Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout09.03.2019 Complete Regular City Council Meeting Packet Posted 8/29/2019 Page 1 of 1 AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 3, 2019 7:00 P.M. Medina City Hall 2052 County Road 24 I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the August 20, 2019 Work Session B. Minutes of the August 20, 2019 Regular Council Meeting V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Medina/Independence/Greenfield/Loretto Quad-City Agreement VI. COMMENTS A. From Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda B. Park Commission C. Planning Commission VII. NEW BUSINESS A. 2020 Preliminary Budget & Tax Levy 1. Resolution Approving Proposed Tax Levy for 2020 2. Resolution Approving Proposed General Fund Budget for 2020 3. Resolution Reducing Debt Service Tax Levies for 2020 4. Establish Public Discussion Date for Final 2020 Tax Levy and Budget B. Megan and Tim Elam – Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Accessory Dwelling Unit and Accessory Structures – 1582 Homestead Trail C. Ordinance Regarding Residential Setbacks and Encroachments; Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code 1. Resolution Authorizing Publication of Ordinance by Title and Summary D. Dale Richardson – Lot Combination – 18-118-23-24-0116 and 18-118-23-24-0117 1. Resolution Approving a Lot Combination for PIDS 18-118-23-24-0116 and 18-118-23- 24-0117 E. Resolution to Contract with a Council Member – Medina Celebration Day VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT IX. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS X. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS XI. CLOSED SESSION: Attorney-Client Privileged Discussion on Litigation Matter Specifically WW Farm and George Wessin v. City of Medina, Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.05, Subd. 3(b) XII. ADJOURN Meeting Rules of Conduct: • Fill out and turn in white comment card • Give name and address • Indicate if representing a group • Limit remarks to 3-5 minutes MEMORANDUM TO: Medina City Council FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator DATE OF REPORT: August 29, 2019 DATE OF MEETING: September 3, 2019 SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Report V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Medina/Independence/Greenfield/Loretto Quad-City Agreement – The City of Loretto has agreed to provide 5 of its future sewer units to the City of Greenfield. Staff has updated the agreement and is requesting that the Council approve the final version. Staff recommends approval. See attached memo and agreement. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. 2020 Preliminary Budget & Tax Levy – Staff will provide a brief presentation on the proposed tax levy and general fund budget at the regular council meeting. A budget open house will take place at the 6 PM Work Session. Attached is the proposed 2020 General Fund budget. See attached resolutions. Recommended Motion # 1: Adopt the resolution approving the 2020 preliminary tax levy. Recommended Motion # 2: Adopt the resolution approving the 2020 preliminary general fund budget. Recommended Motion # 3: Adopt the resolution reducing debt service tax levies for 2020. Recommended Motion # 4: Establish the 2020 final tax levy and budget discussion for December 3, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall. B. Megan and Tim Elam – Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Accessory Dwelling Unit and Accessory Structures – 1582 Homestead Trail – Tim and Megan Elam own 1582 Homestead Trail, which is a 34-acre lot zoned as rural residential (RR). They are requesting a pair of conditional use permits (CUPs) and a variance. The first request is to allow the current house on the property to be classified as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to allow for construction of a new principal home on the property. Given the size  2 of this house and number of bedrooms, a variance would be needed to grant this CUP. The other CUP is to allow accessory structures on the property. See attached report. Recommended Motion: Move to direct staff to prepare resolutions approving the variance and conditional use permits, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. C. Ordinance Regarding Residential Setbacks and Encroachments; Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code – At their July meeting, the Planning Commission discussed a request from Matthew and Nikki Cole from 3375 Butternut Drive to reduce the required setback from Minor Collector Roadways in the R2 (Single- and Two-Family) Zoning District. The Commission was not comfortable changing the setbacks, but recommended staff to review other potential options to address the issue of homes being constructed without adequate space for decks. The City Council discussed at the July 16 meeting and directed staff to review. Much of the discussion surrounded the current trend of homes being built which often fill almost the entire allowed building envelope on a lot, and buyers being unaware of limited space to construct decks. The discussion began specific to lots which were adjacent to roadways, because the Cole’s request related specifically to minor collector roadways. However, staff’s impression was that the Planning Commission’s discussion broadened to other setbacks. As such, staff reviewed the issue more broadly. For example, staff believed the issue was similar across other zoning districts and did not see a good reason to limit any changes to the R2 zoning district. Staff has put together potential amendments to chapter 8 for discussion and direction. See attached report. Recommended Motion # 1: Move to adopt ordinance regarding residential setbacks and encroachments; amending chapter 8 of the city code Recommended Motion # 2: Move to adopt resolution authorizing publication of the ordinance by title and summary D. Dale Richardson – Lot Combination – 18-118-23-24-0116 and 18-118-23-24-0117 – Dale Richardson has requested approval from the City to combine two parcels into a single lot. The existing parcels do not meet minimum lot size standards, and while the combination would not bring the parcels into full compliance, it does vastly improve the situation. The subject property is located north and east of Ardmore Avenue. The parcels are currently vacant. The survey submitted by the applicant shows that the right- of-way for Ardmore Avenue to the west and south of the subject site has been vacated. Staff raised concern with this legal description because there is no record of a vacation of these rights-of-way and, in fact, there has been a street in this location for decades. The applicant has not provided proof of a vacation.  3 See attached report. Recommended Motion: Move to adopt resolution approving a lot combination for PIDs 18-118-23-24-0116 and 18-118-23-24-0117 A. Resolution to Contract with a Council Member – The City of Medina rents, as well as purchases, items from Highway 55 Rental each year for Medina Celebration Day, but because one of the City Council members, Jeff Pederson, has an interest in Highway 55 Rental, the city needs to pass this resolution. If competitive bids are not required, the city may do business with a company where a councilmember has an interest if a resolution is adopted. At the meeting, a non-interested councilmember makes a motion to adopt the resolution. Before voting, the interested councilmember should state, and it should be recorded in the minutes, that he is abstaining from voting on the resolution because he has a financial interest in the contract. The motion must be passed by a unanimous vote of the remaining council. See attached resolution. Recommended Motion: Move to adopt resolution to contract with a council member X. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the bills, EFT 005202E-005217E for $48,567.67 and order check numbers 049220-049262 for $160,569.83 and payroll EFT 0509653-0509681 for $52,446.80 and payroll check 020442 for $89.03. XI. CLOSED SESSION: Attorney-Client Privileged Discussion on Litigation Matter Specifically WW Farm and George Wessin v. City of Medina, Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.05, Subd. 3(b) INFORMATION PACKET:  Planning Department Update  Police Department Update  Public Works Department Update  Claims List  Medina City Council Work Session Minutes 1 August 20, 2019 MEDINA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 20, 2019 - DRAFT The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in work session on August 20, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. at the Medina City Hall, 2052 County Road 24, Medina, MN. I. Call to Order Members present: Albers, Anderson, DesLauriers, Martin, Pederson Members absent: Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, Assistant City Administrator Jodi Gallup, Public Works Director Steve Scherer, Finance Director Erin Barnhart, Public Safety Director Ed Belland, City Engineer Jim Stremel WSB, Traffic Engineer Chuck Rickart WSB and Planning Director Dusty Finke II. Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive Visioning Study Update City Engineer Jim Stremel and Traffic Engineer Chuck Rickart provided a presentation and background information on the Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive Visioning Study Update. Mr. Rickart discussed the different options, future stacking near Highway 55, reviewed possible roundabout locations/right-of-way/costs, reviewed future area traffic growth, and discussed the possibility of a future double left turn lane on Arrowhead to east bound Highway 55. Council Members reviewed the different future intersection options, road grades, and road alignment options. Direction was given by the City Council regarding preferred options and alternatives at each intersection. WSB will update the information and bring it to a September City Council Meeting for further discussion and direction. A Public Information Meeting is scheduled to take place prior to the October 15, 2019 City Council meeting. Council recessed the Work Session at 6:52 PM and agreed to continue the discussion following the regular City Council meeting. The City Council resumed the Work Session at 7:29 PM. III. 2020 Budget Finance Director Erin Barnhart provided the City Council with an update on the proposed 2020 Budget. The proposed General Fund budget increase was reduced from $170,543 to $164,063. The 2020 tax rate is proposed to be 22.531%, which is a 4.7% increase and an overall levy increase of 9.7%. The proposed budget includes funding the Municipal Park Fund, Equipment Fund, and adding a Police Officer in 2020. Council directed staff to look into possible bond interest savings from paying off bonds early, provide a draft of the Truth in Taxation flier to Council, and update the average home value from $300,000 to $400,000 in the proposed property tax scenarios. The 2020 Budget Open House will be held at 6 PM on September 3, 2019. Medina City Council Work Session Minutes 2 August 20, 2019 Planning Director Dusty Finke requested Council review and policy direction on how to fund the construction of future lift stations that are needed to bring sewer to certain developable properties in Medina. Council directed staff to establish a per acre area charge in the Fee Schedule for 25% of the cost of the future lift stations. The City Council determined the remaining 75% of the cost of the lift stations would be funded from the sewer capital fund. Finke brought forward Adam’s Pest Control’s request regarding financial help to build a backage road and lift station for property located on Highway 55 west of Willow Drive. Council reviewed and discussed the request. Council directed staff to include the lift station in the 2020 Capital Improvement Plan, noting the 75%/25% cost share. Council directed staff to offer to take over ownership of the backage road to the site once it is built to City standards. The backage road would then become public and the City of Medina would maintain the road. Adjournment Martin closed the meeting at 8:37 p.m. _________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor Attest ____________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 1 August 20, 2019 DRAFT 1 2 MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 20, 2019 3 4 The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on August 20, 2019 at 5 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Martin presided. 6 7 I. ROLL CALL 8 9 Members present: Albers, Anderson, DesLauriers, Martin, and Pederson. 10 11 Members absent: None. 12 13 Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, City Attorney Ron Batty, City Engineer 14 Jim Stremel, City Planning Director Dusty Finke, City Finance Director Erin Barnhart, 15 Assistant City Administrator Jodi Gallup, Public Works Director Steve Scherer, and Chief 16 of Police Ed Belland. 17 18 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (7:00 p.m.) 19 20 III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA (7:00 p.m.) 21 The agenda was approved as presented. 22 23 IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7:00 p.m.) 24 25 A. Approval of the August 7, 2019 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 26 Martin noted that comments and proposed revisions were submitted from Anderson and 27 herself for incorporation. 28 29 Moved by Anderson, seconded by DesLauriers, to approve the August 7, 2019 regular 30 City Council meeting minutes as amended. Motion passed unanimously. 31 32 V. CONSENT AGENDA (7:01 p.m.) 33 34 A. Approve Brush Grinding and Compost Removal Services Agreement with S 35 & S Tree and Horticultural Specialists 36 B. Approve Medina/Independence/Greenfield/Loretto Quad-City Agreement 37 C. Approve Hamel Fire Department Acknowledgement of Financing and 38 Written Agreement 39 D. Resolution No. 2019-47 Accepting Donation from Robert Belzer and Family 40 Albers asked if the mulch generated could be used by the City for other projects. 41 42 Scherer explained that the material is very coarse and was previously being burned. He 43 stated that the market has become saturated because of the change to solar energy. He 44 noted that some material has been kept on hand for residents in the past but often 45 became unusable before there was a desire for it. 46 47 Moved by Pederson, seconded by Anderson, to approve the consent agenda. Motion 48 passed unanimously. 49 50 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 2 August 20, 2019 VI. COMMENTS (7:04 p.m.) 1 2 A. Comments from Citizens on Items not on the Agenda 3 There were none. 4 5 B. Park Commission 6 Scherer reported that the Commission will meet the following night to discuss Walnut 7 Park, which is a drainage and filtration area, noting that perhaps a better name/signage 8 could be developed explaining the purpose as the area will most likely become a 9 stormwater pond in the future. 10 11 C. Planning Commission 12 Planning Commissioner Galzki reported that the Planning Commission met the previous 13 week to hold two public hearings. He reported that two Conditional Use Permits and a 14 Variance were recommended for approval for the property at 1528 Homestead Trail to 15 construct an accessory dwelling unit. He stated that the Commission also considered an 16 Ordinance amendment related to residential setbacks and encroachments and 17 recommended approval of the changes. 18 19 VII. PRESENTATIONS 20 21 A. Resolution No. 2019-48 Recognizing Jennifer Altendorf for Five Years of 22 Service to the City of Medina (7:07 p.m.) 23 Martin read aloud the proposed resolution recognizing Jennifer Altendorf for her five 24 years of service to the City of Medina. 25 26 Moved by Martin, seconded by Albers, to Adopt Resolution No. 2019-48 Recognizing 27 Jennifer Altendorf for Five Years of Service to the City of Medina. Motion passed 28 unanimously. 29 30 Martin presented the resolution to Jennifer Altendorf. 31 32 Barnhart commended Altendorf for the hard work she contributes to the finance 33 department, noting that she pays extreme attention to detail and provides wonderful 34 customer service. 35 36 VIII. OLD BUSINESS 37 38 A. Presbyterian Homes Conduit Bonds – Public Hearing Continued (7:11 p.m.) 39 Martin continued the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. 40 41 No comments. 42 43 Martin closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. 44 45 1. Resolution No. 2019-49 Authorizing the Issuance of Revenue 46 Obligations for the Benefit of PHS Founders Ridge, Inc.; Approving 47 the Execution of the Revenue Obligations and Related Documents; 48 and Taking Other Actions with Respect Thereto 49 Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Anderson, to Adopt Resolution No. 2019-49 50 Authorizing the Issuance of Revenue Obligations for the Benefit of PHS Founders Ridge 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 3 August 20, 2019 Inc.; Approving the Execution of the Revenue Obligations and Related Documents; and 1 Taking Other Actions with Respect Thereto. Motion passed unanimously. 2 3 B. Hamel Fire Department Transition Group Study Request (7:13 p.m.) 4 Batty stated that there was discussion at the last meeting regarding whether the fire 5 department is subject to the open meeting law. He stated that the Relief Association of 6 fire departments is subject to open meeting law but the Board of the fire department, 7 which is the group the Council has been invited to meet with, is not subject to open 8 meeting law. He explained that the purpose of his last memorandum was whether 9 allowing more than two Council members to attend the meetings, even on a rotating 10 basis, would trigger the open meeting law with regard to the city. He stated that he 11 believes that allowing more than two Council members to attend the meeting, even on a 12 rotating basis, could be considered a serial meeting of the city council and a violation of 13 the open meeting law. 14 15 Martin stated that if there is rotating attendance by the Council, each of the meetings 16 then would need to be noticed as a meeting of the City Council, whereas if two Council 17 members are chosen to attend in representation of the Council, the meeting would not 18 be required to be noticed. 19 20 Anderson stated that he believes that all Council members and members of the public 21 should be welcome to attend if desired. 22 23 Martin asked for discussion on option one, which would open the meetings to all 24 members of the Council and public, or option two, which would have two members of the 25 Council appointed to participate on behalf of the Council. 26 27 Albers stated that he supports option two, as that makes the most sense. He noted that 28 the Public Safety Liaison has been appointed by the Council and should attend the 29 meetings along with the Mayor. 30 31 Pederson noted that he would also support option two. 32 33 Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Albers, to adopt option two, to appoint DesLauriers 34 and Martin to participate in the discussions with the Hamel Fire Department as outlined 35 in the “Fire Department Transition Study Group” request letter from the Hamel Volunteer 36 Fire Department, dated July 1, 2019. 37 38 Further discussion: Anderson stated that if the motion is passed this will make the City 39 appear to not be transparent in this process. 40 41 Motion passed 4 – 1 (Anderson opposed). 42 43 IX. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT (7:20 p.m.) 44 Johnson had nothing further to report. 45 46 X. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (7:21 p.m.) 47 Pederson noted that he and Johnson attended the Highway 55 Coalition meeting the 48 previous week and provided a brief update. 49 50 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 4 August 20, 2019 DesLauriers stated that he attended the annual picnic at the Mayor’s house and 1 commented that it was a great night and opportunity to converse with City staff. 2 3 XI. APPROVAL TO PAY THE BILLS (7:22 p.m.) 4 Moved by Anderson, seconded by Pederson, to approve the bills, EFT 005183E-5 005201E for $81,940.65 and order check numbers 049161-049219 for $256,860.43 and 6 payroll EFT 0509619-0509652 for $53,412.43. Motion passed unanimously. 7 8 XII. ADJOURN 9 Moved by Pederson, seconded by DesLauriers, to adjourn the meeting at 7:22 p.m. 10 Motion passed unanimously. 11 12 13 __________________________________ 14 Kathleen Martin, Mayor 15 Attest: 16 17 ____________________________________ 18 Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk 19 1 MEDINA/INDEPENDENCE/GREENFIELD/LORETTO QUAD-CITY AGREEMENT THIS QUAD-CITY AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ______ day of _______________, 2019, by and among the City of Medina, (“Medina”), the City of Independence (“Independence”), the City of Greenfield (“Greenfield”), and the City of Loretto (“Loretto”), all Minnesota municipal corporations located in Hennepin County, Minnesota (collectively, the “Quad-Cities”). RECITALS WHEREAS, Medina, Independence, and Greenfield (the “Tri-Cities”) entered into an agreement (the “Original Tri-City Agreement”) on the 9th day of April, 1985, for the purpose of outlining the conditions under which Independence had the right to install and connect sanitary sewer facilities to Medina’s sanitary sewer system, and the Tri-Cities agreed to maintenance and service procedures and cost sharing related thereto; and WHEREAS, the Tri-City Agreement was amended by the First Amendment on the 5th day of April, 1994 and the Second Amendment on the 20th day of July, 2010 (as amended, the “Tri-City Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the Tri-City Agreement permits Independence and Greenfield to make certain connections and discharge specified amounts of septate or sewage into Medina’s sanitary sewer facilities; and WHEREAS, Loretto has requested to connect its sanitary sewer system to the existing sanitary sewer facilities described in the Tri-City Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Tri-City Agreement contemplated the need for an amendment to accommodate Loretto’s connection; and WHEREAS, reimbursement for some operation and maintenance costs of the shared sanitary sewer facilities will be made by the Metropolitan Council of Environmental Services (MCES); and WHEREAS, in recognition of the foregoing, the Quad-Cities wish to enter into this new agreement (the “Quad City Agreement”) and terminate the Tri-City Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the understandings and promises set forth herein, it is mutually agreed by the Quad-Cities as follows: AGREEMENT SECTION I. DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this Quad-City Agreement, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them. Subd. 1 Outlet Connection No. 1 is at the Medina lift station (LS-3) on the north end of Baker Park, as shown on Exhibit A. Subd. 2 Outlet Connection No. 2 is a point in the trunk line where Pipe E from Independence connects with Pipe D4, as shown on Exhibit A. Agenda Item # 5A 2 Subd. 3 Greenfield Connection is the point where the Greenfield sanitary sewer collection system connects with Pipe A, as shown on Exhibit A. Subd. 3.1. Loretto Connection is the point where Pipe F connects the Loretto sanitary sewer system to Pipe C-2, as shown on Exhibit A. Subd. 4 Pipe A is the force main sewer, Independence lift station (LS-55) and appurtenances from the south corporate limits of Greenfield along Lake Sarah Heights Drive, Sunset Lane and Town Line Road to the intersection of Town Line Road and County Road 11, as shown on Exhibit A. Pipe A does not include any individual services, individual pumps, individual septic tanks, any parallel lines which directly serve individual properties, or any portion of Greenfield’s system. Subd. 5 Pipe B is the force main sewer, lift stations, motors and appurtenances from South Lake Sarah Drive, Woodhill Drive, Independence Road and County Road 11 to the intersection of County Road 11 and Town Line Road, not including LS-5, as shown on Exhibit A. Subd. 6 Pipe C-1 is the force main sewer commencing at the intersection of Town Line Road and County Road 11 and then east on County Road 11 to the Loretto Connection at County Road 19, as shown on Exhibit A. No individual services, individual pumps or individual septic tanks are connected to Pipe C-1. Subd. 6.1. Pipe C-2 is the force main sewer commencing at the Loretto Connection at the intersection of County Road 11 and County Road 19, then south along County Road 19 to Outlet Connection No. 1, as shown on Exhibit A. No individual services, individual pumps or individual septic tanks are connected to Pipe C-2. Subd. 7 Pipe D-1 includes the Medina lift station (LS-3) in Baker Park and the force main from the lift station extending past the Air Release Manhole to a cleanout manhole as shown on Exhibit A. Pipe D-1 consists of approximately 3700’ of 8” High Density Poly Ethylene (HDPE) pipe, portions were installed in 1999 and 2001. Subd. 8 Pipe D-2 is the force main extending from the cleanout manhole to Manhole 29 as shown on Exhibit A. Pipe D-2 consists of approximately 1270’ of 8” Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) and was installed in 1976. Subd. 9 Pipe D-3 is the gravity line extending from Manhole 29 to Manhole 23 as shown on Exhibit A. Pipe D-3 consists of approximately 1930’ of 8” Polyvinyl Cloride (PVC) pipe and was installed in 1976. Upon construction of Pipe D-4, the portion of Pipe D-3 north and east of Manhole 27 is proposed to be abandoned by the MCES. Subd. 10 Pipe D-4 is the future gravity line extension that will extend from Manhole 29 to Outlet Connection No. 2 as shown on Exhibit A. Subd. 11 Pipe D-5 is the gravity line extending from Outlet Connection No. 2 to Manhole 12 as shown on Exhibit A. Pipe D-5 consists of approximately 3984’ of 10” PVC pipe and was installed in 1976. Subd. 12 Pipe D-6 is the gravity line extending from Manhole 12 to the MCES Lift Station as shown on Exhibit A. Pipe D-6 consists of approximately 2657’ of 15” concrete pipe and was installed in 1976. Subd. 13 Pipe E is the force main sewer, lift stations and appurtenances commencing on South Lakeshore Drive to Perkinsville Road and then east along Perkinsville Road to Outlet Connection No. 2, as shown on Exhibit A. 3 Subd. 14 Pipe F is the force main sewer, lift station (LS-6) and appurtenances extending from Loretto’s wastewater lagoons to Pipe C-2, as shown on Exhibit A. The connection from Pipe F to Pipe C- 2 is at the southwest corner of the intersection of County Road 19 and County Road 11. Subd. 15 Independence Beach Lateral System is the sewer line and appurtenances connecting the plat of Independence Beach, Hennepin County, and its environs, with the Medina lift station (LS-3). Subd. 16 Maintenance and Operation Costs means all costs, including labor and materials, which are necessary to maintain and operate a designated sanitary sewer line, lift station and related improvements, as shown on Exhibit B. Subd. 17 Independence Lateral System means the City of Independence sanitary sewer and septate collection system. Subd. 18 Lift Station Storage Modules means devices designed and installed for the purpose of storing excess sewage or septate at lift stations. Subd. 19. Quad-City System means, collectively, all facilities and elements of the sanitary sewer systems of the Quad Cities described or listed in this Quad-Cities Agreement. Subd. 20. Unit means a factor applied to a particular connection to the sanitary sewer system based upon estimated expected sanitary sewer usage. Unit calculations are based upon MCES’s Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) procedure manual where a single-family detached dwelling is equivalent to one unit. SECTION II. GRANT OF ACCESS/MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE AND CONNECTIONS. Subd. 1. Medina grants to Independence, Greenfield, and Loretto the authority to discharge septate and sewage into Medina’s sanitary sewer facilities, subject to the conditions described herein. Subd. 2. Independence grants to Greenfield and Loretto the authority to discharge septate and sewage into Independence’s sanitary sewer facilities subject to the conditions described herein. Subd. 3. The maximum allowable discharge from the Greenfield Connection is 80 gallons per minute (GPM) and 24,000 gallons per day from a maximum of 72 Units. Subd. 4. The maximum allowable discharge from LS-5 into Pipe C shall not exceed 200 GPM and 103,000 gallons per day from a maximum of 274 Units (254 single-family Units plus Vinland National-20 Units) from Independence and 72 Units from Greenfield. Subd. 5. The maximum allowable discharge from the Outlet Connection No. 2 is 80 GPM and 17,000 gallons per day from a maximum of 41 Units. Subd. 6. The maximum allowable discharge from the Loretto Lift Station (LS-6) is 80 GPM and 111,000 gallons per day from a maximum of 380 Units (350 existing Units as of the date this agreement + maximum of 30 additional future Units). Subd. 7. The location of Units in Independence and Greenfield which may connect to the Quad- City System shall only be in locations as depicted in Exhibit C and D, attached hereto, unless explicitly approved by Medina. 4 SECTION III. PAYMENT FOR THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. Subd. 1. Loretto shall pay one hundred percent (100%) of the cost to construct, reconstruct, maintain, repair and use Pipe F, the Loretto liftstation (LS-6), and associated equipment. Subd. 2. Pipe D-4 shall be constructed to bypass Pipe D-3 prior to Loretto connecting to Pipe C- 2. MCES has agreed to perform this project at no cost to the Quad-Cities and will own this pipe. SECTION IV. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF SEWER SYSTEMS. Subd. 1. The MCES has agreed to reimburse Medina and Independence for the maintenance and operation of certain portions of the Quad-City system through separate agreements. These agreements are attached hereto as Exhibits E and F. Maintenance, operation, and replacement costs which are not reimbursed by the MCES shall be paid for in accordance with this Section IV. Subd. 2. Independence shall maintain and repair Pipes A, B, C-1, C-2, and E, including lift stations LS-1, LS-2, LS-4, and LS-5 and associated equipment and appurtenances. Sharing of costs which are not reimbursed by the MCES shall be in accordance with the formula set forth in Exhibit B. Subd. 3 Medina shall maintain and repair Pipes D-1, D-2, D-3, D-5 and D-6, including the Medina lift station (LS-3) and associated equipment and appurtenances. Sharing of costs which are not reimbursed by the MCES shall be in accordance with the formula set forth in Exhibit B. Subd. 4 Loretto shall maintain and repair Pipe F, including the Loretto lift station(LS-6) and associated equipment and appurtenances. Subd. 5. The services performed by each city on the sewer lines, lift stations and appurtenances under their respective jurisdictions and subject to this Agreement shall include periodic inspection, running time meter reading, maintenance and repair, including emergency repair where necessary to keep the system operating. Excessive infiltration shall be repaired as soon as is feasible. All services shall be performed by qualified personnel. The standards of performance for services performed under this section shall be established and administered by the city responsible for such services. Costs for salary, health insurance, worker’s compensation, PERA, income tax withholding, and other expenses shall be borne by each city, respectively, for its employees. Subd. 6. Medina is solely responsible for maintenance and replacement of the Independence Beach Lateral System. Subd. 7. The Quad-Cities shall each be responsible for surcharges from the MCES related to excess inflow and infiltration (I/I) of their respective portions of the Quad-City System. If the MCES does not allocate the surcharges for Greenfield at the Greenfield Connection and for Independence at Outlet Connection No. 2, the Quad-Cities agree to allocate the surcharges based upon relevant meter readings. The Quad-Cities will proactively inspect and monitor their portion of sanitary sewer systems for I/I and promptly make improvements when excess I/I is identified. 5 SECTION V. METERING OF FLOW FROM PIPES A, B, C, and F; REPORTING Subd. 1. Independence shall maintain flow meters at Outlet Connection #2. MCES has agreed to maintain a flow meter for Independence at LS-5. Greenfield shall provide flow measurement at Greenfield lift station #1 (LS-1). MCES has agreed to maintain a flow meter and provide flow measurement at Loretto lift station #6 (LS-6). Greenfield shall supply Independence these sewage flow records within five days after the end of each calendar quarter. Independence shall furnish to Medina sewage flow records from Outlet Connection #2 within 10 days after the end of each calendar quarter. Medina shall have access to flow records for the Quad-City System from the MCES. Subd. 2. Medina, Independence, Loretto, and Greenfield shall pay to the MCES their respective shares of user fees based on the measured flows. SECTION VI. ARBITRATION. Any controversy or claim arising out of or related to this Quad-City Agreement or the breach thereof shall be settled between or among the members of the Quad-Cities in disagreement in the following matter: Subd. 1. The disagreement shall first be submitted to the city administatrators of the Quad-Cities in disagreement for settlement. Any settlement shall be binding on the parties upon approval of the settlement by the city councils of the Quad-Cities in disagreement. Subd. 2. If any party determines that settlement cannot be reached pursuant to Subdivision 1, it may request arbitration by serving a request for arbitration on the other party or parties, by certified mail, together with a clear and concise statement of the claim or controversy and the name of one arbitrator. Subd. 3. Within twenty (20) days after request for arbitration, the other party or parties shall each name an arbitrator and inform the requesting party. If only two arbitrators have been named, the arbitrators shall then select an additional arbitrator within 10 days of service of notice of selection of the second arbitrator. In the event of the failure to appoint any of the arbitrators, application can be made, without legal process, by any party for appointment thereof by the Chief Judge of the Hennepin County District Court. All arbitrators shall be knowledgeable in municipal affairs. Subd. 4. Arbitration procedures and other matters not specifically set forth herein shall be governed by Chapter 572B of Minnesota Statutes, as amended. The fees and expenses of arbitration (excluding attorney fees, engineering fees and expert witness fees) shall be divided equally between or among the parties. An arbitration hearing shall be held at a location convenient to the parties within 20 days after appointment of the final arbitrator, and may be continued from time to time thereafter. The final decision of the arbitration panel shall be in writing, may be rendered by a majority of the arbitrators, shall be served by certified mail on all parties within 30 days of the submission of all evidence, and shall be final and binding on the parties hereto. Any party may make application for confirmation of the arbitration award and entry of judgment thereon in accordance with Chapter 572B of Minnesota statutes. Subd. 5. Any Quad-City not party initially to a dispute may become party to the arbitration proceedings outlined herein if, at time prior to a final settlement, it determines that its interests are at stake and may be adversely affected by the arbitration. 6 SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERMINATION. Subd. 1. This Quad-City Agreement shall take effect upon approval by all of the parties’ city councils. This Quad-City Agreement shall continue until canceled by mutual agreement of the parties or until the sum of the combined flows exceeds the capacity of the system. If the combined flows exceed the system’s capacity, Medina shall serve written notice giving Independence, Loretto, and Greenfield a minimum of two years to: (i) make other provisions for sanitary sewer service, or (ii) reduce the combined flow to match the system’s capacity, or (iii) increase the system’s capacity to accept the additional flow. Subd. 2. If the combined flows exceed the system capacity, Loretto, Independence, and Greenfield each shall pay an amount in proportion to their respective flows for any improvement deemed necessary by Medina to increase said capacity. Subd. 3. If the combined flows exceed the system capacity, Medina shall grant to Independence, Loretto, and Greenfield the right and authority to construct the facilities necessary for the chosen alternative outlined above within rights-of-way and easements within the corporate boundaries of Medina. SECTION VIII. INSURANCE AND LIABILITY. Each party shall maintain commercial general liability insurance coverage for bodily injury and property damage in connection with the operation and maintenance of the portion of the Quad-City System for which each is responsible according to this Quad-City Agreement. No party to this Quad-City Agreement shall be liable to any other party for the other’s negligent actions or failure to act. In the event that a damage claim is asserted against any party or parties to this Quad-City Agreement, or any claim is paid or becomes payable under any party’s insurance policy, or in excess thereof, the contribution of any party shall be based upon relative fault of such party and any disagreement regarding the amount of contribution is subject to the arbitration provisions hereof. Under no circumstances, however, shall a party be required to pay on behalf of itself and other parties, any amount in excess of the limits on liability established in Minnesota Statutes Ch. 466, applicable to any one party, and nothing herein limits any limitation on, or immunity from, liability under applicable law including Minnesota Statutes Ch. 466. SECTION IX. FLOW INTERRUPTION. During periods of emergency, Medina and Independence have the right to shut down upstream lift stations until the downstream emergency is resolved. The shut down shall be coordinated on a case by case basis by those cities’ public works staff. Shut downs for routine maintenance may be for periods of up to 8 hours by giving one week notice to the upstream cities. Longer periods of shut down require a 30- day notice. SECTION X. This Quad-City Agreement supersedes and replaces the Tri-City Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have authorized and executed this Quad-City Agreement on the dates noted on each of the following signature pages. 7 Date: _______________ , 2019. CITY OF MEDINA Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: Scott Johnson, City Administrator 8 Date: __________ , 2019. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE Marvin D. Johnson, Mayor ATTEST: Mark Kaltsas, City Administrator 9 Date: ___________ , 2019. CITY OF GREENFIELD Brad Johnson, Mayor ATTEST: Margaret Webb, City Administrator 10 Date: ________________________, 2019. CITY OF LORETTO Kent Koch, Mayor ATTEST: Mary K. Schneider, City Clerk-Treasurer !( «LS !( !(")!(!( !( «LS ") «LS ") «LS «LS !(Pipe E Pipe C1 Pipe C2 Cleanout Manhole MCES LiftStation MH12 MH22 MH2 3 OutletConnectionNo. 2 (MH 23a) MH29 Air ReleaseManhole OutletConnectionNo. 1LS-3 LS-5 Gree nfieldConnectionLS-1 LS-2 LS-4 Loretto L if t Sta tionLS-6 LorettoConnection MH27 Pipe D5 PipeD2 Pipe D 6 P i p eD3 P i p e D 1 Pipe B Pipe A P i p eD4 Pipe F CorcoranGreenfield Independence Loretto Maple Plain Medina Orono ¾¾Ç55 £¤12 456719 456711 456783 456724 456729 456790 4567115 4567201 Budd Ave CSAH 19 L a k e s h o r eAve CSAH 90 W Main St Pagenkopf Rd E Main St S L a k e Sarah D r CSAH 11 Chippewa RdSunsetLa Budd St Tu rn e r Rd W o o d h i l l L a Pioneer Tr CSAH 24 Becker Rd Inde pe nde nce Rd Hamel Rd Townline Rd La ke SarahH e i g h tsDr H o m e s t e a d Tr TomahawkTr Q u a a s C uto ff R d Fo gl eman R d Ihduhapi Tr QUAD CITY AGREEMENT Sanitary Sewer Exhibit A 3,250 0 3,2501,625 Feet ± Path: L:\0846\0846-0011\mxd\Sanitary Sewer.mxdDate: 8/14/2019 Time: 3:12:13 PM User: BerK A1064 JUL 2019 Leg en d Municipal Boundaries Proposed Sanitary Sewer Existing Sanitary Sewer !(Manhole ")Connection «LS Lift Station !( !( ") !( !( !( MH22 MH23 OutletConnectionNo. 2 (MH23a) MH27 MH29456719 DrakeSt CSAH 19 Sycamore Tr P i p e D 2 Pipe D5 Pipe E Pipe D3 Pipe D4 Segment Units %Units %Units %Units % A 0 0.0%104 59.1%72 40.9%0.0% B 0 0.0%144 100.0%0 0.0%0 0.0% C-1 0 0.0%274 79.2%72 20.8%0 0.0% F 0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%380 100.0% C-2 0 0.0%274 37.7%72 9.9%380 52.3% D-1 239 24.8%274 28.4%72 7.5%380 39.4% D-2 239 24.8%274 28.4%72 7.5%380 39.4% D-3 26 100.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0% E 0 0.0%41 100.0%0 0.0%0 0.0% D-5 265 25.7%315 30.5%72 7.0%380 36.8% D-6 504 39.7%315 24.8%72 5.7%380 29.9% * Units indicated equal sum of eixsting and proposed. Medina Independence Greenfield Loretto Exhibit B Cost Sharing Formulas [Ú [Ú [Ú[Ú [Ú [Ú[Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú[Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú HalfmoonLake LakeIndependence Lake Sarah Lake Ardmore Spurzem Lake GVWX115 GVWX19 GVWX90 GVWX11 2" 4" 4" 2 " 4 " 2" 2" 2" 6" 8 " 2" 2" 4 " 2" 4" 8"8" 2" 2" 6" 4" 2"2" 6" 4" 2" 4" 4" 4" 4" 6" 6" 4" 4" 4"4 " 4" 4" 4 " 4" 6"6" 4" 6" 4" 4 " 6" 4 " 4" 4" 4" 4" 4" 4" 6" 4" 6" 4" 6" 6" 4" 6" 6" 4" 6" 6" ?@A@55 Hillview Ln Lakesh o r e A v e County Road 19 Fra n k li n HillsRoa d Medina St N HamelRoad Ar dm o reAve Highway 55 Albe rt S t P i o n e erTrl Maple St Walnut St Loretto StLorenz St County Road 11 Chippewa Road Crestview Ln E a g l e Ridge Ro a d Pine St W ood Hill Ln Ol stadDr Elsen St Fern St K o chsCrossing Becker Road Chi p pewa Cir L i n dgre n L n W i n d m ill Dr Cartway Town Line Road Independence Road K l a e rs Dr BreiKesse l R o a d PeteDr Valley Road St e phanie Way P a genko p f R o a d I hd u h a p i Trl Fo g e l m an Road County Road 19 L a k e S a ra h R o a d Lake Sarah Road C o u n t y R o a d 9 0 Hillv iew Ln S LakeSarahDr S Sunset Ln Boyer Dr D y l a n L n Fern Dr 10" 4" 8 " 4" 4" 8" 8" 8" 8" 4" 8" 4" 8" 8 " 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8 " 8" 4" 8" 4 " 8 " 8 " 4" 8" 4 " 10" 8" 8" 4" 8 " 8 " 8 " 8" 4" 8" 4 " 8" 8" 8" 8" 8 " 8" 8" 8" 4" 10" 4" 6" 4" 8" 8" 10" Map Document: \\arcserver1\GIS\INDEPEND_CI_MN\C16116168\ESRI\Maps\INDEPEND_CI_MN_10_LakeSarahSanitaryServiceArea_future_sewer_extension_11x17L.mxd | Date Saved: 8/23/2019 3:13:46 PM Independence, MN Lake Sarah/Lake Independence Sanitary Sewer Service A reaAugust 2019 Legend 0 1,500 FeetSource: Met. Coun cil, C ity of Inde pend ence, He nnep in Coun ty, MnDO T !I Sanitary Sewer Service Area Connected Stubbed Service Parcels Area that can be Served with Undesignated Sewer Connections [Ú Sanitary Lift Station Sanitary Pipe Sanitary Forcemain City Limits 2040 MUSA Lakes & Rivers Wetlands Exhibit C (Sheet 1 of 2)- Quad Cities Agreement [Ú [Ú Served by City of Maple Plain LakeIndependence GVWX19 Baker Park Road Pagenkopf Road Pione er Cre ek Dr McDow L n Drake St G L oop Newport St County Road 19 Budd St N F Loop ManchesterD r Perkinsville Road M a i n Loop Budd Ave HLoo p H a l g r e n Ro a d D Loop E Loop CLoop A L o o p S Lake Shore Dr BLoop Sycamore Trl Independence R o a d 2" 2" 4" 2" 4" 4" 4" 4 " 8" 8" 8 " 8"8" 8" 8"4" 8" 10" 4" Map Document: \\arcserver1\GIS\INDEPEND_CI_MN\C16116168\ESRI\Maps\INDEPEND_CI_MN_11_LakeIndependenceSanitaryServiceArea_11x17L.mxd | Date Saved: 8/23/2019 3:26:55 PM Exhibit C (Sheet 2 of 2)- Quad Cities AgreementIndependence, MN Lake Sarah/Lake Independence Sanitary Sewer Service A reasAugust 2019 Legend City Limits 2040 MUSA Lakes & R ivers Wetlands 0 500 FeetSource: Met. Coun cil, C ity of Inde pend ence, He nnep in Coun ty, MnDO T !I Sanitary Sewer Service Area Connected Stubbed Service Parcels Area that can be Served with Undesignated Sewer Connections [Ú Sanitary Lift Station Sanitary Pipe Sanitary Forcemain Figure 11 !O !O !O L A K E S A R A H L N HIDDEN LN ELMWOOD DR NORTH SHORE DR QUEEN ST 66TH LN N YVETTE ST GREENFIELD RD STATE HWY 55 L A K E S A R A H H G T S D R SIO UX TRL TOWN HALL DR CP R&R Legend Probable Wetland - NWI Probable Wetland - HCWI Potential Wetland - HCWI Lake Sarah Sew er Pa rcels Parcels Stubbed Service Connected !O LiftStations Existing Sewer Mains · 0 600 1,200300Feet Exhibit C - Quad Cities Agreement City of Greenfield, MN August 2019 Metropolitan Council No. 181005 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF MEDINA THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the Metropolitan Council, a public corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota ("Council"), and the City of Medina, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota ("Medina"). BACKGROUND RECITALS 1. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has issued NPDES/SDS Permit No. MN0023990 to the City of Loretto for its wastewater treatment plant with the requirement to cease discharge and connect to the regional wastewater system by December 31, 2020. 2. Medina operates the trunk sanitary sewers and appurtenances under an agreement, known as the Tri- City Agreement, amongst the cities of Medina, Independence and Greenfield. 3. The Council has agreed to provide wastewater service to Loretto by December 31, 2020. The Council has included this service extension in the Wastewater System Plan chapter of its 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan. 4. The Council has future plans to expand its service area in the Western Metro Area, including the City of Loretto when sufficient growth occurs in the cities of Medina and Corcoran. Until then, the Council desires and Medina agrees to use Medina's existing wastewater system to provide sewer service to Loretto. 5. The Council has determined that service to Loretto can best be provided by Medina's system and facilities on behalf ofthe Council, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes§ 473.504, subdivision 12. 6. In order to provide service to Loretto, a portion of the Medina sewer system needs to be upgraded as described in Article I{B). Medina and the Council agree that the Council will design and construct this upgrade between 2019 and 2020. NOW, THEREFORE, for mutual consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by the parties, the parties agree as follows: I. Council Responsibilities A. The Council shall reimburse Medina for all costs to operate, maintain, and conduct major repairs on the sanitary sewer system serving the communities of Medina, Independence, Greenfield, and Loretto (the "System") as described in Exhibit A and Exhibit Band as set forth in this Agreement. B. The Council shall construct a new 20" gravity pipe near Sycamore Trail, as shown in Exhibit A, prior to provision of sanitary sewer service to the City of Loretto. Such 20" gravity pipe shall be owned by the Council. C. The Council shall install and operate meters to measure sanitary sewer flows entering the System at Medina Lift Station LS-1 from the north from Independence/Greenfield and from Loretto and shall monitor and assign proportionate responsibility for inflow and infiltration into the System from each community. 1 Metropolitan Council No. 181005 D. The Council acknowledges that any proposed future sewer extension which flows to the System shall be subject to review and approval under the agreement amongst the cities of Medina, Independence, Greenfield and loretto prior to construction. II. City Responsibilities A. Medina shall operate and maintain the sanitary sewers and appurtenances shown in Exhibit A to ensure reliable conveyance of wastewater. This responsibility includes routine operation and maintenance, as well as major repairs as defined in Article Ill( B). B. Medina shall locate any sanitary sewer facilities as required by the Gopher State One-Call system. C. Medina shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the new Council 20" gravity pipe near Sycamore Trail, as shown in Exhibit A. No connections may be added to this pipe without prior express written consent from the Council. Medina shall be responsible for any locates required by Gopher State One-Call for the 20" gravity pipe. D. Medina shall provide all labor, materials, supplies, tools, and equipment necessary for the performance of all work required to be performed by Medina by or under this Agreement. E. Medina agrees that any work performed by Medina or under Medina's supervision under this Agreement will be performed in a good and workmanlike manner and will be compliant with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations and all applicable local rules and ordinances. F. Medina shall provide the Council full access to Medina's lift stations or other locations as requested by the Council. G. Medina shall promptly notify the Council when any major repairs as described in Article III(B) of this Agreement are required to the System. Ill. Costs A. Operation and Maintenance Costs i. As further set forth below, the Council agrees to pay Medina an annual payment for operation and maintenance of the System. The operation and maintenance payment shall be $25,090.00 per year plus inflationary increases based on the CPI increases from and after November 2017, as defined in Article III(A)(iii) and as shown in Exhibit B. The first annual payment shall be invoiced during January 2021, or during January of the calendar year after loretto has connected to the System, whichever occurs first. ii. On every January 1 for the Term of this Agreement, the Council's annual payments set forth in Article III(A)(i) will be adjusted to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as set forth in Article III(A)(iii), but in no case shall the Council's annual payments increase less than 1.5% from the previous year. 2 Metropolitan Council No. 181005 iii. The annual adjustment of the Council's payment will be set at an amount equal to the dollar value established for the year just concluded multiplied by a fraction, the denominator of which is the CPI for the November of the year prior to the immediately preceding Inflation Adjustment Date and numerator of which is the CPI for the November of the most recently concluded year. The foregoing notwithstanding, a dollar value shall not be reduced from year to year. For purposes of this Agreement, "CPI" shall mean the Consumer Price lndex-U, U.S. City Average, All Items -less food and energy, Not Seasonally Adjusted, index base period (1982-84=100) as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the event such index is discontinued, comparable statistics in the purchasing power of the consumer dollar, as published at the time of said discontinuance by a responsible financial authority, shall be selected upon agreement between the Council and Medina and shall be used prospectively in lieu of such index. B. Major Repairs Major repairs include non-routine maintenance work to restore or ensure continued operations that have a cost for an individual occurrence that exceeds 10% of the annual routine operations and maintenance cost. The cost of major repairs will be reimbursed by the Council in addition to the costs identified in Article III(A). IV. Method of Payment A. Operation and Maintenance Costs Medina shall submit to the Council, no later than January 31 51 of each year, an invoice for the annual operation and maintenance payment for the previous year. Each statement shall set forth the following information: 1. The Agreement number (181005). 2. The amount of the annual operation and maintenance payment as adjusted using the CPI per Article III(A){iii). Upon receipt, the Council shall verify the CPI and pay Medina the invoiced amount within 45 days for annual operation and maintenance costs per Article III(A). B. Major Repairs Medina will submit an invoice for major repairs within a reasonable time oft he work being completed. Medina's invoice shall itemize costs for labor (which may include reimbursement rates of Medina personnel), materials, and/or contracted services. Upon receipt, the Council shall pay Medina the invoiced amount within 45 days for major repairs per Article III(B). C. At the end ofthe Term of this Agreement or in the event this Agreement is terminated early, Medina shall submit to the Council a final invoice and a request for payment of the sums then owing. The final invoice must include the following certification, signed by an authorized representative of Medina: The undersigned represents that payment of this request for payment to Medina constitutes completion of the work agreed upon pursuant to this Agreement and acknowledges that Medina shall be responsible to reimburse the Council for any 3 Metropolitan Council No. 181005 payments due to the Council as a result of an audit. Except as provided in the next-following sentence, the Council shall pay the final invoice upon the Council's review, approval, and acknowledgment of satisfactory completion of the work, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. D. The Council is not obligated to pay Medina for any work that is inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement or is performed in violation of federal, state, or local law, ordinance, rule, or regulation. E. To the extent that it believes any costs are not covered by this Agreement or have not been adequately supported with appropriate supporting documentation, the Council reserves the right to contest such costs in accordance with the dispute resolution process outlined in Article IX(J) and such other remedies as provided for herein. V. Maximum Total Compensation Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, the maximum total compensation by the Council paid to Medina under this Agreement shall not exceed $1,054,671 as set forth in Exhibit B. Operation and maintenance expenses or major repair expenses may exceed the amounts described in Exhibit B provided the total compensation does not exceed $1,054,671. In the event the maximum total compensation amount is projected to be exceeded before the Term of this Agreement has expired, Medina and the Council shall negotiate, in good faith, a written amendment to this Agreement. VI. Insurance The parties agree that the Council shall not be responsible or liable in any manner for any claim, demand, action or cause of action of any kind arising out of Medina's performance or failure to perform the work required and within the scope of this Agreement or arising out of Medina's performance or failure to perform such work by any contractor of Medina performing any of the work provided herein. Medina shall maintain general liability insurance in an amount no less than the limits of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. Such insurance shall list the Council as an additional insured, on a primary and non-contributory basis, utilizing ISO CG ISO CG 20 26 07 04 and ISO CG 20 37 07 04 or their equivalent. The policy shall not contain an exclusion for losses related to wastewater.ln lieu of an insurance policy, Medina may self-insure, provided that the Council is afforded the equivalent protections as if an insurance policy was procured. The Council will determine whether Medina's proposed self-insurance constitutes equivalent protections to a policy of insurance. VII. Term A. This Agreement shall begin upon its execution by both parties but shall be contingent upon execution of a separate agreement amongst the cities of Medina, Independence, Greenfield, and Loretto regarding the operation of the System. Medina may terminate this Agreement by written notice to the Council if such agreement amongst the cities is not executed prior to September 30, 2019. B. This Agreement shall terminate upon the Council providing wastewater services by constructing 4 Metropolitan Council No. 181005 Council-owned facilities or acquiring Medina-owned facilities. The parties anticipate that the Council will provide such services pri or to December 31, 2040. The parties agree to negotiate, in good faith, a written amendment to this Agreement if it appears that the Council will not do so prior to such date. At least two years prior to termination of this Agreement, the Council will notify Medina of its intent to provide continued wastewater services . VIII . Property Acquisition When the Council notifies Medina of its intent to provide wastewater services in place of the System, and if the Council desires to acquire city-owned facilities in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 473.511, Medina will cooperate in good faith to transfer ownership of the sanitary sewer systems, appurtenances, and all related easements, permits, and rights of way to the Council at no additional cost. IX. General Provisions A. This Agreement shall not be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the other party, which consent shall not be unreasonably w ithheld or delayed . B. The laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all interpretati ons of this Agreement, and the appropriate venue and jurisdiction for any litigation which may a rise hereunder will be i n those courts located within the County of Ramsey , State of Minnesota. C. Medina ag ree s t o keep and main t ai n, du ri ng t he pe rform ance of t his Agreemen t and a period of six (6) years following, records and files relating to the final financial aspects of this Agreement and further agrees to allow the Council or designated federal or state personnel to enter on Medina's premises after reasonable notice to inspect, copy and audit the above records, files, and premises. As required by Minnesota Statutes§ 16C.05, the records, books, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of Medina and of any subcontractor relating to work performed under this Agreement shall be subject t o audit and examination by the Council and the Minnesota legislative Auditor or Minnesota State Auditor. Upon reasonable notice, Medina and any subcontractor shall permit the Council or its designee to inspect, copy, and audit its accounts, records, and business documents at any time during regula r business hours as they may relate to the performance of this Agreement. D. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that th is Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All exh ibits referred to in t his Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement . E. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed by the parties' authorized representatives . F. The provisions of this Agreement are to be considered as severable , and in the event that any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable, the parties intend that the remaining provis ions will remain in full force and effect. G. The parties will comply w ith the M i nnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 , as it applies to all data created , collected, received , stored , used, maintained , or 5 Metropolitan Council No. 181005 disseminated in accordance with this Agreement. The civil remedies of Minnesota Statutes § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this section by either party. H. The Council and Medina agree to comply with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations and all applicable local ordinances and rules. This includes but is not limited to laws and regulations relating to nondiscrimination, affirmative action, public purchases, contracting, employment, workers' compensation, surety deposits required for construction contracts, and prevailing wage rates. I. Medina shall comply with Minnesota Statutes § 471.425 on 11Prompt Payment of Local Government Bills" and any other applicable law on prompt payment of local government bills. J. The parties will use this dispute resolution process for any unresolved contract dispute between the parties before seeking any legal or equitable remedies. The dispute resolution process is a two-level dispute resolution ladder that escalates a dispute from the project management level to the executive management level. At Levell ofthe dispute resolution process, the parties' representatives will meet and explore resolution until either party determines that effective resolution is not possible at the current level and notifies the other party that the process is elevated to the next level. The parties designate the following dispute resolution representatives: City of Medina Representative Metropolitan Council (Medina) Representative (Council) I Levell Public Works Director Assistant General Manager, I Technical Services level2 City Administrator General Manager, Environmental Services K. If Medina materially breaches the terms, covenants, or conditions which this Agreement requires Medina to perform, the Council will notify Medina of the breach within a reasonable time after the Council becomes aware of the breach. Medina will then be given a reasonable time period to cure the breach. If the breach is not cured within 90 days, or as reasonably extended to account for weather conditions or unavoidable delays, then Medina and the Council will meet in good faith to discuss the breach and the measures taken to remedy it. If the dispute resolution between the Council and Medina does not result in a cure or a plan to effect a cure that is satisfactory to the Council, the Council may pursue any remedy that it deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, seeking damages, specific performance, equitable relief, or termination of this Agreement. If circumstances dictate that the breach must be cured immediately, and the Council is obliged to cure the breach, Medina will reimburse the Council for the reasonable costs of effecting the remedy. The Council retains the right to collect any damages from Medina that occurred as a result of Medina's breach. L. If the Council materially breaches the terms, covenants, or conditions which this Agreement requires the Council to perform, Medina will notify the Council of the breach within a reasonable time after Medina becomes aware of the breach. The Council will then be given a reasonable time period to cure the breach. lfthe breach is not cured within 90 days, or as reasonably extended to account for weather conditions or unavoidable delays, then the Council and Medina will meet in good faith to discuss the breach and the measures taken to remedy it. If the dispute resolution between Medina and the Council does not result in a cure or a plan to effect a cure that is satisfactory to Medina, Medina may 6 Metropolitan Council No . 181005 pursue any remedy that it deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, seeking damages, specific performance, equitable relief, or terminating this Agreement. If circumstances dictate that the breach must be cured immediately, and Medina is obliged to cure the breach, the Council will reimburse Medina for the reasonable costs of effecting the remedy. Medina retains the right to collect any damages from the Council that occurred as a result ofthe Council's breach. M . Any notice or demand which must be given o r made by a party under this Agreement shall be sent to: Metropolitan Council : City of Medina: Jeannine Clancy or her successor Assistant General Manager, Technical Services 390 Robert Street North St. Paul, MN 55101 jeannine.clancy@metc.state .mn.us Scott Johnson or his successor City Administrator 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 scott.johnson@medinamn.gov IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on their behalf respectively by their duly authorized r epresentatives . This Agreement is effective on the date this Agreement is signed by the Council 's authorized representative . Its : _--!..!R.:::Jegc.!i""-o:..::na,I_,_A""d'Tm""i.:..:.n ·:..::.ISt""r,at::..::o:..:..r _____ _ Date : --""-0 :.....,1 ;;'---'--'-7 _,/;_h,.J<....:>.!-L-1 +9 ___ _ 1 I CITY OF MEDINA By : -:;;:=:? .... Its : Mayor Date: t ~!ct l!t By: _Uf{~ Its : Cit y Administrator Date: I yhri/ct I I 7 Exhibit A 20"FRP Gravity Pipe 2000LF • Baker Park i._ MEDINA LS-1 .,:.,. (2 Pump Submersible · · Lift Station) .. , ~ .J •• N A LEGEND • Lift station 1 • 1 Medina owned, maintained and operated (to be leased by MCES) MCES constructed (to be operated and maintained by Medina) 1 • 1 Medina existing pipe • Existing Medina manholes Acronyms HOPE: High-Density Polyethylene FRP: Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic DIP: Ductile I ron Pipe RCP: Reinforced Concrete Pipe Exhibit B Operations and Maintenance Costs Items Annual Cost Xcel Power $3,420.00 Frontier Phone Line $663.00 W/H Security $396.00 Generator Maintenance $1988.00 Generator Load Test (performed every 2 years @$435) $217.50 Annual Lift Station Inspection $250.00 Pipe Inspections (Monday, Wednesday, Friday-3 hrs/week) $10,140.00 Pumps and Impellers $5,000.00 Sewer Line Cleaning/Televising (every 5 years @ $10,000} $2,000.00 Additional Power Cost for Loretto Flow (30% more flow)* $1009.00 Total $25,084 Note: 30% additional flow was calculated using 261 gpm of existing flow at Medina Lift Station LS-1 and 77 gpm of Loretto flow. Projected Annual Payments CPI* Annual 2017 costs (rounded) 3 $25,090 2018 3 $25,842.70 2019 3 $26,617.98 2020 3 $27,416.52 Yearly Payment Start of Yearly Payment (Rounded) 2021 Year 1 3 $28,239.02 $28,239 2022 Year2 3 $29,086.19 $29,086 2023 Year3 3 $29,958.77 $29,959 2024 Year4 3 $30,857.54 $30,858 2025 YearS 3 $31,783.26 $31,783 2026 Year6 3 $32,736.76 $32,737 2027 Year7 3 $33,718.86 $33,719 2028 YearS 3 $34,730.43 $34,730 2029 Year9 3 $35,772.34 $35,772 2030 Year10 3 $36,845.51 $36,846 2031 Year 11 3 $37,950.88 $37,951 2032 Year 12 3 $39,089.40 $39,089 2033 Year 13 3 $40,262.08 $40,262 2034 Year 14 3 $41,469.95 $41,470 2035 Year 15 3 $42,714.05 $42,714 2036 Year 16 3 $43,995.47 $43,995 2037 Year 17 3 $45,315.33 $45,315 2038 Year 18 3 $46,674.79 $46,675 2039 Year 19 3 $48,075.03 $48,075 2040 Year20 3 $49,517.29 $49,517 Total $758,792 Note: 3% annual inflation rate assumed for purpose of establishing total agreement amount. Maximum Agreement Costs Total Annual Costs $758,792 Allowance (Annual major improvements) ~200,000 Total Agreement Costs $958,792 10% Contingency S9s,S79 TOTAL $1,054,671 EXHIBIT E Metropolitan Council No. 181006 11. Independence Responsibilities A. Independence shall operate and maintain the sanitary sewers and appurtenances, as shown in Exhibit A, to ensure reliable conveyance of wastewater. This responsibility includes routine operation and maintenance, as well as major repairs, as defined in Article IV(B). B. Independence shall perform any sanitary sewer location services as required by the Gopher State One -Call system. C. Independence shall upgrade its pump station PS -5 as necessary to accommodate Loretto's wastewater discharge to the City's forcemain. D. Independence shall provide all labor, materials, supplies, tools, and equipment necessary for the performance of all work required to be performed by Independence by or under this Agreement. E. Independence agrees that any services performed by Independence or under Independence's supervision under this Agreement will be performed in a good and workmanlike manner and will be compliant with all applicable state laws and regulations and all applicable local rules and ordinances. F. Independence shall provide the Council full access to Independence's lift station or other locations as requested by the Council. G. Independence shall promptly notify the Council when any major repairs are required. H. Independence agrees to transfer title and ownership of its flow meter structure to the Council. I. Upon completion of the Council's wastewater flow meter, Independence agrees to participate in the Council's Inflow/Infiltration Mitigation Program. 111. Property Acquisition A. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 473.511, subdivision 4, the Council desires to acquire Independence's flow meter structure, piping, and appurtenances for measuring pump station PS -5 flow, as well as all applicable permits, licenses, or property rights. B. A Bill of Sale for the flow meter structure, as described in Exhibit B, shall be executed by Independence and the Council within 30 days following execution of this Agreement. Independence will assign to the Council all permits and licenses applicable to the flow meter structure. C. Independence holds a platted drainage and utility easement (C.R. Doc. No. 6193445), located at Beau Marsh, from a private property owner, as shown in Exhibit C. The Council desires to utilize the existing easement for construction, operation, and maintenance related to this Agreement. Independence acknowledges the easement exists and agrees to allow the Council permission to utilize the easement for these purposes until a time where the easement is no longer required to operate and maintain the flow meter structure and associated vault. This Agreement constitutes a permit for the Council to utilize the easement until such a time that the Council deems the use of the easement unnecessary. This permit may not be revoked or rescinded by Independence for any reason. 2 Metropolitan Council No. 181006 IV. Costs A. Operation and Maintenance Costs i. As further set forth below, the Council agrees to pay Independence an annual payment for operation and maintenance of the System. The operation and maintenance payment shall be $2,740 per year plus inflationary increases based on the CPI increases from and after November 2018, as defined in Article IV(A)(iii) and as shown in Exhibit D. The first annual payment shall be invoiced during January 2021, or during January of the calendar year after Loretto has connected to the System, whichever occurs first. ii. On every January 1 for the Term of this Agreement, the Council's annual payments set forth in Article IV(A)(i) will be adjusted to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as set forth in Article IV(A)(iii), but in no case shall the Council's annual payments increase less than 1.5% from the previous year. iii. The annual adjustment of the Council's payment will be set at an amount equal to the dollar value established for the year just concluded multiplied by a fraction, the denominator of which is the CPI for the November of the year prior to the immediately preceding Inflation Adjustment Date and numerator of which is the CPI for the November of the most recently concluded year. The foregoing notwithstanding, a dollar value shall not be reduced from year to year. For purposes of this Agreement, "CPI" shall mean the Consumer Price Index -U, U.S. City Average, All Items — less food and energy, Not Seasonally Adjusted, index base period (1982-84=100) as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the event such index is discontinued, comparable statistics in the purchasing power of the consumer dollar, as published at the time of said discontinuance by a responsible financial authority, shall be selected upon agreement between the Council and Independence and shall be used prospectively in lieu of such index. B. Major Repairs Major repairs include non -routine maintenance work to the Independence forcemain from PS -5 to the junction structure, as shown in Exhibit A. Such repairs may be needed to restore or ensure continued operations to the wastewater system. Major repairs are repairs where the individual occurrence exceeds 50% of the annual routine operations and maintenance cost, as shown in Exhibit D. The cost of major repairs will be reimbursed by the Council in addition to the costs identified in Article IV(A). C. Property Acquisition The Council shall pay the City $25,000 for the flow meter structure, piping, appurtenances, permits, and licenses, as described in Article I I I, within 30 days following execution of the Bill of Sale. V. Method of Payment A. Operation and Maintenance Costs Independence shall submit to the Council, no later than January 31St of each year, an invoice for the 3 Metropolitan Council No. 181006 annual operation and maintenance payment for the previous year. Each statement shall set forth the following information: 1. The Agreement number (181006). 2. The amount of the annual operation and maintenance payment as adjusted using the CPI per Article IV(A)(iii). Upon receipt, the Council shall verify the CPI and pay Independence the invoiced amount within 45 days for annual operation and maintenance costs per Article IV(A). B. Major Repairs Independence will submit an invoice for major repairs within a reasonable time of the work being completed. Independence's invoice shall itemize costs for labor (which may include reimbursement rates of Independence personnel), materials, and/or contracted services. Upon receipt, the Council shall pay Independence the invoiced amount within 45 days for major repairs per Article IV(B). C. At the end of the Term of this Agreement or in the event this Agreement is terminated early, Independence shall submit to the Council a final invoice and a request for payment of the sums then owing. The final invoice must include the following certification, signed by an authorized representative of Independence: The undersigned represents that payment of this request for payment to Independence constitutes completion of the work agreed upon pursuant to this Agreement and acknowledges that Independence shall be responsible to reimburse the Council for any payments due to the Council as a result of an audit. Except as provided in the next -following sentence, the Council shall pay the final invoice upon the Council's review, approval, and acknowledgment of satisfactory completion of the work, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. D. The Council is not obligated to pay Independence for any work that is inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement or is performed in violation of federal, state, or local law, ordinance, rule, or regulation. E. To the extent that it believes any costs are not covered by this Agreement or have not been adequately supported with appropriate supporting documentation, the Council reserves the right to contest such costs in accordance with the dispute resolution process outlined in Article IX(J) and such other remedies as provided for herein. VI. Maximum Total Compensation Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, the maximum total compensation by the Council paid to Independence under this Agreement shall not exceed $198,498 as set forth in Exhibit D. Operation and maintenance expenses or major repair expenses may exceed the amounts described in Exhibit D provided the total compensation does not exceed $198,498. In the event the maximum total compensation amount is projected to be exceeded before the Term of this Agreement has expired, Independence and the Council shall negotiate, in good faith, a written amendment to this Agreement. 4 Metropolitan Council No. 181006 VII. Insurance The parties agree that the Council shall not be responsible or liable in any manner for any claim, demand, action, or cause of action of any kind arising out of Independence's performance or failure to perform the work required and within the scope of this Agreement or arising out of Independence's performance or failure to perform such work by any contractor of Independence performing any of the work provided herein. Independence shall maintain general liability insurance in an amount no less than the limits of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. Such insurance shall list the Council as an additional insured, on a primary and non- contributory basis, utilizing ISO CG ISO CG 20 26 07 04 and ISO CG 20 37 07 04 or their equivalent. The policy shall not contain an exclusion for losses related to wastewater. In lieu of an insurance policy, Independence may self -insure, provided that the Council is afforded the equivalent protections as if an insurance policy was procured. The Council will determine whether Independence's proposed self- insurance constitutes equivalent protections to a policy of insurance. VIII. Term A. This Agreement shall begin upon its execution by both parties but shall be contingent upon execution of a separate agreement amongst the cities of Medina, Independence, Greenfield, and Loretto regarding the operation of the System. Independence may terminate this Agreement by written notice to the Council if such agreement amongst the cities is not executed prior to September 30, 2019. B. This Agreement shall terminate upon the Council providing wastewater services by constructing Council -owned facilities or acquiring Independence -owned facilities. The parties anticipate that the Council will provide such services prior to December 31, 2040. The parties agree to negotiate, in good faith, a written amendment to this Agreement if it appears that the Council will not do so prior to such date. At least two years prior to termination of this Agreement, the Council will notify Independence of its intent to provide continued wastewater services. IX. General Provisions A. This Agreement shall not be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the other party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. B. The laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all interpretations of this Agreement, and the appropriate venue and jurisdiction for any litigation which may arise hereunder will be in those courts located within the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota. C. Independence agrees to keep and maintain during the performance of this Agreement and a period of six (6) years following, records and files relating to the final financial aspects of this Agreement, and further agrees to allow the Council or designated federal or state personnel to enter on Independence's premises after reasonable advance notice and to inspect, copy and audit the above records, files, and premises. As required by Minnesota Statutes § 16C.05, the records, books, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of Independence and of any subcontractor relating to Services performed under this Agreement shall be subject to audit and examination by the 5 Metropolitan Council No. 181006 Council and the Minnesota Legislative Auditor or Minnesota State Auditor. Upon reasonable advance notice, Independence and any subcontractor shall permit Council or its designee to inspect, copy, and audit its accounts, records, and business documents at any time during regular business hours, as they may relate to the performance of this Agreement. D. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. E. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed by the Parties authorized representatives. F. The provisions of this Agreement are to be considered as severable, and in the event that any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable, the Parties intend that the remaining provisions will remain in full force and effect. G. The Parties will comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated in accordance with this Agreement. The civil remedies of Minnesota Statutes, § 13.08, apply to the release of the data referred to in this section by either Party. H. Council and Independence agree to comply with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations and all applicable local ordinances and rules. This includes but is not limited to laws and regulations relating to nondiscrimination, affirmative action, public purchases, contracting, employment, workers' compensation, surety deposits required for construction contracts, and prevailing wage rates. I. Independence shall comply with Minnesota Statutes § 471.425 on "Prompt Payment of Local Government Bills" and any other applicable law on prompt payment of local government bills. J. The parties will use this dispute resolution process for any unresolved contract dispute between the parties before seeking any legal or equitable remedies. The dispute resolution process is a two -level dispute resolution ladder that escalates a dispute from the project management level to the executive management level. At Level 1 of the dispute resolution process, the parties' representatives will meet and explore resolution until either party determines that effective resolution is not possible at the current level and notifies the other party that the process is elevated to the next level. The parties designate the following dispute resolution representatives: City of Independence Representative (Independence) Metropolitan Council Representative (Council) Level 1 Public Works Director Assistant General Manager, Technical Services Level 2 City Administrator General Manager, Environmental Services K. If Independence materially breaches the terms, covenants, or conditions which this Agreement requires Independence to perform, the Council will notify Independence of the breach within a 6 Metropolitan Council No. 181006 reasonable time after the Council becomes aware of the breach. Independence will then be given a reasonable time period to cure the breach. If the breach is not cured within 90 days, or as reasonably extended to account for weather conditions or unavoidable delays, then Independence and the Council will meet in good faith to discuss the breach and the measures taken to remedy it. If the dispute resolution between the Council and Independence does not result in a cure or a plan to effect a cure that is satisfactory to the Council, the Council may pursue any remedy that it deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, seeking damages, specific performance, equitable relief, or termination of this Agreement. If circumstances dictate that the breach must be cured immediately, and the Council is obliged to cure the breach, Independence will reimburse the Council for the reasonable costs of effecting the remedy. The Council retains the right to collect any damages from Independence that occurred as a result of Independence's breach. L. If the Council materially breaches the terms, covenants, or conditions which this Agreement requires the Council to perform, Independence will notify the Council of the breach within a reasonable time after Independence becomes aware of the breach. The Council will then be given a reasonable time period to cure the breach. If the breach is not cured within 90 days, or as reasonably extended to account for weather conditions or unavoidable delays, then the Council and Independence will meet in good faith to discuss the breach and the measures taken to remedy it. If the dispute resolution between Independence and the Council does not result in a cure or a plan to effect a cure that is satisfactory to Independence, Independence may pursue any remedy that it deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, seeking damages, specific performance, equitable relief, or terminating this Agreement. If circumstances dictate that the breach must be cured immediately, and Independence is obliged to cure the breach, the Council will reimburse Independence for the reasonable costs of effecting the remedy. Independence retains the right to collect any damages from the Council that occurred as a result of the Council's breach. M. Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party under this Agreement shall be sent to: Metropolitan Council: City of Independence: Jeannine Clancy or her successor Assistant General Manager, Technical Services 390 Robert Street North St. Paul, MN 55101 jeannine.clancy@metc.state.mn.us Mark Kaltsas or his successor City Administrator 1920 County Road 90 Independence, MN 55359 mark.kaltsas@ci.independence.mn.us IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on their behalf respectively by their duly authorized representatives. This Agreement is effective on the date this Agreement is signed by the Council's authorized representative. 7 Metropolitan Council No. 181006 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL By: Its: Regional Administrator Date: Approved as form: Independence City Attorney CITY OF INDEPENDENCE By: Its: Mayor Date: 8 Metropolitan Council No. 181006 Exhibit A INDEPENDENCE PS -5 (2 pumps submersible e station) Lake independence -are ap up op in MEDINA LS -1 up in g se— EIN LORETTO LS 4- Force Main LEGEND • Lift station Independence owned, maintained) and operated to be !eased by MCES) MCES meter structure (MCES owned, maintained and operated) • OO Independence owned, maintained and operated •mb• Loretto constructed, owned and maintained Existing manholes Acronyms PVC: Polyvinyl Chloride 9 Metropolitan Council No. 181006 Exhibit B Bill of Sale for Flow Meter Structure Metropolitan Council No. 181006 BILL OF SALE KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that the CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota for mutual consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, a public corporation and political subdivision under to laws of the State of Minnesota, its successors and assigns forever, the following goods, chattel and personal property, to wit: The 48" diameter meter structure outside the City lift station LS#13 (Pump station # 5) located at the Townline Road and County Rd. 11. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, its successors and assigns forever, and the City of Independence covenants and agrees to and with the Metropolitan Council, its successors and assigns, that it is the lawful owner of said goods, chattels and personal property and has good right to sell the same as aforesaid and that the same are free from all encumbrances and the City of Independence will warrant and defend the sale of such goods, chattels and personal property hereby made unto the Metropolitan Council, its successors and assigns, against all and every person and persons whomever lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof subject encumbrances, if any, hereinbefore mentioned. 11 Metropolitan Council No. 181006 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Independence has set its hand this day of , 20 City of Independence, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 , by of the City of Independence, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, on its behalf. Notary Public DRAFTED BY: Real Estate Office Metropolitan Council 390 Robert Street North St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 12 Metropolitan Council No. 181006 Exhibit C Drainage and Utility Easement Metropolitan Council No. 181006 ona mccaun nrWa, 1• a S 59° 25' 33 -W 3130.00 111 14-I STAP ON Nt) -T,, • a w.i Seea•. W-cb25van ;t .. (5_ : -^'LW Iw' tr l ^u -MY - EITOP- COUNTY ROAD 11 -CARE LEGEND Ea Caberi Pv1Ch Te cot re F etich CIe,K41 Santry I.bnroe CCt NOTES 1. SE= _FEET2 FOR UTILITIES TOSS IMED AM M MVNTNNED EY M.:ES. EC £ 8 IN F T 11,IRAN1 EXH IBIT B Lot 7, Bbdc 1. BEA U M ARSH. Hennepin Co unty, MN Pump Station No . 5 ;�_ FtKU. NO. StLJ.0❑ 14 Metropolitan Council No . 181006 Wrac.auTmnn ¢ran - "-t_, 2 SWRAR<d`MR PIPES A ronermu4 SAW N ..e, ARC tRGYCgL 'IR YC TG NPL UUL D AMMAM '=A_,,_.,� 4 ...Z AFL Uri S TA1 a s $1,3 5 .1.1 _TATY, •-• „,v A'.fl IA CCtGTR1tC,C MT= AIGtGI=TA ] .--t. 3 LnunC: W iLL or LALCUM911, YiKni `IhLOZ- �"` .• •-•,_, . wAem.uc�u unwmorwa: --- �'_, _. _-�`�c�______. f__. , ZC I.¢cr, aR u:trrrtueaeua nw MAMMY MYER.. STXMMIAMINTIPIIMIMEM n rp m — J ` J/ --- •4_, may` I ' I - I �M 1re.ale11 II o .I .11 ..mMMIN .e* ecalwa ismiAr • CPC ROCI a Ar -oo or �OW71pNt WOK rmwluswi e 41 COUNTY ROAD NOIc11 MEMPEIMI mar e • • MA aa .aM.e aw I MMO Stantey 15 0320® `t Min 1u Dm'N11IDA T Sae: Metropolitan Council No. 181006 Exhibit D Operations and Maintenance Cost Items Annual Cost Electrical Cost to Pump Against Additional Loretto flow $200 Pumps and Impellers Maintenance $2,190 Forcemain Maintenance (Air release valve) $350 Total Cost $2,740 Note: Electrical Cost was calculated based on the head condition that will increase by 10 feet when Loretto is pumping. 16 Metropolitan Council No. 181006 Projected Annual Payments CPI* Annual 2018 costs (rounded) i 3 $2,740 2019 3 $2,822.20 2020 3 $2,906.87 Start of Yearly Payment Yearly Payment (Rounded) 2021 Year 1 3 $2,994.07 $2,994 2022 Year 2 3 $3,083.89 $3,084 2023 Year 3 3 $3,176.41 $3,176 2024 Year 4 3 $3,271.70 $3,272 2025 Year 5 3 $3,369.85 $3,370 2026 Year 6 3 $3,470.95 $3,471 2027 Year 7 3 $3,575.08 $3,575 2028 Year 8 3 $3,682.33 $3,682 2029 Year 9 3 $3,792.80 $3,793 2030 Year 10 3 $3,906.58 $3,907 2031 Year 11 3 $4,023.78 $4,024 2032 Year 12 3 $4,144.50 $4,144 2033 Year 13 3 $4,268.83 $4,269 2034 Year 14 3 $4,396.90 $4,397 2035 Year 15 3 $4,528.80 $4,529 2036 Year 16 3 $4,664.67 $4,665 2037 Year 17 3 $4,804.61 $4,805 2038 Year 18 3 $4,948.74 $4,949 2039 Year 19 3 $5,097.21 $5,097 2040 Year 20 3 $5,250.12 $5,250 Total Annual Costs $80,453 Note: 3% annual inflation rate assumed for ournose of establishing total agreement amount_ Maximum Agreement Costs Total Annual Costs $80,453 Allowance (Annual major improvements) $75,000 Flow Meter Acquisition $25,000 Total Agreement Costs $180,453 10% Contingency $18,045 TOTAL $198,498 17 Resolution No. 2019- September 3, 2019 Member _____ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2019- RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED TAX LEVY FOR 2020 WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has adopted legislation, which requires all municipalities to pass a resolution adopting a preliminary budget and certifying the total proposed tax levy amount to the County Auditor prior to September 30, 2019; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City of Medina, Minnesota, to comply with this law and submit a proposed property tax levy including general operating and debt levies; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city council of the City of Medina, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be proposed for 2020 upon the taxable property in the City of Medina, for the following purposes: To raise $3,434,452 as adequate revenue for the general fund operating budget, $533,819 as adequate revenue for debt service, $312,500 for capital equipment and $112,000 for municipal park fund. General Fund $3,434,452 Capital Equipment $ 312,500 Municipal Park Fund $ 112,000 Debt Service: 2010A G.O. Improvement Bonds $ 29,500 2011B Taxable G.O. Improvement Bonds $ 60,000 2012A G.O. CIP Bonds $ 243,705 2013A G.O. Refunding Bonds $ 137,361 2015A G.O. Improvement Bonds $ 63,253 Total Levy: $4,392,771 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk, Jodi Gallup, is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the county auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Date: September 3, 2019. ____________________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Agenda Item # 7A1 Resolution No. 2019- 2 September 3, 2019 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. Member __ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2019-xx RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR 2020 BE IT RESOLVED, by the city council of the City of Medina, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be proposed for the 2020 General Fund budget: Revenues Expenditures General Fund $4,736,401 $4,736,401 Date: September 3, 2019 ____________________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member __ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: - and the following voted against same: - Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Agenda Item # 7A2 Member __ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2019-xx RESOLUTION REDUCING DEBT SERVICE TAX LEVIES FOR 2020 WHEREAS, Hennepin County maintains a bond register with the City’s scheduled bonded debt levies for taxes payable in 2020, and requests a City resolution canceling the debt levy if the City does not levy the scheduled amounts; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that specific debt levies may be partially reduced due to the accumulation and projection of other revenue sources, including previously collected tax levies, previously collected and future projected special assessments, and utility fund contributions; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city council of the City of Medina, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, that the following reductions of debt service levies be made for taxes payable in 2020: Scheduled Proposed Reduction Levy Levy To Levy Debt Service: 2010A G.O. Improvement Bonds $ 32,713 $ 29,500 $ 3,213 2011B Taxable G.O. Improvement Bonds $ 91,148 $ 60,000 $ 31,148 2012A G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds $ 304,631 $ 243,705 $ 60,926 2013A G.O. Refunding Bonds $ 171,701 $ 137,361 $ 34,340 2015A G.O. Improvement Bonds $ 63,253 $ 63,253 $ - 2016A G.O. Refunding Bonds $ 96,578 $ - $ 96,578 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk Jodi Gallup, is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the county auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Date: September 3, 2019. ____________________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member __ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Agenda Item # 7A3 - and the following voted against same: - Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Tim and Megan Elam Page 1 of 7 September 3, 2019 ADU Variance and CUP City Council MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Ben Schneider, Planning Intern and Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: August 28, 2019 MEETING: September 3, 2019 City Council Meeting SUBJ: Tim and Megan Elam ADU Variance and CUP Review Deadline Application received: July 16, 2019 120-day review deadline: November 12, 2019 Summary of Request Tim and Megan Elam own 1582 Homestead Trail, which is a 34-acre lot zoned as rural residential (RR). They are requesting a pair of conditional use permits (CUPs) and a variance. The first request is to allow the current house on the property to be classified as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to allow for construction of a new principal home on the property. Given the size of this house and number of bedrooms, a variance would be needed to grant this CUP. The other CUP is to allow the following accessory structures: a child playhouse, a gazebo, a standalone garage, and a planned cabana. In the early 1990’s, a previous owner built a principal dwelling of about 18,000 square feet and a caretaker house of about 3,200 square feet. These structures both remained until October 2017 when the property sellers demolished the principal house. When the applicants bought the lot, they assumed they would be able to build a new principal dwelling to replace the one recently demolished. However, City Code Section 826.98, Subd. 2, part (p) states that ADU’s cannot have more than 2 bedrooms or more than 1000 square feet of habitable space. The existing house on their lot has 4 bedrooms and has 2,091 habitable square feet, so building a new principal home would not be allowed without a variance. Interestingly, staff was unable to determine through what regulation two homes were permitted to be originally built (1995). ADUs were not permitted until 2011 and a second home was previously a conditional use on lots over 40 acres. Existing 3,200 SF 4-Bedroom House Previous location of 18,000 SF House Agenda Item # 7B Tim and Megan Elam Page 2 of 7 September 3, 2019 ADU Variance and CUP City Council A second CUP would be required to permit five accessory structures on the property. Section 825.19 of the zoning code requires a CUP to construct more than two accessory structures on a property. The CUP is proposed for structures with the following building footprints: • Accessory Dwelling Unit: 1,980 square feet • Child playhouse with a closed roof: 120 square feet • Standalone garage: 441 square feet • Gazebo: 128 square feet • Cabana (proposed): 591square feet Analysis CUP for more than Two Accessory Structures Section 825.19, subd. 3 requires a CUP for a property larger than 5 acres to have more than two accessory structures and/or a total building footprint of all accessory structures over 5,000 square feet. If the applicants were to be granted their variance request, they would have to include their current dwelling when calculating this total footprint. But since the footprint of the house is 1,980, the applicants would still be under the 5,000 mark. Section 826.98 also includes regulations for accessory buildings. Subd. 2, part (m) states the following criteria for accessory buildings on residential properties greater than five acres: 1) The accessory building’s design shall include architectural interest through the appropriate use of the following elements: cupolas, dormers, windows, porches, overhangs, varied building foundation, or other design treatments which the city council determines create a quality architectural design that enhances the appearance of the Existing 3.200 SF 4-Bedroom House Proposed rendering of new 10,000 square foot principal house Tim and Megan Elam Page 3 of 7 September 3, 2019 ADU Variance and CUP City Council accessory building and complements the principal dwelling and the rural residential character or residential neighborhood in which the building is to be constructed 2) At least two colors or textures shall be used in the accessory building’s exterior design, including contrasting trim or fascia 3) Any metal exterior materials on the accessory building shall be warranted to resist fading for a period of at least 15 years 4) The accessory building shall have an infiltration basin, rain garden, rain barrel or other similar best management practice used to capture storm water runoff from the building and to improve water quality. Said best management practice must be reviewed and approved by the city council When comparing the existing house, garage, playhouse, and gazebo with the proposed rendering, it is likely that the first 3 criteria would be met, assuming the applicants stay true to their current rendering. Regarding the 4th requirement, current plans for final construction would result in approximately 17,876 square feet of hardscape in the area by the new home. This is 63% less than the total hardscape of the previous principal home (48,654 square feet). This reduction in hardcover surface could be argued as an improvement in stormwater management. Accessory Dwelling Unit Part (p) of Section 826.98, Subd. 2 outlines criteria specifically for ADU’s: (i) No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be located on a property. No accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted upon a property on which a lodging room or a second residential dwelling is located The applicants would only have one ADU (ii) Accessory dwelling units within the SR (Suburban Residential), UR (Urban Residential), R1 (Single-Family Residential) or R2 (Two-Family Residential) zoning districts shall be attached to the principal single-family structure This is a rural residential property, so no need for the ADU to be attached (iii) The lot shall contain an existing single-family dwelling unit The applicants would build a single-family dwelling unit to accompany their ADU. This would be a condition to approve the ADU CUP. (iv) The habitable area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the lesser of the following: 1) 750 square feet for a one-bedroom unit; 2) 1,000 square feet for a two-bedroom unit; or 3) 40 percent of the habitable area of the principal single-family dwelling This criterion is not met, which is why the applicants are applying for the variance to allow for more than 1,000 square feet of habitable space. (v) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain a minimum of 300 square feet of habitable space; The house that would become an ADU has 2,091 habitable square feet, so this criterion would be met. (vi) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain no more than two bedrooms The variance request is to allow for 4 bedrooms Tim and Megan Elam Page 4 of 7 September 3, 2019 ADU Variance and CUP City Council (vii) A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be provided per bedroom for the accessory dwelling unit. Such parking spaces shall not interfere with accessing the required garage spaces for the principal single-family dwelling There is ample parking on this 34-acre lot. This criterion would be met. (viii) No separate driveway or curb cut shall be permitted to serve the accessory dwelling unit The existing home and the proposed home would share the same driveway. (ix) No accessory dwelling unit shall be sold or conveyed separately from the principal single- family dwelling This would need to be a condition to grant the ADU CUP (x) The property owner shall occupy either the principal single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit as their primary residence The applicants plan to live in the principal dwelling and their parents plan to live in the ADU (xi) If the accessory dwelling unit is located within a structure detached from the principal single-family dwelling, the architectural design and building materials shall be of the same or higher quality and shall complement the single-family dwelling. Additionally, the structure shall meet the setback requirements of the principal structure and shall count towards the maximum number and building size of accessory structures permitted on a property This is another condition that will need to be met upon approval Adequate utility services shall be available to serve the accessory dwelling unit. This shall include adequate capacity within individual sewage treatment systems for both the principal single-family dwelling and the accessory dwelling, where applicable. Both the existing house and the proposed house already have well and septic systems in place (xiii) Any exterior stairway which accesses an accessory dwelling unit above the first floor shall be located in a way to minimize visibility from the street and, to the extent possible, from neighboring property. Such stairway shall incorporate a deck a minimum of 27 square feet in area There are no exterior stairways that access anything above the first floor. The city council may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations it deems to be reasonably necessary to protect the single-family residential character of the surrounding area. A copy of the resolution approving an accessory dwelling unit and describing the conditions, restrictions and limitations on the use shall be recorded against the property. Staff Recommendations for this are below Tim and Megan Elam Page 5 of 7 September 3, 2019 ADU Variance and CUP City Council Variance The variance request concerns two of the criteria. The first is that the habitable space of ADU’s shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. The second is that an ADU shall not have more than 2 bedrooms. The current dwelling has 2,091 square feet of habitable space and 4 bedrooms. Section 825.45, Subd. 2 of the City Code outlines the criteria for granting variances. These criteria include the following, after which staff has provided potential findings: 1) The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance On its face, it seems difficult to argue that allowing the existing 4-bedroom home which exceeds 1000 habitable square feet to be used as an ADU is consistent with the intent of limiting the size of an ADU. On the other hand, the property is comparatively large, and could likely be subdivided to create two lots, one for each home. Since the ordinance would permit two homes if the property was subdivided, it could be argued that it is not inconsistent with the purposes. Additionally, the proportionality of the large size of the lot and proposed home compared to the amount the home exceeds the ordinance limitations could be considered. 2) The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan To the extent that the size of the accessory dwelling is relevant for the Comp Plan, it could be argued that allowing two homes on a property which could be subdivided into two lots is not inconsistent with the Comp Plan. 3) The applicant establishes a practical difficulty in complying with the zoning ordinance. For a practical difficulty to be claimed, there are 3 sub-criteria: a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. In determining if the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, the board shall consider, among other factors, whether the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty and whether the variance confers upon the applicant any special privileges that are denied to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality Staff believes the variance request largely boils down to whether the history of this property containing two large homes classifies as a “circumstance unique to the property not created by the landowner.” It could be argued that as the property stands today, its history alone does not change the fact that there is nothing physically unique about this lot which causes a difficulty. On the other hand, it could be reasoned that other factors, such as the history of this property, create a “unique circumstance.” Staff does not believe the variance would alter the character of the locality because it would allow the construction of a replacement principal home in the location one previously existed. The variance also essentially re-designates the current home as an ADU, which was how it was used in the past. Tim and Megan Elam Page 6 of 7 September 3, 2019 ADU Variance and CUP City Council Planning Commission Recommendation On August 13th, 2019 the Planning Commission reviewed these requests and held a public hearing. A number of neighbors provided comments in favor of the variance and CUPs. The overall feeling of the Commission was that the criteria for granting variances were sufficiently met. Notably, there was universal agreement that the history of the property was unique and created a practical difficulty. The Commission also had no issues with the CUPs. As a result, the Commission unanimously voted to recommend the approval of all the Elam’s requests. Staff Recommendations When reviewing both CUP requests, the Council should review the specific and general criteria described above. If the criteria are met, the CUP’s should be approved. As described in Section 825.41 of the City Code: “In permitting a new conditional use or the alteration of an existing conditional use, the City Council may impose, in addition to those standards and requirements expressly specified in this Ordinance, additional conditions which the City Council considers necessary to protect the best interests of the surrounding area or the community as a whole. These conditions may include, but are not limited, to the following: 1) Increasing the required lot size of yard dimensions 2) Limiting the height, size or location of buildings 3) Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points 4) Increasing the street width 5) Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces 6) Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of signs 7) Required diking, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent or nearby property 8) Designating sites for open space Staff has provided potential findings for the criteria throughout the report. If the council finds that the variance criteria have been met related to designating the existing home as accessory dwelling unit, staff would recommend approving both CUPs subject to the following conditions: 1) This conditional use permits shall be contingent upon construction of a new principal home on the Property. 2) The principal dwelling and accessory dwelling unit may not be conveyed separately and shall at all times be under common ownership. 3) The property owner shall occupy either the principal single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit as their primary residence. 4) The applicant shall reduce hardcover on the site as planned. 5) The applicant shall meet the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance, including provisions for recordation of easements, planting of appropriate vegetation and installation of required signs. 6) The property owner shall abide by all conditions of Medina City Code Section 826.98, Subd. 2(p). 7) The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in the amount sufficient to pay for all costs associated with the review of the application for Conditional Use Permit. Tim and Megan Elam Page 7 of 7 September 3, 2019 ADU Variance and CUP City Council Potential Action If the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission’s finding that the variance criteria have been satisfied, the following action would be appropriate: Move to direct staff to prepare resolutions approving the variance and conditional use permits, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Attachments 1. Excerpt from draft 8/13 Planning Commission minutes 2. Comments received (Ott, Neighbor Petition) 3. Applicant Narrative 4. Applicant Response to ADU Ordinance 5. Applicant Response to Variance Ordinance 6. Preliminary Copy of Plat 7. Sketch of plan for new house Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 8/13/2019 Meeting Minutes 1 Public Hearing – 1582 Homestead Trail – Megan and Tim Elam – Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Accessory Dwelling Unit and Accessory Structures Schneider presented a request for two Conditional Use Permits (CUP) and a variance. He stated that the applicants have a 34-acre rural residential lot that current has an existing home, stand alone garage, gazebo, and child’s playhouse. He noted that there was a second home on the property that was demolished prior to the applicant’s purchasing the property. He provided details on the proposed accessory dwelling unit and cabana proposed. He noted that one CUP would be required for the accessory dwelling unit and the second CUP would be required for the other accessory structures on the property. He provided details on the stormwater management that would be required in return for the additional hardcover on the site. He noted that the variance would be required because of the requested size of the accessory dwelling unit. He noted that because there was a second dwelling on the property previously, it could be reasoned that is a unique circumstance. He stated that because of the large size of the lot, the property could be subdivided into two lots to support the request and therefore if two homes could exist on the lot that would be in harmony with the zoning ordinance. He stated that staff received an email the previous day from the property owners at 1492 Homestead who expressed support for the requests. Nielsen asked if the option to subdivide was reviewed. Schneider explained that it would be easier said than done to subdivide and meet setbacks because of the desired locations. He noted that the applicants also desire the property to remain one lot. Finke explained that the property owners would like to hold the property as one parcel rather than subdividing, which maintains the rural character. Tim Elam, applicant, stated that they are asking for a positive recommendation on the CUP’s and variance request. He stated that when they purchased the lot, they thought it would be easy to build another home because of the previous second home that existed on the property. He stated that his intention is not to subdivide as they would like the property to remain under their ownership as 34 acres. He stated that they intend on residing on the property for many years. Amic asked how the previous second home was constructed. Finke noted that two permits were issued previously, one for each home that existed. Tim Haislet, 1562 Homestead Trail, asked for additional input on the ordinance language related to the previously existing second home. Finke provided additional background on the history of the ordinance. He noted that the practices of the City may have been different as there are a number of properties in Medina that have guest quarters. Reid opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Amy Allworth, 1602 Homestead Trail, provided a petition with the names of 10 adjoining property owners that support the requested variance and CUP’s presented tonight. She read aloud the names and addresses of those residents on Homestead Trail that support the requests. Reid closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 8/13/2019 Meeting Minutes 2 Finke stated that the ordinance would have permitted a parcel over 40 acres to have two principal structures and provided an example of another property that has two homes. Nielsen asked why an 18,000 square foot home that was constructed in the 1990’s was torn down. Piper replied that the home was in bad shape and mechanically was not working and therefore needed to be torn down. Galzki commented that he did not see a problem granting the CUP’s or variance as this is a unique situation where the City had provided previous approval for two homes. He stated that in looking at the size of the allowable accessory dwelling, this property is very large and therefore the proposed size is comparable. Nielsen stated that she has no opposition to the requests. Williams confirmed consensus. Amic noted that he is not opposed. Piper commented that this is a great idea. She asked if the property would be able to subdivide in the future, should the owners wish to sell the property. Finke stated that there may be some challenges to subdivide the property with the two homes in the future. He noted that the accessory dwelling could be demolished in order to subdivide, if that was the intent. Reid commented that this request fits the variance criteria as the circumstances are unique to the property and not caused by the landowner. Motion by Galzki, seconded by Piper, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permits and Variance request subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Nester) Finke noted that the intent would be to move this forward to the City Council at their September 3rd meeting. 1 Dusty Finke From:Debra Peterson Sent:Monday, August 12, 2019 7:15 AM To:Dusty Finke; Ben Schneider Subject:FW: Homestead Trail - Importance:High Read below.    Debra Peterson Associate Planner City of Medina 763-473-8847   From: Mike Ott <mott@diu.mil>   Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2019 10:39 AM  To: Debra Peterson <debra.peterson@medinamn.gov>  Subject: Homestead Trail    Hello Debra.  This is Mike and Steph Ott and we live on 1492 Homestead Trail.  We read the recent planning commission  hearing variance request related to the proposed home for Megan and Tim Elam.  While we are unable to attend the  meeting, as residents and neighbors, we see no reason not to allow their request.  We are supportive and hope to see  the home built as they intend.  Please call if you have any questions.  16128173181.  Thanks.  The Otts  August 12, 2019 PETITION TO SUPPORT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 1582 HOMESTEAD TRAIL, Medina, MN. We the adjoining property owners and neighbors are requesting that the City of Medina approve the requested variance and conditional use permit, for the property located at 1582 Homestead Trail, Medina, by the applicants Tim & Megan Elam. Name: Ann L r P � k ov&\GLAD Name: Address: Address: / 02 D riew,ifaca 7 1 / Gl 2 ©rr1, - j / Signature: D,c 1Y aui5.1e Name: F%2 l orne z#lazk tee,✓ Address: Signature: Name: ct-r7� Address: /506 Signature: a m6 -ea -72;1 Signature: ki try. ck Val Address: Signature: Name: i ✓l 4 Address: /% -57,- I r►'e-(--ead ; 1 Signature: Name: Name: Address: 17 a ► e -a -t 4 Signature: Name: h ,r) e 114 Address: Signature: Name: Address: Address: /I-fq ©vybe_o �Q� �'a I Signature: Signature: Signature: Signature: Signature: Signature: To Whom It May Concern: We are requesting a variance to the Accessory Dwelling Units section of the Medina City Code (section 826 Zoning – District Provisions, Part (p) Accessory Dwellings Units) for our property located at 1582 Homestead Trail in Medina. We purchased this 34-acre property in November 2018 with the intent of building a new home on the site of the previously-demolished main residence that used to reside on this property. That home was built in the mid-1990s by David and Barbara Koch and was approximately 18,000 square feet (see attachment 1). At the time of our purchase, the main residence had been demolished by the property sellers (Jude and Hannah Buckley) a few years prior, but the existing caretakers’ house, tennis court, gazebo, 2-car standalone garage and children’s play area with playhouse still remain (see attachment 2). When we purchased the property, we had not anticipated any issue with re-building a new home on the site of the old main residence. The home that we plan to build has a smaller footprint than the home that was demolished. We are still in the process of designing our home, but our preliminary plans are attached for your reference (see attachment 3). Our home will be approximately 10,000 square feet and will include a landscaped backyard with an in-ground pool and outdoor cabana area. We have come to learn that we cannot build our new home on the property as the existing caretakers’ house does not meet city code for an accessory dwelling and no prior variance can be found that would have allowed for this. The caretakers’ house is approximately 3,234 square feet and has 4 bedrooms. Our parents have moved into the caretakers’ home, and we plan to keep this home for that purpose. We ask for a variance to the code requiring that the habitable area of the accessory dwelling be less than 1,000 square feet and contain no more than two bedrooms. We also ask for a conditional use permit to allow for construction of our cabana as an additional accessory building. The cabana will be constructed simultaneously with our home and will be approximately 506 square feet. Ultimately, our desire is to keep this property intact as one 34-acre parcel. If staff, commission and council would prefer would like at an alternative approach to the requested variance, we are open to any recommendations. Thank you for your consideration! Tim and Megan Elam (p) Accessory Dwelling Units. (i) No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be located on a property. No accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted upon a property on which a lodging room or a second residential dwelling is located; Response: Confirmed. We are seeking a variance to allow the existing home (previously caretaker’s house) to be classified as an accessory dwelling unit. This residence is an existing home of 3,324 SF containing four (4) bedrooms which was constructed in 1994. We plan to build a primary residence of approximately 10,000 SF to be constructed upon approval of this variance and issuance of applicable building permits. (ii) Accessory dwelling units within the SR (Suburban Residential), UR (Urban Residential), R1 (Single-Family Residential) or R2 (Two-Family Residential) zoning districts shall be attached to the principal single family structure; Response: Confirmed. The property is zoned RR: Rural Residential. The accessory dwelling unit (second residence) will not be attached and located approximately 400 lineal feet from the primary residence. (iii) The lot shall contain an existing single-family dwelling unit; Response: The previous primary residence of approximately 18,000 SF was demolished +/- 2 years ago. The existing single family dwelling of 3,324 SF remains on the property. (iv) The habitable area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the lesser of the following: 1) 750 square feet for a one-bedroom unit; 2) 1,000 square feet for a two-bedroom unit; or 3) 40 percent of the habitable area of the principal single-family dwelling; Response: We are requesting a variance to keep the existing single family home of 3,324 SF containing 4 bedrooms as-is. After construction of the new principal single family dwelling, the second residence will be less than 40% of the habitable area of the primary residence. (v) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain a minimum of 300 square feet of habitable space; Response: Confirmed. The existing single family dwelling is 3,324 square feet thus exceeding the 300 square foot minimum requirement. (vi) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain no more than two bedrooms; Response: The variance is being requested to modify the permitted bedrooms to four (4) bedrooms in lieu of two (2) bedrooms. (vii) A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be provided per bedroom for the accessory dwelling unit. Such parking spaces shall not interfere with accessing the required garage spaces for the principal single-family dwelling; Response: Confirmed. The second residence has a two car attached garage and horseshoe driveway. There is approximately 4,000 square foot of parking area in front of the home not including the driveway. There is ample room to accommodate at least four (4) cars. (viii) No separate driveway or curb cut shall be permitted to serve the accessory dwelling unit; Response: Confirmed. The lot contains a private driveway of approximately 1,100 lineal feet. The primary residence will be located at the end of the private drive. The driveway providing access to the second residence is approximately 550 lineal feet (halfway) up the private drive. No additional curb cuts are being requested. (ix) No accessory dwelling unit shall be sold or conveyed separately from the principal single-family dwelling; Response: Confirmed (x) The property owner shall occupy either the principal single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit as their primary residence; Response: Confirmed. The property owner’s will occupy the primary residence and family will occupy the second residence. (xi) If the accessory dwelling unit is located within a structure detached from the principal single-family dwelling, the architectural design and building materials shall be of the same or higher quality and shall complement the single-family dwelling. Additionally, the structure shall meet the setback requirements of the principal structure and shall count towards the maximum number and building size of accessory structures permitted on a property; Response: Confirmed. The second residence will remain as-is and be of the same or higher quality and complement the overall property. (xii) Adequate utility services shall be available to serve the accessory dwelling unit. This shall include adequate capacity within individual sewage treatment systems for both the principal single family dwelling and the accessory dwelling, where applicable. Response: Confirmed. Both the primary and secondary residence have their own well and septic systems. (xiii) Any exterior stairway which accesses an accessory dwelling unit above the first floor shall be located in a way to minimize visibility from the street and, to the extent possible, from neighboring property. Such stairway shall incorporate a deck a minimum of 27 square feet in area; and Response: Confirmed. There are no exterior stairways accessing anything above the first floor. (xiv) The city council may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations it deems to be reasonably necessary to protect the single-family residential character of the surrounding area. A copy of the resolution approving an accessory dwelling unit and describing the conditions, restrictions and limitations on the use shall be recorded against the property. Response: Confirmed. VARIANCES Section 825.45. Variances. Subd. 1. A variance from the provisions of the zoning ordinance may be granted by the board of appeals and adjustments consistent with this section, pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 462.357, subd. 6, as it may be amended from time to time. Subd. 2. Criteria for Granting Variances. a. A variance shall only be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. We believe the intent of the ordinance is to limit the size of an accessory dwelling unit/second residence on a land parcel under 40 acres. We believe ours to be a unique situation in that the residence in question already exists and has historically been a secondary home on the property. Based on the history of this land parcel and the homes that have existed on it, we believe that approval of a variance to classify this home as an accessory dwelling unit is in harmony with the intent of the ordinance. b. A variance shall only be granted when it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. We believe the requested variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan, as the property will remain rural residential and has previously had two homes on it. c. A variance may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In order for a practical difficult to be established, all of the following criteria shall be met: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. In determining if the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, the board shall consider, among other factors, whether the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty and whether the variance confers upon the applicant any special privileges that are denied to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district; We plan to use this property in a manner consistent with surrounding area and its residents. We plan to build a new home on this property and keep the exiting home as an accessory dwelling as was the intent historically. After discussions with staff, we believe that the requested variance is the minimum variance required to allow for us to move forward with our desired plan. Other options would be to decrease the square footage and number of bedrooms of the existing house, or to subdivide the lot. It is our desire to keep this parcel together as one lot, and we don’t desire to demo any portion of a high quality home that was extensively renovated just a few years ago if there is an alternative option. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and We believe these circumstances are unique to the property. Generally a variance is requested and approved prior to building. This is unique in that we are requesting a variance for an existing home, which has historically been used as an accessory dwelling unit. When the Koch family constructed two residences on the lot in the early 1990s, a variance would have been required, but it is unclear if they were granted any variances at the time. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. We believe the variance will not alter the character of the locality. The surrounding area has many large land area parcels, many with accessory dwelling units and outbuildings. It’s our desire to keep this property intact as one 34-acre land parcel in lieu of subdividing. # LICENSE NO. DATE S1 MAY 2, 2019 Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 Phone (952) 474-7964 17917 Highway 7 Web: www.advsur.com SHEET 1 OF 1 100500 MAY 1, 2019 MAY 2, 2019# 42379 Thomas M. Bloom LEGEND LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21, Township 118 North Range 23, West, except the West 460 feet of the South 570 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Together with an easement for ingress, and egress and way for driveway purposes on, over and upon that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, lying Northeast of the Northeasterly right of way line of County Road 201 and Westerly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence East along the North line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 483 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence deflecting right 95 degrees to the Northeasterly right of way line and there ending. Parcel Contains: 34.14 Acres SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS: 1. Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deem necessary for the survey. 2. This survey has been completed without the benefit of a current title commitment. There may be existing easements or other encumbrances that would be revealed by a current title commitment. Therefore, this survey does not purport to show any easements or encumbrances other than the ones shown hereon. 3. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. We have also provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the survey when determining other elevations for use on this site or before beginning construction. 4. Note that all building dimensions and building tie dimensions to the property lines, are taken from the siding and or stucco of the building. 5. Note that this survey is limited in scope to showing topography in 2 locations from a survey originally prepared by Jim Parker in 2013. This survey is not meant to be an update of the boundary survey prepared by Jim Parker, rather showing topography and physical changes in 2 locations of the Parker survey. PRELIMINARY COPY FOR REVIEW ONLY 1'026 0 6 1026.7 2 X 1026.0 1026.7 1026.6. X 1026 X 1027.3 1020.7 X 1035.4 B X 1031.2 1030.1 i 34,' W35. 03 1 X 1036.0 X10 5,4 I X 1036.5 X 1ri 35,6 �JII III II' I 1 \ X 1037.4 1036,5 1036.5 X 1035 2.9 X1035.4 X 035,4X .0 X 1034.1 X 1033, 1029.4 1029.5 1029.5 X 1037. r. 05.2 12, Jr- �,°ya" ® 1029.5 1032.2 1.032.4 2, X 1037.8 %< 1037.7 1037,8 w =103 •� X %Andre tcos4•2- - 1037, 1037.8 Cx0tc�r� = (031.'; X 1037.3 1035.4 1037.5 1036.8 \ X X ,1036,2 1035 X 1034,„g - X/1035.2 3o' 7,9 X 1037, X 1037.810 1037.0 X 1035.0 1035,7 X X 1035.6 1034.8 1034 X 10321032,5 1034.6 1034 03 0 X 103E 6,8 X 1036.9 1035.1 X10 1033.5 1036.4 035.1 1034.6 034,4 1032.0 103 Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 4 September 3, 2019 Residential Setbacks and Encroachments City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: August 29, 2019 MEETING: September 3, 2019 City Council SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment – Residential Setbacks and Encroachments Background At the July meeting, the Planning Commission discussed a request from Matthew and Nikki Cole from 3375 Butternut Drive to reduce the required setback from Minor Collector Roadways in the R2 (Single- and Two-Family) Zoning District. The Commission was not comfortable changing the setbacks, but recommended staff to review other potential options to address the issue of homes being constructed without adequate space for decks. The City Council discussed at the July 16 meeting and directed staff to review. Much of the discussion surrounded the current trend of homes being built which often fill almost the entire allowed building envelope on a lot, and buyers being unaware of limited space to construct decks. The discussion began specific to lots which were adjacent to roadways, because the Cole’s request related specifically to minor collector roadways. However, staff’s impression was that that the Planning Commission’s discussion broadened to other setbacks. As such, staff reviewed the issue more broadly. For example, staff believed the issue was similar across other zoning districts and did not see a good reason to limit any changes to the R2 zoning district. Draft Ordinance The attached ordinance includes the flowing potential changes identified by staff during review. Allow decks to encroach into Collector/Arterial Setback The primary change in the ordinance would allow decks to encroach up to 10 feet into the required setback adjacent to collector and arterial roadways. This would require the house to be further back but allow the deck to bump-out closer to the roadway. Staff has included the language in essentially every single-family zoning district and also the R3 district as follows: • Suburban Residential (SR) • Urban Residential (UR) • Residential-Single Family (R1) • Residential-Single and Two Family (R2) • Residential-Mid Density (R3) • Mixed Residential (MXR) If the change is made, staff believed it made sense to do so in all similar districts. The Planning Commission and City Council may want to discuss whether to include the R3 zoning district. This district would be higher density, allowing townhomes and small multi-family structures. In this case, decks would likely be anticipated with the initial construction of the buildings, so it Agenda Item # 7C Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 4 September 3, 2019 Residential Setbacks and Encroachments City Council Meeting may be less necessary to “reserve” space for future decks. However, the Planning Commission had indicated that they may be open to decks encroaching closer to adjacent roadways on single family home, so staff included for discussion. In staff’s research of requirements in other communities, many communities appear to allow decks to encroach into setbacks. This is the case not only adjacent to streets, but for setbacks more generally. Plymouth, Maple Grove, and Edina, for example, would permit decks within the setback area to within 5-10 feet of property lines. Orono, on the other hand, requires decks to meet setback requirements. While staff believes allowing decks to encroach in the increased setback adjacent to major roadways is reasonable, staff does not recommend allowing decks to encroach to the extent allowed in some other communities. As noted in the report last month, staff believes that larger setbacks (including for decks) serve the goal and objectives described in the Comp Plan to provide additional open space and more of a rural vista along a particular neighborhood. For this reason, it may not be surprising that other, more suburban, communities would not have increased setbacks along collector roadways. Increase setback from Minor Collectors in R1 and R2 districts The attached ordinance proposes to increase the required setback adjacent to Minor Collector Roadways from 35 feet to 40 feet. Decks would be allowed to encroach 10 feet into this setback as described above. Minor collectors include mostly 40 MPH local roadways such as Hunter Drive, Brockton Lane, Meander Road, Arrowhead Drive and Medina Road. Staff reviewed existing properties and it appears that this change would cause two properties to become non-conforming. A good example of the difference between 35 feet and 40 feet may be 3385 and 3375 Butternut Drive, at the north end of the Enclave along Hunter Drive. 3385 Butternut Drive is the grey house and is setback approximately 36 feet from the Hunter Drive right-of-way and the balcony extends to within approximately 32 feet. 3375 Butternut Drive is the red home to the south and is setback 43 feet from the Hunter Drive right-of-way. If the Planning Commission and Council decide to not increase the setback, staff would recommend that the allowed encroachment for decks be reduced to 5-feet rather than 10-feet. As the Coles noted in the information presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in July, it appears that an increased setback adjacent to collector roadways is not common in other cities. Increased Lot Depth adjacent to Collector/Arterial Roadways In the July staff report, staff noted a potential concern related to the interplay between required minimum lot depth and larger setbacks adjacent to major roadways. For example, the R2 zoning district requires a minimum lot depth of 90 feet. If a lot were platted at the minimum lot depth and backing up to a minor collector roadway, it would require a 30 foot setback from the front street and a 35 foot setback from the collector. This would leave a buildable pad of 35 feet. Ordinance Amendment Page 3 of 4 September 3, 2019 Residential Setbacks and Encroachments City Council Meeting In the same scenario backing up to an arterial roadway, the front setback would be 30 feet+50 feet from the arterial at the back, leaving only a buildable pad of 10 feet. While it would be reasonable to expect that the subdivider would recognize this issue and make the lots deeper, staff believes it would be worth considering an amendment to increase the depth adjacent to collector and arterial roadways. To address this issue, staff has recommended that the minimum lot depth for lots adjacent to collector and arterial roadways be increased to 115 feet. This would ensure a building pad of 35 feet adjacent to arterial roadways and 45 feet adjacent to minor collectors. Encroachments As part of its analysis, staff reviewed the section of zoning ordinance related to encroachments. As noted above, many communities include decks as an allowed encroachment into setbacks. This was one option staff considered, but ultimately recommended against. As noted above, staff believes maintaining larger setbacks for deck serves objectives described in the Comp Plan. If the Planning Commission and Council were interested in expanding the allowance for deck encroachments for all setbacks, it could be included in this section. During review of the encroachment section, staff noted a series of changes which would clarify the language and past practices of the City, even though the changes were not specifically related to the matter at hand. These changes are on page 1 of the ordinance and include: • Allowing bay windows to encroach in the front setback. Currently, bay windows are only allowed to encroach within the rear setback. Staff believes it makes sense to extend this to the front setback. The encroachment is limited to two-feet in width and 20 square feet. • Clarifying that window wells, air conditioner condensers, and generators are permitted to extend into setbacks Other Options Considered Allow Broader Deck Encroachments/Wetland Buffers As discussed above, many other communities allow a fairly broad exemption from setback requirements for decks. Staff discussed and did not include this as a recommendation, as larger setbacks for decks seems to better serve the City’s objectives. Staff discussed recent experience related to reviewing and issuing permits for decks. Deb noted that she had noticed cases in which decks were running up against street setbacks, but that it didn’t seem like it occurred as often for homes which back up on other homes. She did note that the more common limitation occurs in yards backing up onto wetlands. The City requires a 15- foot setback from wetland buffers, including decks. The Planning Commission discussed this issue specifically a few years ago, when a property owner in the Enclave requested a larger deck that could not fit between the home and the wetland buffer setback. The owner suggested that decks, but not homes, be allowed to encroach. The Planning Commission discussed and recommended against the change. Staff believes the Ordinance Amendment Page 4 of 4 September 3, 2019 Residential Setbacks and Encroachments City Council Meeting purpose of the wetland buffer setback may differ from other setbacks. Part of the purpose is to maintain 15-feet of yard space to reduce the likelihood a property owner will seek to push into the adjacent buffer. Pools/accessory structures as encroachment Staff also discussed the potential of allowing other improvements to encroach into the setback adjacent to collector/arterial roadways. This is especially the case if the Planning Commission and Council decide to increase the setback from 35 to 40 feet. Staff believes it is reasonable to view a swimming pool or a shed similar to a deck, and to allow it to encroach in the same way. At this time, these items are not included within the draft ordinance but should be discussed. Small sheds, under 120 square feet (10’x12’), are currently allowed to encroach within the side and rear setbacks and are only required to be 5 feet from property lines. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft ordinance at the August 13 meeting. The applicant who previously requested that the City reduce the R2 setbacks spoke at the hearing, and spoke in favor of this amendment. Commissioners supported allowing decks to encroach and noted that it seemed to deal with the issues which were discussed by the Commission back in July. Decks break-up the rears of homes along the exterior of a site along a roadway, so allowing decks to encroach while requiring the homes to be setback further seemed to be a good strategy. Following discussion, the Commission unanimously recommended adoption of the attached ordinance. Potential Action If the City Council agrees with the recommended ordinance, the following actions could be taken after the Council has finalized its review: 1. Move to adopt the ordinance regarding residential setbacks and encroachments [with the changes noted by the Council]. 2. Move to adopt the resolution authorizing publication by title and summary Attachment 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Resolution to publish by title and summary 3. Comp Plan Information 4. Excerpt from draft 8/13 Planning Commission minutes 1 CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE REGARDING RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS AND ENCROACHMENTS; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 825.21 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the struck through language and adding the underlined language as follows: Section 825.21. Required Yards and Open Space. Subd. 1. No yard or other open space shall be reduced in area or dimension so as to make such yard or other open space less than the minimum required by this ordinance, and if the existing yard or other open space as existing is less than the minimum required, it shall not be further reduced. Subd. 2. No required yard or other open space allocated to a building or dwelling group shall be used to satisfy yard, other open space, or minimum lot area requirements for any other building. Subd. 3. The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on yard requirements. (a) Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not extend more than two feet into a yard. (b) Yard lights and name plate signs as regulated herein. (c) Terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures which do not extend in elevation above the height of the ground floor elevation of the principal building and do not extend to a distance of less than five feet from any lot line. (d) In rear yard: bays not to exceed a depth of two feet nor to contain an area of more than 20 square feet; fire escapes not to exceed a width of three feet; balconies which extend no more than three feet into a yard, breezeways, detached outdoor picnic shelters and recreational equipment, and off-street parking except as regulated in Section 11.05, Subd. 3. (e) In front or rear yards: bays not to exceed a depth of two feet nor to contain an area of more than 20 square feet. (f) Window wells and their associated covers, air conditioning equipment and generators which do not extend into drainage or utility easements. 2 Subd. 4. Buildings may be excluded from side yard requirements if party walls are utilized or if the adjacent buildings are planned to be constructed as an integral structure and a conditional use permit is secured. Subd. 5. Lots which abut on more than one street shall provide the required front yards along every street. Subd. 6. Where adjoining structures existing on the effective date of this Chapter have a different setback from that required, the front setback of a new structure shall conform to the average prevailing setback in the immediate vicinity. On undeveloped lots in the shoreland overlay district which have two (2) adjacent lots with existing principal structures on both such adjacent lots, any new principal structure may be set back the average setback of the adjacent structures from the ordinary high water level but not within the shore impact zone, provided all dimensional and sanitary provisions of this ordinance are met. Subd. 7. In areas served by private wells or private sewage disposal systems, the Zoning Administrator may require larger lots than required by the zoning districts if soil tests indicate that a larger lot is necessary to insure the sanitary function of such system. Subd. 8. Structures utilizing an individual sewage treatment system shall be set back from the ordinary high water level of all public waters designated in section 827.03 of this ordinance the distance required by section 827.06 of this ordinance or such greater distance as may be required by any other applicable ordinance or regulation. No structure, except boat houses, piers, and docks, shall be placed at an elevation such that the lowest level, including basement floors, is less than three feet above the ordinary high water level or the highest known water level, whichever is greater. All structures shall also be constructed in compliance with section 826.75 et seq. of this ordinance. Subd. 9. No building permit shall be issued for any lot or parcel which does not abut a dedicated street, or a private roadway in conformance with City regulations. Subd. 10. No lot area shall be developed with impervious cover such as parking lot or driveway or buildings covering 60% or more of the lot area. Subd. 11. No antenna exceeding a height of l-1/2 times the principal structure's height or twice the distance of a structure's side yard setback, whichever is less, shall be permitted. All antennas in height five feet above the principal structure shall require a conditional use permit. 3 SECTION II. Section 826.26.6 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the struck through language and adding the underlined language as follows: Section 826.26.6. (SR) Lot Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. Subd. 1. No building shall exceed two and one-half (2-1/2) stories or thirty (30) feet in height, as defined in section 825.07, subd. 12, except as regulated by Subd. 3 of this section. Subd. 2. The following minimum requirements shall be observed subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in other sections of this ordinance: (a) Minimum lot size: 30,000 sq. ft. (b) Minimum lot width: 100 feet (c) Minimum lot depth: 125 feet (d) Front yard setback: 35 feet (e) Side yard setback: 15 feet (f) Rear yard setback: 40 feet (g) Increased setback adjacent to Major Collector or Arterial Roadway: Notwithstanding the setback requirements above, the required yard setback from a property line adjacent to a Major Collector or Arterial Roadway shall be to 50 feet. An uncovered deck which does not extend above the height of the main living level of the structure may encroach up to 10 feet into the increased yard setback adjacent to a Major Collector or Arterial Roadway. Subd. 3. The height of single family detached residences may exceed 30 feet, but may not exceed 40 feet or two and one-half (2 1/2) stories, if the following standards are met: (a) Accurate building plans and elevation drawings shall be submitted to the City; (b) The residence shall be constructed with side and rear yard setbacks at least twice as great as those specified in Subd. 2 of this section; (c) Those portions of the residence greater than 30 feet in height shall be uninhabited and not planned for storage; (d) Those portions of the residence greater than 30 feet in height shall be no larger than 500 sq. ft. or shall be divided into spaces no greater than 500 sq. ft. and separated by an approved draft stop. (e) The height from the lowest ground level (and 8 feet out) to the eave shall be no greater than 30 feet; and (f) There shall be a two (2) story height limitation at the driveway or point of access to the residence. 4 SECTION III. Section 826.35 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the struck through language and adding the underlined language as follows: Section 826.35. (UR) Lot Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements. Subd. 1. No buildings hereafter erected shall exceed two and one half (2 l/2) stories or thirty (30) feet in height. Subd. 2. The following minimum requirements shall be observed subject to additional requirements, exceptions, and modifications set forth in other sections of this Ordinance. Minimum Lot Area (Single-family detached) 9,000 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width (Single-family detached) 60 feet Front Yard 30 feet Side Yard 10 feet Rear Yard 30 feet Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet Subd. 3. (a) Where adjoining structures existing on the effective date of this Ordinance have a shorter front setback from that required, the front setback of a new structure shall conform to the average of the front setback observed by the adjoining houses on either side, but not less than 20 feet. (b) Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Subd. 2. of this Section, the required yard setback from a property line adjacent to a public or private street shall be based on the classification of the street in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: (1) Minor Collector Roadway: 35 feet (2) Major Collector or Arterial Roadway: 50 feet (3) Notwithstanding the requirements above, an uncovered deck which does not extend above the height of the main living level of the structure may encroach up to 10 feet into the increased yard setback adjacent to a Collector or Arterial Roadway. SECTION IV. Section 840.1.05 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the struck through language and adding the underlined language as follows: Section 840.1.05. (R1) Lot Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code: Subd. 1. Density of Development: Development or redevelopment shall be consistent with the density requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. 5 Subd. 2. Minimum Lot Size: 11,000 square feet Subd. 3. Minimum Lot Width: 90 feet. The minimum lot width shall be increased to 110 feet for a lot with a side yard adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway. Subd. 4. Minimum Lot Depth: 100 feet. The minimum lot depth shall be increased to 115 feet for a lot adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway. Subd. 5. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 25 feet, except as follows: (a) Additional setback for garage doors facing streets: Garage doors which face a street shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet. (b) Reduced setback for side-load garage: The front yard setback may be reduced to 20 feet if garage doors do not face the street and if garage walls facing the street include a window or architectural elements to give the appearance of living space. Subd. 6. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 30 feet. The rear yard setback may be reduced to 20 feet if abutting a preserved open space or common area, but may not be reduced if abutting public park property. Subd. 7. Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback: 25 feet combined total for both side yards, with neither side less than 10 feet. The combined interior side yard setback shall be reduced to 20 feet if garage doors do not face the street. Subd. 8. Street Setbacks: A required yard setback adjacent to a public or private street shall be increased based on the classification of the street in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: (a) Local Roadway or Private Street: 25 feet, except as follows: (i) Additional setback for garage doors facing streets: Garage doors which face a street shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet. (ii) Reduced setback for side-load garage: The front yard setback may be reduced to 20 feet if garage doors do not face the street and if garage walls facing the street include a window or architectural elements to give the appearance of living space. (b) Minor Collector Roadway: 35 40 feet (c) Major Collector or Arterial Roadway: 50 feet (d) Notwithstanding the requirements above, an uncovered deck which does not extend above the height of the main living level of the structure may encroach up to 10 feet into the increased yard setback adjacent to a Collector or Arterial Roadway. Subd. 9. Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage: 40 percent of the total lot area. Impervious surface coverage may exceed this amount if stormwater management practices are implemented on the lot which, according to the City Engineer, reduce runoff below that which would occur if abiding by the maximum impervious surface regulation. However, in no case shall impervious surface coverage exceed 60 percent of the lot area remaining after wetlands and stormwater ponds have been excluded. 6 SECTION V. Section 840.2.05 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the struck through language and adding the underlined language as follows: Section 840.2.05. (R2) Lot Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code: Subd. 1. Density of Development: Development or redevelopment shall be consistent with the density requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 2. Minimum Lot Size (Single Family Detached): 8,000 square feet Subd. 3. Minimum Lot Size (Two Family Dwelling): 5,000 square feet per unit Subd. 4. Minimum Lot Width (Single Family Detached): 60 feet. The minimum lot width shall be increased to 90 feet for lots with a side yard adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway. Subd. 5. Minimum Lot Width (Two Family Dwelling): 50 feet per unit. The minimum lot width shall be increased to 70 feet for a unit with a side yard adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway. Subd. 6. Minimum Lot Depth: 90 feet. The minimum lot depth shall be increased to 115 feet for a lot adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway. Subd. 7. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 25 feet, except as follows: (a) Additional setback for garage doors facing streets: Garage doors which face a street shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet. (b) Reduced setback for side-load garage: The front yard setback may be reduced to 20 feet if garage doors do not face the street and if garage walls facing the street include a window or architectural elements to give the appearance of living space. Subd. 8. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 25 feet. The rear yard setback may be reduced to 15 feet if abutting a preserved open space or common area, but may not be reduced if abutting public park property. Subd. 9. Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback (Single Family Detached): (a) The combined total of both side yards shall be a minimum of 15 feet (b) Neither side yard shall be less than 5 feet (c) One of the side yards shall be 10 feet or greater Subd. 10. Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback (Two Family Dwelling): 10 feet, except the side yard setback shall be reduced to zero for the common wall between two dwelling units. 7 Subd. 11. Street Setbacks: A required yard setback adjacent to a public or private street shall be increased based on the classification of the street in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: (a) Local Roadway or Private Street: 25 feet, except as follows: (i) Additional setback for garage doors facing streets: Garage doors which face a street shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet. (ii) Reduced setback for side-load garage: The front yard setback may be reduced to 20 feet if garage doors do not face the street and if garage walls facing the street include a window or architectural elements to give the appearance of living space. (b) Minor Collector Roadway: 35 40 feet (c) Major Collector or Arterial Roadway: 50 feet (d) Notwithstanding the requirements above, an uncovered deck which does not extend above the height of the main living level of the structure may encroach up to 10 feet into the increased yard setback adjacent to a Collector or Arterial Roadway. Subd. 12. Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area. Impervious surface coverage may exceed this amount if stormwater management practices are implemented on the lot which, according to the City Engineer, reduce runoff below that which would occur if abiding by the maximum impervious surface regulation. However, in no case shall impervious surface coverage exceed 60 percent of the lot area remaining after wetlands and stormwater ponds have been excluded. SECTION VI. Section 841.1.05 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the struck through language and adding the underlined language as follows: Section 841.1.05. (R3) Lot Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code. Many of these standards may be applied across a coordinated development so that individual lots may not meet all requirements (lot area and impervious surface coverage, for example) but the development as a whole is consistent with the standards. In these situations, the city shall require documentation which describes the property which is subject to the coordinated development. Subd. 1. Density of Development: Development or redevelopment shall be consistent with the density requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 2. Minimum Net Area per Unit: 7,920 square feet per unit, except as modified by Subd. 4 below. Subd. 3. Maximum Net Area per Unit: 8,700 square feet per unit Subd. 4. Density Bonuses: Certain design and construction features serve to reduce the real and perceived impacts of crowding prevalent in multiple-residential dwelling units and building complexes. The Minimum Net Area per Unit requirement above may be reduced in accordance to the following, except that total reductions shall not exceed 1,700 square 8 feet of Net Lot Area per unit to ensure the density after the bonus(es) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (a) Affordable Housing (max. reduction = 1,700 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). The density bonus shall be based on the proportion of units which will be preserved as affordable housing and the nature of the restriction utilized to maintain affordability. (b) LEED Certification or similar (max. reduction = 1,220 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). The density bonus shall be based upon the level of certification, with the full bonus available for the highest level of certification. (c) Low impact development (max. reduction = 1,220 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). The density bonus shall be based on the water quality improvements above those required by the city. (d) Underground Parking (max. reduction = 1,220 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). The density bonus shall be based upon the number of parking stalls provided, with the full bonus available if at least one underground space is provided per dwelling unit. (e) Sound suppression (max. reduction = 660 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). In order to be eligible, the STC rating must be increased by ten from that specified as the minimum in the Minnesota State Building Code. (f) Oversized garages or lockable storage units (max. reduction = 350 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). Additional storage must be at least 60 square feet for townhomes or 25 square feet for other uses. (g) Common open space and shared recreational facilities (max. reduction = 350 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit) Subd. 5. Minimum Setback from Perimeter of Site: 20 feet, except as modified below. This setback shall apply to structures, parking, and recreational areas. (a) Increase adjacent to less intensive zoning district. The setback adjacent to or across a street from property of a less intensive zoning district shall be increased to 40 feet. (b) Increase for required buffer yard. The required setback shall be increased when necessary to abide by buffer yard requirements. Subd. 6. Street Setbacks: The following yard setback shall be required adjacent to public or private streets. Structures, parking areas, and active recreational areas shall not be located within this setback area. The required yard setback shall be based on the classification of the street in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: (a) Private Street: 25 feet, except as follows: (i) Parking areas and recreational areas shall be exempt from this requirement. (ii) Reduction of setback for side- or rear-load garage: The front yard setback may be reduced to 15 feet if garage doors do not face the street and if garage walls facing the street include a window or architectural elements to give the appearance of living space. (b) Local Roadway: 40 feet (c) Collector or Arterial Roadway: 50 feet (c)(d) Notwithstanding the requirements above, an uncovered deck may encroach up to 10 feet into the increased yard setback adjacent to a Collector or Arterial Roadway. 9 Subd. 7. Minimum Setbacks between buildings within a development: 30 feet Subd. 8. Maximum Impervious Surface: 50 percent of the total lot area. Impervious surface coverage may exceed this amount if stormwater management practices are implemented which, according to the City Engineer, exceed stormwater retention and treatment regulations. However, in no case shall impervious surface coverage exceed 65 percent of the lot area remaining after wetlands and stormwater ponds have been excluded. SECTION VII. Section 843.04 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the struck through language and adding the underlined language as follows: Section 843.04. (MXR-1 and MXR-2) Single Family and Two Family Residential Lot Standards. The following standards shall be observed for all single-family and two-family residential uses, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the City Code. Subd. 1. Density of Development and Number of Units: Development or redevelopment shall be consistent with density and number of unit requirements in the Comprehensive Plan, the approved Mixed Residential Master Plan and Section 843 of the City Code. Subd. 2. MXR-1 Subdistrict Lot Standards. (a) Minimum Lot Width: 90 feet (b) Minimum Lot Depth: 90 feet. The minimum lot depth shall be increased to 115 feet for a lot adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway (c) Minimum Front Yard Setback: 25 feet, except as follows: (a) Additional setback for garage doors facing streets: Garage doors which face a street shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet. (b) Reduced setback for side-load garage: The front yard setback may be reduced to 20 feet if no garage doors face a street and if garage walls facing the street include a window or architectural elements to give the appearance of living space. (d) Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 30 feet. The rear yard setback may be reduced to 15 feet if abutting a preserved open space or common area, but may not be reduced if abutting public park property. (e) Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback: 10 feet (f) Street Setbacks: The following yard setback shall be required adjacent to public or private streets. Structures, parking areas, and active recreational areas shall not be located within this setback area. The required yard setback shall be based on the classification of the street in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: 10 (a) Private Street: 25 feet. Parking areas and recreational areas shall be exempt from this requirement. (b) Local Roadway: 25 feet. (c) Collector or Arterial Roadways: 50 feet. (c)(d) Notwithstanding the requirements above, an uncovered deck which does not extend above the height of the main living level of the structure may encroach up to 10 feet into the increased yard setback adjacent to a Collector or Arterial Roadway. (g) Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area. Impervious surface coverage may exceed this amount if stormwater management practices are implemented which, according to the City Engineer, exceed stormwater retention and treatment regulations. However, in no case shall impervious surface coverage exceed 60 percent of the lot area remaining after wetlands and stormwater ponds have been excluded. (h) Maximum Building Height: All buildings shall meet all of the following requirements: (i) Building height shall not exceed 32 feet, but the maximum building height shall be increased to 35 feet if the structure is equipped with a compliant fire suppression system or if interior side yard setbacks are increased by 50 percent. (ii) No building shall exceed two and one-half stories in height, with a limitation of two stories facing a street. (iii) Maximum distance from ground to eave. In no case shall the vertical distance from the lowest ground level (at the footprint of the building and eight feet out) to the eave be greater than 32 feet. (i) The standards described in Section 843.04 Subd. 4 shall apply. Subd. 3. MXR-2 Subdistrict Lot Standards. (a) Density of Development and Number of Units: Development or redevelopment shall be consistent with density and number of unit requirements in the Comprehensive Plan and the approved Mixed Residential Master Plan. (b) Minimum Lot Width (Single Family Detached): 50 feet, except as noted below: (i) The minimum lot width shall be increased to 60 feet for corner lots with a side yard adjacent to a street. (ii) The minimum lot width shall be increased to 70 feet for lots with a side yard adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway. (c) Minimum Lot Width (Two Family Dwelling): 50 feet per unit. except as noted below: (i) The minimum lot width shall be increased to 60 feet for corner lots with a side yard adjacent to a street. (ii) The minimum lot width shall be increased to 70 feet for lots with a side yard adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway. 11 (d) Minimum Lot Depth: 90 feet. The minimum lot depth shall be increased to 115 feet for a lot adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway (e) Minimum Front Yard Setback: 25 feet, except as follows: (i) Additional setback for garage doors facing streets: Garage doors which face a street shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet. (ii) Reduced setback for side-load garage: The front yard setback may be reduced to 20 feet if no garage doors face a street and if garage walls facing the street include a window or architectural elements to give the appearance of living space. (f) Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 25 feet. The rear yard setback may be reduced to 15 feet if abutting a preserved open space or common area, but may not be reduced if abutting public park property. (g) Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback (Single Family Detached): 7.5 feet (h) Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback (Two Family Dwelling): 10 feet, except the side yard setback shall be reduced to zero for the common wall between two dwelling units. (i) Street Setbacks: The following yard setback shall be required adjacent to public or private streets. Structures, parking areas, and active recreational areas shall not be located within this setback area. The required yard setback shall be based on the classification of the street in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: (i) Private Street: 25 feet. Parking areas and recreational areas shall be exempt from this requirement. (ii) Local Roadway: 25 feet. (iii)Collector or Arterial Roadways: 50 feet. (iii)(iv) Notwithstanding the requirements above, an uncovered deck which does not extend above the height of the main living level of the structure may encroach up to 10 feet into the increased yard setback adjacent to a Collector or Arterial Roadway. (j) Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area. Impervious surface coverage may exceed this amount if stormwater management practices are implemented which, according to the City Engineer, exceed stormwater retention and treatment regulations. However, in no case shall impervious surface coverage exceed 60 percent of the lot area remaining after wetlands and stormwater ponds have been excluded. (k) Maximum Building Height: All buildings shall meet the following requirements: (i) Building height shall not exceed 32 feet, but the maximum building height shall be increased to 35 feet if the structure is equipped with a compliant fire suppression system or if interior side yard setbacks are increased by 50 percent. 12 (ii) No building shall exceed two and one-half stories in height, with a limitation of two stories facing a street. (iii)Maximum distance from ground to eave. In no case shall the vertical distance from the lowest ground level (at the footprint of the building and eight feet out) to the eave be greater than 32 feet. (l) The standards described in Section 843.04 Subd. 4 shall apply. SECTION VIII. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this _____ day of _________, 2019. ______________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the ____ day of _________, 2019. Resolution No. 2019-## DATE Member ________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2019-## RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. ### BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ###, an ordinance regarding residential setbacks and encroachments; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statues § 412.191, subdivision 4 allows publications by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and WHEREAS, the ordinance is 12 pages in length; and WHEREAS, the city council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Medina that the city clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. ### to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the ordinance in its entirety: Public Notice The city council of the City of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ###, an ordinance regarding residential setbacks and encroachments. The ordinance amends city regulations to increase the setback adjacent to minor collector roadways within the R1 and R2 zoning district from 35 to 40 feet and increase the minimum lot depth adjacent to collector and arterials roadways within the R1, R2, and MXR districts to 115 feet. The ordinance allows decks to encroach up to 10 feet within setbacks adjacent to collector and arterial roadways. The ordinance also adds window wells, air conditioning equipment, generators and bay windows as allowed encroachments. The full text of the ordinance is available from the city clerk at Medina city hall during regular business hours. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Medina that the city clerk keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at city hall for public inspection and that she post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place within the city. Resolution No. 2019-## 2 DATE Dated: . ______________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ________ upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan Community Vision The following statement provides a vision of the community for the future and the resultant goals and strategies. Medina is a community united by a common goal: to sustain and enhance the quality of life of its residents. Medina will protect its significant natural resources and open space throughout the City, while honoring its rural heritage and fostering safe and well-designed neighborhoods, places of recreation and destinations for citizens to gather. Development within the ensurate with available transportation systems, municipal services and school capacity. Community Goals The following Community Goals are derived from the Vision Statement and inform objectives and strategies throughout the various aspects of the Comprehensive Plan.  Preserve rural vistas, open spaces, and wetlands in all parts of the community to promote the rural character of Medina.  Protect and enhance the environment and natural resources throughout the community.  Encourage and incent innovative and environmentally friendly approaches to planning, engineering and development.  Expand urban services only as necessary to accommodate regionally forecasted residential growth, desired business opportunities and achievement of other Community Goals. Such development and growth shall be at a sustainable pace proportionate with capacity of schools and transportation, water supply and wastewater infrastructure available to the City.  Spread development so that it is not geographically concentrated during particular timeframes.  Promote public and private gathering places and civic events that serve the entire community.  Preserve and expand trails and parks to provide community recreational facilities, connect neighborhoods, and encourage healthy lifestyles of its residents.  Provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support residents at all stages of their lives.  Encourage an attractive, vibrant business community that complements the residential areas of the City.  Maintain its commitment to public safety through support of the City’s police department and coordinate with its contracted volunteer fire departments.  Manage the City through prudent budgeting processes, retaining a skilled and efficient staff and long-range planning and financial management. Future General Land Use Policy Direction As described in the Vision Statement, the City of Medina strives to promote and protect its open spaces and natural environment. The City has historically been, and intends to continue to be, primarily a rural community. The City has planned for a limited amount of future development consistent with regional forecast and consistent with Community Goals. Future Land Use Plan Principles The Future Land Use Plan guides the development of Medina through 2040, and will be used to implement the City’s goals, strategies and policies. The Plan is guided by the Vision and Community Goals as furthered by the following principles: Development Patterns and Neighborhood Form  Encourage open spaces, parks and trails in all neighborhood developments. Surveys indicate that a high quality of life is found when residents have visual access to green spaces.  Create neighborhoods with a variety of housing types that are well connected with roads, trails or sidewalks.  Maintain the integrity of rural neighborhoods and promote development patterns consistent with existing rural residential development.  Recognize neighborhood characteristics and promote new development compatible in scale, architectural quality and style with existing neighborhoods.  Stage residential growth to minimize the amount of adjacent developments which occur within the same time period.  Guide density to areas with proximity to existing infrastructure and future infrastructure availability.  Concentrate higher density development near service oriented businesses to help promote walkability.  Consider planned development in surrounding communities when making land use decisions in the City. Road Patterns  Recognize regional highway capacity and planned improvements, along with use forecasts, as major factors in planning for growth and land use changes.  Establish collector streets with good connections through the community’s growth areas.  Promote trails and sidewalk access near roads and thoroughfares to encourage multi- modal transportation choices.  Consider opportunities to improve north-south travel within the City. Open Spaces and Natural Resources  Preserve natural resources throughout the community and provide educational opportunities to residents to help them understand the value of natural areas.  Preserve open spaces and natural resources.  Protect wooded areas and encourage improvement of existing resources and reforestation. Evaluate existing woodland protections and supplement as necessary.  Support the guidelines identified in the Open Space Report to preserve the City’s natural systems. Business Districts and Commercial Areas  Focus service businesses and development near urban residential densities and along primary transportation corridors.  Provide connections between residents and commercial areas and promote businesses within mixed-use areas.  Work to create job opportunities in the community for Medina residents to reduce traffic and commuting demands.  Emphasize service and retail uses which serve the needs of the local community and provide opportunities for the community to gather.  Support business development with a corporate campus style which provides open and protects natural resources.   Urban Service Designations The Urban Service Area includes the residential and commercial areas of the City that are currently or will be served by municipal water and sewer services. Residential Uses Objectives:  Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural characteristics of the property.  Consider exceptions to or modifications of density restrictions for developments that protect the natural features or exceed other standards of the zoning district. Such modification shall generally not exceed -10% of the minimum density or +20% of the maximum density requirement of the relevant land use.  Restrict urban development to properties within the sewer service boundary.  Regulate land within the Mixed Residential land use to provide opportunities for residential development with a density in excess of 8 units/acre. Flexibility is purposefully provided within the land use to support opportunities for a single project to provide both low- and high- density housing or for multiple developers to partner on independent projects within a Mixed Residential area.  Encourage green building practices such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) principles in neighborhood planning and residential building and low impact development design standards.  Regulate the rate and location of development in keeping with availability of public facilities and the City's stated goals, including the undesignated MUSA and growth strategies.  Restrict commercial and business development to areas designated in this Plan.  Protect property within the City's MUSA boundary from development prior to the provision of urban services that will hinder future division.  Create flexible zoning standards that would allow for innovative arrangements of homes, conservation easements, or other creative land use concepts that preserve the City's open space and natural features.  Promote attractive, well-maintained dwellings on functional, clearly marked roads, with adequate facilities and open space.  Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety.  Encourage a controlled mix of densities, housing types, age groups, economic levels, lot sizes, and living styles that are of appropriate scale and consistent with appropriate land use, market demands, and development standards.  Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of ecologically significant natural resources.  Establish standards for higher density residential development so that such development is compatible with surrounding uses. Such standards may include enclosed parking, green space, landscape buffering and height limitations.  Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety.  Plan interconnections between separate developments to encourage shared road use to reduce costs and minimize the amount of road surface required.  Require planning of trails and walkway systems in the early design stages of all new development so that residential areas are provided safe access to parks and open space.  In urban residential zones with sanitary sewer service permit higher density in PUD’s in exchange for (1) reduced land coverage by buildings, (2) provision of more multi- family units; and, (3) sensitive treatment of natural resources.  Implement standards for lot sizes and setbacks which recognize the development characteristics and natural resources of each existing neighborhood.  Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to protect residential neighborhoods and to maintain public health and safety.       Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 8/13/2019 Meeting Minutes 1 Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to Residential Setbacks, Required Yards and allowed Encroachments Finke stated that this is a continuation of a discussion the began the previous month related to setbacks and decks. He stated that the draft ordinance was created from that discussion and includes three primary changes. He stated that the changes include allowances for encroachment into the larger setbacks adjacent minor collector roadways and changes to the setbacks adjacent minor collector roadways. He noted that the changes would be applied to every non-rural residential district. He stated that it is uncommon for communities to have these larger setbacks adjacent collector roadways and therefore the allowed encroachment could be seen as more similar to other communities. He noted that a number of communities also allow decks as an encroachment much further into the setback, up to within five feet of the property line. He stated that staff proposes an increase of the setback along minor collector roadways from 35 feet to 40 feet in the R-1 and R-2 districts. He explained that this would allow the homes to stay setback while allowing the decks to encroach within. He noted that two properties would become nonconforming with that change. He stated that the third change to the ordinance would be more technical, amending the encroachment section to allow window wells as encroachment within the setback but not within drainage and utility easements. He stated that currently bay windows are allowed to encroach, but only in the rear setback. He noted that there has been some interest in bay windows in the front setback, and therefore that could be a discussion as well. He stated that there have been a number of cases where properties were limited on their ability to construct decks adjacent wetland buffer setbacks. He provided additional information on the required wetland buffer and setback, noting that a home would be setback between 40 and 50 feet of the wetland. He explained that the purpose of the wetland setback is different than the purpose of the roadway setback and therefore it did not make sense to include wetland setbacks for this allowed encroachment. He noted that as proposed only decks would be allowed to encroach. Reid asked if the revised ordinance would allow the property owners that came forward the previous month to build their deck. Finke commented that he believed that this change would allow that activity. Reid stated that the lot depth is being increased and asked if developers would be dismayed to find the change in lot depth. Finke replied that there have not yet been those discussions. He explained that the lot would need to be deepened in order to have a building pad for the home with the changes to setback. Reid stated that overall more modulation should be required on the back of walkout units but noted that would be a different discussion. Reid opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Matthew Cole stated that this has been an interesting process and appreciated everyone’s time. He stated that he is happy with the changes as proposed and thanked the Commission for its consideration. Reid commended staff for the great job in finding this solution. Piper also thanked staff for their hard work. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 8/13/2019 Meeting Minutes 2 Nielsen commented that this would not prohibit a deck from being constructed on the ground, which could be more intrusive. Reid asked how a ground level deck and patio could be differentiated. Finke stated that staff actually viewed it the opposite. He stated that this would allow for encroachment from a main level deck but would not allow encroachment from a second story deck. He explained that staff viewed a second story deck as more looming and intrusive. He confirmed that a deck would be allowed from the ground level, or main level from the back. Reid closed the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Piper, to recommend approval of the ordinance as written. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Nester) Finke noted that this item will also be presented at the September 3rd City Council meeting. Richardson Page 1 of 4 September 3, 2019 Lot Combination City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: August 28, 2019 MEETING: September 3, 2019 City Council SUBJ: Dale Richardson – Lot Combination – PIDs 18-118-23-24-0116 and -0117 Summary of Request Dale Richardson has requested approval from the City to combine two parcels into a single lot. The existing parcels do not meet minimum lot size standards, and while the combination would not bring the parcels into full compliance, it does vastly improve the situation. The subject property is located north and east of Ardmore Avenue, as the road curves just west of County Road 19. The parcels are currently vacant. An aerial of the site and around property can be found below. The line between the two parcels which is proposed to be removed is in blue. Agenda Item # 7D Richardson Page 2 of 4 September 3, 2019 Lot Combination City Council Meeting The survey submitted by the applicant shows that the right-of-way for Ardmore Avenue to the west and south of the subject site has been vacated and requests the following legal description for the combination: “Lot 2, including ½ of vacated street and Lot 1 including ½ of vacated street, all in Block 30, Independence Beach, Hennepin County, Minnesota” Staff raised concern with this legal description because there is no record of a vacation of these rights-of-way and, in fact, there has been a street in this location for decades. The applicant has not provided proof of a vacation, except for erroneous Hennepin County GIS maps. Analysis The subject site and all surrounding property is zoned Urban Residential (UR), and is located within the Shoreland Overlay District (SO) of Lake Independence and Lake Ardmore. The Shoreland Overlay District increases the minimum lot size and width requirement, decreases the maximum allowed impervious surfaces on a site, and also places limitations on substandard lots from being developed separately. The following table compares the existing lots and the combined parcel to the requirements of the UR and Shoreland Overlay Districts. The table assumes the existence of the adjacent rights- As noted, the combined parcel would still fall short of minimum lot size standards, but comes closer to the requirements. All surrounding properties are owned by other parties and are also substandard. As such, it does not appear possible to bring the subject parcel any closer to compliance. Lots Exclusive of Right-of-way: Min. Requirement North PID South PID Combined Parcel Min. Lot Area 9,000 s.f. 15,000 s.f. (SO) 6,000 s.f. 6,000 s.f. 12,000 s.f. Min. Lot Width 60 feet (UR) 75 feet (SO) 60 feet 60 feet 120 feet Min. Lot Depth 100 feet (UR) 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet Front Setback 30 feet Vacant Side Setbacks 10 feet Rear Setback 30 feet Max Hardcover 60% (UR) 25% (SO) Easements/Wetlands/Floodplains There do not appear to be drainage and utility easements along the property line to be removed. The City usually recommends that such easements be vacated if they are on the property. There do not appear to be any wetlands or floodplains upon the property. Richardson Page 3 of 4 September 3, 2019 Lot Combination City Council Meeting Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission generally does not review lot combinations or lot line rearrangements. The Commission has passed a motion supporting waiving such review to allow expedited review of such requests, unless the City Council or staff refer the application for their review. The subdivision establishes the following criteria for plats and subdivisions. Staff has included potential findings for each in italics: “…The City shall deny approval of a preliminary or final plat if one or a combination of the following finding are made: (a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city, or that the proposed subdivision is premature, as defined in Section 820.28. Although the lots as combined do not meet all relevant standards, the lot combination reduces the level of conformance and improves the situation. Improving conformity is consistent with the plans of the City. (b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography, vegetation, soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are such that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated. The combination of the lots should improve these characteristics. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does not meet minimum lot size standards. Although the lots as combined still falls short of minimum lot size requirements, the lot combination reduces the level of conformance and improves the situation.. (d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. The combination of the lots is not likely to cause environmental concern. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. The combination of the lots is not likely to cause health concern. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or private streets, easements or right-of-way.” The combination, as proposed, does conflict with the public streets and easements. The requested legal description attempts to claim that adjacent right-of-way has been vacated, even though there is no record and despite the fact there is a public street within the right-of-way. Staff would not recommend approval of a combination which requests a legal description which would put into question the public’s use of the right-of-way. If the legal description was updated so that it would not erroneously claim that the legal description includes adjacent rights-of-way, the combination would not conflict with streets, rights-of-way or easements. Richardson Page 4 of 4 September 3, 2019 Lot Combination City Council Meeting Staff has requested numerous times that the applicant update the request and the survey so that the legal description would not threaten public right-of-way, but, forever reason, this has not occurred. Staff recommends denial of the lot combination as proposed (with legal descriptions including the erroneous vacated rights-of-way) because the legal description conflicts with public streets and right-of-way. On the other hand, staff does not see any reason to not combine Lots 1 and 2. Staff has drafted a resolution which would approve of the combination of Lots 1 and 2, while denying the request to include the right-of-way within the legal description. This would allow this matter to be closed. If the Council concurs, the following action would be appropriate: Motion to adopt the resolution approving a lot combination of PIDs 18-118-23-24-0116 and 18-118-23-24-0117 Attachments 1) Resolution 2) Survey Resolution No. 2019-## DATE Member ________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2019-## RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT COMBINATION FOR PIDS 18-118-23-24-0116 AND 18-118-23-24-0117 WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Joan M. Ree (the “Owner”) owns two parcels of property located north and east of Ardmore Avenue (collectively, the “Property”), which are legally described as: PID 18-118-23-24-0116: Lot 1, Block 30, Independence Beach, Hennepin County, Minnesota PID 18-118-23-24-0117: Lot 2, Block 30, Independence Beach, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Dale Richardson (the “Applicant”), the previous owner of the Property, has requested, on behalf of the Owner, approval of a lot combination to combine the following described property into a single parcel; Lot 2, including ½ of vacated street and Lot 1 including ½ of vacated street, all in Block 30, Independence Beach, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Applicant owned the Property at the time the application was made and has subsequently conveyed the Property to the Owner; and WHEREAS, evidence shows that the right-of-way adjacent to the Property is still dedicated to the public, has never been vacated, and currently contains a public street; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the requested lot combination at the September 3, 2019 meeting and reviewed information and recommendation provided by City staff and accepted testimony of interested parties; and WHEREAS, following such review the City Council made the following findings: 1) The proposed combination of Lots 1 and 2 into a single parcel is not in conflict with the general and specific plans of the City and is not premature. 2) Although the lot resulting from the combination of Lots 1 and 2 into a single parcel does not exceed minimum lot standards, it reduces the extent of nonconformance and brings the Property closer to compliance. 3) The lot resulting from the combination of Lots 1 and 2 into a single parcel is more suitable for the type of use contemplated, and the combination is otherwise not in conflict with the Resolution No. 2019-## 2 DATE findings noted in Subd. 10 of Section 820.21 of the City Code, provided the legal description of the property combined does not include adjacent right-of-way. 4) The proposed combination of Lots 1 and 2 into a single parcel will not conflict with public streets and right-of-way, provided the legal description of the property combined does not include adjacent right-of-way. 5) The proposed inclusion of the adjacent rights-of-way within the legal description of the lot combination conflicts with public streets and right-of-way because evidence shows that no vacation has ever occurred, and public streets are currently being maintained within such right-of-way. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Medina, Minnesota hereby denies the lot combination of the following described property: Lot 2, including ½ of vacated street and Lot 1 including ½ of vacated street, all in Block 30, Independence Beach, Hennepin County, Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of Medina, Minnesota hereby approves the lot combination of the Property such that the combined parcel shall be hereafter legally described as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto. Dated: September 3, 2019. By: ______________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor Attest: By: ___________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ________ upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2019-## 3 DATE EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Property After Lot Combination Lots 1 and 2, Block 30, Independence Beach, Hennepin County, Minnesota Advance LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2. including 1/2 of vacated street and Lot 1 including' 2 of vacated street, all in Block 30, Independence Beach, Hennepin County. Minnesota. SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS: 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description listed above. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish to be included on the survey have been shown. 2. Showing the location of observed existing improvements from a survey conducted by James Parker, dated May 23, 2007. 3. This is a note from the 2007 survey: While we show that the adjoining streets have been vacated we have not been supplied with the vacation documents for such streets. According to a survey prepared by McCombs Frank Roos Associates dated 5-1-1990, Grove Street was vacated December 15, 1945 but the street is still open to public travel and has been renamed Ardmore Street. 4. The scope of services for this survey was to separate Lot 3 into one drawing and to separate Lots 1 and 2 into their own drawing. No other survey work was agreed to for this survey and all improvements shown are from the 2007 survey mentioned above. 5. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: "•" Denotes iron survey marker, set, unless otherwise noted. • 0, \A- I \J • 0 0 0 m 0 O) 0 U 0 N .0 0) 0) L N 893829" E --123.72-- 1 L, / No) 0 L 40 -• Found ..WA/ Ss/ P. K, r-' I`(1` i ,- \71 1.- Found cap #10938 --704.22— ---- ) ``fN 89:57'0,5" E Edge off Bit. Road_ o f` / ` o l I -,-)cagy + -Li J r�r�r� l ) (NIt. LI C... ..,CC... .., V \�\ \ _l / I i 0 I 1 --724.31-- N 89:37'03" E I 1 -Centerline, of vacated Grove Street Found 1/2" SarveyIng&EngIneeling Co 17917 Highway 7 Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 Phone (952) 4747964 Web: www.advsur.com I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SURVEY OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY I00 OR UNDER 1,17 DIRECT SUPERNSIC9 AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF INNNESOT Thomas M. Bloom # 42379 LICENSE NO. JULY 30,2018 DATE: DRAWING ORIENTATION 8 SCALE SCALE . 1' = 20' 0 20 40 • • • MI CLIENTNAME !JOB ADDRESS TRENT RICHARDSON 2852 ARDMORE AVENUE MEDINA, MN DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION p TEWJ 0Y@t MAY 2007 DNEDWIEt JULY 30, 2018 MEET TITLE SURVEY UPDATE OF 2007 SURVEY DRAWING NUW ER 180844 snEusrm 22 X 34 MUMMER R SI SHEET OF Resolution No. 2019- September 3, 2019 Member _______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2019- RESOLUTION TO CONTRACT WITH A COUNCIL MEMBER WHEREAS, the City of Medina desires to have Highway 55 Rental furnish the following items for Medina Celebration Day: rental of one 20x40 canopy tent, one 10x10 canopy tent, flooring sections, three kid’s games, two popcorn machines (including 120 popcorn packages and 300 popcorn bags), 30 tables and 100 chairs; and WHEREAS, Jeff Pederson is a Council Member of the City and will be financially interested in the contract; and WHEREAS, it is determined that the contract price of $2,330.78 is as low as, or lower than, the price at which the goods can be obtained elsewhere at this time; WHEREAS, the contract is not one that is required to be competitively bid; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Medina, Minnesota that the City Clerk is directed to make the above-mentioned rental and purchase on behalf of the City from Jeff Pederson of Highway 55 Rental at a contract price of $2,330.78. It is also resolved that the Mayor and City Clerk are directed to issue an order-check to pay the claim on the filing of an affidavit of official interest by the interested official as required under Minn.Stat.§471.89. This resolution is passed to comply with the provisions of Minn.Stat.§§471.87-.89. Dated: September 3, 2019. ____________________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ______ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: (Recused:) Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Agenda Item # 7E Affidavit of Official Interest in Claim STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN I, _______________________, being duly sworn state the following: 1) I am a City Council Member of the City of Medina, MN. 2) On September 21, 2019, the following equipment will be furnished by Hwy 55 Rental to the City of Medina: One 20 x 40 tent, one 10 x 10 tent, flooring sections, three kid’s games, two small popcorn machines (including popcorn and bags), tables, and chairs. 3) The contract rental price for such equipment and supplies will be approximately $2,330.78. 4) At the time the equipment is rented to the City, I will have the following personal financial interest in this contract: I am one of the owners in Hwy 55 Rental. To the best of my knowledge and belief the contract rental price is as low as, or lower than the price at which the equipment could be rented from other sources. I further state that this affidavit constitutes a claim against the City for the contract rental price, that the claim is just and correct, and that no part of the claim has been paid. ____________________________________ Council Member Jeff Pederson Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______ day of __________, 2019. _____________________________________ Notary Signature Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 September 3, 2019 City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: August 29, 2019 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – September 3, 2019 City Council Meeting Land Use Application Review A) Elam CUP and Variance – 1582 Homestead Trail – Megan and Tim Elam have requested a conditional use permit (CUP) for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and additional accessory structures, including a pool house and detached garage. The applicant has requested a variance from the maximum number of bedrooms and habitable square footage of an ADU to utilize the existing home previously used as caretaker’s home as an ADU and to construct a new home in the location of the home they demolished two years ago. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 13, 2019 and recommended approval. Staff intends to present to the City Council on September 3. B) Richardson Lot Combination – PIDs 18-118-23-24-0116 and 18-118-23-24-0117 – Big Island Land LLC (Dale Richardson) has requested a lot combination of two vacant parcels along Ardmore Avenue, just west of County Road 19. The parcels do not meet relevant lot standards and the applicant desires to combine them to construct a single home. The legal description submitted by the applicant claims adjacent right-of-way has been vacated, and staff has requested that the applicant correct the information. The applicant has not provided updated information. Staff intends to present at the September 3 meeting. C) Adam’s Pest Control Site Plan Review, Pre Plat, Rezoning – Jan-Har, LLP (dba Adam’s Pest Control) has requested various approvals for development of a 35,000 s.f. office building, restaurant, and 13,000 s.f. warehouse/repair north of Highway 55, west of Willow Drive (PIDs 04-118-23-21-0001 and 04-118-23-24-0001). Staff is conducting a preliminary review, and the item will be scheduled for a public hearing when complete, potentially at the October 8 Planning Commission meeting. D) Mark of Excellence Comp Plan Amendment, PUD Concept Plan – east of Mohawk Drive, north of Highway 55 – Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) has requested a Comp Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan for development of 76 twinhomes, 41 single-family, and 32 townhomes on the Roy and Cavanaugh properties. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and the item will be scheduled for a public hearing when complete, potentially at the October 8 Planning Commission meeting. E) Graham Lot Combination – 4072 Hamel Road – Sonja and Chris Graham have requested a combination of two substandard lots. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and will present to Council when complete. F) Roehl Preliminary Plat – 1735 Medina Road – The Estate of Robert Roehl has requested a preliminary plat to subdivide 28 acres into two lots. The application is currently incomplete and will be scheduled for a hearing when necessary information is submitted. G) Cates Ranch Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning – 2575 and 2590 Cates Ranch Drive – Robert Atkinson has requested a change of the future land use from Future Development Area to Business, a staging plan amendment to 2020, and a rezoning to Business Park. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and will schedule when complete for review. Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 September 3, 2019 City Council Meeting H) Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition/OSI Expansion – Arrowhead Drive, north of Highway 55 – Arrowhead Holdings (real estate company for OSI) has requested approval of a site plan review, preliminary plat and rezoning to construct a 2nd building north of their existing facility. The applicant proposes to construct the building on a separate lot and to rezone the property to Business, in line with the updated Comprehensive Plan. The Council adopted approval documents on November 7. The applicant has now requested final plat approval. The applicant has also proposed some slight adjustments to the site plan, which were presented at the Planning Commission on March 12. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amended site plan. Staff will present to the City Council when the final plat is prepared. I) Raskob Elm Creek Addition – 500 Hamel Road – The John W Raskob Trust has requested to subdivide the 8 acres (approximately 4 net acres) of property into two separate parcels so that the family could market the two separately. The City Council granted preliminary approval at the May 21 meeting. The Council granted final plat approval at the August 7 meeting and staff will work with the property owner on recording the plat. J) R2 Collector Road Setback Amendment – Matt and Nikki Cole have requested that the City amend the required setback from a collector roadway within the R2 zoning district from 35 feet to 30 feet. The applicant has withdrawn the request, because the City is looking at the issue more broadly and may address their issue. K) School Lake 2nd Final Plat, School Lake 2nd Easement Vacation, Johnson ADU CUP, Maxxon, 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. L) Woods of Medina, Hamel Haven subdivisions – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plats are recorded. Other Projects A) Quad City Agreement – The City of Loretto has agreed to provide 5 of its future units to the City of Greenfield. Staff has updated the agreement and is requesting that the Council approve the final version at the September 3 meeting. B) Zoning Enforcement – one correction notice is pending for zoning violations. C) Hackamore Road right-of-entry – staff collected all of the right-of-entry agreements from property owners for the survey and wetland delineation for preliminary design of improvements for Hackamore Road. D) Eugene Drive – staff met with a property owner adjacent to Eugene Drive in Uptown Hamel to discuss potential improvements the owner is considering to the parking lot adjacent to the right-of- way and potentially extending into the right-of-way. TO: City Council FROM: Edgar J. Belland, Director of Public Safety, Through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: August 29, 2019 RE: Police Department Updates Department Meeting On August 28th we held our department meeting. We had Assistant City Administrator Jodi Gallup and IT Consultant Mike Brocco review the new software and Office 365 applications we will be using in the future. One of those apps is the Teams app that are project based and track all the communication related to specific projects and groups. We also reviewed the new policy on Sexual Assault Investigations that is mandated by the POST Board. Body Cam Consortium On August 19th we held our fourth meeting of the Body-Cam Consortium made up of the smaller agencies in Hennepin County. At this time, we do not see a group purchase due to the fact that the departments are all on different schedules for deployment and there is no consensus on a vender that will work for everyone. We have collected very valuable information on several venders and will move forward individually. WMDT Update At the August 22nd WMDT meeting, after five years of chairing the board, I stepped down. Chief Correy Farniok took over as the Chair. The Taskforce continues to be very busy. We have had several large cases involving Meth and Cocaine cases. We have tabled a motion for a payout to the cities until next meeting when we will have more information on where our forfeiture balances are in relationship to the budget. Our next meet is in October. CSO Hiring Process With a day left for applications, we have eight applicants. Next week we will be reviewing the applications and moving into the interview process. Patrol Update For the dates of August 15 to August 29, 2019, our officers issued 52 citations and 146 warnings for various traffic infractions. There was a total of 4 traffic accidents, 17 medicals, 6 alarms and 3 DWI’s. On 08-21-19, Officers Jessen, Hall, McKinley and I assisted agents from the Minnesota Department of Revenue on a search warrant in the Enclave development. Numerous agents were present looking for evidence as a result of under reporting income case. MEMORANDUM On 08-23, Officer Hall and I were dispatched to the Loretto Lions Park for an intoxicated male. The male was extremely intoxicated and appeared to be homeless. The male did have scissors and other shape objects that had to be removed from his person as he was combative. The male was eventually transported to HCMC via ambulance because he could not care for himself. On 08-25, Officer Scharf conducted a traffic stop for equipment violations. The driver was found to be intoxicated and was subsequently arrested for DWI. The driver’s blood alcohol content was .25, over three times the legal limit. On 08-25, Officer Hall responded to a residence where there was a person present with a felony warrant from Wright County. The male was located and arrested. He was then transported to Rockford where he was turned over to a Wright County Deputy. 08-26, Officer Scharf responded to a personal injury accident at Hwy 55 and Sioux Drive. The vehicle had struck the guard rail and the driver was injured. While investigating the accident, it was believed that alcohol was involved. Officer Scharf wrote a search warrant for the driver’s blood. Charges pending lab results. The driver was not seriously injured. 08-26, Officer McGill, took a theft from auto report where a vehicle was parked in the Polaris parking lot over the weekend. Video surveillance was obtained, and the case was assigned to investigations. On 08-26, Officer McGill took a construction theft report from the new senior living building on Chippewa. It was learned that unknown persons had gained access to the building and removed thousands of dollars of construction tools and equipment. The case has been assigned to investigations. On 08-28, Officer Scharf took a scam report. Victim indicated that she had put a purse on Craigslist for sale for $500. Victim received a check for $1850 and was asked to send the extra money back via money grams. Victim did this and then was notified by her bank that the check was no good. This is a common scam. Case will be assigned to investigations. Investigation Update Investigating a burglary of a construction site over the weekend. Numerous tools were taken from the scene. Hennepin County Crime Lab processed the scene. Investigation is ongoing. Investigating a theft from motor vehicle that occurred at a local business. Crime Lab processed the vehicle. Investigation is ongoing. Investigating a theft of a credit card from a business. The card was used at multiple locations around the metro area. A crime alert will be sent out with a picture of the suspect. Submitted a case to the County Attorney’s office for charging involving a prolific burglary crew in the metro area. This crew was involved in multiple burglaries in the City of Loretto in May. Currently 10 cases assigned to investigations. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE: August 29, 2019 MEETING: September 3, 2019 SUBJECT: Public Works Update STREETS • Despite the rain, work on the Hickory Dr project is moving along well. The storm sewer work is nearly complete. The watermain is complete and temporary water has been removed. The plan is to install the base on Saturday, September 7th, when businesses are not active. Curb installation will happen the following Friday or Saturday to utilize the weekend for concrete curing time. • The Brockton project continues into Stage 2. Public Works worked with the contractor for water shut off again this week, the watermain is now complete and everyone is back online. We have been working with one resident in Medina with drainage and mailbox concerns, she may come to speak at the council meeting. • Public Works has been cutting brush all over Medina. We used Emery’s Tree service to assist us with the more sensitive and elevated areas. • Seal coating has been completed on Medina Road and has been swept. We will work to get the street striped in the next few weeks. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER • Well #3 has been repaired and should be working again in the next day or so. • The Quad City agreement is in your packet. There was a shift of five units from Loretto to Greenfield, along with some exhibits added. • Public Works has replaced two separate culverts in the Foxberry area. One was metal and was deteriorated to nothing. The other was concrete and had become separated and needed to be replaced. • All the wet weather in the past two years has created a lot of elevated concerns and complaints from residents. Weather goes in cycles and clearly, we have been in a wet cycle for the past few years. PARKS/TRAILS • Public Works received delivery of 400 cubic yards of wood chip material for the playgrounds around the city. At the Park Commission’s request, we are also adding some mats under a few of the swings. We will test out a few different ones to see how they hold up. • In general, the parks are in good condition. We are looking at the possibility of replacing about 700 ft of trail in the Hamel Legion Park if we can work it into the schedule with the contractor this fall. Page 2 of 2 MISCELLANEOUS • The final meeting for the Celebration Day Committee will be held on September 10th. ORDER CHECKS AUGUST 20, 2019 – SEPTEMBER 3, 2019 049220 CHHABRA, PANZY ................................................................... $250.00 049221 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT CO. ............................................... $1,392.54 049222 MAKAM, SWAPNA .................................................................... $250.00 049223 PILLAR TITLE SERVICES ........................................................... $67.56 049224 DEMARCHI, ADAM ................................................................... $250.00 049225 FAUE, PATRICIA ....................................................................... $250.00 049226 MN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ................................................. $32.00 049227 MN RURAL WATER ASSOC ..................................................... $255.00 049228 NIH HOMES, LLC ........................................................................ $45.45 049229 PILLAR TITLE SERVICES ........................................................... $71.22 049230 RPC LLC .............................................................................. $10,350.00 049231 SRIVASTAVA, ANJALI .............................................................. $250.00 049232 A-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC ..................................................... $561.18 049233 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC .................................................... $89.84 049234 ALDEN POOL & MUNICIPAL SUPPLY ...................................... $332.50 049235 BEAUDRY OIL & PROPANE .................................................. $3,070.36 049236 BROCK WHITE....................................................................... $4,025.60 049237 CONTEMPORARY IMAGES ........................................................ $21.22 049238 DINIUS FENCE LLC .................................................................. $495.00 049239 DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES ................................................... $20,000.00 049240 DIAMOND MOWERS INC.......................................................... $199.37 049241 DPC INDUSTRIES INC ........................................................... $1,895.30 049242 EMERY'S TREE SERVICE ..................................................... $4,445.00 049243 GRAINGER................................................................................ $160.23 049244 HENN COUNTY SHERIFF......................................................... $568.00 049245 HOLIDAY FLEET ......................................................................... $15.77 049246 KELLY'S WRECKER SERVICE INC .......................................... $202.70 049247 LANO EQUIPMENT INC ............................................................ $813.60 049248 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR .................................................. $408.00 049249 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES ............................................ $300.00 049250 MARCO (LEASE) ....................................................................... $283.34 049251 NAPA OF CORCORAN INC ...................................................... $312.39 049252 OFFICE DEPOT .......................................................................... $72.83 049253 PEARSON BROS., INC. ....................................................... $79,367.96 049254 RANDY'S SANITATION INC ...................................................... $340.00 049255 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES INC .................................. $8,183.72 049256 STREICHER'S ............................................................................. $64.98 049257 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL ............................................................ $1,310.71 049258 TALLEN & BAERTSCHI .......................................................... $3,636.74 049259 TEGRETE CORP .................................................................... $1,502.18 049260 TIMESAVER OFFSITE .............................................................. $661.50 049261 SSI MN TRANCHE #10322006 ............................................... $3,766.04 049262 WILLIAMS, MARK D. CUSTOM HOMES .............................. $10,000.00 Total Checks $160,569.83 ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS AUGUST 20, 2019 – SEPTEMBER 3, 2019 005202E PR PERA .............................................................................. $15,855.40 005203E PR FED/FICA ....................................................................... $16,744.07 005204E PR MN Deferred Comp ........................................................... $1,590.00 005205E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA .................................................. $3,903.96 005206E CITY OF MEDINA ........................................................................ $21.00 005207E FURTHER .............................................................................. $1,402.52 005208E PR FED/FICA .............................................................................. $38.37 005209E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA ......................................................... $8.86 005210E MINNESOTA, STATE OF ....................................................... $2,188.00 005211E FURTHER ................................................................................. $402.63 005212E DELTA DENTAL ..................................................................... $2,386.50 005213E FURTHER ................................................................................... $69.50 005214E MARCO (LEASE) ....................................................................... $540.80 005215E WRIGHT HENN COOP ELEC ASSN ...................................... $2,046.78 005216E MEDIACOM OF MN LLC ........................................................... $431.80 005217E CITY OF PLYMOUTH ................................................................ $937.48 Total Electronic Checks $48,567.67 PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AUGUST 21, 2019 0509653 DINGMANN, TYLER .................................................................. $939.63 0509654 JOHNSON, PATRICK M. ........................................................... $608.15 0509655 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L. ................................................... $1,430.55 0509656 BARNHART, ERIN A. ............................................................. $2,456.42 0509657 BELLAND, EDGAR J. ............................................................. $2,791.03 0509658 BOECKER, KEVIN D. ............................................................. $2,639.62 0509659 CONVERSE, KEITH A. ........................................................... $1,937.51 0509660 ENDE, JOSEPH...................................................................... $1,893.68 0509661 FINKE, DUSTIN D. ................................................................. $2,637.75 0509662 GALLUP, JODI M. ................................................................... $1,926.01 0509663 GLEASON, JOHN M. .............................................................. $1,870.77 0509664 GREGORY, THOMAS ............................................................ $1,997.23 0509665 HALL, DAVID M. ..................................................................... $2,016.29 0509666 JACOBSON, NICOLE ................................................................ $887.31 0509667 JESSEN, JEREMIAH S. .......................................................... $2,650.70 0509668 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. ............................................................ $2,206.31 0509669 JONES, KATRINA M............................................................... $1,403.86 0509670 KLAERS, ANNE M. ................................................................. $1,370.94 0509671 LEUER, GREGORY J. ............................................................ $2,028.52 0509672 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R. .................................................. $1,524.52 0509673 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D .......................................................... $2,148.72 0509674 NELSON, JASON ................................................................... $2,391.95 0509675 PETERSON, DEBRA A. .......................................................... $2,020.16 0509676 REINKING, DEREK M ............................................................ $2,082.39 0509677 ROBBINS, MELISSA ................................................................. $261.35 0509678 ROERICK, AUSTIN ................................................................ $1,376.41 0509679 SCHARF, ANDREW ............................................................... $1,669.13 0509680 SCHERER, STEVEN T. .......................................................... $2,292.82 0509681 SCHNEIDER, BENJAMIN .......................................................... $987.07 Total Payroll Direct Deposit $52,446.80 PAYROLL MANUAL CHECK AUGUST 21, 2019 020442 ROBBINS, MELISSA ................................................................... $89.03 Total Payroll Manual Check $89.03