Loading...
City Council - 06/16/2015 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2015 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Council Members Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher Wickstrom, Ron Case, and Kathy Nelson CITY STAFF: City Manager Rick Getschow, Public Works Director Robert Ellis, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Council Recorder Jan Curielli I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Tyra-Lukens called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Council Member Butcher Wickstrom was absent. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. OPEN PODIUM INVITATION IV. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS A. CERT CSU RECOGNITION Assistant Chief Rik Berkbigler gave an overview of the Community Emergency Response Team Community Service Unit(CERT CSU)program. He noted the Community Service Unit program was just started this year. They enlisted 17 members from the community of different cultures to serve on the CSU. The enlistees completed a six week training program for the CERT CSU program. He reviewed the roles played by the CERT and by the CSU program members. Tyra-Lukens thanked all of the volunteers and said she was excited to see this one-of-a-kind program. She asked if there will be a way to let other communities know about the program because she has had inquiries from other community leaders. Assistant Chief Berkbigler said they have already started to do that. B. TOUR DE TONKA UPDATE Jenny Bodurka, representing the City of Minnetonka Community Education, gave a PowerPoint presentation about the 2015 Tour de Tonka event and a review of the 2014 event. She noted this is the tenth anniversary for the event. In 2014 there were 3000 riders who took part in the event which offers various distances as CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16, 2015 Page 2 options on routes that travel through many surrounding communities. They partner with the ICA food shelf for the event. C. DONATIONS 1. Donation from Clare Bridle (Resolution No. 2015-55) Lotthammer said this is a donation of$250 from Clare Bridge to be used for the 2015 Senior Housing Tour and the Fall Lunch event. MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Aho, to adopt Resolution No. 2015-55 accepting the donation in the amount of$250 from Clare Bridge to be used toward 2015 Senior Housing Tour and Fall Lunch event. Motion carried 4-0. 2. Donation from Lions Tap (Resolution No. 2015-56) Lotthammer said the Lions Tap is donating a total of$1,400 to be used for 13 of our 2015 Special Events. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Nelson, to adopt Resolution No. 2015-56 accepting donations in the amount of$1,400 from Lions Tap to be used towards 2015 Special Events. Motion carried 4-0. 3. Donation from Miracle Ear (Resolution No. 2015-57) Lotthammer said this is a donation of$500 from Miracle Ear to be used towards the 2015 Senior Awareness Dinner and Holiday Lunch. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Case, to adopt Resolution No. 2015- 58 accepting the donation in the amount of$500 from Miracle Ear to be used towards the 2015 Senior Awareness Dinner and Holiday Lunch. Motion carried 4-0. 4. Donations for July 3 & 4 (Resolution No. 2015-58) Lotthammer said these are donations totaling $2,150 from several Eden Prairie businesses for the Hometown Celebration on July 3 and 4. MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Aho, to adopt Resolution No. 2015-58 accepting the donations towards the Hometown Celebration on July 3rd and 4th in the amount of$2,150 from various Eden Prairie businesses. Motion carried 4-0. 5. Donation of Free Little Libraries (Resolution No. 2015-59) Lotthammer said representatives of Girl Scout Troop 14286 are here tonight to present their donation of four Free Little Libraries. He said the girls planned how to complete the project and also worked with senior CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16, 2015 Page 3 volunteers at the Senior Center to build the boxes. He noted the books will be incorporated into the summer camps and playground programs that will be held in the neighborhood parks where the libraries will be located. Larissa Judt, troop leader, described the Free Little Library program and thanked the Parks & Recreation Department for their help with the project and the seniors who helped build the boxes for the libraries. Several members of the troop described what they learned from the project. Tyra-Lukens asked if the books available in these boxes will be focused on children's books. Lotthammer said that was correct. Tyra-Lukens noted this project and the CERT/CSU volunteer program are good examples of how our residents come together in community here in Eden Prairie. She noted Eden Prairie recently received two awards that included recognition for our community involvement: the niche.com award which put Eden Prairie in the top 30 communities in which to live in the United States; and the Star Tribune list of best places to work in Minnesota where Eden Prairie received recognition as one of the top 150 workplaces in the State. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Nelson, to adopt Resolution No. 2015-59 accepting the donation of Little Free Libraries from Girl Scout Troop 14286. Motion carried 4-0. V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Getschow added Item VIII.Q. distributed on goldenrod paper. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Nelson, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried 4-0. VI. MINUTES A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2015 MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Aho, to approve the minutes of the Council workshop held Tuesday, May 19, 2015, as published. Motion carried 3-0-1,with Case abstaining. B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2015 MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Nelson, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, May 19, 2015, as published. Motion carried 4-0. VIL REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS VIIL CONSENT CALENDAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16, 2015 Page 4 A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. APPROVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 7-2015 AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 11.55 RELATING TO LAND ALTERATION, TREE PRESERVATION AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT,AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2015-60 APPROVING PUBLICATION OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE C. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2015-61 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF BLOSSOM HILL (WAGNER PROPERTY) D. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RES SPECIALTY PYROTECHNICS TO PROVIDE FIREWORKS AT THE 4'rH OF JULY HOMETOWN CELEBRATION AT ROUND LAKE PARK E. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HTPO FOR ENGINEERING, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND SURVEY SERVICES FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO MILLER PARK FIELD 8 PLAZA AREA AND PARKING LOT F. APPROVE SECOND AMENDMENT TO GRANT PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR USE OF AN ADDITIONAL $15,000 IN CDBG FUNDS TO REHABILITATE LUANN'S PLACE G. APPROVE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES FOR BLOSSOM HILL (WAGNER PROPERTY) H. APPROVE INSTITUTION COMMUNITY WORK CREW AGREEMENT L RECEIVE PETITION AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2015-62 AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE LIONS TAP AND ITS ADJOINING PARCEL J. APPROVE SUBMITTAL OF ANNUAL REPORT TO THE MPCA FOR THE PHASE II NPDES STORM WATER PERMIT PROGRAM K. AWARD CONTRACT FOR STABILIZATION OF THREE SECTIONS OF PURGATORY CREEK TO MINNESOTA NATIVE LANDSCAPES L. AWARD CONTRACT TO VALLEY-RICH CO., INC. FOR ANTLERS RIDGE TRAIL DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT M. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SEH FOR NOTERMANN PUBLIC UTILITY FEASIBILITY LEVEL DESIGN SERVICES N. APPROVE MNDOT WORK ORDER FOR FUNDING OF BRIDGE PAINTING PROJECTS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16, 2015 Page 5 O. APPROVE QUOTE FOR LOGIS TO REPLACE NETWORK EQUIPMENT AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER P. DECLARE OBSOLETE EQUIPMENT AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO DISPOSE OF PROPERTY Q. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2015-66 AUTHORIZING SIGNING AUTHORITY ALLOWING ACCESS TO MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT ACCESS (MGA) ACCOUNTS FOR ELECTRONIC COURT RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Case, to approve Items A-Q on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-63 APPROVING ISSUANCE BY CITY OF DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA, OF ITS CHARTER SCHOOL LEASE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2015A AND SERIES 2015B (EAGLE RIDGE ACADEMY PROJECT) Getschow said in June, 2013, the City of Deephaven issued bonds for the purpose of financing the project costs on behalf of Eagle Ridge Academy Affiliated Building Company. The City of Eden Prairie did not issue the bonds because of planned debt issuance in 2013 which would have affected the City's ability to maintain bank qualified bonds and a lower interest rate. The City of Deephaven now plans to issue bonds for the purpose of refinancing the project costs on behalf of Eagle Ridge Academy Affiliated Building Company. Because the project is located in Eden Prairie, Federal regulations require the City hold a public hearing and to pass a resolution approving the issuance of bonds. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Aho, to close the public hearing, and to adopt Resolution No. 2015-63 approving the issuance by the City of Deephaven, Minnesota, of its Charter School Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2015A and Series 2015B (Eagle Ridge Academy Project). Motion carried 4-0. B. APPROVE DRAFT LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND APPROVE SUBMITTAL Getschow said the Local Water Management Plan (LWMP) has been updated to meet the requirements of the water management plan updates that were completed by the three local watershed districts. Ellis gave a PowerPoint summary of the draft LWMP. He said the plan is the major planning document for all of the water resources in Eden Prairie, therefore it is unique to Eden Prairie. He described the regulatory framework for the water management which included City ordinances, the Metropolitan Council, the MPCA, the Minnesota Department of Health, the DNR, and the three watershed districts CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16, 2015 Page 6 within the City of Eden Prairie. He reviewed in detail the goals and policies established by the plan. He also reviewed the implementation plan and the capital improvement and funding plan incorporated into the document. The plan includes the water resources inventory and an assessment of problems, issues and regulatory requirements. He said the City will fund the implementation plan primarily from the Stormwater Utility fees, along with some funding from the watershed districts and other sources. He noted the City has been very successful in getting substantial grant funding to supplement other funds, and we plan to continue to apply for other grants. Ellis said the plan recommends the City adopt ordinances identifying us as the permitting agency for the rules which would include the variance process. That would enable the City to continue to be the "one-stop shop" for those projects that need permits and variances. Taking on this responsibility aligns with our customer- focused model and is within the suite of services we provide. It fits very well within our organization. There may be additional resources needed to do the review of permits and inspections, but that would be funded primarily by permit revenue and the stormwater fund. He reviewed the next steps in the process which include taking public comment tonight and adopting the plan and submitting it to the Watershed Districts and to the Metropolitan Council. If the plan is approved by them, we would implement it. If it is denied, then we would weigh the alternatives and consider the comments made by the other governmental bodies. He noted the plan was presented to the Conservation Commission and their feedback was incorporated into the draft document. Case asked what would happen if one of the watershed districts denied approval but the other two approved it. Ellis replied we would probably go back to the table and talk it out, depending on the nature of the comments made about the denial. The plan must be approved by all three watershed districts as well as the Met Council. Aho asked what authority the three watershed districts have to approve the plan. Ellis said State statute requires they either approve or deny the plan and must provide comments on what should be changed if they deny it. Aho asked how much change to our plan was made in order to accommodate the changes in Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District's (RPBCWD)plan. Ellis said a lot of the RPBCWD changes were related to water quality for new development and redevelopment. Aho asked if there were any changes included in their plan that would impact the authority of the City to be the rule making body for permitting. Ellis said the City would not be able to change the rules adopted by the RPBCWD. We would only review and assure compliance to their plan. Aho said his understanding was that we, as a City, have the right to manage the process and to be the authority in permitting as long as we have a qualified water management plan. Ellis responded we lose the ability if we do not have a qualified plan. The watershed district's amendment of their plan starts a clock for all cities to update their own plans to be in compliance. We found out that our plan was not in compliance on a technicality and that took away our grace period. Aho said that means the RPBCWD plan supersedes because we have exceeded the grace period. Ellis said that was true. Aho said that was very disappointing to him. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16, 2015 Page 7 Nelson agreed and noted the Council had been told way some time ago that we had a qualified plan. She hoped we would take steps not to let that happen again. Bob Adomaitis, representing the Southwest Metro Lake Association, congratulated staff on development of the LWMP. He supported the City's decision that no new Memoranda of Understanding nor no new Joint Powers agreements are anticipated. Having one set of rules allows consistency of regulation across all parts of the City. He would like to clarify whether the watershed districts' rules for land alteration are adopted in entirety or only where gaps exist. Ellis said this plan provides guidance for not implementing a rule if doing so would be so egregious it doesn't make any sense. It is a way to say the intent of the rule is good, but it is not practical to carry it out. He said we went through a process to get to this point. One year ago the RPBCWD started the process, and there have been a number of resolutions from the City that were forwarded to them. At the end of 2014 they approved their rules. There is a grace period where, if we have an approved water management plan, those rules don't apply. After the fact we found out there was an amendment to the RPBCWD plan two years ago that required us to amend our plan. We didn't notify the State we believed our plan was in compliance, so we lost the two-year grace period because our plan was not submitted. Rosow said his memo to the City Council in 2014 set out the provision of State statute that states a watershed district within the metropolitan area may directly regulate use of land in the watershed by adopting rules. They may do that only if: 1) the local government does not have a properly approved and adopted local water management plan or has not adopted the implementation program described in the plan; or 2) an application to a local government for a permit to use or develop land requires amendment to or a variance from a local water management plan or the implementation plan of the city; or 3)the local government has authorized the watershed district to issue permits for land use and development. So as long as we have an approved plan and an approved implementation plan and so long as a request does not require a variance from the approved plan or the implementation plan, we have the authority to enforce our rules and the watershed district does not have the authority to regulate the use and development of land. The difficulty is that the watershed district gets to decide whether our LWMP plan and our implementation plan are in conformance with their water management plan. Our LWMP speaks very specifically about goals and objectives, and the implementation plan sets out what we will implement and how we will finance it. If we approve this plan and send it on for approval, we will need to start working on any amendments to our ordinances needed to be in conformance with the RPBCWD plan because of the short timeline. Case said we understood if we had rules our rules would supersede. But now we hear we don't get any control over the rules and can only implement. Rosow replied we have been consistent that they get to enforce their rules only if we don't have an approved LWMP. The difficulty is that there will probably be an argument over the issuance of variances. He noted the City has asked for his opinion about that, and his opinion is that, so long as our LWMP is consistent with theirs and so long as we have a LWMP and an implementation plan and a process for issuing variances, we CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16, 2015 Page 8 are able to issue variances. It may be an area subject to negotiation, but the City has the experience in handling land management so we believe we should be the ones to do that. Case asked about how other communities and other watershed districts are dealing with this. Rosow said some of the other watershed districts are enforcing their rules and the cities are allowing them to issue permits. Getschow said with the understanding that a watershed district has the ability to issue rules, the City Council adopted 35 comments a year ago. At the end of 2014 when RPBCWD adopted their rules, there were some outstanding issues from the City's perspective. He asked Mr. Ellis to comment on those. Ellis said the City started out with a number of comments as did other cities. The RPBCWD made some significant changes to their proposed rules. There were 7-10 comments we felt still needed to be adjusted, but the rules were adopted as is. He believed the rules that were adopted are much better than those they started with. Nelson asked if our plan has to go with the rules that are the most restrictive for the entire City. Ellis said that was correct and our goal was to have uniformity between Riley Purgatory Watershed District and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District plans. The Lower Minnesota Watershed District has very few restriction while the rules for the RPBCWD are the most restrictive. Nelson asked if our plan would have different provisions depending on where the resident lives. Ellis said the Riley Purgatory rules would apply in that jurisdiction and Nine Mile's rules would apply in their jurisdiction. That is nothing new. Our goal was to try to provide some consistency, but we were not successful in doing that. Mr. Adomaitis asked at what point in time in the process did staff become aware we did not have an approved plan. Rosow said it was discovered shortly before the March City Council meeting. At that time we discovered we did not have a plan that was in conformance because there was no grace period. We thought we had several months left in the grace period but that was not the case. Getschow noted there have been three or four projects that have come through where the applicants are going to the Watershed District because we learned we could not process those applications. John Tyler, 17574 Belfast Cove, said there is different language and different interpretation in the water management issue and noted State statutes 103B and 103D would apply. Last September the Southwest Metro Lake Coalition asked for a legal opinion from the City of Eden Prairie on the difference between 103B and 103D. The question is what is the governing statute for the issue. The Minnesota Supreme Court said the city ordinances did suffice as a water management plan, and he asked for a written legal opinion on that. Grace period or not, we have City ordinances in place. Case said sections 103B and 103D are very similar and asked if there is a reason to look at the two statutes. Rosow said his September 2014 opinion that was included in the City Council's meeting packet gave his opinion on that. The Council packet is available to the public. As part of the research for that opinion, staff spent a lot of CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16, 2015 Page 9 time reviewing 103B and 103D and trying to understand the purposes and the differences between them. He understood the point of view Mr. Tyler is presenting but he disagreed with it. He also disagreed with what he heard about the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District case. He reviewed that case and determined it was decided the watershed district did not take the property of the owner and decided the City could and was authorized to specially assess the property. The other case presented in the recent memo he received from Council Member Aho was a reference to the Pawlenty case when there was a non-allotment of funds, and the Minnesota Supreme Court said the government could not non-allot funds in the manner in which it was done. That opinion does not address watershed districts. His analysis of 103B and 103D leads him to believe the reference in the statute that refers back to the powers is the appropriate interpretation. There is no court case that has decided this, but you need to give construction to a rule that makes sense and that does not entirely do away with a provision the legislature has adopted. He believed the most reasonable interpretation of the statute is the one he gave tonight- -that the watershed districts have authority to regulate land use if one of the three conditions he outlined occurs. Case said it seemed that we are retaining significant power to issue variances. We are in a better position to issue variances because we know our city and know the variance structure. He would like to think we would do all we could to continue to preserve that right in the variance process. Rosow suggested an addition to the language of the draft LWMP in Section 6.4 that would add a new category called "Implementation Plan" to the table at the end of the section: Category: Implementation Plan Identified Problems & Issues: Proceed with Implementation Plan, amend city code, including city issuances of permits and authority to grant and deny variance request. Identified Solutions: City Council action to adopt Amendments to city code including a process consistent with Watershed District Plan for City to issue permits and to grant and deny variance requests Aho asked if our only remedy is to go to court if we add that language and the Watershed District comes back and says they want to continue to approve variances. Rosow said there are other areas in the LWMP where we refer to the granting of variances, but this language would reiterate it at the end of the document. If they disagree, then a District Court action is the most likely forum. He believed we could also appeal to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, but they would probably stand behind their watershed district and would not be an impartial forum. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16, 2015 Page 10 Nelson said we talked about recreational use of lakes being important, and at previous meetings with the RPBCWD it was their sense it was water quality that mattered and they did not consider recreational use a piece of that. She asked if there is any way we can try to enforce maintenance of both water clarity and recreational use of lakes. Ellis replied one of our goals and policies in the LWMP was to address that balance of water quality and recreational use. He believed our plan successfully addresses that issue. We have an argument that recreation is just as important, and our plan sets that out as a goal. Nelson said both of them are important. Aho said he missed the fact that we did not have a qualified plan and thought we had two years from the time the Watershed District adopted their rules. To him, it sounds like we are at the point where we don't have any time and are beyond our grace period. He didn't think we can afford to delay the process. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Aho, to close the public meeting; to adopt the Draft Local Water Management Plan; to approve submittal of the Draft Local Water Management Plan to the three watershed districts, the Board of Water and Soil Resources, Hennepin County, Department of Natural Resources and Metropolitan Council; and to incorporate into the plan the comments made by City Attorney regarding Page 6.4 of the plan. Motion carried 4-0. X. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Case, to approve the payment of claims as submitted. Motion was approved on a roll call vote,with Aho, Case, Nelson and Tyra- Lukens voting "aye." XI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. APPROVE FIRST AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCE NO. 8-2015 AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 4 RELATING TO TAP ROOMS, GROWLER LICENSES AND ADMINISTRATIVE CLARIFICATIONS AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2015-64 APPROVING PUBLICATION OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE Getschow noted there was quite a bit of discussion at the May 4 Council meeting about several changes we planned to make to align our code with State code and how we weight the rules related to the ratio of food to liquor sales for our restaurants that serve liquor. The main conversation piece was related to taprooms and growler sales. The consensus at the meeting was that introducing tap rooms into Eden Prairie was a positive issue but there were some concerns about food. Since that discussion, we have learned that food is not allowed to be made or sold in a tap room in Hennepin County; however, people can bring in food to the taproom. If a tap room is serving food, then it is classified as a brew pub. The other issue concerned the sale of growlers. We have researched that issue and learned that most tap rooms do rely on the sale of growlers. In checking with all other municipal liquor operations in the metropolitan area, five or six of them also have tap rooms in operation. Those municipalities do not have concerns about the sale of growlers nor CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16, 2015 Page 11 has the sale of growlers had an effect on the municipal liquor operations. Tyra-Lukens noted this issue was discussed at length at our last meeting. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Case, to approve first reading of an ordinance amending City Code Chapter 4 relating to taprooms and growler licenses and administrative clarifications, which first reading occurred on May 5, 2015; and to approve the second reading of Ordinance No. 8-2015 amending City Code Chapter 4 relating to taprooms and growler licenses and administrative clarifications; and to approve the summary ordinance and Resolution No. 2015-64 for publication. Motion carried 4-0. XII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS XIII. APPOINTMENTS A. STUDENTS ON COMMISSIONS MOTION: Nelson moved to appoint to the Conservation Commission: Rachel Buckland, Emily Corpuz and Jenna Horner; and Case moved to appoint to the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission: Luke Holzworth and Michael Richter; and Aho moved to appoint to the Heritage Preservation Commission: Natalie Higgins, Zeinab Hussen and Alexander Modeas; and Tyra-Lukens moved to appoint to the Human Rights and Diversity Commission: Tala Alfoqaha, Turner Gunderson, Sarah Mason, Tanvi Mehta, and Adrienne Retzlaff; and Nelson moved to appoint to the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission: Bridget Dillon, Emily Harvey, Lincoln Piper and Stefan Wenc. Motion seconded by Case. Motion carried 4-0. Tyra-Lukens noted the applications for Students on Commissions positions were accepted from mid-April to the end of May. An orientation session will be held in August. XIV. REPORTS A. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2015-65 Approving Plans and Specifications and Order Advertisement for Bids for the West 70th Street Extension Improvement Prolect CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16, 2015 Page 12 John Newton, Assistant City Engineer, gave a PowerPoint presentation about the proposed West 70th Street Extension improvement project. He said the Engineering Division has prepared plans and specifications for the extension of West 70th Street to Flying Cloud Drive with the assistance of SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Construction of the project is scheduled to occur between August and October of this year. Plans for the project include a 2-lane roadway with sidewalks, bike lanes, and enhanced streetscaping. The West 70th Street Improvement project includes two segments that have been individually identified in the Capital Improvement Plan and which will result in a continuous West 70th Street roadway connection between Flying Cloud Drive and Shady Oak Road. The west segment is the extension of West 70th Street from its current terminus westerly to Flying Cloud Drive. Design of this segment is complete and construction is scheduled to occur between August and October of this year. Newton described the process used to involve the stakeholders in the design of the roadway. An open house was held in December, 2014. He described the project components and reviewed the layout. He reviewed the project costs and funding mechanisms, noting in May the City was awarded a $470,000 Transit Oriented Development(TOD) grant from Hennepin County that will allow enhanced streetscaping, lighting and multi-modal design elements to be incorporated into the project. Nelson asked if the lighting will be LED lighting. Newton replied we specifically requested LED lighting be included in the bids. Aho noted there is a need for this extension if the SWLRT goes in that area, but is not needed should the SWLRT not be constructed. Newton said one of the issues is that it is a large area with not many streets that connect through the area. This extension would offer multiple choices to get through the Golden Triangle area. Tyra-Lukens asked if the County TOD grant has a timeline. Newton said the timeline sunsets in 2017. We would expect to apply as much money from the grant as we can to the first segment, but we might have to ask for some extension on the money if there is any left over. MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Nelson, to adopt Resolution No. 2015-65 approving plan and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids for West 70th Street Extension Improvement Project. Motion carried 4-0. F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XV. OTHER BUSINESS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 16, 2015 Page 13 XVI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Nelson, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Mayor Tyra-Lukens adjourned the meeting at 9:01 PM.