Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 1298 , Y � i �;N ` Cit� of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL • No. /a?9�_ � _ � � RF,QUESTING EXCEPTIONAL CASE CONSIDEItATZON BY THE MFTROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR ORONO' S SEWER STUDY AREA #2 WHEREAS, the City of Orono has prepared a Comprehensive Community Management Plan and submitted it to the Metropolitan Ceuncil for review in accordance with provisions of the Metropolitan land Planning Act; and WHEREAS, on t7une 25, 1981, the Metropolitan Council ad�pted Resolution 81-128 approving Orono' s Comprehensive Plan as submitted, with r.o plan modifications required; and WHEREAS, said approval included a .finding tnat Orono ' s Plan generally conforms to the Metropalitan system plan for sewers; and WHEREAS, said approval included advisory coznments and cor.cerns regarding Orono ' s decision t.o c�esignate Sewer Study Area #2 as part of the Rural Service Area; and WHEREAS, the principal purpose of providing sewer service � t� Study Area #2, and the principal gurpose in retaining the "rural" designation for Study Area #2 , was to abate existing pollution anc� health problems and to meet water quality standards, not to provide an impetus for additianal urban-type developmerit; and WHEREAS, Orono believes that designation of Study Area #2 as "'urban" would in itself contribute to leap-frog urbanization of this area and of the surrounding rural lands . NOW, THEREFOR� BE IT RESOLVED that this resolution of the Orono City Council is hereby adopted in response to the concerns raised by the Metropolitan Council: l. This Resolution is intended to docw'nent and clarify the reasons why Orono designated Se�aer Stuciy Area #2 as part of the Rural Service Area. 2 . The Resolution is intended to document why rural designation of Sewer Study Area #2 is internall.y consiste::t with all other sectians of Orono ' s Comprehensi.ve Plan. 3. This R�solution is intended to explain why Orono believes rural designation of Sewer Stud_y Area #2 is consis��nt with overall Metropolita.n � goals and policies . i of 12 7 • �� � Clt� of ORONO � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � NO. ��1i5 • - • • . This Resolution is intended to explain why Orono opposes urban designation of Sewer Study Area #2, including why such urban designation could be viewed as dangerous precedent for urban sprawl in other more serious cir.curnstances. 5. By this Resolution, the City of Oron� hereby requests that aur rural designation of Sewer Study Area #2 be considered and approved by the Physical Development Committee and the full Metropolitan Cc�uncil as an ex�eptional case pursuant to Water Quality Management Policy Plan Policy 7, either individually as pr�sented herein, or within the scope of a general Policy exception. I. BACKGROUND FACTS 1 . Sewer Study Area #2 (hereinafter "Area #2") is identified on r"ap 12 in the CSPP element of Orono ' s Communi�y Management • Plan. ? , tilap 12 identif.ies rural hausi�g cl.usters as part of Orono' s On-Site Waste Management Pro�,ram, consistent with WQMPP Policy 12 , Orono CSPP Policy 1�, and the detailed program �xplanation beginning on page 6-40 of Orono ' s CSPP . 3. Area #2 was one of five study areas identified in Orono ' s CSPP where 201-style alternative waste management evaluation studies were deemed necessary because of public health and pollution problems with existing on-site systems. 4 . Orono ' s CSPP text, page 6-44 , discusses 8 options for resolvinc� on-site treatment d�ficiencies . Connection to municipal sewer "wauld only be used to co.rrect exi.sting deficienci�s, and then only if this option is cost-effective compared to the other viable alternatives . " 5. Area #2 contains 12 hames and no vacant lots . Al1 have been built for many years . 6. There is physically no land av�ilable for any new development within Area #2 . Al1 lots are already developed to their maximum density. 7 . Area #2 is separated from existing urban parts of Orono by considerable distance and by natural barriers . a} The homes in Area #2 abut Lake Minnetonka �n � the south. bj The extensive French Lake wetlands bound Area #2 on the north, 2 of 12 • l Cit� of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � NO. ��/C� • - • • c) 80 acres of Hennepin Park Reserve' s Noerenberg Memorial Gardens abut Area #2 to the west, permanently separating Area #2 from the nearest urban develo�inen.t. d) Directly east of Area #2 lay several hundred acr.es of undeveloped rural land, some with extensive Lake Minnetonka shoreZine. Designation of Area #2 as an urban island would be a probable prelude toward unplanned urb�nization of this land. 8 . No typically °'urban" services are available (except sewer} , including police, fire, public works, parks or transportation. None is planned. None are financially practical. 9. The Orono-Long Lake Interceptor was built abutting the pro- perties in Area #2 . Orono' s CSPP discusses the design and purpose of this interceptor beginning on page 6-23 . Page 6-45 relates this design to the 5 identified rural housing clusters . • 10 . The interceptor was specifically designed by MWCC and approved by Orono such that its route and capacity would accommodate future connection of those existir.g rural housing clusters identified for alternative waste manaaement studies . a) CSPP page 6-24 , last paragraph, discusses this design intention, specifically including capacity for "North Shore Drive" Area #2 . b) Note on page 6-24 that "There is no interceptor capacity designed to accommodate riew urban development in the existing rural areas of Or.or.o. This capacity (provided �or the existing rural clusters) is consistent with the land use plans of the other chapters of Orono ' s Community Management Plan. " c) The interceptor design specifically includes capacity �or 163 units from the identified rural housing clusters to be added via future Orono Injector Stations: Refer to the table and text on page 6-24 and to Ni�aCC Addendum No. 3 of the Orono-Long Lake Interceptor Preliminary Engineering Report, included in Orono' s CMP as pages 18-1 thru 18-14 , especially nage 18-10 . 11. At the time Orono' s Comprehensive Plan was completed in June, 1980, alternative waste management studies for ?�rea #2 • had not been completed. The rural designation for Area #� was unquestionably appropriate at this time. 3 c�f 12_ • � Cit� of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL • NO. �oZ"`/�_ • - � • 12. The waste management studies were completed in October, 1980 . Area #� was evaluated for the potential of per- manent on-site treatment facilities, for innovative treatment facilities, and for connection to the interceptor. 13. The limited lot sizes of the existing development in Area #2 coupled with the high water table assoeiated with the surrounding lake and wetlands made permanent on-site systems extremely costly and vulnerable to service failures. 14 . Municipal sewer connection was ordered for Area #2 as the most cost-effective, technically feasible alternative for management of the wastes generated by these existing homes. The per unit cost is a staggering $18 , 466 . On-site solutions would have been more costly. 15 . The MWCC and PCA approved municipal sewer systems in . Areas #2, 4 & 5 �n Map 12 in the fall of 1980. Both agencies had copies of Orono' s 1980 Community Management Plan on f.ile at the time they approved these c.onnections . Orono ' s 1980 CMP showed all three areas in the rural service area at the time this �ervice was approved. 16. The MWCC ' s letter approving sewer service for Areas #2, 4 & 5 from R.A. Odde dated January 12, 1981, includes a statement that "This project is in accord with your comprehensive sewer plan (CSP) and consistent with the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. " 17. The municipal sewer systems serving areas 2 , 4 & 5 empty into the Orono-Long Lake Interceptor via City Injector Stations approved by MWCC and installed consistent with the design intent of the interceptor, as documented in Orono ' s CSPP. 18. The municip�l sewer systems serving Areas #2, 4 & 5 have been completed and are in use as of this date . 19. After ordering the ps�ojects to serve Areas #2 , 4 & 5, City officials met with Karl Burandt of the MWCC on February 3, 1981, regarding review of Orono' s CMP: • 4 of 12 � ` Cit� of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL • NO. �2yS� • - • • a) Orono and Mr. Burar_dt agreed that sewer service to Areas #2, 4 & 5 was consistent with the statements and plans contained within Orono' s interim CSPP, and within our 1980 CMP and CSPP. This was why MWCC had approved service to these areas. b) Orono and Mr. Burna.dt agreed that Orono would amend our MUSA line designation to include Areas # 4 & S within the urban service area. Orono agreed to do this because: 1) Areas # 4 & 5 are developed to urban densities, including some duplex and commercial occupancies, whereas Area #2 is not. 2) Areas #4 & 5 are physically contiguous to and extensior�s of the adjacent urban � service area that includes the City of tiv'ayzata, whereas Area #2 is isolated from , any urban service area. �) �reas #4 & 5 include a few undeveloped vacant lots which could be developed if sewer was available ar_d urban develop- ment standards were applied, whereas Area #2 has no such development potential. c) Orono and Mr. Burandt appeared to agree that Area #2 would continue to be designated as part of the rural service area. This is consistent with the MWCC letter of January 12 , 1981. 20. After the February 3, 1981, meeting, Orono responded on March 10, 1981, to Chairman Weaver with a letter out- lining the agreements with Mr. Burandt, including our intention to designate Areas #4 & 5 urban, and Area #2 rural . 21. On March, 16 , 1981, and in response to Orono ' s March 10, 1981, letter, MWCC Chief Administrator, George Lusher wrote Chairman Weaver regarding these m�tters. His point no. 2 states "Area no. 2 as shown on Figure No. 13 has had sanitary sewer service installec� as part of a recent City improvement project. For this reason, this area should be included caithin the 199U MU��1 1 ine . " � S oF 12 • � Clt� of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � NO. /�9� � _ . .. ,. ,, � ��) T��ote that Area #2 on Map l3 (Expected Sewer 1'acility Improvement Map) is the same as r�rea #4 on Map 12 (Rural Housing Cluster Identification Map) . b) Orono had just agreed to designate Area � a on Map 12 as urban. This letter was viewed as confirmation of this fact. 22 . Following receipt of the Orono letter of March 10, 1981, and the MWCC letter of March 16 , 1981, Chairman Weaver wrote Orono on March 20, 1981, that the additional informa- tion received by the Metropolitan Council was found ade- quate to complete review of Orono' s CMP. 23. The question of Urono designating Area #2 on Map 12 as rural did not reappear until Orono received a c�py of the preliminary staff draft of the PDC report on May 29, 1981. 24 . On June 9, 1981, Orono staff reviewed the preliminary . i�DC report with Metro Council and b2WCC staff. The result of this meeting was a revision of the preliminary report and additional comments by D4etro staff when the Orono c:MP was reviewed by the Physical Development Committee. 25. A memo by Bob Ma�anec to the Physical Development Comsnittee dated June 24, 1981, seems to explain the situation as follows: a) "The question of how to desicnate Stuc�y Area fi�2 is not a major issue . No plan modification is required at this point. " b) The staff was concerned with an "apparent incon- sistency'" within the Orono CMP because we indicate two urban islands elsewhere in the City, yet state that we do not want to designate Area #2 as an urhan island. c) The staff was concernecl that a special exception must be made to Water Quality Management Policy Plan Policy 7 . d} The staff was "anxious to resolve this apparent inconsistency i� order to avoid setting a precedent that might be misinterpreted in other, more serious instances. " • f; o� 12 • � Cit� o� ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � NO. ���� • � • • II. ANSWERS TO METRO STAFF CON�ERNS A. The question of how to designate Study Area #2 shoald not be a major concern for the Metropolitan Council , but it is a major concern for the City of Orono. l. Area #2 is a small cl�tster of 12 existing homes. There is no internal development potential. The total sewage flow capacity is already available in the Orono-Lang Lake Interceptor design. There is no metropolitan impact from sewering this area. 2 . Area #2 is a small area along the perimeter of the metropol.itan urban service fringe. Whether the MUSA line includes or excludes this area has no metropolitan significance. 3. Sewering of Area #2 was ordered to resolve existing • problem�. If Orono was forced to designate the area "urban" solely because sewer was available, poor precedent would be set for requiring the City (not Metropolitan government) to thereafter pro- vide all the other typieal urban services even though none area now required. This would be practically difficuit and fiscally imprudent. 4 . Designating Area #2 as ur.ban would constitute creation of a new urban island disconnected from other urban service areas. 5. Designating Area #2 as urban woul.d have grave, unplanned implications for further urban en- croachment of the rural area, es:pecialiy tl�e large undeveloped Gcreage immediately �ast of Area #2 . The precedent would be difficult for the City to handle. B. Orono ' s CMP is internally consistent regarding sewer service to Area #2 �nd regarding designation of urban '°islands" within the rural service area, l. Orono ' s CSPP specifically identifies the four rural housing clusters along the interceptor route and the possibility of providing sewer service to those areas. 2. Metr� st.aff ' s PDC report, page 5, quotes Orono' s Rural Sewage Treatment Policy 6 as saying � municipal sanitary sewer will not bE extended into the rural area or across open, rural lands . This is true. Iri the case of Area #2 , municipal service was not extended. The interceptor already 7 of 12 • ` Clt� of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � NO. .f��l� • - • • existed in this part of the rural area because of the documented possibility of future need in this area, and because it had to traverse rural Orono to reach the Orono Sewage Treatment Plantlocated on French Lake just north and west of Area #2 . 3. Metro staff' s PDC report, page 5 , misapplies Orono' s Urban Sewage Treatment Policy 3 which states that all urban properties will be served by sewer, This policy does not say that all propertiesserved by sewer will be urban. 4 . Orono ' s Rural Sewage Z'reatment Folicy 11, page 6-15 , specifically addresses the potential future need for sewer service to the identified rural housing clusters. "The extension of municipal sanitary sewer will be considered only if the environmental and/or health probl�ms c annot be technically or economically resolved • on-site and then only if the neighborhood is adjacent to the existing urban area (as is Areas #4 & 5) or along the route of the MWCC interceptor (as is Area #2) . " 5. The other "isZands" designated as urban in Orono ' s CMP are located and developed to urban standards, far different from Area #2 ' s rural character: a) Both islands are shown on Maps 12 & 13 as taell as other maps in Orono ' s CMP. b) Bath islands are developed at urban land densities of 4 to � acre lots whereas Area #2 is not. c) The Hackberry area north of Watertown Road and west of the City of Long Lake consists of 25 homes built in the early 1950 ' s. The area is effective.ly a continuation of the Urban area of the City of Long Lake. It is shown as an island because the intervening Z block is a wetlands not suitable for urban designation or urban development. The MUSA line could have been extended to include Hackberry within the Long Lake MUSA but no practical purpose would have been achieved. SPwer se-rvice was extended to Hackberry in . 1973. Other urban services including City streets and parks have long been available. 'v�hile this area would never be developed like this under Orono ' s current planning policies, it is a recognized fact that must be addressed. 8 of 12 • ` Clt� of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � NO. �a'�l� • - • • d) The Summit Station area on Old Long Lake Road North of the City of Wayzata is indicated on Maps 12 & 13 much larger than it really is. This area is a planned residential development of 6 lots, only 2 of which are developed. The area is totally surrounded by the extensive Wayzata Country Club golf course. Except for the open greens, these homes essentially abut the Country Club facilities which are within the City of Wayzata MUSA area. Sewer was extended to this area in 1977 via a private line conn�cting to City of Wayzata mains, specifically for purposes of developing the land to urban density. The urbanization decision was a conscious one. Under Orono ' s 1980 CMP, such urban expansion would not be approvable without a comprehensive plan amendment, including Metro � Council approval . In preparing the CMP, Orono had to account for the existing urban character and development potential. The MU:�A.� line could have been gerrymandered to be continuous, but that would have been prone to misinterpretation. The City did not want to leave the impression that sewer or other services were available to allow future urban development of the extensive golf course land in Orono. Again, sewer would not have been extended to this area under Orono' s current planning policies, but the existing service and lot density had to be addressed. 6. Designating Area #2 as urban just because sewer was availabl.e would have been inconsistent with Orono ' s policies f.or ,.urban expansion, for land use density and for rural services . C. Water Quality Management Policy Plan Policy 7 is clear as far as providing interceptor capacity for rural lands is concerned. Orono fully agrees with and wholeheartly sup- ports this policy. However, Orono feels that Policy 7 must also be viewed in consideration of the Rural Service Area statements and policies expressed on the very next page of the WQMPP. • 9 0£ 12 • �, Cit� of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � NO. ��� • - • • l. Capacity for Orono ' s Sewer Study Areas was already designed into the Orono-Long Lake Interceptor before the adoption of the 1979 WQMPP. No new capacity was required. 2 . WQMPP page 11' includ�s statements and polic�es directly ac3dressing the situation in Study Ar�a ;#2 and in comn3.ete accord with the goals and policies in Orono ' s CMP. a) "Small pockets o� urb�r density now exist in the rural area, particularly near lakes. " b) "A variety �f properly designed, localized sew�ge treatment methods. . .may well be r�eeded to handle the pollutants created by these pockets of development. "' c) "The prir.cipal purpose. . . . is to abate existing pollution and meet water quality standards, not to provide an impetus for additional urban- type devel.opment. " • 3 . If a package treatment plan4 had been constructed instead of the interceptor connection, there would have been no question that Area #2 could retain its rural designation in complete conformance with WQMPP Policy 12 . Yet intez•ceptor capacity was availab�e, was more cost effective, and has less pollution potential for Lake i�innetonka. 4 . WQMPP Policy 11 states that metropolitan sewer ex- pansion is allowed .in the rural service area "in accordance with the schedule for expansion set forth in the system plan and as specified in the local plan. " System capacity was available and is noted as part of the sewer flow c�iven in Orono' s system statement. Orono' s CPdF and CSPP provide for the connection, and even ix�cluded a schedule {before 1985) . Also, Policy 11, says sewer expansion is allowed, it does not say that urban service area expansion is required. D. Along with the Metropolican Council staff, Orono is also anxi�us to resolve this concern to avoid misinterpretation, ancl to �void undesireable precedent elsewhere in Orono, or at any ether location in the Metropolitan area. i. It is certainly not the policy of Orono to suggest indescriminate extension of inetropolitan sewer service • into the rural service area. Orono agrees with th� Metropolitan Council that urban development and urban services should :�e concentrated with the existing urban service area. i n ,. r � ^� �; l Cit� of ORONO � �� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL • NO. /�1j�- • - • • 2. It is the policy of Orono to abate existing health and pollution problems in the most economical, most practical methocl available. We believe that this is also the intent of Metropolitan policies. 3. It would be far more dangerous precedent to change a ru�al designation to urban just because sewer capacity is available, than it is to provide sewer to existing rural housing clusters for documented health and environmental purposes. To automatically equate sewer availability with full ur'�an services is to invite dense unplanned urban sprawl . 4 . It is the policy and intent of the City of Orono, and we believe of the Metropolitan Council, that municipal or metropolitan sewer canacity should not be extended into the rural service area for p:ur�oses of allowing new development. In cases where new development is desired, sewer service should be preceeded by official "urban" designation, even if a comprehensive plan amendment may be • necessary. On the other hand, well-planr.ed for, available sewer capacity should be useable to abate heaith and�or pollution problems from existing rural development when such service is cost-effective and is not intended a� impetus for urban sprawl. III . ORONO' S SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS l. Upon proper review and consideration, Orono believes that the Metropolitan Council should find our CMP and CSPP, including its rural designation for Study Area #2 , to be consistent with the intent of Water �uality Management Policy Plan Policies 11 & 12, and to be within the already incorporated service plans of Policy 7 . In this case, no exception to Policy 7 is necessary. A letter of review could be written to gaurd against future misinterpretation of the facts in this case. 2. In the event that the Metropolitan Council finds that an exception to WQP�IPP Policy 7 is required to justify Orono' s rural designation of Study Area #2, then Orono suggests that a general exception be considered to allow metropolitan sewer service within the Rural Service Area on a strictly limited basis: a) The service is necessary to abate an existing health and/or pollution problem consistent with Policy 11. � b) The service is provided to existing development only and is not available for any new development. c) Service capacity is already provided within existing metropolitan systems, and has been provided in those systems specifically for the subject area. 11 of 12 �a l City of ORONO • ��� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � NO. i19R� • - • • d) The subject area has been identified in an alterna- tive waste management study of the appropriate CSPP, and all optioris other than metropolitan sewer service have been fully investigated. e) Actual projected f_lc�w from the subject area has ��een incorporated into the appropriate CSPP, which in turn has been approved by the MWCC and Metropolitan Council . 3. In t�ie event tnat the Metropolitan Council determines that a general exception to WQMPP Policy 7 is not practical , then Orono requests that a special exception for Orono' s Study Area #2 be approved based upon the facts and jus- tifications contained within this Resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 27 day of Ju�-y , 1981, by a vote of 4 ayes and � nays. • 'V William B. Van Nest, ayor 'Walter : . Benson, City Administrator �����'�Z���'I ��� Alberta M, Strom, City Clerk • �.2 or 12 . . , � . WATER QUALITY :>.�_.•� � , ,. '4- .,.•���x;., �-�. • W/12/79 �°''�� 10. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 12. Local wastewater treatment plants, package is authorized to work with the cities of Jordan plants, stabil ization onds, group on-site and Belle Plaine with respect to their incor- disposa) systems,(�c�are acceptable to serve poration in the metropolitan wastewater Rural Centers anc�abate ollu i n treatment system if and when these munici- for i ti v e re erre palities desire to move in such a direction. o o was ewa er isposal for new rural residential development is the individual on- � site system. .Local.wastew�ter treatment Rural Service Area facilities, otherthan individual on-site systems, . serving nonresidential development should be In the Rurat Service Area, urbanization is not permitted if they are consistent with a anticipated and, as a result, a coordinated central Council-approved comprehensive sewer policy sanitary sewer system is not needed. Municipal plan. treatment works in the Rural Centers�vill have only modest expansion needs dur9ng the rest of 13. Metropolitan wastewater treatment plants in the century. They will be expected to achieve and Medina and Maple Plain will function as maintain water quality standards as established by plants should in the Rural Centers, with no sig- the state. Expectations of growth also apply to nificant service expansion planned unless the Medina and Maple Plain, which are served by their Metropolitan Council designates these munici- own rural treatment plants. Although under the palities as part of the Urban Service Area. • jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Waste Control - � Commission, the plants are located in and serve Rural Centers that are not designated for signifi- NONPOINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION cant future urban expansion. The 208 Water Quality Management Program con- The remainder of the Rural Service Area will be ducted by the Council over the 1976-78 period did served by individual on-site disposal facilities. not provide for preparing a plan and implementation However, several small pockets of urban density program dealing with nonpoint sources of water now exist in the rural area, particularly near lakes. pollution. The planning program, however, did A variety of properly designed, localized sewage provide for an overview evaluation of nonpoint disposal methods, including package plants, waste source contributions to water pollution based on . stabilization ponds and group-type on-site disposal published data and other available information. facilities, may well be needed to handle the pollut- The evaluation indicates that the quality of waters ants created by these pockets of development. The in the Area is affected by a variety of nonpoint principal purpose of these small group treatment sources of pollution, and in some instances the works is to abate existing pollution and meet water impacts may be quite substantial. quality standards, not to provide an impetus for additional urban-type development. These areas The overview study is not sufficient by itself to will be evaluated on an individual basis, based upon justify formulating specific policies to abate non- the topography, drainage, groundwater, surface point sources of pollution. This formulation awaits water, etc., for the provision of such facilities. completion of a much more definitive study. From the overview work, however, it is clear that a balanced program for improving water quality Policies must include nonpoint source management. 11. Metropolitan sewer service expansion is not allowed within the Rural Service Area, Policies �except in accordance with the schedule for expansion set forth in the system plan and as 14. The Metropolitan Council recognizes that � specified in the local plan submitted far nonpoint sources of pollution are a significant review and approved by the Cuuncil in threat to water quality in the Twin Cities accordance �vith the Metropolitan Lan�J Plan: Metropolitan Area, and will undertake efforts ning Act. to minimize such sources in the future by: 11 _ . _ � ` I ., ti;� � � I .... . b✓ . { � �• a.�t� e_.,w . ;�, �•.,.-, �aru� � � , ��. . �_.�. ._._l ' _. �'•a..,> . ——!—• j�{ �•—��`-—.�.�.�._ , _......:..._�. _.i._._ .�}j _�_.�.�._.�._.... �} •q• • e� 'i• �1 `. , �.'r's� 'z Fi.''.i'''wt�..�..._� .��-ae., �A `,�\ �..2 =_3_Y.'��.e.:..�"'-'�—- �h ' ., , �'� � :��-� t� ' ., �. � ' • '' � ��,� r�� � j' ..»,r'r� �'—� ' �.�- . w... j '� � � ���W i �• �- t�„�. y . . ... � ti._ Pl1/MOlfT1i IND�PF.NDENCE�/� `'`i .'�`� t�{� �' .� .. •� A .! . � � � �`v� ��,�� � � � !\ ..\W i ! i,�g ilhf -_ r �'+ + d^__._ � � '�� �6 � � i -... . - • . . . LAl(E('}+`�yy.�- �1 ��. � � �!� ,.� , �. �, � r S���:.,1,r `'`"?9 � ����1+�'����t ��``�,��y�, " J � � i. �� _ � � ���;�, •,�y,,� ���, .� l'°� �_{ ... • ' , . .<� ��-1 , r�` .c�.. '•' , - i; \�' � ,.� ' �� � ��� a - � �•� � �, ° �;;;.1 ;. � . �; �, �, �� +���� /` �; _. » � �� � ; _ � . . , ,.� _r . n � . �,��. -�. '�# � � �'_ .,� ` ""�. M7ttJETRISTAI' � � Q � �_ S � _ � •� � �•. .� WAYZATA ! `�,� � •�„ :� ; '(�' �` J � ..._,� �--__.- • " / .��:_>„ .�. . /�, C-� '; .... ` : ,� \h, � � 1�, �= —.. .. � / _....: �' <.���, `; � ,.� "�" W.— I � J :���• , ,. �� •�b, 1±•."'"' �`s ,.,.,_ � "i , �� � �� ''"'c�, s , .'j�Y�^ ..,.._ , '2 j~� a."k, �'' • � � �+- , ;'��• � _ �u, I RURAL fI0U5ING `\��. rx _ ��„��yj� �:, �� � "` ° - � ( CLUSTER IDEPlT1FICATION �,`����•`. �, ;a'��� ' , ,k J'� " I . �=� � � �ra h1USA-MSSR LINE N�OINlD= �� � :.>g ,_ . �.1� I �� � � la����:, ��. ` _ � EXISTIN6 RURAL NOU$IIrG �,� '.... �.+ � � � ..•�� i ' .,` �;.... , d� ... a )r'.'% i ` . � .`�=��- % �r ` ' -�,.:�.r �''��'=°i�'�'�� ._��E_•»�. � � EXIST;tIG RURAL NOUSING �'`� +•—�----'' �'.' ' i _�'�' � I�ENT1fIE0 FOR ALTERNATIVE �C.'S `"'`�_ � ��-� a.�,,. � �s a4. •'•r.�, '�•,:� � WASTE MANAGEME�iT STUOY �� , � � � �-:°. .�". , �'� �,. ��� �.+�.� ,�: .4�� ..,,.. � i � 1. StubCs Bay ` ,f ,�. �% \� �'��'�� ,-���, ' � . � �� 2. North Shore and Scotch Fine , /`' - -.... , � K,-�.-i`y� ; 3. Crystal Bay f,. .. ,. � ' __ /�:�`'�r,� ,��•� �,w. - — t� 4. Brcwn s Bay , � � ��x�„? . 7�`- ��• � �M 5.,�tinnetonka Bluffs 12 `• "'�''� � �`• " /���q . P�1::i Scate t ;4 .� '% �'�� � woo �: f�G � �o.,.�� .� „�ar` �•�.._._._.i � , F�I L-M f�G ��• �""' •� �I IL� �� OI O� `O� �I9 �Y 1��7'��� ��� �f� �N� �•�._.�•i Cf I�,SE �_. ASS CIP7tS IfJC � • < _ , . � i � � �� ' . t '� � ���N I " .�4"�, t �aru``� � F r�_ .. O ` �\, ,'� ` i - � Y � �_.�-...._.�_._._._i._._._. v. W .�._..r._. v_. —•—•L——._.�._. . . •i -' r: �� �,_ _."'�. . �• �. ,, .!��,,�,, � :"'.�= y:i � lU �� �.��'c�1 ���' : I ' � a f_ .� y „'«xt:•� ' �,,., c. � ` �.`'^� ( '• ' [ -� a; ��_-.� �.-_ P. ,,�`j,,,,,.'',,. � , , �,`��:� , ,�notm, S I � .3�•� \;,h ��� � � � ' \� �_•' . . PEhIDENCE � " �-��rw__. . , ....... � .,� � 'M i� ' - '_"' ! f� �,, /�"�.,,� � 0 ��° �� �s'a � .v j -.` �—__. .__ - r' _E i.� x. y 1 _ � ''��. � �,4 a -yg���, �'�„� � ,� a �.•/ �^� i� �3, � • f.'"�¶ �Qy4�. ��)•��1,*. s f � � � �`" � il.�, ��5� . �V .L� r ° il.r ,;" ..t�'..� , ��� ,�: � �` '°,.��_; -.�--a��.-- � �b 1` ��- ' _��' ,.,� v. � .. a� � -�� � r"� ��'r * . d �n 4.,� n �� y'� �, � ������ �s �1 -�� Jlr • """"\ '� �!''•° : • l �>.e..,�-� i'. �.'r � e. /' � ,e ...� n �, - . '�'- t1 �� _�,,,jo.v� - ' ^ I - �I �� - � . � _ � � . MldJETRtSTA ��.� � I � y WAYZATA i *�� . �� c' �`•�, ��` o `� � M�� 1 �' `�� � ���, •'t,� ,.c -� /$J �' � _�-:_ _� .��.�-�. — - -S �;0 �°`. !I � '�_,_ _� . � -•.. _�� � '��—' _�►!�• ° z��..u��',�!. � . i �', � O j�� 'ti, '{ � ;y ' � _.._ � � �: � ?� �� �._ �. � � � ���, � ■eeq` �\ ,,,1 ° iQ �i � . . a ' � �7 ,,! 1 �" �� ,...... ah �;�.v�i�' �t 'Qo � ':�"+ / �,�._�.._.t..�!�� "7� ( � ` � ■ "i �i'o �..�;ri. � �,' � EXP€CTED SEWER FAC 1 L I TY \�\!..�� - � �� q• ; _��i�ut��<` � ` "� i IMPROVEMENTS � '� �'_"'°^ �- ` " ' I _. � EXISTIWG MUSA/MSDR LINE �� �� v Y ! " � ccm.s It•1PROVEDIENT AREAS - -_---- i "'"' ��;, ,/ � 1 Minnesota Bluffs ; `i � "°'` . �- i . 2 Brcwn's 6ay i � � ��,.:"-" �• `•. . ,�._� ���� ,,,�...�,o„ . � 3 Pbrth Shore/Scotch Pine _:r..�v.r% ,�. '�,�,.�•..,.�/ P� ` � 4 CaFinans Bay _ . x � �� -- �L; � � " �/�� 5 P�orthern Avenue ' � , ��"� � // \ 6 hiorth Shore/Highwood p � . •/ "s `� , �� � %H'd�A"TA _._.�� -_ ��r; ; -- � 7 Carriage Trail ....� �� . / r� ,.: ,,..w •-— • � •�� /W 8 tl•I�varre i ` ` • M ` � _ ��` " �/w;,■•�w��Sca�e l�aldur Park 13 .4� / �` _ 0 ° 10° �Orono-Medina Interceptor � �, /� ��` ._._._.� �� �A�ry�� �•�--.-.�:�` " Ci�y of �ro�o, �in�esota � . ' ' _ , ' � - . • • a - , , . � . . JUNE, 1980 , . � .��� �. � • RURAL FACILITIES PLANNING INCLUDES ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDIES. � The objective of public involvement in �sewage disposal is to provide assu�rance of treatment methods and levels sufficient to safeguard the � public health and the natural environment. The objective of sewage treatment planning is to determine the most cost-effective treatment t method consistent with the primary goal and with the City ' s other planning 1 objectives . In urban areas , the preferred method is obviously central , sewerage . In rural areas , at rural densities , the preferred method is j individual on-site treatment and disposal . Where older , developed housing ' clusters exist within otherwise rural areas , sewer facilities planning � requires the study of a wide range of alternative treatment methods . �; Orono' s Alternative Studies include an inventory and analysis method � similar to that included in the MWCC ' s 201 Alternative Waste Management ; Systems Evaluation Study. Acceptable solutions for treatment difficulties include the following list of options : 1) Alteration of the water consumption habits of the users , coupled � with careful system maintenance . 2) Repair or reconstruction of individual systems. , i 3) Replacement of existing systems with new individual systems • constructed to new City (WPC-40) standards . ; 4) Installation of innovative on-site systems including consideration ' of composting or incinerating devices . � 5) Installation of� •individual holding tanks with off-site disposal . 6) Installation of a collection system and .a community drainfield . ; 7) Installation of a collection system connected to the metropolitan ! interceptor . ' 8) Condemnation and demolition . I All of the foregoing options are self-contained , on-site alternatives , except the connection to municipal sewer. The Metropolitan Council ' s . Water Quality Management Policy 11 (Pg . W12/79) allows the connection . ' of existing rural development into the int'erceptor system if identified in the CSPP . Orono ' s Rural Sewage Treatment Policy 11 allows consideration . � of such a connection as one alternative to solving a documented health � hazard should the on-site systems fail to function properly. In no case . . would such sewerage foster new development; it would only be used to correct existing deficiencies , and then only if this option is cost- effective compared to the other viable alternatives . . �� . � CMP 6-44 � � „ . ., . ., . . � i � ` '. .. � " f . � , ; � : � . JUNE, 1980 i ��� : � , ORONO HAS IDENTIFIED FIVE RURAL HOUSING CLUSTERS FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDIES. � . � � . In certain housing clusters , poor soil or topography conditions combine ,� with relatively small lot sizes to increase the likelihood of system '. failures while at the same 'time reducing the options available for � .; , repair. or replacement. In other areas , individual lot sizes do not. 'I conform to the Minnesota ' s DNR' s Municipal Shoreland Management criteria . ; which suggests a minimum lot size. of 20, 000 sq. ft. within 1 , 000 ft. ' 1 of General Development lakeshore . ' � I , , i The five clusters identified for further study by the On-Site Management ? Program are shown on� Map No. 12 and are listed as follows : 'I :i 1 . Stubbs Bay 59 homes 2 . North Shore & Scotch Pine 12 homes � i 3 . Crystal Bay 82 homes � � � 4 . Browns Bay . • 30 homes ; 5 . Minnetonka Bluffs 23 homes � ! � TOTAL 206 homes � j i Of these five , No . 2 & No. 4 generally conform to the DNR' s minimum lot ! size , but do have water table problems because of generally low-lying ! topography . Of the.se five , all except Stubbs Bay lie adjacent to the il Orono-Long Lake Interceptor as built , which factor was, one of the primary �{ reasons Orono supported this final routing and so strongly opposed the , original interceptor routing through the center of an undeveloped rural . area. ' � The remaining eleven housing clusters identified in the On-Site Management Program are being monitored but have not exhibited signs of neighborhood , system difficulties and have therefore not been scheduled for alternative system evaluation . The existing on-site systems are working or are _ . capable of being replaced with acceptable individual systems meeting current design and operating standards . � '' CMP 6- 45 � 1 .. � " � : � JUNE, 1980 � The Interceptor construction is almost entirely force-main design with , � � •. . a pump station at each of the� Orono and Long Lake Treatment Plant sites. . There is no provision for local service along the interceptor except by • � � means of municipal injection pumping stations . The Orono-Long Lake Interceptor is designed to accommodate the expected ultimate (year 2000) sewage flow from Minnetonka Beach , Long Lake , Medina-Morningside , and urban Orono as follows : OROTiO - IANG LJ1XE INTEACEPTOR SEFIEA DESIGN CAPACS?Y ' PIPE 11ND PUMP DESIGN YEAR 2000 DESIGN DEMAND rverage Daily Flow (cfa) Average Daily Flov (mgd) Peak Flov Severed Sever Units TY Reaid. Non. Resid. Total Resid. Non Aeaid. Total gp�+ Population Aesid. Non Resid. Total ORONO fUMP STIITION ono 1.37 .13 1.50 .89 .08 .97 factoz 7,699 2,405 212 2,617 ka. Beach .13 .02 .15 .08 .02 .10 3.3 695 220 70 290 ib. Total 1.50 .15. 1.65 .97 .10 1.07 2,450 8,391 2,625 282 2.9U� IANG LAKE PUMP STATION • ono .03 .1• .17 .02 .09 .11 factor 165 52 193 2�5 ' ,' �ng� .�2 .3a .76 .27 .22 .49 3.5 2,350 735 596 1.331 � >dina-MOrn. .07 .00 .07 .OS .00 .OS 265 83 0 83 �b. Total .52 .48 1.00 .3� .31 .65 1,600 2,780 870 7B9 1,659 FUTURE ORONO INJECTORS • � �ono .09 -- .09 .06 -- .06 -- 522 163 0 163 _btotal ll Orono �nly) 1.�9 .27 1.76 .97 .17 1.1� -- 8.386 2.620 405 ' 3.025 . . �tal �terceptoz 2.11 .63 2.7� 1.37 .41 l.�g -- 11,846 3,658 1,071 4,729 lov Rate: 115 gal/eapita/dsy and 3.2 pmrsona/houaehold � 36B gpd � 1 unit �arce: City of Orono Rosolution Ho. 901; �pril 17, 197! � Addendtm No. 3, Pzeliainary Engineering Report, Orono-Long Lake interceptor pzepared by MeCOmbs Itnutson 1►asoci�tes for MfaCC; Novembez. 1977 �i'he Orono-Long Lake Interceptor has been designed and constructed with sufficient capacity to permit planned development within the urbanized areas cf Orono, Long Lake and Minnetonka Beach. The interceptor is designed to accommodate the existing connections for Hackberry Hills and • Orono� Schools. The interceptor is designed to accommodate future " connections from existing housing clusters which requi,re alternative solutions to sewage treatment, including the 83 properties in Medina- ' Morningside and up to 163 existing units in the North Shore Drive , CR 15�, ; . ' . Minnetonka Bluffs and West Ferndale Areas of Orono along the route of • - the interceptor. There is no interceptor capacity designed to. accommodate • ' ��w urban development in the existing rural areas of Osono . This capacity. . • s consistent with the land use plans of the other chapters of Orono ' s � Community Management Plan. � � ' � CMP 6-24 � . .