAL HOUSING PROGRAMS FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER OF NEEDY ORONO RESIDENTS. CMP 5-11 JUNE, 1980 URBAN Housing pni ittf*; 1. THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF URBAN ORONO ARE PRIMARILY SUITABLE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. Because of historic development petterns, most of Orono’s urbanized neighborhoods are located along the Lake Minnetonka shoreline, or within 1,000 feet of the shoreline. These lands are environ- mentally sensitive to overuse or over development such as typically occurs with large scale developments. Low density residential land use is compatible with Orono's environmental policies of limited hardcover and maximum retention of natural open space and vegetation. 2. ALTERNATIVE HOUSING TYPES WILL BE PROVIDED BY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. A limited amount of land is available within the Urban Service Area for planned developments of attached townhomes, garden type apartments or mixed residential and limited commercial land uses. These housing clusters or multiple family developments will be acceptable only where full urban services are avail­ able and only where the proposed density is compatible with the neighborhood and with local environmental constraints. Multiple family developments generally will not be considered appropriate for lands within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka nor for areas such as Navarre that have limited transportation access to outside employment or shopping facilities. 3. URBAN DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MUST OCCUR WITHIN THE EXISTING URBAN SERVICE AREA. Orono's Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan. The Urban Service Area will not be expanded into the rural area and urban services and facjjiuies will not be extended into the rural area for purposes of rostering or allowing increased development in those areas. 4. URBAN DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL UTILIZE THE CAPACITY OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES. New residential development will be allowed to infill existing vacant properties within the Urban Service Area consistent with environmental limitations and with the existing capacities of water, sewer, drainage, transportation and recreational facilities. New development will not be permitted to overburden these services at the expense of the existing users. New urban development will not be permitted if it requires additional unplanned local or regional facilities capacity. C.MP 5-12 HQusiwa JUNE, 1980 5. THE CITY WILL PROMOTE SCATTERED SITE DEVELOPMENT AS OPPOSED TO LARGE SCALE TRACT DEVELOPMENT. Scattered site development has less impact on the existing neighborhoods or on the existing public facilities capacities than does a concentration of development at one location. In addition, most of Orono's urban neighborhoods are a homogenous mix of newer and older homes intermingled with an occasional vacant lot or « larger, divisible lot. There is no single neighborhood which is in need of complete renewal or rehauxlitatxon. Therefore, there is no need for nor any economical way of assembling a large tract of property for single­ project development. 6. THE CITY WILL PROMOTE REHABILITATION OF EXISTING OLDER OR SUBSTANDARD HOMES. Whereas there is no identifiable block of deteriorated housing in the City, there are a substantial number of older homes or converted cottages that are in need of repair, energy conservation measures, or major rehabilitation. In many cases, these hones are occupied by low income or fixed income persons who cannot under­ take the needed work within their means. The City will promote private and subsidized public rel abilitation efforts to improve the existing housing stock, to improve and maintain the neighborhoods, and most importantly to improve the living conditions of the affected citizens. THE CITY WILL PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT OR REHABILITATION THAT IS CO‘E’ATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. The City will encourage all homeowners and developers to be conscious of the neighborhood, the site and the environment in the design and improvement of residential properties. The City will encourage, and in many cases, require the retention of woods and vegetation, open spaces, 1ight, air and scenxc views. No new development will be permitted to conflict with or to adversely affect the established neighborhood character. 8 THE CITY WILL PROMOTE SUBSIDIZED REHABILITATION THAT BENEFITS THE EXISTING, OFTEN LONG TERM, ORONO RESIDENT. Our citizens are Orono's greatest asset. As they grow older, we should not turn them out of their homes, but rather we should help them provide safe and comfortable living conditions in their existing neighborhood. 7. C.MP 5-13 1 HQUS1N6;JUNE, 1980 RURAL HOUSING PQLTCTF9 1.HOUSING IN RURAL ORONO WILL BE LIMITED TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AT ESTABLISHED RURAL DENSITIES. Orono’s Land Use Plan for an ultimate rural density of one dwelling per seven acres on minimum lot sizes of 2 to 5 dry-buildable acres each. This density is consistent with the City's environmental protection commitment and is consistent with the overall Goal of preserving the historic rural character of the area. Because of this preferred use, and because there is no provision for any municipal sewer, water or other urban services, multi-family development or any densely clustered residential development will not be appropriate for rural Orono. 2.THE CITY WILL PROMOTE REHABILITATION OF EXISTING OLDER OR SUBSTANDARD RURAL HOMES. Rural Orono contains a significant number of older homes, which also require repair, energy conservation measures or major rehabilitation. These rural owners also require the same type of assistance often reserved for urban areas. Th*. ^ r , the City will promote private and subsidized public rehabilitation efforts in both urban and rural housing improvements programs. rHOUSING IMPROVEMENT PLAN Orono's Housing Improvement Plan is a set of implementation policies designed to achieve the above stated Housing Goals and Planning Policies. As has been indicated, the dominant land use in the City of Orono is primarily that of single-family residential homes. There is very limited industrial-commercial development or opportunities for employment and shopping within the City. Orono residents have always relied on the historic town centers in adjacent communities for shopping as well as employment. The general lack of commercial and industrial development and the limited availability of city services such as municipal sewer, water and mass transit will limit the opportunities for, and make it difficult, if possible at all, to provide opportunities for new subsidized housing developments anywhere in Orono. On the other hand, there are deteriorated and dilapidated housing units located throughout the City. Most of Orono's urban dwellings have been upgraded from seasonal cabins through either private or public rehabilitation programs. Other remain in need of attention. CMP 5-14 L ) I i HOUSING JUNE, 1980 i i I 1 I 1 J I I I I I AS Stated in the Metropolitan Council's Development Framework Guide. "Improving the housing conditions of persons who are presently ina ® V housed and eliminating substandard housing must be a top concern . the condition of orono'. older hones, both urban and rural, and rnprovrn, the housing conditions of Orono’s many low, moderate and fixed income residents e Xi. ■^2. ^4. ORONO WILL ENCOURAGE COMMUNITY PRIDE. Private initiative has always been a characterstic of Orono residents. Programs will be pursued to encourage continuing maintenance and upkeep of all properties and to prom.'te the privately financed rehabilitation of older and under­ used properties. ORONO WILL PARTICIPATE IN HOUSING REHABILITATION SUBSIDY PROGRAMS. Many Orono residents, both urban and rural, are occupying older housing that has code-related structural, safety or health hazards, substandard living conditions or energy inefficiencies. They would like to improve their housing condition and their neighborhood s appearance, but are unable to because of insufficient income. In many cases, older couples are forced to choose between heat or food or leaving their place of long residence. Orono will continue to actively participate in Community Development Block Grant and Minnesota Housing Finance Assistance programs designed to help these citizens meet their very immediate housing needs. ORONO WILL PROMOTE ENERGY CONSERVATION METHODS AND PROCEDURES. The Building Inspection Department will actively keep abreast of all new systems and products and will assist all homeowners in auditing and improving the energy efficiency of their homes. Orono will actively pursue and advertise all available programs for energy conservation funding . ORONO WILL SUBSIDIZE LAND COSTS FOR CERTAIN NEW LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES. Zoning variances will be granted whenever reasonable to allow use of existing urban lots for new moderate income housing. Tax-forfeited lots will be purchased for resale at cost to provide minimal cost property for the construction of low and moderately priced housing. C.MP 5-15 HOUSING JUNE, 1980 5. -^6. •^7. ORONO WILL ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AND COST RANGES. Whenever a multiple family or clustered housing development is proposed, Orono will actively encourage setting aside a reasonable number of units for large families and/or for low and moderate income families. Orono will participate and assist developers in applications for loan guarantees or other suitable forms of housing subsidy aids which may be available. Orono does not have suitable land for extensive new development and therefore will not individually pursue new construction subsidy programs. In addition. Or''"*"* is philosophically opposed to regressive subsidy programs that lace excessive burdens or debts on future taxpayers. Therefore, »^rono will be extremely reluctant to participate in long term or open- ended programs such as HUD Section 8. ORONO WILL COOPERATE WITH NEIGHBORING CITIES TO FULFILL AREA-WIDE HOUSING NEEDS. Most apparent is the need of many elderly Orono residents who desire to live in the immediate area, but who cannot find available elderly housing. Orono will actively participate with nearby municipalities in pooling of quotas, allocations, bonding capacity, subsidy dollars and/or staff expertise in order to work toward jointly providing cost effective elderly housing at locations that are near to home yet also convenient to necessary shopping, transportation and medical facilities. HOUSING CONSTRUCTION WILL BE SUBJECT TO UNIFORM STATE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS BUT WILL NOT BE BURDENED WITH UNNECESSARY ZONING REQUIREMENTS. Orono does not intend to require arbitrary minimum dwelling sizes or minimum amenity installations as these artificial standards only drive-up the cost of housing while limiting the buyer’s freedom of choice. Zoning standards for lot area and lot density will be based strictly upon environmental concerns and public facilities availability. Zoning performance standards will be based upon minimum health and safety standards such as fire protection and open space availability. State Building Code performance standards will be enforced to ensure structurally sound, weather resistant buildings providing adequate health and safety protection for the future occupant and for the general public's welfare. CMP 5~16 I To: From: Date: Subject: Council Michael P. Gaffiron, Asst. Planning & Zomng Administfalof November 13. 1995 Neighborhood Responses: Additional Info Received Since October 18 Memo The following attached items have been received since October 18: Letter from Larry Berg re: Troy Anderson (North Long Lake) received 10-30-95 Bay Ridge petition received 10-19-95 Two additional petitions from Bracketts Point received 10-23-95 (All but Headrick have responded to date; so far. all are in favor of sewer) Letter from Edgewood Hills neighborhood received 10-24-95 Petitions and summary from Webber Hills neighborhood received 10-23-95 Two additional items of note: Jim Dillman of 225 Willow Drive Nonh called today requesting that we place his property in the MUSA. He abuts Hackberry. and sewer is in the street adjacent to his home with two stubs aimed at him. but he was never assessed for it. He expects to have to replace his system probably within the next five years and would like the option of sewer. He will likely send a letter... Today we denied a building permit for a room addition for the Bouchaid's at 1860 Shoreline Drive because they have a non-conforming septic s' stem which needs to be upgraded first. They are part of the Foxhill ’hot spot ’. Although the owners in ’FoxhiU'have responded negatively to sewer. Bouchard and immediate neighbors could be served by constructing a short segment of sewer along Shoreline Drive eastward from Nettles’ property. We will no doubt hear from the Bouchard’s shortly, and have a letter on file from them supporting sewer, as well as one from Stiema ’s. and I’m getting calls also from Morris Nelson who also is along that stretch. - — f-v —S OCT 3 0 1995 FREDRIKSON & BYRON, RA. Arromrts At Law nOO liucrniuoaal Centre QOO Second A\wue Scath Mtnneapoiis. MN 53402-3397 <612) 347-7000 FAX (612) 347-7077 Direct Dial No. (612) 347-7052 October 26, 1995 cro Mr. Ron Moorse City Manager CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Re; Proposed extension of the MUSA Une and accontpanymgwwer service project serving the residents of the North Long Lake area ot the City of Orono Dear Mr. Moorse: Mv office reoresenis Trov and Catherine Anderson, the owners of the property at 1490 Lon Lrdce Boulevard. In 1993, the City directed the Andersens to replace their septic system with a new system. The Andersens made inqui^ of the City ^ possibility that municipal sewer service would become available to this part ot the City- ncy were assured that there was Uttle, if any, likelihtood that municipal sewer service would become available within the next ten to fifteen year period. In reUance upon *at representation, the .Andersons constructed an expensive on-site septic system that conformed to all applicable laws and codes. The system in question functions emdently and well and is expected to do so during its u^eful^life. Therefore, if municipal sewer service is made available to my clients, my cIiot will derive no benefit from that service. Informal inquiry has been made of appraisers. We have been assured that with a conforming and fimcuoning on-site sewer system, ^y mcrease in value to the property denved from municipal sewer service being made available to my clients’ property would be nominal. Under Minnesota law, my client may not be assessed for such a project beyond the benefit derived by my clients property. We have received a Petition being circulated by the residents of the Nonh Long area of ^e City of Orono. Paragraph 4 of that Petition states: "Residents who have replaced Oieir septic Systems within fiye years before the time that the city sewer is mstaUed wm receive more favorable payment terms, such as deferral of the assessment for a penod of ume. FREDRiKSON & BYRON. R.\. Al Lw Mr. Ron Moorse October 26. 1995 Page 2 The purpose of this letter is to make it clear that such treatment would not be accepta e to iny clients and is, in fact, contrary to applicable law. Under no circumstances will my^ clients willingly agree to pay any specif assessments against their property in excess oi _© benefit to the property from the proposed improvement. I would bVe to have the opportunity to discuss this matter with you or with the City s attorney. My clients have authorial my firm to take appropriate action in the event that t e City attempts to assess their property beyond the benetit received by the property from t e project in question. I would appreciate it if you would call me or have the City ’s attorney call me after you have had an opportunity to review and consider this letter. Thank you for your cooperation. LTB/kp/467840 cc: Troy and Catherine Anderson r- Ui.*-’ ^ SAV G. E. SVEEGGEN AITO*3»BT At lAW October 18, 1995 OIO flBST BANE MAC* WEST. 120 SOUTH SIXTH STBEHT MINNEaPOUS. MINNESOTA S5AaB-.f-ai8 303-1200mIM OCT i.s Attn: Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth: we the undersigned residents on Bay the Cltv of Orono to provide city sewer facilities for all rSsiSenLs as expeditiously as feasible, in order to comply with the city’s comprehensive sewage disposal plan. We request that the sewer pipes be installed on the ^ properties east of our homes and adjoining County Road 15. we are hopeful that competitive bidding and the routing of the sLeriinras requested would result in a cost less than the $18,500 per unit as originally estimated, inasmuch as Bay Ridge Road would not be invaded. we assume that lawns would be adequately repaired, that shrubs would be replaced, or an allowance made therefore, that wood ftom any downed trees would be removed, and that damaged fencing would be replaced. We assume that 11 this plan is not Implemented in 199«, the City "!ll talVthe December 31, 1996 requirement lor completion ol alternative on-site sewage disposal systems. We request financial assistance from any ^«nds which may be available for such purpose from the City of Orono, the Metropoli Council, or other sources. It is understood that when competitive bids have been obtained and Plans and specifications have been formulated, there will be a general review and discussion of the project at a council meeting. This petition assumes action in respect of Bay Ridge Road ff^idents only and we assume no responsibility for any cost or liability related to Hartwood, or other areas. Respectfully submitted. Faegre 8c Benson fT” laHAk kiaiTlB NokvuT Cn«m. fo South Simmi Smn' ■nBMAsKtaujarr.JlL •U'lM-3127 October 20,1995 Mr. Mike Ga£Eroni City of O toto Orono City Hall Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear Mike: I am enclosing the consent form signed by Corinne Pillsbury for the Point area municipal sewer. I have also discussed the petition with Hany- Evans (1491 Shoreline Drive) and with his broker and have received the indication from both that is petition will be forthcoming soon. I believe the Headricks are the only non-signers. George Pillsbury is working with them. Sincerely, I Thomas M. Crosby, Jr. TMCjmm Enclosure cc: George S. Pillsbury Joanne Jundt Ml 0063911.01 P.S. Also enclosed is t.*ie Evans petition which just arrived. OCT 2 3 1995 Mmntapotii D*nvtr Da Momes V'aJiPfftott, D.C. Lotuion Frankfurt Moscow Almaty ...J • » » • • • fETITION REQUEST FOR A MUNICIPAL SEWER BRACKETTS POINT AREA The undersigned, residents within the proposed Bracketts Point Sewer Area, hereby request and petition the City of Orono to install municipal sewer to serve the Bracketts Point Area approximately in accordance with the project desenbed in the Notice and Invitation d^d July 6,1995 attached to this petition. Dated: August 1. I99S iO>r(^.ACL NAME ADDRESS iliJ \ 'IQO <rr341_______ •t PETITION REQUEST FOR A MUNICIPAL SEWER BPwVCKETTS POINT AREA The undersigned, residents within the proposed Bracketts Point Sewer Area, hereby request and petition the City of Orono to install municipal sewer to serve the Bracketts Point Area approximately in accordance with the project described in the Notice and Invitation dated July 6, 1995 attached to this petition. Dated: August 1, 1995 - , A , r t n * 5* •* ^;; • mf • 4 NAME /h s ^ —)/ _ />2 ^ 7Z ______ (Special Independent Trustee of the Richard Harry Evans Sr. Charitable Remainder Unitrust dated May 2, 1995) ADDRESS 14'il Sho raiine Pr. Wavzara . MM 55391 RESIDENTS sTEDGEWOOD HILL 21,1993 MlkcGaflm 'OCT 2'4 WS5 City afOrMM P.O.BoxM CryiUl Bay, MN 35323-0066 DcvMIke: Isaaks ■t*«« fbr taking tke dmc to meet with the raidoits of Edgewood Hni to discusa the propooed ftetare aewer project for onr area. You were vcty helpful in rapooding to the questions that we had czplai^g various poosibie options. This letter is to coafina our interest in further pursuing the feasibility rf having sewer provided to our neighborhood at the earliest pouible time. As we disaimed, there remain a number of questions te be asMwered. Of particular interest to us is a preliminary estimate for running the line on the lower aide of our homes vs. the road. Once we have that information we will get estimates for hooking up to your Une. We nnderstand that MUSA approval is required before this project can be implemented. Thanks again for your help, and we look forward to working with you in the future. IjlLcj ^ / o iyitu-j -Trysr Memorandom TO City of Orooo 2750 Kelley Parkway P O Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 ATTN: Mike Gaffi’on, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administratoi cc:Jeanne Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator FROM: DATE; Webber Hills Homeowners October 23, 1995 SUBJECT: Municipal Sewer f Following the neighborhood informational meeting with Diane Goetten and yourself on Mav 7 1995 we organized a committee to study the municipal sewer/mound system issue iarticu’larlv in regard to the December 31. 1996 requirement for correction/ additional copy of the packet which you distributed to us m May and a copy of the packet for the subsequent Fox Hill neighborhood meeting which provided more defimnve information. Enclosed are copies for the recent survey response forms from Webber Hills hoineovmen. The results of the surv'ey to petition the City of Orono for mumcipal sewer and thereby eUminate the December 31,1996 date for the installation of mound systems are: Yes Yes (with qualifications) No No(with qualifications) No response TOTAL There are 34 total homes in Webber Hills 28 4 of the 28 5 3 of the 5 1 * verbal NO was given MflceGaffi^ra October 23,1995 Page2 We respectfully submit that WEBBER HILLS be included as a priority area for municipal sewer in your amended COMPREHENSIV £ PLAN to the METROPOLITAN COUNCIL and. correspondingly, the December 31.1996 mandatory date for compliance for mound systems be removed. As you can see, 82% of the Weber HHls Homeowners surveyed indicated^! they would prefer to petition for municipal sewer at this time and thereby waive the 1-/31/96 requirement for the installation of a new mound-type system. 18% voted “No , however all of the “No ” votes came from home owners which have installed mound systems. Please note 3 of the 5 “No ” votes indicated that resolution of the moneys already spent is the key issue. The current element of uncertainty is a major concern to all homeowners and it is obviously a very serious consequence to put a homeowner in a holding tank/pumping situation where they have a functioning trench system but no allowable alternative location for a mound system This is a particularly untenable situation siiice, based on your handout, over 1/3 (34%) of the Webber Hills lots have no alternative location for a mound s>'stem. Without the elimination of the mandatory 1.^31/96 requirement, the current dilemma w/ill be exacerbated as more mound systems will be installed in the ensuing months There are a number of other commeitts/ suggestions received from various individuals for your consideration. Design a municipal sewer system utiliang grinders and other concepts that would enable the use of smaller pipe and, therefore, lower the total cost. • Do not include concrete curbs, sidewalks, or other peripheral improvements which would increase costs and detract from the rural atmosphere. • Design and locate sewer mains across individuals’ property to minimize loss of trees or damage to property. We appreciate your consideration of this important issue and would be pleased to meet with you to conduct funher discussions Your response or questions should be addressed to Ann Wyer, 2130 Shevlin Dr. (476-2657) or Tom McCune, 2150 Shevlin Dr. ( Septic System/Sewer Survey Form Webber Hills It is our preference to petition the City of Orono for municipal sewer at this time and thereby obtain a waiver on the December 31,1996, requirement for the installation of a new mound-type system. (As indicated by the city, it may well be 2-5 years before municipal se'.ver would be installed.) To: Tlie Webber Hills Septic System/Municipal Sewer Committee From; Frank and Jomifer Larson 2160 Shevlin DR We strongly support municipal sewer for Webber Hills, however we do object to the location of the main sewer line as it runs from the east portion of Webber Hills Road and connects to Shevlin Drive. This line (as the attached map indicates) would nm through the middle of our back yard then along our property line on south side to connect to Shevlin Drive. This locatimi is unacceptable for the following reason: 1. We probably would lose the majority of our trees on the east side of our property. 2. We would lose the majority of our trees on the south side of our property. 3. To connect to sewer we would have to dig up our front yanl on the west side. We would be the only home in Webber Hills to incur this type of damage. As we see it this sewer project would destroy our property and our property value. What we would prefer is if tlie sewer line did not run through our property at all. What we would accept, is if the sewer line ran along our north property line. The damage to trees would be less and the damage to our property would be less. I did call Mike Graffron at the city of Orono on 9/18/95 and he indicated the sewer line was only preliminary and other options did exist. 1 inquired about the line running along side our north property line and he believed that was an option. We also called Tom McCune, who lives to the north of us, and Tom indicated he would not object to the sewer line running between our homes. We expect every effort would be made to save the three evergreen trees on the north west portion of our property. We believe strongly that municipal sewer is in the best interest of Webber Hills, in the best interest of Orono, and in the best interest of our environment. Frank + Jennifer Larsdh 2160 Shevlin Dr. Wayzata MN. 55391 473-3322 I r ‘t Septic System/SeAver Survey Form Webber Hills It is our preference to petition the City of Orono for municipal sewer at this time and thereby obtain a waiver on the December 31,1996, requirement for the installation of a new mound-type system. (As indicated by the city, it may well be 2-5 years before municipal sewer would be installed.) CIRCLE ONE:NO Address: jdameV- f/c Name: Prim •+- W C f/f Cr Information only: Please check if you already have a mound-type system. C?c>^ n^gvTrS QAJ fiA-efc, yio jg, - CX-*-^-Q> -OO C_^.*<K.y>VJWl-.Q2 C_j&^sr3r QjkaX5ZXo42^ nfj;i o-j Oj OLo^-p »j? --4-‘-*tor^ 7> uJbSU&l ^0-ft-'-C_i2 __ q_aJ^ ?Xa^ . C5-«-4-x r Septic System/Sewer Survey Form Webber Hills It is our prtfcrcnce to petition the City of Orono for municipal sewer at this time and thereby obtain a waiver on the December 31,1996, requirement for the installation of a new mound-type system. (As indicated by the city, it may well be 2-5 years before municipal sewer would be installed.) CIRCLE ONE:(0 NO Address: TSt Ifl___0lOP Name: Print Sign 7,((-r;c liJibW.r (4i S , Information only; Please check if you already have a mound-type system. CLiav ULhdUr' 'H'ULf-'-W«_ Q^doyi - ^ bfefai>-, Avc uf '• ' ^ ^5Mjt ■fo -Hu'\ scW-^ho' ■^K dop^ X -K lu <X t/- apoUts oV\ . i^cU^bcvhooS SC24t<\ "te (jc_ <?- ^ (^5 iC Ldza~- aJl . ^ '^^f\(L HO^d. ht-COJjS^ Sfialg <fH-«— "S^^UL CtiW:? cf '-fUjL ff'-pylulc -f^tc, ^ 1^ LVrdr^ Cu\d- shsu^Uiv-i- blajiteJ' ddJL (XHd ’^ todltffuj- t^Odlcu i, ytude^ . iJU-ebh^ 'M//s A AJU{LhS)r^<^ V^W,-/- 2jjjX ^ '/ ^^VZtcLVCft/C <^IL( ¥Septic System/Sewer Survey Form Webber Hills It is our preference to petition the City' of Orono for municipal sewer at this time and thereby obtain a waiver on the December 3C 1996, requirement for the installation of a new mound-type system. (As iodicated by the city» it may well be 2-5 years before municipal sewer would be installed.) CIRCLE ONE:YES NO Address: aofas ujtNoW ^ Name: Print Information only: Please check if you already have a mound-type system. ^ • I vj» ^ (jo wo X vil4.\\K ^"HAiAr S^kAfWj^ m . r"r> [ I Am A"i1 fll/A.1WA'41fc^^AA‘J li tAd - uir^i^'./Tl’A'b^-JAAU.'UiMtaJi^Aa^tfv iiMiaf'^ if—* ** - .«—<>dd ■ f K Septic System/Sewer Survey Form Webber Hills It is our preference to petition the City of Orono for municipal sewer at this time and thereby obtain a waiver on the December 31,1996, requirement for the installation of a aew mound-type system. (As indicated by the city*, it may well be 2*5 years before municipal sewer would be installed.) CIRCLE ONE:YES.NO Address: _______ Name: Print ___ Si.. Information only:Please check if you already ha^ a mound-type system. ^0 'f/'' I. t^OUr 4< NO VOTES S TABBED RED See comments on the 4 tabbed red and green N C u QSeptic System/Sewer Survey Form Webber Hills It is our prererence to petition the City of Orono for municipal sewer at this time and (hereby obtain a waiver on the December 31,1996, requirement for the installation of a new mound'type system. (As indicated by the city, it may well be 2-5 years before municipal sewer would be installed.) CIRCLE ONE:YES--------- I 4 / I Visa 15 Pfli.0 f*)L Address: SlDOC? W\U5 Name: Print CJt I' Information only:Please check if you already have a mound-t}’pe system. Webber Hills Homeowners Memorandiun Pa«e3 Homeowners who have recently installed a mound septic system will probably not be fpff it«»H nKniit inriim ny nriHifinnal costs for citv sewcr (approximately 5 homes in Webber Hills now have a mound system). We would have the optionjp ask the citv to subsidize tlie cost of the mound systems which are already in place, or these costs could be shared, —^fcto some extent , by the remaining homeowners . Even if city sewer c'^mes to our area, people with new mound systems would not be obligated to hook up to city sewt: for a number of years and therefore could defer the hookup costs. / respectively request that these people consider the best overall interests of the entire neighborhood. The vast majority of neighbors I have talked with this summer and the majority of our committee strongly prefer to petition the citv immediately for city sewer. The reasons for advocating municipal sewer at this time are: 1. Municipal sewer increases our property values. 2. Municipal sewer is a long-term solution. 3. Avoid duplication of costs for mound systems now and, inevitably, city sewer In the future. 4. Municipal sewer costs are assessed over 15 years instead of paying “up front ” for a mound system. 5. Mound systems vvill cause many trees to be destoyed and ruin the visual character of the neighborhood. 6. Municipal sewers are maintained by the city and we would avoid problems with our existing systems, most of which are older and will require continued maintenance and'or improvement. 7. As was discussed at the May 17,1995 meeting, the mound-tyqjc system is clearly no panacea and has many mechanical components such as float switches, lift pumps and an electrical supply which could allow sewage to back up into a home should any of the primary components fail. Additionally, mound systems are prone to freeze-up and failure, primarily when not used for a period of time. — ciTy ^ f' A*" Sflscr-ciW’-N * i. Septic System/Sewer Survey Form Webber Hills It IS our preference to petition the City of Orono for municipal sewer at this time and thereby obtain a waiver on the December 31,1996, requirement for the installation of a new mound-type system. (As indicated by the city, it may well be 2-5 years before municipal sewer would be installed.) CIRCLE ONE:\ES Address: ^0C=0 ^'\\s. 0.^ Name: Print Sign Y—^_______________ voo->\^ ^ ^ 31^ 3L Cnjv-* COfNw»: C*Ac\r»^j\ ^ 'yeii ^ 'll O'.' Vy^o<„ c^(jfv«_- oo<.'- AV.^ __ -X "\o -\Vx^ 'rN^xi^W'V'OO^ . W\iO^ C.^v| ♦‘N^O/rtvt^ r<M_, ''A tv* ijV.ViO'* K)^ AW-i, ^ Corsi.-X'-.-^JX ."vjfs. V'OAc) » TV*,y h\io Information only: Please check if you already have a mound-type systen. o/s.f • 9^-- c) J 4 ''-A • • •Septic System/Sewer Survey Form Webber Hills l It is our preference to petition the City of Orono for municipal sewer at this time and thereby obtain a waiver on the December 31,1996, requirement for the installation of a new mound-type system. (As indicated by the city, it may well be 2-5 years before municipal sew er would be installed.) CIRCLE ONE YES Address; Name: Print ** (Ijc 'fUic’MjinhhK, hue M- ^ Sl^l'AfoK, kiMt ( Information only: Please check if you already have a mound-type system. 4 Septic System/Sewer Survey Form Webber Hills It is our preference to petition the City of Orono for municipal sewer at this time and thereby obtain a waiver on the December 31,1996, requirement for the installation of a new mound-ty'pe system. (As indicated by the city, it may well be 2*5 years before municipal sewer wonld be installed.) CIRCLE ONE:YES (ED Address;^ I Sho-vL/o ;j Q_ Name: Print I K ~l /t^<3 Sign >0- l/.J / t J if t ^\Awf JL C<sr<dJliSi^{_ Iruorrnation only : ^ Please cheek if you already have a mound-type system. c ^ ' - V Ttt: Fron Date: Mayor Callahan Ccxmcilmonbers Ron Moorsc, City Administrator John Gerhardson, Public Works Director Jeanne Mabusth, Building «& Zoning i^lministraiQr Steve Weekman, Septic Systems Inspector Glenn Cook, City Engineer Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator October 18. 1995 Subject: Update on Sewer Study Neighborhoods After the initial round of neighborhood meetings in July and August, I have had further discussions and meetings with a number of neighborhoods. Each neighborhood has been reejuested to provide a position statement' regarding sewer by the end of October, so that the Council can proceed with a MUSA amendment application to Met Council that identifies which neighborhoods are likely to be sewered prior to year 2000 (Met Council staff indicated they would not support MUSA expansions now for projects which will happen after 2000. although we intend at this point to apply for all 10 neighborhoods). Follow ing is an update regarding the stanis of neighborhood responses to date: Initial meeting was July 12. A second neighborhood meeting was requested by Keith Ganser and Scott Morrison which was held in the Council Chambers September 14 and attended by about 2/3 of the neichborhood. My expectation is that the neighborhood will shortly be forwarding a letter indicating: -The neighborhood wants sewer -They will request Cit> financial assistance -They would like City Engineer to redesign to minimize the number of individual grinder stations if at all possible. -They want Long Lake Country Club project to be done at same time, and have City divide the total cost of both projects equally between all 52 units, which ends up at about $16,000/ unit. This eliminates one neighborhood having an advantage over the other... -They would like City to take over maintenance of Dakota Avenue once sewer is in and it has been paved. We have received individual letters from Donald Lund, Keith VandenBranden, and Troy Anderson (attached). f Awy (Tmintry Club Imtial meeting was July 12. A second neighborhood meeting was requested by Gloria Swanson, which was held in the Council Chambers on September 27. About 60% of the neighborhood was in attendance. They have scheduled another meeting in the Council Chambers for October 25, at which time I expect they will finalize a position letter to the Ccnincil. Additionally, they have requested a«l staff has committed to doing conformity inspections for the entire neighborhood the 2nd and 3rd wedts of October so they can make informed decisions. I anticipate they w ill request a sewer project if financial assistance can be provided, and they seemed to concur that both North Long Lake and Long Lake Country Club should pay the same assessment. We have received one letter, that from Gloria Swanson (attached). Qrono Orchards We have had almost no contact from the Orono Orchards neighborhood. Initial meeting was July 20. My sense is that, given the information presented them at the meeting, they are expecting the City to come back in a few years with a proposal for a sewer project and City tinancial assistairce, and they may feel there is no more action to be taken. We have received one letter, from Matthew Nicoll (attached). There are a number of systems in bad shape which may not last 5 years... Bay Ridge Initial meeting was August 3. At that time we had included the Hartwood (Pink Palace area) neichborhood as an option. We have not heard trom Hartwood except for the Head s, who are down below the tracks near the channel, and they are aware that Hartwood has not resptmded. However, the 8 Bay Ridge neighbors at the urging of Urban Kerber held a meeting in the neichborhood September 20 which 1 attended and was wined, dined and grilled. The ’grilling’ was quite productive in answering many of their questions. Subsequently, Glenn Cook and I met with them in respoase to their request for locating the sewer lines in their lakeshore yards rather than the street, which seems quite feasible. I anticipate receiving a unanimous request for sewer from Bay Ridge in the near future, conditioned on the lake side location. They may request some financial assistance given the nearly $19,000 unit cost, although I didn't offer them much hope considering there are other neighborhocxls with greater needs. EnddU Tnifbl rnectinf was held August 3. Wc have a standing request from Robert Sticnia for sewer on Shoreline Drive, and lave received a letter (attached) in favor of sewer from Thomas and Pauline Bouchard, also SbcMreline Drive. However, the Foxhill Association, representing Heritage Drive and LaiK, has goia on record as not waminf sewer under the conditions as presented. See the attached letter firom Daniel Hottman. It’s ironic that the people with large properties on Shoreline with septic options seem to warn the sewer, but those in Foxhill with smaller lots and more potential tuturc septic problems, are balking at it. This may be a reaction to the letter from Garfield Clark (attached) who seems to have his own agenda. We may wish to consider a partial project just for the Shoreline Drive residents... LUilh Initial meeting was July 27. I have had phone conversations with a few residents, and Edge Jackson seems to be the organizer. I will be attending a meeting in the neighborhood at Freda Keith’s on October 19. Preliminary indication is the neighborhood would like sewer. Fox Ridge Initial meeting was July 27. We have had no contact from this neighborhood. My guess is the $30,000 price tag scared them away. Fast Long Lake Initial meeting was July 27. As with Fox Ridge, we have had no response, perhaps due to the hich cost. Bracketts Point Initial meeting was July 20 at George Pillsbury's. George is the organizer for this neighborhood. We have received petitions for sewer from 9 of the 12 property owners, and are advised that 2 of the lemaining 3 are likely in favor. The Headrick's are the only unknown at this point. I did have a conversation with Mrs. Headrick this week, I would anticipate a followup letter from the neighborhood by the end of the month. Al • I «LUii^ Initial meeting was May 17 at the residence of Tom and Marti McCunc. Since then we have received many piime calls, and Tom McCune is tte neighborhood representative. The attached memo from McCune to the neighborhood gives a sense of tow the Webber Hills people have proceeded. At this point I am idvised that about 80% of tte residents arc in favor of sewer, with those not in fiivor mainly being owners of low mound systems. Of course, the neighborhexHi is somewhat concerned about tto $14,000 unit cost and lack of financial assistant, but is equally concerned that 80% is not the 100% that Council was looking for. I anticipate a letter from the neighborhood stating their position by the end of October. BIEUMINARY SUMMARY North Lx>ng t^ke Long Lake Country Club Probably Want Sewer X X Probably Don't Unknown/ Want Sewer Undecided Bay Ridge (Hartwood) Foxhill X X X (Shoreline Dr. area) Edeewood Hills W Fox Rid^e X X X East Lone Lake Bracketts Point X X Webber Hills Assuming we will have responses by the end of October from tho.se noted, 1 would hope we could submit a formal MUSA amendment application to .Met Council in November if Council desires. I expect to have a draft of the application package for your review in a week or so. . J.* - JL-=iiu.tur /■4^ i" -^<- ^nrilCtMi,>>t*v.^^'^ g^. //^ /9f^ SEP 1119S6 ^'75'0 (f‘>-ikti ‘,^^ 0'-^‘‘‘''Pt-6-) iT53" /lujl, ^i-oujjl Jhi-*K-^ ^ • ^ 1/ • ^ f ^ Tl^Z f f J . ^ ^ . (L/^/zz 1 ^ x4^Ttit:A,:^t. . ^ J \ ^ * » / - ’ / ^ iJ^ JA J^H /%^ti £.> «..>i ■* / ' I >/. it */ > ^2Z Tt^t-'i^ ■^'Ih•. LO'l^^^ ' fEZ^ JM'^^ ' yMy\yo yCL'^^ ' /f ~diMvL[) /c/. ,(? Troy and Cathy Anderson 1490 L4>ng Lake Boulevard Long Lake, h^linnesota 55356 iC I I TV CP cpr^Hcy Jrs Septem^ 11, 1995 V 'SEF? 1’ 1995 Michael P. Gaffron City of Orcmo Municipal Offices P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 Mr. Gaffron: We have several concerns about the municipal sewer proposal and would like to share them with you. In October of 1993, the City recommended that we install a new septic system. At that time, we specifically asked about the possibility of city sewer coming through our neighborhood. Steve Weckman and Jean Mabusth assured us there were no plans for the project. In fact, they said it would be a minimum of 10-15 years before city sewer would be brought into ouf area. Accordingly, we installed a new septic system as directed by the City. We have contacted an independent, licensed real estate appraiser. In his opinion, because we have a conforming septic system, the value of our property will not increase as a result of the installation of city sewer. Because we have already incurred considerable expense to upgrade our septic system and because municipal sewer service provides absolutely no benefit to us. assessing our property in connection with the installation of municipal sewer service would be inappropriate and contrary to Minnesota law, and will be vigorously opposed. Troy and Cathy Anderson cc: Larry J. Berg, Esq. 453170 September 13, 1995 r' city Of Orono Municipal Offices P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 Dear Council Members: As some of you know, I have supported the municipal sewer concept for the adjacent North Long Lake neighborhood. At the InforMtion meeting on July 12, 1995, I was told that due to the unfeasibility of more than one lift station, my property would be required to employ a grinder/force main. According to septic system designers, engineers, contractors, and service companies, this type of set-up is less desireable and in fact far inferior to my present system. I now must request to "Opt Out” of participation in the proposed municipal sewer system for the following reasons: 1. My present system (New "Mound” type) is in full compliance with all State of Minnesota regulations, and Orono City ordinances. 2. My system has been designed and engineered to be maintained indefinitely. 3. Proposed design using grinder pump/force main would be inferior to existing system. U. 3/4 of ay property is located in the e.xcluded area - (See attached map). 5. Property does not front or abut any city street or right of way. 6. Property has no lake frontage and is located at least 400 feet from lakeshore. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, Keith R. VandenBranden r'T Michael Gaffron Assistant Pluming & Zoning Administrator Orono Municipal Offices September 18,1995 nUW «p2T1995 Deaf Mr. Gaffron. Attached is the memo that was distributed in the Country CIub/Lakeview Terrace neighborhood regarding the meeting scheduled with your office by Janet Aske. We appreciate your agreeing to meet with us and look forward to some further information regarding the possible sewer development projects in Orono. We expect a good turnout for this meeting and appreciate information mailed to us following the July presentation. If you have any Questions regarding neighborhood response or the Questions in the memo, please give me a call, phone 473-4407 Sincerely, GIbria and Merrill Swanson c; Janet Aske VF'i It-.-- - ■■ k - n ir- M t .■ —f-f* ,uPi - LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB t LAKEVIEW TERRACE HOMEOWNERS MEETING SCHEDULED WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27. 1995 7:00PM ORONO VILLAGE OFFICES REGARDING MUNICIPAL SEWER DEVELOPMENT Many homaowners were unable to attend the July meeting regarding possible municipal sewer development for tnis neighborhood and the North Long Lake neighborhood. .After review of infon tiation maileo in July, some folks would appreciate an update from Michael Gaffron, Ass’t Planning and Zoning Administrator. He has agreed to meet with us at the above time. The Orono Planning and Zoning office has asked us. as a neighborhood, to consider whether City sewer is preferable to continued septic system use and second'y. to consider under what conditions we would be in favor of a sewer project. A response was requested by October 15. Some issues suggested for discussion by various neighbors are; 1. Routing of City sewer installation and potential easements required according to the preliminary plan or ideas submitted since the initial presentation in July. 2. Information regarding changing neighborhood from rural to urban as is being requested from the Mefopolitan Council...e g., implication for other regulations not previously required under rural designation such as storage buildings, operating a home based business, storing reo'esconal vehicles on property, stc.. 3. Review of cost of the project..potential for distributing u.er a broader area since neighborhoods such as the Farm, North Farm Roa' -esidents along North Brown Road, and property developers along County Road 6 may wish to connect to a City sewer system in the future. 4. Clarification of... “City financial participation is anticipated to help in defraying the cost." ..This is a critical concern for all residents of this modest neighborhood. 5. If this neighborhood does not want municipal sewer now. what is the village plan to develop U is in the future...timininq ...long range plan? 6. Additional questions? C Michael Gaffron, Ass’t Planning and Zoning Administrator CB COMMERCXU, R e.«. Estvri CaotT. Lnc • ^z-r,o S':-:! —r CB %cc %i4s *cesmsr ^h\HXsmsr m\icxs UCINM «I.M. k£T^fl tvV\<€. July 18,1995 fnWL 2 i ^CC5 commercial LaM'sd A'it#wMfv ^\rm 1*^ Orono City Council P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Ma TTHTW n . mcoll scMo« MCI r«a$io«sT MI>'>eiOT* mciONXt M4\*Ct« *i: »:4-4*»« ♦ i: i31-SOZ3 Fot R e: Proposed Sewer Line for Smith avxm e pear Council Members: I am a resident ofl60 Smith Avenue having acquired the prepern* m May I99a^ The lot is approximately 2.5 acres and has ample capac:t>- to expand the septic system if the need should arise in the fu'ture. It is my understanding that a majority of the homes on the east siae of Smith Avenue are in excess of two acres and have ample room lor their septic systems. It is also mv understanding that due to lot sizes of less than one acre tor a numoer ot homes on the south side of Smith and nvo hom.es Lv-mon Avenue that it is the city's intent to ultimately service these lots with a sanitary sewer. It is further my understandmg that the cost of the sewer installation would be borne by all members of the neighborhood. WTien we purchased our home it was extremely important to me that the e.xisting septic system was m good shape and the lot was of adequate size to provide for future expansjon n^ssmy. Pan of the value of a nvo and one-half acre lot is the ability to relocate your septic system in die event of a f ^ure. This fle.xibility is built into and is pan of the value of a lot ut this size. If it is determined bv the cinr that there are homes in our subdivision that cannot function without a sewe' line then it should be their sole responsibility to pay whatever the cost is tor sewer service to their homes so thev are conforming. To spread the cost over confonmng users that have no use or need for sewer in an elTon to make the whole project feasible and less cosUy for non- confomung users is simoly not equitable. If there is a need in the future for a homeowner not initially hooked up to the sewer then they should be charged at that point m time and the initial contnbuting members should be reimbursed pro rata. Please keep me advised of any further discussions regarding this proposed sewer line. Sincerely,' Nlatthew N. Nicoll Senior Vice President Minnesota Regional .Manager MNN/ams '-^0 France Avenle SotTH Sctte '"O. Minneapolis . .Minnesota 33433-5:s: Robert C Stierna 1930 Shoreline Drive Wayzata^MIS 55391 Business (612)473-7383 Home (612)476-1951 MAR 1 6 1995 March 14, 1995 Mr. Michael Gaf&on Asst. City Zoning Mirinistraior City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 D^u* Mr. Gaf&on This is a request that the City of Orono permit the connection of our home, 1930 Shoreline Dnvc, to the municipal sewer system. Our current s>-stem has been labeled "non-confonumg’* and the city has provided us a notice that we are required to replace the system before 1997. It is, I should note, working as intended and as it has for the past 30 years or so As the purpose of the change is to protect the lake, I view the placement of a •'mound" system to be another temporary solution which we would probably be required to address again a few years. I would be opposed to investing in anything less than a complete and final solution to the problem That is, a conneaion of our property to the metropolitan sewer system. Sewer is within 150 feel of our home, and the adjacent property' at 1940 Shoreline Drive is presently sewered. I would also be in favor of a general project w hich solves the problem on an area wide basis, but lacking that, feel that this approach is appropriate in this case. Let’s do this right or not mess with it. Robert Stiema -Jr October 3. 1995 OCT I? ^ ^ aar Mr. Mike GatTron and Orono City Council P.O.Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Ri“: City Sewer Proposal for Foxhill .Association Dear Mr. GaiTron and City Council Members: Following the recent publication, meeting, and discussion of a proposal to extend city sewer services to the Foxhill neichborhood. Foxhill members were polled so that the .Association could take a unified position one way or the other on this issue. The purpose of this lener is to communicate the results of that poll. A majority of our members arc opposed to the proposal as it stands. Only three of our fourteen members were in favor of the proposal. The proposed location of the line and the cost were two of the objections that came up frequently. It’s possible that there are other solutions or different approaches to the same solution that may'be uiore acceptable to Foxhill Association members, ^'e certainly don’t want to close the door to any potcnually productive dialogue. Sincerelv. A • Daniel A. Hoffman. President Fo.xhill .Association DAH/'tv cc:All Foxhill Association Members THOMAS J. AND PAULINE BOUCHARD 1860 SHORELINE DRIVE W4VYZATA. MN 55391 AUGUST 21.1995 Mik«Gaffron City <rfOrono ro Box 66 Ciystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gaffron: rc: Municipal Sewer connection As we discussed over the pnone around the time of the public meeting ol August 3, 1993, we would verv much like to be able to hook up to city sewer. We much prefer this to having to install a conforming septic system, which we feel would have a more limited life, would not necessarily prevent pollutants from entering the lake, and would not enhance the value of the property. We would be amenable to having the hookup made either on Shoreline Drive or on Hetitage Drive, whichever would better suit your plans for service to the Foxhill area. We have mentioned our preference for municipal sewer hookup to our neighbors the Blocks (Heritage Drive address) who are to the east of us, and the Nelsons who are to our west on Shoreline. Hcasc keep us informed as to the progress of City ’s plans to help bring this about. Pauline M. Bouchard AUG 2 9 M em To: From: Doie: Re: FoxhUIResidents and City of Orono Council Members anJ Mayor Carfieid Clark August 27,1995 Froposed Foxhill Connection to Sewer System On August 3, 1995, City of Orono staff people and city council people asked the Foxhill residents to attend a meeting to discuss their proposed sanitary sewer system. Ordinarily, people who spend "other peoples money"* have a discussion with those people to determine whether their money should be spent. In this instance. Orono City Council members and staff decided to spend our money on engineering, plans, paper, mail and stafT time to devise a plan to connect Foxhill residents to a proposed sewer system, without prior discussion with the affected parties. It is useful to try to establish why our City leaders want to bring us a "plan in progress" for our approval, as well as estimating the cost to each resident. You can tell it is important to these city people because they made the plans without prior discussion and they try to sell their concept with fear. Suggesting that prospective home buyers might call the city officials to determine if the house they were interested in is in "confomtance" and the city people might tell the prospective buyers that a home might not be in "contormance", therefore we should all agree to hook up to the proposed sewer system. They show the cost without including interest, showing an artifically low number, a question of "truth in borrowing". They also state that the costs of upgrading a non-conforming system "normally is payable in full to contractor on completion" to suggest that financing of the improvement is not available and that all older systems would be obliged to pay these costs upon completion. These tactics suggest undisclosed purposes. You can see from the city provided maten.il, that those homes along County Road 15 are insinuated a part of Foxhill. Foxhill residents might be interested in those homes becoming a part of Foxhill if (i) they all agree to become a part of Foxhill. (ii) they contributed their lakeshore pioperty to the Foxhill Cutlots and (iii> they pay the annual dues and maintenance charges as a member of the Foxhill Homeowners Association. P'is insinuation of adjacent County Road 15 homes as "Foxhill" could be one of the undisclosed purposes for the "plan in progress" Fractionalizing the cost of serving these homes over the Fo.xhill residents to reduce their pei home costs may be the intent. m The City people also stated that they intend to apply to the Met Council for pentiission to expand Ihc sewer service in the community. They further stated they intend to ask the Met Council to expand the MUSA line, which is that boundary in the metropolitan area beyond which the Met Council has decided to restrict infrastructure (sew^er, water, reads) to inhibit "urban spra\vr. The City people state that this kind of request always carries "strings" back into the community in that the Met Council has an agenda for the metropolitan area, including Orono. Granting City requests is one method of obtaining City compliance of the Met Council agenda. For example, the City people intend to request expansion of the MUSA line to incorporate one or two lots, so that sew'cr can be provided to those lots. Sewer is thought to be necessary because the lots will not permit a septic system. The other alternative is a holding tank system tor those lots and would be enormously cheaper than sewer installation and paying for the other "strings ” by the entire population of Orono. In this example, the City people are wil’ing to accept the Met Council "strings" which affect the entire city, in order to provide access to sewer for one or two lots. A ver>* high price to pay, indeed. There are fourteen homes in Foxhill and all are in conformance or have an alternate location lor septic systems on their land. Let's look at the economics of the proposal. 1. Septic systems have a life of 25 to 30 years and all of the Foxhill residents have invested in their present systems. At a current price for a septic system of $12,000, with an estimated half life remaining and ten of the hor 'cs in conformance, then $6,000 times ten homes equals a potential lost investment ot $60,000. The City matenal suggests an upgraded septic systems in the four non-conforming homes is estimated by the City people to be $7,500 to $10,000 each, times the four homes; a new investment of $40,000, or less. 2. The proposed sewer system would cost each of the fourteen homes approximately 515,000, which would be assessed over a fifteen year period, at an annual interest rate of say, 9 percent. The principal and interest cost would be $1,842 annually or $27,626 for the fifteen year period. Each home would need to the connected to the sewer by a plumber at an estimated cost of $4,000. There would be a quarterly sewer charge for each home in an initial amount of $62.00; times four quarters equals 5248.00 each year, assuming no increases, a poor assumption. The total cost for the fourteen Foxhill home owners is $27,626; plus $4,000; plus $248 times fifteen years times the fourteen homes; plus the lust life of the existing systems in an amount of $60,000 totals $554,844... to do a $40,000 job. A sum of our money nearly fifteen times more than the cost of upgrading some of the Foxhill homes. And you wonder why governments are broke and are breaking us. So, what is the real motivation in proposing to spend this kind of "other peoples money". r /?/ sJuc/% G^COBOE S.PllXSBUHY 4HOO riKST BANY FIACI August 4, 1995 ma-338-3973 ei3-33a-2004 Memorandum To: Bracketts Point Area Residents Fron: George Pillsbury Since the neeting at our house, apparently the Bracketts Point sewer area have decided to petition the City of Orono to install municipal sewer for our Thus, Jeanne Mabusth has asked us to sign the enclosed petition and mail, fax or deliver it to her at the Orono City Hall. It is my understanding **the sooner the better". If you have any questions, please call Jeanne or Mike Gaffron. I am sure that they will keep us up-to-date on the progress of this project. In the meantime, many thanks for helping start it on its way. GSP/rpd Enclosure 0.i r'\J ' i,nv AJ /, •r t • •// y ^h <7 / L .f y r ♦ • Why should we throw away out pre.ient s>^iems and increase our spending b\ more than $2,000.00 each >’car, on top of an already confiscatory tax level? I haven^t a clue. Do you? . < PETITION REQUEST FOR A MUNICIPAL SEWTR BRACKETTS POINT AREA The undersized, residents within the proposed Bracketts Point Sewer Are^ hereby request and petition the City of Orono to install mumcipai sewer to serve the Bracketts Point Area approximately in accordance with the project desenbed in the Nonce and Invitation dated July 6, 1995 attached to this petition. Dated: August 1,1995 NAME /3 cn. ADDRESS O/ AJ7 /C^ "/S . rr*;'V^tSST.;- ■» • •------- — — w • ■ *1**./Y7S' 5c^^tTT"X 7 X A^*7 fya" s<- (fys'^i ^i-- (fVt^ OPoS 6*?X ft-^u fZ2-0 \c>t>o P/K-SS- { 2^SO ^ Av^ T / 2>o<i 1 t-jcc>^/^z.e> l^rooju.A^brr >< A-^*^ " '....................................................... 12-C^r • • •//v/x? ccey ciry CT^ Memorandum TO:Webber Kills Homeowr.ers FROM:Tom McC—"c DATE:Septemu?r6. 1995 SUBJECT: Septic Svsie;n/?vlunic:pal Server Issue- An informational meeting for ail neighbors was held at our home on May 17. »99o. to better understand the reasons %vhy the majority' ot the trench-t%pe septic s% stems .n Weboer Kills have been deemed non-coniorming over the last year and mound-type systems are bein2 required immediately tor anyone who sells their property' or obtains a buildins permit and for essentially everyone in the r’rea by the end of 1996. Our neichborhood initiated this meeting with the City ot Orono officials, which was the tirsr of its type. Subsequentlv. all 9 other Orono neighborhoods have had similar meetings, which were all held at the Orono city oftices. Our meetinc was attended by Diann Goetten. Orono CikV Council Member, and die inibrmational portion %vas led by \Iike Gatfron, Assistant Zoning Administrator. .A, packer of materials was distnbuted by .Mr. Gaf&on iOentify'ing various priority areas (neighborhoods) in Orono for city sewer. Ke indicated that a -rypicar mo-and syste.m would cost 57.000 - 510,000 while city sewer is estimated at S13,9SO/household (assessed at an average of approximately 51,100/year over 15 years) plus an initial hook- UD cost of 52.000 - 54,000, plus a quanerly sewage use/maintenance fee. * Tne additional enclosed packet of information, which is more complete and descriptive than the information distributed on \Iay I /, explains the teenmeal issues involved. This packet was recently prepared for the Foxhill and Bay Ridge neighborhoods. Tne initial parar.c ‘r and primary’ reason for our meeting was the premise that we would ail be required t ' install mound-type septic systems and then pote.ntially stUl incur all of die attendant costs of city sewer relatively soon thereafter. Tne second maior concern was the fact that the requirement for the mound-type system would result in a gre'.' majority ’ of the trees being cut down in the area and 35 large ugly systems would be inTtalled, essentially ruining the visual character of the neighborhood and decreasing property values for ail of us. As noted, nothing but grass can be planted on a mound system and the riser pipes remain exposed. Webber Hills Homeowners Memorandum Page 2 In a straw poll taken at the end of the May 17. 1995 meeting, a large majority of Webber Hills homeowners favored petitioning the cit\’ tor city sewer at this time, to be installed within the next 2-5 years and thereby obtaining a waiver of the requirement for the mound-tv'pe system by the end of 1996. It w’as further decided to establi.'h a committee consisting ot Tom McCune, Geoff Jillson, Jerry Paulson, Jack Hawes, and .-* nn Wyer who would meet to devise a plan, conceptually to be pursued in two phases: Phase 1 Engage an independent testing agency, at our expense, to conduct soil tests in an attempt to challenge the city regarding the validity ot their testing procedures and conclusions, and thereby hoperully convince them to exempt Webber Hills from the December 31, 1996 deadline. Phase 2 If the phase one testing did not indicate our desired results or if we were totally unsuccessful in dissuading the city from their curr'r -equirements, we would^then petition the citv' to bring in permanent municipal sewer and thereby give relief to the December 31, 1996 requirement. Our committee met in early July and discussed Lhe independent testing concept but, to date, nothing has been staned nor have residents been approached about collectively sharins the cost of the testing. I have just learned of information that adds urgency to our actions. The City of Orono intends to file an amendment to their Comprehensive Plan and \nJSA (Metropolitan Urban Service .Area) boundary to the Metropolitan Council in early October 1995. They will identify areas (neighborhoods) of greatest need for city sewer and neighborhoods that request or petition for city sewer. To be included in the earlier priority areas for city sewer and thereby obtain a waiver to the December 31, 1996 requirements for mound-tvpe systems, we must makejiur intf»nrinns Imnwn to the Citv of Orono before the end of this month . I know that a number of the other j-. ighborhoods will be petitioning in favor of city sewer. Webber Hills Homeowners .Nfemomndum Page 3 Homeo%vnen who have recently insuiled a mound sepdc system wll probably not be excited about incurring additional costs for city sewer (approximateiv' homes in Webber Hills now have a mound system). We would have the option to ask the citv' to subsidize tne cost ot the mound systems which are already in piace, or these costs could be shared, to some extent, by the remaining homeowners. Even if city sewer comes to our area, people with new mound systems would not be obligated to hook up to city sewer tor a number of years and therefore could defer the hookup costs. I respectively request that these people consider the best overall interests of the entire neighborhood. liie vast majority of neighbors 1 have talked with this summer and the majority of our committee strongly prefer to petitiort the citv immediately for ciw sewer. The reasons tor advocating municipal sewer at this hrr.e are: 1. Municipal sewer increases our property values. 2. Municipal sewer is a long-term solution. :. .Avoid duplication of costs for mound syste.ms now and. inevitably, city sewer in the future. 4. Municipal sewer costs are assessed over 1 o years instead ot paying up front tor a mound svstem. 5. Mound systems will cause many trees to be destoyed and ruin the visual character of the neizhborhood. 6. Municipal sewers are maintained by the city and we would avoid problems widi our existinz svstems, most of which are older and will require continued maintenance and/or improvement. /..As was discussed at the May 17, 1995 meeting, the mound-tv-pe system is clearly no panacea and has many mechanical components such as float switches, lift pumps and __ hnrlr nn info n home ^hmiM nnv ofan electrical supply which could allow sewage to back up into a home should any ot the primary components fail. .Additionally, mound systems are prone to freeze-up and failure, primarily when not used for a period o'^time. . f 'f* j.' * • W«bb«r Hills Homeowners Memoraodum Page 4 S. Because of the large amount of wetland in our area and the steep slopes on many ot our oroperties. technically the mound system would not hmction in many locations (or be allowable in many instances due to w'ctlands, lack of “virgin soil, steep slopes, etc.), therefore an individual may be required to have their septic tanks pumped and sewage hauled on a bi-weekly basis until city sewer is eventually in the area (see examples of costs outlined in Foxhill packet). The city has identified at least of of the lots in Webber Hills as having hq alternative sites available for a new mound svstem. 9. As more mound systems are installed, it will become much more complicated and expensive to obtain citv sewer in the rliture. 10. Our homes are not currently marketable, at equitabis prices, due to this impending issue. 11. Existing or proposed drainfield areas can be used for other puposes on our properties. Tnerefore, I strongly urge you to circle “yfij” on the enclosed form to indicate in favor ot municipal sewer. Please indicate your preference on the anached torm and renim to .Ann Wyer (2130 Shevlin Drive) or me (2150 Shevlin Drive) by Friday,_ieptembtr 1?» If you have questions, please call Nlike Gaffron at the City of Orono, any ot our committee members or me. Thanks for your consideration. ' rTT/VT• • •0 • Septic System/Sewer Survey Form Webber Hills It is our preference to petition the City of Orono for municipal sewer at this time and thereby obtain a waiver on the December 31,1996, requirement for the installation of a new mound-type system. (As indicated by the city-, it may well be 2-5 years before municipal sewer would be installed.) CIRCLE ONE:YES NO Address: Name: Print Sicn Information only: Please check if you already have a mound-type system. I ..................................nwp||i<iii I \ I III! ■ ' Date: Council Ron Moorsc, City Administrafor Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator October 27, 1995 Subject: Draft (Rough!) of MUSA Aincndmeni Application Attached is a very preliminary draft of our application to Met Council for revisions to the MUSA to accomodate the ten "hot spots" plus additional portions of the Orono Schools property. Please take some time before the November 14 work session to review this document. You will see a lot of loose ends, "fill in the blanks", and additional information to be developed, 1 need your help to make it complete, as well as to make it reflective of whatever ’attitude’ you wish it to take (i.e. you may find that some of it, especially the Non-Related Issues section, is presented in a way that reflects the 'Orono party line ’ but which may not help our case...). I'm starting to get writ? m responses from the various neighborhoods and will update you on the 14th. Thanks! Metropolitan Council_Ad<yating regional cconofnic. sodetzd and environmental issues and solutions I The Council staff has reviewed the information from the city staff regarding the possible addition of ses-eral city areas to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. If the city decides to submit a plan amendment to the Council for review, the following information should be submitted with the amendment. In addition, a number of broad policy issues regarding the city’s development, wastewater handling/treatment and housing polices are discussed. We feel these can best be addressed by updating appropriate sections of the city’s comprehensive plan. Based on Council forecasts, the city has an adequate supply of land within the current MUSA to meet the city’s needs through the year 2000. (The Council will not reevaluate the region’s land use needs through the years 2005 and 2010 until 19%.) Based on this, the city must demonstrate that the additions to the MUSA will include only areas that are experiencing failing on-site sanitary disposal sv-stems. These areas couid include vacant lots that cannot be avoided in extending sewers, but the numbers should be limited. We suggest that any proposal to include undeveloped land be discussed with the staff prior to including these areas in the plan amendment. The following information should be submitted with the plan amendment. Most of this information is required for local sewer plans as stated in the Council ’s Wastewater Treatroentl^ Handling Pohey Plan (Tiers 1 and 2). 1. A map showing the location, land uses and extent of the areas to be included and boundaries of the metropolitan interceptor service areas if there is more than one. and any intercoraraunitv connections. Some of this information is indicated on the maps you have given to us at our Gist meeting. 2 - S 2. The projected number of households and employees to be served by metropolitan sewers at present and in 2000 and 2010 for the entire city and for each individual interceptor service area. (If there is more than one.) Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Stree*St Paul. Minnesota 55101-1634 ^r*-.. 612 291 *6359 Fax 29 1 -6550 TDD 291 -0904 Ronaid Moorse February 9, 1995 ' Page 2 3. The projected number of RECs (residential equivalent connections) at present and for the years 2000 and 2010. ^ 4. Projected ii^reases in sewered RECs and population for each of the next five years. P 5. The proj^ed wastewater flows in the years 2000 and 2010 for the entire city and the ^ individu^ interceptor service areas. Include a description as to how the Dows were calculated including the per capita design flows. » ^ ^ description and summary of the reasons for on-site system failure or potential failure for each area to be serv ’ed. The information for the city of Forest Lake that was previously sent \>ou ' - indicates the type of information needed. 7. Consideration given to alternative means of service to these areas, eg. community drainfields. 8. Description of how service will be provided and points of connection to existing sewers. ^ 9. Capacity' and design flows for lateral and trunk sewers as well as new lift stations. lO 10. Sewer construction timetable. M 11. Method of assessment. Has any of the proposed area already been assessed? I2'A I ^2. Summary of city ’s adopted objectives, policies and strategies for preventing and reducing excessive infiltration and inflow in the local sanitary sewer system including standards for new systems and programs for identif>ing and reducing excessive V\. The city should have an ordinance prohibiting the connection of roof drains and sump pumps to the sanitary sewer system. T'C V'/ IH 13. Summary of the city ’s requirements for on-site sewage disposal systems including installation, biennial inspection of all existing systems by certified personnel, permit record keeping, licensing, maintenance and remedial actions. The Council ’s p>olicy is that all systems be inspected biennialy by MPCA certified personnel. New systems must meet Minn. Regs. 7080. 14. Council records indicate that the city has amended its comprehensive plan to incorporate the Council ’s Interim Strategy for the Reduction of Nonpoint Source Pollution and will amend its land use controls to implement the policy by May, 1995. Is the city ’ on track to complete this task by May? 15. There are several city development policies of concern to the Council. These are the city ’s land use polices for future development, and city' plans for handling/treatment of wastewater and transportation to serve this development. Also, the city ’s plan for expanding life-cycle and affordable housing is a Council concern. The city ’s current plan indicates that development in the area outside the MUSA is currently planned for 2-acre lots served by on-site sanitary ’ disposal systems. Given the number of units, planned densities and local soil conditions, the Council is concerned about the pollution of Ronald Moorse Fdmiary 9, 1995 Page 3 groundwater and surface water and ultimately the impact on the metropolitan wastewater ofTe u^. n ■ 640-acre 5«tion. The currem dereity poUcy is too lo* to support the efficent eitem.on of uthan services. If on-site systems fail at these densities, the cost of extending services wou c. prohibitive for homeowners and the city. -p \ — ‘»jOT In addition, the citv must determine the impact of future grovsih on the metro^litan highly -it- svstem. The metropolitan transportation policy plan calls for a c,ties to prosrde l«al artenal highways to accomodate short and medium lenth tnps which will not be metropolitan s>-siem. (TH12 has been designated a metropolitan highway.) If there is adequate capacity on either the regional or local sv-stem than improvements must be m accomodate future growth. This issue should also be addressed as part o t e citys comprehensive plan update. In September of 1994. the Council adopted the Regional Blueprint. The Blueprint statK that the Council will work with local communities in a partnership to meet the range of life-cycle ho^i g needs of people and broaden locational choice and access for people of all income levels. T^c staff would liL to discuss these needs with the city and a potential partnership to implement this action. Based on our records, the citvs comprehensive plan has not been updated since the early 1^. We realize it will take some time to complete this work. The city should include a reasonable schedule with its proposed .MUSA additions for updating the land use. transportation, sewer and housing elements of its comprehensive plan and submitting these to the Council for review. If there are questions regarding this letter, please contact Carl Schenk (291-6410). Yours truly. Chuck Ballentine. Director Office of Local Assistance cc: Mary H. Smith. Metropolitan Council Member Distnct Carl Schenk. Council Staff Mike Gaffron. Assistant Cit>’ Planner CITY OF ORONO JULY 1995 PROPOSED AMENDMENT; COMPREHENSIVE SEWER POLICY PLAN MUSA BOUNDARY O Cover letter O Application (Standard format) O Supporting documents: I. Map 1 - Proposed MUSA Inclusions Maps 2-1 1 - Individual Neighborhood Maps II. Analysis of Need A. Existing Septic Systems Inventor/ & Analysis 1. Overview of Problem 2. "Nonconforming" vs."Failing" Systems 3. Evaluation Methods 4. Individual System Data By Neighborhood 5. Summai7 of Results and Prioritization B. Alternatives Considered 1. Identification of Alternatives 2. Analysis of Alternatives 3. Conclusion C. Orono Schools and Hockey Arena Site 1. Map 12 - Orono Schools Campus III. Existing and Projected Flows A. Map 13 - Interceptor Service Areas and Intercommunity Connections B. Flow Projection Data 1. Sewered Households 1995/2000/2010 2. Sewered Employees 1995/2000/2010 3. Sewered Population 1995/2000/2010 4. Residentidl Equivalent Connections (REC's) 1995/2000/2010 5. Projected REC’s and Sewered Population 1995-2000 6. Projected Wastewater Flows 1995/2000/2010 IV. Proposed Infrastructure Additions & Improvements A. Description of Additions and Improvements B. Capacity and Design Flow Data C. Construction Timetable D. Assessment of Costs V; Related Issues A. On-Site Systems Management Plan 1. Philosophy 2. Ordinances and Management Program B. Inflow/Infiltration Management Plan VI. Non-Related Issues A. Interim Strategy for the Reduction of Nonpoinl Source Pollution B. Land Use Policies for Future Development C. Transportation D. Housing November __, 1995 Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Subject: Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Proposed MUSA Revisions Dear Members of the Council: TTie City of Orono is requesting approval of an amendment to the MUSA boundary. The amendment will make possible construction of municipal sewers to serve 10 existing residential neighborhoods comprising 189 existing homes and four vacant lots on a total of ___acres.. Each neighborhood has been found to have a significant number of non-conforming septic systems that, although not necessanly failing, must be replaced to meet State and Orono standards. Additionally, 56 acres of land owned by the Orono School District as part of their main campus will be added to the MUSA to accomodate ftiture school needs including a proposed ice hockey arena. Six of the ten residential neighborhoods are within Orono's designated Shoreland District, located within 1000' of either Lake Minnetonka or Long Lake. One-fourth of the 189 residences are on lakeshore lots. A majority of the ten neighborhoods have potentially severe limitations for the replacement of septic systems. All were originally developed prior to Orono's 1975 rezoning which henceforth required minimum lot sizes of 2 acres for new residential development. Two acres of dry buildable land is considered by Orono as the minimum individual lot area necessary to accommodate septic systems on a long-term basis. The average lot size in these neighborhoods is 1.3 acres, or just 65% of the minimum area requirement. Background In 1975 the City of Orono emharked on a journey to enhance and preserve the water quality of Lake Minnetonka. Orono's plan to accomplish this goal is many-faceted, including. - preserving existing wetlands to enhance stormwater runoff quality - strict lakeshore setback regulations and limitations on hardcover percentages to maximize infiltration of runoff - limitations on development density in the upper watershed areas to no more than 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres Orono has experienced great success in each of these areas over the last two decades. Wetlands have been protected and enhanced by private propeny owners throughout the City, and virtually no wetland acreage has been lost by filling or draining. Strict enforcement of setback and hardcover regulations has resulted in a substantial green buffer along the majority of Orono's 40 miles of Minnetonka lakeshore. And with 80% of Orono's land area zoned for Single Family Residential use with 2-acre and 5-acre minimum lot sizes, development of the rural areas of the City at low densities has continued at a slow but steady pace. Orono's 1980 Comprehensive Plan indicated that within the city's rural areas existed a number of neighborhoods developed long before the 1975 city-wide rezoning. These areas included lots ranging from one-fifth acre to just over one acre in size. Five neighborhoods were identified as 'critical' in terms of continued septic system use, and a number of others were identified as 'rural clusters' which should be monitored. During the 1980's and early 1990's, each of the five 'critical' neighborhoods was the subject of an Alternative Waste Management Study conducted by the City. In each case it was concluded that long­ term septic system use was not a viable option, and all five neighborhoods have now been sewered. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulations were revised in the late 1980's to define existing septic systems not meeting a three-foot separation from seasonal water tables as 'nonconforming'. DNR Shoreland regulations and Orono ordinances require that nonconfo'ming systems be made contorming. It is estimated that 50% of existing septic systems in Orono be nonconforming under the regulations. In 1993 the City Council placed a moratorium on septic system repairs. During the moratorium a smdy was conducted to determine if certain areas of the City would be best serv ed by installation ot municipal sewers rather than replacement of septic systems. Ten individual neighborhoods were identified for analysis, including six which were originally recognized in the 1980 Comprehensive Plan as requiring close monitoring. Each of the identified neighborhoods exhibits a small number of failing systems and a significant number of non-conforming systems which must be replaced. Factors suggesting municipal sewer may be the most appropriate solution to existing or expected difficulties in replacing non-contorming sewage systems in these areas include lot sizes too small to accommodate replacement systems; steep slopes or other site-specific limiting factors; proximity to lakes, wetlands and tributaries; and the likelyhood of system replacement costs approaching the costs of municipal sewer. Six of the ten identified areas have requested that the City commence sewer construction within the next few years, to avoid the costs of septic system replacement. It is important to note that each of the ten neighborhoods is fully developed. The proposed MUSA additions will provide service only to e.xisting homes and a few interspersed vacant lots, with no intent by the City to provide service to new land for residential development. Finallv, it is the City's intent to e.xpand the MUSA to encompass the entire Orono School District campus, incorporating existing sewered school buildings which were inadvertently omitted from the initial 1980 MUSA boundary descriptions, and incorporating additional school district property on which a proposed hockey arena is proposed to be built in 1996. We request your approval of our application and stand ready to address any questions you may have. Sincerely, (Ron Moorse) (City Administrator) INFORMATION SUBMISSION FOR MAJOR COMPREKENSIVE PLAN AMENDME q j f J J This summary worksheet must be filled out and submitted to the Metro|: copy of each proposed major comprehensive plan smendmeot. A mijor amendment is de^ed as: 1. A complete revision, update or rewrite of an easting comprehenshe plan in its entirety. 2. A major plan revision, update, rewrite or addition to a chapter or element of an existing comprehensive plan. 3. An amendment tri^ered by a proposed c’^rvelopment that requires an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as defined in Minnesota Rules 1989, Parts 4410.4300-.4400, and is inconsistent with the existing comprehensive plan; or 4. A change (land trade or addition) in the urban service area involving 40 acres or more. Please be as specific as possible; attach additional c3q>lanatory materials if necessary. If a staff report was prepared for the Planning Commission or City Council, please attach it as welL I. . Send plan amendments to: Lynda Voge^ Referrals Coordinator Metropolitan Council, Mcars Park Centre 230 E. Fifth Sl, SL Paul, MN 55101-1634 GENERAL INFORMATION A. Sponsoring governmental unit B. Citv of Orono Michael GaffronName of local contact person contaa persoi P.O. 3o:< 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 612-473-735Telephone---—^ Name of Preparer (if different from contact person) (Same) Date of Preparation___J ulv QQ 5 Name of Comprehensive Plan Amdrat.^6; MUSA Boundary ^• E^xpand MUSA to accomodate provision of rr.unicioal sewer service to 169 existing homes on lot si^es avuracing 1.3 acre.Expand MUSA to include Orono Schools property currently outside MUSA, to accomodate proposed hockey arena and future school facility expansions. Please attach the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Five copies of the proposed amendmenL A dty*wide map showing the location of the proposed change. The ctirreat plan map(s), indicating area(s) affected by amendment The proposed plan map(s), indicating area(s) affected by amendmenL D. * What is the o£Eidal local status of the proposed amendment? (Check one or more as appropriate.) Acted upon by planning commission (if applicable) on. Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review, Considered, but not approved by governing body on,'liL //- Other.I'on Indicate what adjacent local govemmentai units affected by the change have been sent copies of the plan amendment and the date(s) copies were sent to th.rma. Nodfication of affected adjacent governmental units is required fm r. amendments. -----------------------------—---------------------—*----- of the comprehensive nature of most major , * summa.*v eft , ii attached to helj* ensure that the amendment is complete to* v^rjunca review and *(:- w* inint' whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the metropolitan systems plaus - chapters of the MeuopoUtan Development Guide. Please indicate whether the amenuinao • affects the following factors. Where it does, the materials submitted must fully address 0. issue(s). n. IMPACT ON REGIONAL SYSTEMS Wastewater Treatment 1. Change in city’s year 2(X)0i'2010 flow projections. __No/Not Applicable. X Yes. What will be the net change? How were these calculated? Irrom 2j.4rT^Y (|.99 3 rgv v<g.w.^ 24 ^ nigyYr^ 0 n o •• p r* c; Yr. 2010 -increase from 252 mgy( " " ). to 261 mgy Commimity discharges to more than one metropolitan interceptor. __No/Not Applicable. X Yes. Indicate which interceptor will be affected by the amendment and what will be the net changes in flows? (Fee Fxh] hi ts )______________________ — B. > TranspoctatioQ 1. Relationship to CouBcO policfc* regarding metropoEun highways. Y KT iw . A-«r^KU (Proposed amendment is intended to serve 2L No/Not AppUcabk. existing development) It__Yes. 2. Change in t3fpe a"d intenaiQ^ of land uses at interchanges and other locations within a quarter-mite ct the metropolitan highway system? X No/Not Applioble. — Yes. 3. Impact on exiting trip geitefalioiL XY^°\^n?*Schools hockey site may generate additional trips if arena is constructed) 4. Capacity of toad network to accommodate planned land use(s) (including metropolitan interchanges). ^ No^ot Applicable. -JLYcs. 5. Impact on transit and parking strategics. X No/Not Applicable. __Yes. 6. Docs the proposed amendment contain any changes to the fun<^nal classification of roadways? (These changes require Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) review.) 2LNo. Yes. Describe which roadways. Aviation 1. Impact on regional airspace. X No/Not Applicable. Yes. 2. Impaa on airport search area. ^ No/Not Applicable. — Yes. 3. Consistency with guidelines for land use compatibility with aircraft noise. y No/Not Applicable. Yes. . A, Consisteocy with ihc long-tenn wmprchcnsive plan for an airport in the vicinity of the oommunit,. or proposed dev’clopment ^ No/Not Applicable. _Yes. D. lUcreatioB Open Space 1. Impart OT rtriatifu or futuTC &deral. State or regional recreational facilities. __No/Not Applicable. X Yg. (Accomodates potential hockey arena for school and area users) HL IMPACT ON METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK A. land Use 1. Describe the following, as appropriate: a. Sire of area in *rrrt a. 341 Acres B. 56 Acres b. japH usf(») I Pev^loped Single Family B. Schools campus C. Pr^p^rH A ■ B. Schools campus & hockey arer d. Number of residential dwelling units and typo imolvedA.189 existina dwellings, 4 vacant lots B. None_ _ _ _ e. Proposed densitychange) ,, , L Proposj^ square frota^ of comnmrci^md^tii^^or^bUc buildings B.Change in the dty’s population, household or employment forecasts for 2(XX), or any a^'tiooal Io<^ staging contained in the original plan. X No/Not Applicable. __Yes. Change in the urban service area boundary of the community. __No/Not Applicable. A Yes. D. Change in the timing and staging of development within the urban service area. X No/Noi Applicable. Yes. IV. IMPACT ON HOUSING Impact on the supply and affordability of housing types necessary to serve persons at different stages in the life cycle. ^_No/Not Applicable. Yes. Ispia on the supply and aCfordabOinr of housing types necessary to serve persons at varying iDoome leveb. ~^*?siS«^stallation would provide stability for residents in planning for financing sewage treatment needs, , housing) modest-cost market rate, and middle- and upper-income housing units. ^ No/Not Applicable. ^Yes. V.WATER RESOURCES Dws the plan amendment affect a Minnesota Deparmient of Natural Resources or U.S. Army Corp* of Engineexs protected wetland? If yes, describe Qrpe of wetland affected and show location on a map. _Yes. X No. m B. Will the wetland be protected? ^ Yes. Describe how. No construction in wetlands is anticipated. __ No. Explain why not ..... C wni the plan amendment result in runoff which affects the quality of any surface water bo^? If yes, identify which ones. __Yes. X Na D. wni the water body be protected? X Yes. Describe how. Etosion control BMP's will be adhered to . __No. Explain why noL —mi. ■ , —— —-— VI. LMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM A. Change in zoning, subdivision, on-site sewer ordinances or other official controls. X No/Not Applicable. Yes.__________________________________________________— kjp00371 11.15.90 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION I. Ma 1 * Proposed Musa Additions Map 2 - Part XDC: Nordi Long Lake Map 3 - Part XX: Lonf, Lake Country Club Map 4 - Part XXI: East Long Lake Map 5 - Part XXII: Orono Orchards Map 6 - Part XXID. Fox Ridge Map? - Part XXIV. Webber Hills Maps -Part XXV: Edgewood Hills Map 9 - Part XXVI: Brackett’s Point Map 10 - Part XXVII; Foxhill Map 11 - Part XXVIII: Bayridge/Hartwood r n. Analysis of need A. Existing Septu: Systems Inventory and Analysis 1. Overview of the Problem Of approximately 1,150 septic systems in Orono, 75% make use of draintield trenches or beds ranging in depth from 1' to 3 ’ below the natural ground surtace. Based on localized testing and review of the soil sur\'ey, it is estimated that trom one-half to two thirds of these systems do not meet the required 3 ’ separation from seasonal zones of samration. By definition, these systems are nonconforming according to current state and local codes, and must be upgraded. In most cases, upgrading will require replacement of a trench or bed system with a mound system at a cost of approximately $8,000 to $10,000 per unit. This cost of replacing septic system approaches the $12,000 to $20,000 per unit cost of installing municipal sewer in Orono. When faced with the prospect of wholesale septic system replacement, the City chose to place a moratorium on system repairs and study whether sewer installation is more appropriate than system upgrades for specific areas or neighborhoods. City staff subsequently identified ten existing residential neighborhoods of high density or close proximity to lakeshore. These areas were analyzed to determine whether they have the capability of repairing/replacing septic systems. Current system conditions were analyzed, and cost estimates for municipal sewer were developed. None of these ten areas are currently within the MUSA. Six ot ten were originally identified in Orono’s 1980 Comprehensive Plan as "Rural Housing Clusters" developed at densities greater than the 1-per 2 acre standard. It was noted in the 1980 plan that these neighborhoods were not at that time experiencing septic problems but would be monitored. White the incidence of failure has not increased in these neighborhoods, new definitions of "non-conforming systems" and the requirement to upgrade such systems has become a serious concern. 2. "Nonconforming" Versus "Failing" Systems. In 1989, MPCA Rules Chapter 7080 were revised to include in the definition of nonconforming systems, "systems with less than 3' of unsaturated soil or sand between the distribution device and the limited soil characteristics . regulation defines the limiting soil characteristics as "those soil characteristics which preclude the installation of a standard system, including evidence of water table Water table is defined as "the highest elevation in the soil where all voids are filled with water, as evidenced by presence of water or soil mottling or other information". In the State of Minnesota, soil mottling has become the key factor in determining the higlKst level of seasonal saturation in the soil. In Orono's loam arid clay loam soils, soil mottling and seasonal saturation are commonly found from 2* to 5’ below the grouiKi surface. In order to meet the 3' separation requirement, a majont> of IKW septic systems are mounds, which maintain the 3 separation. The use of soil mottling for determining seasonal saturation is subjective at best but is the only practical method identified by the State for determimng seasonal saturation. However, in some years saturation may not occur at the mottlmg level, and in other years saturation may occur at mottling level for only a few days weeks or months in a given year. The State has taken the position that even though the system might be too close to the water table for a short period during any given year, that system is not conforming. Very few septic systems in Orono are faiiilUi at any given time, perhaps 3 5% or 1 in 25 However, as many as 500-600 of the 1 100 e.xisting systems are estimated as fitting the definition of "non-conforming ”. While these might treat sewage quite adequately most of the time, during some periods they might not. 3. Evaluation Methods. Each neighborhood was evaluated in terms of soil and water conditions, proximity to lakeshore or other water bodies, and lot sizes. Within each neighborhood, individual systems were analyzed to determine system type (trench, mound, bed or cesspool), system condition (working, marginal or failing), conformity with 3 separation requirement (conforming or nonconforming), whether the system is in the "shoreland", and whether or not an alternate drainficld site is available. Note that in analyzing system conditions, systems exhibiting no surface discharge and generally in working order were considered as "working", systems obviously discharging to the surface were considered as failing, and systems with a drainlield area saturated but not discharging were considered as "marginal". It is, therefore, possible and quite common to have a system that is work ing but is still IML rnnformimi . 4. Individual Neighborhood Data Sheets & Summary (Attached) 5. Summary of Results/Prioritization Evaluation of the accumulated data suggests that some neighborhoods are more critical than others in terms of ability to continue using septic systems on a long r term basis. Further, the City Council has expressed a concern that the City is not in a position to assist in the funding of sewer projects to serve all ten neighborhoods at this time, but may be able to share in the cost if the projects are scheduled over a ten to twenty year period. As a result, each neighborhood was ranked in order of priority as to the need for an alternative to septic systems. Pqch neighborhood was ranked on a scale from 1 to 5 (5 being the greatest need for sewer) in regards to: a) incidence of failing systems; b) magnitude of nonconformities; c) availability of future sites for all homes; d) availability of future sites for homes with failing systems; c) availability of fumre sites for homes with nonconforming systems; and 0 shoreland impact. In that study, marginal and failing systems were both treated as failing systems. This analysis resulted in a numerical rating for each neighborhood, and neighborhoods were then prioritized by ranking into areas of high, medium and low' priority for installation of municipal sewer, as follows: fflGH PRIORITY North Long Lake Long Lake Country Club Addition Orono Orchards MEDILTVI PRIORITY Fox Ridge East Long Lake Webber Hills LOW PRIORITY Bay Ridge Edgewood Hills Bracketts Point Fox Hill The City Council in November 1994 concluded that although the Long Lake Country Club Addition had a medium ranking, it was a link in bringing sewer to the highest priority area. North Long Lake, and therefore the North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club area should be placed on a highest priority for sewer installation in the near fumre. The Council further concluded that Orono Orchards is a slightly lower priority, but sewer construction in that neighborhood would also appear to be prudent as soon as the North Long Lake/Long I^ke Country Club project is complete. The remaining seven neighborhoods were not placed on a specific time frame for sewer. However, the City Council suggested if any of those neighborhoods petition for sewer and agree to pay the entire cost of installation, the City will proceed with those projects. The Council further directed that the necessary MUSA amendment application process be commenced so that if any of these neighborhoods request sewer, the City will be able to accommodate them. SUMRAARY OF SYSTEMS BY NEIGHBORHOOD• • NEIGHBORHOOD to «» Eo X CD C irt x UJ to o c (0o CO > IZoc T3 C Do 5 T3 0) (S O 0 ain tn 01 U O)c lx It.o $ COc & CO 5 O)c <5 LL o>c E o cou O)c c 0 u 1coz T3 01c • M* E h. 0) <M 01o 4^oc E o ou u « o CO <D k_ < o o>z u 0) N o> > < oc (0 to 0) TO«sc •“ 01 o > CO ^ *2 to 2 « o 2 0)♦-* COc 01 81 ... CO Q O S O)^ oCO .Sc ^ 'E J2 c <5 o >(j CO c «oc — JM CO CO *5; oo C # 5 T3 C jO 0) L. O JZ (/) £ w*-•o -I *•-o iLong Lake C. C. Webber Hills 20 37 East Long Lake lEdgewood Hills North Long Luku Bayridge/Hartwood Orono Orchards Fox Ridge Foxhill Brackett's Pt 10 30 16 23 9 22 14 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 17 31 8 7 17 15 2 1 7 17 11 3 5 1 6 3 1 1 0 2 2 0 1 1 i“ 9 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 j 0 0 0 0 1 18 34 7 '6 23 15 15 7 21 14 1 2* 1 0 5 6 2 2 y 0 4 9 1 2 2 2 V 6 0 6 0 3 1 8 7 6 3 14 > 16 6 o' 21 9 6 6 _8 7 15 12* V yy\ 6 11 6 0 0 21.2 39.9 19!3 18.8 22.7 24.5 28.4 11.1 32!7 33^8 1.06 y?§ 1.75 y.88 0.73 ^.53 1.23 1.23 1.42 2.0 28.9 57.7 24.1 2o;o 26J 34^8 42^8 17.4 5^8 3ori 30% 32% 20% 0% 6*2% 90% 25% 77% 13% 52% 33% 9%* 29% 0% J00% 100%' 13% 33%_ j^% 100% TOTALS 189 Orono Schools inci Hockey Site 4 151 80% ICO 85%39% 252.4 54.0 1.31 340.7 56.1 36% 68 of 189 18% 34 of 189 62% 120 of 193 70% 'Includes 'Alternative' Systems "Excludes City-designated wetlands and road right of-ways 306.4 396.8 ^ J;V' ' ' ' r i f r X- K >V B. Alternatives Considered 1. Identification of Alternatives - A number of alternatives to the continued use of standard on-site sewage treatment systems were considered, including installation of municipal sewers. The alternatives included: a. Demolition. Removal of homes that have neither acceptable on-site systems nor available alternate draintield sites. b. "Alternative Systems" and "Experimental Systems" which might include: O Conforming design/substandard capacity systems on lots with minimal space, using holding tanks as an overflow mode. O Surface discharge systems (home plants). O Aerobic tank systems with reduced capacity conforming drainfields. c. Holding tanks. d. STEP systems (Sewage Tank/Effluent Pump) - each home has a septic tank with effluent pump discharging to a shallow small diameter force-main leading to City sewer system. e. Neighborhood collector system with community drainfield. f. Enforced flow reductions (retro-fit with low water use fixtures). 2. Analysis of Alternatives a. Demolition - High cost of acquisition is not affordable to City. - Negative impact on existing neighborhood. - With high percentage of homes in some areas not having alternate sites, entire neighborhood would be subject to demolition. Removal of "every other house", for instance, does not likely yield suitable drainfield sites for those remaining. - In older neighborhoods, reduces already-limited stock of affordable housing. - For the above reasons, demolition of selected homes in an existing neighborhood is not considered as a viable alternative. b. "Altcmativc/Expcrimental" Systems i. Surface Discharge Systems - Typically a packaged home-use individual treatment plant. - Surface discharge not approved in Minnesota. - Disposal of effluent in winter is a severe problem, may also be a problem in summer. - High indiv idual system cost. - Ongoing individual plant maintenance required. ii. Aerobic Tank Systems - Claim to provide adequate treatment to allow drainfield size reduction. - To date. MPCA/UM have not fully approved drainfield size reduction concept. - Drainfield must still meet the 3-foot separation requirement, which cannot be met on many properties except by standard mouiKl sytem technology. - Ongoing maintenance required, iii. Conforming design/substandard capacity/holding tank - Concept is to use substandard capacity but conforming- location drainfield to its maximum capacity, then overflow into a holding tank (for re-entty to drainfield in off-peak hours, or for hauling away). - Concept assumes a small conforming trench drainfield can be constructed, which is not the case on many sites; not a viable system when drainfield is a mound. - This has been used as a short-term retro fit in Orono (by adding holding tank to existing system) in developed ares where no other options exist or until sewer is available, but is not a long-term solution. None of the above methods are considered as viable alternatives to sewer for the reasons noted. c. Holding Tanks - Technically feasible for most sites. - Permanent maintenance requirement can become a problem and a burden. - High maintenance cost leads to restricted lifestyles not acceptable to most residents. - Estimated costs (1994 data): - Holding tank installation $2,280 - Regular maintenance (pumpouts) $5,000/year* ♦assumes 3 occupants x 75 gpd x 365 days x $120/pumpouc 2.000 gal. per pumpout d. STEP System - R^uires continued maintenance of individual septic tanks. - With each house having a pump to maintain, costs are ongoing. - This is a low front-end cost alternative to standard sewers, but may create permanent maintenance headaches. - Still requires hydraulic capacity in local sewer system. c.Neighborhood collector system with community drainfield - Sensitive to soil/water table conditions. - Ongoing maintenance required (may be individual tanks or community tank). - Need future expansion area available as safety factor. - High cost of site acquisition. - Failure risk may be high, replacement cost expensive. - Unlikely that technically suitable sites can be located due to high water tables. - Community drainfields risk groundwater mounding and resultant inadequate treatment. - Collection system cost is equivalent to cost of municipal sewer collector system; the cost of community drainfield construction is likely to exceed the cost of force main to existing sewer system. f. Flow reductions - Cost to retrofit each residence with low-flow fixnires is variable. - Benefits will be variable from household to household. - Use of fixtures (or their eventual removal due to frustration) is impossible to monitor). - Flow reductions will not solve the problem of lack of 3-foot separation between the seasonal water table and the bottom of the treatment system. - While applying flow reduction technology to individual homes might result in 20-50% reductions in sewage volumes, and might even restore some failing (discharging) systems to a hydraulically functional condition, treatment may still be inadequate. 3. Conclusions The City has revowed and considered iltcnutive methods of sewage treatment and disposal prior to construction of each and every municipal sewer project in the last 15 years. None of the identified alternatives provides a sewage treatment system with the permanence of municipal sewer. The factors considered include: -Technical feasibility/sitc availability -Long term reliability -Individual maintenance requirements -City maintenance requirements -Technical limitations -Public acceptance -Cost -Financial and environmental risk For existing neighborhoods adjacent to lakes, and tor those neighborhoods historically developed with lot sizes less than the 2 acres of dry buildabic land needed to support septic systems on a long term basis, municipal sewers are the preferred method of sewage disposal. C. Orono Schoob and Hockey Arena Site (Proposed MUSA Part XXIX) The Orono Schools campus is a 15'^-acre site north of the intersection of U.S. Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road. The campus contains Schumann Elementary School, the Orono Midjle School. Orono High School and the District 278 Administrative Offices, as well as numerous athletic facilities and playing fields. Of this 157 acres, only 91 acres arc currently within the MUSA, consisting of 51 acres east of Old Crystal Bay Road and 40 acres on the west side. Of the remaining non-MUSA 66 acres (all west of Old Crystal Bay Road). 10 acres are wetland and 56 acres contain various sports facilities, campus maintenance buildings, a nature study area, and the high school cafeteria wing. The proposed amendment includes addition to the MUSA of this remaining 56 non-wetland acres. This acreage abuts Orono's current MUSA Part 11 which was originally established by the City Council via Resolution No. 1135 on April 14, 1980. Part II incorporated developed portions of the campus, but the legal description did not, for unknown reasons, include the cafeteria wing or maintenance buildings. As the Sm.ooI District s needs increa.se, the probability exists that new school facilities will oe proposed within areas of the campus not currently within the MUSA. ,\n immediate need is to provide sewer service for a proposed hockey arena just north of the high school. This arena is anticipated to be constructed in 1996 as a joint effort of the Orono Schools and the Orono Hockey Association. School District lands currently within the MUSA are either not suitable for the arena or have been planned for other uses. None of this 56 icre MUSA addition is intended for residential, commercial or Industrial use. The intent is to merely incorporate the entire existing school campus within the MUSA, to provide District 278 the flexibility it may require for fumre school facility developinent. All of this 56 acres is zoned RR-1 A, Single Family Rural Residential use. The school campus exists within tlw RR-1 A zone via a conditional use permit, and public schools are an allowed conditional use within the RR-IA zone. Orono ’s 1980 Comprehensive Plan in Map 21 (Existing Land Use) and Map 7 (Land Use Plan) indicates the Orono Schools campus is ibc only public instimtional site within the City. At the time the 1980 Comprehensive Plan was adopted. District 278 owned all of the land now being proposed for MUSA inclusion, and this land has been continuously used for school purposes. in. Existing and Projected Flows A. Map 13: rntefccpfor Ser/ice Area and tatcrcomraraiity Connections B. Flow Projection Data fINSERT TABLES 1-6 HERE) —---------- c/or**— 1. SEWERED HOUSEHOL]1995-2010 Interceptor Service Area 1995 2000 2010 A. LIFT STATION 59 1569 1630 1660 B. UFT STATION 60 45 130 200 C. DOWNSTREAM INTERCEPTORS 128 151 249 D WAYZATA DIRECT 58 58 60 TOTAL ISQO 1969 2169 2. SEWERED EMPLOYEES 1995-2010 Interceptor Service Area 1995 2000 2010 A. UFT STATION 59 315 330 350 B. LIFT STATION 60 705 750 930 C. DOWNSTREAM INTERCEPTORS*20 20 20 D. WAYZATA DIRECT •*10 10 10 TOTAL 1050 1110 1310 •Does not include employees of Woodhill Country Club, which is located in Wayzata but discharges to Orono sewer svsicm ••Does not mclude employees of Wavzata Country Club, which is located in Orono but discharges directly to Wayzata sewer system 3. SEWERED POPULATION 1995-2010 Interceptor Service Area 1995 2000 2010 A. LIFT STATION 59 3%7 4010 3900 B. LIFT STATION 60 125 338 500 C. DOWNSTREAM INTERCEPTORS 325 375 600 D. WAYZATA DIRECT 147 142 142 TOTAL 4564 4865 5142 NOTE: The :000-2010 decrease in sewered population for LS-59 is a rctlcction of a projected decrease in persons per household during that period, coupled with only a minor increase in the number of households. NOTE: South Orono System « A. 4- C. North Orono system (incl. Hackberry) = B. ischarges to Orono charges directly to ;cted decrease in persons useholds. ^ m oa u r- >wim ^2 ou im < i A • 9 Q]W m- 4. fiESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENT CONTSTCTIONS 19^2010 Intcrcqjtor Scrvivc Area 1995 2000 2010 A. UFT STATION 39 2014 2036 I960 B. UFT STATION 60 63 172 254 C. DOWNSTREAM INTERCEPTORS 165 190 303 D. WAYZATA DIRECT 73 72 72 TOTAL 2317 2470 2611 5. PROJECTED REC’S AND SEWERED POPULATION 1995-2000 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL FLOW (MGY) 231.7 232.5 233.5 244.3 247.0 RESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENT CONNECTIONS (REC) 2317 2325 2335 2422 2443 2470 SEWERED HOUSEHOLDS 1800 1820 18«)1900 1930 1969 SEWERED POPUL/\T10N 4564 4580 4598 4770 4811 4865 1 REC » 274 GPD = 0.1 MGY -.1 I I II IT i-mnwilllllirUTffiiii r.%' --V 6. WASTEWATER FLOWS BY INTERCEPTOR AREA 1995/2000/2010 METHOD A - Method A is i projection based on the 1990-94 average measured floNv (227 MGY) divided by the 1990-94 average sewered population (4471) yielding 139.1 gpd/person. The population estimates of iom #2-a were multiplied by this figure x 365 days. FLOWS IN MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER YEAR A. UFT STATION 59 B. LIFT STATION 60 C. DOWNSTREAM INTERCEPTOR D. WAYZATA DIRECT TOTALS 1995 2010 201.4 203.6 198.0 6.3 17.2 25.4 16 5 19.0 30.5 7.5 7.2 7.2 231.7 247.0 261.1 METHOD B - Method B uses the projected total flows from Method A, and apportions these flows according to the average actual percentages of total flow tor each interceptor service area for the period 1986-1990 (meter data for 1991-94 yield incorrect flows for downstream interceptor areas). The result of Method B more accurately portrays actual flows by interceptor area, and reflects the commercial/industrial flows through Lift Station 60 as well as the primarily residential flows through the downstream interceptors and Wayzarta direct. FLOWS IN MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER YEAR AVG. % OF FLOW 1995 2000 2010 A. LIFT I/ TION 59 B. LIFT ST.N 'ION 60 C. DOW IS SI REAM INTERCEPTOR D. WAYZATA DIRECT TOTALS 80%185.4 197.6 208.9 15%34.8 37.0 39.2 3.5%8.1 8.7 9.1 1.5%3.4 3.7 3.9 100.0%231.7 247.0 261.1 I I^’, Plroposed Infrastructure Additions and Improvements A. DecrqKioii of Additions and Improvements (Insert preliminary design maps and paragraph about each) B. Capacity and Design Flow Data (Assemble daia using Glenn's memo) 1/1 Bonestroo ^y*Rosene w=5 Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Rotcnc. Ahdpffiii jnd Assooetes. fnc n m Affiow*#^ Actf«fVfquai OppfU^^itv Otto O. ■owe stro#. FX W ^C.* C AnMfNi. FE Marvel L SorvMi F C. tJcherd t Turner, F t Olm t Cook. FS. Thomei C. Noyes. F E. VoOert G. ^chunichc. F E. Susen Ebertm, C F A* * Senior Consuttent October 10. 1995 Howero A Senford. F £ Keicn A. OorOon.. FI llodert • Ffefrene F E. Ficherd W Foster Ffi. Oevid O Losfcote. F £ toOert C. lussee. AiA. Jerry A. •eurdon. FE. Merk A. Henson. F E. Micheei T Feutmenn. F E Ted K Field. F E Thornes F. Anderson. AXA. Jemes F Fotenmerkel. F E DoneW C lurgerdt. F E Thornes A. Syflie. F E Frederic J StonOorg, F E. tsmeet Mertinci. * E Micheei F Feu. FE Thornes W Feterson. • E eiKheei C lyrKh. FJ. Jemes t. Meiend. F E. Jerry O Ferttsc h. FE Scon J Argenek. F E Kerw>eth F Arnierson. F E Mere F. Foifi. FE. Mere A Se«|l. FE. Gery Of Menen. F E Faul J. Qenrson. A i.A Oer>«el J Edgerton. F E A Fice SchnudL FE Dele A Grove. F E FhiMp X Cesweil. F E Mere O Weltis. F E Miles t Jensen F £ L Fhilho Gravel. P E eeren L Wiemen. FI. Gery O Knstofiti. F E. •rten E Gage. F £. F Todd Foster. F £ Keith F Yepo. F E Dougiot X ien oit. F E Shewn O Guitefion. F E Ceciiio Olivier. F E Kent J Wegner, FE Fem a Heuer. F E John F Oorder. F E Oen O ieyum. F E Jeffrey J EWeringer. FE Josepn F Fhem. FE Lee M Mann. F E Charles A Enctton Leo M Fewelsky Harlan M. Olson Agnes M. tmg James f Engeiherdt Mr. Mike Galfron City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 OCT 1 2 1995 Re: Sanitary Sewer Extension Our File #13978 Dear Mike: Wc have prepared the Design Flow estimates for each of the expanded sanitary sewer service areas. The areas arc designated as to what service area they will impact. If you need additional information, plcxso call. Very truly yours. Units Scr\ice Area Ave. Design Row Peak Design (MGD)Flow (MOD) 1.Bay Ridge 8 C .002 .009 2.Fox HUl 22 C .006 .024 3.Webber Hills 34 c 009 .037 4.Fox Ridge 7 c .(K)2 .008 5.Brackett Point 14 c .(M)4 .015 6.Orono Ochards O'!c ,(M)6 .024 7.Exst Long Lake Road 10 B-L.S. 60 .(M)3 .Oil 8..North Long Lake 31 B-L.S.60 ,(H)8 .034 9.Long Lake Country Club 20 B-L.S.60 .005 .022 10.Edgewood Hills 7 C .002 .008 BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOICATES. INC, Glenn R. Cook GRC:cv 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612*636*4600 m C, Constnictioa Ttmetable The estimated dates for construction of sewers are as follows; 1996 PaitXDC Part XX - North Long Lake - Long Country Club 1996-97 Part XXIX - Orono Schools (Hockey Site) 1997-98 Part XXn - Orono Orchards 2000-2015(or sooner if neighborhood requests by petition): Part XXI - East Long Lake Part XXIII - Fox Ridge Part XXIV - Webber Hills Part XXV - Edgewood Hills Part XXVI - Bracketts Point (petition expected Aug. 95) Part XXVII - Foxhill Part XXVIII - Bayridge/Hartwood D. Assessment of Project Costs The areas proposed to be included in the xMUSA have not previously been assessed for sewer. Each property to be served with municipal sewer will be assessed on a unit basis, with one residential dwelling equal to one unit. No trout footage or acreage charges are anticipated at this time. The costs for each project area are estimated in item IV-A above. Umt costs range from $12,000 to $29,800 per unit. The City has historically assessed 100% of the cost of providing sewer to benefitted properties. However, as a result of the appeals prtxess in a number of past projects, the City consequently paid a portion of the unit cost using other City funuing methods, including a general tax levy. For the 1992 Stubbs Bay project, the City contributed 30% of the project cost 'up front’ and avoided a significant number of appeals. It is anticipated the City will contribute an undetermined amount of funding toward the proposed projects on a priority basis. The seven neighborhoods which are not highest priority, and which currently e.xhibit a lower relative need for sewer than the three high-priority areas, have not been place on a definite schedule for construction. If these areas petition for sewer in the short term, the City will proceed with construction only if each neighborhood pays the full HJ0% of the project costs. It is anticipated that all asressments will be spread over a period of 15 years. n V. Related IsoH I A. On-Site Systems Management Plan 1. Philosophy In 1975 the City of Orono made a commitment to long-term use of on-site sewage treatmettt systems for the majorit}' of future development in the rural areas of the City not adjacem to Lake Minnetonka. The basis for this commitment was a City Council decision to protect the t^lity of Lake Minnetonka by avoiding high- density development within the Lake's watershed. Such development could only be prevented by limiting future extension of municipal sewers, which if installed would be so costly as to drive a demand by developers for smaller lot sizes aiKl higher densities. This "Urbanization Spiral" is documented in Orono's 1980 Communitv’ Management Plan. The Council concluded that a minimum residential lot size of 2 acres (exclusive of wetlands, which are abundant in Orono) was necessary to provide enough area for initial and future drainfield sites. Consequently, 80% of Orono's total land area was rezoned in 1975 to require at least 2 acres per building site. To ensure that septic systems would be constructed and maintained properly, in 1978 Orono initiated a comprehensive On-Site Systems Management program and hired a full-time inspector. The inspection program not only dealt with new construction, but included maintenance inspections of all existing systems on a regular basis. Also in 1978, Orono adopted ordinances requiring adherence to a code of septic system regulations identical to or more restrictive than the State regulations (WPC- 40) in effect at that time. Funher, the City ordinance established system maintenance requirements and placed the responsibility for maintenance on the individual homeewner, providing penalties for noncompliance. By 1980 the initial round of existing system inspections had been completed and system inventory records created for each of the approximately 1000 systems in the City. The inspection program confirmed, however, that while new development on 2-acre lots could be sustainable without sewers in the long term, pockets of existing development on smaller lots would evenmally have to be served with sewer. This fact was nmte clear in Orono’s 1980 Comprehensive Plan, in which five historically high-density existing neighborhoods we’’c identified as critical. During the period 1980-1992, each of these neighborhoods were provided with municipal sewer. The currently proposed MUSA additions are similarly a result of Orono ’s comprehensive approach to septic systems management. Rather than using these older pockets of pre-existing dense developrrwnt as an excuse to sewei the entire City and compromise Lake Minnetonka, Orono clKx>ses to provide sewers only to those existing neighborhoods where septic systems are mit a viable long-term solution for sewage treatment and disposal. Further, Orono chooses to not provide munic ipal sewer to accomodate new development in the rural area, which comprises the majority of the Orono ’s remaining developable land. 2. Ordinances and Management Program Orono ’s On-site Sewage Treatment Systems ordinances including technical standards and the management program are included in the appendices. The City has adopted by ordinance MPCA's Chapter 7080 regulations plus some additional more stringent technical requirements for certain types of systems (Section 12.30, Subd. 5). "Code" and "Conforming" systems are inspected biennially. "Nonconforming" systems not meeting the 3-foot water table separation must be upgraded to a conforming status by the end of the second year following dale of initial non ­ conformity notification (Subd. 8(B)(4a)). "Failing" systems must be repaired within 90 days/1 year (Subd. 8(B)(4b)). A complete record of the design and location of of each existing septic system is kept on file, and maintenance records for each system are updated annually (see Inventory Card sample in Appendix). Permits are reauired for system repair/replacement and all new construction. Contractors and site evaluators/designers are currently licensed by the City, although City licensing will be discontinued when State licensing takes effect in 1996. All inspections of new and existing systems are completed by City inspectors certified by the MPCA. The position of On-Site Systems Manager is currently held by Steven Weekman. I B. Inflow/lnfiltratMO Management Plan An inflow/infiltration (I/I) reduction program was adopied as part of Orono s i^pril 1993 amendment of the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan. This program includes the following tasks and procedures: 1. Review and update the 1981 l/I Analysis by Bonestroo & Assoc. 2. Analyze lift stations to identify existing M sources 3. Ongoing flow data collection and analysis to identify new I/I sources quickly if they occur 4. Continue rehabilitation of existing sewer ifrasiructure 5. Initiate a public education program 6. Adopt ordinance prohibiting illegal connections and initiating a sump pump inspection program 7. Submit annual progress repon to MWCC (MCWS) The City has followed through with this program as follows: 1993 - Established and commenced a sump pump inspection program to identify illegal connections and require changes to private plumbing systems when illegal connections are encountered. To date, approximately___of Orono's sewered properties have been inspected and___illegal connections have been identified and converted to a legal status. 1994 - Adopted Ordinance » 129 prohibiting discharge of groundwater and stormwater to the sewer system (The sump pump inspection program was initiated under an earlier ordinance). Ordinance #129 establishes a $100 per month surcharge for properties not in compliance. 1994 - Established a public education program regarding I/I, including distribution of information brochures and availability of staff for answering queries. 1995 - Continual upgrading of lift stations is occurring as funding permits. Orono's I/I program budget for 1995 is $15,000 which is expected to cover televising of additional portions of the system and some manhole sealing. Additionally, the budget includes $20,000 for a street reconstruction management program which will assist in establishing sewer line reconstruction schedules. Since the 1981 l/l study the following system upgrades intended to reduce i/I have been completed: Year Cost Upgrade The following additional exhibits are provided in the Appendix: MWCC Matching Grant request (7-12-93) Met Council approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment #3 (4-28-93) Table: Correlating Annual Sewer Flows With Elevation of Lake Minnetonka Excerpt: 1993 CSPP Update - I/I Abatement Program Ordinance #129 Public luformation Brochures and Letters I— -T' •! —k ——' IN—k Metropolitan Wiiste Control Conunlssion Me»rs Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul. Minnesou 5S10M633 612 222-8423 July 12, 1993 M W • ! 1 ^ . JUL' 1 5 IS?? Ms. Dorothy Kallin Cleric City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 :®C C’ T CnC'O f SUBJECT: MWCC Matching Grant for Infiltration/Inflow Control Dear Ms. Hallin: I regret to inform you that your application ® did not receive a grant offer. The Board nineteen community projects by Resolution 93-146 on 1993 . A table of applicants and grant offers is enclosed. One additiona offer is pending action at the July 20 Commission meeting. These twenty grants will fully encumber the $200,000 funding allocated to this program. for community infiltration/inflow assistance. The Commission will inform you of any new program if it develops. If you have any questions regarding the Commission's infiltration/inflow program, you may telephone Wayne Rikala at 229- 2127. Sincerely, ^ t J Gordon O. Voss Chief Administrator GOV:WBR:skf Enclosure L26.PF cc:Commissioner Janice Haugen - t'!WCC Precinct B Equai Opportunity/Afflrmatlv# Action Employer “» %I A V METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mean hirk Centre, 2J0 Eas^ Fifth Street, Sl fiuul. MS ,,901^163 612 291-6359 FAX 612 TTY 612 291-0904 Wu.- April 28,1993 ViK< W Michael GafSron Assistant Zoning Administrator Qty of Orono P.O. Box 66 Cr>-stal Bay, MN 55323 RE: City of Orono Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 14023-4 Dear Mr. Gaffron: At its meeting on April 22. 1993, the Metropolitan Council considered the city of Orono’s comprehensive plan amendmenL This consideration was based on a report of the Committee of the Whole. A copy of this report is attached. The Council approved the following recommendations contained in the above report: "That the Metropolitan Council adopt the findings and the staff report as part of these recommendations. 2. That the Metropolitan Council inform the city of Orono that it may adopt the amendment and no plan modification is required. That the Metropolitan Council inform the city of Orono that its rural service area^ policies and land use controls qualify the city as an exception to the Council’s Rural Service Area policies. That the Metropolitan Council recommend that the city of Orono to complete its 1981 HI Analysis update, establish an inspection program to eliminate illegal clear water connections, and prepare and submit annual progress reports to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the Metropolitan Council of actions taken to solve infiltration and inflow problems in the municipal sanitary sewer system. 3. 4. Recycled Paper Mkhad GaOron April 28.1993 Page 2 5. That the Metropolitan Council inform the city of Orono that as of iu next comprehensive plan amendment it must adopt the Metropolitan Council s Intenm Strate^ ta Reduce Norwoint PoUution to AU Metropolitan Water Bodies. Sincerely, Dottic Rietow Chair DRdv Attachment cc: Ronald Morse, Administrator. City of Orono Donald Bluhm, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Steven Schwanke. Metropolitan Council Staff VI. Non-Relaied Issues A. Interim Strategy for the Reduction of Nonpoint Source Pollution The City of Orono Community Management Plan was amended on October 25, 1993 via Resolution #3348 by adding language indicating NURP standards will be applied to the design of new stormwjuer ponds, and indicating the City will apply MPCA’s "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" to the review of proposed development. On October 11, 1993 Resolution #3335 was adopted, indicating that the City will implement the use of NURP standards and Best Management Practices via amendments of the Subdivision and Zoning Codes no later than May 1 •, 1995. This date coincided with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District’s 2-ye;r timeframe for local water management plan adoption (MCWD Plan, Section VII, ’M9, Subsection C-3) per State stamtes 103B.235 Subd. 1(a). It was and is the City’s intent to incorporate NURP standards and BMP’s via ordinance as part of the comprehensive local water management plan implementation when that plan is adopted. The City of Orono has not commenced with preparation of a local water management plan for the following reasons: 1. 2 (TO BE ADDED WHEN DEFINED) 3. 4. Because a comprehensive local water management plan cannot be completed within a timeframe coincident with Orono ’s need for certain facets of this proposed MUSA amendment, the City’s options for complying with the ’’Interim Strategy" requirements include: 1. Request a further delay of Met Council imposition of the "Interim Strategy" requirement OR 2. Incorporate (by ordinance) the NURP standards and BMP’s into Orono ’s existing stormwater management controls which are contained in the following code sections: 10.03 Subd. 19/20/21 (Filling & Grading) 10.52 Subd. 4 (Hwy 12 Corridor) 10.53 Subd. 8(A)(4d):8,10 (Hwy 12 PUD) 10.55 Subd. 11 (Floodway, Flood Fringe) 10.56 Subd. 16(G),(D,(J).(K) (Shoreland) 11.10 Subd.21(C) (Flowage & Conservation Easements) 11.41 Subd. 1.2,3 (Drainage & Storm Sewers for Subdivisions) (COUNCIL TO DETERMINE WHICH OPTION TO PROPOSE, 1 or 2) B. Land Use Policies for Future Development 1. Rural Density Analysis The Metropolitan Council’s April 22, 1993 approval of Orono's Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan update declared that Orono’s "rural service area policies and land use controls qualify the City as an exception to the Council’s Rural Service Area policies". Th*s was based in part on the fact that per the City's 1992 analysis, 15 of Orono's 21 ’rural’ sections already e.\ceeded Met Council’s upper limit of 1.0 units per 10 acres. In 1995. that figure has risen to 17 of 21 sections. Following is a 1995 update ol »he 1992 Rural Density Analysis, including projections reflecting the rural (unsewered) area after addition of the currently proposed MUSA amendment. It can be concluded from the analysis that Orono cannot be expected to meet the 1 unit per 10 acres standard without removal of approximately one-third of the City’s existing rural housing stock. This is not feasible. The City should therefore continue to be considered as exempt from this standard. (INSERT RLIUVL DENSITY ANALYSIS TABLE) 2. Current Status of Development in Orono Residential growth in Orono has remained steady during the period 1975-1995, averaging 30-40 new single family homes per year. Fully 95% of Orono’s land area is zoned for single family residential use. Orono's 2-acre and 5-acre residential zones comprise 81% of the City’s land area, and are for the most part not provided w’ith municipal sewer. The LR-IA and RR-IB 2-acre zones (approximately 70(X) acres in total area) are estimated to be currently at 60% of final development, with the potential for Rural Density Analysis 1992/1995/Post-MUSA AmendmcM Densities bv section: SntkHi V<m-MUSA Area (Acres) Post- 1992 1995 Amdmt I of Existing Residential Units Post- Density (Units per 10 acres) Post- (1995 Estimate) Avg. Gross Addt'l UniQ Lot Area (ac.) Possible Under Post- Current • 992 1995 Amdmt. 1992 1995 Amdmt. 1992 1995 Amdmt. Zoning Sec. 2 Sec. 3 Sec 4 Sec. 5 Sec. 6 Sec. 7 Scc'V Sec. 10 S^ll Sec. 2? Sec. 26 Sec. 27 Sec‘2^ Sec. 29 Sec. 30 S^'Tf Sec. 32 Sec. 33 Sc"34 Sec. 35 Sec. 36 449 449 386 640 640 566 635 592 592 ■350‘'”r%“T% 535 535 535 72 72 _72 ■"l28”“r23'* I2T 310 307 219 65__65____29 ‘3M"”*3M 3M 309 309 283 290 __290 26 1 178 r7~8 “'l4T 287 287 287 300 300 300 605 605 605 360 360 351 'l3V ’r3r ’T39* 272 272 248 535 535 535 7407 7202 6818 53 116 123 Tfl 52 10 75 21. *29 60 72 ■'26 11 19 ■‘83 58 53 '‘28 42 62 55 118 109 ■"io 59 10 ”9" 79 *• 'Tf 63 79 ■"26‘ 14 22 ■'8'8 ‘ 59 58 *‘28 43 63 24 72 109 ^20 59 10 -*9* 40 8 ~Tl 32 59 ■26* 14 '"88* 59 58 ■"s’ 33 63 1114 1055 866 1.18 1.81 1.94 ■y2o 0.97 1.39 ’oTfo' 2.41 Lll. 0.94 1.94 2.48 T.T6" 0.38 0.63 T.30" 0.% 1.47 T(jr 1.54 1.16 1.22 1.84 1.85 17 o2‘ 1.09 1.39 0'73 ‘ 2.57 138 IToF 2.04 2.72 T746' 0.49 0.73 TJ8' 0.98 1.61 ioT‘ 1.58 1.18 0 62 1.27 1.85 ToT 1.09 1.39 ■o"3 1.88 2J6 T.oT 1.13 2.26 "*82" 0.49 0.73 TTs' 0.98 1.66 Tof 1.33 1.18 1.50 1.46 1.27 8.5 5.5 5.2 TT* 10.3 7.2 'uT: 4.1 ._3J_ T().V 5.2 4.0 Ts" 26 1 15.8 ■yr 10.4 6.8 ■y.o’ 6.5 8.6 8.2 5.4 5.4 ■ys' 9.1 7.2 T3~.y 3.9 JO. 9'9” 4.9 3.7 ‘^8* 20.5 13 6~y.r 10.3 6.2 To’ 6.3 8.5 16.1 7.9 5.4 *9’8' 9.8 7.2 l377 ‘ 5.5 3.6 8.8 4.4 "575" 20.5 13.6 "77T 10.3 6.1 ’57o’ 7.5 8.5 7.9 25 -to 60 "35' 105 —1 T6* .35 2 15 6 3 T 70 55 ~lY 30 75 17 of 21 sections currently exceed 1.0 unit per 10 acres Average density of rxiral (unsewered) area cunently is 1.46 units per 10 acres Average gross n.ral lot area (incl. roads & wetlands) currently is 6.8 acres Assuming all 766 future lots are developed under rural standards, at build-out: - Aver;*ge density of rural area will be 2.39 units per 10 acres - Average grt-ss rural lot area will be 4.2 acres a{>proximateIy 700-800 additional homes. The 5-acre RR-IA zone (1330 acres) is 80% developed, with the potential for 30-40 additional homes. Oroiio*s urban 1-acre and 1/2-acre zonii^ districts (totaling about 1500 acres) are 98% developed. Most ftiture development activii) in these zones will be infill or redevelooment. At curreitt fates of development, Orono is expected to reach final development in 25-30 years. C. Transportation Metropolitan Council's 1988 Transportation Systems Statement required that Orono determine whether a comprehensive plan amendment is necessary to demonstrate consistency with the revised Transportation Development Guide/ Policy Plan. In January 1990, per Metropolitan Council Resolution No. 90-2, Orono and a number of other Cities were granted a time e.xtension for meeting the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, which extension has since expired. Tte City has determined that a complete update of the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan will be warranted as soon as a decision on the funire nature and corridor of Highway 12 is reached. However, the City of Orono since 1990 has been involved in a study of the IJ.S. Highway 12 Corridor in conjunction with Mn/DOT and other cities west of the metro area. The forthcoming results of that study will potentially significantly impact Orono's * ^asportation plan, and therefore it is unwise for the City to proceed with a comprehensive transportation plan update at this time. A number of projects enhancing the safety, accessibility and capacity of existing transportation routes in Orono have been recently completed, are underway or are planned for the near tumre. These include: 1. Construction in 1995 of safety improvements to U.S. 12 in Long Lake, including lane dividers, turn lanes, resurfacing, and a semaphore at the intersection of U.S. 12 and Willow Drive. 2. Replacement in 1994 of the Old Crystal Bay Road Bridge crossing the Burlington Northern Railroad. 3. Resurfacing and turn lane construction in 1994-95 on County Road 15. 4. Proposed redevelopment of the iincrscction of County Road 6 and U.S. 12, to include grade separation and elimination of the current semaphore by creating merge lanes. 5. Reconstruction of all or segments of a number of City roads completed! recently and planned for future. (ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION IS NEEDED HERE RE: TRANSPORTATION) D. Housing Metropolitan Council's September 1991 Regional Blueprint states that the MC "will work with local communities in a partnership to meet the range of life-cycle housing needs of people and broaden locational choice and access for people of all income levels." Affordable housing is defmed as: - 'owned' housing affordable to a family with income of 80% of the Metro area median, i.e. a valuation of $115,000 or less. - 'rental' housing affordable to a family with income of 50% of the Metro area median, i.e. a monthly rent of $500 or less A review of statistical data provided by Met Council sheds light on Orono's current situation : Number of Owner-Occupied Housing Units (1990 Census): 2.372 Number of Occupied Rental Housing Units (1990 Census): 241 Affordability Options % of Owner-Occupied Units that are Affordable: % of Rental Units that are Affordable: T ife-cvcle Options 7c of all Housing that is not Single Family Detached % of all Housing that is owner-occupied 7c of all Housing that is renter-occupied Orono Benchmark for Similar Suburbs in Metto .Area 30%60-69% 18%35-37% 2%35-37% 91%67-*75% 9%25-33% ( I flntwiny IVfKiiv funits per acreli Singk family detached Multifamily 0.9/acre l.8-l.9/acrc 6/'acre 10-14/tt:rc Median Value of Owner-occupied housing (1990): $173,500 Median Monthly Contract Rent (1990): $549 Median Monthly Gross Rent (1990): S675 Federally Subsidized Housing Units (1994): 0 Average Value of New Housing Units Constructed 1990-94 (City Estimate): $370,000 Challenges facing Orono in meeting Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing goab: No land in Orono is currently zoned for multi-family housing Available land z.'ned LR-lC-1 (which would allow up to 4 dwelling units per building at a density of no more than 3 dwelling units per acre) amounts to approximately 20 acres, which could yield no more than 60 new units of non-single family detached housing. This is all within the MUSA, but land costs may be too high to support housing meeting Affordability guidelines... While the Orono Zoning Code allows for "M-6" zoning at a density approximately 6-7 units per acre, no land in the City is zoned M-6. A portion of the Highway 12 corridor nonh of U.S. 12 between Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road is planned for future multifamily development, but the available acreage will yield perhaps 50-100 units at a 6/acre density, again being questionable as to whether such development could meet Affordability guidelines. Land values surrounding Lake Minnetonka are so high that development of Affordable housing may not be economically feasible without subsidies As Orono's older neighborhoods near the lakeshore are redeveloped, it is increasingly difficult to maintain the existing level of affordable housing. The current pattern of replacing olu seasonal lakeshore cabins with half-million dollar homes does not seem to be waning. Funhermore, with new construction valuation averaging nearly $400,000 per unit and the existing affordable housing stock constantly being upgraded by additions and remodeling, the percentage of housing in the Affordable price ranges is likely to decrease rather than increase. It b not feasible for Oronu to increase its level of affordable o^^'Ilc^-occupied housing from the existing 30% (712 units) to the metro benchmark of 60%. For thb to ocoir, assuming no (downgrading of the existing housing stock. Orono would have to iHiild nearly 1800 affordable single family homes while placing a moratorium on construction of non-affordable housing. (2372 X .30) = 712 affordable units currently 712 -I- X « .6 X (2372 + X) X - (.6 X 2372) .6X - 712 X - .6X » 1423 - 712 .4X = 711 X = 711/.4 » 1,778 units (2372 + 1778) » 4150 total units (712 + 1778) =“ 2490 atlordables 2490/4150 - 60% Similarly, for Orono to increase its affordable rental housing from 18% (43 units) to the metro benchmark of 35%. 195 new affordable rental units would have to be created while building no new non-affordable rental. To accomplish the owner-occupied housing goal would require sweeeping changes to Orono s comprehensive development plan, requiring major expansions of the MUSA and rezoning of major portions of the City. Under current development plans, it is unlikely that Orono can realistically accomplish more than a few percent change in either rental or ow ner-occupied affordable housing levels. TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor aod City CouncU Ron Moorsc, City Administrator November 9, 1995 SL'BJECT: Hennepin County Sale of Library Property ^OV 1 4 ^ Of oma The Hennepin County Library' Board has owned a two acre parcel of property' in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road for a number of years. The property had been planned as the site for a County library. Due to budget constraints, it has been determined that the site will not be used for a library. The City had requested that it be notified if the County was going to sell the property. Notification was recently received that the County Board will take action in early November to authorize disposal of the property, because of the City’s prior lequesi. the City will be given an opportunity to purchase the property at the appraised value prior to any competitive bid sale. The property was appraised a year or so ago at $227,000. The appraisal will be updated after the County Board takes action to authorize the sale of the property. Several Council Members have indicated the City should consider purchasing the property. One of the key issues to consider in relation to the purchase of the library property is how the City would fund the purchase. The City recently received a letter from Mr. Jim Harstad. who recently purchased prop :rty near McCuHey Road and the Luce Line, inquiring about purchasing several pieces of propeny owned by the City adjacent to McCulley Road. These parcels were acquired as part of the right-of-way acquisition tor McCulley Road. The City had planned to dispose of the parcels at some point. A rough estimate of the value of the properties is $120,000. Whether the proceeds of the sale would be used for the purchase of the library property or some other purpose, the Council may want to consider putting the property up for sale. f October 23. 1995 Mr. Jim Harstad 4550 Wolverton Place Orono, MN 55359 City of Orono Mr. Ron Moorse 1335 S Brown Rd Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Dear Mr Moorse, week 1 was in the City of Orono's oflRce looking at the lay out of my property. My T^llfg with Jeanne Mabusth show the city owning two parcels of land of which 1 would like to make an inquiry of and may be, a possible purchase of these tw o parcels. They are located on the east side of McCulley Road and north and south of Wolverton Place I believe the parcel south of Wolverton Place is four acres, and the parcel north, which ajoins my current property, is one acre. Please advise me of the City of Orono's interest in selling one or both of these parcels, Siiy^eiy, «m Harstad JH^jh cc Jeanne Mabusth