HomeMy WebLinkAboutWK August 8, 2000
, CITY of ANDOVER
</
Special City Council Workshop - Tuesday, August 8, 2000
Call to Order - 6:00 PM
Resident Forum
Agenda Approval
Consent Agenda
Approval of Minutes
Disl.'ussion Ttl'l""
1. Presentation/Communal Septics (Joint meeting with Planning & Zoning
Commission)
/ , 7:00 PM 2. Approve Feasibility Report/Project #00-18/Extension of Andover Blvd NW
\ )
3. Discuss School Issues with Anoka Hennepin ISD #11 School Board
4. Other Business
Adjournment
"-
'-_/
<5) CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUESf FORCOUNCILACTION
DATE: AlIglI!'lt R, ?nnn
AGENDA SECTION ORlGINA TING DEPARTMENT
Discussion Item
Scott Erickson,
Engineering
ITEM NO. 2.
Approve Feasibility Report/Project #11-18/Extensions of Andover Blvd NW
The City Council is requested to review the feasibility report previously ordered for the extension of
Andover Boulevard. The report addresses the construction of Andover Boulevard between Crosstown
Boulevard and Round Lake Boulevard. The report will also address assessments for the school and
costs for the extension of utilities beyond the proposed school site. Assessments to properties beyond
the school are not included as a part ofthis report. Also, the report provides a costs analysis for a
pedestrian crossing of Crosstown Boulevard. It is anticipated that the report will be reviewed by the
City Council at this meeting for comment and further direction.
/
/
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: August 8. 2000
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Discussion Community Development
ITEM NO. 3
Discuss School Issues David L. Carlberg
with the Anoka-Hennepin Community Development Director
ISD # 11
The City Council is requested to discuss various school issues with the Anoka-Hennepin ISD #
11.
I
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: Aurrust 8.2000
ITEM NO. t ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Special City Council Work shop: Planning
Communal Septic Presentation
Dan Taylor
Intern City Planner
Request
The City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission are asked to read the provided Residential
Cluster Development Packet. The information will supplement the communal septic presentation given by
Ken Olson, University of Minnesota Extension Educator.
2~
Pfficial Summary .- \
h
1;
To: City Council & Planning and Zoning committee .._--=~~-
From: Dan Taylor, City Planner Intern
Date: 07/26/00
Re: Communal Septic Presentation- Official Summary
Staff has contacted Ken Olsen from the Minnesota Extension Services to present and discuss
communal septic. The presentation will be held on Aug. 8th at 6 pm in conference room A. The
Residential Cluster Development packet is provided to get an overview of key issues being discussed.
Please pay special attention to sections 2 and 4 which deal directly with communal septic and its
management.
The presentation will take about 25 minutes and will follow with open discussion. Ken is asking
,everyone to prepare a few questions they have about communal septic.
p"erviewof the Residential Cluster Development Packet- MI-7059 \
'rheResidential Cluster Development packet includes four sections. The fIrst section deals with key
issues of cluster developments such as zoning practices, uses of open space, communal septic, and
management of common resources. The second section is about alternative wastewater treatment
sYstems.' This section covers key issues of communal septic and will be the focus of the presentation.
'rh~ third section talks about the area of storm water management. The fourth section deals with
management options. It is especially important to read through this last section to understand the
importance of managing communal septic systems.
The Residential Cluster Development Packet is attached. Note the illustrations are at the back of
each section.
/ \
1
&SIDENTIAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT:
r Overview of 1
! ~ ~
,1 ~.qw --,.1;Y:'lf'"
l.d)),;,.firij Key Issues
&HZg~~t~i~ h~r{&I:!~lt~~~
Mathew Mega. Barbara Lukermann and Robet Sykes
About This Series
Residential cluster development is a means ofpennanently protecting
open space, rural character, and important environmental resources in new
housing developments, while still providing homeowners with good
housing and landowners with the opportunity to develop their property.
This publication is the first in a series offour, all designed to help local
officials, community leaders, developers and homeowners address the
critical issues of residential cluster development.
These issues include the design, use, approval, and management of
wastewater and stonn water rural technologies. These technologies
address people's legitimate concerns over the environmental degradation
often associated with residential development in rural areas.
By combining the use of rural technologies with cluster development
design, local officials have another option when developing their
community. But to make rural technologies ~d cluster development
possible, local officials need to incorporate new language into local
ordinances and comprehensive land use plans. This series introduces the
concepts for local officials considering revisions to their local
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, as well as basic infonnation to
anyone curious about cluster development. It also provides background on
how rural technologies can help preserve open space, protect
environmental and cultural resources and enhance rural character.
This publication defines cluster development and gives an overview of the
critical issues connected to it. The second and third publications in the
series describe the engineering and design of community wastewater
treatment and stonn water management systems for use in cluster
developments. They also provide a brief discussion of the current.
regulation and pennitting requirements. Management issues that must be
considered and management structures that can be used when establishing
new cluster developments utilizing rural technologies are addressed in the
final publication.
.- \
What Is Cluster Development?
Cluster development is the grouping of a particular development's
residential structures on a portion of the available land, reserving a
significant amount of the site as protected open space. Many communities
in Minnesota and across the United States are updating their
comprehensive land use plans and establishing specific ordinances to
guide the development and construction of residential clusters. New
ordinances require design standards and identify minimum open space and
density standards. These key changes have prompted some communities to
opt for more descriptive terminology, including open space development
or conservation subdivision design, for the more traditional cluster
development. While the different terminology has created some confusion,
each term still adheres to the three basic goals of cluster development:
preserving open space, protecting critical ecological habitat and preserving
agricultural land.
The usable open space created by a cluster development can meet a
number of community goals. These goals sometimes conflict with one
another. For example, the protection of wildlife habitat may be
incompatible with the preservation of agricultural land. However, the key
benefit is the availability of open space, space that has been preserved by
clustering units on smaller lots. The landowner and the community make \
the ultimate decision on how the open space is used.
Current Zoning Practices
Current zoning practices establish minimum lot sizes, setbacks and widths
that developers must follow when they design subdivisions. This leads to
developments that maximize the number oflots based on the total acreage
ofa parcel. For instance, if the code requires a minimum lot size of 2.5
acres and the developer has a 40-acre parcel, the site will be developed
with 16 residential units unless there are major site limitations (see Figure
1). The parcel is then said to have a gross density of 16 units.
Cluster development protects open space by establishing the number of
units allowed for a parcel completely independent of any minimum lot
size. While the gross density requirement in the example above allows a
maximum of 16 units to be developed on the 40-acre site, iflot sizes can
be less than 2 acres or of variable size, some clustering of units is possible.
The developer is still limited to 16 total units, but has the flexibility to
place them in a way that is more responsive to a site's physical
characteristics. For example, Figure 1 shows a cluster development
preserving 24 acres of commonly-owned land.
Options for Use of Open Space "
The open space created by cluster developments can be used in three ways:
. . . Exclusive use by residents (e.g., private trails. passive
recreational areas)
. . 'Preservation of agricultural land
. . 'Protection of wildlife habitat
While open space has traditionally been used exclusively by residents, a
local government can encourage the other two options through its
comprehensive land use plan and subdivision ordinances. Initially, the
municipality needs to identifY the areas that are important to the
community and develop goals for these areas. These goals can then be
realized by establishing physical design standards and density
requirements, and by using transfer..of-development rights or other
incentive programs.
Ensuring Full Potential of Development
The intent of cluster development ordinances is simple: develop less land
area while allowing the same number of housing units that would be
permitted under standard subdivision ordinances. By allowing the same
number of units, landowners and developers aren't penalized financially
for doing cluster development.
A yield plan or development plan is currently being used by a number of
communities to determine the maximum number of units allowed in a
cluster development. The yield plan provides a conceptual sketch of a
conventional subdivision based on all standard criteria (setbacks, width,
lot size, etc.). The result is the maximum number of units allowed on the
parcel (its gross density). Some communities do not specifically require a
yield plan, basing the maximum number of units instead on the net
developable land as determined by performance standards.
Mandatory Versus Voluntary
Cluster Development
Some communities mandate cluster development. In such instances,
developers must meet the cluster ordinance criteria. However, many
communities offer voluntary cluster ordinances, allowing the developer to
choose between a standard subdivision or a cluster development.
In voluntary cluster development cases, communities usually provide
developers with incentives to apply clusteiing. One common incentive,
density bonuses, automatically provides developers with a number of
additional units if they decide on a cluster development. These bonuses
can also be discretionary, with the number of additional units based on the
subdivision design. If the community chooses to have discretionary
/ ..
density bonuses, they need to be based on predetennined performance
standards and incorporated into the community's comprehensive plan.
Protection of Water Resources
Cluster development may offer many other advantages to the municipality,
developer and prospective homeowner. The use of rural technologies for
storm water management, for example, can avoid expensive curbs, gutters
and storm sewers. Instead, the development's storm water management
system can be more responsive to the land's environmental constraints.
And wastewater treatment systems can incorporate technologies that
ensure that systems are sited appropriately and that centrally-located
municipal systems or individual sewage treatment systems are avoided.
. Storm Water Management
The design of storm water management systems in cluster
developments seeks to maximize overland flow and combine the
use of plants and landforms to slow, hold, and treat runoff from
new development.
. Wastewater Management
Many options are available to treat wastewater from a cluster of homes,
including community drainfields, irrigation systems, and pacIcage plants. These
options all have the potential to reduce infrastructure investment and allow
systems to be located on sites that minimize adverse environmental impact. An
example, community septic drainfields, is illustrated in Figure 2.
The specific engineering and design aspects of wastewater
treatment and storm water management systems in cluster
developments will be discussed in publications two and three of
this series.
The Local Adoption and
Approval Process
The local approval process for cluster development must be consistent
with local comprehensive plans and ordinances and must satisfy the pennit
process for rural technologies.
Cluster developments generally follow the same review and approval
process that traditional subdivisions do. This process is characterized by a
preliminary and final plat review process that takes place at public
hearings and planning and zoning board meetings. Typically, for a cluster
development, the developer and the planning commission's staifhold a
pre-application meeting. This informal meeting is used to review the
proposed concept to identify any conflicts before the developer submits a
formal application. The pre-application meeting incorporates much- "\
needed flexibility into the approval process by allowing everyone to
evaluate a development's impact while ensuring it stays consistent with a
community's goals.
Many local permit processes have not been revised to give developers-
who must undertake additional financial risk associated with new
technologies-the flexibility they need. This lack of revisions has been the
main difficulty in encouraging developers to use community wastewater
treatment facilities and more complex stonn water management
technologies. Many developers, anticipating greater costs and disapproval
of new methods, simply opt for more traditional systems.
Management of Common Resources
Clustering housing leaves the majority of a new development as open,
shared space, mutually owned and managed. In a cluster development, that
management involves controlling, directing, and handling all resources
held in common by individual homeowners. These include, but are not
limited to, open space, wastewater treatment systems, and stonn water
management facilities.
Many cluster development ordinances mandate the establishment of a
homeowners association (FIOA) to manage the common open space. Set
up by the developer, who may remain a member until all or a specified
number of units are sold, the HOA is then responsible for all management
responsibilities and capital improvements.
In developments with many common resources, the developer may want
to explore an alternative to an HOA Several management options have
emerged that replace or supplement HOA responsibilities.
There are six management options in all. Three, homeowners associations,
privatized joint ventures and water quality cooperatives, are private. Three
others, municipal utilities, sanitary sewer districts and subordinate service
districts, involve public management. These will be discussed in greater
detail in the fourth publication. Whatever management framework is
created, however, it is very important that the developer and the
municipality agree on a structure prior to construction or occupation of
homes.
Authors
Mathew Mega
Graduate Student
Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
University of Minnesota
and SRF Consulting Group
(612) 475-0010
mmega@srfconsulting.com
.,
Barbara Lukennann
Senior Fellow
Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
University of Minnesota
612) 625-4310
blulennann@hhh.umn.edu
Robert Sykes
Associate Professor
Department of Landscape Architecture
University of Minnesota
(612) 625-6091
skyes002@maroon.te.umn.edu
For More Information
Thomas Wegner
Extension Educator
University of Minnesota Extension Service
Hennepin County
(612) 374-8400
twegner@extension.umn.edu
Overview of Key Issues 1.
Convont; OM 1 subd; vi s; an Cluster subdivisian
Figure 1.
,~
d~~~f~~ld . 0 . ~ (typi~al)
----~ ' '0 0 (La '
.---- !.
------i . --+--'---
_____ --}__~_____.4_____ _ __ _ __
---------1
- -- - ----i
---- ------'
Figure 2.
/ '\
RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT:
t~~~'~~f!t~0f 2
I"~ Alternative Wastwater
," ~
~i 'i;'j.1~~~ Treatment Systems
~il~~' rtjlf~tI~
J. L. Anderson and D. M Gustafson
Introduction
Minnesota has a long history of providing wastewater treatment for
clustered residential developments. In general, tbat has involved the
installation of collector systems to solve existing problems. The best
examples of these systems are found in lakeshore areas. Initially, most
systems provided sewage treatment for resorts, where groups of cabins or
lodges were booked togetber by a sewer line delivering septic tank
effluent to a soil-based treatment system. These systems have not been
installed in new residential developments.
Some municipaliti~s and small communities need to upgrade their ,
wastewater treatment systems. Others are considering a cluster design for
new residential developments. Local officials must decide what kind of
wastewater treatment system to use. Until recently local officials had to
choose from either a municipal wastewater treatment plant or a
decentralized approach utilizing septic tanks and drainfields. There are
now additional options available when using a decentralized approach.
These alternatives include aerobic tanks, sand filters and constructed
wetlands. Local officials need to review and evaluate their options
carefully before selecting a specific system - including alternative
systems - because the same approach won't work in every case.
Currently, these alternative systems typically provide pretreatment to
septic tank effluent before being discharged to a drainfield. To use these
alternatives, more than the usual amount oflong-tenn monitoring will be
necessary to ensure that these systems consistently meet the operating
standards claimed by manufacturers and proponents. From both a SUlface
and groundwater perspective, soil-based treatment systems - if properly
sited, installed, and maintained - can offer a high degree of protection
and reliability.
In general, alternative systems serving clustered developments require
more monitoring than systems that use septic tanks for pretreatment.
Usually, alternative systems require additional pumps and sewage tanks, /-- \
which results in extra maintenance. That's why the organizations in charge )
of operating these systems need to be fiscally competent. While clustering
/ has the potential to make operation and maintenance easier for an
individual homeowner, a detailed plan for a development must be written
and followed consistently. Iftbat is not done, treatment will be less
effective and there will be a greater negative impact on water resources.
Once the decision is made to use a ,cluster design, there are a number of
factors to consider before choosing the appropriate wastewater treatment
system.
Design and Siting Considerations
To be cost-effective and provide acceptable sewage treatment, the
following factors must be addressed before choosing a system type and
design:
1. where the wastewater will be discharged to the environment;
2. the type of collector sewer used;
3. the estimated volume of flow (a number used to design the final treatment
system);
4. site characteristics (including the land footprint and projected future use);
5. system reliability and monitoring;
J
6. system maintenance and personnel requirements;
7. adaptability to changes in system operation.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Permits
When wastewater is discharged to the surface or ground waters of the
state, a National Pollutant Discharge EIimination System (NPDES) or a
State Disposal System (SDS) permit is required. These permits detail the
wastewater source, types of requirements for discharge, the amount of
monitoring necessary, and the minimum level of treatment required. The
Minnesota Pollution Control (MPCA) issues and administers both of these
permits. Effluent limits are developed to protect water quality standards
and the designated uses of waters. Both permits require monitoring to
ensure the system is meeting the assigned effluent limitations.
When wastewater is discharged to the ground water via the ground's
surface a State Disposal System (SDS) permit is required. Additionally, if
the discharge to the ground water is via the subsurface and over 10,000
gallons per day (gpd) an SDS permits is required. Local permits are
required if the volume of wastewater discharged to the subsurface is less
than 10,000 gpd. Future rules regarding class V injection wells, defined as
, '\
any system that serves over twenty people, may impact the permitting of
systems used in residential clusters.
An SDS permit requires ground water monitoring to demonstrate that
drinking water standards are being met at the property boundary. If the
system includes a licensed facility, such as a resort, mobile home park,
hospital, retirement facility, etc., the Minnesota Department ofHeaIth
(MOH) must also review the pian. The permit's tenns and conditions will
vary depending on the ultimate disposal location of the treated wastewater.
If the discharge is to surface water, effluent limitations will be specified
within an NPDES permit to protect water quality standards and the
designated uses of the waters of the state. If the discharge is to ground
water, the permit applicant will be required to meet drinking water
standards at the property boundary. In both cases the permit will include
monitoring of the effluent to ensure that standards are being met and to
demonstrate that the system is operating efficiently.
To obtain an NPDES or an SDS permit, a permit application must be
submitted to the MPCA at least 180 days prior to starting construction of
the wastewater treatment facility.
..,
Site Characteristics /
There are several factors that should be considered when planning a
wastewater treatment system that serves a cluster development and
discharges to groundwater. The first is a general assessment of the
suitability of a site's geology and soil Existing water table elevations,
shallow aquifers, land slope, soil texture, and permeability must all be
evaluated. In sensitive areas, additional treatment of the sewage effluent
will be required. Site soil type and landscape position also need to be
identified.
Soil type and wastewater flow determine the size of the system. The size
and location of the soil treatment unit is determined by the estimated daily
sewage flow and a sizing factor based on soil texture and permeability.
Although not required, it is good plannine pmctice to make sure that there
is a secondary treatment site of equal size available. In the case of larger
systems, those over 10,000 gpd, it is wise to be able to accommodate 2.5
times the estimated volume of flow. Providing additional area allows
maximum opemtional flexibility and leaves room for future expansion.
There are a number of siting factors that can have a long-term impact on
the operation and use of the system. Road and sewer development need to
be coordinated with system siting and construction, for example. The \
collector sewer needs to conform with appropriate design standards.
Location of the sewage treatment site needs to fit with the overall physical
plan of the development. Areas reserved for future development need to be
clearly identified. And the proposed sewage site needs to fit with existing
plans for open space and buffers around a development's residences (see
Figure 1).
Estimated Daily Sewage Flow
Once site characteristics have been defined, an estimate can be made of
the volume of sewage flow from a development. There is no simple recipe
to follow when estimating such flows. It's as much an art as it is a science.
However, because the estimates of flow volume will greatly influence the
type of system selected and how well that system performs, it's important
that system designers and community decision-makers be as accurate as
possible.
The regulatory agencies, MPCA and MDH, playa major role in estimating
flow volumes. If the agencies choose to continue with the current
approach, considered to have a large safety factor built in, then minimal
deviation from the current conservative estimates spelled out in Minnesota
Rules Chapter 7080 should be used (Table 1). Currently, any reduction in
flows from Chapter 7080 requires approval by the pennitting authority.
/ Oversizing systems can have positive and negative results, depending on
the final treatment system selected. For example, ifa package plant (a
non-soil-based treatment unit consisting of an aerobic tank followed by a
chlorination process) provides wastewater treatment, oversizing leads to
increased costs and lower operational efficiency.
On the other hand, some oversizing is desirable for soil-based treatment
systems. Oversizing allows a treatment system's parts to be rested
periodicaIly, creating more flexible operation and extending system life.
From a regulatory view, oversizing also reduces the need for monitoring
and maintenance. Both of these are positives for individual systems, where
it is hard to get individuals to perform such simple maintenance tasks as
the regular cleaning of septic tanks.
, Flow is a critical piece of the puzzle. Keep in mind that basic decisions
made early in designing a wastewater system cany through the
construction and operating phases, and can have a large impact on system
performance.
When estimating flows, it is important to strike a balance among three
considerations - the desired treatment, the level of monitoring, and costs.
System Monitoring
/ \
In cluster wastewater systems, there is more focus on flexible operation
and a greater need to monitor how well a system is doing. Monitoring adds
an additional burden, to the owner-operator as well as the regulatory
agency, because of the need to track, evaluate and change (or add to) a
system based on its operating record.
System Types
After identifYing the site and flow characteristics, the type of system can
be selected. There is a wide variety of choices and they all offer
advantages and disadvantages. The key is understanding each system's
requirements and having a plan in place that will ensure the system's long-
term operation. In looking at the available treatment options, it is
necessary to discuss how they fit into a development plan, and where they
should be used. It is important to note that all the systems described below
require pretreatment, either through septic tanks or some other kind of
sewage tank.
. Sub-surface Systems
. . . Community Drainfields
For individual sewage treatment systems not limited by soil ,~ '\
conditions, the most commonly used unit is trenches. A drainfield
trench is constructed by making a level excavation 18-36 inches
deep. Clean rock is placed in the bottom of the excavation to a
depth of 12-24 inches; then, a four-inch diameter distribution pipe,
using one pipe per trench, is placed on the rock and covered with
soil (Figure 2). Pipe or chamber systems without gravel can be
used as substitutes for the rock. Treatment occurs in the natural soil
through interrelated physical, chemical, and biological processes.
Special siting considerations for trench systems include:
- trenches need to be installed on a site's contour with the excavation
depth limited by saturated soil or bedrock;
- a minimum of 10 feet on center must be maintained between
trenches;
- the site must be large enough to accommodate a series of trenches
laid along the natural slope.
. . . Soil Treatment Mounds
In areas where limiting soil conditions do not allow the installation
of sewage treatment trenches, mounds are an option. They are
constructed with a layer of clean sand and leveled with a foot-deep
rock layer before being covered by soil (see Figure 3). Special
siting and construction considerations for cluster mound systems
are: \
- the configuration needs to be a long, narrow rectangle;
- mounds need to be installed on a site's contour with the special
consideration that they don't act as dams for surface or subsurface
flow across the site;
- iEmore than one mound is required (which is usually the case), there
must be adequate distance between them to allow for construction
and to assure they do not interfere with one another hydraulically.
. . . Constructed Wetland Systems
Constructed wetlands treat wastewater by bacterial decomposition,
settling, and IDtering (see Figure 4). As in tank designs, bacteria
break down organic matter in the wastewater, both aerobically and
anaerobica1Iy. Oxygen for aerobic decomposition is supplied by
the plants growing in the wetland. Solids are IDtered and fina1ly
settle out of the wastewater within the wetland. After about two
weeks in the wetland, efiluent is usually discharged by gravity to
an unlined wetland bed.
If these systems discharge efiluent to surface ditches, they require
a National Pollutant Discharge EIimination System (NPDES)
pennit. In theory, any wetland design could incorporate a soil
treatment system for final efiluent treatment, but since the wetland
itself takes up a lot of space, communities are unlikely to construct
a soil treatment system in addition to the wetland.
. . . Sand Filters
The sand filter uses sand, like a mound in a box, as a medium for
treating wastewater. This system has been used with great success
for over 100 years and there is a large amount of infonnation
available about design and applications (see Figure 5).
Wastewater should be introduced by pressure distribution. The
goal is to load the system as evenly as possible over the IDter
surface. This is best accomplished by using a pump to put the
wastewater under pressure inside the pipe. This aIlows the waste to
move through the filter at a rate that maximizes treatment. This
system's treatment mechanisms are physical IDtering and ion
exchange. A properly operating sand IDter should produce high
quality wastewater.
. . . Drip Irrigation
This soil-based treatment system has been tested and used
extensively in the southern United States. It uses small diameter
tubing and a series of emitters to apply wastewater to the soil's
upper layers (see Figure 6). By applying smaIl amounts of efiluent
over a large area, evaporation is maximized, as is plants' ability to
take up water and nutrients. The system is slightly larger than a
conventional trench system. Although adding the eflluent slowly
, '\
over a large area increases treatment efficiency, lines freezing in
winter can be a problem.
. Above-surface Systems
. . . Aerobic Tanks and Package Plants
Aerobic tanks treat wastewater far better than conventional septic
tanks. This is due to the oxygen that is added to the liquid in the
tank (see Figure 7). Aerobic tanks are, however, considerably more
complicated to design, construct and maintain than septic tanks.
Aerobic tanks are available in residential or small-community
sizes. In either case, these tanks require more maintenance than
conventional septic tanks. If problems arise with the supply of air
to the bacteria, an aerobic tank loses all its effectiveness. If there
are problems with settling (more likely in these designs than with
conventional tanks), there will be problems in the soil treatment
system. It's critical that aerobic tanks be monitored regularly and
repaired as needed.
For community aerobic tanks, there is a single location that needs
checking and maintenance. Individual aerobic tanks provide
multiple opportunities for problems and each one must be '\
inspected as frequently as larger tanks. The aerobic tanks serving
individual residences contain both the aeration and settling areas
within the same tank. Since the discharge is to the soil there is no
disinfection.
Package plants for small communities usually consist of an
aeration tank followed by a settling tank and some type of
disinfection or chlorination unit that treats the water before
discharge.
. . . Spray Irrigation
Spray irrigation uses both biological and chemical processes to
treat wastewater. The pretreated and often disinfected wastewater.
is applied at low rates to agricultural or wooded areas.
A spray irrigation system often consists ofa septic tank (that
provides a highly pretreated effluent), a sand filter and a
disinfection unit within a spray application site. The final product
is applied to the spray field through a conventional sprinkler
system (see Figure 8).
Site suitability is determined by soil permeability, the depth to
saturated soil or bedrock, the availability of a buffer zone, and land
slope. For proper treatment of wastewater, the soil must remain "
unsaturated, just as it does in subsurface systems.
Compared to other wastewater treatment alternatives, spray
irrigation systems require more land. That's why they may be best
suited for recreational areas (such as golf courses) and agricultural
land.
System Costs
Estimates should be made of a system's capital costs and its operational
costs over its expected lifetime. Capital costs include land, equipment
(tanks, pumps, rock, etc.) and construction. Operational costs include
electricity, pump replacement, repairs, and such routine maintenance as
the periodic cleaning of septic tanks or the replacement of sand in sand
filters.
It is difficult to know whether one system is better than another. That's
because any comparison depends on numerous factors, including how
flows are estimated and whether research will confinn that less soil
treatment area is needed for effluent that is largely pretreated. Other
important considerations affecting comparisons are the specific site
conditions, a site's slope and the location of individual lots.
It currently appears that the standards for soil treatment units contained in
Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 are cost-effective at flows of 5,000 gpd
and Jess. For flows between 5,000 and 15,000 gpd, the least costly system
is a series of individual septic tanks (one for each residence) connected to
a communal drainfield or mound system. Sand filters, aerobics tanks and
package plants become more advantageous, especially if a 50 percent
reduction in the size of the soil treatment area is allowed. If there is plenty
oflow-cost land available, spray irrigation becomes a viable, cost-
effective system. For flows over 15,000 gpd municipal wastewater
treatment systems such as waste stabilization ponds and mechanical
treatment plants start becoming cost-effective depending on the individual
situation.
Authors
1. L. Anderson
Professor and Extension Soil Scientist
Department orSoil, Water and Climate University of Minnesota
and SRF Consulting Group
(612) 625-8209
i anderson@extension.umn.edu
David Gustafson
Assistant Extension Specialist
On-Site Sewage Treatment and Instruction
Department ofBiosystems and Agricultural Engineering
, "
University of Minnesota Extension Service
(612) 625-6711
dgustafson@extension.umn.edu
For More Information
Thomas Wegner
Extension Educator
University of Minnesota Extension Service
Hennepin County
(612) 374-8400
twegner@extension.umn.edu
,
Alternative Wastewater Treatment System 2.
..;....;.;.......
t'
".
........m..... ....... Lat 7
Lat 5 D-- ........Lat 6 ...........
........ D
..-..-.---
..~~;.~.D....... '-"'0 D ....
Lot 14 . -"D'" .....,..
Lot 3 D .../ ......" ...' D......
......' .,,' 0 .............. Lot 9
..~~;.; 0 .. ''''''L~t ~.~...... 0 '.. ..,......."
.." D'"
m.......... Lot 16 Lat 12
Lot 1 D Lot 11
D." ..... ....1 [.... ....~.at 10
...... -~.. -',.
,.....
Figure 1.
Table 1. Estimated sewage flows in gallons per day
I Number Type Type Type Type
[ of bedrooms I II ill IV
I j
, I
I 2 300 225 180 I
! 3 450 300 218 I
I ~~
i 4 600 375 256 the values I
I 5 750 450 294 in Type I, II, ,
j 6 900 525 332 or III I
columns
7 1050 600 370 I
I 8 1200 675 408
/ "
I
I I
i
I Type I: The total floor area of the residence divided by the number of
bedrooms is more than 800 square feet, or more than two of the I
following water-use appliances are installed: automatic washer, i
dishwasher, water softener, garbage disposal, or self-cleaning furnace.
I
,
I Type II: The total floor area of the residence divided by the number of
bedrooms is more than 500 square feet, and no more than two water-
I use appliances are installed.
I Type ill: The total floor area of the residence divided by the number
of bedrooms is less than 500 square feet, and no more than two water-
I use appliances are installed.
I Type IV: Type I, II, or III homes but with no toilet wastes discharged
I into the sewage system. I
I Onsite Sewage Treatment Manual, University of Minnesota Extension I
Service, 1998, St. Paul. I
I
I
\
Perforated distribution
pipo, 10vol ar sl't.ing
uniforml~ away rom
distributlon box
Figure 2.
Limiting layer
Perforatod Jatoral pipos
Raughonod layor
Figure 3. , . - ,
Canst ructed wot land Unlinod wotland bod
~t~.~~,~~@t~;~,~l~t~~g~f
Lmor . i
Rocommondod 3' soparat,on
1 Rocommondod 3' soparation
---~------ --- 1
---~------~--------_.
Saturatod soil
Figure 4.
Porf orated di st ri but i on pi po
Figure 5.
Typical small-diamotor drip tubing
0 ~ 1
Drip arifico J
Control
R.t urn li ne panel
Figure 6.
/
, '\
Di sohar-ge-
Pl asH 0
screen
Air nozzle assembly
Figure 7.
.;t!\(;
Spray head "Wi".
~;'!)~u;I
Di 5i nf ect i on and
spr ay dasi"9
Figure 8.
,
&SIDENTlAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT:
f.:i3,h~~~~~'1!tE~
~.;.,f.:'" 'l.'.'j~.,...,.,.,.~.:.".;.1.. Storm Water 3
flew- f!?J.,'" o.
K' V,., ,- M
!;7" . ii';i;~ anagement
f;;,f1 . .;.,~ /t~~V"~~~
lo"Il.,.",".",..-.
~fi~ti~l f~~ti~i1.:~
Robert D. Sykes. ASIA
Summary
Residential cluster developments offer local governments an excellent
opportunity to manage storm water more effectively than they can in
conventional developments. This publication reviews the fundamentals of
storm water management, highlighting the problems conventional
developments have in this area, and identifying the benefits of cluster
design in developing a natural system of storm water management There
is also a description of an existing subdivision that benefitted from this
new design.
Fundamentals of Storm Water Management
In every location there are two storm water management systems, the
major and the minor. Three considerations largely shape the design of
these systems: flooding, convenience and water quality. Paths taken by
runoff from very large storms are called major systems. Where these
systems are specifically designed, flooding is usually avoided. But where
the effects of large storms are not specifically considered or planned for,
flood damage can be substantial.
Systems designed with convenience in mind quickly remove runoff water
from areas such as streets and sidewalks because they're difficult to use
when covered with water. Convenience facilities like storm sewers,
technically referred to as minor systems, quickly remove the peak flow of
a runoff resulting from typical small storms.
Apart from temporary measures to control sediment in construction areas,
water quality concerns in residential areas focus on the polluting
substances washed from paved surfaces and carried into streams or other
bodies of water during storms. Pollutants carried in runoff include
sediments, nutrients, chemicals, disease-carrying organisms and heavy
metals. Sources of these pollutants include grass clippings, leaves, eroded
soil, fertilizer particles, oil and gasoline drippings, animal droppings, and
metal flecks from vehicles. Detention ponds remove most of these
suspended substances from runoff by temporarily holding it until the
particles settle out (see Figure 1). Regulations require such ponds.
\
Storm Water Management
in Conventional Developments
Since World War II, conventional zoning has typically led to the
development of residential subdivisions that completely blanket a parcel
with evenly-spaced lots. This results from zoning provisions that require
minimum lot sizes and widths, and from local governments requiring
developers to construct streets that serve every lot. In most cases, these
streets must have curbs, gutters and storm sewers (see Figure 2).
The adverse effects of storm water management in traditional
developments mainly occurs because of changes made to the character of
the land surface. Developments introduce roofs and large areas of
pavement, referred to as impervious surfaces, which substantially reduce
the amount of rainfall soaking into the soil and substantially increase the
amount of runoff.
Because pavements and roofs have much less surface area to wet in a
rainstonn compared to plant-covered lands, more water is also free to run
off these simpler, impervious smooth surfaces. Because they are smoother,
water also runs off them faster. Instead of flowing off slowly over a long
period of time, a larger volume of water arrives downstream at the same
time much like rush hour on highway networks. More water running more
quickly causes "traffic jams" of water downstream that we commonly call
flooding.
This addition of impervious surfaces associated with urbanization can
significantly contribute to lowering the water table, both locally and
regionally. * This can skew the balance of water over time into a feast-
and-famine moisture pattern between storms and dry periods.
Development under conventional zoning does little to minimize, much less
prevent, these ill effects. Curbs hold water in the roadway, requiring stonn
sewers to let it out. The round pipes used for stonn sewers move masses of
water very efficiently. But instead of moving runoff slowly over natural
surfaces so it soaks in, runoff moves rapidly once it's inside stonn sewers,
with no opportunity to infiltrate the soil. The high speed offlow keeps
pollutants suspended in the runoff. Constructed ponds are then required to
remove pollutants and reduce peak flows. Since stonn sewers are designed
to flow without pumps, they tend to be put in the lowest portions of the
landscape which are natural drainage-ways. Streets then follow this
drainage pattern. Thus when storm sewers overflow, the street's smooth,
uninterrupted, impervious surfaces become the paths flood flows follow.
The proverbial "cookie cutter syndrome" that results from conventional
zoning (houses spread evenly over an entire site) leads to a large amount ,
of pavement so the streets connect to all the houses. In addition, large lots
and front yard set-backs necessitate even more pavement to connect
/ garages and front doors to streets. With all this pavement connected, there
is much less opportunity for runoff to soak into the ground. In short,
conventional development carries with it a subtle but powerful bias toward
maximizing both the quantity and speed of runoff.
Storm Water Management in
Cluster Developments
Cluster zoning allows the same number of houses on a site as conventional
zoning (see Figure 3). However, it allows developers to put the houses on
smaller lots and requires the preservation of large areas of a site as open
space where houses can never be built. These two provisions give local
governments and developers the flexibility needed for good design and
modem storm water management.
The layout for a clustered housing development can be arranged so that
the steep slopes, natural drainage-ways, and areas of prime vegetation fall
where the open space is (see Figure 4). And by clustering lots closer
together and facing them on open spaces, shorter roads (and less
pavement) are necessary. Smaller, narrower lots also help reduce the need
for pavement in driveways and walks, as in Figure 3.
Clustering enables a better relationship between impervious surfaces and
I natural drainageways, too. Roads can be placed along ridge lines, with
houses just off the ridges on the ridge 'brow.' This means that most
pavement and roofs are located as far from the preserved natural drainage
system as possible (see Figure 5). Runofffrom impervious surfaces now
flows slowly over pervious, vegetation-covered areas, soaking into the
soi~ which filters out some of the pollutants before the storm water
reaches lakes, rivers and streams. Greater use is made of drainage devices
such as ditches and swales. (Similar to ditches, swales are typically short,
shallow and wide depressions covered with vegetation.) Costs are lowered
because curbs and storm sewers are no longer needed. More rainfall is
directed toward the replenishment of ground water. The development
generates a smaller volume of runoff moving more slowly toward the
bodies of water receiving it.
Management of Storm Water Facilities in
Cluster Developments and Open Spaces
Preservation of natural drainage systems and the use of overland swales
for storm water require a different approach to maintenance and repair
than traditional storm sewer systems. Most of all, this type of storm water
network requires maintenance of living plants and occasional removal of
sediment. This in turn requires a management organization designed and
funded for that purpose. Public works departments are one alternative for
managing these natural drainage systems. There are three other
, ,
management options: (1) homeowners associations, (2) stonn water
utilities, and (3) water quality cooperatives. .
. Homeowners Associations
A homeowners association is initially established by the land
developer as a nonprofit organization. Through deed restrictions,
all homeowners are members of the association and bound to the
subdivision. This means the association can set rules and assess
membership fees for the care of commonly owned property,
including stonn water systems and open spaces.
. Stonn Water Utilities
In Minnesota, a local government may establish a storm water utility for the
maintenance of storm water infrastructure. Many cities have done so in the last
fifteen years to take care of storm water detention ponds. A storm water utility
can assess the costs of its services to property owners that benefit from the storm
water facilities it owns or for which it is respoIlS1ble. Two Minnesota examples
are the cities of Lake Elmo and Marine-on-St Croix.
. Water Quality Cooperatives
Individuals can also form water quality cooperatives that own and care for the
storm water infrastructure discussed above. Cooperatives are non-profit,
member-owned organizations that provide services to their members and are
financed through a membership fee structure. These organizations can also be
used to join together several homeowners associations by usiug the Master , '\
Association feature of the Minnesota Common Interest Ownership Act. By
joining, these groups effectively improve their bargaining position when
securing technical management or other services for their residents.
The Woodlands Case
Study
Nationally, one of the best-
known developments to
use residential clustering
for a natural system of ..Jl~ji~f~I2t:;~:~<tJ~::,~
storm water management is
The Woodlands New
Community outside Typical residential street in The Woodlands,
Texas. (photo courtesy of Professor Davis G.
Houston, Texas. This Pitt, Department of Landscape Architecture,
20,OOO-acre town was University of Minnesota)
planned and designed by
Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd, Landscape Architects and Planners,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The site is flat and heavily wooded, with
extensive areas of poorly-drained soils. Clustering was included in the
firm's comprehensive plan to preserve the site's natural drainage system,
avoid environmentally-critical areas, work with existing topography, and
maintain prevailing hydrological conditions. ,
The Woodlands' general plan used the existing natural drainage system to I
provide the town's major stonn water system. Major roads and dense
development were located along ridge lines, while preserving the natural
flood plains as parks and open'space. Rather than an underground stonn
sewer system, the minor storm water system is made up of open space and
roadside and lot-line swales. The minor system focused on getting small
rainstorms to soak: into the soil.
In its original plan. engineers compared the capital cost of the natural
drainage system to that of a conventional system and found that the natural
approach saved over $14 million. In addition, a conventional storm water
management approach would have cleared thousands of trees, increased
runoff 180 percent, degraded downstream water quality, and caused a
daily water table draw-down of 15 million gallons. The plan avoided or
sharply reduced the impact of all these problems. * *
The ultimate measure of The Woodlands' approach occurred one April day
in 1979 when a record storm dropped nine inches of rainfall on the
Houston area in less than five hours. No houses in The Woodlands
experienced any flooding. But neighboring areas, with conventional storm
water management systems, were hit hard by flood damage.
'" This is most readily observed by drops in the depth of stream base flows (flows between rainfalls). Base
flow is fed by subsurface (groundwater) runoff. Subsurface runoff is supported by infiltration of rainfall
from the surfuce. The water table is the top of the saturated zone of soil- the top of the subsurface runoff. In
tuban areas, imperviousness reduces replenishment of subsurfuce flows and is directly reflected by drops in
the water table. See Schueler, Tom (l995) Site Planningfor Urban Stream Protection, Silver Spring, MD:
I Center for Watershed Protection, Ch.l; Ferguson, Bruce K. (1994) Stormwater Infiltration. Boca Raton,
FL: Lewis Publishers, Ch. 1; and Leopold, Luna B. (1974) Water, A Primer. San Francisco, CA: W. Ii
Freeman and Company.
'" For more information see Juneja, Narendra and James BeItman (1980) "Natural Drainage in The
'" Woodlands" in Stam/water Management Altematives, J. Toby Tourbier and Richards Westmacott, Newatk,
NJ: Water Resources Center, University ofDe1aware Development of the Woodlands.
Authors
Robert Sykes
Associate Professor
Department of Landscape Architecture
(612) 625-6091
sykes002@maroon,tc.umn.edu
For More Information
Thomas Wegner
Extension Educator
University of Minnesota Extension Service
Hennepin County
(612) 374-8400
twegner@extension.umn.edu
/ \
Storm Water management 3
Conoreto outlet struature
Temparary storage volume (incorporates v-notoh weir)
________ _~______ Starm overflow
Permanent 'W at er
Figure 1.
HousE's,n historically
l undesirablelaaatian with
Storm seWE'rs ~ respect to topography
mi nor st orms Curb inlets
Figure 2.
.g '\
i~'mT
,~.' l\(~ 1.1
L ._._.:b.L.j3.J
2 d'W91ling units/acre gross density 2 dwelling units/aore gross density
2 dwelling units/acre net density 4 dwelling units/aare net density
12 dwelling units on 6 acres 12 dwell; ng unit s on 3 aores
Figure 3.
~ilIcur \ r s~
Figure 4.
'\
/
Natural drainageways preserwd
olong with ossaoioted wgohtion
Figure 5.
I
I
/ "
&SIDENTIAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT:
f.~W.f~~t}~.rt;~ 4
I~~ Management Options
~ Wr'
t~~~\'~jflji
Mathew Mega. Jon Erik Kingstad and Robert Sykes
Summary
This publication discusses basic management concepts used in new
residential cluster developments, as well as the options available to
municipalities and developers when establishing a management structure.
Management of Basic Functions
In a residential cluster development, the services residents are most
concerned about include. management of commonly~held open space,
treatment of household wastewater and control of storm water runoff.
F \
To manage these concerns, a management structure is necessary that
identifies which services will be delivered, who will deliver them, and
what resources will be used.
At the most basic level, management in a new cluster development means
identifying individuals responsible for the construction, operation and
maintenance of wastewater, storm water and open-space systems over the
life of the cluster development.
. Construction
This involves the basic design decisions about what services will be provided
and defines construction standards. Construction is usually the developer's
responsibility.
. Operation
While there is operation and oversight of open space and storm water runoff:
here the term operation usually refers to wastewater treatment facilities. If
houses have individual on-site septic systems, the individual homeowner is
responSlble. As more complex wastewater treatment systems such as package
plants are used, however, a professional operator will be required to oversee
operations.
. Maintenance
This is the most important function of the management structure, and its major
components are the physical maintenance of wastewater and storm water
systems. A good management structure should also provide a framework for , "
future capital investment and system replacement. Management structures
covering maintenance in most current developments usually do not have a future
capital investment plan, which means that the developments tend to react to
problems as they occur.
Current Management Situation
. OpeD Space
Most residential cluster developments focus management activities on the
protection of open space and the enforcement of community bylaws. This
includes the maintenance of active and passive recreational areas, including
ballfields, tennis courts, trails, and common areas. The majority of these issues
can be addressed easily through a homeowners association (BOA). Residents
automatically become members when they purchase a home and each household
has an equal vote in such things as the setting of annual dues, physical design
standards (e.g., house color), and the hiring of maintenance crews. Open space is
protected through the use of deed restrictions, conservation easements or
dedication ofland to the municipality.
. Storm Water Drainage Systems
CUlTently, two distinct forms of storm water management are simultaneously in
place in residential cluster developments. Developers provide a basic storm
water drainage system consisting of grassed swales and large detention ponds.
The prevailing view is that these do not require extensive maintenance or
replacement (for more information, see publication three of this series). The
municipality, which controls the stormwater management structure in the
majority of cluster developments, is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep
of the second system, the curbs and gutters of public streets.
Many cluster developments lack a formal management structure.
Once construction is complete, little attention is given to the storm
water system's future needs beyond the mowing of swales, a task
usually done by individual homeowners. When a problem does
occur, such as the need to dredge a detention pond, the HOA must
independently discover the procedure for correcting the problem.
This leads to a reactionary management structure where problems
are only addressed as they happen.
. Wastewater Treatment
When there are individual septic tanks and drainfields, there is no formal
management structure in place. Homeowners are responsible for the
maintenance and upkeep of their own systems. In cluster developments, where
individual drainfields may be placed in commonly-held open space, proper
. maintenance is still the ultimate responsibility of the individual homeowner.
This fact sheet concludes with a more detailed look at wastewater management
structures.
Technological Advances Lead to
Increased Management Complexity
Unlike conventional subdivision developments, cluster developments
explicitly incorporate greater housing density (on parts of a site), rural
technologies, and innovative design to preserve more open space, to
protect environmentally sensitive areas, and, sometimes, to preserve
agricultural landscapes (see publication one). Technological advances in
" "
storm water drainage systems (publication three) and wastewater treatment
systems (publication two) have greatly enhanced developers' ability to
propose cluster designs.
Advances in wastewater treatment can ensure the protection of
groundwater because systems can be located on a development's most
suitable areas. Additionally, both the municipality and the developer can
benefit from economies of scale by consolidating resources and
minimizing duplication.
Better storm water management, including the use of vegetation and
extensive overland flow systems, increases the opportunity to remove
contaminants and keep sediment from discharging into local bodies of
water.
However, many advances in rural technologies such as package plants,
require professional maintenance and monitoring to ensure proper
performance. This greater level of responsibility requires more complex
management stnlctures. Such a situation also makes it more desirable for
municipalities, homeowners and developers to share this responsibility.
How to Select a Management Structure
- \
As the complexity of residential cluster development increases, the local
municipality needs to choose the management stnlcture. This decision will
be strongly influenced by the developer's design and layout proposals,
however. Hopefully, the process creates a residential development that
meets community goals, affords the developer appropriate financial gain.
and provides homeowners with safe basic services that function properly.
. Role of the Developer
The developer is the first and most critical stakeholder in
establishing a management stnlcture. The developer designs a
cluster's layout, including the type and location of commonly-held
resources and rural technologies. The physical design ofthe
proposed cluster must conform to municipal zoning and
subdivision codes. Typically, the developer is the initial petitioner
for the development. The developer is also the key individual in
the initial establishment and the future responsibility of the HOA.
As the HOA's initial member, the developer acts on bebalfof
future homeowners.
. Role of the Municipality
The municipality's primary role is to review and approve the formal design of
the cluster development, ensuring its compatibility with local ordinances and
codes. Usually this does not involve the establishment of a management
structure except to require that developers create an ROA. But municipalities -- ,
can establish formal management structures to aid local residents. An example is
an enviromnental subordinate service district to correct a failing wastewater
treatment system. As the need for alternative management structures arises, the
municipality plays an expanded role in advising about and establishing new
management structures.
Critical Components Influencing the Choice of
Wastewater Management Structure
Three critical factors influence the choice of a wastewater management structure:
1. site characteristics,
2. design of the service system, and
3. size of the service area.
The first two are the developer's responsibility; in most cases, the municipality decides
the third.
. Site Characteristics
The physical characteristics of the site such as soil conditions,
vegetative cover and areas of excessive slope determine what
wastewater treatment facilities are most appropriate.
. System Design
Once a specific system is chosen, its components determine the degree of
monitoring and maintenance that is necessary, pointing almost inexorably to a
specific management structure. For instance, a package plant has the capacity to
service many units, but because it involves a number of mechanical components,
it requires a professiOnally trained and licensed technician to ensure that the
I system runs smoothly. Community drainfields, on the other hand, with few
mechanical components, require less strict monitoring (see Figure n.
. Senice Area
The municipality should have some insight into the potential grouping of cluster
developments in its community. If multiple cluster developments are close
together, the municipality may choose to consolidate resources by incorporating
all the clusters under a common management structure. If clusters are
independent of each other, a simpler structure is usually more appropriate.
Specific Management Options for
Wastewater Treatment
Six management options exist to handle wastewater treatment, three public and three
private.
. Private Management Options
. . . Homeowners Association
The most common management entity utilized today, the HOA's
structure is determined by bylaws, which are usually typical of
regulations for community property. Many municipalities require
an HOA as a condition of plat approval for cluster developments
and many codes state basic requirements HOAs must meet. After
establishing an HOA, a developer remains a member until a set
number of housing units are sold, usually around 50 percent. The
primary disadvantage of the HOA is its lack of dedicated support
staff and technical expertise when dealing with the additional
/ '\
monitoring and maintenance requirements associated with
community wastewater treatment facilities. ,
. . . Privatized Joint Venture
Private management of wastewater treatment is authorized under
the Privatized Capital Intensive Services Act in Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 471A Under this statute, a local unit of government may
contract for private wastewater treatment with a private vendor
who provides service to residents for a user charge approved by the
local unit of government. Creating the joint venture allows the
HOA or the local unit of government to hire management with
expertise beyond the capacities of the individual homeowners. As a
permanent management structure, the joint venture also removes
the burdens of monitoring and maintenance from the ROA or the
local unit of government.
A privatized joint venture could be used to link a number of cluster
developments' HOAs through a "master association" under the
Minnesota Common Interest Ownership Act to provide wastewater
treatment services beyond the capability of the individual HOA for
a fee.
. . . Water Quality Cooperative ' "-
Just as residents have organized rural electric cooperatives to j
obtain a lower-cost essential service, the cooperative framework
enables individuals to obtain management expertise, monitoring,
and maintenance beyond the capabilities of individual residents or
even homeowners associations. The cooperative entity bas the
power to levy charges for its services, but the cost savings flow
back to members as profits or capital credits. Legislation enacted
in 1997 by the Minnesota legislature bas authorized the creation of
two pilot water quality cooperatives to own, operate, manage and
control alternative sewage treatment systems and provide other
water quality management and treatment services.
. Public Management Options
. . . Municipal Utility
The most familiar form of public management structure is a
separate government entity providing basic services such as storm
water, water supply or wastewater management. Municipal utilities
can assess property owners who benefit from using the public
service the utilities provide. Cities, counties and townships have
the authority to plan, finance, construct and maintain sewer service
systems within their boundaries.
'.
. . . Sanitary Sewer District
Sanitary sewer districts can be created in several ways. Townships,
-
cities, counties or 20 percent of the voters residing and owning
land in the affected area may petition the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. Additionally, general purpose governments may
enter into a joint powers agreement to create a sewer district. A
county, district court and even the state legislature may create a
district by passing a new law specific to the affected area.
. . . Subordinate Service District
Townships use these to establish an area for improvement. An
example would be upgrading a failing wastewater treatment
system. Subordinate service districts are defined areas in a town in
which one or more government services or additions to townwide
services are provided by the town, with revenues financed from
inside the area.
Authors
Mathew Mega
Graduate Student
Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
University of Minnesota
and SRF Consulting Group
(612) 475-0010
mmega@srfconsulting.com
Jon Erik Kingstad
Research FelIow--Attorney at Law
Center for Rural Technology & Cooperative Development
(CRTCD)
Department of Landscape Architecture
University of Minnesota
(612) 626-9818
kingsOll@tc.umn.edu
Robert Sykes
Associate Professor
Department of Landscape Architecture
(612) 625-6091
sykes002(a),maroon. tc. umn. edu
For More Information
Thomas Wegner
Extension Educator
University of Minnesota Extension Service
Hennepin County
[ "
(612) 374-8400
twegner@extension.umn,edu
Paul R. Jacobs
Director, Center for Rural Technology and
Cooperative Development
Department of Landscape Architecture
University of Minnesota
(612) 626-9709
, \
/-,
Management Options
, ~,~
_i;g}~~l~_, " 9. . m (tY~i~'l~ .
.-------, . 10 0! ~0 .
===-.:-.:..-.:;l---'- -----:..L_=.-__:.2.. __-=. __
--------1
- --- - ----
---_ _____.J
Figure 1.
~ CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUESr FORCOUNCILACTION
DATE: AlJgll!':t R. ?OOO
AGENDA SECTION ORlGINA TING DEPARTMENT
Discussion Item
Scott Erickson,
Engineering
IT8VI NO. 2.
Approve Feasibility Report/Project #11-18/Extensions of Andover Blvd NW
The City Council is requested to review the feasibility report previously ordered for the extension of
Andover Boulevard. The report addresses the construction of Andover Boulevard between Crosstown
Boulevard and Round Lake Boulevard. The report will also address assessments for the school and
costs for the extension of utilities beyond the proposed school site. Assessments to properties beyond
the school are not included as a part of this report. Also, the report provides a costs analysis for a
pedestrian crossing of Crosstown Boulevard. It is anticipated that the report will be reviewed by the
City Council at this meeting for comment and further direction.
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: August 8. 2000
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Discussion Community Development
ITEM NO. 3
Discuss School Issues David L. Carlberg
with the Anoka-Hennepin Community Development Director
ISD # 11
The City Council is requested to discuss various school issues with the Anoka-Hennepin ISD #
11.
,
,
@ CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: Auqust8.2DDD
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Non-Discussion/Consent Items/ADD-ON
Scott Erickson,
Engineering
ITEM NO.
Accept Feasibility Report/DD-3D/
13635 & 13625 Gladiola Street NWNVM
The City Council is requested to approve the resolution accepting the feasibility report, waiving hearing
and ordering improvement for the improvement of watermain for Project DO-30,
13635 & 13625 Gladiola Street NW.
The feasibility report reflects an estimated project cost of $35,334.00. If the project is ordered it is
estimated the City would need to finance (carry) $23,556.00 or assess the adjacent properties. A
petition was previously received from some of the neighbors to have City water brought into the
neighborhood. A feasibility report is currently being developed but the timing of this report will not
resolve the issue for these properties.
13635 Gladiola Street NW
Watermain
Area Charge
0.372 Acres x $1.195 = $444.54
Acre
Lateral Charge (% the cost of construction to service the east side of Gladiola Street NW. Three
potential services on the east side so Va of % the construction costwould be the lateral benefit.)
$35.334.00 = $17.667.00 = $5,889.00
2 3
Connection Charge
= $1,375.00
Total Assessment for Watermain at 13635 Gladiola Street NW = $7,708.54
13625 Gladiola Street NW
Watermain
Area Charge
0.976 Acres x $1.195 = $1,166.32
Acre
Lateral Charge (% the cost of construction to service the east side of Gladiola Street NW. Three
potential services on the east side so Va of % the construction cost would be the lateral benefit.)
$35.334.00 = $17.667.00 = $5,889.00
2 3
Connection Charge
= $1,375.00
Total Assessment for Watermain at 13625 Gladiola Street NW = $8,430.32
.
.
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
MOTION by Councilmember to adopt the following:
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY STUDY, WAIVING PUBLIC
HEARING, ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND DIRECTING PREPARATION OF
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PROJECT NO.
00-30 FOR WATERMAIN IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS 13635 & 13625
GLADIOLA STREET NW.
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 20th day of Auoust 8 ,2000,
order the preparation of a feasibility study for the improvement; and
WHEREAS, such feasibility study was prepared by the Citv Enoineer
and presented to the Council on the ....IDIL day of Auoust ,2000 ; and
WHEREAS, the property owners have waived the right to a Public Hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the feasibility study and declares
the improvement feasible, for an estimated cost of $ 35.334.00
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Andover to hereby receive the feasibility report with an estimated total cost of
improvements of $ 35.334.00 waive the Public Hearing and order
improvements. . ,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the property would be assessed over a..Q..
year period. ,
MOTION seconded by Councilmember and adopted by the
City Council at a special meeting this 8th day of Auqust , 2000 , with
Councilmembers voting
in favor of the resolution, and Councilmembers
voting against, whereupon said resolution was declared passed.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
J.E. McKelvey - Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
. -
....
.
Project 00-30
13635 & 13625 Gladiola Street NW
Watermain
Construction Cost Estimate
Item Quantitv Cost
1. Mobilization 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00
2. Connect to Existing Watermain 1 LS $600.00 $600.00
3. 8" DIP CL52 Watermain Pipe 380 LF $20.00 $7,600.00
4. 6" DIP CL52 Watermain Pipe 10 LF $16.00 $160.00
5. 6" MJ Resilient Seat Gate Valve w/Box 1 EA $500.00 $500.00
6. 6" MJ Hub Hvdrant 8'_6" Burv 1 EA $1,200.00 $1,200.00
7. 1" Type K Copper Tap Service 40 LF $18.00 $720.00
8. 1" Corporation Stop 2 EA $100.00 $200.00
9. 1" Curb Stop w/Curb Box 2EA $150.00 $300.00
10. MJ Fittings 200 LBS $2.00 $400.00
12. Bituminous Removal . 960 SY . $2.00 $1,920.00
13. Aggregate Base Class 5 250 TN , $16.00 $4,000.00
14. Bituminous Wear Course Mixture 145 TN $50.00 $7,250.00
MnDOT 2331, Type 41A . .
15. Topsoil Borrow 10'CY $15.00 $150.00
16. Sod 100 SY $5.00 $500.00
17. Traffic Control (4 Road Closed Type III ,1 LS " $500.00 ' $500.00
Barricades)
. $27,180.00
Engineering & Administrative (30%) , . $8,154.00
TOTAL $35,334.00
.
-<.
..
~
~ CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: Auaust 8.2000
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPArMENT
Non-Discussion/Consent Item/ADD-ON Scott Erickson~
Engineering
ITEM NO.
Accept Petition/Order Feasibility ReporU
00-30/13635 & 13625 Gladiola Street NWIWM
The City Council is requested to approve the resolution declaring adequacy of petition and
ordering preparation of a feasibility report for the improvement of watermain for Project 00-30,
in the areas of 13635 & 13625 Gladiola Street NW.
The homeowner's well at 13635 Gladiola Street NW has failed and he has indicated that with
the proximity of the watermain and the potential for City water to be brought into the
neighborhood in the future, he did not want to invest in a new private well if City water was
available.
I I
.. .
.~ ,
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
MOTION by Councilmember to adopt the following:
A RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION AND ORDERING
PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF
WATERMAIN ,PROJECT NO. 00-30, IN THE AREAS OF 13635 & 13625
GLADIOLA STREET NW.
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a petition, dated Auqust 4. 2000
requesting the construction of improvements; and
WHEREAS, such petition has been validated to represent the signatures of
100% of the affected property owners requesting such improvement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Andover that:
1. The petition is hereby declared to be 100% of owners of property affected ;
thereby making the petition unanimous.
2. Escrow amount for feasibility report is 0
3. The proposed improvement is hereby referred to the Citv Enqineer and he is
instructed to provide the City Council with a feasibility report. .
MOTION seconded by Councilmember and adopted by the
City Council at a special meeting this 8th day of Auqust , 2000, with
Councilmembers voting in
favor of the resolution, and Councilmembers voting
against, whereupon said resolution was declared passed.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
J.E. McKelvey - Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
. CO-oO
-.~
'.
./
August 4, 2000
Andover City Engineer
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW
Andover, MN 55304
Re: Municipal Improvements
Dear City Engineer,
We do hereby petition the City of Andover for improvements ofwatermain and any other
improvements related to bringing in city water to our residences, with the costs of the
improvements to be assessed against our properties.
This petition is unanimous and the public hearing may be waived. We would like to be
assessed over a 5-year period.
Sincerely, ~~t-~--
~c!U~
Steven A. Turbenson W: e Benj
13635 GIadiola 81. NW 625 Gladi a 81. NW
Andover, MN 55304 Andove~MN 55304
(Home) 763-755-7941 (Home) 763-757-6017
(Work) 612-671-2059
....;,.
~'., ~