HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-04-18 Memo, Stubbs Bay Sewer41891.27oi Mark E. Serahardscn, City Administrator
Wrcmt Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator
Oatas April 18, 1991
Subjects Stubbs Bay Sewer
List of Bxbibits -
A - Staff Memo of 4/3/91
B - Bemhardson's Memo & Exhibits of 2/28/91
Issues -
A) Ziesmer situation - possible additional options.
B) Sewer project - process for decision.
Dlscossioo -
A) Ziesmer Situation
Council will recall that the Ziesmers have reached a
financial point where they must complete installation of their
mound system or be assured that municipal sewer will be available
for connection in a reasonable period of time. To date, staff
has not discussed the interim option of constructing a small
trench drainfieli in the front yard, using gravity flow, which
while not meeting code requirements, might provide some relief
yet not create an immediate pollution or health hasard. This
option has been previously used in Stubbs Bay for interim repairs
to an existing system, but not for a new home. Mr. Ziesmer notes
he likes this possibility.
The neighbors on either side of the Ziesmers have trench
drainfields in their front yards, and neither system is failing.
It is very possible that soil testing would show that they should
have been mound systems by todays standards, due to a seasonal
perched water table evidenced by "mottling*. In our loam and
clay loam soils. Dr. James L. Anderson of the U. of M. Extension
Service states that trenches less than 3* above the perched water
table will likely have a shortened useful life. However if you
can get the water to move through the clayey soils, treatment
should be very adequate.
The M.P.C.A. takes a slightly different line, suggesting
that during the times when perched water tables exist just below
or around a trench system, all treatment stops. Therefore, the
M.P.C.A. staff has admonished the DNR staff that in shoreland
areas, existing trench systems less than 3* above the mottling
sone should be considered as non-conforming systems and be
replaced with fully conforming systems. Staff will be reviewing
these somewhat conflicting interpretations as part of the
shoreland ordinance.
r
Stubbs Bay Sawer
April 18, 1991
?a9« 2 of 3
Tho soils map indicates a Icilkenny loam, typically fairly
Imeetmeable. It is my opinion that an interim trench dralnfleld
system in Ziesmers' front yard likely will have no detrimental
overuse, or by the gradual reduction in its capacity due to being
in a saasonal parchad watar tabIa situation-
My recommendation therefore i» for
allowing Mr. Ziesmer to i-1^
system in his front yard (meeting all required lot line and well
M^cks, of course), with the Inclusion of an o- erflow hold^gg
tank. This will allow some significant portion ol his io“
?TBe treated, but at peak flow periods when
cannot keep up, it would overflow to a holding t^ which wuld
then need to be pumped out. This overflow tank should eliminate
any concerns the City would have about surface discharges.
If Council agrees to this temporary solution, the other
question is how long Ziesmers should be allowed to use such an
interim system.
B) Process to Determine Whether a Sewer Project Should Be
Comm<nc#d
Area resident Dave Peterson has talked to a few of the
Stubbs Bay area residents- His comments are as follows:
le The majority of the few he talked to would prefer to
have sewer-
2. That sane group generally stated
sign a commitment that takes away their right to appeal the
assessment-
3. They generally felt that the City should participate in
the costs of the project to some degree.
Dave suggested that a citixens* co'^i^tee might be able to
make a recomendation as to how the Council should proceed and/o
present a recommended compromise for Council to consider.
Mr. Peterson also questioned vnetnf.r it
split the project in order to alio., it to serve the areas most in
need of sewer. The City Engineer is looking into this.
Per Councilmember Callahan's discussion on fP'il *
citix-ns' committee might be charged with the following goals and
dttiess
Stubbs Bay Sawer
April 18, 1991
Page 3 of 3
1. Determine scope of project/area to be served.
2. Place some priority status on which areas should be
served first (or at all).
3. Recommend a preferred financing method.
The citizens' committee would be charged with making a
written report to the Council. (I don't feel that involvement of
the Planning Commission is strictly necessary, since these are
not really planning issues.) Ed suggested that a 6 week time
frame may be realistic for such a committee to do its work. It
may take somewhat longer depending on start-up time.
If Council wishes to proceed with such a committee, I would
suggest that they authorize a letter to the affected residents
asking them to apply in writing before the May 13th meeting if
they are interested in being on a citizens' committee, so that
Council could appoint a cosunittee on the 13th. The letter
requesting applications would go out the week of April 22nd and
could easily contain a very brief update as to the responses from
the 1990 questionaire and the reasons why the Council is
requesting a citizens' committee.
itioa -
1. Council should consider offering the Ziesmers the
alternative of constructing an interim trench drainfield
system at minimum cost, with an overflow holding tank, which
may be more cost effective as an interim solution than
construction of the full mound system. City staff would
work with applicant to ensure reasonable standards for such
an interim repair.
2. If Council wishes a citizens' committee. Council should
authorize staff to draft and send an update letter on the
project questionaire and request applications for a
citizens' committee for appointment at the May 13th meeting*
The Council could then determine between now and May 13th
under what specific goals, procedures, and timeframe you
wish that citizens' committee to operate.
MPG/tln