Loading...
1987 01 26227 CITY COUNCIL MR.~TING 26, 1987 Hamilton called the meeting to order· The meeting was opened with the to the Flag. PRESENT: Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving, a~d Councilman Johnson. ABSENT: Councilman Boyt PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Gary Warren and todd · OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilto~ seconded to approve the agenda as presented with the addition by Councilman Geving regardin~ Merle All voted in favor, and motion carried. AGENDA: Mayor }{~_milt~n moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: (a) Approval of the City Council Minutes dated January 12, 1987 as (b) Resolution 987-3: Approval of Plans and Specifications for the Chanhassen H{lls Watermain Extension. All voted in favor ar~ motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: There w~re no visitor presentations at this mccting. PUBLIC }{FARING: DGWN~OWN PUBLIC IMP~0V~N~ PR(G~T. Public Present: Name Address John Rice, Esq. (Representing Blo~mberg Companies) Brad Johnson Ralph M. Fuhrmann Lambert Peters Mark Litfin Bill Loebel P. Kotz Ronald Payne Ivan Payne Selma Payne Lee Ann Wallentine Dean Wallentine Lorraine Peshek Clarence Peshek 630 Shelard Tower, Mpls.,MN 55426 7425 Frontier Trail 7614 Kiowa Avenue 7607 Huron Avenue 7609 Riowa 7197 Frontier Trail 202 So. Walnut, Chaska 509 Chan View St. 7612 Kiowa Avenue 7612 Kiowa Avenue 507 Chart View 507 Chan View 7605 Kiowa Avenue 7605 Kiowa Avenue City Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 Name Address Lloyd Anderson Loni Egland Michael Lee Kerber Lee Kerber Karen A. Davis Frances Jacques Pat Suiter Reuben Kelzenberg John Mitchell Richard Berg Pat Berg Anita Thompson A1 Klingelhutz Carol Watson Pat Swenson Mark Schlenk Martin Ricker Jack Kreger SHirley Kreger Franklin J. Kurvers Douglas Suedbeck Randy Schlueter Mike Higgins Jim Hendrickson W. or J. Ward Bernie Hanson Raymond G. Peitz James A. Schindler George P. Shorba George D. Shorba Helen Loebel Harry Pauly Bernice Schneider Bob Schneider Mike Kraus 6981 Redwing Lane The Bank Chanhassen 7605 Laredo Drive 1620 Arboretum Blvd. 7602 Kiowa Avenue 308 Chan View 7613 Kiowa Avenue 7604 Iroquois 7605 Iroquois 7603 Iroquois 7603 Iroquois 7611 Iroquois 8600 Great Plains Blvd. 7131 Utica Lane 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. 501 Chan view 7608 Huron Avenue 7606 Kiowa Avenue 7606 Kiowa Avenue 7220 Chanhassen Road 7605 Great Plains 580 Fox Hill Drive 600West 78th Street 482 West 78th Street P.O. Box 213 Chanhassen Lawn & Sports 7607 Kiowa Avenue 7606 Huron Avenue 306 Chan View 304 Chan View 7197 Frontier Trail 7561 Great Plains Blvd. 7501 West 77th Street 7501 West 77th Street 402 West 76th Street Dan Ringrose (B~-60: As indicated, we will give a very brief overview in light of the fact t_hat there have been a number of personal meetings with many of the property owners in the commercial area and we had a meeting with the residential property owners last week. I think most people are quite familiar with the project so therefore I will briefly overview it and then as the Mayor indicated, the Council will listen to your consideration. First with respect to the street program, it is highlighted on this drawing. Tnose areas that are highlighted in the dark gray are proposed new streets and/or new parking lots to be constructed for the public improvement. Of significant note is the improvements along relocated Great Plains Blvd. and West 78th Street. The point I want to make there is with the channelized roadway system provided for protected left and right turn lanes. Traffic will Cit~ ilo sho~ in of fun app of lan are Oouncil Meeting - January 26, 1987 very smoothly through the entire area without any disruption. The median n in that drawing, as-well as along the edge, will be landscaped heavily ~ fashion similar as represented on this diagram. This, of course is one he essential elements of the project. Not only do you want to improve the ~tional part of the downtown area but certainly you want to improve the arance to increase the desirability in terms of the shopping district and .~urse, landscaping goes a long ways towards accomplishing that goal. The [scaping street and lane improvements are proposed to be assessed ar~ the ~s to be assessed are identified on this diagram. ~ne assessment rates var~ based on the improvements made on any particular street and t~ are highlighted and outlined in detail in the feasibility study and supplemental re~rt which have been provided to the City. Before we undertake any kind of mawr service improvements we also, of course want to consider what is ' underneath those streets. With respect to the sanitary sewer, after having performed some study and analysis of the system and reviewing the in place se, .~r, we concluded that a limited amount of new sanitary sewer is al~ :opriate. Particularly in light of the fact that some of the sewer is al~ :oaching 30 years old. It has a high frequency of maintenance problems and pit ging so what we are proposing is construction of a new sanitary sewer ale ~3 78th Street and down Great Plains Blvd. connecting into the existing sar .tary sewer at this location. Beyond that the in place sewer is adequate fol the long term future. Similarly with the watermain, portions of the wa ~rmain are also approaching the age where obsolesence and the long term se~icability become questionable. In view of the fact of the extensive costs of~he surface treatments, we think it is appropriate to replace some of the wat a~ wa do~ im de~ pr( no] co] co] It OU' grl of fa' iaI a ermain system. That is the older part, particularly beneath 78th Street Great Plains Blvd. and again as indicated in this diagram, the new ermain is suggested in the red line. Down Laredo and down 78th Street and n connecting to Great Plains Blvd. in this fashion. As in the sanitary ~r the adjacent properties are proposed to be assessed for most of the rovements. Finally, with respect to the storm water sys~, when it comes ltilities, the storm water is that part of the project which is the most [cient. For all practical purposes there is no storm sewer system in the j ect area other than some localized systems up in the northeast and thwest and the existing drainage facilities which consist primarily of verts and ditches along TH 5. In order to accommodate the runoff which wil generated from the development as it occurs, proposed to construct an ensive storm sewer system, all of which is diagramed on this drawing. inage will be collected and directed to a pond located in the southwest net of the project adjacent to TH 5. That pond doesn't exist today other n somewhat of a natural depression. It will be developed and enhanced as a ctional part of the storm sewer system to store water for short term iods and allow it to be discharged through the existing systems at a trolled rate. In addition, that pond will serve a very critical purpose. will control pollution and sediments and so forth. They will be settled The pond will be aerated to help control algea and th~ natural bacterial .wth that will occur. The proposed area for storm sewer assessments is all the area contained within the dashed line on this diagram. The assessment e in the residential areas is one-half of the rate in the commercial areas. s area being residential~ one-half of the commercial rate because of the -- ~t that commercial properties do generate more water run-off. Finally, just uick sketch of the proposed pond. This is the landscape architect's 195 196 City Council Meeting - January 26~ 1987 concept of how that can be turned into an amenity as well as a functional part of the storm sewer system. With that Mr. Mayor, I'm finished with my overview. Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. John Mitchell, 7605 Iroquois: That's two blocks, right in the center of the residential area I believe. I've been a resident here for about 19 years. We paid for a storm sewer started shortly after I moved here and I have some documents to show my payments that I've made that I can give you. I don't have a document for each year. I think the first document is the second year that I made payments and it was a 10 year period and then there are some later ones on the second sheet. I guess I feel that there is already a storm sewer in existence that is working and servicing our area and that we residents should be removed from that assessment. To make assessments there should be some demonstrated benefit to the property owners and I don't see any demonstrated benefit to us. If you're making improvements on the downtown area and that means that you have to put in the pond and more expensive things, that still isn't our fault that you have to do that so I don't feel that should be our expense. One advantage to moving here was that that was all in. I felt that is all paid for, that's an advantage of locating there. Councilman Geving: May I ask you John, you have documents 1971 through 1976. Do you know what the first year was and what the last year was for this assessment? John Mitchell: ~ne amount? Councilman Geving: No, the years that were included. John Mitchell: Tne first page, I think that's the second year of the assessment and I didn't have all the documents for that. Councilman Geving: That was a 10 year program? John Mitchell: Yes, it was a 10 year program and I don't have an original statement that said the total amount but there was interest charged on it too. Pat Berg, 7603 Iroquois: I also have tax statements from 1974 and 1975 that we paid for the same sewer that John was talking about, storm sewer and I didn't make copies but I will leave these because I have other copies at home. Pat Suiter, 7613 Kiowa: I didn't plan to make a statement but in the course of living here over the past 6 months, which is about th~ length of my tenure as a citizen of Chanhassen, I have just recently become aware of what appears to be a 10 year development scheme for improving the appearance of downtown Chanhassen. Personally, my wife and I found Chanhassen to be kind of a quaint, scenic community before any plans came along to improve it but that fact notwithstanding, it appears to me that most of the impetus behind the project appears to be related to the popularity of the Dinner Theater which is more than just a neighborhood concern. If anything, it's a metropolitan area and probably a regional phenomenon and if you look at the design, it leans almost totally toward how traffic and how the pattern of consumer spending Cit' Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 mig the the for muo add~ per for of WOU fit not Ani ke~ did you Lan th~ hit Do[ ba¢ t apply based around the core of the Dinner Theater. That as a basis for whole project, it would seem to me inapporpriate that one neighborhood on criteria of drainage should have to help fund improvement in storm sewers. e my direct connection has to do with the fact that I would be assessed it, it does appear to me that the weight of the whole project deals with a broader area than the limits that you wish to help finance it_ In tion to that, I have some concern over the wisdom of putting in a holding .. I recognize that drainage, as far as storm runoff seems to suggest in current view, that holding back the rain water and draining it over a od of time has more of less recently emerged as a preferential treatment storm sewers but you would not have anything that would approach the kind cenic pond that has ~_n portrayed in the promotion on the thing. You .d have a cesspool that would raise and fall with each storm and to try ar~ that into the role of a tourist haven might prove to be unacceptable and cost effective. m Thompson: I would like to say that I thought the City of Chanhassen . records and I didn't bring my records of paying for the storm sewer but I pay for it and I thought you certainly would have records over here when assessed us for it. ~rt Peters, 7607 Huron: ! do have the corrected bill dated 4-1B-6B plus fact that a neighboring City Mayor has told me that it is illegal to be twice for the same storm sewer and I brought that up at the other meeting ~ednesday and did you check into that Don? Have you found anything out ~t that? Ashworth: The City can legally assess a storm sewer project mutliple ~ if the Council determi~ that there are benefits back to the property. bert Peters: If we were to hire a lawyer, how much would that set you k? This is one thing that this mayor brought up and he says that is one ~g that they really hate to see because that just ties it up, he can say ever almost. Are you aware of that? Kerber: I made the payments at the house at 7605 Laredo Drive until I ned it over to my son. I had it for about 10 years and in that 10 year iod, there was another assessment and I got nailed on that and I don't see t reason why I should get stuck on it agairu The water was determined at time, it runs north there. Now there are telling me it runs north and no ,th both. Somewhere in the backyard it runs south ar~ on the street it runs th. Did we get a partial assessment for the part that ran south at that e and a partial assessment for the part that ran north at that time. or Hamilton: I suspect you did but we would have to go back and check. Kerber: I suspect I didn't. That's my honest opinion. I don't know how can get stuck twice for the same thing. I~ right on the edge of that tle loop you've got around there and you go out on the street and you look the water, it runs north and I think you're talking about the southern :t. That's the part that should pay. That's all I've got to say. City Council Meeting ' January 26, 1987 George Shorba, 304 Chan View: My father lives at 306 Chan View. My father paid for assessments in 1977. I believe they put the storm sewer in around 1977 or 1978. I see on your information sheet that you say the existing intrastructures in the downtown area is poor and outdated. I don't know what that statement means. I work for MnDot and we design for 100 years and it is suppose to last that long. It looks like this one has lasted 10 years. Our water on our two lots drains to the north and to the east. We could get some elevations if we have to to prove this point. If you do assess, for the rest of the people here, I don't know how we're going to come out of this, but if you are going to assess, it sounds like you're going to assess the residential property the same as the commercial property. I don't understand that. You have three times the runoff from commercial property as you do from residential property so the commercial property should pay three times as much and I can't figure how you can do it by the square foot because with hard surface the water runs off faster and you get more water into the structures and into the sewer. It looks to me like you're trying to size the pipe bigger to handle the additional water you're going to get from this new development. The bigger the pipe the more expensive the installation. If we could stay with the same size pipe of course, what you have out there now and get some holding ponds and let the water run out slower. This would solve the problem too. I guess that's all I've got to say. Councilman Geving: Are you saying that you feel that you were assessed in the 1978 Erie project? George Shorba: Yes, I have the documents here. It was called the Storm Sewer Project 75-11 and Concrete Curb and Gutter Project 77-3. Total cost $172,000.00. It consisted of Erie, West 77th and Chan View Streets and storm sewer project. Don Kalsted, Pony Express Bar: From what I've seen of the plan and from what I've been told and the drawings and the maps and everything, I would like to go on record as opposing any action at all in the project because I don't think all of the concerns of the effected people have been addressed. For myself, I would be adversely effected by the major changes to several areas, one of which is the parking. Cutting off all of my contiguous parking and moving the parking further away and cutting down on the overall number and then bringing in this road and assessing me for taking away, I see absolutely no benefit at all to me as a property owner or a businessman the way that it is presently configured and without seriously addressing those problems and coming up with some agreed upon solutions, I would like to go on written record as opposing. Reuben Kelzenberg, 7604 Iroquois: One thing I just wanted to say was the way I look at this map here, it appears like the drainage ways which currently exist along Chan View will basically stay as is. Do I understand that correctly? I guess I don't mind paying into an improvement if it improves the situation but I've been on that location for 10 years and there has been a pond at the bottom of Iroquois where Iroquois and Chan View go together every spring. That ices up and stays there for about three months. If you guys could come up with a design that would improve the flow out of that area I could probably go along with the program but right now, I've never been very 199 Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 with that intersection and I don't see where this is going to help it Rice, 630 Shelard Tower: I'm an Attorney. I'm here speaking on behalf of .oomberg Companies Inc. tonight because Clayton Johnson ar~ Herbert could not be here simply to state so that you folks are aware and so the folks here are aware that Bloomberg Companies Inc. supports the public improvement project and as far as the special assessments, obv recognize ~ difficult job of determining what's to be included and wha' 's the benefitted area and what is not the benefitted area. I'm not an at least on that so I can't really address that question other than to in favor of and on behalf of the approval of the project as proposed by Mr. 'th in the r~ndation. Fr~ Kurvers: I own a piece of property on 79th Street. I was assessed 100% on property for storm sewer in 1977. I would like to know what benefit I'm to get now that I didn't have then because the water flowed, at that never went into the storm sewer at all. It went across the highway and the way the pipes look, I don't think that people here tonight, you've never expi what you're going to add to this piping system. It's kind of an · We don't really know what size the pipe is. They don't know what new pipe is going to be. You don't have enough colors on that map. We're all vet uninformed and as far as the assessment on Laredo, coming down Laredo, that storm sewer was put in, the school was never assessed, the City was assessed, the Post Office was never assessed and all this land was never Now you're going back ar~ assessing everybody again before you ass~ those people who never were assessed 100%. The whole package is wrong. Ron is, now. 509 Chan View: It appears to me, I've lived here for about 12 and all of a sudden it appears there is a problem. What I want to know looks like the problem is a result of development, not the way it is I don't have a problem and I don't think there is a problem. I think is that we're trying to redevelop the downtown ar~ that should be problem. Not just a few people that live in this area because the is going to be 'used by everybody in this town. Jacques, 308 Chan View: I paid for a storm sewer in 1958. I paid for Plains Blvd.. I paid for the 77th Street, that work being done ar~ I don' think I should be assessed for anything. Let the downtown people pay for .t. Anit Thompson: (bviously it is going to benefit the downtown area and you are interested in the downtown area. You aren't interested in our particularly. Have we changed your minds here tonight? That we have all already? Are we just going to get arbitrarily assessed again like I did the two water meters that I paid for wP~n I moved in and had to pay for again? Is that going to happe~ to me? I5~ here because I've had two thil Is happen to me two times. In all the years I've lived here, I objected to you people did. Both times I was a victim and I don't want to be a vic again ar~ that's why I came. 200 City Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: Okay, you made you comments. We listened and as I said, on February 9th we will take everybody's comments into consideration and we will debate the issue ar~ we will make a vote on it. Jack Kreger, 7606 Kiowa: My concern is that storm sewer water from our residential area goes down Chan View, goes down the main street and from there it heads east. Now, you're going to turn that around and run it up to the west. I don't see any reason at all to change direction of that at the corner of Great Plains and 76th Street. If that outlet is left the way it is and go ahead and develop your project downtown, there is no reason to change anything up in the residential area. Pat Suiter: How many consultants were involved in the process of determining how things should be and what we have here today? Don Ashworth: At least three come to mind. Mayor Hamilton: Three engineering firms and our own in-house engineer. Two engineers. Pat Suiter: I guess my concern and perhaps a concern of the general public, if not the general public then the immediate neighborhood and certainly my own, there is always this tendency to be seduced by the brightest sleigh with the most bells and I wonder if some of that hasn't come into play in this determination of what downtown should look like. It seems to me that there is some advantage to being simple and I would encourage the Commissioners to at least try to give that option some credibility in their decision. Mark Littfin, 7609 Kiowa: I too helped pay for the 1968 storm sewer and like Mr. Peters said, we were told at that time that we could not be assessed a second time for a storm' sewer that did not benefit our area. I'm against the proposal. Mark Fuhrmann, 7614 Kiowa: I would like to reiterate what Mark Littfin has just said and secondly, we fail to see any benefit we gain. It was said 15 minutes ago that more benefits of some nature would be accruing to our area but we fail to see any of that. Only so much water runs from our area. It's not going to increase with additional activity downtown. I think that is where the crux of the problem is. A greater demand will be made down there by people who aren't there now or are improving their properties so let them pay. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton stated that the Council should authorize preparation of plans and specifications as part of the ac~linistration process. Councilman Johnson: I have two sheets of paper here or two sets. ~ne first one having to do with the assessment which we will cover on the 9th and the second one having to do with the four pages worth of my comments on the whole package. Some of these comments are pretty much, please consider this, please consider that type of comments to the engineer. I would like to ensure that 201 Ci Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 are reviewed. Part of this are criticism of the various things within it I would like to get some reactions back from some of the other members on of these especially, one is the landscaping. The various subsections ow the landscaping which is in general I found the landscaping plans to be heavier, 1,644 plantings planned than I believe is appropriate for this ar. I believe that it will be adverse for the businesses because as drawn, won't be able to eve~ see some of the business. It will obscure the view of businesses. I think it would be adverse to public safety to have a median pl. s on the median. We may have children trying to cut across those m, [ians and if you have heavy plantings on the inside that will restrict the dr vet's view. The heavy plantings on the median will restrict the view of businesses on the opposite side of the street therefore make the driver ing to look to see the other way harder and not be paying as much attention I would like to see the plantings cut at least in half. My other half, my wi thinks it should go even more than that ar~ she is very much in plantings that kind of stuff. The entry monuments, Ihn not too much for the way ,'re designed right now. I think there is quite a bit of controversy right no' over signage for our city. We saw that with the Chamber's signage and I th we ought to move the signage to Phase 2. This way we can get more of a to get more input from the Planning Commission and the Chamber and the citizenry on what we want for our signage. If this was a nice idential subdivision we had planned I would like their signage. Hamilton: What you're saying is you would like your comments given to Engineer so they can be put into their plans and specifications? :ilman Johnson: Yes, but things like moving the entry monuments to Phase 2, can that be done as that or does that have to be voted on by the Council? Ma '.ing changes of rearranging that because I think that is something everyone have an opinion on and I have several things to be moved to Phase 2. Hamilton: Once the plans and specifications are complete then we can iew them all and package them. We want to prepare those so we can review and then make comments on whether we agree with them or not. lman Johnson: Okay. For ponding, it just dawned on me that we don't to sock that pond. We have a pond betw.~_----n a railroad track and a very highway. I don't want to attract children to that pond so I don't want that as a park. In general, I would like to see the project costs considerably by some of my suggestions or sharp pinned by the engineers. a financial forecast similar to what we saw whe~ last year's Council was ling with downtown redevelopment and retail west. I really liked that printout and it would have ~ very nice to have -__--~_ that with this also. ~nose are my comments on the project and I have more specific within this m~mo which I have given to our engineer. Hamilton asked the City Engineer to make sure the BRW gets a copy of ~ilman Johnson's memo to review and incorporate them into the plans specifications. City Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 Resolution #87-4: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded for a resolution authorizing the downtown public improvement project, authorize preparation of the plans and specifications for the project and commencement of the property acquisition process. All voted in favor and motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS: KERBER BLVD./COUNTY ROAD 17 WATERMAIN EXTENSION. Gary Warren: I'll update you. As part of our water system analysis report that was provided to the Council and the City in July of 1985, there were some major improvements to our system that were vital for bringing it up to proper standards and also to keep up with development. The project that we have on the agenda tonight, the Kerber Blvd./County Road 17 watermain extension is one of those major trunk parts of our system that we are looking to interconnect and provide some support for the Carver Beach area and some of the northern parts of our system by allowing us to connect with our Well #4 down in the Lake Susan area. Plans and specs were authorized by the Council and we opened bids on the project January 9th of this year. We're talking about 8,800 feet of force main on Kerber Blvd. and on Powers Blvd.. We had very favorable response, 18 bidders. The low bidder was Civil Structures Inc. out of Saginaw, Minnesota and has a good reputation behind them based on our investigations and our engineer's investigations. We therefore recommend that the Council award the project to Civil Structures in the amount of $228,770.00. Councilman Geving: I think the bid is excellent if we can get that kind of 22% reduction and you did talk to some of these other cities and you were assured that this was a firm that can do the job? Gary Warren: Actually, the firm went bya name, I believe Jack Olson had his own firm and he reorganized as a result but the references that we were provided were very good and people are willing to give them additional work without question. Councilman Geving: Do you do that regularly too Gary? I suspect as a new engineer, we would like to have you make those same kind of notes on each of these construction companies so you'll have a file of reccmm~endations. Gary Warren: Right. Some I have my own background from but others we will be checking also. Councilman Johnson: With this many bidders you can tell this guy isn't just off the wall. He's within a reasonable margin of the next person. Resolution #87-5: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to award the bid for Kerber Blvd./County Road 17 Watermain Extension to Civil Structures, Inc. in the amount of $228,770.00. All voted in favor and motion carried. 10 203 Ci~ Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 TO REGULATIONS FOR INDIVID{]AL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, FINAL A. ORDINANCE 10-B RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES. Jo Olsen: I'll just give a quick background. With the number of rural ,isions that are coming into the city, the City hired Mr. Machmeier ar~ Mr. Anderson as consultants to review the rural subdivisions coming through. We had them review our Individual Sewage Treatment System Ordinance and as result of that we have revised it. On December 1st the City Council the first reading of the Ordinance along with additional information on maintenance schedule and landscaping of the mound systems. As far as for mound systems, we added a section ~ that required that all shall be landscaped in a manner to screen them from the street and ad' ' ' properties. That's page 6 under Additional Standards. Again, we a Section Q requiring a landscaping plan be submitted along with a application amd we have the following standards: 1. All mounds shall be covered with seed or sod. 2. No shrubs or trees shall be planted on the mound. m The grass cover on the mound shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner. m Any shrubs, deciduous or evergreen trees used shall meet the following minimun standards: (a) Shrub - Minimu~ 2 feet in height. (b) Deciduous Tree - Minimum 2 1/2 inches caliper. (c) Evergreen Tree - Minimun 6 feet in height. We it pretty open to review each site case by case so it doesn't have · a mound covered with trees. Then there was a maintenance schedule. The stressed the cleaning of the systems was what was most important. We the second paragraph, that the owner of an individual sewage treatment must su]mnit documentation as provided by the City verifying that the system has been cleaned. If the owner does not comply with this the City will enforce the violations ar~ penalties as stated in 9. We went through three options and one of them was that the City ld go in and pump the system to make sure that they are cleaned out every years. The liability of that was too much to take on so we went back to kl it up to th~ owner to clean it and then we can fall back on our · and penalties. Hamilton: Go down to the bottom where it says Licensing and If wasn't clear in that whole paragraph 7.~1. No person shall (a) design; (b) install, construction, alter, extend or repair;...soil ions and percolation tests what? Without a license? Then you start of J There ~cms to be a break in there somewhere. There is something 11 City Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 missing. It doesn't flow just right. so that gets cleaned up. Just make sure that you mark that spot Councilman Johnson: Tom, it looks like remove the period and start with the next work "for" and it keeps reading, for individual sewage treatment systems within the City of Chanhassen without meeting the Primary Licensing Qualifications. Mayor Hamilton: That could be. Councilman Horn: It still doesn't have a verb. Barbara Dacy: After your comments tonight, we'll bring it back on the Consent Agenda. Jo Ann Olsen: So those are the two changes as far as Ordinance 10-B. Mayor Hamilton: On page 10, Licensed Pumper Responsibility. I just had a question. Do we license the pumpers in the city? People who are pumping septic systems, are they licensed? Councilman Geving: ~ney must be because it is an old item in here, $20.00. Mayor Hamilton: Then on Page 14, Section 9.01(C)(D). Based on the actual situation that occurred in our community, are those 8~ reasonable? The owner of a failing system shall apply for a permit within 15 days of notification as per Ordinance 10-B and the owner of a failing system shall have 30 days to repair or replace a failing system. Now we know that that was not even possible for the systems that were failing last year. It took over a year to fix th~m~. Jo Ann Olsen: It's essentially there hoping that they will follow it. If they don't, then we do have to have a long court process. Mayor Hamilton: Except I think we n~-~cd to be reasonable and I think 30 days isn't reasonable. If we find a system that is failing in January, I don't think you can expect them to fix it in 30 days. Jo Ann Olsen: It says during heavy frost months the inspector may allow longer time. Councilman Geving: I'm with you Tom. 30 days, even if it was the middle of summer might be difficult. By the time you realize you've got a problem. How expensive it is and these things are not cheap so I think 30 days should be like 120 days or 90 days. Mayor Hamilton: At least 90 days. Councilman Gev ing: Yes. Jo Ann Olsen: If it's really causing a health problem? 12 205 Ci ~ouncil Meeting - January 26, 1987 lman Geving: Yes. Tnel~ve got 15 days to notify us but 30 days, that's going to help. Hamilton: I don't think you can do it in 30 days is my point. I think have to have time to accomplish it. Ashworth: I think Staff was trying to insure though that we get it .back to yoL~ Some of the septic problems can be very minor type of repairs that owner can and should get done within 30 days. Other issues like we saw, .ch you're thinking of, could be very difficult and as long as t~ come k into you and ask for a three month, whatever type of delay, and you agree wi that, you can grant it. Co lman Geving: It doesn't say that here though. It should be spelled out in (D) if that's what you want. Ashworth: That was our intent. lman Johnson: I agree that we should put an extension criteria in there to be granted by City Council rather than onllf by the Inspector. The In , obviously in January should be able to say you're not going to get th s thing done but a major overhaul. Hamilton: Put an item (~ in there and we'll just deal with extensions. sore circumstances item (F) will apply. lman Horn: I wonder if we should have as a part of the permit process, a time estimate of completiom. If we allow for 30 days, they will wait .il just about a week is left and they'll start doing something. I think was the intent here. He has to apply for a permit within 15 days after he is notified. Maybe part of the permit process should be to establish a for ccmplying. lman Johnson: That's a very good idea. Hamilton: Do you want that to be a part of (F) then or part of the same .tion? Horn: Part of (C) and then on (D), we put a cap on it that says no schedule shall exceed however many days you think the time is going to be. Jo Ann Olsen: Do you have any idea of how many days you want it to be? Hamilton: I think Clark's idea that you have Gary go out and look at it make an estimate of the number of days that it's going to be or how long it take to correct the problem or if you have our consultant look at it say it's going to take two months to solve this problem then that should be the guideline that we follow. Dacy: You did not want Council approval? We could amend (D) saying they have up to 30 days unless determined otherwise by the Council. 13 City Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 Councilman Geving: For long term, real complex or difficult. Barbara Dacy: Okay, so you still wanted that option. Councilman Geving: That should cc~e back to the Council. Jo Ann Olsen: Anything over 30 days? Mayor Hamilton: Yes, if Gary were to determine that it's going to take 60 or 90 days to correct the problem. Councilman Johnson: That would be a permit condition? Is that what you're saying? So should (D) read they shall have 30 days or as specified in the permit? Gary Warren: They actually have 60 days days based on what (E) presents. We won't take action until 60 days passes I guess we're saying. I would tend to agree with everybody's on a monthly cycle for budgeting and otherwise and 30 days is pretty hard to scramble to do sc~ething of this nature. Mayor Hamilton: What do you suggest Gary? Thinking of the problem we had. Gary Warren: Crestview? Mayor Hamilton: It was a serious problem. Councilman Geving: But it's fairly typical. Area wide, not just one or two people but a whole-area. Gary Warren: I think that action can be taken. It's not impossible to correct the situation within 30 days but I think that in all liklihood that it might be best to revise (D) to say 60 days but then also provide the contingencies that you were saying that in the discretion of the City Engineer or our consultant that we look at it on a case by case basis. I don't think we want to have to keep coming back to the Council agenda for each one of these. Jo Ann Olsen: Unless they exceed the schedule that was set? Gary Warren: Right. Councilman Geving: I had a question on page 9 under Section 6.01 and 6.02, I think where the system was abandoned and it would have to be reconnected but I also can understand where there might be a system that has been for some reason or another the people have left the area and the site is still there. We don't even know that it's not being used. I don't know how you know when an on-site sewer system has been abandoned. I don't want to complicate this by putting in another category but I guess that's my problem. How do you know when abandonment occurs? People may just move from the area and leave the house or whatever it is out in the community and 3 to 6 months later someone else may move in so you don't know how long this has been abandoned. How do you handle that? How would you identify an abandoned on-site system? If a 14 207 Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 of on didn't sell their property but just moved away and it's still there and re expecting that somewhere along the line that they're going to take care septic tank and have it p~ out every three years. Jo Olsen: That would be probably how we fir~ out. Whe~ that three years up and we found that nobody was living there. We could check out the if s~nebody is not living there or whatever. :ilman Geving: Just an administrative question now for you Jo Ann. Are intending to place all of these ~n-site sys%ems on a tickler type system at the end of three years they automatically come up and you say I've to check on all of these this year an~ you'll go out ar~ do that? Has ~cn set up or will be set up? Jo Olsen: Yes. We're starting. We've got all the addresses and what we' 1 do is notify everybody this year that we know that their systems are than 3 years and just keep going from there. .ilman Geving: How many do we have about? · Is it a big item? Just off the top of your Jo Olsen: It's about 10~ I would say but with the applications we just in with the deadline, is doubling that at least. :ilman Geving: I can see your computerized technique where you would pump tht out for fee schedules. Da] lman Johnson: On the same thing there. On abandonment, I think we ~ define this because I don't think you really mean the case that talking about where somebody moves out and the house is vacant for a What you're talking about is when they're never going to use that again· They put in a new system, which we have an application for a sys_~em_ or you connect it to sewer. Can we better define that in here or a definition of abandonment under the definition section? Jo Olsen: Sure, we can do that. :ilman Johnson: Does that agree with what you're thinking Dale? :ilman Geving: Yes. That's fine. I just wanted to clarify aband~ent. :ilman Johnson: On Page 14, (A) you're supposed to pump out the septic within 24 hours after receiving notification of a failing system by City Inspector. Now he's got 60 days to repair it, basically. 30 days and 3~ days before we do anything about it. He's going to r~ to pump it times during that 60 days. Is there something in here that I've mi: sed that says you shall continue pumping it until it is repaired? Jo Olsen: Yes, I think it goes back. it' Hamilton: The issue has ~ raised ar~] he's got to continue to watch 15 City Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 Councilman Johnson: Pumping is not cheap because you've got to hire somebody. Have we looked into what it's going to cost the City to go in and pump? Jo Ann Olsen: It would just cost the pumping fee whatever that is as long as they allow us on the property. We don't have anything in there that does say they must continue pumping. Councilman Johnson: I think then on (A) the system will be pumped as required to whatever words you need in there. On this January 24th letter where he talks about new soils, how does that fit into this? Jo Ann Olsen: That's my next item. Gary Warren: If I could just make a comment. (A), when the inspector goes out there, I think the only way that we know that he has a failing system or one of the ways is that it continues to fail after pumping so it's difficult to make the call when you're out there to say this is a failed system, replace it or we're going to fix it. I think in (A) what is the intent of that at any rate is that he's going to get a notice that it's failing. He's going to have to pump it within 24 hours and then we're going to watch it and if it continues to fail, he's going to get another notice to pump it. I think that's the vehicle that's in there right now. Whether you want that or not. Councilman Johnson: That's is a bit awkward in that every time you want them to pump it, which depending on how many kids he's got and how many showers you take, could be every third day or it could be once a week. We'll be sending out a lot of postage and sending out inspector out there. I would think we would want to set him up on a schedule and say you need to pump this system every so many days. I know a lot of people if it's costing them $10.00 to pump it, they're going to wait as long as they can. Jo Ann Olsen: We can work it someway where the pumpers notifies us to let us know that it is being pumped so we can kccp an eye on it. Mayor Hamilton: One other thing. On 7 you listed under 3.02 all these permit application requirements and maybe I didn't see it but where do we deal with something other than a residential? For instance a church. Do all the same rules apply and just use a multiplication factor to make sure that the site is...? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: I just want to be sure that that's covered because we're probably going to have an application for those. Jo Ann Olsen: Yes, this applies for everything. Other than commercial where we don't allow commercial. Councilman Horn: This isn't allowed for.comnercial at all? Jo Ann Olsen: Right now our Ordinance really does not allow for commercial uses with systems but on page 3 we've got capacities, the Standards from 16 2O9 Ci Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 Chaper 7080 under 2.02 ar~ that allows for the sizing of the tanks for use it is. It is a State Standard. ~ilman Horn: But our Ordinance doesn't allow commercial? Jo Ann Olsen: The only commercial area is down on TH 212. That doesn't sewer and water. Dacy: It's controlled by the Zoning Ordinance and this Ordinance just 'tains to installation of tanks. Hamilton: Are w~ going to go through the Resolution next? Ann Olsen: Sure, that letter I passed out from Roger Machmeier again the importance of the soils not being disturbed at all during '.ion so we've added on Page 6, (R), we added that individual sewage system sites, both the primary and alternate must be fenced off :irg construction on the site to protect alteration of the soil. What that is that the area that is going to be used as the mound system or infield site will be taped off, fenced off so they will not alter the site all. The Building Inspector when he goes out and checks the footings of house will also check to make sure that that site is fenced off. He is doing that. lman Geving: Where is that at Jo Ann? Ann Olsen: It's (R~ under Additional Standards. Right under the · Johnson: It's going to be added. It's not on our copies. Ann Olsen: Right. We just got this letter today. .ilman Johnson: Jo Ann is there anything in there where you state what happen if that soil is disturbed? Do we start over? What point in the do you go hack to? Ann Olsen: In-house we would know to say you can't use that site. lman Johnson: Without retesting? They would have to go back redo their :c tests, etc.? Ann Olsen: Right and test a site that has not ~ altered at all. :ilman Johnson: Would they have to reapply the permit fee and all that? we specify that you start over, new permit fee ar~ everything at this you don't specify it in here. You're going to get a lot of argument in future if somebody does do this which may happen. How far do you think want to go back? Dacy: Typically in the past for any type of building permit or that there has ~ mistakes made, we have not gone hack and charged 17 City Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 SAC charges, park fees, building permit fees all over again so I think we will continue policy. If they have already applied for the permit ar~ paid their required amount of base fees and so on, the inspectors may have the right to go with an additional review fee. I guess Staff would prefer to leave it open and not tie it down in the Ordinance as to whether or not we're going to charge another fee or not. Councilman Johnson: If it's not authorized by the Ordinance and you charge a fee, we're just going to end up in an argument about it. Are all the percolation tests and soil boring tests reviewed by our consultant? Do we have to pay him to do that review? Barbara Dacy: No. The individual ones come by building permit. Councilman Johnson: Okay, they do the review so they're going to have to do that review again? Barbara Dacy: It depends. It could be minor. It could be very extensive. What I'm trying to say is we should just leave that open and not pin it down in the Ordinance. Councilman Johnson: I wouldn't want it pinned down exactly but I would like to at least put in there the possibility or at least an open statement that reprocessing fees may be applied or something so we have the right to do it by the Ordinance so somebody doesn't come in and use our Ordinance against us to argue against the fee. Mayor Hamilton: Didn't you say though Barb that if you leave it open and it needs to be redone and is extensive, we have the option to recharge the fee? Barbara Dacy: Right. There is a section in the ordinance that is entitled fees on Page 8, Section 3.03 and it refers to our resolution that we're going to talk about next so we could put s~me language in there. Councilman Johnson: We do have other such fees as may be n~ed for the administration of this Ordinance. Jo Ann Olsen: As far as the Resolution, on Page 9 of Ordinance 10-B, 5.03 talks about the administrative fees for the cleaning of the systems. We have amended the permit fees. The existing permit fees for a standard system is $50.00. The building department has recommended $100.00 and the City Council, December 1st also wanted $100.00, so we're just throwing out these numbers so you can come to a decision tonight. For the standard system for a mound, it takes a lot more inspection time and we don't allow mounds currently so we don't have a price for that but the building department is recommending $225.00 and the City Council recommended $200.00. For a new alternative system, the City Council at the last meeting wanted $225.00. For rehabilitation and repair of an existing system, the existing is $40.00, the building department recommended $75.00 and the City Council recommended $100.00. The pumper fee currently is $5.00 and we upped it to $20.00. For the annual license fees, they are staying the same. We are going ahead with what the City Council last recommended but Council directed the Building 18 Council Meeting - January 26~ 1987 263 ent to call different communities and confirm what they charge] He has that the pri_ces ~hat we are looking at are comparable and j~S.tif!~d $50:00 to $100.00. We'll keep what the City Council passed on December unless you want some other changes~ In addition ~o ~hat Staff added a :30100 charge to process the documentation verifying cleaning Of the tanks three years. This is going to be charged to each personal individUal just once every three years and it will _cover the administration coSt any infonnation ~hat we will be sending out. ..ilman Johnson: How did you arrive at $30~007 Ann Olsen: Arbitrary: What it was going to cos~ us ~o keep up the files~ administration process. lman Johnson: It seems a bit high to me] My concept Of what work's involved: If you've_ got a good tickler file ar~ you've got tl~ spread out throughout the year. Barbara Dacy: In essence, the way that we were looking at it as a pro_posed fee of $10~00 per year is what the homeowner is paying for staff time, publication costs and so on. As time goes on the fee could be reduced. Councilman Johnson: Or it could be increased. Councilman Geving: I think the main thing here is that we do provide them with periodic flyers, information on how t~ can handle this. That's an important part of the project. We can talk about it for a long time but we have to follow up with brochures. Jo Ann Olsen: We've already got some flyers from the Unversity on this. Staff is recommending approval of the final reading of Ordinance i~-B and of the Resolution. Again, we will bring it back on the Consent Agenda for final approval. Councilman Geving: I just want them to include the Resource Engineering letter of January 24th as our addition. Councilman Johnson: Since I wasn't on the council during the previous parts of this but I did attend many of the meetings where this was considered, a rehabilitation repair of existing systems on the resolution, attachment 92. $100.00 for the rehabilitation and/or repair of existing system. I went back and looked up repair, you could have a $20.00 part that is broken and it's going to cost you $20.00 to repair it and it's going to cost you $100.00 for the permit to put in your $20.00 part. I think what we're going to have is a lot of people making repairs to their systems without permits. Here I~n sure you're trying to look at the more major repairs but under the definition within the Ordinance, anything is a repair just about_ The possibility of saying $100.00 or 10% of the cost of the repair, whichever is less but I'll tell you what. If I had $99.00 part to repair on this, I sure would object to getting a $100.00 permit. · 19 264.- City Counci 1 Meeting - January 26, 1987 Councilman Geving: Let me ask you this, Jo Ann and Barbara, have you received permit requests at the current $40.00 rate for repair? Do we get any of them? Jo Ann Olsen: Tnat goes right through the building department. Barbara Dacy: What we were just talking about and maybe when we come back at the next meeting we could look at defining a minor repair and major repair and we can talk to the consultant and George about that. Gary Warren: I guess I would hate to get to the point where we have to receive invoices for the repairs to document what the expense should be for the permit fee. I would opt to see what the consultant can tell us as far as typically what we deal with. I agree, if the permit fee is more than the repair, that doesn't se~n reasonable to me either. Mayor Hamilton: I would think we would have to use discretion on this. Councilman Johnson: I think you're really talking rehabilitation or a major rehab of a system. What do you consider as minor Tom? Mayor Hamilton: I don't know the first thing about it. Councilman Johnson: No, I mean as far as permit fee. Would you want to pay $100.00 permit fee for a $250.00 repair? I wouldn't. Mayor Hamilton: I wouldn't want to pay anything. councilman Johnson: But what would you be willing to do and not try and sneak around and get by with? Councilman Geving: That's what's happening now anyway. I think the wording should be changed around and just call it major rehab. They can determine that here if it's major. councilman Horn: You said it has to go through the building system right? The building permit you're talking about? Isn't there already a fee set on that? Anything over $300.00 on any improvementhas to have a permit? ~nis goes through t_he same area right? Jo Ann Olsen: It goes through the same department. Councilman Horn: Any repair over $300.00 requires a permit. Councilman Johnson: I believe that permit is 100% of the cost. Councilman Horn: But it's the size of the repair that requires the permit. Mayor Hamilton: In order to cover the costs of our inspecting. councilman Horn: Handle it the same way. Don Ashworth: I think major should cover it. Mayor Hamilton: If we put major rehabilitation or repair of existing system, s. 20 213 Ci' Council ~ting - January 26, 1987 ~ilman Johnson: And define that within your definition of the Ordinance. r~ Ashworth: If I'm hearing the Council, if we just have the Inspector, at time they made application to determine that either it's extensive to that. If it wasn't then there wouldn't be. ~ilman Johnson: Couldn't that get kind of arbitrary. So somebody gets with the $180.08 fee and takes us into Small Claims Court and say you di charge my next door neighbor, why did they charge me? I did the same th ng. Ashworth: Let me just check with Roger and I can verify that we don't any proble~ with that. Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the amendment to :ions for individual sewage treatment sysbams, final (a) Ordinance 1M-B (b) Resolution Establishing Fees. voted in favor and motion carried. iTIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TRANSMISSION TUNER, HIGH~%Y 169, KSMM RADIO. Ann Olsen: Tree site is located south of the Assumption Seminary on TH 212. applicant is applying for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a second ission tower on a 4 acre site. ~ne proposed tower is approximately 123 f~ hig~6 The Ordinance requires that the transmission towers be equal ~tance of their height from the property line or else that they be mlapsable. The proposed tower is collapeable but if it did fall straight to the north it would be outside of the property line and into the TH 212 Also there are some Northwestern Bell telephone lines right re. Staff has contacted both MnDot and Northwestern Bell and neither had objection to the location of the tower with the chance that it would fall of the property. The Planning Oommission was concerned with the liability the tower to fall off the property. Staff contacted the City Attorney and has assured us that we will not be liable for issuing the permit. Another was, at the time of the Planning Commission meeting the applicant ar~ of the property had not signed a final lease on the property so Staff lended as a condition of approval upon receiving a signed lease ar~ we received that lease tonight. The terms between the owner and the have ~ met. The Planning Commission did recommer~ approval .y with the condition that it receive FAA and FCC approval and again w. th the condition that the new lease be signed. Staff is recommer~]ing that City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit with the condition that receive FAA ar~ FCC approval. :ilman Johnson: At one point I thought you recommended that they move the but that's not in here anymore. 21 214 City Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 Jo Ann Olsen: Right, we found out from the applicant that they couldn't move the tower. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit #86-5 to install a 123 foot transmission tower as shown on the site plan dated January 2, 1987 with the following condition: 1. The applicant must receive approval from FAA and FCC. All voted in favor and motion carried. Dan Peters from KSMM Radio expressed his thanks and appreciation for all the help and cooperation he received from Staff on obtaining this permit. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF TH 7 REPORT RESOLUTION. Barbara Dacy: You have before you the final report on TH 7. The three items on the memorandum here that I want to present this evening for your discussion is what the other communities, Shorewood and Excelsior, feel about the Highway Report and just to review what Staff feels are the benefits to Chanhassen and then I need you to review the proposed resolution to determine if you want to change some of that language or add something. ~ne resolution r~s to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council by the end of this month. I handed it out tonight, I just received it today, resolutions in the paper from the City of Excelsior and from the City of Shorewood. Let's start with the Excelsior Area East option. Tne recommended alternative was 93 and this is the option which considers a proposed interchange from Mill Street and Powers Blvd. on TH 7 here. The whole access issue to Excelsior. Also, the Christmas Lake Road issue but I won't get into that in much detail unless you want to talk about it. Basically what Excelsior said in their resolution that you have before you is that (1) the report proposes TH 7 as a partial access to controlled expressway. First of all they disagree with that whole approach in the first place which means that they basically disagree with the whole intent of the report. ~ey feel that it should be designed so it functions at a lower level below an expressway, maybe at a collector level whatever. In this particular situation they feel that all of the alternatives proposed by the consultants aren't really appropriate except for Alternative 92 and what that does is bring a ramp up and over TH 7 and back in to go eastbound and they would want to modify this by adding some type of direct access instead of eliminating this frontage road. Keeping that in there so that there is some direct type of access for the businesses along the north side of TH 7. Shorewood does agree with the recommended alternative but they don't agree with the alternatives they proposed for the Christmas Lake Road area. The next area, the one that deals with the Galpin Blvd. intersection, is called Excelsiore Area West, the recommended option by the consultant was 92 which basically arose out of a lot of suggestions from public hearings. Realigning Galpin Blvd. across from Water Street and bringing Chaska Road over to make a whole 90 degree geometric intersection and with a proposed stop light at CR 19 and TH 7. Excelsior really had no comment on this set of alternatives. They felt that the recommended option was okay but Shorewood came back and said that they didn't like any of them. The particular reason that they didn't 22 215 Ci Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 li the recommended alternative is that they felt it is very costly and · There is a hill here that would be very expensive to acquire and :t a road into the intersection and what they recommended instead was t this area be reserved for further study and that the communities work ~ther to look for a more economical solutio~ As far as the design al and so on, Staff here at Chanhassen felt that this represented the safest alternative compared to the other two or three that were by the consultant. It is true though that it will be expensive to Those two areas were the major areas, that I would call of ~troversy. The TH 41 area and the Lake Minnewashta area, Shorewood agreed the consultant's recommer~atioru As presented in the memorandum, Staff ' recommending that you endorse those recommendations also. I believe in Ise two areas, those form the major benefits of Chanhassen's participation · this report. As a matter of fact, some of the residents at the Homeowner's in the Lake Minnewashta area were kind of disappointed that this may be for a 3 to 1~ year basis but the closures that it r. , the proposed access roads, accurately reflects the ideas that came of that meeting. The TH 41 area, there was not a clear recommendation for a lended alternative but I feel that whole corner is always going to be of controversial but the traffic plans as proposed now is the best so '. The resolution before you proposes ec~orsement of the report as written. only item urger, the therefore be it resolved clause that I still feel a little uncomfortable with his number 5. Excelsior Area West ar~ ~t Options occur in the City of Excelsior and Shorewood and you'll notice in · reports t~ state that they will recognize adjacent communities' and will allow us to comment in their whole design process. I tried frame 5 in the framework that we're all in this together and we should be together to solve the common traffic problems. I don't know if that with your approval. ~ilman Geving: I was thinking of the format. Whether it be in the form resolution or a m~morand~ by the commanity. Where does this go? ira Dacy: Each of the communities are passing some type of resolution to f~ 'ward onto the Met Council. They will go through their processirg. They w..1 recommend it to MnDot to use as a planning study for their permit ramming. If you want, we can use a resolution to make our records into a iandtm~ which gets into more detail. Hamilton: I think a resolution is a little stronger. lman Horn: Me too. lman Geving: I was thinking of the effectiveness but if you feel that's er. ~ilman Horn: I guess my response to number 5 would be is I feel it has as much hope of succeeding as did the resolution to determine who would our representative on the Met Council. Hamilton: Except it does cover the other things. 23 City Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 Councilman Horn: I would have hoped that that would have been part of the overall consultant's effort when they put the whole project together. My real concern in this whole thing is my understanding was when we undertook it that each of the cities would be represented at t_hat point and the consultant along with the cities' representatives would take these things into account and that we would hear what the best recommendation was and all of the people who represented the different cities would put together the best alternatives. I got to the meeting that this was last presented at and apparently some of our adjacent cities had recently only told their people about this thing and as anything, was sprung on them at the last minute and a lot of them had some real concerns about it and I really felt that there wasn't enough publicity put into it as it was being generated so it met with a lot of last minute opposition. I was very disturbed by that because I thought all along this whole thing was moving along and all the cities were supporting it and I thought they did a tremendous job on this whole thing and really solved a lot of problems. Then to find out at the last minute some of the people who were putting it on hadn't really done their homework so it was a little disturbing. I was disappointed. Councilman Geving: Where does this process go? The study is now completed and we've got a planning report, we're making a resolution, accepting it. Barbara Dacy: It will go to Met Council and they will go through their committee system and then to the Met Council itself and the Met Council can recommend to the Minnesota Department of Transportation to use this report as a planning guide when they plan their improvements for TH 7. MnDot was involved in this all along also. Councilman Geving: Now you personally have been involved in this from the very beginning. Are there other meetings scheduled to continue this process with the other communities? Barbara Dacy: No. This essentially wraps up the process. From here on out it is up to the Met Council as to how they want to use this report. It is going to be difficult because six different communities have six different opinions about each of the alternatives. Councilman Geving: I didn't see anything in here on CR 15. Barbara Dacy: On Minnewashta Parkway? Councilman Geving: Yes. I was w~ndering where that was addressed. Barbara Dacy: In the Lake Minnewashta area alternative, what was being recommended is that that intersection with TH 7 be shifted to the east so that you have a straight 90 instead of askew so that was taken care of. Councilman Johnson: We're not addressing our resolution to TH 41 alternative? We're not endorsing either #1 or 92? The City of Shorewood endorses 92. Barbara Dacy: Right. In item 3, I did omit to TH 41 area. It should read 24 217 Ci Oouncil Meeting - January 26, 1987 Area East, Excelsior Area West, TH 41 Area and the Lake Minnewashta . lman Johnson: Are we specifically going after one alternate or another or saying we're pleased with both? lman Horn: We're going along with the reccmm~_nded alternative. Ba Dacy: Maybe that needs to be clarified. Maybe it should read orses the recommended study segment alternatives. That was the intent that this is saying is what we' re endorsing. :ilman Johnson: ~hich one was recoem~en~ed? Ba Dacy: Alternative #2. Johnson: Okay, so we will be agreeing with Shorewood then? Ba Dacy: Yes, that' s correct. Re ~87-6: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to tl~ endorsement of the TH 7 Corridor Study Final Report as presented by Staff with the following change to item 3: 3. E~dorses the recommended study segment alternatives for the Excelsior Area East, Excelsior Area West, TH 41 and the Lake Minnewashta Area; Al. voted in favor ar~ motion carried. OF ~S: Hamilton moved, councilman Geving seconded to approve the Accounts dated December 31, 1.986, check numbers 027662 through 027756 in the .unt $76,769.11; Accounts Payable dated December 29, 1986, check numbers 03 '549 through 030616 in the amount of $2,815,423.92; Accounts Payable dated uary 26, 1987, check numbers 027757 through 027807 in the amount of $1 337,553.80; and Accounts Payable dated January 26, 1987, check numbers 02 813 through 027868 in the amount of $68,556.79. All voted in favor and .ion carried. AND SE~TER POLICY PLAN UPDATE, PIANNING DIRECTOR. Ba ~ra Dacy: We needed Council input as to this proposed plan of action from t the Southwest Communities Staffs have come up with. First of all we would li to retain Mr. Boland on a monthly basis through this year to continue his ef orts on the Transportation and Sewer Policy Plan. Then we're also wanting to form a southwest area coalition. The east side of the metro area has gone to the extent that they have hired a marketing firm to give them some to attract citizens ar~ economic development over on that side. The No thwest Mayor's conference has an ongoing group. It seems there is a ~ 25 City Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 to organize different parts of the metro area so we don't lose or suffer from the regional decision making process. What we propose is to meet with our new Met Council representatives and with Staffs and second of all, organize ourselves as to who the southwest area is. Possibly solicit some interest from the TH 212 Corridor Coalition and from the private sector. We all have common issues about improving the transportation system in the southwest area. Secondly of all, Mr. Boland has proposed to help pay for his costs, lobbying the Met Council through the next year, that the private sector could raise some there as well. Tais is still in the conceptual stages and everybody is going back to their respective councils to see if this is copesetic with your concerns as well. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we could have a better lobby working for us. It seems to me that it would be very important to continue his lobbying and if you've got the best lobby you can get, it seems like we ought to keep doing it. I would like to comment that the private sector could provide some funding. I think that is important also. Ail communities have in the past contributed and I think now is the time for the private sector to contribute also to keep this process going. If they don't want to do then we'll have to take a second look at it. Barbara Dacy: Right. We have enough to defray the coming four months. We have an extra $4,000.00 left over from the original efforts so I guess it's time... Councilman Geving: I like Mr. Boland's efforts in the southwest. Councilman Horn: The TH 212 Coalition Corridor meeting two weeks ago that Barb and I attended and one of the things t_hat they wanted us to be sure to bring back to the City is the fact that if we are really to be successful at any type of a highway system plan, we're probably going to have to do the same thing we did with the TH 7 study and what they're trying to do now is to really get the coalition back. Beorganize it again and get some political and private factions and the goal is to get more membership in our organization and also key membership for the business community and organizations. The concern is that the business community has pretty much given up on that whole thing based on the results we've had in the last couple y~ars so it will be kind of a job to get everybody turned around thinking, okay we can still do something on this thing. The idea of tying into an overall sewer plan might be the next instrument to gain that access. I think we got into sewer types of issues that we've talked about that because all of the same elements that go together to justify transportation are the things that go together to justify the sewer systems. These really aren't isolated criteria for the two systems running so I just wanted to be prepared that at some point this coalition is going to come to the City Council and say we want all the cities to chip in for this or that activity. Maybe a study of the highway system. One of the things we're hearing now is that the reason we can't move ahead faster on TH 5 for instance is because there isn't any planning available. I think planning money is going to become available as cities put up a portion of it and the Met Council and MnDot will put up a portion of it. It's not going to be a totally funded issue anymore on their part so the bite is going to c(xne off of our shoulders. 26 219 Ci Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 ~ilman Geving: A big bite or what are you talking about? lman Horn: I think the first session, what was the estimate for the fi st session on that? What was the estimate of what the study would cost? Dacy: You mean the EIS, I heard anywhere from $300,000. I haven't back from the two people who were going to investigate that cost so we know. Horn: ~r~re's another meeting scheduled that will go over the its. This time was a preliminary mccting to get us use to the idea. Hamilton: I see there's a meeting on February 10th at 9:30 a.m.. Dacy: That's staff members from the southwest communities. There is for this. Part of that meeting will be to see how much interest we from the southwest area and then to talk on an infomal basis the issues we brought up during the c(~ment review process. ON GIHTdND STORAGE RESERVOIR P~, CITY ENGINRRR. :y Warren: Since I'm not the only one trying to get up to s~ on some of projects here, I thought this would be a good opportunity to at least you up to date on the activity that has gone to date. The water system ilysis that I referred to that was done in 1985 also identified that the is in ~ of adding storage to our system. Attachment %1 to the Council here, I pulled out ~ excerpt that just in quick summary shows the st ,rage ~ed at least to get us to the year 1990 is 1.8 million gallons of st To get us out to the ultimate development we're almost looking at 3 million gallons of storage. With that in mind, Council took action to Drove preparation of plans and specifications for, as we discussed earlier, trunk sewer expansions but also for additional of this ground storage · Basically the difference is, to take a moment, between a ground reservoir and our elevated storage which we presently have, our two .ks now are elevated storage, are if we can get a portion of an elevated tank on high enough grour~ we don't ~ a supporting sturcture so il's basically on the ground which ultimately results in some considerable savings, almost as much as three to one. Some of this I know is history f¢ you As a result of approval of going ahead with plans ar~ specifications (]SM has been involved in the project from the start and we have two that are commonly referred to as the high system ar~ the low system related to the amount of pressure and also the topography. [raphy in the Chanhassen area here adds some challenges to us so we have with high pressures and we have people with low pressures so in an e! to try to address those problems, the system as currently is split as I' shown here and we have one of our elevated storage tanks on the west side ich is approximately 80 feet in elevation higher than our downtown storage Again, just because the topography of the land is higher there. gl storage reservoir is where I've got this star located here. The ~ferred site for the reservoir is at the end of Peaceful Lane which is ~ically the intersection of Lake Lucy Road ar~ Powers Blvd., CR 17. Through 27 229 City Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 the evaluations that were done in the feasibility study, this point really stuck out from our topography as really a desirable location and as a result that's the track that we're on at this point. To give you a little bit better feel for this site here, it's a site owned by Mr. Owens and I personally have met with him to review our interest in the site and also to initiate the land acquisition process. Basically we're talking about Lot 7, Vineland and a crude estimate of the area, about 1 1/2 acre site right now is all that we would really need to place the reservoir. It's a 90 foot diameter tank and it would be approximately 70 to 75 feet above the ground at that location. For planning purposes or subdividing purposes, we have also sat, Barb and I with Mr. Bonnet who is the planner for Mr. Owens to give him some input as to how he might be able to subdivide the land after the acquisition for our storage tank so that's why I say 1.5 to 2 acres here. It may be feasible or practical to take more of that. There is access from the south here that comes in so we may want to take a little more but I guess to start the ball rolling we've taken a shot here based on our consultant's input on the site. The time line for the project, it would be really wonderful if the reservoir could be on line here for our peak demand in the mid summer here this JUly. We were fortunate last year with the wet season. The water demand, there wasn't as much sprinkling, etc. on the system here so we got by without having to get involved with any kind of sprinkling bans or things of that nature which nobody likes to have to do. This year we may luck out again but we do have a challenge here just because of the time line that it takes to fabricate the storage tank so at this point right now we are working with Mr.-Owens in the property acquisition. We hope to have that resolved here. The appraiser is supposed to be back to us by the end of this month, which is this week I guess so that we can get a little bit better feel and then meet with Mr. Ownes and hopefully successfully acquire the property. That being the case, the design, which is basically a four week process can go forward and be completed by the mid to the end of March. I've allowed four weeks for the bidding process here to acquire bids. The fabrication of the steel is a very time consuming element here. ~hat's estimated at about 17 week effort and then after that the erection of the steel is about 12 weeks and then on the bottom of the schedule here I've shown I guess a little flexibility in the fact that we feasibly could put the storage tank on line this year but it's going to be after the our peak demand period just because of the fabrication and construction constraints. I guess we'll have to make a decision at that point if it follows this time frame, whether we want to do that because if we do put it on line, we wouldn't paint it or have any cathodic protection because of the water conditions at that time of year typically would not allow us to paint. It has to be above freezing and favorable conditions so we would look at that time whether we want to put it on line or wait until the spring and have it painted first. If we put it on line and then take it off again, it will have to be sandblasted to make it ready for painting again which is maybe a $5,000.00 or $6,000.00 expense so we'll have to weigh the benefits. At any rate, we'll have time to work with that. This I guess is the scenario that we're on a track with right now. We'll have a better feel I think in the next 2 to 3 weeks as to just how the land acquisition is going. Whether we have any obstacles there or not. If we have, the worse case scenario we could commence with the design as late as maybe June of this year and still have the tower on line in time for the peak demand period in JUly of 1988 so we do have some opportunity here to work with some alternates in case we do have some 28 221 Ci~ Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 up front with the acquisition. There are some aspects that we will be for input oru I've only got one of these but we have had a copy of This is the large 5 million gallon storage tank in Eagan. It's very .ilman Geving: Is that why you gave us these others? Warren: Those other ones are options out of some of the manufacturers li that are available. You can go all the way up to, some of those elevated storage tanks but there are a few grour~ storage tank options. re isn't a lot of fancy things you can do with them. I think in light of of the neighborhood concerns and that, we're going to try to disguise the th ng as much as possible so those are things I guess we'll have an to get into when we talk about logos. A lot of them are painting th ngs and again that won't happen for quite a while yet. ~ne best guess ri. now is that the elevated storage tank may protrude 25 to 30 feet above . tree line. We will be losing some of the oaks and such on top of the ~11 but I think we'll be able to do s~ne plantings ar~ such to help disguise .t. It should also be pointed out the location is prime to us because it's a 'or intersection of a lot of our existing mains in the trunk systmm the proposed connection which is very important to us and hopefully will ul :imately have in there our Lake Lucy Road connection which will interconnect west part of the system so from a trunk efficiency standpoint, it is also a attractive site. The elevation of the ground storage tank will be in at the same elevation as our downtown tank so it will still be the service area. It not necessarily be adding pressure into the system. because of the location and the transmission mains, there will be benefits to the pressure in some of our low pressure areas. There will be some benefits as far as residual pressures are concerned in that we wi [1 have 4 1/2 more million gallons of storage available when some/xxiy starts inkling along down the line, you won't be preventing somebody from further the line from getting. That's a quick update for you. There isn't any :ion required from you at this point on it. Bob Frigaard from OSM is here if you have any questions fr~n the consultant. ~ilman Geving: Can you get us some photos of some of these other types? example, 22 and 9. Those are two that I kind of like. y Warren: Bob, hadn't you recommended or gone through some of these things? Frigaard: The one with pile rafters on I gave Gary that photo just as an of some other things you can do. With only approximately maybe 30 sticking up above the trees I guess my recommendation would be probably try and keep it as simple and plain as possible because why spend money on of these things that are going to hidden in the trees from an aesthetic ~ilman Geving: It's going to be ~ by half the people in Chanhassen. Frigaard: The upper portion, right. 29 City Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 Councilman Geving: I agree with you. We want to make it simple and if we could drop it down below, 75 feet did you say? Gary Warren: 75 feet tall on the ground, from the ground up. Councilman Geving: Tnere's no way that that can be reduced? Bob Frigaard: That' s the elevation of the water systsm. Gary Warren: That the elevation that gets us our pressure. Bob Frigaard: I guess one of the things we would like to have you think about as much as possible right up front here is anything that you might want to see aesthetically. Anything you can think about as far as lettering, logos, or anything like that. They should be incorporated into the specifications. With these pictures that Garyhasgivenyou, I guess we kirk1 of recommend an umbrella type of roof which is described in there because with a flatter roof you need center pillars for center support and an umbrella type of roof is a self supporting roof and therefore would save a couple bucks. Councilman Horn: These things welded together? Bob Frigaard: It' s a welded steel tank. Councilman Johnson: Gary, are we talking about painting both inside and outside? Gary Warren: Right. Cathodic protection. Councilman Johnson: Are you looking tonight for any input on the exterior at this point? Gary Warren: I guess if you've got some preferences you care to view, we'll take them. Bob Frigaard: We have started a little bit on the design. Gary asked us to kind of hold off a little bit to make sure that the land was going the right way but I guess we would like to get the design completed so any input we could get we would sure like to get it upfront rather than have it c~ne later. Mayor Hamilton: It seems like you got a couple alternatives anyway. You could design the color or the sc~ of it so it blends in with the trees. Bob Frigaard: We can write the specifications so you don't have to make a decision on the color until long after it's in. We can write the specs without having to select the color but if you want any lettering on it. If you want a logo on it or things like that. That should go into the specs but the color, we'll spec the paint and the color can be determined later. Councilman Horn: I think a lot of that depends on the shape of the thing. You look at something like this would he pretty hard to put a maple leaf on. 30 223 Ci' Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 Frigaard: Yes, and you're spendirg a lot of money for some pile rafters. ~ilman Johnson: I think with only 25 feet sticking up above the trees :'s viewable, there's not really a whole lot of opportunity for a logo. A li' tle red light on top is about it. Frig : We were going to shoot the top of the trees to try and de exactly but I would say we'll probably be closer to about 30 feet so you could get, if you wanted to, you could get 15 foot letters up re if you wanted a name up there or if you wanted just a plain logo might be aesthetically pleasing. Swanson: Before we started I was looking at a copy of the agenda here and I saw this 75 feet above the ground, Carol ar~ I both gasped because we :e of the impression that by going underground we would only be about 50 above the ground because this would maintain that capacity because we the capacity at the time. ~ilman Johnson: The total capacity of this tower is something like 4 mi .lion gallons or 3 1/2 but the amount of 2 million gallons isn't even used. Swenson: I understand that but what I~ amazed at though is that we're' ng to go up 75 feet above the grour~ because my understanding that we were .ng to be down to the 50 foot level and that was the purpose of going down by going up on the stakes we were going to get up to the 75-80 feet that's just amazing. I would sure have taken a lot longer look at it at icted locations if I had known we were going to go up that high. lman Horn: Any other location w~uld be that much taller wouldn't it? Warren: We wanted the highest spot possible. Swenson: I'm sorry T~n but I was just amazed. Frigaard: We mentioned s~nething about heights in the report. The ghts are mentioned in the report that ~ms done in 1985. Hamilton: I don't know if w~ want to put a logo on there. Geving: I would depend on what we choose for a tank. Ashworth: You can think about it and we'll put it on the next. agenda. Frigaard: As you're driving around in the next couple weeks, look at towers. You drive by a lot of them every day and you never see them so as you're driving around just kind of keep that in your mind and maybe 11 come up with something that may ring a bell that you would like to have work on. lman Horn: If you get one with a flat top, some of them put the city on top. 31 224- City Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 Bob Frigaard: If you're going to put a flat top on it, we will need center supports inside but an %~brella type top will be self supporting. Mayor Hamilton: I would think the umbrella type is a good deal. Mayor Hamilton stated that Councilman Geving wanted to talk about Merle Yolk. Councilman Geving: I was interested in several pieces of correspondence regarding Merle Volk's request to detach from Chanhassen and take his business to Chaska. I have a letter here that says he wants to request that certain land be detached from Chanhassen and concurrently annexed to Chaska. I have no idea what that land is but I assume it's his farm on CR 117. It is adjacent to Chaska but I don't know what his purpose is. I would have liked to have seen the letter or some correspondence that says this is what I would like to do and why and then secondly, speaking only as one council member, I would like to persuade Mr. Volk, in the next 10 days or so, for not taking this action if at all possible because unless I know a lot more about what he's attempting to do, I think we're talking about one person's desire to remove his property from Chanhassen and I doubt if that's going to fly. Even at best if we had a land exchange and I'm not even sure the County wouldn't get involved in some of this action that we're talking about. Giving up tax base and a lot of considerations. I'm sure as heck not in favor of this kind of annexation request so the reason for bringing it up. I want to know a little bit more about what Merle had involved here so I can be prepared for the next meeting when this is brought up on the 9th. Don Ashworth: We distributed what we have. Mr. Volk's request did not include specific maps. We did meet with officials of Chaska because Merle had approached them. He did give them a map so they had that with them but it was not in the form that we could make copies of. Have we since that time received anything? Barbara Dacy: No. We have to get the site plan of the plats from Chaska Investment so we have not received the official plat but we will by the 9th. Councilman Geving: It's conceivable that there are lots of properties in any community that are zoned a certain way and across the way, the very next community might be zoned more favorably to the manner in which you might want to develop that property and I can think of 3 or 4 instances that come to mind where we might not allow a commercial development or industrial development but the next community, just across the line, does so the guy says I can sell my farm and it now becomes industrial property or commercial property and all I have to do is change boundaries. No city wants to get stuck with a losing proposition obviously. Even if there were a fair exchange of property, it might be considered. If they want to swap 100 acres of Chanhassen land for 100 acres of Chaska land, an equal split for market values property sake and it fits our needs or desires, we might listen to him but just to have, and I know they have right to do this but it takes a lot of time. I guess my only comment is whenever these kind of things come up, I would like to try and persuade them not to pursue it. 32 225 ti' Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 li Hamilton: The residential homes and the adjacent property or across the eet there because they bought that property and built their houses there ling that it was R-1/~..so the~re looking at commercial development across street and I don't think that's fair to them to have that kind of thing · I wouldn't be very much for it. Ashworth: We will not look to a decisioru The Council would simply say not going to welcome the position or we would like to see Planning · ~sion study it where we've got input fr~m residential areas. I do know t one of the reasons Mr. Volk is making the request is C~aska is a free lng growth center, can make sewer and water extensions to the property can zone and allow industrialization of that property. Chanhassen, under MUSA line restrictions, can not. lman Geving: Fine. We have made allowances for things like that though the developer could buy that service from the other communities. If he ~ted to extend and got permission from Chaska to extend the sewer and water and he is willing to pay for it, I would see nothing wrong with that the line is there but not to annex the property into Chaska for and leave us without th~ tax base. I can't see that so I guess what I ild like to propose, and I don't know if it's appropriate tonight, as a vote among the four council members, as to more or less tell Mr. Volk ~t we're not going to go along with his annexation request and that we don't to spend anlauore of our time and effort administratively pursuing it. Ashworth: I think he should be given an opportunity to make his :ion. ~ilman Geving: Only with the condition that I am proposing that we don't any administrative time or effort on this. Just let him come before us present his case but let it be known to him that it probably will not be favorable. We have Commissioner Klingelhutz here, maybe you could shed light on something like this Al. Have you had any other instances in our where this has taken place? Klingelhutz: Not that I know of in the incorporated area. It does take in the townships which hasn't got as much jurisdiction as an ~ted area. I don't believe there is any way that Chaska can just annex that without getting full permission from the City of Ashworth: They did change the law there Al and so there is a process that can seek annexation without our permissio~u The Attorney advised that chance of that happening is not very good but they did make a change in law about 2 years ago. Klingelhutz: Even in the incorporated areas? Ashworth: Yes. lman Geving: I don't want to spend anymore time on it but I think it's interesting subject. 33 22C City Council Meeting - January 26, 1987 Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.. Sutx~itted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 34