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
" T h e r e i s w i d e s p r e a d s u p p o r t f o r t h e p r i o r i t i e s i d e n t i f i e d a t t h e M a r c h 1 6 m e e t i n g . T h e s e i n c l u d e
t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f :
o S e n s i t i v e e c o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e s
o V i e w s / v i s t a s f r o m r o a d s
o E c o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e c o r r i d o r s f o r w i l d l i f e m o v e m e n t a n d h a b i t a t .
" T h r e e p e o p l e m e n t i o n e d t h a t t r a i l s s h o u l d b e a d d e d t o t h e p r i o r i t y l i s t
" A c o u p l e o f p e o p l e e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n o v e r l o s s o f l a n d o w n e r p r o p e r t y r i g h t s w i t h e a c h n e w
r e g u l a t i o n .
" I t d o e s n '