Loading...
CC 2004 01 26CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 26, 2004 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Councilman Ayotte, and Councilman Peterson. meeting following the public hearing on 212. Furlong, Councilman Lundquist, Councilman Labatt arrived at the STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Matt Saam, Todd Hoffman, Bruce DeJong, Paul Oehme, Roger Knutson, and Kelley Janes Public Present: Name Address Brett Troyer Jack Broz Lisa Freese Larry Roybal Meg & Bob Nichols Dave Happe Curt Bardal Melissa Gilman Jon Chiglo Peter Wasko Doug Koch Jon Horn Patty & Craig Mullen Ken Wencl A1 Klingelhutz Rick Dorsey Vernelle Clayton Steve Lillehaug Kari Nettesheim Jim Sulerud Cory Nordmeyer Kent Exner JeffMallon Gary Devaan Bob & Suzanne Janssen Bob Quam Krista Flemming Terry Matula MnDot Metro District HNTB MnDot Metro District HNTB MnDot Metro District 607 Summerfield 10301 Heidi Lane Chanhassen Villager MnDot Metro District MnDot Metro District 9136 Springfield Drive Kimley-Horn 611 Summerfield Drive 8412 Great Plains Boulevard 8600 Great Plains Boulevard 1551 Lyman Boulevard 422 Santa Fe Circle Planning Commission 9151 & 9201 Great Plains Boulevard 720 Vogelsberg Trail 8707 North Bay Drive 8701 North Bay Drive 8743 North Bay Drive 8773 North Bay Drive 162 Lakeview Road 5120 West Street, Excelsior Town & Country Homes Town & Country Homes City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Jim Wilson Sarah Lynn Bob Smithburg Carol Morimitsu Tim Erhart Richard Chadwick Kevin McShane James Haugen Cheryl Niebeling Debbie Lloyd Jerry & Janet Paulsen 9150 1050 8657 8769 9611 Great Plains Boulevard Lake Susan Drive Chan Hills Drive North North Bay Drive Meadowlark Lane 9530 Foxford Road 180 South Shore Court 7800 Bavaria Road 10360 Heidi Lane 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING ON MUNICIPAL CONSENT FOR NEW HIGHWAY 212~ PROJECT 03-09. Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening to everybody that's here with us this evening and those watching at home. This is the beginning of our regular meeting this evening. We are starting early so we can focus on the first item of our agenda, which is a public hearing with regard to the municipal consent process for new Highway 212. At this point what we're going to do, just from a format standpoint, we're going to hear some staff reports from the city as well as from MnDot. And there may be some questions from the council members but then we'll open up for the public hearing and people are welcome to come up, make their comments and to the extent that it's a question that we can respond to tonight, whether it's from staff or MnDot, we hope to answer as many questions as we can. So with that, Mr. Saam why don't you go ahead and start. Matt Saam: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. Tonight's meeting is to hold a public hearing for the municipal consent phase of the trunk highway 212 project. It is required by state statute. The one thing ! want to point out is really the point of tonight's meeting is to get the public input on this process. There is no action required by the council tonight. It's to flush out the issues that the public may have. Staff will bring up some remaining issues that we have and MnDot will also give a short presentation. ! do just want to touch on the process for tonight's meeting for those watching at home and here. Following my brief introduction here MnDot will get up and give a short overview. City staff and our consultant will then touch on remaining issues that we have with the plan layout. We'll be open to take any council questions whenever you feel you want to ask them, and then after that we'll go ahead and open the public hearing and take public input on it. With that, I'll introduce the MnDot folks. Jon Chiglo is the project manager for the Trunk Highway 212 project. He's here tonight along with Lisa Freese, the area manager for Chanhassen and surrounding communities, and it looks like a host of others so with that I'll turn it over to Jon. Jon Chiglo: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. ! want to thank you up front for the opportunity to come and speak to you tonight regarding the Highway 212 design build project. Highway 212 is a project that's approximately 12 miles long. It has an 2 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 estimated cost of $245 million dollars, with an anticipated schedule of construction beginning in the spring of 2005 and a completion date no later than the fall of 2007. We are currently in the process, as you are aware and as Matt pointed out, for receiving municipal consent from Chanhassen, Chaska, Eden Prairie and the City of Carver and so as soon as, if consent is given we would proceed with the proposal development of this project that would occur between March and next February where the project would be let February 4, 2005. I'm going to briefly go through the project limits within the city of Chanhassen. If you have questions as I'm going through an area, feel free to ask. Otherwise I'd also be open to answer any questions you or the audience may have. The first portion of the layout begins along the city limits of Chanhassen and Chaska, or Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. Sorry. It is relatively straight forward. There is a trail that is planned in the city of Eden Prairie, as you can see in this location. That is an underpass trail that would be connected with the regional trail that would run along the Carver/Hennepin County line. As we move to the west, we come up to the Highway 101 interchange and as you can see, 101 has been realigned somewhat. The existing alignment runs along in this area, and the new alignment as you can see is the colored area. The interchange will consist of a folded diamond interchange to the west, with ramps and loops. There's also delineation of areas where noise walls and berming will exist along the corridor, and then in the south and east quadrant, 101 in this area is the location of the park and ride or proposed park and ride by Southwest Metro Transit. One thing that we have worked through with city staff, as an issue that was brought to our attention regarding access to that site was a right-in/right-out onto 101 directly from the park and ride, approximately in this location. That has been approved by MnDot and so a right-in/right-out would be added to this layout, or will be added to this layout in addition to the access off of Lyman, which will stay in place. Again as we move farther to the west towards Lyman, you can, there are for people that, it's kind of difficult to see now but there are delineated areas for noise walls and retaining walls along the corridor for noise mitigation measures. The one thing that we will be doing as part of this project is extending. The next interchange is located about a mile away from Highway 101, and it's located at the extension of Powers Boulevard, where Powers Boulevard will intersect with new 212. Again it's a folded diamond interchanged with ramps and loops, folded to the east side of the intersection. The blue areas that you see delineated on this map identify sedimentation ponds that will be construction also as part of this project. Powers Boulevard will be extended under this project from Lyman and intersect at Pioneer Trail which is shown on the next map. In addition, there will be an arch structure constructed under this project that will contain a pedestrian walk that the city has also requested. And the final section within the city limits consist of a portion of Pioneer Trail. The intersection of Powers Boulevard and Pioneer Trail. A realignment of Bluff Creek Road. Bluff Creek Road was realigned for a number of reasons. One would be for the minimizing of impacts associated with the drainage area associated with Bluff Creek and the tributary. Instead of running the alignment as it is today, paralleling Bluff Creek, we've cut across. Created a bridge. Each of these bridges that will be constructed over Bluff Creek, there will be no center pier. They've been designed to minimize impacts to the Bluff Creek channel and minimize environmental impacts associated with those bridges. By constructing the roadway as we have, we've been able to minimize impacts to the drainage area of BC, in addition to preserving right-of-way or available right-of- City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 way for a potential 41 river crossing in this area. And so as we move west we intersect with the City of Chaska city limits and we complete the construction of Pioneer Trail. So this is the extent of the project within your city limits. Matt Saam: Mr. Mayor, at this point Kate Aanenson, our planning director was going to give a brief update on the park and ride parcel. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. As we held the neighborhood meetings, one of the things that was discovered is that there's quite a bit of concern regarding the intersection of Lyman and 101, which is this property right in here. The concern was that there's a proposed park and ride and access to that site. As Mr. Chiglo just indicated, one of the things that we were concerned about is access to that site, strictly being off Lyman adjacent to a neighborhood and it seems like we've resolved that issue. But there's some other ongoing kind of bigger issues that the planning staff is working to resolve and ! just want to give you an update because we just met with the consultants on Friday. Because there is a park and ride going there, and we want to include the neighborhoods in that area, and we've indicated in conversations with some of the neighbors that we're proceeding in that. What we want to do with this neighborhood is educate them on MnDot's relationship with the park and ride. How that works. How that's spun into Southwest Metro and how those roles overlap, so what we've done is we've hired a planning facilitator, Barry Warner with SRF who's going to act as a facilitator, so some of the players in that group will be not only the neighbors in the area will be invited to the meeting. City staff, Southwest Metro and their consultants who they use LFA, and then members from the Planning Commission, City Council also acting as liaisons as this moves forward. So what the purpose of this neighborhood meeting is, ! think some of the concerns that came out is this is all designed already. It's not. What we want to do is work with the neighborhood and would not only be the Springfield neighborhood but also those on Lake Susan that have concerns about what are the uses going to be. How's this going to be designed? Just to be clear, Southwest Metro Transit does not have a design yet. There isn't anything to look at. We want to work with the neighbors first. So we know what some of the concerns are. Noise, buffering, transitions, architectural design, a list of uses, and that's what we're going to be facilitating. We will be putting the dates th for those meetings on the web, but our first date is set for February 18 . We have all three meetings but the first one will be February 18th. Again the purpose is to come up with some zoning and hear from the neighbors and work through a design so ! just want you to know that we're tracking that issue separately and that will be coming back to a public process once we get a PUD ordinance put together. It will be a public hearing before the Planning Commission and ultimately approval by the City Council. So if you had any questions on that I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Furlong: Quick question. Do you have a location for the February 8th meeting? Kate Aanenson: It should be in this building. If not we're going to get the library but we'll put that in the notice as soon as we get that clarified, we'll put that. We just met on Friday so we'll get that posted. 4 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Very good. Okay, Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: Could we get an idea, a time line, not tonight but of all the significant milestones so that folks can go to the web site and know as an example when a design is in fact locked in, and when the residents have their time line for input. Kate Aanenson: Actually ! have all those. We've locked in all those meeting dates already and ! don't want to go through them all right now but we've got the three core ones and we've left some slippage if we have to have some other meetings inbetween because we actually are going to do designs and get comments on those designs. Design alternatives so those will be posted and available. And we'll be sharing those with you. Councilman Ayotte: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions at this time? Okay, no? Thank you. Matt Saam: Mr. Mayor, at this point I'll be turning it over to the city's consultant, Jon Horn of Kimley-Horn and Associates. City staff and Mr. Horn have been reviewing the plans really since they've been submitted. We identified a number of issues early on. We feel we have a lot of those issues worked out with MnDot. There are a couple remaining issues that Jon's going to touch on now. Jon Horn: Mayor and council. As Matt mentioned, my name is Jon Horn. I'm with Kimley-Horn and Associates. We've been working with city staff to review the MnDot Municipal Consent package that was submitted for the 212 project. Generally that really included two key components. One was a preliminary layout, and we spent some time with staff going through that preliminary layout. The second item was a MnDot cost participation policy in terms of what Chanhassen share of the project was, and I'd like to touch briefly on both of those. ! know in the council packets you guys have been provided a summary of the various comments and issues that staff had identified for the 212 project. We've been working with MnDot and ! guess I'd like to thank MnDot staff for working through all those issues with us. ! think initially we had about 15 issues. A bulk of those issues have either been resolved or MnDot's agreed to roll those into the 212 project. There's a couple issues that ! wanted to touch on tonight, just to get council up to date. One of the issues is associated with what happens with existing Trunk Highway 101 after the realignment. In this area, existing 101 runs through this location. 101's proposed to be realigned to this alignment as a part of the 212 project, and we've asked MnDot to consider the reconstruction of the piece of existing 101 between Lake Susan and 86th Street as a part of the 212 project, which is basically this piece of roadway. That currently is not included as a part of the 212 project. MnDot has stated that they would be willing to consider including that into the project if a design and financing mechanism could be established for that, and they've kind of said if we could do that by May 1st, that's something that they certainly would be willing to roll into the project. We talked a little bit here before the beginning of the meeting and that's something that we're going to proceed ahead on in terms of pulling together a package for the financing and reconstruction of that piece of roadway. We also raised the issue City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 with MnDot in terms of what happens with the existing piece of 101 between 86th Street and Lake Drive. It's really going to be the remaining two lane piece of roadway, really north of this area. That has historically not been included as a part of the 212 project. MnDot actually has developed some preliminary designs for that project, but it's really pending of funding, the money necessary to allow that to happen. ! think MnDot has stated they have an initial phase of that project which the creek realignment that's been established for 2005 but the remaining reconstruction is really dependent upon funding for that, and ! think it's just imperative and important that the city and MnDot continue to try to work to develop a financing plan for that remaining piece of roadway. The other remaining issue is also along 101 and it is with response to an access to an existing property at this location which is the Klingelhutz property between Lake Susan and 86th Street. As a part of our review we had asked for a right-in/right-out access to that piece of property. MnDot to date has denied that request, primarily just because of the fact there's some unknowns in terms of exactly what the development is on that parcel. They have said though that if, once a development plan is near, then we can certainly go through a re-request process to ask for a right-in/right-out at that location. Without that right-in/right-out, access would be limited to 86th Street, which could be a concern depending upon what happens to that piece of property in terms of future development. So those are really the layout related issues. In terms of the cost related issues, the initial cost participation amount for Chanhassen is about $3.4 million dollars and the most recent response from MnDot has been $2.1 million dollars so the Chanhassen contribution has gone down quite a bit. Primarily due to a couple of issues. They've eliminated right-of-way acquisition for both trails and roadway right-of-way, which is a significant cost. And some of the estimated costs for some of the trail improvements have gone down as well. So the current amount is $2.1 million dollars. There's also some issues associated with some bridge widening at Powers Boulevard and MnDot has said that they would be willing to consider MnDot participation in that as well so that $2.1 million dollar number actually may go down. In terms of how Chanhassen would pay for those $2.1 million dollars in costs. We worked through some potential financing sources. One potential financing source would be assessment to benefiting properties. We anticipate that may be as much as $800,000 in those costs that could actually be passed on to benefiting properties for things like turn lanes, traffic signals, and other items like that. There's about $370,000 in park and trail costs that would have to be funded and then there's about $930,000 of remaining funds that the City would have to come up with if the contribution stays at the $2.1 million. Potential funding sources for that could be state aid funds for example. That's something the city could certainly consider using state aid funds to pay for. ! think it's important too to note that those costs do not include utility costs. As a part of future MUSA expansion in the area the city would consider extending water and sewer to this area. That has not been addressed at this time, however ! know staff is planning a future feasibility report that would address those issues. So that's really kind of a summary. Maybe just to touch base on a couple of other things that ! know that have been brought up. One is noise mitigation and landscaping along the corridor. It's important to note that this is a preliminary plan submittal. MnDot actually has another level of design that needs to happen above and beyond this. It's a 30 percent design and then actually when it's turned over to the design build contractor, the design will be further evaluated and we just ask for the ability to City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 continue to review and oversee the noise mitigation and landscaping as the project continues. ! guess with that, unless there's any questions. Mayor Furlong: Any questions at this time? No? Very good, thank you. Is that it then from presentations? Matt Saam: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any follow-up questions at this point from the council? If not, I'll proceed and open up the public hearing. Anybody, residents and guests are welcome to come up and address the council on the matter. To the extent that we can, if there's a specific question that we can get an answer for you tonight, we'll try to do that. At least the staff will. Again to reiterate what Mr. Saam said, the council is not going to be considering the question of municipal consent this evening. At this point if things go as we expect, it will probably be continuing to consider this late February-March timeframe, I would think, but that depends on how, if we continue moving along at the pace we have in terms of getting things settled. So with that I will open up the public hearing and invite people to come forward. State your name and address and please. A1 Klingelhutz: Mayor and councilmen, I'm A1 Klingelhutz. I live on 8600 Great Plains Boulevard and I'm kind of hoping this will be one of the last meetings on Highway 212 that I'll have to attend. ! think I've been attending Highway 212 meetings for about 42 years. When ! was on the township board, when they put the stretch in from Glencoe to Norwood, there was a proposal where it was going to go and it was kind of a dispute between the City of Chaska and a businessman and some other people and the businessman wanted it to stay down where it was and some others wanted it to go on top of the hill and that dispute was never resolved so. Then the state run out of money and of course the four lane highway stopped at the City of Norwood, except for the by-pass around Cologne. One of the questions ! have tonight is looking at the present map, and I'm sure it's a concern of the city to continue the new portion of 101, to realign that so that there will be a service road along the homes along Lake Susan. Originally, I'm sure ! was involved in some of this. That would be turned into a service road and a cul-de-sac put on the end of it. So people would turn around and go up 86th Street and get on the new 101. Another thing I'm concerned about is the aesthetics of the proposed highway. Are they going to plant any trees or shrubs along that 200 foot right-of-way that they're claiming when the actual road will not nearly take all of that. We're supposed to be the city of the maple tree. It'd be kind of nice to see a few maple trees along that road and maybe some evergreens. Just to break the monotony of a 200 foot strip of land through the heart of Chanhassen. ! think it'd be something that should be looked at. Another thing with the short piece of the old 101, gets turned over to the city. ! would like to have some action taken on the fact that before that is accepted by the City of Chanhassen, that it should be updated to a little more complete road instead of located on a bunch of black dirt. That's the way it was started. The first time it was laid out, my dad used to grade that road with a team of horses. The gravel was laid right over black dirt and if we get a real wet fall and winter, the road freezes hard. The moisture from the outside of the road City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 comes in underneath the road and I've seen some mighty good frost hills on that road, so ! think those things should be taken care of before the City accepts the road. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Is there any response at this point? Excuse me, just stay right there. On any of those items. Or address. Jon Chiglo: ! just got a, hopefully ! capture them all. As part of the turn back process for old 101 and the section between 86th and Lake Susan Drive, there would be some discussions between the City and MnDot as far as the scope of the work to occur, and that's what ! was referring to in my response to your issue is, including and as part of the 212 project, so if we can capture a scope and a cost as a part of the turn back, then we would reconsider adding it to the design build job. So there would be a discussion between the city staff and us as far as what is actually needed to upgrade that section of roadway. Aesthetics, there will definitely be, there will be an aesthetic landscaping portion but it will not be included as part of the design build project. It will become a separate project that will be programmed about, ! believe it's 2 years after the completion of this job. However, we will also try to salvage saplings that are existing within the corridor. Spade them and locate them in an area until we're done with construction to kind of supplement the project and provide some plantings as soon as possible versus having to wait those additional years to get the implementation of the aesthetics. And ! believe. Matt Saam: Service road along 101. Jon Chiglo: I'm not sure where he was referring to with that. Matt Saam: On the west side here of 101. Service road. A1 Klingelhutz: Yeah, this would be a service road after the new 101 is in. Actually what I'm thinking is, you should eliminate attaching on the new 101. That'd probably come up around this way and connect up to where the 4 lanes goes up to Market Boulevard. Jon Chiglo: Okay. Yes, this is the portion that would be added if we can come to an agreement between the City and the State as part of this design build job so it would be upgraded and become, it would be a cul-de-sac at the end on the north side, with access to homes. What we've done in this area, between here and here is temporarily, we'll be temporarily building a section to connect with existing 101 and you can see this light brown area, in this area here, shows where the future 101 would be constructed. So this portion here is only a temporary roadway that would be constructed until we construct the remaining gap project. And it would be realigned and connected with the reconstructed portion of 212. A1 Klingelhutz: The other question ! was going to ask is, is this going to be cut off here or a cul-de-sac here or what? City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Jon Chiglo: This roadway will come from Lake Susan Drive and extend up to this point where a cul-de-sac would be constructed. A1 Klingelhutz: That will eliminate about 3 or 4 homes down here though. Jon Chiglo: Well the homes will still have access, it looks like there will be 3, possibly 4 homes that will have access but there will be a cul-de-sac off of the old portion of Highway 101 and it will be cul-de-saced at this point. So all of this will be turned back to the city and we'll have a cul-de-sac constructed under the 212 project at that point. A1 Klingelhutz: This is the portion that has had the most protest from the citizens living on this old right-of-way of 101. It's down on that end there's about 4 homes that are very close to the road and some of them have to back out onto the highway to get out of their driveways. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. If you could pull the microphone in front of you. Thank you. And just state your name and address for the record please. Marsha Eelling: Marsha Eelling, 8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North. Mr. Mayor, council members. Thank you for this opportunity to express our opinions on Highway 212. I attended a Transportation Advisory Board September 17th of this year when they were talking about the bonding fund projects and I wanted to present the information to you as I presented it to them. I don't think I impressed them but I'll try again with you. Highway 212 will increase traffic congestion and sprawl rather than relieve it. Vehicle miles traveled is going faster than the population projected over the next 25 years. There's a 38 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled compared to only 28 percent increase in population. Highway 212 will not take much traffic off existing roads because it's not a parallel route but rather a converging route, and it will add an additional 58,000 vehicle miles traveled to the Highway 5/494 bottleneck, one of the worst in the metro area. We're still in the process of widening 494 to accommodate existing traffic. With the addition of new Highway 212, this fix will be short lived and expensive. Most of Carver County is permanent agriculture according to regional growth strategy policy areas. The original purpose of Highway 212 was farm to market but the market moved out of downtown Minneapolis to Savage in the 1960's, so this road that is being expedited because it has been planned for decades will no longer meet the needs of what it was planned for. Instead of farm to market, it will be farm to congestion as it routes the farm north to 494 bottleneck instead of south to the market. Since new Highway 212 will no longer fulfill it's original purpose, the new purpose is to accelerate development along the corridor. Highway 212 will stimulate sprawl rather than smart growth by encouraging people to move further out and commute longer distances. Urbanization increasing at 61 percent is taking place faster than our population growth. Once again 25 to 28 percent. Highway 212 is not consistent with the regional smart growth strategy. It does not promote more efficient integrated public investment in transportation, housing, schools and utilities to make the best use of existing resources and investments. It does not encourage wise stewardship of natural resources and conservation of agricultural land and open space. It does not accommodate growth in City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 ways that maintain or enhance community livability or quality of life. It does not balance the diverse interest and objectives of the region's various communities. Has not engaged citizens in decisions affecting the future of their community and region. Chanhassen does not have the infrastructure or the resources to support the accelerated demand for services. Much of the land in Chanhassen is undeveloped along the corridor. Expediting 212 will put undue pressure on Chanhassen. Our schools are already over crowded. Our property owners are among the highest taxed in the state and our city and counties are facing deficits. Where do we find the tax dollars to build new schools and to build supporting and arterial roads? Is there a plan for that? Without additional supporting roads, internal traffic in Chanhassen could become a nightmare. Because we are not developed, new 212 will cut us off with an unnatural barrier unless we go the additional expense of building new bridges over 212. A new 212 will damage, destroy, contaminate or infringe on lakes, watersheds and wetlands. Bluff Creek Watershed District, Seminary Fen, Lake Riley, Rice Marsh Lake, as well as destroy rare plants, birds and wildlife populations. It will destroy hardwood forests in Bearpath, significantly reduce air quality along new 212 corridor. Noise abatement along the corridor will not be consistent, comprehensive, aesthetic and fair to all residents existing and future. Design build with mistakes in it's calculations. 10 miles is a long project to have not planned ahead. The selection of Highway 212 did not go through the proper channels of open public hearings. Who made the decision to expedite it? Disproportionate amounts, 34 percent of the greater Minnesota road money, plus 8.5 of the metro bonding money is being spent on only one highway, Highway 212. Other bonding fund projects are being expedited by zero to 7 years with the average under 3. While 212 is being expedited 8 years, more than double the average of the other projects. I'll leave the last bullet point for you to read yourselves. So in conclusion ! would like to say that the need for Highway 212 has not been established, nor has the benefits to Chanhassen so ! hope that you seriously consider the impact that this will have on us. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Vernelle Clayton: Mr. Mayor, members of the council, my name is Vernelle Clayton. ! live at 422 Santa Fe Circle here in Chan.! thought that James Haugen was going to come and speak on behalf of the Chamber and since I've been an active member of the Chamber and he's not here, I'll do that. As well as speak from the point of view of the project that is just south of Highway 5 called Village on the Ponds. Oh, there he is. ! won't say anything that you can say. So I'll go back to being a representative of the Village on the Ponds. Although we work with, and ! have worked with a lot of folks, the businesses in this community so I'd like to think that all of them would benefit from your expediting the timeline for the new portion of 101. ! say that because it would not only help the people that are here now, it would help the people that are planning to come here. Help them with their decisions to come here if there is just that much added advantage for easy access for people to get to our businesses. Just one other point. Habits are hard to change. People move here and still go to their same old dry cleaners back in wherever they came from because it's easy and they drive roads because they get in the habit of doing it, so we'd like to have them get in the habit right away when they start driving down the new highway and be able to know that they can conveniently and 10 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 safely get to our business community. So with that, if there's anything I can do or that the Chamber can do to work with you to speed that, we'd be more than happy. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Ken Wencl: My name is Ken Wencl. ! don't know how you get this thing on board but whoever's got it, thank you. Thank you. ! live in Chanhassen. I'm not really sure what was said about this area here. From here down into here. If that's already funded or in the package or what the situation was. Matt Saam: No. As of this point it's outside of the project. However MnDot has said they'd be willing to negotiate with city staff to find a funding mechanism for it. Ken Wencl: Thank you. May ! recommend or at least to be considered that if this part here is asked to be thrown into this package, ! would think it would be time to take care of the little piece from here up to Highway 5, which is simply ! would say less than 4 blocks. Something like that. Now if we're going to do that, instead of having this double piece up here. The City has already bought one piece of property out here about 6 or 7 years ago. Taken it out of tax rolls and there's another one standing right alongside of it, so there's no problem buying the other piece of property because ! know the people are waiting for you to come and approach them on that deal. But on this, from here up to Highway 5, ! don't know what you call it. Death alley or something like that. The first snow storm we had here this fall on a Saturday night, we came from the 5:15 mass coming home and there were 4 vehicles in the ditch. From the little bridge up to the top of the hill by Al's farm. So it's, and ! guess the records, Mr. Olson's, Jim Olson's records will indicate there are accidents on that little area night after night because it's a farm road which we simply paved over some blacktop. Nothing had been done. It's up and down and around as a snake. So if it's possible that that section could be considered at the same time that you're considering this section here. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Do you want to respond quickly? This seems to be an issue. Jon Chiglo: We'll just refer to it as the 101 gap. There's about a half mile stretch approximately that is not part of this design build project and as was mentioned in Mr. Horn's presentation, the State has, in order to construct that it's a two phase project and there are environmental issues that need to be addressed before the construction can begin, so that is why it is not added to this project at this time because of some environmental issues that have not been addressed. One thing we are doing however is realigning the creek and as part of that realignment it will be completed over the summer of 2005, and that's the Stage 1 of that project. The second stage would be reconstructing that road. So we are working to find a funding source in order to construct that portion of the road, and we will be working with your city staff and state aid to try to find a funding source, but there's really those two issues. It's the environmental issues that need to be 11 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 addressed. MnDot is proceeding with design, but there's also a funding source issue that needs to be addressed also. Ken Wencl: Can you address the environmental problems, what they are? Do you know, can you tell us, or detail of that. What those things are so. Lisa Freese: For the record I'm Lisa Freese. I'm the Area Manager for MnDot for the south metro area. And the environmental problems, it's not really an environmental project. It's really an environmental procedure that we need to follow through. For this project we need to go through and get environmental clearance in order to have the project move forward, and at this point we're still in the preliminary design phase. We have a design that ! think we're pretty much in agreement with the city on. We'll be moving through the environmental review on that design, and getting it cleared so that we can move forward with construction. We're working to develop a partnership on the funding with our state aid office, the metro district budget and hopefully with some assistance from the City of Chanhassen, we'll be able to move forward and program that project probably in fiscal year 2006, but we have some logistics to work out so at this time ! can't really say that we have the project all ready to package up and go out for letting, but we're close. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. A1 Klingelhutz: Will 101 in the future be turned over to Carver County? Jon Chiglo: ! think the department expects to turn back 101 eventually to Carver County, yes. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Gerhardt, you've had meetings with Carver County. Can you update a little bit on that. Todd Gerhardt: Carver County is considering taking back 101 once it's upgraded. However they would like to see efforts to look at the entire corridor and taking the entire roadway of 101 basically from old 212 up to Highway 5, or south of Highway 5 before they take any segment back, until all of it's improved has been their city engineer's comments. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anybody else? Please. Bob Smithburg: My name is Bob Smithburg, 8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North. Mr. Mayor, council members. Appreciate this hearing tonight. First of all ! want to compliment Kate for showing concern tonight and doing the right thing. Thank you very much. The council members and mayor, you were not in office during the 1996 212 toll road debate. Many concerns were brought forth but many to deaf ears by concerned citizens. Not only being unfairly targeted to pay for the privilege on driving on a highway, but concerns about the environmental impact Highway 212 would have. The splitting of Chanhassen, zoning, the affect on the fen and future traffic patterns. Over 12 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 time we were able to dispel the old argument that new 212 was to serve the farm to market. The market is located itself across the river. Warehouses and river terminals for barges, etc. Unfortunately 212 tunnel vision kept this new road on it's present course. And now ! am concerned about where we are headed with new 212. ! feel it is the ultimate road to sprawl and this will increase traffic in the future for Chanhassen. Our downtown will undoubtedly lose business because 212 will create a Chanhassen bypass from Eden Prairie to Chaska. And the design build concept does create a lot of flexibility in design as the road construction moves forward. Potentially negating citizen's concerns. Design build is like quick sand. You need to be on the ball as do the citizens. Who can best judge what is best for Chanhassen? A sitting council, it's citizens or MnDot. Please have the courage to stand up for our community. Hear the concerns of Chanhassen citizens, and don't cave in to pressure from special interests but do the right thing for the people who live here. Thank you. Jon Chiglo: I wanted to comment on the design build process because it is a new process. It hasn't probably been talked a whole lot about. Before I worked on 212 I was part of a management team in Rochester for the Highway 52 design build project and I think the concerns that the gentleman just stated as it being comparable to quick sand are something that I think you could find would be incorrect. Based on my experience on Highway 52, it's a similar size project. It's $232 million dollar job. The citizens are I would say very happy with how the project's progressed. They're very happy with how their concerns have been addressed by the design builder. We write specific criteria into the constraints or the scope of work to place responsibilities on the design builder to ensure that they're responsive to the needs or concerns that are expressed by citizens that are impacted or just general citizen concerns about the project. So I think as far as citizen concerns and input from the citizenry of Chanhassen, or any other city or county citizen, I think they would be, I would suspect and I would expect that they would be handled expeditiously and I think thoroughly and I think in the end I think people would be happy with the responsiveness of the contractor and MnDot. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Cory Nordmeyer: I have a handout. Do I just hand it to you or to somebody? Mayor Furlong: That'd be great. Cory Nordmeyer: Mr. Mayor and City Council members. Thank you for your consideration this evening. My name is Cory Nordmeyer and ! live at 8707 North Bay Drive. ! am the President of the North Bay Townhouse Association. We are a development of 75 single family dwellings in Chanhassen. Highway 212, the biggest concern that we have at this time is that Highway 212 does run as close as 60 yards from the road to homes in our development. We're very concerned that we're not getting proper noise protection due to cost cutting efforts on behalf of MnDot. When talks began to begin Highway 212 five years ahead of schedule, the original plan was to be built, the highway was going to be below ground or below grade. Digging down for the road. That has changed with the new proposal. In October ! did attend two meetings with 13 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Minnesota Department of Transportation. At those meetings we were told that the berm behind our development would be 25 feet high and it would be topped by a 6 foot wall. ! do sincerely hope that this isn't an example of the quick sand that the man mentioned earlier that just spoke, but it does appear that the plan has changed considerably from what we were originally told it would be. We did learn that on Friday of January 23rd that we would now be getting a 10 foot berm instead of the 25 foot berm and we would have a 20 foot wall instead of the 6 foot wall. The current proposal does not meet noise standards that are set by MnDot. The estimated noise levels are 56 decibels instead of the 55 decibels that are allowed by MnDot, and ! guess they'll be requesting a variance from the City Council. But due to the 1 to 3 decibel margin of error with the information that MnDot has put together, the noise levels could be higher than what has been proposed by MnDot. If the noise standards are met, 75 homes in our development will get the adequate protection that was originally planned in the original plan by MnDot. We do understand that you are not making a decision tonight, but we do ask that the approval for 212 be conditional on noise standards being met for all of our homes within our development and we're not going to complain tonight without providing suggestions so we do have a few of those. One is to explore lowering the road using wall or berm abatement. Also, explore expanding the right-of-way to allow for taller berms. And again that is what we were told at one point, that the new design actually was further from our homes which allowed for larger berms to be built which apparently is not the case. ! know we'll get a chance for MnDot to respond to that shortly. In addition to that we would ask that noise barriers be built first if the construction is to be done at night. And that is all that ! have. We do thank you for your consideration. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Response? Jon Chiglo: I'll start with the last one first. I do not anticipate any construction occurring at night, so it would be daytime hour construction. I'll just kind of touch on the request and we have been working with this townhome association trying to address their concerns since, as he mentioned, early October when we met with them, and there's been a number of communications back and forth trying to respond to their questions. One of the questions was if we could lower the roadway to increase or enhance the design, or the mitigation of noise or the reduction of noise levels and we did look at lowering the roadway some and we were unable to reduce the noise levels from a 56 decibel to a 55 decibel by lowering it upwards of 2 feet right now. Through our recent, ! should say recent being in the last 6 months we have done a design enhancement. Enhanced the design of 212 and in that design modification we have done a number of things to improve, among others, mitigation and noise and one would be a modification of the roadway profile. In some areas we have raised the profile of the roadway. In other areas or in additional areas we've created a curb and gutter section adjacent to the outside ditch. And both of these design changes have allowed us to have more room between the edge of the roadway and the right-of-way to build larger berms. However in some instances right-of-way is restricting and it limits us to the size of the berm. We obviously in those areas then we need to use walls and this is one example of the area where walls would be constructed in order to enhance or to improve the noise reduction levels adjacent to this community. On average ! would say that this is above average or it is 14 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 above average I mean it is a better reduction in noise than a majority of the communities in the metro area because of the design that we are providing. We are using berms and noise and there have been some miscommunication between me and them based on having a 20 foot tall berm and a 6 foot tall wall, but in essence what you look at is the top elevation of that wall and improving, maintaining that top elevation of the ultimate structure is the important thing. And the combination of a 20 foot wall and a 10 foot berm is still 30 feet versus 31, and even if we were to add a foot or two to that wall, we would not be able to gain that extra decibel or two to reduce it below the standard that's required by the PCA. The PCA is the governmental agency that establishes noise standards for us to meet, and you know there's been some comments here about fairness of implementation of noise mitigation measures. There are really two objective measures that we use for determining when noise abatement is constructed along or adjacent to a highway. One is a reduction of 5 decibels or more and the other is the cost effectiveness. And unfortunately it comes down to a cost effectiveness in some instances but those are the two criteria and there's a process for us to use to determine what that cost effectiveness is. And if they have to meet both of those criteria in order for a wall to be constructed. It cannot meet one and not the other. Both criteria need to be established. It's an objective process based on modeling that's been established by the Federal Highway Administration and so it's not a subjective process and the objectivity is used to create a fairness along the entire corridor. To eliminate any subjective decisions on anybody's part on deciding when and where a wall would be placed. So based on those criteria we've established where walls will be placed along the corridor. Where we cannot build berms using the material that we're excavating out of the roadway, or where right-of-way constrains us in height of those berms. We're using walls. We will not construct over a 20 foot tall wall, and if we can meet the standards with a lower wall, we will. So along the corridor you're going to see a number of different combinations of berms, walls, berms and walls or just walls, so there's numerous walls and berms. There's 250,000 square foot of noise walls that are being constructed. We're also, based on some conversation with your city staff, going to be building screening berms so there is a difference. Screening berms have been placed and are delineated on the map in areas that your city staff has identified for us that's separate from noise berms, but there are a number of different things that we are addressing with berming and noise walls or noise berms so. Mayor Furlong: Yes, Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: Have the design enhancements that you and the staff have looked towards, have those recent design enhancements been discussed in any detail with North Bay? Jon Chiglo: Yes. They've been, through this process we've had two public meetings within the city of Chanhassen at the library, and at both of those public meetings residents of North Bay have been present and I've discussed that in my presentation in addition to, before and after any questions regarding that. And I've also met privately with North Bay residents prior to one of the public meetings in a separate meeting just for them to discuss issues regarding North Bay and the design enhancement was discussed at 15 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 that time. Now that's the meeting where the miscommunication occurred between me and them. Councilman Ayotte: So if there was some measure of miscommunication, I'll address this to Matt. Do you think there may be a need to have a follow on discussion to make sure that there is complete understanding as to what is currently proposed or no? Matt Saam: Yeah, ! agree. And ! think MnDot would be more than happy to have a meeting with city staff and invite the residents of North Bay so we get all the design issues correct and on the table. Cory Nordmeyer: That would be greatly appreciated. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Ayotte: Thank you. Rick Dorsey: My name is Rick Dorsey. Have property with my father at 1551 Lyman Boulevard. Mr. Mayor, council members. I'd like to have you take a closer look at the location and need for the interchanges accessing 212. Between 101 and Lyman Boulevard as an example, there's about 9/10 of a mile. There will be zero ! think development between those two points as it's primarily marshland. The need for having those two interchanges to me doesn't make a whole lot of sense, as well there's another interchange that will be supposedly someday coming up from the south at Audubon so in a less than 2 mile area you're going to have 3 interchanges, plus you have one in Dell Road and Eden Prairie. If you picture this, it's just going to be bumper to bumper stopped up traffic as you well know happens on any kind of freeway where there are interchanges. The need for them, you know whether somebody's going to go to one or the other, be it Lyman or 101 as an example. You know there's not a whole lot of difference driving wise as far as Chanhassen community is concerned. Primarily most of the traffic that ! see though would hit the Lyman Boulevard, or excuse me, 17/Lyman Boulevard interchange is going to be from the west as there's no other planned interchanges until you get out ! believe to 41, which means all the traffic from Chaska will be flowing through to come through Chanhassen, which means that Chanhassen as a community has a lot of infrastructure, roads that they'll be supporting for the traffic that's not even within their own community. A suggestion ! threw out quite some time ago is to look at these intersections and having two so close together with nothing inbetween them doesn't make any sense. They should be spread out. Perhaps it should be 101 and Audubon. ! don't know. I'm just throwing the idea out. The cost to Chanhassen ! believe is very immense. In looking at the future right now there's a lot of land there that's got development potential down the road. From the standpoint of Chanhassen that means that's where the money comes from. That's the tax base and while it's open land and easy to just say let's put another intersection in there, there's probably about 40 acres tied up in an intersection. You put it at the densities that's being talked about in the area and it's very significant dollars that are lost by having too many, number one. From the standpoint of economics and development. As well Chanhassen will be supporting the 16 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 arterial roads that are going to be coming through the area, like I said. It appears to me the general direction and flow of traffic is going to be towards 494 in the morning, away in the evening but primarily going towards which means that the access points are going to be drawing everybody from the west through to get to these two points, which are you know less than a mile apart. Chanhassen will have to pay ! believe for the interchanges getting on and off these roads. Stop signs, that kind of thing. It was mentioned that there's a cost to Chanhassen of several million dollars. I, for one, owning property in the area don't like the idea of hearing them say that the property owners in the area maybe should foot some of the bill for these access points. ! would just as soon not have as many access points and reduce the cost. The other things quick, just you know from the standpoint of the development of 212, ! mean if you go on any other major road, 169, Highway 100, you have bigger spreads between all these access points and even still they get bogged down heavily at those points. If you can just picture 3 right in a row so close together, it's going to be just a problem from the start. I'd like to add some of those addressed by Jon. Why it was designed that way. ! know there's talk of a lot of development in that area. There's 600 acres. The reality is after all the roadways are taken out, planned parks, there's about 200 and some odd acres available for development, which does not project to these enormous numbers of people where we need this many entrances and exits right in that area. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Comments? Jon Chiglo: One thing about a project like 212 is, as you're aware, it's got a long history and ! believe it was mentioned that it was 40 something years ago that this was being planned and if in the early 90's the final environmental impact statement was completed and so, you know traditionally on a job like this, on a new alignment, the alignment for 212 would be constructed and then interchanges would be placed as the local system developed. Well because of the delay in the construction of 212, the local system's already developed. So interchange locations have been placed based on where local systems are planned and being developed currently. Through many years of coordination with the city, the county and MnDot staff, there's been mutual agreements on where these locations would be, on these interchange locations and that's primarily the history behind it. Some of the sections, the width of the road that are being constructed. We will accommodate for traffic forecasts that we are projecting out 20 years so the bridge widths are accommodating a 20 year forecast. Roadways are accommodating.., forecasts. So we are accommodating for growth in the future and what we're using are working with city, the city staff, the Met Council model and forecasts that we do for project specific reasons. So those are really why interchange locations have been chosen and ultimately the sections of the roadway have been developed for this plan. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Rick Dorsey: I'd like to make another comment too as far as the projections, the growth for the area again. Looking to the north of Lyman Boulevard it's predominantly developed. What we're looking at is south of Lyman Boulevard, which goes to about Pioneer Trail and then you hit basically the river bluff, or the golf course. Lower density 17 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 development that's already been in place there. I'm not sure where all the growth is going to come from other than much further west than Chanhassen, and again if there's that development going out there, why do we need to have 2 interchanges right so close together, number one again. And if in fact these plans were developed as they were over so many years, that's why we're here. We should be re-addressing them and looking at them now. Things have changed since those were originally put there. The type of development. Amount of development. The need are all things that ! think need to be re- looked at before dollars are spent. Not just the state dollars but also Chanhassen's dollars to support their arterial roads, etc. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. David Happe: David Happe, 604 Summerfield Drive. Thank you for the job you guys are doing. It's much better to be out here than sitting in one of those chairs tonight but. A couple things. One, I'm not a resident of North Bay, but just in agreement with my fellow residents. ! assume if you're looking at, or if we're looking at putting a 20 foot wall adjacent to these people's houses, the least that we could do for them would be to ensure that the sound levels meet or exceed the expectations of either state or federal standards. Cost effectiveness in my opinion should not be the predominant deciding point as to whether or not we meet acceptable sound standards for those houses. For the gentleman who made the generous offer for several hundred dollars worth of assessments, ! don't remember who that was but I'd invite you to come to one of the resident meetings that Kate is putting together and make that same proposal to the residents and see how that goes over. Kate, for the resident meetings, thank you for putting those together. As much advance notice as you could give to those, and Mr. Mayor, if you could direct city staff, there should be every focused effort made to make sure that that's an exceptionally visible meeting. It's very important for the residents that are in the corridor, up to and including a mailer if possible and surely contacting the homeowner associations, such as the Springfield Homeowners, the North Bay Townhouse Association and any other developments that would have a recognizable contact point that we could get in touch with. And lastly what I'd like, and ! guess my main point to our City Council is please take a look at the park and ride. Specifically take a look at the existing park and ride that's part of the Chan Bowl property. As that project is redeveloped, the opportunity exists to do some additional things with that particular park and ride. I'd encourage you to take a look at the usage numbers for that park and ride to determine if usage is maximized for that location. Come to the conclusion as to whether or not Chan really does need two comparable park and rides within that tight of a vicinity and make your decision after you're able to review the numbers of the existing usage of that existing park and ride facility. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Jon Chiglo: For addressing the comment associated with the North Bay Townhome Association, and the noise mitigation. You know if, as ! mentioned there's two criteria that we use. One is cost effectiveness, and both of them have been met in that area. So the wall is being constructed and the wall is being constructed as high as we go anywhere 18 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 in the metro area or in the state. As a guideline we do not construct walls over 20 feet tall, and they're getting a 20 foot tall wall. In addition, if we were to lower the roadway in that area we would start reducing the height of the berm because of available right-of- way to construct the berm. So by raising the profile in those areas we've been able to maximize the height of the berm, and ultimately the top elevation of the wall. So we're getting to a level where we've maximized the mitigation efforts without acquiring additional right-of-way adjacent to those properties, so. Mayor Furlong: Just a clarification Jon. When you say you lower the road and that limits the height of the berm, is that because of the footprint of the berm itself or the width of the berm relative to the... Jon Chiglo: If you lower the roadway your slopes have to start at a lower point and they carry out farther. The higher, if your roadway is higher, you can maximize the length of your slope because it moves, the toe of that slope moves closer to the roadway. By lowering the roadway you start maximizing the length, or minimizing the length of that slope and minimizing the height of the berm. Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Jon Horn: Mayor and council, maybe just a clarification on the assessment question that was raised. The assessments would be proposed to be to undeveloped properties where there are specific improvements included as a part of the 212 project to accommodate development of those projects so they would not be assessments proposed to existing properties that are developed in the area. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Jon Chiglo: There's two different noise standards. There's a federal noise standard, which is 70 decibels day and night and so we're 14 decibels lower than the federal guidelines. It's the state standard that is, we're 1 decibel away from and there's a nighttime standard of 55 decibels and a daytime standard of 65 decibels. We satisfy the daytime standard and we're 1 decibel away from satisfying the nighttime decibel. Kari Nettesheim: Kari Nettesheim, 9151 Great Plains Boulevard and 9201 Great Plains Boulevard. First of all on the park and ride. ! agree. ! don't think we need two park and rides in Chanhassen, and ! also agree that that's a lot of interchanges for that short of a distance but my main point is, on the map. I'm right here. These two properties and there's a holding pond in my back yard which is also my septic leach bed so somebody's going to have to replace my septic or put in sewer or water if you keep that holding pond there so you might want to re-think that. Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Sounds like a meeting to me. Jon Chiglo: Any impacts to your property would be addressed. Ultimately if that's the chosen location for that pond, and at this point we're proceeding as if it is the location to 19 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 acquire right-of-way, impacts of that property, septic systems or whatever else would be paid for through our right-of-way process and compensated for replacement or upgrade so that would be something that would be addressed through our right-of-way process. James Haugen: Mr. Mayor, council members. My name is James Haugen and ! represent the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce. I'm the 2004 Chair of the Chamber. As far as the business community goes, there is an opportunity that exists for the city of Chanhassen and the 2 or the 312 corridor and we ! think want to continue to look at those opportunities that are there and expand the commercial and business tax base that can be available for us up there. We have worked and continue to work with our capable city planner and so those are opportunities that we'll continue to look at there. The issue that ! think we wanted to address specifically tonight though is the connection point between the 312 corridor and the downtown core business area. There's some question about funding and some sort of a connector that gets people from the corridor to the central downtown area of the city, and we'd like to make sure that funding is obtained and that comes along with the implementation of the road so that the downtown area can stay connected to all of the traffic going through. So generally change is something we all deal with. We want to make sure that we stay connected to the change that's happening in the southern part of the city and remain committed to working with the city to expand the commercial tax base in the southern half of Chanhassen. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Richard Simmons: Hello. My name is Richard Simmons. ! live at 530 Summerfield Drive. Mr. Mayor, City Council. ! have concerns about the proposed park and ride. One, the wisdom but two, assuming that it does go forward, and ! had specific questions about the layout of the plan as it's comprised now. And on this document the line is expanded to at least 52 feet in this area to the east of the park and ride, and based on my commute currently there's, and there's a right turn lane going into this park and ride. And based on my commute or the traffic levels and just living in this general area, the traffic doesn't seem to sustain or call for that kind of additional, those kind of additional lanes and ! was wondering if there were additional traffic projections pulling in traffic from Eden Prairie or expanding Lyman further to the east that justified that. The second concern that ! had is that the only entrance into any proposed park and ride, and my understanding is that it's potentially off a 400 car park and ride with retail and some other building in that area. Is that the only entrance is on Lyman as close to the residential area as is possible and there's no alternate entrance that would mitigate the impact on residential areas from Highway 101 rather than Lyman to these neighborhoods and ! would hope that as planning for what goes into that area, assuming that there is a park and ride goes forward, that thoughts on mitigating the impact to this area, you know for example it looks like all the trees in that area are being wiped out, can be taken into account. What the impact is on the neighborhood as things go forward. Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Thank you. Just as a point of clarification. ! thought ! heard earlier tonight something about the access to that park and ride. Is that something that we can clarify? 20 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Jon Chiglo: Yes, working with city staff we've added, which is not shown on this map but it will be, a right-in/right-out access off of 101 for access, an additional access to the park and ride. And the reason for these turn lanes, it's, we just felt it was the appropriate time to construct them. There is a left turn and a right turn into that. Into the intersection off of Lyman so we just felt it was the appropriate time. We're not seeing anything in our traffic forecast but it would just facilitate movements into that intersection and increase, or enhance safety aspects of the intersection. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Tim Erhart: Good evening. Tim Erhart, 9611 Meadowlark Lane. I'm here with a couple positive notes, and one concern. I'm a very committed Chanhassen resident. Not quite as committed as A1 here but years go on it's getting there. I've been here 24 years. Not only have I lived here that long, but I also have a business in the industrial park so I know what, I know and I've seen as the years go by what's happened on traffic here past my place and Pioneer Trail. In the morning the back up going in, at night the back up's going out. I also know what the industrial business do in Chan for the tax base to try to make this an affordable place and year after year I hear complaints about residential taxes here. So I know what the industrial businesses do with regard to that. I share many people's concerns about the fact that our federal and state governments do little or nothing to discourage driving and long commutes and thus the sprawl that is mentioned. I don't like it and I wish we would do more but I really don't think that we're going to see a change in our policies. Therefore I think it's necessary that this road proceed to maintain the value of life that we have come to share here as people in Chanhassen. So I'm very excited about it. We need to have the road to prevent additional congestion because we're going to have people fill in western Carver County, whether or not we build the road. We're going to see ever more people from Pioneer Trail, 5 and 212. Today I don't drive on Eden Prairie roads because I have 312 to get on to go to the airport or to downtown or someplace in the city. Likewise all those people are going to be building out here and they're going to be driving on our roads if we don't provide a way to get through the city. Secondly as a businessman here, if we don't provide some method to get from our industrial parks to the airport, to downtown and other businesses in the community, we're not going to see the growth of the industrial base necessary to maintain what everybody considers reasonable tax rates for residential people here. We will become a bedroom community with ever increasing tax rates. So those are the two issues that I have regarding my excitement about the project and I think it's time to move on with it because this expansion, I see it every morning on Pioneer Trail. I'm very concerned however, and have expressed it to Jon before, about the landscaping and the finishing of this project. As people drive through our communities they're going to see, what they're going to see is 212 and it's going to reflect on what kind of a community we are. We're a community not of grass and prairie. We're a community of trees and lakes. As A1 mentioned you know our famous maple tree. And there are some nice highways through the community here. 494 north where you don't feel like you're a part of an unfinished construction part. You feel you're part of the surrounding community. When people come to our community to build something they're required by our ordinances to 21 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 complete and commit to a landscaping plan. When ! was on the Planning Commission, we ran Target through back and forth on making sure their landscaping plan was an integral part of their program and financial commitment. Likewise today ! couldn't build an addition or something new in our industrial park without making landscaping part of the project, so ! asked the city to make conditional upon approval here that the landscaping and finishing of this 212 off is an integral part of the project so that when it's all done, it says something good about our community. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Jon. We'll get you a seat at the table next time. Jon Chiglo: The landscaping plan, you know as Tim mentioned, we had talked about it a number of times and we are committing to doing a landscaping project for this project, or for this section of 212. It's just not going to be tied to the design build project itself. It is yet to be programmed but when it's within a 3 year window, it will be programmed and that design, that landscaping plan will primarily address the landscaping around interchanges within each city. And one that, when that project is planned ! guess ! would suggest to the city to appoint a few citizens to a committee to work with the Department to address issues related directly to the city, and each city then would have representation from a citizen or two or three or however many you would choose, but we would then work with those communities in developing that plan. Jon Chiglo suggest that the city appoint a committee comprised of citizens to work with the MnDot to address issues related directly to the city in developing that plan. Mayor Furlong: Very good thank you. Councilman Ayotte: Just for point of clarification. Mayor Furlong: Certainly, Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: Point of clarification. The 3 year window, if and when, we're not going to get the 43 years I'm sure Mr. Klingelhutz but how much time could it be where the aesthetics, the design and execution would occur? You said there's a 3 year window and ! didn't quite catch that so how long can we be barren if you will? Jon Chiglo: We traditionally do not, on any job that MnDot builds within the metro, we wait 2 years after the construction is complete before we would implement any aesthetics so, 08-09 would be probably the earliest that an aesthetic plan would be implemented, but the construction would not be completed until 07. The fall of 07. So does that answer? Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this issue this evening as part of the public hearing? That would like to come forward now. If not, what ! would do. We're approaching our 7:00 start time, which is our normal start time for a meeting. What we had planned on doing is continuing the public hearing until sometime 22 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 during our regular meeting just to...so if there's nobody wishing to speak, is there a motion for the council to continue the public hearing until later in our regular meeting. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table the public hearing to later in the regular agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: I'd like to thank everyone for coming this evening. Certainly the residents to come and to help us understand your issues and concerns. Our staff, city staff, Mr. Horn has been working with us, but also MnDot. They have, my sense is that they've been working very well with our city and very responsive to the questions that have been raised thus far. ! know that there were some other issues that have been talked about before this evening but clearly this gives the council and the staff, both in MnDot and the city to re-look at and put particular emphasis on those issues that were raised this evening. So with that I'd like to thank everybody. I'm just going to call a 10 minute recess. We'll start our regular council meeting at 7:10. There was a short recess prior to the beginning of the regular agenda. Councilman Labatt arrived at this point in the meeting. Mayor Furlong reconvened the City Council meeting at 7:15 p.m. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: I'd like to start out with a public announcement, an invitation to February Festival. Annually the City of Chanhassen in cooperation with local businesses sponsors a series of special recreational events. Our winter special event is February Festival which will be held a week from this coming Saturday on February 7th at Lake Ann Park. Tonight I'd like to invite all residents, their families, friends to come and join my family and me and other members of the council and staff for this fun winter event. The activities begin at noon with sledding, skating, bonfire. Boy Scout Troop #330 will be selling kits for s'mores. The Chanhassen Lions will offer food and hot concessions again this year. Fishing contest will run from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. Get there early this time Mr. Gerhardt if you would please so you can start on time. There's over $3,500 in door prizes. $2,000 in fishing contest prizes that will be awarded that day. In addition everyone is welcomed to join those people playing bingo on the ice searching for the Friends of the Library medallion that's buried somewhere in the city. Finding the medallion is worth a $1,400 prize so it's going to be a lot of fun. Tickets are available at City Hall and other places. It's $5.00 for adults and children. ! would encourage everybody to come. It's a good way to spend our cold winter days together having fun. Are there any additions or changes to the agenda at this point? If not, we'll proceed as published. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendation: 23 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated January 12, 2004 -City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated January 12, 2004 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Minutes dated January 6, 2004 e. Approval of Pay Invoice for 2003 Boulevard Tree Pruning. f. Approval of 2003 Environmental Excellence Award Recipients. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. B. APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT FOR DESIGN OF WELL #9~ PROJECT 03-02. Councilman Lundquist: Matt, maybe this is a question for you. As I was reading through the packet, the numbers, we approved the $19,000 first and then there was a change order for $11,483 in addition to that, right? Matt Saam: I'll just clarify Councilman Lundquist. The $19,000 was for the design, so that was a contract with an engineering firm. The change order that you refer to is actually money to a contractor. Initially you approved a work order with the contractor for $22,685. Then we had the problems at the Well #3 site. We had to move to Sugarbush. That is what prompted change order number 1 for $11,483. So just to clarify both the 22 and the 11,000 were paid to a contractor. This item is going to a consultant engineer. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Then the additional 909, which is estimated, $909,000 and change on this, is, that's the part that's in the CIP plan for actually building the well, correct? Matt Saam: Correct. That also does include the engineering on that and other associated costs. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Did we go out to anyone other than Bolton and Menk to look for the engineering piece of that, or did we award them that contract because they had done the preliminary? Matt Saam: Yes, you're correct in the former response. I'll just go back. When we initially did the well, the siting of the test well, we went out for RFP to I believe 3 firms. The RFP's that came back gave us prices for all three phases of design. Test well, design of the well and then construction administration. So Bolton and Menk got what I'll call the overall package. However, you only approved Phase I of it initially so the thinking was we were going to stay with them through the whole process and just have them revise as necessary. 24 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Fair enough. That's all the questions I had, thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Matt, before you leave. Could you just highlight a cost savings measure in combining well house #3 with well house #9. Matt Saam: Sure. It's what ! talk about in the staff report. There were really two options for this well 9 for the siting of it. Could either build a well house and well at the Sugarbush Park site, with chlorine feed and other fluoride, those sorts of chemicals at that site, or we could do what we're proposing to do. Basically pump underground with a submersible pump from Sugarbush Park to the well #3 site where we have an existing well house. Utilize those facilities so basically we're not doubling up on the well house and the chemical feeds. The proposed estimated cost savings is about $150,000. Councilman Ayotte: It's a cost avoidance? Matt Saam: Yes. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Councilman Labatt: Matt can you, what will we see visible at the park? Matt Saam: Maybe Kelly can speak to this too, but as ! see it, it's only going to be a small kiosk above ground. Or Paul, if you have anything to add, but it's going to be a submersible pump so it will be underground for the most part. Kelly Janes: There will be some associated electrical control panels and probably a sizeable transformer near that site too because it will take a large amount of power. But the control panel would probably be very similar to some of the lift station sites you've seen for controls, but most of the master control type units would be down at the well #3 site. There would be some specific controls that will be next to that transformer, and then all you'll see is typically a flanged pipe that comes up out of the ground for the ability to remove and place back in the submersible pump. And that can, the one we have currently terminates about 6 inches above the ground. Councilman Labatt: So as the park and rec considers, any thought as, if you're going to have this, I'll call it a structure with a generator and the power supply, as far as building some sort of structure similar to what's at Rice Marsh. Just a shelter top with supporting poles. Are you going to try to incorporate some sort of park shelter in connection. Todd Hoffman: The Park Commission did not talk about that. It's not on the park plan and I've not had any conversations with staff about that. Matt Saam: We were really trying to go very minimal here Councilman Labatt with not a lot of above ground structure type things. 25 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Todd Hoffman: The location of the well is off towards the parking lot. Just outside of the parking lot. I'm not sure if it would be an appropriate location for a shelter, or if we would put that more towards the interior of the park. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Any other questions, I'll turn my mic on. If not, is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve the consultant work order for the design of well number 9, Project 03-02. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any further discussion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approve the consultant contract for the design of Well #9, Project 03-02. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. C. APPROVE PUMP PURCHASE FOR LIFT STATION NO. 10-PW055J. Councilman Lundquist: l(c), all ! need Matt is funding source. Is this a capital item or is this just general fund dollars? Matt Saam: I'll defer to Bruce on this. Todd Gerhardt: It would come out of our utility budget. As a part of the maintenance of our utility system. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, fair enough. That's all ! needed. Thanks Todd. Todd Gerhardt: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Motion to approve? Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion? 26 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson purchase of the pump for Lift Station No. 10, PW055J. motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. seconded to approve the All voted in favor and the VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. ! sent the council and mayor an e-mail on Saturday regarding proposed 2nd Addition Burlwood. And I'm only speaking because there isn't an opportunity to address the council during the discussion. ! missed out a couple of points and ! want to make this a point of record. The Kerbers are really good people. ! love their sweet corn and their tomatoes. We purchased them routinely. This is nothing personal, but I've been following city action for nearly 3 years and as you sit in a planning meeting and at city council you see the whole story being woven. ! know that this has been a difficult issue that you're going to be going over tonight because the staff and a prior city council made some assumptions, or made some ! should say approved some aspects of this subdivision. But ! do not believe, and ! strongly do not believe that's a reason to grant three variances tonight. The property can be subdivided into two lots, or you could grant a variance for a private street to serve those 2 lots, or you could create by code, there isn't code, a half street option with certain time limitations ! believe. ! don't believe that for financial reasons, even though the developer is willing to put in a full street, that is not a reason to create three sub-standard lots. These lots, two of them would have double frontage and one would have triple frontage. The landowner has known that these lots have been along Powers Boulevard ever since they owned the property. That's a fact. If you require a public street it's a fact that the developer needs to pay for that. In the report it said the applicant is requesting a variance to help pay for the expenses associated with these improvements. ! believe you're setting a really dangerous precedent by really down sizing lots, not meeting code, in this case. Someone else can come to you and say you did it for them, why don't you do it for me. And ! believe there are other situations in the city that will present themselves in time like this. I'm asking you not to grant variances on the lot size and to come up with another alternative. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. If I'm permitted to make a comment on the same issue is what I'd like to do. Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Jerry Paulsen: Okay. The Planning Commission did approve this before it sent it to you but it was not a unanimous approval. There was dissention and to the point to take point with what Debbie Lloyd just said also here, I'd like to suggest that the council not approve these variances because you're setting a possible precedent by going with under sized lots. As much as 12 percent and greater under code and this may come back to haunt you in the future. Obviously the applicant would like to get 3 lots because it's more profitable, but ! don't think he's going to lose money by any means if he has the 27 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 two lots so I'd like to suggest that you don't approve the three variances on lot size. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. We are in visitor presentation portion of our meeting so if anybody would like to address the council on this or any other matter, this would be the time. If not, seeing no one I'll go ahead and close visitor presentations and move on with our agenda. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sgt. Jim Olson: Good evening on this snowy and slippery evening. I apologize, I intended to have one of our deputies here this evening to introduce but I didn't want to pull somebody off the road. It's been a busy day and also a busy night so we will have somebody here for next month. Included in your council packet I put down the sheriff' s office area report and that will be the year end for 2003 that is attached with that. Also the citation list for the month of December. Copy of crime alerts that were put out by Crime Prevention Officer Beth Hoiseth. Community Service Officer report, and then I'll talk about a couple other things that I think are of interest to the council. Total calls for service for the month of December, 2003 were up by 134 from the previous year and last year the total calls for service for the year were 12,030 and that's up by 2,091 for the year, so quite a bit. I would attribute a lot of that to increased traffic and increased traffic details as well. The medical and fire calls for the month of December compared to the previous year were both up quite a bit for December, 2003. Property damage accidents were up quite a bit from 37 to 76, and we have some slippery days there that I would attribute that to. Injury accidents were up from 8 to 13. We had quite a few more snowmobile calls up this year. Last year I don't remember us having any snow which would attribute to that I think. They were up from 2 to 18 for the month of December. Both theft and damage to property were down for the month compared to last year and those are both good things. Our alarms were up from 72 to 95 and our suspicious activity calls were up from 71 to 100 for the month. I also had mentioned to the council that I was going to try to get felony updates and normal complaint updates to the City Council that are put out from the county attorney's office. We had 5 felony formal complaints that were done for the month of December. 2 felony assaults, 2 felony thefts, and 1 felony DWI from the City of Chanhassen. We also had 7 gross misdemeanors that were not mentioned in the packet, and also 17 misdemeanors that would not have been mentioned in the packet. Any questions at all on the calls for service monthly service update that were received for the month. Mayor Furlong: Questions? Councilman Lundquist: Sergeant, as I was looking through your area report for the year, a couple of things that concern me. The criminal activity just the straight were showing, you guys know how much I like numbers, a 2 lA percent increase year over year and even if you take out all the traffic details and those big increases on the non-criminal, we're still up, we're showing about an 8 percent increase year over year. And as you read all the papers and on all the news, I guess I would have expected those numbers going down 28 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 kind of with the national trends. Do you attribute, is that a population growth thing for us that those are going or is there some, ! mean ! didn't see really one category that jumped out other than the traffic that you address, but that's a conscious effort on your part, or is that just a general explanation for what your thoughts are on that. Sgt. Jim Olson: 2002 ! think was a bit of an anomaly where numbers were down quite a bit throughout the system, or throughout the categories that we have. ! pulled numbers up for the past 10 years, including those when ! do my update, power point presentation that I'll be doing, but if you go out over the previous 10 years, ! don't think you'd see an increase that much number wise. It's somewhat up and down. Some of our accident calls, medicals and alarms and so on have been going up but our crimes themselves have not been going up appreciably. We did have an increase this year, or excuse me in 2003 over 2002 specifically ! think in thefts, damage to property calls were probably our two biggest, also burglaries were our three biggest ones that we had. If you look at the previous 10 years, ! don't think you're appreciably up, if at all. We have had other years that have been higher than those but I'll be going over that more when we get, when ! do the power point presentation. ! think 2002 was a bit of an anomaly overall for the city. Both fire calls and that sorts of, so. Councilman Lundquist: Good, thank you. Sgt. Jim Olson: Sure. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Councilman Ayotte: You were going to have some look see at conviction rates. And without getting too specific, more towards whether or not things were going well or not well, a ratio between, especially with felony activities. If we felt good about the conviction rate. Can you talk towards that without? Sgt. Jim Olson: I have not gotten a year end or the latest quarterly report as of yet from the County Attorney's office. They put that out quarterly and ! am still waiting for that. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Will there be a roll-up for an end of year look see for those data points? Sgt. Jim Olson: I am hoping for that, yes. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Sgt. Jim Olson: And I'll talk to the county attorney's office to make sure ! get a final year end also councilman. Mayor Furlong: Questions? Mr. Gerhardt. 29 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Todd Gerhardt: Sergeant Olson, can you explain our snow bird policy? This being one of the snowiest days of the year. The public would like to know what our policy is. Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes, and that was one of the things I was actually going to go over, along with winter driving. Winter parking. On street parking is prohibited in the city of Chanhassen between November 1st and April 1st, and that's between the hours of 1 zOO in the morning and 7:00 in the morning. And this is regardless of whether there is snow or not on the ground. The deputies will go through neighborhoods and will ticket vehicles that they find are parked on the street. On street parking is also prohibited in the city when there is 2 inches or more of snow on the ground, or excuse me, on the street, until it is plowed curb to curb. So even during the day, if we've had 2 or more inches of snow and the street has not been plowed, you need to park your cars on the street. Or excuse me, on the driveway. I'm sorry. Or they can be ticketed and/or possibly towed if it is... Winter driving, ! wanted to talk about for a minute also. I'd just like to remind people to slow down this time of year. You know a lot of accidents that we get is because people are going too fast or excessive speed. Excessive speed does not necessarily mean that you're going over the speed limit, but you're going too fast for the conditions. When roads are snow covered and icy you cannot stop the way you normally can on dry roads and ! know everybody says, ! know that but every snowfall, every snowfall we have we have people sliding in the ditches and going into, sliding under their cars and ! just ask for people to slow down a bit. That's real important. You know we've had a number of accidents today, not only in the city but county wide and also state wide, and quite a bit of that can be attributed to people just going too fast. Just slow down and think about that. ! also want to talk a little bit about the speed trailer. The speed trailer is in and thank you. We've been making use of it, and the feedback that ! have gotten from citizens have been positive with that. ! don't know if any of the council people have seen it out. We have had it out and about. It will not be out during inclement weather, days like this. ! don't want people to see it and slam on their brakes because they're going excessive speed, and head off into the ditch so, but on other days ! intend to have that out every day somewhere in the city so, and it has been working well. ! also want to talk a little bit about, did you have any other questions Councilman Ayotte? Councilman Ayotte: Oh probably. Sgt. Jim Olson: And ! know you've given me a call by phone and ! don't know if you still had some questions reference to that, but. Councilman Ayotte: I guess my question is, every once in a while I'll call Sergeant Olson or Mr. Gerhardt and ask questions with respect to state of the art events that are going on in public safety and I approached Sergeant Olson on one this past week. But in general terms do we have a mechanism to, in the world of engineering. You know you always have an R&D function. Do we have anything formal to, for information sharing so that when one police force is using a technique or a product that we can know what that's all about and whether or not it's something that we should investigate? Another example, we've got this CrimNet and I understand that there has been some, because of 30 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 fiscal constraints, a revisiting of some of those sharing of information systems. So how are we going to stay on top of things with the R&D activities in public safety? Sgt. Jim Olson: There is sharing and ! think you're referring to the...Preparedness Network is one thing that you've been talking about. And the County's been looking at that apparently for about 3 years and it has been cut from the budget so far. They still hope to get it in at some point. City staff and myself are taking a look at that, and then getting some information to reference that but yes, there is sharing of data. You know there are different conferences that we go to and share information and new things that are going on technology wise you know in the world of law enforcement and public safety. Councilman Ayotte: Who is the prime POC for technology search on our staff?. Todd Gerhardt: Rick Rice probably. Councilman Ayotte: Who? Todd Gerhardt: Rick Rice. Councilman Ayotte: In terms of public safety. Who is the staff person responsible to periodically search for advancement in public safety, product or technique? Do we have somebody that's tagged with that? Todd Gerhardt: Justin has done some for research. Benchmarks. Sergeant Olson has done a variety of things regarding the speed trailer. Our traffic calming research. Councilman Ayotte: But we don't have the system to process then, is that safe to say that or? Todd Gerhardt: Just when issues come up, we research things. Councilman Ayotte: Thanks. Sgt. Jim Olson: Any other questions at all or anything that ! can help with? Mayor Furlong: Is there anybody else? Question or comment. If ! understood you correctly, you said that the gross misdemeanor/misdemeanor numbers were not included in our report. Does that come out with the attorney's report? Sgt. Jim Olson: That is a report that I am now getting from the attorneys, correct. There are some misdemeanor citations that are included in the citation report that you get. There are others that come from the county attorney's office that are issued from, you know we might maybe send up a case could be reviewed by the county attorney's office. And that would not be included in our citation report that our office sends out but I'm getting a special little report now, so. And that's what ! share with you. 31 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Mayor Furlong: And we get, as part of our prosecution arrangement we're going to be getting a regular report. Is that going to be monthly or is that still going to be quarterly? Todd Gerhardt: ! believe in your admin section you had the county's last quarterly update. You will receive the same updates from the city attorney's office. Mayor Furlong: Very good. The other thing was a comment in our packet today was a report, a year to year comparison and then the monthly reports for the CSO program. Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: And that was interesting. ! thought if that's a report that we can review... Sgt. Jim Olson: ! have included that every other month. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Sgt. Jim Olson: Every 2 months ! do put a report that ! include in the packet from the CSO's. Mayor Furlong: And that's fine. Sgt. Jim Olson: And this one had the year end. Mayor Furlong: This one had the year end information so it was nice to see the comparison there. Thank you. Sgt. Jim Olson: And ! can have them do that every other month if you'd like, as far as compared to last year. ! don't think that that has been included in the past but ! can certainly do that. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. ! think that'd be good. Any other questions? No? Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Anything else? Thank you. Sgt. Jim Olson: Drive carefully tonight. Mayor Furlong: Slowly and carefully. We also have our new fire chief. Chief Geske here this evening. Good evening. Gregg Geske: Good evening. I'd like to just introduce myself ! guess to all of you. ! haven't met all of you but, myself ! was elected in December and we also elected a new 32 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Assistant Chief to replace Mark Littfin who has stepped down as Assistant Chief. Greg Hayes is still on as our other Assistant Chief so basically makes up our fire board that we have. Little bit about myself. 12 year resident of Chanhassen, and have been on the Chanhassen Fire Department during that 12 years holding different positions such as Chief Engineer, Secretary and also Lieutenant. ! was on the Victoria Fire Department for 5 years before coming to Chanhassen so I've got about 17 years experience. In my full time employment I'm a sales manager for Wateress Company. They manufacture fire pumps, fire hydrants and underground gate valves, and I'm the sales manager for the fire pump division, so ! work with fire apparatus builders and fire departments and dealers in that regard so I'm quite involved in the fire department. My main responsibilities again we're working with fire apparatus manufacturers there. Married and have four children, so a little bit about myself for you guys. Let's see, since the fire department addressed the council last time, we've added 8 new probationary fire fighters. We had ! believe originally 12 applicants or 13 applicants. We scaled those back and had a hiring process that we went through so we offered that to 8 people, and of the 8 we were lucky enough to add a couple of daytime responders and a couple of people to respond to our west station, which we've been lean at. All the fire departments have problems during the day of course filling the trucks all the time so we're lucky enough to add a couple that we can have during the day and a couple to respond to our west station where we were somewhat lean. We are also happy to have half the probationary members already trained as fire fighters and having some fire fighter classes and medical classes so that's some, little less in the financial requirements of the city to train those people so we're lucky in that regard. Been working with the fire board has been working with the city staff to, in replacing Greg Hayes' position at the city here. Recently we had some news I'd like to pass on. We've recently had two cardiac saves. One of the calls that we had, 3 of our members started CPR. We tried the defibulator, which did not work in this case. The paramedics were there. They pushed all the drugs they had. We did CPR on the way to the hospital and they were able to revive the patient at the hospital so we had that one. The 3 members that were recognized and presented CPR save pins at our last business meeting so something we're real proud of. We also had another scene where we had a patient that went into cardiac arrest and was revived with the defibulator so, ! don't know if you're aware but usually cardiac arrest is, it's not a high percentage of people that we do save from cardiac arrest so ! guess we're real proud to have, you know since the last update here we had a couple saves there so wanted to pass that on. Call numbers ! presented ! guess from last year in the council packet. We were up from 2002. Of course a lot of that is attributed to growth and everything else and ! don't have a whole lot of restrain on that but we did, we are working with the county revising our priority dispatch a little bit more to fine tune it, and that will help with some of the calls that we really don't need to be called out on so. We have not had any residential fires lately. Hopefully that's attributed to our fire education. Everything working, or ! guess we're just lucky so. That' s all. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the Chiet? Councilman Ayotte: Thank you for serving, appreciate it. 33 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. Welcome aboard. Thanks. Gregg Geske: Thanks. PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON MUNICIPAL CONSENT FOR NEW TH 212~ PROJECT 03-09. Mayor Furlong: At this time I'd like to continue the public hearing on the municipal consent for the Highway 212 project. We began this public hearing this evening at 5:30 with presentation from staff and receive public comment up til about 7:00. So at this time is an opportunity for anybody else that would like to speak on this matter, if they could come forward now. Please state your name and address. Jim Sulerud: My name, Mr. Mayor and members of the council, my name is Jim Sulerud, 730 Vogelsberg Trail. I've been a resident for more than 30 years. My concerns are directed at MnDot and it's obligations for safety on it's highways. Staff, who are here previously have heard my comments and actually over the years, but ! also want to raise these concerns to you as City Council members. My concerns primarily relate to properties off of 101 south of Pioneer Trail. The dramatic tones of my comments result from more than 30 years of conversations with all jurisdictions and the projection that there's no solution in sight proposed or otherwise for the next 20 years or anywhere on the horizon. I'll give you a copy of my comments here. I'm going to start with the very last line in my comments to set the tone a little bit. This is not a MnDot staff or local staff problem. This is an issue of political short sightedness and it's solution is one of political will. The second to the last paragraph. ! applaud all the years of thoughtful work and cooperation on the part of all good staff and political leaders who have brought new Highway 312 to the forefront. However ! want you to appreciate but ! find the above egregious oversights to be such an eminent threat to public health and safety to a large number of Chanhassen residents, property owners and patrons, that in the absence of your speedy attention and trustworthy word of resolution within the new Highway 312 project timeframe, ! expect to seek means to prevent these unnecessary consequences for my personal property, health and safety are threaten. And in the interest of my neighbors well being ! will support them and encourage that they do the same. And this is addressed as an e-mail that went out today to Carol Molnau and also you'll see it's been copied to Lisa and also to you Mr. Mayor as well as other folks I've been in touch with over the years. ! request that you immediately halt all pre-construction activities related to this project within Chanhassen. ! request that all such activities be suspended until the following safety issues are resolved by all necessary mitigations that are planned, approved, calendared and funded, and constructed within the current new Highway 312 project plans and construction timelines. The opening of a new Highway 312 according to the currently drawn and funded plans will directly result in serious safety dangers and service failures that will be life threatening to hundreds of Chanhassen residents and hundreds of patrons and several Chanhassen businesses. Specifically this negligence is MnDot's failure to undertake planning, failure to enter into approval processes and resulting agreements, failure to fund and construct improvements to mitigate known new 34 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 hazardous consequences directly resulting from the opening of new 312. These activities all being within MnDot's jurisdiction and powers. And then my focus is on this area. One identified area of serious hazards includes all those properties who's only access and egress is to north/south Highway 101 between Pioneer Trail to the north and old Highway 212 to the south. There are no shoulders in this area that might permit emergency vehicles to by-pass standing traffic. Approximately 50 Chanhassen households and hundreds of patrons of Halla Nursery, Bluff Creek Golf Course and other businesses will be imperiled. During times of traffic back-up, of backed up traffic, emergency life safety vehicles will only gain access after extended periods of traffic intervention. A golfer having a heart attack, a homeowner accident on Creekwood or fire on Lakota will be unattended because of MnDot's negligence. Other areas negatively affected will include those of Homestead Lane, West 96th Street, Hesse Farms, Bluff Creek Drive, Pioneer Trail and Foxford Road. At present there are recurring times of the day when cars on 101 block access or egress to properties for either north or south travel. This will admittedly worsen with the current road system. However, as a direct result of traffic invited to and from the new Powers Boulevard and Highway 101 interchanges with the new Highway 312, this situation will soon result in multiple but otherwise avoidable tragic occurrences. The multi-jurisdictional plan to extend Powers Boulevard to Lyman Boulevard, from Lyman Boulevard to Pioneer Trail and alter Highway 101 north of new Highway 312 shows that there is a recognition of need to safely move more traffic north/south. Tragically there is no north/south plan south of Pioneer Trail. The current plan dumps cars from those two new 312 interchanges who want to get south to old 212 onto Pioneer Trail about a half mile apart. These vehicles will then try to compete with Pioneer Trail traffic seeking primarily east/west movement, which is increasingly and frequently clogged. Most Highway 101 and Powers Boulevard traffic, together with some Pioneer Trail vehicles will seek Highway 101 south. Certainly many more cars than present will find their way to old 212 by way of Bluff Creek Drive through local streets, though local streets are not supposed to be a part of MnDot design solutions. The plan stop lights and turn lanes at 101 and Pioneer Trail will not solve the problem when both directions of the travel lanes are full. For city, county and state to suggest that Highway 101 issues will be dealt with within the turn back negotiations suggests a solution that is too narrow and too late. And to say that a new Highway 41 river crossing is planned to address this need will not make a contribution for the next 20 years. Over 20 years ago ! raised these same concerns to Evan Greene, the MnDot project manager at the time. I've consistently been told over the years that although all jurisdictions agreed with the problems ! raised, the new Highway 312 project did not include this problem or it's funded solutions and it's scope. As long as the new Highway 312 construction was always 10 to 20 years away, my level of frustration continued to be muted. More than one project manager, more than one county highway engineer and more than one Chanhassen city engineer have courtesy listened to me and agreed that something will have to be done. But with the moving forward of the construction of new 312, lack of political priority or shortage of funding is no longer an acceptable excuse. ! expect that you will not open Highway 312 until such time as it's opening does not create these obvious and hazardous situations. And then the following two paragraphs that ! read to you before. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any comments or response? 35 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Lisa Freese: The 101 issue is a difficult one for us to respond to. In our system plan it is considered a preservation corridor and as such we pretty much keep the pavement in good condition and fix bridges when needed. But the level of investment to improve some of the safety and geometric issues doesn't exist in our current plan. There are a couple of avenues in which we can try to address that and I've had conversations with Mr. Sulerud on a couple of different occasions. Actually ! do find that the turn back process may be our best opportunity without a substantial change in direction in how our funding is allocated, not only at MnDot but regionally at the Met Council it will be difficult for us to find resources to adequately improve 101 with MnDot dollars. If we can work out over the next few months an agreement with the county to work on improvements to the road, identify the needs that need to be done and then develop a turn back agreement, we can probably make resources available to fix some of the issues on Trunk Highway 101 to the south of the new Highway much sooner than we could in any other mechanism. So ! do believe that the turn back process holds the most hope for us to be able to address those serious concerns on 101. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to address the council during the public hearing on the municipal consent process? If no one else would like to address it, ! will go ahead and close the public hearing. It will be closed. I'll bring it back to council at this time for any comments. Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: I'd like to make a couple of comments. First off, ! really appreciate the fact that so many people came out this evening to address the issue. And then secondly I'd like to say that ! wish that so many people who came out to address this issue this evening would sign up for other considerations for other activities that occur in this city. We often times have peak and valley interest so ! don't know about these other councilmen and our mayor but most Monday evenings I'm lonely. So it'd be very, very positive thing to see more attendance. Secondly the other thing I'd like to mention is that there are other agents and agencies instead of throwing all the efforts and focus and blame and maudation towards MnDot. ! heard a lot about the environmental concerns. There's also the EPA. ! heard a lot about public safety and when ! saw your notes to which ! appreciate your stick-to-itiveness, ! haven't met too many people besides you Mr. Klingelhutz that stick to it as long as you, but there are a few other people that could possibly be copied on this piece of correspondence that could make a difference at another level of government. ! do believe our staff have done due diligence, especially with 101 turn back. ! think there is some interest and heavy lifting with respect to the environmental concerns, especially with noise abatement that has been looked at and I'm certain that they will continue to try to work those issues out. MnDot has been really working friendly in a positive way. This is going to happen so those people who ask for it not to happen are not being realistic in their interests, but there is opportunity to improve any product and ! really believe that the issue of environmental investigation is a good one and can continue. ! really do believe that the right folks are working on the 101 effort and ! hope that the interest that has been touched upon tonight by some segment of our residents would (a), continue and (b), increase. Thank you mayor. 36 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments? None? No. Very good. As ! said earlier, ! do appreciate as well as Councilman Ayotte said. The interest and the number of people that came out this evening to share their comments with the council. A number of the issues, the major issues like in all processes tend to rise to the top and we heard them again this evening. The park and ride, the 101 gap project, funding for that, the interchanges, traffic, congestion, those types of things so as ! said earlier, staff, ! commend our staff and MnDot staff for working so well together. And ! really do believe, as Councilman Ayotte said, they are, MnDot is being very responsive to requests and needs and timeliness here and so from our standpoint it makes our job a lot easier. And ! know that they were listening tonight as they always have been. Again from a timing standpoint, the council is not going to consider the question of municipal consent this evening. We will be continuing to get updates from staff during the month of February and at this point it would probably be some time on the agenda in March for our consideration of that question. Anybody that is interested in, please make sure you get your name on the list this evening. Anybody that spoke at the public hearing, if they're not already on the list will be so that staff can be sure to let them know when the council considers this going forward. So with that again, thank you. It's an important issue to our city clearly, as evidenced by those that came out this evening and spoke so well. We'll move on now with our agenda. AWARD OF BIDS~ CITY HALL REMODELING PROJECT. Todd Hoffman: Mayor Furlong, members of the City Council. I'm pleased to report that on January 7th, 15 bids were received. Opened and read aloud in the City Council chambers for our lower level remodel project, which is an addition or expansion of our Senior Center and some meeting room space. The based bids ranged from a high of $260,500 to a low of $194,900. The low bid was submitted by GenCon Construction of Jordan, Minnesota. Fairly local company. The architect estimate for this portion of the project was $203,710. GenCon's bid was the last bid opened and so we were pleased with those results. A secondary bidding estimated at $50,390 for furnishings will be forthcoming back to the City Council. There is a complete bid tabulation in your packet. It is not recommended that alternates 1, 2 and 3 be accepted. All of those products are included in the base bid and they're value far exceeds the potential $4,300 in savings. However it is recommended that the council accept a voluntary deduct of $600 for a change in presentation casework that the contractor offered. In the interest of the council ! have conducted three reference interviews with organizations that have worked with GenCon Construction in the past. No particular concerns beyond normal complications generally associated with construction projects were identified. Better Business Bureau, they check out there. The Minnesota Chapter. So pending City Council approval, it is anticipated that the contract will begin work in early February. Again pending your approval we have a pre-construction meeting scheduled for tomorrow morning. Therefore it's recommended that the City Council award the City Hall lower level remodel project to GenCon Construction in the amount of $194,300. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. 37 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Councilman Ayotte: What's time your meeting tomorrow morning? ToddHoffman: 10:00 a.m. Councilman Ayotte: ! was thinking if it was at 7:00, he's probably being pretty confident. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Councilman Lundquist: Is that your only question? Councilman Ayotte: That's it. Councilman Lundquist: Bruce, refresh my memory again. Part of this we were going to, it was on the CIP we were going to bond for or what was the payment funding source? Bruce DeJong: Yes, we were going to bond for both parts of that. The construction part would be a separate bond issue under authority that we can use for modifications to city halls. And the furnishings part would be under our capital equipment note that we anticipate along with other equipment vehicles. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Councilman Labatt: Nothing Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Nope? If not, we'll bring it back to council for discussion. Any discussion on the matter? Seeing none, this is an item that's come before us from a plan standpoint a few times so the numbers are now coming in clearly, but with that, as far as the CIP ! think this will be a nice addition and an improvement to our city hall. Expansion of the senior center and expand meeting facilities as well. Multiple use facilities so, if there is any other discussion. If not, is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve. Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion? Resolution #2004-06: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council award the City Hall Lower Level Remodel Project to GenCon Construction in the amount of $194,300. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 38 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 4 OF CITY CODE~ ENTITLED FEES: 1) 2) INCREASING UTILITY RATES. INCREASING LATERAL UTILITY CONNECTION & TRUNK UTILITY HOOKUP CHARGES. Bruce DeJong: Mayor Furlong, City Council members. Tonight we're kind of at the end of, if you want to call it process that's been a long time in coming. As far as changing utility rates. The last time the City of Chanhassen actually made a change to it's utility rates was 1997. Where we raised the water fees. The last time that the sewer rates have been raised is 1992. In doing this we put together a fairly comprehensive model with some assistance from Ehlers and Associates. Tried to actually cost out all of the operations of both the water and the sewer utility funds, and the capital needs that are necessary and that would be potentially desirable down the line. So ! guess what I'm going to do right now is just run through a quick slide show and then I'll be open for questions after that. The basic objectives were to cover operating expenses. Our enterprise fund lost money for the last several years so we have to bring ourselves back so that we're not going in the red. Then we have to raise sufficient funds to cover potential water treatment plant, both from a capital and an operation standpoint. And we need to map out the cost of developing our system fully as we open up new areas of the city to be served and make sure that we're covering those with appropriate development fees. Then we also wanted to make sure that we try to balance our debt versus how much we're paying for with cash out of this and maintain sufficient cash balance in the process. What you have on the screen in front of you is the same thing that you saw at the work session 2 weeks ago showing two different average residential bills. One for a low water user, which is about 21,000 gallons of water and one for a higher water user, assuming about 30,000 gallons per quarter. The combined fee increase on a quarterly basis is about 7 lA percent, which is the combination of a 9 percent increase on the water side and a 5 percent increase on the sewer side. You can also see down at the bottom there that we're looking at the hookup fees that are charged when someone connects up to our system. That's to cover the cost of existing infrastructure and new infrastructure, such as wells, lift stations, water towers and the associated equipment with those. What we're proposing there is an increase in the water hookup fee of 50 percent approximately. Raising that up, and that's based on the cost of developing out our system out through our 2020 comprehensive plan. We are not proposing to raise the sewer hookup fees and that once again is based on the cost of developing out the system that we will have sufficient funds based on these charges at this point. A breakdown of that increase for the average user on the high user actually is $6.93 total increase. The largest portion of that is for water operations and for water treatment. They also include a fairly substantial portion for sewer disposal fees, which is governed by the Met Council for the most part. We annually pay them in excess of a million dollars for them treating the sewage that comes out of our city. And the last part is sewer system replacement costs of 53 cents. Putting those into...the water schedule to go from $1.30 up to $1.42 and the sewer is scheduled to go from $2.60 to $2.73. The water connection charge and the sewer connection charge as we previously discussed. This is just a quick graph that shows potential expense out of 39 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 the water trunk fund. With our phased treatment plan that we've based this model on, we have an operating fund and a trunk fund. The trunk fund is scheduled to pay for the second water treatment plant, if that's necessary, and that is out in 2008 in our schedule right now. When you look at those rates for the sewer hookup fees, you can see that in 2008 there is a substantial increase in those fees. The reason for that is because we intend to have the hookup fees pay for that additional treatment service. It seems as if a development, new development would be generating the demand for that treated water and so that's why it's scheduled to be paid for out of there. If we don't develop a second treatment plant, then we can obviously address that fee schedule downward from what we've proposed and we may not need to increase it at all from the rate in 2007. We are showing here though that the water trunk fund cash balance, which is made up from the existing cash balance of just over $5 million dollars and the new revenues coming in as developments come on line and people hook up to the system, and then our expenditures out of there, so you can see that at the end of our study we've got that down almost to zero, which is exactly what you want it to be. You want the development fees to pay for the cost of the development and when the development's over, you want to be able to recover the cost of your system through your current fees on the operating side. Here we show the capital improvement plan from the operating side, and the large 2004 is for the water treatment plant that we've been discussing for some beyond that there's just basically minor repair type of things that are being this fund. Showing the cash balance though in that fund that we intend to raise that over the course of this study, kind of offsetting the decline in the funds that are there for the capital expenses. And that's the end of that. There is another portion that is in the fee section actually, talking about the actual hookup fees or excuse me, the connection fees that Mr. Saam sent out to you. That has always been in the ordinance code already. This is just codifying that. We'll actually put that in Section 4 of the city code, along with the other fees so that when someone goes to look up the expenses of connecting to the system, they can see all the potential fees per unit in one place. Then while the increase in rates seems like it might be a little much at one time, ! think that based on not increasing the rates over the past several years that it's certainly justified. We've looked at all of the potential expenses and are trying to meet those and the increase does not put us outside of ! guess what ! would call an acceptable range based on other comparable cities rates, so with that said ! recommend that the City Council adopt the ordinance amendment to Chapter 4 with the utility rates. expenditure in time now, and paid for out of Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff?. Councilman Ayotte: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: A couple. So the average family would experience approximately how much of an increase per year? Councilman Lundquist: 28 bucks. 40 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Councilman Ayotte: About 28 bucks? Okay. And then if we did not do it, we could anticipate that select families would realize significant assessments for certain items, is that true? Todd Gerhardt: Portion of it. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. And the fact that we haven't addressed it in previous years, we could say possibly, especially if it was other councils that possibly were remiss in not addressing the utility rates from time to time. Todd Gerhardt: Periodically, every 3 to 5 years you want to take a look at your enterprise funds to see how they're operating. Councilman Ayotte: And one last point is that we probably would threaten our ability to have water treatment if we did not do this, is that correct? Todd Gerhardt: That is correct. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. The only reasons ! bring these points out is because ! want to pull out the fine point that you made so that common folk like me can understand some of the implications of not addressing this. Thank you Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions? Councilman Lundquist: Clarification. Bruce, your memo talks about the cover page, 9 percent on the water, 5 percent on the sewer. Are those, but they don't match when ! look at the chart that you had up there with the 30,000 gallon increases. I'm getting a different, ! mean they're percentage wise they're not all that different but which is the one that's, I'm guessing that the one, the 9 percent increase you've got is the $1.42 and that it just doesn't, the numbers don't come out on the average. If ! do the average on that one from 40 to 4428 is 10.7 percent, not 9. And ! guess, which is the number that people should be more concerned with? I'm guess the $1.42 is the number that really matters to people? Bruce DeJong: ! think what's happening on that higher residential is that some of it is at the secondary rate and that's where the difference comes in. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. But the important one for people to, and your 693 now a quarter was based on that chart right there or the? Bruce DeJong: That was based on this chart. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So that would incorporate some of those higher spikes for the summer and the peak usage and things like that. Bruce DeJong: Yes, exactly. 41 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Questions? I guess from clarification, in terms of review, one of the things that's mentioned in your cover memo Mr. DeJong is to look at this on an annual basis, and as we proceed forward. Is that our expectation that we'll at least be reviewing this in summary form, perhaps not in this level of detail ! wouldn't suspect on an annual basis but at least review how we're tracking against these sets of projections from the consultants and what staff' s put together. Bruce DeJong: Yes. As we've discussed in previous meetings, there are a lot of estimates that are included in these projections and as we start coming up with some actual dollars and plug those in, ! think it's important to review the rates on an annual basis and see how we're tracking with this study and make sure that we're not either getting ahead of ourselves or falling behind. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And ! guess the other thing I'd like to clarify, just for my understanding and others, is that the percent increases that we're discussing this evening from 2003 to 2004 are not going to be the same level of increases right now based on our plan, but those, the percentage increases, they're still, we're expecting some increases but they're at lower rates. But these are the highest percentage increases in this plan for both the water use as well as the hookup' s. If you could just clarify, you talked about the 2004 change but ! think if somebody sees that and expects that's going to be annually at those rates, maybe we can address that. Bruce DeJong: No. Mayor Furlong, the rates of increase that we're anticipating in our future charges are approximately 5, well this covers a long period of time and so the rate increases range from 5 percent on an annual basis down to about 3 percent, roughly tracking inflation by the time we get out past 2008. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Furlong: If not, I'll bring it back to council for discussion. Any discussion? Councilman Labatt: ! think Mr. Ayotte hit it on the head there. If we would have done this years ago, when we had the funds for that water treatment earlier, so. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And ! think, you know as we all know we can't go back and ! don't want this council to be criticizing prior councils in any way. ! guess what ! do like about the progress that's been made here is this is really a comprehensive model that's been put together. It's pulled together, not only the policy changes that the council has talked about in terms of water treatment. It's pulled together the capacity issues we have in terms of the additional wells we're going to need to put in place. It pulls in our CIP plan, and working with long term projections as ! do, ! can tell everybody that we're not 42 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 going to do what these numbers say. It's going to be different somehow and that's why I think we might do better. We might do worst, but it's going to be different so I think staying on top of it on an annual basis is not anywhere too frequently in my opinion, and every 3 to 5 years a full re-look at it would be very appropriate so that we can stay on track and avoid some larger one time increases so. Councilman Ayotte: May I make a point of clarification? I was not throwing stones at previous council. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me if you took it that way because. Councilman Ayotte: I took it that way. Mayor Furlong: No. Councilman Labatt: You were the previous council. Mayor Furlong: Previous staff, absolutely. Councilman Ayotte: Now it's Gerhardt all along, we all know that. Mayor Furlong: That's right. That's right. Todd Gerhardt: That's what we're here for. Mayor Furlong: The other thing, is to expand upon something else that Councilman Ayotte said and referred to is the other thing that's been built in here is the ability to fund replacement of our sewer and water utilities as we're going through our street reconstruction projects that are planned out over the next, right now we have a 5 year plan for those neighborhoods. ! know when we had a public hearing on the street assessments for the 2004 projects, that was an issue that was raised. Until tonight. Until tonight, but that's one of the things that we wanted to do as a council. Staff has worked it in here so ! commend them for doing that and ! think that will make that, when we reconsider those assessments, that discussion a little bit easier at least so ! think job well done to all. Any other discussion? Comments? If not, is there a motion? Councilman Ayotte: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council adopt amendments to Chapter 4 of the City Code, entitled Fees, increasing sewer 43 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 and water rates and increasing lateral utility connection and trunk utility hookup charges as proposed by staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. i(o). APPROVE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT ONE 40~355 SQ. FT. LOT INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES~ 6700 POWERS BOULEVARD~ BURLWOOD 2Nv ADDITION~ EPIC DEVELOPMENT. Kate Aanenson: This is the subject site, Burlwood 2nd Addition. Recently, last year the City Council approved Burlwood 1st Addition. This property was left off in order to resolve access to the subject site as it's shown. The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on this item on January 6th. They did on a 6 to 1 vote recommend approval. Staff has put conditions in the report. ! guess I'll take some time to respond to the comments that were presented to the City Council. Kind of frame up this site a little bit more. There was a couple of driving issues you recall with the first addition. One is that the city a number of years ago with the Ravis subdivision envisioned a private street in that area and had recommended for dedication of the right-of-way. While that's not improved, listing the vacation or the construction of that and a public street. The other issue driving this was one of the connection and a possible T intersection of that street, Shenandoah. One of the questions that was raised was regarding the possibility of a PUD zone. When Mr. Ragatz, the applicant came in, since I've been Planning Director I've been very reluctant to use the PUD because it has been mis-used and as this project evolved, in hind sight it might have been the right application but we were quite a ways down the road. Typically a subdivision, you're doing in-fill development like this tends to be much more difficult. The design of the property itself on the two collector streets and the narrowness of it make it very difficult. Originally when this property we looked at Mr. Kerber and when it was assessed with extension of, it was anticipated that would have direct access onto Powers Boulevard, which is certainly not allowed currently by city ordinance. We don't allow direct access onto a collector street. Because of the narrowness of these lots, the only way to service that would have been the private drive which you approved. And then also we looked at the application of further subdivision of properties surrounding this project, so if you look at where the cul-de-sac sits, excluding the right-of-way which is typically what happens to a street, to my knowledge and ! did check with Matt. We haven't done half streets. We've done streets to be extended in the future but to my knowledge we haven't built a half street. So in order to do this, typically the developer works to split the cost of a street. Most developers are obligated to provide that. Full street. Most developers are pretty reluctant to build a street when there's no payback on the other side. In this situation there was numerous, numerous negotiations between adjoining property owners to buy additional land. It was a very fluid discussion on all parties and ! compliment Sharmeen and the applicant, Mr. Ragatz because there was a lot of hours put into this project. If we did billable on it, it wouldn't pencil out. It was just, it was very complex negotiations with the property owners. And to their deference, things moved along and again I'll just give a little bit more history on how we got to where we are today... Just to be clear, the lots that are shown blue hollow are possible future subdivisions. Again this is our subject site in the black. Our goal was to 44 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 ride, this was the right-of-way I showed you before, to actually provide this is a cul-de- sac. When that happens this private drive will go away and only serve this property. Our goal again was to limit the access points on Powers. So then this street becomes the public street. T'ing at Shenandoah. Again when this would be subdivided, whether it have access via a public street, and we do have double fronted lots and that previous slide ! showed you on both sides of Powers where there's out frontage on Powers and then internal street, public street. Certainly the goal was to either buy additional property here. There were discussions that fell through and there was a lot of background which I'm not going to go through all the heavy negotiations and then the fact that the two property owners here were reluctant, and again that was very fluid discussions. One day it was in. One day it was out. So ultimately Mr. Ragatz wanted to pursue his subdivision that he felt he could get, and actually what he did come through with, and ! know this gets even more complex. It's hard to see, the temporary cul-de-sac. If he had stopped here and put a temporary cul-de-sac, these two lots could get access. The reason being why it couldn't be a full cul-de-sac going all the way down is there's 3 homes that come off of a private easement. A public street cannot encumber a private easement unless there's approval. They were unwilling to give it so the cul-de-sac would have to stop at this point. Now we would have a private street, 3 homes accessing Powers off of a private drive. The Planning Commission said that's unacceptable so now we're back to the completion of this. When this came before the Planning Commission, this lot was left. These lots were left off because ! again wasn't sure exactly what was going to happen. Mr. Ragatz, the applicant when he appeared before the Planning Commission did discuss the possibility of a variance. ! advised the Planning Commission it wasn't on the application. Do not discuss it at this point. We'll evaluate if he comes back with that in the future and thus he did come back with the 3 lots. To do a PUD we'd have to rezone it. We were 6, 9 months down the road as far as that goes. It does meet the requirements of a PUD if you average all the lots in his development, it's just over 16,000 square feet so it would have met that criteria so the end would look the exact same if we were to do that. Again, the driving force that we had was eliminating the access points on Powers Boulevard and this...to this public street and one we put before the 4 lots getting access via Lake Lucy. Could it be served with 2? Yes. Two lots can work. Again, if we were to pick up the road and put it where it was supposed to be, it would have picked up the exact square footage to make it work. Unfortunately, when we look at these kind of projects as assessable projects when a lot of these comes in, when there's property owners that don't work, the City Council evaluates those and decides if that's a project they want to do an assessment on. We had two unwilling property owners against one. We advised Mr. Ragatz that the council probably wouldn't approve it when it was 2 to 1. It would be in his best interest, as did the Planning Commission advise him, to work to his best ability, again which ! give him credit for, to work with the property owners to see if he could make it work. Well to make it work made putting it all on his property. And that was never his intent to try to maximize, to undermine something like that. It's the only way he could make it work and ! guess in evaluating that was the criteria that the staff used. That we were solving a problem out there that a previous council had set in motion, but the staff originally proposed, so we'll take some of the blame on that, to try to solve a problem with a very narrow piece. And there will be further subdivisions onto this so it does provide a public street for further subdivision, and again we think that's the 45 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 best way to look and resolve that, and it's a very narrow piece of property. Are there going to be a few more of these? Yes, but again we evaluate each one separately, and that's how we came up with the rationale for recommendation of approval. ! think that's where the Planning Commission went too. Any questions on that? Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Probably. Questions for staff. Councilman Peterson: Kate, is it fair to say that right now, as this is presented, we don't have any of the neighbors that are against the variance? Kate Aanenson: The immediate neighbors, no. They worked very hard, very hard but the immediate neighbors are very pleased with the outcome. ! mean there was, like ! say, a lot of different iterations and this is what the neighbors all had agreed to. Councilman Peterson: So the immediate neighbors, does that infer that there are neighbors in the area that don't like it or? Kate Aanenson: ! think there's maybe one person that still has concerns but it's down in this end and didn't want the connection, but as far as the people that are impacted by it, Mr. Christensen and Martinka and this woman. ! can't remember her name off the top of my head. Rich Ragatz: Egyhazi. Kate Aanenson: There you go. Councilman Peterson: Okay. Councilman Labatt: Kate, can you just point to the Martinka house real quick. Okay. Okay. Kate Aanenson: And both of these have future subdivision possibilities, so again what we're doing is providing a way for that to happen too. Councilman Peterson: Historically Kate, my memory is waning over the years but how often have we granted lot size variances of this magnitude? ! don't think we do it very often but have, and ! may be speaking out of turn. Kate Aanenson: No, again in hindsight, I think as this first approached, when Mr. Ragatz met with Sharmeen was to do a PUD. We originally had a lot of people that wanted to do townhouse projects on that and we tried very hard to stay with a traditional subdivision based on that little piece to the back and trying to make it appear like a regular neighborhood so we worked really hard with that. Because we did have a lot of requests to rezone it and we worked hard over the last couple years to steer from that. To say it's never going to happen. Again, could we have done a PUD? Yeah, but ! think still we might not have solved the issues to the back side. 46 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Councilman Peterson: Okay. That's it. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff?. You had mentioned a little bit the half street option. Could you explain that? That was raised earlier this evening. What it is? Debbie Lloyd: It's in your code where you have half a street... Mayor Furlong: Do we know what that is? Kate Aanenson: To the best of my knowledge we've never built a half street. We've done a stub street. Debbie Lloyd: Minnewashta. 3 years ago ! think Minnewashta ! remember something. ...with a time, ! don't know... Mayor Furlong: At this point, what is a half street? Councilman Peterson: I've never heard it before either. Kate Aanenson: I've never done one, ! don't know. Councilman Peterson: So you must have called it something different than a half street because that's a new word for me today. Kate Aanenson: It wouldn't meet standards, I'm not sure. Mayor Furlong: Is it just half as wide? Matt Saam: I'm not sure either. Debbie Lloyd: No one has the code book here? Todd Gerhardt: Roger's reading it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Let's move on. The PUD you mentioned. Essentially that could have been an option. That's an option for the applicant to pursue. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: So we might have ended up at the same place anyway? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and again the applicant looks for the staff to steer him. We were down the road 6-9 months and you'd have to go back. Re-notice the rezoning request. ! think there might have been some concern with the other property owners adjacent to, but we could have taken that approach. Again, we were quite a ways down the road on that. 47 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 And we would have ended up with the same. Minimum lot size, you can go as small as 11,000 square feet in a PUD. These lots are in excess of that. 13 something but it would still average out over the 15,000 square foot minimum in a PUD. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the completion of that Golden Glow Court, down to the existing right-of-way and the properties to the south of there, that was a condition of the first addition, correct? Do we make that, the completion of that was a condition of the site plan for the first addition? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Sure. Steve Lillehaug: Mr. Mayor, council. Steve Lillehaug with the Planning Commission. If ! could touch on a few points. First off, the Planning Commission did approve these variances and recommended to the council. What I'd like to indicate that we really didn't touch on discussing the possibility of a PUD, and what advantage that would have toward the city. ! don't think a PUD would have had a good impact to the city to actually warrant a PUD in that area, so I'm not too sure. Maybe staff could indicate why a PUD would be acceptable here. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Normally when we look at a PUD, typically we use them if there's a natural feature, if you look at the intent statement, to do, where we're preserving natural features. If you recall the original, it's a pretty flat site. There's not a lot of trees. There's no slope. Typically where we do a PUD is where we're trying to preserve some of those natural features, and that's why you allow the flexibility in the lot sizes to accomplish that. ! mean ! guess it didn't occur to us as we got, the original negotiation was that it was still going to split the property line. It wasn't until the very end that things finally fell apart and so ! guess, you know there wasn't any really natural features to save in that area. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Steve Lillehaug: So it might be a stretch to actually be able to apply a PUD in this area. Mayor Furlong: Fair enough. Steve Lillehaug: In my mind. Then ! would like to further indicate that again the Planning Commission did approve this. The majority of them did. ! was the lone Planning Commissioner that didn't recommend it, and ! would like to indicate why. You have 3 lots, and I'm reiterating what Debbie indicated. You have 3 lots here. The county road on the east side is a 50 miles an hour road. The one lot, the northerly lot is surrounded by a road on 3 sides. You're minimizing that lot size. ! wouldn't want to own that lot and put a house there, and ! don't think we would really subject future residents to do that also. That is a small lot with surrounded by 3 roads on one side, so ! would have particular concerns with those lots. Thank you. 48 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Roger Knutson: Mayor, I found the half street provision that was earlier referred to. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Roger Knutson: A provision in the subdivision ordinance that says, generally half streets are prohibited. But what this says in mine is, if you have a situation where another piece of property is coming in to develop, if you require dedication of a half street now, if you know that in the near future the property next door will come in and you can get the other dedication. But you don't build a half street. That would serve no one so if you need that road for access now to serve these lots, the half street thing would not work. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff?. If not, I'll bring it to council for discussion. Any discussion on this one? Councilman Lundquist: My thoughts are, ! know that the applicant and staff have worked really hard. I'm still hung up on the 2 lots versus 3. ! feel like my personal opinion is that the 3 lots is more of a financial burden...the applicant, the developer to bear a financial burden. There's always reasons why the ordinances are there and clearly it states that the hardship and not being a financial burden so ! still am hesitant to go ahead for 3. I'd like to, I'd be more comfortable seeing 2 lots there instead of 3, at which point we wouldn't ! don't believe need the variance either. So those are my comments. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Other comments? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor ! think that ! went from one end of the spectrum 3 or 4 times today, and I'm not quite sure still where I'm at so I'd be more interested to hear what others are saying in addition to what I'll say now but the primary rationale for me to make a decision on a variance is whether or not the neighbors in the area are for or against that. I'm weighing that against you know what's best for the city. And the people that are affected are the ones that have basically said that they're comfortable with it. And so now it's a matter of whether or not we should have 2 lots in there or 3, and boy, it's close to having the 15,000 foot. And if we would have had a PUD, if it would have been some more interesting geographical stuff in there, we would have had a PUD. We would have had a real small lots. So it seems like we went far enough down this path where it seems reasonable to grant them the 3 lots. To Mr. Lillehaug's comment about the third lot being too small. ! think that's really up for the potential buyer of that lot. If they want a lot that's potentially cheaper to buy and purchase and build a house on, then and there aren't any issues outside of the ones mentioned, then ! think he should be granted that opportunity. So ! think based upon the fact that there are no neighbors against it, that it's not going to be a noticeable difference between the 15,000 square foot and the 13 that's currently being asked for, ! think it's reasonable to grant them this request in this case. 49 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments? Councilman Labatt: My only comment, ! would agree with Mr. Peterson. I've always been one to go on the side of the property owner, as long as their request is reasonable. And here ! see that this is a reasonable request. You're looking at less than 1,400 difference in one lot. 18 on another and another 1,354 on the third lot. I just, ! don't see that as asking for the Golden Gate here, and no pun on the road. Golden Glow but ! just, ! think it's a reasonable request. Reasonable subdivision and not very often do we find that the adjoining neighbors are supportive of it, and in the case where they are supportive of it, and we have a Planning Commission that's voted 6-1 to approve it, ! think that we should approve it also. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Comments Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: I've got nothing to say. Mayor Furlong: Today is January 26th. Thank you. This. Councilman Ayotte: On the other hand. Mayor Furlong: Okay. We've got til 11:00, go ahead. This is a tough one and I think part of, at the same time fun in terms of being involved in these. We've got on the surface, if they're too small you can fit 2 in. That seems to be the clean one, and ! guess that's where ! was initially when this issue came up. You know what I'm trying to figure out is what's fair, just for all concerned and in what we're doing here and what I'm hearing is, it's the location of the road. Not the cost of the road but the location of the road that's causing the challenge. In most developments, in nearly all developments the developer pays for the road, so it's not the cost of the road that I'm seeing, hearing. It's the location of that road. By going forward now and by working with the plan that's been presented to us, we improve safety along Powers Boulevard and we create a long term solution for improved safety along Powers Boulevard by locating the road there, and ! guess ultimately that's where I'm coming down. ! think if the road were along the property line we wouldn't be discussing this. It's that location of the road that it's all on the property so ultimately that's where I'm seeing the public benefit here. I'm very concerned about setting a precedent and so you know ! think with each of these we have to look at the specific facts and circumstances. ! fully appreciate the, tell my wife I'll be home soon. ! fully appreciate the comments made, both at the public hearing, tonight from Commissioner Lillehaug. You know very valid points and that's what makes it so difficult because they are very valid points but from my standpoint ! guess I'm trying to look again as Councilman Labatt and Peterson mentioned, it's working out for the neighborhood and it's always difficult to get property owners to come together on anything. Here we've got a good, long term solution and so ! think ! can bend a little bit here because of the public safety and long term solution as well to try to get this done, so ! can feel comfortable doing it for those reasons. Other comments or discussion on this? If there's no further discussion from the council, is there a motion? 50 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Councilman Labatt: ! recommend we approve Subdivision #03-12 for Burlwood 2nd Addition for 3 lots with lot area variances as shown on plans dated October 17, 2003, subject to the following conditions, 1 through 23 in the staff report. And Roger, do we have to mention the Findings of Fact? Roger Knutson: Yes, that'd be included. ! believe adoption of the Findings of Fact. Councilman Labatt: Adoption of the Findings of Fact in the staff report 1 through 6. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: It's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve Subdivision #03-12 for Burlwood 2na Addition for 3 lots with lot area variances as shown on plans dated October 17, 2003, based upon adoption of the Findings of Facts in the staff report, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a minimum of 43 trees to be planted. 2. A minimum of two deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. 3. No more than one-third of the required trees may be from any one species. 4. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits around all trees proposed to be preserved prior to any grading. 5. All transplanted evergreens must have a warranty for two growing seasons. 6. A revised landscape plan must be submitted to the city before final approval. 7. Any trees proposed for preservation that are lost due to grading and construction activities will be replaced at a rate of2:1 diameter inches. 8. Applicant shall plant a minimum of 16 overstory, 24 understory, and 40 shrubs along Powers Boulevard and 4 overstory, 6 understory and 11 shrubs along Lake Lucy Road. 9. Fire Marshal conditions: a. One fire hydrant will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal and City Engineer for exact location of required fire hydrant. 51 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. The new proposed street will be required to have a street name. Submit proposed name to Chanhassen Building Official and Fire Marshal for review and approval. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and operated by firefighters (pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1). No burning permits will be issued for tree/shrub disposal. Any trees removed must be removed or chipped on site. Show City Detail Plat Nos. 5300 and 5301. On the grading plan: Add a 75 foot minimum rock construct entrance. Revise the grading between Lot 1 and Lot 2 to avoid draining stormwater toward the Lot 1 house pad. Extend the silt fence around the proposed berm along the east side of Lot 1 and Lot 2. Add a benchmark to the plan. Show all existing and proposed easements. Show the proposed contours for the berm along Powers Boulevard. All disturbed areas shall be resodded or reseeded within two weeks of grading completion. If fill is imported or exported, the applicant will need to supply the city with a haul route plan for approval. The property is subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2003 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. These fees will increase in 2004 and will be collected prior to building permit issuance and are based on the numbers of SAC units for the new building addition. Relocate the existing storm sewer on the property to within a 20 foot easement along the shared property line between Lot 1 and Lot 2. Show all existing and proposed easements on the preliminary plat. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City' s Building Department. 52 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 18. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. 19. Prior to final platting, site drainage map and calculations will need to be submitted for staff review. The site drainage has to be designed for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. 20. Building Official conditions: Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures. 21. The applicant will be required to remove the single family home and the detached two car garage prior to recording the final plat. 22. The applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction on two lots based on the fees in effect at the time of final plat approval. 23. Final plat approval of Burlwood 2nd Addition shall be contingent upon the recording of Burlwood Addition. All voted in favor, except Councilman Lundquist who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: Just a reminder, strategic planning session next Monday, 5:30 in the courtyard conference room. Mayor Furlong: Monday or Tuesday? Todd Gerhardt: Tuesday, sorry. Mayor Furlong: And what time does that start? Todd Gerhardt: 5:30. Mayor Furlong: 5:30. Todd Gerhardt: So you'll get a packet this week, probably Thursday or Friday. 53 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Alright, very good. Councilman Peterson: Quickly, where are we at, ! noticed that we have a larger number of commission openings than ! thought we had. We had some on every commission. Did you have some resignations? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Todd Gerhardt: Kate Aanenson: Todd Gerhardt: Mayor Furlong: Kate Aanenson: Mayor Furlong: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: terms are up. Yes. Kate, how many resignations on the Planning Commission? There's three vacancies. Three vacancies. Three seats up or three vacancies? Three vacancies. One person has reapplied. I'm not sure on the other... And the other ones ! believe are on the senior commission. It's just their Kate Aanenson: ! think also 2 to 3 in there. And same with Environmental. staggered them all so there's usually 2 or 3 every year. Justin Miller: And one for Southwest Transit Commission as well. We've Mayor Furlong: And we have one opening ! think on Park and Rec and two other commissioners, correct? But Councilman Peterson, you raise a good point and here's an opportunity for residents, if they're interested in getting involved and being part of the process, to apply for a position on the commissions. The deadline for those ! believe is Friday the 13th of February. Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Regardless of that you may still be lucky with your application. If you get it in on the last day, so we would encourage anybody, and they can call City Hall if they have questions. Todd Gerhardt: Call City Hall. Access our web site. Application you can download there. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you. Any other items for administrative presentations? 54 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Todd Gerhardt: Just like to introduce Paul Oehme, our new City Engineer/Public Works Director. Paul comes from the City of Burnsville. Their Assistant City Engineer there for approximately 4 years and has spent some time working in the private sector. A couple of consulting engineering firms. Paul started last Tuesday and glad to have him on staff. Mayor Furlong: Thanks, welcome. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor and City Council members. It's a pleasure and honor to be here tonight. Just want to take a minute and thank staff for giving me this opportunity to serve as the Public Works Director and City Engineer for the City of Chanhassen. ! do look forward to working with you, the elected officials and the community here in addressing the infrastructure needs of your city. And again ! look forward to my service here with the city. Mayor Furlong: Thank you and welcome. Any other issues? CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. Mayor Furlong: Discussion of the correspondence packet. Any questions? Discussion? Councilman Labatt: Yeah just, Kate as long as you're here. ! was just curious with all the reports from Carver Soil and Water. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Actually that came up as a planning discussion item. As we were moving through the code, one of the things we talked about is monitoring, how we monitor erosion and actually Lori's worked with the Soil Conservation District, brought another set of eyes and those are billed back to the project so the city's not paying that. But the Planning Commission just kind of wanted to see exactly what the level of service was so we actually just put those reports in for their edification to see kind of what sort of work, and it's been very successful. We've had good results with that. Councilman Labatt: One of my pet peeves is the long duration of silt fences that don't get removed. Kate Aanenson: Yes, actually someone on the Planning Commission brought that up too and if there are some that you are aware of, that if you want to just e-mail those to me, we'll follow up on those. Councilman Labatt: ! realize it's a little hard to get them out when the ground's frozen but. Kate Aanenson: No, but you know it's good to know if somebody sees them now. Sometimes when the grass is up, we don't always see them but if somebody sees them, then we'll put them on the. 55 City Council Meeting - January 26, 2004 Todd Gerhardt: Get them on the check list. Kate Aanenson: Put them on the checklist so, that'd be great. Councilman Labatt: Good, thanks. That's it. Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Any other questions or discussion for correspondence? If not, if there's nothing else to come before the council this evening, we will be meeting as a EDA immediately after our meeting, but if there's nothing else to come before us, is there a motion to adjourn? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 56