The URL can be used to link to this page

1986 12 01 I I I 2' 7~ ,;..J 'Ui CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DOCEMBER 1, 1986 Councilman Geving called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilman Geving, Councilwoman Watson Mayor Hamilton was absent. STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen and William Engelhardt APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approvethe agenda with the following additions: Councilwoman Watson wanted to discuss the John Pryzmus property, Don Ashworth wanted to discuss the City Engineer candidates and Councilman Geving wanted to discuss the possibility of a stop sign or traffic signals on West 78th Street at Laredo. Councilman Geving also stated that today, December 1, 1986 was the first day of service for the Southwest Metro Transit Commission with the new buses. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Resolution #86-84: Utility Acceptance, Triple Crown Estates. b. Approval of 1987 Meeting Schedule. c. Approval of Contract for Downtown Redevelopment Amendment. d. POD Ordinance, Final Reading including summary ordinance for publ ication. e. Resolution #86-85: Approval of 1987 Budget Resolution. f. Chanhassen Indorr Ice Rink Rental Agreement. All voted in favor and motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting dated November 5, 1986. All voted in favor am motion carried. Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Minutes of the City COuncil meeting dated November 17, 1986 as amended by Councilman Horn am Councilman Geving. All voted in favor and motion carried. 1 6)1 '2 f<< &.I(j~ , City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 Councilman Horn: Page 32, first paragraph, the second to last sentence, I'm not really sure what that says. In fact, after reading through it about 7-8 times, I couldn't remember what I'd even said. I Councilman Geving: Is it your desire to strike that sentence? Councilman Horn: I think the intent of what I was trying to say is that the jurisdiction who would approve what was going on on a particular part of the highway upgrade would be the jurisdiction that would be immediately adjacent to it. It is hard to figure out from what this says, what was being said. The last sentence is the disturbing part. It turns out that the area that we're concerned with is not in our jurisdiction but the point was that if you are adjacent to the area where a change is being made, that municipality will have jurisdiction over that part of the highway and the next statement being that other areas might be affected by it even though they are not adjacent to it but they will not have any say in what happens. However that intent can be brought out. Councilman Geving: If you don't have any corrections or adjustments to the wording, we'll leave it as is. Councilman Horn: I don't think you get that out of what is said. Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 19, 1986. All voted in favor and I motion carried. STREET CONNECTIONS: A. FRONTIER TRAIL B. FOX HOLLOW Councilman Geving: This is the procedure that I would really like to follow tonight for this. We have received a number of petitions, both for and against the extension of these two roadways and I consider it to be a very major issue in the City. One in which we can not take lightly because there are a lot of neighborhood people here involved and it will certainly set precedent for many things that will happen in the future of our community. We have heard a lot of testimony on this already. We have read the Commission notes. We have already had one evening where we entertainErl this item and we took it all the way through to this point where we directed our Staff to go back and do a traffic study which they now have done. I would only say that it was rather unfortunate of us to have mailed out the notices for this item without realizing that the Mayor would not be here tonight. I would prefer personally that we have a full Council for a discussion of this magnitude. Accordingly, I have set this procedure for tonight's meeting. We will take the Staff Report on the Frontier Trail extension followed by public input from anyone who wants to speak and I would like to limit that to several minutes at least. We will close the public input session and finally, it is my intention to table this item for a final vote on December 15th at the final City Council meeting for 1986 when we will have a full Council so at this time I would like to entertain the Staff Report on the Frontier Trail extension. I 2 I I I 277 City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 Barbara Dacy: Both myself and Bill, we have a two part presentation on each of the street connection issues of Frontier Trail and Fox Hollow Drive. First on Frontier Trail. What has been provided to you is information regarding past City Council and Planning Commission action and Minutes. Secondly, information gained from our traffic counts that were taken at several intersections in the pertinent area and third, a discussion regarding typical subdivision design standards. The three alternatives that are brought for Council consideration are one, to make the street connection, secondly, not to make the street connection or thirdly, make connection but provide a physical barrier. What I would like to do is start off with some of the history on the Frontier Trail area then secondly Mr. Engelhardt will review the traffic count information and then finally, I would like to rap up the discussion for the Staff presentation. On the matter as to the history, the development of Frontier Trail, SUnrise Hills neighborhoods and the Frontier Trail connection was even discussed by the City in 1969. What you see here is what in 1969 was to be known as Western Hills 1st Addition, proposed a street connection from the end of Frontier Trail at that time down over to Kerber Blvd.. They had named it at that time as El Paso Trail. This plan obviously was never consummated and in 1980 the Council approved a preliminary plat which also showed the extension of Frontier Trail to Kerber Blvd. in a very similar alignment that was approved as part of the Chanhassen vista plan. This being the existing cul-de-sac and that would be the jog to northwest intersecting into the connection at Kerber Blvd. Secondly, as to the history dimension of the review, the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 1982 and the transportation elements specifically stated concern regarding roadway connections between neighborhoods. It stated that several areas of Chanhassen's transportation system contains access connection problems. Because of the scattered nature and timing of development activity that has occurred, residential neighborhoods have constructed, although adjacent to one another may not contain street connections. The plans specifically cited the Frontier Trail/Carver Beach area. The western extensin of Frontier Trail is essentially along the cul-de-sac. The need exists for a connection of Frontier Trail to Kerber Blvd. which would also accommodate the southerly access of the Carver Beach neighborhood. As to the access to the Carver Beach neighborhood, such was accomplished as part of the Chan vista plat approval. A portion of right-of-way was reserved in the northeast corner of the site. Carver Beach road right now is acting as a long cul-de-sac also so the approval of the right-of-way is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Now moving into the traffic information part of the presentation, Staff analyzed two issues. One, the perception of the shortcut from southbound traffic on Kerber Blvd. into the Chan vista development and then through the Frontier Trail/Laredo Drive neighborhood down to 78th Street. Secondly, the additional traffic that may be caused from the Chanhassen vista development in the north side into the upper end of Frontier Trail neighborhood and Bill will review the traffic statistics. Bill Engelhardt: OUr first exhibit is the a.m. traffic patterns, peak traffic patterns from 7:00 in the morning to 9:00 in the morning. We looked at and counted the vehicles using the intersections at Frontier Trail and Laredo Drive, Laredo Drive and West 78th Street and Frontier Trail and West 78th Street. Picking those particular areas is probably most likely to see the heavy traffic flows. The peak traffic was picked because that is generally 3 ~ ..-'1 r"i. , ....i' 'ii', -.. .cd 11 U' City Council Meeting ~ December 1, 1986 when, if you are going to have any problems, that is when they will come up. I The traffic analysis indicated that the intersection of Laredo Drive and Frontier Trail, that there were 25 vehicles that came from the West and proceeded directly through the intersection and used Frontier Trail as the route down to West 78th Street. 10 vehciles made a right hand turn coming from the west and proceeded south of Laredo Drive, we assume down to West 78th Street and 4 vehicles came from the north, went directly through, 3 vehicles from the north turned left and used Frontier Trail. 6 vehicles went north on Laredo up to the intersection, turned right and used Frontier Trail and 6 vehicles used Frontier Trail coming from the east to Laredo Drive and turned south and used Laredo Drive. The traffic patterns that we see when we get down to Laredo Drive and West 78th Street indicate that 146 vehicles coming from the north turned right and went to the east on West 78th Street, the assumption being that they are going either to TH 101 or TH 5, most likely TH 5. 110 vehicles turned right and went left to probably TH 5 via Powers Bl vd. We then had 78 vehicles com ing from the west and they turned and went up Laredo Drive and 125 vehicles coming from the east and turned and went north on Laredo Drive. Some of those trips that you see in the 78, 125 are probably due to the Post Office, School and City Hall. Councilman Geving: But Bill, aren't those 78 and 125 the return traffic at 4:00? Bill Engelhardt: No, this is the morning. This is still 7:00-9:00. At West 78th Street and Frontier Trail, we saw 20 vehciles coming from the north and I they turned and went west onto West 78th Street. 69 vehci les from the north turned east and again, probably went out to TH 5. 6 vehicles went north coming from the west and 8 vehicles went north coming from the east so the major movements are, in the case of Frontier Trail, would be from north going east or west and the majority of them going to the east probably to TH 5. We assume that the 10 vehicles that used Laredo Drive and headed south to West 78th Street, in all likelihood would be then turning and going to the west, again, either TH 5 or Powers Blvd. When you look at traffic analysis, you look at the traffic counts, how many vehicles you are going to see at an intersection. What the usage or capacity of the intersection is. You look at the distance that they have to travel and if you measure the distance from the end of the existing Frontier Trail down to West 78th Street and that distance was 6,400 feet. In other words, from the cul-de-sac of the existing Frontier Trail, traveled Frontier Trail down to West 78th Street is 6,400 feet. The distance, again from the starting point of Frontier Trail traveling down to Laredo and then using Laredo down to West 78th Street was 5,840 feet. The distance through, we tried to sketch on here the alignment of the subdivision for Chan vista. The distance from Kerber Blvd. to the existing cul-de-sac on the end of Frontier trail was 1,400 feet. The path of least resistance is Laredo to West 78th Street and when you consider the path of least resistance you look at a number of factors. You look at the curvature of the roadway, the condition of the roadway, the width of the roadway and also the distance that you have to travel. Another factor that comes into play on Laredo, that a portion of the cars, when Saratoga is constructed through, a portion of the I cars would be using Laredo down to West 78th Street could use Saratoga over to Kerber Blvd.. Another factor that we sometimes take in consideration is the public facilities that are on Laredo and again, that is the school, the City 4 I I I 279 City Council Meeting ~ December 1, 1986 Hall, the Post Office and with the construction of the new bank, you will generally see more traffic in the morning and the p.m. periods using those facilities either dropping off mail, using the bank windows or dropping children off at school. That is one of the reasons, I mentioned in my report that the reason that the connection from the Chan vista area is desirable from the standpoint of the residents that will be living in that area is that if they were going to use the public facilities, they would have to travel down Kerber Blvd. to West 78th street and come back up. This gives them a clear shot into your public facilities and that is one of the things that the City is really responsible for is trying to serve all the residents in the community. It gives you good free flow traffic patterns. Again, we assume that the 10 vehicles that are going south on Laredo would then turn and go west on West 78th Street. If that is the case, you may see with the connection, you may see some of those 10 vehicles and what the percentage would be I don't really know but you may see some of those vehicles using the connection over to Kerber Blvd. to get onto a major collector of Kerber Blvd. to get down to TH 5 and what would happen in that case is that anyone from Chan vista that would be using Frontier or Laredo to get down to this area, you would see like a balancing out of the two traffic patterns. Again, looking at the path of least resistance, we try to spot the stop signs that are now presently located on these roadways and you see that we have stop signs at Laredo and Frontier Trail, there is a stop sign at Frontier Trail and Highland, a stop sign at West 77th Street and Frontier Trail and again a stop sign down at West 78th Street and Frontier Trail so you have four stop signs plus the curve in your roadway which makes the path of least resistance least desirable for that case. Looking at the Laredo, you have three stop signs again at the intersection of Frontier Trail and Laredo, then when you get down to West 76th Street and Laredo and again down at West 78th Street and Laredo. The p.m. traffic was also looked at and I've got a count on those and without going into a whole lot of detail on this, we are seeing basically the reverse of the morning pattern and you can draw pretty much the same conclusions that you would from the a.m. peak traffic so we basically concentrated on looking at the a.m. peak traffic. There are other issues that come into play when you look at connecting roadways between neighborhoods. One of the issues would be emergency vehicle access. Not only for the protection of property but for human life. The shortest possible distance to reach a point is the most desired to effectively provide that protection. The other consideration is maintenance throughout the entire city. When you are determining whether or not to connect a roadway, if you look at this map and you look at the distance that would have to be traveled up into this area, the longer the distance you have the higher your maintenance costs are going to be, especially in Minnesota. You're not just patching streets and doing summer maintenance. You are trying to provide a snow plowing pattern to accommodate all the residents within the City and as your travel time increases the overall maintenance cost increase and eventually, as you isolate areas, eventually you look at adding more equipment and more personnel and increasing the cost effectiveness of the maintenance operations. Barbara Dacy: The third part of the information that you received was the discussion on typical sulxlivision design standards. I think it is safe to say that street connection issues have been and will be controversial, not only in Chanhassen but probaby every city in the Metro area and probably in the 5 2 Q, (,1A '. ' ~-~'J 11 d.J'V< City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 nation. Basically, in developments of major size, typical design standards dictate that at least two points of access should be achieved for, as Bill mentioned, for public safety access and for appropriate interconnection between neighborhoods for logical and safe access into and out of those neighborhocx1s. It was noted at a Homeowners meeting that I attended as to the public safety issue, a question was put to us, we've been here for a number of years, we haven't had a problem so far, what seems to be the problem all of a sudden with public safety access? That is a good question. We have been fortunate that we haven't had a major catastrophe or any blockage of the roadways into that area. However, it is incumbant upon the professional staff to recommend the most appropriate means of access and sul:rlivision design patterns. Without a secondary access, if blockage does occur, for example at the southern end of that neighborhocx1 towards West 78th Street, the homes at the northern end of Frontier Trail could be trapped. That discussion has led into the suggestion of alternatives. The third alternative that the Council had is connection but have a barricade. One option that has been suggested is an electric gate similar to what you would see at an entrance to a parking ramp. The transmitters would be distributed to the public safety personnel and the maintenance personnel. Another option has been the construction of a break away barricade. That would still maintain the street connection for bike and pedestrian traffic but have a wocx1 barricade actually sunk into the asphalt so if needed, maintenance or the public safety people could drive just right on through that. The third option would be to construct back to back cul-de-sac situations. In the Frontier Trail case our concern is that the design would have to be looked atI very closely because a part of the cul-de- sac extends into the Chan vista property and if another cul-de-sac was constructed we would really have to look at what that does to access and availability on the other lots. In any case, these alternatives have to weighed in the Council's mind versus establishing street continuity between neighborhoods within the community. I think the history and the record has shown that Frontier Trail was not intended to be a long cul-de-sac. It does cause a double backing in tracks which does not lend itself for efficiency and maintenance vehicles and access for public safety vehicles but also access for the general public. The Council's decision will have to judge implications as to whether or not there should be a certain amount of connection between neighborhocx1s versus having sul:rlivisions as islands unto themselves. Finally, to conclude Staff's presentation, the Planning Commission as you have noted in your packet did recommend to connect Frontier Trail with the street in the Chanhassen vista development. Staff's recommendation has been through the Chan vista development process is to make the street connection. However, if the Council should decide not to make the street connection and choose to implement one of the barricade options, we would suggest that that decision be tabled until Staff can finalize a detailed design to look at things like what type of barricade, how the final design will effect that cul-de-sac, etc. Councilman Geving: Thank you Bill, thank you Barbara for your Staff Report. As I indicated when we opened this subject, there is not a requirement for a public hearing on this issue. However, we feel it is so important to the communi ty that we have decided to open it for public comment. We do have several petitions, like I had mentioned. Some were for and some were against and all of these will be written into the public record at the time that the Council makes their decision so at this time we are open for public input. I 6 I I I I I I 281 ,City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 would ask that anyone who wishes to speak, identify yourself so we can get your name in the record and try to be brief. I will limit everyone to five minutes however. We have an extensive schedule. You are all going to get a fair shot at speaking. Bill Boyt: I live on Kiowa Circle and I think probably everybody knows how I feel about this issue. I have reviewed the study that Bill did and the other background material and two factors stand out. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think something in the neighborhood of 70% of the vehicles in the study used Frontier to go east went to TH 101 and TH 5 so the predominant traffic on Frontier goes east to one of those two places as I understand it. Clearly, the cars from the 91 new homes in Chan vista or Carver Beach Road, when you connect that, that want to go east are going to use Frontier Trail to get there. As your study demonstrates, if 70% of the vehicles use Frontier to go east, unfortunately, the traffic at Chan View and Frontier, which is the only letter I have seen in resistance of this thing, is going to increase, it is not going to decrease. The other point that stands out in the materials is that safety will be reduced and what is seen as a hazard and it is in your packet on Bill's report on page T-27 and in that page, about the middle of it, under Point 1 you are talking about Pleasant view Road. It looks like it is the last page of the whole report and this is from Barbara Dacy to Don Ashworth and it includes Bill's engineering report. Councilwoman Swenson: This is from the Comprehensive plan, that isn't from the engineer's report. Bill Boyt: Okay, excuse me and thank you for pointing that out. Well, it says in there about Pleasant view, it is unsafe in several areas even for local residential traffic. Sharp curves, garages located on the right-of-way, hidden driveways, frequent vistas of Lotus Lake which distract motorist's attention all combine to create hazardous conditions. If you will turn that overhead on and maybe Jo Ann can point out to people where pleasant View Road is. You see where that follows in if you went around Horseshoe Curve but look down at the bottom there is a red line for Frontier Trail. Now, if the Comprehensive Plan indicates that Pleasant View is hazardous, clearly Frontier Trail is hazardous. Although the background material seems rather substantial, I have been unable to find information addressing several questions and I would like somebody to answer them. I think they are important to the decision you are about to make and maybe they can be answered now. One question is what is the expected traffic flow from the 91 homes in Chan vista? Anybody know? Barbara Dacy: The Institute of Transportation Engineers normally estimates 10 traffic trips per day for a single family detached house so if you take 10 times 91, that is 910 trips. Bill Boyt: Barbara, do you know how many of those are going to go down Frontier Trail? Probably the ones that are going to go east and if that 70%, and I'm just saying if. I don't know if somebody can predict it. I think you need to know and I think the other thing you need to know is the same thing, what is the expected traffic flow when you connect Carver Beach Road up that hill to Frontier Trail? 7 282 City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 Councilman Geving: Let me answer that for you. We created a roadway on paper I for the expected connection to Carver Beach. I have 1i ved here 20 years and that has always been a dream of some architect's, planner, traffic people. That is a very treacherous piece of property to try and traverse. I doubt in the next 20 years if that will happen. I'm not expecting that to happen. We did it just to put it on paper and I'm really not looking forward to that point where that becomes an actual street. That will be difficult to do and very expensive. I would not want to expect that we could even anticipate that road happening in the very near future. It is a long way off. Bill Boyt: I appreciate that comment. People have been on Frontier Trail since 1969 and you've been talking about putting it through and here we are. Councilman Geving: It could have happened in 1969. Bill Boyt: Well, we mentioned the attraction to the school, the Post Office, etc. and how that pulls traffic down Frontier Trail including from the new development. All of that traffic goes through two serious road situations on Frontier Trail which brings me to the next question, where are the hazard areas currently on Frontier? Since you have done a highway study, where did you find to be the hazardous areas on Frontier Trail? Councilman Geving: I think Bill, one thing that we're going to have to lay some ground rules here. If the Staff or the Council attempts to answer those kinds of questions off the top of our heads about anticipating what could happen, we're not going to be able to do it tonight. I Bill Boyt: Right, I don't want you to answer them off the top of your head. Councilman Geving: We're not going to be able to do it even with a lot of knowledgable traffic experts. We don't know how the 91 residents are going to move, where they are located for their jobs and how they are going to use either Laredo, Kerber Drive or Frontier. I can't tell you that. Bill Boyt: I think you can do a reasonable job of predicting. I think you need to know. I think that somebody in traffic certainly knows how to predict that information. The existing road is what I'm asking about when I ask where the hazardous spots are. Do you know where the hazardous spots are and if you don't, you need to find them and I can tell you that if you look at the road width in those spots, although in the map it may say 50 feet or 60 feet, which I think might be the road right-of-way, the actual road width is 28 feet and people have to walk on that road. The other question I have for you is when you pick the hazardous spots, what is the angle of incline because that has an impact on what can happen in those spots? Given the specifications the City has to follow, what is the maximum traffic flow and speed for these areas? What is the City and County prepared to do to enforce these restrictions? will the increase traffic flow require the widening of the street and installation of walking paths and if so, who is going to pay for these improvements? Lastly, what is the City Attorney's position on the City's liability for individual or property damage that results from the City I failing to follow established road safety standards? I think you know that. I can understand how City Staff or the Commission can make recommendations 8 I I I 288 City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 concerning this connection when you can't answer those questions and I would like to offer a method of resolving this matter that will provide a second emergency access to Frontier while not increasing daily traffic flow. For approximatey $2,500.00 the City can purchase and install an electronic gate with a break away arm. Snow plows, emergency vehicles, school buses could all have transmitters that would open and close that gate and I would like you to consider that. I think if you accepted that the neighborhood would accept that. Councilman Geving: Would you leave your notes for Staff. Give them to Bill and we will do our best over the next 10 days to try and respond to those questions. Debbie Lloyd: Today we visited the County Engineer's office because Sue and I wanted to get more well versed in really what we were talking about as far as roadway standards. Sue Boyt: Are there roadway standards for City roads? Bill Engelhardt: Certainly. Sue Boyt: When they looked at Frontier Trail they asked first what was the degree of curvature? Debbie Lloyd: They took out aerial photographs for us and then took out city maps. Sue Boyt: Do you have those numbers? Bill Engelhardt: No, I don't. Sue Boyt: Okay, well they said first they wouldn't design a road before they have a projection on increase traffic design flow and they wouldn't design a road until they knew the degree of curvature. '!hey said the maximum speed limit for Frontier Trail should be 26 miles per hour. Debbie Lloyd: That was based upon a projection that the degree was 215 degrees and they didn't have the tools to measure on the kind of maps that they had but they said 26 mph maximum on that roadway based upon the curvature of the road. Sue Boyt: They said looking at this, the logical way to go would be Kerber Blvd. and we said that's what engineers say because they are logical. Construction workers and other people, Barb can tell you about the construction workers, they did not choose to go Kerber Blvd.. Day after day they went Frontier Trail, day after day going 30 mph which is probably the speed limit or faster and that is not safe on Frontier Trail. Do you want to tell them about the amount of traffic? Barbara Dacy: Yes, I did receive a number of calls about the amount of construction traffic that used Frontier Trail to access the site. 9 cp ~4i k.JO~ City COuncil Meeting - December 1, 1986 Don Ashworth: That was illegal and the contractor was stopped. It was subs of the contractor and at that point in time they literally were stopped. There was another way in and some of those subs continued to use Frontier Trail until we simply had to start ticketing. I Sue Boyt: I think what it points out though is that people don't always choose the log ical route, they chose the fun way in. COuncilman Geving: If you do see that though, particularly on this construction project specifies that they must enter on Kerber Drive. Sue Boyt: I'm concerned about the new development. The logical way might be out Kerber but people aren't always logical and they weren't at all this time. Debbie Lloyd: There were other things like about the history that trouble me. We've seen all this historical documentation about Frontier Trail. That area was developed, at least my home was built in 1959 and in 1969 it looks like the road was intended to curve around and back down. If you look at the detailed map. it is not just a straight road out to Kerber. I think that times change. History is great but it's not enough. Times have changed. People are going faster on the roads. Traffic signs don't slow people down. They are going to go 30. If it is zoned 25, they are still going to go 30. Also, if that street is opened, you're not dealing only with more traffic. That's an easy way to look at it. You've got to maintain that roadway. It's in terrible condition. There is no place for walking. It is how many feet I wide versus Laredo Drive is at least a lane and a half wider then that so you are going to have to talk to us about resurfacing and maybe putting sidewalks in and I think those costs will be a lot more then installing a gate or doing same of the more simple measures. Sue Boyt: These engineers thought it looked like this road was never designed to serve more traffic than it is serving right now with the narrowness and twisting and turning and the speed limit is 30 on Frontier right now. That's too fast. Councilman Horn: These are the County Engineers? COuncilman Geving: I believe you are talking about Sue, the COunty Engineers, correct? Sue Boyt: The County Highway and Road Engineers. Carver County. Art Kerber: I'm the City Fire Chief. The Fire Department and I are opposed to blocking or barricading or not completing the roadway. We want it to go through all the way to Kerber Drive with no barricades. Who is going to maintain those barricades? What if they don't work? Who is going to see to it that those barricades are going to operate when we come with your switch? From the fire fighters standpoint, it is way out of line and I can't agree wi th the idea that the people that 1i ve in the vista are going to come up Frontier Trail and go east. If you look at the map and not only am I the Fire Chief but I work for the City and I drive Frontier Trail and Laredo and most every other street in town every day and the easy way for coming out of that I 10 I I I 285 City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 area is not going to be on Frontier Trail. It could be out Laredo for people that are going to go to Excelsior or go out the back door, certainly. From the standpoint of a disaster, we had a tornado in 1965 and the tornado came through here and there were houses laying across the road. I don't know how they would get out. Even animals are smart enough to have a back door. You've got a railroad and a highway running through here with chemicals going through here every day. If you get an accident with some kind of chemicals spilled and the predominant winds are from the southwest and you get a cloud where we have to evacuate the town, how are they going to go out? You certainly don't want to go out through the cloud, we want them to go out the back way. That's all I have. Rick Friedlander: Again, thank you Mr. Kerber. That was a very logical response to the traffic problem. As we have seen from experience of the past couple of months though, logic seems to have nothing to do with people's driving habits. They like to go the scenic route and the scenic route is past our houses. The back to back cul-de-sac idea was agreed to by the developer so I guess I would consider that as a viable option if you so desire. As to the commuter traffic from the new development, there is a concern that I would have coming in from the east if I were going to the new development of getting through the Pauly's corner traffic with all the people going to the dinner theater and everything, it could back up even past Frontier Trail. A fellow might want to turn north and just avoid all that stuff even though going the logical, direct, straight route would mean going out to Kerber Blvd.. It might just end up being slower with all the traffic in the evening. In spite of that, I don't think the short-cutters would be the main problem. I think it will be the sightseers. People who are cruising the lakes during the weekends when our kids are out there playing who don't know where the kids are. At least the commuters are going to know where the kids are, where to watch for the balls in the streets. It is the people coming by looking at our beautiful community, checking it out, looking at the houses, looking at the lakes, not looking where they are going, that are going to run over our children. Finally, the new neighborhood route to the public services, the school, the bank, post office are not only past us and the pretty sights and everything but also past the elementary school. Another great way to take them by. Finally, if you can live with a cul-de-sac at Carver Beach and you have lived with the cul-de-sac that we have had for so long, the compelling reason for a back door must not really be there otherwise it would have been there long ago. Joel Jenkins: I also live on Frontier Trail and I said a few words here a few months ago about government for the people, by the people and of the people and I hope those people who are on the Council continue to remember that. I think if you look at the audience here, a majority of the people who are here who have the philosophy that it should be a cul-de-sac are the people who live there. Those are the People that elected you or did not elect you. Those are the people you represent. You represent the people who are here today and yes, you have a responsibility for the People tomorrow but in the context of the people who are here today are asking you on either a compromise or an absolute leave it as a cul-de-sac. Before I go any further, I would like to thank Dale for tabling this until at least the 15th because certainly two Council people out of five are not appropriate to act on such an important 11 28G ,City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 issue and I would also like to thank Pat Swenson and Carol Watson for their I past commitment for doing the best for our City. I would also like to bring up that it was not mentioned at all when this study was done. If it was done, as I was told, on a Monday of a holiday week, I'm not sure that it is totally effective nor accurate. Councilman Geving: No, that's not true. I believe it was done on the 19th and that would have been something like the middle of the week. Bill Engelhardt: It was wednesday and Thursday. Councilman Geving: I thought of the same thing. That was my first reaction too. I was hoping that they would have done that to pick a good part of the week and a busy part of the week so I think they did that. Joel Jenkins: Very fine, that's clarified, thank you. In light of that I guess just another couple quick points here. The assumption was made that 10 vehicles, 100% of the vehicles that leave Frontier Trail and go on Laredo go west. Now I happen to do that 2-3 times a day and I very seldom go west so I think that needs to be scaled down at least some. Councilman Geving: I don't know where you got that particular inference or assumption because that's not true at all. There are 10 vehicles that do go south on Laredo. There are also 25 that go straight ahead on Frontier and when they get to Laredo and 78th, I don't believe Bill made that statement I that they go either east or west because that 10 merges with a whole lot more and it becomes a much bigger number. In fact, it is a number in the hundreds. At that time in the morning there are 110 vehicles that turn right and go west and 146 that take a left turn and go east so we have 256 vehicles that are just a lot more then the 10 that you mentioned that come out of the Frontier. Joel Jenkins: I'm sorry. I really have misunderstood. Bill Engelhardt: I think there is a percentage. I don't think the whole 10 and I stand corrected if that is what you understood. Councilman Geving: I don't know how you could make that inference. Joel Jenkins: That's what I thought I heard. The last point I would like to make is that it appears to me that preventive measures rather than reactive measures are much more appropriate in these types of situations. If you can prevent increased traffic rather then react to deaths of children, etc. or emergencies that are caused by God like the tornado that went through or an act of fire or wind or storm, it would appear to me to be prudent to leave that as a cul-de-sac rather then create more traffic which ultimately creates more problems including possibly crime prevention because if I was a thief, I would really think twice and I think there are some statistical documentation that says that communities that have dead end cul-de-sacs throughout have less crime so I think you should look into that as well. Councilman Geving: The question that you did pose though would be a gooo one I 12 I I I 6] Q, "7 L;JU " City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 maybe to ask our public safety official to give us some statistics on that and I will do that. Dick Pearson: This issue is kind of interesting to me, having lived here for 27 years and happening to be on a corner that had no traffic 27 years ago and now has a considerable amount of traffic. I don't think this is going to be a panic situation like so many people do. In the 27 years that I've been here, almost every development had a tremendous amount of opposi tion to it and somehow or another the City has survived. I think no matter what we do we will survive and I don't think it will be a great deal worse than it is now. I see a tremendous amount of people go by my house and most of the people that are speeding are neighbors. There are a lot of people that go right through that stop sign. We all look at each other and say if we drove this thing the way it should be, we wouldn't have to worry about a lot of other people going through there. It isn't going to make any difference to me one way or the other. I've gone this way for 27 years and I can go for as long as I'll be around but I don't think we should be panicky. I think we should look at what is really the best. I just don't feel that this is a situation that the world is going to corne to an end if we put this road through like some people would 1 ike to think. Councilman Geving: I would like to ask Dick a question. For those people who don't know who Dick Pearson is, Dick served two terms on the City Council and I believe you were probably a charter member of the Sunrise Hills Association, if I'm not correct. Maybe you could shed just a bit of light Dick on how that cul-de-sac came to be and whether or not you remember it as having at one time the intention of it ever going across to Kerber. Dick Pearson: As you we all know, there are many factors. They discussed how it was going to go through. At one time it was going to go straight through and another time it was going to go south, if I remember right and then join onto Kerber and most of the time we said we don't need it now, let's not do anything with it and that's where it's been. At one time, all of the houses that are on the north side of Frontier Trail could never have been built because that property was owned by Bob Scholer and there was one house in there am you had to go through Carver Beach Road in order to get there. I think it was in the late 60's that that was opened up and those 6 or 7 houses were able to come down past my road. It's not something that is different. I can remember when my kids were crying because they had cut down Windy Hill and they could no longer slide from Windy Hill down to Lotus Lake. This is just progress and I think somehow or another we will be able to live with it. We'll teach our kids, like we had to do with our kids, they are going to walk in the roads because they have to, they don't have anyplace else but they don't have to play football in it. They can go other places. Councilman Geving: Any other comments? I urge you to speak now because this will not be discussed at the December 15th meeting. We will meet, the Mayor will be briefed and I suspect we will vote on that issue early on the 15th so this is your opportunity to speak if you wish. If there are no other comments then I will close this portion of the public input session and we will move onto tabling this action to December 15th and I am open for a motion to that nature. 13 2)QQ . . . . .,:. fi";i\ ....-J...JU' ,City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to table action on I the street connection of Frontier Trail until December 15, 1986. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Horn: Could we ask if the Staff could get clarification from the Carver County Engineer on their position. Don Ashworth: I do have that question down and we will respond to each of the questions. Councilman Geving: The questions that everyone posed tonight, Mr. Boyt, Mrs. Boyt, Joel had a question, there was a question or two on public safety, any of those questions, hopefully we will have an answer for you on the 15th. STREET CONNECTION - FOX HOLLOW Barbara Dacy: The history on the Fox Hollow SUbdivision, this goes back to 1979. There were three plan submissions for the Fox Hollow area in 1979, 1982 and what was approved in 1984 is up there today. The 1979, I could not find a plan in the files but what was proposed during that time was a development of 100 single family, detached homes and the Minutes of that meeting were included in your packet. The connection issue was part of that concession. Then the developer of Fox Hollow submitted a revised plan in 1982 which proposed 140 quadp1ex units showing here connection to the property to the west in the extreme northwest corner. That plan was consummated and was resubmitted in the form it is now, a plat of 95 single family, detached homes with the right-of-way platted to the edge of the western property line. The property west of this between Pleasant View Road and the Fox Hollow subdivision was subdivided into two out1ots last year. The northerly outlot of only 5 acres which was swapped with Mr. Bloomberg in exchange for the Lotus Lake Boat Access park and the southerly 15 acres is, I think it is being called the North Lotus Lake Park. That is intended to be developed in the next year to two years but that plat did approve the right-of-way to make the connection from Fox Hollow Drive subdivision into pleasant View Road. Now the Acting City Engineer will discuss the traffic counts that we took for this area. One at Fox Hollow and TH 101, pleasant View and TH 101 and one back at just behind Near Mountain Blvd. and Pleasant View Road. Bill Engelhardt: The same procedures that were used for Fox Hollow Road traffic counts and the traffic counts were done on November 19th and 20th which were a Wednesday and Thursday. We counted the traffic at the location of Fox Hollow and TH 101 and the intersection of Near Mountain Road and Pleasant view and also at the intersection of pleasant View and TH 101. The tendency when we first went out to look at the traffic in this particular intersection and subdivision was to count the cars prior to Near Mountain Road to try and cut out the traffic that would be coming out of the Near Mountain Subdivision. We didn't think that that was a relevant traffic count because we were most concerned with the number of cars that would be coming down Pleasant view and that would have the tendency to use Fox Hollow Road as the shortcut. We found at the intersection of Pleasant View and Near Mountain Road, 93 vehicles at the peak period of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. travel east to TH 101, 18 travel west from TH 101. We found it was almost an even split of vehicles 14 I I I I I 289 City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 that wanted to make a turn onto TH 101 of either going north or south. Going north was 54 and going south was 49. The traffic counts at Fox Hollow Road and TH 101 doesn't really tell us anything at this time but it does give us some history if we need to look back and see what the counts originally were. We saw that out of the Fox Hollow Subdivision, 43 of the people tended to make the move to go north and 19 went south. In my report, when you look at the actual figures and how this traffic movement is, it indicated that the conclusion could be drawn that Fox Hollow Road could be used as a shortcut over to TH 101 by the traffic on Pleasant View Road. If you look at the path of least resistance as it was explained earlier, again the path of least resistance doesn't come into play in distance. The distance from Pleasant View and Fox Hollow Road to TH 101 is 2,210 feet and the distance from Fox Hollow Road and Pleasant View Road to TH 101 via Fox Hollow Drive is 2,180 so really distance doesn't come into play. What comes into play in this particular case is the curvature of the roadway. Fox Hollow Drive is a curvalinear roadway, and Pleasant View does have one significant curve on it but in most cases is a straight roadway and your path of least resistance would be the pleasant View Road. We do see and we do feel that a percentage of the traffic from Pleasant View Road would tend to use Fox Hollow Drive as a shortcut. There is no getting around that point. The conclusion is there. We do feel that if you want to increase the travel time on Fox Hollow Drive, additional stop signs could be placed at the intersections which would tend to make that the least traveled route or least desirable route and they would tend to use Pleasant View Road intersection. Back to the same point that I made on the Frontier Trail intersection, that you not only look at your traffic counts but the path of least resistance, you look at the emergency aspect that we talked about earlier this evening and also your maintenance aspect. In this case we have 95 single homes in the Fox Hollow Drive area that would have only way in or out. Maintenance times for this particular area would be substantially increased without having that through connection and that is an overall effect on the entire community. Barbara Dacy: Just briefly to wrap up our comments that we made for the Frontier Trail issue is the same for Fox Hollow Drive as far as typical subdi vision design standards. Again, there is only one way into the Fox Hollow Subdivision right now serving as the major access for the 95 homes. Again, Staff's recommendation is to provide for street connection and if the Council decides to not connect the streets and the Council decides to create a barricade situation then Staff would recommend specific designs for how that barricade would occur or if the back-to-back situation would be approved, that that particular final design be prepared for final Council action. Councilman Geving: This is a little bit different connection than the one we heard just a few minutes ago on Frontier Trail. There really is no urgency on the part of the City to connect this road. We don't have a park there yet and the Fox Hollow Subdivision is really placing itself out. There is no development north of the proposed road at this time and a major issue for me, at least as a council member, is that the City would have to pay for half this road and I'm not anxious to do that. We're never anxious to spend public monies for no purpose. This issue kind of came up because we have been showing the extension of the road on some of our maps. The fact that we 15 290 City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 transferred 5 acres of our lam, we owned that lam at one time am we transferred it to Mr. Bloomberg for the South Lotus Lake site which was equitable am five for a five acre swap so I doubt seriously that this road will get builtin the very near future. I suspect it might be years and then only if there is a determined drive on the part of the City to make our park and extended out the park and develoPed it and there is a petition by the homeowners in Fox Hollow am the new subdivision north of the proposed road do this so this is really very preliminary but we decided to put these two issues together because they do come together as a concept for the City. I just want to let you know how we feel, at least how I feel about that road. I'm not anxious to build it because it is going to cost money. My preference is that a developer would build the road but being an equitable split, whatever that would cost, the City would have to pay 50%. Let's move on then to anyone in the public that would like to speak on this issue. I will give you plenty of time for anyone who wants to come forward. Identify yourself am tell us how you feel about this Fox Hollow extension. We do have a petition. I don't happen to have it in our packet here, for some reason it was left out but we did receive a petition from some of the homeowners. Paul strot: I live at 6521 Quail Crossing which is the interconnect to Fox Hollow Ori ve and Gray Fox Curve. Before that I used to live just on the other side of Lotus Lake. I just wanted to bring up to your attention that when we bought here we had no perception that that would be a through street. Now I fully realize that if we inclined to follow-up completely through the legalities as to how the thing was preplatted and preplanned and all that that there would have been some imications on these from the City's side but from the developer's side and from the buyer's standpoint, we did not know that that was even an issue at all. When we first drove through this cul-de-sac we were only the sixth person to buy in that whole area. There is physically a small cul-de-sac down at the em of that road. It is not a barricade at the end which would lead you to believe that that was possibly going to be a through street. It even has a curb on it. It's not just a roum piece of asphalt. It has curbing which again, led me to believe that that was going to be a cul-de-sac am I don't know whether the developer told us flat out that there was never going to be a connection or not but again, I am telling you my perception when we bought in there that this was going to be a 95 home subdivision, it was going to be semi-private and that the only traffic that we would eXPect to get out of this would be just from that subdivision. We are right on a corner that would bear all of this extra traffic that is at issue here so I have a vested interest in it directly am I just don't see the point. I agree with you, there is no point at this time but if I could put my name on the record, I don't see it ever should be gone through. It just wasn't part of the plan. Ralph Trombley: I've got four chi ldren between the ages of 16 and 6. 23 children get on the bus up on Gray Fox CUrve which is back from TH 101. We had the bus stop moved off of TH 101 back onto the curb because of the children. Those 23 are all below 6th grade so they will be aroum there for a long, long time and we would just as soon not have any more traffic and have to move that stop again or there are several people with several children right on that road and a lot of them play up on that road because there is a big open space behim a couple of houses up in there am they come across that 16 I I I I I I 291 ,City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 road quite regularly. As far as I'm concerned, that road should never go through just for the safety of our children. Fa Battani: I live on Gray Fox CUrve. I just want to make a couple of quick points. I think the subdivision is just about completely filled in now and with the 95 home sites, I believe everyone of us owners knew am had full knowledge of one entrance and one access and at least from my standpoint, I bought with that in mim because I want the privacy. I want the lack of through traffic for my chilren. I have two boys. One is 5 and one is 10 months. They play the streets, they ride the streets on their bike, they have to, there are no sidewalks so we bought with the full intention knowing that there was one entrance am one access. Just one quick note for the natural side of things, this summer we witnessed two fawns grow up literally in our backyard and I think putting through traffic there will just cut down on the wildlife and the natural aspect which was another issue on why we bought there. Councilman Geving: ~t me ask you Fa, how would you feel about a trail through there to the park? A connecting trail. I suspect your residence and the PeOple that are north of that new development and possibly even from the Near Mountain will probably be the biggest users of our park. Something more on the order of a park trail type system through there. Fa Battani: Walking trail? Councilman Geving: Yes. Ed Battani: Walking trail, I have no problem. A walking trail really doesn't disturb anything. It doesn't add to the danger of your children in the area and I believe also that it will be used by the residents more then anything else. Councilman Geving: I don't recall the whole trail plan but I suspect that that would be a major connection through to that from our other trail areas, that they would come through Fox Hollow if that were available to them rather than going up to Pleasant View and down the road to get to that North Lotus Lake Park. Fa Battani: My Lot is 17 down there in the lower left corner and I'm just as far from that entrance as I can be and that's where I want to be. Bruce Fawards: I live on Gray Fox Curve. I would like to speak against putting the road through based on all the reasons that were stated so far and another one. I moved from st. Louis Park and I had a busy street in front of my house and in selling the house people asked what was the traffic pattern and I think it is a detriment to property value to have a lot of traffic in a neighborhood. I did buy this house thinking it was closed loop am so I would like to see it remain that way. I am concerned about the safety factor that was brought up though and I hope that can be looked into. That the Fire Department can have their needs met too. Brent Bolimini: I would like to draw your attention to a traffic survey that 17 292 City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 I did myself. I don't know if you have a copy. A copy was included with the petition. I Councilman Geving: Did you give one to the Staff? Did you get one Barbara? I don't recall seeing it Brent. Brent Bolimini: It would have been submitted with the petition. Councilman Geving: I don't happen to have the petition either. For some reason it's not in our packets tonight. Brent Bolimini: If I may read briefly from this then I will give this to you. I did a traffic survey of my own using a police radar on Pleasant View Road on the north and south portion which would be on the left hand of the map. I did this survey on the 23rd, 25th and 29th of September. I did it twice in the morning and twice in the afternoon again using police radar. My graph shows that the speed limit on Pleasant View is closer to 25, the majority of the traffic is traveling in the area of 31-35 mph. A lot of traffic up to 45 mph and during these four different periods, I observed approximately 6 cars that were in excess of 50 mph. I don't think this is the type of traffic we want carning through our neighborhood with all the young children we have playing. Councilman Geving: What time was that? Brent Bolimini: On the 23rd of September I sat there from 6:50 a.m. to 7:48 and on September 23rd I again sat on Pleasant View from 3:58 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.. On September 25th I was on Pleasant View from 7: 45 a.m. to 8: 50 a.m.. On the 29th of September I was on Pleasant View from 3:45 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.. My graph clearly shows the speeds here and it also shows numbers. I believe between those times there was probably an average of about 100 cars traveling in the morning to the north and in the evening to the south going back into the neighborhood but my graph shows not only numbers as the City Engineer but also the speeds. Obviously people are not obeying speed limits. As a police officer I can tell you that stop signs are only something for some people to look at as they dd ve by. That's not going to slow anybody down. That's not going to deter them from going through the neighborhood. I know that because I see it everyday. I deal with it every day. I Councilman Geving: So what's your point then as far as the extension of Fox Hollow? Brent Bolimini: '!he City Engineer already said that there is going to be a tendency to use Fox Hollow as a shortcut. The people coming from Pleasant View neighborhood in the back there aren't obeying traffic laws and they aren't obeying traffic speed limits, they are going to be blasting through our neighborhood and mowing down our kids. '!he kids play in the street. '!here are no sidewalks. The only place for them to play is in the streets. They ride their bikes in the streets, they run on the streets. Councilwoman Swenson: My argument for large lots people is so people can play. I 18 I I I 9QQ ..~ Q.y l:U1 City Oouncil Meeting - December 1, 1986 Brent Bolimini: We've got the Minutes from that meeting from 1984 and I recall reading your arguments for that for 8,500 square foot lots and the 30 foot setbacks. I'm completely opposed to putting through any kind of a street there at any time, either now or 50 years from now. We don't need it, we don't want it. My wife and I again, we bought in this neighborhood because we saw that cul-de-sac, we thought a nice secluded, quiet neighborhood. We came from Lyndale Avenue in Bloomington and that's like rat race city. We moved out here we thought we had died and gone to heaven and we want to keep it that way. Councilwoman Swenson: It's nice to know we did something right in the last nine years. Brad Morris: I also live on Fox Hollow Drive, just two houses down from the proposed extension of Fox Hollow, a father of two children less than 3 years old. My children will be growing up in the neighborhood for several years to come. I have a big backyard and I hope to teach my kids to play in the big backyard. Nevertheless, their friends will live across the street and they will be crossing the street and I agree with my neighbors and my friends, now is not the time to extend it and when I ever see it again on the ballot I will be here again to oppose it. Oouncilman Geving: I would like to get Brent's traffic analysis. Would you give us that Brent so we can make a copy of it please. You have some information that we're not aware of. Debbie Lloyd, Laredo Drive: I apply all of your comments from Fox Hollow. They echo what we've been saying here for months. We have publ ic safety concerns. We bought in that area because we thought it was dead ended. We did not have the foresight to go and look at all the plans. The safety of our children and in addition to all their concerns comes that roadway, it is hazardous. Steve Bremer, 31 Fox Hollow Drive: I'm the first house as you come in. I have three children and that's the main reason I'm here. My three children are 11 years old, 7 and 2. For them to play, they travel down Fox Hollow Drive. Addi tionally, when we bought here, we moved four times in the last eight years from Dallas, Texas on up and we were expressly told by the developer that this would be a single access subdivision. I do not understand this and that's the main reason why I'm in here and it wasn't even implied because we drove down to the cul-de-sac and I asked, is this going to go through to the cross street of pleasant View and he told me no and there are several other things that I don't understand. That is the main reason that we moved into this area. I had concerns buying the corner house, I'm the first house in there right off of TH 101 but by the same token, it will result in the loss of property value, there is excessive speed there now and it does concern us. Oouncilman Geving: At this point I would like to close the public input section of this discussion and continue on with the manner in which we have with the first issue. I'm sure that the Oouncil would have a lot of discussion on this item and it would be very easy for us to completely eliminate this for other further consideration but I think we have to be 19 ~Q/~ .~fJ ~~ City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 consistent and give our Mayor the opportunity of answering this issue on the 15th so we take up both of those issues at that time. Councilman Horn: I would like to get more of a clarificatio on the history of this. Was there ever a road intended to go through before we were looking at a public access on the lake at that point? As I recall, those two discussions went hand and hand. Barbara Dacy: Yes, I do recall seeing things in the file, especially in regards to the 1982 plans submission. I think there is even a map in the file showing a proposed right-of-way up to Pleasant view Road because the issue during 1982 was when is the land swap going to take place? Is the boat access on the south going to be improved and when can the swap take place but I can go back and pull that information. Councilman Geving: I think the connection that we were always looking for there Clark was a connection that would have been due north of Fox Hollow to Pleasant View through the private drive that now exists there. That was some of the discussion that I recall. Councilman Horn: No, we were looking for an access point to get to the public access through there that wouldn't come off of Pleasant View. Councilman Geving: I kind of look at Fox Hollow as though it were similar to the Chanhassen Estates. It is roughly 100 homes in a single access development which was probably the first major development in the City of Chanhassen. We've existed with that for over 20 years and we are now just starting to extend that. We are opening up with Lake Drive East but it has always been a concern to us but it seemed to have worked out somehow so I kind of liken it to that Chanhassen Estates situation. I don't know if I ever really thought seriously about having another access to there because we didn't know how we were going to develop the north end of the lake. The north end of the lake just happened to be a gift that we received from the Near Mountain people of 20 acres and then we were trying to determine how we were going to use that gift. At one time we thought we were going to go into the development business and put single family homes in there. Then the park idea came along a few other things. I don't know if we ever seriously had it on paper. We messed it up a little bit when we did make the land swap with Mr. Bloomberg because that meant then that there would be a development in there and we showed that a little differently then it is showing now. Now it is just a straight shot. It looks like a very easy access. If I were coming down and going east on Pleasant View, I think the natural tendency would be to try and get through Fox Hollow and out to TH 101 and turn south just from looking at the map. I'm not so sure we really want to do that, ever want to do that. Councilman Horn: My point was I believe the conditions have changed slightly since we were entertaining that road from the fact that we don't have a public boat launching in the park anymore. '!hat was the point I was getting at. Councilman Geving: I think it will be a little bit more of a, I would like to think of it as a passive area but we are going to have a tennis court in there 20 I I I I I I 295 City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 and there will be some ball diamonds and public rinks but it all will depend on the developer's in that five acre parcel. Quite frankly, like I said earlier, I'm not anxious to spend our money to build that road and I never will be so I can't see that happening. I think the discussion on this item on the 15th will be short and sweet. Councilwoman Swenson: First of all, I think perhaps we should remind those who have forgotten that when this development was considered, likewise the previous ones we've talked about, our Subdivision Ordinance allowed only a 500 foot deadend or cul-de-sac road. It has only been since we have rewritten the Ordinance that that has changed. It is my memory that whenever we did these things, we did show a ghost road continuing in order to concur with our own Ordinances. I would also like to suggest to those of you who are here tonight that there is another thought that you better think about and that is when in fact the park goes through, if you do not have the road access through there, that you are going to have a lot of people coming from this development who want to use the park and don't want to walk that far and they are going to come and start parking at the end of that road and you are going to have cars parked on either side of that road with people using the park. Nextly, I was the one I think who was first questioned about this road and I suggested to the citizenry that they make up a petition and get it in here since it was a platted road. Since that time, I have taken this run across Pleasant View Road to TH 101 and also a shot through your Fox Hollow Road and (a) anyone who would try to go down Fox Hollow Road going 50 mph would have to be crazy because they wouldn't get past that first bend before they would wind up in somebody's yard. Secondly, you have, according to my calculations, a very short block from the east end of Pleasant View Road down to Fox Hollow Drive and from a driving standpoint, it is one whale of a lot easier just to continue on going. I'm not saying that I'm for or against your extension, I'm just saying that these are things that I suggest you might think about. Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table the issue of the street connection of Fox Hollow Drive until December 15, 1986. All voted in favor and motion carried. PROPOSAL FOR PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY, BLUFF CREEK DRIVE, WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT AND ASSOCIATES. Don Ashworth: I asked Bill Engelhardt to prepare a proposal to carry out the feasibility for Bluff Creek. Council has set this as priority for 1987. If we are going to be able to proceed on that project this next summer, we need to start the feasibility study process at this point in time. Mr. Engelhardt has done a good job for us and we would like to try his firm for this. Councilman Geving: It bothers me a little bit whenever we do things like this where there isn't a maximum amount of money to be obligated and also I would hope that the feasibility study would utilize the previous feasibility study that was done on this project and carry that through. Bill Engelhardt: Right, we don't want to reinvent the wheel here. 21 296 City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 Don Ashworth: The proposal also gives some additional work again with the I State Aid allocation process. Bill and I talked about it. Most of the studies you have approved in the last two years have not set a cap on them am it has really been back to staff to insure that the work that is being completed is in fact what the Council wants done. Resolution #86-86: Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the proposal for preparation of the feasibility study of Bluff Creek Drive by William R. Engelhardt and Associates. All voted in favor and motion carried. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS, WATERMAIN EXTENSION, COUNTY ROAD 17 AND KERBER BLVD.. Councilman Geving: We have before us the trunk watermain extension plans and specfications that were prepared for this project and I suspect Bill that you will handle this, is that correct? Bill Engelhardt: Yes, it is pretty simply, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron were authorized to prepare the plans am specifications for the trunk watermain extension to go along CR 17 and Kerber Blvd.. '!hose plans and specs have been completed. They have submitted them to me for my review. I have looked them over and in doing so we are recommending that you approve the plans and specifications am authorize the advertisement for bids. The bids would be received January 9th. This is a good project for winter construction. The I completion date on it is July 1, 1987 so hopefully by the middle of the summer this would be in operation. Resolution #86-87: Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to accept the plans am specifications and authorization to advertise for bids for the watermain extension on County Road 17 and Kerber Blvd.. All voted in favor am motion carried. AMENDMENTS TO REGULATIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, FIRST READING: A. ORDINANCE 10-A B. AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE 33-E c: RESOLUTION~STABLISHING FEES. Barbara Dacy stated that Jo Ann Olsen would present the Staff report and Mr. Machmeier was also present at the meeting. Jo Ann Olsen: It is in essentially three parts and the first one will be going over the Subdivision Ordinance. The secom one will be going over Ordinance 10-A and the third one will be reviewing the resolution. In just quick review, what we did was we have a contract with Roger Machmeier and James Anderson to review these ordinance, to update them because there are so many subdivisions corning into the rural area. As far as the Subdivision Ordinance, there are two parts that Mr. Machmeier and Mr. Anderson recommended to change. The first one is just a technical to update the numbers to I 22 I I I 297 City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 Minnesota Chapters Rule 7080. '!he second part was as far as the data that is required. In the Subdivision Ordinance, that is when a developer comes in we tell them what kind of data they need for us to review for our recommendation on the subdivision. What we had was just two percolation tests and after speaking with Mr. Machmeier and Mr. Anderson, we found that the soil borings are more important. What we had now was that they have to locate two drainfield sites. We've added that they have to have two soil borings on each drainfield site for a total of four soil borings per lot. Before we didn't have this at all. Now, we have changed the percolation test to just one percolation test per drainfield site when the land slope is between 13-25% and are now requiring no percolation test for slopes between 0-12%. '!he reason for this is that the percolation test, that mound systems can go in that area wi th that slope so percolation tests are not required. '!hen we also add in here where the land slope exceeds 25%, they shall not be considered as a potential soil treatment unit site. We have no maximum slopes right now and we've kind of been needing to have something like that so where Bluff Creek comes in we can say no, you can't do that. Again, Mr. Machmeier is here if you have any comments or questions. We are recommending approval of these changes. Councilman Geving: It has bothered me for a long time accepting percolation tests that I felt were meeting the standards always but I was very uncomfortable because I don't think our standards were very good. I'm sure that we've put in a lot of septic systems that are going to in the future give us problems. Taking a little bit more professional approach by hiring yourself and your partner, I think we have taken a step in the right direction. Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to go back to 3, no percolation tests are required for slopes between 0-12%. I didn't quite understand your reasoning. Jo Ann Olsen: I can let Mr. Machmeier elaborate but I believe it is because in those instances, mound systems can be put in and also that the soil borings are more important and percolation tests between the slopes doesn't really determine whether or not a site is suitable. Councilwoman Swenson: If you have an individual lot, I can see why this is going to be good to some extent when you are talking about development but what if you have an individual lot? You're not likely to put a mound system in where, I suppose you could on a 2 1/2 acre lot but what are we doing towards the lake, on lakeside types of things? You're not concerned about contamination? Roger Machmeier: If I might elaborate, we're talking about developments and those proposed lots in a subdivision and the reason we feel that no percola- tion tests are necessary for evaluating a subdivision is that by having the soil boring data information, we can tell if that soil is suitable for the installation of a mound system. We need soils that perc way faster than 120 minutes per inch and natural soils for the most part will do that, at least in the top foot. If the soil borings show that the top soil might have been removed, that we have a very heavy clay soil, the soil borings should tell us that that site is not suitable for a mound system. Also, on those sites that 23 n0,O h'HYB City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 may have slopes of 0-12%, there may be a saturated soil condition existing at I 12 inches, 18 inches or 24 inches. We want to know that from the soil boring information. If you run a percolation test at a "standard depth" of 30 inches or 36 inches doesn't give us any information that we can use. What this says to a developer basically, the City of Chanhassen can say to a developer, we believe that on most natural soils of 0-12% that mound systems can be designed, can be constructed and will work properly in a hydraulic way and properly in the treatment of sewage. Now we're saying where the slope exceeds 12%, which we deem as too steep for mounds, then we want to know whether or not there is soil having a percolation rate faster than 60 minutes per inch because on those slopes between 13-25%, which are too steep for mounds, drainfield trenches will be installed and those trenches will need to have a percolation rate faster than 60 minutes per inch. with these slopes then, 13- 25%, we are saying that at least one percolation rate in an area of those two soil borings. In our 0-12% slopes where mounds could be installed or trenches could be installed for that matter if the soil is suitable, we do not need a percolation test on that. This is now evaluating a subdivision. I think the second part of your question is what happens when you come to design. We will certainly ask for percolation test data to design that mound because this determines how wide the base width of the mound should be in order for all that sewage that is coming down through to be treated and to infiltrate into the existing soil and if it is a tight clay soil we will need a wider base width than if it is a sandy soil so we do need percolation tests even though the plan calls for a mound design. We're talking initially here about evaluating lots in a subdivision from the data that is submitted to us by the I developer. Does that help explain? Councilwoman Swenson: Yes, back up to (a) here, are these figures that you are giving us going to be reflected anywhere in our Subdivision Ordinance? The depth, the required depth, the 60 minutes per inch, etc., are these figures going to be reflected? They will be designated in the Ordinance? Roger Machmeier: I believe these figure then would be used as a basis for evaluating this but the actual design of the system, these numbers will come from what is now known as Ordinance NB which reflects... Councilwoman Swenson: They will be designated somewhere? Okay, I guess the only thing I'm concerned with, and I have to go back to these mounds, somehow or another I have an horrible idea of seeing subdivisions with these mounds in every 2 1/2 acres. I guess I'm one of these people who do not consider mounds as being the most attractive form of disposal. However, I guess I do under- stand that they are quite effective, is that correct? Roger Machmeier: They are very effective as far as treatment is concerned. They are very effective as far as hydraulically taking the liquid and moving it down to a soil profile. I don't think the industry has done as effective a job as it might have in doing some landscaping with respect to locating the mounds and landscaping them in. You will note that the figures that were included with your report, they showed mounds on the contour, that type of I thing, mounds can certainly be located in an area so they look very sterile as far as the aesthetics are concerned. It can also do a little landscaping. There are one of the pictures that is shown is a mourn that was put in as a 24 I I I ~~n.,..p. . <;-~:~--Q - vU ,City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 repair job for a homeowners on the north shore of Lake Sarah. That was the only place left on that lot for sewage treatment but one might look at that and say this is a landscaped berm placed in this particular location for privacy purposes so your point is well taken. Councilwoman Swenson: Just to follow up on that. What about sulxlivisions on lakeshore because this is something that we are facing now? How will these figures effect the development on the lakeshore residence, a sulxlivision on the lakeshore? How well will this protect drainage from the lake or wetland or anything? Roger Machmeier: These criteria that we are using now to determine whether a soil is suitable for the installation of a drainfield mound or a trench system will be used whether it is lakeshore or non-lakeshore proeprty. Lakeshore is controlled by your Shoreland Ordinance for setbacks, lot sizes and so on are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources. I believe you have a Shoreland Ordinance that reflects that so the capabilities will be the same whether it is shoreland or not shoreland. Councilwoman Swenson: In your opinion Mr. Machmeier, what we are doing tonight, is this the most refined, State-of-the-Art, efficient, you name it, thing we can possibly do? Is there anything else that we could do to make these ordinances more restrictive? Roger Machmeier: Yes, you could make the ordinance more restrictive if you require that a developer identify totally two sites on the property, by complete percolation tests and complete soil borings, etc.. That would be more restrictive. My opinion that this may be unnecessarily restrictive. If you find two sites that are suitable, there in fact may be more sites that are suitable. This doesn't say to the final homeowner that they have to put the sewage system on this particular location if they can find some other location that are more suitable for development of the lot. You could be more restrictive but it would be more expensive for the developer and we have tried to give you the optimum requirements that will allow us to decide whether or not each lot has two sites suitable for on-site sewage treatment system without going to excessive costs or maybe costs that don't need to be spent at that particular point in time as far as the sulxlivision is concerned. We feel that this is adequate soil information for us to make a decision. Councilwoman Swenson: I guess that word adequate scares the daylights out of me because we do everything on the basis that something is adequate and then it comes back to haunt us. We've just gone through, as I'm sure you are familiar with, that extensive 201 program. I would hate like heck to have this happen and turn up again 10 years from now. I realize that the purpose of the two spots where you can have a septic system put in is supposed to help do that. I'm less concerned about the expense to the developer than I am about making dam sure that we have an effective system. If you feel that you are able to control this with this then I'm satisfied. Roger Machmeier: That's a decision you, of course are going to have to make here at the City Council of Chanhassen, but to answer your question, yes, we 25 , ,. .\,. no"-' O"~' City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 could be more restrictive by demand ing enough si te information so that two systems could actually be designed on a site. I Councilman Geving: What is the procedure now in terms of the sul:rlivision that Mr. Machmeier would review before it ever gets back to the Planning Commission and Council? Does he see every sul:rlivision now? Jo Ann Olsen: Rural sul:rlivisions, yes. He is now on our referral list. Councilman Geving: Okay, so you are there, you're standing guard and I think that is what you are looking for Pat, is someone who says yes or no to a particular subdivision and to a particular lot even as to whether or not they can make that a buildable lot. Roger Machmeier: You will have this data submitted to us. There is a soil survey for the area which we are working arrangement so we know the soil assignments very well for the SCS so we feel that the data that do come in that are apparent red flags or apparent contradictions that we feel should be there, then we will call to the attention of the planning department and suggest very strongly that we need to make additional borings on that lot to verify whether or not that data is correct so we're not saying that we only will evaluate the data subnitted by the developer but in those instances where we feel that additional field investigation needs to be made, we want to have the charge to be able to go out and do that. I believe that was in our original agreement with the planning department. I Councilman Horn: It looks to me like what we are proposing should be less expensive to the developer, is that correct? Jo Ann Olsen: The soil borings, I don't know exactly the cost of having two soil borings versus maybe no perc tests. Councilman Geving: I know in the past the developers didn't want to do the soil borings. For some reason they tried to avoid that at all expense. They would rather go with a perc test. There must be an expense involved. Roger Machmeier: It is more expensive to run two percolation tests as I believe was in your ordinance before than it is to make these two soil borings. It is more time consuming, more expensive and gives less information because we don't know the soil count, we don't know whether in fact the percolation test can validly be run at that depth because we don't know if there is a sheer hitting layer three feet below that percolation test or not so we don't have all the information needed from the two percolation tests but we do have more information from two soil borings. Councilman Horn: That was my point, it is less expensive for the developer and actually gives us more information. Councilwoman Watson: There is no more 201 project? Councilman Geving: No, that's through. I 26 I I I L;(,Jj t";l' h, ... I ~-' ""J ; 1 >-."--~"'- City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: We got in under the wire on this 201 project. We're on our own now. We're sort of accepting our own responsibility. Councilman Geving: In fact Crestview Drive would have been a good candidate for 201. Councilwoman Watson: Yes, that would have been an excellent candidate for 201 because it is kind of isolated but that doesn't exist anymore so we do have to set these criteria that will protect so the City someday doesn't end up doing their own version of 201 project. Councilman Geving: From Staff's standpoint, can we handle (a) and (b) individually or do you want to see them together? I have some comments and questions on (C). Jo Ann Olsen: Individual. Jay Johnson: Do we have any specifications for what we want to see in the soil borings? Councilwoman Swenson: '!hat's what I just asked. Jay Johnson: How deep it should go. What information you want. Do you want a geologist certifying it or can Joe go out and say that this is top soil and this is this and this and this? I've done soil borings that would not pass or I would not want to see. Jo Ann Olsen: '!he details of that get in the Ordinance that we adopted State Regulations. Jay Johnson: So there is details on what the soil borings. '!he other point that does bother me is right now we've got an audience of three reporters and two councilman elect and nobody that this affects. Is there anyway that we can word out to the affected people for the second reading of this? Councilwoman Swenson: '!hey had a public hearing at the Planning Commission. Councilman Geving: We've already gone through that process. Jay Johnson: '!here was nobody there. Councilwoman Swenson: You'll find that that will happen a lot. You are going to find a lot of public hearings and there isn't going to be anybody there. Jay Johnson: '!here are two other people out there with septic systems going right now, putting into South Shore isn't very effective for getting the word out. Councilman Geving: I think the thing that you will readily understand when you sit up here Jay is that we make every attempt to inform developers who are going to be involved with this and effected by it and they are very sharp. They don't miss any of these opportunities. They read the paper am know what 27 Cj).r.>,a. "11,-., :\'1 L:.J\J\~ City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 is coming up in the Planning Commission's agenda so I'm not too excited about I them not being here tonight. They have had their day in court on this issue. They are aware of it. Plus the fact, the City, we don't really advertise that we need more people to come to the Council meetings. The interested ones were here tonight for example. They are interested in their issues and when their issue comes up, they will be here. We do everything we can to encourage them but this is a typical City Council meeting. When you get 4-5 people you are happy and when we had 150 here tonight, it's very good. Barbara Dacy: The people that are most affected by it, as you refer to it are the rural landowners and Staff did conduct a workshop on November 20th. The density regulations and we also went through the sewage treatment system ordinance. The biggest one for developers who are trying to submit their plats to beat the ordinance is to allow mound systems which is right now not permitted. It allows them to have a buildable lot whereas under the current standards, they will not have buildable lots. Don Ashworth: We did send a notice to all of them directly so it was sent to them. Jay Johnson: So you did take that second effort. Very good. Councilman Geving: They do a pretty good job but when there is no response it isn't our fault. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the first reading I of the proposed amendments to Section 5.3(6) and 9.2(7) of the Subdivision Ordinance as shown in Attachment #1. All voted in favor except Councilwoman Swenson who abstained and motion carried. Councilman Geving: Moving onto Item 6 (b) , we have the amendment to Ordinance 10-A, Individual Sewage Treatment System Ordinance and I believe here is a very minor inclusion of the procedures for the maintenance of the systems. Although I didn't see the penalities for malfunctioning systems. Jo Ann Olsen: That's not included. Councilman Geving: That will be coming, so that will be a condition of the approval. Anything else that we should know about this particular item 6(b)? Jo Ann Olsen: We went to Roger Machmeier and he reviewed it and came up with some additions and changes and the major ones were to focus on the maintenance. That was really important that every three years they be cleaned. Also, we changed the Rules to 7080 and we are adopting those State Regulations and that gets into all the other details so by adopting those, we are adopting all the State RegUlations. Some of the changes on page 5 and 6, we added (m), (n) and (0). Those are new and they give some more design details that we have worked in there. Again, we are allowing mound systems. The State Regulations are now changing to allow mound systems as a standard I system and we will be doing that also. The Planning Commission liked the part about the maintenance but they also wanted some details on... 28 I I I 267 City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 Councilman Geving: '!hey went on and on and on about that. It must have been an interesting meeting. Councilwoman Watson: When the people from 65th Street and Crestview Drive came to us arrl they said, yes we have a problem, we know about it, now how can the City help us. Within this procedure of penalties, we also have to come up with the mechanism, not that welre going to go into the irrlividual treatment and start assisting people in rebuilding but we have to have a mechanism by which the City tells these PeOple how they go about rehabilitating their systems because like on Crestview Drive, they come to us and say okay, i tIs failing, I know itls failing, you know itls failing, now what can you do so itls not failing anymore. Councilwoman Swenson: Build one on the second site. Councilwoman Watson: But you have to have a mechanism by which the City follows through. Once we say this, once they come to the City and say itls failing, then it kirrl of puts the burden on us to make sure that it doesnlt continue to fail. Not so much a penalty as something that makes sure that it doesnlt continue to fail arrl that these PeOple do follow through. That they know the procedure and follow through. Councilman Geving: Apparently Donnelly has had a lot of trouble with the enforcement issue on this and again, I think the suggestion that the City Attorney should have been there that evening arrl should be on top of this issue is very important because it eventually comes down to a letter that is a citation by the Attorney. Councilman Horn: Two things that I'm concerned with. One is that it appears to me that there should be no excuse for letting effluent get out on top of the ground. It seems that all you have to do is to pump that. Certainly it is a temporary thing arrl we should never allow pollution to occur on the grourrl. I think that should be built into our Ordinance. '!he other one 11m concerned about is sometime ago when we brought this up, some of our past Staff warned us that there would be some city obligation if we allowed this type of development to happen. What is the status of that? Is there an obligation that we have as a City for the proper functioning of a septic system? Don Ashworth: What you are talking is an on-going maintenance program. Councilman Horn: Is that an obligation that we have? If we say that we buy a PC that every three years it tells somebody to clean it out that that relieves our obligation? Don Ashworth: Youlve got an obligation to go out physically and inspect. Councilman Horn: My other comment is I donlt think we need another PC to do that. It seems to me we could do that on one of the in-house units that we have. Councilman Geving: What are you talking about here? 29 onp ~\ao City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 Councilman Horn: According to the Minutes they were going to put in as a planning article, the purchase of a PC to enforce this tickler system. I Jo Ann Olsen: Not specifically for that. The planning department... Councilman Geving: I like your first point. You are absolutely correct. There should be no excuse for effluent. As far as the policing action when we know a system is failing is when someone reports it and the tendency in most neighborhoods is not to report it. They know it's there. They know it exists. I know the Crestview, I doubt very few people came forward and reported that. Councilwoman Watson: The people themselves came forward but their neighbors weren't coming down here saying guess what's happening in my neighbors yard. Councilman Horn: It seems like Donnelly was aware of these things. He said he's been aware of them for two years am couldn't do anything about them. It seems strange but my real question is if we are aware of them somehow, what is our liability if somebody gets sick or something? Is there a liability to us? Don Ashworth: We have a liability if we don't respond to that question. I'm not sure which section you are talking about as far as Donnelly am two years ago. I Councilman Horn: I'm referring to the Planning Commission Minutes. Councilwoman Watson: In the Planning Commission Minutes he talks about working on something for two years. Don Ashworth: I'm not aware of any issue, this Crestview one was the most difficul t am that was because of the wet area up there. I know that the City Engineer did step in and basically asked George not to proceed with the abatement process because at that point in time, we felt that the tile in that street would solve that problem that if we had the in-house personnel capable of doing that work through the street department. They did that work. It still did not correct the problem in that area. It was at that point in time that the notices were sent out. I'm unaware of any other issues. I know that in the past there has been some problems between the building inspection office am the City Attorney's office as far as follow through on particular i terns. One of the things that we did in the past month was cause some realignments within City Hall so that the Building Inspector's office really falls underneath the Public Safety Director. That whole correspondence area has significantly improved since that changeover. That was one of the areas that I really looked at because there is strong coordination that currently occurs between the Police am the Attorney's office. I don't think that it is reasonable for the building office to have to carry out to the same degree the follow up work where they have particular problems in the building area so I feel much more confident that any type of concerns that may gave originated a year ago or a year am a half ago where George did not feel that the Attorney was responding quickly enough are really being handled today. The third issue I 30 I I I CJ: P, 0\ [~-d "'-' f".J~ City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 is we do have a responsibility to routinely inspect the septic systems. That is a function and we will look to charging these people for that work. Councilman Horn: '!hat was my concern. It appeared that we did have an obligation and it appeared that we were not getting response and had I been sitting on the Planning Commissin that night I would have been really upset at the responses I got because it seemed like well, you really can't do anything about that anyway because the process takes so long and that's an answer we can't live with. Don Ashworth: I agree. What I will do is have Mr. Castleberry look at that set of Planning Commission Minutes and specifically go down through those noting changes that have already occurred to insure that that type of a process or those type of statements will not be seen again. Councilman Geving: I think what Clark is looking for here is a procedure. Once we are aware of the situation, we have a set procedure of what happens next down through the citation process, if it comes to that and a number of days involved. I think that was what George was frustrated with and I understand that but maybe he didn't feel that he had the enforcement leg behind him to carry that through. There seemed to be something lacking in carrying out enforcement to make it happen. I think you are right Clark, if we have a procedure that can be worked out step by step, we might have a handle on it. I can see us getting more and more into this business. Once we start oepning up south of TH 5 with all kinds of development in unsewered areas, it's going to multiply. It's corning faster than we can handle it. Mr. Machrneier is going to be busier then the dickens. Barbara Dacy: Mr. Horn about the comment about the City noti fying people and so on, when you read through the Minutes you probably picked up on Section 5 of page 8 that we are requiring owners of individual tanks to pump their tank at least every three years am the Commission's concern was a lot of people move in from, like we heard tonight, from Bloomington or whatever and they corne out and forget that they have the sewage treatment system and not on- sewer and how can you make sure that these people do that. Staff's response was we can give educational material out when they apply for the building permit or we are going to be putting a lot of stuff on a PC besides this, planning data, etc., that we could conceivably send out a mailed notice. We issue about 25-30 septic tank permits a year. '!hat is a number that we can manage. Councilman Horn: Do we get notification of a change of ownership? Barbara Dacy: Usually, Jean's office does yes, at certain intervals during the year. Councilman Geving: Let's go ahead and rule on this issue. This is really fairly straight forward. We're amending an existing ordinance with some changes and we are waiting for the violation penalties and you are working on that now? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes, we will have that for the second meeting. 31 C)r7(t1 LJ '- J' City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 Councilman Geving: When will that second meeting be? I Barbara Dacy: December 15th. Councilman Horn moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the first reading of the amendment to Ordinance l0-A, Individual Sewage Treatment System Ordinance. All voted in favor and motion carried. Note: At this point Councilwoman Swenson was not present to vote on this and the remaining issues. Councilman Geving: The third issue is the resolution of establishing fees. Amendment to Resolution 83-29 establishing fees and licensing requirements for individual sewage septic systems. I only have a comment or two and that is the justification for the recommended increases in the individual sewage treatment system permit fees and then secondly, on the resolution itself, I don't know if this was supposed to have been a repeat of the earlier resolution but Item 2 in the existing resolution is a commercial, industrial multiple and all other fee areas. Has that been dropped from this and if so, why? It seems like this should be included. Jo Ann Olsen: The Buidling Inspector went through it and he upped all the prices. Councilman Geving: I understand that but on the original, June 6, 1983, item I 2 was commercial, industrial, multiple dwellings and all others and that is not included. Jo Ann Olsen: I believe the reason he took that out is because right now we're not allowing commercial, industrial with septic systems. Councilman Geving: Okay, that's the answer I'm looking for. Is that a true statement? We're not? Barbara Dacy: Right, and also it is just for consistency between the fees and so on. It takes just as much time to review a commercial design as a single family. Councilman Geving: Okay, so now tell me how are you justifying the increases in fees of 100% and approximately 200% in the area of the new alternative system, installation of mounds? Is there a substantial amount of new work involved? Jo Ann Olsen: To analyze the mound system, it takes a lot of work. In fact, for Carver County, they go out and watch it being built from beginning to end and they charge like $600.00. I believe George is taking what other people charge for that. As far as the justification for all the other prices, for yearly permits, he believed it was reasonable. Councilman Geving: So the standard system installation, you are recommending from $50.00 to $100.00, new alternative mound system from $75.00 to $225.00 and Rehab fram $40.00 to $75.00. Any questions on that? I 32 I I I 6"0 I"'J 1 ~~ a -,L City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: In our $225.00 for new alternative systems, how much will we be watching the building of that. If Carver County stands out there for $600.00 and watches every minute, how closely are we going to observe the mound system being built? Jo Ann Olsen: I know that the Buiding Department does not have the time to watch the whole thing from beginning to end but... Councilwoman Watson: will it be on a daily basis or... Jo Ann Olsen: In talking to the building inspector, they would be notified that it was going to be started and they go out there and watch. I don't know exactly how long it takes on a mound. Can it be done in a day? Roger Machmeier: '!he mound can be done in as short a time as a trench system but the critical thing with inspection would be there at the time that the surface soil is prepared. In fact, the inspector should have an idea of soil moisture content so that the mound construction does not proceed if the soil is too wet because if the original soil is damaged on that site, then the mound is not going to operate very well hydraulically at all. The very critical time for inspection would be just before construction proceeds, before the soil is purified to make sure that it is dry, you might very well...in Chanhassen depending on how wet the soil is but that soil surface preparation, the laying down of the clean sand layer, that is the most cri tical time. '!he other critical would then be at the end of the construction to make sure that everything has proper slopes, to make sure that no surface ponds on the mounds, that the grass cover is established and that type of thing. Councilwoman Watson: I'm just trying to decide, if Carver County feels that they should be there all the time and watch it being built, there must be some merit to a very close inspection of that process. Councilman Horn: I have a follow-up to that. Are they there monitoring it and we're there monitoring it too? Why are we being redundant with what they are doing? Councilwoman Watson: Are they paying $225.00 to the City and $600.00 to the County? Don Ashworth: Just the one. When you are referring to County, they are talking about the rural areas, those areas that Carver County enforces zoning. Councilwoman Watson: Where the County regulations are enforced, not the Ci ty's. I'm just concerned that our inspection process is just as good as theirs. Don Ashworth: I'll verify that question. Councilman Geving: Were these proposed fee increases done with any kind of per hour calculation? How did the proponent arrive at these? 33 c;> -~'0 2i'o~ City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 Barbara Dacy: In the case of the license fees and so on, originally the perc tester fee was $10.00. I Councilman Geving: No, don't worry about that. Go back to the permit fees. Barbara Dacy: Okay, I was just giving that as an example. Let's go back to the permit fees. Yes, the hourly rate was included. I don't think they have George and Ron's time but you have the secretarial staff time typing the permit and so on, filing, recording it in our septic tank recording file and so on, so yes, the hourly fees of all the administrative personnel were included in that as well plus hourly rate for field inspection, travel time, etc. . Councilman Geving: Let me ask you the difference between issuing a permit for rehab or repair as opposed to a new standard system. Is there much difference? Barbara Dacy: Well, I think the intent there is if it is a rehab or repair, the type of designs that you would have to submit may not be as extensive or deserve as extensive a review as new installation. Also, I know that installing a septic system does cost money. A mound can cost what, up to $8,000.00-$10,000.00 depending on the site? Roger Machmeier: A mound? It depends on where you're located~ I did a survey on mound lots in the Chisago County area and the average for a two bedroom I home was about $4,000.00 for putting in a septic tank and holding tank. Local costs will vary depending on location, materical prices and so on. Councilman Geving: An individual homeowners would be paying this? Barbara Dacy: Right, just for the installation so we try to keep the fees as low and reasonable as possible because they are paying a significant amount of money just to install the system. Councilman Geving: I would like to propose these fees: $100.00 $200.00 $50.00 $20.00 New Standard System New Alternative Mound System Rehab and repair of existing systems All other systems, pumper fee I'm not trying to be arbitrary here but it seems like a reasonable amount which is less than the amount that is being requested by the proposal here. Councilwoman Watson: I'm confused about so much for the rehab and repair of existing systems. It seems to me that that is where the City's liability begins to come in when we know the system has failed. It seems to me that the man hours that it is going to take to make sure that that system has been adequately repaired, is functioning and eveything is working, it would almost take more time or certainly as much time as a new system because that's where the liability and if the City knows the system is failing and doesn't make I 34 I I I 0'70 .(~ f (~_'1 City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 sure that it is no longer failing arrl that it doesn't cause a public hazard, there's where our liability comes in. It seems to me that if this rehabilitation includes a failing system, then our inspection process has got to be every bit as good as any other time in order to insure. Councilman Geving: I would say then that that should be the same as the new standard system. Councilwoman Watson: I do too. If $100.00 is a legitimate cost of a good inspection, keeping it carefully inspected, making sure that it is functioning at the errl, maybe even a follow-up say a few months down the road to make sure that it contines to function when it was really in use. Councilman Horn: I don't think I have enough data to even propose a fee schedule without some type of a recornrnerrlation as to how these were arrived at and what adjacent municipalities do. Don Ashworth: Why don't you table this item? Councilman Geving: I think maybe this would be better to table. I agree. We don't have a lot of good data. We are being very arbitrary arrl even the proponent that is establishing the proposed fee schedule is somewhat arbi trary. Let's try to put it on some kirrl of basis for man hours, inspections. Councilwoman Watson: Number of inspections. Councilman Horn: Justify it somehow. Councilman Geving: The number of inspections that might take place for someone to go into the field arrl look at the site. Councilwoman Watson: Including one say a few months down the road once the system is really functioning. Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to table the amendment to Resolution 83-29 establishing fees arrl licensing requirements for irrlividual sewage septic systems until December 15, 1986. All voted in favor arrl motion carried. APPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPFALS. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the appointments of Willard Johnson, Chairman, Carol Watson, and Dale Geving to the Board of Adjustments arrl Appeals and Mayor Hamilton as the alternate. All voted in favor and motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATION: Councilwoman Watson wanted an update on the Pryzmus property where Mr. Pryzmus is burying debris at the corner of CR 17 and TH 5 at his driving range. Don Ashworth stated that he has not received anything from the City Attorney's 35 C} fj~ iJ_ L~,j (: -"- City Council Meeting - December 1, 1986 office. He stated that he would contact the City Attorney tomorrow. Barbara Dacy stated that since the original Council inquired about that, she had received a call regarding tree removal activity and grading work that was being done. When the Staff went out there, there was just dead vegetation and so on and Ron did not feel that there was any violation occuring. Don Ashworth stated that he would ask the City Attorney to be present on the meeting December 15th to discuss this matter along with other things. I Councilwoman Watson also wanted an update on if the City had responded to Art Partridge. Don Ashworth stated that he had written a letter and Mr. Partridge wrote back saying that he had received the City Manager's letter and asked for some additional information and that was sent to Mr. Partridge. The City Manager thought the letter had carbon copies for the City Council but since they did not receive copies, he would get copies for the City Council. Also, the Mayor did review the letter before it was mailed. Councilman Geving stated that he received three calls regarding the traffic on West 78th Street and Laredo. It is very dangerous now because of a barrier that is there that blocks the view of on-coming traffic. He stated that the Council should start considering a stop sign or three way stop. He also stated that he would like the City Engineer or someone to do an analysis on what can be done there. Don Ashworth stated that the barrier belongs to the telephone company and the road is a county road so those two agencies would have to be contacted. Don Ashworth stated that Mr. Warren has agreed to accept the position of City I Engineer and will start working December 15, 1986. Councilman Horn moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p .m. . Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim I 36