Loading...
CC 2003 02 24CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 2003 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Ayotte, and Councilman Peterson COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Lundquist STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Teresa Burgess, Kate Aanenson, Loft Haak, Todd Hoffman, and Steve Torell PUBLIC PRESENT: Amanda Bennes Jessie Oran Dana Duce Melissa Gilman Jerry & Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd Ron & Denise Saatzer Dana Muller Deb Kind Jill Shipley Becky Olson 1440 Meadow Court 744 Ashley Drive 14304 County Road 43 Chanhassen Villager 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 9450 Foxford Road 8850 Sunset Trail 2351 Lukewood Drive 261 Eastwood Court 97 Cascade Circle PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARD, CHANHASSEN REPRESENTATIVE TO THE MINNETONKA COMMUNITY EDUCATION SERVICES BOARD, ANN OSBORNE. Mayor Furlong: Ann, on behalf of the City Council and the City of Chanhassen, we'd like to present you the Chanhassen Maple Leaf Award. This is a recognition that's bestowed upon individuals who have performed a minimum of 5 years of volunteer service on behalf of the Chanhassen community. Your 17 years of dedicated service as a Chanhassen representative for the Minnetonka Community Education and Services Advisory Board more than qualifies you as a deserving recipient for this award. Ann, thank you for your hard work and commitment while working on behalf of all Chanhassen residents. Your contributions made it possible for thousands of Chanhassen residents to access the varied programs offered by the Minnetonka Community Education Services. We are especially proud that you served as Board President and on it's executive board for several times over the years. We hope you enjoy your retirement from the board and look forward to your continued involvement in the community. Thank you. Ann Osborne: Good evening. The main thing I guess I would like to say is that I've loved serving the community of Chanhassen. I think that the work done by Community Education and Services adds much to our community. The programs we have just add a great deal and I'm very proud to have served the community in this way and hope to continue to support the activities in City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 the community. It's a wonderful community to support and I've loved living in Chanhassen now over 30 years so it's special. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: The only other public announcement I have is to let people be aware that the, we are still accepting applications for various commissions through the end of this week. Through February 28th. I think there are openings on most, if not all the commissions. There are seats opening up so I would encourage people here and watching at home to consider getting involved on a commission level. The applications, you can access it through the web site. There are applications there, or at city hall, or if you're looking for more information, feel free to call city hall and you'll be directed to the appropriate staff person that can give you more information about the various commissions. CONSENT AGENDA: approve the following recommendations: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's a. Approval of Adaptive Recreation Services Contract. c. Approval of Emergency Repairs to Lift Station No. 24, File PW055X. do Resolution//2003-24: Accept Utility Improvements for Knob Hill 2nd Addition, Project 02-06. e. Resolution//2003-25: Accept Utility Improvements for American Legion Site, Project 02-05. g. Approval of Plans & Specifications and Authorize Advertising for Bids, Lake Susan Regional Pond Reconstruction. Approval of Minutes: - City Council Executive Session Minutes dated January 27, 2003 - City Council Executive Session Minutes dated February 10, 2003 - City Council Work Session Minutes dated February 10, 2003 - City Council Minutes dated February 10, 2003 Receive Commission Minutes: - Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 28, 2003 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Ron Saatzer: We're just, I guess we were advised to come up here and meet in front of the council members about, talking about our driveway addition that we tried to get granted before the Planning Commission. And talked to a council member and he said that I should, we should come and present something to you today so I don't know exactly what it is that we need to present in front of you, unless you guys probably already know some of it so. Mayor Furlong: Well I think, I guess from a history standpoint, this was an item on our agenda last meeting. City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 Ron Saatzer: Correct. Mayor Furlong: So I guess at this point one of the issues, well the issue was you brought it before the Planning Commission. As I understand it they denied it and then the council moved to deny the action last meeting as well so, I mean if there's some information that you'd like to share, since you weren't at that meeting. Ron Saatzer: Yeah, we were out of town and we, I don't think we got, when we were out of town we didn't get the letter in time so we found out when we got back that we should just come and present some of the views so I don't know if I need to present my case. My same circumstance that I presented in front of the Planning Commission and just tell you what we think or what we've decided. Denise Saatzer: Is it a pretty much a moot point at this point? Mayor Furlong: I guess what I would suggest is why don't you explain to us your situation and we' 11 see what, if anything can be done. Ron Saatzer: Okay. We have a, we moved in last May, not even a year ago and we had called and talked to somebody at the city about turning our driveway into a little circular driveway and running it through the woods that were there. We're on a comer lot and somebody at the city had told me, and engineering department or whatever that they can have two accesses so we ended up doing it. A landscaping friend of mine ended up going ahead and doing it and we just put a class V circular part in there. And then I came in front of, got a letter. Came in front of the city Planning Commission and showed them pictures and what we were trying to do and we just were basically cleaning up the residence and what we have around there. We didn't really have any discrepancies from any of the city, any of the neighbors, and did kind of do my due diligence. Looking around the neighborhood and found out that there's probably a good dozen people that have two entrances on their lots, whether it' s going back to a pole barn or some kind of a shed or what have you so. Because we are on a comer lot, when we back out, at night it's very hard. There's a lot of long driveways back there, but going back, we're kind of, there's a, it's a slight hill there and in the winter time, we have 4 children and in the winter time it's kind of hard to see people coming up and over the hill and coming down at us so it's a lot easier for us to just back out of our driveway and exit out this little circular part. Denise Saatzer: So I think what we basically did is, he made a phone call. He got what he thought was the A-okay. We're new in the City of Chanhassen. Put this driveway, the regular exit comes in on Foxford Road. The new one comes out on Eastland Court. Ron Saatzer: Eastwood Court. Denise Saatzer: Eastwood Court, which there's about, I think there's 4 houses on Eastwood Court. It's a cul-de-sac. We thought what we were doing was okay. Somebody must have driven by and realized that we did this and said something and unbeknownst to us, I guess whether we weren't supposed to do it. We had already landscaped. Kind of done everything. It's safe. It's not, there's no shrubs. It's really not bothering anybody. The new outlet comes onto the cul-de-sac. And so now they're kind of telling us we need to pull it out. So we're just here to try to find out what the reasoning might be for that and if there' s any possible way that we can keep it. It's a safety issue for our kids. We are on a comer. When we do back out of our long driveway, traffic comes along the comer there. We were trying to avoid some of that. And City Council Meeting -February 24, 2003 it looks really nice. We very upgraded you know the area without I think any detriment to anybody else so we just wanted to, you know, let you know that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Good. I think since the action was, or there was a motion taken to deny the variance at the last meeting, it would have to come up as a motion to reconsider I believe would be correct and tonight would be that time to do it. As far as the time on the agenda to, would that come under old business or unfinished business or can it come up under new business? Is there a particular time that makes most sense on the agenda? Roger Knutson: I would think unfinished business if you wanted to bring it up there. Denise Saatzer: We do have some photos if anybody's interested. I don't know what you saw before. We do have some photos and we could show you a little bit more what we did so anybody who wants to understand, and see the safety issues or the reasoning behind it, they're welcome to know or see the photos. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Maybe we can, if we go forward. Are there any, I'll just given the situation, are there any questions quickly so. Councilman Ayotte: I'd like to ask council a question. Could we, and would it make more sense. I recollect the way I voted the first time and I had all the information in front of me. And since you were out of town and so on, I'm wondering is it possible to put it on the next agenda or must we deal with it this evening? I'd like to re-visit the material or is that an inappropriate request. Roger Knutson: Procedurally if you wanted to do that, you could move to reconsider tonight, which anyone who voted in the prevailing side can do. Councilman Ayotte: So move to reconsider. Roger Knutson: And the move to table. Councilman Ayotte: And then move to table. Roger Knutson: To your next meeting, if that' s what you want to do. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Are there any questions at this time? Okay, thank you. What we'll do is we'll have an opportunity for a motion to reconsider under unfinished business and we'll see where it goes from there. Denise Saatzer: Thanks for your time. Ron Saatzer: Do we need to stick around for anything then for that? Mayor Furlong: You might want to stick around. Ron Saatzer: Okay, thanks. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Are there any other visitor presentations this evening? Seeing none I'll close visitor presentations. City Council Meeting -February 24, 2003 LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sgt. Jim Olson: Good evening and thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you, welcome. Sgt. Jim Olson: I provided the council with a copy of the sheriff's office area report for January, as well as a citation listing for January. Were there any questions from either one of those documents at all? Todd Gerhardt: Sergeant Olson, could you please just go through and explain the citation listing by beat and how that's broken out. Sgt. Jim Olson: Sure. The beat, our areas are split up into different beat numbers for the entire county and the beat number for the City of Chanhassen is 0250. So any citations that were issued in the city of Chanhassen would have beat number 0250 on them. To the way that they are put down on paper is by local codes as far as where they figure on the list. The local codes are actually called MOC codes which are a federal way that they use to track crime statistics from a nationwide standpoint. And they are put down on a sheet here from a, the lowest number and then going up. Once you get to page number 7 and 8, you get into some local codes or MOC codes that also have letters in front of them, and again those go from A, with a number, and then a send from there. And those have more to do with a criminal rather than a petty misdemeanor crimes. Todd Gerhardt: So on page 8, that would be juvenile crimes? Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes, quite a few of those are juvenile that are on page 8, yes. Todd Gerhardt: Okay. And then page 1 through 5, or 6 are petty misdemeanors? Sgt. Jim Olson: Most of those are petty misdemeanors, that's correct. Todd Gerhardt: And then the last page is your. Sgt. Jim Olson: From looking at that, there are also some juvenile that were on page 8 also, and again that has to do with the MOC codes as far as where those crimes or offenses fall in with the MOC codes. Todd Gerhardt: Thank you. Sgt. Jim Olson: Sure. Were there any other questions on that at all? Councilman Ayotte: Yes. In regards, how do you use the tool, the beat reports? Do you find value in them, and that's not a leading question. I want to know whether or not you feel they have worth. And if the answer is yes, why and if the answer is no, why. Sgt. Jim Olson: I certainly do go through those when I get them to find out if there are any problem areas. We can also get that through our CIS or in-house where we can track how many calls that we' ve had at a particular residence or in a particular area as well. But I certainly do go through these to see if there's any kind of a pattern or anything that I can pick out from them. City Council Meeting -February 24, 2003 Councilman Ayotte: While you were doing that, you say you have another report to do that so the question is, are these beat reports, do you gauge the performance of your deputies with these? Is it a mechanism to see how they're doing? Is it a quality assurance tool? What's your view? Sgt. Jim Olson: As far as gauging deputies, no. There are some other things that will allow me to do that better. From log sheets to, there's some other citation listings that come out that have the deputies listed as far as, what the deputies are doing from a citation standpoint, that I look at for that. So this does not help me from deputies standpoint to find out what the individual deputies... Councilman Ayotte: And as you see the performance activities going on for a city connection, does that get up to the city manager on how things are going or not going? And if so, how often? Sgt. Jim Olson: Todd and I have been talking about meeting once very couple weeks on that, yes. As of yet that has not been done as of yet but Todd and I talked last week about how to formulate that and sit down or a good time for that. Councilman Ayotte: So you'll be having a sit down with Todd in a week or so? Sgt. Jim Olson: We will be sitting down, yes. And we're still coming up with exactly how we're going to do that. Councilman Ayotte: Okay, thank you. Sgt. Jim Olson: Sure. Any other questions at all? Councilman Peterson: The only one that I have, I look at that beat list. I don't see any driving under the influence. Is that, which is a good thing to see but, if we haven't had any or is it just not listed in that? Sgt. Jim Olson: There were some DUI's or DWI's that are on it. If you go to page. Councilman Peterson: Just not enough to stand out, that's a good thing. Sgt. Jim Olson: Page number 7. There are a couple of DWI's that are on page 7. Towards the bottom two-thirds of the page. Councilman Ayotte: Juvenile alcohol? Sgt. Jim Olson: Pardon, I'm sorry. Councilman Peterson: The juvenile ones? Sgt. Jim Olson: No, above that there's a traffic gross misdemeanor, refuse. In fact there's two separate gross misdemeanor refusing's that are. Councilman Peterson: Oh that's what that is? Okay. Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes. Councilman Peterson: Thanks. City Council Meeting- February 24, 2003 Sgt. Jim Olson: Sure. Anything else at all from that that I can. Councilman Ayotte: You should be nervous. Councilman Labatt's looking way too closely. Sgt. Jim Olson: He knows how to read these. Councilman Labatt: I look at it and look at the number of snowbird violations on there and I look at it as saying, those are deputies who are working in the middle of the night that are in the neighborhoods and quite frankly that's where they belong. And they're finding the people that are parking on the street in the middle of the night and I don't mind see snowbird tickets in that respect because they're patrolling the neighborhoods. Councilman Ayotte: I told you. Sgt. Jim Olson: Pardon? Councilman Ayotte: I told you. Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you. I also put the, from the community service officer, his report in which is actually a year end report that he provided me with. Were there any questions from that at all? Councilman Ayotte: Is this good or bad? I mean where's the standard associated with this? I mean from a performance standpoint, is dealing with 230 some odd animals in 2001 and 263 in 2000, what, how do you measure this? Sgt. Jim Olson: I would have to go back and at this point I don't have those totals but I would want to go back and take a look at what has been done in previous years as far as what his performance is, and I have not done that. Councilman Ayotte: Well I'm not talking specifically about Jeff. I'm saying generally speaking, the categories that we had for a city this size, are there any anomalies and just looking at ourselves, don't answer that question. We have to look at other places to f'md out whether or not there are anomalies, right? I guess that's what I'd like to know at some point. You can't say tonight so I understand that but sometime, someplace down the road I think that'd be a good thing to know. Sgt. Jim Olson: I can certainly do some checking with Chaska and see what kind of calls they get from an animal standpoint and so on that might relate. From the rest of the county, we really don't have anything to base against Chaska, or excuse me, against Chanhassen with so. Anything else from that report at all? Okay. I also wanted to go over a couple of things. We had a counterfeit bill at one of the area businesses, and I just, a counterfeit $20 bill and I just wanted to ask for the businesses, if they could make their employees aware of what they, that there is some counterfeit money flying around and if they do see anything to make sure they give the sheriff's office a call fight away. And if they should get any kind of a vehicle description or description of a person or persons that are passing that, that would certainly be helpful. But we certainly don't want them to go out running after them at all, but if they could just give us a call, that would be helpful. I also want to do an update about the business burglary and theft that we had in the city. The Crime Prevention Specialist, Beth Hoiseth did put out a crime alert reference just to give some of the area businesses some tips and help on how they can help prevent this as well as cut their losses down. She did a nice job with that, and I think I did include a copy of that crime alert City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 in your packet with you also. Those cases are being looked at. There's actually a metro wide task force that's looking at these. There are some people that they have some information on that they are looking at, and that is currently under investigation. Any questions on any of that at all? Councilman Ayotte: How about the meat wagon situation? Sgt. Jim Olson: The meat wagon? Councilman Ayotte: There was a crime alert where a couple of guys were going around the neighborhood saying that they're selling meat and some break-in's in the neighborhoods. I just saw something on that. Sgt. Jim Olson: Okay. I didn't hear anything about the meat but we have had, from a county wide standpoint, we had 5 attempted burglaries that occurred over the past few days. One of those did happen in the city of Chanhassen. Beth did put out a crime alert. Referenced a suspect vehicle that was seen at a couple of those and anybody with any kind of information or if they should see anything that resembles this vehicle, give us a call. That also went out over the county wide crime alert network as well as Chanhassen. Councilman Ayotte: Is there a reason why we can't do that over Channel 8? Putting those crime alerts out on Channel 8. Justin Miller: It can be done. Todd Gerhardt: Was that in a residential area Jim? Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes it was sir. Yes. That's a good idea. We can talk to Beth about that. Start putting that out over Channel 8. Audience: What's the vehicle? Sgt. Jim Olson: It's a black Ford pick-up truck with no front license plate. Pretty standard pick- up truck is the vehicle that we're looking at. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Sgt. Jim Olson: I'm currently working on the 2003 work plan for the City of Chanhassen and will that ready for the, before the next work session so we can sit down and take a look at that and I will be talking to Todd Gerhardt a little bit on that previous to see if he has, what input he has and we've also sat down already and talked a little bit about that. Anything else for the sheriff's office or for myself at all? Okay. Councilman Ayotte: Thanks. Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you very much. Have a nice evening. Mayor Furlong: Thanks Sergeant. Also this evening Chief Wolff from the Fire Department. Good evening. John Wolff: Good evening. I guess we're kind of getting into the 21st century. We submitted our first monthly report to the council and we'll be doing that on a monthly basis. Instead of just City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 going over that we're, you know just kind of from a summary perspective which is typically what we do, off the cuff, do you have any questions about the report or anything for the fire department? Councilman Peterson: What's your current thought on the 800 megahertz radios? Are you happy with them? Are you not? John Wolff: Very pleased. Very pleased. Coverage was better than we thought. We had heard some, you know about some bumps about the in-building coverage. We gave it a real good test. It went online on the 14th, so a little over a week ago, and had a number of major incidents over that first weekend and really gave it a workout and it performed tremendously. It really exceeded our expectations. We actually coordinated discussions with a helicopter for a major automobile accident. We had police, 3 fire agencies and EMS at another incident so it really did work quite effectively. Todd Gerhardt: John, with your new members, your new candidates, how many of those, how did they find out about the opening? John Wolff: We do some door to door kind of recruiting, or direct mail recruiting. We also put a sign up on the marquee at the main station. Actually at both stations. I think the popularity, or at least the elevated awareness of the fire service since 9/11 has also increased applications. If you recall, last year was the first year in 5 years we did not have a recruit class, and we've steadily kind of needed to kind of refill our ranks, because of just turnover and so forth. And last year we were able to kind of side step that. But this year we're definitely in need of getting back to that so we're anticipating. I mean we have a good solid dozen applications. We anticipate that we'll staff between 5 and 7 from that group in the hiring process. Todd Gerhardt: Thanks. Councilman Ayotte: Can I ask one more question? Mayor Furlong: You certainly may. Councilman Ayotte: Interoperability. Craig started off on it. We're doing fine, but as a matter of fact in this week's paper, in the weekly, one of the rags we get. Not the Villager. There was an article about interoperability and the problems we're having. I believe the City of Minnetonka is still not in sync with the balance for the joint powers activities, is that true? John Wolff: There are certain jurisdictions in Hennepin County that have their own dispatching and radio systems. Eden Prairie for example. Minnetonka's another city. There are probably a half dozen cities in the west metro that operate off of kind of the old technology, the VHF technology and that's a combination of sort of their own goal setting. Their objectives around how they want to communicate and so forth, but there are ways to connect with them and like for example for this call that we had a couple of Sundays ago, we immediately set up the patch to go to our statewide fire, mutual aid channel which is a combination of the new technology with the old technology, and we set that up through dispatch because we did have a department that we needed to potentially connect with on that. Councilman Ayotte: So it's a wrinkle, but it's not a problem for us. Would I be safe to say that? City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 John Wolff: I wouldn't even call it a wrinkle. There are procedures to get to the interoperability and they're quite simple. Councilman Ayotte: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Chief, could you speak to, them were some issues raised about fire department response time. Could you speak to that a little bit and by way of example if necessary, comparison. John Wolff: Sure. It came to my attention that there was a question about our response to a fire on Sunday, the 16th. I believe it was just misinformation on the part of the complainant. What we did is we pulled the dispatch tape and we did get a call for a major structure fire on Frontier Trail, and we had units in service within the first minute. Units on the scene within 2 minutes. We actually had water on the fire within 6 minutes and the fire under control within 19 minutes. If you compare those kinds of, that sort of a response and performance, etc to for example we've just went on the Minneapolis Fire Department web site and went to their average statistics and our response actually exceeded their averages. When we compare our average response time to the full time city departments, we're very much right on par with that. And it's, once again it's sort of a balance. It does depend where the call is. If the call's down in the southern part of the city. This call was a half mile from our station, and so we had all of our resources right there, so that does play into it but I took a look at last year's data and the prior year's data just to try to get a sense for that, and for all of our emergency calls, we're averaging 4 minutes and 40 seconds from dispatch time to on scene time and that's, quite frankly anything better than 5 minutes is really exceptional. That would be a standard that you would set for a full time fire department, and typically being on call or volunteer you're looking at the 7 to 8 minute range for averages. So we do have strong response and it has to be where we're getting our calls today but I do see as our city grows, and I think it's part of our future planning that we need to look at potentially some infrastructure in the south. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Very good, thank you. John Wolff: Certainly, my pleasure. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, VILLAGE ON THE PONDS 7TM ADDITION TO CREATE TWO LOTS~ SENIOR HOUSING CONSTRUCTION~ INC. AND PRESBYTERIAN HOMES. Kate Aanenson: Just to show you where this is. Villages on the Pond. This is St. Hubert's Church. This is what we're talking about, the Presbyterian Homes. This project is approximately 5.11 acres. It was given site plan approval by the City Council back in November of 2001. This is part of the PUD that was approved again by the City Council in 1995. This project in itself, again with site plan approval is requesting in order to do separate financing on each building, a lot split. A metes and bounds subdivision which is permitted by city code and does require a public hearing which we are having tonight. The project, the Building A and Building B. Building B has the 90 independent living units and Building A has the assisted, 71 assisted living with the 9,000 square feet of commercial underneath. The subdivision itself does not affect the site plan in any way, or the setting of the buildings. It's really just to provide for a mechanism for independent financing of both buildings. With that, we are recommending approval of the 10 City Council Meeting - Fehruary 24, 2003 subdivision, the metes and bounds subdivision with the two conditions in the staff report and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for staff? Is the applicant here this evening? Sir. Good evening. Bill Olscham: I'm Bill Olscham with Senior Housing Construction and we are parmering with Presbyterian Homes on this project. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any questions at all for the applicant? Alright, thank you. Thank you for being here this evening. This is a public hearing so we'll open it up for public comment at this time. Is there any public comment? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to discussion, council for discussion. Councilman Peterson: Seems reasonable. Mayor Furlong: Very good, any other? Councilman Labatt: Likewise. Mayor Furlong: Any other issues? Councilman Ayotte: Ditto. Mayor Furlong: Fair enough. Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Resolution//2003-26: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approves a resolution approving the metes and bounds subdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 7th Addition creating two lots based on the plans prepared by Sunde Land Surveying, LLC, dated February 5, 2003, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the site shall comply with all the terms and conditions of the approval of Villages on the Ponds 7th Addition final plat and Site Plan //2001-13, approving Presbyterian Homes Senior Housing Campus. 2. The location of property lines as proposed does not adversely affect the allowable areas for the buildings proposed. If the location of the property line changes in any way, it could affect the allowable buildable areas. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. 11 City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PHASE II UPDATE. Lori Haak: Mayor Furlong, council members. I'm here this evening to provide a little background on the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Phase Il municipal permit requirements and the city's permit application. Let's see if I can get my audio and visual to work here. There we go. There we go. The first question that may come to mind, like any other government program, there's plenty of acronyms in this one. The NPDES is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. And by way of background, it was in the 1970's that storm water was identified as a water quality problem. In the 1980's several studies were developed to draft storm water as a pollution problem. In the 1990's the federal government, primarily the EPA, developed the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Phase I storm water program. And this was intended to monitor and guide storm water management in primarily larger cities. Those over 100,000 in population, and on construction sites over 5 acres, as well as in industrial facilities. Phase II has restricted the scope of this, well actually it's in March...this regulation and all municipalities with MS4's, or municipal separate storm sewer systems, populations over 10,000 people are required to get Phase II MS4 permits. In addition there's construction site permitting process which is for all construction sites disturbing over an acre of surface. So as you can see the increase of the limit from 5 acres to 1 acre will include a lot of additional construction site permits. In addition there is still the requirement for industrial permits for industrial operations. The application includes several components. The first is a notice of intent, which is basically a storm water permit application, and as a supplement to that, each municipality that's required to apply for a permit needs to develop a storm water pollution prevention program or a SWPPP. Another acronym for you. And this SWPPP is intended to address storm water quality and quantity. As a goal of this pollution prevention program is to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The storm water pollution prevention plan is required to address 6 components. The first is public education, which is certainly the largest part of this application. Each of the minimum control measures is required to have an education component. The second is public involvement, and the way that this will impact the council is that you'll be holding a public hearing annually to receive public comment on our storm water pollution prevention plan, and the public will be encouraged to provide comment. How the City's doing on things that they believe would be appropriate to include in this plan. The third is illicit discharge and illicit discharge by the EPA is defined as anything that's not storm water, so it's things like solvents being disposed of down storm drains and things like that. The fourth component is construction site erosion control. We already have a pretty decent program in place for that so it will be in some cases just beefing up that program. The fifth minimum control measure is post construction storm water management, which is making sure infrastructure's functioning properly and just keeping up with other issues as they arise. And the sixth is good housekeeping where we take a look at our own storm water issues and address those. Things like street sweeping. It includes pond maintenance. Things like covering the salt/sand storage pile, which we've recently done, would all fall under that minimum control measure. For each minimum control measure we have to identify best management practices, and those are things, practices that we put into place to protect storm water quality. It can be anything from training our municipal employees about salt/sand application, to distributing flyers to neighborhoods about storm water quality. Or storm drain stenciling and things like that. And then for best management practice we need to f'md measurable goals and time lines for implementation. We have 5 years to implement the pollution prevention program, and then assigning responsibility with city departments and we can cooperate with other entities. So we don't have to do this all alone. The silver lining in this cloud is that we can work with other municipalities and other agencies like the county and the state to meet these requirements. The reason that this is appearing before you this evening is because the deadline is rapidly 12 City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 approaching. This application has to be submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency by March l0th of this year and we need to implement all of it's components by March, 2008. Each year by March 10th we need to submit an annual report on our progress toward meeting those goals that we've set, and as I mentioned earlier there is an annual public meeting that's required. For a program like this you can imagine that it's going to take quite a few resources, and it's something that we've known that's coming down the pipe so to speak for quite some time. In addition to compliance, which is quite important, with non-compliance being able to be f'med up to $10,000 per day of non-compliance, we will, we are anticipating to improve storm water quality, which is of course a benefit to Chanhassen's many lakes. And we also hope to enhance our storm water related operations. Currently we only have a system for some of our operations as they're related to storm water and so we will be improving those quite a bit. And certainly, as always, if you have questions you can contact me or if you'd like to read some of this for yourself, I know it's absolutely riveting, you can go to the PCA web site. They have more than enough information. But for this evening I ask you, staff is asking the council to approve the motion as presented in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the staff?. Councilman Ayotte: For illicit discharge, what's our intentions on how we're going to enforce? And as a requisite to that, you state we have an annual meeting and education is extremely important. How are we going to go to the public for education and. sustain a level of knowledge, particularly where a lot of folks are going to be concerned with regard to what is an illicit discharge? Lori Haak: Sure. The primary tool that staff intends to put into place is a hotline for reporting illicit discharge, and one of the things that we can do is make that information available on our web site. As staff is getting more and more accustomed to using the web site as a tool for referring individuals. People do use the web site and it's something that people refer to quite often and so we'll be using that. I haven't written it into the storm water pollution prevention program yet but I'm anticipating working with Justin to include some of these things on cable channel 8. In addition I anticipate putting some things in the Chanhassen connection, which in recent surveys in the community we found that the residents of Chanhassen do rely on for getting a lot of information about the city. And so those are the main channels that we intend to use to educate about illicit discharge. Councilman Ayotte: So let me play it back. So a neighbor will see somebody doing something wrong, and we will in some, we'll have some mechanism to teach folks what that illicit discharge issue is. And then that will go to who? The CSO? Lori Haak: We will need to work out some procedures and that's part of the hotline establishment. Currently it would probably come to me and I would contact our legal advisors and we'd go through it in that direction. Councilman Ayotte: Well I think that's something that ought to be addressed. I mean if we're going to sign this off, there should be procedurally something established relatively soon as to what's going to be the process for enforcement, I mean. Lori Haak: The one thing that is necessary to keep in mind as we go ahead with this is that we have 5 years to implement this plan. Councilman Ayotte: Oh, okay. 13 City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 Loft Haak: So we're signing up for a 5 year commitment. It's not this year we have to have everything that we've said we're going to do, we have to have done by March 10t~. Councilman Ayotte: So not by Tuesday? Lori Haak: Correct. Councilman Ayotte: Alright. Kate Aanenson: Let me just add something too. Lori's met with all different divisions within the City and has communicated to them what the goals are going to be. And as she's presented this to all the different divisions she's communicated that we're all working together on this so some of the answers, it's going to go to different departments depending on who's responsible, just as we do it now. Mayor Furlong: On the best management practices, if I understood you there's a, we have to review this document annually, is that fight? Lori Haak: Yes. Prior to the annual meeting I will prepare a summary of the activity that's taken place with regard to the pollution prevention program and you'll be able to see our time lines. How we' ve come to either meet or fail to meet those time lines that we've set up, and yes, it will be an annual review. Hopefully we'll have a lot of positive progress and in fact already we have a lot of these things implemented so in many cases it will be taking credit for what we have in place. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess that's part of my question with that annual review, does that give us an opportunity to review some of the best management practices and say either this one doesn't fit anymore, let's take it out or we need to bring something new in. Lori Haak: Exactly, that's the intent that the Pollution Control Agency has with these annual reports is that any municipality, if something doesn't fit or it's not working quite right and we've spelled out something, that is the time when we can make those changes and take those to the public and say, are these acceptable. Mayor Furlong: Okay. It is very comprehensive, the work that you've done. I mean I commend you for that because there's obviously a lot of work and effort that's gone into this. How would you describe the level of best management practices? I think I know the answer but I want to ask anyway. Would you say that this is a bare minimum level or is this a maximum level or something inbetween? Lori Haak: I think it's squarely inbetween, and that was our goal. It's the first time that this permit has been issued as a Phase II permit, and there are some things that are above what's required by the permit, but there are certainly some things that would take a lot of resources to go those extra steps so we're really trying to be true to what the City's perspective on natural resources and storm water has been, and meet the requirements of the permit but exceed those where it's practical and that's a real key element to this because you don't want to over commit on a federal permit application. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, because I was noticing what I'm signing here later so I guess I want to make sure that we're not setting ourselves up to fail and, because that doesn't do anybody any good so. 14 City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, if I can ask Lori a question. How much of this would you say from a percentage standpoint are we already doing or have been doing in the past I think 7-8 years since we've had the storm water management utility fee in place? Lori Haak: Well I think in a lot of cases it's things that we've done once already that we need to update, for example one of the things would be a storm water, or excuse me. A storm sewer map of the system and we already have one of those in place. We did that in 1993 and '94 as a part of the storm water management plan. However we will need to update that. We just haven't kept up with a lot of things so in many areas I would say we have 75 percent of the structure in place. In a lot of cases it's just keeping records of it and enhancing in some areas. So we do have a good start and we're far better off than a lot of communities a little bit further out that are getting kind of caught by this unaware. Todd Gerhardt: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff?. Again, very good job. This is very comprehensive. Yeah, very good. We'll bring it back to council for discussion. There has been a request that a motion to be made authorizing the mayor to sign this so that it can be submitted by the March 10~ deadline so is there any other discussion from the council? If not, is there a motion as requested? Councilman Labatt: I move approval. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none we'll call the question. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the City's NPDES Phase II MS4 General Permit application as compiled by staff and submit the application and all required materials to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency by March 10, 2003. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. This will be the time on the agenda under unfinished business. Councilman Ayotte: We've got another one, 5. Mayor Furlong: We're going to 4(a). Councilman Ayotte: Oh I'm sorry. Mayor Furlong: Nope, that's okay. 4(a), we're going to at this time provide an opportunity for a motion to reconsider the denial of the Saatzer variance appeal from our last meeting. Councilman Peterson: Motion to reconsider. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Property motion, is there a second? It could be made by anybody. Councilman Ayotte: Could I ask a point of clarification? 15 City Council Meeting -February 24, 2003 Mayor Furlong: I'll second it and then we can go. Discussion on the motion. Or point of clarification. Councilman Ayotte: What I'd like to know is, do we go ahead and vote this in first and then so move for table? Roger Knutson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: If I'm correct, this is just a motion made by the council to reconsider our prior, our action at a prior meeting. Is it discussable or not? Roger Knutson: The motion to reconsider is discussable on matters to the merits of the main motion, but as to the merits of reconsidering. Mayor Furlong: Of reconsidering, okay. Roger Knutson: If the motion passes, then the moment it passes you're back to the point just before you voted on that motion. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. So is there any discussion on the merits of the motion to reconsider? If there's none we'll call the question. Councilman Peterson moved, Mayor Furlong seconded to reconsider the appeal to the variance request for Ron and Denise Saatzer. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: So we now have that motion for the appeal before the council. Is there any discussion or motions? Councilman Peterson: Motion to table. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion to table has been made and seconded. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council table action on the variance request for Ron and Denise Saatzer. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Roger Knutson: Mayor, do you want to specify a time? Is that your next meeting as we'll want to notify the folks who are here prior to 2 weeks ago. Mayor Furlong: What I would ask is that the applicant meet with staff and work out a time that's convenient for everybody to be at the meeting and then we'll bring it up at that time. If that's okay with you and Mr. Gerhardt? Todd Gerhardt: Yep. We'll be in contact. 16 City Council Meeting -February 24, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Just to let you know, our next meeting is March 10t~. REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM THE CITY'S REQUIREMENT TO REPLACE A FAILING SEPTIC SYSTEM~ OUINN ROAD~ NIKKI EDWARDS. Steve Torell: Mayor, members of the City Council. The applicant, Nicole Edwards resides at 8905 Quinn Road, is requesting an extension to delay the replacement of a failing individual sewage treatment system, better known as an ISTS, for connection to the city sewer system until such time as Highway 312 is constructed. The site is located north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101. The specific location is that home right there, at the end of Quinn Road. The ISTS system on the property was determined to be failing in December of 1999. The system is failing because there is less than 2 feet of vertical separation between the bottom of the treatment system and saturated soil. City ordinance requires that a system determined to be failing because of separation issue has to be replaced within 3 years from the date of the compliance report. The city has sent the property owners required notification and notified them that the system would have to be replaced by December of 2002. This is the second time that a failing septic system on Quinn Road has been discussed before the council. In 2002, or excuse me 2001, Quinn Road Improvement Project Number 01-02 looked at the extension of sanitary sewer, street and watermain for the properties on Quinn Road in response to a request for sanitary sewer service due to a failing septic system at 8955 Quinn Road, which is right there. With the exception of the petitioning party, all the affected property owners expressed opposition to the installation of the sewer, street and watermain improvements at an estimated cost of approximately $109,000. To address the petitioners need for sanitary sewer service, staff recommended and the city extended sanitary sewer to a portion of Quinn Road to serve that home. The project was completed in October of 2001, and utility service is now approximately 700 feet from the subject property at the end of Quinn Road at 8905. City sewer service could be extended to all the homes on Quinn Road at this time. The residents were opposed in 2001 because of the cost of the project. However, the continuing failure of septic systems points to the need for extension of sewer service to this area. The ISTS system at 8925 Quinn Road, which is right on the bend right there, was recently determined to be failing so now 3 of the 5 homes on Quinn Road now have failing septic systems. One could assume that the other 2 would be determined to be failing as well if they were subject to a compliance inspection. To address the provisions of City Code Section 19- 76 which deals with the request for relief for a variance to the requirements of the section. The failing sewage treatment system is not unique to the property in that we replace failing sewage treatment systems every year in Chanhassen. An acceptable site was found for replacing a system on that property in 1998. The granting of this extension to replace the system is contrary to the public interest. The fact that the failure was not designated an eminent public health risk does not mean that it's not polluting the environment. Soil borings done indicated that saturated soil is found 18 inches below grade, meaning that the bottom of the existing trenches are in seasonally saturated soil. The City has not yet received permission from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to decrease separation requirements. This approval is given on a case by case basis. The City would have to include the less restrictive requirements in the ordinance and have it approved by the MPCA prior to adoption. It is not in the City's best interest to have this less restrictive requirement, and therefore we have not taken this action. This provision does not apply in this case in that there is effectively no vertical separation between the system bottom and saturated soil at this time. The construction of Highway 312 in and of itself does not lead to the redevelopment of this area and has nothing to do with the extension of utilities to this area. Utilities are extended through a petition process or by private development. When the house at 8955 Quinn Road was determined to have a failing system, the owner petitioned and received 17 City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 service to his property. Therefore staff recommends that relief from the requirements of City Code Sections 19-71 and 19-73 delaying the replacement of a failing individual sewage treatment system, or the extension of utilities services be denied and the council pass a motion requiring the property owner to petition the City within 30 days to extend utility service to this site and then connect to the sanitary sewer system or replace the failing individual sewage treatment system, either of which must be completed by July 1st of 2003. Are there any questions? Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff?. Councilman Labatt: Steve, you mentioned that right now the sewer line is already extended up 700 feet already of Quinn Road? Steve Torell: Correct. Councilman Labatt: Can you just show me on that aerial shot there, how far it already goes up. Steve Torell: Well, right up to this house right there. Came up from Lyman Boulevard, as I understand Teresa. Right to this house right here. Councilman Labatt: Okay. That second lot there had a failing system. Steve Torell: Correct. Teresa Burgess: Correct, and they came to the City in 2001 and petitioned the City to extend sewer to their property. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then is there a house on the comer just south of that then? Steve Torell: Yes. That's the one that was recently determined to be failing also. They're in the process of... Councilman Labatt: And the comer lot north of the. Steve Torell: Northwest? Councilman Labatt: No. The comer lot just north of that second. Steve Torell: Right here? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Steve Torell: That is a failing one also. Councilman Labatt: That is a failing one, along with the one on the end. Edwards property on the end. Steve Torell: Correct. Mayor Furlong: So is that more than 3 that are failing? 18 City Council Meeting- February 24, 2003 Steve Torell: No. There's 3. The one that had sewer service extended. The one on the comer. The one on the comer and the one on the end at this time. The first one does have service extended to it. Councilman Labatt: Okay. But that had a failing system at one point. Steve Torell: Correct. Councilman Labatt: And then the second one north of that, how many previous to the sewer line going up were failing? Steve Torell: There's 5 homes on Quinn Road. There's 5 homes that did not have city services. 3 of those 5 have a failing system. One has had services extended to it because it had a failing system, so there's 2 there right now that are failing that do not have services to the property. Councilman Labatt: And there's 2 other ones that we don't know about yet. Steve Torell: Correct. Councilman Labatt: And what's the cause to get those inspected? How do we get that inspected to see if they're all failing? Steve Torell: City ordinance requires that if a home is sold a compliance inspection has to be done on the septic system. And those results have to be forwarded to the City. That's how we're notified if there' s a failing system. Councilman Labatt: Okay. So until such time. Steve Torell: Correct. Or they would put on an addition or increase the size of the home. Add bedrooms. That also drives a compliance inspection, but it's definitely the sale of the home. Mayor Furlong: Are there any other questions? Point of clarification. In the report that we received, the background indicated that the, in December of '99 this system was failing because there was less than 2 feet of vertical separation. Did I hear you correctly that now there's no vertical separation so that it's getting worst? Is that, or did I misunderstand? Steve Torell: It's a little bit confusing. The way the MPCA determines a system to be failing if there's less than 2 feet of vertical separation from the bottom of saturated soil. That means that it's still failing if there's 0 separation. If it's less than 2 feet it's failing, the degree of which isn't really addressed. New systems are required to be, have 3 feet of separation and any system built after 1996 must maintain that 3 feet be allowed. The less restrictive requirement for homes built prior to 1996. So what I did was I went back and looked at the soil boring records from the design for a replacement system which indicated saturated soil is 18 inches. The bottom of the trench is at least 18 inches deep, so there's no dry soil to treat the sewage effluent at this time. But that in itself does not make it eminent threat to public health. The only thing that would make it an eminent threat would be if it was surfacing or some other, adjacent to shoreland or some situation like that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here this evening? Mrs. Edwards? Yes. 19 City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 Nicole Edwards: We've had no evidence of seepage. We purchased this home in August of 2001 so we' re kind of the new kid on the block so to speak. At the time we purchased the home it was presented to us in a manner that this variance, that the home was under a variance for the septic system. There was not realtor involved in this transaction so at that time when they said, the current homeowner said that this variance would probably just be continued, I took that for word spoken. So we came in at the tail end of these other residents that had already requested city septic and realized that our neighbors aren't interested in that. Now inbetween my request for this relief at this time, now this other home has come up as failing also. I guess one thing I wanted to clarify is even though construction of a highway doesn't affect when you get city sewer and water, the development of that area will inevitably come in the next few years because of the construction of that highway. That whole field there, that area is zoned for residential structures so at that time the 4 of us that remain on that road that have our own septic systems would be hooking up to city sewer and water at that point in time because inevitably it would just develop the whole area. And to me it makes sense to allow that along with that point in time just because of city planning. How the streets are going to work out and all that. That type of thing. So I guess that's just kind of where we're at. We aren't seeping sewage. I definitely don't want to be seeping sewage. I have two small children so, and we enjoy the city and it's a beautiful place so we, I guess our request isn't to negate the or, we want to comply with the city requirements but we're just asking to do so at a later date, if that would work best for the neighborhood. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions that council has for the applicant? If not, okay. Councilman Labatt: So if I understand this right, the previous owner disclosed this failing septic system in an inaccurate way. Nicole Edwards: I don't know that he was trying to be deceitful. I just think that to his knowledge, see what happened with this home is, in 1999 it was, it came up that it was failing. At that point in time the Starrs owned the property. By the time they received the letter that it needed to be replaced, Mr. Hoffman owned the property. He lived there for 1 year and then we purchased the property from him. So I don't think there was any deceit. I think in the midst that he received the letter that the system needed to be replaced, I think that was his understanding of it. That this variance would continue. It seemed logical I guess at the time and based on what was happening in the course of events with this other system up the road. Mayor Furlong: I guess a point of clarification. When you're talking about other development around the area which would then bring in the city water and sewage, is the other development, you're under the assumption, am I hearing you correctly, that the 5 homes there on Quinn Road would remain. It's the area around that would be developing, or are you talking about development? Nicole Edwards: Correct. Currently what there is around us is 10 acres of open field, and then just beyond that open field is the dip area where the proposed highway of 371 so, and it's my understanding from Mr. Torell that the city's plan for that area would be residential homes. Mayor Furlong: Is there any time frame that you're aware of with development of that 10 acres? If I may from a time frame. Kate Aanenson: The two are unrelated events. Actually when 212 comes in there will be a berm. They will never get access so they're two independent. Access to sewer and water is available 20 City Council Meeting- February 24, 2003 right now. It will always come up Quinn Road, so 312 has nothing, development has nothing to do with this project. This development can occur today if the project was petitioned. Teresa Burgess: And Mr. Mayor if I could also interject. I was going to give this update under administrative but, MnDot has announced that they have halted the design portion of 312. That project is currently scheduled for 2012. That's still 10 years away. 9 years away and as it stands right now they have told their contractor not to do any more work until future notice. Kate Aanenson: But again I'll go back to my point, just to make sure you're clear. They're two independent. Mayor Furlong: Right. And I guess the question, as I would raise the issue of the 10 acres that was available for development. I'm looking if there's any timeframe that we're aware of with regard to development of those l0 acres. Kate Aanenson: Whenever the property owner petitions that they're ready to subdivide. It's in the MUSA so it's an individual property owner's request. Mayor Furlong: And we're not aware of anything at this time from a timing frame there? Kate Aanenson: No. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Kate Aanenson: Just the one petition that we had before. Councilman Labatt: Kate if I understand you then correctly, in 6 months if that 10 acres were to develop around her property, the sewer to service her lot would still come up Quinn Road. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Well the way we envision subdividing this property. The Klingelhutz, which is the largest property. If you go over further there's North Bay over this way. Todd Gerhardt: The one in the staff report is pretty good. Kate Aanenson: Anyway, what we envisioned is that this property...to the Klingelhutz property. That this would tie across, if that makes sense. This is the large... That's also guided low density. So we'd be connecting this property. Tying that back across to there are houses on these large lots. The back portion of those lots could subdivide but in looking at that, and then tying a road, if you look at the Klingelhutz property, starting with this back, the Springfield...loop street back around through and that could happen at Mr. Klingelhutz on and off the last 10 years has looked at plats. They've gone away, but that certainly is available. It's inside the MUSA area. If someone were to come in today to petition a project, we'd take it through the subdivision process. Whether a developer did those individual here, without an assessment project or would petition the engineering department for an assessment project. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Councilman Peterson: Just a point of clarification. Is your intent when you said to wait til it's developed, is your intent just to delay the dollars going out of your pocket or do you assume it's going to get cheaper as development does incur? 21 City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 Nicole Edwards: Typically construction never gets cheaper, that's for sure. I guess my petition, or my request comes based on the fact that I did think personal budget wise that this would occur later. As far as us making our home in Chanhassen, we plan to live in that home for a very long time. We aren't looking to flip that house at all. We're enjoying the area and so we definitely want to stay here. And as far as, I lost my train of thought, I'm sorry. Our intention would be at some point to hook up to city sewer and water. That would be our intention. Councilman Peterson: So right now you're basically just simply asking us to delay for financial reasons is really the reason. Nicole Edwards: Correct, and also based on my neighbors and their feelings. Too, being the new kid on the block I guess I didn't want to be made the pawn because it's got to get down to me, it's got to come past them. Councilman Peterson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Appreciate your coming. Bring it back to council for discussion. Councilman Labatt: The age of these septic systems on Quinn Road. Are they all within a couple years of each other? 10 years? Steve Torell: Probably. I'm no sure of the exactly age. I would say 20 to 30 years. Most of the systems that were put in that long ago probably not put in correctly in that they were put in as a trench system. We see very few trench systems installed here because of the high water table. They're all mound systems which means the treatment area is built above the ground. The majority of it because of the high water table. Councilman Ayotte: May I ask questions? Mayor Furlong: Please. Councilman Ayotte: How much risk is there to the City for an outside agency to cause issue for the City? Steve Torell: Regarding what? To delay it? Kate Aanenson: PCA you're talking about? Steve Torell: The MPCA directs that the City have a program in place to replace failing septic systems in a fixed amount of time. For a system like this with a separation issue doesn't define that amount of time. For a system that's determined to be an eminent health threat, surfacing, it has to be replaced within 10 months. They do mandate that. For a system of this type, we just have to have a set period of time, our time is 3 years. I believe the county's is the same. This ordinance was adopted in 1999. Prior to that time it was 10 months for a separation issue. Immediately for an eminent health threat. Councilman Ayotte: So we do not have an eminent health threat. Steve Torell: Not to my, not at this time. 22 City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 Councilman Ayotte: We do not anticipate causing risk to the City by having an outside agency fine us or find that we are outside the parameters of an ordinance? Steve Torell: I can't really answer that. I've been attempting to contact the MPCA to ask them that question. If our ordinance right now reads that a failing system has to be replaced within 3 years. Can we extend that time without their approval? I'm not sure of that. Councilman Ayotte: See my worry is not knowing that particular detail. If we're not having an adverse environmental impact, that's fine. But if we were to have an outside agency cause us a problem, that would concern me. I would like to find out more from them before I would go out. That would be my desire. I'm just thinking out loud. Steve Torell: I would think that we are having an adverse environmental impact in that we're not treating the sewage. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Peterson: Exactly, and I think that's the point in question. What you're kind of inferring Bob is potentially waiting til something bad does seriously happen and then address it. Councilman Ayotte: No, no. My question was, is there a risk so if we have a risk from the standpoint that we could have some sort of catastrophic event at any point in time, that's a different issue. That's not what you said. I asked if there was environmental risk, and that's not the answer I got. Now if there is potential for a catastrophic event, then that's another issue. Kate Aanenson: Can I ask, or just reframe that a little bit? We also know there's another failing system on this street that we've just been made aware of so it's not just this. There's another and I think that's why Steve pointed out in his report, there's two solutions. We're not saying they have to subdivide, but there is another solution and there is another septic site on the property. So we're not forcing anybody to subdivide, so we've given them two alternatives. Petition or provide another individual septic system that meets standards. Mayor Furlong: And I think from a clarification too, I heard you ask two questions. One was an intimate health risk and the other was an environmental risk. And what I'm hearing, if it's correct, is that there may not be an intimate health risk, but there is likely an environmental risk because of this lack of separation with I assume ground water. Saturated soil. Steve Torell: Right. Mayor Furlong: So there is environment, maybe not health at this point. Councilman Peterson: And I think it's important to note we put those statutes in place to give us a margin of error so that we don't wake up one morning and it starts percolating to the surface when we do have a health risk so, I mean that's part of the driving force. My thoughts are pretty you know simple. I can empathize with the applicant but I just don't see any reason that they were aware that there was an issue and unfortunately it's part of the property that crosses the property and I think we have to follow our guidelines and I would support staff in their recommendation of giving the applicant an alternative. Either to connect or replace. Mayor Furlong: Comments? 23 City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 Councilman Labatt: I feel the same with Craig. I mean I think there's, I wish them was a way we could inspect those 2 other lots to see if all 5 but I suppose we can't do that without consent. So I would support staff's recommendation here. There's two alternatives to the homeowner that are feasible. Mayor Furlong: I would concur. There are two alternatives. There's a choice. The biggest discomfort I have with the proposal is the lack of a timeframe with regard to something causing it to happen, and the lack of the applicant's control for creating that. From a timeframe for the development and such so I would concur with the previous statements. Is there any other discussion at this point? If not, is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: Motion to deny. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Point of clarification. Deny with the two caveats included in the packet? Councilman Peterson: That's affirmative. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And as you seconded? Councilman Labatt: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion? Roger Knutson: Can I make one more caveat? Mayor Furlong: Sure. Roger Knutson: And it's based upon the findings in the staff report which you adopt as your own written findings, is that correct? Councilman Peterson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other comments on the motion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council deny the applicant relief from the requirements of Section 19-71 and 19-73 of the Chanhassen City Code delaying the replacement of the Individual Septic Treatment System (ISTS) or the extension of utility services, and direct the applicant to perform either of the following: 1. The property owner shall petition the city within thirty (30) days to extend utility service to the site and then connect to the sanitary sewer system; or 2. The property owner shall replace the failing ISTS by July 1, 2003. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. 24 City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 I(B). APPROVAL OF NO PARKING RESOLUTION FOR WELLS, LIFT STATIONS, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CITY LOTS. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Paulsen, would you like to raise some comments or address the council on this issue? Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen again. Our question was, what is involved with this as far as restricting parking in relevance to the easement that the City would have to a lift station for example? We hadn't seen this issue come up at a Planning Commission meeting and I guess we're unfamiliar with what is buried in this so. Mayor Furlong: Great. If you want to wait right there maybe I could refer to staff and you could respond to the questions. Teresa Burgess: The reason it hasn't come up at a Planning Commission is because it is a council decision. It's not a zoning issue. Currently parking is not allowed at lift stations. It is not allowed at wells, lift stations, tank reservoirs, vacant lots that are owned by the City. The reason being that it's a safety issue. It's a security issue. We've had problems in the past with vandalism. We've also had issues with access to those facilities. The current policy when we have a problem at one of those sites with someone parking inappropriately is we call a tow truck to have that vehicle removed. That is time consuming, costly and also a much larger hassle for the property owner than, for the vehicle owner than it needs to be. This resolution was actually brought to us, or recommended to us by the sheriff' s department. This would allow the sheriff's department to issue a ticket instead of having a vehicle towed. Now the intention is, and has always been, we try to track down a property owner. For instance I believe you live near Lift Station 1. If we were to have somebody continually parking say a boat or an RV out there so we could not access the lift station, and blocking our access, we would try to find out who owned that vehicle. Have them remove it. Explain to them why. If they refused, then we would have the vehicle ticketed and eventually if necessary it would be towed, but the intention is just to give the deputies another tool. They would prefer to issue a ticket than for us to have the vehicles towed. Jerry Paulsen: And they can't do that right now you're saying? That's the change. Teresa Burgess: Right now we have to have the vehicle towed. We cannot ticket. So this allows us to use ticketing as an alternative tool, and it allows the deputies to be involved, which quite often does make a difference if a deputy asks someone to move a vehicle versus a city employee. Jerry Paulsen: That sounded reasonable I guess so. It's in regard to the easement I assume. Teresa Burgess: A city employee could park down there and eat lunch if it was reasonable compared to what their job duties were. A city employee driving down to a lift station to park for lunch, no. If they were working on that lift station or it was their next job duty after lunch, then it would be reasonable. But for someone to drive down there, eat lunch and leave, that would not be acceptable for a city employee to do that. That would be a personnel issue. It would not be related to this, but it would be something that would not be acceptable. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members, the current ordinance. Jerry Paulsen: The easement is what you're talking about though... Teresa Burgess: Right, it would be the easement that the lift station sits on. 25 City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. The current ordinance only allows the deputies to ticket cars that are on streets or in the park. It doesn't talk about easements or public owned property like lift stations or wells so that's why the deputies have asked Teresa to help them with the ticketing enforcement to modify the current ordinance to allow lift stations or public property. Jerry Paulsen: It widens their authority a little bit then, instead of the city being responsible I guess. Teresa Burgess: It gives them an additional tool. Right now a city employee goes and tracks that person down and says please move your vehicle. It doesn't have the weight of a deputy doing it. We get much better response when a deputy says please move your vehicle and we don't have to have it towed and that's a huge problem. The most common problem we're having is a different lift station where people park there to go hunting. It's near an area where a property owner allows hunting, and we have that vehicle towed. They come back from hunting and the vehicle's gone. They assume it's been stolen. By being able to issue a ticket we'll get the same message across, don't park here, but we don't have somebody reporting a vehicle stolen. Jerry Paulsen: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. Paulsen. I guess the other thing too that, in addition to just the obstruction of a vehicle parked in front of a well or a lift station that I view is security purposes and that we don't want vehicles parked by our wells, especially in this time. Teresa Burgess: Correct, and I would like to point out, I did miss putting down the water reservoirs on this resolution so if we could amend it, I will get it re-typed for signature, but if we could amend that resolution to include the statement of water reservoirs. Todd Gerhardt: Teresa do you want to add safety and security to that resolution too? Teresa Burgess: That is in the resolution. Todd Gerhardt: Oh it is? Okay. Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: As, with the recommended addition of water wells? Any further discussion? Resolution g2003-27: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the No Parking Resolution for wells, lift stations, water reservoirs and other miscellaneous city lots. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: The only item I have is for the public out there, we are having a public hearing, or not a public hearing. An EDA meeting tomorrow night to consider redevelopment proposals 26 City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 for the bowling alley property so we would invite any public that may be interested to see how this property is redeveloped to attend. It's 7:00 in the council chambers here. Mayor Furlong: It's here? Todd Gerhardt: Yep. We were able to move it out of the court yard into here. Park and Rec Commission will be meeting in the court yard at 7:30. Mayor Furlong: It will be a little cold in the court yard won't it? Todd Gerhardt: We' 11 warm it up for them. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other items? Teresa Burgess: As previously stated we have received written notice from MnDot that they are putting the contract for 312 on hold. Their statement was that they are doing this so they can re- evaluate where they are and also to re-evaluate the contracting process that was used in this one. Apparently this is something that is coming out of Governor Pawlenty' s reorganization of MnDot and also in looking at the way that MnDot has been hiring consultants in the past. And we have, I will keep the council informed when they re-issue that project and get it started back up. Councilman Labatt: How does this affect Klein's money he obtained for this roadway out between Cologne and? Teresa Burgess: We've asked that question and I haven't gotten an answer back that makes sense. Councilman Labatt: I'm just trying to figure out why money would be earmarked or budgeted or put aside for that area going, it's got to occur here in Chan before it gets out there. Why wouldn't that money be. Todd Gerhardt: I think, isn't the Cologne improvements more for safety improvements? Teresa Burgess: I believe so but I haven't heard that clearly from MnDot. The issues that we have right here is they're not sure how they want to design this project. There have been several revisions to the staff approved layout in the Mast few months that have been put forward by the consultant and it's unclear what exactly they're going to do with this road. There's been alignment changes vertically, adjusting the alignment. There's been proposals on eliminating, combining, adding intersections and interchanges, and with all of that going on MnDot chose to take a step back and re-evaluate where they're going with this project. Mayor Furlong: Is the sense you're getting, is this a short term stop and look at it? Is it a short term sensation or is it a for the year? Teresa Burgess: When I asked that question she talked for about 10 minutes and I never did figure out what she was saying. The letter is, and I can get the council a copy of it. It doesn't ever come out and say how long is the stoppage. Mayor Furlong: So we don't know. Teresa Burgess: We don't know. 27 City Council Meeting -February 24, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. Teresa and I will be attending a meeting in St. Paul this Thursday regarding 312 with key legislators, and I believe there's another meeting with key legislators on Friday out here in Chaska so before our next meeting we should have some answers to those questions. Councilman Labatt: Do you know how far along they are on purchasing right-of-way? Teresa Burgess: I believe they have made offers and have right-of-way in Chanhassen pretty much tied up. We will be having at our next council meeting Lisa Friese from MnDot will be here to talk about the Highway 41 crossing, and I have given her a heads up that she should anticipate and be prepared to discuss 312 as well. Mayor Furlong: Good. And I know Mr. Gerhardt, I'll be joining you and Teresa on Thursday in St. Paul, and I think Councilman Peterson will be with the Southwest Transportation Coalition on Friday. So we'll have elected representatives there as well. Okay. Any other questions or items under administrative presentations? None? Are there any questions on the correspondence or correspondence discussion items from council? If not, is there a motion to adjourn. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 28