The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About08.18.2015 City Council Meeting PacketMEDINA AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 18, 2015 7:00 P.M. Medina City Hall 2052 County Road 24 CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the August 3, 2015 Special Council Meeting B. Minutes of the August 5, 2015 Regular Council Meeting C. Minutes of the August 13, 2015 Special Council Meeting 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 V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Accept Grant from Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community for a Defibrillator at the Hamel Community Building B. Approve the Wetland Replacement Plan for the 1400 Blackfoot Trail Project C. Approve Public Works 2016 Replacement Truck D. Resolution Approving Master Partnership Contract with Minnesota Department of Transportation E. Resolution Approving Off -Site Gambling Permit for the Hamel Lions Club to Conduct Lawful Charitable Gambling at 3200 Mill Drive F. Resolution Requesting a Speed Study by Mn/DOT on Meander Road and Chippewa Road VI. COMMENTS A. From Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda B. Park Commission C. Planning Commission VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Stonegate CD-PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Ordinance Regarding Setbacks for Decks from Upland Buffers; Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code 1. Resolution Authorizing Publication of the Ordinance by Title and Summary B. Resolution to Contract with a Council Member (Hwy 55 Rental for Medina Celebration Day) IX. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT X. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS XI. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS XII. ADJOURN Posted 8/14/2015 Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Medina City Council FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator DATE OF REPORT: August 13, 2015 DATE OF MEETING: August 18, 2015 SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Report V. CONSENT A. Accept Grant from Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community for a Defibrillator at the Hamel Community Building — Staff recommends accepting the grant from Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community for a Defibrillator at the Hamel Community Building. See attached memo. B. Approve the Wetland Replacement Plan for the 1400 Blackfoot Trail Project — Staff recommends approval of the wetland replacement plan to replace the wetlands that will be impacted in order to construct a driveway to access the parcel. See attached memo. C. Approve Public Works 2016 Replacement Truck — Staff recommends approval to order a new truck to replace the 2001 Public Works truck. The truck is currently listed in the 2016 Capital Improvement Plan, but staff would like to order it now so we can accept delivery when the 2016 CIP is approved. See attached memo. D. Resolution Approving Master Partnership Contract with Minnesota Department of Transportation — Staff recommends approval of this resolution and Master Partnership Contract with Mn/DOT. The Master Partnership Contract provides a framework for Mn/DOT and local agencies to provide payment to each other for services rendered. A few routine services are included in the contract and all other services are accomplished through the execution of work orders. See attached letter, contract, and resolution. E. Resolution Approving Off -Site Gambling Permit for the Hamel Lions Club to Conduct Lawful Charitable Gambling at 3200 Mill Drive — Staff recommends approval of the off - site gambling permit for the Hamel Lions Club to conduct bingo at Medina Celebration Day. See attached resolution. F. Resolution Requesting a Speed Study by Mn/DOT on Meander Road and Chippewa Road — Staff recommends approval of the resolution to request a speed study to establish the appropriate speed limits on Chippewa Road and Meander Road. See attached resolution. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Stonegate Planned Unit Development General Plan and Preliminary Plat — The applicant submitted an updated site plan and narrative on August 11. The preliminary plat, grading plan have not yet been updated because it was a quick turnaround and the applicant seeks feedback on the site plan before incurring this expense. The updated site plan is attached, along with a narrative from the applicant describing the changes. The primary changes were a reduction of one proposed lot, the elimination of the proposed private pool, an increase in the amount of buildable conservation area, and the addition of two public trail segments. It appears that the updated site plan may have affected some of the conditions discussed by the City Council on August 5. As a result, staff has also attempted to update the potential conditions which were included in previous staff reports, taking into consideration the direction of the Council at the August 5 meeting as well as the updates the applicant has made to the plans. See attached report. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Ordinance Regarding Deck Wetland Buffer Setbacks; Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code — The purpose of the setback is to provide a space outside of the buffer for outdoor activities. This is meant to reduce the likelihood that a property owner will violate and impact the buffer in order to allow for typical outdoor activities. The Planning Commission reviewed the request to reduce the setback for decks to 5 feet at the July meeting and the Commission unanimously recommended against amending the ordinance. The interested resident from the Enclave inquired if the Commission would support a reduction to 10 feet. At the August meeting, the Commission voted 5-1 against reducing the setback to 10 feet. See attached report, ordinance and resolution. Possible Motion #1: Deny ordinance regarding deck wetland buffer setbacks; amending chapter 8 of the city code Possible Motion #2: Approve ordinance regarding deck wetland buffer setbacks; amending chapter 8 of the city code If approve ordinance: Recommended Motion #2.• Adopt resolution authorizing publication of the ordinance by title and summary B. Resolution to Contract with a Council Member — The City of Medina rents, as well as purchases, items from Highway 55 Rental each year for Medina Celebration Day, but because one of the City Council members, Jeff Pederson, has an interest in Highway 55 Rental, the city needs to pass this resolution. If competitive bids are not required the city may do business with a company where a councilmember has an interest if a resolution is adopted. At the meeting, a non -interested councilmember makes a motion to adopt the resolution. Before Voting, the interested councilmember should state, and it should be recorded in the minutes, that he is abstaining from voting on the resolution because he 2 has a financial interest in the contract. The motion must be passed by a unanimous vote of the remaining council. Staff recommends approval. See attached resolution. Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution to contract with a council member. XI. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the bills, EFT 003271E-003292E for $75,424.07, order check numbers 43187-43261 for $607,654.54, and payroll EFT 506583-506613 for $47, 868.28 and payroll checks 20432-20433 for $9, 208.31. INFORMATION PACKET • Planning Department Update • Police Department Update • Public Works Department Update • Claims List 3 SPECIAL MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 3, 2015 The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in special session on August 3, 2015 at 7:35 a.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Acting Mayor Pederson presided. I. ROLL CALL Members present: Anderson, Martin, Cousineau, and Pederson. Members absent: Mitchell Also present: Attorney Justin Templin, City Attorney Ron Batty, City Planner Dusty Finke, and City Administrator Scott Johnson. II. CLOSED SESSION: PENDING LITIGATION The meeting adjourned to closed session at 7:36 a.m. to discuss pending litigation. The meeting reconvened to open session at 9:17 a.m. III. ADJOURN Mayor Pederson adjourned the meeting at 9:18 a.m. Jeff Pederson, Acting Mayor Attest: Scott Johnson, City Administrator -Clerk Medina City Council Special Meeting Minutes 1 August 3, 2015 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Medina City Council Special Meeting Minutes 2 August 3, 2015 1 DRAFT 2 3 MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 5, 2015 4 5 The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on August 5, 2015 at 7:00 6 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Mitchell presided. 7 8 I. ROLL CALL 9 10 Members present: Anderson, Cousineau, Pederson, Martin, and Mitchell. 11 12 Members absent: None. 13 14 Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, City Attorney Ron Batty, City Engineer 15 Tom Kellogg, City Planner Dusty Finke, Planning Consultant Nate Sparks, Public Works 16 Director Steve Scherer, and Public Safety Director 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 July 21, 2015 Special City Council Meeting Minutes 26 Moved by Anderson, seconded by Pederson, to approve the July 21, 2015 special City 27 Council meeting minutes as presented. Motion passed unanimously. 28 29 B. Approval of the July 21, 2015 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 30 It was noted on page two, line 20, it should state, "...a turf trail..." On page three, line 31 15, it should state, "...setup set up..." On page three, line 27, it should state, "...lout 32 and..." On page four, line one, it should state, "...data eta to identify..." On page four, 33 line 27, it should state, "...there to have..." On page four, line 39, it should state, 34 "...senior housing building..." On page four, line 51, it should state, "...Medina 35 Infrastructure resources..." On page six, line 14, it should state, "Anderson questioned if 36 suggested that..." On page five, line 46, it should state, "...held their its..." On page 37 five, line 48, it should state, "...meetings meeting..." On page six, line seven, it should 38 state, "...Of and..." On page seven, line 24, it should state, "Anderson questioned the 39 number of asked how many property owners there are." On page six, line 34, it should 40 state, "...discuss the capacity ic.suc Hollydale and Xcel's plan." On page seven, line 41, 41 it should state, "...she believed that this the proposed assessment determination is fair 42 and equitable." On page seven, line 27, it should state, "...two property owners 43 residents and three lots..." On page eight, line 31, it should state, "Martin referenced an 44 Item a provision that states requires approval by City staff and suggested that instead be 45 tied to..." On page nine, line 11, it should state, "...rational rationale..." On page ten, 46 line 17, it should state, "...schedules scheduled..." 47 48 Moved by Anderson, seconded by Pederson, to approve the July 21, 2015 regular City 49 Council meeting minutes as amended. Motion passed unanimously. 50 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 1 August 5, 2015 1 V. CONSENT AGENDA (7:05 p.m.) 2 3 A. Resolution No. 2015-61 Authorizing Amendment to Residential Recycling 4 Grant Agreement with Hennepin County 5 B. Resolution No. 2015-62 Amending 2015 Appointments and Designations to 6 Various City Services, Authorities, Commissions and Agencies 7 C. Resolution No. 2015-63 Accepting Resignation of Police Officer John Vinck 8 D. Authorize Staff to Recruit Police Officers Replacement Position 9 E. Approve Job Description and Reclassification of City Clerk/Assistant to to City Administrator to Pay Grade 5-6 as of January 1, 2016 11 F. Approve 2016 Hamel Fire Budget 12 G. Resolution No. 2015-64 Approving Proposed Transfers and Assignment of 13 Fund Reserves 14 H. Ordinance No. 584 Amending Section 625 of the Code of Ordinances 15 Regarding Wine Licenses 16 I. Approve Street Striping Services Agreement with Twin City Striping, Inc. 17 J. Approve Display Contract Agreement with RES Specialty Pyrotechnics, Inc. 18 for Medina Celebration Day 19 K. Approve Change Order No. 1 for Fields of Medina Park Development 20 L. Ordinance No. 585 Regarding Site Plan Review Processes; Amending 21 Chapter 8 of the City Code 22 M. Resolution No. 2015-65 Authorizing Publication of the Site Plan Review 23 Ordinance No. 585 by Title and Summary 24 Moved by Pederson, seconded by Cousineau, to approve the consent agenda. Motion 25 passed unanimously. 26 27 VI. COMMENTS (7:08 p.m.) 28 29 A. Comments from Citizens on Items not on the Agenda 30 There were none. 31 32 B. Park Commission 33 Park Commissioner Reid provided a summary of the July 15t" meeting at which time the 34 Commission reviewed the proposed trails related to the Stonegate request. She stated 35 that the Commission liked the alignment of the northern trail as it aligns with the plans of 36 the Commission. 37 38 Mitchell stated that the issue has come up before as to whether or not he would have a 39 conflict of interest with the Stonegate development request. He identified his property 40 location and stated that while he would not have a financial interest he does feel that he 41 should recuse himself from the discussions regarding Stonegate and asked that 42 Pederson take control of the meeting. 43 44 Mitchell recused himself from the discussion. 45 46 Reid stated that the Commission likes the location of the northern trail but does not feel 47 that the northwest connection would be necessary as the property owner in that location 48 does not plan to subdivide and therefore that trail area would be a wetland. She 49 referenced the horse trail and stated that the Commission recommends that remain as a 50 horse trail. She stated that the Stonegate representatives stated that the trail would be 51 placed in permanent easement and therefore it would be the decision of the City as to Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 2 August 5, 2015 1 whether or not that would remain as a horse trail. She stated that the Stonegate 2 representatives also assured the Commission that the adjacent homebuyers would be 3 alerted as to the location of the horse trail. She stated that there are conflicting issues 4 that could not be resolved regarding the trails, specifically whether the trail could cross 5 the conservation easement and whether the trails should be composed of bituminous, 6 gravel, or turf. She reviewed the recommendations of the Commission in regard to the 7 Stonegate request. 8 9 C. Planning Commission 10 Finke reported that the Commission will meet the following week to consider a variance 11 request to extend an existing deck in the Independence Beach neighborhood, a 12 proposed lot split and variance request for the property located at 2782 Willow Drive, 13 and a continuation of the discussion regarding the setbacks for decks from wetlands. 14 15 VII. NEW BUSINESS 16 17 A. Stonegate CD-PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat (7:17 p.m.) 18 Sparks presented a request for a Conservation Design Planned Unit Development (CD- 19 PUD) and Preliminary Plat from Stonegate. He stated that the development would 20 contain 42 rural single-family parcels that would access off of a new road that would 21 connect to Homestead Trail in Orono and would continue through the development to 22 Deerhill Road. He stated that currently the property is zoned rural residential and guided 23 rural residential in the Comprehensive Plan, which allows for one home per five acre 24 minimum. He explained that the Conservation Design Ordinance would allow for 25 flexibility, including a density bonus, contingent upon certain aspects of the Ordinance 26 being met. He displayed the proposed layout for the development, which includes 27 parcels ranging in size from 1.2 to 2.63 acres. He stated that the base density would 28 allow for 22 lots on this property based on the number of lots that would be achieved 29 under the existing zoning of the property. He noted that under the CD-PUD Ordinance a 30 density bonus of up to 200 percent could be allowed, based on the conservation aspects 31 provided under the development, and advised that the applicant is proposing a density 32 bonus of 190 percent. He stated that the road through the development would become 33 a City maintained road while the cul-de-sac and shared driveway portion would remain 34 private. He stated that the applicant is requesting a reduced street surface and right-of- 35 way as they believe that would help to achieve low impact developments and better 36 blend with Deerhill Road. He stated that new subdivisions require 60-foot wide right-of- 37 way with a 24-foot roadway surface. He stated that if Deerhill Road were to be rebuilt 38 that would be completely different from the subdivision standards as that is a unique 39 roadway. He stated that staff recommends that the road through the development be 40 built to the subdivision standards, and noted that the applicant does believe that it would 41 be possible to meet those requirements although they would not prefer that option. He 42 stated that some of the proposed trails would go through the right-of-way and one trail 43 would cross through the conservation area. He stated that the applicant is proposing 44 primary and secondary septic locations within each lot with the exception of one lot that 45 would have a secondary septic site to be placed in the conservation easement. He 46 stated that the applicant is seeking an additional allowance that up to ten additional lots 47 could have secondary septic placement in the conservation easement if desired. He 48 stated that the applicant is proposing a multi -flow pretreatment septic system, which 49 requires a higher degree of maintenance. He stated that staff recommends that the 50 Homeowners Association (HOA) be involved in the maintenance of the septic systems. 51 He stated that three of the proposed septic sites do not meet the City's requirements for Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 3 August 5, 2015 1 wetland setbacks and those should be relocated. He stated that there will also need to 2 be monitoring of well and septic sites because of the proximity to the City's drinking 3 water supply area. He stated that the City Engineer should review the tree placement 4 prior to installation and the details of the individual plantings should be provided to 5 ensure compliance. He stated that a wetland replacement plan would be needed and an 6 updated wetland delineation would be needed. He stated that wetland buffer planting 7 plans for the easements would also be required. He highlighted the conservation 8 easement proposed for the development and the restoration plans. He stated that the 9 Planning Commission reviewed this request and recommended denial as they did not 10 feel that the request met the objectives of the CD-PUD Ordinance. He stated that the 11 Park Commission reviewed the request and believed the trails proposed by the applicant 12 largely satisfies some of the park dedication requirements with the remainder to be 13 provided through cash in lieu. 14 15 Martin stated that the Park Commission report referenced a piece of land that they would 16 like to receive that she does not see in this plan. 17 18 Jennifer Haskamp spoke in representation of the applicant and stated that Stonegate 19 would be happy to make that change if desired. 20 21 Anderson asked the size of that property in discussion. 22 23 Haskamp reported that the property in the northeast corner is 1.73 acres in size. 24 25 Pederson stated that Deerhill Road has been discussed in the past, noting that a speed 26 limit would need to be set. He believed that a speed study would need to be completed 27 in order to set that limit. 28 29 Belland replied that is correct, a speed study would be done to set a speed limit. 30 31 Pederson stated that the residents of Deerhill Road have petitioned the City to not 32 upgrade that road at this point in time. He noted that is a public road and wanted to 33 make sure the residents know what that means. 34 35 Haskamp stated that she has been working with the applicant for the past three to four 36 years and introduced the members of the applicant's team who are present tonight. She 37 provided background information noting that there has been ongoing litigation for the 38 past two years and advised that there is a contingent settlement agreement. She stated 39 that this site is identified as having moderate to high quality resources that are worth 40 protecting as specified through a map adopted by the City in 2007. She noted that in 41 2010 the property was converted to use for agriculture. She stated that the property was 42 previously part of the conservation reserve project from 1997 through 2007. She stated 43 that the property is identified as a priority area within the City's open space vision and 44 principles. She provided a graphic developed by the City showing how a conservation 45 design reflects the open space principles and how that would apply to this property. She 46 referenced the conservation objectives and noted that their application attempts to meet 47 all of those objectives. She reviewed the definition of a conservation area and stated 48 that the definition specifies that one or more of the objectives must be met. She 49 provided additional information on the contingent settlement agreement, which was 50 reached between the City and Stonegate, which includes a concept plan. She 51 highlighted aspects of the agreement which both parties agreed to including a density Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 4 August 5, 2015 1 bonus of 190 percent, upland buildable not less than 30 percent, land stewardship plan 2 will be prepared, 2011 wetland delineation will be used for Preliminary Plat, three acres 3 of wetland will be restored in the central area, public road will connect Homestead with 4 Deerhill Road, public trails as depicted on the Concept Plan, and Minnesota State Rules 5 will be followed for septic design. She stated that they attempted to meet specific goals 6 and objectives when designing this application including the terms outlined and agreed 7 upon by the contingent settlement agreement, incorporation of comments received by 8 the Council and City staff related to the draft Concept Plan, meeting the goals of the 9 Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Report as well as the Conservation Design to Ordinance, and to listen to the comments and concerns of the staff, Planning 11 Commission, City Council and neighboring residents in order to create an exceptional 12 conservation development. She stated that they have enhances the north -south 13 greenway corridor, reduced the roadway length/quantity, restore prairie, wetland 14 restoration, public and private trails, and dedication of 1.73 acres as public open space 15 noting that all those items meet different aspects of the Conservation Design Ordinance 16 objectives. She identified the areas where private trails would be placed, noting that the 17 trails have not been placed on the map as of yet because the location can be changed 18 along with the prairie restoration. She stated that they would work with Minnehaha 19 Creek on the locations that would work best. She provided a photograph of Deerhill 20 Road in its current capacity as it connects to this property and explained that they are 21 proposing a reduced street width and right-of-way in order to better blend with this 22 unique roadway. She provided a summary of the septic information proposed for the 23 development and noted that an expert is also in attendance should the Council have 24 additional questions. She provided additional information on the additional flexibility 25 requested for secondary septic locations within the conservation easement, noting that 26 their plan is not to use those but they would like to have that flexibility as a contingency. 27 28 Kim Chapman, AES, stated that he was asked to provide additional details on the land 29 stewardship plan. He stated that the plan lays out locations of where prairies will be, 30 where the wetland will be created, and the location of the Tamarack Swamp. He stated 31 that the land stewardship plan will require a diverse mix and the quality of the prairie will 32 be very good and perhaps better than the prairie that previously existed. He stated that 33 trained professionals would be restoring and managing the prairie. He stated that the 34 wetland created will also be better than what previously existed. He stated that there will 35 be consistent management over the three-year period from trained professionals. He 36 stated that he has been in this business for 15 to 20 years and the person that wrote the 37 stewardship plan has worked with him on dozens of restoration plans for the past 12 38 years. 39 40 Haskamp provided additional details on the conservation easement, noting that they 41 have been in constant communication with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 42 She stated that a memorandum of understanding was executed with the Watershed on 43 June 18, 2015 and they will continue to work with the Watershed. She referred to the 44 outstanding items not covered by the staff report. She stated that in regard to the half- 45 moon they would like to allow passive recreation on approximately two acres, with a 46 planting plan to be development through the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. She 47 stated that in regard to park dedication the applicant is requesting that due consideration 48 be given for the trails and other elements within the development including 9.25 acres of 49 wetland buffer, 1.86 acres of open space where the community pool is located, 38.47 50 acres of buildable upland is included in the conservation area, and area for public trails. 51 She noted that while there are trails proposed adjacent to the right-of-way, the trails do Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 5 August 5, 2015 I not run through the right-of-way. She stated that this shows that 52 percent of the gross 2 site is included in open space or public area. 3 4 Pederson stated that this is not a public hearing but noted that he would allow short 5 comments from the public. 6 7 Martin asked the net effect of the wetlands, as some would be created and some would 8 be filled. 9 10 Haskamp stated that the overall total will increase from what exists today. She stated 11 that it is difficult to have an exact number because of the 2011 delineation, but believed 12 the net effect to be around two to 2.5 acres. She stated that the contingent settlement 13 agreement spells out three acres and explained that a portion of that would be used for 14 mitigation for some of the small wetlands that the road may cross through. 15 16 Martin referenced a connection from Morningside into the site as mentioned by the Park 17 Commission and noted that the applicant plans for private trails in that area instead. 18 She asked for additional information on whether there would be the ability to maintain a 19 pathway that could be used. 20 21 Haskamp stated that specific question has not been raised before. She stated that there 22 have been conversations with the trail material. She stated that they are adamantly 23 opposed to using bituminous for this trail. She stated that she would have to discuss 24 that question with the owners. 25 26 Martin referenced the pool site and asked for additional details regarding the well and 27 septic as well as plans for the discharge of the pool water. 28 29 Haskamp stated that at the present time they are proposing to use a holding tank for the 30 pool area. She stated that there are several septic sites that can accommodate the use 31 but explained that their septic designer has recommended that the design be delayed 32 until the time when the actual level of usage is known. 33 34 Martin asked for additional details regarding the holding tank. 35 36 Sara Heger, PRDC, explained that holding tanks are emptied out by a hauler. She 37 explained that an alert is made before the tank is full so that you can have it emptied 38 without any threat of overflow. She stated that typically the system is then placed on a 39 schedule for emptying by the hauler. 40 41 Martin asked for more information on what would be done with the chemicals that are in 42 the pool water when that water is discharged. 43 44 Heger replied that pool water would never go into a septic system. She explained that 45 the holding tank would be for the septic waste. She stated that there would need to be a 46 plan for what would be done with the pool water, noting that there is guidance for pool 47 water that has been treated. 48 49 Martin asked for additional information on whether the pool would have a pumping 50 schedule and what would be done with the chlorinated water. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 6 August 5, 2015 1 Heger stated that there is a process to dechlorinate water, which would probably be 2 done prior to discharge. She stated that she could follow up to provide additional 3 information, noting that is not her specialty. 4 5 Martin asked for additional information on the effect chlorine could have on prairie grass. 6 7 Chapman stated that there are a lot of prairie grasses that are tolerant of things such as 8 saline and chlorine. He stated that people use plants to clean up contaminated sites. 9 He stated that if designed properly the plants can withstand discharged pool water. 10 11 Pederson questioned if the pool would be private or public. 12 13 Haskamp stated that the pool would be private and managed through the HOA. She 14 stated that the site that contains the pool is not included in the conservation area 15 calculations. 16 17 Martin referenced the additional buffers mentioned by the applicant and questioned how 18 that area is different than the amount of setback that would be required through the 19 regular City Ordinance. 20 21 Haskamp displayed a map that identifies areas required for buffer and the buffer being 22 provided by the application. 23 24 Martin referenced the issue of park dedication and noted that the pool area and the 25 private trails will not be open to the public and therefore did not see a reason why those 26 should be applied towards park dedication. 27 28 Haskamp stated that perhaps the attorneys present tonight could provide additional 29 detail. She stated that the State Statute is very specific on the items that can be counted 30 towards park dedication and does not differentiate between private and public. She 31 stated that the additional amenities provided to the residents of this development would 32 place less demand on the City amenities. 33 34 Anderson asked if Haskamp was stating that the parks and trails for the property are 35 planned for only the residents in that development by the developer. 36 37 Haskamp stated that is not what she was saying and explained that the State Statute is 38 clear on the amount of demand that this development would place on the demand of the 39 public amenities and the nexus should be considered. She stated that the entire park 40 dedication, ordinance and fee schedule of the City should be based on the nexus and 41 fulfillment of the ultimate park plan for the City. 42 43 Anderson referenced the wetland delineation, noting that when the contingent settlement 44 agreement was made the determination had been made that the 2011 delineation would 45 be used because of the time of year. He asked if an updated wetland delineation has 46 been completed at this time. 47 48 Haskamp stated that the boundaries have been delineated but the report is not complete 49 at this time and therefore has not been submitted. She was unsure when the report 50 would be finalized because of the timing with development season. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 7 August 5, 2015 1 Anderson asked whether the applicant would be willing to go back to a 24-foot roadway 2 as the settlement agreed upon. 3 4 Haskamp agreed that the applicant would do that. 5 6 Cousineau referenced the actual amount of upland buildable and questioned if that 7 figure is 126 acres or 132 acres, noting that the figures used for park dedication and the 8 main application are different. 9 10 Haskamp explained that the net buildable total in the application is based on the 11 quantities provided by the surveyor, which is 126 acres. 12 13 Cousineau stated that for the purpose of the park dedication the figure is shown as 132 14 acres. 15 16 Sparks explained that the calculations used under the Park Dedication Ordinance is 17 different. 18 19 Pederson stated that he would now allow comments from members of the public. 20 21 Johnson explained that if residents have spoken at the Park or Planning Commission 22 meetings those comments have already become part of the public record. 23 24 Cindy Piper, 2905 Willowood Farm Road, stated that she has rode horses on the trails in 25 Medina for 26 years. She stated that this is a circus and believed that the vote tonight 26 has already been made when the contingent settlement agreement was made. She 27 stated that the City has already spent over $400,000 on legal fees and this was done 28 through closed session meetings. She stated that the developers stand to make a large 29 amount of money off this development and can pay for this legal wrangling. She stated 30 that the City cannot afford to compete with those figures. She read some of the 31 statements made by the previous City Council in regard to this situation. She 32 commented on the high amount of traffic already on County Road 6 and did not believe 33 that adding an additional 42 homes would help that situation. She realized that the 34 current City Council is bound by the terms of the settlement agreement but asked that 35 they consider the importance of how rural residential development is done now and in 36 the future. 37 38 Kristin Chapman, 1910 Iroquois Drive, stated that she spoke at the Planning 39 Commission meeting and has since developed a more thoughtful response. She stated 40 that she is not a neighbor to this development and will not have to look at these homes. 41 She stated that this is a bigger issue because everything about this development will 42 spill over and affect the rest of the residents. She referenced Willow Drive and Deerhill 43 Road. She referenced the traffic counts on Deerhill Road, noting that there are only 14 44 lots on that roadway right now, and the affect that adding those additional trips will place 45 on that roadway and its residents. She stated that the traffic will demand a stop sign for 46 the Deerhill Road and Willow Road intersection. She noted that additional intersections 47 in the area will also require upgrades to stop signs or stoplights. She did not believe that 48 the City did its own due diligence in reviewing this application. She understood that the 49 City was burdened with legal fees in this case but believed that additional follow up 50 should be done by hiring additional consultants. She stated that a lot of referenced was 51 made to the Open Space Planning Committee, noting that it was a contentious Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 8 August 5, 2015 1 Committee. She stated that she chaired that Committee and noted that Seeland was 2 also a member of the Committee even though she was not a resident. She stated that 3 the Committee only considered the northern portion of the site, with the Tamarack 4 Swamp, as high priority and not the larger remainder of the site. She stated that while 5 she thinks it is great that the applicant would be planting prairie grasses, she did not 6 want the Council to confuse prairie with high quality land. She stated that her issue is 7 with the density bonus level. She stated that there is a lot more going on and is 8 skeptical because she does have experience. She was concerned with how this is 9 moving forward and with the contingent settlement agreement. She stated that she 10 agrees with the comments made by Ms. Piper. 11 12 Clarkson Lindley, 1588 Homestead Trail, stated that he is present on behalf of himself, 13 his wife and his son. He stated that he has concern with the number of septic systems 14 and wells. He stated that he feels the density bonus is out of discussion as that has 15 been agreed upon in the contingent settlement agreement. He stated that there was an 16 inconsistency with the septic information, as the applicant stated that 41 out of 42 lots 17 that can accommodate primary and second septic sites on the lot and then asked for 18 additional flexibility to place secondary septic systems outside of the lots. He stated that 19 he also has an issue with the density of the water wells and the affect 42 wells on that 20 property could have on the ground water. 21 22 David Weigman stated that he is present in representation of the Buckleys at 1582 23 Homestead Trail. He referenced a trail connection, which appears to connect to a gap 24 between the Buckley and neighbor property. He stated that the gap has been repealed 25 and questioned if that had been removed from the plan. 26 27 Haskamp stated that the property owner does not have jurisdiction over that area and 28 that would be the decision of the City. 29 30 Weigman stated that he would simply ask that the City consider that when discussing 31 trails. 32 33 Karen Jacobs, 1632 Homestead Trail, recognized that this is an issue of money with the 34 settlement but asked that the Council consider the rural platforms they ran on when they 35 were elected. She stated that this development does not support rural character and 36 believed the 22 homes allowed under regular zoning would match the rural character. 37 She stated that there is a big presentation of how 42 homes would better conserve over 38 22 homes and she is not seeing that to be true. 39 40 Bob Franklin, 2819 Lakeshore Avenue, referenced the contingent settlement agreement 41 and questioned how set in stone the terms are. He asked the Council what the 42 alternatives are that the Council may consider other than accept or reject, such as lesser 43 density or different layout. He stated that the City ordinance states that there must be 44 five acres of suitable soils for septic systems and questioned how septic systems are 45 going to be placed on lots of less than two acres. He questioned how the City would say 46 yes to these numbers but no to other properties that will come forward in the future for 47 development. He stated that trails usually connect from one area to another and stated 48 that perhaps kids from this neighborhood would want to play with their friends in the 49 Morningside neighborhood. He stated that this does not appear to match the 50 Comprehensive Plan and questioned what the Metropolitan Council would think of that. 51 He questioned who would be responsible for the cost to maintain the private trails. He Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 9 August 5, 2015 I believed that a very detailed response to the proposal should be given that would stand 2 up in litigation. He stated that with 2,000 acres of open space across from this property 3 it is probably not critical to maintain as open space. 4 5 Steven Pflaum, 2725 Deerhill Road, stated that his property abuts the proposed 6 development. He stated that the agreement brought forward is within the parameters of 7 the contingent settlement agreement. He stated that given the fact that this is a large 8 development that is using the City's cluster housing plan to maximize the open space to 9 preserve the eastern border of the property, which is the highest value area of the 10 property. He stated that his main interest and concern is Deerhill Road and understood 11 that the price of the deal is that Deerhill Road will be used. He stated that they would 12 like to see the width of the road and tree cover preserved as Deerhill Road is a historic 13 farm road. He stated that is the road is left gravel that would maintain a low speed on its 14 own. He stated that if the road is to be paved he would like to see the width remain the 15 same. He stated that he would also like to see construction traffic remain off the road. 16 He stated that he supports the 22 foot width of the proposed development roadway as 17 that would better mesh with the existing characteristics of Deerhill Road. 18 19 Johnson stated that staff also provided written comments received from Judy and Chris 20 Mallett of 2492 Willow Drive, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Elizabeth Goodman 21 of 2495 Willow Drive, and Karen Jacobs who spoke tonight. 22 23 Martin stated that people have commented that the Tamarack Swamp would always be 24 preserved, even under regular development. She stated that is true and explained that 25 under the CD-PUD up to 30 percent of the buildable land would be conserved. She 26 reviewed items that result in loss of habitat, such as mowed lawn and installation of 27 swimming pools. She stated that potentially there would be more houses in this 28 development, but there would also be an ability to preserve open space that others can 29 enjoy that would not be provided through regular development with larger lots. She 30 stated that the Council must determine what that is worth in terms of the additional 31 number of homes. She referenced the contingent settlement agreement and stated that 32 is not a result of this application, noting that this application was not under consideration 33 at that time. She stated that this application is only a portion of the property and that 34 does not result in an automatic positive vote. She stated that the potential density bonus 35 of 190 percent is based on the quality and amount of the land preserved. She 36 referenced the economics and stated that as a City Council the Council cannot take into 37 consideration the amount of profit a developer would make. She stated that there is a 38 substantial cost to create the lots that would be sold and the developer does not walk 39 away with the total amount of sales in profit. She stated that the roads are typically 40 designed to accommodate future development that may occur in the City, providing the 41 example of Hunter Drive, which began as a country road and is now a well -traveled 42 roadway. She stated that a substantial amount of the project cost for Deerhill Road will 43 be assessed to the lots on the road and perhaps the developer. She referenced the 44 claim that the City has not done its due diligence and noted that the City does in fact 45 have its own consultants that work on behalf of the City. She stated that everyone in the 46 room has worked very hard on this application. She stated that in order to add municipal 47 services to this area of the City, the Metropolitan Council will require an increase in the 48 allowed density in the area. She explained that because these properties will not rely on 49 municipal services that will make this a less attractive path for the Metropolitan Council 50 and that could be good for this area in the long run if it wants to retain the rural 51 residential character. Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 10 August 5, 2015 1 2 Anderson stated that he believes this plan is a good thing but stated that is not the 3 proposition before him. He stated that the proposition in front of him is to determine if 4 the plan is worthy of a 190 percent density bonus, which is deserved for an excellent A+ 5 plan. He credited the applicant and team that brought this forward. He stated that this 6 would not have come before the City if the contingent settlement agreement were not 7 signed. He stated that although this is a good plan he did not think it is worthy of a 8 density bonus of 190 percent. 9 10 Cousineau concurred and appreciated the comments made by Martin. She stated that 11 she has been pouring over this application for the past few days and has looked at the 12 balance between the benefit the City would receive and the density bonus requested 13 and does not see that to be equitable. She agreed that this is a good plan but believed 14 that it would need to be better to justify a density bonus of 190 percent. 15 16 Pederson agreed that this is a good development plan but does not see that it is an A+ 17 and would earn a density bonus of 190 percent. He stated that he was disappointed that 18 the wetland delineation has not been provided. He referenced park dedication and did 19 not see the benefit to the public. He stated that the pool is off limits and there is no 20 benefit to the City. He stated that every development that has come before the Council 21 has been required to have a park dedication. He referenced the road issue and stated 22 that for public safety a 24-foot road would be needed with a 60-foot right-of-way. He 23 stated that if the residents of Deerhill Road would like the road to remain at its current 24 width he would support that but does not believe that it could remain as gravel. He 25 stated that if the decision is delayed and the residents request the road to be upgraded 26 in the future the cost would be assessed solely to the residents and not the developer. 27 He referenced the conservation area and stated that there are some lots where the 28 ultimate septic system location is unknown. He stated that as much as he does not like 29 the idea of placing septic systems in the conservation area, he would favor that over 30 removing trees. 31 32 Cousineau stated that if the density were reduced some of those issues would be 33 mitigated, such as traffic and septic placement. 34 35 Martin stated that this is a very thoughtful application and appreciated the efforts of the 36 applicant and the stewardship plan. She referenced the density bonus of 190 percent 37 and stated that is the upper boundary of what is allowed under the contingent settlement 38 agreement. She stated that the contingent settlement agreement states that there is 39 discretion based on how well the conservation design objectives are achieved compared 40 to what would be achieved under standard development. She stated that the size of the 41 conservation area is substantially large. She stated that the ordinance specifies that at 42 least 30 percent of the buildable area would need to be conserved and noted that the 43 application specifies 45 percent. She referenced Outlot E, which the applicant would like 44 to use for recreation, and she believed would take away from the prairie area. She 45 stated that she would prefer to see the entire area planted with prairie grass. She noted 46 that there would be enhanced water treatment with the additional wetland buffer. She 47 stated that native forest will not be removed from this development, as that area would 48 be conserved along with the Tamarack Swamp. She credited the developer for being 49 careful to protect the hardwood forest, which could be removed under regular 50 development of the site. She referenced the restoration of 47 acres that will assist in 51 runoff infiltration and other stormwater benefits. She stated that the septic systems Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 11 August 5, 2015 1 appear to be of a higher grade, which will also have a benefit to the environment. She 2 stated that there are concepts in the Ordinance that state there should be some public 3 benefit provided by the development and read those objectives. She stated that there 4 was a comment made by the Planning Commission that there isn't much preservation 5 occurring in the first phase of development over what would normally occur through 6 regular development. She stated that it is important to note that as a condition the 7 easements for the conservation area would be granted and obtained through the first 8 plat. She stated that the public has commented at the lack of public benefit as it would 9 be difficult to get into the site when walking or biking. She believed that an enhanced 10 trail system would help to justify the density. She referenced one lot with a secondary 11 site proposed in the hardwood forest and asked for additional information. 12 13 Haskamp stated that there is one secondary site proposed and noted there would be 14 approximately six sites closer to the property boundary and one of those could be 15 chosen instead to avoid the forest. She stated that in addition to the prairie grasses that 16 were planted through the conservation reserve program, trees were planted through that 17 program as well. 18 19 Martin stated that there is more value to the conserved areas than perceived, such as 20 the forest area, prairie restoration of 47 acres, and the enhanced preservation of the 21 Tamarack Swamp. She referenced the roads and explained that the 24-foot roadway 22 and 60 foot right-of-way is important for maintenance and access. She stated that she 23 would like to keep the road width to 24 feet and the right-of-way to 60 feet. She stated 24 that hardcover can be reduced by allowing the builder to build the homes closer to the 25 road in the front, which is allowed under the Ordinance. She stated that if she were to 26 recommend approval she would recommend a condition that the required easements 27 and permission from Orono be obtained to place a curb cut. She referenced the issue of 28 Deerhill Road and noted that increased use will require increased maintenance. She 29 believed it would be important to restrict construction access to Homestead Trail to save 30 Deerhill Road and its residents from that traffic. She referenced the issue of trails and 31 park dedication stated that under the contingent settlement agreement the trails are to 32 be consistent with the City trail plan. She stated that the agreement also gives the 33 Council discretion to determine the amount of park dedication. She stated that the 34 developers have been required to pay 10 percent of the land area, cash in lieu or a 35 combination of those two aspects. She stated that it would be valuable to the trail plan 36 to be able to move trails through that area. She stated that about 50 percent of the 37 proposed trails seem to align with the road system, 20 percent lie between a road and 38 open space, while 30 percent cross the open space. She stated that there is a lacking 39 connection to Morningside that she believed would help to increase the density bonus. 40 She noted that Morningside has great amenities for active play and children. She stated 41 that she would like to see a connection between this development and Morningside. 42 She stated that right now the Park Dedication Ordinance would require 13 acres and 43 right now there are about three acres being provided. She appreciated that the applicant 44 would not want bituminous trails in the prairie, but was not sure why that type of surface 45 would not be allowed in the trails through Outlot E, noting that it is difficult to push a 46 stroller or wheelchair on a turf trail. She stated that she is worried that this would set a 47 precedent that would vary from the Ordinance. She stated that the trails would be 48 needed to support the density bonus and did not think those should be counted against 49 park dedication as well. She stated that community septic systems were considered 50 through the contingent settlement agreement and noted that the proposed multi -flow 51 systems would be a considerable benefit over that option. She stated that she would Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 12 August 5, 2015 I need more information on the pool as she is worried that chlorinated water could be 2 discharged into the prairie and Tamarack Swamp, noting that she would want an 3 additional condition that would require a plan for that discharge and that would specify 4 that after a certain amount of time a septic system would be installed for that pool area. 5 She stated that perhaps one lot would be used to accommodate the septic for the pool 6 as well as provide an active play area for children. She stated that while she does not 7 want to deny the application she is not prepared to give a density bonus of 190 percent 8 at this time. She suggested that the Council direct staff to prepare two resolutions, 9 which would be reviewed on August 18th, one that would deny the application and one 10 that would approve the application based on a new set of plans the applicant would 11 prepare in conjunction with the comments made tonight. 12 13 Batty stated that could be an option, noting that option was included in the staff report 14 and would allow time over the next two weeks for the applicant to review the comments 15 made tonight and make desired changes. He stated that it has been said that there 16 would be value in seeing that revised delineation and there was uncertainty of when that 17 would be available. He stated that there would be value to seeing that information as 18 that is still hanging out there and would be required by Final Plat. He stated that 19 perhaps the developer would grant an extension that would allow staff to prepare the 20 resolutions of approval or denial. He stated that there is one more meeting in 21 September before the time expires although staff does not like to push against a 22 deadline. 23 24 Anderson stated that he would support the proposal that staff prepare two resolutions as 25 that would be consistent with the feelings of the Council expressed tonight. He stated 26 that the plan has come a long way and every time it gets better. He stated that 27 numerous suggestions have been made by the Council that could enhance the plan to 28 the satisfaction of the Council and citizens. 29 30 Cousineau stated that a possible reduction in density should also be included. 31 32 Pederson commended Martin for outlining the information tonight and presenting the 33 decision the Council must make. 34 35 Martin referenced the proposed conditions of approval in the staff report and clarified 36 that in respect to condition three, the applicant may reduce the front yard setback; 37 number four should be amended that the homeowner's documents would require that 38 the lot owners themselves would maintain the septic systems; the HOA would own the 39 land and be responsible for the drain fields to attend to the necessary maintenance that 40 may be needed; condition five should be amended to specify that the future phasing 41 plan would contain easements for the conservation areas within the first phase of 42 development; the septic systems should comply with wetland buffer setbacks; the pool 43 lot would need to accommodate a septic site and a date should be set at which time the 44 septic system would need to be installed on the site; condition 16 should be amended to 45 state that surety would be required to ensure that the restoration work occurs and the 46 stewardship plan is carried out; and noted that she could support the bonus density if 47 additional enhancement is provided. She stated that necessary easements would be 48 needed through Orono for the access on Homestead Trail. 49 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 13 August 5, 2015 1 Anderson stated that he would add to the conditions that the road be 24 foot in width 2 with a 60 foot right-of-way, noting that the applicant was in agreement that could be 3 done. He also believed that a wetland delineation would be helpful. 4 5 Martin stated that the wetland delineation is not required until Final Plat but agreed that it 6 would be helpful. 7 8 Anderson stated that another condition should be listed that the construction traffic 9 should only access the property from Homestead Trail. 10 11 Moved by Martin, seconded by Anderson, to direct staff to prepare two resolutions, one 12 of denying the application and the second to approve the application subject to the 13 conditions as discussed by the Council and presented in the staff report. Motion 14 passed unanimously. 15 16 Kristin Chapman stated that she was confused by the process as it was specified that 17 this was not a public hearing and yet there were many valid points brought forward by 18 the public at this meeting that she did not feel were addressed. She stated that a lot of 19 things were done behind closed doors during this settlement process. She stated that if 20 concerns were allowed to be brought up she believed those should be addressed. She 21 questioned when the appropriate time would be to bring up those concerns. She stated 22 that she would like to see the opinions of the City consultants to prove that a second set 23 of eyes were on the information provided from the applicant. 24 25 Martin stated that there have been public hearings on this matter and the summaries of 26 those meetings have been reviewed by the Council. 27 28 Bob Franklin stated that as a former member of the Council, public decisions need to be 29 made in public where people can observe. He stated that the purpose is not to have a 30 back and forth argument between the public and Council. He did not feel that his 31 concerns have been dismissed; noting that he is planting the seeds of thought and is 32 satisfied with the Council action. He appreciated the thoughtful discussion of the Council 33 tonight. 34 35 Moved by Anderson, seconded by Cousineau, to briefly recess the meeting at 10:03 36 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 37 38 Mitchell reconvened the meeting at 10:04 p.m. 39 40 B. Town Line Road North Improvement Project (10:04 p.m.) 41 Scherer presented the Town Line North improvement project and the two public 42 hearings connected to the process. He stated that this will be an overlay project and 43 identified the project area. He noted that this is a project done in conjunction with the 44 neighboring city of Independence and reviewed a description of the project. He 45 presented the cost estimate for the improvements, noting that the cost will be split 46 between the two cities. He displayed photographs of the roadway and noted that while 47 the road is holding up well, an overlay is needed. 48 49 Cousineau received confirmation that the project area includes two property owners and 50 three lots and believed that an alternate form of assessment was agreed upon. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 14 August 5, 2015 1 Scherer explained that the calculation used to determine the assessment for the 2 properties. 3 4 Batty stated that the Council can conduct both public hearings simultaneously. He 5 stated that the first hearing would be regarding the improvement and whether that 6 should move forward while the second public hearing would be in regard to the 7 assessment. He stated that as noticed if property owners wish to appeal their right for 8 assessment they need to file their written objection prior to the close of the public 9 hearing tonight. If that is not done, the right to appeal the assessment will be lost. 10 11 Mitchell opened the public hearing at 10:09 p.m. 12 13 No comments made. 14 15 Mitchell adjourned the public hearing at 10:10 p.m. 16 17 1. Resolution No. 2015-66 Approving Plans According to Feasibility 18 Report and Ordering Town Line Road North Improvement Project — 19 Public Hearing 20 Moved by Martin, seconded by Pederson, to adopt resolution no. 2015-66 approving 21 plans according to Feasibility Report and ordering Town Line Road North improvement 22 project. Motion passed unanimously. 23 24 2. Resolution No. 2015-67 Adopting Assessment Roll for Town Line 25 Road Overlay Project — Public Hearing 26 Moved by Martin, seconded by Anderson, to adopt resolution no. 2015-67 adopting 27 assessment roll for Town Line Road Overlay Project. Motion passed unanimously. 28 29 C. Ordinance No. 586 Related to Solar Equipment; Amending Chapter 8 of the 30 City Code (10:11 p.m.) 31 Finke provided background information on the recent changes to the solar equipment 32 requirements that were approved by the Council in February. He stated that public 33 comment at that time asked that the City also consider ground -mounted equipment to 34 also be made allowable in some of the residential zoning districts. He stated that the 35 draft Ordinance proposed would allow ground mounted solar panels within the rural 36 residential zoning districts, with a minimum size of five acres for the lot. He reviewed 37 some of the aspects of the Ordinance as proposed. He stated that the Planning 38 Commission held a public hearing the previous month and recommended unanimous 39 approval of the Ordinance amendments. 40 41 Anderson stated that he attended the meeting at which the Planning Commission 42 discussed this matter and commended the Commission for their efforts. 43 44 Pederson stated that he also attended the meeting and thought the Commission did an 45 excellent job. 46 47 Martin referenced the maximum height of 15 feet and asked for additional information. 48 49 Finke stated that the interested residents did not have any concerns regarding the 50 practicality of the Ordinance. He stated that the model suggests 20 feet and the City 51 simply lowered that a bit. He noted that the Wright Hennepin model had ten -foot panels. Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 15 August 5, 2015 1 2 Cousineau stated that in the Ordinance as written the language states for parcels that 3 exceed five acres and asked if the language should specify five acres or more. 4 5 Finke confirmed that change could be made. 6 7 Martin stated that this is a nice step in the right direction. 8 9 Mitchell referenced a written comment from a resident that spoke at the Planning 10 Commission meeting as well and thanked her for the input. 11 12 Chris Pederson, Bloomington resident, thanked the Council for bringing this forward in 13 this manner. He stated that with the minimum setback on a five -acre lot recommended 14 of 100 feet that would remove two acres of buildable space on those lots. He stated that 15 limits the placement where panels could be put on the lot. He stated that a 50-foot 16 setback would be sufficient. He also questioned where the 1,000-foot maximum was 17 developed. 18 19 Finke stated that the setback was developed because there was an interest that the 20 setback be larger because of the appearance and potential impacts that could occur 21 from neighboring properties. He stated that the maximum footprint was developed to 22 bring the installation to a residential scale. He stated that the calculation was 23 determined by reviewing the expected output over a one-year period to the expected 24 residential use. 25 26 Moved by Martin, seconded by Pederson, to adopt ordinance related to solar equipment; 27 amending Chapter 8 of the City Code. 28 29 Further discussion: Mitchell stated that the City is attempting to move into this slowly. 30 31 Motion passed unanimously. 32 33 1. Resolution No. 2015-68 Authorizing Publication of Ordinance No. 34 586 by Title and Summary 35 Moved by Martin, seconded by Anderson, to adopt Resolution No. 2015-68 Authorizing 36 Publication of Ordinance No. 586 by Title and Summary. Motion passed unanimously. 37 38 VIII. APPROVAL TO PAY THE BILLS (10:24 p.m.) 39 Moved by Martin, seconded by Cousineau, to approve the bills, EFT 003256E-003270E 40 for $43,221.76, order check numbers 43122-43186 for $561,420.88, and payroll EFT 41 506557-506582 for $46,237.16. Motion passed unanimously. 42 43 IX. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT (10:24 p.m.) 44 Kellogg stated that asbestos removal has been completed on the Tower Drive project, 45 noting the action affects three line items for the project. He stated that while one line 46 item was increased, the two other line items were decreased as a result. He stated that 47 the net change order approved was around $135,000 and that is where the project 48 ended. He confirmed that the grant was also received in the amount of $50,000. 49 50 X. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (10:26 p.m.) Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 16 August 5, 2015 1 Mitchell commented on the number of City Council members, Police staff, and Fire staff 2 that took part in Night to Unite and thanked everyone. 3 4 XI. ADJOURN 5 Moved by Anderson, seconded by Pederson, to adjourn the meeting at 10:26 p.m. 6 Motion passed unanimously. 7 8 9 10 11 Bob Mitchell, Mayor 12 Attest: 13 14 15 Scott Johnson, City Administrator Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 17 August 5, 2015 SPECIAL MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 2015 The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in special session on August 13, 2015 at 7:32 a.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Acting Mayor Pederson presided. I. ROLL CALL Members present: Anderson, Cousineau, Martin, and Pederson. Members absent: Mitchell Also present: Attorney Justin Templin, City Attorney Ron Batty, City Planner Dusty Finke, Mark Rossow from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust, and City Administrator Scott Johnson. II. CLOSED SESSION: PENDING LITIGATION The meeting adjourned to closed session at 7:32 a.m. to discuss pending litigation. The meeting reconvened to open session at 10:23 a.m. III. ADJOURN Acting Mayor Pederson adjourned the meeting at 10: 24 a.m. Jeff Pederson, Acting Mayor Attest: Scott Johnson, City Administrator -Clerk Medina City Council Special Meeting Minutes 1 August 13, 2015 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Medina City Council Special Meeting Minutes 2 August 13, 2015 MEDINA POLICE MEMORANDUM D E P Agenda Item # 5A 6 a.lru[.J\At1L hill Medina, MN 55340-9790 p: 763-473-9209 f: 763.473.8858 non -emergency' 763.525-62I0 Emergency 9-1-1 TO: City Administrator Scott Johnson and City Council FROM: Director Edgar J. Belland DATE: August 18, 2015 RE: Acceptance of Grant On July 16th we were notified that we received a grant for a new defibrillator from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community. Officer Boecker had written the grant for our department. This is the second grant we have received this year. The defibrillator will be a stationary unit placed at the community center. I would ask the City Council to accept the grant for the automatic defibrillator. WSB & Assr�z� engineering • planning • environmental • construction Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor Mitchell and Medina City Council Members From: Alison Harwood, WSB & Associates, Inc. CC: Dusty Finke, City of Medina Date: August 10, 2015 Re: 1400 Blackfoot Trail — Wetland Replacement Plan City Project No. WR-I5-056 WSB Project No. 2712-100 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 The proposed project, which includes the construction of a driveway at 1400 Blackfoot Trail, will result in a total of 0.052 acre of wetland impact to one wetland. The proposed impacts are from the construction of a driveway to access the parcel. Replacement is proposed at a 2:1 ratio through the purchase of 0.104 acre of wetland credit from an approved wetland bank located in Hennepin County. The application was noticed to the Wetland Conservation Act Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) on June 25, 2015. Comments were allowed until July 31, 2015. One comment was received, which consisted of the Board of Water and Soil Resources' TEP member concurring with the proposed project. On behalf of the City of Medina, Local Government Unit for the Wetland Conservation Act, I recommend that the City Council approves the wetland replacement plan for the 1400 Blackfoot Trail Project. A Notice of Decision is attached for review and signature. Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com 1002712-100\Admin\Permits\Replaccment Plan \WCA Review\MEMO - Medina Mayor & CC - NOD - 081015.docx Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision Local Government Unit (LGU) City of Medina Address 2052 Country Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 1. PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Name Project Name Date of Application Application Gray Novak (Contact) Frank Svoboda 1400 Black Foot Trail PID 11-118-23-34-0002 6/25/2015 Number WR-15-056 L Attach site locator map. Type of Decision: n Wetland Boundary or Type ® No -Loss ® Replacement Plan ❑ Exemption ❑ Banking Plan n Sequencing Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendation (if any): ® Approve ❑ Approve with conditions ❑ Deny Summary (or attach): BWSR indicated that they agreed with the sequencing narrative and the need to place the driveway in the location proposed. 2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DECISION Date of Decision: 8/18/2015 ® Approved ❑ Approved with conditions (include below) ❑ Denied LGU Findings and Conclusions (attach additional sheets as necessary): The applicant proposes to fill approximately 0.052 acre of Type 1 wetland to construct a driveway access to the property located at 1400 Blackfoot Trail (PID 11-118-23-34-0002) in Medina, Hennepin County, MN (Watershed 20, BSA 7). Replacement for wetland impacts is proposed at a 2:1 ratio through the purchase of 0.104 acre of wetland credit from Wetland Bank Account No. 1414, located in Hennepin County, Watershed 20, BSA 7. In addition, the applicant is applying for a No Loss Decision per Mn Rule 8420.0105 Subpt 2.D to fill two incidental wetlands. These two areas were excavated within upland for the purpose of extracting gravel and have since formed wetland characteristics. For Replacement Plans using credits from the State Wetland Bank: Bank Account # Bank Service Area County Credits Approved for 1414 7 Hennepin Withdrawal (sq. ft. or nearest .01 acre) 0.104 acre Replacement Plan Approval Conditions. In addition to any conditions specified by the LGU, the BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 1 of 3 approval of a Wetland Replacement Plan is conditional upon the following: n Financial Assurance: For project -specific replacement that is not in -advance, a financial assurance specified by the LGU must be submitted to the LGU in accordance with MN Rule 8420.0522, Subp. 9 (List amount and type in LGU Findings). ❑ Deed Recording: For project -specific replacement, evidence must be provided to the LGU that the BWSR "Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants" and "Consent to Replacement Wetland" forms have been filed with the county recorder's office in which the replacement wetland is located. ® Credit Withdrawal: For replacement consisting of wetland bank credits, confirmation that BWSR has withdrawn the credits from the state wetland bank as specified in the approved replacement plan. Wetlands may not be impacted until all applicable conditions have been met! LGU Authorized Signature: Signing and mailing of this completed form to the appropriate recipients in accordance with 8420.0255, LGU under the Wetland Conservation Act as they have been provided to the landowner and Subp. 5 provides notice that a decision was made by the specified above. If additional details on the decision exist, are available from the LGU upon request. Name Title Signature Date 8/18/2015 Phone Number and E-mail THIS DECISION ONLY APPLIES TO THE MINNESOTA WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT. Additional approvals or permits from local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Check with all appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. Applicants proceed at their own risk if work authorized by this decision is started before the time period for appeal (30 days) has expired. If this decision is reversed or revised under appeal, the applicant may be responsible for restoring or replacing all wetland impacts. This decision is valid for three years from the date of decision unless a longer period is advised by the TEP and specified in this notice of decision. 3. APPEAL OF THIS DECISION Pursuant to MN Rule 8420.0905, any appeal of this decision can only be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal, including applicable fee, within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice to the following as indicated: Check one: ❑ Appeal of an LGU staff decision. Send petition and $500 fee (if applicable) to: City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 ® Appeal of LGU governing body decision. Send petition and $500 filing fee to: Executive Director Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 4. LIST OF ADDRESSEES ® SWCD TEP member: Stacey Lijewski, Hennepin Conservation District, 701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 700, Minneapolis, MN 55415-1842 Stacey.Lijewski@co.hennepin.mn.us ® BWSR TEP member: Ben Meyer, Board of Water & Soil Resources, 520 Lafayette Road N., St. BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 2 of 3 Paul, MN 55155 Ben.Meyer@state.mn.us ® LGU TEP member (if different than LGU Contact): Alison Harwood, WSB & Associates, Inc., 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55416 Aharwood@wsbeng.com ® DNR TEP member: Brooke Haworth, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 Brooke.haworth@state.mn.us ❑ DNR Regional Office (if different than DNR TEP member) ® WD or WMO (if applicable): James Kujawa, Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission, 701 Fourth Avenue S, Suite 700, Minneapolis, MN 55415 james.kujawa@co.hennepin.mn.us ® Applicant (notice only) and Landowner (if different): Gary Novak, 6204 Comstock Lane, Maple Grove, MN 55311 gmnovak@msn.com, Frank Svoboda, 22752 Co Rd 7, Hutchinson, MN 55350 franks@gpsinnovations.com ® Members of the public who requested notice (notice only): Dusty Finke, City of Medina, dusty.finke@ci.medina.mn.us ® Corps of Engineers Project Manager (notice only): Melissa Jenny, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 180 Fifth Street East, Suite 700, St. Paul, MN 55101-1678 Melissa.M.Jenny@usace.army.mil ❑ BWSR Wetland Bank Coordinator (wetland bank plan applications only) 5. MAILING INFORMATION ➢For a list of BWSR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/aboutbwsr/workareas/WCA areas.pdf ➢For a list of DNR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/DNR_TEP contacts.pdf ➢Department of Natural Resources Regional Offices: NW Region: NE Region: Central Region: Southern Region: Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd. NE Bemidji, MN 56601 Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources 1201 E. Hwy. 2 Grand Rapids, MN 55744 Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources 261 Hwy. 15 South New Ulm, MN 56073 For a map of DNR Administrative Regions, see: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/dnr regions.pdf ➢For a list of Corps of Project Managers: www.mvp.usace.army.mil/regulatory/default.asp?pageid=687 or send to: US Army Corps of Engineers St. Paul District, ATTN: OP-R 180 Fifth St. East, Suite 700 St. Paul, MN 55101-1678 ➢For Wetland Bank Plan applications, also send a copy of the application to: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Wetland Bank Coordinator 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 6. ATTACHMENTS In addition to the site locator map, list any other attachments: ® Approved Wetland Impact Area BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 3 of 3 / III / / I II / / I I / / / / / / / / EDGE OF WOODS / // / / (\ 1 I / •1 / / 14. -22= / Ak : P / -22" OAK_ / / / P / / / K- �/ 22" OA� / fflk\n\- / TH 2 X / sF�egc�r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 DIRT STOWPILE PROPOSED SNOW FENCE 9W-- easement N ETL4ND SETB:c; ---- %\P \ ''> )( -32" OAK_ / / ZZ'N/ i. / / z / N // / ----\-)---4 —20 20 IN PROPOSED ELEVATIONS : (per architect) verify 1) First floor = 2) Top of foundation = LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 2, Block 2, WILD ACRES OF MEDINA TOPOGRAPHIC DETAIL FOR GARY 8c MARY ANN NOVAK IN LOT 2, BLOCK 2, WILD ACRES OF MEDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA '\\ \ ` \ \ ,� N. \ \ \ N. \ \k \ `\ ` \ N. \ ,_„, `\ \ ,I \ \ \ 0 DATE 6-12-14 9-12-14 10-9-14 10-21-14 3�\� OAK - PROPOSED -- DRIVEWAY 16 \CHERRY OPO$ PTIC 14" E •4 \M 1 EXPOSE WALLS TO, ..--"MATCH GRADE 14" ASH INV988.5.1 24" ELM \� 98 --- 2 oop 1\ \ 7- \ 14" MAPLE 986-- — — \\, \ 2-12" IRONWOOD 1*rC1°D Aew \ Drainage/ /easement 36" OAK / / PROPOSED DRIVEWAY 991.62 -7 8" OAK PROPOSED G ERATO / / / / / / / // / //\.28" OAK So / , \ ' 1 `� // /0 ' f ) %�44 L/ � } / X//‹2k/�/\\OAK-_-)IG ,*Pv \ / \\ /-\ \ r7/ 2,� //h\\2 \ I j I i \\ /`\/j` � /\ x - ASH \kW Pq Ty. \ \ I / 1 i �N&-, I -28" OAK_ / �94. WINDOW/ / #1400 / — / A'o / 32" OAK — -991--- 30 \ OAK SHOP PROPOSED PROPOSED SNOW FENCE 1 ELEC. 12"IIRONW OD TRA ' „ , PROPO 990.25 -4" OAK- S 89°55' 25" E 1290.32 BLACKFOOT TRAIL REVISIONS REMARKS DELINEATED WETLANDS LOCATED, SHOWN ON DRAWING SHOP AND STORAGE BUILDING, DRIVEWAY REVISED, FIRE LANE ADDED DETAIL SHEET DONE AT 1 "=20' SCALE 4,4go50, 29, I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or specification was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Mark S. Gronbera Minnesota License Number 12755 PROPOSED SILT FENCE TH 1\ X PROPOSED SNOW FENCE I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I / / / I \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ I \ \ I \ \ I I \ / 40" BLACK OAK / / 987.2/51 RAI D / PATIO PR • .SED ROCK RET WALL '''''' PROPOSED DRIVEWAY AREA DEED - 904 40 denotes iron marker denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum denotes proposed spot elevation, mean sea level datum denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum denotes proposed contour line, mean sea level datum denotes proposed bio log as silt fence denotes proposed silt fence denotes proposed orange snow fence 60 GRONBERG 8c ASSOCIATES, INC CIVIL ENGINNERS, LAND SURVEYORS, LAND PLANNERS 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, MN 55356 952-473-4141 Agenda Item # 5C MEMORANDUM TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE: August 13, 2015 MEETING: August 18, 2015 SUBJECT: 2016 Replacement Truck Public Works is requesting authorization to order a new truck to replace the 2001 Public Works truck. The truck will be ordered through the state contract competitive bid process. The truck is currently listed on the CIP for replacement in 2016. Public Works have been having some issues with the 2001 and would like to get the truck ordered so when the 2016 CIP is approved we can take delivery. There is $30,000.00 listed in the CIP for this particular replacement, but the actual purchase price will be well below that amount. Recommendation: Authorize staff to move ahead with placing the order for the new truck off the state bid to replace the 2001 Public Works truck. Page 1 of 1 Minnesota Department of Transportation "Es% Metro District Office of State Aid 1500 West County Rd B2 lq7-opTB"`'a Roseville, MN 55113-3174 August 4, 2015 Agenda Item # 5D 3 sharon.lemay@state.mn.us City of Medina RE: Proposed Master Partnership Contract No. 1001333 Attached are three copies of a proposed master partnership contract between the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and the City of Medina along with a sample City Resolution. The Master Partnership Contract provides a framework for Mn/DOT and Local Agencies to provide payment to each other for services rendered. A few routine services are included in the contract and all other services are accomplished through the execution of work orders. Kindly review the enclosed documents and arrange to have the Master Contract presented to your City Council for their approval and execution. Please ensure that the original signatures of the officials authorized to execute this contract on their behalf are obtained on all four copies of the agreement. A signature acknowledgment must be included either on the signature page or attached as a separate document. (It is suggested that all signers use blue ink so that the original signatures are obvious and will not be mistaken for photo copies.) Please provide signatures only under the Local Government heading. Also required is a new resolution passed by the City Council authorizing its officials to sign and execute the agreement on its behalf. (Only the named officials may sign the agreement: if anyone else signs in the named official's place, the agreement will not be executed.) This resolution must be contain the notarized signature of the individual certifying the resolution. Sample forms and language are enclosed with this letter. Please provide three original versions of a resolution including signatures and City/County stamp. Work Orders do not need City Council approval unless the City Council stipulates that in their resolution. Generally only the City Engineer needs to sign Work Orders. To expedite the approval process, the executed agreements and resolutions should be returned to me to obtain further signatures. Please note that no work shall be performed by Mn/DOT personnel until the full execution of the agreement. After execution by Mn/DOT and other State officials, a copy of the agreement will be returned to you. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at 651-234-7773. Sincerely, Sharon LeMay, Metro State Aid Sample resolution An Equal Opportunity Employer Whereas, The Minnesota Department of Transportation wishes to cooperate closely with local units of government to coordinate the delivery of transportation services and maximize the efficient delivery of such services at all levels of government; and Whereas, MnDOT and local governments are authorized by Minnesota Statutes sections 471.59, 174.02, and 161.20, to undertake collaborative efforts for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of state and local roads; and Whereas: the parties wish to able to respond quickly and efficiently to such opportunities for collaboration, and have determined that having the ability to write "work orders" against a master contract would provide the greatest speed and flexibility in responding to identified needs. Therefore, be it resolved: 1. That the City/County/Other Local Government of enter into a Master Partnership Contract with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, a copy of which was before the [Board/Council]. 2. That the proper [City/County/Other Local Government] officers are authorized to execute such contract, and any amendments thereto. 3. That the [City/County/Other Local Government] Engineer/Title of Other Official is authorized to negotiate work order contracts pursuant to the Master Contract, which work order contracts may provide for payment to or from MnDOT, and that the [City/County/Other Local Government] Engineer/Title of Other Official may execute such work order contracts on behalf of the City/County/Other Local Government of without further approval by this [Board/Council]. Approved this day of , 201_ Attest: By: Title: Date: MnDOT Agreement # 1001333 STATE OF MINNESOTA AND CITY OF MEDINA MASTER PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT This master contract is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Transportation hereinafter referred to as the "State" and City of Medina, acting through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as the "Local Government". Recitals 1. The parties are authorized to enter into this agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §§ 15.061, 471.59 and 174.02. 2. Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20, subdivision 2 authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system. 3. Each party to this Contract is a "road authority" as defined by Minnesota Statutes § 160.02 (subd. 25). 4. Minnesota Statutes Section 161.39, subdivision 1, authorizes a road authority to perform work for another road authority. Such work may include providing technical and engineering advice, assistance and supervision, surveying, preparing plans for the construction or reconstruction of roadways, and performing roadway maintenance. 5. Minnesota Statues § 174.02 (subd. 6) authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to enter into agreements with other governmental entities for research and experimentation; for sharing facilities, equipment, staff, data, or other means of providing transportation -related services; or for other cooperative programs that promote efficiencies in providing governmental services, or that further development of innovation in transportation for the benefit of the citizens of Minnesota. 6. Each party wishes to occasionally procure services from the other party, which the parties agree will enhance the efficiency of delivering governmental services at all levels. This Master Partnership Contract provides a framework for the efficient handling of such requests. This Master Partnership Contract contains terms generally governing the relationship between the parties hereto. When specific services are requested, the parties will (unless otherwise specified herein) enter into a "Work Order" contracts. 7. Subsequent to the execution of this Master Partnership Contract, the parties may (but are not required to) enter into "Work Order" contracts. These Work Orders will specify the work to be done, timelines for completion, and compensation to be paid for the specific work. 8. The parties are entering into this Master Partnership Contract to establish terms that will govern all of the Work Orders subsequently issued under the authority of this Contract. Master Contract 1. Term of Master Contract; Use of Work Order Contracts; Survival of Terms 1.1. Effective Date: This contract will be effective on the date last signed by the Local Government, and all State officials as required under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 2. 1.2. A party must not accept work under this Contract until it is fully executed. 1.3. Expiration Date. This Contract will expire on June 30, 2017. Page 1 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/07/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1001333 1.4. Work Order Contracts. A work order contract must be negotiated and executed (by both the State and the Local Government) for each particular engagement, except for Technical Services provided by the State to the Local Government as specified in Article 2. The work order contract must specify the detailed scope of work and deliverables for that engagement. A party must not begin work under a work order until such work order is fully executed. The terms of this Master Partnership Contract will apply to all work orders issued hereunder, unless specifically varied in the work order. The Local Government understands that this Master Contract is not a guarantee of any payments or work order assignments, and that payments will only be issued for work actually performed under fully -executed work orders. 1.5. Survival of Terms. The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this master contract and all work order contracts: 12. Liability; 13. State Audits; 14. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property; 17. Publicity; 18. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue; and 22. Data Disclosure. All terms of this Master Contract will survive with respect to any Work Order issued prior to the expiration date of the Master Contract. 1.6. Sample Work Order. A sample work order contract is available upon request from the State. 2. Technical Services 2.1. Technical Services include repetitive low-cost services routinely performed by the State for the Local Government. These services may be performed by the State for the Local Government without the execution of a work order, as these services are provided in accordance with standardized practices and processes and do not require a detailed scope of work. Technical services are limited to the following services: 2.1.1.Pavement Striping, Sign and Signal Repair, Bridge Load Ratings, Bridge and Structure Inspections, Minor Bridge Maintenance, Minor Road Maintenance (such as guard rail repair and sign knockdown repair), Pavement Condition Data, Materials Testing and Carcass Removal. 2.1.2. Every other service not falling under the services listed in 2.1.1 will require a Work Order contract. 2.2. The Local Government may request the State to perform Technical Services in an informal manner, such as by the use of email, a purchase order, or by delivering materials to a State lab and requesting testing. A request may be made via telephone, but will not be considered accepted unless acknowledged in writing by the State. 2.3. The State will promptly inform the Local Government if the State will be unable to perform the requested Technical Services. Otherwise, the State will perform the Technical Services in accordance with the State's normal processes and practices, including scheduling practices taking into account the availability of State staff and equipment. 2.4. Payment Basis. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties prior to performance of the services, the State will charge the Local Government the State's then -current rate for performing the Technical Services. The then -current rate may include the State's normal and customary labor additives. The State will invoice the Local Government upon completion of the services, or at regular intervals not more than once monthly as agreed upon by the parties. The invoice will provide a summary of the Technical Services provided by the State during the invoice period. 3. Services Requiring A Work Order Contract 3.1. Work Order Contracts: A party may request the other party to perform any of the following services under individual work order contracts. Page 2 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/07/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1001333 3.2. Professional and Technical Services. A party may provide professional and technical services upon the request of the other party. As defined by Minnesota Statutes § 16C.08 (subd. 1) professional/technical services "means services that are intellectual in character, including consultation, analysis, evaluation, prediction, planning, programming, or recommendation; and result in the production of a report or completion of a task". Professional and technical services do not include providing supplies or materials except as incidental to performing such services. Professional and technical services include (by way of example and without limitation) engineering services, surveying, foundation recommendations and reports, environmental documentation, right-of-way assistance (such as performing appraisals or providing relocation assistance, but excluding the exercise of the power of eminent domain), geometric layouts, final construction plans, graphic presentations, public relations, and facilitating open houses. A party will normally provide such services with its own personnel; however, a party's professional/technical services may also include hiring and managing outside consultants to perform work provided that a party itself provides active project management for the use of such outside consultants. 3.3. Roadway Maintenance. A party may provide roadway maintenance upon the request of the other party. Roadway maintenance does not include roadway reconstruction. This work may include but is not limited to snow removal, ditch spraying, roadside mowing, bituminous mill and overlay (only small projects), seal coat, bridge hits, major retaining wall failures, major drainage failures, and message painting. All services must be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work, and work must be supervised by a qualified employee of the party performing the work. 3.4. Construction Administration. A party may administer roadway construction projects upon the request of the other party. Roadway construction includes (by way of example and without limitation) the construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of mainline, shoulder, median, pedestrian or bicycle pathway, lighting and signal systems, pavement mill and overlays, seal coating, guardrail installation, and channelization. These services may be performed by the Providing Parry's own forces, or the Providing Party may administer outside contracts for such work. Construction administration may include letting and awarding construction contracts for such work (including state projects to be completed in conjunction with local projects). All contract administration services must be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work. 3.5. Emergency Services. A party may provide aid upon request of the other party in the event of a man-made disaster, natural disaster or other act of God. Emergency services includes all those services as the parties mutually agree are necessary to plan for, prepare for, deal with, and recover from emergency situations. These services include, without limitation, planning, engineering, construction, maintenance, and removal and disposal services related to things such as road closures, traffic control, debris removal, flood protection and mitigation, sign repair, sandbag activities and general cleanup. Work will be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work, and work must be supervised by a qualified employee of the party performing the work. If it is not feasible to have an executed work order prior to performance of the work, the parties will promptly confer to determine whether work may be commenced without a fully -executed work order in place. If work commences without a fully -executed work order, the parties will follow up with execution of a work order as soon as feasible. 3.6. When a need is identified, the State and the Local Government will discuss the proposed work and the resources needed to perform the work. If a party desires to perform such work, the parties will negotiate the specific and detailed work tasks and cost. The State will then prepare a work order contract. Generally, a work order contract will be limited to one specific Page 3 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/07/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1001333 project/engagement, although "on call" work orders may be prepared for certain types of services, especially for "Technical Services" items as identified section 2.1.2. The work order will also identify specific deliverables required, and timeframes for completing work. A work order must be fully executed by the parties prior to work being commenced. The Local Government will not be paid for work performed prior to execution of a work order and authorization by the State. 4. Responsibilities of the Providing Party The party requesting the work will be referred to as the "Requesting Party" and the party performing the work will be referred to as the "Providing Party". Each work order will set forth particular requirements for that project/engagement. 4.1. Terms Applicable to ALL Work Orders. The terms in this section 4.1 will apply to ALL work orders. 4.1.1. Each work order will identify an Authorized Representative for each party. Each party's authorized representative is responsible for administering the work order, and has the authority to make any decisions regarding the work, and to give and receive any notices required or permitted under this Master Contract or the work order. 4.1.2. The Providing Party will furnish and assign a publicly employed licensed engineer (Project Engineer), to be in responsible charge of the project(s) and to supervise and direct the work to be performed under each work order. For services not requiring an engineer, the Providing Party will furnish and assign another responsible employee to be in charge of the project. The services of the Providing Party under a work order may not be otherwise assigned, sublet, or transferred unless approved in writing by the Requesting Parry's authorized representative. This written consent will in no way relieve the Providing Party from its primary responsibility for the work. 4.1.3. If the Local Government is the Providing Party, the Project Engineer may request in writing specific engineering and/or technical services from the State, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 161.39. The work order may require the Local Government to deposit payment in advance or may, at the State's option, permit payment in arrears. If the State furnishes the services requested, the Local Government will promptly pay the State to reimburse the state trunk highway fund for the full cost and expense of furnishing such services. The costs and expenses will include the current State labor additives and overhead rates, subject to adjustment based on actual direct costs that have been verified by audit. 4.1.4. Only the receipt of a fully executed work order contract authorizes the Providing Party to begin work on a project. Any and all effort, expenses, or actions taken by the Providing Party before the work order contract is fully executed is considered unauthorized and undertaken at the risk of non-payment. 4.1.5. In connection with the performance of this contract and any work orders issued hereunder, the Providing Agency will comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations. When the Providing Party is authorized or permitted to award contracts in connection with any work order, the Providing Party will require and cause its contractors and subcontractors to comply with all Federal and State laws and regulations. 4.2. Additional Terms for Roadway Maintenance. The terms of section 4.1 and this section 4.2 will apply to all work orders for Roadway Maintenance. 4.2.1. Unless otherwise provided for by agreement or work order, the Providing Party must obtain all permits and sanctions that may be required for the proper and lawful performance of the work. Page 4 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/07/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1001333 4.2.2. The Providing Party must perform maintenance in accordance with MnDOT maintenance manuals, policies and operations. 4.2.3. The Providing Party must use State -approved materials, including (by way of example and without limitation), sign posts, sign sheeting, and de-icing and anti -icing chemicals. 4.3. Additional Terms for Construction Administration. The terms of section 4.1 and this section 4.3 will apply to all work orders for construction administration. 4.3.1. Contract(s) must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder or best value proposer in accordance with state law. 4.3.2. Contractor(s) must be required to post payment and performance bonds in an amount equal to the contract amount. The Providing Party will take all necessary action to make claims against such bonds in the event of any default by the contractor. 4.3.3. Contractor(s) must be required to perform work in accordance with the latest edition of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction. 4.3.4. For work performed on State right-of-way, contractor(s) must be required to indemnify and hold the State harmless against any loss incurred with respect to the performance of the contracted work, and must be required to provide evidence of insurance coverage commensurate with project risk. 4.3.5. Contractor(s) must pay prevailing wages pursuant to applicable state and federal law. 4.3.6. Contractor(s) must comply with all applicable Federal, and State laws, ordinances and regulations, including but not limited to applicable human rights/anti-discrimination laws and laws concerning the participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in federally - assisted contracts 4.3.7. Unless otherwise agreed in a Work Order, each party will be responsible for providing rights of way, easement, and construction permits for its portion of the improvements. Each party will, upon the other's request, furnish copies of right of way certificates, easements, and construction permits. 4.3.8. The Providing Party may approve minor changes to the Requesting Party's portion of the project work if such changes do not increase the Requesting Party's cost obligation under the applicable work order. 4.3.9. The Providing Party will not approve any contractor claims for additional compensation without the Requesting Parry's written approval, and the execution of a proper amendment to the applicable work order when necessary. The Local Government will tender the processing and defense of any such claims to the State upon the State's request. 4.3.10. The Local Government must coordinate all trunk highway work affecting any utilities with the State's Utilities Office. 4.3.11. The Providing Party must coordinate all necessary detours with the Requesting Party. 4.3.12. If the Local Government is the Providing Party, and there is work performed on the trunk highway right-of-way, the following will apply: 4.3.12.1 The Local Government will have a permit to perform the work on the trunk highway. The State may revoke this permit if the work is not being performed in a safe, proper and skillful manner, or if the contractor is violating the terms of any law, regulation, or permit applicable to the work. The State will have no Page 5 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/07/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1001333 liability to the Local Government, or its contractor, if work is suspended or stopped due to any such condition or concern. 4.3.12.2 The Local Government will require its contractor to conduct all traffic control in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 4.3.12.3 The Local Government will require its contractor to comply with the terms of all permits issued for the project including, but not limited to, NPDES and other environmental permits. 4.3.12.4 All improvements constructed on the State's right-of-way will become the property of the State. 5. Responsibilities of the Requesting Party 5.1. After authorizing the Providing Party to begin work, the Requesting Party will furnish any data or material in its possession relating to the project that may be of use to the Providing Party in performing the work. 5.2. All such data furnished to the Providing Party will remain the property of the Requesting Party and will be promptly returned upon the Requesting Party's request or upon the expiration or termination of this contract (subject to data retention requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and other applicable law). 5.3. The Providing Party will analyze all such data furnished by the Requesting Party. If the Providing Party finds any such data to be incorrect or incomplete, the Providing Party will bring the facts to the attention of the Requesting Party before proceeding with the part of the project affected. The Providing Party will investigate the matter, and if it finds that such data is incorrect or incomplete, it will promptly determine a method for furnishing corrected data. Delay in furnishing data will not be considered justification for an adjustment in compensation. 5.4. The State will provide to the Local Government copies of any Trunk Highway fund clauses to be included in the bid solicitation and will provide any required Trunk Highway fund provisions to be included in the Proposal for Highway Construction, that are different from those required for State Aid construction. 5.5. The Requesting Party will perform final reviews and/or inspections of its portion of the project work. If the work is found to have been completed in accordance with the work order contract, the Requesting Party will promptly release any remaining funds due the Providing Party for the Proj ect(s). 5.6. The work order contracts may include additional responsibilities to be completed by the Requesting Party. 6. Time In the performance of project work under a work order contract, time is of the essence. 7. Consideration and Payment 7.1. Consideration. The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party as specified in the work order. The State's normal and customary labor additives will apply to work performed by the State, unless otherwise specified in the work order. The State's normal and customary labor additives will not apply if the parties agree to a "lump sum" or "unit rate" payment. 7.2. State's Maximum Obligation. The total compensation to be paid by the State to the Local Government under all work order contracts issued pursuant to this Master Contract will not exceed $50,000.00. Page 6 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/07/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1001333 7.3. Travel Expenses. It is anticipated that all travel expenses will be included in the base cost of the Providing Parry's services, and unless otherwise specifically set forth in an applicable work order, the Providing Party will not be separately reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred by the Providing Party in performing any work order contract. In those cases where the State agrees to reimburse travel expenses, such expenses will be reimbursed in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in the current "MnDOT Travel Regulations" a copy of which is on file with and available from the MnDOT District Office. The Local Government will not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred outside of Minnesota unless it has received the State's prior written approval for such travel. 7.4. Payment. 7.4.1. Generally. The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party as specified in the applicable work order, and will make prompt payment in accordance with Minnesota law. 7.4.2. Payment by the Local Government. 7.4.2.1. The Local Government will make payment to the order of the Commissioner of Transportation. 7.4.2.2. IMPORTANT NOTE: PAYMENT MUST REFERENCE THE "MNDOT CONTRACT NUMBER" SHOWN ON THE FACE PAGE OF THIS CONTRACT AND THE "INVOICE NUMBER" ON THE INVOICE RECEIVED FROM MNDOT. 7.4.2.3. Remit payment to the address below: MnDOT Attn: Cash Accounting RE: MnDOT Contract Number 1001333 and Invoice Number ###### Mail Stop 215 395 John Ireland Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 7.4.3. Payment by the State. 7.4.3.1. Generally. The State will promptly pay the Local Government after the Local Government presents an itemized invoice for the services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services. Invoices must be submitted as specified in the applicable work order, but no more frequently than monthly. 7.4.3.2. Retainage for Professional and Technical Services. For work orders for professional and technical services, as required by Minn. Stat. § 16C.08, subdivision 2(10), no more than 90 percent of the amount due under any work order contract may be paid until the final product of the work order contract has been reviewed by the State's authorized representative. The balance due will be paid when the State's authorized representative determines that the Local Government has satisfactorily fulfilled all the terms of the work order contract. 8. Conditions of Payment All work performed by the Providing Party under a work order contract must be performed to the Requesting Party's satisfaction, as determined at the sole and reasonable discretion of the Requesting Party's Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. The Providing Party will not receive payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal or state law. Page 7 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/07/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1001333 9. Local Government's Authorized Representative and Project Manager; Authority to Execute Work Order Contracts 9.1. The Local Government's Authorized Representative for administering this master contract is the Local Government's Engineer, and the Engineer has the responsibility to monitor the Local Government's performance. The Local Government's Authorized Representative is also authorized to execute work order contracts on behalf of the Local Government without approval of each proposed work order contract by its governing body. 9.2. The Local Government's Project Manager will be identified in each work order contract. 10. State's Authorized Representative and Project Manager 10.1. The State's Authorized Representative for this master contract is the District State Aid Engineer, who has the responsibility to monitor the State's performance. 10.2. The State's Project Manager will be identified in each work order contract. 11. Assignment, Amendments, Waiver, and Contract Complete 11.1. Assignment. Neither party may assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this Master Contract or any work order contract without the prior consent of the other and a fully executed Assignment Agreement, executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved this Master Contract, or their successors in office. 11.2. Amendments. Any amendment to this master contract or any work order contract must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original contract, or their successors in office. 11.3. Waiver. If a party fails to enforce any provision of this master contract or any work order contract, that failure does not waive the provision or the party's right to subsequently enforce it. 11.4. Contract Complete. This master contract and any work order contract contain all negotiations and agreements between the State and the Local Government. No other understanding regarding this master contract or any work order contract issued hereunder, whether written or oral may be used to bind either party. 12. Liability. Each party will be responsible for its own acts and omissions to the extent provided by law. The Local Government's liability is governed by Minnesota Statutes chapter 466 and other applicable law. The State's liability is governed by Minnesota Statutes section 3.736 and other applicable law. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies a party may have for the other party's failure to fulfill its obligations under this master contract or any work order contract. Neither party agrees to assume any environmental liability on behalf of the other party. A Providing Party under any work order is acting only as a "Contractor" to the Requesting Party, as the term "Contractor" is defined in Minnesota Statutes § 115B.03 (subd. 10), and is entitled to the protections afforded to a "Contractor" by the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act. The parties specifically intend that Minnesota Statutes §471.59 subdivision la will apply to any work undertaken under this Master Contract and any work order issued hereunder. 13. State Audits Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5, the party's books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices relevant to any work order contract are subject to examination by the parties and by the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this Master Contract. 14. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property Page 8 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/07/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1001333 14.1. Government Data Practices. The Local Government and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by the State under this Master Contract and any work order contract, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Local Government under this Master Contract and any work order contract. The civil remedies of Minn Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Local Government or the State. 14.2. Intellectual Property Rights 14.2.1. Intellectual Property Rights. The Requesting Party will own all rights, title, and interest in all of the intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and service marks in the Works and Documents created and paid for under work order contracts. Works means all inventions, improvements, discoveries (whether or not patentable), databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, and disks conceived, reduced to practice, created or originated by the Providing Party, its employees, agents, and subcontractors, either individually or jointly with others in the performance of this master contract or any work order contract. Works includes "Documents." Documents are the originals of any databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, disks, or other materials, whether in tangible or electronic forms, prepared by the Providing Party, its employees, agents, or contractors, in the performance of a work order contract. The Documents will be the exclusive property of the Requesting Party and all such Documents must be immediately returned to the Requesting Party by the Providing Party upon completion or cancellation of the work order contract. To the extent possible, those Works eligible for copyright protection under the United States Copyright Act will be deemed to be "works made for hire." The Providing Party Government assigns all right, title, and interest it may have in the Works and the Documents to the Requesting Party. The Providing Party must, at the request of the Requesting Party, execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to transfer or record the Requesting Party's ownership interest in the Works and Documents. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Requesting Party grants the Providing Party an irrevocable and royalty -free license to use such intellectual property for its own non-commercial purposes, including dissemination to political subdivisions of the state of Minnesota and to transportation -related agencies such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 14.2.2. Obligations with Respect to Intellectual Property. 14.2.2.1. Notification. Whenever any invention, improvement, or discovery (whether or not patentable) is made or conceived for the first time or actually or constructively reduced to practice by the Providing Party, including its employees and subcontractors, in the performance of the work order contract, the Providing Party will immediately give the Requesting Party's Authorized Representative written notice thereof, and must promptly furnish the Authorized Representative with complete information and/or disclosure thereon. 14.2.2.2. Representation. The Providing Party must perform all acts, and take all steps necessary to ensure that all intellectual property rights in the Works and Documents are the sole property of the Requesting Party, and that neither Providing Party nor its employees, agents or contractors retain any interest in and to the Works and Documents. 15. Affirmative Action Page 9 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/07/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1001333 The State intends to carry out its responsibility for requiring affirmative action by its Contractors, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §363A.36. Pursuant to that Statute, the Local Government is encouraged to prepare and implement an affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and the qualified disabled, and submit such plan to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. In addition, when the Local Government lets a contract for the performance of work under a work order issued pursuant to this Master Contract, it must include the following in the bid or proposal solicitation and any contracts awarded as a result thereof: 15.1. Covered Contracts and Contractors. If the Contract exceeds $100,000 and the Contractor employed more than 40 full-time employees on a single working day during the previous 12 months in Minnesota or in the state where it has its principle place of business, then the Contractor must comply with the requirements of Minn Stat. § 363A.36 and Minn R Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600. A Contractor covered by Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 because it employed more than 40 full-time employees in another state and does not have a certificate of compliance, must certify that it is in compliance with federal affirmative action requirements. 15.2. Minn. Stat. § 363A.36. Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 requires the Contractor to have an affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and qualified disabled individuals approved by the Minnesota Commissioner of Human Rights ("Commissioner") as indicated by a certificate of compliance. The law addresses suspension or revocation of a certificate of compliance and contract consequences in that event. A contract awarded without a certificate of compliance may be voided. 15.3. Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600. 15.3.1. General. Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 implement Minn Stat. § 363A.36. These rules include, but are not limited to, criteria for contents, approval, and implementation of affirmative action plans; procedures for issuing certificates of compliance and criteria for determining a contractor's compliance status; procedures for addressing deficiencies, sanctions, and notice and hearing; annual compliance reports; procedures for compliance review; and contract consequences for non-compliance. The specific criteria for approval or rejection of an affirmative action plan are contained in various provisions of Minn R Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 including, but not limited to, parts 5000.3420-5000.3500 and 5000.3552-5000.3559. 15.3.2. Disabled Workers. The Contractor must comply with the following affirmative action requirements for disabled workers: 15.3.2.1. The Contractor must not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of physical or mental disability in regard to any position for which the employee or applicant for employment is qualified. The Contractor agrees to take affirmative action to employ, advance in employment, and otherwise treat qualified disabled persons without discrimination based upon their physical or mental disability in all employment practices such as the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. 15.3.2.2. The Contractor agrees to comply with the rules and relevant orders of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 15.3.2.3. In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance with the requirements of this clause, actions for noncompliance may be taken in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 363A.36, and the rules and relevant orders of the Minnesota Page 10 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/07/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1001333 Depai anent of Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 15.3.2.4. The Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices in a form to be prescribed by the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Such notices must state the Contractor's obligation under the law to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified disabled employees and applicants for employment, and the rights of applicants and employees. 15.3.2.5. The Contractor must notify each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract understanding, that the Contractor is bound by the terms of Minnesota Statutes Section 363A.36, of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and is committed to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment physically and mentally disabled persons. 15.3.3. Consequences. The consequences for the Contractor's failure to implement its affirmative action plan or make a good faith effort to do so include, but are not limited to, suspension or revocation of a certificate of compliance by the Commissioner, refusal by the Commissioner to approve subsequent plans, and termination of all or part of this contract by the Commissioner or the State. 15.3.4. Certification. The Contractor hereby certifies that it is in compliance with the requirements of Minn Stat. § 363A.36 and Minn R Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 and is aware of the consequences for noncompliance. 16. Workers' Compensation Each party will be responsible for its own employees for any workers compensation claims. This Master Contract, and any work orders issued hereunder, are not intended to constitute an interchange of government employees under Minnesota Statutes § 15.53. To the extent that this Master Contract, or any work order issued hereunder, is determined to be subject to Minnesota Statutes §15.53, such statute will control to the extent of any conflict between the Contract and the statute. 17. Publicity 17.1. Publicity. Any publicity regarding the subject matter of a work order contract where the State is the Requesting Party must identify the State as the sponsoring agency and must not be released without prior written approval from the State's Authorized Representative. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Local Government individually or jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from a work order contract. 17.2. Data Practices Act. Section 17.1 is not intended to override the Local Government's responsibilities under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. 18. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue Minnesota law, without regard to its choice -of -law provisions, governs this master contract and all work order contracts. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this master contract or any work order contracts, or the breach of any such contracts, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 19. Prompt Payment; Payment to Subcontractors Page 11 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/07/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1001333 The parties must make prompt payment of their obligations in accordance with applicable law. As required by Minn. Stat. § 16A.1245, when the Local Government lets a contract for work pursuant to any work order, the Local Government must require its contractor to pay all subcontractors, less any retainage, within 10 calendar days of the prime contractor's receipt of payment from the Local Government for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor(s) and must pay interest at the rate of one and one-half percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor(s) on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor(s). 20. Minn. Stat. § 181.59. The Local Government will comply with the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 181.59 which requires: Every contract for or on behalf of the state of Minnesota, or any county, city, town, township, school, school district, or any other district in the state, for materials, supplies, or construction shall contain provisions by which the Contractor agrees: (1) That, in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work under any contract, or any subcontract, no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, by reason of race, creed, or color, discriminate against the person or persons who are citizens of the United States or resident aliens who are qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates; (2) That no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, in any manner, discriminate against, or intimidate, or prevent the employment of any person or persons identified in clause (1) of this section, or on being hired, prevent, or conspire to prevent, the person or persons from the performance of work under any contract on account of race, creed, or color; (3) That a violation of this section is a misdemeanor; and (4) That this contract may be canceled or terminated by the state, county, city, town, school board, or any other person authorized to grant the contracts for employment, and all money due, or to become due under the contract, may be forfeited for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of this contract. 21. Termination; Suspension 21.1. Termination by the State for Convenience. The State or commissioner of Administration may cancel this Master Contract and any work order contracts at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to the Local Government. Upon termination, the Local Government and the State will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. 21.2. Termination by the Local Government for Convenience. The Local Government may cancel this Master Contract and any work order contracts at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to the State. Upon termination, the Local Government and the State will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. 21.3. Termination for Insufficient Funding. The State may immediately terminate or suspend this Master Contract and any work order contract if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota legislature or other funding source; or if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered here. Termination or suspension must be by written or fax notice to the Local Government. The State is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination or suspension. However, the Local Government will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are available. The State will not be assessed any penalty if the master contract or work order is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota legislature or other funding source, not to appropriate funds. The State must provide the Local Government notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of the State's receiving that notice. 22. Data Disclosure Under Minn. Stat. §270C.65, subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Local Government consents to disclosure of its federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the Page 12 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/07/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1001333 payment of state obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws which could result in action requiring the Local Government to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities, if any. 23. Defense of Claims and Lawsuits If any lawsuit or claim is filed by a third party (including but not limited to the Local Government's contractors and subcontractors), arising out of trunk highway work performed pursuant to a valid work order issued under this Master Contract, the Local Government will, at the discretion of and upon the request of the State, tender the defense of such claims to the State or allow the State to participate in the defense of such claims. The Local Government will, however, be solely responsible for defending any lawsuit or claim, or any portion thereof, when the claim or cause of action asserted is based on its own acts or omissions in performing or supervising the work. The Local Government will not purport to represent the State in any litigation, settlement, or alternative dispute resolution process. The State will not be responsible for any judgment entered against the Local Government, and will not be bound by the terms of any settlement entered into by the Local Government except with the written approval of the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Transportation and pursuant to applicable law. 24. Additional Provisions [The balance of this page has intentionally been left blank — signature page follows] Page 13 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/07/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1001333 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION The Local Government certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the contract on behalf of the Local Government as required by applicable ordinance, resolution, or charter provision. By: By: (with delegated authority) Title: Title Division Director Date: Date: COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION By: As delegated to Materials Management Division Title By: Date: Date: Page 14 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/07/2015) Member _ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO.2015-xx RESOLUTION APPROVING MASTER PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) wishes to cooperate closely with local units of government to coordinate the delivery of transportation services and maximize the efficient delivery of such services at all levels of government; and WHEREAS, Mn/DOT and local governments are authorized by Minnesota Statutes sections 471.59, 174.02, and 161.20, to undertake collaborative efforts for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of state and local roads; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to be able to respond quickly and efficiently to such opportunities for collaboration, and have determined that having the ability to write "work orders" against a master contract would provide the greatest speed and flexibility in responding to identified needs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Medina authorizes: 1. That the City of Medina enters into a Master Partnership Contract with Mn/DOT, a copy of which was before the Council. 2. That the proper City officers including the Mayor and City Administrator are authorized to execute such contract and any amendments thereto. 3. That the City Engineer is authorized to negotiate work order contracts pursuant to the Master Contract, which work order contracts may provide for payment to or from Mn/DOT, and that the City Engineer may execute such work order contracts on behalf of the City of Medina without further approval by this Council. Dated: August 18, 2015. Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator -Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Resolution No. 2015-xx August 18, 2015 And the following voted against same: (Absent:) Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2015-xx 2 August 18, 2015 Agenda Item # 5E Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2015- RESOLUTION APPROVING OFF -SITE GAMBLING PERMIT FOR THE HAMEL LIONS CLUB TO CONDUCT LAWFUL CHARITABLE GAMBLING AT 3200 MILL DRIVE WHEREAS, the Hamel Lions Club ("Applicant") has made application to the City of Medina for "Off -Site Gambling" to conduct charitable gambling activities under authority and regulation of Minnesota Statute 349.16; and WHEREAS, said premises permit will be for charitable gambling activities to be conducted at the Hamel Community Building located at 3200 Mill Drive within the city; and WHEREAS, Applicant understands that this license prohibits conducting charitable gambling activities at any other location not stated herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Medina, Minnesota that the Applicant's request to conduct off -site gambling be granted, effective for the Medina Celebration Day single day event on September 19, 2015. Dated: August 18, 2015. Bob Mitchell, Mayor ATTEST: Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator -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. 2015- August 18, 2015 Agenda Item # 5F Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2015- RESOLUTION REQUESTING A SPEED STUDY BY MN/DOT ON MEANDER ROAD AND CHIPPEWA ROAD WHEREAS, the city of Medina has received requests to increase the speed on Chippewa Road between Mohawk Drive and Willow Drive; and WHEREAS, the city of Medina is requesting a speed study be done to establish the appropriate speed limit on newly constructed Meander Road between County Road 116 and Arrowhead Drive; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the city of Medina requests the Minnesota Department of Transportation perform a speed study to establish the proper speed for both Chippewa Road and Meander Road. Dated: August 18, 2015. Bob Mitchell, Mayor ATTEST: Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator - 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. 2015- August 18, 2015 MEDINA Exhibit A: Location of Requested Speed Study --GATES RANCH CHIPPEWA LOST HOR E ATRINKA PAWNE Y Q 2 0 2 HIGHWAY 55 J W CO u., J m CHIPPEWA BLACKFOOT 77. X P 0oq �O - a -xrA c co m T� x�� JUBERT u_ Z D 0 EANDE O Y 2 TOW R Ct. O H z 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet Map Date: August 10, 2015 Agenda Item # 7A MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: August 13, 2015 MEETING: August 18, 2015 SUBJ: Stonegate — PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat Background At the August 5 meeting, the City Council reviewed the request from Property Resources Development Company for a 42-lot Conservation Design -Planned Unit Development (CD-PUD) subdivision. The City Council requested various changes to the plan before taking action. The applicant submitted an updated site plan and narrative on August 11. The preliminary plat, grading plan, and some other plan documents have not yet been updated because it was a quick turnaround and the applicant seeks feedback on the site plan before incurring this expense. The updated site plan is attached, along with a narrative from the applicant describing the changes. The primary changes were a reduction of one proposed lot, the elimination of the proposed private pool, an increase in the amount of buildable conservation area, and the addition of two public trail segments. Council Action Requested It appears that the updated site plan may address a number of the comments raised by the City Council during review at the August 5 meeting. Staff recommends that the Council review the updated information in order to determine if it effects the direction the Council provided at the August 5 meeting. The August 5 staff report is attached for reference, as it includes relevant information including the objectives of the conservation design ordinance. It appears that the updated site plan may have affected some of the conditions discussed by the City Council on August 5. As a result, staff has also attempted to update the potential conditions which were included in previous staff reports, taking into consideration the direction of the Council at the August 5 meeting as well as the updates the applicant has made to the plans. Potential conditions: 1. The preliminary plat and accompanying documents shall be updated to reflect the changes shown on the site plan received by the City on , except as modified herein. 2. The two proposed cul-de-sacs shall be private roads and shall be placed in outlots. The streets shall be consistent with City street naming practices (ie. Fox Hill Court; Stags Ridge Court) 3. The plat and plans shall be updated to include the steep slope area and the top of the bluff to the west of Block 7 in a conservation area or open space area. Stonegate Page 1 of 4 August 18, 2015 PUD General Plan/Prelim Plat City Council Meeting 4. The land stewardship plan shall be updated to reflect Outlot E as a planted prairie instead of a recreational area. 5. The Developer shall grant trail easements in the locations shown on the exhibit on page 4. The Developer shall construct a base section as recommended by the City Engineer under all turf trails, cover with top soil and seed. The Developer shall deed the upland to the northeast of the large wetland to the City. In -lieu of dedicating additional property, the Developer shall pay a park dedication fee -in -lieu of $198,326.50, from which the construction cost of the turf trails shall be deducted. The estimated construction cost is $64,188, which would leave an outstanding park dedication fee of $134,138.50. 6. Shared driveways shall meet relevant standards and include a reciprocal easement and maintenance agreement satisfactory to the City, which shall be recorded against the properties. 7. The public street shall be built to the standards required by City ordinances including a 24 foot wide surface and shoulders. 8. The Developer shall submit Homeowner Association (HOA) documents for review and approval of the City. Such documents shall ensure maintenance of conservation areas, stormwater facilities, private roads, and other common elements. HOA documents shall also include enforcement provisions by which the HOA will ensure homeowners abide by management plans for subsurface sewage treatment systems. 9. The Developer shall obtain any permits or agreement deemed necessary by the City Attorney from the City of Orono related to the proposed street construction within Orono. 10. No construction traffic shall be permitted on the gravel portion of Deerhill Road. 11. Conservation easements shall be granted over all conservation areas in connection with recording of the plat for the first phase of the development. Restoration of all conservation areas shall occur during the first phase of the development. 12. All wells within the City's Drinking Water Supply Management Area shall be registered to monitor possible contamination sites. 13. The Developer shall obtain and submit an approved wetland delineation for the southern 90 acres of the subject property prior to or concurrent with the application for final plat. If the delineation, as approved, identifies more than 1.6 acres of wetlands in excess of those identified on the preliminary plat, the applicant shall submit an updated Yield Plan. If the updated Yield Plan identifies a reduction of the Base Density on the southern 90 acres, the preliminary plat approval shall be considered null and void. Under such circumstances, the Developer may submit a revised preliminary plat for consideration which adjusts the number of lots accordingly. 14. The Developer shall obtain wetland replacement plan approval prior to approval of the final plat application. 15. Wetland buffer planting plans, signage, and easements shall be provided. 16. Detailed planting plans and schedules for all landscaping shall be provided for review and approval by the City Planner. 17. Street tree placements is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. 18. Details on any tree removal shall be provided. 19. The conservation easement shall be in a form and of substance acceptable to the City. The easement shall include enforcement and collection methods by which the easement holder can ensure payment of ongoing annual maintenance costs of the conservation areas by the homeowners within the subdivision. The easement holder for the Stonegate Page 2 of 4 August 18, 2015 PUD General Plan/Prelim Plat City Council Meeting conservation area shall be secured prior to application for final plat and be willing to accept the easement in the manner required by the CD-PUD District Ordinance. 20. The Developer shall provide funds sufficient to cover the maintenance and operation of the conservation areas for four years following establishment. 21. All comments from the City Attorney, City Engineer, and Hennepin County should be addressed. 22. The Developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which shall include the conditions described in this approval as well as other requirements by City ordinance or policy. 23. Except as explicitly authorized by City resolution or ordinance, all aspects of this subdivision shall comply with all applicable state laws, city codes, ordinances, and regulations. 24. No plan or document received by the City prior to shall be considered approved through adoption of this resolution, having not yet been updated to be consistent with subsequent revisions. 25. The Applicant shall obtain necessary approvals and permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Hennepin County, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department of Health, and other relevant agencies. 26. The application for final plat shall be submitted to the City within 360 days of preliminary approval or the preliminary plat shall be considered null and void. 27. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the Planned Unit Development, preliminary plat, construction plans, and other relevant documents. 28. The Developer shall install all improvements shown on the plans received by the City on unless modified herein. The Developer shall submit final construction plans for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to any construction. 29. The Developer shall provide to a City a letter of credit prior to any site construction in an amount recommended by the City Engineer to ensure completion of the required improvements, including all restoration of conservation areas. Potential Motion If the Council finds, subject to some additional plan adjustments, that the application meets the objectives of the CD-PUD ordinance and should be approved, the following motion may be in order. Staff recommends that the preliminary plat and plans be updated to address conditions 1-5 above, and that this update be reviewed by staff, prior to the Council grant any preliminary approval. Revisions would need to be submitted a minimum of two weeks prior to a City Council meeting at which action will be considered. Move to direct staff to prepare an ordinance rezoning the property to CD-PUD and a resolution granting preliminary plat approval but only if the applicant submits a revised plat and plans making the following revisions: [specify required revisions] or, if a revised plat and plans are not submitted, a resolution of denial based on the Planning Commission's findings of fact [as may be modified by the city council] Stonegate Page 3 of 4 August 18, 2015 PUD General Plan/Prelim Plat City Council Meeting Attachments 1. Staff report from August 5, 2015 meeting 2. Public comments received after 8/5/2015 3. Applicant summary of updated site plan 4. Updated Site Plan Potential Trail Location Exhibit 4 Stonegate PUD General Plan/Prelim Plat Page 35"-wide trail easement Agenda Item # 7A NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULT NTS. INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 65422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plannersignacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT To: Medina Mayor and City Council From: Nate Sparks, Consulting Planner Date: July 29, 2015 Re: Stonegate CD-PUD General Plan & Preliminary Plat Application Date: May 8, 2015 Review Deadline: September 5, 2015 File No: LR-15-163 BACKGROUND / GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION Property Resources Development Corporation, Inc. (PRDC) has made an application for a Conservation Design Planned Unit Development (CD-PUD) General Plan & Preliminary Plat. The applicant is proposing a 421ot CD-PUD on approximately 170 acres on a property located east of Homestead Trail and west of Deerhill Road and Morningside Road. A CD-PUD is a type of PUD permitted by the City where an alternative development plan (including increased density) to traditional zoning is employed in order to encourage preservation of ecological resources, wildlife corridors, scenic views, and rural character. The City reviewed the Concept Plan related to this CD-PUD in February. SUBJECT SITE The subject property consists of four parcels in the Hennepin County property tax records. The total area of the properties is approximately 170 acres. The property lies to the west of the western terminus of both Deerhill and Morningside Roads and east of Homestead Trail. There are several wetlands on the site including a large wetland area on the northern edge of the property that is greater than 30 acres in size. There are also areas of steep slopes on the property. The upland areas on the site are predominantly tilled farmland. The surrounding properties are residential in nature. The sewered Medina Morningside and Keller Estates developments are to the southeast of the site. Otherwise, the site is surrounded by rural residential property. To the west of Homestead Trail is the Baker Park Reserve. To the south is the City of Orono. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ ZONING The property is zoned RR, Rural Residential. The surrounding properties are primarily zoned RR, as well. To the southeast there are properties zoned UR, Urban Residential and SR, Suburban Residential. In the Comprehensive Plan, this property is guided for a Rural Residential Land Use. The Rural Residential designation identifies areas for low -intensity uses, such as rural residential, rural commercial, farming, hobby farms, horticulture, conservation of ecologically significant natural resources and passive recreation. This area is not planned to be served by urban services during the timeframe covered by the current Comprehensive Plan. In rural areas, the City must maintain a maximum density of one unit per ten acres for all new development. The City generally utilizes the five acre contiguous suitable soils requirement in order to pursue this objective. This requirement has maintained the required density in the recent past and the City monitors rural subdivisions to ensure this standard is continuing to be met. In the Comprehensive Plan and through the CD-PUD Ordinance, flexibility is permitted for allowing open space development and maintaining rural character and simultaneously preserving significant natural resources. This result may take the form of innovative developments that clusters smaller lots on portions of a site in order to provide permanently conserved open space. Such innovative arrangements may help preserve the City's natural resources, open space and rural character, while still maintaining an average overall density of ten acres for each unit. While the City continues to enforce five contiguous acres of soils suitable for septic systems per lot, the City also may consider exceptions for open space developments, such as this proposal, that protect natural features and put land into permanent conservation. However, the Comprehensive Plan states that within the Metropolitan Council's long term sewer service area (LTSSA), "exceptions will not be allowed to result in development with a density in excess of one unit per ten gross acres." Maps 5-3 and 5-4 in the Comprehensive Plan identify this property as being in the LTSSA. The proposed density is approximately one unit per four gross acres. If the one per ten gross acres limitation is interpreted to apply to the LTSSA in the aggregate, this additional density will affect the opportunity for the City to grant additional density for conservation design on other sites in the LTSSA. A CD-PUD is an option that a property owner is encouraged to consider as an alternative to conventional development. The City will give heightened consideration to such requests where the opportunities to achieve conservation objectives are significantly higher than that available through conventional development. The Open Space Plan identifies this property as being a high quality natural resource area. The northern portion of the site is identified as primarily a tamarack swamp. Homestead Trail along the western edge of the site is identified in the plan as a scenic road. GENERAL PLAN & PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW Minimum Site Requirements The minimum land area required for a CD-PUD is 40 contiguous acres in the Rural Residential District. The subject property is 170 acres in size. Density of Development The CD-PUD District requires a base density calculation and then allows for additional density as part of the PUD flexibility. The base density is established by regulations in the underlying zoning district. In the Rural Residential District, the base density is determined by calculating the number of 5-acre areas of contiguous soils suitable for a standard sewage disposal system that are located on the subject property. In addition to the base density, additional density may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. Any additional density or additional number of dwelling units shall be calculated as a percentage of the base density. The total number of dwelling units in a CD-PUD development shall be guided by the density limitations contained in the Comprehensive Plan and may be up to 200% of the calculated base density. The applicant has provided a yield plan depicting a base density of 221ots. The proposed development plan includes 421ots which is 190.9% of the provided base density. In considering such flexibility for the additional density, the City must evaluate how well the project achieves the conservation objectives over and above what is achievable under conventional development and the amount, quality and character of conservation area protected. 2 Proposed Lots The applicant is proposing 42 parcels that range from 1.28 to 2.63 acres in size. Front setbacks within a CD-PUD may be reduced from the 50 feet required in the RR district, but are required to be 35 feet from local roads. It does not appear that the applicant proposes to reduce the front setbacks, but staff recommends that a reduced setback of 40 feet be considered to reduce driveway length and hardcover if right-of-way width is increased as described below. Side yard setbacks are required to be 20 feet, as determined by the requirements of the underlying RR, Rural Residential District. In addition to the 42 single family lots, there are also eight outlots. The outlots include the wetlands, storm ponds, infiltration basins, and the conservation area. Outlot D is proposed to have a pool, pool house, and parking area. The pool is intended to be a community pool and would be required to be built to such standards in the building code including fencing and accessibility. Transportation System The primary road entrance to the development is proposed from Homestead Trail in Orono. The property in Orono is under the control of the developer. This will result in a City of Medina maintained road within the City of Orono. The road then goes north through the subject site and connects with Deerhill Road. There are two cul-de-sacs that will need to be maintained as private roads within outlots. Since the concept plan review, the applicant has reduced the size of the right-of-way of the road to 50 feet in width from 60 and also reduced the driving surface of the road to 22 feet from 24 feet. The applicant states that this will provide a low impact development design, lessen impervious surfaces, and also provide for a better match with the existing Deerhill Road. Public Works and Engineering staff recommends that the new road be built to City ordinance standards with a 24 foot wide surface, shoulders, and ditches. This will allow for the proper provision of safe passage for all vehicles including emergency vehicles, parking (especially during events), pedestrians, and bicycles while also accommodating for drainage. As proposed, there appear to be drainage features associated with the roadway that lie outside the right-of-way. The applicant has stated that they propose the reduced right-of-way width as a result of requests by neighboring property owners. The width of the right-of-way within this subdivision and the existing right-of-way width of Deerhill Road to the east of the site are not linked. The City has no plans for improvements to Deerhill Road at this time. If the existing Deerhill Road were to be improved, which is not planned for in any capital improvement plans, its improvements would be determined independently and the road width within this subdivision would have no impact on the outcome of the analysis. This CD-PUD proposal is a new subdivision and is intended to meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, like all other new subdivisions, while the existing portion Deerhill Road is an established road with a different and unique set of circumstances. With regards to low impact development standards, reducing the width of the street from 24 feet to 22 feet would reduce the impervious surface created by the road by approximately 8.3% and the total impervious surfaces expected on the site (including homes, driveways, etc.) by approximately 3.5%. The reduction of the right-of-way width could, theoretically, reduce some additional driveway length, but the house pads shown by the applicant exceed the minimum setback requirement of the CD-PUD district. As such, the full 60-foot right-of-way could be platted without increasing the length of driveways proposed. Rather than reducing right-of-way width, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission and City Council consider a reduced front setback (perhaps 40 feet or the minimum of 35 feet permitted in the CD- PUD district) if reducing driveway length is of interest. 3 The applicant is proposing a trail along the new street extending west from Deerhill Road in the northern portion of the site. It exits the site to the northwest and in the west central portion. The trail is primarily adjacent to the roadway but does travel through the interior of Outlot E, which was stated as a preference during the Concept Plan review. There are trail corridors identified in the City's trail plan for these general areas. The Park Commission also recommended a bituminous trail connection from Morningside Road to the main road within the development. Three lots in the northwest corner of the development share a driveway access off of a private cul-de-sac. Shared driveways are acceptable for 4 or fewer homes provided the applicant meets the requirements of the City's driveway ordinance regarding the provision of a reciprocal easement and maintenance agreement satisfactory to the City that is recorded against all properties. The width shall also meet the standards required by City regulations. Utilities In rural areas, CD-PUD developments may be platted to accommodate home site lots with either individual septic tanks and all required drainfields/mound systems located on the lot, or individual septic tanks and primary drainfield/mound system located on the lot with the secondary drainfields/mound system located in the designated conservation area or other such open space. All septic systems shall conform to the current performance standards of Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 and its appendices, or the amended Rules in effect at the time of installation as well as City regulations. Secondary drainfields/mound systems may be located in designated conservation areas provided that they are located within a limited distance of the lots they serve. Construction of septic systems in these instances shall not result in the destruction of ecological resources. The conservation area or open space parcel containing the drainfield/mound system must be owned in fee by a common ownership association in which membership is mandatory. In these cases, the lot should have direct and ensured access to the area where the proposed secondary site is located. The applicant is proposing a primary and secondary septic site on each lot within the plat except for one which has an alternate site within the conservation area. The applicant is also stating that they may wish to place up to 25% of the secondary sites (up to 10 sites) within the conservation area if needed by the individual builder on the lots based on their home locations. There are three proposed septic sites in the plan that do not meet the City's required setbacks to wetlands. Section 720.05 requires that all septic systems shall be 75 feet from wetlands. Staff would recommend that this be adjusted and that sites meeting relevant requirements be provided prior to preliminary plat approval. Outlot D which houses the pool is depicted with no specific septic sites. According to the Building Official, the lot is required to have a primary and alternate site or a variance from the septic requirements would need to be granted. The applicant has stated the possibility of using a holding tank at this site. Any accommodation for this type of system would require an acceptable maintenance plan including pumping agreements and record retention. The pool would require plans for management of the water, possibly including de -chlorination with surface draining or other such methods. The preliminary plat and general plan of development for a PUD is intended to identify conforming lots that can be depicted on a final plat for approval. Therefore, the three proposed septic sites which do not meet wetland setbacks should be corrected prior to any approval. The approved preliminary plat should also depict all septic sites to be utilized for the development. If the applicant intends to use sites in the 4 open space area these sites should be identified and reviewed for conformance with requisite codes and the objectives of the CD-PUD Ordinance. As stated during the Concept Plan review, the applicant is proposing Multi-flo pre-treatment systems for the development. These systems provide an increased level of effluent treatment before being discharged to the drainfield. In order to operate effectively, these systems may require a higher degree of maintenance than a standard system. It may be advisable to have the HOA involved in the maintenance responsibilities, as a result of the increased density and smaller lots being contemplated. A portion of this site is located within the City's Drinking Water Supply Management Area. The City will need to register the wells in this area to monitor possible contamination sites. Grading / Drainage / Wetlands The lots are primarily intended to be custom graded. The applicant is proposing five storm water ponds and four infiltration basins in the conservation area for storm water management purposes. The City Engineer's comments are attached for reference. There are numerous wetlands on site including a large wetland on the north side. There are four smaller wetlands that are proposed to be filled and two that will be partially filled primarily to allow for the construction of the road. During the concept plan review, Staff had recommended minimizing this impact as much as possible. Two wetlands the center of the site are proposed to be enlarged and are being considered by the applicant as part of mitigation for impacts. Upland planting buffers and easements are required. The wetland delineation for the southern 90 acres of the site is expired and will need to be resubmitted prior to or concurrent with final plat application in order to verify compliance with regulations, including base density calculations. Tree Preservation / Landscaping Most of the upland of the subject site is tilled farmland. Therefore, tree removal is minimal. Almost all of the trees that may be impacted were planted by the applicant and are intended to be spaded and relocated. The applicant is proposing street trees within the right-of-way where the street is adjacent to open space areas. The location of the trees is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. Irregular spacing is encouraged for street trees, to avoid the urban appearance that regular spacing may invoke. Details on the proposed trees and a detailed planting schedule shall be provided. The selection of vegetation should be guided by the natural community types identified in the City's 2008 Natural Resources Inventory. Conservation Areas The minimum required conservation area within a CD-PUD development is required to be at least 30% of the total buildable land area in the Rural Residential District (or higher depending on the land and opportunities to achieve the City's conservation objectives). The buildable land area is defined as the total area of the site minus slopes greater than 18%, wetlands, required wetland buffers, lakes, and land contained within the 100 year floodplain. After the deductions, the buildable land area is 126.7 acres. A minimum of 30% of this total would need to be preserved as conservation area. The applicant has provided a table depicting the method by which they are calculating the percentage of conservation area, stating that the 38.47 acres of conservation area equates to 30.3% of the buildable land area. 5 In the CD-PUD Ordinance, conservation areas are required to be platted into separate outlots. The areas must be restricted from further development by a permanent conservation easement (in accordance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 84C.01-05). The easement must be submitted with the General Plan of Development and approved by the City Attorney. The permanent easement may be held by any entity defined by Minnesota Statute Chapter 84C, but in no case may the holder of the easement be the same as the owner of the underlying fee. The permanent conservation easement shall be recorded with Hennepin County and must specify the entity that will maintain the designated conservation area. The applicant is in discussions with the Minnehaha Creek Wattershed District to hold this easement. On Outlot E, the applicant proposes a 2.5 acre "recreation area" on the north side of the trail that appears to be mowed grass for a recreation area. Staff questions whether this use and landscaping contributes positively to the quality of the conservation area or whether it would be best to not include this in the conservation area if the intended use is active recreation. Restoring this area more consistent with the remaining upland areas would provide a significantly wider connection between the conservation areas on the east and west of the site. Perhaps this area would maintain its conservation values if used in a very limited fashion for passive recreation (perhaps limiting mowing and use to a few times per year). According to the ordinance, conservation areas may be used for preservation of ecological resources, habitat corridors, passive recreation, and for pasture, hay cropping, and other low impact agricultural uses. The City may evaluate the density bonus requested based on the amount, quality, and character of the conservation area protected. Land Stewardship Plan Where a CD-PUD has designated conservation areas, a plan for the development, long-term use, maintenance, and insurance of all conservation areas is required. This land stewardship plan needs to define ownership and methods of land protection and establish necessary regular and periodic operation and maintenance responsibilities. The plan also needs to estimate staffing needs, insurance requirements, and other costs associated with plan implementation and define the means for funding the same on an on- going basis. This shall include land management fees necessary to fund monitoring and maintenance. The applicant has provided a memorandum of understanding with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in order to assist in establishing the land stewardship plan. Also, a preliminary land stewardship plan was provided that identifies areas of reserve and restoration. At the discretion of the City, the applicant may be required to escrow sufficient funds for the maintenance and operation costs of conservation areas for up to four years depending on restoration measures. The land stewardship plan describes an annual fee of $300-$450 per acre of the buildable conservation area to be divided amongst the homes within the subdivision for the sake of ongoing maintenance of the conservation area once the restoration is completed and it is established. The ultimate easement holder will need to be consulted to ensure that sufficient funds are available for the work that needs to be completed. This amount results in a negligible HOA fee of only approximately $30 per lot per month once the subdivision is fully built out. Park Dedication The subdivision ordinance permits the City to required dedication of land for park and trails, cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication or a combination of the two. The applicant intends to largely satisfy park dedication requirements through the provision of trails. The total area of the subject site is 170.63 acres and after deducting wetlands the buildable area is 132.43 acres. The subdivision ordinance states that up to 10% of this land area may be required for dedication 6 for park purposes which would be 13.243 acres. The cash -in -lieu amount is based on 8% of the value of the land with the minimum cash contribution being $3,500 per dwelling unit and the maximum at $8,000 per dwelling unit. The maximum cash contribution would be capped at $336,000. The Park Commission reviewed several different trail configurations at their July 15`h meeting. Their recommendation was to require and east -west trail from Morningside Road to the main road within the subdivision and then accept the proposed turf trails proposed by the applicant. On the applicant's submission, there is identified approximately 2,850 linear feet of trail from existing Deerhill Road to the west of the site. The assumption would be that this would be provided within a 20' wide easement. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to dedicate 1.31 acres which is 9.9% of the required dedication amount. Additionally, the trail to the northeast of the wetland would be approximately 560 linear feet, for an area of 0.26 acres (2.0% of the required dedication). The trail corridor from Morningside Road directly west to the north -south portion of new Deerhill Road would constitute approximately 1005 linear feet. Again, assuming a 20 foot wide easement, the area of dedication would be 0.46 acre, or 3.5% of the required dedication. The City Engineer estimates that turf trail construction would cost about $9 a linear foot and bituminous trail construction is about $60. The construction of the turf trails would cost about $30,690 (2850 + 560 x $9). The estimated cost of the bituminous trail would be $60,300 (1005 x $60). This is equivalent to 27.1 % of the maximum park dedication fee. The trail easements are 15.4% of the maximum land requirement, for a total of 42.5%. The remaining cash -in -lieu fee would be $193,200. The applicant has also requested due consideration for the private pool and open turf amenities shown on their plans plus consideration for the conservation areas so that no additional fee would be required. State statute states that the City "shall give due consideration to the open space, recreational, or common areas and facilities open to the public that the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision." The CD-PUD district does suggest park dedication as one of the areas where the City may offer flexibility. However, it should be noted that the proposed pool and recreational area are stated to be for the benefit of only residents of the subdivision and not the general public. The City Council should discuss what due consideration would make sense, and lower the $193,200 remaining fee accordingly. Phasing Plan & Construction The applicant intends to submit a petition and waiver for construction of the road upon approval of the final plat. No phasing plan was proposed. However, if the applicant were to intend to plat the development in phases, the recommendation would be to have the conservation area outlot dedicated with the first phase and the restoration plan put into effect. REZONING With an approval of the PUD plan, the subject property would be rezoned to Conservation Design-PUD District (CD-PUD). The permitted uses and all other regulations governing uses on the subject land shall then be those found in the CD-PUD zoning district and documented by the PUD plans and agreements. Final plans will need to be submitted for review and approval with the final plat application. Failure to provide plans consistent with the General Plan and Preliminary Plat approvals will render the final plat application inconsistent with the preliminary plat approval. CD-PUD REVIEW The purpose of the CD-PUD District is to preserve the City's ecological resources, wildlife corridors, scenic views, and rural character while allowing residential development consistent with the goals and 7 objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Report as updated from time to time. The specific conservation objectives of this district are to: 1. Protect the ecological function of native hardwood forests, lakes, streams, and wetlands. 2. Protect moderate to high quality ecologically significant natural areas. 3. Protect opportunities to make ecological connections between parks and other protected lands and ecologically significant natural areas. 4. Protect important viewsheds including scenic road segments. 5. Create public and private trails for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources. 6. Create public and private Open Space for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources. Additionally, in Section 827.25, the City states the purpose of a planned unit development. It states that the PUD process, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this Code related to setbacks, lot area, width and depth, yards, and other development standards is intended to encourage: 1) Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments. 2) Higher standards of site and building design. 3) The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high quality natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion. 4) Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low -impact development practices which result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard requirements of the City. 5) Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to surrounding open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses. 6) A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of development and service facilities. 7) An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lowering development costs and public investments. 8) A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. PUDs are not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles. 9) A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City. In Section 827.35 Subd. 4, it states that the City must base its action on the PUD on the compatibility of the plan with the purpose statement above, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is located, and the adequacy of the following: internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation, parking, public facilities, recreational uses, open space, and buffering and landscaping. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their July 14t'' meeting. The Commission unanimously recommended denial of the request. The Commissioners felt that the density bonus sought was not justified by the amount, quality, or character of the conservation area and that the development did not meet the objectives of the CD-PUD Ordinance. There were also concerns voiced about traffic. Eleven members of the public spoke at the public hearing. An excerpt from the draft Planning Commission minutes is attached for reference. 8 POTENTIAL CONDITIONS The City Council should review the request and consider if the proposed plan meets the intent of the CD- PUD Ordinance. The Council should also evaluate how well the project achieves the conservation objectives over and above that achievable under conventional development and the amount and quality of conservation area protected. If the Council finds that the objectives described above are met through the amount, quantity, and character of the conservation areas being proposed and the flexibility being requested, it would be recommended to approve the CD-PUD General Plan, Preliminary Plat, and Rezoning with the following conditions: 1. Private roads shall be placed within outlots and road maintenance details shall be provided. 2. Shared driveways shall meet relevant standards and include a reciprocal easement and maintenance agreement satisfactory to the City, which shall be recorded against the properties. 3. Public streets shall be built to the standards required by City ordinances including a 24 foot wide surface, shoulders, and a 60 foot wide right-of-way. 4. Homeowner Association documents shall be provided for review and approval of the City. 5. Any future phasing plan shall include the conservation area within the first phase of development. 6. All septic sites shall meet the City's setback requirements and septic sites shall be identified for Outlot D. 7. All septic sites for use in the plat shall be identified on the plans. 8. The entirety of Outlot E shall be planted entirely in a manner consistent with the restored upland areas. 9. All wells within the City's Drinking Water Supply Management Area shall be registered to monitor possible contamination sites. 10. The applicant shall obtain and submit an approved wetland delineation for the southern 90 acres of the subject property prior to or concurrent with the application for final plat. If the delineation, as approved, identifies more than 1.6 acres of wetlands in excess of those identified on the preliminary plat, the applicant shall submit an updated Yield Plan. If the updated Yield Plan identifies a reduction of the Base Density on the southern 90 acres, the preliminary plat approval shall be considered null and void. Under such circumstances, the applicant may submit a revised preliminary plat for consideration which adjusts the number of lots accordingly. 11. A wetland replacement plan approval shall be obtained prior to approval of the final plat application. 12. Wetland buffer planting plans and easements shall be provided. 13. Detailed planting plans and schedules for all landscaping shall be provided for review and approval by the City Planner. 14. Street tree placements is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. 15. Details on any tree removal shall be provided. 16. The conservation easement shall be in a form and of substance acceptable to the City. The easement holder for the conservation area shall be secured prior to application for final plat and be willing to accept the easement in the manner required by the CD-PUD District Ordinance. 17. The applicant shall provide funds sufficient to cover the maintenance and operation of the conservation areas for four years following establishment. 18. The applicant shall dedicate 20' easements for the trails depicted on the plan and for a trail segment from Morningside Road to the new Deerhill Road. The remainder shall be cash -in -lieu in the amount of $193,200. 19. All comments from the City Attorney, City Engineer, and Hennepin County should be addressed. 9 20. The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which shall include the conditions described in this approval as well as other requirements by City ordinance or policy. 21. Except as explicitly authorized by City resolution or ordinance, all aspects of this subdivision shall comply with all applicable state laws, city codes, ordinances, and regulations, and the terms and conditions of the contingent settlement agreement dated December 18, 2014. 22. The Applicant shall obtain necessary approvals and permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Hennepin County, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department of Health, and other relevant agencies. 23. The application for final plat shall be submitted to the City within 360 days of preliminary approval or the preliminary plat shall be considered null and void. 24. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the Planned Unit Development, preliminary plat, construction plans, and other relevant documents. Prior to any preliminary plat approval, staff would recommend the applicant provide a revised plan depicting conditions 3, 6, and 7. In order to be considered for the August 18 meeting, these changes would need to be submitted by August 10, 2015. POTENTIAL MOTION / COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED 1. If the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation, the following motion would be in order, which may be revised: Move to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial of the request based on the Planning Commission's findings of fact [as may be modified by the city council.] 2. If the council finds that the application meets the relevant objectives of the CD-PUD District and Comprehensive Plan and should be approved, the following motion would be in order. This motion would not require the applicant to update the plans prior to the City Council granting preliminary approval, but the approval would still be subject to all of the terms and conditions. Move to direct staff to prepare an ordinance rezoning the property to CD-PUD based on findings that the proposed development meets the objectives of the CD-PUD ordinance and a resolution granting preliminary plat approval, subject to the terms and conditions noted in the staff report [as those may be modified or amended by the city council] 3. If the council finds the application should be approved, but only if certain changes are shown on revised plans prior to granting preliminary approval, the following motion may be in order. As noted above, staff recommends that conditions/plans be updated and 3, 6, and 7 be addressed prior to any approvals. Move to direct staff to prepare an ordinance rezoning the property to CD-PUD based on findings that the proposed development meets the objectives of the CD-PUD ordinance and a resolution granting preliminary plat approval but only if the applicant submits a revised plat and plans making the following revisions: [specify required revisions] or, if a revised plat and plans are not submitted, a resolution of denial based on the Planning Commission's findings of fact [as may be modified by the city council.] 10 ATTACHMENTS A — Document List B — Draft excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes from July 14, 2015 C — Draft excerpt of Park Commission Minutes from July 15, 2015 D — Minutes from Planning Commission Concept Plan Review from February 10, 2015 E — Minutes from Park Commission Concept Plan Review from February 18, 2015 F — Minutes from City Council Concept Plan Review from March 3, 2015 G — City Engineer Comments dated 7/9/2015 H — Building Official Comments dated 6/29/2015 I — Hennepin County Comments dated 5/22/2015 J — Hennepin County Comments dated 6/24/2015 K — Public Comment received (Pflaum/Nadeau/NadeauBurkstrand/Schafer, Alger, Nadeau) L — Applicant Narrative M — Applicant Responses to Comments N — Settlement Agreement O — Preliminary Plat and Plans P — Potential Conflict of Interest Memo from Attorney 1442 Homestead Trail Medina, MN 55356 August 10, 2015 Medina City Council 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 Dear Honorable Medina Mayor and Council Members, I want to thank the our mayor and the members of our council for the time and effort you have put into reviewing the Stonegate farms Conservation Design Subdivision proposal. The discussion at the August 5 council meeting was very informative. I grew up in Medina and feel that my life was positively shaped by the rural character of our community. After going away to school and the start of my career, I had the excellent fortune of being able to return to the Twin Cities as a professor at the University of Minnesota. On returning, my wife and I considered many options for where we wanted to raise our family. After much consideration, we were drawn to Medina for the rural character and great schools. We moved here expecting it to be the place where our son could enjoy the benefits that only come with a rural area: riding his pony along farm fields, riding his bike along quiet roads, watching wildlife flourish, and respecting the space of our neighbors. There are plenty of places in the Twin Cities where 1.5-2.5 acre lots are appropriate and the norm; rural residential land in Medina is not one of them. The proposed Subdivision on 171 acres significantly deviates from Medina's recommended average density of 10 acres lots by proposing the creation of conservation areas. Consulting the Merriam - Webster dictionary provides the following definition of conserve: "to keep (something) safe from being damaged or destroyed." This implies that there is something existing to preserve. Since approximately 1890, the land of the proposed development has been used for farming. For a 10 year period from 1997-2006, the Stonegate farm property was part of the US Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve Program. Under this program 110 acres were planted in mixed prairie grasses. During this period, the land was deemed a "high -quality natural area" under the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System. According to the Star Tribune, immediately after the period of this program ceased, Stonegate "plowed over and destroyed the prairie grasses that had bloomed over the last 10 years in an effort to shed the 'high -quality natural area' classification, fearing that utilities might never be built out to an area of such perceived natural importance." This property is not an unmolested native prairie; it is a farm field. The property owners have cut ditches and installed culverts to drain the wetlands onto their neighbor's properties to increase their tillable acreage. The fields have lay fallow for two of the last three years, only being tilled, resulting in significant sedimentary runoff. This is not a pristine piece of land that has been maintained in the name of land stewardship. This leads to the question of what is being preserved. The tamarack bog on the northwest corner of the property is a great natural resource. However, it is not buildable and thus will be preserved regardless of the development type. The only preservable asset is the small stand of Maple and Basswood forest on the eastern side of the property. This is a small amount of land, and certainly not worth trading for the extreme housing density proposed. The developers propose that their conservation development establishes a wildlife corridor. The current proposal includes a north -south corridor along the eastern side of the property. However, the abundance of wildlife is not traveling to and from the Orono Schools property to the south. If you poll any resident of Homestead Trail or Willow Drive, they will report the major east -west wildlife corridor from Baker Park into the proposed development land and to the east into the Wolsfeld Woods. The development does not conserve this primary wildlife corridor, it impedes it. With this said, I do appreciate that the proposal will set aside 30% of the buildable land and plant it with prairie grass. However, I am left asking how this proposed conservation plan will benefit the existing citizens of Medina, beyond the knowledge that an unviewable track of land has been set aside. The proposal includes walking trails reserved for the residents of the development through the conservation area and a pool for their use. However, the public trails being proposed are quite inadequate in allowing public access to the conservation areas or the connection of existing public assets such as a trail from Baker Park to the Wolsfeld Woods. These public benefits are what we, the citizens of Medina, are trading for this high density development. Adding the run-off from pavement and high -maintenance septic systems of 42 high -end homes does not seem like a fair trade for the lack of benefits to Medina's citizens. As a University professor, I like the idea floated at the council meeting of giving this proposal a grade. As was mentioned by the council, it is certainly not A quality. Instead, it is trying to slide by with a C-, and the conservation proposed is certainly not worth the density bonus the developers are proposing. I am very concerned by the past legal settlement with the property owners, which seems to have set the conditions for this development behind closed doors. This is not how decisions in our city should be made. I am concerned that the council is being bullied by legal threats of this developer and that those threats are guiding this decision making process. Please listen to the voices of the residents of Medina as you formulate your decision. What kind of city will we be able to pass down to our children if this developer sets this type of precedent. This proposed housing density is not good for the citizens of Medina, the preservation of natural resources, or the wildlife. This is only a good deal for the applicant, a non-resident of Medina, who has a track record of poor land stewardship. Please don't let our city be bullied into a high -density development on rural residential land that is against the wishes of its citizens. Sincerely, Fig e- James Van de Ven Stonegate Development and Homestead Trail Karin Jacobs [kjacobs001@aol.com] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 8:32 PM To: J Anderson; J Pederson; B Mitchell; L Cousineau; K Martin Cc: Dusty Finke Dear Council Members, Thank you for your thoughtful discussion at last Tuesday's meeting on the proposed Stonegate development. I appreciated your willingness to look seriously at the plan in light of its alleged conservation value. While the developers' final proposal has not yet been presented, unless that proposal includes significantly less density, it will still require a 'no' vote. In addition to my previously -stated concerns about the plan, the adverse impact of Council Member Martin's proposal to send all construction traffic onto Homestead Trail should be considered in deciding whether a nearly 200% density bonus for this project is warranted or desirable. As anyone who has driven on Homestead Trail will know, it is a beautiful, winding, rural road, offering entrances into Baker Park and running very close to the trumpeter swan refuge. According to Medina's Natural Resources Inventory, Homestead Trail is one of only a few Medina roads with valued viewsheds that need protection. Its quiet beauty, and its proximity to Baker Park and the Orono Schools, attract motorcyclists, bicyclists, horseback riders, skiers, runners (including the Orono cross country team) and other recreationists by the thousands. A steady stream of construction traffic would destroy the peaceful solitude that our residents enjoy on Homestead Trail. Council Member Martin's proposal would also be dangerous. Although speed reductions are posted at the particularly sharp curves, in my 12 years living here I've seen numerous rollovers and other accidents on Homestead Trail, in all seasons of the year. Due to this danger, Hennepin County instructs large trucks to stay off Homestead Trail, and use an alternate route instead. Directing all of the truck traffic from this project onto Homestead Trail would contradict the County's signage. Moreover, while there may be an attempt to keep large truck traffic south of the entrance to the development, this would worsen an already - congested intersection at County Road 6 and Homestead Trail on weekday mornings. To avoid this mess, plumbers, roofers, electricians, landscapers, construction workers, and innumerable others would likely utilize other routes to the development, such as via the intersection with County Road 24, thereby burdening the entire length of Homestead Trail with such traffic. In sum, the proposal to direct all of the construction traffic onto Homestead Trail would contradict the County's longstanding signage, create a difficult and dangerous traffic situation, and interfere with Medina residents' enjoyment of the road. It is one more reason why the plan should not go forward. Sincerely, Karin Jacobs 1632 Homestead Trail Medina, MN Background PRDC's Application for General Plan of Development Conservation Design Planned Unit Development (Application) was heard at a public hearing and reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 14, 2015, and was subsequently considered by the City Council on August 5, 2015. In preparation of the City Council's review on August 5th, City Staff prepared a staff report that included 24 possible conditions related to the Application if the City Council were to approve the request. After hearing from City Staff, PRDC and receiving public comment the City Council determined that the proposed Application was not satisfactory to meet the density bonus sought by PRDC. The City Council recommended that PRDC consider some modifications and/or changes to the Application, and requested such changes be submitted by August 10, 2015. The City Council further directed City Staff to prepare two Resolutions for consideration at their August 18, 2015 meeting addressing the following: 1) Resolution of Denial with Findings - if no changes to the Application were made; and 2) Resolution of Approval with Conditions - if PRDC made changes to the Application reflecting the recommendations of the Council. PRDC's understanding of the recommendations included the following: • Deer Hill Road should be designed with 60-feet of ROW and 24-feet of traveled surface. • Wetland Delineation, even in draft form, should be provided. • Improve public access to the Conservation Areas through increased trail connections. • Increase the quantity of Conservation Areas • Provide additional information regarding Outlot D which contains the pool amenity for the development. This information should include septic tests for the restroom facilities as well as assurances regarding the proper maintenance and management of the pool. • All of Outlot E should be planted uniformly with a prairie plant mix to improve the east -west conservation connection in this portion of the site. • Consider a reduction in density. Process & Timeline In response to the City Council's recommendations, PRDC explored opportunities within the proposed Application to achieve as many of the Council's requests as possible while still respecting the integrity of the development plan. The attached Site Plan dated August 10, 2015 reflects the changes and modifications that PRDC is willing to make to the General Plan of Development Application if supported by the City Council. With the short turnaround time requested by the City Staff and the City Council PRDC was unable to provide an updated full set of plans reflecting the details in the Site Plan. However, PRDC believes that the Site Plan and corresponding updates to Table 1 provide adequate information for the City to evaluate whether the Site Plan modifications meet your recommendations. If the Council approves these changes and determines that the number of units sought on the Site Plan is warranted, PRDC will update the Application (grading and erosion control plan, landscape plan, preliminary plat, etc.) prior to the regular September meeting. 3 1 Summary of Changes The following changes and/or modifications are represented on the submitted Site Plan. Table 1: Use Tabulation as presented in our Narrative dated June 19, 2015 has been updated to reflect the revised corresponding quantities demonstrated on the Site Plan (Table on following page). • Road and Right -of -Way: The Site Plan has been modified to show the new portion of Deer Hill Road with 60-feet of ROW and 24-feet of paved roadway surface. The private cul-de-sacs are designed with 50-feet of ROW and 22-feet of traveled surface. • Wetland Delineation: The Site Plan includes the draft wetland delineation prepared August 5, 2015. Based upon the preliminary data, there is a net increase from the 2011 wetland boundaries of approximately 0.35 Acres (See Table 1). • Increase Public Access to Conservation Areas - Trails: To increase public access to the Conservation Areas PRDC has proposed two additional Turf/Mowed Grass Trails on the Site Plan. The first trail is on the northern 80 acres extending north of the private cul-de-sac connecting to the `island' on the site. PRDC discussed the possibility of constructing a boardwalk to the island through the wetland area with MCWD, who responded favorably. The second trail would connect Morningside with the new portion of Deer Hill i Road. The trail would run south along the treeline through the Conservation Area and would eventually head west along the wetland/stormwater treatment area edge. • Increase Upland Buildable Area contribution in Conservation Area: In an effort to increase the acreage of the upland buildable area on the Site Plan, the area of several lots has been reduced, thus increasing the quantity of Upland Buildable from approximately 30.3% in the Application to approximately 35.6% on the Site Plan. Lot areas that were reduced include: Lots 4, 7, 8 and 9, Block 1; Lots 4, 5, 6 and 8 Block 3; Lot 5, Block 6 (removed); and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 7. N - • Oudot D - Pool Area: Outlot D has been removed from the Site Plan, and this area would be added to the Conservation Area. In conjunction, Lots 1 and 2, Block 5 have been shifted to exclude the delineated (4 wetland area from the private lots. Additionally, some of the wetland area that would have been subject to ° mitigation on Outlot D will no longer need to be mitigated. o • Outlot E: PRDC will plant all of Outlot E, exclusive of the trail, in a conservation cover. n_ • Reduction in Units to 41 Lots: The Site Plan removes Lot 5, Block 6 from the development and removes the secondary septic site from the Conservation Area. All remaining lots within the development have adequate area to site a primary and secondary septic site. This reduces the overall density of the proposed o� project. N Draft Conditions - Staff Report a o PRDC has reviewed the draft conditions as presented within the Staff Report and there are several conditions which we believe are contrary to the Contingent Settlement Agreement. If the proposed modifications and 0 changes identified in the Site Plan are acceptable, PRDC would respectfully request the opportunity to discuss our concerns regarding the conditions with the City Council at the August 18th meeting. Or, if the City 3 Council prefers, PRDC would be happy to work with City Staff and the City's Counsel prior to the Resolution being presented at the regular City Council meeting on September 1, 2015. �- 2 (e) Site Tabulation (Revised 8/10/2015 Based on Site Plan) Table 1: Use Tabulation (see Site Plan for location) Use Ownership Acres (8.10.2015) % of Site Gross % of Site Net Rural Residential Home Sites Private 71.7 39.9% 56.6% Open Space (Upland Buildable) Private/ Easement 42.9 25.2% 35.6% Open Space - Unbuildable (Wetlands, wetland buffer, steep slopes > 18%) Private Easement 50.08 29.4% --- Subtotal wetlands (CA) ---- 35.9 --- --- Subtotal wetland buffer (CA) ---- 10.3 --- --- Subtotal wetlands (Lot)* 0.4 Subtotal wetland buffer (Lot)* 1.6 Subtotal steep slopes>18% ---- 1.88 --- Road ROW (Main & Cul-de-sac) Public/ Private 9.4 5.5% 7.8% Subtotal Developed Area --- 45.2% --- Subtotal Open Space --- 54.8% --- Net BUILDABLE TOTAL 120.55 --- 100% Gross TOTAL 170.63 100% --- Acreages calculated by Sathre-Bergquist for Site Plan prepared 8/10/2015. VICINITY MAP MC., T. 6PKL? 11S111./r the u DRAWING NAME Base SGF DRAWN BY DSG CHECKED BY DLS DATE 05/01/15 NO 02 03 04 BY DATE DSG 06/19/15 DSG 06/24/15 DSG 08/05/15 DSG 08/10/15 REVISIONS CITY REVISIONS DELINEATION UPDATE DELINEATION UPDATE 60'ROW SITE PLAN SEPTIC SITE LEGEND PROPOSED SEPTIC LOCATION O PERC BORING COIL BORING USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.'s EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAID AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING FROM ILLEGITMATE USE. 1 r----1 / / 1 r--4. 1 ---4--- / / . 1 li 1 1-_� / / / ,- - J 1 7-- 1 \r.. / / j 1 1 I 1 / ��7 �� 3 f Ii j - Jk--- j i � �-I __ -1� --T Ir I I I I I / 1 1 I I J--J '-----{ I I -�� 1-- I I _� 1 -,, �"'',,�,,,,_m 's__.y' ,,, " I I I I Er H I � I — '" r- - d `, - c 200 100 0 100 200 400 SCALE IN FEET I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN OR SPECIFICATION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Daniel L Schmidt, P.E. Date: 05/01/2015 Lic. No. 26147 SITE PLAN DATA • 60'ROW • 50' FSB • 24' WIDE • 40' RSB STREET • 20'SSB Dedicated Open Space [Acres] Total Net Area [Acres] Open Space [%] 42.9 120.55 35.6% Wetland Buffer Total [Acres] Wetland Buffer in CA [Acres] Wetland Buffer in Lots [Acres] 11.9 10.3 1.6. ROW Area [Acres] Lot Area [Acres] Non -Buildable Area [Acres] 9.4 71.7 50.08 N SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. 150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000 CITY PROJECT NO MEDINA, MINNESOTA PREPARED BY PREPARED FOR ENGINEER x DEVELOPER SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC. PROPERTY RESOURCES 150 SOUTH BROADWAY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 6851 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 PHONE: (952) 476-6000 FAX (952)476-0104 PHONE: (612) 991-1823 CONTACT: DANIEL L. SCHMIDT. P.E. EMAIL: SCHMIDT@SATHRE.COM SITE PLAN STONEGATE PRDC 1 I 1 1 FILE NO. 7282-010-200 STONEGATE 7282-010-200 DATE: 14 August 2015 TO: City of Media Mayor and Council Members FROM: Kirsten Chapman, 1910 Iroquois Drive RE: Stonegate Development Proposal To All Concerned: I'm providing this letter to augment my public comments in the meeting and would appreciate your consideration of its contents. My greatest concern is that a number of critical decisions about to be made appear to be based solely upon underlying assumptions provided by the Applicant. While the consulting firms that are doing this work on behalf of the developer are quality organizations, I strongly recommend that the city hire qualified firms to weigh in on these key assumptions on behalf of residents. 1. The Applicant traffic study consultant provided an assessment of the current and projected traffic for Deer Hill Road. As stated in the Planning Commission meeting, the study indicates that there are 100 cars per day on average. It projects that the traffic will double to 200 per day with the proposed 42-unit development. a. Presently, there are 14 lots on Deer Hill Road. If just 1/2 the traffic from the new development uses Deer Hill, a simple calculation would place the increased traffic at 150% increase or 250 cars per day. A second opinion on this seems warranted. b. I didn't hear any discussion about the traffic impact on the feeder roads or about any costs associated with heavier traffic on Deer Hill or Willow Drive. Questions on traffic are: a. Has the Applicant done a traffic study of the effect of the increased traffic flow onto Willow Drive and at the intersections of Willow and County Roads 6 and 24? These roads impact many Medina residents, not just those adjacent to the development. b. How will the increased traffic affect the current improvement and maintenance plans and costs of Deer Hill Road and Willow Drive? c. Who pays for any increased costs attributable to the increased traffic? 2. The Applicant supplied a plan for a Conservation Sub -Division. A key basis for calculating the total units allowable is amount of designated buildable land. There was some discussion in the Planning Commission meeting that the areas designated as buildable in the proposed plan may include land that is not buildable. Agreeing upon what is buildable land is critical since the land set aside for conservation must meet a minimum of 30% of buildable area. Questions surrounding buildable land are: a. Has the City independently verified the buildable area? b. If not, at what point does the City lock down an agreement about what is buildable versus not buildable? 3. The Applicant is seeking a bonus density near the maximum available designated for very high quality conservations. As indicated in the last City Council meeting, there are two very high quality attributes that are part of the proposal —one in each parcel: a tamarack bog, which would be preserved regardless of any development plan, and the hardwoods on the eastern boarder, which could be negatively affected if the Conservation Subdivision plan is not agreed upon. However, a VAST MAJORITY of the area allocated for conservation is restored prairie, which is of only moderate quality —evidenced by the fact that it is restorable. Questions on bonus density considerations are: a. Has the City made a determination of the formula on how to separate the level of priority associated with conservation assets in order to calculate a fair representation of the overall quality of the proposed conservation? b. If so, what is the formula? c. If not, when does the City plan to publish the formula for public comment? d. Has the City considered the proposed buffers and setbacks from protected lands (bog, wetlands, woods) as they relate to land quality? So, for example, if proposed buffers and setbacks are minimum, density bonus is minimal, versus more generous setbacks for more generous a density bonus? e. Since the bog is already protected, regardless of the development plan, is the City willing to consider the density bonus commensurate with public access in and around the bog? NOTES: I spoke with Tom Dietrich at the Minnehaha Watershed District and as it relates to buffers, he indicated that there are minimum requirements and there are optimal recommendations. He stated that, depending upon the nutrient loading and runoff, that an asset like the tamarack bog would have an optimal 75-100 foot vegetative buffer. In the case of the natural woodland, he inquired of another professional and reports that it's optimal for wildlife to have a transitional buffer zone between the woods and grasses. In order to not confuse or threaten wildlife, he said there should not be an abrupt transition, but rather a tapering from the woods using smaller trees and shrubs decreasing in size as it transitions to grasses. If this is not already included in the proposed plan, I urge the Council to ask that it be included as part of the development and land management plan. 4. The City Council seemed to affirm a commitment to forbid access of construction traffic from Deer Hill Road, which is reasonable given that this is a rural, unpaved road and will remain as such. But this will have a huge impact on the residents on Homestead, which is where I understood all construction traffic would be routed. Questions on construction traffic are: a. Why not require that all construction traffic, including parking, use the land owned by the same parties as the Applicant that's off of County Road 6 and abuts the construction zone? b. Is the City planning to have restricted residents -only parking on both Deer Hill and Homestead (perhaps parking already isn't legal on Homestead)? c. Will the developer be required to install a gate at the end of the current Deer Hill Road to assure that there is no through -traffic? 5. The Applicant is planning to have entry and exit to the development on both Homestead and Deer Hill. In order to try to retain some rural character, I urge the Council not to allow for prominent entry/exit landscaping, hardscaping or signage that might indicate that there is a sub -division. Such items impair view -sheds, a key component of the recent Open Spaces ordinances. A simple road sign is consistent with newer homes/developments in the RR area. Final Thoughts: Although I suspect it's not required, I believe it's in everyone's interest to deal fully with these issues before any binding votes. I also recommend that the City allow the residents to propose consultants for independent traffic and road impact studies, assessment of buildable land, and guidance on determining the final density bonus. 1 Jodi Gallup From: Dusty Finke Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 1:17 PM To: Scott Johnson; Steve Scherer; Batty, Ronald H. (rbatty@Kennedy-Graven.com); Tom Kellogg (TKellogg@wsbeng.com) Subject: FW: Stonegate: Deer Hill Road paving issue - follow up Attachments: Chapman Stonegate Traffic Study.pdf; ATT00001.htm FYI From: Kirsten [mailto:kirsten@visi.com] Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 12:15 PM To: Kathleen Martin; J Pederson; L Cousineau; J Anderson; B Mitchell; Dusty Finke Subject: Stonegate: Deer Hill Road paving issue - follow up Mr Mayor and Council Members: I have some additional information from both Federal and State recommendations regarding traffic volume and paving. ATTACHED is a PDF with notations. The Applicant's study says that the increased traffic onto Deer Hill likely will be 200 ADT, which, it asserts, isn't enough to require any changes to the road. Below are two very concerning things with this assessment. FIRST: The study cites the Federal Highway Administration Gravel Roads Maintenance and Design Manual, but in full. Study: "The average daily traffic volumes (ADT) used to justify paving generally range from 400 to 500 vehicles per day. When traffic volumes reach this range, serious consideration should be given to some kind of paving." SEE PAGE 1 in ATTACHED PDF Design Manual: "The average daily traffic volumes (ADT) used to justify paving generally range from a low of 50 vehicles per day to 400 or 500. When traffic volumes reach this range, serious consideration should be given to some kind of paving." SEE PAGES 2 - 3 in ATTACHED PDF SECOND: The study neglects to cite an article —"To Pave or Not to Pave?" —which has recommendations issued by the University of MN and MNDOT, which, unlike the more broad Federal recommendations above, has considerations for Minnesota -specific conditions. In this article. the threshold range for paving is 150-200 ADT. SEE PAGES 4 - 7 in ATTACHED PDF. My point in bringing this to your attention is two -fold: 1) I'm concerned that the City and Deer Hill Road residents may find that Deer Hill requires paving sooner rather than later. Residents need to be informed of this. Also, there needs to be an agreement about how this is going to be paid for —both to pave and to maintain. 2) It supports my assertion that it's prudent and worth the expense for the City to get 2nd opinions on some of the underlying assumptions of the proposed development so that there's complete confidence about key studies and 1 Page 4 of 4 With 402 new daily trips generated by the development, Homestead Trail would see approximately 303 new vehicles per day. Deerhill Road would see 25% of the 404 new trips, or approximately 101 new vehicular trips per day. Deerhill Road is currently an unpaved roadway with an average daily traffic (ADT) total of approximately 100 cars. The resulting ADT after development would be approximately 200 vehicles per day. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Gravel Roads Maintenance and Design Manual provides clear and helpful information to state and local agencies on the design and maintenance of unpaved roads. According to the Manual, "The average daily traffic volumes (ADT) used to justify paving generally range from 400 to 500 vehicles per day. When traffic volumes reach this range, serious consideration should be given to some kind of paving." Based on guidelines provided by the FHWA, Deerhill Road nue to .--- acceptably as an unpaved roadway after development. Conclusion The proposed development is expected to generate 48 trips in the highest peak hour, and 404 new daily trips. The low number of new trips is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding roadway network. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at scott@traffic-impact.com, or by phone at 612.875.2417. Sincerely Scott P. Israelson, P.E., PTOE Traffic Impact Group, LLC U.S. Department of Transportation y F ainte ante and Design Manual South Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program (SD LTAP) November 2000 D4 Appendix D: When to Pave a Gravel Road Answer 3: When Traffic Demands It The life of a road is affected by the number of vehides and the weight of the vehicles udng it.Generally speaking, the more vehides using a road,the faster it will deteriorate. The average daily traffic volumes (ADT) used to justify paving generally range from a low of 50 vehides per day to 400 or 500.Wien traffic volumes reach this range serious consider- ation should be given to some kind of paving. Traffic volurralone are merely guides Types of traffic should also be considered. Different types of traffic (and drivers) make different demands on roads. WII the road be used primarily by standard passenger cars or will it be a connecting road with considerable truck traffic? Overloaded trucks are most damaging to paved roads. The functional importance of the highway should also be considered.Generally speaking, if the road is a major road, it probably should be paved before residential or side roads are paved. Cn the other hand, a residential street may be eoonomically sealed or paved while a road with heavy truck usage may best be surfaced with gravel and left unpaved until suffident funds are available to place a thick load -bearing pavement on the road. Answer 4: After Standards Have Been Adopted Witten standards in the areas of design,construction and maintenance define the level of service we hope to achieve They are goals to aim for. Wthout written standards there is no common understanding about what a local government is striving for in road design, construction and maintenance. In deciding to pave a gravel road, is the local govemment con- fident it would be achieving the desired standards? Design and construdion standards do not have to be complex. It takes only a few pages to outline such things as right-of-way width, traveled way width, depth of base, drainage considera- tions (such as specifying minimum 18" culvert pipe),types of surfacing and the like Maintenance standards address the need for planned periodic maintenance A good maintenance plan protects local roads which for most counties represents many millions of dollars of investrruit. It also is an exoellent aid when it oorrr,time to create a budget. Considerations include: How often shall new gravel be applied to a gravel road? (Some roads require it more than others do.) Hann many tin ka per year are roads to be graded? How often and in what locations should caldum chloride or other road stabilizers be applied? WUiat is our plan for checking road signs? (Becauea of legal liability, a missing sign can be very costly if not replaced.) V\hat is our plan for ditching and shouldering? Answer 5: After Considering Safety and Design Paving a road tempts drivers to drive faster. As Teed increases, the road must be straighter, wider, and as free as possible from obstructions for it to be safe Paving low volume roads before correcting safety and design inadequacies encourages speeds which are unsafe, especially when the inadequacies" surprise" the driver. Because of the vast mileage of low volume roads it is difficult to reduce speeds by enforos rrent. Dads must be designed to provide safe travel for the expected volume at the design speed. To do this a number of physical features must be considered: • fight Distance • Design Boeed • Alignment and Curves • 8irfaw Friction • Lane Wdth • 3rperelevation It may be necessary to remove trees or other obstructions sud-1 as boulders from the road's edge. Some engineers insist that no road should be paved that is less than 22 feet wide If this standard is accepted, gravel roads must be widened before paving. Bridges may need widening. Considering these and other safety and design factors in the early stages of decision making can help to achieve the most economical road and one that will meet transportation needs. It makes no sense to pave a gravel road which is poorly designed and hazardous UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CENTER FUR TRANSPORTATION STUDIES Making informed decisions on when to upgrade a gravel road October 2006 LOCAL ROAD RESEARCH BOARD ottESotl Op TRpa 16, a' ' MINNESOTA LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM I ntroduction Paved roads provide i mprovement over gravel in ways that are hard to quantify with dol I ars, i ncl udi ng improved winter sur- faces, improved safety from i mproved si gnage and deli neati on, a safer surface with higher skid resistance, asmoother surfaLe that increases user satisfaction and reduces vehicle maintenance costs, redistribution of traf ! c away from gravel roads, and an i ncroascd tax base on adjacent property. Of the estimated 4 million mi I es of roads i n the United States, nearly half-1.5 million milts are unpaved. Unpaved roads serve a val ued purpose i n our roadway system, but mai ntenance costs are si gni ! cant. Paved roadways also are costly to man ntai n. Li ke everythi ng else, maintenance costs for both paved and unpaved roads are ri si ng. We need to optimize those costs to best serve the publ ic. Reduced funding and resources require us to be more of ! ci ent spenders of the money we do have. Preparing for future maintenance aid upgrades al I ows us to better manage funds that are avai I abl a now. How do we know when it's time to pave a gravel road? The decision is not easy. Two newly published research reports provide some direction aid assistance i n answe i ng this question. The projects outl i ned in the reports had different objectives, but both of them offer a method of cost -analysis based on spending history for I ow-vol ume roads, a method for esti mati ng maintenance and construction costs, and an economic analysis procedure. The ! rst report is Economics of Upgradi ng an Aggregrate Road. This report, published in 2005, was funded by the Minnesota Local Road Research Board (LRRB). As pat of this project, researchers exami ned roadway surface construction and mai ntenance costs to determi ne possi bl e threshold val ues to go from gravel to paved. The report is a✓ai I abl a online at: www. mnl tap. umn.edutreseurcesii nfrastructuref I owvoi ume. html. The second report is Local Road Surfacing Criteria. This report, publ i shed in 2004, was funded by the South Dakota DOT. I n this project, researchers developed a tool to compare the costs associated with different types of roads to determine the most economical surface type. This report is avai I abl e online at: www. mni tap. umn. ecluiresourceEli nf rastructure /i ow vol ume. html . To supplement the research reports, LRRB developed a PowerPoint presentation for use at local board or public information meetings. Its pri me objective is to i nform the public about the many factors to consider when devel opi ng a plan to mai ntai n or upgrade a gravel road. The presentation outl i nes information that engi neers and publ i c works staff consider when deciding whether to pave a gravel surface. Two versions of the LRRB pavi ng PowerPoi nt presentation are avai I abl e. One is designed to run on its own, with narration and an automatic slide show. The other is designed as a traditional PowerPoint presentation, with the user verbal izing the sl i de content and advanci ng the sl ides as needed. It includes a script for the user to read duri ng the presentation, if desired. The I ale Two key questions must be answered when developing a gravel road mai ntenance plan: 1. What is the best way to mai ntai n a gravel road? 2. When should the roadway be upgraded to a paved surface? These are not easy questions because many factors affect the answers. As noted above, the following two recent reports can be used to help decide when to upgrade a gravel road. Using M innesota's report: Economics of Upgrading an Aggregrate Road This project, conducted in M i nne ota, offers an analysis of county mai ntenance costs, practices, and traf ! c vol umes for individual roads. This i nformati on helps to determi ne when it may be advantageous to upgrade the road, based on cumulative maintenance costs The data presented i n the report can be used by others, or they can develop similar costs with their own data For this project, the i ni ti al data col I ecti on i ncl uded 16 M i nnesota counties, broken i nto four regions around the state. It i ncl udes maintenance costs for both bituminous (or asphalt) and gravel roads, as well as the volume of traf ! c traveling over the roads. Basel i ne data was obtai ned from annual reports submitted to the StateAid Division of Mn/DOT from 1997 to 2001, and roads were grouped by funding source as County State Aid Highways (CSAH), county roads (funded entirely by county funds), and townshi p and munici pal roads. Four of the counties were then analyzed further to develop typical costs per mile for a variety of surface options, i ncl udi ng gravel and paved. Researchers conducted an i ni ti al data anal ysi s for Waseca County, which provided a snapshot of the kind of information avai I abl a for use i n this study. Figure 1 shows actual mai ntenance costs per mi le in VVaseca County for ! ve different roadway surfaces: • Low-vol ume bi tumi nous roads • Low-vol ume gravel roads • Concrete pavement • Hi gh-vol ume bi tumi nous roads • Hi gh-vol ume gravel roads. Note that maintenance costs per mile for high -volume gravel roads are highest. This brochure and the materials it references are available online from Minnesota LTAP at: www. mnitap. umn.edu/resourcesii of rastructurell ovvvol ume.html Figure 2 i I I ustrates the effect of traf ! c on maintenance costs per mile for one county. The roads are grouped by traf !c volume and surface type along the bottom of the graph. An increase in traf ! c does lead to an increase in maintenance costs, especially for gravel roads. This is due to more lost gravel due to wear, and an increased need for blading and smoothing of the road surface. Note that at a traf !c volume of 200 ADT, gravel road maintenance costs increase signi ! cantly. (ADT stands for average daily traf !c, or the number of vehicles that pass over a given section of roadway in one day.) This offers a possible threshold for determining when this agency might pave a gravel road. Using this report in your agency The M i nnesota report can be used to assist local agencies in estimating their own main- tenance costs per mi I e. Agencies can use that data to decide if paving a gravel road is the best alternative. The report directs users to: 1. Review the hi stori cal costs of maintaining paved roads for your agency. (If those costs are not avai I abl e, review data for one of the four counties analyzed in the report to get an idea of what your costs might be.) 2. Compute estimated gravel road maintenance costs per mile for your agency. 3. For a proposed upgrade, develop a cost estimate in the someway a contractor would for any new construction project under consideration. 4. Evaluate this cost estimate to compare the alternatives and make a decision for each roadway segment under question. By using the information presented in this report, an agency can evaluate its ty pi cal ma ntenance and construction costs, as well as identify the annual maintenance costs fora given type of roadway (whether it's paved or unpaved), and the typical construction costs for a variety of surface projects. Directions are also given for performing a present -worth and ysi s to ma ntenance and construction costs for a roadway section to see what the equiva ent mai ntenance and construction costs are in today' s dol I ars. Cumulative Cast/mile ($) MAINTENANCE COST/MILE $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $- 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Time (years) Low Volume Bituminous -x•-• Low Volume Gravel Concrete High Volume Eituminous High Volume Gravel Figure 1. Cumulative Maintenance Costs/M ile for One County $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 N rn O J) N r` v- rn rn rn O m L. N Vr 6) ‘71" O 01 = N M - i i i O O N � O V) O O '- r- N N m r-- ADT RANGE ■ HTUMINOUS ■ GRAVEL Figure 2. Maintenance CostsiM ileat Various Traf !c Levelsfor One County Using South Dakota's report: Local Road Surfacing Criteria The second tool was comp) eted as part of a project that i nvesti - gated several surfacing criteria for I ow-vol ume roads. The main objective of this project was to create a process compari ng mal ntenance requi rements for different surfer. ty pes to assist in selecting the most economical alternative under a given set of conditions. Surf types include hot -mix asphalt, blotter, gravel, and stabi I i zed gravel roads. Many of the project elements are si mi I ar to the M i nnesota project. However, the South Dakota project developed an occy- to-use computerized tool that lows agencies to i nput local costs and treatments to ! t thei r own conditions. This computerized tool leads the user through a series of steps to: 1. Input information about the road section, i ncl udi ng the project limits and the average dal I y traf ! c (A DT) count. 2. Input the actual agency mai ntenance and oonstructi on costs, broken down by surface type. 3. Estimate user costs, which are costs to the people that drive on the roads, and i ncl ude vehicle operati ng and crash costs associated with a roadway surfa-etype. These user costs can even be weighted to give them more or less importance in the analysis. After all the initial input variables are submitted, the computer program summarizes total costs for bui Idi ng and mai ntai ni ng each roadway type. The evaluator then i nputs other non -economic factors that relate to all surface types, i ncl udi ng growth rates for an area housing concentration and dust control needs, mall route locations, truck traf!c, and political considerations. Aga n, the eve uator is alI owed to weight each of the factors i n the anal ysi s. This tool provides output that is both easy to generate and understand. Cost comparisons can be computed for several alternatives In addition, the user is assisted in selecting appropriate input variables for a typical agency. The results are objective and assist in making a clear comparison for a variety of roadway surface types. Accessing and using the computerized tool Thistool isavallableonline at: www.mnitap.umn.edu/ re�urcsvi nfrastructure /Iowvol ume. html . Useful information regarding this report can be downloaded in three forms: v Full Report— the complete report, with references, data and research process f ul I y outl i ned. v User's Gui de —a hands-on guide that introduces the macro -driven, Excel-basui analytical tool developed to apply the low-vol umeroad management methodologies recommended under the project. v Technical Brief —developed to provide a step-by-step procedure for maki ng road -surtax type decisions between different surface materials (hot -mix asphalt [HMA], blotter, gravel, and stabilized gravel) on low -volume roadways. The methodology presented in this Technical Brief provides practical tool to assist agencies with decisions about the most cost-effective road stem. type to be used in various situations. The User' s Gui de will outl i ne all steps requi red to download the software and populate the requi red ! el ds with I ocal data It is a comprehensive guide to understanding every i nput vari abl e aval 1 abl e for the analysis. Using this report in your agency With this tool, the user can input actual local costs for mainte- nance and construction activities. The user also can supplement those costs with road -user costs (such as crash data and qual ity - of -life considerations), as well as other non -economic factors. The computer program then provides actual ratings for each surface type based on the different input variables The user can then select one surfacing alternative over another, based on these ratings and local priorities. Summary The results of both gravel road studi es note that mai ntenance and construction costs vary considerably from one agency to another, and from one aeon to another. Traf ! c is a primary factor in deciding to pave or not to pave. The Minnesota study found that gravel road mai ntenance costs per mile appear to increase considerably after an A DT level of 200 vehicles/day. On the other hand, the South Dakota study found that paved roads are most cost-effective at ADT levels above 150 vehicles/day. So, decisions can be made based on traf ' c data, local construction and ma ntenance costs, and area growth vauesto determine if and when a roadway should be paled. s- information from both reports can be used to make informed decisions about paving a gravel road, or mal ntaini ng it as a gravel surfme. Thanks to the ! ndi ngs of both projects, we are better prepared to move forward in de✓elopi ng an of ! ci ent and appropri ate mai ntenance and construction strategy. Fi nal I y, the presentation developed by LRRB can assist local highway staff i n maki ng the publ i c aware of the many factors affecti ng the decision. Acknowledgements We appreciate the assistance of the fol 1 owi ng people who served on the Technical Advisory Panel for this project: Dave Fricke, M innesota Association of Townships Eddie Johnson, M n/DOT M i ke Sheehan, Olmsted County Roger Olson, Mn/DOT Kathy Schaefer. Mn/DOT and Minnesota LTA P/CTAP Paul Stine, M n/DOT Jim Grothaus, M i nneQnta LTA P delineations, etc before making any commitments to any plan. And I believe the City would earn a great deal of goodwill if it allows the residents to propose study consultants for the City to consider. Again, I plan to be at Tuesday's meeting if you have any questions. Kirsten Chapman 1910 Iroquois Drive 763.475.9150 2 Agenda Item # 8A MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: August 12, 2015 MEETING: August 18, 2015 City Council SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment — Deck Upland Buffer Setbacks Background The City's wetland protection ordinance requires that vegetative buffers be established adjacent to wetlands in new developments. The purpose of these buffers is to "protect the wetland from erosion and filter sediment, chemicals and other nutrients from the runoff that drains into the Wetland. An Upland Buffer also provides wildlife habitat and assists in maintaining diversity of both plant and animal species within the city." The wetland protection ordinance also requires that structures be set back an additional distance beyond the buffer. Principal structures are required to be 15 feet from the buffer, and accessory structures are required to be 5 feet. The purpose of the setback is to provide a space outside of the buffer for outdoor activities. This is meant to reduce the likelihood that a property owner will violate and impact the buffer in order to allow for typical outdoor activities. There are a number of homes within the Enclave neighborhood which back onto wetland areas which had houses constructed which left comparatively little space for construction of decks. A number of these owners have expressed concerns to staff that they could not construct the deck that they desired. A number of the owners inquired about variances to allow for the decks. Staff believes that the circumstance is not unique and is, in fact, fairly common. As a result, staff did not believe a series of variances was appropriate. Instead, staff suggested that the owners request that the Planning Commission and City Council review the regulation. One of the owners formally applied for an amendment to the wetland protection ordinance which would reduce the required setback for a deck to 5 feet (the same as an accessory structure). The owner spoke at a City Council meeting. Because so many owners had expressed an interest in the potential amendment, the Council directed staff to review rather than placing responsibility of the cost onto the owner. The Planning Commission reviewed the request to reduce the setback for decks to 5 feet at the July meeting and the Commission unanimously recommended against amending the ordinance. The interested resident from the Enclave inquired if the Commission would support a reduction to 10 feet. At the August meeting, the Commission voted 5-1 against reducing the setback to 10 feet. Minutes from these Commission discussions are attached. Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 2 August 18, 2015 Deck Upland Buffer Setbacks City Council Meeting Analysis As noted above, staff believes the intent of the setback is to provide a space outside of the buffer for outdoor activities and to reduce the likelihood of impacts into the buffer. The purpose is not to limit hardcover adjacent to the buffer, as evidenced by the fact that accessory structures have a reduced setback of 5 feet and improvements such as a patio would not require a setback at all. Allowing a reduced setback for uncovered decks from wetland buffers may result in situations where a property owner looks to convert or replace the deck with a 3- or 4-season porch, but this would not be permitted because of the setback. In fact, at least one resident of the Enclave has already stated that they would be interested in a 3-season porch rather than a deck. Not having to make a distinction between a deck, 3-season porch, 4-season porch, or a full addition onto the house is one of the benefits of having a consistent setback requirement. Despite the argument for consistency, staff feels the more limited amendment for decks would be preferable to reducing the setback for all structures. Upland buffers have only recently began to be established and staff does not have information to rely on to determine if larger setbacks reduce impacts to the buffers. The amendment, as proposed, would allow certain lots a much larger building envelope for a deck than would be currently permitted. Staff considered more complicated alternatives which would only permit a certain area or % of the 15-foot setback to be encroached upon. This would allow some additional flexibility for decks while maintaining more ground space. Staff could look into such regulations further, but have some concern about being difficult to administer on a case -by -case basis across the City. Attachment 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Resolution Authorizing Publication of the Ordinance by Title and Summary 3. Excerpt from July 14, 2015 Planning Commission meeting 4. Excerpt from DRAFT August 11, 2015 Planning Commission meeting 5. Letter from person requesting amendment 6. List of property owners supporting amendment Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 2 August 18, 2015 Deck Upland Buffer Setbacks City Council Meeting CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE REGARDING SETBACKS FOR DECKS FROM UPLAND BUFFERS AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 828.43, Subd. 5. of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows: Section 828.43. Wetlands Conservation. Subd. 5. Upland Buffer Zone and Required Buffer Setbacks. (a) If a new development activity, as defined in subdivision 3(c)(i) of this section, is proposed, the following Upland Buffer Zone and Buffer Setbacks shall be required for each Wetland, or portion of Wetland, within the subject property. In the event that zoning district regulations differ from the following table, the standards or procedures described within the zoning district regulations shall be required: Wetland Classification Upland Buffer Zone Average Width Minimum Buffer Setback (Principal Structure)* Buffer Setback (Accessory Structure) Upland Buffer Zone Width Preserve (at least partly within or adjacent to a DNR Mapped Area) 50 feet 30 feet 15 feet 5 feet All Other Preserve 35 feet 25 feet 15 feet 5 feet Manage 1 30 feet 20 feet 15 feet 5 feet Manage 2 25 feet 20 feet 15 feet 5 feet Manage 3 20 feet 15 feet 15 feet 5 feet * Uncovered decks and uncovered porches attached to the principal structure may extend into the required setback, but shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the Upland Buffer. SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this day of , 2015. Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator -Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the day of , 2015. Member _ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2015-## RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. ### BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, the city council of the city of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ### an ordinance regarding setbacks for decks from upland buffers, amending chapter 8 of the city code; 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 contains a table; 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 administrator -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 regarding setbacks for decks from upland buffers. The ordinance establishes a reduced setback requirement of 10 feet for decks from upland buffers. The current setback is 15 feet for the principal structure and decks. The full text of Ordinance No. ### is available from the city administrator -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 administrator -clerk keep a copy of the ordinance in his office at city hall for public inspection and that he post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place within the city. Resolution No. 2015-## August 18, 2015 Dated: August 18, 2015. Bob Mitchell, Mayor ATTEST: Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator -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. 2015-## 2 August 18, 2015 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 7/14/2015 Meeting Minutes Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to Setbacks from Upland Wetland Buffers Finke provided background information explaining that in a new development situation current City regulations trigger the establishment of vegetative buffers upland from wetlands, which range in width from 20 to 50 feet. He stated that there is also a setback from structures based on the type of structure. He noted that accessory structures have a five-foot setback from buffers. He explained that the purpose of the setback from the buffer is to protect the buffer, which protects the wetland. He stated that in the Enclave neighborhood there are a number of properties that have limited depth to construct decks because of the way the homes were built on the lot and the wetland buffer setbacks. He noted that staff has received about half a dozen requests from homeowners in the Enclave that would like to build decks but are not allowed because of the setback. He stated that one homeowner requested a text amendment, which would decrease the setback from 15 feet to five feet for uncovered decks. He noted that the resident approached the City Council to request action and the Council requested that the matter move forward in this manner. He noted that there are letters of support from residents within the Enclave, noting that there are additional homeowners that would be interested in decks that simply have not yet applied. He noted that the wetland buffers are providing the water quality protection necessary. He noted that as drafted this would prevent a three or four season porch and would only allow uncovered decks. Albers confirmed that a deck could include a combination of covered and uncovered if the covered portion meets the necessary setback requirement. Williams questioned the purpose of allowing only uncovered decks. He stated that he does not see the purpose of distinguishing. Nolan questioned if a variance could be provided. Reid stated that the Commission did discuss the issue with Lennar when reviewing the Enclave development plans, as they could see that there would not be room for decks. Murrin stated that if there is more buildable space on a lot that would be used and that would encourage larger houses on smaller lots. Nolan opened the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. Kyle Abell, resident of Enclave neighborhood, stated that Lennar did tell them about the setback before they purchased the property but noted that he does want to build a deck. He stated that they would be okay with an uncovered deck. Reid questioned how many feet the home is from the structure. Abell stated that only one corner of his deck would encroach into the setback area. Albers questioned if that is the case in that development that only a small portion of the deck would fall into the setback area. Finke stated that it is common that the full back of the deck would encroach in that development. White questioned if the setback were reduced from 15 feet to 10 feet would that be enough. 1 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 7/14/2015 Meeting Minutes Abell stated that would be enough for his property but did not know if that would be enough for other property owners. Murrin questioned where the rest of the homeowners were tonight and confirmed that they were notified as well. Abell stated that they were notified and had sent him to speak, noting that an email had been sent as well. He stated that Charlie Morse had sent an email to residents within the Enclave and believed there were about 40 to 50 responses. Nolan closed the public hearing at 10:50 p.m. Finke stated that developers do consider some reasonable decks when laying out the lots. He agreed that reducing the setback would push that building envelope for developers. Nolan stated that he would be surprised if there was a lesser price for the lots with the smaller backyards. He stated that if the setback is reduced a developer will come in with homes closer to the wetland buffer. He stated that while he is sympathetic to the homeowners that want decks, the ordinance cannot be set based on those six homeowners. He noted that is why he would support a variance rather than changing the setback. Williams stated that the homeowners purchased the lots knowing that the decks could not be built. White agreed that while she is sympathetic to the homeowners they were told, or should have been told about the setback. Motion by White, seconded by Albers, to recommend denial of an Ordinance amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code related to setbacks from upland wetland buffers. Motion approved unanimously. (Absent: Foote) Nolan noted that the residents can still attend the Council meeting to voice their concern. Finke stated that he would contact the resident to advise him of when this would go before the City Council. 2 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 8/11/2015 Meeting Minutes Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to Setbacks from Upland Wetland Buffers Finke stated that this proposed amendment was considered before the Commission the previous month, which would reduce the setback to a wetland for a deck from 15 feet to five feet and the Commission recommended denial. He stated that the residents were interested in alternate options and one of those options would be to reduce the setback from 15 feet to ten feet rather than five feet. He asked if the Commission would be in support of this proposal. Reid stated that when the 15-foot setback was set she believed that staff reviewed the requirements of other cities. Finke stated that staff did review the requirements of another city that used a wetland specialist that determined that more of a setback assisted the wetland. Reid opened the public hearing 8:38 p.m. Charles Morris, stated that he lives in the Enclave development and submitted the original proposal. He stated that many of the homes in that development are laid out in a manner, which would make it very difficult to construct a deck because of the location of the wetlands. He stated that many of the residents would like a little more leniency, noting that he would simply need two additional feet for the deck he would like to build. He stated that the homeowners are not attempting to construct grandiose decks but simply a deck that attaches to their home and their families could enjoy. He stated that for his property the relation to the wetland is angled and if he had an additional two feet he could make the deck more of a square and could simply fit his grill, patio set and some space for eight to ten people. White asked how the issue of decks was related to the homeowner when they purchased their home. Morris stated that Lennar did not go into the building requirements and deferred to the City for any specifics regarding to building code conformance. He stated that the only requirement from Lennar was that the deck would be submitted to them for aesthetic review. Reid asked if the builder normally builds the deck as well. Morris replied that it not the case. Reid asked if all the homeowners then build their own decks. Morris stated that he could not speak for everyone but noted that he did not receive an offer or option for them to build his deck. Reid stated that she did look at the development and some of them had decks. Morris stated that he purchased his home two years ago and there was no option to include a deck. He stated that the builder was not even willing to place the strip on the home to start the deck. He noted that he was told that he would have to submit an application to Lennar showing what he proposed to ensure that the deck would fit the design guidance and that the permit process would go through the City. Foote questioned how far the setback would be if the homeowner were to build the deck as he desired. 1 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 8/11/2015 Meeting Minutes Morris stated that the setback from his deck would be 13 feet as desired. He stated that ten feet would be sufficient for himself but noted that will not correct the issue of all the homeowners in the development as the setback to the wetland is different for the different homes. He stated that perhaps the residents and City can work together to find a setback that would work for both the City and those in the development that would like to have a deck to fully enjoy their property. Kristin Chapman, 1910 Iroquois Drive, stated that one of the benefits of Medina is its natural resources. She stated that she called the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to find out additional information on setbacks, noting that there are minimal and optimal requirements. She stated that the City has done a lot to be minimal rather than optimal and those changes erode the natural resources that they are attempting to protect. She stated that while this may not be in the interest of some homeowners, it is important to protect the natural resources. Williams asked what the optimal setbacks would be. Chapman stated that she did not receive that information as the staff person was going to get back to her the following day. Foote stated that he was not present at the meeting the previous month and questioned what the Commission had decided. Reid stated that the Commission recommended denial of the request. She stated that this issue was discussed when the Enclave development was reviewed because of this purpose. Murrin stated that when the Commission spoke with Kyle the previous month he had stated that Lennar did tell him about the setback requirement noting that while some homeowners were not informed, others were. Chapman stated that it is the responsibility of the buyer to known their rights beforehand if they plan to build a deck onto a property when they are buying the home. Reid closed the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. White stated that enforceability would also be an issue as an open deck could then transition into a three season or four -season porch. Albers stated that if the setback is reduced then the concern would be that builders would build the homes even further towards the setback. Reid stated that perhaps these homes were priced the way they were because of the knowledge that it would be difficult to construct decks. Finke provided additional information on the vegetative wetland buffer requirements of the City, which range in 20 to 50 feet, and noted that there is an additional five-foot setback for accessory structures and 15 feet for the principle structure. Williams asked the rational to allow a patio to go against the buffer but not a deck. Finke stated that the thought was that the purpose of the setback, not the buffer, is to reduce the likelihood that there would be a violation in the buffer area. He stated that the wetland buffer easement is fairly restrictive on what can be done. 2 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 8/11/2015 Meeting Minutes Reid asked and received confirmation that you do not have to pull a permit for a patio while you do need a permit to construct a deck. Albers asked and received confirmation that a permit would be necessary to change a deck to a three - season porch. Williams stated that while the setback is an arbitrary line that the City draws, they drew the line at 15 feet, and residents of Lennar should have been made aware of the issue when they purchased their home. He stated that if they were not told, they should take that up with Lennar. Murrin stated that she also feels that it is important to preserve the greenspace in Medina as there is more and more pressure for development. She stated that the Commission has only heard from two people, one last week and one the previous month, so perhaps the issue is not as important as it is being made to seem to those other people. She stated that perhaps a variance request should be made by the residents so that a decision could be made on a case by case basis rather than applying a standard across the board. Reid stated that perhaps she would be willing to decrease the setback by a few feet, but she definitely would not want covered decks. Albers stated that he would be more comfortable with each individual coming forward rather than applying a lesser standard across the board. Reid asked how residents would even gain a variance for a deck. Finke agreed that it would be difficult to obtain a variance for a deck. Motion by Williams, seconded by Murrin, to recommend denial of an Ordinance amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code related to setbacks from upland wetland buffers. Motion approved 5-1 (Reid opposed). (Absent: Nolan) Reid stated that she would be comfortable with a 12 or 13-foot setback and thinks it would be difficult for residents to obtain a variance for a deck, which is why she opposed the vote. 3 May 30, 2015 Medina Planning Commission 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 RE: Subd. 5. Upland Buffer Zone and Required Buffer Setbacks Dear Madam/ Sir; I am writing to you for consideration in amending the setback requirements related to upland buffer zones. My request is to amend the current setback requirement from 15'-0 to 5'-0 for all uncovered decks and porches attached to a principle structure. This would then allow for decks to extend into the current wetland setback. My request is based on the issue that I, and many of my neighbors, am challenged with building a functional and useful deck for our homes. The current zone requirement for the wetland setback line exists 15'-0 from the wetland buffer line. This area in my yard, as well as my neighbors, is currently occupied by grass and other landscaping. The current setback requirements only allow us to build from the face of our house up to the wetland setback line. This limitation forces us to utilize odd shapes for deck space, inconvenient locations for stairs and added costs for unique design construction while open yard space is available to utilize. Approval of this amendment request would allow for decks to extend or occupy space in the wetland setback area up to 5'-0 from the wetland buffer line. This amended change would also bring the deck setback requirements consistent with the current requirements for accessory structures such as sheds or other manmade structures. (Exhibit A) In addition to my request, I have also spoke with many neighbors to confirm support for this change. I have attached a list of owner names and addresses that support this amendment request. (Exhibit B) I hope the commission will see the value of amending this requirement for homeowners and the added enjoyment and value it will bring to residents of Medina. If the commission or council needs any additional details or information, I would be happy to provide or facilitate if needed. Sincerely, Charles Morse 3224 Butternut Drive Medina, MN 55340 Enclave Amendment Support List - 06-03-2015 Quantity Name 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Charlie & Berit Morse Angela and Jeff Johnson Kyle and Elizabeth Abell Kavitha and Shawn Bernet Nick Morrison Tom & Merissa Browning Michael and Melissa Kremer G. William McCoy Andy and Wendy Lanik Peter Vlad Rigo & Kacie Brioschi Geg and Kristen Seremet John and Jennifer Roberts Andrew &Caitlyn Rosendahl Travis and Cady Mattson Colin and Mara Ryan Lisa and Aaron Amic Jason and Lindsey Vaughan Mike Bitzer Justin Reid Mike and Allison Fetrow John Melsen Julia Roaldson Nikki & Matt cole Dan Munsell Scott and Molly Prentice Aaron and Tracy Norman Nathan and Deb Honstad Brody & Steph Heinrich Amy Patt Shawn and Kim Holzschuh Amna Khalid and Khalid Amin Brent and Joy Scheil Address 3224 Butternut Drive 3229 Pin Oak Road 3126 Butternut Drive 3129 Butternut Drive 3278 Butternut Drive 3257 Butternut Drive 3275 Butternut Dr 3153 Magnolia Drive 3224 Magnolia Drive 3236 Pin Oak Road 3136 Wild Flower Trail 3200 Magnolia Drive 3232 Magnolia Drive 3277 Pin Oak Rd 3315 Butternut Drive 3196 Butternut Drive 3045 Butternut Drive 3154 Wild Flower Trail 3121 Wild Flower Tr 3151 Wildflower Tr. 3181 Magnolia Drive 3208 Magnolia Drive 3405 Butternut Drive. 3375 Butternut Drive 3157 Wild Flower Trl. 3302 Butternut Drive 3225 Butternut Dr 3374 Butternut Dr 3167 Magnolia Dr 3168 Magnolia Dr 3059 Butternut Drive 3225 Magnolia drive 3235 Pin Oak Rd City Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Medina Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Agenda Item # 8B CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2015- RESOLUTION TO CONTRACT WITH A COUNCIL MEMBER WHEREAS, the City of Medina desires to have Highway 55 Rental furnish the following items for Medina Celebration Day: Rental of one canopy tent (20x40), two kid's games and a large popcorn popper, as well as purchase of two cases of popcorn and 500 bags; and WHEREAS, Jeff Pederson is a Council Member of the City and will be financially interested in the contract; and WHEREAS, it is determined that the contract price of $800 is as low as, or lower than, the price at which the goods can be obtained elsewhere at this time; WHEREAS, the contract is not one that is required to be competitively bid; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Medina, Minnesota that the City Clerk is directed to make the above -mentioned rental and purchase on behalf of the City from Jeff Pederson of Highway 55 Rental at a contract price of $800. It is also resolved that the Mayor and City Clerk are directed to issue an order -check to pay the claim on the filing of an affidavit of official interest by the interested official as required under Minn. Stat. §471.89. This resolution is passed to comply with the provisions of Minn. Stat.§§471.87-.89. Dated: August 18, 2015. Bob Mitchell, Mayor ATTEST: Scott Johnson, City Administrator -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. 2015- August 18, 2015 Affidavit of Official Interest in Claim STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN I, , being duly sworn state the following: 1) I am a City Council Member of the City of Medina, MN. 2) On September 19, 2015, the following equipment will be furnished by Hwy 55 Rental to the City of Medina: One 20 x 40 tent, two kid's games, and a large popcorn machine (including popcorn and bags). 3) The contract rental price for such equipment and supplies will be approximately $800, which includes a 25% discount off the regular rental rate as a donation, as well as delivery and set up. 4) At the time the equipment is rented to the City, I will have the following personal financial interest in this contract: I am one of the owners in Hwy 55 Rental. To the best of my knowledge and belief the contract rental price is as low as, or lower than the price at which the equipment could be rented from other sources. I further state that this affidavit constitutes a claim against the City for the contract rental price, that the claim is just and correct, and that no part of the claim has been paid. Council Member Jeff Pederson Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of August, 2015. Notary Signature MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: August 12, 2015 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates August 18, 2015 City Council Meeting Land Use Application Review A) Stonegate Conservation Design Subdivision — west of Deerhill, East of Homestead. The applicant has requested PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat approval for a conservation design subdivision of 421ots on 170 gross acres. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter at the July 14 meeting and found that the proposed conservation design subdivision does not fully meet the objectives of the CD -district. As a result, the Commission recommended denial. The Park Commission reviewed on July 15. The City Council reviewed on August 5 and asked for a number of changes. B) Buehler Plat — Robert Buehler has requested approval of a plat to separate 2782 Willow Drive from an adjacent property. The parcels were a single lot and a previous owner sold portions of the lot to two separate buyers. The applicant seeks to subdivide the property to create a buildable lot, and the other portion of the property would be platted as an outlot. Planning Commission held a hearing at the August 11 meeting and split 3-3 on the recommendation. Staff intends to present to the Council at the September 1 meeting. C) Etzel Setback Variance — 2942 Lakeshore Ave. — Brian Etzel has requested a variance to reduce the setback from Balsam Street from 30 feet to 12 feet for expansion of an existing deck. The proposed expansion is proposed to be setback the same distance as the existing deck, continuing the same building line. The Planning Commission reviewed at the August 11 meeting and recommended approval. Staff intends to present to the Council at the September 1 meeting. D) Wealshire LLC Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Site Plan Review — Wealshire, LLC has requested a site plan review for construction of a 173,000 sf memory care facility. The request also includes a rezoning from RR-UR to Business Park and an Interim Use Permit to permit continued agricultural use of the portion of the property not proposed to be developed. The Met Council has also approved of the previous Comp Plan amendment. The Planning Commission meeting reviewed the rezoning, site plan review and interim use permit at the February 10 meeting and unanimously recommended approval. The City Council reviewed at the May 19 meeting and directed staff to prepare approval documents. These will be presented later in the summer. E) St. Peter and Paul Cemetery and Hamel Place —The City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects. F) Woods of Medina, Capital Knoll— these preliminary plats have been approved and staff is awaiting a final plat application G) Hamel Haven subdivisions, Wakefield Valley Farm — These subdivisions have all received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before construction begins H) Goddard School Site Plan Review — PJ Norman LLC has requested Site Plan Review approval to construct a new building to house a Goddard School at 345 Clydesdale Trail (next to Caribou Coffee). The City Council approved the project on July 21 and staff is working with the applicant on the conditions of approval before construction. I) Wright -Hennepin Solar Panels — WH has requested a conditional use permit for the installation of a solar garden approximately an acre in area at their substation on Willow Drive, south of Highway Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 August 18, 2015 City Council Meeting 55. The Council adopted a resolution of approval at the June 16 meeting. Staff will work with the applicant to meet the conditions of approval before construction. Other Proiects A) Deck Upland Buffer Setbacks — a resident of the Enclave development has requested that the City reconsider the requirement that decks be set back 15 feet from Upland Buffers. The setback limits the size of decks on a number of the lots in the Enclave development. Staff presented the ordinance at the July Planning Commission meeting. The Commission was concerned of the unintended consequences of reducing the required setback and recommended denial. Following the Planning Commission review, the interested parties requested that the Commission consider a 10 foot setback. The Planning Commission recommended denial 5-1 on August 11. Staff intends to present to the Council on August 18. B) Watershed Dues Analysis — Planning staff prepared figures for the City Council's review at the August 18 special session related to establishing different stormwater utility fees for each watershed district so that residents of Elm Creek and Pioneer -Sarah Creek can pay the cost. C) Commercial connection fees — Planning staff provided information to Finance related to historical commercial connection fees and projections in the future. This information will be discussed at the August 18 worksession. Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 August 18, 2015 City Council Meeting MEDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT 600 Clydesdale Trail Medina, MN 55340.9790 p:763-473-9209 f: 763.473-8858 non -emergency: 763-525-6210 MEMORANDUM Emergency 9.1-1 TO: City Administrator Scott Johnson and City Council FROM: Director Edgar J. Belland DATE: August 14, 2015 RE: Department Updates Night to Unite The 2015 Night to Unite event went very well. All the parties throughout the City were well attended. I greatly appreciated the assistance from the fire departments. For some reason, the kids gravitate to the big trucks. The kids also like the police cars. CSO Brandon Wenande did a great job of organizing the parties again this year. I want to thank Brandon and all the police officers and firefighters who worked the event. I also want to thank the mayor, council members, and Administrator Johnson for participating in the event. I believe the residents enjoyed meeting with all of you and getting to know you outside of city hall. Planning for Fall Events With the State Fair just around the corner, we are in full swing preparing for the Loretto FunFest and the Medina Celebration Day coming up in September. Loretto FunFest will be on September 12th and Medina Celebration Day is September 19th. Please mark your calendars for these events, they should be fun. Department Meeting On August 13th we are holding our bi-monthly department meeting. We will be doing OSHA required hearing tests on all the officers. We will have a drug taskforce representative give a presentation on marijuana wax describing the dangers, and what evidence to look for during an investigation. We have had two recent cases involving this wax. After the meeting, we will have a personal trainer come in and go over the exercise equipment in the workout room to show how to correctly use it. Patrol by Sergeant Jason Nelson Patrol Activities For the dates of July 29 to August 11, 2015, our officers issued 68 citations and 99 warnings for various traffic infractions. There were a total of four driving while impaired arrests, three traffic accidents, 14 medicals, and 12 alarms. On July 30, 2015, Officer Gregory took a theft from auto report at the Medina Golf and Country Club. While taking that report, I responded to Target for a male who had attempted to purchase several hundred dollars in gift cards using a female's credit card. It was learned that the male was the same male who had stolen the purse from a car at the country club. The male had left prior to our arrival. Case forwarded to Investigations for follow up. On July 31, 2015, Officers Gregory and Jessen arrested a male driving an ATV down the railroad tracks in Hamel. The male did not have a driver's license and stated that he was just going to get gas at the Mobil. Driver was arrested for DWI. On August 3, 2015, a citizen called to report that he had been the victim of a computer scam. Party stated that he had received a pop-up on his computer and that when he called the number on it, he spoke with a male who stated that for $200 he could remove the pop- up for six months. The caller paid the $200, but then two months later he received the same pop-up so he called the number back and the caller then wanted $500 to remove it. The computer was taken to someone to get the malware removed from it. This is a common Internet scam. On August 6, 2015, Officer Gregory and I responded to a vehicle that had rolled on Highway 55 and was upside down in the swamp. Upon arrival, the driver was found to have bumps and bruises but was fine. The driver, 70 years old, admitted to dropping her phone and then taking off her seatbelt to reach the phone on the floor. While reaching for the phone, she pulled the steering wheel and drove across oncoming rush hour traffic and ended up upside down in the ditch. On August 6, 2015, I took a theft report from Mobil. Manager reported that on back to back mornings, a female came into the store and stole a handful of 5-Hour Energy drinks Manager watched on camera after the female had left the second day and noticed that she would stuff her bra with the drinks Officer Jessen waited at the gas station the following morning and the female did not come into the store. On August 8, 2015, Officers Converse and McGill responded to Loretto for a drunken person. Upon arrival, they located a male who was passed out in his mom's vehicle. Mom stated that her son (over 40) had went for a walk and never came back so she went looking for him by the liquor store and found him passed out on the side of the road. She got him into the car but when they got home, she could not get him into the house. The male was transported to the hospital via North Ambulance. Investigations by Investigator Charmane Domino Report of lawn care equipment, including a riding mower, reported stolen overnight from a business. Business reported another theft involving more mowers and lawn care equipment. Possible suspect has been identified. Investigation to continue. Received a report from adult protection about concerns of a vulnerable adult's welfare. Conducting a background check on a reserve officer applicant. Received two reports from a local business of suspicious purchases being made by credit cards. It was learned the credit cards had been recently stolen in thefts from motor vehicles nearby. Open cases currently under investigation: 2 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE: August 12, 2015 MEETING: August 18, 2015 SUBJECT: Public Works Update STREETS • Because of the support of the City Council and its residents, the streets in the City of Medina are in great shape. In the past 8 years the City has been very proactive with our maintenance and our overlay program and it shows. I only say this because it is budget time and we are asking for an increase in our street material budget. In fact, with everything going on I just may be over budget for 2015. What you won't see in the City is a crew working all summer patching potholes. My crew is out working on other City projects with that time saved. Long story short, your investment in the streets not only keeps the streets in great shape, but allows many other projects to get done. • Hamel Road now has the curb and base asphalt installed. At this time the contractor is working on utilities on Tower Drive. Parking is tight, but the water treatment plant is being utilized, along with other lots that are available. • Sioux Drive was closed last week for a sewer and water hook up to the Aldi site. Meander was closed the week prior for the waste and sewer hookup to the Villas project. • There is a resolution in your packet asking MnDOT for a speed study to be completed on Meander and Chippewa roads. • We have been doing a lot of brush cutting along some City streets whenever we have a moment to do street maintenance. It makes me aware of how important street ROW is when we are performing simple tasks along the streets. Space helps create a safer work environment. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER • Public Works has cleared and grubbed out the site for the storm pond on Ardmore Avenue. We will be excavating by the end of the week if weather permits. We are waiting on some storm water structures to be manufactured, but should have them here to install the week of August 17tn • With all the new hookups and development, our water operator has been very busy rerouting water and trying to keep up with water meter MXU radio installations. • Well #8 pre -con is scheduled for August 22nd with drilling to follow. PARKS/TRAILS • Park at Fields of Medina is almost complete. If you are in the area I encourage you to stop by and look at your investment. This is a great asset to the park system in Medina. There is a Grand Opening scheduled for August 26th at the park for all to take in. MISCELLANEOUS • The brush chipper is at work and we should have our site cleaned up at the old Public Works site this week. ORDER CHECKS August 5 , 2015 - August 18, 2015 43187 MANNING, PATRICK $500.00 43188 Void $0.00 43189 UPPAL, BINDU $250.00 43190 WH SOLAR, LLC $250.00 43191 WONG, CHUN $150.00 43192 MARCO INC $388.73 43193 BHATTACHARYA, MADHURIMA $250.00 43194 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT CO. $1,182.90 43195 FARMERS STATE BANK OF HAMEL $500.00 43196 FREDMAN, BRENDA $350.00 43197 MCFOA, C/O MARITA RHUDE $15.00 43198 SWANK MOTION PICTURES INC $376.00 43199 JODI THOMSEN $150.00 43200 2ND WIND EXERCISE INC $299.00 43201 ALLINA HEALTH SYSTEM $80.00 43202 ASPHALT SURFACE TECH CORP $354,124.82 43203 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MN $28,698.76 43204 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS $4,408.43 43205 BUELL CONSULTING $2,000.00 43206 BURNHAM TREE EXPERTS $5,530.00 43207 CARDIAC SCIENCE CORP $1,495.00 43208 CENTERPOINT ENERGY $216.46 43209 CENTURYLINK $236.23 43210 CMI, INC. $78.54 43211 CONCEPT FINANCIAL GROUP $1,715.23 43212 CRETEX ONCRETE PRODUCTS MIDWES $223.20 43213 CROW RIVER FARM EQUIPMENT CO $273.93 43214 DESIGNING NATURE, INC. $4,667.54 43215 TIM OR JULIE DRUK $48.35 43216 ECM PUBLISHERS INC $211.09 43217 ESS BROS. & SONS, INC $368.00 43218 EULL'S MANUFACTURING CO $1,021.91 43219 GEISLER, CHARLES $28.84 43220 GLEN LINCOLN PARTNERS $2,000.00 43221 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL $572.75 43222 HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES I $500.00 43223 HAMEL LUMBER INC $639.75 43224 HAMEL LIONS CLUB $562.50 43225 HENN CTY CHIEFS POLICE ASSN $100.00 43226 HENN COUNTY INFO TECH $905.22 43227 HENN COUNTY SHERIFF $225.00 43228 HENN COUNTY TAXPAYER SVCS DEPT $760.15 43229 HENN CTY RESIDENT/REAL ESTATE $57.00 43230 IIDA, TREVOR/BECKY $48.32 43231 JERRY FAUE EXTERIOR WORKS $1,700.00 43232 KERN, DEWENTER & VIERE $1,400.00 43233 KELLY'S WRECKER SERVICE INC $75.00 43234 LANO EQUIPMENT INC $238.19 43235 LAW ENFORCEMENT SEMINARS LLC $325.00 43236 LAWN KING, INC $397.53 43237 US HOME CORP $7,665.48 43238 LETMEDCO $26.59 43239 CITY OF MAPLE PLAIN $1,458.71 43240 MATHESON TRI-GAS INC $75.83 43241 MEDINA AUTO SERVICE INC $220.01 43242 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL $81,184.95 43243 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL $20,367.83 43244 METRO ALARM CONTRACTORS INC $360.00 43245 MINUTEMAN PRESS $149.00 43246 MORRIS ELECTRONICS INC $122.50 43247 MUNSELL, DANIEL $2,000.00 43248 NELSON AUTO CENTER $26,621.71 43249 NORTHWEST ASSOC CONSULTANTS $2,181.90 43250 OFFICE DEPOT $367.01 43251 CITY OF ORONO $3,111.13 43252 PUPTOWN $2,000.00 *Reissue 43253 STREICHER'S $409.99 43254 SUMMIT COMPANIES $175.25 43255 SUNRAM CONST. INC $29,390.05 43256 TALLEN & BAERTSCHI $2,522.69 43257 THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT $5,000.00 43258 TIMESAVER OFFSITE $537.51 43259 TITAN MACHINERY $96.04 43260 UFC FARM SUPPLY $15.99 43261 VARNEY, SHIRLEY $1,000.00 Total Checks $607,654.54 Electronic Payments July 30, 2015 — August 13, 2015, 2015 003271E AFLAC $394.88 003272E CIPHER LABORATORIES INC. $4,753.00 003273E CULLIGAN-METRO $106.53 003274E FRONTIER $55.44 003275E MEDIACOM OF MN LLC $277.98 003276E PAYMENT SERVICE NETWORK INC $307.90 003277E PIVOTAL PAYMENTS INC $347.82 003278E PREMIUM WATERS INC $90.04 003279E PR PERA $14,287.59 003280E PR FED/FICA $17,213.33 003281E PR MN Deferred Comp $1,980.00 003282E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA $3,978.23 003283E SELECT ACCOUNT $778.50 003284E EXXONMOBIL FLEET - WEX BANK $2,592.62 003285E FARMERS STATE BANK OF HAMEL $20.00 003286E SELECT ACCOUNT $4,972.46 003287E SELECT ACCOUNT $7,958.65 003288E PITNEY BOWES $123.00 003289E ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICE $1,169.61 003290E Void $0.00 003291E XCEL ENERGY $12,676.67 003292E VERIZON WIRELESS $1,339.82 Total Electronic Checks $75,424.07 PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT August 12 2015 506583 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L. $1,269.15 506584 ANDERSON, JOHN G. $230.87 506585 BARNHART, ERIN A $1,865.68 506586 BELLAND, EDGAR J. $2,484.21 506587 BOECKER, KEVIN D. $2,055.22 506588 CONVERSE, KEITH A. $3,890.05 506589 COUSINEAU, LORIE K. $230.87 506590 DINGMANN, IVAN W. $1,995.51 506591 DOMINO, CHARMANE $1,730.48 506592 ENDE, JOSEPH $1,356.10 506593 FINKE, DUSTIN D $2,116.35 506594 GALLUP, JODI M. $1,590.31 506595 GLEASON, JOHN M $1,736.82 506596 GREGORY, THOMAS $1,833.77 506597 HALL, DAVID M $2,062.31 506598 JESSEN, JEREMIAH S. $1,932.98 506599 JOHNSON, SCOTT T $2,162.88 506600 KLAERS, ANNE M. $717.62 506601 LANE, LINDA $1,465.16 506602 LEUER, GREGORY J $1,902.65 *Software Sequence Skip 506603 MARTIN, KATHLEEN M $230.87 506604 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R. $1,365.40 506605 MITCHELL, ROBERT G. $327.07 506606 NELSON, JASON $2,231.72 506607 PEDERSON,JEFF $221.92 506608 PETERSON, DEBRA A. $1,545.17 506609 REINKING, DEREK M $1,644.81 506610 SCHERER, STEVEN T. $2,225.70 506611 VIEAU,CECILIA M $1,165.44 506612 VINCK, JOHN J. $1,720.63 506613 WENANDE, BRANDON S. $560.56 Total Payroll Direct Deposit $47,868.28 PAYROLL CHECKS August 12, 2015 20432 Void $0.00 20433 VINCK, JOHN J. $9,208.31 Total Payroll Checks $9,208.31 *Printing Error