Loading...
CC Minutes 2001 03 26CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 26, 2001 Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Kroskin, Councilman Ayotte and Councilman Peterson STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Roger Knutson, Teresa Burgess, Bruce DeJong, and Kate Aanenson PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Name Address Linda Landsman Janet Paulsen Uli Sacchet Patsy Bernhjelm Deb Lloyd Ann Kleve 7329 Frontier Trail 7305 Laredo Drive 7053 Highover Court S. 9380 Kiowa Trail 7302 Laredo Drive 7307 Laredo Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Jansen: Good evening. Thank you for joining us this evening. Under public announcements I have just a short statement that I would like to read in response to the allegations and what happened at our last council meeting. I'm not going to address the specific allegations, only to say that this council will continue conducting the public's business. Sadly the residents of Chanhassen continue to witness political attacks stemming from last November's elections. Though the campaign season is a distant memory for most of us, there are those who seem almost determined not to move ahead and are equally determined to keep the city from doing it's business. That was the case during our last council meeting. Time spent defending false allegations is wasting resources that should be directed at accomplishing our taxpayers business. City staff and the City Council need to focus on our commitments to our residents. If there were any violations of fair campaign practices during the election, the investigation will address them. In an effort to help resolve the conflict and answer the questions and concerns that were raised here, I met with a neutral third party and Mr. Gabrielson, who during the election was the campaign manager for my opponent. The context of that meeting is confidential, though I'm pleased to say that I think we met with the same mutual goal of doing what's in the best interest for the community. I am hopeful that our dialogue might put some of the conflict to rest, though I'm sure it would only be until the next election. If a similar meeting would assist others to come to some sort of closure, I'm willing and available to have those discussions and I would certainly encourage you to bring those questions forward so that we maybe can bring some closure to the conflict. I continue to encourage all of our residents to work together for the best interest of the entire community and though your candidate may not have prevailed, that should not mean that we have insurmountable odds between our visions and our goals for the community. All of this energy and passion would be so much better used if we could direct it at building our new library, working on a community survey. We have our economic development strategy that we're going to start working on as far as our initiative and even the community housing forum that we're working on or the Dave Huffman 5K Run. Let's just see if we can maybe peacefully co-exist and work together for the betterment of the City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 community. It's time for Chanhassen to move forward. To be clear on proper meeting protocol we have provided guidelines for visitor presentations and they also then apply to the public comment portion of the meeting. All they are are just simple requests for common courtesy and respect. Those guidelines are posted at the podium. It's all pretty simple and straightforward so we certainly encourage public comment. Just trying to keep things within the realm of city business as we're working here in the council chambers so we appreciate that very much. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Kroskin seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approve Consultant Services Agreement for Design of Century Boulevard Extension. Resolution #2001-16: Authorize Preparation of Feasibility Study for Quinn Road Street and Utility Improvements; Approve Consultant Contract for Feasibility Study, Project 01-02. Resolution #2001-17: Authorize Preparation of Feasibility Study for Lake Lucy Ridge Utility Extension, Project 01-03. Approve Revision to Consultant Contract for BC-7 & BC-8 Trunk Utility Improvement Project 00-01. e. Approval of 2001 Liquor Licenses. f. Approval of Bills. Approval of Minutes: - City Council Work Session Minutes dated March 12, 2001 - City Council Minutes dated March 12, 2001 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Minutes dated March 6, 2001 -Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 9, 2001 Approve Amendments to Chapter 18, Subdivision Ordinance and Chapter 20, Zoning Ordinance as follows: 1) Division 2, Signed Allowed in Specific Districts by Permit, Section 20-1301, 20-1302, and 20-1304. 2) Section 20-109 and 20-505, Typographical errors. 3) Section 20-508, PUD typographical errors. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Jansen: The visitor presentation of the agenda is the next thing on the agenda. I do want to mention at this time that when we do get to the Highway 101 discussion, and I'm assuming that the majority of you are here for that conversation, there will be an opportunity to speak. We're allocating 30 minutes, City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 assuming that comments will be very much in keeping with what we've discussed over the last year and since we are moving forward with those same conclusions in that negotiation, we certainly encourage the comments but we're anticipating that that 30 minutes would certainly suffice. So with that I'm opening it up for the visitor presentations. If there's anyone here who would like to address the council, approach the podium and if you'd state your name and address for the record please. Neil Libson: My name is Neil Libson. I live at 140 Choctaw Circle in Chanhassen and I'm not sure, is this the right time to talk about the 101 issues? Or did you want to wait til the time that the presentation is made and then make comments? Mayor Jansen: It might be beneficial for all of you who would like to speak to the Highway 101 to hear the staff report first, was our thought in providing that comment period at the point where we get to 101. Neil Libson: Then we'll wait and come back then. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Well thank you. Anyone else? LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE: Mayor Jansen: We'll move onto agenda item number 2, our law enforcement update from Sgt. Dave Potts with the Carver County Sheriff's Department. Sgt. Dave Potts: Good evening Mayor, council members. Referring to my memo to the council for tonight's meeting, again item 1. The area call report and area citation report are on hold at this time, as previously explained to the council. Items 2 and 3, the community service officer highlights, crime prevention and public safety education and highlights. I may or may not have any answers if you have questions on those two items but are there any questions from the council on those? Mayor Jansen: No questions. Sgt. Dave Potts: My understanding is the work plan comes up a little later in the agenda so I'll skip over that one and just move right down to my miscellaneous items. I had planned to give the council an update on the American Legion robbery, but as you all know the sheriff held a press conference earlier today announcing that 2 of the suspects have been arrested and charged in that case and the investigation is still continuing. But that's old news at this point. Mayor Jansen: Maybe not to some of the viewers at home or the people in the audience however, which was just wonderful news to us all today that they had brought that investigation to closure and I know that a lot of residents in Chanhassen are going to be breathing a sigh of relief as they hear you say that. And congratulations to your department. Sgt. Dave Potts: And all of us serving law enforcement in Chanhassen are breathing a sigh of relief as well. That's a nice one for us too so. The second item I noted was Chanhassen deputies assisting in a vehicle pursuit. This actually started out as a domestic assault and terroristic threats situation in Watertown where a suspect left in a vehicle. A Chanhassen deputy was able to intercept that vehicle. Following that a pursuit took place which went down into the city of Chaska. The officers there were able to set out the stop sticks that flatten tires and the suspect was arrested without injury to officers, citizens or suspect so a nice situation there. Eden Prairie had a Star and Tribune truck stolen from Rainbow grocery City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 store over in Eden Prairie. Was believed possibly to be westbound so one of our Chanhassen deputies went down to the lower Y, 169/212 area and did in fact see that Star and Tribune truck westbound and attempted to stop it which led to a short pursuit into the city of Chaska where the driver did voluntarily at that point pull over. It was a drunken female who had stolen that Star and Tribune truck, not thinking properly and was taken into custody. Case solved. Eden Prairie assisted so that was again a nice deal there. Unfortunate bit of news. One of our Chanhassen deputies was assaulted during a warrant arrest. There was a disturbance reported at one of the local hotels and in escorting some people outside found out one of these people had an outstanding arrest warrant and in attempting to make that arrest, take that person into custody, the suspect was able to surprise the deputy with a punch to the side of his face which knocked him to the ground. However the deputy was still able to trip up the suspect as he started to run on foot. The suspect was caught within about 30 feet. Continued to struggle and another thing I always like to point out in these situations, and you know we hear a lot on the news and whatever about police brutality and whatever. After just assaulting an officer and continuing to struggle with assisting officers, this suspect was successfully taken into custody without any injury to the suspect so I'm very proud of the officers that were involved in that situation. The officer did go to the hospital. Was off for a couple of days but suffered no serious injuries. Just some swelling and what not. Mayor Jansen: Good, good. Sgt. Dave Potts: Quizno's burglary. A safe was taken from the Quizno's subway restaurant in an overnight burglary approximately a month ago and again congratulations to our investigation division. Got a tip and upon further investigation, 5 juveniles were charged in that situation and that has been cleared up so nice bit of news with that one. Mayor Jansen: Congratulations. They're going to learn not to come into Chanhassen with your record going, right. Sgt. Dave Potts: Well that's our ultimate goal for us now isn't it. Mayor Jansen: Good. Good. Sgt. Dave Potts: But that's all the update I have for the council this evening. Any other questions or comments for me? Mayor Jansen: Any questions for Sgt. Potts? Thank you for the update. Appreciate it. Councilman Labatt: Thanks Dave. UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 101 STATUS. Public Present: Name Richard & Charlene Borotz Barry Johnson Address 6750 Brule Circle 6300 Near Mountain Blvd. City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 B. Paulsen Mark Gempler Kent Oliver Steve Burdick Patrick J. & Joan Golden Stephen John Frankwitz Steve & Liza Bloom Patrick Nolan Charles Hallau James & Sue Lacey Nick D. & Sandy Gassman Neil Libson Bill Hille Jim Pedersen Brian Batzli Denelle Flesner-Gech Tom Devine Greg Flickinger Ruth Kinkade Dan Russ Paul Dryke Jay Strohmaier Fred Oelschlager Sy Resnik Steven Posnick Tom Hoffa Steve Donen Frank G. Mendez Robert Mortenson Chris Larus Mary Maurice Sandra Sedo Dan & Ruth Shoemaker Leon & Marilu Narem Brian Thompson Chantha Bo Craig & Laurie Burfeind A1 & Carol Lenhart Peter Sperling Shawn Haines Maureen Grebin Mel Kurvers Dave Harrington Mark Senn Barbara Vemes John Tomlinson Sandy Carlson Tom Peterson 7013 Dakota Avenue 8620 Chanhassen Hills Drive 6540 Gray Fox Curve 8599 Flamingo Drive 6780 Brule Circle 6770 Brule Circle 6781 Brule Circle 6760 Brule Circle 115 Choctaw Circle 121 Choctaw Circle 6800 Brule Circle 140 Choctaw Circle 7131 Willow View Cove 10300 Mandan Circle 100 Sandy Hook Road 7000 Sandy Hook Circle 7640 South Shore Drive 7013 Sandy Hook Circle 20 Basswood Circle 6791 Brule Circle 105 Choctaw Circle 80 Sandy Hook Road 7410 Chanhassen Road 7370 Kurvers Point Road 7010 Dakota Avenue 970 Lake Susan Hills Drive 7636 South Shore Drive 7361 Kurvers Point Road 7371 Kurvers Point Road 7018 Dakota Circle 7644 South Shore Drive 7644 South Shore Drive 7380 Kurvers Point Road 20 Sandy Hook Road 41 Hill Street 7004 Sandy Hook Circle 7150 Willow View Cove 6575 Pleasant View Way 7021 Cheyenne Trail 7340 Kurvers Point Road 7151 Willow View Cove 7240 Kurvers Point Road 51 Twin Maple Lane Chanhassen Chanhassen 6751 Brule Circle 7271 Kurvers Point Road 7020 Sandy Hook Circle City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 Brenda Vatland M. Carolyn & Jim Erny Linda & Tim Love 7290 Kurvers Point Road 7008 Sandy Hook Circle 7010 Sandy Hook Circle Teresa Burgess: Thank you Madam Mayor and council members. I'd like to stress first of all before we begin, both for the viewing public and for the people in the audience. We are not requesting any council action this evening and we are not anticipating any council action this evening. This is strictly an update to the council on the Highway 101 issues and where we stand at this point. Some of what I have to say will be redundant with the report but I know that there are people at home watching. We publicized tonight's meeting and I want to make sure they understand some of these issues also. Mayor Jansen: And Teresa, if you don't mind my asking, can everyone hear in the back? Raise your hand if you have trouble hearing Teresa. If you might pull it a little closer. Thank you. Teresa Burgess: If you hear a crunch, that's just a bit the microphone. To start with, the background information on the Trunk Highway 101 issue was supplied to the council on March 12th along with the previous council packet. That was verbatim minutes from the meetings that were held with the public. The council had an opportunity to review that information, as well as information that was supplied to the council, the previous council by SRF on the alternatives that were outlined as part of the Hennepin study. We do not have drawings of the Option lA. Those drawings were never done. All we have is a written description of Option lA which will be, is found in the packet tonight as the resolution adopted by the City Council last year. Option lA is the official adopted position of the City Council of the City of Chanhassen. We have not had any official action or discussion to change that option at this time and we are not anticipating any in the near future. I met with the staff from Hennepin County, MnDot, the City of Eden Prairie and Carver County on March 16th to see if it was possible to work out some of the issues that are still outlying on the Highway 101 issue. Specifically the fact that the comprehensive plans for Hennepin County, Eden Prairie, Carver County and Chanhassen all classify Highway 101 as a Class A minor arterial. And from the City of Chanhassen comprehensive plan, this information is directly from our plan. This is not from anyone else's. The projected year 2020 daily volumes are at the upper limit or exceed the recommended guidelines for volumes carried by a collector. The question has been asked if Highway 101 would be better as a collector or a minor arterial. The roadway connects principal and other minor arterial routes, thereby providing an important mobility function for the region. This is an important criteria of a minor arterial. The city of Chanhassen has historically limited direct access to 101 and will continue to do so. Please keep in mind the city of Chanhassen has two sections of 101. One at this point is highly developed and the other section does have very few access points onto it south of Highway 5 it is relatively rural for an urban setting. The City of Eden Prairie unfortunately was not able to limit their access points because it was something that did not come up until relatively recently as standard practice. Other minor arterials in the city of Chanhassen are Trunk Highway 5, Trunk Highway 41, Highway 169, 212, Powers Boulevard, Galpin Boulevard, Audubon Road and Lyman Boulevard. From that list you can see that there is a wide range of what is actually considered a minor arterial. Everything from Highway 5 all the way to Audubon Road. The next available turnback funding for Trunk Highway 101 is 2008. Money had been set aside for the turnback as was previously discussed. That money was because we were unable to come to terms with MnDot, Hennepin County, Eden Prairie and Carver County. Deferred to other projects. Those projects were located in Dakota, Ramsey and Washington counties. It may be possible to get that money sooner than 2008. However at this point that is what it looks like on the books. I spoke with Representative Workman and he has expressed his desire and willingness to assist if this project were to move forward in getting that funding available again. MnDot has expressed that they are willing to continue to support the use of federal funds for the 8 foot bike trail. Anything less than an 8 foot trail does City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 not qualify for federal funds. They are only willing to do that if it is in conjunction with a tumback project at this time. They are not willing to support the 8 foot trail as a federal funded project without a turnback. If a trail is built with federal funds we would also be able to apply for and possibly receive with MnDot support additional finding for landscaping and retaining walls to mitigate the impacts of the turnback project. All of the parties, MnDot, Hennepin County, Eden Prairie and Carver County indicated that they were willing to revisit this issue and discus the potential solutions that are available. They have all indicated that they are willing to put forth a good faith effort as long as it looks like it's possible to resolve the issues. MnDot, Hennepin County, City of Eden Prairie and Carver County at this point have all stated a desire to exceed the minimum standards as outlined in the DOT specifications. The design and improvements and would not consider a design that does not meet the minimum standards as an alternative solution. For tonight's meeting we did mail out a postcard noticing the entire city of Chanhassen of tonight's discussion. Unfortunately, because of the size of the postcard it was not possible to include a lot of information and quite frankly we don't have a lot of information at this point because we have not changed our position, but we did receive comments. The Council has received all of those comments, including the ones that were received after the deadline of 4:00 p.m. on Thursday by electronic. The only exception to e-mail that we have received is one voice mail which we were able to forward to the council as verbatim minutes of that voice mail. And those should have all been received. They have been entered into the public record and are in our files. For those people who sent those comments, I'd like to say thank you and if you sent comments you don't need to repeat those. They are in the public record already. Those comments are available if somebody would like to stop in and review them, they are in the engineering department. Also enclosed in the packet is a copy of the, I lost my place. A copy of the resolution with Eden Prairie. I've included it strictly so that the council can see what Eden Prairie has adopted. As you will see they have not adopted an official position. What they have adopted is criteria for what they want this road to do and they have stated a desire to explore as potential solutions or options that meet that goal. Options 2, 3 and 4. City of Chanhassen has offered Option lA. We would propose to the other entities that that option should be considered as a way of meeting the criteria and at least further explored before it is ruled out by the other entities. Finally, there is in the packet a summary of the state aid standards. Now certainly if anybody's been to my office, and all the council members have, we have a bookshelf that is about 4 feet wide that is state aid standards. That entire shelf is what I'm referring to. I've only pulled out the sections that are in the city of Chanhassen's end of this thing. Obvious and critical related to Highway 101. Those include vertical alignment. The state aid standards reference the Ashtow Manual, often referred to as the green book. That manual is a nationwide manual and certainly does have very much a cookie cutter approach. We would contend that while those are good design standards, we cannot simply take them and mold them to everyplace. We do have to take them and review them and apply them as appropriate. That is their intention. There are two specific areas that vertical curves come into play. One is a crest curve, one is a sag curve. It's important that those are designed appropriately for the speeds of the roadway. If anybody can remember back to the Dukes of Hazard, the TV show, a crest curve that is too sharp, if you can envision the car launching as it comes across, just as it does in that show. Now obviously that's an extreme example but that is one of the issues with crest curve is that the vehicle can actually lose some contact with the roadway if we get speeds in excess of what the crest curves are designed for. It's also a visibility problem. As you're driving down the road you can't see over the hill to see that there is something in the roadway in front of you, whether it be a rock or whether it be a child. You can't physically see it. You need to be able to see so it's important that we have proper stopping sight distances on our vertical curves. Sag curves, most of us have driven too fast through a driveway and had the car bottom out. That is the problem with the sag curve. Also sag curves can also cause problems with visibility especially at night when you can't see far enough ahead of your car to make critical decisions like stopping sight distance. Horizontal alignment has a number of obvious effects also. The most obvious being if you can't keep your vehicle in the curve at the proper speed. We've all gone around curves just a City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 little too fast and felt the car start to slip, so that is something that needs to be addressed. Sight distance is another critical factor with horizontal alignment. Again you need to be able to see that critical distance to know if you should be able to pass or if you can stop in time for a vehicle that is stopped in the road or again an obstruction in the roadway. Finally, a lot of people have asked if the road is already passing approximately 13,000 vehicles per day, why do we need to build the road to bigger than it is right now. I can't answer if we do or not yet at this point because we do not have enough critical data to answer that question, but where it comes into is level of service. According to the state aid standards you need to build to a design level standard of service. That level of service is a grade A through F. F being total failure of the roadway system, parking lot type setting. 494 at 5:00 on a Friday. A level A would be free flowing. If anybody's been coming home from the airport at 2:00 in the morning on 494, that's pretty close to A. So those are the two extremes. In the middle somewhere is where we would like to design this road to fit. According to design standards that's a level C. We do not have enough information at this time to tell you what Trunk Highway 101 is. The counts that were done only looked at the types of information they needed to do their survey, and they did not look at the specific information for current conditions of that roadway. They looked at 2020 forecasts. I have included in the council packet a photocopy from the design manual that does go into more detail on those levels of service and what exactly those criteria are. We do qualify as a 2 lane or as an urban and suburban arterial. It's a question of how we classify that roadway which one we fall underneath. I've included at this time just for informational purposes, once we have spring thaw we will be able to do the proper traffic counts and hopefully be able to do those calculations for comparison to this table. At that time we would update council again what that information is, either in a council meeting or in writing. At this point we are trying to put together our ideas and our philosophy towards Trunk Highway 101. At the point we have something together in writing ready to submit it to Hennepin County, MnDot, Carver County and Eden Prairie, we would bring it back to council for their information and then ask Carver, Hennepin, MnDot and Eden Prairie to make a formal response to that statement of our concerns and see if we can work this out or not. If the council has any questions I'd be happy to answer those. Mayor Jansen: To your last statement when you said you'd be pulling our information together to present that, that's based upon the lA proposal and your collecting the additional traffic information on the current levels, correct? Teresa Burgess: Correct. Correct. That would be on Option lA at this point and then on the existing condition of the roadway, what Chanhassen is looking for and our intentions towards this roadway. Mayor Jansen: Okay. I had asked the question of you earlier on one of the things that I was interested in because the residents of course are wanting us to move this thing forward as quickly as we can. Eden Prairie, as part of their resolution had put something of a time line together of what they would like to see the project proceed with and I wondered if we would be able to, as you're going to the other jurisdictions, put together some sort of a time line to again try and keep it moving. Teresa Burgess: Certainly we would be looking for a timely response from the other entities and putting together our proposals to them, our summarization of what is going on. We would be putting together something similar to what Eden Prairie has done. It is important that even though that money is not available immediately, that we do get our project back on track if we want to see a turnback project because just as our project slipped and the money was reallocated towards other priorities, another project may find itself in the same situation in which point money would become available for this project. Alternative financing. MnDot is willing to work with us if we are able as a group to come up with a workable solution that everyone is agreeing to moving forward with. At this point the reason that the City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 funding has been shifted to other priorities is because it does not appear that Highway 101 would be constructed as things sit right now. Mayor Jansen: Okay. On that time line, in order to get the project in the queue for the funds and of course I love hearing that Representative Workman would like to help push for that for us, what stage does our project need to be in to be in line to then be funded? Teresa Burgess: We need to be obviously making headway in the negotiations with the other entities. MnDot is one of those and so certainly that comes into play. How quickly can we move things up. The other entities coming forward, if we were able to come together and say this is our concept, by the end of the year this is what we're aiming towards, this is how we're going to be moving forward, that certainly would get us back on track with the funding again. When we met, we did discuss what was the earlier we could probably see construction in this area. Obviously it depends on what method is used and if it's fast tracked, but conservatively Hennepin put forward that they did not believe this project could be done much sooner than 2003 or 2004 because of the need for right-of-way regardless of the option that is chosen. Even Option lA requires some right-of-way acquisition. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councilmen, anyone with questions for staff at this time? Councilman Ayotte: Just point of clarification. You did say that there is not a design for lA at this point. Simply concept, is that correct? Teresa Burgess: The only design for lA is the council resolution and the conversations that were held with the public. There is no official design drawing of Option lA and there is no concept drawing similar to options 1 through 6 that were presented to the council at previous meetings. Mayor Jansen: Any other questions? Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Jansen: Okay. The other question that came up rather consistently in the e-mails from residents was part of our discussion when we were looking at the trail the last time, based on MnDot's letter back to us and the additions that they made to the trail, could you talk a little bit about the cost and how we ended up going from the $800,000 to the million 3. Teresa Burgess: The $800,000 is based on actually two studies done by the City of Chanhassen. The first one was done by BRW Consultant Services and I'm not sure what year that was done in. And they designed a pretty standard trail to go in. Following that we came back after actually last spring and requested authorization to do a concept plan for presentation to MnDot for potentially putting a project in their right-of-way. And based on that one, we were doing a minimum impact trail and the cost estimates for that project were approximately $750,000 to $800,000. That is a minimum impact trail. In doing that we were following existing grades. We were also, where the trail could not fit a full 8 foot wide, rather than doing retaining walls and more expensive solutions, we were looking to get a pedestrian trail through there. In one case we did have to go down to 3 foot to fit that. But we felt that that was something that was appropriate. We were trying to address an immediate safety concern and felt that it was important that we do the trail.., was that the project would have to first of all address some existing drainage problems that already exist out there along Highway 101 because we were doing a project. They do have the right to request we do that and so our trail would have had to be constructed to, first of all not cause additional City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 drainage problems but also to correct some of the existing ones. In addition we would not have been able to have built the low impact trail we were proposing. MnDot required us that we would have to build first of all to ADA standards and second of all to MnDot and federal aid standards. That means that the trail would have had to be at a minimum 8 foot wide in all locations and we could not have any of the steeper slopes that would have occurred if we had followed the existing topography. This means that we have to add length. It also means that we have to add significant retaining walls, etc to be able to meet the design criteria that MnDot had laid out. Because MnDot owns the property as right-of-way, they do have the right to request those changes and so that is where the increased cost comes from. Design costs, the construction costs alone for the MnDot trail were estimated to be $1 million. Design costs are typically about 10% of the total cost, and then on top of that there is construction engineering, administrative fees for the actual bid letting, legal documents, all of those pieces, and then we would have had some right-of-way acquisition so there would have been legal assistance in getting that right-of-way acquisition. We did not include any cost for payment of right-of-way. Only for the cost of actually acquiring it without payment to the property owner. Those costs include survey work, legal documents and agreements. So that is where the cost got escalated is between the project we were proposing that was low impact would have fit into the existing right-of-way, not required those additional costs. And second of all, would have been fit to the existing topography versus the project as it was finally reviewed by MnDot with significant increases in the design. The other issue that makes me very nervous, and the reason that I have not recommended council pursue that trail is that MnDot's statement to us was, we will consider approving your LUP, limited use permit if you do a full design but we may not approve your LUP. We reserve that right. So they are asking us to spend approximately $100,000 on design of a trail that we may never be allowed to build. That's a big gamble when you talk about taxpayer dollars. If they would tell us we could build it, I would have more comfort level recommending that we discuss that further. At this point they are asking us to spend the money and maybe we can talk about building it then. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you for explaining that. So what I just heard you say was that our million 3 could even be shy of what it could end up being with the right-of-way, but I'll stay with the million 3. Teresa Burgess: Well and keep in mind also, MnDot has only done a conceptual review. They are notorious for scope creep, which would mean that we could supply our plans for our million dollar trail and they could turn around and say well these are nice but we'd like you to add this or that or make this change that would increase costs again. As I said, if they were to give us more of a guarantee or guidelines, at this point they have not given us anything concrete to respond to. We have the letters from MnDot and that is really all we have. We had previous correspondence with MnDot telling us how to apply for an LUP, and we did that and you can see where it's gotten us. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff on that information? Okay. We'll go ahead and I think I got some of, or quite a few of the questions that were pretty consistently asked by numerous of you. I tried to pose them so at least you could hear some of the answers so you're at least able to address that information more specifically so we will open this up for comments. If we can hold each of you to trying to not repeat what each other is saying. We certainly want everyone to speak but we have gotten the message that lA is the proposal that we will be taking forward. That is the basis point that staff is starting from. We will be trying to get a time line so that we have a better feel for how this project will move forward. So I'll open it up for, we're going to try for a half an hour. We'll see how we're doing as far as everyone feeling like they've at least gotten to ask their questions and flush out any issues that we may have missed at this point so, if you could state your name and address for the record please. 10 City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 Steve Bloom: Steve Bloom, 6781 Brule Circle. I had the liberty of seeing the proposals. I've spoke with the council members previously. For the benefit of the new council members, so they're clear in their attempt to understand what's happened. To describe the voice which was pretty loud last year, and having petitioned my neighborhood twice now, I would like you to understand me clear on one issue and that is that the fervor and attendance to the meetings was around avoiding a highway that would invite trucks, change the character of the neighborhood, and bring noise to all those in Chanhassen. All of them. Across the water as such. I've met with some neighborhood people throughout the process and sort have had a disagreement with them from time to time but the general consensus of my neighborhood that I've petitioned over the weekend just to reaffirm the position on lA was, predominantly to avoid the build-up of the road so the taking of easements or any other response to the challenges that MnDot has proposed to the trail, we don't want anyone using that against us to re-open up the issue and the real issue that we have clearly is keep the road the way it is within the boundaries that were intended. Notwithstanding there's a million arguments about the engineering studies but we've already been down that road and we've adopted lA. The first and second points of lA are around keeping the character of the neighborhood within a 2 lane highway, and what we mean by that, if I could take this liberty because again I've petitioned my neighborhood twice is, what we mean by that is a 2 lane highway is in the existing boundaries as they exist today. So if for me personally it meant no trail, I would be okay with that. At the risk of keeping the road the way it is. It needs to be paved. The State will do that within time, and that's all I want to say. Mayor Jansen: Thank you very much. Neil Libson: My name is Neil Libson, as I stated earlier. I live at 140 Choctaw Circle. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I also live in the neighborhood that Steve lives in. Lotus Lake Estates and I brought to this meeting a petition signed by 58 people in our neighborhood. Our neighborhood has 44 homes in it so, this is reiterating a lot of what Steve said but the petition basically, if I could paraphrase says that we do expect continuing support for the resolution supporting design lA which was Resolution #2000-35. We are, the petition also said that we recommend proceeding immediately with the trail construction and the resolution also says that we would like the council to maintain it's commitment to continuing neighborhood input into this process and into the design process. I would like to say just a few more words beyond the petition, and I can offer this into the public record if needs be and I think there may be some other people that have a similar petition in the room that will be offering that. But I've lived in the neighborhood for 13 years, moving from Minneapolis and having experienced the ability to ride my bike around the city lakes, wherever I want and walk with my children and enjoy that. And that to me was part of the quality of life of living in this area. When I moved to Chanhassen we were you know enamored with the beauty of the area. The rural quality. The access to the lakes. The cul-de-sacs and so on, but there was a missing piece. There was no way to ride a bike or even walk outside of our neighborhood. And I thought well it would be just a short amount of time, and as a matter of fact there were some meetings back then, I can't remember but it could have been 10 to 12 years ago, regarding the construction of a trail. A bike trail, and I thought well this is wonderful. This will be happening soon and we'll be able to have a decent trail so we can exercise and enjoy those amenities. Well, here we are 13 years later and absolutely nothing has happened. My children have now grown. Have gone to college. Are out of the neighborhood and I worry greatly for the many, many young children that live in our neighborhood and I'm sure other neighborhoods around that venture out onto 101. It's an extremely dangerous situation and I can't, I just can't say how important it is for us to move very, very quickly on this issue. The problems relating to the widening of the road, I've done some study and some looking at what some of the long range plans have been for moving traffic in from the southwest quadrant of the metropolitan area and to the inner city, and Highway 212 was put forth many years ago as a major route for bringing people in from the southwest communities. So far that route has not been completed. However, vast sums of money have been spent to make that route a fruition within 11 City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 the city of Eden Prairie and I know that many, many dollars have been spent acquiring land in Chaska to make that route happen. We need to get that route finished and we need to continue working to finish that route so that can become a major collector of people and bringing it into our urban center. If this happens I see very little need to create a shunt from this major thoroughfare across our Highway 101 to Crosstown. There seems to me to be no greater need to do that than the need that has been shown by the City of Minnetonka in bringing people from Highway 7 over to Crosstown. So just to close, my main thing is to make sure we get a safe trail out on the road for our children and maintain the character of our neighborhood. And I think we can solve some of the safety issues related to the road perhaps lowering the speed limit and by adding stop signs or stop lights. Those are solutions to some of the safety issues that you discussed relating to vertical alignment, horizontal alignment and so on. They could be addressed by lower speed limits. They don't have to be addressed by major re-grading and reconstruction of the roads, which are I believe typical engineering solutions which are part of a paradigm that I think engineers live with and breathe by. And not that all engineers are bad. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Thank you for adding that. Neil Libson: I'm sorry. I'm an architect by training so... but I think that when there's a tendency to see bigger, larger, wider roads as a solution and I think that we need to be able to think outside of that paradigm. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you very much. Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, since there's a pause here, if I could answer directly one issue that was brought up real quickly. The public does need to understand at this time the City of Chanhassen does not have the legal right to construct the trail. We do not own any right-of-way in the area and we do not have the right. MnDot owns the right-of-way and we have to get their permission. We certainly are willing to pursue that but you have to understand we currently do not have the legal right to construct that trail. Mayor Jansen: Thank you for adding that. And if in fact we went outside of MnDot's right-of-way. Teresa Burgess: We would have to purchase easement for construction of the trail from the existing property owners, which we did explore as part of our concept plan and several of those property owners, we did not do an official survey of those property owners but several of them stated that they would object and would fight acquisition of right-of-way up to and including condemnation proceedings. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And you're adding that then to the cost, the million 3 just goes up from there if we move it outside of the right-of-way. Teresa Burgess: We have not done cost estimates for a project outside of the right-of-way. We would have to do realignment and look at what those impacts are. We have wetlands to contend with. It is significant though. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you for adding that. Tom Devine: My name is Tom Devine. I live at 7640 South Shore Drive in the South Lotus Lake area of Chanhassen. Madam Mayor and members of the council, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity that you're extending to us this evening to come and speak to you openly about the issues in and around 101, and particularly the trail issue. This is kind of a basic civics lesson for I'm sure many people because they 12 City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 aren't regular attendees of the City Council meetings. I've been attending these meetings for a number of years as it relates to this project. This project goes back at least 13 years that I'm aware of, and obviously there's a need to bring resolution and move the thing forward relative to building the trail. I think the people have spoke quite clearly relative to the lA option and I think you know the discussion about using that as a starting point for discussion, that's really the final point I think in terms of the way probably a lot of people look at the 101 project. If we look at government, you know government is of the people, by the people, for the people. MnDot is all of us that are sitting here in this room. We are the government so to speak because we are the people that control the decisions that are made underneath our government here in this country, and I don't view MnDot necessarily as the enemy but rather they need instruction in terms of what do the people, what do we want in terms of an outcome relative to moving the project forward. And I do understand the issues in and around what they've got the ability to say and to do and whatever, and as I also know, in government it's a negotiation. It's not the most efficient way of running the government but it's a negotiation process that we begin with and obviously the letter that came back initially from MnDot and the turn down, I look at as just part of the process of their not getting their way. They're not happy right now. They want to build a 4 lane, divided road down there and if they don't get their way they're going to put up a lot of barriers for all of us relative to building the trail. So when I look at the trail issue, it's obviously been a long, contentious cycle in terms of what the discussion has been. I know myself, I was a bit bothered by what happened a couple of weeks ago here in the meeting format and then of course the way it was reported in the press because the noisy 101 people were characterized as one group of people with a stereotype and we no longer discriminate in this country based on religion or race or nationality or sex or anything else, and to lump all the people that live along 101 as one part of one group and say that they're all very much anti-whatever I think is an unfair characterization. I guess my purpose in being here tonight is to recognize your leadership Linda in helping to move the project forward to build the trail. To fulfill really what is your campaign promise, as part of the platform that you ran on relative to the continuation and the overlay of the 2 lane road and the reconfiguration issues put aside but just to re- pave. The fact that the State has not done maintenance work again is an issue that we have to address as citizens. If they quit maintaining their road, and right now it's their road, we the people have got to speak to the State and say we want the road re-paved. And if there's some issues relative to safety or installing lights, we need to speak to the State and tell them that and obviously our channel for speaking is obviously through you, the City Council, you the staff to bring this message that these are the alternatives that we would like to see fulfilled and start the negotiation really from the standpoint of what are the bare necessities of what we need to do. Because obviously the road needs work right now. There's potholes that need to be fixed and the fact that the State has neglected the road and not done any work, we collectively need to provide input to you to say, we need to keep going forward with the process of just dealing with it. I agree with what many characterize as the issue of, are you opening up the discussion of 101. I don't see that anyplace in the record that it's really been brought up or that this council stands on the record of saying that you're re-opening a discussion relative to widening the road or whatever. This says the potential improvement project and right now the potential improvement project that's on the drawing board is the trail project and what we just need to do is to stay focused on that project, on the improvement project of building a trail, making it safe, and then also recognizing obviously the huge dollars of contributions that have been made by the taxpayers over a long period of time. That area's been developed and built out over many, many years, to build the trail. I obviously am realistic enough to see the dollar numbers of the million 3 or whatever and obviously we need to go to the State and say, hey. We as taxpayers in Chanhassen, we don't want that. We don't want to spend a million 3. We don't want to go through land acquisition. We need to come to the table to compromise in a very efficient way to get by, and maybe we won't have the most deluxe trail in Chanhassen but at least we'll have a safe passage down 101 so each of us, our children, can travel along 101 with some degree of safety and some degree of measure which will enable us to accomplish that goal. So I think the focus needs to stay very, very narrow 13 City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 in terms of building the trail. Obviously we're not going to get agreement from the other municipalities and we need to look at that from the standpoint that they're not going to do that so it's our project. It's our project. Us the citizens of Chanhassen to deal with that and to move forward on that venue. And I come here tonight also in the venue of what is good citizenship and saying I want to work with you people to work on what has been outlined, what all the months and months and years of effort have been and stay very focused on what we need to do here and I think there is a willingness of a great many people along the 101 project to move in that venue. We certainly moved forward last year in the resolutions that were made and now we just need to stay more focused on that and not try to get the broader audience of other municipalities back involved because that's not what their wish is going to be in terms of what it is, but this is what the people of Chanhassen have really spoken to and what they're really looking for. Thank you very much. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. And I guess that's part of the complexity that we are having to deal with as we go forward trying to address the trail, as Teresa pointed out, we don't own that right-of-way so we are at least trying to show a good faith effort, as you're saying it's a negotiation process. We're trying to at least give an indication that we're willing to negotiation so that maybe we get a little bit more cooperation on this other project which is obviously a carrot. And that is what we're trying to get to, but we're a little shy of options when it comes to building outside of the right-of-way or how are we going to get them to work with us on getting into that right-of-way. So I mean that is why we're sitting here tonight and definitely sticking with that lA as our point of negotiation, but that $1.3 million, even if we got the right-of-way is also significant to the community in where that's going to come from. If it does go with the road project, it's, as Teresa was saying, it does become part of the road project funding but. Anyone else who wants to approach and speak to the council on this issue? Frank Mendez: Good evening, how are you all? Mayor Jansen: Hi Frank. We do need your name and address for the record please. Frank Mendez: My name is Frank Mendez. I live at 7361 Kurvers Point Road here in Chanhassen. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Frank Mendez: And I couldn't be in more agreement with what Mr. Devine has just said. We're really here to work together collectively and really move forward things which the previous City Council and this City Council now here is committing to and that's following through on the resolutions for lA and the trail. With that to light I'm just going to bring some questions here which have to be of concern. I'm going to kind of hurry through them because we do have a limited amount of time. Hopefully you'll give me a couple of other minutes but please bear with me if I just kind of read through some things, based on what was just said to night. What I hear so far tonight, and one of the points that we have is that the next available turnback is, money would be February here of 2008. And that would be the next possible point of time where we could be looking at money. So the question would be, is do we not have a trail until the year 2008? And that's a possibility. That isn't a promise that that would happen. The other thing that I wanted to bring up along those very same lines is something that really I didn't see here tonight but I do know it's part of the information. Or I should say didn't hear tonight but I believe is part of the information which everyone of your city councilors have at this point in time. And I think it's definitely a point of information which is really, really valuable to everyone here because we've been waiting for such a long time patiently, courteously for a trail. And this is a letter that's dated to Teresa Burgess and it kind of addresses the turnback amount of money that, when it might be available. This letter is written by Mr. 14 City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 Robert S. Brown. He's a Metropolitan Division State Aid Engineer. And this person is one of the most key people that we're going to find who is involved in any sort of monies that we may be looking for in respect to a trail or permission or a 101 highway. And again it's part of the package but I didn't hear any particular City Council person bring this up. It says here, to Mrs. Teresa Burgess. I will address MnDot, this is the first paragraph. MnDot's long range plans for Minnesota 101 and county turnback fund eligibility for the highway and for trails. As a state highway, Minnesota 101 does not compete well for MnDot resources given the great demands of many other state highways of greater regional and statewide importance. In MnDot's long range plans Minnesota 101 is a preservation route from the present to the year 2025. That means are we going to wait til the year 2025 til we possibly have another trail again. So that's, it's more than the year 2008, but this is his letter wanting to clarify his position in a strong manner. MnDot will essentially the State plans only to maintain the existing highways. MnDot will respond to safety problems and maintenance needs. That means we do have a lot of safety concerns Madam Mayor that I know you have an interest in and I know several other people have. In this particular letter it says MnDot will respond to safety problems and maintenance needs. There are a lot of other points that were brought up here. I just circled maybe 2 or 3 of them that I thought I'd probably only have time to discuss, and what I'm bringing up is really predicated on information which is being expressed tonight only. The other point that was being made of course is the money issue. We've been hearing that well, we don't want to spend our money on a particular trail that may be destroyed somewhere down the line and we then have to spend that money once again. Well, I think everyone would agree to that. The other thing that I hear is that we don't want to spend $100,000 for even planning or taking a look at this trail to even study it. And that's what I heard here tonight as well. I think everyone else would agree to that. In the same letter from Mr. Brown, which again is in the information package, at the end I think you all have it in front of you so you can refer to it. I'm sure you all have it in front of you. It says eligibility for trail funding from the turnback account is also limited to existing trails. Since there is no trail today along Minnesota 101, turnback funds cannot be used. That means if we build a trail and they destroy it, well they have to pay for it, and that's really the only time they're going to really be paying for a trail. Most of us have come to the assumption that they will be paying for a trail if in fact we agree to a widening of the road. According to this letter, that's simply not true. Mayor Jansen: Actually I would like to have Teresa address that because I do think that by interpretation that's incorrect because we would be getting an LUP. I don't know, if you want to jump in and maybe explain where this would be different. Frank Mendez: That would be comforting, thank you. Teresa Burgess: If you're ready for me to answer that question, I certainly can. If you have. Frank Mendez: Sure, as long as my time isn't being taken from it, I'd love to. Take as much time as you like. Mayor Jansen: You were already past your time but that's okay. It's okay. Teresa Burgess: As for the funding, for the trail funding, the letter is correct. Turnback funding, it is not eligible for turnback funding. It is eligible for federal funding. That is a different funding source but we do have to have MnDot support to get that funding. They have indicated support for trail funding under the federal program if we do it as part of the turnback project. The second issue is if the trail is built prior to the road being built. If we do it in MnDot right-of-way, the agreement we have to sign, the limited use permit allows MnDot to require us to remove that trail at no cost to MnDot, which means they do not have 15 City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 to replace the trail if they widen 101. If we were to put the trail outside of right-of-way... 101 in whatever year that happens, then they have to replace the trail. Frank Mendez: Okay, thank you very much. Again I can only go by the information that is given to us and. Mayor Jansen: And I appreciate your letting me jump in. I just didn't want anyone to get a false impression because there is a little different interpretation according to how we actually do this so thank you. I apologize for jumping in on your minutes. Frank Mendez: That's okay and I'll pursue that as well because I'm still not perfectly clear on it so I'll get more information from someone at a later point in time. Thank you. The next thing I wanted to bring up was in reference to the amount of money, the $100,000. According to Mr. Brown, he says here, additional grading and right-of-way expenses and all costs of designing, paving and other expenses special to the trail cannot be paid for by the turnback account. In other words, as you read this, then you have to kind of assume that well, does that mean that regardless of, that we're going to have to pay for $100,000. Here to mean, or read it to me is that regardless of whether we put in a trail now or 5 or 6 years ago or we're going to agree to any sort of a road configuration for MnDot or anyone else, we're still going to have to spend $100,000 on this particular road. Anyways, that's a question here that I wanted to bring up here as well. I have a lot of other questions and a lot of other things but I did want to address one quick thing here. And again I had about 8 questions which I would have liked to brought up. Specifically only what's being said tonight, nothing new. But in reference to something that was brought up here was, was where did we get the figures for the arterial at 2020? It's upper limit. And I wanted to bring this to the engineer's and the other city council people here as well, is according to the state aid standards summary, which you read to us or was read to us a little while ago, if you read that same summary it says, the city, while traffic flows are at above 40 mph, Highway 101 does not have a continuous passing sight distance. The city does not have peak hour volumes for this area. The highest number of vehicles during a consecutive 16 minute period however average daily annual volume, AADT for this section of road, as measured in 1998 because a figure of 13,000 has been brought up. It says here ranges from 8,000 at the southern end to 12,450 at the northern end of the corridor. Nowhere does it say it's the highest that there's 13,000 cars going through this particular area based on what, based on the information which has been given to us. Also if you take a look at that it says a low of 8,000 at the southern corridor and a high of 12,450. If you take a look at that as an average, because how about us who live in the middle, that's really an average of 10,225. So what I'm asking every city council person to do is really take a look at these figures. We're here to work with you. I'd like to volunteer as someone who would like to be part of a committee or what have you in respect to aiding and aiding the city council to reap the objectives which the previous city council and this city council now has claimed to desire and want. Anyway, I will save all these other bits of information for a later date. Thank you very much Mayor. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Appreciate it. We're going to go another 5 minutes. 5-10 minutes and then bring this to a close. Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, ifI can interrupt for just a moment and I apologize. I know that one of the issues that has come up in the past is that people haven't trusted the traffic forecasts. We do have actual traffic counts that were done out there. I apologize if it's misleading to say approximately 13,000. It is actually the 12,400 number but it is approximately 13,000 ADT. The range is from at the lowest end 8,000 up to that range. Those numbers are on file and we do have multiple counts inbetween the two. It was just that this was a summary. It was an update to the council. It is not intended to give every location 16 City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 that we have traffic counts and as stated in that packet, we do not have the information to be able to do the level of service analysis which is what I stated this evening. We will be doing additional traffic counts this summer to be able to do that level of service analysis. And so I did want to clarify that because that has been a statement that the public felt they had not gotten the right information in the past. Mayor Jansen: I appreciate your mentioning that, thank you. Robert Mortenson: Good evening Mayor. Robert Mortenson, 7371 Kurvers Point Road, Chanhassen. I guess I'd like to first say, I really like the meeting tonight. I feel like everyone has gotten an opportunity to say something and get some input. I was very concerned at the last few meetings where there was discussion about the road that there was not an opportunity to speak and that really concerns me as a citizen. To have good government you need participation. All of us have spent a lot of time, effort and trouble in this road and the construction of the road itself and the project of the trail. I am concerned when we stray from where we've worked so hard and built such a consensus over a period of time. For those of you who may not know me, I have land that is adjacent to the highway itself and in turn I am one of the very people that you would like to negotiate a right-of-way or an easement to do the trail. My position has come full circle. When I first became involved in this project many years ago I was adamantly against any trail. I didn't want the people in my back yard. Over a course of time I have come to build consensus with my neighbors and we've bartered and traded back and forth through a number of public hearings and meetings and I have moved off that position and have come to believe and feel that a trail would be beneficial and that I could live with a trail as long as it stayed on the other side of my berm. And it meandered through my trees and didn't bother my enjoyment of my own property. And I thought that was a good decision on the part of my other neighbors. I know a lot of them have made sacrifices as well. Teresa stands here and says that she would like to have some of these very same people volunteer easements, not take legal actions, other various different things. If we progress down the path that we have already been down and we have already had all the public meetings, and we built a consensus, and this consensus was not won easily. And I for one am not willing to let it go. I have always said I would work with the city and the other neighbors in the building of that trail as long as we stay within the confines of the road. As long as we stay on the other side of the berm. The minute you start trying to push the trail into my back yard, then you push me into a position to say then we have to litigate. And that's not where I want to go. That doesn't benefit the city. I have always stated and I have publicly said, I want to be an extension of downtown Chanhassen. I don't want to be an extension of the Crosstown Highway. And I don't think as a citizen here that's unreasonable to expect. And with that I would like to say thank you very much because I think there was some real thoughtful insight from all the neighbors into this opportunity and I hope that you guys will take it and see if we can get the ball moving again. I certainly hope that if we have any discussion regarding the 101 issue, that we always do it in a public hearing format where there's ability to have input from the citizens because it is frustrating as an individual not to be able to say anything and I think in our community it's small enough and we have enough time if we have enough time in our busy lives to come here. At the last meeting I came all the way from Marco Island in Florida early to come to the meeting that the mayor invited me to and I didn't get to speak and that was disappointing, but we'll set all those things aside. I'm not going to make a big issue out of that but we do need to have input and it's very important that we have that opportunity. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. And I just want to clarify. I realize that there are comments being made about my having invited individuals to that previous council meeting and I will apologize in not realizing there were invitations extended. Robert Mortenson: ...misunderstanding. 17 City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Okay. Actually because that meeting was just simply an update for our new council people. We had not had any review at all of the trail situation. There was no road discussion that was occurring. It was staff's first opportunity to actually present some of this information to council which was resulting in this meeting, and this is where we would then have anticipated, as we have, opening it up for public comment. So it was more by virtue of the fact that that meeting was a completely different intent as far as, there was nothing new to actually comment on so I apologize that there were misunderstandings and that wasn't maybe followed up on before the meeting. If we could maybe take one more speaker, if someone has something new to add to the discussion, appreciate that. Janet Weber Smith: Yes Madam Mayor and City Council. I'm Janet Weber Smith. I live at 31 Hill Street in Chanhassen and I was, I'm a homeowner and tried to sell my home last June through August and our property is on the south end of Lotus Lake. It's the curve, the big curve. That's me. That's my property and the terrific effort on my realtor's part to get traffic to my home was excellent. We had potential home buyers my way. 75% of those who were very interested in the property decided not to purchase it due to the ambiguous nature of 101 issue. And some of them was just because Highway 101 was too loud and busy and I understand that, but because of the lack of clarity and decision my being able to decide to sell my home was impacted. We've decided to stay but for other reasons that people might choose to move or move onto another home, expanding family or their families are getting smaller, they may be impacted by these things. My market value is probably, I don't know what it will sell for at this point because I didn't sell. I priced it specifically $17,000 less than it's appraised value for the purpose of getting it market ready and to move quickly and it still didn't so I would really appreciate some clarity and focus on this decision. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. That's actually. Frank Mendez: Linda I'm sorry. I interrupted... I just want to say two words because I don't want to have to apologize either but there is a, the same letter that was written by this particular gentleman over here that was read, there are 141 signatures that we picked up in just a matter of a couple of hours so. Mayor Jansen: Oh, please submit them. That'd be great. Frank Mendez: We will and I just wanted to establish that with you. Thank you very much. Mayor Jansen: Thank you very much. One of the consistent things that we're hearing here tonight, and that's why we're here discussing this is that everyone wants this project to move forward. We're all looking for an answer and how we bring this to conclusion and at the present time it's in a stalemate. It has stalled and this council is making the commitment to move this forward. We're wanting answers. We want to see where we can get with this and if we do nothing we conceivably will have nothing. So to that as far as any questions or comments from council, I believe the only direction that staff is looking for this evening is to continue in the negotiations, correct? Teresa Burgess: We are not asking for any council direction at this time. We are continuing to move forward under previous direction. Mayor Jansen: Okay. 18 City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 Tom Devine: The current council is on the lA then? You people have collectively agreed to continue where the last council left off, is that... Mayor Jansen: That's exactly where the negotiations are. We're not re-opening anything. There's never been any conversation at this council level of doing that. The only discussion that occurred was at the last review of the trail and that was only about the trail so this is first that we're getting an update from staff as to where the project is, and how we move it forward and where we might be able to push the negotiations to actually get something moving. Tom Devine: Maybe it would be helpful to clarify to the larger audience of people that you are indeed not necessarily opening up this discussion of widening the road as the current council sits, but rather you are supportive of the lA option. Go on the record relative to being supportive of that, and then there's clarity to the community that you're not going a different direction other than what's been previous stated. Mayor Jansen: I can certainly appreciate your comment on that but obviously that's where staff is going and that's all that's in the packet and there's nothing in here about any other roadway configuration so, as far as our wanting to, I mean the resolution stands as is. It's in here. It's been adopted as of May and all we're doing is continuing in the negotiations as they stand. There is no discussion over this being anything different than what's in here. We have to find out where we can get with the other jurisdictions and that has not been established. They've never, in fact you had mentioned, they've never even denied our lA proposal. It's just not. Teresa Burgess: We have never received a formal reaction to Option lA that I have been able to find documentation of. Obviously the files are huge on this and I cannot say that I've read every single word. I've tried, but I have not been able to find documentation of a formal response to Option lA. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Well thank you very much for coming. We appreciate everyone's comments and all the e-mails. That was always, you know it's real helpful to get those sorts of communications so thank you very much. Appreciate your being here tonight. We'll take a 2-3 minute break. Thank you. APPROVE CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE WORK PLAN AND CONTRACT ADDENDUM. Mayor Jansen: Welcome. Bud Olson: Thank you Mayor. Twice in one day now isn't it? Mayor Jansen: Yes. Bud Olson: It's wonderful. Mayor Jansen: Can we start by congratulating you again on such a wonderful job. Bud Olson: Thank you Mayor and Council, I appreciate it. And all the credit really does go to the detectives of the Carver County Sheriff's office and the employees that worked that night. They did an outstanding job to get that case ready from the minute it came in to today, when we actually were able to announce those arrest indictments so we're very pleased. Very happy. Very proud of them. 19 City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 Councilman Ayotte: I've got to say something Mayor. Mayor Jansen: Why doesn't that surprise me. Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, well I've been quiet most of the last couple weeks. You took care of America's heroes today and those people commented on it and felt it and you could see it in their faces in addition to their comments and I really appreciate it. Bud Olson: Thank you Bob. Thank you very much Bob. Appreciate that a lot. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Staff report please. Scott Botcher: Two things on the agenda this evening in relation to the sheriff's department. Sheriff's office, I'm sorry. One is to review and approve the work plan that is before you, and Bud can walk through that. The second thing is, and I failed to put it in the packet. It's not a lengthy document. In fact I know you've received it before. This is the addendum that was tabled last time and I think Bob made the motion. I do have it to pass out. It's same thing you got before and I guess the second half of the request is if you get a work plan approved tonight, that you can, you can separate motion, same motion, whatever, approve the execution of the addendum by the mayor and city manager so that would be it. Mayor Jansen: With that sheriff, would you like to go through the work plan. Scott Botcher: Ah go for it Bud. We walked through it last time. Bud Olson: I know you've got a process Madam Mayor and council, I know you've had a process to look at this. I know Sgt. Potts was before you before discussing the work plan, but just a couple of comments if I might. When we developed this work plan concept I went to several other sheriff's in Minnesota that contract police and there is no other sheriff putting work plans together with their cities or their communities so in one respect we're really breaking new ground here in law enforcement delivery services. So I'm excited about that. I think there has to be public input to our policing and I think this work plan has turned out to be a great tool for us to help identify the needs of the community. One thing that we have to be very cognizant of is, in a contract relationship there has to be a service and an ability to provide some input into what that service will be for you. So this is what we've done with designing the work plan. It really is to identify the needs of the city of Chanhassen with their law enforcement mission and that's what we've tried to accomplish. So I know you've had opportunities to have input and opportunities to have the process looked at. I'm just here to answer any questions that I might for any councilmen. Scott Botcher: I guess my recommendation to the council is, since Bud is here tonight and was not here last time, if you have any questions particularly about the old part of the work plan, speak now or forever hold your peace. On the back page of the work plan you'll notice a topical area entitled community involvement participation. It talks about the citizen committee which Bud and I have talked about probably over a year, give or take. And haven't pulled it together but I think it's important and is an effective tool in trying to communicate public information to both the city and to the sheriff's office so I think that now's an appropriate time for your comment, feedback, any modifications and get it wrapped up. Mayor Jansen: Great. Well I was certainly glad to see you adding this to the work plan and I know that there has been some discussion, at least at the last meeting and I think you have a consensus on the council that would like to come up with this concept as to how you would like to see it formulated to best assist in 20 City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 your getting a pulse of what's significant to our residents and you know what directions we should be going in so I do believe we've open to hearing your suggestions as to how you would like to see this group organized as well as staff and your discussions around it. Bud Olson: Well Madam Mayor and council. I know Sgt. Potts has reached out to the City of Monticello. Monticello is in Wright County. The Wright County Sheriff's Office patrols their community. 5 years ago they brought in an outside consultant and they looked at, should we form our own or should we have the sheriff do it and in that study their final recommendation, through a citizens advisory committee was to stay with the concept of contract policing in Monticello. I know Dave has reached out to them. He informed me that presently their citizen advisory committee really meets once a year during the budget process to identify the needs of the community and their law enforcement mission. There are certainly other models of citizen involvement. We certainly can bring back some recommendations to the council on how you'd like to structure that. I believe personally very much in the mission of having citizen input into identifying those community needs. We certainly need to talk about how we would structure that. Would you do it in a work group environment and a task force environment, or is a standing committee or advisory committee or however we structure it to get the best amount of input from our community and our citizens. That's something that I guess is still open for discussion as far as I'm concerned how you'd like to see that structure. One thing that I would like to address is that I think this community is ready for a crime fund. I think it's ready to get citizen and business participation. After this Legion robbery we had discussions in our investigative meetings about offering dollars up for a reward. We've had very good success bringing information forward in major crimes like this when we have availability funds that we can put out there. You see it with Crime Stoppers. They offer large sums of money to try to entice people. I've been part of an investigation where the money is what brought the crime to an end with positive results. So we don't have one and when we talked about this issue in our present investigation, I did suggest that we would find the money if that would loosen up some information in the community but right now as it stands today there is no crime fund. There is no way for me to tap resources to get money except going to crime stoppers or somebody else. Or going to the local legion and soliciting myself but I think it's probably a good time. It's probably the right time to get moving ahead on some kind of a crime fund. I have all the documentation from several other crime funds that are operating in the metropolitan area. I don't think it would take a lot of time and maybe that would be a good jump off point for citizen involvement is to help structure a crime fund in Chanhassen. That might be a good project to get people involved in right away. Especially after this case. So if that could help. Mayor Jansen: Okay, and I guess the other thought that I had wondered about in terms of focus groups and maybe areas of concern. I of course think of our skate park and some of the issues that have come up around that. Whether it's a focus group around that particular issue or if it's a juvenile focus group or at least having those individuals involved in any sort of a committee that you're working with as well as our seniors and maybe having them involved in some capacity. Just thinking of maybe some of our more peripheral groups and making sure that we're engaging them in that process of trying to determine the needs and if we're addressing them. Any other comments on the committee issue from council? Councilman Ayotte: Yes. I really like the sheriff's idea about a task force associated with a specific objective, and I'm going to use Lakeview Hills Apartments instance as an example. There you have a captured audience, the neighbors to that area and the residents in that particular area to deal with that type of concern. And what sort of self policing can help that activity out so if we have as a result of analysis, a concentration where we have to deal with a specific issue or specific type of crime in a specific area for a specific period of performance, I think that'd be outstanding because that would also give the citizens an opportunity to feel good about meeting an objective, resolving an issue and then going onto the next. And 21 City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 you'd always change because your resources would be different. You might need a certain type of resource to deal with that sort of issue versus another and I really like the idea of getting going on a crime fund as soon as possible. As a foundation, as a start point. So those are two points. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any other comments? Councilman Labatt: I'm just, previous employments had them where I have worked and they're very beneficial. I think it's an excellent idea Bud. Mayor Jansen: The crime fund or the task force? Councilman Labatt: Crime fund. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Gotch ya. Councilman Labatt: I think it's obvious first agenda item is for a task force, community group to solicit these people who own these businesses here and see what we can come up with. Mayor Jansen: Come up with donations into the crime fund, okay. Good. Sgt. Dave Potts: And I don't have any particular comments beyond the last council meeting when we introduced the draft. The only changes made to the draft were the addition of the citizen committee part and under law enforcement operations, traffic enforcement, Councilman Labatt talked about using the word increase in some format and I added that in there as well. And I anticipated seeing an increase but it certainly doesn't hurt to put it down in writing as well so, those are the only changes or additions to the work plan from the draft form. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Scott Botcher: The other question that I know, and I don't think it's been answered yet and Steve brought it up on my voice mail. Oh I'm sorry. Weight limits. Can you just, maybe Dave or Bud, on how you're going to apply weight limits. That was pretty much your question, right Steve? Councilman Labatt: Yeah, the spring road restrictions. On the roads and what the plan is with that. I know Mr. Mortenson just talked about it up here on 101. How that has a 5 ton weight restriction on it right now and there's semi's up and down that road so. Sgt. Dave Potts: Okay. I know our weight enforcement officers have begun working. They began when the weight limits went into effect. I don't know what their schedule is though specifically. Bud Olson: I can address a little bit of that Mayor and Councilman Labatt. They brought forth a plan. I have the deputies in the sheriff's office come forward with a plan. They pretty much duplicated what we did last year. As you know, in your previous years you had money set aside in the old budget for specifically targeting Chanhassen roads with weights and the spring time enforcement. That money is not in that budget anymore, to let you know, so we're covering the weights and scales issue in the whole county. We certainly are looking at issues where we see increased truck traffic in the county and we have set up a schedule. It is very comparable to last year's hours that we actually put in for the county. I don't know exactly what those hours are tonight, I'm sorry. But those are issues where Corporal Lance Pearce 22 City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 has worked with the State of Minnesota, like 101. He'll call up the State Inspectors and they'd go up and they'd saturate 101 and take care of that issue. The other one is down on Audubon. That is a short cut to Chaska and they're very much aware of that. Last year we concentrated hard in that area of the community as well and we did write several trucks going through that. They like to use it as their short cut into Chaska. So we're aware of a couple of the problem areas and we have addressed them. Councilman Labatt: Okay. My other question was on compliance checks. Bud Olson: Compliance checks. Councilman Labatt, they're rolling out. I will say that. I know they're coming shortly. The Lieutenant Hubbie Widmer is in charge of that program and we had some issues recruiting young people. It seems to be the biggest issue we're facing right now but it's my understanding we just went over to Normandale and we were able to get 5 young people signed up and they will be out shortly to do our compliances. And I will apologize publicly tonight. We didn't get them done at the end of last year like I thought we would and I sincerely apologize for that. Mayor Jansen: Anything else? Councilman Labatt: That's all I had. Mayor Jansen: Anything else from council? Otherwise, I certainly am pleased with the work plan. I've been pleased with how we've melded the Carver County Sheriff's Department with our staff and certainly we seem to have a good working relationship and we appreciate everything that you've done for Chanhassen and your responsiveness to the needs. I know anytime something has come up and we've requested any special attention to issues, you've certainly been flexible with us and provided us with that so thank you. And we always appreciate having you come visit with us Sheriff, especially on a day like today with the news you had earlier. Bud Olson: That's right. It's a good day in Carver County. Mayor Jansen: So Council if I could have a motion to approve the sheriff's office work plan and the contract addendum. Do you need that worded any? Scott Botcher: You can do them together. Councilman Labatt: I move approval that we accept and approve the 2001 Work Plan as presented to us along with the addendum to the Contract for Police Services for 2001. Councilman Kroskin: Second. Mayor Jansen: A motion and a second. Any more discussion? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Kroskin seconded that the City Council approve the 2001 Carver County Sheriff's Office Work Plan and the addendum to the Contract for Police Services for 2001. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION. 23 City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Under new business we have the appointments to the Planning Commission and Environmental Commission. We have two positions open for re-appointment on the Planning Commission. One on the Environmental. We conducted these interviews last Monday, so a week ago Monday and with that if we have the nominations in the form of a motion and any discussion. Council. Councilman Ayotte: I so move to vote in the nominations for the Planning Commission as depicted in our last meeting. Do you need the specific names? Mayor Jansen: Yes. Councilman Ayotte: I don't have them in front of me. Jay's one. I can't remember the name of the other guy. Councilman Kroskin: Jay Karlovich and Craig Claybaugh. Mayor Jansen: And the Environmental Commission appointment of Kim Henkens. So we've got that all in one motion. Do I have a second to the motion? Councilman Kroskin: Second. Mayor Jansen: Motion and a second. Any discussion? Councilman Peterson: Mayor, I'd just like to go on the record again by saying that I think that although these are fine people that we're discussing tonight as far as joining the respective commissions, as it relates specifically to the Planning Commission I think that we clearly have willing and exceptionally capable incumbents on the Planning Commission that I for one still would like to be reconsider for appointment and I think they are certainly deserving of that and they have served their community well and they will continue to serve the community well if asked to again. And I guess I think they certainly are deserving of that and what I perceive to be inadequate rationale for not supporting the incumbents being reappointed. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. I would in fact like to add to that. My appreciate to Mr. Conrad for his 20 years of service on the Planning Commission. He certainly has voiced his willingness to continue in yet another term, which I find extraordinary considering that he has put in 20 long years of public service and commitment and he made that offer to this council that if in fact we thought that in order for the commission to function while going forward, if his services would be of use that he certainly would take another appointment to the commission. So at this point I know that discussion as it went was that we do have, I believe it was 8 applicants which is also pretty extraordinary to have that many residents come forward and offer their time and commitment to wanting to serve the community so with that opportunity and certainly not to discredit Ladd whatsoever, we thought that bringing one of the other residents into the mix was certainly a good time to do that. The other appointment, I support both of the candidates that have been forward. Mr. Claybaugh has the construction background to be able to really address more the specifics and has some of the expertise of having appeared before Planning Commission after Planning Commission in his capacity and his work so he does have the other side of the equation to bring to us as far as insight. And I'm going to leave it at that since I do feel a little awkward discussing the candidates which is typically something that we handle at the same time that we do the interviews. But I do support the nominations as made. 24 City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Kroskin seconded to appoint Jay Karlovich and Craig Claybaugh to the Planning Commission; and to appoint Klm Henkens to the Environmental Commission. All voted in favor, except Councilman Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Jansen: Council presentations, we don't have anything listed. I do have one question Scott. I don't remember what the last e-mail said between yourself and Ms. Aanenson about the training programs for the Planning Commissioners. These in fact are already coming up in April so I was curious as to whether they had all received the GTS training information. Scott Botcher: I will check. She indicated to me she was going to communicate that to the Planning Commission and, but I haven't asked her since. I'll just have to ask her tomorrow. Mayor Jansen: Okay. I just want to make sure that I follow up on that. Scott Botcher: Yep. And she was going to order the. Mayor Jansen: Those handbooks. Scott Botcher: One of the handbooks or training books that we do not own. She was also going to order a second copy of the training book that she does own. The Planning Commission apparently in the past has used for training so we'll have additional copies. Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. Thank you. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: COMMUNITY SURVEY, DECISION RESOURCES, CITY MANAGER. Mayor Jansen: Under administrative presentations we have an update from the city manager on the community survey. Scott Botcher: Yep, and I have 3 other things that just came up you should be aware of. That popped into my head. Community survey. We met with Decision Resources, myself, department heads, and I invited the mayor to sit in to sort of represent the council at this meeting. In reviewing and developing questions, formats, topical issues to include on the city survey. We tended to target surveys recently done by the cities of Woodbury and Lakeville. Both were extensive surveys with many more questions than we have contemplated, just because they're probably farther along in the learning curve and maturation status in developing and gathering that data. It's expected that on April 9th Decision Resources will be before you and that you will also have a line of questions to approve prior to going out to survey. You will also that evening approve the methodology but that's the extent of my verbal report at this time, unless there's anything else you want. Mayor Jansen: I would just like to comment on what a nice job I thought staff did coming to this meeting and bringing issues with them. I in fact had brought a list and pretty much checked them off as they all threw their issues out on the table. They did a very good job of walking through some of the things that I 25 City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 think council will be pleased to see them addressing on the survey so my congratulations to staff for a job well done. Scott Botcher: On another topic, as Dave Potts says. Moving on. Flood alerts have been a big deal. You've seen a number of e-mails come from a variety of sources on flood alerts and I imagine the press has been getting copies of them as well. Just to let you know, we are in addition to our fire department mutual aid cooperative agreements, we also have far less formal, how's that, mutual aid agreements between public works departments in times of crisis I guess. So just so everyone's aware that if we end up, the City of Chaska calls us up as an example and says, something bad. We need some help. We are not hesitating to send public works equipment to the City of Chaska along with manpower to help out, and vice versa. So those agreements between public works departments are far less formal because frankly you don't do it very often. You're not going to do it for a street project but in, you know issues like this with flood control, we will do that so if you are in Chaska and there's a flood event and you see of a City of Chanhassen truck, there's a reason. Library update. We continue to work as a building committee and Mr. Pettit continues to work through the public meeting process. We still are considering as a building committee all possible options for construction of the library. There has been nothing decided one way or the other and ultimately the decision is up to you as the council to decide what it is you want to do with the library. But we do have scheduled April 9th I believe, is that correct? For a public presentation to you all. Again somewhat in an abate status as to where we are and where we go from here so that's April 9th. The last thing I have is, we spent parts of this morning on the telephone with bankruptcy attorneys and the bank and checking the law and it turns out Scott was right. You could buy the bowling alley in advance of Wednesday so we did today courier a check on behalf of the EDA to Mr. Kelley from Mr. Knutson's office to put with the appropriate paperwork to forward to the other debtor involved with the bowling alley property. Representatives from Mr. Knutson's office are working with us in making sure we jump through all the hoops in terms of what's termed a friendly eviction, cooperative eviction. Roger Knutson: Transition agreement. Scott Botcher: And so we will. Mayor Jansen: I like transition agreement. Scott Botcher: But you know what I mean, right? So we will continue to work on that. Todd and I are buying bowling shirts for the staff. Not true, but we are continuing to move ahead and we also have had conversations with a number of financial parties to just get a feel on where they are in providing replacement financing for the EDA, if that's something that happens. As the prime continues to drop and the short rates continue to drop, quite frankly as long as we can maintain our position with adequate liquidity, it makes sense for us to continue to maintain it. It will probably be up to future councils, frankly, to really make that call as to whether an EDA should replenish that liquidity, just looking at the yield curves and where they're going so. We will continue to do that and Roger's office and us will continue to work on that. It's our expectation that tomorrow that we will, we might by tomorrow, move ahead and take care of the taxes. I think by our calculations, I don't remember if it was interest and penalties or just penalties were increasing to the tune of about 98 bucks a day. We are in contact with the County to see if they have any interest in relieving the penalty part of the tax liability. Obviously they can't, taxes are what they are and the interest is I think it's a statutory issue but we are trying to work with the county and say you know, professionally we'll say cut us some slack. We're trying to take care of this deal. I'm unaware of any response to date but we are going to continue to pursue that. Mr. Kelley informed me today that the penalties are applied at the end of every month, which means we've got to boogey between now and Friday. 26 City Council Meeting - March 26, 2001 So we're going to figure out if and such. If it gets to the point where they say we're not really willing to do it or we can't make a decision that fast, just to avoid the application of penalties at how many days in this month? Councilman Labatt: 31. Scott Botcher: 31 times 100 bucks a day. We may just pay them and then come back and say we'd like a little, come back at us and see what happens but that's really where we are with the bowling alley. Mayor Jansen: Very good. Thank you for the update. Thank you for working on that. Anything else council? Can I have a motion to adjourn? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Kroskin seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Submitted by Scott Botcher City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 27