HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-6-2015 City Council Meeting Packet
NOTICE OF MEETING
City Council Meeting
Tuesday, October 6, 2015 7:00 P.M.
City of Lake Elmo | 3800 Laverne Avenue North
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Pledge of Allegiance
C. Approval of Agenda
D. Accept Minutes
1. Approve September 15, 2015 Minutes
E. Council Reports
F. Presentations/Public Comments/Inquiries
G. Finance Consent Agenda
2. Approve Payment of Disbursements
3. 2015 Stormwater Assessments
4. 39th St. N. Street & Sanitary Sewer Improvements – Pay Request No. 7
H. Other Consent Agenda
5. Administrative Assistant Position Request
6. Approve Animal Humane Society 2016 Letter of Understanding for Impound Services
7. Approve Building Inspector Hiring Recommendation
8. Approve Purchase of Building Inspector Truck
9. Approve Hiring of City Planner
I. Regular Agenda
10. Kleis Minor Subdivision
11. Preliminary and Final Plat – Halcyon Cemetery Resolution No. 2015-59
12. Plat Approval Process/Conditions of Approval (Fliflet request)
13. 2014 Street Improvements – Assessment Hearing on Improvements & Adopt Final Assessment Roll –
Resolution 2015-78
14. 2016 Street Improvements – Approve Feasibility Report and Order Public Hearing – Resolution 2015-79
15. Inwood Booster Station Improvements – Approve Building Architecture/Site Plan (30% Design/EOC)
16. Water Tower No. 4 – Approve Engineering Services Task Order for Design and Construction
17. 10:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Time Limit
18. Councilmember/Staff Communications (no attachment)
J. Staff Reports and Announcements
K. Adjourn
Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible
Manner While Preserving the City’s Open Space Character
CITY OF LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
A. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Pearson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
PRESENT: Mayor Mike Pearson and Council Members Julie Fliflet, Anne Smith, Justin Bloyer, and Jill Lundgren.
Staff present: Interim Administrator Schroeder, City Attorney Brekken, City Engineer Griffin,
Finance Director Bendel, Community Development Director Klatt, Library Director Deprey, Fire
Chief Malmquist, Planner Gozola and City Clerk Johnson.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilmember Fliflet moved Item 14 to the Regular Agenda and tabled item 27. Mayor
Pearson moved item 13 to the Regular Agenda. Councilmember Bloyer moved item 28 up to before item 23. Mayor Pearson moved item 15 to the Regular Agenda.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Mayor Pearson, moved TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
D. ACCEPT MINUTES
Minutes of the September 1, 2015 Regular Meeting were accepted as amended.
E. COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Pearson: Announced Christ Lutheran Church Rally Day on September 20th, 9:00 a.m.
would appreciate local support due to construction.
Councilmember Fliflet: Attended Finance Committee meeting, Library Board meeting, Farmers
Market and announced strong interest from residents in serving on an Environmental Committee. Thanked staff for all their assistance.
Councilmember Smith: Spoke with a resident on property site issues, met with Lennar
representatives at the Savona development.
Councilmember Bloyer: Spoke with residents regarding 30th Street, the dog park proposal,
downtown project and cemetery proposal. Reported on additional cost incurred by the City on legal publications. Noted a resignation from the Finance Committee and stated he does not feel he is an asset to the Finance Committee and submitted his resignation as a committee member.
Councilmember Lundgren: Noted that September 26th is the last Farmers Market for 2015.
F. PUBLIC COMMENTS/INQUIRIES
None
G. PRESENTATIONS
Susan Schmidt, Trust for Public Land, reported that conserving Tartan Park as a public park does
not have strong support at this time and the Trust for Public Land will not be pursuing this
project any further at this time.
H. FINANCE CONSENT AGENDA
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
Page 2 of 8
2. Approve Payment of Disbursements 3. Accept Assessor Report
4. Approve Financial Report Dated August 31, 2015
5. Approve Purchase of Replacement Skid Unit for Fire Department Brush Truck
6. Approve Eagle Point Blvd. Street Improvements – Pay Request No. 1
7. Approve Production Well No. 4 – Pay Request No. 10 (FINAL)
8. Approve Production Well No. 4 – Compensating Change Order No. 2
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO APPROVE THE FINANCE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. I. OTHER CONSENT AGENDA
9. Accept Building Report
10. Approve Election Judge Appointments for November 4, 2015 Special Election – Resolution 2015-74 11. Phase 2 Downtown Street, Drainage and Utility Improvements: Request County to
Proceed with 30th Street Right-of-Way Acquisition
12. Approve Lake Elmo Jaycees Temporary Liquor License for 2015 Volksmarch October
10, 2015 16. Approve Fire Station Parking Lot Paving 17. Approve Sanctuary Park Trail Paving
Councilmember Smith, seconded by Mayor Pearson, moved TO APPROVE THE CONSENT
AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. J. REGULAR AGENDA
ITEM 13: ADOPT TARTAN PARK RESOLUTION – Resolution 2015-75
Interim Administration Schroeder reviewed proposed Resolution 2015-75 summarizing the City’s position on the future disposition of Tartan Park.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION 2015-75 RELATING TO TARTAN PARK. MOTION PASSED 4 – 1.
(Bloyer – Nay)
ITEM 14: STATUS OF ARTS CENTER
Interim Administrator Schroeder reviewed his memo to the Council reporting on the present use
and condition of the Arts Center, noting that the property is in disrepair and may not meet
standards for a public facility. Schroeder reviewed photos of the property and current utility and insurance cost information.
Mike Kramer, 142500 45th Street, Stillwater, offered a history of the Arts Center as a member of
the New Century Artists painting group that has been meeting every Monday night since 2008 at
the Arts Center. Noted that the building was a true arts center and utilized more heavily for that purpose prior to the Library moving in. The group has provided over 50 paintings currently
hanging at the Lake Elmo Library.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
Page 3 of 8
Susan Kane, 4372 Little Bluestem, Lake Elmo, spoke on behalf of the Valley Friendship Club
that has been meeting at the Arts Center and storing supplies there since 2010. The group
provides activities for kids and young adults with disabilities.
Councilmembers discussed the condition of the property with no support for demolish the building at the present time. Consensus was to obtain costs for repairing the building and assessing the current uses. Interim Administrator Schroeder noted that if the building is retained
for public use it should be updated to ensure safety.
Bill Walker, 3603 Laverne Avenue N., stated he lives across from the Arts Center and expressed concern over the exterior condition of the house and property. He encouraged the Council to tour the property and consider demolishing it.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO NOT DEMOLISH
THE ARTS CENTER AND TO ALLOW ART GROUPS TO CONTINUE TO USE THE BUILDING AS THEY HAVE BEEN. MOTION PASSED 3 – 2. (Pearson, Bloyer – nay)
Mayor Pearson stated that the City has a liability with public use of the building, a neighbor
objection and the City is setting a bad example by allowing the property to fall into disrepair.
Pearson suggested that the building should be winterized and investigated. Councilmember Bloyer stated that the City has an obligation to make sure the building is safe before people use it any longer.
Finance Director Bendel noted that the Arts Center is currently insured as a vacant building and
coverage will need to be added if it will continue to host the public. Councilmember Bloyer, seconded by Councilmember Fliflet, moved TO INSTRUCT THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO IMMEDIATELY PLACE INSURANCE COVERAGE ON THE
BUILDING AND INSTRUCT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO INSPECT THE
BUILDING. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
ITEM 15. DOWNTOWN PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 STREETSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS – APPROVE ALLEY CONCEPT PLAN CHANGES
City Engineer Griffin reviewed the features of the proposed plan changes and noted that curbs
will be installed on Laverne Avenue in the next week so decisions need to be made on where curb cuts will go. Library Director Deprey thanked the engineering department for their work on the alley design. Deprey reported that the Library Board heard concerns from residents and
neighboring businesses at a board meeting and felt this was the best compromise after weighing
all the input.
Councilmember Bloyer, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO APPROVE THE REVISED ALLEY PLAN FOR THE PHASE 1 DOWNTOWN STREET, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Bloyer, moved TO ASK THE LIBRARY BOARD TO COVER ADDITIONAL COST OF THE REVISED ALLEY PLAN FROM LIBRARY FUNDS. MOTION FAILED 1 – 4. (Bloyer, Fliflet, Lundgren, Smith – Nay)
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
Page 4 of 8
ITEM 18: GATEWAY CORRIDOR MARKET AND FISCAL IMPACT STUDY Interim Administrator Schroeder introduced the East Metro Strong and Bus Rapid Transit
concept. Community Development Director Klatt noted that the Planning Commission also
received information from East Metro Strong at the last meeting. Will Schroeer, Executive Director of East Metro Strong, explained that the market study would not bind the City to anything and explained how the information may be useful to the City.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Mayor Pearson, moved to remove the motion from the
table TO CONTRIBUTE $20,000 TO THE LAKE ELMO MARKET AND FISCAL IMPACT STUDY. MOTION PASSED 3 – 2. (Bloyer, Smith – Nay) ITEM 19. MANNING AVENUE REDESIGN/REALIGNMENT
Interim Administrator Schroeder reviewed a map of the area, noting staff recommendation to
approve Concept C. Frank Ticknor, Washington County Public Works, discussed the phases and timeline for the project.
Councilmember Bloyer, seconded by Mayor Pearson, moved TO ACCEPT THE STAFF AND
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE CONCEPT C.
MOTION FAILED 2 – 3. (Fliflet, Lundgren, Smith – Nay) Discussion held concerning stoplight locations, traffic patterns and safety issues.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO ACCEPT
CONCEPT C2, TO NOT BUILD THE ROAD FROM OLD HIGHWAY 5 TO CSAH 14 AT THIS TIME, ANDTO EXPLORE OPTIONS ON TEMPORARY EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS BETWEEN THE CUL DE SAC AND CSAH 14. MOTION PASSED 3 – 2. (Pearson, Bloyer – Nay)
ITEM 20: PEBBLE PARK PICNIC SHELTER Public Works Superintendent Bouthilet presented itemization of costs for add on features of the Pebble Park picnic shelter recommended by the Parks Commission.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO APPROVE THE
PEBBLE PARK PICNIC SHELTER WITHOUT THE LOGO AND ORNAMENTATION ON THE GABLE END. Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ALLOW THE LASER CUT CITY LOGO TO REMAIN. AMENDMENT PASSED 5 – 0. PRIMARY MOTION PASSED 4 – 1. (Bloyer – Nay)
ITEM 21: DOWNTOWN PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 STREETSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE
PLANS – APPROVE SCOPE OF IMPROVEMENTS Frank Ticknor, Washington County Public Works, provided a review of the process of the
project and asked for the Council’s guidance on burying the overhead utilities. Discussion was
held concerning the cost of burying the utilities and potential funding sources.
Barry Weeks, 3647 Lake Elmo Avenue, stated concern that the cost of burying the overhead utilities could increase and stated that this money could be spent on a lot of other things.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
Page 5 of 8
Dick Wier, 3645 Laverne Avenue, stated that there will be power lines everywhere else so there
is not value in burying lines on one street and also expressed concern over hidden costs.
Stuart Johnson, 3603 Lake Elmo Avenue, expressed concern about the cost of the project and feels the costs will increase.
Wally Nelson, 4582 Lilac, stated a franchise fee is a tax and asked why the city would pay for
the cost for upgrades inside buildings when that was not done for sewer hookups.
Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO NOT BURY THE UTILITIES OWNED BY XCEL ENERGY AND COMCAST ALONG LAKE ELMO AVENUE FROM THE RAILROAD TO OLD HIGHWAY 5. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
Discussion held concerning the lighting portion of the project. David Faint, 3617 Laverne Avenue, stated there are too many lights in the proposed plan.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO APPROVE THE
EVANS STYLE LIGHT FOR THE DOWNTOWN PROJECT AND FOLLOW THE REVISED LAYOUT PROVIDED BY WASHINGTON COUNTY. After discussion and receiving further information from SEH, MOTION FAILED 0 – 5.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Mayor Pearson, moved TO MIX THE EVANS LIGHT
WITH ACORN LIGHTS WITH CAPS IN THE DOWNTOWN AND DIRECT THE LIGHTING DESIGNER TO REVISIT THE PLAN WITH DIRECTION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS AS FEW LIGHTS AS POSSIBLE AND WORK WITH STAFF TO FIND FIXTURES THAT COMPLY WITH CITY CODE AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE. MOTION
PASSED 3 – 2. (Bloyer, Smith – Nay)
Discussion held concerning the landscaping portion of the project. Revised plans were presented based on past input from the City Council. Cost and need for irrigation was discussed with
alternatives offered such as asking for businesses and other to adopt planting areas for purposes
of providing maintenance.
Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Bloyer, moved TO APPROVE THE PRIOR WORKSHOP PLAN AS IT RELATES TO THE PLANTING BEDS. MOTION PASSED 3 – 2. (Fliflet, Lundgren – Nay)
Councilmember Bloyer, seconded by Mayor Pearson, moved TO APPROVE THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLAN FOR TREES IN THE DOWNTOWN PROJECT. MOTION PASSED 4 – 1. (Fliflet – Nay)
ITEM 22: INTERNAL FINANCIAL CONTROLS
Councilmember Fliflet introduced the request for Council support of the City’s internal control policy passed earlier this year, noting concurrence from the City’s auditor and bond counsel.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
Page 6 of 8
Councilmember Bloyer expressed concern over transparency and stated that past City Council
members have had access to full working documents. Mayor Pearson stated that the City should
have written policies concerning this subject.
Dale Doerschner, 3150 Lake Elmo Avenue, stated he has been hearing the Council ask for proformas that haven’t been provided, and expressed concern over the Finance Committee
agendas.
Stuart Johnson, 3603 Lake Elmo Avenue, stated that models are essential and it seems unusual to not provide working documents to the Council.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO SUPPORT THE
STAFF AND UPHOLD THE CITY’S INTERNAL CONTROL POLICY SURROUNDING
THE RELEASE OF PROPRIETARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION. MOTION PASSED 3
– 2. (Pearson, Bloyer – Nay) Councilmember Bloyer moved TO MOVE AGENDA ITEM 28 TO BEFORE ITEM 23.
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO CONSIDER THE SAVONA AGENDA ITEMS NEXT. MOTION PASSED 3 – 2. (Pearson, Bloyer – Nay)
ITEM 24: SAVONA 3RD ADDITION FINAL PLAT – RESOLUTION 2015-70
Community Development Director Klatt reviewed prior City Council action on the plat and clarified areas of past concern.
Councilmember Bloyer, seconded by Mayor Pearson, moved TO ADOPT RESOLTUION
2015-70 APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR SAVONA 3RD ADDITION WITH
CONDITIONS 11 AND 12 STRICKEN. Councilmember Smith moved TO LEAVE CONDITON 12 IN THE APPROVAL AND DIRECT THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO LOOK AT THE PLANS. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF SECOND. PRIMARY MOTION FAILED 2 – 3. (Fliflet, Lundgren, Smith – Nay)
Councilmember Smith stated that she met with representatives at the Savona development and thanked them for their attempts to make the exterior of the townhomes look better. Discussion held regarding multifamily classification and design standards. Councilmember Fliflet suggested
rewording the City’s code to better define multifamily and single family. Challenges related to
landscaping around the stormwater pond retaining wall were discussed. Councilmember Fliflet
stated the City should review the park to be installed by the developer. Councilmember Bloyer stated that he would not support that condition, as the park is on private property. Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION 2015-70, STRIKING CONDITION 11. MOTION FAILED 2 – 3. (Pearson,
Bloyer, Fliflet – Nay)
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2015-70 APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR SAVONA AS PRESENTED
AND RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. MOTION PASSED 3 – 2. (Pearson, Bloyer – Nay)
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
Page 7 of 8
ITEM 25 – SAVONA 3RD ADDITION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT – RESOLUTION
2015-71
Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2015-71 APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SAVONA 3RD ADDITION. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
ITEM 23: APPROVE 2016 PRELIMINARY GENERAL FUND AND LIBRARY FUND
ANNUAL BUDGET AND TAX LEVY – RESOLUTION 2015–76 Finance Director Bendel reviewed the timeline for the 2016 budget process, noting that the preliminary budget and levy up for approval can be reduced, but not increased once approved.
Budget assumptions, key considerations, staffing costs, library levy and CIP were presented.
Bendel noted that the levy as presented, if not reduced later, would impact the average
homeowner by $60 per year in additional property taxes. Councilmember Lundgren, seconded by Councilmember Fliflet, moved TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2015-76 ADOPTING THE PRELIMINARY 2016 GENERAL FUND AND
LIBRARY FUND ANNUAL BUDGETS AND LEVIES. MOTION PASSED 4 -1. (Bloyer –
Nay)
ITEM 28: LAKE ELMO MUNICIPAL WATER AND SEWER ENTERPRISE FUNDS STATUS (WACs AND SACs)
Finance Director Bendel provided a brief explanation on the proforma for water and sewer funds.
Detailed discussion was held on the proforma, water rates and fund balances. Councilmember Bloyer expressed concern that the numbers don’t add up.
Councilmember Bloyer, seconded by Mayor Pearson, moved TO SEND THE PROFORMA
OUT TO A THIRD PARTY VENDOR TO CHECK THE ASSUMPTIONS FOR ACCURACY.
MOTION FAILED 2 – 3. (Fliflet, Lundgren, Smith – Nay)
ITEM 26: PLAT APPROVAL PROCESS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO POSTPONE
ITEM 26 TO THE NEXT MEETING DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR.
MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. STAFF REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Interim City Administrator Schroeder: Attended Washington County water meeting and
Planning Commission, Manning Ave. redesign, Parks Commission. Interviews for the City Planner position will be held in the coming days. Congratulated the city on receiving the Pollinator Friendly award, has been working on the Tartan Park transition.
City Clerk Johnson: No report.
Finance Director Bendel: No report.
City Attorney Snyder: No update due to the hour but will have input for items on the next
agenda.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
Page 8 of 8
Community Development Director Klatt: Reported on the September 14, 2015 Planning
Commission meeting.
City Engineer Griffin: Noted dates and times for upcoming neighborhood meetings
concerning CSAH 13/Inwood project.
Meeting adjourned at 12:50 am.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
ATTEST:
______________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor _______________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: October 6, 2015
CONSENT
ITEM #2 MOTION
AGENDA ITEM: Approve Disbursements in the amount of $332,052.87
SUBMITTED BY: Patty Baker, Accountant
THROUGH: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
REVIEWED BY: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
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
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Finance
FISCAL IMPACT: $332,052.87 SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council
is asked to approve disbursements in the amount of $332,052.87. No specific motion is needed
as this is recommended to be part of the Consent Agenda.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: NA
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 2]
October 6, 2015
-- page 2 --
BACKGROUND INFORMATION/STAFF REPORT: The City of Lake Elmo has the
fiduciary responsibility to conduct normal business operations. Below is a summary of current
claims to be disbursed and paid in accordance with State law and City policies and procedures.
Claim # Amount Description
ACH $ 10,815.12 Payroll Taxes to IRS & MN Dept of Revenue 10/1/15
ACH $ 5,323.78 Payroll Retirement to PERA 10/1/15
DD6662-DD6681 $ 27,388.71 Payroll Dated (Direct Deposits) 10/1/15
43374-43385 $ 22,196.17 Accounts Payable 9/30/15
43386-43439 $ 266,269.09 Accounts Payable 10/6/15
2746 $ 60.00 Library Card Reimbursement 10/6/15
TOTAL $ 332,052.87
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends the City Council
approve as part of the Consent Agenda the aforementioned disbursements in the amount of
$332,052.87.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Accounts Payable – check registers
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: October 6, 2015
CONSENT
ITEM #3 MOTION Resolution 2015-77
AGENDA ITEM: Authorize Certification to Washington County Auditor for the Unpaid
Surface Water Utility Bills
SUBMITTED BY: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
THROUGH: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
REVIEWED BY: Patty Baker, Accountant
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
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Finance
FISCAL IMPACT: Up to $30,857.15 in cash flow to the storm water fund in 2016
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 Bills to the 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 have until October 9th to pay these amounts to be removed from the final
assessment list.
STAFF REPORT: The City operates the water, sewer and surface water under its Enterprise funds. Enterprise funds account for specific City operations that are financed and operated
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 3]
October 6, 2015
-- page 2 --
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 fees. All parcels in the
City are charged for this fee.
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, 2015.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the certification of
the delinquent surface water accounts to the Washington County Auditor.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 2015-77 2. Exhibit A
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: October 6, 2015
CONSENT
ITEM # 4
AGENDA ITEM: 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements – Pay Request
No. 7
SUBMITTED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS if removed from the Consent Agenda):
- 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
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. Partial payment is proposed in accordance with the approved Contract and change orders
for the project.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving Pay Request No. 7 for the 39th
Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements project. If removed from the consent
agenda, the recommended motion for the action is as follows:
“Move to approve Pay Request No. 7 to Geislinger & Sons Inc. in the amount of $55,487.06
for the 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements”.
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 4]
October 6, 2015
-- page 2 --
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Geislinger & Sons Inc., the Contractor for the project, has submitted Partial Pay Estimate No. 7
in the amount of $55,487.06. The request has been reviewed and payment is recommended in the amount requested. In accordance with the contract documents, the City has retained 5% of the
total work completed. The amount retained is $98,604.51.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council consider approving, as part of the Consent Agenda, Pay Request No. 7 for the 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements project. If
removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for the action is as follows:
“Move to approve Pay Request No. 7 to Geislinger & Sons Inc. in the amount of $55,487.06, for the 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements”. ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Partial Pay Estimate No. 7.
PARTIAL PAY ESTIMATE NO. 7
39TH ST N: STREET AND SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
PROJECT NO. 2014.131
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT
1 LF 62 $125.00 $7,750.00 0 $0.00 153.00 $19,125.00
2 LF 1,025 $87.00 $89,175.00 0 $0.00 1,054.00 $91,698.00
3 LF 315 $89.00 $28,035.00 0 $0.00 284 $25,276.00
4 LF 500 $92.00 $46,000.00 0 $0.00 495 $45,540.00
5 LF 630 $94.00 $59,220.00 0 $0.00 632 $59,408.00
6 LF 100 $40.00 $4,000.00 0 $0.00 100 $4,000.00
7 LF 120 $45.00 $5,400.00 0 $0.00 120 $5,400.00
8 LF 100 $525.00 $52,500.00 0 $0.00 100 $52,500.00
9 LF 120 $535.00 $64,200.00 0 $0.00 120 $64,200.00
10 LF 1,400 $0.10 $140.00 0 $0.00 118 $11.80
11 LF 2,850 $2.00 $5,700.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
12 EA 12 $3,000.00 $36,000.00 0 $0.00 12 $36,000.00
13 LF 140 $125.00 $17,500.00 0 $0.00 117.7 $14,712.50
14 EA 6 $400.00 $2,400.00 0 $0.00 6 $2,400.00
15 EA 4 $460.00 $1,840.00 0 $0.00 6 $2,760.00
16 LF 85 $35.00 $2,975.00 0 $0.00 118 $4,130.00
17 LF 400 $32.00 $12,800.00 0 $0.00 389 $12,448.00
18 LS 1 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 0 $0.00 1 $4,500.00
19 LS 1 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 0 $0.00 1 $4,500.00
20 EA 7 $450.00 $3,150.00 0 $0.00 7 $3,150.00
21 HR 5 $500.00 $2,500.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
$450,285.00 $0.00 $451,759.30
1 LS 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 0 $0.00 1 $1,500.00
2 EA 3 $900.00 $2,700.00 0 $0.00 1 $900.00
3 EA 1 $950.00 $950.00 0 $0.00 1 $950.00
4 EA 1 $2,600.00 $2,600.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
5 EA 3 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
6 EA 4 $3,400.00 $13,600.00 0 $0.00 4 $13,600.00
7 EA 11 $3,900.00 $42,900.00 0 $0.00 10 $39,000.00
8 EA 5 $760.00 $3,800.00 0 $0.00 3 $2,280.00
9 LF 70 $46.00 $3,220.00 0 $0.00 30.5 $1,403.00
10 LF 30 $53.00 $1,590.00 0 $0.00 88 $4,664.00
11 EA 4 $1,450.00 $5,800.00 0 $0.00 1 $1,450.00
12 EA 5 $4,000.00 $20,000.00 0 $0.00 3 $12,000.00
13 LF 2 $260.00 $520.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
14 LF 1 $600.00 $600.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
15 LB 100 $10.00 $1,000.00 0 $0.00 94 $940.00
$105,280.00 $0.00 $78,687.00
1 LF 910 $10.00 $9,100.00 0 $0.00 902 $9,020.00
2 EA 8 $400.00 $3,200.00 0 $0.00 8 $3,200.00
3 EA 7 $450.00 $3,150.00 0 $0.00 7 $3,150.00
4 LF 70 $40.00 $2,800.00 0 $0.00 70 $2,800.00
5 LF 891 $42.00 $37,422.00 0 $0.00 891 $37,422.00
6 LF 236 $45.00 $10,620.00 0 $0.00 236 $10,620.00
7 LF 369 $62.00 $22,878.00 0 $0.00 369 $22,878.00
8 EA 2 $900.00 $1,800.00 0 $0.00 2 $1,800.00
9 EA 2 $1,050.00 $2,100.00 0 $0.00 2 $2,100.00
10 EA 1 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 0 $0.00 1 $1,400.00
11 CY 8 $115.00 $920.00 0 $0.00 12 $1,380.00
12 EA 3 $2,100.00 $6,300.00 0 $0.00 3 $6,300.00
13 EA 5 $2,500.00 $12,500.00 0 $0.00 5 $12,500.00
14 EA 2 $3,600.00 $7,200.00 0 $0.00 2 $7,200.00
15 EA 1 $4,350.00 $4,350.00 0 $0.00 1 $4,350.00
16 EA 1 $125.00 $125.00 0 $0.00 1 $125.00
17 EA 1 $150.00 $150.00 0 $0.00 1 $150.00
18 EA 1 $225.00 $225.00 0 $0.00 1 $225.00
19 EA 12 $175.00 $2,100.00 0 $0.00 3 $525.00
20 SY 30 $30.00 $900.00 0 $0.00 24 $720.00
21 CY 420 $10.00 $4,200.00 0 $0.00 420 $4,200.00
22 CY 675 $10.00 $6,750.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
23 SY 1600 $2.75 $4,400.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
$144,590.00 $0.00 $132,065.00
1 LS 1 $90,000.00 $90,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $90,000.00
2 LS 1 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $9,000.00
ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM UNIT
CONTRACT THIS PERIOD TOTAL TO DATE
8" DIP CL. 52 WATER MAIN
12" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 15' ‐ 20' DEEP
12" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 20' ‐ 25' DEEP
10" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, IN CASING
EXPLORATORY DIGGING
SUBTOTAL ‐ PART 1
PART 2 ‐ WATERMAIN
TEMPORARY WATER SYSTEM
CONNECT TO EXISTING 6" WATER MAIN
REMOVE AND REPLACE 8" GATE VALVE & BOX
6" DIP CL. 52 WATER MAIN
CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" WATER MAIN
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING GATE VALVE & BOX
REMOVE AND REPLACE 6" GATE VALVE & BOX
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING HYDRANT
VALVE BOX EXTENSION
HYDRANT EXTENSION
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
PART 1 ‐ SANITARY SEWER
8" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 20' ‐ 25' DEEP
10" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 15' ‐ 20' DEEP
10" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 20' ‐ 25' DEEP
CUT IN 8" X 8" TEE
12" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, IN CASING
20" STEEL CASING PIPE (JACK/AUGERED)
24" STEEL CASING PIPE (JACK/AUGERED)
PIPE FOUNDATION ROCK
TELEVISING
4' DIAMETER SANITARY SEWER MH
4' DIAMETER EXCESS MANHOLE DEPTH
10"X6" PVC WYE, SDR 26
12"X6" PVC WYE, SDR 26
6" PVC SCH 40 SANITARY SEWER RISER
6" PVC SCH 40 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
PRECAST CONCRETE JERSEY BARRIERS AT HIGHWAY 5 JACKING PITS
PRECAST CONCRETE JERSEY BARRIERS AT HIGHWAY 17 JACKING PITS
CROSS EXISTING WATER SERVICE
6" GATE VALVE AND BOX
HYDRANT
BULKHEAD 36" RCP STORM SEWER
INLET PROTECTION
INSULATION
POND EXCAVATION (P)
SUBTOTAL ‐ PART 3
PART 4 ‐ STREET IMPROVEMENTS
TRAFFIC CONTROL
INFILTRATION SWALE EXCAVATION (P)
SEED MIX 330 AND HYDROMULCH
MOBILIZATION
SUBTOTAL ‐ PART 2
PART 3 ‐ STORM SEWER
5' DIA CATCH BASIN/MANHOLE
5' DIA CATCH BASIN/MANHOLE W/ SUMP
BULKHEAD 15" RCP STORM SEWER
BULKHEAD 18" RCP STORM SEWER
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING STORM SEWER
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLE
POTHOLE EXISTING WATER MAIN
12" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 5
15" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 5
18" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 5
24" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 4
12" RCP FLARED END SECTION INCL TRASH GUARD
18" RCP FLARED END SECTION INCL TRASH GUARD
24" RCP FLARED END SECTION INCL TRASH GUARD
RIP RAP, CLASS 3
2'X3' CATCH BASIN
4' DIA CATCH BASIN/MANHOLE
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT
ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM UNIT
CONTRACT THIS PERIOD TOTAL TO DATE
3 EA 3 $1,200.00 $3,600.00 0.00 $0.00 1 $1,200.00
4 LS 1 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 0.00 $0.00 1 $4,500.00
5 LS 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1 $2,000.00
6 TN 60 $30.00 $1,800.00 0.00 $0.00 60 $1,800.00
7 HR 10 $125.00 $1,250.00 0.00 $0.00 10 $1,250.00
8 LS 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 0.00 $0.00 1 $1,500.00
9 LF 290 $6.00 $1,740.00 0.00 $0.00 290 $1,740.00
10 SY 9160 $2.00 $18,320.00 0.00 $0.00 9,487 $18,974.00
11 SY 335 $4.00 $1,340.00 0.00 $0.00 300 $1,200.00
12 EA 4 $300.00 $1,200.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
13 EA 8 $200.00 $1,600.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
14 EA 1 $250.00 $250.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
15 LS 1 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
16 LF 200 $3.00 $600.00 0.00 $0.00 200 $600.00
17 CY 7750 $9.00 $69,750.00 0.00 $0.00 7,750 $69,750.00
18 CY 340 $12.00 $4,080.00 0.00 $0.00 216 $2,592.00
19 RS 24.34 $465.00 $11,318.10 0.00 $0.00 24.34 $11,318.10
20 LF 1000 $12.00 $12,000.00 0.00 $0.00 980 $11,760.00
21 TN 6380 $10.50 $66,990.00 0.00 $0.00 6,380 $66,989.79
22 CY 4090 $10.00 $40,900.00 0.00 $0.00 4,485 $44,850.00
23 TN 800 $66.50 $53,200.00 785.36 $52,226.44 785 $52,226.44
24 TN 1335 $57.75 $77,096.25 0.00 $0.00 1,290.5 $74,526.38
25 GAL 565 $2.00 $1,130.00 300.00 $600.00 325 $650.00
26 EA 12 $450.00 $5,400.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
27 EA 20 $250.00 $5,000.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
28 LF 4310 $10.77 $46,418.70 0.00 $0.00 4,465 $48,088.05
29 LF 105 $14.80 $1,554.00 0.00 $0.00 43 $636.40
30 EA 12 $420.00 $5,040.00 0.00 $0.00 12 $5,040.00
31 SF 13110 $3.50 $45,885.00 0.00 $0.00 12,840 $44,940.00
32 SY 340 $70.00 $23,800.00 0.00 $0.00 331 $23,170.00
33 SY 35 $50.00 $1,750.00 25.00 $1,250.00 60 $3,000.00
34 SF 168 $42.00 $7,056.00 0.00 $0.00 160 $6,720.00
35 SY 105 $50.00 $5,250.00 0.00 $0.00 160 $8,000.00
36 TN 270 $65.00 $17,550.00 0.00 $0.00 265 $17,219.15
37 SY 5000 $4.25 $21,250.00 0.00 $0.00 4,163 $17,692.75
38 CY 500 $35.00 $17,500.00 0.00 $0.00 783 $27,405.00
39 SY 2000 $3.25 $6,500.00 0.00 $0.00 646 $2,099.50
40 SY 5500 $2.15 $11,825.00 0.00 $0.00 3,499 $7,522.85
41 LF 1000 $1.95 $1,950.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
42 LF 30 $22.50 $675.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
43 LF 200 $5.75 $1,150.00 0.00 $0.00 30 $172.50
44 HR 15 $125.00 $1,875.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
45 SF 6 $45.00 $281.25 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00
46 LF 2270 $1.50 $3,405.00 2,274.00 $3,411.00 2,274 $3,411.00
47 LF 110 $0.75 $82.50 100.00 $75.00 100 $75.00
48 EA 1 $845.00 $845.00 1.00 $845.00 1 $845.00
$714,706.80 $58,407.44 $684,463.91
1 LS 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 0 $0.00 1 $4,000.00
2 LF 20 $10.00 $200.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
3 TN 200 $20.00 $4,000.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
4 LF 20 $45.00 $900.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
5 EA 2 $480.00 $960.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
6 LF 625 $94.00 $58,750.00 0 $0.00 625 $58,750.00
7 LF 1255 $96.00 $120,480.00 0 $0.00 1,255 $120,480.00
8 LF 164 $40.00 $6,560.00 0 $0.00 164 $6,560.00
9 LF 20 $76.00 $1,520.00 0 $0.00 20 $1,520.00
10 LF 164 $565.00 $92,660.00 0 $0.00 60 $33,900.00
11 LF 1000 $0.01 $10.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
12 LF 2061 $2.00 $4,122.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
13 EA 8 $3,200.00 $25,600.00 0 $0.00 8 $25,600.00
14 LF 115 $125.00 $14,375.00 0 $0.00 109.2 $13,650.00
15 AC 5 $1,200.00 $6,000.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
16 LF 300 $1.95 $585.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
17 SY 1500 $3.25 $4,875.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
$345,597.00 $0.00 $264,460.00
TOTALS ‐ BASE CONTRACT $1,760,458.80 $58,407.44 $1,611,435.21
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
CO1‐1 EA ‐2.0 $900.00 ‐$1,800.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
CO1‐2 EA 2.0 $950.00 $1,900.00 0 $0.00 2 $1,900.00
CO1‐3 EA 1.0 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 0 $0.00 1 $1,600.00
CO1‐4 EA ‐1.0 $2,600.00 ‐$2,600.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
CO1‐5 LF 875.0 $6.00 $5,250.00 0 $0.00 884 $5,304.00
18" CMP FLARED END SECTION
SEED AND BLANKET
CONNECT TO EXISTING 16" WATER MAIN
CUT IN 8" X 8" TEE
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING 8" WATER MAIN
CONNECT TO EXISTING 6" WATER MAIN
CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" WATER MAIN
TEMPORARY ACCESS GRADING
4" DOUBLE SOLID YELLOW LINE, EPOXY
RIGHT TURN ARROW, TAPE
SUBTOTAL ‐ PART 4
SUBTOTAL ‐ ALTERNATE NO. 1
18" CMP DRIVEWAY CULVERT
ALTERNATE NO. 1 ‐ SANITARY SEWER SOUTH OF TH 5
CLEAR AND GRUB TREES AND BRUSH
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING STORM SEWER
PATCH GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED
15" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 20' ‐ 25' DEEP
14" PVC SANITARY SEWER, C905 DR 25, IN CASING
14" PVC SANITARY SEWER, C905 DR 25, 20' ‐ 25' DEEP
28" STEEL CASING PIPE (JACK/AUGERED)
PIPE FOUNDATION ROCK
TELEVISING
4' DIAMETER SANITARY SEWER MH
4' DIAMETER EXCESS MANHOLE DEPTH
SOIL DECOMPACTION
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (DRIVEWAY
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING LIGHT BASE
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL SIGN
TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
CLEAR AND GRUB TREES AND BRUSH
5" CONCRETE SIDEWALK
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAIL DROPBOX
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL RETAINING WALL
TEMPORARY ACCESS AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
TEMPORARY ACCESS MAINTENANCE
REMOVE TEMPORARY ACCESS
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (P)
ADJUST MH CASTING ‐ STEEL RING (2015)
ADJUST VALVE BOX (2015)
B624 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
B612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAMP
TYPE SP 9.5 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) [SPWEA230B
TYPE SP 12.5 BITUMINOUS NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) [SPNW
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
COMMON EXCAVATION (P)
SUBGRADE CORRECTION (EV)
SUBGRADE PREPARATION
4" PERFORATED PVC DRAIN TILE WITH AGGREGATE AND WRAP
TYPE SP 9.5 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE MIXTURE ‐ TRAIL (2,B) [SPW
SODDING
IMPORT AND PLACE TOPSOIL BORROW (CV)
SEED & EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
SEED & HYDROMULCH
8" COMMERCIAL CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT (HIGH EARLY)
6" CONCRETE FLUME
TRUNCATED DOME PANELS
BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED
SILT FENCE, TYPE FLOATING
DITCH CHECK ‐ BIOROLL
4" SOLID WHITE LINE, EPOXY
15" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 15' ‐ 20' DEEP
STREET SWEEPING
SIGN PANELS, TYPE C
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT
ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM UNIT
CONTRACT THIS PERIOD TOTAL TO DATE
CO1‐6 EA 1.0 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 0 $0.00 1 $1,500.00
CO1‐7 LF 875.0 $69.00 $60,375.00 0 $0.00 875 $60,375.00
CO1‐8 EA 2.0 $1,700.00 $3,400.00 0 $0.00 2 $3,400.00
CO1‐9 EA 2.0 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 0 $0.00 2 $6,000.00
CO1‐10 LB 2,680.0 $10.00 $26,800.00 0 $0.00 2,525 $25,250.00
CO1‐11 LF 10.0 $53.00 $530.00 0 $0.00 9 $477.00
CO1‐12 LF 90.0 $178.00 $16,020.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
TOTALS ‐ CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 $118,975.00 $0.00 $105,806.00
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
CO2‐1 LS 1.0 $3,825.00 $3,825.00 0 $0.00 1 $3,825.00
CO2‐2 SY 9,940.0 $1.85 $18,389.00 0 $0.00 9,940 $18,389.00
TOTALS ‐ CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 $22,214.00 $0.00 $22,214.00
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3
CO3‐1 LS 1.0 $19,435.00 $19,435.00 0 $0.00 1 $19,435.00
TOTALS ‐ CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 $19,435.00 $0.00 $19,435.00
CHANGE ORDER NO. 4
CO4‐1 LF 164.0 $1,300.00 $213,200.00 0 $0.00 164 $213,200.00
CO4‐2 LF ‐104.0 $565.00 ‐$58,760.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
TOTALS ‐ CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 $154,440.00 $0.00 $213,200.00
TOTALS ‐ REVISED CONTRACT $2,075,522.80 $58,407.44 $1,972,090.21
10" HDPE DR 11 WATERMAIN INSTALLED BY DIRECTIONAL DRILL
8" GATE VALVE AND BOX
16" BUTTERFLY VALVE AND BOX
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
8" DIP CL. 52 WATER MAIN
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING GATE VALVE & BOX
16" DIP CL. 51 WATER MAIN
MANHOLE CORE DRILL
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
30‐INCH CASING PIPE ‐ PIPE HAMMER
48‐INCH CASING PIPE
DEDUCT 28‐INCH CASING PIPE (NOT INSTALLED)
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: Oct 6, 2015
REGULAR
ITEM MOTION
AGENDA ITEM: Administrative Assistant
SUBMITTED BY: Clark Schroeder Interim City Administrator
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder
REVIEWED BY: Clark Schroeder
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
POLICY RECCOMENDER: Staff
FISCAL IMPACT: Recommended salary of $40,000 to $45,000 with a fully load cost of
$59,200 to $66,583. Upgrading planning assistant would be between $3,010 and $8,010 additional in salary and the same fully SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
With the recent staff turnover in Lake Elmo it has been determined that adding an Administrative Assistant and upgrading the current Planning Assistant would be in the best interest for the city.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT):
Strengths – Adding another position and adding responsibilities to current position will allow the city to have some redundancies in the administrative department as well as the
Community Development Department.
Weaknesses – Increased costs
City Council Meeting
October 6, 2015
-- page 2 --
Opportunities – The city will have personnel to support policy review, procedure
development, organization and maintenance of city records, communication to residents
and overall support to all departments. Threats- Tax base could decline and make funding the position difficult.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends the City Council
authorize the hiring of an administrative assistant and upgrade current planning assistant.
“Move to authorize the City Administrator to advertise, recruit, interview, and present for employment an Administrative Assistant.”
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: October 6, 2015
Consent #6
AGENDA ITEM: Animal Humane Society Contract
SUBMITTED BY: Clark Schroeder
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder
REVIEWED BY: Clark Schroeder
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item ...................................................................... Administrator
- Report/Presentation………………………………………….....Administrator
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: Clark Schroeder
FISCAL IMPACT: $135 per day for dogs/cats, $41 other domestic animals. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Attached is our 2016 municipal contract for
housing small animals at their shelter.
RECOMMENDATION: If item is pulled from consent agenda, the recommendation should
read.
“Approve administrator signing the 2016 contract with the animal humane society.”
ATTACHMENTS: 2016 Letter of Understanding for Impound Housing Services
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: October 6, 2015
CONSENT
ITEM # 7
AGENDA ITEM: Hiring of Building Inspector
SUBMITTED BY: Clark Schroeder
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .....................................Community Development Director
- Report/Presentation………………………...Community Development Director
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: Clark Schroeder
POLICY BEING SET: Fulfilling council direction to recruit, interview and recommend for employment a City Planner.
FISCAL IMPACT: Upgrading from part-time contract position to full-time position. $30.00/hr
salary with estimated $29,000 benefits
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: We had 11 individuals submit applications for this position, of those, 4 were interviewed.
Out of those 4 we are recommending that Toni Liljedahl be hired with a start date on or around
10/26/15. Mrs Liljedahl has been offered the position of Building inspector contingent on the
approval by the City Council and passing a background check at a salary of $30/hr with benefits offered to all City of Lake Elmo Full Time Equivalent employees.
RECOMMENDATION: If pulled from consent agenda motion should be Move to affirm the hiring of Toni Liljedahl as City Planner effective 10/30/15
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: September 1, 2015
CONSENT
ITEM # 8
AGENDA ITEM: Building inspector truck purchase
SUBMITTED BY: Clark Schroeder
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder
REVIEWED BY: Rick Chase
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item ...................................................................... Administrator
- Report/Presentation……………………………………………..Administrator
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: Clark Schroeder
POLICY BEING SET: No policy being set, affirming the purchase of a budgeted item.
FISCAL IMPACT: $21,560- $24,267
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: In the 2015 budget a new truck was budgeted at
$23,000 to be purchased upon the hiring of an additional building inspector. Based on the quotes given based on State pricing, staff is recommending purchasing the 2016 Jeep Compass Sport
4x4 for $21560.8.
ATTACHMENTS: Two quotes based on State Pricing
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: October 6, 2015
CONSENT
ITEM # 9
AGENDA ITEM: Hiring of City Planner
SUBMITTED BY: Clark Schroeder
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .....................................Community Development Director
- Report/Presentation………………………...Community Development Director
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: Clark Schroeder
POLICY BEING SET: Fulfilling council direction to recruit, interview and recommend for employment a City Planner.
FISCAL IMPACT: Replacing vacant position. $60,000 salary with estimated $31,000 benefits
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Administrator requests the authorization to hire the individual recommended by staff.
RECOMMENDATION: If pulled from consent agenda motion should be
Move to affirm the hiring of recommended City Planner effective on or about
10/30/15.
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: October 6, 2015
REGULAR
ITEM # 10 RESOLUTION 2015-060
AGENDA ITEM: Kleis Farm Minor Subdivision
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .....................................Community Development Director
- Report/Presentation………………………...Community Development Director
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: The Planning Commission is recommending that the City
Council approve a minor subdivision that will facilitate the creation of two 10-acre parcels from
a larger 54.29 acre parcel presently owned by the Kleis Family Trust
FISCAL IMPACT: None
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a
request from Peter Kastler, 9130 55th Street North, for a Minor Subdivision to split property that has historically been called the Kleis farmstead at the same address into three parcels as follows:
• Two 10-acre parcels along the western edge of the larger farmstead property that would
each have direct access to 55th Street North.
• The remaining 34.29 acres that would consist of the existing farmstead and related
buildings and surrounding land east of the two new lots.
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 15]
May 19, 2015
-- page 2 --
The Planning Commission considered this matter at its September 14, 2015 meeting and
recommended approval of the minor subdivision as presented. The suggested motion to adopt
the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2015-060 approving the Minor Subdivision”
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The attached Staff
report to the Planning Commission a summary of the proposed minor subdivision along with
details concerning the application. The Planning Commission reviewed the application at its September 14, 2015 meeting and asked general questions concerning the surrounding properties
and conditions on the site to be subdivided.
The Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend approval of the minor subdivision
consistent with the findings as noted in the attached Resolution No. 2015-060. The vote on the motion was unanimous (5 ayes, 0 nays).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT):
Strengths • The minor subdivision meets all underlying subdivision and zoning requirements.
Weaknesses • None
Opportunities • The minor subdivision will allow the Kleis family to retain ownership of the larger farmstead parcel.
Threats • None
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and Staff are recommending that the City Council approve the Kleis family minor subdivision by adopting Resolution No. 2015-060. Te
suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2015-060 approving the Minor Subdivision”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 2015-060
2. Planning Commission Staff Report – 9/14/15
3. Application Form
4. Application Narrative 5. Minor Subdivision Survey
6. Proposed Legal Descriptions
7. Septic Report
8. Wetland Delineation Report (Available Upon Request)
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2015-060
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF THE KLEIS FAMILY FARMSTEAD
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Peter Kastler, 9130 55th Street North, Lake Elmo, MN, (Applicant) has
submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (City) for a Minor Subdivision to split the
farmstead property located at 9130 55th Street North into three separate parcels in accordance
with the certificate of survey dated August 31, 2015 signed by Timothy J. Freeman, P.L.S.,
License #16989, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo Planning and Zoning Department; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Department has reviewed the Minor Subdivision
request for consistency with the City of Lake Elmo Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Minor
Subdivision at a meeting held on September 14, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and
recommendation concerning the Minor Subdivision as part of a memorandum to the City Council from Community Development Director Kyle Klatt for the October 6, 2015 Council
Meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Applicant’s Minor Subdivision request at a
meeting held on October 6, 2015.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the testimony elicited and information received, the
City Council makes the following:
FINDINGS
1. That the Minor Subdivision is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the
Future Land Use Map for this area.
2. That the Minor Subdivision complies with the minimum lot frontage and area requirements of the City’s RR – Rural Residential Zoning District.
3. That the Minor Subdivision complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance and specifically
the requirements concerning exceptions to platting.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT that based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby approves the Minor Subdivision request, provided the following conditions are met:
1. The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication in the amount of $3,600 per
buildable lot ($7,200 total) prior to any formal City authorization to split the existing parcel into three lots.
2. The future location of any driveways providing access to the two 10-acre parcels shall be
subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
3. The applicant must obtain any permits, if required, from the Valley Branch Watershed District either in conjunction with the City’s approval of a Minor Subdivision or prior to
the commencement of any construction activity on each parcel.
4. The minimum low floor elevations for the individual lots must be depicted on any future surveys for building permits on each lot.
Passed and duly adopted this 6th day of October 2015 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
__________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST:
________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: October 6, 2015
REGULAR ITEM #11
RESOLUTION 2015-59 (Approval)
RESOLUTION 2015-59A (Denial)
AGENDA ITEM: Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and Final Plat
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Nick M. Johnson, City Planner
David Snyder, City Attorney
Planning Commission Jack Griffin, City Engineer Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
Washington County Public Works
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .....................................Community Development Director
- Report/Presentation………………………...Community Development Director
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECCOMENDER: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the
preliminary and final plat at its July 13, 2015 meeting. The City Council tabled taking action on this matter at its July 21, 2015 meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT: None, all of the review activities on the part of the City are reimbursed by
application and escrow fees submitted by the developer. All of the improvements to the site are
private.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to bring back from the table and to consider a request from Mr. Lee Rossow for approval of a preliminary and final plat for a cemetery to be called Halcyon located at 11050 50th Street North. The Planning
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 16]
October 6, 2015
-- page 2 --
Commission held a public hearing to consider the matter at its July 13, 2015 meeting and
unanimously recommended approval of the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and Final Plat
subject to 14 conditions of approval. The City Council considered the application at its July 21,
2015 meeting; however, the Council tabled taking action on the request in order to provide the City with additional time to consider various aspects of the project. In response to the Council’s
concerns, Staff is offering additional information concerning the use of the property for review
and is presenting alternative findings of fact that may be used by the Council to either move
forward with the Planning Commission recommendation or to adopt a different set of findings
for denial of the request.
The suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2015-059, approving the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and Final Plat.”
The suggested motion to deny the request is as follows:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2015-059A, denying the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and Final Plat.”
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached is the original detailed Staff report that was
provided to the Planning Commission regarding the applicant’s request for preliminary and final
plat approval in addition to the previous memorandum to the City Council. The staff report includes general information about the application, a summary of the relevant planning and zoning issues, a thorough review and analysis of the final plat (including a draft list of
recommended conditions of approval), draft findings, and the Staff recommendation to the
Planning Commission. The City Council report also includes a summary of the public hearing
comments and a general summary of the Planning Commission discussion.
APPLICATION HISTORY: As noted above, the City Council tabled the Cemetery
preliminary and final plat request at its July 21, 2015 meeting. Prior to this meeting, the history
of this application is as follows:
Date Event Action
November 2014 Sketch Plan submitted to the City Scheduled for review
11/24/14 Sketch Plan reviewed by the Planning Commission No action required, Planning Commission meeting minutes attached
12/2/14 Sketch Plan reviewed by the City Council No action required. Meeting minutes attached
January 2015 Plat application materials submitted to the City Application deemed incomplete pending wetland delineation and
watershed district review
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 16]
October 6, 2015
-- page 3 --
June 17, 2015 Revised plans submitted to City and watershed district with wetland delineation
Application deemed complete and review scheduled with Planning Commission
July 1, 2015 Valley Branch review complete Valley Branch Watershed District Permit issued to applicant (attached)
July 13, 2015 Preliminary and Final Plat reviewed by Planning Commission Recommended approval with additional conditions. Meeting minutes attached.
July 21, 2015 Preliminary and Final Plat reviewed by City Council. Tabled. Meeting minutes attached.
During the course of its review of the combined preliminary and final plat application, the City received plans that were dated 1/5/15, 3/14/15, and 6/17/15. The only plans that the City could
have taken action to approve were the latest submission, which included the wetland delineation
for the property. The location of the wetlands required revisions to the earlier plan submissions
and was a requirement before the watershed district would review the request. Staff had
discussed splitting the review up between the preliminary plat and final plat, and told the developer that the preliminary plat could proceed in advance of the wetland delineation and
watershed district review. The applicant elected to keep the joint review process moving
forward, and understood that the City would therefore not be able to take action on the plans that
had been submitted prior to June 17, 2015.
ZONING REVIEW: As part of its discussion on July 21, 2015, the City Council raised questions about the zoning regulations for cemeteries and how they specifically apply to the
applicant’s property. In order to address these questions, Staff would like to focus on three
specific aspects of the Cemetery request and how they apply to the present application as
follows:
Rural District Ordinance Amendments
As part of the larger process of updating the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the City Council approved revisions to the City’s rural development districts,
including the RR – Rural Residential Zoning District, on May 19, 2013. The
amendments were intended to being these sections of code into conformance
with earlier ordinance amendments, which included a complete overhaul of
the City’s uses and use classification system and revised formatting throughout the document. Prior to these 2013 amendments, the City only
allowed cemeteries in PF – Public Facility zoning districts. As part of the
2013 revisions, cemeteries and other uses were added to the rural districts,
and specifically identified as a permitted use in A and RR zoning districts.
All new uses that were included in the rural development districts were
recommended by Staff. These uses included secondary dwellings, cemeteries,
commercial kennels and stables, golf courses, restricted recreation, and
agricultural production. All of these uses represent activities that are typically
require a lot of room to operate or that are generally found in rural areas as
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 16]
October 6, 2015
-- page 4 --
opposed to more heavily developed urban areas. The proposed changes were
reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council and were adopted as
presented. In reviewing the meeting minutes and other information associated
with the meeting, there was no discussion on cemeteries at that time and only some general questions about any of the other uses shown on the chart.
Since the submission of the applicant’s request to construct a new cemetery at
11050 50th Street North, there have been a lot of questions raised about the
inclusion of cemeteries in the rural development districts and whether or not
this type of use should be permitted, conditional, or not allowed at all. In the near future, Staff will be conducting a review of all use classifications and
where each type of use is allowed in the City with the Planning Commission
to ensure that this aspect of the code accurately reflects the purpose and intent
of the Comprehensive Plan. Regardless of any future reviews, the applicant’s
request is based on cemeteries being a permitted use in Rural Residential zoning districts.
Use Definitions Focusing on the actual use classification and definitions in the City Code that
pertain to cemeteries, Staff would like to state the two definitions in the
ordinance for a cemetery or related activity, in addition to the general
requirements concerning these classifications. These provisions are as follows:
Purpose of Use Types. The purpose of the Use Types is to establish a
classification system for land uses and a consistent set of terms defining uses
permitted within various zoning districts. The Use Types section also
facilitates the process of determining the applicable use type of any activity not clearly within any defined use type.
Interpretation. In the event of any question as to the appropriate use type of
any existing or proposed use or activity, the Planning Director shall have the
authority to determine the appropriate use type. In making such a
determination, the Planning Director shall consider the operational and physical characteristics of the use in question and shall consider the
classification contained in the most recent edition of the Standard Industrial
Classification Manual published by the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget. In addition, the Planning Director shall consider the specific
requirements of the use in common with those included as examples of use types. Those examples, when included in use type descriptions, are intended
to be illustrative, as opposed to exclusive lists. The Planning Director may
also determine that a proposed use or activity is sufficiently different from
any use type listed below and will require an amendment to the text of this
chapter.
Public and Civic Uses - Cemetery. Land used or intended to be used for the
burial of the dead and dedicated for cemetery purposes, including
columbariums, crematories, mausoleums, and mortuaries when operated in
conjunction with and within the boundaries of such cemetery.
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 16]
October 6, 2015
-- page 5 --
Services - Funeral Home. Establishments engaged in undertaking services
such as preparing the dead for burial, and arranging and managing funerals.
Typical uses include funeral homes or mortuaries.
Of particular note is the fact that funeral homes are considered an entirely different type of use than cemeteries, and do not show up in the City’s list of uses allowed in rural development districts. The other issue that is pertinent
to this particular property and proposal is that the applicant intends to make
use of the existing house on the property as an administrative
building/caretaker’s residence. The City’s definitions and regulations are silent on this aspect of the proposal. In these situations, the code will generally allow uses that are accessory to the principle use; however in this
case, the use of an existing single family home as part of a cemetery is unique
and perhaps not anticipated under the ordinance provisions. The Planning
Commission did ask questions about the use of the existing house as part of its review, but did not make any findings specific to the repurposing of the home as an administrative building.
Platting
Procedures
The creation of a new cemetery under Minnesota State Statutes requires the
platting of the property to be used for a cemetery. Because the City has
adopted a subdivision ordinance that regulates the subdivision and platting of property within the City, it has been Staff’s interpretation that any new
cemetery must be reviewed in accordance with the City’s subdivision
ordinance. The ordinance specifies that a subdivision may only be approved
after the City has reviewed a sketch plan for the property to be subdivided,
which must be submitted prior to a preliminary or final plat. As part of the current request, the applicant has asked that the City conduct a concurrent
review of the preliminary and final plat.
The Subdivision Ordinance includes a series of requirements that must be met
by an applicant in order to receive approval of a new subdivision. These
requirements primarily relate to required plan submissions and required improvements within the subdivision. The applicant has submitted a plat
document in addition to the required construction plans for the property.
Although there are no public services being extended into the site, the
applicant was required to submit grading, drainage, erosion control, and a
storm water management plan for the site. This plan (as amended by the applicant) has been reviewed for conformance with City and watershed
district requirements.
As part of its review of the cemetery proposal and consideration of issues that have been raised
throughout the City’s subdivision review process, Staff has identified some of the more relevant
questions that may impact the Council’s decision of this matter. These questions include the following (along with a brief response):
• Can the applicant operate a funeral home on the premises? Response: No, the City’s
Zoning Ordinance clearly regulates cemeteries and funeral homes differently, and
funeral homes are not allowed in any of the rural development districts.
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 16]
October 6, 2015
-- page 6 --
• Is the applicant allowed to utilize or repurpose the existing single-family home as part of
his plans for a cemetery? Response: The Zoning Ordinance is unclear on this matter.
As an accessory use to a cemetery, it is reasonable to expect that there will be some maintenance equipment stored on the premises. The applicant has stated that the home will not be used as a funeral home, and has further indicated that building would be used for memorial services and gatherings in conjunction with burials. The plans
identify the repurposed home as an administration building and show a proposed
expansion that is intended to increase the amount of space available for gatherings. In this case, the Council does have the authority to decide that the use and incorporation of the existing structure into the development plans for the cemetery is not consistent with or allowed under the City’s definition of a cemetery.
• Is platting necessary? Can the City deny a preliminary plat the meets all City requirements? Response: Generally, the City cannot deny a plat application that meets the minimum requirements of the City Code. If the Council decided to deny the preliminary and final plat, Staff would recommend that the Council focus on the first
two findings listed in the draft resolution for consideration. These findings note that
the plat must be consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and that it must also comply with the City’s RR – Rural Residential District requirements.
• Is there a minimum amount of land or minimum number of burial plots needed to be
considered a cemetery? Response: The City’s ordinances include no such minimal
levels; however any burial sites will have special protection under State law. Under the City’s current ordinances, the only development standards specific to cemeteries are found in the PF zoning district section of the code, and do not apply to the current application. This is certainly an issue concerning cemeteries that warrants further
review by the City.
• Is the use of the house as a gathering space and administration building allowed under the code? Is this a business use? Response: The Council may want to consider the relative
size of the proposed cemetery and the plans for other related activity taking place on the site. The proposed development plans show that there will be over 6,000 square feet
of building area (for the administration and maintenance building) on the site, and
that only roughly half of the 10 acres will be used for burial sites. The size of these buildings and the amount of activity expected to take place within them are pertinent to any discussion concerning the accessory nature (or lack thereof) of these buildings. If the primary activity on the site is a public gathering space and parking, this would
indicated that principle use is more than just a cemetery.
• Are burial sites allowed within areas designated as flood plain? Response: The City and Watershed district regulations do not prohibit the placement of burial sites below the established 100-year flood elevation on the property. In conducting research on this
issue, Staff was not able to find any evidence that the burial sites would pose any threat
to the City’s near-by well or water supply.
Because the applicant’s proposal is very unique and unprecedented for the City, Staff is not surprised that there are numerous questions about the proposed activity and whether or not the
development plans are consistent with the City Code. In order to help the City Council give
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 16]
October 6, 2015
-- page 7 --
weight to all of the issues associated with the request, there are really two main issues that will
need to be decided at the meeting:
1) Does the application meet the City’s requirements for a preliminary and final plat, and
more specifically, is the plat consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and RR zoning regulations?
2) Are the uses proposed allowed under the City’s Zoning Ordinance?
In considering the first question, Staff believes that the applicant has met the City’s requirements
for platting and receiving approval of a subdivision. On the latter issue, there do appear to be
some legitimate questions about how the property will be used, and in particular, the inclusion of a building for public gathering space as part of the plans. This is especially apparent when
looking at the proportionality between the size of the actual cemetery and what might normally
be expected on a property of this size to provide care and maintenance of the grounds. The
inclusion of this gathering space is not fully addressed by the underlying zoning or use
classifications, and the City Council may want to consider this in making its final decision on the request.
COUNCIL CONCERNS: The Council has previously expressed some concerns with the
project if it were to move forward. Based on previous discussions by the Council during the
review of this application, Staff has noted the following as the more significant issues that
warrant repeating:
• Perpetual maintenance. The Council has previously expressed concern that the long-
term maintenance of the site will be the responsibility of a non-profit association that
could someday go away. The applicant has stated that the association will be creating a
permanent care trust fund that will be used to ensure that there are funds available for long-term maintenance and upkeep of the site. The Planning Commission recommended a condition of approval that the cemetery association provide copies of all annual minutes
and financial reporting of the permanent care trust fund to the City on an annual basis so
that the City would be aware of any pending problems with the association or fund.
• Park land dedication or fees in lieu of dedication. The applicant has maintained that the City cannot levy any water assessments, park dedication, or other special assessments
against the property. It is Staff’s opinion that fees in lieu of park land dedication do not
meet this requirement and can therefore be required as a condition of approval. If the
Council chooses to require a park fee, it would be for the equivalent of 0.4 acres of land based on the dedication schedule found in the Subdivision Ordinance.
• Traffic. The applicant has revised the site plan to address comments from the City
Engineer concerning the set back of the entrance road into the property from Lake Elmo
Avenue. The property is located at the intersection of a County Road and a Municipal
State Aid road, both of which were designed to accommodate higher levels of traffic.
• Floodplain issues. The previous section of this report notes that the site development
plans conform to applicable City and watershed district requirements concerning
floodplains.
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 16]
October 6, 2015
-- page 8 --
Please note that the City has received several emails written in support for the Cemetery since
the Council’s July 21st meeting. These emails were sent to all members of the Council and are
attached to this report.
DRAFT FINDINGS/ALTERNATIVES: With all of the questions that have previously been raised concerning the cemetery proposal, Staff is presenting an alternate set of findings so that the Council will have the ability consider either approving or denying the applicant’s request at
its meeting. This additional recommendation and alternate findings are also being provided
because the City has already extended its review beyond 60 days and the deadline for a final
decision on this matter (without the applicant’s consent) is October 15, 2015.
In considering all of the options available to the Council, Staff has identified the following
alternative actions that could be taken by the Council in response to the Halcyon Cemetery
Preliminary and Final Plat request:
1) Follow the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the preliminary and final
plat with the findings and conditions as drafted by the Commission.
a. Alternative action – approve the preliminary and final plat with amended findings
or conditions of approval.
2) Approve the preliminary plat but take no action on the final plat in order to give the City
and developer additional time to address review comments. The developer would then
need to submit a final plat application consistent with the preliminary plat approval.
3) Deny the preliminary and final plat request with appropriate findings of fact. Staff has
drafted alternate findings for denial that may be considered by the Council if it decides to
take this action.
4) Approve the subdivision request but without the inclusion of the existing single family
home and parking area as part of the approval so that the cemetery use remains the principle activity on the site. In order to carry out this alternative, the home would need
to be removed from the site before the City would release the plat for recording. If the
Council wants to pursue this alternative action, it may be more appropriate to deny the
request and allow the applicant to bring forward a new application without the public
gathering space as shown on the current plans.
In order to take action to approve the cemetery request, the Council may consider adopting the
attached Resolution No. 2015-059. This resolution incorporates all of the previous findings and
conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission.
As an alternate action, the City Council may consider denying the request by adopting the
attached alternative Resolution No. 2015-059A. This resolution includes the following findings of fact to support this action:
1) That the Halcyon Cemetery Final Plat is not consistent with the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area. The site under
consideration is located within the City’s Rural Development Area land use
classification, which allows for: large areas of rural residential development within the City. Common uses found in these areas include working farms, alternative agricultural
uses as defined by City Code, and rural single family detached residences. Development
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 16]
October 6, 2015
-- page 9 --
in these areas requires 10+ acres, or a conditional use permit to authorize a cluster
development meeting the City’s Open Space Preservation regulations. The establishment
of a private cemetery and related gathering space, administrative activities, funeral
services, and large parking area is not consistent with the City’s land use plan for this area.
2) That the Halcyon Cemetery does not comply with the City’s RR – Rural Residential
zoning district because it includes uses and activities that are not allowed under the
definition of a “Cemetery” in Section 154.102 of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the
proposed site plan includes an administration building, a proposed expansion of this structure to add room for public gathering space, and parking lot that will accommodate
59 parking stalls. The definition of “Cemetery” offers no provisions for the conduct of
services on the premises. The proposed buildings and parking areas exceed the activities
allowed for “land used or intended to be used for the burial of the dead and dedicated for
cemetery purposes”.
3) That the combined size of over 6,000 square feet for the proposed administration
building, expansion area, and maintenance garage is not proportional to the size of the
proposed cemetery. The re-use and expansion of the existing single family structure far
exceeds what would otherwise be required to provide for the car and maintenance of the
cemetery.
4) The Zoning Ordinance does not allow for two principle uses to exist on property that is
zoned Rural Residential. Specifically, the continued occupation of a single-family
residence on the property is in conflict with the proposed platting of a cemetery on the
same property. Because the site is 10 acres in size and is at the minimum requirement of
the Zoning Ordinance for lot size in a RR zoning district, the applicant would not be able to separate the home from the cemetery use.
STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, THREATS (SWOT): Please refer to
previous Council report.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, if the Council decides to take action on
the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and
Final Plat, it should do through the following motion:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2015-059, approving the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and Final Plat.”
Based on the aforementioned, if the Council decides deny the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary
and Final Plat, it should do through the following motion: “Move to adopt Resolution No. 2015-059A, approving the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and Final Plat.”
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 16]
October 6, 2015
-- page 10 --
ATTACHMENTS: (all attachments previous provided to the Council except where noted)
1. Resolution 2015-059 (Approval of the Plat)
2. NEW - Resolution 2015-059A (Denial of the Plat)
3. Staff Report to the City Council 7/21/15
4. Staff Report to the Planning Commission, 7/13/15
5. Location Map
6. Application Forms and Project Narrative
7. Preliminary and Final Plat and Plans
8. City Engineer Review Memorandum, dated 7/8/15
9. Fire Chief Review Memorandum, dated 7/7/15
10. Washington County Review Memorandum, dated 7/7/15
11. Valley Branch Watershed District Permit
12. Lake Elmo Transportation Plan, Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes
13. Cemetery Proximity and Single Family Home Price Report (1st Half)
14. NEW - Letters/Emails Concerning the Request Received Since 7/21/15
INCLUDED IN THE ELECTRONIC PACKET BUT NOT PROVIDED IN HARD COPY:
1. 2nd Half of Cemetery Proximity and Single Family Home Price Report – Supporting Data
2. Information Handout from League of MN Cities on Cemeteries
1 Resolution 2015-59
CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-59 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR THE HALCYON CEMETERY
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Lee Rossow, 11050 50th Street North, Lake Elmo MN 55042 has
submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (“City”) for a Preliminary and Final Plat for a
cemetery to be called Halcyon, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo Community
Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Final Plat includes a cemetery on one parcel of land (PID:
01.029.21.33.0003) in the Rural Planning Area; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 13,
2015 to consider the Preliminary and Final Plat application; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending
approval of the Final Plat subject to 14 conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation concerning the Preliminary and Final Plat as part of a memorandum to the City
Council for the July 21, 2015 Council Meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and Final
Plat at its meeting held on July 21, 2015 and tabled taking action at that time; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further reviewed the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and
Final Plat at its meeting held on October 6, 2015 and made the following findings of fact:
1) That the Halcyon Cemetery Final Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
2) That the Halcyon Cemetery complies with the City’s RR – Rural Residential zoning
district.
3) That the Halcyon Cemetery complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance.
4) That the Halcyon Cemetery Final Plat meets other City zoning ordinances, such as landscaping, tree preservation, erosion and sediment control, off-street parking and other
ordinances, except where noted in this report herein.
2 Resolution 2015-59
5) That the Halcyon Cemetery Final Plat is consistent with the City’s engineering standards,
except where noted, provided the plans are updated to address the City Engineer’s
comments documented in a letter dated July 8, 2015 and the Fire Chief’s comments
documented in a letter dated July 7, 2015.
6) The applicant has committed to establishing a permanent care trust fund consistent with the requirements established under State Statute.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby
approve the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and Final Plat subject to the following conditions:
1) The applicant shall revise the Final Plat to accommodate all required right-of-way on Lake Elmo Avenue and 50th Street North as documented in review memorandums submitted by Washington County and the City Engineer.
2) All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review
letter dated July 8, 2015 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to the City’s execution
of the Final Plat.
3) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland Conservation Act, and abide by all conditions of approval established in the approved
Valley Branch Watershed District permit.
4) The applicant shall be responsible to address all review comments submitted by
Washington County described in the review memorandum received from the County dated July 7, 2015. In addition, the applicant shall obtain all necessary right-of-way permitting from Washington County.
5) The Landscape Plan shall be revised to include 6 additional trees to fulfill the City’s
Landscaping Requirements. In addition, the plant material that is on top of utilities shall
be moved to comply with the direction of the City Engineer per his memorandum dated July 8, 2015. Finally, prior to installation of plant material, the plan shall be reviewed by the City’s Landscape Consultant for final approval.
6) The applicant must enter into an agreement with the City to own, operate and maintain
the private storm water facilities on the property. The storm water maintenance
agreement must be recorded with the Final Plat.
7) Prior to the issuance of grading/building permits, all review comments of the Fire Chief must be addressed by the applicant.
8) The applicant shall obtain the necessary permitting from Washington County to install a
new septic system to serve the property prior to the City issuing and building permits for
the remodel of the home.
9) Any future expansion of the site, including plans to install a crematorium, shall be reviewed and approved by the City.
3 Resolution 2015-59
10) All lighting installed on the Halcyon Cemetery site must comply with the City’s dark
skies ordinance.
11) Any alterations to the existing single family home shall be reviewed for conformance to
the City’s design standards.
12) All transplanted trees transplanted on the site shall include a 2-year warranty period to ensure survival. Any trees that do not survive the two-year period shall be replaced.
13) The Landscape Plan shall be amended to add plantings along the Eastern and Northern
property lines consistent with screening requirements specified in 154.258.F of the City
Code.
14) Annual meeting minutes, including annual financial reporting and status of the permanent care trust fund, shall be submitted to the City on an annual basis.
Passed and duly adopted this 6th day of October, 2015 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
___________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
1 Resolution 2015-59A
CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-059A A RESOLUTION DENYING A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR THE HALCYON CEMETERY
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Lee Rossow, 11050 50th Street North, Lake Elmo MN 55042 has
submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (“City”) for a Preliminary and Final Plat for a
cemetery to be called Halcyon, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo Community
Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Final Plat includes a cemetery on one parcel of land (PID:
01.029.21.33.0003) in the Rural Planning Area; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 13,
2015 to consider the Preliminary and Final Plat application; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending
approval of the Final Plat subject to 14 conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation concerning the Preliminary and Final Plat as part of a memorandum to the City
Council for the July 21, 2015 Council Meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and Final
Plat at its meeting held on July 21, 2015 and tabled taking action at that time; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further reviewed the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and
Final Plat at its meeting held on October 6, 2015 and made the following findings of fact:
1) That the Halcyon Cemetery Final Plat is not consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area. The site under
consideration is located within the City’s Rural Development Area land use
classification, which allows for: large areas of rural residential development within the
City. Common uses found in these areas include working farms, alternative agricultural uses as defined by City Code, and rural single family detached residences. Development in these areas requires 10+ acres, or a conditional use permit to authorize a cluster
development meeting the City’s Open Space Preservation regulations. The establishment
of a private cemetery and related gathering space, administrative activities, funeral
2 Resolution 2015-59A
services, and large parking area is not consistent with the City’s land use plan for this
area.
2) That the Halcyon Cemetery does not comply with the City’s RR – Rural Residential zoning district because it includes uses and activities that are not allowed under the definition of a “Cemetery” in Section 154.102 of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the
proposed site plan includes an administration building, a proposed expansion of this
structure to add room for public gathering space, and parking lot that will accommodate
59 parking stalls. The definition of “Cemetery” offers no provisions for the conduct of services on the premises. The proposed buildings and parking areas exceed the activities allowed for “land used or intended to be used for the burial of the dead and dedicated for
cemetery purposes”.
3) That the combined size of over 6,000 square feet for the proposed administration building, expansion area, and maintenance garage is not proportional to the size of the proposed cemetery. The re-use and expansion of the existing single family structure far
exceeds what would otherwise be required to provide for the car and maintenance of the
cemetery.
4) The Zoning Ordinance does not allow for two principle uses to exist on property that is zoned Rural Residential. Specifically, the continued occupation of a single-family
residence on the property is in conflict with the proposed platting of a cemetery on the
same property. Because the site is 10 acres in size and is at the minimum requirement of
the Zoning Ordinance for lot size in a RR zoning district, the applicant would not be able to separate the home from the cemetery use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby deny
the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and Final Plat.
Passed and duly adopted this 6th day of October, 2015 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
___________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: July 21, 2015
REGULAR
ITEM #17 RESOLUTION 2015-59
AGENDA ITEM: Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and Final Plat
SUBMITTED BY: Nick M. Johnson, City Planner
THROUGH: Julie Johnson, City Clerk
REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
Washington County Public Works
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .....................................Community Development Director
- Report/Presentation………………………...Community Development Director
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECCOMENDER: Planning Commission
FISCAL IMPACT: None, all of the review activities on the part of the City are reimbursed by
application and escrow fees submitted by the developer. All of the improvements to the site are
private.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a request from Mr. Lee Rossow for approval of a preliminary and final plat for a cemetery to be called Halcyon located at 11050 50th Street North. The Planning Commission held a public
hearing to consider the matter at its July 13, 2015 meeting and unanimously recommended
approval of the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and Final Plat subject to 14 conditions of
approval. The suggested motions to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows:
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 17]
July 21, 2015
-- page 2 --
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2015-59, approving the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and Final Plat.”
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Attached is the original detailed Staff report that was provided to the Planning Commission
regarding the applicant’s request for preliminary and final plat approval. The staff report
includes general information about the application, a summary of the relevant planning and
zoning issues, a thorough review and analysis of the final plat (including a draft list of recommended conditions of approval), draft findings, and the Staff recommendation to the
Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the preliminary and final plat application at its July 13, 2015 meeting. During the public hearing, the Planning Commission
received the following testimony:
• Jean Madrinich, 11420 50th Street N., noted that there are multiple flood plains in the
area. She asked how the flood plains are being addressed. Lee Rossow noted that they have worked through those issues with the watershed district. Ms. Madrinich also noted
concern about additional traffic that would be generated on 50th Street.
• Deb Kreuger, 4552 Lake Elmo Ave. N., asked questions about the need for parkland
dedication associated with this property. In addition, she referenced several State Statutes that relate to cemeteries. She wanted to ensure that the statutory requirements
are being followed with the project, especially the establishment of a permanent care trust
fund for the cemetery association. The applicant noted that a trust fund is being
established with the project.
• Janet Thompson, 11491 50th Street N., noted that she is concerned about a commercial venue being placed in a residential area. She stated that her family moved here to live in
a rural area, and this use is not in keeping with that goal.
• Rebecca Tenpas, 11330 50th Street N., stated that she does not believe the proposed use is consistent with the rural character that the City desires. She also stated that the traffic on 50th Street is a concern, and the use will add to the existing problem.
• Rich Day, owner of a property to the south of the proposed cemetery, asked if the project
has undergone an environmental review, such as an EIS. Johnson noted that the project
did not meet the threshold to trigger an environmental review, but that the City does have the discretion to request environmental review. Mr. Day also voice his concern about the
storm water on the site that travels to his property. The applicant noted that they have
received permit approval from the Valley Branch Watershed District for the proposed
storm water management design.
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 17]
July 21, 2015
-- page 3 --
• Jeffrey Saffle, 11180 50th Street N., asked if the lights on the site would be compliant
with dark skies standards. He noted that is important to follow the City’s dark skies
ordinance.
• Saxe Roberts, 11165 50th Street N., noted his concern about the effect of cemeteries on property values. Mr. Roberts agreed with staff that research is inconclusive on the matter,
but he worried that the presence of the cemetery would eliminate some buyers for his
property in the future.
The full account of the testimony can be reviewed in the draft Planning Commission minutes dated 7/13/15.
The Planning Commission discussed a variety of topics in considering the preliminary and final
plat application for the cemetery. In discussing the project, the Planning Commission added the
following conditions:
• A condition was added that any future expansions for the cemetery use would need City review and approval.
• A condition was added to ensure that dark skies ordinances were followed.
• A condition was added that any expansion of the home meet design criteria contained in the City’s design standards.
• A condition was added to add a warranty period for the transplanted trees on the site.
• A condition was added to provide additional screening along the east and north property lines.
• Finally, a condition was added that the cemetery association provide copies of all annual
minutes and financial reporting of the permanent care trust fund to the City on an annual
basis.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and Final Plat with 14 conditions of approval. The vote to recommend approval of the preliminary
and final plat was unanimous (Vote: 6-0).
STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, THREATS (SWOT): Strengths: The proposed preliminary and final plat are compliant with the City’s
subdivision ordinance, as well as other ordinances found in the zoning code.
Weaknesses: Neighboring property owners have expressed concerns about traffic
generated by the use. Opportunities: N/A
Threats: N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 17]
July 21, 2015
-- page 4 --
Based on the aforementioned, the Planning Commission and Staff are recommending that the
City Council approve the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and Final Plat through the following motion:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2015-59, approving the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and Final Plat.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 2015-59
2. Staff Report to the Planning Commission, 7/13/15
3. Location Map
4. Application Forms and Project Narrative
5. Preliminary and Final Plat and Plans
6. City Engineer Review Memorandum, dated 7/8/15
7. Fire Chief Review Memorandum, dated 7/7/15
8. Washington County Review Memorandum, dated 7/7/15
9. Valley Branch Watershed District Permit
10. Lake Elmo Transportation Plan, Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes
11. Cemetery Proximity and Single Family Home Price Report (1st Half)
INCLUDED IN THE ELECTRONIC PACKET BUT NOT PROVIDED IN HARD COPY:
1. 2nd Half of Cemetery Proximity and Single Family Home Price Report – Supporting Data
2. Information Handout from League of MN Cities on Cemeteries
1 Resolution 2015-59
CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-59 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR THE HALCYON CEMETERY
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Lee Rossow, 11050 50th Street North, Lake Elmo MN 55042 has
submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (“City”) for a Preliminary and Final Plat for a
cemetery to be called Halcyon, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo Community
Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Final Plat includes a cemetery on one parcel of land (PID:
01.029.21.33.0003) in the Rural Planning Area; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 13,
2015 to consider the Preliminary and Final Plat application; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending
approval of the Final Plat subject to 14 conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation concerning the Preliminary and Final Plat as part of a memorandum to the City
Council for the July 21, 2015 Council Meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and Final
Plat at its meeting held on July 21, 2015 and made the following findings of fact:
1) That the Halcyon Cemetery Final Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
2) That the Halcyon Cemetery complies with the City’s RR – Rural Residential zoning
district.
3) That the Halcyon Cemetery complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance.
4) That the Halcyon Cemetery Final Plat meets other City zoning ordinances, such as landscaping, tree preservation, erosion and sediment control, off-street parking and other
ordinances, except where noted in this report herein.
5) That the Halcyon Cemetery Final Plat is consistent with the City’s engineering standards,
except where noted, provided the plans are updated to address the City Engineer’s
2 Resolution 2015-59
comments documented in a letter dated July 8, 2015 and the Fire Chief’s comments
documented in a letter dated July 7, 2015.
6) The applicant has committed to establishing a permanent care trust fund consistent with
the requirements established under State Statute.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and Final Plat subject to the following conditions:
1) The applicant shall revise the Final Plat to accommodate all required right-of-way on
Lake Elmo Avenue and 50th Street North as documented in review memorandums
submitted by Washington County and the City Engineer.
2) All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review letter dated July 8, 2015 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to the City’s execution
of the Final Plat.
3) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland
Conservation Act, and abide by all conditions of approval established in the approved Valley Branch Watershed District permit.
4) The applicant shall be responsible to address all review comments submitted by
Washington County described in the review memorandum received from the County
dated July 7, 2015. In addition, the applicant shall obtain all necessary right-of-way
permitting from Washington County.
5) The Landscape Plan shall be revised to include 6 additional trees to fulfill the City’s Landscaping Requirements. In addition, the plant material that is on top of utilities shall
be moved to comply with the direction of the City Engineer per his memorandum dated
July 8, 2015. Finally, prior to installation of plant material, the plan shall be reviewed by
the City’s Landscape Consultant for final approval.
6) The applicant must enter into an agreement with the City to own, operate and maintain the private storm water facilities on the property. The storm water maintenance
agreement must be recorded with the Final Plat.
7) Prior to the issuance of grading/building permits, all review comments of the Fire Chief
must be addressed by the applicant.
8) The applicant shall obtain the necessary permitting from Washington County to install a new septic system to serve the property prior to the City issuing and building permits for
the remodel of the home.
9) Any future expansion of the site, including plans to install a crematorium, shall be
reviewed and approved by the City.
10) All lighting installed on the Halcyon Cemetery site must comply with the City’s dark skies ordinance.
3 Resolution 2015-59
11) Any alterations to the existing single family home shall be reviewed for conformance to
the City’s design standards.
12) All transplanted trees transplanted on the site shall include a 2-year warranty period to
ensure survival. Any trees that do not survive the two-year period shall be replaced.
13) The Landscape Plan shall be amended to add plantings along the Eastern and Northern property lines consistent with screening requirements specified in 154.258.F of the City
Code.
14) Annual meeting minutes, including annual financial reporting and status of the permanent
care trust fund, shall be submitted to the City on an annual basis.
Passed and duly adopted this 21st day of July, 2015 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
___________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 7/13/2015
AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 2015-06
ITEM: Halcyon Cemetery – Preliminary and Final Plat
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Ann Pung-Terwedo, Washington County Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing to consider a Preliminary and Final
Plat application request from Mr. Lee Rossow for a cemetery to be platted on a 10-acre parcel
located at the northeast corner of Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) and 50th Street North. Staff is recommending approval of the request subject to compliance with 8 conditions as noted in this
report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Lee Rossow, 11050 50th Street North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Property Owners: Lee Rossow, 11050 50th Street North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Location: Part of Section 01, Township 29 North, Range 21 West in Lake Elmo, immediately north of 50th Street and immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue
(CSAH 17). PID Number: 01.029.21.33.0003
Request: Application for preliminary and final plat approval of a cemetery to be called
Halcyon.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Single Family Detached, Rural Residential (RR) zoning
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North – single family home (RR); west – single family home
(RR); south – Agricultural (RR); east – single family residential
(RR) and Municipal Well Site #4.
Comprehensive Plan: Rural Area Development
History: Sketch Plan review by Planning Commission on 11/24/2014.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 6/17/2015
60 Day Deadline – 8/17/2015 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 10/16/2015
2
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Article IX – Rural Districts
Article V – Off Street Parking
Article VI – Landscaping and Tree Preservation §150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Mr. Lee Rossow to plat a 10-acre cemetery at
11050 50th Street North to be called Halcyon. Under State Law, cemeteries must be filed and
recorded with the County. In order for the cemetery plat to be filed and recorded at the County, the
City must approve a final plat for the cemetery. The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing on the proposed cemetery plat. The proposed cemetery would be located at the northeast
corner of Lake Elmo Ave. and 50th St. North. The 10-acre parcel has historically been used as a
single family residential home.
It should be noted that a Sketch Plan of the Halcyon Cemetery was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 24th of 2014. At the Sketch Plan review level, the City completed a high-level review of the proposal to inform a future preliminary/final plat application. There is no formal
approval issued by the City at the time of Sketch Plan review. According to standard subdivision
procedures, a typical plat will go through both a preliminary and final plat review process. However,
it is possible to proceed with preliminary and final plat review concurrently for plats of more limited scope and size. In the judgment of staff, the review of the Halcyon Cemetery represents such an
application of more limited scope/size where the review of preliminary and final plans should be
permitted to proceed in a concurrent fashion. Therefore, the applicant has prepared a final plat and
construction plans for consideration by the City.
The existing condition of the property is that of a single family residential home with an accessory building on the eastern side of the property. It should be noted that the existing home has access off
both 50th Street and Lake Elmo Avenue. The proposed cemetery would eliminate the access on Lake
Elmo Ave., improving the access spacing related to driveways on the County arterial road. Access to the proposed cemetery would be accommodated off of 50th Street North approximately 270 feet east of Lake Elmo Ave. (CSAH 17). As part of the proposed cemetery use, the existing home and
accessory building would be repurposed to support the cemetery use. The home would be used as an
administrative office, caretaker quarters and gathering space for the bereaved. The existing accessory
building would be utilized as a maintenance garage. In addition to these existing improvements, the applicant is planning to construct private storm water management facilities along the eastern portion of the site to address the additional impervious surface. It should be noted that these facilities have
been designed to comply with the rules of the City of Lake Elmo and the Valley Branch Watershed
District. With regards to the cemetery, the applicant is planning a total of 5 sections or areas to serve as burial sites or columbarium/mausoleums. Sections 1, 2 and 5 are within the planned Phase 1 area of the cemetery, while Sections 3 and 4 are in the planned Phase 2 area of the cemetery. The options
for burial or interment include in-ground burials, mausoleums, columbarium, in-ground cremation
and estate lots. At full capacity, the 5 sections could host the remains of 1,995 persons according to
the site plan. Finally, there is also a 58-stall parking area planned for the cemetery. The parking lot would be utilized to accommodate larger parties for various burial ceremonies or rituals.
As far as utilities are concerned, the existing building will be served by a private septic system. The
applicant has completed a compliance inspection and submitted to Washington County. The
inspection revealed that the existing system is not compliant per Washington County ordinance.
3
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
Therefore, the applicant will need to construct a new septic system in consultation with Washington
County Health Department (Condition #8). With regards to water, the site does have access to the
City’s municipal water system within 50th Street. Water service will be extended to the site to
provide proper fire suppression for the home once it is converted to serve the cemetery use. It should also be noted that there is an existing well on the site. It is the understanding of the City that the well is to be protected and maintained for irrigation purposes.
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES
The Halcyon Cemetery parcel is guided Rural Area Development (RAD) according to the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The existing zoning of the parcel is Rural Residential (RR). According to
Article XI – Rural Districts of the Zoning Code, cemeteries are considered a permitted use within the Agricultural (A) and Rural Residential (RR) zoning districts. Therefore, the proposed use of a
cemetery on this property is in compliance with the City’s Zoning Code. It should also be noted that
the Zoning Code does not contain any specific development standards for the cemetery use.
Based on Staff’s review of the preliminary and final plat, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all applicable code requirements at the level of detail that is required for a plat. As noted
previously, the plat approval from the City is not required as a result of splitting the parcel into 4 or
more lots, but rather as an approval of the proposed use prior to the filing of the property as a
cemetery with Washington County. However, the platting procedures do allow the City and County to obtain the necessary right-of-way to serve both Lake Elmo Avenue and 50th Street.
With regards to parkland dedication, the Subdivision Ordinance does require that residential and
commercial plats provide parkland dedication based upon a percentage or fee set under the City’s Fee
Schedule. Residential developments typically require a dedication percentage in between 7-10%, whereas the City’s Fee Schedule require $4,500/acre for commercial development be provided for parkland fees. In researching the cemetery use, staff has determined that the use is technically
defined as a public cemetery association, meaning that the cemetery is owned privately but is open to
the public. As a result of this definition and the fact that private cemeteries are considered a quasi-public use, staff does not believe that the City can require parkland dedication fees for the proposed use. The cemetery use is neither residential nor commercial, and thus staff is not recommending to
impose any parkland dedication fees.
Finally, it should be noted that City staff has received some inquiries of concern from some
surrounding property owners about the cemetery use. In speaking with the surrounding property owners, the general concerns staff has received relate to traffic, the effect on property values and the means to maintain the cemetery into perpetuity. Staff has completed some general research to look
into these concerns:
• Traffic. With regards to increased traffic generated by the cemetery, the property is located
at the intersection of a County arterial road and City major collector road. These facilities, as opposed to local residential streets, should be able to accommodate any increased traffic generated from the cemetery use. According to the City’s Transportation Plan, the average
daily traffic of 50th Street in 2009 was 500 trips, whereas the projected volume on 50th Street
in 2030 is 1500 trips per day. Given this lower average daily traffic as of 2009, it is unlikely
that the cemetery use would generate the amount of traffic that would come within any proximity of the available capacity. Lake Elmo average daily traffic as of 2009 was 3100
vehicle trips per day. The projected traffic volume for 2030 is 9200 vehicle trips per day. The
applicant has estimated that daily travel to the cemetery will be extremely limited, with peak
4
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
travel resulting from scheduled funerals on an infrequent basis. While staff understands the
concern over additional traffic generated by the proposed cemetery, the fact that the subject
property is located at the intersection of an arterial road and major collector provides
assurance to staff that the use would be ideally located. In the judgment of staff, there is adequate capacity on Lake Elmo Ave. and 50th Street.
• Property Values. Staff has received two concerns about reduced property values as a result
of the proposed cemetery. Staff has conducted some research into this concern. Based on the
limited research conducted, staff is not confident that there is a documented or proven
correlation between property values and cemeteries. In researching the matter, the connection between cemeteries and property values remains inconclusive. There are academic studies and anecdotal articles that fall on both sides of the argument. For the
benefit of the Planning Commission, staff has attached the article (Attachment #9) that
presented the most comprehensive look at the effect of cemeteries on property values based
on the research conducted.
• Permanent Care of the Cemetery. One resident that contact staff inquired about how the cemetery would be well maintained into the future. In researching this question, staff found
that some cemeteries depending on location and population are required to maintain a
Permanent Care and Improvement Fund. Whether or not the Halcyon Cemetery is required
to establish this fund is undetermined at this time. However, the applicant has noted in their narrative that they intend to utilize a percentage of funds from every burial and interment to
pay a permanent care and maintenance fund, which would be established and run by the
cemetery association. The narrative notes that this fund will be in compliance with State
Statutes. According to the applicant, this fund would be utilized to care for the grounds and complete capital projects and improvements to the cemetery.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
City Staff has reviewed the proposed preliminary and final plat for the Halcyon Cemetery. It should
be noted that the applicant chose to wait to submit the plat application until the Valley Branch
Watershed Permit was approved and issued, which occurred on June 25th, 2015. During the course of
these review, staff has evaluated the proposed plans according to City ordinances and engineering standards. In completing the review, there are some elements of the plat that remain in conflict with City, County or Valley Branch Watershed District standards, which must still be addressed or
corrected by the applicant. In general, the proposed plat will meet all applicable City requirements
for conditional approval, and any deficiencies or additional work that is needed is noted as part of the review record.
The City has received a detailed list of comments from the City Engineer, Fire Chief and Washington
County concerning the proposed cemetery, all of which are attached for consideration by the
Commission.
In addition to the general comments that have been provided in the preceding sections of this report, Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the issues and comments related to the following discussion areas as well:
• Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan for this area. The subject property is guided Rural Area Development
(RAD), which correlates to Agricultural and Rural Residential land uses. Under the Comprehensive Plan, cemetery use is not in conflict with this land use guidance.
5
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
• Zoning. The zoning of the subject property is Rural Residential (RR). Under this zoning designation, cemeteries are a permitted use according to the Zoning Code.
• Subdivision Requirements. The City’s Subdivision Ordinance details the process for platting
and other pertinent design standards. The majority of the standards are not applicable as the
parcel is not being subdivided in the manner that is typical of other development. Staff, as well as the City Engineer, have not identified any existing conflicts with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. However, staff has found that additional public right-of-way may
need to be provided on both 50th Street and Lake Elmo Avenue. The requirements to provide
public right-of-way is found in the Subdivision Ordinance.
• Infrastructure. No public infrastructure is proposed to be constructed as part of the cemetery use. The wastewater facilities will be private. The existing home will be connected to the City water system via a water service. In addition, the Fire Chief will be requesting a hydrant
to be located on the property. Nevertheless, the water line and hydrant will be privately
owned and maintained. Finally, the storm water management facilities will also be privately
owned and maintained. The City will require the landowner or association to enter into a maintenance agreement for the storm water facilities.
• Wetlands. The landowner has completed a wetland delineation as part of the permitting process for the Valley Branch Watershed. The applicant will be required to meet all the rules
and regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act and Valley Branch Watershed District
(Condition #3).
• Landscaping. Staff has reviewed the landscape plan submitted by the applicant and found the plan to be in general conformance with the City’s ordinance. However, the applicant must provide 6 additional new trees to meet the City’s quantity standards. Aside from this issue,
the plant material provided meets the City standards for variety and plant size. It should also
be noted that the applicant is proposing to transplant many of the existing trees on the site. In
combination with the new plant material, there should be a fairly significant amount of landscaping on the 10-acre site. Staff was unable to have the plan reviewed by a registered
Landscape Architect prior to consideration by the City. Therefore, Staff would recommend
that the plan be reviewed for final approval prior to the installation of the plant material on
the site. Finally, it should be noted that the City Engineer has identified some areas where plant material or trees are located on top of proposed utilities. The Landscape Plan should be revised to provide separation between the proposed utilities and plant material. These
recommendations are included in a recommended condition of approval (Condition #5).
• Tree Preservation Plan. Staff has reviewed the Tree Preservation Plan and found it to be in
conformance with the City’s regulations pertaining to tree preservation for sites undergoing development activity. The total number of caliper inches on the site according to the survey is 1,550 caliper inches of significant trees. According to the Tree Preservation Ordinance, an
applicant is allowed to remove 30% of significant trees on the site before tree replacement
schedule is initiated. 30% of 1,550 total caliper inches is 465 caliper inches. The applicant is
proposing to remove 340 caliper inches of significant trees, which is below the threshold for tree replacement. It should be noted that the applicant is proposing to transplant a significant amount of existing trees on the site to install mature plantings from an early point. Under the
Tree Preservation Ordinance, transplanted trees do not count towards the total tree removals.
6
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
Staff finds the submitted tree preservation plan to be in conformance with the City’s
ordinance.
• Off-Street Parking. The proposed site plan for the cemetery shows 58 parking stalls. The
City’s Off-Street Parking Ordinance (§154.210) includes the required number of off-street
parking stalls for various uses. As for cemeteries, the ordinance does not provide concrete direction, but rather states that parking should be provided in an amount determined by the Planning Director. Planning staff has reviewed the overall amount of parking on the plan and
found it to be more than adequate. The amount of parking provided in the southern parking
lot should prevent cars from parking on 50th Street or Lake Elmo Ave., both of which are
currently designated no parking. Should an overflow parking be necessary, it is likely it could be accommodated within the various drive lanes that circulate the cemetery. In the judgment
of staff, the amount of parking provided is more than adequate. Finally, it should be noted
that the parking stall dimensions meet the City’s minimum standards per the ordinance.
• City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has completed a review of the proposed cemetery
and submitted his review comments in a memorandum dated July 8, 2015. With regards to the plat, he notes that 50th Street North is a major collector road, requiring 80 total feet of
right-of-way. The plat currently shows 35 feet granted on the north side of 50th Street. He is
requesting an additional 5 feet to establish the correct amount of right-of-way for collector
roads. In addition, he is requesting additional right-of-way at the intersection to accommodate the sight line triangle. Finally, he is also requesting that a 10-foot drainage and
utility easement be provided on the southern property line. This additional right-of-way and
easement should not impact the proposed improvements on the site. Should any
improvement be located in the drainage and utility easement, an easement encroachment agreement may be approved to allow fencing and other such improvements to be located there. In addition to the review comments on right-of-way, the engineer is requiring that the
storm water management system be owned and maintained privately. The storm water
facilities have not been designed to meet City standard. These facilities must be owned,
operated and maintained privately. The City will expect a maintenance agreement to ensure proper operation of the facilities. Finally, the City Engineer has also noted several revisions
and additions to the Construction Plan sheets. These review comments are mostly detail and
plan notes that provide greater accuracy and clarity on the plans. Staff is recommending that
the Engineer’s review comments be adopted as a condition of approval (Condition #2). These modifications should be completed prior to the City executing the Final Plat.
• Fire Department Review. The Fire Chief has reviewed the proposed cemetery and identified some areas of further review. One request included additional information about the location
of hydrants on the property. In addition, the Fire Chief is requesting additional information
related to the movement of emergency vehicle on the site. Staff is recommending that the concerns identified by the Fire Chief be addressed prior to the issuance of grading or building permits (Condition #7)
• Washington County Review. County Staff has reviewed the cemetery plat and responded
with a review memorandum dated July 7, 2015. Within the memo, County staff correctly
notes that the amount of public right-of-way for Lake Elmo Ave. shown on the final plat is
insufficient. In order to address this deficiency, an additional 25 feet must be provided. Staff is confident that the additional amount of right-of-way requested can be accommodated, as the Final Construction Plans include the correct amount of right-of-way, while the plat does
7
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
not. In other words, the additional right-of-way should not result in redesign of the site. In
addition to the right-of-way issue, County staff notes that a right-of-way permit will be
needed for the removal of the driveway and grading work associated with the retaining wall.
In addition, the applicant must submit drainage calculations to review downstream impacts in the County ditch. Staff is recommending that all requirements and modifications identified in the County review memorandum be adopted as a condition of approval (Condition #4).
• Watershed District Review. The project area lies within the Valley Branch Watershed
District (VBWD). The Valley Branch Watershed District reviewed the proposed cemetery at
their June 25th meeting. At the meeting, the Valley Branch Board of Managers approved the
permit for the cemetery with several conditions (see Attachment #7). It should be noted that the applicant must meet all the rules of the Wetland Conservation Act and the conditions of
the VBWD permit. Staff is recommending a condition of approval (Condition #3) that these
requirements be fulfilled.
Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat
with 8 conditions intended to address the outstanding issues noted above and to further clarify the
City’s expectations in order for the developer to move forward with a final plat. The recommended
conditions are as follows:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1) The applicant shall revise the Final Plat to accommodate all required right-of-way on Lake
Elmo Avenue and 50th Street North as documented in review memorandums submitted by
Washington County and the City Engineer.
2) All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review letter dated July 8, 2015 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to the City’s execution of the
Final Plat.
3) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland
Conservation Act, and abide by all conditions of approval established in the approved Valley Branch Watershed District permit.
4) The applicant shall be responsible to address all review comments submitted by Washington
County described in the review memorandum received from the County dated July 7, 2015.
In addition, the applicant shall obtain all necessary right-of-way permitting from Washington County.
5) The Landscape Plan shall be revised to include 6 additional trees to fulfill the City’s
Landscaping Requirements. In addition, the plant material that is on top of utilities shall be
moved to comply with the direction of the City Engineer per his memorandum dated July 8,
2015. Finally, prior to installation of plant material, the plan shall be reviewed by the City’s Landscape Consultant for final approval.
6) The applicant must enter into an agreement with the City to own, operate and maintain the
private storm water facilities on the property. The storm water maintenance agreement must
be recorded with the Final Plat.
8
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
7) Prior to the issuance of grading/building permits, all review comments of the Fire Chief must
be addressed by the applicant.
8) The applicant shall obtain the necessary permitting from Washington County to install a new
septic system to serve the property prior to the City issuing and building permits for the remodel of the home.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to
the proposed Halcyon Cemetery Final Plat:
• That the Halcyon Cemetery Final Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan
and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
• That the Halcyon Cemetery complies with the City’s RR – Rural Residential zoning district.
• That the Halcyon Cemetery complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance.
• That the Halcyon Cemetery Final Plat meets other City zoning ordinances, such as landscaping, tree preservation, erosion and sediment control, off-street parking and other
ordinances, except where noted in this report herein.
• That the Halcyon Cemetery Final Plat is consistent with the City’s engineering standards,
except where noted, provided the plans are updated to address the City Engineer’s comments
documented in a letter dated July 8, 2015.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Halcyon Cemetery Final Plat with the 8 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Halcyon Cemetery Final Plat with the 8 conditions of
approval as drafted by Staff based on the findings of fact listed in the Staff Report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Application Forms and Narrative
3. Preliminary and Final Plat and Plans
4. City Engineer Review Memorandum, dated 7/8/15
5. Fire Chief Review Memorandum, dated 7/7/15
6. Washington County Review Memorandum, dated 7/7/15
7. Valley Branch Watershed District Permit
8. Lake Elmo Transportation Plan, Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes
9. Cemetery Proximity and Single Family Home Price Report (1st Half)
9
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
INCLUDED IN THE ELECTRONIC PACKET BUT NOT PROVIDED IN HARD COPY:
1. 2nd Half of Cemetery Proximity and Single Family Home Price Report – Supporting Data
2. Information Handout About Cemeteries from League of Minnesota Cities
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff
- Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff
- 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
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Data Source: Washington County, MN
11-17-2014
Location Map: Proposed Halcyon Cemetery
K
50th St. N.Lake Elmo Ave. N.0 300 600150 Feet
1"=300'
11050 50th Street N.
456717
PAGE 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 8, 2015
To: Nick Johnson, City Planner Re: Halcyon Cemetery
Preliminary and Final Plan Review
Cc: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary‐Final Plat, and Construction Plans.
The submittal consisted of the following documentation prepared by Loucks Associates, dated January 5, 2015:
Site Plan and Preliminary Plat dated June 17, 2015.
Construction Plans for Parking, Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Utilities dated June 17, 2015.
Tree Preservation Pland and Landscape Plan dated June 17, 2015.
Stormwater Management Plan dated May 14, 2015.
STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering has prepared the following review comments and conditions for Final Plat:
PRELIMINARY / FINAL PLAT
The Final Plat must be revised to include an additional 25 feet R/W along CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue) as
required by Washington County (75 feet from CSAH 17 centerline).
An 80 foot R/W with 10 foot utility easements immediately outside of the R/W is the recommended
minimum corridor plan for 50th Street as a Municipal State Aid major collector roadway.
The Final Plat must include an additional 5 feet R/W along 50th Street so that the 50th Street R/W
is a total of 80 feet. The proposed plat of 35 feet must be revised to 40 feet.
The Final Plat must include a 10 foot utility easement along the full length of the south property
line, located just outside of the 50th Street R/W.
The Final Plat must include additional R/W at the intersection of CSAH 17 and 50th Street to accommodate
a sight line triangle similar to the sight triangle at the southeast corner of this intersection.
The Final Plat must be contingent upon the applicant providing written documentation demonstrating
adequate wastewater management facilities for the proposed land use. Minimum documentation must
include:
If the existing system is to continue in use, submit to the City a compliance inspection report that
has been reviewed and approved by Washington County.
Provide water use data used to size the current and secondary ISTS systems for the property.
Provide percolation testing indicating that the proposed locations are suitable for the proposed
use.
Provide to the City a copy of Washington County’s ISTS system approvals, including conditions.
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4283
PAGE 2 of 2
The storm water ponds, infiltration basins and all storm sewer are to be privately owned and maintained
by the property owner with this responsibility recorded to run with the property ownership. These
facilities have not been designed to meet City design standards for storm sewer or storm water
management facilities. The Final Plat must be conditioned upon the applicant executing an agreement to
own, operate and maintain the storm sewer and storm water facilities proposed on the site and recording
this agreement with the property.
CONSTRUCTION PLANS: The following engineering review comments must be addressed prior to any construction
work on the property.
Provide plan notes on Sheet C3‐1, C3‐2 and C4‐1 calling out measures to protect both the existing and
proposed drainfield sites throughout the construction process.
Sheet C4‐1, Utility Plan: Add note that all storm sewer pipe and storm water facilities are to be privately
owned and maintained.
Sheet C4‐1, Utility Plan: Update all Plan Notes to be pertinent and consistent with the proposed Utility
Plan. Generic notes appear to be inconsistent or irrelevant to this project.
Replace all City Standard Details and Plan Notes with the updated Details and Plan Notes dated February
2015.
Sheet C8‐1, Civil Details: Remove details 3003 and 3013. The City Standard Detail No. 605 and 604
respectively must be used as shown on Sheet C8‐2.
The Construction Plans must be updated with field verified utility locations with the plans resubmitted for
engineering review and approval prior to the start of construction. The applicant must complete a Gopher
State One call and utility locate and field survey all utilities to finalize the construction plans. All notes
referring to utility information being provided by others must be removed from the plans.
The Tree Protection detail on Sheet C1‐1 and Sheet L1‐0 must be replaced with the City standard detail 904.
LANDSCAPE PLANS: This engineering review does not include a review of the proposed Landscape Plans, however
the following comments are noted.
The landscape plan must be revised to provide maintenance access for the storm water pond adjacent to
the entrance driveway.
The landscape plan must be revised to relocate trees planted directly over the proposed utilities.
Revisions must be made to address these conflicts to maintain a minimum 5 foot separation.
23,848,635 articles and books
984
10kLikeLikeShareShare
Cemetery proximity and single-family house price.
Link/Page Citation 1
ABSTRACT
In this article, the potential impact of cemeteries on value is addressed empirically using regression analysis on data
from 575 transactions of single-family houses in the vicinity of four cemeteries. Consistent with the limited previous
research on this topic, when all observations are analyzed simultaneously no price effect is discovered. However,
when each cemetery is investigated separately, the results vary. In two cases, cemetery view is not significantly
related to price. In a third case. cemetery view is associated with higher prices (equal to 8.8% of mean house price),
and in a fourth case, cemetery view is associated with lower prices (equal to 10.1% of mean house price).
**********
The real estate literature is replete with papers reporting the influence of externalities on residential property values.
Studies appearing in The Appraisal Journal, for example, observe positive price effects given a house's proximity to
a golf course, (1) or an ocean, (2) and negative effects for proximity to freight rail lines, (3) a cell phone tower, (4) a
ruptured oil pipeline, (5) highway noise barriers, (6) and the residence of a registered sex offender. (7)
It is intuitive that price premiums should apply when an externality adds to an owner's enjoyment of his or her
property and that discounts should apply when a property is located close to an externality that poses either a
nuisance or potential danger. Not all market participants, however, immediately adopt this view, as indicated by
Hansen, Benson, and Hagen (8) who report significant price discounts for houses located close to a major fuel
pipeline after, but not before, it exploded.
The impact of open space property uses on nearby residential property values has been subject to some empirical
investigation. The results, in general, are not surprising. Golf courses, parks, and green spaces tend to be positive
externalities for surrounding properties, and landfills tend to be negative externalities. Of the various types of open
space property uses, cemeteries have been the least studied. A search of the literature reveals only two published
studies on this topic and both of these examine the same Portland, Oregon, database to report an insignificant price
difference between houses located close to a cemetery and those located farther away. (9)
Stadium View ALuxury Apartments In A Convenient
0LikeLikeShareShare
Full-Text OnlinOnline library of books, journals, a
Periodicals Literature
Search
Keyword Title Author Topic
Page 1 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library
1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02...
The purpose of the current study, therefore, is to direct some additional attention to this little-examined subject. In
this study, regression analysis is applied to transaction data from 575 single-family houses located in relatively close
proximity to four cemeteries in Greene County, Ohio. Grouping cemeteries for analysis, as was done in previous
analyses, may mask the impact of a cemetery on the transaction price of nearby houses.
Because some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with close cemetery proximity depend upon
whether or not the cemetery is within sight of the subject property, the present study also improves upon the
previous research by simultaneously investigating the price effect resulting from both the distance from, and view of,
a cemetery. This article describes the characteristics of cemeteries that may impact the value of nearby properties,
reviews the pertinent literature, and explains the data and methodology used in the research. The results of the
analysis are then presented.
Cemetery Characteristics That May Influence Value
The effect of proximity to a cemetery on nearby residential property value is uncertain. On the positive side,
cemeteries offer a place to walk, jog, exercise, or otherwise enjoy the outdoors safe from speeding traffic. In effect,
some people may view a cemetery as a park, and the tombstones as incidental.
A view of a relatively open vista that includes some tombstones may be preferable to one that is limited to the back
of the neighbor's garage or house. Further, a person who wishes to regularly visit the final resting place of a loved
one may value a house located conveniently close to the loved one's grave. To the extent that any of these
advantages apply, purchasers may be willing to pay a premium for a house located in close proximity to a cemetery,
and the premium may be enhanced to the degree that market participants believe the future use of the cemetery will
not change.
Historically, there has been considerable reluctance, especially in rural areas, to disturb land used as a cemetery.
Therefore, owners of houses in close proximity to such cemeteries can be fairly certain that their properties will not
subsequently be squeezed in by additional houses or less desirable property uses. On the other hand, there is no
guarantee that the use of cemetery property is fixed. Cemeteries are occasionally relocated and the property put to
an alternative use, which residential neighbors may find objectionable. Kay (10) observed that the probability of
cemetery relocation may be positively related to the rate at which an area is becoming urbanized.
There are also potential disadvantages associated with close proximity to a cemetery. Cemetery workers, visitors, or
trespassers may create noise disturbances. The relatively pleasing vista previously mentioned may be compromised
if the cemetery falls into disrepair or if trespassers vandalize it.
Potential physical dangers to people residing in close proximity to a cemetery include poisoning and disease.
Spongberg and Becks (11) reported that cemeteries may release hazardous chemicals and metals into surrounding
soil and ground water. Possible contaminants include arsenic and mercury, which were used in past embalming
practices, or formaldehyde used in current embalming practices; and varnishes, sealers, and preservatives used on
wood coffins, or lead, zinc, and copper from metal coffins.
Vezzani (12) asserts that mosquitoes are the most medically important insect vectors of disease. He also concludes
that cemeteries are highly suitable habitats for artificial container-breeding mosquitoes due to the great availability of
the different resources that they need (i.e., sugar substances, shelter, and water-filled containers).
Finally, there are psychological factors associated with cemeteries that may negatively impact some people. The
sight of a grave being dug or an internment service can put a damper on a party being held at a residence with a
cemetery view. For some, the sight of a cemetery or of tombstones may be upsetting, and for others, knowing that
the cemetery is close may be disconcerting.
Each of these factors may influence potential purchasers who may lower their bids or refuse to make offers on
properties with cemetery views. Larsen and Coleman (13) report moderate, but statistically significant selling price
effects for residential properties that were classified as psychologically impacted for reasons other than the
property's proximity to a cemetery.
First Home Buyer Programs
guaranteedrate.com/First-HomeVery Low Rates and Fees Guaranteed. Free Quotes, No SSN, No
Obligation.
Page 2 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library
1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02...
Casual examination of cemeteries in the U.S. Midwest results in several observations that are consistent with the
notion that cemeteries may negatively impact the value of nearby single-family houses. First, cemeteries tend to be
initially situated remotely from residential properties. Second, in recent years when residential development has
occurred in close proximity to a cemetery, developers have shown a propensity, where possible, to leave a wooded
buffer zone between the cemetery and the residential development. Finally, houses constructed in close proximity to
an existing cemetery are rarely, if ever, high-end properties.
Even if the disadvantages enumerated are significant in the transaction process, their impact may not be observable
in transaction prices as long as the search for a buyer routinely continues until a buyer is located who does not care
about or is ignorant of the physical risks or is not psychologically impacted by the proximity of a cemetery to the
subject property. It may, however, take more time to locate such a purchaser and this would be revealed by a
significantly longer time on market for houses located in close proximity to a cemetery.
The fact that the only relevant database previously studied did not contain time on market data may help explain
why it yielded no significant market effects attributable to cemetery proximity. Also, there are other factors that may
have contributed to the previous findings. Unfortunately, time on market is not available in the present database.
The addition of a time on market variable would be a valuable addition to any extensions of this research.
Literature Review
Bolitzer and Netusil (14) employ regression analysis to study how single-family house selling price is influenced by
the proximity of the house to a variety of open space property uses, including cemeteries. They analyze transactions
that occurred in 1990-1992 in Portland, Oregon. Selling prices of 662 houses located within 1,500 feet of one of
fifteen cemeteries are compared to prices of 6,005 houses that are not located within 1,500 feet of any type of open
space (e.g., cemetery, golf course, public park). No significant differences in prices attributable to cemetery
proximity are discovered.
Lutzenhiser and Netusil (15) analyze the same database and employ basically the same methodology as Bolitzer
and Netusil. Again, selling price is found not to differ significantly between houses located on either side of the
1,500-foot demarcation. In addition, a variable to account for cemetery size is included in this model, and house
prices are found to be insignificantly related to it.
These studies are noteworthy because they were pioneering efforts, but both suffer from problematic methodological
issues. For instance, the 1,500-foot demarcation point appears a bit arbitrary; Bolitzer and Netusil state it "was
selected after consulting with park specialists at Metro." (16) It is unclear what expertise metropolitan park
specialists possessed concerning setting this kind of criteria. No tests were conducted to determine if price effects
are present within 1,500 feet of each cemetery or whether 1,500 feet is an appropriate demarcation point. It is
possible that in some cases local price effects do not occur, but for other cases the local price effects exist and are
exhausted before 1,500 feet, while for still other properties, local price effects extend farther. The exact solution is
unique to each situation and dependent upon factors such as topography, foliage, housing density, and cemetery
condition.
Another methodological problem is that neither one of the studies compares properties with a cemetery view to
those without a view to investigate whether view might represent a better demarcation point. Also, although the
model employed in these studies includes binary variables to control for the area of the city in which a particular
house is located, a number of factors not included in the model could compromise the validity of the comparison
(e.g., the extent to which other externalities affect properties on both sides of the demarcation line). Further, the data
for houses surrounding the fifteen cemeteries is incorporated into a single model, which may have exacerbated the
issue if the variables that significantly influence nearby residential property values are not identical for all
cemeteries. This possibility is demonstrated in the current study by first estimating a single model that includes all
four study areas, and then comparing this result to results obtained by estimating separate models for each
cemetery and restricting the analysis to houses located in the same neighborhood.
Data
This article analyzes transactions of 575 single-family houses in the vicinity of four cemeteries, all located in Greene
Villanova Univ. Online
Advance Your Human Resources Skills & Prep for Certification. Get Info!
Page 3 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library
1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02...
County, Ohio. Greene County, located in southwestern Ohio, was established at its present boundaries in 1819.
Historically, Greene was an agricultural county, and today it remains predominantly rural. Only 4% of the county's
421 square miles consists of urban areas. Its total population is about 148,000 residents. After World War II, parts of
Greene County became a bedroom community for the city of Dayton in adjacent Montgomery County. In more
recent years, the county has undergone substantial commercial development.
According to the Greene County Auditor's office, 65 cemeteries are located in the county. Several are small family
plots and most of the 65 are located remotely enough that measuring their effect on nearby houses is problematic
because there are not many houses close by. This article focuses on four locations where residential development
has extended to an active (i.e., burials are still taking place) cemetery border: Bellbrook, Fairborn, Beavercreek, and
Xenia. All four study areas were personally inspected to determine whether each property currently has a cemetery
view. A definition of variables used in studying the four locations can be found in Table 1.
Bellbrook Area
The first study location is situated on 16.9 acres in the northeastern corner of the city of Bellbrook (population
7,009). Residential development reached this cemetery in 1961, when the first of five houses that abut the cemetery
was constructed. The last house to abut the cemetery was built in 1965. All houses in the sample were constructed
in 1951-2003. There are 157 houses located to the east and southeast and within 1,513 feet of the well-maintained
cemetery. The sample is limited to the 122 houses where an arm's-length transaction of an improved lot could be
identified. Transactions in this study area occurred in 1958-2008.
There is no buffer zone between the Bellbrook cemetery and the residential development, but trees, houses, and
structures in the development block a cemetery view for most houses in the Bellbrook study area. However, 18 of
the sample properties do have a full or partial view of this cemetery. It was assumed that the view from each
property was the same at the time of each transaction. Data limitations prevent determination of property quality and
condition at the time of each transaction, but at the time of the study, it was observed that property quality and
condition tended to improve with distance from the cemetery. The Bellbrook area is limited to 1,513 feet by default
because the neighborhood ends at that distance.
Property characteristic and transaction information analyzed in this study were obtained from the office of the
Greene County Tax Assessor and the office of the Greene County Recorder. Table 2 shows descriptive statistics for
houses in the Bellbrook study area. The mean transaction price (PRICE) for these houses is $97,012. The mean
house age at the time of the transaction (AGE) is 27.4 years. The mean living space (SQFT) is 1,408 feet, and the
mean parcel size (LOT) is 13,427 square feet.
Fairborn Area
The second cemetery in the study is situated on 22.3 acres near the eastern edge of Greene County's second
largest city, Fairborn (population 51,390). The residential development is located south of the cemetery. The first
house in the development, constructed on the southern boundary of the development, sold in 1996. Development
proceeded to the north (toward the cemetery), with all the houses closest to the south side of the cemetery being
sold between 2003 and 2006.
Transaction data could not be obtained for 28 houses (these lots were purchased unimproved from the developer),
so the sample is restricted to the 244 observations that are arm's-length transactions of improved lots. The Fairborn
area is the newest development of the study areas, and the developer dedicated a buffer zone between the
development and cemetery that is approximately 200-feet wide (187 feet at the narrowest point) and fairly heavily
wooded.
The deciduous trees in the buffer zone eliminate any view of the well-maintained cemetery from all but a few houses
for approximately seven months of the year, but when the trees are bare, 46 houses have a full or partial view of the
cemetery. There is no discernable difference in the house quality and condition in this study area; all are currently in
above-average condition due, in no small part, to their relatively young age.
Table 3 shows that PRICE in this area is the highest of the four study areas. More houses in this area, 85.9%, have
a basement (BASE) than the other study areas and all houses in this development have central air conditioning
(AIR).
Beavercreek Area
Page 4 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library
1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02...
The third cemetery investigated is situated on 8.7 acres near the southern edge of Greene County's largest city,
Reavercreek (population 40,014). There are 103 houses located to the south and southwest and within 1,215 feet of
the cemetery. The study is restricted to the 77 houses for which an arm's-length transaction of an improved lot could
be identified.
The oldest house in the sample was built in 1900. All but three houses have been constructed since 1950, with the
newest built in 2005. Residential development reached the western and southern border of this cemetery in 1956,
when the first two of twelve houses that abut the cemetery were built. Transactions included in the sample occurred
in 1962-2008.
There is no buffer zone between the residential development and this well-maintained cemetery, but only 18 of the
sample houses have a full or partial view of the cemetery. Similar to the Bellbrook study area, house quality and
condition in this area tend to improve with distance from the cemetery. Table 4 shows that the mean lot size in the
Beavercreek area is the largest of the four study areas.
Xenia Area
The fourth cemetery is situated on 9.9 acres in the southwestern portion of Xenia, the county seat and the county's
third-largest city (population 27,557). Two hundred houses, located north and east of the cemetery, are within 1,594
feet of the cemetery. The study is restricted to the 151 houses where an arm's-length transaction of the improved lot
could be identified, 28 of which have a full or partial cemetery view.
Similar to the Fairborn study area, there is little difference in house quality within this study area. Almost all the
houses in this sample are single-story, tract houses constructed in 1956-1958; none has a basement. Although
house quality and condition at the time sale could not be ascertained, almost all houses in this sample were rated
average at the time of the study. The oldest house was built in 1951 and the newest in 2000. Transactions included
in the sample occurred in 1967-2008.
The maintenance condition of this cemetery can be generously described as moderate/average. There is no buffer
zone between the residential development and this cemetery. The nominal transaction prices shown in Tables 2, 5,
4, and 5 are partially a function of the year in which the transactions occurred. Table 5 shows that the Xenia study
area involves the lowest-valued houses of the four study areas.
Correlation of Variables
Table 6 contains the simple correlation of model variables for all four cemetery areas and shows that most of the
explanatory variables are highly correlated with transaction price. There is high correlation among many of the
independent variables (e.g., square footage, bathrooms, bedrooms, and basement).
What is surprising is the significant correlation between distance from a cemetery (DISTANCE) and every other
variable. The correlations indicate that house size increases with distance from the cemetery. Houses located
farther from the cemetery tend to have more garage space, bathrooms, and bedrooms, but lot size tends to
decrease with distance from the cemetery.
The correlations also indicate that the farther a house is located from a cemetery in the sample, the greater the
probability that the house has air conditioning and a basement. On the other hand, a significant simple correlation
between whether a cemetery view is available from the house and the other explanatory variables does not exist.
The appendix section of this article provides the correlation coefficients for the individual study areas.
Methodology
In studies of the impact of externalities on real property values, regression analysis is frequently referred to as
hedonic regression. This well-known and often-used technique facilitates the effective unbundling of the implicit
value attributable to the physical and location-specific characteristics of a property from the sale price.
The methodology in this study has two basic parts. First, the data for all four study areas is combined and the
following model is estimated to investigate whether housing prices are influenced by cemetery proximity: (17)
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (1)
Page 5 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library
1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02...
where:
PRICE = the transaction price
[alpha] = the intercept
[beta] = the estimators
SALEYR = a variable equal to the year in which the house sold
e = the error term
All the other independent variables are as defined in Table 1.
Based on the results of previous studies, (18) a positive sign is expected on the estimator for SQFT, LOT, GAR,
BATH, BED, AIR, and BASE, and a negative sign is expected for AGE. The expected sign for GAS is positive
because it was the most affordable form of heat in the area over the study period and should be capitalized in house
prices.
Preliminary analysis reveals that three variables designed to detect seasonality in selling prices are highly
insignificant and they were dropped from the model. The REG Procedure (19) was used to estimate Equation 1 with
the COLLIN option specified. The results of the COLLIN option indicate a moderate amount of multicollinearity is
present. (20)
For the second part of the methodology in this article, Equation I is estimated separately for each cemetery. The
estimate of the Fairborn data does not include AIR or GAS because each of the sample houses in this area has
central air conditioning and gas heat. The estimate of the Xenia data does not include GAS or BASE because all
houses in this area have gas heat and none has a basement. (21)
Results
The results of the present study are similar to the two previous cemetery proximity studies when, as was the case in
the previous studies, all cemeteries are analyzed with a single estimate. Table 7 shows summarized estimation
results of the full model; the data fits the model well.
The F-value is highly significant and the independent variables explain 92.29% of the variation in the dependent
variable. Seven of the ten control variables are significant at the 99% confidence level. Focusing on the two
variables of interest, the estimators for both VIEW and DISTANCE are highly insignificant, indicating that neither a
cemetery view nor distance from a cemetery has a significant effect on nearby house price.
To investigate the possibility that the results may vary by cemetery, this study estimates Equation 1 separately for
each area. The results for the Fairborn cemetery area are consistent with the full model results. Table 8 shows the
summarized estimation results for the Fairborn cemetery area; the data fits the model well, the F-value is highly
significant. The adjusted [R.sup.2] indicates that the model explains 78.14% of the variation in the dependent
variable.
This figure is low compared to the [R.sup.2] reported for the full model, but recall that AIR and GAS have been
dropped from this model because they are constants. Five of the eight control variables are significant at the 99%
confidence level. Regarding the variables of interest, the estimators for both VIEW and DISTANCE are highly
insignificant in this estimation, indicating that no price effect can be attributed to cemetery proximity.
A different result occurs when the analysis is limited to the Xenia cemetery area. Examination of the results, which
are summarized in Table 9, shows that the data fits the model fairly well; the F-value is highly significant, and the
model explains 70.11% of the variation in the dependent variable.
This is the lowest adjusted [R.sup.2] of any of the estimates, but this estimate does not include BASE or GAS
because each is constant. Only one of the control variables is significant at the 99% confidence level; two more are
significant at the 90% level, and the sign of the estimator for each of these variables is in the anticipated direction.
Recall that almost all the houses in this sample are nearly identical tract houses. It is interesting, therefore, that the
estimation indicates only four factors are significantly related to house price: date when the house sold, age of the
Page 6 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library
1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02...
house when the sale occurred, garage size, and whether the house has a cemetery view.
The estimator for VIEW is negative and significant at the 90% confidence level and indicates that houses with a
cemetery view in this area sold, on average, at a discount of $6,291.89 compared to those without a cemetery view.
For the mean-priced house in this sample, this represents a discount of 10.1% ($6,291.89/$62,531.30). The variable
DISTANCE is not significant in this estimate.
Table 10, where the estimation results for the Beavercreek cemetery area are presented, shows that the data fits the
model well. The F-value is highly significant, and the adjusted [R.sup.2] indicates that the model explains 90.71% of
the variation in the dependent variable. Four of the ten control variables are significant at the 99% confidence level,
and three are significant at the 95% level. Focusing on the variables of interest, VIEW is insignificant, indicating no
price effect can be attributed to this variable, but DISTANCE is significant at the 90% level.
The positive estimator for DISTANCE indicates that transaction price in this area increased by $29.58, on average,
for each additional foot the lot is removed from the cemetery. This result should occur if market participants
systematically deem the negative factors associated with close cemetery proximity to dominate the positive factors,
but this may not be the case here and there may be an alternative explanation.
Recall that casual observation indicated that property quality and condition in this study area improved with distance
from the cemetery, so DISTANCE may actually be serving as a proxy for quality and condition. If this explanation is
correct, there is a cemetery proximity effect associated with distance, but it is occurring not because market
participants judged the disadvantages of close proximity to the cemetery to outweigh the advantages; it occurred
because the original homeowners and/ or developers/builders constructed better-quality houses farther from, rather
than closer to, the cemetery.
Table 11, where the estimation results of Equation 1 for the Bellbrook cemetery area are summarized, reveals that
the data fits the model well. The F-value of 124.4 is highly significant and the adjusted [R.sup.2] indicates that the
model explains 92.45% of the variation in the dependent variable.
Four of the ten property characteristic variables are significant at the 99% confidence level and four are significant at
the 95% level. The sign of each of the significant explanatory variables is in the expected direction, and each
appears reasonable in amount. Both of the variables of interest are significant: VIEW at the 90% confidence level,
and DISTANCE at the 95% level.
The results indicate that buyers in this area value the park-like view. A cemetery view added $8,521.46 on average
to the transaction price for houses with a cemetery view. For the mean priced house in this sample, this represents a
premium of 8.8% ($8,521.46/$97,012.30).
The estimator for DISTANCE indicates that residential property values increased by $8.10 for each foot the lot was
removed from the cemetery. As was the case for the Beavercreek cemetery area, casual observation indicates that
property quality and condition in this study area improve with distance from the cemetery; here again it is believed
that DISTANCE is acting as a proxy for house quality and condition and the effect is occurring because the original
homeowners and/or developers/builders constructed better quality houses farther from rather than closer to the
cemetery.
Conclusion
The characteristics of cemeteries that may influence value are presented in this article and suggest that the
influence of a particular cemetery on nearby residential properties is uncertain. To empirically test this issue, data
from 575 sale transactions of houses in relatively close proximity to one of four cemeteries is subjected to regression
analysis.
In five iterations, transaction price is regressed against a battery of property characteristic variables to control for
price differences. Transaction price is also regressed against two variables of interest, DISTANCE, specified as the
shortest straight-line distance between the cemetery and the lot on which the subject house is located; and VIEW,
specified as the ability to view the cemetery from the subject property.
When all observations are tested in a single model, the results are consistent with the limited previous studies on
this topic--no significant price effect attributable to cemetery proximity is discovered. When each cemetery is tested
individually, however, the results vary. For two cemeteries, no price effect can be attributed to VIEW. For a third
cemetery, the estimator for VIEW is a negative $6,291.89, but for a fourth cemetery, the estimator for VIEW is a
Page 7 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library
1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02...
positive $8,521.46. For the mean priced house in each sample, the former represents a 10.1% discount and the
latter represents an 8.8% premium.
The sign of the estimator in each of these two instances is intuitively appealing because the positive estimator is
associated with a well-maintained cemetery, and the negative estimator is associated with a less well-maintained
cemetery. The fact that the results vary by cemetery suggest the possibility that previous studies might have arrived
at different conclusions if they had not grouped all cemeteries into a single model. The fact that VIEW is significant
in two of the four samples investigated here suggests that previous models may have used the wrong criteria in
testing for market effects due to cemetery proximity; VIEW may be more important than DISTANCE.
DISTANCE is insignificant in two of the four study areas. In both of these cases, almost all sample houses are
constructed within a relatively compact Lime frame and house quality and condition do not vary within the study
area. In the other two samples, house construction took place over a protracted period of time and it is observed that
property quality and condition tend to improve with distance from the cemetery.
In these two cases, the estimator for DISTANCE is a positive $8.10 per foot in one case and $29.58 per foot in the
other. The interpretations of these findings is that DISTANCE is actually serving as a proxy for house quality and
condition in these two cases. This suggests that the effect occurred not because market participants judged the
disadvantages of close proximity to outweigh the advantages, but because the original homeowners and/or
developers/builders constructed better quality houses farther from rather than closer to the cemetery.
Cemetery proximity should not be ignored by residential appraisers in arriving at a value estimate. It is possible
cemetery proximity will have no significant impact on nearby residential property values, but as the present study
indicates, it may. It is recommended, therefore, that appraisers test their local area to determine if cemetery
proximity market effects are present.
Unfortunately, data restrictions prevented the testing for another important market effect--time on market. Time on
market is more likely to be influenced by cemetery proximity than price. Extensions of this research, therefore, could
examine not only whether the results reported here apply in other markets, but also whether cemetery proximity
impacts time on market.
Appendix 1 Correlation Coefficients, Bellbrook Cemetery Area
SQFT LOT AGE GAR BATH BED AIR
PRICE .6178 .2025 .0435 .2391 .5543 .3430 .2152
<.0001 .0253 .6345 .0080 <.0001 .0001 .0173
SQFT .2461 .4490 .2019 .6604 .5693 .1973
.0063 <.0001 .0257 <.0001 <.0001 .0294
LOT .1509 .1023 .2059 .1103 .0593
.0971 .2623 .0229 .2264 .3465
AGE .0617 .3369 .2343 .0593
.4994 .0001 .0094 .5167
GAR .1426 .0246 .0842
.1172 .7875 .3566
BATH .3688 .2749
<.0001 .0022
BED .2042
.0240
AIR
GAS
BASE
SALEYR
VIEW
GAS BASE SALEYR VIEW DISTANCE
PRICE .0105 .4717 .7429 .2245 .09185
.9089 <.0001 <.0001 .0129 .3143
SQFT .1194 .4804 .1286 .1397 .0053
Page 8 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library
1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02...
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: 10/6/2015
REGULAR AGENDA
ITEM #12
AGENDA ITEM: Plat Approval Process/Conditions of Approval
SUBMITTED BY: Councilmember Fliflet
THROUGH: Administration
REVIEWED BY: Councilmember Fliflet
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item ........................................................ Councilmember Fliflet
- Report/Presentation…………………………………………Councilmember Fliflet
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Councilmember Fliflet
FISCAL IMPACT: Unknown
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
Council is being asked to discuss the process under which plats are brought forward for approval. Several areas of concern have been identified including:
• Parks Commission concerns and recommendations not being brought forward with the Plat approval
(this was brought up and identified as a problem at our joint council/parks commission meeting)
• Landscape architect concerns and recommendations not being brought forward with the Plat approval (this was brought forward as a concern by our landscape architect)
• The number of conditions accompanying plat approvals
• The follow up to ensure all conditions are met following plat approvals
• The follow up to ensure landscape plans and other items are in compliance with approved plats
• Developers granted permission for grading before tree preservation plans have been discussed and
adopted
• Release/reallocation of special assessments/liens with the county without City Council approval
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: October 6, 2015
REGULAR
ITEM # 13
AGENDA ITEM: 2014 Street Improvements – Assessment Hearing on Improvements and
Adopting the Final Assessment Roll
SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stempski, Project Engineer
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
Dave Snyder, City Attorney
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item ...................................................................... City Engineer
- Report/Presentation ....................................................................... City Engineer
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Open Public Improvement Hearing; Public Input .................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Holding the final assessment hearing follows state statute for assessing benefitting properties for
the improvements and adopting the final assessment roll finalizes the special assessments to be
levied for the project.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to conduct the Final Assessment Hearing for the 2014
Street Improvements and to hear upon any objections to the proposed assessment whether
presented verbally or in writing. Following the Hearing, the Council is asked to consider
adopting the final assessment roll. The recommended motion for this action is as follows:
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item X]
October 6, 2015
-- page 2 --
“Move to approve Resolution No. 2015-78, Adopting the Final Assessment Roll
for the 2014 Street Improvements.”
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On September 1, 2015, 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 2014 Street Improvements.
The Project is substantially complete and the Final Assessment Rolls for this project were
established per the City’s Special Assessment Policy and the final project costs for the
Improvements. Final total project costs were 90% of the authorized project amounts, or $188,500
less than planned. Therefore the unit assessment rates were reduced, at Council direction, to remain in line with the current assessment policies and practices, assessing 30% of eligible costs
to residential properties in each project area. With the reduced project costs and assessment
amounts, the City cost-share portion of the project is also reduced by $127,150, or 9.6% of the
planned amount.
Preliminary Final
TOTAL PROJECT $1,744,150 $1,561,891.41
City Share $1,322,350 $1,195,200 Assessed Costs $491,400 $429,200
UNIT ASSESSMENTS
Packard Park $6,000 (per unit) $5,000 (per unit)
Deer Pond Area $6,400 (per unit) $5,700 (per unit) Manning Trail $3,200 (per unit) $2,900 (per unit)
Tartan Park $95,800 (100% per foot) $87,400 (100% per foot)
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 per the
unit assessment amounts presented above. 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, 2015.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2015-78; Adopting the Final
Assessment Roll for the 2014 Street Improvements. The recommended motion for this action is as follows:
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item X]
October 6, 2015
-- page 3 --
“Move to approve Resolution No. 2015-78, Adopting the Final Assessment Roll
for the 2014 Street Improvements.”
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Resolution No. 2015-78, Adopting the Final Assessment Roll on Street Improvements.
2. Final Assessment Roll.
3. Notice of Hearing on Street Improvements. 4. Final Project Cost Summary.
Resolution No. 2015-XX 1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2015-78
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR
THE 2014 STREET 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 2014 Street Improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED,
1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby 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 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2016,
and shall bear interest at the rate of 4.61% percent per annum 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, 2015. 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 21 or interest will be charged through December 31 of
the next succeeding year. 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 ELMO CITY COUNCIL ON THE SIXTH DAY OF
OCTOBER 2015. CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By: __________________________ (Seal) Mike Pearson
ATTEST: Mayor
________________________________ Julie Johnson City Clerk
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MN.SEPTEMBER 20152014 STREET IMPROVEMENTSPACKARD PARK AREAFINAL ASSESSMENT ROLLPAGE 1 of 1NO. NAMEPID AMOUNT1 SCHWARTZ STEVEN R 2393 LAKE ELMO AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921320019 5,000.00$ 2 BUSH LARRY W & KATHRYN L 11140 24TH ST N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921320012 5,000.00$ 3 FEUERHERM FREDERICK P & NANCY 11202 24TH ST N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921320018 5,000.00$ 4 DAVIS PETER E & JEANNE E 11233 24TH ST N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921310013 5,000.00$ 5 SCHMELZ JONATHAN & CAROL 11277 24TH ST N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921310014 5,000.00$ 6 LAFAVOR RYAN B & NORMA P 11350 24TH ST N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921310015 5,000.00$ 7 VANDERKELEN GARY J TRS & MARLINE A VANDERKELEN TRS 11355 24TH ST N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921310010 5,000.00$ 8 HUNSTAD STEVE D & MERRI J 11420 24TH ST N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921310011 5,000.00$ 9 JOHNSTON RAYMOND P & VICKIE 2410 LANSING AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921310012 5,000.00$ 10 KONISZCZUK WALDEMAR & JANICE 2430 LANSING AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921320017 5,000.00$ 11 FERGUSON ANTHONY G TRS 2450 LANSING AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921320016 5,000.00$ 12 MOELLER WILLIAM P JR & MARGARET MOELLER 2455 LANSING AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921310016 5,000.00$ 13 EITZMAN PHILIP D & DIANA M 2470 LANSING AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921320015 5,000.00$ 14 SCHWABEL KENDRA K 11365 24TH ST CT N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921310009 5,000.00$ 15 GREUPNER GERALD W & PATRICIA 11375 24TH ST CT N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921310008 5,000.00$ 16 RYAN STEPHEN P & PATRICIA A 11385 24TH ST CT N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921310006 5,000.00$ 17 FOUT BRYAN JAMES & MOSEMAN & JOAN T MOSEMAN 11395 24TH ST CT N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921310005 5,000.00$ 18 ST MICHEL MARK L & JAMIE J 11407 24TH ST CT N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921310004 5,000.00$ 19 GESCHKE JAMES C & CLOE M 2450 LEGION AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921310003 5,000.00$ 20 MATTISON DONALD W & FAY A 2359 LEGION AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921420021 5,000.00$ 21 SMITH ADAM D 2329 LEGION AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921420020 5,000.00$ 22 JOHNSON SCOTT & JUDITH A 2320 LEGION AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921310007 5,000.00$ 23 BUCHECK DAVID J & ANN M 2301 LEGION AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921420019 5,000.00$ 24 BERNIER RICHARD A TRS & LINDA K BERNIER TRS 2257 LEGION AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921420018 5,000.00$ 25 BARTHOLOMEW CHERYL A & MICHAEL 2229 LEGION AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921430023 5,000.00$ 26 DURAND MARY JEAN TRS GREEN ACRES 11332 20TH ST N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921340001 25,000.00$ 27 FAIRROW RICHARD S & SARAH M 2075 LEGION AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921430012 5,000.00$ 28 COOK CHRISTOPHER P & KAREN F 11120 20TH ST CT N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921330011 5,000.00$ 29 JUNKER JEROME E & SANDRA L TRS & SANDRA L JUNKER T 11130 20TH ST CT N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921330010 5,000.00$ 30 BURNS JAMES A & BETH R 11140 20TH ST CT N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921330009 5,000.00$ 31 MORGAN DIANE TRUDEAU 11150 20TH ST CT N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921330008 5,000.00$ TOTAL 175,000.00$ ADDRESS
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MN.SEPTEMBER 20152014 STREET IMPROVEMENTSDEER POND COURT AND TRAIL NORTHFINAL ASSESSMENT ROLLPAGE 1 of 1NO. NAMEPID AMOUNT1 WALMAR BEVERLY & JACK TRS 8203 HIDDEN BAY TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921320020 5,700.00$ 2 BROSSART DIANE S 8206 DEER POND TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921320003 5,700.00$ 3 KRINGS MICHAEL R & PATRICIA A 8220 DEER POND TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921320004 5,700.00$ 4 BRENGEN JOHN H & EMILY E 8260 DEER POND TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921310022 5,700.00$ 5 CAPELING LAWRENCE L & YVONNE 8281 DEER POND TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921340004 5,700.00$ 6 LARSON REUBEN A & GERALDINE R 8292 DEER POND TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921310021 5,700.00$ 7 NICOSIA S CHRISTIAN & ROXANNE 8295 DEER POND TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921340003 5,700.00$ 8 MODEAN JASON M & AMY L 8312 DEER POND TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921310020 5,700.00$ 9 OSTARELLO BENJAMIN 8323 DEER POND TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921340002 5,700.00$ 10 YARUSSO GENTILLE R JR & SHARON 8355 DEER POND TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921340001 5,700.00$ 11 HOLDER VIRGINIA M TRS & J THOMAS MCHENRY TRS 8390 DEER POND TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921310019 5,700.00$ 12 WALD LEON D & LORRAINE M 8401 DEER POND TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921310028 5,700.00$ 13 JOHNSON DONNA M 8405 DEER POND TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921310007 5,700.00$ 14 PETERSON CHARLES I & JUDITH 8233 DEER POND CT N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921330018 5,700.00$ 15 BLANEY JAMES E & DAWN M 8237 DEER POND CT N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921330019 5,700.00$ 16 FLANAGAN STEVEN J & SUSAN M 8239 DEER POND CT N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921330020 5,700.00$ 17 SNELL JOHN B & JEANIE B 8241 DEER POND CT N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921330014 5,700.00$ 18 BULTMAN PAUL A 8243 DEER POND CT N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921330013 5,700.00$ 19 WILLIAMSON JUDITH C 8245 DEER POND CT N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921330012 5,700.00$ 20 PEARSON RICHARD O & DIANE E 8247 DEER POND CT N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921330011 5,700.00$ 21 LIPMAN ERIC L & KIMBERLY A 8249 DEER POND CT N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921330010 5,700.00$ 22 CARLSON ERIC J & JANE L M 8251 DEER POND CT N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921330009 5,700.00$ 23 SJERVEN GENE A & LORRAINE TRS 8255 DEER POND CT N LAKE ELMO 55042 0902921330008 5,700.00$ TOTAL131,100.00$ ADDRESS
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MN.SEPTEMBER 20152014 STREET IMPROVEMENTSMANNING TRAIL NORTHFINAL ASSESSMENT ROLLPAGE 1 of 1NO. NAMEPID AMOUNT1 TARTAN PARK LLC 11455 20TH ST N LAKE ELMO 55042 02502921120001 87,400.00$ 2 SELINSKI MICHAEL JOSEPH 1875 MANNING TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 02502921110001 2,900.00$ 3 NORMA L VALERI 1957 MANNING TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 02502921110003 2,900.00$ 4 BEAN ROBERT D 1985 MANNING TRLN LAKE ELMO 55042 02502921110002 2,900.00$ 5 KIEKHAFER ALLEN L & MARCELLA 2040 MANNING TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921440006 2,900.00$ 6 ZWIEFEL MICHAEL P & COLLEEN M MORAN 2055 MANNING TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921440017 2,900.00$ 7 PEARSON RICHARD M & ANNE K 2101 MANNING TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921440018 2,900.00$ 8 SULLIVAN KOLLEEN F 2270 MANNING TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921440003 2,900.00$ 9 BIRD JAYNE E & RONALD E 2244 MANNING TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921440005 2,900.00$ 10 SCHMIDT LILLIAN M 2296 MANNING TRL N LAKE ELMO 55042 02402921410001 2,900.00$ TOTAL113,500.00$ ADDRESS
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
2014 STREET 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 6,
2015, to consider, and possibly adopt, the proposed assessment against abutting property
for the 2014 Street Improvements. Adoption by the Council of the proposed assessment
may occur at the hearing. The following describes the area proposed to be assessed:
Packard Park Area: The amount to be specially assessed against each particular lot,
piece, or parcel of land located within the Packard Park Area, including 24th Street
North from Lake Elmo Avenue to Legion Avenue; 24th Street Court North;
Lansing Avenue North; 20th Street Court North; and Legion Avenue North from
20th Street to 24th Street is $5,000.
Manning Trail North: The amount to be specially assessed against each particular
residential lot, piece, or parcel of land located along Manning Trail North from
Manning Avenue to the City Limits is $2,900. The amount to be specially assessed
against Tartan Park, the non-residential property along Manning Trail North from
Manning Avenue to the City Limits is $87,400.
Deer Pond Area: The amount to be specially assessed against each particular lot,
piece, or parcel of land located within the Deer Pond Area, including Deer Pond
Trail from Hidden Bay Trail to Jack Pine Trail; and Deer Pond Court is $5,700.
You may at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor on
November 21, 2015, 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 4.61 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 2016, and will bear interest at the rate of
4.61 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, 2015. 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 $429,200. The City
contribution for the street improvement project is $1,195,200. 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: September 1, 2015
BY ORDER OF THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
Mike Pearson, Mayor
(Published in the Oakdale-Lake Elmo Review on September 9, 2015)
2014 STREET IMPROVEMENTS
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Project No. 2013.135
JTD INVOICED %
$12,998.09 100.0%
$74,474.84 92.2%
$29,347.00 52.7%
$20,579.00 109.2%
$39,046.45 56.9%
$987.50 98.8%
$177,432.88 74.6%
JTD INVOICED %
$177,432.88 74.6%
FINAL COST
Construction Cost $1,469,015.70
Change Order No. 1 $7,988.30
Compensating Change Order No. 2 ‐ Reconcile bid quantities to actual.‐$91,056.29
REVISED Contract Amount $1,385,947.71
Contingencies $0.00
Engineering Report and Design Phase Services $88,460.43
Engineering Construction Phase Services $59,926.00
Construction Observation $39,046.45
Geotechnical Engineering $12,022.30
Legal, Fiscal & Administration $39,000.00
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $1,624,402.89
‐$62,511.48
$1,561,891.41
2014 STREET IMPROVEMENTS ‐ TOTAL ASSESSABLE PROJECT COSTS
Preliminary Final
$491,400 $429,200 Costs Assessed to Benefitting Properties
$1,322,350 $1,195,203 City Share of Street Improvement Costs Preliminary: Final:
Packard Park $6,000 $5,000
Construction Start Date:Deer Pond $6,400 $5,700
Substantial Completion Date:Manning Trail $3,200 $2,900
Final Completion Date:Tartan Park $95,800 $87,400
Easement & Description $1,000.00 Hourly NTE
TOTAL Engineering Fees $237,850.00
January 20, 2015
$1,380,000.00
October 31, 2014
Unit Assessments
ADDITIONAL SERVICES BUDGET CONTRACT TYPE
PROJECT BUDGET SUMMARY REPORT ‐ ENGINEERING SERVICES
PROJECT BUDGET BY PHASE BUDGET CONTRACT TYPE
Feasibility Report $13,000.00 Lump Sum
Design/Bidding Phase Services $80,732.00 Hourly NTE
Construction Administration $55,668.00 Est. Hourly
$137,900.00
$93,732.00
$74,518.00
Reimbursed from WLT:
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET ‐ CITY OF LAKE ELMO
‐$69,600.00
November 21, 2014
October 10, 2014
$1,744,150.00
$39,000.00
July 8, 2014
$1,813,750.00
$68,600.00
Construction Staking $18,850.00 Est. Hourly
$20,000.00
$1,380,000.00
TOTAL Additional Services
TOTAL ENGINEERING SERVICE FEES $237,850.00
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET BREAKDOWN
PROJECT INFORMATION
FEASIBILITY REPORT
Construction Observation $68,600.00 Est. Hourly
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
2014 Street Improvements
Project No. 2013.135
PAGE 1
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: October 6, 2015
REGULAR
ITEM 14
AGENDA ITEM: 2016 Street, Drainage and Utility Improvements – Resolution Receiving
Feasibility Report and Calling Hearing on Improvement
SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Julie Johnson, City Clerk
Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
Jack Griffin, 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
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
The Feasibility Report was previously authorized. Calling for and conducting the Public Improvement Hearing is included in the feasibility report scope of services. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council is respectfully requested to consider adopting Resolution No. 2015-XX receiving the Feasibility Report and calling for a Public Improvement Hearing for the 2016 Street, Drainage and Utility Improvements to be held on November 3, 2015. The recommended
motion for this action is as follows:
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item X]
October 6, 2015
-- page 2 --
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2015-79, receiving the Feasibility Report
and calling Hearing for the 2016 Street, Drainage and Utility Improvements.”
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The 2016 Street Improvements were identified in the City’s 5-Year Street Capital Improvement Program. The City is also responding to petitions for municipal water along Kelvin Avenue
North.
The feasibility report was authorized by the city council on August 4, 2015 in order to ready
these improvements for 2016 construction. A feasibility report must be prepared to meet state statutory requirements if any portion of the project is to be assessed to benefitting properties. The
report identifies the necessary improvements, the estimated project costs, the assessment
methodology and preliminary assessment amounts to be levied against properties adjacent to and
benefitting from the street, drainage and utility improvements.
The improvements consist of the following:
• Reconstruction of Kirkwood Avenue North from 50th Street to the north cul-de-sac. The
improvement includes a new bituminous surface along an existing gravel roadway. In
2011 the property owners petitioned the City to be scheduled within the Street CIP for a new paved roadway.
• Reconstruction of Kelvin Avenue North from Old TH5 to the north cul-de-sac. The report
considers improvements to convert a portion of a private drive serving 8 residential
properties to a public street. The converted street would become an extension of Kelvin Avenue North.
• Resurfacing the streets through a street reclaim within the Stonegate 1st Addition,
including 9th Street North, Jasmine Avenue Place North, and Jasmine Avenue North from
10th Street to Julep Avenue North.
• Based upon receipt of a property owner petition, extension of 6-inch, 8-inch and 12-inch
diameter lateral and trunk watermain is considered along Kelvin Avenue North with
service stubs to existing properties. Recommendation of associated watermain
improvements is dependent upon support of the property owners to be 100% assessed. The total estimated project cost is $1,409,000. The street improvement portion is $1,195,000 and
the watermain improvement is $214,000. The improvements would be partially assessed against
the benefitting properties consistent with the City’s Special Assessment Policy. Residential street
improvements are typically assessed 30% of the total project costs while watermain improvements are assessed 100% to the benefitting properties. Kirkwood Avenue North property owners will be assessed 100% of the bituminous paving costs and 30% of the remaining base and
shouldering improvements, since the bituminous surface is a new improvment. The City’s
general tax levy typically covers the bond payments for the remaining street improvements. The
Water Enterprise Fund is used the cover the watermain oversize or trunk costs. A lateral benefit assessment would be levied against properties along the proposed trunk watermain on Kelvin
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item X]
October 6, 2015
-- page 3 --
Avenue. Assessments for street improvements are levied over 10 years while assessments for
watermain improvements area levied over 15 years. The feasibility report findings and
recommendations will be further presented at the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2015-79, receiving the
Feasibility Report and calling Hearing for the 2016 Street, Drainage and Utility Improvements.
The recommended motion for this action is as follows: “Move to adopt Resolution No. 2015-79, receiving the Feasibility Report and calling Hearing for the 2016 Street, Drainage and Utility Improvements.”
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Resolution 2015-79 Receiving the Feasibility Report for the 2016 Street Improvements.
2. Notice of Hearing on Improvement.
3. Location Maps.
4. Project Schedule.
5. Feasibility Report (available for review at City Hall)
Resolution No. 2015-XX 1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2015-79
A RESOLUTION RECEIVING A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE
2016 STREET, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS AND
CALLING HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT
WHEREAS, pursuant to city council authorization, adopted on August 4, 2015, a feasibility
report has been prepared by FOCUS Engineering, Inc. for the 2016 Street, Drainage and Utility Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the feasibility report recommends that benefitting properties along the project route be assessed all or a portion of the cost of the improvements pursuant to the city’s Special Assessment Policy and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the feasibility report provides information regarding 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 improvements as recommended; and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
1. That the City Council will consider the improvements in accordance with the report and the
assessments of the abutting properties for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429 with an estimated total project cost of $1,195,000 for
the street improvements and an estimated total project cost of $214,000 for the watermain
improvements.
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvements on the 3rd day of November, 2015,
in the council chambers of the City Hall at or approximately after 7:00 P.M. and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law.
ADOPTED BY THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ON THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015. CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By: __________________________
Mike Pearson Mayor
(Seal)
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julie Johnson City Clerk
PRELIMINARY PROJECT SCHEDULE
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
2016 STREET, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT NO. 2015.129
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4283
AUGUST 2015
August 4, 2015 Council authorizes Feasibility Report.
October 6, 2015 Presentation of Feasibility Report. Council accepts Report and calls Hearing.
November 3, 2015 Public Improvement Hearing. Council orders preparation of Plans and Specifications.
February 16, 2016 Council approves Plans and Specifications and orders Advertisement for Bids.
March 17, 2016 Receive Contractor Bids.
April 5, 2016 Council accepts Bids and awards Contract.
May 2, 2016 Conduct Pre‐Construction Meeting and issue Notice to Proceed.
August 12, 2016 Substantial Completion.
September 30, 2016 Final Completion.
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: October 6, 2015
REGULAR
ITEM # 15
AGENDA ITEM: Inwood Water Booster Station Improvements – Review Building Architecture
Options
SUBMITTED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Mike Bouthilet, Public Works
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
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering.
FISCAL IMPACT: To be determined. The purpose of this item is to introduce architectural design options and the associated costs for each
option for the Inwood Water Booster Station along Inwood Avenue just south of 26th Street North. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council is respectfully requested to review architectural options presented at the meeting and to
provide direction regarding architectural preferences and associated costs. The City Council may consider
approving the building architecture for the Inwood Water Booster Station. The recommended motion for this action would be as follows:
“Move to approve the building architecture for the Inwood Water Booster Station as directed by Council at the meeting.”
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item X]
October 6, 2015
-- page 2 --
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Inwood Booster Station project is needed to deliver City water service to support the growth and development in the I94 corridor, residing in the high water pressure zone. The City has recently
completed the purchase of the water booster station site and is moving forward with the final design for
the purpose of obtaining contractor bids in early 2016. Staff is looking for direction from the Council on the architectural look of the booster station in order to complete the final plans and specifications.
The building structure will be approximately 40-feet by 28-feet to house pumps, discharge piping, electrical equipment, and chemical feed equipment. The building environment is humid and corrosive due
to chemicals, so the general building structure will be a slab on grade with masonry load bearing walls and a protective/water resistant coated ceiling.
For the exterior architecture, the base plan (or low cost option) provides a decorative split face block with gable roof and asphalt shingles similar to the Pumphouse No. 4 building exterior recently constructed along 50th Street. At the request of the property owner, the design consultant has prepared additional
options for review and consideration, essentially replacing the block with a stone veneer. Each option and associated construction cost will be presented at the meeting with the intent to have Council provide
direction on the style, look, and budget of the building for final plan preparation purposes.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council review architectural options presented at the meeting to provide direction regarding architectural preferences and associated costs. The City Council may consider
approving the building architecture for the Inwood Water Booster Station. The recommended motion for
this action would be as follows: “Move to approve the building architecture for the Inwood Water Booster Station as directed by Council at the meeting.” ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Site Location Map.
3/11/2014 Washington County Property Viewer
http://maps.co.washington.mn.us/PropertyViewer/1/1
Sign in
+
–
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: October 6, 2015
REGULAR
ITEM # 16
AGENDA ITEM: Inwood Water Tower (No. 4) – Approve Engineering Services Task Order
for Design and Construction.
SUBMITTED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, 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
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering.
FISCAL IMPACT: $65,700 to complete the preliminary and final design including the preparation of
plans and specifications and bidding services.
Authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the Inwood Water Tower (No. 4) commits the
City to incur the engineering costs necessary to complete detailed design and receive contractor bids to ready the project for 2016/2017 construction. The council will be asked to award a contract for construction in March 2016 once contractor bids are received, at which time the City would commit to the
remaining project costs.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council is respectfully requested to award a Professional Engineering Design and Construction Support Services Contract to SEH for the Inwood Water Tower (No. 4) project. The recommended
motion for the action is as follows:
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item X]
October 6, 2015
-- page 2 --
“Move to approve a Professional Engineering Design and Construction Support Services Contract with SEH for the Inwood Water Tower (No. 4) project in an amount not to exceed $108,500.”
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Inwood Water Tower (No. 4) Improvement is a $3.0 million project. The elevated storage tank will provide water supply and fire suppression storage for the City’s high pressure zone in the southwest
portion of the City. The facility will be constructed on a 1.5 acre site located along Inwood Avenue approximately half-way between 10th Street and 15th Street. The site was purchased by the City in 2015. The Inwood Water Tower (No. 4) will be partially funded using MN-DEED Grant funds and partially
funded through the issuance of general obligation bonds with bond payments made from the water enterprise funds.
The project need and location is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Water System Plan and was programmed in the Capital Improvement Plan for construction in 2015/2016. The project has been delayed due to the delay in the City’s MN-DEED grant receipt. Proceeding at this time will bring the
water tower into operation in the summer/fall 2017.
To complete the engineering design, the City Engineer prepared and sent out a Request for Proposal
(RFP) for Engineering Support Services that includes the preparation of plans and specifications; plan printing, distribution and bidding services; construction administration, and construction observation.
FOCUS Engineering will provide council communication, project management, construction
administration support, and will oversee the project design standards and documents to be incorporated with the project plans.
The RFP was sent to five firms from the City’s Engineering Consultant Pool, including AE2S, Bolton and Menk, MSA, SEH, and TKDA. The proposals were received on September 22, 2015. Upon a detailed
review of the proposals it is the City Engineer’s recommendation to enter into a services agreement with SEH for this project. Proposals were reviewed and ranked on the following basis:
• Project Team Qualifications with a focus on a Project Manager and Team with specific elevated storage tank experience including composite elevated storage tanks.
• Demonstrated understanding and experience with the project and understanding of the critical success factors for the City of Lake Elmo.
• Understanding the scope of work and roles and responsibilities of the Consultant.
• Collaboration of skills and responsiveness demonstrated during the RFP submittal process.
• Engineering Fees, with a detailed breakdown that is consistent with the Consultant’s written work plan in the proposal.
The attached table summarizes the fees proposed by each consultant, ranging from $108,500 to $198,690. Engineering Fees are subtotaled for each project phase including Plans and Specifications, Bidding, and
Construction Services. The size and style of tower will be determined during the preliminary design phase of the improvements.
The City Engineer is recommending a contract be awarded to SEH, Inc. SEH has assigned a qualified team appropriate for the level of work required for this project, they were engaged and responsive
throughout the proposal preparation process, they have demonstrated a thorough understanding of the
work to be performed by them, and they were the lowest cost both with observation and adjusted without observation taken into account.
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item X]
October 6, 2015
-- page 3 --
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council award a Professional Engineering Design and Construction
Support Services Contract to SEH for the Inwood Water Tower (No. 4) project. The recommended
motion for the action is as follows: “Move to approve a Professional Engineering Design and Construction Support Services Contract with SEH for the Inwood Water Tower (No. 4) project in an amount not to exceed $108,500.”
ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Project location map.
2. Proposal Fee Summary.
80 foot R/W
1.5 acres
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTAINWOOD WATER TOWER (NO. 4)PROJECT NO. 2015.130DATE RECEIVED: SEPTEMBER 22, 2015Consulting FirmTotal EngineeringProject ManagementPreliminary DesignP&S Bidding Construction Post Construction ServicesConstruction ObservationAE2S$119,700$0 $15,500 $43,400 $4,500 $52,900 $3,400Bolton & Menk, Inc.$198,690$12,600 $11,685 $51,475 $6,090 $116,840MSA Professional Services, Inc.$127,149$8,100 $16,713 $48,788 $7,514 $46,034 OptionsSEH, Inc.$108,500$0 $10,600 $35,600 $4,000 $58,300 $0TKDA, Inc.$122,900$11,500 $23,400 $31,400 $6,300 $44,400 $5,900Consulting FirmTotal EngineeringProject ManagementPreliminary DesignP&S Bidding Construction Post Construction ServicesConstruction ObservationTotal W/O ObservationAE2S$119,700$3,300 $14,760 $40,840 $4,500 $31,910 $6,640 $17,750 $101,950Bolton & Menk, Inc.$198,690$12,600 $11,685 $51,475 $6,090 $37,380 $4,820 $74,640 $124,050MSA Professional Services, Inc.$127,149$8,100 $16,713 $48,788 $7,514 $29,026 $8,208 $8,800 $118,349SEH, Inc.$108,500$2,889 $10,130 $33,181 $4,000 $20,375 $1,889 $36,036 $72,464TKDA, Inc.$122,900$11,500 $23,400 $31,400 $6,300 $27,136 $5,900 $17,264 $105,636PROPOSAL FEE SUMMARY ‐ STAFF ADJUSTEDPROPOSAL FEE SUMMARY ‐ AS RECEIVED
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: October 6, 2015
REGULAR
ITEM 18
AGENDA ITEM: Time limit to City Council Meetings
SUBMITTED BY: Clark Schroeder Interim City Administrator
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder
REVIEWED BY: Dave Snyder
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item ...................................................................... Administrator
- Report/Presentation……………………………………………...Administrator
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: Clark Schroeder
FISCAL IMPACT: none SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
Due to city council meetings running 5 to 6 hours in length, it is the recommendation of the
Administrator that an ordinance be adopted that will limited how long meetings can run. The
ordinance dictates that the meeting adjourn at 10pm unless 4/5ths of the council members present vote to extend the meeting for an additional 15 minutes.
RECOMMENDATION: “Move to adopt ordinance 08-127”
ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance 08-127
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE 08-127
AN ORDINANCE GOVERNING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
Regular meetings of the city council shall be automatically adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
unless 4/5ths of councilmembers present vote to extend the meeting for one
additional 15 minutes. If the vote to extend the meeting does not garner a 4/5th
majority, the meeting is adjourned.
Any agenda items not completed or acted upon at the time of adjournment shall be
carried forward to the next regular meeting of the city council, unless referred to an
earlier called additional regular meeting or special meeting of the council.
This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in
the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo.
This Ordinance 08-127 was adopted on this ___ day of October 2015, by a vote of ___
Ayes and ___Nays.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
______________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
This Ordinance 08-127 was published on the ____ day of ___________________, 2015.