CC 2013 02 25
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 25, 2013
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to
the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Furlong, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman
Tjornhom, Councilwoman Ernst, and Councilman Laufenburger
STAFF PRESENT:
Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Roger Knutson, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman and
Bob Generous
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Brent Carron 7059 Highover Drive
Bruce Nord 551 Indian Hill Road
Brandon Borden, Kimley-Horn and Associates 2550 University Avenue West, St. Paul
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Welcome everybody here in the council chambers as well as those watching
at home. We’re glad that you joined us this evening. At this time I would ask members of the council if
there are any changes or modifications to the agenda. If not, without objection we’ll proceed with the
agenda as published. We’ll start this evening on our agenda with the consent agenda items.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated February 11, 2013
-City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated February 11, 2013
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated February 5, 2013
-Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated January 22, 2013
b. Utility Meter Reader Pole, 6400 Minnewashta Parkway (Chanhassen Fire Station No. 2):
Approve Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Permit to Install a 60 Foot Tall Steel Utility Meter
Reader Pole on Property Zoned Office and Institutional District (OI).
c. Approval of Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Requests, St. Hubert’s Catholic
Community, 8201 Main Street.
Resolution #2013-12:
d. TH 101 Improvement Project 12-06 (Lyman Boulevard to Pioneer Trail):
Approve Advance Construction Agreement No. 03091 with MnDOT.
st
Resolution #2013-13:
e. Reflections at Lake Riley 1 Addition : Resolution Accepting Street and
Utility Improvements.
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Resolution #2013-14:
f. TH 101 MN River Crossing & CSAH 61 Trail Improvements: Approve
Resolution to Apply for and Support MnDNR Local Trail Grant Application.
Resolution #2013-15:
g. Award Contract for Lake Susan Hills Drainage Improvement Project.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS.
None.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening Lieutenant.
Lt. Jeff Enevold: Mr. Mayor, council, good evening. Quick update here for you tonight. And the first
slide is on an update on our prescription drug take back program. Oh, was this supposed to work? Okay.
Alright. Our citizens can now anonymously drop off their unwanted medications during business hours.
thth
We announced this on February 4 and on February 12 it was full and we had to empty it so. It’s
located in the Public Safety Inspections building in the outer lobby. I just checked it before I came down
here and it’s full again so on the short time it’s been available it’s been very successful for us and it
provides a needed service to our community so glad we got that up here. Quick burglary update. You
th
may have noticed in the monthly report that compared to January 2012 and January 13 there’s a pretty
rd
big increase in burglaries. It went from 2 to 10 and here’s the reason why. On February 3 Eden Prairie
Police arrested 41 year old Brian Williams who is believed to be responsible for over 60 burglaries in the
area. 8 of them in the city of Chanhassen. Hence 2 to 10. There’s the 8 that we’ve seen so. Our crime
techs were able to lift and photograph 3 different shoe prints from the crime scenes that matched shoes
that were taken from his hotel room so because of the great police work that was done by the responding
deputies to identify and preserve the shoe prints, our crime techs were able to come into the scene and
photograph and lift them as evidence and that’s really what allowed us to link Mr. Williams to the crime
scenes here in the city of Chanhassen. He is currently charged with burglary, fleeing police and
possessing burglary tools so job well done by the crime techs and our deputies who responded to the
scene. Last one I have is I wanted to introduce a new Sergeant who’s working up here. Sergeant George
Pufahl. He came to us from the city of Waconia and I’ll let him tell you a little bit about his education,
experience and introduce himself. George.
Sgt. George Pufahl: Hi Mr. Mayor, council.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Sgt. George Pufahl: I’m George Pufahl. I’m a Sergeant with the patrol division. I’ve been a sergeant for
just over a year now so. I’ve been with the Carver County Sheriff’s Office for about 13 years. Started off
as a reserve officer and part time officer. I’ve been full time for just over 10 years now. A lot of my
career has been working dog watch patrol on the west end of the county. Have worked as a detective for
the sheriff’s office. I’ve worked undercover narcotics for the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force. Been a
field training officer, range instructor and I’m currently also assigned to the Southwest, or assigned to the
Tri City SWAT Team. I’ve been a SWAT team member for the last 8 years so, and you know there’s a
little bit of arm wrestling that went on and Susan Arntz was having a difficult time letting me go and so
I’m glad to be here in Chanhassen and work with you folks and work with the City and give the same
service that I was giving to the City of Waconia previous so that’s me.
Mayor Furlong: Excellent Sergeant, thank you and welcome.
2
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Sgt. George Pufahl: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: And we should be sure to send a letter of condolence to Susan. That’s wonderful.
Sgt. George Pufahl: Great, thank you.
Lt. Jeff Enevold: I can see the difference that 13 years and 23 years makes with the gray hair here so any
questions Mayor or council?
Councilman Laufenburger: Does he have this to look forward to Lieutenant?
Lt. Jeff Enevold: While we’re here probably not but.
Mayor Furlong: Wait until he becomes mayor.
Councilman Laufenburger: Oh yeah, then we know what happens.
Mayor Furlong: That’s right. Any questions for the Lieutenant?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have one.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Lieutenant I didn’t prepare you for this or warn you ahead so.
Lt. Jeff Enevold: Oh oh.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So perhaps this is something for next time.
Lt. Jeff Enevold: Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But I’ve been interested having a teenager myself in school, just about the
communities and the fact of how they’re struggling with heroin and just drugs in general. They seem to
be running rampant. I think there was an article in the paper about the mayor of, what was it?
Greenwood maybe. His daughter had a real struggle with that and burglaries and everything else. Have
you noticed any switch in what’s going on in our schools or what have you kind of, and probably the drug
task force member also probably has some thoughts on that.
Lt. Jeff Enevold: Sure. We have noticed an uptake in the availability of heroin in the communities and
you know the drug task force is aware of that and you know we’re putting them onto leads that we come
across as patrol deputies and they’re doing their best to investigate and keep up with the information that
we give to them.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Do you have any idea of what the school’s policy is especially when it comes
to law enforcement and you know Minnetonka will sweep the hall with a dog or you know do their
searches. Do we do the same thing in Chanhassen?
Lt. Jeff Enevold: We have a drug canine that is available and if the school’s request us to come in, that’s
a service that we provide to them. Certainly, yep.
3
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Because I know a lot of communities they’re reaching out and they’re
wanting to speak to council members about this issue and say what can we as a council do to assist you or
get more involved in this issue, and that could be something for next time.
Lt. Jeff Enevold: Yeah, that’s something for me to think about. Sure. Great.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Any other questions? Lieutenant, thank you. Sergeant.
Lt. Jeff Enevold: Very good, Mr. Mayor, council, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Chief Wolff is here with the Chanhassen Fire Department. Good evening
Chief. Welcome.
Chief John Wolff: Good evening Mayor and council. Well January of 2012 was a really, really quiet
month and 2013 kind of came in with the weather. We were up 87% for the month and a month doesn’t
tell you a story about the year but believe it or not we were so down in ’12 that we’re actually slightly
above normal so we saw 56 calls in the month of January. Normally we see right around 50 if you look at
the last 5 so, so kind of on par. What was driving that? You get a lot of false alarms. You get frozen
pipes and just the systems get challenged so all the, all our big commercial structures and apartment
complexes and multi unit family housing, so we spent a lot of time making runs there so 2 in 12 and 12 in
13 so just to highlight one of the big drivers. Recent calls, we’ve had some commercial fires in the first
th
quarter here. We had a, on the 24 of January we had a commercial fire at a business off of Market
Boulevard. It didn’t have a major impact on the business. They were probably down for maybe a day.
Back up running the next day so not that significant. It was one of their machines and the fire alarm
system, the water, the sprinkler system controlled the fire and we were able to help remove smoke. This
past Friday we had another commercial building fire at a business off of Lake Drive East and similar
story. The sprinkler system put the fire out and, but there was a lot of smoke there and the business was
more sensitive to smoke damage. It was actually in their clean room and they’re estimating through the
weekend they’re at about a half a million dollar loss and it could, depending on how long the business is
down, it could be a pretty significant number for them so not a lot of damage to the facility but the impact
of smoke on this business so two important businesses for the city of Chanhassen. Employ close to 1,000
people between the two. On another note, we had about a dozen fire fighters do some fundraising and
also a climb up a 30 story building in Minneapolis on Saturday. How could I forget? I was one of them
that did it and it, you get to about floor 10 and it’s not a lot of fun and wearing the full gear so you have
the extra 50 pounds on. Chanhassen ended up out of 30 fire departments that participated, Chanhassen
ended up as the number one fundraiser so we raised almost $13,000. Last year we were number two with
Golden Valley Fire and we just nipped them by about, I think they beat us by 10 bucks last year. We
beat them by $200 this year and ended up being the third fastest team because they take the top team
scores too so a little bit of competition, both on the fundraising side for the American Lung Association
and also just some good fire fighter competition there. And then final item is, we have our partnership
th
with the Lions Club. Our pancake breakfast on the 24 of March. It’s at 8:00 to 1:00 and all our
residents and of course city staff and council and so forth are invited and this has been a long standing
tradition that we’ve had with the Lions. They do all the cooking and we do all the cleaning so it’s a lot of
fun.
Mayor Furlong: Excellent.
Chief John Wolff: Any questions?
Mayor Furlong: Questions for Chief Wolff. Very good, thank you.
4
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Chief John Wolff: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Appreciate your time. Move on now with the next item under new business.
TH
FRETHAM 15 ADDITION, 6300 CHASKA ROAD, APPLICANT: CURT FRETHAM:
REQUEST FOR A 4 LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION ON 2.29 ACRES ZONED SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF).
Bob Generous: Thank you Mayor, council members. Fretham15th Addition is a subdivision review. The
applicant Curt Fretham and Lakewest Development Company is requesting a 4 lot split of a property
located on Chaska Road. The corner of Chaska Road and Highway 41. You can see from the inset it’s
over a 2 acre parcel and they’re proposing, there is an existing single family home on it. They’re
proposing to relocate the existing home and create 3 new lots for new housing. Again it’s a 4 lot
subdivision for single family detached housing. The property is zoned single family residential and it’s
guided for low density residential. The proposed development is consistent with both the zoning
ordinance and the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Again here they’re showing a potential building sites for
the new homes that would go on the property. The most westerly house would be the one that’s moved
from the middle of the property over to the west end and then 3 new housing sites would be built on the
development. Access would be via Chaska Road, which is a local street and sewer and water are in
Chaska Road so they will be extended to this development. As part of the City will be upgrading Chaska
Road as part of it’s road projects and we’re working with coordinating the utility extension because it’s
on the south side, to the north side of the road with that improvement. The developer will be mass
grading the site to the extent of making the building pads work on the property. On the east side of the
property there is a wetland complex and that does constrain the building area of Lot 1. It’s forced to be
in the more northerly part of the site. As part of this project they also are putting in stormwater ponding
and they’ll work to maintain the Highway 41 drainage goes along the west side of the property. The only
issue we had was on Lot 1. As I stated this is a constrained site because of the wetland. It sort of wraps
around this site so the setbacks, primary setbacks are shown in red on this diagram. That’s where the
house can be located. The secondary setback is for accessory structures and that’s a green line so they
could put sheds or play equipment or accessory structures on the property. It is sufficient to build on and
he has proposed a building plan that he has built before so it fits on the site. The issues with this site are
the constrained building envelopes so there’s, once they put the house in there’s not a lot of expansion
that they can do except for accessory structures. They showed us a plan that they can maintain the
driveway grade at 10% and it’s just a small portion of the driveway immediately adjacent to the house.
And then the other restriction is that they’ll need an ejector pump for their sewer system on this because
the lowest basement floor will be below the grade elevation of the sewer in Chaska Road. With that they
are providing some landscaping along Highway 41. This is in locations that are devoid of existing
vegetation. In the other areas they are preserving significant areas of trees and shrubs and so this will
help to fill that in. We are recommending approval of the subdivision subject to the conditions of the staff
report and adoption of the Findings of Fact by the Planning Commission. With that I’d be happy to
answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Generous? Councilman Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Bob is, you mentioned that this lot prior to the subdivision, this is on Chaska
Road and Chaska Road is part of the street improvement project for this year, is that correct?
Bob Generous: That’s correct.
5
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Councilman Laufenburger: So will the assessment of Chaska, and maybe this isn’t a question for you but
perhaps of Mr. Oehme but will the assessment for this property be now 4 separate assessments or will it
still be one assessment? Who wants to take this?
Mayor Furlong: I think that’s a condition. Go ahead Mr. Oehme.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, try to take it. Mr. Laufenburger, City Council members. The plan right now or
currently the lot is one lot. It hasn’t been subdivided yet so it’s not, those extra 3 lots are not a lot of
record.
Councilman Laufenburger: As of right now.
Paul Oehme: As of right now.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay.
Paul Oehme: So we are planning to take this, going through the process, the assessment hearing is
scheduled for the end of April. We’re not anticipating that the developer will be subdividing their lots
prior to that date so right now it looks like there’s only going to be one lot of record prior to that
assessment hearing.
Councilman Laufenburger: So our action tonight Mr. Generous is to approve this subdivision. It’s up to
the lot owner to determine when he takes advantage of that approval, is that correct?
Bob Generous: That’s correct. They have up to a year from preliminary plan approval to final plat.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Thank you Mr. Generous. Thank you Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I guess in addition to that Mr. Oehme there is the expectation that the utility
hook-up’s will take place either before or at the time that the street project is done, is that correct?
Paul Oehme: Correct. Yeah Mayor we are currently working with the developer and his contractor and
try to coordinate the service extensions to the future lots in conjunction with our street improvement
project if it moves forward. We are anticipating that the utilities would be put in with our project and
then we would assess them back 100% for those costs for that extension.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So is that being, and we’ll get to that but would that be a bid alternate then that
that’s going to go forward on? We’ll have to make that decision at some point.
Paul Oehme: Right. We’ll have to.
Mayor Furlong: In conjunction with the property owner.
Paul Oehme: Exactly. We’re planning to get bids on that and then dependent on how it plays out we’ll
probably end up taking alternates on it and at least getting a price at this time by the contractor for that
work.
Mayor Furlong: So I think it sure would be prudent and desirable to have that utility work done before
we get a new street there.
Paul Oehme: Absolutely.
6
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Mayor Furlong: So we don’t have to dig up a new street so okay. Other questions for staff from
members of the council? Alright. Is the applicant or their representative here this evening? Good
evening.
Curt Fretham: Hello. Curt Fretham, Lakewest Development. Thank you all for hearing our application
tonight. Bob and his staff have been very good to work with on the project and I really don’t have a lot to
add but I am here for questions if you have any.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the developer, applicant? Okay, no. Very good, thank
you for being here. Public hearing did occur at the Planning Commission and I know that there was an
email received Mr. Generous that you responded to that was in our packet as well with some other
concerns from a neighbor with regards to consistency of Comprehensive Plan and other factors so that
information is here and will be part of the record.
Bob Generous: Correct and I did respond to him and he seem to accept the answer that I gave him so.
Mayor Furlong: Which is always nice. Thank you. Any questions? Follow up questions for staff or any
other aspects? If not then we’ll bring it to council for comments and consideration of a motion. Thoughts
and comments? Mr. Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: I support the subdivision. I think it makes an opportunity for people to move
into the Chanhassen community and those lots seem to be very accommodating. I’m pleased with the
work that they did to accommodate that Lot 1. It looks like that’s the only footprint where a house can go
in and that driveway will work so very well.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other comments?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’d just like to thank the Planning Commission. They don’t always get
thanked enough for seeing this through before it got to us and kind of working out any kinks or any
details that need to be worked out so I want to thank them for their due diligence.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. If there are no other comments would somebody like to make a motion?
Motion to approve. Mr. Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I move that the Chanhassen City Council approves
th
the preliminary plat creating 4 lots for Fretham 15 Addition subject to the conditions of the staff report
and adoption of the Findings of Fact.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman McDonald: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Motion’s been made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none we’ll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the Chanhassen City
th
Council approve the preliminary plat creating four lots for Fretham 15 Addition subject to the
following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
Building Official:
7
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
1.
The applicant must apply for the appropriate permit(s) required for the demolition or moving of
any existing structures.
2.
A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits can be issued.
3.
Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional
engineer.
4.
Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
Engineering:
1. If the Fretham 15th Addition final plat is approved prior to the assessment hearing for City
Project 13-01, each lot within the plat shall be included in the assessment calculation.
2. The sewer and water services to Lots 1, 3 and 4 must be installed prior to the street resurfacing
project, as noted on Sheet 4 of the preliminary plans.
3. Based on the elevation of the existing sanitary sewer and the proposed home elevation on Lot 1,
this home cannot be serviced by gravity sanitary sewer. Staff requests that the developer disclose
this information to prospective buyers.
4. Lots 1, 3 and 4 will be subject to the City sewer and water hook-up charges and the Metropolitan
Council Sanitary Access Charge. These fees shall be collected in accordance with the City Code
at the rate in effect at the time.
5. The developer must obtain a MnDOT drainage permit.
6. The drainage from Highway 41 must be included in the stormwater calculations.
7. The drainage calculations must be revised to model the storm depths stipulated in City Code.
8. The existing drainage area boundaries used for the runoff calculations needs to be revised to
include all the area draining to the wetlands, including area outside of the proposed development.
9. Ensure that the post-development discharge rates to both wetlands do not exceed the existing
condition.
10. It must be shown that the proposed swale along Highway 41 is adequate to handle anticipated
flow volumes.
11. The curve number for the wetland areas must be 78.
12. The grading plan must be modified so that the driveway grade for Lot 1 does not exceed 10%.
13. Spot elevations must be shown along the driveway to Lot 1 in order to calculate the cross slope.
8
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
14. Note the lowest opening elevation for the home on Lot 4.
15. If the proposed area to be disturbed is greater than one (1) acre, the applicant will be required to
obtain a NPDES Construction Permit. Proof of permit and a Surface Water Pollution Prevention
Plan must be submitted to the City for review and comment.
16. The proposed culverts shall have filtration logs, appropriate to flow conditions, at their inlets and
outlets until vegetation is established within the ditch.
17. A construction entrance shall be shown on the plan set and a detail shall be provided.
18. Silt fence or other appropriate sediment control BMP shall be installed along the frontage for
Chaska Road.
19. All silt fence shall use metal t-posts.
20. Sediment protection shall be provided for all wetland areas including those areas off-site to which
the site is tributary.
21. The buffer area disturbed for the creation of the pond and drainage, and any other buffer area
unacceptable under Section 20-142 shall be seeded with an appropriate seed mix such as State
Mix 36-211: Woodland Edge South & West.
22. The drainage and utility easement shall include all wetland buffer areas.
23. Wetland buffer monument placement shall be indicated on the plan set and shall be installed by
the applicant before release of the final plat.
24. All drainage swales must be stabilized for the final 200 feet before exiting the property or
entering a water of the state. The method of stabilization shall be indicated on the plan.
25. The estimated SWMP fees due at final plat are $8,841.00
Natural Resource Specialist:
1. Each lot will be required to plant one overstory tree in the front yard per city ordinance.
2. Building permit survey for each lot shall be required to show all inventoried trees and their
removal or preservation status.
Park and Recreation:
1. The developer shall pay park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final plat approval for three
of the four lots prior to recording the final plat.
Planning:
1. The shed located in the northeast corner of the property must be demolished or removed.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
9
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
2013 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 13-01: CONTINUE DISCUSSION IN
CONSIDERING RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS, ORDERING THE
PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISING FOR BID.
Mayor Furlong: Let’s start with a staff report please. Thanks Bob.
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Just a little housekeeping before we begin.
There is an updated resolution that staff would like you to consider that I just handed out prior to the
meeting. Just some minor changes recommended by the City Attorney. Again I’d like to just go through
the project in it’s scope and we have some additional details that we’d like to bring back for you tonight
concerning some of the discussions we had at previous meetings on, in terms of some of the streets in the
project area so for this year’s street improvement project we’re considering 4.6 miles of streets that we’d
like to make improvements on this year. Just to step back a little bit. We do have several pavement
strategies that the City currently employs. I’d like to just maybe just go through with the council a little
bit on those. The first thing is sealcoating. That’s when the pavement condition is between 85 and 65
and where a pavement condition PCI rating of 100 is basically a brand new street so at this stage in the
pavement’s life the streets are starting to oxidize a little bit. Maybe they’re starting to crack up a little bit.
Maybe there’s some minor defects that we’re trying to seal up with the street so this is a good application.
Cost effective approach to sealing the street up. Trying to keep some, trying to keep as much water out of
the subgrade as we can. Trying to reduce or eliminate some of the oxidizing of the pavement by the sun
where it gets a little more brittle. Trying to level out some finer areas in the streets and try to again seal
up the street and improves the friction characteristics of the road as well so. As we move along, another
item or strategy that the City employs is mill and overlays and this is basically coming in and taking a
milling machine, which is shown here, and either doing an edge mill which is shown right here. Taking
off maybe an inch and a half or two inches on the edge of the pavement surface here and then re-paving
the streets with again an inch and a half or two inches of asphalt. Under this scenario you’re typically
trying to get a better crown or drainage off the road there. In other cases we’re milling off maybe an inch
and a half or two inches. The whole pavement and then re-paving it back to when streets reach a
pavement condition index of 65 down to 45, this is the type of strategy that the City likes to employ.
Takes care of some of the minor defects in the roadway. Seals up the cracks and has a better road, driving
surface then. As we move down, when the pavement gets a little bit more deteriorated, stressed basically
from a PCI rating of 65 down to a zero and especially in the rural roadway situations we like to
implement a full depth mill, which is shown here, where basically we come in and grind up the whole
street with some of the aggregate involved with that. Basically making it into a gravel base of Class V
consistency. Re-shaping it. Blading it out. Packing it back down and then we re-pave over the top of
that. It gives us a little bit more structural strength than previously the road had. It basically eliminates
all the minor defects in the road. Basically puts you back with a new street section. We also like to use
these, this strategy where the utilities are in decent shape. Typically the watermain’s not in too bad of
condition or sanitary sewer issues. Typically we implement this where there’s no curb and gutter or storm
sewer as well so this is a cost effective approach where we really want to get in there and almost create a
new road section. And then the last strategy we have is the total reconstruction. This is the areas where
you know the utilities are seeing some real problems. The water, we have a lot of watermain breaks or
we’ve got separated sewers or services or any utilities that are out there that really needs to fix, we need
to dig those up and replace them. This is where we come in and totally reconstruct the street. Replace
most of the utilities. Replace the sub-grade. Typically we’re adding sand sub-section at this time. Drain
tile and try to get that water out of the sub-grade as best as we can so this is, that’s the last resort when the
streets have basically come to their useful life. The implementation process or the strategy that we’re
trying to employ with most of the streets in this year’s project is that full depth mill and re-paving of the
streets. Again most of the streets in this area, and the streets in the project area are rural section
roadways. The utilities we’ve evaluated seem to be in fairly good condition. We really haven’t had too
10
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
many problems with those utilities and it doesn’t really make sense to go with a reconstruction. Granted
the PCI’s in these areas are really low but basically we’re coming in here and almost giving the
neighborhood a new street section and we’re anticipating roads in this area hopefully we’re anticipating
will last with good maintenance another 30 years so. They are, we are looking at doing some storm sewer
improvements in this area. Some curb and gutter work. Basically replacing the bituminous curb in this
area in kind and just to, I try to keep that drainage system the same. We’re also implementing some storm
sewer improvements at water treatment facilities in terms of sumps and other features to try to capture
some of the sediment before it ends up in our lakes and wetlands. So that’s Greenwood Shores area. The
Melody Hills area, about 1.2 miles of streets in this area. Streets again are between 25 and 50 years old.
Most of the roads in this area again are rural section roads. No curb and gutter. No storm sewer system
per se. We are, we do know there is some storm sewer improvements that we want to make. We are
looking at adding some draintile along Melody Hills Road. Some improvements down to Chaska Road as
th
well. Some draintile I think on 65 Street and Crestview as well. We are replacing a culvert down at
Whitetail Ridge as well so there are some storm sewer systems that are replacing there but basically it’s
the same system that currently is out there. And again that full depth reclamation strategy that we’d like
to look at for this area and then re-paving the roads back with about 4 inches of asphalt. We do anticipate
there are going to be some soft areas out here. Some soft sub-grades that we’re going to have dig up.
We’re going to you know rural test the roads before we pave and make sure those, and replace any of the
soft areas before we put the bituminous wear course on. The Crestview Road, which is in this area.
There’s some discussions about the condition of that street at our, I think our last meeting. We did take
some pictures of it and looked twice again at it. This street has been sealcoated several times. At one
point in time the PCI was down at about a 40 back in 2005 and subsequently it’s been raised because of
sealcoating. However based upon the underlying conditions of the asphalt that we’re seeing on the
longitudinal cracks, some of the alligator cracking that we see out there, we’re recommending that this
street also be reconstructed using the reclamation process I had talked about before. We think you know
if the street remains the way it is, it’s just going to continue to deteriorate more, faster than your typical
roadway section so you know sealcoating this road again really doesn’t I don’t think make too much
sense. The road is, it is significantly alligatored. Like I said cracked up. Those cracks are too wide to
really seal up anymore. Too many of them really to do an effective job with crack sealing and it’s uneven
where if we were to put another sealcoat down, we think that some of the plow truck and some of the
other equipment that we run on the streets is just going to peel that off eventually as well so. Just another
shot of that street and again back in 2005 the PCI was down at 40 so sealcoats, you try to get about 7 to 8
years worth of life expectancy out of a sealcoat. You know if we were to again sealcoat this roadway, we
just don’t feel it’s money well spent. Horseshoe Curve/Indian Hills area. This is about .7 miles of streets
in this area. The road’s about 35 years old. Sealcoated you know 3 times again. These streets are maybe
a little bit different than Crestview. The recommendation currently right now is to mill, just mill off 3
inches of asphalt and re-pave 3 inches of asphalt back. The asphalt in this area varies between I think it’s
6 and 8 inches of asphalt so there is quite a bit of asphalt in this area so to mill all that up and to re-pave it
is going to be a little bit more expensive than the strategy that we’ve proposed to date and we think the,
this strategy would last almost as long as the full depth mill as well so we talked about that.
Mayor Furlong: And I’m sorry Mr. Oehme, is the regular mill and overlay proposed for both of these
neighborhoods or just for Indian Hill?
Paul Oehme: They’re proposed for both the neighborhoods so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Paul Oehme: Both of the areas are pretty much in the same condition we think. The pavement thickness
is relatively similar. Same drainage characteristics. The same traffic you know volumes. Drainage is
really not a problem out in this area so there are a lot of driveways to that connect, especially onto
11
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Horseshoe Curve and when you mill up, full depth mill it’s a little bit harder to try to get those grades
back with a full depth mill versus just milling out 3 inches and putting back 3 inch of asphalt with two
lifts. I did, we did have some pictures taken on the Indian Hills Road you know last…in 2000. Right
now we’re estimating the PCI at 34. Again some major alligator cracking. Some settlement areas. Some,
you can tell some of the areas are just old pavement. It’s been heavily patched over the years, especially
the last couple years. It’s been sealcoated and we just don’t feel it’s money well spent to re-sealcoat these
type of roads. Sandy Hook area, Sandy Hook neighborhood, Dakota Avenue. About 1.2 miles worth of
streets in this area. Streets are about 32 years old and streets are you know up to 38 years old as well.
This area has been sealcoated several times. Heavily patched back in 2011. Has been sealcoated like I
said again 3 times. The strategy here again is to full depth mill all these streets and pave back with 3 1/2
inches of asphalt. The only section that we’re looking at changing is Sandy Hook Circle which is
somewhat newer. Has less distresses. Has a storm sewer system already, a curb and gutter so here we’re
looking at a 2 inch edge mill like we previously talked about and then paving back with 2 inches of
asphalt for a better riding surface and take care of some of those minor defects. Those defects in the
Sandy Hook Circle area. With that costs are still the same like we had, staff had showed you at our last
council meeting. It’s about a $2.1 million dollar project. Costs are broken out per project area like I had
originally identified and all the assessments, proposed assessments are based upon each of those project
areas. We’re not just assessing everybody the same amount. All the neighborhoods are being assessed
for the improvements that they will be receiving. All the again the utilities, enterprise funds will be
paying 100% for the storm sewer, watermain and sanitary sewer improvements for these areas so none of
the costs for those utility improvements are going to be assessed back to the property owners. The
assessment practice again is to assess 40% back to the benefiting property owners for each of these areas
and staff has calculated those assessments. Estimated assessments. So moving forward, if the project
were to move forward, we’d like to take bids this month and receive bids probably in April. Assessment
nd
hearing, accepting the bids, awarding a contract potentially is scheduled for April 22. We’d like to start
the project in June right after school’s out and then wrap up the project before school’s back in session
th
August 30 so with that if there’s any questions be more than happy to try and answer them for you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Oehme. Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: I don’t really, actually Paul you answered by question that I had on the second
slide. However I do have a couple comments that I want to make. I didn’t support doing the Indian Hills
project in the last meeting due to some questions that I had and being unclear on some of the financial
pieces of this. So obviously what I did is I asked for a significant amount of information and I appreciate
Todd, Paul and Greg putting some of this documentation together to help me understand this. So
basically what it came down to is, Todd generated a spreadsheet that actually clarifies some of these
financial concerns that I had and some factors became much clearer to me. I also received some of these
photos that you showed here which also clarified for me in terms of what sealcoating does after just a
couple years. And what I learned from this is that sealcoating actually does not improve the structure of
the road. It only covers it basically. Doesn’t really improve the structure of the road and say that this
road is over 35 years old and the PCI recommendations are typically at a level of 40 and under and this
one, I thought it was in our last report where it was 32 or 35. I don’t recall exactly.
Paul Oehme: I think it’s about 34 that we’re estimating right now.
Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah. And so the financials show that if we did sealcoating in 2013, and Todd
correct me if I’m reading this correctly but if we did sealcoating in 2013 and then did the mill and overlay
in 2017, or is that 2015 that it would cost a 10.7% for the taxpayers and 4% additional for the residents?
Is that 2017?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah.
12
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. So that’s really only, because we wouldn’t for sure we wouldn’t go back
and do a mill and overlay 2 years after we’ve done the sealcoating. But even if we did it in 2017 that’s a
significant amount of money that would be an increase to the taxpayers and residents so I definitely
would, and you know I typically don’t support, I mean I typically do support maintaining our
infrastructure but I have to justify that and so based on the information that I’ve received in the last
couple weeks I would definitely support this part of the project as the overall project.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions for staff. Mr. Oehme, back to the Indian Hills and
Horseshoe and with regard to the level of service, and perhaps you answered the question. Does it make
sense at all to even consider as an alternate on the plans a full depth mill and overlay of those streets? Or,
and I guess my question is once you get down, from an engineering standpoint, once you get down those
2 to 3 inches, if they’re cracked, do the cracks go all the way through the pavement? Do you not seal it at
that point? How do you, how do you keep, if you’re leaving some of it there that’s cracked underneath
and just taking the fresh off, how does that, how do you avoid the natural contraction expansion that
occurs during the weather?
Paul Oehme: Yep, and that’s a good point. We definitely like the reclamation process where it works
because like you’re describing, if there’s existing cracks and you’re not taking it all the way down, taking
all the asphalt out. Re-doing the sub-base here. Those cracks will typically reflect through eventually so
in those situations you know typically what we do, and there’s many neighborhoods that we’ve done this
before.
Mayor Furlong: Sure.
Paul Oehme: South Shore Drive comes to mind that maybe 3 years after the roadway has been overlaid, I
think we had a 2 inch overlay in that neighborhood, we come back in and crack seal those cracks and
we’ve had good success with, and then sealcoated after that with you know stopping that water from
getting into the sub-base. It’s the nature of the process. You know when you’re not removing all the
asphalt and all the, and re-doing some of the base work, you typically will see some reflective cracks.
However you know in the Indian Hills Road we’re not anticipating very much volume of traffic. Heavy
traffic in this area so you know in this situation we’re having 3 inches of asphalt, the 2 lifts. You know
we’re not typically going to see a lot of reflective cracking coming through say in the next foreseeable
future. 5 years or something like that so, if that answers your question.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, I think it does.
Paul Oehme: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: What I’m hearing is that, while we hear typical timeframes for sealcoating, in some
cases we’re going to go back sooner in that situation where you say some reflective cracks I think you
described them coming through. We’re going to go back sooner than the typical 6 to 8 years perhaps.
We’re going to catch those earlier in the life cycle after the.
Paul Oehme: Correct. Especially the crack filling. When we route the cracks and try to seal them up so
that we typically get back in the area, but again it’s, we’re not, it’s a cost, I think it’s a cost effective
approach to prolong the street length.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
13
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Paul Oehme: The life just because you know it costs so much more money to come in there and
completely redo the streets.
Mayor Furlong: To do the full depth.
Paul Oehme: To do the full depth.
Mayor Furlong: And reconstruct.
Paul Oehme: And reconstruct it out.
Mayor Furlong: And the other comment that you made, and I think especially if people are watching at
home were here at the public hearing 2 weeks ago and talked about the low volume of traffic on some of
these neighborhood streets. What you’re describing is that because of that, we talked last time how these
streets have probably lasted longer than they would have under higher levels of traffic. What you’re
saying is the level of maintenance here with a regular mill and overlay it’s possible and more preferable
because again that low volume of traffic.
Paul Oehme: Yep, absolutely. I think you know we’re not seeing much sub-base deflections here or
problems with the sub-base that you typically can see on the surface once in a while so we’re not too
worried about you know the underlying structural strength in this area so we feel comfortable with going
with the overlay. The 3 inch overlay. A mill and 3 inch overlay but however if the council prefers we
can also get an alternate bid for a full depth mill as well.
Mayor Furlong: Well it would make sense to do that if you think it was actually an alternative that would
be economically viable. If in your opinion it’s not or that we wouldn’t do it, and I don’t know what the
costs are, then I don’t know that we need to have you or anyone else go through the effort.
Paul Oehme: You know it will be more expensive. I know that. One of the concerns that some of these
property owners on Indian Hills had was again their underlying cost.
Mayor Furlong: Sure.
Paul Oehme: However I know speaking with one gentleman up in this neighborhood too, he knows
something about pavements. He thought that would be a good strategy at least to take a look at again so.
Mayor Furlong: Well and I guess the question that it’s a cost benefit right?
Paul Oehme: Right.
Mayor Furlong: So if you did do the full mill and replacement, would you expect longer life out of that
road than you would with what’s being proposed here?
Paul Oehme: It’s hard to say. I think it‘s kind of a wash.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess my thought would be to defer to what you think is the best strategy,
which is currently being proposed. Mr. Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, thank you Mr. Mayor. Mr. Oehme, as I was reviewing the notes of the
last meeting, correct me if I’m wrong but was there discussion about Indian Hill Road having no crown or
it did have a crown to dissipate water to the side? Do you recall?
14
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Paul Oehme: Yeah I believe there’s no crown on the road. It has a pretty significant grade to it.
Councilman Laufenburger: The grade itself.
Paul Oehme: The grade itself, right.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay.
Paul Oehme: But I don’t think there’s a crown on the road in the center per se.
Councilman Laufenburger: Does the road need a crown do you think?
Paul Oehme: Well in this situation I don’t think so.
Councilman Laufenburger: Just because of the grade?
Paul Oehme: Yeah it’s, it’s running down the road. You know we’re going to try to sheet drain the water
off the one side or the other. I can’t remember which side it is right now but, but typically when the
road’s a little bit narrower you try to get the water going off the one side. Otherwise you know when the
narrower streets that center crown is typically worn off over the years by plow trucks.
Councilman Laufenburger: And there is no curb.
Paul Oehme: There is no curb.
Councilman Laufenburger: And the 3 inch mill and overlay, which is your plan, is that correct?
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: It’s not possible, or is it possible to even create even a slight crown with a 3
inch mill and overlay?
Paul Oehme: Oh absolutely. Yeah, you definitely can create a crown on the road by paving and we can
always tip up either end of the paver to try to get more, more grade so that’s not an issue.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Okay. You know I do have one more question. Let’s assume for a
moment that we didn’t do the Indian Hill Road. When would you likely be able to go back in there? Is
that the 2017 that Councilwoman Ernst was referring to? Is that right Vicki?
Councilwoman Ernst: Right. That spreadsheet was 2017.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, alright. So if to the best of your ability and you’re our expert in this
room here Paul on this, if we didn’t, if we didn’t do this at this time what would we expect the
maintenance costs for Indian Hill Road for patching for the next 4 years as compared to expensive
patching if the mill and overlay is done right now? Do you understand my question?
Paul Oehme: Yep I do. I do.
Councilman Laufenburger: Can you give me an estimate of that?
15
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Paul Oehme: You know it’s really hard to give you a quantifiable answer to that. It’s based a lot on what
type of weather conditions we have. What kind of winter we’re going through. How much water gets
into the sub-grade. You know I think we patched the road maybe in 2011, 2 years ago. I think we spent a
significant amount of time out there. If we were to go back in there and do that same type of patching it
typically would take us you know a day, maybe a day and a half to do that type of work with that amount
of volume of asphalt. It’s going to be I would speculate a couple thousand dollars if we really wanted to
get in there and.
Councilman Laufenburger: For the entire 4 years or just every time you do it?
Paul Oehme: Every time we do it so I mean I think it’s every, you know it’s probably every 2 to maybe 4
years that we’re back in there so. And then if you consider inflation of construction costs, oil prices,
those type of things you know that has been going up lately.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council.
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Todd Gerhardt: Just to kind of chime in on that. Some of the questions that Councilmember Ernst asked,
Denny is asking and one of the key things I think that when Vicki kind of realized that the sealcoat on a
road with a PCI ranking in 40’s, 30’s is you’re only going to get a life expectancy of somewhere between
3 and, you know 3 to 4 years on the very high end and typically it’s in Crestview we saw 2 to 3 and then
that sealcoat doesn’t adhere to the pavement. Our plow trucks will scrap it off. It’s been oxidized. The
road is brittle so you really don’t get a good seal that is going to stay there for the long term and so that’s
when you need to come in and mill that off and put a new surface on there so and just to sealcoat that area
you’re talking $5,000 to $6,000.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff?
Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah, I have another question.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: So Paul if I remember correctly they talked about a drainage problem as well in
this area and because they had mentioned something about if we did put curb in there that was just going
to create a bigger problem for drainage. Do you?
Mayor Furlong: Crestview or Indian Hills?
Councilwoman Ernst: Well I thought it was Indian Hills but maybe I got it confused with Crestview.
Paul Oehme: I know around the corner I think there’s been some washout of some of the asphalt and I
know our plow trucks hit that area once in a while but I don’t recall that there’s a drainage issue out in
this area.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. Maybe I’m thinking of Crestview.
Paul Oehme: Okay.
16
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff? Okay. Very good. I don’t know if this was published as a
public hearing. I know that we had public hearings. I think Mr. Oehme clearly we got some additional
information. If anybody is here that would like to comment on any of these projects we’d be happy to take
your comments as a council.
Bruce Nord: Hi, I’m Bruce Nord. I live at 551 Indian Hill Road. I was here at the initial meeting. Ms.
Tjornhom and Mr. Laufenburger have you read the transcripts from the meeting before? The comments.
Councilman Laufenburger: Yes I have.
Bruce Nord: Okay. There was only 3 of us from Indian Hill Road present at the time but the general
consensus of everybody on Indian Hill Road is that we don’t need to do this project. It’s, there’s been
repairs over the years. They’ve always worked and right now you know with an assessment that high for
everyone it’s kind of the wrong for everybody. Times are pretty tough for everybody right now so to get
hit with a you know $1,300-$1,400 extra hundred dollar assessment is quite a bit of money really. And I
do have a question about the assessment. Could I address that now too?
Mayor Furlong: Please, sure.
Bruce Nord: Does the City have enough money, we as a city have enough money to do this project? I
mean are we borrowing money or do we have it? Do we have a fund to do it?
Mayor Furlong: Yep, there is a street and road improvement fund.
Bruce Nord: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Assessment fund that has sufficient dollars in it for these projects but Mr. Gerhardt. In
fact I was just looking at that from our December meeting.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah we have what is called our Revolving Assessment Fund and periodically the
council will transfer money into that account. We typically do $1.2 million dollars worth of roads each
year and the council reviews that during their budget time and so there is enough money. We did transfer
some excess money that we had as a part of the Mediacom settlement and then the 40% that we assess
back to residents also is a revenue source back to this fund so you know when you pay your assessment it
goes back into the fund and self supports the future projects throughout the community.
Bruce Nord: So if we have the money though, it is our money as a city of Chanhassen, why are we being
assessed for it is my question if we already have the money?
Todd Gerhardt: Well.
Bruce Nord: And I understand your whole thing about the revolving fund but if we have the money why
are we being assessed for it?
Todd Gerhardt: Well typically our practice is to assess 40% back to benefitting properties and then the
City picks up the other 60% so that’s been our past practice in probably the past 8-10 years that we’ve
been doing this.
Bruce Nord: Okay. It just doesn’t make any sense that, and you’re going to loan it back to us or we have
to pay it but it’s our money anyway so why are you going to charge interest on our money?
17
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Todd Gerhardt: Well we’re counting on that money to come back to fund future projects.
Bruce Nord: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: So it’s considered a revenue source back into the Revolving Assessment Fund so to do
other projects we count on that money coming back in.
Bruce Nord: Correct but it seems kind of counter intuitive to be paying, I’m paying interest on my own
money.
Mayor Furlong: Well I think, if I can respond to that. First of all the public funds are there. The property
owners that are being assessed for any of these projects have the ability to pay the assessment in it’s
entirety before the end of the year.
Bruce Nord: Good.
Mayor Furlong: In which case there would be no interest charged.
Bruce Nord: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: The extended payments is an option that’s available for property owners whether by
their choice or as you said because of their economic situation it’s easier for them to pay over time, or
over a period of time. That’s available as well.
Bruce Nord: Right. Right. And there’s a 6, and you’re charging 6% on it?
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Bruce Nord: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Well.
Bruce Nord: The cost of money right now is.
Mayor Furlong: For clarification the 6% I think is an estimate.
Bruce Nord: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Our practice is to be 2 percentage points over the prime rate so as interest rates go up
and down then those costs, the interest costs vary as well.
Bruce Nord: I know I’m fighting a losing battle here but it just seems.
Mayor Furlong: No, these are questions that come up.
Bruce Nord: It just doesn’t make a lot of sense if we have the money you’re charging, you’re tacking on
more to the citizens because it’s their money anyway.
Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Nord if I can address your question. The question that you raise
regarding the assessment, it’s the same question that I raised about 8 years ago when the street I lived on
was, they did a mill and overlay and I wondered why I was being assessed that and here’s what I was told
18
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
and this is what I’m going to explain to you. I am responsible for 40% of the street that runs in front of
me. The rest of the citizens of Chanhassen who also have the advantage of using that street whenever
they drive in my neighborhood, that 60% is spread out over the rest of the citizenship. So once we start
that practice we really need to be consistent with that practice for the rebuilding of all of the streets in
Chanhassen. That way all homeowners will be treated equally 40% for what’s in front of you and then
you contribute to 60% of all the other streets that are being fixed all around the community so it’s a
practice that once begun really needs to be taken through to completion for all the streets so yes the
money is there but the money is there because it’s needed to improve the rest of the streets in the
community over the coming years so the source of that revenue, as Mr. Gerhardt has said, it continually
comes in not only from the residents that are assessed but also from, if there’s any working capital that we
have left over at the end of the year, we’ll transfer funds in so by itself it may seem unfair but in the big
picture all of the residents have, generally all of the residents have a street running in front of them and
they know with confidence based on our practice that they’re only going to be paying for 40% of that out
of their own assessment pocket. But the rest of the streets in Chanhassen belong to the citizens of
Chanhassen and all of the citizens will be paying a portion of repairing all of the streets so.
Bruce Nord: So it’s a precedent that has once it’s begun it self perpetuates and never ends is what you’re
telling me.
Councilman Laufenburger: Well I don’t know that it never ends. That’s certainly a subject of council
members who are voted by people like you.
Bruce Nord: Sure.
Councilman Laufenburger: But it just, it makes sense that once you begin a practice, whether it’s 40/60,
20/80, 50/50, once you begin it you need to do it the same for all the citizens in order to be fair for all the
citizens. That was the explanation that I received and frankly I accepted that so it’s up to you.
Bruce Nord: Okay, well thank you for your time. Again most of the residents of Indian Hill Road do not
believe it needs to be done. It’s a cost that we don’t need to incur right now and well thanks for your
time.
Mayor Furlong: Yep, thank you. Anyone else who would like to provide comments. Let’s bring it back
to council then for discussion and comments. Councilwoman Ernst, you’ve already started comments.
Anything else you wanted to say at this point?
Councilwoman Ernst: No. I support it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments, discussion. Mr. McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: Well I guess as I said at the last meeting, yeah I don’t look forward to doing this
but I think as we brought out today that we do have a duty to the residents to maintain the roads and
because of that we do need to apply consistently and so I would be in favor of you know voting to go
forward with this project and all others also.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I would concur with Councilman McDonald. Assessment times are
never fun and they’re never easy but they are necessary if we are to maintain our infrastructure in a
responsible manner. I think this is being proactive instead of waiting until the streets are crumbling so
there’s a total redo. I think this is a much better method and a much better example of how we can take
19
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
care of our infrastructure before it crumbles and our taxpayers are really assessed much higher amounts so
I too would agree with this.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Earlier this evening we conducted some
interviews for potential commission members and the word that kind of stuck with me was sustainability.
We have an obligation on the council here to sustain this community and perpetuate the quality of life that
we have and part of that is the infrastructure of our roads and our sewer and our water and while
individually it’s painful for that period in which the assessment is due, in the long run the quality, the tide
of the quality of life in Chanhassen is raising the quality for all citizens so I would support this.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I think some observations and comments with this process here. One of the
aspects of this project, even though it’s a single project, there are multiple neighborhoods which is a little
bit off of the normal course that we have taken over the last several years and I think some of the
neighborhoods, Indian Hills and Horseshoe and the Melody Hill area and the Sandy Hook and Dakota and
Cheyenne, for the gentleman watching at home, those were kind of added in recognizing as we did as a
council, working with staff that while we’ve been making a lot of investments over the years, there’s a
need to do more simply because we have a bubble if you will. Bubble’s the wrong word. We’ve got a
rabbit coming through the snake. A lot of neighborhoods were developed about the same time back in the
late 70’s, early 80’s and so they’re all coming due at the same time and so that’s why as Mr. Gerhardt
said, we put, we transferred some additional money into the funds, into the fund for road improvements.
We’re doing some additional neighborhoods that weren’t originally planned to have funds for this year.
We’ve got others coming that we’ve added to the plan in 2015 as well and so I think we’re probably
looking at more people being affected. More residents being affected by our street improvement policies
and practices than we’ve had in recent years. Just some suggestions Mr. Oehme, the presentation that you
gave tonight of explaining the differences of the types of street practices and doing the sealcoating at this
level and, I think that would be something I’d recommend that we start out each year with that from an
education standpoint. One to remind the council why we’re doing all this each time, even though we’ve
been through it, but also for the residents because like so many people, until their neighborhood is
involved they may not see and really understand why we’re doing this. The other thing that I think has
come up to me is I think we probably need to review our sealcoating policy and when we have streets
such as Crestview that are already down in that 40 or 50 level of a PCI index, you know yeah we could
sealcoat it. We can spend the money and it will look good but if we’re only getting a couple years out of
that, we probably need to make the decision to say you know what, we have to just let these go. These
are beyond the point now where a sealcoat is cost effective to do anything but make it look good for a
year or two and that, I don’t think that’s a good use of funds so something to consider for you and your
department to consider. Where’s that cut off where a sealcoat, you know you can always do it but really
does it make sense to do it and if we’re only going to get a couple years then we probably should just
make the decision that we’re not going to do that and then figure out when those roads are going to come
through a more complete mill and overlay or full depth or reconstruction. But overall I think the key here
is with all these neighborhoods is whether or not they’re needed and different people will, may disagree
on the need. I appreciate the work that our staff does in terms of tracking the indices. The PCI indices. I
like probably some others but at least I’ve had a chance and made a point of driving through each of these
neighborhoods and looking at the roads and they’re in need, you know. They have reached the end of
their life cycle. There are significant areas that are patched or significant cracking area and from what
I’ve understood, you know to continue to sealcoat or continue to spend money on major patching is really
not a cost effective use of city resources and the public’s money and so that’s why as tough as it is to go
forward with some of these projects, I think it is cost effective for the public as well as everybody
involved for us to go forward. So I would certainly support this. It sounds like the rest of the council
does. There is a revised resolution, is that correct Mr. Oehme?
20
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: That was distributed and there’s a proposed motion up here on our monitor and that
would be to also adopt the resolution so would somebody like to make a motion? Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: Sure. I make a motion that we order the improvement for the Horseshoe, Indian
Hill, and Sandy Hook areas and approve the plans and specifications for the 2013 Street Rehabilitation
Project #13-01 and authorize the advertisement for bids.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman McDonald: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any discussion on the motion?
Resolution #2013-16: Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City
Council approve the Resolution ordering the Horseshoe Curve/Indian Hills and Sandy Hook
improvements, approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertising for bids for the 2013
Street Rehabilitation Project No. 13-01. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously
with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone and we’ll be watching the schedule closely here Mr. Oehme and
please keep us informed if there are any changes.
TH 101 & PLEASANT VIEW ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 11-05:
A. ACCEPT BIDS AND AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT INCLUDING
ALTERNATE FOR TH 41 TRAIL EXTENSION & PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
ENHANCEMENTS.
B. APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 01581M WITH MnDOT FOR RAPID FLASHING
BEACON LIGHT.
C. APPROVE COSTING SHARING AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE.
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. This is an award of contract and some other
considerations for the council to look at for this project. It’s the improvements for 101 and Pleasant View
Road intersection and trail improvements in this area. In the 101, Trunk Highway 101 area. We also are
looking at consideration of a bid alternate for trail improvements on Trunk Highway 41 and also
pedestrian crossing improvement enhancements over by Minnewashta, or actually Minnetonka Middle
School West as well so the two project areas are shown here on the city map. The background for the 101
improvements, staff has been looking at this intersection for several years. We have had some calls and
some concerned residents in this area about how the intersection functions. The accidents that have taken
place in the past. The delays in trying to get out from Pleasant View Road in the morning especially in
peak hours. We have been talking to MnDOT over the years about signal warrants for this intersection.
Back in oh about 15 years ago traffic on 101 was a lot higher than it is today. Even back then traffic, or
the signal warrants for this intersection were not met by MnDOT’s standards so that’s something that we
always are looking for to make a safer intersection is you know are signals the best option for these type
of improvements and this situation so under MnDOT’s, again MnDOT’s criteria, it doesn’t meet the
threshold of where they think a signal would help the situation so typically when, and studies have been
shown that if you put in a signal where warrants, certain warrants are not met you can actually increase
the traffic, or the accident rates and some other safety issues under those situations so at this time we’re
21
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
not, that’s not part of the project scope. One of the other important components of the project is a trail
extension along Trunk Highway 101 up to Pleasant View Road. This is kind of a missing trail gap
segment for our community. It connects, will connect to the regional trails along 61 into the Minnetonka.
This, actually this corridor is used quite frequently by pedestrians right now and on the side of the road so
we want to try to get those pedestrians, those movements off the pavement edge. Council back in 2010
did authorize improvements, or actually applying for a MnDOT grant for this intersection. A Safety
Cooperative Agreement Grant for the improvements for the intersection and also the trail extension along
Highway 101. There is also plans for trail improvements along Pleasant View Road which is to the west
of here out into Near Mountain trail connection as well so that’s another couple thousand feet of trail
along Pleasant View Road that’s another missing trail gap within our network as well so the
improvements to the intersection of 101 include left turn lanes on both northbound and southbound on
101. Again the trail construction along Highway 101 for Pleasant View Road and Town Line Road trail
construction along Pleasant View Road from 101 to the existing crossing at Near Mountain and the
pedestrian crossing enhancements that were added into the project just recently. And then there is also
some storm sewer improvements along Highway 101 that we’re planning to make and also pond
improvements to the pond at the northwest corner of 101 and Pleasant View Road. So this is kind of the
layout. It’s maybe a little bit hard to see but again it’s basically widening out the intersection for those
left turn lanes and increasing or improving the right turn lanes into both Pleasant View Road into Eden
Prairie and into Chanhassen a little bit longer. We are adding curb and gutter to the west side of 101 with
some storm sewer improvements as well. There will be a right turn lane on Pleasant View Road into
southbound 101 as well. There’s some stacking considerations there that we feel that’s going to help the
traffic queuing in the intersection as well. And then also the pond here will be excavated out and
expanded to facilitate the extra drainage coming off the intersection as well. There are some
improvements to Foxford Road as well. It’s not shown in this map but there is a turn lane improvement
as well for that intersection. The, again the trail along Pleasant View Road extends all the way out to
Near Mountain. Crossing is currently shown here. There’s going to be curb and gutter along that section
of roadway. 10 foot wide trail and that’s a needed trail connection as well to try to keep pedestrians and
bicyclists off the road. We feel that the improvements at this intersection will help kind of reduce the
traffic, reduce the queuing or the back up’s in the area. Will anticipate, help the traffic flow in the area as
well and just make it a safer intersection so when left turn traffic’s trying to, is waiting for oncoming
traffic to make that turn, the traffic in back of that car is not being stacked up. That can be still free flow
flowing traffic through that intersection then. The crossing improvements was discussed at great length
last year. There really isn’t a good pedestrian crossing location along this whole corridor so staff is
proposing to make an enhancement to this particular intersection to try to increase the visibility and the
safety of the pedestrians in this area so enhancements include a mast arm with a large crossing, pedestrian
crossing signs. It’ll be a push button activated system that a pedestrian would be able to activate when
they get to, when they’re ready to cross the intersection. There are illuminated rectangular yellow LED
lights that would flash letting drivers know that there is a pedestrian in the crosswalk. This system is
somewhat new to the Minnesota area. MnDOT and the consulting engineers that we’re worked with,
Kimley-Horn and Associates are recommending that this is probably, this is the best strategy if we wanted
to increase the visibility of pedestrian movements along this corridor and this intersection here. So this is
a picture of what potentially the crosswalk would look like. This is a mast arm and crosswalk that’s in,
on 101 in Minnetonka by Bennett Field. Bennett Family Park. The only change that we’re looking at is
putting these rapid flash beacons on the bottom of the signs here at both of these signs to highlight that
there is a pedestrian in the crosswalk. The improvements again are to make sure that the pedestrians, the
traffic, the pedestrians are visibly identified. There is something going on in the intersection that’s
basically, it’s a real key component to traffic safety and pedestrian safety to allow the traffic, know that
there is pedestrians in the crosswalk. Projecting activated flashing beacons. You know there’s been
studies that show that they greatly enhance the visibility of pedestrians and awareness that there is
pedestrians in the intersection. There are similar systems that have been currently functioning in the state
of Minnesota. I think St. Francis, Bloomington, I think Edina also has one now but around the United
22
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
States these systems are popping up more and more frequently and from the studies that we’ve seen they
have good success rate or good compliance rates in terms of stopping the traffic when pedestrians are in
the intersection. But again it’s the safety of pedestrians and drivers are, it goes both ways so drivers have
to be aware and stop when they’re legally responsible to and pedestrians still have to be safe before they
cross the intersection so, it’s in State Statue that drivers should stop or have to stop and yield to
pedestrians that are within the walkway. But it’s also the pedestrians responsibility to wait for gaps in the
traffic before leaving the curb. Pedestrians should also cross within a marked crosswalks or at
intersections just as a safety feature and then also pedestrians should also look and try to make eye contact
with the driver before they cross into lanes of traffic as well and try to make sure that the pedestrian
realizes that the driver sees that they’re there. So again this system is a little bit new for this area so staff
would like to do some education and get an outreach to the neighborhoods and to the community to make
them aware of these new systems. How they operate. What’s required of the drivers and pedestrians in
these situations so we’d like to send out some mailings. Put some article in The Connection, website,
social media, those type of things. Get the school districts involved a little bit and make sure that
everybody’s aware that, how these intersection systems, pedestrian enhancement systems operate. So
with that we did also include in this bid an alternate for the 41 trail extension and pedestrian crossing. It’s
another pedestrian enhancement similar to the one that we would like to make at 101 and Pleasant View.
This improvement, it would extend the trail that’s currently constructed on the east side of 41 at
Minnetonka Middle School West about 500 feet north and cross, make a new pedestrian crossing by
Chaska Road. The enhanced pedestrian crossing is, again it’s another signal system that would be
maintained by the City. There is currently a pedestrian crossing at the Middle School West entrance drive
on 41. However it’s not very visible. It’s kind of on a hill so it’s a little bit hard to see heading
southbound on 41 we feel. Staff did look at that intersection specifically for a signal warrant as well and
talked to MnDOT about if there could even be a signal at that location. There is some development
potential on the west side of 41. However with that density, with the development that potentially would
go in there MnDOT still feels that that area would not justify a signal, now or into the future. So staff did,
especially the park department did take votes or bids last year to look at making these improvements. The
low bid at that time was $192,000 dollars. A little bit over and that was over the engineer’s estimate at
that time and the bids were rejected. This time around the bids did come in more favorably. About
$40,000 less than the bids that were taken in August which represents about a 28% cost savings from the
th
August 12 bid. This is just a drawing showing what the improvements to the 41 corridor would look
like so basically to the south, or the to the left of the cage here would be the Minnetonka Middle School
West entrance. Extending the trail in back of the curb about again 460 feet north up to Chaska Road here.
Pedestrian crossing would be at this location. Currently there is a striped median at this location. What
would happen, what is proposed is to raise that median with curb and gutter for a safety island and
construct a pedestrian crossing at this location. The existing crossing at Minnetonka Middle School West
entrance would be removed and this would be the preferred location for crossing. The trail would also
extend on the west side of 41 to connect to the trail going north up to Highway 7 and then also to the west
to the neighborhoods as well so, and again the pedestrian cross arm and enhancement flashing beacon
would also be constructed at this location. So with that bids were received and we did receive 11 bids
from several different contractors. The lowest responsible bidder after tabulation was Eureka
Construction with a combined bid base and bid alternate of a little over $1.2 million dollars. Very tight
bids. We were very happy with how the bids did turn out. For the 41, or for the Trunk Highway 101,
Pleasant View Road improvements funding is proposed to come from several sources. MnDOT’s
cooperative agreement, that’s a flat grant that we’re going to be receiving from MnDOT of $664,000.
Eden Prairie has agreed to contribute some money to the improvements. Basically 25% for the pedestrian
trail enhancements. Crossing enhancements and then also their portion of the cost for the left turn lanes
into their community as well. Municipal State Aid would, our gas tax dollars that we get annually would
help, would be proposed to be used for this project and then also park dedication for the trail along
Pleasant View Road extension out to Near Mountain. Pavement maintenance would also be used, utilized
for this project and then surface water utility fund for the pond improvement, clean outs and then some
23
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
other storm sewer improvements in the area as well so. The total cost again for the 101/Pleasant View
Road improvements is just a little over $1,065,000 so and then for the trail enhancements at 41 and, at
crossing at 41, park dedication would be used and the total bid there was $152,642. And again in your
packet there is a couple agreements that staff would like council to consider. One is a MnDOT signal
agreement shown here that’s basically for the construction, the maintenance, future maintenance of the
signal system on 101. Again MnDOT’s paying for, would pay for 50% of that cost through the grant for
those improvements. But again the City would maintain that signal system into the future. Eden Prairie
again would contribute 25% to the trail enhancement improvements and a portion of their turn lanes into
their community with a total of $73,800. So with that if the project were to move forward, a
neighborhood meeting, we’d propose to have one in April. Start construction in June and have the project
th
wrapped up by the end of August again and then substantial completion by September 27 just to clean up
the project area and make sure everything’s seeded and sodded correctly. With that I have a proposed
motion here but if there’s any questions that I can be more than happy to try to answer if council has any
so.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Good presentation. Questions for staff. Mr. McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: Mr. Oehme, yeah I have a question for you. On 101 and Pleasant View, which
side is the pedestrian crossing going to be on, north or south?
Paul Oehme: Let me get to that drawing here. So the pedestrian crossing would be, this is a little bit of
an older drawing but pedestrian crossing, mast arm and the crossing would be on the south side of
Pleasant View Road. The pedestrian crossing would still take place on the west side along Trunk
Highway 101 but the pedestrian movements here on the north side here would be eliminated so that’s a
little bit of a change from this older drawing that was produced last year.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, and then my next question would be, you know at 41 we’re kind of
putting an island in there to give people a better chance of crossing the road. Is there enough room on this
project to do something similar to that? Put in an area in there so you only have to go half way across or?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, we looked at that. It’s, in this particular situation there’s left turn lanes that, and the
right-of-way is such that it’s difficult to put a wide enough island in at this location to have that, that
safety island per se so we did look at that. It’s just very difficult to squeeze that in under this
configuration. Under this situation so.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, and did you look at then at that point, how confusing is it going to be to
someone trying to cross the road there where you’ve got someone that’s also trying to make a left hand
turn onto Pleasant View and also the oncoming traffic. Is that going to be too much at that point say early
in the morning when people would be using this?
Paul Oehme: You know it is a consideration and again it comes back to the pedestrians making the right
decision not to go into traffic when there’s still oncoming traffic at this area. When there’s stopped
vehicles you know we’d hope that the pedestrian would make eye contact with somebody that’s making a
left turn there. Especially if he’s stopped, you know that’s, it’s a difficult situation no matter how we
look at it but under the situation, or the design that we have right now we think it’s probably the safest
one that we can have right now without putting a signal system in.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, and I guess the roads will be marked such that anyone trying to do a left
hand turn knows they couldn’t go into a crosswalk to sit here. It will be obvious at that point what’s
going on with that intersection.
24
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Paul Oehme: Right. I mean we’re trying to make it as visible as we can in terms of you know where
pedestrians should be crossing. Trying to channelize as much of the pedestrian movements as we can to
one location.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Oehme, looking at the slide we have up right now, you had mentioned
that the pond is going to be increased, is that correct?
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So is that white bridge going to be taken down?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, we have talked to that property owner and the plan right now is for him to remove it.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Paul Oehme: We’ve allowed for grading in this area for him if he wants to put it back in again but it’s a
little bit old. I don’t know. We’re still talking if it’s going to go back in or not.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And then also, I mean there’s trees and shrubs and bushes along there too.
Are those all going to be gone or are we going to replace those?
Paul Oehme: Yep. There is a significant amount of trees and brush that would be replaced along Pleasant
View Road and at 101 here. There is a fairly significant retaining wall along 101 here that’s going to be
built in back of the properties here. We do have a landscape plan that, reforestation of this area that’s in
the contract so granted we are taking out some mature trees but we are planting back what we think is a
good mix of vegetation again.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I know there were some drainage issues that Eden Prairie had concerns with,
correct?
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So is that why the pond is being expanded to take care of those issues for
them?
Paul Oehme: Yep, the pond is being expanded for rate control considerations as well. That’s a good
point.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Paul Oehme: We are also fixing some of the drainage along 101 here trying to get the drainage ditch to
flow a little bit better than it is currently today. Trying to take out some of the debris that has settled there
over the years as well so there is some water quality and volume control that we’re trying to create in the
101 ditch as well.
25
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And I’m sure this was in the staff report so forgive me for making you have to
repeat it but can you give me a scenario of how this is going to work because this is a very busy
intersection.
Paul Oehme: Right.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So when it comes to traffic control and residents getting in and out, do we
have a timeline or what does that look like?
Paul Oehme: We do have a staging plan for the construction of the improvements that we’re talking
about here so the plan is to try to work on one side of the road, 101 and get those improvements done
while shifting traffic over to the other side of the road temporarily so, and then once the, say the west side
is completed and we’re going to flip the traffic back over to the east side, and to make those
improvements so you know we do have a staging plan. MnDOT is not going to allow us to shut down
101 at any time during this project so there’ll be some traffic delays. I can’t say there won’t be and
there’ll be some channelized traffic lanes out here so, but we’re going to try to accommodate and try to
get the work done as quickly as we can.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Alright, so you can’t necessarily give me like a month? Two months? All
summer long? A weekend?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, well we do have, it is, I don’t, we haven’t met with a contractor yet and gotten his
specific schedule yet. We did give the contractor I think 3 months to finish up the work so there is some
time in here where there’s going to be enough time in here for him to complete the work. It is our
anticipation and our desire to have the project wrapped up as soon as we can.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Can you definitively say it will take longer than a weekend?
Paul Oehme: I can definitely say it’s going to take longer than a weekend.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I thought I’d slip that in there just maybe.
Mayor Furlong: No, no, I know you were hoping but.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I was.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff. Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: Just simple question. Paul, I didn’t see it anywhere in here but I just need to
confirm. So this only includes the Pleasant View and the 101, right? There’s nothing west of like West
th
78 to 101? Or Pleasant View.
Paul Oehme: No, there’s this, the project only consists of the intersection at 101 and Pleasant View plus
the trail improvements.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Laufenburger.
26
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Paul, can you go to your, the funding page for just a
second please because I think this page is slightly different than what was.
Paul Oehme: It is. There was a typo in the background for the budget numbers I think.
Councilman Laufenburger: Can you just speak to that for a moment. So you had budgeted $285,000
from the State, is that right?
Paul Oehme: Correct, for the gas tax money. The Municipal State Aid. And we’re only going to be
using under the construction $125,000.
Councilman Laufenburger: So $285,000 is available but we don’t need it, is that what you’re saying?
Paul Oehme: Correct, for the construction.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So this project is in the CIP for this year, is that correct?
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: At what amount?
Paul Oehme: $1.258 million.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So you’ve identified the sources of funding for that project, right at
$1.258?
Paul Oehme: Right, that was the budgeted amount and what, based upon the bids that were received the
project now is at $1.065 million.
Councilman Laufenburger: And then when you incorporate the, what you call the bid alternate for 41
trail and pedestrian crossing, that’s the flashing beacon as well. Is that true?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, for everything on 41 is the flashing beacon, the trail and the median crossing.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, so in fact the million 065 plus the $152,642 that comes to a total of
what did you say? The million 121?
Paul Oehme: Yep.
Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, so your recommendation would be in fact that the whole project, 101
plus the 41. Excuse me, yeah. Plus the 41 trail extension comes in lower than what’s in the CIP at a
million 258.
Paul Oehme: Correct. That is correct but the 41 trail extension improvements that we’re talking about,
that would be funded separately under using the park dedication funds. That was the plan originally
going forward.
Mayor Furlong: That was originally in the 2012 CIP wasn’t it?
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
27
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Councilman Laufenburger: Is there a reason why that wasn’t carried forward into the 2013 CIP?
Todd Hoffman: We were just, at that time we were discussing the project in 2012 and it just was never
carried over as a line item. The money is still there. It just was not carried over into 2013. The council
was discussing the project in 2012. That discussion carried over into 2013.
Councilman Laufenburger: But it’s not in the 2013 CIP?
Todd Hoffman: It is not.
Councilman Laufenburger: So it was not part of the CIP that was approved along with the 2013 budget,
is that correct?
Todd Hoffman: That’s correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay.
Paul Oehme: So just a note of clarification too Mayor, council. If the council does not want to award the
alternate bid for the 41 improvement projects and just go with the base bid, the low bidder would change
to Northwest Asphalt. Eureka did come in a little bit higher with the base bid but they were lower under
the bid alternate. Northwest Asphalt completed the project last summer in Minnewashta Heights so they
are a reputable contractor as well.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor, are we obligated to take the low bid?
Roger Knutson: You’re obligated to take the low responsible bid.
Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you.
Roger Knutson: With or without alternates, that’s your choice.
Councilman Laufenburger: Right, I understand but in this case it’s been determined that both Eureka
Construction and Northwest Asphalt are responsible bidders for their respective bids.
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: Good, okay.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions?
Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme, getting back to, if you can go back to the Pleasant View/101 map. You
talked about, and I think in one of your slides before that were warrants for traffic signals. We have
looked over the years, time and again and asked MnDOT to evaluate, multiple times is it not?
Paul Oehme: Yes.
28
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Mayor Furlong: And thank you for each time you’ve done that. What, how close is this intersection to
qualifying for traffic signals? From warranting.
Paul Oehme: Right.
Mayor Furlong: To meet the warrants and the warrants are what? Standards or criteria that MnDOT
looks at?
Paul Oehme: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: What are warrants?
Paul Oehme: It’s an eye study. Well there’s several things that MnDOT looks at. One is how much side
traffic or secondary traffic is coming in off of say Pleasant, at this intersection Pleasant View Road. How
much delays. How much queuing back up of the traffic there is especially, not just on the a.m. and p.m.
peak hours but during the day too. How much traffic is backing up. There’s also warrants for the amount
of, if we see a high volume of crashes at this intersection, that’s another warrant that we would see.
There’s pedestrian movement crossings too. We do see that there is some pedestrian movements at this
intersection. However it doesn’t go up to the level that a signal would be warranted for pedestrian
movements either. So there is, I’m missing probably 5 or 6 other warrants that MnDOT looks at for
meeting them but never, this intersection does not rise to that level of meeting any of those warrants at
this time.
Mayor Furlong: So at this time, and based upon best estimate, regional projections, do you anticipate that
it will soon?
Paul Oehme: You know yeah, over the last 10 years actually traffic on 101 has gone down after say 212
is opened up and it’s stabilizing right now about 10,000 trips per day but you know even back in the early
2000’s when there was a lot more traffic on 101, it still didn’t meet warrants at that time so we’re not
anticipating that this intersection will meet warrants for a signal anytime soon.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And obviously that’s before the City of Chanhassen, who we’re responsible for
the public funds but also City of Eden Prairie and MnDOT, we want to put money into the crossing arms
and lights. We’d like to know that they’re not coming out in a couple years.
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: And so in your opinion they’re not.
Paul Oehme: Yeah we’re comfortable that there’s not going to be a signal warrant out here in the near
future.
Mayor Furlong: Are warrants for a signal, are those the same factors considered when you’re looking at a
four way stop? Controlled intersection.
Paul Oehme: A lot of them. I do have a traffic engineer here from Kimley-Horn that just arrived so
maybe Brandon Borden with Kimley-Horn can address some of those questions for you as well.
Mayor Furlong: That’d be wonderful. Good evening Mr. Borden.
Brandon Borden: In terms of.
29
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Mayor Furlong: If you can.
Brandon Borden: Yeah, I’m Brandon Borden with Kimley-Horn and Associates.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Brandon Borden: 2550 University Avenue West, St. Paul. In terms of signal warrants and all way stop
warrants, there’s really, they’re all documented in the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices. Every entity in the state’s responsible or has to satisfy those warrants before putting in signals.
Particularly on a trunk highway MnDOT just won’t allow a traffic signal unless they’re satisfied so all
way stop warrants really look at volumes but the threshold is lower to install an all way stop. But even at
a location like this where you have quite a heavy through movement in one direction, north/south on 101
for example. It really is in a position on a high speed roadway where there’s a lot of all ways stops, just
causes too much delay for that main street. In terms of signal warrants here, a lot of what we look at is
there’s an 8 hour warrant, which is most often what MnDOT looks at prior to installing a signal. So you
need to have a certain threshold of volumes for 8 hours of the day. On an intersection like this probably
satisfies warrants more in the 3 hour threshold. There’s peak hour warrants where you look at one hour
but that’s really more for like a 3M factor for example. You’re just flushing people out so fast. There’s a
4 hour warrant that can be considered from time to time but MnDOT really uses the 8 hour warrant. In
terms of this situation, in terms of why it may not be warranted for some time is really a lot of your side
street traffic is what drives some of that in addition to through street but we’re not going to see a lot of
growth on the side street here so that’s going to be relatively stable and those side street thresholds
depends a little bit on the geometry but you’re talking a minimum of 80 to 100 vehicles per hour on that
minor approach. So at this location there are 3 hours where you’re over that but a lot of the other hours
you’re more in the 50 vehicles per hour range so that’s some of why we just don’t anticipate that
happening for some time if ever.
Mayor Furlong: And the same, you don’t anticipate the traffic movements justifying a 4 way stop?
Brandon Borden: You know this type of corridor in particular just where it’s Trunk Highway 101, an all
way stop is a pretty odd situation on a high speed facility like this, and volume wise it just, it won’t really
happen on one of MnDOT’s facilities very easily.
Mayor Furlong: And part of the challenge with this corridor obviously is the speed and I think that’s
what concerns a lot of people, justifiably so. You know I think that’s one of the desires to try to get some
traffic control on some of these areas where we can so if it’s possible to do it, I know we’ve looked at it
multiple times over the years and unfortunately we keep getting the same response, that MnDOT just
won’t approve it.
Brandon Borden: It’s a relatively consistent response in many of the jurisdictions that we work in terms
of what is allowed on the trunk highway system.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you.
Brandon Borden: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Appreciate the information. Alright, very good. Thank you. Any other questions for
Mr. Oehme? If not then comments. Discussion on the proposed project. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
30
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, this I think is a long time coming. I think one of the things I always say
is we live in a very safe community but we drive on some really dangerous roads and this is one of those
roads where it’s not uncommon to often see an accident just because there are no turn lanes and there’s no
way of controlling traffic and so this is something that’s desperately needed and I’m very pleased that
we’re finally moving ahead with it and I also am hoping that it will just take a weekend. I wasn’t kidding.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, other comments. Discussion. Councilman Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, thank you Mr. Mayor. I support both elements of this project. Both
the 101 improvement and as Councilwoman Tjornhom pointed out, you know this is a long time coming.
I have just a minor concern and we as a council have to be responsible not only for the validity and the
strength and the purposefulness of the projects but I think we have to be accountable to the financing of
them and I, I just have a couple questions and I’m not sure where they need to be addressed but you know
Mr. Hoffman you said that the funds are available. What’s the balance in the park dedication fund, do
you know?
Todd Hoffman: Currently?
Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah.
Todd Hoffman: Approximately $2.2 million but we’re going to write a check to Carver County for about
$616,000.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, so clearly not unlike the Revolving Assessment Fund, there are far
more funds than we will be using this year, is that correct?
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So according to the budget which we approved in December and the
CIP the park dedication funds will be used to the amount of $695,000. That’s the park dedication fund
total and many of those dollars will be used for park and trail projects and $95,000 is earmarked to be
used for Street Improvement 02-07 which is the 101/Pleasant View Road intersection and trail
improvement. But I see no approval in the CIP for $152,000 for 41 trail improvement so my question is,
if the City Council has approved, and this may be a question for Mr. Knutson as well. If the City Council
has approved for 2013 expenditure of $695,000 park dedication funds for projects this year and you’re
going to take $152,642 of that, what are you not going to do that’s on the list? Do you understand my
question?
Todd Hoffman: I do.
Councilman Laufenburger: Is there any fallacy in my logic here?
Todd Hoffman: No.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, so tell me what. What’s the answer?
Todd Hoffman: Staff’s recommendation would be that along with this recommendation tonight, if you
approve these projects, you approve the modification of the 2013 CIP to include the $152,642 in park
dedication, to approve that expenditure.
Councilman Laufenburger: So essentially we’re then modifying the CIP.
31
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: To reflect $153,000 more dollars taken from the park dedication funds.
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, and I’m assuming that’s in the resolution somewhere or?
Mayor Furlong: I don’t know if that is but that can be added, and what I guess I’m hearing is that it’s
funds that were approved in the 2012 CIP but were not spent in 2012 because of the actions council took
in 2012. Back in August when, so it would be, what I hear you saying is we’d modify the 2013 to bring
those funds forward.
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Or to add in the 152 amount for this portion.
Todd Hoffman: Yes. That’s the same recommendation we had back when we were talking about the
award, that we modify the 2013 to include that. Council was in discussion at that point. It wasn’t added
back into the 2013 but by council action you could bring those dollars forward and allocate those.
Councilman Laufenburger: I’m reminded by Mr. Knutson that we can do anything we want, is that
correct?
Mayor Furlong: It’s correct and sometimes it just makes his job more difficult.
Councilman McDonald: If I could there’s one other thing that we’re forgetting. All of this was approved
last year and it was delayed because the State shut down so we did go through the 101/Pleasant View and
we approved all of those funds.
Councilman Laufenburger: Absolutely and in fact Councilman McDonald the 101 improvements are in
the CIP so there’s no question in my mind that that $1,065,172 is absolutely necessary. Needed.
Approved and funded and approved in the CIP. It’s this $152,642 that I’m wondering about.
Councilman McDonald: I can’t help you there.
Councilman Laufenburger: Well in fact you will.
Mayor Furlong: That’s the Highway 101.
Councilman Laufenburger: You will. You will have to help us because according to what Mr. Hoffman
is saying, we’re going to have to modify the CIP and spend $152,642 more this year than we approved in
December. Is that correct Mr. Knutson?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: But at the same time it’s funds we didn’t spend in 2012.
32
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Councilman Laufenburger: I don’t question that at all.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Laufenburger: Not at all.
Mayor Furlong: So the mechanics are, and you raise a point. Let’s modify the CIP to reflect the actions
if the council wants to go in that direction.
Councilman Laufenburger: If the council wants to move forward with this then clearly that’s what we
should do but I just would ask that you know, consideration here in the future if there are projects that
carry over, let’s make sure that there’s visibility in the CIP for the coming year even though it’s assumed
that that project was approved in the prior year. Does that make sense Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: It does and we had that discussion. We didn’t do that but that’s certainly something we
can do going forward.
Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, I think that would work well.
Mayor Furlong: We’ve had that discussion in the past but we can do that…
Councilman Laufenburger: I think it just, it reflects good responsible fiduciary management on our part
to do that. Okay, thank you very much.
Councilman McDonald: I have a question.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: Especially since where this is going. I need to ask clarification. On the 101/
Pleasant View project, is money included in there for again the money to homeowners to buy out land and
right-of-way?
Paul Oehme: Not under this year’s CIP. It was included under the 2011 CIP for right-of-way acquisition.
So that money’s already been spent.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, because you know why I’m asking and I need clarification that if I vote
for this I’m not voting for any money to be paid to any homeowners.
Paul Oehme: Right, yeah. That money’s already been spent. It’s already, that process has already moved
forward so this is basically just for the construction costs associated with the 101/Pleasant View Road
improvements.
Councilman McDonald: And I guess I would ask for a legal opinion here. You know I own property
there so if that money’s already been allocated for that, am I okay voting for this project? There’s no
conflict of interest for this project to improve the intersection on my part is there?
Roger Knutson: No. You’re not being assessed for it.
Councilman McDonald: Okay.
Roger Knutson: And the right-of-way’s already been acquired and this is just for the construction of it.
33
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Councilman McDonald: Okay.
Roger Knutson: No conflict.
Councilman McDonald: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Good question. We’re in comments on this project and I guess Councilwoman
Tjornhom, to get back to you, you spoke in favor of the Trunk Highway 101/Pleasant View Road
improvements. I didn’t hear your comment about the alternate or the 41 trail extension.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m also in favor of that.
Mayor Furlong: Pedestrian crossing. You’re in favor of that.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Absolutely.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Just thank you for letting me clarify. Other comments or discussion on this
proposal? Councilwoman Ernst, anything?
Councilwoman Ernst: I would be in favor of both.
Mayor Furlong: Both, okay. Mr. McDonald?
Councilman McDonald: I’m in favor of both.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. As am I. I think in both of these situations it’s going to create a safer
situation for vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, everybody involved. Is it perfect? Is it what everybody
would like to see there? In this room and in our residents here, probably not but it is a very big step in the
right direction and that is trying to improve safety along this corridor in ways that we can and I want to
thank the City of Eden Prairie staff working with the City of Eden Prairie and also MnDOT for all the
work that they did to have this come together. As you look at the list of where the funding sources are,
you can see that it takes a lot of people working together and unfortunately it’s taken longer than any of
us would have liked but it’s here and I think, and in addition with the 41 trail extension, pedestrian
crossing, while that’s being funded by the City I think that’s going to be a critical link of safety associated
with connecting our residents, the neighborhoods to the north side of Lake Minnewashta to the new 41
trail crossing. Or excuse me, the new 41 trail and the access into Lake Minnewashta Regional Park that’s
there and create opportunities for people to get to the Arboretum off the Minnewashta Parkway so it’s
just, I think they are great steps all of it so thank you everybody that’s been involved in seeing this
through. With that, if we could bring up the resolution, or proposed resolution and then we should also
add in there, since it sounds like with A, that the extension that we would modify the 2013 CIP as
appropriate to fund the alternate. Would that be sufficient or, would somebody like to make a motion?
Mr. Laufenburger?
Councilman Laufenburger: I’ll defer to one of my council members.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’d love to.
Mayor Furlong: Would somebody like to make a motion.
34
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Councilman McDonald: I’ll do it. I’ll do it. Okay, Mr. Mayor I’d like to propose that the City Council
accepts bids and awards a contract to Eureka Construction in the amount of $1,217,814.65 for the Trunk
Highway 101 and Pleasant View Road intersection improvements, that’s City Project #11-05 and that
would include an alternate for Trunk Highway 41 trail extension and pedestrian crossing enhancements
and also a modification to our CIP to include those funds and bring them forward from the prior year.
Also the City Council approves Agreement No. 01581M with MnDOT for the rapid flashing beacon light
to be used at 101 and Pleasant View. And Part C that the City Council approves the cost sharing
agreement with the City of Eden Prairie for the improvements to that intersection at 101 and Pleasant
View.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you for clarification. Does Part B Mr. Oehme, the agreement with MnDOT, does
that also include the signal at 41?
Paul Oehme: It does not. That agreement I believe has already been approved?
Todd Hoffman: It’s already been approved by council.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So wanted to, was absolutely correct. Thank you Mr. McDonald. Is there a
second?
Councilman Laufenburger: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. With that, is there any discussion on the motion? Thank you, without
hearing any discussion.
Resolution #2013-17: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Laufenburger seconded that the
City Council accepts bids and awards a contract to Eureka Construction, Inc. in the amount of
$1,217,814.65 for the TH 101 and Pleasant View Road Intersection Improvements, City Project No.
11-05 including Alternate for TH 41 Trail Extension and Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements with
modification to the 2013 CIP to bring funds forward from the 2012 CIP. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Laufenburger seconded that the City Council approves
Agreement No. 01581M with MnDOT for Rapid Flashing Beacon Light. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Laufenburger seconded that the City Council approves
Cost-Sharing Agreement with the City of Eden Prairie. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you very much everyone. Excellent, excellent project. Let’s move forward now
with the next item on our agenda.
AWARD OF BID, TH 41 TRAIL STAIRWAY CONNECTOR.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This project was a component of the
trail extension and pedestrian crossing on Highway 41 but they were split into two different projects.
Since then we took a look at how can we get a better price out of each project so the decision was made to
split the two. One is more of a concrete project. The other is a trail and a pedestrian crossing type of
project so this is the second part of that and it’s the stairway. The location is from Highover down to the
newly constructed trail along State Highway, Trunk Highway 41 and then this is the location of the
35
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
underpass which then directs you into Minnewashta Regional Park. So the project limits would be from
the trail at this location and then heading to the east, to the sidewalk which is at the top of the hill so the
stairway itself is in this location traversing that steep hillside. The home to the north is completely built.
The home to the south is under construction at the current time. So again we’ll go into the background
and similar to the last project that included park funds, if this is approved the council would need to
th
modify the 2013 budget to bring those $59,000 in funds forward to 2013. So we go back to August 27.
The Council rejected all bids for the Trunk Highway 41 trail extension and stairway connector project.
Council directed staff to break those projects into specific components for bidding as alternatives.
Alternates. That original project was just split into two parts. The stairway, which we’re talking about
now, and the trail extension, pedestrian crossing and flashing beacon which you approved under the last
item. These are the stairway bids. Theis Construction, $59,260. Blackstone Contractors $67,700.
Dayco Concrete $75,200 and you have detailed copies of those bids in your packet. The original bid
before the council split the two projects, before we worked with the council to split those projects was at
$293,750. That was the amount that was rejected. The new stairway quote is $59,000. The amount of
the other improvements, the trail extension and the pedestrian crossing you just approved is the $152,000.
So the new total cost is at $211,902.55 and the cost savings realized from rebidding is $81,847 which is
obviously a significant cost savings over that time. So the recommendation that we have for the council
is that Theis Construction has performed favorably on numerous projects in the city before. Concrete
projects and it’s recommended the City Council award the Trunk Highway 41 trail, stairway connector to
Theis Construction in the amount of $59,260 and then similarly modify the 2013 CIP to bring those funds
forward from 2012.
Mayor Furlong: Can you go back to that last slide? Thank you. Thank you, questions for staff. Mr.
Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I have a few. Mr. Hoffman, could you just talk a
little bit about the bid process that you used for the, that resulted in the Theis bid.
Todd Hoffman: Sure, it was a quote process which Mr. Mike McGarvey from SRF contacted a variety of
concrete masonry contractors in our area and asked them for a quote for this project.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And would you say that that followed appropriate bid requirement
guidelines in accordance with State Statute?
Todd Hoffman: Yes it did.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Did you contact any of the other bidders that previously bid in the
August timeframe like Midwest Asphalt, some of those folks?
Todd Hoffman: I’m not aware if Mr. McGarvey did or not.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. This next question I have Mr. Mayor relates to process and forgive my
th
perhaps ignorance but I just want a clarification. At the August 27 meeting, which Mr. Hoffman
referenced, the bids, as was appropriately indicated, were rejected. They were not passed by the council
but a motion did pass and that motion said, and I quote, to authorize staff to prepare plans and
specifications for the Trunk Highway 41 northern trail section and flashing beacon with the stair
connector as a bid alternate, and that motion passed 4 to 1. It doesn’t appear that the stair connector was
requested as a bid alternate and I’m wondering, are we as a council or city staff, are we open to criticism,
scrutiny, or something worst for not following the specifics of the motion that was passed? Mr. Knutson,
maybe you can refer, you can help me with that.
36
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Roger Knutson: You certainly have the right to deviate from that. There’s no contract involved. There’s
no statute involved. There’s no.
Councilman Laufenburger: So it’s okay what we did?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Good. Let’s see. I think you answered my question, my other
question Mr. Hoffman related to the $59,600. It is not in the approved CIP for 2013. It was not carried
forward as was the Trunk Highway 41 pedestrian crossing and beacon. That also was not included so
that’s another $59,000 more if this were to be approved that we would spend that, more of taxpayer
money that was not approved back in December so thank you for that clarification. I think that was my
questions. Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Discussion. Comments. Councilman
McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: Well I guess the only thing I would say is, I’ve always been in favor of this
project. Councilman Laufenburger has raised a number of interesting and intriguing issues along the way
and I’m hoping that you know we have answered those but the one thing that I guess I would say, you
know we were doing the interviews this evening and one of the gentleman for the parks and recs as he’s
talking about all this, talked about trails and the interconnection of trails and the fact that that is a good
thing as far as park and rec and the comments that they get from the public so I think that that just kind of
reinforces my position of why I would support this is that this falls within that category of again
interconnecting trails. Making it a little bit easier for the residents of one neighborhood to get across 40,
through the tunnel, over to the park and I think that would be of great benefit so while it isn’t the ideal
solution, and I would have preferred something at grade so that we’re not dealing with steps, the
topography just doesn’t work out so this is a good alternative. It’s the best solution under the
circumstances so I would be in favor of it.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you. You know there’s been mention that, regarding this stairway that
people, and I may not be saying this exactly correct but some people bought houses or built houses in the
neighborhood with the promise or anticipation that a stairway connector would be there. I’m not sure
how far back this was in the plan so I tried to get some historical perspective and the CIP for 2008
through 2012, there is clearly mention of the 41 trail underpass but there’s no mention of a stairway in a
plan. Also I asked the question of how this would be funded. You answered that question. It would be,
we’d have to approve funds that were not approved in December. I’ve also asked questions in the past
about response from the neighborhood affected by this and Mr. Hoffman I believe is accurate, has
accurately reflected that some are in support and some are not. I was unsettled about this so I went into
the neighborhood and knocked on some doors last week. I also left letters with a self addressed stamped
envelope so it would be easy for people to give me their feedback. I realize this isn’t a scientific poll by
any means but then I’m not sure anything about representing the interests of the public is fully scientific
but of the households that responded, 72% said they would oppose the project, and this was from a poll of
those 30 homes closest to the project that would be most affected by the presence of the stairway. When
this came to the council in February of 2012 I was opposed to the project at an estimated cost of $65,000.
37
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Principally because I felt that this expense didn’t serve the general public. It served the healthy general
public but it didn’t serve wheelchairs or strollers in a safe manner. It didn’t provide value for all citizens
but only those unencumbered by wheeled ambulatory movements. My opinion was in the minority in
February of 2012. When it came back in August 27, 2012 with a recommended approval of bid, with a
recommended approval of the bid from the city staff for approximately $110,000 which is the number we
finally navigated to when Mr. McGarvey broke it down, I opposed it even more strongly and I was joined
by 3 other council members who supported my motion to reject the bid because, and I’m quoting from
Minutes, I don’t think this is reasonable or this is more of a wish than a need or at some point you’ve got
to weigh the convenience against the cost. Or maybe it was simply important to oppose unnecessary
spending, I’m not sure but the test for me is this. Even if this stairway could be put in for free I would
still oppose the building for the reasons that I stated earlier. This is intended for public convenience and
connecting to the trail but the entire public will not be convenienced and there is still two very accessible
connections at grade to the trail. I will not support this motion to approve the bid to build this stairway.
Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments.
Councilwoman Ernst: Actually.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: Sorry. Actually from the beginning of the project I also did not support this. This
part of the project for reasons that Councilman Laufenburger just mentioned. Because I brought up two
specific facts. How does this accommodate those that are in wheelchairs or have walkers and it doesn’t
sound to me like that would be the case where it would actually accommodate that part of the general
public. Another question I have is, and I don’t know Mr. Hoffman maybe you can answer this question.
Does the City maintain these stairways?
Todd Hoffman: Yes we do. We have approximately a half a dozen stairways in our current trail
connection system.
Councilwoman Ernst: So and in the winter would they take the ice off of these stairways?
Todd Hoffman: To a point that’s reasonable.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. But again going back to Mr. Laufenburger’s comments, I would not
support this project for those same reasons.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well, I tend to not agree with Councilmember Laufenburger. I think that
while yes, it does not work for everybody, the steps it does work for a majority of people that would be
using it. It is a pedestrian trail and there are many types of pedestrian trails throughout the city and this is
just another link to those trails to have those people get from Point A to Point B and so I think it’s
important that we stay consistent. We talked about consistency earlier tonight when it came to our road
projects and funding. I think it’s important that we also remain consistent when it comes to our trails.
We are linking up the pedestrian trail for 101 and that’s very important and I think this too is just another
part of that link to make our trail system complete and, I did a lot of talking this summer when I was out
door knocking with people and a majority of them, if there was a new trail that was coming in or if there
was a new part of the park or whatever, that’s what they were really excited about. You know they were
saying thank you for adding this trail or you know we’ve got a lot of people that are out hiking. We’ve
38
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
got a lot of people that are out walking their dogs. We’ve got a lot of kids going to school back and forth
and so this is just one more link to keep them off the roadways and safe and on a path that will take them
to where they need to go so I am in favor of this project.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I too support the project. I’ve supported it for a long time. I’m happy to see
that the quotes came in less. I think with the action of the council back in August it resulted in the ability
to provide for the pedestrian crossing at 101 and Chaska Road, which we approved just a few minutes ago
and also for this project within the original 2012 CIP dollars or pretty close to it. As close as we can get
to it and I think by splitting up the projects those contractors that will build stairs are different contractors
than those that will build trails and pedestrian crossings and I think that’s where we’ve seeing the benefits
here. I think in terms of long range planning, this may not have been, Mr. Laufenburger in prior CIP’s
but it was, the land was preserved as part of the plat of this neighborhood for that access and I think that’s
where the planning started. When the plat for, I think this was the Yoberry neighborhood, which had a lot
of issues. This was part of that. Part of that plat so from a planning standpoint but ultimately it’s a
connection. It’s, it doesn’t I think your standard work for the entire public but many of the things that we
do, especially in park and recreation don’t work for the entire public but that doesn’t mean that we don’t
do them and I think that we need to move forward on projects like these when they are planned for.
When they’re funded and when they’re supported and I think the time is right now with the trail down the
hill. The 41 trail and the underpass completed, the time is right to put it in. To put it in before, to plan for
it to put it in before we knew that we had the 41 trail, then we would have had the stairway to nowhere
and that wouldn’t have made any sense at all so, probably another reason why it wasn’t in some of the
CIP schedules from those prior years is one of the issues so I do support it and I appreciate staff and their
efforts to find a way to do this in an affordable manner. If there are no other comments, would
somebody like to make a motion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I make a motion.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Cory Zafke: Can the public speak now or no?
Mayor Furlong: We hadn’t planned a public hearing. If you’d like to provide comments you can.
Cory Zafke: If I may.
Mayor Furlong: Sure. State your name and address please.
Cory Zafke: My name is Cory Zafke. I’m at 7030 Highover Drive, directly adjacent to where the
staircase will be. Thank you for letting me speak mayor and council members. Really a big special
thank you to Denny for reaching out. Not only has no one asked us if we wanted this staircase throughout
the whole process, but you’re the only person to have expressed a real interest in coming to find out if we
want it. I’m speaking on behalf of the 72% of the people who it’s being built for who don’t want it.
There are two very accessible entrances. One off Lake Lucy. One off the other road I can’t think of right
now that are just as convenient to use. My problem with the staircase is I’ve got two children and one on
the way. We are very much in strollers currently. We won’t be able to use the staircase. We are a
neighborhood of children. There are 10 kids under the age of 5. There are another 8 below the age of 10.
There’s another handful that are teenagers. I don’t know about you when you were growing up but I used
a bike. If I’m on a bike on a sidewalk and I see a path, maybe I want to go down it. Now it’s a staircase.
I can’t use it. Inconvenienced. Maybe they’ll take the, maybe they’ll go off like I did when I was a child.
Don’t go down the stairs, go next to the stairs. I ask you to come to the property and look at the grade.
It’s ridiculously steep. And more importantly I think the people that Denny are speaking about is a family
39
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
that’s right across the street from me. Right across the street from where this is going to be. It’s the
Chambers family. They have a 3 year old daughter who’s in a wheelchair. She will not be able to use the
staircase right in front of her. Her family’s going to be inconvenienced to go around. This is a connector
that’s supposed to be convenient for people. We could talk about ADA and what people are supposed to
be able to do. I notice you have a ramp here. Not a staircase to get up to just your platform. There’s a
reason for that. Great bid. You’re going to do fine if you get it, and I’m sure people will use it. For me
it’s, it’s more a principle of sure, it’s a shortcut but if I’m using a path, I’m using it because I’m
ambulatory and I’m using it because I want to get around and I want to exercise. What’s 2 more blocks
either way? What’s 2 more blocks either way? That’s the route my family’s going to have to take for the
next 3 to 5 years. That’s the route my son’s going to have to take for the next 15. That’s the route
Emerson will have to take for the rest of her life. Yeah, it’s for some of us. It’s not for all of us. I get it.
You really need to think about what this does to the people who can’t use it. You’re going to see kids get
hurt. You’re going to see kids depressed that they can’t use it. You’re going to see people that can’t use
it. I know this is an open forum. I’ve never spoken in a public like this so I apologize if I’m, if I don’t
know what I’m doing. I feel really important about this that the two people that agreed with the people
who are going to be using it, we don’t want it. 72% of us aren’t going to, well I guess we’ll use it. We
don’t want it built because we don’t plan on using it because we already take the long way around. I don’t
know. I just wish you’d consider that, those of you that are for this project, you need to, I think you really
need to reconsider who you’re affecting. You won’t use it. Neither will Emerson and it just drives me
nuts so thanks a lot. I appreciate your due diligence. I wish more people would do that so thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anyone else who’d like to provide a comment? Alright, thank you. I
think you know the question comes up not everybody can use it and I guess Mr. Hoffman, why are
building stairs instead of a trail?
Todd Hoffman: We have no alternative at this location.
Mayor Furlong: Because.
Todd Hoffman: The grade. The steepness of the grade.
Mayor Furlong: It’s too steep for a trail.
Todd Hoffman: (Yes).
Mayor Furlong: If we, if it wasn’t too steep for a trail would we be building a trail instead of stairs?
Todd Hoffman: Yes we would.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So it’s the topography that we’re working with. Alright, thank you.
Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor what obligation do we have to build this stairway? I don’t think
we have an obligation to build this stairway. This is $60,000. Yes, it’s park dedication funds. Yes, it’s
money that’s in the bank but it’s $60,000 that could be spent elsewhere. This is not, this is certainly not
for public safety. As my colleague said last time, the 41 trail connection, the pedestrian crossing, that’s
public safety. This is a convenience. What cost for convenience? $60,000. $59,260 to be specific. Not
approved in last year’s CIP. We have to modify the CIP. What obligation do we have to build this
stairway?
Mayor Furlong: Any other comments? Discussion. If not, do we have a motion on the table?
40
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I haven’t made it yet.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. If there’s no other discussion, if there’s a motion.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Is there a motion to be put up or no?
Mayor Furlong: Do this and then the only thing would to modify the, right Mr. Hoffman? Modify the
2013 CIP.
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’d like to recommend that the City Council award the Trunk Highway 41
trail stairway connector project to Theis Construction Company Inc. in the amount of $59,260.
Mayor Furlong: And to modify the 2013 CIP?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And to modify the 2013 CIP.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman McDonald: I’ll second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Motion’s been made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none we’ll
proceed with the vote.
Resolution #2013-18: Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the
City Council award the Trunk Highway 41 Trail Stairway Connector Project to Theis Construction
Company, Inc. in the amount of $59,260 with modification to the 2013 CIP to bring funds forward
from the 2012 CIP. All voted in favor, except Councilman Laufenburger and Councilwoman Ernst
who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS.
Mayor Furlong: Prior to our next meeting I’m going to be giving a presentation to Chanhassen Rotary
th
Club on Wednesday, March 6. A brief State of the City, as much as I can fit in within the 20 minutes
allotted so certainly members of the council are welcomed. I know the Rotary Club would certainly be
pleased to have any members of public there as well so looking forward to that.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Todd Gerhardt: Minnehaha Watershed District worked with Todd Hoffman and myself in setting up an
AIS meeting with our neighboring communities. Shorewood, Carver County, the Lake Minnetonka Lake
Association and we had the Mayor and City Manager from Long Lake looking at developing an
inspection program attend the meeting. Some of the highlights that came from that meeting was some
additional training for inspectors throughout the summer and then also some check in’s with the
communities to see what’s working. What’s not working and how we can always improve on our
inspection programs so big thank you to Minnehaha Watershed District for coordinating the invitations
for that meeting. It’s always nice to see how other people are providing that same service so that’s all I
have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt or his staff?
41
Chanhassen City Council – February 25, 2013
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
Mayor Furlong: One item Mr. Gerhardt that was in the correspondence packet was some information
th
distributed by Ms. Aanenson regarding an upcoming meeting. I believe it’s April 5, is that correct? In
the Fountain Conference Room. And I believe that’s a joint meeting with, I’m sorry. Thank you. April
nd
2 from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. I believe that will be a joint meeting with the Council and the Planning
Commission.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: To discuss that. So just point that out for everybody’s schedule here at the council. I
don’t know, I think that’s a normal Planning Commission meeting night.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Will there be a reminder also sent out to us?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. We’ll book you and I’ll book for that meeting and put you in jail.
Councilman Laufenburger: So you’re a bookie now, is that what you are?
Todd Gerhardt: I guess so. And work with the deputies. No, we’ll schedule you through Outlook and
make sure that it’s on your calendar. We met with, last week Gordon Hughes that is coordinating the
project and he has a panel that he is going to assemble of builders, developer and a variety of other
professions that give us feedback on how we operate and what their expectations are as they take things
through the approval process in other cities and if they have come through Chanhassen so I think it’s
going to be a great meeting and look forward to it.
Mayor Furlong: Good. Thank you. Any other comments on the correspondence packet? Questions?
If not, that completes our items for this evening’s meeting. Is there a motion to adjourn?
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting
was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
42