Move on to prove agenda. Council members may add items to the agenda for discussion purposes or staff direction only. The council um will not normally take official action on items added to the agenda. Anyone have anything to add? All right, can I get a motion? I'll I'll second. All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I. I. The motion passes. >> We'll move on to consent agenda. These items are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a council member so requests. In which event, the item will be removed from consent and placed elsewhere on the agenda. Does anyone have anything to remove? I'd like Oh, go ahead, Mark. >> I was going to say 5.7. >> Yep, that's what I was going to add to it as well. Okay, 5.7. That's what I was going to do, too. Anything else? >> Nope. >> Okay. All right, can I get a motion for everything else? >> So moved. >> I'll second. All right, I have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I. >> I. All right, the motion passes. So, 5.7 approval resolution 2026-65. So, this site plan request to convert a single-family residence to assembly use. Alec is not here? >> I will be answering any questions that the council has. >> It was just curious. A little more explanation. I'm maybe I missed it last time. What is it? Could you just kind of summarize what all is and um I was think one specific question was some of the traffic on to the county road and how that's handled and apologize if I missed it somewhere else, but I was just looking for a recap on that. >> Yeah, Madam Mayor and Council. So, an assembly use in this case would refer to a religious assembly. Um assembly uses are defined in our code. Religious assembly uses are defined in our code as a permitted use within the residential zoning districts. Um so, in this circumstance, they're converting a single-family home into a religious use um as part of the site plan process that is reviewed by the county. Um there are uh plans to reconstruct Broxton Lane in the next year. Um so, at that [clears throat] time, it will connect to sewer as since the utilities will have to come across Broxton. Um they are planning for it to be a small gathering space as a current single-family residence with the intention of the future potentially making it into a larger assembly of a full redevelopment of the property. At that time, it may trigger the need for turn lanes. Um but early on in the process, the applicant as well as staff were in contact with Hennepin Transportation Department and based on the overall size and the occupancy load, it didn't trigger turn lanes at this time. >> Do you Do you have another question? >> Nope, I'm good. >> Okay. Do you know what um occupancy would trigger like that rebuild? Like how much it would hold right now versus having to rebuild? >> So, with the current plans that they have for the building itself. They will have to do full permits. Essentially, they're gutting the inside of the house to bring it into compliance. Assembly uses require set um life and safety measures to be put in place such as fire sprinklers, things of that nature. Uh so, they are doing quite a bit of building. So, it's really up to the architect to determine the occupancy. And they will have to And it's also number bathrooms, things of that nature. Uh right now, they're looking at probably at most up to 20 people for the current facility, but it could get if they reconstructed it, obviously, it depends on what that final site plan looks like. >> Thank you. Maybe I missed it. Was there anything about signage and things like that? >> There Our sign code does >> Okay. >> cover different religious uses or residential uses. So, they would have to comply with the sign code and do sign permits for any signage that they would want to add. So, a lot of the different religious institutions throughout the city, although they're institutional nature, they a lot of times their zoning may be R1, R2, wherever what similar to what the surrounding uses are, similar to what schools have. So, a lot of our elementary schools are technically zoned R2 or R1 in nature. >> And then, what about like the septic system? Is there an idea? I know there was a condition listed about septic, but >> Yep, in the resolution, you'll see condition number six complies directly to the septic system. Um Hennepin County does our septic permitting. Uh so, we do have a requirement that they receive the proper inspection from Hennepin County uh services prior to the issuance of a building permit. Um this has been reviewed with the county. Um so, the septic system would be seen as um not in compliance, but at the same time the county did outlay that they would have to disconnect to city services within 3 years. They and the county was the one who was comfortable with that. So, they're looking to connect within the next year with the Brockton project not to have to close down Brockton twice. >> And what about like the parking lot is going to be gravel? Is there any give if that's being paved or what? >> Parking lot will be gravel initially with it being paved within the next year as well. >> Okay, thank you. >> They're ideally looking to have plans for a full redevelopment within the year. That's very funding focused. Um and obviously that's why they wouldn't want to install full gravel lot or full paved lot just to rip it out within 6 months. Um so, if they can't get to that funding level, then they'll do all the necessary steps within that year period. >> Is there as far as the assembly activity, is it as often as they want? Is there any restrictions on kind of what goes on there? >> Madam Mayor and Council, there our code does not directly restrict what goes on in there. Based on what they're say stated to us during the numerous meetings that we've had leading up past probably year or so. Um it's usually just one larger one per week and then occasional drop-ins during the week of maybe two people. >> And this went through our planning commission? >> Madam Mayor and Council, that's correct. It went to the planning commission on July 6th, of which recommended approval of the item. >> Just to clarify, oh it's a permitted use so they didn't have a public hearing? >> I'm just curious, Brett, from your perspective, was there any concerns or things that came up that you guys asked to be addressed and they either were or weren't? >> Madam Mayor and Council, I would say no. I believe they followed the process as best as they could based on our code. Obviously, their preference would have been to just occupy and use the assembly as the current home until they got to the point where they can fully redo and build their own building. Um but the applicant has followed the process of doing the site plan process, submitting the building permit to make it the full sprinkler, every life safety, ADA issue, being compliant with that. Um so they have been very amenable to all of the items that the city has brought forward to them. Um and I would say the connection to utilities was a long discussion to get to that point of I think they would have preferred to just stay on septic and well, but obviously with utilities nearby, we would prefer to see that connection made within that year. >> So, you said they preferred to be on septic and well. Wouldn't the county though, didn't they state that it has to happen within 3 years? >> Yeah, Madam Mayor and Council, that the county did say that as well, but obviously we're one of that to be before that 3-year mark. >> Answer with regards to Brockton, that would be as that thing gets designed or they look at volumes there at the driveway and there's not even a shoulder there to turn off to the right. Much less a left turn in there, right? >> Madam Mayor, council members, you are correct in that project on Brockton Lane is programmed for next year. But it it's been programmed for next year since 2024, so uh we've been meeting with the county on it and they are planning on doing some improvements, uh widening out a little bit in some places, adding a turn lane. Um and they're also talked about now adding a trail on the west side from South Diamond all the way up to um County Road 141. We're just not Uh I guess I'd go ahead and make the motion to approve resolution 2026-65. >> I'll second that. >> All right, I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. >> Aye. >> All right, we have no public hearings tonight, so we'll move on to general business. Number 7.1, approve items related to amending section 125-84, swimming pools, hot tubs, and spas. >> All right, Madam Mayor and council, the item before you is amendments to our city code 125-84 related to swimming pools. I'm just going to do a brief overview of the actual ordinance itself on the proposed changes. Feel free to answer ask any questions as they come up. Um this is a staff-driven proposed amendment, mostly to bring us into conformance with state statute, and following some um discussions with our building official on some challenges that we're having with swimming pools and permitting as it currently sits today. Uh so, really when you're looking at the proposed ordinance, you'll see the striked lines and underlines for underlines being what's added, striked lines being for what's being removed. Um probably first and foremost, current code just references swimming pools. The proposed ordinance references swimming pools, hot tubs, and spas, um which is really aligned with what state statute has. Uh really getting into the bulk of it, the performance standards is where you start to see the more um larger changes. Um so, defining where it can be located and if there's a septic system on site, and then looking at the placement and setbacks. The way our current code is written, it's 5 ft from a setback marker. So, it gets a little confusing to residents that it's not the property line. So, it's 5 ft from the property line is what is being proposed, and it also clarifies that it's not just the pool structure itself, but also the surrounding concrete pads that may be added. That's been a big area of confusion for uh residents as they are exploring putting in pools. Um it clarifies that I should also note the actual pumps or functioning parts of the pool would have to be a minimum 10 ft. It clarifies that it can't be under um any utility lines. And I think the biggest item is really regards the safety standards and the fencing requirements. Uh so, you'll see there's more definition to what it means for the actual gate itself around the pool, as well as what that height of the fence would be required. So, as our current code sits, we do have a fencing requirement for in-ground pools. Um and then for above-ground pools, there is a fencing requirement unless it's 4 ft or above, then you just have to have the removable ladder taken out when it's not in active use. Uh so, we just really define that within the code. Um so, the item before you tonight has two different motions requested, the first being the ordinance itself, and then the second being a resolution to authorize the summary publication. With that, I can answer any questions Council may have. >> For this situation like this, do we just do anything with the people that are out there with no fence? >> And Madam Mayor and Council, so they would have already had to do fencing requirements. So, if they already are in violation, that's something that code enforcement could theoretically uh review with them, do the warning letter, and then potentially citations if needed. Um really, the fencing requirement is a safety issue for surrounding properties and animals to ensure that they don't fall into the pool. With that being said, there's also some provisions within state statute and within this code that they can have a retractable cover that also covers that same piece. So, we'd really have to review what their current pool is like, but it usually it's done on a code enforcement basis. That's how most cities handle that that provision. But, they do need a permit to put in the pool, so we should know if they have a fence or not, since that should be defined on their site plan. In our current code already requires the fence as well. So, if they didn't have a fence now, they've already been in violation of our code. >> Any questions about this? Do you see any problem? No, it's all primarily just bringing it up to state statute, correct? >> Madam Mayor and Council, that's correct. There is Right now, our code is not in conformance with state statute requirements. So, especially when you're doing permitting, that leads to issues because we're not in compliance with our state building code, is what you approve building permits based off of. So, this brings us into conformance with the state statute. >> That makes sense to me. >> Brad, are there any um like when they fill and empty the pools at the beginning and end of the season, are there any special requirements there, like where they can discharge over land or I I may There's probably no problem there. I'm just kind of curious more than anything. >> Yeah, Madam Mayor and Council, I'm not too sure on that. I would assume there's MPCA requirements and DNR requirements to ensure that they're not draining into a wetland area or any ecologically significant areas. Um but I'm not positive on that. We can definitely find that out and let the council know. >> I was more curious. >> So, I'll make a motion to approve items related to amending section 125-84 swimming pools, hot tubs, and spas. And then, do I have to list each ordinance or >> No. >> So, ordinance 2026-13 and resolution 2026-67. >> I'll second that. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. Aye. The motion passes. All right. 7.2, approve change orders for the Fletcher Bypass. >> City is the lead on the project in collaboration with the county. And the construction project itself includes water up at the intersection of Territorial Road, on a multi-use trail and the new Trail Road 3. Here's the project limits, as you can see, south of Territorial. A little bit of background on this particular project. We had open bids on August 10th. And 10 bidders at the time. >> Um and on August 26th, the City Council awarded a contract to C.S. McCrossan in the amount of $6.124 million. At the time, the engineers estimate was about $7.5 million. At the time of the bid award, the total estimated project cost was $10.1 million, which was a $24.3 million which was a 24.3% reduction from what we had budgeted in the capital improvement program, which was 13.35 million. If you recall back in June on June 9th, the city council did approve change order number one for $58,000. And that increased the contract to $6.182 million. So, for change order number two, the amount is $360,924.20 cents. And this is for additional subgrade correction south of the railroad tracks down to Territorial Road. We had to disc the existing material to a depth double what we had planned in in the construction. We had to install geotextile fabric on the entire section of roadway. And we had to supplement the drain tile in the roadway connections. We had originally had drain tile at the low points. We ended up putting it along the entire section of roadway between the railroad and Territorial Lane. And then, if you recall back in May 8th in the weekly update, I did include it this item and said that this particular change order would be coming. And at the time, we had a rough order of magnitude of about $400,000. So, it's right in that that range. Change order number three is $47,330.66. And that was to address existing drain tile in the farm fields and making sure that it crossed the roadway appropriately. It also included um some drain tile along, if you recall, we had to add a distribution slab. That was the $58,000 to put above the gas main so that um the large gas main so that we wouldn't disturb that. And so, again, that's $47,330.66. Change order number four is $169,350. And that was for additional what we call muck excavation or removing unsuitable materials that we found in the ditch up by County Road 81 and also at the railroad tracks. So, it had to be removed and we had to replace it with suitable material and again this was in the May 8th weekly update. So, combined change orders two through four amount of $613,604.86 bringing the contract to $6.796 million. The cumulative value of change orders one through four is $671,604.86 increasing the amount by 10.97% but that just as a reminder we started out at 24.3% under budget. Um so, the cost for these two change orders will be split between Hennepin County and the city. And some drone photos from June of this year uh the first picture on the left is the um Fletcher Bypass at Territorial Road Roundabout. And based on our construction weekly construction meeting today their estimated completion of that roundabout is the end of July, July 31st. The second photo on the right is uh Fletcher Bypass um as it connects back down to Fletcher Lane south of Territorial. And that estimated completion is on July 23rd of this year. And these photos are from actually June 25th. And the next photo you'll see is the entirety of Fletcher Bypass on the bottom of the screen you'll see that's County State Aid Highway 81, Momberg's Nursery on the uh right side um Enviro Cam on the left side. The railroad tracks running through the middle of the photo and then as you can see between Territorial and the railroad tracks, it is already paved and all the curb and gutter is in. So, they are proceeding rather smoothly on the project in total. So, the requested council action is a motion to approve change orders two, three, and four for Fletcher Bypass City Project 1409. >> So, the amounts in the report are the total amounts or is that our half? >> Mayor and council members, that's the total amount. >> [clears throat] >> So, the financial impact going to get a credit later or how does that work? >> Mayor and council members, when we true up the project at the end of the project, so we've already been reimbursed by Hennepin County. We can get reimbursed up to 95% of the original contract award amount. And then at the end of the contract, we true everything up and then we split it back up again. >> The 6 million for McCrossan, how much contingency is in there? >> Mayor and council members, on a federal aid project, we cannot include contingency. So, we kind of build it as we go. >> Yeah, I would just say one comment. Thanks Don for keeping such good track of this. I think this is not unusual for a road project to encounter this stuff and as you mentioned, you don't have contingencies built in, but we all know it's kind of a discovery process when they go out and start moving dirt, and where you found it isn't totally shocking where it would be, and the costs seem to be in line with what it what a reasonable amount would be, so this all seems well in order to me, and not surprising on a project of this magnitude, so. Are we past kind of any other unknown soil discovery? I mean, have they excavated everywhere else on the project and all that they won't have other soil issues? >> Uh Madam Mayor, Council members, there we're anticipating at least three more change orders, not particularly related to poor soils, uh but when the contractor excavated our stormwater quality pond, the material that they excavated to meet the grades that were designed exceeded what the consultants estimated quantity is, so we'll have a change order for that. We also had to change some conduit sizing going under the railroad tracks. And then we ended up doing a little additional um sand uh subgrade correction in areas around the Territorial Roundabout, and where we built in the stub intersection. I can go back to the photo. See if you can see that intersection right about here. We ended up having to build in some extra sand material in here. And so those change orders will be forthcoming. >> Doran, how about I know on 81, isn't the idea to close that now rather than build it in parts? >> Yeah. Madam Mayor, Council members, um it is looking like probably the month of August that the County Road 81 Fletcher Bypass intersection will be closed. Territorial the Territorial Roundabout has to be open before they can close that intersection. But the county has given preliminary permission to close it entirely. Um McCrossan has committed to doing it in 21 days. >> There be a cost I I don't know how you look at it. I mean for them there's probably an advantage to get out there and do it, but now they have traffic control and other things to consider. Is that just part of the deal? I mean a kind of a trade-off then? Is that how you're looking at it? >> Um Mayor Council Members, that is correct. Um obviously it's going to save them time and time is money in the contractor world, so there should be a savings to offset any additional cost that that closure would require. >> And the extent of that traffic control I remember when you brought this up last time we were a little concerned about where the traffic's going to go and are they going to wind up coming through downtown area and if that's going to exacerbate things further? Did you guys look into that at all? >> Um Mayor Council Members, we were actually working with MnDOT to use I-94 as the um detour route. >> 94? Oh. That'll It'll be signed to send them over to 94. >> Correct. >> And okay, so 21 days closed on 81. So it should be open in September-ish. >> Correct. >> They They got signs up already saying that? I can't remember. >> Um Mayor Council Members, they did not. They did have signs up and then because of timing and getting permissions, we ended up taking them down. They'll have to resign it then 2 weeks before the closure. >> How's the railroad bend? Are they on track to put the crossing up? They're They put the signal up on their tracks, right? >> Um Mayor Council Members, they have been modestly responsive. They are working on that crossing right now. Are they Uh they they went away for I don't know, 7 or 10 days, but they've been back. They do have an issue with internally with supplies, um trying to keep adequate amount amount of supplies on their site, but um they're working on it. >> Thanks. >> [clears throat] >> That Is that uh that crossing, so that'll be a We'll hear the horn on that one? >> Mayor, council members, I didn't quite understand. >> We'll hear the the rail the >> quiet zone >> the railroad is going to be They'll be signaling blowing their horn for that? >> They will have the ability to, yes. But we have the ability to request it will be set up to request a quiet zone if we so choose. >> I mean, there's not a lot around it, but that carries I don't know. We had, you know, We were we're making during COVID we were making a pretty good effort to try to quiet things, but I don't know. What's all to it? I suppose we should look at what's all involved and if now is the right time to act on it. Consider it. >> I think it is. The curb and gutter will be set up. You kind of got to barrier channel the traffic, and I think that's Is there a center median door, and that's what >> kind of the key thing is. >> Along with the gates, right? >> Madam Mayor, council members, it is set up a quiet zone with the median and with the curb and gutter and with the dual gates. So, each crossing both north and south will have gates and whistles or gates and bells. >> But, there's a separate process to kind of designate it as a quiet zone, which we probably got to do after the project, I'm guessing. >> Correct. Which we should be set up. They're not going to have to go out and do anything on the ground. It's more of a procedural thing. >> It's built that way. >> Very procedural. >> Yeah. >> Is the trail across the tracks, too? >> Madam Mayor and Council members, yes, it is. >> Within the gate or is it have a separate gate? >> Uh that is within the gate. It is. >> Okay. When the overall project, is that next summer? I mean, when you plan to be done done? >> Madam Mayor and Council members, the completion date, I believe, is November 15th. >> They're still >> And they are tracking. >> Yes. Oh, great. >> So, with our quiet zone request, would we wait until after it's completed or does it make sense to start that before they're complete? >> Madam Mayor and Council members, the railroad's process is they have to do an inventory of what's in place to determine whether it meets the um partial train whistle ban. So, right now, if they went out there, they'd say it wouldn't meet the criteria. >> Okay. >> I'll make a motion to approve change orders numbers two, three, and four for Bletcher Fletcher bypass, city project number 1409. >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I. >> I. All right, the motion passes. If no other business, correspondence and reports are online, and we are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.