HomeMy Public PortalAbout03.02.2021 Complete Regular City Council Meeting Packet Posted 2/26/2021 Page 1 of 1
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
7:00 P.M.
Meeting to be held telephonically/virtually
pursuant Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.021
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of the February 16, 2021 Work Session
B. Minutes of the February 16, 2021 Regular Council Meeting
C. Minutes of the February 23, 2021 Work Session
V. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Temporary Liquor License to Wildlife Rehabilitation Center of Minnesota at 3000 Hamel
Road on August 14, 2021
B. Approve Ball Field Rental Agreement with Orono Baseball Association
C. Appoint Nick Zumbusch to the Position of Public Works Maintenance Technician
D. Resolution Granting Extension of Time to Request Final Plat Approval for Adams Subdivision;
Amending Resolution No. 2020-20
E. BWSR Watershed-Based Implementation Funding Grant Agreement for Wolsfeld SNA Ravine
Stabilization
VI. COMMENTS
A. From Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda
B. Park Commission
C. Planning Commission
VII. PRESENTATIONS
A. Fire Department Annual Reports – Hamel VFD & Long Lake FD
B. Hennepin County Commissioner Kevin Anderson
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Ordinance Amending Regulations Pertaining to Stormwater Management; Amending Chapter 8 of
the City Code
1. Resolution Authorizing Publication of Ordinance by Title and Summary
B. Hunter Lions Park Master Plan
IX. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
X. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
XI. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS
XII. ADJOURN
Telephonic/Virtual Meeting
Call-in Instructions
Join via Microsoft Teams to view
presentations at this link:
https://medinamn.us/council/
For audio only: Dial 1-612-517-3122
Enter Conference ID: 274 962 111#
MEMORANDUM
TO: Medina Mayor and City Council
FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator
DATE OF REPORT: February 25, 2021
DATE OF MEETING: March 2, 2021
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Report
Telephonic/Virtual Meeting Call-in Instructions
Join via Microsoft Teams to view presentations at this link: https://medinamn.us/council/
For audio only: Dial 1-612-517-3122; Enter Conference ID: 274 962 111#
V. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Temporary Liquor License to Wildlife Rehabilitation Center of Minnesota at
3000 Hamel Road on August 14, 2021 – This event is held annually in Medina on private
property. All paperwork has been submitted. Staff recommends approval.
No attachments for this item.
B. Approve Ball Field Rental Agreement with Orono Baseball Association – Each year, the
Orono Baseball Association contracts for use of Medina Morningside park for their youth
baseball program. Staff recommends approval.
See attached agreement.
C. Appoint Nick Zumbusch to the Position of Public Works Maintenance Technician – The
City has recently completed the recruitment process for the open Public Works position.
Staff recommends the appointment of Nick Zumbusch to the position of Public Works
Maintenance Technician.
See attached memo.
D. Resolution Granting Extension of Time to Request Final Plat Approval for Adams
Subdivision; Amending Resolution No. 2020-20 – The Applicant has requested an
extension of time to request final plat approval. Staff recommends approval.
See attached resolution.
E. BWSR Watershed-Based Implementation Funding Grant Agreement for Wolsfeld SNA
Ravine Stabilization – Staff recommends approval of the BWSR grant agreement for the
Wolsfeld SNA Ravine Stabilization project.
See attached agreement.
2
VII. PRESENTATIONS
A. Fire Department Annual Reports – Representatives from the Hamel VFD and Long Lake
FD will be at the meeting to present their annual fire reports.
No attachments for this item.
B. Hennepin County Commissioner Kevin Anderson – Commissioner Anderson will be at the
meeting to introduce himself to the City Council.
No attachments for this item.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Ordinance Amending Regulations Pertaining to Stormwater Management; Amending
Chapter 8 of the City Code – The City requires stormwater management improvements
such as ponds, stormwater re-use and other practices at the time of new development and
at the time of certain other construction projects. These requirements are intended to
mitigate impacts (or result in improvements) of flooding and pollution of wetlands, lakes,
streams, and other waterbodies. The regulations are in Section 828.33 of City Code.
Staff has included a summarization and some background information regarding the
current regulations. Staff is seeking discussion and direction on potential amendments to
the requirements.
See attached report, ordinance, resolution.
Recommended Motion #1: Motion to adopt the ordinance amending regulations
pertaining to stormwater management; amending chapter 8 of the city code
Recommended Motion #2: Motion to adopt the resolution authorizing publication of the
ordinance by title and summary
B. Hunter Lions Park Master Plan – The Medina Park Commission has been working with
WSB Landscape Architect Candace Amberg and staff to create a well-thought-out Master
Plan for Hunter Lions Park to optimize the functionality, safety and recreational enjoyment
of the park. The planning process included site visits, various park concept layouts, public
engagement, and cost analysis. The Park Commission is recommending the project be
completed in phases to be able to utilize public works equipment and labor to save money
on the overall project costs.
See attached memo and master plan.
Recommended Motion: Motion to adopt Hunter Lions Park Master Plan and
recommend beginning implementation of phase two (tennis and pickle ball courts)
utilizing public works resources to reduce costs.
3
XI. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS
Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the bills, EFT 005834E-005849E for $59,839.25
and order check numbers 051304-051335 for $123,116.43, and payroll EFT 0510833-0510860
for $53,456.68.
INFORMATION PACKET:
Planning Department Update
Police Department Update
Public Works Department Update
Claims List
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 1
February 16, 2021
DRAFT 1
2
MEDINA CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION CONCURRENT WORK 3
SESSION MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16, 2021 4
5
The City Council and Park Commission of Medina, Minnesota met in work session on 6
February 16, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Martin presided. 7
8
Martin read a statement explaining that this meeting is being held in a virtual format 9
because of the ongoing pandemic. She provided instructions for public participation. 10
11
I. ROLL CALL 12
13
Council Members present: Albers, Cavanaugh, DesLauriers, Martin, and Reid. 14
15
Council Members absent: None. 16
17
Park Commission Members present: Bernhardt, Jacob, Lee, Morrison, Norman, and 18
Sharp. 19
20
Park Commission Members absent: Hutchinson. 21
22
Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, Assistant City Administrator Jodi 23
Gallup, City Attorney Ron Batty, Finance Director Erin Barnhart, City Planning Director 24
Dusty Finke, Public Works Director Steve Scherer, and Chief of Police Jason Nelson. 25
26
II. DIAMOND LAKE REGIONAL TRAIL 27
Martin commented that the Council will not express an opinion on a trail route but will 28
hear the presentation and welcome input on the trail route and other elements. She 29
recognized the need to balance the amenity of a trail with residential privacy and the 30
protection of natural resources, such as wetlands. 31
32
Kelly Grissman, Three Rivers Park District, commented that the Medina staff and its 33
appointed and elected officials have been great to work with throughout this process. 34
She introduced the other members of the Three Rivers Park team available on the call 35
tonight. She appreciated the openness of the Council to extend the meeting in the event 36
additional time is needed to hear additional public comments and input. She stated that 37
tonight they will present the current recommended route and receive public input, noting 38
that an ultimate decision will come at a later date. She provided background information 39
on the Diamond Lake Regional Trail project and its planning timeline. She provided 40
photographic examples of what the trail and different trail segment amenities could look 41
like throughout Medina. She stated that Three Rivers Park District developed a robust 42
public engagement process and reviewed the different opportunities that have been 43
provided thus far. She noted that more engagement opportunities were provided for 44
Medina residents, compared to other surrounding areas, and noted that the participation 45
levels were also higher for Medina residents. She summarized the input that has been 46
received in support of different trail options. She stated that Medina residents have not 47
expressed the same level of support of other communities as there is great concern over 48
impacts to private property, privacy, and nature. She stated that realization for this 49
project is most likely 20 to 30 years out, but this planning process is necessary to allow 50
for future planning efforts to move forward as development and other opportunities come 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 2
February 16, 2021
forward. She stated that they would most likely focus on trial segments in other 1
communities where development opportunities are arising. She reviewed the master 2
plan process, noting that they want to provide opportunity for all interested members to 3
hear details and provide input. She anticipated that they would ask for Park Commission 4
and City Council approvals for the alignment in late March and possibly into April in 5
order to hear the public input and make amendments if necessary. 6
7
Stewart Crosby, SRF, displayed the multiple route alternatives that have been reviewed 8
throughout this process for the area within Medina. He stated that they have received 9
public input throughout this process and one additional route was added as an option for 10
the west side and was based on public input to connect the trail to City Hall on CR 24 11
and in order to align the corridor along the edges of parcels rather than cutting through 12
parcels. He provided a brief overview of the analysis that was done for each potential 13
trail segment along with comments that were received noting that the information is also 14
available in more detail on both the City and Three Rivers Park District websites. He 15
commented on the large number of wetlands throughout Medina that will be a challenge 16
for any route. He displayed the recommended trail route along with alternate route 17
options and identified elements that would be required in certain areas, such as grade 18
separated crossings. He stated that they have continued to receive the question as to 19
the benefit of the western route. He stated that all the different subsegment corridors 20
have been reviewed and there are opportunities and challenges for each. He stated that 21
one of the main goals is to create a linear park that is not along roadways. He noted that 22
as the trail heads north, development is not as extreme and therefore there are more 23
opportunities. He stated that the Medina trail will involve crossing busy roads and the 24
western route provides the opportunity to connect or get close to local parks through 25
local trail connections. He stated that they prefer an off-road trail that provides more of a 26
park experience and the recommended route would provide for that experience whereas 27
other routes would work much more within road right-of-way and the challenges that 28
would bring. 29
30
Martin stated that she will now provide opportunities for members of the public to speak. 31
She noted that the Council has received and read the written comments received thus 32
far. 33
34
Hellen Heely referenced the trail segment above Wilshire Wood. She believed that there 35
is currently a raspberry farm in that location. She stated that is a beautiful area but is 36
concerned that the older couple that owns that property could perhaps not join the 37
meeting to provide their input tonight. She asked if there has been contact with that 38
landowner. 39
40
Stephen Shurson with Three Rivers Park District stated that he is unsure if there has 41
been direct contact. He noted that the couple has been alerted to the public meetings. 42
43
Heely commented that the landowner is an older couple that have invested a lot of time 44
and resources into their property and asked how that landowner would be engaged in 45
terms of attempting to acquire land for the trail. 46
47
Shurson replied that the routes are flexible, even though a line is shown on the map. He 48
explained that they work individually with property owners. 49
50
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 3
February 16, 2021
Grissman commented that they would work with each property owner to manage their 1
concerns and input and locate the trail in a manner which would have the least impact 2
on their property. She stated that buffers, berms, fencing or additional vegetation could 3
be added to provide additional separation. She stated that some agricultural properties 4
welcome a trail as that would expose their business to additional customers. 5
6
Martin stated that perhaps Ms. Heely would suggest that it would be helpful for Three 7
Rivers Park District to reach out directly to that property owner at this time in the 8
process. She noted that perhaps a home visit would be appropriate as the resident may 9
not be technologically advanced. 10
11
Heely commented that she and her neighbors are concerned with routing the trail 12
through the Tamarack Drive area. She stated that if the western route is chosen, she 13
would be concerned that it would dump that responsibility to those property owners. 14
15
Shurson commented that he would be more than happy to meet with Ms. Heely 16
individually and reach out to those property owners directly as well. 17
18
Heely confirmed that she would provide the necessary contact information. 19
20
Martin commented on the difficulty she had reviewing the maps and asked if perhaps the 21
larger scale maps could be posted to the website. 22
23
Nick Schultz stated that he lives across from City Hall. He asked if Mohawk Drive would 24
be used for the trail segment or where that segment would be located. 25
26
Shurson commented that is yet to be determined as they do not provide that level of 27
specificity at this point in the planning process. He stated that they would want to have a 28
safe interaction with City Hall and the crossing of CR 24. He commented that there 29
would be another engagement process when the design is ultimately discussed. 30
31
Schultz stated that crossing of CR 24 is not safe, noting that he was hit on a bicycle in 32
the past. He stated that there was a period of time when a trail was constructed along 33
CR 19 and asked if there is a reason that trail is not being used as it connects to Baker 34
Park. 35
36
Grissman commented that this would be an additional route with the Lake Independence 37
Regional Trail running along the west and the other regional trail option to the east along 38
CR 101. She stated that the intent is to provide access to all residents in Hennepin 39
County and this would be a middle route that would not be road based and would 40
instead provide a parklike atmosphere. She recognized that some sections along the 41
20-mile route would be adjacent to roads, but they will take as many opportunities as 42
possible to take the trail off the road system, as that is preferred by most regional trail 43
users. 44
45
Schultz asked how residents will be notified of future meetings. 46
47
Martin commented that she believes that residents can signup for the email list to 48
receive notifications. 49
50
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 4
February 16, 2021
Gallup confirmed that would be an option and noted that all upcoming meetings are also 1
posted on the City website. 2
3
Angela Erickson stated that the proposed route currently does not utilize Hunter Drive 4
but wants to be a voice for the residents on Hunter Drive. She stated that the residents 5
on Hunter Drive developed a petition opposing the trail in that location because of 6
concerns with crossing roadways, implications to large mature trees, and impacts to 7
property values. She stated that there are also properties within the Minnesota Land 8
Trust in that area. She noted that there is a strong coalition of property owners on 9
Hunter Drive that oppose any route that would use Hunter Drive. 10
11
Jim Stetler, 1832 Medina Road, stated that he submitted written comments in opposition 12
of the western most route option and would like additional time to discuss this with his 13
neighbors. He stated that they are new to the area and just built a new home, 14
attempting to be careful in the positioning of their home to respect the rural character of 15
Medina and be respectful of their neighbors. He commented that they were drawn to 16
Medina because of the rural and peaceful setting. He stated that most of what they face 17
to the west is wetland and that provided security knowing that the area would be 18
protected from development. He stated that he would be concerned that the trail would 19
run the entire length of his property and his family would then be facing a 1,000-foot 20
boardwalk. He commented on the impacts to wildlife that could also occur from that trail 21
segment. He stated that as park like as the experience may be for users it is to the 22
detriment of homeowners in that area. 23
24
Martin commented that some residents have stated that they did not feel they had 25
adequate time to review the proposed route, which is why this opportunity will be 26
extended for additional written and verbal comments to be received. She stated that this 27
meeting will be continued to Tuesday, February 23rd, for those that do not have time to 28
provide comments tonight and noted that written comments can be submitted within that 29
next week as well. 30
31
Johnson stated that staff recommends that the February 23rd worksession begin at 6:00 32
p.m. 33
34
Emily Byfuglien, 1862 Morgan Road, commented that they are strongly opposed to this. 35
She noted that when they purchased their 30-acre property it was with the intent that her 36
husband could use the land for hunting. She was concerned that once the trails are 37
built, her husband would no longer be able to use the land for hunting. She stated that 38
they previously lived on Lake Minnetonka, but it was too busy and therefore relocated 39
here to have more privacy. She stated the idea of trails with a high volume of pedestrian 40
traffic is not something they prefer. 41
42
Martin was unsure if staff would be prepared to respond to the issue of hunting tonight 43
but stated that staff will look into that and try to provide a response. She stated that she 44
does have to close the public comment period at this time, but it will continue February 45
23rd at 6:00 p.m. She noted that residents can also submit written comments prior to 46
that meeting date. 47
48
49
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 5
February 16, 2021
III. ADJOURN 1
Moved by Cavanaugh, seconded by Reid, to adjourn the meeting on behalf of the City 2
Council at 6:56 p.m. 3
4
A roll call vote was performed: 5
6
DesLauriers aye 7
Albers aye 8
Cavanaugh aye 9
Reid aye 10
Martin aye 11
12
Motion passed unanimously. 13
14
Moved by Lee, seconded by Sharp, to adjourn the meeting on behalf of the Park 15
Commission at 6:56 p.m. 16
17
A roll call vote was performed: 18
19
Norman aye 20
Morrison aye 21
Sharp aye 22
Bernhardt aye 23
Lee aye 24
Jacobs aye 25
26
Motion passed unanimously. 27
28
29
__________________________________ 30
Kathleen Martin, Mayor 31
Attest: 32
33
____________________________________ 34
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk 35
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 1
February 16, 2021
DRAFT 1
2
MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16, 2021 3
4
The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on February 16, 2021 at 5
7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Martin presided. 6
7
Martin read a statement explaining that meetings continue to be held in a virtual format 8
because of the ongoing pandemic and reviewed instructions for public participation. 9
10
I. ROLL CALL 11
12
Members present: Albers, Cavanaugh, DesLauriers, Martin, and Reid. 13
14
Members absent: None. 15
16
Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, Assistant City Administrator Jodi 17
Gallup, City Attorney Ron Batty, Finance Director Erin Barnhart, City Engineer Jim 18
Stremel, City Planning Director Dusty Finke, Public Works Director Steve Scherer, and 19
Chief of Police Jason Nelson. 20
21
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (7:03 p.m.) 22
23
III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA (7:03 p.m.) 24
Johnson requested to add an Item B, under New Business, to call for Special 6:00 p.m. 25
Worksession meetings on February 23rd and March 2nd related to the Diamond Lake 26
Regional Trail. 27
28
Moved by Cavanaugh, seconded by Albers, to approve the agenda as amended. 29
30
A roll call vote was performed: 31
32
DesLauriers aye 33
Albers aye 34
Cavanaugh aye 35
Reid aye 36
Martin aye 37
38
Motion passed unanimously. 39
40
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7:04 p.m.) 41
42
A. Approval of the February 2, 2021 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 43
Martin noted that prior to the meeting Johnson distributed changes as proposed by 44
herself to be incorporated into the minutes. 45
46
Moved by Martin, seconded by Albers, to approve the February 2, 2021 regular City 47
Council meeting minutes as amended. 48
49
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 2
February 16, 2021
A roll call vote was performed: 1
2
DesLauriers aye 3
Albers aye 4
Cavanaugh aye 5
Reid aye 6
Martin aye 7
8
Motion passed unanimously. 9
10
V. CONSENT AGENDA (7:05 p.m.) 11
12
A. Approve First Amended and Restated Contract for Fire Protection with 13
Hamel Volunteer Fire Department 14
B. Resolution No. 2021-11 Granting Approval of Conditional Use Permit to 15
Lothar and Monica Krinke for Accessory Structure Over 5,000 Square Feet 16
Moved by Cavanaugh, seconded by Martin, to approve the consent agenda. 17
18
A roll call vote was performed: 19
20
Martin aye 21
Reid aye 22
Cavanaugh aye 23
Albers aye 24
DesLauriers aye 25
26
Motion passed unanimously. 27
28
VI. COMMENTS (7:07 p.m.) 29
30
A. Comments from Citizens on Items not on the Agenda 31
There were none. 32
33
B. Park Commission 34
Scherer reported that the Park Commission will meet the following night to discuss and 35
adopt the goals list for 2021, which is quite extensive. He stated that they will attempt to 36
use Public Works staff and equipment when possible to accomplish some of the items 37
on the list. 38
39
Albers asked if the Commission has considered installing hockey boards at any of the 40
ice rinks at the parks. 41
42
Scherer stated that a hockey rink may have been discussed years back. He stated that 43
this year they had trouble getting the ice to establish. He noted that new goals were 44
placed on the Hamel rink, but it is not within the capital plan to install hockey boards. 45
46
Albers commented that Wayzata has a hockey rink with boards that is used as an off-47
leash dog park in the warmer months and as a hockey rink in the winter months. He 48
stated that perhaps the Park Commission would consider that item. 49
50
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 3
February 16, 2021
Scherer stated that the Commission is going to discuss the 2021 goals at its meeting the 1
next night and perhaps that could be added to a future list of goals/options. 2
3
Cavanaugh agreed that could be an amenity that would be well used by Medina 4
residents. 5
6
Albers commented that perhaps there would be an opportunity to work with a local 7
hockey association, as there may be a willingness of an association to contribute to the 8
cost in order to have an opportunity for additional ice time. 9
10
Scherer confirmed that could be added to the discussion list for parks capital planning 11
for the 2022 year. 12
13
C. Planning Commission 14
Planning Commissioner Rhem reported that the Planning Commission met the previous 15
week to review the Medina Townhome Development that is on the Council agenda 16
tonight, noting that the comments from the Commission were consistent with the staff 17
comments. He stated that the Commission also reviewed the proposed ordinance 18
amendments related to stormwater improvements, noting that the Commission 19
recommended approval of the staff recommendation to exempt lots under 20 percent 20
hardcover with an upper limit of one acre of new hardcover. 21
22
VII. NEW BUSINESS 23
24
A. Medina Townhome Development LLC – 1432 County Road 29 – Planned 25
Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan Review (7:15 p.m.) 26
Finke presented a Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for the subject site and 27
displayed an aerial photograph of the site, identifying the adjacent property uses. He 28
explained that the property is zoned as R-4 and noted that the PUD would allow for 29
flexibility of the underlying zoning in return for providing additional benefits that meet 30
other goals of the City and provide a more desirable development. He displayed the 31
proposed site plan of six buildings each with four units for a total of 24 units. He stated 32
that there would be construction of a public street to the south, as identified in the City’s 33
transportation plan. He stated that the proposed density of the site is just under the 12 34
units per acre specified by the R-4 district. He noted that the City would have to make 35
the decision as to whether that density would be consistent with the Comprehensive 36
Plan. He stated that staff believes that the development would be consistent with the 37
Comprehensive Plan as it is near that density range and only a two-acre site. He stated 38
that the Comprehensive Plan also speaks to some flexibility from the density based on 39
elements in the Code, which could reduce that density to 22 units for the two-acre site. 40
He stated that the applicant believes that some flexibility would be needed from the R-4 41
district in order to provide townhomes on the site, such as the flexibility on the front 42
setback. He noted that the alternative would allow for construction of an apartment or 43
condominium building that would have additional height in order to put the same number 44
of units on a smaller footprint. He stated that the applicant also notes that they would be 45
willing to reserve two of the 24 units for rent at 80 percent of the median income level in 46
order to achieve a portion of the City’s goals for workforce and affordable housing. He 47
provided a rendering of the proposed structures and reviewed the details of the 48
proposed elevations as well as the comments of staff and the Planning Commission. He 49
noted that at the Planning Commission meeting a neighboring property owner requested 50
a privacy fence to provide a buffer between the patios and his property. 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 4
February 16, 2021
1
Martin asked for input on the site layout and architectural design. 2
3
Reid stated that she sees a missed opportunity, noting that if the garages were flipped to 4
face the outside and front entrances facing the center that would create a center 5
commons area that would help to create a sense of community. She believed that more 6
innovative architecture is needed for the project as the garage side looks ordinary and 7
the patio and front door side would be unacceptable. She did not believe that this would 8
meet the requirements of a PUD as she did not see any planning or architecture that 9
would justify a PUD. 10
11
Finke commented that staff would need to see what that design would look like, noting 12
that the question would be how the other bank of townhomes would be accessed. 13
14
Martin commented that Reid presented an interesting concept and stated that the 15
developer could provide input on that suggestion. She stated that she would like to see 16
greater accent materials and a better design with more curb appeal. She stated that she 17
also agrees with the staff and Planning Commission recommendations. 18
19
Cavanaugh asked where the six guest parking stalls would be located. 20
21
Finke replied that the guest parking was a staff recommendation and has therefore not 22
yet been shown on the plan. He noted that the applicant suggested a few potential 23
locations for the guest parking and confirmed there would be sufficient space to add 24
parking in those locations. 25
26
Cavanaugh asked where the snow would be stored. 27
28
Finke replied that the applicant can address that question. 29
30
Cavanaugh stated that the units have short driveways and if snow is stored at the end of 31
the road it would make it difficult for end units to turn their vehicles around. He stated 32
that he would be keener to reach the density of 24 units or changing the product offered. 33
He stated that the second layout includes an option of six units per building. 34
35
Martin asked the square footage of the interior of the units. 36
37
Finke stated that he can attempt to pull that information out of the plans. 38
39
Martin stated that perhaps the square footage of the units could be reduced in order to 40
reach the density. 41
42
Cavanaugh agreed that the units seem large and perhaps the unit size could be reduced 43
to meet some of the standards. 44
45
Finke estimated about 2,200 square feet per unit. 46
47
Albers stated that in reviewing the layout he is concerned with the setback of only 20 48
feet from the local road. He stated that he also echoes the comments of Reid that there 49
is something lacking in terms of architectural design. 50
51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 5
February 16, 2021
DesLauriers stated that he is very concerned with the 20-foot setback and would like to 1
find a way to better meet that setback. He asked for clarification on driveway length. 2
3
Finke replied that the distance would depend upon how the townhome units would be 4
platted. He stated that in other townhome developments in the community the distance 5
is more likely to be 27 feet from garage to the drive aisle, whereas this would propose 22 6
feet. He stated that this development would propose a wider drive aisle between the 7
units than would be required, which would balance that out. 8
9
DesLauriers stated that he would like to see the maximum hardcover for the site as it 10
appears a lot of this would be hardcover. He asked what 80 percent of the median 11
income would equate to for the affordable housing units. He stated that he is also 12
concerned with snow storage and parking for guests as there is not much room in the 13
driveways. 14
15
Martin asked if the public street would provide opportunities for guest parking as well. 16
17
Finke replied that the public street would most likely not provide options for parking 18
because of the curved alignment of the street. 19
20
Martin commented that if the units each have three or four units, with the garage and 21
parking, the site seems tight. 22
23
Reid noted that the neighboring retail area is lightly used and typically has excess 24
parking. 25
26
Martin commented that there would not be a legal right for the townhome residents to 27
park in that area but perhaps a cross parking easement could be secured by the 28
applicant. 29
30
Finke commented that the current Metropolitan Council figures show a three-bedroom 31
unit at 80 percent of the median income for the area to be approximately $2,100 per 32
month. 33
34
DesLauriers asked if the affordable housing units could then be charged rents of up to 35
$2,100. 36
37
Finke confirmed that to be true noting that the other units could have a higher rate if the 38
market demanded. 39
40
DesLauriers stated that during the Planning Commission meeting the comment was 41
made by the applicant that they would anticipate rents around $2,000 per month and 42
asked if the affordable units could then have higher rates than the other units. 43
44
Martin stated that there are concerns with how the units work on the site in light of 45
parking needs and snow storage as well as concern with the architectural presentation 46
of the units. She stated that the Council does also agree with the recommendations of 47
the staff and Planning Commission but would like to see additional elements added in 48
order to enhance the curbside appearance. 49
50
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 6
February 16, 2021
Reid stated that this is an opportunity for have a lovely townhouse development and 1
does not want to miss that opportunity but does not believe this would qualify for a PUD. 2
3
Finke provided a summary on the infrastructure proposed including the roadway. He 4
stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing at its meeting the previous 5
week and Commissioners generally supported the townhome use and some flexibility in 6
the setback in order to support that use. He noted that Commissioners also expressed 7
similar concern in the tightness of the site as additional guest parking will need to be 8
incorporated as well. He stated that the City does have a great deal of discretion when 9
reviewing PUD’s and noted that it is important to compare a PUD proposal to the 10
underlying standards rather than to alternative land use or no development. He stated 11
that part of that consideration is how many items are being requested for flexibility. He 12
noted that in this case the main flexibility is the front setback, as the other elements 13
generally meet the zoning requirements. He noted that the intent is for the Council to 14
provide comments tonight and no formal action is requested tonight. 15
16
Martin noted that there is a tot lot proposed, but sometimes the people that need some 17
space are adolescents and was unsure if a sports court or other similar type of amenity 18
could be provided, recognizing the tightness of the site. 19
20
DesLauriers stated that it was noted that there may be sidewalks connecting in the 21
future and asked for details. 22
23
Finke replied that the comment was to provide the sidewalk/trail connections along the 24
western portion and through the site along the public roadway in order to provide a 25
connected network. 26
27
Shane LaFave, representing the applicant, expressed appreciation for this opportunity to 28
gather input from both the Planning Commission the previous week and the Council 29
tonight. He stated that they see the most demand in this area for families to have a 30
rental option in Medina and within the Orono School District. He stated that there is a 31
huge demand but lack of supply for rental housing. He noted that three- and four-32
bedroom units would provide that opportunity for families and advised that they would be 33
happy to show that market demand with the Council. He stated that they are attempting 34
to target those families that have a need for rental units with three or four bedrooms. He 35
commented that the affordable units would be a maximum of $2,100, or whatever the 36
market demands, and the affordable units would never be more expensive than the 37
other units. He stated that they are proposing 24 units on the site in order to meet the 38
Comprehensive Plan requirement for density. He stated that if the setback were not 39
reduced, they would only be able to fit 18 units on the site. He stated that they would 40
need flexibility either from the setback requirement or the density requirement in order to 41
make this type of project feasible. He stated that the guest parking arose during the 42
input from the Planning Commission and they have not yet had a chance to update the 43
plan but agree there needs to be guest parking and room for snow storage. He noted 44
that the updated plans would also include more dimensions in order to provide additional 45
information. He confirmed that they would also work to improve the design, noting that 46
these plans are only at about five percent completion and confirmed that they would 47
improve the architectural design as they continue to work on the plans. 48
49
Martin expressed appreciation for the presentation from the developer along with the 50
staff analysis and review of the Planning Commission. 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 7
February 16, 2021
1
B. Call for Special 6:00 p.m. Worksessions on February 23rd and March 2nd to 2
Discussion Diamond Lake Regional Trail (7:53 p.m.) 3
Johnson asked if the Council would be comfortable setting dates of February 23rd and 4
March 2nd for continued review of the Diamond Lake Regional Trail. 5
6
Albers asked if the February 23rd meeting would be an additional worksession as he 7
does not notice a regular Council meeting to follow. 8
9
Johnson confirmed that would be a special worksession without a regular Council 10
meeting. 11
12
Albers asked if that start time could begin at 7:00 p.m. rather than 6:00 p.m. 13
14
Martin stated that it was announced to the public that the time would be proposed for 15
6:00 p.m. during the meeting that took place earlier tonight and therefore would prefer to 16
stay with that time. 17
18
Albers commented that he has a conflict at that time but could work it out. 19
20
Martin noted that the meeting will be recorded, and minutes will be provided if he has a 21
conflict and cannot attend. She stated that most of those that participated tonight have 22
provided email addresses and therefore staff could send an email that the start time has 23
been changed if desired. 24
25
DesLauriers stated that he would prefer the 6:00 p.m. time because that time was 26
announced earlier tonight with 45 people virtually attending. 27
28
Cavanaugh commented that he would also prefer 6:00 p.m. as that would provide 29
additional time should the meeting length run long. 30
31
Martin confirmed the consensus of the Council to have a 6:00 p.m. start time. She noted 32
that the meeting will be recorded, and Albers could join the meeting when available. 33
34
Albers commented that most likely he could listen in but would have limited ability to 35
comment during that time. 36
37
Moved by Martin, seconded by DesLauriers, to call for special Council Worksession 38
meetings at 6:00 p.m. on February 23, 2021 and March 2, 2021 to discuss the Diamond 39
Lake Regional Trail. 40
41
A roll call vote was performed: 42
43
Reid aye 44
Cavanaugh aye 45
DesLauriers aye 46
Martin aye 47
Albers aye 48
49
Motion passed unanimously 50
51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 8
February 16, 2021
VIII. OLD BUSINESS 1
2
A. Hackamore Road Improvement Project (7:58 p.m.) 3
Johnson provided background information on the request. 4
5
Stremel identified the corridor for the project and stated that this is a joint project 6
between Medina and Corcoran. He noted that this joint planning process would attempt 7
to identify the design, improve pedestrian mobility, review, and improve deficient access, 8
accommodate future development and potential access points, and identify the right-of-9
way needs and stormwater management opportunities. He stated that this will allow the 10
cities to request the needed improvements as developments come forward in the 11
corridor. He reviewed photographs of both the urban and rural sections of roadways 12
along with current conditions. He reviewed some of the activity that has taken place 13
including stakeholder engagement, traffic forecasting and analysis for future 14
developments, review of design alternatives, options for project phasing, and project 15
cost estimates. He provided a brief review of the design elements between option one 16
and option two. He stated that generally the road would have rural sections but there 17
would be curb required in some sections. He stated that the final alignment of the trail 18
and either option shown could be incorporated into design. He reviewed sketches of the 19
different road segments, noting that the differences are typically in striping and not width 20
of the road, and highlighted some of the differences between the two options for the 21
different segments. He reviewed details related to cost, noting that costs continue to be 22
broken up by phasing and the next design phase would dig further into those costs. He 23
provided information on the potential grant opportunity, noting that it is a competitive 24
grant. He stated that if the grant is awarded, they would have to design the road to State 25
Aid requirements but noted that the road is a State Aid road and therefore would already 26
be required to meet MSA standards. He reviewed the recommended next steps which 27
would include authorization for WSB to complete 75 percent design along with 28
submission of the LRIP grant application. He noted that during the last discussion both 29
Medina and Corcoran preferred option two with the desire for additional bicycle mobility. 30
He reviewed the elements that would be further reviewed during the 75 percent design 31
process. 32
33
Martin asked the extent of which drafting the grant application and the 75 percent design 34
is within the current budget. 35
36
Scherer commented that he does believe this phase of the project was included in the 37
capital plan. He reiterated the importance of having this knowledge prior to receiving 38
development proposals to require the improvements as those projects move forward. 39
He noted that if it is done in that manner, the ultimate cost to the City for completion of 40
the remaining sections would be much less. He stated that the hardcover, both existing 41
and new, will need to be treated for stormwater and therefore it is important that those 42
elements could possibly be provided through adjacent development rather than solely by 43
the cities. 44
45
Stremel provided additional information on the design cost and cost for completion and 46
submission of the grant application, noting that the costs would be split between the 47
cities. 48
49
Martin asked if the cost from WSB would be billed separately to each city. 50
51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 9
February 16, 2021
Stremel stated that WSB has been routing the billing through Medina but can speak with 1
staff if the process should be changed. 2
3
Martin commented that it would be important to her that Corcoran be billed individually 4
as that city has agreed to share the cost equally. She asked if there would be any 5
additional cost for right-of-way acquisition as shown in the cost estimate. 6
7
Stremel replied that right-of-way acquisition has not been included but some cost for 8
wetland mitigation has been included. He noted that further cost refinement would come 9
forward in the next design stage. 10
11
Martin asked if there is a sense of the right-of-way that could be needed or whether the 12
work could occur within existing right-of-way. 13
14
Stremel replied that there will need to be space for wetland mitigation but noted that he 15
does not have that detail at this time. He confirmed that would be included in the next 16
design phase and confirmed that discussion would follow between the two cities as to 17
how those improvement costs would be allocated in the future. 18
19
Martin commented that she would be comfortable contributing the costs from Medina but 20
would not want to see Medina legally responsible for the entire cost and then to bill 21
Corcoran for its share. She commented that she would want the cities billed separately. 22
23
Stremel noted that he has written down that concern and will address it with staff. 24
25
Cavanaugh agreed on the limitation of liability to only be the Medina portion of the cost 26
and not the entire cost. 27
28
DesLauriers agreed that Medina should only be liable for its share of the cost and 29
Corcoran should be billed separately. He recognized that the cost for preparation of the 30
grant would be split separately and asked if the grant funds are awarded would those 31
funds then be split equally between the two cities. 32
33
Johnson commented that if the cost of the application is split, whatever monies are 34
received from a grant should be allocated accordingly. 35
36
Martin stated that in the event that the cost to submit the grant is not equally split, the 37
grant funds awarded should match the allocation of funds towards the grant application. 38
She stated that she would be willing for Medina to pay the $4,000 up front because of 39
the deadline for submission, with the idea that Corcoran would reimburse Medina for its 40
$2,000 share. She stated that in that case, if funds are awarded, the $4,000 Medina 41
contributed could be reimbursed. She asked how staff would address the cost-split for 42
the 75 percent design costs. 43
44
Johnson commented that WSB will invoice Corcoran for their $24,000 for the 75 percent 45
design and $2,000 for the grant submission. 46
47
Martin asked if there would be sufficient time for Corcoran to have their Council consider 48
this and still submit the grant application in time. She again commented that she would 49
be comfortable with Medina submitting the grant application and if Corcoran does not 50
reimburse for its $2,000, any grant funds received would be to Medina. She suggested 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 10
February 16, 2021
that the Council authorize staff to submit the grant application with Medina funding the 1
$4,000 and requesting Corcoran to reimburse its $2,000. She stated that she would also 2
suggest that Medina approve the 75 percent design process with authorization for its 3
$24,000 and WSB billing Corcoran for its respective share. 4
5
Johnson asked Stremel if Corcoran acted at its last Council meeting to approve these 6
actions. 7
8
Stremel confirmed that he virtually attended the meeting, and the Corcoran Council 9
completed a similar action, solidifying the preference for option two, providing a letter of 10
support for the grant application, and authorizing preparation of the 75 percent design. 11
12
1. Resolution No. 2021-12 Authorizing Submission of Local Road 13
Improvement Program (LRIP) Grant Application for Hackamore Road 14
Improvement Project 15
Moved by Martin, seconded by Reid, to adopt Resolution No. 2021-12 Authorizing 16
Submission of Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP) Grant Application for 17
Hackamore Road Improvement Project directing staff to submit the application in the 18
name of Medina with Medina funding the $4,000 cost to WSB and then requesting 19
reimbursement from Corcoran in the amount of $2,000 and to authorize WSB to proceed 20
with 75 percent design of the Hackamore Road Improvement Project, endorsing option 21
two, and pay half of the cost up to the not-to-exceed cost described in the scope of 22
services in the amount of $24,000 with WSB to request authorization and payment of the 23
remaining $24,000 from the City of Corcoran. 24
25
A roll call vote was performed: 26
27
Cavanaugh aye 28
Reid aye 29
Albers aye 30
DesLauriers aye 31
Martin aye 32
33
Motion passed unanimously. 34
35
IX. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT (8:32 p.m.) 36
37
A. Future Fire Service Planning Update 38
Johnson advised that the most recent meeting was held on February 11th with all cities 39
sending at least one representative. He stated that Orono is interested in having its own 40
Fire Department and is not interested in having Long Lake provide service once that 41
contract expires according to their Mayor. He noted that a Corcoran City Council 42
Member stated that they are not interested in a Fire Service District. He noted that the 43
remaining cities in attendance are willing to attend the March meeting and continue to 44
review options for joint fire services. He thanked the City Council for their work on the 45
Hamel Contract as presented on the Consent Agenda. He noted that Maple Plain is 46
currently reviewing the amended agreement. 47
48
Martin noted that the Mayor of Corcoran has stated that he will attend the March 49
meeting. 50
51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 11
February 16, 2021
X. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (8:35 p.m.) 1
Martin commented that she and Cavanaugh attended a presentation from Inter Faith 2
Outreach related to affordable housing the previous week and advised that Johnson 3
circulated the materials from the meeting. She recognized the efforts that other 4
members of the Council have been involved with related to their liaison positions. 5
6
Martin congratulated Nelson on his appointment by Hennepin County to represent small 7
cities on its Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee. 8
9
Scherer reported that the City received eight applications for the Public Works position 10
noting that interviews will be held later this week for five of those applicants. He was 11
hopeful that they would find the right candidate. 12
13
XI. APPROVAL TO PAY THE BILLS (8:37 p.m.) 14
Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Cavanaugh, to approve the bills, EFT 005819E-15
005833E for $59,037.00, order check numbers 051254-051303 for $147,856.61, and 16
payroll EFT 0510800-0510832 for $57,344.97. 17
18
A roll call vote was performed: 19
20
Reid aye 21
Albers aye 22
DesLauriers aye 23
Cavanaugh aye 24
Martin aye 25
26
Motion passed unanimously. 27
28
XII. ADJOURN 29
Moved by Cavanaugh, seconded by Reid, to adjourn the meeting at 8:39 p.m. 30
31
A roll call vote was performed: 32
33
DesLauriers aye 34
Albers aye 35
Cavanaugh aye 36
Reid aye 37
Martin aye 38
39
Motion passed unanimously. 40
41
__________________________________ 42
Kathleen Martin, Mayor 43
Attest: 44
45
____________________________________ 46
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk 47
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 1
February 23, 2021
DRAFT 1
2
MEDINA CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION CONCURRENT WORK 3
SESSION MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 2021 4
5
The City Council and Park Commission of Medina, Minnesota met in work session on 6
February 23, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Martin presided. 7
8
Martin read a statement explaining that this meeting is being held in a virtual format 9
because of the ongoing pandemic. She provided instructions for public participation. 10
11
I. ROLL CALL 12
13
Council Members present: Albers, Cavanaugh, DesLauriers, Martin, and Reid. 14
15
Council Members absent: None. 16
17
Park Commission Members present: Bernhardt, Hutchinson, Jacob, Morrison, Sharp, 18
and Norman (arrived at 7:16 p.m.). 19
20
Park Commission Members absent: Lee. 21
22
Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, Assistant City Administrator Jodi 23
Gallup, City Attorney Ron Batty, Finance Director Erin Barnhart, City Planning Director 24
Dusty Finke, and Public Works Director Steve Scherer 25
26
II. DIAMOND LAKE REGIONAL TRAIL 27
Martin commented that this meeting is a continuation of the joint worksession of the Park 28
Commission and City Council the previous week with Three Rivers Park District to 29
discuss the Diamond Lake Regional Trail. She stated that the meeting tonight should 30
focus on public comments with a meeting to follow the next week devoted to deliberation 31
by the Council and Park Commission. 32
33
Kelly Grissman, Three Rivers Park District, provided brief overview and background on 34
the Diamond Lake Regional Trail. She stated that they are looking to better define the 35
route for the trail in order to acquire property for the trail segments from willing sellers 36
and developers as it becomes available. She stated that this is envisioned as a 20-to-37
30-year process. She stated that a community has never regretted the recreational 38
amenity once the trail project is completed. She noted that circumstances change over 39
time and even the most reluctant property owner sometimes becomes a willing seller, 40
and this planning process allows the Park District to be prepared when those 41
opportunities arise. She provided a summary of some of the input that has been 42
received from the public thus far both in support and opposition. She stated that the 43
difference in feedback seems to be between the different areas of Medina and whether 44
the property owner would be impacted. She recognized that there are challenges in 45
developing a regional trail corridor and confirmed that there is still work to do in order to 46
provide a route that would best meet the desires of the public. She welcomed additional 47
input from the public related to the proposed route. 48
49
Stewart Crosby, SRF, stated that he is working with the Park District on the trail project 50
and provided a brief overview of the routes that have been reviewed and considered 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 2
February 23, 2021
along with the preferred route through Medina. He noted that the trail would run a total 1
of 21 miles and travel through multiple communities. 2
3
Martin emphasized that the Council will not take any action in regard to a trail route but 4
will instead listen to input on the route and possible changes that would make the route 5
more palatable to residents. She thanked all residents that have submitted written 6
comments. She recognized the balance between providing recreational opportunities 7
with protecting the rural character of Medina and the privacy of its residents. 8
9
Neil Lapidus, 2200 Hollybush Road, commented that he is opposed to the regional trail 10
western route as it comes very close to his property. He stated that he has also had the 11
opportunity to reach five of the seven members of his neighborhood association and 12
those members are also strongly opposed to the western segment. He stated that the 13
property and privacy of the rural environment is important to the residents. He stated 14
that this would now suggest that be converted to a linear trail. He commented that it is 15
complicated to map out a linear trail and noted that unless there is abandoned property 16
there would be too much resistance without guarantee that it could be completed. He 17
commented that Baker Park has a complete trail system three miles from this location 18
and therefore he did not believe it to be a wise choice to select this location. He stated 19
that if the Park District and City are looking to enhance the park and trail system, they 20
should look to existing trails that could be further connected and enhanced. 21
22
Abdhish Bhavsar, 2105 Chestnut Road, stated that the preferred route seems to run 23
along his eastern property line that is currently shared with another family. He 24
commented that he was unsure how a trail 16 feet in width would not disrupt the existing 25
pastures. He did not think it would be fair to change horse trails into bike trails. He 26
stated that this alignment would dramatically change the rural character of very quiet 27
dead-end streets by significantly increasing traffic. He stated that this would also bring 28
trail users across the property of many families and impact those around the trail. He 29
asked that everyone consider that impact, even if it does not directly impact their 30
property. He noted that most residents moved to Medina because of the rural character 31
and would like to protect that right for private property to remain rural and private. 32
33
Martha Van de Ven, 1765 Medina Road, referenced the statement that this is a 30-year 34
vision noting that she has lived in Medina for 40 years. She stated that she feels that the 35
regional trail proposal south of Highway 55 should be no place other than along CR 19. 36
She stated that they do not need north/south bike routes through Medina every three 37
miles as that is a violation of the greenspace that Medina residents moved to Medina to 38
enjoy. She believed that the regional trail should be connected to the bike trail along CR 39
19 and could connect to the trail in Baker Park. She did not believe additional trails are 40
needed that close in proximity. She stated that she also submitted written comments via 41
email prior to the meeting. 42
43
Tim Healy, 1500 Tamarack, echoed the comments of the previous speaker in that 44
another route is not needed in Medina. He asked why additional funds would be spent 45
when there are trails and roads available to walk and bike. He did not think another trail 46
is needed and noted that he was concerned that if there is opposition to the west an 47
alternate route could impact other property owners. He commented that he was not 48
made aware of this meeting until eight days ago and asked if online comments would 49
still be accepted. 50
51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 3
February 23, 2021
Martin stated that there has been some confusion with the notices that were mailed but 1
believed that the notices have been comprehensive in the number of residents reached. 2
She commented that additional comments could be submitted in writing if something is 3
overlooked tonight. She noted that the Park Commission and City Council will be 4
holding an additional meeting to further discuss the matter but still would not be taking 5
formal action tonight. 6
7
Healy asked if the residents would be notified if the proposed route is changed. 8
9
Grissman replied that if there are additional changes or opportunities to better or more 10
thoroughly engage residents, the Park District would work hard to provide those 11
opportunities. 12
13
Martin commented that Medina staff also works hard to update the City website with that 14
information. 15
16
David Huart, representing Jack and Joanne Wahlfors, 1525 Deerhill Road, commented 17
that they were made aware of the project two days ago and listened to the February 16th 18
meeting online. He stated that the Wahlfors are in their upper 80s and are not 19
technologically savvy and therefore were not aware of the project. He stated that the 20
proposed route appears to enter their property in the northeast corner and take a 21
circuitous route through their parcel. He noted that the route would go through the berry 22
and pumpkin fields on the property. He stated that if the intention is to provide 23
connection, that could be done along Deerhill Road rather than dissecting this property. 24
He stated that the Wahlfors family has owned this property since the late 1800’s and 25
have many generations of labor invested in the property. He thanked Hellen Healy who 26
spoke at the last meeting expressing concern on part of the Wahlfors. He asked that 27
thought be given to the investment that the Wahlfors have made to their property and 28
whether the rights of the private property owners and natural resources are greater than 29
recreation. 30
31
Sara Welch, 1752 County Road 24, stated that in July she noticed a sign in Wayzata 32
that said help plan the next regional trail and were surprised to see a proposed 33
alignment that snaked through their private property. She stated that she and her 34
husband have no interest in another trail in the area. She agreed that the trail could be 35
routed to CR 19. She stated that her property was purchased for private use and not 36
public use, noting that the trail goes through 12 acres of their private land. She stated 37
that the vast majority of Medina residents are not interested in additional trails that go 38
through greenspace and hoped that the Mayor and Council support the desires of the 39
residents to protect Medina’s greenspace. 40
41
Robin Johnson stated that she is in a unique circumstance as she owns property on 42
Tamarack that is split between Orono and Medina. She stated that she currently 43
operates a nonprofit farm sanctuary, and the preferred route would go through both her 44
Medina and Orono properties. She stated that she is upset and anxious over this issue 45
and cannot believe that a route that goes through private property is being discussed. 46
She stated that she will not sell her property. She noted that she attended the Orono 47
Council meeting the previous night and that Council stated that they would not run the 48
trail through private property and said it will not consider that type of route. She stated 49
that like everyone before her, she is opposed. She asked when the meeting would be 50
held where the Council would say that this trail will not work. 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 4
February 23, 2021
1
Martin stated that the Council and Park Commission will have a meeting the following 2
Tuesday, March 2nd to discuss the project and input received. She stated that a decision 3
may not be made but the members would be providing their views. 4
5
Robin Johnson asked why the Orono Council stated right away that their job is to 6
represent their residents and asked why Medina does not feel the same way. 7
8
Martin commented that the Council may feel in a similar manner, but they believe in 9
permitting residents the ability to provide their input. She commented that Orono tends 10
to follow a top-down communication style while Medina follows an open communication 11
style which is why they are providing the opportunity to listen to everyone. 12
13
Quinn Montgomery, 1815 Morgan Road, commented that the Park District talked about 14
this being a 30-year vision but noted that this would impact property values immediately. 15
He stated that many people have said that if they would have known about this trail, they 16
would not have purchased the property, and therefore if this alignment is out there it will 17
be difficult to sell properties impacted. He noted that one of the routes runs through their 18
property and it would be devastating and has stressed out his family. He stated that this 19
puts neighbor against neighbor, as moving the alignment simply shifts that burden to 20
other members of the community. He asked where the need for the trail comes from as 21
the previous presentation stated that most comments were in opposition of the trail. He 22
stated that it does not sound like there is much of a need for this solution. 23
24
Martin commented that there is a strong regional government in the metro area which 25
includes planning for communities to grow in a coordinated fashion. She noted that the 26
Metropolitan Council plans not only trails but other elements such as transit systems and 27
density requirements. She stated that Medina has been brought in because the Three 28
Rivers Park District would like to plan and collaborate with the cities it would like to place 29
routes, which is how this came to be. She stated that the Council is listening tonight and 30
not deciding anything. She thanked everyone for the comments they have provided 31
tonight as well as through email prior to tonight’s meeting. 32
33
T. Cody Turnquist, 2000 Chestnut Road, thanked the Park Commission and Council for 34
listening to the public input. He stated that his family has lived on the property for over 35
40 years, noting that he and his wife recently purchased the property from his parents 36
and hope to continue to raise their family on the property. He echoed the comments of 37
the previous speakers. He noted that the way they run their farm on their property would 38
be in jeopardy with this trail, as the trail would run adjacent to their horse fences and 39
across their hay fields. He stated that when people come to his property, he has to 40
educate them as to how to interact with livestock and he would not have the opportunity 41
to educate members of the public that would use a trail running through his property. He 42
commented that the aerial imagery is rather deceptive, noting that the trail segment on 43
his property is less than 2.5 miles from 2,500 acres of property owned by the Park 44
District. He encouraged the Park District to look at how the trail could be directed 45
through its own property. 46
47
Kirsten Chapman, 1575 and 1535 N Willow Drive, thanked the Council for opening up 48
this meeting to receive public input. She stated that she recently sold a property on 49
Iroquois that would have a segment run along the property. She sympathized with the 50
different areas within the City because the northern area is controlled development and 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 5
February 23, 2021
the southern area is large rural lots. She was unsure that there would be a good way to 1
reconcile that difference. She stated that her biggest concern is the protection of 2
Wolsfeld Woods. She stated that as development increases, the rules of that natural 3
area are often violated. She commented that Wolsfeld Woods is one of the largest 4
scientific wooded areas in this region. She believed that Three Rivers Park could use 5
existing Medina trails to connect to other communities. She stated that she would not be 6
opposed to segments that would run along the roads, as the roads in the southern 7
portion of Medina are rural and would still provide that nature like feel. She suggested 8
that if this has to move forward, it should follow existing roads. She asked that this trail 9
stay away from Wolsfeld Woods, as an adjacent trail segment would encourage 10
pedestrians and cyclists to go into the woods. 11
12
Tim Sedabres, 3169 Cypress Circle S, thanked the Council and Commission for the time 13
they have put into listening and reading all of the comments. He stated that he hears the 14
concerns from those that do not want to disturb their personal property. He referenced 15
the population density on the east and north and stated that those residents like to walk, 16
and bike and it can be difficult to do on the shoulder of a road. He stated that residents 17
will benefit and use the trails. He stated that there is currently not a connection to the 18
Baker Park trails from the east. He stated that he would support either route and 19
believes that trail access would provide a benefit to the community. 20
21
Martin commented that persons in the more newly developed areas with younger 22
families have a greater desire for this type of trail. She stated that perhaps the trail could 23
run north of Highway 55 and stop around Highway 55. She recognized that people live 24
in different settings of the City and have different desires. 25
26
Minna Brooks, 4506 Oak Drive in Edina, stated that she is not a Medina resident and is 27
present in representation of the Brooks family that donated the land into conservancy for 28
Wolsfeld Woods. She stated that her family opposes this route because of the impact it 29
could have on the woods. She stated that she is sympathetic to the comments everyone 30
has made related to their emotions and property values. She commented that ultimately 31
conservation and natural preservation benefits everyone. She stated that she does not 32
understand why people are having to argue to save the Earth. She stated that Wolsfeld 33
Woods was donated with the purpose of protecting the land from development and is 34
designated as a scientific and natural area. She stated that her family is opposed to the 35
alignment that would run adjacent to the woods. 36
37
Bridget Anderson, 1512 Deerhill Road, stated that they moved here one year ago and 38
feel fortunate to have found this special place in the woods. She referenced the western 39
alignment and noted that they are opposed to that route. She stated that they are not 40
opposed to making bike trails and connections for people to visit the great area they 41
have found. She stated that regional trails bring a large number of users, noting that 42
projections are often three times lower than the actual number of users. She stated that 43
regional trails also bring cars and traffic that park on residential roads in order to access 44
trails. She commented that Three Rivers Park District builds great trails but that should 45
be done in the public right-of-way. She stated that if a trail must go through, it should 46
follow public right-of-way. She suggested the Council form a task force with 47
stakeholders, including impacted property owners, to continue to guide this process. 48
49
Rich Wallin, 2022 Medina Road, stated that they love Medina and sought this area for a 50
specific reason, the majesty and privacy of this area. He noted that this trail would run 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 6
February 23, 2021
adjacent to their seven acres of property. He stated that while they appreciate the 1
benefit trails provide to a community, they are opposed to this. He stated that increased 2
trail traffic would impact dogs, horses, and the rural character that residents moved to 3
this area to enjoy. He stated that they would support an alternate route but would not 4
support a route in places it was not meant to exist. He stated that some neighborhoods 5
would welcome a trail amenity while others oppose it and prefer their privacy. He 6
recognized that this is a challenging endeavor to find a route that pleases everyone but 7
commented that the south portion of Medina is home to many residents who moved 8
there to have privacy. He stated that this is a tough time, and the timing could not be 9
worse to impose additional anxiety. He asked the Council to shelve this and think of a 10
better time when the community could come together to find a reasonable solution. 11
12
Brian Luedtke, 2650 Bantle Farm Road, stated that he also represents his neighbors. 13
He stated that Three Rivers has not been clear in displaying this alternate route. He 14
commented that his neighbors would abut the trail segment and are concerned with the 15
disturbance to the wetland and wildlife. He stated that he moved to Medina to have a 16
large piece of property and does not want a bike path in his backyard or his neighbor’s 17
yard. He suggested that Three Rivers spend the time and money enhancing trails within 18
their own property. He stated that he has spoken with ten of the largest property owners 19
that are not willing to sell their property and are also willing to place a clause in the sale 20
of their property that trail easements not be provided. 21
22
Michael Fine, 550 Navajo Road, commented that he is incredibly encouraged by the 23
thoughtfulness and well-articulated arguments from the public. He stated that he is 24
proud to be a Medina resident. He applauded a previous comment where someone 25
stated that they are not just opposed to this alignment but the alternate alignments that 26
would run along private property. He agreed that this trail could run along CR 19. He 27
strongly urged there being further review of the 40 percent of comments in support made 28
online, noting that they may not be Medina residents. He understood that someone in 29
the Enclave would support this amenity as something nice to have but noted that the 30
other residents moved to Medina because they wanted large open spaces and do not 31
want this trail along their properties. He stated that there is something available to the 32
west and people can walk along roads, such as Medina Road, without fear of wellbeing 33
from vehicles. He believed a thoughtful route could be developed along public roads but 34
did not believe the western area was the right route. He stated that perhaps the 35
comments in support are coming from the higher density residential areas. He noted 36
that the rural Medina residents have already put up with the higher density residential 37
areas that have come forward. He stated that if there is an urgency to connect to other 38
communities in the north, that could be done along CR 19. 39
40
Angela Erickson stated that she represents many of the Hunter Drive residents which 41
would be impacted by the eastern route. She stated that they felt some relief after the 42
last call. She stated that they have joined together to keep the bike route out of Hunter 43
Drive but have realized that they should also join together with the other residents to 44
state that the trail is simply not wanted in the community. She stated that the Hunter 45
Drive residents do not want this in their neighborhood but also do not wish this on other 46
residents along other proposed routes. 47
48
Tim Schock representing his parents who live at 2075 Cottonwood Trail, commented 49
that he is disappointed to see what has been taking place through this process. He 50
stated that the recommended route was not even part of the original proposal prior to 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 7
February 23, 2021
February 16th. He stated that all the comments received prior to that time and the public 1
engagement had been focused on the original corridor, therefore tonight is the first 2
opportunity to comment on the recommended route itself. He noted that he has listened 3
to the October 28th and February 16th meetings. He stated that the goal has been stated 4
as a linear trail that goes through nature, noting that the first two routes were along 5
public roads and therefore that does not make sense. He stated that it seems those 6
routes were put out there in order to create a backlash on road-based routes in order to 7
bring this route forward. He noted that this route would go directly through the horse 8
pastures of his parents’ property. He noted that the path would not just take 16 feet but 9
would take the entire use of the land. He stated that his parents’ property is a world-10
renowned equine farm. He stated that the question seems to be how this could be done 11
rather than whether it should be done. He did not believe there has been proper 12
consideration of the risks to the private land. He stated that most of the people on the 13
call have been overwhelmingly opposed to this and hoped that the Council would take 14
that into consideration. 15
16
Neil Bhavsar, 2501 Chestnut Road, stated that he has grown up in Medina and as a 17
resident he is worried about the trail bringing in people that would otherwise not be in the 18
backyards of Medina residents. He stated that many Medina residents own livestock 19
and horses and having a large amount of traffic would disrupt those animals. He stated 20
that the safety of the animals should be a part of this discussion. 21
22
Rachelle Rossini stated that Three Rivers Park District has stated that this is decades 23
away so it does not need to be worried about but noted that it will impact property values 24
now. She stated that the Park District also stated that they do not work with unwilling 25
sellers but that does not mean that your neighbor may not sell. She stated that she does 26
not want this anywhere in Medina. She stated that it was commented that the western 27
route would only go through 14 properties, but the denser Enclave is more likely the area 28
that would support this. She commended the Orono Council for making a statement the 29
previous night that it would need a good reason to disrupt private property and this 30
would be a hard no. She stated that Medina has the right to say it does not want this. 31
She stated that she has not seen any property owner that would be impacted support 32
this project. 33
34
Jennifer Dobbs echoed the comments made thus far. She stated that she also 35
represents the other members of her family that own 72 contiguous acres along Morgan 36
Road. She stated that they are opposed to the recommended trail route due to the 37
invasion of their privacy, the disruption to wetlands and natural areas, and the threat to 38
privacy. She stated that there are trails in Baker Park and along CR 19 that could 39
instead be further developed. She stated that they have horses on their property, and 40
they are not used to interacting with strangers. She noted that it would be a safety 41
concern not only to the horses but the users of the trails. She referenced the planned 42
local trail identified with the green dotted line and asked what that would entail and how 43
it is related to the western route as those would be further disruptive to private property. 44
45
Finke stated that the City’s trail plan has a turf trail in the designated location northwest 46
of Morgan Road and was based on historic horse trails in the area. 47
48
Martin stated that this has been a wonderful dialogue and it has been great to hear 49
people express their concerns respectfully. She thanked everyone for their input noting 50
that the Council welcomes input from residents before making decisions. She stated 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 8
February 23, 2021
that the March 2nd worksession will be reserved for deliberations by the Park 1
Commission and City Council in light of the community input. She stated that additional 2
input could be provided in writing prior to that time but public input will not be gathered 3
during that meeting. 4
5
III. ADJOURN 6
Moved by Albers, seconded by Reid, to adjourn the meeting on behalf of the City 7
Council at 7:53 p.m. 8
9
A roll call vote was performed: 10
11
DesLauriers aye 12
Albers aye 13
Cavanaugh aye 14
Reid aye 15
Martin aye 16
17
Motion passed unanimously. 18
19
Moved by Jacob, seconded by Morrison, to adjourn the meeting on behalf of the Park 20
Commission at 7:54 p.m. 21
22
A roll call vote was performed: 23
24
Norman aye 25
Morrison aye 26
Sharp aye 27
Bernhardt aye 28
Lee absent 29
Jacob aye 30
Hutchinson aye 31
32
Motion passed unanimously. 33
34
35
36
__________________________________ 37
Kathleen Martin, Mayor 38
Attest: 39
40
____________________________________ 41
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk 42
1
BALL FIELD RENTAL AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made this 2nd day of March 2021, by and between the city of Medina, a
municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota (the “City”) and the Orono Baseball
Association, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, herein called the “Licensee”.
WHEREAS, the Licensee desires to use the baseball field for youth baseball
owned by the City and located in the City’s Medina Morningside Park (the “Subject
Property”) depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto.
WHEREAS, the City is willing to allow the Licensee to use the Subject Property, subject to
certain terms and conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Licensee wish to have a written agreement memorializing
the terms and conditions under which the City and the Licensee will accomplish the above.
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the mutual covenants and obligations contained herein, the
parties agree as follows:
1. The City hereby grants the Licensee permission to use the Subject Property from May 1,
2021 through July 1, 2021 on Monday through Thursday evenings from 5:30 p.m. until 8
p.m.
2. The Licensee shall provide the City with a written schedule of any changes in the schedule
at least ten days prior to such use.
3. The Licensee shall maintain an insurance policy in the amount of $1,000,000, single limit
of liability per occurrence to protect itself and the City from claims and liability for injury
or damage to persons or property for all work performed by the Licensee and its
respective employees or agents under this Agreement. The Licensee shall name the City
as an additional insured under its general liability policy in limits acceptable to the City.
Prior to performing any services under this Agreement, the Licensee shall provide
evidence to the City that acceptable insurance coverage is effective.
4. The Licensee shall submit a damage and maintenance deposit in the amount of $500.00 to
the City prior to May 1, 2021. The City shall return the deposit to the Licensee, minus
expenses for any damage or maintenance to the Subject Property following inspection by
the City after July 1, 2021.
5. The City shall provide for regular mowing of the Subject Property.
6. The Licensee shall provide all equipment necessary to conduct baseball activities and
shall provide for all other regular maintenance of the Subject Property including but not
limited to chalk lining for normal ball field measurements and boundaries, grooming the
fields, filling in divets, re-establishing Ag Lime, and picking up all trash, paper, and debris
after use of the field.
Agenda Item # 5B
2
7. Upon termination of this Agreement, the Licensee agrees to remove from the Subject
Property all temporary structures, equipment and other items used by the Licensee, leave the
Subject Property free from debris and return the Subject Property to its condition prior to its
use by the Licensee.
8. The Licensee shall pay the City $400.00 for use of the Subject Property for the term of
this agreement. Payment of the $400.00 shall be submitted to the City by May 1, 2021.
9. The Licensee hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers,
employees and agents, from any liability, damages, claims, costs, judgments or expenses,
including reasonable attorneys’ fees, resulting directly or indirectly from the Licensee’s
use of the Subject Property.
10. The City may cancel, terminate, suspend or modify the terms of this Agreement upon
default by Licensee or failure of the Licensee to comply with this Agreement.
CITY OF MEDINA
By ________________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
By _________________________________
Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator
ORONO BASEBALL ASSOCIATION
(LICENSEE)
By________________________________
Its:_______________________
3
Exhibit A
Medina Morningside Park Ball Field
Subject Property
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jodi Gallup, Assistant City Administrator &
Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
DATE OF REPORT: February 24, 2021
DATE OF MEETING: March 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Public Works Maintenance Technician Appointment
General Background
At the January 19, 2021 regular meeting, the City Council authorized the recruitment to
fill a vacancy for a full-time Public Works Maintenance Technician position.
City staff received 8 applications seeking the full-time public works position. The top 5
candidates were invited in for interviews on February 18-19 with Public Works Director
Steve Scherer, Public Works Foreman Derek Reinking, Administrative Assistant Lisa
DeMars, and Assistant City Administrator Jodi Gallup. Staff conducted reference checks,
employment verifications, and a background check on our top candidate, and we feel that
we have selected the best overall person for this position.
Appointee Background
Nick Zumbusch’s background includes 6 years of municipal public works experience in
street maintenance and utilities with the cities of Hopkins and Bloomington. He holds a
Class D water license and Class S-D wastewater license. Nick also has 15 years of
experience in construction as an equipment operator and laborer for Buffalo Bituminous,
Knife River Corporation, Castle Rock Materials, and Tri-County Aggregate. He has a
strong skill set in operating equipment, street maintenance, utility operations, safe work
practices, and responding to emergency situations. It is our belief that Nick will be a great
addition to the City of Medina.
Recommendation
We recommend City Council approve the hiring of Nick Zumbusch to the position of
Public Works Maintenance Technician, effective March 22, 2021, contingent on passing
pre-employment drug screening, with a beginning hourly wage (non-exempt) of
$30.69/hr. and other benefits to be at the same rate as other non-union employees, in
accordance with the City Personnel Policies. A probationary period is recommended for
the position of 6-months, starting from the date of hire.
Agenda Item #5C
Resolution No. 2021-##
DATE
Member ____________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-##
RESOLUTION GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO
REQUEST FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR ADAMS SUBDIVISION;
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2020-20
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2020, the city of Medina adopted Resolution 2020-20, granting
preliminary approval to Jan-Har, LLP (the “Applicant”) of the plat of Adams Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, under the terms of said resolution, final approval was required to be requested
within 180 days of adoption of the resolution or the approval was to be considered void, unless a
written request for time extension is submitted by the Applicant and approved by the City Council;
and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested an extension of time to request final plat approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Medina,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The final plat application shall be filed by October 7, 2021 or the approval shall be
considered void, unless a written request for time extension is submitted by the
applicant and approved by the City Council.
2. Except as explicitly stated above, all terms and conditions of Resolution 2020-20 are
hereby reaffirmed.
Dated: .
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:
Agenda Item #5D
Resolution No. 2021-##
DATE
2
And the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Lisa DeMars, Administrative Assistant, Public Works and Planning
DATE: February 25, 2021
MEETING DATE: March 2, 2021
SUBJECT: MN BWSR - Wolsfeld SNA Ravine Stabilization Grant
GRANT TITLE: C21-2930 - 2021 Metro WBIF – South Fork Crow – City of Medina –
Wolsfeld SNA Ravine Stabilization for Medina, City of
The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) approved funding of the Wolsfeld Ravine
Stabilization Grant on February 2, 2021. Enclosed in your packet is the grant agreement between the
State of Minnesota, acting through its Board of Water and Soil Resources (Board) and the City of
Medina.
On October 20, 2020 Minnehaha Creek Watershed presented to Council a summary of the findings of
the Long Lake Subwatershed Assessment and to present the “Implementation Roadmap” to improve
water quality. The Wolsfeld Lake Ravine Project was one of the high priority projects identified in the
Assessment was the stabilization of a ravine draining into the southwest of Wolsfeld Lake.
The project is projected to result in a phosphorus load reduction of 46 lbs/yr, which would achieve the
projected load reduction necessary for Wolsfeld Lake. The estimated project cost is $290,196.
This project was identified as one of the best in terms of cost/benefit, estimated by load reduction/$.
The project was also identified as a shorter-term possibility because it would be constructed on public
land, within the DNR’s Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Area. Total Grant Awarded is
$232.157.00, with the city being responsible for 20%, and anything beyond the total grant.
Council moved to accept the Long Lake Subwatershed Assessment and Implementation Roadmap.
Council moved to direct staff to take actions to implement the Wolsfeld Lake Ravine Stabilization
Project, contingent upon funding from BWSR. Council moved to direct staff to include necessary
funding within the 2021 and 2022 CIP for the Wolsfeld Lake Ravine Stabilization Project.
City Attorney Ron Batty reviewed and did not have recommended changes to the agreement.
Staff recommendation:
Move forward with execution of the grant agreement.
Agenda Item #5E
Page 1 of 5
FY 2021 STATE OF MINNESOTA
BOARD OF WATER and SOIL RESOURCES
WATERSHED-BASED IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING
GRANT AGREEMENT
Vendor: 0000201685
PO#: 3000013130
This Grant Agreement is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Board of Water and Soil Resources (Board)
and Medina, City of, 2052 Cty Rd 24 Medina Minnesota 553409790 (Grantee).
This grant is for the following Grant Programs :
C21-2930 2021 Metro WBIF – Mississippi West – City of Medina – Wolsfeld SNA Ravine
Stabilization $232,157
Total Grant Awarded: $232,157
Recitals
1. The Laws of Minnesota 2019, 1st Special Session, Chapter 2, Article 2, Section 7(a), appropriated Clean Water Funds (CWF)
to the Board for the FY 2020-2021 Watershed-based Implementation Funding.
2. The Board adopted the FY 2020-2021 Clean Water Fund Watershed-based Implementation Funding Program Policy and
authorized the Watershed-based Implementation Funding Program through Board Order #19-54.
3. The Board adopted Board Order #19-54 to allocate funds for the FY 2020-2021 Watershed-based Implementation Funding
Program.
4. The Grantee has submitted a BWSR approved work plan for this Program which is incorporated into this Grant Agreement
by reference.
5. The Grantee represents that it is duly qualified and agrees to perform all services described in this Grant Agreement to the
satisfaction of the State.
6. As a condition of the grant, Grantee agrees to minimize administration costs.
Authorized Representative
The State’s Authorized Representative is Marcey Westrick, Clean Water Coordinator, BWSR, 520 Lafayette Road North,
Saint Paul, MN 55155, 651-284-4153, or his/her successor, and has the responsibility to monitor the Grantee’s performance and the
authority to accept the services and performance provided under this Grant Agreement.
The Grantee’s Authorized Representative is: Scott Johnson, City Administrator
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
763-473-8840
If the Grantee’s Authorized Representative changes at any time during this Grant Agreement, the Grantee must immediately notify
the Board.
Grant Agreement
1. Terms of the Grant Agreement.
1.1. Effective date: The date the Board obtains all required signatures under Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, Subd. 5. The State will notify
the Grantee when this Grant Agreement has been executed. The Grantee must not begin work under this Grant
Agreement until it is executed.
1.2. Expiration date: December 31, 2023, or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever comes first.
Page 2 of 5
1.3. Survival of Terms: The following clauses survive the expiration date or cancellation of this Grant Agreement: 7. Liability;
8. State Audits; 9. Government Data Practices; 11. Publicity and Endorsement; 12. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue;
14. Data Disclosure; and 19. Intellectual Property Rights.
2. Grantee’s Duties.
The Grantee will comply with required grants management policies and procedures set forth through Minn. Stat § 16B.97, Subd.
4(a)(1). The Grantee is responsible for the specific duties for the Program as follows:
2.1. Implementation: The Grantee will implement their work plan, which is incorporated into this Grant Agreement by
reference.
2.2. Reporting: All data and information provided in a Grantee’s report shall be considered public.
2.2.1. The Grantee will submit an annual progress report to the Board by February 1 of each year on the status of Program
implementation by the Grantee. Information provided must conform to the requirements and formats set by the
Board. All individual grants over $500,000 will also require a reporting expenditure by June 30 of each year.
2.2.2. The Grantee will prominently display on its website the Clean Water Legacy Logo and a link to the Legislative
Coordinating Commission website.
2.2.3. Final Progress Report: The Grantee will submit a final progress report to the Board by February 1, 2024 or within
30 days of completion of the project, whichever occurs sooner. Information provided must conform to the
requirements and formats set by the Board.
2.3. Match: The Grantee will ensure any local match requirement will be provided as stated in Grantee’s approved work plan.
3. Time.
The Grantee must comply with all the time requirements described in this Grant Agreement. In the performance of this Grant
Agreement, time is of the essence.
4. Terms of Payment.
4.1. Grant funds will be distributed in three installments: 1) The first payment of 50% will be distributed after the execution of
the Grant Agreement. 2) The second payment of 40% will be distributed after the first payment of 50% has been expended
and reporting requirements have been met. An eLINK Interim Financial Report that summarizes expenditures of the first
50% must be signed by the Grantee and approved by BWSR. Selected grantees may be required at this point to submit
documentation of the expenditures reported on the Interim Financial Report for verification. 3) The third payment of 10%
will be distributed after the grant has been fully expended and reporting requirements are met. The final, 10% payment
must be requested within 30 days of the expiration date of the Grant Agreement. An eLINK Final Financial Report that
summarizes final expenditures for the grant must be signed by the Grantee and approved by BWSR.
4.2. All costs must be incurred within the grant period.
4.3. All incurred costs must be paid before the amount of unspent funds is determined. Unspent grant funds must be returned
within 30 days of the expiration date of the Grant Agreement.
4.4. The obligation of the State under this Grant Agreement will not exceed the amount listed above.
4.5. This grant includes an advance payment of 50 % of the grant’s total amount. Advance payments allow the grantee to have
adequate operating capital for start-up costs, ensure their financial commitment to landowners and contractors, and to
better schedule work into the future.
5. Conditions of Payment.
5.1. All services provided by the Grantee under this Grant Agreement must be performed to the State’s satisfaction, as set
forth in this Grant Agreement and in the BWSR approved work plan for this program. Compliance will be determined at the
sole discretion of the State’s Authorized Representative and in accordance will all applicable federal, State, and local laws,
policies, ordinances, rules, FY 2020-2021 Clean Water Fund Watershed-based Implementation Funding Program Policy,
and regulations. The Grantee will not receive payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in
violation of federal, State or local law.
5.2. Minnesota Statutes §103C.401 (2018) establishes BWSR’s obligation to assure Program compliance. If the noncompliance
is severe, or if work under the Grant Agreement is found by BWSR to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal,
State, or local law, BWSR has the authority to require the repayment of grant funds or withhold payment on grants from
other programs.
6. Assignment, Amendments, and Waiver
6.1. Assignment. The Grantee may neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this Grant Agreement without the
prior consent of the State and a fully executed Assignment Agreement, executed and approved by the same parties who
executed and approved this Grant Agreement, or their successors in office.
Page 3 of 5
6.2. Amendments. Any amendments to this Grant Agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been
approved and executed by the same parties who approved and executed the original Grant Agreement, or their successors
in office. Amendments must be executed prior to the expiration of the original Grant Agreement or any amendments
thereto.
6.3. Waiver. If the State fails to enforce any provision of this Grant Agreement, that failure does not waive the provision or its
right to enforce it.
7. Liability.
The Grantee must indemnify, save, and hold the State, its agents, and employees harmless from any claims or causes of action,
including attorney’s fees incurred by the State, arising from the performance of this Grant Agreement by the Grantee or the
Grantee’s agents or employees. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies the Grantee may have for the State’s
failure to fulfill its obligations under this Grant Agreement.
8. State Audits.
Under Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, Subd. 8, the Grantee’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the
Grantee or other party relevant to this Grant Agreement or transaction are subject to examination by the Board and/or the
State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this Grant Agreement, receipt
and approval of all final reports, or the required period of time to satisfy all State and program retention requirements,
whichever is later.
8.1. The books, records, documents, accounting procedures and practices of the Grantee and its designated local units of
government and contractors relevant to this grant, may be examined at any time by the Board or Board’s designee and are
subject to verification. The Grantee or delegated local unit of government will maintain records relating to the receipt and
expenditure of grant funds.
9. Government Data Practices.
The Grantee and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all
data provided by the State under this Grant Agreement, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used,
maintained, or disseminated by the Grantee under this Grant Agreement. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the
release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Grantee or the State.
10. Workers’ Compensation.
The Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with Minn. Stat. § 176.181, Subd. 2, pertaining to workers’ compensation insurance
coverage. The Grantee’s employees and agents will not be considered State employees. Any claims that may arise under the
Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act on behalf of these employees and any claims made by any third party as a consequence
of any act or omission on the part of these employees are in no way the State’s obligation or responsibility.
11. Publicity and Endorsement.
11.1. Publicity. Any publicity regarding the subject matter of this Grant Agreement must identify the Board as the sponsoring
agency. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research,
reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Grantee individually or jointly with others, or any
subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from this Grant Agreement.
11.2. Endorsement. The Grantee must not claim that the State endorses its products or services
12. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue.
Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this Grant Agreement. Venue for all legal proceedings
out of this Grant Agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate State or federal court with competent jurisdiction in
Ramsey County, Minnesota.
13. Termination.
13.1. The State may cancel this Grant Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days’ written notice to the
Grantee. Upon termination, the Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services
satisfactorily performed.
13.2. In the event of a lawsuit, an appropriation from a Clean Water Fund is canceled to the extent that a court determines that
the appropriation unconstitutionally substitutes for a traditional source of funding.
13.3. The State may immediately terminate this Grant Agreement if the State finds that there has been a failure to comply with
the provisions of this Grant Agreement, that reasonable progress has not been made or that the purposes for which the
funds were granted have not been or will not be fulfilled. The State may take action to protect the interests of the State of
Page 4 of 5
Minnesota, including the refusal to disburse additional funds and requiring the return of all or part of the funds already
disbursed.
14. Data Disclosure.
Under Minn. Stat. § 270C.65, Subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Grantee consents to disclosure of its social security number,
federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided to the State, to
federal and State tax agencies and State personnel involved in the payment of State obligations. These identification numbers
may be used in the enforcement of federal and State tax laws which could result in action requiring the Grantee to file State tax
returns and pay delinquent State tax liabilities, if any.
15. Prevailing Wage.
It is the responsibility of the Grantee or contractor to pay prevailing wage for projects that include construction work of $25,000
or more, prevailing wage rules apply per Minn. Stat. §§ 177.41 through 177.44. All laborers and mechanics employed by grant
recipients and subcontractors funded in whole or in part with these State funds shall be paid wages at a rate not less than those
prevailing on projects of a character similar in the locality. Bid requests must state the project is subject to prevailing wage.
16. Municipal Contracting Law.
Per Minn. Stat. § 471.345, grantees that are municipalities as defined in Subd. 1 of this statute must follow the Uniform
Municipal Contracting Law. Supporting documentation of the bidding process utilized to contract services must be included in
the Grantee’s financial records, including support documentation justifying a single/sole source bid, if applicable.
17. Constitutional Compliance.
It is the responsibility of the Grantee to comply with requirements of the Minnesota Constitution regarding the use of Clean
Water Funds to supplement traditional sources of funding.
18. Signage.
It is the responsibility of the Grantee to comply with requirements for project signage as provided in Minnesota Laws 2010,
Chapter 361, Article 3, Section 5(b) for Clean Water Fund projects.
19. Intellectual Property Rights.
The State owns all rights, title, and interest in all of the intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents, trade secrets,
trademarks, and service marks in the Works and Documents created and paid for under this grant. Works means all inventions,
improvements, discoveries, (whether or not patentable), databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs,
negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, and disks conceived, reduced to practice, created or originated by
the Grantee, its employees, agents, and subcontractors, either individually or jointly with others in the performance of this
grant. Work includes “Documents.” Documents are the originals of any databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies,
photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, disks, or other materials, whether in tangible or
electronic forms, prepared by the Grantee, its employees, agents or subcontractors, in the performance of this grant. The
Documents will be the exclusive property of the State and all such Documents must be immediately returned to the State by the
Grantee upon completion or cancellation of this grant at the State’s request. To the extent possible, those Works eligible for
copyright protection under the United State Copyright Act will be deemed to be “works made for hire.” The Grantee assigns all
right, title, and interest it may have in the Works and the Documents to the State. The Grantee must, at the request of the State,
execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to transfer or record the State’s ownership interest in the Works and
Documents.
Page 5 of 5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Grant Agreement to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby.
Approved:
Medina, City of Board of Water and Soil Resources
By: ____Scott Johnson _______________________ By: ____________________________________________
(print)
_______________________________________
(signature)
Title: ____City Administrator ____________________ Title: ____________________________________________
Date: _______________________________________ Date: ____________________________________________
Medina, City of Board of Water and Soil Resources
By: _____Kathleen Martin ____________________
(print)
_______________________________________
(signature)
Title: ____Mayor ______________________________
Date: _______________________________________
Stormwater Management Ordinance Page 1 of 6 March 2, 2021
City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: February 25, 2021
MEETING: March 2, 2021 City Council
SUBJ: Stormwater Management Ordinance
Introduction
The City requires that stormwater management improvements such as ponds, stormwater re-use
and other practices at the time of new development and at the time of certain other construction
projects. These requirements are intended to mitigate impacts (or result in improvements) of
flooding and pollution of wetlands, lakes, streams, and other waterbodies. The regulations are in
Section 828.33 of City Code.
Staff is seeking direction on potential amendments to the requirements. Before discussing the
specific changes, staff believed it would be helpful to first summarize some background
surrounding the regulations.
Background of Stormwater Management Requirements
The City is required by law and state rules to establish certain minimum requirements related to
stormwater management. The City is also responsible to reduce nutrient loading (most often
Phosphorus) from many lakes in the community. This often requires the City to construct
projects to address existing pollution sources such as erosion, agricultural activities, and
untreated runoff from existing streets and buildings.
Other governmental agencies, particularly the three watershed organizations within the
community (Elm Creek, Pioneer/Sarah Creek, and Minnehaha Creek) also have jurisdiction over
construction activities within the City. An applicant would need to meet the requirements of
both the City and the watershed district in which the project is located.
In some instances, the City has elected to establish requirements that go beyond the minimum
requirements required by the state or the watersheds. The City is permitted to be more restrictive
in order improve water quality.
The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) as part of the Comprehensive
Plan. The “Goals and Policies” chapter of the SWMP is attached for reference, which provides
guidance for the City’s regulations. The SWMP in its entirety can be found on the City’s
website: (https://medinamn.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Final-Draft-121217-Part-1.pdf)
Staff believes it is fair to conclude that Medina has historically attempted to be a leader in
improving water quality, especially for a City of our size. The City actively looks for
opportunities for grants from County and State and partners with the watershed districts to
incorporate stormwater projects in connection with City construction projects.
Agenda Item #8A
Stormwater Management Ordinance Page 2 of 6 March 2, 2021
City Council Meeting
In terms of regulations for stormwater management on private projects, the City has tended to be
ahead of the curve as requirements from the state and watersheds have evolved. In recent years,
the goal and trend has been for stormwater requirements to become more standardized across
different jurisdictions.
Most of the technical requirements for stormwater management are included in the City’s
Stormwater Design Manual. The manual includes standards for various aspects of stormwater
improvements, but the two primary requirements for stormwater management:
1) Rate Control – the goal is for the peak amount of water leaving the site after a rain event
not to be higher after construction than occurred prior
2) Volume Control (abstraction) – the goal is for no more water to leave the site after
construction than was occurring prior to construction
Rate control is generally provided by ponds, which hold back storm water and allow it to be
released downstream over time. Ponds also allow nutrients and sediment to settle before the
water leaves the pond.
In terms of volume control, the preferred practice in other locations is to allow water to infiltrate
into the ground on the site. Unfortunately, most locations in Medina have tight, clay soils which
infiltrate very slowing, have saturated soils prohibitively close to the surface, or both. As a
result, infiltration is almost never an option. The most common practice in new developments is
to re-use stormwater to irrigate lawns, which effectively spreads the water back on the site.
Other options include preservation of natural areas, tree planting, larger vegetative buffers, and
as a last resort, filtration.
Potential Amendment – Threshold for providing Stormwater Management
The City’s requirement for the level/amount of Rate Control and Volume Control for larger
developments are essentially the same as is required in state rules and by other jurisdictions.
However, one of the primary examples of how the City is more stringent than the state
requirements is the threshold of construction that triggers the construction of stormwater
improvements. Under the state rules and the rules of the Elm Creek watershed and
Pioneer/Sarah Creek watershed, a project would be required to construct stormwater
improvements if it disturbs an acre (43,560 square feet) or more of property.
The City currently requires stormwater management practices if a project disturbs an acre OR if
more than 5000 square feet of impervious surface is proposed to be added.
This requirement has been in place since 2011. However, the City added an exemption in 2018
for projects which result in less than 20% total impervious surfaces on a site. The thought was
that 5000 square feet of hardcover on a very large lot would have less impact than if it were on a
smaller lot. The threshold was increased to 1/3 acre of hardcover (14,520 square feet) if the total
impervious surface was less than 20% of the lot.
Stormwater Management Ordinance Page 3 of 6 March 2, 2021
City Council Meeting
In the past two years, staff has noted that even this higher threshold may be triggering
improvements more often than anticipated. On rural lots, the driveway alone may be over
14,520 square feet, even if the house is under 5,000 square feet.
Staff has identified the following options to address:
1. Remove the 5000 s.f. hardcover threshold in all cases
The City could remove the more stringent threshold of 5000 square feet of new
hardcover. Staff believes this threshold is likely appropriate on lots where there is higher
percentage of hardcover.
2. Increase the threshold for lots under 20% hardcover
As noted above, lots with under 20% hardcover are required to provide stormwater
management if adding more than 14,520 square feet of hardcover. The City could adjust
this threshold, perhaps to ½ acre (21,780 square feet). This would still require
improvements on larger projects but provide more of a cushion for long driveways.
3. Exempt hardcover from driveway
The City could exempt driveways under 20 feet in width from the calculation when
determining if stormwater management should be required, provided there is a larger
pervious area on each side. Staff believes that this may be appropriate because
stormwater off driveways is discharged over a proportionally larger area and does not
tend to channelize into a single location. Providing stormwater management
improvements for a long, linear improvement also tends to be difficult because you
cannot gather the water into a single practice.
4. Exempt lots with under 20% hardcover
The City could exempt lots with under 20% hardcover from providing stormwater
management, except in situations where the new hardcover discharges close to certain
sensitive locations such as lakes, wetlands, ravines, or adjacent property.
It is important to remember that a project which disturbs more than an acre of land would
be required to construct stormwater improvements regardless of how much hardcover is
added.
For some context, the table to the right quantifies a range hardcover which are common on rural
lots which have been recently constructed.
Construction of a home on a rural lot would be
expected to result in at least 10,000 square feet
of hardcover. In addition, larger homes and
various accessory uses can increase hardcover
significantly.
Low (s.f.) High (s.f.)
House/walk/patio 4,000 6,000
Auto court 2,500 7,000
Driveway
(200’ vs. 400’ length) 4,000 8,000
Total 10,500 21,000
Low (s.f.) High (s.f.)
Pool 1,200 2,500
Sport Court 1,000 5,000
Accessory structure 1,000 5,000
Stormwater Management Ordinance Page 4 of 6 March 2, 2021
City Council Meeting
The table to the right shows how 20% hardcover correlates to different lot sizes.
Staff believes it is apparent from the table that if the City exempts all lots
with under 20% hardcover from providing stormwater management, lots
over 3 acres of size would very rarely trigger stormwater improvements,
even if a lot of hardcover is added.
Under current regulations, a project adding 14,520 square feet or more of
hardcover would be required to provide full stormwater improvements. On
a vacant 5-acre lot, this would be equivalent to 6.7% hardcover.
Potential Amendment – Complete Reconstruction
In November 2020, the State updated MS4 requirements, which establish the minimum standards
for surface water regulations for jurisdictions throughout the State. The City has up to a year to
make changes to implement these new requirements, and additional amendments are likely to be
needed later in the year. However, because the subject was being discussed related to the
thresholds on larger lots, staff thought it would be a good opportunity to incorporate some of the
more straight forward changes.
Currently, the City generally requires stormwater improvements for new impervious surfaces. In
the case of redevelopment or reconstruction, the ordinance requires some improvement (for
example, a reduction of impervious surfaces or other improvements which may not meet the full
requirements), but not full compliance with stormwater requirements.
The new MS4 requirements require the City to require stormwater management for
reconstruction as if it were new construction. The exception of this is the reconstruction of linear
projects such as streets, trails, driveways and the like.
The attached ordinance proposes to add Fully Reconstructed improvements within the list of
activities which trigger the stormwater ordinance. The language can be found on page 2 of the
ordinance and in Subd. 5(ii) on page 3.
Potential Amendment – Administrative Flexibility
The City’s Stormwater Design Manual includes many technical and specific standards for all
aspects of the improvements related to stormwater. The design and best practices surrounding
these improvements is constantly improving and evolving over time.
Because of this evolution and because there are so many highly specific requirements for each
type of improvement, staff believes it is important to provide some flexibility for the City
Engineer to consider flexibility and alternatives without having to process a formal change to the
Design Manual.
The attached ordinance includes language specifying that the City Engineer has flexibility to
provide deviations from the specific requirements. This language can be found on page 5 of the
attached ordinance. The regulations already provide for a means for an applicant to appeal the
decision of staff if the staff does not agree with such a request.
Acres
20%
Hardcover
(s.f.)
0.25 2,178
0.5 4,356
1 8,712
2.5 21,780
5 43,560
10 87,120
20 174,240
Stormwater Management Ordinance Page 5 of 6 March 2, 2021
City Council Meeting
Potential Amendment – Clarifications
Staff has recommended additional language clarifications throughout the attached ordinance as
well, including:
1) Making it explicit that fees will be required for review of stormwater plans.
2) Removing specific date for the City’s Stormwater Design Manual, which is amended
over time.
3) Language and formatting corrections.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission held public hearings on January 12 and February 9. Excerpts from
these meetings are attached. One property owner was represented at both hearings and spoke in
favor of increasing the threshold for stormwater management. They noted that they were
constructing a new home and stormwater management would be triggered by existing
regulations.
The Planning Commission discussed the options related to the hardcover threshold at length.
Commissioners generally agreed that they supported increasing the square footage threshold on
lots with comparatively low percentage of hardcover (under 20%) when determining if property
owners would be required to construct stormwater management.
The Planning Commission ultimately recommended including a threshold of an acre of new
hardcover even if the lot is under 20% hardcover. Staff believes this threshold will very rarely
be met, but provides an upper limit for very large projects.
Staff had recommended that the requirements include language by which the City has discretion
to require stormwater improvements if the new hardcover drains directly to sensitive areas such
as lakes, wetlands, ravines, and neighboring property. The Planning Commission recommended
that maintaining this discretion seemed very important.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the other changes noted above as well and
therefore recommended approval of the attached ordinance.
Following Planning Commission review and as preparing for City Council review, staff
identified a potential loophole that it recommended clarifying. There is the potential for a
property owner to try to divide projects into smaller parts to fall under the square footage
threshold for providing stormwater management. Staff recommends language to address this,
essentially counting new hardcover over a 2-year period. This language can be found at the
bottom of page 3 in Subd. 5(a)(i).
Action Requested
Following review, if the City Council supports the proposed amendments to the regulations, the
following actions could be taken;
1. Move to adopt the ordinance amending regulations pertaining to stormwater
management [with the changes noted by the Council, if any].
2. Move to adopt the resolution authorizing publication by title and summary.
Stormwater Management Ordinance Page 6 of 6 March 2, 2021
City Council Meeting
Attachments
1. Draft ordinance
2. Resolution authorizing publication by title and summary
3. Excerpts from 1/12/2021 and 2/9/2021 Planning Commission meetings
4. Goals and Policies from SWMP
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Section 828.33 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 828.33. Stormwater Management
Subd. 1. Purpose
Land development projects, and associated increases in impervious cover, alter the
hydrologic response of local watersheds. Increases in stormwater runoff rates and
volumes, flooding, erosion, sediment transport and deposition, and water-borne pollutants
can be controlled and minimized through the regulation of stormwater runoff.
The purpose of this ordinance is to protect and safeguard the health, safety, and welfare
of the public by regulating stormwater runoff to protect local water resources from
degradation. This ordinance seeks to meet this purpose through the following objectives:
(a) minimize increases in stormwater runoff rates from any development to reduce
flooding, siltation and erosion and to maintain the integrity of stream channels,
(b) minimize increases in nonpoint source pollution caused by stormwater runoff
from development which would otherwise degrade local water quality,
(c) minimize the total annual volume of surface water runoff that flows from any
specific site during and following development so as not to exceed the
predevelopment hydrologic regime to the maximum extent practicable,
(d) ensure that these management controls are properly maintained and pose no threat
to public safety, and
(e) implement stormwater management controls to help meet current and future total
maximum daily load (TMDL) goals, to address the need to improve water quality,
and to meet objectives in the Local Surface Water Management Plan.
Subd. 2. Incorporation by Reference
The Medina Stormwater Design Manual, dated November 15, 2011, as it may be
amended from time to time, is hereby incorporated into this ordinance as if fully set forth
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
herein. The Manual shall serve as the official guide for stormwater principles, methods,
and practices for proposed development activities.
Subd. 3. Definitions
For the purpose of this ordinance, the following definitions describe the meaning of the
terms used in this ordinance:
(a) "Applicant" means a property owner or agent of a property owner who has filed
an application for a stormwater management approval.
(b) "Channel" means a natural or artificial watercourse with a definite bed and banks
that conducts continuously or periodically flowing water.
(c) "Impervious Area" means those surfaces that cannot effectively infiltrate rainfall
(e.g., building rooftops, pavement, sidewalks, gravel, driveways, decks,
swimming pools, etc.).
(d) "Land Disturbance Activity" means any activity that changes the volume or peak
discharge rate of stormwater runoff from the land surface. This may include the
including grading, digging, cutting, scraping, or excavating of soil, placement of
fill materials, paving, construction, substantial removal of vegetation, Fully
Reconstructed improvements, or any activity that bares soil or rock or involves
the diversion or piping of any natural or fabricated watercourse.
(e) "Maintenance Agreement" means a document recorded against the property which
provides forrequires long-term maintenance of stormwater treatment practices.
(f) RESERVED. “Fully Reconstructed” means areas where impervious surfaces have
been removed down to the underlying soils. Activities such as structure
renovation, mill and overlay projects, and other pavement rehabilitation projects
that to not expose the underlying soils beneath the structure, pavement, or activity
are not considered fully reconstructed. Maintenance activities such as catch basin
repair/replacement, utility repair/replacement, pipe repair/replacement, lighting,
and pedestrian ramp improvements are not considered fully constructed.
(g) RESERVED.
(h) RESERVED.
(i) RESERVED.
(j) "Nonpoint Source Pollution" means pollution from any source other than from
any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyances, and shall include, but not be
limited to, pollutants from agricultural, silvicultural, mining, construction,
subsurface disposal and urban runoff sources.
(k) "Off-Site Facility" means a stormwater management measure located outside the
subject property boundary described in the permit application for land
development activity.
(l) “Responsible Party” means the entity which will be responsible for ownership and
maintenance of Stormwater Treatment Practices.
(m) “Site” means any tract, lot or parcel of land or combination of tracts, lots, or
parcels of land, which are in one ownership, or are contiguous and in diverse
ownership, where development is to be performed as part of a unit, subdivision, or
project.
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
(n) "Stop Work Order" means an order which requires that all construction activity on
a Site be stopped.
(o) "Stormwater Management" means the use of structural or non-structural practices
that are designed to reduce stormwater runoff pollutant loads, discharge volumes,
and/or peak discharge rates.
(p) “Stormwater Management Plan” means a set of drawings or other documents
submitted by a person as a prerequisite to obtaining a stormwater management
approval, which contains all of the required information and specifications
pertaining to Stormwater Management.
(q) "Stormwater Runoff" means flow on the surface of the ground, resulting from
precipitation.
(r) "Stormwater Treatment Practices (STPs)" means measures, either structural or
nonstructural, that are determined to be the most effective and practical means of
preventing or reducing point source or nonpoint-source pollution inputs to
stormwater runoff and waterbodies.
(s) "Water Quality Volume (WQv)" means the runoff storage volume needed to treat
the specified phosphorus loading as determined in the Medina Stormwater Design
Manual.
(t) "Watercourse" means a permanent or intermittent stream or other body of water,
either natural or fabricated, which gathers or carries surface water.
(u) “Watershed” means the total drainage area contributing runoff to a single point.
Subd. 4. RESERVED.
Subd. 5. Performance Criteria for Stormwater Management
(a) Unless determined by the City to be exempt or granted a waiver, all site designs for the
following development, redevelopment, construction, or land disturbance activities shall
establish Stormwater Management Treatment Practices to control the peak flow rates,
volume of flow, and pollutants of stormwater discharge associated with specified design
storms and runoff volumes, as detailed in the Medina Stormwater Design Manual.
(i) Any land development, redevelopment, or construction on a Site which increases
impervious surface by 5,000 square feet or greater within a period of two calendar
years, except as described in (iv) below.
(ii) Any land development, redevelopment, or construction on a Site which disturbs
more than one acre of land., except:
(1) if the total amount of existing and proposed impervious
surfaces is less than 20% of the Site and the proposed grading
does not channelize stormwater discharge off of the property or
towards wetland, lake, waterbody, or area of slopes in excess of
4:1; or
(2) if the activity results in a reduction of existing impervious
surfaces by 10% or greater.
(iii)Any subdivision of property, except for a subdivision which will result in an
increase of impervious surfaces, including streets, driveways, and structures, by
less than 5,000 square feet and which disturbs less than an acre of land..
(iv) Notwithstanding (i) above, land development, redevelopment, or construction on
Ordinance No. ### 4
DATE
a Site a single residential property which increases impervious surface by 5,000
square feet or greater but less than 14,52043,560 square feet may be exempt from
establishing STPs if all of the following conditions are met:
The activity occurs on residential property; and
Tthe total amount of existing and proposed impervious surfaces is less
than 20% of the Site. ; and In such instances the City Engineer shall
nonetheless maintain the discretion to require STPs if necessary, in their
professional judgment, to prevent negative impacts to surface waters or
adjacent property in situations including, but not limited to the following:
(2)(1) The drainage from 5,000 square feet or more of the additional
impervious surfaces are not directed towards one of the followinga
sensitive feature,s included, but not limited to within 100 feet: a wetland,
lake, waterbody or area of slope in excess of 4:1 within 100 feet; andor
(3)(2) The drainage from the additional impervious surfaces are not
channelized onto neighboring property, rights-of-way or waterbodies.
(b) Approval Required Prior to Permit or Subdivision.
No landowner or land operator shall receive a building permit, grading permit, or
subdivision approval for any project involving Land Disturbance Activities subject to
this ordinance until first meeting the requirements of this ordinance prior to
commencing the proposed activity.
(c) Exceptions. The following activities shall be exempt from the stormwater
performance criteria of this ordinance:
(i) Agricultural activity.
(ii) Repairs to any Stormwater Treatment Practice deemed necessary by the
City.
(iii) Emergency actions as declared by the City.
(iv) Land Disturbance Activities which do not meet the thresholds described
in this section.
Subd. 6. RESERVED.
Subd. 7. Application Requirements
Unless otherwise exempted by this ordinance, an application for stormwater
management approval shall include the following as a condition for its consideration:
(a) a Stormwater Management Plan;
(b) a Maintenance Agreement; and.
(b)(c) Review fee, if required.
The Stormwater Management Plan shall be prepared to meet the requirements of Subd.
5 of this ordinance; the Maintenance Agreement shall be prepared to meet the
requirements of Subd. 10 of this ordinance.
Subd. 8. Application Requirements
Ordinance No. ### 5
DATE
Applications shall include the following: five copies of the Stormwater Management Plan,
three copies of the Maintenance Agreement, and any required review fees.
RESERVED
Subd. 9. Waivers and Deviations for Providing Stormwater Management
(a) Every Applicant shall provide for Stormwater Management, unless a waiver is
granted. Requests to waive the Stormwater Management requirements shall be
submitted to the City for approval.
The minimum requirements for Stormwater Management may be waived in whole or in
part upon written request of the Applicant, if the City determines that at least one of the
following conditions applies:
(i) It can be demonstrated that the proposed Land Disturbance Activity will not
impair attainment of the objectives of this ordinance.
(ii) Alternative minimum requirements for on-site management of stormwater
discharges have been established in a Stormwater Management Plan that has been
approved by the City.
(iii) Provisions are made to manage stormwater by an Off-Site Facility. The Off-
Site Facility is required to be in place, to be designed and adequately sized to
provide a level of Stormwater Management that is equal to or greater than that
which would be afforded by on-site practices and has a legally obligated entity
responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the stormwater treatment
practice.
In instances where at least one of the conditions above applies, the City may grant a
waiver from strict compliance with Stormwater Management provisions that are not
achievable, if acceptable mitigation measures are provided.
(b) The City Engineer may administratively grant deviations from any requirement of
the Medina Stormwater Design Manual upon a determination, in their professional
judgement, that:
(i) Satisfaction of the requirement is not feasible based upon the specific conditions or
implementation of alternative measures better achieves the objectives of this
ordinance; and
(ii) Alternative measures are implemented to minimize impacts and to achieve the
objectives of the requirement; and
(iii) Such deviation will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare.
Subd. 10. Stormwater Treatment Maintenance Plan and Agreement
During the application process, the City shall determine who the Responsible Party will
be for ownership and maintenance of all Stormwater Treatment Practices.
The Responsible Party shall enter into a Maintenance Agreement with the City that
documents all responsibilities for operation and maintenance of all Stormwater
Treatment Practices. Such responsibility shall be documented in a maintenance plan
Ordinance No. ### 6
DATE
and executed through a Maintenance Agreement. The Maintenance Agreement shall be
executed and recorded against the parcel.
(a) Maintenance Agreement
The stormwater Maintenance Agreement shall be in a form approved by the City, shall
describe the inspection and maintenance obligations of this section and shall, at a
minimum:
(1) Designate the Responsible Party, which shall be permanently responsible for
maintenance of the structural or nonstructural measures.
(2) Pass responsibility for such maintenance to successors in title.
(3) Grant the City and its representatives the right of entry for the purposes of inspecting
all Stormwater Treatment Practices as described in Subd. 10(b) below.
(4) Allow the City the right to repair and maintain the facility, if necessary maintenance
is not performed after proper and reasonable notice to the Responsible Party as
described in Subd. 10(d) below.
(5) Include a maintenance plan that contains, but is not limited to the following:
(i) Identification of all structural Stormwater Treatment Practices.
(ii) A schedule for regular inspection, monitoring, and maintenance for each
practice. Monitoring shall verify whether the practice is functioning as
designed and may include, but is not limited to quality, temperature, and
quantity of runoff.
(iii)Identification of the Responsible Party for conducting the inspection,
monitoring, and maintenance for each practice.
(6) Identify a schedule and format for reporting compliance with the Maintenance Plan to
the City.
(b) Inspection of Stormwater Facilities
Inspection programs shall be established on any reasonable basis, including but not limited
to: routine inspections; random inspections; inspections based upon complaints or other
notice of possible violations; inspection of drainage basins or areas identified as higher than
typical sources of sediment or other contaminants or pollutants; inspections of businesses or
industries of a type associated with higher than usual discharges of contaminants or
pollutants or with discharges of a type which are more likely than the typical discharge to
cause violations of state or federal water or sediment quality standards or the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit; and joint inspections
with other agencies inspecting under environmental or safety laws. Inspections may include,
but are not limited to, reviewing maintenance and repair records; sampling discharges,
surface water, groundwater, and material or water in drainage control facilities; and
evaluating the condition of drainage control facilities and other stormwater treatment
practices.
When any new Stormwater Treatment Practice is installed on private property, or when any
new connection is made between private property and a public drainage control system,
Ordinance No. ### 7
DATE
sanitary sewer, or combined sewer; the property owner shall grant to the City the right to
enter the property at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner for the purpose of
inspection. This includes the right to enter a property when the City has a reasonable basis to
believe that a violation of this ordinance is occurring or has occurred, and to enter when
necessary for abatement of a public nuisance or correction of a violation of this ordinance.
(c) Records of Installation and Maintenance Activities
The Responsible Party shall make records of the installation and of all maintenance and
repairs of the stormwater treatment practices, and shall retain the records for at least three (3)
years. These records shall be made available to the City during inspection of the Stormwater
Treatment Practice and at other reasonable times upon request.
(d) Failure to Maintain Practices
If a Responsible Party fails or refuses to meet the requirements of the Maintenance
Agreement, the City, after reasonable notice, may correct a violation of the design standards
or maintenance needs by performing all necessary work to place the Stormwater Treatment
Practice in proper working condition. In the event that the Stormwater Treatment Practice
becomes a danger to public safety or public health, the City shall notify the Responsible
Party in writing. Upon receipt of that notice, the Responsible Party shall have thirty days to
perform maintenance and repair of the facility in an approved manner. After proper notice,
the City may specially assess the owner(s) of the Stormwater Treatment Practice for the cost
of repair work and any penalties; and the cost of the work shall be assessed against the
property and collected along with ordinary taxes by the county.
Subd. 11. Financial Security
(a) The City shall require the submittal of a letter of credit or other financial security in a
form acceptable to the City to insure that the Stormwater Treatment Practices are
installed by the permit holder as required by the approved Stormwater Management Plan.
The amount of the security shall be 150% of the total estimated construction cost of the
Stormwater Treatment Practices approved. The performance security shall contain
forfeiture provisions for failure to complete work specified in the Stormwater
Management Plan.
(b) The security shall be released in full only upon submission of "as built plans" and written
certification by a registered professional engineer that the Stormwater Treatment Practice
has been installed in accordance with the approved plan and other applicable provisions
of this ordinance. The City will make a final inspection of the Stormwater Treatment
Practice to ensure that it complies with the approved plan and the provisions of this
ordinance. Provisions for a partial pro-rata release of the security based on the
completion of various development stages may be done at the discretion of the City.
Subd. 12. Notice of Construction Commencement
The Applicant must notify the City in advance before the commencement of construction.
Regular inspections of the Stormwater Treatment Practice construction shall be
conducted by the staff of the City or certified by a professional engineer or their designee,
and the Applicant shall be responsible for the costs of such inspections. All inspections
Ordinance No. ### 8
DATE
shall be documented and written reports prepared that contain the following information:
(a) the date and location of the inspection,
(b) whether construction is in compliance with the approved Stormwater
Management Plan,
(c) variations from the approved construction specifications,
(d) any violations that exist.
If any violations are found, the Applicant shall be notified in writing of the nature of the
violation and the required corrective actions. No added work shall proceed until any
violations are corrected and all work previously completed has received approval by the
City.
Subd. 13. As Built Plans
All Applicants are required to submit actual "as built" plans for any Stormwater
Treatment Practices located on-site after final construction is completed. As-built plans
must show the final design specifications for all Stormwater Treatment Practices, and the
plans must be certified by a professional engineer. A final inspection by the City is
required before the release of any performance securities can occur. The City may waive
certain requirements for the as built plans, provided the Applicant provides sufficient
information to verify that the improvements were installed as designed.
Subd. 14. Violations
In addition to any other remedy afforded to the City in law or in equity, Aany person who
commences or conducted Land Disturbance Activity contrary to this ordinance is guilty
of a misdemeanor and may be prosecuted as such, restrained by injunction or any
resulting condition may otherwise be abated in any manner provided by law.
(a) Notice of Violation
When the City determines that an activity is not being carried out in accordance with the
requirements of this ordinance, it shall issue a written notice of violation to the owner
of the property. The notice of violation shall contain:
(1) the name and address of the owner or Applicant,
(2) the address when available or a description of the land upon which the violation
is occurring,
(3) a statement specifying the nature of the violation,
(4) a description of the remedial measures necessary to bring the development
activity into compliance with this ordinance and a time schedule for the
completion of such remedial action,
(5) a statement of the penalty or penalties that shall or may be assessed against the
person to whom the notice of violation is directed, and
(6) a statement that the determination of violation may be appealed to the City by
filing a written notice of appeal within fifteen (15) days of service of notice of
violation.
(b) Stop Work Orders
Persons receiving a notice of violation will be required to halt all construction activities.
Ordinance No. ### 9
DATE
This Stop Work Order will be in effect until the City confirms that the Land
Disturbance Activity is in compliance and the violation has been satisfactorily
addressed. Failure to address a notice of violation in a timely manner may result in
civil, criminal, or monetary penalties in accordance with the enforcement measures
authorized in this ordinance.
(c) Civil and Criminal Penalties
In addition to or as an alternative to any penalty provided herein or by law, any person
who violates the provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and
subject to prosecution. Such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each day
during which the violation occurs or continues.
(d) Restoration of Lands
Any violator may be required to restore land to its undisturbed condition. In the event
that restoration is not undertaken within a reasonable time after notice, the City may
take necessary corrective action, the cost of which may, after notice and opportunity
for hearing, be specially assessed against the property and collected along with the
ordinary taxes by the county.
Subd. 15. Holds on Occupancy Permits
Occupancy permits will not be granted until all Stormwater Treatment Practices have
been installed and accepted by the City, or a financial guarantee in a form acceptable to
the City has been submitted to ensure completion.
Subd. 16. Duration of Approval; Revocation of Approval
(a) Approved plans issued under this section shall be valid from the date of approval through
the date the City notifies the owner that all stormwater treatment practices have passed
the final inspection required under approved conditions, or the approval is revoked.
(b) Revocation of the stormwater approval may be made by the City if requirements within
this ordinance are not fulfilled, or the owner or Applicant is unable to fulfill the ordinance
requirements. If an approval is revoked, the Applicant must resubmit a Stormwater
Management Plan prior to proceeding with any subsequent Land Disturbance Activity.
Subd. 17. Appeals
Any person aggrieved by the action of any official charged with the enforcement of this
ordinance, as the result of the disapproval of a properly filed application for approval,
issuance of a written notice of violation, or an alleged failure to properly enforce the
ordinance in regard to a specific application, shall have the right to appeal the action to
the City.
(a) The Applicant shall submit the appeal in writing and include supporting
documentation.
(b) City staff shall make a decision on the appeal within 15 business days of receipt of a
complete appeal application.
(c) The Applicant may appeal the decision of city staff to the city council. This appeal
must be filed with the City within 30 days of City staff’s decision.
Ordinance No. ### 10
DATE
Subd. 18 Compatibility with Other Permit and ordinance Requirements
This ordinance is not intended to interfere with, abrogate, or annul any other ordinance,
rule or regulation, statute, or other provision of law. The requirements of this ordinance
should be considered minimum requirements, and where any provision of this ordinance
imposes restrictions different from those imposed by any other ordinance, rule or
regulation, or other provision of law, whichever provisions are more restrictive or impose
higher protective standards for human health or the environment shall take precedence.
Subd. 19. Severability
If the provisions of any article, section, subsection, paragraph, subdivision or clause of
this ordinance shall be judged invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such order or
judgment shall not affect or invalidate the remainder of any article, section, subsection,
paragraph, subdivision or clause of this ordinance, which shall remain in full force and
effect.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this _____day of ___________, 2021.
______________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on the ____day of _____, 2021.
Resolution No. 2021-###
DATE
Member __________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-###
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 amending regulations pertaining to stormwater management; amending Chapter 8 of
the City Code; 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 ten 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 amending
regulations pertaining to stormwater management. The ordinance amends the amount of
hardcover which triggers the requirement for stormwater improvements to be constructed on a
property with under 20% hardcover from 14,520 s.f. to 43,560 s.f. The ordinance also requires
stormwater management for fully reconstructed improvements, adds provisions for administrative
flexibility during review, and makes other technical changes.
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. 2021-### 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
__________ 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.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 1/12/2021 Minutes
1
Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code – Pertaining to Stormwater
Management Requirements
Finke stated that background information on the ordinance was provided in the staff report that goes
beyond the specific changes and provided a brief overview on overall stormwater management and
requirements as well as information from the City’s surface water management plan. He stated that the
City has a stormwater design manual that includes the technical requirements and provided some
examples of that detailed information related to rate control and volume control. He stated that volume
control is often difficult in Medina because of the tight clay soils and therefore alternatives are often used
such as stormwater reuse.
Nielsen asked why the City is reviewing this at this time.
Finke replied that this discussion arose as a result of a number of homes that were constructed on rural
lots over the past few years. He stated that the thought in creating the exemption was where there was an
overall low percentage of hardcover and more green space, the stormwater requirements should not be
triggered. He stated that what the City has seen, especially on rural properties, is that the driveway that
provides access to a home often adds so much hardcover that most new homes that are setback from the
roadway trigger the stormwater requirements. He stated that might be a sign that the exemption may not
be operating quite as anticipated. He stated that the hardcover from the driveway may drain over a wider
area and perhaps should not cover the same things that a contiguous area of hardcover would. He stated
that they have received complaints from homeowners because of the difficulties in obtaining the
necessary permit and the additional costs in designing and implementing the stormwater treatment for the
construction of a home.
Grajczyk asked if a builder/developer would still fall under the MPCA stormwater prevention plan,
outside of the City requirements.
Finke confirmed that the construction site related to pollution prevention is a separate code.
Sedabres asked the standard square footage of driveways for rural residential lots.
Finke stated that it would be common to have a 16-to-18-foot driveway. He stated that on a ten-acre lot a
home could perhaps be setback 400 feet, which would result in 7,200 square feet of hardcover just to
reach the building pad for the home. He stated that if there was a longer narrower lot, you could press up
to the hardcover threshold without even building a structure.
Finke provided details on the proposed changes for discussion. He began with the threshold for
stormwater improvements and reviewed the City’s requirement that triggers stormwater treatment more
stringently than State Code or the watershed. He stated that one option would be to remove that more
stringent requirement and not require stormwater management in those cases. He noted that is not the
intention of staff but noted that the Commission can discuss that. He reviewed the options that could be
considered to resolve the issue that has been arising on rural residential lots which included raising the
threshold for exemptions on larger lots, the driveway could be exempted from the calculation, or create a
different exemption level for larger residential lots. He stated that there would still be different triggers
that would require stormwater management. He noted that if the Commission removes this requirement
for management on low percentage of hardcover lots (rural lots), staff would recommend including
language that would allow the City Engineer to require stormwater management in more sensitive areas.
He used the example of a rural lot that drains and discharges into a ravine. He stated that another
discussion item would pertain to redevelopment, noting that the ordinance requires improvement of a site
if the property is demolished and reconstructed but does not require full compliance. He stated that
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 1/12/2021 Minutes
2
updates for the MS4 permit require full compliance in that situation and therefore that change will need to
be made in order to be in compliance with the permit. He stated that if technical standards cannot be met
within the stormwater design guide the City Engineer does not currently have the authority to provide
flexibility. He stated that staff believes that it is important for the City Engineer to be able to provide
flexibility as water management requirements are constantly evolving and new products come out on the
market which may not be included in the manual. He stated that the additional language would allow the
City Engineer to approve new technology based on their knowledge and experience. He stated that there
are various other text amendments proposed as described in the report. He stated that staff is looking for
discussion on the threshold for provision of stormwater management, specifically the rural residential
lots.
Galzki asked if there has been review of other municipalities and their thresholds. He asked if there has
been discussion on using a percentage for that threshold, similar to the table that was created for shed
sizes on residential lots.
Finke stated that the City has the 5,000 square foot threshold but then adds to that an exemption which is
more stringent than what other communities and the watershed use. He stated that the 20 percent
hardcover trigger is consistent with the watershed and its current rules, noting that the watershed has an
exemption for under 20 percent.
Nielsen referenced the suggestion that driveway be exempted from the calculation and noted that some
homes have a large pad near the home for parking and asked whether that would still be considered part
of the driveway.
Finke stated that he does have draft language that would define driveway. He stated that staff had
suggested a maximum width for the driveway along with adjacent hardcover which would mean that a
parking pad would not be considered part of the driveway.
Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:13 p.m.
Sam Calvert, attorney representing a property owner in Wild Meadows, stated that his client is concerned
that residential lots are not defined in this ordinance. He noted that Wild Meadows has several outlots
that are supposed to remain natural areas and recently there has been some construction in those outlots
that is concerning. He stated that perhaps there could be clarifying language related to residential lots and
outlots to ensure that these changes do not impact the protection of the outlots.
Finke asked if the speaker was suggesting that if a linear improvement were to be exempted, a trail within
a broader common area should not be allowed the exemption.
Mr. Calvert confirmed that is his position. He stated that there have been a number of changes within the
outlots in Wild Meadows that impact drainage and stormwater. He stated that they would not want the
ordinance to permit these types of changes because it is on “residential property”. He suggested that more
definition be provided as to what a residential property is.
Finke commented that he understands what is being described by the speaker and believed that there are a
couple factors that would come into that situation. He stated that whether a project may be approved that
changes drainage patterns would be separate from the considerations being discussed tonight. He did not
believe that the situation described by Mr. Calvert would fall under the stormwater management threshold
exemption.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 1/12/2021 Minutes
3
Todd Edlund stated that he and his wife sent an email prior to the meeting. He stated that they are
currently constructing a home and are an example in which the driveway has triggered stormwater
mitigation at a cost of over $1,200. He stated that they are interested and thankful that the Commission is
taking the time to consider and discuss this topic.
John Quinlivan, Gordon James Construction, stated that the Edlunds are their clients and asked if staff has
an opinion on the different remedies presented and what would make the most sense. He stated that it
would seem the 20 percent threshold would be an easy measure.
Finke stated that staff is recommending a change to the ordinance. He noted that there are some things
that would need to be confirmed, specially whether there ought to be a hardcover threshold in general
(5,000 square feet), and if that is a good requirement would it then make sense to have an exemption for
lots with a low percentage of hardcover (20 percent or less). He commented that staff believes that would
make sense and the question would then be whether any lot under 20 percent would be exempted, with
additional language that would allow additional requirements if the drainage flows to a sensitive area. He
stated that if there is some amount of hardcover that the Commission would like to trigger improvements
on for those type of lots, staff would then suggest exempting the driveway as that type of runoff is
different than the runoff from a building. He stated that if one acre of hardcover were being added, that
would trigger stormwater requirements. He stated that it would make sense to requirement stormwater
management on certain amounts of contiguous hardcover. He stated that once the driveway is subtracted
it would make sense to requirement some amount of treatment for large amounts of hardcover.
Nielsen closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m.
Piper commented that this issue is quite complicated, and her instinct would be to support the
recommendation of staff.
Popp agreed that this is a complicated issue and noted that he would prefer to reserve comments until
some of the other Commissioners have made comment.
Finke stated that he does not suspect there would be interest in removing the 5,000 square foot threshold
but suggested that discussion begin with that item.
Grajczyk commented that the MS4 permit regulations continue to grow. He stated that there are also
multiple watersheds within Medina which each have their own regulations to protect water. He stated
that it is nice to have the 5,000 square foot threshold as a trigger but only in certain situations where there
would be smaller lots and not necessarily on the larger rural lots. He stated that it could also apply
different to residents with long driveways. He stated that he likes the idea of the 20 percent threshold and
hardcover requirement laid out in the second recommendation that would also provide an exemption for
larger driveways. He believed that both the first and second recommendation could be utilized depending
upon the lot size. He stated that driveway sizes and locations could perhaps be addressed differently and
noted that he agrees with the recommendation of staff to maintain the hardcover threshold on larger lots
with lower amounts of hardcover. He referenced item four related to exemptions for under 20 percent of
hardcover and agreed with the staff recommendation that rural lots with long driveways should have an
exemption for the driveway. He commented that perhaps driveways be reviewed differently when
adjacent to impaired waters to ensure a buffer could be incorporated to protect the waters.
Nielsen agreed that the language should be added relating to sensitive areas.
Rhem commented that he is less supportive of a general driveway exemption and would like to see that
incorporated into the overall percentage of hardcover or to have that fall under item four.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 1/12/2021 Minutes
4
Mr. Edlund commented that his hardcover with the driveway is 6.6 percent.
Nielsen agreed that she does not like a straight exemption for the driveway.
Sedabres commented that he believes there should be flexibility to allow these projects to move forward
but agreed that it could become convoluted when exempting a driveway. He asked how often this is
triggered currently.
Finke replied that on rural lots over seven acres in size, based on recent experience, more often than not
the ordinance as it stands is triggered. He commented that if the home is closer to the street and does not
have accessory improvements, such as outbuildings or sport courts, he could be conceivable that would
not trigger the improvement. He stated that if a long driveway or pool or tennis court is included, the
improvement would be triggered.
Sedabres asked if the 20 percent threshold could be too expansive on significantly larger lots or whether
that would be covered under the broader MS4 regulations.
Finke provided an examples of different square footage homes and accessory buildings on a one-acre lot
and how that would compare to the 20 percent threshold. He stated that on larger lots 20 percent would
be a lot of hardcover, noting that on a lot over five acres the 20 percent threshold would almost never be
triggered except for the case where drainage flows into a sensitive area. He stated that the question before
the Commission would be whether development on a large rural residential lot should essentially be
exempted from the requirement for stormwater improvement. He noted that the answer to that question
would help to guide the discussion related to thresholds.
Piper asked if the Commission is voting on this tonight or whether the discussion could be tabled to
consider a different approach.
Finke commented that this issue is not time sensitive and could be tabled. He stated that there are some
pending projects that this would affect, but that would be the decision of those applicants. He noted that
Piper suggests providing more real-world examples in order to provide better context which could be
provided.
Sedabres commented that the percentage generally makes sense on smaller lots. He asked if there would
be any way to delineate a different percentage for lots of five or ten acre lots, suggesting perhaps 10
percent for those lots.
Finke confirmed that could be presented as an option. He stated that the difficulty with that is that the
hardcover on a site is never centered in the middle of the property with the chance to disburse equally,
therefore not all percentages are equal. He stated that there are situations where percentages would not be
the best tool.
Nielsen stated that she is not opposed to tabling this as there is a lot to digest.
Finke stated that if it made sense to table this, staff would like direction on what would be helpful in the
next presentation.
Galzki commented that he does have a background in land development. He stated that the biggest
takeaway is that they want to avoid being more stringent than the State and watershed districts which
already have stringent and applicable standards for projects. He stated that larger development outside of
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 1/12/2021 Minutes
5
individual home construction would trigger stormwater regulations by the State and watershed. He
commented that anything that disturbs more than once acre will trigger the stormwater requirements,
therefore this issue comes down to rural residential home construction. He commented that rural
residential home construction is currently triggering stormwater requirements where it is not needed. He
stated that as proposed it would leave it to City staff and engineering to review grading and plans to
determine if stormwater management should be required. He stated that this would also allow for staff to
rely on the State and watershed rules to handle that element rather than placing additional thresholds that
discourage certain types of development.
Finke commented that the context from Galzki is helpful and correct. He stated that large scale
developments, any residential or commercial development that disturbs more than one acre, will continue
to trigger the stormwater regulations, and will have to provide stormwater management. He commented
that these exemptions would therefore mainly apply to rural residential lots and perhaps preexisting
commercial settings that may wish to add an addition and were constructed prior to the stringent
stormwater requirements.
Galzki commented that it would seem that the Commission may want more time and guidance in order to
make more informed decisions as this is a lot of information that takes time to digest. He stated that
members of the Commission could reach out to staff with questions prior to the next meeting in order to
clarify some of the content and be prepared for the next review.
Grajczyk stated that perhaps this be broken up into two parts, the 20 percent threshold and trigger items
and then the potential amendments for administrative flexibility.
Piper agreed that this should be tabled and considered in two segments. She stated that she would like
visual scenarios as well.
Popp confirmed that he would be comfortable tabling this and would like visual scenarios for context.
Rhem echoed the comments of the previous members.
Sedabres recognized that staff put a lot of time into the proposal and trusts the opinion of staff. He stated
that the Commission cannot review every scenario and he would be comfortable following the
recommendation of staff.
Nielsen agreed that she could go either way. She recognized that the Commission wants to try to
understand everything and this is a lot of information to digest. She asked if staff would be comfortable
tabling this and breaking it into two parts.
Finke stated that this is not time sensitive but there are some interested property owners. He agreed that
there are some scenarios that could be helpful but noted that it would be impossible to provide every
scenario because each proposal is unique.
Nielsen reopened the public hearing at 9:02 p.m.
John Quinlivan asked if there could be guidance as to what direction they should take as they are under
seven percent hardcover and could fall under an exemption. He commented that construction has begun
and estimated that could be complete in May.
Nielsen closed the public hearing at 9:04 p.m.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 1/12/2021 Minutes
6
Nielsen asked if the subject property would be exempt under the 20 percent threshold.
Finke stated that the property may be exempt depending upon the position the Commission takes, noting
that three of the recommended options could result in the property not having to provide stormwater
management. He stated that perhaps that property could be used as an example for the Commission at the
next meeting since it has been discussed tonight. He commented that it seems that any direction the
Commission may take could result in stormwater management not being required for that property.
Nielsen stated that she agrees with that statement and hopes that this could be resolved before
construction would be complete.
Nielsen noted that this discussion will be tabled and revisited at the next meeting.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 02/09/2021 Minutes
1
Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code – Pertaining to Stormwater Management
Requirements
Nielsen noted that the Commission began this discussion last month.
Finke confirmed that a public hearing was held at the January meeting and ultimately tabled with the
Commissioners asking for additional context to continue the discussion at tonight’s meeting. He stated
that the ordinance would make four primary changes and provided a summary of those proposed changes.
He noted that the staff report focuses mainly on the threshold that would require stormwater
improvements, especially on projects that would have a low percentage of hardcover for the overall site
but a fair amount of square footage of hardcover. He stated that new developments would be required to
construct stormwater improvements, whether commercial or residential. He stated that in addition, the
City currently has a requirement that an addition of more than 5,000 square feet of hardcover triggers the
stormwater requirements with an exception for lots under 20 percent overall hardcover. He stated that
this hardcover threshold is an additional requirement the City has chosen to enact and is not generally
required by the watersheds or State mandates. He stated that generally the watersheds have a trigger for
stormwater improvements on projects that disturb over one acre of land. He provided details on the 20
percent hardcover exception. He stated that staff has noticed that more residential developments in rural
area have triggered this requirement than originally anticipated. He stated that most rural residential sites
that have a driveway, home and other surface improvements trigger stormwater requirements. He stated
that one of the options discussed at the previous meeting was to exempt lots that fall under 20 percent
hardcover, noting that on a large residential property that could equate to a large amount of hardcover.
He stated that staff recommends some kind of adjustment to the threshold as some projects are triggered
the requirements that were not anticipated to trigger the required improvement. He stated that staff would
recommend alternative one, which would exempt residential lots under 20 percent hardcover with the
discretion to require stormwater improvements if the hardcover discharges to a sensitive area. He
reviewed the other alternatives discussed by the Commission at the previous meeting and included within
the staff report.
Nielsen reopened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m.
Todd Edlund, 3155 Willow Drive, stated that he spoke at the January meeting noting that they are
building on the property currently to create a single-family home and horse farm. He stated that they are
meeting all the requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and intend to preserve the small
wetlands on the property. He stated that his proposed hardcover would be about 6.6 percent of the
property. He stated that he is interested in this outcome as the required stormwater mitigation under the
current ordinance would have a cost of about $13,000. He appreciated the consideration of the
Commission on this alternative recommended by staff.
Nielsen closed the public hearing at 8:16 p.m.
Piper commented that this is a complex issue that she does not have expertise in and therefore supports
the staff recommendation.
Popp appreciated the efforts of staff and found the additional information and examples to be very
helpful. He stated that he comfortably supports all four changes proposed by staff as he finds this to be a
practical approach that still provides discretion to the City Engineer for those properties draining to a
sensitive area.
Rhem echoed the comments of Commission Popp and also supports the recommendations of staff.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 02/09/2021 Minutes
2
Sedabres stated that he supports the 20 percent hardcover waiver. He stated that he does favor a more
general approach but stated that he would have concern with larger lots, using the example of 20-acre
parcels and the hardcover that could be allowed while remaining under 20 percent.
Grajczyk complimented staff for continuing to work on this and provide the Commission with additional
information. He recognized the new changes to the MS4 Permit and stated that it is important for the City
to stay in pace with the State and National requirements. He agreed with the staff recommendations. He
stated that one concern he would have is that larger lots placing hard surfaces close to waters in the area
and wanted to ensure that staff could use its discretion to protect against direct runoff.
Nielsen stated that she likes the 20 percent exemption but would struggle with the amount of hardcover
large acreage properties could be allowed. She stated that she does understand the desire for easy
application but would be comfortable setting a limit.
Finke asked for feedback on the higher threshold desired. He noted that the Conditional Use Permit
standards for accessory structures in excess of 5,000 square feet do require stormwater management. He
stated that if there is enough disturbance on the site, there could be additional triggers. He noted that a
cap could be set high, that would most likely not be triggered, but would still provide that cap.
Nielsen suggested the cap be 50,000 square feet.
Sedabres stated that he would suggest a one-acre size.
Finke commented that one acre would be a logical place for that trigger, as one acre of disturbance is a
common threshold.
Nielsen commented that she would support that.
Finke commented that the other thing to be mindful of would be that a subdivision would have its own
triggers for stormwater management even if the individual lots may not trigger that.
Rhem commented that he was comfortable with the 20 percent with the assumption that may not be
triggered very frequently and with the knowledge that the City Engineer would still have discretion. He
stated that he could support the one-acre trigger.
Popp echoed the comments of Rhem.
Motion by Sedabres, seconded by Popp, to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending regulations
pertaining to stormwater management with change noted by the Commission to change the hardcover
trigger to one acre of hardcover if the lot is under 20 percent of total hardcover.
A roll call vote was performed:
Grajczyk aye
Piper aye
Popp aye
Rhem aye
Sedabres aye
Nielsen aye
Motion carried.
Finke stated that the intention would be to present this to the Council at its March 1st meeting.
SECTION 5
5. GOALS AND POLICIES
5.1. Summary
The primary goal of Medina's SWMP is to provide a framework for effective surface water
management and to bring the City into statutory compliance. This includes guiding redevelopment
activities and identifying and implementing retrofits to the existing system. These retrofits consist
of both projects and programs. Additionally, the plan provides clear guidance on how Medina
intends to manage surface water in terms of both quantity and quality.
The goals and policies described in this section are intended to incorporate the foundation of
several regional, state, and federally mandated programs. They are not meant to replace or alter the
regional, state and federally mandated programs, rules and regulations, but to serve as an
enhancement and provide some general policy guidelines. The goals address the management
strategies of each watershed management commission, Pioneer -Sarah Creek, Minnehaha Creek
and Elm Creek, and are consistent with the objectives set forth in the State Wetland Conservation
Act (WCA) and the Federal Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) Cooperation,
collaboration, and partnering results in projects that are less likely to conflict with the goals of the
affected entities, are better able to meet long-term goals, and are generally more cost-effective.
In addition to the goals and policies contained in this section, the City will annually review and
update its Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to effectively manage its stormwater
system and be in conformance with the NPDES MS4 Program. Refer to Appendix B for the most
recent version of the City SWPPP.
This section outlines the goals and policies specific to surface water management in Medina. Goals
and policies are grouped by their relationship to the key issues listed below:
• Section 5.2 - Land Development, Redevelopment, and City Projects
• Section 5.3 - Water Resource Management
• Section 5.4 - Management of Floodplains, Shorelands, and Natural Areas
• Section 5.5 - Citywide Program Elements
• Section 5.6 - Support of Other Agencies
5.2. Land Development, Redevelopment, and City Projects
Overall Goal
Manage land disturbance and increased impervious surfaces to prevent flooding and
adverse impacts to water resources.
Overall Policies
1. Medina will pursue a non -degradation policy in regard to runoff volume, runoff
rate, and nutrient loading from development projects. Low Impact Development
(LID) techniques are Medina's preferred method of controlling runoff volume and
nutrient loading. Medina considers LID techniques as complementary to pipes,
ponds, and wetlands for its flood control system.
Surface Water Management Plan
City of Medina Section 5
WSB Project No. 2714-940 Page -1
SECTION 5
2. Medina will consider redevelopment and linear projects as an opportunity to
retrofit non -degradation to previously developed areas and infrastructure.
3. Medina will amend or modify its ordinances and/or engineer standards to facilitate
stormwater quantity and quality performance measures identified in its Local
Surface Water Management Plan.
4. Medina will consider water quality retrofits on existing City properties as a means
of providing treatment to currently developed areas without treatment.
5. Medina will reference the following documents as guidance for Best Management
Practices in the City: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Protecting
Water Quality in Urban Areas and its Minnesota Stormwater Manual, and the
Metropolitan Council's Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual.
5.2.1.Runoff Volume Management
Goal: Maintain existing runoff volumes so that runoff from development does not increase
volume loading to wetlands, lakes and streams.
Policy: Any site that requires an NPDES construction site permit will be required to implement
permanent volume management such that existing runoff volumes are maintained. Sites that do not
require an NPDES construction site permit shall maintain existing runoff volumes to the extent
practical.
Policy: Medina's preferred water quality strategy is to reduce the volume of its runoff through
infiltration or reuse projects. If volume control is not feasible due to site conditions, the City will
establish alternatives to achieve relevant volume control goals. Volume control calculations will be
consistent with Medina's Stormwater Design Manual.
Policy: Redevelopment and linear projects will implement runoff volume management practices
for net new impervious surfaces. Redevelopment and linear projects will consider whether
additional runoff volume management practices might feasibly be incorporated for existing
impervious surfaces also.
5.2.2.Runoff Rate
Goal: Control the rate of stormwater runoff from development to reduce downstream flooding
and erosion and protect water resources.
Policy: Future peak rates of discharge from new development and redevelopment will not exceed
existing peak rates of discharge for the 1-yr or 2-yr, 10-yr and 100-yr 24 -hour storm events using
Atlas 14 rainfall values. MSE-3 distribution shall be used.
Policy: New storm sewer systems shall be designed using the following guidelines:
Surface Water Management Plan
City of Medina Section 5
WSB Project No. 2714-940 Page -2
SECTION 5
New lateral storm sewer systems shall be designed to accommodate discharge rates for the 10-yr
critical storm event using Atlas 14 rainfall values. Trunk storm sewer should be designed as a
minimum to carry 100 -year pond discharge in addition to the 10 -year design flow. New storm
sewer systems shall be designed to match the inside top elevation of adjacent pipes. The maximum
velocity shall not exceed 10 feet per second, except when entering a pond, where the maximum
velocity shall be limited to 6 feet per second.
Policy: New storm sewers and open channels shall be designed using the Rational Method or other
technical method approved by the City. Runoff Coefficient "C" shall be in accordance with the
guidelines provided in the Stormwater Design Manual.
Policy: The City will base all drainage system analyses and designs on proposed full development
land use patterns.
Policy: Where development occurs upstream of a known flood -prone area, the City may seek
additional rate control as a means to mitigate this flooding.
Policy: When off -site regional ponding is available and this off -site ponding accomplishes the
rate control requirement, then the rate control requirement can be waived for a particular site.
5.2.3. Flood Prevention
Goal: Provide adequate storage and conveyance of runoff to protect the public safety and
minimize property damage.
Policy: Building low floor elevations within the City of Medina shall be required to be at least 2
feet above the emergency overflow elevation. In areas where this separation is not or cannot be
provided, additional analysis is required showing that the 100 -year back-to-back storm event does
not affect adjacent homes.
Policy: Flood storage for those landlocked depressions with no outlet present must accommodate
the volume generated by back-to-back 100-yr, 24 -hr storm events or the 100-yr, 10 -day snowmelt
event, whichever generates the higher calculated HWL.
Policy: The City will encourage, to the extent practicable, implementation of Low Impact
Development techniques and mitigation of stormwater runoff volume within development and
redevelopment areas draining to landlocked depressions.
Policy: The City shall require that rate control structures and stormwater drainage ways are
included in a drainage or utility easement.
Policy: The City will require compensatory storage for any filling in the 1% (100 -year) floodplain
at a 1:1 ratio.
Policy: Medina will amend or modify its Floodplain Management Ordinance to incorporate the
policies identified in its Local Surface Water Management Plan.6
Surface Water Management Plan
City of Medina Section 5
WSB Project No. 2714-940 Page -3
SECTION 5
5.2.4. Nutrient and Sediment Loading
Goal: Reduce the nutrient and sediment loads over current conditions.
Policy: Medina's minimum standard is water quality treatment that meets the requirements of the
NPDES construction site permit. Under no circumstances shall overall treatment fall below the
requirements of this permit.
Policy: Any site that requires a NPDES construction site permit will be required to reduce
phosphorus loadings over current conditions. The water quality control standard shall be
considered satisfied if the volume control standards has been satisfied, as defined in the City's
Stormwater Design Manual. If volume control is infeasible due to site constraints, a 20% reduction
in phosphorus loading over existing conditions will be required for redevelopment projects. In
cases where existing land cover is natural, the maintenance of existing loading rates is acceptable if
the minimum requirements identified in the policy above are met.
Policy: Medina will institute a standard practice of evaluating all development, redevelopment,
and linear projects for opportunities to retrofit water quality treatment to areas without significant
existing treatment.
Policy: Guidelines for the design of water quality ponds and infiltration/filtration practices will
follow the requirements listed in the City's Stormwater Design Manual.
Policy: The City will require outlet skimming in all water quality ponds. Skimming shall occur
for up to the 10 -year, 24 -hour event. The City shall not allow the use of submerged pipes to provide
skimming.
Policy: The City will require the use of its standard outlet structure (Appendix G) for new water
quality ponds.
5.2.5.Erosion and Sediment Control
Goal: Prevent sediment from construction sites from entering the City's surface water resources.
Policy: The City will enforce the Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Ordinance as
outlined in Chapter 8 of the City Code; Section 828 Performance Standards and Enforcement.
Policy: Erosion control must meet the requirements outlined in the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency's NPDES General Permit to Discharge Stormwater from Construction Sites and the
following criteria. A copy of the most recent requirements can be found at www.mpca.mn.us.
Policy: The City will periodically review its Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control
Ordinance to maintain conformance with the NPDES construction permit, the City's MS4 permit,
guidance from Metropolitan Council and the requirements of the watershed management
organizations.
Surface Water Management Plan
City of Medina Section 5
WSB Project No. 2714-940 Page -4
SECTION 5
5.3. Water Resource Management
Overall Goal
Protect the City's wetlands, lakes, streams and groundwater to preserve the functions and values of
these resources for future generations.
Overall Policies
1. The City will protect water resources through implementation of the Wetland Conservation Act,
groundwater protection rules and TMDL studies.
2. The City will look to retrofit rate control, water quality treatment, and runoff volume reduction
upstream of existing water bodies, as these opportunities arise. Medina considers Low Impact
Development techniques as the preferred means of retrofitting water quality treatment and runoff
volume reduction.
5.3.1. Wetland Management
Goal: Protect and preserve wetlands to maintain or improve their function and value.
Policy: The City will continue to administer WCA responsibilities within the City to ensure no
net loss of wetland functions and values.
Policy: The City will administer their WCA responsibilities using technically trained staff At a
minimum the trained staff will be certified by the Minnesota Wetland Delineator Certification
Program and/or a comparable program.
Policy: The City will work collaboratively with the relevant WMO in the application of City and
WMO policies and performance standards for wetlands.
Policy: The City will implement the Wetland Protection Ordinance, City Code 828.43, which
incorporates the results of the City's Wetland Inventory and Assessment.
Policy: The City will require that, prior to development activities or public projects, a wetland
delineation must be completed, including a field delineation and report detailing the findings of the
delineation.
Policy: The City requires through its wetland ordinance that future development proposals
include natural buffer zones around wetlands and streams. Buffer areas should not be mowed or
fertilized, except that harvesting of vegetation may be performed to reduce nutrient inputs.
Policy: The City requires that runoff be pre-treated prior to discharge to wetlands. Wetlands may
not be considered as treatment areas for the purposes of meeting Medina's stormwater
management standards. Direct roof runoff that is discharged to a wetland without pretreatment will
be reviewed by the City.
5.3.2.Lake Management
Surface Water Management Plan
City of Medina Section 5
WSB Project No. 2714-940 Page -5
SECTION 5
Goal: Manage lakes to improve water quality and protect resource values.
Policy: The City will begin implementing the TMDL Implementation Plans listed in Section 2.
Through its annual reporting, the City will report progress toward meeting this phosphorus load
reduction.
Policy: The City will cooperate with the Three Rivers Park District, Pioneer -Sarah Creek
Watershed, Elm Creek Watershed, and Minnehaha Creek Watershed to identify possible activities
to improve water quality in impaired waterbodies.
5.3.3.Stream Management
Goal: Improve water quality, provide wildlife habitat and protect the resource value of streams.
Policy: The City will work with the ECWMC to facilitate implementation of the outcomes of the
Elm Creek Channel Study.
Policy: The City will cooperate with the PSCWMC and the ECWMC to remove deadfall from
creeks within the City.
Policy: The City will require a 50 foot buffer for land disturbance projects along Elm Creek.
5.3.4. TMDL Implementation
Goal: Address target pollutants identified in TMDL studies to improve the quality of impaired
waters.
Policy: The City will implement the pollutant reduction strategies identified in the SWPPP.
Policy: The City will incorporate completed TMDL studies and relevant implementation
projects.
Policy: The City will use the findings of the TMDL studies to guide development review.
Policy: The City will consider Low Impact Development techniques as the primary means of
meeting load reductions identified in TMDL implementation plans.
5.3.5. Groundwater Recharge and Protection
Goal: Protect groundwater resources and groundwater dependent resources.
Policy: The City will cooperate with Hennepin County, MDH, and other state and federal
agencies to identify areas of groundwater resources critical to protect.
Policy: The City will use the guidance developed in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual for
locating infiltration BMPs in vulnerable Wellhead Protection Areas.
Surface Water Management Plan
City of Medina Section 5
WSB Project No. 2714-940 Page -6
SECTION 5
5.4. Management of Floodplains, Shorelands, and Natural Areas
Overall Goal
Manage the City's floodplains, shorelands and natural areas to preserve the functions and values of
these resources for future generations.
Overall Policy
The City will manage these areas through implementation of local zoning codes and agency
regulations.
5.4.1.Floodplain Management
Goal: Control development in flood prone areas to protect the public safety and minimize
property damage.
Policy: The City will regulate land development within the Floodplain District to ensure that
floodplain capacity and flood elevations are not adversely impacted by development, and that new
structures are protected from damage.
Policy: The City will update the Floodplain Management Ordinance, City Code 826.74 as
required by FEMA and the MnDNR, or as needed, to ensure adequate protection for structures and
eligibility for flood insurance programs.
5.4.2.Shoreland Management
Goal: Conserve and protect the scenic, historical and cultural resources of the waterbodies
within the City and maintain a high standard of environmental quality.
Policy: The City will regulate land development within the Shoreland Overlay District to
minimize impacts as specified in the City Code 827.01.
5.4.3.Natural Area Management
Goal: Protect and enhance natural areas within the City to provide wildlife habitat and water
resource benefits.
Policy: The City will review land use and development decisions with the intent to preserve
natural resources, connect environmental corridors and provide buffers for streams, wetlands and
lakes. Existing MLCCS coverage and other data sources will guide decisions regarding natural
area preservation. Figure 18 shows parcels owned by the City. These parcels will be reviewed to
possibly enhance natural areas and provide water resource benefits.
Policy: The City will support programs to maintain and restore the resource value of natural
areas.
Policy: The City will continue to implement its Open Space Plan and will coordinate with the
Surface Water Management Plan
City of Medina Section 5
WSB Project No. 2714-940 Page -7
SECTION 5
Parks Department on future development.
Policy: The City will cooperate with the MCWD to implement conservation practices for those
areas identified in the MCWD CWRMP as Key Conservation Areas.
Policy: The City will coordinate conservation efforts with other agencies, such as watersheds,
Hennepin County, Three Rivers Park and non -governmental bodies, like the Minnesota Land
Trust, Embrace Open Space and Pheasants Forever.
Policy: The City will require permanently conserved land to be held in an easement by an outside
agency, such as the Minnesota Land Trust, a watershed district or similar entities.
5.5. City Wide Program Elements
Overall Goal
Manage water resources and drainage systems on a citywide scale.
Overall Policies
1. The city wide surface water management program will include monitoring and maintenance of
drainage systems, targeted pollution prevention, public education, system reconstruction
projects and equitable collection of supporting funds.
2. The City will actively implement the NPDES Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as stated
in the MS4 permit.
3. The City will work with the Watershed having jurisdiction and applicable LGU to resolve any
intercommunity drainage issues that may arise.
5.5.1.Pollution Prevention
Goal: Detect and address urban pollutants discharged to storm sewers.
Policy: The City will address pollutant sources through enforcement of codes and public
education.
Policy: The City will develop and maintain an effective spill response plan.
Policy: The City will continue to develop and update their storm sewer system on an annual basis.
Policy: The City will complete employee training in the operation, maintenance and inspection of
stormwater facilities, as included in the SWPPP.
Policy: The City will monitor storm sewer outfalls for pollutants as outlined in the City's NPDES
permit.
5.5.2.Monitoring and Maintenance
Surface Water Management Plan
City of Medina Section 5
WSB Project No. 2714-940 Page -8
SECTION 5
Goal: Maintain the function and effectiveness of stormwater management structures through
monitoring and maintenance.
Policy: The City will continue to conduct annual street sweeping of City owned streets. Rural
road sections will be swept at least once annually and the urban road sections will be swept at least
three times annually.
Policy: The City will inspect and monitor the construction and installation of all new stormwater
facilities and require that such facilities be surveyed to create as -built drawings.
Goal: Ensure the long term operation and maintenance of stormwater management BMPs.
Policy: The City will require that all ponds constructed as part of a common plan of development
be placed on outlots.
Policy: The City will require that all ponds be returned to their original design capacity prior to
acceptance by the City and that an as -built design be submitted to verify that the pond meets the
original design capacity.
Policy: The City will require developers to provide a minimum one-year guarantee that
stormwater management facilities are properly installed, maintained and functioning.
Policy: The City will require that an operation and maintenance plan for the proposed stormwater
management BMPs be submitted for all development and redevelopment projects.
5.5.3.Public Education
Goal: Inform and educate residents about stormwater pollution, the effects of urban runoff and
the need to protect natural resources.
Policy: The City will implement a public education and outreach program as identified in the
City's NPDES permit.
Policy: The City will develop and maintain a public education program for landowners to
promote reduction of nutrient, sediment, and bacteria loading to water bodies. The City will
encourage residents and landowners to practice environmental friendly lawn care and to encourage
the use of native plantings or natural landscapes, where practical.
Policy: The City will coordinate public education work with the local WMOs.
Policy: The City will promote citizen and volunteer efforts to protect, restore and enhance local
water and natural resources.
Policy: The City will use available opportunities through its public meetings, website, City
newsletter, Comprehensive Plan, or interpretive elements at parks and open space sites to inform
its residents about the value of local water resources, the effects of stormwater runoff, and
opportunities for stewardship of water and natural resources.
Surface Water Management Plan
City of Medina Section 5
WSB Project No. 2714-940 Page -9
SECTION 5
5.5.4.Funding
Goal: Secure adequate funding to support implementation of the surface water management plan.
Policy: The City will cost effectively manage the plan to balance surface water goals with available
resources.
Policy: The City will seek grant funds or other resources to assist with special projects or
implementation of plan goals.
Policy: The City will utilize the Stormwater Utility Fund to pay for stormwater management
projects and implementation activities.
5.6. Support of Other Agencies
Overall Goal:
Coordinate local surface water management with the work of watershed management organizations
and state agencies.
Overall Policy:
The City will cooperate and collaborate with the local water management organizations in their efforts
to maintain and improve water quality in the city.
Goal: Facilitate WMO review of development projects and enforcement of watershed standards.
Policy: Policy: Medina will coordinate development review activities with the watershed
organizations with jurisdictions overlapping that of the City.
Goal: Cooperate with other organizations to complete and implement management plans and
studies for water resources in Medina.
Policy: The City will work with local watershed management organizations, Hennepin County,
and others when appropriate and as resources are available to participate in resource management
plans or studies that benefit water and natural resources.
Policy: The City will work with the local watershed management organizations to jointly
implement the LSWMP.
Goal: Cooperate with other organizations working to protect groundwater resources.
Policy: The City will cooperate with the County and water management organizations to
implement the recommendations of the Hennepin County Groundwater Plan, to protect
groundwater quality by reducing the potential for transport of stormwater pollutants into the
groundwater, and maintaining the functions of groundwater recharge areas.
Policy: The City will support well -sealing programs developed by Hennepin County and the
Minnesota Department of Health.
Surface Water Management Plan
City of Medina Section 5
WSB Project No. 2714-940 Page -10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
Jodi Gallup, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk
DATE: February 25, 2021
MEETING: March 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Hunter Lions Park Master Plan
Background
At the June 16, 2020 meeting, the City Council authorized the City to enter into an agreement
with WSB to create a master plan for Hunter Lions Park. Throughout the remainder of the year,
staff and the Park Commission worked with WSB Landscape Architect Candace Amberg on the
project.
The project involved a site visit to discuss initial aging park equipment and potential redesign
options to optimize the functionality, safety, and recreational enjoyment at Hunter Lions Park.
WSB created three layout options for Park Commission consideration, which was presented to
the Park Commission at their August 19, 2020 meeting. The Park Commission reviewed and
recommended refinement of those designs to one concept plan to be posted online for public
feedback.
The City sought public feedback of the concept plan through the website using a program called
Social PinPoint to allow resident feedback. The public engagement period was advertised
through the Medina Message mailed newsletter, email blasts, social media, and the City’s
website.
Current Site Layout
at Hunter Lions Park
Proposed Site Layout at
Hunter Lions Park (detailed
larger maps attached)
Agenda Item #8B
Project to be Constructed in Seven Phases
At the October 21, 2020 meeting, the Park Commission reviewed the design changes based on
the public feedback, project costs, and discussed staging the improvements over the course of
several years due to the limited funds in the Municipal Park Fund.
Phase 1: Reorient ballfield backstop (remove existing basketball court)
Phase 2: Construct tennis & pickleball courts
Phase 3: Construct new basketball court, remove existing volleyball court, construct new trails
Phase 4: Expand playground with new equipment, add new site amenities
Phase 5: New site amenities to include picnic tables, receptacles, picnic shelter on pad
Phase 6: Install event pods along trail
Phase 7: Natural resource management, prairie kiosk signs, prairie & creek enhancements,
prairie benches
Project Costs
The total estimated costs for all phases of the project were initially projected to be between
$906,659 to $1,290,895. Staff believes this cost can be substantially reduced by utilizing public
works equipment and staff for completion of some of the items on the quote.
Please be mindful that public works has numerous projects, above and beyond their normal
schedules, to juggle and complete, but also enjoy taking on projects such as this one as time
permits. Pacing ourselves over the course of five years has the potential to result in significant
cost savings for the Municipal Park Fund.
Currently, there is $300,000 of Municipal Park Funds budgeted in the Capital Improvement Plan
over the next three years ($100,000 each year) for the reconstruction of Hunter Lions Park. The
City will also seek out grant opportunities and donations for future phases of the project to help
reduce costs.
Next Steps
At the February 17, 2021 meeting, the Park Commission discussed the phasing plan for Hunter
Lions Park, noting that phase one included reorienting the ballfield backstop to be able to begin
phase two, which is the construction of the tennis and pickleball courts. The tennis and pickleball
courts have been identified as a more urgent need. Staff believes we can begin phase two of the
project, while leaving the ballfield backstop in place until more funds are secured to complete
phase one, which involves removing the existing basketball court to be able to reorient the
ballfield backstop. By leaving the ballfield backstop in place, we are able to keep the basketball
court intact until a new basketball court can be constructed in phase three of the project.
The Park Commission recommends beginning phase two, but to wait on the complete ballfield
installation in phase one until the Hamel Athletic Club can provide some cost sharing. In the
meantime, the field will be able to be used as a practice field with a reduced outfield.
After thorough review of the Hunter Lions Park Reconstruction Project, including the scope and
funds needed to accomplish the Hunter Lions Park vision, staff reviewed the tennis and pickle
ball courts for potential cost savings by utilizing public works equipment and staff for
completion of some items on the quote. Attached is a modified cost estimate showing potential
savings for these items.
Recommended Motion
Motion to adopt Hunter Lions Park Master Plan and recommend beginning implementation of
phase 2 (tennis and pickle ball courts) utilizing public works resources to reduce costs.
Attachments
• Hunter Lions Park Master Plan
• Hunter Lions Park Master Plan with phases
• WSB Cost Estimates for each phase
• Phase Two Cost Estimate showing potential savings
• Park Commission meeting minutes from August 19, 2020, October 21, 2020, and
February 17, 2021
SCALE IN FEET
0 50 100
SCALE IN FEET
0 50 100
SCALE IN FEET
0 50 100
K:
\
0
1
2
3
9
1
-
0
0
0
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
M
a
p
s
\
0
1
6
3
8
0
_
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
_
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Medina, Minnesota
November 15, 2020 | WSB Project number: 016380-000
Hunter Lions Park - Master Plan
PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING PARKING LOT RESTRIPED WITH APPROX. 59 STALLS & STRIPED PEDESTRIAN ROUTE
PROPOSED TREE (TYP.)
OPTIONAL TEMPORARY FENCE IN OUTFIELD
EXISTING TRAIL
PICNIC TABLE SEATING
NEW BASKETBALL (FULL COURT)
EXISTING SHELTER
BENCH SEATING
NEW SHELTER
OPTIONAL RELOCATION FOR SHED
LAWN
EXPANDED
PLAY AREA
MOWED TRAIL
BENCH SEATING
NEW PAVED TRAILS
EVENT POD (SEE FIGURES 1-3)PORTABLE RESTROOM /GARBAGE ENCLOSURE
OPTIONAL RELOCATION FOR SHED
EXISTING BRIDGE
KIOSK / PRAIRIE INFO
LITTLE LEAGUE
BALLFIELD
(200’)
NATIVE POLLINATOR PRAIRIE
CREEK VIEWS
NEW SINGLE TENNIS COURT
NEW PICKLEBALL COURTS (4)
EXISTING STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
EXISTING TRAIL
SCREENING
FIGURE 1. EXERCISE STATION EVENT PODS
FIGURE 3. NATURAL LOOKING EVENT PODS
FIGURE 2. NATURAL WOOD EVENT PODS
SCALE IN FEET
0 50 100
SCALE IN FEET
0 50 100
SCALE IN FEET
0 50 100
K:
\
0
1
6
3
8
0
-
0
0
0
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
\
0
1
6
3
8
0
_
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
_
P
h
a
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
Medina, Minnesota
November 15, 2020 | WSB Project number: 016380-000
Hunter Lions Park - Master Plan
PHASE 1:
- REORIENT BALLFIELD BACKSTOP
- SIGN OR REMOVE EXISTING
BASKETBALL COURT
PHASE 2:
- CONSTRUCT TENNIS & PICKLEBALL
COURT (REMOVE EXISTING)
PHASE 4:
- EXPAND PLAYGROUND WITH NEW
EQUIPMENT
- NEW SITE AMENITIES (BENCHES,
RECEPTACLES, BIKE RACK)
PHASE 3:
- CONSTRUCT NEW BASKETBALL COURT
(REMOVE EXISTING)
- REMOVE EXISTING VOLLEYBALL
- CONSTRUCT NEW TRAILS
PHASE 6:
- TRAIL EVENT PODS PHASE 7:
- NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
- PRAIRIE KIOSK SIGNS
- PRAIRIE & CREEK ENHANCEMENTS
- PRAIRIE BENCHES
PHASE 5:
- NEW SITE AMENITIES (PICNIC TABLES,
RECEPTACLES, DRINKING FOUNTAIN)
- NEW PICNIC SHELTER ON PAD
Hunter Lions Park
City of Medina, Minnesota
November 23, 2020 | WSB# 016380-000
No.Item Description Est. Qty.Unit Low
Unit Price Low Total High
Unit Price High Total
1 Ballfield Relocation
1a Removals (backstop, fencing, agg-lime, basketball court)1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000
1b Earthwork 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000
1c 24' High Backstop 80 LF $275 $22,000 $300 $24,000
1d 8' High Fencing on Maint. Strip (2-rail)160 LF $40 $6,400 $50 $8,000
1e 8' High Fencing on Maint. Strip (3-rail)48 LF $80 $3,840 $90 $4,320
1f Players Benches 2 EA $4,000 $8,000 $5,000 $10,000
1g Agg-Lime 1,300 SY $8 $10,400 $10 $13,000
1h Concrete Pads 1,625 SF $10 $16,250 $12 $19,500
1i Restoration 0.4 AC $3,500 $1,400 $4,500 $1,800
SUBTOTAL:$78,290 $100,620
Recommended Contingency (10%)$7,829 $10,062
Estimated Professional Design Fees (15%) if applicable $11,744 $15,093
TOTAL:$97,863 $125,775
2 Tennis & Pickleball Courts
2a Removals (tennis court)1 LS $10,000 $10,000 $15,000 $15,000
2b Earthwork & Export 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 $20,000 $20,000
2c Erosion Control Fence 250 LF $3 $750 $4 $1,000
2d Rock Construction Entrance 1 EA $2,000 $2,000 $2,500 $2,500
2e Court Pavement (12"sand; 8" CL5; 3.5" bit)1,600 SY $40 $64,000 $45 $72,000
2f Color Coating 1,600 SY $8 $12,800 $10 $16,000
2g 10' Fencing 600 LF $60 $36,000 $75 $45,000
2h 4' Fencing 160 LF $25 $4,000 $35 $5,600
2i Nets 5 EA $2,500 $12,500 $3,500 $17,500
2j Underdrainage 1,100 LF $15 $16,500 $25 $27,500
2k Concrete Pavement 2,000 SF $10 $20,000 $15 $30,000
2l Picnic Tables 2 EA $2,500 $5,000 $3,500 $7,000
2m Trees 10 EA $600 $6,000 $700 $7,000
2n Restoration 0.3 AC $3,500 $1,050 $4,500 $1,350
SUBTOTAL:$205,600 $267,450
Recommended Contingency & Mobilization (15%)$30,840 $40,118
Estimated Professional Design Fees (15%) $30,840 $40,118
TOTAL:$267,280 $347,685
3 Trails & Basketball Court
3a Removals (volleyball, existing trail segments)1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000
3b Earthwork 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 $20,000 $20,000
3c Erosion Control Fence 2,000 LF $3 $6,000 $4 $8,000
3d Rock Construction Entrance 1 EA $2,000 $2,000 $2,500 $2,500
3e Bituminous Trails: 8'-10' wide 1,300 SY $30 $39,000 $40 $52,000
3f Curb Edging (parking lot)200 LF $20 $4,000 $25 $5,000
3g Parking Lot Striping 1 LS $1,500 $1,500 $2,500 $2,500
3h Court Pavement (8" CL5; 3.5" bit)560 SY $30 $16,800 $40 $22,400
3i Color Coating 560 SY $8 $4,480 $10 $5,600
3j Goal 2 EA $4,500 $9,000 $5,500 $11,000
3k Restoration 0.7 AC $3,500 $2,450 $4,500 $3,150
SUBTOTAL:$105,230 $142,150
Recommended Contingency & Mobilization (15%)$15,785 $21,323
Estimated Professional Design Fees (15%) $15,785 $21,323
TOTAL:$136,799 $184,795
ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COSTS
K:\016380-000\Quantity\Preliminary\Preferred Concept Plan Est Phasing_2020-1023 Page 1 of 2
4 Playground
4a Removals (playground equipment, concrete, curb)1 LS $10,000 $10,000 $15,000 $15,000
4b Earthwork 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000
4c Erosion Control Fence 225 LF $3 $675 $4 $900
4d Rock Construction Entrance 1 EA $2,000 $2,000 $2,500 $2,500
4e Playground Equipment (budget)1 LS $75,000 $75,000 $100,000 $100,000
4f New Playground Wood Fiber Surfacing 7,000 SF $2 $14,000 $3 $21,000
4g Playground Curb - added to existing 150 LF $25 $3,750 $35 $5,250
4h Concrete Pavement 3,200 SF $10 $32,000 $15 $48,000
4i Benches 4 EA $1,800 $7,200 $2,300 $9,200
4j Picnic Tables 2 EA $2,500 $5,000 $3,500 $7,000
4k Bike Rack 1 EA $1,000 $1,000 $1,500 $1,500
4l Trash & Recycling 2 EA $1,000 $2,000 $1,500 $3,000
4m Trees 5 EA $600 $3,000 $700 $3,500
4n Restoration 0.2 AC $3,500 $700 $4,500 $900
SUBTOTAL:$161,325 $227,750
Recommended Contingency & Mobilization (15%)$24,199 $34,163
Estimated Professional Design Fees (15%) $24,199 $34,163
TOTAL:$209,723 $296,075
5 Picnic Shelter
5a Earthwork 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000
5b Picnic Shelter 1 LS $35,000 $35,000 $50,000 $50,000
5c Concrete Pavement 1,000 SF $10 $10,000 $15 $15,000
5d Picnic Tables 4 EA $2,500 $10,000 $3,500 $14,000
5e Trash & Recycling 2 EA $1,000 $2,000 $1,500 $3,000
5f Drinking Fountain 1 EA $7,000 $7,000 $8,000 $8,000
5g Trees 3 EA $600 $1,800 $700 $2,100
5h Restoration 0.1 AC $3,500 $350 $4,500 $450
5i Electrical (Budget)1 LS $15,000 $15,000 $25,000 $25,000
SUBTOTAL:$86,150 $127,550
Recommended Contingency & Mobilization (15%)$12,923 $19,133
Estimated Professional Design Fees (15%) $12,923 $19,133
TOTAL:$111,995 $165,815
6 Trail Pods
6a Earthwork 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000
6b Trail Pod Events (budget)5 EA $5,000 $25,000 $15,000 $75,000
6c Benches 4 EA $2,500 $10,000 $3,000 $12,000
SUBTOTAL:$40,000 $97,000
Recommended Contingency (10%)$4,000 $9,700
Estimated Professional Design Fees (15%) if applicable $6,000 $14,550
TOTAL:$50,000 $121,250
7 Prairie & Creek Improvements
7a Kiosk 1 EA $10,000 $10,000 $15,000 $15,000
7b Landscaping (budget: trees, shrubs, perennials)1 LS $10,000 $10,000 $15,000 $15,000
7c Creek & Prairie Restoration Management (budget)1 LS $10,000 $10,000 $15,000 $15,000
SUBTOTAL:$30,000 $45,000
Recommended Contingency (10%)$3,000 $4,500
Estimated Professional Design Fees (not included)
TOTAL:$33,000 $49,500
$906,659 $1,290,895
NOTE: Stormwater work is assumed to be adequate and is not included in this estimate.
ESTIMATED PROJECT TOTAL:
K:\016380-000\Quantity\Preliminary\Preferred Concept Plan Est Phasing_2020-1023 Page 2 of 2
STEVE STEVE COMMENTS
No. Item Description Est.
Qty.Unit Low
Unit Price Low Total High
Unit Price
1 Ballfield Relocation
1a Removals (backstop, fencing, agg‐lime, basketball court) 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $10,000
1b Earthwork 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $10,000
1c 24' High Backstop 80 LF $275 $22,000 $300
1d 8' High Fencing on Maint. Strip (2‐rail) 160 LF $40 $6,400 $50
1e 8' High Fencing on Maint. Strip (3‐rail) 48 LF $80 $3,840 $90
1f Players Benches 2 EA $4,000 $8,000 $5,000
1g Agg‐Lime 1,300 SY $8 $10,400 $10
1h Concrete Pads 1,625 SF $10 $16,250 $12
1i Restoration 0.4 AC $3,500 $1,400 $4,500
SUBTOTAL:$78,290
Recommended Contingency (10%) $7,829
Estimated Professional Design Fees (15%) if applicable $11,744
TOTAL:$97,863
2 Tennis & Pickleball Courts
2a Removals (tennis court) 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 $15,000
1,000.00
dumping fee's only rest staff and equepment $14,000.00
2b Earthwork & Export 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 $20,000
1,000.00
Costs are in city labor and equepment need
a place for dirt.
$19,000.00
2c Erosion Control Fence 250 LF $3 $750 $4 $0.00
2d Rock Construction Entrance 1 EA $2,000 $2,000 $2,500 1,000.00 $1,500.00
2e Court Pavement (12"sand; 8" CL5; 3.5" bit) 1,600 SY $40 $64,000 $45 50,000.00 PW install sand and class 5 and sand $22,000.00
2f Color Coating 1,600 SY $8 $12,800 $10
2g 10' Fencing 600 LF $60 $36,000 $75
2h 4' Fencing 160 LF $25 $4,000 $35
2i Nets 5 EA $2,500 $12,500 $3,500
2j Underdrainage 1,100 LF $15 $16,500 $25 8,000.00 PW install this $19,500.00
2k Concrete Pavement 2,000 SF $10 $20,000 $15
2l Picnic Tables 2 EA $2,500 $5,000 $3,500
2m Trees 10 EA $600 $6,000 $700 1,000.00 Smaller tees Bareroot or donations $6,000.00
2n Restoration 0.3 AC $3,500 $1,050 $4,500
SUBTOTAL:$205,600
Recommended Contingency & Mobilization (15%) $30,840 10,000.00 $30,118.00
Estimated Professional Design Fees (15%) $30,840 10,000.00 $30,118.00
TOTAL:$267,280
$142,236.00 TOTAL SAVINGS
40,118.00
40,118.00
347,685.00
27,500.00
30,000.00
7,000.00
7,000.00
1,350.00
267,450.00
2,500.00
72,000.00
16,000.00
45,000.00
5,600.00
17,500.00
$125,775
15,000.00
20,000.00
1,000.00
$13,000
$19,500
$1,800
$100,620
$10,062
$15,093
$10,000
$10,000
$24,000
$8,000
$4,320
$10,000
Hunter Lions Park
City of Medina, Minnesota
November 23, 2020 | WSB# 016380-000
ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COSTS
High Total
Excerpt of August 19, 2020 Medina Park Commission Meeting Minutes 1
Hunter Lions Park Concept Plans
Landscape Architect Shaunna Newton with WSB presented three concept plans for
Hunter Lions Park. She stated that these concept plans have been designed to optimize
the functionality, safety, and recreational enjoyment at Hunter Lions Park. She noted that
the concept plans have addressed creating a recreational Little League Field with optimal
orientation, improved the playground area, opened up views, so the playground was not
hidden behind courts, created space for two tennis courts, controlled invasives, reduced
mosquitos, and created an inviting path to get people back to the prairie area.
Newton explained how each design incorporated event pods to slowly move people back
to the nature area. Newton described the various design differences in each concept plan.
She stated that the overall goal is to provide a safe and functional design.
Jacob thanked Newton for her excellent work in reimagining the space. He stated that the
subcommittee had met earlier in the day to review the concept plans and recommended
concept plan two. He noted that they liked the expanded play area next to the baseball
seating, preferred this design’s ballfield orientation with the batter in the southwest
corner, and liked the tennis court location in the northeast corner.
Jacob commented that the tennis courts could potentially fit one tennis and two pickleball
courts. He questioned if the baseball outfield fence could be removeable/flexible to be
able to use the open field for other sports after the baseball season.
Lee concurred with Jacob’s comments and added that he liked the location of the tennis
courts in the north, because it provides a natural extension if land to north becomes
available to add more tennis courts.
Lee stated that the park improvements would likely be phased due to expenses. He
suggested building the tennis courts and baseball field as phase one; noting that the
existing playground area remain intact until it was expanded as part of the phase two
improvements.
Thies agreed that she preferred concept two, but suggested adding seating to the prairie
area, using the nature pod from concept three, and putting the exercise pod in the open
area.
Sharp stated that he liked concept two as well with the tennis court to the north, so it does
not block the playground area. He also stated he preferred the nature pod from concept
three.
Hutchinson stated that the concept plans were well thought out. He liked that the play
area was near the baseball seating.
Excerpt of August 19, 2020 Medina Park Commission Meeting Minutes 2
Jacob suggested including the Hamel Lions Club in future park design discussions prior
to seeking resident feedback.
Ryan Wilson with the Hamel Athletic Club (HAC) stated that concept two is the optimal
baseball orientation. He stated that if this field was built, HAC would put the older Little
League kids on this field to make this park their own.
Scherer stated that he would reach out to the Hamel Lions Club to get their feedback. He
also mentioned that this baseball field would be built for the Hamel Athletic Club’s use,
so he would anticipate that HAC would partner on the baseball improvement costs.
Thies asked WSB to update the concept two plan showing a full basketball court and
bench seating in the prairie area.
Lee asked that the event pods figures in concepts two and three be shown in the updated
concept two design.
Thies questioned if the trail leading to the nature area should be closer to the creek to
enjoy the newly opened views.
Andy Servi with HAC asked that the timing of the park construct began after the baseball
season, which ends around the 4th of July, so it does not interfere with their playing
schedule.
Scherer questioned if HAC would need irrigation for a grassed infield. Servi confirmed
that irrigation would be necessary.
Servi also stated that HAC would prefer a permanent outfield fence but would be willing
to work with the city on installing a temporary/flexible fence to maximize the play area in
the park during non-baseball season.
Gallup questioned if WSB would be putting together cost estimates for each design
element, so the Park Commission can determine what improvements or alternatives are
feasible with the available funding.
Newton stated that she had put together some high-level cost estimates with all
improvements totaling $700,000 to $1,000,000.
The Park Commission requested that WSB update the concept two plan as discussed at
this meeting, showing cost estimates for each improvement along with alternatives.
Excerpt of October 21, 2020 Medina Park Commission Meeting Minutes 1
Hunter Lions Park Concept Plans
Landscape Architect Candace Amberg with WSB reviewed the Hunter Lions Park master
plan goals, process, the comments received from the public. She noted that there were 20
users on the Social PinPoint site who contributed 38 total comments on the master plan.
The feedback included:
Playground
• Would like benches on both sides of playground and trees for shade
• Notes on challenging events, climbing activities
Field
• Consider multi-use green space instead of formal field
• Instead of field consider other options (hockey rink, more tennis/ pickleball,
frisbee golf, skate park, Blokken-sauce)
Courts
• Reduce to 2 pickleball only and move further away from trail/road
• Screen courts and chainlink fencing (2)
• Like tennis courts moved away from kids playground
• Like/love pickleball (3)
• Pickleball not good option for small space, better at Hamel CC. 1 like; 1 dislike
• Not many people play pickleball, 2 tennis courts better; 3 likes; 1 dislike
• Single tennis court is good since there are 2 at Legion Park
• Love having full basketball court
• Like basketball court in its own space
Trails
• Like exercise stations along trails (3) and 3 likes
• Like expanded trail and event pods (2) and 3 + 2 likes; 1 dislike
• More climbing activities in pods rather than hiding
• Paved trail in prairie for improved accessibility (2) and 1 like
• Feel it’s hazardous to have the trail along Hunter Dr cross the parking lot, would
be better to move closer to the street (3) and 3 likes; 2 dislikes
Parking
• If possible, rethink design and orientation for more park space
• Off-street parking is needed for safety
Natural Resources
• Prairie: under-utilized, consider other reason to visit this space
• Prairie: bee hive stations?
• Prairie: native plants to screen neighbors: 1 like
Excerpt of October 21, 2020 Medina Park Commission Meeting Minutes 2
• Prairie: archery range: 3 likes; 2 dislikes
Misc
• Porta potties valuable near playground
• Consider value of moving amenities around for cost to be worth benefit
Jacob suggested that the plan show an area for a future Eagle Scout project to build a picnic
shelter or custom bench to help save on costs.
Morrison asked if the plan should show two tennis courts and just stripe for pickleball.
Scherer stated that having actual pickleball courts provides a better pickleball experience
than striping tennis courts. It was noted that pickleball is a growing sport, and the city does
not currently have any pickleball courts.
Hutchinson said that if pickleball courts are built, people will come and use them.
Morrison said she was not in favor of putting in an outfield fence for the ball field.
Thies commented that the trail heading back to the nature area could be closer to the creek
and woods to provide a better nature experience.
It was noted that the parking lot was too big and questioned if it made sense to reduce or
leave as is?
Gallup noted that there were comments regarding wanting to continue the trail along Hunter,
so trail users were not forced to go into the parking lot or around the parking lot.
Lee noted that the tree should be removed from the boulevard to create a safer trail crossing
along Hunter Drive.
Lee stated he was supportive of pickleball and staging the park improvements.
It was also noted that there is a need for a safe trail crossing from the park across Hunter
Drive to connect to the other side of the road and neighborhood.
The Park Commissioners discussed staging the improvements over the course of a few years
due to limited funds. It was noted that the tennis and pickleball courts were more urgent. It
was also discussed to move the backstop for the ball field, but not fully construct the field at
this time since it is just being used as a practice field.
Scherer stated he would get quotes on moving the backstop for the ball fields.
Excerpt of Draft February 17, 2021 Medina Park Commission Meeting Minutes 1
Hunter Lions Park Final Master Plan
Scherer reviewed the Hunter Lions Park Master Plan cost sheet with the Park Commission,
detailing the line items for the tennis and pickleball courts that could be completed by the
Public Works crew to reduce the overall project costs.
Scherer noted that the original projected total cost for the tennis court and pickleball courts
came to $347,685, which he was able to reduce by $142,236.00. These savings are captured
through public works employees completing the demolition of the old courts, earthwork,
installing sand and class 5, installing underdrainage, and planting the trees. Additional
savings were captured through a reduction in professional design costs and the contingency
line item.
The Park Commission members thanked Scherer and showed their appreciation for providing
substantial cost savings by completing sections of this project with city public works
employees rather than hiring out the work.
Gallup noted Medina’s Capital Improvement plan has budgeted approximately $100,000
each year for the next three years to begin updating Hunter Lions Park.
The Park Commission discussed the phasing plan for Hunter Lions Park noting that phase
one included reorienting the ballfield backstop to be able to begin phase two, which is the
construction of the tennis and pickleball courts. There was a consensus to reorient the
ballfield backstop if needed to be able to begin phase two, but to wait on the complete
ballfield installation in phase one until the Hamel Athletic Club can provide some cost
sharing. In the meantime, the field will be able to be used as a practice field.
A motion was made by Jacob and seconded by Lee to recommend to the City Council the
adoption of the Hunter Lions Master Plan and recommend beginning the implementation of
phase two.
A roll call vote was taken:
Park Commissioner Mary Morrison - aye
Park Commissioner Angela Bernhardt – aye
Park Commissioner Steve Lee - aye
Park Commissioner Nila Norman – aye
Park Commissioner Troy Hutchinson – aye
Park Commissioner John Jacob – aye
Motion passed unanimously.
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 March 2, 2021
City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: February 25, 2021
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – March 2, 2021 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Review
A) Holy Name Lake Estates Final Plat – north of County Road 24, northwest of Holy Name
Lake - JD Dossier Holdings LLC has requested final plat approval for a six-lot rural
subdivision on 90 acres. The City granted preliminary approval of the subdivision on
December 1, 2020. Review is underway, and the City Council will review when complete,
potentially at the March 16 meeting.
B) Meadowview Commons 2nd Addition Final Plat – south of Meander Rd, west of Jubert Tr –
US Home Corporation (Lennar) has requested final plat approval for development of the
remaining 83 townhome lots in the project. The initial 42 townhome lots were approved in
November 2020. Review is underway, and the City Council will review when complete,
potentially at the March 16 meeting.
C) Reserve of Medina 3rd Addn Final plat – south of Hackamore Road, east of CR116 –
Pulte Homes has requested final plat approval for the final 31 lots in the Reserve of Medina.
Review is underway, and the City Council will review when complete, potentially at the
March 16 or April 6 meeting.
D) Pioneer Trail Preserve – 2325 Pioneer Tr. – James and Melissa Korin have requested a 3-
lot subdivision of a 40-acre parcel. The applicant has indicated that they intend to change
the lot alignment originally submitted, so staff will await updated documents and schedule a
public hearing when complete, potentially at the April 13 meeting.
E) M/I Homes Comprehensive Plan Amendment – 1400 Hamel Road – M/I Home has
requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use from Business to
Medium Density Residential and submitted a concept plan review for a potential
development of 78 townhomes. The applicant has not completed the application, and a
public hearing will be scheduled when complete, potentially at the April 13 meeting.
F) Townhome PUD Concept Plan – 1432 County Road 29 – Medina Townhome
Development LLC has requested review of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept
Plan for development of 24 townhomes east of Baker Park Road, north of Highway 12. The
Planning Commission held a public hearing at the February 9 Planning Commission
meeting and the Council reviewed on February 16. The applicant is considering their next
steps with the application.
G) Krinke Accessory Structure CUP – 2905 Willowood Farm Road – Lothar and Mona
Krinke have requested a conditional use permit for construction of a 12,600 square foot
indoor riding arena addition to an existing barn. The Planning Commission held a public
hearing at the January 12 meeting and recommended approval. The Council adopted a
resolution of approval at the February 16 meeting. Staff will work with the applicant on the
conditions of approval prior to construction.
H) Piper Lot Combination – 1745 Hunter Drive – Cynthia and Addison Piper have requested a
combination of two adjacent parcels into a single lot. The City Council approved at the
February 2 meeting. Staff will assist the property owner with recording documents.
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 March 2, 2021
City Council Meeting
I) Weston Woods Preliminary Plat and PUD General Plan – east of Mohawk Drive, north of
Highway 55 – Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) has requested a Preliminary Plat
and PUD General Plan for development of 76 twinhomes, 42 single-family, and 33
townhomes on the Roy and Cavanaugh properties. The City Council adopted documents of
approval at the January 5 meeting. Staff is coordinating permitting for construction of
Chippewa Road and will await final plat application.
J) 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. The
application is incomplete for review, and the City has requested additional materials.
K) Adam’s Pest Control Site Plan Review, Pre Plat, Rezoning – These projects have been
preliminarily approved and the City is awaiting final plat application.
L) Johnson ADU CUP, Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery – The City Council has
adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the
conditions of approval in order to complete the projects.
M) Hamel Haven subdivision – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is
working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plat is recorded.
Other Projects
A) Stormwater Management Ordinance – The Planning Commission held a public hearing on
the stormwater management ordinance at the January 12 and February 9 meetings. The
Commission recommended adoption of an ordinance and staff intends to present to Council
at the March 2 meeting.
B) Hackamore Road – staff met with Corcoran staff and WSB to kick-off the 75% design
process. WSB has also prepared the LRIP grant application, which will be submitted soon.
Staff also obtained letters of support from Hennepin County and the cities of Corcoran,
Plymouth, and Maple Grove.
C) Diamond Lake Regional Trail – Three Rivers presented the route alternatives, feedback
from public engagement, and preferred route to the Park Commission and City Council on
February 16. Public comment was accepted at the February 16 and 23 meetings. The Park
Commission and Council are scheduled to discuss at the March 2 worksession.
D) ULI Development Financing Workshop – I attended a seminar presented by the Urban Land
Institute providing information on how developers create pro-forma and financing developments. I
believe this knowledge and perspective is important when discussing projects, negotiating
development agreements, and when considering redevelopment in Uptown Hamel.
E) Chippewa Road permitting – Staff is putting together the permit application for the wetland
impacts for Chippewa Road. As discussed during review of the Weston Woods project, the City will
be responsible for obtaining permits and ultimately for costs for mitigation if the project is
constructed by the developer.
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety
DATE: February 26, 2021
RE: Department Updates
On February 22, Sergeant Kevin Boecker and Officer Jeremiah Jessen conducted the department’s
annual use of force training. This is mandated by our peace officer licensing board, Police Officer
Standards and Training (POST). We went over the new use of force policy to include the new
legislative changes to the deadly force statute. As I stated in my memo to City Administrator Scott
Johnson last Friday, these are major changes for us on how we handle calls for service. We will
continue to train and work on our scenario-based training that we host in June to incorporate these
new additions.
On February 23, we interviewed the top seven candidates for our new police officer position. There
was a clear-cut candidate that has been identified and I will be interviewing that person on February
26. A background will be conducted, along with a psychological and physical before a conditional
officer will be given. Even with the lack of candidates, I feel very fortunate and confident that this
candidate has fallen into our lap at the right time. I am hopeful that this process will be completed
and will be bringing the hiring request in front of the council on April 6.
I continue to prepare with all the Hennepin Chiefs for the Minneapolis officer trials that are
scheduled for March. I will have a more in-depth memo that I will send out as to what exactly our
role will be in that process. We are currently working out the final details. What I can tell you at
this time is that we are not partnering with Minneapolis directly in their operations.
Patrol:
Sergeant Boecker is on vacation.
Investigations:
Investigating an employee theft from a business. I interviewed the suspect involved and they
admitted to the theft. The suspect will be charged with a formal complaint through the city attorney’s
office.
MEMORANDUM
I am currently assisting a detective from the Eagle County Sheriff’s Office in Eagle, Colorado with
interviewing a victim of a sexual assault. The victim resides in Medina and arrangements are being
made to interview the victim in the next few weeks.
Completed a background check for a new public works employee.
Completed annual use of force and taser training. There is a lot to learn with new changes to the use
of force policy.
There are currently (6) cases assigned to investigations.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
DATE: February 25, 2021
MEETING: March 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Public Works Update
STREETS
• The streets are really starting to move around because of the big temperature swings over
the past few weeks. Depending on the weather, seasonal weight postings will be put in
effect within the next week or two. As always, we will work very closely with the Police
to assure our roads are protected while in their most vulnerable state. Most of the large
contractors have been notified and all the information will be posted on the city web site
to answer questions.
• Derek Reinking and I will be assessing the condition of all the streets in the next months
to develop an updated pavement maintenance plan for the next few years.
WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER
• Public Works repaired a watermain break on Morningside Road in the Morningside
subdivision. We engaged Burnsville Construction because the frost was four feet deep
and required a frost breaker. Water was turned-off to several residents for about three
hours. There will be curb, street, and driveway repairs in the months to come.
• I will be working with Total Control to install the upgrades for the treatment plant
SCADA control system in the next few months.
PARKS/TRAILS
• We discussed phasing of the Hunter Lions Park at the February Park Commission
meeting. Our intent is to phase in a plan for public works to complete as much physical
work as is possible and eliminate most all the project management, bidding, contracting
and documentation. Our plan is in this packet for approval.
• Public Works has removed all the trees cut down in Hariots Woods. I have been working
with the HOA to get a group to help with the reforestation project. I have ordered several
varieties of trees to plant in the cleared areas. After considering the recommendations
received from the two foresters I spoke with, we will plant a variety of trees then monitor
the growth rate. This will help to determine which species does best in our area for future
orders.
MISCELLANEOUS
• The application deadline for the public works position closed on Friday 2/12/21. We did
not have a large number of applicants but I am confident we have a good candidate. The
hiring recommendation is on the consent agenda for your approval.
ORDER CHECKS FEBRUARY 16, 2021 – MARCH 2, 2021
051304 EAGLE BROOK CHURCH ......................................................... $250.00
051305 MARCO (LEASE) .................................................................... $1,429.25
051306 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ................................................... $9,840.60
051307 USAFA PARENT CLUB MN ....................................................... $250.00
051308 ENCLAVE MASTER ASSN ................................................... $32,420.48
051309 BEAUDRY OIL & PROPANE .................................................. $2,220.25
051310 CROW RIVER FARM EQUIPMENT CO .................................... $273.84
051311 CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ............................................. $470.49
051312 ECM PUBLISHERS INC .............................................................. $71.24
051313 HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES I ................................ $500.00
051314 HAWKINS INC. ....................................................................... $2,574.89
051315 JIMMY'S JOHNNYS INC ............................................................ $130.00
051316 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED .................................. $11,177.50
051317 KOTHRADE SEWER, WATER & ............................................... $700.00
051318 MARCO (LEASE) ....................................................................... $566.68
051319 MEDTOX LABS ........................................................................... $50.00
051320 METRO WEST INSPECTION ................................................. $9,490.55
051321 NAPA OF CORCORAN INC ........................................................ $86.57
051322 NELSON ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR .................................. $2,599.00
051323 OFFICE DEPOT ........................................................................ $360.47
051324 RECYCLING ASSOCIATION OF MN......................................... $300.00
051325 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES INC .................................. $8,116.65
051326 SATTLER, KAREN .................................................................... $250.00
051327 STREICHER'S ............................................................................. $43.96
051328 TEGRETE CORP .................................................................... $1,355.00
051329 TIMESAVER OFFSITE .............................................................. $377.13
051330 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA.................................................... $81.95
051331 SSI MN TRANCHE 1 #10322006 ............................................ $1,565.57
051332 SSI MN TRANCHE 3 #10327096 ............................................ $2,133.18
051333 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE .................................................. $30.00
051334 WSB & ASSOCIATES ........................................................... $33,050.25
051335 ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION .............................................. $350.93
Total Checks $123,116.43
ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS FEBRUARY 16, 2021 – MARCH 2, 2021
005834E PR PERA .............................................................................. $16,868.45
005835E PR FED/FICA ....................................................................... $16,716.57
005836E PR MN Deferred Comp ........................................................... $1,790.00
005837E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA .................................................. $3,774.57
005838E CITY OF MEDINA ........................................................................ $21.00
005839E FURTHER .............................................................................. $1,715.20
005840E AFLAC ....................................................................................... $473.48
005841E ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICE .................................................. $5,435.71
005842E FURTHER .............................................................................. $1,643.96
005843E CIPHER LABORATORIES INC. .............................................. $1,408.23
005844E MINNESOTA, STATE OF .......................................................... $800.00
005845E DELTA DENTAL ..................................................................... $2,393.31
005846E WRIGHT HENN COOP ELEC ASSN ...................................... $2,140.01
005847E CENTERPOINT ENERGY ...................................................... $3,599.48
005848E CITY OF PLYMOUTH ............................................................. $1,024.88
005849E CULLIGAN-METRO ..................................................................... $34.40
Total Electronic Checks $59,839.25
PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT – FEBRUARY 17, 2021
0510833 BILLMAN, JACKSON CARROLL ............................................... $569.92
0510834 JOHNSON, PATRICK M. ........................................................... $634.33
0510835 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L. ................................................... $1,937.86
0510836 BARNHART, ERIN A. ............................................................. $2,540.92
0510837 BOECKER, KEVIN D. ............................................................. $2,582.88
0510838 CONVERSE, KEITH A. ........................................................... $1,999.46
0510839 DEMARS, LISA ....................................................................... $1,421.34
0510840 DINGMANN, IVAN W ................................................................. $459.80
0510841 DION, DEBRA A. .................................................................... $1,990.76
0510842 ENDE, JOSEPH...................................................................... $2,288.15
0510843 FINKE, DUSTIN D. ................................................................. $2,623.24
0510844 GALLUP, JODI M. ................................................................... $2,206.97
0510845 GLEASON, JOHN M. .............................................................. $2,250.32
0510846 GREGORY, THOMAS ............................................................ $2,041.98
0510847 HALL, DAVID M. ..................................................................... $2,070.10
0510848 HANSON, JUSTIN .................................................................. $2,707.84
0510849 JACOBSON, NICOLE ................................................................ $980.65
0510850 JESSEN, JEREMIAH S. .......................................................... $2,542.71
0510851 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. ............................................................ $2,316.39
0510852 KLAERS, ANNE M. ................................................................. $1,485.12
0510853 LEUER, GREGORY J. ............................................................ $1,850.51
0510854 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R. .................................................. $1,443.81
0510855 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D .......................................................... $2,035.76
0510856 NELSON, JASON ................................................................... $2,598.39
0510857 REINKING, DEREK M ............................................................ $1,999.44
0510858 SCHARF, ANDREW ............................................................... $2,497.76
0510859 SCHERER, STEVEN T. .......................................................... $2,367.70
0510860 VOGEL, NICHOLE .................................................................. $1,012.57
Total Payroll Direct Deposit $53,456.68