Loading...
CC 2018 12 10CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Laufenburger, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Ryan, and Councilman Campion STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Chelsea Petersen, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, Greg Sticha, and Roger Knutson PUBLIC PRESENT: Dave Schollman 8011 Dakota Circle Lynne Pilgrim 8026 Dakota Avenue Unsie Zuege Chanhassen Villager Mack Titus 2747 Century Trail Ed Farr 7710 Golden Triangle Drive, Eden Prairie Randy Schwanz 1372 Ithilien Mike McGonagill 2451 Hunter Drive Greg Briggs Briggs & M DDS Katherine Wise 2747 Wagner Drive Patrick Mulheran 3915 Red Cedar Point Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you and welcome to this council meeting. Those of you that are present in the chambers as well as also those of you that may be watching through Mediacom cable channel in your home or through the world wide web access livestream through the Chanhassen city website. For the record let it be known all 5 members of the council are present this evening along with Mr. Gerhardt, City Manager. Mr. Knutson our City Attorney and several of staff are with us tonight as well. Our first action tonight is the agenda. Council members we have a printed agenda in front of us this evening. Are there any modifications to the agenda? There being none we will proceed with the agenda as it is published. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS. Mayor Laufenburger: I do have a brief public announcement that I wanted to make. I wanted to note that the Lions Club in Chanhassen is celebrating 30 years this year. 30 years of serving our community. They do the Christmas Tree lot in Cub Foods. They do, working with our Fire Department they do the pancake breakfast. They’re a wonderful service organization. I think it’s appropriate just to acknowledge that happy 30th anniversary to the Chanhassen City Lions Club. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 2 CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman McDonald moved Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 1. Approve City Council Minutes dated November 26, 2018 2. Approve City Council Minutes dated December 3, 2018 3. Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated November 20, 2018 4. Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated December 4, 2018 5. Approve 2019 Police Contract with Carver County Sheriff’s Office 6. Resolution #2018-58: Adoption of 2040 Comprehensive Plan 7. Resolution #2018-59: Approve Quote for Ithilien Pond Maintenance Project 8. Resolution #2018-60: Designate Polling Place Locations for 2019 Elections 9. Resolution #2018-61: Orchard Lane Area Street & Utility Reconstruction Project – Call Assessment Hearing All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATION. Mayor Laufenburger: Visitor presentations are included at every regularly scheduled council meeting and at this time anyone wishing to address the council on a matter that is not on the agenda this evening you may step to the podium stating your name and your address for the record. Don Amorosi: Sorry council, I guess I’ve become a regular. My name’s Don Amorosi. I live at 2368 Grays Landing Road in Wayzata. Good evening. Mayor Laufenburger: Good evening. Don Amorosi: I put together a presentation not knowing whether you had the technology to put it up or not. If I go too fast and you’d like me to share it with you afterwards I can. This is a follow up to the meeting that was held last week where I asked some questions about mental health related resources associated with the 2019 budget and I’m going to be brief but I want to give you a little bit of landscape on what I think is a reasonable proposal for mental health Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 3 support improvements for Chanhassen in 2019 and just ask that you take them under consideration. Humor me a little bit and ideally provide some sort of feedback in one way shape or form. According to the Wallstreet Journal in an article on 11-24-2018, a very recent article. When police officers respond to mental health crisis calls the risk for violent encounters increases. One in four people killed by police have serious mental illness. 21 percent of time spent by police officers is handling individuals with mental illnesses. 45 percent of police officers polled have not completed CIT training. That was a national poll. In a statement that was made by Brian Marvell, the President of 70,000 members of the Public Safety Union in California, he said if someone is having mental health issues then let’s send the pros in who actually deal with this. He’s talking about crisis intervention specialists. I mention this because with that background I’m challenged by your statement Mayor Laufenburger in last week’s City Council meeting that the public mental health services were adequate for Chanhassen residents. When I asked specifically about incremental dollars I got a deer in the headlights look and stumbled through it as though it was a question you didn’t know how to answer. And so I ask that the council challenge this position that the mayor took as well by doing these 3, these several things and again I’ll share this with you afterward if you wish for me to. I ask that the obtain the questions to the 11, the answers to the 11 questions I shared with a couple council members regarding Ron, or Rod Franks DHS presentation about mental health crisis program in Carver County. If you read his, if you followed his presentation you would see that that directly contradicts what happened on July 13th, 12th and 13th with regard to my son. It’s public information. It’s not in any type of sealed documents so it would beg the question what happened and whether this information really is valid that he’s provided or where the gap, where gaps exist. Secondly affirmatively determining what if any incremental resources, funds, tools, technology have been allocated under Chanhassen’s contract with Carver County Sheriff’s Department since July 13, 2018 or for 2019. I ask that you consider and I’ve talked with this before and gotten some support around, some sort of blue ribbon panel to determine whether Chanhassen residents with mental illness are discriminated against due to lack of access to quality public mental health services. Participating, and I ask that you participate in Minnesota’s Department of Health upcoming statewide police homicide review. I won’t go into details on that but some council members are aware of this. Maybe not the entire council. And then I ask that you request mental health measures and data and periodic council meetings reporting from public safety contracted entities or authorities that govern how those are conducted. And then for consideration I certainly with respect to the budget, I recommend that you redeploy the savings associated with the elimination of a Crime Prevention Specialist to hire instead a Crisis Intervention Specialist. You see what I heard was that we, there is no incremental spend and no distinguishing spend in your $11 million dollar budget whatsoever. Yet the statistics I went through beg that there should be. 1 in 5 individuals suffer with mental illness and almost every interaction with law enforcement involves violence and has to do with mental illness. Second earmark $50,000. I think that amounts to 4/10ths of 1 percent of the 2019 budget to augment any funding gaps or improvement opportunities as deemed necessary by county crisis intervention leaders. Next require that all deputies allocated to Chanhassen under it’s contract with Carver County complete intense 40 hour de-escalation training by Q2 2019 even if overtime pay is required and prohibit untrained deputies from responding to known mental health crisis’s. And Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 4 finally if you haven’t already everyone, I think you’d be hard pressed to find a resident of Chanhassen that hasn’t said why did this happen? And if something like this happened again would we get the exact same result? Thanks for your time. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright thank you Mr. Amorosi. Would you be willing to offer that, you talked about an electronic presentation. Can you make sure that city staff gets that? Don Amorosi: Yes I will. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay thank you. Alright before I invite other visitor presentations any council member wish to respond to Mr. Amorosi? Alright thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to make a visitor presentation at this time? Alright there being none I will close visitor presentations at this time and move to the next item on our agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE DRIVE EAST STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: ORDER IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Mayor Laufenburger: For those of you that may be present regarding this item I will ask for a staff report first, followed by questions from council to staff and then I will open it up to the public for public comments concerning this project okay. Is this your’s Mr. Oehme? Paul Oehme: Yes Mayor. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright go ahead. Paul Oehme: Thank you City Council members. So tonight we’d like to consider moving forward with the Lake Drive East street improvement project. Tonight with me is Chuck Richard from WSB and Adam Gosbro, also from WSB. They helped us complete the feasibility study so if you have any questions for them they’re available. So Lake Drive East project consists of about .76 miles of street improvements including the intersection of Dakota Avenue and up to Highway 5 shown here in this exhibit. It’s kind of in the eastern part of the community. Included with the improvements for consideration are some watermain improvements, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer improvements as well along with intersection improvements. Annually the City rates our streets for our pavement condition inspecting all the deficiencies and how well the streets are holding up. This section of road was evaluated in 2018 and the scores are shown here on the Lake Drive just west of Dakota is 59 and the section of Lake Drive most of that’s about a 58 which is in the overlay category. Typically anything under 65 on that PCI scale is considered eligible for an overlay. And then Dakota Avenue is a little bit higher but that area is heavily patched and the pavement inspections typically don’t take in patching in consideration for that, for those PCI’s. So it’s kind of inflated in that respect but, so the purpose for the project again is to maintain our pavements as best as we can so this project is again, has been planned for a couple years. Lake Drive is a municipal state aid route so the City Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 5 does receive some gas tax from the State of Minnesota to help fund these projects. The street was constructed in ’91 and then sealcoated a couple times in 1995 and then again in 2005. The small section of Dakota Avenue is also on our municipal state aid route system so it’s eligible again for state aid funding. That section of road was constructed in ’86 and then again sealcoated again but based on our pavement condition of the pavement inspection, the PCI rating, field visual inspections that we’ve done at a staff level, the traffic that these roads receive the geotechnical report that we have, have been drafted by a geotechnical firm, there is a recommendation for overlay. Mill and overlay of 3 inches of new pavement for this road. There is approximately 20 percent of the curb and some of the sidewalk out there that is deficient. Some crack. Some heaving areas that we’d also like to take care of with this project as well for the pavement. So a big component of this project is looking at, we looked at the operations of the intersection of Dakota and Lake. How that functions. We have received comments from residents and traveling public over the years about the operations of this intersection, especially as, since the business to the west of Dakota has opened up. We have seen more traffic at this intersection. So the report, the feasibility study did look at all that information. Considering all that data we did look at 6 alternatives to make improvements to the intersection. They range from all the way up to putting in a signal in, to a roundabout, to different other operations of stop signs and turn lanes as well so I’ll go through a little bit of those tonight as well. So just some of the crash data that we found. So the available crash data, we looked at it. It was based over an 8 year period from 2011 and it’s been averaging right around one crash per year which is you know in all estimations is low for the volume of traffic that this intersection receives. 8,000 trips per day on Dakota Avenue. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Oehme just to clarify. Crash data is, what’s the source of your crash data? Paul Oehme: Well it typically is gathered by Carver County Sheriff’s. Mayor Laufenburger: Law enforcement. Paul Oehme: Law enforcement and it’s either stored at Carver County or the State level and cities, communities can extract that data from those data bases. Mayor Laufenburger: But as we would expect if a crash is, occurs but is never reported it’s not going to be in our data. Paul Oehme: It’s not a crash exactly so there’s, and we’ve heard from. Mayor Laufenburger: I mean it’s still a crash but it’s not a crash that we know about. Paul Oehme: Exactly. That we know about and we’ve heard from other property owners, residents in this area that you know there’s been lots of near misses too but it’s hard to quantify. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 6 Mayor Laufenburger: Do we record near misses? Paul Oehme: We don’t. We can’t quantify that so just wanted to bring that up. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Sorry for the interruption. Paul Oehme: Good question. So these are the 6 alternatives that the feasibility study looked at was one is no change. Basically leave the intersection as is. The second alternative we looked at was a 3 way stop. Basically adding a stop sign at the northbound Dakota Avenue leg of the intersection. There are currently stop signs, stop conditions on Lake on the east west lanes. And then we also looked at a 4 way stop. Adding a stop sign on the southbound of Dakota. All way stops with turn lanes and then signals like I mentioned and then a mini roundabout as well so looking at all those operations we did complete a traffic study and modeling and looked at the delays. This is the level of service basically for those improvements. Not just today in 2017 when the feasibility study was looked at but also projecting out to 2037 with future traffic demands and operations at this intersection. And again it’s level of service is basically delays that we typically would see at an intersection. The seconds a vehicle would have to wait at that intersection to go through that intersection. So and then we looked at roadway alternative comparisons between all 6 alternatives. So looking at overall operations. The level of service again. The queuing. Roadway safety improvements that we would typically see for these intersections. Pedestrian safety. MnDOT approval too since it is close to Highway 5 operations they would have to sign off on any changes and then the cost for each of the improvements as well so it’s something we rated them plus or minus and higher scores are better. Basically better comparison. So the two improvements that did rate high were again the mini roundabout, alternative number 6 and then looking at a 3 way stop as well so. The first one is the mini roundabout. We’ve looked at the geometrics of what that would take to put into the intersection. Obviously that would be some significant improvements that would need to take place here. The green line indicates you right-of-way that would have to be acquired and there would be more construction and more cost associated with putting in a mini roundabout like this so again the mini roundabout is, say it’s a concrete raised intersection as opposed to a landscape intersection where you see a typical roundabout so this did rate as a good operational alternative but however you know based upon the cost and we’re not seeing again the accidents and the crashes out in this intersection we’re not recommending this improvement at this time. That might be something down the road that a future council might want to consider if things change in this intersection. What we are recommending is a 3 way stop alternative. Again there’s currently a stop condition on the eastbound and westbound lanes of Lake Drive. What would be proposed is to add a stop sign coming out of Dakota Avenue. We’ve heard from residents that you know some people are stopping there already and just to slow down and just to make sure that the intersection’s clear before going through the intersection so some people are already kind of taking that into consideration already. One of the bigger improvements that one of the alternate improvements that we’re looking at too is extending the center median on Dakota Avenue down to the intersection of Lake Drive. That would help some U turning movements that we’re seeing right now at this intersection and then also we would have a raised median for pedestrian Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 7 crossings too so it’s a safe refuge that we’d like to consider at this intersection for, so pedestrians don’t have to cross all 4 lanes of traffic all at once. And the intersection would be striped again for pedestrians at this time. There is no pedestrian facilities on the south side of Lake Drive. One of the improvements that we’d like to consider is constructing a sidewalk on the west side of Dakota Avenue down to I think Erie Avenue. At least into the neighborhood there. Would allow you know pedestrians at least to not walk on Dakota Avenue and have a little safer movements at the intersection as well. One of the items that we looked at in the feasibility study that we heard with our neighborhood meeting was you know maybe adding an LED blinking stop light at, along Lake Drive. Mayor Laufenburger: Both east and west bound? Paul Oehme: Both east and west yep. Both east and west bound so these have been used throughout the state of Minnesota and nationally. There has been some studies completed on them and they do support you know they show that the drivers are more compliant when these signs are installed for stopping. One of the things that again we’ve heard from residents and traveling public, this intersection seems like that people are not stopping at this intersection on Lake Drive as much as they should so and looking out for traffic coming out of Dakota Avenue so this might help that situation. However you know I did put in your packet some guidance from the State of Minnesota on LED stop signs specifically from the County Road Safety Plan. These signs seems like they are a good idea at first. However over time they may lose some of their effectiveness as the traveling public becomes more accustomed to the signs so something to consider. We have had red flags on these stop signs and I think we’ve had reflective bars on the post on the stop signs too to help alert the traveling public to the stop conditions at this intersection so we’ve had tried some improvements over time. However it seems like it’s not helping as much as it should. Again MnDOT does try to have some guidance when these new technologies and these new items come out so MnDOT’s guidance is to limit these signs in areas where there’s limited visibility say around the curve or you know or if there’s topography issues. If it comes up at a intersection. If the traveling public comes up to an intersection that you can’t see it very well so alerts the public a little bit better in that instances. These signs are also placed in high crash areas as well throughout the State. I know MnDOT’s put these in successfully and it seems like it helps in those areas. However at the intersection of Lake and Dakota again there isn’t a high rate of crashes at this time. And then also MnDOT limits the installation of these facilities at rural junctions as well where highways, trunk highways meet local roads and unexpected areas where you’re traveling down a highway and you come to a stop sign say every 5 miles or something. You know we’re not, where there’s a stop it’s really not expected so kind of in those areas where you know stop conditions aren’t noticeable so. If there’s any questions with that you know we can answer them now or at the end of the presentation too. But watermain improvements, just wanted to walk through this a little bit with you as well. There is 12 inch ductile iron pipe along Lake Drive that seems like it is in good condition. There is 8 inch ductile or 8 inch cast iron on Dakota Avenue however that’s the older pipe and we’ve had problems with that pipe over the years and specifically on this section of pipe we’ve had watermain breaks on the north side of Highway 5 so the idea here is you know we can’t replace Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 8 the pipe under Highway 5 very efficiently or cost effectively. The cast iron so what we did we modeled the watermain in this area and there is a 12 inch main seems like it’s been modeled to be sufficient to carry the water needs and fire flows in this area so what staff is proposing is to abandon that 8 inch cast iron pipe under Highway 5 but rebuild the section of pipe basically from Lake Drive up to the service for the business to the west. The little section of pipe and then again abandon that section under Highway 5. I think it would reduce the risk of a watermain break in this intersection under Highway 5 tremendously. And then we are looking at, there are some valves out here that potentially need to be replaced. There’s some bolts and then some hydrant repairs too that we’d be including in the project. Sanitary sewer. This seems like it’s in fairly good condition. However some of the manhole covers, lids and some of the pipe has some mineral deposits. We’d like to fix that in conjunction with the project as well as long as the project were to move forward. Chimney seals on the manholes as well. Storm sewer, there’s some manholes out there that are failing. The rings need to be redone. Castings need to be replaced and some manhole dog houses too that need to be replaced. Also there’s some sump pump discharges along Lake Drive on the west side of Dakota that we’d like to install from sump pumps. Discharges and then direct that into the storm sewer as well in conjunction with this project. So with that again the feasibility study was drafted by WSB and Associates and is available in our department. In the engineering department. We did have an open house on November 8th. Approximately 30 property owners from the area, community did attend. We thought that was a good turnout and good discussion there. And then again on November 26th the council did accept the feasibility study but did request that the project be looked at, as 3 separate projects. One is the, identify the cost for the intersection improvements only at Lake and Dakota. Looking at just doing the utility improvements by themselves. And then overlay of Lake Drive to the east as well, or to Dell. So that’s what we did. This is the original feasibility study report and the costs associated with the complete project so if the project were to go forward our recommendation is the 3 way stop at Dakota and Lake with pedestrian improvements and then the improvements as I had indicated before for a total project cost of a little over $760,000. Mayor Laufenburger: Now these are the estimates. Paul Oehme: Yep, these are the estimates from WSB. Again we haven’t gone out for bid yet. The final plan set hasn’t been completed yet either so a lot of detail work has yet to be done. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Paul Oehme: This is an exhibit showing the proposed assessment area for the entire project if we were to move forward. And the assessment roll is in your packet. So for this, for the entire project if it were to move forward there is a little over $175,000 worth of potential assessments based upon the assessed practice that we have currently. 18 properties businesses would be assessed. No residential properties would be assessed. Again 40 percent of the assessable street cost would be looked at for the assessment. The city would pick up the remaining costs. The assessments would be also proposed at 8 year term at 2 percent plus, 2 percent prime at the time Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 9 of the contract awarded if it go to that. So the alternate project costs and scopes that we had just talked about. One is again the improvements at the intersection of Dakota and Lake from WSB’s cost analysis these are the costs associated with that. These may be a little bit higher just based upon the project is a little bit smaller in scope than a big overlay project along Lake Drive so but taking into consideration the stormwater improvements and the intersection improvements as well. Same intersection improvements as what was originally in the feasibility study. This would, in order to make those improvements at the intersection there would have to be some improvements at Lake Drive. Staff would propose to assess 3 of the property owners that would be benefiting from the property or from the project for the overlays. The assessment is estimated to go up a little bit just because the project is smaller. There’s less assessment area associated with that so and this is the cost estimate where the parcels that would be proposed to be assessed for just the intersection improvements here so 3 of them at the intersection and you can see the assessments would potentially be going up significantly if we just did the intersection improvements. Alternate number 2 was just do the utility work. We just broke out the watermain improvements and sanitary sewer improvements. What we think would have to be completed. Obviously some of these improvements could be done at a later date as well. The watermain improvements however we’ve talked about the abandoning or the removal of the cast iron pipe is under Dakota Avenue so you know it would be cost prohibitive really to do the utility work separately because the restoration costs would be, you know it’d be kind of redundant if you do the intersection improvements then come back some time later and do the utilities and have to rip up the curb and the street again so we would recommend that you know if the intersection at Dakota was improved in the future that some of these utilities would go along in conjunction with those improvements. Mayor Laufenburger: So let me just clarify. So what you’re saying is alternative one is the street work at the intersection. Paul Oehme: Right. Mayor Laufenburger: Alternative two is the utility work at the intersection. And then you’re about to tell us alternative three which is the MSA work from Dakota east towards Dell Road is that correct? Paul Oehme: That’s correct, right. So basically we’d, you know for the intersection project we would stop the work basically at, makes sense to stop it at McDonalds entrance drive. Someplace in that area and just redo the intersection here as proposed and then if council prefers we could do the overlay east of McDonalds property all the way to Dell at a future date and that again that’s alternate number 3 that’s shown here so that’s a little over you know $330,000 so the assessments for that project would be similar to what was in the feasibility study because it is a larger project and the assessable area is large as well too so again most of the project cost would be paid for through by state aid funds and they’ll be assessed back to the benefiting property owners for some of the overlay costs. So in summary you know separating the intersection improvements from the rest of the mill and overlay improvements on Lake Drive you know in Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 10 our estimation and WSB’s estimation it wouldn’t save the City any funds in the long term. You know if you do the intersection project now it would you know a lot of, and we do the Lake Drive project later, a lot of the truck traffic would have to go through the intersection too so the degradation of that intersection might be a little bit more sooner than we would like. The assessments for the properties at the intersection of Dakota and Lake would be higher if that would be a stand alone project as we discussed and again the watermain improvements at Dakota and Lake should be done when Dakota Avenue intersection improvements are made, whenever that would be. And so we got some choices there. You know this is the schedule that staff has laid out. If the project were to move forward obviously tonight we’re considering the preparation of the plans and specifications and then in the future bidding the project out in March sometime. Neighborhood meeting again in April and starting construction maybe in July and try to have the project wrapped up by the end of summer. With that if there’s any questions for myself or anybody from WSB more than willing to answer them at this time. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Oehme. Before we open the public hearing let’s just pause for a moment. Council members do you have any questions or comments for staff? Anyone? Mr. Oehme, you talked about extending the median on Dakota Avenue farther to the south right? To eliminate, you mentioned U turns something and other reasons. Paul Oehme: Right. Mayor Laufenburger: Would you need to acquire more right-of-way either to the east or west on the north side of Lake in order to do that as far as you know? Paul Oehme: Not in the feasibility study. It’s my understanding that we can narrow some of those lanes up a little bit and still allow for that pedestrian crossing to take place. That refuge that we had talked about so, and then restriping that intersection. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. And you talked about, you didn’t or you considered but not, did not choose a mini roundabout. Does Chanhassen have any mini roundabouts right now? Paul Oehme: No we do not. Mayor Laufenburger: What’s the closest mini roundabout do you know? Paul Oehme: I think the closest one is maybe in Scott County in Shakopee. Mayor Laufenburger: Oh down by the middle school down there? Paul Oehme: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Verling or whatever that is. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 11 Paul Oehme: I can’t remember the name of it. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Okay oh excuse me. Go ahead Councilmember Ryan, please. Councilwoman Ryan: For the MSA funds then what do you have allocated for, from the MSA funds? I don’t recall for the Lake Drive East. Paul Oehme: For the Lake Drive, well so I believe we’ve got, I mean it covers the cost for the project. I know we’ve got that budgeted for so it’s $500,000 or $600,000. Councilwoman Ryan: And this isn’t a gotch ya question because I was, I had asked about breaking out the project and obviously the concern was you know was somewhat in conjunction with the franchise fee conversation that we were having and so when we’re budgeting for next year, you know 60 percent of $764,000 is less than, or is more than the 60 percent of if we do just do part of the project. Paul Oehme: Sure. Councilwoman Ryan: I think it ends up being $429,000. So with a MSA funds will that then if we combine these projects it will be sufficient to cover it without? Paul Oehme: Yeah we have budgeted enough MSA funds in the CIP for next year to cover everything. Councilwoman Ryan: The entirety. Paul Oehme: The entire project if the council wants to move forward with everything. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. And then as part of that, and when you send it out to bid is the sidewalk or the trail that heads south on Dakota, is that part of it so that will be constructed? Paul Oehme: It’s proposed to be included with the contract for construction. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. And then the last piece of it for just the road, and I know this is just kind of a rough drawing but it speaks to whether or not we need blinking lights or not. How, will there be painted lines and arrows on the, who’s going straight and who’s turning and all of that? Has that been identified or will that be identified? Paul Oehme: Yeah so one item that we did talk about was the striping on the intersection, one of the items that we were looking at improving upon in this intersection is the pedestrian crossing so we’ll have some lanes for the pedestrians to walk through. We’re looking at stop bars for the traffic as well to keep them back from the intersection and back from the pedestrian crossing as Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 12 well so those are the striping improvements that we’re looking at. We’re looking at thermal plastic. Striping out here instead of the epoxy paint. It just lasts a lot longer. It’s better reflectivity. Those type of things so I think those are the things we’d like to add into the project as well to try to enhance the visual nature of the intersection and to try to keep people to obey the stop conditions that are out there. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay perfect, thank you. Paul Oehme: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and council? Mayor Laufenburger: Go ahead. Todd Gerhardt: I just wanted to expand on, there’s not going to be a stop bar. When Paul says stop bar he means a solid rectangle painted line by the stop sign. Paul Oehme: Right. Todd Gerhardt: And so that’s where the cars are indicated of where they should stop is behind that white line. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, Councilmember Tjornhom do you have a question or comment? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I do. Paul when you’ve been explaining this project and the improvements you’d like to make and the estimated costs of those improvements. Now that council has come to the conclusion that we won’t be doing fees to fund pavement management projects and roads, what are some things should council be looking at or expecting from now on as far as cutting costs for projects and things that we perhaps might have to put aside? Is that probably a question for a work session or is that a fair question right now just to ask? Mayor Laufenburger: Well let me ask it a different way. Have you, as you evaluated this project particularly is there any cost cutting measures that you put to this that you would otherwise not put on other projects? Paul Oehme: No we, we drafted the feasibility study all the way back in 2017 and the scope of the project hasn’t changed. We’ve added enhancements after our neighborhood meeting. The 3 inch mill and overlay that we’re proposing that still, that has not changed. Mayor Laufenburger: So I think Bethany, excuse me Councilmember Tjornhom you offered this up. That’s probably a subject for discussion at a work session in how to solve those problems in the future. I think that that’s might be where that would be. Any other questions? Go ahead, Mr. Campion please. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 13 Councilman Campion: Mr. Oehme, can you remind me how the cost compared on the 3 way stop alternative here and the mini roundabout? Paul Oehme: So again the mini roundabout would require right-of-way that to be purchased. I think that drove up the cost significantly and there’d be a lot more concrete. Pavement that would have to be included. Basically instead of a mill and overlay at the intersection it’d have to be a reconstruction for the whole intersection. WSB Representative: So the mini roundabout was estimated at $330,000. Paul Oehme: Okay so additional $330,000 above the 3 way stop option. Mayor Laufenburger: Again these are estimates. These are not responses to bids that contractors might offer. Paul Oehme: And the estimates are based upon historical costs that we’ve received in our community and metro. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Campion do you have a follow up to that? Councilman Campion: Yeah and then the follow up was just asking for a reminder of, I mean the biggest driver behind why this project needs to be done is the safety of the intersection or the other improvements on Lake Drive East? Paul Oehme: So I think it’s both. I mean we wanted to try to do these projects at the same time. You know so the pavement condition is getting to a point where you know we’d like to do some improvements at this time before it gets too low and then it would cost more to do an improvement down the road. You know we’ve heard annually from property owners in this area that they’d like to see if we can make some improvements to the intersection for safety and visibility. Those type of things so that’s always in the back of our minds to try to take, you know a lot of these projects together. To try to do them at one time. Councilman Campion: No I mean comparatively it seems like these, the CPI number or OCI numbers for these streets is fairly high compared to some of the other streets we’ve looked at recently right? Paul Oehme: Well yeah so for example the Orchard Lane improvement project that we’re looking at for next year, that’s a street reconstruction project and those are down in the 20’s and 30’s so those are, you know that’s a complete reconstruction of a neighborhood street you know so we prefer not to take the OCI’s or the PCI levels down to that level on these streets if we can just because it’s going to cost us more to do the project in the future. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 14 Councilman Campion: Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: Anything else? Councilman Campion: That’s it for now. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Paul can you bring up the slide that shows the source of funding for this project? I think you have it in there. Okay. So you’ve identified, this is the entire project now right? Paul Oehme: This is yep. Without the breaking out the separate projects. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so the street improvements and the intersection improvements, would both of those be available to be paid for by MSA funds? Paul Oehme: They would right. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Would they be available to be paid for by MSA funds whether they were a full project or a 3 bid alternates? Paul Oehme: They would. We would just have to break it out separately so, the caveat to that the sidewalk I think in Dakota that would probably have to come out of local funds just because it’s not on a MSA route. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright that clarifies it for me. Okay. Let’s see unless there’s any other further questions or comments at this time I would like to open the public hearing. If there’s any people present in the chambers that would like to speak regarding this matter you’re certainly welcomed to come to the podium. State your name and address so I invite anyone. Lynne Pilgrim: I’ll go first. Mayor Laufenburger: Good evening. You’re breaking the seal. Lynne Pilgrim: I am Lynne Pilgrim. Mayor Laufenburger: Say it again please. Lynne Pilgrim: I am Lynne Pilgrim. I live a 8026 Dakota in Chan Estates and I’ve been here since 1977 and I’m going to give you a little background about our neighborhood. Chanhassen Estates is a neighborhood, a very proud active supportive Chanhassen residents. We use the bridge over Highway 5 to walk to the post office, the library, the grocery store, Target and other businesses. We drive through the intersection very cautiously with a foot on the brake and a hand on the horn. We teach our children when they start driving to do the same. We tell Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 15 everybody, all of our friends, all the people who do business with us, do not go through that intersection with any other way. Any other method. Be very careful. Because on either side we’ve got McDonalds and we’ve got Starbucks and they don’t pay attention. They’ve got a coffee cut in one hand, a cell phone in another, a child screaming in the back seat and they’re not paying attention. Yes there’s an octagon stop sign. A very faded octagon stop sign and they don’t look at them so, and you honk at them and you get all sorts of hand gestures. You get people yelling at you. There are lots of crashes that are not reported. People don’t report minor crashes. As you are all aware your insurance companies all have a minimum that you, you know that you pay and you don’t want to report them so if it’s minor you don’t report it but there are crashes. And just after the last meeting a couple of my neighbors mentioned that their teenagers had had accidents in the last couple years and yes they were minor and no they were not reported because with a teenage driver and if you’re a parent you know with a teenage driver you don’t report those. So close calls. Inattentive drivers. That’s something we’re very worried about. So we want you to think about what can we do to make it safer and that’s why we’re pushing for solar lights. We know that we’re old timers in Chan. We know that our neighborhood has a very different history. Chan Estates was built in the late 60’s. Highway 5 was a two lane highway without signals. There was no way in and out of our neighborhood. We wanted a signal there so we fought and we said please put a signal so we can get in and out of Chan Estates. We were the only neighborhood on the south side. We had Rice Lake Marsh behind us. We had a cornfield on one side. We had a field on the other and we fought and we won but the City assessed us $100 per home, and this was a while ago. $100 was a lot back then so that we could get the light. Along with Eden Prairie we fought the area to the east because Hennepin County wanted to put in a garbage dump. We expressed our objections later on Lake Drive when, what was the name of it? Valley Auto wanted to go in and we said we didn’t want that. We wanted something that was better. We ended up with Park Nicollet which is a great neighbor. All of a sudden Ivan’s wanted to sell their place and we all agreed. It needed to be cleaned up and Ivan’s was ready to sell and Starbucks came in so at that point we said could we have solar lights there at that stop sign and we were told no. It’s too costly and they’re not effective and they’re only used in rural areas. At that point I was playing in a golf league, Braemar and I drove down Gleason and I went past two solar powered lights every single week and people stopped at them. Now I don’t know maybe Edina’s rural. I didn’t know that but I always kind of thought that Edina was more of a city than we are but I must have not known better. So now we have a very dangerous intersection. At that point I suggested that Starbucks was building. That whole intersection was going to have a complex there with 3 businesses. Couldn’t they help pay for that solar light? Nope we couldn’t even suggest it so anyway, so now we have people driving through the intersection. Not paying attention. All of our residents drive through with one hand on the horn and a foot on the brake and we all pray. And yes we have all been sworn at and yes we’ve all had things happen to us. And those people who have not had it happen they’re in the minority. So all I ask is that you think about this and you please consider our neighborhood and you please consider solar lights. They’re not that expensive. You can buy them for under $2,000 for a light. They’re solar powered. We don’t have electricity then. Yes you’d need two of them. You’d need one on each side but they’d be better. Getting a roundabout means no lights. No stop signs. Now you’ve got a totally uncontrolled intersection. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 16 I don’t know if you’ve been on the roundabout in Cologne or some of the roundabouts out in Waconia. I’ve watched people and they get in there and they’re just, they’re a total loss. Like okay now what do I do? Is that one have right-of-way? Do I have right-of-way? Which way should I go? Okay now again put that coffee cup in one hand, the cell phone in the other, the screaming kids in the back seat and the man who’s late to work, or whatever it may be. The lady who’s got a job that she wants to get to. I don’t care what it is, it’s still inattention. That’s why we want something that says hey, this is a stop sign and I know that they’ve tried flags. I know they’ve tried other things. I also know that right now you can barely see that stop sign. It’s very, very faded. We do not have crosswalks. We do not have a way to get across that sidewalk. I don’t really think, I walk through the neighborhood a lot and I walk, I’ve done it. I’ve walked my dogs there. I’ve done everything else. I don’t see the need for the sidewalk on Dakota. What I see the need for is a stop sign and a crosswalk. And I’m one of these people who walks in town. Chanhassen is not a walk friendly town. You walk across that bridge. You come down into a city park where there’s nothing there and then you’ve got to cross again and then by the time you cross, you get up by the Dinner Theater now you’ve got to cross again. Some day I suggest all of you try that walk. It’s interesting. I almost got hit this summer by a truck. The man was horrified. He was driving into Starbucks. He was shocked. What do you mean I have to stop? I can’t just drive in? His wife was kind of, had a few other words for him but he was shocked so please think about us will you please? That’s all I ask. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Ms. Pilgrim. Lynne Pilgrim: Thank you. Dave Schollman: My name’s Dave Schollman. I live at 8011 Dakota Circle. Mayor Laufenburger: I’m going to ask you to say that one more time at the microphone so our recorder gets that. Dave Schollman: Okay. My name is Dave Schollman. I live at 8011 Dakota Circle and I’ve lived there since 1980. I can’t help but echo everything that Lynne has said because we’ve talked about that intersection for years. I’ve been through that intersection 4 times today. I go to coffee downtown at 20 to 8:00 every morning and it’s dark there and other people leaving McDonalds or Starbucks they don’t really see the signs. I’ve got a Honda with the weakest horn in the world and I wish that I had the money to go out and buy an air horn to wake these guys up when they go through that intersection. It’s been a sore point for us for many years. I’m really disappointed you didn’t do any economic assessment for that intersection including the lighted signs. I think it would probably pay for itself and I know I’ve seen signs that Lynne’s seen and I’ve seen other lighted solar power signs around in the area and I wish you guys would go out and at least look at them. I don’t know if anybody’s ever gone down to that intersection during the day. If you go down there in the morning at 7:30 you’ll see what I’m talking about. They come out of McDonalds. They come out of Starbucks and they really don’t look up Dakota where we come from. They look out at the Highway 5. They look that way and not back to us. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 17 We virtually stop every day, every time we go through that intersection because we don’t know what’s coming from our right or our left. So please give us some consideration with the lighted signs. I think it would make it much easier for us and everybody in town really. Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Schollman. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor? Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Gerhardt go ahead. Todd Gerhardt: Ask Public Works Director Paul Oehme to, do your estimates include the lit stop signs? The solar stop signs. Paul Oehme: So I did include the lighted solar LED signs in the feasibility study. The numbers here do not include that. It’s another $4,500 that we estimated would be tacked onto the project. Mayor Laufenburger: But are you. Todd Gerhardt: Bid specs include them? Paul Oehme: Excuse me? Todd Gerhardt: Do the bid specs include solar LED stop signs? Mayor Laufenburger: Well actually I think that that’s something that the council may direct you to include in specifications. Yeah you have not prepared the specifications. Paul Oehme: We have not, no exactly. Mayor Laufenburger: So it’s something that if council chooses to ask for specifications that include that we would ask you to do so then bids would come in for that. Paul Oehme: Exactly, correct. Mayor Laufenburger: I’m getting 3 nods. That’s a good thing okay. Alright is there anybody else that would like to address the council in a public hearing on this project? Okay there being none I’m going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the council for comments or questions. And before I do that Mr. Oehme could you just restate what is it that you’re asking the council to do this evening. Paul Oehme: So I’ve got a slide on that. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah would you bring that up. Okay. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 18 Paul Oehme: It’s basically ordering the project so the preparation of plans and specifications for this project and then if you wanted to include LED stop signs we can add that into the project scope as well. Mayor Laufenburger: But I’m reminded during this discussion about our last council meeting on the 26th where we passed a, I guess we passed a resolution to consider the 3 alternatives. So when we, if we were to approve this you would be, you would be asking for bids on 3, the project broken into 3 pieces is that correct? Paul Oehme: Maybe I should make some clarifications on that. This motion would be for the entire project. I mean we could do alternate bids for all 3 of them but… Mayor Laufenburger: But you would have to ask for those alternate bids. Paul Oehme: Yeah. Mayor Laufenburger: Is that right? Paul Oehme: Yeah. Efficiency wise you know it’d be best if we let the contractor know are we doing all the project or just some of it and then, typically alternate bids are for smaller segments of project. If you’re adding you know additional catch basins or street lights or smaller things so you know we’re dealing with a pretty chunk of money if we have an alternate bid for the overlays. It doesn’t give the contractor you know a good direction and cost, ability to cost out the project very well. Mayor Laufenburger: I understand what you’re saying Mr. Oehme but in fact this council specifically said we want 3 bids. Three different bids. Paul Oehme: Right. Mayor Laufenburger: And that’s what you’ll ask for. Paul Oehme: And that’s fine. Yeah we can do that yep, absolutely. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay I just want to make sure we don’t lose sight of that. Council any comments, questions or action? Councilwoman Ryan: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Laufenburger: Sure go ahead Councilmember Ryan. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 19 Councilwoman Ryan: Two more questions. Mr. Oehme could you just re-explain or explain the justification of the sidewalk. I know there were many neighbors that came to the meeting and maybe they suggested that they would like a landing area but could you explain the need for a sidewalk. Paul Oehme: Well I think just you know it’s always safer to have pedestrians off the road and then back of the curb. It’s just you know, just a safer environment. Making sure people aren’t coming up to the intersection at the intersection. You know we don’t currently have any pedestrian improvement facilities on the west side, southwest side, or southeast side of the intersection so you know it’s just a little bit more confusing for the traveling public if people are on either side of the road there. I guess in the lanes of traffic so it would just be safer to have a sidewalk there for pedestrians usage so. I mean we can take out the sidewalk too that’s, you know we can and just have a landing there with an ADA ramp. That would be perfectly acceptable too. Councilwoman Ryan: I’m not suggesting an either or. I just was curious of your reasoning and maybe when they, when the bids come in, I don’t know if that price is broken out or not. Paul Oehme: Yeah I mean so we always take unit price bids for all of our improvements that say a ton of asphalt or a cubic yard of concrete sidewalk and those type of things so we’ll know exactly what the price is and if we want to, you know for the sidewalk that would be a good one to do an alternate bid on since it’s a smaller segment. For the project but we can do it either way. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. And then I guess this is more in concept but it seems that when the concern of entering and people are coming either east or west along Lake Drive, the problem is that they may be stopping but they’re not looking down, looking south to Dakota. Would that be a fair statement? Paul Oehme: Yeah I think to Lynne’s point it’s inattentive driving. You know we see that all over the city in the metro area here too. People, especially in the mornings too. In the afternoons. You know they’re getting maybe a cup of coffee or something to eat and they want to get back on 5 as quickly as they can so they’re trying to cut corners and get back on their merry way as soon as they can do that’s the problem I think that we’re seeing at this intersection. Councilwoman Ryan: So my question is, what is the solution to get people to look south? Is it flashing lights? You’ve decided that it’s not a 4 way stop because of the back up to Highway 5 correct? Paul Oehme: Correct. Yeah I mean there’s only so much we can engineer into these projects to make people attentive to their surroundings and the environment and what they’re supposed to be doing out here. It comes down to driver behavior and that’s what we struggle with every day and not just at this intersection but around the community so you know we can put all the amenities Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 20 in there but unless the driver obeys the posted signs and everything else, you know and be attentive to their surroundings there’s very little we can do about it. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. I just didn’t know if there were other solutions. I mean that just seems like that’s the biggest concern and whether it’s striping and maybe when the contracts or the bids come back they have some suggestions on how to set it up but that seems to me like the main issue is what’s coming out of the… Paul Oehme: Yeah and that’s what we heard from the property owners and that’s why we’re you know we’d be okay with looking at putting LED signs in there. I just wanted to make the council aware there’s guidances from MnDOT where these things should be installed so. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Any other questions council. Mr. Oehme can you just clarify. I’m looking at an aerial view of the intersection. The only turn lane that you would have at this intersection is a southbound Dakota Avenue, a left turn lane before entering Lake Drive East. Is that correct? Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: So there’s no turn lane from Lake Drive heading west out of McDonalds. Cars would stack there. Those that go right or straight they would just line up right after one another. Same thing is true coming from Lake Drive coming out of Starbucks, the Chanhassen Dentistry there. They would either go straight, left and there would be no turn lane. You spoke about, what’s the white things that you put on the ground to show where people cross? Paul Oehme: Yep, the stop bars. Mayor Laufenburger: Stop bars, okay. Would you put stop bars on the, between the sidewalk on the west side of Dakota and the east side of Dakota on the north side of Lake Drive, you would put stop bars there? Paul Oehme: Well we would put stop bars at, so each approach to Lake Drive. So it’s be right where I’m showing here with the pen or the pointer. There’d be a stop bar there. There’d be another stop bar here before the stop sign and then it would be one on the northbound approach to the intersection as well. Mayor Laufenburger: So the stop bars are essentially to show, this is intended to be safe zone for people to walk. Is that correct? Paul Oehme: Yeah it gives another visual that you’re supposed to stop at this intersection. Or at this point. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 21 Mayor Laufenburger: But in fact cars that are traveling south on Dakota approaching Lake Drive, what’s going to be the compelling nature for them to stop? Just think intuitively. What’s going to compel them to stop? Paul Oehme: For southbound Dakota? Mayor Laufenburger: Southbound. Paul Oehme: So we’re not proposing a stop sign right there. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah so what would compel them to stop? Give me, in the presence of pedestrians. Paul Oehme: Pedestrians yep. Mayor Laufenburger: Because we know that the law says that if a pedestrian enters the street the pedestrian has the right-of-way. Paul Oehme: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Anything else that would compel them to stop? Paul Oehme: If there’s something else, if there’s a vehicle already in the intersection maybe. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. But you don’t have to widen Lake Drive in either place? You don’t have to widen Dakota south of Lake Drive? You don’t have to widen Dakota north of Lake Drive? You could restripe that. Paul Oehme: Correct, we can keep the curb lines where they’re at today. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Just a question regarding the solar powered flashing lights on the stop sign. Is there anything that would impede solar powered panels from receiving enough light to power those lights? Paul Oehme: Just lack of sun. I mean there’s a, I know we’ve recently, well in the last couple years we’ve cleaned out some trees at the intersection for visibility so you know I think there are some more trees at this intersection so we might have to look at trimming some more trees back too. Mayor Laufenburger: But these solar powered flashing lights you know on the perimeter of the stop sign, there’s a battery mechanism in there that would conserve that light right? Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 22 Paul Oehme: It would yeah. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Paul Oehme: So it would flash all night and then recharge during the day. Mayor Laufenburger: And how, what’s the maintenance on those solar powered lighted flashing perimeter lights? What’s the, is there put them in and they stay there or do you have to replace them every year, two years, three years, four years? Paul Oehme: I think the LED lights are pretty resilient. I know the batteries are, the battery life maybe, I think I’ve said there’s battery life for about 3 years so you’d have to replace them every so often so at a minimal cost. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay alright. Thank you Mr. Oehme. Would anybody, could you bring back the motion? Okay I’ve kept track of some variables that we might consider council. One is stop sign and/or stop sign with solar powered flashing lights. Do we need to be so specific as saying solar powered? Paul Oehme: No well. Mayor Laufenburger: Just with some flashing lights. Paul Oehme: Just some LED flashing lights. That’d be acceptable. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay LED, okay. And then the other question is sidewalk south of Lake Drive on the west side of Dakota or not? Or just a, what did you call it? An ADA landing zone, is that right? Paul Oehme: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: So council if you think that it’s appropriate that we move forward with considering, oops one last question Mr. Oehme. If we proceed asking you to prepare plans and specifications what’s the next action that this council will take on this project? Paul Oehme: So the next action item would be to approve the plans and specs once they’re completed and then at that point in time it’s another check in to make sure we got all the things that the council wants in the document and then we would, and prepare another cost estimate at that time. Better cost estimate than we have today and then ask for the council for advertising the project in February. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. So we’re not approving the project tonight. We’re simply saying engineering do your job and prepare the plans according to the specifications that we’re asking Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 23 you or directing you to and then you will come back and say alright council, this is what we found. This is, are you prepared to approve the project. Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, is there any question on that council? So we’re not approving the project tonight. We’re approving the specifications for the project. Councilwoman Ryan: I think there’s only one clarification. When you talked about the sidewalk versus the ADA landing. Won’t it no matter, regardless of if we do a full sidewalk it would still have an ADA landing on it. Paul Oehme: Correct, yeah. We definitely anytime we have a crossing we want to have a landing there. Councilwoman Ryan: Right so it’s. Mayor Laufenburger: Do we take the sidewalk farther south up to Dakota or not? Councilwoman Ryan: Right exactly. Mayor Laufenburger: And that would be part of what the specifications you would ask for or not. Councilwoman Ryan: Right okay. Mayor Laufenburger: So let’s go to the motion again. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor? Mayor Laufenburger: Go ahead Mr. Gerhardt. Todd Gerhardt: Just make sure that you’re proposed motion includes the 3 alternatives as discussed at the last meeting. Mayor Laufenburger: Right that was another item that I had here. So I’m looking for, if council would like to I’m looking for a motion that includes as a minimum the language on the screen plus any other specifications related to stop signs, sidewalk or not and separated into 3 projects or not. Anybody would care to venture on that one? Councilman McDonald: Well Mr. Mayor I’ll make a motion. Mayor Laufenburger: Alrighty. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 24 Councilman McDonald: I’ll start out with just saying that the City Council orders improvements in preparation of plans and specifications for the 2018 street improvement project number 18-02 with the following amendments, and at that point I would add the flashing LED stop signs. That the project be completed as one project. That the staff look at the development of a sidewalk south of the ADA launching pad on Lake Drive. I think that was about it. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so let me clarify what Mr. McDonald’s motion is. Project as shown number 18-02 with stop signs with flashing LED lights. The project as a single project. Specified as a single project. And with, did you say with a sidewalk extending south of the intersection? Councilman McDonald: Well south of the ADA landing. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah south of the ADA landing area on the west side. Okay. That’s the motion as it stands right now. Is there a second to that? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright thank you Bethany. Now that’s a motion that is certainly up for discussion. Is there any discussion? Not only discussion but also amendments. If necessary. Councilman Campion: I have a question. Under that is it intended that the sidewalk extension is an option? Mayor Laufenburger: No. He specifically. Councilman Campion: It is a part of it? Mayor Laufenburger: He’s saying this is, the motion says that this is a, that a sidewalk is included in the project specifications. Councilman Campion: Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: Any other discussion? Councilwoman Ryan: I would still like to. Mayor Laufenburger: Go ahead Councilmember Ryan. Councilwoman Ryan: Yes Mayor thank you. I’d like to see the sidewalk as an alternative as well as the 3 alternatives. I know that is not the motion on the table. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 25 Mayor Laufenburger: Right. So how would you modify the motion to do that? Let’s just deal with the sidewalk first. Councilwoman Ryan: I would include it as part of the alternatives. As one of the alternatives. Mayor Laufenburger: So you would in addition to Mr. McDonald’s motion to include a sidewalk you would ask that specifications include either or at the council discretion. Councilwoman Ryan: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay I’ll take that as a motion for amendment. Correct? Councilwoman Ryan: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. We have an amendment that modifies the original motion to say include no sidewalk as an option. Is there a second to that amendment? Councilman Campion: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Bear with me folks. This is a little bit of a navigational thing here. So we’re dealing with the amendment. First amendment is including specifications that, including specifications in Project number 18-02 that includes both a landing area at the intersection with no sidewalk and a landing area with a sidewalk south. So Mr. Oehme does that complicate your specifications? Excuse me, does it unreasonably complicate your specifications? Paul Oehme: Just for the sidewalk Mayor? Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah. Paul Oehme: You’re talking about. So I mean I think we would recommend just having in the bid, the bid base. The ADA ramp as the base and then just doing the alternate for a sidewalk south of there. Mayor Laufenburger: So include specifications that said an alternate under consideration is a sidewalk extending south from the ADA ramp. Paul Oehme: From the ADA ramp yep. That would be acceptable. Mayor Laufenburger: Is that how you interrupt this amendment? Paul Oehme: That’s my understanding. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 26 Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Any further discussion on the amendment? Okay let’s try this. Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman Campion seconded to amend the motion to include as an alternate no sidewalk from the ADA ramp south on Dakota Avenue. All voted in favor except Councilman McDonald who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay that motion, that amendment carries 4-1. We now have a motion that includes solar powered lights. Flashing LED lights on the stop sign and ADA landing with an alternate to include sidewalk. So the council will hear the price of that sidewalk. Paul Oehme: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay alright. Let’s see let’s deal with the next one. Is there any discussion or modification to the motion as it relates to stop signs? Okay I think we’ve got that one. Now let’s talk about, the motion currently deals with a, with handling the project as a single project. Is there any discussion on that? Councilwoman Ryan: If I could make, ask a question. Mayor Laufenburger: Absolutely. We’re all about talking here Councilmember Ryan. Councilwoman Ryan: It’s not going to change. We already have the numbers as it relates to the alternatives. Mayor Laufenburger: Well there could be some change. Paul Oehme: Yeah so. Mayor Laufenburger: Explain how a change could occur if you’d just ask for a single project? Paul Oehme: Right so I mean if, Mayor and City Council, so if we just have a base bid of say the intersection and then you have a large alternate of a $300,000 or $350,000 alternate for the overlay of Lake Drive, it doesn’t give the contractors very much guidance I think because there’s more risk I think for them to put a bid together for something like that and I don’t think the City would get more competitive bids if, unless it was, if it was split out like that. Mayor Laufenburger: But what’s the value that the City gets with 3 bids? The option to say yes or no to each, any of those. Paul Oehme: Right correct, yeah. Exactly. So I mean we could bid it out 3, you know bid out the project individually too and you have 3 separate contractors too. That’s another option. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 27 Mayor Laufenburger: Well if we, if we were to specify that we want the project broken into 3 alternatives then, well I suppose we could say no to the project. Paul Oehme: You could. Todd Gerhardt: We don’t want 3 separate contracts. Mayor Laufenburger: Right I understand. But if we open the door to 3 separate contracts we may have 3 separate contracts. Mr. Knutson you, I think you are just on the verge of leaping at me over there. Roger Knutson: No, no. But the norm is you have a base bid and you have alternatives. You’re not talking about 3 separate contractors. Three separate packages. There’s a base bid and then you list the alternatives. So the base bid would be you’d have to pick one of them as the base bid and the other 2 as alternatives. Mayor Laufenburger: Well I think Mr. McDonald’s intent here is to deal with it as a single project. Give the maximum potential for effectiveness and efficiency with one contractor. Do I interrupt that right Mr. McDonald? Councilman McDonald: You do. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. And I believe Councilmember Ryan you brought this up at, on the 26th asking for 3 alternatives. Maybe you can restate the value that you see in breaking it into 3 alternatives. Councilwoman Ryan: Right and it ended up being three alternatives and I would have been fine with two. I just was looking to determine the cost of what it would be for if we just handled the intersection, which is a concern, and looked at the Lake Drive East project as a separate project based on the PCI numbers and where we were at with our overall budget and funds and so that’s why I wanted to see how the numbers came in as a separate project if we were dealing with just one. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Mr. Knutson I need your help on something here. At the last council meeting we passed a motion or a resolution asking for 3 alternates. Can we at this time change that to say that we want specifications built around 2 projects? One project that is the intersection which includes the street improvement and the utilities and then the other project being just the overlay of Lake Drive East. Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: We can do that? Okay. Alright. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 28 Roger Knutson: But just to be clear you’re not asking for 3 separate contracts. Todd Gerhardt: Nope. Roger Knutson: It’s one contract. One, the base bid would be, fill in the blank. It could be the whole thing as a base bid with the alternatives you already mentioned. Or you could say the base bid is the intersection and the alternatives are B and C. Or whatever you want. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Roger Knutson: But it’s one contract. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. So at the present time we have one, we’re asking for specifications around one bid which is one project. That’s what the current motion has. Is there any further discussion or any further suggestions? Councilwoman Ryan: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Laufenburger: Go ahead Councilmember Ryan. Councilwoman Ryan: And then I would like to make an amendment. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Councilwoman Ryan: To that motion. To have the alternative of the Lake Drive East portion of the project. Mayor Laufenburger: So using Mr. Knutson’s language. You would like the base bid specifications to be the intersection work? Councilwoman Ryan: The base bid to be the intersection work with the alternative of the Lake Drive East improvements. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. How’s our communication on that Mr. Oehme? Paul Oehme: Yep got that. So my understanding is there’d be two alternatives. One for the sidewalk and then one for the overlay of Lake Drive. Mayor Laufenburger: Well let’s see. That’s correct. Two alternatives. Landing and sidewalk are just landing. And then the other would be, if this amendment passes for separating the intersection work. Making that the base bid and the other project the alternate. Okay. Alright. That’s an amendment. Is there a second to that amendment? Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 29 Councilman Campion: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright thank you. So we now have, we’re dealing with the amendment which only addresses how we handle the project in total. Any further discussion? Alright all those in favor of the amendment that modifies the one project to a base project of the intersection and an alternate project of the mill and overlay signify by saying aye. Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the City Council approve an amendment to make the intersection improvements as the base bid with the improvements to Lake Drive East as an alternate. Councilwoman Ryan and Councilman Campion voted in favor; Mayor Laufenburger, Councilman McDonald and Councilwoman Tjornhom voted against. The amendment failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Mayor Laufenburger: That motion fails. We now have our motion as Project 18-02 with flashing LED lights on the stop sign and an alternate for the sidewalk or landing area and specified as a single project. Is there any further discussion? Councilwoman Ryan: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Laufenburger: Councilmember Ryan. Councilwoman Ryan: While I very much support the intersection project because I recognize the importance and the need for this for these improvements to take place I can’t support this motion because I think it, I believe that having a better understanding of them as two separate projects based on the uncertainty of some of our funding and relooking at the OCI projects, I can’t support this project. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Mr. Knutson is there something I need to know about? Roger Knutson: Just to say that this. Councilwoman Ryan: Is this? Yeah sorry. Roger Knutson: For this motion to pass it takes 4 affirmative votes. Mayor Laufenburger: It does? Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Any other comments? Councilman Campion: Again. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 30 Mayor Laufenburger: Oh excuse me, Mr. Campion go ahead. Councilman Campion: In our last discussion of this we talked about having you know the bid alternatives and I don’t see the harm in asking and setting the base bid focused on the intersection and then having options for a sidewalk and Lake Drive East. Mayor Laufenburger: I can appreciate that. Councilman Campion: If anyone would articulate to me why they, they were not comfortable with having those options presented to us by the contractors that bid on this I’d like to hear it. Mayor Laufenburger: Well is there anything else that you’d like to say in support of your position? Councilman Campion: My position is based on just having alternatives and having contractors give us those options. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. Any other discussion? Mr. Gerhardt is there anything you want to share with the council? Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. When you do bid alternates, as Paul mentioned earlier, the fear is that they could end up with just the $300,000 interchange and not have the $700,000 dollar mill and overlay on Lake Drive East and so you may see less bidders on a project like this because of that fear of not including probably the larger portion of the project or vice versa, Dakota not being done because the bids are too high. So when you break a project apart there’s risk and when you have risk there’s a cost increase so I just want the council to understand that as you look at alternatives. A sidewalk, alternatives as Paul had mentioned typically are smaller in scale. Sidewalk for what, 100 feet is you know probably under $10,000 so you know a contractor would have no problem doing bid alternates on that. And so, but when you have one where it splits it between $400,000 and $600,000 then there’s risk involved in bidding a project like that. Somebody may have more expertise in mill and overlays than they do in curb and gutter so there’s a variety of things that play a factor in that. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Mr. Knutson can you, you brought up a valuable point. Can you explain why this requires other than a simple majority? Roger Knutson: Yes Mayor, because that’s what the Statute says. Mayor Laufenburger: Why would I think that you would say anything other than that. Roger Knutson: It wasn’t my idea. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 31 Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, okay. Any further discussion? Councilwoman Ryan: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Laufenburger: Go ahead Councilmember Ryan. Councilwoman Ryan: So Mr. Oehme again to clarify the Lake East, Drive East we will be covered with MSA funds. Paul Oehme: Yes. That’s currently the proposal. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Then I will concede and change my vote for the betterment of the project at the intersection. I’m still concerned about the overall cost of the project as we look at budgets going forward but I do think that the intersection is a dangerous one and I think it needs to be addressed so I will. Mayor Laufenburger: Well we’re not taking a vote yet. Councilwoman Ryan: I know so. Mayor Laufenburger: But I appreciate what you’re saying. Councilwoman Ryan: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: So Mr. Oehme regarding the MSA. Let’s assume for a moment that this project doesn’t pass. Do those MSA funds become available for other projects? Paul Oehme: They do. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. So and you have budgeted these, you’ve budgeted MSA funds to be spent in 2019 for this project? Paul Oehme: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Is there any further discussion on this motion? So the motion before us is to approve the project, or to approve the preparation of plans and specifications for Project 18-02 with the following noted modifications. One to include stop signs with flashing LED lights. Bid alternate that includes an ADA landing and an ADA landing with a sidewalk and for the project to be specified as a single project, not broken up into two or three projects. That’s the motion as it stands right now. Resolution #2018-62: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approves ordering preparation of plans and Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 32 specifications for the 2018 street improvement project number 18 -02 with the addition of flashing LED stop signs, the project be completed as one project, and including as an alternate no sidewalk from the ADA ramp south on Dakota Avenue. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Laufenburger: That motion carries 5-0. Thank you very much council. Thank you Mr. Oehme. Thank you to the residents who came and spoke in support of that. Next item is our new business items. VENUE PROJECT-APPROVE REGISTERED LAND SURVEY. Mayor Laufenburger: Who’s is this? Is this your’s Kate? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Thank you Mayor, members of the council. This is a registered land survey and it’s a part of the Frontier LLC. So this project is located on 525 West 78th Street so it includes the Venue and the Aldi project. So as you recall back in July 10th you approved the subdivision or reconfiguration. There wasn’t a subdivision. We reconfigured the 3 lots so this is the third lot that’s going forward. So the registered land survey actually needed to have the parking garage because the Aldi’s will be sitting on top of the parking garage. Sitting on top of the parking garage so now that that’s been done the registered land survey was completed so just kind of show you here in two different ways. It’s probably easier to see on this one than the registered land survey so this is facing north. So this is West 78th Street so this is the registered land survey for the Aldi’s and then it includes their parking ramp so that’s all part of that parcel. The other tracks would be the parking lot and then the Venue itself. So the registered land survey then looks like this. Again this is the tracks that it includes right here so the registered survey, in case anybody wants to know, is based on elevation. I think if you noticed in your staff report 972.8 so that starts, that’s kind of the. Mayor Laufenburger: Sea level. Above sea level? Kate Aanenson: Above sea level yes so it’s a little bit, we haven’t done too many of these in the city and so for the project to go forward we worked with Carver County to see if they recorded this. So this is really the completion of that and again we’re not creating a new lot. It’s really an administrative process but it does require approval. Again this was shown to you but the formation of the parking ramp and that needed to be completed for this project to go, for this administrative approval. So we are recommending approving the registered land survey and be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Any questions for Kate? So Kate when I look at the city of Chanhassen and I do, I look at the GIS or anything like that, I’m always looking down on the property and I can see that the property lines surround the perimeter of a property or a parcel right. So the confusing thing here is that the grocery store that was approved, will it sit on it’s own parcel? Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 33 Kate Aanenson: It’s sitting on the parking ramp underneath is still a part of the apartments so it’s sitting on top of another parcel so that’s what makes it a unique attribute that had to have the parking ramp in place first so they could complete the survey. Mayor Laufenburger: So all we’re saying is that the project called the apartment building or the Venue, it has the footprint of the entire property. Kate Aanenson: Of the entire building space. Mayor Laufenburger: Excuse me of the entire building space. Kate Aanenson: There’s 3 tracts correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. And the grocery store has a footprint that is on top of the parcel for the apartments. Kate Aanenson: The parking ramp, that’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Excuse me the parking ramp. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: But the parking ramp is part of the apartments. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. So all we’re doing is we’re giving permission for the grocery store to be identified as it’s own property. Kate Aanenson: Correct and we identified this when we went through the preliminary plat. Mayor Laufenburger: I recall. Kate Aanenson: Yep and we said we’d have to bring it back once they had the survey done. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. Is there any other administrative work that needs to be done on this property? Okay, so this is the last of the administrative work. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. Is there any questions? If not I welcome any discussion or action. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 34 Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mayor I’ll make a motion that the Chanhassen City Council adopts the resolution approving Registered Land Survey RLS number 130. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Do we need to do any Findings of Fact or anything? Okay so this is a complete motion. Kate Aanenson: It’s completely administrative. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, administrative. Alright is there a, we have a motion. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Any further discussion? Resolution #2018-63: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the Chanhassen City Council adopts the resolution approving Registered Land Survey (RLS) No. 130. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. HOLASEK BUSINESS PARK: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF REZONING PARCEL (ORDINANCE 635), PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT, DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW. Mayor Laufenburger: I’m guessing this is your’s Ms. Aanenson. Kate Aanenson: Yes thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Oh I love it when I’m correct. And by the way just so you know we’ll get a staff report first of all. We’ll ask for any questions from council and then I will invite the applicant forward if they would like to make an y comment okay. So just so you’re aware. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. Eden Trace Corporation is requesting this application here. This item did appear before the Planning Commission on December, excuse me on November 20th and it was recommended approval 5-0. There was one Planning Commissioner absent and the applicant who’s on the Planning Commission recused himself from action on this item. Just wanted to give a little background on this piece of property. So the site is located on Lyman Boulevard and Galpin and this property has access to it via Galpin Boulevard. To develop this property Eden Trace also did this industrial park. This was a number of years ago. This also has a retaining wall which is property willed to, and I know when the neighbors in this area were concerned about that. I think over time as the landscaping’s filled in and with the maturation it’s become, kind of fits into the neighborhood. There wasn’t a lot of comments at the Planning Commission regarding this application but I just Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 35 want to set some of the framework issues on here. There is a railroad track that’s on the perimeter here. This was the site of the Holasek Nursery site. Started in 1957. Was a number of years and as they sold that property going for redevelopment there’s been a lot of challenges. We had a number of people looking at this. A number of larger developers looking at the property and some of that included the potential of using storage units and bring those over what wasn’t our first choice. Looking at really the what we see as the need, which we get a lot of requests for is for the type of use that’s going forward. Again with the wetlands, some of the challenges with the soil and then the Magellan Pipeline that runs through the site. So there is industrial on 3 sides as you can see in Chaska on the other side. There’s industrial park here and then Chaska on this side also has industrial and as I mentioned earlier on the north side in Chanhassen the property is also industrial as is the area on the northwest side in Chaska so it’s in somewhat of the jurisdiction. The shoreland jurisdiction of Hazeltine Lake. I think one of the original proposals suggested that potentially it was impacted by the Army Corps but that question has since been removed so a little challenges on this site. So like I said we had quite a few developers looking at it over the years and I would say really since the site has been changed over. There was some interim grading permits that were also given on the site trying to correct some of the soils but this is a project that’s actually come to fruition. People have laid out specific designs and never advanced it so this is the first project that’s actually advanced to the Planning Commission and for submittal. So there’s a number of requests with this project. One is for the rezoning from Agricultural, as it is today to office industrial, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It’s also for a subdivision review. Creating 3 lots and one outlot. A wetland alteration permit and a site plan review of approximately 450,000 square feet which includes 3 buildings. And then also what you’ll see in the motion will be a development contract too. So the applicant here has got uses ready to go which is good news so they would like to go through preliminary and final plat which we have done and then also approve the development contract. So again the land use is office industrial. The rezoning is consistent with that and they’ll be office manufacturing located on the site. I’ll just kind of skip over that because we’ve talked about that but this is the actual application of the subdivision itself. It will be accessed via, as I mentioned off of Lyman Boulevard and it will be serviced by a private drive servicing the 3 buildings there so it will be a private street servicing the site. As you can see this is the easement here then for, for the Magellan Pipeline through here. There’s easements on there. There is a record from the Magellan Pipeline the applicant has worked with his engineers as far as accommodating that. This came up also at the Planning Commission. We do have the Magellan Pipeline running through the city. It goes through the high school site and was also most recently in the subdivision we did at Lyman Boulevard and 101. That subdivision as we looked at how that laid out. So again the 3 lots. One, two, three and then the outlot in the back. There are some wetland alteration permits with this site. I said one, as I mentioned one of the impediments to the site was the soil conditions. There are extensive poor soils and then removing the wetlands. One of the conditions in the staff report that the applicant has resolved is relocation of the wetlands so we’re working through the permitting on that to stay within, our first choice is somewhere on the site or within the same watershed district so they’re working on that. And then in addition was stockpiling of soil so we’ve come to an understanding of how that’s all going to work so that’s been resolved. So this is the site plan itself. So now we’re Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 36 moving from the subdivision approval itself to the site plan so the subdivision shows the 3 buildings and this loading dock then accommodating the pipeline so there’s 3 buildings here. As I mentioned one building, potentially the second building has leased tenants ready to go on the property. Here’s the private drive that would service the property. The landscaping plan between the Planning Commission and what you’re looking at tonight has been resolved. It does meet all the requirements of the site plan and subdivision standards. The building schematics, a lot of it is going to be the exposed aggregate with a lot of articulation. Again looking at these buildings compared to some of what we looked at from other potential uses, we think again these are highly articulated and match pretty similar to what’s across the street on some of the buildings. Larger buildings that are across the street and here’s a little bit more detailed here. The color palates are here if you, anybody’s interested in seeing more detail on those but I do have kind of the drawings. This is more the exposed aggregate and the different materials on there. Again these are pretty similar to what we’ve looked at for probably most recent Federal Packaging would probably be the most recent one that we’ve done that would be pretty similar to this. And then a building perspective. How big, these are a little bit bigger but this is a little bit longer. These are kind of what the prototype is going on industrial buildings. Wanting a higher clear span for stacking and storage and a little bit larger footprint. Again a different perspective. One of the things that we asked the developer to do is look at the trip generation. In looking at Lyman Boulevard and the intersection there and I don’t know if Mr. Oehme’s got or if he had any comments but really it wasn’t an issue. They felt like based on peak hours it shouldn’t be a problem. I know one of the things that the applicant was looking at that they’re working with the County on was, and there’s some costs resolved in that was a right-in/right-out on the, so it’d be right adjacent to the Chaska side and that would help with trip circulation through that site. Mayor Laufenburger: Do these plans that you’re recommending include the right-in/right-out or is that something? Kate Aanenson: Correct that’s something they’d have to work out with the County. I know the County’s asking them to contribute towards that is my understanding. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Kate Aanenson: On the cost for that intersection. Mayor Laufenburger: Maybe when we ask the applicant to come forward if you can just speak to that. Kate Aanenson: Yep, and so that would be something that they’d have to work out with the County as part of their contribution to that. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 37 Kate Aanenson: And the overall grading plan. So there is retaining walls that we’re working with them on trying to reduce some of those retaining walls that’s on the north side. If you think about Avienda it’s in the same situation. We have retaining walls. If you go over towards Sunset Lane just, so it’d be just west of Powers. There’s also retaining walls at Avienda. If you look on that south side so there’s also retaining walls on this side too so that’s one of the things that they are working to see if they can minimize some of those retaining walls. The good news and the bad news about that. The good, there is retaining walls in there but the good news is by lowering those buildings so the residential across the street is actually looking at less building height on that so with the landscaping in there it should really minimize that and again that’s what we found with the Mamac building. I think that was the bigger building there across from those Hans Hagen homes that were concerned about that so that does provide that additional buffer. Site utilities. One of the concerns that came up that the applicant was looking at trying to work with Chaska to see if they could get additional sewer from Chaska. Chaska couldn’t make that work so they are putting a lift station which is an additional cost to in order to make that site work. Again landscaping plan revised. It does meet all the city standards and I think that’s all I had. Again there’s several motions in here. Again the rezoning. The preliminary and final plat. In addition to wetland alteration and approval of development contract and the Findings of Fact. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright thank you Ms. Aanenson. Before we ask the applicant to come forward are there any questions of staff at this time? Councilmember Ryan. I saw your hand go up. Councilwoman Ryan: Just a few and I hope you can answer them. Otherwise we can wait. Kate Aanenson: I think Paul’s over there. Councilwoman Ryan: Yes. The first one when I was looking through the Planning Commission Minutes I know it was a public hearing but I didn’t see any comments. Were there any? Kate Aanenson: Nobody showed up to the public hearing. Councilwoman Ryan: Nobody showed up so okay so there were no comments with that. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilwoman Ryan: And then you mentioned the stockpiling soil but how is that going to work? Kate Aanenson: Sure. So they’re going to put that in the back corner and what we’ve asked them to do is to change the slope. I think long term there’s a couple of options. They’re working at looking with the County to do a joint pond in that area that would help export some of that. They’re also looking at some other because we need topsoil for our projects. Not really our Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 38 projects but other developers projects that need topsoil. That’s our new condition for subdivision plats so there’s an opportunity to use some export there so we’re working with them on that too. It’s quite a bit to move all at once so our goal is to make sure that it’s in a, in a condition that it’s stabilized and that it will eventually can potentially be moved. Councilwoman Ryan: Just when I was reading through the report and like you said there’s a lot of information here but there just seemed to be still some uncertainty on how they were going to address some of the soil issues and I know they’re asking for a grant but they’re you know very expensive soil correction. Movement of soil. You know there was concern, obviously there’s still a lot of work to do with the County. Whether it’s with the right-in/right-out. Whether or not they’re going to have you know work with having a regional stormwater pond. When. Kate Aanenson: I’ll let Paul answer that question. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. I mean what, how is that process involved with all of this? Paul Oehme: So specifically the topsoil? Councilwoman Ryan: Sure. Paul Oehme: Question. Mayor Laufenburger: I think mainly you’re concerned about this pile of dirt that they’re going to congregate in one location. Councilwoman Ryan: Right. Paul Oehme: Right and that was one of our biggest concerns too when we first saw the proposal but you know in, the applicant can address this too but it’s, we’d like to partner with the developer and Carver County which they want to do a regional pond back in here. Mayor Laufenburger: They? Carver County wants to. Paul Oehme: Carver County and Chaska actually too so they’re really interested in doing some stormwater mitigation here because they’re, what was it? Lake Hazeltine. South of here is an impaired waters and so there’s very little treatment in this area so, so we’d like to work with them on that. You know the topsoil or the spoil pile, we had talked with a developer about his, you know is there an opportunity to remove that material over time. You know work with us on that. You know talking to the engineer it sounds like there might be a market for that topsoil for developers or some other contractors to use that material so I think it’s in everybody’s long term benefit to have that material removed so just working towards that path. That’s the discussion that we’ve had. You know we haven’t completed determined exactly how that looks right now but it’s still something that we’re working on. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 39 Kate Aanenson: But let me just clarify that. So I think what we have agreed to is, the shape and the form it will take so it’s stabilized. Paul Oehme: Right yep. Kate Aanenson: We’ve all agreed to that. So we can feel comfortable with the slopes that it’s established at and that we work towards a common goal and a timeline on that. Councilwoman Ryan: And when do you get those timelines or what part of the process is that? Kate Aanenson: With the, I think we talked about that in part of, I’m not sure if it’s in the development contract or. Paul Oehme: We haven’t got to, is it 5 years? Is it 2 years? That type of thing. We still need to work that out with the developer and see what works best. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. And I know with part of that in the recommendation as it relates to Lake Hazeltine, it was recommended that they contact the DNR to get their feedback. Has that? Kate Aanenson: Yes so as I mentioned earlier they thought that there was jurisdiction by the Army Corps and so that was part of the impaired waters but that’s why we think working with Chaska and the County to get a ponding here is the best solution for everybody because that would improve the water quality there and that was part of the DNR and the shoreland regs so I think that issue has been put to rest. Councilwoman Ryan: Are you? Todd Gerhardt: It doesn’t completely eliminate the pile of dirt. Kate Aanenson: No, no but I’m saying the impact by the DNR correct. Yeah. Todd Gerhardt: And Mayor, council the dirt is an economic burden to the overall development. To have the pile removed it’s $1.8 million dollars to have it trucked off site to a different location so what the applicant is asking is that they have a period of time to work with surrounding developments as they need additional topsoil as a part of our requirement to have 6 inches of topsoil on new residential lots to absorb that first inch of rain as a home is being built and so. Councilwoman Ryan: So if he keeps, if the developer keeps the dirt on their site and starts trucking it off then they charge the person who’s taking the topsoil to truck it off? Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 40 Todd Gerhardt: We’re not into the economics side of the thing. I think they would be just happy to get rid of it would be my guess and it would be a resource to builders because the builders are going to have to you know find black topsoil for their sites and there’s no benefit to Mark to want to keep it. Councilwoman Ryan: Right. Todd Gerhardt: Especially if he has a deadline correct? Councilwoman Ryan: But that timeline hasn’t been established. Kate Aanenson: No I think that’s some of the things we talk about. So normally we don’t do a development contract when it’s all private development. In this circumstance because there’s some grading, some other issues that we are, there’s a development contract being approved with this too. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. I’m going to keep going down my list here. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Councilwoman Ryan: So then the wetland, the permit, have we, I mean I feel like we haven’t seen much about the wetlands other than just the picture that was just shown and usually that’s. Paul Oehme: Yeah and so. Councilwoman Ryan: What’s the real process that we review? Paul Oehme: Right and so we’re into that process right now. I mean we’re going to get a TEP together and actually we’re meeting tomorrow with some folks on this as well to get the process going. Maybe the developer can address some more specifics on that but you know it’s something that we’re still working on and it’s a long process. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Paul Oehme: To get that completed so. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Paul Oehme: And that’s, again that’s one of the conditions that has to get approved and you have to mitigate the wetlands. Councilwoman Ryan: Right, okay. And then in the report it said, and kind of back to the soils. I’m sorry this is just how, when I was reading through the different things. It said waiting for the Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 41 soil materials to come back. Waiting for that report. Have you received that full report on the soils yet? Paul Oehme: I don’t think we’ve received it yet. I know they’ve taken more information. They’re trucking in more sand and they just recently did some more soil investigation and analysis to try to mitigate some of that material from their site so you know it’s my understanding when this development first was looked at to where it is now there’s actually less material that we’re going to have to be stockpiling in the south end just because of the soil investigation that’s taken place to date so. It’s again it’s a work in progress. I think you know the developer is making good progress in terms of reducing the amount of material that they’ll have to stockpile on site but it’s, again it’s, I think they’ve gone as far as they can right now until they really actually start grading. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: Councilmember Ryan I just want to stop you for a second if I may. Ms. Aanenson what you’re asking us for tonight is rezoning from agricultural to office industrial, which is in line with the land use. Correct? You’re asking us to approve and preliminary and a final plat. You’re asking us to approve a development contract correct? And Findings of Fact. And you’re also asking us to approve this subject to the wetland permit being granted by some other entity. Kate Aanenson: Correct. And that they resolve the storage of the dirt so yes, so there needs to be some agreement on, Memorandum of Understanding of how that’s going to be resolved. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that, based on what we do tonight there is still some hurdles that they developer has to overcome in order to complete this project. Most specifically the wetland alteration permit or the WCA. The Wetland Conservation. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct and where those will be replaced at. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Kate Aanenson: And so it’s more than likely they won’t replace on site. Same with Avienda. Mayor Laufenburger: Sure. Kate Aanenson: We talked about with the watershed district and move from there so. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Councilwoman Ryan: Right and the reason for my question is we’re being asked to approve a lot of different pieces and there still there are a lot of questions and uncertainties and that’s. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 42 Mayor Laufenburger: Yep I understand your questions and perhaps the applicant will be able to address some of those but continue. Councilwoman Ryan: And then you addressed the landscaping because they were very short in that area. There was a comment at the Planning Commission about there were two moving parts in terms of the project and the Lyman Boulevard project that we’re talking about. Does this, does this project have anything to do with the County’s request with our upgrading Lyman Boulevard? Paul Oehme: They’re two independent projects. Councilwoman Ryan: I know they’re two independent projects but is this project in any way contingent on anything going on with Lyman Boulevard? Paul Oehme: No. Kate Aanenson: No. Paul Oehme: No, no so what we’re asking for is from the developer is to dedicate some of the right-of-way necessary for Lyman to move forward so that’s really the only connection between the two. Kate Aanenson: And it’s my understanding too then he’d have to dedicate the access, some additional, a decal lane and accel lane potentially on the far right-in/right-out. Paul Oehme: Right in the access. Kate Aanenson: So he’d have to dedicate that. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. There was just a lot of conversation I know about the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard and I just want to be careful about that. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor that will reduce the overall cost for Lyman as a part of the platting. Taking the right-of-way which is the problem to the west. Mayor Laufenburger: In Chaska. Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Councilwoman Ryan: I’m done for now, thank you. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 43 Mayor Laufenburger: Alright thank you Councilmember Ryan. Any other questions or comments? Ms. Aanenson you pointed out that the Magellan Pipeline runs through the property. Did we reach out to Magellan regarding their property or did the developer? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Both. Kate Aanenson: We received comments from Magellan. Actually I’ve spoken to their engineers. Mayor Laufenburger: Yep. Kate Aanenson: The developer Eden Trace to make sure they’re accommodating that. Mayor Laufenburger: Have we gotten confirmation from Magellan? Kate Aanenson: Well they have to follow all the requirements so they’ll have to send them certify or verifications of certain things as they build. Mayor Laufenburger: But I noticed that there was a letter, Magellan Agency response. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: And it said thus as long as the property owners or their successors assigns and grantees, that legal term for Mr. Knutson, abide by the agreements in the attached Magellan General Encroachment Requirements, Magellan does not object to the requested zoning change. Kate Aanenson: Correct, yep. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so they’re anticipating cooperation from the developers to protect their easement. Protect their pipeline. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, as we’ve done with other projects in the city correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Let’s ask the, if the applicant present. Is the applicant present tonight? Why don’t you just come up here, give us a chance to hear from you and I would just ask that you would identify yourself and your relationship to this project. Ed Farr: Good evening Mayor, council members, and staff. My name Ed Farr with Edward Farr Architects representing Eden Trace. My address is 7710 Golden Triangle Drive, Eden Prairie. With me tonight is Mr. Brady Busselman with Sambatek. Sambatek is our, represents the civil engineering firm. Also doing landscape architecture and surveying. So we’re again representing Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 44 Eden Trace. Happy to be here this evening. Staff did an excellent job in presenting the project so I’ll try not to be redundant on much at all and we appreciate the Planning Commission support of this when we were here a couple weeks ago. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Ed Farr: Very excited about the project. The site is challenged of course and so we’re happy to have worked through most everything at this point in time. Speaking selfishly for the architecture, we’re happy that the developers allowed us to express ourselves with some very architectural relief along the façade. Varied step roofline as well as some in and out expression and color relief and lots of glass so we think this will be an excellent project hitting the market right where it wants to be for this time and type of building product. I think you’ll be happy with it when it’s all done. The safe plan over the years it’s kind of fallen into place for obvious reasons as staff has mentioned already with the constraints of the pipeline and the soils and the road and all the existing conditions that have been talked about already. Speaking to a couple questions that may have come up already. The County memo speaking about just from Lyman build but it just came in middle of last week. Three business days ago so we have gone through it but it is a work in progress and we are working with the County on a couple of their comments through there. If needed we’re going to remove the entrance right-in/right-out on the northwest corner of our development. While we’d like not to do that and we’re here based on our application materials, we understand that that’s a county requirement then that’s going to be removed from the project and that’s part of the conditions of the approval tonight. So that’s fine. Mayor Laufenburger: So let me just stop you a second Ed. So what you’re saying is, you’d like to have the right-in/right-out. Ed Farr: Correct that’s. Mayor Laufenburger: That’s part of the, is that part of the plat? That you’re. Kate Aanenson: The conditions of the plat would say the County has to approve that. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And he’s saying is the County is saying right now that they… Ed Farr: We’re just learning they’re pushing back on that. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Ed Farr: That’s new information to us. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 45 Mayor Laufenburger: Alright let’s Kate, let’s assume for a moment that they don’t approve that, does this plat warrant our approval? Kate Aanenson: Yes because we would just, it’s really for their efficiencies. Mayor Laufenburger: Yep I understand. Kate Aanenson: Yep it would still meet warrants. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Mr. Farr continue. Ed Farr: Thank you. And it is also I believe the City Manager mentioned about the dirt issue as well. We’ve reconfigured the pile so that it falls into compliance with the maximum slope requirements that the City has suggested to us and of course we consider a free dirt sign on top of the pile from here on out until. Mayor Laufenburger: Tastefully though. Ed Farr: Tastefully. We can paint it any color you’d like and of course we’ll work with whoever would like to take that off site as soon as possible so that the end goal can be achieved. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. But just to be clear, the removal of the dirt over time or over a specified time is not part of the development contract or part of the rezoning or anything in for approval tonight, is that correct? Ed Farr: That’s correct. It would certainly be a hardship to put a sunset or time limit on when that dirt would leave the site. It’s cost prohibitive with the project to absorb hauling the material off site and paying for that. Mayor Laufenburger: But obviously it’s in your best interest. Ed Farr: Yes it is. We fully support. Mayor Laufenburger: As Ms. Aanenson has stated that that dirt moves off site to various topsoil areas. Other places in Chanhassen or the surrounding region. Ed Farr: That’s correct and our client has mentioned to us on numerous times that he’ll work hard continuously after the project is built to help the City and other parties with that goal in mind. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 46 Ed Farr: Okay. And last also to reiterate for the Lyman Boulevard project which again isn’t contingent upon our’s or vice versa, we are giving right-of-way land over to that clause as they need for the widening of the road. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay Mr. Farr there was, was that a pause? Ed Farr: That was, go ahead. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay could you, there were some questions regarding the pond in back. What do you know of it? Ed Farr: I’ll let my civil engineer Mr. Busselman to come on up. Mayor Laufenburger: Sure, you want to redirect it to somebody else huh, okay. Ed Farr: Yep. Mayor Laufenburger: Just state your name please. Brady Busselman: Yeah my name is Brady Busselman with Sambatek. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, welcome. Brady Busselman: Thank you. So I apologize your question was regarding… Mayor Laufenburger: Oh just there was discussion about this pond that may or may not exist. Brady Busselman: This regional. Mayor Laufenburger: The regional pond yeah. Brady Busselman: The regional pond yeah. Mayor Laufenburger: Does that affect, I guess I would ask Kate. Does that affect our decision tonight? Kate Aanenson: I’ll ask Paul but I would say that it doesn’t. It’s an alternative for them to, what we’re looking at is a way to export the dirt so if the pond was to go in that would help someone that would want to remove the dirt so they could use the pond. For example if Chaska wanted to clean up Lake Hazeltine and wanted to make that a priority, then exporting the dirt would have to happen in order to get to the pond. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 47 Mayor Laufenburger: So do you as a developer or representing the developer do you have a preference of pond or no pond? Brady Busselman: I think the fact that. Mayor Laufenburger: I mean this is your property right? We’re platting it as an outlot. Brady Busselman: Certainly. I think and that’s a great point. If you saw our first iteration of this plan there was a fourth building in that area and the site just did not work with 4 buildings. We had to remove that building to allow the stockpile so that we could go forward with the 3 building configuration so I guess speaking in the developer’s shoes, first preference would be to put another building there. Since that doesn’t work I think aesthetically and environmentally a pond would be preferred over the stockpile. The fact is though that, it is a large amount of soil correction on this site that’s required so we do need to have that stockpile in place initially and the developer has expressed, you know every willingness to work with the City on discussing potential easements to allow the trucking of that material off the site over time. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. I think I’m going to pause Mr. Busselman and open this up to council. Council do you have any questions or comments of the applicant at this time? Anybody? Councilman Campion: I have one. Mayor Laufenburger: Go ahead Mr. Campion, please. Councilman Campion: Can anything be said about the end uses? Anything more? Mayor Laufenburger: What’s your question? Councilman Campion: I think it was just said as office industrial right? Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah. Correct. Kate Aanenson: I don’t think it’s. Ed Farr: It is being proposed as a speculative project that is, certainly I don’t think there’s many secrets that the developer is talking to a number of tenants in serious negotiations right now. I don’t believe there’s any signed leases but it is falling very similar to the way that we proposed in our narrative. We’ve made allowances in the parking as an example for up to 20 percent office in Buildings A and C and 30 percent office in Building B based on the depths and the heights and things like that and we’re not exceeding any of those so we’re in a very comfortable range where the tenants are talking to us right now. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 48 Councilman Campion: Right. Ed Farr: But there is very high level of interest in the first two buildings already. Councilman Campion: Okay. I guess I was asking, I’m trying to understand the sense of urgency in doing the rezoning and the preliminary plat and the final plat. Kate Aanenson: I think there is users that are pretty interested and. Ed Farr: That’s correct. My marching orders after tonight, if we get approval, will be to roll ahead full steam ahead for spring construction start so we have drawings to prepare and contractors to get pricing from, etcetera, etcetera. Councilman Campion: Okay. Ed Farr: Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Does that answer your question? Councilman Campion: That does. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Any other questions or comments of the applicant? Thank you Mr. Farr, Mr. Busselman. Let’s bring it back to the council for further discussion or action. Councilmembers any comment? Councilwoman Ryan: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Laufenburger: Go ahead Councilmember Ryan. Councilwoman Ryan: Will you just go back to the wetland, well just the mitigation and the alteration permit. Can you Ms. Aanenson or Mr. Oehme explain what your plan is with the two wetlands? How you’re going to mitigate them and what, with approving of this permit what as council are we, when and what are we able to see? Kate Aanenson: That’s a good question. If you go back to what we did on Avienda, do you remember what we did there too? We approved it and we let them work through the wetland stuff. That took almost another few months to get that worked through so as indicated this allows them to go forward and work through all those things and that detail with a level of confidence they’ve got a project to go forward. But they have to meet all the requirements of the law and the wetland so on staff we have to check all those boxes to make sure they’re fulfilling those requirements so again it’s really similar to what we did on Avienda. We approved it and we said work out the wetland issues as a separate process. As a condition of approval you have to meet all those requirements and that’s the same position we’re taking on this one. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 49 Councilwoman Ryan: Right but I mean with Avienda we did have a couple conversations about you know what, what they were rated and what the plans were but for we approved the permit. I mean we did have more conversations than seeing it you know in this picture and then approve it and so I just, I’m curious especially with you know having the stockpile, which should you know, which would be a preferred pond because of impact to Lake Hazeltine and the waterways in that area, I mean it’s concerning to me. I feel like we’re not part of this process and conversation. Kate Aanenson: I understand. I’m sorry I can’t comment too much on the wetlands. I would leave that to engineering. Paul Oehme: Yeah and again we’re just getting going on the, the wetlands have been delineated. We’re just starting the process right now. It’s the applicant’s desire to move this process along and again it’s a condition of the approval that the wetlands be mitigated per state statute so that’s the staff’s recommendation. Mayor Laufenburger: Well just, Mr. Gerhardt go ahead. You wanted to say something? Todd Gerhardt: Do you know what type of wetlands these are? Paul Oehme: Yeah I don’t have a wetland delineation in front of me. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Busselman do you have one of those? Paul Oehme: As I recall they’re not a preserve wetland. The higher best valued wetlands but I can’t remember if they’re I or II’s. III’s. Mayor Laufenburger: Well Kate and Paul regarding Councilmember Ryan’s questions, is it in the City’s authority to grant the wetland permit? Is that our authority? Paul Oehme: Yeah so I mean we’re the LGU so you know it’s, they have to come to us and go through the process and show that they’re following the steps necessary to mitigate it per state statue. Mayor Laufenburger: So this is how I interpret it and this might be wrong but I interpret this to say that those items over which we have primary authority include the rezoning, approving the preliminary and the final plat, the development contract and we are essentially saying we are going to ask the appropriate jurisdictions. The watershed district, is the watershed district involved in this Kate? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 50 Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Corps of Engineers involved in this? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. So we’re saying developer work through those entities and when you can satisfy them bring it back to us and we’ll be prepared to approve the wetland permit after you’ve gotten appropriate approval for mitigation and/or melioration from those entities. Kate Aanenson: Correct and I. Mayor Laufenburger: Is that a reasonable? Kate Aanenson: Yes and I want to make sure I understand what Councilmember Ryan is saying. It’s that she doesn’t understand the functionality and the quality of those wetlands. That’s what she wanted to know. Councilwoman Ryan: Right and what I’m saying is yes we have jurisdiction but that’s what we’re approving tonight is we’re granting this permit but we don’t, we don’t have any of that information yet. Mayor Laufenburger: We’re granting the permits subject to the eventual. Kate Aanenson: So we’re saying those wetlands are going to go away. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay Mr. Farr is objecting to my statements I think. Mr. Farr you want, or Mr. Busselman, either one of you. Ed Farr: Thank you. We’re not asking you to approve a permit. Mayor Laufenburger: Right. Ed Farr: That’s what we’re here tonight for. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah I. Ed Farr: No, no, no. It’s contingent. Our approvals tonight are contingent upon us receiving approval through the proper channels which we think we will receive. Brady Busselman: And I can elaborate a little bit on where we’ve gotten to date. Unfortunately I don’t have the details on the exact type of wetland but I can tell you that the upper right, the one that kind of occupies the middle building and the pond, the Army Corps has agreed with us Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 51 that that is incidental. That was created as a result of the 2015 topsoil mining project that was mentioned so that one will go away. Mayor Laufenburger: So it’s blue right now but it’s going to disappear. Brady Busselman: It will disappear. We’re working with then with the Corps and the TEP through WCA, the City and the watershed on a mitigation process for the remaining impacts in going through the proper steps on how we show avoidance and how we laid out the site. How we arrived at the current site design. Excusing me really starting you know as the site does with where does the pipeline land and where can you put buildings relative to the pipeline and what does Magellan allow on the pipeline. That starts how we laid out the buildings based on that pipeline. Setting the first building north and then the further north building north of that and then as we worked through the site we were able to avoid and preserve that long line, excuse me. What would be a railroad ditch but the wetland along the railroad and the other remaining piece on the southwest corner so we are actively working with the Corps and with the local, the LGU. Thank you. Kate Aanenson: If I may to be clear though if they agree with that that’s what this project will look like so that’s why I’m saying your question is, so you are in some way giving approval that if they agree to those conditions this is the project you’d end up with. Mayor Laufenburger: This is the plat. This is the preliminary. This is the final. This is the rezoning. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Subject to the wetland permit being granted and eventually, Mr. Oehme is this correct, eventually the results of your TEP will come back to the council next year. Paul Oehme: Or sooner. Yeah next year, 2019. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah 2019 with okay we’ve met the conditions of, is that part of the development contract or is that a separate document? Paul Oehme: That’d be a separate permit. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so we’ve met this condition. We’re continuing to move forward. Councilmember Ryan you still have questions or comments? Councilwoman Ryan: No, not at this time. Mayor Laufenburger: Go ahead Mr. Campion. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 52 Councilman Campion: One more question. Mayor Laufenburger: Please. Councilman Campion: What would be the harm of waiting to approve the final plat until that wetland mitigation request has been resolved? Mayor Laufenburger: I would ask either Mr. Oehme or Ms. Aanenson or the development to comment on that. Kate Aanenson: I’ll let the developer comment on that. Mayor Laufenburger: You understand the question Mr. Farr? Ed Farr: Yeah. Councilman Campion: I can restate it. Just what would be the harm in waiting to approve the final plat until the wetland mitigation request has been addressed by the watershed? Ed Farr: Simple assurances so that we can move forward in good faith in a timely fashion. As you know development projects of this nature have multiple jurisdictional reviews and many of them happen concurrently. Every one of them would like to be last in line to say has everybody else approved it first but not everybody can be last and so that’s why they’re concurrent reviews by multiple jurisdictions and contingent conditions that you’re placing on the project and so we have to comply with those other laws, as staff mentioned so that you feel comfortable hopefully knowing that we’re not going to be doing anything contrary. Councilman Campion: So the assumption being made here is that the two large wetlands shown disappear? Mayor Laufenburger: Well one we know is the one in the upper, that one is considered incidental. Councilman Campion: I heard that. I’m asking is the assumption that both of them…disappear. Ed Farr: We are going to be physically moving dirt over them and relocating those wetlands. Those are called wetland impacts and mitigation is required whenever we impact a wetland and so mitigation will fulfill our legal obligations to proceed accordingly. And so we’re not trying to skirt those obligations at all. Councilman Campion: Okay. Ed Farr: Thank you. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 53 Mayor Laufenburger: Any further question or comment. If not I’ll entertain a motion related to this. Could you bring that motion up please Kate? Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council, I think it’s imperative that you also include that the issuance of this wetland alteration permit, I can’t find it in here Kate where it says it’s contingent upon the Army Corps of Engineers and also the watershed district. So the wetland alteration permit should have those, that statement in there somewhere. Because they’re the ones that are going to give conditions of that wetland mitigation once they go through the process with the Army Corps of Engineers who have taken jurisdiction over these wetlands, correct. Kate Aanenson: And the, yeah… Mayor Laufenburger: For me the language subject to the conditions of approval in the final staff report and one of the conditions of approval is exactly what you’re saying. Approval by the Corps of Engineers and the watershed district. Todd Gerhardt: Yep. Just add those two entities into that motion and Mr. Knutson would be very happy. Councilman Campion: So if those approvals by the Army Corps or the watershed, if they change the layout of the buildings or the plats then it has to come back to us? Kate Aanenson: If it’s a minor change, like if they split a building you know they probably wouldn’t but a big change yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Any further comment or discussion? If not anyone like to make a motion? Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mayor I’ll make a motion that the Chanhassen City Council approves the ordinance rezoning the property from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Industrial Office Park (IOP); preliminary and final plat approval creating 3 lots and one outlot with access via a private street; the development contract for a Holasek Business Park; a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill wetlands on site; the Site Plan approval for 3 office industrial buildings for a total of 449,350 square feet; plans prepared by, is it Sambatek? By Sambatek dated 11/02/2018 and Edward Farr Architects dated October 19, 2018, subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report and adopts the Findings of Fact. And does that take care of? Roger Knutson: I would just suggest adding a wetland permit to fill wetlands on the site subject to approval of the Corps of Engineers and watershed district. Councilman McDonald: I’ll adapt what he said. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 54 Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, so we have a motion as it reads on the screen except following the phrase a wetland alteration permit to fill wetlands on site we will include the words subject to the approval of the Army Corps of Engineers and the watershed district. And at the end adopting the Findings of Fact. Okay we have a motion. Good one? Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Councilmember Tjornhom. Is there any further discussion? Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approves the ordinance rezoning the property from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Industrial Office Park (IOP); preliminary and final plat approval creating 3 lots and one outlot with access via a private street; the development contract for Holasek Business Park; a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill wetlands on site subject to approval of the Army Corps of Engineers and the watershed district; Site Plan approval for 3 office industrial buildings for a total of 449,350 square feet; plans prepared by Sambatek dated 11/02/2018 and Edward Farr Architects dated October 19, 2018, subject to the following conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact: SUBDIVISION Engineering All ingress/egress locations, including the right-in/right-out access located at the northwestern portion of the property, and subsequent impacts of trip generation by the development, shall be designed to Carver County standards and shall meet all Carver County’s requirements. Any requirements set by Carver County to improve the intersection shall be addressed by the applicant (if necessary). The applicant shall dedicate the 40’ x 120’ drainage and utility easement at the northwest corner of Lot 1 on the preliminary and final plat prior to recording. An executed agreement between the developer and Magellan Pipeline Company allowing construction over Magellan Pipeline Company’s easement shall be provided to the city prior to the issuance of grading permits. The preliminary and final plat shall not include the 5’ drainage and utility easements located at the south side of Lot 2, and the north side of Lot 3, prior to acceptance and recording. All retaining walls exceeding 4’ in height shall have plans and details prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect prior to issuance of building permits. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 55 At the time of building permit submittal, connection methodology to the existing stubs (sanitary sewer and water services), material type, and location of service valves and other appurtenances shall be identified for review. Prior to construction of the water and sanitary utilities within the development, all required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be required. An O&M plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Improvements to the existing manhole where the effluent will be received via the lift station. Parks Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected for the three proposed lots totaling 36.39 acres as a condition of approval for Holasek Business Park. These park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Planning A 40-foot access and maintenance easement shall be recorded over the private streets. The private streets shall be constructed to a nine-ton design with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet and a maximum slope of 10 percent. A street name for the private street at Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard shall be submitted to the Building Official and Fire Marshall for review and approval prior to recording the final plat. Water Resources Coordinator Stormwater Development Charges. Estimated stormwater development fees in the amount of $770,012.40 (36.39 acres x $21,160) shall be paid prior to recording the final plat. Financial Assurance. To guarantee compliance with the plan and related remedial work, a cash escrow or letter of credit, satisfactory to the city, shall be furnished to the city before a building permit is issued. The escrow amount shall be $7,500.00 per acre. The city may use the escrow or draw upon the letter of credit to reimburse the city for any labor or material costs it incurs in securing compliance with the plan or in implementing the plan. If the city draws on the escrowed funds, no additional building permits shall be issued until the pre-draw escrow balance has been restored. The city shall endeavor to give notice to the owner or developer before proceeding, but such notice shall not be required in an emergency as determined by the city. The assurance shall be maintained until final stabilization and removal of erosion and sediment controls. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 56 Drainage and utility easements will be required over all remaining wetlands and public stormwater utilities. This includes the western boundary of the project as well as the southwest corner of the parcel which should have a sufficient easement for the main drainage pipe for this area (required in conjunction with final plat). Private stormwater easements will be required over all private stormwater facilities using the city’s template (required in conjunction with final plat). The Holasek Business Park construction plans show areas of grading over the main stormwater pipe that runs north to south along the western property boundary. Construction on this pipe may be planned for the next couple of years. Please coordinate earthwork in this area with the city and Carver County Public Works Department. The plans show significant grading in the south outlot. Sec. 19-145 of City Code does not allow unbroken slopes greater than 30’ and slopes steeper than 3:1. Additionally, the proposed grading would trigger bluff regulations Sec. 20-1401 and Sec. 20-1405. Staff recommends removing the stockpile from the proposed plans. If the stockpile cannot be removed it will need to be reduced to slope less than 20’, 3:1 max. It must meet all other regulatory requirements for wetland hydrology, erosion and sediment control, and surface water management. Erosion and sediment control must meet the requirements of Sec. 19-145 including a dewatering plan. Erosion and Sediment Control Practices including temporary sedimentation basins, silt fence, the construction entrance, and ESC BMPs are shown in the legend on sheet C5.02, but not on the plans. Indicate the location of these practices on the Erosion Control Plan sheet. EOFs should be stabilized with TRM or similar. Include chosen stabilization measures in the construction plans. Temporary Sediment Ponds. The proposed stormwater ponds will need to be utilized as temporary sediment ponds during construction. A faircloth skimmer will need to be installed, and the outlets of the pond will need to be sealed off for the duration of construction until the site is stabilized. Skimming devices should be designed to remove oils and floatable materials up to a one-year frequency event. The skimmer should be set 12 inches below the normal surface water elevation and should control the discharge velocity to 0.5 fps. Incorporate these notes and details into the construction plans. Topsoil Management a. Subsoil Decompaction. Please add a note about subsoil decompaction to the topsoil section on sheet L1.03. Subsoil must be decompacted to a depth of six inches in all pervious areas, prior to placement of six inches of topsoil. Contractor must identify the method used to decompact six inches of subsoil prior to placing topsoil. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 57 b. Topsoil Depth. Note 5 under Turf Establishment on sheet L1.03 reads that a minimum of four inches of topsoil is required. CCWMO Standards require that six inches of topsoil be replaced in all disturbed pervious areas. Update this note to reflect the six inch requirement. c. Stockpiles. Please indicate the quantity of topsoil needed to restore six inches in all pervious areas of the development. Show location(s) where existing topsoil is to be stockpiled on the site. d. Soil Hauling. Describe topsoil hauling plans, including locations and estimated quantities. Note that if topsoil is exported or imported to the site, an additional permit may be required. e. Vegetative Cover. Note 5 under Turf Establishment on sheet L1.03 refers to a healthy stand of vegetation in all disturbed pervious areas of the development. Please note that 90% of the expected vegetative density is required. Stormwater Management Sec. 19-142. Plans required. All plans shall be reviewed and stamped “Approved by the City Engineer” and all applicable permits must be obtained prior to commencing construction. For all newly constructed stormwater facilities (ponds, retention areas, infiltration basins, storm sewer, etc.) or existing facilities that are modified, as-built plans shall be prepared by the developer. As- built plans shall be signed and certified by a licensed professional engineer in the State of Minnesota and record drawings shall be provided to the city. Standard details for many typical storm structures (e.g., storm sewer, outlet structures, catch basins, sump manholes, etc.) are available on the city's website. Sec. 19-144. Major facility design elements. a. For basins intended to have permanent water levels, a minimum of four feet of standing water (dead storage depth) and a maximum of ten feet shall be provided. b. Separation between the inlet(s) and outlet shall be maximized to prevent short- circuiting. c. Outlets shall be evaluated for the need to dissipate energy so as to reduce velocities to permissible levels as allowed by the soil and vegetation. At a minimum, flared-end sections should be provided with riprap consistent with Minnesota Department of Transportation standards. For areas with high flows or where excessive erosion occurs or is anticipated, energy dissipation per Federal Highway Administration standards shall be followed. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 58 d. Riprap shall be provided below the channel grade and above the outfall or channel bottom to ensure that riprap will not be undermined by scour or rendered ineffective by displacement. Riprap consisting of natural angular stone suitably graded by weight shall be designed for anticipated velocities. Riprap shall be placed over a suitable filter material or filter fabric to ensure that soil particles do not move through the riprap and reduce its stability. BMP Details. Include the following BMP details in the construction plans: a. BMP Cross Sections. Include site-specific elevations on the Bioretention Bench and Bioretention Trench details on sheet C4.02. b. OCS Details. Include Outlet Control Structure Details (attached) for the stormwater BMPs with specific elevations for inlets, outlets, and draintile (when applicable). c. BMP Profiles. Include profiles of the stormwater BMPs with draintile (Pond B Filtration Bench and Filtration Trench) showing draintile slope. Please note that all draintile must have a positive drainage slope of at least 0.5%. Include site-specific invert elevations for assistance with field construction. d. EOF elevations. EOF elevations should be set to at least 0.5 ft. above the HWL to allow for construction tolerance. Include cross-sections of the EOFs in the plan set. Impervious Acreage. The area (ac) of proposed new impervious is inconsistent between the application (25.10), stormwater report (27.5), project narrative (25.08), plan sheet C5.03 (28.4), and HydroCAD model (25.34). Clarify the correct area of new impervious and update components of the submittal to match. Elevation-Storage Tables. Include the Filtration Bench bottom (should be 928.5) in the elevation- storage table in the HydroCAD report so that the treatment volumes can be determined for the ponds, bench, and re-use system. Filtration Trench. The filtration trench design is not compliant in the current design. a. Contributing Area. The filtration trench appears to receive runoff from pervious areas only. Stormwater BMPs should capture and treat runoff from impervious areas on the site. b. Tree Roots. The filtration trench is proposed in an area that is wooded on the landscape plan. Trees may be planted on the side-slopes or adjacent to the trench but are not allowed in the trench bottom. Tree roots may impact the draintile and prevent proper drainage. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 59 c. Model and Plan Details. The filtration trench is not included in the HydroCAD model and the construction plans do not show details (bottom, NWL, HWL, OCS, EOF) for this BMP. Please include the details listed in Comment #2 above and include information for this practice in the construction plans and HydroCAD model. Operation & Maintenance Plan (O&M). Provide a draft O&M plan outlining the responsibilities for inspecting and maintaining the stormwater BMPs on site. The O&M plan must be signed by all responsible parties. a. Reuse Maintenance Plan. Provide a draft Reuse Maintenance Plan as part of the overall O&M plan. Please include all details outlined in the corresponding section on the Stormwater Reuse Design Guidance document. Reuse Plan Sheet. Please add the following information to the stormwater reuse plan: a. Location of the following reuse system components: irrigation lines, irrigation zones, sprinkler heads, pumps, intakes from ponds, and usage meters. If applicable, include the locations of the potable connection, backflow prevention devices, filters, and debris collection sumps. b. Narrative describing operation of the systems. If the irrigated areas will be actively used during daytime hours, the irrigation needs to be scheduled for times when the areas will not be in use. c. Location of access for reuse system maintenance. d. Drawdown elevations of the reuse ponds. e. Volume reduction and/or water quality calculations. f. Other information relevant to the reuse systems. SWPPP. A copy of the SWPPP including soils/infiltration data within the perimeter of all infiltration/filtration devices is required prior to review for final plat. The SWPPP must also meet all requirements of City Code 19-145. Basin. There is a bioretention basin south of Lyman Boulevard in the road construction plans. Please show this basin on the construction plans for Holasek Business Park and demonstrate that the road project plans don’t interfere with this project. Chloride Management Plan. A chloride management plan is required. Applicant will need to respond to the comments received by Twin Cities & Western (Wednesday, October 24, 2018 6:39 AM): Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 60 “In response to this proposal Twin Cities & Western offers the following comment: Twin Cities & Western has concerns of stormwater and general runoff impacts with this land being developed making it non-pervious. What will happen to the stormwater runoff and will the increased runoff adversely impact the railroad roadbed?” SITE PLAN Engineering Must comply with the conditions of the Holasek Business Park conditions of approval for the subdivision. Environmental Resources Additional tree species will need to be added rather than increasing quantities of existing selection. Parking lot islands and peninsulas will be required to have proper planting soil as specified in the Planting Notes. Planning The applicant shall enter into separate site plan agreements with the city for each lot and building and provide the necessary security to guarantee grading and erosion control, site restoration, stormwater and landscaping. Pedestrian ramps shall be added at each curb at the driveway entrance to Building A and included on the site plan sheet C3.01. Community features including benches, bike racks and picnic tables shall be incorporated in the site. Due to the wetland in the southwest corner of the site, Building C on Lot 3 may need to be shifted east or reduced in size, the drive aisle, parking and loading areas may need to be shifted to the east and north. Water Resources Coordinator Must comply with the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 61 a. Sec. 20-409. Decisions under this article must not be made until after receiving the determination of the technical evaluation panel regarding wetland public values, location, size, and/or type if the city council, the landowner, or a member of the technical evaluation panel asks for such determinations. b. Any projects seeking a wetland alteration permit subject to this article will also be required to submit the following incomplete requirements: Existing and proposed drainage areas to wetlands; Buffer strip plan meeting the criteria of subsections 20-411(c) and (d) c. Sec. 20-416. Mitigation. Wetland mitigation shall be undertaken on-site. If this is not feasible, then mitigation may occur locally within the subwatershed. If this is not possible, then mitigation may occur outside the subwatershed, elsewhere in the city. If mitigation cannot be accomplished on-site, or if the city deems it necessary to perform mitigation off- site, then the applicant shall be responsible for providing off-site mitigation within the major subwatershed, as designated by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, or purchasing wetland credits from the state wetland bank. Staff believes mitigation can occur on site by expanding the wetlands in the south outlot. d. Stormwater runoff shall not be discharged into wetlands without water quality pretreatment as prescribed by this Code. e. If a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing wetland alteration, the following standards shall be followed: (1) The alteration will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland; (2) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation; (3) It shall not adversely change water flow; (4) The size of the altered area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action; (5) The disposal of any excess material is prohibited within remaining wetland areas; (6) The disposal of any excess material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures; (7) Alterations to any wetland area are prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning; (8) Alterations to wetland areas shall be mitigated in accordance with the requirements of this article if the activity results in a loss of wetland area and/or function and value of the wetland. f. The alteration shall not alter the hydrological patterns in the remainder of the wetland, if a portion of the wetland remains, unless exempted under Sec. 20-417. Please show how hydrologic patterns will not be altered for the remaining wetlands. g. Sec. 20-405. Wetland delineation. An electronic copy of the delineated wetland boundaries must be submitted in a format compatible with the city's GIS database. h. A grading permit cannot be issued until the applicant has completed the WCA process. i. Wetland Buffers. Wetland buffers and buffer monumentation will be required adjacent to the wetlands on-site. Please indicate wetland buffers widths and locations where signage will be placed on a plan sheet. Please find additional information on signage placement in Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 62 the guidance document attached. The WMO provides signs and sign posts for the cost of materials. Alternative signs (by the city or applicant) are also acceptable provided they contain similar information. j. Sec. 19-146. Wetland elements. 1) Water level fluctuations (peak elevation and duration) for wetlands shall be limited to two feet and duration not to exceed 48 hours so as to prevent the destruction of wildlife habitat and wetland vegetation. 2) Sedimentation basins or sediment removal devices shall be provided prior to discharge into wetlands. Variable bottom contours should be considered to provide deeper holes and flat shallow benches. This feature will provide habitat for diversity of plants and wetland inhabitants for wetland mitigation sites and stormwater basins. All voted in favor except for Councilwoman Ryan and Councilman Campion who opposed. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Mayor Laufenburger: That motion carries 3-2. Congratulations gentlemen. You’ve got work to do. Good luck to you. Ed Farr: Thank you. APPROVE APPLICATION FOR FUNDING FROM CARVER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY COMMUNITY GROWTH PARTNESHIP INITIATIVE PROGRAM FOR HOLASEK BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT. Mayor Laufenburger: Kate is this your’s? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. This is related to what we just did is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So Carver County CDA annually gives out, or considers requests for part of a funding for economic development so originally we had looked at Control Products for that request because. Mayor Laufenburger: Control Concepts. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 63 Kate Aanenson: Excuse me, Control you’re correct Mayor sorry. Control Concepts. That was for the retaining wall for the trail. We talked about that and so that project is, has moved on. They’re selling. They’re not moving forward with that project so in looking at, I put together just a brief report in there looking at the ways that the Carver County CDA looks at the growth partnership initiatives so if you look we’ve done one for Chick-fil-A. We’ve done one for Emerson. We did one for the Venue for the redevelopment so they look at kind of 3 buckets and that would be the affordable housing, community development, and redevelopment and this is actually community development. So the project that we’re looking at is actually the one, we’re doing the request because we have to have this in by the end of February so, and some of our projects take a year to get funded and we go through a competitive process so because we were hoping to have a different project we’d like to put something out there and this is the only project right now that we have that would advance forward. Again it’s a competitive process so what we put in there is some of the goals that you put in your recent subsidy is how this project and so we’re talking about the project we just saw now. The Holasek development. The fact that one of the businesses looking going in there currently has 60 jobs and they’re looking at an additional 20 jobs and those are good paying industrial type jobs. So that meets your criteria under the community development, how to assist jobs. In job creation so we looked at it’s increasing the tax base. We’re retaining local jobs so one of the businesses that are looking at expanding. This is an existing business here in town that’s looking to expand. Also remove some of the existing blight that’s on the property. It’s under utilized and also help incur some of the costs so redevelopment and contamination as we talked about to correct the soils there is a big hurdle so we’re requesting $60,000. Again the City is the pass through so we’re actually applying on behalf of the developer so the money comes to the City and then we turn around and reimburse the developer on that so we would be the pass through on that. So again as I mentioned the application for the deadline would be February 1st so in looking at the projects that we have coming down the pipeline, we’ve got a big residential project but really don’t have anything of this scope. A big redevelopment project of this scope that would meet the criteria so the staff is recommending that you give consideration and your support would be through a resolution and then the staff would put together kind of more specific details on the square footage. Kind of what you just saw tonight and the job creation and the like. So that was our request to see if you’d be interested in supporting the resolution for the Carver County Community Development Agency’s growth partnership program so with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, an questions of staff? Kate I have one. You mentioned that we are, we make application for this on behalf of the applicant and CDA then grants the, if they choose to they would grant, they would award the grant to the City and then the City would distribute the funds. The developer has to show that they’re spending in accordance with what they’re requesting is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Yes. So yes, so they have to, it’s a 2 to 1 match so they have to give us payment. Proof of payment of the correction so we’ll identify what they’re using and in this case Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 64 we’d be identifying soil corrections but the reason they’re getting it is the job creation and the other things I mentioned but they would have to give us receipts of that and then the County Board would actually approve those payments. Verify those payments and then reimburse the City of which we’ve done and we reimburse the developer. So it’s a little bit of a process. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. And when, do you know when the County would make this grant if they were to approve this? Kate Aanenson: Well the applications are due, like I say in February and then they, the CDA would make a recommendation and then I do believe it goes to the CDA Board to approve those requests because usually there’s, it’s a competitive. Usually there’s 3 or 4 so they kind of weigh out you know what other cities are doing. What’s the economic benefit? That sort of thing so we did not have a project in 2018. The last one we did the 2017 actually was the Venue. The soil corrections. Actually it was the demolition for the Venue so they had like half a million dollars worth of demolition. They got $60,000 reimbursement on that but that’s what we requested on that one and that was actually authorized in 2017. That project took a while to get, so we did not apply for a grant in 2018 so. Mayor Laufenburger: And one more thing too is, does the application that we make with, for this one on behalf of the developer, does this preclude us from making future applications? Kate Aanenson: No. I mean annually. Mayor Laufenburger: So this would be likely based on what we know this would be the only one that we submit before February 19th. Kate Aanenson: Yeah it’s my understanding they changed up…to try to do it once a year. If there’s not enough applications in they may take another application later in the year but it’s my understanding now they’ve tried to look into that. Todd and Chelsea I think they’re just trying to do it once a year so everybody’s kind of gearing up. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Kate Aanenson: It was hard because I think they were doing it in August and that’s kind of at the end of the year. People now are gearing up for next year’s projects so I think that’s why they moved their application deadline but again looking at what we have in the potential pipeline that would meet this qualification we really didn’t have another project that would, we felt met the criteria so. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Council members any questions or comments to staff? If not I’ll accept a motion. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’ll make a motion. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 65 Mayor Laufenburger: Alright please do. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I make a motion that the City Council adopts a resolution approving the application for funding from the Carver County Community Development Agency Community Growth Partnership Initiative Program for the Holasek Business Park development. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Is there a second? Councilman McDonald: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright anything further discussion? Resolution #2018-64: Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council adopts a resolution approving the application for funding from the Carver County Community Development Agency Community Growth Partnership Initiative Program for the Holasek Business Park development. All voted in favor, except for Councilwoman Ryan and Councilman Campion who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Mayor Laufenburger: That motion carries 3-2. Thank you very much. ORDINANCE 636: UPDATE FLOOD PLAIN PROTECTION ORDINANCE AND APPROVE SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION PURPOSES. Mayor Laufenburger: I’m guessing this is your’s Kate? Kate Aanenson: Yes. So this item went before the Planning Commission on November 20th and before that we had a work session and the good news on this is one of our Planning Commissioners does bank loans so she understands the mortgage holder consent. So FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management is updating their firm maps. Their flood insurance rate maps throughout the whole county so we have to by the end of, there’s a deadline in here. I’ll go through in a minute. We have to adopt the new regulations. The new mapping so they were able to get more specific maps. Our maps go back to 1979 I believe so they’re pretty old so the better data means that they can show properties that were previously in or not in and you know now there’s new properties in. What they’re saying now if you even have a deck that’s attached to your structure and that deck is in a flood way then now your property’s insured so we identified, we were one of the few communities that identified the properties. We sent them a letter identifying, letting them know that they may be so this is really what it means. I’m not going to spend a lot of time on it unless you really want to learn more about it. There’s a lot of acronyms here. Just that it’s federally regulated and we want to stay in the national flood insurance program. That’s the main thing. By adopting this ordinance, because we have regulations in the city code but this is making it consistent with the new regs in order for the City to stay in the Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 66 national insurance program. So when you go for a mortgage you want to be able to get this benefit so it’s imperative that we get this. So again this is our old maps. Very difficult to see. They had no aerial photography so this is the new maps. Again the flood hazard maps. There’s a lot more detail on there now that depicts where properties are or not in the flood plain. Again your property, a lot of people that live on lakeshore part of their property is in the flood area. It’s whether or not your structure’s included in that. So the City’s not going to be the one to tell people how to write their insurance. They have to work that out through their mortgage company but what we have offered if people have questions or they need information to show where these mapping is then we’re willing to help engineering. Their GIS. Nick has got great ability to make a map for somebody to help them through the process so again, so when the residents may receive a letter from their mortgage holder. They may not. You know so it’s kind of up to them to kind of follow through on and they can appeal through their mortgage. It’s not through the City. We don’t listen to people’s appeals. We’re just there to help them with technical information and that’s what we’ve offered up in the letters that went out. So again I’m not going to go through a lot of detail in here but this is a different iteration so this person would be in because part of their deck is in the flood and this person would not, even though their lot’s in the property. This person would not because none of their structures in there. So again we’re adopting a model ordinance and I’m just going to kind of get to. So we have to have it adopted by December 21st so we’re on a tight track here so this, the original ’79 ordinance really is outdated so we did update it in 1986 but this is again overhauling it so we’re recommending that you adopt the modified version of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources so we’ve already sent them up our draft to make sure that we’re consistent. We made just a couple word changes. This is MacKenzie the guru of code amendments worked through this so we have again received conditional approval from the DNR that we do meet their requirements so again there’s critical facilities. You know the 2 feet above, we have that in our code. Your lowest level has to be above a certain and then all the other stricter provisions for non-conforming uses within the flood plain so again the motion here again would be proposing adopting the Ordinance 636 amending the Chapters 1 and 20 so it’d be definitions in the zoning ordinance and then that we also approve by 4/5 vote the summary so we don’t have to print the whole ordinance in the paper and then we’ll get this executed and sent up to the DNR so we’re in compliance. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright council any questions of staff regarding this? Councilman Campion: Just a question. Mayor Laufenburger: Go ahead Mr. Campion. Councilman Campion: So the letters sent to selected property owners on November 7th that would be all property owners that were affected or? Kate Aanenson: If that was changed yep. There were 16 of them. 16-20 of them yep. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 67 Councilman Campion: Okay. Kate Aanenson: But nobody contacted us or showed up at the public hearing at the Planning Commission. Councilman Campion: Right. Mayor Laufenburger: Any other questions? So we’re complying with federal regulations here. Kate Aanenson: Correct, yep and again it’s something that we just want to let the homeowner know that they may want to let their mortgage holder know that they’re no longer in. If they want to come out so that’s up to them to proceed. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. I’m going to ask that we deal with this with two separate motions since one requires a simple majority and the other a 4/5 so would somebody like to make the first motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’ll make the first motion. Mayor Laufenburger: Please do. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’d like to make the motion that the City Council adopts Ordinance 636 amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the City Code. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright we have a motion. Is there a second? Councilman McDonald: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, any further discussion? Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council adopts Ordinance 636 amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Laufenburger: That motion carries 5-0. Anybody would like to make the second motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I make a second motion. Mayor Laufenburger: Please do. Councilwoman Tjornhom: The City Council approves Summary Ordinance 636 for publication purposes. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 68 Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Is there a second? Councilman McDonald: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council approves Summary Ordinance 636 for publication purposes. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Laufenburger: That motion carries 5-0. Thank you Kate. ORDINANCE 637: AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE CHAPTER 4 CONCERNING FEES AND CHAPTER 5 CONCERNING ANIMALS. Mayor Laufenburger: Oh Mr. Sticha. This looks like your’s. Greg Sticha: It is Mayor. Mayor Laufenburger: Alrighty. Congratulations Kate that it’s not your’s. Greg Sticha: Thank you. Good evening Mayor and council. On an annual basis the City Council considers amending city ordinance section, or ordinance 4 which deals with fees in the City, all the City’s fees for various services provided in the city. So this evening we are, have in front of you the requested amendments to Ordinance 4 and then in this case we’re actually amending Ordinance 5 as well as it relates to a change in where one of those fees will now be I guess accounted for in Ordinance 4 rather than chapter, or Chapter 4 instead of Chapter 5. That would be with the said stable permit fee. That item’s outlined in my memo and the change in dollar amount as well is included in regards to that. In addition there’s some language clean up under kennel fee and as well the City is requesting, the City staff’s requesting a change in the peddler solicitor merchant registration fee. Change from $25 deposit to $100 fee for increased costs in staffing time to process those requests. Also as a part of that there is a long list of city utility amendments that is requested in this report. Those requests were a part of the City’s utility rate study that was presented to council about a month ago. As part of that annual rate study that the City conducts with Ehlers and Associates there was one significant change as compared to last year’s rate study. This year’s rate study is indicating the same amounts for operating rates of water and sewer have increases of 5 percent for 2019. However one item of change of note is the increase in the cost for the ongoing fee for the stormwater quarterly charge from $11.22 a quarter to $14.87 per quarter. The reason behind the change, the significant change in that fee has to do with a couple items. One, increased regulation as it relates to stormwater regulations. Two, we have an aging infrastructure. Stormwater system in the city similar to the discussion we’ve had in regards to the city’s street system. These storm ponds were built in and around the same time as the city streets so a number of in particular storm Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 69 ponds are now needing maintenance attention and the current reserves that are in the fund can’t afford to continue to provide additional storm pond cleanout’s that we would need to keep the system maintained at a level that makes it functional. So we are asking for that significant increase in the operating rate and the stormwater quarterly charge from the $11.22 to the $14.87 for that purpose. Connection fees are included in this ordinance as well for connecting to the city’s water and sewer and stormwater system. There are no changes as compared to last year’s rate study in all 3 utilities. The staff report and the report by Ehlers and Associates recommends an increase in the water connection of 3 ½ percent, 2 percent for stormwater and no change in the connection for sanitary sewer. So with that I have no additional information that has changed since our last work session meeting in regards to the utility fees. So I would at this point take any time for questions and then at the end of that ask for the attached ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the City Code and revising the fees for 2019 and Chapter 5 of the Chanhassen City Code revising stable permits be considered. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright thank you Mr. Sticha. Councilmembers any questions or comments? Councilmember, before you do that let me say this. For those of you that are observing this, every year we review the fees and that review includes an extensive study by a well versed consultant, Ehlers. Jessica, is that her name? Greg Sticha: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: And she comes in and she helps us plan for not only infrastructure changes that we anticipate in the future but even emergency situations that we need to be prepared for such as a reserve funds in our enterprise funds. This is handled separately from the levy in that utility bills do not go to all property tax, or excuse me all property owners. They only go to the people who actually use the utilities so the council has had extensive work session work on this and what you’re seeing today is a presentation of the final result that has really been directed to city staff by the council. Councilmember Ryan. Councilwoman Ryan: Thank you Mayor. I know we discussed it earlier. I want to thank Ehlers for putting together development fee comparison and I would just Mr. Sticha like to reiterate the need to review that in further detail in the next year to talk about the development fees and where we’re at. Greg Sticha: We’ll add that to the list. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Anything else council? If not. Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mayor I’ll make a motion. Mayor Laufenburger: Designated motion maker Mr. McDonald. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 70 Councilman McDonald: I make a motion that the City Council adopts the attached ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code revising the fee for 2019 and Chapter 5 of the Chanhassen City Code revising stable permits. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright thank you Mr. McDonald. Is there a second to that motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Councilmember Tjornhom. Any further discussion? Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council adopts the attached ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code revising the fees for 2019 and Chapter 5 of the Chanhassen City Code revising stable permits. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Laufenburger: That motion carries 5-0. ADOPT FINAL LEVY, 2019 BUDGET, AND 2019-2023 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP). Mayor Laufenburger: Is this your’s Mr. Sticha I hope? Greg Sticha: It is. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Greg Sticha: Again on an annual basis the City Council considers at the end of the year, this last meeting adopting a 2019 final levy, a 2019 general fund expenditure budget as well as special revenue fund budgets and adopts a 2019 CIP for years, in this case of 2019 to 2023. I’m going to go over a brief power point that breaks down kind of the budget process that we’ve had to this point in the year. We began the budget process in June and July with submittals by the various departments at the city. City Manager and myself reviewed that budget. Those budget requests in late July. We held a detailed budget meeting where we had the opportunity to review line items within each budget in late August. The preliminary tax levy was adopted for Truth in Taxation statement purposes on September 24th. For those that are not aware in the audience that preliminary levy adoption was used to create the Truth in Taxation statements that were sent to all of the homes and businesses in Chanhassen as well as in the entire state of Minnesota and at that point in time the City Council was establishing a levy to not increase before seeing a final levy this evening. Last week the City Council held a budget meeting to discuss the basis and information behind the preliminary levy and that was last December 3rd on Monday and this evening the City Council will adopt a final budget and tax levy to be sent to the county auditor for taxes payable in 2019. So briefly taking a look at the expenditures as compared to last year’s Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 71 budget. I’ve included a breakdown by government agency type at the City of Chanhassen. A couple of I guess you’d call changes within the expenditure side. There was one adjustment in the Community Development budget to have a position upgraded. That’s why you see the 9.1 percent increase in that particular budget. The remaining expenditure budgets, there were no significant changes between any certain departments. I will make of note the law enforcement contract with the Carver County Sheriff’s Office saw no change as compared to 2018 so you’ll notice only a 1.2 percent increase in the entire law enforcement fire budget in large part simply because the law enforcement contract proposed by the Carver County Sheriff’s Office had no change. On the revenue side I guess I would point out one significant change on the licenses and permit side. The City Council when setting the preliminary levy did decide to increase budgeted permit revenue for 2019 as compared to 2018. The baseline prior to this September was having licenses and permits at approximately the million 32 for the last 2 to 3 years. The baseline has changed over the last several years in that the base amount that we typically receive in building permit revenue is now a little closer to $950,000 per year or a million dollars per year so staff felt comfortable recommending that change in that budget line item so you’ll see the 9.7 percent increase in that revenue line item. There was some small adjustments also in other revenue. The most significant of which was an increase in cell tower rental revenue because of a few new cell tower rental contracts the City has in place for 2019. So what factors are a part of the 2019 budget? Some of these numbers are very familiar to City Council. For those of you that might be tuning in for the first time they might sound not as familiar. The Carver County Assessor’s Office notified the City that our new construction for taxes payable in 2019 was .97 percent which equates to roughly $106,000 in new property tax dollars that the City has available to itself to pay for certain services. The City health care contract did see an 8 percent increase as compared to the 2018 budget. I mentioned the $100,000 additional budgeted for building permit revenue. There is included a 3 percent cost of living and merit pay for all employees as well as additional market adjustments for department employees. I mentioned that there was no increase in the police services contract for 2019 and the crime prevention specialist position has been eliminated from the 2019 budget and those duties are planned to continue to be done by the staff that has taken over them since that position has been vacant. So taking a look at the levies are they compare to 2018. I have the preliminary levy listed as well as the staff recommended final levies for 2019. You’ll notice there are no changes. The general fund levy of $8,810,333 and all other levies remaining exactly the same as that were set in the preliminary levy back in September for a total increase in all levies of the .97 percent that I mentioned in the pervious slide. So taking a look at Chanhassen’s total levy versus new growth the past decade. You’ll notice that for the last several years the final levy has been set at or below new growth. In particular the last 2 years it’s been set exactly at new growth. In a couple years previous to that it actually was set slightly below new growth. Last time that the levy was set above new growth would have been 2008. As many homeowners and businesses received the Truth in Taxation statements last year, this slide just breaks down the change in market values. It also shows the impact that an average home would have based on the City’s final levy being exactly what their preliminary levy was. The most important thing to keep in mind on this particular slide is the average home in Chanhassen saw 7 ½ percent increase in it’s taxable market value for 2019 so when setting a final levy at new growth that becomes a key number to focus on. So if your home Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 72 in Chanhassen increased by less than 7 ½ percent in taxable market value it’s very possible you most likely saw a decrease in your city portion of your property taxes. If your home saw a increase in taxable market value of greater than 7 ½ percent most likely your home saw a increase in your city portion of your property taxes. On this slide Parcel 3 is as close as I could find to an average home in Chanhassen. This is an actual parcel in the city for taxes payable in 2019. The average home value in Chanhassen is $360,000. This particular home increased from $354,700 to a taxable market value of $381,100 or 7.4 percent and based on it’s Truth in Taxation statement it actually still even saw a very slight decrease in it’s city portion of it’s property taxes by just less than $2 or .2 percent. Taking a look at where your property taxes go. For those of you that own businesses or homes in Carver County and Chanhassen, roughly 20 percent of every tax dollar comes back to the city of Chanhassen. The remaining tax dollars of your total property tax statement go to the other jurisdictions in this pie chart. The school district being the largest of those and there’s relatively very little to no difference between the two school districts in Chanhassen. A percent or a percent and a half difference on that 44 percent. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council, just to add a little bit. This past week in the Tribune they had property tax increases for the 5 county metro area and our’s showed an increase but that was based on school district, county, special jurisdictions so unless somebody’s home went up by more than 7.5 percent we were not the factor that made that property tax increase shown as reported in the Star and Tribune. Greg Sticha: Each year we take a look at how the city compares to it’s KFS cities in terms of budgeted expenditures. This slide shows the 2017 to 18 general fund budgeted expenditures. The most reliable data that’s available on the Minnesota and current data that’s available on the State Auditor’s website. The difference between 2017 and 18 for the city of Chanhassen was 2 percent with the average of our KFS cities being 5.4 percent so significantly below average with only one or two other cities that saw smaller decrease, or increase in their general fund expenditure, budgeted general fund expenditures from 2017 to 18. So how does that equate to a per capita spending? Taking those same numbers and dividing it by the population of each of those jurisdictions you’ll note Chanhassen has the smallest per capita spending for 2018 as compared to all other 10 jurisdictions. The average being 581 and the next closest being 487, I believe which is Savage. Oh 458 Lino Lakes I’m sorry. They’re in alphabetic order. Also another item that we take a look at is where the in particular the preliminary levies were set in Carver County. So the information that each of the taxing jurisdictions, each of the cities in Carver County that were given to the county when they set their preliminary levies back in September results in these tax rates for 2019. Now assuming no changes in their final levies as compared to their preliminary levies, these would be the tax rates for taxes payable in 2019 in each of the cities. My assumption is that some of these jurisdictions could and probably will set their final levies lower and could result in a slightly lower tax rate but Chanhassen has the lowest tax rate in all of Carver County by a significant portion. Taking a look at how the city’s tax rate compares to jurisdictions in this particular case Hennepin County. The most current data I have on the other jurisdictions is 2018 so I included Chanhassen’s tax rate for 2018. Again very comparable. Very favorably. A number of these cities are similar in size and growth and others Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 73 are not. The average of all of these cities being 42.355. There are very few cities in the entire Twin Cities metro with a lower tax rate than the city of Chanhassen and setting a, even setting a final levy at what the preliminary was set at most likely will even make us among the lowest in the entire Twin Cities even further. So with that staff recommends this evening adopting a 2019 final levy at $11,019,868 and approving a total general fund expenditure of $11,395,360. It also approves the CIP for 2019 to 2023 in the amount of $104,527,245 and that I will take any questions. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright thank you Mr. Sticha. Council I’m going to ask us to do something. First I would like to have a motion in support of this and then once we have that motion in place we can begin discussion and possibly amendments to this so would somebody please make a motion to the effect of what staff is recommending? Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mayor I’ll make a motion that the City Council adopts a resolution establishing the 2019 final levy at $11,019,868 and approves total general fund expenditures of $11,395,306. It also approves the CIP for 2019 through 2023 in the total amount of $104,527,245. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright we have a motion. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you. Alright we have a motion and a second. Now is there any discussion on this motion? Councilwoman Ryan: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Laufenburger: Councilmember Ryan. Councilwoman Ryan: There are a couple points that I’d like to bring out on what’s being proposed here. Although the dollar amount is not as significant when you look at $11 million dollar levy the total amount for, as Mr. Sticha pointed out for market rate adjustments for department heads is consistent with an 8 percent raise and that is across the board for all department heads and I, I don’t support that. I’d be comfortable with lowering that amount but I, while we were presented with department head comparable salaries and we looked at both our KFS cities that we compare ourselves to as well as competitor cities we are, with the exception of the Assistant City Manager and Office Manager we are above average and with these raises presented we with our competitor cities which are 2 to 3 in some cases times the size of this city, we are now close to those salary amounts and I would rather have as I had stated earlier, I would rather have an increase of salary based on merit, not just market adjustments so that’s one issue or concern that I have as it relates to the final levy number. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 74 Mayor Laufenburger: Okay let me just pause you for a second. Do you want to express your views in the form of an amendment? Councilwoman Ryan: No. No thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Any other comments? And just council so that you understand what I’m trying to do here. I’m trying to, based on what I heard earlier I anticipate that there will be some modifications that would be requested to what staff is recommending so I wanted to have this baseline in place, and if you would like to make an amendment you’re certainly welcome to do so and we will act as a council on that amendment so I’m not discouraging any comments or any amendments. I’m just trying to establish an orderly process so we can handle them if necessary one by one so. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay Mr. Mayor I’ll take that back and I will make an amendment. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Councilwoman Ryan: I would like to make the amendment to the final levy and put the levy at $10,996,631 and how I arrived at that number is that instead of 8 percent across, 8 percent raises across the department heads, that would reduce it to a 5 percent across department heads which would equate to $23,237. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. I’m going to ask your indulgence here just a moment Councilmember Ryan. I’m going to modify your amendment to read that you would like to make an amendment that the current 8 percent market rate adjustments for department heads be lowered to 5 percent. Councilwoman Ryan: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: And appropriate action then subsequent to the levy. Is that acceptable? Councilwoman Ryan: Sure. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Is there a second to that motion? Councilman Campion: I second that. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright we have a motion and a second. Is that okay Mr. Knutson? Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. So we have a motion to reduce the market adjustment as proposed from 8 percent for departments heads to, across the board 5 percent. Is there any Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 75 further discussion on that? I think it’s important that we understand our role as a council and while I respect and acknowledge that Councilmember Ryan feels that 8 percent isn’t appropriate and 5 is, I believe that Mr. Gerhardt as city manager has identified what he believes he needs to, in order to manage the organization. A levy and a budget brings in anticipated dollars but it doesn’t necessarily mean that those dollars are spent. Not only with wages but also with other programs so I’m comfortable with an 8 percent across the board budget and giving Mr. Gerhardt the latitude to distribute that 8 percent budget as he chooses in order to manage his organization so any further discussion? Councilwoman Ryan: Yes please. Mayor Laufenburger: Go ahead. Councilwoman Ryan: And I would just like to further say that it was in good faith, recognizing that Mr. Gerhardt wants to get the numbers closer to what he feels is a fair market value and so while he is the city manager and manages those budgets it’s our responsibility to be good stewards of those dollars and I’m not comfortable with across the board 8 percent raises. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Any further discussion? Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman Campion seconded to approve an amendment shifting the current across the board 8 percent market rate adjustments for department heads to 5 percent. Councilwoman Ryan and Councilman Campion voted in favor of the amendment. Mayor Laufenburger, Councilman McDonald and Councilwoman Tjornhom voted in opposition to the amendment. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Mayor Laufenburger: That motion fails 2 to 3. Any further discussion on the budget? The budget. The levy or the CIP. Councilwoman Ryan: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Laufenburger: Councilmember Ryan. Councilwoman Ryan: Two things in the CIP. Mayor Laufenburger: Let’s deal with them one at a time okay? Councilwoman Ryan: I would like to amend the CIP by. Mayor Laufenburger: Is there an item for reference that you can use? Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 76 Councilwoman Ryan: Yes I would like to switch two pieces. I would like to switch, oh give me one second. ST038, the Lyman Boulevard project that is set for 2019 and move it to 2021. It’s the Lyman Boulevard improvements, Galpin Boulevard. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so you want to amend the CIP specifically Project ST038 which is currently scheduled for 2019 for a total amount of city contribution of $2.5 million. You want to shift that to 2021 for planning purposes. Councilwoman Ryan: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Is that an acceptable amendment? Councilwoman Ryan: That is. May I add one other or? Mayor Laufenburger: No we’ll deal with these one at a time. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, is that alright? Is there a second? Councilman Campion: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. ST038 which is the city’s portion of the contribution to the upgrade to Lyman. Lyman Boulevard is, Mr. Gerhardt why don’t you explain the joint powers agreement that we have regarding that if you don’t mind. Todd Gerhardt: Sure Mayor, City Council members. We entered into an agreement in the reconstruction of Lyman Boulevard and the reason for that Chaska, Chanhassen entered into an original agreement to keep our local tax dollars through tax increment financing working in Carver County so the first phase was for Chaska to upgrade Audubon from Lyman up to Pioneer and half of that road is basically in Chanhassen and Chaska paid for the Chanhassen portion of that. Since that time the agreements had been modified and due to the fact that the State changed the formula for tax increment financial and taking those revenues that cities had to pay for school district funding and so the agreements were modified where Chanhassen was still responsible to reimburse the County for the portion that Chaska upgraded on Audubon in Chanhassen where we would upgrade the portion of Lyman in Chaska. So we entered into an agreement to make those improvements to Lyman. And it was broken into three phases for Lyman. Phase 1 being between Galpin and Audubon where the high school sits. The next phase between Audubon and Powers. The last phase is from Galpin going west to State Highway 41. That is the project that Councilmember Ryan is talking about ST038. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay and this joint powers agreement stipulates that we will participate in the project but we will do so only when we give our municipal consent, is that true? Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 77 Todd Gerhardt: That is correct Mayor. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. So for planning purposes the amendment as it stands right now is to shift it from planning purposes for 2019 to 2021. Is there any other comment that would like to be made on that amendment? Okay Mr. Oehme I need you at the microphone please. Mr. Oehme you have this project ST038 funding from Chanhassen comes from two different sources. One is MSA sources and the other is reserves right? If this project is not done in 2019, if we plan for it to be done in 2019 but for some reason it is not done in 2019, do you have other uses for those MSA sources? For those MSA funds. Paul Oehme: We do Mayor but nothing’s programmed for 2019 so I can’t use those funds in 2019. We can plan for additional projects in 2020. Mayor Laufenburger: Using those funds. Paul Oehme: Using those funds but. Mayor Laufenburger: But we don’t lose those funds if we don’t do the project in 2019. Paul Oehme: Exactly. Mayor Laufenburger: It’s just they remain available to us at for some future date. Paul Oehme: For a future project correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, okay. Alright. Councilwoman Ryan: And Mr. Oehme isn’t it also true that by having Lyman Boulevard as well as the Lake East project both in 2019 that we are borrowing against and go into the negative on our MSA fund? Paul Oehme: That is correct. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Paul Oehme: Right. Mayor Laufenburger: Have we done that in the past Mr. Oehme? Paul Oehme: We have. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 78 Mayor Laufenburger: Good, thank you. Any further discussion on the movement of this project ST038 from 2019 for planning purposes to 2021. Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman Campion seconded to approve an amendment shifting Project ST038 in the CIP for planning purposes from 2019 to 2021. Councilwoman Ryan and Councilman Campion voted in favor of the amendment. Mayor Laufenburger, Councilman McDonald, and Councilwoman Tjornhom voted in opposition to the amendment. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Mayor Laufenburger: That motion fails 2 to 3. Alright is there any other comments or suggestions? Councilwoman Ryan: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Laufenburger: Councilmember Ryan. Councilwoman Ryan: The last one for me here is Project PK&T-99, the Nature Preserve trail for $200,000. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Councilwoman Ryan: I would like that removed. Mayor Laufenburger: Can you make that in the form of a motion or amendment please. Councilwoman Ryan: I would like to propose that we remove PK&T-99 in the amount of $200,000 in the budget. In the CIP. Mayor Laufenburger: So you want to remove PK&T-99 from the current CIP. Councilwoman Ryan: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright is there a second? Councilman Campion: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Alrighty, we have a motion and a second. Just for familiarity this is, Mr. Oehme are you familiar with this trail? Paul Oehme: A little bit yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Who wants to speak to the definition of this trail? Mr. Hoffman would you just come in and talk about this please since it sits in your CIP. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 79 Todd Hoffman: Be glad to. That section of trail is bound to a development contract with the Arboretum Business Park and so at the time that that lot is developed our development contract says that we shall enter into an agreement and pay for that trail to be constructed with that lot or with that building. Mayor Laufenburger: So for the people who are sitting on the edge of their seats at home waiting to find out about this could you just describe the location of this trail that does not yet exist? Todd Hoffman: There’s currently a building there in the north lot which is Mamac building. Mayor Laufenburger: Give us streets. Todd Gerhardt: Century Boulevard. Todd Hoffman: Yeah Century Boulevard. Mayor Laufenburger: Century Boulevard. Todd Hoffman: And the Mamac building. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay which is between Norex or 82nd Street and Coulter Boulevard right? Todd Hoffman: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: So this is on the west, excuse me the east side of Century Boulevard. Alright. Todd Hoffman: And there’s a trail system planned as a part of the Chanhassen Nature Preserve. That master planning the trail and this would be the, this is the main trail and then there is currently an off shoot that is built but this is designated as the main trail. Primarily to reach over to the Lifetime Fitness group as they come out and conduct their activities. And other residents in the area. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Thank you Mr. Hoffman. Any further discussion on PK&T-99? Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman Campion seconded to approve an amendment removing Project PK&T-99 from the 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in the amount of $200,000. All voted in favor except for Councilman McDonald and Councilwoman Tjornhom who opposed the amendment. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 80 Mayor Laufenburger: Alright that motion carries 3-2. Alright, is there anything else? Council. So we have an amended motion so far. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Oehme I would like to bring up ST012 just for comment if you don’t mind. Paul Oehme: Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: Two weeks ago at the council meeting when there was a discussion about an alternative revenue source to support the pavement management program. You presented a slide showing anticipated street work and MSA work. You don’t need to bring it up at this time but at that time if any of our residents were paying attention there were a number of projects on there that were anticipated based on the assumption that franchise fees would be approved as an alternative source for sustaining revenue. I reviewed that document against ST12 and I think it’s important for the residents to know and understand that ST12 which is the current plan for street improvement for the next 5 years, at one time included the following streets but now are not included in the CIP. For example Leslee Curve and the Glendale area was scheduled for 2021. It’s no longer in the CIP. Fox Hollow reconstruction scheduled for 2023 is no longer on the CIP. Kurvers Point originally scheduled for 2020 is now scheduled for 2021. Stone Creek originally scheduled for 2020 is now scheduled for 2021. Lake Lucy Road east of Powers, that goes over toward I think it’s Vineland and Trandahl Circle was scheduled for 2020 is now for 2021. Brenden Court was scheduled for 2020 is now no longer on the CIP. Near Mountain Boulevard, Trappers Pass, Cascade, Oxbow was scheduled for 2022 is no longer on the CIP. Lake Riley Boulevard was scheduled for 2022. It is no longer on the CIP. Stoughton Avenue in our southern boundary was scheduled for 2022 is no longer on the CIP. Longacres, Hunter and Fawn Hill was scheduled for 2022. No longer on the CIP. Meadow Lane, which is north of 7 up by Cathcart was scheduled for 2020 is now scheduled for 2021. MSA roads, Market Boulevard, 78th Street to Highway 5 was originally scheduled for 2021 is no longer on the CIP. And Pleasant View originally scheduled for 2022 is no longer on the CIP and Minnewashta Parkway originally shown as a 2019 is now scheduled for 2020. Did I miss any of those Mr. Oehme? I saw you were following along. Paul Oehme: Trying to yes. I think you touched on them. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. I just, it’s important that the record reflect that those streets that were anticipated to be worked on are no longer being worked on. I’m not suggesting any modification to ST12 at this time unless the council would like to suggest a modification. Okay. Alright. Any other comments or questions from the council? We have a motion on the floor at this time recommending the adoption of the 2019 final levy at $11,019,868. Approving a total general fund expenditure of $11,395,360 and approving the CIP for 2019 to 2023 in the total amount of $104, now will be 327,245 based on the amendment to remove the $200,000 for PK&T-99. That’s the motion that’s on the floor. Resolution #2018-65: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council adopts a resolution establishing the 2019 final levy at $11,019,868; Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 81 approves total general fund expenditures of $11,395,306; and approves the CIP for 2019 through 2023 in the total amount of $104,327,245. All voted in favor, except for Councilwoman Ryan and Councilman Campion who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Mayor Laufenburger: That motion carries 3-2. That concludes our new business for the evening. Thank you council. Thank you staff for the work that you’ve done, especially you Mr. Sticha pulling all of these elements together. Appreciate your work. And you have funding for next year. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: ANNOUNCE RESULTS OF CITY MANAGER’S 2018 PERFORMANCE REVIEW. Mayor Laufenburger: Well our next item on our agenda is the, let me just make sure I say this accurately. This is council presentations, item H-1. This is the announcement of the results of the City Manager’s 2018 performance review. Each year it is the City Council’s responsibility to review the performance of the City Manager who is accountable directly to the council. It’s my privilege to share the results of the 2018 performance evaluation for City Manager Todd Gerhardt. To begin each year the City Council working with the city staff establishes annual goals and strategies. These goals then become the work plan that City Manager Gerhardt operates against throughout the year. Working with his department heads and City Council Mr. Gerhardt guides and coordinates these strategic initiatives along with the normal operating of all aspects of city services for the community. The City Council met in executive session on November 26th and then again on December 3, 2018 to review Mr. Gerhardt’s performance for this past year and to provide our observations and comments with him directly. On behalf of the entire council let me offer comments from these discussions. The City Council rated Mr. Gerhardt’s performance for 2018 as exceptional indicating that he consistently achieves the highest level of performance in his duties and often achieves above the level of expected or anticipated results. Some of the key highlights of this past year include Mr. Gerhardt continues to guide the Chanhassen to the lowest tax rate in the county and the third lowest in the combined counties of Carver and Hennepin. Mr. Gerhardt’s dogged perseverance on the Highway 101 up the bluff project over the last 3 years finally paid off. In June Governor Dayton signed a bonding bill that included $9 million dollars to fill the funding gap on the 101 project. Mr. Gerhardt knew who to reach out to and on whom he could rely to make this project the most important to our legislators and supporters. Additionally Mr. Gerhardt provided leadership in responding to citizens concerns and following through with council members who drew attention to the items. His willingness to reach out to other experts when he didn’t have the answer was also critical. It was critical to his humble approach to getting things done. Next his job knowledge and experience make him a huge asset to our community and also a frequent life line to administrators and managers in surrounding jurisdictions. He is highly regarded by his peers. Continued leadership, we also acknowledge continued leadership in the development and the retention of exceptional department heads at Chanhassen. A significant achievement for Mr. Gerhardt that results from a strong advocacy for responsible development in the community is Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 82 measured by the investment that various entities make in our community. In 2018 the economic development in Chanhassen as measured by the value of permits applied for for residential and commercial and reconstruction or additions through 11 months is $110 million dollars. That represents a 70 percent increase over all of last year. Job well done Mr. Gerhardt and city staff. Clearly economic growth is vibrant in our community. Lastly your stable, calm and responsive approach to the challenges that we face as a city and as a council is a solid anchor of leadership in this developing community. Your advocacy isn’t for a pre-determined option but for a fair and well considered review by your staff. I’m reminded that you don’t get a vote. You work in support of your citizens and your council. This year Mr. Gerhardt completed his 32nd year with the City of Chanhassen and has been city manager since 2001. His knowledge, experience and wisdom serve the citizens, the professional staff and the City Council in a most effective manner. His judgment, his courage, integrity, and concern for others are the cornerstone of his leadership. Congratulations on a great year Mr. Gerhardt. Based upon this evaluation and our discussions at this time I move that the City Council approve the performance evaluation and a salary action for 2019 commensurate with the average increase in the budget for regular employees for 2019 which was approved earlier his evening. I would ask for a second to that motion. May I have a second? Councilman McDonald: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Is there any discussion or comment the council would like to add? Mayor Laufenburger moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council approve the performance evaluation and a salary action for 2019 commensurate with the average increase in the budget for regular employees for 2019. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Laufenburger: That motion carries unanimously 5-0. Mr. Gerhardt would you like to make any comments? Todd Gerhardt: I’d like to think I did it all by myself but. Mayor Laufenburger: You didn’t? Todd Gerhardt: I didn’t. You know in the budget I wanted to reflect the benefits of the great department heads we have. The staff that they manage and the support that I get from the Mayor and City Council. We may not all agree and we challenge each other on our decisions and that’s what makes a good outcome and I appreciate your feedback and look forward to goals for 2019 at our upcoming January 5th meeting which will be the next City Council meeting for this group and I’d also like to take this opportunity to thank Mayor Laufenburger for his 4 years as mayor of Chanhassen. He’s served this community well. He not only served as the mayor. He served as a City Council member prior to that. He served on the Planning Commission. He currently Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 83 serves on the Transportation Advisory Board. Currently serves on the Southwest Transit. He’s been the leader of the Carver County Leaders Group as their leader for a year and participates in the Easterly Carver County Leaders Group and also the Minnetonka Leaders Group. And I can’t even mention the number of voices he is for in this town. Girls softball. Boys baseball. Red Birds and so he gives his time to the school districts. Reads to the youth. On behalf of everybody here Denny we want to thank you for your outstanding service these past many years and it’s greatly appreciated. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright thank you Mr. Gerhardt. I want to say it’s been a very long meeting and I want to thank all of you, especially the council for your patience but before we adjourn this evening I just have a few closing comments. First of all I want to begin by expressing my sincere appreciation to the citizens of Chanhassen for giving me the incredible privilege and honor of serving you for the last 11 years. As I consider my involvement during this time my heart swells with gratitude for the opportunity to have a front row seat as together we have cheered for Chanhassen. I want to say a special thank you to Debbie Turner Larson and to Tim Erhart for inviting me and challenging me to consider public service as a path towards both significance and reward. I’m going to say thank you to the members of this City Council with whom I have served in elected leadership. Those of you that are present here this evening. Also Councilmember Vicki Ernst and Mayor Tom Furlong. Each of you motivated me to look deeply into the issues that we tackled together. This taught me that the respectful expression of differing views on any issue will most often produce more constructive dialogue and a stronger and better outcomes. Next I want to say thank you to all the citizens who stepped forward to volunteer for commissions, for advisory boards, task forces, programs or celebrations. Your willingness to sacrifice your time for the greater good of this community is a perfect illustration that civic engagement is at the foundation of the character and the quality of life for which Chanhassen is best known. To City Manager Todd Gerhardt and Chelsea Handler and the entire city staff, employees, my thanks for your commitment and dedication to serving this community with professional excellence. From the department heads and administrative staff, public works to building department and so many, many more, as I observe your daily activities I see a willingness to do what is needed to find the best outcome for the community. To my wife Ruth and our family, I thank you for accepting that the choices and sacrifices which I made were your sacrifices as well. I offer a special thank you to my critics and to my supporters, both locally and from around the world. Your interaction with me over these 11 years, whether on the street, at City Hall, at your front door, or through email or phone conversations has taught me that every issue, every impact, every circumstance is unique for each of you. Now there’s one aspect of being mayor for which I am most grateful. I’ve had the privilege of publicly recognizing, appreciating and honoring many individuals in our community. Rotary Club Distinguished Service Award winners. District 112 Educators of the Year. Girl Scout Gold and Boy Scout Eagle achievers. Academic and athletic winners at both Minnetonka and Chanhassen schools. Retiring employees and firefighters and many more. It really has been pure joy for me to look for and find the good in all these people young and old alike. Four years ago when I took the oath to become your mayor I shared my thoughts about the goodness of this community. How goodness resides in our churches. In our schools. Our civic organizations. Veterans groups. In Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2018 84 our neighborhoods and most importantly in our families. I also spoke about the character of the community. The quality of life that we all enjoy and how it shows up at the best of times and in times of our greatest need. I also talked about our vulnerability to the threat of a natural disaster or a widespread medical catastrophe and how a personal tragedy could affect a family, a neighborhood or an entire region. We have been reminded that we are not insulated from circumstances like those that we hear about elsewhere. We are not immune to acts of terrorism and violence or to the manifestation of greed or the lust for power that we see in other parts of the region. Unfortunately our tolerance for the subtle demonstrations of disrespect and the almost imperceptible erosions of the pillars of our character puts the strength of our community at risk. For I believe that our character strength is revealed through actions of integrity, civility, moral courage, respect, fairness, generosity and most importantly character is shown in how we treat others. So to the current and future council and to the citizens of Chanhassen here is my Christmas wish list. That each of you will seek wise counsel. That your opinions will be respected and valued by others. That you will be treated fairly b y your fellow citizens. That you will seek first to understand and not to be understood. That you will seek first to be interested and not so much to be interesting. That you will seek first to encourage others and not to be affirmed by others. That you will seek solutions when agreement is out of reach. And that as a council your differences will refine you and not define you. And I hope that when you’re done that you can confidently say that you have found goodness, you have found joy, and fulfillment in your service just as I have. Thank you and Merry Christmas. May we have a motion to adjourn. May we have a motion to adjourn please? Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mayor before I do a motion to adjourn I did want to say something. I’ve known you now for 8 years plus the 2 years you were on the Planning Commission. It’s been a real honor to serve with you. It was really interesting on, when we were on City Council together with Mayor Furlong. It’s been very interesting with you as mayor on this council and I just wish you the best of luck going forward and basically I’ll see you around on the ballpark and with that I’ll make a motion to adjourn. Mayor Laufenburger: Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom 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 10:38 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim