Loading...
1982 12 20 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 20, 1982 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order with the following members present: Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, 'and Horn. Russ Larson, Bill Monk, Scott Martin, Bob Waibel, and Don Ashworth were present. Bill Swearengin, Planning Commission, was present. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA Item 14e was removed from the consent agenda to be discussed separately. Councilman Geving moved to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the recommendations of the City Manager: a. Approval of Professional Planning Services Agreement for Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Preparation. b. Special Meeting dates: 1. Move January 3, 1983 meeting to January 10, 1983. 2. Move February 21 meeting to February 14, 1983. 3. Adopt Meeting Schedule of two meetings per month. c. Transfers to close 808 Fund. RESOLUTION #82-73 d. Resolution in Support of Changes to State Aid Formula. RESOLUTION #82-74 Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the November 15, 1982, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson and Councilman Neveaux. Councilmen Geving and Horn abstained. Motion carried. Councilman Horn moved to approve the December 6, 1982, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Councilman Neveaux abstained. Motion carried. Councilman Neveaux moved to note the December 1, 1982, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING AN R-1MH, SINGLE FAMILY MANUFACTURED HOUSING DISTRICT AND PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN R-1A, R-1B, R-2, P-l AND P-2 DISTRICTS: Councilwoman Swenson - As Scott noted in his memorandum, I was concerned and still am regarding the manufactured housing community. I have the minutes of the November 1st meeting when Councilman Horn made the motion approving ordinance revisions suggested by the Planning Commission with the exception of reference to leased and rental property as stated in the definition section of the ordinance. I guess I am still concerned that as the manufactured housing community is est~blished here Council Meeting December 20, 1982 -2- it could only refer to condominiums because it speaks of common ownership which to me constitutes the same and I am concerned with manufactured housing communities, per se. In going through the information we received I have to admit that the attorney general IS letter tends to make me inclined to agree with the Mayor's decision regarding this. If we did include 47-AF I would 1 ike to have the reference to manufactured housing communities stricken from the ordinance. I believe the housing development covers PROs which is the only thing that I am inclined to agree with. Councilman Horn - So what you are saying is they could go anywhere. Councilwoman Swenson - If we should decide to adopt 47-AF I would like to have the portions struck referring to manufactured housing community from Section 1 and in recreational areas which is Section B because that refers to housing communities. Mayor Hamilton - Clark's comment was true, they can go anywhere but the economy will dictate where they go. You and I both know they are not going to go anywhere somebody has to pay $35,000 for a lot to put a $10,000 trailer on it. Councilwoman Swenson - In the letter we have here from the attorney general IIrestricting the location of manufactured homes from the residential classification districts within its jurisdiction, etc. etc. so long as these homes are in conformance with the Minnesota Statute #327.31, 327.35 and comply with all other applicable zoning ordinances. Further Minnesota Statute 462.357, no regulation may prohibit earth sheltered construction as defined in Section 116H.02, Subdivision 3, or manufactured homes built in conformance with Sections 327.31 to 327.35 that comply with all other zoning ordinances promulgated pursuant to this section.1I It would appear to me that our zoning ordinance in being what they are this would have to control it. Russell Larson - About the only way that we can make sure that you are going to achieve the end, which I think the Council had earlier indicated they might want to go, is by adopting these amendments. Councilwoman Swenson - If we were to drop 47-AF all together, which is the one that establishes Rl-MH Districts and stay strictly with the 47-AE, this is our design and construction which would be a part of the zoning ordinance for all housing and it seems to me that, I am afraid if we are going to have a manufactured housing community I am just not ready because I don't think we are going to be able to control it. Russell Larson - Control in what sense? Councilwoman Swenson - Any type of a condominium type of district wherein the 1 and is owned by all of the owners. Simi 1 ar to a condominium apartment which was exempted from the ordinance according to our original motion. I I I I I I Council Meeting December 20, 1982 -3- If any of us have been and I am sure most of us have in certain of the condominium type apartments some of them are going to pot something fierce and the homeowners association is fine except that if the lesser number of people may feel that this, letls say the park has to be maintained or something and there are insufficient funds for it then what are we going to do? The city has no control over this and we can wind up with an ill- kept condominium park. Russell Larson - Under our common open space section of the ordinance we do have the right under certain conditions to go in and cause improvements to be made and assess it back against the property. Councilwoman Swenson - Can It we eliminate the eventuality of such a problem by eliminating the opportunity in the first place? Councilman Neveaux - We are being discriminatory against manufactured housing. Councilwoman Swenson - No. We don't allow this type of community or condominium type anywhere. We have a PRD which is perfectly acceptable. I have no problem with a PRD. What I have a problem with is a condominium type park. Russell Larson - We have condominium type parks now. Councilwoman Swenson - Where? Russell Larson - Sunrise Hills, Lotus Lake Estates, Minnewashta Heights. Councilman Horn - This is common open space not the common land that dwellings are put on. This is just like a PRD concept only for manufactured homes. Councilwoman Swenson - Why can we not refer then to the PRD instead of a manufactured housing community? We took it out to begin with and when I talked to Scott we sort of came to an agreement that this was alright but in reviewing it again I couldnlt go along with it. I just see trouble. Councilman Horn - As I understood it we took it out because we didnlt understand the intent of it. When we understood that it was the same as our current PRD concept except that for manufactured homes, it was put back in. All that is meant is that you could have rather than individual lots, you could have a smaller lot if you had some common properties that were shared in the subdivision. Councilwoman Swenson - Why don't we call it a PRD instead of community? Scott Martin - The reason itls not tracking the PRD specifically is more of a convenience in administering the ordinance when it's adopted. It just makes it much simpler. There is no reason you can't do it. There is no reason in this form you want to call it a planned manufactured housing community or planned manufactured residential community or give it whatever name to make you feel comfortable with. Clark is exactly right, it's no different than any other PUD that you have. Russell Larson - I agree with Scott. It identifies the area and these are interim ordinances. Council Meeting December 20, 1982 -4- Councilwoman Swenson - Leave us refer to it instead of a community then leave us refer to it in terms of a PRD and not housing community. I Mayor Hamilton - Why identify it at all? I voted no on the ordinance to begin with. Ordinance 47-AE satisfies me to allow these things anyplace and the economics are going to dictate where they are going to go. Councilman Geving - I think the first thing we ought to do tonight is separate the two and take 47-AE and pass judgment on it and move on to 47-AF because I think they are entirely separate things and one of the things we wanted to do in building 47-AE was to build a stop gap building design and construction standards and I think we have done that and if we pass this I think we wi 11 have accompl i shed what we set out to do when we got into this whole question. Scott Martin - They are tied together by Section 2 of Ordinance 47-AE. That's the one that says you can't build a home meeting manufactured housing codes in any district but the Rl-MH so I guess before you adopt either of them you are going to have to make an overall policy decision which direction you are going to take. Mayor Hamilton - This is the second reading. Tonight what we need to do is to decide if the wording is correct in both of the ordinances. Councilwoman Swenson - My only problem was that I was under the opinion that the housing community was going to be out. I Mayor Hamilton - I didn't think the housing community would be out, it would just be tenant ownership. Councilman Neveaux - That was my impression. It had to be a home ownership. Councilman Geving - That rental came out of manufactured housing subdivision and so I think they did exactly what we told them to do. Councilwoman Swenson - Now wait a minute, a manufactured housing community is any manufactured housing development which is divided into individual housing sites which may be sold or transferred in any form of common ownership, IIcommon ownershipll now that doesn't sound to me like that's individual ownership. Councilman Neveaux - Condominiums whether they be apartment type or townhouse type, whether they be where you own the ground under your unit or whether you lease it or whatever or whether all the outside open space is in joint ownership of everybody or if you get a portion of it and there is other common, there is typically an element of common ownership that travels with each of the owners of the units within that condominium structure and again, it may be different. It may be just the open space, the parks and the playground areas the trails and that kind of stuff I it may be just some of the green space around your unit. You mayor may not own your actual ground upon which your building is put. You own the building but you mayor may not own the ground and again it depends upon the kind of condominium whether it's I I I Council Meeting December 20, 1982 -5- stick built or manufactured housing there is a thread of common ownership of some part of the whole housing community as I understand condominium developments. Scott Martin - Just one thing you said John, if you go a step further that you may own the unit and you may own the ground it·s sitting on in common, not necessarily just that postage stamp place underneath the mobile home. What you are saying is that you must own in some fashion, in some form, the land that the mobile home or manufactured home is located on. Councilwoman Swenson - Very specifically, I want people to own the lot the house is on. Scott Martin - The only thing that you can It control is the guy that ownes the mobile home and then rents it out to somebody else later. Councilwoman Swenson - Very specifically we want people to own the lot. Now if that motion is not going to be precisely like that then I am not going to be able to vote on it. Scott Martin - You want them to own all of the lot. Then what Pat wants is to strike any reference to manufactured housing community in common PUD section. The better example is in New Horizon in the quad units. When a person buys one of those quad units he owns the structure and a common wall that he is residing in, the property around then is owned in commonality with others. Councilman Neveaux - We have already allowed that kind of thing and that·s the reason why those costs can come down to the individual owner, the buyer, to allow that kind of housing to be built within the community. Russell Larson - In the use of the word common ownership, are we talking about joint tenancy or are we talking about individual ownership, the common ways lawyers transfer title on behalf of their clients, is that what was intended? Councilwoman Swenson - The intention was, as I requested the amendment was that the people own the lot on which their dwelling sits. We have a 15,000 square foot lot and we own 15,000 square feet. If it·s a PUD and that happens to be 10,000 square feet then they own 10,000. Councilman Neveaux - If w~ follow through with that then we would have to also make that change in our regular PRD ordinance or we would in fact be discriminating against one class of people. Councilwoman Swenson - Then why do we have to include this because if that is what we already have then why don't we call it that. Why are we establishing a new type of community? Councilman Neveaux - It appears that the wording in Section 1 of Ordinance 47-AF, second paragraph, Manufactured Housing Community, should be more in tune with the existing verbage of our PRD ordinance. Maybe it is. Councilman Horn - Is there such a thing as a multiple tenant manufactured house? Council Meeting December 20, 1982 -6- Scott Martin - This ordinance, under the permitted uses, only allows single family. Councilman Horn - So if they really only have single family then this is a moot point. Scott Martin - They could be clustered without actually being physically attached. Mayor Hamilton - Then you are not following this ordinance at all. Then you are putting four dwellings unless you take 60,000 square feet and cluster them together in the middle of it then you are doing the same thing anyway. They all own 15,000 square feet. Councilwoman Swenson - We are getting away from the individual lots again. I want people to be responsible for the maintenance of their property. Councilman Neveaux - I appreciate that but we can't do that now in single family. Right down here within a three wood shot of this building on the corner of Frontier Trail and West 77th Street is a problem single family and it's a rats nest. I drove by there tonight and there must be six cars parked along the side. There is a boat. It looks like a bathtub, trash and junk allover the place. That's our sacrosanct single family residential stick built ordinance. If we can't control that, how do we expect to get this kind of thing controlled. Just because you have it in black and white doesn't mean that itls going to occur. Councilwoman Swenson - You have got a lot less likelyhood of having it occur if you have the right terminology. Councilman Neveaux - Provided you donlt run up against discrimination. I just think we need to look at an obvious potential for some litigation and/or some publicity about what this community is doing. I think as we developed this thing over the past several months we were pretty well convinced that the marketplace was going to take care of these problems which we feared but because of the cost and because of the land and utilities where these developments would occur, then as we mentioned ten minutes ago, there are not going to buy a $30,000 lot and put up a $20,000 house on it. Mayor Hamilton - That's precisely what I thought Ordinance 47-AE takes care of that. Ordinance 47-AF, I felt, adds in some discrimination. We are not treating everybody the same. Councilman Neveaux - Except as AE as written, Section 19.22 is amended to say that in Rl-MH districts all manufactured dwellings shall meet all applicable requirements of the Manufactured Home Building Code and if we don't have Rl-MH districts somewhere that would have to be removed or modified. Councilman Geving - You could just delete that statement and I could still go along with AE. It doesnlt distract one bit from AE. Scott Martin - That's only necessary if you want to segretate the two different types of buildings. I I I I I I Council Meeting December 20, 1982 -7- Councilman Neveaux - If we eliminate the last sentence from Section 19.22 from AE then that·s all we need is AE. Councilwoman Swenson - In other words we drop AF all together. Councilman Neveaux - Provided we modify AE to eliminate the reference to a new district, the Rl-MH district. Councilman Horn - Anything under the AF ordinance as it is written here would be allowable if we only had AE. Any of these types of developments could come in and apply. Scott Martin - In your building code ordinance you have already covered by reference, you are adopting the manufactured housing code and the UBC. Councilman Horn - So we are adopting both. So if we only have AE if they apply in either one of those if they meet our ordinances they can come in. My point is that we are not being more restrictive by having AF in there. We are allowing more if we only have AE. Councilwoman Swenson - It still would not allow a rental park. Scott Martin - Potentially under the P-l district. You would review that at that time. Councilman Horn - What you are looking for Pat, you are going to achieve more with 47-AF than you will with 47-AE. The other thing is with 47-AE if somebody wanted to or if they found a lot that was cheap enough they could put a house of this type next to any existing structure in Chanhassen. In AF it·s got to go in the district. Scott Martin - We could change the language and call it a planned manufactured housing community, a planned unit manufactured housing community. Mayor Hamilton - It sounds like you are creating a community within a community. Councilwoman Swenson - We don·t want to do that. Scott Martin - Call it what you want. It's all going to come together to make more sense to you potentially when the new zoning ordinance is all put together. Russell Larson - You would have more leverage if you had AF in force. Councilman Neveaux - In other words we would have to treat those people the same as we treat all other people. Mayor Hamilton - Is there any other verbage in AF that anyone would like to discuss? Councilwoman Swenson - Can we call it manufactured housing PUD? Councilman Neveaux - Manufactured housing PRD, planned residential development, I think that's wonderful, rather than community. I think that community came from some suggested ordinance. Councilman Geving - There is two other things. If we leave that the way we just changed on PRD we have got to address then page 4, item 6.54 B, I think there is some references to recreation that may have to be changed. Scott Martin - I would go through here and any time the term manufactured housing community is used it will be changed to manufactured housing PRD. Councilman Geving - The recreational aspects of it seems to be different when you are talking about a PRD. On page 2, we got into this question last time about, such dwelling shall measure 14 feet or more in width and 40 feet or more in length, I think based on the vote last Council Meeting December 20, 1982 -8- time that that was acceptable language. Councilman Neveaux - That is not consistent with 47-AE which says 20 feet in width. Councilwoman Swenson - I see staff is recommending changing from 14 to 20 feet so they are consistent. Mayor Hamilton - Are there any other changes in 47-AF? If there are no other changes, I would entertain a motion to adopt Ordinance #47-AF which establishes the Rl-MH Single Family Manufactured Housing District in the City of Chanhassen with the proposed changes: All references to manufactured housing community be changed to manufactured housing PRD and the measurement from 14 feet to 20 feet in width. Councilman Neveaux - I would move the adoption of the ordinance. Councilman Horn - I second. Mayor Hamilton - All those in favor of the motion sigfnify by saying aye. Councilwoman Swenson - Aye. Councilman Neveaux - Aye. Councilman Horn - Aye. Councilman Geving - Aye. Mayor Hamilton - Opposed? Aye. Mayor Hamilton - Ooes anyone have any changes in verbage to Ordinance 47-AE? If not, I would entertain a motion to accept or reject Ordinance 47-AE. Councilman Horn - I move we accept Ordinance 47-AE. Councilman Geving - Second. Mayor Hamilton - Is there any discussion? Bill Swearengin - The question arises as to the width on Ordinance 47-AE, I donlt recall what the ordinance says at this point. Mayor Hamilton - 20 feet. Bill Swearengin - This precludes and I think this is the reason the Planning Commission recommended we have a smaller distance because it precludes any addition to any homes of less than 20 feet, is that right? Scott Martin - This is the Planning Commissionls recommendations. It says that lithe minimum dimension of any part of the basic dwelling shall be twenty feet. This shall not be construed to prohibit smaller or narrower individual room additions or to restrict the use of architectural features not otherwise prohibited or restricted by this ordinance.1I It is the same language that the Planning Commission recommended. Councilwoman Swenson - Ooes this change that we discussed regarding someone coming in with architectural plans that are ilL" shaped or something, does this present a problem? Scott Martin - What we were talking about was number E, that the longest dimension of the building shall be placed facing the street which provides direct access to the lot. Obviously the width of most lots is narrower than its length and the length went from the street to the back lot line which may create problems especially on some narrower lots which you find most frequently in Carver Beach area and on lake shore where you are going to see a lot of variance requests. I I I I I I Council Meeting December 20, 1982 -9- Councilwoman Swenson - Do you think it's necessary to put some sort of a provision there that will permit this type of thing other than having to go through a variance. Scott Martin - I would be most comfortable if the thing were stricken from the ordinance and that was what the Planning Commission recommended. The Planning Commission recommended II all and IIbll. The items that follow IIbll were discussion points but were all removed from the recommendation to the Council. Councilwoman Swenson - Letls see how often it will come up. Mayor Hamilton - Any further discussion. If not, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Councilwoman Swenson - Aye. Councilman Neveaux - Aye. Councilman Geving - Aye. Councilman Horn - Aye. Mayor Hamilton - Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION FEASIBILITY REPORT: Mayor Hamilton - It's just irritating when we have tried our damndest over the years to go through the whole planning process as best we can to conform to Metropol i tan Counci l' s every whim and wish and now to have a most ridiculous plan such as this coming back at us. The plan in the first place doesn·t make any sense and secondly to have it being forced upon us with almost no time to respond to what your study says. We were handed a report tonight that we are apparently supposed to respond to you about which we are not going to do because we are not going to sit here and take the thing and read it and then try to respond back to you. Does the Council have any comments they want to make on this issue? Councilman Neveaux - What is the suggested time frame that was presented to the !ity staff on this issue? Metro. Council Staff Member - The hearing itself is 2:00 p.m., Metropol i tan Counci 1 Chambers, January 6th. The record is open for written comment to January 20th. The Physical Development Committee will meet and discuss it on February 3rd ànd then the Council will make a final decision, accept it, amend it, whatever the case may be, on February 10th. Councilman Neveaux - What the Mayor is referring to was this document which we got this evening that explains all the planning and all of the changes to the whole planning process that the Mayor referred to and we are expected to digest and discuss this evening and then make comments to Metropolitan Council by the 6th of January or when the record it held open until some time later and then the Metropolitan Council will act on it the 10th of February. You can see some of the pressure that is placed upon us with a complete to a fifteen to seventeen year program of planning on sewers that I have been involved with in this community I just could not believe it when I read this. It's like a bad dream. Council Meeting December 20, 1982 -10- Bill Sando - I think we were aware of the possibility of what's coming but the paper documentation as far as the recommendations is concerned, I have not seen. Councilman Neveaux - We have all been aware that there is a problem up there at the Lake Virginia Lift Station for several years. The solution agreed to as I understand it by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and Metropol itan Council and the City of Chanhassen was the Lake Ann Interceptor. Bill Sando - How long has the amendment been out? Don Ashworth - We did get a notice. It was very vague. Bill Monk didnlt know until just this past week that in fact that notice referred to this particular change. The wordage came out under water surface management. We received a notice that said Metro Council is presently calling a hearing on water surface management changes and that was all there was to it. It didn't strike a bell that it had anything to do wi th Chanhassen. Mayor Hamilton - In the mid-19701s the MWCC identified that the Lake Virginia Lift Station was a problem. The Metropolitan Council, at that time, said it was not a problem and did not recognize it and consequently did absolutely nothing about it. The MWCC said that something had to be done immediately in the mid-1970's and here we are ten years later now we are getting something rammed down our throat because the Metropolitan Council refused to recognize at that time. I realize you (Bill Sando) were not on the Council at that time but it just points out another instance when I feel the Metropolitan Council has absolutely not been responsive to the communities that are out here and know what is going on in our regions and the Metropolitan Council doesnlt listen. I do think you (Bill Sando) have responded to our needs much better than previously has been done but itls still not as good as it should be and I think this problem points that out very clearly. Bill Sando - I think we also have to recognize that the areas that I have are richly blessed with rather than problems, call them opportunities, Highway 5, etc. I was not on at this time so I am not aware of what has happened prior to this moment and I guess that is what we are here to discuss now. Ray Payne, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission - This is Bob Schunicht. The Waste Control Commission has hired him to prepare the planning report that you have before you. It's more than that, it's a design report to size the facility. Along with me tonight I have Ken Bombock, he is a project manager for refining the design of this facility. Bob, I think, can shed a lot more insight into the plan and the alternatives and I think he can alleviate some of your concerns. Councilman Neveaux - It seems to me that your organization has gone into designing already before you have even talked to the community about whether that's the appropriate location. Bob Schunicht - We have not. He will be responsible for the preparation of plans and specs after that is reviewed and approved by all concerned. We have not gotten into designs on that. We I I I I I I Council Meeting December 20, 1982 - 11 - propose to fairly soon because we do have a problem up in Shorewood. Mayor Hamilton - The opening comments were intended to let you know that we are not very keen on your proposed plan. Councilwoman Swenson - For the benefit of several residents out here, I think that prior to getting into this, so that they can follow it, could we turn that around and shown them precisely where your proposal is that your interceptor will go? It goes down Pleasant View Road. Bob Schunicht - During my presentation we will be talking about five facilities that provide waste water service to Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, Shorewood, and Excelsior. The blue line is the Purgatory Creek Interceptor, thatls an interceptor thatls in-place and has been in-place since early 1970. Itls a main trunk, main artery of the waste water conveyance system in the southwestern portion of the metropolitan area. Right now there is an in-place facility called the Chanhassen lift station that's just on the Chanhassen border, north of Rice Marsh Lake. This lift station pumps waste water over into the Purgatory Creek interceptor pretty much along Highway 5. The two proposed facilities that I will be talking about, the alternatives that we are looking at in this design report, is one called the Lake Ann interceptor which would take waste water from the western side of Lake Minnetonka that waste water would enter the lift station to be pumped into a facility called Lake Ann interceptor which has not been built at the present time but would be built down through the City of Chanhassen down to Highway 5 through the Chanhassen Lakes Business Industrial Park into the existing Chanhassen lift station which would then be expanded and another forcemain built over to Purgatory Creek interceptor. One of the alternatives for construction is the Lake Ann interceptor down through Chanhassen. Another alternative is a direct connection that we have called the Lake Virginia forcemain. Itls a direct connection by forcemain from the Lake Virginia lift station along the northern border of Chanhassen which follows Lake Lucy Road, Pleasant View Road, and Townline Road over to the Purgatory Creek interceptor. The main things that we are going to be talking about in the presentation are the existing Purgatory Creek interceptor, the existing Chanhassen lift station, and the alternatives which are the Lake Virginia forcemain or the Lake, Ann interceptor. Mike Thompson - You said it would go down Pleasant View Road, does that mean it would go down the middle of the road, the side of the road, 30 feet off to the side or where does it go and how deep will it go? Bob Schunicht - Itls a forcemain so it would go six to nine or ten feet deep. It would go to avoid the existing utilities. It would go in the road, probably half the road would be taken up by construction of it. The road would be open to traffic at night. I can't tell you which side of the road it goes on because right now we are working with a design report. We arenlt going to final design so we haven't located every utility out there to know exactly where the forcemain would go. Council Meeting December 20, 1982 - 1 2- Councilman Neveaux - Pleasant View has already paid its dues with the municipal water and sewer installation project and I know how difficult that can be. It wasn·t that long ago, now we are asking them to take another summer off in hauling their groceries and then to top it off~ when it flies in the face of the Lake Ann interceptor which in essence would be going over undeveloped territory and the great bulk of it to be gravity flow versus forcemain, the planning process escapes me sometimes, at what happens over there at Metro Square. I just can It fathom anything other than the politics involved and I hate to even bring that up but I just have a feeling that someone is attempting to put the screws onto Chanhassen. Bob Schunicht - This is a forcemain, it only has to be seven feet deep. It doesnlt have to be deep enough to pick up the houses. It shouldn1t be compared with the same a deep gravity sanitary sewer construction. Councilman Geving - Will you have to acquire any property on right-of-way. Bob Schunicht - Yes there will be some right-of-way acquisition. I think we can fit it in within the existing right-of-way. There are some places where we are going across country, there were a couple places that would require easements. Councilman Geving - I hope you have built in some resistance time into your plans. Bob Schunicht - This facility, if it were constructed, would start construction in 1984. We are in the design report stage right now. The final plans will be done some time during the summer or fall and then at the same the final report and final plans are going to be done then we would start on right-of-way acquisition dealing with the property owners and we anticipate going to homeowner's meetings and things like that. Councilman Geving - You should have done all of this first. You are coming in the back door. You happen to be hitting the most tender spot in the City of Chanhassen right now. Mayor Hamilton - What it appears to be, what the MWCC and the Metropolitan Council are attempting to do is to ram this thing through before letting the homeowners and people who would be affected by it have any comment at all. Bob Schunicht - The study area for the project that we have called the Lake Virginia/Lake Ann System Project is really from the Lake Virginia lift station thatls the western border, the eastern border is existing Purgatory Creek interceptor. Our direction was to evaluate the major waste water conveyance facilities in this area and come up with the most economical system considering the costs that would be borne by the Metropolitan Council ~ the costs that would be borne by the Cities of Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, Shorewood, and Excelsior. The major existing features in this area are the Excelsior lift station located at the site of the old Excelsior treatment plant, the I Lake Virginia lift station, the Purgatory Creek interceptor the Chanhassen lift station, and the Chanhassen interceptor. There is a couple in-place facilities in the City of Chanhassen, 66 inch line that was installed by the Waste Control Commission back in the mid-1970s from the Chanhassen I I I I I Council Meeting December 20, 1982 -13- lift station over to 101, and the Lake Susan trunk which was installed by the City of Chanhassen in the later part of 1970s. The main problem is the Excelsior lift station. Right now the Excelsior lift station receives waste water flow from the entire western part of Lake Minnetonka, through the Lake Virginia lift station to Excelsior and then through a facility in Shorewood and Minnetonka over to Purgatory Creek interceptor. Right now the Excelsior lift station is overloaded. It has frequent backup problems. As a matter of fact the Waste Control Commission had to spend about $100,000 to build a block in one of the lines and pump water around it to prevent these backup problems. They are serious problems. They aren't only during really heavy rain falls but they are occuring on a semi-regular basis. Councilman Neveaux - They are not new though, are they? Bob Schunicht - No. They have been there for some time. The other problem with the Excelsior lift station is that it is cavitating which means that there is too much flow going through it for the size of the facility that's there. The pumps are literally destroying through cavitation which means that in order to correct this problem the capacity of the lift statior should be reduced. Backing upstream to the Lake Virginia lift station, that station has a lot of capacity in it but right now because of the Excelsior lift station only one pump can be run at a time and because only one pump can be run the waste water backs up in the system going around the west end of Lake Minnetonka. The direction of this report is to find a way of taking the Lake Virginia flow away from the Excelsior lift station and getting it over into the Purgatory Creek interceptor. The Purgatory Creek interceptor is a largE facility. It has been in-place for several years and has enough capacity to take the flow from the Lake Virginia station so essentially the flow from this Lake Virginia station can be added to the Purgatory Creek interceptor any where in Eden Prairie. The other major facility in this area is the Chanhassen lift station and the Chanhassen lift station has been some concern over the years because there is a lot of peak flows coming into it and some of these peak flows approach the design capacity of that lift station and there has been concern on the part of the City of Chanhassen and the Waste Control Commission and the Metropolitan Council how this facility would be used for the City of Chanhassen. Is it going to be able to adequately serve the City of Chanhassen? We spent a lot of time looking at the flows to the Chanhassen lift station, looking at the facility itself to see how we could best use this facility. How to maximize this facility to work for the City of Chanhassen. The I. I. study that was done for the City of Chanhassen identified the fact that existing flows to the Chanhassen lift station are really high. They are in the neighborhood of nine to ten times average flow. In the report they identify it1s a problem that's coming from infiltration and inflow into the system but a lot of this is coming from private property drains which are very difficult to get off the system if not almost impossible to get off the system so a basic assumption Council Meeting Oecember 20, 1982 - 14- that we make in this report is that the peak flows in Chanhassen will continue to get to that lift station. There will not be any major reductions in I. I. in the current flows to the Chanhassen lift station but then we took a further look a the projected flows from Chanhassen and we assumed that there would be some reduction in I. I. into the system, it means that the sewers would be tighter, it means that there will be more inspection of the houses, but we still assume a relatively high peak factor of five as opposed to a peak factor that you would normally expect of three or four. So we came up with what we feel are conservative design flows on the high side for the Chanhassen lift station by using a peak of nine for the existing flows and a peak of five for the future flows. We looked at the Chanhassen lift station in conjunction with that 66 inch line thatls located just west of it going off towards Highway 101. In that 66 inch line there is very little of that capacity of that line is needed for flow coming from the City of Chanhassen because it's oversized for additional flow from the western end of Lake Minnetonka. A lot of the capacity in this 66 inch line can be used to store waste water and by storing waste water it means that you can cut this extremely high peaks down and use the lift station facility for a longer period of time. So we looked at the combination of using this existing facility and storing almost 1/2 million gallons of waste water in that 66 inch line without causing any problems. By using that storage and using the existing capacity this Chanhassen lift station can be used to only serve only existing Chanhassen plus your projected growth from your comprehensive plan for about the next 15 years. There is some flexibility in that lift station to expand by changing the pumps, changing the motors you can increase the capacity by about 33% for very 1 ittle money. That would add another five years to the design life of the Chanhassen lift station. If you upgrade the station and store the water in the 66 inch line and pump it through the existing forcemain into Purgatory Creek interceptor thi s faci 1 i ty wi 11 1 ast Chanhassen unti 1 about the year 2003. Councilman Neveaux - Provided we control the growth. Bob Schunicht - Thatls based upon your population projections. Councilman Neveaux - Metropolitan Council IS comprehensive plan. Bob Schunicht - There are two plans. Our projections are based on the Metropolitan Council's growth projections. We are also using a much higher peak factor than was used in that report so if you look at the flow projections I think you will find that our flow projections are probably equal or higher than the ones that you had come up with using your growth. Councilman Neveaux - You are saying then that the existing Chanhassen lift station should be able to control and satisfy all of our needs in the approved Metropolitan Council plan for Chanhassen to the year 2003. Now you are back to 1968 when that Lake Ann interceptor was in fact a city trunk line. That's when we were under the old Southwest Sanitary Sewer District and they said, wait a minute why don't we make that a I I I I I I Council Meeting December 20, 1982 - 1 5- metropolitan interceptor then we will pay for it, now with this plan you are saying, what used to be Lake Ann interceptor is now going to become a local trunk, Chanhassen can build it with all the money that we have. Councilman Geving - We already did, that's the point. We already built that damn trunk line to serve our industrial park and we oversized it just so that we could expand at some future date. We spent a lot of money on that line and we are never going to get it out. We were planning for the day when we could hook on to your line and this was ten years ago. Bob Schunicht - There is three basic facts that deal with the assumptions. The first one is that the Excelsior station needs to be reduced from capacity. Councilman Neveaux - It looks like you are taking it off the line all together. Are you taking off the portion that was originally planned to go into Lake Ann interceptor? Bob Schunicht - Right. The diversion that we are proposing is for only the flow that reaches the Lake Virginia lift station. The Excelsior station when itls downgraded in capacity will only have ample capacity for the Shorewood, Excelsior, Tonka Bay area and will still be used and has enough room for some growth in those communities through the year 2020. The Chanhassen lift station, if serving only the City of Chanhassen, has enough capacity with moderate expansion until the year 2003. Now, based on those design criteria, we developed two alternatives that we explained a little bit before. The alternative known as the Lake Ann interceptor alternative includes upgrading the Lake Virginia lift station, constructing a line, forcemain, over to Highway 41 and a gravity line along Highway 41, along the west side of Lake Ann down all the way paralleling the existing line through Chanhassen Lakes Business Park to Highway 101 where it connects to the 66 inch line. Now, when you bring the entire flow from Lake Virginia over to Chanhassen lift station then you have to rebuild the lift station and force main to Purgatory Creek interceptor but there really isnlt any excess capacity in this existing lift station for the Lake Virginia flows because they are four, five, six times the flows from the Chanhassen area. Councilman Neveaux - I can't believe that there are that many units going into that Lake Virginia lift station. I can't believe it unless their growth is going to be allowed to Bob Schunicht - From what we have seen your growth is much more explosive. There is peak rates of almost 10 million gallons a day coming out of that. There are I and I problems throughout this whole area. That's one of the reasons why the previous plan that tried to make use of more parts of the system on an interim basis isnlt working as well because there is more flows and there hasn't been any really substantial reductions anywhere. Councilman Neveaux - When did the firm start on this plan? Bob Schunicht - September 1982. Council Meeting Oecember 20, 1982 - 1 6- Councilman Neveaux - We have known about the problem for ten years. Councilwoman Swenson - This isnlt going to benefit Chanhassen, we have got a sewer line in there. Why can't you fix up Excelsior and go over to Purgatory Creek through Excelsior? Why come down through Chanhassen and tear up our roads? Bob Schunicht - So we are coming down to the Chanhassen lift station and over to Purgatory and then eventually the plan is to abandon the Chanhassen lift station and go over to Purgatory Creek interceptor at some time. Thatls beyond the year 2000. The alternative to that is upgrading the Lake Virginia lift station, building the forcemain to Highway 41 and instead of coming down with a gravity interceptor, continue that force- main along the route shown through Chanhassen to the Purgatory Creek interceptor. Under this plan the Chanhassen lift station would be expanded to serve only the City of Chanhassen. There would be no Chanhassen forcemain and then when the capacity of this lift station is reached then the Riley Creek interceptor would be built. Under this plan the Lake Ann facility would become a local trunk and would be built north of Highway 5 up to serve this area as development plans in the area dictate it. It would be a city trunk. We looked at this from a cost standpoint. Councilwoman Swenson - It is obvious that they don't want any development out here because everything they are doing is blocking us off on every possible route. Councilman Neveaux - We should have created the problems and let them fix them like they do everybody else. Bob Schunicht - We provided you with a summary of the costs. Looking at the Lake Ann interceptor, the initial cost would be approximately $10 million to build the facility. This compares to a cost of approximately $6 mill ion to build the forcemain directly across to Purgatory Creek. In looking at an equivalent annual cost basis, the equivalent annual cost which includes operation, maintenance, and planning and all the facilities that would be required over the next 20 years the Lake Ann interceptor is approximately $1.2 million, the Lake Virginia forcemain is approximately $800,000. Councilman Geving - It looks like the Lake Ann interceptor is about half the length of the Lake Virginia forcemain. Bob Schunicht - A gravity flow system is more expensive than a forcemain because you are going deeper. These costs are not Metropolitan Waste Control Commission costs. The total cost to the City of Chanhassen and the Metropol itan Waste Control Commission to build an equal system throughout here. The reason why the costs are different, a lot of the reason in fact if you bring this flow down to the Chanhassen lift station you have to build a new facility. That facility is very expensive and you have got to get over to the Purgatory Creek interceptor. Our report does recommend the Lake Virginia forcemain route based on the economics of it. was also looked at the environmental concerns along all routes. There main concerns were with the Riley Creek interceptor in going through the very sensitive areas. I I It I of the I I I Council Meeting December 20, 1982 - 17- Councilman Neveaux - You are talking about using the oversizing on phase one and phase two of the Lake Ann interceptor as storage area? Bob Schunicht - Lake Ann phase one which is a 66 inch line would be used to store waste water to shave off the extremel.y high peaks that are coming from the City of Chanhassen and make use of this facility for a longer period of time. Councilman Neveaux - That would be paid for totally by the Metropolitan Counci 1. Bob Schunicht - I believe so. Councilman Neveaux - If in fact thatls going to be used for some kind of storage, there would be no reimbursement to the City for that oversizing? Bob Schunicht - We are only storing in the 66 inch line going to Councilman Neveaux - The answer to my question is no, obviously. oversizing that we did on phase two, we are eat. The answer is yes. Bob Schunicht - At Donis request we did look at using this oversizing for a period of time for the diversion of the Lake Virginia flow. The flows that we are pumping through the Lake Virginia lift station immediately upon construction of this forcemain exceed the capacity of the line so it's not something that we can use on a temporary basis. Councilman Neveaux - Back in 1968 and 1969 essentially that's a Metropolitan Council line. That's the Lake Ann interceptor, that's not our line. Thatls our whole point. That has been planned and thought about and discussed since 1968 that that was a metropolitan interceptor and now we are saying, sorry guys but we are going to let you stay with what you got and it becomes a local trunk. Councilwoman Swenson - And we don It have the benefit of it because they won't let us go back to our original MUSA line. Councilman Neveaux - We got screwed. Councilman Geving - I think we made a commitment to our developer too when we built that line that oversizing would eventually be turned back to him as a kind of refund. Councilman Neveaux - If I were him I would sue. Don Ashworth - We did construct it as a metropolitan sewer but I think through that process we had made the initial offer and wanted to build it biger looking to saving monies for Metropolitan Council as well as city. Bill Sando - Was there ever an agreement between the City of Chanhassen and the waste control commission that what you were building would be taken ove, reimbursement, whatever you call it, was it ever done? Does a document exist? Don Ashworth - There was no agreement. Councilman Neveaux - Unfortunately we had been dealing like gentlemen. Don Ashworth - I can show you the files. The issue was presented at the Metro Council level and the question there was we do not want to enter in to that form of an agreement, if Chanhassen wants to go ahead and do it, fine. Bill Sando - My main question was, was there something and I can appreciate what John is saying about reimbursement to the contractor but nonetheless, if there wasn't what argument. 1 01 . The going to Council Meeting December 20, 1982 -18- Mayor Hamilton - What you are saying is that anytime we deal with the Metropolitan Councilor some agency of the Metropolitan Council we better get a written agreement. Councilman Neveaux - What happens beyond the year 2000? Waste Control Commission Repr. - Riley Creek would be in the making or an expansion of the Chanhassen lift station. Bob Schunicht - There are two options in the year 2000, Riley Creek or further expansion of the Chanhassen lift station. Councilwoman Swenson - We havenlt been able to stay with anything since 1968 I don't know how we could possibly start thinking about something thatls 18 to 20 years away and say that it's going to be done. Obviously there is no consistency with anything that's said. There is no consistency, we have no reliability I know Chanhassen is not all by itself. I would like to know how we can secede. I think we could probably control our own sewage a lot cheaper than it is costing us to send it through all this stuff. Councilman Geving - The thing that really bothers me, I have just scanned this for a few minutes, Chanhassen lift station flows, they talk about the inflow and infiltration, we paid for a very good report some time ago and now it's coming back working against us because they are using the same I. I. figures to substantiate their feeling here about why we don't want to go with Lake Ann interceptor and our Chanhassen lift station and I see the same thing working against us. We should have let them build this damn I.I. themselves and pay for it and I see the same thing thatls happened here is what happened at County Road 18, we built a road so we can put a dump in Chanhassen and here we did the same thing, we built a study, paid for it with Chanhassen funds and I see it coming right back to us that somebody else picked it out of that study used it against us. I am tired of using our money for that kind of purpose. Bill Monk - I have been involved in this for the past couple of weeks. As we have gone through some of this stuff I have not had a chance to go through the report. I got my copy also tonight. I have not been able to confirm or refute any of the data in the report but in talks with the engineer's who have done the report there are a lot of things going for what they propose mainly cost and maintenance. There are also a lot of things that disturbed Don and myself in the times that we have talked about this and how it changes our overall plan, things that we have seen in the process that have kind of screwed us up a little bit in not being allowed to build an interceptor through Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. I guess basically trying to cut through it all, rather than trying to come up with some type of a position on how the City wishes to respond come January 6th, there are a number of options, anything from just going and saying this stinks, we donlt want any part of it type of thing, to the other extreme, we think it's great and we accept it wholeheartedly. We have got to come I I I ·1 I I Council Meeting December 20, 1982 -19- Counci lman up with something pretty quickly on how we do want to respond. We have let everybody know that we are not too please with the way things have been handled procedurely and that type of thing. Neveaux - We have known about the problem between eight and ten years and yet all of a sudden we went into a crash program in September of this year and it's going to come to fruition in February and it's something totally against what your planning process has lead to and our planning process has lead to and we get a document of this size to respond to within two weeks over the holiday season, I don't know how we can possibly give an intelligent decision other than to stand back and say go ahead and do it. Bill Sando - I understand what you are saying about the 6th of January as being the date for physical presentation of views and i f you fee 1 t hat has m 0 r e' we i g h t t h ant hew r i t ten com men t , you are correct but the hearing is open until the 20th so you don't have to quickly jump and respond tonight. You do have until the 20th unless you feel that the written word is of less value than the spoken word. I don It know if that is particularly true. £ouncilman Neveaux - It is. Bill Sando - I guess I would somewhat disagree. I have been to enough of those hearings and after a while you kind of don't hear everything that is being said. I am sorry to say that. Councilman Neveaux - The first of the year is a busy time for staff. Bill Sando - I will be glad to convey your comments about the procedure about the timing of the whole thing and how difficult it has been for you. Councilman Neveaux - Itls not an emergency. This fault of the Lake Virginia lift station and the Excelsior lift station did not occur within the last six months. It's been known for between eight and ten years. That bothers me personally. It doesn't appear to be kosher. Bill Sando - I would also like to know about the developer you mentioned. Is there any more to that? Councilman Neveaux - There were several developers that have been turned down or made requests of because of the fact that we are waiting for that Lake Ann interceptor to come in. Hold back on your investment, keep paying those taxes, keep making those payments on that contract for deed, itls been in our plan since 1968, it will occur. Bill Sando - As I understand it, the land for development in Chanhassen for the next 20 years, is presently sewered. Is that correct? Don Ashworth - The Lake Ann interceptor is outside the MUSA line. Bob Schunicht - The City of Chanhassen has accepted reluctantly. Councilwoman Swenson - One of the reasons that we accepted this was because the Chanhassen Estates lift station was said to not be large enough to take care of the original MUSA line. Now we are told tonight that itls plenty big to take care of anything that we have got going until 2000. It seems Council Meeting Oecember 20, 1982 -20- like one hand doesnlt know what the other hand is doing down there and you have different departments and one department will tell us one thing and the other department another, doesnlt anybody check? I would like to know how much this is going to cost the City of Chanhassen if we were to concur with your theory? Waste Control Repr. - The cost for the facilities will be shared by service area four communities based upon the flow presently contributed. There are about, I believe 20 communities included. Your percent of use in the system is relatively small so the current users will be paying, I don't know the percent, the remainder will be paid by SAC charges as people connect to the system. Councilwoman Swenson - What about the installation? Waste Control Repr. - It will be amortized over 20 years. Councilwoman Swenson - Payable by? Waste Control Repr. - By the Waste Control Commission. Councilwoman Swenson - Why should we have to pay to have the sewage from the Lake Virginia for the privilege of having our street torn up, Lotus Lake possibly contaminated, and having these good people put out and we still are going to have to wind up paying for it too. Waste Control Repr. - If the Lake Ann were recommended down through here, which in your opinion would provide better service the Chanhassen lift station and forcemain would have to be increased you would also pay for that. Councilwoman Swenson - At least we would get some benefit from that. Waste Control Repr. - From the Met. Council's and Commission IS view, the portion beyond the existing trunk sewer that you built is not needed until the year about 2000, based upon Met. Council's land use so we view that as a poor investment to construct a gravity facility that will not be used. Councilwoman Swenson - Except Sir, that you are going across a piece of property that already has a sewer installation. We don It need that across Pleasant View Road. We have a sewer in there, why should we have to pay for it. Waste Control Repr. - Because you are part of the regional system. Councilwoman Swenson - I repeat, how do we secede? There may be some way for $300,000 a year Chanhassen can take care of its own sewage. How do we go about having these public meetings, made in the community that is affected, at an hour in which normal citizens can attend? Bill Sando - The current leadership at the Council has done a much better job than has ever been done before. There have been a lot of meetings both the public type and hearings that have been out in the affected areas. This particular meeting will affect many more areas than just the Chanhassen area. Mayor Hamilton - One item that seems to be obvious is that the reason that you want to build the forcemain is because the Excelsior lift station is inadequate, I would have to I I I I I I Council Meeting December 20, 1982 - 21 - believe that somewhere between $6 million and $10 million you could put another lift station along side the one that is currently there to handle the flowage so you are not going to have to divert it through Chanhassen or any other community. Waste Control Repr. - It's not only the lift station that is inadequate this entire system through Excelsior and Shorewood was planned for a ten year design in anticipation of Riley Creek or Bluff Creek. Itls the gravity sewer that goes through Shorewood that a ten year design. It's the entire system. There is not a simple solution to alleviate that problem. Councilman Neveaux - We can It argue with your figures until we get a chance to look at them. I think Bill (Monk) and our staff needs to look at, they might have to farm some of it out to digest this whole thing. In addition to his other duties he is going to be asked to comment on this by the 20th of January. I think itls going to ask us to spend a couple thousand dollars to get another engineer in to help him. Why does that have to happen? Why does it have to be done this quickly when we have known about it for ten years? Why, all of a sudden? I can It believe it. I just can't believe it that all of a sudden this is the solution and we are to sit here and accept it without adequate opportunity to digest the impact of this whole thing, not only upon our dollars and cents but our whole planning process revolves around that Lake Ann interceptor for our basically undeveloped part of the community. I can see it being other than just looking at this but looking at our own comprehensive plan. Waste Control Repr. - The reason for the short time period, again, is the Met. Council normally amends a policy plan once a year. No more than once a year. There are about seven other amendments that are going through. This \ was added to the other seven amendments. Supposedly you had 60 days to do this. You didn't have 60 days. You had something less. You were given 30 days. I read the entire report over the week end in about one hour and I think I got everything out of it that I could. Certainly there is more in there if you want to comment on it but I think your community can make good valid comments. Mayor Hamilton - That's if itls your field of expertise you can read that thing and know what you are reading about. I don It deal with the sewage and all this kind of stuff on a day to day basis. What I think we need to do is give Bill (Monk) some direction as to what steps we would want them to take to prepare for the 6th and what we would like to do on the 6th. Councilman Geving - One thing I would like to see them do is verify the lift station figures that are being quoted in here and make sure that those are at least accurate. That's a start to make sure that we are at least Council Meeting Oecember 20, 1982 -22- talking about the same thing. The same base data. 1 don't know if this is pertinent, but the thing that I bothers me is eventually the citizens have to pay and tonight we are being asked to absorb another 20% increase in sewage rates. What I want to know now is what is this going to do to us when this is built? Mayor Hamilton - Personally, I think that we should have a visual presen- tation on the 6th. Councilwoman Swenson - Was the idea entertained at all to go across to Excelsior territory instead of Chanhassen territory? Waste Control Repr. - We are going through an existing area that is almost completely built up. Here we have got Pleasant View Road which is built up but that's really about the only area. There will be no connection to the forcemain. The only thing that might be hooked up is a lift station. Councilwoman Swenson - I suggest to you Sir, I realize this is an exercise in futility to even be having this particular meeting, but I suggest that it wouldn't be a bad idea to take a look and see actually even though it's developed up there, I think you are going to find that unless you are ready to exercise eminent domain that little trip across Pleasant View Road, if you have to acquire any property, maybe a lot more expensive than you think. Before you so rationally chop off the development up in I the Excelsior area, which is where the problem is, to me, it isnlt fair that our community, we are glad to cooperate with other communities but it doesn't seem fair that our community has to pay for another community's problems when there is another alternative. Bob Schunicht - Really what they are doing is spreading the costs. They are trying to come up with an overall economical system for all the service area for the southwest portion of the metropolitan area and spreading the costs over the whole district. You have got benefit from other metropolitan facilities and maybe somebody else paid for those. I canlt say that everything has worked out completely fairly but the best way to do it that anybody has come up with yet is to put the most economical system in the ground, charge it to everybody that discharges sewage into that whether they are right next to the interceptor or whether way over on the other side of Lake Minnetonka. Bill Swearengin - John expressed the question as to why the urgency and to me it's isnlt an emergency either. Is is possible that there is a major development to the west in Minnetrista that's forcing this issue right now, for instance Herb Mason's 600 acres on 44 and Highway 7. Bob Schunicht - It's problems that have occured eight to ten years. I Al Klingelhutz - I agree with John, when we had the old Southwest Sewer District we were going to put that line in back in 1968, 1969, and 1970. I was on the Council at the time and we did go down to the Metro Council and say, we will I I I Council Meeting December 20, 1982 -23- put that in for you and call it an interceptor. I think that was to salve our conscience a little bit about getting us to accept the Metro Council and what they have done since has absolutely turned us off but the question that I have got is, is it going to be cheaper for you to put a forcemain from Lake Virginia to Purgatory Creek or put a gravity flow line from Lake Virginia lift station down to our present line and then fix up our lift station so it can handle the sewage? Bob Schunicht - The forcemain is about $4 million cheaper. Al Klingelhutz - But when you do have to put in that gravity line, when the forcemain runs out of capacity again, you are still going to have to put in Lake Ann interceptor and it1s going to cost you $4 million more at that time than it would today and over the long run you save millions of dollars by putting it in today where it belongs. Bob Schunicht - The Chanhassen lift station would be good for 20 years but the 40 year plan for the whole area talks about either building the Riley Creek interceptor or upgrading the Chanhassen lift station in 20 years. The whole report deals with a 40 year program. Al Klingelhutz - What is going into the Riley Creek interceptor besides Chanhassen if you have got a forcemain? Bob Schunicht - Just Chanhassen. Al Klingelhutz - You are going to build the Riley Creek interceptor just for Chanhassen? Bob Schunicht - Thatls a decision that will have to be made. Bill Sando - This is off this particular subject but a subject that should be of interest to the Council. On December 28th there is going to be a transportation meeting regarding Highway 5. The second thing is waste sites. Carver County did not submit their sites until recently and they have not been accepted yet. Supposedly, according to the rules, Carver would not have the opportunity to have anybody on the advisory committee for compensation/litigation. I think that they should have somebody to discuss those, representing the City and I have talked with Charlie this afternoon and he said that he would allow us to go ahead and put people on the committees and if a site were to drop out they would also drop out. This is quick again, but I found out this afternoon, and if you would be kind enough to think about it and perhaps suggest to Don somebody that I could contact tomorrow to fill out an application so that by Thursday we could get them appointed to the committee. On January 11th we are going to discuss the Carver County Solid Waste sites at the Chaska Middle School. Mayor Hamilton - I think we are all in agreement that we need to prepare a presentation. Councilman Geving - I would like to recommend to staff that we at least come up with another alternative to the alignment away from Pleasant View Road. I donlt know how that was picked but I do feel that there has to be a better alternative to the north, possibly along Highway 7. Don Ashworth - We have no data. Realize that there have been two other studies been done since 1978, since the initial problem was realized and I would like to know what type of things have changed from those two other studies. We have very little Council Meeting December 20, 1982 -24- Councilman time. It is very hard for us to be working through a City Council. My reports so far have gone to City Council and you are responding now. It really shouldnlt work that way. Neveaux - Someone mentioned that the normal pre-hearing time is 60 days but that we really only have 30 days so it appears to me that a reasonable suggestion would be to hold everything up 30 days, make it February 6th, February 20th, etc. Waste Control Repr. - I am saying that the public hearing is January 6th. The books are open for ten days afterward. Councilman Neveaux - We can It respond between the 6th and the 16th given the amount of material and understaffing that we as a small community have. We don't have row upon row of offices of planners that the Metropolitan Council has. Mayor Hamilton - What John's suggestion is and I think it's a good one is that we should contact the Metropolitan Council and request that they move that public hearing back to February 6th. I think that would be the first step in our attempt to get what I think would be a fair amount of time to respond to this. Bill Sando - I will find out tomorrow and I will be in contact with Don and let him know what the ramifications of that would be. Councilman Neveaux - The date of this report is December 17th. We got it tonight and staff got it tonight. I can't believe it was the Council IS doing. I have a feeling it was staff. Mayor Hamilton - Don, I would hope that you and Bill (Monk) would get together and try to decide what action we should take and let's discuss that and if we have to have an emergency hour session of the Council, we will. STOP SIGN PETITION, FRONTIER TRAIL AND HIGHLAND DRIVE: Councilman Neveaux moved to reconsider the stop sign petition. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Neveaux moved to waive the Council Procedures Ordinance in this instance to allow consideration on this reconsideration to occur this evening rather than the next regular meeting. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. I I Mary Palmer, Mrs. Tom pzynski, Mrs. Gary Johnson, and Rick Friedlander were present. Mr. Friedlander presented a letter from the Sunrise Hills Board of Directors in opposition to the stop sign request. Councilman Neveaux moved to direct the City Engineer and Maintenance I Department to erect two IIstop signsll at Frontier Trail and Highland Drive and additionally a vlarning IIwinding road aheadll with appropriate 30 MPH speed limit sign also be posted. Motion seco~ded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Neveaux. Councilman Horn voted no. Motion carried. r I I I Council ~eeting December 20, 1982 -25- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, ESTABLISHMENT OF A GOLF DRIVING RANGE, GALPIN BLVD. AND STATE HIGHWAY 5: Frank Stefanac was present. Several neighbors in the area were present. The Planning Commission recommended approval subject to eight conditions. These conditions were discussed and modified. 1. That the applicant receive an access permit from Carver County Public Works Department for access onto County Road 117. 2. That the applicant submit plans demonstrating the manner in which the parking area is to be constructed so as to drain well and prevent sur- face material from washing or eroding the parking area. Said plans shall include the type of surface material to be used and the placement of erosion control devices such as landscaping timbers around the perimeter of the parking area. 3. That the premises shall be free of litter at all times. 4. That sanitary facilities be maintained in the form of satellites as shown on the proposed plan on the premises during hours of operation. 5. That grounds security lighting, as approved by the City Engineer, be shielded so as not to interfere with traffic on Highways 5 and 117. 6. That the City Council may revoke the permit upon making a finding with any provisions of the permit having been materially violated. 7. That the applicant comply with all applicable City ordinances and regulations. 8. That the applicant compny with all applicable referral agency rules and regulations. 9. That no change or alteration be allowed within ten feet from the edge of the ravine. The wetland basin will not be altered in any way. The applicant is subject to the provisions of the Shoreland Regulations. 10. The hours of operation are from sunrise to sunset. 11. Vending machines, snack bars or electronic games are prohibited. 12. A revised plan shall be submitted to reflect all allowed conditions. Councilwoman Swenson - It should also be understood that this is an interim use. We are not intending to establish a precedent by permitting a commercial use here other than an interim usage since the property will eventually be utilized in some other manner. Councilman Geving moved that the Council approve the conditional use permit request for the golf driving range with conditions as stated above. The conditional use permit will appear as a consent agenda item on a future Council agenda. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. BILLS: Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the bills as presented: checks #14123 through #14231 in the amount of $805,391.44, and checks #18455 through #18535 in the amount of $535,942.03. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. HOPKINS JAYCEES, BEER LICENSE: Members of the Hopkins Jaycees were present seeking approval of a beer license for a regional Jaycees awards and meeting banquet to be held January 22, 1983, at St. Hubert's. Council Meeting December 20, 1982 -26- .~ Councilman Geving moved to approve the Hopkins Jaycee beer license application for St. Hubertls for the evening of January 22, 1983, from 7:30 p.m. to 12:00 with a fee of $25.00. One off-duty police officer shall be employed by the Jaycees and contingent upon submission of a dram I shop liquor liability insurance policy for review by the City Attorney at an agreed to charge of $25.00. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. ., The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. PLEASANT VIEW ROAD SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION PETITION: Councilwoman Swenson voted to approve reduction of the speed limit on Pleasant View Road to 25 MPH and submit an application to the Commissioner for such reduction. Motion seconded by Councilman Nev~aux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. ~.$OI,,*jDrJ IZ.-14^ SOLID WASTE SITE SELECTION UPDATE: Al Klingelhutz was present. A public meeting will be held January 11, 1983, at the Chaska Middle School for public comment will be heard concerning the suitability of the proposed solid waste landfill sites. The proposed site (Site 0) in Chanhassen is located south of Lyman Blvd. Councilman Geving, Councilwoman Swenson, and Al Klingelhutz will work on a committee and prepare petitions for circulation throughout the City in opposition to the site. SEWER RATE INCREASE: RESOLUTION #82-75: -Councilman Horn moved the adoption of a resolution approving the City Managerls recommendations 1-3, in his report of December 20, 1982. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following I voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. ~~ CITY POLICY FOR ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS ON TAX DELINQUENT PARCELS: Delinquent property taxes will exceed 10% during 1982. In an effort to reduce this rate, the City Manager recommended that the Council establish an ordinance which would require that delinquent property taxes be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit on any tax delinquent parcel. No action was taken. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS: Councilman Horn moved to extend the terms of Joe Warneke and Mike Lynch on the Park and Recreation Commission. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Staff was directed to prepare a letter of commendation to Mary Muehlhausen under signature of all Council Members. VOLUNTEER FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION: Councilman Geving moved to approve the amount required for fire relief to $7.00 per month as recommended by the City Manager. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. A motion adjourn. Swenson, carried. was made by Councilman Horn and seconded by Councilman Geving to The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Councilm~n Neveaux, Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion Meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m. I Don Ashworth, City Manager