Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout02.07.2017 City Council Meeting PacketMEDINA AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 7, 2017 7:00 P.M. Medina City Hall 2052 County Road 24 Meeting Rules of Conduct: • Fill out and turn in white comment card • Give name and address • Indicate if representing a group • Limit remarks to 3-5 minutes I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the January 17, 2017 Regular Council Meeting V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Ball Field Rental Agreement with Orono Baseball B. Resolution Authorizing Publication of Ordinance No. 607 by Title and Summary C. Appoint Ella Kingsley as Youth Member to the Medina Park Commission D. Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding the Contract for the Water Tower Rehabilitation Project E. Resolution Denying Preliminary Plat for Proposed Subdivision by Ellis and Nancy Olkon at 2362 Willow Drive F. Resolution Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Woodridge Church at 1542 County Road 24 G. Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Map to Rezone 1542 County Road 24 to Rural Public/Semi-Public H. Resolution Authorizing Publication of the Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Map to Rezone 1542 County Road 24 to Rural Public/Semi-Public I. Resolution Approving a Lot Combination for Woodridge Church at 1500 & 1542 County Road 24 J. Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit Amendment & Site Plan Review for Woodridge Church K. Resolution Approving an Interim Use Permit for Woodridge Church to Permit the Continuation of a Residential Use on the Site L. Approve Construction Cooperative Agreement No. PW 67-36-16 Highway 55 and CSAH 115; County Road 116; C.P. 0918 VI. COMMENTS A. From Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda B. Park Commission C. Planning Commission VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Conservation Design-PUD Ordinance Discussion B. Wally Marx — Conservation Design Subdivision PUD Concept Plan — 2500-2900 Parkview Drive VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan Update IX. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT X. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS XI. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS XII. ADJOURN Posted 2/1 /2017 Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Medina City Council FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator DATE OF REPORT: February 1, 2017 DATE OF MEETING: February 7, 2017 SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Report V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Ball Field Rental Agreement with Orono Baseball — Orono Baseball has requested use of the baseball field in Medina Morningside for week night practices and games in May and June. This will be the second year in a row contracting with Orono Baseball. Staff recommends approval. See attached agreement. B. Resolution Authorizing Publication of Ordinance No. 607 by Title and Summary — The City Council approved the ordinance amendment regarding the Park Commission at the January 17th meeting, but did not have four members present to approve the resolution authorizing publication of the ordinance by title and summary Staff recommends approval of the resolution. See attached resolution. C. Appoint Ella Kingsley as Youth Member to the Medina Park Commission — The City has received our first applicant for a youth member on the Park Commission. City Council liaison to the Park Commission Cousineau, Park Commission Chair Lee and staff liaison to Parks Gallup interviewed Ella Kinsley on January 18th and recommends her appointment to a one year term. Staff recommends approval. No attachments for this item. D. Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding the Contract for the Water Tower Rehabilitation Project — Staff is requesting formal bid approval and awarding the contract for the water tower rehabilitation project. The bids were considerably lower than the engineer's estimate. WSB and staff think the contractor is qualified for the project, but may require slightly more inspections. Staff recommends approval. See attached resolution and bid results. E. Resolution Denying Preliminary Plat for Proposed Subdivision by Ellis and Nancy Olkon at 2362 Willow Drive — The City Council directed staff to draft a resolution denying the preliminary plat request at the January 17th meeting. Staff recommends approval of the resolution denying preliminary plat. See attached resolution. F. Resolution Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Woodridge Church at 1542 County Road 24 — The City Council directed staff to draft the Comprehensive Plan Amendment at the January 17th meeting. Staff recommends approval. See attached resolution. G. Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Map to Rezone 1542 County Road 24 to Rural Public/Semi-Public — The City Council directed staff to draft the ordinance amending the official zoning map to rezone 1542 County Road 24 to Rural Public/Semi-Public at the January 17th meeting. Staff recommends approval. See attached ordinance. H. Resolution Authorizing Publication of the Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Map to Rezone 1542 County Road 24 to Rural Public/Semi-Public — The City Council directed staff to draft a resolution authorizing publication at the January 17th meeting. Staff recommends approval. See attached resolution. I. Resolution Approving a Lot Combination for Woodridge Church at 1500 & 1542 County Road 24 — The City Council directed staff to draft a resolution approving a lot combination for Woodridge Church at 1500 & 1542 County Road 24 at the January 17th meeting. Staff recommends approval. See attached resolution. J. Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit Amendment & Site Plan Review for Woodridge Church — The City Council directed staff to draft a resolution approving a conditional use permit amendment and site plan for Woodridge Church at the January 17th meeting. Staff recommends approval. See attached resolution. K. Resolution Approving an Interim Use Permit for Woodridge Church to Permit the Continuation of a Residential Use on the Site — The City Council directed staff to draft a resolution approving an interim use permit for Woodridge Church to permit the continuation of a residential use on the site at the January 17th meeting. Staff recommends approval. See attached resolution. L. Approve Cooperative Agreement No. PW 67-36-16 Highway 55 and CSAH 115; County Road 116; C.P. 0918 — Staff has been working with Hennepin County staff to draft a Cooperative Agreement for the Highway 55/CR 116/CSAH 115 intersection reconstruction project. Staff has reviewed the information and it is consistent with 2 Council's approval of the project at the November 15, 2016 Council Meeting. Staff recommends approval. See attached agreement. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Conservation Design-PUD Ordinance Discussion — The City Council discussed the Conservation Design-PUD ordinance at the December 20, 2016 work session and discussed potential changes to more clearly link the conservation objectives of the ordinance to the flexibility permitted under the ordinance. At the January 3 meeting, some Council members requested additional information related to how the maximum density permitted under the ordinance was determined. City Planner Dusty Finke has included the information requested by the City Council. Staff is requesting City Council discussion and policy direction. See attached report. B. Wally Marx — Conservation Design Subdivision PUD Concept Plan — 2500-2900 Parkview Drive — Wally Marx has requested review of a PUD Concept Plan for a Conservation Design subdivision at his property at 2500-2900 Parkview Drive. The applicant proposes to divide three lots totaling 89.75 acres into six single-family residential lots and proposes to place 69.61 (11.47 acres buildable) into conservation easements. See attached report. VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan — The City Council reviewed the draft 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan update at the January 3 meeting. Further follow-up and information was requested at the meeting. Staff has provided the requested information. Following review of the Plan at the Council Meeting, the City Council can direct staff to make any desired changes. When review is complete, the following motion would be in order: See attached memo and plan. Recommended Motion: Move to direct staff to route the 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan to affected jurisdictions for their review and comment. XI. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the bills, EFT 003996E-004024E for $1,537,467.59, order check numbers 045443-045504 for $312,556.19, and payroll EFT 507684-50709 for $49, 540.88. 3 INFORMATION PACKET • Planning Department Update • Police Department Update • Public Works Department Update • Claims List 4 DRAFT 2 3 MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 2017 4 5 The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on January 17, 2017 at 6 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Mitchell presided. 7 8 I. ROLL CALL 9 10 Members present: Cousineau, Pederson, and Mitchell. 11 12 Members absent: Anderson and Martin. 13 14 Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, City Attorney Ron Batty, City Engineer 15 Jim Stremel, City Planner Dusty Finke, Planning Consultant Nate Sparks, Public Works 16 Director Steve Scherer, and Chief of Police Ed Belland. 17 18 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (7:00 p.m.) 19 20 III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA (7:00 p.m.) 21 The agenda was approved as presented. 22 23 IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7:00 p.m.) 24 25 A. Approval of the January 3, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 26 It was noted on page three, line 23, it should state, "He noted the substantial reduction in 27 residential development from the previous draft of the Comprehensive Plan, to bettcr 28 match the reduction that was made in the system statements from the Metropolitan 29 Council what the City has planned for 10 years ago within the existing Comprehensive 30 Plan." On page six, line three, it should state, "...previous plan. She stated this seemed 31 to be an advocacy piece." 32 33 Moved by Cousineau, seconded by Pederson, to approve the January 3, 2017 regular 34 City Council meeting minutes as amended. Motion passed unanimously. 35 36 V. CONSENT AGENDA (7:02 p.m.) 37 38 A. Appoint Elizabeth Weir to the Medina Park Commission 39 B. Approve Amended and Restated Grounds Services Agreement with the 40 Hamel Athletic Club 41 C. Resolution 2017-04 Accepting Resignation of Amanda Staple 42 Johnson stated that staff appreciates the new leadership and working relationship with 43 the Hamel Athletic Club. He also thanked Amanda Staple for her service. 44 45 Moved by Pederson, seconded by Cousineau, to approve the consent agenda. Motion 46 passed unanimously. 47 48 VI. PRESENTATIONS (7:03 p.m.) 49 50 A. Senator David Osmek Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 1 January 17, 2017 1 Senator David Osmek stated that he is open to any comments the Council may have. 2 He stated that the legislative session has started, and after the elections he is now in the 3 majority. He stated that he is the Chair of the Energy and Utilities Committee and 4 provided a brief overview of the items the Committee will be reviewing, including the 5 renewable development fund. He stated that he will also serve again on the 6 Transportation Committee and Local Government Committee. He noted that he is able 7 to provide a different perspective as he is the only Committee member that has also 8 been a City Council member under the Metropolitan Council. He stated that he is also a 9 member of the Capital Investment Committee. He stated that Highway 12 continues to 10 be a priority for this district and explained the process for obtaining funds for improving 11 other highways in the district. 12 13 Cousineau stated that this area continues to have problems with power outages. 14 15 Senator Osmek stated that he will remind the group that the problem still exists. 16 17 Mitchell stated that there was a changing in the guard both on the state and national 18 levels, while the City Council has remained the same. He hoped that the legislature 19 would have the same good fortune to manage the state in a reasonable and effective 20 manner. 21 22 Senator Osmek agreed noting that he would like to focus on the budgets, get things 23 done, and finish the job. 24 25 VII. COMMENTS (7:13 p.m.) 26 27 A. Comments from Citizens on Items not on the Agenda 28 There were none. 29 30 B. Park Commission 31 Scherer reported that the Park Commission will meet the following night to consider park 32 dedication for the Wally Marx concept plan, park dedication review of the Ellis and 33 Nancy Olkon plat request, review the parks and trails plan, and discuss goal setting. 34 35 C. Planning Commission 36 Planning Commissioner Murrin stated that the Planning Commission met the previous 37 week and appointed Janet White as Chair and Todd Albers as Vice Chair. She stated 38 that the Commission held three public hearings, the first to review the Concept Design 39 PUD for Wally Marx and was supportive. She stated that the Commission supported the 40 applicant keeping the location of lot three the same to preserve the garden. She stated 41 that the Commission also supported the preserved land being maintained in the same 42 high quality that Mr. Marx has. She stated that the Commission also held a hearing for 43 Woodridge Church and recommended approval. She stated that the Commission held a 44 public hearing on the Olkon request and recommended unanimous denial, noting the 45 discrepancy in the proposed lot sizes under the suitable soils requirement in the rural 46 residential zoning district. She stated that the applicant asked if the plat could simply be 47 done but explained that the plat would then create two buildable lots which is not 48 possible under the suitable soils requirement. 49 50 VIII. NEW BUSINESS 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 2 January 17, 2017 1 A. Woodridge Church Expansion — 1500 County Road 24 (7:17 p.m.) 2 Sparks noted that this action would require six approvals in order to allow for the 3 expansion requested by Woodridge Church. He explained that the purpose of the 4 addition is to add some classroom space as well as lobby and restroom areas to the 5 church. He provided background information on the agreement that was reached in the 6 past regarding potential expansion. He explained the different actions which would be 7 needed for the expansion including a lot combination that would require rezoning and a 8 Comprehensive Plan Amendment of the residential site that is required to be combined 9 under the agreement. He stated that in 2013 approvals were given to allow the church 10 to come back for the expansion request that meet the items within the agreement. He 11 provided additional details on the lot combination and the Interim Use Permit that would 12 allow the existing home to remain on the site for a set amount of time. He noted 13 potential turn lanes that could be required upon further expansion in the future, should 14 the church build out to full capacity. He provided additional details on the proposed 15 expansion of classrooms, restrooms, and lobby space. He explained how the capacity 16 numbers are determined. He reviewed the parking regulations and how that is 17 calculated. 18 19 Mitchell asked if there is additional space available for future parking if that is needed 20 under the agreement. 21 22 Sparks replied that the church does have sufficient space for additional parking, should 23 that be necessary, under the agreement. He reviewed the six actions that would be 24 needed for this request including the lot combination, Comprehensive Plan amendment, 25 rezoning, Interim Use Permit, Site Plan review, and Conditional Use Permit. He stated 26 that the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval subject 27 to the conditions noted in that staff report. He highlighted the language regarding 28 parking and the location of a secondary septic site. 29 30 Pederson asked and received confirmation that the church owns the home and will 31 continue to own the home on the residential lot. He referenced the grade of the property 32 and seven feet of right-of-way requirement and asked for additional clarification. 33 34 Sparks explained that Hennepin County has seven feet of right-of-way in some spots but 35 not others and therefore that condition will equal out the right-of-way provided. He 36 explained that if the turn lanes are required there would be additional right-of-way 37 required. 38 39 Pederson asked if the County would sign that roadway as no parking. 40 41 Sparks stated that he was unsure if the County would sign no parking but noted that the 42 City would have the authority under the CUP that parking is not allowed and could 43 enforce that item through that aspect. 44 45 Mitchell agreed that he would also prefer a belt and suspenders approach, with the 46 control through the CUP and the County signing the roadway as no parking in that area. 47 48 Pederson asked for details regarding the septic systems. 49 50 Sparks identified the current septic components. He confirmed that additional 51 information will be provided regarding the septic. Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 3 January 17, 2017 1 2 Cousineau disclosed that she is a member of the church and has discussed that with 3 Batty. She asked for additional information on the secondary septic location. 4 5 Mitchell explained that the secondary septic site is a safety factor that would only be 6 needed in the case that the primary site fails. 7 8 Paul Humiston, Paul Meyer Architects, stated that the new septic system mound would 9 be located on the western property that is being combined and will be sized to 10 accommodate future expansion of the church. He stated that the secondary septic site 11 would be further north of the parking. He noted that both plans have been approved by 12 the building official. 13 14 Paul Johnson, church pastor, commented that the lower level classrooms are larger to 15 allow large muscle activity for grade school, middle school, and high school aged 16 children and would not be used for public gathering. 17 18 Mitchell stated that there was a letter received from a neighbor of the site asking the 19 Council to review the original agreement and what would be allowed against this 20 request. 21 22 Batty explained that this was the subject of some litigation a few years ago and a 23 settlement agreement was reached in 2013 between the church and City. He explained 24 that the settlement provided terms for future expansion, agreed upon by both parties, 25 which were specified through a variance obtained in 2013. 26 27 Mitchell asked and received confirmation that what the applicant is proposing is within 28 the original agreement. 29 30 Pederson asked and received confirmation that the church can expand through bits and 31 pieces as long as the total size does not exceed the stipulations of the variance and 32 original agreement. 33 34 Mitchell stated that one of his concerns was that the septic sites are secure and large 35 enough as there is not sanitary sewer in this neighborhood. He referenced the third 36 condition and noted that perhaps additional details should be specified. 37 38 Batty referenced the email that was received and mentioned by Mitchell from Martha 39 Van de Ven that has been included in the record. 40 41 Moved by Cousineau, seconded by Pederson, to direct staff to prepare documents 42 granting approval for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rezoning, lot combination, 43 Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, and Interim Use Permit, related to the 44 expansion of the Woodridge Church based upon the findings described in the staff report 45 and subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion 46 passed unanimously. 47 48 B. Ellis and Nancy Olkon — Preliminary Plat — 2362 Willow Drive (7:54 p.m.) 49 Johnson noted that the Council previously considered a variance request in regard to 50 this request and denied that request. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 4 January 17, 2017 1 Finke stated that this is a requested subdivision of a 21-acre parcel into two parcels. He 2 stated that the City did deny the variance request in December, noting that the Council 3 considered that variance request prior to the Preliminary Plat as that plan was not 4 complete and available. He provided details on the rural residential zoning district 5 requirement of five contiguous acres of suitable soils per lot and noted that the divided 6 lots would have 1.3 and 1.5 acres of suitable soils which is short of that requirement. He 7 stated that one of the lots would also not meet the lot width requirement as proposed. 8 He noted that the proposed lots do not meet the minimum lot size requirements and 9 therefore the Planning Commission held a public hearing the previous week and 10 unanimously recommended denial of the request. 11 12 Tom Wexler, Edina resident, provided information on his legal career, noting that he is 13 also a retired judge from Hennepin County. He stated that he is a reasonable person to 14 work with and asked the Council to defer action tonight so that they could work together 15 to find a solution if they do not think they could approve the request. He referenced a 16 letter from Jennifer Haskamp that was sent within the past day and provided a copy to 17 the City. He stated that there were three items that were mentioned by the Planning 18 Commission as reasons for denial of the request, noting that two of the concerns are 19 easily met. He stated that the lot width could be easily remedied and the setback 20 concern could also be met by adjusting the lot line or tearing down the out buildings. He 21 stated that the more controversial requirement is the five acres of contiguous suitable 22 soils. He stated that the violation is not the size of the lot but is a septic tank 23 requirement that requires five acres of suitable soils. He stated that both the ordinance 24 and Comprehensive Plan tie the five -acre minimum to septic sites. He stated that he 25 has not been able to find any reasoning that five acres of suitable soil is required for a 26 safe and effective septic system. He stated that the City building official also stated that 27 there is sufficient space on the lots to provide septic treatment. He stated that no other 28 municipality in Minnesota requires five acres of contiguous suitable soils for septic 29 treatment and therefore there is no government objective to requiring five acres of 30 contiguous suitable soils. He stated that the Planning Commission did not feel that they 31 had the authority to defer from the ordinance language but he hoped that the Council 32 would be willing to continue discussions to reach a settlement. He stated that at the 33 Planning Commission meeting the previous week he sat through a presentation for the 34 Marx property which proposes lots of approximately 1.7 acres in size in return for land 35 being preserved. He stated that this is an unfairness to Mr. Olkon that he would have 36 two lots of ten acres in site while Mr. Marx would have lots with 1.68 acres in buildable 37 land. He asked why that would be fair to Mr. Olkon, who could provide safe septic 38 systems and provide lots of ten acres in size. He stated that in the 1980s, the Olkons 39 donated the lower right-hand section of what would be lot two, in order to accommodate 40 a road into the Hollybush development. He stated that while that is different to setting 41 aside wetlands and property to be preserved, it allowed access to the Hollybush 42 development which also benefitted the City. He stated that could be justification for 43 granting approval of this proposal because of the land contribution they made to 44 accommodate that Hollybush development. He referenced Resolution #86-75, in which 45 the Council approved the Hollybush development with an access to Mohawk Drive and 46 noted that with more investigation he could most likely find the resolution which 47 references the access provided by the Olkons. 48 49 Ellis Olkon stated that after the Council denied the variance request he retained Jennifer 50 Haskamp. He stated that Ms. Haskamp has met with staff on multiple occasions in an 51 attempt to resolve this matter. He stated that he has also met with staff. He stated that Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 5 January 17, 2017 1 there was a date setup for him to meet with the Mayor and Batty but his legal 2 representation was not able to attend and therefore he asked to reschedule the meeting 3 but Mitchell declined. He hoped that a meeting could be setup with himself, his legal 4 representation, staff, and the City's legal consultation in order to avoid further legal 5 action and come to a settlement. He stated that he is a Medina resident and has been 6 for many years. He stated that he has also served the City in other facets, noting his 7 experience as an election judge. He stated that if the Council feels that they cannot 8 approve the request, could they hold off action and allow for a meeting in hopes of 9 reaching a settlement and saving the City the expense of legal fees. 10 11 Mitchell appreciated the input of Mr. Olkon. 12 13 Olkon noted that 100 percent of his neighbors are in support of the request. 14 15 Mitchell asked and received confirmation that the variance was denied in 2016. 16 17 Batty stated that the variance request came in before the plat and that is why the items 18 were split. He stated that in staffs suggestion the variance was so extreme that they did 19 not believe that it would be approved and therefore they allowed the variance to move 20 through in attempt to save Mr. Olkon money on completing the preliminary plat. He 21 noted that there are three variances that would be required. He stated that while two of 22 the items are easily fixable, they have not been fixed even though the applicant was 23 made aware months ago. He stated that the extension of the deadline bumps up 24 against the next meeting date and therefore he would not recommend granting another 25 extension unless Mr. Olkon agreed to the extension. 26 27 Pederson stated that while he feels sympathy for Mr. Olkon, the job of the Council is to 28 use the ordinances to weigh requests. 29 30 Mitchell stated that this has been considered for months and the City needs to take 31 effective action. He stated that unfortunately the request does not meet the standards. 32 33 Batty stated that effectively the Council is being asked to consider amending the 34 ordinance. He recognized that the five acres of suitable soil is a unique requirement for 35 lot sizes. He stated that the previous Councils that have considered that have decided 36 not to change the ordinance. He stated that short of changing the ordinance the Council 37 is being asked to consider extreme variances and if approved that would provide a 38 precedent for future variance requests. 39 40 Cousineau stated that there must have been some history and reason for the five -acre 41 suitable soil requirement. 42 43 Batty stated that has been in ordinance for some time as the method to create the lot 44 size. 45 46 Mitchell stated that the City has a lot of wetland/marsh land with steep slopes and being 47 that the City does not have sanitary sewer the residents must be able to provide suitable 48 septic treatment. 49 50 Olkon stated that all of the experts on septic systems, including City staff and the City's 51 building official, state that there is adequate space for two septic locations on both Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 6 January 17, 2017 I proposed lots. He stated that he has given the City 32 years of residency and service to 2 the City over those years and asked for decency in at least meeting with him and his 3 legal representation to determine if a settlement could be reached. 4 5 Mitchell noted that the denial of the plat is a result of the denial of the variance and 6 therefore is a continuation of the prior action to finish the matter. 7 8 Moved by Pederson, seconded by Cousineau, to direct staff to prepare a resolution to 9 deny the proposed Preliminary Plat by Ellis and Nancy Olkon at 2362 Willow Drive 1 o based upon the findings described in the staff report. Motion passed unanimously. 11 12 C. Ordinance No. 607 Amending Section 525 of the Medina City Code 13 Regarding City Park Commission (8:26 p.m.) 14 Johnson noted that staff received an application for the Park Commission from a 15 resident that is under 18 and therefore staff contemplated the benefit of adding a 16 member that is under 18. He stated that staff reviewed other metro cities that allow 17 members under 18 years of age and therefore recommend amending the ordinance to 18 allow youth members. 19 20 Cousineau stated that this would be a great opportunity to engage the youth and gain 21 additional perspective. She noted that this would be a one year term for a member 22 under 18 and would be a non -voting member. She stated that this is a great idea as the 23 youth use the parks more than adults. 24 25 Moved by Cousineau, seconded by Pederson, to Adopt Ordinance No. 607 Amending 26 Section 525 of the Medina City Code Regarding City Park Commission. Motion passed 27 unanimously. 28 29 IX. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT (8:28 p.m.) 30 Johnson reported that Mediacom received a broadband grant for Medina in the amount 31 of $170,868, which will give the City additional opportunity for build -out. He stated that 32 staff will meet with Mediacom in an attempt to agree on a plan. 33 34 X. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (8:28 p.m.) 35 Cousineau reported that she attended the mayors meeting this week. She stated that 36 the Metropolitan Council was there to discuss how to go about updating the 37 Comprehensive Plans, noting that Medina is almost complete with that process. 38 39 XI. APPROVAL TO PAY THE BILLS (8:29 p.m.) 40 Moved by Pederson, seconded by Cousineau, to approve the bills, EFT 003977E- 41 003995 for $66,511.72, order check numbers 045369-045442 for $287,027.88, and 42 payroll EFT 507653-507683 for $50,738.01. Motion passed unanimously. 43 44 XII. ADJOURN 45 Moved by Cousineau, seconded by Pederson, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. 46 Motion passed unanimously. 47 48 Bob Mitchell, Mayor 49 Attest: 50 51 Scott Johnson, City Administrator Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 7 January 17, 2017 Agenda Item # 5A BALL FIELD RENTAL AGREEMENT This Agreement is made this 7th day of February, 2017, by and between the city of Medina, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota (the "City") and the Orono Baseball Association, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, herein called the "Licensee". WHEREAS, the Licensee desires to use the baseball field for youth baseball owned by the City and located in the City's Medina Morningside Park (the "Subject Property") depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto. WHEREAS, the City is willing to allow the Licensee to use the Subject Property, subject to certain terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, the City and the Licensee wish to have a written agreement memorializing the terms and conditions under which the City and the Licensee will accomplish the above. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the mutual covenants and obligations contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City hereby grants the Licensee permission to use the Subject Property from April 24, 2017 through June 30, 2017 on Monday through Thursday evenings from 5:30 p.m. until 8 p.m. 2. The Licensee shall provide the City with a written schedule of any changes in the schedule at least ten days prior to such use. 3. The Licensee shall maintain an insurance policy in the amount of $1,000,000, single limit of liability per occurrence to protect itself and the City from claims and liability for injury or damage to persons or property for all work performed by the Licensee and its respective employees or agents under this Agreement. The Licensee shall name the City as an additional insured under its general liability policy in limits acceptable to the City. Prior to performing any services under this Agreement, the Licensee shall provide evidence to the City that acceptable insurance coverage is effective. 4. The Licensee shall submit a damage and maintenance deposit in the amount of $500.00 to the City prior to April 24, 2017. The City shall return the deposit to the Licensee, minus expenses for any damage or maintenance to the Subject Property following inspection by the City after June 30, 2017. 5. The City shall provide for regular mowing of the Subject Property. 6. The Licensee shall provide all equipment necessary to conduct baseball activities and shall provide for all other regular maintenance of the Subject Property including but not limited to chalk lining for normal ball field measurements and boundaries, grooming the fields, filling in divets, re-establishing Ag Lime, and picking up all trash, paper, and debris after use of the field. 7. Upon termination of this Agreement, the Licensee agrees to remove from the Subject Property all temporary structures, equipment and other items used by the Licensee, leave the Subject Property free from debris and return the Subject Property to its condition prior to its use by the Licensee. 8. The Licensee shall pay the City $400.00 for use of the Subject Property for the term of this agreement. Payment of the $400.00 shall be submitted to the City by April 24, 2017. 9. The Licensee hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents, from any liability, damages, claims, costs, judgments or expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, resulting directly or indirectly from the Licensee's use of the Subject Property. 10. The City may cancel, terminate, suspend or modify the terms of this Agreement upon default by Licensee or failure of the Licensee to comply with this Agreement. CITY OF MEDINA By Bob Mitchell, Mayor By Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator ORONO BASEBALL ASSOCIATION (LICENSEE) By Print Name: 2 Exhibit A Medina Morningside Park Ball Fields Agenda Item # 5B Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2017- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 607 BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, the city council of the city of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. 607, an ordinance amending Section 525 of the Medina City Code regarding City Park Commission; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes § 412.191, subdivision 4 allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and WHEREAS, the ordinance is three pages in length; and WHEREAS, the city council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina that the city clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. 607 to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the ordinance in its entirety: Public Notice The city council of the city of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. 607, an ordinance amending Section 525 of the Medina City Code regarding City Park Commission. The amendment allows the city council to appoint up to two non -voting youth members to the park commission and clarifies other sections of the ordinance. The full text of Ordinance No. 607 is available from the city clerk at Medina city hall during regular business hours. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina that the city clerk keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at city hall for public inspection and that she post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place within the city. Dated: February 7, 2017. Bob Mitchell, Mayor Resolution No. 2017- February 7, 2017 ATTEST: Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2017- 2 February 7, 2017 Agenda Item # 5D Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO.2017-xx RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE WATER TOWER REHABILITATION PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Water Tower Rehabilitation Project, lump sum bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to the law, and the following five bids were received complying with the advertisement: Grand Total Bid Champion Coatings TMI Coatings, Inc. Classic Protective Coatings, Inc. Osseo Construction Co. LLC Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. $267,250.00 $332, 999.99 $341,950.00 $375,975.00 $497,900.00 AND WHEREAS, it appears that Champion Coatings of Jamestown, ND is the lowest responsible bidder for the lump sum bid. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Medina, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Champion Coatings in the name of the City of Medina according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Administrator. 2. The City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Dated: February 7, 2017. Bob Mitchell, Mayor ATTEST: Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Resolution No. 2017-xx February 7, 2017 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2017-XX 2 February 7, 2017 WSB 477 Temperance Street I St. Paul, MN 55101 I (651) 286-8450 January 24, 2017 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: Water Tower Rehabilitation City of Medina WSB Project No. 3483-00 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Bids were received for the above -referenced project on January 19, 2017, and were opened and read aloud. Five bids were received. The bids were was checked for mathematical accuracy and tabulated. Please find enclosed the bid tabulation indicating the low bid as submitted by Champion Coatings, Inc. in the amount of $267,250.00. The Engineer's Estimate was $339,300.00. We recently worked with Champion Coatings to rehabilitate a 1.5 million gallon water tower in Jamestown, North Dakota and found their work to be acceptable in accordance with the Contract Documents. Therefore, we recommend that the City Council consider these bids and award a contract in the amount of $267,250.00 to Champion Coatings, Inc. based on the results of the bids received. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Greg Johnson, PE Water/Wastewater Group Manager Enclosures kkp Building a legacy — your legacy. Equal Opportunity Employer I wsbeng.com K:\03483-000\Admin\Construction Admin\3483-000 LOR 012417.docx BID TABULATION SUMMARY PROJECT: Water Tower Rehabilitation OWNER: City of Medina, Minnesota WSB PROJECT NO.: 3483-000 Bids Opened: Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. Contractor Bid Security (5%) Grand Total Bid 1 Champion Coatings X $267,250.00 2 TMI Coatings, Inc. X $332,999.99 3 Classic Protective Coatings, Inc. X $341,950.00 4 Osseo Construction Co., LLC X $375,975.00 5 Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. X $497,900.00 Engineer's Opinion of Cost $339,300.00 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct tabulation of the bids as received on January 19, 2017. Greg Joson, RE Project Manager * Denotes corrected figure K:103483-0001AdminlConstruction Admin13483-00 Bid Summary BID TABULATION OWNER: City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 SUBMIT TO / BID OPENING LOCATION: City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 I hereby certify that this is an exact reproduction of bids received. WATER TOWER REHABILITATION CITY OF MEDINA, MN WSB Project No. 3483-000 * Denotes Corrected Figure PROJECT CONSULTANT: WSB & Associates, Inc. 477 Temperance Street St. Paul, MN 55101 BID SUBMITTAL TIME: Time: 10:00 AM Date: January 19, 2017 No. Bid Description Units Qty Engineers Estimate Champion Coatings TMI Coatings, Inc. Classic Protective Coatings Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price WATER TOWER REHABILITATION 1 Mobilization and site maintenance LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 10,000.00 $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 17,000.00 $17,000.00 2 Seal weld the inside of the joint between the roof plate and the manway. Seal weld the inside of the dollar plate butt -joint as well as the dry tube penetration through the dollar plate. See photos 2 through 5 from inspection report in Appendix A. LS 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 750.00 $750.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 9,800.00 $9,800.00 3 Seal weld all stitch welded roof framing connections with 1/4 inch fillet weld. See photos 4 through 10 from inspection report in Appendix A. LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 2,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 10,200.00 $10,200.00 4 Seal weld the lapped roof plate joints with a'A inch fillet weld. Seal weld the two (2) 4 inch round patch plates on the interior roof with a 1/4 inch fillet weld. See photos 2 through 13 from inspection report in Appendix A. LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 7,500.00 $7,500.00 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 14,100.00 $14,100.00 5 Remove all 4"x6" rigging brackets on the tank shell above the equator and repair and grind smooth the attachment areas. See Photos 14 through 17 of inspection report in Appendix A. LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 3,200.00 $3,200.00 $4,000.00 84.000.00 2,000.00 $2,000.00 6 Remove the threaded drain plug, the coupling in the bowl section of the tower and the piping to the overflow pipe. Install a new 4 inch freeze protected drain valve assembly and connection to the overflow pipe. See detail in Appendix C. LS 1 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 4.000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 85.000.00 4.500.00 S4,500.00 Page 1 K:103483-0001AdminlConabuction Admin13483-00 Bid Tabulation No. Bid Description Units Qty Engineers Estimate Champion Coatings T1VII Coatings, Inc. Classic Protective Coatings Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price 7 Properly seal weld the poorly welded plug welds in the tank bowl. See Photo 18 from inspection report in Appendix A. LS 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 500.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 800.00 $800.00 8 Replace the 18x24 inch oval gasket on the manway in the drywell tube. See photos 19 and 20 from inspection report in Appendix A. LS 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 300.00 $300.00 $500.00 $500.00 300.00 $300.00 9 Remove and dispose of cathodic protection system. LS 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 1.000.00 $1,000.00 10 Remove all erection bracket scab marks below the high water level by air arc gouging, cutting torch, or grinding. Repair the tank surface by welding and grinding. LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 3,800.00 $3,800.00 11 Install expansion brackets inside the dry tube for antenna coaxial. Seal off all used and un-used penetrations on the roof per the requirements of the telecommunications providers. LS 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 3,000.00 S3.000.00 54;000.00 S4.000.00 3,600.00 S3.600.00 12 Replace the existing interior wet safety climb device with specified OSHA -approved ladder safety climb device on the drywell tube exterior ladder. See Photo 5 from inspection report in Appendix A. LS 1 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 3,500.00 $3,500.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 4,900.00 $4,900.00 13 Complete sandblasting and recoating of the interior wet and interior dry per specifications. LS 1 $150,800.00 $150,800.00 124,000.00 $124,000.00 $153,500.00 $153,500.00 146,550.00 $146,550.00 14 Complete power washing and surface preparation of exterior per specifications. LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 10,000.00 $10,000.00 $22,000.00 $22,000.00 43,000.00 $43,000.00 15 Sandblasting of exterior and spot coating where existing coatings are chipped off during power washing of exterior. SQ. FT 100 $20.00 $2,000.00 25.00 $2,500.00 $50.00 $5,000.00 20.00 $2,000.00 16 Finish coating of exterior. LS 1 $76,500.00 $76,500.00 44,000.00 $44,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 29,800.00 $29,800.00 17 Replace the roof vent with a removable top mushroom frost free vent per specifications and AW WA D100. See photo 27 from inspection report in Appendix A. See detail in Appendix C. LS 1 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 6,400.00 $6,400.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 7,000.00 $7,000.00 18 Install two (2) 24-inch diameter round, hinged roof manways, approximately 90 degrees from the existing upper roof manway. See detail - Appendix C. EACH 2 $4,000.00 $8,000.00 1,800.00 $3,600.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 2,000.00 S4.000.00 19 Modify the existing locking clasp on the roof manway per Owner requirements. LS 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 500.00 S500.00 20 Replace the existing handrail on the roof with a new handrail (see detail in Appendix C). Enclose the existing roof manways (2) and the vent/finial. See Photos 28 and 29 and drawing 3 from the inspection report in Appendix A. Install a non-skid walkway within the area of the new handrailing. LS 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 18,000.00 $18,000.00 $16,000.00 $16,000.00 11,300.00 $11,300.00 Page 2 K:103483-0001AdminlConabuction Admin13483-00 Bid Tabulation No. Bid Description Units Qty Engineers Estimate Champion Coatings T1VII Coatings, Inc. Classic Protective Coatings Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price 21 Remove existing aircraft warning obstruction light and bracket and provide new aircraft warning obstruction light and bracket by a licensed electrician. Seal weld the resulting hole in the dry tube cover. See photo 27 from inspection report in Appendix A. See detail in Appendix C. LS 1 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 2,500.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 5,600.00 $5,600.00 22 Install a new 24 inch diameter pressure manway in the tower bowl in a location selected by the Owner (see detail in Appendix C). Provide an OSHA approved steel ladder from the top platform to the bowl for safe access. LS 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 8,200.00 $8,200.00 23 Replace the existing screen on the dry tube roof access with a corrosion resistant #4 mesh screen. See Photo 30 from inspection report in Appendix A. LS 1 $800.00 $800.00 2,500.00 $2,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 1,200.00 $1,200.00 24 Epoxy caulk the bolt holes around the anchor bolt base plate. See photos 31 through 33 from inspection report in Appendix A. LS 1 $500.00 $500.00 1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 500.00 $500.00 25 Remove loose, cracked and spalled grout and concrete under the base plates of the cone section. Repair using non -shrink 3000 PSI grout. See Photos 31 through 33 from inspection report in Appendix A. LS 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 1,500.00 $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 2,600.00 $2,600.00 26 Install a new overflow pipe screen meeting Minnesota Health Department regulations. Use a corrosion resistant, heavy -gauge, No.4 mesh screen. See photo 34 from inspection report in Appendix A. See detail in Appendix C. LS 1 $400.00 $400.00 1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 S1,000.00 500.00 $500.00 27 Replace existing 1" brass ball valve on riser pipe with new 1" stainless steel ball valve for pressure transducer. LS 1 $300.00 $300.00 1,000.00 S1,000.00 $2,000.00 52,000.00 400.00 $400.00 28 Reinstall the existing splash pad under the overflow pipe outlet. LS 1 $500.00 $500.00 1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 300.00 $300.00 29 Disinfection LS 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 1,500.00 $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 2,000.00 $2,000.00 30 Provide and maintain hydrant pressure relief valves to allow Owner to continuously operate its well pumps while the water tower is removed from service. EACH 3 $500.00 $1,500.00 500.00 $1,500.00 $333.33 $999.99 1,500.00 $4,500.00 TOTAL WATER TOWER REHABILITATION $ 339,300.00 $267,250.00 $332,999.99 $341,950.00 Page 3 K:103483-0001AdminlConabuction Admin13483-00 Bid Tabulation No. Bid Description Units Qty Engineers Estimate Osseo Construction Co Odland Protective Coatings Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price WATER TOWER REHABILITATION 1 Mobilization and site maintenance LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 10,000.00 $10,000.00 2 Seal weld the inside of the joint between the roof plate and the manway. Seal weld the inside of the dollar plate butt -joint as well as the dry tube penetration through the dollar plate. See photos 2 through 5 from inspection report in Appendix A. LS 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 13,000.00 $13,000.00 3 Seal weld all stitch welded roof framing connections with 1/4 inch fillet weld. See photos 4 through 10 from inspection report in Appendix A. LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 20,000.00 $20,000.00 4 Seal weld the lapped roof plate joints with a'/4 inch fillet weld. Seal weld the two (2) 4 inch round patch plates on the interior roof with a 1/4 inch fillet weld. See photos 2 through 13 from inspection report in Appendix A. LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $25,000.00 $25.000.00 10;000.00 $10.000.00 5 Remove all 4"x6" rigging brackets on the tank shell above the equator and repair and grind smooth the attachment areas. See Photos 14 through 17 of inspection report in Appendix A. LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $10,000.00 $10.000.00 4,000.00 S4.000.00 6 Remove the threaded drain plug, the coupling in the bowl section of the tower and the piping to the overflow pipe. Install a new 4 inch freeze protected drain valve assembly and connection to the overflow pipe. See detail in Appendix C. LS 1 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 7 Properly seal weld the poorly welded plug welds in the tank bowl. See Photo 18 from inspection report in Appendix A. LS 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,750.00 $2,750.00 2,000.00 S2.000.00 8 Replace the 18x24 inch oval gasket on the manway in the drywell tube. See photos 19 and 20 from inspection report in Appendix A. LS 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $250.00 $250.00 100.00 $100.00 9 Remove and dispose of cathodic protection system. LS 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 3,000.00 S3.000.00 10 Remove all erection bracket scab marks below the high water level by air arc gouging, cutting torch, or grinding. Repair the tank surface by welding and grinding. LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 25,000.00 $25,000.00 11 Install expansion brackets inside the dry tube for antenna coaxial. Seal off all used and un-used penetrations on the roof per the requirements of the telecommunications providers. LS 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 53,000.00 $3,000.00 10,000.00 $10,000.00 12 Replace the existing interior wet safety climb device with specified OSHA -approved ladder safety climb device on the drywell tube exterior ladder. See Photo 5 from inspection report in Appendix A. LS 1 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 3,000.00 $3,000.00 Page 4 K:103483-0001AdminlConabuction Admin13483-00 Bid Tabulation No. Bid Description Units Qty Engineers Estimate Osseo Construction Co Odland Protective Coatings Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price 13 Complete sandblasting and recoating of the interior wet and interior dry per specifications. LS 1 $150,800.00 $150,800.00 $134,000.00 $134,000.00 260,000.00 $260,000.00 14 Complete power washing and surface preparation of exterior per specifications. LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 75,000.00 $75,000.00 15 Sandblasting of exterior and spot coating where existing coatings are chipped off during power washing of exterior. SQ. FT 100 $20.00 $2,000.00 $40.00 $4,000.00 40.00 $4,000.00 16 Finish coating of exterior. LS 1 $76,500.00 $76,500.00 $54,000.00 $54,000.00 0.00 $0.00 17 Replace the roof vent with a removable top mushroom frost free vent per specifications and AWWA D100. See photo 27 from inspection report in Appendix A. See detail in Appendix C. LS 1 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 7,000.00 $7,000.00 18 Install two (2) 24-inch diameter round, hinged roof manways, approximately 90 degrees from the existing upper roof manway. See detail - Appendix C. EACH 2 $4,000.00 $8,000.00 $3,200.00 $6,400.00 4,000.00 S8,000.00 19 Modify the existing locking clasp on the roof manway per Owner requirements. LS 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 500.00 $500.00 20 Replace the existing handrail on the roof with a new handrail (see detail in Appendix C). Enclose the existing roof manways (2) and the vent/finial. See Photos 28 and 29 and drawing 3 from the inspection report in Appendix A. Install a non-skid walkway within the area of the new handrailing. LS 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 20,000.00 $20,000.00 21 Remove existing aircraft warning obstruction light and bracket and provide new aircraft warning obstruction light and bracket by a licensed electrician. Seal weld the resulting hole in the dry tube cover. See photo 27 from inspection report in Appendix A. See detail in Appendix C. LS 1 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 22 Install a new 24 inch diameter pressure manway in the tower bowl in a location selected by the Owner (see detail in Appendix C). Provide an OSHA approved steel ladder from the top platform to the bowl for safe access. LS 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,400.00 $8,400.00 6,000.00 $6,000.00 23 Replace the existing screen on the dry tube roof access with a corrosion resistant #4 mesh screen. See Photo 30 from inspection report in Appendix A. LS 1 $800.00 $800.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 1,000.00 $1,000.00 24 Epoxy caulk the bolt holes around the anchor bolt base plate. See photos 31 through 33 from inspection report in Appendix A. LS 1 $500.00 $500.00 $650.00 $650.00 1,000.00 $1,000.00 Page 5 K:103483-0001AdminlConabuction Admin13483-00 Bid Tabulation No. Bid Description Units Qty Engineers Estimate Osseo Construction Co Odland Protective Coatings Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price 25 Remove loose, cracked and spalled grout and concrete under the base plates of the cone section. Repair using non -shrink 3000 PSI grout. See Photos 31 through 33 from inspection report in Appendix A. LS 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,750.00 $1,750.00 2,000.00 $2,000.00 26 Install a new overflow pipe screen meeting Minnesota Health Department regulations. Use a corrosion resistant, heavy -gauge, No.4 mesh screen. See photo 34 from inspection report in Appendix A. See detail in Appendix C. LS 1 $400.00 $400.00 $250.00 $250.00 500.00 $500.00 27 Replace existing 1" brass ball valve on riser pipe with new 1" stainless steel ball valve for pressure transducer. LS 1 $300.00 $300.00 $125.00 $125.00 500.00 $500.00 28 Reinstall the existing splash pad under the overflow pipe outlet. LS 1 $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 1,000.00 $1,000.00 29 Disinfection LS 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 1,000.00 $1.000.00 30 Provide and maintain hydrant pressure relief valves to allow Owner to continuously operate its well pumps while the water tower is removed from service. EACH 3 $500.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 100.00 $300.00 TOTAL WATER TOWER REHABILITATION $ 339,300.00 $375,975.00 $497,900.00 Page 6 K:103483-0001AdminlConabuction Admin13483-00 Bid Tabulation Agenda Item # 5E Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 20174# RESOLUTION DENYING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PROPOSED SUBDIVISION BY ELLIS AND NANCY OLKON AT 2362 WILLOW DRIVE WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the "City") is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Ellis and Nancy Olkon (the "Owners"), own property in the City at 2362 Willow Drive which is legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Owners have requested preliminary approval of a plat to subdivide the Property into two lots; and WHEREAS, the Property is located within the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district; and WHEREAS, according to City Code section 826.26 subd. 2, the RR zoning district requires a minimum lot size of at least five acres of contiguous soils suitable for a standard sewage disposal system as described in section 820.29 subd. 5 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the RR zoning district requires a minimum lot width of 300 feet; and WHEREAS, the RR zoning district requires that structures be set back a minimum of 50 feet from property lines; and WHEREAS, proposed Lot 1 within the preliminary plat contains 1.31 contiguous acres of suitable soils and is proposed to be approximately 250 feet in width along County Road 24; and WHEREAS, proposed Lot 2 on the preliminary plat contains 1.55 contiguous acres of suitable soils; and WHEREAS, existing structures are located less than 50 feet from the proposed common lot line between Lots 1 and 2; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed preliminary plat at the January 10, 2017 meeting, heard comments from interested parties, and reviewed the request and following such hearing and review unanimously recommended denial of the preliminary plat; and Resolution No. 2017-## February 7, 2017 WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the request and written and oral record at the January 17, 2017 meeting, considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and heard additional testimony on the matter; and WHEREAS, subd. 9 of Section 820.21 of the City's subdivision ordinance requires that the City shall deny approval of a preliminary plat if one or a combination of the following findings are made: 1) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city; and 2) That the site does not meet minimum lot size standards; and WHEREAS, based on the written and oral record before the Planning Commission and City Council on the above dates as well as all additional testimony submitted to the City, the City Council makes the following findings of facts in regards to the preliminary plat request: 1. The proposed lots on the plat do not meet minimum lot size standards. 2. The proposed lots are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objectives related to density and lot size within the Rural Residential land use. 3. Proposed Lot 1 does not meet minimum lot width requirements of the zoning ordinance for the Rural Residential zoning district. 4. Existing structures would not meet minimum yard setback requirements from the proposed common lot line between Lots 1 and 2. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Medina, Minnesota hereby denies the requested preliminary plat. Dated:. By: Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: By: Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2017-## 2 February 7, 2017 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Property That port of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 21-118-23 lying northerly of County Road No. 24, and easterly of Willow Drive, Resolution No. 2017-## 3 February 7, 2017 Agenda Item # 5F Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION 2017- RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOODRIDGE CHURCH AT 1542 COUNTY ROAD 24 WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the "City") is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Woodridge Church (the "Applicant"), is the fee owner land within the City which is located at 1542 County Road 24 ("the Property") and is legally described as: That part of the South 1320 feet of the West Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 118, Range 23, lying East of the West 396 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Property is guided for a Rural Residential land use in the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking to combine the Property with a parcel of land to the east which is guided for a Public -Semi Public land use in the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is intended to provide the combined properties with a consistent land use designation of Public -Semi Public; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment has no impact on the City's population forecasts or Traffic Assignment Zone allocations WHEREAS, on January 10, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended approval of the amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the amendment at the January 17, 2017 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Medina, Minnesota that the comprehensive plan amendment to re -guide the Property to Public -Semi Public in the Land Use Plan as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to the following terms and conditions: 1) Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall be subject to Metropolitan Council review and approval. 2) The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the proposed amendment and the cost of taking such other actions as are necessary to effectuate the proposed amendment. Resolution No. 2017- February 7, 2017 Dated: February 7, 2017. By: Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: By: Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2017- February 7, 2017 EXHIBIT A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 0605E'1mien 56 awl'NSl audZ'pLLn LIOZ 36 Nenuel' =alep dery (L-0E52 WO) L}OZ'L hleruge3 Zuewpuewy pesodaki 'pagiem Pee e4 pind ys pue vben Aeee seuepun ei Imlay -estuud Adue ed mu si dew siyl, Aufmo•ll{6wd muel ,kiepues pasolo yin 0 allvd-wwas dRgnd - eaeds undo leuai6e8 Jo aleys- udneateM pue seed - io3dd7 uggegnoU elenud ssauista peulsnpui 11111 sssong'fugues - ialarxuwoo - V!n go - L sseumng - esn pax6N l- 97n 659 - BEn paxlW _ v!n a£- L gall,ouea 461H l- wn 66.9 S'E sod Allsuao wnipapy _ tlrn 6> E OZ sell &Pupa Wool OEOZ lsod-Ouldolimea e reindu6y lei}uaplsall ieJna _ ueld ap!no ueid asn puei amod vro a 3IN Z-s. dew (lau @JOE 'ss016 sa10e g) aildndlwaspicind ler}uapisau ieuna woo a6uetia pasodoad .,v.e.,.mwi Ale. roe O O 74 N xw Table 5-B is hereby amended as follows: TABLE 5-B Future Land Use Plan Land Use Designation Gross Area Net Area Acres Percent Acres Percent Agricultural (AG) 251 7,835 7,827 1.4% 180 1.0% 28.7% 3.5% Rural Residential (RR) 45.2% /1,982 4,978 Low Density Residential (LDR) 923 5.3% 614 Medium Density Residential (MDR) 451 2.6% 307 1.8% High Density Residential (HDR) 123 0.7% 103 0.6% Mixed Use (MU) 338 1.9% 234 1.3% Mixed Use - Business (MU-B) 59 0.3% 39 0.2% Developing Post-2030 444 2.6% 337 1.9% Commercial (C) 427 2.5% 308 1.8% 2.2% 0.3% General Business (GB) 580 3.3% 375 Industrial (IB) 68 0.4% 48 Closed Sanitary Landfill (SL) 192 1.1 % 106 0.6% Semi -Public (PSP) 271 279 1.6% 47-3 177 1.0% _Public Parks and Recreation 93 0.5% 46 0.3% Parks and Recreation - Regional or State 2,519 14.5% 1,528 8.8% Private Recreation (PREC) 358 2.1 % 272 1.6% Open Space (OS) 208 1.2% 153 0.9% Rights -of -Way 912 5.1 % 912 5.1 % Lakes 1,283 7.4% 1,283 7.4% 30.8% Wetlands and Floodplains 5,335 1. Total City 17,335 Resolution No. 2017- February 7, 2017 Table 5-F is hereby amended as follows: Table 5-F Land Use in 5-Year Increments Land Use Designation Allowed Density Ranges Min Max Existing 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 (acres) 2030 I (acres) %Change 2010-2030 Residential Uses (acres) (acres) (acres) I (acres) -Rural Residential 2.5 acres or less -- -- 212 l 212 212 212 212 0% . -Rural Residential 2.5 -10 acres i 1 U/10A TBD 2197 2207 i 2217 2227 i 2237 1.8% ' 1 U/10A ' -Rural Residential 10-40 acres i 1 U/40A i i 3591 i 3661 ' 3691 372� ' 37� ' 1 3713 i 3743 i 4.5% 1 3683 - Rural Residential 40+ acres = __ 1 1 U/40A 1 1835 = 1755 1 1715 1 1675 i 1635 -10.9% -Agricultural 40+ acres = __ 1 U/40A 251 = 251 I 251 1 251 251 0% Subtotal Unsewered = 8086 i 8086 I 8086 1 8086 1 8086 1 8086 I 0%° 8078 ` 8078 ' $07$ i Low Density Residential (LDR) = 2 3.49 346 600 = 713 890 ' 923 ' 923 ' 54% Medium Density Residential (MDR) I 3.5 6.9 181 326 I 451 451 451 451 38% High Density Residential (HDR) 7 30 17 21 21 21 = 21 i 123 I 486% Mixed Use (MU)2 3.5 � Mixed Use — Business (MU-B)3 - 7 Future Developing Areas i 6.9 - 0 - 80 166 166 59 i 59 i 59 1954 I 1372 982 239 338 323% 45 5 59 59 0% 1 U/10A I 2501 771 444 -770/0 Commercial Uses Commercial (C) I 246 256 I 349 380 380 427 67% General Business (GB) 92 92 1 214 396 501 579 529% Industrial (IB) 25 25 I 68 68 68 68 172% Institutional Uses Public Semi -Public (PSP) I I 271 271 271 271 279 271 27M 271 a9 0% Parks and Recreation 93 93 93 93 93 93 0% Parks and Recreation — Re_gional/State 2519 2519 2519 2519 2519 2519 0% Private Recreation (PREC) I 358 358 358 358 358 358 0% Open Space (OS) 208 208 208 208 [ 208 208 0% Closed Sanitary Landfill (SL) I 192 192 192 192 [ 192 192 0% 11 Right -of -Ways r 912 Lakes 1,283 Wetlands and Floodplains 5,335 Total City 17,335 Resolution No. 2017- February 7, 2017 Agenda Item # 5G CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE 1542 COUNTY ROAD 24 TO RURAL PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC THE CITY COUNCIL OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The official zoning map of the City of Medina is hereby amended to change the zoning classification of the following legally described property from RR, Rural Residential to RPS, Rural Public/Semi-Public as displayed on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A: That part of the South 1320 feet of the West Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 118, Range 23, lying East of the West 396 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Section 2. The City of Medina Zoning Administrator is hereby directed to publish the ordinance and make the changes to the official zoning map of the City of Medina to reflect the change in zoning classification only upon adoption of a Comprehensive Plan amendment guiding the property to Public/Semi-Public. Section 3. A copy of this Ordinance and the updated map shall be kept on file at the Medina City Hall. Section 4. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage, adoption of the above -referenced Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and publication. Adopted by the Medina City Council this 7th day of February 2017. CITY OF MEDINA By: Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: By: Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Published in the South Crow River News on this day of February, 2017 EXHIBIT A Map Displaying Property Rezoned to Rural Public/Semi-Public LOCATION OF PROPERTY REZONED TO PUBLIC?SEMI-PUBLIC MEDINA Zoning Map (Neon -Residential) Legend Residential • see reverse Agricultural Preserve (AG) .. '; Rural Residential-2 (RR-2) Mixed Use (MU) _ Uptown Hame1-1 (UH-1) Uptown Heme1-2 (UH-2) Public/Semi-Public (PS) Rural Publhc/SemFPublic (RPS) - Business Park (BP) NM Business(B) Industnal Park (IP) - Commercral•H6ghway (CH) Commemal Highway -Railroad (CH -RR) Commenat-General (CG) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rural Business Holding (RBH] ER Rural Commercial Holding (RCH) _ Sanitary Landfill (SL) Please contact the Planning Department (763-473-4643) for more information regarding property within PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) 0 0 25 0.5 0.75 t Myles Agenda Item # 5H Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2017-### RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. ### BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, the city council of the city of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. #1111 an ordinance amending the official zoning map to rezone 1542 County Road 24 to Rural Public/Semi- Public; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes § 412.191, subdivision 4 allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and WHEREAS, the ordinance is two pages in length and includes a map; and WHEREAS, the city council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina that the city clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. ### to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the ordinance in its entirety: Public Notice The city council of the city of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ###, an ordinance amending the official zoning map to rezone 1542 County Road 24 to Rural Public/Semi- Public. The full text of Ordinance No. ### is available from the city clerk at Medina city hall during regular business hours. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina that the city clerk keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at city hall for public inspection and that she post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place within the city. Resolution No. 2017-## February 7, 2016 Dated: February 7, 2017. Bob Mitchell, Mayor ATTEST: Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2017-## 2 February 7, 2017 Agenda Item # 5I Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION 2017- RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT COMBINATION FOR WOODRIDGE CHURCH AT 1500 & 1542 COUNTY ROAD 24 WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the "City") is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Woodridge Church (the "Applicant"), is the fee owner land within the City which is located at 1500 County Road 24 and is legally described as: The South One -Half of the East One -Half of the West One -Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 118, Range 23, according to the Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is the fee owner of land within the City which is located at 1542 County Road 24 and is legally described as: That part of the South 1320 feet of the West Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 118, Range 23, lying East of the West 396 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested to combine the two legally described parcels of land above ("the Properties") into a single parcel; and WHEREAS, the proposed combination qualifies for an exemption from platting requirements pursuant to Section 820.03 of the Medina City Code; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 2016, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed lot combination and recommended approval of the request; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the lot combination request at the January 17, 2017 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found that, subject to the terms and conditions contained herein, the lot combination is substantially consistent with the requirements of the City's subdivision regulations. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Medina, Minnesota that the lot combination of the Properties is hereby approved such that the combined property shall be legally described as in Exhibit A, subject to the following terms and conditions: Resolution No. 2017- February 7, 2017 1. The Applicant shall convey seven feet of additional right-of-way to Hennepin County in the southeast portion of the site to have a consistent 40 feet of right-of-way on the Properties in favor of Hennepin County. 2. The Applicant shall convey a 10 foot drainage, utility, sidewalk, and trail easement adjacent to the right-of-way in favor of Hennepin County. 3. The Applicant shall convey to the City perimeter drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the Properties. 4. All comments by the City Attorney related to title issues and recording procedures shall be followed. 5. This combination shall be recorded within 180 days of the date of this resolution or this approval shall be considered void, unless a written request for a time extension is submitted by the Applicant within said 180 days and approved by the City Council for good cause. 6. All fees incurred by the City regarding the processing and review of this application shall be paid by the Applicant, including the drafting and review of relevant documents. Dated: February 7, 2017. By: Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: By: Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2017- February 7, 2017 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Combined Property The South One -Half of the East One -Half of the West One -Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 118, Range 23, according to the Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota and That part of the South 1320 feet of the West Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 118, Range 23, lying East of the West 396 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Resolution No. 2017- February 7, 2017 Agenda Item # 5J Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION 2017- RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT & SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR WOODRIDGE CHURCH WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the "City") is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Woodridge Church (the "Applicant"), is the fee owner of land within the City which is located at 1500 and 1542 County Road 24 ("the Property") and is legally described as: The South One -Half of the East One -Half of the West One -Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 118, Range 23, according to the Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota and That part of the South 1320 feet of the West Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 118, Range 23, lying East of the West 396 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Property is zoned RPS, Rural Public -Semi Public and religious institutions are a conditional use within this district; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Conditional Use Permit granted by Resolution 95-29 and subsequent amendment in Resolution 98-41, the Applicant has constructed a church and related facilities on the Property; and WHEREAS, Resolution 99-66 was previously adopted by the City to allow for a preschool/kindergarten program upon the Property and is not the subject to any amendments at this time; and WHEREAS, the Applicant received a variance approved by Resolution 2013-22 allowing for future expansion of the church to a maximum of 85,000 square feet with 400 parking stalls and WHEREAS, the Applicant is proposing a 15,000 square foot addition to the 28,000 square foot church; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 2016, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed conditional use permit amendment and site plan and recommended approval of the requests; and Resolution No. 2017- February 7, 2017 WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the conditional use permit and site plan review request at the January 17, 2017 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found that, subject to the terms and conditions contained herein, the conditional use permit amendment and site plan are substantially consistent with the requirements of the City's zoning regulations, conditional use permit review criteria, and the variance approved by the City in Resolution 2013-22. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Medina, Minnesota that the conditional use permit amendment and site plan is hereby approved with the following conditions and terms: 1. All parking shall be contained within areas intended for parking and not on any public streets, fire lanes, driveways, or yard areas. 2. No parking signs shall be placed along the driveway. 3. All landscaping and all areas not covered by hardcover must be seeded and maintained. Landscaping must be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City Planner and in accordance to the approved landscaping plans. All landscaping must be well maintained and plant materials which die shall be replaced. 4. All lighting shall be maintained so that the globe is recessed and enclosed on all sides except the bottom and no light is cast directly on any other property or right-of-way. Artificial light contribution at the property lines shall be limited to zero foot candles. 5. Security lighting shall be controlled by a light sensor. All other exterior lighting shall be placed on a timing device. No exterior lighting shall be permitted when the building is not in use other than the exterior security lighting. Egress lighting shall average .5 foot candles power. 6. All garbage or trash containers shall be located inside a permanent enclosure on a concrete pad with an exterior material compatible with the masonry construction of the sanctuary building. 7. All mechanical equipment, including all rooftop mechanical, must be screened from view of adjacent parcels. 8. There shall be no outside telephone bells, speakers, or amplified sound systems. 9. The buildings and grounds shall be used only for church related activities. Special events shall require a special use permit, even events that are sponsored by the Applicant. Resolution No. 2017- February 7, 2017 10. The applicant shall execute a stormwater maintenance agreement related to maintenance of the stormwater improvements. 11. The sediment pond depth at the outlet shall be monitored annually. When the depth has decreased below 4 feet, the pond must be dredged out by the Applicant. The Applicant shall review this and report to the City. 12. The Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from Hennepin County, the MPCA, the City, and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 13. Unless otherwise previously supplied, the Applicant shall convey an easement to the City over all wetland areas. 14. All septic sites must be fenced and protected prior to beginning of grading or construction. 15. The garage at 1500 County Road 24 shall derive its access from the main driveway to the site and close the direct access to County Road 24. 16. The use of the new rooms shall be for accessory classrooms used in the manner described in the Applicant's narrative. No change of use shall be permitted unless an amendment to the conditional use permit is obtained and necessary improvements to support the change are constructed. 17. There may be no permanent residential use of the facility except for the single family house on the parcel subject to the terms of the interim use permit granted by Resolution No. 18. The alternate septic site shall be placed on the site plan. 19. All comments by the City Engineer shall be addressed. 20. All comments by the Building Official shall be addressed. 21. All fees incurred by the City regarding the processing and review of this application shall be paid by the Applicant, including the drafting and review of relevant documents. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Resolutions 95-29 and 98-41 are superseded by this resolution, the relevant terms and conditions having been incorporated herein. Dated: February 7, 2017. Resolution No. 2017- February 7, 2017 By: Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: By: Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2017- February 7, 2017 Agenda Item # 5K Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION 2017- RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR WOODRIDGE CHURCH TO PERMIT THE CONTINUATION OF A RESIDENTIAL USE ON THE SITE WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the "City") is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Woodridge Church (the "Applicant"), is the fee owner of land within the City which is located at 1500 and 1542 County Road 24 ("the Property") and is legally described as: The South One -Half of the East One -Half of the West One -Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 118, Range 23, according to the Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. and That part of the South 1320 feet of the West Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 118, Range 23, lying East of the West 396 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, 1500 County Road 24 contains the church building and 1542 County Road 24 contains a house; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is combining the Property into one lot to allow for expansion of the church pursuant to the terms of Resolution 2013-22; and WHEREAS, the Property is zoned RPS, Rural Public -Semi Public; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested an interim use permit pursuant to Section 826.68 Subd. 7 (b) (viii) (2) of the City Code to allow the continuation of an existing residential structure; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested continuation of the interim use of the house until further expansion of the church sanctuary; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 2016, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed interim use permit and recommended approval of the request; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the interim use permit request at the January 17, 2017 meeting; and Resolution No. 2017- February 7, 2017 WHEREAS, the City Council has found that the interim use permit is substantially consistent with the requirements of the City's zoning regulations and review criteria; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Medina, Minnesota that the interim use permit to allow continuation of the house as a residential dwelling. Such interim use shall be permitted until such time as the church sanctuary is expanded in the future. Dated: February 7, 2017. By: Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: By: Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2017- February 7, 2017 Agreement No. PW 67-36-16 County Project No. 0918 County State Aid Highway 115 County Road 116 City of Medina County of Hennepin CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 20 by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City of Medina, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "City". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County in cooperation with the City, desire to construct improvements County State Aid Highway 115/ County Road 116 (Pinto Drive) from Tower Drive to 900 feet north of Clydesdale Trail including improvements to the intersection with Trunk Highway 55 and improvements to Clydesdale Trail in the City of Medina (County Project 0918), hereinafter referred to as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the above described Project lies within the corporate limits of the City; and WHEREAS, the City has secured federal funding for the design and construction of the Project; and WHEREAS, since the City of Medina was a city of less than 5,000 in population Federal Highway Administration rules require that the County be the sponsor for the project on the behalf of the City; and WHEREAS, the County or its agents will design the Project and has entered into an agreement with TKDA, Inc. to perform design engineering services for the improvements to County State Aid Highway 115/County Road 116 including the intersection with Trunk Highway 55 and the improvements to Clydesdale Trail; and WHEREAS, the County Highway Engineer has heretofore prepared an Engineer's Estimate of quantities and unit prices for the above described Project in the sum of Two Million Eight Hundred Forty Five Thousand Three Hundred Sixteen Dollars and Ninety Two Cents ($2,845,316.92). A copy of said estimate, marked Exhibit "A", is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the construction costs for the Project will be paid for by use of, municipal and county state aid funds, county road bonds and local funds; and -1- Agreement No. PW 67-36-16 CSAH 115; CR 116; C. P. 0918 WHEREAS, the City has indicated its willingness to participate in the construction, engineering, right of way and maintenance costs of the Project as detailed herein; and WHEREAS, it is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties hereto under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 162.17, Subdivision 1 and Section 471.59. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED: I The County will advertise for bids for the work and construction of the Project, receive and open bids pursuant to said advertisement and will enter into a contract with the successful bidder at the unit prices specified in the bid of such bidder, according to law. The contract will include the plans and specifications prepared by the County, which said plans and specifications are referenced and identified as S.P. 027-596-005, S.P. 027-615-004, S.P. 250-118-001 and approved by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). II The County will administer the contract and inspect the construction of all the contract work contemplated herewith. However, the City Engineer or designated representatives shall have the right, as the work progresses, to enter upon the job site to make any inspections deemed necessary and shall cooperate with the County Highway Engineer and staff at their request to the extent necessary, but will have no responsibility for the supervision of the work. The City agrees that the County may make changes in the plans or in the character of said contract construction which is reasonably necessary to cause said construction to be in all things performed and completed in a satisfactory manner. It is further agreed by the City that the County may enter into any change orders or supplemental agreements with the County's contractor for the performance of any additional construction or construction occasioned by any necessary, advantageous or desirable changes in plans, within the original scope of the Project. Said changes may result in an increase or decrease to the City's cost participation estimated herein. The City shall have the right to review any proposed changes to the plans and specifications as they relate to the City's cost participation prior to the work being performed. The City Engineer or designated representatives shall have the right to approve or reject any change orders or supplemental agreements prepared by the County that affect the City's share of the construction cost. The City further agrees that it will participate in the settlement of any claims from the County's contractor that involve delays attributable to unreasonable delays in approval by the City for plan or specification changes deemed necessary by the County Highway Engineer or staff. The amount of City's participation in any such claims shall be commensurate with the percentage of delay directly - 2 - attributable to the City's actions. III Agreement No. PW 67-36-16 CSAH 115; CR 116; C. P. 0918 The City shall participate in the costs of the contracted construction work for the Project as set forth in said Exhibit "A". The respective proportionate shares of the pro-rata pay items included in Exhibit "A" shall remain unchanged throughout the life of this Agreement. It is understood that the estimated amount on Page 1 of this Agreement and as shown in Exhibit "A" is an estimate of the costs for the contracted construction work on said Project and that the unit prices set forth in the contract with the successful bidder and the final quantities as measured by the County Highway Engineer's designated representatives shall govern in computing the total final contract construction cost for apportioning the cost of said Project according to the provisions herein. It is further understood and agreed that the final quantities as measured by the County Highway Engineer designated representatives for contract pay items in which the City is participating shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Engineer. IV The County or its agents shall acquire all additional right of way, permits and/or easements required for the construction of the Project. It is recognized by the parties that federal funds had been made available to finance the Project. It is understood by the parties that the City's estimated share of the Project right of way costs will be proportionately reduced by its share of the right of way costs that had been considered eligible for federal cost participation. As such the County will reduce the City's share of the right of way acquisition costs for the Project by $202,328.00. The City shall reimburse the County for fifty (50) percent of the final cost of the additional right of way and/or easements required to construct the Project. The amount of the City's share in said right of way acquisition costs is estimated to be $400,000.00 and will be reduced by $202,328.00 to $197,672.00. The acquisition costs incurred by the County as described herein shall include, but are not limited to the following: • monies paid to property owners, or on behalf of property owners, as part of negotiated settlements • costs incurred with obtaining property through, and compliance with, Minnesota Statute Chapter 117 (eminent domain), including all damages and awards resulting there from • acquisition activities and relocation expenses, including the costs of consultants used therefore • appraisals and appraisal services • title opinions and updates • document searches (judgment, name title, etc) • closing, conveyance and recordation fees and taxes • costs to maintain, provide security for, or remove and dispose of vacant property, and any 3- Agreement No. PW 67-36-16 CSAH 115; CR 116; C. P. 0918 improvements thereon • costs incurred for the relocation, reconstruction, adjustment, and/or removal of existing private or public utility conduits or other structures located in or upon lands acquired and within present right of way when existing valid easements and/or permits provide for reimbursement to the utility owner for the relocation, reconstruction, adjustment, and/or removal of the existing utility facilities (or when a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the City or County is obliged to pay such amounts) It is understood and agreed that if parcels are acquired in total, the County will use its best efforts to sell at the most favorable price those portions of said parcels which are not required for the Project. The proceeds from such sales shall be shared with the City at the same cost participation percentage used to acquire the parcels. Payment shall be made to the County by the City for the full amount due as stated on the invoice within forty five (45) days of the invoice date. Damages, as used in this section, pertains to acquisition costs allowed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 117 and does not abrogate the meaning of the language set forth elsewhere in this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the City shall convey property rights to the County over those lands owned by the City that are required for the Project. Said property rights shall be granted at no cost to the County. It is further understood and agreed that any and all City permits required by the Project shall be granted at no cost or expense to the County or its contractors. V The County, at its sole cost and expense, has conducted a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment (ESA) on the Project. In the event a Phase II ESA is required on any parcel, it is hereby understood and agreed that the City shall reimburse the County for all costs incurred by the County for the completion of said future Phase II ESA at the same percentage used to acquire the parcel. If any such Phase II ESA identifies contamination within the new right of way for the Project that must be abated, the County will hire consultants and contractors as necessary to perform the necessary abatement of the roadway right of way and obtain approval of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Any such abatement required may be accomplished under a separate project or may be included in the Project. The County will investigate and exhaust all available options for payment of costs incurred related to the aforereferenced Phase II ESA. This includes, but is not limited to, responsible parties and governmental agencies. The City hereby agrees to reimburse the County, at the same percentage used to acquire the parcel, all costs incurred by the County for the completion of the aforereferenced environmental work performed on parcels associated with this Project for which the County does not receive reimbursement from other sources. 4 �K� Agreement No. PW 67-36-16 CSAH 115; CR 116; C. P. 0918 VI The City shall reimburse the County for its shares of the construction costs of the Project as set forth in said Exhibit "A". It is further agreed that the Engineer's Estimate referred to on page 1 of this Agreement is an estimate of the construction cost for the contract work on said Project and that the unit prices set forth in the contract with the successful bidder and the final quantities as measured by the County Highway Engineer shall govern in computing the total final contract construction costs for apportioning the costs of said Project according to the provisions herein. For informational purposes only, it is estimated that the City will pay the County $607,416.57 as its share of the construction costs. As previously referenced the Project will be partially funded with federal funds. It is understood by the parties that the City's estimated share of the Project construction costs will be proportionately reduced by its share of the construction costs that are eligible for federal cost participation. The amount of the City's share in said construction costs is estimated to be $607,416.57 and will be reduced by $79,398.00 to $528,018.57 VII It is recognized by the parties that the design engineering for the Project has been a collaborative effort between the City and the County. The City will only be responsible for its proportionate share of the costs incurred by the County in the initial consultant design services agreement for the Project (County Agreement No. PW 37-66-12 with TKDA, Inc). As such, the City agrees to reimburse the County three point three percent (3.3%) of the costs incurred by the County under County Agreement No. PW 37-66-12 as its share of the design engineering costs for the Project. It is further understood and agreed that the City's proportionate share of the design engineering costs incurred under said agreement with TKDA shall be $20,000.00. In addition to its share of the design engineering costs the City agrees to reimburse the County for the City's proportionate share of the construction administration engineering costs for the Project. The City's share of construction engineering costs shall be equal to eight (8) percent of the total final amount of the City's share of contract construction costs for the Project. The amount of the City's share in the contract administration costs is estimated $48,593.33. It is understood that the City's proportionate shares shown in Exhibit "A" are estimates and that the actual City's proportionate shares of the construction administration engineering costs will be computed using the total final amount of the City's share of the contract construction costs for the Project. VIII After an award by the County to the successful bidder on the Project, the County shall invoice the City for ninety five (95) percent of the estimated City's shares in the contract construction costs and engineering costs for the Project. Payments shall be made to the County, in the name of the - 5 - Agreement No. PW 67-36-16 CSAH 115; CR 116; C. P. 0918 Hennepin County Treasurer, by the City for the full amount due stated on the invoices within forty five (45) days of the invoice date. Said estimated City's shares shall be based on actual contract unit prices applied to the estimated quantities shown in the plans. In the event the County Highway Engineer or the County's staff determines the need to amend the construction contract with a supplemental agreement or change order which results in an increase in the contract amount for the Project, the City hereby agrees to remit within forty five (45) days of notification by the County of said change an amount equal to ninety five (95) percent of the estimated City share as documented in the supplemental agreement or change order. The remainder of the City's shares in the engineering and contract construction costs of the Project, including additional costs resulting from supplemental agreements and change orders, will be due the County upon acceptance by the County's construction engineer of all the construction work performed by the County's construction contractor and submittal of the County Highway Engineer's final estimate for the Project to the City. Upon final payment to the Project contractor by the County, any amount remaining as a balance in the deposit account will be returned to the City, within 45 days, on a proportionate basis based on the City's initial deposit amount and the City's final proportionate share of the Project costs. Likewise, any amount due the County from the City upon final payment by the County shall be paid by the City as its final payment for the construction and engineering costs of the Project within forty five (45) days of receipt of an invoice from the County. IX The proportionate shares of the various costs associated with said Project have been identified and set forth in Articles III through VIII of this Agreement. The estimated amount that the City is to pay the County as a result of this Agreement is $794,283.90. It is understood and agreed that said payment amount is an estimate and that the actual payment amount shall be based on actual costs and contract unit prices, as specified elsewhere throughout this Agreement. X All payments to the County must be postmarked by the date due or a late penalty of one (1) percent per month, or fraction thereof, on the unpaid balance will be charged to the City. The City shall pay the amount due as stated on the statement, notwithstanding any dispute of such amount. Should a disputed amount be resolved in favor of the City, the County shall reimburse the disputed amount plus daily interest thereon calculated from the date such disputed amount was received by the County. Daily interest shall be at the rate of one (1%) percent per month or portion thereof on the disputed amount. XI All records kept by the City and the County with respect to the Project shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each party hereto. -6- L� � Agreement No. PW 67-36-16 CSAH 115; CR 116; C. P. 0918 XII The County reserves the right not to issue any permits for a period of five (5) years after completion of the Project for any service cuts in the roadway surfacing of the County Highways included in said Project for any installation of underground utilities which would be considered as new work; service cuts shall be allowed for the maintenance and repair of any existing underground utilities. XIII As part of the Project, "No -Parking" signs shall be installed as represented in the plans and the City, at its expense, shall provide the enforcement for the prohibition of on -street parking on those portions of CSAH 115 and County Road 116 constructed under this Project recognizing the concurrent jurisdiction of the Sheriff of Hennepin County. Any modification of the above parking restrictions shall not be made without first obtaining a resolution from the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners permitting said modification. It is further agreed that the City shall, at its own expense, remove and replace City owned signs that are within the construction limits of said Project if requested by the County's Project Engineer. XIV Included in the Project is the construction of a replacement traffic control signal system at the intersection of Trunk Highway 55 and CSAH 115/County Road 116. It is understood by the parties that operation and maintenance of this traffic control signal system will be established in a separate agreement between the City, County and Minnesota Department of Transportation (County Agreement Number PW 68-40-16). Notwithstanding said agreement it is understood and agreed by the parties that the City shall provide the electrical energy for the operation of said traffic control signal and luminaries included in the Project at no expense to the County. XV The tracks of Canadian Pacific Railway Company crosses CSAH 115 immediately south of Truck Highway 55 and within the construction limits of the Project. As part of the Project the railroad at grade crossing surface and railroad crossing signal will be replaced at the sole cost and expense of the County. In addition, it is understood by the parties that the County has designed the Project to provide for creation of a railroad "Quiet Zone". It is understood that the County will include in the Project construction of a railroad "Quiet Zone" as an alternate bid. It is further understood and agreed by the parties that the City shall be responsible for the costs to construct the railroad Quiet Zone and that the County will not participate in the costs. The City shall within four weeks of the Project's bid opening inform the County of its desire to include or not include in the Project the alternate bid for construction of the railroad "Quiet Zone". It is further understood by the City that construction of the "Quiet Zone" is contingent upon attainment of all necessary governmental approvals that may be required to construct the railroad "Quiet Zone". - 7 - Agreement No. PW 67-36-16 CSAH 115; CR 116; C. P. 0918 XVI It is understood and agreed that upon completion of the Project, all water distribution system components, concrete sidewalk, fencing, walls, lighting and all municipal street construction included in said improvement shall be the property of the City and all maintenance, restoration, repair, replacement or other work or services required thereafter shall be performed by the City at no expense to the County. It is understood that maintenance of the intersecting municipal streets begins at the back of curb of CSAH 115/County Road 116. Notwithstanding the maintenance responsibilities of the City as specified in the previous paragraph, it is further understood and agreed that upon completion of the Project, all landscaping, grass areas and streetscape as shown in the plans for the Project, shall become the responsibility of the City and all maintenance, restoration, repair, replacement or other work or services required thereafter shall be performed by the City at no expense to the County. It is understood and agreed by the parties that the City shall continue to provide the electrical energy for the operation of the street lighting included in the Project at no expense to the County. Upon completion of the Project the County shall, at its own cost and expense, retain ownership and maintenance responsibilities for those portions of the roadway storm sewer drainage system functioning as catch basins and associated lead pipes that are within or between the outermost curb lines of the County roadways as well as those within the radius return limits of intersecting municipal streets. All other components of the roadway storm sewer drainage system, constructed as a part of this Project including but not limited to all trunk lines, drainage structures, ponds, and storm water treatment structures, shall become the property of the City and shall be maintained by the City. It is understood by the parties hereto that the term `upon completion of the Project' as used in this agreement shall be defined as acceptance by the County's construction engineer of the construction work performed by the County's construction contractor that is to be maintained by the City as specified herein. All questions of maintenance responsibilities that may arise shall be jointly resolved by the City's Public Works Director and the County's Transportation Operations Department Director. XVII It is hereby understood that the County requires an operational clear zone behind the face of curb for storage of snow removed from County roadways. The City, at its discretion, will remove snow that may be placed on the sidewalks and/or pedestrian/bicycle paths within the operational clear zone, as a result of the County's snow removal operations on CSAH 115 or County Road 116 within the limits of the Project. This paragraph is not intended to confer a benefit upon any third party and the City's decision to remove snow from the sidewalk and/or paths shall be made by the City in its sole discretion pursuant to its policy on removal of snow and ice from its sidewalks and/or pedestrian/bicycle paths and trails. 8 Agreement No. PW 67-36-16 CSAH 115; CR 116; C. P. 0918 XVIII The City agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County, its officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees, from any liabilities, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs or expenses, including, reasonable attorneys' fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the City, its contractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable related to the ownership, maintenance, existence, restoration, repair or replacement of the afore defined City owned improvements constructed as part of said Project. The City's liability shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 or other applicable law. The County agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officials, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees from any liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the County, its contractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable related to the construction of the Project, or related to the ownership, maintenance, existence, restoration, repair or replacement of County owned improvements constructed as part of said Project. The County's liability shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 or other applicable law. XIX Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof, to the extent authorized by the law, and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof. The County's and the City's liability is governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. The County and the City each warrant that they are able to comply with the aforementioned indemnity requirements through an insurance or self-insurance program. XX It is agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the County, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Minnesota Economic Security Law or the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. Also, any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of the City, and that any and all claims that may or might arise 9- Agreement No. PW 67-36-16 CSAH 115; CR 116; C. P. 0918 under the Minnesota Economic Security Law or the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City. XXI In order to coordinate the services of the County with the activities of the City so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the Hennepin County Highway Engineer or designated representative shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the County and serve as liaison between the County and the City. In order to coordinate the services of the City with the activities of the County and so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the City's Public Works Director or designated representative shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the City and serve as liaison between the City and the County. XXII The County Engineer or designated representative will prepare weekly progress reports for the Project as provided in the specifications. Copies of these reports will be furnished to the City upon request. XXIII It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. XXIV The provisions of Minnesota Statutes 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the Affirmative Action Policy statement of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. XXV The matters set forth in the "whereas" clauses at the beginning of this Agreement are incorporated into and made a part hereof by this reference. - 10- Agreement No. PW 67-36-16 CSAH 115; CR 116; C. P. 0918 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF MEDINA By: Mayor Date: And: Date: -ll- COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTEST: Agreement No. P W 67-3 6-16 CSAH 115; CR 116; C. P. 0918 By: By: Deputy/Clerk of the County Board Chair of its County Board Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: B stant County Attorney Date: 4b?' And: County Administrator Date: And: Assistant County Administrator, Public Works Date: APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL By: By: Assistant County Attorney County Highway Engineer Date: Date: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL By: Director, Transportation Operations Department Date: - 12- DIVISION OF COST SUMMARY TOTAL Hennepin County MnDOT City of Medina Roadway (CSAH 115) Roadway (CR 116) Roadway (Clydesdale Trail) Storm Sewer (CSAH 115) (1) Storm Sewer (CR 116) (1) Storm Sewer (Clydesdale Trail) (1) Local (non -participating) Traffic Control Signal at TH 55 Construction Total $ Adjustment (4) $ Construction costs after adjustment $ Engineering (2) Design Construction (8%) Engineering Total Total of Construction and Engineering Costs Right of Way (3) Adjustment (4) ROW costs after adjustment Railroad Crossing and Signal PROJECT TOTAL Notes: 429,674.03 1,278,081.24 121,440.50 116,823.15 271,401.00 26,185.00 321, 712.00 280,000.00 2,845,316.92 2,845,316.92 20,000.00 48,593.33 $ 68,593.33 411,474.03 1,224, 311.24 114,910.50 58,411.58 135,700.50 13,092.50 0.00 137, 500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 142,500.00 18,200.00 53, 770.00 6,530.00 58,411.57 135, 700.50 13, 092.50 321,712.00 0.00 $ 2,095,400.35 $ 142,500.00 $ 607,416.57 $ 79,398.00 $ - $ (79,398.00) $ 2,174,798.35 $ 142,500.00 $ 528,018.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ $ 2,913,910.25 20,000.00 48, 593.33 $ 68,593.33 $ 2,174,798.35 $ 142,500.00 $ 596,611.90 800,000.00 800,000.00 400,000.00 $ 202,328.00 $ 602, 328.00 400, 000.00 $ (202,328.00) $ 197,672.00 $ 522, 939.45 $ 522, 939.45 $ $ $ 4,236,849.70 $ 3,300,065.80 $ 142,500.00 $ 794,283.90 (1) Storm Sewer costs shared equally between City and County (50% city/ 50% county). (2) Construction engineering costs based on city's Federal participation (construction engineering City design engineering share is 3.3% of costs provided by TKDA under Agreement PW 37-66 share of construction costs before adjustment for equals 8% of $607,416.57). incurred by the county for detail design services -12 (City cost share shall be $20,000). (3) Right of Way costs shared equally between City and County (50% city/ 50% county). (4) City project costs proportionately adjusted based on its share of project costs elgible for federal funds. Hennepin County Agreement PW 67-36-16 Exhibit "A"; Sheet 1 of 4 �L CSAH 115/CR 116 COST ESTIMATE ITEM NUMBER ITEM UNIT UNIT PRICE PROJECT TOTAL SP 2722419 PARTICIPATING NON -PARTICIPATING MR 115 SP 027-715404 CO RD 116 SP 027-596-005 CLYDESDALE TRAIL SP 250.118-001 CITY OF MEDINA LOCAL FUNDS COUNTY CITY STORM SEWER (A) COUNTY CITY STORM SEWER (B) COUNTY CITY STORM SEWER (A) QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTTTY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT 2011.601 AS BUILT LUMP SUM $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM $190,000.00 1 $190,000.00 0.19 $36,100.00 0.01 $1,900.00 0.04 $7,600.00 0.48 $91,200.00 0.02 $3,800.00 0.1 $19,000.00 0.04 $7,600.00 0.01 $1,900.00 0.11 $20,900.00 2031.501 FIELD OFFICE TYPE D EACH $15,000.00 1 $15,000.00 0.19 $2,850.00 0.01 $150.00 0.04 5600.00 0.48 $7,200.00 0.02 $300.00 0.1 $1,500.00 0.04 5600.00 0.01 $150.00 0.11 $1,650.00 2031.503 FIELD LABORATORY TYPE D EACH $8,000.00 1 $8,000.00 0.19 $1,520.00 0.01 580.00 0.04 $320.00 0.48 $3,840.00 0.02 $160.00 0.1 $800.00 0.04 $320.00 0.01 $80.00 0.11 5880.00 2101.501 CLEARING ACRE $3,500.00 0.7 $2,450.00 0.1 $350.00 0.5 $1,750.00 0.1 $350.00 2101.502 CLEARING TREE $200.00 45 $9,000.00 4 $800.00 23 $4,600.00 18 $3,600.00 2101.506 GRUBBING ACRE $3,000.00 0.7 $2,100.00 0.1 $300.00 0.5 $1,500.00 0.1 $300.00 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE $250.00 45 $11,250.00 4 51,000.00 23 $5,750.00 18 54,500.00 2102.501 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL SOFT $5.00 816 $4,080.00 408 $2,040.00 408 $2,040.00 2102.502 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL LIN FT $2.50 6158 $15,395.00 2444 $6,110.00 3714 $9,285.00 _ 2104.501 REMOVE METAL CULVERT LIN FT $10.00 328 $3,280.00 178 $1,780.00 150 $1,500.00 2104.501 REMOVE WATER MAIN LIN FT $15.00 380 $5,700.00 29 $435.00 89 $1,335.00 262 $3,930.00 2104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) LIN FT 510.00 992 $9,920.00 137 $1,370.00 845 58,450.00 10 $100.00 2104.501 REMOVE CURB & GUTTER LIN FT $8.00 3149 $25,192.00 183 $1,464.00 2269 $18,152.00 697 $5,576.00 2104.501 REMOVE CHAIN LINK FENCE LIN FT $4.50 203 $913.50 203 $913.50 2104.503 REMOVE BITUMINOUS WALK SQ FT 52.00 10658 $21,316.00 8983 $17,966.00 1675 $3,350.00 2104.503 REMOVE CONCRETE SIDEWALK SQ FT 51.50 578 $867.00 133 $199.50 445 $667.50 2104.503 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ FT $0.35 15473 $5,415.55 1471 $514.85 12072 $4,225.20 1930 $675.50 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD $7.50 1145 $8,587.50 1070 $8,025.00 75 $562.50 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD $2.80 12335 $34,538.00 3508 59,822.40 7897 $22,111.60 930 $2,604.00 2104.509 REMOVE CONCRETE APRON EACH $220.00 6 $1,320.00 5 $1,100.00 1 $220.00 2104.509 REMOVE METAL APRON EACH $110.00 10 $1,100.00 6 $660.00 4 $440.00 2104.509 REMOVE MANHOLE OR CATCH BASIN EACH $400.00 13 $5,200.00 2 $800.00 11 $4,400.00 2104.509 REMOVE GATE VALVE & BOX EACH $525.00 11 $5,775.00 2 $1,050.00 3 $1,575.00 6 $3,150.00 2104.509 REMOVE HYDRANT EACH 5525.00 5 $2,625.00 2 $1,050.00 3 $1,575.00 2104.509 REMOVE HANDHOLE ' EACH $148.24 2 5296.48 2 $296.48 2104.511 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LIN FT $6.00 99 $594.00 71 $426.00 28 $168.00 2104.513 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LIN FT $1.80 1205 52,169.00 330 $594.00 782 $1,407.60 93 $167.40 2104.523 SALVAGE SIGN TYPE C EACH $25.00 45 $1,125.00 16 $400.00 27 $675.00 2 $50.00 2104.601 REMOVE CABLES LUMP SUM $300.00 1 $300.00 1 5300.00 2104.601 HAUL SALVAGED MATERIAL LUMP SUM $1,500.00 1 $1,500.00 0.5 $750.00 0.5 $750.00 2104.602 RELOCATE STREET LIGHT EACH $2,500.00 3 $7,500.00 3 $7,500.00 2104.603 ABANDON WATER MAIN LIN FT $8.00 1421 $11,368.00 1421 $11,368.00 2105.604 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V SQ YD $2.25 6009 $13,520.25 246 $553.50 4317 $9,713.25 1446 $3,253.50 2106.501 EXCAVATION - COMMON CU YD $5.00 12742 $63,710.00 1906 $9,530.00 9664 $48,320.00 1172 $5,860.00 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE CU YD $7.00 9270 $64,890.00 2833 $19,831.00 6437 $45,059.00 2106.522 SELECT GRANULAR EMBAKMENT(CV) CU YO $14.00 10062 $140,868.00 2937 $41,118.00 _ __ 7125 $99,250-00- 2106.523 COMMON EMBANKMENT (CV) CU YD $4.00 5428 $21,712.00 1027 $4,108.00 4272 $17,088.00 129 5516.00 2211.503 AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 CU YD $25.00 4723 $118,075.00 868 $21,700.00 3295 $82,375.00 560 $14,000.00 2301.602 DRILL AND GROUT REINF BAR (EPDXY COATED) EACH $9.00 45 $405.00 6 $54.00 31 $279.00 8 $72.00 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GALLON $3.50 1783 $6,240.50 391 $1,368.50 1272 $4,452.00 120 $420.00 2360.501 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C) TON 570.00 4531 $317,170.00 956 566,920.00 3277 $229,390.00 298 $20,860.00 2360.502 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX (3,13) TON 570.00 2702 $189,140.00 656 $45,920.00 1910 $133,700.00 136 $9,520.00 2501.515 12" RC PIPE APRON EACH $600.00 1 $600.00 1 $600.00 2501.515 15" RC PIPE APRON EACH $625.00 7 $4,375.00 2 $1,250.00 4 $2,500.00 1 $625.00 2501.515 21" RC PIPE APRON EACH $650.00 1 $650.00 1 $650.00 2501.569 15"RC SAFETY APRON EACH $625.00 1 $625.00 1 $625.00 2501.569 18" RC SAFETY APRON EACH $650.00 1 $650.00 1 $650.00 2501.569 24"RC SAFETY APRON EACH $675.00 1 $675.00 1 $675.00 2502.541 4" PERF TP PIPE DRAIN LIN FT $8.00 5246 $41,968.00 1188 $9,504.00 3628 $29,024.00 430 $3,440.00 2503.511 15"CS PIPE SEWER _ LIN FT $30.00 10 $300.00 10 $300.00 Hennepin County Agreement PW 67-36-16 Exhibit "A"; Sheet 2 of 4 CSAH 115/CR 116 COST ESTIMATE ITEM NUMBER ITEM UNIT UNIT PRICE PROJECT TOTAL SP 2722-89 PARTICIPATING NON -PARTICIPATING CSAH 115 SP 027-715.004 CO RD 116 SP 027-596-005 CLYDESDALE TRAIL SP 250-118-001 CITY OF MEDINA LOCAL FUNDS COUNTY CITY STORM SEWER (A) COUNTY CITY STORM SEWER (6) COUNTY CITY STORM SEWER (A) QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT 2503.541 12" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V LIN FT $40.00 69 52,760.00 43 $1,720,00 26 $1,040.00 2503.541 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V LIN FT $45.00 1814 $81,630.00 661 $29,745.00 1053 $47,385.00 100 54,500.00 2503.541 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL II LIN FT 550.00 139 $6,950.00 73 $3,650.00 66 $3,300.00 2503.541 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III LIN FT $50.00 217 $10,850.00 217 510,850.00 2503.541 21" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL II LIN FT $55.00 198 $10,890.00 198 $10,890.00 2503.541 21" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III LIN FT $60.00 97 $5,820.00 97 $5,820.00 2503.541 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL II LIN FT $65.00 127 $8,255.00 127 $8,255.00 2503.541 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III LIN FT $70.00 16 $1,120.00 16 $1,120.00 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH $750.00 9 $6,750.00 8 $6,000.00 1 $750.00 2503.602 SEDIMENT CONTROL SKIMMER EACH $4,000.00 3 $12,000.00 2 $8,000.00 1 $4,000.00 2503.603 15" CS SLOTTED DRAIN LIN FT $200.00 50 $10,000.00 50 $10,000.00 2503.603 30" STEEL CASING PIPE LIN FT $200.00 52 $10,400.00 52 $10,400.00 2503.603 FILTRATION TRENCH LIN FT $150.00 100 $15,000.00 100 $15,000.00 2504.602 WATERMAIN OFFSET EACH $4,200.00 3 $12,600.00 2 $5,400.00 1 $4,200.00 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EACH $1,300.00 6 $7,800.00 1 $1,300.00 1 $1,300.00 4 $5,200.00 2504.602 HYDRANT EACH 54,200.00 6 $25,200.00 2 $8,400.00 3 $12,600.00 1 $4,200.00 2504.602 ADJUST VALVE BOX EACH 5250.00 6 $1,500.00 5 $1,250.00 1 5250.00 2504.602 ABANDON WATER SERVICE EACH $475.00 7 $3,325.00 7 $3,325.00 2504.602 1.5" CORPORATION STOP EACH $500.00 3 $1,500.00 3 $1,500.00 2504.602 2" CORPORATION STOP EACH 5745.00 1 $745.00 1 $745.00 2504.602 12" BUTTERFLY VALVE & BOX EACH $3,500.00 6 $21,000,00 1 $3,500.00 5 $17,500.00 2504.602 6" GATE VALVE & BOX EACH $1,800.00 6 $10,800.00 2 $3,600.00 3 $5,400.00 - 1 $1,800.00 2504.602 8" GATE VALVE & BOX EACH $2,500.00 4 $10,000.00 4 $10,000.00 2504.602 16"X12"WET TAP EACH $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00 2504.602 1.5" CURB STOP EACH $600.00 1 $600.00 1 $600.00 2504.602 2" CURB STOP EACH $640.00 1 $640.00 1 5640.00 2504.603 WATERMAIN INSULATION LIN FT $40.00 225 59,000.00 225 $9,000.00 2504.603 HYDRANT RISER LIN FT $1,400.00 1 $1,400.00 1 $1,400.00 2504.603 1.5" TYPE K COPPER PIPE LIN FT $35.00 39 $1,365.00 39 51,365.00 2504.603 2" TYPE K COPPER PIPE LIN FT $40.00 9 $360.00 9 $360.00 2504.603 6" PVC WATERMAIN LIN FT $32.00 93 $2,976.00 54 $1,728.00 19 $608.00 20 $640.00 2504.603 8" PVC WATERMAIN LIN FT $35.00 538 $18,830.00 538 $18,830.00 2504.603 12" PVC WATERMAIN UN FT $40.00 1596 $63,840.00 65 $2,600.00 1531 $61,240.00 2504.603 24" STEEL CASING PIPE (JACKED) LIN FT $495.00 266 $131,670.00 266 $131,670.00 2504.608 WATERMAIN FITTINGS POUND $9.00 1804 $16,236.00 110 $990.00 - 438 $3,942.00 1256 $11,304.00 _ 2506.501 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN F LIN FT $300.00 107 $32,100.00 4 $1,200.00 88 $26,400.00 15 $4,500.00 2506.501 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN G LIN FT 5300.00 68 520,400.00 22 $6,600.00 _ 46 $13,1300.00 2506.501 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN H LIN FT $275.00 35 $9,625.00 16 $4,400.00 19 $5,225.00 2506.501 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 5D-48 LIN FT $400.00 3 $1,200.00 2506.501 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 54-4020 LIN FT $400.00 10 $4,000.00 10 $4,000.00 _3_ _.$1,2012.00 2506.502 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL EACH $6,000.00 1 $6,000.00 1 $6,000.00 2506.503 RECONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE LIN FT $500.00 1.2 $600.00 1.2 $600.00 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH $700.00 44 $30,800.00 14 $9,800.00 28 $19,600.00 2 $1,400.00 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING EACH $500.00 2 $1,000.00 2 $1,000.00 2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III CU YD $110.00 51 $5,610.00 18 $1,980.00 24 $2,640.00 9 $990.00 2511.515 GEOTEXTILE FILTER TYPE IV SQ YD $4.00 218 $872.00 65 5260.00 113 $452.00 40 $160.00 2511.603 BOULDER WALL LIN FT $75.00 200 $15,000.00 200 515,000.00 2521.501 3.5" CONCRETE WALK SQ FT $3.50 7020 $24,570.00 2492 $8,722.00 4528 $15,848.00 2521.501 6" CONCRETE WALK SOFT $5.00 2337 $11,685.00 682 $3,410.00 1139 $5,695.00 516 $2,580.00 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN SPECIAL LIN FT $15.00 304 $4,560.00 152 $2,280.00 152 $2,280.00 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN 8424 LIN FT $15.00 1943 529,145.00 1235 $18,525.00 708 510,620.00 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B612 LIN FT $20.00 859 $17,180.00 430 $8,600.00 429 $8,580.00 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB& GUTTER DESIGN 8618 LIN FT $15.00 1159 $17,385.00 70 $1,050.00 70 51,050.00 225 $3,375.00 225 $3,375.00 _ 285 $4,275.00 284 $4,260.00 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN 8624 LIN FT $15.00 3638 _ 554,570.00 1153 _ $17,295.00 541 $8,115.00 1300 519,500.00 620 $9,300.00 12 $180.00 12 $180.00 -ES: Hennepin County Agreement PW 67-36-16 Exhibit "A"; Sheet 3 of 4 CSAH 115/CR 116 COST ESTIMATE ITEM NUMBER ITEM UNIT UNIT PRICE PROJECT TOTAL SP 2722-89 PARTICIPATING NON -PARTICIPATING CSAH 115 SP 027-715-004 CO RD 116 SP 027-596-005 CLYDESDALE TRAIL SP 250-118-001 CITY OF MEDINA LOCAL FUNDS COUNTY CITY STORM SEWER (A) COUNTY CITY STORM SEWER(B) COUNTY CITY STORM SEWER IA) QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT 2531.507 8" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD $55.00 440 $24,200.00 21 $1,155.00 21 $1,155.00 161 $8,855.00 161 $8,855.00 38 $2,090.00 38 $2,090.00 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES SQ FT $42.00 300 512,600.00 64 $2,688.00 172 $7,224.00 64 $2,688.00 2540.602 MAIL BOX SUPPORT EACH $130.00 1 $130.00 1 $130.00 2550.516 BURIED CABLE SIGN EACH $85.03 4 $340.12 4 $340.12 2550.523 1.5" NON-METALLIC CONDUIT LIN FT $2.77 720 $1,994.40 720 $1,994.40 2550.534 F1BEROPTIC TRUNK CABLE 12mm-125m LIN FT $1.80 1160 $2,088.00 1160 $2,088.00 2550.601 FIBER OPTIC CABLE TESTING LUMP SUM $2,000.00 1 $2,000.00 1 $2,000.00 _ 2550.602 FIBER OPTIC PIGTAIL TERMINATION EACH $804.07 1 $804.07 1 $804.07 2550.602 FIBER OPTIC CABLE SPLICING EACH $1,627.54 2 53,255.08 2 $3,255.08 2550.603 1.5" BORED CONDUIT UN FT 510.35 160 $1,656.00 160 $1,656.00 2554.509 GUIDE posT TYPE B EACH $50.00 12 5600.00 4 $200.00 6 $300.00 2 $100.00 2557.501 WIRE FENCE DESIGN 48-9322 LIN FT $25.00 203 $5,075.00 203 $5,075.00 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 975,000.00 1 $75,000.00 0.19 $14,250.00 0.01 $750.00 0.04 $3,00000 0.48 $36,000.00 0.02 51,500.00 0.1 $7,500.00 0.04 $3,000.00 0.01 $750.00 0.11 $8,250.00 2563.602 RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER TEMPORARY EACH $1.50 177 $265.50 177 $265.50 2564,531 SIGN PANELS TYPE C SQ FT 532.00 396 $12,672.00 125 $4,000,00 227 $7,264.00 44 $1,408.00 2564.537 INSTALL SIGN TYPE c EACH $150.00 3 $450.00 2 S300.00 1 $150.00 2565.511 TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM SIG SYS $275,000.00 1 5275,000.00 0.5 $137,500.00 0.25 568,750.00 0.25 $68,750.00 2565.513 EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION SYSTEM A LUMP SUM 55,000.00 1 $5,000.00 0.5 $2,5o0.00 0.5 $2,500.00 2565.513 EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION SYSTEM B LUMP SUM $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00 0.5 $2,500.00 0.5 52,500.00 2565.616 TEMPORARY SIGNAL SYSTEM SYSTEM $44,000.00 1 $44,000.00 0.5 $22,000.00 0.5 $22,00000 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS LIN FT $2.00 2884 $5,768.00 764 $1,528.00 2064 54,128.00 56 $112.00 _ 2573.515 FILTER BERM TYPE 2 LIN FT $3.00 60 $180.00 60 $180.00 2573.530 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH $400.00 47 $18,800.00 12 $4,800.00 34 $13,600.00 1 $400.00 2573.533 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE COMPOST LIN FT $3.00 3252 $9,756.00 414 $1,24200 2773 $8,319.00 65 $195.00 2573.560 CULVERT END CONTROLS EACH $250.00 14 $3,500.00 5 $1,250.00 9 $2,250.00 2574.508 FERTILIZER TYPE 3 POUND $1.00 543 $543.00 112 $112.00 422 $422.00 9 59.00 2574.508 FERTILIZER -TYPE 4 POUND $1.00 36 536.00 36 $36.00 2574.578 SOIL BED PREPARATION ACRE $250.00 2.6 5650.00 0.5 $125.00 1.9 $475.00 0.2 $50.00 2575.501 SEEDING ACRE $250.00 2.6 $650.00 0.5 $125.00 1.9 $475.00 0.2 $50.00 2575.502 SEED MIXTURE 25-131 POUND $4.00 331 $1,324.00 44 $176.00 280 $1,120.00 7 $28.00 2575.502 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 POUND 54.00 9 $36.00 9 $36.00 2575.502 SEED MIXTURE 33-261 ROUND $20.00 4 $80.00 4 $80.00 _ 2575.502 SEED MIXTURE 34-261 POUND $20.00 7 $140.00 7 $140.00 2575.523 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3N so.yo $3.00 9186 $27,558.00 1537 $4,611.00 7525 $22,575.00 124 $372.00 2575.535 WATER M GALLON $25.00 170 $4,250.00 29 $725.00 138 $3,450.00 3 $75.00 2575.541 MOWING ACRE $250.00 2.6 $650.00 0.5 $125.00 1.9 5475.00 0.2 $50.00 2575.545 WEED SPRAYING ACRE $500.00 2.6 $1,300.00 0.5 $250.00 1,9 $950.00 0.2 Siao.00 2575.571 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 3 m GALLON $400.00 12 $4,800.00 3 $1,200.00 7 $2,800.00 2 $800.00 2575.572 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 SQYD $2.00 2760 $5,520.00 463 $926.00 2259 $4,518.00 38 $76.00 _ _ 2580.601 INTERIM PAVEMENT MARKINGS LUMP SUM $18,000.00 1 $18,000.00 0.24 $4,320.00 0.69 512,420.00 0.07 $1,260.00 2581.501 REMOVABLE PREFORM PAVEMENT MARKING TAPE LIN FT $1.15 4153 $4,775.95 1467 $1,687.05 2686 $3,088.90 2582.501 PAVT MSSG PAINT SQ FT $18.20 _ 246.88 54,493.22 123,44 $2,246.61 123.44 $2,246.61 2582.501 PAVT MSSG PREF THERMO GR IN SQ FT $26.00 435 $11,310.00 137 $3,562.00 257 $6,682.00 41 $1,066.00 2582.502 4" SOLID LINE PAINT LIN FT $0.10 3926 $392.60 1229 $122.90 2697 $269.70 2582.502 12" SOLID LINE PAINT LIN FT $0.60 44 $26.40 33 $19.80 11 $6.60 2582.502 4" DOTTED LINE PAINT LIN FT $0.21 186 $39.48 66 513.86 122 $25.62 2582.502 4" DOUBLE LINE PAINT LIN FT $0.21 1062 $223.02 406 $85.26 656 $137.76 2582.502 4" SOLID LINE EPDXY LIN FT $0.35 1370 $479.50 1222 $427.70 148 $51.80 2582.502 4" SOLID LINE EPDXY GR IN LIN FT $0.60 2384 $1,430.40 601 $360.60 1673 51,003.80 110 $66.00 2582.502 6" SOLID LINE EPDXY GR IN LIN FT $0.75 2200 $1,650.00 780 $585.00 1420 $1,065.00 2582.502 24" SOLID LINE EPDXY GR IN LIN FT $15.50 467 $7,238.50 227 $3,518.50 228 $3,534.00 12 $186.00 2582.502 4" BROKEN LINE Epoxy GR IN LIN Ff $0.60 140 $84.00 140 $84.00 2582.502 8" DOTTED LINE EPDXY GR IN LIN FT $10.50 21 $220.50 21 $220.50 2582.502 4" DBLE soul) LINE EPDXY GR IN LIN FT $0.90 2286 $2,057.40 478 $430.20 1441 51,296.90 367 $330.30 2582.503 CROSSWALK PREF THERMO GR IN sc1 FT $2.5.00 1044 $15,660.00 144 $2,160.00 900 513,500.00 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTALS 2,845,316.92 o ;ow NOTE:• $142,500.00 $480,224.03 $18,200.00 $116,823.15 $1,293,061.24 $53,770.00 $271,401.00 $114,910.50 $6,530.00 526,185.00 $321,712.00 Hennepin County Agreement PVV 67-36-16 Exhibit "A"; Sheet 4 of 4 Agenda Item # 7A MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: January 31, 2017 MEETING: February 7, 2017 City Council SUBJ: Conservation Design-PUD Discussion Background The City Council discussed the Conservation Design-PUD ordinance at the December 20, 2016 work session and discussed potential changes to more clearly link the conservation objectives of the ordinance to the flexibility permitted under the ordinance. At the January 3 meeting, some Council members requested additional information related to how the maximum density permitted under the ordinance was determined. Information on Ordinance Adoption The ordinance was discussed in the spring and summer of 2010. The staff reports, Planning Commission, and City Council minutes from these discussions are attached as requested. Attachment 1. March 16, 2010 Concurrent City Council and Planning Commission report 2. March 16, 2010 meeting minutes 3. April 13, 2010 Planning Commission report 4. April 13, 2010 meeting minutes 5. May 11, 2010 Planning Commission report 6. May 11, 2010 meeting minutes 7. June 1, 2010 City Council report 8. June 1, 2010 meeting minutes 9. Ordinance as presented at July 6, 2010 City Council 10. July 6, 2010 meeting minutes Conservation Design-PUD Page 1 of 1 Discussion February 7, 2017 City Council MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Crosby and Members of the City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Chad Adams DATE: March 11, 2010 MEETING: March 16, 2010 Concurrent City Council and Planning Commission SUBJ: Conservation Design and Open Space Development Background Attached, please find a memorandum from Dan Petrick with Barr Engineering. Mr. Petrick will be coordinating the process of the City adopting regulations related to Conservation Design and Open Space Protection. At the March 16 concurrent meeting, background information on these types of regulations will be presented, and staff and consultants will seek general guidance on how the City would like to formulate these regulations. References for Comparable Ordinances The attached memo summarizes a number of ordinances in other communities and two model ordinances. If you have interest in reviewing any of the actual text of these ordinances, electronic links can be found below. Staff did not want to print all of these examples for the packet in order to save paper. If you would like them emailed to you (so you do not need to type them into your browser yourself), please email me at dusty.finke@,ci.medina.mn.us City of Inver Grove Heights Northwest Area District - Title 10, Chapter 13, Article J http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book id=542 Lino Lakes PUD - See Subd 10 on p 2-31 http://www.ci.li no -lakes. mn. us/vertical/Sites/%7BA233BB09-8316-4E 17-A27A- C25E01027DA7%7D/uploads/%7BD041 D422-8EE 1-481 A-9967-0E06BB3F2E0B%7D.PDF Lino Lakes R-EC District - See Subd 3 on p 6-11 http://www.ci.li no -lakes. mn. us/vertical/Sites/%7BA233BB09-8316-4E 17-A27A- C25E01027DA7%7D/u ploads/%7B3215B6C 1-AC50-4685-99BD-B081 AA4CEA54%7D. PD F Lake Elmo Open Space Preservation Title XV, Chapter 150 http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Minnesota/lakeelmo mn/lakeelmominnesotacodeofordinances?f =templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:lakeelmo mn Conservation/Open Space Design Page 1 of 2 March 16, 2010 Concurrent Meeting of the Discussion City Council and Planning Commission Hanover Conservation Design Overlay District http://www.hanovermn.org/vertical/Sites/%7B16C6D2AE-89FC-4A97-9E92- 3449C8A9165C%7D/uploads/%7B55D67872-EODB-4D59-8641-AAFF4578957B%7D. PDF Hanover PUD Regulations (Art 59.5) http://www.ci.medina.mn.us/departments/pz/Hanover-old.pdf MN Model Ordinance http://www.crplanning.com/pdfs/susdo6 09/conservation.pdf Pennsylvania Model Ordinance — "Growing Greener" http: //www. ci.medina.mn.us/departments/pz/GrowingGreenerVer20.pdf Attachments 1. Memo from Dan Petrick, Barr Engineering 2. Goal Priority Worksheet (Please complete prior to meeting) 3. Tables 1-4 (Comparisons of selected ordinances) Conservation/Open Space Design Page 2 of 2 March 16, 2010 Concurrent Meeting of the Discussion City Council and Planning Commission BARR Barr Engineering Company 4700 West 77th Street • Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803 Phone: 952-832-2600 • Fax: 952-832-2601 • www.barr.com An EEO Employer Minneapolis, MN • Hibbing, MN • Duluth, MN • Ann Arbor, MI • Jefferson City, MO • Bismarck, ND Memorandum To: Medina Open Space Task Force From: Dan Petrik Subject: Open Space Development/Conservation Design Regulations - March le task force meeting Date: March 10, 2010 The City of Medina is seeking to develop open space/conservation design regulations to protect the city's rural character and ecological resources. The City has hired Barr Engineering to help with this process. We are honored that you have selected us and will do our best to meet your expectations. We have recently completed a similar project in Hanover and are pleased to be able to share our knowledge and experience gained through that project. To start this process, comparable regulations were analyzed to provide the task force with ideas on the range of approaches other cities have taken to achieve open space conservation goals. The attached report summarizes our review of seven ordinances used by other cities and model codes. Please review this information for our first meeting. Additionally, we are asking you to complete the attached "Goal Priority Worksheet" prior to the first meeting. Identifying and clarifying goal priorities are an important first step to set the stage for ordinance development. We will discuss goal priorities as part of the agenda at our first meeting. Agenda 1. Overview of project and process deliverables 2. Brief presentation on conservation design and key ordinance elements/concepts 3. Review highlights of the Comparable Regulations Report 4. Identify and clarify goals for ordinance development • Group DOT exercise to rank goals • Discussion to clarify and identify top goal priorities 5. Range of acceptable incentives • Density incentives (see report as framework) • Changes to existing "contiguous suitable soils" approach 6. Spatial application of ordinance: existing zoning district, "environmental overlay," other ideas. 7. Next steps: Public Open House — March 231-d Summary and Analysis of Comparable Regulations Introduction and Overview of Comparable Regulations Reviewed As a concept, conservation design is generally understood as the clustering of homes on smaller lots in order to permanently protect significant amounts of designated open space. The seven ordinances reviewed for this project regulate residential development within this conceptual understanding. These seven ordinances reflect a range of approaches that may inform development of Medina's open space regulation. A brief summary of the selected ordinances is found in Table 1. Step 1 in Conservation Design: Setting Goals One important measure of an ordinance's success is how well it achieves its goals. Setting clear goals is the first step. All reviewed ordinances share many common goals or stated purposes either explicitly or implicitly in these areas: 1. Protection of views/vistas 2. Protection of habitat (greenway, ecological) corridors 3. Protection and creation of trail/recreational corridors 4. Protection of sensitive ecological resource systems (e.g., wetlands, drainageways) 5. The aesthetic transition between urban and rural areas 6. Protection of rural character 7. Protection of agricultural practices 8. Protection of ground water recharge areas Step 2 in Conservation Design: Creating Incentives and Regulations to Guide Development The second step, which may be more difficult, is creating specific incentives and regulations that guide developments toward goal achievement. While the seven ordinances take different approaches toward goal achievement, many of them share a similar organizational framework and common requirements. This is likely due to the widespread use of model ordinances to craft individual ordinances. Despite these commonalities, some of the ordinances use more targeted incentives and regulations than others. And these become distinctive points of differentiation —which offer clues about what goals are the most important. These "character" differences reflect community values and may be indicators of potential success in goal achievement. Cities with notable "character" differences include: • Inver Grove Heights' overlay district emphasizes the protection/restoration of hydrological functioning through very specific LID practices. • Lake Elmo's open space preservation district seeks to protect productive agricultural land and vistas along two specific highway corridors. • Hanover's CD overlay district emphasizes protection of ecological resources and corridors and "flexibility" in setting open space amounts reflective of the characteristics of each parcel. Comment: Does the City of Medina have any specific high priority goals? If so, identifying them will help develop more targeted incentives, performance standards, and requirements, and improve the chance of ordinance effectiveness. 2 Regulatory and Density Incentive Approaches Regulatory Framework Two regulatory approaches are used for implementing conservation design ordinances: the stand-alone district and the overlay district. Table 2 describes the approach used for each ordinance along with other key strategies for achieving ordinance goals. These issues include whether the ordinance is required or optional, its use in urban or rural settings, and the types of density incentives used. Stand-alone zoning districts. These ordinances are similar in regulatory approach and act as a PUD zoning district or as Conditional Use Permit/PUD. These ordinances include elements typical of base zoning districts, as well as conservation design performance standards, and the process and procedural requirements for application processing. As such, these documents are fairly lengthy. The Lino Lakes R-EC District is also a stand-alone district that operates as a standard base zoning district. It contains a few conservation elements and encourages open space through lot area and width flexibility. It is very short. These stand-alone districts are not mapped on the zoning map. Mapping takes place upon project/plat approval in conjunction with a rezoning of the land. In contrast, the overlay districts are mapped and visually communicate the location of the city's conservation design expectations. Overlay districts. Both the Hanover and Inver Grove Heights overlay districts must be implemented as PUDs. In Hanover's case, this allowed the CD ordinance to be relatively short, relying on the processing and procedural requirements of the PUD district. The Inver Grove Heights overlay district is lengthy due to many standards and requirements for LID stormwater management practices. All the ordinances, except the Inver Grove Heights regulation, are applied at the zoning district level. The Inver Grove Heights overlay ordinance is applied to a specific area based on the unique topography of landlocked basins. Comment: Applying the ordinance to a specific area and/or specific resource in a specific area allows the development of more targeted incentives and performance standards. Required vs. Optional Conservation design is "optional" for all communities, except for Inver Grove Heights where the Northwest Area overlay district is required. In Inver Grove Heights, this district applies to a specific "urban" portion of the city with many landlocked basins. This topography is challenging and expensive to serve, with standard pipe and pond stormwater sewer systems. These physical constraints provided a strong rationale (minimization of city and private development costs) for an ordinance that specifically requires a prescribed development and stormwater infrastructure pattern. While conservation design is not technically required in Hanover, it is in practice. Conservation design is an option in the city's rural agriculture (RA) district. This district requires a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres and city sewer and water. This is not an economically feasible combination for development to occur. The Hanover CD overlay district allows density of up to 1.5 units per acre of buildable land (the buildable land concept is described below). At this density, development with sewer and water is considered feasible and becomes a viable development option. This approach is an example of using traditional regulations with stringent requirements to leverage the use of the CD option to achieve city goals. These stringent requirements were in place prior to development of the CD overlay district. However, strengthening the 3 requirements in an existing base district is one strategy for making incentives more attractive and increasing the use of the conservation design option. Comment: Are there any resources, issues, or conditions that present an opportunity for building a strong case and community support for regulatory requirements to protect resources? Such requirements could be narrowly focused to increase levels of community support. Density Incentives Density incentives remain the primary method for encouraging conservation design developments compared to conventional development described in base zoning districts. Development using conservation design techniques is a clear policy priority over traditional large lot subdivisions in Lake Elmo. This priority is implemented through very significant density incentives. Among the ordinances reviewed, Lake Elmo's density incentives are the most aggressive. The difference in allowed density between the open space preservation district (OP) and agricultural district is significant: 18 units per 40 acres compared to 1 unit per 40 acres. This is another example of using stringent requirements in a base zoning district to leverage the CD option. While the difference in density between these two Lake Elmo districts is large, the actual number of units that can be built in the OP district is much less than it appears. This is due to additional restrictions including definitions of "buildable land" (described below), minimum lot sizes, and required open space. Among the ordinances reviewed, the "actual" increase in allowed units due to density incentives ranges from 50% to 200% with Lake Elmo being on the high end. These strong incentives have contributed to the approval of 20 conservation design projects over the past 15 years. Density incentives vary in their effectiveness depending on supply and demand for CD style developments, real estate market conditions, property location, and developer. Recent Twin Cities market experience indicates that CD developments appeal to relatively small segments of the upper income, empty nester, and move -up housing markets. Most conservation developments have been completed by local developers with a reputation for high quality. These developers generally consider conservation design to be a niche market with limited market potential. While the use of incentives can increase demand for CD developments, the effect is likely to be marginal, implying that that the supply of land available for CD should be limited. Comment: With potentially limited demand for CD developments would targeting aggressive density incentives in priority areas be an effective strategy for attaining goals? Other Incentives Besides density incentives, there is no consistent policy or track record with other incentives. The Lino Lakes Comp Plan describes other incentives that could be used for development located within or adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas. These incentives may include reduced fees, an expedited permitting process, and flexibility regarding staging area boundaries and timing. The collaborative approach used in Hanover is intended to be an incentive. The process is intended to reduce developer risk by increasing certainty of project approval through more time invested up front in the process before significant design costs are incurred. 4 Buildable Land Lake Elmo, Hanover, the MN Model Code, and the Pennsylvania Model Code use a buildable land concept for calculating the maximum number of allowed units in conjunction with the allowed density. Buildable land is the land left over after excluding certain "unbuildable" land. Unbuildable land typically includes some combination of hydric soils, land with steep slopes, wetlands and lakes, floodplains, and soils that cannot accommodate septic systems. Lake Elmo, Inver Grove Heights, and the Pennsylvania Model Code also use this concept to define the land area for the required open space. Use of the buildable land concept reduces the number of allowable units and increases the amount of open space needed for each development. The Lino Lakes PUD and R-EC districts calculate the number of allowed units by applying density to the total area of the land. Open Space Requirements and Design Standards Required Open Space Amount Most communities and the two model codes require at least 50 percent open space. Hanover chose to be more flexible by requiring up to 50 percent. This flexibility aligns with the city's collaborative approach to development. The city will pursue more open space in areas with ecological resources and where corridor connections are desired. Less open space would be pursued in other areas. This pragmatic project -by -project approach balances resource protection goals with market conditions. It also sidesteps the time, cost and political challenge of identifying areas where more open space is desired. With a 20% minimum open space requirement, the Inver Grove Heights ordinance is the least restrictive of the ordinances. However, with its strict LID performance standards, the "effective" amount of open space (from an impervious surface and infiltration perspective) is much higher. Runoff volume for development must not be any greater than the predevelopment volume for the 5-year, 24-hour event. This volume of water (approximately three inches) must essentially be infiltrated. The MN Model Code, the Lino Lakes PUD, and Hanover apply the required open space to the total acreage of the plat (e.g., a 40-acre plat must have 50% open space). The MN Model Code has one caveat in that it does not allow any more than 50% of the required open space to be wetlands or floodplains. Lake Elmo, Inver Grove Heights and the Pennsylvania Model Code apply the required amount of open space to the total amount of buildable land. This approach increases the actual amount of open space required. Lake Elmo and Hanover specifically require land for park dedication in addition to required open space. Development using the Pennsylvania Code may meet the park dedication requirement by dedicating an equivalent amount of required open space as public recreation land. Other districts are silent on this matter. Open Space Priorities Most ordinances list important features for preservation in their introductory purpose statements. Some ordinances have clear and short lists of prioritized features for preservation. These are treated as requirements in their design standards (Table 3). Preservation priorities send clear signals to developers and help the city make choices during development review. In Inver Grove Heights, reducing stormwater volume, preventing erosion, and implementing connective corridors are top priorities. In Lake Elmo, protecting agricultural land and key vistas are the most important. In Hanover, protecting and connecting spatially defined ecological resources are most critical. The MN Model Code is very similar in priorities to the Lake Elmo ordinance. 5 The Pennsylvania Model Code contains a long list of priorities, which, in practice may cloud clarity of intent. Presumably, communities using this code as a model would create a shorter, more targeted list of priorities aligned with individual community values and conservation needs. In contrast, the Lino Lakes PUD asks that each project classify the open space as having one of the following themes: natural habitat, neighborhood recreation or trail corridor open space. The developer is allowed to make the selection. In practice, the city will influence this approach using its comprehensive plan and other related plans. This approach works well when the goal is "generalized" preservation of open space or rural character. The old Hanover PUD (Article 59.5) presents a different approach altogether. It directly connects its incentives to specific goals or desired community amenities. More density bonus units are allocated to the top priorities (e.g., public open space and corridor systems) and fewer bonus units to lower priorities (e.g., four-sided architecture). This approach was applied at the zoning district level and not to any specifically located resource. With this approach, the city could get lots of open space and corridors/trails in areas that don't significantly contribute to expectations. Open Space Design Standards A wide variety of uses are typically allowed in designated open space, including preservation of natural plant communities, active and passive recreation, forestry, sewage disposal systems, stormwater treatment facilities, and many agricultural uses. Communities go to varying lengths to describe how the open space should be designed. Design standards are frequently treated as guidelines or principles, and typically include: • Interconnection of open space between parcels and with larger corridors/trail systems • Minimum size, width, and location of open space land • Pedestrian access to open space • Percentage of lots adjacent to open space • Visual/physical delineation of boundaries between open space and private lots • Placement of structures to minimize views from roads • Landscaping The Pennsylvania Code requires that 2% to 3% of open space must be designed as community greens. This reflects values or goals for creating the village green as a community gathering area. Protection, Ownership and Management of Open Space All ordinances requiring open space contain very similar language with regard to permanent protection and ownership of open space. The Lino Lakes R-EC district is the exception. These typical provisions include: • Restrictions on further development of designated open space by permanent conservation easement (or deed restrictions in the Pennsylvania Model Code) • Definitions of who may hold easements and what the easements must specify • Definitions of who may own land • Requirements that easement holders may not be the same as the land owner The Lake Elmo ordinance requires the submittal of a plan describing ownership, management, and maintenance of the designated open space. The Hanover CD ordinance, in conjunction with the new PUD 6 District, requires a detailed Open Space Management Plan. This plan requires specific details regarding the development/restoration of designated open space and cost estimates for the ongoing maintenance of the open space. This requirement is intended to ensure that association dues are adequate to maintain the land in a way that meets city expectations. The Pennsylvania Code also requires a similar Open Space Management Plan. The Pennsylvania Code allows up to 80 percent of the required open space to be in the form of privately owned (not association) conservancy lots. Conservation easements are also applied to such lots for permanent protection of open space. Permitted Housing Types and Selected Dimensional Standards Housing Types Permitted Single-family housing is the most common permitted housing type. Most districts also allow two-family dwellings and townhouses. The Inver Grove Heights PUD allows all housing types as well as commercial and industrial facilities. Selected Dimensional Standards Most ordinances set a minimum lot size as an additional check on the maximum number of units allowed for each project. Minimum lot sizes are generally smaller than what is allowed in the base zoning district except for the Lino Lakes R-EC District where the required lot sizes are slightly larger than the non -open space single-family district. Inver Grove Heights does not set a minimum lot size in order to create flexibility for achieving the Met Council's required minimum densities. Inver Grove Heights also encourages site design flexibility by allowing front setbacks to range from 20 to 30 feet. In keeping with its flexible collaborative approach, Hanover has chosen not to require minimum standards for lot size, lot width, lot frontage, lot depth or structure size, width, or setbacks. This approach was taken to allow developers flexibility in achieving the maximum allowed density to increase the feasibility of city sewer and water service. The city also recognized the large variability in land features (e.g., soils, trees, wetlands) and felt that many dimensional standards were arbitrary and caused the inefficient use of land and unintentional destruction of resources (mostly trees). The city also recognized that it was easy for staff and decision makers to get side-tracked by these relatively unimportant issues to the detriment of the city's top priorities. LID Performance Standards The Inver Grove Heights ordinance includes detailed provisions to reduce stormwater volume. Highlights include use of pervious paving, narrow streets, reduced minimum parking space requirements as well as maximum parking space requirements, and curbing to encourage sheet flow. The Lino Lakes PUD also includes a provision for narrow streets. Hanover's CD district provides "guidance" for implementing a wide variety of site design and stormwater management techniques, but mostly relies on its stormwater ordinance for volume reduction and LID measures. Many communities also include provisions restricting impervious surface. These may be useful in urban districts, but lose relevance in rural areas with larger areas of required open space and natural infiltration. Design Process A specific and detailed four -step design process is a requirement of the Pennsylvania Code and the Hanover CD overlay district for designating open space. The Hanover process makes reference to the four -step process as described in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Hanover requires the use of this process as a communications tool so that regular citizens can visually evaluate prospective developments to see that open 7 space priorities are being realized. It is the intent that the transparency of this approach will build trust and support for conservation development at higher densities. Both the Lake Elmo and MN Model Code specify that lots be designed through a priority system that generally reflects the four -step process without specifically describing the process details. Nearly all ordinances have a requirement for submittal of a natural resource plans during the concept plan stage. This is where the conservation or open space priorities are initially identified. Procedural and Processing Methods The Lake Elmo OP district, Lino Lakes PUD, MN Model Code and Pennsylvania Code all contain procedural and processing provisions for a process that includes concept, preliminary development, and final development stages. These provisions are typical of most PUD/CUP ordinances. The Hanover CD and Inver Grove Heights overlay districts rely on their city's respective PUD ordinances for procedural provisions. The Hanover CD overlay district and Pennsylvania Code encourages a site visit by the developer and planning commission during concept plan stage accompanied by a map of site resources. The Hanover CD overlay district is implemented through the City's PUD district ordinance. This ordinance lays out a collaborative process for reviewing and approving projects. Prior to concept plan development, there are multiple meetings with the developer and the city's project manager/project team to establish mutual goals and principles of understanding. These principles act as guideposts for managing an open, transparent process and for building trust among staff, developers, and decision -makers —and within the community. This approach is also intended to be an incentive by reducing development risk and increasing certainty. Comment: Is a collaborative and more flexible approval process an option for Medina? 8 Goal Priority Worksheet Introduction: Following are common goals of conservation design and open space ordinances. Developing effective incentives, requirements and performance standards depends on identifying and clarifying key goals for the ordinance. Greater goal clarity will guide development of the most effective tools acceptable in the community This ranking exercise is intended to help identify and clarify goal priorities at our first meeting. Directions: Rank the following seven potential goals in priority order with "1" being the most important and "7" being the least important. Feel free to add other goals. If you add other goals, please define them if they are not readily clear. Protection of "rural character" is not listed here as it is ambiguous. However, if you have a clear definition of rural character, please add it! Priority 1 — 7 Potential Ordinance Goals (edit for clarity, if desired) Describe rationale for ranking - Issues to consider may include: location of a specific resource or problem area, level of potential community support/conflict, problems with existing regulations. Protection of views/vistas from development Protection of corridors for habitat movement Protection of corridors for trails/recreation Protection of sensitive ecological resources Transition between urban and rural areas Protection of Agricultural practices/economy Protection of groundwater recharge areas Other: Other: Table 1: Summary of Ordinances Selected for Comparison Jurisdiction Ordinance Name Overview Reason for Selection/Goal Focus Lake Elmo Open Space Preservation — (OP) • Ordinance developed and approved in Mid 90's in collaboration with Bob Engstrom leading to development of Fields of St. Croix • 20 developments have been approved under this ordinance • Conservation development is preferred by city over 10 acre lot subdivisions. • Overall, city is pleased with how ordinance works. • Two issues for improvement: o Determining what role the city should play in overseeing design and maintenance of community septic systems (city has 12-15 community systems). o Improving transportation connections between "stand alone" developments to reduce congestion on major collectors/arterials. • Similar community values to Medina • Highly prescriptive approach to standards & requirements. • Designed for rural (ISTS and community septic) land use designations • Aggressive density incentives Goal Focus • Preservation of Agricultural land • Protection of vistas/views Lino Lakes Single Family Estate Conservation District — (R-EC) • No project have been developed with this ordinance • Example of a simple modest approach- "Conservation Design light." Goal Focus • "Generalized Open Space" PUD • Two projects have been approved with this ordinance, one was built. • Designed for both rural (ISTS and community septic) and urban (city sewer/water) land use designations. • Balance between prescription and flexibility. • Strong density incentives Goal Focus • "Generalized Open Space" Inver Grove Heights Northwest Area District (NWA) • Ordinance developed and approved in 2007. • Three projects have been approved with ordinance: an industrial project (built), a mixed use commercial/residential project and Sr. housing. • City is pleased with ordinance, retains council support. • Developers satisfied, have met or exceeded open space requirements. • Required, not optional. • At 20%, least amount of open space required • Heavy emphasis on protecting hydrological functioning through low impact development (LID) measures. Goal Focus • Stormwater Volume Reduction • Corridor Connections Jurisdiction Ordinance Name Overview Reason for Selection/Goal Focus • Complex to administer due to specific & detailed stormwater provisions. More expensive for developers due to consultant review of plans. Hanover Conservation Design Overlay District— (CD) • Approved in 2010, result of 6 month process with city task force. • Developed in conjunction with new streamlined PUD ordinance, Ecological Greenway ordinance and Stormwater Ordinance. • Nearby northwest metro community. • Recently adopted (Feb. 2010) • Designed for integrated use with separate PUD and Ecological Corridor ordinances. • Collaborative and flexible approach to implementation Goal Focus • Preservation of ecological resources • Corridor Connections PUD —Article 59.5 • Approved in 2006 • Two projects approved under ordinance (not built due to developer bankruptcy). • Significant administration to manage. • Not popular, perception that city was giving away too much. Repealed in 2010 and replaced with a streamlined PUD and Conservation Design Overlay District Ordinance • Highly detailed approach to specifying density incentives that reflect conservation/community amenity priorities. • Uses a point scoring system as criteria for approval. Goal Focus • "Generalized Open Space" — no clear focus MN Model Code Conservation Subdivision District • Developed in 2000 and updated in 2008 by CR Planning For MPCA. • Designed for exurban/urbanizing communities to protect rural character. • Balance between prescription and flexibility • Modest density incentives. Goal Focus • Based in part on the Lake Elmo Open Space Preservation district "Generalized Open Space" Pennsylvania Model Code Growing Greener Ordinance • Published in 2007 • Versions adopted by 36 cities and 14 counties in Pennsylvania • Code provides four options in a single residential zoning district for development as a permitted use (e.g. no CUP/PUD required). A fifth option — "Village Development" is implemented as a CUP. • This review looks at two of the options, the basic CD option (1 unit per 80,000 sf of developable land) and compares it to the Rural Residential option (1 unit per 10 acres of developable land) • Development led by Randall Arendt • Represents a "purists" perspective on Conservation Design. • Comprehensive and detailed for both subdivision and zoning components. • Model code provides ideas for variations on density, lot size, and open space requirements. Goal Focus • Ecological resources Table 2: Regulatory Approach & Density Incentives Jurisdiction Regulation Approach Required or Optional Application Density Incentives Comments Stand alone base district Overlay district Urban (Sewer & water) Rural (Septics & wells) Lake Elmo Open Space Preservation District (OP) X Optional. Is a conditional use in three districts: A -Agricultural, RR -Rural Residential RE -Rural Estate. X Yes, up to 18 units per 40 acres of buildable land. Compares to: A — 1 per 40 acres RR — 1 per 10 acres RE — 1 per 2.5 acres As a CUP, this district contains all standard elements of a base district, open space performance standards and ownership requirements, process and procedural requirements for processing as a CUP. Lino Lakes Single Family Estate Conservation District (R-EC) X Optional — requires rezoning X No Minimum lot size is 15,000 An incentive of sorts is offered through flexibility in determining lot size and lot width. An averaging method is used to allow lot size and lot width to vary around the "required" minimum The average of lots and sf. Which is lower than similar R-1X District with min lot size of 12,825 sf. lot widths must equal the required minimum. No plats have been approved through this district. Lino Lakes PUD X Optional. Is a conditional use permit PUD in one rural district and three urban residential districts: R-Rural R-2 — Two Family R-3 — Med Density R-4 - High Density X X Yes. For rural developments using community septics, up to 8 units per 40 acres is allowed compared to 1 unit per 10 acres. Yes. For urban residential developments, density is determined on project basis within guidelines of comp plan. As a PUD, this district contains all standard elements of a base district, open space performance standards and ownership requirements, and process and procedural requirements for processing as a PUD. Hanover Conservation Design Overlay District (CD) X Optional — requires PUD rezoning X Yes, up to 1.5 units per acre of buildable land. Compares to a 2 1/2 acre min lot size in base district. CD overlay applies to Rural -Agriculture district with 21/2 acre min. lot size and required city sewer. These requirements do not permit development feasibility, thus CD development becomes only viable option. Must be implemented as a PUD Hanover PUD —Article 59.5 X Optional — requires rezoning to PUD X Density bonuses allocated based on specific amenities added to project (e.g. lh dwelling unit for every acre of publicly accessible open space or corridor). Max. density capped at 0.8 units per acre (100% of base district density) Bonus system added to existing PUD which was an open space PUD and similar to current Lino Lakes PUD. System included 9 categories of specific amenities including non -open space amenities (e.g. 4-sided architecture) Inver Grove Heights Northwest Area Overlay District (NWA) X Required X No. Density is same as in base zoning districts; these include residential, commercial and industrial uses. Must be implemented as a PUD. Since this district must be implemented as a PUD, there is an opportunity for approved densities to be higher than those in base districts. MN Model Code X Optional X Yes, up to 1.5 units per 10 acres of buildable land. Compares to an assumed 1 unit per 10 acres in base zoning district. This district contains all standard elements of a base district, open space performance standards and ownership requirements, process and procedural requirements for processing. Pennsylvania Model Code (Growing Greener) "Basic CD Option" X Optional — as one of four permitted options (e.g. no PUD or CUP needed) X Yes. Up to 1 unit per 80,000 sf of buildable land. Compares to 1 unit per 10 acres of developable land in Rural Residential option. Two acres is a common minimum lot size in rural Pennsylvania. Code provides option for doubling density to 1 unit per 40,000 sf of buildable land with 70% open space (standard is 50%) Minimum lot sizes range from 6,000 sf to 12, 000 sf. Code also includes additional density increases of 15% over maximum for workforce house Table 3: Required Open Space and Open Space Priorities Jurisdiction/Regulation Required Open Space Amount Open Space Priorities (in order)1 Lake Elmo Open Space Preservation District (OP) At least 50% of the total buildable land area. • Soils least suitable for septic disposal • Soils most fertile for Ag use • Vistas from Highways 36 and 5 • Woodlands Lino Lakes Single Family Estate Conservation District (R-EC) None specified None specified Lino Lakes PUD At least 50% of the total plat. No priorities specifically stated. Following are listed goals: • Preserve productive land for Ag use • Preserve wildlife habitat • Reduce negative impacts on environment • Create common open space -neighborhood amenity Hanover Conservation Design Overlay District (CD) Up to 50% of total plat. • High and medium quality ecological resources (as defined in Comp Plan) • Land within designated ecological corridors (as defined in Comp Plan) • Slopes over 12% • Natural drainageways Hanover PUD (Article 59.5) None specified -determined on project -by -project basis as guided by density bonus unit allocation Listed in decreasing order of bonus units granted • Public open space • Land for and improved park • Land for and improved trail • Tree preservation • LID stormwater measures • Private open space • 4-sided architecture • Use of multiple builders (housing diversity) Inver Grove Heights Northwest Area Overlay District (NWA) At least 20% of the net developable area. • Slopes over 25% in "steep" subwatersheds • Public trails/corridors & open space (Comp Plan) • Slopes over 25% and priority 1 & 2 resources (Resource Inventory) • Open space around neighborhoods. MN Model Code At least 50% of total plat. No more than 50% of the open space shall be wetland or floodplain. • Soils least suitable for septic disposal • Soils most fertile for Ag use ' Priorities often refer to land that is not included in undevelopable land (e.g. wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, etc.) Jurisdiction/Regulation Required Open Space Amount Open Space Priorities (in order)' • Vistas from designated roads • Woodlands Pennsylvania Model Code At least 50% of the total buildable land. Higher • Significant habitat and species listed as endangered or threatened. (Growing Greener) "Basic amounts are required for incremental increases in • Slopes of 15 — 25 percent CD Option " density, up to 70%. • Healthy woodlands. • Hedgerows, specimen trees and other vegetation. • Groundwater recharge locations • Highly productive agricultural soils • Historic sites/structures • Visually prominent topography • Connective corridors Table 4: Housing Permitted and Misc Dimensional Requirements Jurisdiction/Regulation Min Parcel Size for Subdivision Housing Types Permitted Minimum Lot Size Perimeter Setbacks Minimum Pavement Width Lake Elmo Open Space Preservation District (OP) 40 acres' Single-family (SF) Townhouse (TH) ISTS: SF - 1 acre Community System: SF — lh acre TH — 8,000 sf/unit. 200 ft when abutting land ineligible for OP development. 100 ft when abutting land eligible for SO development. None specified Lino Lakes Single Family Estate Conservation District (R-EC) None specified Single-family 15,000 sf average None specified None specified Lino Lakes PUD Single-family Two-family Townhouse In Rural District, 25,000 sf if served by community system. Same as base zoning district. 26 ft In Urban Districts, same as base zoning district. Hanover Conservation Design Overlay District (CD) None specified All No minimum -as agreed to by 25 ft. Reduced width encouraged. Council Inver Grove Heights Northwest Area Overlay District (NWA) None specified Single-family Two-family Townhouse Multiple dwelling units Same as underlying base district Same as base zoning district 24 ft. — no parking 28 ft — one side parking MN Model Code 40 acres Single-family (SF) Two-family (TF) Townhouse (TH) ISTS: SF - 1 acre Community System: None specified None specified SF —'/z acre TF — 8,000 sf/unit TH — 8,000 sf/unit. Pennsylvania Model Code (Growing Greener) "Basic CD Option " 10 Acres Single-family SF — 20,000 sf Lots as small as 6,000 sf allowed at approved higher densities and additional open space. 100 feet from exterior roads, otherwise 50 feet. None specified ' The ratio of parcel length to width shall not exceed 3 to 1. MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 16, 2010 The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in special concurrent session with the Medina Planning Commission on March 16, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. in the Medina City Hall. I. Call to Order Members present: Weir, Siitari, Smith Members absent: Johnson, Crosby Planning Commissioners Present: John Anderson, Beth Nielsen, Victoria Reid, Kent Williams, Robin Reid (arrived at 5:46 p.m.) Planning Commissioners Absent: Charles Nolan and Kathleen Martin Also present: City Administrator Chad M. Adams; City Planner Dusty Finke; Park Commissioners Ben Benson, Ann Thies and Janet White; City Conservation Design Consultant Dan Petrik II. Open Space/Conservation Design Ordinance — Barr Engineering Note: Barr Engineering's presentation started at 5: 36 p.m. These minutes reflect the meeting material and discussion when a quorum of the Medina City Council was met at 6: 00 p.m. Please review the Planning Commission's March 16, 2010 special meeting minutes for material discussed prior to 6: 00 p.m. Dan Petrik, Barr Engineering provided a slide presentation and overview of encouraging conservation design. He stated in order to be successful, conservation design should not be more difficult to implement than a base district (including processing, time frame and cost to developer). He added that project feasibility (meeting the market's attractiveness gap) and flexibility were important components to encouraging conservation design. Petrik discussed setting and achieving specific goals that included generalized open space vs. specific goals as well as incentives, standards and requirements to achieve the goals. He stated that conservation design ordinances tend to be much more successful if they are tailored towards specific goals. Finke stated that the incentives the City could offer to support conservation design are likely finite, so identifying more specific goals would allows the City to concentrate its incentives towards situations which best meet the City's objectives. Petrik provided examples and key variations between three existing conservation design ordinances in Inver Grove Heights, Lake Elmo and Hanover. There is a good deal of variation with relation to: the main objectives of each city's open spaces; whether the conservation design was required by the ordinance or encouraged through incentives; minimum amount of required open space; and the aggressiveness of incentives offered to potential developers. Medina City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 16, 2010 1 Discussion was held on implementing some mandatory regulation to preserve the highest priority natural resources in the City versus an entirely optional/incentive based approach. Some members expressed interest in mandatory development standards in areas in the community where exceptionally high value natural resources were located. Discussion was held about a public reaction if the City were to map these high value areas. Petrik stated that the regulations enacted by a city can vary depending on the main objectives it wishes to achieve. Commissioners and Council members conducted a goal setting exercise to determine highest and lowest priorities as a guiding tool in drafting an ordinance. General consensus of the members present included high priority being placed on protection of sensitive ecological resources, protection of views/vistas from development (including preservation of rural character) and protection of corridors for habitat movement. Lowest priority areas included protection of agricultural practices/economy and transition between urban and rural areas. Petrik described collaborative processes that other communities are attempting to implement in order work with developers on conservation design. Discussion was held on approaches to encourage developers to engage and understand the City's conservation design ordinance when adopted. General consensus of the members present was to institute a collaborative planning approach between a developer and the City. III. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Attest: Chad M. Adams, City Administrator -Clerk Carolyn A. Smith, Acting Mayor Medina City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 16, 2010 2 BARR Barr Engineering Company 4700 West 77th Street • Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803 Phone: 952-832-2600 • Fax: 952-832-2601 • www.barr.com An EEO Employer Minneapolis, MN • Hibbing, MN • Duluth, MN • Ann Arbor, MI • Jefferson City, MO • Bismarck, ND Memorandum To: Medina Planning Commission From: Dan Petrik Subject: Conservation Design Ordinance Date: April 7, 2010 Project: 23 27 1104.00 001 DRP Introduction A public hearing will be held on April 13 to consider the attached conservation design ordinance. The ordinance was drafted in response to direction from the joint meeting of the Council, Planning Commission and Parks Commission of March 16 and feedback received at the public open house of March 23. The intent of the ordinance is to implement policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the 2007 Open Space Report concerning the protection of the City's rural character and sensitive ecological resources. A summary of the March 23 open house is included at the end of this memo. The attached ordinance contains extensive comments clarifying specific regulatory issues. Following is a summary of the key issues regarding ordinance development. Regulatory Approach Conservation Design (CD) is implemented as an Overlay District in the Rural Residential District and in any residential district guided for sewered residential use in the Comprehensive Plan. Conservation design is a development option (e.g. not required) in these areas and is encouraged through various incentives (described below). The CD Overlay District is designed to be implemented as a PUD. As such, the CD District includes design standards and requirements to guide the design and review of CD-PUDs that achieve city goals and policies. As a PUD, the Council does have discretion to deviate from the standards and requirements of the CD Overlay District. The overall "tone" of the CD Overlay District is one of flexibility especially in terms of incentives (density and site design) and the amount of required open space. The main idea is to "let the land speak" and approach the design of each project on a case -by -case basis. Incorporating collaboration concepts into the design and review process is an additional way of introducing flexibility into the ordinance. The collaboration option is discussed later in this memo. A Conservation Design-PUD is only an option on larger tracts of land, defined as 40 acres and larger in the Rural Residential District and 20 acres in sewered residential districts. Larger tracts are needed to allow for creative site designs that achieve development priorities. There is also little to be gained through CD development in terms of protecting ecological resources on smaller parcels. On these parcels, existing regulations are effective in protecting these resources. This regulatory approach was chosen because it works within the existing zoning framework and is relatively straightforward to administer. Spatially, it is applied to existing zoning districts and it uses the existing PUD district for application processing. An alternative to this regulatory approach would have been to map a new district based on ecological resources and critical. Implementing this approach would be challenging from technical, administrative and political perspectives and wouldn't necessarily improve outcomes. Incentives Two types of incentives are offered in the CD Overlay District, density incentives and flexibility from various other regulations. Density incentives were felt to have more relevance in the Rural Residential District, whereas, flexibility from other regulations were felt to have more market value in sewered residential areas. 100 percent of base density is offered as an incentive in the Rural Residential District and 20 percent of base density is offered in sewered residential areas. Offering the incentive as a percentage of base density is used in order to work within the existing regulatory framework. In addition to density, flexibility around lot size, lot width, and setbacks are offered for CD development in both the Rural Residential District and in sewered residential districts. Additional incentives for CD development in sewered residential districts are offered and include flexibility around housing type, landscaping, screening, wetland buffers, and tree preservation. Open Space A flexible approach is also taken with regard to "required open space." A preferred range of open space is listed for CD development in the Rural Residential District and sewered residential districts. The city already has significant areas of open space. The intent of this section, along with the specified preservation priorities, is to target the preservation of open space on key priority resources as opposed to maximizing open space (quality over quantity). The ordinance lists the following preservation priorities for designating open space: 1. Sensitive ecological resources 2. Land connecting these resources 3. Scenic views Comments received at the public open house suggested that trails should also be a priority for designated open space. Achieving this public amenity may be an important goal for the development of some parcels, but it is not related to the preservation of important resources. Incorporating public trails and/or public open space is included in the design standards and may become a development goal or priority. Open Space Design Standards The section on open space design standards provides guidance on how the space should be designed regarding connectivity and the relationship of certain elements. Some cities get very specific in this area. The approach taken was to provide general guidance as opposed to many specifics to go with the overall tone of flexibility. There may be opportunities for adding more guidance in this area to address the community's needs. Sewage Treatment The City's Building Inspector was consulted for developing regulations in this area. Individual treatment systems are required for CD development; however, the placement of drainfields in commonly owned open space is allowed to provide flexibility in site design. 2 Application Processing Introduction to Issue There are two options for processing CD-PUD applications. The first is to use the existing procedures in the PUD ordinance without modification. The second option is to incorporate "collaborative" elements into the CD Overlay district to supplement the PUD application processing provisions. Evolving planning thought and practice recognize that achieving the goals and priorities of conservation design requires significant site design flexibility. Prescriptive one size fits all regulations are not suited towards addressing the unique environmental characteristics of each parcel and maximizing project benefits for both the developer and community. The proposed ordinance is drafted to allow flexibility around specific site design standards. Determining a process for achieving a site design that maximizes project benefits requires further community discussion and city direction. Planning practice indicates that early agreement on a vision and development goals for a site are very important as well as developing a level of trust between the city and developer. The existing PUD processing requirements may be sufficient to achieve these objectives. However, the following "collaborative" language is offered as an application processing option. Throughout the ordinance are references to an "initial planning stage" of application processing. This language will be clarified based on direction for application processing. Following is proposed application processing language that could be included as a final section in the ordinance. This language is intended to supplement existing PUD processing procedures and precede the Concept Plan Stage of the existing PUD procedures. Proposed Processing Language The City of Medina recognizes the unique qualities of each land parcel and the challenges specific to preserving the City's rural character. In order to enhance opportunities for protecting the rural character through CD-PUD development, the City intends to engage landowners and developers in a collaborative process that emphasizes flexibility in the design, regulation, and review of CD-PUD projects. The review and approval procedures of the PUD District shall be used to review and approve CD-PUDs. However, prior to the Concept Plan Stage PUD application, applications for CD-PUDs shall participate in a goal planning stage. The purpose of the goal planning stage is to identify site design and preservation goals and assess areas of flexibility for achieving both developer and city goals for the specific land parcel. Key procedural elements include: • Appointment of a project steering committee by the City Council to conduct initial discussions with the developer and to develop a project guidance report and recommendations to the City Council. The Steering Committee shall include members of the Planning Commission, City Council and staff of a size determined by the Council. Steering Committee meetings shall be noticed as public meetings. • A joint (Steering Committee and Developer) review of the site conditions of the parcel within the context of the city's open space priorities (see section 826.xx Subd. 5). o The developer will provide a map of the site conditions information specified in the PUD District (Section 827.33. Subd 2. (d)) along with the sensitive ecological resources 3 identified as priority areas on the Composite Map of the 2007 Open Space Report and views from roads identified as "Scenic Roads" on the Scenic Roads Map of the 2007 Open Space Report. o The Steering Committee and developer will conduct a joint site visit to inspect the parcel and assess its resources. • Assessment of the development potential at base density as determined by existing regulations. Developer to prepare this assessment with guidance by, and review of, city staff. • Discussion of project concept and goals by Steering Committee. • Agreement on project goals and key concept elements, including: o Specific resources (ecological and views) and corresponding land area to be protected. o Public trails and open space facilities, if any. o Plans for the protected land including restoration measures, if any. o Preliminary agreement on density incentives and open space amount. o Preliminary agreement on other areas of regulatory flexibility o Communication and procedural expectations between parties • Development of a Project Guidance Report by staff and approved by the Steering Committee and developer. The report will summarize the project concept, mutual and individual party goals, and context for offering project flexibility. Recommendations will address: o Proposed density incentives o Proposed amount of required open space o Other areas of regulatory flexibility o Other proposed public benefits o Communications and procedures for processing application • Review and approval of Guidance Report and Recommendations by the Council and Developer. Report and recommendations will be used for guiding the remaining process which will continue with PUD Concept Plan application as outlined in the PUD ordinance. Discussion The proposed processing language is intended to specify how the city would collaboratively engage developers early in the process. The process provides the basic information needed to begin discussions and provides opportunities for building mutual understanding and trust. This process also expects that both parties adhere to these initial discussions as outlined in the project guidance report. The Steering Committee is used to guide this process up to the point of getting Council Approval on the Project Guidance Report. This group of city leaders is used to provide the developer with some certainty that the initial discussions as documented in the Project Guidance Report will be honored throughout the remaining approval process (e.g. concept, development stage and final stage). The city will need to determine if there will be an application fee for this process. The CD District is intended to provide incentives to encourage a CD approach to development. The process to get there should not be costly and time consuming for the developer. The city could consider charging a small fixed application fee. Charging the developer for staff/consultant time for a continuing series of meetings would not send a positive signal. 4 Summary of Comments from the March 23, 2010 Public Open House Approximately 20 people attended the open house. About three or four participants identified as residents/owners of large tracts of undeveloped land. The remaining participants were identified as residents of the city. The open house started with a presentation covering the following topics: • An overview of the project and its relationship to the 2007 Open Space Report and Comprehensive Plan • An introduction to conservation subdivision design, what it is and how it protects rural character • Review of key regulatory issues and discussion to get group feedback. Key discussion topics included: o Ordinance goals and preservation priorities (to confirm priorities identified at the March 16 meeting of the Council, Planning Commission and Parks Commission) o Opinions on whether the ordinance should be voluntary or required o Reaction to a range of density incentives o Reaction to flexibility on other performance standards/requirements o Reaction to the use of "collaboration" to introduce flexibility into the review and approval process. Participants also completed a short survey related to the above described regulatory issues. Attached is a copy of the survey including a summary of the quantitative results. Following is a summary of the written comments as well as verbal comments made at the meeting. Overall Observations of all Comments • There is overall support for a conservation design ordinance that is voluntary. However, there is a minority that is skeptical that it will amount to much of a difference compared to existing regulations. • There is broad support for the use of density incentives as well as in being flexible around other performance standards (e.g. minimum lot size, setbacks, etc.) in order to encourage this approach. • There is also support for a flexible approach to designing these projects by working more "collaboratively" with developers. Note that no specifics were discussed on how this would occur. • There was also some generalized concern about allowing more development through incentives and the uncertainty as to what the overall impact of that development might be. Comments and Questions Related to Overall Goals of the Ordinance • What is the goal, more open space or the protection of resources? There is already a lot of open space in the city, how much more is needed? Perhaps the goal should be to target the open space on the most important resources needed for protection. • How different will the land look with conservation design compared to development with existing regulations (e.g. wetland buffers and tree preservation)? • Protecting ecological resources (trees) and views seem to be incompatible goals. This needs to be resolved on a project -by -project basis. • If protecting ecological corridors is important, the city needs to be clear about this through mapping. • Some felt that development using conservation subdivision design would have limited potential due to soils and their distribution within the city. • The ordinance should clearly define priorities for designating open space. 5 " There is widespread support for the priorities identified at the March 16 meeting. These include the protection of: o Sensitive ecological resources o Views/vistas from roads o Ecological resource corridors for wildlife movement and habitat. " Three people mentioned that trails should be added to the priority list " A couple of people expressed concern over loss of landowner property rights with each new regulation. " It doesn't make sense to create a new conservation design ordinance on top of existing tight regulations (e.g. wetland buffers, tree preservation, 5 acres of contiguous soils) " Conservation design seems counterproductive on small parcels. There is very little development potential on small parcels. However, with incentives, they could be developed and end up with no net increase in green space and probably less. Don't want to lose green space that would have stayed green anyway. Conservation design makes much more sense for larger parcels within the context of existing regulations. " Some expressed concern with the potential increase in property values (and taxes) for land adjacent to designated open space but not part of the development. " There is some limited concern that conservation subdivisions will encourage more development and lead to more traffic. Comments Related to Flexibility, Density, and Other incentives. " Most felt that the amount of required open space for each project should be variable depending on the quality and quantity of resources. One person added that the impact of existing regulations should also be considered. " Only a couple people indicated that a fixed 50% goal should be applied to all projects. " Most felt that the city should be flexible in giving density incentives within a range. Higher density would be offered on parcels with significant resources to protect and less density on parcels with fewer resources. A range of acceptable densities (as an incentive) should be clearly specified. On the survey, most expressed an interest in allow density incentives of up to 2 to 3 units per 10 acres, assuming there are important resources to protect. " It was noted that there is trade-off between the open space amount and density (e.g. the higher the density, the likelihood that there will be less open space. " Three participants specifically stated that they opposed the use of any density incentives (it's possible that more felt this way). They prefer the development pattern resulting from existing regulations. " City should be aware of the market and that incentives need to be sufficient to make a project economically viable. " For collaboration to really work, there needs to be acknowledgment of concessions by both parties (developer and city) " Flexibility and collaboration would be a breath of fresh air. 6 City of Medina Conservation Design/Open Space Regulation Development Feedback Request — March 23, 2010 (Feedback Summary) Background: The City of Medina is developing new land use regulations governing how land is developed in the Rural Residential District. The regulations are intended to implement policies in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the 2007 Open space Report. The Goal of the regulations is to preserve the unique rural character of Medina. This would be accomplished by guiding residential land development in ways that would protect ecological resources and important vistas or views through a development pattern referred to as "conservation development." This pattern of development clusters homes on smaller lots in order to permanently protect significant amounts of open space. This is in contrast to "traditional development" patterns that subdivide all of a parcel into approximately equal sized lots. Conservation design or "clustering" may be implemented at the same density as current regulations or at higher densities to encourage this pattern. Directions: The City is requesting your feedback on important issues to help guide the development of these new regulations. Please answer the following questions. 1. Following are the top three goal priorities as identified by the Council, Planning and Park Commissions. a. Protection of sensitive ecological resources b. Protection of views/vistas from city roads c. Protect ecological resource corridors for wildlife movement and habitat Are there any missing top priorities? If so, please list them below: Are there any particular views or vistas that should be protected? If so, please describe. 2. The new regulations could be required or encouraged as a development option. What is your preference for how these regulations should be applied? (check one) ❑ Required ❑ Optional 4 responses 7 responses 3. If optional, allowing increased density is often used to encourage conservation design. How should the City use density to encourage conservation and open space development? (check one) ❑ Leave density unchanged (approximately 1 unit per 10 acres) 0 responses ❑ Offer density up to 2 units per 10 acres. 0 responses ❑ Offer density up to 3 units per 10 acres 3 responses ❑ Allow flexibility within these ranges so that higher density could be offered on parcels with significant resources to protect and less density on parcels with fewer resources to protect. 6 responses 4. Designating an amount of open space is the most important element in conservation design. How much open space should be designated? (Check one) ❑ 50% 2 responses ❑ More than 50 % 1 response ❑ Less than 50 % 2 responses ❑ A variable amount depending on the quality and quantity of resources on a given parcel. More open space would be sought on parcels with many resources and less open space on parcels with fewer resources.6 responses 5. What concerns, if any, do you have with the City taking a more flexible and collaborative approach with landowners/developers in the design and review of development plans? 6. Do you have any additional thoughts or comments that the city should consider as it develops the conservation design and open space regulations? CONSERVATION DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT Draft — April 7 2010 Section 826.xx. Conservation Design (CD) — Purpose. The purpose of this district is to preserve the City's rural character which includes ecological resources, wildlife corridors, and scenic views, while allowing residential development consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and 2007 Open Space Report. The purpose of this district is to provide development flexibility through greater collaboration with landowners and developers that reflects the varying market circumstances and the individual characteristics of their properties Section 826.xx Intent. Subd. 1. It is the intent of the City to accomplish the stated purpose of this District by approving a Planned Unit Development for portions of property in the Rural Residential District and all residential districts corresponding to residential land uses guided for municipal services and by adopting the comprehensive regulations contained herein. Parcels lying in these districts may be developed according to the regulations of the CD Overlay District or the base zoning district. Comment: City policy in the Open Space Report and the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the majority of comments received at the two project meetings support conservation design as a development option. Subd. 2. In return for requiring preserved open space as contained herein; it is the intent of the City to allow dwelling unit density that will provide a development density equal to or greater than the prior zoning for the Rural Residential District and sewered residential districts. Comment: City policy in the Open Space Report and the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the majority of comments received at the two project meetings support the use of density incentives to encourage this development option. Subd. 3. The permitted, conditional and accessory uses and other regulations set forth in the underlying zoning districts shall apply unless specifically addressed in this District, the PUD District, or if determined by the City Council to be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this District as part of the final PUD plans. Subd. 4. The procedures and regulations set forth in the PUD District shall apply unless specifically addressed in this District. If a final PUD plan is approved by the City Council, the underlying zoning for the subject property shall be rezoned to Conservation Design-PUD District (CD-PUD). The permitted uses and all other regulations governing uses on the subject land shall then be those found in the CD-PUD zoning district and documented by the PUD plans and agreements. The following subsections are requirements for all PUDs in the Conservation Design Overlay District unless exceptions, as part of a PUD, are otherwise approved by the City Council. Section 826.xx Definitions. Subd. 1. Buildable Land Area. The total land area in a proposed conservation design subdivision less the amount of land that includes: hydric soils, slopes greater than 18%, wetlands, required wetland buffers, lakes, and land within the 100 year floodplain. \\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs \WorkFiles \Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(Apri17).doc 1 Subd. 2. Conservation Easement. As defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 84C: A nonpossessory interest of a holder in real property imposing limitations or affirmative obligations the purposes of which include retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open -space values of real property, assuring its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational, or open -space use, protecting natural resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water quality, or preserving the historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural aspects of real property. Subd. 3. Conservation Design Subdivision. Any development of land that incorporates the concepts of designated open space and clustering of dwelling units. Subd. 4. Designated Open Space. Open space that is designated within a conservation design subdivision to be placed under a conservation easement permanently restricting future development. Designated open space may be used for agriculture, preservation of ecological resources, habitat corridors, and/or for passive active recreational purposes. Subd. 5. Homeowners Association. A formally constituted non-profit association or corporation made up of the property owners and/or residents of a development for the purpose of owning, operating and maintaining common open space and/or other commonly owned facilities. Comment: Some of these definitions may be appropriate to add to Section 825.07, the definitions section of the Zoning Code. Section 826.xx. General Development Standards. Subd. 1. Minimum Size of Subdivision. (a) The minimum land area required for development shall be: (1) 40 contiguous acres in the Rural Residential District (2) 20 contiguous acres in sewered residential districts (b) A subdivision in the Rural Residential District of over 20 contiguous acres but less than 40 contiguous acres may apply for approval if they meet all the requirements for CD, plus the following requirements: (1) The visual impact of the subdivision from existing adjacent roadways is mitigated by topography and/or existing vegetation. (2) The maximum allowed gross density is 1.5 units per 10 acres. Comment: The minimum size of the subdivision must be large enough to allow for creative site design that achieves development priorities. There is little additional green space to be gained from allowing small parcels to be developed at higher densities compared to current regulations The additional requirements placed on subdivisions of smaller parcel size should be used to mitigate the visual and environmental impacts. Subd. 2. Tract Ownership. The tract of land may be held in single or in multiple ownerships. However, when a tract is held in multiple ownerships, it shall be planned as a single entity with common authority and common responsibility as demonstrated through all property owners being signatories on the PUD application. \\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs \WorkFiles \Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(Apri17).doc 2 Subd. 3. Base Density, Density Incentives, and Calculation of Allowed Number of Dwelling Units. (a) The base density shall be that established by regulations in the relevant base zoning district. (1) In the Rural Residential District, base density shall be determined by calculating the amount of contiguous soils suitable for a standard sewage disposal system divided by the required acreage of the Rural Residential District. This calculation shall be completed during the "initial planning stage" (the form of this is yet to be determined) of CD-PUD application processing (2) In sewered residential districts, a yield plan shall be developed during the "initial planning stage" (the form of this is yet to be determined) of CD-PUD application processing to determine the base density. Regulations of the base district and all other relevant land use regulations of this Code shall be used for completing the yield plan. (b) Additional density or density incentives may be granted at the discretion of the City Council based on the conservation priorities identified for the parcel during the "initial planning stage" (the form of this is yet to be determined) of CD-PUD application processing. The total number of dwelling units in a CD-PUD development shall be guided by the density limitations contained in the Comprehensive Plan and shall not be greater than: (1) 100% of the calculated base density in the Rural Residential District. (2) 20% of calculated base density in all sewered residential districts. Comment: The maximum number of dwelling units is a local choice that balances the city's long term vision as defined in the Comprehensive Plan with an incentive that is sufficient to encourage landowners/developers to select the conservation design option. A "percentage" of the base density is used as the incentive framework so as to work with existing and familiar requirements for determining allowed number of units. The language shows that the city will be flexible in granting density and that this flexibility is tied to the project conservation priorities identified during the "initial planning stage" (the form of this is yet to be determined) of application processing. A "yield plan" is a plan that shows how many dwelling units can be placed on a tract of land according to the regulations pertaining to development of that land. It is produced early in the process to guide design and density discussions. It is more conceptual and does not require the level of detail of plans submitted during the preliminary plat stage. Subd 4. Required Open Space. (a) The required open space within the CD development shall be determined during the "initial planning stages" (the form of this is yet to be determined) of CD-PUD application processing. It is the City's intent to preserve open space of: (1) At least 30% - 50% of the total buildable land area (see definitions) in the Rural Residential District. (2) At least 20% of the total buildable land area (see definition) in sewered residential districts. \\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs \WorkFiles \Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(Apri17).doc 3 Comment: Defining an open space amount is challenging in an environment with significant amounts of dispersed wetlands and surface waters. Applying a rigid one size fits all rule, or requiring too much open space, in this type of landscape may be counter productive, especially with an incentive based approach. Since wetlands (and their buffers) are already protected, there is little to be gained (over existing regulatory requirements) by allowing wetlands in the required open space. For this reason, required open space is defined as a percentage of "buildable land area" which excludes wetlands. This approach is considered to be more restrictive than applying an open space amount to the total parcel area. However, this perceived "restrictiveness" can be modified by reducing the actual amount required. As such, the range of required open space is capped at 50%. This amount, however, may still be too high in this landscape where CD development is to be encouraged. The city already has lots of open space (as stated by many participants at the 3/23 open house), so requiring open space for the sake of getting more open space may be unproductive and difficult to justify to land owners (on top of existing regulations). The objective is to target the open space in ways that achieve the conservation priorities of protecting upland ecological resources and views, areas that could otherwise be developed. This may be achievable through relatively small amounts of "required" open space, depending on the characteristics and location of each parcel of land. Due to these site specific variables, flexibility in determining the "required" amount of open space provides greater opportunities for the city and landowner/developer to both achieve their individual goals through CD development. Assessing project goals and methods to achieve them would occur during the proposed "initial planning stage" (the form of this is yet to be determined) of CD-PIUD application processing. The proposed regulatory language communicates what the City's goals are, but through reference to the goal planning stage and use of an open space range for the Rural Residential area, the city is indicating its flexibility for considering each project on its own merits. For CD developments in urban areas, a 20% minimum is expected. This is considered the minimum amount needed to protect any existing resources and/or create corridors that provide differentiation from a conventional suburban subdivision. On some projects, more open space may be available, but meeting required density minimums and market demand for saleable lots will effectively limit the amount of open space. Subd. 5. Priorities for Preserving Open Space. (a) The total required open space shall be designated and located to incorporate the following areas listed in order of preservation priority: (1) Sensitive ecological resources identified as priority areas on the Composite Map of the 2007 Open Space Report (how is this information referenced in the Comp Plan?). (2) Land connecting these priority areas to create habitat movement corridors. (3) Views from roads identified as "Scenic Roads" on the Scenic Roads Map of the 2007 Open Space Report. \\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs \WorkFiles \Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(Apri17).doc 4 Comment: These priorities were identified at the 3/16 meeting of the Council/Planning Commission and Parks Commission and validated by the participants at the 3/23 open house. These priorities are also aligned with goals and policies identified in the 2007 Open Space Report and Comprehensive Plan. These priorities are intended to communicate to landowners and developers what is most important to the city and to guide discussions during the early planning stage of each CD-PUD application. Applying these priorities to a specific parcel of land, should inform "initial planning stage" (the form of this is yet to be determined) discussions on density incentives, the amount of required open space, and ultimately, the design concept. Subd. 6. Perimeter Setbacks. Structure setbacks from the perimeter of the subdivision shall be the same as the underlying zoning district. Section 826.xx. Additional Incentives to Encourage Conservation Design. The Council may grant additional project flexibility to encourage conservation design. Subd. 1. Rural Residential Districts. In the Rural Residential District flexibility there is no minimum lot size or width for CD developments. The structure setback regulations for CD development may be reduced from the underlying zoning district provided they comply with the following minimums: (a) Setback from local streets: 35 feet (b) Setback from Arterial and Collector Streets: 100 feet (c) Interior structure setbacks: 30 feet Subd 2. Sewered Residential Districts. In all sewered residential districts, flexibility from the requirements of the base zoning district or other requirements of this code may include: (a) Front yard setback (b) Minimum lot size (c) Minimum lot width (d) Housing type (e) Landscaping (0 Screening (g) Wetland buffers (h) Tree preservation Comment: Flexibility in these areas is intended to be an incentive to the developer and to protect ecological features and achieve other project goals. The idea is to assess each parcel/project individually and achieve the site design that best achieves overall goals. This approach requires trade offs on individual objectives or requirements in the \\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs \WorkFiles \Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(Apri17).doc 5 achievement of the overall best approach. The city may wish to specify ranges of flexibility on some or all of these elements. Section 826.xx. Open Space Protection and Ownership. Subd. 1. Any land and improvements in areas designated as open space in a CD-PUD shall be established, protected and owned in accordance with the following guidelines: (a) Designated open space shall be surveyed and subdivided as separate Outlots. (b) Designated open space must be restricted from further development by a permanent conservation easement (in accordance with Chapter 84C.01-05 of Minnesota Statutes) running with the land. The conservation easement must be submitted with the General Plan of Development and approved by the City Attorney. (1) The permanent conservation easement may be held by any combination of the following entities, but in no case may the holder of the conservation easement be the same as the owner of the underlying fee: i. The City of Medina, or other governmental agency ii. A private nonprofit organization that has been designated by the Internal Revenue Service as qualifying under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. iii. A common ownership association, which owns open and non -open space land within the subdivision and in which membership in the association by all property owners in the subdivision shall be mandatory. (2) The permanent conservation easement must specify: (3) i. The entity that will maintain the designated open space. ii. The purposes of the conservation easement and the conservation values of the property. iii. The legal description of the land under the easement. iv. The restrictions on the use of the land and from future development. v. To what standards the open space will be maintained (reference to an approved land stewardship plan). vi. Who will have access to the open space. Ownership of the underlying fee of each designated open space parcel, may be held by any combination of the following entities: i. A common ownership association, subject to the provisions in the PUD District ii. An individual who will use the land in accordance with the permanent conservation easement; \\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs \WorkFiles \Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(Apri17).doc 6 iii. The City of Medina or other government agency. iv. A private nonprofit organization that has been designated by the Internal Revenue Service as qualifying under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Comment: The long-term success of a conservation design subdivision lies with permanently restricted open space. If the restrictions are not permanent, development of those areas could happen if zoning changes. Conservation easements are a tool that has been specifically authorized and used in Minnesota to provide for permanent protection of natural resources. The easement must be held by a separate entity from the underlying fee. The easement holder is responsible for monitoring the easement parcels to ensure development does not occur and for enforcing the terms of the easement. Easements that lie across parcels with different owners are difficult to manage. Open space parcels should be platted as separate Outlots and held by a single entity, such as an ownership association. Section 826.xx. Land Stewardship Plan. Subd. 1. Plan Objectives. Where a CD-PUD has designated open spaces, a plan for the development, long-term use, maintenance, and insurance of all open areas or common facilities, shall be developed. The plan shall: (a) Define ownership and methods of land protection. (b) Establish necessary regular and periodic operation and maintenance responsibilities. (c) Estimate staffing needs, insurance requirements, and other associated costs associated with plan implementation and define the means for funding the same on an on -going basis. Subd. 2. Plan Submittal Requirements. A preliminary Land Stewardship Plan shall be submitted with the General Plan of Development. A Final Land Stewardship Plan shall be submitted with at the Final Plan Stage of PUD development. The plan shall contain a narrative describing: (a) Existing conditions, including all natural, cultural, historic, and scenic elements in the landscape; (b) Objectives for each open space area, as agreed to during the "initial planning stage" (the form of this is yet to be determined) including: (1) The proposed end state for each area. (2) Any restoration measures needed to achieve the proposed end state, including: i. Measures for correcting increasingly destructive conditions, such as erosion. ii. Measures for restoring historic features (if applicable). iii. Measures for restoring existing or establishing new landscape types. \\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs \WorkFiles \Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(Apri17).doc 7 (3) A maintenance Plan, including: i. Activities needed to maintain the stability of the resources, including mowing and burning schedules, weed control measures, planting schedules, and clearing and cleanup measures and schedules. ii. An estimate of the annual on -going (post restoration) operating and maintenance costs. Subd. 3. Escrow. At the discretion of the City, the applicant may be required to escrow sufficient funds for the maintenance and operation costs of common facilities for up to two years. Subd. 4. Enforcement. In the event that the association established to own and maintain common areas and facilities, or any successor organization thereto, fails to properly maintain all or any portion of the aforesaid common areas or facilities, the City may serve written notice upon such association setting forth the manner in which the association has failed to maintain the aforesaid common areas and facilities. Such notice shall set forth the nature of corrections required and the time within which the corrections shall be made. Upon failure to comply within the time specified, the association, or any successor organization, shall be considered in violation of this Ordinance, in which case the City shall have the right to enter the premises and take the needed corrective actions. The costs of corrective actions by the City shall be assessed against the properties that have the right of enjoyment of the common areas and facilities Comment: Requiring a Land Stewardship Plan is relatively rare in conservation design and open space ordinances. The City should consider if this is a potential disincentive (an additional cost) or if there is value in it. Section 826.xx. Site Design Process. At the time of PUD Concept Plan development and review, applicants shall demonstrate that the following design process was performed and influenced the design of the concept site plan. Subd. 1. Step 1—Identify Conservation Areas. Identify preservation land in two steps. First identify primary conservation or "unbuildable" areas which include: hydric soils, slopes greater than 18%, wetlands, wetland buffers, lakes, and land within the 100 year floodplain. Next, identify secondary conservation areas which include those priority conservation areas identified in Section 826.xx (General Development Standards) Subd. 5. The remaining land shall be identified as the potentially buildable land area. The applicant shall identify the quantity of land designated as primary conservation areas, secondary conservation areas and potentially buildable land areas. Subd. 2. Step 2—Locate Housing Sites. Locate the approximate sites of individual houses with the potentially developable area and include the delineation of common protected open space. Subd. 3. Step 3—Align Streets and Trails. Align streets in order to access the lots. New trails and connections to regional trail systems, if any, should be laid out to create internal and external connections to existing and/or potential future streets, sidewalks, and trails. Subd. 4. Step 4—Lot Lines. Draw in the lot lines. Comment: This is the process developed and promoted by Randall Arendt. It is included as a requirement during PUD concept plan review. The intention of including this is to \\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs \WorkFiles \Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(Apri17).doc 8 make the design process visible to the community and to help communicate that the project design is aligned with and implements the city's conservation priorities. Most similar regulations do not specify this process to such detail. The City should consider if there is value in this or if it is outweigh by the cost and time to develop. Being flexible in allowing variation in this process should be acceptable. The key value is in communicating where the protected resources are and how their location influences design, not adherence to specific requirements in each step. Section 826.xx. Open Space Design Standards. The following open space design standards shall also be considered in designing the CD-PUD: Subd. 1. Open space should be interconnected wherever possible to provide a continuous network of open space land within the PUD and throughout the City. It should coordinate and maximize boundaries with open space on adjacent tracts. Subd. 2. Incorporate public trails and/or public open space designated in the comprehensive plan. Subd. 3. Designated public access trails shall be protected by an access easement owned by the city. Subd. 4. Open space should be distributed throughout the development to serve and enhance as many dwelling units as possible. At least 75 percent of the lots shall directly abut or face open space land across a street. Non -adjoining lots shall be provided with convenient access to the open space through access strips at least 30 feet wide. Access to open space used for agriculture may be restricted or prohibited for public safety and to prevent interference with agricultural operations. Subd. 5. Views of new dwellings from exterior roads and abutting properties should be minimized by the use of changes in topography, existing vegetation, or additional landscaping. Ridge and hilltops should be contained within open space areas wherever possible. Trees should not be removed from ridge and hilltops. Subd. 6. The boundaries of designated open space areas shall be clearly delineated and labeled on CD-PUD plans. These areas shall be delineated in the field with signage or other measures approved by the city. Subd. 7. Park dedication requirements may be reduced or waived with protection of upland ecological resources as part of the approved designated open space. Subd. 8. Stormwater management facilities may be located in designated open space areas. Section 826.xx. Landscape Design Standards. Subd. 1. Street trees may be planted, but are not required, along internal streets passing through common open space. Subd. 2. Irregular spacing is encouraged for street trees, to avoid the urban appearance that regular spacing may invoke. Subd. 3. The selection of vegetation should be guided by the natural community types identified in the City's 2008 Natural Resources Inventory. \\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs \WorkFiles \Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(Apri17).doc 9 Subd. 4. Planted buffers between clusters of residential lots are encouraged to enhance privacy and a rural appearance between lots. Subd. 5. Buffers consisting of an informal arrangement of native plant species combined with infrequent mowing are strongly encouraged, to create a low -maintenance, natural landscape. Subd. 6. Planted buffers are also encouraged along natural drainage areas to minimize erosion. Subd. 7. Mass grading for open space and other common landscaped areas and stormwater management areas shall be avoided to reduce compaction and impacting water infiltration rates. Soil testing and decompaction may be required if site construction activities negatively impact soil permeability. Subd. 8. Better Site Design/Low Impact Development practices as identified in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency shall be used to design sites and meet the performance standards. Section 826.xx. Subsurface Sewage Treatment Facilities. Subd. 1. Where city services are not available, CD-PUD developments may be platted to accommodate home site lots with either individual septic tanks and drainfields located on the lot, or individual septic tanks located on the lot and drainfields located in the designated open space. Subd. 2. All septic systems shall conform to the performance standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's standards for sewage treatment systems WPC- 7080 and its appendices, or the MPCA standards in effect at the time of installation and septic system regulations of the City of Medina. Subd. 3. Individual drainfields may be located in an area designated as open space provided that: (a) The dedicated open space parcel containing the drainfield is owned in fee by a common ownership association which owns non -open space land within the subdivision and in which membership in the association by all property owners in the subdivision is mandatory. (b) The individual lot owner is responsible for maintenance and repair of the drainfield. (c) The ground cover over the drainfield is maintained according to the Land Stewardship Plan. (d) Recreational uses are prohibited within 50 feet of the drainfields. (e) The conservation easement for the dedicated open space parcel describes the location of individual drainfields. Comment: City regulations governing septic systems and drainfields may need to be modified to allow the location of individual drainfields in designated open space. Due to uncertainty of long term operation and maintenance of community drainfields and concern with the potential of the city being requested to take over such systems in the fixture, they were not considered. Allowing individual drainfields within designated open space allows lot size and site design flexibility as an incentive to developers and to protect ecological resources. \\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs \WorkFiles \Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(Apri17).doc 10 Section 826.xx. CD-PUD Application Processing. To be determined. \\mplsdfs\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 1(Apri17).doc 11 Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes CITY OF MEDINA CONCURRENT PLANNING COMMISSION & PARK COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1. Call to Order: Planning Commissioner Chair, Charles Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners, Victoria Reid, John Anderson, Kent Williams, Beth Nielsen, Charles Nolan and Kathleen Martin. Park Commissioners Ben Benson, Madeleine Linck, Bill Waytas, Janet White and Ann Thies. Absent: Planning Commissioner Robin Reid and Park Commissioners Paul Jaeb and Chris Hilberg. Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke, Planning Assistant Debra Peterson -Dufresne, and City Planning Consultant Dan Petrik of Barr Engineering Company. 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda: No public comments. 3. Update from City Council Proceedings: Weir presented the Council update. 4. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 8 of Medina's City Code pertaining to the creation of regulations for Conservation Design and Open Space Protection. Dan Petrik of Barr Engineering reviewed the conservation design ordinance, highlighting: • How the overall plan would integrate resources within the community and to meet goals of the community • How it would assist in maintaining land values • Protection of natural resources in exchange for increased density • The ordinance utilizes the underlying zoning districts to determine density • How it would be utilized by offering incentives as a voluntary program • Anticipated schedule of ordinance approval • Ordinance flexibility and incentives in exchange for increased density. • The overall approach would be through an overlay district and implemented under a planned unit development which could be established as a CD-PUD • 40 acre minimum development size in rural areas and 20 acre minimum in sewered areas with different design standards and incentives for each 1 Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes • Base density was explained Williams asked if a 40 acre parcel currently allows a maximum of four buildable lots, would the proposed ordinance allow eight. He asked what the limitation was on how it could be configured and asked if the eight houses could be condensed into a corner of the 40 acres. He further asked if there would be a minimum lot size requirement. Petrik explained the comprehensive plan doesn't have specific minimum lot sizes or lot widths identified. He said the developer would have complete flexibility with the lot sizes and widths as long as septic requirements could be met. Williams asked if the five contiguous acres was related to septic requirements. Weir clarified it is a way of controlling lot sizes and keeping them large. She further said the Met Council intends after 2030 before density increases too much to sewer the entire southern portion of Medina (Minnehaha Creek Watershed). She said the Met Council wants to keep the average density to no more than one unit per 10 acres, because if we had greater density it would be harder for them to sewer the area in the future. The commission then discussed the cost to provide infrastructure for developments proposed that are clustered. Benson said he thought it would be difficult for a developer to get density increased by 100 percent because of all the wetlands and terrain in the community. He said a developer's infrastructure costs would be down by clustering, but density would be closer to 50 percent increases rather than the full 100 percent. Petrik reviewed other incentives that he wanted the commission to discuss such as lot size, lot width, setbacks, housing types, landscaping, and screening. He clarified what buildable areas meant by subtracting areas such as wetlands, lakes, hydric soils, slopes over 18%, requiring wetland buffers, and the 100-year flood plain. He said the idea is to provide a range of flexibility for developers. Petrik reviewed the City's top priorities such as sensitive ecological resources, views from vistas, and habitat corridors. He then explained the optional elements such as the land stewardship plan and how it involved a four -step process. He explained the current process for a land use project can be two to three steps and implementing this program would create a fourth step towards approval if a developer wanted to increase density. He said that the program would initially determine if there would be ecological resources that would want to be preserved in exchange for the increased density. The commission discussed sewage treatment within developments that may have clustered housing with smaller lots and how the ordinance would allow flexibility by possibly allowing drain fields in the conservation open space easement areas, but the actual tanks would always be required to be installed on each individual lot. Petrik explained the ordinance may require revisions to allow the drain fields within the easement areas. Petrik explained the Collaboration and Traditional processes of the ordinance. Thies said she worked with conservation design easements and said she is very familiar with many of them in Lake Elmo. 2 Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes Linck asked if there was a property with 150 acres and was used only for cropland and wasn't that great of property to preserve, if they would be eligible for increased density. Petrik said increased density would only be increased for properties that provide some natural resource to preserve, but if a property in the past had a natural prairie or woodland that was worth restoring back to its natural state, the developer could increase their density. Petrik said the natural resources around a proposed property to be developed would always be taken into consideration. Thies said Wild Meadows was a good example of a conservation design with a conservation easement. Anderson asked why and how the acreage was decided as 20 acres for sewered properties and 40 acres for rural properties. Petrik explained a larger parcel is necessary in order to capture protection of ecological resources.. V. Reid asked if the Met Council could bring infrastructure into the conservation easement areas. Thies clarified it would be difficult for the Met Council to do and typically they won't. V. Reid asked if a conservation design easement could be converted to an agricultural use. Petrik explained the commission would have discretion through the process of designing the ordinance, what the conservation easement could be used for, and have it defined and written into the easement. V. Reid said she is concerned with trails that don't connect to a city wide system and would like to make sure it is a goal to require trails to connect or be part of an overall plan to connect as part of the ordinance. She said she didn't see trails as part of a conservation easement, but rather a by product. She asked if it could be stated in the ordinance that trails be required to connect to other trails. Thies said the commission should discuss and require the use of stewardship fees. She said the money should be required to be put into a fund to manage the property. She also felt that reducing the amount of homes that back up to the open space is better, since it is the homes that back up to the open space that creates issues such as dumping and mowing into the open space areas and is difficult to monitor. The commission discussed examples of 40 acre corn fields with no natural resource benefits to the City. Petrik explained the City doesn't have to allow benefits to a developer if the property doesn't have any ecological benefits to preserve. Martin asked for clarification of the joint steering committee meetings and suggested staff discusses the meeting laws with the city attorney. She further suggested adding language under the purpose statement that the development should enhance what would otherwise have been allowed. Nolan asked about the role of the steering committee and if it's a way to give the applicant assurance from the City. He raised concern with the creation of the committee and how it would 3 Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes give a certain amount of authority or that it could bypass or circumvent the normal public process. Petrik explained the steering committee process and how it has been used in the City of Hanover. The commissioners discussed the process of the future steering committee and discussed their concern of feeling some sort of obligation to the developer if they were part of the steering committee. V. Reid asked staff if they had looked nation wide at other communities. Petrik said he knows other states have these types of open space ordinances and communities from lectures he's attended, but wasn't sure where they were developed beyond the state of Minnesota. Nolan asked for historical data on how density standards had been established. He asked how often in the elective process would it be utilized and why would the City want to do it with the possibility of such high density numbers. He further asked if the City had to allow such a high percentage of increased density. He understands the use of clustering, but was unsure why the City would want to double the density. He questioned whether the City would be going forward or backwards; and therefore needed some historical background to better understand. Petrik said Lake Elmo allows up to 200% density incentives, which worked well for them to get the development they wanted. Their incentive was to protect key views and not allow housing to be visible from roadways. Petrik said other communities range from 100-200% increased density incentives. He said Hugo developed three projects prior to eliminating the conservation design and open space protection area ordinance to gain density. The community was satisfied with the ordinance, but eliminated it since the Met Council thought the City was developing with too high of a density than they liked. Lino Lakes did two projects and felt it wasn't very effective and didn't have very many incentives. Nolan asked why not make it a mandatory program and get 100 percent participation and establish some sort of environmental value. Petrik said all the communities, except Hanover are voluntary. Nolan asked why not make it mandatory for participation. Benson asked if it was a goal of the City to have the program be mandatory. He said he likes the idea for some developments, but doesn't think that all properties need to be the same. He thinks the City has done a good job with current rural standards, but does not think the open space program would apply to all properties. He said we may find a few developers who would go through the process and can think of one property in particular that would be beneficial to be developed under the program. Nolan said he had not taken a position on the issue, but rather is gathering information to make an informative decision. Petrik said the program is voluntary as referenced in the comprehensive plan. He said if it was made mandatory it would go against the comprehensive plan and residents would question why the City wasn't following their comprehensive plan. He suggested that if the commissioners felt strongly about one or two properties in particular they could be identified as an area that should 4 Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes go through the process. He said he would be concerned with the political fall -out of making the ordinance mandatory. Nolan asked what percentage of Medina qualifies to develop under the conservation ordinance. Weir asked if staff had looked at the 20 and 40 acre parcels to evaluate which properties possibly qualified. Finke said they had discussed putting together a map of the parcels, but hadn't completed one. The commission requested staff to prepare a map for the next concurrent meeting so they could make further recommendations. Nolan asked within the higher density and the lower density is there higher participation in one or the other. Petrik said the density incentive would have higher value in the rural areas and would carry more market interest than in the sewered areas. The public hearing was opened at 8:42 p.m. Martha Van de Ven, 1765 Medina Road, thanked the commission for all the good questions they had pertaining to the proposed ordinance and said she really appreciated it. She said she has a question dealing with the exception to the 40 acres in the rural residential district areas. She asked for clarification of the regulation on page two subdivision 1.(b). Petrik said he thought it would be a good idea to provide some flexibility in the event someone could prove their project wouldn't visually impair visibility and protect resources. He said they want to allow some flexibility but also provide an incentive, and that is why density is being recommended to be able to increase either 2 or 1.5 percent dependant on zoning. He said it is all discretionary. Van de Van raised concern with property being able to develop beyond the five contiguous suitable soil acre requirements today if the site had wetlands. Williams asked Van de Ven what her concern was. Van de Ven said she is concerned with doubling the density and was also concerned with law suits from builders being allowed this kind of discretion. Petrik said if the 40 acre minimum requirement is unlikely to be used; maybe the regulation should be taken out. Susan Seeland, owner of a 200 acre farm near County Road 6 and Homestead Trail said she thought it looked like the City has given the ordinance a lot of thought and asked the commissioners to really think about what their goal was. She said if it is to prevent sewer hook- ups then keeping the acreage at 40 acres probably wouldn't work and they may want to think about reducing the minimum size requirement. She asked for the definition of hydric soils and what the goal relating to soils really is. Petrik explained the different soil classifications. Seeland asked the commissioners to consider community wastewater technology, since requiring everyone to have their own septic would be impeding the ability to develop. Nolan asked for pros and cons to community sewer developments. Petrik suggested if the commissioners were interested in this type of community, the City should bring in experts and examples so the commissioners could understand this type of development. 5 Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes Seeland asked about establishing 50% into conservation easements. She asked the commissioners to think about how it should be designed since there are open space areas where you want people to come to and it benefits the community and other open space areas that may be better left private. Public hearing closed at 8:54p.m. Thies asked what the goal was of staff for a motion. Finke explained the reason for a concurrent meeting. Carolyn Smith explained the reason for the opportunity for the park commission to be part of the ordinance and that it wasn't just about creating trails within the open spaces areas. Nolan asked Thies for her opinion on the negatives of conservation design easements. She explained they are not just blanket plans and there are so many different ways to set them up, and how open space could be used. She said there are a number of issues when homes back up to open space areas, since over time the properties that back up to the open space areas start to dump and mow into these areas. The Park Commission - Motion by Janet White, seconded by Ann Thies, to approve continuance of the public hearing to the May 11, 2010 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Absent: (Paul Jaeb and Chris Hilberg) Nolan recommended a small steering committee for the program. He said he was interested in knowing more about what properties qualify, particularly how many 20 and 40 acres are existing out there today. V. Reid asked about parcels joining together. Finke explained that the mapping plan they would put together would not be able to anticipate smaller acreage parcels getting put together. V. Reid said she also wanted to know the positive and negatives of community systems. Nolan commented on the general approach of the process and raised concern with how a commissioner would gauge what they were allowing with such arbitrary regulations. He said he would be concerned with setting a pattern and then someone new comes in and pushes the envelope and suddenly a much higher precedence is set. He questioned how these things would get measured. He asked what the measuring stick is, and what the City is really giving up. Anderson asked if the process puts into question the need for a specific ordinance rather than flexibility. Weir said she didn't think there was support for mandating an ordinance. Finke suggested the commission consider looking at a sketch in an informal meeting instead of a creating a steering committee. Nielsen explained how her job involved collaborative process and how they turn out a better product. She said she supported the steering committee process. Weir said she is in support of the collaborative process. 6 Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes Williams said he didn't have an issue with representing himself on a steering committee, but would have more of an issue with representing other planning commissioners. Conclusion of discussion was: • Density incentives — staff would create mapping with acreage parcels • Open space ranges — the commission said their focus wasn't on the quantity, but rather the quality of areas preserved • Optional elements — the commission wanted to know more about how open space would be arrived at, and how it would be preserved by utilizing the four step process. The developer would need to show proof as to what they were thinking in the early stages of design for a development project. • Stewardship plan was also part of it. • Sewage treatment — pros and cons of a community sewage • Collaboration process — requested staff to look at sewered community's nation wide. • Other incentives — pg 5 of the ordinance • Rural residential districts suggest no minimum lot sizes and the commission suggested flexibility of lot size and width (may be reduced language). • Sewered Residential — flexibility as it applies to platted lots. Finke said there are some people concerned with wetland buffers and tree areas. Motion to continue public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission - Motion to reopen and continue the public hearing at the May 11, 2010 meeting by V. Reid, seconded by Anderson. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: R. Reid) 5. Adjourn: Motion by Anderson, seconded by Nielsen to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: R. Reid) 7 BARR Barr Engineering Company 4700 West 77th Street • Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803 Phone: 952-832-2600 • Fax: 952-832-2601 • www.barr.com An EEO Employer Minneapolis, MN • Hibbing, MN • Duluth, MN • Ann Arbor, MI • Jefferson City, MO • Bismarck, ND Memorandum To: Medina Planning Commission From: Dan Petrik Subject: May 11 Planning and Park Commissions meeting. Continuation of discussion regarding development of a Conservation Design Ordinance Date: May 6, 2010 Project: 23 27 1104.00 001 DRP Revised CD Ordinance Attached is a revised ordinance based on discussion at the last Planning and Parks Commission meeting. Changes were only made if the intent of the discussion was clear. Additional Commission discussion is suggested to clarify policy intent, especially in the following areas: • Density incentives • Additional incentives to encourage conservation design • Required open space • Collaborative process (see section below) Geographical Applicability of the CD Ordinance A spatial analysis was completed to show which parcels would be eligible for CD development under the language reviewed by the Commission at the last meeting. The attached map shows the eligible parcels which are: Rural Residential and over 40 acres Rural Residential and over 20 acres Guided for sewered residential and over 20 acres Development Potential An analysis of the development potential of the Rural Residential lots was completed. This analysis shows the number of units that could be developed under the standard regulations (five acres of suitable contiguous soils) compared to a scenario where they received the maximum CD bonus of 100%. The total number of potential new lots goes from 250 under standard regulations to 419 if they all received the maximum bonus. It is unlikely that every eligible parcel would receive the maximum density allowed. Note that there are 750 rural households today. A summary of the development potential is included in the following table. Rural Residential Parcels: Units Available Standard Regulations At Maximum Density Bonus 20 — 39 acres 110 143 40 acres and greater 140 276 Total 250 419 At the last meeting there was general agreement to not allow CD development on parcels less than 40 acres. Language allowing development on parcels less than 40 acres was removed on the revised ordinance draft (attached). An analysis of the development potential for the residential sewered areas was not completed. This would require the development of a "yield plan" for each parcel, a process that would occur during the initial stages of application processing. Priority Areas Note that there are many developable parcels that are not within the high quality natural areas. The Commission should consider whether parcels (of any size) should be eligible for CD development if they do not have high priority natural resources to preserve. Preservation of important views or lesser quality natural resources may be valid reasons for including all the mapped parcels. Collaboration Two local communities, Minnetrista and Hanover have been using a collaborative approach for development review of current applications. Both communities have offered to speak to the City of Medina about their recent experience with collaboration. Following is a summary of each community's experience. Minnetrista. Minnetrista is developing a new PUD ordinance that includes a collaborative processing stage prior to the concept review stage. Ordinance development has occurred concurrently with the review of the Woodland Cove subdivision application, a 1000 unit development. The City is incorporating their "'earnings" from the experience of reviewing and approving this "real" PUD application into the new PUD ordinance. The PUD ordinance has been approved by the Planning Commission and is expected to be acted on by the City Council in May or June. The Woodland Cove application is currently in the concept review stage. The main feature of Minnetrista's collaborative process is a joint work session by the City Council, Planning Commission and Parks Commission early in the process to develop a public values statement. This statement is intended to provide a vision for guiding concept plan development. The Minnetrista "Collaborative Stage" PUD language follows: (a) Collaborative process and project goal setting 1) The applicant shall meet with the city staff for a pre -application conference prior to submittal of a concept to the city. The primary purpose of the conference is to allow the applicant and staff an opportunity to review the comprehensive plan and to make a preliminary determination if the proposal is conducive to a PUD rezoning. 2 2) City staff and the applicant shall work together to schedule a concurrent work session with policymakers of the city (planning commission, parks commission, and city council) to discuss the public values on the site, using the established public values in subdivision 6 of this section as a guideline. The result of this meeting will be a public values statement. 3) At an appropriate point during the process, the applicant shall hold a neighborhood meeting. The city and all owners or property within 1,000 feet of the PUD (or a larger area as determined by the city) shall be given notice of the meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to inform the neighborhood of the proposed PUD, discuss the concepts and basis for the plan being developed and to obtain information and suggestions from the neighborhood. 4) The applicant shall be responsible for the costs incurred by the city for attorney, engineering, or other consultant fees during these pre -application activities. Hanover Hanover is implementing collaboration process as outlined in their recently developed PUD ordinance and as detailed on the attached city fact sheet. They are using this process for a commercial PUD and a 200 acre residential subdivision with 250 homes and 43% open space. 3 CONSERVATION DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT Draft — May 6 2010 Section 826.xx. Conservation Design (CD) — Purpose. The purpose of this district is to preserve the City's rural character which includes ecological resources, wildlife corridors, and scenic views, while allowing residential development consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and 2007 Open Space Report. The purpose of this district is to provide development flexibility through greater collaboration with landowners and developers that reflects the varying market circumstances and the individual characteristics of their properties Section 826.xx Intent. Subd. 1. It is the intent of the City to accomplish the stated purpose of this District by approving a Planned Unit Development for portions of property in the Rural Residential District and all residential districts corresponding to residential land uses guided for municipal services and by adopting the comprehensive regulations contained herein. Parcels lying in these districts may be developed according to the regulations of the CD Overlay District or the base zoning district. Comment: City policy in the Open Space Report and the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the majority of comments received at the two project meetings support conservation design as a development option. Subd. 2. In exchange for additional open space, it is the intent of the City to provide flexibility in development standards including density and to conduct development review through a flexible process. return for requiring preserved open space as contained herein; it is the intent of the City to allow dwelling unit density that will provide a development density equal to or greater than the prior zoning for the Rural Residential District and sewered residential districts. Comment: City policy in the Open Space Report and the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the majority of comments received at the two project meetings support the use of density incentives to encourage this development option. Subd. 3. The permitted, conditional and accessory uses and other regulations set forth in the underlying zoning districts shall apply unless specifically addressed in this District, the PUD District, or if determined by the City Council to be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this District as part of the final PUD plans. Subd. 4. The procedures and regulations set forth in the PUD District shall apply unless specifically addressed in this District. If a final PUD plan is approved by the City Council, the underlying zoning for the subject property shall be rezoned to Conservation Design-PUD District (CD-PUD). The permitted uses and all other regulations governing uses on the subject land shall then be those found in the CD-PUD zoning district and documented by the PUD plans and agreements. The following subsections are requirements for all PUDs in the Conservation Design Overlay District unless exceptions, as part of a PUD, are otherwise approved by the City Council. P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc 1 Section 826.xx Definitions. Subd. 1. Base Density. The maximum number of units or lots that are allowed on a parcel in accordance with the standards of the base zoning district and Subdivision Ordinance. Subd.12. Buildable Land Area. The total land area in a proposed conservation design subdivision less the amount of land that includes: hydric soils, slopes greater than 18%, wetlands, required wetland buffers, lakes, and land within the 100 year floodplain. Subd. 23. Conservation Easement. As defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 84C: A nonpossessory interest of a holder in real property imposing limitations or affirmative obligations the purposes of which include retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open -space values of real property, assuring its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational, or open -space use, protecting natural resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water quality, or preserving the historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural aspects of real property. Subd. 3.1-.4_ Conservation Design Subdivision. Any development of land that incorporates the concepts of designated open space and clustering of dwelling units. Subd. 45. Designated Open Space. Open space that is designated within a conservation design subdivision to be placed under a conservation easement permanently restricting future development. Designated open space may be used for agriculture, preservation of ecological resources, habitat corridors, and/or for passive and active recreational purposes. Subd. 56. Homeowners Association. A formally constituted non-profit association or corporation made up of the property owners and/or residents of a development for the purpose of owning, operating and maintaining common open space and/or other commonly owned facilities. Comment: Some of these definitions may be appropriate to add to Section 825.07, the definitions section of the Zoning Code. Subd. 7. Yield Plan. A conceptual layout plan that shows the maximum number of lots that could be placed on a parcel in accordance with the standards of the base zoning district and Subdivision Ordinance. The yield plan shows proposed lots, streets, rights -of -way, and other pertinent features. Yield plans shall be drawn to scale. The layout shall be realistic and reflect a development pattern that could reasonably be expected to be implemented, taking into account the presence of wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, existing easements. Section 826.xx. General Development Standards. Subd. 1. Minimum Size of Subdivision. (a) The minimum land area required for development shall be: (1) 40 contiguous acres in the Rural Residential District (2) 20 contiguous acres in sewered residential districts P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc 2 (b)A subdivision in the Rural Residential District of over 20 contiguous acres but less than 40 contiguous acres may apply for approval if they meet all the requirements for CD, plus the following requirements: (1) The visual impact of the subdivision from existing adjacent roadways is mitigated by topography and/or existing vegetation. (2) The maximum allowed gross density is 1.5 units per 10 acres. Comment: The minimum size of the subdivision must be large enough to allow for creative site design that achieves development priorities. There is little additional green space to be gained from allowing small parcels to be developed at higher densities compared to current regulations The additional requirements placed on subdivisions of Subd. 2. Tract Ownership. The tract of land may be held in single or in multiple ownerships. However, when a tract is held in multiple ownerships, application shall be made as a single entity and it shall be planned as a single entity development with common authority and common responsibility as demonstrated through all property owners being signatories on the PUD application. Subd. 3. Base Density, Density Incentives, and Calculation of Allowed Number of Dwelling Units. (a) The base density shall be that established by regulations in the relevant base zoning district. (1) In the Rural Residential District, base density shall be determined by calculating the number of 5-acre areas of contiguous soils suitable for a standard sewage disposal system that are located on the subject property. This calculation shall be completed during the "initial planning stage" (the form of this is yet to be determined) of CD-PUD application processing. (2) In sewered residential districts, a yield plan shall be developed during the "initial planning stage" (the form of this is yet to be determined) of CD-PUD application processing to determine the base density. Regulations of the base district and all other relevant land use regulations of this Code shall be used for completing the yield plan. (b) Additional density or density incentives may be granted at the discretion of the City Council based on the conservation priorities identified for the parcel during the "initial planning stage" (the form of this is yet to be determined) of CD-PUD application processing. The total number of dwelling units in a CD-PUD development shall be guided by the density limitations contained in the Comprehensive Plan and shall not be greater than: (1) 100% of the calculated base density in the Rural Residential District. (2) 20% of calculated base density in all sewered residential districts. Comment: The maximum number of dwelling units is a local choice that balances the city's long term vision as defined in the Comprehensive Plan with an incentive that is sufficient to encourage landowners/developers to select the conservation design option. A "percentage" of the base density is used as the incentive framework so as to work with P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc 3 existing and familiar requirements for determining allowed number of units. The language shows that the city will be flexible in granting density and that this flexibility is tied to the project conservation priorities identified during the "initial planning stage" (the form of this is yet to be determined) of application processing. A "yield plan" is a plan that shows how many dwelling units can be placed on a tract of land according to the regulations pertaining to development of that land. It is produced early in the process to guide design and density discussions. It is more conceptual and does not require the level of detail of plans submitted during the preliminary plat stage. Subd 4. Required Open Space. (a) The required open space within the CD development shall be determined during the "initial planning stages" (the form of this is yet to be determined) of CD-PUD application processing. It is the City's intent to preserve open space of: (1) At least 30% - 50% of the total buildable land area (see definitions) in the Rural Residential District. (2) At least 20% of the total buildable land area (see definition) in sewered residential districts. Comment: Defining an open space amount is challenging in an environment with significant amounts of dispersed wetlands and surface waters. Applying a rigid one size fits all rule, or requiring too much open space, in this type of landscape may be counter productive, especially with an incentive based approach. Since wetlands (and their buffers) are already protected, there is little to be gained (over existing regulatory requirements) by allowing wetlands in the required open space. For this reason, required open space is defined as a percentage of "buildable land area" which excludes wetlands. This approach is considered to be more restrictive than applying an open space amount to the total parcel area. However, this perceived "restrictiveness" can be modified by reducing the actual amount required. As such, the range of required open space is capped at 50%. This amount, however, may still be too high in this landscape where CD development is to be encouraged. The city already has lots of open space (as stated by many participants at the 3/23 open house), so requiring open space for the sake of getting more open space may be unproductive and difficult to justify to land owners (on top of existing regulations). The objective is to target the open space in ways that achieve the conservation priorities of protecting upland ecological resources and views, areas that could otherwise be developed. This may be achievable through relatively small amounts of "required" open space, depending on the characteristics and location of each parcel of land. Due to these site specific variables, flexibility in determining the "required" amount of open space provides greater opportunities for the city and landowner/developer to both achieve their individual goals through CD development. Assessing project goals and methods to achieve them would occur during the proposed "initial planning stage" (the form of this is yet to be determined) of CD-PUD application processing. The proposed regulatory language communicates what the City's goals are, but through reference to the goal planning stage and use of an open space range for the P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc 4 Rural Residential area, the city is indicating its flexibility for considering each project on its own merits. For CD developments in urban areas, a 20% minimum is expected. This is considered the minimum amount needed to protect any existing resources and/or create corridors that provide differentiation from a conventional suburban subdivision. On some projects, more open space may be available, but meeting required density minimums and market demand for saleable lots will effectively limit the amount of open space. Subd. 5. Priorities for Preserving Open Space. (a) The total required open space shall be designated and located to incorporate the following areas listed in order of preservation priority: (1) Sensitive ecological resources identified as priority areas on the Composite Map of the 2007 Open Space Report. (2) Land connecting these priority areas to create habitat movement corridors. (3) Views from roads identified as "Scenic Roads" on the Scenic Roads Map of the 2007 Open Space Report. Comment: These priorities were identified at the 3/16 meeting of the Council/Planning Commission and Parks Commission and validated by the participants at the 3/23 open house. These priorities are also aligned with goals and policies identified in the 2007 Open Space Report and Comprehensive Plan. These priorities are intended to communicate to landowners and developers what is most important to the city and to guide discussions during the early planning stage of each CD-PUD application. Applying these priorities to a specific parcel of land, should inform "initial planning stage" (the form of this is yet to be determined) discussions on density incentives, the amount of required open space, and ultimately, the design concept. Subd. 6. Perimeter Setbacks. Structure setbacks from the perimeter of the subdivision shall be the same as the underlying zoning district. Section 826.xx. Additional Incentives to Encourage Conservation Design. The Council may grant additional project flexibility to encourage conservation design. Subd. 1. Rural Residential Districts. In the Rural Residential District, flexibility from the requirements of the base zoning district or other requirements of this code may include lot size, lot width there is no minimum lot size or width for CD developments. Theand structure setbacks regulations for CD development may be reduced from the underlying zoning district provided setbacksthey comply with the following minimums: (a) Setback from local streets: 35 feet (b) Setback from Arterial and Collector Streets: 100 feet (c) Interior structure setbacks: 30 feet P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc 5 Subd 2. Sewered Residential Districts. In all sewered residential districts, flexibility from the requirements of the base zoning district or other requirements of this code may include: (a) Front, rear and side yard setbacks (b) Minimum lot size (c) Minimum lot width (d) Housing type (e) Landscaping (f) Screening (g) Wetland buffers (h) Tree preservation Comment: Flexibility in these areas is intended to be an incentive to the developer and to protect ecological features and achieve other project goals. The idea is to assess each parcel/project individually and achieve the site design that best achieves overall goals. This approach requires trade offs on individual objectives or requirements in the achievement of the overall best approach. The city may wish to specify ranges of flexibility on some or all of these elements. Section 826.xx. Open Space Protection and Ownership. Subd. 1. Any land and improvements in areas designated as open space in a CD-PUD shall be established, protected and owned in accordance with the following guidelines: (a) Designated open space shall be surveyed and subdivided as separate Outlots. (b) Designated open space must be restricted from further development by a permanent conservation easement (in accordance with Chapter 84C.01-05 of Minnesota Statutes) running with the land. The conservation easement must be submitted with the General Plan of Development and approved by the City Attorney. (1) The permanent conservation easement may be held by any combination of the following entities, but in no case may the holder of the conservation easement be the same as the owner of the underlying fee: i. The City of Medina, or other governmental agency ii. A private nonprofit organization that has been designated by the Internal Revenue Service as qualifying under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. iii. A common ownership association, which owns open and non -open space land within the subdivision and in which membership in the association by all property owners in the subdivision shall be mandatory. P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc 6 (2) The permanent conservation easement must specify: (3) i. The entity that will maintain the designated open space. ii. The purposes of the conservation easement and the conservation values of the property. iii. The legal description of the land under the easement. iv. The restrictions on the use of the land and from future development. v. To what standards the open space will be maintained (reference to an approved land stewardship plan). vi. Who will have access to the open space. Ownership of the underlying fee of each designated open space parcel, may be held by any combination of the following entities: i. A common ownership association, subject to the provisions in the PUD District ii. An individual who will use the land in accordance with the permanent conservation easement; iii. The City of Medina or other government agency. iv. A private nonprofit organization that has been designated by the Internal Revenue Service as qualifying under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Comment: The long-term success of a conservation design subdivision lies with permanently restricted open space. If the restrictions are not permanent, development of those areas could happen if zoning changes. Conservation easements are a tool that has been specifically authorized and used in Minnesota to provide for permanent protection of natural resources. The easement must be held by a separate entity from the underlying fee. The easement holder is responsible for monitoring the easement parcels to ensure development does not occur and for enforcing the terms of the easement. Easements that lie across parcels with different owners are difficult to manage. Open space parcels should be platted as separate Outlots and held by a single entity, such as an ownership association. Section 826.xx. Land Stewardship Plan. Subd. 1. Plan Objectives. Where a CD-PUD has designated open spaces, a plan for the development, long-term use, maintenance, and insurance of all open areas or common facilities, shall be developed. The plan shall: (a) Define ownership and methods of land protection. (b) Establish necessary regular and periodic operation and maintenance responsibilities. P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc 7 (c) Estimate staffing needs, insurance requirements, and other associated costs associated with plan implementation and define the means for funding the same on an on -going basis. This shall include land management fees necessary to fund monitoring and management of the conservation easement by the easement holder. The fees shall be estimated and validated by the proposed easement holder. Subd. 2. Plan Submittal Requirements. A preliminary Land Stewardship Plan shall be submitted with the General Plan of Development. A Final Land Stewardship Plan shall be submitted with at the Final Plan Stage of PUD development. The plan shall contain a narrative describing: (a) Existing conditions, including all natural, cultural, historic, and scenic elements in the landscape; (b) Objectives for each open space area, as agreed to during the "initial planning stage" (the form of this is yet to be determined) including: (1) The proposed end state for each area. (2) Any restoration measures needed to achieve the proposed end state, including: i. Measures for correcting increasingly destructive conditions, such as erosion. ii. Measures for restoring historic features (if applicable). iii. Measures for restoring existing or establishing new landscape types. A maintenance Plan, including: (3) i. Activities needed to maintain the stability of the resources, including mowing and burning schedules, weed control measures, planting schedules, and clearing and cleanup measures and schedules. ii. An estimate of the annual on -going (post restoration) operating and maintenance costs. Subd. 3. Funding of Operation and Maintenance.Es r-ow. At the discretion of the City, the applicant may be required to escrow sufficient funds for the maintenance and operation costs of common facilities for up to two years. The City may also require establishment of an endowment to fund the estimated on -going operation and maintenance costs. Subd. 4. Enforcement. In the event that the association established to own and maintain common areas and facilities, or any successor organization thereto, fails to properly maintain all or any portion of the aforesaid common areas or facilities, the City may serve written notice upon such association setting forth the manner in which the association has failed to maintain the aforesaid common areas and facilities. Such notice shall set forth the nature of corrections required and the time within which the corrections shall be made. Upon failure to comply within the time specified, the association, or any successor organization, shall be considered in violation of this Ordinance, in which case the City shall have the right to enter the premises and take the needed corrective actions. The costs of corrective actions by the City shall be assessed against the properties that have the right of enjoyment of the common areas and facilities P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc 8 Comment: Requiring a Land Stewardship Plan is relatively rare in conservation design and open space ordinances. The City should consider if this is a potential disincentive (an additional cost) or if there is value in it. Section 826.xx. Site Design Process. At the time of PUD Concept Plan development and review, applicants shall demonstrate that the following design process was performed and influenced the design of the concept site plan. Subd. 1. Step 1—Identify Conservation Areas. Identify preservation land in two steps. First identify primary conservation or "unbuildable" areas which include: hydric soils, slopes greater than 18%, wetlands, wetland buffers, lakes, and land within the 100 year floodplain. Next, identify secondary conservation areas which include those priority conservation areas identified in Section 826.xx (General Development Standards) Subd. 5. The remaining land shall be identified as the potentially buildable land area. The applicant shall identify the quantity of land designated as primary conservation areas, secondary conservation areas and potentially buildable land areas. Subd. 2. Step 2—Locate Housing Sites. Locate the approximate sites of individual houses in regard to protected views andwith the potentially developable area, and include the delineation of eCommon protected open space shall be delineated. Subd. 3. Step 3—Align Streets and Trails. Align streets in order to access the lots. New trails and connections to regional trail systems, if any, should be laid out to create internal and external connections to existing and/or potential future streets, sidewalks, and trails. Subd. 4. Step 4—Lot Lines. Draw in the lot lines. Comment: This is the process developed and promoted by Randall Arendt. It is included as a requirement during PUD concept plan review. The intention of including this is to make the design process visible to the community and to help communicate that the project design is aligned with and implements the city's conservation priorities. Most similar regulations do not specify this process to such detail. The City should consider if there is value in this or if it is outweigh by the cost and time to develop. Being flexible in allowing variation in this process should be acceptable. The key value is in communicating where the protected resources are and how their location influences design, not adherence to specific requirements in each step. Section 826.xx. Open Space Design Standards. The following open space design standards shall also be considered in designing the CD-PUD: Subd. 1. Open space should be interconnected wherever possible to provide a continuous network of open space land within the PUD and throughout the City. It should coordinate and maximize boundaries with open space on adjacent tracts. Subd. 2. Incorporate public trails with connections to existing or planned regional trails. Incorporate and/or public and/or private open space as designated in the comprehensive plan. Subd. 3. Designated public access trails shall be protected by an access easement owned by the city. P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc 9 Subd. 4. Open space should be distributed throughout the development to serve and enhance as many dwelling units as possible. At least 75 percent of the lots shall directly abut or face open space land across a street. Non adjoining lots shall be provided with convenient access to the open space through access strips at 1 ust 30 feet wide. Access to open space used for agriculture may be restricted or prohibited for public safety and to prevent interference with agricultural operations. Subd. 5. Views of new dwellings from exterior roads and abutting properties should be minimized by the use of changes in topography, existing vegetation, or additional landscaping. Ridge and hilltops should be contained within designated open space areas wherever possible. Trees should not be removed from ridges and hilltops. Subd. 6. The boundaries of designated open space areas shall be clearly delineated and labeled on CD-PUD plans. These areas shall be delineated in the field with signage or other measures approved by the city. Subd. 7. Park dedication requirements may be reduced or waived with protection of upland ecological resources as part of the approved designated open space. Subd. 8. Stormwater management facilities may be located in designated open space areas. Section 826.xx. Landscape Design Standards. Subd. 1. Street trees may be planted, but are not required, along internal streets passing through common open space. Subd. 2. Irregular spacing is encouraged for street trees, to avoid the urban appearance that regular spacing may invoke. Subd. 3. The selection of vegetation should be guided by the natural community types identified in the City's 2008 Natural Resources Inventory. Subd. 4. Planted buffers between clusters of residential lots are encouraged to enhance privacy and a rural appearance between lots. Subd. 5. Buffers consisting of an informal arrangement of native plant species combined with infrequent mowing are strongly encouraged, to create a low -maintenance, natural landscape. Subd. 6. Planted buffers are also encouraged along natural drainage areas to minimize erosion. Subd. 7. Mass grading for open space and other common landscaped areas and stormwater management areas shall be avoided to reduce compaction and impacting water infiltration rates. Soil testing and decompaction may be required if site construction activities negatively impact soil permeability. Subd. 8. Better Site Design/Low Impact Development practices as identified in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency shall be used to design sites and meet the performance standards. P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc 10 Section 826.xx. Subsurface Sewage Treatment Facilities. Subd. 1. Where city services are not available, CD-PUD developments may be platted to accommodate home site lots with either individual septic tanks and drainfields located on the lot, or individual septic tanks located on the lot and drainfields located in the designated open space. Subd. 2. All septic systems shall conform to the performance standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's standards for sewage treatment systems WPC- 7080 and its appendices, or the MPCA standards in effect at the time of installation and septic system regulations of the City of Medina which requires a primary and secondary drainfield site. Subd. 3. Individual drainfields may be located in an area designated open space provided that: (a) The dedicated open space parcel containing the drainfield is owned in fee by a common ownership association which owns non -open space land within the subdivision and in which membership in the association by all property owners in the subdivision is mandatory. (b) The individual lot owner is responsible for maintenance and repair of the drainfield. (c) The ground cover over the drainfield is maintained according to the Land Stewardship Plan. (d) Recreational uses are prohibited within 50 feet of the drainfields. (e) The conservation easement for the dedicated open space parcel describes the location of individual drainfields. Comment: City regulations governing septic systems and drainfields may need to be modified to allow the location of individual drainfields in designated open space. Due to uncertainty of long term operation and maintenance of community drainfields and concern with the potential of the city being requested to take over such systems in the future, they were not considered. Allowing individual drainfields within designated open space allows lot size and site design flexibility as an incentive to developers and to protect ecological resources. Section 826.xx. CD-PUD Application Processing. To be determined. P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc 11 Collaboration achieving better development in Hanover through collaboration d o d o Re -inventing the Development Process in Hanover Hanover recognizes that preserving its rural character and natural resources, creating new community amenities and economic viability are intrinsically -linked elements in achieving the city's vision and goals. Future development will have a significant impact on whether the vision and goals are realized. The city recognizes that its use of traditional controls (zoning and subdivision ordinances) to regulate development has limits in achieving the vision. Furthermore, the rigid application of these controls often has unintended consequences and misses opportunities for adding new public value. Additionally, in an era of increasingly tight state and local government budgets, a new way is needed to fund the protection of our natural resources and the creation of new community assets needed to achieve our community vision. Lastly, the city's strategy of using conservation design principles for most new residential development requires non-traditional thinking and flexibility to implement. Instead of a potentially combative traditional development process, the city believes that an approach that balances the needs of the city and developer to achieve win -win outcomes will result in better development that helps the city preserve its character, protect our natural resources and become a better place to live and work. Hanover's Commitment to Being a Good Partner The city recognizes that being a good partner requires that it provide accountable leadership and clarity in its decision process. Towards this, the city has developed a project management approach for managing developments. The city's project management approach includes four components: 1. City Council appoints the collaboration team and project manager. 2. A Collaboration Team, to oversee the process and to provide regular and frequent feedback from key decision -makers. The collaboration team is generally composed of two council members, two planning commissioners and the project manager. 3. A project manager as a single point of contact for the developer's team. 4. Integration of development issues and resolution of staff/ regulatory conflicts into a form that the developer can respond to. Where practical, issues and requirements of other jurisdictions will be considered and coordinated into city decisions. City Council Project Manager (Collaborative Team) Staff Staff Developer Staff Collaborative Process The city has developed a "collaborative process" to complement the City's project management approach. The purpose of this process is to: • Facilitate decisions that are consistent and timely • Agree on project goals, collaboration principles and schedule early in the process to minimize costly design changes later in the process. The table describes the initial process steps for initiating a collaborative process. Ultimately, the city's project manager and developer will develop a specific schedule for each project. Process Step Description and Purpose Project assessment meeting between • Discuss developer's vision and City's vision and relevant project manager and developer regulations for the subject land. Developer's resource inventory used in discussion. • Discuss collaborative process • Assess opportunity to execute a shared vision using the collaborative approach. Project manager reports assessment to • Assess opportunity for mutually beneficial collaborative City Council at next meeting. approach and project outcome. • If positive assessment, Council appoints collaboration team and may allocate city contribution for staff/consultant time prior to developer submission of concept plan application. • If no opportunity for collaboration, developer may submit application under standard procedures (e.g. no PUD) Collaboration Team and developer visit • Begin developing relationships and trust. site/parcel. • Brainstorm and share ideas for project Project manager and developer draft • Document establishes and clarifies project expectations: project guidance document. 1. Project goals 2. Collaboration principles (example provided as a starting point) 3. Project design & review schedule including key milestones to achieve concept, preliminary and fmal plan approvals. Collaboration Team reviews guidance • Builds council support for and ownership of project document, project manager presents to expectations. City Council. Sample Principles of Collaboration Principles are intended to anchor the city -developer partnership and collaborative process through mutually agreed upon values and expectations. The following examples are a starting point for creating specific principles and expectations for each project. 1. Partnerships should be spearheaded by well-informed and visible leadership. 2. Partnerships should be developed in which the core competencies and investments of both parties are valued and leveraged. 3. Partnerships should be understood by all stakeholders through a clearly defined project vision with comprehensive goals and evaluation criteria. 4. Partnerships should establish a clear and rational decision -making process. 5. Both parties should work together to ensure that all of the collaborative efforts are aimed at meeting identified needs and respect the culture, customs and structures of the community. 6. Both parties will aim to build knowledge, skills and resources in the context of their collaborative efforts that will benefit the community. 7. Both parties will work to ensure that they communicate frequently using clear, consistent and transparent language. 8. Both parties will work together to ensure that their public relations activities accurately reflect their collaborative efforts and respect affected parties and the community. 9. Both parties should work together to develop partnerships that are predictable in nature. City of Hanover 763-497-3777 http : //www. hanovermn. or Medina Planning Commission May 11, 2010 Meeting Minutes CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 11, 2010 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Charles Nolan called the meeting to order at 9:30 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners, Victoria Reid, Robin Reid, John Anderson, Kent Williams, and Beth Nielsen. Absent: Kathleen Martin Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke, Planning Assistant Debra Peterson -Dufresne, and NAC Planning Consultant Laurie Smith. 2. Public Hearing - Robert Bradley — 3415 Leawood Drive (PID 09-118-23-32-0002) — Preliminary Plat to subdivide one existing lot into two Smith presented application. She pointed out the existing accessory structure does not meet setbacks for an animal structure and wanted it noted for the record that it should be included in the resolution. She explained the proposed plat has two wetlands, but no impacts are being proposed. She said staff had reviewed the plat and found it consistent with the subdivision regulations. Anderson asked if conditions were outlined. Smith explained they would be incorporated into the resolution. Mark Gronberg of Gronberg and Associates said he was representing the property owners and would be available to answer questions. Doug Hoskins, Coldwell Banker Burnett, said the proposed plat was to establish value of what the house and barn are worth separate from the additional land. He further said that if they could sell the property as a whole without the subdivision they would be willing to do so. At this time they want to provide options to buyers. He said they will not complete a final plat unless they have a buyer and need two lots. Nolan asked why it wasn't split off originally. Hoskins said it was not divided because the owners wanted the option to have horses. Public Hearing opened at 9:42 p.m. No public comment. Public Hearing closed at 9:43 p.m. 1 Medina Planning Commission May 11, 2010 Meeting Minutes Nolan asked about the suitable soils and Gronberg explained the site had remained the same, except for the topographic slopes. He said nothing had been done to the site since the original plat, so the soils would remain the same. Gronberg explained the original owner kept the lot with the intent of subdividing in the future. Nolan noted the plan didn't show the proposed buffer area and asked if the buffer would be shown prior to going to the City Council. Smith explained the buffer area was a condition of approval which provides some discretion to the applicant. The applicant requests the buffer width be discussed by the City Council. Anderson asked for clarification of the use of the existing shed and if they had any intentions of it being utilized for animals in the future. Gronberg informed the commission they are not intending to use the shed for animals since the structure does not meet the minimum 150 foot setback required. Motion by Anderson, Seconded by Nielsen to approve the preliminary plat with recommended conditions. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Martin) 3. Public Hearing - Stauber/Rosati - 705 Hamel Road (12-118-23-32-0001) Concept Plan Review to construct a six unit townhome building. Finke presented the concept plan providing background history of the previous application made by the applicant in 2007. He explained the changes in the Comprehensive Plan since the previous approval which allows for higher density than what was originally approved. He further explained the concept plan process is to provide feedback to the applicant. He explained the on -site topographic changes, elm creek floodplain, wetlands, significant trees along property lines, and other uses and zoning districts in the area that impact the site. Finke explained the primary reason the applicant applied for the concept plan review was because the property is currently zoned Multi -family Residential (MR), yet Residential -Limited Multiple Family (R-4) was created last year with the intent of this property being rezoned. He explained that the MR district has lower density than the R-4 district and the question to the commission is if the property should be reviewed under the MR or R-4 district. He explained staff supported the R-4 density as proposed in the concept plan assuming it meets the 7 units per acre requirements. He noted the buffer yard has the greatest impact on the site. Finke then explained the applicants request for variances to parking setbacks to the front and side yard and asked if the commission supported the design. He also noted the maximum hardcover is 25 percent since it is in the shoreland overlay district. The concept plan proposes to exceed the 25 percent which requires a variance. Finke explained the limited information on the proposed building design. He said the height of building would exceed the maximum 30 foot building height and would also need a variance. 2 Medina Planning Commission May 11, 2010 Meeting Minutes The building would be required to be sprinkled and requested the commission to discuss garbage handling on -site. Finke said the comprehensive plan asks for a fair amount of density be provided on this site. Staffs recommendation to add additional parking beyond the code requirement was due to Hamel Road not allowing parking a number of months during the year. He said the applicant claims their overall hardship is the topography of the site. Finke explained LID practices proposed such as the bio-filtration basin and swales. He said the hardcover is relatively low and the flat area at the rear of the building would allow for recreational activity and staff suggests the applicant construct a covered area for bike racks since the garages proposed will be small and not provide areas for much other than a vehicle. Finke said park dedication would not be required if the they didn't subdivide or CIC the property. Finke said the trail plan identifies a trail as a high priority along the north side of Hamel road. Finke said the applicant has commented on trying to provide rents that are affordable. He said the Metropolitan Council allows sewer fees to be reduced if the building provided a shared laundry facility rather than individual. He said the City could reduce water connection fees as an incentive to develop the site. In exchange the city could require the applicant to record a document stating the townhome units would always be affordable housing. V. Reid asked what the garages would look like. Finke explained the garages were front facing. Williams asked about the driveway to the west. Finke said it was a private drive for the existing townhomes. Williams asked if the applicant had considered linking to the private driveway to the west. Finke said the discussion had taken place with the applicant and property owner to the west during the previous application approval but rights were not granted. Finke was aware of the discussion, though unsure as to why the easement was not obtained. Rosati, applicant and landowner, asked the commission if they recall the orange house that use to be on the lot. He said they are anxious to get going on developing the property since they are on an interest only payment plan. Rosati said he needed the parking area to be in front of the building to be economically feasible. Also, a sprinkler system is not economically feasible. Nolan asked for the applicant to respond to the comments made on obtaining an easement for use of the driveway to the west. Rosati said when they were working on the previous application the property owners to the west weren't interested. Nolan asked if Rosati had given an honest effort in obtaining an easement. Rosati said they did. Anderson asked what the requirements are for the building to be sprinkled. Finke said within the fire code there is a square footage for multi -family and single family. Staff didn't have enough information on the application to determine square footage. He said the fire marshal recommends 3 Medina Planning Commission May 11, 2010 Meeting Minutes sprinkling the building regardless of the square footage of the building since the building is difficult to access at the rear. Rosati said a sprinkler system would not be economically feasible. V. Reid said she heard the applicant really wants to place parking in the front of the building. Rosati said it is the concept plan they had before and they continue to want parking in the front. Martinson asked about the height of the retaining wall. Finke said the wall is approximately 12- 13 feet tall. Martinson asked what that would look like. Finke said it would be some sort of modular block. Rosati said a retaining wall would create privacy. Anderson asked for clarification of the fire code related to sprinkler systems. Finke explained that there is a fire code requiring a sprinkler system for buildings over a certain square footage. He said even if it fell below the square footage it would not be accessible in case of fire. With no fire lanes being provided, the sprinkler system would be in exchange for not providing fire access. V. Reid asked if the retaining wall would be 13 feet in height and asked what it would look like. Finke explained it would be a modular block wall Williams asked if the building was moved to the east would it provide enough space for access to rear of building. Finke explained there are a number of potential designs for the property but the concept being proposed is the most affordable. Nolan asked if the applicant looked at staggering of the units. Rosati said the farther they go back, the more it impacts the sewer. Williams likes the plan since the parking is the farthest possible distance from the creek. R. Reid said there are a lot of garage door designs to improve the appearance of the front facing garage doors. Public Hearing Opened at 10:23 p.m. John Hite, 10 year resident of Medina. Wife and himself are owners of Four -Leaf Investments and own the four-plex buildings to the west of the subject property. He said they are long term investors and feels the position of the garages would look terrible and inconsistent with the appearance of the rest of the buildings in the area. He said the garage doors would be open frequently only adding to the unsightly appearance. He said he prohibits parking on Hamel Road by his tenants so that at any given time they can look out their front and not see cars parked in front of the building. Hite said he is in opposition of the concept plan proposed. He said the density of the concept plan is 50 percent more than the surrounding properties and is inconsistent with the types of buildings in the area. He said the dumpsters are a concern since when he purchased his buildings he got rid of the dumpsters and required individual garbage cans which are required to be kept at the rear of the building. 4 Medina Planning Commission May 11, 2010 Meeting Minutes He said he feels like the variances are a result of a bad investment and an economic hardship is difficult for him to understand and doesn't think the applicant should pass the loss along to other properties in the area. He feels the issues are self inflicted. He further said he doesn't want to see a bunch of garages or dumpsters so close to the road and hopes the applicant can do something with the lot. Nolan asked if part of the solution was giving them access through his property. Hite said he told the applicant he'd be willing to consider a north -south driveway easement, but not along the back going east -west since it would increase traffic for his existing tenants. Hite said the zoning allows for the proposed density, but the site can't handle it. Finke explained the property could have a three story building on it. Nolan explained that the City redid the comprehensive plan and is now asking for higher density in this area. He said when we look at higher density the commission has to evaluate each project individually. Nolan said he would prefer parking at the rear of the building. He asked Hite if he would work with Rosati. Williams explained he wanted to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and if it means parking in the front of the building then that is the way it goes. Nielsen said she didn't like the parking in the front. Anderson asked if the building was narrowed and was three stories if they could get parking in the back. Rosati said if they could they would have done it 3 years ago. V. Reid said the parking should be placed at the rear of the building to provide an urban feel. With all the parking at the front of the lot it is as much of an issue as the garage doors in the front. She feels the city is trying to improve the Uptown Hamel area and sympathizes with the applicant's financial issues involved with developing the property. V. Reid said she is concerned with the berm, parking and garages in the front yard. She feels the city is trying to upgrade the area and has concern with the design of the project. Anderson said it's a vacant lot and a bad project is worse than a vacant lot. Williams said the project has to be economically feasible. Nielsen asked who determines what is feasible. Anderson said we know a three story building would allow parking in the back. Finke said the garages in the front are allowed by city code. Williams raised concern making sure the city allows for approval of an economically feasible project. He said he has taken the applicant's word that they have looked at all their options to develop the property and said the city may have to give on some of the issues to allow the property to develop. He said the other option may be for the current property owner to sell the property and maybe someone else could develop it for less. 5 Medina Planning Commission May 11, 2010 Meeting Minutes Finke said, in regards to consistency with the neighborhood, the front car garage doors would be allowed by city code even though it may be out of character with the surrounding area. He suggested the commission may prefer a taller building allowing for parking in the rear. Nolan said he'd prefer the taller building. Finke explained the proposed project is already a three story building from the rear. Nolan said he's not convinced parking isn't possible at the rear of the building. R. Reid said she could live with the garage doors in the front, but her concern is the garages are only one -car and most households have two cars. This would mean the parking lot would frequently have cars in it. She also doesn't like the idea of all the garbage cans, and asked if fire hydrants could be placed at the rear of the building rather than requiring a sprinkler system for the building. Finke said hydrants wouldn't prevent requiring a sprinkler system. Nolan said he would like to see parking at the rear of the building and asked Hite to allow the applicant to obtain a driveway easement going east -west. He said if the driveway was going north -south down the property line it would have a greater impact on the site. R. Reid asked if the building could be turned 90 degrees. Nolan said he's considered that design but didn't think it would solve the issues the site presents. Anderson asked the applicant to take a hard look at putting parking at the rear of the building. Finke asked the commission if they would be alright with keeping the MR zoning with the understanding the applicant would be held to the density requirements of the comprehensive plan. The commission agreed to review the property with the MR zoning. Nolan said the commission would give variances for the development of the project if parking was placed at the rear of the building. Public Hearing Closed at 10:54 p.m. No action needed. 4. Planning Department Report Finke updated the Commission. 5. Approval of April 13, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes: Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Nielsen to approve the April 13, 2010 minutes with recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Martin) 5. Approval of April 13, 2010 minutes of concurrent meeting with the City Council: Motion by Anderson, seconded by Nielsen to approve the April 13, 2010 minutes with recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Martin) 6 Medina Planning Commission May 11, 2010 Meeting Minutes 7. City Council Meeting Schedule: Discussion of representation at Council meeting. 8. Adjourn: Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Williams to adjourn at 11:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Martin) 7 BARR Barr Engineering Company 4700 West 77th Street • Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803 Phone: 952-832-2600 • Fax: 952-832-2601 • www.barr.com An EEO Employer Minneapolis, MN • Hibbing, MN • Duluth, MN • Ann Arbor, MI • Jefferson City, MO • Bismarck, ND Memorandum To: Medina City Council From: Dan Petrik Subject: Conservation Design Ordinance Date: May 27, 2010 Project: 23 27 1104.00 001 DRP Introduction The attached Conservation Design ordinance is intended to help achieve the City's conservation objectives through the development process. These objectives or priorities are identified in the 2007 Open Space Report and include: 1. Protecting the ecological function of lakes, streams, and wetlands. 2. Protecting moderate to high quality ecologically significant natural areas. 3. Protecting opportunities to make ecological connections between parks and other protected lands and ecologically significant natural areas. 4. Protecting important viewsheds including scenic road segments. 5. Creating trails and/or other methods for citizens to view and enjoy open space resources. The content of the ordinance incorporates the feedback gathered from of a number of public meetings and includes recommendations of both the Planning and Parks Commissions. Due to the expedited schedule for developing the ordinance, the Planning and Parks Commissions have not been able to react to the specific language in the current draft. This document was drafted from the general recommendations provided by the Planning and Parks Commission at the May 11 joint meeting. In developing this draft, the intent was to capture these general recommendations with the appropriate language. Hopefully, this was successful; however, there are likely instances where additional changes are needed. Process/Project Milestones March 16 March 23 April 13 May 11 Joint meeting of the Council, Planning Commission and Parks Commission Public open house Public Hearing and joint meeting of the Planning and Parks Commissions Continuation of the Public Hearing and joint meeting of the Planning and Parks Commission The attached ordinance contains extensive comments clarifying specific regulatory issues. Following is a summary of the key issues regarding ordinance development. P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Memo for June 1 City Council meeting.doc Regulatory Approach The Conservation Design (CD) District is to be implemented as a special PUD district. The existing PUD District could be used to achieve the City's conservation objectives. However, unlike the PUD district, the Conservation Design District is explicit about those objectives and the design standards and requirements needed to achieve those objectives. This clarity around expectations has been created through the public process and commission deliberations over the past couple of months. As such, the Conservation Design District is a communications tool that clearly states the city's development expectations. The CD District is intended for use in the Rural Residential District and in any residential district guided for sewered residential use in the Comprehensive Plan. Use of the CD District is a development option (e.g. not required) in these areas and is encouraged through various incentives (described below). The CD District is designed to be implemented using the procedures and requirements of the City's existing PUD District. As a PUD, the Council does have discretion to deviate from the standards and requirements of the CD District. The overall "tone" of the CD District is one of flexibility especially in terms of incentives (density and site design) and the amount of required conservation area. The main idea is to "let the land speak" and approach the design of each project on a case -by -case basis. Use of a collaborative process early in the project review process is an additional way of introducing flexibility into the ordinance. A Conservation Design-PUD is only an option on larger tracts of land, defined as 40 acres and larger in the Rural Residential District and 20 acres in sewered residential districts. Larger tracts are generally needed to allow for creative site designs that achieve development priorities. This regulatory approach was chosen because it works within the existing zoning framework and is relatively straightforward to administer. Spatially, it is applied to existing zoning districts and it uses the existing PUD district for application processing. An alternative to this regulatory approach would have been to map a new district based on ecological resources and critical views or viewsheds. Implementing this approach would be challenging from technical, administrative and political perspectives and wouldn't necessarily improve outcomes. Incentives Two types of incentives are offered in the CD District, density incentives and flexibility from various other regulations. Density incentives were felt to have more relevance in the Rural Residential District, whereas, flexibility from other regulations were felt to have more market value in sewered residential areas. The density incentive provisions allow up to twice the number of dwelling units (200% of the base density) in the Rural Residential District and an additional 20 percent of the number of dwelling units (120% of the base density) in sewered residential areas. Offering the incentive as a percentage of base density is used in order to work within the existing regulatory framework. In addition to density, flexibility around lot size, lot width, setbacks, housing type, and park dedication requirements are offered for CD development in both the Rural Residential District and in sewered residential districts. Additional incentives for CD development in sewered residential districts are offered and include flexibility around landscaping, screening, upland buffers, and tree preservation. Conservation Areas A flexible approach is also taken with regard to "required conservation areas." A preferred range of conservation area is listed for CD development in the Rural Residential District and sewered residential districts. The City already has significant areas of open space. The intent of this section, along with the specified conservation objectives, is to target the preservation of open space on priority resources as 2 opposed to maximizing open space (quality over quantity). The ordinance lists the following priorities for designating conservation areas: 1. Sensitive ecological resources 2. Land connecting these resources 3. Scenic views 4. Land for public trails 5. Land for public/private parks and open space Conservation Area Design Standards The section on conservation area design standards provides guidance on how the space should be designed regarding connectivity and the relationship of certain elements. Some cities get very specific in this area. The approach taken was to provide general guidance as opposed to many specifics to go with the overall tone of flexibility. There may be opportunities for adding more guidance in this area to address the community's needs. Sewage Treatment The City's Building Inspector was consulted for developing regulations in this area. Individual treatment systems are required for CD development; however, the placement of drainfields or mound systems in commonly owned conservation areas or open space is allowed to provide flexibility in site design. The City will likely be updating its septic regulations, later this year, to address changes in state rules made over the past couple of years. Application Processing — Collaboration Evolving planning thought and practice recognize that achieving the goals of conservation design requires site design and review processing flexibility. Prescriptive one size fits all regulations and review procedures are not always suited towards addressing the unique environmental characteristics of each parcel and maximizing project benefits for both the developer and community. The proposed ordinance encourages the use of a collaborative approach early in the review process, prior to PUD concept plan stage review. During this early pre -concept planning stage, the City and developer discuss project objectives and come to a preliminary understanding of the regulatory flexibility needed to achieve those objectives. The design of the collaborative approach is not specified due to the range in project sizes and opportunities for achieving the conservation objectives. The Planning Commission recommended this approach so that an appropriate scale specific collaborative process could be designed for each project. If a collaborative approach is not used, the standard processing procedures of the PUD District are to be used. 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Crosby and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Adams DATE: May 27, 2010 MEETING: June 1, 2010 City Council SUBJ: Conservation Design Ordinance; Open Space Composite Map Appeals Background At the May 18, 2010 meeting, the City Council discussed what process may be followed if a property owner disagrees with the City's Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) information or the "Composite Map" in the City's Open Space Plan. Staff acknowledged that a process is not currently described within City regulations to describe how a property owner could present such information. The City's Wetland Protection ordinance is similar, because it references a Wetland Management Classification Map which is maintained by the City and utilized to determine the required width of upland buffers. This map was created following the assessment of wetlands completed by WSB & Associates. The Wetland Protection ordinance describes a process by which an applicant can appeal the classification. While the Composite Map is not utilized as directly as the Wetland Management Classification Map to determine City regulations, the map is referenced within the current draft of the Conservation Design ordinance, and is meant to provide guidance to the implementation of the ordinance. As such, staff supports establishing a process to appeal the Composite Map and data sources which the Map is based on. Potential Language to Incorporate into Ordinance The following process is similar to the process established within the Wetland Protection ordinance. The City Council can discuss this language to determine if this process should be added to the Conservation Design ordinance Staff will incorporate the language into the updated draft of the ordinance if directed to do so by the Council. Section ###.## Open Space Report Composite Map Appeal Process. In the event that an applicant is not in agreement with the Composite Map or the data contained within a report the Composite Map is based upon, the applicant may present an appeal to the city. Subd. 1. The applicant shall put the appeal in writing, accompanied by the fee as described by the City's Fee Schedule, and is responsible to provide documentation supporting their appeal. Conservation Design Ordinance Page 1 of 2 June 1, 2010 Appeals Process City Council Meeting Subd. 2. The appeal shall be reviewed by city staff, with the assistance of any technical consultants which city staff shall determine are appropriate. Such consultants may include, but are not limited to, environmental engineers, wetland scientists, arborists and other similar experts. City staff shall make a determination on the appeal within sixty days of receipt of a complete appeal application. Subd 3. The applicant may appeal city staff s decision to the city council. The appeal must be filed within thirty days of staff s determination. Subd. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for the costs accrued by the City in review of the appeals described above, including the costs of technical consultants hired by the City. Conservation Design Ordinance Page 2 of 2 June 1, 2010 Appeals Process City Council Meeting CONSERVATION DESIGN DISTRICT Draft — May 26, 2010 Comment: The term "overlay" was removed from the title of the district as the underlying district goes away with rezoning to a CD-PUD. Section 826.xx. Conservation Design (CD) — Purpose. The purpose of this district is to preserve the City's rural character which includes ecological resources, wildlife corridors, and scenic views, while allowing residential development consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Report as updated from time to time. The specific conservation objectives of this district are to: 1. Protect the ecological function of lakes, streams, and wetlands. 2. Protect moderate to high quality ecologically significant natural areas. 3. Protect opportunities to make ecological connections between parks and other protected lands and ecologically significant natural areas. 4. Protect important viewsheds including scenic road segments. 5. Create trails and/or other methods for citizens to view and enjoy Open Space resources. Comment: The above conservation priorities/goals were identified in the 2007 Open Space Plan. Section 826.xx Applicability. Subd. 1. Parcels lying in the Rural Residential District and all sewered residential districts may be developed according to the regulations of the CD District. Section 826.xx Intent. Subd. 1. It is the intent of the City to accomplish the stated purpose of this District by approving a Planned Unit Development. In exchange for achieving the conservation objectives, it is the intent of the City to provide flexibility in development standards including density and to encourage development review through a Collaborative Process. Comment: City policy in the Open Space Report and the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the majority of comments received at the public meetings support the use of density incentives to encourage this development option. Subd. 2. The permitted, conditional and accessory uses and other regulations set forth in the existing zoning districts shall apply unless specifically addressed in this District, the PUD District, or if determined by the City Council to be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this District as part of the final PUD plans. Subd. 3. The procedures and regulations set forth in the PUD District shall apply unless specifically addressed in this District. If a final PUD plan is approved by the City Council, the underlying zoning for the subject property shall be rezoned to Conservation Design-PUD District (CD-PUD). The permitted uses and all other regulations governing uses on the subject land shall then be those found in the CD-PUD zoning district and documented by the PUD plans and P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 3(May 26)-clean.doc 1 agreements. The following subsections are requirements for all CD-PUDs unless exceptions, as part of a PUD, are otherwise approved by the City Council. Section 826.xx Definitions. Subd. 1. Base Density. The maximum number of units or lots that are allowed on a parcel in accordance with the standards of the base zoning district and the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Subd. 2. Buildable Land Area. The total land area in a proposed Conservation Design Subdivision less the amount of land that includes: hydric soils, slopes greater than 18%, wetlands, required wetland buffers, lakes, and land within the 100 year floodplain. Subd. 3. Collaborative Process. A development review process that results in a development plan in which clearly defined conservation objectives are achieved in exchange for greater flexibility from the requirements of the base zoning district and the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Subd. 4. Conventional Development. Development that meets the minimum requirements of the City's ordinances regulating development. Subd. 5. Conservation Easement. As defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 84C: A nonpossessory interest of a holder in real property imposing limitations or affirmative obligations the purposes of which include retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open -space values of real property, assuring its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational, or open -space use, protecting natural resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water quality, or preserving the historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural aspects of real property. Subd. 6. Conservation Design Subdivision. Any development of land that incorporates the concepts of designated Conservation Areas and clustering of dwelling units. Subd. 7. Conservation Area. Designated land within a Conservation Design Subdivision that contributes towards achievement of one or more of the conservation objectives. A Conservation Easement is placed on Conservation Areas to permanently restrict the Conservation Area from future development. Conservation Areas may be used for agriculture, preservation of ecological resources, habitat corridors, and/or for passive recreational purposes. Subd. 8. Homeowners Association. A formally constituted non-profit association or corporation made up of the property owners and/or residents of a development for the purpose of owning, operating and maintaining common Conservation Areas and/or other commonly owned facilities and Open Space. Comment: Some of these definitions may be appropriate to add to Section 825.07, the definitions section of the Zoning Code. Subd. 9. Open Space. Land that is not designated as a Conservation Area that is used for parks, trails or other uses. Open Space may be owned and managed by the City, homeowner's association or other entity. Subd. 10. Yield Plan. A conceptual layout that shows the maximum number of lots that could be placed on a parcel in accordance with the standards of the base zoning district and the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. The Yield Plan shows proposed lots, streets, rights -of -way, and other pertinent features. Yield Plans shall be drawn to scale. The layout shall be realistic and reflect a P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 3(May 26)-clean.doc 2 development pattern that could reasonably be expected to be implemented, taking into account the presence of wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, and existing easements. Section 826.xx. General Development Standards. Subd. 1. Minimum Size of Subdivision. (a) The minimum land area required for development shall be: (1) 40 contiguous acres in the Rural Residential District (2) 20 contiguous acres in sewered residential districts (b) A subdivision in the Rural Residential District of over 20 contiguous acres but less than 40 contiguous acres may apply for approval if they meet all the requirements for CD, and the visual impact of the subdivision from existing adjacent roadways is mitigated by existing topography and/or existing vegetation. Comment: The minimum size of the subdivision must be large enough to allow for creative site design that achieves development priorities. There is little additional green space to be gained from allowing small parcels to be developed at higher densities compared to current regulations The additional requirement placed on subdivisions of smaller parcel size should be used to mitigate the visual and environmental impacts. Subd. 2. Base Density, Density Incentives, and Calculation of Allowed Number of Dwelling Units. (a) The Base Density shall be that established by regulations in the relevant base zoning district. (1) In the Rural Residential District, Base Density shall be determined by calculating the number of 5-acre areas of contiguous soils suitable for a standard sewage disposal system that are located on the subject property. (2) In sewered residential districts, a Yield Plan shall be developed to determine Base Density. Base Density Regulations of the base district and all other relevant land use regulations of this Code shall be used for completing the Yield Plan. (b) Density, in addition to the Base Density, may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. In considering any additional density, the City will evaluate how well the project achieves the conservation objectives over and above that achievable under conventional development. The total number of dwelling units in a CD-PUD development shall be guided by the density limitations contained in the Comprehensive Plan and shall not be greater than: (1) 200% of the calculated Base Density in the Rural Residential District. (2) 120% of calculated Base Density in all sewered residential districts. Comment: The maximum number of dwelling units is a local choice that balances the city's long term vision as defined in the Comprehensive Plan with an incentive that is sufficient to encourage landowners/developers to select the conservation design option. A "percentage" of the Base Density is used as the incentive framework so as to work with P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 3(May 26)-clean.doc 3 existing and familiar requirements for determining allowed number of units. The language shows that the city will be flexible in granting density and that this flexibility is tied to the conservation objective. A "Yield Plan" is a plan that shows how many dwelling units can be placed on a tract of land according to the regulations pertaining to development of that land. It is produced early in the process to guide design and density discussions. It is more conceptual and does not require the level of detail of plans submitted during the preliminary plat stage. Subd 4. Required Conservation Area (a) The required Conservation Area within the CD development shall be: (1) At least 30% - 50% of the total Buildable Land Area in the Rural Residential District, or higher depending on the land and opportunities to achieve the City's conservation objectives. (2) At least 20% of the total Buildable Land Area in sewered residential districts, or higher depending on the land and opportunities to achieve the City's conservation objectives. Comment: Defining an Open Space amount is challenging in an environment with significant amounts of dispersed wetlands and surface waters. Applying a rigid one size fits all rule, or requiring too much conservation area, in this type of landscape may be counter productive, especially with an incentive based approach. Since wetlands (and their buffers) are already protected, there is little to be gained (over existing regulatory requirements) by allowing wetlands in the required conservation area. For this reason, required conservation area is defined as a percentage of "Buildable Land Area" which excludes wetlands. This approach is considered to be more restrictive than applying a required amount to the total parcel area. However, this perceived "restrictiveness" can be modified by reducing the actual amount required. As such, the range of required conservation area is capped at 50%. This amount, however, may still be too high in this landscape where CD development is to be encouraged. The city already has lots of Open Space (as stated by many participants at the 3/23 open house), so requiring conservation areas Space for the sake of getting more Open Space may be unproductive and difficult to justify to land owners (on top of existing regulations). The objective is to target the Open Space in ways that achieve the conservation objectives of protecting upland ecological resources and views, areas that could otherwise be developed. This may be achievable through relatively small amounts of "required" conservation areas, depending on the characteristics and location of each parcel of land. Due to these site specific variables, flexibility in determining the "required" amount of conservation area provides greater opportunities for the city and landowner/developer to both achieve their individual goals through CD development. Assessing project goals and methods for achieving them would occur early in the CD- PUD application processing, perhaps through a voluntary collaborative process.. For CD developments in urban areas, a 20% minimum is expected. This is considered the minimum amount needed to protect any existing resources and/or create corridors that provide differentiation from a conventional suburban subdivision. On some projects, P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 3(May 26)-clean.doc 4 more conservation area may be available, but meeting required density minimums and market demand for saleable lots will effectively limit the amount of conservation area. Subd. 5. Designating Conservation Areas. (a) The required amount of Conservation Area shall be designated and located to maximize achievement of the City's conservation objectives. Opportunities for achieving these objectives will vary depending on the location, size and specific qualities of the subject parcel. Each parcel will be evaluated for opportunities to achieve the following conservation objectives over and above that achievable under conventional development: (1) To protect and/or restore the ecological function of lakes, streams, and wetlands. (2) To protect, restore, and/or create moderate to high quality ecological resources including the sensitive ecological resources identified as priority areas on the Composite Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. (3) To reserve land connecting these aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources in order to restore and/or create new ecological resources suitable for habitat movement corridors. (4) To protect scenic views and viewsheds including the views from roads identified as "Scenic Roads" on the Scenic Roads Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. (5) To reserve land for incorporating public trails in order to create connections to existing or planned trails as identified in the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. (6) To reserve land for incorporating public and /or private Open Space in order to achieve goals as identified in the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Comment: These priorities were identified at the 3/16 meeting of the Council/Planning Commission and Parks Commission and validated by the participants at the 3/23 open house. These priorities are also aligned with goals and policies identified in the 2007 Open Space Report and Comprehensive Plan. These priorities are intended to communicate to landowners and developers what is most important to the city and to guide discussions during the early planning stage of each CD-PUD application. Subd. 6. Perimeter Setbacks. Structure setbacks from the perimeter of the subdivision shall be the same as the underlying zoning district. P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 3(May 26)-clean.doc 5 Section 826.xx. Additional Incentives to Encourage Conservation Design. Additional flexibility from the requirements of the base zoning district or other requirements of this code may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. In considering such flexibility, the City will evaluate how well the project achieves the conservation objectives over and above that achievable under conventional development. Subd. 1. Rural Residential Districts. In the Rural Residential District, flexibility may include: (a) Lot size, lot width and structure setbacks provided setbacks comply with the following minimums: (1) Setback from local streets: 35 feet (2) Setback from Arterial and Collector Streets: 100 feet (3) Interior structure setbacks: 30 feet (b) Housing type (c) Modification of park dedication requirements Subd 2. Sewered Residential Districts. In all sewered residential districts, flexibility may include: (a) Lot size, lot width, and structure setbacks (b) Housing type (c) Landscaping (d) Screening (e) Upland buffers and tree preservation as long as the objectives of these regulations are met for the site as a whole. (f) Buffer yard (g) Modification of park dedication requirements Comment: Flexibility in these areas is intended to be an incentive to the developer and to protect ecological features and achieve other project goals. The idea is to assess each parcel/project individually and achieve the site design that best achieves overall goals. This approach requires trade offs on individual objectives or requirements in the achievement of the overall best approach. The city may wish to specify ranges of flexibility on some or all of these elements. Section 826.xx. Conservation Area Protection and Ownership. Subd. 1. Land and improvements in areas designated as Conservation Areas in a CD-PUD shall be established, protected and owned in accordance with the following guidelines: P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 3(May 26)-clean.doc 6 (a) Designated Conservation Areas shall be surveyed and subdivided as separate outlots. (b) Designated Conservation Areas must be restricted from further development by a permanent Conservation Easement (in accordance with Chapter 84C.01-05 of Minnesota Statutes) running with the land. The Conservation Easement must be submitted with the General Plan of Development and approved by the City Attorney. (1) The permanent Conservation Easement may be held by any combination of the following entities, but in no case may the holder of the Conservation Easement be the same as the owner of the underlying fee: i. The City of Medina, or other governmental agency ii. A private nonprofit organization that has been designated by the Internal Revenue Service as qualifying under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. (2) The permanent Conservation Easement shall be recorded with Hennepin County and must specify: i. The entity that will maintain the designated Conservation Area. ii. The purposes of the Conservation Easement, that the easement is permanent, and the conservation values of the property. iii. The legal description of the land under the easement. iv. The restrictions on the use of the land and from future development. v. To what standards the Conservation Areas will be maintained through reference to an approved land stewardship plan. vi. Who will have access to the Conservation Area. (3) Ownership of the underlying fee of each designated Conservation Area parcel, may be held by any combination of the following entities: i. A common ownership association, subject to the provisions in the PUD District ii. An individual who will use the land in accordance with the permanent Conservation Easement; iii. The City of Medina or other government agency. iv. A private nonprofit organization that has been designated by the Internal Revenue Service as qualifying under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Comment: The long-term success of a Conservation Design Subdivision lies with permanently restricted conservation areas. If the restrictions are not permanent, development of those areas could happen if zoning changes. Conservation Easements are a tool that has been specifically authorized and used in Minnesota to provide for P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 3(May 26)-clean.doc 7 permanent protection of natural resources. The easement must be held by a separate entity from the underlying fee. The easement holder is responsible for monitoring the easement parcels to ensure development does not occur and for enforcing the terms of the easement. Easements that lie across parcels with different owners are difficult to manage. Open Space parcels should be platted as separate outlots and held by a single entity, such as an ownership association. (c) Open Space areas that do not achieve the City's conservation objectives may be established under a homeowner's association without protection by a Conservation Easement. Such areas shall be regulated according to provisions of the PUD District. Section 826.xx. Land Stewardship Plan. Subd. 1. Plan Objectives. Where a CD-PUD has designated Conservation Areas, a plan for the development, long-term use, maintenance, and insurance of all Conservation Areas, may be required. The plan shall: (a) Define ownership and methods of land protection. (b) Establish necessary regular and periodic operation and maintenance responsibilities. (c) Estimate staffing needs, insurance requirements, and other associated costs associated with plan implementation and define the means for funding the same on an on -going basis. This shall include land management fees necessary to fund monitoring and management of the Conservation Easement by the easement holder. The fees shall be estimated and validated by the proposed easement holder. Comment: Language was added to make submission of a land stewardship plan discretionary. Such a plan may be burdensome on small projects. The standard PUD district contains provisions (Section 827.27 Subd. 1.(f)) for operating and maintenance requirements that could be used instead of these provisions where appropriate. Subd. 2. Plan Submittal Requirements. A preliminary Land Stewardship Plan shall be submitted with the General Plan of Development. A Final Land Stewardship Plan shall be submitted with the Final Plan Stage of PUD development. The plan shall contain a narrative describing: (a) Existing conditions, including all natural, cultural, historic, and scenic elements in the landscape; (b) Objectives for each Conservation Area, including: (1) The proposed permanent or maintained landscape condition for each area. P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 3(May 26)-clean.doc 8 (2) Any restoration measures needed to achieve the proposed permanent condition, including: i. Measures for correcting increasingly destructive conditions, such as erosion. ii. Measures for restoring historic features (if applicable). iii. Measures for restoring existing or establishing new landscape types. A maintenance Plan, including: (3) i. Activities needed to maintain the stability of the resources, including mowing and burning schedules, weed control measures, planting schedules, and clearing and cleanup measures and schedules. ii. An estimate of the annual on -going (post restoration) operating and maintenance costs. Subd. 3. Funding of Operation and Maintenance. At the discretion of the City, the applicant may be required to escrow sufficient funds for the maintenance and operation costs of Conservation Areas for up to two years. The City may also require establishment of an endowment to fund the estimated on -going operation and maintenance costs. Subd. 4. Enforcement. In the event that the association established to own and maintain Conservation Areas, common areas and facilities, or any successor organization thereto, fails to properly maintain all or any portion of the aforesaid common areas or facilities, the City, in coordination with the holder of the easement, may serve written notice upon such association setting forth the manner in which the association has failed to maintain the aforesaid common areas and facilities. Such notice shall set forth the nature of corrections required and the time within which the corrections shall be made. Upon failure to comply within the time specified, the association, or any successor organization, shall be considered in violation of this Ordinance, in which case the City shall have the right to enter the premises and take the needed corrective actions. The costs of corrective actions by the City shall be assessed against the properties that have the right of enjoyment of the common areas and facilities Comment: Requiring a Land Stewardship Plan is relatively rare in conservation design and Open Space ordinances. The City should consider if this is a potential disincentive (an additional cost) or if there is value in it. Section 826.xx. Site Design Process. At the time of PUD Concept Plan development and review, applicants shall demonstrate that the following design process was performed and influenced the design of the concept site plan. Subd. 1. Step 1—Identify Conservation Areas. Identify preservation land in two steps. First identify "unbuildable" areas which include: hydric soils, slopes greater than 18%, wetlands, wetland buffers, lakes, and land within the 100 year floodplain. Next, identify Conservation Areas which include those areas designated as Conservation Areas (Section 826.xx of General Development Standards, Subd. 5.) The remaining land shall be identified as the potentially Buildable Land Area. The applicant shall identify the quantity of land designated as unbuildable, Conservation Area, and potentially Buildable Land Area. P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 3(May 26)-clean.doc 9 Subd. 2. Step 2—Locate Housing Sites. Locate the approximate sites of individual houses in regard to protected views and the potentially buildable land areas. Subd. 3. Step 3—Align Streets and Trails. Align streets in order to access the lots. New trails and connections to regional trail systems, if any, should be laid out to create internal and external connections to existing and/or potential future streets, sidewalks, and trails. Subd. 4. Step 4—Lot Lines. Draw in the lot lines. Comment: This is the process developed and promoted by Randall Arendt. It is included as a requirement during PUD concept plan review. The intention of including this is to make the design process visible to the community and to help communicate that the project design is aligned with and implements the city's conservation priorities. Most similar regulations do not specify this process to such detail. The City should consider if there is value in this or if it is outweigh by the cost and time to develop. Being flexible in allowing variation in this process should be acceptable. The key value is in communicating where the protected resources are and how their location influences design, not adherence to specific requirements in each step. Section 826.xx. Conservation Area Design Standards. The following Conservation Area design standards shall also be considered in designing the CD-PUD: Subd. 1. Conservation Areas should be interconnected wherever possible to provide a continuous network of Open Space within the PUD and throughout the City. It should coordinate and maximize boundaries with Conservation Areas and Open Space on adjacent tracts. Subd. 2. Incorporate public trails with connections to existing or planned regional trails. Incorporate public and/or private Open Space as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 3. Designated public access trails shall be protected by an access easement owned by the City. Subd. 5. Views of new dwellings from exterior roads and abutting properties should be minimized by the use of existing topography, existing vegetation, or additional landscaping. Ridge and hilltops should be contained within designated Conservation Areas wherever possible. Trees should not be removed from ridges and hilltops. Subd. 6. The boundaries of designated conservation areas shall be clearly delineated and labeled on CD-PUD plans. These areas shall be delineated in the field with signage or other measures approved by the city. Subd. 8. Stormwater management facilities may be located in designated conservation areas. Section 826.xx. Landscape Design Standards. Subd. 1. Street trees may be planted, but are not required, along internal streets passing through common Conservation Areas or Open Space. Subd. 2. Irregular spacing is encouraged for street trees, to avoid the urban appearance that regular spacing may invoke. PAMpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 3(May 26)-clean.doc 10 Subd. 3. The selection of vegetation should be guided by the natural community types identified in the City's 2008 Natural Resources Inventory. Subd. 4. Planted buffers between clusters of residential lots are encouraged to enhance privacy and a rural appearance between lots. Subd. 5. Buffers consisting of an informal arrangement of native plant species combined with infrequent mowing are strongly encouraged, to create a low -maintenance, natural landscape. Subd. 6. Planted buffers are also encouraged along natural drainage areas to minimize erosion. Subd. 7. Mass grading for Conservation Areas and other common landscaped areas and stormwater management areas shall be avoided to reduce compaction and impacting water infiltration rates. Soil testing and decompaction may be required if site construction activities negatively impact soil permeability. Subd. 8. Better Site Design/Low Impact Development practices as identified in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency shall be used to design sites and meet the performance standards. Section 826.xx. Subsurface Sewage Treatment Facilities. Subd. 1. Where city services are not available, CD-PUD developments may be platted to accommodate home site lots with either individual septic tanks and drainfields/mound systems located on the lot, or individual septic tanks located on the lot and drainfields/mound systems located in the designated Conservation Area or other Open Space. Subd. 2. All septic systems shall conform to the performance standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's standards for sewage treatment systems WPC- 7080 and its appendices, or the MPCA standards in effect at the time of installation and septic system regulations of the City of Medina which requires a primary and secondary drainfield site. Subd. 3. Individual drainfields/mound systems may be located in designated Conservation Areas and other Open Space provided that: (a) The Conservation Area or Open Space parcel containing the drainfield/mound system is owned in fee by a common ownership association which owns non -Conservation Area land within the subdivision and in which membership in the association by all property owners in the subdivision is mandatory. (b) The individual lot owner is responsible for maintenance and repair of the drainfield/mound system. (c) The ground cover over the drainfield/mound system is maintained according to the Land Stewardship Plan. (d) Recreational uses are prohibited within 50 feet of the drainfields/mound systems. (e) The Conservation Easement for the dedicated Conservation Area parcel describes the location of individual drainfields/mound systems. P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 3(May 26)-clean.doc 11 (f) Construction of primary drainfields/mound systems do not result in the destruction of ecological resources. Comment: City regulations governing septic systems and drainfields may need to be modified to allow the location of individual drainfields in designated Conservation areas and Open Space. Due to uncertainty of long term operation and maintenance of community drainfields and concern with the potential of the city being requested to take over such systems in the future, they were not considered. Allowing individual drainfields within designated Conservation Areas and Open Space allows lot size and site design flexibility as an incentive to developers and to protect ecological resources. Section 826.xx. CD-PUD Application Processing. The review and approval procedures of the PUD District shall be used to review and approve CD-PUDs. Prior to the Concept Plan Stage PUD application, the City encourages applicants to engage in an informal collaborative project goal setting process with the City. The purpose of this process is to jointly develop site design and conservation objectives and assess areas of regulatory flexibility for achieving developer and City objectives for the specific parcel of land. The Collaborative Process may include council members, city commission members, land owners, developers, city staff, other governmental jurisdiction staff, and other participants as appropriate. The outcome of the process is a Project Guidance Report prepared by city staff. The report will summarize the project concept, project objectives, and preliminary understanding of regulatory flexibility needed to achieve the objectives. P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 3(May 26)-clean.doc 12 City of Medina Conservation Design/Open Space Regulation Development Feedback Request — March 23, 2010 (Feedback Summary) Background: The City of Medina is developing new land use regulations governing how land is developed in the Rural Residential District. The regulations are intended to implement policies in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the 2007 Open space Report. The Goal of the regulations is to preserve the unique rural character of Medina. This would be accomplished by guiding residential land development in ways that would protect ecological resources and important vistas or views through a development pattern referred to as "conservation development." This pattern of development clusters homes on smaller lots in order to permanently protect significant amounts of open space. This is in contrast to "traditional development" patterns that subdivide all of a parcel into approximately equal sized lots. Conservation design or "clustering" may be implemented at the same density as current regulations or at higher densities to encourage this pattern. Directions: The City is requesting your feedback on important issues to help guide the development of these new regulations. Please answer the following questions. 1. Following are the top three goal priorities as identified by the Council, Planning and Park Commissions. a. Protection of sensitive ecological resources b. Protection of views/vistas from city roads c. Protect ecological resource corridors for wildlife movement and habitat Are there any missing top priorities? If so, please list them below: Are there any particular views or vistas that should be protected? If so, please describe. 2. The new regulations could be required or encouraged as a development option. What is your preference for how these regulations should be applied? (check one) ❑ Required ❑ Optional 4 responses 7 responses 3. If optional, allowing increased density is often used to encourage conservation design. How should the City use density to encourage conservation and open space development? (check one) ❑ Leave density unchanged (approximately 1 unit per 10 acres) 0 responses ❑ Offer density up to 2 units per 10 acres. 0 responses ❑ Offer density up to 3 units per 10 acres 3 responses ❑ Allow flexibility within these ranges so that higher density could be offered on parcels with significant resources to protect and less density on parcels with fewer resources to protect. 6 responses 4. Designating an amount of open space is the most important element in conservation design. How much open space should be designated? (Check one) ❑ 50% 2 responses ❑ More than 50 % 1 response ❑ Less than 50 % 2 responses ❑ A variable amount depending on the quality and quantity of resources on a given parcel. More open space would be sought on parcels with many resources and less open space on parcels with fewer resources.6 responses 5. What concerns, if any, do you have with the City taking a more flexible and collaborative approach with landowners/developers in the design and review of development plans? 6. Do you have any additional thoughts or comments that the city should consider as it develops the conservation design and open space regulations? Collaboration achieving better development in Hanover through collaboration d o d o Re -inventing the Development Process in Hanover Hanover recognizes that preserving its rural character and natural resources, creating new community amenities and economic viability are intrinsically -linked elements in achieving the city's vision and goals. Future development will have a significant impact on whether the vision and goals are realized. The city recognizes that its use of traditional controls (zoning and subdivision ordinances) to regulate development has limits in achieving the vision. Furthermore, the rigid application of these controls often has unintended consequences and misses opportunities for adding new public value. Additionally, in an era of increasingly tight state and local government budgets, a new way is needed to fund the protection of our natural resources and the creation of new community assets needed to achieve our community vision. Lastly, the city's strategy of using conservation design principles for most new residential development requires non-traditional thinking and flexibility to implement. Instead of a potentially combative traditional development process, the city believes that an approach that balances the needs of the city and developer to achieve win -win outcomes will result in better development that helps the city preserve its character, protect our natural resources and become a better place to live and work. Hanover's Commitment to Being a Good Partner The city recognizes that being a good partner requires that it provide accountable leadership and clarity in its decision process. Towards this, the city has developed a project management approach for managing developments. The city's project management approach includes four components: 1. City Council appoints the collaboration team and project manager. 2. A Collaboration Team, to oversee the process and to provide regular and frequent feedback from key decision -makers. The collaboration team is generally composed of two council members, two planning commissioners and the project manager. 3. A project manager as a single point of contact for the developer's team. 4. Integration of development issues and resolution of staff/ regulatory conflicts into a form that the developer can respond to. Where practical, issues and requirements of other jurisdictions will be considered and coordinated into city decisions. City Council Project Manager (Collaborative Team) Staff Staff Developer Staff Collaborative Process The city has developed a "collaborative process" to complement the City's project management approach. The purpose of this process is to: • Facilitate decisions that are consistent and timely • Agree on project goals, collaboration principles and schedule early in the process to minimize costly design changes later in the process. The table describes the initial process steps for initiating a collaborative process. Ultimately, the city's project manager and developer will develop a specific schedule for each project. Process Step Description and Purpose Project assessment meeting between • Discuss developer's vision and City's vision and relevant project manager and developer regulations for the subject land. Developer's resource inventory used in discussion. • Discuss collaborative process • Assess opportunity to execute a shared vision using the collaborative approach. Project manager reports assessment to • Assess opportunity for mutually beneficial collaborative City Council at next meeting. approach and project outcome. • If positive assessment, Council appoints collaboration team and may allocate city contribution for staff/consultant time prior to developer submission of concept plan application. • If no opportunity for collaboration, developer may submit application under standard procedures (e.g. no PUD) Collaboration Team and developer visit • Begin developing relationships and trust. site/parcel. • Brainstorm and share ideas for project Project manager and developer draft • Document establishes and clarifies project expectations: project guidance document. 1. Project goals 2. Collaboration principles (example provided as a starting point) 3. Project design & review schedule including key milestones to achieve concept, preliminary and fmal plan approvals. Collaboration Team reviews guidance • Builds council support for and ownership of project document, project manager presents to expectations. City Council. Sample Principles of Collaboration Principles are intended to anchor the city -developer partnership and collaborative process through mutually agreed upon values and expectations. The following examples are a starting point for creating specific principles and expectations for each project. 1. Partnerships should be spearheaded by well-informed and visible leadership. 2. Partnerships should be developed in which the core competencies and investments of both parties are valued and leveraged. 3. Partnerships should be understood by all stakeholders through a clearly defined project vision with comprehensive goals and evaluation criteria. 4. Partnerships should establish a clear and rational decision -making process. 5. Both parties should work together to ensure that all of the collaborative efforts are aimed at meeting identified needs and respect the culture, customs and structures of the community. 6. Both parties will aim to build knowledge, skills and resources in the context of their collaborative efforts that will benefit the community. 7. Both parties will work to ensure that they communicate frequently using clear, consistent and transparent language. 8. Both parties will work together to ensure that their public relations activities accurately reflect their collaborative efforts and respect affected parties and the community. 9. Both parties should work together to develop partnerships that are predictable in nature. City of Hanover 763-497-3777 http : //www. hanovermn. or Legend High Quality Natural Areas Wetlands Suitable Soils Sewered Residential in 40-Acre Rural 20-Acre Rural rj # = potential lots, standard regulations # = potential lots, CD regulations, max bonus Conservation Design Ordinance Eligible Properties and Potential Rural Lots COUNTY ROAD 11 Hidden Lake rdmor Independence HIGHWAY 55 CHIPPEWA COUNTY ROAD 24 Winterhalter School Lake Miller \-{OLLY; Wolsfeld 117' I '7f I Medina NTY ROAD 2 MEDIN HACKAMORE CLYD HIGH Ay51 CHEYENNE Holy Name Mooney N A Map Date: May 28, 2010 0 1,250 2,500 5,000 Feet 7,500 10,000 MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 1, 2010 The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on June 1, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Crosby presided. I. ROLL CALL Members present: Crosby, Johnson, Siitari, Smith, and Weir. Members absent: None. Also present: City Attorney Ron Batty, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Sergeant Jason Nelson, City Planner Dusty Finke, Public Works Superintendent Steve Scherer, and City Administrator Chad Adams. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA It was requested to pull an item, Appointment of Public Works Maintenance Worker/Field Inspector, from the Administrator's Report and replace the item with an item, First Amendment to Crack Seal Agreement. Moved by Weir, seconded by Smith, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion passed unanimously. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of the May 18, 2010 Special City Council Meeting Minutes It was noted under the E-Commerce portion, the 2nd paragraph, the following sentence should be added, "Medina believes that residents will be using electronic banking and other comparable communities have electronic banking facilities as a convenience to residents." Moved by Johnson, seconded by Weir, to approve the May 18, 2010 Special City Council meeting minutes as amended. Motion passed unanimously. B. Approval of the May 18, 2010 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes It was noted on page three, line 21, it should state after the first sentence, "The concern was heightened, by the ten year phase in, for recognizing the city's approximately $300,000 post retirement unfunded liabilities." On page six, line seven, it should state, "In response to Doug Dickerson's concern that an improved Pioneer Trail would be a detour, Adams reviewed the..." On page six, line 23, it should state, Robert Trojan, 3505 Pioneer Trail..." On page seven, line 39, it should state, "requesting 60 hook-ups, rather than the full planned amount additional hook-ups requested by area residents, as there could be internal planning reasons for the city not asking for 70 hook-ups. On page eight, line 15, it should state, "main is installed, a three year timeline of three years, for residents hook up, had already been established. He stated that whether a septic system is functioning should be valued over the age of the septic system." Moved by Smith, seconded by Johnson, to approve the May 18, 2010 Regular City Council meeting minutes as amended. Motion passed unanimously. Medina City Council Meeting Minutes June 1, 2010 1 V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve 2010-2011 Liquor Licenses B. Approve Purchase Agreement with Diane Eiden C. Approve Part -Time Temporary Community Service Officer Job Description and Authorize Search D. Approve Acquisition of Truck Scales for Police Department E. Approve Wetland Permit for Open Systems International, Inc. F. Approve rt Amendment to Agreement to Complete Landscaping at Gramercy Club at Elm Creek G. Approve Resident Cost -Share Grant Program Agreement for Shoreline Restoration Program — Richard and Patricia Wulff, 2865 Lakeshore Avenue H. Authorize Disposal of Police Vehicles at Auction I. Resolution Requesting Hennepin County Undertake the Updating of CSAH 116 Traffic Analysis J. Resolution Approving the Terms of the $300,000 Internal Loan in Connection with Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 K. Resolution Authorizing Execution of Safe and Sober Agreement L. Resolution Accepting Resignation of Community Service Officer Nick Marohnic Moved by Smith, seconded by Weir, to approve the consent agenda. Motion passed unanimously. VI. PRESENTATIONS A. Hamel Volunteer Fire Department Annual Report Chief Brandon Guest presented a brief overview of the Hamel Volunteer Fire Department's Annual Report. He highlighted portions of the report that had significantly changed in the past year, such as current membership, the large number of members that have been through recent training, and the challenges in staffing a volunteer fire department. He reported the leadership of the department and explained the role of the management team and the use of mutual aid. He reviewed the facilities and current equipment. He summarized the activity for 2009, explaining that approximately one third of calls are due to medical, one third of calls are false alarms, and the remaining calls fall into many categories, one of which is structure fires. He reviewed the average response time for the department by district. He explained the process of dispatch for a volunteer fire department and advised that most volunteers live within one mile of this fire station and are able to be on the truck within four minutes. He explained that although State budget cuts have caused a decrease in the amount of funding, grants had recently been utilized for additional support. He reviewed the proposed operational budget for 2010, explaining that the budget was similar to the previous year. VII. COMMENTS A. Comments from Citizens on Items not on the Agenda Eleanor Degman, representing residents of Gramercy Club at Elm Creek, thanked the Council and staff for working with Hennepin County to develop the requested crosswalk. Medina City Council Meeting Minutes June 1, 2010 2 She was concerned with the speed of traffic which comes from Plymouth towards the crosswalk and questioned if there were plans for signage to alert the oncoming traffic of the crosswalk. Adams advised that striping would occur, as well as placement of one or two signs, to possibly be located at and/or prior to the crosswalk. B. Police Department — Safe and Sober Project Nelson provided a brief overview of the safe and sober project. He mentioned the "click it or ticket" seatbelt campaign that is currently running on the radio and advised of a seatbelt search that was done recently in Rogers. He advised that pre- and post - campaign surveys are done to determine if the use of seatbelts increased because of the campaign. He stated that during the four four-hour seatbelt checks that were completed, 500 tickets were issued. He summarized the importance of wearing a seatbelt and advised that $100,000 in grant funds were applied for 2011 on behalf of ten agencies, including the City of Medina. C. Park Commission Park Commissioner Waytas advised that the park tour would kick off this Saturday at 9:00 a.m. and reviewed the parks that would be visited during the tour. Smith updated the Council of the dedication of Tomann Preserve that recently occurred. D. Planning Commission Finke advised that an update had already been provided from the previous meeting and noted that at the next meeting of the Planning Commission, review of the staging points system would be discussed as well as agricultural preserves. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Conservation Design Ordinance Crosby provided a brief background regarding conservation design ordinance process, including the creation of the Open Space Report. He explained one of the primary tools identified in the Open Space Report to protect natural areas would be to allow a developer to construct additional housing units in return for following the conservation design process. He stated that he believed this would be an ordinance that could be used voluntarily by those residents or developers with 20 acres or more. Smith noted that this is not a given, properties would need to fit the requirements and qualify for the process. Dan Petrik, Barr Engineering, stated that the ultimate goal of the process is to preserve the natural areas in Medina and reviewed the conservation objectives with the Council. He identified the key project milestones from the March 16th Kickoff with the Council, Park and Planning Commissions through the Council review tonight. He believed that this concept should be thought of as an optional PUD and explained the process in further detail. He advised that the ordinance would be flexible and malleable to work with, as each piece of land is different within the City. He explained that there were different types of incentives for builders, including increased density. He reviewed eligible properties and potential rural lots that would qualify in size and advised of the potential density that could be allowed on the parcels. Medina City Council Meeting Minutes June 1, 2010 3 Finke explained that some parcels in the southern portion of the City, identified by the Met Council as a long-term sewer area, may be limited in terms of allowed density bonuses because of a regulation of the comprehensive plan. Developments in this area could not be allowed to exceed one unit per ten gross acres. Petrik reviewed the other incentives offered, split by sewer and non -sewer areas. He explained that this ordinance would help to conserve high quality resources, quality ranking higher than quantity. He explained that the ordinance could be used by the City, residents or developers to help guide them through the process. He explained the buildable land concept used to determine the conservation area. Smith commented when she believed a points system should come into play for the collaborative process. She stated that her concern is that residents applying would first speak with staff and then go before the Planning Commission before coming before the Council. She felt that was too far into the process for the Council to deny a request and that is why she saw the importance of a point based system for fairness. Petrik reviewed specific property in the city to walk through the process and display a sample development with increased density and an open space. He further discussed the possible lot size with the Council, reviewing flexible options. The Council further reviewed the proposed ordinance in detail with Petrik, providing input and suggestions, as well as changes to the proposed language. Crosby briefly recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Crosby reconvened the meeting at 9:05 p.m. The Council continued to review the proposed ordinance language, providing input and suggesting changes to the language, for the conservation design ordinance with Petrik. Crosby stated that his concern with a point based system is that the Council would lose its discretion if points are reached; the Council would not have a reason for denial. He believed that the system should instead be based upon factors. Smith questioned how the allowed density would be justified without a point based system; why a resident would qualify for 200 percent compared to a lesser amount. Adams commented that staff would still have discretion when ranking the property. Finke further explained the ranking process and advised that the factors could be prioritized if the Council wished. Crosby commented that he did not want to be put into a corner by someone who is playing the point system. Petrik suggested possible language that could be used in regard to listing the priorities. Finke suggested splitting the six priorities between primary and secondary. Medina City Council Meeting Minutes June 1, 2010 4 The Council continued to discuss and review the proposed ordinance with Petrik, noting additional comments and suggestions. Crosby expressed his concern over the possibility of the City possessing ownership of a conservation easement, including issues with taxes and liability. He suggested that staff bring the proposed ordinance back before the Council with the suggested changes. Susan Seeland, 470 Peavy Road, Wayzata, owner of property east of Homestead Trail, stated that she believed that progress was being made by the Council in this process, attempting to allow flexibility for the future. She suggested the discussion be held in a worksession format again to allow for open discussion. She expressed concern over her ability to conduct a prairie burn on her property in order to maintain the vegetation. She confirmed that she would follow up her concerns with an e-mail directed to staff. B. Concept Plan for Construction of Six -Unit Townhome Building - Stauber/Rosati LLC, 705 Hamel Road Finke reported that the plan under review is a six unit rental townhome building. He advised that a three unit property had been approved in 2008, but explained that the density has changed for that area since that time. He displayed an aerial photograph of the property and reviewed the topographic changes, the Elm Creek floodpath and wetlands, trees along the property lines, and noted other uses and zoning districts found in the proposed area. He explained that the applicant chose to come to the Council with a concept plan, rather than submitting a formal application, to gain perspective on density. He reviewed the potential variances that would be required, including parking setbacks and maximum hardcover within the shoreland overlay. He summarized the proposed building design and provided staff comments. He explained that park dedication would not be required at this point and advised of the process that would be followed, should the applicant formally apply. He noted that the applicant was also curious as to whether there would be an incentive for low income housing. He advised of possible incentive for that item, such as a reduction in sewer and water fees. Crosby questioned if there was any way to meet the density requirements for the property without having homes facing towards Hamel Road. Finke advised that there are certainly options available, but explained that it is a difficult property because of topography and because the parcel is narrow. He stated that the applicant emphasizes financial difficulties for other potential layouts. Smith commented that with the proposed layout, she did not believe that the property would fit well into the surroundings because of, among other things, garages facing Hamel Road. Crosby commented that he drove by the property and noted that the surrounding buildings are not in the best architectural condition. The applicant stated that he is not stuck on any set design for the building and would actually be in favor of a four unit building with an easement around the back, if the Council felt that would fit the density requirements. Finke suggested alternative options for the property, but advised that the Council would have to submit an amendment to the comprehensive plan if the density were lowered for the property. Medina City Council Meeting Minutes June 1, 2010 5 Weir believed that the property should be reviewed under the multi -family residential setback requirements rather than the higher rate density requirements. She stated that the lot itself is very difficult to work with because of the slopes. She advised that she would be in favor of the proposed plan for the building, but shared concern over the number of trash units that could be stored outside for the building facing the street. Crosby discussed the possibility of a five unit building. The applicant confirmed that while it would be easier to plan a four unit building, five units would not provide a benefit cost -wise. Weir questioned the cost involved in a comprehensive plan amendment. Finke explained that an amendment to the comprehensive plan would likely not increase review costs significantly, but it is time consuming. The Council discussed possibilities for the concept plan and the density assigned to the parcel. Finke confirmed that there was not Council support for parking in the front of the parcel and reviewed the input of the Council. The Council requested that staff investigate the possibility of a five unit development, meeting the density requirements, given the unique parcel of property. IX. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT A. First Amendment to Crackseal Agreement Adams reported that $25,000 was approved two weeks ago by the Council and noted that staff did not provide enough discretion. He requested up to $40,000 under the authorization of the Public Works Superintendent. Moved by Weir, seconded by Siitari, to direct staff to prepare an amendment to the crackseal agreement, raising the discretionary amount from $25, 000 to $40, 000. Motion passed unanimously. B. /� rv�-cgficuitu res iepy�l is y rlvicSGUS? iOn C. Schedule Special Meeting for Budget Work Session Adams stated that staff was proposing two possible dates for the budget work session, either Wednesday June 30t" or Thursday July 1st. Moved by Weir, seconded by Smith, to schedule a special budget worksession meeting for Wednesday, June 30, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. D. 2010 Medina Celebration Day Adams provided an update on the planning for Medina Celebration Day. He explained that usually a group of citizens collects donations to fund the fireworks display. He Medina City Council Meeting Minutes June 1, 2010 6 advised that group has not yet collected funds and noted that staff and the Council are prevented by City policy from soliciting donations. He wanted to make the Council aware that fireworks may not be an option for the celebration this year unless funding comes forward. Crosby stated that he may be able to speak to someone in the business community that could take over the volunteer fundraising position. Adams reported that the Field House Grand Opening Ceremony would take place at the field house in Hamel Legion Park on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. X. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Crosby stated that in the past he has held a social event at his home and questioned if that should continue this year. Adams advised that the event has been well received and believed that the event should continue. Crosby read aloud a dispute, from John Raskob at property ID# 13-118-23-43-0008 and 13-118-23-43-0016, received over an adopted assessment. Batty noted that the appeal would have needed to be received prior to the assessment being adopted. Weir noted that she would attend the next meeting of the LMCC. XI. APPROVAL TO PAY THE BILLS Moved by Smith, seconded by Weir, to approve the bills, EFT 000746-000756 for $31,197.43 and order check numbers 035530-035586 for $157,375.79, and payroll check 020229 for $255.33 and payroll EFT 502789-502813 for $41,643.47. Motion passed unanimously. XII. CLOSED SESSION: ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY The Council went into closed session at 11:03 p.m. to discuss the acquisition of property at PID 03-118-23-34-0001 in Medina. The Council returned to open session at 11:19 p.m. Mayor Crosby stated that City Administrator Adams had been provided direction to pursue additional information pertaining to the property acquisition at PID 03-118-23-34- 0001. XIII. ADJOURN Moved by Smith, seconded by Johnson, to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Attest: Medina City Council Meeting Minutes June 1, 2010 T.M. Crosby, Jr., Mayor 7 Chad M. Adams, City Administrator -Clerk Medina City Council Meeting Minutes June 1, 2010 8 Agenda Item # 7A CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. xxx AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO A NEW ZONING DISTRICT FOR CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN; ADDING NEW SECTIONS 827.51 THROUGH 827.75 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 827.51 through 827.75 of the Medina code of ordinances is amended to add the following language: CONSERVATION DESIGN DISTRICT (CD) Section 827.51. Conservation Design (CD) — Purpose. The purpose of this district is to preserve the City's ecological resources, wildlife corridors, scenic views, and rural character while allowing residential development consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Report as updated from time to time. The specific conservation objectives of this district are to: 1. Protect the ecological function of lakes, streams, wetlands, and native woodlands. 2. Protect moderate to high quality ecologically significant natural areas. 3. Protect opportunities to make ecological connections between parks and other protected lands and ecologically significant natural areas. 4. Protect important viewsheds including scenic road segments. 5. Create public and private trails for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources. 6. Create public and private Open Space for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources. Section 827.53 Applicability. Subd. 1. Conservation design is an option that a property owner may request and the City may consider as an alternative to Conventional Development, as defined herein. The City will give heightened consideration to such requests where the opportunities to achieve conservation Ordinance No. xxx 1 July 6, 2010 objectives are significantly higher than that available through conventional development. Conservation design may be considered on qualifying parcels lying in the Rural Residential District and all sewered residential Idistrictsi. Section 827.55 Intent. Subd. 1. It is the intent of the City to accomplish the stated purpose of this District by approving a Planned Unit Development. In exchange for achieving the conservation objectives, it is the intent of the City to provide density and design flexibility and to encourage development review through a Collaborative Process. Subd. 2. The permitted, conditional and accessory uses and other regulations set forth in the existing zoning districts shall apply unless specifically addressed in this District, the PUD District, or if determined by the City Council to be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this District as part of the final PUD Idocuments. Subd. 3. The procedures and regulations set forth in the PUD District shall apply unless specifically addressed in this District. If a final PUD plan is approved by the City, the subject property shall be rezoned to Conservation Design-PUD District (CD-PUD). The permitted uses and all other regulations governing uses on the subject land shall then be those found in the CD-PUD zoning district and documented by the PUD plans and agreements. The following subsections are requirements for all CD-PUDs unless exceptions, as part of a PUD, are otherwise approved by the City Council. Section 827.57. Definitions. Subd. 1. Base Density. The maximum number of units or lots that are allowed on a parcel in accordance with the standards of the existing zoning district and the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Subd. 2. Buildable Land Area. The total land area in a proposed Conservation Design Subdivision less the amount of land that includes: slopes greater than 18%, wetlands, required wetland buffers, lakes, and land within the 100 year floodplainl. Subd. 3. Collaborative Process. A development review process that results in a development plan in which clearly defined conservation objectives are achieved in exchange for greater flexibility from the requirements of the base zoning district and the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Subd. 4. Conventional Development. Development that meets the standard minimum requirements of the City's ordinances regulating development. Subd. 5. Conservation Easement. As defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 84C: A nonpossessory interest of a holder in real property imposing limitations or affirmative obligations the purposes of which include retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open -space values of real property, assuring its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational, or open -space use, protecting natural resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water quality, or preserving the historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural aspects of real ioropert}�. Subd. 6. Conservation Design Subdivision. Any development of land that incorporates the concepts of designated Conservation Areas and clustering of dwelling units. Ordinance No. xxx 2 July 6, 2010 Comment [di]: Language added to clarify that CD development and all provisions are option - at the discretion of the city. Comment [d2]: The uses in the existing zoning district are the effective "starting point" for approving uses in the CD-PUD district. Comment [d3]: Note that hydric soils was removed from this definition. This provides more flexibility in siting building areas. Buildable soils remains regulated by the building code. Comment [d4]: Note that this is the actual statutory language from Chapter 84C. Subd. 7. Conservation Area. Designated land within a Conservation Design Subdivision that contributes towards achievement of one or more of the conservation objectives. A Conservation Easement is placed on Conservation Areas to permanently restrict the Conservation Area from future development. Conservation Areas may be used for preservation of ecological resources, habitat corridors, passive recreation, and for pasture, hay cropping and other low impact agricultural 'uses'. Subd. 8. Homeowners Association. A formally constituted non-profit association or corporation made up of the property owners and/or residents of a development for the purpose of owning, operating and maintaining common Conservation Areas and/or other commonly owned facilities and Open Space. Subd. 9. Open Space. Land that is not designated as a Conservation Area that is used for parks, trails or other uses. Open Space may be owned and managed by the City, homeowner's association or other entity. Subd. 10. Viewshed. The landscape or topography visible from a geographic point, especially that having aesthetic 'value'. Subd. 11. Yield Plan. A conceptual layout that shows the maximum number of lots that could be placed on a parcel in accordance with the standards of the existing zoning district and the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. The Yield Plan shows proposed lots, streets, rights -of -way, and other pertinent features. Yield Plans shall be drawn to scale. The layout shall be realistic and reflect a development pattern that could reasonably be expected to be implemented, taking into account the presence of wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, and existing easements. Section 827.59. General Performance Standards. Subd. 1. Minimum Size of Subdivision. (a) The minimum land area required for development shall be: (1) 40 contiguous acres in the Rural Residential District (2) 20 contiguous acres in sewered residential districts (b) A subdivision in the Rural Residential District of over 20 contiguous acres but less than 40 contiguous acres may apply for approval if they meet all the requirements for CD, and the visual impact of the subdivision from existing adjacent roadways is mitigated by existing topography, existing vegetation, and/or acceptable vegetative buffers. Subd 2. Required Conservation Area. (a) The minimum required Conservation Area within the CD development shall be: (1) At least 30% - 50 of the total Buildable Land Area in the Rural Residential District, or higher depending on the land and opportunities to achieve the City's conservation 'objectives. (2) At least 20% of the total Buildable Land Area in sewered residential districts, or higher depending on the land and opportunities to achieve the City's conservation objectives. Ordinance No. xxx 3 July 6, 2010 Comment [d5]: Use of conservation areas for agricultural uses has been defined and limited to low impact ag uses. Comment [d6]: A new definition, comes from the Open Space Report. Comment [d7]: Stating "at least" and then specifying a range is not a logical statement. Note that the Planning Commission requested this. The Commission was not comfortable with placing any cap on the amount of conservation area required. Removing the words "at least" communicates that the amount of conservation area would be somewhere between 30 and 50%. This would give developers more clarity about expectations when approaching the city with a concept. Communicating that more than 50% may be required could counteract any interest in the the incentives. Subd. 3. Designating Conservation Areas. (a) The required amount of Conservation Area shall be designated and located to maximize achievement of the City's conservation objectives. Opportunities for achieving these objectives will vary depending on the location, size and specific qualities of the subject parcel. Each parcel will be evaluated for opportunities to achieve the following primary and secondary conservation objectives over and above that achievable under conventional development (1) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following primary conservation objectives will be given higher consideration for flexibility from performance standards. i. The protection and/or restoration of the ecological function of lakes, streams, wetlands, and native woodlands (e.g. Maple -Basswood Forest). ii. The protection, restoration, and/or creation of moderate to high quality ecological resources including the sensitive ecological resources identified as priority areas on the Composite Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. iii. The reservation of land connecting these aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources in order to restore and/or create new ecological resources suitable for habitat movement corridors. (2) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following secondary conservation objectives may be given consideration for flexibility from performance standards: i. The protection of scenic views and viewsheds including the views from roads identified as "Scenic Roads" on the Scenic Roads Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. ii. The reservation of land for incorporating public and private trails in order to create connections to existing or planned trails as identified in the current Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan. iii. The reservation of land for incorporating public and /or private Open Space in order to achieve goals as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 4. Perimeter Setbacks. Structure setbacks from the perimeter of the subdivision shall be the same as the existing zoning district. Ordinance No. xxx 4 July 6, 2010 Comment [d8]: The conservation objectives were classified as primary and secondary to communicate conservation priorities. Section 827.61. Density and Design Flexibility l. Flexibility from the requirements of the existing zoning district or other requirements of this code may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. In considering such flexibility, the City will evaluate how well the project achieves the conservation objectives over and above that achievable under conventional development and the amount and quality of conservation area protected. Subd. 1. Additional Density. (a) Density, in addition to the Base Density, may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. Any additional density or additional number of dwelling units shall be calculated as a percentage of Base Density. The Base Density shall be that established by regulations in the relevant existing zoning district. (1) In the Rural Residential District, Base Density shall be determined by calculating the number of 5-acre areas of contiguous soils suitable for a standard sewage disposal system that are located on the subject property. (2) In sewered residential districts, a Yield Plan shall be developed to determine Base Density. Regulations of the base district and all other relevant land use regulations of this Code shall be used for completing the Yield Plan. (b) The total number of dwelling units in a CD-PUD development shall be guided by the density limitations contained in the Comprehensive Plan and may be: (1) Up to 200% of the calculated Base Density in the Rural Residential District. (2) Up to 120% of calculated Base Density in all sewered residential districts. Subd. 2. Other areas of flexibility (a) In the Rural Residential District, flexibility may include: (1) Lot size, lot width and structure setbacks provided setbacks comply with the following minimums: i. Setback from local streets: 35 feet. ii. Setback from Arterial and Collector Streets: 100 feet. iii. Interior structure setbacks: 30 feet. Housing type. Upland buffers and tree preservation provided that the objectives of these regulations are met for the site as a whole. (4) Due Consideration may be given for conservation easements granted when calculating park dedication requirements. (b) In all sewered residential districts, flexibility may include: (2) (3) Ordinance No. xxx 5 July 6, 2010 Comment [d9]: Sections dealing with flexibility where removed from "general performance standards" and placed in a new section dealing just with the issues of flexibility. Flexibility is an important concept and sufficiently different from performance standards, thus warranting its own section. (1) Lot size, lot width, and structure setbacks. (2) Housing type. (3) Landscaping. (4) Screening. (5) Upland buffers and tree preservation provided that the objectives of these regulations are met for the site as a whole. (6) Buffer yard. (7) Due consideration may be given for conservation easements granted when calculating park dedication requirements. Section 827.63. Conservation Area Protection and Ownership. Subd. 1. Land and improvements in areas designated as Conservation Areas in a CD-PUD shall be established, protected and owned in accordance with the following guidelines: (a) Designated Conservation Areas shall be surveyed and subdivided as separate outlots. (b) Designated Conservation Areas must be restricted from further development by a permanent Conservation Easement (in accordance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 84C.01-05 running with the land. The Conservation Easement must be submitted with the General Plan of Development and approved by the City Attorney. (1) The permanent Conservation Easement may be held by any combination of the following entities, or as currently defined by Minnesota Statute Chapter 84C, but in no case may the holder of the Conservation Easement be the same as the owner of the underlying fee: i. The City of Medina, or other governmental agency. ii. A private nonprofit organization, specializing in land conservation and stewardship, that has been designated by the Internal Revenue Service as qualifying under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. (2) The permanent Conservation Easement shall be recorded with Hennepin County and must specify: i. The entity that will maintain the designated Conservation Area. ii. The purposes of the Conservation Easement, that the easement is permanent, and the conservation values of the property. iii. The legal description of the land under the easement. iv. The restrictions on the use of the land and from future development. Ordinance No. xxx 6 July 6, 2010 (3) v. To what standards the Conservation Areas will be maintained through reference to an approved land stewardship plan. vi. Who will have access to the Conservation Area. Ownership of the underlying fee of each designated Conservation Area parcel, may be held by any combination of the following entities: i. A common ownership association, subject to the provisions in the PUD District. ii. An individual who will use the land in accordance with the permanent Conservation Easement. iii. A private nonprofit organization, specializing in land conservation and stewardship, that has been designated by the Internal Revenue Service as qualifying under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. iv. A government agency (e.g. park and/or natural resource agency or division). v. The City of Medina, in rare situations when there are no other loptionsl. (c) Open Space areas that do not achieve the City's conservation objectives may be established under a homeowner's association without protection by a Conservation Easement. Such areas shall be regulated according to provisions of the PUD District. Section 827.65. Land Stewardship Plan. Subd. 1. Plan Objectives. Where a CD-PUD has designated Conservation Areas, a plan for the development, long-term use, maintenance, and insurance of all Conservation Areas, may be required. The plan shall: (a) Define ownership and methods of land protection. (b) Establish necessary regular and periodic operation and maintenance responsibilities. (c) Estimate staffing needs, insurance requirements, and other associated costs associated with plan implementation and define the means for funding the same on an on -going basis. This shall include land management fees necessary to fund monitoring and management of the Conservation Easement by the easement holder. The fees shall be estimated and validated by the proposed easement holder. (d) Meet the requirements of the future conservation easement holder. Subd. 2. Plan Submittal Requirements. A preliminary Land Stewardship Plan shall be submitted with the General Plan of Development. A Final Land Stewardship Plan shall be submitted with the Final Plan Stage of PUD development. The plan shall contain a narrative describing: (a) Existing conditions, including all natural, cultural, historic, and scenic elements in the landscape; Ordinance No. xxx 7 July 6, 2010 Comment NW]: Section rewritten to place Medina as the fee holder of last resort. (b) Objectives for each Conservation Area, including: (1) The proposed permanent or maintained landscape condition for each area. (2) Any restoration measures needed to achieve the proposed permanent condition, including: i. Measures for correcting increasingly destructive conditions, such as erosion. ii. Measures for restoring historic features (if applicable). iii. Measures for restoring existing or establishing new landscape types. (3) A maintenance plan, including: i. Activities needed to maintain the stability of the resources, including mowing and burning schedules, weed control measures, planting schedules, and clearing and cleanup measures and schedules. ii. An estimate of the annual on -going (post restoration) operating and maintenance costs. Subd. 3. Funding of Operation and Maintenance. At the discretion of the City, the applicant may be required to escrow sufficient funds for the maintenance and operation costs of Conservation Areas for up to four years depending on restoration peasures. Subd. 4. Enforcement. In the event that the fee holder of the Conservation Areas, common areas and facilities, or any successor organization thereto, fails to properly maintain all or any portion of the aforesaid common areas or facilities, the City in coordination with the holder of the easement, may serve written notice upon such fee holder setting forth the manner in which the fee holder has failed to maintain the aforesaid common areas and facilities. Such notice shall set forth the nature of corrections required and the time within which the corrections shall be made. Upon failure to comply within the time specified, the fee holder , or any successor organization, shall be considered in violation of this Ordinance, in which case the City shall have the right to enter the premises and take the needed corrective actions. The costs of corrective actions by the City shall be assessed against the properties that have the right of enjoyment of the common areas and (facilities. Section 827.67. Conservation Area Design Standards. The following Conservation Area design standards shall also be considered in designing the CD-PUD: Subd. 1. Conservation Areas should be interconnected wherever possible to provide a continuous network of Open Space within the PUD and throughout the City. It should coordinate and maximize boundaries with Conservation Areas and Open Space on adjacent tracts. Subd. 2. Incorporate public and private trails with connections to existing or planned regional trails as identified in the most recent Park, Trail and Open Space Plan. Subd. 3. Designated public access trails shall be protected by an access easement owned by the City. Subd. 4. Incorporate public and/or private Open Space as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance No. xxx 8 July 6, 2010 Comment NM: The amount of time for maintaining an escrow was increase to 4-years which may be needed depending on the type of restoration measures and time needed for establishment. Comment 0121: This section was clarified to communicate that enforcement applies to the fee holder, whoever that may be. In the event that the fee holder is another unit of govemment, enforcement by the City could be challenging. Subd. 5. Views of new dwellings from exterior roads and abutting properties should be minimized by the use of existing topography, existing vegetation, or additional landscaping. Ridge and hilltops should be contained within designated Conservation Areas wherever possible. Trees should not be removed from ridges and hilltops. Subd. 6. The boundaries of designated conservation areas shall be clearly delineated and labeled on CD-PUD plans. These areas shall be delineated in the field with signage or other measures approved by the city. Subd. 7. Stormwater management facilities may be located in designated conservation areas. Subd. 8. Existing land in row -cropping use shall be converted to a use that supports the achievement of the City's conservation 'objectives. Section 827.69. Landscape Design Standards. Subd. 1. Street trees may be planted, but are not required, along internal streets passing through common Conservation Areas or Open Space. Subd. 2. Irregular spacing is encouraged for street trees, to avoid the urban appearance that regular spacing may invoke. Subd. 3. The selection of vegetation should be guided by the natural community types identified in the City's 2008 Natural Resources Inventory. Subd. 4. Planted buffers between clusters of residential lots are encouraged to enhance privacy and a rural appearance between lots. Subd. 5. Buffers consisting of an informal arrangement of native plant species combined with infrequent mowing are strongly encouraged, to create a low -maintenance, natural landscape. Subd. 6. Planted buffers are also encouraged along natural drainage areas to minimize erosion. Subd. 7. Grading for Conservation Areas and other common landscaped areas and stormwater management areas shall be avoided to reduce compaction and impacting water infiltration rates. Soil testing and decompaction may be required if site construction activities negatively impact soil permeability. Subd. 8. Better Site Design/Low Impact Development practices as identified in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency shall be used to design sites and meet the performance standards. Section 827.71. Subsurface Sewage Treatment IFacilitiesi. Subd. 1. Where city services are not available, CD-PUD developments may be platted to accommodate home site lots with either individual septic tanks and all required drainfields/mound systems located on the lot, or individual septic tanks and primary drainfield/mount system located on the lot and secondary drainfields/mound system located in the designated Conservation Area or other Open Space. Ordinance No. xxx 9 July 6, 2010 Comment [din This standard was added to provide an opportunity to remove high impact ag practices from the landscape as a condition of CD- PUD approval Comment NV* This section clarified to specify how and where secondary drainfields are regulated and where they may be placed. Subd. 2. All septic systems shall conform to the performance standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's standards for sewage treatment systems WPC- 7080 and its appendices, or the MPCA standards in effect at the time of installation and septic system regulations of the City of Medina which requires a primary and secondary drainfield site. Subd. 3. Secondary drainfields/mound systems may be located in designated Conservation Areas and other Open Space provided that: (a) They are located within a limited distance of the lots they serve. (b) Construction of drainfields/mound systems do not result in the destruction of ecological resources. (c) The Conservation Area or Open Space parcel containing the drainfield/mound system is owned in fee by a common ownership association which owns non -Conservation Area land within the subdivision and in which membership in the association by all property owners in the subdivision is mandatory. (d) The individual lot owner is responsible for maintenance and repair of the drainfield/mound system. (e) The ground cover over the drainfield/mound system is maintained according to the Land Stewardship Plan. (f) Recreational uses are prohibited within 50 feet of the drainfields/mound systems. (g) The Conservation Easement for the dedicated Conservation Area parcel describes the location of individual drainfields/mound systems. Section 827.73. Site Design Process. At the time of PUD Concept Plan development and review, applicants shall demonstrate that the following design process was performed and influenced the design of the concept site plan. Subd. 1. Step 1—Identify Conservation Areas. Identify preservation land in two steps. First identify "unbuildable" areas which include: slopes greater than 18%, wetlands, wetland buffers, lakes, and land within the 100 year floodplain. Next, identify Conservation Areas which include those areas designated as Conservation Areas (Section 827.59 Subd. 3.) The remaining land shall be identified as the potentially Buildable Land Area. The applicant shall identify the quantity of land designated as unbuildable, Conservation Area, and potentially Buildable Land Area. Subd. 2. Step 2—Locate Housing Sites. Locate the approximate sites of individual houses in regard to protected views and the potentially buildable land areas. Subd. 3. Step 3—Align Streets and Trails. Align streets in order to access the lots. New trails and connections to regional trail systems, if any, should be laid out to create internal and external connections to existing and/or potential future streets, sidewalks, and trails. Subd. 4. Step 4—Lot Lines. Draw in the lot lines. Ordinance No. xxx 10 July 6, 2010 Section 827.75. CD-PUD Application Processing. The review and approval procedures of the PUD District shall be used to review and approve CD-PUDs. Prior to the Concept Plan Stage PUD application, the City encourages applicants to engage in an informal collaborative project goal setting process with the City. The purpose of this process is to jointly develop site design and conservation objectives and assess areas of regulatory flexibility for achieving developer and City objectives for the specific parcel of land. The Collaborative Process may include council members, city commission members, land owners, developers, city staff, other governmental jurisdiction staff, the potential future Conservation Easement holder, and other participants as appropriate. The outcome of the process is a Project Guidance Report prepared by city staff. The report will summarize the project concept, project objectives, and preliminary understanding of regulatory flexibility needed to achieve the objectives. SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the city council of the city of Medina this 6th day of July, 2010. T.M. Crosby, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Chad M. Adams, City Administrator -Clerk Published in the South Crow River News this day of , 2010. Ordinance No. xxx 11 July 6, 2010 MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 6, 2010 The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on July 6, 2010 at 7:03 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Acting Mayor Smith presided. I. ROLL CALL Members present: Johnson, Siitari, Smith, and Weir. Members absent: Crosby. Also present: City Attorney Sarah Sonsalla, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Police Chief Ed Belland, City Planner Dusty Finke, Public Works Superintendent Steve Scherer, City Administrator Chad Adams and Recording Secretary Amanda Staple. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of the June 15, 2010 Special City Council Meeting Minutes Moved by Siitari, seconded by Johnson, to approve the June 15, 2010 Special City Council meeting minutes as presented. Motion passed unanimously. B. Approval of the June 15, 2010 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes It was noted on page six, line 33, it should state: "...to schedule reschedule a the special regular meeting..." On page six, line 43, it should state, "...technology. The Council questioned the cost and financing of such a network." On page six, line 47, it should state, "...by the organization this summer fall..." Moved by Saari, seconded by Johnson, to approve the June 15, 2010 Regular City Council meeting minutes as amended. Motion passed unanimously. C. Approval of the June 30, 2010 Special City Council Meeting Minutes It was noted on page two, under Staff Compensation and Resources, following the last statement, it should state, "The Council agreed to direct staff to discuss the rate increases with the Union." On page three, under GASB Statement 45, the third line, it should state, "...other states are paying for or subsidizing payments for subsidized post retirement payments under conditions..." Moved by Weir, seconded by Siitari, to approve the June 30, 2010 Special City Council meeting minutes as amended. Motion passed unanimously. V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Accept $500 Donation from Loretto Lions Club B. Accept $100 Contribution from Hamel Lions Club Medina City Council Meeting Minutes July 6, 2010 1 C. Approve Agreement by and between Hennepin County, Independent School District #281 and the City of Medina Consent of Assignment of Contract No. A052282 D. Approve Services Agreement with Southwest Assessing (Rolf Erickson) E. Approve Services Agreement to Prepare 2010 Audited Financial Statements with Abdo, Eick, and Meyers, LLP C Annrovn rinr otition anr! Removal SefyiGes Anrnmmen4 with L'i'•h AAninn Excavating, Inc. G. Approve Water Storage Tank/Clarifier Services Agreement H. Approve Electric Handicap Door Operator System Installation Services Agreement with Assured Security, Inc. I. Approve First Amendment to Development Agreement (for Keller Estates Sub -division) J. Resolution Granting Preliminary Plat Approval for Leawood Farms 3rd Addition K. Resolution Recognizing John Vinck for Five Years of Service to the City of Medina Adams asked to remove item F (Approve Demolition and Removal Services Agreement with Schoening Excavating, Inc) from the consent agenda. Moved by Johnson, seconded by Weir, to approve the consent agenda. Motion passed unanimously. F. Approve Demolition and Removal Services Agreement with Schoening Excavating, Inc. Adams noted that legal counsel had noted that a statement should be included in the agreement which states that at the end of the scope of services the contractor should dispose of the material as directed by law, including current or pending environmental requirements. Johnson questioned if the City would be liable in regard to the disposal of any hazardous materials and wanted to ensure that environmental regulations regarding the disposal were being met. Scherer explained that he has discussed the disposal of a few existing barrels of fuel and oil with local service providers and didn't believe there was any concern. Smith stated that she would like to see proof of the disposal, a slip from the site at which the material is disposed of, to ensure that proper methods were used. Moved by Johnson, seconded by Weir, to approve the demolition and removal services agreement with Schoening Excavating, Inc., to include the disposal statement to comply with environmental regulations. Motion passed unanimously. VI. COMMENTS A. Comments from Citizens on Items not on the Agenda There were none. B. Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission — Dick Picard Medina City Council Meeting Minutes July 6, 2010 2 Dick Picard provided a brief summary of the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission, including the member cities and size of the District. He noted that the Commission meets the second Wednesday of each month at the Maple Grove City Hall at 11:30 a.m. and advised the meetings are open to the public. He summarized the projects in 2009 that would be of interest to the City of Medina, including Open Systems International and the Hamel Legion Park Field House. He advised of the projects that have been, and are still being, completed in 2010 within the City of Medina. He noted the items that the Commission reviews in regard to proposed trail projects. He summarized the interests of the Watershed District. He asked that City staff alert the Commission when an item of interest is going to be presented to the Watershed District. Weir thanked Mr. Picard for his services, as he does not live within the Elm Creek Watershed, but agreed to assist the City of Medina as the City was lacking a representative. C. Park Commission Park Commissioner Paul Jaeb noted that at the last meeting the Commission held a long discussion regarding the possible installation of two portable bathrooms at Hamel Field, requested by the athletic association and advised that the Commission recommended approval. He stated that the Commission is also discussing the location of the new park signs. He advised that the Commission reviewed the current park dedication fund balance and the possibility of postponing some projects. He reported that he attended the dedication of the Hamel Legion Park Field House, along with several members of the Council. He noted that construction has begun on the Open Systems International, Inc. project, and with the close proximity of his home, hoped that the project would go as smoothly as the Loram project. D. Planning Commission Planning Commissioner John Anderson advised that the Commission had not met since the previous Council meeting. He noted the items on the agenda tonight which the Commission has recently discussed, and advised of the items that would be discussed by the Commission at the meeting next week, including the Lennar "The Enclave of Medina" project. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Ordinance Related to a New Zoning District for Conservation Subdivision Design; Adding New Sections 827.1 Through 827.75 Dan Petrik, City Planning Consultant with Barr Engineering, highlighted the proposed changes to the Conservation Design Ordinance. Weir suggested moving language related to protection of native hardwood forests to the front of the objectives, since lakes and wetlands are protected by other regulations. She also suggested language changes to better reflect the tone of the City, and asked for further clarification in regard to hydric soils. Petrik provided clarification regarding why the Council had decided to not subtract hydric soils from the buildable area. He noted that clarification was given to low -impact agricultural as a conservation area use. He advised that the Planning Commission suggested the language, "at least 30 to 50 percent" to promote a higher rate. The Medina City Council Meeting Minutes July 6, 2010 3 Council agreed that the language should instead read, "at least 30 percent' as long as the sentence states the Council can raise the requirement based on the site. Petrik continued to review the ordinance changes with the Council, noting suggested language and grammatical changes from the Council. He suggested updated language on page six related to eligible easement holders. Smith suggested that flexibility be provided in regard to community septic system design. Petrik provided specific language that could be added to the ordinance in regard to the item Smith suggested. He accepted additional input from the Council in regard to language and grammatical changes. Weir requested that language be added to the Land Stewardship Plan section that restoration measures may be required for invasive plant species. Finke noted that the enforcement section provides the City authority to complete the work and assess the cost back to the property owner if a violation is not corrected within noted time. He advised that legal counsel suggested that the City add enforcement and assessment abilities to the conservation easement and development agreement, because statute does not list maintenance of conservation easements as one of the specific costs which can be assessed to property. Finke advised that on page ten, a subdivision could be added stating the City may consider shared septic systems with a signed maintenance agreement, and he provided specific language that could be used. The Council agreed that the language should be added. Sonsalla provided a specified chapter in the State statutes that should be referenced with regards to septic system regulations. Finke advised that the new rules of the PCA have been postponed for an additional two to three years due to the outcry from several Minnesota counties. Ann Thies stated that she believed that the Council and staff addressed the previous concerns of the Planning Commission and that it was a very workable document. Moved by Weir, seconded by Johnson, to adopt the ordinance creating the Conservation Design (CD-PUD) district, with the noted changes. Motion passed unanimously. 1. Resolution to Publish Ordinance by Title and Summary Moved by Weir, seconded by Johnson, to approve the resolution to publish the conservation design ordinance by title and summary. Motion passed unanimously. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Ordinance Pertaining to the Timing of Growth and Development to be Served by City Utilities Adding Section 825.34 to the Medina City Ordinance Finke advised that this ordinance has been drafted to match the information in the comprehensive plan and noted that a PUD would be required. He advised that the points system has been divided into the crucial criteria, the primary criterion, and the secondary criterion. He noted that in order to even be considered, a project would need to meet the crucial criteria. The primary items were proposed to be worth ten points, and Medina City Council Meeting Minutes July 6, 2010 4 secondary items would each be given five points. Finke provided a map of the staging and growth development, highlighting the properties which may be interested in jumping forward in the next five years. He discussed the number of points that would be needed for a property to jump forward in development, and the percentage of primary and secondary items that would need to be met in order to obtain the needed points. He advised that a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, at which no public comment had been received. He noted that prior to the public hearing, comments were received in regard to whether added tax base should be a factor, and whether there should be a fixed cost for a developer to go through the process of attempting to jump ahead in development. He advised that staff was not in favor of a flat fee, so that the cost for a developer to potentially jump ahead in the staging process does not become the burden of the residents of Medina. He reviewed the proposed ordinance page by page with the Council allowing for discussion on items in question. Johnson suggested adding language on page three, item C1, adding water conservation and renewable construction materials. The Council agreed that the item also in the subdivision referencing LEED platinum projects, or its equivalent, should be a primary item rather than secondary. Smith suggested adding language specific to employment opportunities, noting that additional consideration would be given to the quality of jobs and wages provided. Siitari questioned the likelihood that a developer would want to go through this process and whether anyone would be able to meet all the criteria specified. Smith explained that the City staged the growth to ensure that the infrastructure of the City would be able to support the new development. She advised that these criteria would ensure that if a developer wanted to jump ahead in the staging process the quality of the project would be high. Weir stated that if item Cl were to be moved to a primary item she believed that the required points to jump ahead should also be increased by ten points, from 40 to 50. Siitari questioned whether affordable housing is possible with the price of land in the City. Johnson advised that it is more focused at high density as affordable housing is not really a possibility in Medina. VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT A. Water Tower Signage Adams provided three design proposal estimates for the application of the, City of Medina, and possibly a logo, on the water tower. He advised that the price ranges $4,200 to $7,400. He noted that staff could obtain additional quotes and questioned if the Council wanted to move ahead with this project considering the budget constraints with the water fund. Smith stated that with the cost she believed that this project could be delayed. Medina City Council Meeting Minutes July 6, 2010 5 Weir commented that the language could be applied to only the Highway 55 side to save funds but agreed that the project could be delayed due to the current budget constraints. It was noted that the project could be completed when the water tower is next painted. B. Schedule Special Meeting — Budget Work Session Adams provided possible dates for a special meeting for a budget worksession. He noted that he would coordinate with the availability of the Council and the date could be set at a later time. XI. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Adams advised that Finke had drafted a letter to Minnehaha Creek on behalf of the City and asked that the Council review the document and provide any feedback. Finke briefly reviewed the items referenced in the draft letter and the purpose for the communication. XII. APPROVAL TO PAY THE BILLS Moved by Johnson, seconded by Weir, to approve the bills, EFT 000765-000775 for $30, 856.05 and order check numbers 035652-035713 for $383, 964.43, and payroll check 020232 for $418.64 and payroll EFT 502843-502867 for $41,113.92. Motion passed unanimously. XIII. ADJOURN Moved by Weir, seconded by Johnson, to adjourn the meeting at 9:03 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Carolyn A. Smith, Acting Mayor Attest: Chad M. Adams, City Administrator -Clerk Medina City Council Meeting Minutes July 6, 2010 6 Agenda Item # 7B MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council FROM: Deb Peterson, Associate Planner and Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: January 5, 2017 MEETING: January 10, 2017 Planning Commission SUBJ: Wally Marx — Conservation Design Subdivision PUD Concept Plan — 2500-2900 Parkview Drive Review Deadline Complete Application Received: December 9, 2016 Review Deadline: April 8, 2107 Overview Wally Marx has requested review of a PUD Concept Plan for a Conservation Design subdivision at his property at 2500-2900 Parkview Drive. The applicant proposes to divide three lots totaling 89.75 acres into six single-family residential lots and proposes to place 69.61 (11.47 acres buildable) into conservation easements. The subject properties are located on Parkview Drive, southwest of School Lake and east of the Baker National Golf Course. A significant portion of the property is either wetlands or located under the high water level of School Lake. The large wetland in the southwest portion of the site is identified as a moderate quality tamarack swamp and black ash swamp in the City's Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) data. The MLCCS identifies a moderate quality maple -basswood forest between this wetland and Parkview Drive, and then extending though the center of the site. Another portion of moderate -quality maple -basswood forest extends onto the property on the southeast of the site. An aerial of the site can be found on the following page. Staff has overlaid aspects from the applicant's concept plan on the aerial, as staff believes it is helpful to better place the location of the conservation areas and improvements within context of the site. The Conservation Design Planned Unit Development (CD-PUD) district is an overlay district which allows the City to grant flexibility to the underlying zoning regulations in order to encourage property owners to protect natural resources and open space with permanent conservation easements. Flexibility can include density bonuses, reduced setbacks and lot size requirements, and flexibility to park dedication or septic regulations. Flexibility can also be considered for upland buffer and tree preservation regulations on specific lots in the interests of protecting natural resources more broadly on the site. The CD-PUD district is attached to this report for reference. Wally Marx Page 1 of 8 February 7, 2017 CD-PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting School Lake Maple -basswood forest (moderate quality 9A;INI o � ^ 'Tamarack and black ash Swamp (good quality) 'roposed Onveway Proposed Trail Homeste Septic Site Buildable Conservation Area Proposed Conservation Area Site Design Process The CD-PUD ordinance describes a four -step "Site Design Process" which is supposed to influence the site plan. The process is described within the ordinance attached, but is summarized as follows. Also following is a summary from the applicant's site design process, which is described more in-depth within the narrative. This summary helps explain the various colors on the applicant's concept plan. Step 1 — Identify Conservation Areas. This step includes first identifying "unbuildable areas" (shown in green, dark blue, and light blue in the applicant's plans) and then identifying Conservation Areas which are buildable (shown in yellow in the applicant's plans). The remaining land is potentially buildable land area (shown in grey in the applicant's plans). Step 2 — Locate Housing Sites. Sites should be located in relation to views and buildable land areas. The sites are shown as boxes with an "X" on the applicant's plans. Wally Marx Page 2 of 8 February 7, 2017 CD-PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting Step 3 — Align streets and trails. Streets are shown in brown on the applicant's plans. Trails are shown but further discussion is needed with the applicant for access from Parkview Drive to the trails and possible realignment of proposed trail. Step 4 — Draw lot lines. Proposed lot lines provide for the six lots, outlots, and conservation areas. Staff went through the Site Review process based upon available information, including the City's Open Space composite map, the City's Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) data, and the objectives of the CD-PUD ordinance. Staff s results are attached for reference. The primary difference is that staff s Site Design places a higher priority on the conservation of the wooded corridor between the Tamarack swamp and School Lake. The applicant argues that area where the septic sites are proposed is comparatively low value and is populated almost entirely of boxelder trees. Staff walked the site with Hennepin County natural resource specialist Thill, who confirmed that the area proposed to be impacted by septic sites is the lowest value portion of the wooded area, and is not part of the maple -basswood remnant Designating Conservation Areas The CD-PUD process allows the City to grant flexibility to the underlying zoning regulations as an incentive to permanently conserve natural resources and open space. The City needs to determine how much flexibility to grant based on how the proposal meets the primary and secondary conservation objectives of the City over and above that which would be achievable under conventional development. The primary conservation objectives identified in the ordinance are: i. The protection and/or restoration of the ecological function of native hardwood forests (e.g. Maple -Basswood Forest), lakes, streams and wetlands. ii. The protection, restoration, and/or creation of moderate to high quality ecological resources including the sensitive ecological resources identified as priority areas on the Composite Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. iii. The reservation of land connecting these aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources in order to restore and/or create new ecological resources suitable for habitat movement corridors. The secondary conservation objectives are as follows: i. The protection of scenic views and viewsheds including the views from roads identified as "Scenic Roads" on the Scenic Roads Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. ii. The reservation of land for incorporating public and private trails in order to create connections to existing or planned trails as identified in the current Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan. iii. The reservation of land for incorporating public and /or private Open Space in order to achieve goals as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant describes in their narrative how they see these objectives being met. As noted the property does include a moderate quality maple -basswood remnant and good quality tamarack Wally Marx Page 3 of 8 February 7, 2017 CD-PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting swamp. As noted in the forester's report from Hennepin County, maintenance of the maple - basswood forest could raise the quality of the area, which could be a condition of a CD-PUD. Parkview Drive is not identified as a "Scenic Road", although it appears that the proposed development would generally protect the viewshed from the road nonetheless. Staff believes that only one of the lots would be visible from the road. The applicant proposes a private trail along School Lake, generally in the location of an existing private horse trail. Although the City's trail plan does not identify a public trail in this area, staff believes it may be worthwhile to consider trails within context of the CD-PUD. Much of the land around the lake has been previously subdivided to what is likely its maximum density. As such, the City's opportunity to require dedication of trail easements may be limited. Nonetheless, a trail that provides some limited public access to the conservation areas seems like an important amenity. Staff suggested a public trail connection on its Site Design. Neighbors along School Lake have expressed concern that opening the existing private trail up to the public will cause significant trespass concerns. They also state that the continuation of a public trail around the remainder of the lake seems very unlikely. Staff believes a possible alternative would be to require a public trail which is totally separate from the lakefront private trail. This would provide public access to the conservation areas and reduce concerns of trespass. A trail which traverses this site from Parkview to the east may be able to be extended east to Willow Drive if property to the east is subdivided in the future. Much of the conservation areas, especially along School Lake, are included within the private lots of the subdivision. Staff recommends that conservation areas are included within outlots. This makes long-term enforcement of the easement much more likely. Staff also recommends that the applicant consider including the secondary septic sites within conservation areas. These areas may make sense to remain within the private lots, but protected by the easement unless (or until) they are utilized. The applicant has indicated that they are working towards finding an entity to hold the conservation easement. This is an extremely important consideration, as the holder may be interested in adjustments which may affect the site layout. The applicant will need to work with the easement holder on a land stewardship plan, which will establish the long term maintenance of the conservation areas, how the homeowners will fund the maintenance and what, if any, restoration work should be required up -front. General Performance Standards Minimum Size of Subdivision A CD-PUD subdivision within the Rural Residential zoning district is required to be a minimum of 40 acres in size. The proposed subdivision is approximately 89.75 acres. Required Conservation Area A minimum of 30% of the total Buildable Land Area, or higher depending on the land and opportunities to achieve the City's conservation objectives, is required to be included in the Conservation Area. Wally Marx Page 4 of 8 February 7, 2017 CD-PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting The applicant proposes 69.61 acres within the conservation area, or 77.6% of the site. Most of this area (staff estimates 49 acres) is wetland or would be within wetland buffers required to be protected by easement under a standard development. Buildable areas consist of 8.88 acres (31.2% of the total buildable area on the property) within outlots plus an additional 2.59 acres proposed to be included within a conservation area but located within the boundaries of the lots. This results in a total of 11.47 buildable acres being proposed within conservation areas, or 40.27% of the total buildable area. Of the buildable conservation area, 1.1 acres are located within the 50 foot required structure setbacks around the perimeter of the site. Density and Design Flexibility The CD-PUD ordinance allows the City to grant flexibility from standard City requirements. Density/Lot Size/Width The applicant proposes six residential lots. Existing rural residential regulations would not allow further subdivision of the existing three parcels. The CD-PUD ordinance allows the City to grant additional density as an incentive, up to a maximum of 200% of the base density. The base density is determined by the standard underlying zoning designation (in this case, 5- acres of contiguous suitable soils per lot). According to Hennepin County Soils data, it appears that there is a six acre contiguous area of suitable soils in the northwest corner of the site and a twelve acre contiguous area of suitable soils in the center of the property (see insert at right). This results in a base density of three parcels. 200% of the base density would equate to a maximum of six lots. The property is currently included in three PIDs. If these three lots are separate lots of record and are buildable, the applicant could not further subdivide the property under current requirements. As such, City wetland buffer and other similar requirements would unlikely be triggered upon the property. 1611823320002 T Following is a summary of the proposed lots in the subdivision: Lot Area Upland Area outside of Conservation Lot 1 4.44 acres 2.54 acres Lot 2 6.66 acres 2.35 acres Lot 3 7.32 acres 1.63 acres Lot 4 8.02 acres 1.70 acres Lot 5 7.05 acres 6.50 acres Lot 6 3.52 acres 2.82 acres Wally Marx CD-PUD Concept Plan Page 5 of 8 February 7, 2017 City Council Meeting The remaining property is proposed in a series of outlots. It appears that a number of the outlots could be combined so that there were fewer. Perimeter Setbacks The CD-PUD ordinance requires that structures meet the standard minimum setbacks from the perimeter of the subdivision. Staff recommends that the house pad shown on Lot 2 be moved so that a minimum of 50 feet from the exterior of the site can be met. Primary/Alternate septic sites Standard City regulations require a primary and alternate septic site to serve each lot. The CD- PUD ordinance permits flexibility for the alternate site to be located within conservation areas. The concept plan shows two septic sites within each proposed lot (although lot 4 requires a good deal of gerrymandering), and none within conservation areas. Staff noted that the septic sites for Lots 3 and 4 are located within the wooded portion of the property, and recommends examining alternative locations for some of these sites. The Building Official reviewed the proposed septic locations and found them acceptable. Shoreland and General Setbacks All building pads identified meet the 150' setback requirement from the ordinary high water level of the lake. Lot 2 does not appear to meet the 50 foot setback requirement from the house pad to the western property line, and possibly not the 10 foot setback requirement from the most northerly septic site. Shoreland Lot Width Requirement Lots 1 and2 do not meet the minimum 200' lot width adjacent to the lake. In discussions with DNR staff, it is possible for the City to submit a PUD with reduced lot width from review to the DNR. The DNR would consider, similar to the consideration the City is making on the CD- PUD, if the proposed PUD protects more of the shoreline than the standard 200 foot width would protect. Staff believes that adjusting the lot lines so that more of the shoreline is within outlots rather than the lots extending to the lake would far better serve the City's conservation objectives. Perhaps this would justify allowing lots to have lake frontage narrower than the required 200 feet. Staff believes that including the area between building pads and the lake within the lots increases the likelihood of future violations of vegetation removal by owners, even if the land is covered by a conservation easement. Woodlands The subject property includes remnants of Maple -Basswood forest which were ranked as moderate quality in the City's natural resources inventory, a deep swamp adjacent to the lake in the southwest corner of the property which ranked as good quality, and also portions of Tamarack Swamp which ranked as moderate. These areas are identified within the Composite map of the City's Open Space report. Protecting these areas would be consistent with the first two conservation objectives. Wally Marx Page 6 of 8 February 7, 2017 CD-PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting The septic sites and driveways for Lots 3 and 4 as currently proposed, would result in tree removal. This area is of a lower quality and includes predominantly boxelder. Preserving more of the area would have benefits in terms of corridor connectivity. Septic setbacks from wetlands All septic sites appear to meet the minimum setback requirement of 75 feet and 150 feet from the ordinary high water level of the lake. Transportation/Access Lots 1 and 2 are proposed to share a driveway which would access Parkview Drive in the location of the existing orchard driveway at 2900 Parkview Drive. Lots 3-6 are proposed to share a private road in the location of the existing driveway for 2700 Parkview Drive. This driveway is proposed to be widened to 20 feet in width and paved in order to provide emergency access. The private road would be 20 feet in wide to the point where it splits into two shared driveways (one driveway for lots 3 and 4 and one driveway for lots 5 and 6). Staff Comments Ultimately, the Planning Commission and City Council have full discretion to determine if a proposed CD-PUD subdivision better serves the conservation objectives of the City than would conventional development. The Planning Commission and City Council also can determine the extent to which the flexibility described in the CD-PUD district is justified by the proposed conservation. Staff believes that the proposed site is a good candidate for consideration of a conservation design subdivision and staff has suggested some potential alterations to the plan which would seem to better serve the conservation objectives of the CD-PUD district. Depending on the efforts which the applicant proposes in land stewardship plan, the long term restoration and maintenance of the existing resources could increase the quality. Following is a summary of staff s comments throughout the report: 1) Consider relocating some of the septic sites for lots 3 and 4 in order to provide improved connectivity and to preserve wooded area. 2) Include conservation areas within outlots in order to ensure improved long term enforcement of conservation easements. 3) Consider adding secondary septic site locations to conservation areas, even if left within the private lots. 4) Maintain minimum setback distances from development site perimeter. The potential house site of Lot 2 would need to be adjusted to meet this requirement. 5) Provide trail connection to conservation areas available to the public. 6) Any future submittal should address the comments Planning Commission Comments The Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the concept at their January 10 meeting. An excerpt from the draft minutes is attached for reference. One written comment was received, which is attached to this report, and no comments were provided at the hearing. Wally Marx Page 7 of 8 February 7, 2017 CD-PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting Planning Commissioner comments appeared to be generally in support of the concept and Commissioners did not raise significant concerns beyond those raised in the staff report. Park Commission Comments The Park Commission reviewed the concept at their January 18 meeting. Two public comments were received for the Park Commission related to concerns about public access to the existing private trail along School Lake. Commissioners supported public trail access from Parkview Drive, through the conservation areas and to the east edge of the property. Commissioners were open to this trail being entirely separate from the private trail along School Lake. Attachments 1. Conservation Design-PUD Ordinance 2. Excerpt from DRAFT 1/10/2017 Planning Commission minutes 3. Excerpt from DRAFT 1/18/2017 Park Commission minutes 4. Comments received from Charles and Pamela Schroeder 5. Comment received from Cindy and Tad Piper 6. Comments from City Engineer dated 12/22/16 7. Comments from Building Official dated 12/13/16 8. Comments from Hennepin County dated 12/21/16 9. Site Design Process conducted by staff 10. Applicant Narrative 11. Forest Analysis 12. Lot Summary 13. Concept Plan/Site Design dated 12-8-16 Wally Marx Page 8 of 8 February 7, 2017 CD-PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting Medina City Code 827. Zoning Zoning Districts CONSERVATION DESIGN DISTRICT (CD) Section 827.51. Conservation Design (CD) — Purpose. The purpose of this district is to preserve the City's ecological resources, wildlife corridors, scenic views, and rural character while allowing residential development consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Report as updated from time to time. The specific conservation objectives of this district are to: 1. Protect the ecological function of native hardwood forests, lakes, streams, and wetlands. 2. Protect moderate to high quality ecologically significant natural areas. 3. Protect opportunities to make ecological connections between parks and other protected lands and ecologically significant natural areas. 4. Protect important viewsheds including scenic road segments.. 5. Create public and private trails for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources. 6. Create public and private Open Space for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources. Section 827.53 Applicability. Subd. 1. Conservation design is an option that a property owner is encouraged to consider as an alternative to Conventional Development, as defined herein. The City will give heightened consideration to such requests where the opportunities to achieve conservation objectives are significantly higher than that available through conventional development. Conservation design may be considered on qualifying parcels lying in the Rural Residential District and all sewered residential districts. Section 827.55 Intent. Subd. 1. It is the intent of the City to accomplish the stated purpose of this District by approving a Planned Unit Development. In exchange for achieving the conservation objectives, it is the intent of the City to provide density and design flexibility and to encourage development review through a Collaborative Process. Subd. 2. The permitted, conditional and accessory uses and other regulations set forth in the existing zoning districts shall apply unless specifically addressed in this District, the PUD District, or if determined by the City Council to be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this District as part of the final PUD documents. Subd. 3. The procedures and regulations set forth in the PUD District shall apply unless specifically addressed in this District. If a final PUD plan is approved by the City, the subject property shall be rezoned to Conservation Design-PUD District (CD-PUD). The permitted uses and all other regulations governing uses on the subject land shall then be those found in the CD-PUD zoning district and documented by the PUD plans and agreements. The following subsections are requirements for all CD-PUDs unless exceptions, as part of a PUD, are otherwise approved by the City Council. 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 25 of 36 Medina City Code 827. Zoning Zoning Districts Section 827.57. Definitions. Subd. 1. Base Density. The maximum number of units or lots that are allowed on a parcel in accordance with the standards of the existing zoning district and the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Subd. 2. Buildable Land Area. The total land area in a proposed Conservation Design Subdivision less the amount of land that includes: slopes greater than 18%, wetlands, required wetland buffers, lakes, and land contained within the 100 year floodplain. Subd. 3. Collaborative Process. A development review process that results in a development plan in which clearly defined conservation objectives are achieved in exchange for greater flexibility from the requirements of the base zoning district and the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Subd. 4. Conventional Development. Development that meets the standard minimum requirements of the City's ordinances regulating development. Subd. 5. Conservation Easement. As defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 84C: A nonpossessory interest of a holder in real property imposing limitations or affirmative obligations the purposes of which include retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open - space values of real property, assuring its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational, or open -space use, protecting natural resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water quality, or preserving the historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural aspects of real property. Subd. 6. Conservation Design Subdivision. Any development of land that incorporates the concepts of designated Conservation Areas and clustering of dwelling units. Subd. 7. Conservation Area. Designated land within a Conservation Design Subdivision that contributes towards achievement of one or more of the conservation objectives. A Conservation Easement is placed on Conservation Areas to permanently restrict the Conservation Area from future development. Conservation Areas may be used for preservation of ecological resources, habitat corridors, passive recreation, and for pasture, hay cropping and other low impact agricultural uses. Subd. 8. Homeowners Association. A formally constituted non-profit association or corporation made up of the property owners and/or residents of a development for the purpose of owning, operating and maintaining common Conservation Areas and/or other commonly owned facilities and Open Space. Subd. 9. Open Space. Land that is not designated as a Conservation Area that is used for parks, trails or other uses. Open Space may be owned and managed by the City, homeowner's association or other entity. Subd. 10. Viewshed. The landscape or topography visible from a geographic point, especially that having aesthetic value. 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 26 of 36 Medina City Code 827. Zoning Zoning Districts Subd. 11. Yield Plan. A conceptual layout that shows the maximum number of lots that could be placed on a parcel in accordance with the standards of the existing zoning district and the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. The Yield Plan shows proposed lots, streets, rights -of -way, and other pertinent features. Yield Plans shall be drawn to scale. The layout shall be realistic and reflect a development pattern that could reasonably be expected to be implemented, taking into account the presence of wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, and existing easements. Section 827.59. General Performance Standards. Subd. 1. Minimum Size of Subdivision. (a) The minimum land area required for development shall be: (1) 40 contiguous acres in the Rural Residential District (2) 20 contiguous acres in sewered residential districts (b) A subdivision in the Rural Residential District of over 20 contiguous acres but less than 40 contiguous acres may apply for approval if they meet all the requirements for CD, and the visual impact of the subdivision from existing adjacent roadways is mitigated by existing topography, existing vegetation, and/or acceptable vegetative buffers. Subd 2. Required Conservation Area. The minimum required Conservation Area within the CD development shall be: (a) At least 30% of the total Buildable Land Area in the Rural Residential District, or higher depending on the land and opportunities to achieve the City's conservation objectives. (b) At least 20% of the total Buildable Land Area in sewered residential districts, or higher depending on the land and opportunities to achieve the City's conservation objectives. Subd. 3. Designating Conservation Areas. (a) The required amount of Conservation Area shall be designated and located to maximize achievement of the City's conservation objectives. Opportunities for achieving these objectives will vary depending on the location, size and specific qualities of the subject parcel. Each parcel will be evaluated for opportunities to achieve the following primary and secondary conservation objectives over and above that achievable under conventional development: (1) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following primary conservation objectives will be given higher consideration for flexibility from performance standards. 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 27 of 36 Medina City Code 827. Zoning Zoning Districts i. The protection and/or restoration of the ecological function of native hardwood forests (e.g. Maple -Basswood Forest), lakes, streams and wetlands. ii. The protection, restoration, and/or creation of moderate to high quality ecological resources including the sensitive ecological resources identified as priority areas on the Composite Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. iii. The reservation of land connecting these aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources in order to restore and/or create new ecological resources suitable for habitat movement corridors. (2) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following secondary conservation objectives may be given consideration for flexibility from performance standards: i. The protection of scenic views and viewsheds including the views from roads identified as "Scenic Roads" on the Scenic Roads Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. ii. The reservation of land for incorporating public and private trails in order to create connections to existing or planned trails as identified in the current Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan. iii. The reservation of land for incorporating public and /or private Open Space in order to achieve goals as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 4. Perimeter Setbacks. Structure setbacks from the perimeter of the subdivision shall be the same as the existing zoning district. Section 827.60 Open Space Report Composite Map Appeal Process. In the event that an applicant is not in agreement with the Composite Map of the Open Space Report or the data contained within a report on which the Composite Map is based upon, the applicant may present an appeal to the city. Subd. 1. The applicant shall put the appeal in writing, accompanied by the fee as described by the City's Fee Schedule, and is responsible to provide documentation supporting their appeal. Subd. 2. The appeal shall be reviewed by city staff, with the assistance of any technical consultants which city staff shall determine are appropriate. Such consultants may include, but are not limited to, environmental engineers, wetland scientists, arborists and other similar experts. City staff shall make a determination on the appeal within sixty days of receipt of a complete appeal application. Subd 3. The applicant may appeal city staff s decision to the city council. The appeal must be filed within thirty days of staff s determination. 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 28 of 36 Medina City Code 827. Zoning Zoning Districts Subd. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for the costs accrued by the City in review of the appeals described above, including the costs of technical consultants hired by the City. Section 827.61. Density and Design Flexibility . Flexibility from the requirements of the existing zoning district or other requirements of this code may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. In considering such flexibility, the City will evaluate how well the project achieves the conservation objectives over and above that achievable under conventional development and the amount and quality of conservation area protected. Subd. 1. Additional Density. (a) Density, in addition to the Base Density, may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. Any additional density or additional number of dwelling units shall be calculated as a percentage of Base Density. The Base Density shall be that established by regulations in the relevant existing zoning district. (1) In the Rural Residential District, Base Density shall be determined by calculating the number of 5-acre areas of contiguous soils suitable for a standard sewage disposal system that are located on the subject property. (2) In sewered residential districts, a Yield Plan shall be developed to determine Base Density. Regulations of the base district and all other relevant land use regulations of this Code shall be used for completing the Yield Plan. (b) The total number of dwelling units in a CD-PUD development shall be guided by the density limitations contained in the Comprehensive Plan and may be: (1) Up to 200% of the calculated Base Density in the Rural Residential District. (2) Up to 120% of calculated Base Density in all sewered residential districts. Subd. 2. Other areas of flexibility (a) In the Rural Residential District, flexibility may include: (1) Lot size, lot width and structure setbacks provided setbacks comply with the following minimums: i. Setback from local streets: 35 feet. ii. Setback from Arterial and Collector Streets: 100 feet. iii. Interior structure setbacks: 30 feet. (2) Housing type. 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 29 of 36 Medina City Code 827. Zoning Zoning Districts (3) Upland buffers and tree preservation regulations provided that the objectives of these regulations are met for the site as a whole. (4) Due consideration may be given for conservation easements granted when calculating park dedication requirements. (5) Variations to City regulations regarding septic systems. (b) In all sewered residential districts, flexibility may include: (1) Lot size, lot width, and structure setbacks. (2) Housing type. (3) Landscaping. (4) Screening. (5) Upland buffers and tree preservation regulations provided that the objectives of these regulations are met for the site as a whole. (6) Buffer yard. (7) Due consideration may be given for conservation easements granted when calculating park dedication requirements. Section 827.63. Conservation Area Protection and Ownership. Subd. 1. Land and improvements in areas designated as Conservation Areas in a CD-PUD shall be established, protected and owned in accordance with the following guidelines: (a) Designated Conservation Areas shall be surveyed and subdivided as separate outlots. (b) Designated Conservation Areas must be restricted from further development by a permanent Conservation Easement (in accordance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 84C.01-05) running with the land. The Conservation Easement must be submitted with the General Plan of Development and approved by the City Attorney. (1) The permanent Conservation Easement may be held by any combination of the entities defined by Minnesota Statute Chapter 84C, but in no case may the holder of the Conservation Easement be the same as the owner of the underlying fee. (2) The permanent Conservation Easement shall be recorded with Hennepin County and must specify: i. The entity that will maintain the designated Conservation Area. 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 30 of 36 Medina City Code 827. Zoning Zoning Districts (3) ii. The purposes of the Conservation Easement, that the easement is permanent, and the conservation values of the property. iii. The legal description of the land under the easement. iv. The restrictions on the use of the land and from future development. v. To what standards the Conservation Areas will be maintained through reference to an approved land stewardship plan. vi. Who will have access to the Conservation Area. Ownership of the underlying fee of each designated Conservation Area parcel, may be held by any combination of the following entities: i. A common ownership association, subject to the provisions in the PUD District. ii. An individual who will use the land in accordance with the permanent Conservation Easement. iii. A private nonprofit organization, specializing in land conservation and stewardship, that has been designated by the Internal Revenue Service as qualifying under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. iv. A government agency (e.g. park and/or natural resource agency or division). v. The City of Medina, in rare situations when there are no other viable options. (c) Open Space areas that do not achieve the City's conservation objectives may be established under a homeowner's association without protection by a Conservation Easement. Such areas shall be regulated according to provisions of the PUD District. Section 827.65. Land Stewardship Plan. Subd. 1. Plan Objectives. Where a CD-PUD has designated Conservation Areas, a plan for the development, long-term use, maintenance, and insurance of all Conservation Areas, may be required. The plan shall: (a) Define ownership and methods of land protection. (b) Establish necessary regular and periodic operation and maintenance responsibilities. (c) Estimate staffing needs, insurance requirements, and other associated costs associated with plan implementation and define the means for funding the same on an on -going basis. This shall include land management fees necessary to fund monitoring and 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 31 of 36 Medina City Code 827. Zoning Zoning Districts management of the Conservation Easement by the easement holder. The fees shall be estimated and validated by the proposed easement holder. (d) Meet the requirements of the future conservation easement holder. Subd. 2. Plan Submittal Requirements. A preliminary Land Stewardship Plan shall be submitted with the General Plan of Development. A Final Land Stewardship Plan shall be submitted with the Final Plan Stage of PUD development. The plan shall contain a narrative describing: (a) Existing conditions, including all natural, cultural, historic, and scenic elements in the landscape; (b) Objectives for each Conservation Area, including: (1) The proposed permanent or maintained landscape condition for each area. (2) Any restoration measures needed to achieve the proposed permanent condition, including: (3) i. Measures for correcting increasingly destructive conditions, such as erosion and intrusion of invasive plant species. ii. Measures for restoring historic features (if applicable). iii. Measures for restoring existing or establishing new landscape types. A maintenance plan, including: i. Activities needed to maintain the stability of the resources, including mowing and burning schedules, weed control measures, planting schedules, and clearing and cleanup measures and schedules. ii. An estimate of the annual on -going (post restoration) operating and maintenance costs. Subd. 3. Funding of Operation and Maintenance. At the discretion of the City, the applicant may be required to escrow sufficient funds for the maintenance and operation costs of Conservation Areas for up to four years depending on restoration measures. Subd. 4. Enforcement. In the event that the fee holder of the Conservation Areas, common areas and facilities, or any successor organization thereto, fails to properly maintain all or any portion of the aforesaid common areas or facilities, the City in coordination with the holder of the easement, may serve written notice upon such fee holder setting forth the manner in which the fee holder has failed to maintain the aforesaid common areas and facilities. Such notice shall set forth the nature of corrections required and the time within which the corrections shall be made. Upon failure to comply within the time specified, the fee holder , or any successor organization, shall be considered in 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 32 of 36 Medina City Code 827. Zoning Zoning Districts violation of this Ordinance, in which case the City shall have the right to enter the premises and take the needed corrective actions. The costs of corrective actions by the City shall be assessed against the properties that have the right of enjoyment of the common areas and facilities. Section 827.67. Conservation Area Design Standards. The following Conservation Area design standards shall also be considered in designing the CD-PUD: Subd. 1. Conservation Areas should be interconnected wherever possible to provide a continuous network of Open Space within the PUD and throughout the City. It should coordinate and maximize boundaries with Conservation Areas and Open Space on adjacent tracts. Subd. 2. Incorporate public and private trails with connections to existing or planned regional trails as identified in the most recent Park, Trail and Open Space Plan. Subd. 3. Designated public access trails shall be protected by an access easement owned by the City. Subd. 4. Incorporate public and/or private Open Space as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 5. Views of new dwellings from exterior roads and abutting properties should be minimized by the use of existing topography, existing vegetation, or additional landscaping. Ridge and hilltops should be contained within designated Conservation Areas wherever possible. Trees should not be removed from ridges and hilltops. Subd. 6. The boundaries of designated conservation areas shall be clearly delineated and labeled on CD-PUD plans. These areas shall be delineated in the field with signage or other measures approved by the city. Subd. 7. Stormwater management facilities may be located in designated conservation areas. Subd. 8. Existing land in row -cropping use shall be converted to a use that supports the achievement of the City's conservation objectives. Section 827.69. Landscape Design Standards. Subd. 1. Street trees may be planted, but are not required, along internal streets passing through common Conservation Areas or Open Space. Subd. 2. Irregular spacing is encouraged for street trees, to avoid the urban appearance that regular spacing may invoke. Subd. 3. The selection of vegetation should be guided by the natural community types identified in the City's 2008 Natural Resources Inventory. 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 33 of 36 Medina City Code 827. Zoning Zoning Districts Subd. 4. Planted buffers between clusters of residential lots are encouraged to enhance privacy and a rural appearance between lots. Subd. 5. Buffers consisting of an informal arrangement of native plant species combined with infrequent mowing are strongly encouraged, to create a low -maintenance, natural landscape. Subd. 6. Planted buffers are also encouraged along natural drainage areas to minimize erosion. Subd. 7. Grading for Conservation Areas and other common landscaped areas and stormwater management areas shall be avoided to reduce compaction and impacting water infiltration rates. Soil testing and decompaction may be required if site construction activities negatively impact soil permeability. Subd. 8. Better Site Design/Low Impact Development practices as identified in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency shall be used to design sites and meet the performance standards. Section 827.71. Subsurface Sewage Treatment Facilities. Subd. 1. Where city services are not available, CD-PUD developments may be platted to accommodate home site lots with either individual septic tanks and all required drainfields/mound systems located on the lot, or individual septic tanks and primary drainfield/mount system located on the lot and secondary drainfields/mound system located in the designated Conservation Area or other Open Space. Subd. 2. All septic systems shall conform to the current performance standards of Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 and its appendices, or the amended Rules in effect at the time of installation. Except in instances where flexibility has been explicitly granted by the City, septic systems shall also conform to relevant City regulations, including the requirement to identify a primary and secondary drainfield site. Subd. 3. The City may consider shared sewage treatment systems which are consistent with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regulations and relevant City ordinances, provided adequate agreements are in place related to monitoring and maintenance procedures and replacement of the system in case of a failure. Subd. 4. Secondary drainfields/mound systems may be located in designated Conservation Areas and other Open Space provided that: (a) They are located within a limited distance of the lots they serve. (b) Construction of drainfields/mound systems do not result in the destruction of ecological resources. (c) The Conservation Area or Open Space parcel containing the drainfield/mound system is owned in fee by a common ownership association which owns non -Conservation 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 34 of 36 Medina City Code 827. Zoning Zoning Districts Area land within the subdivision and in which membership in the association by all property owners in the subdivision is mandatory. (d) The individual lot owner is responsible for maintenance and repair of the drainfield/mound system. (e) The ground cover over the drainfield/mound system is maintained according to the Land Stewardship Plan. (f) Recreational uses are prohibited within 50 feet of the drainfields/mound systems. (g) The Conservation Easement for the dedicated Conservation Area parcel describes the location of individual drainfields/mound systems. Section 827.73. Site Design Process. At the time of PUD Concept Plan development and review, applicants shall demonstrate that the following design process was performed and influenced the design of the concept site plan. Subd. 1. Step 1—Identify Conservation Areas. Identify preservation land in two steps. First identify "unbuildable" areas which include: slopes greater than 18%, wetlands, wetland buffers, lakes, and land within the 100 year floodplain. Next, identify Conservation Areas which include those areas designated as Conservation Areas (Section 827.59 Subd. 3.) The remaining land shall be identified as the potentially Buildable Land Area. The applicant shall identify the quantity of land designated as unbuildable, Conservation Area, and potentially Buildable Land Area. Subd. 2. Step 2—Locate Housing Sites. Locate the approximate sites of individual houses in regard to protected views and the potentially buildable land areas. Subd. 3. Step 3—Align Streets and Trails. Align streets in order to access the lots. New trails and connections to regional trail systems, if any, should be laid out to create internal and external connections to existing and/or potential future streets, sidewalks, and trails. Subd. 4. Step 4—Lot Lines. Draw in the lot lines. Section 827.75. CD-PUD Application Processing. The review and approval procedures of the PUD District shall be used to review and approve CD-PUDs. Prior to the Concept Plan Stage PUD application, the City encourages applicants to engage in an informal collaborative project goal setting process with the City. The purpose of this process is to jointly develop site design and conservation objectives and assess areas of regulatory flexibility for achieving developer and City objectives for the specific parcel of land. The Collaborative Process may include council members, city commission members, land owners, developers, city staff, other governmental jurisdiction staff, the potential future Conservation Easement holder, and other participants as appropriate. The outcome of the process is a Project Guidance Report prepared by city staff. The report will summarize the project concept, project objectives, and preliminary understanding of regulatory flexibility needed to 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 35 of 36 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 1/10/2017 Meeting Minutes Public Hearing — Wally and Bridget Marx — 2700 — 2900 Parkview Drive — Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a 6 Lot Conservation Design-PUD Subdivision with the Permanent Preservation of Land Finke explained the intent for the conservation design-PUD subdivision and the flexibility that can be gained through the preservation of land. He stated that the property does include various aspects of natural resources that have been identified in the City's natural resources and open space reports. He identified the high -quality tamarack swamp and area of maple basswood. He explained the potential access proposed and displayed the concept plan as proposed by the applicant. He identified the proposed conservation areas. He explained the intent of the ordinance, noting that the objectives provide a little more detail on those elements. He stated that there are six proposed lots which would be a 200 percent density bonus, as normal development would allow for three lots. He stated that the typical buildable lot size ranges from 1.6 acres to 6.5 acres, with the majority of the lots coming in with 2 to 3 acres of buildable land. He stated that over 75 percent of the property is proposed for conservation, noting that only 11.5 acres of that land is considered buildable. He noted that the site in total has 28 acres which still makes the conservation proposed to be 40 percent of the total buildable land and therefore exceeds the 30 percent threshold of the ordinance. He provided additional details on the section of land that staff recommended for inclusion in the conservation area. He stated that lots one and two would not meet the minimum lot width for the shoreline and provided additional details on possible conservation that could be designated to avoid the issue of non-compliance. He stated that staff spoke with the septic provider to determine that reasonable septic service and site locations could be provided on the lots. He stated that this is simply a process to allow input, and formal action is not required tonight. He stated that staff believes that this property would be a good candidate for conservation, but discussion would be needed regarding the potential density bonus. He stated that the forester indicated that a little stewardship could push the wooded areas into a higher quality categorization. R. Reid referenced building site three and asked if that has been eliminated. Finke stated that area was marked as a higher priority conservation area and therefore the lots were shifted. R. Reid noted that the change was not listed in the conditions and asked if that should be one of the conditions for approval. Finke stated that one comment referenced a reduction to the number of septic systems and therefore shifting the lot would be one of the ways to accomplish that. Barry referenced the five contiguous acres of suitable soils stipulation and asked if that is per lot or proposal. Finke stated that the base zoning of the rural residential zoning district requires five acres of contiguous suitable soils per lot. He explained that simply determines the base density and then during the review of the conservation design-PUD request, there would need to be a determination as to whether there would be justification of a bonus density; and if so, the percentage of density bonus that would be allowed. R. Reid referenced site number three and asked if that meets the shoreline overlay requirements for setback. Finke confirmed that the lot would meet those requirements. 1 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 1/10/2017 Meeting Minutes Rengel asked and received clarification on the flexibility that is provided under the conservation design- PUD ordinance. Albers asked for information on what appears to be a road near the lake. Finke replied that is a field road currently and noted that it is very steep and therefore he is not sure if that would be practical to reuse. Kent Williams, 1632 Homestead Trail, stated that he is present to represent the applicant on this proposal. He stated that they are looking for feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council and will then consider that input in regard to their potential proposal. He stated that the Marx family has lived on the property since 1998 and have put a substantial amount of work into the property as it was formerly a pig farm. He stated that the result has been an explosion of wildlife to and from School Lake. He stated that Mr. Marx has also established the largest privately owned English garden that has received international accolades. He stated that the proposal from staff would move lot three into the garden and therefore they would not agree with that element because of the work that Mr. Marx put into the garden and the accolades it receives. He noted that he himself was part of the Planning Commission when the conservation design-PUD ordinance was enacted. He stated that he was also on the Commission when Mr. Marx brought forward two other requests for a conservation design-PUD on the property. He noted that he was disappointed by the first request, but the Marx family came back with a much improved request in 2012 that was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that the Marx family then discovered part of the land could not be developed until 2016. He noted that he was disappointed at that time because he felt the City was losing out on the conservation of valuable resources. He stated that he was happy when Mr. Marx contacted him to state that they would like to try it again as all the property is now available for development. He noted that this is a challenging site because of the topography and wetlands. He stated that this is the highest percentage of land proposed for a conservation design-PUD that the City has ever considered, and is also high quality elements. He noted that a total of 70 acres would be put into conservation easement as there would be unbuildable land in addition to the 11.5 acres of buildable land. He noted that part of the conservation is contained on the lots and will further restrict what can be done on that land. He stated that the conservation proposed far exceeds the development proposed. He discussed what would happen under typical development of the site. He stated that these types of resources need to be managed and this is a method to ensure that happens as the land would be put under stewardship with a management plan that ensures that not only is the land not built upon, it is also managed in a responsible and reputable manner He stated that they proposed that lot three remain in the current location as it is the lowest quality wooded area and only contains boxelder trees which are not even protected by the tree ordinance. He stated that they would much prefer to have the garden over the boxelder trees. He stated that they did contemplate clustering the homes, but wanted to stay with the more rural character rather than have a suburban character. He referenced the existing field road and agreed that it is very steep. He noted that it is often washed out and would possibly be a hazard during the winter months. Muffin asked who would manage the conservation easement land. Mr. Williams replied that they are in conservation with two potential organizations and provided the examples. Michael Pressman, applicant's conservation consultant, confirmed that the intent would be that the steward would maintain the land in a similar manner He provided additional details stating that the subdivision would also have a list of dos and don'ts of what could be done. 2 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 1/10/2017 Meeting Minutes Murrin stated that the property is beautiful and would encourage the stewards to follow the method that Mr. Marx has used. She asked if the apple orchard would be cut down to build a home. Mr. Williams stated that whoever purchases the lot would have the options to either build a home and remove the orchard, could build a home and keep a portion of the orchard, or the person who purchases the neighboring lot could choose to purchase that lot as well to keep as an orchard. Albers referenced the placement of one of the lots and the neighboring home. Mr. Williams replied that they are willing to move the alignment of the lot slightly, but want to be cautious to ensure that the viewsheds of the other lots are not impacted to maintain the rural character. Albers asked if there has been consideration to making lots one and two just one lot. Mr. Williams stated that currently there is a field directly adjacent to the neighboring home owner and was unsure what they could see from their home, but believed perhaps a portion of the orchard could be seen. He recognized that the neighboring homeowner would be able to see a home if the development is approved. Murrin asked if the owners of lot five would be able to maintain the garden or choose to do what they like with it. Mr. Marx replied that the owner of the lot would be able to do what they desire with it. He stated that it is costly and cumbersome to maintain. He stated that he will not be able to maintain the garden forever. He stated that hopefully lot five would be the last lot sold. He stated that if he sold the entire property as one lot, the home would be built where lot one is proposed. He noted that most likely lot one would be the only home that would be visible. Albers noted that lot one is the location of the five contiguous acres of suitable soils and therefore if sold as one property, it is where someone would build. Mr. Marx stated that he has attempted to donate the garden to the Arboretum but they asked how many millions of dollars he would give to help maintain the land. He stated that he also attempted that with Three Rivers Park District and was declined. He explained that there is not a public entity that will accept the donation. Albers opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. No comments made. Albers closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Rengel stated that she does not have anything she would proposed to change, but at some point in the process would like to see a land stewardship plan. Finke noted that is part of the first formal step of the process. R. Reid referenced the site design done by staff and asked if that was done before or after the applicants. Finke stated that he did it six years ago, and did it again after he saw this application. He stated that to a certain extent, things that he found in the site design were similar to what he had done. 3 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 1/10/2017 Meeting Minutes R. Reid asked if staff would still recommend using their site design over the applicant's. Finke stated that he is not suggesting that the staff design supersede the applicant's, but is a process of the request to see what would be the same and what would be different. He stated that the staff version is done looking at the open space report and natural resources report. He stated that staff recognizes that this ordinance has to include an incentive if it is going to be a tool that the City is going to use to create open space without the City having to buy property for conservation. He provided additional input regarding the septic systems. Mr. Marx provided additional details on horse trails. Barry stated that his concern was that lot four might be too far to access the septic, but was satisfied with the engineering comments. Finke stated that the Council is set to review the concept plan on February 7th and the Park Commission will discuss at their meeting next Wednesday. 4 Medina Park Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 1/18/2017 Meeting Minutes Wally Marx — Conservation Design Subdivision PUD Concept Plan — 2500-2900 Parkview Drive — Park Dedication Review Gallup presented the staff report stating that the applicant has submitted a concept plan review for a Conservation Design Subdivision PUD (CD-PUD) at 2500-2900 Parkview Drive. The applicant is proposing to subdivide three existing lots into six lots and put 69.61 acres (11.47 buildable acres) in a conservation easement. Gallup reminded the Park Commission that this is a concept plan review, which is purely advisory and no formal action needed to be taken tonight. Gallup explained that a CD-PUD allows the City to grant flexibility to the underlying zoning regulations in order to encourage property owners to protect natural resources and open space with permanent conservation easements. Gallup stated that the property and most of the surrounding land is guided and zoned as Rural Residential. She noted that Baker National Golf Course is located to the west of Parkview Drive. She also explained that the property includes good quality tamarack and ash swamp and moderate quality maple -basswood forests which have been identified in the City's Open Space Report. Gallup further explained the CD-PUD purpose and objectives, noting the primary and secondary conservation objectives listed below: The primary conservation objectives identified in the ordinance are: - The protection and/or restoration of the ecological function of native hardwood forests (e.g. Maple -Basswood Forest), lakes, streams and wetlands. - The protection, restoration, and/or creation of moderate to high quality ecological resources including the sensitive ecological resources identified as priority areas on the Composite Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. - The reservation of land connecting these aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources in order to restore and/or create new ecological resources suitable for habitat movement corridors. The secondary conservation objectives are as follows: — The protection of scenic views and viewsheds including the views from roads identified as "Scenic Roads" on the Scenic Roads Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. - The reservation of land for incorporating public and private trails in order to create connections to existing or planned trails as identified in the current Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan. - The reservation of land for incorporating public and /or private Open Space in order to achieve goals as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Gallup explained that the City could take land, cash or a combination of the two for park dedication purposes. If the City took 10% of the land for park dedication it would be approximately 4.81 acres. If the City took the 8% cash -in -lieu it would be estimated as $24,000. 1 Medina Park Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 1/18/2017 Meeting Minutes Gallup noted that the applicant proposes a private trail in approximate location of an existing private horse trail. She stated that the Park Plan does not identify active parks in this area and the draft Trail Plan does not identify trails in the area, but the existing Master Plan identifies a potential widened shoulder along Parkview Drive. She stated that if public access to the conservation area is of interest, a shoulder trail along Parkview could be reevaluated or a potential bicycle "trailhead". Gallup referenced letters from the neighbors that were included in the packet, stating that some neighbors raised concern about public trails connecting to existing private trails would encourage trespass. Staff suggested that trespass concerns should not be the only factor in determining if public access to the conservation area is designed. Staff could work with the applicant to come up with a thoughtful design to mitigate trespass, by signage, physical barriers, or entirely separate trails. Kristin Evanson, 3072 Willow Drive, stated that she lived across the street from School Lake and could not speak for the residents that live on the lake, but felt that they would not be happy about a public trail. She noted that the trail was small and wet in spots and would not be large enough or adequate as a public trail. She explained that the trail is very private, and it requires neighbors to ask permission to use it every spring and fall. Sam Evanson, 3072 Willow Drive, stated that he has walked the trail many times and has concerns if the trail were to become public. He stated that it would probably be too much land to purchase for the park budget. He also noted that a public trail around the lake would devalue the landowners' property. Kent Williams, 1632 Homestead Trail, stated that he represents the applicant. He noted that this is the third time Marx has brought a concept plan before the city and provided some history on the last two applications. He stated that the first application did not meet the 30% threshold; the second application met the threshold, but the applicant withdrew because his property was not coming out of Ag Preserve until 2016. He stated that this third application is the best yet and noted that the burden on the land is not much with the addition of only three lots. Williams explained that the property was a pig farm before the Marx bought it. He stated that the Marx cleaned up the property, planted prairie grasses and restored it, which caused an explosion of wildlife on the site. He noted that there is also a tamarack swamp and two old growth forests on the site. Williams explained the conservation areas of the site and noted that the applicant is proposing to keep the private trail along School Lake that has existed since 1945. He explained that the trail is only quasi -public in the sense that you need a special private invitation to use the trail. Possible easement holders for the conservation areas were discussed. The applicant is currently negotiating with Minnehaha Creek, but nothing has been finalized at this time. 2 Medina Park Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 1/18/2017 Meeting Minutes Lee suggested that the city take the trail easement now to plan for a future possible trail if the adjoining properties were to develop 20, 30, 40 or 50+ years down the road. He noted that the trail would stay private and only be open to the public when a future trail connection could be made. Williams questioned if any Park Dedication should even be taken on the site because of the amount of land being given for the conservation easements. Scherer noted that the tradeoff for the conservation easements was the extra lots being allowed. Williams reiterated that only three additional lots were being requested, which puts less burden on the land. Lee stated that he would like to make the conservation areas accessible to the public in the future and would like to preserve the rights for the future of the city to develop the trail. Williams explained that the CD-PUD ordinance does not weigh public vs. private trails any differently and made the following points as to why a public trail should not be allowed: 1. Increases the burden on the land that we are trying to preserve though conservation easements. 2. May trigger others to shut off access to the existing private horse trail. 3. Site lines along Parkview are challenging and may be dangerous for people to walk. 4. The pure fact that the City has an easement will affect the property values. Williams asked the Park Commission to consider waiving the Park Dedication all together because of the conservation aspects of the site. Weir questioned if the applicant's proposed private trail would be under the conservation easement to ensure the future property owners on those sites would not close it. Williams stated that the proposed private trail would be under the conservation easement. The Park Commissioners reviewed the map and possible scenarios for future trails connecting from Willow Drive to Parkview Trail. It was noted that they were only one land owner away from making a trail connection. There was a general consensus of the Park Commission that the horse trail should remain private at this time and under an easement on the conserved property. The Park Commissioners would like to preserve some as yet unspecified trail access from east on Willow Drive, west to Parkview Trail by working with staff and the applicant. The Park Commission would also like to consider a trail along Parkview Drive. 3 Dusty Finke From: Charles Schroeder <cschroeder@northstarcapital.com> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 1:33 PM To: Debra Peterson Subject: Fwd: Subject: PUD Concept Plan 2700-2900 Parkview Drive Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: <cschroeder@northstarcapital.com<mailto:cschroeder@northstarcapital.com» Date: January 6, 2017 at 12:10:36 PM CST To: <dusty.finke@ci.medina.mn.us<mailto:dusty.finke@ci.medina.mn.us», Pamela Schroeder <spinnakergirl@me.com<mailto:spinnakergirl@me.com» Subject: Subject: PUD Concept Plan 2700-2900 Parkview Drive Subject: PUD Concept Plan 2700-2900 Parkview Drive Mr. Finke, Planning Commission and Staff and City Council: Pamela and I, the owners of 2910 Parkview Drive, neighbors immediately to the north, have reviewed the Concept Plan for the above mentioned properties and have the following observations and suggested changes. On a personal level, our decision to move into this area was, in large part, based on a desire to have more privacy and quiet than less, a move to the "country". We suspect our neighbors feel the same way. We agree with Medina's approach to conservation, water quality and land use. Having served on and chaired the Orono Planning Commission, I understand the importance of these decisions. We understand property owners have rights and there is a balance between those rights and planning. School Lake is a unique area. The tradeoff between increasing density and protection of ecologically valuable land seems difficult here because the land in question is basically protected by virtue of its inability to be built upon. Subdivision would be currently limited to 3 lots, one already built on, as I understand it. This makes for significant land protection, based in existing ordinances. That appears like good city planning over the years. As such, variances for lot width for Lot 1 and 2, at the lakeside and frontage seem a stretch to grant. This, of course, is where Pamela and I are the most affected neighbors. Lot 1, a very narrow, challenged lot, in particular is close to our house at the 50' setback. Also, it appears that clustering the lots around Lot 5 and 6 would avoid building right on the lake, Lot 3. That house would protrude greatly into the lake views of many of us and, while, apparently build -able ground (with a mound system rather far up the hill) with variances, bisects the horse trail and seems inconsistent with limiting hardcover that close to the lake. It certainly changes the character of School Lake. We appreciate the work that has gone into this, by the applicant, the Staff and the Commission. Respectfully, 1 Charles and Pamela Schroeder 2910 Parkview Drive Sent from my iPad Sent from my iPad The information in this e-mail (including attachments) may contain confidential information intended solely for the named recipient. Any unauthorized review, use, or distribution is prohibited, unless authorized by the sender. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately alert the sender by replying to this e-mail and then delete this message and its attachments from your system. Thank you. 2 Dusty Finke From: Charles Schroeder <cschroeder@northstarcapital.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:59 PM To: Dusty Finke Cc: Pamela Schroeder; Debra Peterson Subject: Re: Subject: PUD Concept Plan 2700-2900 Parkview Drive Corrected and Resent for submission at the meeting tonight. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 10, 2017, at 3:47 PM, Charles Schroeder <cschroeder@northstarcapital.com> wrote: > Dusty, > After further reflection, we do not believe that the public access to the lake/horse trail via outlet 3 is practical. There will be no parking options down there, which will mean incentive to park on Parkview or at Baker Golf and a walk down. Walking on Parkview is not safe, especially as golfers attempt to make tee times. > Access to the horse trail is by virtue of accommodation for periodic horse trips and the occasional School Lake resident walker. Encouraging wider use for the small section of the trail on the Marx property may result in posting the trail as private property on either side. The conservation easement that affects our property and others is designed to encourage wildlife migration and nesting habitat more than providing access to people, we believe. Again, the existing city ordinances provide a perfectly acceptable conservation solution to this portion of School Lake. Respectfully, Charlie and Pamela Schroeder > Sent from my iPhone » On Jan 9, 2017, at 10:31 AM, Dusty Finke <Dusty.Finke@ci.medina.mn.us> wrote: » Charlie, » Report is attached. We have not received any other comments that I know of at this point. » Thanks! » Dusty » Original Message » From: Charles Schroeder [mailto:cschroeder@northstarcapital.com] » Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 8:58 AM » To: Dusty Finke » Cc: Pamela Schroeder; Debra Peterson » Subject: Re: Subject: PUD Concept Plan 2700-2900 Parkview Drive 1 ADDISON & CYNTHIA PIPER 2905 Willowood Farm Rd. Hamel, MN 55340 763 478-9900 Cindy Cell 612 868-2190 Tad Cell 612 868-2189 Cindypiper46@gmail.com addisonpiper@mac.com January 12, 2017 City of Medina 1parKs and Trails Commission Via email Dear Commissioners, I am writing regarding the Trail Proposal You will be reviewing on the proposed Marx application to subdivide. In it there is reference to a trail along School Lee. While currently ParKs 4- Trails does not identify the trail as public, it is my hope that any reference in the Marx proposal would eliminate the word "public". Let me explain. I live on property which is on the current private trail. In talKing with mY neighbors, it has been brought to my attention that should the Marx subdivision approval include the word "public", they will close their trail access to all and everyone. And I share their concerns. The trail has existed for over 50 years as a route that has required individual permissions in allowing access. I and others wish to Keep it that way. We hope that Mr. Marx will provide a trail which will allow the neighbors to use the trail, but we understand that each new homeowner would have to give their personal permission to Keep the trail open. I am available to discuss ton this topic. I hope someone will call to discuss the matter. Most sincerely, Cindy 4- Tad Piper WSB 701 Xenia Avenue South I Suite 300 I Minneapolis, MN 55416 I (763) 541-480011 December 22, 2016 Mr. Dusty Finke Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: Marx PUD Concept — Engineering Review City Project No. LR-16-194 WSB Project No. 03433-170 Dear Mr. Finke: We have reviewed the Marx PUD Concept application and plans dated December 16, 2016. The applicant proposes to construct a six single family parcels. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina's general engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with regards to engineering and stormwater management matters. Site Plan & Civil 1. Provide design guidance to show that the proposed septic site(s) on Lot 4 can be constructed as shown due to the long distance from the building. 2. Provide drawing showing fire truck turning movements and access through site. Stormwater 3. Provide stormwater calculations showing compliance with the City's rate control, water quality, infiltration and freeboard requirements. 4. Provide appropriate documentation of compliance with WCA for any proposed wetland impacts. 5. The project will require a permit from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 6. Indicate existing high water levels and overflow routes of School Lake and the large wetland complexes on the plans in order to evaluate compliance with the freeboard requirement. 7. Development is proposed on what appears to be the overflow route for School Lake to the south, labeled Outlot A and I. Verify adequate freeboard is provided to future development and that the capacity of the EOF is not impacted. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions. Building a legacy — your legacy. Equal Opportunity Employer I wsbeng.como Marx PUD Concept — Engineering Review December 22, 2016 Page 2 Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Jim Stremel, P.E. City Engineer METRO WEST INSPECTION SERVICES, INC. Loren Kohnen, Pres. Metro West Inspection Services, Inc. Box 248 Loretto, MN 55357 November 17, 2016 To: Debra Peterson From: Loren Kohnen 12/13/16 Item: Marx P.U.D 2700-2900 Parkview Drive City of Medina (763) 479-1720 FAX (763) 479-3090 Mtrowst76 @aol. corn reviewed the septic design work done by Rusty Olson and the percolation testing. The soil testing and percolation tests confirms all lots have an area for a standard M.P.C.A compliant septic system. All septic areas must be protected by approved means, before any site work can begin. Respectfully, Loren Kohnen Building Official Certificate #589 MPCA Certificate #756 Box 248, Loretto, Minnesota 55357 HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA Mr. Dusty Finke, City Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 Dear Mr. Finke: December 21, 2016 Re: Planned Unit Development Review - Marx Property 2700 & 2900 Parkview Drive (County Road 201) Hennepin County Plat Review ID #3558 Minnesota Statutes 505.02, 505.03, and 462.358, Plats and Surveys, allow up to 30 days for county review of preliminary plats abutting county roads. The planned unit development (PUD) proposal for the Marx Properties was received by Hennepin County staff on December 13, 2016. The PUD proposes to subdivide two large parcels (2700 & 2900 Parkview Drive) into multiple outlots including 5 Single Family parcels, and several conservation lots. The Hennepin County Plat Review Committee discussed this proposal on December 20, 2016, and have made the following comments: Access - This PUD proposes to utilize two existing residential access points to County Road 201 to serve all of the proposed lots. This proposal is acceptable to county staff. Right -of -Way - In order to match a consistent 83 foot full right-of-way section adjacent to this property along the corridor, we are requesting a 17 foot dedication of right-of-way. This dedication would help allow for future roadway enhancements yet to be determined. Storm Water and Drainage - Please ensure storm water is captured internally onsite. The county storm water system will not take water from new drainage areas and will require proposed flow rates to be less than existing flow rates. Storm water and drainage questions can be directed to Drew McGovern at (612) 596-0208, or drew.mcgovern@hennepin.us Permits - All proposed construction within the county right-of-way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to driveway and street access, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Permit questions can be directed to Michael Olmstead at (612) 596-0336, or michaeLolmstead@hennepin.us Please contact Bob Byers at (612) 596-0354 or robertbyersPhennepin.us; or Jason Gottfried at (612) 596-0394 or jasongottfried@hennepin.us for any further discussion of these items. Sincerely, Jafnes N. Grube, P.E. County Highway Engineer JNG/jdg cc: Plat Review Committee Mark Larson, Hennepin County Survey Office Hennepin County Transportation Project Delivery Public Works Facility, 1600 Prairie Drive, Medina, MN 55430 hennepin.us Legend Step 1a-Identify Unbui|dab|oConoomation Step 1u Identify Buildable Conservation Priorities Step 3a-Align Streets/Drives qfa"1h-m�"r�nc - MEMORANDUM TO: Dusty Finke, Medina City Planner FR: Kent Williams, on behalf of Wallace and Bridget Marx DA: December 9, 2016 RE: Application for Approval of CD-PUD Concept Plan Wallace and Bridget Marx ("Applicants") respectfully request Approval of their Concept Plan for a Conservation Design - Planned Unit Development ("Application") at their property at 2700-2900 Parkview Drive. Following is a brief narrative describing the proposed CD-PUD and explaining how it meets the objectives of the Conservation Design District, Section 827.51 et seq. I. Project Narrative. A. General Summary. The Conservation Design - Planned Unit Development ("CD-PUD") District, Medina City Code §827. 51 et seq. (the "Conservation Design Ordinance") establishes a means for the permanent protection of ecologically valuable land that might otherwise be subject to future development. The Conservation Design Ordinance is intended to encourage landowners to protect the ecological value of their land and open spaces with permanent conservation easements. At the City's discretion, code provisions limiting density, setbacks, lot size, and other matters may be relaxed, depending on how well the project achieves the conservation objectives compared to conventional development, and the amount and quality of conservation area protected. See generally Medina City Code § 827.61. The property subject to this proposal is located on Parkview Drive, across from the Baker National Golf Course and Baker Regional Park, southwest of School Lake. The property consists of 89.75 acres of land, contained within three contiguous parcels of land owned by the Applicants. 41.58 acres are wetlands or under the high water mark for School Lake. Another 18.25 acres are on steep slopes or are otherwise unbuildable. This leaves only 29.09 buildable acres which, if developed conventionally, would yield a total of three lots under the "five contiguous acres of suitable soils" rule. The Applicants have lived on the subject property since 1998. The Applicants intend to continue to reside in their current home on the property. When they acquired the land, it was used for pig farming. Since then, the Applicants have restored much of the property to its natural state, have beautifully landscaped other areas, and have developed over ten acres into a private garden that has earned resounding international acclaim. Much of the buildable land, as well as the wetlands and other unbuildable land, are of significant ecological value. Earlier this year, Forester Mike Reinikainen and David Thill of the Hennepin County Natural Resources Department reported that the subject property has "two stands of interest: an 11-acre tamarack wetland complex and a 14-acre maple -basswood remnant." See Marx Woods Forest Analysis, filed herewith, at 1. Only a "handful" of similar tamarack wetlands remain in Hennepin County, and the (Big Woods) maple -basswood forest type "has been fragmented and is now underrepresented on the landscape, especially in the mature or old growth stages of development," such as exist on the subject property Id. These and numerous other 2 ecologically significant areas on the property are described in the Hennepin County interactive Natural Resources Map as being of "moderate" ecological quality. 1 Various species of animals populate and/or traverse the subject property, including whitetail deer, grey and red squirrels, groundhogs, opossums, rabbits, coyotes, foxes, minks, pheasants, wild turkeys, and migratory waterfowl such as ducks, geese, trumpeter swans, egrets, blue herons, and even sandhill cranes. Several animal trails lead to and from the northern section of the property that abuts School Lake, which is its own wildlife habitat. School Lake also provides attractive Opcn Spaces and viewsheds to and. from the northern section of the subject property. The Applicants propose to place approximately 70 acres2 of the subject property, including 11.47 acres of buildable land, into a permanent conservation easement. This represents 39.43 percent of the total buildable land on the property.3 The easement area would include 21.22 acres (out of a total of approximately 25 acres) of the tamarack swamp and Big Woods maple -basswood forest found significant by Hennepin County.4 The easement would also include large swaths of land to preserve wildlife access to School Lake. Because much of the buildable land would be put into the conservation easement, lot sizes would be reduced accordingly. To help alleviate the detrimental economic effect of committing nearly 40% of their limited buildable land to ' Due in part to the fragmented nature of Medina's remaining natural areas and historic land uses, most of the City's remaining natural areas highlighted in its Open Space Plan are classified as "moderate" ecological quality. 2 We have calculated the total amount of easement area as 69.61 acres; this may change as we refine the Concept Plan Site Map, based on feedback from the City s The percentage of buildable land going into conservation would be even higher if state wetland buffer regulations were applied, rather than those imposed by the City. a The remaining acreage of these conservation assets lies within a separate parcel that is not part of this Application. 3 conservation, the Applicants ask for a full density bonus of three additional lots, for a total of six lots on the subject property. B. The Concept Plan Meets the Objectives of the Conservation Design Ordinance Section 827.51 of the Medina City Code states that the primary objectives of the Conservation Design Ordinance are to: 1. Protect the ecological function of native hardwood forests, lakes, streams, and wetlands. 2. Protect moderate to high quality ecologically significant natural areas. 3. Protect opportunities to make ecological connections between parks and other protected lands and ecologically significant natural areas. 4. Protect important viewsheds including scenic road segments. 5. Create public and private trails for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources. 6. Create public and private Open Space for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources. See also Medina City Code § 827.59 Subd.3 (listing similar objectives to be considered in deciding whether and the extent to which to provide a density bonus). As a threshold matter, it is significant that the Marx property has been identified as a conservation priority in numerous plans and studies, including the following: 1. City of Medina Natural Resources Inventory - most of the property is identified as an Ecologically Significant Natural Area in Figure 11. 2. Medina Open Space Plan, which calls out this property and its natural areas as Priority Areas. 3. MN DNR Regionally Significant Terrestrial and Wetland Ecological Areas - this property is part of a large complex identified as "Regionally Significant" by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Along with Baker Park and areas to the immediate north, it is one of a few large complexes of such areas remaining in Hennepin County. 4. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Comprehensive Water Resources 4 Management Plan — the property is identified as part of a District Conservation Priority in Figure 19 (Key Conservation Areas) of the Long Lake Subwatershed Plan (which is part of an important conservation corridor extending to the Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Area). 5. Hennepin County Environmental Services - the property is part of a conceptual greenway corridor system that was proposed by Hennepin County in 2008. Against this backdrop, the proposed Concept Plan meets the objectives of the Conservation Design Ordinance. With respect to the first three objectives, as indicated above, numerous areas of the subject property have been found to be "ecologically significant" areas, and are identified as such by Hennepin County. See the interactive Hennepin County Natural Resources Map, which can be found at the following link: https://gis.hennepin.us/naturalresources/map/default.aspx. These ecologically significant areas include the majority of the tamarack swamp and Big Woods maple -basswood forest, which are "within a state and county -identified natural resource corridor." See Marx Woods Forest Analysis at 1. By putting the bulk of the Big Woods maple - basswood forest into a permanent conservation easement, the Concept Plan protects the ecological function of a remnant of a native hardwood forest with trees in excess of 150 years old, "a forest condition not easily replicated." See Marx Woods Forest Analysis at 2. The Concept Plan also prevents potential impacts on the tamarack wetlands (as well as the other wetlands on the property) from conventional development by future land owners who may attempt a development plan with wetland impacts that they seek to offset by purchasing wetland credits and/or undertaking a project -specific wetlands replacement somewhere else. And, preserving large swaths of land with existing wildlife trails to School Lake protects ecological connections between two "ecologically significant natural areas." 5 The last three objectives of the ordinance are also met by the Concept Plan. The orientation of the lots and relatively small lot sizes (including only one -acre each for lots 3 and 4) will help minimize the impacts on Open Spaces and viewsheds from School Lake. The lots are situated to take advantage of existing lakefront foliage that will help screen the houses from much of School Lake and the opposite shorelines. Moreover, residents will be able to enjoy picturesque views such as the "Nine Oaks" area (see Concept Plan Site Map Lot 3) and the grove of trees along Parkview Drive (shown on the Concept Plan Site Map as BC 3), both of which are within conservation easement areas. See the Concept Plan Site Map submitted herewith. In addition, the .Applicant's General Plan of Development and Land Stewardship Plan, which is to be submitted after Concept Plan approval, will establish horse and person trails through the Conservation Easement area that will enable School Lake residents and their guests, and occasionally groups such as the Long Lake Hounds Hunt, to access and enjoy viewsheds and Open Space resources such as the tamarack wetlands and School Lake. Proposed trails are indicated on the Concept Plan Site Map submitted herewith. C. The Applicants Followed the Appropriate Site Design Process. The Applicants followed Section 827.73 of the Medina City Code, which describes the "Site Design Process" to be followed and which is intended to influence the concept site plan: Step 1 — Identify Conservation Areas. The step requires identification of the "unbuildable areas" (shown in green on the Concept Plan Site Map) and the areas of the conservation area that are "buildable" (shown in yellow on the Concept Plan Site Map). 6 The remaining land is potentially buildable (shown in gray on the Concept Plan Site Map). Step 2 — Locate Housing Sites. Each of the proposed housing sites for this project is shown as a box with a large "X" on the Concept Plan Site Map. Step 3 — Align Streets and Trails. Streets and potential trails are shown on the Concept Plan Site Map. Step 4 — Lot Lines. Lot lines have been drawn on the Concept Plan Site Map. D. The Concept Plan Meets the Applicable General Performance Standards. Section 827.59 of the Medina City Code sets forth the general performance standards for a CD-P UD. The Concept Plan meets each of these standards. 1. Minimum Size of Subdivision. This Application involves 89.75 acres, which exceeds the 40-acre minimum for development. 2. Required Conservation Area. The Applicants propose to place 39.43% of the buildable land into a permanent conservation easement, which exceeds the 30% minimum for development. 3. Designating Conservation Area. The amount and location of the proposed conservation area is intended to maximize the ecological benefit from the project. The most ecologically -valuable areas are included in the conservation area, virtually all of the conservation area is contiguous, and the conservation area provides a wide corridor that runs broadly across the subject property, all the way to School Lake. As discussed above, the features significantly advance the primary and secondary conservation objectives to 7 be considered in determining an appropriate density bonus.5 See Medina City Code § 827.59 Subd.3 (listing the objectives to be considered in deciding whether and the extent to which to provide a density bonus). 4. Perimeter Setbacks. With one exception, all housing sites observe the requisite 50-foot perimeter setback from the exterior of the subdivision. The only exception is the northwest lot (Lot 1), which is configured to have a home footprint with a 35-foot setback. The reason we are requesting the smaller setback is to give the owner snore flexibility in optimizing the lake view while screening the lot from other homes on School Lake, and to provide more space between that footprint and the footprint for the lot immediately to the south (Lot 2). E. Density and Design Flexibility. The Conservation Design Ordinance allows the City to grant additional density, as an incentive, up to a maximum of 200% of the Base Density. The Base Density is determined by the standard that applies to the existing zoning designation for the subject property. In this instance, the property is zoned rural residential (RR), so each lot must have five acres of contiguous suitable soils to be developed conventionally. Using Hennepin County soil data, the Base Density for the subject property is three lots; 200% of this amount would be six lots. This Concept Plan is reasonable when compared to prior applications submitted by others, including the Applicants. Their first Concept Plan, submitted in 2011, included a fourth parcel of land to the south, proposed to donate 9.67 acres (29.3%) of the total buildable land, and requested a total of 10 lots, which exceeded the 200% maximum. The 5 As noted above, the objectives to be considered in deciding the density bonus are similar to, and track in order of priority, the objectives of the Conservation Design Ordinance as a whole. Compare Medina City Code § 827.51 with § 827.59 subd. 3. 8 principal concerns with the 2011 Concept Plan were the excess density/number of lots proposed; the failure to meet the 30% minimum of buildable land donated to the conservation area; a lack of connectivity between some conservation areas; and impacts in wooded areas caused by septic systems, roads, and home sites. The Applicants" second Concept Plan, submitted in 2012, requested a total of 7 lots and proposed to donate 10.11 acres (30.67%) of buildable land. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the 2012 Concept Plan. The Applicants withdrew their 2012 proposal, however, when they learned that they could not rezone the property to a CD-PUll until February 28, 2016 (the first date on which none of the subject property would be under Ag•-Preserve). The current proposal is a significant improvement over these earlier proposals, in that none of the land is currently under Ag Preserve, even fewer lots (6) are requested, significantly more buildable land is to be donated (nearly 35% more than what was originally proposed), the conservation easement areas now are contiguous, the conservation area now includes a broad wildlife corridor that leads to School Lake, the housing sites are oriented to better protect the viewsheds from School Lake, and the engineering issues from the prior applications have been addressed. Section 827.61 also allows for design flexibility. In addition to the density bonus and the reduced perimeter setback discussed above, the Applicants will likely request flexibility with respect to the regulations governing lot size, setbacks, upland buffers, and tree preservation regulations. Slightly relaxing these requirements will allow the housing sites to be oriented in the most desirable way, and will help preserve the integrity of the conservation easement design set forth in the Concept Plan Site Map. 9 In sum, I am aware of no other CD-PUD application that has offered natural resources of similar amount and quality, and given up such a large percentage of buildable land, in exchange for so few additional lots. The conservation benefits to be obtained easily justify the Applicants' request. F. Conservation Area Protection and Ownership. The Applicants propose that the conservation easement be held by a qualified entity as defined under Minnesota Statutes 84C.01, and that the underlying fee to the conservation area be held by an HOA or other person or entity acceptable to the easement holder. The Applicants are currently in discussions with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Hennepin County Environmental Services regarding these matters, and expect to have more information by the time of the presentation to the Planning Commission. The Applicants are also in discussions with the MCWD regarding approval of this project. The Applicants will keep the City informed of any material developments with respect to these matters. As for the substance of said protection, the Applicants intend to follow the dictates of Sections 827.63 and 827.65 of the Medina City Code. A preliminary Land Stewardship Plan will be submitted with the General Plan of Development, after approval of the Concept Plan by the City. The proposed fee owner(s) of the conservation easement area, and the holder(s) of the conservation easement, will be identified by that time, at the latest. II. General PUD Concept Plan Information. Following is the information required for this Application, pursuant to Medina City Code § 827.33: 10 (a) General Information. (1) Landowner's names and address and interest in the subject property: Wallace A. and Bridget A. Marx 2700 Parkview Drive Medina, MN 55340 Mr. and Mrs. Marx jointly own the subject property in fee simple absolute, as husband and wife. (2) Applicant's name and address, if different from landowner: (3) Not Applicable. The names and addresses of all professional consultants who have contributed to the development of the PUD being submitted, including attorney, land planner, engineer and surveyor: a. Kent Williams (attorney and contact person) Williams Law Firm 1632 Homestead Trail Long Lake, MN 55356 612-940-4452 b. Jim Lane (attorney) 125 Lake Street West Wayzata, MN 55391 c. Mark Gronberg (engineering and surveying) Gronberg & Associates, Inc. 445 North Willow Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 d. Rusty Olson (soils, percolation testing, septic system report) Rusty Olson Soil and Percolation testing 11841 Riverview Road NE Hanover, MN 55341 e. Brian Burgner (2010 wetland delineation report) Svoboda Ecological Resources 25580 Nelsine Drive Suite 100 Shorewood, MN 55331 f. Travis Fristed (2016 wetland delineation report) ISG 11 g• 7900 International Drive, Suite 550 Minneapolis, MN 55425 Mike Reinikainen & Dave Thill (natural resources assessment) Forester, Land & Water Unit Hennepin County Environment & Energy 701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55415 h. Wendy Walker (real estate and market valuation) Walker Appraisals 1221 Nicollet Mall Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55403 i. George Stickney (real estate and market valuation) CB Burnett Realty 201 Lake Street Unit 100 Wayzata, MN 55391 j• Michael Pressman (conservation consultant) Conservation Solutions 5670 Wedgewood Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 (4) Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the subject property to effectuate the proposed PUD including a statement of all legal, beneficial, tenancy and contractual elements held in or affecting the subject property and including an abstract, commitment for title insurance, or registered property abstract, and such other evidence as the City Attorney may require to show the status of title or control of the subject property. There are no legal, beneficial, tenancy and contractual elements held in or affecting the subject property, other than the fee interest of the applicants. An abstract of title, tax assessment, or other evidence of the Applicants' fee interest in the property satisfactory to the City, will be provided per the City's request. Present Status. (1) Address and legal description of the property: This property is composed of three separate parcels: 12 a. PID 16 118 23 32 0002 2700 Parkview Drive Medina, MN 55340 Legal description: Commencing at the NE corner of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, thence South to the SE corner thereof, thence West to the SW corner thereof, thence North to the SW corner of Priscilla's Addition, thence easterly along the southerly line of said Addition to the SE corner thereof, thence North to the NE corner thereof, thence East to the beginning, except road. Section 16, Township 118, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota. b. PID 16 118 23 310002 2702 Parkview Drive Medina, MN 55340 Legal description: The South 500 feet east of that part of the NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 lying West of the East 520 feet thereof. Section 16, Township 118, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota. c. PID 16 118 23 23 0005 2900 Parkview Drive Medina, MN 55340 Legal description: That part of the S 1/2 of the NW 1/4 lying south of the North 845 feet thereof, except the West 417.42 feet of the North 208.71 feet of the South 213.71 feet thereof; also that part of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 lying West of the East 520 feet thereof and North of the South 500 feet thereof, except road. Section 16, Township 118, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (2) Existing zoning classification and present use of the subject property and all lands within 1000 feet of the subject property: All three parcels are zoned rural residential (RR). Parcels (a) and (b) above are homesteaded, and are generally part of the grounds around Applicants' residence, with parcel (b) being used principally as a garden. Parcel (c) has been substantially restored to its native state since it was acquired by the Applicants in 1998; it was in Ag Preserve until February 28, 2016, and is now used mainly for hiking and bird - watching. See generally Marx Woods Forest Analysis submitted herewith. Lands within 1000 feet of the subject property include: 13 (3) a. Land to the north and northeast, which is part of School Lake, and is zoned rural residential ("RR). b. Land to the east, which is zoned agricultural, is owned by third parties, and is used as a residence and for horses. c. Land to the southeast, which is zoned rural residential ("RR"), is owned by third parties, and is used as a residence. d. Land to the south, which is zoned rural residential (RR), is owned by the Applicants, and is used as a guesthouse. e. Land to the southwest, which is zoned rural residential (RR), is owned by third parties, and used as a residence. f. Land to the west, which is zoned commercial, is owned by third parties, and is used as a golf course. g• Land to the northwest, which is zoned rural residential (RR), is owned by third parties, and used as a residence For additional information about lands located within 1000 feet of the subject property, see the Concept Plan Site Map provided herewith. A map depicting existing development of subject property and all land within 1,000 feet thereof and locations of existing streets, property lines, easements, water mains, storm, sanitary and septic sewer systems, with invert elevations on and within 100 feet of subject property. See the Concept Plan Site Map provided herewith. (c) A written statement generally describing the proposed PUD and market which it is intended to serve and the market demand. The statement is also to demonstrate the proposed PUD's relationship to Medina's Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed PUD is to be designed, arranged and operated in order to peitait the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable regulations of the City. In addition to the above narrative (Sections A-F, supra), the proposed PUD is intended to serve the market for single-family homes. The Applicants have commissioned property valuations and market analyses from two highly - qualified professionals in the local real estate market from Walker Appraisals and CB Burnett, both of whom conclude that while each of the smaller lots from this project would be saleable, they would not be worth as much as the larger lots from conventional development. Therefore, the 14 additional lots are needed to offset the economic loss from putting so much buildable land into the permanent conservation easement. Also, the proposed CD-PUD is consistent with Medina's 2010-30 Comprehensive Plan, which acknowledges the importance of environmental protections and specifically calls for the development of "natural resource preservation tools that will encourage and guide natural resource protection in developments in the community. See Comprehensive Plan at 7-4. Finally, nothing about the proposed CD-PUD will prevent any neighboring property from developing in accordance with the applicable regulations. The Applicants anticipate that protecting large areas of their land from further development will enhance the value of neighboring properties. (d) Site conditions. Graphic reproductions of the existing site conditions at a scale acceptable to the Zoning Administrator: See the Concept Plan Site Map provided herewith. (e) Schematic drawings of the proposed development concept including, but not limited to, the general location of major circulation elements, public and private open space, buildings, structures, and other land uses, and buffering and screening. (f) (g) See the Concept Plan Site Map provided herewith. A statement of the estimated total number of dwelling units or square feet of developed land use activities proposed for the PUD and a tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of land use expressed in acres and as a percent of the total project area: See the Marx Lot Summary submitted herewith. See also the Concept Plan Site Map provided herewith. When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time extending beyond a single construction season, a schedule for the development of such stages or units shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and completion date for each such stage or unit and the proportion of the total PUD public or common open space and structures/units to be provided or constructed during each such stage and the overall chronology of development to be followed from stage to stage. Once a preliminary plat has been approved and all necessary grading, roads, and other improvements have been made, the Applicants intend to sell the lots to third parties (subject to such easements and covenants imposed by this 15 PUD), for development into high end, single-family residences. Assuming necessary approvals are obtained over the winter, the Applicants intend to proceed with all necessary road improvements, grading, and other improvements in the summer of 2017, so that the lots are ready for construction by the fall of 2017. (h) When the proposed PUD includes provisions for public or private open space or service facilities, a statement describing the provision that is to be made for the care and maintenance of such open space or service facilities. Much of the buildable land, and virtually all of the unbuildable land, will be put into a Conservation Easement pursuant to Medina City Code § 827.51 et. seq. After the City has reviewed and commented on the initial Concept Plan, the Applicants shall provide a preliminary Land Stewardship Plan with their General Plan of Development, pursuant to Sections 827.15 and 827.65. General intents of any restrictive covenants that are to be recorded with respect to property included in the proposed PUD. The Conservation Area proposed in this Concept Plan shall be restricted from further development by a Conservation Easement running with the land. This easement will be duly recorded and will include the information required by Section 827.63 of the Medina City Code. Additional easements and/or covenants made be needed for ingress and egress to one or more lots on the property, or for one or more lots to obtain access to School Lake. (i) The usual easements and covenants needed to provide utility services will also be required. (j) Schematic utilities plans indicating placement of water, wells, sanitary sewer, septic and storm sewers. See the Concept Plan Site Map provided herewith. (k) Mailing labels of current owners of the property necessary for public hearing, obtained from Hennepin County property records. Mailing labels are provided herewith. (1) [Not applicable] (m) [Not applicable] 16 Dusty, I look forward to working with you on this project. I strongly believe that under this Concept Plan, the property can be developed in a manner that will serve as a conservation legacy for future generations. Please call me at 612-940-4452 or email me at williamslawmn@gmail.com when you are ready to discuss this Application. Best regards, Kent Williams 17 Marx Woods Forest Analysis Authors: Mike Reinikainen and Dave Thill Introduction A small proportion of the original Maple -Basswood forest cover -type remains in Hennepin County, and some of the best opportunities to preserve remnants of this forest type from future development exist in western portions of the county. The importance of preserving these stands of trees lies in the fact they offer ecological, economic, and social benefits to Hennepin county citizens that are nearly impossible to replace without significant input of resources and time. Benefits of mature stands of trees include, carbon and nutrient storage, oxygen production, stormwater management and erosion control, recreational opportunities, and critical habitat for native flora and fauna. Hennepin County has identified 25.23 acres of the 37.42 acre parcel (PID# 1611823320002) owned by Wally Marx at 2700 Parkview Drive, Medina, MN as being ecologically significant and within a state and county -identified natural resource corridor. The parcel harbors three stands of interest; an 11 acre tamarack wetland complex, a nearly pure one acre silver maple stand, and a 14 acre maple -basswood remnant. The tamarack wetland complex has previously been identified as ecologically significant as we are at the southern edge of that species range and there are only a handful of similar native plant communities in the county. The silver maple stand is quite rare locally and unique given the topography and hydrology of the site. The 14 acre Maple -basswood stand, hereafter referred to as Marx Woods, is classified as a southern rnesic sugar maple — basswood — (bitternut hickory) forest (MHs39a) using the MN DNR Ecological Classification System for Native Plant Communities (MNDNR 2003). This was a once common and extensive forest -type that has been Fragmented and is now underrepresented on the landscape, especially in the mature or old -growth stages of development. Methods Hennepin County Forestry and Natural Resource Staff collected data from Marx Woods on May 24th 2016 to determine the quality and growth stage of the forest. Data were collected from four prism plots systematically installed ever 132 feet from a random start. Within the prism plot, live and dead tree size and species were collected to estimate tree density and basal area. At three of the plots downed deadwood data were collected using the line -intercept method and converted to a volume per acre value. Species presence and cover was estimated at all four plots. Data were summarized in the office and compared to available benchmarks from regional forest research literature. Findings Hale et al. (1999) examined old -growth and mature Maple -Basswood forests from around Minnesota to better describe what elements of these forests set them apart from disturbed and early successional Maple -Basswood forests. Examination of 21 regional Maple -Basswood forests, including stands at nearby Baker Park Reserve and Wolsfeld Woods SNA, revealed that mature and old -growth maple - basswood stands have a significantly higher area occupied by trees (or live tree basal area) and a higher level of accumulated deadwood (downed as well as standing dead or "snags"). Table 1 is a comparison for key compositional and structural forest traits identified by Hale et al. as indicative of mature and old -growth forests of this type in the region. We have included Marx Woods for comparison. The data indicates that on 3 out of 6 measures of forest composition and structure, Marx woods compares really well with the old -growth stands from the Hale et al. (1999) study. Floral diversity approximates mature and old -growth conditions. Live tree basal area, representing the area occupied by trees, is significantly greater than mature and old -growth forests. Similarly, the proportion of large diameter trees (>24" diameter at breast height, or DBH) is substantially greater than that observed in regional old growth. These measures all indicate that this stand is indeed unique, and taken with the fact the property lies within an ecological corridor identified by the county, this stand is a strong candidate for preservation. Further, given bark and growth form characteristics of the large diameter trees present, we would estimate the oldest trees in this stand to be in excess of 150 years old; this is a forest condition not easily replicated. Table 1. Comparison of forest measures used to distinguish mature and old -growth forest stages including field collected data from Marx Woods. Those characteristics at Marx Woods that are similar to Measure Species diversity (evenness) Standing deadwood (snags) Downed deadwood (logs) Coarse deadwood (snags+logs) Live tree basal area Proportion of trees > 30' DBH Density of trees Variable Shannon's H' index cu. ft. per acre cu. ft. per acre cu. ft. per acre sq. ft. per acre percent trees per acre Stand -type Mature Old -growth Marx Woods 0.79 0.87 0.83 114 386 62 572 786 64 700 1258 126 109 135 160 3 6 15 144 137 100 mature and old -growth forests are in bold. Recommendations This stand is no doubt unique and worth protecting, but it is not untrammeled and is in need of some forest management and restoration. Table 1 reveals that this stand is lacking in deadwood, a hallmark and the strongest predictor of mature and old -growth forest. Deadwood is important for floral and faunal habitat as well as water retention and nutrient cycling. Large diameter stumps were located on site, indicating trees were harvested in the past. Wally Marx noted that removals did take place to reduce fire risk following a blow -down event in the late 1990s. Deadwood is now significantly lacking in this stand. Figure 1 further demonstrates how Marx Woods differs from regional mature and old -growth forest in that it lacks trees in the middle diameter classes (i.e. 12-19.9") when compared to regional mature or old -growth. Grazing likely occurred on site as floral diversity is lower than expected. Only 21 native ground layer plants were identified on the site, and those plants were present in rather low abundance or cover. Potential grazing in the early- to mid -twentieth century may have halted forest development as ground cover and hardwoods seedlings were consumed by livestock. The lack of floral diversity could also be explained by the presence of invasive earthworms. This, however, would not explain the lack of trees in mid -diameter classes. Regardless of the stand history, Marx Woods displays important characteristics of mature and old - growth forests that takes hundreds of growing seasons to reproduce. This stand is worth preserving for the established canopy, the high number of large trees present per acre, the floral diversity that does exist, and the manageable number and cover of invasive species present. If preservation is achieved on this property, steps should be taken to maintain and enhance deadwood pools, control buckthorn and garlic mustard, and increase floral diversity in both richness (i.e., number of species) and abundance (i.e., cover) in the ground cover layer. 5CP/ 45% tri v 40% m 35% 0 30•i O 25% c O 20% O 15% a 2 1o°0 a. 5°0 0% 1- A -7.9 II 8-11.9 12-15.9 �1 16-19.9 20-2' Diameter at breast height (4.5 ft. in inches) Figure 1. Diameter distribution comparing forest structure of Marx Woods to average regional mature and old -growth maple basswood forests. Table 2. Species observed with tree species in bold. Species observed Avens Bitternut hickory Black cherry Buckthorn Bur oak Cleavers Common nightshade Cutleaf toothwort Dutchmen's breeches False rue anemone Garlic mustard Green ash Green briar Hackberry Ironwood Jack in the pulpit Large white trillium Moonseed Nannyberry Penn sedge Prickly gooseberry Wild leek Red cedar Red oak Solomon's seal Spring beauty Sugar maple Tartarian honeysuckle Virginia creeper Virginia waterleaf White oak Wild geranium Wild grape References Hale, C.M., J. Pastor, and K.A. Rusterholz. 1999. Comparison of structural and compositional characteristics in old -growth and mature, managed hardwood forests of Minnesota, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 29: 1479-1489. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Field guide to the native plant communities of Minnesota: the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, MNDNR, St. Paul, Minnesota. 6 LOT PLAN WALLY MARX LOT SUMMARY DECEMBER 8, 2016 LOT AREA (ACRES) BUILDABLE(ACRES) Lot 1 4.44 2.98 Lot 2 6.66 3.15 Lot 3 7.32 2.36 Lot 4 8.02 3.18 Lot 5 7.05 5.07 Lot 6 3.52 1.71 Outlot A 1.90 1.19 Outlot B 1.49 0.58 Outlot C 14.54 0.67 Outlot D 2.81 1.00 Outlot E 21.28 1.49 Outlot F 1.16 1.16 Outiot G 0.39 0.35 Outlot H 5.31 1.64 Outlot I 2.73 1.34 Oudot J 1.13 0.61 Total 89.75+- Ac 28.48+-Ac 30% OF 28.48 acres = 8.54 acres required BUILDABLE AREA IN CONSERVATION AREAS IN OUTLOTS BC 1 0A6 BC 2 0.02 BC 3 0.39 BC 4 0.25 BC 5 0.37 BC 6 2.87 BC 7 1.99 BC 8 0.58 BC 9 0.28 BC 10 0.33 BC 11 0.05 BC 12 0.25 BC 13 0.63 BC 14 0.02 BC 15 0.10 BC 16 0.08 BC 17 0.21 Total 8.88+- Ac. BUILDABLE AREA IN CONSERVATION AREAS IN LOTS BC 18 0.11 BC 19 0.80 BC 20 0.63 BC 21 0.49 BC 22 0.18 BC 23 0.28 BC 24 0.10 Total 2.59+- Ac. (2.59+8.88)/28.48 = 40.27% zRONBERG & ASSOCIATES. INC. 445 N. WILLOW DR LONG LAKE, MN 55356 8Lz-9 � 0 D D z Q D z 0 r, z m 0 0 D m b38Wf1N 3SN30I1 NNIW —ZZ> Z00w 00> m C ' D 33 <), o rn D -o-< 3m r_ 0 m m 33 w Imo mo lo Imo D0-< 0mwm mom =0� D m r C - m cn -0 >- O< m 2 (n Om— TI m 0 �z m m co m 33 m D Z cn -71 D O z 0 m 0 MI o W II O — D Q nl W O D 1H V! m TT .p0 r OZm Z• z m—z r to m NOxl - r c; 3 v Z 1 < v " m c r< O m Z 0 m O xi D rSi) — );• cow z N "v M � E01) co) z �ijimZ � al • III 0 SEoddne -IVN011laab aN`d 8 aN`d-118M M H 0 866 M0188 8>1`d-1 -100HOS SV3EIV NOLLVAI:18SN00 -IVNO111aab 1N3IN3S`d8 NOLLVAEI3SNO0 NI b31:1d 8�8da�ln8 S10-I NI1-111M V3EIV 3-ovai no %8l<�dO1S 311S 0I1d3S I— J L08 S 3-Ie1SSOd I 311S 3SnOH TIOISSOd M S .p CO 0, X \ 1-0'0z9 M „0 L,60.68 N d dNdl13M ��lno �] ONt/113M s io-an 0 da00ld 8Z-81 L-9 • aNnold a Nd-118M 3adW-NdW NIVida00 Sa 8 aN`d-113M / L MN 'Ea S 30 HIEION 30 3N1-1 H1nOS L6' 189z 1Itl130 Hl!!ON XEIVIN 33V11VM NVid 1c130N00 3 „93,911068 9t'69 2 3 „£9,80068 S 3 io-ano 3AIEIG JNILSIX3 N3Q ±7030b1--/OS V 73W Vol GAIV S 7 7� b'HO de*(5:,-)71 9l L l l Ntfld 11V130 HlaON/Xat/W 8LZ91 0t'L� M Ho bA 17'L 147 3 „0 L,60.68 S 7 Project Narrative Staging Plan Request — Brindle Path City Council Meeting 2/7/2017 The Excelsior Group proposes Brindle Path, an approximately 40-acre Single Family Low Density Residential subdivision seeking to create a community aligned with the vision and goals for the City of Medina. The thoughtful development creates a well -designed community that is mindful of natural resources and takes advantage of neighboring development, limiting the need for expansion of infrastructure. Location The Site is located on Chippewa Road, West of Mohawk Drive. The project is directly west of the approved Wealshire memory care facility, which is served by city utility services. It also directly north of Polaris Headquarters, which are also served by city utility services. General Description of Request The Excelsior Group is requesting City Council to consider moving these properties up in the Staging Plan from 2021-25 to 2018-19 Staging Plan. The second concept plan proposed to Planning and Council in November 2016 takes into account the City's and Planning Commission's comments and concerns from the previous submittal. More specifically following the last review, the concept plan follows the R-1 Zoning with minimum lot widths of 90 feet and minimum lot areas of 11,000 square feet. Housing Following the guided Low Density Residential and R-1 Zoning district, the plan proposes all 61 lots meeting the requirements of this zoning district. This includes meeting the 11,000 square foot minimum lots size, 90-foot minimum lot width, 100-foot minimum lot depth, and all setback requirements. The developer plans to implement and maintain and Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to oversee and enforce high quality of design and materials. Some critical factors for the ARC will be varying types of home design throughout the community, the use of quality materials including brick and stone, as well as the implementation sustainable practices including high energy efficient, and environmentally responsible construction materials. Furthermore, there is a unique opportunity for The City of Medina to create a live/work environment to be created with Polaris headquarters to the South and the proposed memory care facility to the East. Streets, Sidewalks, 8& Landscaping There is one access point proposed off of Chippewa Road, where the 2212 Chippewa Driveway currently is. This concept proposes one potential access point to the neighboring property to West. Other than the one connection to the west, the neighborhood would be a looped road system entering and exiting on Chippewa Road. The neighborhood would include a trail system, which could potentially connect to the Wealshire project to the East. Sewer & Water After further review from Sathre-Bergquist, there does not appear to be an issue with existing sewer connectivity or capacity. The neighboring development is served by city utility services; thus utilities are in close proximity to the project. Additionally, there is no lift station needed to service this project. Agenda Item # 8A MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: January 31, 2017 MEETING: February 7, 2017 City Council Meeting SUBJ: 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Background The City Council reviewed the draft 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan update at the January 3 meeting. Jeff Pederson addressed the Council related to concern that property owned by his family east of Mohawk Drive and north of Chippewa Road was guided as rural residential in the draft. The property is guided low density residential in the current Plan, and was similarly guided in earlier drafts of the Plan update. Staff was directed to summarize the process with Mr. Pederson and to also summarize it for the Council. The information is below. In the interim, the Pederson family submitted a letter stating that they respect the process and requesting that their property be given fair consideration in future planning discussions by the City based on certain characteristics that they describe. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft update and unanimously recommended approval at their December 13 meeting. Staff has made a number of technical changes to the update since the January 3 meeting. There were a number of language changes which were suggested by City Council members. Staff also added some technical information which is required by the Metropolitan Council, but which does not have policy implications. If anyone would like to see a red -line version of the changes from January 3, please contact staff and we will email. As a reminder, the City technically has until the end of 2018 to submit its Comprehensive Plan update to the Metropolitan Council. The City has, to date, made it a goal to submit early. However, that means we certainly have time to continue working on the draft if the Council wishes to do so. Before submitting the Plan update to the Metropolitan Council for formal review, the City is required to route to affected jurisdictions for their review and comment. These jurisdictions include school districts, neighboring cities, watershed districts, Hennepin County, and various state agencies, which have up to 6 months to provide comments. WSB is still working to complete the infrastructure plans (sewer, water, and surface water) to be consistent with the draft Plan. These drafts also need to be complete prior to sending the Plan for jurisdictional review. Staff intends to present these at the February 21 meeting. 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan Page 1 of 2 February 7, 2017 City Council Meeting Summary of Changes to Future Land Use Plan in Mohawk/Chippewa Area Existing Comprehensive Plan Area largely identified as Low Density Residential, within the 2021-2026 staging period. Area was amended from 2016-2020 staging period in the Comprehensive Plan staging plan amendment of 2014/2015. February 2016 Draft Update Entire area north of Chippewa Road between Willow and Arrowhead was originally contemplated to be changed to rural residential. March 2016 Draft Update In order to reduce densities at Tamarack/Highway 55, approximately 50 acres east of Willow Drive around Cates Ranch Drive changed to Low Density Residential. This version was presented to Community Meetings in May. In the first draft of the Staging Plan in June, this property was included in the staging 2035 staging period. August 2016 Draft Update During discussions at the concurrent Planning Commission and City Council meeting, a plurality of people present requested that the property east of Mohawk be changed to low density residential, and the property near Willow be changed to Rural Residential. The property was included in the 2025 staging period. This draft plan was presented at the open houses in September -October 2016. November 2016 Draft Update Following feedback at the Open Houses, the Steering Committee requested that the property east of Mohawk and north of future Chippewa Road be changed to rural residential, and the property west of the Wealshire project (contained within the Excelsior Group concept) be changed to rural residential. There was no discussion related to staging, so the property was placed in the 2025 staging period. This version of the plan was presented for Public Hearing at the Planning Commission and is currently presented to the Council. City Council Review Following review of the Plan, the City Council can direct staff to make any desired changes. Staff intends to present the infrastructure chapters to the Council on February 21, after which the Council can direct staff to route the Update to affected jurisdictions for their review and comment. Attachments 1. Additional letters Received since 1/3/2017 meeting a. Pederson letter (1/10/2017) b. Excelsior Group letter (1/31/2017) 2. DRAFT 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan Page 2 of 2 February 7, 2017 City Council Meeting January 10, 2017 To the Medina Planning Commission, Thank you Steering Committee, Planning Commission, City Council and City staff for all the work you have done on the 2040 comprehensive plan. The final draft is well done and well written. That being said, the reason we are addressing you today is that the property along the east side of Mohawk Drive north of Highway 55, seems to have been zoned rural residential for the foreseeable future. This is despite the fact that during the stages of approval for the Wealshire Memory Care facility, our property was zoned as low density residential. Only after that property, located just west across the street from ours, was approved and construction had begun, did the land east of Mohawk Drive switch back to rural residential. It is difficult for us to imagine how looking at a large concrete parking structure with cars parked next to a large commercial building with no berm receiving visitors and patients nearly 365 days per year, could be considered rural residential. I did speak to the Steering Committee about this same issue and thought it was agreed low density was a better and more practical fit. The City Council voted to keep low density on the east side of Mohawk Drive. However, not long thereafter, we regretfully missed the correspondence that informed us that a property, 2 properties west of ours and owned by a bank, was now being zoned low density and the respective property, east of Mohawk Drive was going to revert back to rural residential in the comprehensive plan. Medina's sewer trunk line has been extended by developers from east to west and the property east of Mohawk Drive is now clearly being leap frogged over in a form of spot zoning. We believe this to be unfair, inconsistent and not within the realm of standard zoning practices in our city or others like ours. That being said, we understand that the current Steering Committee has made their final decision at this juncture and respect that. However, it does not make it any easier to accept what seems to be a situation where a bank's property has been given zoning priority over a family who has been paying taxes on this land for over 50 years. Thus we'd like to make this letter of public record and ask that in the future, should an opportunity arise on our property east of Mohawk Drive, it be given fair consideration for a zone change given the unique nature of circumstances described above. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, The Pederson Family Project Narrative Staging Plan Request — Brindle Path City Council Meeting 2/7/2017 The Excelsior Group proposes Brindle Path, an approximately 40-acre Single Family Low Density Residential subdivision seeking to create a community aligned with the vision and goals for the City of Medina. The thoughtful development creates a well -designed community that is mindful of natural resources and takes advantage of neighboring development, limiting the need for expansion of infrastructure. Location The Site is located on Chippewa Road, West of Mohawk Drive. The project is directly west of the approved Wealshire memory care facility, which is served by city utility services. It also directly north of Polaris Headquarters, which are also served by city utility services. General Description of Request The Excelsior Group is requesting City Council to consider moving these properties up in the Staging Plan from 2021-25 to 2018-19 Staging Plan. The second concept plan proposed to Planning and Council in November 2016 takes into account the City's and Planning Commission's comments and concerns from the previous submittal. More specifically following the last review, the concept plan follows the R-1 Zoning with minimum lot widths of 90 feet and minimum lot areas of 11,000 square feet. Housing Following the guided Low Density Residential and R-1 Zoning district, the plan proposes all 61 lots meeting the requirements of this zoning district. This includes meeting the 11,000 square foot minimum lots size, 90-foot minimum lot width, 100-foot minimum lot depth, and all setback requirements. The developer plans to implement and maintain and Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to oversee and enforce high quality of design and materials. Some critical factors for the ARC will be varying types of home design throughout the community, the use of quality materials including brick and stone, as well as the implementation sustainable practices including high energy efficient, and environmentally responsible construction materials. Furthermore, there is a unique opportunity for The City of Medina to create a live/work environment to be created with Polaris headquarters to the South and the proposed memory care facility to the East. Streets, Sidewalks, 8& Landscaping There is one access point proposed off of Chippewa Road, where the 2212 Chippewa Driveway currently is. This concept proposes one potential access point to the neighboring property to West. Other than the one connection to the west, the neighborhood would be a looped road system entering and exiting on Chippewa Road. The neighborhood would include a trail system, which could potentially connect to the Wealshire project to the East. Sewer & Water After further review from Sathre-Bergquist, there does not appear to be an issue with existing sewer connectivity or capacity. The neighboring development is served by city utility services; thus utilities are in close proximity to the project. Additionally, there is no lift station needed to service this project. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1. Introduction Purpose of a Comprehensive Plan 1-1 Plan Scope 1-1 Planning Period 1-2 Regional Setting 1-2 Metropolitan Council's ThriveMSP2040 and System Statements 1-2 Planning and Public Participation Process 1-3 Changes since the 2000 Comprehensive Plan Update 1-3 Outline of Comprehensive Plan 1-4 Maps 1-1 Metropolitan Council Community Designations 2. Community Vision, Goals and Strategies Creating Vision and Goal 2-1 Community Vision 2-2 Community Goals 2-2 3. Community Background Introduction 3-1 Population and Household Trends 3-2 Residential Development Activity 3-3 Economic Overview 3-3 Demographics 3-7 Factors Influencing Development 3-12 Maps 3-1 2006 Tax Base 3-2 Wetland Locations and Classification 3-3 Floodplains 3-4 Watershed District Boundaries 3-5 Soils and Topography Map 3-6 School District Boundaries Table of Contents DRAFT - February 7, 2017 c'T" °, MEDINA -i- 4. Housing and Neighborhoods Introduction 4-1 Housing Inventory 4-1 Housing Needs 4-4 Housing Objectives 4-4 Affordable Housing Plan 4-5 5. Land Use and Growth Introduction 5-1 2010 Existing Land Uses 5-1 Natural Features and Areas 5-3 Solar Access Protection 5-3 Historic Preservation 5-4 Future General Land Use Policy Direction and Principles 5-4 The Guide Plan 5-6 Future Land Use Designations 5-6 Land Use Policies by Area 5-9 Rural Designations 5-9 Urban Service Designations 5-11 Residential Uses 5-11 Uptown Hamel 5-13 Commercial Uses 5-14 Business Uses 5-15 Staging Plan 5-16 Maps 5-1 Existing Land Use 5-2 Future Land Use (Guide Plan) 5-3 Growth and Development Plan 5-4 Staging and Growth Plan 6. Parks, Trails and Open Space Introduction 6-1 Objectives 6-1 Metropolitan Council's Parks, Trails and Open Space System 6-2 Medina's Existing System 6-3 Medina's Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan 6-7 Maps 6-1 Parks and Trail Plan Table of Contents DRAFT - February 7, 2017 C. ti T V 9 t MEDINA 7. Implementation Implementation Tools 7-1 Zoning Regulations and Zoning Map 7-1 Infrastructure Planning and Capital Improvement Plan 7-2 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 7-5 Maps 7-1 Medina Zoning Map 8. Sewer Plan 9. Water Supply and Distribution Plan 10. Transportation Plan 11. Surface Water Management Plan Table of Contents DRAFT - February 7, 2017 c. T " ° , MEDINA -- (THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) Table of Contents DRAFT - February 7, 2017 C. ti T V 9 t MEDINA -iv- Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION Purpose of a Comprehensive Plan The 2040 Comprehensive Plan establishes Medina's vision as a community and sets goals and objectives which guide future decisions and policies. The Plan guides future growth and development within the City, informs investments in City infrastructure and services such as natural resources, parks/recreation, transportation, and water resources. The Plan reflects the wishes of its residents and sets the City's relationship within the context of its region. This chapter describes the purpose of the Plan, introduces how the Plan is organized and provides contextual background for the Plan. The Plan serves the following constituencies and provides: A. Residents of Medina - opportunity to guide the future of the City, expectation of future land use changes which are anticipated, and protection from: (1) indiscriminate development; (2) exploitation of resources; and (3) the consequences of unplanned public services. B. City Council, Advisory Groups, and Staff - guidelines for making land use and development decisions and capital investments. C. Landowners and Developers - guidelines for use, density, transportation, and public services. D. Metropolitan Planning and Implementation Agencies - projections of anticipated population, traffic, land use, and sewer requirements. E. Watershed Districts, the MN Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers - assurance that the natural functions of wetland and other ecologically significant resources will be protected. F. Other Public Agencies - (state, county, school districts, and neighboring communities) awareness of plans that may affect their decisions and assurance that local policies will remain relatively constant over a period of years. Plan Scope The 2040 Comprehensive Plan builds upon the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the identified community goals and aspirations for the future. The Plan identifies goals, strategies, policies and standards for growth and development that preserve the rural character, open spaces and natural resources that make Medina a unique place. The Plan sets forth the intentions of allowing reasonable commercial development along the Trunk Highway 55 corridor, providing opportunities for projected residential growth of various housing types in locations throughout the community. Chapter 1 - Introduction DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G T Y P A MEDINA Page 1- 1 Planning Period Medina's Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2009. Municipalities are required by State Statute to update their Comprehensive Plan every 10 years. This Comprehensive Plan is designed to guide the City's land use planning and growth through 2040. Recognizing the inevitability of change, the Plan is intended to remain flexible to unanticipated events and opportunities and to reduce adjustments and amendments during the planning period. Regional Setting Medina is considered a third -ring suburb of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (TCMA) and is located approximately 20 miles west of Minneapolis, immediately west of the City of Plymouth. The City of Loretto is a separate local governmental unit located within Medina's borders, is not governed by Medina, but does cost -share police and fire services with Medina. The City of Corcoran forms Medina's northern boundary, the City of Orono is located to the south and the cities of Independence and Maple Plain lie to its west. Metropolitan Council's ThriveMSP2040 and System Statements Medina is part of the growing metropolitan area and participates in providing and utilizing metropolitan systems such as wastewater handling and treatment, transportation, airports, and parks. The Metropolitan Council has the responsibility to monitor and coordinate planning of these systems. As metropolitan communities grow and develop, these systems are constantly evaluated by the Metropolitan Council to determine their regional impact. ThriveMSP2040 and the 2040 Systems Statements were created by the Metropolitan Council under the authority of Minnesota Statutes, section 473.145. This document serves as a guide to ensure that costly regional services and infrastructure are provided efficiently and that development and growth within the metropolitan area occurs in an orderly and coordinated manner. The Metropolitan Council designates different strategies for communities based on the types of land use changes that are expected. These variations are reflected in "Community Designations' that are illustrated on the Community Designation Map (Map 1-1). This plan designates the northeast portion of Medina as "Emerging Suburban Edge" and the vast majority of the remainder of the City as a "Diversified Rural." ThriveMSP2040 describe these Community Designations as follows: • Emerging Suburban Edge communities include cities, townships and portions of both that are in the early stages of transitioning into urbanized levels of development. Emerging Suburban Edge communities are expected to plan for forecasted population and household growth at average densities of at least 3-5 units per acre for new development and redevelopment. In addition, Emerging Suburban Edge communities are expected to target opportunities for more intensive development near regional transit investments at densities and in a manner articulated in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. • Diversified Rural communities are home to a variety of farm and nonfarm land uses Chapter 1 - Introduction DRAFT - February 7, 2017 MEDINA Page 1- 2 including very large -lot residential, clustered housing, hobby farms and agricultural uses. Diversified Rural communities are expected to plan for growth not to exceed forecasts and in patterns that do not exceed 4 units per 40 acres. In addition, Diversified Rural communities are expected to manage land uses to prevent the premature demand for extension of urban services, and so that existing service levels will meet service needs. Planning and Public Participation Process The City conducted an extension process for residents, business owners and other interested parties to help guide the Comprehensive Plan from September 2015 through December 2016. This included eight community meetings, a business forum, and an online forum. In addition, the City Council and Planning Commission discussed the various aspects of the Plan at three concurrent meetings, a Steering Committee was appointed and discussed at a series of thirteen meetings, and the Planning Commission held a formal Public Hearing on December 13, 2016. Changes since the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Update Below is a list of significant changes from Medina's 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan: • The City experienced substantial residential growth during the approximately six years since adoption of the 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan. There were 446 new homes constructed within the City, an increase of over 20% in just six years. Communities adjacent to and further north and west of Medina also experienced substantial growth over this period, and the collective growth resulted in substantial concerns over the capacity of local school districts and regional transportation networks to support the growth. • While substantial residential growth occurred over the past six years, the Metropolitan Council has projected that future population growth will slow within Medina. Population and household growth within Medina is projected to be 40-50% lower than forecast a decade ago. • To maintain consistency with Metropolitan Council population projections and also to further the objectives of protecting natural resources and preserving open space and rural character, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan reduces property planned for residential development when compared to the 2010-2030 Plan. • Opportunities for new commercial, office, and business development continue to be provided near Uptown Hamel and along the Highway 55 corridor. Some property previously planned for residential development is now planned for business development. Chapter 1 - Introduction DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G T v P A MEDINA Page 1-3 Outline of Comprehensive Plan Vision and Community Goals The Vision and Community Goals chapter describes the City's goals and aspirations for the future. Maintaining open space, preserving rural vistas and protecting natural resources are consistently raised as strong interest of residents in the community and one of the primary contributors to the quality of life in Medina. Community Background The Community Background chapter provides an inventory of existing conditions on demographics, employment and other facts that influence the future land use planning. This section includes reference to natural areas and open spaces that affect future development in the community. The City recognizes that once these resources are depleted it is difficult, if not impossible, to replace them. The natural areas and open spaces are high priorities in all plan chapters presented in this document. Housing and Neighborhoods This chapter describes the existing housing stock of the City and establishes objectives for residential development and redevelopment within the community. The housing and neighborhood section supports the need to diversify the housing types and styles throughout the community. The data demonstrates that the majority of housing development has been focused on larger, single-family residential homes. The City has structured the Future Land Use Plan and the goals and strategies to support more diverse housing. Land Use and Staging The Land Use and Growth chapter describes the future development and land use patterns anticipated in the community. The chapter starts with an existing land use inventory to quantify existing types of development that will influence future growth. The Future Land Use Plan (used interchangeably with Guide Plan) is based on the Existing Land Use inventory. The Guide Plan shows that the vast majority of the land within the City will remain rural. The Guide Plan demonstrates a desire by the community and city officials to grow at a sustainable pace allowing for efficient expansion of infrastructure services while also creating development which is compatible with adjacent uses and not concentrating development within a geographical area during a particular timeframe. Chapter 1 - Introduction DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G Y Y O M MEDINA. Page 1- 4 Parks, Trails and Open Space This chapter builds upon the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and was updated to reflect new trails or parks in the community since the last planning process. The chapter plans future parks to serve planned residential growth in the City and also substantial expansion of the trail system. The parks, trails, and open space plan also discusses existing regional parks and natural areas such as Baker Park Reserve and Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Area (SNA) which offer significant recreational opportunities in the City. Implementation The implementation chapter is critical to the overall success of the Comprehensive Plan and includes reference to the capital improvement plans associated with water and wastewater. This section also includes a discussion of how the community intends to update its official controls, and which tools the community would like to explore further to help implement the goals and aspirations identified in the Plan. Infrastructure: Transportation, Sewer, Water, and Surface Water Plans The infrastructure plans include Transportation, Surface Water, and Water and Sewer Plans for the community. These studies were completed by the City's Engineer and are appended to this document in their entirety. These reports support the land use and growth decisions in the community, describe necessary capital investments, and provide a basis for establishing relevant policies and fees to support the expansion of the systems which are necessitated by new development. Chapter 1 - Introduction DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G T v P A MEDINA Page 1-5 (THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) Chapter 1 - Introduction DRAFT - February 7, 2017 MEDINA Page 1- 6 Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION Purpose of a Comprehensive Plan The 2040 Comprehensive Plan establishes Medina's vision as a community and sets goals and objectives which guide future decisions and policies. The Plan guides future growth and development within the City, informs investments in City infrastructure and services such as natural resources, parks/recreation, transportation, and water resources. The Plan reflects the wishes of its residents and sets the City's relationship within the context of its region. This chapter describes the purpose of the Plan, introduces how the Plan is organized and provides contextual background for the Plan. The Plan serves the following constituencies and provides: A. Residents of Medina - opportunity to guide the future of the City, expectation of future land use changes which are anticipated, and protection from: (1) indiscriminate development; (2) exploitation of resources; and (3) the consequences of unplanned public services. B. City Council, Advisory Groups, and Staff - guidelines for making land use and development decisions and capital investments. C. Landowners and Developers - guidelines for use, density, transportation, and public services. D. Metropolitan Planning and Implementation Agencies - projections of anticipated population, traffic, land use, and sewer requirements. E. Watershed Districts, the MN Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers - assurance that the natural functions of wetland and other ecologically significant resources will be protected. F. Other Public Agencies - (state, county, school districts, and neighboring communities) awareness of plans that may affect their decisions and assurance that local policies will remain relatively constant over a period of years. Plan Scope The 2040 Comprehensive Plan builds upon the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the identified community goals and aspirations for the future. The Plan identifies goals, strategies, policies and standards for growth and development that preserve the rural character, open spaces and natural resources that make Medina a unique place. The Plan sets forth the intentions of allowing reasonable commercial development along the Trunk Highway 55 corridor, providing opportunities for projected residential growth of various housing types in locations throughout the community. Chapter 1 - Introduction DRAFT - February 7, 2017 C. 1 Y O F MEDIN►4 Page 1- 1 Planning Period Medina's Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2009. Municipalities are required by State Statute to update their Comprehensive Plan every 10 years. This Comprehensive Plan is designed to guide the City's land use planning and growth through 2040. Recognizing the inevitability of change, the Plan is intended to remain flexible to unanticipated events and opportunities and to reduce adjustments and amendments during the planning period. Regional Setting Medina is considered a third -ring suburb of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (TCMA) and is located approximately 20 miles west of Minneapolis, immediately west of the City of Plymouth. The City of Loretto is a separate local governmental unit located within Medina's borders, is not governed by Medina, but does cost -share police and fire services with Medina. The City of Corcoran forms Medina's northern boundary, the City of Orono is located to the south and the cities of Independence and Maple Plain lie to its west. Metropolitan Council's ThriveMSP2040 and System Statements Medina is part of the growing metropolitan area and participates in providing and utilizing metropolitan systems such as wastewater handling and treatment, transportation, airports, and parks. The Metropolitan Council has the responsibility to monitor and coordinate planning of these systems. As metropolitan communities grow and develop, these systems are constantly evaluated by the Metropolitan Council to determine their regional impact. ThriveMSP2040 and the 2040 Systems Statements were created by the Metropolitan Council under the authority of Minnesota Statutes, section 473.145. This document serves as a guide to ensure that costly regional services and infrastructure are provided efficiently and that development and growth within the metropolitan area occurs in an orderly and coordinated manner. The Metropolitan Council designates different strategies for communities based on the types of land use changes that are expected. These variations are reflected in "Community Designations' that are illustrated on the Community Designation Map (Map 1-1). This plan designates the northeast portion of Medina as "Emerging Suburban Edge" and the vast majority of the remainder of the City as a "Diversified Rural." ThriveMSP2040 describe these Community Designations as follows: • Emerging Suburban Edge communities include cities, townships and portions of both that are in the early stages of transitioning into urbanized levels of development. Emerging Suburban Edge communities are expected to plan for forecasted population and household growth at average densities of at least 3-5 units per acre for new development and redevelopment. In addition, Emerging Suburban Edge communities are expected to target opportunities for more intensive development near regional transit investments at densities and in a manner articulated in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. Chapter 1 - Introduction DRAFT - February 7, 2017 C, Y Q F MEDINA Page 1- 2 " Diversified Rural communities are home to a variety of farm and nonfarm land uses including very large -lot residential, clustered housing, hobby farms and agricultural uses. Diversified Rural communities are expected to plan for growth not to exceed forecasts and in patterns that do not exceed 4 units per 40 acres. In addition, Diversified Rural communities are expected to manage land uses to prevent the premature demand for extension of urban services, and so that existing service levels will meet service needs. Planning and Public Participation Process The City conducted an extension process for residents, business owners and other interested parties to help guide the Comprehensive Plan from September 2015 through December 2016. This included eight community meetings, a business forum, and an online forum. In addition, the City Council and Planning Commission discussed the various aspects of the Plan at three concurrent meetings, a Steering Committee was appointed and discussed at a series of thirteen meetings, and the Planning Commission held a formal Public Hearing on December 13, 2016. Changes since the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Update Below is a list of significant changes from Medina's 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan: " The City experienced substantial residential growth during the approximately six years since adoption of the 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan. There were 446 new homes constructed within the City, an increase of over 20% in just six years. Communities adjacent to and further north and west of Medina also experienced substantial growth over this period, and the collective growth resulted in substantial concerns over the capacity of local school districts and regional transportation networks to support the growth. " While substantial residential growth occurred over the past six years, the Metropolitan Council has projected that future population growth will slow within Medina. Population and household growth within Medina is projected to be 40-50% lower than forecast a decade ago. " To maintain consistency with Metropolitan Council population projections and also to further the objectives of protecting natural resources and preserving open space and rural character, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan reduces property planned for residential development when compared to the 2010-2030 Plan. " Opportunities for new commercial, office, and business development continue to be provided near Uptown Hamel and along the Highway 55 corridor. Some property previously planned for residential development is now planned for business development. Chapter 1 - Introduction DRAFT - February 7, 2017 C. 1 Y O F MEDIN�%4 Page 1-3 Outline of Comprehensive Plan Vision and Community Goals The Vision and Community Goals chapter describes the City's goals and aspirations for the future. Maintaining open space, preserving rural vistas and protecting natural resources are consistently raised as strong interest of residents in the community and one of the primary contributors to the quality of life in Medina. Community Background The Community Background chapter provides an inventory of existing conditions on demographics, employment and other facts that influence the future land use planning. This section includes reference to natural areas and open spaces that affect future development in the community. The City recognizes that once these resources are depleted it is difficult, if not impossible, to replace them. The natural areas and open spaces are high priorities in all plan chapters presented in this document. Housing and Neighborhoods This chapter describes the existing housing stock of the City and establishes objectives for residential development and redevelopment within the community. The housing and neighborhood section supports the need to diversify the housing types and styles throughout the community. The data demonstrates that the majority of housing development has been focused on larger, single-family residential homes. The City has structured the Future Land Use Plan and the goals and strategies to support more diverse housing. Land Use and Staging The Land Use and Growth chapter describes the future development and land use patterns anticipated in the community. The chapter starts with an existing land use inventory to quantify existing types of development that will influence future growth. The Future Land Use Plan (used interchangeably with Guide Plan) is based on the Existing Land Use inventory. The Guide Plan shows that the vast majority of the land within the City will remain rural. The Guide Plan demonstrates a desire by the community and city officials to grow at a sustainable pace allowing for efficient expansion of infrastructure services while also creating development which is compatible with adjacent uses and not concentrating development within a geographical area during a particular timeframe. Chapter 1 - Introduction DRAFT - February 7, 2017 C, Y Q F MEDINA Page 1-4 Parks, Trails and Open Space This chapter builds upon the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and was updated to reflect new trails or parks in the community since the last planning process. The chapter plans future parks to serve planned residential growth in the City and also substantial expansion of the trail system. The parks, trails, and open space plan also discusses existing regional parks and natural areas such as Baker Park Reserve and Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Area (SNA) which offer significant recreational opportunities in the City. Implementation The implementation chapter is critical to the overall success of the Comprehensive Plan and includes reference to the capital improvement plans associated with water and wastewater. This section also includes a discussion of how the community intends to update its official controls, and which tools the community would like to explore further to help implement the goals and aspirations identified in the Plan. Infrastructure: Transportation, Sewer, Water, and Surface Water Plans The infrastructure plans include Transportation, Surface Water, and Water and Sewer Plans for the community. These studies were completed by the City's Engineer and are appended to this document in their entirety. These reports support the land use and growth decisions in the community, describe necessary capital investments, and provide a basis for establishing relevant policies and fees to support the expansion of the systems which are necessitated by new development. Chapter 1 - Introduction DRAFT - February 7, 2017 C. 1 Y O F MEDIN►4 Page 1-5 (THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) Chapter 1 - Introduction DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G; T v O T MEDINA Page 1- b Community Designations City of Medina, Hennepin County EWE 4 ri I CARVER I -,<;; SCOTT ..""t1 _ '1;) ,i! Rockford Greenfield Independence Minnetrista r 4 Corcoran Medina ng (Minnetonk.a"; Beach ) Orono L. 'E-Oh , • I: Wayzata `If oodlandi\,/ Minnetonka A1116 dIL' \ Deephaven Maple Grove Plymouth Medicine, Lake Hopkins Extent of Main Map ,--_ I 1 i CANOKA I •", i •-k, I g. 'DI ) IL k( $ ,r, - q , WASi-11,INGTON RAMSEY --, I i ;) ik / ,..r. ,v_i: '1 bAKOTA Community Designations Outside Council planning authority Agricultural Rural Residential Diversified Rural Rural Center Emerging Suburban Edge Suburban Edge Suburban Urban Urban Center t___ County Boundaries City and Township Boundaries Lakes and Major Rivers Chapter 2: VISION & COMMUNITY GOALS The Vision and Community Goals chapter is the heart of the Comprehensive Plan and provides the foundation from which City officials make consistent and supporting land use decisions. This chapter includes a set of general community goals that guided the creation of this Plan. The concepts in this chapter are some of the few static elements of the Comprehensive Plan. If land uses change or other infrastructure varies from the Plan, decisions will be founded in the goals set forth below. The Vision and Goals were created with the involvement of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee (the "Steering Committee"), City officials, and residents of Medina and are broadly supported. Land use designations are subject to strong social and economic pressures to change. Accordingly, it is appropriate that such systems be periodically evaluated in light of changing social and economic conditions. As development evolves, the Vision and Goals will provide the guidance for accomplishing the vision for the future of the community even when changes are necessary to the land use plan. Detailed objectives and recommendations are contained within each of the subject chapters of this plan. Creating the Vision and Goals The residents, the Steering Committee, City officials and staff participated in the planning process for the Plan. A series of public participation meetings were conducted to introduce and solicit information from the residents of Medina. The Steering Committee held work sessions that focused on integrating the concerns and desires of the community together with accommodating growth and regional impacts. An online forum provided additional opportunity for residents to impact the Vision and Community Goals as they were formulated. In addition to land use and growth planning, the City implemented open space, natural resources, and infrastructure planning. The goals which guided this process are integrated into this chapter. Each element of this plan was developed with assistance from city officials and a diverse group of community stakeholders producing a truly representative plan. The City made a conscious decision to emphasize natural resources and open space conservation. Community Vision The following statement provides a vision of the community for the future and the resultant goals and strategies. Medina is a community united by a common goal: to sustain and enhance the quality of life of its residents. Medina will protect its significant natural resources and open space throughout the City, while honoring its rural heritage and fostering safe and well - Chapter 2 - Vision and Community Goals DRAFT- February 7, 2017 G T Y a MEDINA Page 2 - 1 designed neighborhoods, places of recreation and destinations for citizens to gather. Development within the City will be commensurate with available transportation systems, municipal services and school capacity. Community Goals The following Community Goals are derived from the Vision Statement and inform objectives and strategies throughout the various aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Preserve rural vistas, open spaces, and wetlands in all parts of the community to promote the rural character of Medina. Protect and enhance the environment and natural resources throughout the community. Encourage and incent innovative and environmentally friendly approaches to planning, engineering and development. Expand urban services only as necessary to accommodate regionally forecasted residential growth, desired business opportunities and achievement of other Community Goals. Such development and growth shall be at a sustainable pace proportionate with capacity of schools and transportation, water supply and wastewater infrastructure available to the City. Spread development so that it is not geographically concentrated during particular timeframes. Promote public and private gathering places and civic events that serve the entire community. Preserve and expand trails and parks to provide community recreational facilities, connect neighborhoods, and encourage healthy lifestyles of its residents. Provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support residents at all stages of their lives. Encourage an attractive, vibrant business community that complements the residential areas of the City. Maintain its commitment to public safety through support of the City's police department and coordination with its contracted volunteer fire departments. Manage the City through prudent budgeting processes, retaining a skilled and efficient staff and long-range planning and financial management. Chapter 2 - Vision and Community Goals DRAFT- February 7, 2017 MEDINA Page 2 - 2 Chapter 2: VISION & COMMUNITY GOALS The Vision and Community Goals chapter is the heart of the Comprehensive Plan and provides the foundation from which City officials make consistent and supporting land use decisions. This chapter includes a set of general community goals that guided the creation of this Plan. The concepts in this chapter are some of the few static elements of the Comprehensive Plan. If land uses change or other infrastructure varies from the Plan, decisions will be founded in the goals set forth below. The Vision and Goals were created with the involvement of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee (the "Steering Committee'), City officials, and residents of Medina and are broadly supported. Land use designations are subject to strong social and economic pressures to change. Accordingly, it is appropriate that such systems be periodically evaluated in light of changing social and economic conditions. As development evolves, the Vision and Goals will provide the guidance for accomplishing the vision for the future of the community even when changes are necessary to the land use plan. Detailed objectives and recommendations are contained within each of the subject chapters of this plan. Creating the Vision and Goals The residents, the Steering Committee, City officials and staff participated in the planning process for the Plan. A series of public participation meetings were conducted to introduce and solicit information from the residents of Medina. The Steering Committee held work sessions that focused on integrating the concerns and desires of the community together with accommodating growth and regional impacts. An online forum provided additional opportunity for residents to impact the Vision and Community Goals as they were formulated. In addition to land use and growth planning, the City implemented open space, natural resources, and infrastructure planning. The goals which guided this process are integrated into this chapter. Each element of this plan was developed with assistance from city officials and a diverse group of community stakeholders producing a truly representative plan. The City made a conscious decision to emphasize natural resources and open space conservation. Community Vision The following statement provides a vision of the community for the future and the resultant goals and strategies. Medina is a community united by a common goal: to sustain and enhance the quality of life of its residents. Medina will protect its significant natural resources and open space throughout the City, while honoring its rural heritage and fostering safe and well - Chapter 2 - Vision and Community Goals DRAFT - February 7, 2017 IVIEDINA Page 2 - 1 designed neighborhoods, places of recreation and destinations for citizens to gather. Development within the City will be commensurate with available transportation systems, municipal services and school capacity. Community Goals The following Community Goals are derived from the Vision Statement and inform objectives and strategies throughout the various aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Preserve rural vistas, open spaces, and wetlands in all parts of the community to promote the rural character of Medina. Protect and enhance the environment and natural resources throughout the community. Encourage and incent innovative and environmentally friendly approaches to planning, engineering and development. Expand urban services only as necessary to accommodate regionally forecasted residential growth, desired business opportunities and achievement of other Community Goals. Such development and growth shall be at a sustainable pace proportionate with capacity of schools and transportation, water supply and wastewater infrastructure available to the City. Spread development so that it is not geographically concentrated during particular timeframes. Promote public and private gathering places and civic events that serve the entire community. Preserve and expand trails and parks to provide community recreational facilities, connect neighborhoods, and encourage healthy lifestyles of its residents. Provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support residents at all stages of their lives. Encourage an attractive, vibrant business community that complements the residential areas of the City. Maintain its commitment to public safety through support of the City's police department and coordination with its contracted volunteer fire departments. Manage the City through prudent budgeting processes, retaining a skilled and efficient staff and long-range planning and financial management. Chapter 2 - Vision and Community Goals DRAFT - February 7, 2017 f. T Y 6 fi 1VI EDI NAB Page 2 - 2 Chapter 3: COMMUNITY BACKGROUND Introduction Medina was a part of the 'Big Woods," a vast region of hardwood forest, broken only by lakes, marshes, and streams. Its Dakota people lived on game, fish, berries, wild rice, and maple sugar and traded with other bands in the region. In 1853, the Traverse de Sioux Treaty opened the region to European settlers, who were attracted to the area by the vast stands of timber and the availability of land for farming. The first European settlers arrived in Medina in 1855. On April 10,1858, County Commissioners gave the City an official designation as "Hamburg Township." Local residents preferred the name, "Medina," after the Arabian holy city that had been in the news that year. On May 11,1858, 37 residents met in the home of Valorius Chilson and voted unanimously to change the name to Medina. Medina graduated from township status to become a village in 1955 and was incorporated as a city in 1974. Medina's early European settlers were chiefly of German, Irish and French-Canadian descent and had names still common in Medina such as Scherer and Reiser; Mooney and Crowe; Hamel and Fortin. The first generations tended to group according to their language ties and to help each other through the long hard winters. Townships were divided into 36 sections, each consisting of a square mile. This meant that the City of Excelsior extended beyond the north shore of Lake Minnetonka to Medina's southern border. Excelsior's northern residents tolerated this inconvenience until 1868, when Excelsior's north shore residents voted to become a part of Medina. This expanded Medina to over 50 square miles. In 1889, George A. Brackett led a successful drive to carve the City of Orono out of the southern 11 sections of Medina. Later, the City also ceded away land to Loretto, when Loretto was incorporated in 1940. Loretto had been platted since 1886, when the Minneapolis & St. Paul and Sault St. Marie railroad came through. The Hamel area of Medina was platted as early as 1879, but its efforts to incorporate failed, in part, because of the complication of straddling the borders of both Medina and Plymouth. The town might have been called Lenz after Leander Lenzen, who built a mill in Elm Creek and set up a post office in the name of Lenz in 1861. But when the Lange Hamel family gave land to the railroad for the train depot in 1884 they asked that the area be called "Hamel," and the name took root. To this day, this area of the City is still referred to as Hamel. Built on the road from Minneapolis to Rockford, Hamel was a busy town. At the beginning of the 20th century, Hamel boasted a school, two hotels, the Church of St. Anne's, a hall for the Ancient Order of United Workman and numerous stores. The town decreased to its present size after Highway 55 bypassed Hamel in the 1950s. Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT- February 7, 2017 Y " a MEDINA Page 3 - 1 Population and Household Trends Table 3-A below shows historical and projected population and household size data for the City of Medina. The 1990, 2000, and 2010 population and household data is from the U.S. Census. The 2014 population and household estimates and the 2020-2040 population and household projections are from the Metropolitan Council's 2040 Regional Development Framework. The Metropolitan Council estimated Medina's population to be 5,831, with 1,961 households in 2014. The Metropolitan Council projects that the average household size will to continue to decline regionally over the next 20 years due to an increase in the number of seniors and lifestyle changes. Table 3-A Metropol'tan Council Forecasts Growth and Forecast Population Households Employment 1990* 3,069 1,007 2,155 2000* 4,005 1,309 2,928 2010* 4,892 1,702 3,351 2015** 5,967 2,111 4,823 2020*** 6,600 2,300 4,980 2030*** 7,700 2,840 5,300 2040*** 8,900 3,400 5,500 *Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990-2010 **Source: Metropolitan Council Estimates ***Source: Metropolitan Council Projections The City experienced relatively constant growth up to the 1990s before more rapid growth occurred in the last 15 years. Population growth is expected to continue, albeit at a slightly slower pace, as areas within the City guided for urban residential densities are developed. The Metropolitan Council forecasts the City will have a population of 6,600 in 2020, 7,700 in 2030 and 8,900 in 2040. This corresponds to a 35% increase from 2010 to 2020, and a 16% increase for the next two 10-year periods. Table 3-B below was developed based on the Guide Plan developed as a part of this Plan. This table demonstrates the City's projections for future growth in the community by planned sewer allocation: Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT- February 7, 2017 1VIEDINA Page 3 - 2 Table 3-B Sewer Allocation Forecasts Forecast Year Forecast Component Population Households Employment 2010 MCES Sewered 2,965 1,032 3,146 2010 Unsewered 1,927 670 205 2020 MCES Sewered 4,500 1,570 4,780 2020 Unsewered 2,100 730 200 2030 MCES Sewered 5660 2,090 5,100 2030 Unsewered 2,040 750 200 2040 MCES Sewered 6,880 2,630 5,300 2040 Unsewered 2,020 770 200 Source: Metropolitan Council System Statement; Adjusted by City of Medina per existing conditions and proposed Guide Plan Residential Development Activity Table 3-C below shows the residential development activity in Medina from 2010 to 2015. During this period, the City issued building permits for a total of 379 detached single family homes and 67 townhomes units. Table 3-C Medina Residential Buildina Permits 2010-2015 Year New Single -Family Dwelling Units Total Valuation New Townhome Dwelling Units Total Valuation 2010 7 $3,422,331 0 $0 2011 15 $9,763,948 0 $0 2012 68 $28,248,224 0 $0 2013 144 $59,476,122 19 $4,530,000 2014 82 $35,179,120 22 $4,614,628 2015 63 $27,933,345 26 $4,412,000 Total 379 $164,023,090 67 $13,556,628 Source: City of Medina, 2016 Economic Overview The economic health of a community contributes to a high standard of living and a desirable place to live. Medina has a strong economy that is likely to improve as population increases. The City has experienced considerable growth in its economic base and the addition of diverse employment opportunities since the last planning cycle. Table 3-D below shows that employment growth in the City of Medina increased 14.4% from 2000 to 2010. The Metropolitan Council's projections indicate an increase in employment of 47.2% between 2010 and 2020. The availability of commercial and general business land along the TH 55 corridor, adequate transportation and utility infrastructure, and the location of the City within the metropolitan area make Medina attractive to businesses. Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT- February 7, 2017 Y Y a NIEDINA Page 3 - 3 Employers The City has opportunities. Medina. Table 3-D City of Medina Employment Growth and Forecasts Year Number Percent Increase 1990* 2,155 2000* 2,928 35.9 % 2010* 3,351 14.4 % 2014** 4,823 43.9 % 2020*** 4,980 3.3 % 2030*** 5,300 6.4% 2040*** 5,500 3.8 % *Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990-2010 **Source: Metropolitan Council Estimates{P ***Source: Metropolitan Council Projections and Employees approximately 286 employers that provide a range of industry and job The following table represents the number of establishments per industry in Table 3-E Number of Establishments in Medina by Industry Industry Description Number of Establishments Percentage Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 4 1.4% Construction 37 12.9% Manufacturing 19 6.6 % Wholesale Trade 16 5.6% Retail Trade 32 11.2% Transportation & Warehousing 8 2.8% Information 2 0.7% Finance & Insurance 28 9.8 % Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 9 3.1 % Professional, Scientific & Tech Services 33 11.5% Management of Companies & Enterprises 1 0.3 % Administrative & Support & Waste Management & Remediation 14 4.9% Educational Services 7 2.4% Health Care & Social Assistance 5 1.7% Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 13 4.5 % Accommodation & Food Services 16 5.6% Other Services (except Public Administration) 26 9.1 % Public Administration 4 1.4 % Unclassified Establishments 12 4.2% Total 286 99.7% Source: Infogroup 2015 Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT- February 7, 2017 1VIEDINA Page 3 - 4 According to 2014 ACS estimates, 60.4% of the total population over the age of 16 in Medina was employed. The following table demonstrates the number of employees per industry. Table 3-F Number of Employees by Industry in Medina Industry Number of Employees Percentage Administrative and Waste Services 251 6% All Other Industries 2,628 58% Construction 200 4 % Finance and Insurance 68 1 % Manufacturing 587 13% Public Administration 27 1 % Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 67 1 % Wholesale Trade 706 16% Total Employees 4,534 Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (DEED) 2015 Second Quarter Data Major Employers Employers within the City provide a wide range of potential employment options. The following table identifies the major employers in the City, along with their respective number of employees working within the City: Table 3-G Largest Medina Employers Top Employer's Number of Employees Polaris Industries 450 Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. 411 Open Systems International 340 Rockler Companies 250 Hennepin County Public Works 212 Tolomatic, Inc. 210 Graphic Packaging (formerly Walter G. Anderson, Inc.) 185 Medina Golf & Country Club 180 Target 150 Adams Pest Control 88 Intercomp Co. 85 Maxxon Corporation 46 Twinco/Romax Automotive 36 Source: Reported by local businesses when contacted by staff Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT- February 7, 2017 Y " a MEDINA Page 3 - 5 The table below shows that from 2010 through 2015, there was approximately $164,023,090 of commercial development in the City. This growth occurred from the expansion of existing businesses as well as the entry of new employers such as Open Systems International, Inc. Table 3-H Medina Commercial Building Permits Year New Commercial Building Permits Total Valuation 2010 7 $3,422,331 2011 15 $9,763,948 2012 68 $28,248,224 2013 144 $59,476,122 2014 82 $35,179,120 2015 63 $27,933,345 Total 379 $164,023,090 Source: City of Medina, 2016 Economic Development Initiatives The City created a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District (TIF District 1-9) in 2004 to provide public improvement incentives for the redevelopment of properties within and around the Uptown Hamel area. The TIF district consists of more than 60 parcels on both sides of TH 55 near its intersection with Sioux Drive/CR 101. TIF funds have been used to fund public improvements to entice development north and south of TH 55 in the Uptown Hamel area, including storm water infrastructure in Uptown Hamel. Through 2007, redevelopment in Uptown Hamel has been slow. Investment Framework To maintain a strong tax base, Medina seeks to attract commercial and business developments along TH 55. Commercial development is a significant part of Medina's tax base plan. Map 3-1 illustrates the amount of taxes paid by residential and commercial properties in the City. Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT- February 7, 2017 1VIEDINA Page 3 - 6 Demographics This demographic data is primarily sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau. The 2010 U.S. Census typically provides the most current demographic information available, but is somewhat out of date. The data remains relevant because it suggests trends of development and population characteristics. Where more up-to-date information is available, regardless of source, that information is included as a point of reference. Household Income The following table describes the annual household income levels of current residents in Medina in the year 2013. Fifteen percent of the City population had annual income of less than $50,000, 27.7%between $50,000 and $100,000, and 57.4% over $100,000. Table 3-1 City of Medina Household Income Income Households Percentage Less than $10,000 21 1.3 % $10,000 to $24,999 71 4.4% $25,000 to $49,999 150 9.3% $50,000 to $74,999 189 11.7% $75,000 to $99,999 260 16.0% $100,000 to $149,999 237 14.6% $150,000 to $199,999 241 14.9% $200,000 or more 452 27.9% Source: U.S Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2009-2013 The following table indicates that the average household income in Medina is high relative to both the Hennepin County and the Minnesota statewide average. The 2013 median household income in Medina was $127,039, almost twice the median County household income. The mean household income in Medina is $234,041, which was 261 % of the mean County household income and more than three times the statewide mean household income. The contrast between the mean and the median household income levels in Medina is due to the high numbers of Medina households with incomes that exceed $200,000 per year. Table 3-J Median and Mean Household Income (2013 Income Medina Hennepin County Percentage of County State of MN Percentage of State Median household income $127,039 $64,403 197.3% $59,836 212.3% Mean household income $234,041 $89,707 260.9 % $77,204 303.1 % Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2009-2013 Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT- February 7, 2017 Y " a MEDINA Page 3 - 7 Age The table below shows that, in 2010, 32.7% of the population was 19 years old or younger, 20.7% of the population was between 20 and 44 years old, 34.4% of the population was between 45 and 64 years old and 12.2% of the population was 65 years or older. Residents of the City of Medina were almost half male and half female. Table 3-K A of Medina Residents Age of Residents Number of Residents Percentage Under 5 years 231 4.7% 5 to 9 years 405 8.3 % 10 to 14 years 536 11.0% 15 to 19 years 426 8.7% 20 to 24 years 132 2.7% 25 to 34 years 225 4.6 % 35 to 44 years 656 13.4% 45 to 54 years 1,039 21.3 % 55 to 64 years 645 13.1 % 65 years and over 597 12.2% Median Age (years) 43.1 Total Population 4,892 100.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Chart 3-A Medina Population by Age Comparing 2000 to 2010 65 years... 55 to 64 years 45 to 54 years 35 to 44 years 25 to 34 years 20 to 24 years i 15 to 19 years 10 to 14 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 years 0.0% 5.0% ■ 2010 Population 2000 Population 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT- February 7, 2017 c , T Y O ,„ 1VIEDINA Page 3 - 8 Comparing the demographics in 2000 to 2010, it appears that there was a demographic shift in Medina toward older age categories. The proportion of the population between the ages of 25 and 44 has dropped substantially; meanwhile, population ages 45 and older in Medina has grown by more than 12%. When planning future community facilities and housing options in the City, apparent age trends must be considered. As the population continues to age the demand for senior lifestyle housing and activities within the City will increase. School Enrollment In 2014, 1,646 residents in the City of Medina were enrolled in school. Of these residents 13.7% were enrolled in preschool or kindergarten, 47.4% were enrolled in elementary school, 26.4% were enrolled in high school and 12.5 % are enrolled in college or graduate school. Table 3-L City of Medina School Enrollment (2014) School Enrollment Number of Students Percentage Nursery school, preschool 117 7.1 % Kindergarten 108 6.6 % Elementary School (grades 1-8) 781 47.4% High School (grades 9-12) 434 26.4% College or Graduate School 206 12.5 % Total Population Enrolled in School 1,646 100.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2014 Property within the City is located within one of four school districts. Map 3-6 displays the school district boundaries within the City and locations of school buildings which currently serve Medina residents. Over 60% of the households in the City are located within the Wayzata School District (ISD #284) and approximately 35% of households are located within the Orono School District (IDS #278). Over 72% of projected household growth is anticipated to be within the Wayzata School District. Table 3-M City of Medina School Districts School District Approximate Households (2016) Projected Additional Households (2017-2040) Wayzata - ISD 284 1,349 697 Orono - ISD 278 770 232 Delano - ISD 879 59 5 Rockford - ISD 883 20 98 Total 2,198 1,032 Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT- February 7, 2017 Y V a MEDINA Page 3 - 9 Level of Educational Attainment In 2013, 98.9% of the adult population had graduated from high school and 59% of the population had completed a bachelor's degree or higher level of education. Table 3-N Medina Adult Resident Level of Educational Attainment (2010) Level of Educational Attainment Number of Residents Percentage 1 No High School Diploma 35 1.1 % High School Graduate (includes equivalency) 511 15.7% Some College, No Degree 519 15.9% Associate Degree 265 8.1 % Bachelor's Degree 1405 43.1 % Graduate or Professional Degree 526 16.1 % Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2010-2014 Estimates Race The table below illustrates that, in 2010, 93% of the population was white, 3.2% as Asian, 1.2% was Hispanic or Latino, and 1 % was Black or African American. Table 3-O City of Medina Ethnicity (2010 Race Number of Residents Percentage im White 4,562 93.3 Black or African American 47 1.0 American Indian and Alaska Native 4 0.1 Asian 156 3.2 Pacific Islander 2 0.0 Some other race 4 0.1 Two or more races 56 1.1 Hispanic 61 1.2 Total Population 4,892 100.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT- February 7, 2017 1VIEDINA Page 3 - 10 Household Demographics The vast majority of households in Medina (81% in 2010) are family households, containing at least two members who are related. Single -person households made up 15.6% of total households. The average household size was 2.87 and the average family was 3.23 persons. Table 3-P Household Demographics (2010) Type of Household Number of Households Percentage Family Households 1386 81.4% Family Households with own children under 18 692 40.7°% Married -couple family 1266 74.4% Married -couple family households with own children under 18 626 36.8% One householder, no spouse 120 7.1 % One householder, no spouse households with own children under 18 66 3.9% Non -family households 50 2.9% Householder living alone 266 15.6% Total Households 1,702 Average household size 2.87 Average family size 3.23 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Marital Status In 2014, 70% of Medina's adult residents were married; 21.2% were single and 8.7% were widowed or divorced. The percentage of married couples in the City of Medina is relatively high compared to communities in closer to proximity to either Minneapolis or St. Paul. Table 3-Q Medina Resident Marital Status (2014 Marital Status Number of Residents Percentage Never married, single 877 22.1 % Now married, except separated 2,628 66.2% Separated 44 1.1 % Widowed 202 5.1 % Divorced 218 5.5 % Total Population 15 Years and older 3,970 100.0% Source: American Community Survey, 2010-2014 Estimates Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT- February 7, 2017 Y V a MEDINA Page 3 - 11 Factors Influencing Development Natural features within the City of Medina will substantially influence the feasibility of extending municipal services and where and when development will occur. The City undertook an extensive open space and natural resources initiative as a part of previous planning efforts. A. Lakes and Wetlands: Map 3-2 illustrates the Wetland Locations throughout Medina and is based on Hennepin County wetland data records. Nearly 35 percent of the land in Medina is wet, with many lakes, creeks and wetlands. These natural areas affect where and in what intensity development can occur within the City. Upland areas suitable for development need to be well planned to ensure that lakes, wildlife and wetlands are not adversely impacted. The City completed a Functional Assessment of Wetlands (FAW) in November 2007, which was developed to provide guidelines for regulating and protecting these wetlands, and a comprehensive inventory and assessment of existing wetland functions with the City. An overall wetland classification map was provided as part of the FAW and is referenced at the end of this section as Map 3-2. B. Floodplains: Map 3-3 identifies the FEMA designated floodplains found in Medina. Minnehaha Creek, Elm Creek and Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watersheds have floodplains that will limit development in Medina. Much of the floodplains cover the same area as wetlands. Limited portions of these floodplains may be used for development, if criteria for building elevations, flood proofing and filling can be met as outlined in the City's Floodplain Ordinance. C. Watershed District Boundaries: Map 3-4 identifies the boundaries of the three Watershed District Organizations and boundaries within Medina. Although not visible as landscape features, these boundaries are significant because they define the direction of surface water flow. The boundaries are commonly used as major parameters for development of sewer interceptor and trunk lines. Each of the watershed districts has its own regulations for land development, and some require watershed board approval of water management plans for development proposals. The City has designated itself as the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) responsible for reviewing development proposals affecting wetlands. D. Woodlands: Preservation of woodlands is important aesthetically, ecologically and functionally. Woodlands provide wildlife habitat, prevent soil erosion, absorb runoff, provide wind breaks, and define the patterns of streets and land use. E. Soils: The United States Department of Agriculture's Soil Survey and Soil Classifications are used to evaluate development proposals in Medina and to determine the capability of on -site septic systems. Rural residential lots are required to have sufficient soils suitable for a standard sewage disposal system as defined by Medina's Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Code. A significant portion of the rural residential area of Medina contains soils that are considered unsuitable for septic site development. General soil conditions, therefore, establish the intensity of unsewered development. Map 3-5 generally identifies the areas where suitable soils are present in Medina. Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT- February 7, 2017 1VIEDINA Page 3 - 12 F. Topography: Topography and steep slopes in the City will impact future and current developments. Map 3-5 identifies areas considered as "Steep Slopes' and "Steep Slopes with Grades Greater than 18%." Management and maintenance of steep slopes and other topographic challenges will be critical to future development and growth plans. (REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT- February 7, 2017 Y V a MEDINA Page 3 - 13 (THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT- February 7, 2017 1VIEDINA Page 3 - 14 Chapter 3: COMMUNITY BACKGROUND Introduction Medina was a part of the "Big Woods," a vast region of hardwood forest, broken only by lakes, marshes, and streams. Its Dakota people lived on game, fish, berries, wild rice, and maple sugar and traded with other bands in the region. In 1853, the Traverse de Sioux Treaty opened the region to European settlers, who were attracted to the area by the vast stands of timber and the availability of land for farming. The first European settlers arrived in Medina in 1855. On Apri110,1858, County Commissioners gave the City an official designation as "Hamburg Township." Local residents preferred the name, "Medina," after the Arabian holy city that had been in the news that year. On May 11,1858, 37 residents met in the home of Valorius Chilson and voted unanimously to change the name to Medina. Medina graduated from township status to become a village in 1955 and was incorporated as a city in 1974. Medina's early European settlers were chiefly of German, Irish and French-Canadian descent and had names still common in Medina such as Scherer and Reiser; Mooney and Crowe; Hamel and Fortin. The first generations tended to group according to their language ties and to help each other through the long hard winters. Townships were divided into 36 sections, each consisting of a square mile. This meant that the City of Excelsior extended beyond the north shore of Lake Minnetonka to Medina's southern border. Excelsior's northern residents tolerated this inconvenience until 1868, when Excelsior's north shore residents voted to become a part of Medina. This expanded Medina to over 50 square miles. In 1889, George A. Brackett led a successful drive to carve the City of Orono out of the southern 11 sections of Medina. Later, the City also ceded away land to Loretto, when Loretto was incorporated in 1940. Loretto had been platted since 1886, when the Minneapolis & St. Paul and Sault St. Marie railroad came through. The Hamel area of Medina was platted as early as 1879, but its efforts to incorporate failed, in part, because of the complication of straddling the borders of both Medina and Plymouth. The town might have been called Lenz after Leander Lenzen, who built a mill in Elm Creek and set up a post office in the name of Lenz in 1861. But when the Lange Hamel family gave land to the railroad for the train depot in 1884 they asked that the area be called "Hamel," and the name took root. To this day, this area of the City is still referred to as Hamel. Built on the road from Minneapolis to Rockford, Hamel was a busy town. At the beginning of the 20th century, Hamel boasted a school, two hotels, the Church of St. Anne's, a hall for the Ancient Order of United Workman and numerous stores. The town decreased to its present size after Highway 55 bypassed Hamel in the 1950s. Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT - February 7, 2017 T Y 6 D MEDINA Page 3 - 1 Population and Household Trends Table 3-A below shows historical and projected population and household size data for the City of Medina. The 1990, 2000, and 2010 population and household data is from the U.S. Census. The 2014 population and household estimates and the 2020-2040 population and household projections are from the Metropolitan Council's 2040 Regional Development Framework. The Metropolitan Council estimated Medina's population to be 5,831, with 1,961 households in 2014. The Metropolitan Council projects that the average household size will to continue to decline regionally over the next 20 years due to an increase in the number of seniors and lifestyle changes. Table 3-A Metroa°Ilan Council Forecasts IGrowth and Forecast Population Households Employment 1990* 3,069 1,007 2,155 2000* 4,005 1,309 2,928 2010* 4,892 1,702 3,351 2015** 5,967 2,111 4,823 2020*** 6,600 2,300 4,980 2030*** 7,700 2,840 5,300 2040*** 8,900 3,400 5,500 *Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990-2010 **Source: Metropolitan Council Estimates ***Source: Metropolitan Council Projections The City experienced relatively constant growth up to the 1990s before more rapid growth occurred in the last 15 years. Population growth is expected to continue, albeit at a slightly slower pace, as areas within the City guided for urban residential densities are developed. The Metropolitan Council forecasts the City will have a population of 6,600 in 2020, 7,700 in 2030 and 8,900 in 2040. This corresponds to a 35% increase from 2010 to 2020, and a 16% increase for the next two 10-year periods. Table 3-B below was developed based on the Guide Plan developed as a part of this Plan. This table demonstrates the City's projections for future growth in the community by planned sewer allocation: Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT - February 7, 2017 MEDINA Page 3 - 2 Table 3-B Sewer Allocation Forecasts Forecast Year Forecast Component Population Households Employment 2010 MCES Sewered 2,965 1,032 3,146 2010 Unsewered 1,927 670 205 2020 MCES Sewered 4,500 1,570 4,780 2020 Unsewered 2,100 730 200 2030 MCES Sewered 5660 2,090 5,100 2030 Unsewered 2,040 750 200 2040 MCES Sewered 6,880 2,630 5,300 2040 Unsewered 2,020 770 200 Source: Metropolitan Council System Statement; Adjusted by City of Medina per existing conditions and proposed Guide Plan Residential Development Activity Table 3-C below shows the residential development activity in Medina from 2010 to 2015. During this period, the City issued building permits for a total of 379 detached single family homes and 67 townhomes units. Table 3-C Medina Residential Buildina Permits 2010-2015 Year New Single -Family Dwelling Units Total Valuation New Townhome Dwelling Units Total Valuation 2010 7 $3,422,331 0 $0 2011 15 $9,763,948 0 $0 2012 68 $28,248,224 0 $0 2013 144 $59,476,122 19 $4,530,000 2014 82 $35,179,120 22 $4,614,628 2015 63 $27,933,345 26 $4,412,000 Total 379 $164,023,090 67 $13,556,628 Source: City of Medina, 2016 Economic Overview The economic health of a community contributes to a high standard of living and a desirable place to live. Medina has a strong economy that is likely to improve as population increases. The City has experienced considerable growth in its economic base and the addition of diverse employment opportunities since the last planning cycle. Table 3-D below shows that employment growth in the City of Medina increased 14.4% from 2000 to 2010. The Metropolitan Council's projections indicate an increase in employment of 47.2% between 2010 and 2020. The availability of commercial and general business land along the TH 55 corridor, adequate transportation and utility infrastructure, and the location of the City within the metropolitan area make Medina attractive to businesses. Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G T Y 6 F MEDINA Page 3 - 3 Table 3-D Citv of Medina Emglovment Growth and Forecasts Year Number Percent Increase 1990* 2,155 2000* 2,928 35.9 % 2010* 3,351 14.4 % 2014** 4,823 43.9 % 2020*** 4,980 3.3 % 2030*** 5,300 6.4% 2040*** 5,500 3.8 % *Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990-2010 **Source: Metropolitan Council Estimates,2 ***Source: Metropolitan Council Projections Employers and Employees The City has approximately 286 employers that provide a range of industry and job opportunities. The following table represents the number of establishments per industry in Medina. Table 3-E Number of Establishments in Medina by Industr Industry Description Number of Establishments Percentage Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 4 1.4% Construction 37 12.9 % Manufacturing 19 6.6 % Wholesale Trade 16 5.6% Retail Trade 32 11.2% Transportation & Warehousing 8 2.8% Information 2 0.7% Finance & Insurance 28 9.8% Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 9 3.1 % Professional, Scientific & Tech Services 33 11.5% Management of Companies & Enterprises 1 0.3% Administrative & Support & Waste Management & Remediation 14 4.9% Educational Services 7 2.4% Health Care & Social Assistance 5 1.7% Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 13 4.5 % Accommodation & Food Services 16 5.6% Other Services (except Public Administration) 26 9.1 % Public Administration 4 1.4% Unclassified Establishments 12 4.2% Total 286 99.7% Source: Infogroup 2015 Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT - February 7, 2017 .c- MEDINA Page 3 - 4 According to 2014 ACS estimates, 60.4% of the total population over the age of 16 in Medina was employed. The following table demonstrates the number of employees per industry. Table 3-F Number of Employees by Industry in Medina Industry Number of Employees Percentage Administrative and Waste Services 251 6% All Other Industries 2,628 58% Construction 200 4% Finance and Insurance 68 1 % Manufacturing 587 13 % Public Administration 27 1 % Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 67 1 % Wholesale Trade 706 16% Total Employees 4,534 Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (DEED) 2015 Second Quarter Data Major Employers Employers within the City provide a wide range of potential employment options. The following table identifies the major employers in the City, along with their respective number of employees working within the City: Table 3-G Laraest Medina Emplovers Top Employer's Number of Employees Polaris Industries 450 Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. 411 Open Systems International 340 Rockler Companies 250 Hennepin County Public Works 212 Tolomatic, Inc. 210 Graphic Packaging (formerly Walter G. Anderson, Inc.) 185 Medina Golf & Country Club 180 Target 150 Adam's Pest Control 88 Intercomp Co. 85 Maxxon Corporation 46 Twinco/Romax Automotive 36 Source: Reported by local businesses when contacted by staff Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT - February 7, 2017 T Y 6 D MEDINA Page 3 - 5 The table below shows that from 2010 through 2015, there was approximately $164,023,090 of commercial development in the City. This growth occurred from the expansion of existing businesses as well as the entry of new employers such as Open Systems International, Inc. Table 3-H Medina Commercial Building Permits Year New Commercial Building Permits Total Valuation 2010 7 $3,422,331 2011 15 $9,763,948 2012 68 $28,248,224 2013 144 $59,476,122 2014 82 $35,179,120 2015 63 $27,933,345 Total 379 $164,023,090 Source: City of Medina, 2016 Economic Development Initiatives The City created a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District (TIF District 1-9) in 2004 to provide public improvement incentives for the redevelopment of properties within and around the Uptown Hamel area. The TIF district consists of more than 60 parcels on both sides of TH 55 near its intersection with Sioux Drive/CR 101. TIF funds have been used to fund public improvements to entice development north and south of TH 55 in the Uptown Hamel area, including storm water infrastructure in Uptown Hamel. Through 2007, redevelopment in Uptown Hamel has been slow. Investment Framework To maintain a strong tax base, Medina seeks to attract commercial and business developments along TH 55. Commercial development is a significant part of Medina's tax base plan. Map 3-1 illustrates the amount of taxes paid by residential and commercial properties in the City. Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT - February 7, 2017 MEDINA Page 3 - 6 Demographics This demographic data is primarily sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau. The 2010 U.S. Census typically provides the most current demographic information available, but is somewhat out of date. The data remains relevant because it suggests trends of development and population characteristics. Where more up-to-date information is available, regardless of source, that information is included as a point of reference. Household Income The following table describes the annual household income levels of current residents in Medina in the year 2013. Fifteen percent of the City population had annual income of less than $50,000, 27.7%between $50,000 and $100,000, and 57.4% over $100,000. Table 3-1 Citv of Medina Household Income IIncome Households Percentage Less than $10,000 21 1.3 % $10,000 to $24,999 71 4.4% $25,000 to $49,999 150 9.3% $50,000 to $74,999 189 11.7% $75,000 to $99,999 260 16.0% $100,000 to $149,999 237 14.6% $150,000 to $199,999 241 14.9% $200,000 or more 452 27.9% Source: U.S Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2009-2013 The following table indicates that the average household income in Medina is high relative to both the Hennepin County and the Minnesota statewide average. The 2013 median household income in Medina was $127,039, almost twice the median County household income. The mean household income in Medina is $234,041, which was 261 % of the mean County household income and more than three times the statewide mean household income. The contrast between the mean and the median household income levels in Medina is due to the high numbers of Medina households with incomes that exceed $200,000 per year. Table 3-J Median and Mean Household Income (2013 Income Medina Hennepin County Percentage of County State of MN Percentage of State Median household income $127,039 $64,403 197.3 % $59,836 212.3 % Mean household income $234,041 $89,707 260.9 % $77,204 303.1 % Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2009-2013 Chapter 3 — Community Background DRAFT — February 7, 2017 T Y 6 D MEDINA Page 3 — 7 Age The table below shows that, in 2010, 32.7% of the population was 19 years old or younger, 20.7% of the population was between 20 and 44 years old, 34.4% of the population was between 45 and 64 years old and 12.2% of the population was 65 years or older. Residents of the City of Medina were almost half male and half female. Table 3-K A of Medina Residents Age of Residents Number of Residents Percentage j Under 5 years 231 4.7% 5 to 9 years 405 8.3 % 10 to 14 years 536 11.0 % 15 to 19 years 426 8.7% 20 to 24 years 132 2.7% 25 to 34 years 225 4.6 % 35 to 44 years 656 13.4 % 45 to 54 years 1,039 21.3 % 55 to 64 years 645 13.1 % 65 years and over 597 12.2% Median Age (years) 43.1 Total Population 4,892 100.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 65 years... 55 to 64 years 45 to 54 years 35 to 44 years 25 to 34 years 20 to 24 years 15 to 19 years 10 to 14 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 years Chart 3-A Medina Population by Age Comparing 2000 to 2010 0.0 % 5.0% 1 10.0% ■ 2010 Population 2000 Population 15.0% 20.0 % 25.0 % Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT - February 7, 2017 F- MEDINA Page 3 - 8 Comparing the demographics in 2000 to 2010, it appears that there was a demographic shift in Medina toward older age categories. The proportion of the population between the ages of 25 and 44 has dropped substantially; meanwhile, population ages 45 and older in Medina has grown by more than 12%. When planning future community facilities and housing options in the City, apparent age trends must be considered. As the population continues to age the demand for senior lifestyle housing and activities within the City will increase. School Enrollment In 2014, 1,646 residents in the City of Medina were enrolled in school. Of these residents 13.7% were enrolled in preschool or kindergarten, 47.4% were enrolled in elementary school, 26.4% were enrolled in high school and 12.5% are enrolled in college or graduate school. Table 3-L City of Medina School Enrollment (2014 School Enrollment Number of Students Percentage Nursery school, preschool 117 7.1 % Kindergarten 108 6.6 % Elementary School (grades 1-8) 781 47.4% High School (grades 9-12) 434 26.4% College or Graduate School 206 12.5% Total Population Enrolled in School 1,646 100.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2014 Property within the City is located within one of four school districts. Map 3-6 displays the school district boundaries within the City and locations of school buildings which currently serve Medina residents. Over 60% of the households in the City are located within the Wayzata School District (ISD #284) and approximately 35% of households are located within the Orono School District (IDS #278). Over 72% of projected household growth is anticipated to be within the Wayzata School District. Table 3-M City of Medina School Districts School District Approximate Households (2016) Projected Additional Households (2017-2040) Wayzata - ISD 284 1,349 697 Orono - ISD 278 770 232 Delano - ISD 879 59 5 Rockford - ISD 883 20 98 Total 2,198 1032 Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT - February 7, 2017 GT Y 6 D MEDINA Page 3 - 9 Level of Educational Attainment In 2013, 98.9% of the adult population had graduated from high school and 59% of the population had completed a bachelor's degree or higher level of education. Table 3-N Medina Adult Resident Level of Educational Attainment (2010 Level of Educational Attainment Number of Residents Percentage No High School Diploma 35 1.1 % High School Graduate (includes equivalency) 511 15.7% Some College, No Degree 519 15.9% Associate Degree 265 8.1 % Bachelor's Degree 1405 43.1 % Graduate or Professional Degree 526 16.1 % Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2010-2014 Estimates Race The table below illustrates that, in 2010, 93 % of the population was white, 3.2% as Asian, 1.2 % was Hispanic or Latino, and 1 % was Black or African American. Table 3-O City of Medina Ethnicity (2010 Race Number of Residents Percentage White 4,562 93.3 Black or African American 47 1.0 American Indian and Alaska Native 4 0.1 Asian 156 3.2 Pacific Islander 2 0.0 Some other race 4 0.1 Two or more races 56 1.1 Hispanic 61 1.2 Total Population 4,892 100.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Chapter 3 — Community Background DRAFT — February 7, 2017 MEDINA Page 3 — 10 Household Demographics The vast majority of households in Medina (81% in 2010) are family households, containing at least two members who are related. Single -person households made up 15.6% of total households. The average household size was 2.87 and the average family was 3.23 persons. Table 3-P Household Demo araahics (2010 Type of Household 1 Number of Households Percentage Family Households 1386 81.4% Family Households with own children under 18 692 40.7% Married -couple family 1266 74.4 % Married -couple family households with own children under 18 626 36.8% One householder, no spouse 120 7.1 % One householder, no spouse households with own children under 18 66 3.9% Non -family households 50 2.9% Householder living alone 266 15.6% Total Households 1,702 Average household size 2.87 Average family size 3.23 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Marital Status In 2014, 70% of Medina's adult residents were married; 21.2% were single and 8.7% were widowed or divorced. The percentage of married couples in the City of Medina is relatively high compared to communities in closer to proximity to either Minneapolis or St. Paul. Table 3-Q Medina Resident Marital Status (2014 Marital Status Number of Residents Percentage Never married, single 877 22.1 % Now married, except separated 2,628 66.2% Separated 44 1.1 % Widowed 202 5.1 % Divorced 218 5.5 % Total Population 15 Years and older 3,970 100.0% Source: American Community Survey, 2010-2014 Estimates Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT - February 7, 2017 MEDINA Page 3 - 11 Factors Influencing Development Natural features within the City of Medina will substantially influence the feasibility of extending municipal services and where and when development will occur. The City undertook an extensive open space and natural resources initiative as a part of previous planning efforts. A. Lakes and Wetlands: Map 3-2 illustrates the Wetland Locations throughout Medina and is based on Hennepin County wetland data records. Nearly 35 percent of the land in Medina is wet, with many lakes, creeks and wetlands. These natural areas affect where and in what intensity development can occur within the City. Upland areas suitable for development need to be well planned to ensure that lakes, wildlife and wetlands are not adversely impacted. The City completed a Functional Assessment of Wetlands (FAW) in November 2007, which was developed to provide guidelines for regulating and protecting these wetlands, and a comprehensive inventory and assessment of existing wetland functions with the City. An overall wetland classification map was provided as part of the FAW and is referenced at the end of this section as Map 3-2. B. Floodplains: Map 3-3 identifies the FEMA designated floodplains found in Medina. Minnehaha Creek, Elm Creek and Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watersheds have floodplains that will limit development in Medina. Much of the floodplains cover the same area as wetlands. Limited portions of these floodplains may be used for development, if criteria for building elevations, flood proofing and filling can be met as outlined in the City's Floodplain Ordinance. C. Watershed District Boundaries: Map 3-4 identifies the boundaries of the three Watershed District Organizations and boundaries within Medina. Although not visible as landscape features, these boundaries are significant because they define the direction of surface water flow. The boundaries are commonly used as major parameters for development of sewer interceptor and trunk lines. Each of the watershed districts has its own regulations for land development, and some require watershed board approval of water management plans for development proposals. The City has designated itself as the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) responsible for reviewing development proposals affecting wetlands. D. Woodlands: Preservation of woodlands is important aesthetically, ecologically and functionally. Woodlands provide wildlife habitat, prevent soil erosion, absorb runoff, provide wind breaks, and define the patterns of streets and land use. E. Soils: The United States Department of Agriculture's Soil Survey and Soil Classifications are used to evaluate development proposals in Medina and to determine the capability of on -site septic systems. Rural residential lots are required to have sufficient soils suitable for a standard sewage disposal system as defined by Medina's Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Code. A significant portion of the rural residential area of Medina contains soils that are considered unsuitable for septic site development. General soil conditions, therefore, establish the intensity of unsewered development. Map 3-5 generally identifies the areas where suitable soils are present in Medina. Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT - February 7, 2017 MEDINA Page 3 - 12 F. Topography: Topography and steep slopes in the City will impact future and current developments. Map 3-5 identifies areas considered as "Steep Slopes" and "Steep Slopes with Grades Greater than 18%." Management and maintenance of steep slopes and other topographic challenges will be critical to future development and growth plans. (REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT - February 7, 2017 GT Y 6 D MEDINA Page 3 - 13 (THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) Chapter 3 - Community Background DRAFT - February 7, 2017 MEDINA Page 3 - 14 1-1 ..-1.-11 _ MEDINA Map 3-1 2016 Tax Base Total Taxes Paid (2016) - 1 - 1,000 11 ism_ 2,500 Ili 2,501 - 5,000 5,001 - 10,000 10,001 - 20,000 20,001 - 40,000 W- 40,001 - 80,000 - 80,001 - 160,000 EN160,001 - 312,976 Map Date: January 31, 2017 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles �� air i k3 �� 41: %di ir"V`WIN/1110111111; 14 lit Ilia 10 EMU ri u���� _ pIU.�� im 1 ,11��nir����0 ��` 1��r����f��r11'��, �%I1E11�%11�%11�%11�%III, s ;ik r 1416. ......--:.. .EIMER MEDINA Map 3-2 Wetland Locations and Classification Wetland Management Classification Preserve Manage 1 W1 Manage 2 Manage 3 Map Date: January 31, 2017 Data from 2008 Funcational classification of wetlands 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles MEDINA Map 3-3 Floodplain Locations Legend FEMA Floodplain Designation A 0.2% Annual Chance Zone 1 % Annual Chance Zone (No Base Flood Elevation Established) 1 % Annual Chance Zone (Base Flood Elevation Established) Map Date: January 31, 2017 11/4/2016 FEMA Map Data displayed 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles II■II■II■11■II■II■p4�Il1�m 0 O J ■II■II■I■II■II■IMsMMIPI ■IMI II■IO■II■ y /1 CHIPPEWA RD CHIPPEWA RD MEAND (7- • ■6._ dii1■11 ■I■ 11 p■11■ ■II■11■II■11■11E:nlailifilMii riighillI■II■111:1 ■II■11■111.11■II■II■IICI ■11■11■11■11■11■1r MEDINA Map 3-4 Watershed Management Organizations Watershed Management Organization Elm Creek Management Commission Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Pioneer -Sarah Creek Man. Commission Map Date: January 31, 2017 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles " ,A. Mem T :Ammon pour `~�� �% 8��/21111VAiada�� s 1r04, ��'�� � `��v���%III�%�% ��JI ���� m III i L, Via�% MEDINA Map 3-5 Soils and Steep Slopes Legend Suitable Soils for Standard SSTS Wetland Locations Steep Slopes 12% - 18% >18% Map Date: January 31, 2017 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles MEDINA Map 3-6 School District Boundaries Legend Wayzata ISD #284 P. Orono ISD #278 Delano ISD #879 Rockford ISD #883 Map Date: January 31, 2017 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Chapter 4: Housing and Neighborhoods Introduction Medina is a growing community that provides a variety of housing types and neighborhood styles while protecting and enhancing the City's open spaces and natural environment. Natural resources are the green infrastructure around which housing and neighborhoods in the City will develop. The availability of land in proximity to existing urban services provides an opportunity for a range of housing types and neighborhoods, while maintaining and protecting the existing ecological integrity of Medina's extensive natural areas. The following sections will provide general background information regarding housing trends, analysis and recommendations for diversifying neighborhoods and accomplishing the City's housing and neighborhood goals. Housing Inventory The following section provides a summary of the existing housing conditions in Medina and the foundation for developing the housing plan. This information has been obtained from a number of sources including the 2010 US Census, the 2015 Annual Housing Market Report from the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, and City Building Permit Information. Housing Supply The table below indicates that there were a total of 2,016 housing units in the City in 2014 consisting of 1,722 single family homes,110 townhomes and 184 multi -family units (multiplexes and apartments). Table 4-A Types of Housing Units (2014) Housing Type Number Percent Single Family detached 1,722 85.4% Townhomes (single-family attached) 110 5.5% Duplex, triplex and quad (2-4 units) 23 1.1 % Multifamily (5 or more units) 161 8.0% Mobile homes 0 0% Total Housing Units 2,016 100% Source American Community Survey 2010-2014 From 2010-2015, the City issued building permits for approximately 379 single family homes and 67 townhomes. No permits for multi -family units were issued from 2010 to 2015. Chapter 4 — Housing and Neighborhoods DRAFT February 7, 2017 G , Y V Q IVIEDINA Page 4 - 1 Housing Tenancy In 2010, 93%of the housing units in Medina were owner -occupied and 7 percent were renter - occupied: Table 4-B Housina Tenure Housing Type Number of Units Percent Owner -occupied housing units 1,581 92.9% Renter -occupied housing units 121 7.1 % Total Occupied Units 1,702 100% Source: Census 2010 Housing Conditions and Age The table below shows that nearly 20 % of Medina's housing stock was built between 2010 and 2015. Approximately 31 % of the housing stock in the City was built before 1980 and is older than 35 years. Almost half of the homes in Medina were built between 1980 and 2009. Table 4-C Housing Age (2015) Total Units Percent 2010-2015 446 19.9 % 2000-2009 401 17.9 % 1990-1999 364 16.2 % 1980-1989 332 14.8 % 1970-1979 245 10.9 % 1960-1969 242 10.8 % 1950-1959 83 3.7% 1949 or earlier 132 5.9% Source: City of Medina Chapter 4 - Housing and Neighborhoods DRAFT February 7, 2017 Y V O c MEDINA Page 4 - 2 Housing Costs Table 4-D describes the existing housing values in the City, and indicates affordability by showing the percentage of the area median income (AMI) that a particular valuation reflects. Seventy percent of the homes within the City currently exceed 100% of the AMI, which is a value of $300,500. Twenty-one percent of owner occupied housing units would be considered affordable in the City of Medina (below 80% AMI). Table 4-D Owner Occupied Housing Values (2015 Housing Values Parcels Percent $1 - $153,000 (50% and below AMI) 80 4% $153,001- $240,500 (50% - 80% AMI) 303 17% $240,500 - $300,500 (80% - 100% AMI) 182 10 % $300,501- $405,500 (101 % - 135% AMI) 219 12 % $405,501- $601,000 (136 % - 200 % AMI) 402 22 % $601,001 and above (Greater than 201 % AMI) 634 35 % Total Owner Occupied Housing Units 1,820 100% Source: Hennepin County 2015 The median home sale price peaked in 2005 at $625,400 prior to the national housing market decline of 2007-2012. The table below shows that the average single family home price has been steadily increasing since 2011, recovering significantly from the decline. Table 4-E Housina Sales (2011-2015 Year Number of Home Sales Median Sale Price 2011 53 S485,000 2012 88 $457,985 2013 119 $521,623 2014 134 $527,500 2015 118 $555,047 Source: 2015 Annual Housing Market Report (Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors) According to the Metropolitan Council, a home is considered "affordable' if it costs 30% or less of the total income of a family earning 80% of the metropolitan area median income. In 2015, this calculation resulted in a home with a value of approximately $240,500 being considered affordable. Chapter 4 - Housing and Neighborhoods DRAFT February 7, 2017 G , Y Y Q IVIEDINA Page 4 - 3 Housing Needs According to Metropolitan Council projections, Medina is forecasted to need housing for an additional 951 households by 2040. As described above, existing housing stock is generally high quality. The City seeks to preserve and enhance this quality while planning for projected growth. Housing Objectives The following objectives are consistent with the goals and strategies identified in Section 2 of this Comprehensive Plan. 1. Preserve and enhance the quality of life currently enjoyed by the residents. 2. Provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support residents at all stages of their lives. 3. Require housing that maintains the open space and natural resources of Medina. 4. Preserve and protect single family housing and the neighborhoods in which they are located; encourage upkeep and improvement of housing stock over time; require platting and design of new housing to be high quality and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and encourage conservation design in new housing stock. 5. Support high standards for quality multi -family development in appropriately zoned areas. 6. Establish new and existing housing design standards to: (a) require quality building and site design; (b) provide for recreation, parks and trails; (c) require open space and trails including links to adjacent neighborhoods, nearby trails, and area parks; (d) respect and protect the natural environment, especially the lakes, wetlands, steep slopes, and woodlands. 7. Require lots in new subdivisions to access a local street rather than a collector street, county road or state highway. 8. Allow the use of conservation subdivision design to preserve rural character, preserve ecologically significant natural resources and retain open space 9. Require new urban residential development to be consistent with the City's Staging and Growth Plan. Chapter 4 - Housing and Neighborhoods DRAFT February 7, 2017 Y V a c MEDINA Page 4 - 4 Affordable Housing Plan The Metropolitan Council has identified affordable housing needs for all cities and townships in the region for 2021-2030. The housing element of each local comprehensive plan is required to reflect each community's share of this regional need for affordable housing. The Metropolitan Council has calculated the City of Medina's share of the 2021-2030 regional affordable housing need to be 253 total units. The table below indicates the expected need for affordable units in Medina by specific affordability level, with affordability based on percentage of Area Median Income (AMI). Table 4-G Affordable Housing Need Allocation (2021-2030) At Or Below 30 % AMI 147 From 31 to 50 % AMI 106 From 51 to 80 % AMI 0 Total Units 253 Source: Metropolitan Council forecasts Consistent with Metropolitan Council policy, the City has met affordable housing requirements by planning for higher -density residential development. The following areas provide the primary locations for higher -density residential development: • 13.4 net acres are planned at a minimum of 12 units per acre at Highway 12 and Baker Park Road (projected minimum of 161 units). This area of the City provides the most practical access to transit opportunities through the nearby park and ride in the City of Maple Plain. • A minimum of 58 units are planned at a minimum of 8 units per acre within the Mixed Residential land use at Highway 55 and Tamarack Drive • A minimum of 37 units are planned at a minimum of 8 units per acre within the Mixed Residential land use at Medina Road and Brockton Lane The City supports creating a livable community through addressing the life cycle housing needs of area residents and the local workforce. Implementing an Affordable Housing Policy and Program in Medina is influenced by: • Socioeconomic demographics of the workforce population desiring to live in Medina • Growing number of senior citizens in Medina • Current land costs and/or availability of land in Medina and surrounding regions • Lack of infill opportunities in Medina • Zoning regulations and fees • Eligibility for supportive grants, programs, and partnerships • Capability to maintain long-term affordability • Strength of the current housing market • Defining appropriate design standards for the affordable housing market • Education of residents, city officials and staff concerning affordable housing Chapter 4 - Housing and Neighborhoods DRAFT February 7, 2017 G t v ° IVIEDINA Page 4 - 5 Affordable Housing Programs Various programs and actions are available to support the development of affordable housing. The City currently partners in a number of the programs in order to support affordable housing, including taking part in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) pool and other opportunities with Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Medina has established a goal to provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support residents at all stages of their lives. To support this goal, the City will evaluate opportunities to utilize public and non-profit programs or to partner with other agencies in these programs. The programs available to the City and developers to support affordable housing, depending on circumstances, include the following: Development Authorities: Medina does not have its own Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and depends on the Hennepin County HRA for affordable housing and redevelopment services. Housing Bonds: Minnesota State Statute allows HRAs to issue housing bonds to provide affordable housing. Tax Abatement: Cities may issue bonds to be used to support the construction of affordable housing, using a portion of the property tax received (tax abatement) from the development to finance these bonds. This removes this property from paying taxes for the services needed for this property, its residents and the community in general. The City may develop a tax abatement policy to determine if and when the level of affordable housing and the guaranteed length of affordability provide sufficient public benefit to justify the use of tax abatement. Tax Increment Financing: Cities may create a housing district to create a tax increment financing (TIF) district. The TIF bonds issued on this district are to be used to support the construction of affordable housing, and property taxes received above the original tax value (increment) from the development are utilized to finance these bonds. The property tax revenue that otherwise would be available to pay for city services would be restricted and not available to pay for the services. The City may develop a TIF policy to determine if and when the level of affordable housing and the guaranteed length of affordability to provide a public benefit is great enough to justify the use of tax abatement Minnesota Housing Consolidated Request for Proposals: The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency provides a request for proposal (RFP) once annually where affordable housing developers can apply for funding to construct affordable housing. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides CDBG funds to communities with over 45,000 residents for the use of providing and maintaining affordable housing. Hennepin County HRA administers these CDBG funds for the City of Medina. HOME Funds: The Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) is a flexible federal grant program that allows Hennepin County to fund affordable housing activities for very low and low-income families or individuals, homeless families, and persons with special needs. Chapter 4 - Housing and Neighborhoods DRAFT February 7, 2017 Y Y O c 1VIEDINA Page 4 - 6 Affordable Housing Incentive Funds (AHIF): AHIF funds are administered by the Hennepin County HRA. This loan program funds the development of affordable housing units for very low-income households. Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Grants: The NSP was established by HUD for the purpose of stabilizing communities that have suffered from foreclosures and abandonment. The focus of this program is the purchase, rehabilitation and resale of foreclosed and abandoned properties. The NSP grants are administered by the Hennepin County HRA. Homebuyer Assistance Programs: Homebuyer assistance programs funded directly by Hennepin County HRA are currently not available. Medina encourages residents to contact the Minnesota Homeownership Center regarding homebuyer assistance programs that are currently available. Repair and Rehabilitation Support: The Community Action Partnership of Suburban Hennepin (CAPSH) provides home repair and rehabilitation assistance to Medina residents who meet the eligibility requirements. Foreclosure Prevention: The Community Action Partnership of Suburban Hennepin (CAPSH) provides foreclosure counseling to Medina residents. Energy Assistance: The Community Action Partnership of Suburban Hennepin (CAPSH) administers the energy assistance program for Medina residents who meet the eligibility requirements. Livable Communities Grants: Medina is a participating community in the Metropolitan Council's Livable Community Act (LCA) programs. Medina may, when applicable, apply for livable community grants on behalf of developers who provide a level of affordable housing and the guaranteed length of affordability that generates a public benefit greater than the resources required to apply for and administer the livable community grants. Local Fair Housing Policy: The Hennepin County HRA has a fair housing policy, which applies to the City of Medina. Therefore, Medina has not developed a local fair housing policy. Fee Waivers or Adjustments: Cities may waive or reduce fees to reduce the cost of construction of affordable housing. Conversely, State rules require that city fees correlate to the cost of providing the services. This waiver or reduction could create a deficiency in the funding for services, causing the City to rely on general funds to make up the deficiency. In considering a fee waiver or reduction, the City should determine when the level of affordable housing and the guaranteed length of affordability provide a sufficient public benefit to justify the reduction or waiver of development fees. Zoning and Subdivision Policies: The City has the ability to adjust its zoning and subdivision regulations through a planned unit development (PUD). Zoning and subdivision regulation are created in part to mitigate the impacts that a development may have on adjoining properties. When considering a PUD for affordable housing, the City should determine when the level of affordable housing and the guaranteed length of affordability provide a public benefit great Chapter 4 - Housing and Neighborhoods DRAFT February 7, 2017 G t v ° MEDINA Page 4 - 7 enough to justify the potential impacts that would result from a deviation in the zoning or subdivision regulations. 4(d) Tax Program: The 4(d) tax program provides a 4% tax credit to affordable housing developers. This program is administered through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Land Trusts: A land trust achieves affordable home ownership by owning the land on which a house is located, allowing the resident to seek financing only on the house. The resident enters into a long-term lease for the home to remain on the property. The advantage of a land trust is that the trust can control the future sale of the property to ensure that affordability can be maintained and have the ability to scatter the land trust sites throughout the community. The disadvantage of a land trust is that it will take significant financial resources to purchase the land rights and those resources are never recovered during the period that the property remains affordable. Medina may evaluate if joining the West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust is the most efficient way to use its resources to provide affordable housing. Chapter 4 - Housing and Neighborhoods DRAFT February 7, 2017 Y V O c I'V'IEDINA Page 4 - 8 Chapter 4: Housing and Neighborhoods Introduction Medina is a growing community that provides a variety of housing types and neighborhood styles while protecting and enhancing the City's open spaces and natural environment. Natural resources are the green infrastructure around which housing and neighborhoods in the City will develop. The availability of land in proximity to existing urban services provides an opportunity for a range of housing types and neighborhoods, while maintaining and protecting the existing ecological integrity of Medina's extensive natural areas. The following sections will provide general background information regarding housing trends, analysis and recommendations for diversifying neighborhoods and accomplishing the City's housing and neighborhood goals. Housing Inventory The following section provides a summary of the existing housing conditions in Medina and the foundation for developing the housing plan. This information has been obtained from a number of sources including the 2010 US Census, the 2015 Annual Housing Market Report from the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, and City Building Permit Information. Housing Supply The table below indicates that there were a total of 2,016 housing units in the City in 2014 consisting of 1,722 single family homes,110 townhomes and 184 multi -family units (multiplexes and apartments). Table 4-A Types of Housing Units (2014 Housing Type Number Percent Single Family detached 1,722 85.4% Townhomes (single-family attached) 110 5.5% Duplex, triplex and quad (2-4 units) 23 1.1 % Multifamily (5 or more units) 161 8.0 % Mobile homes 0 0% Total Housing Units 2,016 100% Source American Community Survey 2010-2014 From 2010-2015, the City issued building permits for approximately 379 single family homes and 67 townhomes. No permits for multi -family units were issued from 2010 to 2015. Chapter 4 — Housing and Neighborhoods DRAFT February 7, 2017 G A T Y 6 R IUI EDI NAB Page 4 - 1 Housing Tenancy In 2010, 93%of the housing units in Medina were owner -occupied and 7 percent were renter - occupied: Table 4-B Housing Tenure Housing Type Number of Units Percent Owner -occupied housing units 1,581 92.9% Renter -occupied housing units 121 7.1 % Total Occupied Units 1,702 100% o Source: Census 2010 Housing Conditions and Age The table below shows that nearly 20% of Medina's housing stock was built between 2010 and 2015. Approximately 31 % of the housing stock in the City was built before 1980 and is older than 35 years. Almost half of the homes in Medina were built between 1980 and 2009. Table 4-C Housina A (2015 Total Units Percent 2010-2015 446 19.9 % 2000-2009 401 17.9% 1990-1999 364 16.2% 1980-1989 332 14.8 % 1970-1979 245 10.9% 1960-1969 242 10.8 % 1950-1959 83 3.7% 1949 or earlier 132 5.9 % Source: City of Medina Chapter 4 - Housing and Neighborhoods DRAFT February 7, 2017 G T Y p z MIEDINA Page 4 - 2 Housing Costs Table 4-D describes the existing housing values in the City, and indicates affordability by showing the percentage of the area median income (AMI) that a particular valuation reflects. Seventy percent of the homes within the City currently exceed 100% of the AMI, which is a value of $300,500. Twenty-one percent of owner occupied housing units would be considered affordable in the City of Medina (below 80% AMI). Table 4-D Owner Occupied Housina Values (2015 Housing Values Parcels Percent $1 - $153,000 (50% and below AMI) 80 4% $153,001- $240,500 (50% - 80% AMI) 303 17% $240,500 - $300,500 (80% - 100% AMI) 182 10 % $300,501- $405,500 (101 % - 135% AMI) 219 12 % $405,501- $601,000 (136% - 200% AMI) 402 22% $601,001 and above (Greater than 201% AMI) 634 35% Total Owner Occupied Housing Units 1,820 100% Source: Hennepin County 2015 The median home sale price peaked in 2005 at $625,400 prior to the national housing market decline of 2007-2012. The table below shows that the average single family home price has been steadily increasing since 2011, recovering significantly from the decline. Table 4-E Housina Sales (2011-2015 Year Number of Home Sales Median Sale Price 2011 53 $485,000 2012 88 $457,985 2013 119 $521,623 2014 134 $527,500 2015 118 $555,047 Source: 2015 Annual Housing Market Report (Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors) According to the Metropolitan Council, a home is considered "affordable' if it costs 30% or less of the total income of a family earning 80% of the metropolitan area median income. In 2015, this calculation resulted in a home with a value of approximately $240,500 being considered affordable. Chapter 4 - Housing and Neighborhoods DRAFT February 7, 2017 G A T Y 6 R IVI EDI NAB Page 4 - 3 Housing Needs According to Metropolitan Council projections, Medina is forecasted to need housing for an additional 951 households by 2040. As described above, existing housing stock is generally high quality. The City seeks to preserve and enhance this quality while planning for projected growth. Housing Objectives The following objectives are consistent with the goals and strategies identified in Section 2 of this Comprehensive Plan. 1. Preserve and enhance the quality of life currently enjoyed by the residents. 2. Provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support residents at all stages of their lives. 3. Require housing that maintains the open space and natural resources of Medina. 4. Preserve and protect single family housing and the neighborhoods in which they are located; encourage upkeep and improvement of housing stock over time; require platting and design of new housing to be high quality and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and encourage conservation design in new housing stock. 5. Support high standards for quality multi -family development in appropriately zoned areas. 6. Establish new and existing housing design standards to: (a) require quality building and site design; (b) provide for recreation, parks and trails; (c) require open space and trails including links to adjacent neighborhoods, nearby trails, and area parks; (d) respect and protect the natural environment, especially the lakes, wetlands, steep slopes, and woodlands. 7. Require lots in new subdivisions to access a local street rather than a collector street, county road or state highway. 8. Allow the use of conservation subdivision design to preserve rural character, preserve ecologically significant natural resources and retain open space 9. Require new urban residential development to be consistent with the City's Staging and Growth Plan. Chapter 4 - Housing and Neighborhoods DRAFT February 7, 2017 G T Y p z MIEDINA Page 4 - 4 Affordable Housing Plan The Metropolitan Council has identified affordable housing needs for all cities and townships in the region for 2021-2030. The housing element of each local comprehensive plan is required to reflect each community's share of this regional need for affordable housing. The Metropolitan Council has calculated the City of Medina's share of the 2021-2030 regional affordable housing need to be 253 total units. The table below indicates the expected need for affordable units in Medina by specific affordability level, with affordability based on percentage of Area Median Income (AMI). Table 4-G Affordable Housing Need Allocation (2021-2030) At Or Below 30 % AMI 147 From 31 to 50 % AMI 106 From 51 to 80 % AMI 0 Total Units 253 Source: Metropolitan Council forecasts Consistent with Metropolitan Council policy, the City has met affordable housing requirements by planning for higher -density residential development. The following areas provide the primary locations for higher -density residential development: • 13.4 net acres are planned at a minimum of 12 units per acre at Highway 12 and Baker Park Road (projected minimum of 161 units). This area of the City provides the most practical access to transit opportunities through the nearby park and ride in the City of Maple Plain. • A minimum of 58 units are planned at a minimum of 8 units per acre within the Mixed Residential land use at Highway 55 and Tamarack Drive • A minimum of 37 units are planned at a minimum of 8 units per acre within the Mixed Residential land use at Medina Road and Brockton Lane The City supports creating a livable community through addressing the life cycle housing needs of area residents and the local workforce. Implementing an Affordable Housing Policy and Program in Medina is influenced by: • Socioeconomic demographics of the workforce population desiring to live in Medina • Growing number of senior citizens in Medina • Current land costs and/or availability of land in Medina and surrounding regions • Lack of infill opportunities in Medina • Zoning regulations and fees • Eligibility for supportive grants, programs, and partnerships • Capability to maintain long-term affordability • Strength of the current housing market • Defining appropriate design standards for the affordable housing market • Education of residents, city officials and staff concerning affordable housing Chapter 4 - Housing and Neighborhoods DRAFT February 7, 2017 G A T Y O F MEDINA Page 4 - 5 Affordable Housing Programs Various programs and actions are available to support the development of affordable housing. The City currently partners in a number of the programs in order to support affordable housing, including taking part in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) pool and other opportunities with Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Medina has established a goal to provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support residents at all stages of their lives. To support this goal, the City will evaluate opportunities to utilize public and non-profit programs or to partner with other agencies in these programs. The programs available to the City and developers to support affordable housing, depending on circumstances, include the following: Development Authorities: Medina does not have its own Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and depends on the Hennepin County HRA for affordable housing and redevelopment services. Housing Bonds: Minnesota State Statute allows HRAs to issue housing bonds to provide affordable housing. Tax Abatement: Cities may issue bonds to be used to support the construction of affordable housing, using a portion of the property tax received (tax abatement) from the development to finance these bonds. This removes this property from paying taxes for the services needed for this property, its residents and the community in general. The City may develop a tax abatement policy to determine if and when the level of affordable housing and the guaranteed length of affordability provide sufficient public benefit to justify the use of tax abatement. Tax Increment Financing: Cities may create a housing district to create a tax increment financing (TIF) district. The TIF bonds issued on this district are to be used to support the construction of affordable housing, and property taxes received above the original tax value (increment) from the development are utilized to finance these bonds. The property tax revenue that otherwise would be available to pay for city services would be restricted and not available to pay for the services. The City may develop a TIF policy to determine if and when the level of affordable housing and the guaranteed length of affordability to provide a public benefit is great enough to justify the use of tax abatement Minnesota Housing Consolidated Request for Proposals: The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency provides a request for proposal (RFP) once annually where affordable housing developers can apply for funding to construct affordable housing. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides CDBG funds to communities with over 45,000 residents for the use of providing and maintaining affordable housing. Hennepin County HRA administers these CDBG funds for the City of Medina. HOME Funds: The Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) is a flexible federal grant program that allows Hennepin County to fund affordable housing activities for very low and low-income families or individuals, homeless families, and persons with special needs. Chapter 4 - Housing and Neighborhoods DRAFT February 7, 2017 G T v p R MIEDINA Page 4 - 6 Affordable Housing Incentive Funds (AHIF): AHIF funds are administered by the Hennepin County HRA. This loan program funds the development of affordable housing units for very low-income households. Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Grants: The NSP was established by HUD for the purpose of stabilizing communities that have suffered from foreclosures and abandonment. The focus of this program is the purchase, rehabilitation and resale of foreclosed and abandoned properties. The NSP grants are administered by the Hennepin County HRA. Homebuyer Assistance Programs: Homebuyer assistance programs funded directly by Hennepin County HRA are currently not available. Medina encourages residents to contact the Minnesota Homeownership Center regarding homebuyer assistance programs that are currently available. Repair and Rehabilitation Support: The Community Action Partnership of Suburban Hennepin (CAPSH) provides home repair and rehabilitation assistance to Medina residents who meet the eligibility requirements. Foreclosure Prevention: The Community Action Partnership of Suburban Hennepin (CAPSH) provides foreclosure counseling to Medina residents. Energy Assistance: The Community Action Partnership of Suburban Hennepin (CAPSH) administers the energy assistance program for Medina residents who meet the eligibility requirements. Livable Communities Grants: Medina is a participating community in the Metropolitan Council's Livable Community Act (LCA) programs. Medina may, when applicable, apply for livable community grants on behalf of developers who provide a level of affordable housing and the guaranteed length of affordability that generates a public benefit greater than the resources required to apply for and administer the livable community grants. Local Fair Housing Policy: The Hennepin County HRA has a fair housing policy, which applies to the City of Medina. Therefore, Medina has not developed a local fair housing policy. Fee Waivers or Adjustments: Cities may waive or reduce fees to reduce the cost of construction of affordable housing. Conversely, State rules require that city fees correlate to the cost of providing the services. This waiver or reduction could create a deficiency in the funding for services, causing the City to rely on general funds to make up the deficiency. In considering a fee waiver or reduction, the City should determine when the level of affordable housing and the guaranteed length of affordability provide a sufficient public benefit to justify the reduction or waiver of development fees. Zoning and Subdivision Policies: The City has the ability to adjust its zoning and subdivision regulations through a planned unit development (PUD). Zoning and subdivision regulation are created in part to mitigate the impacts that a development may have on adjoining properties. When considering a PUD for affordable housing, the City should determine when the level of affordable housing and the guaranteed length of affordability provide a public benefit great Chapter 4 - Housing and Neighborhoods DRAFT February 7, 2017 G A T Y O F IVI EDI NAB Page 4 - 7 enough to justify the potential impacts that would result from a deviation in the zoning or subdivision regulations. 4(d) Tax Program: The 4(d) tax program provides a 4% tax credit to affordable housing developers. This program is administered through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Land Trusts: A land trust achieves affordable home ownership by owning the land on which a house is located, allowing the resident to seek financing only on the house. The resident enters into a long-term lease for the home to remain on the property. The advantage of a land trust is that the trust can control the future sale of the property to ensure that affordability can be maintained and have the ability to scatter the land trust sites throughout the community. The disadvantage of a land trust is that it will take significant financial resources to purchase the land rights and those resources are never recovered during the period that the property remains affordable. Medina may evaluate if joining the West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust is the most efficient way to use its resources to provide affordable housing. Chapter 4 - Housing and Neighborhoods DRAFT February 7, 2017 G T Y p z MIEDINA Page 4 - 8 Chapter 5: LAND USE & GROWTH Introduction Medina has significant natural resources, high -quality neighborhoods and areas for commercial and retail development. The City's extensive wetlands and limited infrastructure availability, together with past community planning, have contributed to its rural character. The metropolitan area is a high growth area. Medina's rural charm makes it an attractive alternative to the more intensely populated areas found closer to Minneapolis and St. Paul. This chapter discusses existing and future land use patterns in the City. 2016 Existing Land Uses TABLE 5-1 EXISTING LAND USES (2016) Land Use Acres Percent Agricultural 3,208.3 18.7% Golf Course 532.5 3.1 % Industrial and Utility 278.6 1.6 % Institutional 194.2 1.1 % Major Highway 83.1 0.5% Mixed Use Residential 6.8 0.0% Multifamily 17.5 0.1 % Office 38.9 0.2% Open Water 1,174.5 6.9% Park, Recreational, or Preserve 1,836.2 10.7% Railway 77.0 0.4% Retail and Other Commercial 186.6 1.1 % Rural Residential 4,447.1 26.0% Single Family Attached 44.1 0.3% Single Family Detached 916.1 5.4% Undeveloped 119.0 0.7% Wetlands 3,960.0 23.1 % Total 17,120.5 100% Agricultural Use includes farms and other parcels greater than five acres in size used primarily for agricultural, pasture and rural purposes. A large percentage of the City is designated as agricultural. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 YY M EDII''1[A Page 5- 1 Residential Use is divided into four designations: Rural Residential consists of larger tracts of land and homesteads, including hobby farms, on parcels without City sewer and water service. The Rural Residential land use includes rural property which is currently vacant and is not planned for urban services. Single Family Detached includes detached single-family residential properties which are served with urban services. Single Family Attached includes attached single-family residential properties such as twin homes, duplexes, townhomes and rowhomes. Multifamily includes residential properties such as apartment buildings and condominiums. Mixed Use Residential Use identifies properties which include residential units upon the same property as a commercial use. Most of these uses are buildings in the Uptown Hamel area which include apartments above commercial or office space. Industrial and Utility Use is primarily in the TH 55 corridor and includes light industrial, warehouse, and manufacturing facilities. The use also includes utility uses throughout the community such as electric substations, water treatment facilities and the like. Retail and Other Commercial Use is primarily in the TH 55 and Highway 55 corridors and in the Uptown Hamel area. Park, Recreational or Preserve Use includes parks and public recreational and protected open space. Baker Park Reserve has a significant impact on planning due to its size and regional attraction, as well as its effect on the City's tax base and use. Golf Course Use includes existing golf courses. Institutional Use includes City, county, or state owned property, religious institutions, nursing homes, cemeteries, and other similar uses. Major Highway and Railway Uses identify land occupied by federal or state highways and railroad improvements. Undeveloped Use identifies areas that are currently vacant but have been subdivided in anticipation of a new development. Much of this land may currently be on the market. Sites which are actively in development are excluded from this use and designated as their approved land use. Wetlands, Lakes and Open Water Wetlands and lakes play an important role in the City because together they affect 30.2% of the City land and significantly impact the City's land use patterns. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 Y' Y M EDII''1[A Page 5- 2 Natural Features and Areas The City contains many ecologically significant natural resource areas that provide value to all residents by providing natural beauty and wildlife habitat, improving water quality and adding to land values. These natural areas are described in further detail in the Open Space Report but merit discussion from a land use and development perspective. The City has an extensive network of wetlands and lakes that significantly impact the developable areas in the City. Woodland areas are located throughout the community, including a number of remnants of the Big Woods along with many other significant stands. The community has made conscious choices to preserve and protect the natural areas and to improve their quality. Because 35.4% of the land area in Medina is comprised of lakes and wetlands and many of these areas are under private ownership, it is critical for the City to educate residents about the importance of maintaining healthy wetlands, woodlands and lakes. These natural features comprise the City's green infrastructure system: the City's natural support system that promotes healthy sustainability of the community. As the City grows, the natural areas will be a critical element of every decision -making process. The City undertook an extensive natural resource and open space planning effort that will be the foundation for land use decisions. The Open Space Report indicates the ecologically significant areas that require protection and the areas that will be maintained as a part of the City's conservation network. Solar Access Protection Medina is committed to encouraging and promoting solar energy as a clean, alternative form of energy production and reducing carbon -based emissions. Protecting solar access means protecting solar collectors (or the location of future collectors) from shading by adjacent structures or vegetation. Existing structures and buildings in the City generally do not present significant shading problems for solar energy systems. Most single family attached and detached homes are one or two stories and most multi -family, commercial, and industrial buildings are two stories or less. Solar energy systems and equipment are generally a permitted use if attached to structures, and freestanding solar arrays are permitted with a conditional use permit in most districts. The zoning ordinance provides standards for the protection and establishment of these solar energy systems. While these ordinance standards help protect solar access, it is not possible for every part of a building or lot to obtain unobstructed solar access. Mature trees, topography, and the location of structures can limit solar access. However, on most properties the rooftop of the principal building would be free of shading by adjacent structures. Therefore, the majority of property owners in the City could utilize solar energy systems, if they so desired, as a supplement or alternative to conventional fuels. Historic Preservation The City of Medina currently does not have any sites or structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The City of Medina has a strong interest in preserving Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 c�Yy Q� MEDINA Page 5- 3 representative portions of its history. The City previously worked with the West Hennepin Pioneer Museum to restore the Wolsfeld Family cabin which was originally built in 1856. It is thought to be one of the original homes in Medina. The City further commits to providing the following general guidelines related to historical preservation: • Partner with organizations that want to preserve historically significant areas, landmarks, and buildings in Medina; • Modify zoning regulations as necessary to help preserve areas that may be historically significant. Future General Land Use Policy Direction As described in the Vision Statement, the City of Medina strives to promote and protect its open spaces and natural environment. The City has historically been, and intends to continue to be, primarily a rural community. The City has planned for a limited amount of future development consistent with regional forecast and consistent with Community Goals. Future Land Use Plan Principles The Future Land Use Plan guides the development of Medina through 2040, and will be used to implement the City's goals, strategies and policies. The Plan is guided by the Vision and Community Goals as furthered by the following principles: Development Patterns and Neighborhood Form • Encourage open spaces, parks and trails in all neighborhood developments. The survey indicated that a high quality of life is found when residents have visual access to green spaces. • Create neighborhoods with a variety of housing types that are well connected with roads, trails or sidewalks. • Maintain the integrity of rural neighborhoods and promote development patterns consistent with existing rural residential development. • Recognize neighborhood characteristics and promote new development compatible in scale, architectural quality and style with existing neighborhoods. • Stage residential growth to minimize the amount of adjacent developments which occur within the same time period. • Guide density to areas with proximity to existing infrastructure and future infrastructure availability. • Concentrate higher density development near service oriented businesses to help promote walkability. • Consider planned development in surrounding communities when making land use decisions in the City. Road Patterns • Recognize regional highway capacity and planned improvements, along with use forecasts, as major factors in planning for growth and land use changes. • Establish collector streets with good connections through the community's growth Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 L Y y Q 4. MEDINA Page 5- 4 areas. • Promote trails and sidewalk access near roads and thoroughfares to encourage multi - modal transportation choices. • Consider opportunities to improve north -south travel within the City. Open Spaces and Natural Resources • Preserve natural resources throughout the community and provide educational opportunities to residents to help them understand the value of natural areas. • Preserve open spaces and natural resources. • Protect wooded areas and encourage improvement of existing resources and reforestation. Evaluate existing woodland protections and supplement as necessary. • Support the guidelines identified in the Open Space Report to preserve the City's natural systems. Business Districts and Commercial Areas • Focus service businesses and development near urban residential densities and along primary transportation corridors. • Provide connections between residents and commercial areas and promote businesses within mixed -use areas. • Work to create job opportunities in the community for Medina residents to reduce traffic and commuting demands. • Emphasize service and retail uses which serve the needs of the local community and provide opportunities for the community to gather. • Support business development with a corporate campus style which provides open spaces and protects natural resources. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 Y' Y M EDII''1[A Page 5- 5 The Guide Plan Medina's Future Land Use Plan, Map 5-2, maintains Medina's rural character and protects the City's natural resources while accommodating limited growth and development which is consistent with the City's Vision, Community Goals and Land Use Principles. Table 5-2 below demonstrates the expected 2040 land uses in the community. TABLE 5-2 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN Future Land Use (2040)Gross Acreage % Net Acreage oh IN Rural Residential 8,734.5 51.1 % 6,476.4 37.9 Agriculture 265.5 1.6 % 204.9 1.2 Future Development Area 396.2 2.3 % 366.7 2.1 Low Density Residential 1,103.7 6.4 % 879.2 5.1 Medium Density Residential 58.3 0,3 % 44.9 0.3 High Density Residential 29.3 0.2 % 26.3 0.2 Mixed Residential 137.0 0.8 % 97.1 0.6 Uptown Hamel 45.0 0.3 % 39.0 0.2 Commercial 247.1 1.4 % 196.0 1.1 Business 716.9 4.2 % 503.0 2.9 Rural Commercial 87.4 0.5% 59.4 0.3 Institutional 270.0 1.5 % 199.0 1.1 Parks, Recreation, Open Space 3,106.5 18.1 % 2,054.0 12.0 Private Recreation 294.7 1.7 % 260.5 1.5 Closed Sanitary Landfill 192.1 1.1 % 124.3 0.7% Right -of -Way 673.1 3.9 / 672.4 3.9 Total Acres 16,356.5 12,202.6 Lakes and Open Water 763.5 4.5% 763.5 4.5 Wetlands and Floodplain 4,153.9 24.3 Total City 17,120.5 17,120.5 The Growth and Development Map (May 5-3) highlights areas within the City in which a change of land use is contemplated by the Future Land Use plan. The map also highlights wetland areas within Medina which significantly affect land planning, development, and infrastructure decisions. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 YY M EDII''1[A Page 5- 6 Future Land Use Designations Rural Residential (RR) identifies areas for low -intensity uses, such as rural residential, hobby farms, agricultural, horticulture, conservation of ecologically significant natural resources and passive recreation. Density within the RR land use shall be no more than one lot per 10 acres and the area is not planned to be served by urban services during the timeframe covered by this Plan. Agricultural (AG) identifies areas which are planned for long-term agricultural uses. Density within the land use can be no more than one lot per 40 acres which will not be served by urban services. Property within this land use is eligible to be part of the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Program. Future Development Area (FDA) identifies areas which could potentially be planned for future urban development in the City that will be provided municipal sewer and water services. This area will remain rural unless and until designated for urban services in a future Comprehensive Plan update. The purpose of the FDA designation is to communicate the future planning intentions to the community. This designation is tentative and depends greatly on future infrastructure improvements, including to regional highway capacity. Low Density Residential (LDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 2.0 units per acre and 3.0.units per acre which are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary use in this area is single- and two-family residential development. Medium Density Residential (MDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 5.0 and 7.0 units per acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary uses in this designation will be a mix of housing such as single family residential, twin homes, town homes, row homes, and small multiple family buildings. High Density Residential (HDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 12.0 and 15.0 units per acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary uses will include town homes, apartment buildings and condominiums which should incorporate some open space or an active park. Mixed Residential (MR) identifies residential land uses developed between 3.5 and 4.0 units per net acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The land use provides flexibility for the type of housing developed, including detached single family, twin homes, townhomes and multiple family buildings, provided the overall density of a project falls within the range noted above and provides some higher density housing. Some portion of each site shall be developed at densities over 8.0 units per net acre. At a minimum, each development in the land use shall include one higher density housing unit per net acre, which shall be complemented with open space and recreational activities. Uptown Hamel (UH) the Uptown Hamel land use allows residential and commercial to be mixed on adjacent sites and to be mixed within the same building or property. Residential development in this designation may be between 4.0 and 15.0 units per acre. The mixed -use business areas will be served by urban services. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G Y V © T M EDII''IiA Page 5- 7 Commercial (C) provides areas for highway oriented businesses and retail establishments including commercial, office and retail uses. These uses are concentrated along the arterial corridors and are served or will be served by urban services. Business (B) provides opportunities for corporate campus uses including office, warehouse, and light industrial. This designation identifies larger tracts of land that are suitable for office and business park developments and are served or will be served by urban services. Rural Commercial (RC) identifies commercial land uses which are not served by urban services, but rather by individual wells and septic systems. The scale of development in this land use shall be limited in order to protect water resources. Institutional (INST) identifies existing public, semi-public, and non-profit uses such as governmental, cemeteries, religious, educational and utilities. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) identifies publicly owned or permanently conserved land which is used for park, recreational, or open space purposes. Private Recreation (PREC) identifies areas that are currently used for outdoor recreational uses which are held under private ownership but are not publicly maintained. Limited numbers of residential uses may be included or have previously been developed within this land use designation. Closed Sanitary Landfill (SL) identifies an existing closed sanitary landfill. The land is owned by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) which also has jurisdiction over land use regulations. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 Y' Y M EDII''1[A Page 5- 8 Average Net Residential Density The Metropolitan Council has designated the portion of the City within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area as Emerging Suburban Edge. Residential development within the Emerging Surburban Edge designation is required to be planned for new development and redevelopment at average net density of at least 3-5 units per acre. The average net density for planned residential development in Medina is 3.15 units per acre as described in Table 5-3. TABLE 5-3 NET RESIDENTIAL DENSITY Future Land Use Planned Net Acreage Minimum Density Minimum Number of Units Low Density Residential 171.0 2.0 342.0 Medium Density Residential 21.3 5.0 106.5 High Density Residential 13.9 12.0 166.8 Mixed Residential 97.1 3.5 339.9 Total Planned Residential 303.3 955.2 Average Net Residential Density 3.15 Redevelopment is anticipated within the Uptown Hamel area and is likely to include additional residential units. The intent of the Uptown Hamel land use is to permit flexibility in the amount of residential and commercial development and is therefore not projected in Table 5-3. However, residential development within Uptown Hamel is required to exceed 4 units per net acre, which would further compliance with Metropolitan Council minimum net density requirements. Employment Intensity Forecasts The Metropolitan Council requires that communities provide a measurement of forecasted employment. Acceptable measures include floor area ratios, building footprint percentages or impervious surface percentages. Medina anticipates that new development in the Commercial and Business land uses will tend to result in 50-65% impervious surface coverage. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 Y' Y MEDII''lIA Page 5- 9 Land Use Policies by Area The following section provides policies for land use designations and is categorized into generalized subsections. The policies for each category as provided below directly support the Community Goals and Land Use Principles. These designations are generalized land uses and are not specific zoning districts. The City will update the zoning ordinance and applicable codes to be consistent with the land use plan and designations identified in this section. The planning process revealed a strong interest in promoting high quality, sustainable development in the City. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for large scale or master plan types of development, regardless of whether they are residential, commercial or mixed -uses will be available and will be supported through zoning. Rural Designations The rural designations include Agricultural, Rural Residential and Future Development Area. A large percentage of the community falls into these categories. The purpose of these designations is to provide low -intensity land uses, such as rural residential, farming, hobby farms, horticulture, conservation of natural and ecologically significant natural resources and passive recreation. This area will not be provided with water or sewer service during the timeframe covered by this Plan. The City's goal is to maintain the rural character of this area. The Metropolitan Council System Statement shows the majority of this area as Diversified Rural, and the City utilizes the Rural Residential designation to be consistent with the System Statement. A significant segment of this area consists of large, rural parcels with single-family homes. The City recognizes that such low -density, development will continue to be a desired housing alternative. The City's Open Space Report proposes several different implementation techniques for allowing open space development and planning to maintain rural character and simultaneously preserve significant natural resources. This result may take the form of innovative developments that clusters smaller lots on larger parcels with permanently conserved open space. Such innovative arrangements can help preserve the City's natural resources, open space and rural character, while still maintaining an average overall density of ten acres per unit. Medina's wetlands, lakes, scattered woodlands and soil conditions prevent smaller, unsewered lot development, but are ideal for low -density rural housing. Medina's policy in the permanent rural area is to keep strict soil requirements for septic sites, but allow flexibility for Open Space design developments and to ensure that the permanent rural area will remain rural by eliminating the need for future extension of a sanitary sewer service to replace failing systems. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 YY M EDII''1[A Page 5- 10 Objectives: 1. Allow low -density development in the Rural Residential Area including innovative arrangements of homes that preserve open space and natural resources. 2. Encourage conservation of open space, farms and ecologically significant natural resources in the rural areas. 3. Enforce stringent standards for the installation and maintenance of permanent, on -site sewage disposal systems. 4. Allow public facilities and services, such as parks and trail systems, if compatible with rural service area development. 5. Allow land uses, such as home -based businesses, hobby farms, horse stables, nurseries and other smaller -scale rural activities, which will not conflict with adjoining residential development. 6. Regulate noise, illumination, animals, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety. 7. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per forty acres for property in the Agricultural land use. 8. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per ten acres for new development in the Rural Residential and Future Development Area land use. 9. Consider exceptions to maximum density standards for open space developments that protect natural features and put land into permanent conservation. 10. Urban services will not be provided to the Agricultural, Rural Residential, or Future Development Area land uses during this planning cycle. 11. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands and other significant natural characteristics. 12. Require that lots contain adequate soil types and conditions as defined in the City's on -site septic system requirements. 13. Protect property within the Future Development Area designation from subdivision and development by requiring ghost plats for subdivisions so that future urban expansion is not compromised. 14. Reduce impervious surfaces where possible by applying low impact design standards and encourage innovative materials and plans that reduce runoff. 15. Encourage and incentivize landowners to participate in the protection and conservation of significant natural resources. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 Y' Y M EDII''1[A Page 5- 11 Urban Service Designations The Urban Service Area includes the residential and commercial areas of the City that are currently or will be served by municipal water and sewer services. Residential Uses Objectives: 1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural characteristics of the property. 2. Consider exceptions to or modifications of density restrictions for developments that protect the natural features or exceed other standards of the zoning district. 3. Restrict urban development to properties within the sewer service boundary. 4. Encourage green building practices such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) principles in neighborhood planning and residential building and low impact development design standards. 5. Regulate the rate and location of development in keeping with availability of public facilities and the City's stated goals, including the undesignated MUSA and growth strategies. 6. Restrict commercial and business development to areas designated in this Plan. 7. Protect property within the City's MUSA boundary from development prior to the provision of urban services that will hinder future division. 8. Create flexible zoning standards that would allow for innovative arrangements of homes, conservation easements, or other creative land use concepts that preserve the City's open space and natural features. 9. Promote attractive, well -maintained dwellings on functional, clearly marked roads, with adequate facilities and open space. 10. Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety. 11. Encourage a controlled mix of densities, housing types, age groups, economic levels, lot sizes, and living styles that are of appropriate scale and consistent with appropriate land use, market demands, and development standards. 12. Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of ecologically significant natural resources. 13. Establish standards for higher density residential development so that such development is compatible with surrounding uses. Such standards may include enclosed parking, green space, landscape buffering and height limitations. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT- February 7, 2017 G Y V © T M EDII''1[A Page 5- 12 14. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety. 15. Plan interconnections between separate developments to encourage shared road use to reduce costs and minimize the amount of road surface required. 16. Require planning of trails and walkway systems in the early design stages of all new development so that residential areas are provided safe access to parks and open space. 17. In urban residential zones with sanitary sewer service permit higher density in PUD's in exchange for (1) reduced land coverage by buildings, (2) provision of more multi -family units; and, (3) sensitive treatment of natural resources. 18. Implement standards for lot sizes and setbacks which recognize the development characteristics and natural resources of each existing neighborhood. 19. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to protect residential neighborhoods and to maintain public health and safety. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 Y' Y M EDII''1[A Page 5- 13 Uptown Hamel The Uptown Hamel land use allows for a mix of residential and commercial uses to create a vibrant, walkable, and attractive place; a place to shop, work and live. Objectives: 1. Allow a mix of residential and commercial uses to co -exist on adjacent parcels as well as within the same structure or on the same parcel. 2. Consider alternatives for meeting parking requirements including parking in the rear of buildings, shared parking, on -street, underground, or ramp parking. 3. Use building standards that enhance and maintain the small town heritage and traditional small-town look including brick facades, traditional street lighting, and overhangs over the sidewalk, boardwalks, and the like. Establishment of design guidelines to support this objective. 4. Involve residents, businesses, community groups and other stakeholders in the planning of these areas. 5. Create master plans for mixed -use areas to ensure integration of uses and responsiveness to adjacent land uses. 6. Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of ecologically significant natural resources. 7. Encourage underground or structured parking through flexibility to standards, including increased residential density up to 20 units per acre. 8. Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety. 9. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety. 10. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 M EDII''1[A Page 5- 14 Commercial Uses The following objectives refer to commercial land uses which will provide a variety of retail products and services mixed with smaller offices. Objectives: 1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural characteristics of the property. 2. Provide convenient and attractive shopping and services to meet the needs of City residents. 3. Encourage businesses that benefit the local community by providing employment opportunities offering convenience goods and services, utilizing high quality design, and having limited impact on public services. 4. Require commercial activities that serve the broader metropolitan market to have access to a regional highway or frontage road. 5. Regulate the impact of commercial development along the border between commercially and residentially guided areas to ensure that commercial property has a minimal impact on residential areas. 6. Regulate construction to ensure high quality, energy and resource efficient buildings and to promote such Green Building standards as LEED Certifications or the State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines: Buildings, Benchmarks and Beyond (B-3) standards. 7. Encourage construction that enhances the visual appeal of TH 55 corridor and the rural vistas and open spaces of the City. 8. Establish standards for the commercial area north of TH 55 at Tamarack Drive which results in a high quality, walkable and appropriately scaled development which complements nearby residential neighborhoods, emphasizes goods and services for local residents over highway users and provides gathering opportunities for the community. 9. Require frontage roads that do not directly access arterial roadways and limit access to arterial and collector roadways. 10. Limit the scale of commercial development where urban services are not available in order to protect water resources and to integrate such uses with surrounding rural lands. 11. Use the site plan review process to ensure that commercial and industrial uses are compatible with neighboring future and existing uses, and with the adjoining public streets and highways. PUD's may be used to help accomplish this policy. 12. Emphasize pedestrian safety. 13. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety. 14. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 L Y y Q MEDINA Page 5- 15 Business Uses The following objectives refer to business land uses that are connected to or planned for urban services. Businesses in this use generally include office complexes, business park development, warehouse and light industrial opportunities. Objectives: 1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural characteristics of the property. 2. Encourage businesses that benefit the local community by providing employment opportunities utilizing high quality design, and having limited impact on public services. 3. Regulate the impact of development along the border between business and residentially guided areas to ensure that business uses have a minimal impact on residential areas. 4. Regulate construction to ensure high quality, energy and resource efficient buildings and to promote such Green Building standards as LEED Certifications or the State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines: Buildings, Benchmarks and Beyond (B-3) standards. 5. Encourage construction that enhances the visual appeal of TH 55 corridor and the rural vistas and open spaces of the City. 6. Create or update standards that promote a more rural appearance, or create campus style developments that protect ecologically significant areas and natural features. 7. Require frontage roads that do not directly access arterial roadways and limit access points to collector and arterial roadways. 8. Use the site plan review process to ensure that commercial and industrial uses are compatible with neighboring future and existing uses, and with the adjoining public streets and highways. PUD's may be used to help accomplish this policy. 9. Emphasize pedestrian safety. 10. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety. 11. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT- February 7, 2017 Y' Y M EDII''1[A Page 5- 16 Staging Plan The staging plan is tied to infrastructure plans, including water, wastewater and transportation, to ensure that growth and development are commensurate with services necessary to support new residents and businesses in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The staging plan, Map 5-4, utilizes flexible staging boundaries to direct where and when development should proceed within the City and is built on the following principles: • Growth should encompass a balance of land uses to provide residential and business areas for development throughout the planning period. The staging plan also is intended to reduce concentration of development within a location during a particular timeframe. • The staging plan identifies staged increments of 5-year periods and provides some flexibility between adjacent staging periods. Development shall be limited to a maximum of two years prior to the existing staging period, and will be tied to an incentive based points system. Table 5-5, located on the following page, describes the net acreage of the various land uses by Staging Period. The following table describes the corresponding number of residential units which could be developed upon property within each Staging Period. Although most of the property staged for development is available in earlier timeframes, the City anticipates that actual growth will be more linear as described in the forecasts in Chapter 3. TABLE 5-4 STAGING PLAN — RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY Time Period Total Residential Units High Density Residential Units 2018-2020 343 161 2020-2025 94 2025-2030 469 95 2030-2035 0 2035-2040 48 Total 955 256 Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 YY MEDII''lIA Page 5- 17 TABLE 5-5 STAGING PLAN - NET ACREAGE Future Land Use Existin g 2017 Change 2017-2020 2020 Change 2020-2025 2025 Change 2025-2030 2030 Change 2030-2035 2035 Change 2035-2040 2040 Rural Residential 6,481.0 0.0 6,481.0 0.0 6,481.0 0.0 6,481.0 0.0 6,481.0 0.0 6,481.0 Agriculture 204.9 0.0 204.9 0.0 204.9 0.0 204.9 0.0 204.9 0.0 204.9 Future Develop. Area 980.1 -327.8 652.3 -99.5 552.8 -162.2 390.6 0.0 390.6 -23.9 366.7 Low Density Residential 708.2 34.7 742.9 47.3 790.2 65.1 855.3 0.0 855.3 23.9 879.2 Medium Density Res. 23.6 21.3 44.9 0.0 44.9 0.0 44.9 0.0 44.9 0.0 44.9 High Density Residential 12.4 13.9 26.3 0.0 26.3 0.0 26.3 0.0 26.3 0.0 26.3 Mixed Residential 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.1 97.1 0.0 97.1 0.0 97.1 Uptown Hamel 39.0 0.0 39.0 0.0 39.0 0.0 39.0 0.0 39.0 0.0 39.0 Commercial 142.9 53.1 196.0 0.0 196.0 0.0 196.0 0.0 196.0 0.0 196.0 Business 246.0 204.8 450.8 52.2 503.0 0.0 503.0 0.0 503.0 0.0 503.0 Rural Commercial 59.4 0.0 59.4 0.0 59.4 0.0 59.4 0.0 59.4 0.0 59.4 Institutional 194.4 0.0 194.4 0.0 194.4 0.0 194.4 0.0 194.4 0.0 194.4 Parks, Rec, Open Space 2,054.0 0.0 2,054.0 0.0 2,054.0 0.0 2,054.0 0.0 2,054.0 0.0 2,054.0 Private Recreation 260.5 0.0 260.5 0.0 260.5 0.0 260.5 0.0 260.5 0.0 260.5 Closed Sanitary Landfill 124.3 0.0 124.3 0.0 124.3 0.0 124.3 0.0 124.3 0.0 124.3 Right -of -Way 672.4 0.0 672.4 0.0 672.4 0.0 672.4 0.0 672.4 0.0 672.4 Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 L T y MEDINA Page 5- 18 Chapter 5: LAND USE & GROWTH Introduction Medina has significant natural resources, high -quality neighborhoods and areas for commercial and retail development. The City's extensive wetlands and limited infrastructure availability, together with past community planning, have contributed to its rural character. The metropolitan area is a high growth area. Medina's rural charm makes it an attractive alternative to the more intensely populated areas found closer to Minneapolis and St. Paul. This chapter discusses existing and future land use patterns in the City. 2016 Existing Land Uses TABLE 5-1 EXISTING LAND USES (2016) Land Use Acres Percent Agricultural 3,208.3 18.7% Golf Course 532.5 3.1 % Industrial and Utility 278.6 1.6 % Institutional 194.2 1.1 % Major Highway 83.1 0.5% Mixed Use Residential 6.8 0.0% Multifamily 17.5 0.1 % Office 38.9 0.2% Open Water 1,174.5 6.9% Park, Recreational, or Preserve 1,836.2 10.7% Railway 77.0 0.4% Retail and Other Commercial 186.6 1.1 % Rural Residential 4,447.1 26.0% Single Family Attached 44.1 0.3% Single Family Detached 916.1 5.4% Undeveloped 119.0 0.7% Wetlands 3,960.0 23.1 % Total 17,120.5 100% Agricultural Use includes farms and other parcels greater than five acres in size used primarily for agricultural, pasture and rural purposes. A large percentage of the City is designated as agricultural. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 MEDINA Page 5- 1 Residential Use is divided into four designations: Rural Residential consists of larger tracts of land and homesteads, including hobby farms, on parcels without City sewer and water service. The Rural Residential land use includes rural property which is currently vacant and is not planned for urban services. Single Family Detached includes detached single-family residential properties which are served with urban services. Single Family Attached includes attached single-family residential properties such as twin homes, duplexes, townhomes and rowhomes. Multifamily includes residential properties such as apartment buildings and condominiums. Mixed Use Residential Use identifies properties which include residential units upon the same property as a commercial use. Most of these uses are buildings in the Uptown Hamel area which include apartments above commercial or office space. Industrial and Utility Use is primarily in the TH 55 corridor and includes light industrial, warehouse, and manufacturing facilities. The use also includes utility uses throughout the community such as electric substations, water treatment facilities and the like. Retail and Other Commercial Use is primarily in the TH 55 and Highway 55 corridors and in the Uptown Hamel area. Park, Recreational or Preserve Use includes parks and public recreational and protected open space. Baker Park Reserve has a significant impact on planning due to its size and regional attraction, as well as its effect on the City's tax base and use. Golf Course Use includes existing golf courses. Institutional Use includes City, county, or state owned property, religious institutions, nursing homes, cemeteries, and other similar uses. Major Highway and Railway Uses identify land occupied by federal or state highways and railroad improvements. Undeveloped Use identifies areas that are currently vacant but have been subdivided in anticipation of a new development. Much of this land may currently be on the market. Sites which are actively in development are excluded from this use and designated as their approved land use. Wetlands, Lakes and Open Water Wetlands and lakes play an important role in the City because together they affect 30.2% of the City land and significantly impact the City's land use patterns. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G T Y 0 MEDINA Page 5- 2 Natural Features and Areas The City contains many ecologically significant natural resource areas that provide value to all residents by providing natural beauty and wildlife habitat, improving water quality and adding to land values. These natural areas are described in further detail in the Open Space Report but merit discussion from a land use and development perspective. The City has an extensive network of wetlands and lakes that significantly impact the developable areas in the City. Woodland areas are located throughout the community, including a number of remnants of the Big Woods along with many other significant stands. The community has made conscious choices to preserve and protect the natural areas and to improve their quality. Because 35.4% of the land area in Medina is comprised of lakes and wetlands and many of these areas are under private ownership, it is critical for the City to educate residents about the importance of maintaining healthy wetlands, woodlands and lakes. These natural features comprise the City's green infrastructure system: the City's natural support system that promotes healthy sustainability of the community. As the City grows, the natural areas will be a critical element of every decision -making process. The City undertook an extensive natural resource and open space planning effort that will be the foundation for land use decisions. The Open Space Report indicates the ecologically significant areas that require protection and the areas that will be maintained as a part of the City's conservation network. Solar Access Protection Medina is committed to encouraging and promoting solar energy as a clean, alternative form of energy production and reducing carbon -based emissions. Protecting solar access means protecting solar collectors (or the location of future collectors) from shading by adjacent structures or vegetation. Existing structures and buildings in the City generally do not present significant shading problems for solar energy systems. Most single family attached and detached homes are one or two stories and most multi -family, commercial, and industrial buildings are two stories or less. Solar energy systems and equipment are generally a permitted use if attached to structures, and freestanding solar arrays are permitted with a conditional use permit in most districts. The zoning ordinance provides standards for the protection and establishment of these solar energy systems. While these ordinance standards help protect solar access, it is not possible for every part of a building or lot to obtain unobstructed solar access. Mature trees, topography, and the location of structures can limit solar access. However, on most properties the rooftop of the principal building would be free of shading by adjacent structures. Therefore, the majority of property owners in the City could utilize solar energy systems, if they so desired, as a supplement or alternative to conventional fuels. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G T Y 0 MEDINA Page 5- 3 Historic Preservation The City of Medina currently does not have any sites or structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The City of Medina has a strong interest in preserving representative portions of its history. The City previously worked with the West Hennepin Pioneer Museum to restore the Wolsfeld Family cabin which was originally built in 1856. It is thought to be one of the original homes in Medina. The City further commits to providing the following general guidelines related to historical preservation: • Partner with organizations that want to preserve historically significant areas, landmarks, and buildings in Medina; • Modify zoning regulations as necessary to help preserve areas that may be historically significant. Future General Land Use Policy Direction As described in the Vision Statement, the City of Medina strives to promote and protect its open spaces and natural environment. The City has historically been, and intends to continue to be, primarily a rural community. The City has planned for a limited amount of future development consistent with regional forecast and consistent with Community Goals. Future Land Use Plan Principles The Future Land Use Plan guides the development of Medina through 2040, and will be used to implement the City's goals, strategies and policies. The Plan is guided by the Vision and Community Goals as furthered by the following principles: Development Patterns and Neighborhood Form • Encourage open spaces, parks and trails in all neighborhood developments. The survey indicated that a high quality of life is found when residents have visual access to green spaces. • Create neighborhoods with a variety of housing types that are well connected with roads, trails or sidewalks. • Maintain the integrity of rural neighborhoods and promote development patterns consistent with existing rural residential development. • Recognize neighborhood characteristics and promote new development compatible in scale, architectural quality and style with existing neighborhoods. • Stage residential growth to minimize the amount of adjacent developments which occur within the same time period. • Guide density to areas with proximity to existing infrastructure and future infrastructure availability. • Concentrate higher density development near service oriented businesses to help promote walkability. • Consider planned development in surrounding communities when making land use decisions in the City. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 MEDINA Page 5- 4 Road Patterns • Recognize regional highway capacity and planned improvements, along with use forecasts, as major factors in planning for growth and land use changes. • Establish collector streets with good connections through the community's growth areas. • Promote trails and sidewalk access near roads and thoroughfares to encourage multi - modal transportation choices. • Consider opportunities to improve north -south travel within the City. Open Spaces and Natural Resources • Preserve natural resources throughout the community and provide educational opportunities to residents to help them understand the value of natural areas. • Preserve open spaces and natural resources. • Protect wooded areas and encourage improvement of existing resources and reforestation. Evaluate existing woodland protections and supplement as necessary. • Support the guidelines identified in the Open Space Report to preserve the City's natural systems. Business Districts and Commercial Areas • Focus service businesses and development near urban residential densities and along primary transportation corridors. • Provide connections between residents and commercial areas and promote businesses within mixed -use areas. • Work to create job opportunities in the community for Medina residents to reduce traffic and commuting demands. • Emphasize service and retail uses which serve the needs of the local community and provide opportunities for the community to gather. • Support business development with a corporate campus style which provides open spaces and protects natural resources. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G T Y 0 MEDINA Page 5- 5 The Guide Plan Medina's Future Land Use Plan, Map 5-2, maintains Medina's rural character and protects the City's natural resources while accommodating limited growth and development which is consistent with the City's Vision, Community Goals and Land Use Principles. Table 5-2 below demonstrates the expected 20401and uses in the community. TABLE 5-2 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN Future Land Use (2040) Gross Acreage % Netoh Acreage Rural Residential 8,734.5 51.1 / 6,476.4 37.9 Agriculture 265.5 1.6 / 204.9 1.2 Future Development Area 396.2 2.3 % 366.7 2.1 Low Density Residential 1,103.7 6.4 % 879.2 5.1 Medium Density Residential 58.3 0.3 % 44.9 0.3 High Density Residential 29.3 0.2 / 26.3 0.2 Mixed Residential 137.0 0.8 / 97.1 0.6 Uptown Hamel 45.0 0.3 / 39.0 0.2 Commercial 247.1 1.4 / 196.0 1.1 Business 716.9 4.2 / 503.0 2.9 Rural Commercial 87.4 0.5 / 59.4 0.3 Institutional 270.0 1.5 / 199.0 1.1 Parks, Recreation, Open Space 3,106.5 18.1 % 2,054.0 12.0 Private Recreation 294.7 1,7/ 260.5 1.5% Closed Sanitary Landfill 192.1 1.1 / 124.3 0.7% Right -of -Way 673.1 3.9/ 672.4 3.9/ Total Acres 16,356.5 12,202.6 Lakes and Open Water 763.5 4.5 / 763.5 4.5 Wetlands and Floodplain 4,153.9 24.3 Total City 17,120.5 17,120.5 The Growth and Development Map (May 5-3) highlights areas within the City in which a change of land use is contemplated by the Future Land Use plan. The map also highlights wetland areas within Medina which significantly affect land planning, development, and infrastructure decisions. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G T Y 0 MEDINA Page 5- 6 Future Land Use Designations Rural Residential (RR) identifies areas for low -intensity uses, such as rural residential, hobby farms, agricultural, horticulture, conservation of ecologically significant natural resources and passive recreation. Density within the RR land use shall be no more than one lot per 10 acres and the area is not planned to be served by urban services during the timeframe covered by this Plan. Agricultural (AG) identifies areas which are planned for long-term agricultural uses. Density within the land use can be no more than one lot per 40 acres which will not be served by urban services. Property within this land use is eligible to be part of the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Program. Future Development Area (FDA) identifies areas which could potentially be planned for future urban development in the City that will be provided municipal sewer and water services. This area will remain rural unless and until designated for urban services in a future Comprehensive Plan update. The purpose of the FDA designation is to communicate the future planning intentions to the community. This designation is tentative and depends greatly on future infrastructure improvements, including to regional highway capacity. Low Density Residential (LDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 2.0 units per acre and 3.0.units per acre which are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary use in this area is single- and two-family residential development. Medium Density Residential (MDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 5.0 and 7.0 units per acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary uses in this designation will be a mix of housing such as single family residential, twin homes, town homes, row homes, and small multiple family buildings. High Density Residential (HDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 12.0 and 15.0 units per acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary uses will include town homes, apartment buildings and condominiums which should incorporate some open space or an active park. Mixed Residential (MR) identifies residential land uses developed between 3.5 and 4.0 units per net acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The land use provides flexibility for the type of housing developed, including detached single family, twin homes, townhomes and multiple family buildings, provided the overall density of a project falls within the range noted above and provides some higher density housing. Some portion of each site shall be developed at densities over 8.0 units per net acre. At a minimum, each development in the land use shall include one higher density housing unit per net acre, which shall be complemented with open space and recreational activities. Uptown Hamel (UH) the Uptown Hamel land use allows residential and commercial to be mixed on adjacent sites and to be mixed within the same building or property. Residential development in this designation may be between 4.0 and 15.0 units per acre. The mixed -use business areas will be served by urban services. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G T Y 0 MEDINA Page 5- 7 Commercial (C) provides areas for highway oriented businesses and retail establishments including commercial, office and retail uses. These uses are concentrated along the arterial corridors and are served or will be served by urban services. Business (B) provides opportunities for corporate campus uses including office, warehouse, and light industrial. This designation identifies larger tracts of land that are suitable for office and business park developments and are served or will be served by urban services. Rural Commercial (RC) identifies commercial land uses which are not served by urban services, but rather by individual wells and septic systems. The scale of development in this land use shall be limited in order to protect water resources. Institutional (INST) identifies existing public, semi-public, and non-profit uses such as governmental, cemeteries, religious, educational and utilities. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) identifies publicly owned or permanently conserved land which is used for park, recreational, or open space purposes. Private Recreation (PREC) identifies areas that are currently used for outdoor recreational uses which are held under private ownership but are not publicly maintained. Limited numbers of residential uses may be included or have previously been developed within this land use designation. Closed Sanitary Landfill (SL) identifies an existing closed sanitary landfill. The land is owned by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) which also has jurisdiction over land use regulations. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G T Y 0 MEDINA Page 5- 8 Average Net Residential Density The Metropolitan Council has designated the portion of the City within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area as Emerging Suburban Edge. Residential development within the Emerging Surburban Edge designation is required to be planned for new development and redevelopment at average net density of at least 3-5 units per acre. The average net density for planned residential development in Medina is 3.15 units per acre as described in Table 5-3. TABLE 5-3 NET RESIDENTIAL DENSITY Future Land Use Planned Net Acreage Minimum Density Minimum Number of Units Low Density Residential 171.0 2.0 342.0 Medium Density Residential 21.3 5.0 106.5 High Density Residential 13.9 12.0 166.8 Mixed Residential 97.1 3,5 339.9 Total Planned Residential 303.3 955.2 Average Net Residential Density 3.15 Redevelopment is anticipated within the Uptown Hamel area and is likely to include additional residential units. The intent of the Uptown Hamel land use is to permit flexibility in the amount of residential and commercial development and is therefore not projected in Table 5-3. However, residential development within Uptown Hamel is required to exceed 4 units per net acre, which would further compliance with Metropolitan Council minimum net density requirements. Employment Intensity Forecasts The Metropolitan Council requires that communities provide a measurement of forecasted employment. Acceptable measures include floor area ratios, building footprint percentages or impervious surface percentages. Medina anticipates that new development in the Commercial and Business land uses will tend to result in 50-65 % impervious surface coverage. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G T Y 0 MEDINA Page 5- 9 Land Use Policies by Area The following section provides policies for land use designations and is categorized into generalized subsections. The policies for each category as provided below directly support the Community Goals and Land Use Principles. These designations are generalized land uses and are not specific zoning districts. The City will update the zoning ordinance and applicable codes to be consistent with the land use plan and designations identified in this section. The planning process revealed a strong interest in promoting high quality, sustainable development in the City. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for large scale or master plan types of development, regardless of whether they are residential, commercial or mixed -uses will be available and will be supported through zoning. Rural Designations The rural designations include Agricultural, Rural Residential and Future Development Area. A large percentage of the community falls into these categories. The purpose of these designations is to provide low -intensity land uses, such as rural residential, farming, hobby farms, horticulture, conservation of natural and ecologically significant natural resources and passive recreation. This area will not be provided with water or sewer service during the timeframe covered by this Plan. The City's goal is to maintain the rural character of this area. The Metropolitan Council System Statement shows the majority of this area as Diversified Rural, and the City utilizes the Rural Residential designation to be consistent with the System Statement. A significant segment of this area consists of large, rural parcels with single-family homes. The City recognizes that such low -density, development will continue to be a desired housing alternative. The City's Open Space Report proposes several different implementation techniques for allowing open space development and plarming to maintain rural character and simultaneously preserve significant natural resources. This result may take the form of innovative developments that clusters smaller lots on larger parcels with permanently conserved open space. Such innovative arrangements can help preserve the City's natural resources, open space and rural character, while still maintaining an average overall density of ten acres per unit. Medina's wetlands, lakes, scattered woodlands and soil conditions prevent smaller, unsewered lot development, but are ideal for low -density rural housing. Medina's policy in the permanent rural area is to keep strict soil requirements for septic sites, but allow flexibility for Open Space design developments and to ensure that the permanent rural area will remain rural by eliminating the need for future extension of a sanitary sewer service to replace failing systems. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G T Y 0 MEDINA Page 5- 10 Objectives: 1. Allow low -density development in the Rural Residential Area including innovative arrangements of homes that preserve open space and natural resources. 2. Encourage conservation of open space, farms and ecologically significant natural resources in the rural areas. 3. Enforce stringent standards for the installation and maintenance of permanent, on -site sewage disposal systems. 4. Allow public facilities and services, such as parks and trail systems, if compatible with rural service area development. 5. Allow land uses, such as home -based businesses, hobby farms, horse stables, nurseries and other smaller -scale rural activities, which will not conflict with adjoining residential development. 6. Regulate noise, illumination, animals, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety. 7. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per forty acres for property in the Agricultural land use. 8. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per ten acres for new development in the Rural Residential and Future Development Area land use. 9. Consider exceptions to maximum density standards for open space developments that protect natural features and put land into permanent conservation. 10. Urban services will not be provided to the Agricultural, Rural Residential, or Future Development Area land uses during this planning cycle. 11. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands and other significant natural characteristics. 12. Require that lots contain adequate soil types and conditions as defined in the City's on -site septic system requirements. 13. Protect property within the Future Development Area designation from subdivision and development by requiring ghost plats for subdivisions so that future urban expansion is not compromised. 14. Reduce impervious surfaces where possible by applying low impact design standards and encourage innovative materials and plans that reduce runoff. 15. Encourage and incentivize landowners to participate in the protection and conservation of significant natural resources. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G T Y 0 MEDINA Page 5- 11 Urban Service Designations The Urban Service Area includes the residential and commercial areas of the City that are currently or will be served by municipal water and sewer services. Residential Uses Objectives: 1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural characteristics of the property. 2. Consider exceptions to or modifications of density restrictions for developments that protect the natural features or exceed other standards of the zoning district. 3. Restrict urban development to properties within the sewer service boundary. 4. Encourage green building practices such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) principles in neighborhood planning and residential building and low impact development design standards. 5. Regulate the rate and location of development in keeping with availability of public facilities and the City's stated goals, including the undesignated MUSA and growth strategies. 6. Restrict commercial and business development to areas designated in this Plan. 7. Protect property within the City's MUSA boundary from development prior to the provision of urban services that will hinder future division. 8. Create flexible zoning standards that would allow for innovative arrangements of homes, conservation easements, or other creative land use concepts that preserve the City's open space and natural features. 9. Promote attractive, well -maintained dwellings on functional, clearly marked roads, with adequate facilities and open space. 10. Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety. 11. Encourage a controlled mix of densities, housing types, age groups, economic levels, lot sizes, and living styles that are of appropriate scale and consistent with appropriate land use, market demands, and development standards. 12. Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of ecologically significant natural resources. 13. Establish standards for higher density residential development so that such development is compatible with surrounding uses. Such standards may include enclosed parking, green space, landscape buffering and height limitations. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G T Y 0 MEDINA Page 5- 12 14. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety. 15. Plan interconnections between separate developments to encourage shared road use to reduce costs and minimize the amount of road surface required. 16. Require planning of trails and walkway systems in the early design stages of all new development so that residential areas are provided safe access to parks and open space. 17. In urban residential zones with sanitary sewer service permit higher density in PUD's in exchange for (1) reduced land coverage by buildings, (2) provision of more multi -family units; and, (3) sensitive treatment of natural resources. 18. Implement standards for lot sizes and setbacks which recognize the development characteristics and natural resources of each existing neighborhood. 19. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to protect residential neighborhoods and to maintain public health and safety. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G T Y 0 MEDINA Page 5- 13 Uptown Hamel The Uptown Hamel land use allows for a mix of residential and commercial uses to create a vibrant, walkable, and attractive place; a place to shop, work and live. Objectives: 1. Allow a mix of residential and commercial uses to co -exist on adjacent parcels as well as within the same structure or on the same parcel. 2. Consider alternatives for meeting parking requirements including parking in the rear of buildings, shared parking, on -street, underground, or ramp parking. 3. Use building standards that enhance and maintain the small town heritage and traditional small-town look including brick facades, traditional street lighting, and overhangs over the sidewalk, boardwalks, and the like. Establishment of design guidelines to support this objective. 4. Involve residents, businesses, community groups and other stakeholders in the planning of these areas. 5. Create master plans for mixed -use areas to ensure integration of uses and responsiveness to adjacent land uses. 6. Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of ecologically significant natural resources. 7. Encourage underground or structured parking through flexibility to standards, including increased residential density up to 20 units per acre. 8. Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety. 9. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety. 10. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G T Y 0 MEDINA Page 5- 14 Commercial Uses The following objectives refer to commercial land uses which will provide a variety of retail products and services mixed with smaller offices. Objectives: 1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural characteristics of the property. 2. Provide convenient and attractive shopping and services to meet the needs of City residents. 3. Encourage businesses that benefit the local community by providing employment opportunities offering convenience goods and services, utilizing high quality design, and having limited impact on public services. 4. Require commercial activities that serve the broader metropolitan market to have access to a regional highway or frontage road. 5. Regulate the impact of commercial development along the border between commercially and residentially guided areas to ensure that commercial property has a minimal impact on residential areas. 6. Regulate construction to ensure high quality, energy and resource efficient buildings and to promote such Green Building standards as LEED Certifications or the State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines: Buildings, Benchmarks and Beyond (B-3) standards. 7. Encourage construction that enhances the visual appeal of TH 55 corridor and the rural vistas and open spaces of the City. 8. Establish standards for the commercial area north of TH 55 at Tamarack Drive which results in a high quality, walkable and appropriately scaled development which complements nearby residential neighborhoods, emphasizes goods and services for local residents over highway users and provides gathering opportunities for the community. 9. Require frontage roads that do not directly access arterial roadways and limit access to arterial and collector roadways. 10. Limit the scale of commercial development where urban services are not available in order to protect water resources and to integrate such uses with surrounding rural lands. 11. Use the site plan review process to ensure that commercial and industrial uses are compatible with neighboring future and existing uses, and with the adjoining public streets and highways. PUD's may be used to help accomplish this policy. 12. Emphasize pedestrian safety. 13. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety. 14. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 Y c. d MEDIN►4 Page 5- 15 Business Uses The following objectives refer to business land uses that are connected to or planned for urban services. Businesses in this use generally include office complexes, business park development, warehouse and light industrial opportunities. Objectives: 1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural characteristics of the property. 2. Encourage businesses that benefit the local community by providing employment opportunities utilizing high quality design, and having limited impact on public services. 3. Regulate the impact of development along the border between business and residentially guided areas to ensure that business uses have a minimal impact on residential areas. 4. Regulate construction to ensure high quality, energy and resource efficient buildings and to promote such Green Building standards as LEED Certifications or the State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines: Buildings, Benchmarks and Beyond (B-3) standards. 5. Encourage construction that enhances the visual appeal of TH 55 corridor and the rural vistas and open spaces of the City. 6. Create or update standards that promote a more rural appearance, or create campus style developments that protect ecologically significant areas and natural features. 7. Require frontage roads that do not directly access arterial roadways and limit access points to collector and arterial roadways. 8. Use the site plan review process to ensure that commercial and industrial uses are compatible with neighboring future and existing uses, and with the adjoining public streets and highways. PUD's may be used to help accomplish this policy. 9. Emphasize pedestrian safety. 10. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety. 11. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G T Y 0 MEDINA Page 5- 16 Staging Plan The staging plan is tied to infrastructure plans, including water, wastewater and transportation, to ensure that growth and development are commensurate with services necessary to support new residents and businesses in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The staging plan, Map 5-4, utilizes flexible staging boundaries to direct where and when development should proceed within the City and is built on the following principles: • Growth should encompass a balance of land uses to provide residential and business areas for development throughout the planning period. The staging plan also is intended to reduce concentration of development within a location during a particular timeframe. • The staging plan identifies staged increments of 5-year periods and provides some flexibility between adjacent staging periods. Development shall be limited to a maximum of two years prior to the existing staging period, and will be tied to an incentive based points system. Table 5-5, located on the following page, describes the net acreage of the various land uses by Staging Period. The following table describes the corresponding number of residential units which could be developed upon property within each Staging Period. Although most of the property staged for development is available in earlier timeframes, the City anticipates that actual growth will be more linear as described in the forecasts in Chapter 3. TABLE 5-4 STAGING PLAN — RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY 1 Time Period Total Residential Units High Density Residential Units 2018-2020 343 1.61. 2020-2025 94 2025-2030 469 95 2030-2035 0 2035-2040 48 Total 955 256 Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G T Y 0 MEDINA Page 5- 17 TABLE 5-5 STAGING PLAN - NET ACREAGE Future Land Use Existin g 2017 Change 2017-2020 2020 Change 2020-2025 2025 Change 2025-2030 2030 Change 2030-2035 2035 Change 2035-2040 2040 Rural Residential 6,481.0 0.0 6,481.0 0.0 6,481.0 0.0 6,481.0 0.0 6,481.0 0.0 6,481.0 Agriculture 204.9 0.0 204.9 0.0 204.9 0.0 204.9 0.0 204.9 0.0 204.9 Future Develop. Area 980.1 -327.8 652.3 -99.5 552.8 -162.2 390.6 0.0 390.6 -23.9 366.7 Low Density Residential 708.2 34.7 742.9 47.3 790.2 65.1 855.3 0.0 855.3 23.9 879.2 Medium Density Res. 23.6 21.3 44.9 0.0 44.9 0.0 44.9 0.0 44.9 0.0 44.9 High Density Residential 12.4 13.9 26.3 0.0 26.3 0.0 26.3 0.0 26.3 0.0 26.3 Mixed Residential 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.1 97.1 0.0 97.1 0.0 97.1 Uptown Hamel 39.0 0.0 39.0 0.0 39.0 0.0 39.0 0.0 39.0 0.0 39.0 Commercial 142.9 53.1 196.0 0.0 196.0 0.0 196.0 0.0 196.0 0.0 196.0 Business 246.0 204.8 450.8 52.2 503.0 0.0 503.0 0.0 503.0 0.0 503.0 Rural Commercial 59.4 0.0 59.4 0.0 59.4 0.0 59.4 0.0 59.4 0.0 59.4 Institutional 194.4 0.0 194.4 0.0 194.4 0.0 194.4 0.0 194.4 0.0 194.4 Parks, Rec, Open Space 2,054.0 0.0 2,054.0 0.0 2,054.0 0.0 2,054.0 0.0 2,054.0 0.0 2,054.0 Private Recreation 260.5 0.0 260.5 0.0 260.5 0.0 260.5 0.0 260.5 0.0 260.5 Closed Sanitary Landfill 124.3 0.0 124.3 0.0 124.3 0.0 124.3 0.0 124.3 0.0 124.3 Right -of -Way 672.4 0.0 672.4 0.0 672.4 0.0 672.4 0.0 672.4 0.0 672.4 Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth DRAFT - February 7, 2017 ,c- MEDZNA Page 5- 18 ACKAMORE RD 01■IMI .4110 ur/, ,anml: -_ 1..„. 40... ---4'flaw 707.0 r Y • ir ` • dat fil 1 `-',, - sir a MY II 1113--; Zara iii,NAmiM_IZI111:: il, — - .■ �ahR -.9/ INA _ `.4rf MUM � il�lift rrIi I ajar L K. wz+1 t-INOIL ...FA r!. MEDINA Map 5-1 2016 Existing Land Uses DRAFT 01 /2 6/2 017 Legend Agricultural Rural Residential Single Family Detached Single Family Attached - Multifamily - Mixed Use Residential _ Retail and Other Commercial Office J Industrial and Utility Institutitional Park, Recreational, or Preserve Golf Course A Major Highway Railway Open Water Undeveloped Wetland Locations Map Date: January 26, 2017 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles MEDINA Map 5-2 Future Land Use Plan DRAFT 1 /31 /2017 Legend Future Land Use Rural Residential - Agricultural Future Development Area Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential - High Density Residential Mixed Residential Uptown Hamel Commercial Business Rural Commercial Institutional Private Recreational Park, Recreational, and Open Space Closed Sanitary Landfill A Map Date: January 31, 2017 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles ii u i i i i i i Inctpendence i i i i i i i ii /1 �ir lIN r�l 11 J ul' � -b .e �nnla��n musi .. gogrovag ACKAMORE RD M9oney MEDINA Map 5-3 Development and Growth Plan DRAFT 12/8/2016 Legend Future Land Use Rural Residential Agricultural Future Development Area Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed Residential Uptown Hamel Commercial Business Rural Commercial Institutional Private Recreational Park, Recreational, and Open Closed Sanitary Landfill Wetland Locations Wetland Locations Map Date: January 20, 2016 0 0.25 0.5 Space 1 Miles F rdmor= Half Moon Independence Academy Marsh Katrina Unnamed re -Thas=1.11.11 �uu uMu�u��uu�n•1uu�u•uMuM�uu�uM1ui1MnMu�u� O Winterhalter �c<‘ Peter Unnamed Unnamed School J J 7—\ CHIPPEWA RD Unnamed 0 Thies O J J Medina ° I 1 ry, I Q■ HAMEL RD� Wolsfeld Nr i 11§ ACKAMORE RD named Holy Name UNTER uumumnmtt \,miumummic- amumu= NIIMI iuMnNIuM1n•u•non•u•u•u•uv1•u•u111u•u•u11•u•u`u•uMumumumumumumuMuMI 101 G t T Y � A Y � MEDINA Map 5-4 Staging and Growth DRAFT 11 /15/2016 Urban Services Phasing Plan Existing Service Area (2017) - 2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 Future Development Area (post 2040) Long-term Sewer Service Area /A The Staging and Growth Plan allows potential flexibility for urban services up to two years prior to the indicated staging period. Such flexiblity will be considered through a evaluation system based on the extent to which a proposal exceeds general City standards. The Future Development Area identifies areas which may potentially be planned for urban services in the future beyond the term of this plan (post-2040). The Long-term Sewer Service Area is a long-term planning designation of the Metropolitan Council. It identifies areas which may be considered for potential sanitary sewer service in the future beyond the term of this Plan. Map Date: January 20, 2017 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Chapter 6: PARKS, TRAILS, and OPEN SPACE Introduction A high quality system of parks and trails support the physical and psychological health of the community, provide opportunities for the community to gather, and contribute significantly to the quality of life and the well-being of residents. The amount and quality of open spaces in Medina is consistently identified as one of the most important characteristics of the City and the protection of these spaces is paramount within the City's Vision and Community Goals. Objectives The City of Medina Vision seeks to "sustain and enhance the quality of life of its residents," "protect...significant natural resources and open spaces throughout the City," "foster....places of recreation and destinations for citizens to gather." In addition, Community Goals include: • "Preserve rural vistas, open spaces, and wetlands in all parts of the community to promote the rural character of Medina." • "Protect and enhance the environmental and natural resources throughout the community." • "Promote public and private gathering places and civic events that serve the entire community." • "Preserve and expand trails and parks to provide community recreational facilities, connect neighborhoods and encourage healthy lifestyles of its residents." The following objectives support the Vision and Goals and guide the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan. • Improve and expand existing facilities, improve accessibility, correct problems or conflicts if they occur, and provide expanded recreational opportunities, all in a manner which can be fiscally sustained within the community in the long term. • Establish parks within approximately 1/2 mile of new urban residential development to provide residents convenient access to recreational activities. In furtherance of this objective, preference will be given to land acquisition when determining parkland dedication and in some cases such land may need to be reserved even if existing funds are not immediately available for development of the park. • Provide a system of trails which serve not only recreational purposes, but also connect residents with community destinations in order to support healthy lifestyle and opportunities for non -motorized transportation. • Make a variety of recreational opportunities available for residents. • Explore options for securing private funding of parks and trails such as providing naming rights, soliciting individual donations, establishing a charitable trust, or through other means recommended by the Park Commission and approved by the City Council. • Partner with recreational organizations within and adjacent to the City in order to provide recreational activities in a cost-effective manner. Chapter 6 - Parks, Trails, & Open Space DRAFT -February 7, 2017 MEUINA Page 6 - 1 Metropolitan Council's Parks, Trails, and Open Space System The Metropolitan Council components of a parks, trails, and open -space system will be the basis for analyzing existing park facilities and for determining proposed park development within Medina. TABLE 6-1 Classification for Local and Regional Open -Space 1 Component Use Service Area Site Site Attributes Site Location Local Facilities Ilia Mini -Park Specialized facilities that serve a concentrated or limited population or specific group such as tots or senior citizens. Less than '/< mile radius Less than 1 acre May be publicly or privately owned and/or incorporated into a development site, such as apartment, Neighborhood Park/ Playground2 Area for intense recreational activities such as field games, court games, crafts, apparatus area, skating, neighborhood centers. Y< to V. mile radius to serve a population of 200 to 1,000 (neighborhood). 5-25 acres Physical geography suited for intense development. Proximity to Elementary schools or residential neighborhoods. Community Playfield Area for intense recreational facilities such as athletic fields and swimming pools; could include neighborhood use. 3-5 neighborhoods (community 4). 25-50 acres Physical geography suited for intense development. Proximity to secondary schools and other public facilities. Community Park Area of natural or ornamental quality for outdoor recreation such as walking viewing, sitting, picnicking; could have some field and court games. 3-5 neighborhoods (community ") 25-100 acres Affords natural features with varied physiographic interest. Proximity to community facilities and resources. Conservancy Lands Area of natural quality such as watercourses and wetlands that are preserved for environmental or aesthetic benefits to the community and/or because of the negative environmental or economic affects of development in them. Municipality, township, county. Variable, based on extent of resources. Natural resources that merit preservation and would be negatively affected by development. Where resource occurs. Regional Facilities Regional Park 3-5 communities. i Complete natural setting contiguous to water bodies or water courses where possible. Where natural resource occurs —particularly water. Area of natural or ornamental quality for nature -oriented outdoor recreation such as picnicking, boating, fishing, swimming, camping, and trail uses. 200-500 acres (100 acre minimum). Regional Park Reserve Area of natural quality for nature oriented outdoor recreation such as viewing and studying nature, wildlife habitat, conservation, swimming, picnicking, hiking, boating, camping, and trail uses. County, multi- county area. 1000+ acres; Sufficient area to encompass the resource envisioned for preservation. Diversity of unique resources, such as topography, lakes streams, marshes, flora, fauna. Where resource occurs. Local or Regional .1m— Linear Park (trails, corridors, parkways) Area developed for one or more varying modes of recreational Travel such as hiking, biking, snowmobiling, horseback riding, cross country skiing, canoeing and driving. Local (municipalities, townships) or regional (county multi -county area). Sufficient width to provide protection of resource and maximum use. Utilize human -made and/or natural linear resources such as utility corridors, rights -of way, drainage ways, bluff lines, vegetation patterns and roads. Where linear resource occurs. Link components of recreation system. Link other community facilities such as schools, library and commercial areas. Special Feature Area that preserves, maintains and provides specialized or single -purpose recreational activities such as golf course, nature center, zoo, arboretum, arena, downhill ski area, and sites of historic or archaeological significance. Metropolitan Area Specific standard application to desired feature. Appropriate to particular special feature. Where most advantageous for the special feature and the overall park system. i 1 Metropolitan Council's Recreation Standards 2 Definition adjusted by the City. '_- a r in f nwahborhoo, n t 't of v - `L�q_R.4�_._4 4_._.� -� 4t.L_.._R.._L?._UN 9.R�_�.[L1!!]�!U.___�__..W�__. W�__. W�__. W�__. W�__. W�__. W�__. W�__..._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._�W._._.W._._.W._._.W._._.W._._.W._._.W._._.W._._.W.W._.__�_.._.__�_.._.__�_..� Chapter 6 - Parks, Trails, & Open Space DRAFT -February 7, 2017 G T , O R MEDINA Page 6 - 2 The Metropolitan Council Classification System describes a Neighborhood Park/Playground being designed to serve a population of 4,000-5,000 within approximately one-half mile. Because of the comparatively lower -density development pattern purposefully planned within the City, this definition has been adjusted for the sake of designing the local park system. Neighborhood parks in Medina are designed to serve a smaller population of 200-1,000 from a wider geographical area. Medina's Existing System Map 6-1 shows the locations of all parks, trails, and open space making up the City's existing system, and Table 6-2 lists the City's parks and facilities. These active park areas, playfields and programs should serve the City's residents adequately for the foreseeable future. A. Regional Parks Medina's park system includes one county facility, Baker Park Reserve and one state facility, Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Area (SNA). These facilities play a significant role in the City's and Metropolitan's park system. Providing both active and passive recreational opportunities and fulfilling some of the local need for community parks and conservancy lands. B. Local Parks The City's park system presently includes the following sites. The facilities offered by each park can be seen in Table 6-2. 1. Hamel Legion Park is the City's primary community park and the largest in the City's system at almost 40 acres in size. The park is located south of Uptown Hamel on the east boundary of the City. The park was developed through invaluable partnerships with local organizations and includes many amenities which serve the entire community. 2. The Park at Fields of Medina is approximately 10.5 acres in size and is intended to primarily serve the area including Fields of Medina, Bridgewater, Foxberry Farms, and the Villas at Medina Country Club. 3. Medina Morningside Park is 2.4 acres in size and primarily serves the Medina Morningside, Keller Estates, and Deerhill Preserve area. 4. Hunter Lions Park is 6.8 acres in size and primarily serves the area south and west of Uptown Hamel, including the Enclave, Tuckborough Farms, Hunter Farms and Elm Creek Addition. 5. Lakeshore Park - Independence Beach (2975 Lakeshore Ave.) is less than 1 acre in size and primarily serves the Independence Beach area of the City. 6. Walnut Park - Independence Beach (4653 Walnut St.) is a half -acre drainage area also used seasonally as a park primarily to serve the Independence Beach area of the City. 7. Maple Park is 2.5 acres in size and primarily serves the Independence Beach area of the City. Chapter 6 - Parks, Trails, & Open Space DRAFT -February 7, 2017 G T v a R MEDINA Page 6 - 3 8. Tomann Preserve is a 16 acre nature area comprised of wetlands and uplands which were historically located in what is called the "Big Woods' ecosystem as part of the deciduous forest biome. 9. Lake Ardmore Nature Area is an 18.3 acre undeveloped nature area in the Independence Beach neighborhood consisting of several parcels of land surrounding Lake Ardmore. 10. Cherry Hill Nature Area is a 1.5 acre area, primarily wetlands, used for open space and drainage of storm water from the Cherry Hill development. 11. Medina Lake Preserve is a 69.9 acre nature area that includes a portion of Lake Medina and several surrounding acres. 12. Rainwater Nature Area is a 5.8 acre area in the Uptown Hamel Neighborhood providing a nature preserve in an urban area. Furthermore, it is a showcase area for native plantings. 13. Holy Name Lake Park is a 2-acre mini -park located on a major county road (County Road 24) and abuts Holy Name Lake. 14. The City Hall Site is 9.2 acres in size and is centrally located in the City, serving the entire City as the site for Medina's City Hall. A portion of the property commemorates the memory of the early settlers of Medina, including a reconstruction of the original Wolsfeld log cabin built in 1856 as a museum owned and operated by the Western Hennepin County Pioneer Association. 15. Private Mini -Parks and Pocket Parks Foxberry Farms, Tuckborough Farms, Northridge Farms, The Enclave, The Reserve, and Medina Townhomes all have parks that are owned and maintained by the respective homeowners associations and augment the City's park system. C. Quasi Public Facilities Quasi -public facilities serve the recreational needs of the City and are important to take into account, including the following: 1. Baker National Golf Course is approximately 336 acres in size and is included in the Baker Park Reserve. Many residents use this course which is regarded as one of the best public courses in the Metro Area. It also has winter recreational activities including, skiing, snowshoeing and a sliding hill. The property is a National Audubon certified golf course because of its wildlife -friendly management. 2. Medina Golf and Country Club is a 225-acre private golf course in the north eastern section of the City. A number of City residents and businesses are members of this club. 3. Spring Hill Golf Club is a private golf course of which a 48.3 acre portion is located in the south central part of the City. The club house and most of the golf course are located in the City of Orono. Chapter 6 - Parks, Trails, & Open Space DRAFT -February 7, 2017 G Y O R MEDINA Page 6 - 4 D. Trails The City's trail system consists of a combination of city, county, regional, and private trails. The City is acquiring trail dedications and easements as development occurs. County trails are located along CR 24 and CR 19 and also include an extensive multi -use trail system within the Baker Park Reserve (see Map 6-1). The Northwest Trails Association operates an extensive snowmobile trail system, part of which is located in Medina. Private horse trails, not shown on the map, are available through parts of the City and involve many private landowners. It is operated and maintained by volunteers and "gentlemen's" agreements. Medina's horse trails are an important part of its rural culture. Several of Medina's current or proposed trails connect with surrounding cities. The City of Medina will strive to connect with these surrounding trails. E. Other The organizations and playfields listed below provide additional recreational opportunities to Medina residents and help supplement the City of Medina's park system. 1. Hamel Athletic Club provides youth baseball recreational opportunities to Medina residents as well as to residents of surrounding cities. 2. Hamel Hawks provides an adult baseball program to Medina residents as well as to residents of surrounding cities. 3. The Loretto Playfield serves a number of organized teams in the region and has a playground area. 4. The Orono Schools Playfields are located on the south side of County Road 6 and provide recreational space for the City's southside residents through Orono's community education and recreation programs. 5. Elm Creek Community Playfields (Wayzata High School) is owned by the City of Plymouth and is located just east of Medina, north of TH 55. 6. Plymouth Park & Recreation is used by many residents through programs offered by the Plymouth Park and Recreation Department. 7. Orono Park and Recreation is used by several residents who take part in programs offered by the Orono Park and Recreation Department. 8. Corcoran Athletic Association provides a number of recreational opportunities for children and adults. 9. Other Public and Private schools provide a number of recreational opportunities and community education programs to Medina residents, as well as to residents of surrounding cities. Chapter 6 - Parks, Trails, & Open Space DRAFT -February 7, 2017 Y / ° R MEUINA Page 6 - 5 Table 6-2 Medina Park Svstem Invento Parks -City of Medina N O Q e — 'U l6 V O d 13 C C O >, 0 d u) -a �_) LL — to -0 co COm R Q O (A y y Z N 3 d u- d U O (n — R y Y as m r Op U N C d F> — R �, N O ,a N w. a' d c • C Y (n N v N O 2 co C R 01 C E 3 co C N LL C 'O C J O m w N U Q d l6 J N i F F C ,y N d o- W 0 E O L o cG — 2 O) C . (n R i Q i C (G Z cm i R a_ � C E (a U w O U' Hamel Legion Park 3200 Mill Drive 36.9 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Holy Name Park 400 County Road 24 2 x x x x x Hunter Lions Park 3195 Hunter Drive 6.8 x x x x x x x x x x Lakeshore Park 2975 Lakeshore Avenue 0.9 x x x x x x x Maple Park 4400 Maple Street 2.5 x x x x x x Medina Lake Preserve East of Bridgewater Development 70 x x Medina Morningside Park 2522 Bobolink Road 2.4 x x x x x x x x Rainwater Nature Area 400 Hamel Road 5.8 x x x The Park at Fields of Medina 1200 Meandor Road 8.2 x x x x x x x x x x Tomann Preserve 3112 Pioneer Trail 16 x x x Walnut Park 4653 Walnut Street 0.5 x x Regional Park Reserve Norris T. Baker Park Reserve 2301 County Road 19 2,700 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x State Natural Area Wolsfeld Woods Scientific & Natural Area - Parking at 2060 6th Avenue N. 180 x x x x Chapter 6 - Parks, Trails, & Open Space DRAFT -February 7, 2017 Y Y O MEDINA Page 6 - 6 Medina's Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan The goals, policies, and analysis in this chapter provide the basis for the Medina's Parks, Trails, and Open Space Report. The plan addresses the following three specific areas of need: 1. Completion, improvement, and maintenance of existing park and trail facilities. 2. Acquisition, upgrading, and development of neighborhood facilities to provide open spaces for active and passive recreational activities and fields for organized sports. 3. Development of a coordinated trail system. Completion and Improvement of Existing Facilities The City has identified improvements for existing facilities within its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and also maintains a Parks and Trails Master Plan to monitor and address needs. Future Parks The park plan, as shown on Map 6-1, proposes three additional neighborhood parks in order to support planned future residential development. Land for these parks will predominantly obtained through park dedication during the development process. These parks will be sized and improvements planned according to the population likely to be served by each. The plan also identifies two potential expansions of existing parks in the city which will be considered as opportunities arise. Future Trails The trail plan, as shown on Map 6-1, proposes a network of multi -purpose trails. Although many of the trails are identified along road corridors, the City's objective is to separate the trails from the roadway where possible. Trails will connect points of interest throughout the City and provide access to natural areas. The plan also includes a proposal to create a pedestrian bridge over TH 55 which, while not in present City funding plans, could become an important link in the trail system as the City develops. The City's network of trails will tie into the proposed trails in neighboring communities, including Corcoran, Independence, Maple Plain, Orono and Plymouth. The Metropolitan Council's Regional Parks Policy Plan identifies two regional trail corridors within the City of Medina. The Trails Map (6-1) displays these search areas. Existing City trails in the vicinity of these corridors provide opportunities to complete these regional connections by transferring ownership of the segments to Three Rivers Park District. Open Space Medina's 2007 Open Space Report Medina's Open Space Task Force created an Open Space Report, which is not made part of this Plan and is available for review at the City of Medina City Hall. A summary of the report follows. Chapter 6 - Parks, Trails, & Open Space DRAFT -February 7, 2017 G T v a R MEDINA Page 6 - 7 Goals are to: 1. Preserve the ecological integrity of Medina's natural infrastructure that filters and cleanses run-off, prevents soil erosion and aides in maintaining healthy lakes and water resources; 2. Preserve the City's rural character, in which natural resources are the main feature of the landscape; and 3. Provide an option to landowners to preserve natural infrastructure, without adverse economic consequences. Principles to guide implementation of an Open Space Report are to: 1. Educate and to promote stewardship and preservation of natural resources to the public, land -owners and developers and raise awareness of the economic and environmental benefit of preserving natural resources; 2. Co -coordinate conservation efforts with other agencies, such as watersheds, Hennepin County, Three Rivers Park and non -governmental bodies, like the Minnesota Land Trust, Embrace Open Space and Pheasants Forever. 3. Require permanently conserved land to be held in an easement by an outside agency, such as the Minnesota Land Trust, a watershed district or similar entities; 4. Maintain land values and cause no economic harm to landowners or developers; 5. Use incentives to encourage open space developments; and 6. Make Open Space Design an option across all zoning districts where natural features exist. Definition of Open Space Design: Open Space Design is, in effect, golf course development without a golf course where development occurs around natural features, such as wetlands, woodlands, or farmland. The ecological integrity of natural areas is permanently conserved by a conservation easement, held and overseen by an outside agency. Buildings are clustered in a central location on smaller lots, and the dedicated open space is typically held under common ownership. Recommended Tools to Implement Open Space Design: 1. Incentives— develop a system, including a scale of points for best management practice and conservation design that can earn bonus building units. Such systems have been developed by other communities. 2. Regulation — natural resource performance standards; 3. Public ownership —purchase of development rights (a PDR program;); and 4. Park & trail dedication —draft flexibility into park and trail dedication ordinance. Chapter 6 - Parks, Trails, & Open Space DRAFT -February 7, 2017 Y Y O MEDINA Page 6 - 8 Chapter 6: PARKS, TRAILS, and OPEN SPACE Introduction A high quality system of parks and trails support the physical and psychological health of the community, provide opportunities for the community to gather, and contribute significantly to the quality of life and the well-being of residents. The amount and quality of open spaces in Medina is consistently identified as one of the most important characteristics of the City and the protection of these spaces is paramount within the City's Vision and Community Goals. Objectives The City of Medina Vision seeks to "sustain and enhance the quality of life of its residents," "protect...significant natural resources and open spaces throughout the City," "foster....places of recreation and destinations for citizens to gather." In addition, Community Goals include: • "Preserve rural vistas, open spaces, and wetlands in all parts of the community to promote the rural character of Medina." • "Protect and enhance the environmental and natural resources throughout the community." • "Promote public and private gathering places and civic events that serve the entire community." • "Preserve and expand trails and parks to provide community recreational facilities, connect neighborhoods and encourage healthy lifestyles of its residents." The following objectives support the Vision and Goals and guide the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan. • Improve and expand existing facilities, improve accessibility, correct problems or conflicts if they occur, and provide expanded recreational opportunities, all in a manner which can be fiscally sustained within the community in the long term. • Establish parks within approximately 1/2 mile of new urban residential development to provide residents convenient access to recreational activities. In furtherance of this objective, preference will be given to land acquisition when determining parkland dedication and in some cases such land may need to be reserved even if existing funds are not immediately available for development of the park. • Provide a system of trails which serve not only recreational purposes, but also connect residents with community destinations in order to support healthy lifestyle and opportunities for non -motorized transportation. • Make a variety of recreational opportunities available for residents. • Explore options for securing private funding of parks and trails such as providing naming rights, soliciting individual donations, establishing a charitable trust, or through other means recommended by the Park Commission and approved by the City Council. • Partner with recreational organizations within and adjacent to the City in order to provide recreational activities in a cost-effective manner. Chapter 6 - Parks, Trails, & Open Space DRAFT -February 7, 2017 L, T Y O fi MEDINA Page 6 - 1 Metropolitan Council's Parks, Trails, and Open Space System The Metropolitan Council components of a parks, trails, and open -space system will be the basis for analyzing existing park facilities and for determining proposed park development within Medina. TABLE b-1 Classification for Local and Reaional Oaen-Saace 1 Component Use it Service Area Site Site Attributes Site Location Local Facilities = Mini -Park Specialized facilities that serve a concentrated or limited population or specific group such as tots or senior citizens. Less than V., mile radius Less than 1 acre May be publicly or privately owned and/or incorporated into a development site, such as apartment, Neighborhood Park/ Playground' Area for intense recreational activities such as field games, court games, crafts, apparatus area, skating, neighborhood centers. '/<to''A mile radius to serve a population of 200 to 1,000 (neighborhood). 5-25 acres Physical geography suited for intense development. Proximity to Elementary schools or residential neighborhoods. Community Playfield Area for intense recreational facilities such as athletic fields and swimming pools; could include neighborhood use. 3-5 neighborhoods (community 4). 25-50 acres Physical geography suited for intense development. Proximity to secondary schools and other public facilities. Community Park Area of natural or ornamental quality for outdoor recreation such as walking viewing, sitting, picnicking; could have some field and court games. 3-5 neighborhoods (community ^) 25-100 acres Affords natural features with varied physiographic interest. Proximity to community facilities and resources. Conservancy Lands Area of natural quality such as watercourses and wetlands that are preserved for environmental or aesthetic benefits to the community and/or because of the negative environmental or economic affects of development in them. Municipality, township, county. Variable, based on extent of resources. Natural resources that merit preservation and would be negatively affected by development. Where resource occurs. Regional Facilities Regional Park Area of natural or ornamental quality for nature -oriented outdoor recreation such as picnicking, boating, fishing, swimming, camping, and trail uses. 3-5 communities. 200-500 acres (100 acre minimum). Complete natural setting contiguous to water bodies or water courses where possible. Where natural resource occurs --particularly water. Regional Park Reserve Area of natural quality for nature oriented outdoor recreation such as viewing and studying nature, wildlife habitat, conservation, swimming, picnicking, hiking, boating, camping, and trail uses. County, multi- county area. 1000+ acres; Sufficient area to encompass the resource envisioned for preservation. Diversity of unique resources, such as topography, lakes streams, marshes, flora, fauna. Where resource occurs. Local or Regional Local (municipalities, townships) or regional (county multi -county area). G Sufficient width to provide protection of resource and maximum use. Utilize human -made and/or natural linear resources such as utility corridors, rights -of way, drainage ways, bluff lines, vegetation patterns and roads. Where linear resource occurs. Link components of recreation system. Link other community facilities such as schools, library and commercial areas. Linear Park (trails, corridors, parkways) Area developed for one or more varying modes of recreational Travel such as hiking, biking, snowmobiling, horseback riding, cross country skiing, canoeing and driving. Special Feature Area that preserves, maintains and provides specialized or single -purpose recreational activities such as golf course, nature center, zoo, arboretum, arena, downhill ski area, and sites of historic or archaeological significance. Metropolitan Area Specific standard application to desired feature. Appropriate to particular special feature. Where most advantageous for the special feature and the overall park system. l Metropolitan Council's Recreation Standards 2 Definition adjusted by the City. A grouping of neighborhoods, not a unit of government. Chapter b - Parks, Trails, & Open Space DRAFT -February 7, 2017 G, T Y d F MEDINA Page b - 2 The Metropolitan Council Classification System describes a Neighborhood Park/Playground being designed to serve a population of 4,000-5,000 within approximately one-half mile. Because of the comparatively lower -density development pattern purposefully planned within the City, this definition has been adjusted for the sake of designing the local park system. Neighborhood parks in Medina are designed to serve a smaller population of 200-1,000 from a wider geographical area. Medina's Existing System Map 6-1 shows the locations of all parks, trails, and open space making up the City's existing system, and Table 6-2 lists the City's parks and facilities. These active park areas, playfields and programs should serve the City's residents adequately for the foreseeable future. A. Regional Parks Medina's park system includes one county facility, Baker Park Reserve and one state facility, Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Area (SNA). These facilities play a significant role in the City's and Metropolitan's park system. Providing both active and passive recreational opportunities and fulfilling some of the local need for community parks and conservancy lands. B. Local Parks The City's park system presently includes the following sites. The facilities offered by each park can be seen in Table 6-2. 1. Hamel Legion Park is the City's primary community park and the largest in the City's system at almost 40 acres in size. The park is located south of Uptown Hamel on the east boundary of the City. The park was developed through invaluable partnerships with local organizations and includes many amenities which serve the entire community. 2. The Park at Fields of Medina is approximately 10.5 acres in size and is intended to primarily serve the area including Fields of Medina, Bridgewater, Foxberry Farms, and the Villas at Medina Country Club. 3. Medina Morningside Park is 2.4 acres in size and primarily serves the Medina Morningside, Keller Estates, and Deerhill Preserve area. 4. Hunter Lions Park is 6.8 acres in size and primarily serves the area south and west of Uptown Hamel, including the Enclave, Tuckborough Farms, Hunter Farms and Elm Creek Addition. 5. Lakeshore Park - Independence Beach (2975 Lakeshore Ave.) is less than 1 acre in size and primarily serves the Independence Beach area of the City. 6. Walnut Park - Independence Beach (4653 Walnut St.) is a half -acre drainage area also used seasonally as a park primarily to serve the Independence Beach area of the City. 7. Maple Park is 2.5 acres in size and primarily serves the Independence Beach area of the City. Chapter 6 - Parks, Trails, & Open Space DRAFT -February 7, 2017 L T Y O F MEDINA Page 6 - 3 8. Tomann Preserve is a 16 acre nature area comprised of wetlands and uplands which were historically located in what is called the "Big Woods' ecosystem as part of the deciduous forest biome. 9. Lake Ardmore Nature Area is an 18.3 acre undeveloped nature area in the Independence Beach neighborhood consisting of several parcels of land surrounding Lake Ardmore. 10. Cherry Hill Nature Area is a 1.5 acre area, primarily wetlands, used for open space and drainage of storm water from the Cherry Hill development. 11. Medina Lake Preserve is a 69.9 acre nature area that includes a portion of Lake Medina and several surrounding acres. 12. Rainwater Nature Area is a 5.8 acre area in the Uptown Hamel Neighborhood providing a nature preserve in an urban area. Furthermore, it is a showcase area for native plantings. 13. Holy Name Lake Park is a 2-acre mini -park located on a major county road (County Road 24) and abuts Holy Name Lake. 14. The City Hall Site is 9.2 acres in size and is centrally located in the City, serving the entire City as the site for Medina's City Hall. A portion of the property commemorates the memory of the early settlers of Medina, including a reconstruction of the original Wolsfeld log cabin built in 1856 as a museum owned and operated by the Western Hennepin County Pioneer Association. 15. Private Mini -Parks and Pocket Parks Foxberry Farms, Tuckborough Farms, Northridge Farms, The Enclave, The Reserve, and Medina Townhomes all have parks that are owned and maintained by the respective homeowners associations and augment the City's park system. C. Quasi Public Facilities Quasi -public facilities serve the recreational needs of the City and are important to take into account, including the following: 1. Baker National Golf Course is approximately 336 acres in size and is included in the Baker Park Reserve. Many residents use this course which is regarded as one of the best public courses in the Metro Area. It also has winter recreational activities including, skiing, snowshoeing and a sliding hill. The property is a National Audubon certified golf course because of its wildlife -friendly management. 2. Medina Golf and Country Club is a 225-acre private golf course in the north eastern section of the City. A number of City residents and businesses are members of this club. Chapter 6 - Parks, Trails, & Open Space DRAFT -February 7, 2017 G T Y a o MEDINA Page 6 - 4 3. Spring Hill Golf Club is a private golf course of which a 48.3 acre portion is located in the south central part of the City. The club house and most of the golf course are located in the City of Orono. D. Trails The City's trail system consists of a combination of city, county, regional, and private trails. The City is acquiring trail dedications and easements as development occurs. County trails are located along CR 24 and CR 19 and also include an extensive multi -use trail system within the Baker Park Reserve (see Map 6-1). The Northwest Trails Association operates an extensive snowmobile trail system, part of which is located in Medina. Private horse trails, not shown on the map, are available through parts of the City and involve many private landowners. It is operated and maintained by volunteers and "gentlemen's" agreements. Medina's horse trails are an important part of its rural culture. Several of Medina's current or proposed trails connect with surrounding cities. The City of Medina will strive to connect with these surrounding trails. E. Other The organizations and playfields listed below provide additional recreational opportunities to Medina residents and help supplement the City of Medina's park system. 1. Hamel Athletic Club provides youth baseball recreational opportunities to Medina residents as well as to residents of surrounding cities. 2. Hamel Hawks provides an adult baseball program to Medina residents as well as to residents of surrounding cities. 3. The Loretto Playfield serves a number of organized teams in the region and has a playground area. 4. The Orono Schools Playfields are located on the south side of County Road 6 and provide recreational space for the City's southside residents through Orono's community education and recreation programs. 5. Elm Creek Community Playfields (Wayzata High School) is owned by the City of Plymouth and is located just east of Medina, north of TH 55. 6. Plymouth Park & Recreation is used by many residents through programs offered by the Plymouth Park and Recreation Department. 7. Orono Park and Recreation is used by several residents who take part in programs offered by the Orono Park and Recreation Department. 8. Corcoran Athletic Association provides a number of recreational opportunities for children and adults. Chapter 6 - Parks, Trails, & Open Space DRAFT -February 7, 2017 L T Y O F MEDINA Page 6 - 5 9. Other Public and Private schools provide a number of recreational opportunities and community education programs to Medina residents, as well as to residents of surrounding cities. Chapter 6 - Parks, Trails, & Open Space DRAFT -February 7, 2017 G T Y a o MEDINA Page 6 - 6 Table 6-2 Medina Park System Inventory Parks - City of Medina d w Q - 'U N U - L' a C 7 � 16 a v) N ii Ts m 06 fC .Q 0 co N N z N iZ y U 0 co —O 9 Y w m (.) N C 5 F> _ a T 07 o 'p N ', m. d 01 - Y N v a)N o 2 � C E '° C t= E 3 cn C '- N ii � _ -o C J o m N N U Q y A J N `i F 12 C co N y s. w N E o s. d' = = rm C 2 in .x- i +- �a Z C i R. d a) .-= U w o 0 Hamel Legion Park 3200 Mill Drive 36.9 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Holy Name Park 400 County Road 24 2 x x x x x Hunter Lions Park 3195 Hunter Drive 6.8 x x x x x x x x x x Lakeshore Park 2975 Lakeshore Avenue 0.9 x x x x x x x Maple Park 4400 Maple Street 2.5 x x x x x x Medina Lake Preserve East of Bridgew ater Development 70 x x Medina Morningside Park 2522 Bobolink Road 2.4 x x x x x x x x Rainw ater Nature Area 400 Hamel Road 5.8 x x x The Park at Fields of Medina 1200 Meandor Road 8.2 x x x x x x x x x x Tomann Preserve 3112 Pioneer Trail 16 x x x Walnut Park 4653 Walnut Street 0.5 x x Regional Park Reserve Morris T. Baker Park Reserve 2301 County Road 19 2,700 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x State Natural Area Wolsfeld Woods Scientific & Natural Area - Parking at 2060 6th Avenue N. 180 x x x x Chapter b — Parks, Trails, & Open Space DRAFT -February 7, 2017 c, T Y O fi 1VI EDI IVA Page b - 7 Medina's Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan The goals, policies, and analysis in this chapter provide the basis for the Medina's Parks, Trails, and Open Space Report. The plan addresses the following three specific areas of need: 1. Completion, improvement, and maintenance of existing park and trail facilities. 2. Acquisition, upgrading, and development of neighborhood facilities to provide open spaces for active and passive recreational activities and fields for organized sports. 3. Development of a coordinated trail system. Completion and Improvement of Existing Facilities The City has identified improvements for existing facilities within its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and also maintains a Parks and Trails Master Plan to monitor and address needs. Future Parks The park plan, as shown on Map 6-1, proposes three additional neighborhood parks in order to support planned future residential development. Land for these parks will predominantly obtained through park dedication during the development process. These parks will be sized and improvements planned according to the population likely to be served by each. The plan also identifies two potential expansions of existing parks in the city which will be considered as opportunities arise. Future Trails The trail plan, as shown on Map 6-1, proposes a network of multi -purpose trails. Although many of the trails are identified along road corridors, the City's objective is to separate the trails from the roadway where possible. Trails will connect points of interest throughout the City and provide access to natural areas. The plan also includes a proposal to create a pedestrian bridge over TH 55 which, while not in present City funding plans, could become an important link in the trail system as the City develops. The City's network of trails will tie into the proposed trails in neighboring communities, including Corcoran, Independence, Maple Plain, Orono and Plymouth. The Metropolitan Council's Regional Parks Policy Plan identifies two regional trail corridors within the City of Medina. The Trails Map (6-1) displays these search areas. Existing City trails in the vicinity of these corridors provide opportunities to complete these regional connections by transferring ownership of the segments to Three Rivers Park District. Open Space Medina's 2007 Open Space Report Medina's Open Space Task Force created an Open Space Report, which is not made part of this Plan and is available for review at the City of Medina City Hall. A summary of the report follows. Chapter 6 - Parks, Trails, & Open Space DRAFT -February 7, 2017 G T v a o MEDINA Page 6 - 8 Goals are to: 1. Preserve the ecological integrity of Medina's natural infrastructure that filters and cleanses run-off, prevents soil erosion and aides in maintaining healthy lakes and water resources; 2. Preserve the City's rural character, in which natural resources are the main feature of the landscape; and 3. Provide an option to landowners to preserve natural infrastructure, without adverse economic consequences. Principles to guide implementation of an Open Space Report are to: 1. Educate and to promote stewardship and preservation of natural resources to the public, land -owners and developers and raise awareness of the economic and environmental benefit of preserving natural resources; 2. Co -coordinate conservation efforts with other agencies, such as watersheds, Hennepin County, Three Rivers Park and non -governmental bodies, like the Minnesota Land Trust, Embrace Open Space and Pheasants Forever. 3. Require permanently conserved land to be held in an easement by an outside agency, such as the Minnesota Land Trust, a watershed district or similar entities; 4. Maintain land values and cause no economic harm to landowners or developers; 5. Use incentives to encourage open space developments; and 6. Make Open Space Design an option across all zoning districts where natural features exist. Definition of Open Space Design: Open Space Design is, in effect, golf course development without a golf course where development occurs around natural features, such as wetlands, woodlands, or farmland. The ecological integrity of natural areas is permanently conserved by a conservation easement, held and overseen by an outside agency. Buildings are clustered in a central location on smaller lots, and the dedicated open space is typically held under common ownership. Recommended Tools to Implement Open Space Design: 1. Incentives— develop a system, including a scale of points for best management practice and conservation design that can earn bonus building units. Such systems have been developed by other communities. 2. Regulation —natural resource performance standards; 3. Public ownership —purchase of development rights (a PDR program;); and 4. Park & trail dedication —draft flexibility into park and trail dedication ordinance. Chapter 6 - Parks, Trails, & Open Space DRAFT -February 7, 2017 L T Y O F MEDINA Page 6 - 9 CHIPPEWA RD uaua uuauauauauauan�y�anaua11•1 0 O >J CHIP HAMEL RD 1 ____,,,,,,,._„7`-\,.. n n inn s �/ �Lr .D=EccE\ld°iGi i n b n� Q' q n�� Uv n n 1' ° D u ° M�D�Np,R 24 V.‘���� % o Y OZi � �-�'77J � li o�� Q ao❑»»om»>o�J, r� i 24 Q 0.25 0.5 1 MEDINA Map 6-1 Park and Trail Plan DRAFT 01/27/2017 Legend Trails Existing Paved Trail Existing Shoulder Trail Existing Turf Trail Existing Sidewalk Proposed Paved Trail oE00000[ Proposed Shoulder Trail o=EEED[ Proposed Turf Trail Parks Existing Park 0 Future Park Search Area Potential Park Expansion Ntem Regional Corridors e River Trail Corridor Location of proposed trail segments are intended to identify connections and cooridors, not exact locations. Map Date: January 27, 2017 Scale: 1:30,000 Chapter 7: IMPLEMENTATION This section outlines the tools which the City will utilize to implement this Comprehensive Plan and describes actions which may be necessary to accomplish the goals and priorities established in this Plan. In addition to the implementation measures described in this chapter, the Transportation, Water Resources, and Housing elements each include general objectives and implementation plans attached to this Plan in each respective element. Implementation Tools The City utilizes various tools to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The primary tools include, but are not limited to: 1) Zoning Regulations and Zoning Map - Chapter 8 of the City Code 2) Subdivision Regulations - Section 820 of the City Code 3) Individual Sewage Treatment System Regulations - Section 720 of the City Code 4) Sewer and Water System Regulations - Sections 700-715 of the City Code 5) Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 6) City Budget 7) City Fee Schedule (esp. sewer, water, and park dedication fees to support infrastructure). 8) Policies, Programs, and Procedures Manual Zoning Regulations and Zoning Map The current zoning map and zoning category descriptions are attached as Exhibit A. The City intends to review these official controls for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan within nine months of adopting the Plan as required by State law. The City will also make any changes which are necessary to make the official controls consistent with the Plan within this timeframe. The City has identified that the following changes may be necessary to make the official controls consistent with the Plan: 1) Create standards for development within the Mixed Residential Land Use. 2) Amend official controls to achieve consistency with updated density requirements for Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential land uses. 3) Amend official zoning map for property for which a Future Land Use Map was amended. 4) Amend the Uptown Hamel zoning districts to achieve consistency with more flexibility allowed in the land use related to residential development. 5) Review Commercial zoning standards to ensure commercial development at Highway 55 and future Tamarack Drive is appropriately scaled. 6) Review stormwater and environmental protection regulations. Mixed Residential Land Use Standards will need to be established for development within the Mixed Residential Land Use to ensure that such development is consistent with the objectives and policies of the use. Specifically, standards will need to require that a portion of the development provide for Chapter 7 - Implementation DRAFT- February 7, 2017 ti T Y c MEDINA. Page 7 - 1 residential development with a net density of 8 units/ acre or greater and will provide for guidance to incorporate such density into surrounding neighborhoods which will likely be developed at lower densities. Updated Density Requirements The Medium Density and High Density Residential land uses are proposed to provide for development at densities of 5-7 units/acre and 12-15 units/acre respectively. The ranges are different from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. As a result, the standards of various districts will need to be adjusted. The City will review the standards of the R2, R3, R4, and R5 districts and make necessary changes for consistency with the corresponding land use. Amend Official Zoning Map The Future Land Use of various properties is proposed to be amended in the updated Comprehensive Plan. The City will review the existing zoning map and make appropriate amendments. Uptown Hamel Existing standards for the Uptown Hamel area contemplate a large amount of high density residential development. Over the past decade and a half, the market has not demanded this amount of this type of residential development. The updated Comprehensive Plan, while still allowing for fairly high density residential development, provides more flexibility for the density of commercial and residential development in the area. The hope is that this flexibility will spurn redevelopment in the area. The City should establish architectural design standards for the area in order to create a more cohesive area. Commercial Standards The City should review existing standards within the Commercial zoning districts and amend as necessary to ensure that development is appropriately scaled with surrounding uses and also that development will protect and improve on the rural vistas and open spaces along Highway 55 and other arterial roadways within the City. Environmental Protection Regulations The City should review existing standards related to stormwater management, wetland protection, woodland protection, and other environmental matters to ensure that the regulations stay in line with current mandates and practices in order to protect the natural resources of the community. Infrastructure Planning and Capital Improvement Plan The Parks/Trails/Open Space, Transportation and Water Resources elements of the Comprehensive Plan all identify improvements which were determined to be necessary to support implementation of the Plan. The City will review this information and verify expected costs of these improvements. The City utilizes a 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to inform budgetary decisions on an annual basis to plan for infrastructure and large equipment expansions as well as replacement of existing assets. Because many of the improvements identified in this Plan are not necessary within a 5-year time horizon, each of the elements include a longer -term CIP. Items from these elements will be incorporated into the City's 5-year CIP when necessary and appropriate. Chapter 7 - Implementation DRAFT- February 7, 2017 T V 04, MEDINA Page 7 - 2 Water Supply and Wastewater Generally, the City intends to utilize revenues from connection fees charged upon development to pay for expansions and improvements to the wastewater and water supply systems. Bonds may be issued as necessary to allow time for these fees to be collected to pay for the improvements. Parks/Trails/Open Space The City predominantly utilizes park dedication fees for park/trail/open space improvements in addition to contributions from local athletic and nonprofit groups. The City has also received grant funding for projects and land donations for parks and will continue to search for such opportunities, and will explore additional options including, but not limited to: naming rights, soliciting donations, establishing charitable trusts. Surface Water The City has historically been a strong leader in water quality activities. Substantial projects have been constructed at the Loretto Ballfields, Ardmore Avenue/Pine Street, and at Tower Drive/Hamel Road which have resulted in substantial water quality and quantity benefits. The City has received grants to support many of these projects and has also invested heavily through funds and in -kind contributions of staff and equipment. The City intends to utilize stormwater utility funds to support future improvements in connection with available grant financing. (REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) Chapter 7 - Implementation DRAFT- February 7, 2017 ti T Y c MEDINA. Page 7 - 3 (THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) Chapter 7 - Implementation DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G, T Y Q F IIIIEDINA Page 7 - 4 Chapter 7: IMPLEMENTATION This section outlines the tools which the City will utilize to implement this Comprehensive Plan and describes actions which may be necessary to accomplish the goals and priorities established in this Plan. In addition to the implementation measures described in this chapter, the Transportation, Water Resources, and Housing elements each include general objectives and implementation plans attached to this Plan in each respective element. Implementation Tools The City utilizes various tools to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The primary tools include, but are not limited to: 1) Zoning Regulations and Zoning Map - Chapter 8 of the City Code 2) Subdivision Regulations - Section 820 of the City Code 3) Individual Sewage Treatment System Regulations - Section 720 of the City Code 4) Sewer and Water System Regulations - Sections 700-715 of the City Code 5) Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 6) City Budget 7) City Fee Schedule (esp. sewer, water, and park dedication fees to support infrastructure). 8) Policies, Programs, and Procedures Manual Zoning Regulations and Zoning Map The current zoning map and zoning category descriptions are attached as Exhibit A. The City intends to review these official controls for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan within nine months of adopting the Plan as required by State law. The City will also make any changes which are necessary to make the official controls consistent with the Plan within this timeframe. The City has identified that the following changes may be necessary to make the official controls consistent with the Plan: 1) Create standards for development within the Mixed Residential Land Use. 2) Amend official controls to achieve consistency with updated density requirements for Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential land uses. 3) Amend official zoning map for property for which a Future Land Use Map was amended. 4) Amend the Uptown Hamel zoning districts to achieve consistency with more flexibility allowed in the land use related to residential development. 5) Review Commercial zoning standards to ensure commercial development at Highway 55 and future Tamarack Drive is appropriately scaled. 6) Review stormwater and environmental protection regulations. Mixed Residential Land Use Standards will need to be established for development within the Mixed Residential Land Use to ensure that such development is consistent with the objectives and policies of the use. Specifically, standards will need to require that a portion of the development provide for Chapter 7 - Implementation DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G y T Y 0 fi M EIS I N,A Page 7 - 1 residential development with a net density of S units/acre or greater and will provide for guidance to incorporate such density into surrounding neighborhoods which will likely be developed at lower densities. Updated Density Requirements The Medium Density and High Density Residential land uses are proposed to provide for development at densities of 5-7 units/acre and 12-15 units/acre respectively. The ranges are different from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. As a result, the standards of various districts will need to be adjusted. The City will review the standards of the R2, R3, R4, and R5 districts and make necessary changes for consistency with the corresponding land use. Amend Official Zoning Map The Future Land Use of various properties is proposed to be amended in the updated Comprehensive Plan. The City will review the existing zoning map and make appropriate amendments. Uptown Hamel Existing standards for the Uptown Hamel area contemplate a large amount of high density residential development. Over the past decade and a half, the market has not demanded this amount of this type of residential development. The updated Comprehensive Plan, while still allowing for fairly high density residential development, provides more flexibility for the density of commercial and residential development in the area. The hope is that this flexibility will spurn redevelopment in the area. The City should establish architectural design standards for the area in order to create a more cohesive area. Commercial Standards The City should review existing standards within the Commercial zoning districts and amend as necessary to ensure that development is appropriately scaled with surrounding uses and also that development will protect and improve on the rural vistas and open spaces along Highway 55 and other arterial roadways within the City. Environmental Protection Regulations The City should review existing standards related to stormwater management, wetland protection, woodland protection, and other environmental matters to ensure that the regulations stay in line with current mandates and practices in order to protect the natural resources of the community. Infrastructure Planning and Capital Improvement Plan The Parks/Trails/Open Space, Transportation and Water Resources elements of the Comprehensive Plan all identify improvements which were determined to be necessary to support implementation of the Plan. The City will review this information and verify expected costs of these improvements. The City utilizes a 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to inform budgetary decisions on an annual basis to plan for infrastructure and large equipment expansions as well as replacement of existing assets. Because many of the improvements identified in this Plan are not necessary within a 5-year time horizon, each of the elements include a longer -term CIP. Items from these elements will be incorporated into the City's 5-year CIP when necessary and appropriate. Chapter 7 - Implementation DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G, 5 Y 0 A MEDINA Page 7 - 2 Water Supply and Wastewater Generally, the City intends to utilize revenues from connection fees charged upon development to pay for expansions and improvements to the wastewater and water supply systems. Bonds may be issued as necessary to allow time for these fees to be collected to pay for the improvements. Parks/Trails/Open Space The City predominantly utilizes park dedication fees for park/trail/open space improvements in addition to contributions from local athletic and nonprofit groups. The City has also received grant funding for projects and land donations for parks and will continue to search for such opportunities, and will explore additional options including, but not limited to: naming rights, soliciting donations, establishing charitable trusts. Surface Water The City has historically been a strong leader in water quality activities. Substantial projects have been constructed at the Loretto Ballfields, Ardmore Avenue/Pine Street, and at Tower Drive/Hamel Road which have resulted in substantial water quality and quantity benefits. The City has received grants to support many of these projects and has also invested heavily through funds and in -kind contributions of staff and equipment. The City intends to utilize stormwater utility funds to support future improvements in connection with available grant financing. (REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) Chapter 7 - Implementation DRAFT - February 7, 2017 G y T Y 0 fi MEDINA Page 7 - 3 (THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) Chapter 7 - Implementation DRAFT - February 7, 2017 C. , T Y 9 F MEDINA Page 7 - 4 2017 - 2021 Capital Improvement Plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Fire 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Emergency Management 2017 CIP: DEPARTMENT 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Project Cost City Proposed Portion Project Cost City Proposed Portion Project Cost City Proposed Portion Project Cost City Proposed Portion Project Cost City Proposed Portion Roads Potential Revenue Source Tamarack North of Medina to Blackfoot Overlay $ 54,000 $ 43,200 I Reserves/Bonds/Assessments Tamarack - Medina to 24 - Overlay $ 49,985 $ 39,988 Reserves/Bonds/Assessments Tamarack City Limits to CSAH 24 Overlay $ 77,675 $ 62,140 Reserves/Bonds/Assessments Clydesdale trail overlay 116 to 600 $ 80,000 $ 40,000 Reserves/Bonds/Assessments Oakview Road - Overlay $ 43,000 $ 21,500 Reserves/Bonds/Assessments Deer Hill Road East - Overlay $ 27,040 $ 13,520 Reserves/Bonds/Assessments Dusty Trail - Overlay $ 3,900 $ 1,950 Reserves/Bonds/Assessments Chestnut Road - Overlay $ 50,000 $ 25,000 Reserves/Bonds/Assessments Hickory Drive - Reconstruct $ 180,427 $ 90,214 Reserves/Bonds/Assessments Willow Drive N of Chippewa overlay blacktop portion $ 59,000 $ 47,000 Reserves/Bonds/Assessments Willow Drive North to 24 - reclaim $ 200,000 $ 160,000 Reserves/Bonds/Assessments Wichita Trail overlay $ 40,000 $ 20,000 Reserves/Bonds/Assessments Tower Drive West of Pinto Overlay $ 30,000 $ 15,000 Reserves/Bonds/Assessments Iroquois Drive Overlay $ 26,000 $ 13,000 Reserves/Bonds/Assessments Maplewood Drive Overlay $ 29,328 $ 14,664 Reserves/Bonds/Assessments Bobolink Road Overlay $ 86,326 $ 43,163 Reserves/Bonds/Assessments Morningside Road Overlay $ 100,654 $ 50,327 Reserves/Bonds/Assessments Elsinore Circle N of Morningside Rd Overlay $ 18,789 $ 9,395 Reserves/Bonds/Assessments Hwy 55 & CR 116 Whistleless Crossing $ 250,000 $ 125,000 Reserves/MSA Hwy 55 & CR 116 Intersection $ 2,773,282 $ 387,913 Roads/Capital/MSA Roads Sub -total $ 3,202,282 $ 619,913 $ 721,524 $ 420,762 $ 255,600 $ Public Works 182,298 $ Tandem Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund 1984 Grader rehab $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Replace 2007 550 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Self propeled kick off broom $ 40,000 $ 40,000 Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Lift Grant Skid Steer Upgrade w/ Bucket $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Single Axle Truck $ 22n nnn $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Loader $-200;400 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Miscellaneous Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Public Works Sub -total $ Police 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ PD Squad Cars I $ 72,000 $ 72,000 $ 72,000 $ 72,000 $ 108,000 $ 108,000 $ 72,000 $ 72,000 $ 72,000 $ 72,000 Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Traffic Squad $ 35,000 $ 35,000 Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Portable Radios $ 27- 0^) $ 27,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 DWI Forfeiture Fund Mobile Radio $ 40,000 I $ 40,000 DWI Forfeiture Fund PD Squad Laptops/Software MDC $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 DWI Forfeiture Fund Records Management $ 70,000 I $ 70,000 I Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Bicycles $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Utility Vedicle $ 18,000 $ 18,000 Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Digital Speed Signs Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Lexipold Policy Software $ 19,000 $ 10,000 Fed Drug Forfeiture Fund Tasers $ 9,000 $ 9,000 Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Side Arms $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $-7,500 $ 7,500 DWI Forfeiture Fund 223 Rifles (2) Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Bunkers & Helmets $ 7,500 $ 7,500 Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund PD Server Training Room $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Fed/Equip Miscellaneous - Equip Fund Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Miscellaneous - DWI Fund IS 4,000 $ 4,000 DWI Forfeiture Fund Police Sub -total $ 101,500 $ 101,500 $ 107,000 $ 107,000 $ 226,000 $ 226,000 $ 112,000 $ HAMEL 112,000 $ 142,000 $ 142,000 Ongoing PPE Replacement $ 10,000 $ $ 10,000 $ $ 10,000 $ $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Utility 11 Overhaul/retrofit $ 21,667 $ 21,667 $ Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Command Vehicle Replacement $ 4,320 $ $ 4,320 $ 4,320 $ 4,320 $ 4,320 Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Engine 11 Refurbishment $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Air Lift Bag Replacement funded by grants/other Pumper/Tanker $ 38,917 $ 38,917 $ 38,917 $ 38,917 $ 38,917 Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Portable JAWS Tool funded by grants/other Bldg Improvement r Revolving Cap. Impr. Fund Annual Contract 1 $ 73,000 $ 73,000 $ 73,000 $ 73,000 $ 73,000 Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Hamel Fire Sub -total $ Loretto & Long Lake 74,904 $ 73,000 $ 74,904 $ 73,000 $ 73,237 $ 73,000 $ 73,237 $ 73,000 $ 73,237 $ 73,000 Fire (Loretto) $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 21,000 $ 21,000 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Fire (Long Lake) $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Fire Sub -total $ 26,000 $ 26,000 $ 27,000 $ 27,000 $ 28,000 $ 28,000 $ 28,000 $ 28,000 $ 28,000 $ 28,000 1 2017 - 2021 Capital Improvement Plan 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 2017 CIP: DEPARTMENT 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Project Cost City Proposed Portion Project Cost City Proposed Portion Project Cost City Proposed Portion Project Cost City Proposed Portion Project Cost City Proposed Portion Potential Revenue Source Emergency Operation Supplies (EOC) Revolving Cap. Impr. Fund/ County Grant Siren Maintenance $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund Civil Defense Sirens $-30,040 $-384g00 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Revolving Cap. Impr. Fund/ County Grant Civil Defense Sub -total $ Administration/Data Processing Vehicle 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Administration Sub -total $ City Buildings I I Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund City Hall Repairs/Renovation 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Revolving Cap. Impr. Fund Community Building Repairs $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Revolving Cap. Impr. Fund PW//Police/City Hall Renovations Recharacterization from Water Bonds 600 Clydesdale - Parking Lot $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Revolving Cap. Impr. Fund Police Server Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund City Hall Server Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund City Building Sub -total $ Water (high growth expectation) 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Water Treatment Plant Expansion $ 1,400,000 $ 1,400,000 Future Willow Dr Water Tower Rehab $ 400,000 $ 400,000 Water Capital Improvement Hwy 55 & CR116 Watermain $ 304,556 $ 304,556 Water Capital Imp/Wtr Fund Water Tower (and land acquisition) $ 2,600,000 $ 2,600,000 Future (2020-2023) Water Sub -total $ 704,556 $ 704,556 $ Seaver Hwy 55 & CR116 Sewer Lining $ - $ 2,600,000 $ 2,600,000 $ 1,400,000 $ 1,400,000 $ I $ 50,000 Sewer Sub -total $ Storm Water $ 50,OOOI 50,000 $ 50,000 $ I I I ISewer Fund (Maintenance) Rain Garden Implementation Program I Storm Water Sub -total $ Parks I I I ISWU; Grants; Env. Fund Trails Park Dedication Fund General Landscaping - all parks $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 Park Dedication Fund Small Equip/Improvements - all parks $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Park Dedication Fund Large Equipment Park Dedication Fund Hamel Legion Park Park Dedication Fund Dugout Covers $ 40,000 $ 20,000 Park Dedication Fund Snow Machine Park Dedication Fund Holy Name Park Park Dedication Fund Hunter Lions Park Park Dedication Fund Playground Mats Park Dedication Fund Lakeshore Park Park Dedication Fund Stone steps to boat launch Park Dedication Fund Bench by Water $ 1,500 $ 1,500 Park Dedication Fund Rainwater Nature Area Park Dedication Fund Bridge by New Trail $ 75,000 $ 75,000 Park Dedication Fund Bench and Trail - other side bridge $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Park Dedication Fund Maple Park Park Dedication Fund Walnut Park Park Dedication Fund Update Baketball Hoop Park Dedication Fund Medina Morningside Park Park Dedication Fund Land Acquisitions / New Trails $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Park Dedication Fund Tomann Preserve - Park Development $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Park Dedication Fund The Park at Fields of Medina Park Dedication Fund Volleyball Court 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Park Dedication Fund Second Basketball Hoop $ 4,000 $ 4,000 Park Dedication Fund Park Land by Medina Golf & CC Park Dedication Fund Park Dedication Fund Parks Sub -total $ 458,500 $ 438,500 $ 281,000 $ 281,000 $ 277,000 $ 277,000 $ 277,000 $ 277,000 $ 277,000 $ 277,000 TOTAL: $ 4,697,742 $ 2,093,469 $ 1,361,428 $ 1,058,762 $ 3,739,837 $ 3,666,298 $ 2,140,237 $ 2,140,000 $ 550,237 $ 550,000 2 HIGHWAY 55 TOWNLINE HACKAMORE MEDINA Zoning Map (Residential) Legend Non -Residential (see reverse) Agricultural Preserve (AG) Rural Residential (RR) Rural Residential 1 (RR1) Rural Residential 2 (RR-2) Rural Residential -Urban Reserve (RR-UR) Suburban Residential (SR) Urban Residential (UR) Single Family Residential (R1) R1 - rezoning pending Single and Two -Family Residential (R2) R2- rezoning pending Residential -Mid Density (R3) Multiple Family Residential (MR) Mixed Use (MU) Uptown Hamel 1 (UH-1) Uptown Hamel 2 (UH-2) Planned Unit Development (PUD) v A Please contact the Planning Department (763-473-4643) for more information regarding property within PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) Map Updated: January 23, 2014 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles j e E 6_ CITY °.c ek(SP MEDINA Zoning Map (Non -Residential) Legend Residential - see reverse Agricultural Preserve (AG) Rural Residential-2 (RR-2) Mixed Use (MU) Uptown Hame1-1 (UH-1) Uptown Hame1-2 (UH-2) Public/Semi-Public (PS) Rural Public/Semi-Public (RPS) Business Park (BP) Business (B) Industrial Park (IP) Commercial -Highway (CH) Commercial Highway -Railroad (CH -RR) Commerial-General (CG) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rural Business Holding (RBH) Rural Commercial Holding (RCH) Sanitary Landfill (SL) Please contact the Planning Department (763-473-4643) for more information regarding property within PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) Map Updated: January 23, 2014 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: January 31, 2017 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates — February 7, 2017 City Council Meeting Land Use Application Review A) Olkon Variance and Preliminary Plat — 2362 Willow Drive — Ellis and Nancy Olkon have requested a variance from the minimum suitable soils requirements to subdivide their 20 acre property into two lots. The Planning Commission reviewed the variance request at the September 13 meeting and unanimously recommended denial. The City Council adopted a resolution denying the variance on December 20. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the plat at the January 10 meeting and recommended denial. The City Council reviewed on January 17 and directed staff to prepare a resolution denying the request. The resolution will be presented on February 7. B) Woodridge Church Site Plan Review — 1500 County Road 24 — Woodridge Church has requested a Comp Plan amendment, rezoning, lot combination, conditional use permit amendment, site plan review, and interim use permit for construction of a 15,085 square foot addition to the north side of the existing building. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the lot combination, CUP interim use permit and Site Plan at their Monday, December 19, 2016 meeting, on the Comp Plan Amendment and rezoning on January 10. The Commission unanimously recommended approval of all of the applications. The City Council reviewed on January 17 and directed staff to prepare documents approving the request. The resolutions and ordinance will be presented on February 7. C) Marx CD-PUD Concept Plan — 2700 and 2900 Park -view Drive — Wally and Bridget Marx have requested review of a concept plan for a 6 lot conservation design subdivision on approximately 90 acres. The applicant proposes 51.58 acres (10 buildable acres) of conservation. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request at their January 10 meeting and provided comments. The application is scheduled to be presented to the Council on February 7. D) Lunski Senior Community Concept Plan — North of Highway 55, East of Willow Drive (PID 03-118-23-32-0007) — Lunski, Inc. has requested review of a Concept Plan for development of an approximately 126 unit senior living community to include independent and assisted living units. The applicant is considering changes to their plan and has requested a delay in review. The Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to hold a public hearing on the request at their February 13 meeting. E) Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning —1432 County Road 29 — UP Development LLC has requested to reguide the subject property to High Density Residential (HDR) and to rezone to the R4 zoning district for potential development of a 28-42 unit memory care facility. The City's DRAFT 2040 Comp Plan identifies the property as HDR, but the applicant desires to move ahead quicker than the Comp Plan Review. The Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to hold a public hearing on the request at their February 13 meeting. Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 February7, 2017 City Council Meeting F) Three Rivers Park/We Can Ride CUP — 4301 County Road 24 — Three Rivers Park District and We Can Ride have requested a conditional use permit amendment to allow We Can Ride, a nonprofit that provides programming to individuals with disabilities or special needs, to occupy the stable previously utilized by Three Rivers Park mounted patrol. The Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to hold a public hearing on the request at their February 13 meeting. G) AutoMotorPlex, Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery — The City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects. H) Woods of Medina, Capital Knoll— These preliminary plats have been approved and staff is awaiting a final plat application I) Capital Knoll, Hamel Haven subdivisions — These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plats are recorded Other Proiects A) Comprehensive Plan — The Planning Commission held the Public Hearing on the 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan update at the December 13 meeting. Following the hearing, Commissioners discussed all chapters of the plan and recommended a number of changes. Following discussion, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Plan. Staff presented the Plan for City Council review at the January 3 meeting and intends to present again at the February 7 meeting. B) Long Lake subwatershed Carp Study Grant — On January 6, I attended a meeting related to a proposed Hennepin County Opportunity grant application by Medina, Orono, Long Lake, and Minnehaha Creek to study rough fish in the Long Lake subwatershed. The grant would support the study of the fish in order to determine management strategies and potential water quality improvements. The cost of the study is $160,000, with the grant to cover $100,000. Staff requested additional details on the expected cost of future management in order to determine if additional investment in the study would be appropriate. This information will be presented to the Council when available. Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 February7, 2017 City Council Meeting MEDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT 600 Clydesdale Trail Medina, MN 55340.9790 p: 763.473-9209 f: 763.473-8858 non -emergency: 763-525-6210 MEMORANDUM Emergency 9.1_1 TO: Mayor Robert Mitchell and City Council FROM: Edgar J. Belland, Director of Public Safety, Through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: February 1, 2017 RE: Department Updates County Road Traffic Issue Open House On January 25th we held an open house for the Hennepin County traffic engineers to address Medina citizens' issues on county roads within Medina. Department Meeting On January 25th we held our first department meeting of the year. We reviewed our 2017 goals and reviewed the policy updates that were changed in December. City Prosecutor Steve Tallen came in and gave a legal update to the officers. EMT Refresher January 16th through January 18th I attended my EMT refresher course at North Memorial Medical Training Facility in Robbinsdale. The certification is good for the next two years. The instructors are very good and the time is essential for keeping up on the new medical devices. Annual Reports We are in the process of pulling together all the information for the annual report. Bud Eisinger, One of Medina's First Police Officers Passes Away In 1958, Bud Eisinger was elected to the position of constable in Medina. Bud passed away on Sunday, January 16, 2017. Bud patrolled the streets of Medina with his K-9 partner Prince. The majority of his life, he lived on Medina Road; his house just to the east of City Hall. Bud was a kind and caring man. He was a public servant who understood people. He was always willing to help out. I don't think he had missed a Medina cleanup day. Bud was there last year chatting with everyone. After leaving his position with Medina, he spent the rest of his career with the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department. After retirement he spent his time working different jobs, fishing and going on trips with his family. Several years ago, he moved to Presbyterian Homes in Spring Park. I attended his wake on Saturday January 29th representing the City of Medina and our Police Department. Suicide Prevention Class On January 30th I attended a suicide prevention class sponsored by the Hamel Fire Department for surrounding departments. The class was very informative giving some grave statistics on the number of first responders committing suicide. The first responders are dealing with traumatic situation on a regular basis; these situations affect each induvial differently. As a leader in public safety, I want to be able to recognize the signs of personnel who are suffering from depression and ensure that resources are available to them. Patrol by Sergeant Jason Nelson Patrol Activities For the dates of January 11 to January 31, 2017, our officers issued 69 citations and 211 warnings for various traffic infractions. There were a total of 10 traffic accidents, 19 medicals, 10 alarms and one DWI. On January 25, 2017, we had a department meeting where Chief Belland went over changes to the policy manual and City Attorney Steve Tallen spoke with the officers about court cases. On January 22, 2017, Officer McGill was dispatched to a traffic complaint that was found by Plymouth officers in the Target parking lot. The employee admitting that he had been drinking the night before and after given field sobriety tests was arrested for DWI. The Target employee tested a .30. On January 24, 2017, Officer Converse was advised of a pursuit that Plymouth had with a truck pulling a boat. Due to restricted pursuit policies the vehicle was not pursued and a short time later the boat was found sitting behind a business. The boat ended up being a stolen boat from Medina which had been taken from a property that had been burglarized. Case was forwarded to Investigations. On January 24, 2017, I responded to the Holiday Gas Station on County Road 101 to take a counterfeit bills report. Employees noticed (2) $20 bills that were counterfeit when doing a cash drop. It's unknown who presented the fake currency. The bills were forwarded to the Secret Service. On January 25, 2017, Officer Jessen took a theft of mail from a mailbox report. The homeowner stated that she paid bills and put them in the mailbox with the red flag up for the postal man and when she went back out to put more bills out she noticed that her mail had been stolen. Case forwarded to Investigations. On January 27, 2017, Officers Jessen and McKinley were dispatched to the Medina Entertainment Center where security had a male who was drinking and carrying a concealed handgun in his back pocket. The officers were able to locate the male and he was allowed to place the handgun in the safe at the Medina Inn until he was sober. On January 31, 2017, Officer Converse and I were dispatched to a possible burglary in Loretto. Reporting party stated that while in the shower begun hearing noises outside her bathroom door. It was later learned that there was an intoxicated male who had entered her unlocked residence without her permission and wanted to talk with her. The male opened up the bathroom door while she was in the shower. She screamed and yelled and the male eventually left. The male was located at his residence and subsequently arrested for burglary. Investigations by Investigator Kevin Boecker Investigating a burglary/theft in the 2700 block of Hamel Road. A boat was stolen from the property and a shed and house were possibly broken into. The boat was later recovered in Plymouth after a pickup that had been towing it, fled from Plymouth Police. Investigating a reported incident of criminal sexual conduct that apparently took place on a bus that was driving through the city of Medina. Investigated a report of an elderly person buying thousands of dollars of gift cards at Target. Target employees reported concern that the female was being scammed From the investigation found that the female was a Corcoran resident and was indeed a victim of a phone scam. Victim reports giving away $38,000 in gift cards over a week period to the suspect before police were able to make contact with her and advise she was being scammed Reported child abuse case closed after HC Child Protection declined to open investigation. Investigated possible forged check case where a company check had been cashed by a company other than who the check had been written. Was found to be unintentional mistake and the issuing company was reimbursed for the check amount. Case involving mail theft and someone manufacturing and cashing a check using victim's banking information has been forwarded to the Hennepin County Attorney's Office for charging. Investigated assault at a business involving several employees. The case has been forwarded to the Medina Prosecuting attorney for charging. Currently have 14 open cases that are being investigated. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE: January 30, 2017 MEETING: February 7, 2017 SUBJECT: Public Works Update STREETS • The streets are in good shape, but are starting to show a lot of movement and roughness. This year will likely be worse than most because of all the moisture in the ground. • We have had several small snow events where the timing is bad. Sometimes the smaller events cause more problems with the commute than the larger ones. People become frustrated that it's a small event and it's slippery. For residential streets we sometimes just have to wait for it to stop snowing, and when it happens during the day it seems like a long time for some people. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER • Bids were accepted at the last council meeting for the Tower Rehab Project. They were considerably lower than the engineers estimate. We do however think the contractor is qualified, but may require slightly more inspections. • Meter reading was completed on January 30, 2017. • Linda has put together and sent in the DNR reports for the year. • I will be working with the DNR to update our water appropriation permit to include Well #8. • Most all the projects are frozen up for the winter and no longer require erosion control inspections. PARKS/TRAILS • Hamel Legion Park is still busy. The colder weather has returned and we have good ice again for the time being. I think this has been one of the best years I can remember and for sure the most use I have seen. • I will be looking into a possible grant for funding of the small section of trail between Tower Drive and Hamel Road. It is a small section, but on County ROW, and an important connection in my opinion. Hennepin County does have grant opportunities that we will apply for if it fits the criteria. It is likely we will have to spend a little bit on engineering to get a concept plan together. MISCELLANEOUS • Engineering is looking over our 2017 Road Material Bid package to see if any of the MnDOT asphalt material numbers have changed. We will be sending the package out for bid soon. ORDER CHECKS JANUARY 17, 2017 - FEBRUARY 7, 2017 045443 LANO EQUIPMENT INC $569.00 045444 MN DEPT OF LABOR/INDUSTRY $6,991.16 045445 CUSTOM REMODELERS INC $101.00 045446 HUSTON, CHERYL $250.00 045447 JOHNSON, LAURA & SCOTT $150.00 045448 PAKALA,SAJITA $250.00 045449 PINE TAR ACADEMY $500.00 045450 SCHUTTE, MARIE $250.00 045451 HENN COUNTY CORRECTIONS $341.25 045452 BANK OF MAPLE PLAIN $37,721.25 045453 CARRITHERS, JOHN & HANNAH $150.00 045454 CHADUVULA, NARASIMHA RAO $110.00 045455 MN CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSN $920.00 045456 RYAN COMPANIES $32,453.86 045457 TARGET CORPORATION $52,348.49 045458 ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS FURNITURE $88.58 045459 CROW RIVER FARM EQUIPMENT CO $67.72 045460 DOBOS $112.22 045461 HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES I $500.00 045462 HAMEL LIONS CLUB $565.00 045463 HENN COUNTY INFO TECH $923.41 045464 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED $10,111.80 045465 MN DNR ECO-WATERS $2,449.75 045466 M.C.I. INC $8,232.00 045467 NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES INC $271.25 045468 PERRY'S TRUCK REPAIR $170.00 045469 STREICHER'S $144.96 045470 TKDA $2,719.83 045471 WSB & ASSOCIATES $13,623.25 045472 BEAUDRY OIL & PROPANE $4,859.07 045473 BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC $46.06 045474 BURDAS TOWING $85.00 045475 CARGILL INC $14,448.38 045476 EARL F ANDERSEN INC $307.50 045477 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL $100.00 045478 GRAINGER $220.20 045479 HAMEL VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT $73,500.00 045480 HARMON AUTOGLASS $81.25 045481 HENRYS WATERWORKS INC $3,088.90 045482 INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY $142.95 045483 INTL ASSOC OF CHIEFS OF POLICE $150.00 045484 JANS LAWN & LANDSCAPE $1,000.00 045485 LAW ENFORCEMENT TECH $1,945.00 045486 LORETTO VOL FIRE DEPT INC $25,199.96 045487 LUTHER BROOKDALE CHEVROLET $154.63 045488 MADISON NATIONAL LIFE $634.66 045489 MARCO INC $30.97 045490 MOTLEY AUTO SERVICE LLC $162.00 045491 NAPA OF CORCORAN INC $111.13 045492 OFFICE DEPOT $460.36 045493 OIL AIR PRODUCTS LLC $121.04 045494 RANDY'S SANITATION INC $83.21 045495 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES INC $7,422.37 045496 RUSSELL SECURITY RESOURCE INC $469.00 045497 STREICHER'S $183.97 045498 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE INC $506.36 045499 SUMMIT COMPANIES $1,257.00 045500 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL $621.90 045501 TEGRETE CORP $1,468.54 045502 TIMESAVER OFFSITE $380.00 045503 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR $137.00 045504 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE $92.00 Total Checks $312,556.19 ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS JANUARY 17, 2017 — FEBRUARY 7, 2017 003996E AFLAC $394.88 003997E MEDIACOM OF MN LLC $219.90 003998E FRONTIER $56.08 003999E SELECT ACCOUNT $3,868.95 004000E CULLIGAN-METRO $167.18 004001E ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICE $2,799.15 004002E FARMERS STATE BANK OF HAMEL $55.00 004003E PR PERA $14,649.44 004004E PR FED/FICA $16,829.52 004005E PR MN Deferred Comp $2,345.00 004006E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA $3,427.79 004007E SELECT ACCOUNT $751.45 004008E CITY OF MEDINA $21.00 004009E FARMERS STATE BANK OF HAMEL $20.00 004010E BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP $1,463,608.13 004011E VOID $0.00 004012E WRIGHT HENN COOP ELEC ASSN $2,140.16 004013E XCEL ENERGY $12,013.36 004014E MEDIACOM OF MN LLC $355.80 004015E DELTA DENTAL $2,538.70 004016E KONICA MINOLTA $168.48 004017E MARCO (LEASE) $774.48 004018E VALVOLINE FLEET SERVICES $98.97 004019E HOSTINGMINNESOTA.COM $206.88 004020E PIVOTAL PAYMENTS INC $419.65 004021E SELECT ACCOUNT $5,220.26 004022E PIVOTAL PAYMENTS INC $255.54 004023E VERIZON WIRELESS $1,240.84 004024E MINNESOTA, STATE OF $2,821.00 Total Electronic Checks $1,537,467.59 PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT JANUARY 25, 2017 507684 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L $1,332.97 507685 BARNHART, ERIN A. $2,082.88 507686 BELLAND, EDGAR J $3,592.74 507687 BOECKER, KEVIN D. $2,382.68 507688 CONVERSE, KEITH A $2,399.54 507689 DINGMANN, IVAN W $1,734.07 507690 ENDE, JOSEPH $1,456.49 507691 FINKE, DUSTIN D. $2,178.54 507692 GALLUP, JODI M $1,756.49 507693 GLEASON, JOHN M. $1,882.65 507694 GREGORY, THOMAS $2,115.34 507695 HALL, DAVID M. $2,922.55 507696 JESSEN,JEREMIAH S. $2,171.64 507697 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. $2,350.19 507698 KLAERS, ANNE M $1,154.57 507699 LANE, LINDA $1,492.97 507700 LEUER, GREGORY J. $2,359.73 507701 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R $1,783.54 507702 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D $1,628.24 507703 NELSON, JASON $2,096.22 507704 PETERSON, DEBRA A $1,685.48 507705 REINKING, DEREK M $1,763.14 507706 SCHARF, ANDREW $544.43 507707 SCHERER, STEVEN T. $2,272.43 507708 SWALCHICK, CRAIG M $1,270.46 507709 VIEAU,CECILIA M. $1,130.90 Total Payroll Direct Deposit $49,540.88 INCORRECT VENDOR Jodi Gallup From: Kathy Martin <kathleen.martin@medinamn.us> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 10:11 PM To: Weyer Weed Cc: Scott Johnson; Dusty Finke Subject: Re: Olkon request for lot subdivision Thank you for sharing your opinion. I have copied our City Administrator and City Planner so that your comments can be entered into the public record. Kathleen Martin Medina City Council On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:54 PM, Weyer Weed <weverweed(amac.com> wrote: Dear Medina City Council Members Bob Mitchell, Mayor; Council Members Jeff Pederson, Lorie Cousineau, John Anderson and Kathleen Martin: We have owned and resided at 2582 County Road 24, since 1983. We can view the Olkon's property to our northeast. We want to express our unequivocal support for Medina Council's decision to deny Ellis Olkon and Nancy Olkon a variance to accommodate their proposed lot subdivision. We feel lucky to live in a city that values open space. We firmly believe land use variances should always protect open space as much as possible even as Medina accommodates necessary growth. We have read and viewed Planning Commission and Council minutes and video regarding the Olkon's request for a variance and preliminary plat. We conclude that a variance for the Olkons is not justified and, as a further matter, granting a variance would not only weaken the ability of this and future Council Members to defend our ordinances but also jeopardize the essence of Medina. Furthermore, it is not believable that any past Medina City Council Member would have given verbal consent to the Olkon's for a matter of such importance, nor is it believable that, as an attorney, Mr. Olkon would have overlooked obtaining written confirmation of such a consent. Please know that we support whatever actions the City takes to defeat any attempts by Ellis Olkon and Nancy Olkon for a variance. Thank you for your service to Medina. Sincerely, Weyer & Kathy Weed weverweed@a,mac.com (763-218-1849) kathyweedga,me.com (612-840-8417) i To City Council and Steering Committee members: With the 2040 comp plan on the council agenda Tuesday night, you might want to consider the following among factors in the difficult decisions about land use in the Mohawk - Chippewa area. (This is not to second-guess the steering committee's actions or to advocate any particular solutions). Transition. The Steering Committee heard -- and accepted -- arguments that some sewered residential development adjacent to Wealshire would serve as a transition to more rural areas, particularly to the west. The council may want to look further at such considerations as topography, sight lines and tree cover to offer some transitions in the larger surrounding area. Possible residency. We were impressed by the argument that residents with a spouse in Wealshire might be looking for housing nearby. On reflection, however, I wonder whether that's the type of housing planned for this area. Spouses of Wealshire residents, in many cases, likely would be older, looking for single -floor housing that is downsized and perhaps more modest and economical than their present living arrangements, perhaps rental housing, considering the progressive nature of many memory loss illnesses. I wonder if the council might also want to suggest housing appropriate for Wealshire employees. Those factors would be consistent with the community goal to support a diversity of housing for residents "at all stages of their lives." "Either/Or." The committee felt that, if we added sewer -served development adjacent to Wealshire, we should remove it from the same general area, in keeping with the goal of avoiding more -concentrated development. Road access. At some point, perhaps now, the council should decide whether Chippewa should be continued from Mohawk to Arrowhead -- and when and who should pay for an improvement. It would make sense for much of that expense to be borne by increased development if the road is to be continued. I believe staff felt the road should be continued but the committee felt that it should not because of the expense (very large), the possible overloading of Arrowhead and the opposition of neighbors in that area Infrastructure. Personally, I wonder if it would it make sense to draw the MUSA line so that, instead of property lines, it follows the lay of the land to avoid the expense of lift stations. Other. Other factors that have been raised in our discussions across the plan include current land use, circumstances of individual ownership, fairness toward land owners and how developments (including Wealshire) already are changing the character of neighborhoods. Bob Franklin 2/5/17