Loading...
CC 2014 03 10 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 2014 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilwoman Ernst, and Councilman Laufenburger STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, and Roger Knutson Mayor Furlong: Thank you and welcome to those here in the council chambers as well as those watching at home. We’re glad that you joined us this evening. At this time I would ask if there, oh I would like to make one change to the agenda and that would be to remove item G(3) which is appointments to the Planning Commission. We’re going to defer that for this evening and likely include that on our next agenda so without objection G(3) we’ll remove from the agenda. Are there any other changes or modifications from members of the council with regard to the agenda? If not, absent any objection we’ll proceed with the agenda as amended. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Laufenburger: Just a question Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Yes, Councilman Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: I received correspondence earlier in the day regarding item E(4) and I’m wondering if, I’m not asking that it be removed but I was told that there might be need for discussion on that. Is that still true or not? Mayor Furlong: Yeah at this point, that’s the item relating to the approval of concurrence of bids. Councilman Laufenburger: Concurrence of bids, yeah. Mayor Furlong: With regard to the project that we approved back in November. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: So unless somebody would like to remove it for separate discussion I don’t. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Mayor Furlong: I don’t know that it needs to be removed but if somebody would like to remove it for separate discussion, this would be their opportunity. Councilman Laufenburger: No need to. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah I had not heard from any of the neighbors today. City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay, if not is there a motion to adopt items E (1) through (6). Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 1. Approval of City Council Minutes dated February 24, 2014 2. Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated February 18, 2014 Resolution 3. Approve Resolutions Concurring with the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) #2014-11:Resolution #2014-12: Designation of Highway 101; and Imposing a No Parking Zone from the Scott County Line to CSAH 61 (Flying Cloud Drive) and on CSAH 61 from Bluff Creek Drive to Highway 101. Resolution #2014-13: 4. Lyman Boulevard Improvement Project: Approve Concurrence of Bids. Resolution #2014-14: 5. Well No. 10: Approve Change Order for Screen Cleaning. 6. Camden Ridge, Located West of Highway 212, North of Pioneer Trail, and East of Pioneer Pass, Applicant: Lennar: a. Approve Minor Amendment to Adjust Side Yard Setbacks for Single-Family Detached Housing on 36.2 Acres Zoned Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUD-R). Resolution #2014-15: b. Approve Resolution Accepting Ownership of Outlots B, C. E and F. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. None. TH LAKESIDE 8 ADDITION: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF .2338 ACRES (REPLAT OF TH LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 3, LAKESIDE 7 ADDITION) INTO TWO LOTS, AND A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE A THREE-UNIT TOWNHOUSE TO A TWINHOME ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL, AND LOCATED AT 35, 45 AND 55 RILEY CURVE; APPLICANT: RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION, INC. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. As you indicated this item is for a th subdivision replat. This did appear before the Planning Commission at their February 18 meeting and they did recommend approval of the changes. The property is located in the Lakeside Subdivision which is on Lyman Boulevard bordering 212 and involves 3 lots. 35, 45, 55 on Riley Curve. So the subdivision approval is to replat 3 lots into 2 lots and then a site plan review to amend the approved site plan change to a 3 unit structure so because it’s a PUD we also look at on multi-family the architecture too. So this is the 3 original lots. 1, 2, 3 and now you can see where the new split is coming into two. When this originally came in they felt strongly about getting the 3 lots. It was, it fits on the site but I think looking at it as their market, buyers looked at it that they felt that the two lots would be better served so this is what the new subdivision or the new plat will look like. The two lots. Grading plan. All those are in, all the requirements meet city ordinance. Building elevation. Again meets the overall design standards so this is that overall area in the back side that Ron Clark is, as you know changes occurred. Originally this 2 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 was a condominium in the back and then got replatted to the Ron Clark Townhomes. So with that we are recommending approval, as did the Planning Commission and I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Councilman Laufenburger: Just one Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Kate, could you go back one slide please? So the area we’re talking about is the area right there? Kate Aanenson: Yes, that’s correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Perfect. Mayor Furlong: And on that slide Ms. Aanenson, the parcel with the number 2 right behind it, that’s remaining 3 at this point? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: At this time. Kate Aanenson: Yes it is. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: I think these lots also had the views. If you go back, so this would be the view shed kind of looking towards the lake side on that with the garage on the other so these have nice views on this side. As opposed to the other one which doesn’t have the same view shed butting up against the 212 but still very nice. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions? Is a representative from Ron Clark here? Good evening. Thank you for coming. Is there anything you’d like to address the council on? Ron Clark Construction Representative: No. Just thought I’d be present in case anybody has any questions. Mayor Furlong: I appreciate that very much. Any questions of the developer on this? Do you see other types of changes like the parcel to the north coming through or do you see this as probably more isolated? Ron Clark Construction Representative: No, the piece to the north. Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry. If you could come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record please. Ron Clark Construction Representative: Yeah, Ron Clark Construction Representative with Ron Clark Construction. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. 3 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 Ron Clark Construction Representative: And so the question is the three to the north? Those are already built. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay. Ron Clark Construction Representative: The only vacant lots are the south that we’re replatting from 3 lots to 2. Mayor Furlong: Great. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Very good, thank you. Ron Clark Construction Representative: Yeah, thanks. Mayor Furlong: Bring it to council for discussion. Any thoughts or comments? No? Seems very reasonable. Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion? Councilman Laufenburger: Does this need a public hearing? Mayor Furlong: This does not require a public hearing. I think the public hearing happened at the Planning Commission, didn’t it Kate? So, okay. Thank you though. Councilwoman Ernst, recognized for a motion. Councilwoman Ernst: I’ll make a motion that City Council approves the subdivision creating two lots out of three lots and the amendment to the site plan to permit the two unit structure in place of the three unit structure subject to the conditions in the staff report and adopts the Findings of Fact. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Laufenburger: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion’s been made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman Laufenburger seconded that the City Council approves the subdivision creating two lots out of three lots, and an amendment to the site plan to permit a subject to the following conditions and two-unit structure in place of the three-unit structure, adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Subdivision th 1.The development shall comply with the conditions of approval for the Lakeside 7 Addition. 2.The reduction of one lot will require that the City process a $1,400 credit in park fees. Site Plan 1. Buildings over 9,250 square feet in area (floor area to include all floors, basements and garages) must be protected with an automatic fire protection system. 2. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 4 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 3. Retaining walls over four feet high require a design by a professional engineer, a building permit, inspections and final approval. 4. Walls and projections within five feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. 5. Buildings are required to be designed by an architect and engineer (licensed in the State of Minnesota) as determined by the Building Official. 6. The developer and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 7. The site plan shall comply with the conditions of approval granted in conjunction with th Lakeside 7 addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. MUNICIPAL CONSENT AND ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT NO. 4 AND IMPOSING A NO PARKING ZONE: HENNEPIN COUNTY HIGHWAY 61 (FLYING CLOUD DRIVE) PROJECT BETWEEN TH 101 AND CHARLSON ROAD IN EDEN PRAIRIE. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Good evening. Tonight I’d just like to briefly give the council some background on the project and go over the proposed improvements. Again the, look at the existing conditions. The project goals and proposed improvements and also review the schedule. Tonight for this item, oh yeah I do have Jason Staebell with Hennepin County. He’s the project engineer with us tonight and then Darren Mielke. He’s the Assistant County Engineer for Carver County so if there’s any questions that come up, they can also assist in answering them as well so. Moving on, the project is the reconstruction of County Road 61. It’s basically from Highway 101 over to Charlson Road in Eden Prairie, which is about 3.7 miles long. The section in Carver County is shown here in white. It’s about .8 miles so I’ll focus in on that section of roadway here tonight. The project organization, there’s lots of agencies that are currently involved in the project. Hennepin County obviously is the lead agency. They’re putting together the plans and specs. Carver County is also assisting in right-of-way acquisition and design assistance as well. Both the City of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen obviously are involved in the design as well and actively participating in the project management meetings that go on monthly. MnDOT is the lead agency in terms of funding the project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, they have property adjacent to this corridor so we have to work with them on right-of-way acquisitions and other amenities that they’re going to be requiring us to look at. U.S. Corps of Engineers is also involved. The DNR and BWSR for the wetlands. Recent corridor history. Currently it’s owned and operated by Hennepin County but prior to 2009 it was the jurisdiction of MnDOT and that was before. Currently it was, before it was called County Road 61 it was Trunk Highway 212 before the new 212 had opened up. Again Hennepin County currently owns, maintains the th corridor since basically September 10 of 2010 which involved a turnback from MnDOT in the jurisdictional transfer from MnDOT to Hennepin County. Existing roadway is part of the turnback. MnDOT provides funding again for the County to reconstruct the road to fix deficiencies and there are a lot of deficiencies on the corridor that I’ll go through. Turnback funding is however limited so reconstruction of the project usually takes place several years after the transfer has taken place to the new agency so in this case again it was 2010 when the actual transfer took place to Hennepin County. Existing road is right now it’s two lane typically, undivided rural section. There’s a few left turn lanes out there, especially in Eden Prairie. The road condition is poor and it does need a lot of work here in the near future if it would not be improved at this time. Traffic is interesting on this corridor. Back in 2000, or 1996 before 212 and 169 was opened, the average daily traffic on this corridor was in excess of 25,000 trips per day. Now it’s down to 9,000 or 9,100 and the last count was back in 2010. That can be attributed obviously to the new 212 being opened and 169 taking that traffic off this corridor. Carver County does estimate that the traffic growth in this corridor however will increase about 2% annually so 5 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 by 2035 we’re projecting about 14,700 trips per day on the corridor. Traffic along the corridor does have about 7% truck traffic too going into Eden Prairie and down to Shakopee. That’s the main trips and then crashes along this corridor are fairly low. They’re actually lower than other corridors similar to this. Carver County has, or Hennepin County has identified 16 crashes within the years 2008 through 2012 which is fairly low. Project goals of this are to minimize transportation disruption caused by seasonal flooding in Minnesota River. As you’re well aware 101 river crossing is currently going to be reconstructed this summer and that corridor is going to be raised above the floodplain, over the 100 year flood elevation. Likewise this corridor, the same goal is to raise a portion of this corridor that floods seasonally above that 100 year flood elevation to protect and make sure the traveling public does not, can utilize this corridor during those off events. Do want to improve safety so we’re adding turn lanes. Center turn lanes into the project. We understand the traffic and is anticipated to grow in this area and this region of Carver County, Hennepin County is expected to grow so we are anticipating traffic so we want to do our best to improve the corridor right now as long as the project is going to be reconstructed. Paving condition is poor so we want to replace the existing pavement and re-build the pavement section as well. Improve water quality. We’re adding 3 ponds to the corridor for water treatment prior to it discharging into the Minnesota River valley, and then creating a pedestrian friendly corridor that links communities on regional trails and parks. So project is shown here. Some of the items, reconstructing obviously the roadway. 3.7 miles of this corridor. We’re going to have 2 lanes of roadways. Travel lanes with shoulders. 8 foot wide shoulders. Continuous shared center lanes throughout the corridor as we’re adding right turn lanes as well. Urbanizing the roadway. Adding curb and gutter. Not just for urbanizing it to help the pavement section but also for stormwater management and including a stormwater piping system. Treatment system as well. Right turn lanes at key intersections that we know of. Multi-lane trails again on the north side of the roadway connecting Carver County and Hennepin County to regional facilities and then parks in the area as well. Raising the road above the 100 floodplain. There will be significant retaining walls that are being proposed through this corridor and I’ll show you pictures of that. There are land bridges that are going to be proposed as well. These bridges are not just for spanning voids but basically it’s to span poor soil sections within the corridor. There are some significant soil corrections that would have to take place to dig those out. It’s actually potentially more cost effective to build these bridges instead of digging out that deep muck areas. Intersection improvements as well we’re talking about and then stormwater quality improvements in terms of stormwater ponds and infiltration areas. This is a cross section of what the proposed roadway would look like so through lanes again through the corridor would be 12 foot wide. Center turn lane. Continuous center turn lane would be 14 foot wide and then 8 foot shoulders. Reactionaries are 6 feet and on the north side of the road we have a 10 foot boulevard plus a 10 foot bituminous trail as well and then again we were looking at retaining walls as necessary to retain the bluff since we are widening out the corridor in some areas. In areas where we’re adding right turn lanes we’re just adding a 14 foot wide turn lane and the roadway section increases by about 6 feet or so. That’s looking east. So this is a rendering of what potentially the corridor would look like. Again continuous left turn lanes throughout the corridor. Trail on the north side and then retaining walls as need be throughout the corridor as well. The retaining walls are going to vary in height throughout the project area. There are some significant walls that are going to be necessary. Staff and the project team did look at sloping back the bluff in some areas to eliminate or reduce the wall heights in some of these areas. In order to do that there would have to be a significant amount of impact to the bluff in terms of tree loss and vegetation loss and then also right-of-way acquisition so, and just disruption to the bluff itself and potentially erosion problems so the project management team did decide, we thought that retaining walls would be the better alternative in this situation, however there are some fairly high walls that are going to have to be built, especially on the Eden Prairie side. The tallest wall in the Carver County or Chanhassen side would be near the Moon Valley property and at that location it’ll be about 16 feet high. There are again 3 bridges that would span poor soil areas in 3 locations. None of them in the city limits of Chanhassen or Carver County. And then we are still evaluating or looking at, and taking geotechnical information as it comes in and we’re refining that design as necessary to try to reduce the amount of bridge in the project area just because it is so 6 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 expensive to build these type of bridges. So I’d like to just walk through the project corridor itself and just kind of point out some highlights of the area. We are currently talking to property owners in the project area and they are aware of potential right-of-way needs and there are some discussions and negotiations currently going on at this time but starting from the west side of the project area. Basically on the left hand side of the drawing here it shows the current alignment of the wye intersection at 101. The project area that’s currently shown here will start where the 101 project leaves off so basically in 2015 when the 101 project is complete this project, the Hennepin County project would take off from that location after that project is complete so. This is just a plan view of what the project would look like. Again the brown line shows the 10 foot wide trail on the north side of the road. The kind of the blue areas, that’s the shoulder area. The arrows indicate where the turn lane, or continuous turn lane would be. The yellow and red are the driveway locations that are currently proposed or going back in it’s current location as well and then the dashed line here, if you can see that, that’s where the construction limits would be so there are some, there will be some necessity for permanent and temporary easements through this project. Hennepin County has not completely located or identified the needs for the temporary easements but I think we’re pretty close on what is needed for the permanent easements. There are currently no permanent takes that would be necessary for the project. However there are going to be some strip takes along the corridor that will be necessary just for construction purposes and for right-of- way needs and then also just for constructability sake as well. We did look at eliminating or trying to reduce the amount of access points along the corridor as best as we can. Under this slide, under this section of the roadway we have identified three access points that are currently driveways that we’re looking at eliminating. Throughout the corridor there’s actually 4 that we’re looking at. Right now we’ve identified that we can eliminate and Carver County’s actually talking to other, to the property owners about eliminating a potentially a few more as well. So again the permanent easement is not shown here but, or the temporary easement’s not shown but we figure that there is going to be you know in this location there will probably be another 20 feet of easement that will have to be necessary to construct this section of roadway and potentially retaining walls as well. Next section over is basically Erie Avenue area. At just west of Erie Avenue there is a wetland that’s going to have to be mitigated for. There are, there is a smaller retaining wall that’s kind of shown here in yellow that’s going to be constructed. On back of that the dashed line again is the construction limits that are currently identified. There will again, there will have to be some temporary easements that will be acquired for that and that would be negotiated by Hennepin County and Carver County. There will be some tree loss associated with that construction work as well. To the east of Erie Avenue again there’s some wetlands and there’s a culvert. Some drainage improvements that have to take place here. Again on the south side there is, this is a pretty significant muck area that’s going to have to be dug out so on the south side I think this is U.S. Fish and Wildlife property. I think that area is going to have to have some temporary easements that would have to be acquired to make those soil improvements as well. The auto salvage yard, there’s going to be some grade changes to the entrance drive there so Carver County, Hennepin County we’re looking at taking a little bit bigger, larger easement to improve the grades and the access to that property at this time. This layout is the section right in front of Moon Valley. The aggregate business that’s currently in operation right now. There’s one access point. There’s actually two access points to the property right now. One of those access points is currently being looked at to be closed for this project. There is a right turn lane into the property on the westbound corridor into the property. This parcel has been identified for redevelopment of a more of a multi-use development in the future. We feel confident that the access point at this location will be the one necessary to facilitate and to access that future development if and when it does take place. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me Mr. Oehme, if I can interrupt for questions since you’re here. Paul Oehme: Sure. 7 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 Mayor Furlong: Do we think one access point for that property is going to be sufficient based upon the current guiding? Paul Oehme: Yeah I think it’s, this property is going to be challenging to gain additional access points for at this time. There might be opportunity to gain access to the west side of the property in the future. However as I mentioned before on the south side of the property here there’s a big retaining wall, about 16 feet tall in some locations that will have to be built to facilitate this construction. This improvement so I don’t think there’s going to be opportunities for another access point along the corridor on 61. Mayor Furlong: Without significant grading… Paul Oehme: Without some significant grading and some significant challenges to get down to, down to 61 at this point. Kate Aanenson: Can I just add to that? Yeah I was going to say there’s a creek on the western part of that. There’s only one underlying property owner of the property immediately to the west. Paul Oehme: Yeah, so I think the creek is right here. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Paul Oehme: If I’m not mistaken so there’s a creek here. This is the east side, or I guess the west side of the Moon Valley property. There’s a fairly steep ravine right here I think that would have to be crossed. Some challenges in terms of topography and getting access to that point so it’s, it’s going to be challenging I think to find another access point. Kate Aanenson: I think that’s one of the things we’ll look at with the study too to see how, if we can tie those parcels together because it’s under one ownership underneath so. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Paul Oehme: So that’s the layout again for the Moon Valley property and the property to the south again I think this is U.S. Fish and Wildlife property. This area is significantly going to need to be mucked out so additional easements to the south here are going to be necessary to achieve the soil improvements for the project. Environmental work is currently going on too. The Environmental Worksheet is being drafted and drainage improvements are being designed as we speak. There are many environmental challenges associated with the project. Those include wetlands. Wildlife crossings to the wetlands and up the bluff. State listed plaint species within the corridor that we have to be mindful of and try to avoid as best as we can. And then bluffs obviously on the north side of the road…showed the Watershed District. The Riley-Purgatory are going to be reviewing these plans and obviously the City of Chanhassen too. We are proposing to construct two, I think two ponds within Eden Prairie’s borders and then the existing or the proposed pond within, for the 101 project at the wye. That would take a majority of the water runoff from this section of roadway within Carver County and treat it in the regional pond at 101. And then replacing all existing drainage structures and culverts that are currently out there. Cultural resources. Study is currently going on as well. There has been a Phase 1 completed back in September of last year. There was a need for a Phase 2 that was performed back in fall of last year, November, 2013 and there is potentially a need for a Phase 3 within one of the sites here and U.S. Fish and Wildlife, or actually U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently looking at the need for looking at that Phase 3 study as well. As council may recall the Phase 3 study was needed for the 101 corridor study along Highway 61, more by Bluff Creek Drive and that study is currently going on. I think there’s still a little field work yet to do on that project as well so, but this, this study is moving along quite consistently right now. 8 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 Project as it moves forward, like I said the EAW, the Environmental Worksheet is currently being drafted and it’s scheduled to be published in, this month. Right-of-way acquisitions is if municipal consent goes forward would start in June and then also final design would start shortly thereafter. By June we figure that all the easements, the easement needs would be identified and then we can start talking to the property owners about that, those acquisitions. Bid opening is currently scheduled for June of next year. th June 30 of next year and then construction start would be in the fall of 2015 so right after the Highway 101 river crossing project is proposed or is planned to be completed. The construction length is right now estimated to be between 2 to 3 years depending on weather and how much work they can get done in the wintertime. Full closure will have to be, is needed just because of the muck operations. The amount of volume of material that’s coming out of the project. Plus with all the bridge work that has to go on, the project management team hasn’t looked right now at staging the project but I think that’s one of the things that we’ll definitely have to look at. This project can be done in phases to try to you know get traffic through the corridor to a certain point so it doesn’t, so we’re not impacting the whole corridor all at once. The schedule as we’re being proposed is a little bit different than what we’ve done with other projects in Carver County. Hennepin County likes to have the municipal consent or the approvals for the project approved prior to starting the final design and the right-of-way acquisition so the council’s aware of what the project consists of so with that costs. Again it’s going to be funded by mainly by the turnback account at the State. Again that project is being advanced through basically the 101 project and some other projects so this project is being advanced quicker than had been anticipated through the turnback funding list that MnDOT has or, yeah. MnDOT has, especially in the Carver County section of the project. Carver County will need to potentially upfront the turnback costs that are eligible for the portion that’s in Carver County since that’s really not programmed at this time since again the project is being advanced because of the 101 river crossing project so that’s still under negotiation or study. The costs associated with the City are relatively small because the corridor, the pavement, or the roadway section that’s being proposed fits in with the current deeds of the corridor so 100% of that corridor would be funded by the turnback account. There are trail improvements that are being proposed for the project. However those are not turnback eligible so the City would participate in those costs concurrent with or associated with the current Carver County cost share policy. So we’re estimating about $150,000 for the trail improvements for this corridor. So with that if there’s any questions that the council may have, I can try to address them and again representatives from Hennepin County and Carver County are here to answer any questions that you may have as well. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. Oehme. Appreciate the report. Any questions? Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Paul, can we watch the cultural, was it cultural study was that what it was? Resources. Paul Oehme: Sure resources, yeah. Councilwoman Tjornhom: What is the acronym? What does that stand for, for the NRHP? And I don’t mean to put you on the spot, sorry. Paul Oehme: The National Registry of Historical Places. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Paul Oehme: So it’s looking at buildings or structures or different other things that are potentially would be on the Historical Registry or eligible for Historical Registry. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And do we know what those are? 9 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger: Aren’t they the digs? Councilwoman Tjornhom: And if they are the digs, do you want to explain that a little bit? Jason Staebell: My name’s Jason Staebell. I’m with Hennepin County. Thanks for having me tonight. The cultural resources that we have found on this project are in Eden Prairie, what they found was a axe head. It was probably about that big. It’s a hand axe and then they did a Phase 2 and they found some other various little pieces that indicate there was some people that hung out there at one point. Well it’s not a very technical term right there but. Councilman Laufenburger: It’s called inhabited. Jason Staebell: There we go. Todd Gerhardt: A few years ago. Jason Staebell: And. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And before you go on. So what does that mean for the project overall? Jason Staebell: It means we will have to minimize, mitigate or, we mitigate the impacts to that area so either by, if there’s ways we can avoid it we will but it’s looking like we’ll probably be very close to this area. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And I’ve got to say, why? I mean what’s the purpose of mitigating? Jason Staebell: The reason we have to mitigate is that we’re impacting U.S. Fish and Wildlife property and that is a action of the Federal government so we have to bring into the cultural resources aspect of, it’s called the 106 process and so we’re required to see what’s out there for cultural resources and then mitigate or minimize. It’s, this is not a, you probably wouldn’t even notice what this site is if you went out there. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right. Jason Staebell: It’s potentially eligible, it meets the requirements of the, to be eligible. It’s up to the Army Corps to see if they agree, concur that it should be listed. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And because that mitigation, will there be any increase in cost to the project? Jason Staebell: Potentially there might be but that will be turnback eligible. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And then one more question for Paul. Mayor Furlong: Sure. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Paul you said the cost estimate for us where it comes to the trail part is $150,000. Is that correct? Paul Oehme: Correct. 10 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Is that an estimate by today’s standards or was that estimated a long time ago for this project? Paul Oehme: No I think the last estimate that Hennepin County gave us, we’re still within that estimate so, and that’s. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So there shouldn’t be many surprises? Paul Oehme: I’m not anticipating any with the trail costs. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. That was it. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Related to Councilwoman Tjornhom’s question, what’s the source of those funds? Is that park dedication funds? Paul Oehme: Currently we have in the budget trail funds to pay for that. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. I have another question for you since you’re here, and I expect that you already have an answer to this so you’d be disappointed if I didn’t ask it. These retaining walls that you build, why do you build those? Jason Staebell: Why are we building these? To minimize the impacts to the bluffs. It was thought that you could construct this but it’d be a significant impact to those bluffs so it’s a concern for staff at Chanhassen and it was a big concern for the council and the staff at the City of Eden Prairie so it’s a way to minimize the impacts to the bluffs. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So isn’t it also possible to minimize the impact to the bluffs by moving the roadway away from the bluffs? Jason Staebell: It is possible. Councilman Laufenburger: And why wouldn’t we do that? Jason Staebell: There is significant amount of wetlands on the south side and we would have to mitigate those impacts to the wetlands and pretty much right now we’re centering the proposed road on the existing road. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Jason Staebell: The more we move to the south, the poorer the soils. The more cost it will be to build the road. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So it’s a trade off. Jason Staebell: Yeah. Councilman Laufenburger: It’s a trade off. If you keep it there then you’re going to spend money on the retaining wall. If you move it you’re going to spend money on mitigating the wildlife. 11 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 Jason Staebell: Wetland. Councilman Laufenburger: Or the wetland. Impacting the wetlands. Paul Oehme: And also acquiring more right-of-way as well if you move it farther to the south. Councilman Laufenburger: Who owns the land? Paul Oehme: U.S. Fish and Wildlife owns a majority I think of the property. Jason Staebell: Yep. Councilman Laufenburger: Can’t you cut a deal with them? Paul Oehme: Well. Jason Staebell: We’re trying. Councilman Laufenburger: That was it. Todd Gerhardt: And avoidance. Paul Oehme: Avoidance, right. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? I have a few in no particular order. The retaining walls, since that was brought up already. You said the highest was 16 feet in Chanhassen. 25 across the border I think I saw. Paul Oehme: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Help me with some perspective there. We just did the project up at 101 and Pleasant View. Some retaining walls going in. How high are those retaining walls, do you recall? Paul Oehme: Yeah, I believe. Mayor Furlong: …at 62. Paul Oehme: I believe the wall that wraps Bandimere Park on the south side, I think the highest it was 28 feet. Mayor Furlong: Okay and that’s, that dipped down for the trail underpass, right? Paul Oehme: No I’m thinking the one on the, more or less on the south side. On the curve. Mayor Furlong: On the curve? Paul Oehme: Right. You’re coming down around the curve there so I think that’s the highest wall that was in that corridor. That’s right around 28 feet I believe. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other end of 101 north end, up by Crosstown 62 with the Pleasant View Road intersection there were some, where we added the trail in on the west side north of Pleasant View. 12 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 Paul Oehme: Right. Yep. Mayor Furlong: West side of 101 we did some retaining walls there. Paul Oehme: Yeah I think the highest there was maybe 12 feet. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Are we doing some landscaping or vines or shrubs or something there to kind of soften the look of these walls? Paul Oehme: To be honest with you Mayor we really haven’t gotten to that level. Mayor Furlong: I appreciate it…thank you. Paul Oehme: Yeah that level of detail yet but you know we try to mitigate for some of that and then have some plantings as much as we can. Unfortunately this corridor is really tight with the clear zones that are going to have to be required for the roadway improvements just for safety issues so basically between the trail and the roadway there really can’t be any improvements there or. Mayor Furlong: Landscaping. Paul Oehme: Landscaping there. I mean we probably can talk about vines or doing something up there on the walls but in terms of plantings or trees along the corridor, it’s going to be very tough I think. Mayor Furlong: Alright. And maybe we should take a look at that and maybe that’s something you do… Paul Oehme: Yep, exactly. And we’ll talk about that during final design. Kate Aanenson: Yeah I think also we could probably include that when we’re looking at, those properties are all going to be redeveloped. There’s no irrigation down there now. Mayor Furlong: Right. Kate Aanenson: Yeah so I think what we would incorporate into our long term planning that we have a theme. Kind of we look at that as we look at the corridor. Some design themes of landscaping, whatever so that may be something we’d want to incorporate into the. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Design standards. Mayor Furlong: Yep. That sounds good and let’s keep that in mind as we. The number of lanes. The width of the road. I think we talked about this at our work session as well. It’s being built and striped for two through lanes with turn lanes currently but also wide median, pavement median. It has the capacity I think with some adjustment maybe to the existing curb lines to add in and to make it 4 lanes if necessary. The reason I’m asking is the new bridge coming across the river and 101. It’s going to be 4 lanes each way. We’re going to have 4 lanes of traffic. Or 2 lanes each way. Paul Oehme: Right. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And then this narrows down to one lane and it will be the same thing to the west so eventually I think the traffic will be there and so how do we deal with that when the traffic demand increases? Or increases the demand for that. 13 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 Paul Oehme: So Hennepin County did do a traffic analysis and a projection of traffic needs and estimates for I think 2035 and currently right now the traffic on this corridor is right at 9,100 trips per day and they’re projecting about 14,000 or between 14,000 and 15,000 trips per day by 2035 so. Mayor Furlong: And that’s assuming the river crossing is in place? Paul Oehme: That’s assuming the river crossing and I think up the bluff too if I’m not mistaken was also included in that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Paul Oehme: In that analysis so you know Hennepin County, Carver County are fairly confident that 15,000 trips per day this corridor can handle that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Paul Oehme: In the future you know, if it does get above you know I think right now about 18,000 trips per day we need to look at maybe doing something else and the curb lines as they sit today potentially can be restriped to 4 lanes. However at intersections it might have to widen out and add right turn lanes and some other improvements at that time too so. Mayor Furlong: And there’s width within the existing right-of-way and the existing trail to do those if it’s warranted? Paul Oehme: If it is, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Paul Oehme: At those intersections. Mayor Furlong: And were those traffic counts, did they include development, at least within Chanhassen along that corridor as well under the current guiding? Paul Oehme: Yep. Exactly and those, those trips in the traffic analysis always takes into account future growth in the, just not in the corridor but in the region as well. Mayor Furlong: In the region as well, okay. Alright. Todd Gerhardt: Paul I think you had a slide that showed 1996 was kind of the peak at a little over 24,000 trips. 25. Paul Oehme: Let’s see if I can find that slide. Oh yeah, here we go. Yeah so, yeah so back in 1996. Mayor Furlong: Before the 169 bridge. River crossing. Paul Oehme: Yeah. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, 169. Paul Oehme: 169 and 212 yeah. I mean this corridor was level of service D and F at that point in time and as you can recall the intersection, especially the wye intersection that was always broke down during 14 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 peak hours traffic so we’re planning for growth and I think the proposed design can handle it for the foreseeable future. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. With regard to the timing of why we’re here tonight with this approval at an earlier stage than typically when we see these when it might be final. Paul Oehme: Right. Mayor Furlong: What happens between now and if there are changes to the plan or if we’re doing a corridor study down there right now. Paul Oehme: Right. Yep. Mayor Furlong: There might be something that comes from that that say hey, we want to do some things now at this time. Paul Oehme: Yep. Mayor Furlong: How do we deal with that? Paul Oehme: So as new information comes in we’re going to be looking at putting that information into the final design package so the council’s still going to have opportunity to review the final plans and specifications before we go out to bid and approve us to go out for bid so there’s joint power agreements that have to be approved by, between the counties and other improvements. We’re probably, we’re going to have to concur with the bids as well so there’s a lot of approvals that the City, the Council’s still going to have to work through prior to this project actually getting off the ground so there’s a lot of checkpoints I think along the way that, not just staff but the council’s going to be working through. Mayor Furlong: So what that tells me is, tonight we’re being asked for municipal consent as the plans currently are but as those plans get developed and improved I mean. Paul Oehme: Right. Mayor Furlong: We believe, what we’re being asked to say is, based upon what’s here today we approve it but there will be other opportunities if there are some things that come up, especially any material changes. Paul Oehme: Yep. Absolutely. Like I said we’ll talk about landscaping too and we’re going to talk about, we’re still talking about access issues throughout the corridor for driveways and then is there an opportunity to talk about staging the project a little differently then just reconstructing the whole section of roadway all at one time so, those are the kind of things that we still have to get more detail and design towards but you know Hennepin County would like approval at this time just so they can start going through the right-of-way acquisition process and working, start working on final design so just kind of a check in to say okay at this point in time you know right-of-way, we know there’s some needs out here but it’s something that’s not, that the council can understand and it’s not going to be too impactful for the residents at this time so, just kind of a check in that it’s, you know it’s something that, it’s a workable project basically. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And with regard to, you mentioned the closures and I know that’s something we’ve talked about and I know you don’t want to close a road any longer than you have to. 15 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 Current detour routes. What is the expectation there for the detour? You had the map of the area. Can you go back to the, or do you Mr. Oehme? Paul Oehme: Okay I’ll try to. Mayor Furlong: With the white and the gray. There you go. Jason Staebell: Yeah, we would like to minimize the closures. Mayor Furlong: I’m sure you would. Jason Staebell: To as short as possible. Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Jason Staebell: The detour for the project for full closure would be up 101 to Pioneer Trail and then back over to, tying into 61. Kind of over by Flying Cloud airport. Mayor Furlong: Pioneer Trail and 61? Jason Staebell: Yep. Paul Oehme: I mean from a staff’s perspective we do have concerns about that detour route just up the bluff, 101 right now just because it’s current condition. Mayor Furlong: But I don’t know that there’s a better one. Paul Oehme: Well there isn’t but I mean that’s something we’re going to have to take a look at, especially MnDOT and Carver County and us are going to have to take a look at and see if, you know right now I think there’s 6,000 trips per day on that corridor. If we’re having another 9,000 trips per day to that corridor you know we’re going to have to see what, see if it’s going to be feasible or not so. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, thank you. Any other questions on this? This doesn’t require a public hearing does it? Paul Oehme: No. Mayor Furlong: And I don’t know if anybody here wants to make any public comment but we’d certainly be open to public comment as always on these items. Seeing none let’s bring it back to council for comments, discussion and a motion. Thoughts and comments. Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah I just, Mayor Furlong I appreciate your clarification that we’re, what we are giving consent to right now is that, that Hennepin County move forward with their plans but if these plans change substantially in any area that you know city staff have the responsibility to work with Hennepin County to bring that back to us for review. I see some issues on this. I think that closure is an awfully long time and I think about the 101 crossing of the Minnesota River is going to happen in one year. Is that correct? One summer. It’s going to be open at the same time so I guess I would implore the organizations involved here to consider how they can change that from 2 or 3 years to 1 or 2 years or maybe just even one year. I like the notion that this is happening. I think that in spite of the opening of 169 and 212 I think this corridor has a good bit of traffic on it and what we’d like, what we in Chanhassen would like to have happen down in the 101/61 area, there might even be more so I’m certainly in favor of 16 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 the project and I’m in favor of giving our, giving consent at this time but I do have concern about that closure. Mayor Furlong: I hate to go back to questions but can you address that a little bit more. I know you said you want to keep it shorter but obviously it’s an issue. Jason Staebell: Yeah the closure’s necessary because of the muck that we have to excavate and then the, there’s a significant bridge that we’ll have to build and as we’ve discussed it’s a very tight corridor. Bluffs on one side and the wetlands on the other. I wanted to give you the worst case scenario. Hopefully we can bring that down to be less than 2 years of closure. Mayor Furlong: So by saying worst case, do you think it’s the most likely case at this point based upon what you understand or is there really a worst case that it be no worst than that given some, are you building in weather delays and such as a function of that timeline? Jason Staebell: We haven’t built in weather delays. Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, have or have not? Jason Staebell: Have not. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Jason Staebell: It’s. Mayor Furlong: So with weather delays under the current plan it could be longer? Jason Staebell: Could be but one of the benefits of muck excavation is during the winter is a better time to muck so, and then building retaining walls can happen during the winter also so this year was kind of an extreme winter but I think according to my construction folks it’s, the 2 years is about a good number at this point. For what we know at this point. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And that’s 24 month period when you’re saying 2 years? Jason Staebell: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, thank you for clarifying. Does that help clarify Mr. Laufenburger? Councilman Laufenburger: Well we can’t predict the future. Mayor Furlong: I know, no. Councilman Laufenburger: Just in my mind I’m balancing what’s the length of the 101? Is it 1.7 miles? No. Paul Oehme: Sorry. Councilman Laufenburger: What’s the length of 101. Mayor Furlong: River crossing. 17 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger: The river crossing. Paul Oehme: The river crossing. It’s right in that ballpark. Yeah I think it’s 2 miles almost. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah. You know in fairness they’re building an entire new structure adjacent so it’s not like they don’t have to move a lot of muck until the causeway needs to be removed and then there’s no, we don’t care how long that’s going to take. Or we do but, I didn’t mean to say that we don’t care. I mean we care but the highways…but well we’re talking about inconveniencing people and like you Paul I’m thinking of that 101 so. Paul Oehme: Yep. Councilman Laufenburger: I think it’s the best they can do. Paul Oehme: Yeah there’s still a lot, like I said there’s a lot of work that has to be done yet to really dial in this design and see what we can do to really try to shorten up that construction length as much as we can. Councilman Laufenburger: Let’s hope they don’t find any more cultural resources. Mayor Furlong: Any other comments? Questions? Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Yeah I guess you know in thinking about this and everything, I just I have a lot of concern about 101. I mean now you’re looking at diverting truck traffic down that hill. You’re talking right now 9,000 something trips. I don’t think the hill can take 9,000 trips. Especially in the wintertime. Over a 2 year period. I think you’ve got to find another route instead of going, using the 101 hill because, either that or you’ve got to fix it so that it could sustain that kind of traffic because otherwise I think we’re just looking at having a lot of problems. Mayor Furlong: I mean long term 101 is something that we do want improved. Councilman McDonald: Right but it’s the gap. Mayor Furlong: And we know we’re working with the County to do that I think. Councilman McDonald: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: As bad as we all envision it will be, it’s the best route that goes north and south within that proximity at this point so. Councilman McDonald: I hear you but again. Mayor Furlong: The best in this case may not be very good. Councilman McDonald: It’s not very good because you don’t see that many trucks right now on 101. They’re all going either up and down that way or they’re over on 212. Now when you try to put some trucks on that road. Mayor Furlong: Well I’m not sure how many trucks come across the river right now. I’m sure some do but. 18 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 Paul Oehme: 7%. Mayor Furlong: 7%. And how does that compare to normal traffic on a county or state highway? I mean are the trucks already avoiding the area? Jason Staebell: In general for Hennepin County our normal truck traffic is about 5% for county roads. It’s a little bit more than your normal county road but within reason. Mayor Furlong: I mean effectively what will likely happen is people will change their driving habits to the point that it becomes as manageable as possible. Councilman Laufenburger: And my guess is. Mayor Furlong: Which will be an inconvenience. I’m not… Councilman Laufenburger: Sure but my guess is some of those trucks that would have difficulty navigating 101 are likely going to go east on whatever the road is in Shakopee/Savage. Head over to 169 and come back along Pioneer Trail or Anderson Lakes Parkway if their destination is Eden Prairie probably which is a longer trip but. Councilman McDonald: Okay I guess I would just like to see some better planning from the city standpoint because we have to maintain that hill and that would not be the place to have a lot of accidents. Mayor Furlong: It’s a concern but again I think the best solution is minimizing the duration you know so. Don’t get too comfortable. You might be coming back the way this group is going. No. Councilman McDonald: No, I’m done. Mayor Furlong: Any other comments or questions? My thoughts are similar. It’s great to see the project happening. Obviously concerns about some of the aspects but it’s, it seems to be a function of you know where the road sits and the length. You know what needs to be done and so just, I think we’ve expressed our concerns and probably nothing that you haven’t heard from other organizations and councils as well so I think that’s where we need to keep working together even though we’re going forward with our consent this evening as far as moving forward with this project, and it is a good project I think in conjunction with the new river crossing and the improvements. The County 61. Removing the wye. Including roundabouts and stuff. There will be, you know long term it’s going to be a great improvement to the transportation system in our region and so that’s, that’s very positive. It’s just going to be rather disruptive during the process so as much as we can do to get it done as quick as possible I think will be a benefit to all. If there are no other comments, Paul do you have a proposed motion? Is there one on the power point? If not there is one in our motion. Would somebody like to make a motion? Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Sure. Mr. Mayor I move that the City Council approves Municipal Consent and adopts a resolution approving layout number 4 and imposing a no parking zone for the Highway 61 (Flying Cloud Drive) project between Highway 101 and Charlson Road. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman McDonald: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion’s been made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? 19 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 Resolution #2014-16: Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council approves Municipal Consent and adopts a resolution approving layout number 4 and imposing a no parking zone for the Highway 61 (Flying Cloud Drive) project between Highway 101 and Charlson Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. Appreciate your help so far and all your work coming forward. Appreciate it. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Furlong: Just a notice for members of the council and the public too, I’ve been invited to address th the Buy Chanhassen group at their March meeting on March 25, which is a Tuesday so that’s coming up in a couple weeks. 11:30 at the American Legion so I’m looking forward to that. Give an update on some of the things that are going on in the city. If there’s nothing else, Administrative Presentations. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Todd Gerhardt: Busy doing the search for our new fire chief. We have interviews next Tuesday with several panels of department heads and some of our volunteers to get some feedback from them on our two candidates and help me in making my decision. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt or his staff? No, thank you. We’ll look forward to the outcome of that process. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion? Any items in that? Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah I, kudos to SouthWest Transit. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Laufenburger: And the chairman. I just think that this is a, this is a showcase for this community. And not just Chanhassen but Chaska and Eden Prairie and now you’re moving into Carver, is that correct? Down by the Jonathon Carver Parkway. Anyway this is a, this is a real success story and I would hate to see anything interfere with that success story so Mr. McDonald keep your pedal to the metal. Councilman McDonald: Well if I could, you know one of the things that happened last week was we did have a meeting with the Met Council about what we’re going to do with Eden Prairie and you know as I said before the meeting there, I have been real pleased with the cooperation that we’ve had with Met Council. We made a lot of suggestions. We have now come up with a plan that is independent of where the light rail ends. Before the first couple plans, the plans for the site varied based upon where the light rail ended. We’ve since compromised and we’ve come up with a plan that’s totally independent so we’re out of that mix. Also the plan that we came up with only requires one taking. At this point the Culver’s is probably in jeopardy but we’ve saved Anchor Bank and we’ve saved all the other spots around there and so that has. Councilman Laufenburger: Just to clarify, you’re talking about the Culver’s which is next to SouthWest Station in Eden Prairie. 20 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 Councilman McDonald: Right, in Eden Prairie. Right. Yep. Not the one here. That one’s fine but yeah, we’ve reached agreement and they compromised and we compromised and we’ve actually come up with some pretty good designs and everybody was very thankful so that problem is over. Now the only problem we have to worry about at the end of the line is where do they end and they’re not going to make that decision for another couple of weeks but it won’t be dependent upon the design at Eden Prairie station. Mayor Furlong: Well there are some few questions further east along the proposed line too in St. Louis Park and Minneapolis. Councilman McDonald: Well we won’t, at least at the end they’ve got a place to put their tracks and it looks pretty good. Connecting that further east that’s not our problem. Councilman Laufenburger: So they haven’t picked a golden spike spot, is that right? Councilman McDonald: Not quite yet. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and council. Mayor Furlong: Yes. Todd Gerhardt: Just to add to the correspondence packet. I did schedule Len Simich to come to our work session. Our last work session in April to give you an update. Mayor Furlong: Great. Councilman McDonald: Just one more thing that I did, City of Chanhassen and Chaska are going to have a say in this because the cities will have to agree to these plans once they’ve been finalized. The Met Council thinks they only need municipal consent from Eden Prairie but because SouthWest Transit is a joint powers, they need it from the other two cities so what Chaska and Chanhassen are looking at is, what’s in the long term best interest of SouthWest Transit so to Denny’s point, yeah. We are trying to make sure it stays viable and continues to grow. So we will have a vote in all of this. Mayor Furlong: And what’s the timing of that? Councilman McDonald: It’s going to be in the April-May timeframe because all the decisions need to be done by the end of June as far as what they’re going to do so I think Len coming here is part of all that. We’re going to get the resolutions out. The Memorandum of Understanding will be approved by the SouthWest Board. The detailed contracts will go to the cities for approval. Mayor Furlong: When is the commission plan to consider the Memorandum of Understanding? This month? Councilman McDonald: Right now it’s, no it’s not for this month. It’s on the schedule for next month. th They’re finalizing it this month and our next meeting’s going to be like April 10 and we’re going to review it at that point. Mayor Furlong: We should probably look at, with Mr. Simich coming out our last meeting in April. To 21 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 the extent that there will be council action required of that, we should get that in front of us as quick as we can. And I’m not saying reschedule Mr. Simich but if that Memorandum of Understanding is available sooner, perhaps we should look at seeing that in our work session if we’ve got time. I wouldn’t mind taking time at multiple work sessions if necessary so that we’re fully informed of what’s taking place. Was that the purpose of his? Todd Gerhardt: That was the first time he was available. Mayor Furlong: And that was the purpose for him coming? Not just a standard update? Todd Gerhardt: Probably to talk about that but some of the other things that are going on too. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay. Todd Gerhardt: I think he wanted to let you know that that was coming. Mayor Furlong: Yep. Todd Gerhardt: And what was the deadline Jerry? Councilman McDonald: Well everything’s got to be done by the end of June because of where the timing for money’s at and all of those things so yeah the Memorandum of Understanding is only going to be used as the blueprint to do the final contracts for what we’re going to do there so it’s going to be a high level document. It’s not going to have all the details of who’s going to pay what or who’s going to do what and those kind of things. That will be developed once we have that put together. But yeah as soon as we’ve got it I’ll make sure Mr. Gerhardt gets a copy of it and then what he can do is send it out via email to all the council members. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah I would think that he would probably lay out a schedule at that meeting. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: So we’ll try to make room for future meetings for it. Mayor Furlong: And maybe what would be helpful, if you’re, if the commission’s having a meeting on th the 10 of April, obviously the packet for that meeting will be going out in advance of that meeting. Councilman McDonald: It’s going to be very close. Mayor Furlong: Right. Councilman McDonald: We already know it’s going to be very close. Mayor Furlong: Depending whenever it’s ready I’d be interested in seeing that. I’m sure the rest of the council would be as well. Councilman McDonald: Make sure you get a. Mayor Furlong: It’s a very accelerated timeframe. Great, thank you for all your work on that. For keeping the interest of our city and SouthWest Transit in the forefront. Any other comments or discussion on the correspondence packet? Seeing none we will continue our work session discussion 22 City Council Summary – March 10, 2014 immediately following this meeting in the Fountain Conference room. If there’s nothing else to come before the council this evening, is there a motion to adjourn? Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 23