The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Agenda Packet 10-01-13 TJ 1E CITY OF LAKE ELMO Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible banner While Preserving the City's Open Space Character NOTICE OF MEETING City Council Meeting Tuesday, October 01, 2013 7:00 P.M. City of Lake Elmo 13800 Laverne Avenue North ***Park Commission Interview - Dana Nelson - 6:40 PM*** AGENDA A. Call to Order & Pledge of Allegiance C. Roll Call D. Order of Business E. Approval of Agenda F, Accept Minutes 1. Accept September 17, 2013 City Council Meeting Minutes C. Pudic Comments/Inquiries H. Speak Your Peace -Reeves 1. Presentations 2. Quality Star-Alyssa MacLeod J. Consent Agenda 3. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll 4. Authorize certification to Washington County Auditor for the Unpaid Storm Water Utility Bills;Resolution 2013-79 S. Approval of Resolution Appointing 2013 Election judges; Resolution 2013-80 6. Keats MSA Street and Trunk Watermain Improvements -- Call for Final Assessment Hearing; Resolution 2013-01 7. Keats MSA Street and Trunk Watermain Improvements - Change Order No. 4. 8. Approval of Gates for Sunfish Lake Park K. Regular Agenda 9. Variance - 09.029.21.22.0025 (Hill Trail North); Resolution 2013-82 M 2012 Street and Water Quality Improvements - Final Assessment Hearing; Resolution 2013-83 11. Wefl No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements - Public Improvement Hearing; Resolution 2013-84 12. 2014 Street Improvements -Authorize Feasibility Report;Resolution 2013-85 13. Comprehensive Plan Amendment- Landucci Property; Resolution 2013-86 14. Sketch Plan Review- Landucci Property 15. Official List of Storm Water Appeals /Assessments 16. Approve Sunfish Lake Park Dame Change -Sunfish bake Nature Preserve; Resolution 2013-87 L. Summary Reports and Announcements ® Mayor Council City Administrator City Attorney Planning Director ® City Engineer- Finance Director ® City Clerk M. Adjourn LAKE EL MO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 201.3 CITY OF LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17,2013 Mayor Pearson called the meeting to order at 7.00 P.M PRESENT: Mayor Pearson,Council Members Nelson,Smith,and Bloyer. ABSENT: Council Member Reeves Also Present: City Administrator Zuleger, Associate City Attorney Brekken, City Engineer Griffin, Finance Director Bendel, and City Clerk Bell. PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Council Member Nelson moved TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. Council Member Bloyer seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0. IiTEM 1:ACCEPT MINUTES THE SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES WERE APPROVED AS PRESENTED BY CONSENSUS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. CONSENT AGENDA 2. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll in the amount of$699,524.57 3. Accept Financial Report dated August 31, 2013 4. Accept Building Permit Report dated August 31, 2013 5. Ratification of the MNDNR Approval of City of Lake Elmo Ordinance No. 08-074 Amending Chapter 97-Water Surface Use; Ordinance 08-074, Resolution 2013-7S 6. Keats MSA Street and Trunk Watermain Improvements- Pay Request No.4. 7. Production Well No. 4- Pay Request No. 2. 8. 2013 Crack Seal Project- Receive Contractor Quotes and Award Contract. 9. Fee Schedule Amendment-Removal of Ag Sales & Entertainment IUP Fee; Resolution 2013-76 MOTION:Council Member Bloyer moved TOAPPROVE THE CONSENTAGENDA. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0', REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 10: INFRASTRUCTURE DEBT PARTICIPATION POLICY City Administrator Zuleger provided overview of the proposed Infrastructure Debt Policy. The City has been asked to draft a formal policy as a result of the request to use its bonding authority to provide the financing for private development. During a recent discussion of the 2013-2018 Capital Improvement Budget,the Council stressed the importance of protecting the taxpayer by having the developer commit to 100%responsibility of the debt service. Important features in policy: tailing out six points of security that the City may use; includes 12S% irrevocable fetter of Credit; includes projects with a greater public purpose such as a) over-sizing Page 1 of 4 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEM ER. 17, 2013 of utility infrastructure, b) transmission of utilities c) improvement of roadways, and d) any other benefits outside of development area, calls out escrow agreement; and states release of funds criteria. Council Member Smith asked if a development falls short of its target,who is responsible for paying off debt. City Engineer Griffin said it depends on the project. Each development will have a unique development agreement. All infrastructure projects will be backed and secured by the agreement and its letter of credit. On petitioned projects, the petition and waiver agreements are part of the security. If developer comes to Lake Elmo,they will pay 100%.Assessments run with the land. Ms. Smith asked if done before. Mr.Griffin was not sure as he was not here.Allowing developers"off the hook" if a failure occurs was discussed. Mr. Griffin explained that this was one more layer on top of the statutory authority. Ms. Smith thought Open Space developments were done this way. Mr. Griffin explained that almost all the infrastructure in an OP development is typically built for that development, whereas, this policy covers projects like the Section 34 developments where the infrastructure benefits the entire area. The terms of the letter of credit requirement were explained and discussed. Mr. Zuleger asked Northland Securities' Paul Donna if the policy was strong. Mr. Donna said that he has not ever seen one as strong. MOTION: Council Member Nelson moved TO ADOPT THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO INFRASTRUCTURE DEBT/ COST RECOVERY POLICY FOR THE PARTICIPATION IN PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AS A COMPONENT OF THE C17Y'S OVERALL DEBT MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT POLICY. Council Member Bloyer seconded the motion. Council Member Bloyer thinks this is a good policy, but is concerned future Councils not abide by the policy. He hopes that they are respectful of current policies put in place to protect the taxpayer. Council Member Nelson thanked staff for listening to council input to protect taxpayers. Thinks it is a great policy. Ms. Smith asked for Mr. Donna's input on what other cities that already have key streets are doing in these regards. Ms. Smith wants to make sure that the City is being responsible. Mr. Zuleger reiterated that he has not seen a policy as strong as this one. Mayor Pearson explained that this type of policy is exactly what the City needs to be responsible. MOTION PASSED 4-0. ITEM 11. MO DY'S RATING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF 2013 BONDS City Administrator Zuleger provided an overview. Moody's Lake Elmo bond rating is Aa2. Lake Elmo metrics are lower than the state and national median for cities with our rating, however, a major reason for sustaining the rating is our strong undesignated fund balance. Council Member Nelson and Mayor Pearson commended staff for their efforts. No formal action requested. ITEM 12: INITIATE THE LAKE ELMO AVENUE TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS - AUTHORIZE_THE PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT:RES.2013-77 City Engineer Griffin gave overview of the request for the improvement and explained the project details. The Landucci/Ryland Homes development located on Lake Elmo Avenue would include approximately 51 RECS. Airlake development would include approximately 40-RECS. Pratt Homes (Dedrich/Reider) would include approximately 50-60 RECS. Property owners are looking to have Page 2 of 4 I AKE ELM® CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 the project take place in 2014. In order to make that schedule, City would have to start soon. Not including the proposed developments, about 80 additional properties are potential connections for water service stubs. Mr. Griffin explained the requested action and proposed project schedule. The feasibility report is not to exceed$5,200. Council Member Nelson asked about whether the homes included are located in groundwater contamination plume. Mr. Griffin said they are not. Mayor Pearson asked about shelf-life of report. Mr. Griffin said it may have to be amended to adjust for changes, but that it should survive until it gets built. MOTION: Council Member Bloyer moved TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2013-77, ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE LAKE ELMO AVENUE TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF$5,200. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0. Mr. Nelson thanked staff for the not to exceed language. ITEM 13:AUTHORIZATION FOR SALE OF$S 725 000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPR$Z ELEMENT BONDS,SERIES 201 &RES. 201 -78 Finance Director Bendel introduced Northland Securities' Paul Donna. Mr. Donna gave kudos to the City for its bond rating. Moody's noted that both the content and style of presentation were excellent. Off the record comments were that the presentation was the one of the best they have seen. Mr. Donna provided overview of the bond sale and repayment scenario. It was stated that Lake Elmo has a good name in the market place. He noted that two local banks were responsible for about 15%of participation,which is good to keep interest rates low. Council Member Nelson asked about the lower par amount. Mr. Donna explained that buyers use it as a protection.The city can capture the higher premium paid to reduce the borrowing. MOTION: Council Member Nelson moved TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2013-78, A RESOLULTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE AND AWARDING THE SALE, PRESCRIBING THE FORM AND DETAILS, AND PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE$5,725,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS,SERIES 2013A. Council Member Bloyer seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0. ITEM 14:SUNFISH LAKE PARK DEER MITIGATION HUNT City Administrator Zuleger presented a summary of the proposed Sunfish lake Park deer mitigation hunt. Many residents have suffered damage due to the large deer population in Lake Elm. At the recommendation of Washington County and MNDNR management hunts will take place in Sunfish Lake Park and Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve.The hunt would take place on November 9 and 10. The hunt will be a shotgun hunt. Council Member Bloyer asked about the count of 8 deer and how it was arrived at. Mr. Zuleger said that initially there was a request for 10, but due to the proximity to Tapestry, it was decided to reduce it to 8. Mr. Zuleger noted there also might be a coyote problem in the park reserve. MOTION: Council Member Smith moved TO APPROVE THE SUNFISH LAKE PARKDEER MITIGATION HUNT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9TH AND 10TH USING A TAXPAYER LOTTERY TO CHOOSE (8) LAKE ELMO RESIDENTS AS THE HUNTING PARTY. THIS ACTION WILL RESULT IN THE Page 3 of 4 LAKE ELM® CITE' COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMUER 17, 2013 CLOSING OF SUNFISH LAKE PARK TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC FOR THE WEEKEND OF NOVEMBER 9THAND 10TH. Council Member Bloyer seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0. SUMMARY REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Pearson: Met Council meeting, good progress in adjusting the MOU and reducing the numbers; Lake Elmo Days lots of fun. He commended the staff and volunteers; the mayor asked about Hwy 5 and when it will get to the Old Village. City Engineer Griffin said it was to the roundabout and should reach the village soon. Council Member Smith: Met Council meeting, impressed with the willingness to work with the City. Looking forward to being able to have slower responsible growth; with all the upcoming growth, she would like the finance committee to meet once every three weeks. To better understand how City will pay for things; commended Alyssa MacLeod. City Administrator Zuleger stated that when Council Member Reeves returns, she will receive a quality star. Council Member Nelson: attended Lake Elmo Days. Surprised how many people and how fun it was; resident with a septic issue.jack responded quickly to inquiry and issue was handled well. Council Member Moyer:attended Lake Elmo Days. Great and enjoyable evening. City Administrator Zuleger: Met Council meeting went very well. Very pleased with the results. Relayed the Met Council's satisfaction with the meeting; planning the upcoming Park Commission retreat; neighborhood meetings regarding parks; posting lake usage signs tomorrow; working on downtown sewer grace period agreement; Lake Elmo Days went great. Battle of Bands receiving lots of success and positive feedback. Should be even bigger and better next year. Financially in the black with event;will be speaking at the Wl Lean Government Conference on October 2, Council Member Bloyer asked about Olson Lake Trail sewer. City Engineer Griffin said it is in construction and going well. Associate City Attorney Brekken: no report City Engineer Griffin: connecting water main hearing on 10/1. MS4 permit training. Finance Director Bendel: working on levy certification; finalized storm damage claim and recovered $7,200; finalized bonding; received West Lakeland Township portion of seal coat; will schedule a Finance Committee meeting; City Administrator Zuleger noted that Washington County cancelled the storm clean up charges to City. City Clerk Bell: animal ordinance will be split in two portions: 1) dogs and cats and 2) chickens and bees due to the need to submit the chicken and bees section to the Planning Commission. Should be brought to Council Nov. 6. Mayor Pearson adjourned the meeting at 7.55P.MU, LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ATTEST: Mike Pearson, Mayor Adam R. Bell, City Clerk Page 4 of 4 LAKE ELMO MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUMCATION DATE: 10/01/2013 CONSENT ITEM#: 3 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Disbursements in the Amount of$198,617.76 SUBMITTED BY: Cathy Bendel,Finance Director REVIEWED BY: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is asked to approve disbursements in the amount of$198,617.76 No specific motion is needed, as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consent Agenda. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Lake Elmo has fiduciary authority and responsibility to conduct nonnal business operation. Below is a summary of current claims to be disbursed and paid in accordance with State law and City policies and procedures. Chinn# _ Amount Description. �—_------- - ACH $ 12,062.85= Payroll Taxes to IRS &MN Dept of Revenue 9/19/13 ACH $ 6,134.14 Payroll Retirement to PERA 9/19/13 DD4921—D4968 $ 35,921.84 Payroll Dated (Direct Deposits) 9/19/13 40394-40443 $ 144,318.93 Accounts Payable 10/01/13 2088-2090 $ 180.00 Library Card Reimbursement 10/01/1.3 TOTAL $ 19€t,617.7f, 1 STAFF REPORT: City staff has complied and reviewed the attached set of claims. All appears to be in order and consistent with City budgetary and fiscal policies and Council direction. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve as part of the Consent Agenda proposed disbursements in the amount of$198,617.76 Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to remove this item from the Consent Agenda or a particular claim from this item and further discuss and deliberate prior to taking action. If done so, the appropriate action of the Council following such discussion would be: "Move to approve the October 01, 2013, Disbursements as Presented land modifledj herein." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Accounts Payable—Check Registers SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed Lrom the ConsentAgenga): - Questions from Council to Staff.............................................Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ...............................................................Mayor& City Council - Discussion.......................................................................Mayor&City Council - Action on Motion.................................................................... Mayor Facilitates 2 � O O C •.^ y, QO O O y C o O O O o z z z z 4 z oi a 44-1 o a 0 cd M _ E A M M M M M M N N N N N N IZs O O O 4 O q ce O � In 0 . . O C G M � h bhp W 0�0 pM N fn N M OMO OMC. d' n M 00 0Np xoo N NN �' M ^ � N N N N U C, 2 � 3 � cu � � 0 0 � .. V a� 5 � o e% � � � c V 1 M ? 00 LJ w d 3 " o O M O — = m V' F' ^ -p M oo O o o U a d = o o Q o o a M M d O O '`". o Gr O O o � gi N 3 rn N Oq o V Q, 00 N QNN Zm � < ACT. N E" ON Or N 3 . ZON N � o�OM G w: Y ® p < ONO �i W Op � tti7 � d" � "ti' � .yt. W HMO ,MaQ QMC L' dON d r �o ¢ — L100 — d .............. C> C> C o O CN 0 CD CD 0 0 lw* .0 0 z z z Z z z z z z Cd tw ,ram p M Cd Im, 0 z Ln rz C> 0 C> C� eq cq cq 151�1 C-I C= 7z CD 0 0 es Q C>C> 0 C> 10 C> 0 0 od 00 00 e% ao 0 0 > cli ca ct$ 00 CA M �- w Cl) >,,,, 00 > Cd C', r- V. bo cp, t:Q bo C', 0 cw (NC> ) rz = 15 C) m 'L' — 'r- m *r- Z �- -� cn fn 4 E — 0 0 — � S2 CO ? . Z; (= E; V) 01. 0 r-4 0 -�i 0 �N— S N = N 00 00 bo eq 0 C11 u�m en Cq 0 . < C:) 0 C) O pQ d O pa 00 00 0 C> C� C-- �m < C> en =- r. n CY cq 0 en en te) 00 C G N N (N tJ r4to 8 Qe cn 5 m cc Or, 0 S g , g , I 6? . kn M V'j ee� Wj M W� M M o 0 C> C-4 0-0 F�, 000 F, lo�o 10 Ir �o u . 2 U O O p d .. o d c d o a °cu° o M` t c z z z z z z 0 o `� •��+ U N C C/l U c M 00 c 'p .a 00 U O 10, N N N N C O C C N w C `'�. O C O 0 OC7, M M M M M c d O o 0 o d o " o o o CR c C. O O O Ci p CC O oc 7 N N P�. O+. 0 0 O C O M 00 00 �., � � n � O Od OO od c "3 t'� oc M 00 x oe ,a h • "^� m a o 15 � M o E-� Do k Q c' 'i 00 L oud M O M ,7"' "C! M � M Y M ��- M S1 ,� 'fl M '� M 'C. O .� N o � o c p vc' c00000Ch Cy � N tJ � +�. N «pN �-+ tJ0 WC> Oq o moo ao C U d O U :9 o O U o O c w C-1 O c fn a� N g (, U o o O 0 o U oID cn o �+ WC> O W r Cl 0 t� 0 UEnn " cnN UMW UO000 oCOp OC U = dT. O p R.r Y 8 Z z z Z G y v. � � Q � vz to y N N N N d N N N O O O c a C O O O C O O O O tn N h V'1 V') o0 00 O C aC 00 bJ o0 00 op op C400 oc, N N C4 N C N NN C d "' v � rr � r C kri 15 W O OM M ca L=1 � UM O ,jpN ram ¢ N E" Tip T ca 07 Y crl � q M � NF" cM [ n M d � o N CAo a a o cQz nE� u rp Z. Z a d o J � Qo q boo d Ll oo C31a � woq W u 91. N U O eL7J p714 7. G q � N qo q � rn "rrn © N GO f� G O ,Cl' � p p N N o �rn c c. M p o c ever U N V] N 5 00 V 00 1. q. W N N [=7 C 00 �" O C vi U ro G z z z z z G a m CD c� C+ 0 0 A > M -a n cn �v .2 >; n �' ry M M M M M M M c O O O N [Ot N N O O O O Q O O o c o o 0 C. c c o Cl nn vl N 0 v; a a s t` O N N .J, C� 'J�. en M y �-'T 96 cd cq � co. � , cd ,n � � FNF°, oc [p F oM n W 00 e. A' n M. U mvi Nt= w `^ one ° M O a 'r n rn < ��., en_ _ �^ en CM Mid coo— N 'm0 � OQOQ' �C � vMy O O y�J„ u pay '" mad d � o 5 M — — � () � � a oc7 u o a — a o 5 N Gq M q N a .b M N cC M E tr tct � 6Cd � � � C) o ^ Sao AQcav a5ioo F aQ o M �] V•1 M �' d M ..� aooao o � x fio or, �- O C C C O O O O C O Q q O 0D a w td z z z z z z z z z z 2 w C°CL Q > w w w ' M ti O O C O O O C G O O O U a3 C O p O O O O O p O O O a� eC O O O C O Q O q d O C Q C �.9 N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 o c a Rn CmOs MO 0 0 0 M 0. Cpl.O O GMN Q q d O C O O d O C O p q CI O O O C q O O O C O q O O O• O C q O C 5 O0 � 5 C 0 00Cl 5ODCC = C? O OO O O 005 Q ci qD C; cO 00 CO OO Qp Qa qq .... OD ed e3 c6 c"� iC cJ :v is c3 c� •� eNti o O D O O tr,tn 0 elly mH � E ci woo woo woc woo on eaoc IV 00 woo woc woo 0a7 � N o v� o v, o V) Q Ln q V] d va o V2 o Un z;, to Q cn q rn c a M cT M 'M M d' M M d' M 'ch M I M t M 'v M 7 M et CN o cN o (De Ad Nqc�,�C�wd O O O O O O O U U a6 iU U US UO U UC+ a ON a�bu... c, c o vM v d v Cr o c Q o d o o c o o O o V) V) V) +n V) in V) te) V) V) N p N a. 7 v ems• as +n v) +n v3 v ,n ,n 4n O a %n al 00 a, a+ a Oa•. tea` NC„ Ma. �r C� v; � `C �, r � ON cq o O to C- [l 00 !. m d 00 d 00 00 00 00 00 ^� N Q O F a .n 'n h tn wl ,n `7 ,n V, Zn I ,n •a ON _ z a, _ > 0'O N cc N 00 N 00 N 00 N 00 N 00 CJ 00 N 00 CV 00 N 00 N C OO 00 QC? OO OO 00 OC CO q qc � ^qS0 t 110 v �o •t- �o ¢r %O � �o •zY �o IT %0 7 O ± O O O O O O d r U O O O C O O Q G v e.J CL d Ab N U z z z z z z z z z z co a„ M � G •y C b C U R Q.) 00 W U U_ U J C4 -li 01D b 3 Ln c c c c 0 'L N N00 x tJ u uca � c� M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N O Cl O O p M M M M M M M_ M M M O O O O V 0 O O G G O O C d O O C) b 4= O C. VWi V�7 O O O GCCN'> O O JC. � ^� 10 N � ,n ,ri ,A • C l� M ON ,n co L:.. C C O U O O •- co NG R N N Q MC6 00 N AA M .yG C U N C M � M rn en Lei _ C p p pp 0 — .-p CD F- . O O to N N N NRN N z G ZZ 00 00 00 00c W0 NGC . O_N o61 O � oG � Go 0 0 C> C. o ` O O oFi 0 �3 M d G Q N y m m M rn In m O (n O q xN pNpN p C NpNpNp CC t, IN [, k t N ,'✓, O M C N NNNNNt"� fV -? N aq er_•Q VC/)1 �NN �^-,* � Mti? � A C �. W C 16 W O , , k_ 00 00O . CO ( O (V " L-' i Ln rn , XvddZh) , v; � wn p OO C. CO a � \JD0 �00 L< O r �I, Q O C) b C O O C O oc :? G O O C O O O C n Qw d O O O O O C O U z z z z z z z z z z z C� a v a � U a � C y >r yyLCC Or Tlz •� •� o El" F in cn M V) cn U (t,.,U_,..,, G Qj C' w U.: F- O O O O b O O CJ M M M M M_ M M M M M_ M O O O P P O O .g N N N N N CV ad_ O P G O O p P 4 d G G M M M M M a. a. a a a. a. cam. a a a Cl O O O O C O O o `b P 0 r ^ ^ m M O C O d p P W 4: eF• 00 .., O r r _ "" x V. C^ M, d OP C ^pJO N a 00 n r °° h i.. 0 15 N •• N M •• m w v, ON O V. M A v1 ti N N •• GC N N aT 73 N _c) V] in N rV d 00 2ON ' M N F` M tl N ti M N C O M O.s M Q.>- >� N y T W N cr N N J oo � m � � � .a N c4 � N 0 Ln ClPsr: P � aU oN °' mow a• s �« LLI x w o o a. c c 3 O $ a, oG a a. cn a. a. ell. . G- a. -� A" 00 �_ N O CD C P d d d CIA lo�M �N N E"" N a+ O O O M O O O v3 u Nr pa E0 �A � � OooIt IT N 0 NOp, 0oci. Nknep � MtlN oNd aW6Q, N O 00 CV M N CV 0. Ctn C 0oM _ C a " ' v o ^so o m o 6 ,n CV Cy vz c a cn a a a. W) a CT vi M t w a v � O � wN - a c� .a a. 0. po00 C�/] OCOCON OC CO ON P k O O O Ov . O G O Q C C O d O W u G O U 7 z z Z r�r 00 d+ i-. .r s M_ G n M � N CJ R T L 00 3 o aCIA n t- w yyC �i WWW •+u r�� '� N_ N_ N N N N N N N O G b O O O O O O ?> O O O p O C? Q COS O eC 7 a OM+ �; �. 0C m x N M t` 00 00 00 Off•. d\ to rq h N N :t VS m m cu z - 3 m �. G kn 00 G M M v a_>, In y ,ii •• OOc U � �•�, M 00 N .. v� d ca � v� � kn c a> rJ JO0 COcp L'-I ��•! M IT M rr M O M C M C M C ON •• M.w 'C O i3 U Q •G ^ /-w S..• O O � m CD to;73 M G N O G O C G ,.O O O f•• o. N u N O N n� N y „I„ N R.N MN a.N �. N ,O O O i � 0 0 C6 �c � " a! oc. � w alc o, �' a �' Q `a� a, � o F- o, FMc R Ol ra O b O C � d o � w�n n N cOj en N N N U O �. � � � �• s0. �M � O O I NN / O �N 0000O00 C r0 0 µ L'< 00 N 00 M 00 Qi 00 O+. N •-�. b 41n � zo wl nc n I , Le) F- v n C> F c ^- y O O C O O U C C O V U z z z O c Ln00 � a to- cn .. c M _ w b e w UO v " .0 v w CC N N N C � Ge M M M ON O O O O 000 °p °� °� 00 d' d p G C o n N N V1 00 n r- gfl C. tu _ N v � � W ✓ U M 000 VJ iN(y Gi DO M �. OC M v1 C'v0 Q N NC/) N C k O O G G GO? Q3 O d O O O v c0 P C tj z z zP z H y m Q p 1•+ C^i � .r7 •P, y y L o y xa G J M tl Cf) M 0. CL CLI p P d F ++ N 5l N LL LL LL Q4 M N + 67 � O e•. N 88 N N ^ M en O O C OR p cC C7 O O G 0 o c d � pp C N N p d d Q C Q d N M O O n (` O C n OC t } O y p p p O P h i N w M.+ •• tl0 rq OC Y.. y d T n Jd rn a Cn v O M ��•. P K. p4 O,cn N NtjM1 .1` Q Vy"d � ri'ti �" Vi. O+ � � � � '� in '� � '� � •C c"n Cd O � �� , oC aja p U own o �1 OZ3 Q i y c No e p O y M O ^p fl) 00 tel Lc. O � W N FA O N �+ r' WNC >C rsp UFO Q� M �O rn ODD C-1to ^ t 0 N rn N Z to � � tV o+ THE CITY OF LAKE ELM _ MA..- YOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 10/01/2013 CONSENT ITEM #: 4 AGENDA ITEM: Authorize Certification to Washington County Auditor for the Unpaid Surface Water Utility Bills SUBMITTED BY: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director REVIEWED BY: Adam Bell, City Clerk SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is respectfully asked to approve the certification of the delinquent Surface Water Utility Bills to Washington County Auditor. No specific motion is needed, as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consent Agenda. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Lake Elmo has authority by Minnesota State statute 444.075, subd.3 to assess property owners for unpaid surface water utilities and services. Affected homeowners with past due balances were sent notification of the proposed assessment. Property owners had until today to pay the balance due without additional fees. STAFF REPORT: The City operated the water, sewer, and, surface water under its Enterprise funds. Enterprise funds account for specific City operations that are financed and operated similar to a private business. Generally, the services are provided to identifiable beneficiaries, as well as the general public, and all or most of the costs come from user's fees. The user fees collected are utilized to operate the City's respective water, sewer, and surface water systems. Assessing the property owners listed on Exhibit A (attached) for unpaid services will assure collection of charged fees. The deadline to certify the unpaid surface water utility to Washington County is October 15, 2013. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council authorize the certification of the delinquent surface water accounts to the Washington County Auditor. Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to remove this item from the Consent Agenda or a particular claim from this item and further discuss and deliberate prior to taking action. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2013-79 2. Exhibit A 1 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2013-79 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTIFICATION TO THE 13%ASHINGTON COUNTY AUDITOR FOR UNPAID SURFACE WATER UTILITY BILLS WHEREAS,Minn. Stat.444.075,subd. 3,permits certification of unpaid charges to the county auditor for collection with taxes payable; WHEREAS,the Municipal Code for the City of Lake Elmo contains a provision to certify delinquent accounts to the County Auditor for the collection with taxes payable. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LADE ELMO,MINNESOTA,THAT: 1. The list of delinquent accounts,a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A,and made part hereof,is hereby accepted and shall be certified to the Washington County Auditor for collection with taxes payable. 2. The certified amount shall be payable over a period of one year,with interest as provided in Exhibit A. 3. The owner of the property may,at any time prior to certification to the County Auditor,pay the delinquent amount to the City Finance Director. 4. The City Finance Director shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of Exhibit A to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of Washington County. Such delinquent accounts shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. ADOPTED BY THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL, ON THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011 By: Mike Pearson (Seal) Mayor Adam Bell City Clerk Resolution No.20 13-79 . . . .. .. . ..... City of Lake Elmo EXHIBIT A Potential.Storm Water Assessments October 15,2013 OS as of 9/26/13 Past Due Account# OS Bal Fee Total PID 05-00015860-00-7 55.00 25.00 80.00 1302921340025 05-000111.90-00-1 55.00 25.00 80.00 0902921440019 05-00020530-00-5 55.00 25.00 80.00 2102921330003 05-00019780-00-2 55.00 25.00 80.00 2102921130013 05-00013950-00-3 55.00 25.00 80.00 1202921410032 05-00024970-00-1 55.00 25.00 80.00 3402921210005 05-00019260-00-1 55.00 25.00 80.00 21.02921120009 05-00014050-00-9 55.00 25,00 80.00 1202921.420024 05-00018230-00-3 55.00 25.00 80.00 16029211.40029 05-00020920-00-0 55.00 25.00 80.00 2202921220014 05-00011730-00-5 55.00 25.00 80.00 1002921220023 05-00014620-00-2 55.00 25.00 80.00 1302921230042 05-00029010-00-5 55.00 25.00 80.00 2202921210020 05-00006340-00-2 55.00 25.00 80.00 0502921420026 05-00010980-00-5 55.00 25.00 80.00 0902921430029 05-00007670-00-1 55.00 25.00 80.00 0602920320044 05-00002020-00-9 55.00 25.00 80.00 0102921210005 05-00000370-00-7 613.50 49.08 662.58 1002921120002 05-00000380-00-0 166.38 13.31 179.69 1002921130002 05-00000400-00-3 83.95 6.72 90.67 1002921240031 05-0000041.0-00-6 364.31 29.14 393.45 1002921310001 05-00000420-00-9 395.14 31.61 426.75 1002921420001. 05-00027810-00-3 55.00 25.00 80.00 1102921.320023 05-00007740-00-9 55.00 25.00 80.00 0602920320051 05-00010180-00-9 55.00 25A0 80.00 0902921340011 05-OW07130-00-4 55.00 25.00 80.00 0602920310020 05-00025870-00-3 55.00 25.00 80.00 3502921140001 05-00003120-00-5 55.00 25.00 80.00 0302921210004 05-00009640-00-0 55.00 25.00 80.00 0902921320003 05-00030120-00-7 329.48 26.36 355.84 1302921210006 05-00025260-00-8 55.00 25.00 80.00 3402921230008 05-00010330-00-8 55.00 25.00 80.00 0902921410010 05-0001.9910-00-5 55.00 25.00 80.00 2102921140011 05-00010740-00-9 55.00 25.00 80.00 0902921430005 05-00026650-00-2 55.00 25.00 80.00 0202921140011 05-00025930-00-8 55.00 25.00 80.00 0102921110013 05-00006660-00-9 55.00 25.00 80.00 0502921440003 05-00008490-00-2 55.00 25.00 80.00 0902921110004 05-00024700-00-6 55.00 25.00 80.00 2802921140008 05-00004620-00-9 55.00 25.00 80.00 0402921210012 05-00013830-00-0 55.00 25.00 80.00 1202921410019 05-00012400-00-4 55.00 25.00 80.00 1102921310002 05-00013630-00-6 55.00 25.00 80.00 1202921220005 05-00010210-00-5 55.00 25.00 80.00 0902921340014 05-00016530-00-6 55.00 25.00 80.00 1402921410012 05-00020410-00-2 55.00 25.00 80.00 2102921240002 05-00000300-00-6 69.08 25.00 94.08 0402921130002 05-(M26520-00-6 55.00 25.00 80.00 0202921110005 05-00014740-00-5 55.00 25.00 80.00 1302921240005 05-00020760-00-8 55.00 25.00 80.00 2202921210011 05-00018250-00-9 55.00 25.00 80.00 1602921140031 05-00026100-00-2 55.00 25.00 80.00 0102921130018 05-00017300-00-2 55.00 25.00 80.00 1502921320027 05-00006830-00-4 55.00 25.00 80.00 0502921440028 05-00012890-00-9 55.00 25.00 80.00 1102921430013 05-00020310-00-5 55.00 25.00 80.00 2I02921230006 05-00015290-004 55.00 25M 80.00 1302921320084 05-00024860-00-1 55.00 25.00 80,00 3402921120003 05-00002730-00-1. 55.00 25.00 80.00 0302921110011 05-00006600-00-1 55.00 25.00 90.00 0502921430024 05-00016430-00-9 55.00 25.00 80.00 1402921320016 05-00022350-00-5 55.00 25.00 80.00 2402921320003 05-00031.350-00-9 874.23 69.94 944.17 3402921340004 05-00022200-00-3 55.00 25.00 80,00 2402921310003 05-00010860-00-2 55.00 25.00 80.00 090292143001.7 05-00008240-00-3 55.00 25.00 80.00 0802921110006 05-00025750-00-0 55.00 25.00 80.00 3502921420005 05-00021980-00-7 55.00 25.00 80.00 2402921220004 05-00020480-00-3 55.00 25.00 80.00 2102921240010 05-00021130-00-6 55.00 25.00 90.00 2402921110ON 05-00007900-00-1. 55.00 25.00 80.00 0602920320067 05-00009760-00-3 55.00 25.00 80.00 0902921320015 05-00023940-00-3 55.00 25.00 80,00 2602921330002 05-00031910-00-9 176.74 25.00 201.74 3402921130001 05-00031940-00.8 150.50 25.00 175,50 3502921.220001 05-00008030-00-0 55.00 25.00 80.00 0602920330013 05-00024930-00-9 55.00 25.00 80.00 3402921120010 05-00019790-00-5 55.00 25.00 80,00 2102921130014 05-00015050-00-8 60.50 25.00 85.50 1302921320039 05-00027090-00-1 55.00 25.00 80.00 0802921140017 05-0002.5530-00-0 55.00 25.00 80.00 3502921110004 05-00011330-00-7 55.00 25.00 80.00 1.00292121.0004 05-00016870-00-9 55.00 25.00 80.00 1402921440020 05-00008060-00-5 55.00 25.00 80.00 0602920330016 05-00016000-00-2 55.00 25.00 80.00 1302921430009 05-00003510-00-0 55.00 25.00 80.00 0302921320018 05-00010940-00-3 55.00 25.00 80.00 0902921430025 05-00015300-00-4 55.00 25.00 80.00 1302921320089 05-000081.70-00-5 $5.00 25.00 80.00 0702920230012 05-00020940-00-6 55.00 25.00 80.00 2202921.220017 05-00012380-00-1 55.00 25.00 90.00 1102921240007 05-00002810-00-2 55.00 25.00 80.00 0302921110021 05-00007490-00-3 55.00 25.00 80.00 0602920320019 05-0001.4120-00-7 55.00 25.00 80.00 1202921420031 05-00008620-00-5 55.00 25.00 80.00 0902921110019 05-00004100-00-8 55.00 25.00 80.00 0302921430010 ' ^^'^``^'^-`^~`` ^ ...-^- O5-0O0ll2h0-004 55/0 25.00 80.00 0902921440026 05-00026460-00 1 55.00 25.00 80.00 01022921440005 05-00000840-00-3 46.74 25.00 71.74 1402921310002 05-00000950'00-3 187.28 25.00 212.28 150292}4[0001 05-000(8{60-00-7 55.00 %%.VV 80.00 030292120004 05'00025850-00'7 55.00 25.00 80.00 3602921320007 05-00004610-00'6 55.00 25.00 80.00 04029212|001.1 - 05-00020900-004 55.00 25.00 80.00 2202921220012 05-00017610-00-6 55.00 25.00 80.00 1502921340002 05-00029OW-00-2 55.00 25.00 80.00 2202921.210019 05-00030200'00-4 54.39 25:00 79.39 1302921230007 05'00000470-004 40.99 25.00 65.91.9 U02921740003 05-0000520-OD-6 105.04 25.00 190.04 1102921410002 00'00000550-00'5 51.49 25.00 76.49 1102921420004 05-00007200-W2 55.00 25.00 80.00 0602920310028 05-00030460'00-0 27.75 25.00 52.75 1302921310003 05-00030470-00-3 92.04 25.00 117.04 1}029213]0016 05'00030640'00-8 42.*7 25.00 07.47 130292132000 05-00003530-00'6 55.00 25.00 80.00 0302921320020 05'00023980-00'5 55.00 25.00 80.00 2602921430002 05'00011.810-00'6 jiOV 25.00 80.00 1002921240014 05-00005070-003 55.00 25.00 80.00 05029211.40009 05-00010870f00' 55.00 25.00 80-00 090292]4]0018 05-00020220-00'1 55.00 25.00 80.00 2102921220007 05-00023540-00-5 55.00 25.00 80.00 2502921330003 0'00020450-004 55.00 25.00 80.00 2102921240006 05-00019700-00-8 55.00 25.00 80.00 2102921130004 05-00014000-004 55.00 %j.VO 80.00 1202921420019 05-00018800-00-6 55.00 2510 80.00 1602921220031 05-00023930'004 55.00 25.00 80.00 2602921330001 05'00000170'00-3 99.45 25.00 124.45 0202021310005 05-00015850-004 55.0O 25.00 80.00 130292]}400,14 05f0021070-00'1 55.00 25.00 80.00 2302921110004 0-00025590-00-8 5.00 25.00 0800 3502921120004 05'0001703040'0 55.00 25.00 80.0) 1501921310002 05-00016570-00-8 55.00 25.00 80.00 14029214100/6 05-00010790-00-8 55.00 25.00 80.00 1402921440012 05'0003062040-2 22.08 25.00 47.08 1302921320049 05-00017800-00-3 55.00 35.00 80.00 1.502921330039 05'00027490'00-9 50.00 25.00 75.00 1002921410025 05'00007170-00-6 49.50 25.00 70.50 0602920310024 05-00012930-00-8 55.00 25.00 80.00 1102921430017 05'00002460-00-9 55.00 25.00 80.00 0202921230001 05-00021760-00'7 31.00 25.00 56.00 2402921210007 05-00019950'00'7 55.00 25.00 80.00 2102921140015 05-00000410-00-0 55.00 25.00 80.00 0502921430003 05'00025600'00'8 55.00 25.00 80.00 3502921140003 0540000776040-5 55.00 ZiOV 80.00 6602920520053 05-00001930'00-6 55.00 25.00 80.00 0102911.13001.0 05'00077240-00-7 55.00 25.00 80.00 1502$21320021 05-00027350'00-0 55.00 25.00 80.00 1002921240008 05-00020500'004 55.00 25.00 80.00 2102921330006 05-00015020-00-9 55.00 25.00 80.00 1302921320036 05-00007420-00-2 55.00 25.00 80.fl0 0602920320012 05-00028040-00-5 30.00 25.00 55.00 1102921330018 05-00013610-00-0 55.00 25.00 80.00 1202921210003 05-00004750-00-5 55.00 25.00 80.00 0402921220009 05-00000830-00-0 53.22 25.00 78.22 1402921310001 05-00021820-00-2 55.00 25.00 80.00 240292121001.3 05-00000960-00-6 157.00 25.00 182.00 1.502921420004 05-00007950-00-6 55.00 25.00 80.00 0602920330005 05-00012350-00-2 55.00 25.00 80.00 1102921230003 05-00009000-00-6 55.00 25.00 80.00 0902921220013 05-00030820-00-6 346.16 27.69 373.85 1602921.420002 05-00025820-00-8 55.00 25.00 80.00 3502921440007 05-00017500-00-6 55.00 25.00 80.00 1502921330021 05-00021210-00-7 55.00 25.00 80.00 2402921110017 05-00016710-00-4 55.00 25.00 80.00 1402921440004 05-00020260-00-3 25.81 25.00 50.81. 2102921220011 05-00011240-00-3 55.00 25.00 80.00 0902921440024 05-WO08690-00-6 1.15.50 25.00 140.50 0902921130004 05-00027240-00-0 27.66 25.00 52.66 0902921240018 05-00015780-00-6 55.00 25.00 80.00 1302921340017 05-00023920-00-7 55.00 25.00 80.00 260292111.0002 05-M27730-00=2 55.00 25.00 80.00 1102921320015 05-00013570-00-1 55.00 25.00 80.00 1202921140022 05-00019960-00-0 55.00 25.00 80.00 2102921140016 05-00005580-00-9 55.00 25.00 90.00 0402921440006 05-00002880-00-3 55.00 25.00 80.00 0302921120003 05-00015670-00-6 55.00 25.00 80.00 1302921340005 05-00025900-00-9 55.00 25.00 80.00 I302921.320081 05-00017250-00-0 55.00 25.00 80.00 1502921320022 05-00017270-00-6 30.00 25.00 55.00 1502921320032 05-00007570-00-4 55.00 25.00 80.00 0602920320027 05-00017220-00-1 55.00 25.00 80.00 1502921320019 05-00000240-00-1 142.73 25.00 167.73 0302921.220002 05-00OW250-00-4 23.13 25.00 48.13 0302921220005 05-00022980-00-6 55.00 25.00 80.00 2402921430009 05-00020670-00-4 55.00 25.00 80.00 2102921.340004 05-00015550-00-3 55.00 25.00 80.00 1302921330032 05-00002550-00-3 55.00 25.00 80.00 0202921410008 05-00013810-00-4 55.00 25.00 80.00 1202921410017 05-00019020-00-5 55.00 25.00 80.00 1602921410012 05-00005530-004 55.00 25.00 80.00 0402921.330051 05-00010200-00-2 55.00 25.00 80.00 0902921340013 05-00015980-00-0 55.00 25.00 80.00 1302921430007 05-00026990-00-5 55.00 25.00 80.00 040292133001.5 05-00019440-00-9 55.00 25.00 80.00 2102921120030 05-00017650-00-8 55.00 25.00 80.00 1502921340007 05-00031810-00-2 29.50 25.00 54.50 0402921140004 05-M022210-00-6 55.00 25.00 80.00 2402921310004 05-00010190-00-2 60.00 25.00 85.00 0902921340012 05-00002940-00-8 55.00 25.00 80.00 0302921130007 05-00015060-00-1 55.00 25.00 80.00 1302921320040 05-0002305MO-3 55.00 25.00 80.00 2402921430016 05-00012250-00-5 55.00 25.00 80.00 1002921410003 05-00028150-00-5 55.00 25.00 80.00 1102921430003 05-00028160-00-8 55.00 25.00 80.00 1102921430004 05-00005450-00-3 55.00 25.00 80.00 0402921330038 05-00029270-00-7 92.65 25.00 117.65 2402921130004 05-00002190-00-7 55.00 25.00 80.00 0102921340002 05-00001750-00-8 55.00 25.00 80.00 1202921420011 05-00001740-00-5 55.00 25.00 80.00 1202921420008 05-00001510-00-2 55.00 25.60 80.00 01.02921130003 05-00001520-00-5 55.00 25.00 80.00 0102921140002 05-00001530-00-8 55.00 25.00 80.00 0102921140003 05-00025980-00-3 55.00 25.00 80.00 0102921120011 05-00006920-00-8 50.00 25.00 75.00 0502921440038 05-00022550-00-9 55.00 25.00 80.00 2402921330006 05-00001860-00-8 372.05 29.76 401.81 2802921110003 05-00001870-00-1 55.00 25.00 80.00 2802921110007 05-00014750-00-8 55.00 25.00 80.00 1302921240006 05-00005950-00-8 55.00 25.00 80.00 0502921140006 05-00031930-00-5 27.76 25.00 52.76 3402921430002 05-00030080-00-8 2,278.38 182.27 2,460.65 0302921210003 05-00023750-00-2 25.81 25.00 50.81 2502921340007 05-00009120-00-9 55.00 25.00 80.00 0902921230006 05-00016700-00-1 55.00 25.00 80.00 1402921440003 05-00004950-00-9 55.00 25.00 80.00 0402921230006 05-00009010-00-9 55.00 25.00 80.00 0902921220014 05-00027420-00-8 55.00 25.00 90.00 10029214I0017 05-00011420-00-1 55.00 25.00 80.00 1002921210014 05-00017320-00-8 55.00 25.00 80.00 1502921320031 05-00020106-00-8 55.00 25.00 80.00 2102921210014 05-00008600-00-9 55.00 25.00 80.00 0902921110017 Potential to assess 18,407.99 5,990.89 24,39$.88` .......:..:..: . T1--IF CITY yOF. . K EL MO MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 10/01/2013 CONSENT ITEM #: 5 MOTION Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Resolution No. 2013-SO Appointing 2013 Election Judges SUBMITTED BY: Adam Bell, City Clerk THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator l RE�a'II;�F;D BY: Beckie Gumatz, Deputy Clerk i SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUS�s (if removed from Consent) Introduction of Item................ .City Clerk - Report/Presentation................................................................................City Clerk - Questions from Council to Staff................................................ Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate.......................................................Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ..................................................................Mayor&City Council - Discussion..........................................................................Mayor&City Council - Action on Motion....................................................................... Mayor Facilitates SUMMARY AND ACTIOIti REQUESTED: As part of the Consent Agenda, the City Council is respectfully requested to approve Resolution No. 2013-80, A Resolution Appointing Election Judges for the 2013 Special Election. Please find attached Exhibit A with the names of the 2013 election judges. As part of the Consent Agenda, no formal motion is needed; however, if the Council wishes to further discuss the topic, they can remove this item from the Consent Agenda and approve the Resolution by talking the following action or amending as necessary: "Move to approve Resolution No. 2013-80,A Resolution Appointing Election .Iud es for the 2013 Special Election, as presented herein.9f STAFF REPORT: Pursuant to Section 2048.21 of the Minnesota Election Laws, election judges shall be appointed by the municipality. The appointments shall be made at least 25 days before the election at which the judges will serve. The election judges are required to receive compensation equal to at least the prevailing Minnesota minimum wage for each hour spent carrying out duties at the polling place and attending training. We recognize the City of Lake Elmo is dependent upon and appreciative of citizen assistance for conducting the local election process. The Lake Elmo 201.3 Special Election Judge appointments consist of individuals recommended by the City Clerk and require the approval by majority of the City Council. Staff is requesting the individuals listed on the attached Exhibit A be appointed to serve as election judges for the November S, 2012 Special Election at the hourly rate of $10.00 for election judges and $11.00 for head election judges. As allowed by law if circumstances change before the election, the resolution authorizes the City Clerk to appoint additional election judges as necessary. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution No. 2013-80 A Resolution Appointing Election Judges for the 2013 Special Election depicted in the attached Exhibit A. As part of the Consent Agenda, no formal motion is needed; however, if the Council wishes to further discuss the topic, they can remove this item from the Consent Agenda and approve the Resolution by taking the following action or amending as necessary: "Move to approve Resolution No. 2013-80,A Resolution Appointing Election Judgesffor the 2013 Special Election, as presented herein." Attachments: 1) Exhibit A—2013 Election Judge Roster 2) Resolution No. 2013-80, A Resolution. Appointing Election Judges for the 2013 Special Election Exhibit A - 2013 Lake Elmo Election Judges Allen,Diane Allen,Jinn $urress,Mary Dege,George Grundeen,Mary Hansen,Nancy N Haugen,Suzanne Hels,Shannon G D Hirsch,Wil Kiefner,Jan Krueger,Jan Loos,Wendy Lumby,Sharon O'Donnell,Patricia Quinn,Lisa Raney,Edwin Raney,Jacqueline Roth,James A Roth,Janice Slinger,Donald VanDemmeltraadt,Gloria Wagner,Linda CITY OF LADE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO 2013-80 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE 2013 SPECIAL ELECTION WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 204B.21 of the Minnesota Election Laws,Electionn judges shall be appointed by the municipality;and WHEREAS,the appointments shall be made at least 25 days before the election at which the judges will serve; and WHEREAS,election judges and election judge trainees shall receive at least the prevailing Minnesota minimum wage for each hour spent carrying out duties at the polling place and attending training; and WHEREAS,the City of Lake Elmo is dependent upon and appreciative of citizen assistance for its election process; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo 2013 Special Election Judge appointments consist of individuals recommended by the City Clerk with the approval by majority of the City Council; and N841LREAS,the City Clerk may appoint additional election judges as necessary, NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo that the individuals listed on the attached Exhibit A are appointed to serve as election judges for the November 5,2013 Special Election at the hourly rate of$10.00 for election judges and$11.00 for head election judges. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LADE ELMO THIS FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013. By: Mike Pearson (Seal) Mayor ATTEST: Adam Bell City Clerk Resolution No.2013-80 "TTI IF C:]TY O - - MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 10/01/2013 CONSENT ITEM#: 6 AGENDA ITEM: Keats MSA Street and Trunk Watermain Improvements—Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed, Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessments, and Calling for Hearing on Proposed Assessment i SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger,City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Adam Bell, City Clerk Cathy Bendel,Finance Director Dave Snyder, City Attorney Chad Isakson, Project Engineer SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS i''"re aved i oue the Consent A endet : Questions from Council to Staff............................................................Mayor Facilitates - Public Input,if Appropriate...................................................................Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion..............................................................................Mayor&City Council - Discussion......................................................................................Mayor&City Council - Action on Motion...................................................................................Mayor Facilitates SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider declaring costs to be assessed and calling for the final assessment hearing for the Keats MSA Street and Trunk Watermain Improvements. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve Resolution No. 2013-81;A Resolution Declaring Costs to he Assessed, Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment, and Calling for the Hearing on the Proposed Assessment for the beats MSA Street and Trunk Watermain Improvements," STAFF REPORT: The Keats MSA Street and Trunk Watermain Improvement Project is near completion and the final project costs remain well within the authorized project budget. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429 the council must declare the amount to be assessed against the benefiting properties and Call the Hearing on the Proposed Assessment for these improvements. The Assessment Hearing is proposed for November 6, 2013. The Final Assessment Roll must be certified to the County Auditor by November 30, 2013. Special assessments for this project were established as fixed amounts for a Collector Roadway and for a Trunk Watermain.Therefore the unit assessments remain unchanged with the final project costs. 1 The Post Bid cost estimate and proposed unit assessments compared,to planned costs are as follows: Post Bid Costs Authorized Project Budget Total Project Costs: $2,070,134 $2,325,000 Total Cost Breakdown: Street and Storm Sewer: $1,244,120 $1,297,000 Watermain Extension: $826,014 $1,028,000 Total Assessable Costs: Street Assessable Costs: $74,800 $74,800 Water Assessable Costs: $63,800 $63,800 Unit Assessment Amounts: Street Unit.Assessment(22 Units): $3A00 $3,400 Water Unit Assessment(22 Units): $2,900 $2,900 Total City Share City Share--Street Costs: $1,169,320 $1,222,200 Cite Share— Water Costs: $762,214 $964,200 Final total project costs are currently tracking well below the Post Bid costs, realizing even more project savings, however the final total project costs will not be fully known until project completion. No adjustment in the unit assessment is being recommended. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the city council approve,as part of the Consent Agenda,Resolution No. 2013- 81,thereby declaring the street costs to be assessed to be$74,800 and the water costs to be assessed to be $63,800; ordering the preparation of the proposed assessments with the unit assessments to be$3,400 for each benefitting property for street improvements and$2,900 for water improvements;and Calling for the Hearing on the proposed Assessments for November 6, 201.3 at or around 7:00 PM. The recommended motion is as follows: "Move to approve Resolution No. 2013-81;A Resolution Declaring Costs to be Assessed, Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment, and Calling.f`or the Hearing on the proposed Assessment for°the Keats MSA Street and Trunk YCaterinain Improvements. ' ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Resolution No. 2013-81 Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed, Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment,and Calling for Hearing on Proposed Assessment 2. Notice of Hearing on Proposed Assessment 3. Final Assessment Roll—Street Improvements 4. Final Assessment Roll—Watermain Improvements 2 CITY OF LADE EL MO WASHING'TON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2013--8I A. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO ICE ASSESSED, ORDERING PREPARATION Oa. PROPOSED ASSESSMENT, AND CALLING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FORT E KEATS MSA STREET AND TRUNK WATERI AIN IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS,a contract has been let for the Keats MSA.Street and Trunk Watermain Improvements including street reconstruction and storm sewer improvements located along Keats Avenue between Highway 36 and 47`h Street and trunk watermain improvements along Keats Avenue between 59t" Street and 47"'Street and along 47`� Street from Keats Avenue to 45t'Street; and WHEREAS,the total cost of the street improvements will be$1,244,120;and WHEREAS,the total cost of the water improvements will be$826,01.4; and WHEREAS,the City Clerk and City Engineer have prepared the proposed assessment roll and will maintain said assessment roll on file in the City offices for public inspection. NOW,THEREFOR,BE IT RESOLVED, 1. The portion of the cost of such street improvement to be paid by the City is hereby declared to be $1,169,320, and the portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be$74,800. 2. The portion of the cost of such water improvement to be paid by the City is hereby declared to be $762,214, and the portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be$63,800. 3. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer, has calculated the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvements against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land to be benefited by the improvements, and the Clerk has filed a copy of such proposed assessment in the City offices for public inspection. 4. Assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 1.0 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2014, and shall bear interest at the rate of 4.5 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolution. 5. A public hearing shall be held on the 6`h day of November, 2013, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall.at or approximately after 7:00 P.M.to pass upon such proposed assessment. All persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. He shall also cause mailed notice to be given Resolution No. 2013-81 1. to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings. 7. The owner of any property so assessed may,at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor,pay the entire assessment on such property,with interest accrued to the date of payment,to the City Clerk.No interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of the assessment. A property owner may at any time thereafter, pay to the City Clerk the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. ADOPTED BY THE LAKE E _ A10 CITE' COUNCIL ON THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013. CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: Mike Pearson Mayor (Seal) ATTEST: Adam Bell City Clerk Resolution No. 2013-81 2 CI"I " OF LAKE R`LMO NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT KEATS MSA STREET AND TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Lake Elmo will meet in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at or approximately after 7:00 P.M. on Wednesday, November 6, 2013, to consider, and possibly adopt, the proposed assessment against abutting property for the Keats MSA Street and Trunk Watermain Improvements. Adoption by the Council of the proposed assessment may occur at the hearing. The following are the areas proposed to be assessed: Keats Avenue Street Improvements: The amount to be specially assessed against each particular lot, piece, or parcel of land located along Keats Avenue (from Trunk Highway 36 to 47t' Street), is $3,400. Keats Avenue Trunk Water Improvements: The amount to be specially assessed against each particular lot, piece, or parcel of land receiving an individual service stub located along Keats Avenue (from Trunk Highway 36 to 47tb Street) and along 47"' Street from Keats Avenue to 45"' Street, is $2,900. You may at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor on November 15, 2013, pay the entire assessment on such property to the City Clerk with interest accrued to the date of payment. No interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid to the City Clerk 30 days from the adoption of this assessment. You may at any time thereafter, pay to the City Clerk the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 (date assessment certified to County Auditor) or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. if you decide not to prepay the assessment before the date given above the rate of interest that will apply is 4.50 percent per year. Once assessments are certified to the County, the assessments are payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 10 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2014, and will bear interest at the rate of 4.50 percent per annum from the date of adoption of the assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of the assessment resolution. until December 31, 2013. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office. The total amount of the proposed street improvement assessment is $74,800. The City contribution for the street improvement project is $1,244,120. The total amount of the proposed watermain improvement assessment is $63,800. The City contribution for the watermain improvement project is $762,214. Written or oral objections will be considered at the meeting. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of an assessment unless a written objection signed by the affected property owner is filed with the municipal clerk prior to the assessment hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. The Council may upon such notice consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon. such further notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable. An owner may appeal an. assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or Clerk within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or Clerk. The City Council is authorized in its discretion to defer the payment of an assessment for any homestead property owned by a person for whom it would be a hardship to make payment if the owner is 65 years of age or older and/or the owner is a person retired by virtue of a permanent and total disability or by a person who is a member of the Minnesota National Guard or other military reserves who is ordered into active military service, as defined in section 190.05 subdivision 5b or 5c, as stated in the person's military orders, for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. The owner must request a deferment of the assessment at or before the public hearing at which the assessment is adopted and make application on forms prescribed by the City Clerk within 30 days after the adoption. Notwithstanding the standards and guidelines established by the City for determining a hardship, a deferment of an assessment may be obtained pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 435.193. DATED- October 1, 2013 BY ORDER.OF THE LADE ELMO CITY COUNCIL Mike Pearson, Mayor (Published in the Oakdale-Lake Elmo Review on October 9, 2013) � 00000o OOo0000000000a 000 W -Z O o 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' o 0 0 O O O O O O o 0 0 0 O O O o 0 0 0 0 o Cl O O �tvv 't Ol ct7d, qf Qdrt � a V V dat � voo a mmaiL*iry Lo MNimnimmnimmmniL+im nim� P, v)cr>t4 Qs vl tr.v}vi A4 VII of V1 V}Vf to t4 Vs An to v?to to tC4 vl> ~ N N m m M N in N N c-E ppqN 88Y OpON 00 N N m ":T M Ln v a--I N pppN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 N M N M ei' et rL 7 e-t er Q' e-i N e-I N N -� Q N M m N m M m m N M N N a-1 1* a � C 1-4 N N N N a �i �q '-4 N N I-i 1-4 " e-1 N N N N N 1-1 N N N e-i N N N e-L F L?. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (N N N N N N N (N N 0 N 0) O Cl 01 O) 01 O) 01 01 M Cl 0) 0) 0) v) 0) (M 01 0) 01 0) 0 F.- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N " N N N N N O O O O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 p 0 000000000000000000 014 -4 -4 N N N N N N N N a Na N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O OO 0 O C 0 6 00 0 0 0 000000 0 CC O Lo Ln Ln N Ln Ln Lo Ln Ln Ln V) Ln Lo Ln Ln Ln to Ln Ln Ln an Ln Lo Lo Lo in Ln M Ln Lo Ln in Ln Ln Lo Lo Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln F 0OooO0000000000000000 O W J J 1 J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J W W W W W W W W W W W W W W w W W W W W W W W 0 Y le ]C ]e x Y Y Y Y Y Y Y le se !e Y Y Y4 x Y Y le � gaaaaaaaaagagQa5aaaa a 0.. -� J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J c W F F- cc LUZ LLJ WWWWWWWWWWW w W w w w w W wa F`^ wW Fa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > F2 < QaQaaaQQQaaaQa Ln > Q Q In cVI W Gtn Q V) V/ m N In V) VI to V) v) Ln to N V1 Ln Ln V) Ln N V) 2 J F- F F F F F F F F F F F F- F Q Q a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a F a ~ Q W W W W W W w W W W ^ W w W W W W W ^ W Y Y Y Y Ne x Y ]G t- `a p _ x w rf Ln M M u) Lo M m tin Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 r4 (D 0 0 Ln 0) 0 e-t m v7 LO m Ln '4 �T N N m Ln Ln I� O l0 O N N •l LO d' Ln M LO N O N N N W M Q 00 Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 Ln m Ln Ln Ln Lo 0) Lo V) Ln Ln Ln Ln Ct d' (O CP W Y w Lu Q 9 Z Z uj uj z � � Z Z a Z Z a a W Z Z W w w W d 2 J J W N > 0 ix OLU c Y Y C to w < G co co G a fY = w Q z LLI LLIa s,W U 0 C Y OOQ > W O aLLJ v 0 Z Z o J z > > -i J � W a W W z O NV Z 0 U _ = ob Z Q a Z a w co w U Z Q La'S 0: cc a Ln w W i Q a Y Q o2J06 obcr ocl7 Q '-i w 2 O W U V LL 02S 2 F - Z m m Z p Z Q a w w I W Q LFn vxi W a .:J W l7 C.7 Q Z LL w w > Z} ww z _Z O V+ l) W I_ J >y a O J O O O v Ln Q zp W U O a > Q O V O Y N x CL Z J C7 C7 Nuj LU c Q N Z S Z w m 0 0 0 0 F U W w W L9 G CC W W O W tY J 2 C Jam' w -, = L/W OQuOiwW ww (D0l7awL`LUa Q � � LJLL LU i.L N V) U Ln > 0 0 m W to W Vf Z Ln W U to N x G O O r ♦ iF _ O N N M tv Ln LO L- m m ' Ln LO 1` 00 m O e-t N m Z ri N — N .--f N r i rl N N N N N Q N F a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W z o o c o o ' o 0 o c o 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 ' o t7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o� rn am m a rn LT c a1 as a1 a1 a1 m c a1 m a1 LT 01 L7Q Q N NNN N NC N N' N N NN NN N N N N N' NN m ¢ LD tin•in to to V*}to to to to to th ti}ti}tn.in in i/k-t6 t6 vl1 11 tn•try to tn•in .-t O .-1 .-i a-I e-L aq a-I e-I '-i c-I a--I .-i rl O O M M M N Ln M -1 a-t N Ln N o0 N r. M ct M Ln a a-! N e-L n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 Cl 0 0 li 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 o Cl o o o o o 0 0 o 0 o o 0 o o 0 0 o o 0 0 o o O o Cl 0 0 o M Lo 0 0 o m o M � ov o ov o ov vo 0 0 0 0 0 0 �o J [] N M cMY1 N M iMn M M N M N -4 -1 a eY Cam' C V a~-I Lei N N N eel ri Q .-i li -4 '4 c-i '-I c-t H 1 L-L .-1 rf .-+ a-L -1 a-1 F d N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ev 1J1 N N N N al N N N 01 a1 Q1 a1 N N O N O N N LT al N Q1 F N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O N O O O M M M M M M M O O O O O Q Q 00000000000000a000 -irtri e1 c, .1 c, N N N N aNa N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O p 0 0 0 00 0 0100000 0 O O Ln Ln N Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln On Ln Ln w Ln Ln Ln o Ln vi o Ln o Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln N Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln N Ln Ln o Ln Ln Ln o Ln Ln o Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln ci 1 z 000000000000000000000 0 0 0 W J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J 7 w w w w w w w W w w w W w w w w w w W w w W w w W W W w W W w W W W w w w W W W W w W w W W W W Y Y ][ X Y Y Y X Y X Y Y X X Y Y Y ]C Y Y ]C Y Y Y o Ln fsga � < � � < < a � � � � a � � g3 ggg cc Ln W z oc ¢ z w w w w w W w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w Q > > > > > > > > > > > N > > > > > > > > L> N aaa ¢ ¢ aQa ¢ aa aaa ¢ ¢ ¢ aa a a w N aw ? N 7 < Ln V1 Ln N Vl V1 Ln N Ln h an Ln Ln V1 N Ln V1 V) Vi LA Q 1- F F F- F F F F F F F = F F !- F h w zJ QaQa ¢ aaaaaaFaaaa !R < aFJ Q w w w w w w w w w w w n w w w w w w w w r` O ]C Y Id idY Y ]C Ln -,z ?C X Y ]C Y Y _,we a Y z L W > r-i Ln M a) Ln Lit M M Ln Ln Ln O O O O O O N O O O Ln Ln LA d LQ e-4 O Ot Ln it LT M -1 M ct Lp M Ln �q V' N N m Ln Ln N -4 O w O N c-1 -1 LD cP Ln pl in N O N N N oo (n '� oo oo V1 ¢ Ln Jl Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln m Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln W Y w w � O zz W W K J= Z z Q cc zz a Q O W Z Z LY W W WCL V) a W cr O Q Q Ln J Y Y Ln Ln W LU Q 02! t>ZS Q Lr i Q ¢ r LZ w LU Z LnQ Q LW Z Q Z } a0a vhi QY LL' OJOJ 2 1 J Y Q W ¢ W > > J d w Q Z Z 0 W co w Z m a o2j o2S t Z a � zL z � wT o� Z - a � wQQ wa z ¢ U z o� z 1 ¢ Ln d a Q Q Y Q lJ F Q _ o� . W w C7 J c °2S t>Lf LU o2S X Q LL cb LL. w w �L L>ZS a O L>LL J W C Z N N O J U u W 0 06 Z I- J — Z m m W W z h N WO Q LaLI trl C7 F z W w z 2 w z = C7 CJ W d � M z � u � Omtc = aOrtumlF ,7 > mF1 � o0yy J LU �y `t O w C7 3 J O O �t z tn Op c�J D = Z °� w w Z p U J O �1cv 2YXZLu Nw QLn z Owm � Q cc C] O Q � � (W7ZaawCW7z � � w w F _l 2' LWLY L�LJ O a w W w w w l'J O l7 d w w V Q Q O 7 W O Ca W LL L1.4 ,v V) U Ln > L1 O m 2 W m w Ln Z Ln w U Ln Ln Y w w O F O O c-L N m ct Ln to P., Lb m 0 .-L N M - Ln U U N M L11 LA 1� OO a1 ti �y 'y �„L c,l rH 1-4 N N N N N N ...::..:.. THE CITY car--• LAKE ELMO MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 10/01/2013 CONSENT ITEM#: 7 AGENDA ITEM: Keats MSA Street and Trunk Watermain Improvements—Change Order No. 4 SUBMITTED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin,City Engineer Cathy Bendel,Finance Director SUGGESTED ORDER GIB BUSINESS (ifrerrroved Lr2ni the ConsentA mda): - Questions from Council to Staff............................................................Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate...................................................................Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion..............................................................................Mayor&City Council - Discussion......................................................................................Mayor&City Council - Action on Motion...................................................................................Mayor Facilitates SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving, as part of the Consent.Agenda, Change Order No. 4 for the Keats MSA Street and Trunk Watermain Improvements, thereby increasing the Contract Amount by $4,105.00. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve Change Order No. 4 for the Keats MSA Street and Trunk tl'irterynain Iniprovernents" STAFF REPORT: This change order provides compensation to the contractor for additional work completed at the direction of the Project Engineer to maintain stormwater drainage along the project corridor to protect the new infrastructure. The additional work.includes the removal and replacement of an existing 12-inch flared end section and to complete ditch grading that was outside of the scope of the original contract. Upon excavation it was discovered the flared end section was damaged and required replacement. The damage was not caused by the Contractor. Additional ditch grading was requested in multiple locations by the Project Engineer to ensure positive drainage throughout the corridor and to better shape the boulevard for a smoother transition to adjacent property owner's yards. The additional grading work was outside the planned work limits.The Contractor is being paid for time and materials with the time, equipment, and labor tracked by the City inspector. I With approval of this Change Order, the revised Contract amount will be increased by $4,105.00 for a revised Contract Amount of$1,618,198.47. With this change, the project remains within the scope of the current project budget and contingencies. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council consider approving, as part of the Consent Agenda, Change Order No. 4 for the Keats MSA Street and Trunk Watermain Improvements, thereby increasing the Contract Amount by $4,105.00. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve Change Order No. 4 for the Keats MSA Street and Trunk fivatermain Improvements" ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Change Order No. 4 I 2 CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FORM CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc. KEATS MSA STREET AND TRUNK WATERMAIN IMP PROJECT NO.2012.129 CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 DATE: September 24,2013 TO: T.A..SCHIFSKY&SONS,INC.,2370 E HIGHWAY 36,NORTH ST.PAUL,MN 55109 This Document wil)become a supplement to the Contract and all provisions will apply hereto.The Contract Documents are modified as follows upon execution of this Change Order. CEIqXSE�fJRDER DESCI?)t?'TION.;-iJIJSTI;FIGATIOIV: This change order provides compensation to the contractor to remove and replace an existing 12"'flared end section and to perform ditch:grading in multiple locations that were beyond the limits of the original project scope.The original contract required this-flared end section to be salvaged and replaced.However,the f)ared.end section was found in the field to be damaged. The.additional ditch grading work was requested by the City in various locations to provide a better final grade-and drainage system.Time associated with the additional.grading was tracked in the field and is reflected in the itemization.below. Attachments (list documents supporting change): N/A ITEM DESCRIP.TION.6KPArITIE UN)T' .TY 'UNITE PRICE 1NCReA ODEC.k AsE} C04-1 Install 12"RCP Apron w/Trash Guard EA 1 ! $1,I55.00 $1 155.00 _.__....___....__.....__._..�._.__ __._........___.._.�....._.,M.............._. C04-2 Time and Material-B.ackhoe HR 10 $60.00. $600.00 -. —...... .......__..._.�,............_.................._..__..................�........----...__......._.�� _,.....- -..a �:__..__.............._—......,.-- - _....�__...___............................. C04-3 Time and Material-Laborer HR I_.._..�.1.0 ' $68.00 i ._.__..__.._........_._...._.__..,...._._.__._�__.._�............ �---.....___..__.__...___._..._._.._. 56aa.ao C04-4 Time and Material-Operator_._........__._............. .___........__..._........_....__. ......._......._.._... HR 10 $72.00I �_$72.0.A_0 ........... ...� ___._ _ _..............- ----... C04-5 Time and Material-Truck/Driver HR 10 $95 00 $g50,p0 _. ..... ........ ._ - ..._. ..... _ ._ _ ..... __—._...—_.......................................... NET CONTRACT CHANGE $4,105.00 Amount of Original Contract $ 1,606,833A7s Sum of Additions/Deductions approved to date(CO Nos.1,2,and 3) $� 7,260..00 Contract Amountto date $ 1,614,093.47 Amount of this Change Order (ACID) ( !) $ 4,105,00 Revised Contract Amount $ 1,618,198.47 The Contract Periods for Completion will be UNCHANGED INC-RE SIED 0KRk %D p (UNCHANGED) { «,..�,-�,) (, ,a) 0 days APPROVED BY ENGINEER: FOCUS Engineering,in[. APPROVED BY CONTRA `7 1 ENGINEER gy 9/24/2013 '' DATE DATE APPROVED BY OWNER: CITY OF LAKE ELMO,MINNESOTA By By DATE. DATE FOCUS Engineering,inc. CHANGE ORDER fC35tiv, THE C:I"T'Y OF � LMO MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 10/01/201.3 CONSENT ITEM#: 8 AGENDA ITEM: Automatic Gates Sunfish Lake Park SUBMITTED BY: Mike Boutbilet,Public Works Director THROUGH: Dean Zuleger,City Administrator R.EVIE'*A'FU II V: Cathv Bendel, Finance Director SUGGESTED ODDER OF BUSINESS: (if'aein.oved from consent) - Introduction of Item................................................................................................... Staff - Report/Presentation....................................................................................................Staff - Questions from Council to Staff............................................................Mayor Facilitates - Public Input,if Appropriate...................................................................Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion..............................................................................Mayor&City Council - Discussion......................................................................................Mayor&City Council - Action on Motion...................................................................................Mayor Facilitates SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: It is respectfully requested the City Council, as part of the Consent Agenda, authorize expenditure to purchase and install automatic gate at Sunfish Lake Park. BACKGROUND AND STAFF REPORT: Previously the City had an agreement with a resident adjacent to the park, where for a. nominal fee of $1.00 a day he would open and close the entrance and exit gates at Sunfish Lake Park. He was a retired gentleman and was diligent to assure the gates were open/closed or would inform the Staff to cover times he was not available. When he moved the Staff was unable to recruit anyone else for this duty, and hence the gates have been open year round 24/7. Over the last few years increases in after hour illegal activities and incidences have been cited by the Washington County Sheriff. These include a murder victim's car abandoned, suicide,underage drinking, illegal fireworks and sex crimes (confidential/victim/protection). Staff has also received reports from nearby residents (primarily Park Meadows) concerning late night activities, gatherings, fireworks and vehicles spinning circles in the parking lot. The Washington County Sheriff identified the difficulty of patrolling the park,due the long driveway. The new gate would be timed to open at sunrise and closed at sunset (adjusted periodically). It also includes a key pad allowing deputies, emergency vehicles and staff afterhours access. The gates could be set to allow a grace period which would allow exit for a predetermined time after closing. 1 BACKGROUND AND STAFF REPORT: (continued) It is proposed the gate be installed on the existing entrance driveway parallel to the park sign. The driveway would be widened to allow two-way traffic through a 24' gate opening. The existing exit drive would be removed and turf restored to grade. Beyond the gates, a crossover lane would divide the driveways back to the existing one lane entrance and exit road. The road re-configuration would be done by Public Works personnel and equipment. The road base materials(millings)were acquired at no cost from the Highway 5 maintenance project. Three gate styles were reviewed by the Park Commission. A slide gate, a parking ramp style gate, (up/down arm) and a barrier swing gate similar to the entrance/exit at the Lake Elmo Park Reserve. Consensus of the Parks Commission was the barrier gate best fit the application and park environment.At a September 16"'meeting, the Park Commission voted 6-0 to approve up to $18,000 for the purchase of a swing arm gate for Sunfish Lake Park. This would be a CIP funded purchase and is the low quote provided from three vendors,coming in at$11,075. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the purchase and installation of a 24' automatic barrier gate at Sunfish Lake Park.from, Security Access Systems,for the not to exceed price of$11,075.00 ATTACHM-ENT(S): L Cost Estimate from Security Access Systems,Inc. 2. Draft diagram of the gate and footings 2 j "all l� e ; t ` F.D.imx=.07 t t� StuU.wttter,MFJ 55OR 2 .•-� PROPOSAL r,p�pA Waovk4c t('S•S),99$-1?fS2 �' ti. I '.. •U RO P SAL RV.: (45-1)4S�-5G3 "jeLmixd�7,rc.�uEraxs4�t„fj�m Name: City of Lake Elmo RO.Box 207 Stillwater,RAN 55082 Att. Mike Phone:(651)998-1.882 Email, mike.bouthilet@lakeelmo.org Fax (65-1)4334563 City. "state: Zip abate: Salesperwu: Tom Orb `. Phone: Fax; pelf: Job Site- Sunfish Lake Park Terms: 50%Down 40f Post :st:I Operator Set ! Site Address: 10%Balance Upon Completion f �sisfoxster lttetsais Furnish. and Install, . DESMPTION AMOUNT { 1 Hysecurity strongarm 20`bearn complete with keypad, exit Poop,photo eye and 7 day tinier $13,575 t rwtATU ALS AND INSTALLATION $13,575 Down Payments � C�t/flTi4T1f�N vAUT--,1=O'i1- t20DAYSFT:77 z INC. Check#: Amt. Date $ Tg TAL This is a qur+tation on.toe goods named,subject to the conditions noted below: ! Security Access Systems,Inc.shall furnish only A service charge of 1,5/riper month(18efe Annually)will be applied on all past f The material attd labor specified in this contract Due balances. The purchaser shalt be responsible for any and all collection and 3f'I Any changes made frcrni the abode Specifications ;I Legal costs incurred by Security Access Systems,Inc.in the event of this bill i! Necessitating additional material or labor wilt be Becoming pastdue. Security Access Systems,Inc.reserves the right to lien the { billed at an additional cost. Imf:cred in t::3 r;,,:.».,,., r:,:rc z:.ed. Salesperson's-Signature Customer's Sigt>:at tb is g:. ! �w,...ed+��Ed'&rb'bN C'.`��$�B�Kt6A� �..:./ff ��rv5f� 6✓ `,�' 6rs'�°+O ,.-GGG s -.{ _:{��k_ P.0,SdX WY� t sduwaberl MN ,PPO PRK: I651}43's-fS/vs^ ", ecxr7r. �aiertsn»ccE,fa Name: city of Lake Elmo F.O.Box 207 Attn: Mike Stillwater,MN 55092 Phone-.(651,).998-t&92 Email: mike.houthil.et@lakeelmo.org :(65i) r#5i53 city- State: Zip- Date: Sallespersom. 'tom Och Phone-, Fax: Cell- i Job Site: Sunfish Lake Park Terms- 5010 Down 400✓6 Post I Operator Set Site Address: 10%Balance Upon Completion Customer Initials C Furnish and Install- # QTV. AIVlt1IJNT 1 0`x `slide date with Hvsecurity slides mart opener $11,400-0 ( keypad on stand gate edge photo eye free exit loop seven day tither MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION S11,400 Down Payment-, Qv,0-rA-n0N Vf'cul,-,r-OlzSo DAYS 7A.% INC Check#: hurt Date IVTA,., $11,40() This is a quotation on the goods named;subject to the conditions noted belm- Security Access Systems,Inc.shalt furnish only A service charge of 1.5%per month(19%Annualiy)will be applied on all past The material and labor specifiedd in:this contract. 1 { Due balances. The purchaser shall be responsible for any and all collection and f Any changes made from the above specifications 1 Legal casts incurred by Security Access Systems,Inc.in the event oftbis bill Neeessitatiug additional material or labor will be accoming.pastdoe. Security Access Systems,Inc.reserves the right to lien the billed at an additional cost. I d jni::j..'i rj1,j%=uW4']G u;as ag:m'�_4 to Jiw=35 iwi siwev cd. , ~Saiesperson'sSignature Customer's SiPatt€ci k 'r ; st Ram,- is-,Fo ce To: Cite of Lake Elmo Date of Estimate: 9/12/2013 Mike 13outhilet "Terms: Net on Comp. Proiect Scoi)ee Sunfish fake Park Entrance Access Control Furnish &Install: 24' Wide Automated Gate across main drive t. 24' Wide x 3' High square steel brown welded double swing;gate -(2.)— 12' wide gate leaves w/reflective safety tape -4" x 4" square steel hinge posts in concrete footings -Heavy duty grease-able hinges -Apollo 1550ETL swing gate operators -photo eyes, and in ground loops for safety -365 day tuner&push button transmitters for operation Total Double Swing Barrier Gate Price=$26,500.00* 2. 24' Wide x 4' High black chain link cantilever slide gate -24' wide x 4' High black vinyl coated chain link gate leaf -(3)—4" Sch.40 black vinyl coated gate posts set in concrete footings -(4)—sealed bearing nylon gate rollers w/covers -Chamberlain Liftsnaster SL595 slide gate operator -Crate safety edges on front and back uprights of gate for safety -photo eyes, and in ground loops for safety -365 day timer&push button transmitters for operation Total Cantilever Slide Gate Price=$13,750.00* *All Electrical Power& Control Conduits &wiring by others* Thank you, Mark Wassink Commercial Sales Office (763)425-5050 Fax (763)425-9006 Cell (612)968-4945 *Price good for 30 days* ESTiIi ATE f ORDER Gopher state;t,Call IP#464MIDW Ticket# �� Ee ce- Nearest Intersecting Street Ar.+a MANUr=Ara7vrttNr ct)Mr An: Y Hudson rage# dS0^Grid# 525 E. tail€aurae Ave. Township County So.St. Patel, MN 55075 Phone: 661461-2222 Fax:661-461-0:19 Company: I.ake Elmn Public 1, w k� Bill To, l7t�te !%fti 2013 Address: 3445 Ideal Avenue A Address: .fub No: City: Lake Pluto State NIN Zip:55il42 City: state: Zip: Fstinl aloe: David Reiss Contact: Mike .lob Site Address: Work Phone 6i1-248-7&18 Terms Donn Paymen, Lake Edna Park Fax#: ,-.._ Progress Payment �Gther Phone Bar on Corrplpt"ian Duantity, Description I Amount Two single swing gates 12'gibe by 3'high hot dip�aivAniced painted Aiacropoxy!.�eroEutt I brown with_iN-1 reflective safety to . Two hinge.posts,4"X 4"X IW'finished same as above,in 36"X 72"ewn:r•e:ie footjn,,!,. i 'Fwo latch gists,4"X 4"X 114"finished same as above,in 12"X 72"concrete fontirt s: Two A oilo model I-SRUL single swing gate operator packages. I'wo optitna D30*1 batteries. - - I wo automatic 1.5am chargers. Two E:I11X thru-scan photo-eyes with protective hood,per 1:1,325 One radio receiver with coaxial antenna kit. Five sin le button radio trans►nitters I Otte vehicle detector and 6'X b' atriov detection I{>o e. l Two 365 days timers to hold ggtes a en during the dray. _ 48 ork by atimr s:All electrical power,control conduits,and c.ahivs logs. t —_ -- _._. 2f,.5.t4.tltl Nlaterial and t.ahor A Service charge of 1.6%(18%annually)will be applied on ail past due balances.The purchaser shall be responsible for arty and all wiltic:tion and legal costs incurred by Midwest MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION 5 26.524 0Q Commercial Fence in the evens of thr,bill beComming past due.Ni-idwest Fence reset vhs the light to lien the improved property if payment in full as agreed to in this contract is not MISBsr.MArE VAr W-V k3G TAX received. nary FROM AgOVEnarF TOTAL 126.524.00 Owner responsible for establishing correct property and fence lines.Any permits required shalt ba the sale responslbility or the c.•.;,es owrtpfi w,,viT b;—i,r removat of obstrut wns of every nature which Witt interfere with this installation of the fence."I his contract assumes normal g-curtd ccnd:t=o::s.Sit-;,Ad rocky or excessive hard digging be encountered.oweter agrew>to pay additional costs of such work.Midwest?once shalt tum;sh rnly the moil-rials rzrd labor sl ez!:;t:d;Ir`itis� contract.Any changes made trom the above specifications will ba Uflcd at Midwlost Fence's-torrent retail pri;Hs. TNIS C46r r"CT%Ua,lgCr To AceepTANCri 8Y lllttlri6EST FiiN:E•S CAr.0 fT MANAGER. i ace pt this I,ontraz t vr,tttihaIf of tvlidwcist Fella: Mfg.Cu. r _ I r+anager Date Salespersc Sigraturs lam .. (, �� S57.tLYdJCr,'i';N;N ..�"'iC1?:! ''�•-,'`'Mi ` g ..m .PROPOSAL 3 R q� ,P SA 'Ise-nMiW LP)w tx fm—At A.line f Gq Name- City of Fake Elmo 1N D.G.Box 207 Attn:�t: 1'�l1ke sttllwater,. N 55012 fx Plxine:(651)998-1.882 l Fox :(65'1)433-3680 t i%. Date' 9!25J13 cfty` State: Ziip: z tte ��ies1�€.rrst3�r� 1 t3Tli t�Ci> y lE Phone; 'Fiax: Cell: ��.. Iw !. f: Job sAtet i Terms: 54%Down I( 40%t Post/Operator set Site Add—'e %- 111%Balance, Jpor(Corn-€pietiori f W AMOUNT l4. 1 24•'barrier gate,mounted on 4"steel posts 2,800,00 1 la 400 double opener 2,500.00 1 it 55 photo eye 400,00 E 1. free exit loop 500.00 li 1 shadow loop 500.00 1. 7 day primer 225.00 if k, <s 1 keypad on staled 650A0 l 1 electrical connection (not to exceed) 3,500.00 j I M ERIAL AND 111E 'Ai<,t,A"1:'IO- N 11,075.00 aw7n payment: cxl.ln�l,Ttos�! V/tip iD For,-30 I�Ay( � 'VAX Inc. 13. 07 i Check#a Amst. Date � 0 t ___,-....,�..... �_:.___ _ � .�. fl + sff - j� '"his is a quotation oo tl,e guexis named,s lwrt to dte coMitim aou-d i c; �n SLCefil:Y ACCCSS SYSLLfYts Inc Shall tl[rC}SS11(xlIy A service charge of 2 %fer month('8%Amorally)sy Il he applied on aIi lM51 I lle mntenal and labor socifiod in this cmarac4 rs lhie Balances. The ptirce;.as�siialf be resmmsiWe for any and,all collectim aridr `k Any clrar�czs made frvm.the atxkve sprc fieativ s 1.4gal cmis inwiTed by Security Access s.vsfe s.Inc.in the event of.11is bill "-..; 'blexessttacrnc aciclatinszal rnatctial car ia6csr will,be �x f' 1 cccn)in2 past floc. Security Acccrs Systerns„1nC_res ves tivi viy-tu to Ilgit tI[C �'l' 10ed at aR additional Cost.41 N..j.., .u, :.aJ i.:.:::r:tS::7uti:GC'r 0.r.. ��.. i salespersoWs signature :tls$rar�c s igr�nis �. (DRAFT) Both Gates and Footings Side View 20' 2' i f 24" Footing 16" Base Plate Cates and Stanchions are hot dipped galvanized and painted with Macrepoxy/Acrolon Brown T) IF CITY <:7F -4� �� h MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 10/01/2013 REGULAR ITEM#: 9 AGENDA ITEM: Dean and Gayle Dworak Variance—09.029.21-22.0025 (Hill Trail North) SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson,City Planner 1 THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Kyle Klatt,Planning Director Pete Ganzel,Washington County SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introductionof Item..............................................................................................................Staff - Report/Presentation..........................................................................................Staff - Questions from Council to Staff:.....................................................................Mayor Facilitates - Public Input,if Appropriate..............................................................................Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion.........................................................................................Mayor&City Council - Discussion................................................................................................Mayor&City Council - Action on Motion.............................................................................................Mayor Facilitates SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is asked to consider a Variance submitted by Dean and Gayle Dworak 4719 Olson Lake Trail.North to allow for the construction of a single family home on a lot that is not considered a buildable lot of record under the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the variance request includes an allowance to install a subsurface sewage treatment system on a lot that does not meet the area requirements for septic systems per the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on August 26, 2013, which was continued at meetings on 9/9/13 and 9/23/13. The Planning Commission recommended denial. of the variance request based upon failure to meet three findings necessary to grant a variance. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny the Variance by taking the following action: "Move to approve Resolution No. 2013-082, denying the variance requested at 09.029.21.22.0025 (Hill Trail North) to allmi for the construction of a single fa'nily hone onn a lot that is not considered a buildable lot of record, based upon fizilure to meet all required findings necessary to grant the Variance.'9 B,.�.CKC.ROUN_D AND STAFF REPORT: The City of Lake Elmo received an application for a variance from Dean and Gayle Dworak to build a single family home on a lot that is not considered a.buildable lot of record under the Zoning Ordinance. In order to approve a variance under the new State Statute,the applicant must demonstrate compliance with 4 required findings: Page 1 of 3 ............................................................%�...-.t....... ............ I. Practical Difficulties 2. Unique Circumstances 3. Character of the Locality 4. Adjacent Properties and Traffic The Planning Commission spent a fair amount of time over the course of several meetings reviewing the applicant's request,discussing the required findings of fact listed above,and considering testimony from Staff and neighboring property owners. Staff has attached a copy of the previous reports submitted to the Commission for review by the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the variance request over the course of three meetings, and adopted a motion to recommend denial of the applicant after taking additional testimony and closing the public hearing at its September 23, 2013 meeting. In order help the City Council.have a better understanding of the Commission's discussion, the public testimony received, and the reasons for the Commission's action, Staff has attached a copy of the draft minutes from the September 23d meeting to this memorandum. Because the detailed minutes from the meeting are attached, Staff will not provide a summary of the comments received other than to note that: * The applicants and property owners all spoke in favor of the variance * Five individuals spoke against the granting of a valiance. * Another neighbor submitted written comments opposed to the variance. * An attorney representing the Gustafson family submitted a written statement also in opposition to the valiance. Upon the close of the public hearing the Planning Commission conducted a lengthy debate conceming the required finds of fact,and adopted findings that the variance did not meet three of these including: 1)that the variance was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, 2) that there are no unique circumstances associated with the request, and 3) that the variance would lead to a degradation of water quality of the Tri-Lakes area and would alter the essential character of the locality. A more detailed description of the Planning Commission's findings have been incorporated in,to the attached resolution of denial. The Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend denial of the variance request with a vote of 5 ayes and 2 nays. The Commissioners voting against the motion cited the lack of evidence of water quality impacts and the number of existing lots that are either smaller or close to the same size as the applicant's property as reasons for their vote against the motion. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny the Variance by taking the following action: "Move to approve Resolution No. 2013-082, denying the variance requested at 09.029.2L22.0025(Hill Trail North) to allowfor the construction of a single ftrin ik�,home on a lot that is not considered a huildahle lot of record,hased uponfailure to meet all requiredfindings necessary to grant the variance. ATTACHMENIT(n: 1. Resolution No.2013-082 2. Staff Memo to the Planning Commission, 9-23-13 3. Staff Report to the Planning Conunission, 8-26-13 4. Variance Application w/Narrative and Supporting Documents Page 2 of 3 5. Location Map 6. I-Ell Trail Area Lot Size Analysis 7. Letter from Washington County Department of Health 8. Letter from Mr. Steve Iverson 9. Letter from Ms. Lauren Skilduin,Representing the Gustufson Family 10. Letter from Mr.Gordy Grundeen 11. Excerpt from Draft Planning Commission Minutes,9-23-13 12. Letter from Mr.and Mrs Dworak Page 3 of 3 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNT' STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2013-082 A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE AT 09.029.21.22.0025 (HILL.TRAIL NORTH) TO ALLOW THE CONSTR UCTION OF A SINGLE,FAMILY HOME ON A LOT NOT CONSIDERED A BUILDABLE LOT OF RECORD PER THE LAKE ELMO ZONING ORDINANCE AND TO ALLOW FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM ON LOT THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF AREA THAT IS SUITABLE FOR A SEPTIC SYSTEM PER THE LAKE ELMO ZONING ORDINANCE. WHEREAS,the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS,Mr. Dean Dworak and Mrs. Gayle Dworak, 12325 Upper Heather Avenue North,Hugo,Minnesota, (the"Applicant")has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo(the"City") for a variance to allow for the construction of a single family home on a lot that is not considered a buildable lot of record; and to allow for a subsurface sewage treatment system on a lot that does not have the required amount of WHEREAS, notice has been published,mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.109; and WHEREAS,the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on said matter on August 26, 2013, September 9, 2013, and September 23, 2013; and. WHEREAS,the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated October 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its October 1, 2013 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE,based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS 1) That the procedures for obtaining said Variance are found in.the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 1.54.109. 2) That all the submission requirements of said Section 154.109 have been net by the Applicant. 3) That the proposed variance is to allow for: Resolution No. 2013-82 1 a) The construction of a single family home on a lot not considered a buildable lot of record per the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance; and b) The installation of a subsurface sewage treatment system on a lot that does not contain the necessary area suitable for a septic system as required by the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance. 4) That the Variance will be located on property legally described as follows: Lots 505 Thru 510 and Lots 629 Thru 634,Part of Vacated Beach, Lane's DeMontreville Country Club, Section 9,Township 29 North, Range 21 West, City of Lake Elmo,Washington County,Minnesota. S) That the plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Specific findings.° That the applicant's propero� was purchased with the knowledge that the lot was not a buildable lot of record, thereby negating the existence of unique circumstances related to the lot being platted and acquired before the current zoning regulations were established. 6) That the proposed variance will alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. Specific findings: The degradation of the water quality caused by additional drainage and erosion on the site and additional strain on tire aquifer caused by an additional private water supply well will alter the essential character of the locality. 7) That the proposed variance is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed variance is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as the area is guided for rural development, and allowing for smaller lots that do not meet the minimum size requirements of the Rural,Single Family zoning district would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing,the Applicants' application for a Variance is denied. Passed and duly adopted this 1"day of October,2013 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. By: Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: Adam Bell, City Clerk Resolution No. 2013-82 2 ....... . ....:....... TI...I CrI,Y C'I' LAKE ELMO Planning Commission Date: 09/23/13 Item: 4a Public Hearing(coat.) ITEM: Variance Request—09.029.21.22.0025 (Mill Trail North)---Cont. SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt,Planning Director Pete Ganzel, Washington County SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City of Lake Elmo has received an application from Dean and.Gayle Dworak, 12325 Upper Heather Ave.N., Hugo,Minnesota, for a variance to allow for the construction of a single family home on a lot that is not considered a lot of record under the Zoning Ordinance due to its size and that is does not meet the required 20,000 square feet of area for a septic system. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing and reviewed the request at meetings on 8/26/1.3 and 9/9/13, at which times the item was tabled for further consideration.at a future meeting. It should also be noted that the Public Hearing has been continued to allow for additional testimony. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the meetings on 8/26/13 and 9/9/13, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing and reviewed the variance application submitted by Dean and Gayle Dworak. In reviewing the application, Staff made the detennination that while the application has merit based upon the 4 required.finding for granting a variance, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence that a subsurface sewage treatment system that met the guidelines of Washington County could be properly located.on.the site. For that reason., Staff recommended that the Planning Commission table the variance request to allow the applicant more time to work with a septic designer and Washington County. The Planning Commission tabled the request to provide the applicant with more time. The applicants have submitted a new certificate of survey showing the proposed location for a primary and secondary drainfield site. In addition,the amount of proposed impervious surface has been reduced to 5,600 square feet. This amount of impervious meets the City's shoreland district requirement of a maximum of 6,000 square feet. In addition,the location of the proposed drainfield,well and home meet all of the required setbacks as specified by the Washington County Development Code, the Shoreland Ordinance, and the Zoning Code.Also,the applicants have submitted an updated septic PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b—ACTION ITEM 2 design to Washington County. Pete Ganzel, Washington County Environmental Specialist,reviewed the proposed septic design and found the system to be compliant with Washington County rules and regulations. Greater detail about Mr. Ganzel's analysis of the proposed septic system can be found in the attached letter(Attachment 42).Based upon these findings,the proposed septic system will be permitted by Washington County. Over the course of the two Public hearing sessions,multiple parties have provided testimony on the proposed variance. At the meeting on 8/26/1.3,testimony was.received from Amy and Brad Gustufson,Vickie Iverson and Bonnie Weisbrod,all.of whom are nearby property owners. The comments by the aforementioned adjacent property owners provided at the 8/26/13 meeting included concern about the following topics: • The proposed location of the septic drainfield was too close to the neighboring property; • The ability of the applicant to site an adequate subsurface sewage treatment system on the property; • Problems related to drainage and erosion control,particularly being that the lot is in between Olson Lake and Lake DeMontreville; and • Alteration of the neighborhood character with a new single family home. At the meeting on 9/9/13,the applicant.. Dean Dworak, and property owner, .Paul Hansen, spoke at the Public Hearing. Mr. Dworak noted that he and his designer are almost finished with an updated design of the home and septic system. They intended to submit the updated information to Washington County for consideration of a septic permit. In addition,Mr. Hansen spoke about the history of the lot, sharing that lie and his wife purchased the lot as either an investment property or as a location to build a home for future retirement,down-sizing from their existing home. The Planning Commission also asked Mr.Hanson when he bought the property, as well as what zoning rules were in place at the time of purchase. Mr.Hanson did not know the exact date when he purchased the property. However,he did note that no promises were made in terms of the lot being buildable from the City. Finally, Steve Iverson, 8108 Hill Trail North, also spoke at the 9/9/13 meeting. He noted that he submitted a letter to the Planning Commission, detailing his concerns about the proposed Variance. He noted that the proposed variance is in direct conflict with the intent of the lot size ordinance,and that if the variance is approved, other requests for additional lot size variances will follow. At the request of the Planning Commission, Staff conducted research on two primary issues: L The Planning Commission asked Staff to conduct an analysis of all the lots in the Hill Trail area, including information about occupancy and lot size. 2. The Planning Commission requested that Staff research what zoning standards were in place at the time when the Hansen's purchased the subject parcel. Regarding the analysis of the lots in the Hill Trail area, Staff has provided two maps that show the parcels in the northern and southern portions of Hill Trail(Attachment 43). The maps indicate the parcel size and occupancy (occupied vs. vacant)of each parcel. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a—ACTION ITEM ................. ................ 3 Regarding parcel size, it should be noted that there are several instances of two adjoining properties being owned by the same owner. In these cases,the parcel size is listed along the parcel boundary with the adjoining properties. In addition, when two contiguous parcels are owned by the same owner,the parcel is considered one property for the purposes of the Zoning Code. When reviewing the parcels that are included in the Hill Trail analysis, two figures are important. 1)The mean (or average)parcel size in the Hill Trail area is 0.82 acres, whereas the median parcel size is 0.71 acres; and 2)In the area analyzed,there are 28 parcels that are equal to or smaller in size than the subject parcel. The figures related to the parcel analysis can be found in Attachment#4. Regarding the zoning standards that were in place at the time the Hansen family purchased the subject property,the City Clerk,Adam. Bell, conducted research.into the matter. The oldest version of the Lake Elmo City Code that the City currently has in its possession in the 1979 Code. When the 1.979 Code was establishes,the 1.5 acre minimum lot size was then established. However, it is difficult to determine what standards were in place prior to the 1979 Code. This investigation have led to results that are inconclusive. It is more than likely that the regulations that were in.place prior to the 1979 Code were carried over from the township regulations prior to the City's incorporation.As it has been established that the Hanson family purchased the property in 1978, it is clear that they did own the property prior to the 1979 Code. However, while understanding the motivations of the property owner at the time may provide helpful context, it still does not change the fact that the subject property is governed by the existing zoning regulations. As the Hansen family did not build on the lot prior to the 1979 regulations,the lot is still subject to the current provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that determine whether or not the lot is considered a buildable lot of record. Regarding the required findings for a variance, it is important to highlight these once gain for the purposes of making a recommendation. The required and proposed findings as presented by Staff include the following: 1. Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definition of practical difficulties- "Practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance,means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. The applicants have noted that the desire to build a single family home on a lot that is consistent in terms of lot area to the other properties in the neighborhood is a reasonable use not permitted by an official control. Staff determines that this criterion is met. 2. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The parcel was plated and purchased by the property owner before the current lot size requirements were established In addition, the properly is unique in that is does not meet the minimum acreage of 0.9 acres to be considered buildable, but can support a PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. 4a--ACTION ITEM 4 permitted subsurface sewage treatment.system as determined by Washington County, Staff determines that this criterion is met. 3. Character of locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. The applicant has correctly noted that the lot is similar or consistent in lot area with most of the existing lots in the neighborhood. The construction of a single family home will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Staff determines that this criterion is met. 4. Adjacent properties and traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an. adequate supply of light and air to property adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.It is determined that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood Staff determines that this criterion is met. Staff has determined that the Variance application does have merit. Finally; Staff did not attach the previous application materials.Planning Commission members are encouraged to bring the application materials from the previous meeting if possible. RECCOMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Variance request through the following motion: "Move to recommend approval of the Variance request at 09.029.2I.22.0025(Hill Trail North) based upon thefindinb s outlined in the Staff Memorandaa►n.'° ATTACHMENTS: 1. Additional Application Materials ?. Letter from Pete Ganzel, Environmental Specialist,Washington County 3. Hill Trail Maps(North and South) 4. Hill Trail Parcel Analysis ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction...................................................................................Planning Staff - Report.by Staff..............................................................................Planning Staff - Questions from the Commission.......................Chair&Commission Members - Continue the Public Hearing.......................................................................Chair PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a—ACTION ITEM ............�:::.............. ............ 5 Discussion by the Commission.........................Chair& Commission Members Action by the Commission................................Chair&Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a—ACTION ITEM THE OTY OF: IAKEFL 0 City or Lake Elmo Planning Department Variance Request To: Planning Commission From: Nick M. Johnson, City Planner Meeting Date: 08/26/2013 Applicant: Dean and Gayle Dworak Owner: Paul and Nancy Hansen Location: 09.029.21.22.0025 (Dill Trail North) Zoning: RS—Rural Single Family Introductory Information Application The City of Lake Elmo has received an application from Dean and Gayle Dworak, 12325 Summary: Upper Heather Ave.N., Hugo,Minnesota,for a variance to allow for the construction of a single family home on a lot that is not considered a lot of record under the Zoning Ordinance due to its size and that is does not meet the required 20,000 square feet of area for a septic system. Per the requirements of the Rural Single Family (RS)zoning district,the minimum lot size is 1.5 acres, and there must be at least 20,000 square feet suitable for the installation. of a subsurface sewage treatment system. The Zoning Ordinance allows existing lots of record to be considered buildable if the lot meets a minimum of 60%of the minimum lot size in the underlying zoning district. 60%of 1.5 acres is 0.9 acres. The subject lot is 0.63 acres according to the Washington.County parcel data,making the parcel 0.27 acres less than the minimum size to be considered a lot of record. The owners of the property,Paul.and Nancy Hansen, have co-signed for the Variance request. The parties have agreed to a purchase agreement for the property contingent on the approval of a variance to construct a single family home. The applicant has provided a written statement to the City indicating the reason for the Variance request. in addition,the applicants' narrative addresses how the proposed application meets the 4 required findings to grant a Variance. Property The property(09.029.21.22.0025)is located on the east side of Hill Trail North on the Information: peninsula between Lake DeMontreville and Olson Lake. The attached location map (Attachment#3)details the location of the property. The property has been owned by Paul and Nancy Hansen since 1.979. Applicable Section 154.402 Lot Dimensions and Building Bulk Requirements Codes: Lot area and setback requirements shall be as specified in Table 9-2, Lot Dimension and Setback Requirements. C"ar rance R y art°,yt, 09.02 a.?t.72,062i (AN .I r ail- orl hr f'r'rxnnir.•g Report; fi iIi'_ Table 9-2: Lot Dimension and Setback Requirements,Residential Districts tT` A RR RS Minimum Lot Area (acres) Single Family Detached Dwelling 20 40 ° .f a c e Minimum Lot Width (feet)_ Single Family Detached Dwelling 300 300 -. .............. _.____ __._.--_......... ._......................... ---- __._._...__....._....._............_....._..._._ Maximum.. Principal Structure Meight 35 35 35 35 35 (feet___ Maximum Impervious Coverage - - - 25% 15% Minimum Principal Building Setbacks (feet) _...___._....___._._._._.._.____....�._....__...---__-.-. __..__._.._. _._...____.._.-_.-_.---._._.-...-.-_._0..__._.........._._.____ 00__ ___._._ . Front Yard 3D 200 3 3D 1 __.__._.-.... ..__..._._._... __..._.-.__._.- ._-_.___. Interior Side Yardmm 10 200 .____-..10 10 50 -.._....._.. ----......... _ _._._.._.....____—_._- ---_ ....._._..__.............._._.._.. ----------..__..__._....._.._... - _-- Corner Side Yard a _25 200 25 25 80 R . .......................... ._....................................................... .............................----__._.___._..................__..._.__._. _._............._...................................._._...._...._..._.....-. _____-------------------- ear 40 200 40 40 100 _._................... ......................... _______---.----.-_.._.__._.__._-----_.-___ Minimum Accessory Building Setbacks (feet) Front Yard 30 200 30 30 100 interior Side Yard 10 200 10 10 15 Corner Side Yard 25 200 25 25 30 ....................... ............-.........._ _.-._..-.-.-.--.---- Rear 40 200 40 10 15 _..............................................._..........................................................................__.....T..._......__.........._....... �._._....._.._. -_._._._._..... _.._._.._....._.........._....._.._._._.._._.. ___.__._..._._..- - h�rnimum Agricultural Related Setbacks (Animal buildings, feedlots or manure storage sites) Any Property Line 200 200 200 - -----_- --__._._........__.._.__... _........_.__ ._._._._........_..._....._..._._...__. Any Existing Welt or Residential 50 50 50 -e - Structur -__ __.-_.._._.._._.._._.._.____....................... Any Body of Seasonal or Year-round 200 200 200 - Surface Water Section 154.080 Additions and Exceptions to Minimum Area, Height, and Other Requirements. Planning, (A) Existing Lot: An existing lot is a lot or parcel of land in a residential district which was of record as a separate lot or parcel. in the office of the County Recorder or registrar of titles,on or before the effective date of this section. Any such lot or parcel of land which is in a residential district may be used for single family detached dwelling purposes provided the area and width of the lot are within sixty percent(60%)of the minimum requirements of this section,provided all setback requirements of this section must be maintained; and provided it can be demonstrated safe and adequate sewage treatments systems can be installed to serve the permanent dwelling. Section 154.404 Site Design and Development Standards Development of land within the rural districts shall follow established standards for traffic circulation, landscape design,parking, signs and other considerations as specified in Articles 5, 6 and 7. The following standards apply to specific uses, and are organized by district. (A) Single-Family Detached Dwelling, All Rural Districts. All single-family dwellings shall be at least twenty-four(24) feet in width,at least nine hundred.sixty(960)square feet in area, and be placed on a permanent foundation. (B) Septic Draiqfield Regulation,A, RR, and RS Districts. All lots must have at least 20,000 square feet of land suitable for septic drainfields and area sufficient for 2 separate and distinct drainfield sites. Placement of the second required.drainfield between the trenches of the first drainfield is prohibited. Section 154.109 Variances. (A-J)Variances. Identifies procedures and requirements for the processing and review of a variance application. Please note that this section was recently updated by the City to comply with revisions to Minnesota State Statutes. Fingin s & General Site Overview Site Data: Lot Size: 0.63 acres Existing Use: Single Family Detached Dwelling Existing Zoning:RS—Rural Single Family Property Identification Number (PID): 09.029.21.22.0025 p'Acation Review: Variance As outlined in the narrative,the applicant is seeking to build a new single family home Review. at 09.029.21.22.0025 (Hill Trail North). In the application, the applicant has also provided an existing survey, a proposed site plan of the proposed single family home, as well as building plans. However, it should be noted that the site plan does not provide adequate detail of the proposed septic system that will serve the property. pulge 3 ...........................................I...................... ...........:_..-............ .......... .......... Variance R&�jue'vi.- 09.029-2122,0025�'Ifill Tvail;Vorih'D Pfannin,g Report, 8.;-'?61:13 Regarding the lot size Variance,the lot does not currently meet the minimum size requirements to be considered a buildable lot of record per the requirements of the Rural Single Family (RS)zoning district. The applicants have noted that the owners of the property have owned.since 1979, before the minimum lot size zoning requirements were in place. It is quite common that many of the older platted lots in the community that are zoned RS do not meet the 1.5 acre minimum size requirement. In.the application,the applicants have provided some of the sizes of the adjacent lots to the subject property. Given the sizes of the adjacent lots, the subject lot is consistent in size to many of these properties. As long as the new single family home was able to meet the requirements for impervious surface, setbacks, shoreland requirements,and site a subsurface sewage treatment system on the site,the application*seems to present a reasonable request to allow variance from the minimum lot size requirements. Regarding the Variance requested from the minimum requirement of 20,000 square feet of area suitable for septic(§154.404), it is common that lots that are unable to meet minimurn size requirements also are non-compliant with the area requirements for septic systems. In order to build a single family home on such a lot, a Variance is required from.the minimum area requirements for septic systems. In the Variance application,the applicants have noted that a septic pen-nit from Washington County is being pursued.It should be noted that the Variance request has been reviewed by Pete Ganzel,Washington County Senior Environmental Specialist.Mr. Ganzel has submitted review comments, found in Attachment#4, noting that the current area being proposed for septic is most likely would not meet the County requirements necessary for a septic system. Until the City receives indication that septic design.will be accepted by Washington County and the septic permit will be issued, Staff does not recommend allowing for a variance from the septic area requirements to be granted.. As it is critical to ensure that a septic system can be adequately sited on the property .for a new single family home, it is not prudent to grant a variance in advance of having greater assurance that a septic design will be approved by Washington County. Allowing for more time to bring resolution to the septic design would allow the applicant to finalize the septic design with Washington County. It should also be noted that a letter of support for the Variance was submitted by a neighboring property owner, Mike and Ruth Schrantz, 5831 Hytrail Ave.N.,Lake Elmo, MN. The letter of support is found in Attachment#5. An applicant must also establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake Elmo City Code Section 154.109 before an exception or modification to City Code requirements can be granted. These criteria are listed below: 1. Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected. property where the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in Pagge 4 ....................................................... ............ 17arianceRequesu 09,029,21,22.0025(I fill Trad North) plarwingf(70mynis""i"..'n Report. ,/26/13 keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definition of practical difficulties - "Practical difficulties" as, used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. 2. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. 3. Character of locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. 4. Adjacent properties and traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish C> or impair property values within the neighborhood. Given the information that has been submitted by the applicant and pending further review by the Planning Commission, Staff would offer the following suggested findings specific to the variance that have been requested.by the applicant: 1. The applicants have noted that the desire to build a singlefiamily home on a lot that is consistent in terms of lot area to the other properties in the neighborhood is a reasonable use not permitted by an official control. Staff determines that this criterion is met. 2. The applicants have noted that the property was owned by the Hansen family before the zoning district requirements were established The lot is consistent in lot area with other adjacent properties that have single family homes,. The establishment of zoning is a circumstance not created by the landowner. Staff determines that this criterion is met. 3. The applicant has correctly noted that the lot is similar or consistent in lot area with most of the existing lots in the neighborhood The construction of a single family home will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood Staff determines that this criterion is met. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion oJ'Ihe public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Staff determines that this criterion is met. Conclusions: Staff finds the applicants have met the 4 necessary criteria for a Variance and demonstrated that the desire to construct a single family home represents a reasonable 5 ....................... .. ................................... ........................... Pla ""Wiling use not pen-nitted by an official control. However, until the City receives better indication that the site will.be able to be served by a septic system that is permitted by Washington County, it is not advisable to grant a Variance at this time for the request. It is recommended that more time be allowed to finalize the septic design and receive indication from Washington County that the septic design will be accepted and permitted. Conclusion: Dean and Gayle Dworak, 12325 Upper Heather Ave.N., Hugo,MN, have submitted a request for a variance at 09.029.21.22.0025 (Hill Trail North)to allow the construction of a single family home on a lot that does not meet the minimum lot area requirements to be considered a buildable lot of record. In addition, the request includes a variance from the requirement that each lot in the RS district have 20,000 square feet of area suitable for septic systems. Staf,fRec. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission table the Variance request by Dean and Gayle Dworak until the September 9th meeting to allow for more time to bring resolution to the design of the septic system. In addition, given. that new information is likely to be provided, it is recommended that the Planning Commission not close the Public Hearing, but continue the hearing until the September 9th meeting. Approval Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission table the Variance request Motion through the following motion: Template: "Move to table the Variance request at 09.029.21.22.0025 (Hill Trail North) for further consideration at the next available Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant more time to submit a septic design that will meet Washington County approval." cc: Dean and Gayle Dworak Paul and Nancy Hansen 6 City of Luke Elmo DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Signature Page Signature of Applicants: Dean Dworak Gayl Dworak 1.2325 Upper Heather Ave N 12325 Lipper Heather Ave N Hugo, .MIS 55038 Hugo, MN 55038 Signature of Owners: _ � Paul. Hansen Marcy Hansen 8024 Hill `frail N 8024 Hill Trail Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Lake Elmo, M 55042 By signing this document, we the above signees, formally submit for approval the attached Variance Application to the City of Lake Elmo. ..................................I................. ............... ............ .......... Fee City of Lake Elmo Da/ELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM F- I J Comprehensive Plan Amendment 21 Variance I (See be-low) Residential Subdivision a District Arnendment Minor Subdivision Preliminary/Final Plat Zoning 0 01 - 10 Lots El Text Amendment IJI Lot Line.Adjustment 0 11 -20Lots 0 21 Lots or More Flood Plain C.U.P. Residential Subdivision Excavating&Grading Permit Conditional Use Permit Sketch/Concept Plan Appeal PLj D 17 Conditional Use Perrnh.(C.U.P.) Site& Building Plan Roview APPLICANT: (Name) i (Mailing Address) TELEPHONES-. (Home) (Work) (Mcibile) (Fax) FEE OWNER j I C (Name) (Mailing Address) (Zip) TELEPHONES: (0 (Home) (Work) (Mobile) (Fax) PROPERTY LOCATION (Address and Complete(Long) Legal Description): J— V; DETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST,, 2 must*VARIANCE REQUESTS, As outlined in Section301.060 C.o'fthe Lake F-fino Municipal-todi!,Ithe Applicant demonstrate a hardship before avariance can be granted. The hardship related to this application is as Follows: .............. 4. In signing this application, 1hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explaiijation+2k 081ine"'' in the aprilication.procedures and herebl'a2r]'OC to DaNr all statements received from the Citv r)ertainirie to .additional applicati2nexpiarise. Signature ofAppBcani Date Signature of Applican( Dale 1/22/200st Ozy of Lake Fimo-3800 Lay--Tnc Avcmic North-Lake Eirno-55042-6511-777.55i0-Fax 6511-777-9615 INFORMATION FOR VARIANCE REQUTST a). Applicants: Dean and Gayle Dworak Owners.- Paul and Nancy I lansen b), Legal description : Lots 505—510 and 629—634 Lanes Demontreville Country Club. Also portion of Dernontre-ville Beach accruing to Lots 629—634 of Lane's Demontreville Country Club, Washington County, MN Warrantee Deed Document No. 393352 Parcel Number.:1-09.029.21.22.0025 Size: 31,440 sq feet 0.7acres Currently an unimproved wooded lot Zoned residential c). Variance sought for: i) Resolution 87-32 of City of Lake Elmo to transfer/sell land ii) Build home on 0.1 acres rather than 1.5 acres ifl) City of Lake Elmo Ordinance 08-073,Article 9 requiring minimum of 20,000 square feet of land suitable for septic drainfield. d). i)Request approval to purchase lot to build new home. i.i&iii ). Paul and Nancy Hansen have owned this lot since 1979 before these requirements were in place. A permit for an approved.septic system is being pursed with Washington County.Approval of this variance request could be made contingent on obtaining the septic permit. e). Met with Lake Elmo city planner,Nick Johnson, for guidance. Followed variance procedure. f). Need to purchase land from current owners. Purchase is contingent on getting a variance.All adjacent lots already have homes so no adjacent vacant land. g). The lot will not be marketable if a house cannot be built on it. h). Granting the variance would not.alter the essential character of neighborhood as one adjacent house ( 8108 Hill Trail N ) is on 0.53 acres while the other adjacent house ( 8120 .Hifl Trail N ) is on 0..76 acres. The house across the street( 8.123 Hill Trail N ) is on 0.69 acres. The subject lot of 0.7 acres is comparable in size to all other homes in the immediate area.A new septic system of more current design would probably exceed the performance of the older neighboring systems. ....................... ........... ................. lit B alMASELNOWEra aXV-7 .............. ----- ----- 4W" --k ........... -\........... -4-T Tc ... ... .. . .. ........... ........... . .. ...... vki,s >1 16 a 71 E3 14 i CA u o -fit P-4 j jj fill I i. y'i1, 1 ! (�adivsdusl.Ae'kxtnw€e�l,rncritl i STATE OF.WRN-iliiiOTA VlfiJlti.l.�r.OF "'L-.-1[ is i I ' 1 `i r=.y;foregoiu r.;sst ruznent 'u ac6ovizedged'before me this `a' .day of. ap rsopa-repro sentative of the.estate of _ R-A ' aln vw r.3 anh R Nuauvinn>n�r�aa I*zotary Public _Gaunt�,�, �y�t gLTn v -ueri,-xlHis�>utl i My comm:ssaon expires i9 Arora:cevr,�� <G j ..J ' FLtJ'c`c[am.Fxa!res.aar.::$t 1905 r+ rryi T FiFS TST.RUM'FN KIAS:IIRAF"f'.EM BY tIN41mab u'liid r:ssti ' t , i r 's Tax stat-e'wen°,:'s Im,the rea' r` erRy descritacxl iri ti1i islstrizn3ent'hpttltt.}r�:ae.tl.:i.e: ' {itiamet isYctd$aast j S 'T,,—ZDEFD T.4.,1' . K �' 'C RA.INSFEr STAMPS DUE Ln s J �i E i f j !;•"i { t M^+;'�:.i i i' sG U7' 7 is tC -U 4 P• E{°'�I G�L 1 t:!_" 1I' w-. t. C� ! 'f {C' �•uJ�. t21 I U:— fu Co 3 I CI u b.,. M I C _: c. CE C`•t ,sb .3 = €i.l Y"j f.!} C: a: ''�i��.- e»�r '!'.: r, C+. .i .CN 3t!. ✓% E 664 t C. ? m'z y.�.. w,. ....... .................................................... ;,THI8INIDFYti iti@i M de tu's ate of 23 01'Scnaly rLs?m-ItIve. nftizc-Est at; of 4-n_F�: ,,Cl�Ce�:iet}y 'e1 'k: o�titre fi g dart,end Pay•1' R 'ien �� 4�. 3 n, iir PLC nstd �W-i f,c sue' 0i rl+ler!Ld tS of the Coca y of. _,_ftP?Ig=O.-U:..._ ; ezxd:estate Df partiesAs-of the •i�•ITN'RISS'* Fl,that whereas ��=c�3d -A .4Wl! 2�.1W�e'# �(marri�l?per4oniof } .. :a.zd statr ct: _'. k35��i �� ;:.� __•aied .iin . znzt' haGrt: fri —County, Y .. ... _,_ . _ ^�->. ...: .��.:persaa� s..^pA•eaezkfative.-_;__ r oftlze es�ate,.:a'xi avikereas t3°the,3ax�rsp t SegS c rVmll'nnesc a,,sa d,Penw.nal Represe�i m zdae�_ 4 ..fi.s?°{� i erpuvvc:.r�:cl.k�:zxl�e.��kd.txesute:e coiiu�yanc.�ofre�..estute: e ofthe rst.part, n..coAbsideratioi r the.sri*?n 0 .-�.:G' S `n•Fh=sY -r st,tL�t' C 5 `1,s�kt1C C ' DO'iLARS' st. . -, a��•� >� second-,partp th&rkeim,CL 4 rliez ish £?�y aciriAatvlc>u �c3,uo - '_;h reoy Gr�rs, z is , and Convg,y unto th-,sm ." ;.partlee, t'eeEft Y�[7riTi:3.'•.• 0 7 £C'.1iCs1 S1I}t�.2lGuFfSt�l 71t tFFCGI tP1a0Tz tkc^AY.8941 YiS 1:�GSLY1z5VOZ�f 8 Ad parties,;A3,xz8: weirs x nd asssi gas`ef the aum., h,l&r,F,Or-ever, al. trs0 tract' of iaa I::ivi.rs :. ii„h A:g inithe Count?of and.3tiit,-of Mi.rarii.wta;'described a f61.,us to-wit. A Ar` t�rclityslt3=anc- :Wfz: {A51 ' nte�^a�: .:irz Z;csts.;505 r=• 566 63 I and `634 :.o'f:a e's �t.�E�az��ei�zIle`'C�un"try.--41:w;, C,1as-,.ton. C'o#jity,. Rc::o d:.rAi~ fio..U)e x€�'cA� clec:;I A Fh reof c>n fi3 zncl o -record to. n t&. ow.fice of the county recorder. { is r Y. i r I J 3• .1 i f l - i I - _ 1 TOtWEAND Tt ::j3C3LI3.A AND SAME'-` c#_;ether.ihrit x atl tt e.iieree tamen3 s antf appur enar%cefi t aretz to h t€iri izx€>or in snywibe appetainir�,-;tothe said Part_��sof the seec�nt7 part,±-Le — heirs an,(,;"�>:s,I-grever, IN,TE',S`1ITMOi+I'Y Eli�E CsF,TZie t~r ;�; ski Llsc Zest pmz t ljas _l�exeuiii a set h d._... the day wid y,4ar Ara a'hove yvritZ*n, , ev aspersoraptrO esenfative r ofthe state or jZZ rr,-jLd F -A 1 4-m 4- t_: Deceaeed, i aiaa _<__ _ — ,spouse of the abo�z nstned dec+ederit,an�hereby consent to the wit)iin wn✓eyance. 1 1 v ■ OlsonLake DeMontreville Source: Ew, i-cubed, USDA, SGS,AEyX,G.eo.Eye,G.et� a,ppin, ,Aerogrid, IGN, owl and the=User Community Location Map: 09. 029.21.22. 0025 THE CITY OF LA KE ELMO o 100 200 40o Feet 09.029.21.22.0025 I i i i I i i i I Data Scource: Washington County, MN 1"=200' 8-22-2013 1.08 0 0 . 0 0 . LAKE DEMONTREVILLE 0 : 0.4 1.03 ' I 0. 4 0.51 � 0 .32 1.73 -- — 0.76 i 54 0.5 �I 0.48 J0 0.4. i 0.25 0 . i . 67 0.6 0 . 0.76 ource. ri, Digitg0bbe,G�eoEye,i�cube-d, U DAlUSG Getmapp,in.g, Aerognd, IGN, IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Communit, Lakeshore Property Analysis: Hill Trail Area (North) THE CITY OF Homesteaded Property Parcel Size (Acres) LAKE ELMO Vacant Property Adjacent Properties included in Parcel Size Data Scource: Washington County, MN Vacant Property Calculation 9-17-2013 (Owners Homesteaded Property in Close Proximity) 67. 0 ' .0.76 LAKE 0.6 DEMONTREVILLE . 10.38 0.79 0.85 93 47 1.35 OLSON LAKE 1.27 0.38 0.33 0.85 0.4 ource. Esri, DigitalGbo D@, eoEye,i cubed, U DA, U E ,Getmappin.g, Aerognd, IGN, IGP,swisetopo,and the GIS User Community Lakeshore Property Analysis: Hill Trail Area (South) THE CITY OF Homesteaded Property Parcel Size (Acres) LAKE ELMO Vacant Property Data Scource: Washington County, MN Vacant Property 9-17-2013 (Owners Homesteaded Property in Close Proximity) Hill Trail Parcel Analysis Parcel Sizes (Acres) Analysis 0.2 0.72 #of Parcels 64 0.24 0.74 Mean Size 0.82 0.25 0.75 Median Size 0.71 0.28 0.76 0.32 0.76 0.33 0.79 0.34 0.79 0.38 0.79 0.38 0.8 0.4 0.83 0.4 0.85 0.41 0.85 0.41 0.89 0.45 0.93 0.46 0.93 0.47 0.96 0.48 1.03 0.48 1.07 0.5 1.08 0.51 1.1 0.53 1.1 0.54 1.13 0.57 1.24 0.61 1.27 0.62 1.27 0.63 1.31 0.63 1.32 0.63 1.35 0.64 1.73 0.67 1.79 0.68 2 0.69 4.4 ® Department of Public Health and Environment ,pC-Otmty � Lowell Johnson Director Sue Hedlund Deputy Director 9/19/2013 Nick Johnson City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Ave Lake Elmo,MN 55042 ltE: Soil Testing,Sewage System Design,Lots 507-510 & 629-632 banes Demontreville Country Club. A review of the proposed site plan,design and soil borings indicate that there is adequate area for a primary and secondary sewage treatment system on this parcel. The areas are limited and must be protected during construction from fill,excavation and construction traffic. It appears from the preliminary grading plan that the proposed garage slab will be close to the 930' contour and that extensive fill or cut will not be required for the driveway. Excavated material from the dwelling walkout foundation must be carried out along the proposed driveway and not pushed either toward the lake or across the drainfield areas. If you have any questions, call me at(651)430-6676. 16 ,''� `, Pete GanzeI Senior Environmental Specialist Government Center • 14949 62nd Street North--P.O.Box 6,Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-0006 Phone: 651-430-6655 • Fax: 651-430-6730 • TFY: 651-430-6246 www.co.washington.mmus Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action RE: Variance request for new construction/septic on the 8100 block of Hill Trail Why does Lake Elmo have lot size ordinances? To keep from over-developing. So if this variance is even being considered, you need to take a hard look at removing the ordinance completely. This variance is in direct conflict with the ordinance— and violates the very intent of the ordinance. So if the variance is granted in this situation, it shows that the ordinance is meaningless and should simply be removed to be fair to all. If it is a valid ordinance, then the variance should be denied. And why is there a minimum lot size for new septic systems? To protect the soil, the aquifers, and the ground (lake) water. If this ordinance is approved, it is completely irresponsible on the part of the city. So much effort is made to control and regulate the existing Septic systems, that to allow another one (or more) to be squeezed onto small parcels is just backwards and irresponsible. Remember the repercussions: ® There are other"lot" owners just waiting for a variance to get passed—so they can follow suit. And the city won't have a legal leg to stand on after they approve the first one. This decision is the beginning of a domino effect; it is not"just one parcel". ® Approving this is IRREVERSIBLE. Choosing "no-wake zones", or"fence height", can be changed from year-to-year, But allowing new homes to be squeezed on to tiny lots is permanent. If you allow a house to go in —you can visualize that house still there 100 years from now. If we don't have the foresight to protect the natural resources, then ALL future residents are stuck with our failures. ® This particular parcel is on a peninsula —the additional water run-off that a house and driveway will cause has nowhere to go but directly into one of the 2 lakes that are on either side. This variance is not asking to stray from the ordinance; it is asking to completely ignore it. There are many existing homes for sale on the Lake Elmo lakes—some are ready to "move in", some just need a good remodel, and some could be torn down and the buyer could build their new house. There is NOT a lake home shortaae, so that should be another reason to deny this variance. There is a plan to develop the 1-94 corridor (forced by the Met Council); please stick to that plan and protect every inch of"rural" Lake Elmo that we have left. PLEASE DO YOUR PART TO PROTECT THE LAKES AND PROTECT THE FUTURE OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO BY VOTING "NO" TO THIS VARIANCE. Signed, r 8108 Hill Trail N Lake Elmo MN 55042 .............. .......... .................... .......... .......... ....... ....... ... .......... ...................... WAGNER,FALCONER&JUDD,LTD, ................... Attorneys 8 Consultants Since 1932 September 20,2013 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo,Minnesota 55042 Re., Request to Deny Variance j Applicant:Dean and Gayle Dvorak Owner: Patti and Nancy Hansen Location:09,029.21.22.0025 (Bill Trail North) Zoning:RS—Rural Singe Family Intake No.: 240947 MN Dear Sirs.and Madams: The undersigned law firm has consulted with Ms. Amy Gustafson, property owner at 8120 Hill Trail North,Lake Elmo,directly adjacent to the property upon which this variance is sought, Ms. Gustafson has informed the undersigned that there has been misrepresentation of facts presented in the Variance Request submitted by the City Planner,Mr. Nick Johnson. Furthermore, Ms. Gustafson is concerned that the laws that govern the granting of variances in Minnesota Statute 462.357, subd. 6 are not being considered in this matter. This purpose of this letter is to further shed light on the facts that pertain to this variance request—and to enable the Planning Commission to make an educated decision pursuant to Minnesota Law. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has approval authority over city ordinances regarding shoreland and other natural areas. Therefore, the current Lake Elmo ordinance regarding minimum lot size is deemed the minimum size which protects the water quality of this natural resource by the DNR, It is imptudent for the city to effectively nullify this ordinance by granting variances such as this one. The DNR publishes a document entitled"A Guide for Buying and Managing Shoreland." In"Section 3: Evaluating Shoreland Property for Purchase, it is made clear that it is incumbent upon the petitioners to weigh many factors in purchasing property, and to "confirm that your intended use—is compatible with the zoning ordinance." This includes "minimum lot size, building setbacks, and sewage treatment requirements." Under"Lot Size"the document states,"The lot should be large enough to accommodate your intended use and comply with the local zoning requirements. Those lots that have been created since the statewide shoreland management standards took effect are large enough for most residential uses and comply with local zoning requirements. However,there are many lots that were created prior to the shoreland rules that may be substantially smaller than the new lot size requirements. These substandard lots may still be bought and sold,but they may be too small to accommodate a structure or a sewage treatment system. If you are considering buying such a lot, you should carefully review your intended use and the limitations of the property"(boldface added)(source: littp://iv%viv.dnr.4(ate.mn.u2LsliorelandtnMit/P-Uid/eval uating.html). .......................... --:;,--�w........................ ................................... 1700113SCenter SO South Eighth Street Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402-2110 1 Phone:800.697.8955 MN Phone-800,506.7267 ND 325 North Corporate Drive SuiteIDO Brookfield,Wisconsin 53045-5828 1 Phone:800.697.8960 WI .............................I....................................................................................... . ...... ............... minmfflawfirm.com Under "Section 5: Lake and River Classifications" of the same document, a Recreational Development Lake, such as Lakes Olson and Demontreville are described as follows: "Recreational Development Lakes usually have between 60 and 225 acres of water per mile of shoreline, between 3 and 25 dwellings per mile of shoreline, and are more than 15 feet deep." Crowding in more homes will test the limits of this definition, as 25 dwellings per mile average 211 feet of lakeshore, far from the frontage(120 feet) this parcel has. Statement on the"Information for Variance Request"item"g","The lot will not be marketable if house cannot be built on it,"is false. The substandard lot that is owned by Mike and Ruth Schrantz(Parcel No. 09.029.21.22.0008)was successfully sold and purchased by them in 2004,and it has been sold one other time since we have lived here as well(1995). Statement on the "Information for Variance Request" item "h" is also false. It. states, "Granting the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as one adjacent house, (8108 Hill Trail N)is on 0.53 acres while the other adjacent house(8120 Hill Trail N)is on 0.76 acres. The house across the street(8123 Hill Trail N)is on 0.69 acres. The subject lot of 0.7 acres is comparable in size to all other homes in the immediate area. A new septic system of more current design would probably exceed the performance of the older neighboring systems." This is a misrepresentation of several facts. First, the lot in question is 0.63 acres, as stated in the "Variance Request", "Application Summary" presented at the August 26,2013 Planning Commission meeting. Second, 9108 Hill Trail N sits on two lots totaling 0.83 acres, not 0.53 acres. Third,a minor misrepresentation, 8120 is 0.77 acres, not 0.76. .Fourth,the average sized residential lot on Lake Demontreville, total acreage is 1.11 (including 5 houses across the street with lakeshore frontage lots)or 0.93 including only those homes which are on shoreland. But,actually,the fact that there are homes already on lots smaller than the minimum recommended by the DNR for preserving water quality (60% of 1.5 acres, or 0.9 acres) is really an argument to not further crowd the lake. Additionally, the "essential character of the neighborhood" involves more than lot size, but also how the lots are used, the type of dwelling on the lot, and the aesthetic qualities of the neighborhood. The size and design of this house does not fit in with current homes which are much more � modest in size and plain in design. It does not fit in with the natural environment,as it does not allow for i a natural screen of the house from the lake and neighbors by maintaining significant surrounding vegetation including large trees and wooded landscapes. These are part of the aesthetic and ecological value which help to maintain the rural feel of the neighborhood. With this structure extending to the very limits of the required setbacks (10 feet) on both neighbors' sides, there is little hope for adequate screening by vegetation which is currently the norm in the neighborhood(please see M. There is the very-real potential that allowing this variance will open the door for a domino effect of homes being built on substandard lots around the lake. Case in point, the letter from Mike and Ruth Schrantz who own a recreational lot in the neighborhood and have stated in a letter presented at the August 26th, 2013 that they "intend to file a request for variance in the near future as well" (see attachment). This is likely a precedent-setting decision which may have permanent detrimental effects on the lake. Consider that other property owners who own multiple lots may sell lots for building, or that the Jesuit Retreat Center is sold and a developer uses this decision to justify,a density which will ultimately erode soil and water quality for all who use the lake. Regarding the"Variance Request"prepared for the August 26,2013 Planning Commission meeting: { • The "4 findings required to grant a variance request" in the Planning Commission document submitted regarding this property on 08/26/2013 are not the current statutory criteria which must be met. In fact, the criteria were updated in ,Tune of 2013, and the city is required to weigh ' variance requests against five criteria which are not entirely consistent with the four used in consideration of this variance petition. The four listed in the "Variance Request" were 1) 2 Practical difficulties,2)Unique circumstances,3)Character of locality and 4)A.diacent properties and traffic. The five dictated by the new Minnesota Statute, of which, "all of the following statutory criteria must be satisfied,in addition to any local criteria"(MN DNR Variance Guidance Series-ISC,Updated 10/10/2012)are 1. The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan 3. There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner ("practical difficulties") 4. The variance does not alter the essential character of the locality S. The variance proposal puts property to use in a reasonable manner. Again,all 5 of these criteria must be met according to current Minnesota Statutes. • In a document published by the League of Minnesota Cities entitled "Information Memo. Land Use Variances", in addition to a"three-factor practical difficulties test", "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan." Under section "III. C. City ordinances" of this document, it states, "Some cities may have ordinance provisions that codified the old statutory language, or that have their own set of standards, For those cities, the question may be whether you have to first amend your zoning code before processing variances under the new standard. A credible argument can be made that the statutory language pre- empts inconsistent local ordinance provisions, Under a pre-eruption theory, cities could apply the new law immediately without necessarily amending their ordinance first. In any regard, it would be best practice for cities to revisit their ordinance provisions and consider adopting language that mirrors the new statute"(boldface added), • The three factors which are entailed by "practical difficulties" are 1) reasonableness ("the Property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner"), 2) uniqueness ("uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of property, that is, to the land and not personal characteristics or preferences of the landowner. When considering the variance for a building to encroach or intrude into a setback, the focus of this factor is whether there is anything physically unique about the particular piece of property, such as sloping topography or other natural features like wetlands or trees") (boldface added),and 3)essential character" ("the variance, if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality. Under this factor,consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place,or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area")(boldface added). j i • "Section IV. Other considerations" of this document outlines two criteria of the criteria which must be met, in addition to the other three. First, "Harmony with other land use controls" is outlined by Minnesota Statute 462.357, subd. 6. It states, "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terins of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan." The intent of this ordinance, according to Dan Petrik of the DNR(per my personal conversation with Dan Petrik), is to protect water quality. The size of project planned, the amount of impervious surface exceeds the 25% maximum in Table 9-2 of the Lake Elmo "Lot Dimension and Setback. Requirements" for Residential Districts, as presented at the 8/26/13 Planning Commission meeting. Why care about impervious surfaces? In the DNR document"Shoreland&Floodplain: Variance Guidance Series: Impervious Surfaces," it states, "management of rainwater on individual lots is one of our most important tasks. Rainwater that does not infiltrate into the ground or evaporate runs downhill to lakes, wetlands,or rivers. As impervious surface coverage increases, the rate and amount of runoff and pollutants entering public waters increases. When runoff from impervious surface coverage is not addressed, pollution increases and the diversity of 3 aquatic life is reduced." The plans presented at the 8/26 Planning Commission meeting directly show a significant amount of drainage headed directly for Lake Demontreville. As Dan Petrick stated in Minnesota Cities Magazine's article "Let's Talk: city Dilemma - Granting Shoreland Variances", "Within a watershed, there are a lot of opportunities for pollution to get into our water bodies. But the reason we protect the shoreland area is that, in many ways, it's the last opportunity to protect the quality of the water body before stormwater runoff goes into it" and "but character is more about shoreland characteristics. One example is hydrology. Hydrology within the landscape of a lake or river is very different than a non-riparian area. And when you build structures or remove vegetation, you're affecting the hydrology on and below the soil in terms of how and where the water flows. If you have steep slopes or bluffs, you can have additional problems with slumping or eroding soils. So it's important to think about these real physical issues. If the project is affecting the hydrology, that may be a more important local character issue than how the structure aesthetics fit into the landscape." {http://Itiic.orp-/page/t/Le% alkMavJune2013.isp} This is not just an argument to uphold the 25% maximum impervious surface restriction, but is an argument to prevent a greater density of any impervious surface along the lakeshore. In addition,for a septic,the lot size must allow 4,000-6,000 square foot minimum requirement for septic stated by the Washington County Senior Environmental Specialist, Pete Ganzel, in his Ietter presented at the same meeting. With"only about 2,400 square feet available for the sewage treatment area",this requirement is not met,and can adversely affect water quality as well. For these reasons,this criteria,to be in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance, is I not met. I • With regard to this variance being consistent with the comprehensive plan, Lake Elmo is currently planning to add residences to other areas of the city, but according to the map in the Land Use Plan section of the Comprehensive Plan, none of the new housing is recommended for this area. An aim often touted in local newspapers is that the city aims to preserve its open spaces and its rural character, as was stated in the September 1, 2013 Pioneer Press article on development plans in Lake Elmo. The pretentious home which is proposed,crowded into an area of much more humble homes will not only change the character of the neighborhood, but is neither in keeping with Lake Ehno's aim of preserving open spaces and maintaining a rural character nor with the current Comprehensive Plan, as published at http://Nvww,.lakeeiiiio.orgl lanning,-P,roNvine/coinpreliensive-plan. �. • The introduction of the Lake Elmo Land Use Plan states,"The City of Lake Elmo is a unique gem within the metropolitan region given its overall rural character,significant natural resources and abundance of agricultural lands. The land use plan herein represents a series of significant steps tile, City is taking to preserve and protect these treasured characteristics while simultaneously responding to its fiscal and regional responsibilities." Further, the "Land Use Plan" indicates, "Lake Elmo's land use plan is guided by its core vision of creating and maintaining a rural community within the Metropolitan region. The plan itself provides guidance for a desired land use pattern,mix of uses, range of densities,and site/building designs. To ultimately ensure future development adds to the overall quality and uniqueness of the community and builds upon the existing foundation that defines Lake Elmo, the plan is centered on the following core set of principles: o The preservation of rural lands; o Promotion of open space and green corridors; a A rebirth of the historic village center; o Enhancement of the community's rural sense of place(through design standards);and 4 o Establishment of a sustainable planned growth pattern which strikes a balance between providing municipal services and local/regional fiscal responsibility" (boldface added). This home would not preserve rural, wooded natural lands, promote open space or green corridors, or enhance this neighborhood's rural sense of place, The home owners of this lake are not in pursuit of the atmosphere of Lake Minnetonka,where lake cruisers go by gushing over the hornes on the lake. Rather, the homeowners continue to desire a lake which cherishes the ecosystem we all are able to enjoy because we 5vork to preserve it. This house would fundamentally change this character of this neighborhood. ® "Existing Land Use. An examination of Lake Elmo in 2012 clearly shows a community with a rich history of agricultural use, open space development, and preservation of significant park lands. Lake Elmo Regional Park and Sunfish Lake Park, covering 2,165 and 284 acres respectively (correction made in boldface - from "respectfully"), are at tiro heart of the community and provide significant natural and recreational opportunities not generally available in the metropolitan area. Single family homes on lots measured in acreages rather than square feet dominate the residential housing stock throughout the community, and the City's 30+ open space cluster/rural neighborhoods established Lake Elmo as a local, regional and national leader in this type of development" (boldface added). Lakes Demontreville, Olson and Jane are also part of that legacy of providing natural and recreational opportunities, and part of maintaining that natural environment is not increasing the density of homes on the lakes, particularly when doing so will have a detrimental effect on water duality and the natural environment through runoff, additional septic, reduced vegetation and increased impervious surfaces. The snap in the city's Comprehensive Plan designates the Tri-Lakes Area as "rural single family". In the Land Use Plan, under"Preservation of Rural Character", the document states, "One of the main benefits of the official land use plan is that the long range planning objective to retain a permanent rural identity is achieved. Under the memorandum of understanding with the Metropolitan Council, a vast majority of the City will be allowed to maintain its rural character and existing land uses. Furthermore,concentrating urbanization adjacent to I-94 and within the Old Village will result in clear boundaries between the urban and rural portions of the community. Beyond that, the City's desire to protect its sensitive park lands is also achieved. Froth Lake Elmo Regional Park and Sunfrsli Lake Park will continue to be surrounded by agricultural lands and will not be impacted by encroaching urbanization." In the Introduction to the Housing Plan of the Comprehensive Plan, the plan states, "In order to build off of Lake Elmo's treasured asset of open space, it is critical to incorporate strategies for providing housing that maintain and protect the city's natural resources. These natural resources greatly contribute to the character and vibrancy of Lake Elmo and must be accordingly preserved, For this reason, Lake Elmo's future housing needs will be provided for in the I-94 Corridor and Old Village planning districts. This plan will maintain existing open space in the rural planning district of Lake Elmo, as well as incorporate open space into the new housing development in the Old Village and 1-94 Corridor." All of this is in conflict with the petition application. Further in the document published by the League of Minnesota Cities entitled "Information Memo: Land Use Variances", under "B. Economic Factors," "Sometimes landowners insist that they deserve a variance because they have already incurred substantial costs or argue that they will not receive expected revenue without the variance. State statute specifically notes that economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties." This nullifies Mr. 5 Hansen's argument, "the plight of the landowner", that the lot would not be saleable unless a home could be built on,which has already been states is false in the first place,given that another similar small recreational lot has successfully been sold twice within the last 15 years. The staff'determined that the outdated 4 criterion were met,but this finding is unfounded. 1, The home would crowd the area and does not conform to the average approximate 1.0 acre lot size around Lake Demontreville. It would affect the lake hydrology with excessive impervious surface,runoff and pollutants headed directly into Lake Demontreville. It would also not fit in with.the modest, plain homes which are situated within wooded lots. Instead, this home would remove at least 500/0 of the existing vegetation including mature trees and screen-providing foliage. 2. Thought the lot size restrictions may have changed,this cannot alone satisfy this requirement,as stated previously, in the document published by the League of Minnesota Cities entitled "Information Memo; Land Use Variances", tinder 'R Economic Factors," "Sometimes landowners insist that they deserve a variance because they have already incurred substantial costs or argue that they will not receive expected revenue without the variance. State statute specifically notes that economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties." 3. The applicant has misrepresented information. Where his lot size is 0.63, not 0.7, and the lots on either side are both larger than the applicant stated. In fact, they are 0.83 to the south and 0.77 to the north, Further, the average sized lot on Lake Demontreville is around I acre. Despite averages, the ordinance is put in place for a reason-to protect water quality-and needs to be honored. Otherwise it will become a slippery slope making it harder to deny other variance requests, as they will use this as precedent-setting action and the lake will quickly become more overcrowded, the ecology of the lakeshore environment will suffer,and the hydrology of the lake will become unhealthy. Another further misrepresentation by the petitioner is that the setback from the ordinary high water mark for 8120 Hill Trail North is 83 feet, when documentation proves that it is 90 feet, not 83 feet. This misrepresentation makes the petitioner's house closer to the shoreland than is required, and does not respect the original 100 foot setback requirement advocated by the DNR. 4. The proposed 36-foot high structure certainly will impair the supply of light and air the properties adjacent currently enjoy, and in the case of the house to its south,will nearly completely shade the home for a significant pail of the day, In addition,Ms. Gustafson requests a study to be completed to discover how the value of other homes will be affected with another home crowded in between. Other Lot Sizes on Lake Demontreville: i Address Dian.Total Acreage 8554 Hidden Bay Trail 0.67 �W 8548 Hidden Bay Trail 1.01 8510 Hidden Bay Trail L04 8498 Hidden.Bay Trail 0.97 9450 Hidden Bay Trail 0.7I 8416 Hidden Bay Trail 0.94 8382 Hidden Bay Trail 0.85 8344 Hidden By Trail 0.84 8320 Hidden Ba Trail 0.77 - 8294 Hidden Bay Trail 0.88 8292 Hidden Bay Trail 1.34 8290 Hidden Bay Ct. 0.75 _ 6 8286 Hidden Bay tt. 0.88 8200 Hill Trail N. 0.95 8190 Hill Trail N. 0.4 8186 Hill Trail N, 0.48 8180 Hill Trail N. 1.27 8179 Hill Trail N. 1.35 LL 8164-Hill'1'ralt N. 0.93 8160 Hill Trail N. 0.85 -� 8148 Hill Trail N. 0.8 € 8130 Hill Trail N. 0.38 8120 Hill Trail N. _ 0.77 9108 Hill Trail N. 0.83 8098 Hill Trail N. 0.75 8084 Hill Trail N. 0.48 8076_Hill Trail N. 0.5 8066 Hill Trail N, 0.76 i 9056 Hill Trail N. 0.32 _ 8048 Hill Trail N. 0.51 8038 Hill Trail N. 0.64 8032 Hill Trail N. 0.8 8028 Hill Trait N. 1.07 Hi ll ill Trail N. 8018 Hill Trail N. 0,89 8012 Hill Trail N. 0,93 8000 Hill Trail N. 7982 Hill Trail N. 1.08 7978 Hill Trail.N. 0.79 7972 Hill Trail N. 0.45 7962 Hill Trail N. 1 1.03 7934 Hill Trail N. 0.57 7920 Hill Trail N. 1.32 7821 Demontreville Trail N. 1.73 { 7980 Demontreville Trail N, 1.64 8010 Demontreville Trail N. 1.82 8080 Demontreville Trail N.* 3.95 8100 Demontreville Trail N.* 1.92 __--- 8110 Demontreville Trail N.* 2.88 j 8120 Demontreville Trail N.* 3.05 *home lot is across st. from lake frontage AVERAGE MIN.ACREAGE 1,11k f 0.93 j Of 501akeshore residences,only 8 have 0.63 acres or less. Thank you for your attention to this letter, and the crucial details it puts forth. This is a significant decision,in which the reasons to deny the variance clearly outweigh the reasons to grant it,when applied to Minnesota Law. 7 .................................................................................. ............ Sincerely, WAGNER,FALCONER&JUDD,LTD. Lauren T. Skildum Attorney at Law cc: Ms.Amy Gustafson 8 iici.Johnson rFr€nn: Gordy Grundeen <gordyg@teksolr.com> Sent: Monday,September 23, 2013.11:14 AM To: Nick Johnson Subject: 09-23-13-planning commission Dear Planning;Commission: We oppose any variance that changes lot sizes in our neighborhood. The reason is our water supply, namely, groundwater.The recently released Washington County Groundwater Plan for 2014-2024 shows that our water supply shrinking and becoming polluted.Creating higher density neighborhoods only exacerbates and strains our groundwater supplies. As pointed out in this Groundwater plan, it takes money$$$$to manage these plans.That means raising taxes-my taxes. No way. Gordy Grundeen 8270 Hidden Bay Trail Lake Elmo MN,5504.2 651-770-1056 gordyg@teksoir.com *E l i CITY OF N K E- I:�,L V1O Draft Planning Commission Minutes,9-23-13 Excerpt from Public Hearing Item 4a Public Hearing: Variance—09.029.21.22.0025(Hill Trail North) Johnson presented the updated information submitted by the applicant, including an updated site plan and a proposed septic system design. The septic system does comply with Washington County regulations concerning subsurface sewage treatment systems. Johnson reviewed the updated site plan and noted that impervious surface coverage had been reduced from the previous plan. Moving on, Johnson noted that staff had performed an analysis at the request of the Planning Commission of the size and location of lots within the Hill Trail North area. He briefly discussed the City zoning regulations concerning substandard lots and situations in which a property owner owns several lots next to each other. Johnson reviewed comments and letters received and noted that staff is recommending approval of the variance with two conditions of approval. Dorschner asked when the homes south of the app{icant's site were constructed. Johnson replied that staff does not have this information on hand, but he did note that they had to have been built prior to the 1979 Code adoption,or received a variance. Nancy Hanson, 8024 Hill Trail N., noted that her family has been maintaining and improving the lot for many years.They decided not to build a home of their own on the lot due to their age. Paul Hanson,8024 Hill Trail N., noted that he and his wife currently own the property. He noted that they have been taking care..of the lot and that it would be a very nice lot for a new home. 11 Gale Dworak, 12325 Upper Heather Ave., noted that she and her husband are the applicants and are asking the Planning,Commission*to take action based on meeting the Code requirements. Dean D:worak, 12325 Upper Heather Ave., stated that 11 of the 14 people notified for this variance offered no objection. He believes that the people objecting to the variance are doing so in part because they have enjoyed a vacant lot next to their home for many years. The staff states that all of the requirements are met. Brad Gustafson,8120 Hill Trail N., reviewed the variance requirements and feels that the variance is in direct conflict with the intent of the Ordinance and does not meet the required findings for a variance. Kevin Clemmons, 7920 Hill Trail N.,stated that he lives on Lake DeMontreviile. He shared his concern that people should make sure that the aquifer can support a new home, and possibly more in the future. Bonnie Weisbrod,8111 Hill Trail N., lives across from this property. The City has dealt with variances in the past for other lots in the area and previous requests were denied. She stated that this is not a buildable lot and expressed concern regarding runoff from the street to her lot. Dick Nelson,8123 Hill Trail N., lives across the street and built his home in 1973. The City has criteria concerning what is considered a buildable lot;the City should follow those rules. Vickie Iverson, 8108 Hill Trail N.,stated that her main concern is that the lake will turn into a White Bear Lake and that the aquifer is going to be drained. We need to take care of the lake and she doesn't want all of the small lots to be built on. Williams noted receipt of two written comments;one letter from an attorney representing the Gustufson family,and another from Mr.Gordy Grundeen. Both letters indicated opposition to the variance request. Williams closed the Public Hearing at 7:39 p.m. Dodson asked questions about the aquifer and capacity in case another well is drilled. Zuleger replied that Lake Elmo area aquifers have been studied as part of the City's water plan. He noted that the City has been assured that the aquifer intended to be used for the municipal water system has substantial capacity. Dodson also asked if the DNR commented on the population density for this area. Johnson stated that the DNR looks at adherence to the shoreland ordinance. They look at the amount of impervious surface,grading, erosion control and drainage. Bgsed on whit has been proposed,the DNR has not offered any objection to the Variance request. Haggard how does new development affect the County ground water plan. Zuleger stated that the plan primarily deals with quantity. Dorschner was wondering if the City has considered the domino effect. How many more variances can be sustained? Klatt stated that in the mid 19380's,the City passed a restriction that before any of the lots in this area can be sold, the sale must be reviewed & stamped by the City. This was done to ensure that these smaller lots can't be split off by an owner and considered buildable. It should also be noted that the variance standards are more lenient now with the practical difficulties test as opposed to the undue hardship test. Kreimer asked if the concern regarding runoff is enough to require a rain garden. Johnson stated that the proposed home is under the amount of impervious surface allowed, therefore,a rain garden is not required. Williams is concerned about the loss of the City's rural character and thinks we should maybe consider raising lot size requirements rather than lowering it. He suggested looking at average lot size to determine whether or not to build on a piece of property. Dodson is concerned;with private property aspect of the rules and regulations. He does not think that the proposed home will change the density of the area. In addition, he felt that Tri-Lakes area should not be considered a rural area. Haggard has concerns about aquifer, runoff to lake, etc. You can't just look at one home,but need to look at the whole area and the future potential for more homes. She noted that the Ordinance is in place to protect aquifer and is concerned about damaging the lakes. The Planning Commission had a general discussion about the aquifers. Zuleger noted that this summer there were discussions regarding bringing sewer to this area when it would be feasible.There have been petitions in the past to try and serve the peninsula with sewer. Dorschner stated that sewer would be a game changer, but there is no guarantee that it will happen. 2 .........��.............��^,��,��........ .....��^^ ~��`... ��,�~~^ ^��~ ��'�� K4orneahpis concerned about the aquifer. One house may not seem like a big deal, but ifh opens the door to additional homes, it may add greater pressure. He feels that it is an important consideration. Haggard stated that she recommends denial based on water quality concerns—that the request may negatively impact the essential character of the neighborhood. Dorschner feels that lot was purchased with knowledge that it was unbuildable and they are now asking for a variance. in his opinion,the variance request does not meet the test for a unique circumstance, Haggard feels that property at present is not buildable. Williams feels that the difficulty isof the future property owner's making. Dodson stated that he doesn't see any data to deny the variarIce based on water quality. Kreim*ragreea and also notes that all the lots in the area are of similar size. Williams would like to add a finding that the proposed variance is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not call for small lots in the area and calls for this area to have on- sitesystemsvvithpr\vateservices, The Comp plan also calls for the eregtoba rural which does not mean small lots. Haggard accepted the amendment. � Recommend denial based on3 findings—There is not unique circum stances,the degradation ofthe aquifer and water quality would alter the essential character of the neighborhood,and the variance is contra to the comprehensive plan. M/3/P:Haggard/Morreale, move tm deny Variance requestatO9.0Z9.21.22.0O2S(Hill Trail N) based on three findings: Wmte/5-2,/Motion Camnledj.with Dodson and Kneirnmr voting no. Sept 27, 2013 To : Lake Elmo City Council From- Dean and Gayle Dworak We are the applicants for a variance on a property on Hill Trail North (09.029.21 ,22.0025). The city of Lake Elmo's Ordinance No. 08-048 adopted in July 2011 provides the requirements for a variance. The Planning Commission held Public Hearings on 8/26/13 and 9/9/14 at which times the variance was tabled to allow additional time to meet all the requirements. At the September 23 hearing, the Planning Staff "moved to recommend approval of the variance at 09.029.21 .22.0025 ( Hill Trail North ) based upon the findings outlined by the Staff Memorandum." All requirements including a suitable septic design had been met. Public input centered on the lot size being 0.63 acres. Fourteen homes received notice of this variance as they were within 350 feet of the property. Seven homes were on lots greater than 0.63 acres and seven homes were on lots smaller than 0.63 acres making it exactly at the median size. At the request of the Planning Commission, the Planning Department analyzed sixty four of the surrounding lots. Twenty eight of these lots were smaller or the same size as the subject lot. During the Planning Commission's discussion at the September 23 hearing, the chairman, Todd Wilson, stated his opposition to the variance as he felt it paramount to retain the " traditional rural nature of Lake Elmo." Nowhere in Ordinance 08-048 is " rural nature " mentioned or defined. It is a totally subjective criteria. After stating his opposition, he solicited justification from other committee members. One observation was that " another well could lower the aquifer " and create another White Bear Lake. Also that another home could adversely affect lake water quality, No study or data was presented to support either possibility. We request that Ordinance 08-048 be applied as written or be modified to reflect current requirements. It is unfair to future applicants to spend as we have over $5000 on variance fee, septic fee, septic design, architectural design and certificate of survey and then be arbitrarily turned down. It would have been preferable if the chairman of the Planning Commission had stated at the first meeting that he wants to retain the rural nature of Lake Elmo and would only consider variances for lots of greater than 1.5 acres. It would have saved the City of Lake Elmo and us a lot of time and money. The two members of the Planning Commission to vote for acceptance explained their decision as - " it is about the same lot size as other homes in the area and it has an approved septic design." We respectfully request that you follow your professional planner's -------------- expertise and recommendation to approve this variance. Sincerely, 7 Lean.and Gayle Dworak THE CITY OF AKE ELINIO `' . MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 10/01/2013 REGULAR ITEM#: 10 AGENDA ITEM: 2012 Street& Water Quality Improvements—Assessment Hearing and Adopting the Final Assessment Roll SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator RE,VIEWED BY: Adam Bell, City Clerk Cathy Bendel, Finance Director Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item.....................................................................................City Engineer - Rcport/Presentation......................................................................................City Engineer - Questions from Council to Staff............................................................Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate...................................................................Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion..............................................................................Mayor&City Council - Discussion......................................................................................Mayor&City Council - Action on Motion...................................................................................Mayor Facilitates SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to conduct the Final Assessment Hearing for the 2012 Street & Water Quality Improvements. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429 the Council must conduct a final assessment hearing to declare the amounts to be assessed to the benefitting properties. The Council will also present and hear upon any objections to the proposed assessment whether presented verbally or in writing. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve Resolution No. 2013-83,Adopting the Final Assessment Roll for the 2012,Street& K ater Quality Improvements." STAFF REPORT: On September 3, 2013, the City Council approved a Resolution declaring the costs to be assessed, ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment, and calling for the hearing on proposed assessment for the 2012 Street&Water Quality Improvements. The Project has been completed and the total project costs are known. 1 Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429 the Council must declare the final amount to be assessed against the benefitting properties and the hearing on the proposed assessment for these improvements must be conducted. Staff has attached a proposed Final Assessment Roll. The final unit assessment amount for each benefiting property is $3,000. The amount has been reduced from a proposed unit assessment of$3,200 as adopted at the time of the Ordering of the Improvement. Staff is proposing a. reduced unit assessment to correspond with the final project costs. Mailed notice has been provided to each assessed property and notice of the public hearing has been published in the local paper in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 429. The Final Assessment Roll must be certified to the County Auditor by November 30,2013. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2013-83, thereby Adopting the Final Assessment Roll for the 2012 Street &Water Quality Improvements. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve Resolution No. 2013-83,Adopting the Final_ s ewsrrrent Roll for the 2012 Street& ll"ater Qualiq,drrrproveinents. ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Resolution No. 2013-83,Adopting the Final Assessment Roll 2. Final Assessment Roll 2 ............................... CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2013-93 A RESOLUITION ADOPTING THE, FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE 2012 STREET & WA'rER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the 2012 Street&Water Quality Improvements. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is herby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 10 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2014, and shall bear interest at the rate of 4.50% percent per arnium from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31., 2013. To each subsequent installment, when due, shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to the certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with the interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Clerk, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he/she may,at any time thereafter,pay to the City Clerk the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. Resolution No. 2013-83 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. ADOPTED BY THE LAKE ELM.O CITY COUNCIL ON TIIE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER,2013. CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: Mike Pearson Mayor (Seal) ATTEST: Adam Bell City Clerk Resolution No. 2013-83 2 CITY OF LAKE ELMO,MN. 2012 STREET WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PAGE 1 of 2 SEPTEMBER 2013 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL NO. :NAME ADDRESS PID UNITS AMOUNT 1 HORNER)OHN R&KARLA M 7740 53RD ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921420029 1 $3,000 2 FREMONT,JOHN E&BECKY J 7741 53RD ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921420028 1 $3,000 3 SLOOM,GREGG M&MICHAUD LAVONN 7761 53RD ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921420027 1 $3,000 4 LIZAKOWSKI,TERRENCE J&SUSAN 7760 53RD ST LAKE ELMO 55042 050292142DO30 1 $3,000 5 STATE OF MN-DNR 0502921410005 1 $3,000 6 STATE OF MN-DNR 0502921410006 1 $3,000 7 RODEN,TIMOTHY D&JULIE A 8080 59TH 5T LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220006 1 $3,000 8 ANDERSON,DAVID 0&TANYA L 8110 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220005 1 $3,000 9 NICHOLLS,JEFFREY H&JANE D 8170 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220004 1 $3,000 10 SIMONS,TAMARA L 9230 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 W2921220003 1 $3,OOD 11 STANKO,ARTHUR E&BEVERLY J 8045 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220008 1 $3,000 12 Df1TMER,RON J&MAVIS G 8065 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220009 1 $3,000 13 DEPPE,DOUGLAS P&PATRICIA 8001 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921110014 1 $3,000 14 NELSON,JAMES T&CYNTHIA F 8095 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220010 1 $3,000 15 BLAISDELL MICHAEL D&NONA C 9021 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921110015 1 $3,000 16 MAHMOOD,GREGG G&$HAREN M 8125 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220011 1 $3,000 17 ERDMAN DAVID L&LEE A 8155 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220012 1 $3,000 18 BYSTRZYCKI,JOHN A 8185 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220013 1 $3,000 19 PRESS,STEVEN R&TUTHILL,SUSAN 8215 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220014 1 $3,000 20 PLEBAN,ROBERT G&VIRGINIA L 8245 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220015 1 $3,000 21 MILLERALLIAM D&MARGIE M 9331 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921210006 1 $3,000 22 YANG,KAO&LY,MAY SHOUA 8351 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921210007 1 $3,000 23 GAEfZ,MICHAEL D&KATHLEEN A 8371 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921210008 1 $3,000 24 REUTHER,RONALD E&MICHELLE 8391 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921210009 1 $3,000 25 PALMGREN,GARY M&CHARLOTTE 8411 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921210010 1 $3,000 26 KENSY,DOUGLAS J&DEBORAH F 8410 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921210011 1 $3,000 27 COOPER,NEIL&SARAH 8390 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921210012 1 $3,000 28 STANCEK,PATRICK E&SHIRLEY A 8370 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921210013 1 $3,000 29 WENGER,THOMAS 8350 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921210014 1 $3,000 30 THILL)OHN B&BARBARA L 8330 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921210015 1 $3,000 31 VIAU,ROBERT R&PAMELA K 8010 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921110013 1 $3,000 32 YANG,AI HANG 8030 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921110012 1 $3,0W 33 GORMAN,MICHAEL R&LEE A 8050 59TH ST LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220007 1 $3,000 34 N€LSON,STEPHEN L&CANDACE M 8014 DEMONTREVILLE CIR LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921230020 1 $3,000 35 NELSOMSTEPHEN L&CANDACE M 04OZ921320014 1 $3,000 36 KIRKWOLD,PATRICK A&LYNETTE 8010 DEMONTREVILLE PL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921230013 1 $3,000 37 SMITH,MARK R&BARBARA J 8040 DEMONTREVILLE PL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921230016 1 $3,000 38 TRACY,MICHAELJ&KRISTEN J 8030 DEMONTREVILLE PL LAKE ELMO 55042 040292123OC15 1 $3,000 39 OLSON,EDWARD C&THERESE K 8020 DEMONTREVILLE PL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921230014 1 $3,000 40 HENNING,KAREN ANN 8070 DEMONTREVILLE CIR LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921230019 1 $3,000 41 CAMPBELL,JON A&JOANN C 8060 DEMONTREVILLE CIR LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921230018 1 $3,000 42 CARPENTER,MICHAELG 8050 DEMONTREVILLE CIR LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921230017 1 $3,000 43 NOREEN,ALLEN L&MARY ELLEN 7960 DEMONTREVILLE TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921140005 1 $3,000 44 GORES,EDWARD J&DEBRA K 5737 HIGHLANDS CT LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921230008 1 $3,000 45 PELTZER,GARY W&CINDY D 5747 HIGHLANDS CT LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921240009 1 $3,000 46 FISCHER,BRADLEY S&ANN M 5620 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921140011 1 $3,000 47 BAER,BARRY S&JACKIE K 5655 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921140019 1 $3,000 48 JOHNSOMBRUCE A&ALICE H 5750 HIGHLANDS CT LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921230007 I $3,000 49 WARN ER,GENE&LAURE J 5640 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921140010 1 $3,000 50 GROETSCH,MICHAELJ&MARCIA L 5675 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921230002 1 $3,000 51 LYNCH,RONALD J 5767 HIGHLANDS CT LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921240004 1 $3,000 52 ARLICH,DAVIDA&CHERYL A 5695 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921230003 1 $3,000 53 NIELSEN,DAVID SCOTT&DIANE M 5680 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 OS02521140007 1 $3,000 54 THIENES,AMES EDWARD 5715 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921230004 1 $3,000 55 WISSINK,JOYCE A 5777 HIGHLANDS CT LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921230009 1 $3,000 56 WISSINKJOYCEA 0402921240005 1 $3,000 57 WiSSINK,JOYCE A 0402921230010 1 $3,000 58 MARTY,PAUL A&DAWNETTE M 5745 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921230005 1 $3,000 59 WALLACE,MARK R 5791 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921230006 1 $3,000 60 YANG,MAISENG M&PAUL N 5815 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220023 1 $3,000 61 MCCAMY,ALLAN E&CAROLA 5855 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55D42 0402921210002 1 $3,000 62 ANASTASI,JOAN F 5850 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220018 1 $3,000 63 CHEVRIER,KATHERINE M 5933 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921210016 1 $3,000 64 BAIERL,JOSEPH R&DENISE M 5875 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921210004 1 $3,000 65 STIEPAMSTEVEN J&MICHELLE 5730 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220022 1 $3,000 66 SUNDMARK,JOSEPH A&DAWN M 5750 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220021 1 $3,000 67 LOWELL,PETER S&ANNETTE S 5790 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220020 1 $3,000 CITY OF LAKE ELMO,MN. 2012 STREET WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PAGE 2 of 2 SEPTEMBER 2013 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL NO. NAME ADDRESS PID UNITS AMOUNT 68 MILLER,MICHAEL A&BARBARAJ 5810 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220019 1 $3,000 69 HEDRICK,STEVEN T&DELORES H 5870 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220017 1 $3,000 70 SCHUWEILER,LEW G&DIANE L 5890 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220016 1 $3,000 71 MOTZ,LAMBERT W 1R 5885 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921210005 1 $3,000 72 LEE,MARLENE R 5920 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220002 1 $3,000 73 HERUM,DENNIS P 5960 HIGHLANDS TRL LAKE ELMO 55042 0402921220001 1 $3,000 74 CITY OF LAKE ELMO 0402921220024 4 $12,000 75 PROKOP,PHILLIP 1&JOYCE R TRS 5690 HYTRAIL AVE LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921140012 1 $3,000 76 PIERRE JEROME M&TRACY M DAY 5665 HYTRAIL AVE LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921140008 1 $3,000 77 ROLLING,ANDREW G&ELLEN 1 5710 HYTRAIL AVE LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921140013 1 $3,000 78 BISEK,JOAN RTRS 5730 HYTRAIL AVE LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921140014 1 $3,000 79 AUSTAD,DAVID R&ROSE M 5701 HYTRAIL AVE LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921140009 1 $3,000 80 KLOEK,DONALD C JR&LYNN A 5750 HYTRAIL AVE LAKE ELMO SS042 0502921140015 1 $3,000 81 HURT,KREGG&PAULA SUE 5751 HYTRAIL AVE LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921110002 1 $3,000 82 HAUGEN,JOHN R&SUZANNE J 5770 HYTRAIL AVE LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921110007 1 $3,000 83 BANCE,GARY R&DONNA A 5771 HYTRAIL AVE LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921110003 1 $3,000 84 WELLE,ARVIN H&MARY M 5790 HYTRAIL AVE LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921110008 1 $3,000 85 LESCARBEAU,JOEL F&DEBRA L 5791 HYTRAIL AVE LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921110004 1 $3,000 86 KOZIARA,ROBERT P&KAREN A 5810 HYTRAIL AVE LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921110009 1 $3,000 87 LY,YANG 5811 HYTRAIL AVE LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921110005 1 $3,000 88 MORGAN,JAMES R&PATRICIA P 5830 HYTRAIL AVE LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921110010 1 $3,000 89 SCHRANTZ,MICHAEL G&RUTH G 5831 HYTRAIL AVE LAKE ELMO SS042 0502921110006 1 $3,000 90 CALLAHAN,ROBERT D&LORI A 5850 HYTRAIL AVE LAKE ELMO 55042 0502921110011 1 $3,000 91 CITY OF LAKE ELMO 0502921110016 2 $6,000 TOTAL 95 $285,000 T}-1H C:;ITY OF w __ LAKE LM MAYOR.AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 1.0/01/2013 REGULAR ITEM#: 11 AGENDA ITEM: Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements—Public Improvement Hearing and Ordering the Improvement SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger,City Administrator RE IEA1 ED BY: Adam Bell, City Clerk Cathy Bendel,Finance Director Chad Isakson, Project Engineer SUGGESTED ORDER OF.BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item.....................................................................................City Engineer Report/Presentation.................. ..City Engineer - Questions from Council to Staff............................................................Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate...................................................................Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion..............................................................................Mayor&City Council - Discussion......................................................................................Mayor& City Council - Action on Motion...................................................................................Mayor Facilitates SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to open the Public Improvement Hearing for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements; and following the Hearing, consider adopting Resolution No. 2013-84 Ordering the Improvement.The recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to adopt Resolution No. 2013-84; Ordering the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements" STAFF REPORT: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 429.011 to 429.111, a Public Improvement Hearing was noticed for October 1,2013,to consider making the following improvements: • Install 12-inch diameter Trunk Watermain along 50"' Street and Lake Elmo Avenue, from 50" Street to 43`d Street,to connect Well No.4 to the City's existing distribution system. The attached notice was published in the official newspaper and individual.notifications were sent to each address that potentially will be assessed a portion of the project costs. The above improvements are being proposed in accordance with the 2013-2014 Capital Improvement Plan, to connect the new water supply well,Well No.4,to the City's existing distribution system. As part of the project, individual home service stubs and fire hydrants will be installed as the trunk watermain is extended past existing residential properties. The improvements will benefit the property owners by providing them the opportunity to connect to the municipal water system and will provide increased fire protection for the property. A feasibility report was prepared and presented for Council approval at the September 3,2013 Council meeting. Similar to the Keats MSA Street and Trunk Watermain Improvements, this project is being installed as part of the overall water system capital improvement plan, and not as a project to specifically deliver municipal water to the adjacent properties.Therefore the adjacent properties are not required to pay 100% of the infrastructure extension costs as is seen in other utility extension projects, but the properties will receive benefit. Therefore, as part of the findings and recommendations, the Feasibility Report recommends installing individual service stubs to properties with existing home structures and adjacent to the improvements. The report further recommends levying a water lateral benefit assessment in the amount of the City's current fee schedule, or $5,800. A preliminary assessment roll was included in the Report identifying 10 properties to be assessed this amount. The Report also identifies an alternative assessment option that assesses one half that amount, or$2,900 lateral water benefit assessment at the time of the project while deferring the remaining $2,900 to be collected as part of an additional water connection charge if and when the property chooses to connect to the City water system. The detailed findings of the report,project cost details,and associated assessment impacts are included in the Feasibility Report and will be presented at the meeting. This Report is available for review at City Hall. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2013-84, thereby Ordering the Improvement for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements. Ordering a 429 Public Improvement project without a resident petition requires a super majority-415 vote. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to adopt Resolution No. 201.3-845 Ordering the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Iniproventents." ATTACHMFNT(S): 1. Resolution 2013-84 Ordering the Improvements. 2. Notice of Hearing on Improvement. 3. Preliminary Assessment Roll. 4. Project Schedule. 5. Location Map. b. Feasibility Report(available for review at City Hall) CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE ATE OF MINNESOTA SOLUTION NO. 2013--84 A RESOLUTION ORDE `I�NG E I�' PROVEMENTFOR THE WELL NO. 4 CONNECTING WATERMAIN IMP .OV EMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant a resolution of the City Council adopted the 3rd day of September, 2013, the Council ordered a hearing on Improvement for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements; and WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the Ist day of October, 2013, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the feasibility report prepared by FOCUS Engineering, Inc., and dated September 2013 states that the project is necessary,cost-effective,and feasible. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, l. Such improvement is deemed necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the Feasibility Report. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution adopted this 1st day of October,2013. 3. The City Council declares its official intent to reimburse itself for the costs of the improvement from the proceeds of tax exempt bonds. ADOPTED BY THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ON THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER,2013. CIT 'OF LAKE ELAIO By: Mike Pearson Mayor (Seal) ATTEST: Adam Bell City Clerk Resolution No. 2013-84 1 CITY OF LAKE ELMO NOTICE OF HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT WELL NO. 4 CONNECTING WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Lake Elmo will meet in the council chambers of the city hall at or approximately after 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, October 1, 2013, to consider the making of the following improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 429.011 to 429.111; The improvement will consist of the extension of trunk watermain facilities along 506'Street and Lake Elmo Avenue,from 50tb Street to 43rd Street in order to connect Well No. 4 to the water distribution system. Individual service stubs will be installed to properties with existing homes that are located adjacent to the watermain improvements. Fire hydrants will be installed along the corridor, providing increased fire suppression capabilities in the area. The area proposed to be assessed for these improvements include the properties with existing residences and located along Lake Elmo Avenue and 50th Street North, directly abutting the location of the proposed watermain improvements. The estimated total cost of the improvements is $617,000. A reasonable estimate of the impact of the assessment will be available at the hearing. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvements will be heard at this meeting. DATED: September 3, 2013 BY ORDER OIL THE LADE ELMO CITY COUNCIL Mike Pearson, Mayor (Published in the Oakdale-Lake Elmo.Review on September 11, 2013 and September 18,2013) 0 oo 0S LU p W DO CO of oD CO CO OD OD 00 O Qto<n in.n v>.n V, Ln,n V. Ln � a vi 0 -C, 0' ccocoo 'o M d rq !V N O (3) O� F N N N N N N N N N O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O 14 N e-1 e-1 "1 ei N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in N 0 v7 Ln to in u to N N tLntLnto in to N In N Yl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C G W W W W W W W W w W W W W W W W W W Z y4 -I[ Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Lu a < < ¢ < < < < < Lu CA 0 uj z z z z z z z z Q Z z W W W W W W W w fy a a a a a 'a Ln tn a z 00000000 LU g W W W W W W W W 2 2 W w W w W W w w F F V' Y Y ?4 Y Y Y a4 OQ TOOmOO �no O n l0 Ln m r m " m Un N to Z r+ O oD t, tO lO Ln Ln cn -�r rQLU U Z Z 0 U � d z LU U Lll In a a 0 z a 0 u � U- 1 Lv Y z a z z w r J a Q W J U- J z � } z z v « z x > d z F z 'o z z z a z u w u Z m be-' w Ln CC cc C7 xd wagn � =a Lmzv � F zODcz � < WdWFOp � aWO a nzNo � a r .4Y] O z a � 4Y W J2 � O U- W ir Q) ca m O � Ln2 Ln coOM OO N m ar Ln cA r, w m d 00 z PROJECT SCHEDULE ENGINEERING, inc. Cara Geheren,P.E. 651.300.4261 Jack Griffin,P.E. 651.300.4264 Ryan Stempski,P.E. 651.300.4267 Chad lsakson,P.E. 651.300.4283 Project Title: Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements Client: City of Lake Elmo Project No.: 2013.131 Date: REVISED September 24, 2013 August 6, 2013 Council orders preparation of a Feasibility Report and preparation of the Plans and Specifications. August'8, 2013 Team kickoff meeting. Schedule resident meeting and send out NOTICES. August 21, 2013 Conduct resident meeting to present the project (following TH 5 Open House). September 3, 2013 Presentation of Feasibility Report to Council. Council passes resolution receiving report and calling for a hearing on improvements to be held October 1, 2013. September 4, 2013 Send notice of public hearing to residents and post in newspaper. October 1, 2013 Public Improvement Hearing. Council Orders the Improvement. January 21, 2014 Council Approve Plans and Specifications and Orders Advertisement for Bids. February 20, 2014 Receive Contractor bids. March 4, 2014 City Council accepts bids and awards Contract. April 1, 2014 Conduct Pre-construction Meeting & Issue Notice to Proceed. June 20, 2014 Work is substantially complete (estimated 12 weeks). July 18, 2014 Final Completion Date. Record As-builts; Testing Results; and Final Recommendation Letter to City Engineer. • r l }A. s .J. • �,• � • _.. '� .Yam, CIO N LEGEND PROPOSED WATERMAIN PROPOSED WATERMAIN SERVICE STUB PROPOSED HYDRANT 0 500 1000 XXXX ASSESSABLE PROPERTY Feet FIGURE NO.2 FOCUSPROJ. 2013.131 LAKE ELMO,MINNEINNESOTA PROPOSED WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS ENGINEERING WELL NO.4 CONNECTING SEPTEMBER,2013 WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS THE CITY OF Y A KE EL MO " ' MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 10/01/,2013 REGULAR ITEM#: 12 AGENDA ITEM: 2014 Street Improvements—Authorize Preparation of a Feasibility Report SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin,City Engineer THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger,City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Adam Bell, City Clerk Cathy Bendel,Finance Director Ryan Stempski,Assistant City Engineer SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS.- - Introduction of Item.....................................................................................City Engineer - Report/Presentation......................................................................................City Engineer - Questions from Council to Staff............................................................Mayor Facilitates Public Input,if Appropriate...................................................................Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion..............................................................................Mayor&City Council Discussion.............................---......................................................Mayor&City Council Action on Motion...................................................................................Mayor Facilitates SUMMARY AND ACTION REODL-ES'TED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider authorizing FOCUS Engineering to prepare a Feasibility Report for the 2014 Street Improvements in the estimated amount of$13,000. The report will satisfy Chapter 429 requirements to specially assess benefiting properties. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve Resolution.No. 013-85, Ordering preparation of a peacabilh),Repor•t.for•the 1014 Street Improvements. STAFF REPORT: In accordance with the proposed 2014-2018 Street Capital Improvement Plan(Street CIP),the following local streets represent the most essential and project read, street improvements for implementation in 2014. The streets include: Anticipated Street Reclamation possible(30% Assessment Rage): ® 24th Street North, from Lake Elmo Avenue to Legion Avenue, { ® 24th Street Court North, ' I • Lansing Avenue North, * 20th Street Court North, • Legion Avenue North, from 20th Street to 24th Street. 1 Anticipated Street Microsurfacing possible (Assessments would not apply): • 20th Street North, from Lake Elmo Avenue to Manning Trail. Anticipated Street Reconstruction required (30% Assessment Rate): • Manning Trail North,from CSAH 15 (Manning Avenue)to city hnuts, • Deer Pond Trail North,Hidden Bay Trail to Jack Pine Trail, • Deer Pond Court North. In order to initiate this improvement the Council must direct the preparation of a feasibility report as required by the statutory process for public improvements that are specially assessed. The report will advise on the scope of recommended improvements for each local street; provide estimated project costs of the recommended improvements; identify easements or right-of way, permits, and other requirements of other local agencies needed to implement the improvements; recommend whether the improvements should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; and advise if the improvements are necessary, cost effective, and feasible. The Report will also provide a proposed. preliminary assessment roll for each of the benefitting properties based upon the City's Special Assessment Policy for Local Improvements,dated November 2010. The improvements will likely include various types of street improvements dependent upon the existing conditions found in each neighborhood or segment,including full street reconstruction, street reclamation, microsurfacing with patching, storm sewer replacement and upgrades, and the addition of concrete curb and gutter or ribbon curb as deemed. appropriate. Water quality improvements, including potential rain gardens,will be evaluated as necessary to meet VBWD permitting requirements. A proposed project schedule for the 2014 Street Improvements is attached. In order to be in a position to complete the improvements during the 2014 construction season, it is necessary to begin the feasibility report at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize FOCUS Engineering, Inc. to prepare a Feasibility Report for the 2014 Street Improvements in the estimated amount of$13,000. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve Resolution No. 20I3-85, Ordering preparation of a Feasibility Report,for the 2014 Street Improvements." ATTACHMENTS : 1. Resolution No. 2013-85,Ordering Preparation of a Feasibility Report 2. 2014 Street CIP Location Map 3. 2014 Street Improvements—Project Schedule 2 ....................................................I..........I..............:.......... .................................... CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2013-85 A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE 2014 STREET IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the City maintains a 5-year revolving Street Capital Improvement Program (Street CIP) to promote the strategic use of limited financial resources while maintaining, developing or replacing the City's local street network; and WHEREAS, the Street CIP represents the City's long-range street improvement program that identifies the present and future needs and priorities, and develops a schedule of public improvements to address the most essential improvements first;and WHEREAS, it is proposed to initiate the 2014 Street Improvement project to improve the following local streets; • 24"'Street North,from Lake Elmo Avenue to Legion Avenue • 241h Street Court North • Lansing Avenue North 20"' Street Court North • Legion Avenue North, from 26h Street to 24th Street • 20 th Street North, from Lake Elmo Avenue to Manning"Frail, • Manning Trail North, from CSAH 15 (Manning Avenue)to city limits, • Deer Pond Trail North,Hidden Bay Trail to Jack Pine Trail, • Deer Pond Court North;and WHEREAS, it is proposed to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to the City's Special Assessment Policy and Minnesota Statutes,Chapter 429. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, That the proposed improvement, called the 2014 Street Improvements, be referred to the City Engineer and FOCUS Engineering, and that FOCUS Engineering is instructed to complete a feasibility report in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 for the proposed improvements, and to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible; whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement;the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended; and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels, ADOPTED BY THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ON THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER,2013. CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: (Sea]) Mike Pearson Mayor ATTEST: Adam Bell City Clerk Resolution No. 2013-85 tY Of Stillwater ine g City o Gr n Township 60TH SIN Z z 59th STN �591h STN t N 59 T N U W C z ¢ rwood( S2 F nE,vn crREn i Add Est Juditl z 'F�p `� 58THSTN w �Ztj kK Hidden ' Oa Pa 1. DEMONTREI I///: z SSTHSTN ti 57TH STN Meadows z wr ¢ El•4Rn 2� 2 Of Lake Elmo �o �e 55TH ST N 56TH STN I eigh 5 �EJ\� o� 4 - y 55TH r �5 DE\J0R\,o\R 3 53RD STN 2 W 1 QUES W \{\GN Carria 53RD Fox Fire Statio ST z N Ia KE DE:LiOA'TREI'II-/_E Springb n�s Estates Tamarack_ Green r .. PARK Farm Est z o z ON �0�2✓ 'PA Tr �TST CLEAR 50T TN raRKTd 50TH TN T FLAKE 50TH STN 50T 50TH STN W St i� LILAC AYN i aN �, Q a The Fiel 3 0 w �- nrau rs Y Z. ,hn M of St.Crc LILAC L N ro 47TH STN 47TH ST N OLSON Q� Add' W Farm A j Tana �9P INOEN 2 Y jd G z LAKE °"2 s _ g oerseHe s4 o J z m a o 71 HID BAY �� LAKE JANE Da wcin POND¢ ow I oZ�E` cw000 Oace Acres Berschen's Gres 10 11 1T NA RIDGE ytowl� 8 NINOBR KT LN -1 add Shores Y 44TH ST �q rAPesr VERONICA z /ago Jane YrRL POND J LAKE TAPES wnshi /• N TgpESr EO 43RD STN The Fields BLU MLN N 2P 01G�`� 2 m END 9�P St.Cr oQ LITTLE f ? T est! At K z BLUES7EM P;o PF.XXLE �1�' N LAKE Ch. ttes Gr ve W J W j CIRN PARK )P Z JA�NE ti_ O N' ..�..�... y�' z HILLS 2 a z 9�J0 of St.Croix IBT,S PARK TAPES YTRL P 39TH STN w HILL PARK —_--_' CTZD9- - - g 397 SIN F Cityof Bordners Garner za > I lit a PaciUc pill. Farmettes ¢ Unl Oakdale 3 Z 37TH STN ¢ „ ppert Pari BGNFISHLAKE ,- E,K„ z 13 Wildflo ers K¢ 36TH STN ¢� PARK 14KT W 4'PW z ¢P4RK J ¢ Shor 14 eTH St 1 / 16 35 35 T N 1 5 I 0 JO 35TH 51 _ N 1 OV'S �(v^'\ 34TH ST 3 S1 1 UPPER 34TH STN 6 ' MA CA 3 1 r N 33RD S w STILL TER BLVD N 3 U ST 32ND ST N y� UU g Unl n Pacific Railroad 32NDS N REID Union Pacific Railroad 31 ST STN P4RK z 2 2 z j Klondike K z z ¢ Ave N STILLWATER BLVD O Y g U g 30TH STN ¢ 30TH ST N O > TAXL7V JONQUIL 30T ST CIRN ¢ p j IPONW000 PARR' TRL N I Y 2 N I 2 z¢ ¢ 2 West 27TH STN Z 28T N-' W N T Oti N Z r 28TH Farms of m NQ ¢ P STN Lake Elmo I nERlza cR /wry/ram] HEIGHTS Q 2 JZEGIOLAKE AL P4RK A, a-W-�la W PARK O yI REGIONAL 1 g =26TH ST PARKRESERVE j =Q Townshi 21 22 1 23 W z Z <2 4 Y LAKE s ss o ELMO DOWNS ¢ LAKE 3 ■, 2 ND 22ND STN I Z LN CIIR GI ON Z O NC 7N Q2 c C 2 21TH STN STN EAGLE POINT I 2 z m ♦ Parkview LAKE 20iH SIN ke Es z z Estates � z TARTAN O ) PARK r 3 RIDGE p GOLFCLGB z PARK Z Z S N Z c I\I IVORY CT SrH 27 A gl. . . . . . F STOr 26 * 3 15TH STN 15TH ST N 14TH S7 N HORSESHOE II'a]ED y LAKE WHISTLING WV. PARK VALLEY TR V. - Hammes DaWd Tartan 12TH STN niliev R6 Country Nelson Est MeaF z =z Vista z 7 ww U STN ■ TH STN 10 H ST N 10TH ST N 10TH S r+ ARMSTRONG 8T GOOSE LAKE ROSE LAKE r FIZE, z LAKE 9 Midland Meadows z m? ¢ ■ ¢ R` o ■ I o z � � z STONEGA TE ULEP ULEP g g 1 PARK N 32 EAG INT 34 35 36 r 3RD STREET 1 HUDSON KRA ER LAKE BL HUDSON BLVD HUDSON BLVD HUDSON BLVD _ s �" 4,9 l`.Y Uf '-') City of Woodbury lotIv ♦� .s-�r=.i.� ` �.s='.r-r>t >trsT_rr'z� ♦' t -tom 2014 STREET IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION MAP N City Hall Parcels W E l 3800 Laverne Avenue N TI IE CITY OF — 651/777-5510 S LAKE ELMO www.lakeelmo.org Public Works Building Subdivisions 0.45 0.225 0 0.45 Miles 3445 Ideal Ave N 651/233-5414 City Parks Fire Stations Ma Date: September 2013 2014 Street Improvements 351DOavern Golf Course p p 3510 Laverne Ave N 651/770-5006 Lake Elmo Regional Created By: Reconstruct 4259JamacaAveN Park Reserve r 651/779 Park Office F O C U C J Reclaim i Sch0000 ls 651/430-8368 ENGINEERING, inc. Microsurface Lakes .......................................... FOCUS PROJECT SCHEDULE ENGINEERING, inc. Cara Geheren,P.E. 651.300.4261 Jack Griffin,P.E. 651.300.4264 Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267 Project Title: 2014 Street Improvements Chad Isakson,P.E. 651.300.4283 Client: City of Lake Elmo Project No.: 2013.135 Date: September 26, 2013 October 1, 2013 Council orders preparation of a Feasibility Report. December 3, 2013 Presentation of Feasibility Report to Council. Council passes resolution receiving report and calling for a hearing on improvements to be held January 7, 2013. January 16, 2013 Property owner meeting. Presentation of Report findings and recommendations. January 21, 2013 Public improvement Hearing. Council passes resolution ordering Improvement and preparation of Plans. April 15, 2014 Approve Plans and Specifications and authorize advertisement for bids. May 15, 2014 Accept Contractor Bids June 3, 2014 Award Contract. June 24, 2014 Conduct Pre-construction Meeting & Issue !Notice to Proceed. September, 2014 Substantial completion. October, 2014 Final completion. CITY OF - I AhE ELMO MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 10/01/2013 REGULAR ITEM #: 13 AGENDA ITEM: Landucci Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt,Planning Director THROUGH: Dean A.Zuleger,City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner Jack Griffin,City Engineer P hnming Commission SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item...................................................................................................Staff - Report/Presentation....................................................................................................Staff - Questions from Council to Staff............................................................Mayor Facilitates - Public Input,if Appropriate...................................................................Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion..............................................................................Mayor&City Council - Discussion......................................................................................Mayor&City Council - Action on Motion...................................................................................Mayor Facilitates PUBLIC POLICY STATEMENT The City of Lake Elmo has received a request to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan, and specifically the future land use map, for a 19.5 acre parcel located within the I-94 Corridor. The City Council may consider such an amendment after review by the Planning Commission. Please note that this would be considered a minor comprehensive amendment but would still be subject to review and approval by the Metropolitan Council. FISCAL IMPACT: None—City review costs will be reimbursed through application or escrow fees. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a request from Ryland Homes for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of property north.of Interstate 94 and east of Lake Elmo Avenue from Medium Density Residential(MDR)to Low Density Residential(LDR). This property is located within the I-94 Corridor Planning area and was therefore part of the area that was included in the last Comprehensive Plan update approved by the City. The property is presently owned by Nathan Landucci which is under contract for purchase by Ryland Homes. Ryland would like to develop the property as a single family residential development at a density that is much lower than the future land use guidance of MDR(4.5 to 7 units per acre)that was approved as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment application was submitted in conjunction with a proposed sketch plan for the property. The sketch plan will be discussed by the City Council as a separate agenda item; however,only the Comprehensive Plan Amendment requires formal action. 1 Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending that the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment as described in the attached resolution and by taking the following action/with the following motion: "Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2013-086,Approving request ky Ryyland Hoines to amend the,sake Elmo Comprehensive Plait" BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached is the original detailed Staff report that was provided to the Planning Commission regarding the applicant's request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment,which includes general information about the application, details concerning the request,a summary of the relevant planning and zoning issues, a review and analysis of the requested amendment,draft findings, and the Staff recommendation to the Planning Commission. This report also includes a map depicting the specific area that would be changed from the MDR to LDR land use category if approved by the Council. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The Planning Commission reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment at its September 23,2013 meeting and conducted a public hearing on the request at this time. The Commission generally discussed how the potential impacts of the requested change and how it may impact the City's Memorandum of Understanding with the Met Council. Staff noted that the proposed amendment area was small enough that it would not have a significant impact on the City's overall population and household projections. It was also noted that the Comprehensive Plan specifically included a range of densities in each land use category to account for site specific variations in housing densities. During the public hearing,the Commission received testimony from.two neighboring property owners as follows: • Steve Schoonmaker, representing the industrial property to the each of the applicant's site,stated that he would like to see the minor collector road stay as far north on his property as possible. He did not state any objections to the amendment. • Nicole Park,owner of one of the exception parcels along Lake Elmo Avenue, submitted a letter expressing her support for the amendment. The Commission did not make any modifications to the findings of fact as drafted by Staff and unanimously recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment as presented. PLANNING COMMISSION RECCOMENDATION: Based upon the above background information, Staff report and Planning Commission recommendation,it is recommended that the City Council approve the request by Ryland Homes to amend the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan by changing the future land use designation of property immediately ease of Lake Elmo Avenue and approximately '/mile north of Interstate 94 from MDR—Medium Density Residential to LDR.— Low Density Residential by taking the following action/with the following motion: "Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2013-086,Approving request by Ryland Homes to amend the.hake Elmo Comprehensive Plan" ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No.2013-086 2. Staff Report (9/23/13 Planning Commission Meeting) 3. Application Form 4. Legal Description 5. Application Narrative 6. Future Land Use Map(Map 3-3 from Comprehensive Plan) 7. Proposed Amendment:MDR to LDR 8. Location Map 2 ............. CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2013-086 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MY OF LAKE ELMO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS,the City of Lake Elmo has established a Comprehensive Plan that provides a compilation of background data,policy statements, standards, and maps,which help to guide the future physical, social,and economic development of the City; and WHEREAS,Ryland Homes, 7599 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie, MN, ("Applicant")has submitted an application.to the City of Lake Elmo("City")to amend the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan, a copy of which is on file in the City Planning Department; and WHEREAS,the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan was submitted along with a sketch plan for a proposed single-family residential subdivision; and WHEREAS,the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 23, 2013 to consider the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 201') the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS,the City Council reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan at a meeting on October 1, 2013 and, NOW,THEREFORE,based upon the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS 1) That the Applicant has submitted a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the procedures as established by the Lake Elmo Planning Department and Lake Elmo Planning Commission. 2) That the request to is to amend the Future Land Use Map (Map 3-3 in Chapter III—Land Use Plan)in the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan, and to specifically change the future land use designation a parcel of land located cast of Lake Elmo Avenue and approximately 1/4 ...................... ............... ............. .......... mile north of Interstate 94(PID 36.029.21.32.0008; commonly known as the Country Air Golf Practice Facility) from MDR—Medium Density Residential to LDR—Low Density Residential. 3) That the Comprehensive Plan Amendment will apply to property legally described in.the attached Exhibit"A7. 4) That the proposed area impacted by the proposed amendment is relatively small and will not have a significant impact on the City's ability to achieve its 2030 household and population forecasts. 5) That current market conditions are not favorable for multi-family and single family attached housing, yet it is in the City's interests to accommodate market-driven.development at present in order to provide a reasonable return on recent major infrastructure improvements. 6) That the City is continuing to work towards potential reductions to the 2030 growth targets specified in the Met Council MOU that will likely reduce the amount of areas in the community that are guided for high density housing. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that based on the foregoing, the Lake Elmo City Council hereby approves the Applicant's request to amend the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan, subject to and contingent upon the following: 1) Submission of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council and the receipt of formal notification from the Metropolitan Council that its review has been completed and approved. Acknowledgement of these comments and final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment will require formal action by the City Council. Passed and duly adopted this I" day of October 2013 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Mike Pearson Mayor ATTEST: Adam Bell City Clerk Exhibit A Parcel Number: 36.029.21.32.0008 Legal Description: PT NW1/4-SW1/4 LYING SLY OF FOLL DESC "LINE X":COM AT WEST QTR COR SD SEC 36 THN SOODEG02'54"W ALG W LN SD NW1/4-SW1/4 DIST 474.06FT TO S LN OF N 474.06FT OF SD NW1/4- SW1/4 AND PT OF BEG THN CONT ALG SD W LN SOODEG02'54"W DIST 161.15FT TO POB SD "LINE X"THN N89DEG48'29"E DIST 406.17FT THN NOODEG02'54"E DIST 161.15FT TO SD S LN OF N 474.06FT THN N89DEG48'29"E ALG SD S LN DIST 912.76FT TO E LN SD NW1/4-SW1/4 AND SD "LINE X°THERE TERM EXCEPT: PT SD NW1/4-SW1/4 DESC AS FOLL: BEG AT SW COR SD NW1/4-SW1/4 THN E ALG S LN SD NW1/4-SW1/4 DIST 264FT THN N ALG LN PARL/W W LN SD NW1/4-SW1/4 DIST 165FT THNW ALG LN PARL/W AS S LN DIST 264FT TO SD W LN THN D ALG SD W LN DIST 165FT TO POB Section 36 Township 029 Range 021 TI II CITY OF PLANNING COMMISSION IA-K E �'-'LMO DATE:9/23/13 AGENDA TTEM: 4B—PUBLIC HEARING CASE##2013-31 ITEM: Landucci Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt,Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson,City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request to amend the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan to change the future land use designation of property immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue and approximately'/4 mile north of Interstate 94 from MDR— Urban Medium Density Residential to LDR—Urban Low Density Residential. The applicant has submitted a Sketch Plan for a proposed residential subdivision concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Ryland Homes,7599 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie, MN (Tracey Rust, Entitlements Manager) Property Owners: Nathan Landucci, 13230 201h Street Court North, Stillwater,MN Location: Part of Section 36 in Lake Elmo,north of 1-94,east of Lake Elmo Avenue,and south of the Cimarron Manufactured Home Park. PID Number 36.029.21.32.0008 Request: Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment—MDR to LDR Existing Lund Use: Golf driving range and practice facility; Outdoor Recreation Facility Existing Zoning. RT—Rural Transitional Zoning Surrounding Land Use: North—single family home; west—single family neighborhood(the Forest), south and east—vacant/agricultural land Surrounding Zoning.- RT--Rural Transitional; RS—Single Family Residential Comprehensive Plan: Urban Medium Density(4.5 —7 units per acre) Proposed Zoning: LDR—Urban Low Density Residential llistor_v: Conditional Use Permit for the golf driving range approved in 1993 and subsequently amended at various times. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Sketch Plan submitted in June of 2013 but deemed incomplete by the City due to road access issues. Deadline for Action: Application Complete—9/5/13 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a—ACTION ITEM 2 60 Day Deadline— 11/5/13 Extension Letter Mailed—No 120 Day Deadline— 1/5/14 Applicable Regulations: Article 10—Urban Residential Districts(LDR) REQUEST DETAILS The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Ryland Homes for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of property north of Interstate 94 and east of Lake Elmo Avenue from Medium Density Residential(MDR)to Low Density Residential(LDR). This property is located within the I-94 Corridor Planning area and was therefore part of the area that was included in the Iast Comprehensive Plan update approved by the City. The property is presently owned by Nathan Landucci which is under contract for purchase by Ryland Homes. Ryland would like to develop the property as a single.family residential development at a density that is much lower than the future land use guidance of MDR(4.5 to 7 units per acre)that was approved as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. This request was submitted in conjunction with a sketch plan for the residential subdivision proposed on the property. Since the sketch plan review does not require a public hearing or any formal action by the Planning Commission,it is included as a separate agenda item for the Plarming Commission's September 23"d rneeting. The sketch plan materials will be useful to review in order to more fully understand the intended use of the property should the City approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment. BACKGROUND The property under consideration has been used for the past 20 years as a golf driving range and practice facility. The previous property owner has made several improvements to the property over this time period,including the construction of a clubhouse-type facility,driving range,practice green, nine-hole practice course,and parking lot. There is a single family home on the site as well that was previously split from the golf facility as a common interest community. This home and another single family property adjacent to the site and along Lake Ehno Avenue are identified as exception parcels on the applicant's submitted sketch plan, Staff has reviewed the City's files for the property and found a significant amount of information related to the golf facility and the various permits and approvals that have been granted by the City over the past 20 years. Because the applicant is proposing to redevelop the site for residential homes, there is very little information in the file that will be pertinent to the planned future use of the property. The applicant-s site lies roughly midway between I O'h Street and 1-94 and is situated fairly close to the Cottage Grove regional interceptor that will provide public sanitary sewer service to the area. In fact, the proposed Village force main project that was recently authorized for construction by the City Council includes a gravity component that will provide service to this site. 'Water services have been requested by the applicant,but would need to be installed as part of a larger City project to extend water down Lake Elmo Avenue. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b--ACTION ITEM 3 When the City was drafted the future land use map for this area as part of the 1-94 Comprehensive Plan Update last year,this site was guided for medium density residential development at a density of 4.5 to 7 units per acre. The applicant has stated that there is currently a fairly weak market for multi- family and townhouse residential units,and has petitioned the City to change the future land use map for this area to LDR—Low Density Residential. Please note that the exception parcels have not been included with the current request,and that at some time in the future the City should consider changing the future land use designation of these parcels if the applicant's request is approved. PLANNING AND ZONING.ISSUES The City undertook a lengthy process to update the Comprehensive Plan for the 1-94 Corridor, which included establishing a work group to help craft the overall land use plan and conducting a series of meetings in order to receive public comments concerning the plan. The updated plan made several modifications from the City's earlier plans,and most significantly,created several different categories of residential development. The approved plan now establishes three distiinct residential planning categories that use increasing densities to separate each of these residential areas ranging from low density to high density. The City was also able to successfully negotiate a lower threshold at the bottom end of the density scale in order to better respond to current market conditions. In order to achieve the growth targets as species in the City's Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)with the Met Council,the City did need guide a certain portion of the 1-94 Corridor for medium and high density residential development. The applicant's site was determined to be an appropriate location for medium density housing,with a smaller area to the north that was guided for high density housing. This decision was partly based on comments from the impacting property owners stating their desire to guide their properties for the higher density residential development. The applicant's parcel(and the smaller parcel guided for high density residential immediately to the north)are somewhat unique because they are isolated from the larger residential areas within the 1-94 corridor. Approximately half of the subject parcel is located immediately adjacent to land that is guided for Business Park development,while the remaining property it borders is guided for high density residential. The property is located immediately across fiom The Forest.,a rural residential development that was approved under a previous City Code with two-acre lots. Given the surrounding land uses, a rational argument could be made to either keep this area guided for higher density residential development in order to provide for additional buffering from future business park uses or to change the designation to single family in order to better fit with the existing neighborhood across the street. In order to consider a Comprehensive Plan amendment,the Planning Commission should take into account any changes that may have occurred in the community since the Plan was adopted that would warrant an amendment. In this case,it has been a very short time since the plan was adopted; however,Staff would like to note that in the time since adoption there has been considerable interest in development from the market that was either lacking or non-existent in the recent past. One aspect these development proposals that stands out is that there has been very little interest in multi-family or single family attached projects in the areas that have been guided for such uses. Obviously the market can and will change in the future, but the City will be faced with significant infrastructure costs(and potential penalties under the MOU)should projects fail to materialize. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b --ACTION ITEM 4 REVIEW AND ANALYSIS The applicant's site is just shy of 20 acres in size, which represents a very small portion of the I-94 development area,and the proposed reduction in overall density will not have a significant impact on the overall projections for residential units in this area. Additionally, the three residential categories that are used in the Comprehensive Plan are defined by a range of units,which provides some additional room for the City to achieve its City's growth targets while taking into account the uncertainty surrounding the true development potential for any given parcel of land. The City did not perform any detailed studies to identify how much of each parcel in the corridor was developable (i.e.not wetland,heavily wooded, located on steep slopes, etc.),and the range will allow some leeway for allowing an appropriate level of development that is consistent with the City's overall goals and objectives for growth and development. Based on Staffs ongoing conversations with potential developers,please keep in mind that it is very likely that the property owner to the north of the applicant's site will also be requesting a Comprehensive Plan amendment in order to reduce the planned density on this site as well. This particular parcel is even smaller than the one presently under consideration, still would not add up to a significant land area taken together with the present request, Staff is also continuing to work with the Met Council to achieve the City Council's stated objective of reducing the overall residential unit counts that are mandated under the MOU. Given recent conversations with the Met Council,it appears that the City will likely receive some relief from the numbers adopted in 2005 in the near future. It is Staff s initial opinion that any reductions would likely occur in the areas of the City that are guided for the denser residential categories since these areas may be difficult to develop at the planned densities. DRAFT FINDINGS Given the relatively small size of the applicant's parcel(taking into account potential changes in the vicinity) and the current lack of interest in higher density residential development, Staff is supportive of the proposed amendment is recommending approval of the requested change to the Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: 1. That the proposed area impacted by the proposed amendment is relatively small and will not have a significant impact on the City's ability to achieve its 2030 household and population forecasts. 2. That current market conditions are not favorable for multi-family and single family attached housing,yet it is in the City's interests to accommodate market-driven development at present in order to provide a reasonable return on recent major infrastructure improvements. 3. That the City is continuing to work towards potential reductions to the 2030 growth targets specified in the Met Council MOU that will likely reduce the amount of areas in the community that are guided for high density housing. RECCOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of request by Ryland Homes to amend the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan by changing the future land use designation of property immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue and approximately '/ mile north of Interstate 94 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b--ACTION ITEM 5 from MDR_Urban Medium Density Residential to LDR—Urban Low Density Residential. Suggested motion: "Move to recommend approval of the request by Ryland Domes to amend tire Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan" ATTACHMENTS: I. Application Form 2. Legal Description 3. Application Narrative 4. Future Land Use Map (Map 3-3 from Comprehensive Plan) 5. Proposed Amendment: MDR to LDR 6, Location Map ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction.................................—.......... ....... Community Development Director Report by Staff................................................. Community Development Director Questions from the Commission............................Chair&Commission Members Open the Public Hearing................................................................................. Chair Close the Public Hearing.........--................................................................... Chair Discussion by the Commission..............................Chair&Commission Members Action by the Commission.....................................Chair&Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b—ACTION ITEM Fee $ City of Lake Elmo DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM 1pt woe Comprehensive Plan Amendment []Variance * (See below) ❑Residential Subdivision ❑ZoningDistrict Amendment Preliminary/Final Plat Minor Subdivision O 01 — 10 Lots EJ Text Amendment ❑Lot Line Adjustment O 11 —20 Lots O 21 Lots or More ❑Flood Plain C.U.P. ,,residential Subdivision []Excavating&Grading Permit Conditional Use Permit Sketch/Concept Plan ❑Appeal ❑PUD Cf Conditional Use Permit(C.LI.P.) ❑ Site& Building Plan Review APPLICANT'RI/ HOMIEL *T.-� AVtg6te4 'Yj IVE EC�La Pe (Name) , I�� 5-5��' (Name) (Mailing Address) _ (Zip) TELEPHONES:C4&Ml!7-' 9u-'>7 z��TC��.2��2 �-1�OC�_� t✓�� `�v�� 1�.>�� +HOM4 (Work) (Mobile) (Fax)��— t t E OWNER:. l t9 Ir �C a.3 _ dLL q lv (Name) (Mailing Address) (Zip) TELEPHONES: (Home) (Work) (Mobile) (Fax) PROPERTY LOCATION (Address and Complete (Long) Legal Description): DETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST: —__ �5 t-�E ,4' 3CHIcy /t16/e e,'�.77VC *VARIANCE REQUESTS: As outlined in Section 301.060 C.of the I..,ake Elmo Municipal Code,the Applicant must demonstrate a hardship before a variance can be granted. The hardship related to this application is as follows: In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined in the application procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements_received from the Citv pertaini additional application expense. � 1 Signature of li.ani Dale Signature of Applicant Date 122/2004 City of Lake 13Imo•3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo•55042.651-777-5510•Fax 651-777-9615 ............................................................................................ ..............0. Parcel Number: 36.029.21.32.0008 PT NW114-SWI/4 LYING SLY OF FOLL DESC"LINEX";COM AT WEST QTR COR SD SEC 36n-IN SOODEG02'54"W ALG W LN SD NWI/4-SWI/4 DIST 479.06FT TO S LN OF N 474,06FT OF SD NWI/4-SW1/4 AND PT OF BEG THN CONT ALG Legal Description- SD W LN SOODEG0254V DIST 161.15Fr TO POS SD"LINE X"THN N89DEG48'29"E DIST 406.17FT THN 1400DEG02'54"E DIST 161,15FT TO SD S LN Of N 474.06FT THN N89DEG48'29"E ALG SD S LN DIST 912,76FT TO E LN SD NW1/4-SWI/4 AND SD"LINEX"THERE TERM EXCEPT;PT SD NWI/4- SWI/4 DES.0 AS FOLL: BEG AT SW COR SD NWI/1-SWI/4 THN E ALG 5 LN SD NW114 5W1j9 DIST 264FT THN N ALG LN PARL/W W LN SD NW1/4-SWIM DIST 165FTTHNW ALG LN PARL/W AS 5 LN DIST 264FT TO SD W LN THN 0 ALG SD W LN DIST 165Fr TO POB SECTION 36 TOWNSHIP 029 RANGE 021 RYLAND TUN CITIES DIVISION 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie,MN 66344 952.229.6000 Tel 952.229.6024 Fax www,ryland.com September 5, 2013 Kyle Klatt Planning Director City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Ave.N. Lake Elmo,MN 55042 RE: Landucei Propes-ty--Sketch Flan Review and Comp Plan Amendment Request Dear Mr. Klatt: Ryland Homes is pleased to submit to the City of Lake Elmo a sketch plan application for the Landucci property located on the east side of Lake Elmo Ave.N.approximately'/4 mile north of Intestate Hwy 94. The 23 acre property is currently being used as a.driving range with a short par-3 golf course. The proposed new neighborhood would include 51 single-family lots, necessary ponding,and right-of-way for Lake Elmo's new east/west collector(5rr' Street). The lots on average are 72 ft. wide and 130 ft.to 140 ft. in depth. Access to the new neighborhood would be from the new east/west collector,however during build out and while the collector is being planned and built a temporary access to Lake Elmo Ave is planned in the location of the existing driveway. With this application Ryland is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Urban. Medium Density Residential(MDR)to Urban Low Density Residential(LDR)which will allow for the new neighborhood's proposed density. Ryland Homes is also requesting that public improvements be extended to service the site with public water and sanitary sewer with adequate size and depth. Ryland Homes has appreciated City Staffs cornments and direction so far with this project and we look forward to continuing to work with City Staff to make this a suceessfirlly new neighborhood for the City of Lake Elmo. Please feel free to contact Tracey Rust at 952.229.6063 or Mark Sonstegard at 952.229.6007,both with Ryland Homes,with any questions. rS�iingc�erellyT, 7��gq GROUP, INC.THE AE R A LA1 t D GRO l 1 g`,$.,q Trace ust, PE Mark Sonstegard Entitlement Manager VP of Land Development Map 3-3 .-7.r T Jill 7T' IN 7r' Village Land Use Plan Pending 7 w I.. t.-:n J Planned Land Uses M Business Park L---j Urban Low Density Urban Medium Density M Urban High Density' L-]Village(TBD) M Commercial Limited Business M Public/Park L'-,Rural Area Development =-I Rural Area Development Alt I Residential Estate -1 Rural Single Family M(white hatching denotes possible mixed use areas) JL 114 12 Planned Land Use ttnf ra Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plait 20,30 i 3 C 1E �D Marro i- i1 rs Interstate 94 Proposed Amendment: MDR to LDR i.: Municipal Boundary ROW O Residential Estate If11f1•Business Park �Rural Area Development x Commercial =Single Family Residential w s C�Limited Business ®Urban High Density s C�Old Village 0 Urban Low Density f�Open Water 0 Urban Medium Density =Public/Park sowces MelroGlS a-&iz tY.u p ..Ui 771Ln a1'1'0I., Eno.wpapn�IMo-mabn ST.—tGs1 Future Land Use LAKE ELMO o'�e wN�ea uK.l u.rtkrtn..IM cL e/li\<L4m 1. Lake Ehno Comprehensive Plan 2030 h.rtn Location iAN -W. -f WMI 10 The Forest I • �Y „r �t 1 I I ' ....... 'I,1-11H C TY OF E K E LMO MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 10/01/2013 REGULAR ITEM#: 14 AGENDA ITEM: I.,anducci Property Sketch.Plan Review SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt,Planning Director THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger,City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson,City.Planner Jack Griffin,City Engineer Planning Commission SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item...................................................................................................Staff - Report/Presentation....................................................................................................Staff - Questions from Council to Staff............................................................Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate...................................................................Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion..............................................................................Mayor&City Council - Discussion......................................................................................Mayor&City Council - Action on Motion...................................................................................Mayor Facilitates PUBLIC POLICY STATEMENT Prior to submission of a preliminary plat for a new development, an applicant is required to first submit a sketch plan for review by the City. There is no formal action required by the City when a sketch.plan is submitted, and rather this step in the subdivision process provides the Planning Commission, City Council, City Staff, and other boards/commissions with a chance to review and provide comments to the project proposer in advance of a formal request. FISCAL. IMPACT: City review expenditures— review costs will be reimbursed through application or escrow fees. Public infrastructure—TBD; the applicant (along with other surrounding property owners) has formally requested a public project to bring water service to the site. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to receive a presentation from Ryland Homes, 7599 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie,MN related to a proposed residential subdivision of property located along the I-94 Corridor. The sketch plan consists of 51 single family homes 19.5 acres of land immediately to the east of Keats Avenue and about %mile north of Hudson Boulevard. Ryland Homes has agreed to purchase this property from Nathan Landucci,which has historically been the site of the Country Air golf practice facility. The proposed development is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for the area in. terms of the planned residential densities,and the applicant has submitted a.concurrent request to amend the plan to allow the proposed development to move forward. In accordance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance,a developer must submit a sketch plan for review by the Planning Commission which explains or illustrated the proposed subdivision and its purpose. The 1 Planning Commission conducted its review of the sketch plan on September 23,2013. In addition to the sketch plan and associated documents,the detailed Staff report to the Commission is also attached for review by the City Council. Based on the City's process,no action is required on this item. A representative from Ryland Homes will be in attendance at the Council meeting and present the sketch plan to the Council. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached Planning Commission report includes a broad overview of the request in addition to Staff s general comments regarding the proposal. The City Engineer has also reviewed the sketch plan,and his comments are incorporated as part of the PIanning Commission memorandum. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed sketch plan at its September 23,2013 meeting. The Commissions general comments include the following: • The applicant should work to incorporate a smaller park area into the development. It was noted that there are no public parks for a considerable distance to the site. • The concept of a trail around the development that could be used as a secondary emergency access was supported by the Commission. • Staff recommended the continuation of the trail through the southern portion of the development and back to Lake Elmo Avenue. • The adjacent neighbor on Lake Elmo Avenue expressed concern over the current condition and width of Lake Elmo Avenue,and noted that the gravel shoulders are not safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. • The owner of the industrial property to the east supported the alignment of the minor collector road,and asked that the road be kept as far to the north on his property as possible. PLANNING COMMISSION RECCOMENDATION: No recommendation is required for a sketch plan review. ATTACI3MENTS: 1. Detailed Planning Commission Report(9/23/13) 2. Application Form 3. Legal.Description 4. Application Narrative 5. Location Map 6. Illustrative Plan 7. Concept Plan 2 TlII CITY OF ""AKE ELM® ZME Planning Commission Date: 9/23/13 Item: 5a Business ITEM: Sketch Plan Review—Landucci Property SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner Jack Griffin, City Engineer SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to review a Sketch Plan related to a proposed residential subdivision on property owned by Nathan Landucci, 13230 20`h Street Court North, Stillwater, MN, and located approximately % mile north of Interstate 94 and immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue. This site is presently used as the Country Air Golf Practice facility, and the request for a sketch plan review has been submitted concurrently with a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for the site. The proposed residential development would include 51 single-family homes on a 19.5-acre parcel that would access Lake Elmo Avenue via an extension of the proposed 5t' Street minor collector road. Ryland Homes is the applicant for the sketch plan, and would be purchasing the property form Mr. Landucci contingent upon the City's approval of a preliminary plat for the property. The Lake Elmo Subdivision Ordinance specifies that as part of the pre-application process for a new subdivision, the applicant must first submit a Sketch Plan for review by the Planning Commission. The Ordinance notes that the purpose of the Sketch Plan review is as follows: Sketch plan. In order to ensure that all applicants are informed of the procedural requirements and minimum standards of this chapter and the requirements or limitations imposed by other city ordinances or plans,prior to the development of a preliminary plat, the subdivider shall meet with the Planning Commission and prepare a sketch plan that explains or illustrates the proposed subdivision and its purpose. The Planning Commission shall accept the information received, but take no formal or informal action that could be construed as approval or denial of the proposed plat. Based on this wording, the Planning Commission is not being asked to take any formal action as part of its review other than to accept the information received. Staff has completed an internal review of the sketch plan, and general comments from Staff are included in this memorandum. BUSINESS ITEM 5a 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The proposed sketch plan from Ryland Homes is located with the 1-94 Corridor planning area and therefore is within one of the areas guided for severed development. The applicant's plans depict 51 single-family residential homes on the 19.5-acre site, which results on an overall gross density of 2.6 units per acre. Even though the net density will be somewhat larger than this number due to the larger ponds shown on the plans, this density is still well below the levels for MDR—Medium Density Residential as approved for the site in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant would like to move forward with the densities as proposed in the sketch plan, and has therefore requested an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for this parcel in order to change the future land use from MDR (Medium Density) to LDR—Low Density Residential. This land use category would allow densities below 4 units per acre and is consistent with the submitted plans. The submission to the City includes the following components: ® Concept Plan Narrative. The application narrative that was submitted by the applicant provides a general overview of the plan and the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment. ® Illustrative Plan. The illustrative plan is a rendering intended to show the general layout of lots, streets, and ponding areas within the development and includes a general summary of the site data. ® Concept Plan. The concept plan includes a proposed configuration of roads, lots, wetlands, ponding areas, trails and open space areas on the applicant's site and additional details concerning the site data. The lots being proposed are generally consistent with the City's LDR (Low Density Residential) district standards. The applicant has also been coordinating with the northern property owner on an alignment of the 5`i' Street collector road that will bring this road across the boundary between these parcels. The collector road as shown will need to comply with the City's Engineering and Design standards. The Staff review comments that follow are all based on conducting a very high level review of the Sketch Plan since there is not a lot of detailed information that is required at this stage in the development process. Staff has instead focused on the bigger picture items and those things that would otherwise not allow the development to move forward if they contrasted with elements from the Comprehensive Plan or the City Code. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Members from the Planning, Public Works, Engineering, and Fire Departments have reviewed the proposed. Sketch Plan and have provided comments in following areas: ® Land Use. The proposed Sketch Plan does not conform to the City's future land use plan, the applicant has therefore submitted a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in conjunction with the sketch plan. If the City does not approve this amendment, the sketch plan cannot move forward. Density. The proposed Sketch Plan includes calculations for the gross (all of the land) densities over the planning area.. The applicant should provide a net density calculation BUNINESS ITEM 5a 3 in order verify compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The net density for the site will fall below four units per acre, which will require an amendment to the Plan. ® Zoning o The City adopted new urban development districts, including the Urban Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning district. In general, the Sketch Plan has been designed to comply with this district in regards to lot area, setbacks, and other dimensional standards. o The lot sizes have been designed to comply with the 8,000 square foot minimum required within the LDR zoning district. ® Buffer Areas o The project is not located in an area that will be subject to required buffering. o Staff is recommending that the applicant provide additional screening an/or buffering from the property to the south, which is planned for commercial development. • Parks and Trails o Given that the proposed subdivision is proposed for Urban Low Density, the parkland dedication requirement per the City's Subdivision Ordinance will be 10% of land, fee in lieu of land in the amount of equal market value of 10%, or some combination thereof. o The sketch plan does not depict any areas that would be set aside to meet the park dedication requirements. There is a trail connection shown along the eastern border of the subdivision that will provide a trail access from the 5ch Street Collector road into the subdivision. o The City will need to consider the most appropriate location for a park within this portion of the 1-94 corridor planning area. Given the relatively small size of applicant's development area, it may be not be practical to construct a park on this site. o Per the City's Subdivision Ordinance, credit for parkland dedication will be granted for areas with an active recreational purpose. Staff is recommending that the details concerning the land or trails to be dedicated for park purposes be addressed at the time a Preliminary Plat is submitted. The Park Commission will also be reviewing the Sketch Plan for this proposed subdivision in the near future. o All trail corridors should include a minimum of 30 feet of right-of-way for construction and maintenance purposes. o The City may consider the construction of trails towards credit for parkland dedication purposes. ® StreeWAccess o The proposed intersection of the 5`1' Street minor collector road and Lake Elmo Avenue is consistent with the City's initial transportation planning efforts in this area. It does not appear that it will be possible to provide two access points into RUNTINESS ITEM 5a 4 the proposed development from 5 h Street due to the City's access spacing guidelines for collector roads. o The 5th Street collector road must be platted and constructed as part of the applicant's subdivision request. o Staff is encouraging the applicant to provide a secondary emergency access to the site either via a gated or controlled access to Lake Elmo Avenue or over the proposed trail connection along the eastern side of the subdivision. The City will also need access to the storm water ponding areas. o All residential streets shall be constructed to a 28-foot width from back of curb to back of curb per the city standard details. Right-of-ways must be a minimum 60 feet. o Ten (10) foot utility easements are required on both sides of the right-of-way. o Six (6) foot sidewalks must be provided along all continuous residential streets and along other streets as may be required for connectivity. o All street intersections must be at 90 degrees and maintain 100 feet of tangent with maximum slopes of 2% for first 100 feet. o Residential maximum longitudinal grade is 8% with no sidewalks, 6% where there are sidewalks. o Minimum diameter cul-de-sac is 90 feet with 120-foot right-of-way. o The applicant should consider shared mailboxes in order to alleviate any potential snow plowing and storage problems within the cul-de-dacs. ® utilities o Public water service is not yet available to the site. The applicant has submitted a letter requesting that the City extend public water service to the site in 2014. The City Council considered a feasibility study for such a project at its September 171h meeting. Should the City not proceed with extending water to the site, the applicant will need to address this issue before proceeding with a preliminary plat. o Hydrant and valve placement will be made per City standards and as laid out by City staff. o Sanitary sewer service will be made available to the site via the Village trunk line construction project. The City is currently working with the applicant to align the proposed sewer line with the 5`h Street collector road. ® Storm Water Management o The proposed development area resides within the Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD). City staff recommends early planning/coordination meetings with VBWD. o The design of the storm water management systems must be compliant with the requirements of the VBWD, the City of Lake Elmo Storm Water Management Ordinance, and the City of Lake Elmo design standards manual. BUNINESS ITEM 5a 5 o The applicant is advised to fully read and comprehend the City's storm water and erosion control ordinance since these standards are different, and in some cases more stringent, than the watershed district. o It is the applicant's responsibility to creatively plan for adequate storm water ponding and infiltration facilities. o The storm water facilities should be platted as Outlots and deeded to the City for maintenance purposes. The storm water ponds will not be allowed to encroach on to adjacent private lots. o Storm water facilities should have sufficient contributing drainage sheds (following guidelines of the MN Storm Water Manual) to facilitate proper operation. ® Grading o Based upon the existing conditions of the site, the residential subdivision will require substantial grading activity. All grading activities shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. ® Subdivision Review Process. In order to proceed with the subdivision of the land included in the Sketch Plan area the applicant will need to next prepare a Preliminary Plat application. At this stage there is much more information required as part of the submission process, which also requires a public hearing. Ryland Homes has not yet indicated when they intend to submit a Preliminary Plat application. ® Environmental Review. The proposed development under the Sketch Plan does not trigger a mandatory environmental review. CCOMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission accept the Sketch Plan provided by Ryland Homes for a 51-unit residential subdivision that would be located on property owned by Nathan Landucci within the I-94 Corridor planning area. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application Form 2. Legal Description I Application Narrative 4. Location Map 5. Illustrative Plan 6. Concept Plan BUNINESS ITEM 5a 5 ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction..................................................Community Development Director Report by Staff.............................................Community Development Director Questions from the Commission....................... Chair& Commission Members Discussion by the Commission.........................Chair& Commission Members Action by the Commission................................Chair & Commission Members BUNINESS ITEM Sa Fee S City of Lake Elmo DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM pg woe Comprehensive Plan Amendment ElVariance * (See below) ❑Residential Subdivision ❑ZoningDistrict Amendment Preliminary/Final Plat El Subdivision O 01 — 10 Lots ❑Text Amendment ❑Lot Line Adjustment O 11 —20 Lots O 21 Lots or More ❑Flood Plain C.U.P. residential Subdivision ❑Excavating&Grading Permit Conditional Use Permit Sketch/Concept Plan ❑ Appeal ❑PUD ❑ Conditional Use Permit(C.U.P.) ❑Site& Building Plan Review APPLICANT: HCW '7-5"Fq AJVP61e4►? DOVE,, E®LN top—lqeQl K) 9T53q'i (game) (Mailing Address) (zip) TELEPHONES: ��f?�� '7-411C 9L.1.57— a5 1�SGPaI� {R ®� (Mork) (Mobile) (Fax)) FEE OWNER: P°t1q7�`f"dA) L-AAJQACCI 9 e3 2.3n C-7— Al, /44�lqJL aJ41V (Name) / (Mailing Address) (Zip) �� ® TELEPHONES: 60,6 6 (Home) (Work) (Mobile) (Fax) PROPERTY LOCATION (Address and Complete (Long) Legal Description): P`D : 36- 62?. '2f. 3 . 000,E5 DETAILED REASON FOR REOUES'Tg: ��7�� f y�G a 1f745 �t� f V *VARIANCE REQUESTS: As outlined in Section 301.060 C. of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code, the Applicant must demonstrate a hardship before a variance can be granted. The hardship related to this application is as follows: In signing this application, 1 hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined in the application procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the City pertaining to additional application expense. Signature of li ant Date Signature of Applicant Date IJ22/2004 City of Lake Elmo•3800 Laverne Avenue North•Lake Elmo•55042•651-777-5510•Fax 651-777-9615 Parcel Number: 36,029,21.32.0008 PT NWI/4-SWI/4 LYING SLY OF FOLL DESC"LINE V:COM AT WEST QTR COR SD SEC 36 THN SOODEG02'51"W ALG W LN SD NW1/4-SWi/4 DIST 474.06FT TO S LN OF N 474.06FT OF SD NW1/4-SW1/4 AND PT OF BEG THN CONT ALG Legal Description: SD W LN SOODEG02'54"W DIST 161.15FT TO POS SD"LINE X°THN N89DEG48'29"E DIST 406,17FT THN NOODEG02'54"E DIST 161.15FT TO SD S LN OF N 474.06FT THN N89DEG4B'29"E ALG SD S LN DIST 912.76FT TO E LN SD NW1/4-SW1/4 AND SD"LINE X"THERE TERM EXCEPT; PT SD NW1/4- SWIM DESCAS POLL: BEG AT SW COR SD NW1(4-SW1/4 THN E ALG S LN SD NW1/4-SW1/4 DIST 264FT THN N ALG LN PARL/W W LN SD NWI/4-SW1/4 DIST 165FTTHNW ALG LN PARL/W AS S LN DIST 254FT TO SD W LN THN D ALG SD W LN DIST 165FT TO POB SECTION 36 TOWNSHIP 029 RANGE 021 1 i RYLAND HOMES7 TWIN CITIES DIVISION 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie,PAN 56344 952,229,6000 Tel 952.229.6024 Fax www.ryland.com September 5, 2013 Kyle Klatt Planning Director City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Ave.N. Lake Elmo,MN 55042 RE: Landucci Property—Sketch Plan Review and Comp Flan Amendment Request Dear Mr. Klatt: Ryland Homes is pleased to submit to the City of Lake Elmo a sketch plan application for the Landucci property located on the east side of Lake Elmo Ave.N. approximately 1/4 mile north of Intestate Hwy 94. The 23 acre property is currently being used as a driving range with a short par-3 golf course. The proposed new neighborhood would include 51 single-family lots, necessary ponding, and right-of-way for Lake Elmo's new east/west collector(51h Street). The lots on average are 72 ft. wide and 130 ft. to 140 ft. in depth. Access to the new neighborhood would be from the new east/west collector, however during build out and while the collector is being planned and built a temporary access to Lake Elmo Ave is planned in the location of the existing driveway. With this application Ryland is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Urban Medium Density Residential (MDR)to Urban Low Density Residential (LDR)which will allow for the new neighborhood's proposed density. Ryland Homes is also requesting that public improvements be extended to service the site with public water and sanitary sewer with adequate size and depth. Ryland Homes has appreciated City Staff s comments and direction so far with this project and we look forward to continuing to work with City Staff to make this a successfully new neighborhood for the City of Lake Elmo. Please feel free to contact Tracey Rust at 952.229.6063 or Mark Sonstegard at 952.229.6007,both with Ryland Homes, with any questions. Sincerely, THE RYLAND CROUP,INC. Trace ust, PE Mark Sonstegard Entitlement Manager VP of Land Development Location iAN -W. -f WMI 10 The Forest I • �Y „r �t 1 I I ' . ... ...... ................ . ::.:.. .. ....................::::: ... t Landuca P A. r va- : J+ : a t i ^ -`<�" �».� ,'tom; ..� { � � �� '�sr ^}� � ■� r I law V, al s 4. x v c , v „ • I h y 170 . . {! Pond � Y,. p; 37 3� 39 1 �> v „- .,35 x 77777777777 , `t b 40 34 ARM , F u( Y< / 1 50' s $ p u 3_3 4 r' 51 Sic Data. , � � I r r I Pond Area: 9.5 acres(exckid ng Cty E�6 7 POW i 2 acres land Ci Collector KOW) T' or' S d al 32 1 " Pror® d lots: 51 Grass density.. :2.6 unrtsJacre I i, 12 IS 16 �. instng Land Use: Urban Medium Den s MW y Pw Land Use, Urban Low Densrty3 r4b 17 i I :: I It, 14 > x lr, Pro�o5ed Zoning; LRD :n W 30 q ! LW Standards: 18 =� Front Setback: 25' a �r,:, Rea i Setback: 20' ` c Side Setback: 1 C' Lvin S ace 5' Gara >' 3e x` 1 tot Width: GO' { Lot Area: 6,000 SF„ 19 \s i Max=.main lrrr rvoous Cove e: A Z,9 ��- ZI {a t I >= 1 _" . „ Fro stA lots am 72"OA e : m ...' , u.. ... _ _ rf; J j 4 �' A p� f EE _.. .J.,._..4-. �.._.. -.. _ ..__.:._ ,- _._ .:.,.. ., is--:' .-:.: . ......... ... :,. ...... -' . . ..:. ri;;,.• .�;r' .;� � ...-,.;:. ..:: . .....:..<..< _ � '.: ^�:.,,,>'�.•a!''.:xw,��,;rT<xr� �..._".,:»:.- ,.,::.w>,'a,:"`:.X..=.�.�u-`a'��..-.�-s;-::,. .,��''-s, '.'��...,n�.Y.�.ti�.,..tr:-,.,�1-�r ms•'�o.,,s,., _...•„_,.. er~. _ �., ,-_ ,�r., ,�.ems. ... _ _. N K T L/11IND HOMESO This site map is an artists rendition and is intended for illustrative purposes only. ��/` . �� This site map is subject to change without notice. engineering,. ........................................................:...:..:::.::.::.....:.::::.:.:.:::.:::.:.:................................................................... .......................................................:................................................_:.,.:...................._........................,................................................................. .. .......... .. ........... . SITE DATA: GROSS AREA: ±19.5 ACRES (EXCLUDING COUNTY ROAD AND FUTURE CITY COLLECTOR ROW) PROPOSE® ZONING: LDR EXISTING LAND USE: URBAN MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED LAND USE: URBAN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL f I o r_ LDR STANDARDS: FRONT SETBACK: 25' REAR SETBACK: 20' UL �.• / / SIDE SETBACK: 10 LIVING SPACE, 5 GARAGE !yrCORNER E BACK. 15 y LOT WIDTHIDE 0'T LOT AREA: 6,000 SF �,, rbj C� MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 40% EX i r �� so NAll PROPOSED LOTS: 51 ` GROSS DENSITY 2.6 UNIT ACRE r-. 9 r � l � - PROPOSED LOTS ARE 72' VIDE HOUSE PADS SHOWN AT 50' X 65' OR 46 L - 'foil it 4 f2 24 P�n 1 72 21 0 � J`� 0 50 100 200 PISGRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET I�IE nem �„e&,�arsrn ..w rr�1m (651)681-1914 I bttebY ttntfY��pnm wes PmP^�<a d'/ Nazrtc ._ Revi;�oas D< 9-+.I3 RVT A ATTI: 2422 Eneerprise 7?ave me oc unae,my alien n:pervisvov arts rem t �-,®p,Ts"�Y;>z•p,p q.�RT S LA M 1V Fax:681-9e88 it r«L"h CONCEPT 33 1 L^ll 0' 3-'.�NDUCCl PROPERTY MenEwe yeigh�s.MN 55720 wcad�ly z,ic<va<a t.endecope aasvm P � iacM r_r www.pr°rx°nn8•�>n �vdtt u,elnwe arms suw erMmea�:e Aeg_rb. 4J'1h3 ❑ ,nT EllENPRAIRIE.ANAGRAM OTA 55344 LAKE cLMO,MINNESOTA } OF 1 ©2012 Pioeeer FPRiaC� � � • �, TI-I E CAI1' OF= LAKE ELMO MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMIy1I~NICATION DATE: 10/01/2013 REGULAR ITEM#: 15 AGENDA ITEM: Official List of Storm Water Appeals SUBMITTED BY: Cathy Bendel,Finance Director THROUGH: Cathy Bendel,Finance Director R_LN1 IF',NNTM BY: Dean Zuleger,City Administrator Adam Bell,City Clerk SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of.Item...................................................................................... Staff - Report/Presentation......................................................................Staff - Questions from Council to Staff................................................ Mayor Facilitates - Public Input,if Appropriate.......................................................Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion..................................................................Mayor&City Council - Discussion.........................................................................Mayor&City Council BACKGROUND AND STAFF REPORT: In the spring of 2012, City Administrator Zuleger proposed a Surface Water appeal review process in order to consistently determine what if any credits should be issued related to Storm Water. At the time the City Administrator took on this project, there were 21 appeals which had been received but not reviewed. He handled each appeal personally to get a good gage on the review criteria and their applicability to determine what if any further enhancements needed to be made. After his review of the first 10 Storm Water appeals,he estimated that the annual revenue reduction due to these credits would be $15k. At this same time, he drafted Ordinance #2012-057 which was adopted May 15, 2012 to formalize the review process and credit eligibility criteria. All 21 appeal reviews have been completed resulting in total billing adjustments of$38.9k; 80%of which were hardship related. The on-going impact is$11 k which is less than predicted by Administrator Zuleger. Only two new official appeals have been received for the 2012 storm water billing; both being just base fees ($50 each). There have been a few other inquiries but it appears unlikely that any further concessions will need to be made. RECOMMENDATION: Continue to procedurally respond to all Storm Water appeal applications as outlined in Ordinance 2012-057. The recommended motion for this is as follows: "More to continue to respond to all Storm Water appeal applications as outlined in Ordinance 2012-057 99 ATTACHMENI SI: 1. Ordinance 2012-057 2. Storm Water appeal recap 1 CITE' OF LAKE ELMO WASI-HNGTON COIJNTY STATE OF MIlm NESOTA ORDINANCE 12-057 ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 53.04 OF LAKE ELMO CITE' CODE PERTAINING TO SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEE ADJUSTMENT CREDIT (Last Amended Ordinance 08-041,passed 4-5-2011) Section 1: Ammd ent: Section 53.04 of the Lake Elmo City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: . (A) Surface water management fee adjustment credits. (1) The City Council, upon report and recommendation of the City Administrator, Finance Director and. Public Works Director, shall apply a credit to a property owner's surface water management fee provided the property owner has contributed to the management of surface water through intentional acts of retaining or re-using surface water to have a minimal impact on the municipal surface water management system or surface waters of the State of Minnesota. The Council may apply a 25% to 75% credit based on the property owner's employment of surface water retention practices in accordance with Section 150.277 of Lake.Elmo City Code. These practices include the installation of: a. Rain Barrel; b. Rain Garden; c. Retention Pond: d. Swales,Bitches or man-made watercourses; e. Riparian Area Plantings; f. Other practices that may be deemed as intentional. detention of surface water run-off. (2) The City Council, may grant a one-time or ongoing credit based the effectiveness of the surface water retention as it relates to the management of the municipal surface water management system as a whole. For practices, such as rain.gardens constructed in the adjacent right-of-way, the City Council may grant an ongoing credit in exchange for the adjacent property owner's participation in the maintenance of the surface water retention device. This credit will not exceed 50%of the annual surface water management fee. (3) The City Council, upon the report and recommendation of the City Administrator and Finance Director, may apply a financial.hardship credit of no greater than.75%based on a review,of the property owner's ability to pay. (4) All credits are subject to City Code Section 53.07 for hearing or re-computation. Section 2: Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective on the date of its publication, or upon the publication of a summary of the ordinance as provided by Minn. Stat. §412.191, Subdivision 4. ADOPTION DATE:Adopted by Lake Elmo City Council on the fifteenth day of May 201.2. ,OF LAKE ELMO Dean A.Johnston Mayor wf fd 4 D uleger,� City Admini.s: at& Citv of Lake Elmo SW Appeals YTD YTD Adjustment impact thru 2011 thru 2011 2012 2012 2012 Past Proposed Revised Systematic Appeal Revised On-going Reduction% OLDER OS Curr Due Adjust Bill Billing Adjustment_ Bill Adjust Notes Bergmark X 1.99.73 64.18 135.55 (78.23) 121.50 50.00 0.00 50.0(1 0.00 Q 4 parcels;3 to be inactivated §ers 4..en X 2,309.06 549.14 1,759.92 (1,002.98) 1.,300.1.8 749.78 (421.66) 328.12 (421..66) 56% 5 parcels Carlson X 172.65 50.00 122.65 (122.47) 50.18 50.00 (25.00) 25.00 (25.00) 50% 1 parcel Carmelites X 15,723.66 5,072.15 10,651.51 (11,792.75) 4,179.90 5,072.15 (4,052,15) 1,020.00 (3,804.11) 80% 4 parcels;determined.flat rate due to financial hardship Dege X 1,017.73 242.35 775.38 (554.33) 221.05 266.58 (206.00) 60.58 (37.50) 75% 3 parcels Dininikk X 290.41 69.08 221.33 (221.33) 69.08 69.08 0.00 69.08 0.00 0 One time adjustment;previously Cty Rd&Svcs Durand X 219.96 219.96 0.00 (115.10) 10C96 219,96 (164.97) 54.99 (1.64.97) 75% 1 parcel Eastman X 50.00 50.00 0.00 (25.00) 25.00 50.00 (25.00) 25.00 (25,00) 50% 1 parcel Engstrom X 3,997.44 1,039.72 2,957.72 (509.36) 3,488.08 1,039.72 (989.72) 50.00 0.00 95% 12 parcels;4 vacant and 8 buildable;no on-Going concession;modified 2Q13 conservation easements Gorman X 2,293.72 664.27 1,629.45 (1,757432) 536.40 664.27 (498.20) 166.07 (498.20) 75% 1 parcel Jesuits X 24,884.29 5,852,86 19,031A3 (19,465.38) 5,418.91 6,419.14 (5,099.14) l 351i.(l(1 (4,928.61) 79% 6 parcels;determined flat rate due w financial hardship Menendez X 50.00 50.00 0.00 (25.00) 25.00 50.00 (25.00) 25.00 (25,00) 50% 1 parcel Moris,D X 371.61 189.29 182.32 (263.65) 107.96 189.31 (125.16) 64.15 (125,16) 66% 6 parcels Moris,J X 71.50 24.60 46.90 (35.75) 35,75 24.60 (12.30) 12.60 (12.50) 50% 1.parcel Nielsen X 215.00 50.00 165.00 (11.5.00) 100,00 50.00 (25.001 25.00 (25.00) 50°l0 1 parcel Pelltier X 2,264.59 558.35 1,706.24 (1,698.44) 566,15 558.35 (426.09) 132.26 (426.09) 75% 9parcels Senger X 50.00 50.00 0.00 (37.50) 12.50 50.00 (37.50) 12.50 (37.50) 75% 1 parcel Springborn X 975.44 265.69 709.75 (730.09) 245.35 265.69 (199.27) 66.42 (199.27) 75% 5 parcels Strohkirch X 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 (12.50) 37.50 (12.50) 75% 1 parcel Sullwoid X 0.00 356.41 0.00 (178.21) 178.20 356.41 (178.21) 178.20 (178.21) 50% 5parcels Tirmners X 215.00 50.00 165.00 (161.25) 53,75 50.00 (37.50) 12.50 (37.50) 75% 1 parcel Parcel sold to Oman 2012/2013 Johnston X 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.06 0.00 0% 1 parcel;no reduction Kofoed X 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 (25.00) 25.00 (25.00) 50% 1 parcel 55,471.79 (38,889.04) 16,845.80 16,414.04 (12,574.37) 3,839.97 (10,908.78) 77% Avg reduction -70.11% (0.77) 31.258.13 Harship (8,632.72) 79% (0.80) Non hardship (2,276.06) 21% X Letter sent 'total Billed 219,910.77 % Reduction -5% THE C of DATE: 10/01/2013 REGULAR ITEM #: 16 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Name Change to Sunfish Lake Park to Sunfish Lake Nature Preserve SUBMITTED BY: Dean Zuleger,Administrator THROUGH: City of Lake Elmo Park Commission REVIEWED BY: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item..............................................................City Administrator - Report/Presentation................................................City Administrator - Questions from Council to Staff.............................................Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion...............................................................Mayor&City Council - Discussion.......................................................................Mayor& City Council - Action on Motion.................................................................... Mayor Facilitates SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: To formally change the name of Sunfish Lake Park to the Sunfish Lake Nature Preserve per Park Commission request. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: "M`ove to approve Resolution No. 2013-87,Approving the Park Commission"S motion to charge the name of Sunfish Lake Nature Park to,more adequately reflect the conservation easement, current arse, and future needs gf'Lake Elmo residents." BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Sunfish Lake Park is arguably Lake Elmo's flagship open space. Its history is storied and full of dedicated volunteerism including the original donation of the land. The park is 256 acres in size and is designated as protected property under a conservation easement with the MN Land Trust entered into in. June of 2009 (see attached). The use of Sunfish Lake Park is highly regulated under the terms of the easement and allows only limited activities. Specifically, under Section 3.4 of the easement entitled Recreational and Educational Uses the easement reads: 9 "The Protected Property may be used for hiking, cross-country skiing, horseback riding, nature observation or study, and other non-intensive recreational and educational programs or activities that have no more than minimal impact on the Conservation Values of the Protected Property." Staff investigation into the use of the park for activities such as rinks, fields, mountain biking, and other"typical" activities would be prohibited without a change or release from the easement. In the summer of 2013, the City of Lake Elmo Park Commission passed a motion to change the name of Sunfish Lake Park to the Sunfish Lake Nature Preserve to more accurately reflect the character and the use of the 256 acres. On September 26, 2013 the City of Lake Elmo Park Commission reiterated their desire to have the name changed and has forwarded this motion to the City Council for ratification. By definition a nature preserve is a piece of land protected and managed to protect its flora and fauna, sometimes called a nature reserve. A park is defined by an implicit use for recreation and active enjoyment. Based on the conservation easement and certain invested activities such as the prairie restoration it appears that the 256 acres of land is more adequately defined by the name change. As part of the discussion of whether a name change was appropriate, an economic review was completed looking at whether the term park or nature preserve has a significant impact on property values. While not specific to park type, studies do show that open space does raise the value of property adjacent and adds to a quality of life. As for public input, the 2013 Park Survey shows a high level of taxpayer interest in activities most closely associated with protected nature of Sunfish Lake Park — which was the most used park per the survey. After "Proximity to Home," "Hiking Trails" were the most important factor for park use for those answering the survey, with "Wooded Lands" third. "Nature Observation" also scored relatively high in the survey. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is currently working with the Park Commission in an effort to improve park utilization creating a hierarchy as follows: 1. Regional Park/Preserve— Sunfish Lake 2. Community Parks—Tablyn,Pebble,VFW/Lions, Reid,Demontreville 3. Neighborhood Parks With the limitation of use caused by the conservation easement and the taxpayer needs/wants as reflected by the survey, it does not appear to staff that changing the name has any significant consequence. Rather, if the Council wishes to expand the activities of Sunfish Lake Park, either part or parcel, the first step would be to seek removal or withdrawal from the easement with the MN Land Trust. The staff is inclined to support the Park Commission's action. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve,Resolution No. 2013-87, Approving the Park Commission's motion to change the name Sri`'Sunfish Lake Nature Park to more adequately reflect the conservation easement, current use, and future weeds of Lake Elmo residents." 2 CITE'OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNT' STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2013-87 A RESOLUTION CHANGING THE NAME OF SUNFISH LAKE NATURE PARK TO SUNFISH LAKE NATURE PRESERVE WHEREAS,the park is designated as protected property under a conservation easement with the Minnesota Land Trust under a 2009 agreement;and WHEREAS,the use of Sunfish Lake Park is highly regulated under the ternns of the easement and allows only limited activities; and WHEREAS,the park has a storied history full of dedicated volunteerism including the original dedication of the land; and WHEREAS,the Lake Elmo Park Commission has passed a motion to change the name of Sunfish Lake Park to Sunfish Lake Nature Preserve;and WHEREAS,the name Sunfish Lake Nature Preserve would serve as a better reflection of the activities and uses legally allowed for the property. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, By the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo that the name of Sunfish Lake Nature Park shall be changed to Sunfish Lake Nature Preserve. ADOPTED BY THE LADE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ON THE FIRST DAB"OF OCTOIL ER, 2013. CITE'OF LADE ELMO 13v: Mike Pearson Mayor (Seal) Adam Bell City Clerk CONSERVATION EASEMENT This is a CONSERVATION EASEMENT granted by the City of Lake Elmo, a political subdivision under the laws of the State of Minnesota, (the"Owner's to the Minnesota Land Trust, a non-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the"Land Trust".) RECITALS, A. OWNER. The Owner is the current owner of approximately 256 acres of real property located in Washington County, Minnesota. That real property is more fully described below as the"Protected Property." B. PROTECTED PROPERTY. The Protected Property is that real property legally described in Exhibit A and generally depicted on the"Property Map"in Exhibit B. Both exhibits are attached to this conservation easement and incorporated by this reference. The Protected Property,known to area residents as"Sunfish Lake Park,"consists of approximately 173 acres of rolling forest land that includes a number of hardwood tree species such as oak,maple, birch,and cherry. The Protected Property also consists of approximately 2 acres of woodland, 25 acres of grass'land, 20 acres of wetland,and 4 acres of open water ponds. Sunfish Lake,which is classified by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as a natural enviroju-nent lake, covers approximately 17 acres of the eastern ....... .... ....................... portion of the Protected Property. Approximately 15 acres of the site consists of cultivated fields currently planted in corn. Two clustered residential developments with open space protected by conservation easements are'located adjacent to the Protected Property, contributing to a larger expanse of open space. Sunfish Lake Park is part of the Lake.Elmo park system, and it has been used primarily as a passive park for activities such as walking,hiking,cross country skiing, horseback riding, solitude, and nature observation. The Protected Property has an unimproved.divided access road and parking area, barbeque grills, a.portable toilet, and fencing. A power line traverses the western portion of the Protected Property. No other structures or improvements currently exist on the Protected Property. C. MINNESOTA LAND TRUST. The Minnesota Land"Trust is a non-profit corporation organized and operated exclusively for charitable and educational purposes,including the preservation and protection of land in its natural,scenic or other open space condition. The Land Trust is a public charity as defined in Sections 50 1(c)(3)and 509(a)of the Internal Revenue Code and an organization qualified to hold conservation easements under Minnesota law and Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations. D. CONSERVATION VALUES. The Protected Property has the following natural,scenic and open space qualities of significant importance: The Protected Property includes native upland aspen-oak and upland hardwood forests,which provide habitat for a variety of species in greatest conservation need as established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in Tomorrow's I-Tabiralfior the 9,71d and the Rare:An Action Plan for Minnesota's Wildlife, Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, 2006. The Protected Property also is a component of a regionally significant wildlife corridor and project focus area identified by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Metropolitan.Conservation Corridors Partnership,a collaboration of public and private conservation entities funded in part by Minnesota Laws 2007, Chapter 30, Section 2, Subd.4(c), The undeveloped shoreline along Sunfish Lake helps maintain the water quality and near-shore aquatic habitat of the lake. o The Protected.Property provides outstanding opportunities for the public to experience,appreciate and learn about the natural and scenic environment through low-impact outdoor recreation and educational activities. Collectively, these outdoor recreational and educational, natural, scenic and open space qualities of the Protected Property comprise its"Conservation Values." 2 These Conservation Values have not been and are not likely to be adversely affected to any substantial extent by the continued use of the Protected Property as described above or as authorized below or by the use, maintenance,or construction of those structures and improvements that presently exist on the Protected Property or that are authorized below. E. CONSERVATION POLICY. Preservation of the Protected Property will further those governmental policies established by the following: ® Minnesota Statutes Chapter 116P,which establishes the Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund, and Minnesota Laws 2008,Chapter 367, Section 2, Subdivision 3(a),which provides funding from that Fund to accelerate programs for the purposes of planning, restoring, and protecting important natural areas in the metropolitan region and portions of the surrounding counties. a Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103A,which promotes protection of Minnesota's waters and their adjacent lands and Minnesota Statutes Section 103A.206 in particular, which recognizes the economic and environmental importance of maintaining and enhancing the soil and water resources of this state and role of private lands in these conservation efforts. • Minnesota Statutes Section 103A.201,which specifically promotes the protection of wetlands and.Minnesota Statutes Section 103A.202,which specifically declares that it is in the public interest to preserve the wetlands of this state to conserve surface waters, maintain and improve water quality,preserve wildlife habitat, reduce runoff, provide for floodwater retention,reduce stream sedimentation, contribute to improved subsurface moisture,and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape. • Minnesota Statutes Chapter 84C, which recognizes the importance of private conservation efforts by authorizing conservation easements for the protection of natural, scenic, or open space values of real property, assuring its availability for agriculture,forest,recreational, or open space use,protecting natural resources, and, maintaining or enhancing air or water quality. • City of Lake Elmo 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which outlines a city-wide planning policy to"evaluate available options to increase the long-term viability of its park system in an environmentally sensitive manner" (Chapter II, Page 11-5), and more specifically,sets out goals to`'have recreational and natural parks available to all residents"and to "prevent use of parkland for non recreational or nor3-conserving purposes." (Chapter IX,Page 1X-2) F. CONSERVATION INTENT. The Owner and the Land Trust are committed to protecting and preserving the Conservation Values of the Protected property in perpetuity. Accordingly, it is their intent.to create and implement a conservation easement that is binding upon the current Owner and all future owners of the Protected Property and that conveys to 3 ................................ the Land Trust the right to protect and preserve the Conservation Values of the Protected Property for the benefit of this generation and generations to come. CONVEYANCE OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT: Pursuant to the laws of the State of Minnesota, and in particular Minnesota Statutes Chapter 84C, and in consideration of the facts recited above and the mutual covenants contained herein and as an absolute and unconditional gift, the Owner hereby conveys and warrants to the Land Trust and its successors and assigns a perpetual conservation easement over the Protected Property. This conservation easement consists of the following rights,terms, and restrictions (the "Easement"): I. CONSERVATION PURPOSE. The purpose of this Easement is to preserve and protect in perpetuity the Conservation Values of the Protected Property identified above by confining the development,management and use of the Protected Property to activities that are consistent with the preservation of these Conservation Values,by prohibiting activities that significantly impair or interfere with these Conservation Values, and by providing for remedies in the event of any violation of this Easement. The terms of this Easement are specifically intended to provide a significant public benefit by: • Providing an opportunity for the public to learn about, experience, and enjoy the out- of-doors in a significant and relatively undisturbed natural setting. • Protecting natural habitat that contributes to a larger complex of protected forest and wetlands that support a variety of wildlife and plants,both terrestrial and aquatic. • Protecting the water quality and near-shore aquatic habitat of Sunfish Lake by restricting development of the Lakeshore of the Protected Property. 2. LAND USE RESTRICTIONS. Any activity on or use of the Protected'Property that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement is prohibited. This prohibition specifically includes any intrusion or-future development that would interfere with the essential scenic quality of the Protected Property Or the visual enjoyment of the open and natural character of the Protected Property by the general public. Except as specifically permitted in section 3 below and without limiting the general prohibition above,restrictions imposed upon the Protected Property expressly include the following: 4 ................ ..............t...... ............. 2.1. Industrial and Commercial Activity. No industrial or commercial use of the Protected Property is allowed except for that agricultural use, forest or habitat management, or minimal commercial recreational use specifically permitted in section 3 below. 2.2. Agricultural Use. No agriculturaluse of the Protected Property is allowed except as specifically permitted in section 3 below. 2.3. Residential Development. No residential use or development of the Protected Property is allowed. 2A. Rights of Wgy, No new right of way shall be granted across the Protected Property by the Owner in conjunction with any industrial,commercial., or residential use or development of other land not protected by this Easement without the prior approval of the Land Trust under the provisions of section 7.7 of this Easement. This pro-vision does not affect any rights of way existing at the time of conveyance. The Owner may, however, grant an easement to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as needed to permit the location.,operation and maintenance of a monitoring well or wells on the Protected Property. 2.5. Division of the Protected Property. The Protected Property may not be divided, subdivided,or partitioned, The Protected Property may be conveyed only in its entirety as a single parcel under single ownership{joint or undivided)regardless of whether it now consists of separate parcels,was acquired as separate parcels, or is treated as separate parcels for property tax or other purposes. This provision does not, however,prohibit: * The division of the Protected Property when a portion of the Protected Property is being conveyed to a conservation organization defined in section 7,1 below. * The correction or a4justment of boundary lines to resolve an ownership dispute. 2.6. Development Rights. No portion of the Protected Property may be used to satisfy land area requirements for other property not subject to this Easement for purposes of calculating building density, lot coverage, open space, or natural resource use or extraction under otherwise applicable laws, regulations, or ordinances controlling land use. The development rights that have been encumbered or extinguished by this Easement may not be transferred to any other property or used.to obtain.any regulatory mitigation credits. 2.7, Structures and Improvements. No temporary or permanent buildings, structures, utilities,roads or other improvement-,of any kind may be placed or constructed on the Protected Property except as specifically authorized in section,3 or as set forth below: a Utilities. Utility systems and facilities may be installed,maintained, repaired, extended, and replaced to serve only uses and activities specifically permitted by this Easement. Permitted utility systems and facilities include,'Mthout limitation, all systems and facilities necessary to provide on-site power, fuel,water, waste disposal,and communication but do not include communication towers,wind turbines, or similar structures without the prior approval of the Land Trust. Permitted utility systems and facilities shall be installed or constructed with minimal grading and disturbance to vegetation. Following installation.or construction, the surface shall be restored in a timely manner to a condition consistent with the purposes of this Easement. b. Suns. No billboards or other signs may be placed or erected on the Protected Property except.for small signs for informational or interpretive purposes. These permitted small signs include signs necessary for monitoring, safety, and.security purposes in conjunction with those recorded easements and agreements between the Owner and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Additionally,the Owner may also construct and maintain a park entry monument and signs as permitted in section.3.5 below. With the Owner's permission,the Land Trust may place signs on the Protected Property identifying the land as protected. c. Roads and Parking Areas. The existing park access road and parking area may be maintained and improved but may not be widened, enlarged, or relocated without the prior written approval of the Land Trust. No other roads or paved areas may be established.or constructed on the Protected Property without the prior written approval of the Land Trust. d. Trails. Unpaved paths or foot trails, including necessary footbridges and boardwalks, may be established and maintained for non-motorized recreational. uses. Paved trails may be established and maintained only within Area 2 of the Protected Property,which is generally depicted on the Property Map attached as Exhibit B. Paved trails may be allowed in Area I of the Protected Property,as generally depicted on the Property Map, only as necessary to meet requirements of the American with Disabilities Act and only with advance written approval from the Land Trust.. Trails shall be established, maintained and used in a manner that does not result in significant erosion or have an adverse impact on the natural and scenic quality of the Protected Property. e. Fences. Fences may be constructed,maintained, improved,replaced or removed to mark boundaries,to secure the Protected Property,or as needed in carrying out activities permitted by this Easement and by recorded documents between the Owner and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, including those documents specifically referenced in section 7.5. G f. Outdoor Lighting. In order to minimize sky glow or light pollution originating from the Protected Property, no permanent outdoor lighting is permitted within Area I of the Protected Property. Any outdoor light fixtures within Area 2 must minimize light emitted above the plane of the horizon of the fixture through the use of earthward directed or full cut-off fixtures or lamps with single or minimal- color light sources, or other equally effective fixtures designed to minimize light pollution. 2.8. Dump in . No trash,non 0-compostable garbage, debris, unserviceable vehicles or _S equipment,junk, other unsightly material or haz-ardous or toxic substances may be dumped or accumulated on the Protected Property. This does not prohibit burning or composting of excess brush or other plant material resulting from activities permitted by this casement. 2.9. Minin . No mining,drilling, exploring for,or removing any minerals, sand, gravel, rock, or fossil fuels from the Protected Property is allowed. 2.10. Topography and Surface Alteration. No alteration or change in the topography or the surface of the Protected Property is allowed. This includes no ditching, drainang or filling and no excavation or removal of soil or other material, except as incidental to activities or uses specifically permitted by this Easement. Any permitted alteration shall be undertaken with minimal grading and disturbance to vegetation and with the surface restored in a timely manner to a condition consistent with the purposes of this Easement. 2.11. Water. No alteration or manipulation of natural watercourses, lakes,shorelines, wetlands or other surface or subsurface bodies of water or creation of new wetlands or water bodies is allowed except to restore or enhance wildlife habitat or native biological communities or to improve-or enhance the function and quality of existing wetlands or water bodies. Any alteration or creation of wetlands or water bodies must be undertaken in accordance with a habitat management plan approved by the Land Trust under section 3 below. No activities on or uses of the Protected Property that cause significant erosion or are seriously detrimental to water quality or purity are allowed. 2.12. Vegetation Mann gewent. No removal, cutting, pruning, trimming or mowing of any trees or other vegetation, living or dead, and no introduction of non-native species is allowed except as follows: a. I.n conjunction with agricultural use and forest or habitat management as specifically permitted in section 3 below. b. As reasonably required to construct and maintain permitted buildings, structures, roads,trails and other permitted improvements and provided that vegetation shall be restored by the Owner following any construction to a condition consistent with the purpose of this Easement. c. As reasonably required to prevent or control insects, noxious weeds, invasive vegetation, disease, fire, personal injury, or property damage. d. Landscaping in areas immediately adjacent to permitted buildings, within the divided entry road corridor,or as specifically authorized in section I below. 2.13. Vehicles. Motorized vehicles may not be used on the Protected Property except on roads or parking areas permitted wider this Easement or in conjunction with construction and maintenance of permitted buildings, structures, roads,trails,or other improvements, forest or habitat management,agricultural use,or in conjunction with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency permitted activities including those permitted under the recorded documents specifically referenced in section 7.5 below, Use of motorized vehicles shall not result in significant erosion or have an adverse impact on the natural and scenic quality of the Protected Property. 3. RESERVED RIGHTS. The Owner retains all rights associated with ownership and use of the Protected Property that are not expressly restricted or prohibited by this Easement, The Owner may not,however, exercise these rights in a manner that would adversely impact the Conservation Values of the Protected Property. Additionally, the Owner must give notice to the Land Trust before exercising any reserved right that might have an adverse impact on the Conservation Values of the Protected Property. Without limiting the generality of the above,the following rights are expressly reserved and the Owner may use and allow others to use the Protected Property as follows: 3.1. Right to Convo. The Owner may sell,give, lease,bequeath, devise, mortgage or otherwise encumber or convey the Protected Property. This right to convey the Protected Property is subject to the following: a. Any conveyance or encumbrance of the Protected Property is subject to this Easement. b, The Owner will reference or insert the terms of this Easement in any deed or other document by which the Owner conveys title to the Protected Property. The Owner will also specify to what extent reserved rights have been exercised, if at all,and are no longer available for use by the new owner and which reserved rights are specifically allocated to the property being conveyed in accordance with other provisions of this Easement. c. The Owner will notify the Land Trust of any conveyance within fifteen (15) days after closing and will provide the Land Trust with the name and address of the new owner and a copy of the deed transferring title. d. If the Protected Property is owned by a trust, business entity or ally common or jointly held ownership, the Owner shall designate a representative authorized to receive notice on behalf of the owner and provide the Land Trust with the name and address of the designated representative. The Owner shall notify the Land Trust of any change in the designated representative and provide the Land Trust with the new name,address and other contact information. The enforceability or validity of this Easement will not be impaired or limited by any failure of the Owner to comply with this section 3.1. 3.2. Agricultural Use. Agricultural use of the Protected Property is limited to only that area designated as Cultivated Land on the Property Map attached as Exhibit B. if this area is restored to forest or grassland, then no further agricultural use is permitted. 3.3. Forest and Habitat Management. The Protected Property may be used to create, maintain,restore,or enhance habitat for wildlife and native biological communities in accordance with a restoration or habitat management plan approved in writing by the Land Trust, The Owner may remove timber and other wood products and otherwise manage the vegetation on the Protected Property in accordance with this approved plan. 3.4. Recreational and Educational Uses, The Protected Property may be used for hiking, cross-country skiing,horseback riding,nature observation or study, and other non- intensive recreational and educational programs or activities that have no more than minimal impact on the Conservation.Values of the Protected Property. The Protected Property may not be used for more than minimal commercial recreational purposes. 3.5. Recreational and Educational Structures. Minor rustic structures such as tents,trail barriers, boardwalks, overlook decks, footbridges, benches, birdhouses, and informational kiosks may be placed on the Protected Property in conjunction with permitted recreational and educational activities. Additionally,the Owner may choose to use and develop Area 2 of the Protected Property, or a portion of it, as an educational,outdoor recreational,nature observation or interpretive center. Such use must be consistent with and must not interfere with the Conservation Values and purposes of this Easement. The size, location,and characteristics of the buildings and structures,as well as all necessary utilities, driveways,parking areas, and all other improvements associated with the facility or the uses described in this section, including a park entjy monument and signs, must be in accordance with a park concept plan developed by the Owner and approved in writing by the Land Trust. All buildings, structures and improvements must be designed and constructed so as not to detract from the natural and scenic character of the Protected Property. Review and written approval of architectural plans by the Land Trust is required prior to commencing construction. The Owner will request and obtain approvals and give the Land Trust notices as set out in section 7.7 of this Easement before beginning any construction permitted under this section, 9 ............... .................. .......... 4. LAND TRUST'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. In order to accomplish the purposes of this Easement to preserve and protect the Conservation Values of the Protected Property,the Land Trust has the following rights and remedies: 4.1, P.Wffit to Enter. The Land Trust has the right to enter the Protected Property at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner for the following purposes: a. To inspect the Protected Property and to monitor compliance with the terms of this Easement. b. To obtain evidence for use in seeking judicial or other enforcement of this Easement. c. To survey or othemise mark the boundaries of all or part of the Protected Property if necessary to determine whether there has been or may be a violation of this Easement. Any survey completed under this provision will be at the Owner's expense. d. To otherwise exercise its rights under this Easement. 4,2. Right of Enforcement. The Land Trust has the right to prevent or remedy violations of this Easement, including prohibiting the construction of buildings or improvements, through appropriate judicial action brought in any court of competent jurisdiction against the Owner or other responsible party. a. Notice. The Land Trust may not initiate judicial action until the Owner has been given notice of the violation, or threatened violation, of this Easement and a reasonable opportunity to correct the situation. M provision shall not apply if, in the sole discretion of the Land Trust, immediate judicial action is necessary to prevent or mitigate significant damage to the Conservation Values of the Protected Property or if reasonable, good faith efforts to notify the Owner are .unsuccessful, b. Remedies. In enforcing this Easement, the Land Trust has the right to: o Temporary or permanent injunctive relief for any violation or threatened violation of this Easement. Require restoration of the Protected Property to its condition at the time of this conveyance or as otherwise necessitated by a violation of this Easement. Specific performance or declaratory relief. Recover damages resulting from a violation.of this Easement or injury to ally Conservation Values associated with the Protected Property, These remedies are cumulative and are available without requiring the Land Trust to prove actual damage to the Conservation Values of the Protected Property, The Land Trust and the Owner agree that the damages created by a violation of this Easement may be determined by calculating the cost of acquiring a conservation easement over similar property. The Land Trust and the Owner also recognize that restoration,regardless of cost, may be the only adequate remedy for certain violations of this Easement. The Land Trust is entitled to seek expedited relief, ex pane if necessary,and shall nott be required to post any bond applicable to a petition for such relief; c. Costs of Enforcement. The Owner shall be responsible for all reasonable costs incurred by the Land Trust in enforcing this Easement, including without limitation costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and expenses related to restoration of the Protected Property. If,however,the Owner ultimately prevails in a judicial enforcement action,each party shall be responsible for its own costs and attorneys' fees. d. Discretionary Enforcement. ,Enforcement of the terms of this Easement is solely at the discretion of the Land Trust. The Land Trust does not waive or forfeit she right to tape any action necessary to assure compliance with the terns of this Easement by any delay or prior failure of the Land Trust in discovering a violation or initiating enforcement proceedings. The Land Trust shall not be barred by any applicable statute of limitations in bringing any action to enforce the term of this Easement. e. Acts Beyond Owner's Control. The Land Trust may not bring an action against the Owner for any change to the Protected Property resulting from.- ® causes beyond the Owner's control such as changes caused by fire, flood, storm,natural deterioration or the unauthorized.acts of third parties, or ® reasonable actions taken in good faith under emergency conditions to prevent or mitigate damage resulting from such causes. Actions by the Owner's lessees,agents, employees or contractors are not considered unauthorized acts of third parties. This section does not preclude the Owner or the Land Trust from recovering damages or bringing an action against any third party for trespass or other violation of their respective rights in this Easement or in the Protected Property. f Right to Re-oort. In addition to other remedies, the Land.Trust has the right to report any environmental concerns or conditions or any actual or potential violations of any environmental laws to appropriate regulatory agencies. g. Enforcement Rights of Others. Nothing in this Easement is intended to create any right to enforce this Easement in any third party where no such right otherwise exists under this Easement or under law. it ................. 4,3, Limitation on .Rights. Nothing in this Easement gives the Land Trust the right or responsibility to exercise physical control over day-to-day operations on the Protected. Property or to become involved in management decisions involving the use or disposal of hazardous substances or to otherwise become an operator of the Protected Property within the meaning of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act,the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act, or other similar successor federal, state or local statutes or laws regarding responsibility for environmental conditions associated with contamination. 5. PUBLIC ACCESS AND USE. The public shall have the right to use the Protected Property and any trail established on the Protected Property for low-impact recreational and educational purposes, subject to the restrictions set out in this easement and subject to any reasonable use restrictions established by the Owner. 6. DOCUMENTATION. The current uses of the Protected Property,the state of any existing improvements,and the specific Conservation Values of the Protected Property that are briefly described in this Easement will be more fully described in a property report on file at the office of the Land Trust. The Owner and the Land Trust acknowledge that this property report will accurately represent the condition of the Protected Property at the time of this conveyance and may be used by the Land Trust in monitoring future uses of the Protected Property, in documenting compliance with the terms of this Easement and in any enforcement proceeding. This property report, however, is not intended to preclude the use of other information and evidence to document the present condition of the Protected Property in the event of a future controversy. 7. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 7.1. Assignment. This Easement may be assigned or transferred by the Land Trust only to a conservation organization defined as a qualified organization under Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations and as an authorized conservation easement bolder under Minnesota law. Any future holder of this Easement shall have all of the rights conveyed to the Land Trust by this Easement. As a condition of any assignment or transfer,the Land Trust will require any future holder of this Easement to continue to carry out the purpose of this Easement in Perpetuity. The Land Trust will notify the Owner of any assignment within thirty(30) days of the assignment and will 'provide the Owner with the name and address of the new holder. 7.2. Amendment, Under appropriate circumstances, this Easement may be modified or amended. However, no amendment or modification will be allowed if,in the sole and exclusive judgment of the Land Trust any of the following apply: The amendment does not further the purposes of this Easement. 12 • The amendment will adversely impact the Conservation Values of the Protected Property. • The amendment affects the perpetual duration of this Easement. • The amendment affects the validity of this Easement under Minnesota law or the status of the Land Trust under Sections 501(c)(3) and 170(h)of the Internal Revenue Code. Any amendment or modification must be in.writing and recorded in the same manner as this Easement. 7.3. Termination. This Easement may be terminated. or extinguished only as follows: • The Owner and the Land Trust recognize that circumstances may arise that make continued use of the Protected Property in a manner consistent with the purpose of this Easement impossible or impractical. In this event, this Easement may be extinguished through judicial proceedings. • This Easement may be extinguished pursuant to the proper exercise of the power of eminent domain. 7.4. Proceeds. Following any extinguishment or termination of this Easement in whole or in part, the Land Trust shall be entitled to a portion of the proceeds from any sale, exchange or involuntary conversion of the Protected Property. The Land Trust's share of the proceeds shall be. an amount equal to the fair market value of this Easement at the thrie of the extinguishment but not less than an amount equal to the proportionate value that this Easement bears to the value of the Protected Property as a whole at the time of this conveyance(excluding the value of any permitted improvements made after the conveyance of this Easement.) The value of this Easement shall be calculated by the method required by the Internal Revenue Service for calculating an income tax deduction for the charitable donation of a conservation easement. The Land Trust will use its share of any proceeds in a maruier consistent with the purpose of this Easement. 7.5. Warranties. The current Owner-represents and warrants as follows: a. The Owner is the sole owner of the Protected Property in fee simple and has the right and ability to convey this Easement to the Land Trust. b. The Protected Property is free and clear of all rights,restrictions and encumbrances other than those subordinated to this Easement or otherwise specifically agreed to by the Land Trust. 13 c. A portion of the Protected Property is subject to the terms and restrictions of the following documents: • Landfill Cleanup Agreement by and between Washington County, Ramsey County, the City of Lake Elmo and the Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency dated November 21, 1.995,recorded December 14, 1995, as Document Number 866611; • Easement in favor of the State of Minnesota dated November 13, 1995, recorded December 14, 1995, as Document Number 866615;and • Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants dated November 13, 1995, recorded December 14, 1995,as Document Dumber 866619. d. The Owner has no actual knowledge of any use or release of hazardous waste or toxic substances on the Protected Property that is in violation of a federal, state, or local environmental law and will defend, indemnify and hold the Land.Trust harmless against any claims of contamination from such substances. 7.6. Ownership Responsibilities,Costs and Liabilities. The Owner retains all responsibilities and shall bear all costs and liabilities of any kind related to the use, ownership, and maintenance of the Protected Property. a. Taxes. The Owner shall pay all real estate taxes and assessments levied against the Protected Property, including any levied against the interest of the Land Trust created by this Easement. The Land Trust may, at its discretion,pay any outstanding taxes or assessments and shall then be entitled to reimbursement from the Owner. b. Regulatory Compliance. All activities or construction permitted by this Easement shall be undertaken in accordance with applicable federal,state and local laws, regulations and ordinances and nothing in this Easement shall be construed to exempt the Protected Property or. the Owner from otherwise applicable laws or regulations. The Owner is solely responsible for obtaining any required governmental permits. c. Indemnity. The Owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Land Trust harmless from any and all costs or liability for any loss, damage, or personal, injury occurring on or related to the Protected Property or the existence of this Easement, except to the extent attributable to the negligence of the Land Trust. d. Insurance. The Owner will name the Land Trust as an additional insured on any general liability insurance policy carried by the Owner with respect to the Protected Property. e. Future Environmental Condition. The Owner is solely responsible for Owner's use or release on the Protected.Property of any hazardous or toxic substances as 14 defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation and Liability Act, the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act, or other similar successor federal, state or local lave or regulation regarding responsibility for environmental conditions associated with contamination. The Owner shall take all steps necessary to assure any needed containment or rernediation resulting from any release of such substance. 7.7. Notice and Approval. Any notice or request for approval required by this Easement must be in writing and is subject to the following_ a. Delivery. Any required notice or request for approval must be delivered personally or sent by first class mail or other nationally recognized delivery service to the appropriate party at the following addresses(or other address specified in writing): To the Owner: City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue N. Lake Elmo,MN 55042 To the Land Trust: Minnesota Land Trust 2356 University Avenue West St, Paul,MN 55114 b. Tiinin . Unless otherwise specified in this Easement,any required notice or request for approval must be delivered at least 30 days prior to the date proposed for initiating the activity in question. c. Content.. The notice.or request for approval must include sufficient information to allow the Trust to make an informed decision on whether any proposed activity is consistent withh the terms and purposes of this Easement. At a minimum,this should include: ® The location_,nature,and scope of the proposed activity. ® The proposed use, design, and location of any building, structure or improvement. ® The potential impact on the Conservation Values of the Protected Property. d. Approval. The Land Trust may withhold its approval if it determines that the proposal is inconsistent with the terms or purposes of this Easement or lacks sufficient information to allow the Land Trust to reach an informed decision, The Land Trust may condition its approval on the Owner's acceptance of modifications,which would, in the Land Trust's judgment, make the proposed activity consistent with the Easement or otherwise meet any concerns. 15 ............. ........I...... ....................%t:-.1.......1................ ............... Approval of the Land"Trust must be in writing to be effective. 7.8. Binding Effect. This Easement creates a property right immediately vested in the Land Trust and its successors and assigns that cannot be terminated or extinguished except as set out herein. This Easement shall-run with and burden the Protected Property in perpetuity. The terms of this Easement are binding and enforceable against the current Owner of the Protected Property,all successors in title to the Protected Property and A other parties entitled to possess or use the Protected Property. If at any time the Land Trust or other holder of this Easement becomes the owner of all or a portion of the fee interest in the Protected.Property,this Easement shall not be deemed to merge with the underlying fee interest but shall remain in force and effect unless otherwise terminated or extinguished as set out herein. 7.9. Definitions. Unless the context requires otherwise, the term "Owner"includes, jointly and severally, the current owner or owners of the Protected Property identified above and their personal representatives,heirs, successors and assigns in title to the Protected Property. The term "Land Trust"includes the Minnesota Land Trust and its successors or assigns to its interest in this Easement. 7.1.0. Termination of Rights and Obligations. A party's rights and obligations under this Easement terminate upon the transfer or termination of that party's interest in this Easement or the Protected Property,provided,however, that any liability for acts or omissions occurring prior to the transfer or termination will survive that transfer or termination. 7.11. Recording. The Land Trust will record this Easement in a timely manner in the official records for the county in which the Protected Property is located. The Land Trust may re-record this Easement or any other documents necessary to protect its rights under this Easement or to assure the perpetual enforceability of this Easement. 7.12. Interpretation. This Easement shall be interpreted as follows. a. Controlling,Law and Construction, This Easement shall.be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota.and construed to resolve any ambiguities or questions of validity of specific provisions in favor of giving maximum effect to its conservation purposes and to the policies and purposes of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 84C. b. Severability. A determination that any provision or specific application of this Easement is invalid shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions or any future application. 16 .....................:...I..'..'.'.."'-_...............:...;....'.'.'%............ c. Captions. Captions have been inserted in this document solely for convenience of reference and shall have no effect upon interpretation or construction. d. Future Economic Condition. In conveying this Easement, the Owner has considered the possibility that uses of the Protected Property prohibited by this Easement may in the future become more economically valuable than uses permitted by this Easement and that neighboring properties may be put entirely to such prohibited uses. Such changes alone are not deemed to be circumstances justifying the extinguishment of this Easement as otherwise set forth above. 7,13. Additional Documents. The Owner agrees to execute or provide any additional documents reasonably needed by the Land Trust to carry Out in perpetuity the provisions and the intent of this Easement, including,but,not limited to any documents needed to correct any legal description or title matter or to comply with any federal,state, or local law, rule or regulation. 7.14. Entire Agreement. This document sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to this Easement and supersedes all prior discussions or understandings. 1.15, Signatures. This Easement may be completed with the signatures of the parties to this Easement executed and notarized on separate pages which when attached to this document shall constitute one complete document. The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Owner has voluntarily executed this Conservation Easement on the day of 2009. OWNER.: CITY OF LAKE EL By: Mayor By: jCityA istr-ator . ...... State of MI!,NESOTA ss County of. Washw Kno The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this arday of 2009,by Dean Johnston and CraigDawson,the Mayor and the City Administrator, respectively,of the 1 City of Lake Elmo, a municipal corporation in the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 5ARAH STROMMEN Notary otary Public t Minnesota o"M'.""� x 're.j.,u.r 1 i�mission Expires January 31,2010 18 ............. ............ ACCEPTANCE The MINNESOTA LAND TRUST hereby accepts the foregoing Conservation Easement effective as of the 364""day of. �uwu__ _,2009, MINNESOTA LAND TRUST By: State of MP*,TNESOTA )ss County of fila �y c'� - 6 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this& day of 2009,by Jane Prohaska,the President of the Minnesota Land Trust, a non-profit corporation under the laws of the-State of Minnesota,on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public My Commission Expires: ' Notary Public This document drafted by: Minnesota Land'Trust 2356 University Avenue West St,Paul,MN 55114 Exhibit A Legal Description of the Protected Property The Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter(NW 1/4 of NW 1/4)of Section Fourteen (14), Township Twenty-nine(29), Range Twenty-one(21),and the West Thirty-three (33) feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter(SW '/ of NW '/4) of Section Fourteen(14), Township Twenty-nine (29),Range Twenty-one(21), Washington County, Minnesota, AND That part of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 15,Township 29,Range 21, Washington County,Minnesota,described as Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Northeast quarter of Northwest quarter; thence South. 0° 5 1' 45"East,assumed bearing,along the East line thereof, 501.27 feet to the South line of the North 30 acres of said Northwest quarter and to the actual point of beginning of the land to be hereinafter described;thence South.99' 01' 54" West along said South line of North 30 acres 800 feet; thence South 0° 51' 45"East 734.30 feet; thence North 890 01' 54"East 800 feet to the East line of said Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter;thence North 0° 51' 45" West along said East line 734.30 feet to the actual point of beginning. AND The Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter,the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter, the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter, the North three-quarters of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter and that part of the East 87 feet lying South of the North three-quarters of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter all in Section 15, Township 29, Range 21. AND The east 87 feet of that part of the Southeast quarter of Section 15,Township 29, Range 21,lying Northerly of the Northerly right of way line of State Highway#212, subject to the right of way Stillwater Lane(formerly State Highway#212). AND The. Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter(SW 114 of NE 14. of NW 1/4)of Section:Fourteen(14), Township Twenty-nine (29)North, Range Twenty-one(21) West,Washington.County,Minnesota. AND The North Three(3) rods of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW 14/of SE 1/4 of NW 1/4.)of Section Fourteen (14),Township Twenty-nine(29), Range Twenty-one (21),Washington County, Minnesota. 20 .............. ............. .... .. ..... AND The South Forty(40) acres of Government Lot Five (5), Section 'Fen(10) and the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter(SE ',4 of SW '/4)of Section Ten (10). AND the North Thirty (30) acres of the North one-half of the Northwest Quarter (N 1/2 of NW V4)of Section Fifteen (15),all in Township Twenty-nine(29)North of Range Twenty-one(21) West, containing 11.0 acres more or less. EXCEPT: All that part of the South 40 acres of Government Lot 5, Section 10, and the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, and the North 30 acres of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, all in Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota,described as follows: Beginning at the northwest comer of said Section IS,thence South 00 degrees, 19 minutes, 30 seconds West, bearings are based on the Washington County Coordinate System NAD83, along the west line of said Section 15, a distance of 501.27 feet to the south line of said North 30 acres of the North One--Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15,thence North 89 degrees,51 minutes, 00 seconds Last, along said south.fire, a distance of 1808.59 feet,thence North 00 degrees, 02 minutes, 32 seconds West and parallel with the cast line of said Northwest Quarter of Section 15, a distance of 501.26 feet to the north line of said Section 1.5,thence South 89 degrees, 51 minutes, 00 seconds West,along said north line a.distance of 105,52 feet, thence North 00 degrees, 53 minutes, 21 seconds West and parallel with the west line of said Section 10, a distance of 650.00 feet, thence South 89 degrees, 51 minutes, 00 seconds West and parallel with the south line of said Section 10, a distance of 200.00 feet,thence North 00 degrees, 53 minutes,21 seconds West and parallel with the west line of said Section. 10, a distance of 656.24 feet,to a point on the north line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, thence South 89 degrees, 45 minutes, 24 seconds West, along said north line,a distance of 193.17 feet to the northwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence North 00 degrees., 4.2 minutes, 39 seconds West,along the cast line of said Government Lot 5, a distance of 29.52 feet to the northeast corner of said South 40 acres of Government Lot 5, thence South 99 degrees, 51 minutes,00 seconds West, along the north line of said South 40 of Government Lot 5,a distance of 706.92 feet, thence South 00 degrees, 53 minutes,21 seconds East and parallel with the west line of said Section 10,a distance of 200.00 feet,thence South 50 degrees, 54 minutes,08 seconds West, a distance of 127,25 feet,thence South 89 degrees, 51 minutes,00 seconds West and parallel with the north line of said South 40 acres of Government Lot 5, a distance of 500.00 feet to the west line of said Section 10, thence South 00 degrees, 53 minutes,21 seconds East along the west line of said Section 10,a distance of'I 055.45 feet to the point of beginning,containing 65,9 acres, more or less, ANTI) ALSO EXCEPT: All that part of the South 40 acres of Government Lot 5, Section 10,Township 29 North,Range 21 West, Washington County,Minnesota, described as follows: 21 Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 10,thence North 00 degrees, 53 minutes,21 seconds West along the west line of said Section 10, a distance of 1055.45 feet to the point of beginning, thence continuing North 00 degrees, 53 minutes,21 seconds West along the west line of said Section 10,a distance of 280.00 feet to the northwest.corner of said South 40 acres of Government Lot 5,thence North 89 degrees, 51 minutes, 00 seconds East along the north line of said South 40 acres of Government Lot 5, a distance of 600.00 feet, thence South 00 degrees, 53 minutes, 21 seconds East and parallel with the west line of said Section 10, a distance of 200.00 feet, thence South 50 degrees, 54 minutes,08 seconds West, a distance of 1.27,25 feet, thence South 89 degrees, 51 minutes, 00 seconds West and parallel with the north line of said South 40 acres of Government Lot 5,a distance of 500.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.8 acres,more or less. 22 4 IN Ai A. zQ sI �„ -7-777 Oj W -•�. _. ,,, ,E � � nt, �,c, � o - ( � Ems. LU •'1- f CA. . , 3a yr ' .. cr o ` F C7 1 Q '• w � � � 'e � •2 f� i5 e: � z. bdm' I ai T,. u: 4