The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About01.18.2022 City Council Meeting Packet Posted 1/14/2022 Page 1 of 1 AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 18, 2022 7:00 P.M. Meeting to be held telephonically/virtually pursuant Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.021 I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the January 4, 2022 Regular Council Meeting V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Resolution Granting Extension of Time to Request Final Plat Approval for Adams Subdivision; Amending Resolution No. 2020-20 B. Approve Resolution Granting Extension of Time to Effectuate Adam’s Pest Control Site Plan Review Approval; Amending Resolution No. 2020-21 C. Accept John Jacob’s Resignation from the Park Commission D. Approve Tennis Court Rental Agreement with Carrie Agre E. Approve Hiring of Planning and Building Assistant F. Approve Resolution for X-Golf Gambling License G. Resolution Approving Recycling Grant Agreement with Hennepin County VI. COMMENTS A. From Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda B. Park Commission C. Planning Commission VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Rooftop Ordinance Discussion VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT IX. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS X. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS XI. ADJOURN Telephonic/Virtual Meeting Call-in Instructions Join via Microsoft Teams to view presentations at this link: https://medinamn.us/council/ For audio only: +1 612-517-3122 Enter Conference ID: 843 839 332# MEMORANDUM TO: Medina Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator DATE OF REPORT: January 12, 2022 DATE OF MEETING: January 18, 2022 SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Report Telephonic/Virtual Meeting Call-in Instructions Join via Microsoft Teams to view presentations at this link: https://medinamn.us/council/ For audio only: Dial 1-612-517-3122; Enter Conference ID: 843 839 332# V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Resolution Granting Extension of Time to Request Final Plat Approval for Adams Subdivision; Amending Resolution No. 2020-20 – On April 7, 2020, the City of Medina adopted Resolution 2020-20, granting site plan review and conditional use permit approval to Jan-Har, LLP (the “Applicant”) for construction of a 43,000 square foot building including office, bar, and restaurant uses and a 13,100 square foot accessory building with shop, warehouse, and vehicle storage. The approval was effective for two years under the approved resolution. The Applicant has requested a further extension of time to request final plat approval. Staff recommends approval. See attached resolution. B. Approve Resolution Granting Extension of Time to Effectuate Adam’s Pest Control Site Plan Review Approval; Amending Resolution No. 2020-21 – On April 7, 2020, the City of Medina adopted Resolution 2020-21, granting site plan review and conditional use permit approval to Jan-Har, LLP (the “Applicant”) for construction of a 43,000 square foot building including office, bar, and restaurant uses and a 13,100 square foot accessory building with shop, warehouse, and vehicle storage. The approval was effective for two years under the approved resolution. The Applicant has requested an extension of time to apply for a building permit for the project. Staff recommends approval. See attached letter and resolution. C. Accept John Jacob’s Resignation from the Park Commission – On January 5, 2022, John Jacob submitted a letter of resignation from his position on the Park Commission addressed to the Public Works Director, Planning Director, and their Administrative Assistant. Mr. Jacob has been appointed to a seat on the Medina Planning Commission. Staff recommends approval. See attached letter and resolution. 2 D. Approve Tennis Court Rental Agreement with Carrie Agre – Agre Tennis has been providing summer tennis camps in Hamel Legion Park since 2009. The City Council updated the tennis court rental fees in 2019 with the provision that organized groups could negotiate a fee through a separate contract. Staff proposes the same contract terms as 2021, which includes a fee of $6 per hour per court. Staff recommends approval. See attached agreement. E. Approve Hiring of Planning and Building Assistant – On November 16, 2021, the City Council authorized staff to begin the recruitment process to hire a new Planning and Building Assistant. Based on the final scoring of applicants, committee interviews, background/reference checks, we are recommending the appointment of Brenda Ruth to the position of Planning and Building Assistant. Ms. Ruth has verbally accepted the position with a starting date of January 28, 2022, contingent on City Council approval. Staff recommends approval. See attached memo. F. Approve Resolution for X-Golf Gambling License – Hamel Lions have applied to the City of Medina for a “Premises Permit” to conduct charitable gambling activities under authority and regulation of Minnesota Statute 349.16 at X-Golf. Staff recommends approval. G. Resolution Approving Recycling Grant Agreement with Hennepin County – Staff recommends approval of the updated grant agreement for recycling with Hennepin County. See attached resolution. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Rooftop Elements Ordinance Discussion – The City Council originally reviewed the draft ordinance at their December 21, 2021, Work Session. Staff incorporated Council’s directed changes and brought the draft ordinance before the Planning Commission for further review at their January 11, 2022, meeting. Staff updated the draft ordinance based on the direction from the City Council and Planning Commission and is bringing the draft ordinance forward to the City Council for further review and discussion. 3 XI. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the bills, EFT 006218E-006237E for $1,068,384.86 and order check numbers 052486-052546 for $622,818.92, and payroll EFT 0511552-0511584 for $55,185.17. INFORMATION PACKET: • Planning Department Update • Police Department Update • Public Works Department Update • Claims List Medina City Council Meeting Minutes January 4, 2022 1 DRAFT 1 2 MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 4, 2022 3 4 The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on January 4, 2022 at 5 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Martin presided. 6 7 Martin read a statement explaining that the meeting continues to be held in a virtual 8 format due to the ongoing pandemic. She provided instructions for public participation. 9 10 I. ROLL CALL 11 12 Members present: Albers, Cavanaugh, DesLauriers, Martin, and Reid. 13 14 Members absent: None. 15 16 Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, City Attorney Dave Anderson, Finance 17 Director Erin Barnhart, City Engineer Jim Stremel, City Planning Director Dusty Finke, 18 Public Works Director Steve Scherer, and Chief of Police Jason Nelson. 19 20 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (7:00 p.m.) 21 22 III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA (7:04 p.m.) 23 The agenda was approved as presented. 24 25 IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7:04 p.m.) 26 27 A. Approval of the December 21, 2021 Work Session City Council Meeting 28 Minutes 29 Moved by Martin, seconded by DesLauriers, to approve the December 21, 2021 work 30 session City Council meeting minutes as presented. 31 32 A roll call vote was performed: 33 34 DesLauriers aye 35 Albers aye 36 Cavanaugh aye 37 Reid aye 38 Martin aye 39 40 Motion passed unanimously. 41 42 B. Approval of the December 21, 2021 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 43 Martin noted that prior to the meeting Johnson distributed proposed corrections that she 44 submitted. 45 46 Moved by Martin, seconded by DesLauriers, to approve the December 21, 2021 regular 47 City Council meeting minutes as amended. 48 49 A roll call vote was performed: 50 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes January 4, 2022 2 DesLauriers aye 1 Albers aye 2 Cavanaugh aye 3 Reid aye 4 Martin aye 5 6 Motion passed unanimously. 7 8 V. CONSENT AGENDA (7:06 p.m.) 9 10 A. Approve 2022 City Appointments 11 B. Adopt Resolution 2022-02 Accepting Donation from Dobozenski & Sons 12 Johnson stated that staff recommends removing Item A from the Consent Agenda. 13 14 Moved by Martin, seconded by DesLauriers, to remove Item A from the consent agenda. 15 16 A roll call vote was performed: 17 18 DesLauriers aye 19 Albers aye 20 Cavanaugh aye 21 Reid aye 22 Martin aye 23 24 Motion passed unanimously. 25 26 Moved by Cavanaugh, seconded by Reid, to approve the consent agenda. 27 28 A roll call vote was performed: 29 30 DesLauriers aye 31 Albers aye 32 Cavanaugh aye 33 Reid aye 34 Martin aye 35 36 Motion passed unanimously. 37 38 A. Approve 2022 City Appointments 39 Martin noted that a revised list was provided to the Council earlier today. 40 41 Johnson highlighted the changes that were made in the revised list. He welcomed input 42 on who the Council would like to be the representatives to the Hamel Fire Relief 43 Association. 44 45 Martin provided additional details on the relief association. She stated that she is happy 46 to continue in the position but would also open up the opportunity to someone else if 47 there is interest. It was confirmed that Martin would continue in that position. 48 49 Moved by Cavanaugh, seconded by Reid, to approve the 2022 City Appointments as 50 updated. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes January 4, 2022 3 1 A roll call vote was performed: 2 3 DesLauriers aye 4 Albers aye 5 Cavanaugh aye 6 Reid aye 7 Martin aye 8 9 Motion passed unanimously. 10 11 VI. COMMENTS (7:11 p.m.) 12 13 A. Comments from Citizens on Items not on the Agenda 14 There were none. 15 16 B. Park Commission 17 Scherer commented on the new Commission appointment, noting his expertise with park 18 equipment. He reported that Hamel Legion Park has been busy with sledding and 19 skating. 20 21 C. Planning Commission 22 Finke reported that the Planning Commission will meet the following week to hold public 23 hearings related to a PUD concept plan for the Meander Park and Boardway commercial 24 development, Comprehensive Plan amendment request related to Cates Industrial Park, 25 Preliminary Plat and PUD Plan for Marsh Pointe, and the ordinance related to rooftop 26 elements. 27 28 VII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT (7:14 p.m.) 29 Johnson reported that the January 18th meeting will have a goal setting session, EDA, 30 and regular session meetings. He advised of the next meeting of the Northwest 31 Hennepin League of Municipalities that will occur on January 12th at 6:30 p.m. He noted 32 that Martin and Reid are unable to attend and asked if another member of the Council 33 could attend. 34 35 Reid commented that she will be able to attend. 36 37 Johnson stated that information from the Police Department was provided that was 38 incorrect and apologized for the mistake. He noted that he will do a better job working 39 with Nelson to ensure the information is correct before relaying to the Council. 40 41 Nelson apologized for the incorrect information that had been sent to the Council related 42 to the trespassing complaint at Hennepin County Public Works. He noted that he had 43 been out on vacation and the incorrect information was not relayed intentionally. 44 45 Martin acknowledged that everyone goes on vacation but believed that there was a 46 system in place to ensure that duties could be handled in the absence of Nelson. She 47 stated that in this situation the Sergeant had stated that the City was not involved in the 48 investigation. She commented that someone should not be speaking for the department 49 before ensuring the information is accurate. She stated that if Nelson is going to be 50 absent, someone should be appointed to complete those duties. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes January 4, 2022 4 1 Nelson stated that Boecker was filling in for him while he was on vacation and noted that 2 Boecker had been on vacation the week prior. He provided additional details on how 3 information is sensitized within the department. He commented that there was a lapse 4 between the different vacations. He noted that when Boecker initially looked, he did not 5 see the information but later was able to find additional information related to the 6 investigation. He stated that he takes responsibility for the incident. 7 8 Martin commented that she would want to ensure there is adequate debriefing for those 9 coming back from vacation and others leaving on vacation. 10 11 DesLauriers thanked Nelson for taking responsibility. He stated that going forward, it 12 should be a priority to ensure the second in command has access to the sensitized 13 information. He noted that he would also want to ensure that the Council has the correct 14 information before speaking to the residents. 15 16 Martin commented that this was an opportunity to check the system. She commented 17 that the City receives phenomenal service from its Police Department. She thanked 18 Nelson for his efforts in making sure there is effective communication moving forward. 19 20 VIII. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (7:24 p.m.) 21 DesLauriers stated that he and Martin attended the last meeting of the Hamel Fire Relief 22 Association and provided an update on the discussion that occurred. 23 24 IX. APPROVAL TO PAY THE BILLS (7:25 p.m.) 25 Moved by Cavanaugh, seconded by DesLauriers, to approve the bills, EFT 006201E-26 006217E for $56,035.96, order check numbers 052421-052485 for $63,089.63, and 27 payroll EFT 0511523-0511551 for $57,774.11. 28 29 A roll call vote was performed: 30 31 DesLauriers aye 32 Albers aye 33 Cavanaugh aye 34 Reid aye 35 Martin aye 36 37 Motion passed unanimously. 38 39 X. CLOSED SESSION: CONSIDERATION OF LAND ACQUISITION AT PID 03-40 118-23-24-0002 PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. SEC. 13D.05, SUBD. 3(c) 41 42 Moved by Martin, seconded by Cavanaugh, to adjourn the meeting to closed session at 43 7:27 p.m. for the consideration of land acquisition at PID 03-118-23-24-0002 pursuant to 44 Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.05, Subd. 3(c). 45 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes January 4, 2022 5 A roll call vote was performed: 1 2 DesLauriers aye 3 Albers aye 4 Cavanaugh aye 5 Reid aye 6 Martin aye 7 8 Motion passed unanimously. 9 10 The meeting returned to open session at 8:01 p.m. 11 12 XI. ADJOURN 13 Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Albers, to adjourn the meeting at 8:02 p.m. 14 15 A roll call vote was performed: 16 17 DesLauriers aye 18 Albers aye 19 Cavanaugh aye 20 Reid aye 21 Martin aye 22 23 Motion passed unanimously. 24 25 26 27 __________________________________ 28 Kathy Martin, Mayor 29 Attest: 30 31 ____________________________________ 32 Scott Johnson, City Administrator 33 Resolution No. 2022-## January 18, 2022 Member ____________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2022-## RESOLUTION GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO REQUEST FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR ADAMS SUBDIVISION; AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2020-20 WHEREAS, on April 7, 2020, the city of Medina adopted Resolution 2020-20, granting preliminary approval to Jan-Har, LLP (the “Applicant”) of the plat of Adams Subdivision; and WHEREAS, under the terms of said resolution, final approval was required to be requested within 180 days of adoption of the resolution or the approval was to be considered void, unless a written request for time extension is submitted by the Applicant and approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, on March 2, 2021, the city of Medina adopted Resolution 2021-13, granting an extension for the Applicant to request final plat approval; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a further extension of time to request final plat approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Medina, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The final plat application shall be filed by October 7, 2022 or the approval shall be considered void, unless a written request for time extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Council. 2. Except as explicitly stated above, all terms and conditions of Resolution 2020-20 are hereby reaffirmed. Dated: January 18, 2022. Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: Scott T Johnson, City Administrator/Clerk Agenda Item #5A Resolution No. 2022-## DATE 2 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: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2022-## January 18, 2022 Member ____________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2022-## RESOLUTION GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO EFFECTUATE ADAM’S PEST CONTROL SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL; AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2020-21 WHEREAS, on April 7, 2020, the city of Medina adopted Resolution 2020-21, granting site plan review and conditional use permit approval to Jan-Har, LLP (the “Applicant”) for construction of a 43,000 square foot building including office, bar, and restaurant uses and a 13,100 square foot accessory building with shop, warehouse and vehicle storage; and WHEREAS, under the terms of said resolution, the approval was effective for two years; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested an extension of time to apply for a building permit for the project NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Medina, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The site plan review approval shall be effective until April 7, 2023, and thereafter shall be considered null and void. The restaurant portion of the project may be constructed as a separate project, provided the permit is obtained by April 7, 2024. 2. Except as explicitly stated above, all terms and conditions of Resolution 2020-21 are hereby reaffirmed. Dated: January 18, 2022. Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: Scott T Johnson, City Administrator/Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Agenda Item #5B Resolution No. 2022-## DATE 2 __________ 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. 2022- January 18, 2022 Member __ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2022- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING RESIGNATION OF PARK COMMISSIONER JOHN JACOB WHEREAS, John Jacob was appointed to the Park Commission with the City of Medina on January 6, 2015; and WHEREAS, John Jacob was voted to serve as Chair of the Park Commission with the City of Medina on January 7, 2020; and WHEREAS, on January 5, 2022, John Jacob submitted a letter of resignation from his position addressed to the Public Works Director, Planning Director, and their Administrative Assistant; and WHEREAS, John Jacob’s resignation from his position is effective January 5, 2022. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina that John Jacob’s letter of resignation is hereby accepted. Dated: January 18, 2022. ______________________________ Kathleen Martin, 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. Agenda Item #5C January 5, 2022 To: Lisa DeMars, Dusty Finke, Steve Scherer From: John Jacob RE: Resignation from Medina Park Commission Lisa, Dusty and Steve, Please accept this not as my letter of Resignation from the City of Medina Park Commission so that I may commence my duties on the City of Medina Planning Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to continue to serve the city and look forward to contributing to the Planning Commission. Please pass along my well wishes to the Park Commission and know that I am available should there be any questions. Thank you for your support and I look forward to working with you. Best Regards, John John C. Jacob 885 Navajo Road W. Medina, MN. 55340 Cell 612-669-6094 1 TENNIS COURT RENTAL AGREEMENT This Agreement is made this 19th day of January, 2022, by and between the city of Medina, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota (the “City”) and Carrie Agre, 19620 63rd Avenue N., Corcoran, MN 55340, called the “Licensee”. WHEREAS, the Licensee desires to use the tennis courts for tennis lessons, which are owned by the City and located in the City’s Hamel Legion Park (the “Subject Property”). WHEREAS, the City is willing to allow the Licensee to use the Subject Property, subject to certain terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, the City and the Licensee wish to have a written agreement memorializing the terms and conditions under which the City and the Licensee will accomplish the above. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the mutual covenants and obligations contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City hereby grants the Licensee permission to use the Subject Property on Sunday evenings from May 22 to October 21 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. and from Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. for the weeks of June 29 to June 31, July 5 to July 9, July 11 to July 14, July 18 to July 21, July 25 to July 28, August 1 to August 4, and August 8 to August 11. In the event that a lesson is cancelled due to rain, the City grants the Licensee permission to use the Subject Property on the following Friday to make up the missed lesson. Any requests for changes to this schedule must be submitted to the Public Works Department in writing at least seven days prior to the requested reservation date. The requested schedule change will be reviewed by City staff and may be approved or denied depending on demand for the tennis courts. 2. The Licensee shall obtain executed Voluntary Waiver of Liability Agreements as identified on Exhibit B from every participant and instructor prior to any use of the Subject Property. 3. The Licensee shall submit a damage and maintenance deposit in the amount of $150.00 to the City prior to June 1, 2022. The City shall return the deposit to the Licensee, minus expenses for any damage or maintenance to the Subject Property following inspection by the City after October 1, 2022. 4. The Licensee shall provide all equipment necessary to conduct tennis lessons. 5. The Licensee shall be responsible for picking up all tennis balls, containers, trash, paper, and debris after use of the Subject Property. 6. The Licensee shall require all participants in and visitors to the tennis camp on the Subject Property to park in the parking lot within Hamel Legion Park, as identified by the crosshatch marks on Exhibit A attached hereto. Agenda Item # 5D 2 7. Upon termination of this Agreement, the Licensee agrees to remove from the Subject Property all temporary structures, equipment and other items used by the Licensee, leave the Subject Property free from debris and return the Subject Property to its condition prior to its use by the Licensee. 8. The Licensee shall pay the City $6 per hour per court for use of the Subject Property. Payments shall be submitted to the City in monthly installments at the end of each month for the entire month’s rental fees, accompanied by a written log of each day and the times the Subject Property was used. 9. The Licensee hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents, from any liability, damages, claims, costs, judgments or expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, resulting directly or indirectly from the Licensee’s use of the Subject Property. 10. The City may cancel, terminate, suspend or modify the terms of this Agreement upon default by Licensee or failure of the Licensee to comply with this Agreement. CITY OF MEDINA By ________________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor By _________________________________ Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator CARRIE AGRE (LICENSEE) By____________________________ Carrie Agre From:Lisa DeMars To:agre tennis Subject:RE: Tennis Dates and Times for Summer 2022 Date:Friday, December 3, 2021 1:45:42 PM Hi Carrie and Steve, thanks for providing the dates, I’ll get these recorded/reserved. Have a fantastic weekend! Lisa Lisa DeMars | Administrative Assistant for Public Works and Planning | City of Medina Direct: (763) 473-8852 • Fax: (763) 473-9359 • lisa.demars@medinamn.gov 2052 County Road 24 • Medina, MN • 55340 From: agre tennis <agretennis@live.com> Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 12:51 PM To: Lisa DeMars <lisa.deMars@medinamn.gov> Subject: Tennis Dates and Times for Summer 2022 Hi Lisa, I am trying to get organized earlier this year and here are the dates we are requesting for AgreTennis for summer 2022. Kids Program June June 29,30,31st from 8-12 (3-day camp) July July 5-9 from 8-12 July 11-14 from 8-12 July 18-21 from 8-12 July 25-28 from 8-12 August August 1-4 from 8-12 August 8-11th from 8-12 **Fridays are saved for rain dates Adult Program (Excluding June 19-26th, July 3rd) Sunday Evenings starting May 22-middle of October 5-7:30(5-6:15 and 6:15-7:30 I hope this make sense. Do not hesitate to call or email us regarding any questions. Thanks, Carrie and Steve Agre 763-447-8837 or 763-447-8811 Exhibit A Tennis Courts in Hamel Legion Park Subject Property Subject Property Designated Parking Area Subject Property CITY OF MEDINA VOLUNTARY WAIVER OF LIABILITY AGREEMENT I know that tennis and the events and activities related to it are inherently dangerous activities in which I choose to participate voluntarily and at my own risk. I understand that such activities can result in personal injury, death and disability or property damage and loss. I also understand that these risks and dangers are increased when other persons are present at the same time and using the same facilities. In consideration of using the athletic facilities of the city of Medina (the “City”) and wishing to participate in the youth tennis activities and knowing there are certain dangers related to this activity, I hereby state and affirm that: 1. My participation is fully voluntary. 2. I acknowledge that the activity is not an essential service provided by the City. 3. I understand and acknowledge that the activities in which I am about to engage as a participant have certain risks. I understand that these risks, known or unknown, anticipated or unanticipated, may result in injury, death, illness, disease or damage to myself or my property, or to other persons and their property. 4. I hereby personally assume all risks in connection with this activity and I waive any right to make claims or bring actions against the City or its officers, employees or agents for any injuries or damages to me or my property related to the alleged negligence of the City. This waiver does not apply to any injuries or damages that are the result of any willful, wanton, or intentional misconduct by the City. 5. I agree to hold harmless and indemnify the City, its officers, employees and agents, from any and all claims or actions for injury or damages to any third party, including other participants or spectators, resulting from my participation in any activity while at or about the City athletic facilities. 6. I understand that entering into and signing this agreement affects my legal rights and results in my giving up or waiving certain legal rights. I accept this and sign this agreement of my own free will. 7. The terms of this agreement shall serve as a release and assumption of risk and shall be binding on behalf of myself, my heirs, executor, administrator and all members of my family. 8. My signature indicates that I have read this entire document, understand it completely, acknowledge that it cannot be modified or changed in any way by oral representations, and agree to be bound by its terms. _____________________________________ ________________________________________ Name (Print) Signature _____________________________________ ________________________________________ Parent Signature (if under 18 years old) Date Exhibit B 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Medina City Council FROM: Planning Director Dusty Finke and City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE OF REPORT: January 10, 2022 DATE OF MEETING: January 18, 2022 SUBJECT: Planning and Building Assistant Appointment General Background On November 16, 2021, the City Council authorized staff to begin the recruitment process to hire a new Planning and Building Assistant. Based on the final scoring of applicants, committee interviews, background/reference checks, we are recommending the appointment of Brenda Ruth to the position of Planning and Building Assistant. Ms. Ruth has verbally accepted the position with a starting date of January 28, 2022, contingent on City Council approval. Appointee Background Ms. Ruth has more than four years of experience working with Building Departments for the City of St. Paul and City of Maple Grove. She is currently employed by GrowthZone in Nisswa. She handles customer questions and research complaints for their software. Ms. Ruth is also retired from the Minnesota National Guard. Ms. Ruth’s educational background includes a Bachelor of Science in Biology from Hamline University. The City of Medina has confidence in her abilities, communication, character, and problem-solving skills. Selection Process • The City Council directed staff to recruit for a full-time Police Officer position on November 16, 2021. • Advertisements for the position were published through the League of Minnesota Cities, Crow River News, and the City Website. • Applications were received, reviewed, and scored by interview panel of City Administrator Johnson, Associate Planner Dion, and Planning Director Finke. • The top applicants were invited to interview in late December/early January. The oral interview was conducted with by the panel noted above. • The Medina Police Department conducted a background check on Ms. Ruth, which she passed. • Ms. Ruth’s starting date will be January 28, 2022, with an hourly wage (non- exempt) of $28.00/hr., benefits to be at the same rate as other employees, in accordance with the City Personnel Policies. Following a six-month probationary period, Ms. Ruth’s performance will be reviewed, with a positive review Ms. Agenda Item # 5E 2 Ruth will become a non-probationary employee. Ms. Ruth has been notified that our recommendation is contingent upon City Council approval. Recommendation We recommend the appointment of Brenda Ruth to the position of full-time Planning and Building Assistant, effective January 28, 2022, with an hourly wage (non-exempt) of $28.00/hr., other benefits to be at the same rate as other employees, in accordance with the City Personnel Policies. Resolution No. 2022-XX January 18, 2022 Member ________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX RESOLUTION APPROVING PREMISES PERMIT TO THE HAMEL LIONS TO CONDUCT LAWFUL GAMBLING WHEREAS, Hamel Lions (“Applicant”) has made application to the City of Medina for a “Premises Permit” 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 X-Golf, 304 Clydesdale Trail, Medina, MN 55340, 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 for the Premises Permit be granted for a perpetual term bound by Section 315 of the Code of Ordinances as amended. Dated: January 18, 2022. _____________________________ Kathleen Martin, 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. Agenda Item #5F Resolution No. 2022- January 18, 2022 Member _____ introduced the following resolution and moves its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2022- RESOLUTION APPROVING RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 115A.552, counties shall ensure that residents have an opportunity to recycle; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County Ordinance 13 requires that each City implement and maintain a recycling program to enable the County to meet its recycling goals; and WHEREAS, the City of Medina offers a coordinated recycling program for their residents, WHEREAS, the City of Medina wished to receive funds available through Hennepin County for recycling activities. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Medina to approve the residential recycling grant agreement between Hennepin County and the City of Medina. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Medina authorizes the Mayor and City Administrator to execute such residential recycling grant agreement with Hennepin County. Dated: January 18, 2022. Kathleen Martin, 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. Agenda Item #5G From:Scott Johnson To:Kathleen Martin Cc:Lisa DeMars Subject:FW: Recycling funding agreement Date:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 4:01:11 PM Attachments:image001.png Instructions for signing a contract.pdf Sample Resolution.docx Hi Kathy, Please hold off on signing off on this agreement. Staff will bring forward the resolution and any other information to the January 18th City Council meeting for approval. Thanks Scott From: Kira Berglund <Kira.Berglund@hennepin.us> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 3:45 PM To: Lisa DeMars <lisa.deMars@medinamn.gov>; Kathleen Martin <kathleen.martin@medinamn.gov>; Scott Johnson <scott.johnson@medinamn.gov> Subject: Recycling funding agreement Good afternoon, We are pleased to inform you that we are ready to move forward with the contracting process for the 2022-2025 residential recycling funding policy. I am looking forward to working with you on your city’s recycling program. Kathleen and Scott - you will receive an email from Hennepin County Purchasing (adobesign@adobesign.com) with a link to electronically sign the contract. Further instructions are attached. As we mentioned, your city must provide a resolution by your governing body, authorizing your organization to enter into this agreement, to execute the grant agreement. A resolution template is attached. As stated on the signature page of the agreement, “GRANTEE represents and warrants that it has submitted to COUNTY all applicable documentation (articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinances) that confirms the signatory's delegation of authority.” This would preferably be included in the resolution. Failure to submit this authorizing documentation is likely to delay execution of the agreement and disbursement of your first payment. When all parties have signed the contract, you will receive notification through Adobe Sign. The contract will not be fully executed until we receive the resolution. Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters. If you have questions concerning these requirements, feel free to contact me. Kira BerglundComposting & Recycling SpecialistEnvironment and Energy Phone: 612-596-1498Pronouns: she/herhennepin.us/schoolrecycling Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system. From:Kaitlin Steinberg Cc:Kira Berglund; kaitlincsteinberg Subject:2022-2025 Funding Policy Information Date:Friday, November 19, 2021 3:41:23 PM Attachments:GENERIC_Residential WRR Grant Agreement.pdf Contract Numbers by City_Residential WRR Grant Agreement.xlsx 2022-2025_Residential_WRR_Funding_Policy_(Final).pdf BAR_21-0389_Residential WRR Funding Policy.pdf Sample Resolution.docx image002.png Importance:High Hello City Recycling Coordinators, Thank you for your patience as we finalized information about the 2022-2025 Residential WasteReduction and Recycling Funding Policy process. Attached to this email you will find the following:Hennepin County BAR #21-0389 (Approving the funding policy) 2022-2025 Residential WRR Funding Policy The generic Grant Agreement document A spreadsheet containing each city’s unique contract number A sample resolution template Here is an overview of next steps: 1. Please review the generic contract (GENERIC_Residential WRR Grant Agreement.pdf) and reply to this email by EOD Nov 29 with the Name, Phone Number and Email for the person who will manage this contract on behalf of your city. This information will be put into section 16, on page 9. 2. The County will reach out directly to confirm grant agreement signees if we have any questions. 3. Once signee and contact information is finalized, we will initiate the electronic signature process. 4. A resolution from the city will be required. Please note that we do not need the resolution to begin the signature process, it can come after. Lastly, as this is a new contract and not an extension of a current agreement (like last year’samendment), we are not tied to an end of year deadline. With that, we would like to aim for adeadline of January 31, 2022 for having contracts signed and in place. This date is before annualSCORE/ReTrac reporting is due. If this deadline is not feasible, please let us know. Please reach out if you have any questions or need assistance. Thank you,-Kaitlin Kaitlin Steinberg (she/her) Waste Reduction and Recycling Specialist Hennepin County Environment and Energykaitlin.steinberg@hennepin.us | hennepin.us/recycling 1 Contract No: PR00003889 RESIDENTIAL WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT This Agreement is between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, A-2300 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, on behalf of the Hennepin County Environment and Energy Department, 701 Fourth Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1600 (“COUNTY”), and CITY OF MEDINA, 2052 County Road 24, Medina, Minnesota 55340, (“GRANTEE”), a Minnesota government entity. The parties agree as follows: 1.TERM AND AMOUNT OF GRANT GRANTEE shall complete all grant requirements (“Grant Requirements”), if any, commencing upon execution and expiring December 31, 2025, unless cancelled or terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions herein. Annual grant payments (“Grant Funds”) shall be calculated as set forth in Section 3. 2.GRANT REQUIREMENTS GRANTEE shall apply for annual grant funds and operate its Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs as more fully described in Attachment A, the Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Funding Policy. 3.GRANT DISBURSEMENT The COUNTY will distribute SCORE funds that the COUNTY receives from the state to Hennepin County municipalities. SCORE funds will be dedicated to the following different purposes: 1) general funding for waste reduction and recycling programs, 2) curbside organics recycling programs, 3) organics drop-off sites, 4) multifamily waste reduction and recycling. SCORE funds are based on revenue received by the State of Minnesota from the solid waste management tax (SWMT) on garbage services and are subject to change based on the SWMT revenue received by the state and funds allocated by the legislature. Funds distributed to municipalities for the current calendar year will be based on SCORE funds received by the COUNTY in the state’s corresponding fiscal year. A. Waste reduction and recycling programs COUNTY will dedicate 40% of SCORE funds to provide funding for city waste reduction and recycling programs. The following formula will be used to calculate GRANTEE’s waste reduction and recycling grant amount. 2 Number of eligible households with curbside recycling in city -------------------------------------- Total number of eligible households with curbside recycling in county x 40% of SCORE funds available = Waste reduction and recycling grant amount available to the city Eligible households are defined as households in single family through fourplex residential buildings or other residential buildings where each household has its own recycling collection container to set out for curbside collection and receives recycling collection service through the city. In cities with open recycling collection, eligible households are defined as households in single family through fourplex residential buildings where each household has its own recycling collection container to set out for curbside collection. The number of eligible households will be determined by counting the number of eligible households on January 1 of each funding year. GRANTEE will report the number in its application for funding. B. Curbside organics recycling programs COUNTY will dedicate 50% of SCORE funds to provide funding for curbside organics recycling programs. Funds will be allocated using participation targets for each city. Funding is not contingent upon meeting the participation target. The following formula will be used to calculate GRANTEE’s curbside organics recycling grant amount. Target number of households with curbside organics recycling in city -------------------------------------- Total number of households with curbside organics recycling in county x 50% of SCORE funds available = Curbside organics recycling grant amount available to the city Initial participation targets (as a percent of households with curbside recycling service): •50% for cities that contract for organics recycling service •10% for cities that require haulers to offer organics recycling service C. Organics drop-off sites COUNTY will dedicate up to $3,300 per eligible city to provide funding for organics drop-off site expenses. Cities with a population of less than 10,000 are eligible. D. Multifamily waste reduction and recycling 3 COUNTY will take 10% of SCORE funds, subtract the amount allocated to organics drop-off sites, and dedicate the remainder to provide funding for multifamily waste reduction and recycling programs. For the purposes of this policy, city waste reduction and recycling programs include organics recycling. Funds will be allocated based on the number of multifamily households. The following formula will be used to calculate GRANTEE’s multifamily waste reduction and recycling grant amount. Number of multifamily households in city -------------------------------------- Total number of multifamily households in county x 10% of SCORE funds available minus organics drop-off funds = Multifamily waste reduction and recycling grant amount available to the city Multifamily households in cities with organized recycling collection are defined as 1) households in buildings where each household does not have its own recycling collection container to set out for curbside collection, or 2) households in buildings that do not receive recycling collection service through the city, including apartment buildings, condominiums, townhomes, and cooperative housing units where a property manager or association coordinates collection service. Multifamily households in cities with open recycling collection are defined as households in residential buildings larger than a fourplex. The COUNTY will make two equal payments to the GRANTEE. Those two payments will provide the sum of each city’s total grant amount for general waste reduction and recycling programs, curbside organics recycling programs, organics drop-off sites, and multifamily waste reduction and recycling. One payment will be made after COUNTY receives the applications for funding from GRANTEE. A second payment will be made after basic program requirements, education and outreach requirements, and performance have been confirmed and approved. If GRANTEE meets the requirements, both payments will be made during the same calendar year. 4.INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR GRANTEE shall select the means, method, and manner of performing Grant Requirements, if any. Nothing is intended nor should be construed as creating or establishing the relationship of a partnership or a joint venture between the parties or as constituting GRANTEE as the agent, representative, or employee of COUNTY for any purpose. GRANTEE is and shall remain an independent contractor under this Agreement. GRANTEE shall secure at its own expense all personnel required in completing Grant Requirements, if any, under this Agreement. GRANTEE’s personnel and/or subcontractors engaged to perform any work required by this Agreement will have no contractual relationship with COUNTY and will not be considered employees of COUNTY. COUNTY shall not be responsible for any claims related to or on behalf of any of GRANTEE’s personnel, including without limitation, claims that arise out of employment or alleged employment under the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Law (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 268) or the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act 4 (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 176) or claims of discrimination arising out of state, local or federal law, against GRANTEE, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees. Such personnel or other persons shall neither accrue nor be entitled to any compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind from COUNTY, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, disability, severance pay, and retirement benefits. 5. NON-DISCRIMINATION In accordance with COUNTY’s policies against discrimination, GRANTEE shall not exclude any person from full employment rights nor prohibit participation in or the benefits of any program, service or activity on the grounds of any protected status or class including but not limited to race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, public assistance status, or national origin. No person who is protected by applicable federal or state laws against discrimination shall be subjected to discrimination. 6. INTENTIONALLY OMITTED 7. INDEMNIFICATION GRANTEE shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless COUNTY, its present and former officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees from any liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs, or expenses, including attorney’s fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of GRANTEE, a subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable in the performance of this Agreement, and against all loss by reason of the failure of GRANTEE to perform any obligation under this Agreement. For clarification and not limitation, this obligation to defend, indemnify and hold harmless includes but is not limited to any liability, claims or actions resulting directly or indirectly from alleged infringement of any copyright or any property right of another, the employment or alleged employment of GRANTEE personnel, the unlawful disclosure and/or use of protected data, or other noncompliance with the requirements of these provisions. 8. INSURANCE GRANTEE shall purchase insurance or utilize a self-insurance program sufficient to cover the maximum level of Minnesota tort liability limits under Minnesota Statute, Chapter 466. 9. DUTY TO NOTIFY GRANTEE shall promptly notify COUNTY of any demand, claim, action, cause of action or litigation brought against GRANTEE, its employees, officers, agents or subcontractors, which arises out of this Agreement. GRANTEE shall also notify 5 COUNTY whenever GRANTEE has a reasonable basis for believing that GRANTEE and/or its employees, officers, agents or subcontractors, and/or COUNTY, might become the subject of a demand, claim, action, cause of action, administrative action, criminal arrest, criminal charge or litigation arising out of this Agreement. 10.DATA PRIVACY AND SECURITY A.GRANTEE, its officers, agents, owners, partners, employees, volunteers and subcontractors shall, to the extent applicable, abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, chapter 13 (MGDPA) and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations and orders relating to data or the privacy, confidentiality or security of data, which may include the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and its implementing regulations (HIPAA). For clarification and not limitation, COUNTY hereby notifies GRANTEE that the requirements of Minnesota Statutes section 13.05, subd. 11, apply to this Agreement. GRANTEE shall promptly notify COUNTY if GRANTEE becomes aware of any potential claims, or facts giving rise to such claims, under the MGDPA or other data, data security, privacy or confidentiality laws, and shall also comply with the other requirements of this Section. Classification of data, including trade secret data, will be determined pursuant to applicable law and, accordingly, merely labeling data as “trade secret” by GRANTEE does not necessarily make the data protected as such under any applicable law. B.In addition to the foregoing MGDPA and other applicable law obligations, GRANTEE shall comply with the following duties and obligations regarding County Data and County Systems (as each term is defined herein). As used herein, “County Data” means any data or information, and any copies thereof, created by GRANTEE or acquired by GRANTEE from or through COUNTY pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to handwriting, typewriting, printing, photocopying, photographing, facsimile transmitting, and every other means of recording any form of communication or representation, including electronic media, email, letters, works, pictures, drawings, sounds, videos, or symbols, or combinations thereof. If GRANTEE has access to or possession/control of County Data, GRANTEE shall safeguard and protect the County Data in accordance with generally accepted industry standards, all laws, and all then applicable COUNTY policies, procedures, rules and directions. To the extent of any inconsistency between accepted industry standards and such COUNTY policies, procedures, rules and directions, GRANTEE shall notify COUNTY of the inconsistency and follow COUNTY direction. GRANTEE shall immediately notify COUNTY of any known or suspected security breach or unauthorized access to County Data, then comply with all responsive directions provided by COUNTY. The foregoing 6 shall not be construed as eliminating, limiting or otherwise modifying GRANTEE’s indemnification obligations herein. C. Upon expiration, cancellation or termination of this Agreement: (1) At the discretion of COUNTY and as specified in writing by the Contract Administrator, GRANTEE shall deliver to the Contract Administrator all County Data so specified by COUNTY. (2) COUNTY shall have full ownership and control of all such County Data. If COUNTY permits GRANTEE to retain copies of the County Data, GRANTEE shall not, without the prior written consent of COUNTY or unless required by law, use any of the County Data for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever; shall not assign, license, loan, sell, copyright, patent and/or transfer any or all of such County Data; and shall not do anything which in the opinion of COUNTY would affect COUNTY’s ownership and/or control of such County Data. (3) Except to the extent required by law or as agreed to by COUNTY, GRANTEE shall not retain any County Data that are confidential, protected, privileged, not public, nonpublic, or private, as those classifications are determined pursuant to applicable law. In addition, GRANTEE shall, upon COUNTY’s request, certify destruction of any County Data so specified by COUNTY. 11. RECORDS – AVAILABILITY/ACCESS Subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes section 16C.05, subd. 5, COUNTY, the State Auditor, or any of their authorized representatives, at any time during normal business hours, and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of GRANTEE and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. GRANTEE shall maintain these materials and allow access during the period of this Agreement and for six (6) years after its expiration, cancellation or termination. 12. SUCCESSORS, SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENTS A. GRANTEE binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to COUNTY for all covenants, agreements and obligations herein. B. GRANTEE shall not assign, transfer or pledge this Agreement whether in whole or in part, nor assign any monies due or to become due to it without the prior written consent of COUNTY. A consent to assign shall be subject to such conditions and provisions as COUNTY may deem necessary, accomplished by execution of a form prepared by COUNTY and signed by GRANTEE, the assignee and COUNTY. Permission to assign, however, shall under no 7 circumstances relieve GRANTEE of its liabilities and obligations under the Agreement. C.GRANTEE shall not subcontract this Agreement whether in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of COUNTY. Permission to subcontract, however, shall under no circumstances relieve GRANTEE of its liabilities and obligations under the Agreement. Further, GRANTEE shall be fully responsible for the acts, omissions, and failure of its subcontractors in the performance of any specified contractual services, and of person(s) directly or indirectly employed by subcontractors. Contracts between GRANTEE and each subcontractor shall require that the subcontractor’s services be performed in accordance with this Agreement. GRANTEE shall make contracts between GRANTEE and subcontractors available upon request. For clarification and not limitation of the provisions herein, none of the following constitutes assent by COUNTY to a contract between GRANTEE and a subcontractor, or a waiver or release by COUNTY of GRANTEE’s full compliance with the requirements of this Section: (1) COUNTY’s request or lack of request for contracts between GRANTEE and subcontractors; (2) COUNTY’s review, extent of review or lack of review of any such contracts; or (3) COUNTY’s statements or actions or omissions regarding such contracts. D.As required by Minnesota Statutes section 471.425, subd. 4a, GRANTEE shall pay any subcontractor within ten (10) days of GRANTEE’s receipt of payment from COUNTY for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor, and GRANTEE shall comply with all other provisions of that statute. 13.MERGER, MODIFICATION AND SEVERABILITY A.The entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter. All items that are referenced or that are attached are incorporated and made a part of this Agreement. If there is any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and referenced or attached items, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. GRANTEE and/or COUNTY are each bound by its own electronic signature(s) on this Agreement, and each agrees and accepts the electronic signature of the other party. B.Any alterations, variations or modifications of the provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties. Except as expressly provided, the substantive legal terms contained in this Agreement including but not limited to Indemnification, Insurance, Merger, Modification and Severability, Default and Cancellation/Termination or Minnesota Law Governs may not be altered, varied, 8 modified or waived by any change order, implementation plan, scope of work, development specification or other development process or document. C. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will not be affected. 14. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION/TERMINATION A. If GRANTEE fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement, fails to administer the work so as to endanger the performance of the Agreement or otherwise breaches or fails to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement, it shall be in default. Unless GRANTEE’s default is excused in writing by COUNTY, COUNTY may upon written notice immediately cancel or terminate this Agreement in its entirety. Additionally, failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement shall be just cause for COUNTY to delay payment until GRANTEE’s compliance. In the event of a decision to withhold payment, COUNTY shall furnish prior written notice to GRANTEE. B. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, GRANTEE shall remain liable to COUNTY for damages sustained by COUNTY by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by GRANTEE. Upon notice to GRANTEE of the claimed breach and the amount of the claimed damage, COUNTY may withhold any payments to GRANTEE for the purpose of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due COUNTY from GRANTEE is determined. Following notice from COUNTY of the claimed breach and damage, GRANTEE and COUNTY shall attempt to resolve the dispute in good faith. C. The above remedies shall be in addition to any other right or remedy available to COUNTY under this Agreement, law, statute, rule, and/or equity. D. COUNTY’s failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. E. This Agreement may be canceled/terminated with or without cause by COUNTY upon thirty (30) days’ written notice. F. If this Agreement expires or is cancelled or terminated, with or without cause, by either party, at any time, GRANTEE shall not be entitled to any payment, fees or other monies except for payments duly invoiced for then-delivered and accepted deliverables/milestones pursuant to this Agreement. In the event GRANTEE has performed work toward a deliverable that COUNTY has not accepted at the time of expiration, cancellation or termination, GRANTEE shall not be entitled to any payment for said work including but not limited to incurred costs of performance, 9 termination expenses, profit on the work performed, other costs founded on termination for convenience theories or any other payments, fees, costs or expenses not expressly set forth in this Agreement. G.Upon written notice, COUNTY may immediately suspend or cancel/terminate this Agreement in the event any of the following occur: (i) COUNTY does not obtain anticipated funding from an outside source for this project; (ii) funding for this project from an outside source is withdrawn, frozen, shut down, is otherwise made unavailable or COUNTY loses the outside funding for any other reason; or (iii) COUNTY determines, in its sole discretion, that funding is, or has become, insufficient. COUNTY is not obligated to pay for any costs or expenses or obligations incurred or encumbered after the notice and effective date of the suspension or cancellation/termination. In the event COUNTY suspends, cancels or terminates this Agreement pursuant to this paragraph, COUNTY shall pay any amount due and payable prior to the notice of suspension or cancellation/termination except that COUNTY shall not be obligated to pay any amount as or for penalties, early termination fees, charges, time and materials for costs, expenses or profits on work done. H.GRANTEE has an affirmative obligation, upon written notice by COUNTY that this Agreement may be suspended or cancelled/terminated, to follow reasonable directions by COUNTY, or absent directions by COUNTY, to exercise a fiduciary obligation to COUNTY, before incurring or making further costs, expenses, obligations or encumbrances arising out of or related to this Agreement. 15.SURVIVAL OF PROVISIONS Provisions that by their nature are intended to survive the term, cancellation or termination of this Agreement do survive such term, cancellation or termination. Such provisions include but are not limited to: GRANT REQUIREMENTS; INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; INDEMNIFICATION; INSURANCE; DUTY TO NOTIFY; DATA PRIVACY AND SECURITY; RECORDS-AVAILABILITY/ACCESS; DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION/TERMINATION; MEDIA OUTREACH; and MINNESOTA LAW GOVERNS. 16.GRANT ADMINISTRATION Kira Berglund, Waste Reduction and Recycling Specialist, or their successor (“Grant Administrator”), shall manage this Agreement on behalf of COUNTY and serve as liaison between COUNTY and GRANTEE. Lisa DeMars, 763-473-8852, lisa.demars@medinamn.gov, shall manage the agreement on behalf of GRANTEE. GRANTEE may replace such person but shall immediately give written notice to COUNTY of the name, phone number and email/fax number (if available) of such substitute person and of any other subsequent substitute person.] 10 17.COMPLIANCE AND NON-DEBARMENT CERTIFICATION A.GRANTEE shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local statutes, funding sources, regulations, rules and ordinances currently in force or later enacted. B.GRANTEE certifies that it is not prohibited from doing business with either the federal government or the state of Minnesota as a result of debarment or suspension proceedings. C.If the source or partial source of funds for payment under this Agreement is from federal or state monies or from a federal, state or other grant source, GRANTEE is bound by and shall comply with applicable law, rules, regulations, applicable documentation or other COUNTY directives relating to the source and utilization of such funds. 18.RECYCLING COUNTY encourages GRANTEE to establish a recycling program for at least three materials, such as newsprint, office paper, glass, plastic, and metal. 19.NOTICES Unless the parties otherwise agree in writing, any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party under this Agreement or any statute or ordinance shall be in writing, and shall be sent registered or certified mail. Notices to COUNTY shall be sent to the County Administrator with a copy to the originating COUNTY department at the address given in the opening paragraph of this Agreement. Notice to GRANTEE shall be sent to the address stated in the opening paragraph of this Agreement or to the address stated in GRANTEE’s Form W-9 provided to COUNTY. 20.CONFLICT OF INTEREST GRANTEE affirms that to the best of GRANTEE’s knowledge, GRANTEE’s involvement in this Agreement does not result in a conflict of interest with any party or entity which may be affected by the terms of this Agreement. Should any conflict or potential conflict of interest become known to GRANTEE, GRANTEE shall immediately notify COUNTY of the conflict or potential conflict, specifying the part of this Agreement giving rise to the conflict or potential conflict, and advise COUNTY whether GRANTEE will or will not resign from the other engagement or representation. Unless waived by COUNTY, a conflict or potential conflict may, in COUNTY’s discretion, be cause for cancellation or termination of this Agreement. 11 21.MEDIA OUTREACH GRANTEE shall notify COUNTY, prior to publication, release or occurrence of any Outreach (as defined below). The parties shall coordinate to produce collaborative and mutually acceptable Outreach. For clarification and not limitation, all Outreach shall be approved by COUNTY, by and through the Public Relations Officer or his/her designee(s), prior to publication or release. As used herein, the term “Outreach” shall mean all media, social media, news releases, external facing communications, advertising, marketing, promotions, client lists, civic/community events or opportunities and/or other forms of outreach created by, or on behalf of, GRANTEE (i) that reference or otherwise use the term “Hennepin County,” or any derivative thereof; or (ii) that directly or indirectly relate to, reference or concern the County of Hennepin, this Agreement, the Grant Requirements performed hereunder or COUNTY personnel, including but not limited to COUNTY employees and elected officials. 22.MINNESOTA LAWS GOVERN The laws of the state of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations concerning the validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal relations between the parties and their performance. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction for any litigation will be those courts located within the County of Hennepin, state of Minnesota. Litigation, however, in the federal courts involving the parties will be in the appropriate federal court within the state of Minnesota. 23.HENNEPIN COUNTY PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX AND PROPERTY TAX GRANTEE affirms that it and its officers have paid all Hennepin County personal property taxes and property taxes due on all of its Hennepin County properties for taxes owed on or before the date of the execution of this contract. If the County finds that property taxes have not been paid by GRANTEE, GRANTEE’s owner and GRANTEE’s board of directors (if any), County may refuse to disburse funds or require the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed. THIS PORTION OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 12 COUNTY BOARD AUTHORIZATION Reviewed for COUNTY by the County Attorney's Office: {{Sig_es_:signer3:signature}} {{userstamp3_es_:signer3:stamp}} Reviewed for COUNTY by: {{Sig_es_:signer4:signature}} {{userstamp4_es_:signer4:stamp}} Board Resolution No: {{*BoardResolution_es_:signer4:brs}} Document Assembled by: {{Sig_es_:signer1:signature}} {{userstamp1_es_:signer1:stamp}} {{Exh_es_:signer1:attachment:label("Attachments")}} COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA By: {{Sig_es_:signer6:signature}} {{userstamp6_es_:signer6:stamp}} ATTEST: {{Sig_es_:signer7:signature}} {{userstamp7_es_:signer7:stamp}} By: {{Sig_es_:signer5:signature}} {{userstamp5_es_:signer5:stamp}} 13 GRANTEE GRANTEE warrants that the person who executed this Agreement is authorized to do so on behalf of GRANTEE as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinances.* By: {{Sig_es_:signer2:signature}} {{userstamp2_es_:signer2:stamp}} {{ ttl_es_:signer2:title}} *GRANTEE represents and warrants that it has submitted to COUNTY all applicable documentation (articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinances) that confirms the signatory's delegation of authority. Documentation is not required for a sole proprietorship. Board Action Request 21-0389 Item Description: Approve Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Funding Policy, negotiate grant agmts Resolution: BE IT RESOLVED, that the Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Funding Policy for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2025, be approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Administrator be authorized to negotiate residential waste reduction and recycling grant agreements from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2025; that the Chair of the Board be authorized to sign the agreements on behalf of the county; and that the Controller be authorized to disburse funds as directed. Background: The county has funded city waste reduction and recycling programs for over 30 years. The Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Funding Policy, as amended, established the terms and conditions for distributing funds. In June 2020, the board adopted an amendment to extend the funding policy through 2021 and authorize amendment 1 to the 41 residential recycling grant agreements, extending the periods through December 31, 2021 (Resolution 20-0197). The county receives funding from the state’s Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment (SCORE) for the development and implementation of waste reduction and recycling programs. The county has made 100% of these funds available to cities in accordance with the county’s funding policy. Cities must meet several basic requirements to receive funding, including standards for program implementation, partnership on education and outreach, reporting, and performance. The county has adopted the goals established in State Statute and by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in its Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan and adopted a Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Funding Policy to help reach a 75% recycling rate by 2030. City waste reduction and recycling programs play an important role in the solid waste management system and helping the county meet zero waste and climate action goals. Tonnage from city organics programs in 2020 was almost six times the amount collected in 2015 and there is need for more growth. The county continues to work with cities to implement the best practices needed to increase access to organics recycling, grow participation rates, and maximize the recovery of organics. As more cities add organics to their recycling programs, this tremendous growth will continue. Environment and Energy staff used the Racial Equity Impact Tool (REIT) to ensure changes to the funding policy are aligned with county disparity reduction goals and to help direct county engagement efforts during the development of the funding policy. The county surveyed city communicators and hosted over 30 meetings with city recycling coordinators to gather feedback, questions, and concerns and the limitations they face in implementing recycling programs. City staff also summarized resident input on recycling programs and provided insightful feedback on the needs of the community. These conversations were instrumental in the development of the policy. The REIT application also revealed single family homes benefitted from the funding distribution while multifamily residents did not have as many opportunities to access funding and services. This led the county to analyze multifamily data and stakeholder feedback, to look closely at the roles cities and the county play in supporting multifamily recycling, and to create a new section of the funding policy that provides enhanced support for multifamily waste reduction and recycling without over-burdening city staff. Current Request: This request seeks approval of the Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Funding Policy for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2025. This request also seeks approval to authorize the County Administrator to negotiate residential waste reduction and recycling grant agreements from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2025; authorize the Chair of the Board to sign the agreements on behalf of the county; and authorize the Controller to disburse funds as directed. An estimated $3.6 million will be available to cities in 2022. The 2022-2025 funding policy dedicates funds to four different purposes: 1) general funding for waste reduction and recycling programs, 2) curbside organics recycling programs, 3) organics drop-off sites, and 4) multifamily waste reduction and recycling. Of the total SCORE funds, this funding policy allocates 40% to general program expenses, 50% to curbside organics, and 10% to multifamily and organics drop-off sites. Cities will receive funding based on number of households, participation targets, and other criteria specified in the funding policy. The county developed the funding policy by seeking input through a thorough city engagement process and applying the county’s racial equity impact tool. That feedback led to two major changes: more up-front funding to help grow organics programs and more resources for multifamily. The policy acknowledges that the strategies for achieving zero waste may change during the term of the policy, and it allows for adaptation to those changes during the term. Impact/Outcomes: Residential waste reduction and recycling programs support county goals to make progress toward zero waste, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce disparities associated with waste disposal. This funding policy continues county support for city programs, which plays an important role in the solid waste system. Recommendation from County Administrator: Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date Type Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Funding Policy 10/5/2021 9/28/2021 Backup Material Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Funding Policy January 1, 2022 – December 31, 2025 Department communication to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners on October 5, 2021 Communicated October 5, 2021 1 I. Policy Overview A. Background The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners has determined that residential waste reduction and recycling programs support county goals to make progress toward zero waste, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce disparities associated with waste disposal. The county has adopted the goals established in State Statute and by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in its Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan and developed a Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Funding Policy to help reach a 75% recycling rate by 2030. B. SCORE funds The county receives funding from the state’s Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment (SCORE) for the development and implementation of waste reduction and recycling programs. SCORE funds are based on revenue received by the State of Minnesota from the solid waste management tax (SWMT) on garbage services and are subject to change based on the SWMT revenue received by the state and funds allocated by the legislature. C. Support for city programs City recycling programs play an important role in the solid waste management system. The county has funded city programs for over 30 years and will use this policy to make available all SCORE funds to cities for residential waste reduction and recycling programs. SCORE funds will be dedicated to four different purposes: 1) general funding for waste reduction and recycling programs, 2) curbside organics recycling programs, 3) organics drop-off sites, and 4) multifamily waste reduction and recycling. Funds distributed to cities for a calendar year will be based on SCORE funds received by the county in the state’s corresponding fiscal year. D. Term of the policy Hennepin County is committed to implementing this policy from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2025. The county may revise this policy to align with strategic priorities developed in the zero waste plan or solid waste management master plan. In addition, the county may revise this policy if it determines changes are needed to assure compliance with state law and MPCA goals established for metropolitan counties. If SCORE funds are eliminated from the state budget or significantly reduced, the county will consult with cities at that time and develop a recommendation to the board on future funding for residential waste reduction and recycling programs. Communicated October 5, 2021 2 E. Grant agreements Each city seeking funding under the terms of the Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Funding Policy must enter into a grant agreement with the county for a term concurrent with the expiration of this policy, December 31, 2025. The grant agreement must be accompanied by a resolution authorizing the city to enter into such an agreement. If cities form a joint powers organization responsible for waste reduction and recycling programs, the county will enter into a grant agreement with that entity and distribute funds to that organization. II. Allocation of Funds SCORE funds will be dedicated to the following purposes:  General funding for waste reduction and recycling programs  Curbside organics recycling programs  Organics drop-off sites  Multifamily waste reduction and recycling A. Waste reduction and recycling programs The county will dedicate 40% of SCORE funds to provide funding for city waste reduction and recycling programs. For the purposes of this policy, city waste reduction and recycling programs include organics recycling. Funds will be allocated based on number of eligible households with curbside recycling service. The following formula will be used to calculate a city’s grant amount. Number of eligible households with curbside recycling in city ------------------------------- Total number of eligible households with curbside recycling in county x 40% of SCORE funds available = Waste reduction and recycling grant amount available to the city Eligible households are defined as households in single family through fourplex residential buildings or other residential buildings where each household has its own recycling collection container to set out for curbside collection and receives recycling collection service through the city. In cities with open recycling collection, eligible households are defined as households in single family through fourplex residential buildings where each household has its own recycling collection container to set out for curbside collection. The number of eligible households will be determined by counting the number of eligible households on January 1 of each funding year. The city will report the number in its application for funding. Communicated October 5, 2021 3 B. Curbside organics recycling programs The county will dedicate 50% of SCORE funds to provide funding for curbside organics recycling programs. Funds will be allocated using participation targets for each city. Funding is not contingent upon meeting the participation target. The following formula will be used to calculate a city’s grant amount. Target number of households with curbside organics recycling in city ------------------------------- Total target number of households with curbside organics recycling in county x 50% of SCORE funds available = Curbside organics recycling amount available to the city Initial participation targets (as a percent of households with curbside recycling service):  50% for cities that contract for organics recycling service  10% for cities that require haulers to offer organics recycling service C. Organics drop-off sites The county will dedicate up to $3,300 per eligible city to provide funding for organics drop-off site expenses. Cities with a population of less than 10,000 are eligible. E. Multifamily waste reduction and recycling The county will take 10% of SCORE funds, subtract the amount allocated to organics drop-off sites, and dedicate the remainder to provide funding for multifamily waste reduction and recycling programs. For the purposes of this policy, city waste reduction and recycling programs include organics recycling. Funds will be allocated based on the number of multifamily households. The following formula will be used to calculate a city’s grant amount. Number of multifamily households in city ------------------------------- Total number of multifamily households in county x 10% of SCORE funds available minus organics drop-off funds = Multifamily waste reduction and recycling amount available to the city Communicated October 5, 2021 4 Multifamily households in cities with organized recycling collection are defined as 1) households in buildings where each household does not have its own recycling collection container to set out for curbside collection, or 2) households in buildings that do not receive recycling collection service through the city, including apartment buildings, condominiums, townhomes, and cooperative housing units where a property manager or association coordinates collection service. Multifamily households in cities with open recycling collection are defined as households in residential buildings larger than a fourplex. III. Application for Funding A. General program and curbside organics application To receive funding for waste reduction and recycling programs and curbside organics recycling, each city must complete an annual grant application by February 15 of that year. The application consists of a web-based report that requests the following: contract, program, tonnage, and financial information. The participation rate for the curbside recycling program must also be included in the web-based report. The city must calculate its participation rate during the month of October. The methodology for measuring participation must be provided to the county upon request. The county may request additional information, such as a planning document with a description of activities the city will implement to increase recycling and make progress toward county objectives. B. Organics drop-off sites and multifamily supplementary application To receive funding for organics drop-off sites and multifamily waste reduction and recycling, each city must submit a supplementary grant application form annually. The county will provide this form by February 15 and the city must complete it by March 15 of that year. IV. Use of Funds A. Conditions applying to all funds The following requirements apply to the use of all funds: 1. Funds must be expended on eligible activities per Minnesota Statutes §115A.557. 2. All grant funds accepted from the county must be used in the year granted unless the county agrees to an exception. The county will not provide any funds in excess of actual expenses. Funds not spent must be returned to the county. Communicated October 5, 2021 5 3. A city or joint powers organization may not charge its residents through property tax, utility fees, waste fees, environmental fees, or any other method for the portion of its waste reduction and recycling program costs that are funded by county grant funds. 4. Cities must track expenditures for waste reduction and recycling programs, curbside organics recycling, organics drop-off sites, and multifamily waste reduction and recycling and establish accounting mechanisms to provide the information requested in the financial section of the annual grant application. 5. Waste reduction and recycling activities, revenues, and expenditures are subject to audit. B. Curbside organics use of funds Curbside organics grant funds may be used for program expenses, including the following: • Incentives for participation (service discounts, countertop pails, compostable bags) • City contract costs • Education and outreach • Carts • Other expenses approved by the county Yard waste expenses are not eligible. If organics are co-collected with other waste, the organics expenses must be tracked separately. If a city passes funds through to a hauler, 100% of those funds must be credited to residents’ bills. C. Organics drop-off sites use of funds Organics drop-off site grant funds may be used for program expenses, including the following: • Hauling and disposal • Dumpsters or carts • Site construction • Education and outreach • Incentives for participation (countertop pails, compostable bags) • Other expenses approved by the county D. Multifamily waste reduction and recycling use of funds Cities that choose to apply for multifamily waste reduction and recycling funding will work with the county to identify eligible activities that are customized to the city’s goals and needs. These activities will be determined through the supplementary grant application process. Communicated October 5, 2021 6 Unused funds will be used by the county to provide multifamily waste reduction and recycling program services. Multifamily resources provided by the county, including reusable tote bags/baskets and multifamily specific signs and labels, are not eligible expenses. V. City Requirements A. Materials accepted A city’s curbside collection program must accept a list of mixed recyclables as selected by the county in consultation with haulers, local material recovery facilities, and end markets. The county will update the list of materials as needed, distribute the list to city recycling coordinators, and post the list on the county’s website. B. Education and outreach The partnership between the county and municipalities has been highly effective in educating residents and motivating behavior change. To continue this partnership and increase these efforts, city waste reduction, recycling and organics recycling activities must be coordinated with county and regional efforts. Municipalities must adhere to the following requirements: 1. Use county terminology on promotional and educational materials when describing recycling and organics recycling guidelines, including the description of materials accepted and not accepted, as well as when describing preparation guidelines. 2. Use images approved by the county if using images of mixed recyclables and organic materials. 3. Provide the following information on the city’s website;  Recycling and organics recycling materials accepted and not accepted  Curbside collection calendar  Organics drop-off site(s) information  Links to county resources and programs 4. Provide a guide on recycling and organics recycling to residents each year. The guide shall contain information on curbside collection, materials accepted and not accepted, organics drop off site information (if applicable), and a curbside collection calendar. 5. Complete two or more waste reduction, recycling and organics recycling educational activities annually that include the promotion of curbside collection. The county will provide a list of activities to city recycling coordinators. These activities are in addition to the provision of an annual guide. Communicated October 5, 2021 7 6. If a city develops its own educational materials, does not use a template produced by the county, does not utilize design services offered by the county, or relies on a hauler to provide an annual guide, then the city must submit the materials to the county for approval. C. Waste reduction and recycling performance On an annual basis, cities must demonstrate that a reasonable effort has been made to improve waste reduction and recycling programs. If a city does not demonstrate measurable progress, a waste reduction and recycling improvement plan must be submitted by the city within 90 days of being notified by the county. The waste reduction and recycling improvement plan must be negotiated with the county and specify the efforts that will be undertaken by the municipality to improve its program to yield the results necessary to achieve county objectives. In cooperation with the county, the city may be required to participate in waste sorts and community engagement to identify strategies to improve waste reduction and recycling outcomes. VI. Grant Payments The county will make two equal payments to the city. Those two payments will provide the sum of each city’s total grant amount for general waste reduction and recycling programs, curbside organics recycling programs, organics drop-off sites, and multifamily waste reduction and recycling. One payment will be made after the county receives the applications for funding. A second payment will be made after basic program requirements, education and outreach requirements, and performance have been confirmed and approved. If the city meets the county requirements, both payments will be made during the same calendar year. Cities are expected to fulfill the conditions of this policy and the requirements of Ordinance 13. It is the responsibility of each city to meet the requirements of Ordinance 13. The implementation of the county requirements for cities shall be the responsibility of each respective city. If any city fails to establish or implement any or all of the city requirements in Ordinance 13, all SCORE funding will be withheld until the city meets the requirements or a waste reduction and recycling improvement plan is negotiated with the county. Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 10 January 18, 2022 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting + TO: Members of the City Council FROM: Colette Baumgardner, Planning Intern Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: January 12, 2022 MEETING: January 18, 2022 SUBJECT: Rooftop Elements Ordinance Discussion Background On November 3, 2021, the City Council directed staff to conduct a study on the regulation of rooftop elements. Rooftop elements are items that extend past the ordinary roofline and include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. steeples, spires, or belfries; 2. chimneys or flues; 3. cupolas and domes; 4. mechanical or electrical equipment; 5. flagpoles; 6. monuments; 7. parapet walls; 8. towers, poles, or other structures for essential services; and 9. other architectural features. The City Council also adopted a moratorium which prohibits any rooftop element which extends more than 12 feet above a roof. This limitation will apply until the study is completed. Staff conducted a study of ten suburban communities in the west metropolitan area of the Twin Cities. This study reviewed how each community defined and regulated rooftop elements. At the end of the study, staff provided a summary with recommendations on how Medina could regulate these elements balancing the unique needs of Medina residents, regulatory feasibility, and reasonable consistency. The report provided to the City Council for their December 21st meeting can be found in Attachment 1. Since publishing this report, staff has one notable update. Upon further review, staff found that the City of Maple Grove limits rooftop elements to 10 ft beyond the limited height of the building, similar to the City of Corcoran. Staff recommended separating the regulation of architectural features and rooftop equipment and the requirements to be the same across all zoning districts. The regulations proposed in the ordinance was generally summarized as: • Architectural features: staff recommended that “No architectural element shall extend higher than the greater of the following: 1) a distance 10 feet above the highest point of the roof; or 2) a MEMORANDUM Agenda Item #7A Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 10 January 18, 2022 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting distance of five feet greater than the maximum building height allowed in the respective district, measured to the average grade.” • Rooftop equipment: staff recommended limiting the height to 10 ft above the highest point of the roof on which it is located. Screening would be required to be architecturally compatible with the building. The Planning Commission discussed the details of the study and various ways to regulate the height of rooftop elements on December 14th and January 11th, and the City Council discussed the matter on December 21st. On December 14th, the Planning Commission generally supported the staff recommendation for architectural features and mechanical equipment. They requested for staff to investigate further what a CUP would look like for rooftop elements; however, some members expressed they would not support a CUP option. Additionally, some members of the Commission suggested that special allowances could be given to religious uses for additional height. No vote was taken on the ordinance or specific aspects of the recommendation. On December 21st, the City Council supported separating architectural features and mechanical equipment, but they had many suggestions for changing the staff recommendation. For mechanical equipment, they suggested having more leniency on height as long as the equipment is screened and would like to see a CUP option. This is due in part to the fact they preferred to have mechanical equipment on the roof than on the ground. For architectural elements, the Council expressed interest in a limit on the area of the roof architectural features with a suggested limit of 25% cover. They also expressed interest in for height of the feature to not far exceed the roof where it is located. No vote was taken on the ordinance or specific aspects of the recommendation, and an excerpt of the relevant section of the meeting minutes can be found in Attachment 2. On January 11th, the Planning Commission moved to recommend approval of the ordinance as drafted. Staff did update the ordinance to better reflect some of the aspects of the discussion, and the updated ordinance is in Attachment 1. Staff updated Subd. 2 on rooftop equipment to include standards for screening and removed the language of a conditional use permit from Subd. 1 on architectural features. The Commission agreed with the staff recommendation regarding not limiting the area of the roof covered by architectural feature. The commissioners were initially split on whether to include a CUP for architectural features, but the ultimate motion did not explicitly recommend adding a CUP allowance. The commission briefly discussed allowing for additional height in the base requirement since they would not have additional height in a CUP, but ultimately did not include changes to these heights in their motion. This report seeks to aid and inform the next City Council discussion on the topic based on the discussion at the relevant Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Ordinance Amendment Page 3 of 10 January 18, 2022 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting Architectural Features Conditional Use Permit There are two types of standards typical for conditional use permits: general standards and specific standards.i General standards apply to all conditional uses, such as a use must be consistent with the purpose of the zoning code or be compatible with neighboring properties. Medina’s general standards are found in Section 825.39 of the City Code and shown on the following page. Specific standards are detailed limitations or requirements specific to each conditional use. For example, a standard limiting size and type of accessory dwelling units or home occupations. If an application meets both the general and specific standards, then the Planning Commission and City Council have a minimal legal discretion to deny the permit. No updates are needed to the general standards for a CUP for architectural features. However, specific standards would need to be drafted for each zoning district where additional height is desired. The conditional use could be for “buildings with architectural elements extending greater than 10 feet above the highest point of the roof; or a distance of five feet greater than the maximum building height.” The requirements within the CUP are then the discretion of the Planning Commission and the City Council. “Section 825.39. Conditional Use Permits; Criteria for Granting Conditional Use Permits. In granting a conditional use permit, the Medina City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of occupants or surrounding lands. Among other things, the City Council shall consider the following: Subd. 1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. Subd. 2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. Subd. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Subd. 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. Subd. 5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. Subd. 6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. Subd. 7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. Subd. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. Subd. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion. Subd. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. Subd. 11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project. Subd. 12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer.” Ordinance Amendment Page 4 of 10 January 18, 2022 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting Two relevant examples of CUP specific requirements are shown below from the City of Medina and City of Minnetrista. City of Medina City Code – Chapter 8, Section 838 ii “Section 838.5.08. Supplemental Requirements for Specific Uses within Commercial Zoning Districts. Subd. 1. Structures which exceed 50,000 square feet of floor area. (a) The structure may only be utilized for a use which is permitted in the zoning district in which it is located. (b) Required Front, Rear, and Side Yard Setbacks shall be increased to 50 feet. (c) Structures and loading areas shall be no less than 100 feet from residential zoning districts. Parking shall be no less than 80 feet from residential zoning districts. (d) The city may require increased landscaping and screening to minimize the impact of intensive traffic within parking and loading areas. (e) The city may require additional landscaping, screening and architectural elements to minimize the impact of longer building facades. (f) A detailed traffic analysis may be required by the city to determine traffic control needs.” City of Minnetrista - Chapter 5, Section 505iii “Section 505.07. General Regulations Subd. 5. Height Regulation (b) A building may be allowed to exceed the maximum height requirement called for by this code if a conditional use permit is issued which successfully addresses the following criteria: (1) The architectural appearance of the building shall not be so dissimilar to the existing neighboring buildings as to cause impairments in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. (2) For each additional one foot in allowable, actual, roof height as calculated by the Building Code, which is above the maximum building height allowed by the respective zoning district; front and side yard setback requirements shall be increased by one foot. (3) The construction does not limit solar access to abutting and/or neighboring properties. (4) The provisions of section 505.05, subdivision 7, Conditional Uses, are considered and satisfactorily met. (c) Height limitations set forth elsewhere in this section may be increased by conditional use permit when applied to the following: (1) Church spires, belfries, or domes; (2) Water towers; (3) Flagpoles; (4) Agricultural structures in AP and A districts; (5) Radio towers and antennas exceeding 25 feet for use by licensed amateur radio operators in residential districts and planned unit developments.” The specific standards in a CUP should advance the overall goals of the regulation. It is staff’s understanding the intent behind adding a restriction on the height of architectural features is to preserve Medina’s rural feel, limit distractions to the landscape, and prevent an architectural feature of an egregious size from being built in the City. These goals can work in tension with each other, especially Ordinance Amendment Page 5 of 10 January 18, 2022 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting preserving Medina’s rural feel and preventing an egregious sized feature. It is important for the Council to discuss how they would like to balance these goals. If the Council would like to pursue a CUP for architectural features, staff would recommend the conditions below. It also would be advisable to include some maximum allowable height for an architectural feature. This could take the form of a maximum additional height from above the standard. It is important to note that if more height is allowed through a CUP, it is important to note that it is not the intent of a CUP to give City the discretion to decide if the height should be approved on a case-by-case basis. Instead, the conditional use should be expected to be generally allowed, subject to certain conditions. The City could generally only deny the requested CUP if it determines that it violates one of the general or specific conditions which are established. If the flexibility is added, the City should be prepared to allow the additional height, subject to conditions. As such, if a CUP is to be considered, careful consideration needs to be given to the list of specific conditions. Recommended Conditional Use Permit Requirements: Supplemental Requirements for Specific Uses within XXX Subd. X. Buildings with architectural elements extending greater than 10 feet above the highest point of the roof; or a distance of five feet greater than the maximum building height. (a) For each additional one foot in allowable, actual, roof height as calculated by the Building Code, which is above the maximum height allowed; front, rear, and side yard setback requirements shall be increased by one foot. (b) The construction does not limit solar access to abutting and/or neighboring properties. (c) The city may require additional landscaping, screening and architectural elements to minimize the impact of the taller architectural elements. (d) The provisions of section 825.39 are considered and satisfactorily met. Staff had considered adding an explicit provision to the conditions to add an upper limit to the flexibility which can be requested through a conditional use permit. Determining the desired maximum height through the CUP may be complex but will allow the City to more easily prevent “very tall” features. Religious Use Exceptions Planning Commission discussed explicitly allowing for architectural features on religious buildings to be exempt from regulation of building height or otherwise be more permissive. Staff recommends against having exceptions based on the use within the building. Uses of structures may change over time, and it may put the City into a position of determining whether a proposed use is “eligible” for the exception. Limiting Area of Architectural Features At the December 21st meeting the City Council reached a consensus that they would like to see a limitation of area of architectural features and discussed limiting the area to 25% of the total roof area. They suggested that the percent coverage be calculated as the area from an aerial view of the roof of the property. It is worth noting that this is not a standard drawing that is submitted for new development projects. Staff believes that limiting the area of architectural features would create a larger administrative Ordinance Amendment Page 6 of 10 January 18, 2022 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting Figure 1: Entire Feature and Parapet Wall Included in Area (~42%) Figure 2: Feature Covering Roof and Parapet Wall Included in Area (~37%) burden, and it would add cost to reviewing projects which ultimately creates additional costs to construction in Medina. An additional challenge to limiting area of architectural features is the need for a very clear interpretation of what is a feature and where a feature starts and stops. This challenge is not at present when calculating the height because the clarification would only be necessary if an element exceeded the height of that respective zoning district. The shopping center at 190 Westfalen Trail (shown to the right) exemplifies how challenging calculating the area can be. The rooftop elements are understood to be architectural only, containing no habitable space. They are within the necessary height requirements for the district, but they cover approximately 37% to 42% of the roof depending on how it is calculated as shown in Figures 1 and 2. Ordinance Amendment Page 7 of 10 January 18, 2022 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting Staff is also concerned that limiting the area of architectural features would potentially be counterproductive to the City’s stated interest in “high quality and attractive…architectural design.”iv In the example above, the architectural features help to provide visual interest to the building and enhance the development overall. While the features could be smaller, the size of the features tie in with other architectural aspects of the building and appear to be an attractive design. Limiting Feature Height Above Roof The Council discussed that they would be interested in limiting the height of a feature to be based on the height of the roof where it was located, particularly on flat roofs. Generally, they were concerned about the height of an architectural feature could be large in comparison to the height of the roof on which it is located. For example, the recommendation allowed for a 25-foot-tall architectural feature on top of a one- story building with a flat roof of 15 feet in a district with a 35-foot height limit. Staff intentionally allowed this to be the case in the initial recommendation. Staff believe that an architectural feature should be allowed to be the same height has the allowable building height in a district, and an additional 5 feet would be a reasonable distance to allow that feature to exceed past the allowable building height. Additionally, all communities studied allowed for architectural features to meet or exceed the allowable building height in a district. Most districts in the City limit building height to 35 feet or less. Some zoning districts (Commercial- Highway, Business, R4-High Density Residential, and Uptown Hamel) allow height up to 45 feet. Based on these limitations, staff questions whether limiting features below the allowed building height is necessary. A feature constructed at the maximum allowed height would not appear out of place compared to buildings of the same height. Staff could foresee this allowance to potentially become problematic if the City allowed much taller buildings. For example, if the City were to allow a building ten stories tall, an architectural feature placed on top of a one-story flat roof could be large enough to be egregious. If the City Council would like to limit the height of features on flat roofs, the following update in underline could be made to the initial staff recommendation. “No architectural element shall exceed 20 feet in height nor extend higher than the greater of the following: 1) a distance 10 feet above the highest point of the roof; or 2) a distance of five feet greater than the maximum building height allowed in the respective district, measured to the average grade.” By Zoning Districts The City Council also discussed creating height requirements unique to each zoning district. As shown in Table 1, most communities studied regulate architectural features the same across all zoning districts in their general requirements section. Staff see merits to both approaches. General requirements can be easier to communicate and create architectural consistency throughout the City. Whereas requirements by district can allow for more tailored standards based on the uses in the district. Staff’s impression of the discussion was that the interest in regulating by district had more to do with the type of roof which is predominant in different districts. As discussion continued, it centered more around flat roofs vs. peaked roofs. In addition, staff believes that the distinction between zoning districts Ordinance Amendment Page 8 of 10 January 18, 2022 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting becomes less necessary if the City is open to a relatively stringent limitation in most cases. For example, an element exceeding by 10 feet vs. 15 feet is relatively difficult to perceive. Unless the Council were interested in allowing significantly more height for elements in a certain district, staff does not believe regulating by zoning district is necessary. Table 1: Zoning District Where Regulation is Specified Community Architectural Feature Height Plymouth General Maple Grove General Corcoran General Minnetrista General Chanhassen General St. Louis Park General Golden Valley By District Minnetonka By District Orono No Regulation Wayzata General Questions to Consider In the December report, staff developed a list of questions for the City Council to think about prior to their next meeting. Staff believe that many of the earlier questions are still relevant. The following questions are intended to help Council members think about the potential outcomes from adopting an ordinance on the height of architectural features. They are not necessarily intended to serve as discussion questions during the meeting, as many are theoretical in nature and intended more for context for discussion of the terms of the regulations. 1) What is the purpose behind regulating the height of architectural features? How would a statement of purpose guide the decision on the height allowed? 2) Does a limitation on the height of architectural features advance the intent of purpose of the zoning code stated below? “Section 825.03. Intent and Purpose. This Ordinance is adopted for the purpose of: Subd. 1. Protecting the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare by guiding the future development of land. Subd. 2. Promoting orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas. Subd. 3. Conserving the natural and scenic beauty and attractiveness of the City. Subd. 4. Conserving and developing natural resources. Subd. 5. Providing for the compatibility of different land uses and the most appropriate use of land throughout the City.” Ordinance Amendment Page 9 of 10 January 18, 2022 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting 3) How to balance limiting height of architectural features with goals such as “high quality architectural design and materials,” modulation, differentiation of rooflines, and not limiting design flexibility? 4) Additional or more complex design requirements increase the time it takes for city staff to review a project and can make it building design more challenging for architects. This can increase the cost of a construction limiting affordable options for consumers and can lead to higher staff costs for review. How to balance the design that promotes general welfare in city without unintended financial consequences? 5) The perceived or comparable height of architectural elements is affected by factors such as: the type of roof on which it is located, the height and size of the building, design of the remaining structure, and many other factors. On the same building, an element may be permissible at a higher elevation (from ground) on one roof compared to another. By raising the roofline on which an element is located, it may be permitted to higher from ground. The effect would be to increase the massing (and likely construction costs) of the building. 6) The current draft ordinance would appear to allow most of the existing elements which staff surveyed across the City, but a lot of them are very close to the limitation. Elements slightly larger may have not been permitted by this regulation. 7) The City has not had explicit regulations on rooftop architectural elements for many years and the Planning Commission and City Council did not raise much concern with the examples of elements presented by staff which were constructed during that time. Does this, conceptually, suggest tending toward less restrictive requirements? 8) The examples in Medina include parapet walls, cupolas, weathervanes, church spires, and belfries. What are other potential features? o Rooftop patios with a pergola o Green roofs – how would trees be considered? 9) What is the appropriate allowable additional height? 10 ft? 15 ft? Recommendation Summary Staff recommends City Council to discuss the purpose of regulating the height of architectural features before moving forward. This will help to make the decision about specific height requirements easier. As stated previously, it is staff’s understanding the intent behind adding a restriction on the height of architectural features is to preserve Medina’s rural feel, limit distractions to the landscape, and prevent an architecturally feature of an egregious size from being built in the City. If this is the case, then staff would give the same recommendation as in the earlier report and stated below. General Standard: No architectural element shall extend higher than the greater of the following: 1) a distance 10 feet above the highest point of the roof; or 2) a distance of five feet greater than the maximum building height allowed in the respective district, measured to the average grade. Ordinance Amendment Page 10 of 10 January 18, 2022 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting Mechanical Equipment Height Generally, members of the Council did not want unlimited height of equipment but recognized that the equipment would need to be whatever height was necessary to support the functions of the building. They preferred height limit of 12 ft with additional height allowed through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). This would allow for staff to review screening to ensure it is sufficient to cover the additional height requested and blends in architecturally with the building. The Council also was not as concerned about height or screening if the equipment was setback from the edges of the roof. The closer to the center the equipment is the harder it is to see from the ground. Staff Recommendation Staff therefore updates the recommendation in the earlier recommendation to the following underlined text: “No rooftop equipment, shall extend greater than ten twelve feet above the highest point of the roof on which it is located, except by conditional use permit.” As discussed previously in this report, specific standards should be established for each conditional use. Following is a potential list for taller rooftop equipment: (a) The applicant shall establish, to the satisfaction of the City Council, that the equipment is necessary for the function of the building and utilizing shorter equipment is impractical or less advantageous. (b) The equipment shall not limit solar access to abutting and/or neighboring properties. (c) The city may require additional landscaping, screening and architectural elements to minimize the impact of the taller mechanical elements. (d) The provisions of section 825.39 are considered and satisfactorily met. Attachments 1. DRAFT Ordinance 2. Rooftop Elements Study Report to City Council – December 21st 3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – January 11th 4. City Council Meeting Minutes – December 21st 5. Comment Received – BAPS End Notes i Land Use Conditional Use Permits - League of Minnesota Cities (lmc.org) ii City of Medina City Code – Chapter 8, Section 838 iii City of Minnetrista – Chapter 5, Section 505 iv Stated in Medina City Code in the following section’s purpose statements: 832.2.01. Business District - Purpose; 838.1.01. Commercial - Highway District-Purpose; 838.2.01. Commercial-Highway/Railroad - Purpose; 838.3.01. Commercial-General - Purpose; 838.4.01. Commercial-Neighborhood - Purpose; 842.1.01. Mixed Use – Purpose CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE AMENDING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO HEIGHT OF ROOFTOP ELEMENTS; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. New Section 825.22 is hereby added to the code of ordinances of the City of Medina as follows: Section 825.22. Height Limitations for Rooftop Elements. The building height limitation established in each zoning district shall not apply to the objects and features described in this section. The height of such objects and features shall be regulated as described herein. Subd. 1. Rooftop Architectural Elements (a) The following architectural elements and similar elements located on a structure shall be subject to the regulations described in Subd. 1(b): (i) Belfries (ii) Spires or steeples (iii) Weathervanes (iv) Flags and flagpoles, if attached to a structure (v) Cupolas and domes which set upon the roof and do not contain useable space (vi) Parapet walls (vii) Other architectural elements (b) No rooftop architectural element, as described in Subd. 1(a), shall extend above the greater of the following: (i) ten feet above the highest point of the roof on which it is located; or (ii) a horizontal distance of five feet greater than the maximum building height allowed in the respective zoning district in which it is located, as measured to the average grade. Subd. 2. Rooftop Equipment (a) The following rooftop equipment and similar equipment, when located on a structure, shall be subject to the regulations described in Subd. 2(b): (i) Chimneys or flues (ii) Smokestacks (iii) Cooling towers (iv) Elevator penthouses (v) Necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances and related screening apparatus (vi) Poles, towers, and other structures for essential services (vii) Television, radio, or telecommunication antennas, excluding antennae regulated by Section 828.75 et. seq. (b) No rooftop equipment, as described in Subd. 2(a), shall extend greater than twelve feet above the highest point of the roof on which it is located, except by conditional use permit, subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall establish, to the satisfaction of the City Council, that the equipment is necessary for the function of the building and utilizing shorter equipment is impractical or less advantageous. (ii) The equipment shall not limit solar access to abutting and/or neighboring properties. (iii) The city may require additional landscaping, screening and architectural elements to minimize the impact of the taller mechanical elements. (iv) The provisions of section 825.39 are considered and satisfactorily met. Subd. 3. Rooftop Solar Equipment shall be subject to the limitations described in Section 828.09. SECTION II. Clause (f) of Section 815.05 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows: (f) Flags. No flag on a flagpole shall exceed 40 square feet in area. No single property shall fly more than three flags at one time. Flagpoles shall not exceed extend more than 40 feet in heightabove grade, except if attached to a structure as regulated in Section 825.22. If the total area of the flags exceeds 72 square feet, the excess area shall be included in any Sign Area calculations for the property. Wall-mounted flags shall be limited to one flag per property and shall not exceed 20 square feet in area; SECTION III. Subd. 2 of Section 825.19 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language as follows: Subd. 2. No accessory building shall exceed 30 feet in height, with the exception of buildings where agricultural use or farming is at the discretion of the City the primary use of the property. Building projections or features, such as chimneys, cupolas, and similar decorations that do not exceed 35 feet in height are permitted in residential districts. Accessory building height shall be measured as set forth in section 825.07, subdivision 12 of the city code. SECTION IV. Subd. 1(f) and (i) Section 834.07 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language as follows: Section 834. Zoning – Uptown Hamel (UH) District Section 834.07. Design and Development Standards Subd. 1. Building – Architectural Standards: (f) Height. New building heights shall not exceed three stories, except as described herein. Along all street frontages and park property lines, building heights exceeding two stories shall have the third story set back at least six feet from the front line of the building, and the fourth story shall be set back 12 feet from the front line of the building. Basement levels shall not be considered a story, so long as more than 50 percent of the basement structure is below grade at the average of all areas around the building. Total building height shall not exceed 50 feet., except structures such as belfries, chimneys, flues, monuments, cupolas and domes which do not contain living space, are permitted, provided they are not higher than 10 feet above the height of the building. In the case that the distance from grade to the eave (or top corner of a flat roof) of a structure exceeds 30 feet, additional fire suppression apparatuses may be required by the city. A fourth story may be allowed if ten percent of residential units are dedicated affordable housing units. (i) Equipment. Equipment shall not be mounted on the roof unless it can be demonstrated that there is no other reasonable alternative. If allowed, rRooftop equipment shall be screened using the architectural elements and material from the building, provided they are consistent with these design standards. SECTION V. Subd. 1(s)(iv) of Section 831.07 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language as follows: Section 831. Zoning – Urban Commercial Section 831.07. Design and Development Standards Subd. 1. .Design and development standards – all uses: The following design and development standards are identified for all uses. Additional standards may be identified during the review and approval process, due to the particular characteristics of each site, the proposed development of the site, and the uses on adjacent property. (s) Building Materials and Building Appearance – (iv) Screening of Rooftop Equipment – All rooftop equipment shall be designed to minimize undesirable views and forms when viewing rooftops from higher elevations and abutting property. Equipment shall be screened through the use of architectural elements and materials, which are consistent with the design and architecture of the building. Wooden boards or similar material constructed or assembled in a fence-type method or design shall not be used to screen rooftop equipment. Screening elements should not exceed 8 feet in height. SECTION VI. Subd. 1(u) part (v) Section 833.07 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language as follows: Section 833. Zoning – Industrial Park District Section 833.07. Design and Development Standards Subd. 1. .Design and development standards – all uses: The following design and development standards are identified for all uses. Additional standards may be identified during the review and approval process, due to the particular characteristics of each site, the proposed development of the site, and the uses on adjacent property. (u) Architectural Standards – (v) Screening of Rooftop Equipment – All rooftop equipment shall be designed to minimize undesirable views and forms when viewing rooftops from higher elevations or abutting property. Equipment shall be screened through the use of architectural elements and materials, which are consistent with the design and architecture of the building. Wooden boards or similar material constructed or assembled in a fence-type method or design shall not be used to screen rooftop equipment. Rooftop equipment and screening elements shall not exceed 8 feet in height. SECTION VII. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this _____day of ______, 2022. ______________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor Attest: _________________________________________ Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator/Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the ____ day of ______, 2022. Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 12 December 21, 2021 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting + TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Colette Baumgardner, Planning Intern Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: December 16, 2021 MEETING: December 21, 2021 City Council SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment – Rooftop Elements Context On November 3, 2021, the City Council directed staff to conduct a study on the regulation of rooftop elements. Rooftop elements are items that extend past the ordinary roofline and include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. steeples, spires, or belfries; 2. chimneys or flues; 3. cupolas and domes; 4. mechanical or electrical equipment; 5. flagpoles; 6. monuments; 7. parapet walls; 8. towers, poles, or other structures for essential services; and 9. other architectural features. The City Council also adopted a moratorium which prohibits any rooftop element which extends more than 12 feet above a roof. This limitation will apply until the study is completed. The City’s current Zoning Ordinance regulates these features to a limited extent, but it does not address them for all zoning districts and is not internally consistent. In this report, staff analyzes the City’s current regulatory requirements for rooftop elements and other local municipalities’ requirements. Staff then makes recommendations for the regulation of rooftop elements based on type of element and underlying zoning district. Generally, regulations differ depending on if the rooftop element is related to the building’s mechanical function or architecture. For the purposes of this report, “architectural features” are rooftop elements that extend past the regular roofline that primarily provide visual interest to the building, such as steeples, spires, or belfries; cupolas and domes; monuments; and parapet walls. Items that support the building’s mechanical function will be referred to as “rooftop equipment” and they are elements that include mechanical or electrical equipment; chimneys or flues; and towers, poles, or other structures for essential services. Rooftop solar equipment is not included in this study; regulation of solar equipment height is in Section 828.0 and those cannot extend past the building height by more than 5 ft. MEMORANDUM Work Session III Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 12 December 21, 2021 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting For context, figures 1 – 9 show some examples of existing rooftop elements in the City, with each of their approximate heights shown in the captions. Figure 4: Parapet Wall at Medina Target (apprx 12 ft above roof and apprx 35 ft from ground) Figure 1: Cupola at Medina Country Club (apprx 16 ft from roof peak to top of cupola roof, apprx 10 ft to top of weather vane, and apprx 40 ft from ground to top of cupola roof) Figure 6: Parapet Wall Sign at Farmers State Bank of Hamel (~11 ft above roof and ~35 ft from ground) Figure 5: Chimney at Hennepin County Public Works (apprx 18 ft from roof line and 57 ft from the ground) Figure 2: Cupola at Leatherdale Farms at 2075 Cottonwood Trail (apprx 11 ft from roof peak and apprx 35 ft from ground) Figure 3: Cupola at Automotor Complex (apprx 7 ft from roof peak and 48 ft from ground) Figure 4: Parapet Wall at Medina Target (apprx 12 ft above roof and apprx 35 ft from ground) Ordinance Amendment Page 3 of 12 December 21, 2021 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting The tallest features in the City are located on churches which were built prior to the City having zoning regulations in place. Table 1: Summary of Select Architectural Features in Medina Location Feature Feature Height* Height from Ground Medina Country Club Cupola 10 ft – 14 ft 44 ft Leatherdale Farms Cupola 11 ft 35 ft Automotor Complex Cupola 7 ft 48 ft Medina Target Parapet Wall 12 ft 35 ft Farmers State Bank Parapet Wall 11 ft 35 ft Holy Name Church Spire 40 ft 80 ft St. Anne’s Catholic Church Belfry 38 ft 82 ft *Heights are approximate and measured using the oblique imagery tool through Hennepin County Current Height Requirement in Code The City’s current Zoning Ordinance does regulate rooftop elements in some zoning districts, but the regulation differs greatly based on district. Some districts have limits on height and style of architectural features. Additionally, some districts have limits on height of rooftop mechanical equipment or requirements for screening of equipment, but others have no requirements for equipment or screening. Architectural Features Zoning District: Uptown Hamel Section 834, Subd. 1. (f) limits the height of “belfries, chimneys, flues, monuments, cupolas and domes” to no more than 10 ft above the height of the building. Zoning Administration: Accessory Structures Section 825.19 Subd. 2 allows for the addition of “chimneys, cupolas, and similar decoration” on accessory structures such that they would not cause the overall building height to be taller than 35 feet in residential districts. The building height is limited to 30 feet in the residential district, unless the primary use of the property is agricultural or farming. Figure 8: Spire at Holy Name Church (apprx 40 ft from roof peak & apprx 80 ft from ground) Figure 9: Belfry at St. Anne’s Catholic Church (apprx 38 ft from roof peak & apprx 82 ft from ground) Ordinance Amendment Page 4 of 12 December 21, 2021 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting District Provisions: Conditional Use Permit for Agricultural Preservation and Residential Districts Section 826.98 Subd. 2. (m) (i) requires that accessory buildings be designed to include elements of “architectural interest” through the use of design elements such as “cupolas, dormers, windows, porches, overhangs, varied building foundation, or other design treatments.” Rooftop Equipment Zoning District: Urban Commercial Section 831.07, Subd. 1. (iv) requires the screening of rooftop equipment and limits the height of screening elements to 8 feet. Zoning District: Industrial Park Section 833.07, Subd. 1. (u) (v) requires the screening of rooftop equipment and limits the height of screening elements and rooftop equipment to 8 feet. Zoning District: Uptown Hamel Section 834.07. Subd. 1. (i) requires that the use of rooftop equipment should be avoided whenever possible. If there is no alternative, then rooftop equipment shall be “screened using the architectural elements and material from the building.” Zoning District: Commercial, Residential (R3) and (R4), Business Park and Business, Mixed- Use, and Mixed Residential District Rooftop equipment is required to be screened through the use of “architectural elements and materials which are compatible with the overall design of the building,” in the following sections: - Section 832.3.05 Subd. 2. (a) - Section 838.5.04 Subd. 2. (a) - Section 841.4.02 Subd. 5. (a) - Section 842.2.06 Subd. 4. (c) (i) - Section 843.05 Subd. 10 (e) (i) No limits on the height of equipment or screening are provided in these sections. Summary The current regulation of rooftop elements differs greatly depending on the area of the City. However, the current regulation can be summarized as shown in Table 2 below. Table 2: Summary of the City of Medina’s Height Regulations Architectural Features Uptown Hamel 10 ft height limit Rural Area – Accessory Structures Effectively a 5 ft height limit Rooftop Equipment Uptown Hamel 10 ft. height limit Industrial Park/Urban Commercial 8 ft height limit Rural Area N/A Most Urban Districts Screening Required Ordinance Amendment Page 5 of 12 December 21, 2021 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting Regulations in Other Communities The regulation of rooftop elements varies greatly from community to community. Tables 3 and 4 below summarizes the regulations of architectural features and rooftop equipment for nine communities in the West Metro area of the Twin Cities. Table 3: Surrounding Community Rooftop Element Regulations Community Architectural Features Height Rooftop Equipment Height Rooftop Equipment Screening Plymouth 10 ft above the max building height or 50 ft, whichever is greater. Increases allowed by CUP. 10 ft above the building or 50 ft total, whichever is greater. Increases allowed by CUP. Screening required for all rooftop equipment greater than 3 ft, except for solar panels and wind energy conversion systems Maple Grove Explicitly does not regulate of height Architectural Features Rooftop equipment and structural elements cannot exceed 10 ft nor exceed more than 25% of the roof area Screening required so as not to be visible Corcoran 10 ft above building height Rooftop equipment and structural elements cannot exceed 10 ft nor exceed more than 25% of the roof area - Required for all rooftop equipment greater than 3 ft - Must limit views from the perspective of a point 6 ft high at all adjacent property lines Minnetrista Height limitation can be increased by CUP, parapet walls are prohibited No height restrictions Required for all rooftop equipment Chanhassen Does not regulate height of Architectural Features except Parapet Walls: 4 ft above the max building height No height restrictions Must limit views from the perspective of a point 6 ft high at all adjacent property lines or from a distance of 250’, whichever is greater St. Louis Park Limit is 50% of the allowable building height, except for parapet walls Limit of 10 ft Screening is required from ground view within 400’ of property Golden Valley Limited to allowable building height in area with provision to exceed allowed N/A - No Regulation of rooftop equipment N/A - No Regulation of rooftop equipment Minnetonka Explicitly does not regulate of height Architectural Features No height restrictions Screening required on rooftop equipment, unless the equipment is “low profile [and] self- contained” Orono N/A – no regulation of architectural feature No height restrictions Screening required in select districts – industrial, highway commercial, and residential PUD Wayzata Greater of 40 ft in total height or 5 ft over building. Increases allowed by CUP. Varies by district – ranges from no roof equipment allowed to no height limit Screening required and materials must blend with building’s facing materials Ordinance Amendment Page 6 of 12 December 21, 2021 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting Table 4: Summary of Regulation Type Community Architectural Feature Height Limited Rooftop Equipment Height Regulated Rooftop Equipment Screening Required Plymouth    Maple Grove X   Corcoran X   Minnetrista O X  Chanhassen  X  St. Louis Park    Golden Valley O X X Minnetonka X X  Orono X X X/ Wayzata    X – not regulated or not limited, O – conditions,  - clear specifications Architectural Features The regulation of architectural features varies widely. Generally speaking, communities either exempt certain features from height limitations or allow architectural elements to exceed the maximum building height permitted in each district by some amount. Several communities studied – Minnetonka, Chanhassen, and Maple Grove – explicitly do not regulate the height of architectural features such as spires, belfries, cupolas, etc. Golden Valley and Minnetrista allow for architectural features to extend beyond the buildable height using special approval processes, such as a conditional use permit. Golden Valley does not specify the requirements for which additional height would be allowed. Minnetrista specifies the following conditions, in addition to the standard requirements for conditional use permits: “(1) The architectural appearance of the building shall not be so dissimilar to the existing neighboring buildings as to cause impairments in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. (2) For each additional one foot in allowable, actual, roof height as calculated by the Building Code, which is above the maximum building height allowed by the respective zoning district; front and side yard setback requirements shall be increased by one foot. (3) The construction does not limit solar access to abutting and/or neighboring properties.” Four communities allow additional height for architectural features – Plymouth, Wayzata, Corcoran, and St. Louis Park. Plymouth and Wayzata’s regulations are similar to Medina’s regulation for these features in Uptown Hamel. Plymouth allows for additional height as-of-right, but they limit the height to be [50 feet in total height or 10 feet higher than the maximum allowable height, whichever is greater]. Plymouth also allows for additional height through a conditional use permit, so long as it meets the general requirements of their conditional use permit. Wayzata is similar, except the limit for the total height is 40 ft and limit for in excess of the maximum is 5 ft. Wayzata also allows for additional height with a conditional use permit. St. Louis Park allows for height limitations to be “increased by 50 percent” when applied to architectural features. For example, in the single-family residential district (R-1) the building height maximum is 30 ft, so a church steeple could extend to a height of 45 ft, if the religious Ordinance Amendment Page 7 of 12 December 21, 2021 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting institution was approved with a conditional use permit. One notable exception is that parapet walls are limited to “not more than 3 ft above the limiting height of the building.” Corcoran limits architectural features from extending greater than 10 feet beyond the maximum allowed building height. Rooftop Equipment All communities studied, except for Golden Valley, have some regulation of rooftop equipment. The two most common regulation types are on height and screening of equipment. As shown in Table 4, all communities with rooftop elements regulations require screening of rooftop equipment. A notable exception is that no communities have explicit requirements on the height of chimneys, and chimneys are not defined as being part of rooftop equipment. Generally, screening elements are required to be architecturally compatible with the style of the building. Minnetrista’s requirement is the most basic and states that “roof top or outside mechanical equipment and any exterior storage must be screened from view from adjacent properties and rights-of-way with an opaque material architecturally compatible with the building(s).” Chanhassen has a similar requirement, but specifies that the sightline to the equipment is measured from the perspective of someone who is 6 ft tall standing at the property line. St. Louis Park’s requirement takes a different approach, and St. Louis Park simply requires that the screening extend at least one foot above the rooftop equipment. Minnetonka is more lenient in their screening requirement, and they require screening on equipment that is not “low profile [and] self-contained.” Minnetonka also communicates that “it is not the intent of the city to restrict design freedom unduly when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building plan.” The goal of their requirement is to pursue “best interest of the city to promote high standards of architectural design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods.” Three of the communities we studied regulate the height of rooftop equipment in all districts – Plymouth, Maple Grove, and St. Louis Park. All of these communities limit the height of rooftop equipment to be 10 ft, and Plymouth allows for the height to be taller using a conditional use permit. Wayzata regulates the height of rooftop equipment in the Wayzata Blvd District to be 3 ft in height, and they do not allow for rooftop equipment in the Lake Street and Bluff Districts. In all other districts, rooftop equipment is allowed to be any height, but it must be screened from view. Opportunities and Recommendation The study of other communities shows that communities regulate rooftop elements in a variety of ways, and there is not a clear consensus in the metro area on the appropriate height of rooftop elements. This section provides a variety of regulatory options that staff believes may be suitable for rooftop elements in Medina. The first staff recommendation is to separate the regulation of architectural features and rooftop equipment as specified in this report. This will allow for a regulation that is able to be right-sized to each situation. Ordinance Amendment Page 8 of 12 December 21, 2021 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting The second staff recommendation is to create one standard for architectural features and one standard for rooftop equipment that is specified in Section 825. Zoning-Administration. This will allow for an increase in consistency and clarity in its application across districts. Most communities have a similar list of elements which are either exempted from building height limitations or allowed additional height. Architectural Features The options outlined below are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and some of them can be mixed and matched. Option 1: Fixed Additional Height Allowance The first option is to extend the 10 ft allowable height for architectural features in the Uptown Hamel District to all areas of Medina. Additional clarification would be needed, and a general interpretation would be to allow architectural features to extend 10 ft above the allowable building height limit measured from the average grade around the building. Therefore, if building is allowed to be 35 ft in a district, the architectural feature could be 45 ft tall as measured from the average grade. This would be consistent with the current regulation description for Accessory Structures (Section 825.19 Subd. 2). This option would not limit the size of an architectural feature. If a building was one story tall (about 15 feet), then an architectural feature could account for the difference and be about 30 feet in height. Additionally, this option typically would not allow for architectural features on the top of peaked roofs, such as cupolas. Since building height is calculated using the average height between the peak and eave on a pitched roof, the peak of the roof is often closer to 50 ft. Therefore, any additional architectural feature would exceed the additional 10 ft allowed in excess of the building height. The City of Plymouth accommodates this by stating that an “element may not exceed 50 feet in total height or exceed the maximum allowable height of the building by more than ten feet, whichever is greater.” Option 2: Limit Architectural Features Based on Height Above Roof The City could limit the distance by which architectural features extend above the roof on which they are located. This is similar to the interim regulations which were adopted by the City Council, which prohibit any rooftop element from extending more than 12 feet above a roof. This type of limitation could result in architectural features being limited to a lower elevation than a roof would be permitted. For example, an element on a 15-foot tall single-story structure with a flat roof might be limited to 27 feet above grade when an adjacent two-story building with a peaked roof might extend as much as 45-50 feet above the lowest grade. This would prevent architectural features from being more substantial and potentially taller than the structure they are located on. For example, a one-story building that had a roofline at 15 feet could not have architectural features that are 20 feet tall. Ordinance Amendment Page 9 of 12 December 21, 2021 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting Option 3: Hybrid Approach To address the potential downsides noted above, the City could adopt regulations which relate to both the maximum allowed height and the roof on which are located: “No architectural element shall extend higher than the greater of the following: 1) a distance ten feet above the highest point of the roof; or 2) a distance of five feet greater than the maximum building height allowed in the respective district, measured to the average grade.” Option 4: Explicitly Not Regulate the Height of Architectural Features The City could adopt a similar regulation to Maple Grove, Chanhassen, and Minnetonka by explicitly exempting architectural features from the building height. The general language would read to similarly to the following: “The building height limits established in this chapter for districts shall not apply to the following: (i) Belfries (ii) Spires or steeples (iii) Weathervanes (iv) Flags and flagpoles, if attached to a structure (v) Cupolas and domes which set upon the roof and do not contain useable space (vi) Parapet walls (vii) Other architectural elements” Additional Consideration: Limit Number or Area of Elements None of the communities studied limit the number or width/depth of architectural features. Maple Grove and Corcoran’s 25% limit of roof coverage of mechanical equipment is the closest comparable. Without the limiting number or area of elements, it could theoretically mean that architectural features could cover an entire roof. Given the variety of types of architectural features and roof sizes, selecting a constant number of elements for all buildings seems to be overly restrictive. Limiting the percent of the roof covered or occupied by rooftop elements would be more appropriate, and staff believes 25% coverage is a reasonable balance. Additional Consideration: Allow for Increases with a Conditional Use Permit The options above may be augmented by a conditional use permit requirement. Two of the communities studied – Minnetrista and Plymouth – allow for height to be increased through this mechanism. Minnetrista requires that building setbacks be increased for each additional foot increase on the building. Plymouth does not have any requirements for conditional uses and reviews requests using their general criteria for conditional use permits. Medina’s City Code typically has specific criteria for each conditional use, so a requirement more similar to Minnetrista’s would likely be more appropriate. Questions to Consider 1) Does a limitation on the height of architectural features advance the intent of purpose of the zoning code stated below? If not, then Option 4 would be recommended. “Section 825.03. Intent and Purpose. This Ordinance is adopted for the purpose of: Ordinance Amendment Page 10 of 12 December 21, 2021 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting Subd. 1. Protecting the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare by guiding the future development of land. Subd. 2. Promoting orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas. Subd. 3. Conserving the natural and scenic beauty and attractiveness of the City. Subd. 4. Conserving and developing natural resources. Subd. 5. Providing for the compatibility of different land uses and the most appropriate use of land throughout the City.” 2) How to balance limiting height of architectural features with goals such as “high quality architectural design and materials,” modulation, differentiation of rooflines, and not limiting design flexibility? 3) How does the limitation vary depending on roof type? o Ex: A peak of building can extend past the allowable building height in a district because the height is calculated as an average between the peak and the eave of the roof. How tall can a feature be above a peaked roof? Should a feature on a flat roof be able to extend to the height of the allowable peak of an area? o Ex: A flat roof with multiple levels. Would a feature on a lower roof level be allowed to extend to the same height as a feature on the upper roof level? 4) The examples in Medina include parapet walls, cupolas, weathervanes, church spires, and belfries. What are other potential features? o Rooftop patios with a pergola o Green roofs – how would trees be considered? 5) What is the appropriate allowable additional height? 10 ft? 15 ft? Rooftop Equipment Staff Recommendation: Height Limit for All Districts The first option, and staff recommendation, is to limit height of rooftop equipment to be ten ft in height and create additional allowances through conditional use permits. Screening would be required for all rooftop equipment, except chimneys or flues. Screening would be required to be architecturally compatible with the structure, as is currently stated in the code. To simplify enforcement and communication, staff recommends either keeping the requirement of screening being equal in height to equipment or screening being one foot taller than the equipment. Option: Limit the Area of Elements Similar to architectural features, none of the communities studied limit the number or width/depth of mechanical equipment. The only similar regulation is limiting the percent of the roof covered by mechanical equipment to 25% in Maple Grove and Corcoran. However, typically buildings do not have excessive roof coverage for mechanical equipment. In Uptown Hamel and the Highway Commercial district no buildings currently exceed a 25% roof cover for mechanical equipment, and the average coverage is roughly 10%. Additionally, if the City were to regulate area covered by mechanical equipment and a building had mechanical needs that required equipment to cover more than 25% of the roof area, the equipment would then go on the Ordinance Amendment Page 11 of 12 December 21, 2021 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting ground. Staff believes that equipment on the ground would be less desirable than more equipment on the roof. A potential situation where a rooftop could have excessive equipment is if old or broken equipment was not removed when it was decommissioned. Staff has not researched to see if other communities regulate the removal of old and inoperable mechanical equipment, but more research can be done. Regardless, imposing such a requirement seems like a good idea. Questions to Consider 1) Does a limitation on the height of rooftop equipment advance the intent of purpose of the zoning code stated below? “Section 825.03. Intent and Purpose. This Ordinance is adopted for the purpose of: Subd. 1. Protecting the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare by guiding the future development of land. Subd. 2. Promoting orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas. Subd. 3. Conserving the natural and scenic beauty and attractiveness of the City. Subd. 4. Conserving and developing natural resources. Subd. 5. Providing for the compatibility of different land uses and the most appropriate use of land throughout the City.” 2) How would chimneys be considered? 3) What if more efficient equipment is available for a height that taller than the limited height? 4) What if a building’s mechanical needs cannot be meet within the height limit? Summary of Recommendation from Staff For greatest consistency between regions and type of roof construction, staff recommends the hybrid approach noted above. The language could be as follows: “No architectural element shall extend higher than the greater of the following: 1) a distance 10 feet above the highest point of the roof; or 2) a distance of five feet greater than the maximum building height allowed in the respective district, measured to the average grade.” This would allow for features on peaked roofs in rural areas, and parapet walls in more urban areas. The Planning Commission and City Council can also discuss whether it is desirable to allow greater height by a Conditional Use Permit with terms similar to that of Minnetrista. For rooftop equipment, staff recommends limiting the height to 10 ft higher than the allowable building height in the building’s respective zone. Screening would be required to be architecturally compatible with the building. Ordinance Amendment Page 12 of 12 December 21, 2021 Rooftop Elements City Council Meeting Table 5: Summary of Updates to Medina’s Code Architectural Features All Areas Element may not exceed roof by 10 feet or exceed the maximum allowable height of the building by more than five feet, whichever is greater. Rooftop Equipment All Areas 10 ft height limit Summary of Planning Commission The Planning Commission reviewed the study and held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance at the December 14, 2021 meeting. An excerpt from the draft meeting minutes is attached. Two persons spoke at the hearing: the attorney for BAPS and an owner within the AutoMotorPlex complex. The Planning Commission generally agreed with staff’s recommendation related to the “hybrid” calculation for architectural elements (greater of 10’ above roof OR 5’ above maximum height). Several Planning Commissioners expressed interest in reviewing language which may permit additional height through a conditional use permit, although some Commissioners expressed that they did not think they would support that provision. Some Commissioners also stated that they would support explicitly exempting architectural features from the building height. Ultimately, the Planning Commission tabled the ordinance and recommended that staff present the information to the City Council for feedback, and present more information regarding the potential for a CUP for additional height at the next Commission meeting. Next Steps At this time, staff does not recommend a motion to adopt an ordinance from the council. The purpose of this discussion is to get feedback from the City Council to see if there is additional information which would be helpful and to see if the City Council’s preliminary feedback is similar to the Planning Commission. Staff intends to present the ordinance for review by the Planning Commission and additional public hearing opportunity. Attachment 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Planning Meeting Minutes 3. Comment received: BAPS Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft ##/##/#### Minutes 1 Public Haring – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to Maximum Building Height of Rooftop Elements and Mechanical Equipment, and Screening Requirements for Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Baumgardner provided background information on the previous discussions related to rooftop elements. She noted that the discussions have been separated into the categories of architectural features and rooftop equipment. She reviewed the initial recommendation from staff and the additional items that the Commission and Council directed staff to continue to research. She provided additional information on the concepts relating to a Conditional Use Permit, religious use exceptions, limiting area of architectural features, limiting feature height above roof, standards based on zoning district, and height of mechanical equipment. She asked the Commission for assistance in clarifying the purpose of the regulation and whether the recommendation meets the purpose of the regulation. She asked if a Conditional Use Permit for architectural features would help to serve the purpose. She stated that if the Commission believes that the recommendation meets the goals and purpose of the regulation, a motion could be made to recommend adoption of the ordinance. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 10:08 p.m. No comments. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 10:08 p.m. Piper commented that this ordinance is beautifully done and is pleased to see how specific the language is on each use. She believed that this would answer many questions. Sedabres referenced the previous proposal with the spires and asked if this ordinance would allow for the spires that had been requested. Finke replied that as drafted, the height of those spires as proposed would not be permitted by these limitations. He stated that there was some discussion of the Council and staff in reviewing the different architectural features throughout Medina and whether they would be allowed under the proposed regulations. He noted that many of the features would just barely be allowed. He stated that there was discussion on whether these regulations would have unintended impact on design. Sedabres asked if the ordinance as drafted includes reference to the CUP process. Finke stated that as drafted there is not reference to a CUP to allow additional height. He stated that if a CUP is going to be used to allow additional height, there would need to be specific conditions. Sedabres stated that he maintains his view in that he has concern with nonconforming religious buildings that have features that would continue to be allowed as they would be grandfathered in. He stated that he would like to see a tool that would ensure new religious institutions are not treated differently than those that already exist. Jacob asked if there is a provision to offer screening for mechanical equipment on rooftops. He commented that there is a variety of different rooftop mechanical equipment and noted that he would prefer that equipment to be screened to protect the rural character of Medina. Baumgardner confirmed that the requirement for screening mechanical equipment continues to be part of the ordinance. Popp stated that he can support the consensus of the Council from the December 21st meeting related to mechanical equipment. He stated that there are a wide range of applications that could be impacted and Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft ##/##/#### Minutes 2 therefore the purpose of the regulation is important. He stated that he would like to push for the option of a CUP to provide additional flexibility. He stated that he did not see the benefit of regulating the percent of the rooftop for architectural features. Rhem commented that he would also want to see some form of flexibility and would be interested in reviewing how that could be provided. Finke commented that in terms of flexibility, a CUP could potentially provide that, but the flip side would be that the City should be mindful of being careful what it may get. He stated that by making additional height for architectural elements a conditional permitted use, it would essentially become an allowed use, subject to the specific conditions. He asked what standards would be used to limit that flexibility. He noted that dislike of a design could not be used to deny a CUP request. He stated that the City has gone through this process to limit the height of architectural elements and including a CUP option would essentially void that limitation. Grajczyk commented that he believes the intention is to avoid a situation where something is constructed that may be in a neighborhood or zoned area that may not fit and causes disturbance to residents. He stated that he likes the staff recommendation as that provides the best opportunity to provide the vision for the community. Nielsen recognized that there is concern for the temple and that some Commissioners would like to allow the ability for spires. She asked if the numbers could be changed to better support that request, suggesting adding five feet to each of the regulations. Finke commented that the Commission could choose to make its own recommendation. He stated that he would caution against calling out a specific request. He recognized that it is also helpful to use real examples when considering the regulations. He stated that there is a moratorium in place allowing the City to go through this process as a result of the BAPS application. He stated that there was a lot of discussion at that time that there were no regulations for rooftop elements in place. He stated that it was unanimous that there ought to be some regulation to prevent overly sized elements, and the question then is to the level of restriction. He stated that staff’s initial thought to tying the regulation to the allowed height in the district was that a building could be that height, so an element could also be that height. He noted that allowing ten feet above the highest point was tied to the examples that exist in the community. He noted that the highest BAPS spire was 30 feet above the 20-foot roof height, therefore it would need to be ten feet shorter in order to match the ordinance as drafted. Baumgardner confirmed that the Commission could change the numbers if desired. Nielsen stated that she is comfortable with the regulation as drafted. Motion by Piper, seconded by Grajczyk, to recommend approval of the ordinance as presented by staff. A roll call vote was performed: Grajczyk aye Jacob aye Piper aye Popp aye Rhem aye Sedabres nay Nielsen aye Motion carried. Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/21/2021 Minutes 1 C. Rooftop Elements Discussion (7:25 p.m.) Finke stated that the City is currently completing a study related to rooftop elements and the related regulations. He noted that the preliminary report was included in the Council packet. He stated that during the work session prior to this meeting the Council began discussion on that preliminary report and is continuing that during this meeting. He stated that the staff report mentioned that some communities limit the area which the architectural rooftop features can occupy, noting that is not a common requirement. He stated that some communities place a limit on the number of rooftop mechanical equipment items, but staff does not recommend that limitation. He noted that a similar limitation could be enacted for architectural features, although staff did not include that in the draft ordinance. It was the consensus of the Council not to limit the mechanical rooftop equipment as that is the preferred location and the equipment must be screened. DesLauriers stated that he can support the staff recommendation to not limit the architectural rooftop features in that way but noted that he could also see how too many would appear cluttered and would not be the desired outcome. Albers stated that he does like limiting the features to less than 25 percent as more than that would become an eyesore. Reid stated that she is comfortable limiting at 25 percent. Martin stated that she would agree that it could make sense to have a 25 percent limitation on architectural rooftop features as that would prevent against having too many. Finke asked if that would be the aggregate of those that extend above the roof or whether the issue is the limitation of an individual element. Martin commented that she would use an aggregate basis. DesLauriers commented that he would agree with the Council. He noted that 99 percent of the time this would not matter, but there could be an instance where this would make sense to prevent an undesired aesthetic. Cavanaugh commented that he could see that would make sense on a pitched roof but used the example of Target where the Council is asking for modulation and architectural detail and asked if this regulation would impact that ability. He stated that staff did not support this regulation. He noted that for commercial development he would rather see more architectural features and modulation rather than less. Martin referenced a shopping center with bell towers that are placed on various locations but did not believe that would exceed 25 percent. Cavanaugh asked how a parapet would be calculated along with other architectural features that are desired in commercial, flat roof development. Finke agreed that it would be hard to know the unintended consequences of a new regulation. He referenced the Caribou Coffee that exists on Clydesdale Trail and explained how difficult the Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/21/2021 Minutes 2 calculation and administration would be in those instances. He asked if it is really the percentage of the roofline that is the concern or whether the concern falls in a different area. Martin commented that she would think the area to be used in the calculation would be building area and therefore a parapet would only be the width of wall times the number of feet. She stated that she was looking at coverage of the roof area rather than number of square feet of the architectural feature. DesLauriers stated that he is still comfortable with his original opinion. He also agreed that he would only count the portion that attaches to the building and not the entire size of the element. He was unsure how the language could be drafted for enforcement. Cavanaugh provided different examples to determine how Martin would calculate those items. He stated that he could support the limitation in that manner. Martin confirmed the consensus of the Council to support a limitation of 25 percent of the roof coverage for architectural features. Finke stated that there is an objective for varying rooflines for a building. He reviewed the hybrid recommendation suggested for architectural features, noting that the Council suggested an additional regulation for a not to exceed of 15 feet above the roofline for a parapet wall. He asked for clarification on how the height of the roof would be determined. DesLauriers commented that he would believe the 15 feet would be from the midpoint rather than the highest height of the roof. Finke provided an example of Target which has a parapet wall and explained how the potential regulations would apply in that instance. Martin stated that she would not count a parapet wall as roof height for that calculation but would use the height of the higher actual roof segment as that is the highest point of the roof. Finke stated that in that example an architectural feature on a lower wall segment could be higher as the height would be measured by the higher wall segment. Martin stated that in that instance the measurement would be based on the segment of the roof that the feature is located; meaning that if a feature is located on a lower roof segment, the height would be measured from that roof segment and not based on the height of a higher roof segment. Reid commented that she could agree with that but noted that the different numbers seem more complicated. Cavanaugh referenced a belltower which would not be placed on the highest roof segment but could be higher than the highest point of the rest of the building. He stated that he would be more in favor of setting a limit which could be applied anywhere on the building. Albers stated that he is struggling on the direction and where to go, therefore reserved his comments. Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/21/2021 Minutes 3 Martin stated that this issue will be referred back to the Planning Commission for further discussion. She stated that she prefers limiting a flat roof by each segment of the building and the height for that particular segment. Cavanaugh stated that he would guess the roofline would be consistent across the building and the varying elements would be parapets. Martin noted that OSI has varying roof heights. Finke agreed that it is not that uncommon for commercial buildings to have varying roof heights. He provided a photographic example of a building with varying roof heights. He explained how the potential regulations would apply in that instance. He stated that staff has spent a number of hours thinking about potential issues that could arise and things still continue to come up, which speak to the complexity of this topic. He stated that it would appear that the hybrid option would allow most situations with the exception of the steeple and belltower mentioned earlier but noted that most of those other things would just barely meet the regulation (Target wall, cupola on Motorplex, etc.). Finke moved on to the discussion related to the regulation of rooftop equipment. He reviewed the current Medina regulations and provided comparison of regulations from other communities. He asked whether it is necessary to limit the height of mechanical equipment, as technologies change equipment may become larger. He stated that if the elements are required to be screened perhaps a maximum height is not needed. Martin stated that she would prefer to keep a maximum height and use a CUP to allow more height for equipment if necessary. Albers did not have much of an opinion. Reid agreed with Albers. She stated that rooftop equipment is not generally that high in her experience. Cavanaugh commented that rooftop equipment will be whatever is needed to support the building. He did not believe it was necessary to place a maximum height as the equipment would be screened. DesLauriers agreed with Cavanaugh. He stated that if equipment 12 feet in height is needed, it would be screened and could be approved with a CUP. Martin clarified that Cavanaugh suggested no height limitation with required screening whereas DesLauriers mentioned a CUP. She asked what the CUP would be used for if the screening is already required. DesLauriers stated that the CUP would allow review to see what the screening would look like. Martin agreed that she would also want to review the screening. She received confirmation that DesLauriers would agree to a maximum height with a CUP to allow additional height. Cavanaugh stated that he could support that concept, even though his original thought was only to require screening as rooftop equipment would not be larger than needed to support the building. Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/21/2021 Minutes 4 Albers asked if there would be a second maximum height allowed under CUP rather than allowing unlimited height through a CUP. Martin commented that she does not feel educated enough to suggest a maximum height for rooftop equipment. She stated that perhaps above ten feet, a CUP would be required. Finke stated that it was not very common where cities treated equipment differently than architectural requirements. Cavanaugh suggested using a height of 12 feet. He noted that if the rooftop equipment is under 12 feet, screening would be required and if above, a CUP would be required. Martin commented that she would prefer ten feet but could support 12 feet. Reid commented that a 12-foot piece of rooftop equipment in the middle of a large warehouse would not be visible from any direction. She noted that if equipment is far enough from a roofline, it would not be visible and may not require screening. Martin asked for details on the screening requirement. Finke reviewed the language within existing City Code which is fairly general in nature. Martin confirmed that Reid is correct that screening may not be required depending on where the equipment is situated on the building. Martin confirmed the consensus of the Council to specify a maximum height of 12 feet for rooftop equipment, with the stipulation that additional height could be requested through a CUP. Finke commented that some people have been in attendance for the work session and this portion of the meeting. Martin noted that she and Johnson have not received any requests from the public to speak. Finke stated that staff will prepare the information and update the draft ordinance for review by the Planning Commission at its January meeting. Nielsen referenced the architectural elements and asked if the Council would like delineation between residential and commercial roofs (flat vs. pitched). Martin agreed that she would be comfortable having two different categories: business/commercial and residential. She noted that staff may provide additional suggestion on how the regulations could vary further based on the zoning district. James E. Snoxell Steven M. Graffunder* Jeffrey A. Berg Mark V. Steffenson Craig T. Dokken Susan T. Peterson-Lerdahl Debra S. Nelson *MSBA Board Certified Real Property Law Specialist 6900 Wedgwood Road, Suite 200 Maple Grove, MN 55311-3541 Tel: (763) 560-5700  Fax: (763) 560-0119 Chad E. Henderson Tifanne E. E. Wolter Adam J. Kaufman Kelly M. Eull Virginia R. Cronin Rachell L. Henning Hannah M. Weber Nicolas L. Hanson www.hennsnoxlaw.com December 9, 2021 VIA EMAIL ONLY TO: dusty.finke@medinamn.gov Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission City of Medina Medina City Hall 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 Re: Regulation of Architectural Features and Rooftop Equipment Our File No. 32316-004 Dear Mayor, City Council Members, and Planning Commission Members: We appreciate this opportunity to present the City with comments on the staff report regarding options for regulating architectural features and rooftop equipment. Because BAPS is more concerned about architectural features as they relate to the construction of its temple, we will focus on that topic and will not address rooftop equipment. The original BAPS temple proposal called for three spires. Two of the spires were approximately 44 feet above grade and one spire was approximately 50 feet above grade. The amended proposal for the BAPS temple removed the spires to enable BAPS to obtain approval to construct the temple. In conjunction with amending its proposal, BAPS indicated that it would like to work with the City on a proposed ordinance. BAPS also indicated that it would seek to add the spires to the temple following the lifting of the City’s moratorium and the enactment of an ordinance regulating such features. As was explained in connection with its proposal, the spires (including the flags at the top) have specific religious meaning and significance to BAPS. The spires are part of their religious beliefs and practices, and are central tenets of BAPS. The spires do not represent mere architectural details. Having spires on the Medina temple would be consistent with BAPS temples across the country. BAPS previously submitted photos showing examples of the BAPS temples in other parts of the country, which emphasized the importance of the spires. December 9, 2021 Page 2 We want to clarify one aspect of the staff report. The zoning codes of Maple Grove, Plymouth, Corcoran, and Wayzata all expressly exclude church spires from the calculation of building height. Excerpts from those zoning codes are attached. Although some of the zoning codes place limitations on the height of church spires above a designated building height or require conditional use permits if a certain height is exceeded, they nevertheless start from the point of excluding church spires from the calculation of building height. BAPS requests that the City enact an ordinance regarding architectural elements that is consistent with the ordinances of surrounding communities and that expressly excludes church spires. To enact limitations relating to religious uses necessarily involves the potential for the City to negatively impact a groups’ sincerely held religious beliefs. Given the importance of one’s sincerely held religious beliefs, there needs to be more flexibility when it comes to the exercise of those religious beliefs. Rigid and strict limitations on architectural elements should not be enacted for places of worship. We do not believe it is appropriate to enact an ordinance that provides for a very strict height limitation but then permits it to be varied by conditional use permit. An application for a conditional use permit in that situation will likely involve comparing the variance in the height of the proposed architectural element to the height restriction in the ordinance. The greater the variance, the less likely it would be that the conditional use permit would be approved. If the City did enact an ordinance that allows the limitations to be varied by a conditional use permit, it should specifically say so in the ordinance. Leaving out such language could lead to an interpretation that the ordinance does not permit its terms to be varied by a conditional use permit. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, HENNINGSON & SNOXELL, LTD. Steven M. Graffunder Steven M. Graffunder SMG:sak Encs. City of Maple Grove Building Height Provisions: Definition: the distance to be measured from the mean ground level to the top of a flat roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable of a pitched or hip roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the uppermost point on all other roof types. Section 36-8 Exceptions: The building height limits established in this chapter for districts shall not apply to the following: o Belfries o Chimneys or flues o Church spires o Etc. City of Plymouth, MN Building Height Provisions: Definition: Principal Building: The vertical distance from the average of the highest and lowest point of grade for that portion of the lot covered by the building to the highest point of the roof for flat roofs, to the roof de ck line of mansard roofs, and to the mean height between eaves and ridge for gable, hip, and gambrel roofs . Exceptions: the building height limits established in each zoning district shall not apply to the following list of items, except that no such structural element may exceed 50 feet in total height or exceed the maximum allowable height of the building by more than ten feet, whichever is greater, except by conditional use permit. o Belfries o Chimneys or flues o Church spires o Etc. Modifications to the topography of a lot may not be undertaken as a means of achieving increased building height, unless approved by the Zoning Administrator. In the case of any proposal to construct or alter a structure which will exceed a height of 200 feet above ground level of the site, or any proposal to construct or alter a structure to a height of greater than an imaginary surface extending upward and outward at a slope of 100:1 from the nearest point of the nearest runway of a public airport, the applicant shall notify the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation in writing of the plans at least 30 days in advance of making applicable permit requests to the City. The applicant shall provide the Zoning Administrator with any comments received from the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation as part of the required applicable permit request. This local reporting is in addition to any federal permitting and review processing which may be simultaneously required. City of Corcoran, MN Building Height Provisions: Definition: The vertical distance to be measured from the grade of a building line to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the upper most point on a round or other arch type roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. Section 1030.080 Height Limitations: The Building height limits established herein for districts shall not apply to the following: o Belfries o Chimneys or flues o Church spires o Etc. City of Wayzata, MN Building Height Provisions: Definition: The vertical distance above a Grade Plane measured to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to the uppermost point on a shed, round or arch type roof, or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched, hipped or gambrel roof. Modifications to the site grading that would affect the grade plane of a lot shall not be undertaken as a means of achieving increased building height, unless approved by the City Council. The height of a stepped or terrace building is the maximum height of any segment of the building. [Chapter 902.02]. Exception: The building height limits established in each zoning district shall not apply to the following list of items, except that no such structural element may exceed 40 feet in total height or exceed the maximum height of the building by more than 5 feet, whichever is greater, except by conditional use permit: [Chapter 919.02 (B); Height Requirements\] o Belfries o Chimneys or flues o Church spires o Etc. Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 January 18, 2022 City Council Meeting TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: January 13, 2022 MEETING: January 18, 2022 City Council Land Use Application Review A) Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat – 4250-4292 Arrowhead Drive – BPS Properties has requested Preliminary Plat approval for a 30-lot subdivision east of Arrowhead Drive south of Bridgewater. The City previously reviewed a concept plan for the project. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 11 and unanimously recommended approval. Staff intends to present to Park Commission on January 19 and City Council on February 1. B) Meander Boardwalk and Park PUD Concept Plan – south of Meander Road, west of Cavanaugh Drive – Medina Ventures has requested review of a PUD Concept Plan for a commercial development. The concept shows a day care facility (7,500 s.f.), a venue (concerts/weddings/educational), and approximately 12,000-15,000 s.f. commercial space. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 11, provided comments, and was generally supportive of the concept. Staff intends to present to Park Commission on January 19 and City Council on February 1. C) Cates Ranch/Willow Drive Warehouse Industrial – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment Worksheet – Oppidan has requested review of an EAW and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a warehouse/industrial development east of Willow Drive, north of Chippewa Road. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 11 and voted 4-3 to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Staff intends to present to Park Commission on January 19. Staff is awaiting completion of the public comment period for the EAW before presenting to Council. D) Prairie Creek Final Plat – Stelter Enterprises has requested final plat approval for a 17-lot villa subdivision at 500 Hamel Road. Staff is conducting preliminary review and will present to the City Council when complete, potentially at the February 1 meeting. E) Deng Septic Variance – 2472 Parkview Drive – Jet Deng has requested a variance to reconstruct and expand an existing septic drainfield in its existing location. Preliminary review is underway. F) Abraham Accessory Dwelling Unit CUP – 3003 Hamel Road – Chad and MT Abraham have requested a CUP for a guest home to be constructed along with their new home at 3003 Hamel Road. Staff is conducting preliminary review and will prepare for Public Hearing when complete, potentially at the February 8 Planning Commission meeting G) Loram/Scannell Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) – Loram and Scannell have submitted materials for the City to prepare an EAW for a warehouse/industrial development east of Arrowhead Drive, south of Highway 55, to the south of Loram’s existing facility. Staff is reviewing materials and will request Council authorization to distribute the EAW if complete. H) Ditter Heating and Cooling Site Plan Review – 820 Tower Drive – Ditter Heating and Cooling has requested a Site Plan Review for an approximately 5,000 square foot addition to its building. The application is incomplete for review and will be scheduled for a hearing when complete. MEMORANDUM Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 January 18, 2022 City Council Meeting I) BAPS Site Plan Review – 1400 Hamel Road – Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS), Minneapolis, has requested Site Plan Review for construction of a place of assembly. The Planning Commission reviewed at the September 14 meeting and recommended approval. The City Council reviewed on October 5, October 19, and November 3 meeting. The applicant updated plans to be consistent with the recently adopted interim ordinance pertaining to rooftop elements. The Council adopted a resolution for approval at the November 16 meeting. The applicant has indicated that they will likely not begin construction until spring. J) Life-Style Auto Condo – South of Hwy 55, west of Pioneer – SH Ventures has requested review of a PUD Concept Plan for development of 12 buildings with approximately 258,000 square feet of space for privately owned garage condos. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and provided comments at the October 12 meeting. Most Commissioners generally did not believe the proposal was consistent with the objectives of FDA land use of the Comp Plan. The Council reviewed at the November 16 Council meeting and provided comments. The applicant has requested that the City Council remain open, as they are considering potential updates to their Concept Plan. K) Weston Woods Final Plat – east of Mohawk Drive, north of Highway 55 – Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) has requested Final Plat for development of 76 twinhomes, 42 single- family, and 33 townhomes on the Roy and Cavanaugh properties. Grading has begun on the project and final plans are under review. L) Adam’s Pest Control Site Plan Review, Pre Plat, Rezoning – Pioneer Trail Preserve – These projects have been preliminarily approved and the City is awaiting final plat application. M) Caribou Cabin-Pinto Retail, Baker Park Townhomes, Johnson ADU CUP, Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery – The City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects. N) Hamel Haven subdivision – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plat is recorded. Other Projects A) Rooftop Elements Moratorium – Staff began researching regulations in other communities and reviewing existing rooftop elements within the City. The Planning Commission provided comments on December 14 and Council reviewed at the December 21 worksession. Staff presented the ordinance to the Planning Commission at the January 11 meeting. B) Planning and Building Assistant – we have completed interviews and are recommending appointment of Brenda Ruth at the January 18 meeting. C) Highway 55 corridor and transit study – I attended a meeting related to studies which will soon be underway to study transit within the Hwy 55 corridor from Minneapolis to Medina. Met Council and MnDOT are currently preparing scopes for RFPs for a consultant to complete the study. D) Hennepin County Consolidated Housing RFP – staff attended an informational session related to Hennepin County funding for affordable housing. The deadline is early February and staff is not aware of any projects within Medina seeking funding. However, staff attended to be in the loop for future rounds of funding. E) Annual Reporting – staff is preparing to complete various reports which are due for 2021 activities, including Municipal State Aid Certification of Mileage, Subsurface Sewage Treatment System, Wetland Conservation Act, Stormwater Utility Residential Equivalent Factor calculations. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety DATE: January 13, 2022 RE: Department Updates The first two weeks of the new year have been somewhat busy for support staff and me. We have been busy with data requests that have been coming from different media outlets and working on year end reports There has been an uptick in COVID around all the lakes area police and fire departments. We are doing our best to keep our staff safe as we are not immune from this new variant as well. Command staffs are monitoring staffing levels closely and we have our original Lakes Area Emergency Management staffing plan that has been in place since the pandemic first arrived. We have also stopped performing fingerprinting to the public again to limit officer exposer as best we can. On Tuesday, January 11th we held our yearly department goals meeting and hosted a use of force class. This class focused on the new use of force law and language changes. This was a great class that was put on by a former prosecutor from Washington County who is well versed in the new changes and how they affect law enforcement. We are almost into our first month of having all officers and squad cars equipped with our new squad and body camera systems. Officers are extremely happy that we have these new tools. Everything seems to be going well with the rollout. Our local fire departments have also been very busy since the new year with residential and other structure fires. In addition to the fires, they have responded to several medicals, accidents, other calls for service. As you are aware, the fire departments do a fantastic job for the city. It amazes me every day to look at the calls that come out and see how dedicated all our volunteer fire department members are to our community. I can’t thank them enough for all they do for us. Patrol: The following are updates of Patrol Officers between December 29, 2021, and January 11, 2022: Officers issued 9 citations and 19 warnings for various traffic offenses, responded to 7 property damage accidents, 1 injury accident, 11 medicals, 5 suspicious calls, 3 traffic complaints, 10 assists to other agencies, 15 business/residential alarms and (3) 911-hangups. On 12/29/2021 Officer was dispatched to a welfare check in the area of Highway 55 and County Road 19. A passerby was concerned about a male that was walking along the road in the extremely cold temperature. The officer located the male along Highway 55 who said he was homeless and trying to walk from Wright County Jail to a homeless shelter in Minneapolis. The officer provided the male transportation to the transit station in Minnetonka. On 01/01/2022 Officer was dispatched to customer trouble at the Medina Entertainment Center. An intoxicated customer who was reported out of control and had punched a security officer. Upon arrival by the officer the male was detained and cooperative. The victim did not wish to pursue charges and the business wanted the male to leave and be trespassed. An officer provided the male a ride to his hotel, and he was issued a trespass notice for the business. On 01/01/2022 at 1049 hours Officer was dispatched to a medical emergency of a person reported to be unconscious in the 400 block of Sunnyridge Lane, Loretto. Upon arrival Loretto Fire Department personnel was already on scene administering CPR to the patient. At least one shock was administered by an AED, but first responders were unable to revive the patient and he was eventually declared deceased. On 01/03/2022 Officer was dispatched along with Hamel Fire Department on a report of a male with a wedding ring stuck on his finger and his finger starting to swell. Hamel Fire Department was able to cut the ring off using a specialized tool. The male was uninjured. On 01/05/2022 Officer responded to assist with a stolen motor vehicle that had fled from Plymouth PD westbound on County Road 6. Orono Officer had spotted the vehicle which had gone off the road and become stuck in a snowbank and the driver had fled on foot with the passenger being detained. Medina Officer along with several other agencies set up a perimeter and the driver was ultimately located and arrested. On 01/06/2022 Officer responded to 2600 block of Bobolink Road on a noise complaint. Neighbor reported a loud vehicle running extensively on a regular basis at a residence with loud exhaust that is disturbing. Officer made contact with the vehicle owner who was made aware of the complaint and said they were working on getting the muffler fixed on the vehicle in question. On 01/06/2022 at 2327 hours Officer responded to customer trouble at Inn Kahoots Bar. A customer in the bar was reported to be disturbing other patrons and staff was worried that a fight may ensue. Officers made contact with the intoxicated subject and asked him to leave. Officers made sure a sober person picked up the subject. On 01/06/2022 person stopped by our office to turn in a suspicious substance found on the property of Medina Golf Club. The substance tested positive as methamphetamine. The owner of the narcotics is unknown, and no one has called our office reporting they are missing any drugs. The drugs will be destroyed. On 01/07/2022 our office took a phone call regarding a civil matter. Male was trying to retrieve property from a residence in the 4500 block of Walnut Street from former girlfriend who was uncooperative with the male. Officer called female who said she was not willing to allow the male onto the property to retrieve any of his property due to past issues with him. The male was called back and advised this was a civil matter that would need to be addressed in civil court if the female was uncooperative. On 01/08/2022 Officer along with Hamel Fire Department were dispatched to a possible electrical fire at Casey’s General Store. Upon investigation a belt had burnt on an air compressor. Hamel Fire assisted with ventilation of the building. On 01/10/2022 Officer along with Hamel Fire Department were dispatched to a reported appliance fire in the 300 block of Cherry Hill Trail. Upon arrival it was determined that there was a fire in a dryer inside the residence. Hamel Fire Department quickly put out the fire and assisted with ventilation of smoke from the residence. On 01/11/2022 Officer took a theft report from the 1000 block of Field Court. A construction worker’s wallet was stolen out of his parked vehicle and cards were attempted to be used at the Medina Target which were declined and used at the Plymouth Home Depot for a transaction worth $2179.49. Case forwarded to Investigations. Investigations: Investigator Scharf took over at the first of the year for Investigator McKinley as his two-year assignment was completed. Investigator McKinley did a fantastic job while conducting all investigations for the police department these past two years. He will now be going back into the patrol division. Investigator Scharf was up and running his first week and was able to look at a recent residential burglary case in which a large amount of jewelry and personal property was stolen. Suspects have been developed and some property has been recovered. This is a great way to start out in investigations. The first two weeks of the new year has unfortunately brought in two criminal sexual conduct cases that Investigator Scharf is busy working on with the Department of Social Services and the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office. Investigator Scharf spent the rest of his first week organizing files and preparing for specific tasks that our office must complete on an annual basis. 1 TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE January 13, 2022 MEETING: January 18, 2022 SUBJECT Public Works Update STREETS • Public Works managed to navigate snow, holidays, vacations, and Covid in the past two weeks. There may have been some delays with completion of lower priority jobs, but essential services were never compromised. • The streets are in good shape. The streets are starting to become rough as the frost moves things around. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER • We received an order of water meters to restock our desperately low inventory, we are in much better shape to support builders/construction. Supply line shortages have also hit this market. • I am gathering quotes to replace the filter media at the treatment plant. We expect the results of the feasibility report will confirm media replacement is necessary to get the plant back to full compacity. My goal is to accomplish this, if possible, before the irrigation season. PARKS/TRAILS • Public Works Staff has been working hard to keep the trails, ice rinks, and sledding hills looking good. • I have been very busy gathering quotes for the Hunter Park renovation project for 2022; included is court fencing, bituminous installation, coating and striping, and concrete work. • Staff and WSB met on site with the sellers for a phase I inspection of the potential parkland purchase. • Staff published our Park Commission opening in the February newsletter, on our website, and on Facebook to fill the open park commission seat. MEMORANDUM 2 PERSONNEL • Public Works remains shorthanded and will propose to begin a new search for the open position at the February 2nd council meeting. We have been blessed to have two great part time personnel to help us through the past two weeks. • Lisa DeMars will begin the transition/move to 600 Clydesdale once the planning and building administrative assistant position is filled. This will enable Public Works to focus full attention on important responsibilities such as safety, water, stormwater, and sewer, risk and resilience, wellhead protection, and backflow directives; as well as concentrate on parks and park commission tasks formerly performed via the city clerk position. ORDER CHECKS JANUARY 4, 2022 – JANUARY 18, 2022 052486 ABBAS, SYED/ROCKSANA ...................................................... $700.00 052487 DARAPALLI, RAJESH ............................................................... $440.00 052488 DHARNIPRAGADA, ANISHA ..................................................... $250.00 052489 GRANITE INVESTMENTS ........................................................... $34.10 052490 LITTS, MICHELLE ..................................................................... $250.00 052491 CITY OF MAPLE PLAIN ....................................................... $15,378.20 052492 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ................................................. $36,902.25 052493 PULTE GROUP .................................................................... $10,000.00 052494 TWIN CITY FIREPLACE & STONE C ........................................ $151.00 052495 VIVANCO, FERNANDO ............................................................... $17.68 052496 AMERICAN MAILING MACHINES ............................................. $433.79 052497 BATTERIES + BULBS ................................................................. $54.96 052498 BEAUDRY OIL & PROPANE .................................................. $1,340.50 052499 BURSCHVILLE CONSTRUCTION INC ................................. $19,900.00 052500 CORE & MAIN LP ................................................................... $1,836.54 052501 ECM PUBLISHERS INC ............................................................ $245.37 052502 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL ...................................................... $97.20 052503 GRAINGER................................................................................ $116.96 052504 HACH COMPANY ...................................................................... $561.84 052505 HAMEL LUMBER INC ................................................................ $180.03 052506 HAMEL LIONS CLUB ................................................................ $775.00 052507 HENN COUNTY TAXPAYER SVCS DEPT ............................. $1,884.85 052508 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER ............................................ $15.00 052509 MATTHEW E HUNZ .................................................................. $550.80 052510 LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA MGMT INC .......................................... $44.00 052511 CITY OF LONG LAKE ............................................................. $2,000.00 052512 LUTHER BROOKDALE CHRYSLER ........................................... $93.70 052513 CITY OF MAPLE PLAIN ......................................................... $1,029.39 052514 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ................................................. $19,681.20 052515 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT INC................................................. $411.61 052516 MOTLEY AUTO SERVICE LLC ................................................. $670.50 052517 NAPA OF CORCORAN INC ...................................................... $172.59 052518 OFFICE DEPOT .......................................................................... $76.26 052519 OMANN BROTHERS PAVING INC .................................... $223,977.07 052520 CITY OF ORONO ................................................................... $1,301.66 052521 CITY OF ORONO ...................................................................... $474.00 052522 QUALITY RESOURCE GROUP INC.......................................... $109.03 052523 STREICHER'S ........................................................................ $2,139.59 052524 TALLEN & BAERTSCHI .......................................................... $2,446.30 052525 TOTAL CONTROL SYSTEMS INC. ........................................ $1,344.80 052526 ULINE ........................................................................................ $511.00 052527 WESTERN ELECTRIC .............................................................. $206.00 052528 WSB & ASSOCIATES ........................................................... $33,996.75 052529 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MN ................................... $39,305.18 052530 BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP ........................................... $1,525.00 052531 CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY................................................. $150.00 052532 DELANO SPORTSMANS CLUB ................................................ $550.00 052533 ELM CREEK WATERSHED .................................................. $18,405.62 052534 HAMEL VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT ....................................... $89,187.50 052535 LANO EQUIPMENT INC .............................................................. $69.33 052536 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR .................................................. $585.00 052537 CITY OF LONG LAKE ............................................................. $6,681.75 052538 LORETTO VOL FIRE DEPT INC .......................................... $23,964.21 052539 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ................................................. $32,291.02 052540 METRO ELEVATOR INC ........................................................... $195.00 052541 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT INC................................................... $50.13 052542 NAPA OF CORCORAN INC ........................................................ $86.25 052543 PIONEER-SARAH CREEK ................................................... $13,772.99 052544 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES INC .................................. $8,022.65 052545 SOLUTION BUILDERS INC .................................................... $4,237.27 052546 TIMESAVER OFFSITE .............................................................. $938.50 Total Checks $622,818.92 ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS JANUARY 4, 2022 – JANUARY 18, 2022 006218E PR PERA .............................................................................. $18,078.73 006219E PR FED/FICA ....................................................................... $17,165.52 006220E PR MN Deferred Comp ........................................................... $2,640.00 006221E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA .................................................. $4,090.84 006222E CITY OF MEDINA ........................................................................ $22.00 006223E FURTHER ............................................................................ $31,784.37 006224E MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT ............................................. $959.70 006225E FARMERS STATE BANK OF HAMEL ......................................... $40.00 006226E FARMERS STATE BANK OF HAMEL ....................................... $150.00 006227E BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP ....................................... $972,196.25 006228E CENTURYLINK.......................................................................... $255.14 006229E CIPHER LABORATORIES INC. .............................................. $1,331.07 006230E FP MAILING SOL POSTAGE BY PHON ................................. $1,000.00 006231E MEDIACOM OF MN LLC ........................................................... $927.54 006232E XCEL ENERGY ...................................................................... $7,420.61 006233E FRONTIER .................................................................................. $57.23 006234E CULLIGAN-METRO ................................................................... $166.20 006235E FURTHER .............................................................................. $2,775.45 006236E ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICE .................................................. $6,277.99 006237E PAYMENT SERVICE NETWORK INC .................................... $1,046.22 Total Electronic Checks $1,068,384.86 PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT – JANUARY 5, 2022 0511552 BILLMAN, JACKSON CARROLL .............................................. $577.16 0511553 COOK, JUSTIN W .................................................................... $383.72 0511554 ALBERS, TODD M. ................................................................... $230.87 0511555 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L. ..................................................... $737.58 0511556 BARNHART, ERIN A. ............................................................ $2,788.42 0511557 BOECKER, KEVIN D. ............................................................ $2,620.00 0511558 CAVANAUGH, JOSEPH ........................................................... $230.87 0511559 CONVERSE, KEITH A. .......................................................... $2,518.46 0511560 DEMARS, LISA ...................................................................... $1,404.83 0511561 DESLAURIES, DEAN ............................................................... $230.87 0511562 DION, DEBRA A. ................................................................... $1,979.72 0511563 ENDE, JOSEPH..................................................................... $2,030.18 0511564 FINKE, DUSTIN D. ................................................................ $2,869.01 0511565 GLEASON, JOHN M. ............................................................. $2,179.75 0511566 GREGORY, THOMAS ........................................................... $1,920.41 0511567 HALL, DAVID M. .................................................................... $2,262.09 0511568 HANSON, JUSTIN ................................................................. $2,965.71 0511569 JACOBSON, NICOLE ............................................................... $890.93 0511570 JESSEN, JEREMIAH S. ......................................................... $2,267.03 0511571 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. ........................................................... $2,404.31 0511572 KLAERS, ANNE M. ................................................................ $1,523.44 0511573 LEUER, GREGORY J. ........................................................... $2,275.74 0511574 MARTIN, KATHLEEN M ........................................................... $327.04 0511575 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R. ................................................. $2,047.10 0511576 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D ......................................................... $2,062.72 0511577 NELSON, JASON .................................................................. $2,795.91 0511578 REID, ROBIN ............................................................................ $230.87 0511579 REINKING, DEREK M ........................................................... $2,079.58 0511580 SCHARF, ANDREW .............................................................. $1,732.72 0511581 SCHERER, STEVEN T. ......................................................... $2,527.20 0511582 VINCK, JOHN J ..................................................................... $1,953.44 0511583 VOGEL, NICHOLE ................................................................. $1,033.93 0511584 BURSCH, JEFFREY .............................................................. $1,103.56 Total Payroll Direct Deposit $55,185.17