Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCP 07-21-15 NOTICE OF MEETING City Council Workshop/Meeting Tuesday, July 21, 2015 6:00 P.M. City of Lake Elmo | 3800 Laverne Avenue North Agenda 6:00 p.m. City Council Workshop A. Manning Avenue Project Presentation – Washington County 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting B. Call to Order C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Roll Call / Order of Business E. Approval of Agenda F. Accept Minutes 1. Approve May 19, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes 2. Approve June 9, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes 3. Approve June 16, 2015 Special City Council Meeting Minutes 4. Approve July 7, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes G. Council Reports H. Presentations/Public Comments/Inquiries I. Finance Consent Agenda 5. Approval of Interim City Administrator Contract 6. Approve Payment of Disbursements 7. Accept Building Report dated June 30, 2015 8. Accept City Assessor Report dated June 30, 2015 J. Other Consent Agenda 9. Zoning Text Amendment - Subdivision Identification Signs, Ordinance 08-124 10. Zoning Text Amendment – Accessory Building Setbacks in Urban Residential Districts, Ordinance 08-125, Resolution 2015-58 10.5 Approve Cable Commission Updated Policies and Procedures K. Regular Agenda 11. Presentation of 2015ABond Issuance Results; Resolution No. 2015-57 12. Stormwater Drainage Improvements – Approve Ditch Cleaning at 8690 and 8702 Ironwood Trail 13. TH36 and Highlands Trail – Request for Street Light Safety Improvement 14. Lennar Twin Home Preliminary Plat (Diedrich Property); Resolution No. 2015-56 15. East Village Trunk Sewer Update 16. Zoning Text Amendment – Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venue Ordinance Ordinance No. 08-121, Resolution No. 2015-45 17. Preliminary and Final Plat – Halcyon Cemetery Resolution No. 2015-59 18. Final Plat, Final PUD Plan and Zoning Map Amendment – Wildflower at Lake Elmo Ordinance No. 08- 126 19. Council Driven Workshop Follow Up (Lundgren request) L. Staff Reports and Announcements M. Adjourn Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible Manner While Preserving the City’s Open Space Character Concept B Concept C Concept C2 Draw peak hour traffic to Manning Improve overall network efficiency Allow for future development Improve safety New Local Road Construction 0.2 miles 0 miles 0 miles Right of Way Acquisition 0.8 acres 0 miles 0 miles Maintenance (length of new City Street)0.7 miles 0.5 miles 0.5 miles Overall project Per County Policy Per County Policy Per County Policy Travel from Fields of St Croix to Village1 1.4 miles 1.3 miles 2.5 miles Fire Truck response time2 9.2 minutes 8.9 minutes 12.5 minutes Local property owners For discussion For discussion For discussion Notes: 1 2 Assumes 5 minutes prep for fire truck to begin travel, and then travels an average speed of 20 MPH (must go through several intersections). All Concepts Equally:Local Access Considerations:TH 5/Manning Avenue Realignment Alternatives Comparison Local Cost Participation:Distance measured along existing/proposed roadways from Lake Elmo Fire Department to approximate center of Fields of St Croix neighborhood. July 21, 2015 City Council Workshop - Manning Ave. Concept Plan TH 5 40TH STREET NORTH FAIRGROUNDS WASHINGTON COUNTY TH 5 REALIGNMENT MANNING AVENUE (CSAH 15)STOPSTOPSTOPACCESS ROAD FAIRGROUNDSSTOP 3/4 ACCESS TH 5 FUTURE ROAD POTENTIAL STOPFUTURE ROAD POTENTIAL STOPFUTURE ROAD POTENTIAL FUTURE ROAD POTENTIALSTOP ANOTHER PHASE TO CONTINUE UNDER 4 - LANE SECTION PROJECT TERMINI FUTURE ROAD POTENTIALSTOP SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRELIMINARY TH 5 REALIGNMENT - CONCEPT B 2000100 scale in feet INSET A SEE INSET A 1000 scale in feet 50 29'41' 218' SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRELIMINARY TH 5 REALIGNMENT - CONCEPT C 2000100 scale in feet 1000 scale in feet 50 INSET A 29'38' 220' SEE INSET A 250' TH 5 FAIRGROUNDS WASHINGTON COUNTY TH 5 REALIGNMENT FUTURE ROAD POTENTIAL FUTURE ROAD POTENTIAL STOPSTOPSTOPFUTURE ROAD POTENTIAL STOPACCESS ROAD FAIRGROUNDSSTOP 3/4 ACCESS FUTURE ROAD POTENTIAL TH 5 STOPMANNING AVENUE (CSAH 15)40TH STREET NORTHSTOPANOTHER PHASE TO CONTINUE UNDER 4 - LANE SECTION PROJECT TERMINI FUTURE ROAD POTENTIAL SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRELIMINARY TH 5 REALIGNMENT - CONCEPT C2 2000100 scale in feet 1000 scale in feet 50 INSET A 29'38' 221' SEE INSET A 250' TH 5 FAIRGROUNDS WASHINGTON COUNTY TH 5 REALIGNMENT FUTURE ROAD POTENTIAL FUTURE ROAD POTENTIAL STOPSTOPFUTURE ROAD POTENTIAL STOPACCESS ROAD FAIRGROUNDSSTOP 3/4 ACCESS FUTURE ROAD POTENTIAL TH 5 STOPMANNING AVENUE (CSAH 15)40TH STREET NORTH ANOTHER PHASE TO CONTINUE UNDER 4 - LANE SECTION PROJECT TERMINI FUTURE ROAD POTENTIAL FUTURE ROAD POTENTIAL STOP CITY OF LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 7, 2015 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: City Attorney Snyder, City Engineer Griffin, Finance Director Bendel, Community Development Director Klatt and Planning Program Assistant Ziertman. PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVE THE JULY 7, 2015 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AS AMENDED – NO OBJECTIONS. ACCEPT MINUTESTHE MAY 5, 2015 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES PASSED WITH NO OBJECTIONS. COUNCIL REPORTS: Mayor Pearson: Met with Torre Pines HOA, participated on Moody’s Bonding Call, Met with Tony Manzara, Good wishes to Dean Zuleger and thanked him for his hard work and efforts, will be at Farmers Market for meet the Mayor on Saturday. Council Member Lundgren: Farmers Market signs are similar to garage sale signs, met with Tony Manzara, attended Gateway Workshop, thanks to Public Works for installing AED’s, talked to Citizens about Lake Elmo Ave, thanks to Dean Zuleger for all of his work. Council Member Bloyer: thank you to staff, talked to Danielle Hecker about Wedding Venue, Resident Complaints about farmers market signs. Council Member Smith: met with Tony Manzara, met with Nate Landucci, need to keep businesses on 39th street aware of progress on construction Council Member Fliflet: went to 4th of July Parade and Farmers Market, thank you to staff, sat in on Moody’s bonding call, met Nate Landucci, Praise to Dean Zuleger PUBLIC COMMENTS/INQUIRIES Terry Emerson, 2204 Legion Circle N, expressing disappointment in the Council’s decision regarding the signage for Rihm Kenworth. Matt Frisbie, Ayers Associates has a project with Mike Lynskey on the 26 acres along 39th Street. Part of the project would be a senior living with memory care. Nate Deprey, Lake Elmo Librarian, June was the busiest month to date. Attendance has been strong with lots of fun kids’ activities planned for summer. PRESENTATIONS Sunfish Lake Park Nature Center – Tony Manzara Gave a presentation regarding the possible Nature Center in Sunfish Lake Park. This proposal has gone to the Park Commission and Planning Commission. Council has interest in this Nature Center. They would like to see this go back to the Park Commission for Vetting and then have it come back. Attorney Snyder suggested a Council representative to work with Park Commission and Council member Smith volunteered. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES July 7, 2015 Page 2 of 7 FINANCE CONSENT AGENDA 2. Approve Payment of Disbursements 3. Accept Finance Report dated May 31, 2015 4. Accept Building Report dated May 31, 2015 5. Section 34 Pressure Reduction Valve Station – Compensating change Order No. 6. Section 34 Pressure Reduction Valve Station – Compensating Change Order No 1 7. Production Well No 4-Pay request No. 9 8. Pumphouse No.4 – Pay Request No. 8 (Final) 9. Deputy Clerk PTO Payout MOTION: Member Bloyer moved TO APPROVE THE FINANCE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. Council Member Fliflet seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. OTHER CONSENT AGENDA 10. Ownership and Maintenance Agreement – 11732 58TH ST N 11. Encroachment Agreement -528 Juniper Court N MOTION: Council Member Lundgren moved TO APPROVE THE FINANCE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 12: Appointment of City Clerk – Julie Johnson Council expressed their confidence in the decision to hire Ms. Johnson as City Clerk. MOTION: Council Member Fliflet moved TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF JULIE JOHNSON TO THE POSITION OF CITY CLERK. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5- 0. ITEM 13: Eagle Point Boulevard Street Improvements Accept Bids and Award Contract; Engineer Griffin gave a presentation regarding the estimated improvement costs post bid. Griffin felt that the bids were competitive. There could be a value on the drain tile for the project. There could also be cost savings for restoration. There is some potential for reducing overages. MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO APPROVE RESOLUTION No. 2015-55 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO MILLER EXCAVATION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,249,494.09 FOR THE EAGLE POINT BOULEVARD STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-55 Council Member Smith seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ITEM 14: Water booster Station – Approve Land Purchase Engineer Griffin discussed the history of finding property for the booster station. This is being revisited from October because the County has been taken out of the equation. Purchase price is $27,000 for the smaller section or $32,000 for the larger site. Fliflet asked about using a rural theme for the building facade. Griffin stated that there is extra cost associated with that. Al Eberhard talked about the aesthetic tradeoffs and costs associated with them. Council seemed in favor of option 1. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES July 7, 2015 Page 3 of 7 Griffin talked about the costs involved with the aesthetics of the building. It could cost as much as $30,000, but landscaping could also be used. Eberhard stated that there would be less landscaping required if the aesthetics of the building are better. Mayor Pearson offered that $30,000 for aesthetic improvements seemed a bit excessive for that size building. MOTION: Council Member Smith MOVED TO APPROVE THE INWOOD WATER BOOSTER STATION LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE A 90 FOOT BY 75 FOOT PARCEL FROM THE CAROLINE MARY EBERHARD LIVING TRUST, (OPTION 1) Council Member Bloyer seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ITEM 15: 2015 Bond Rating Report – Moody’s Finance Director Bendel gave an update about the Moody’s Bond Rating Report. The City maintained the Aa2 bond rating. ITEM 16: Request from Verizon Wireless to Formally Address the Council – Ideal Ave. and Langley Ct Sites –Lease Verizon is looking for approval from the Council to be able to build a new tower on the Langley court site and would like to be able to negotiate with staff for lease agreements. Would possibly like to be able to build a new tower and lease to others or the City owning it and leasing it out. Council supported looking to site these towers on City land so that they did not end up on private land. Andrea Albright – Concerned about a 125 foot tower like this going up when telephone poles are being taken down for aesthetic reasons. Paul Pallmeyer, Lake Jane Trail, a number of years ago T-mobile wanted to put up a tower by lake Jane. What is different about the proposal now? Smith stated that it came to them on the 90th day and they had to make a decision that night. She was opposed to putting it on private property vs. public land. MOTION: Council Member Pearson moved TO authorize staff to negotiate lease agreements with Verizon Wireless Communications for the Ideal Avenue and Langley Court water tower sites with consideration of City owned tower. Council Member Fliflet seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0 ITEM 17: Request to Fund Services for Code Enforcement Case Staff is asking for approval for a survey to be done to determine if code enforcement is warranted on a property in the Tri-lake area. MOTION: Council Member Lundgren moved TO. Authorize the requested survey work related to ongoing code enforcement activities in an amount not to exceed $1500 Pearson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ITEM 18: CITY CLERK SEVERENCE REQUEST MOTION: Council Member Bloyer moved TO APPROVE CITY CLERK SEVERENCE REQUEST. Council Member Pearson seconded the motion. MOTION FAILS 2-3. (Fliflet, Lundgren, Smith –Nay) ITEM 19: COUNCIL MEETING DECORUM This would give the City Council, Commissioners, Staff and Residents guidelines for meeting decorum. There was opposition to some of the wording. Dale Dorschner, 3150 Lake Elmo Ave, feels this is ironic after the first meeting when Speak your Peace was taken down. He feels that when decisions are made, reasons should be given. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES July 7, 2015 Page 4 of 7 Attorney Snyder stated that the bottom line is if we want to have a policy or not. Stuart Johnson, thinks that this can be simplified by saying that people need to adhere to behavior determined by the mayor. MOTION: Council Member Pearson MOVE TO TABLE THIS ITEM FOR FURTHER REFINEMENT. Council Member Bloyer seconded the motion. FAILED 3-2 (Fliflet, Smith – nay) MOTION: Council Member Fliflet MOVE TO ADOPT THE LAKE ELMO MINNESOTA GUIDELINES OF PUBLIC MEETING DECORUM PROTOCOL WITH CHANGES TO #3 UNDER CITIZEN BEHAVIOR TO STRIKE “OR RELEVANT” AND THE FIRST SENTENCE OF #5 TO STATE “WHEN A GROUP OF PERSONS WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER, THEY MAY CHOOSE A SPOKESPERSON”. Council Member Lundgren seconded the motion. APPROVED 4-1 (Bloyer – Nay) ITEM 20: Interim Ordinance: Ordinance 08-123 Community Development Director Klatt stated that this Ordinance was prepared at the direction of the Council to establish a moratorium on new development in the community. There has been limited development in stage 2 and no development in stage 3. Staff also feels that there should be language that pertains to the gateway corridor. Lundgren asked about the vague wording about the benefit to the City. Feels that is too vague and might open up too much area. Fliflet stated that the wording should be changed to narrow it down to environmental issues. Fliflet feels that we just need time to assess and see where we are. This interim ordinance is just for a year and just because they have paid advance water fees, does not automatically mean they are allowed to move forward. Klatt stated that there are areas that the City did a public project in the Village area and they were assessed for it and are not able to develop under this ordinance. Snyder stated that care should be given for those parcels that assessments are in place for. There is potential for problems with those that have already been assessed. Fliflet would like Section 1 item b removed as it is only for a year. There should also be something regarding the BRT Line. Klatt went through his recommendation in regards to the BRT. Mayor Pearson suggested that this Ordinance addressed the excess residential development to some degree while allowing for commercial tax base to occur. MOTION: Council Member Pearson move TO ADOPT AN INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR THE 3 HIGHER DENSITY PARCELS. Council Member Bloyer seconded the motion. MOTION FAILED 2-3 (Fliflet, Lundgren, Smith – Nay) Deb Krueger, Lake Elmo Ave, stated that she agrees with the moratorium and feels that we need to slow down and reassess and see where we are at and figure out what we want to do. A year is not that long of a time. Bob Durow, NE intersection of 94 and Keats, they have a purchase agreement in place and a 1 year moratorium will kill the sale. Terry Emerson, 2204 Legion Lane Circle, was concerned that the commercial area would be affected. MOTION: Council Member Fliflet moved TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 08-123. DECLARING A MORATORIUM FOR A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS ON CERTAIN TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT AS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDINANCE WITH THE FOLLOWNIG CHANGES: REMOVE ITEM B IN SECTION 1 & SECTION 2; REMOVE “BENEFIT COMMUNITY OR” FROM ITEM C IN SECTION 1; AND INCORPORATE THE WHEREAS STATEMENT STAFF PROVIDED REGARDING THE GATEWAY CORRIDOR COMMISSION INVOLVEMENT. Council Member Lundgren seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 3-2. (Pearson, Bloyer – Nay) LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES July 7, 2015 Page 5 of 7 ITEM 21: Discussion Old Village Work Group Councilmember Fliflet started the discussion about the work group and expressed her intent to have a discussion about what the work group is, how it was formed and what it does. She thanked Community Development Director Klatt for the memo he prepared and stated that it is a very accurate summary. Fliflet stated that the Park Commission has referred to this group as the Village Green group which is not accurate as the Lake Elmo Avenue project has nothing to do with this group. Fliflet stated that if there are any questions regarding the group, please ask. Mayor Pearson identified the “Village Work Group Consensus Proposal” and expressed his reservations regarding it. Barry Weeks, 3647 Lake Elmo Ave, had never heard about the Old Village Work Group. He found out about it last fall and felt it was difficult to find on the City’s website. Dale Dorschner, Lake Elmo Ave, would like to know the cost of the Old Village Work Group. There is a rumor out there that there is a million dollar bill. Klatt stated that the cost out there is due to planning efforts. Mr. Dorshner would like to see citizens in the area on the group and would like accountability. Councilmember Bloyer discussed history of the group, citing past discussion and notes concerning the size and specific location of the area in the Old Village Work Group plan. Klatt stated that there were two plans brought forward. The Village Work Group never had any decision making authority, but was a recommending body. If the City Council would like to continue, that plan might need to be brought out. If the group continues, the participation should be broadened out. Klatt would like to come back to Council with some specifics regarding the group and get some specific direction from the Council. Motion to recess until 10:00 tomorrow. STAFF REPORTS & ANNOUNCEMENTS: City Finance Director Bendel: None City Attorney Snyder: None Community Development Director Klatt: None City Engineer Griffin: None Mayor Pearson Recessed the meeting at 11:55 pm. July 8, 2015 Mayor Pearson called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. PRESENT: Mayor Mike Pearson and Councilmembers Julie Fliflet, Justin Bloyer and Jill Lundgren. ABSENT: Councilmember Anne Smith. MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO RECONVENE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Councilmember Lundgren seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0 Mayor Pearson stated that one applicant for the Interim City Administrator position was unintentionally omitted from the process and suggested 9:00 p.m. on July 9, 2015 for a thirty minute interview. Councilmember Bloyer suggested scheduling another time after the interview to discuss the candidates due to the late evening timing of the interview. MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO RECONVENE THE MEETING THURSDAY, JULY 9, 2015 AT 9:00 PM. Councilmember Lundgren seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES July 7, 2015 Page 6 of 7 MOTION: Councilmember Fliflet moved TO RECESS THE MEETING UNTIL 9:00 PM, THURSDAY, JULY 9, 2015. Councilmember Lundgren seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0 Mayor Pearson Recessed the meeting at 10:15 a.m. July 9, 2015 Mayor Pearson called the meeting to order at 9:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Mike Pearson and Councilmembers Fliflet and Lundgren. ABSENT: Councilmembers Bloyer and Smith. MOTION: Councilmember Lundgren moved TO RECONVENE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Mayor Pearson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 3-0 Mayor Pearson noted that because the full Council was not able to attend the meeting, the meeting would be recessed and reconvened Friday, July 10th at 8:00 a.m. MOTION: Councilmember Lundgren moved TO RECESS THE MEETING UNTIL 8:00 A.M. FRIDAY, JULY 10, 2015. Councilmember Fliflet seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 3-0 Mayor Pearson Recessed the meeting at 9:02 p.m. July 10, 2015 Mayor Pearson called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PRESENT: Mayor Mike Pearson and Councilmembers Julie Fliflet, Anne Smith, Justin Bloyer, and Jill Lundgren. MOTION: Councilmember Lundgren moved TO RECONVENE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0 Mayor Pearson stated that the purpose of the meeting was to conduct the final interview for the Interim City Administrator position. One candidate was interviewed and provided with a list of questions the other candidates had answered in writing. Discussion held concerning allowing the final candidate time to provide written answers as the other candidates had. Discussion held concerning potential times to reconvene the meeting for the purpose of discussing the candidates and interviews. MOTION: Councilmember Fliflet moved TO RECONVENE THE MEETING AT 3:00 ON FRIDAY, JULY 10, 2015 AT 3:00 PM. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0 Mayor Pearson recessed the meeting at 9:06 a.m. July 10, 2015 Mayor Pearson called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m. MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO RECONVENE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Councilmember Bloyer seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0 Discussion was held concerning the five candidates for the Interim City Administrator position. Applicants were randomly assigned a number for reference during discussion. Strengths and weaknesses of each candidate were discussed. MOTION: Councilmember Fliflet moved TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIR TO WORK WITH CITY ATTORNEY SNYDER TO NEGOTIATE WITH CANDIDATE C3, OFFERING HIM/HER THE POSITION OF INTERIM CITY LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES July 7, 2015 Page 7 of 7 ADMINISTRATOR IN A RANGE OF 75-85% OF THE CURRENT CITY ADMINISTRATOR POSITION SALARY. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-1 (Bloyer – Nay) Councilmember Bloyer stated that although he did not support the motion, he hopes the candidate is successful in the Interim City Administrator position. MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO INITIATE THE SEARCH FOR A PERMANENT CITYADMINISTRATOR BY DECEMBER 1, 2015. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0 MOTION: Councilmember Fliflet moved TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Mayor Pearson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0 Mayor Pearson adjourned the meeting at 4:08 p.m. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ATTEST: ______________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor _______________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: July 21, 2015 CONSENT ITEM #6 MOTION AGENDA ITEM: Approve Disbursements in the amount of $273,965.36 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: $273,965.36 SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is asked to approve disbursements in the amount of $273,965.36. 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 6] July 21, 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 $ 12,966.80 Payroll Taxes to IRS & MN Dept of Revenue 7/09/15 ACH $ 5,802.63 Payroll Retirement to PERA 7/09/15 DD6429-DD6477 $ 36,092.79 Payroll Dated (Direct Deposits) 7/09/15 43059-43127 $ 218,923.14 Accounts Payable 7/21/15 2738-2740 $ 180.00 Library Card Reimbursement 7/21/15 TOTAL $ 273,965.36 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 $273,965.36. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Accounts Payable – check registers MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: July21, 2015 CONSENT ITEM 7 MOTION AGENDA ITEM: New Single Family Home Permit Report SUBMITTED BY: Rick Chase, Building Official THROUGH: Rick Chase, Building Official REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning 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 SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is asked to accept the monthly new single family home permit report through June, 2015. No specific motion is needed as this is recommended as part of the Consent Agenda. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 2015 2014 2013 New Homes 46 12 17 Total valuation $16,281,000 $7,380,282 $7,269, 742 Average home value 353,000 615,000 427,631 Total Valuation YTD 20,093,527 9,953,075 9,228,053  One new home rebuilt in 2015 due to fire. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends the City Council accept the June, 2015 monthly new home building permit report. MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: July 21, 2015 CONSENT ITEM #8 AGENDA ITEM: Monthly Assessor Report SUBMITTED BY: Dan Raboin, City Assessor 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 SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is asked to accept the monthly assessor report for through June 2015 outlining work performed on behalf of the City of Lake Elmo. No specific motion is needed as this is recommended as part of the Consent Agenda. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Property splits/plats – 1 Sales collected and viewed – 8 Taxpayer inquiries – 11 Miscellaneous inquiries - 3 Inspections – Residential – 62; Commercial – 3 Building permit reviews – 29 Pictures taken – 67 Other work performed included: • Monthly meeting with County residential and commercial supervisors City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item#9] July 21, 2015 -- page 2 -- • Input of all inspection and permit work • Perform sales verifications and land value analysis using MLS and other resources • Field telephone inquiries RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends the City Council accept the June 2015 monthly assessor report. MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: July 21, 2015 CONSENT ITEM #9 ORDINANCE 08-124 AGENDA ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Subdivision Identification Signs SUBMITTED BY: Nick M. Johnson, City Planner THROUGH: Julie Johnson, City Clerk REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Agenda): - 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 SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City has received inquiries from the residential development community about subdivision identification signage. In reviewing the City’s regulations with signage, staff determined that adding greater clarity about what type of signage is allowed and where would be beneficial to the City moving forward. To address the situation staff conducted research and ultimately drafted a Zoning Text Amendment to add language to the ordinance. The Planning Commission reviewed the research at their 6/22/15 meeting, held a public hearing on 7/13/15, and is recommending approval of the Zoning Text Amendment. If removed from the Consent Agenda, the motion to take the recommended action is the following: “Move to adopt Ordinance 08-124, amending the Sign Ordinance to provide greater clarity in the regulations for subdivision identification signage.” City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 9] July 21, 2015 -- page 2 -- BACKGROUND INFORMATION/STAFF REPORT: Staff has received multiple inquiries from residential developers, as well as HOAs in the past, as to what the regulations are for subdivision identification signage. In reviewing the City’s regulations when compared to other cities in the Metro Area, it was found that the ordinance could be improved by adding additional provisions to regulate the location, number and type of signage allowed. Staff presented these findings at the 6/22/15 Planning Commission meeting. Upon review of the information, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Zoning Text Amendment and schedule a public hearing. The ordinance as proposed reflects the Zoning Text Amendment prepared by staff with input from the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The Planning Commission reviewed the subdivision identification signage provisions at their meeting on 6/22/15, where they directed staff to schedule a public hearing and prepare a Zoning Text Amendment. The public hearing was held on July 13, 2015. No one spoke during the public hearing and no written correspondence was received. During the meeting, the Planning Commission requested that provisions be added to not allow changeable copy or electronic variable message signage for subdivision identification signs. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the zoning text amendment to add additional provisions to provide clarity for subdivision identification signs (Vote: 6-0). STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, THREATS: Strengths: The addition provisions proposed for subdivision identification signs add greater clarity to what is allowed for this type of signage. The provisions include more specificity with regards to the number, location and type of signage that is allowed. These provisions will set clear expectations for the developers and HOAs who are interested in installing such signage. Weaknesses: None Opportunities: Providing greater clarity in the regulations of subdivision signage should remove some of the confusion that developer and HOAs have encountered with the existing provisions. Threats: None. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the Sign Ordinance to add provisions related to subdivision identification signage. Should the item be removed from the Consent Agenda, the motion to take the recommended action on the request is as follows: City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 9] July 21, 2015 -- page 3 -- “Move to adopt Ordinance 08-124, amending the Sign Ordinance to provide greater clarity in the regulations for subdivision identification signage.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance 08-124 2. Staff Report to the Planning Commission, dated 7-13-15 3. Staff Report to the Planning Commission, dated 6-22-15 4. Existing Subdivision Signage Provisions 5. Comparison Chart of Signage of Metro Cities 6. Signage Examples from Other Metro Cities 1 CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08-124 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE ELMO ZONING CODE BY AMENDING THE SIGN ORDINANCE BY ADDING ADDITIONAL REGULATION AND CLARIFICAITON WITH REGARDS TO SUBDIVISION IDENTIFICATION SIGNS SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code; Section 212; Subsection G.1.c to read the following: c. Subdivision Identification Signs i. Number. Each residential subdivision is allowed up to a maximum of two (2) subdivision identification signs. For the purposes of this section, residential subdivisions shall include all phases of approved staged developments. ii. Location. Subdivision identification signs shall be located near entrances to the subdivision, except that one sign may be located along an abutting arterial or major collector roadway. iii. Size. The maximum size for a subdivision identification sign is thirty-two (32) square feet. iv. Sub-Monuments. Each residential subdivision may have two (2) sub- monument identification signs in addition to two (2) subdivision identification signs. Sub-monument identification signs may not exceed four (4) square feet in size. v. Changeable copy signs, including electronic variable message signs, are not a permitted sign type for subdivision identification signage. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo. SECTION 3. Adoption Date. This Ordinance 08-124 was adopted on this twenty first day of July 2015, by a vote of ___ Ayes and ___ Nays. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL _________________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor 2 ATTEST: _________________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk This Ordinance 08-124 was published on the ____ day of ___________________, 2015. 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4D – ACTION ITEM BACKGROUND With the recent residential development activity in the community, staff has received some inquiries from developers regarding the allowance of subdivision identification sigs. In researching the City’s provisions, staff found the regulations to be somewhat limited in comparison with other communities. Staff presented these findings to the Planning Commission on 6/22/15. After review and discussion of various ways to improve the ordinance, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare Zoning Text Amendment and schedule a public hearing on proposed changes to the Sign Ordinance with regards to subdivision identification signs. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS: Staff has prepared a Zoning Text Amendment proposing changes to the City’s Sign Ordinance related to subdivision identification signs. The proposed changes can be found in the draft ordinance in Attachment #1. The proposed changes included in the draft ordinance are the following: • The number of total subdivision identification signs allowed was changed to two signs. • Clarification was added to note that the entirety of the subdivision, regardless of the number of phases, is allowed two signs. • Clarification with regards to location was added to note that signs are only allowed at neighborhood entrances, with the exception that one sign can be located along an abutting arterial or collector road. • Provisions were added to allow for two sub-monuments within each residential subdivision. These sub-monuments are not allowed to exceed 4 square feet in size. The addition of sub- monuments to the ordinance are in response to requests from developers to allow for smaller signage incorporated into landscape features such as columns or fencing. Staff recommends that this type of signage be allowed as long as it is limited in size. In addition to these changes, it should also be noted that staff did reach out to various parties to get questions posed by the Planning Commission answered. Staff conducted the following outreach: • Staff contacted the Fire Chief to ask if subdivision identification signs are helpful for public safety personnel to locate homes in emergency situations. He noted that the address is always the most important factor. However, in situations where an emergency make be taking place outside of a specific home but within a subdivision, the sign can be helpful for police, fire or medical services to find the correct location. Overall, in the opinion of the Fire Chief, the subdivision signs do provide a public safety improvement, but the benefit is minimal. • Staff asked a number of residential developers who are working in the community about the value and importance of permanent neighborhood signage. Unfortunately, none of the developers responded with definite feedback regarding the need for permanent signage. In the experience of staff, these signs can be utilized initially as a marketing tool, but also as community or neighborhood identity once the neighborhood is built out. 3 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4D – ACTION ITEM It should be noted that the proposed Zoning Text Amendment was drafted utilizing best practices from other communities in the judgment of staff. Example of other sign ordinances researched can be found in Attachment #2. RECCOMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Zoning Text Amendment to the Sign Ordinance to provide clarity with regards to subdivision identification signs. The suggested motion is the following: “Move to recommend approval of the Zoning Text Amendment to add greater detail to the subdivision identification sign provisions in the City’s Sign Ordinance.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. DRAFT 154.212 – Proposed Zoning Text Amendment 2. Sign Ordinances from Other Metro Communities – Subdivision Signs ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director - Report by Staff ..................................................................................... City Planner - 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 BUSINESS ITEM 5B PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 6/22/15 AGENDA ITEM: 5B – BUSINESS ITEM CASE # 2015-23 ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Subdivision Identification Signs SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director Joan Ziertman, Planning Program Assistant Casey Riley, Planning Intern SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider advancing an effort to complete a Zoning Text Amendment to provide greater clarity with regards to what type of signage is allowed for residential subdivision identification. The City has been contacted by Lennar Homes to inquire about the possibility of installing additional neighborhood identification signs. City staff has reviewed the City’s Sign Ordinance to determine if additional signage is allowed. Upon review of the ordinance, it is Staff’s opinion that the section that pertains to subdivision identification signs could benefit from additional regulations to establish clearer expectations about what type and quantity of signage is allowed. Staff is recommend the Planning Commission discuss potential changes to the ordinance and, if in agreement with the proposed changes, direct staff to draft an ordinance amendment. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: City of Lake Elmo Property Owners: N/A Location: N/A – Proposed zoning text amendment would apply to existing and future residential subdivisions throughout the community. Request: The Planning Commission is respectfully asked to discuss potential changes to the Sign Ordinance with regards to subdivision identification signs. Existing Land Use: N/A Existing Zoning: N/A Surrounding Land Use: N/A Surrounding Zoning: N/A Comprehensive Plan: N/A Proposed Zoning: N/A History: The City updated the Sign Ordinance in 2013 as part of the Zoning Code Update Project. The provisions that regulate subdivision identification signs were included in the 2013 update. 2 BUSINESS ITEM 5B Applicable Regulations: §154.212 – Sign Regulations BACKGROUND Lennar Homes is currently in process of constructing the 2nd phase of the Savona residential subdivision. They have contacted the City to inquire about the possibility of installing additional identification signage and other landscape features at separate entrances to the development. In responding to the request, City staff referenced the Sign Ordinance to determine how much signage is permitted. With regards to subdivision identification signs, the Sign Ordinance states that in residential districts, the following is allowed: A subdivision identification sign not exceeding thirty-two (32) square feet in sign area as approved by the City. Under this language, staff would interpret the ordinance to allow a single neighborhood identification sign up to thirty-two square feet in area. While the ordinance is simple and uncomplicated, it also does not take different locational circumstances or sign types into much consideration. Based on the simplicity of this provision in the Sign Ordinance, staff thought it would be beneficial to research other ordinance in the Metro Area to see if Lake Elmo’s ordinance could be improved to add greater direction and detail to set clear expectations. The general results of the staff’s research can be found in Attachment #1, Subdivision Signs from Metro Cities. Further detail of staff’s research will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS: Building off the research conducted of other metro cities, staff asks the Planning Commission to consider the following with regards to neighborhood identification signs: • Number. The typical allowance for subdivision identifications signs varies between 1 and 2 signs. However, some communities allow one sign per entrance to the development. In these instances, cities typically qualify that the only neighborhood entrances that are allowed signage are entrances off arterial or collector roads. • Content. Some cities do not allow any text on neighborhood identification signs other than the name of the subdivision. This provision would preclude any builder names or other commercial messages. • Sub-Monuments. Staff would ask the Planning Commission if there should be any allowance for sub-monuments within residential subdivisions. Sub-monuments are sometimes incorporated into landscape features or community gathering spaces. This type of signage would be significantly less in size. • Definition of Subdivision. For the purposes of clarity, staff would ask the Planning Commission to confirm whether or not “subdivision” refers to the totality of the residential development, or if individual phases or different hosing types inform the allowed amount of signage. 3 BUSINESS ITEM 5B These items represent some of the areas of further clarification that were included in the signage provisions of other communities. With additional residential subdivisions being planned and constructed in the community, staff anticipates the number of requests for subdivision identification signage to increase. Providing greater clarification in advance of these requests would assist in the interpretation of what is allowed for subdivision identification signs. RECCOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss areas of potential improvement based on the staff report and presentation. Should the Planning Commission reach consensus on potential changes, they can direct staff to prepare a Zoning Text Amendment, ATTACHMENTS: 1. Subdivision Signs from Metro Cities ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director - Report by Staff ..................................................................................... City Planner - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members granted for any premises more than four (4) times in any calendar year; or more than once in any three month period. 10. Lots having Multiple Street Frontages. Business occupying corner lots, or multiple frontages adjacent to more than one public right-of-way, may display up to one additional ground or building-mounted sign for each additional frontage provided that such additional sign may not exceed 50% of the area allowed by the primary frontage and is oriented toward the additional frontage. For purposes of this code, the primary frontage shall be presumed to be the frontage upon which the main entrance to the building is located. The applicant, however, may identify a different frontage as the primary frontage to maximize the effectiveness of the signage. 11. Resemblance to Traffic Signs. No sign shall contain or resemble any sign resembling in size, shape, message, or color any traffic control devices compliant with the Minnesota State Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. G. Limitations According to the Type of Land Use. Unless exempt under §154.212.K or as expressly provided elsewhere, no permanent or temporary signs shall be displayed except in conformity with the following regulations as they correspond to the type of land use and districts in which the sign is to be displayed. 1. Residential Uses in Residential Districts a. In connection with legal home occupations, a single sign which is limited in content to the name, address and legal home occupation of the owner or occupant of the premises, and which does not exceed two (2) square feet in area. Signs under this paragraph shall be wall signs only. b. A residential condominium or multi-family apartment complex may display signs identifying the name of the condominium or apartment complex if the total acreage of the lot is one (1) acre or more and the condominium or apartment includes eight (8) or more units. One (1) wall sign and one (1) ground sign per street frontage may be displayed, with a maximum of two (2) wall signs and two (2) ground signs per lot. No identification sign shall exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in area, and the maximum height is one (1) story or twelve (12) feet above curb level, whichever is lower. For purposes of this paragraph, the term “lot,” when used in reference to a condominium means all property within a common interest community. c. A subdivision identification sign not exceeding thirty-two (32) square feet in sign area as approved by the City. 2. Institutional Uses in Residential Districts. Non-residential uses located in residential districts, such as churches and schools, located in residential districts may erect signs as follows; a. Wall and Ground Signs i. Area and Number. One (1) wall sign and one (1) ground sign per street frontage may be displayed, identifying the entity, with a maximum of two (2) wall signs and two (2) ground signs per lot. Additional wall or V - 25 Residential Entry/Identification Sign Requirements from Metro Cities City Number Dimensions Setback Bloomington Two signs permitted Max area: 40 sq ft Per neighborhood Inver Grove Heights One sign per entrance from a public street, there must be 3 dwelling units. Max area: 32 sq ft Lino Lakes One Max area: 50 sq ft Max height: 8 ft 10 ft from any property line Maple Grove One sign per entrance street Max area: 35 sq ft Max height: 8 ft Minnetrista Two permitted at each entrance to subdivision. Max area: 24 sq ft Max height: 6 ft 10 ft from any property line Minnetonka One per unified development entrance. Maximum two signs total. 50 sq ft max copy and graphic area. 100 sq ft max monument size Max height: 10 ft Osseo One sign per 6 dwelling units Max area: 6 sq ft, only one surface, not double sided. Plymouth Two per subdivision, at entrances Max area: 32 sq ft per sign Max height: 10 ft Shoreview One sign per entry, up to two signs total. Must have 20 dwelling units for SF, 6 DU for MF Max area: 32 ft Max height: 12 ft MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: July 21, 2015 CONSENT ITEM 10 ORDINANCE 08-125 RESOLUTION 2015-58 AGENDA ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Accessory Building Setbacks in Urban Residential Districts SUBMITTED BY: Nick M. Johnson, City Planner THROUGH: Julie Johnson, City Clerk REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Agenda): - 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 SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City has received inquiries from residents within the Savona subdivision about the required setbacks for detached accessory buildings. In reviewing the setback requirements for accessory buildings in the Urban Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning district, the existing rear-yard setback requirement is 20 feet. For this type of zoning district, 20 feet is a large setback requirement for accessory buildings. To address the situation staff conducted research and ultimately drafted a Zoning Text Amendment to reduce the rear-yard setback to 10 feet. The Planning Commission reviewed the research at their 6/22/15 meeting, held a public hearing on 7/13/15, and is recommending approval of the Zoning Text Amendment. If removed from the Consent Agenda, the motion to take the recommended action is the following: City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item X] July 21, 2015 -- page 2 -- “Move to adopt Ordinance 08-125, reducing the rear yard setback for detached accessory buildings in the urban residential districts from 20 feet to 10 feet.” In addition, due to the fact that the ordinance contains charts, staff is recommending that the City Council authorize summary publication to explain the ordinance amendment through publication. The suggested motion is as follows: “Move to adopt Resolution 2015-58, authorizing summary publication of Ordinance 08-125.” BACKGROUND INFORMATION/STAFF REPORT: As families have begun to move into the Savona subdivision, City staff has begun receiving inquiries from residents about standards related to accessory buildings and other zoning provisions. One specific inquiry was made about the rear-yard setback for accessory buildings in the LDR zoning district. In reviewing the City’s regulations it was discovered that the existing rear-yard setback requirement for these structures is 20 feet. For lots that are smaller in size in comparison to most signal family neighborhoods in the City, a 20-foot rear yard setback is larger than what is typical in other communities. In fact, the rear-yard setback for accessory building in the Rural Single Family (RS) district is 10 feet. It should be noted that when a City adopts new zoning districts, it is very common that amendments or tweaks to the district standards occur once the districts are adopted and being utilized by property owners. Staff views this process as a natural evolution of the zoning district standards. Following up on the research conducted, staff presented these findings at the 6/22/15 Planning Commission meeting. Upon review of the information, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Zoning Text Amendment and schedule a public hearing. The ordinance as proposed reflects the Zoning Text Amendment prepared by staff with input from the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The Planning Commission reviewed the setback requirements for detached accessory buildings in the urban residential district at their meeting on 6/22/15, where they directed staff to schedule a public hearing and prepare a Zoning Text Amendment. The public hearing was held on July 13, 2015. No one spoke during the public hearing and no written correspondence was received. There was very little discussion on the proposed ordinance amendment at the 7/13/15 meeting. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the zoning text amendment to reduce the rear-yard setback for detached accessory buildings in the urban residential districts from 20 feet to 10 feet (Vote: 6-0). STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, THREATS: Strengths: Reducing the rear-yard setback for accessory buildings will bring the standard into conformance with what is more typical or common amongst urban residential standards in the surrounding communities. Placing these small structures closer to the rear property line will give residents more usable back yard area for use of their property. City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item X] July 21, 2015 -- page 3 -- At the same time, a 10-foot setback will keep these structures outside of the City’s standard drainage and utility easements. Weaknesses: None Opportunities: Amending the rear-yard setback for accessory structures at this time prior to many more residents moving into these neighborhood types will help alleviate issues or concerns about the placement of accessory buildings. Threats: None. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the rear yard setback for accessory structures in the urban residential zoning districts. Should the item be removed from the Consent Agenda, the motion to take the recommended action on the request is as follows: “Move to adopt Ordinance 08-125, reducing the rear yard setback for detached accessory buildings in the urban residential districts from 20 feet to 10 feet.” In addition, due to the fact that the ordinance contains charts, staff is recommending that the City Council authorize summary publication to explain the ordinance amendment through publication. The suggested motion is as follows: “Move to adopt Resolution 2015-58, authorizing summary publication of Ordinance 08-125.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance 08-125 2. Resolution 2015-58 3. Staff Report to the Planning Commission, dated 7-13-15 4. Staff Report to the Planning Commission, dated 6-22-15 5. Accessory Structure Regulations - Comparison 1 CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08-125 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE ELMO ZONING CODE BY AMENDING THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE URBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code; Section 452 to read the following: § 154.452 LOT DIMENSIONS AND BUILDING BULK REQUIREMENTS. Lot area and setback requirements shall be as specified in Table 10-2, Lot Dimension and Setback Requirements. Table 10-2: Lot Dimension and Setback Requirements, Residential Districts LDR MDR HDR Minimum Lot Area (sq. ft.) Single family detached dwelling 8,000 7,000 5,000 Two-family dwelling (per unit) a 5,000 4,000 3,000 Single-family attached (per unit) b - 4,000 2,500 Multi-family dwelling (per unit) - 4,000 1,800 Secondary dwelling see 155.102 Live-work unit - - 3,600 Congregate housing - see 155.102 see 155.102 Manufactured home park - see 155.102 - Minimum Lot Width (feet) Single family detached dwelling 60 50 50 Two-family dwelling (per unit) a 35 30 20 Single-family attached (per unit) b - 25 20 2 LDR MDR HDR Multi-family dwelling (per building) - 75 60 Live-work unit - - 25 Maximum Height (feet) 35 35 50 Maximum Impervious Coverage 40% 50% 75% Minimum Building Setbacks (feet) Front yard 25 c 25 c 20 c Minimum Building Setbacks (feet) Interior side yard e Principal Buildings f,g 10 10 10d Attached Garage or Accessory Structures f,g 5 5 10d Corner side yard g,h 15 15 15 Rear yard Principal Buildings 20 20 20 Detached Accessory Buildings 10 10 10 Notes to Urban Residential Districts Table a. Common open space areas may be used in the determining whether or not the minimum lot areas within a development are met, when provided as part of an overall development plan. b. Two-family units may be side-by-side with a party wall between them (“twin”) or located on separate floors in a building on a single lot (“duplex”). The per-unit measurements in this table apply to “twin” units, whether on a single lot or separate lots. The standards for single-family detached dwelling shall apply to a “duplex” containing two vertically-separated units on a single lot. c. In the case of single-family attached dwellings that are not situated on individual lots, minimum lot size shall be applied to each unit as a measure of density; i.e. 1 unit per 2,500 square feet. This standard is also used for multifamily dwellings. 3 d. Single family dwellings (both attached and detached) and two-family dwellings may use the side yard setbacks within MDR zoning districts. e. In a block where the majority of the block face has been developed with the same or similar setbacks, the front setback for the remaining lots on that block face shall fall within the range established by the existing setbacks. f. In situations where a garage or accessory building is set back less than 7 feet from a side property line, the maximum permitted encroachment for anything attached to said building (including eaves, overhangs, steps, chimneys, and other appurtenances as described in Section 154.081) will be two (2) feet. g. Side yards setbacks shall apply to the ends of attached or two-family dwellings. h. Corner properties: The side façade of a corner building adjoining a public street shall maintain the front setback of the adjacent property fronting upon the same public street, or the required front yard setback, whichever is less. If no structure exists on the adjacent property, the setback shall be as shown in the table. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo. SECTION 3. Adoption Date. This Ordinance 08-125 was adopted on this twenty first day of July 2015, by a vote of ___ Ayes and ___ Nays. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL _________________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk This Ordinance 08-125 was published on the ____ day of ___________________, 2015. Resolution 2015-58 Page 1 of 2 CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2015-58 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE 08-125 BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-125, an ordinance to the City’s regulations pertaining to setbacks for accessory structures in the urban residential zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the ordinance is lengthy; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subd. 4, allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, that the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. 08-125 to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance: Public Notice The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-125, which reduces the rear-yard setback for detached accessory buildings in the urban residential districts from 20 feet to 10 feet. The full text of Ordinance No. 08-125 is available for inspection at Lake Elmo city hall during regular business hours. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo that the City Administrator keep a copy of the ordinance at City Hall for public inspection and that a full copy of the ordinance be placed in a public location within the City. Dated: July 21, 2015. ___________________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk Resolution 2015-58 Page 2 of 2 (SEAL) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member _____________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – ACTION ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 7/13/15 AGENDA ITEM: 4C – PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2015-22 ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Accessory Building Setbacks in the Urban Residential Districts SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director Casey Riley, Planning Intern SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing to consider a Zoning Text Amendment to reduce the rear yard setback for accessory buildings in the urban residential zoning districts. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed change to the setback at their meeting on June 22, 2015. After reviewing the proposed change, the Planning Commission directed staff to schedule a public hearing and prepare the Zoning Text Amendment. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Zoning Text Amendment through the following motion: “Move to recommend approval of the Zoning Text Amendment to reduce the rear yard setback for accessory buildings in the urban residential zoning districts from 20 feet to 10 feet.” GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: City of Lake Elmo Property Owners: N/A Location: N/A – Proposed zoning text amendment would apply to residential properties in the urban residential zoning districts (LDR, MDR and HDR) Request: City staff is recommending that the City consider a minor amendment to the rear-yard setback requirements for accessory buildings in urban residential zoning districts. The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment. Existing Land Use: N/A Existing Zoning: N/A Surrounding Land Use: N/A Surrounding Zoning: N/A Comprehensive Plan: N/A Proposed Zoning: N/A 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – ACTION ITEM History: The urban residential zoning districts were adopted as part of the Zoning Code Update Project in 2012/13. As part of this effort, the City adopted three residential zoning districts intended to be utilized in the City’s urban planning areas (I-94 Corridor and Village Area). These zoning districts include lot dimension and building bulk requirements that include the setback requirements for both principal and accessory structures. Applicable Regulations: Article X – Urban Residential Districts (154.452 Lot Dimensions and Building Bulk Requirements) BACKGROUND City staff has recently received an inquiry about the required setbacks for accessory buildings in the Urban Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning districts. Upon review of the setback requirements as found in §154.452 for accessory buildings, it was discovered that the required rear-yard setback for accessory buildings is 20 feet. Staff has researched multiple other cities and found that typical rear yard setbacks for these structures in urban residential districts are between 5 and ten feet. In addition, the City’s Rural Single Family (RS) zoning district also has a 10-foot rear yard setback fro accessory buildings. It should be noted that there are several homes that have been issued Certificates of Occupancy in the Savona LDR subdivision. As more of these neighborhoods are constructed and new residents move in, the City is likely to receive more inquiries about tool sheds and other small accessory structures. Staff recommends addressing the rear-yard setback issue prior to more inquiries coming into the City. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS: Based on the research conducted by Staff, it is recommended that the rear yard setback for accessory buildings in urban residential districts be reduced to 10 feet. A setback of 10 feet allows for a substantial enough setback from adjoining properties while at the same time keeping these structures outside of the City’s standard drainage and utility easements. Finally, a separation of 10 feet should be significant enough to mitigate potential drainage or surface water challenges that may arise from locating accessory buildings in these areas. RECCOMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Text Amendment through the following motion: “Move to recommend approval of the Zoning Text Amendment to reduce the rear yard setback for accessory buildings in the urban residential zoning districts from 20 feet to 10 feet.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. DRAFT 154.452 Lot Dimensions and Building Bulk Requirements 3 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – ACTION ITEM 2. Accessory Structure Regulations Comparison ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director - Report by Staff ..................................................................................... City Planner - 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 § 154.452 LOT DIMENSIONS AND BUILDING BULK REQUIREMENTS. Lot area and setback requirements shall be as specified in Table 10-2, Lot Dimension and Setback Requirements. Table 10-2: Lot Dimension and Setback Requirements, Residential Districts LDR MDR HDR Minimum Lot Area (sq. ft.) Single family detached dwelling 8,000 7,000 5,000 Two-family dwelling (per unit) a 5,000 4,000 3,000 Single-family attached (per unit) b - 4,000 2,500 Multi-family dwelling (per unit) - 4,000 1,800 Secondary dwelling see 155.102 Live-work unit - - 3,600 Congregate housing - see 155.102 see 155.102 Manufactured home park - see 155.102 - Minimum Lot Width (feet) Single family detached dwelling 60 50 50 Two-family dwelling (per unit) a 35 30 20 Single-family attached (per unit) b - 25 20 Multi-family dwelling (per building) - 75 60 Live-work unit - - 25 Maximum Height (feet) 35 35 50 Maximum Impervious Coverage 40% 50% 75% Minimum Building Setbacks (feet) Front yard 25 c 25 c 20 c LDR MDR HDR Minimum Building Setbacks (feet) Interior side yard e Principal Buildings f,g 10 10 10d Attached Garage or Accessory Structures f,g 5 5 10d Corner side yard g,h 15 15 15 Rear yard Principal Buildings 20 20 20 Detached Accessory Buildings 10 10 10 Notes to Urban Residential Districts Table a. Common open space areas may be used in the determining whether or not the minimum lot areas within a development are met, when provided as part of an overall development plan. b. Two-family units may be side-by-side with a party wall between them (“twin”) or located on separate floors in a building on a single lot (“duplex”). The per-unit measurements in this table apply to “twin” units, whether on a single lot or separate lots. The standards for single-family detached dwelling shall apply to a “duplex” containing two vertically-separated units on a single lot. c. In the case of single-family attached dwellings that are not situated on individual lots, minimum lot size shall be applied to each unit as a measure of density; i.e. 1 unit per 2,500 square feet. This standard is also used for multifamily dwellings. d. Single family dwellings (both attached and detached) and two-family dwellings may use the side yard setbacks within MDR zoning districts. e. In a block where the majority of the block face has been developed with the same or similar setbacks, the front setback for the remaining lots on that block face shall fall within the range established by the existing setbacks. f. In situations where a garage or accessory building is set back less than 7 feet from a side property line, the maximum permitted encroachment for anything attached to said building (including eaves, overhangs, steps, chimneys, and other appurtenances as described in Section 154.081) will be two (2) feet. g. Side yards setbacks shall apply to the ends of attached or two-family dwellings. h. Corner properties: The side façade of a corner building adjoining a public street shall maintain the front setback of the adjacent property fronting upon the same public street, or the required front yard setback, whichever is less. If no structure exists on the adjacent property, the setback shall be as shown in the table. (Ord. 2012-062, passed 9-18-2012; Am. Ord. 08-071, passed 3-5-2013) Accessory Structure Regulations – Comparison Chart City Maximum Size Max Number Setbacks Other Cottage Grove 5’ Side, 10’ Rear 30’ height maximum. Residents have to provide 400 SF of usable open space on their lot. In no cases can more than 30% of lot be covered with structures. Hugo 260 SF for lots < 1.5 acre If accessory building is less than 120 SF, 10’ rear, 6’ side. Lots > 1.5 acres but < 2.99 acres, Max size for all accessory buildings is 1,500 SF Inver Grove Heights 1,000 SF 1 30’ Front, 5’ Side, 8’ Rear Max Height: 25’ Maplewood Lot area under 8,000 SF: 768 SF Combo of Detached and Attached Garage Building: 1188 SF 5’ Rear, 5’ Side If the lot area is greater than 8,000 SF and less than 16,000 SF, the accessory structure can be 1,000 SF. The Combination of both can be 1,420 SF. Oakdale 30’ Front, 20’ Corner Side, 5’ Side, 5’ Rear The minimum distance between buildings at any point shall be equal to the height of the exterior wall or 15 feet, whichever is greater. Stillwater 500 SF 1 5’ Side, 10’ Rear 20 ft max building height White Bear 1,000 SF for garage, 120 SF for 2nd accessory structure 2 5’ Rear, 5’ Side Must be in rear or side yard. Woodbury 400 SF 1 5 ft. rear and side Cannot be on easement, cannot be in front of principle building, wall cannot exceed 12 ft in height, shall not occupy more than 25% of rear yard MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 07/21/2015 CONSENT ITEM #: 10.5 AGENDA ITEM: 10.5 SUBMITTED BY: Julie Johnson, City Clerk THROUGH: Mayor Pearson REVIEWED BY: Julie Johnson, City Clerk SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Approval on Consent Agenda PUBLIC POLICY STATEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: BACKGROUND AND STAFF REPORT: The Ramsey/Washington County Cable Commission has requested City approval of the attached Policy to allow Century Link to apply for a franchise license to compete with Comcast to provide cable service in communities within the Ramsey/Washington County Cable Commission area. Executive Director Tim Finnerty stated that at least eight of the twelve communities in our area have approved the Policy as of the writing of this memo and none have declined. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve this request. ATTACHMENT(S): Ramsey/Washington Counties Suburban Cable Commission Policies and Procedures Governing Application, Review and Recommendations Regarding Grant of Competitive Cable Franchises. -1--2- May 11, 2000 Updated May, 2015 THE RAMSEY/WASHINGTON COUNTIES SUBURBAN CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION II POLICIES AND PR OCEDURES GOVERNING APPLICATION, REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GRANT OF COMPETITIVE CABLE FRANCHISES Preamble The Ramsey/Washington Counties Suburban Cable Communications Commission II (the "Commission"), on behalf of White Bear Township and the Cities of Birchwood Village, Dellwood, Grant, Lake Elmo, Mahtomedi, Maplewood, North St. Paul, Oakdale, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, and Willernie (collectively, the Member Cities"), administers the cable television Franchises between the Member Cities and the current cable franchisee. The Commission, acting pursuant to a Joint and Cooperative Agreement and authority delegated by the Member Cities thereunder, is responsible for receiving and reviewing cable Franchise applications and for making recommendations to its Member Cities. Only the Member Cities may grant a Franchise. Modern telecommunications policy, law and regulations encourage the emergence of competition in all telecommunications markets, including competition in the provision of cable services. The emergence of such competition could increase the quality and availability of enhanced telecommunications and video services via Cable Systems, encourage lower rates, encourage better customer service, and generally benefit consumers. Policies and procedures regarding application for and review of applications for competitive cable Franchises will streamline the processing of requests to construct broadband Cable Systems. In view of the foregoing, the Commission has formulated policies and procedures that govern the submission and review of cable Franchise applications submitted by Applicants seeking to provide Cable Service in all the Member Cities. Pursuant to these Policies and Procedures the Commission has delineated the information which must be provided in an application for a competitive Franchise, detailed a process for review of such application and negotiation of the terms of a Franchise agreement, and provided for the presentation of a formal recommendation regarding the grant of such Franchises to the Member Cities. Section 1. Definitions "Applicant" shall mean a Cable Company that files an Application with the Commission. "Application" shall mean the information, documentation, and data, of the form and substance required herein, filed by a Cable Company with the Commission requesting the Commission's consideration regarding any recommendation to grant competitive Franchises in the Member Cities. "Application Fee" shall mean a fee which is intended to cover all costs incurred by the Commission and the Member Cities related to processing Applications up to and including the grant of a Franchise (if any) including, but not limited to, staff and attorney's time in reviewing and considering an Application and related information, negotiating the terms and conditions of Franchises, and preparing recommendations, Franchises and other documentation related to such Applications. "Cable Company" shall mean any person or entity owning a significant interest in, controlling, operating, managing or leasing a Cable System or any components thereof in the Public Rights- of-Way within the state or any person seeking a Franchise to do so. "Cable Service" shall mean (1) the one-way transmission to Subscribers of video programming or other programming services; and (2) Subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other programming services; and shall also include any video programming service for which a franchise from a local government is required under state law. "Cable System" shall refers to a facility that is a “cable system” under federal law or a cable communications system under state law. The foregoing definition shall not be deemed to circumscribe or limit the valid authority of the Member Cities to regulate or franchise the activities of any other communications system or provider of communications service to the full extent permitted by law. "Franchise" shall mean any nonexclusive authorization granted by each of the Member Cities in the form of a Franchise, privilege, permit, license or other municipal authorization to construct, own, control, operate, maintain, or manage a Cable System within the Public Rights-of-Way to provide Cable Service within a Member City. "Institutional Network" shall mean a communications network constructed or operated by the cable operator and which is generally available only to subscribers who are not residential subscribers. "Policies and Procedures" shall mean these policies and procedures governing the Commission's processing of Applications for Franchises. "Public Rights-of-Way" shall mean the surface, the air space above the surface, and the area below the surface of any public street, highway, lane, path, alley, sidewalk, avenue, boulevard, drive, concourse, bridge, tunnel, park, parkway, waterway, dock, bulkhead, wharf, pier, easement or similar property or waters within a Member City in which the Member City now or hereafter holds any property interest, including, but not limited to, any riparian right, which, consistent with the purposes for which it was created, obtained or dedicated, may be used for the purpose of installing, operating and maintaining a Cable System. No reference in these Policies and Procedures to a "Public Right-of- Way" shall be deemed to be a representation or guarantee by a Member City that its interest in or other right to control the use of such property is sufficient to permit use of the property for the purpose of installing, operating and maintaining a Cable System. "Subscriber" shall mean any person or entity who receives cable service via a Cable System. Section 2. Applicability of Policies and Procedures These Policies and Procedures apply to every Cable System and every Cable Company, including a Cable Company which constructs, operates and/or maintains a Cable System or provides Cable Service in whole or in part through facilities owned, controlled, managed or operated by another provider, that seeks to operate within the territorial limits of one or more Member Cities. Authority: Minn. Stat. § 238.03 Section 3. Franchise Requirement Subd. 1. In accordance with state and federal law, each of the Member Cities requires a Franchise of any Cable Company or Cable System providing Cable Service within its territorial limits. Subd. 2. Nothing in these Policies and Procedures shall be construed to limit the Member Cities' or the Commission's authority to construct, purchase, and operate a Cable System or otherwise provide any telecommunications or Cable Services either for internal purposes or for sale to the public. Rather, these policies are meant to govern the process for issuing a franchise for Member Cities so long as they are part of the Commission. Authority: Minn. Stat. § 238.08 Section 4. Application for Franchise Subd. 1. On its own initiative, should the Commission determine it is in the interests of Member Cities to seek Franchise Applications, or in the event a Member City or the Commission receives notice that a Cable Company is interested in applying for a Franchise in a Member City, the Commission shall publish a notice of intent to Franchise within a reasonable time and in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 238.081, Subd. 1, which requires publishing notice of intent to Franchise each week for two successive weeks, allowance of 20 days from initial publication for submission of Applications and a public hearing at least seven days before introduction of the Franchise into proceedings of a Member City. Subd. 2. Review of Applications. Applications for a competitive Franchise shall contain such information as is required below in these Policies and Procedures and shall be submitted to the Commission. Review by the Commission of any Applications pursuant to these Policies and Procedures and final determination by the Member Cities regarding whether to Franchise such Applicant(s) may be based on any relevant factors. Such relevant factors include any factor that the Commission is required to consider under state or federal law, and may include any other factor the Commission is permitted to consider, including the quality and capabilities of the Cable System that will be constructed; whether the application satisfies cable-related needs and interests of the community, as identified by the Member Cities and the Commission, whether the application adequately provides for capacity, facilities, equipment or financial support for public, educational and government (PEG) use of the system (including institutional network use); whether the applicant is financially, technically and legally able to perform; whether the application evinces an intent to improperly discriminate or deny service to any person, group or persons; and whether the grant is otherwise in the interest of the public. Subd. 3. Public Hearing on Applications. A public hearing before the Commission affording reasonable notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard with respect to an Application shall be scheduled in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 238.081, Subd. 6. The Commission may schedule additional hearings as may be appropriate prior to action on an application. Subd. 4. Negotiation of Franchise Terms. During the period prior to the public hearing on the Application(s), the responsible Commission employee(s) and Applicant(s) may negotiate specific Franchise terms and conditions for recommendation and presentation to the Commission and ultimately the Member Cities. In addition, during this period the responsible Commission employee(s) shall review the Application(s) and may request such additional information necessary to make final recommendations to the Commission and ultimately the Member Cities. Subd. 5. Determinations. Determinations by the responsible Commission employee(s) regarding the qualifications of Applicant(s) and recommendations to the Member Cities regarding grant of a Franchise shall be made based on information provided by the Applicant(s) as required herein and such other information relevant to consideration of the Application. The responsible Commission employee(s) may, in their sole discretion, consider information developed during any negotiations with the Applicant(s) and any information or evidence adduced by the incumbent Cable Company. After the public hearing referenced in Subd. 3, the responsible Commission employee(s) shall issue written recommendations to the Commission for review and possible transmittal to the Member Cities. These recommendations may include Franchise documents to be potentially recommended to the Member Cities for adoption. If Franchise documents have not been negotiated, or the Commission determines that additional or different terms and conditions are appropriate, Commission may direct responsible employees to engage in further negotiations, and to require preparation of revised recommendations and reports. The Commission will adopt final recommendations for transmittal to Member Cities. Subd. 6. Award of Franchise. A Franchise may be awarded only by an ordinance adopted by each Member City. Subd. 7. Costs of Reviewing Application and Issuing Franchise. The Applicant shall pay the Application Fee required below. The Application Fee is required for the purpose of reimbursing the Member Cities and the Commission for all costs associated with processing Applications pursuant to these Policies and Procedures through and including any granting of a Franchise. Any portion of the Application Fee which remains after payment of all the Member Cities' and the Commission's costs will be reimbursed to the Applicant. Should the Application Fee not cover the expenses of the Member Cities and the Commission, those unreimbursed expenses shall be reimbursed prior to any consideration of the Franchises by the Member Cities. A successful Applicant shall be fully responsible to reimburse the Member Cities and the Commission for all costs of awarding the competitive Franchises(s). Subd. 8. Franchising Nonprofit or Municipally-owned System. Nothing contained in this Section prohibits the Member Cities from franchising a nonprofit or municipally-owned system. The municipality or nonprofit entity shall be considered an Applicant subject to these Policies and Procedures. Subd. 9. Time for Action. The Commission shall conduct proceedings in a manner that comports with state and federal law, as may be applicable. Authority: Minn. Stat. § 238.081 Section 5. Information Required in Application An Application for a competitive Franchise must be signed by an authorized officer or principle of the Cable Company and be notarized and must include at least the following. To the extent that an Application includes a proposed Franchise and other proposed agreements that provide the information requested, the Application may reference the relevant portion of those documents: (1)A statement that the Applicant seeks to construct a Cable System and to provide Cable Services within specifically identified Member Cities; (2)The name, street address, e-mail address and telephone number of the individuals who are authorized to provide and certify information on behalf of the Applicant; (3)a description of the technology that will be utilized by the Cable System to deliver Cable Services; the total bandwidth that initially will be used for delivery of Cable Services from the curb to the home; the total activated channel numbers that will be available to subscribers initially; the number of unique linear programming services that will be available in each format offered (e.g., SD, UHD, HD, 3D) (and whether there are limits as to the number of channels that may be viewed simultaneously); and to the extent relevant, plans for analog and digital channel capacity, including both the total number of analog and digital channels capable of being energized in the system and the number of analog and digital channels to be energized immediately; (4)a statement of the television and radio signals for which permission to carry will be requested from the Federal Communications Commission, or any other required regulatory agency; (5)to the extent not included in response to Subdivision 5(3), a description of the proposed system design and planned operation, including at least the following items: (i)the general area for location of antennae and the head end, or description of programming delivery plan if otherwise; (ii)the schedule for activating two-way capacity and any other system capacity to be activated in conjunction with the Cable System; the type of automated services to be provided; (iv) the minimum number of video channels, other Cable Services, and other kinds of services to be made available to residents; (v) the number and type of channels and services to be made available for community/access programming including a description of differences in the quality, accessibility, recordability or functionality of PEG channels as compared to linear broadcast channels; whether the channels would be available to every subscriber, or only subscribers to certain packages; whether any special equipment is required to view the PEG channels; and whether there are any charges to PEG programmers or Member Cities proposed with respect to PEG; whether signals would be carried in HD or SD or simulcast; and any video on demand provided; and (vi) a plan for provision of facilities and equipment for PEG (including transport paths from points of signal origination to the subscriber), and funding of PEG and/or a plan for interconnection and provision of such programming in cooperation with the incumbent Cable Company; (6)plans for the provision of an Institutional Network and capacity for public, educational and government use of an Institutional Network, or an alternative proposed method for providing for the same; (7)any other facilities, services, equipment or financial support that applicant proposes to provide (such as courtesy service drops to schools or public buildings) in addition to the support described above and the franchise fee described below; (8)a comparison of the Applicant’s proposal for PEG use (including institutional network use) as compared to requirements in existing franchises regarding PEG use; and whether (and why) Applicant contends that its proposal, if accepted would be no more favorable, or less burdensome than the requirements in the existing franchise. (9)a schedule of proposed rates in relation to the services to be provided, and a proposed policy regarding unusual or difficult connection of services; (10)a time schedule for construction of the system with the time sequence for wiring the various parts of the areas to be served. This information should be shown on a map, and the map should clearly show any area identified in the request for proposals for which the applicant does not seek a franchise. Conditions or limitations on the construction of the system to serve the entire proposed franchise area should be noted; (11)information supporting and indicating the Applicant's financial, technical and legal qualifications and experience in the cable communications field, if any; (12)an identification of the municipalities in which the Applicant either owns or operates a Cable System, directly or indirectly, or has outstanding Franchises for which no system has been built; (13)detailed plans for financing of the proposed system, which must indicate every significant anticipated source of capital and significant limitations or conditions with respect to the availability of the indicated sources of capital; (14)a statement of ownership detailing the corporate organization of the Applicant, if any, including the names and addresses of officers and directors and the number of shares held by each officer or director, and intracompany relationship including a parent, subsidiary or affiliated company; (15)a statement of a form and substance acceptable to the Member Cities and the Commission indemnifying the Member Cities and the Commission fully against any claims or liabilities alleged as the result of the Member Cities' and the Commission's exercise of these Policies and Procedures, including any such claims or liabilities alleged or asserted by the incumbent Cable Company; (16)an agreement to pay the Member Cities and/or the Commission a Franchise fee in the same percentage of gross revenues as the incumbent providers, and on the same base; (17)the proposed Franchise term; (18)whether Applicant is willing to agree to terms required under state law, and if not, the terms to which it objects, the basis for the objection, and how it proposes to address the state law requirement, if at all; (19)a notation and explanation of omissions or other variations with respect to the requirements of the Application; and (20)submission of an Application Fee in the amount of $40,000. (21)Such other information as may be required under state law. (22)If the Applicant claims that the Application is submitted pursuant to, and is subject to the deadlines for action under FCC regulations governing issuance of competitive franchises, the Application must so state clearly, and shall also include all information required by federal law. Authority: Minn. Stat. § 238.081, Subd. 2 and 4. MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: 7/21/2015 REGULAR $$ ITEM # 11 AGENDA ITEM: Authorization for sale of $2,815,000 General Obligation Improvement Bond Series 2015A SUBMITTED BY: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director THROUGH: Tammy Omdal, Senior Vice President, Northland Securities REVIEWED BY: Tammy Omdal, Northland Securities Finance Committee SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Report/Presentations…………………….……City Staff, Northland Securities - 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: Finance Committee FISCAL IMPACT: The City will have the responsibility for the debt service on the issuance of $2,815,000 of new debt as presented in the Financing Plan. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: On June 9, 2015, the City authorized the issuance and sale of $2,815,000 in General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2015A. Resolution No. 2015-57 awards the sale, prescribes the forms and details and provides for the payment of $2,815,000 to the City of Lake Elmo. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 12] July 21, 2015 -- page 2 -- “Move to approve Resolution No. 2015-57 awarding the sale, prescribing the form and details and providing for the payment of $2,815,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015A” STAFF REPORT: Tammy Omdal, Senior Vice President with Northland Securities will present the report and respond to inquiries. BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT): Strengths Provides funding for infrastructure projects at a low rate. Projects included are the 39th Street Project costs (additional funding needs due to approved project scope changes after 2014 bonding cycle), the Inwood Booster Station Project, the Eagle Point Street Reconstruction Project (100% assessment project) and some equipment purchases. Weaknesses None identified. Opportunities Ability to complete the Inwood Line of the water “loop” in 2015 and provide water and sewer to new development areas of the City. Threats If developments are delayed or do not materialize, the enterprise fund may not be able to independently fund the debt service payments on the infrastructure bonding. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution 2015-57 authorizing the issuance and sale of $2,815,000 in General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015A. “Move to approve Resolution No. 2015-57 awarding the sale, prescribing the form and details and providing for the payment of $2,815,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015A” ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Resolution No. 2015-57 CERTIFICATION OF MINUTES RELATING TO $2,815,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2015A Issuer: City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Governing Body: City Council Kind, date, time and place of meeting: A regular meeting held on July 21, 2015, at 7:00 p.m., at the City Hall. Members present: Members absent: Documents Attached: Minutes of said meeting (including): RESOLUTION NO. 2015-57 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE, AWARDING SALE, PRESCRIBING THE FORM AND DETAILS AND PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF $2,815,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2015A I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting recording officer of the public corporation issuing the bonds referred to in the title of this certificate, certify that the documents attached hereto, as described above, have been carefully compared with the original records of said corporation in my legal custody, from which they have been transcribed; that said documents are a correct and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the governing body of said corporation, and correct and complete copies of all resolutions and other actions taken and of all documents approved by the governing body at said meeting, so far as they relate to said bonds; and that said meeting was duly held by the governing body at the time and place and was attended throughout by the members indicated above, pursuant to call and notice of such meeting given as required by law. WITNESS my hand officially as such recording officer this 21st day of July, 2015. City Clerk It was reported that _________ (__) proposals for the purchase of $2,815,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015A were received prior to 10:30 A.M., Central Time, pursuant to the Official Statement distributed to potential purchasers of the Bonds by Northland Securities, Inc., municipal advisor to the City. The proposals have been publicly opened, read and tabulated and were found to be as follows: See Attached Councilmember ____________________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, which motion was seconded by Councilmember ____________________: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE, AWARDING SALE, PRESCRIBING THE FORM AND DETAILS AND PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF $2,815,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2015A BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota (the “City”), as follows: SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION AND SALE. 1.01. Authorization. This City Council, by resolution duly adopted on June 9, 2015, authorized the issuance and sale of its General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015A (the “Bonds”), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.301 and Chapters 429, 444 and 475, for the purpose of (a) financing various street improvements in the City (the “Street Project”), (b) financing various water and sewer improvement in the City (the “Utility Project”), (c) financing various items of capital equipment (the “Equipment”), and (d) funding costs of issuance of the Bonds (collectively, the “Project”). The principal amount of the portion of the Bonds, $________ allocable to the Equipment (the “Equipment Bonds”) does not exceed 0.25 percent of the market value of the taxable property in the City. 1.02. Sale. Pursuant to the Notice of Sale and the Preliminary Official Statement prepared on behalf of the City by Northland Securities, Inc., municipal advisors to the City, sealed or electronic proposals for the purchase of the Bonds were received at or before the time specified for receipt of proposals. The proposals have been opened, publicly read and considered and the purchase price, interest rates and net interest cost under the terms of each proposal have been determined. The most favorable proposal received is that of _______________, in ____________, ___________ (the “Purchaser”), to purchase the Bonds in the principal amount of $2,815,000, at a price of $____________ plus accrued interest, if any, on all Bonds to the day of delivery and payment, on the further terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. The principal amount of the portion of the Bonds, $_________ allocable to the Street Project shall be designated as the “Street Bonds,” and the principal amount of the portion of the Bonds allocable to the Utility, $__________, shall be designated as the “Utility Bonds.” 1.03. Award. The sale of the Bonds is hereby awarded to the Purchaser, and the Mayor and City Finance Director are hereby authorized and directed on behalf of the City to execute a contract for the sale of the Bonds with the Purchaser in accordance with the Preliminary Official Statement. The good faith deposit of the Purchaser shall be retained and deposited by the City until the Bonds have been delivered, and shall be deducted from the purchase price paid at settlement. SECTION 2. BOND TERMS; REGISTRATION; EXECUTION AND DELIVERY. 2.01. Issuance of Bonds. All acts, conditions and things which are required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and to be 2 performed precedent to and in the valid issuance of the Bonds having been done, now existing, having happened and having been performed, it is now necessary for the Council to establish the form and terms of the Bonds, to provide security therefor and to issue the Bonds forthwith. 2.02. Maturities; Interest Rates; Denominations and Payment. The Bonds shall be originally dated as of the date of issuance thereof, shall be in the denomination of $5,000 each, or any integral multiple thereof, of single maturities, shall mature on January 15 in the years and amounts stated below, and shall bear interest from date of issue until paid or duly called for redemption, at the annual rates set forth opposite such years and amounts, as follows: Year Amount Rate Year Amount Rate 2017 $ % 2025 $ % 2018 2026 2019 2027 2020 2028 2021 2029 2022 2030 2023 2031 2024 Maturity Street Bonds Utility Bonds Equipment Bonds 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 [REVISE MATURITY SCHEDULE FOR ANY TERM BONDS] The Bonds shall be issuable only in fully registered form. The interest thereon and, upon surrender of each Bond, the principal amount thereof shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein, provided that so long as the Bonds are registered in the name of a securities depository, or a nominee thereof, in accordance with Section 2.08 hereof, principal and 3 interest shall be payable in accordance with the operational arrangements of the securities depository. 2.03. Dates and Interest Payment Dates. Upon initial delivery of the Bonds pursuant to Section 2.07 and upon any subsequent transfer or exchange pursuant to Section 2.06, the date of authentication shall be noted on each Bond so delivered, exchanged or transferred. Interest on the Bonds shall be payable on January 15 and July 15 in each year, commencing July 15, 2016, each such date being referred to herein as an Interest Payment Date, to the persons in whose names the Bonds are registered on the Bond Register, as hereinafter defined, at the Registrar’s close of business on the first day of the calendar month in which such Interest Payment Date occurs, whether or not such day is a business day. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a 360-day year composed of twelve 30-day months. 2.04. Redemption. Bonds maturing on January 15, 2024 and later years shall be subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the City, in whole or in part, in such order of maturity dates as the City may select and, within a maturity, by lot as selected by the Registrar (or, if applicable, by the bond depository in accordance with its customary procedures) in integral multiples of $5,000, on January 15, 2023, and on any date thereafter, at a price equal to the principal amount thereof and accrued interest to the date of redemption. The City Finance Director shall cause notice of the call for redemption thereof to be published if and as required by law, and at least thirty (30) and not more than sixty (60) days prior to the designated redemption date, shall cause notice of call for redemption to be mailed, by first class mail, to the Registrar and registered holders of any Bonds to be redeemed at their addresses as they appear on the Bond Register described in Section 2.06 hereof, provided that notice shall be given to any securities depository in accordance with its operational arrangements. No defect in or failure to give such notice of redemption shall affect the validity of proceedings for the redemption of any Bond not affected by such defect or failure. Official notice of redemption having been given as aforesaid, the Bonds or portions of Bonds so to be redeemed shall, on the redemption date, become due and payable at the redemption price therein specified and from and after such date (unless the City shall default in the payment of the redemption price) such Bonds or portions of Bonds shall cease to bear interest. Upon partial redemption of any Bond, a new Bond or Bonds will be delivered to the owner without charge, representing the remaining principal amount outstanding. [COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS IF THERE ARE TERM BONDS- ADD ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS IF THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO TERM BONDS] [Bonds maturing on January 15, 20____ and 20____ (the “Term Bonds”) shall be subject to mandatory redemption prior to maturity pursuant to the sinking fund requirements of this Section 2.04 at a redemption price equal to the stated principal amount thereof plus interest accrued thereon to the redemption date, without premium. The Registrar shall select for redemption, by lot or other manner deemed fair, on January 15 in each of the following years the following stated principal amounts of such Bonds: Year Principal Amount 4 The remaining $_______________ stated principal amount of such Bonds shall be paid at maturity on January 15, 20____. Year Principal Amount The remaining $_______________ stated principal amount of such Bonds shall be paid at maturity on January 15, 20____. Notice of redemption shall be given as provided in the preceding paragraph.] 2.05. Appointment of Registrar. The City hereby appoints Northland Trust Services, Inc., in Minneapolis, Minnesota, as the initial Bond registrar, transfer agent and paying agent (the “Registrar”). The Mayor and City Finance Director are authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with the Registrar. Upon merger or consolidation of the Registrar with another corporation, if the resulting corporation is a bank or trust company organized under the laws of the United States or one of the states of the United States and authorized by law to conduct such business, such corporation shall be authorized to act as successor Registrar. The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary charges of the Registrar for the services performed. The City reserves the right to remove the Registrar, effective upon not less than thirty days’ written notice and upon the appointment and acceptance of a successor Registrar, in which event the predecessor Registrar shall deliver all cash and Bonds in its possession to the successor Registrar and shall deliver the Bond Register to the successor Registrar. 2.06. Registration. The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the City and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be as follows: (a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its principal corporate trust office a register (the “Bond Register”) in which the Registrar shall provide for the registration of ownership of Bonds and the registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds entitled to be registered, transferred or exchanged. The term Holder or Bondholder as used herein shall mean the person (whether a natural person, corporation, association, partnership, trust, governmental unit, or other legal entity) in whose name a Bond is registered in the Bond Register. (b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of any Bond duly endorsed by the Holder thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the Holder thereof or by an attorney duly authorized by the Holder in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may, however, close the books for registration of any transfer after the first day of the month in which the interest payment date occurs and until such interest payment date. 5 (c) Exchange of Bonds. At the option of the Holder of any Bond in a denomination greater than $5,000, such Bond may be exchanged for other Bonds of authorized denominations, of the same maturity and a like aggregate principal amount, upon surrender of the Bond to be exchanged at the office of the Registrar. Whenever any Bond is so surrendered for exchange the City shall execute and the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver the Bonds which the Bondholder making the exchange is entitled to receive. (d) Cancellation. All Bonds surrendered for payment, transfer or exchange shall be promptly canceled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City. (e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When any Bond is presented to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on such Bond or separate instrument of transfer is valid and genuine and that the requested transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized. (f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name any Bond is at any time registered in the Bond Register as the absolute owner of the Bond, whether the Bond shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of, the principal of and interest on the Bond and for all other purposes; and all payments made to or upon the order of such Holder shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon such Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of Bonds (except for an exchange upon a partial redemption of a Bond), the Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. (h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. In case any Bond shall become mutilated or be destroyed, stolen or lost, the Registrar shall deliver a new Bond of like amount, number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of any such mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for any Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case of a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that the Bond was destroyed, stolen or lost, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance and amount satisfactory to it, in which both the City and the Registrar shall be named as obligees. All Bonds so surrendered to the Registrar shall be canceled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to the City. If the mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Bond has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it shall not be necessary to issue a new Bond prior to payment. 6 (i) Authenticating Agent. The Registrar is hereby designated authenticating agent for the Bonds, within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.55, Subdivision 1, as amended. (j) Valid Obligations. All Bonds issued upon any transfer or exchange of Bonds shall be the valid obligations of the City, evidencing the same debt, and entitled to the same benefits under this Resolution as the Bonds surrendered upon such transfer or exchange. 2.07. Execution, Authentication and Delivery. The Bonds shall be prepared under the direction of the City Finance Director and shall be executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and the City Finance Director, provided that the signatures may be printed, engraved or lithographed facsimiles of the originals. In case any officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature shall appear on any Bond shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of such Bond, such signature or facsimile shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until the date of delivery of such Bond. Notwithstanding such execution, no Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this Resolution unless and until a certificate of authentication on the Bond, substantially in the form provided in Section 2.09, has been executed by the manual signature of an authorized representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication on different Bonds need not be signed by the same representative. The executed certificate of authentication on any Bond shall be conclusive evidence that it has been duly authenticated and delivered under this Resolution. When the Bonds have been prepared, executed and authenticated, the City Finance Director shall deliver them to the Purchaser upon payment of the purchase price in accordance with the contract of sale theretofore executed, and the Purchaser shall not be obligated to see to the application of the purchase price. 2.08. Securities Depository. (a) For purposes of this section the following terms shall have the following meanings: “Beneficial Owner” shall mean, whenever used with respect to a Bond, the person in whose name such Bond is recorded as the beneficial owner of such Bond by a Participant on the records of such Participant, or such person’s subrogee. “Cede & Co.” shall mean Cede & Co., the nominee of DTC, and any successor nominee of DTC with respect to the Bonds. “DTC” shall mean The Depository Trust Company of New York, New York. “Participant” shall mean any broker-dealer, bank or other financial institution for which DTC holds bonds as securities depository. “Representation Letter” shall mean the Representation Letter pursuant to which the City agrees to comply with DTC’s Operational Arrangements. (b) The Bonds shall be initially issued as separately authenticated fully registered bonds, and one Bond shall be issued in the principal amount of each stated maturity of the Bonds. Upon initial issuance, the ownership of such Bonds shall be registered in the Bond Register in the 7 name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC. The Registrar and the City may treat DTC (or its nominee) as the sole and exclusive owner of the Bonds registered in its name for the purposes of payment of the principal of or interest on the Bonds, selecting the Bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed, if any, giving any notice permitted or required to be given to registered owners of Bonds under this resolution, registering the transfer of Bonds, and for all other purposes whatsoever; and neither the Registrar nor the City shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. Neither the Registrar nor the City shall have any responsibility or obligation to any Participant, any person claiming a beneficial ownership interest in the Bonds under or through DTC or any Participant, or any other person which is not shown on the Bond Register as being a registered owner of any Bonds, with respect to the accuracy of any records maintained by DTC or any Participant, with respect to the payment by DTC or any Participant of any amount with respect to the principal of or interest on the Bonds, with respect to any notice which is permitted or required to be given to owners of Bonds under this resolution, with respect to the selection by DTC or any Participant of any person to receive payment in the event of a partial redemption of the Bonds, or with respect to any consent given or other action taken by DTC as registered owner of the Bonds. So long as any Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the Registrar shall pay all principal of and interest on such Bond, and shall give all notices with respect to such Bond, only to Cede & Co. in accordance with DTC’s Operational Arrangements, and all such payments shall be valid and effective to fully satisfy and discharge the City’s obligations with respect to the principal of and interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No person other than DTC shall receive an authenticated Bond for each separate stated maturity evidencing the obligation of the City to make payments of principal and interest. Upon delivery by DTC to the Registrar of written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., the Bonds will be transferable to such new nominee in accordance with paragraph (e) hereof. (c) In the event the City determines that it is in the best interest of the Beneficial Owners that they be able to obtain Bonds in the form of physical certificates, the City may notify DTC and the Registrar, whereupon DTC shall notify the Participants of the availability through DTC of Bonds in the form of certificates. In such event, the Bonds will be transferable in accordance with paragraph (e) hereof. DTC may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving notice to the City and the Registrar and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. In such event the Bonds will be transferable in accordance with paragraph (e) hereof. (d) The execution and delivery of the Representation Letter to DTC, if not previously filed with DTC, by the Mayor or City Finance Director is hereby authorized and directed. (e) In the event that any transfer or exchange of Bonds is permitted under paragraph (b) or (c) hereof, such transfer or exchange shall be accomplished upon receipt by the Registrar of the Bonds to be transferred or exchanged and appropriate instruments of transfer to the permitted transferee in accordance with the provisions of this resolution. In the event Bonds in the form of certificates are issued to owners other than Cede & Co., its successor as nominee for DTC as owner of all the Bonds, or another securities depository as owner of all the Bonds, the provisions of this resolution shall also apply to all matters relating thereto, including, without limitation, the printing of such Bonds in the form of physical certificates and the method of payment of principal of and interest on such Bonds in the form of physical certificates. 8 Section 3. USE OF PROCEEDS; PROJECT FUND. 3.01. Project Fund There is hereby created a special bookkeeping fund to be designated as the “General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015A Project Fund” (the “Project Fund”), to be held and administered by the City Finance Director separate and apart from all other funds of the City. Within the Project Fund are established the following accounts: (a) Street Project Account. The Street Project Account shall be credited with (i) $__________ from the proceeds from the Bonds and (ii) all special assessments collected with respect to the Street Project until all costs of such improvements have been fully paid. The City Finance Director shall maintain the Street Project Account until payment of all costs and expenses incurred in connection with the construction of the Street Project have been paid. (b) Utility Project Account. The Utility Project Account shall be credited with $_________ from the proceeds of the Bonds. The City Finance Director shall maintain the Utility Project Account until all costs and expenses incurred by the City in connection with the construction of the Utility Project have been paid. (c) Equipment Account. The Equipment Account shall be credited with $___________ from the proceeds of the Bonds. The City Finance Director shall maintain the Equipment Account until all costs and expenses incurred by the City in connection with the Equipment have been paid. From the Project Fund there shall be paid all costs and expenses related to the construction and acquisition of the Project. After payment of all such costs and expenses, the Project Fund shall be terminated. All funds on hand in the Project Fund when terminated shall be credited to the Bond Fund described in Section 4 hereof, unless and except as such proceeds may be transferred to some other fund or account as to which the City has received from bond counsel an opinion that such other transfer is permitted by applicable laws and does not impair the exemption of interest on the Bonds from federal income taxes. SECTION 4. GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2015A BOND FUND. The Bonds shall be payable from a separate General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015A Bond Fund (the “Bond Fund”) of the City, which shall be created and maintained on the books of the City as a separate debt redemption fund until the Bonds, and all interest thereon, are fully paid. Into the Bond Fund shall be paid (a) any funds received from the Purchaser upon delivery of the Bonds in excess of the amounts specified in Section 3 above; (b) special assessments levied and collected in accordance with this Resolution except as otherwise provided in Section 3.01, clause (a) hereof; (c) net revenues of the municipal water and sewer systems, such revenues to be distributed ratably with respect to the portion of the Bonds payable therefrom and any other obligations of the City payable from the same source; (d) any taxes collected pursuant to Section 7 hereof; and (e) any other funds appropriated by this Council for the payment of the Bonds. The principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be payable from the Bond Fund, and the money on hand in the Bond Fund from time to time shall be used only to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds. 9 On or before each principal and interest payment date for the Bonds, the City Finance Director is directed to remit to the Registrar from funds on deposit in the Bond Fund the amount needed to pay principal and interest on the Bonds on the next succeeding principal and interest payment date. There are hereby established two accounts in the Bond Fund, designated as the “Debt Service Account” and the “Surplus Account.” There shall initially be deposited into the Debt Service Account upon the issuance of the Bonds the amount set forth in clause (a) above. Thereafter, during each bond year (each twelve month period commencing on January 16 and ending on the following January 15, a “Bond Year”), as monies are received into the Bond Fund, the City Finance Director shall first deposit such monies into the Debt Service Account until an amount has been appropriated thereto sufficient to pay all principal and interest due on the Bonds through the end of the Bond Year. All subsequent monies received in the Bond Fund during the Bond Year shall be appropriated to the Surplus Account. If at any time the amount on hand in the Debt Service Account is insufficient for the payment of principal and interest then due, the City Finance Director shall transfer to the Debt Service Account amounts on hand in the Surplus Account to the extent necessary to cure such deficiency. Investment earnings (and losses) on amounts from time to time held in the Debt Service Account and Surplus Account shall be credited or charged to said accounts. If the balance in the Bond Fund is at any time insufficient to pay all interest and principal then due on all Bonds payable therefrom, the payment shall be made from any fund of the City which is available for that purpose, subject to reimbursement from the Surplus Account when the balance therein is sufficient, and the City covenants and agrees that it will each year levy a sufficient amount of ad valorem taxes to take care of any accumulated or anticipated deficiency, which levy is not subject to any constitutional or statutory limitation. SECTION 5. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. The City hereby covenants and agrees that, for the payment of the costs of the Street Project, the City has done or will do and perform all acts and things necessary for the final and valid levy of special assessments in the principal amount of $1,490,000, which is not less than 20% of the cost of the Street Project. The principal of and interest on such special assessments are estimated to be levied and collected in the years and amounts shown on EXHIBIT B attached hereto. The principal of the assessments shall be made payable in annual installments, with interest as established by this Council in accordance with law on unpaid installments thereof from time to time remaining unpaid. In the event any special assessment shall at any time be held invalid with respect to any lot or tract of land, due to any error, defect or irregularity in any action or proceeding taken or to be taken by the City or by this Council or by any of the officers or employees of the City, either in the making of such special assessment or in the performance of any condition precedent thereto, the City hereby covenants and agrees that it will forthwith do all such further things and take all such further proceedings as shall be required by law to make such special assessment a valid and binding lien upon said property. SECTION 6. PLEDGE OF NET REVENUES. It is hereby found, determined and declared that the City owns and operates its municipal water and sewer systems as revenue-producing utilities and as a convenience, and that the net operating revenues of the systems, after deducting from the gross receipts derived from charges for the service, use and availability of the systems the 10 normal, current and reasonable expenses of operation and maintenance thereof, will be sufficient, together with any other pledged funds, for the payment when due of the principal of and interest on the Utility Bonds and on any other bonds to which such revenues are pledged. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075, the City hereby covenants and agrees with the registered owners from time to time of the Bonds that until the Bonds and the interest thereon are discharged as provided in Section 8 or paid in full, the City will impose and collect reasonable charges in accordance with said Section 444.075 for the service, use and availability of its municipal water and sewer systems according to schedules sufficient to produce net revenues sufficient, with other funds pledged to payment of the Utility Bonds, to pay the Utility Bonds and any other bonds to which said net revenues have been pledged; and the net revenues, to the extent necessary, are hereby irrevocably pledged and appropriated to the payment of the Bonds and interest thereon when due. Nothing herein shall preclude the City from hereafter making further pledges and appropriations of the net revenues of its municipal water and sewer systems for payment of additional obligations of the City hereafter authorized if the Council determines before the authorization of such additional obligations that the estimated net revenues of the systems will be sufficient, together with any other sources pledged to the payment of the outstanding and additional obligations, for payment of the outstanding bonds and such additional obligations. Such further pledges and appropriations of net revenues may be made superior or subordinate to or on a parity with, the pledge and appropriation herein made. SECTION 7. PLEDGE OF TAXING POWERS. For the prompt and full payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds as such payments respectively become due, the full faith, credit and unlimited taxing powers of the City shall be and are hereby irrevocably pledged. In order to produce aggregate amounts which, together with the collections of other amounts as set forth in Section 4, will produce amounts not less than 5% in excess of the amounts needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the Bonds, ad valorem taxes are hereby levied on all taxable property in the City, the taxes to be levied and collected in the following years and amounts: Levy Years Collection Years Amount See attached schedules The taxes shall be irrepealable as long as any of the Bonds are outstanding and unpaid, provided that the City reserves the right and power to reduce the tax levies from other legally available funds, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61. SECTION 8. DEFEASANCE. When all of the Bonds have been discharged as provided in this Section, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this Resolution to the Holders of the Bonds shall cease. The City may discharge its obligations with respect to any Bonds which are due on any date by depositing with the Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full; or, if any Bond should not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued from the due date to the date of such deposit. The City may also discharge its obligations with respect to any prepayable Bonds called for redemption on any date when they 11 are prepayable according to their terms by depositing with the Registrar on or before that date an amount equal to the principal, redemption premium, if any, and interest then due, provided that notice of such redemption has been duly given as provided herein. The City may also at any time discharge its obligations with respect to any Bonds, subject to the provisions of law now or hereafter authorizing and regulating such action, by depositing irrevocably in escrow, with the Registrar or with a bank or trust company qualified by law to act as an escrow agent for this purpose, cash or securities which are authorized by law to be so deposited for such purpose, bearing interest payable at such times and at such rates and maturing or callable at the holder’s option on such dates as shall be required to pay all principal and interest to become due thereon to maturity or, if notice of redemption as herein required has been irrevocably provided for, to an earlier designated redemption date. If such deposit is made more than ninety days before the maturity date or specified redemption date of the Bonds to be discharged, the City must have received a written opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that such deposit does not adversely affect the exemption of interest on any Bonds from federal income taxation and a written report of an accountant or investment banking firm verifying that the deposit is sufficient to pay when due all of the principal and interest on the Bonds to be discharged on and before their maturity dates or earlier designated redemption date. SECTION 8. TAX COVENANTS; ARBITRAGE MATTERS AND CONTINUING DISCLOSURE. 8.01. General Tax Covenant. The City agrees with the registered owners from time to time of the Bonds that it will not take, or permit to be taken by any of its officers, employees or agents, any action that would cause interest on the Bonds to become includable in gross income of the recipient under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) and applicable Treasury Regulations (the “Regulations”), and agrees to take any and all actions within its powers to ensure that the interest on the Bonds will not become includable in gross income of the recipient under the Code and the Regulations. All proceeds of the Bonds deposited in the Project Fund will be expended solely for the payment of the costs of the Project. The Project is and will be owned and maintained by the City and available for use by members of the general public on a substantially equal basis. The City shall not enter into any lease, management contract, use agreement, capacity agreement or other agreement with any non- governmental person relating to the use of the Project, or any portion thereof, or security for the payment of the Bonds which might cause the Bonds to be considered “private activity bonds” or “private loan bonds” pursuant to Section 141 of the Code. 8.02. Arbitrage Certification. The Mayor and City Finance Director being the officers of the City charged with the responsibility for issuing the Bonds pursuant to this Resolution, are authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the Purchaser a certificate in accordance with Section 148 of the Code, and applicable Regulations, stating the facts, estimates and circumstances in existence on the date of issue and delivery of the Bonds which make it reasonable to expect that the proceeds of the Bonds will not be used in a manner that would cause the Bonds to be “arbitrage bonds” within the meaning of the Code and Regulations. 8.03. Arbitrage Rebate. (a) It is hereby found that the City has general taxing powers, that no Bond is a "private activity bond" within the meaning of Section 141 of the Code, that 95% or more of the net proceeds of the Bonds are to be used for local governmental activities of 12 the City, and that the aggregate face amount of all tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds) issued by the City and all subordinate entities thereof during the year 2015 is not reasonably expected to exceed $5,000,000. Therefore, pursuant to Section 148(f)(4)(D) of the Code, the City shall not be required to comply with the arbitrage rebate requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) of Section 148(f) of the Code. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this Section 8.03, if the arbitrage rebate provisions of Section 148(f) of the Code apply to the Bonds, the City hereby covenants and agrees to make the determinations, retain records and rebate to the United States the amounts at the times and in the manner required by said Section 148(f) and applicable Regulations. 8.04. Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations. The City Council hereby designates the Bonds as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code relating to the disallowance of interest expense for financial institutions, and hereby finds that the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code) which will be issued by the City and all subordinate entities during calendar year 2015 does not exceed $10,000,000. 8.05. Reimbursement. The City certifies that the proceeds of the Bonds will not be used by the City to reimburse itself for any expenditure with respect to the Projects which the City paid or will have paid more than 60 days prior to the issuance of the Bonds unless, with respect to such prior expenditures, the City shall have made a declaration of official intent which complies with the provisions of Section 1.150-2 of the Regulations, provided that this certification shall not apply (i) with respect to certain de minimis expenditures, if any, with respect to the Projects meeting the requirements of Section 1.150-2(f)(1) of the Regulations, or (ii) with respect to “preliminary expenditures” for the Projects as defined in Section 1.150-2(f)(2) of the Regulations, including engineering or architectural expenses and similar preparatory expenses, which in the aggregate do not exceed 20% of the “issue price” of the Bonds. 8.06. Continuing Disclosure (a) Purpose and Beneficiaries. To provide for the public availability of certain information relating to the Bonds and the security therefor and to permit the Purchaser and other participating underwriters in the primary offering of the Bonds to comply with amendments to Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 C.F.R. § 240.15c2-12), relating to continuing disclosure (as in effect and interpreted from time to time, the Rule), which will enhance the marketability of the Bonds, the City hereby makes the following covenants and agreements for the benefit of the Owners (as hereinafter defined) from time to time of the outstanding Bonds. The City is the only obligated person in respect of the Bonds within the meaning of the Rule for purposes of identifying the entities in respect of which continuing disclosure must be made. If the City fails to comply with any provisions of this section, any person aggrieved thereby, including the Owners of any outstanding Bonds, may take whatever action at law or in equity may appear necessary or appropriate to enforce performance and observance of any agreement or covenant contained in this section, including an action for a writ of mandamus or specific performance. Direct, indirect, consequential and punitive damages shall not be recoverable for any default hereunder to the extent permitted by law. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in no event shall a default under this section constitute a default under the Bonds or under any other provision of this resolution. As used in this section, Owner or Bondowner owner means, in 13 respect of the Bonds, the registered owner or owners thereof appearing in the bond register maintained by the Registrar or any Beneficial Owner (as hereinafter defined) thereof, if such Beneficial Owner provides to the Registrar evidence of such beneficial ownership in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Registrar. As used herein, Beneficial Owner means, in respect of the Bonds, any person or entity which (a) has the power, directly or indirectly, to vote or consent with respect to, or to dispose of ownership of, such Bonds (including persons or entities holding Certificates through nominees, depositories or other intermediaries), or (b) is treated as the owner of the Bonds for federal income tax purposes. (b) Information To Be Disclosed. The City will provide, in the manner set forth in subsection (c) hereof, either directly or indirectly through an agent designated by the City, the following information at the following times: (1) On or before 12 months after the end of each fiscal year of the City, commencing with the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015, the following financial information and operating data in respect of the City (the Disclosure Information): (A) the audited financial statements of the City for such fiscal year, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in accordance with the governmental accounting standards promulgated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board or as otherwise provided under Minnesota law, as in effect from time to time, or, if and to the extent such financial statements have not been prepared in accordance with such generally accepted accounting principles for reasons beyond the reasonable control of the City, noting the discrepancies therefrom and the effect thereof, and certified as to accuracy and completeness in all material respects by the fiscal officer of the City; and (B) to the extent not included in the financial statements referred to in paragraph (A) hereof, the information for such fiscal year or for the period most recently available of the type contained in the Official Statement under the headings: “Economic and Financial Information—Valuations”; “--Tax Capacity Rates” and “—Tax Levies and Collections” and “Summary of Debt and Debt Statistics.” Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, if the audited financial statements are not available by the date specified, the City shall provide on or before such date unaudited financial statements in the format required for the audited financial statements as part of the Disclosure Information and, within 10 days after the receipt thereof, the City shall provide the audited financial statements. Any or all of the Disclosure Information may be incorporated by reference, if it is updated as required hereby, from other documents, including official statements, which have been filed with the SEC or have been made available to the public by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the “MSRB”) through its Electronic Municipal Market Access System (EMMA). The City shall clearly identify in the Disclosure Information each document so incorporated by reference. If any part of the Disclosure Information can no longer be generated because the operations of the City have materially changed or been discontinued, such Disclosure 14 Information need no longer be provided if the City includes in the Disclosure Information a statement to such effect; provided, however, if such operations have been replaced by other City operations in respect of which data is not included in the Disclosure Information and the City determines that certain specified data regarding such replacement operations would be a Material Fact (as defined in paragraph (2) hereof), then, from and after such determination, the Disclosure Information shall include such additional specified data regarding the replacement operations. If the Disclosure Information is changed or this section is amended as permitted by this paragraph (b)(1) or subsection (d), then the City shall include in the next Disclosure Information to be delivered hereunder, to the extent necessary, an explanation of the reasons for the amendment and the effect of any change in the type of financial information or operating data provided. (2) In a timely manner, not in excess of 10 business days, to the MSRB through EMMA, notice of the occurrence of any of the following events (each a “Material Fact,” as hereinafter defined): (A) principal and interest payment delinquencies; (B) non-payment related defaults; (C) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; (D) unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; (E) substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; (F) adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax-exempt status of the security; (G) modifications to rights of security holders; (H) bond calls; (I) defeasances; (J) release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the securities; (K) rating changes; (L) bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership, or similar event of the obligated person; (M) the consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving an obligated person or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of an obligated person, other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if material; and (N) appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of name of a trustee, if material. As used herein, for those events that must be reported if material, a “Material Fact” is a fact as to which a substantial likelihood exists that a reasonably prudent investor would attach importance thereto in deciding to buy, hold or sell the Bonds or, if not disclosed, would significantly alter the total information otherwise available to an investor from the Official Statement, information disclosed hereunder or information generally available to the public. Notwithstanding the 15 foregoing sentence, a Material Fact is also a fact that would be deemed material for purposes of the purchase, holding or sale of the Bonds within the meaning of applicable federal securities laws, as interpreted at the time of discovery of the occurrence of the event. For the purposes of the event identified in (L) hereinabove, the event is considered to occur when any of the following occur: the appointment of a receiver, fiscal agent or similar officer for an obligated person in a proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code or in any other proceeding under state or federal law in which a court or governmental authority has assumed jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the obligated person, or if such jurisdiction has been assumed by leaving the existing governing body and officials or officers in possession but subject to the supervision and orders of a court or governmental authority, or the entry of an order confirming a plan of reorganization, arrangement or liquidation by a court or governmental authority having supervision or jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the obligated person. (3) In a timely manner, to the MSRB through EMMA, notice of the occurrence of any of the following events or conditions: (A) the failure of the City to provide the Disclosure Information required under paragraph (b)(1) at the time specified thereunder; (B) the amendment or supplementing of this section pursuant to subsection (d), together with a copy of such amendment or supplement and any explanation provided by the City under subsection (d)(2); (C) the termination of the obligations of the City under this section pursuant to subsection (d); (D) any change in the accounting principles pursuant to which the financial statements constituting a portion of the Disclosure Information are prepared; and (E) any change in the fiscal year of the City. (c) Manner of Disclosure. (1) The City agrees to make available to the MSRB through EMMA, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB, the information described in subsection (b). (2) All documents provided to the MSRB pursuant to this subsection (c) shall be accompanied by identifying information as prescribed by the MSRB from time to time. (d) Term; Amendments; Interpretation. (1) The covenants of the City in this section shall remain in effect so long as any Bonds are outstanding. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, however, the obligations of the City under this section shall terminate and be without further effect as of any date on which the City delivers to the Registrar an opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that, because of legislative action or final judicial or administrative actions or proceedings, the failure of the City to comply with the 16 requirements of this section will not cause participating underwriters in the primary offering of the Bonds to be in violation of the Rule or other applicable requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or any statutes or laws successory thereto or amendatory thereof. (2) This section (and the form and requirements of the Disclosure Information) may be amended or supplemented by the City from time to time, without notice to (except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) hereof) or the consent of the Owners of any Bonds, by a resolution of this Council filed in the office of the recording officer of the City accompanied by an opinion of Bond Counsel, who may rely on certificates of the City and others and the opinion may be subject to customary qualifications, to the effect that: (i) such amendment or supplement (a) is made in connection with a change in circumstances that arises from a change in law or regulation or a change in the identity, nature or status of the City or the type of operations conducted by the City, or (b) is required by, or better complies with, the provisions of paragraph (b)(5) of the Rule; (ii) this section as so amended or supplemented would have complied with the requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of the Rule at the time of the primary offering of the Bonds, giving effect to any change in circumstances applicable under clause (i)(a) and assuming that the Rule as in effect and interpreted at the time of the amendment or supplement was in effect at the time of the primary offering; and (iii) such amendment or supplement does not materially impair the interests of the Bondowners under the Rule. If the Disclosure Information is so amended, the City agrees to provide, contemporaneously with the effectiveness of such amendment, an explanation of the reasons for the amendment and the effect, if any, of the change in the type of financial information or operating data being provided hereunder. (3) This section is entered into to comply with the continuing disclosure provisions of the Rule and should be construed so as to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of the Rule. SECTION 9. CERTIFICATION OF PROCEEDINGS. 9.01. Registration of Bonds. The City Finance Director is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor of Washington County, together with such additional information as is required, and to obtain a certificate that the Bonds and the taxes levied pursuant hereto have been duly entered upon the County Auditor’s Bond register. 9.02. Authentication of Transcript. The officers of the City and the County Auditor are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser and to Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Bond Counsel, certified copies of all proceedings and records relating to the Bonds and such other affidavits, certificates and information as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Bonds, as the same appear from the books and records in their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies, affidavits 17 and certificates, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the City as to the correctness of all statements contained therein. 9.03. Official Statement. The Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds, dated as of _________, 2015 prepared and distributed by Northland Securities, Inc., is hereby approved. Northland Securities, Inc., is hereby authorized on behalf of the City to prepare and distribute to the Purchaser within seven business days from the date hereof, a Final Official Statement listing the offering price, the interest rates, selling compensation, delivery date, the underwriters and such other information relating to the Bonds required to be included in the Official Statement by Rule l5c2-12 adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to execute such certificates as may be appropriate concerning the accuracy, completeness and sufficiency of the Official Statement. 9.04. Authorization of Payment of Certain Costs of Issuance of the Bonds. The City authorizes the Purchaser to forward the amount of Bond proceeds allocable to the payment of issuance expenses to the Registrar on the closing date for further distribution as directed by Northland Securities, Inc. 9.05. Effective Date. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. Upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. EXHIBIT A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON CITY OF LAKE ELMO GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2015A R-___ $_________ Interest Rate Maturity Date Date of Original Issue CUSIP No. __% January 15, 20__ _________, 2015 REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: THOUSAND DOLLARS CITY OF LAKE ELMO, State of Minnesota (the “City”) acknowledges itself to be indebted and for value received hereby promises to pay to the registered owner specified above, or registered assigns, the principal amount specified above on the maturity date specified above and promises to pay interest thereon from the date of original issue specified above or from the most recent Interest Payment Date (as hereinafter defined) to which interest has been paid or duly provided for, at the annual interest rate specified above, payable on January 15 and July 15 in each year, commencing July 15, 2016 (each such date, an “Interest Payment Date”), all subject to the provisions referred to herein with respect to the redemption of the principal of this Bond before maturity. The interest so payable on any Interest Payment Date shall be paid to the person in whose name this Bond is registered at the close of business on the first day (whether or not a business day) of the calendar month in which such Interest Payment Date occurs. Interest hereon shall be computed on the basis of a 360-day year composed of twelve 30-day months. The interest hereon and, upon presentation and surrender hereof at the principal office of the agent of the Registrar described below, the principal hereof are payable in lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft drawn on Northland Trust Services, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, as Bond registrar, transfer agent and paying agent, or its successor designated under the Resolution described herein (the “Registrar”) or other agreed-upon means of payment by the Registrar or its designated successor. For the prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same respectively come due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the City have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged. 2 This Bond is one of an issue (the “Bonds”) in the aggregate principal amount of $2,815,000 issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on July21, 2015 (the “Resolution”), to finance various street improvement projects in the City, improvements to the City’s water and sewer systems, and various items of capital equipment and to fund the costs of issuance of the Bonds. This Bond issued by authority of and in strict accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota thereunto enabling, including Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.301 and Chapters 429, 444 and 475. For the full and prompt payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds as the same become due, the full faith, credit and taxing power of the City have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged. The Bonds are issuable only in fully registered form, in the denomination of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof, of single maturities. Bonds maturing on January 15, 2024 and later years shall be subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the City, in whole or in part, in such order of maturity dates as the City may select and, within a maturity, by lot as selected by the Registrar (or, if applicable, by the Bond depository in accordance with its customary procedures) in multiples of $5,000, on January 15, 2023, and on any date thereafter, at a price equal to the principal amount thereof and accrued interest to the date of redemption. The City shall cause notice of the call for redemption thereof to be published if and to the extent required by law, and at least thirty (30) and not more than sixty (60) days prior to the designated redemption date, shall cause notice of call for redemption to be mailed, by first class mail (or, if applicable, provided in accordance with the operational arrangements of the securities depository), to the registered holders of any Bonds, at the holders’ addresses as they appear on the Bond register maintained by the Bond Registrar, but no defect in or failure to give such mailed notice of redemption shall affect the validity of proceedings for the redemption of any Bond not affected by such defect or failure. Official notice of redemption having been given as aforesaid, the Bonds or portions of Bonds so to be redeemed shall, on the redemption date, become due and payable at the redemption price therein specified and from and after such date (unless the City shall default in the payment of the redemption price) such Bonds or portions of Bonds shall cease to bear interest. Upon partial redemption of any Bond, a new Bond or Bonds will be delivered to the owner without charge, representing the remaining principal amount outstanding. [COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS IF THERE ARE TERM BONDS- ADD ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS IF THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO TERM BONDS] [Bonds maturing in the years 20____ and 20____ shall be subject to mandatory redemption, at a redemption price equal to their principal amount plus interest accrued thereon to the redemption date, without premium, on January 15 in each of the years shown below, in an amount equal to the following principal amounts: 3 Term Bonds Maturing in 20__ Term Bonds Maturing in 20__ Sinking Fund Payment Date Aggregate Principal Amount Sinking Fund Payment Date Aggregate Principal Amount (final maturity) (final maturity) Notice of redemption shall be given as provided in the preceding paragraph.] As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Bond is transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Registrar, by the registered owner hereof in person or by the owner’s attorney duly authorized in writing upon surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner or the owner’s attorney, and may also be surrendered in exchange for Bonds of other authorized denominations. Upon such transfer or exchange the City will cause a new Bond or Bonds to be issued in the name of the designated transferee or registered owner, of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date; subject to reimbursement for any tax, fee or governmental charge required to be paid with respect to any such transfer or exchange. The Bonds have been designated by the City as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” pursuant to Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The City and the Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this Bond is registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment as herein provided and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Bond, so long as this Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of The Depository Trust Company, or in the name of any other nominee of The Depository Trust Company or other securities depository, the Registrar shall pay all principal of and interest on this Bond, and shall give all notices with respect to this Bond, only to Cede & Co. or other nominee in accordance with the operational arrangements of The Depository Trust Company or other securities depository as agreed to by the City. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed preliminary to and in the issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the City in accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed as so required; that, prior to the issuance hereof, the City Council has by the Resolution covenanted and agreed to collect and apply to payment of the bonds ad valorem taxes levied on all taxable property in the City, certain net revenues of its municipal water and sewer systems and special assessments upon property specially benefited by the local improvements financed with the Bonds, which taxes, revenues and assessments are estimated to be collectible in years and amounts sufficient to produce sums 4 not less than 5% in excess of the principal of and interest on the Bonds when due, and has appropriated such assessments, revenues and taxes to its General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015 Bond Fund for the payment of such principal and interest; that if necessary for the payment of such principal and interest, additional ad valorem taxes are required to be levied upon all taxable property in the City, without limitation as to rate or amount; that all proceedings relative to the projects financed by this Bond have been or will be taken according to law and that the issuance of this Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the City outstanding on the date hereof and on the date of its actual issuance and delivery, does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness. This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been executed by the Registrar by manual signature of one of its authorized representatives. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile signatures of its Mayor and City Finance Director and has caused this Bond to be dated as of the date set forth below. CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA _____________________________________ __________________________________ (facsimile signature – City Finance Director) (facsimile signature – Mayor) __________ CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within. Date of Authentication: __________________ NORTHLAND TRUST SERVICES, INC., as Registrar By Authorized Representative 5 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to the applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM --as tenants in common UTMA …………. as Custodian for ………….. (Cust) (Minor) TEN ENT --as tenants by the entireties under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act ....…….. (State) JT TEN --as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common Additional abbreviations may also be used. __________ ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto ______________________________________________________________________ the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint ______________________________________________________________________ attorney to transfer the said Bond on the books kept for registration of the within Bond, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: NOTICE: The assignor's signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatsoever. Signature Guaranteed: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by an "eligible guarantor institution" meeting the requirements of the Registrar, which requirements include membership or participation in STAMP or such other "signature guaranty program" as may be determined by the Registrar in addition to or in substitution for STAMP, all in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE: EXHIBIT B Special Assessments and Tax Levies WASHINGTON COUNTY AUDITOR’S CERTIFICATE AS TO REGISTRATION AND TAX LEVY The undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting County Auditor of Washington County, Minnesota, hereby certifies that there has been filed in my office a certified copy of a resolution duly adopted on July 21, 2015, by the City Council of Lake Elmo, Minnesota, setting forth the form and details of an issue of $2,815,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015A dated the date of issuance thereof. I further certify that the issue has been entered on my bond register and the taxes required by law have been levied as required by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 475.61 to 475.63. WITNESS my hand and official seal on the _____ day of ____________, 2015. Washington County Auditor (SEAL) MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: July 21, 2015 REGULAR ITEM # 12 AGENDA ITEM: Stormwater Drainage Improvements – Approve Ditch Cleaning at 8690 and 8702 Ironwood Trail N SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer THROUGH: Julie Johnson, City Clerk REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Mike Bouthilet, Public Works Cathy Bendel, Finance Director 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 / Public Works. FISCAL IMPACT: $5,962.50. The City obtained a quote from Miller Excavating, Inc. in the amount of $5,962.50 to remove sediment that is blocking drainage of the ditch along the property line of 8690 and 8702 Ironwood Trail N. Ditch cleaning/restoration is funded through Surface Water Management Fund. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving the ditch cleaning at 8690 and 8702 Ironwood Trail N and awarding a construction contract to Miller Excavating, Inc. in the amount of $5,962.50 to complete the work. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: “Move to approve ditch cleaning at 8690 and 8702 Ironwood Trail N and award a construction contract to Miller Excavating, Inc. in the amount of $5,962.50.” City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item X] July 21, 2015 -- page 2 -- LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: A culvert under Ironwood Trail N collects drainage from a portion of the Tablyn Park Neighborhood including the public street right-of-way and discharges along the property line of 8690 and 8702 Ironwood Trail N. A 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement exists along this property line to facilitate drainage. Sediment deposit over time has filled in the ditch restricting the intended drainage path and creating standing water within the easement and adjacent properties. The sediment needs to be removed to restore a positive grade. The ditch grading work would consist of approximately 100 feet of sediment removal blending into the existing grades and re-establishing turf in the disturbed area. Public Works did not have time and equipment available to complete the work and requested Engineering to obtain a contractor for this improvement. Due to the small size of the project it was a challenge to get contractors to provide a quote, therefore only one quote has been obtained. Miller Excavating, Inc. was recently awarded a street reconstruction project in Lake Elmo, therefore they will have crews mobilized in the area and were willing to take on the added work. Attached are right of entry forms signed by each property owner to allow the work to be completed and restored as necessary to facilitate drainage along their shared property line. Both property owners have requested the work to be completed for several years and are concerned about the standing water along the ditch that is currently blocked by excess sediment. We have detailed the scope of work to be completed in the right of entry forms and have communicated with the property owners. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the ditch cleaning at 8690 and 8702 Ironwood Trail N and award a construction contract to Miller Excavating, Inc. in the amount of $5,962.50 to complete the work. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: “Move to approve ditch cleaning at 8690 and 8702 Ironwood Trail N and award a construction contract to Miller Excavating, Inc. in the amount of $5,962.50.” ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Construction Contract with Miller Excavating, Inc. 2. Waiver of Trespass / Right of Entry Agreement for 8690 Ironwood Trail N. 3. Waiver of Trespass / Right of Entry Agreement for 8702 Ironwood Trail N. Project No. 2015.112                  General Conditions for Ditch Cleaning                                                             Page 1 of 2                                    State of Minnesota    Washington County  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR DITCH   CLEANING AT 8690 & 8702 IRONWOOD TRAIL N  LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA     This Contract, made this ________ day of _____________________ 2015, by the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota  (herinafter called the “Owner”) and ___Miller Excavating, Inc._______ (hereinafter called the “Contractor”).    WITNESSETH that the parties hereto agree as follows:     The Contractor shall provide all labor, services, materials, equipment and machinery, transportation, tools, fuel, power,  light, heat, telephone, water, sanitary facilities, temporary facilities, and all other facilities and incidentals, including  profit and overhead, necessary for the performance, testing, start‐up, and completion of the work as described herein:        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this contract as of the date first above written.          (Contractor)                                                                                  (City of Lake Elmo)          DESCRIPTION OF WORK:      The Contractor shall remove sediment within the existing drainage ditch along 8690 and 8702 Ironwood Trail N to  provide a minimum 2% slope from the existing 24‐inch culvert end to daylight (approximately 100 feet in length). The  Contractor shall match into the existing side slopes to create a 4:1 slope that can be mowed. The existing riprap in the  ditch bottom shall be salvaged and placed at the 24‐inch outlet for energy dissipation. Geotextile fabric and  additional class III riprap is to be furnished and installed as necessary to finish the culvert end. A minimum of 4 inches  of topsoil, seed and wood fiber blanket must be provided to establish turf for all disturbed areas.    All work shall be completed within the specified time frame and under the terms and conditions provided within this  Construction Contract, and in accordance with the “General Conditions” shown in this contract.  The contractor shall  complete the proposed work by AUGUST 21, 2015.    The Owner will make payment for the whole contract on a lump sum basis upon acceptance by the Owner of all work  required hereunder and in compliance with all the terms and conditions of this contract.     TOTAL AMOUNT:  $5,962.50  Project No. 2015.112                  General Conditions for Ditch Cleaning                                                             Page 2 of 2                                    GENERAL CONDITIONS  I. CHANGES IN WORK. ‐ The Owner may at any time, make changes in the drawings and specifications, within the general scope thereof. If  such changes cause an increase or decrease in the amount due under this contract or in the time required for its performance, an  equitable adjustment will be made, and this contract will be modified accordingly by a “Contract Change Order”. No charge for any extra  work or material will be allowed unless the same has been ordered on such contract change order by the Owner and the price therefore  stated in the order.  II. INSPECTION OF WORK. ‐ All materials and workmanship will be subject to inspection, examination, and test, by the Owner, who will have  the right to reject defective material and workmanship or require its correction.  III. COMPLETION OF WORK. ‐ If the Contractor refuses or fails to complete the work within the time specified in this contract, or any  extension thereof, the Owner may terminate the Contractor’s rights to proceed. In such event the Owner may take over the work and  prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Contractor will be liable for any excess cost occasioned the Owner  thereby; and the Owner may take possession of and utilize in completing the work such materials and equipment as may be on the site of  the work and necessary therefore. If the Owner does not terminate the right of the Contract to proceed, the Contractor will continue the  work, in which event, actual damages for delay will be impossible to determine, and in lieu thereof, the Contractor may be required to  pay to the Owner the sum of $100  as liquidated damages for each calendar day of delay, and the Contractor will be liable for the amount  thereof: Provided, however, that the right of the Contractor to proceed will not be terminated because of delays in the completion of the  completion of the work due to unforeseeable causes beyond the Contractor’s control and without Contractor’s fault or negligence.  IV. RELEASES. ‐ Prior to final payment, the Contractor will submit evidence that all payrolls, material bills, and other indebtedness connected  with the work have been paid as required by the Owner.  V. OBLIGATION TO DISCHARGE LIENS. ‐ Acceptance by the Owner of the completed work performed by the Contractor and payment  therefore by the Owner will not relieve the Contractor of obligation to the Owner (which obligation is hereby acknowledged) to discharge  any and all liens for the benefit of subcontractors, laborers, material‐person, or any other persons performing labor upon the work or  furnishing material or machinery for the work covered by this contract, which have attached to or may subsequently attach to the  property, or interest of the Owner.  VI. NOTICES AND APPROVAL IN WRITING. ‐ Any notice, consent, or other act to be given or done hereunder will be valid only if in writing.  VII. CLEANING UP. ‐ The Contractor shall keep the premises free from accumulation of waste material and rubbish and at the completion of  the work shall remove from the premises all rubbish, implements and surplus materials.  VIII. WARRANTY. ‐ Contractor warrants and guarantees that title to all work, materials, and equipment covered by any Application for  Payment, whether incorporated in the Project or not, will pass to Owner no later than the time of payment free and clear of all Liens.  If  within one year after completion of the work, any work is found to be defective, Contractor shall promptly, without cost to the Owner,  correct such defective work as approved by the Owner.    IX. IDEMNIFICATION. ‐ Contractor shall defend and indemnify the city against claims brought or actions filed against the city or any of its  officers, employees or agents for property damage, bodily injury or death to third persons, arising out of or relating to contractors work  under the contract.    X. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE. ‐ Contractor shall provide a certificate of insurance showing evidence of workers’ compensation  coverage or provide evidence of qualification as a self‐insurer of workers’ compensation.      XI. LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. – A certificate of insurance acceptable to the City shall be filed with the City prior to the  commencement of the work. The certificate and the required insurance policies shall contain a provision that the coverage afforded  under the contract will not be canceled or allowed to expire until at least 30 days prior written notice has been given to the city.   Contractor shall maintain commercial general liability (CGL) insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence and an  aggregate limit of not less than $2,000,000. The CGL insurance shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent  contractors, subcontractors, products‐completed operations, personal injury and advertising injury, and contractually‐assumed liability.  The city shall be named as an additional insured under the CGL.  Contractor shall maintain automobile liability insurance, and if necessary,  umbrella liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 each accident and an aggregate limit of not less than $2,000,000. The  insurance shall cover liability arising out of any auto, including owned, hired, and non‐owned autos.                3800 Laverne Ave. N.3636 Stagecoach Trail North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Stillwater, MN 55802 Phone:651-770-2537 Phone:651-439-1637 Fax:651-777-6530 Fax:651-351-7210 Cell:Web:www.millerexc.com Email:dmklocker@gmail.com Project:Drainage Swale Date: Ironwood Tr N Estimator:Steve St. Claire Lake Elmo, MN Est. ITEM DESCRIPTION Quantity Unit Rate Amount 1 Grade Swale from Culvert to Daylight 6 HR $345.00 $2,070.00 2 CL III Rip Rap w/ Geotextile Fabric 6 CY $100.00 $600.00 3 Import & Place 4" Topsoil 42 CY $50.00 $2,100.00 4 Seed & Blanket Disturbed Area 450 SY $2.65 $1,192.50 TOTAL A $5,962.50 PROJECT NOTES 1. Payment due within 30 days of initial invoice. Balances over 30 days will accrue a 1.5% per month charge. 2. Estimate price valid for 30 days. 3. Swale to be graded about 4 feet wide at bottom 4. Seed & blanket disturbed area during work. Miller Excavating, Inc July 12, 2015 City of Lake Elmo A. SWALE GRADING Page 1 of 1 MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: July 21, 2015 REGULAR ITEM # 13 AGENDA ITEM: TH36 and Highlands Trail - Request for Street Light safety improvement SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer THROUGH: Julie Johnson, City Clerk REVIEWED BY: Mike Bouthilet, Public Works Cathy Bendel, Finance Director Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .................................................................................. City Engineer - Report/Presentation .................................................................................. City Engineer - Questions from Council to Staff ......................................................... Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate .............................................................. Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering / Public Works. FISCAL IMPACT: $2,200. The installation of a street light at the intersection of TH36 and Highlands Trail would cost approximately $2,200; $1,906 to Xcel Energy for the supply and installation of the street light plus public works restoration costs. The street light would be funded through the Infrastructure Reserve Fund. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving the installation of a street light at the intersection of TH36 and Highlands Trail in the amount of $2,200; $1,906 to Xcel Energy plus public works restoration costs. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: “Move to approve the installation of a street light at the intersection of TH36 and Highlands Trail in the amount of $2,200.” City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item X] July 21, 2015 -- page 2 -- LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In March, 2015 staff received a request to install a street light at the intersection of TH36 and Highlands Trail. The request was made by Barbara Thill residing at 8330 59th Street North (see attached correspondence). The request was made to Adam Josephson, MnDOT who forwarded the request to City staff since the installation would be the City’s responsibility. The request was made to address a safety concern to assist in identifying the intersection location to allow vehicles sufficient braking distances along TH36. Both Public Works and the Fire Chief have reviewed the intersection and support the installation request. City staff contacted Xcel Energy and received a proposal to complete the installation should the council choose to order the street light. An installation cost of $1,906.00 was quoted by Xcel Energy in a proposal dated May 28, 2015. The proposed installation includes a cobra cutoff fixture on a 30 foot direct buried fiberglass pole and includes all underground facilities, wiring and conduit. In addition the City would pay a monthly underground rate of $18.86 which includes full maintenance for a period of 25 years (see attached proposal). RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the installation of a street light at the intersection of TH36 and Highlands Trail in the amount of $2,200; $1,906 to Xcel Energy plus public works restoration. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: “Move to approve the installation of a street light at the intersection of TH36 and Highlands Trail in the amount of $2,200.” ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Xcel Energy outdoor lighting proposal dated May 28, 2015. 2. Email correspondence including resident request and MnDOT response. May 28, 2015 Focus Engineering Inc. Attn: Frank Borich 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Dear Mr. Frank Borich: Xcel Energy Outdoor Lighting is pleased to have an opportunity to submit a proposal for the City of Lake Elmo street light project. Our goal is to provide you with the necessary information to assist you in your decision making process. We are confident we can provide you with a comprehensive package that will meet all your needs. Please find below styles of product and the estimated project costs. This proposal includes all underground facilities installed using the plowing or boring method for conduit and wire and the installation of each of the following material. If successful in acquiring the identified project, delivery of the specified product could take 4 to 6 weeks: Hwy 36 & Highlands Street Light Project: 1. The Standard Service upfront installation cost is - $1,906.00. The monthly underground rate (A30) 150W High Pressure Sodium per luminaire is - $18.86. Install 1-150W HPS cobra cutoff fixture on 30' direct buried fiberglass pole. Install by plow and direct bore approx. 170’ of #6 AL DX in 1 ½” conduit. 2. The Pre-Pay Option upfront installation cost is - $5,197.40. The monthly pre-pay option rate (A30) 150W High Pressure Sodium per luminaire is - $6.94. Install 1-150W HPS cobra cutoff fixture on 30' direct buried fiberglass pole. Install by plow and direct bore approx. 170’ of #6 AL DX in 1 ½” conduit. Restoration is not part of this bid. Included in the monthly street light rate is full maintenance of the street light system. Maintenance of the street light system covers the pole, fixture, conduit and wiring, as well as facilitation of any locating and damage administration. Operations and Maintenance for the proposed street light system will be for 25 years from the date of installation. If you have any questions regarding the proposal, please feel free to contact me at 651.229.2255. Sincerely, Angela Adesoro Project Coordinator, Xcel Energy 825 Rice Street St. Paul, MN 55117 3/23/2015 Focus Engineering, Inc. Mail ­ FW: Hwy 36 at Highlands Trail https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=885060bd59&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14c38fd2182339bd&siml=14c38fd2182339bd&siml=14c464edc57…1/2 Jack Griffin <jack.griffin@focusengineeringinc.com> FW: Hwy 36 at Highlands Trail 3 messages Josephson, Adam (DOT) <adam.josephson@state.mn.us>Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:00 PM To: "Jack Griffin (jack.griffin@focusengineeringinc.com)" <jack.griffin@focusengineeringinc.com> fyi   From: Josephson, Adam (DOT)  Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 3:59 PM To: hotdago2@gmail.com Subject: Hwy 36 at Highlands Trail   A street light at the Highlands Trail / Hwy 36 intersection would have to be installed and maintained by the City of Lake Elmo.  I contact the City Engineer (Jack Griffin) about your request.  Please contact him directly if you want to pursue further.   Adam Josephson, P.E. East Area Manager MnDOT – Metro District 651/234­7719 adam.josephson@state.mn.us     From: Barbra Thill [mailto:hotdago2@gmail.com]  Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 11:18 AM To: Henkel, Timothy (DOT) Subject: Hwy 36 Light   I have submitted a question 2 times on email already to the DOT regarding the construction on Hwy 36 this past year and have not got an answer yet.  It says they will respond within 3 weeks.  I was requesting a street light/highway light at the corner of 36 and Highlands Trail.  It is very hared to see at night when approaching the corner to make the turn.  Several people have 3/23/2015 Focus Engineering, Inc. Mail ­ FW: Hwy 36 at Highlands Trail https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=885060bd59&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14c38fd2182339bd&siml=14c38fd2182339bd&siml=14c464edc57…2/2 also said they were almost hit when a car had to suddenly brake to make the turn.  I hope an accident doesn't happen before a light can be installed. You would have thought that a light would have been installed at the time of construction.   Please if you are not the person to whom I should address this question, please forward this on to the appropriate person.  Thank you for your time and help with this matter.  I would really appreciate an answer to this question and if I need to do anything more to get this light, please let me know.                          Barb Barbra Thill <hotdago2@gmail.com>Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:05 AM To: jack.griffin@focusengineeringinc.com Hello Mr. Griffin, ­­­­­­­­­­ Forwarded message ­­­­­­­­­­ From: Josephson, Adam (DOT) <adam.josephson@state.mn.us> Date: Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:58 PM Subject: Hwy 36 at Highlands Trail [Quoted text hidden] Barbra Thill <hotdago2@gmail.com>Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:25 AM To: jack.griffin@focusengineeringinc.com Hello, Ooops, sorry for the message that was just sent.  I hit the enter key by mistake.  I was given your name by Adam Josephson from the DOT.  I, along with several others are concerned about not having a street light on Hwy 36 and Highlands Trail.  When the project was completed on Hwy 36 last year, we had assumed they would have installed a light there.  It is very hard at night to see exactly where to turn onto Highlands Trail coming off the highway.  You have to break rather quickly when approaching the turn especially for the people not familiar with the turn.  Honestly, I came pretty close a few times when I was on Highlands Trail waiting to enter the highway when almost got hit from someone who did not slow down to make the turn.  Granted, there is sign on 36 saying Highlands Trail is coming, but until it is too late you are on the intersection needing to turn.  Please, could someone check the area of concern out (hopefully after dark) to see how important this is for a light.  If there is anything I could do to help pursue this light, let me know and I will try my best.  If there is someone else I need to be talking to, please provide me with a name or forward this message to them.  If signatures from concerned people will help, I will gladly get them for you.  I sure hope we do not have to have an accident or two to make this happen.  Thank you in advance for your time in checking on this for me.  I would really appreciate an answer when you find anything out.     Barb Thill [Quoted text hidden] MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: July 21, 2015 REGULAR ITEM # 14 RESOLUTION 2015-056 AGENDA ITEM: Diedrich Property Townhouses (Lennar) – Preliminary Plat SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director THROUGH: Julie Johnson, City Clerk REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Nick Johnson, City Planner Jack Griffin, City Engineer 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 approval of a preliminary plat for a new subdivision as requested by Lennar Corporation. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that the City Council review and approval a preliminary plat before an applicant may proceed with the preparation and recording of a final plat. The subdivision request is being made by Lennar for property presently owned by Tammy Diedrich and Gerhard Rieder within the I-94 Corridor planning area. FISCAL IMPACT: TBD – The City will require that the applicant enter into a developer’s agreement with the City to specify the financial responsibilities for various aspects of the subdivision and related public improvements. The developer is expected to pay the Water Availability Charge for the entire development at the time a final plat is approved (currently $3,000 per unit) similar to other developments that are connecting to the Lake Elmo Avenue water main. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a request for approval of a Preliminary Plat from Lennar Corporation for a 46-unit singled family City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 14] July 21, 2015 -- page 2 -- attached (townhouse) development to be located on slightly over 15 acres of land immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue and north of the Hunters Crossing development. The proposed development site is located within the City’s I-94 corridor planning area, and is in an area guided for public sewer and water services. The preliminary plat has been prepared in response to the City’s Comprehensive Plan for the corridor, which guides this site for medium density urban residential development. The Staff report to the Planning Commission concerning this request is attached to this memorandum, and includes a detailed summary of the request in addition to the detailed Staff review and recommendation. The City Council was scheduled to review this request at the 7/7/15 meeting, but consideration was postponed at request of the applicant. The applicant has now requested that consideration be placed back on the agenda The Planning Commission is recommending approval of the preliminary plat with several conditions of approval. The suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: “Move to adopt Resolution No. 2015-056 approving the Lennar Diedrich Townhouses preliminary plat with 16 conditions of approval.” LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The attached staff report to the Planning Commission provides an overview of the request and a list of comments and recommendations from Staff. In order to address the initial set of comments from the City, the developer prepared an updated site plan prior to the Planning Commission meeting that reduced the overall number of units by two and that changed the originally planned private street to a public street meeting City specifications. Although the construction plans have not yet been updated, the Planning Commission’s review focused on the updated site plan. The City will still need to review updated construction plans, and all previous review comments from the City Engineer and County Engineer will need to be addressed by the applicant. Since the Planning Commission meeting the developer has updated the landscape plan to provide a better overview of how the site will look when completed. The Planning Commission considered the preliminary plat at its June 22, 2015 meeting and conducted a public hearing on the applicant’s request at this time. No one spoke at the public hearing. The Planning Commission discussed the request and specifically issues associated with the timing of improvements to 5th Street, the updated site plan, and potential issues associated with the new configuration of lots. The Commission also noted that the developer would need to address an ownership issue in the extreme southwestern portion of the plat. Specifically, Ryland Homes owns a small remnant of land that is sandwiched between 5th Street and the Lennar property. This property is shown as part of the Lennar plat, but it may be excluded from the subdivision based on the developers’ comments at the meeting. If this is the case, four of the lots need be adjusted in order to provide adequate rear yard setbacks. This is not a major plat concern, but will need to be addressed as part of a final plat submission. The Commission adopted a finding of fact to document their concerns over this issue. City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 14] July 21, 2015 -- page 3 -- The Commission further discussed the status of parks in this area and the developer’s request to pay a fee in lieu of land dedication. Commissioners adopted a motion to include a finding that there are no City parks within ½ mile of the subdivision site. The Commission also requested one additional condition of approval to clarify that the developer must secure a written agreement from Xcel Energy to perform the planned grading work within the existing power line easement. The conditions of approval as amended by the Planning Commission are incorporated into the draft resolution. The Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat with the findings and conditions as noted in the attached Resolution 2015-056. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT): Strengths • The preliminary plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and specifically the Urban Medium Density Residential land use classification. • The project will connect to the Cottage Grove sewer interceptor via a connection to the gravity line constructed across the project site late last year. • The project will connect to the Lake Elmo Avenue water main recently installed in this area. Weaknesses • The two developers adjacent to 5th Street have not yet agreed to build this road as a joint project. Opportunities • The development will include 46 REC units and will pay connection fees for sewer and water service. The developer has committed to paying the water availably charge for the entire development ($138,000 based on the current fee schedule) with the first phase of the final plat. • The project will include the construction of the initial segment of 5th Street to the east of Lake Elmo (which must either be constructed as a public project or privately by the developer). Threats • None identified. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above background information, Staff report and Planning Commission recommendation, it is recommended that the City Council approve the Lennar Diedrich Townhouses preliminary plat with the 16 conditions of approval as documented in the resolution of approval by taking the following action / with the following motion: “Move to adopt Resolution No. 2015-056 approving the Lennar Diedrich Townhouses preliminary plat with 16 conditions of approval.” City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 14] July 21, 2015 -- page 4 -- ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2015-056 2. Planning Commission Report (6/22/15) 3. Application Forms 4. Application Narrative and Information 5. Location Map 6. Tree Inventory 7. Review Comments: a. City Engineer b. Washington County 8. Preliminary Plat and Plans (20 sheets) a. Revised Site Plan (Dated 6/19/15) b. Revised Landscape Plan (Dated 6/25/15) c. Cover Sheet d. Legend Sheet e. Existing Conditions f. Preliminary Plat g. Preliminary Site Plan h. Preliminary Utility Plan i. Preliminary Grading Plan j. Erosion Control Plan k. Preliminary Seeding Plan l. Preliminary Street Profiles m. Details n. Landscape Plan o. Tree Preservation Plan CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2015-056 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LENNAR DIEDRICH TOWNHOUSES WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Lennar Corporation, 16305 36th Avenue North, Plymouth, MN (Applicant) has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (City) for a Preliminary Plat for the Lennar Diedrich Townhouses subdivision, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held public hearing on June 22, 2015 to consider the Preliminary Plat request; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation concerning the Preliminary Plat as part of a memorandum to the City Council from Community Development Director Kyle Klatt for the July 7, 2015 Council Meeting; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Preliminary Plat at its meeting held on July 7, 2014 and made the following findings of fact: 1) That the preliminary plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area. 2) That the preliminary plat complies with the City’s Urban Medium Density Residential zoning district regulations. 3) That the preliminary plat complies with all other applicable zoning requirements, including the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control and other ordinances with the plan revisions as requested by City Staff and consultants. 4) That the preliminary plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance. 5) That the preliminary plat is consistent with the City’s engineering standards provided the plans are updated to address the City Engineer’s comments documented in a letter dated June 17, 2014. 6) That there are no City parks located within ½ mile of the proposed subdivision. 7) That the updated development plans indicate that proposed structures on Lots 29-32 are located too close to the property line and that the development plans must be updated to move these structures to the required setbacks prior to the submission of a final plat. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve the preliminary plat for the Lennar Diedrich Townhouses subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1) The landscape plan and tree preservation plan shall be reviewed and approved by an independent forester or landscape architect in advance of the approval of a final plat and final construction plans. 2) The final landscape plan shall incorporate additional plantings where feasible adjacent to the shared property lines with parcel at 11490 Hudson Boulevard. 3) The applicant shall be responsible for updating the final construction plans to include the construction of all improvements within the Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) right-of-way as required by Washington County and further described in the review letter received from the County dated March 3, 2015. The required improvements shall include, but not be limited to the construction of a northbound right turn lane and southbound center turn lane. 4) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from the Valley Branch Watershed District prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site. 5) The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park and open space on the final plat. 6) The developer shall be required to pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication equivalent to the fair market value for the amount of land that is required to be dedicated for such purposes in the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. A cash payment in lieu of land dedication shall be paid by the applicant prior to the release of the final plat for recording. 7) The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the commencement of any grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site. 8) All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review letter dated June 17, 2015 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to consideration of a final plat. 9) The applicant shall update all of the landscaping and construction plans to reflect the updated site plan that includes a public right-of-way within the project area. These updated plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 10) Although the updated site plan does not incorporate a private street, any request for flexibility from City regulations and standards must be considered and addressed as part of the final plat submission. 11) The final construction plans for the Diedrich Townhouses subdivision shall include, at a minimum, the northern portion of 5th Street if a joint construction project between the applicant and Ryland Homes does not proceed in advance of a final plat submission for the applicant’s site. 12) The architectural covenants for the homeowner’s association shall include provisions that discourage blank garage doors. All garage doors shall incorporate windows or decorative trim to minimize the visual impact of the garage-forward home design. 13) Prior to recording the Final Plat for any portion of the area shown in the Preliminary Plat, the Developer shall enter into a Developers Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney that delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of public improvements. 14) The site plan and construction plans shall be revised to include a sidewalk along at least one side of all streets within the subdivision. 15) The applicant shall pay a Water Availability Charge consistent with the Lake Elmo Fee Schedule for the entire development prior to the release of the final plat for recording, regardless of project phasing. 16) The developer shall secure a written grading agreement from Excel Energy concerning the proposed grading activity underneath an existing power line easement across the property prior to submission of a final plat. 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 MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: July 21, 2015 REGULAR ITEM #16 ORDINANCE 08-121 RESOLUTION 2015-045 AGENDA ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venue Ordinance SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner THROUGH: Julie Johnson, City Clerk REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director 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 approval of a zoning text amendment to expand the opportunities to conduct Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venues within the community. FISCAL IMPACT: None – The City’s review of the requested Zoning Text Amendment is reimbursed through the submitted application fee. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City has received a request from Danielle Hecker, 11658 50th Street North, to amend the City’s Zoning Ordinance to allow Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venues as in interim use permit within the City’s RR – Rural Residential zoning districts. The City Council discussed the matter at their June 2, 2015 meeting, and requested that additional opportunities for public engagement be provided. The Planning Commission and Staff are recommending approval of the requested amendment with further City Council Meeting [Agenda Item 16] July 21, 2015 -- page 2 -- restrictions on the application of the ordinance as noted on June 2nd. The motion to take the recommended action on the request is as follows: “Move to adopt Ordinance 08-121, amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venues as in interim use permit within the City’s RR – Rural Residential zoning districts and to increase the maximum number of guests allowed at each event from 150 to 200” In addition, Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize summary publication of the approved ordinance through the following motion: “Move to adopt Resolution 2015-045, authorizing summary publication of Ordinance 08-121.” BACKGROUND INFORMATION/STAFF REPORT: The City of Lake Elmo has received a petition from Danielle Hecker, 11658 50th Street North, to amend the City’s Zoning Ordinance to allow Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venues as in interim use permit within the City’s RR – Rural Residential zoning districts. The City Code presently restricts such uses to the A – Agriculture and RT – Rural Transitional Districts. The City Council reviewed this request at the 6/2/15 meeting. The City Council postponed consideration of the Zoning Text Amendment to seek additional public feedback, as well as a map of potential sites the proposed ordinance would activate. To follow up on this discussion, staff has attached a map that identifies the Rural Residential parcels that would be able to be utilized as wedding venues. There are 6 such parcels in the community. The map can be found in Attachment #4. In addition, the City has received additional feedback about the proposal to amend the wedding venue ordinance. The feedback is collected and attached to this report in Attachment #5. STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, THREATS: Strengths: The Planning Commission found that the ordinance amendment would help preserve historic agricultural buildings within the City. The ordinance expands upon the existing ordinance that allows additional opportunities for use of agricultural properties that may no longer be viable as farmland. Weaknesses: The ordinance would allow the expansion of a more commercial-type of activity into rural residential areas. Wedding ceremony venues will generate additional traffic at peak times immediately prior to and after each event. The venues could potentially generate other negative impacts that need to be managed on the site (noise, trash, parking, etc.). Opportunities: The potential for re-use of historic buildings that would otherwise have limited use. City Council Meeting [Agenda Item 16] July 21, 2015 -- page 3 -- Threats: Wedding venues by their nature will result in the gathering of larger numbers of people at one location, which can result in some impacts to surrounding properties. The ordinance establishes standards in order to contain or limit any negative impacts. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venues as in interim use permit within the City’s RR – Rural Residential zoning districts and to increase the maximum number of guests allowed at each event from 150 to 200 with the additional restrictions as documented in the attached Ordinance 08-121. The recommended motion to take action on the request is as follows: “Move to adopt Ordinance 08-121, amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venues as in interim use permit within the City’s RR – Rural Residential zoning districts and to increase the maximum number of guests allowed at each event from 150 to 200” In addition, Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize summary publication of the approved ordinance through the following motion: “Move to adopt Resolution 2015-045, authorizing summary publication of Ordinance 08-121.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report dated June 2, 2015 2. Ordinance 08-121 3. Resolution 2015-047 4. Map of Possible Rural Residential Wedding Venue Locations 5. Additional Public Feedback Since 6/2/15 Meeting 1 CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08-121 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE ELMO CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES CONCERNING COMMERCIAL WEDDING CEREMONY VENUES AND ALLOWING SUCH USES AS AN INTERIM USE IN RR ZONING DISTRICTS SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Title XV: Land Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, is hereby amended by adding the following: §154.400 Permitted and Conditional Uses. Table 9-1 lists all permitted and conditional uses allowed in the rural districts. “P” indicates a permitted use, “C” a conditional use, and “I” an interim use. Uses not so indicated shall be considered prohibited. Cross-references listed in the table under “Standards” indicate the location within this Ordinance of specific development standards that apply to the listed use. Table 9-1: Permitted and Conditional Uses, Rural Districts RT A RR RS RE Standard Accessory Uses Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venue I I I - - 154.310.D SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Title XV: Land Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, is hereby amended by adding the following: § 154. 310 Standards for Accessory Uses D. Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venue. A commercial wedding venue is allowed as an accessory use with an interim use permit in the A – Agriculture, and RT – Rural Transitional, and RR – Rural Residential zoning districts on parcels greater than 10 acres size. The establishment of a Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venue on RR parcels is limited to those sites meeting the following criteria: 1) the site has historically been used as a farmstead for the surrounding agricultural land; and 2) the use will incorporate a barn or other historical agricultural building over 75 years of age for the wedding ceremonies. The suitability of a parcel for a wedding venue shall be determined by the characteristics of the site and by the unique capacity of the parcel to accommodate the use while preserving the essential rural character of the neighborhood and the site on which the use is located, by the ability of the parcel to accommodate the use without negative impact on the general health, 2 safety, and welfare of the community, and by other factors the City may deem appropriate for consideration. The use must adhere to the following standards: 1. Ownership. The property will be the primary residence of the venue operator(s). The operator must be on the premises for the duration of each event. 2. Maximum Number of Guests. The maximum numbers of guests is limited to 150 200 for each event. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo. SECTION 4. Adoption Date. This Ordinance 08-121 was adopted on this 21st day of July 2015, by a vote of ___ Ayes and ___ Nays. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ______________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk This Ordinance 08-121 was published on the ____ day of ___________________, 2015. Resolution 2015-045 Page 1 of 2 CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2015-45 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE 08-121 BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-121, an ordinance to amend the City’s regulations pertaining to Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venues; and WHEREAS, the ordinance is lengthy; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subd. 4, allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, that the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. 08-121 to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance: Public Notice The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-121, which amends the Zoning Ordinance provisions pertaining to Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venues. The revised ordinance amends the standards for such uses as follows: • Allowing a Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venue as an interim use within the RR – Rural Residential Zoning Districts. • Increasing the maximum number of guests allowed for each ceremony from 150 to 200. • Adding standards that limit Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venues to sites in RR Districts that served as the farmstead for larger agricultural parcels and that would be conducted in historic buildings over 75 years of age. The full text of Ordinance No. 08-121 is available for inspection at Lake Elmo city hall during regular business hours. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo that the City Administrator keep a copy of the ordinance at City Hall for public inspection and that a full copy of the ordinance be placed in a public location within the City. Dated: July 21, 2015. Resolution 2015-045 Page 2 of 2 ___________________________________ Mayor Mike Pearson ATTEST: ____________________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk (SEAL) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member _____________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1 Kyle Klatt From:kmlohmer@comcast.net Sent:Monday, July 06, 2015 3:29 PM To:Kyle Klatt Subject:Hecker property citizen input Dear Kyle, I was told that the City of Lake Elmo and council members were looking for feedback regarding the Hecker property and the conditional use permit. I would appreciate if you could share my letter with the mayor and council members. Thanks so much. Thank you for taking the time to read our letter regarding the proposed renovation and wedding site on the Hecker family's property. The Heckers are friends of my daughter in law and I was told of the upcoming decision regarding the conditional use permit they are seeking. I did stop by and observed a most beautiful location for what they are planning to do. I wanted to write with some thoughts on the upcoming decision. Our family lived in Lake Elmo for 23 years, and 2-1/2 years ago moved into the Audubon development in Baytown Township. We are at the very back side of the development with woods in the back yard and less than 1/4 mile from 30th street - and very close to the Camrose Hill wedding event site. On weekend evenings in the summer it is not uncommon for us to hear music playing from weddings and I have to say that it is a very pleasant sound. It is always quiet by 10 p.m. and it makes me happy thinking that such a "joyfilled event" is taking place there. I have never heard any complaints since we've lived here. Because 30th street is the border between Baytown Township and West Lakeland Township, I made calls to the township chairs, Kent Granulard and Dan Kyllo. (Mr. Granulard's brother actually lives directly across from Camrose Hill.) They both confirmed that there has never been any issues or complaints and that there is a positive impact to the local community by having the wedding site there. They have never had any traffic incidents and the event center is for weddings and receptions as well. I know that the Heckers are only planning on doing the wedding ceremonies on their property. I wish you well as you make your decision, and would encourage you allow for this zoning text amendment and conditional use permit. I think it would add greatly to the Lake Elmo community and I know that the Hecker family will be very respectful and will take very seriously the terms of the agreement. Best, Greg and Kathy Lohmer Baytown Township 2 Kyle Klatt From:Marlene <marlenedyer@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2015 10:04 PM To:Kyle Klatt Cc:Jeremy Dyer Subject:In Response to Lake Elmo Weddings Hello Kyle, I wanted to reach out to you as a Lake Elmo resident to let you know that I am in support of rural setting weddings in Lake Elmo. I read in a recent Lake Elmo publication that this topic would be coming up for consideration soon so I wanted to reach out to you. As you already know, Lake Elmo is beautiful. The farms and rolling hills are picture perfect as a backdrop for weddings to take place. Recently my youngest sister got married on such a farm, but had to go across the river to Holton, Wisconsin for her nuptials. Outdoor rustic weddings are a growing trend. Wouldn’t it be great if Lake Elmo were the place to get married? I am specifically in favor of Danielle Hecker, as she and her husband seek to restore and preserve the historic buildings on their property and use them to better the community. Inviting people onto their property for wedding ceremonies would encourage the support of other Lake Elmo business through reception venues, flowers, catering, etc. What a great way to bring more business into our city. If our city can set up very specific perimeters regarding parking, traffic flow, times of day, and other requirements that would ensure safely and meet resident’s concerns, I am certain that allowing for rural wedding venues could benefit our city in a positive way. Not to point out the obvious, but there is not a lot of pleasant publicity in news about Lake Elmo right now. This is a great opportunity to show our guests the true beauty and history of Lake Elmo. Thank you, Jeremy & Marlene Dyer 10316 Tapestry Bend 3 Kyle Klatt From:PAUL H+REV PALLMEYER <pallmeyer@msn.com> Sent:Saturday, June 13, 2015 10:09 AM To:Kyle Klatt Subject:Proposed Wedding Ordinance We feel that residents should be able to have weddings and receptions in any size and area of their choosing. While the proposed change expands wedding venues to “rural residential” zones, the limits on the size of both weddings and receptions should be dropped. Paul and Ruth Pallmeyer, 8989 Lake Jane Trail N. Sent from Windows Mail 4 Kyle Klatt From:Barb Miller <bkm.miller@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, June 13, 2015 8:24 AM To:Kyle Klatt Subject:Lake Elmo Wedding Proposal I live at 9240 55th St N and just read the article in the "Review", looking for public opinion on the wedding proposal. I support the right of individuals to have a wedding AND reception in the area zoned rural residential. I would increase the maximum guest limit to 300. Barbara Miller 5 Kyle Klatt From:Backberg, Benjamin <BBackberg@fredlaw.com> Sent:Monday, June 08, 2015 2:07 PM To:Mike Pearson; Justin Bloyer; Julie Fliflet; Jill Lundgren; annejsmith@msn.com; Dean Zuleger; Kyle Klatt Subject:RE: Lake Elmo- Wedding Venue Ordinance Change I have had a chance to review the playback of the council meeting on 6/2/15 that discussed this topic.  I have also been  receiving more emails in opposition to this ordinance change.  People are also calling foul on the 750 ft notice.  Notice  seems to be a reoccurring theme for meetings, which should be very simple to fix.  Is this topic going to come in front of  the council tomorrow night?  Please let me know asap.  Great if it could be delayed so people can have additional time  to digest the proposal.    I was also very surprised to hear that barn owner plans to book the barn out 2‐3 years in advance—this will not be 10‐20  per year.  She is going to try her best to have as many weddings as possible (for her benefit to the detriment of everyone  else around her).  This will have a big change on the area, especially on the weekend (when families are out the  most).  50th Street is also set up very poorly for commercial activity of any type.  Not to mention, almost all wedding  patrons will not know where they are going, which heightens safety concerns greatly (looking at phones for directions,  etc.).  We get countless people lost in our neighborhood because they think Linden goes through.    Happy to discuss this with any of you, but think my view has changed.  I no longer think this will be a harmless business  and could be very dangerous, especially for young kids who will venture over there from Sanctuary once the new  development is built out to the south.    Thanks,  Ben  612‐492‐7232      From: Backberg, Benjamin Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 9:58 AM To: 'mpearson@lakeelmo.org'; 'jbloyer@lakeelmo.org'; 'jfliflet@lakeelmo.org'; 'jlundgren@lakeelmo.org'; 'annejsmith@msn.com'; dzuleger@lakeelmo.org Subject: Lake Elmo- Wedding Venue Ordinance Change Importance: High   Council Members,    I have not had a chance to look at the materials in detail on the proposed wedding ordinance change, but was  wondering where you all were falling on the proposal?  Seems like a slippery slope.  Great if you could let me know your  thoughts as soon as possible.  The Sanctuary HOA Board is looking into this matter now and it also looks like it would  directly impact the Gotschal land plat.  No on in the Sanctuary neighborhood was aware of this until this morning.    Thanks,  Ben  612‐492‐7232  6 Kyle Klatt From:Wally Nelson <wally@morrowpartnersinc.com> Sent:Sunday, June 07, 2015 8:16 AM To:Kyle Klatt Subject:Wedding Venues Mr. Klatt,    I think it is a wonderful idea to allow weddings in these zoning districts.    It is a great way to keep the rural character of Lake Elmo in place and this will allow the old barns with character to be  preserved.    Thanks  7 Kyle Klatt From:guswilt24@comcast.net Sent:Friday, June 05, 2015 6:56 PM To:Kyle Klatt Subject:Weddings I enjoyed the presentation given by Danielle Hecker (sp?) and her idea to craft her barn into a wedding chapel/area. I think it would be a great venue to host such a beautiful event. I also think it would be OK to host weddings at other sites as well. Thanks for tossing this idea out to the public. Dana Nelson 2871 Legion Ave N 8 Kyle Klatt From:Paul Huot <p.huot@huot.com> Sent:Friday, June 05, 2015 1:13 PM To:Kyle Klatt Subject:weddings I think it’s sad that we can’t legally hold a small (100 people or less) wedding and reception in our homes.  I am good  with having a permit for weddings and reception over 100 people up to 200.    Paul Huot  4955 Jamaca Ave N  Lake Elmo, MN 55042    p.huot@huot.com      9 Kyle Klatt From:jenniferpelletier@comcast.net Sent:Tuesday, June 02, 2015 12:47 PM To:mike pearson; Anne Smith; Justin Bloyer; jfliflet@freshwater.org; Jill Lundgren Cc:Dean Zuleger; Kyle Klatt Subject:Fwd: Tonight's agenda item / wedding facility in RR / resend Hello, I sent this to the planning commission last week, but I thought I'd send it to the council prior to tonight's meeting as well. I have been in communication with the applicant and she knows what my thoughts are; she's a good neighbor and it is not my mission to prevent them from starting a business. MOST of this note below has to do with the next phase: the interim use permit discussions. Regarding a zoning change, I am not opposed to adding a wedding facility in the RR district as long as it does not include receptions. Thank you for taking the time to read my comments before/during tonight's meeting. It is not necessary to read it aloud; like I said the applicant and I have chatted quite a bit about it. Have a great day, Jennifer Pelletier From: jenniferpelletier@comcast.net To: "Kyle Klatt" <kyle.klatt@lakeelmo.org> Cc: "Dean Zuleger" <DZuleger@lakeelmo.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 12:13:33 PM Subject: Fwd: Tonight's agenda item / wedding facility in RR Dear Planner Klatt and members of the Planning Commission, I'm writing to you regarding tonight's agenda item: the proposed code change in the RR zoning district to add wedding ceremonies. Initially, I had no questions or concerns. However, after thinking through this request (and realizing that we're dealing with a city wide code change), I do wish to express some thoughts for consideration. I am a previous planning commissioner myself, and live across the street. Comment/Concern: 1) The ingress and egress ~ 50th street. This road has no shoulder for pedestrian and/or bike traffic. There are many children in the area that use the road, and it has become not only busier due to through traffic heading to Hwy. 5 or CSAH 17, those who use the road frequently drive well over the 40MPR limit. In fact, there is a speed indicator sign out on the road as we speak. QUESTION for the commission: what would adding multiple wedding ceremonies add to this growing problem? Again, there is no shoulder on this road. 10 2) Regarding the overall change in the zoning code: I'm not opposed to this type of business. In fact, I think it's a wonderful use of space. However, my concern is that a wedding facility in one area of the zoning district RR could look very different in another area. I'm hoping that the Planning Commission does its due diligence and not only addresses all areas affected, but considers adjacent parcels that may be affected as well. 3) New development: the land immediately next to this parcel is slated for a new development. Where will this traffic flow? Consider this in addition to a wedding facility, on a road with no shoulder. This is another important question that I'd like the PZ to address. 4) Possible solutions: a) limited the maximum # of visitors (issue: how would the city monitor this?) b) discuss/limit the number of ceremonies allowed per day c) discuss a time of day with which all visitors need to off the premises (i.e.: nothing past 6pm, etc) To be clear, it is not my intent to come across as though I am against the project. However, as a previous planning commissioner, these are important questions/concerns that I think deserve to be addressed. This could have a significant impact on current adjacent parcels, and the future development that will be coming in right next door. Sincerely, Jennifer Pelletier 4884 Lily Ave. North 1 Nick Johnson From:Danielle Hecker <dnhecker@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, July 13, 2015 1:49 PM To:Kyle Klatt; Nick Johnson Subject:Fwd: 50th Street Wedding Venue Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Thank you Kyle…Nick just CC'ing you on one that I received too (along with the council members).      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Jim Hansen <h.wood86@gmail.com <mailto:h.wood86@gmail.com> >  Date: Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:37 PM  Subject: 50th Street Wedding Venue  To: mpearson@lakeelmo.org <mailto:mpearson@lakeelmo.org> , jbloyer@lakeelmo.org <mailto:jbloyer@lakeelmo.org>  , jfliflet@lakeelmo.org <mailto:jfliflet@lakeelmo.org> , jlundgren@lakeelmo.org <mailto:jlundgren@lakeelmo.org> ,  annejsmith@msn.com <mailto:annejsmith@msn.com>   Cc: dnhecker@gmail.com <mailto:dnhecker@gmail.com>           I am writing to the council in regard to the issue of a Wedding Venue on 50th Street North that was discussed at the 6‐2‐ 15 council meeting. I live at 11260 50th Street North, which has a spectacular view of the proposed wedding venue, as  evidenced by this photo from my home:            I concur with the Mayor that issues like this tend to bring out the passionate opposition rather than supporters. In fact,  the notification that I had received about this proposal really only asked for concerns to be voiced. Having no concerns, I  did not respond. However, after hearing claims that “everyone with surrounding property is opposed”, I felt compelled  to respond.          I believe that the wedding venue can be something that actually helps preserve the rural nature of the street – seeing  the old barn(s) preserved and restored – as opposed to the “open space” developments that have popped up since we  moved in 25 years ago. I (fondly?) recall spending many mornings and evenings in the old barn helping Martin milk the  cows after he became too short to reach the milk lines. I would hate to see this building removed or run down for lack of  purpose. In fact, seeing the numerous improvements that have already been made to the property over the past few  years has been very encouraging.        2   During the council discussions I heard numerous concerns about the increased traffic that would be on 50th Street.  While this venue may add periodic increases before and after a ceremony, it is negligible compared to the increase that  the housing developments (and the inevitable future developments), which feed onto 50th Street, have had (and will  have). I would also like to remind (or inform) the council that 50th Street North is a “State Aid” street. This means that it  had to be designated and designed according to the “state‐aid” criteria in 8820.0700 Subpart 3:    8820.0700 SELECTION CRITERIA  Subpart 1. Basis. ‐ A state aid route must be selected on the basis of all criteria in either subpart 2 or 3.    Subp. 2. County state‐aid highway. A county state‐aid highway may be selected if it:              A. is projected to carry a relatively heavier traffic volume or is functionally classified as collector or arterial as  identified on the county’s functional classification plan;              B. connects towns, communities, shipping points, and markets within a county or in adjacent counties; provides  access to rural churches, schools, community meeting halls, industrial areas, state institutions, and recreational areas;  or, serves as a principal rural mail route and school bus route; and              C. provides an integrated and coordinated highway system affording, within practical limits, a state‐aid highway  network consistent with projected traffic demands.    Subp. 3. Municipal state‐aid street. A municipal state‐aid street may be selected if it:              A. is projected to carry a relatively heavier traffic volume or is functionally classified as collector or arterial as  identified on the urban municipality’s functional classification plan;              B. connects the points of major traffic interest, parks, parkways, or recreational areas within an urban  municipality; and              C. provides an integrated street system affording, within practical limits, a state‐aid street network consistent  with projected traffic demands.    The periodic traffic from weddings will certainly not create serious traffic issues in regard to the street’s design capacity.         Issues in regard to the intersection of 50th Street and Highway 5 are primarily due to the volume (and timing) of traffic  on Hwy 5, not so much 50th St. This is an important issue to be addressed, but it is a separate issue and a distraction  from the Wedding Venue discussion.          Finally, a few commented about noise. I am unaware of wedding ceremonies that produce “noise”; beautiful music, yes!   So, in short, I am very much in favor of this use for the property and urge passing of the tabled motion.         Regards,    Jim Hansen      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... .1902 <.0001 .1582 .1248 .9540 LOT .0814 .0934 .0322 .1094 .0632 .3725 .3060 .7251 .2304 .4889 AGE .0943 .2233 .6431 .0645 .0324 .3013 .0134 <.0001 .4802 .7232 GAR .0192 .0587 .1094 .0466 .0961 .8335 .5210 .2305 .6104 .2926 BATH .2505 .6528 .1646 .1693 .1435 .0054 <.0001 .0701 .0622 .1149 BED .2121 .5087 .3405 .0007 .0996 .0190 <.0001 .7096 .9934 .2748 AIR .0915 .2207 .1002 .0061 .1261 .3163 .0146 .2721 .9465 .1664 GAS .3032 .0153 .1102 .0953 .0007 .8675 .2269 .2964 BASE .1730 .1406 .0829 .0567 .1225 .3640 SALEYR .2452 .1012 .0065 .2671 VIEW .5726 <.0001 Appendix 2 Correlation Coefficients, Fairborn Cemetery Area SQFT LOT AGE GAR BATH BED BASE PRICE .5566 .2761 .0213 .0631 .1459 .2932 .2108 <.0001 <.0001 .7410 .3261 .0226 <.0001 .0009 SQFT .1405 .1063 .1633 .4622 .4837 .0405 .0282 .0976 .0106 <.0001 <.0001 .5293 LOT .0981 .0231 .0321 .1013 .1146 .1263 .7192 .6179 .1145 .0740 AGE .0424 .0428 .1537 .2737 .5099 .5055 .0163 <.0001 GAR .0678 .0844 .1929 .2914 .1890 .0025 BATH .4953 .1882 <.0001 .0032 BED .2307 .4958 BASE SALEYR VIEW SALEYR VIEW DISTANCE PRICE .6351 .2542 .3577 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 SQFT .0225 .1259 .0680 .7261 .0495 .2904 LOT .0817 .0000 .0812 .2030 1.0000 .2963 AGE .3930 .2078 .3447 <.0001 .0011 <.0001 GAR .0477 .0992 .1043 .4582 .1221 .1042 BATH .1256 .0258 .0865 .0500 .6889 .1781 Page 9 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... BED .0438 .0579 .0958 .4958 .3681 .1354 BASE .0581 .1626 .2320 .3659 .0110 .0001 SALEYR .1844 .3295 .0038 <.0001 VIEW .6128 <.0001 Appendix 3 Correlation Coefficients, Beavercreek Cemetery Area SQFT LOT AGE GAR BATH BED AIR PRICE .6499 .0129 .2980 .2327 .5016 .3282 .0915 <.0001 .9103 .0080 .0403 <.0001 .0033 .4256 SQFT .0771 .4830 .2926 .7569 .5234 .0340 .5018 <.0001 .0093 <.0001 <.0001 .7674 LOT .2233 .0316 .1669 .1417 .0711 .0494 .7837 .1441 .2159 .5363 AGE .2220 .4193 .2400 .1269 .0508 .0001 .0343 .2681 GAR .2458 .1039 .0894 .0301 .3653 .4363 BATH .5738 .0980 <.0001 .3935 BED AIR GAS BASE SALEYR VIEW GAS BASE SALEYR VIEW DISTANCE PRICE .0925 .1534 .6665 .1595 .5138 .4204 .1801 <.0001 .1632 <.0001 SQFT .0846 .1563 .1730 .1844 .4987 .4613 .1717 .1299 .1060 <.0001 LOT .0953 .0754 .0570 .2330 .1835 .4064 .5119 .6203 .0401 .1077 AGE .0288 .0100 .3942 .2202 .4523 .8027 .9308 .0004 .0527 <.0001 GAR .1683 .0202 .0145 .1725 .2218 .1409 .8604 .1309 .1309 .0509 BATH .2327 .1188 .2204 .2199 .4525 .0403 .3001 .0524 .0531 <.0001 BED .1798 .0090 .1372 .1164 .1944 .1151 .9378 .2310 .3103 .0881 AIR .4615 .3250 .2844 .0462 .1271 <.0001 .0037 .0116 .6879 .2675 GAS .3221 .0287 .0141 .0852 .0040 .8030 .9028 .4583 BASE .0333 .2056 .0754 .7720 .0709 .5116 SALEYR .0314 .1764 .7847 .1225 Page 10 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... VIEW .7660 <.0001 Appendix 4 Correlation Coefficients, Xenia Cemetery Area SQFT LOT AGE GAR BATH BED AIR PRICE .1903 .0405 .6538 .0997 .0852 .2249 .1464 .0294 .6460 <.0001 .2571 .3332 .0098 .0951 SQFT .1116 .1258 .1111 .2690 .3242 .0241 .2045 .1522 .2065 .0019 .0002 .7845 LOT .1025 .0873 .1940 .0188 .0909 .2441 .3216 .0264 .8315 .3020 AGE .0908 .0618 .1167 .1098 .3024 .4828 .1845 .2119 GAR .1250 .0232 .0522 .1549 .7922 .5537 BATH .1634 .0113 .0621 .8981 BED .0299 .7346 AIR SALEYR VIEW SALEYR VIEW DISTANCE PRICE .8233 .1776 .2039 <.0001 .0425 .0195 SQFT .2039 .0150 .0234 .0195 .8651 .7910 LOT .1011 .3378 .2636 .2505 <.0001 .0024 AGE .8622 .0777 .0930 <.0001 .3777 .2904 GAR .0196 .1304 .1553 ,8241 .1377 .0765 BATH .0843 .1897 .1738 .3383 .0300 .0471 BED .2484 .0969 .0838 .0042 .2710 .3413 AIR .1612 .0113 .0433 .0658 .8976 .6233 SALEYR .1172 .2078 .1824 .0173 VIEW .6514 <.0001 Additional Reading Major, Christopher, and Kenneth M. Lusht. "Beach Proximity and the Distribution of Property Values in Shore Communities" The Appraisal Journal (Fall 2004): 333-338. Morancho, Aurelia Bengochea. "A Hedonic Valuation of Urban Green Areas." Landscape and Urban Planning (December 2005): 35-41. Web Connections Page 11 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... Internet resources suggested by the Lum Library Funeral Assistant http://www.funeralassistant.com/ International Cemetery, Cremation, and Funeral Association http://www.iccfa.com/ Cemetery Records Online-Geneasearch http://geneasearch.com/cemeteries.htm Interment.net http://www.interment.net/ (1.) Gary Grudnitski and A. Quang Do, "Adjusting the Value of Houses Located on a Golf Course," The Appraisal Journal (July 1997): 261-266; and Gary Grudnitski, "Golf Course Communities: The Effect of Course Type on Housing Prices," The Appraisal Journal (April 2003): 145-149. (2.) Rachelle Rush and Thomas H. Bruggink, "The Value of Ocean Proximity on Barrier Island Houses," The Appraisal Journal (April 2000): 142-150. (3.) Robert A. Simons and Abdellaziz El Jaouhari, "The Effect of Freight Railroad Tracks and Train Activity on Residential Property Values," The Appraisal Journal (Summer 2004): 223-233. (4.) Sandy Bond and Ko-Kang Wang, "The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoods," The Appraisal Journal (Summer 2005): 256-277. (5.) Robert A. Simons, Kimberly Winson-Geideman, and Brian A. Mikelbank, "The Effects of an Oil Pipeline Rupture on Single-Family House Prices," The Appraisal Journal (October 2001): 410-418. (6.) Benoit Julien and Paul Lanoie, "The Effect of Noise Barriers on the Market Value of Adjacent Residential Properties," The Appraisal Journal (Fall 2008): 316-327. (7.) James E. Larsen, Kenneth J. Lowrey, and Joseph W. Coleman, "The Effect of Proximity to a Registered Sex Offender's Residence on Single-Family House Selling Price," The Appraisal Journal (July 2003): 253-265. (8.) Julia L. Hansen, Earl D. Benson, and Daniel A. Hagen, "Environmental Hazards and Residential Property Values: Evidence from a Major Pipeline Event," Land Economics (November 2006): 529-541. (9.) Benjamin Bolitzer and Noelwah R. Netusil, "The Impact of Open Spaces on Property Values in Portland, Oregon," Journal of Environmental Management (July 2000): 185-193; and Margot Lutzenhiser and Noelwah R. Netusil, "The Effect of Open Spaces on a Home's Sale Price," Contemporary Economic Policy (July 2001): 291-298. (10.) Dianne H. Kay, "Cemetery Relocation: Emerging Urban Land Development Issue," Journal of Urban Planning and Development (March 1998): 1-10. (11.) Alison L. Spongberg and Paul M. Becks, "Inorganic Soil Contamination from Cemetery Leachate," Water, Air, and Soil Pollution (January 2000): 313-327. (12.) Dario Vezzani, "Artificial Container-Breeding Mosquitoes and Cemeteries: A Perfect Match," Tropical Medicine & International Health (February 2007): 299-313. (13.) James E. Larsen and Joseph W. Coleman, "Psychologically Impacted Houses: Broker Disclosure Behavior and Perceived Market Effects in an Unregulated Environment," Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education (2001): 1-16. (14.) Bolitzer and Netusil. Page 12 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... (15.) Lutzenhiser and Netusil. (16.) Bolitzer and Netusil, 188. (17.) One reviewer of this article suggested that in order to ensure that DISTANCE was not a proxy for some omitted variable that the correlation between the residuals (the actual dependent variable value minus the predicted dependent variable value) and DISTANCE be calculated for each model. We did so and in all cases the correlation was 0 with a p-value of 1. (18.) David M. Brasington, "Which Measure of School Quality Does the Housing Market Value?" Journal of Real Estate Research 18, no. 3 (3.999): 395-43.3; and Larsen, Lowrey, and Coleman. (19.) SAS Institute Incorporated, SAS OnlineDoc[R] 9.1.3, 2004, http://www.sas.com. (20.) Multicollinearity is the term used to describe the fact that two or more of the explanatory variables are correlated. It is present to some degree in all data. If it is severe it can result in estimates that are highly unreliable, although the estimators will have the smallest variance of all unbiased estimators. The results of the COLLIN option, which follows the approach of Belsy, Kuh, and Welsch, indicate multicollinearity is not severe in any of the databases examined here. See David A. Belsey, Edwin Kuh, and Roy E. Welsch, Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity (New York: John Wiley, 1980). (21.) Preliminary analysis demonstrated that both the log and linear functional form specifications provide similar results. Following the suggestion of Robert A. Yaffee's presentation, "Regression Analysis with SAS" (www.nyu.edu/its/socsci/Docs/SASREG.ppt), the linear form is selected as the one that best represents the true functional form of this data, and for expository expedience the linear model only is presented in the article. Because many studies that examine distance from an externality have found that externality effect degrades with distance, we followed the suggestion of a reviewer of this article and estimated Equation 1 with (1/distance) in place of distance. The adjusted [R.sup.2] for this estimation (0.9262) was nearly identical to the results presented here. The p-value of 0.4103 for (1/distance) indicates that (1/distance) does not improve the linear model. by James E. Larsen, PhD, and Joseph W. Coleman, PhD James E. Larsen, PhD, received his PhD from the University of Nebraska. He is professor of finance at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio. His research has been published in numerous journals, including The Appraisal Journal, Real Estate Practice and Education, Real Estate Research, and Real Estate Review.Contact: james.larsen@wright.edu Joseph W. Coleman, PhD, received his PhD from Arizona State University. He is professor of information systems and operations management at Wright State University. His primary teaching interests are in operations management and applied statistics. His research has been published in a variety of journals, including The Appraisal Journal, Real Estate Practice and Education, and Real Estate Review. Contact: joseph.coleman@wright.edu The authors are indebted to three anonymous reviewers whose comments on previous versions of this article were instrumental in improving it. Table 1 Definition of Variables PRICE Transaction price in nominal dollars SQFT Number of square feet of living space in house LOT Number of square feet in lot AGE Age of house in years GAR Number of square feet in garage BATH Number of bathrooms in house BED Number of bedrooms in house AIR Binary variable = 1 if house has central air conditioning, otherwise = 0 GAS Binary variable = 1 if house has gas heat, otherwise = 0 Page 13 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... BASE Binary variable = 1 if house has full basement, = 0 VIEW Binary variable = 1 if full or partial view of the cemetery from house, otherwise = 0 DISTANCE Distance in feet between nearest borders of residential lot and cemetery Table 2 Property Characteristics, Bellbrook Cemetery Area Variable Mean St. Dev. Minimum Maximum PRICE 97,012.30 51,430.42 13,000 248,800 SQFT 1,407.95 407.26 900 2,844 LOT 13,426.75 5,720.96 8,976 47,840 AGE 27.41 15.61 0 55 GAR 361.63 164.22 0 924 BATH 1.67 0.55 1 3 BED 3.22 0.51 2 5 AIR 0.89 0.31 0 1 GAS 0.93 0.25 0 1 BASE 0.39 0.48 0 1 VIEW 0.11 0.28 0 1 DISTANCE 700.96 416.48 0 1,513 Table 3 Property Characteristics, Fairborn Cemetery Area Variable Mean St. Dev. Minimum Maximum PRICE 176,851.64 24,629.71 115,500 250,700 SQFT 1,883.70 389.09 1,197 3,044 LOT 10,392.75 1,808.92 7,930 16,348 AGE 2.01 3.025 0 12 GAR 444.81 56.71 340 840 BATH 2.33 0.35 1 3.5 BED 3.45 0.53 2 5 AIR 1.00 0.00 1 1 GAS 1.00 0.00 1 1 BASE 0.86 0.32 0 1 VIEW 0.14 0.30 0 1 DISTANCE 1,177.30 547.06 187 2,225 Table 4 Property Characteristics, Beavercreek Cemetery Area Variable Mean St. Dev, Minimum Maximum PRICE 124,802.60 71,412.69 16,000 322,800 SQFT 1,936.08 649.09 1,014 3,590 LOT 21,508.47 4,142.49 10,500 40,804 AGE 26.3 17.9 0 104 GAR 529.16 191.38 0 1,462 BATH 2.02 0.55 1 3.5 BED 3.33 0.52 2 5 AIR 0.70 0.46 0 1 GAS 0.48 0.50 0 1 BASE 0.46 0.46 0 1 VIEW 0.23 0.43 0 1 DISTANCE 621.77 394.05 0 1,215 Table 5 Property Characteristics, Xenia Cemetery Area Variable Mean St. Dev. Minimum Maximum PRICE 62,531.30 20,167.83 11,000 103,000 SQFT 984.68 174.69 864 1,893 LOT 8,044.39 1,699.52 6,900 20,732 AGE 40.88 10.48 1 51 GAR 338.93 242.29 0 900 BATH 1.07 0.25 1 2.5 BED 2.98 0.30 2 5 AIR 0.74 0.44 0 1 GAS 1.00 0.00 1 1 BASE 0.00 0.00 0 0 VIEW 0.17 0.34 0 1 DISTANCE 611.37 420.90 0 1,394 Table 6 Correlation Coefficientsfor Four Cemetery Areas SQFT LOT AGE GAR BATH BED AIR PRICE 0.7367 0.1029 0.6204 0.2932 0.7295 0.4130 0.2491 Page 14 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... <.0001 0.0135 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 SQFT 0.3029 0.6093 0.3404 0.7797 0.5650 0.1605 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0001 LOT 0.0216 0.2331 0.1878 0.0978 0.1210 0.6050 <.0001 <.0001 0.0190 0.0037 AGE 0.2288 0.6934 0.3624 0.2822 0.6176 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 GAR 0.2976 0.0938 0.0373 <.0001 0.0245 0.3725 BATH 0.5283 0.2404 <.0001 <.0001 BED 0.1397 0.0008 AIR GAS 0.0514 0.2182 BASE SALEYR WEW GAS BASE SALEYR VIEW DISTANCE PRICE 0.0509 0.6487 0.6015 0.0431 0.3618 0.22 <.0001 <.0001 0.3026 <.0001 SQFT 0.1910 0.5373 0.1366 0.0172 0.2637 <.0001 <.0001 0.0010 0.6802 <.0001 LOT 0.4607 0.0897 0.1824 0.0398 0.1458 <.0001 0.0315 <.0001 0.3407 0.0005 AGE 0.0976 0.0806 0.0120 0.3896 0.0192 0.0534 0.7737 <.0001 GAR 0.2063 0.1360 0.0378 0.0674 0.1323 <.0001 0.0011 0.3655 0.1064 0.0015 BATH 0.1391 0.6869 0.2077 0.0423 0.3376 0.0008 <.0001 <.0001 0.3114 <.0001 BED 0.1059 0.4129 0.0619 0.0115 0.0948 0.0111 <.0001 0.1385 0.7832 0.0229 AIR 0.2722 0.3205 0.1125 0.0235 0.1376 <.0001 <.0001 0.0069 0.5742 0.0009 GAS 0.1473 0.0016 0.1275 0.0004 0.9696 0.0022 BASE 0.2203 0.0317 0.2223 <.0001 0.4481 <.0001 SALEYR 0.0701 0.2016 0.0931 <.0001 WEW 0.5542 <.0001 Table 7 Regression Analysis Results for Four Cemetery Areas Variable Parameter Estimate Standard Error Intercept -7,782,652 183,934 SQFT 37.09 2.37 LOT 1.53 0.17 AGE -1,427.81 68.28 GAR 13.75 4.63 BATH -3,891.26 2,306.94 BED 1,055.88 1,787.32 AIR -1,686.66 2,439.29 GAS 10,470 3,203.42 Page 15 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... BASE 9,600.01 2,277.17 SALEYR 3,925.09 93.06 VIEW -1,156.23 2,320.52 DISTANCE -2.21 1.91 Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .9229 F-Value = 573.6 Pr > F < .0001 Variable t-Value Pr > t Intercept -42.31 <.0001 SQFT 15.65 <.0001 LOT 8.97 <.0001 AGE -20.91 <.0001 GAR 2.97 .0031 BATH -1.69 .0922 BED 0.59 .5549 AIR -0.69 .4896 GAS 3.27 .0011 BASE 4.22 <.0001 SALEYR 42.18 <.0001 VIEW -0.50 .6185 DISTANCE -1.16 .2459 Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .9229 F-Value = 573.6 Pr > F < .0001 n = 575 Table 8 Regression Analysis Results, Fairborn Cemetery Area Variable Parameter Estimate Standard Error Intercept -10,728,989 633,894 SQFT 33.59 2.40 LOT 1.58 0.42 AGE -1,153.96 337.23 BATH -3,104.85 2,765.77 BED 1,540.71 1,780.12 GAR 19.70 13.75 BASE 8,072.82 2,640.34 SALEYR 5,397.34 316.09 VIEW 1,229.34 2,446.68 DISTANCE 0.03 2.03 Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .7814 F-Value = 87.87 Pr > F < .0001 Variable t-Value Pr > t Intercept -16.93 <.0001 SQFT 14.01 <.0001 LOT 3.75 .0002 AGE -3.42 .0007 BATH -1.12 .2628 BED 0.87 .3877 GAR 1.43 .1533 BASE 3.06 .0025 SALEYR 17.08 <.0001 VIEW 0.50 .6158 DISTANCE 0.01 .9888 Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .7814 F-Value = 87.87 Pr > F < .0001 n = 244 Table 9 Regression Analysis Results, Xenia Cemetery Area Variable Parameter Estimate Standard Error Intercept -4,152,393 452,801 SQFT -3.25 6.29 LOT 0.74 0.64 AGE -366.21 195.57 GAR 7.94 4.28 BATH -1,366.94 4,223.16 BED -336.44 3,666.72 AIR 112.24 2,302.61 SALEYR 2,116.19 228.70 VIEW -6,291.89 3,354.84 DISTANCE -3.33 3.25 Page 16 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... Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .7011 F-Value = 29.58 Pr > F < .0001 Variable t-Value Pr > t Intercept -9.17 <.0001 SQFT -0.52 .6066 LOT 1.17 .2460 AGE -1.87 .0636 GAR 1.86 .0660 BATH -0.32 .7467 BED -0.09 .9270 AIR 0.05 .9612 SALEYR 9.25 <.0001 VIEW -1.88 .0632 DISTANCE -1.02 .3085 Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .7011 F-Value = 29.58 Pr > F < .0001 n = 131 Table 10 Regression Analysis Results, Beavercreek Cemetery Area Variable Parameter Estimate Standard Error Intercept -10,760,738 635,750 SQFT 34.50 7.12 LOT 1.46 0.69 AGE -2,081.68 249.97 GAR 33.98 14.80 BATH -26,308 -8,562.62 BED 6,071.35 6,545.21 AIR 7,279 7,409.71 GAS 10,804 6,728.52 BASE 17,265 7,008.54 SALEYR 5,424.09 326.15 VIEW 15,765 12,229 DISTANCE 29.58 15.43 Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .9071 F-Value = 63.68 Pr > F < .0001 Variable t-Value Pr > t Intercept -16.93 <.0001 SQFT 4.85 <.0001 LOT 2.12 .0376 AGE -8.33 <.0001 GAR 2.30 .0250 BATH -3.07 .0031 BED 0.93 .3570 AIR 0.98 .3296 GAS 1.61 .1132 BASE 2.46 .0164 SALEYR 16.63 <.0001 VIEW 1.29 .2019 DISTANCE 1.92 .0596 Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .9071 F-Value = 63.68 Pr > F < .0001 n = 78 Table 11 Regression Analysis Results, Bellbrook Cemetery Area Variable Parameter Estimate Standard Error Intercept -7,854,904 350,615 SQFT 18.38 5.69 LOT 0.18 0.24 AGE -1,518.02 159.38 GAR 21.51 8.41 BATH 8,567.14 3,965.23 BED 7,240.64 3,471.40 AIR 2,980.84 4,431.78 GAS 21,956 5,634.77 BASE 8,092.16 3,985.52 SALEYR 3,953.47 179.42 VIEW 8,521.46 4,797.33 DIS TANCE 8.10 4.07 Page 17 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... Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .9245 F-Value = 124.40 Pr > F< .0001 Variable t-Value Pr > t Intercept -22.40 <.0001 SQFT 3.23 .0016 LOT 0.74 .4587 AGE -9.52 <.0001 GAR 2.56 .0119 BATH 2.16 .0329 BED 2.09 .0393 AIR 0.67 .5026 GAS 3.90 .0002 BASE 2.03 .0448 SALEYR 22.03 <.0001 VIEW 1.78 .0785 DIS TANCE 1.99 .0489 Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .9245 F-Value = 124.40 Pr > F< .0001 n = 122 COPYRIGHT 2010 The Appraisal Institute No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder. Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. Please bookmark with social media, your votes are noticed and appreciated: 1 Reader ratings: 5 [1 vote(s)] You can rate this article by selecting 1 to 5 stars on the left. Reader Opinion Title: Comment:   Submit Article Details Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback Author:Larsen, James E.; Coleman, Joseph W. 0LikeLikeShareShare Page 18 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... Publication:Appraisal Journal Geographic Code: 1USA Date:Jan 1, 2010 Words: 8455 Previous Article:Zillow's estimates of single-family housing values. Next Article:Water market trends: transactions, quantities, and prices. Topics:Cemeteries Economic aspects Evaluation Economic policy Externalities (Economics) Housing developers Housing, Single family Prices and rates Land development Real estate appraisal Real estate appraisers Real estate development Real property Valuation Regression analysis Usage Single family housing Prices and rates Beautiful Grave Markers We Design & Create A Wide Array of Custom Headstones & Grave Markers Page 19 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 Free Library > Business and Industry > Business > Appraisal Journal > January 1, 2010 The Free Library > Business and Industry > Real estate industry > Appraisal Journal > January 1, 2010 The Free Library > Date > 2010 > January > 1 > Appraisal Journal Publications by Name Publications by Date Authors Literature A-D E-O P-T U-Z before 1995 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009 2010- ABCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZ ABCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZ Terms of use | Copyright © 2015 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters Page 20 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... INFORMATION MEMO Cemetery Regulations Learn about the legal requirements and issues associated with municipal cemetery establishment, maintenance, and care. Contains links to LMC model ordinances establishing a city cemetery and regulating its maintenance and use, establishing a permanent care and improvement fund, and a cemetery lot agreement. RELEVANT LINKS: I. Types of cemeteries There are three types of cemeteries in Minnesota. The first are private cemeteries, which restrict burial to a certain group of people, such as a fraternal organization or a particular religious group. The second type is city-owned cemeteries, which are often referred to as municipal cemeteries. Municipal cemeteries are public cemeteries because lots are sold without restriction. The third type is public cemetery associations. Public cemetery associations are privately owned, but lot sales are open to the public without restriction. Although municipal cemeteries are separate from public cemetery associations, background information on public cemetery associations can be helpful in regulating cemeteries and any transfer of cemetery ownership between a city and a public cemetery association. This memo discusses legal requirements and issues associated with municipal cemetery establishment, maintenance, and care. Public cemetery associations are briefly discussed as they relate to municipal cemeteries. II. Municipal cemeteries Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 9. Statutory cities have the express authority to establish and maintain cemeteries. A city may acquire a cemetery through purchase, gift, condemnation, or devise of land. Devise is a gift given through a will. A city may provide funds for the cemetery’s upkeep including its layout, enclosures, and ornaments on the grounds. The city may also sell and convey the lots to members of the public. Additionally, a city has the authority to regulate cemeteries and the disposal of the dead by ordinance. A. Land purchase Minn. Stat. § 412.211. Minn. Stat. § 465.01. A.G. Op. 870j (June 2, 1959). Statutory cities have express authority to purchase property for a city purpose, such as a cemetery. While most municipal cemeteries lie within the boundaries of the city, state statute allows cities to acquire real property outside city limits for municipal purposes. This general grant of power is likely broad enough to allow cities to establish a cemetery outside of its boundaries as long as it will be used for burial of city residents. 145 University Ave. West www.lmc.org 3/23/2015 Saint Paul, MN 55103-2044 (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 © 2015 All Rights Reserved This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 412.211. Minn. Stat. § 306.025, subd. 1. A.G. Op. 870j (June 2, 1959). Additionally, cities are authorized to accept the transfer of an existing public cemetery located either inside or outside city limits. 1. Eminent domain Minn. Stat. § 465.01. Minn. Stat. ch. 117. Handbook, Chapter 14, Section V-C, Eminent domain. All cities have the authority to take (or condemn) private property for public use as long as they pay the landowner reasonable compensation. Essentially, this is a way to require that an owner sell his or her land to a city. This procedure requires a formal court action, and a city must pay an owner for the value of the land, or the damages to the land if the city is taking only part of the private property for a public purpose, such as an easement. Occasionally, a city may desire to expand its municipal cemetery but cannot come to an agreement with the neighboring property owners. In such cases, the power of eminent domain may be used. However, before using this power, the city must establish that the addition is required because of public necessity, propriety, and convenience. B. Funding cemeteries Minn. Stat. § 410.01. Minn. Stat. § 471.84. Statutory cities may appropriate funds to maintain a cemetery the city owns. Additionally, any statutory city or any city of the fourth class (population of no more than 10,000) is authorized to appropriate up to $10,000 per year to any other public or private cemetery. The cemetery does not have to be located within the city limits, but it must allow burials from any city without restriction. C. Joint operation and maintenance Minn. Stat. § 471.59, subd. 1. Handbook, Chapter 17. LMC information memo, Combining Governmental Services: Issues to Consider. The Joint Powers Act authorizes cities to cooperatively exercise any powers common to the participating units of government. In addition, local governments (such as counties and cities) may enter into agreements whereby one entity will exercise power for both governments. For example, a city and a county may enter into a joint powers agreement for operation of a cemetery where both governments engage in operation and maintenance through that joint powers entity. In exercising such powers, local governments are not necessarily confined to their territorial limits. 1. City-town and city-city joint maintenance Minn. Stat. § 471.24. In addition to the joint powers agreement, cities and towns may enter into a joint agreement for maintenance of a cemetery. If a city or town owns an established cemetery, either within city limits or outside, it may enter into a mutual agreement with neighboring towns or cities for the maintenance of the cemetery. In order to enter into a joint agreement: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 2 RELEVANT LINKS: • The cities or towns must have contiguous borders. • Each entity must have an estimated market value not less than $2,000,000. • The cemetery must be open for burial of residents from all municipalities. Minn. Stat. § 471.24. Once the municipalities have established a joint agreement for maintenance, each may appropriate up to $10,000 per year toward upkeep of the cemetery. The council or governing board may also levy a tax to generate funds for maintenance. D. Cemetery board A.G. Op. 870a (Dec. 31, 1959). The city council may appoint a cemetery board and delegate ministerial power to it. However, the city council must retain complete discretionary control of the cemetery. Handbook, Chapter 6. The courts have not explicitly described the meaning of discretionary administrative power. They have, however, provided several rules that offer some basis for distinguishing which powers the council can delegate. Johnson v. State, 553 N.W.2d 40 (Minn. 1996). Discretionary powers or functions are those that involve the exercise of judgment. Ministerial functions are absolute, fixed, and certain so that no judgment is necessary in fulfilling them. For example, in exercising ministerial power, the cemetery board may advise the city council on setting lot prices for the cemetery. Yet, it is the city council that has the discretionary authority to actually set the lot fees. E. Recordkeeping Minn. Stat. § 15.17. While there appears to be no specific statutory recordkeeping requirement for municipal cemeteries, the city is required to keep full and accurate records of its official activities. Therefore, if a city owns a cemetery, it must keep current and accurate records. Specifically, a burial register, information on each person buried or interred in the cemetery, and a cemetery map are important records to maintain. 1. Burial register The specific information for each individual buried in the cemetery is not prescribed in statute for municipal cemeteries. However, public cemetery associations are specifically required to record certain information on each person buried or interred in the cemetery. Although the requirements do not apply to municipal cemeteries, such requirements may be a helpful guide for cities. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 3 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 306.03. For instance, cemetery associations must include the following information for each person buried or interred in the cemetery: • Date of burial, entombment, or cremation. • Name, date of birth, sex, nativity, and cause of death. Minn. Stat. § 306.03. The information should come from a reliable source to ensure it is accurate. Public cemetery associations are required to obtain the information from friends, the attending physician, or the undertaker in charge. In the case of a pauper, stranger, or criminal, the information may come from the public official directing the burial. While cities are not required to obtain information from specific sources, it could be helpful to establish from whom information should come to ensure the information is correct. Minn. Stat. § 13.03. General Records Retention Schedule. Minn. Stat. § 138.17. For municipal cemeteries, the burial record is government data and is classified as public data under the Minnesota Data Practices Act. This means the burial record must be accessible to the public for inspection. If someone requests to see the burial record or wants a copy of it, the city must produce the record in accordance with the Minnesota Data Practices Act. Additionally, under the Minnesota Records Retention law, the retention period for the burial record is permanent, which means that burial records may never be destroyed. 2. Cemetery map Minn. Stat. § 15.17. In order to maintain an accurate record of the city’s actions regarding the cemetery, a map of the cemetery land is necessary. Although cities are not technically required to maintain a map, for practical purposes the cemetery map is necessary for lot sales, burials, and future planning for cemetery improvements. Consequently, it would be prudent to maintain a map that illustrates the cemetery land and how the land is divided into lots, including all alleys, roads, and walks. If new land is either donated or purchased, the city would update the map by having the cemetery surveyed. III. Public cemetery association Minn. Stat. § 306.02. Minnesota Association of Cemeteries. Cities are not authorized to form public cemetery associations and are not considered a public cemetery association. However, there are a few reasons cities may need to be familiar with public cemetery association laws. First, state statute provides little guidance for the operation of a municipal cemetery; however, there are several statutes governing public cemetery associations. In some cases, these statutes may serve as a helpful guide for cities. Second, a city may transfer its cemetery ownership to a public cemetery association, or the association may transfer its cemetery ownership to a city. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 4 RELEVANT LINKS: Third, cities may contract with a public cemetery association to operate or maintain a municipal cemetery. In all of these instances, a basic understanding of public cemetery associations may be useful. A. Association incorporation Minn. Stat. § 306.01. A public cemetery association may be formed to secure, hold, or sell land or lots used exclusively for the purpose of a public cemetery. Public cemetery associations established after March 1, 1906, must organize and follow state statutes. Minn. Stat. § 306.02, subd. 1. To establish a public cemetery association, three or more persons, who become the trustees of the association, must initiate incorporation. The trustees must also verify the certificate or articles of incorporation. The certificate of incorporation must be recorded with the county recorder’s office of the county where the cemetery is located. Upon filing, the association is a corporation. B. Powers of public cemetery association A public cemetery association has many powers that enable it to manage its operations and grounds. 1. Acquisition of land by purchase or gift Minn. Stat. § 306.02, subd. 1(2). Once incorporated, a public cemetery association may acquire and manage all real and personal property necessary for the establishment, care, and management of a cemetery as well as the operation of a crematorium on cemetery grounds. Minn. Stat. § 306.05. An association may purchase or receive as a gift up to 300 acres of land within the county of the cemetery or an adjoining county. The land must be used exclusively for burial, cremation, or related purposes. Minn. Stat. § 306.05. Minn. Stat. § 306.09. Any land must be surveyed and divided into lots of a size determined by the trustees. Avenues, alleys, and walks must also be surveyed, as necessary. A map of the survey must be filed with the county recorder of the county where the cemetery is located. a. Gifts to cemetery association Minn. Stat. § 306.10. An association may accept a gift of real or personal property to maintain a monument or to keep or improve cemetery grounds. If an association accepts a gift with such conditions, the funds must always be devoted to these uses. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 5 RELEVANT LINKS: 2. Eminent domain Minn. Stat. § 306.05. In cases when a cemetery association needs to expand but cannot come to an agreement with adjacent property owners, it may use the power of eminent domain. However, along with consideration of the cemetery boundaries, the association must establish that there is a public necessity, propriety, and convenience that require the addition before using this power. 3. Sale of cemetery lots or property Minn. Stat. § 306.09. Trustees may sell or convey designated cemetery lots once the association’s survey map is filed with the county recorder. The trustees may create terms, conditions, or restrictions on sales and conveyance as they deem appropriate. The terms must be listed on the lot agreement. Minn. Stat. § 306.09. Every conveyance must be expressly for burial purposes and be in the corporate name of the association and signed by its president or vice president and by its treasurer or secretary. Minn. Stat. § 306.10. Section IV, Permanent care and improvement funds. A public cemetery association may sell or convey real or personal property that is not needed for cemetery purposes. The proceeds from lot sales may be invested in a permanent care and improvement fund, or applied solely to the payment of debts incurred in purchasing the cemetery grounds and property, fencing, improvement, or beautification of the cemetery. C. Tax-exempt status Minn. Stat. § 306.14, subd. 1. Minn. Const. art. X, § 1. State v. Lakewood Cemetery Ass’n, 101 N.W. 161 (Minn. 1904). Grand View Park Cemetery Ass’n v. City of Edina, 257 N.W.2d 329 (Minn. 1977). City of New Hope v. Catholic Cemeteries, 467 N.W.2d 336 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). The property of a public cemetery association is exempt from all taxes and special assessments. This tax-exempt status also applies to land the cemetery owns but is not yet actively using for burial. As long as the land will presumably be used in the future for burial, it is not subject to taxes or special assessments. It may not be sold against an association or any lot owner. Furthermore, no road may be constructed through a cemetery or any part of its lands without the consent of the trustees. 1. Exception to special-assessment exemption Minn. Stat. § 306.14, subd. 2. Cemetery associations are generally exempt from special assessments. However, if at least part of the purpose for forming the association is to provide monetary gain for its shareholders and members and it pays dividends or some other monetary remuneration either directly or indirectly to shareholders and members, it is not exempt from special assessments. Most cemeteries are nonprofit organizations and would be exempt from special assessments. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 6 RELEVANT LINKS: However, there are some private cemeteries that may provide some type of monetary payment to members or shareholders and, thus, would not be exempt from special assessments to cemetery property. D. Disinterment and reinterment Minn. Stat. § 306.155, subds. 1, 3. In the rare situation where an operator of a cemetery is informed or becomes aware that it has interred or permitted the interment of a body or remains in the wrong burial space, the cemetery must disinter the burial container wrongfully interred, identify the burial container, and reinter it in the proper burial space. The only exception is if the interested parties have agreed otherwise in writing. The cemetery is responsible for all costs of the disinterment and reinterment. The cemetery must give reasonable notice, in advance of the disinterment, to the person or persons legally entitled to control the body or remains of the deceased person and, if requested, the owner of the burial space. Minn. Stat. § 149A.96, subd. 1. Minn. Stat. § 149A.96, subd. 7. Minn. Stat. § 149A.96, subd. 5. Disinterment and reinterment may only occur with (1) the written authorization of the person or persons legally entitled to control the body or remains and (2) a disinterment-reinterment permit properly issued by the commissioner or a licensed mortician. The cemetery where the body or remains were originally interred must retain a copy of the disinterment- reinterment permit, the authorization to disinter, and, if applicable, the court order showing reasonable cause to disinter. Until the body or remains are reinterred, the original permit and other documentation must be in the possession of the person in physical or legal custody of the body or remains, or attached to the transportation container which holds the body or remains. At the time of reinterment, the permit and other documentation must be filed according to the laws, rules, or regulations of the state or country where reinterment occurs. Minn. Stat. § 149A.96, subd. 3. Minn. Stat. § 149A.80, subd. 2. A disinterment-reinterment permit is not required if the disinterment and reinterment is within the same dedicated cemetery. Under these circumstances, the authorities in charge of the cemetery may disinter and reinter a body or remains within the same dedicated cemetery upon receipt of the written and notarized authorization of the person or persons with the right to control the disposition. Minn. Stat. § 306.155, subd. 2. At the disinterment and reinterment, the cemetery must permit the person or persons legally entitled to control the body or remains and, if requested, the owner of the burial space to witness the disinterment and reinterment. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 7 RELEVANT LINKS: IV. Permanent care and improvement fund The purpose of a permanent care and improvement fund is to provide a means for continual care and improvement of a cemetery. Portions of the sale of burial space are directed to the fund, the interest from which is used to maintain the cemetery. There is no statutory authority to force current lot owners to contribute to the permanent care and improvement fund if the lot was purchased prior to the establishment of the fund. However, some cemeteries accept voluntary contributions to the fund from such lot owners. A. Municipal cemeteries Minn. Stat. § 306.41(b). Minn. Stat. ch. 50. Minn. Stat. § 306.44, subd. 1. The city council may establish a permanent care and improvement fund, by a unanimous vote, to be deposited or invested in the same securities in which savings banks are allowed to invest. While adoption of a resolution may be sufficient, an ordinance may be better given the perpetual nature of a cemetery permanent care and improvement fund. Minn. Stat. § 306.41(b). However, in order to establish the fund, the cemetery must be at least one-half acre in area, and the plat must be on file with the county recorder. Minn. Stat. § 306.41(a). The principal of the fund may not be spent or dispersed. The interest accrued from the fund may be spent, but only for the care, maintenance, and improvement of the cemetery. The permanent care and improvement fund must not exceed $25,000 per acre. 1. Payments to the fund Minn. Stat. § 306.42. Minn. Stat. § 306.44, subd. 1(a). The council may stipulate that any portion of a cemetery lot sale must be deposited as a part of the permanent care and improvement fund, and that the interest accruing from the amount set aside from the lot be used by the board or municipality to care for and beautify the lot. Deposits to the fund must be made on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1. 2. Gifts and donations LMC Model Resolution Accepting Donations. Minn. Stat. § 465.03. Minn. Stat. § 306.43. The city council may, by resolution, accept donations or gifts of money to the permanent care and improvement fund to be used for the purpose specified by the donor. This may include care of a specific lot or general care of the cemetery. If the cemetery lacks funds for the general care of the cemetery, the council or board may use one-fifth of the annual income from any particular lot for general care. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 8 RELEVANT LINKS: 3. Investment of permanent care and improvement fund Minn. Stat. § 306.44, subd. 1(a), (c). Minn. Stat. ch. 50. The city council may vote to invest the permanent care and improvement fund in the same securities in which savings banks are allowed to invest. The funds must be invested quarterly on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1. Minn. Stat. § 306.44, subd. 1(f). LMCIT Risk Management Information: Bond Coverage. The city council must designate some of its members to handle those funds. The designated persons must be bonded by the city. The bond must be at least equal to the total amount of the fund at the time of posting the bond, conditioned upon the faithful discharge of the trust. The bond must be renewed in the amount of the new fund balance on July 1 of each even- numbered year. Minn. Stat. § 306.44, subds. 1(c), 2. The principal of the fund may not be used; only the interest from the fund may be spent or dispersed. Any interest in excess of $100 that is unused for one year, after becoming available for care, maintenance, or improvement, must be returned to the fund and become a part of the principal. 4. County cemetery fund Minn. Stat. § 306.54. Minn. Stat. § 306.44, subd. 1(a), (b). LMC Model Ordinance Establishing a Permanent Care and Improvement Fund. For cities in counties under 50,000 in population, the city council may deposit the money belonging to the permanent care and improvement fund into the county treasury. The money must be deposited quarterly on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1. Minn. Stat. § 306.44, subd. 1(e). At the time of deposit, the council must file a statement indicating any particular gifts or donations set aside for a specific lot. For each instance, the statement must include the name of the lot owner, name of the donor, and a description of the lot to which the income from the particular amount of the permanent funds is applicable. Minn. Stat. § 306.45. The aggregated funds of all the cemeteries in the county that deposit their permanent care and improvement funds with the county constitute the county cemetery fund. This fund is managed and invested by the county commissioners and deposited by the county treasurer. Interest on the fund is due and payable on or about February 1. a. Investment of county cemetery fund Minn. Stat. § 306.48. Upon petition of at least two-thirds of the city councils or governing boards of cemeteries participating in the county cemetery fund and approval of the county attorney, the county commissioners must invest all or part of the county cemetery fund in the same kinds of bonds and securities in which the state permanent school fund may be invested. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 9 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 306.48. The law as it exists at the time any money is received into this fund controls the investment of the fund, and no subsequent amendment of the law authorizes the investment of any fund differently or in any other class of securities. Minn. Stat. § 306.48. Bonds or other securities in which the fund is invested remain with the county treasurer, and the bond is the security for the proper care of the bonds or other securities and the payment of interest received. b. Apportionment and payment of interest from county cemetery fund Minn. Stat. § 306.44, subds. 1(c), 2. The principal of the permanent care and improvement fund may not be used; only the interest on the fund is available for use. Additionally, a cemetery must use the interest during the year in which it is received or it will be returned as part of the principal of the permanent care and improvement fund. Minn. Stat. § 306.50. Minn. Stat. § 306.44, subds. 1(c), 2. On or before February 1 of each year, the clerk or secretary of the board of directors of each cemetery must file a report with the county auditor, showing in detail the amount of interest expended that it received from the county cemetery fund. Unused interest, in excess of $100, must be re-deposited in the county cemetery fund and added to the principal of the permanent fund credited to the cemetery. Minn. Stat. § 306.51. The county auditor apportions the interest payments on or about March 1 to each cemetery participating in the county cemetery fund in proportion to the amount of each cemetery’s permanent fund. Funds deposited to the county cemetery fund just before the close of the year, on which no interest has collected, are not considered part of the permanent fund for that apportionment. Minn. Stat. § 306.52. Immediately after apportionment, the county auditor must report to the cemetery secretary the amount of interest due to the cemetery, along with a statement of the total amount of cemetery funds received by the county treasurer during the preceding year, closing on January 1, and a statement of the amount of the cemetery’s permanent care and improvement fund. Minn. Stat. § 306.53. On or after March 1, if the council or cemetery board has made its report and deposited any excess interest, the county treasurer must pay to the treasurer of the municipality or the cemetery board its apportioned share of the interest from the county cemetery fund. Minn. Stat. § 306.51. If the legal existence of any religious corporation or association has ended during the year, the interest due is paid to the municipality where the cemetery is located. The city must use this money for care, maintenance, or improvement of the cemetery. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 10 RELEVANT LINKS: 5. Withdrawal and transfer of funds between depository and investments Minn. Stat. § 306.44, subd. 1(d). A city or cemetery association may also choose to deposit a portion of its permanent care fund into the county cemetery fund and invest the other portion. Funds from either the investments or the county cemetery fund may be withdrawn and transferred to the other by resolution. The county treasurer must return any money deposited into the county cemetery fund that the board, by resolution, withdraws. B. Public cemetery associations Minn. Stat. §§ 306.31-.39. Minn. Stat. §§ 306.76-.79. Minn. Stat. § 306.54. Minn. Stat. § 306.80. Minn. Stat. § 306.40. Public cemetery associations are permitted and sometimes required to establish a permanent care and improvement fund. The population size of the county where a public cemetery association is located determines whether or not establishing a permanent care and improvement fund is optional or required. State statutes also establish requirements for investment and reporting on the fund. V. Regulating cemeteries There are no general statutory provisions regulating the location, size, or general operation of municipal cemeteries. Minn. Stat. § 412.221. LMC Model Ordinance Regulating the Maintenance and Use of a Municipal Cemetery. State ex rel. City of St. Paul v. District Court of Ramsey County, 131 N.W. 327 (Minn. 1911). State ex rel. Oak Hill Cemetery Ass’n v. Harrington, 209 N.W. 6 (Minn. 1926). Clifton v. E. Ridgelawn Cemetery, 4 A.2d 79 (N.J. 1939). Foster v. Mayor of Beverly, 53 N.E.2d 693 (Mass. 1944). Grand View Park Cemetery Ass’n v. City of Edina, 257 N.W.2d 329 (Minn. 1977). Laurel Hill Cemetery v. City and County of San Francisco, 216 U.S. 358 (1910). Union Cemetery Ass’n. v. Kansas City, 161 S.W. 261 (Mo. 1913). However, charter and statutory provisions relating to health and burial of the dead are generally broad enough to permit the enactment and enforcement of police-power measures regulating or prohibiting burial of the dead, establishing of new cemeteries, enlarging existing cemeteries, establishing future interments, and requiring removal of bodies from existing cemeteries. The location and maintenance of cemeteries may also be regulated by zoning and nuisance ordinances. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 11 RELEVANT LINKS: VI. Cemetery rules and regulations Scott v. Lakewood Cemetery Ass’n, 208 N.W. 811 (Minn. 1926). “‘Choices’: Information on the Regulations and Requirements of the Final Disposition of a Dead Human Body in Minnesota,” Minnesota Department of Health (January 2011), for ideas about what types of rules cemeteries can impose. A municipal cemetery or a public cemetery association may establish rules and regulations that provide for the improvement, decoration, and care of lots. However, the rules must be reasonable. Scott v. Lakewood Cemetery Ass’n, 208 N.W. 811 (Minn. 1926). There is no general definition of what is considered “reasonable;” it depends on the facts of each situation. However, the courts have found rules that do not apply uniformly to all owners are unreasonable. Other rules considered unreasonable by the courts include: Brown v. Hill, 119 N.E. 977 (Ill. 1918). LMC Model Ordinance Regulating the Maintenance and Use of a Municipal Cemetery. • Rules that require lot owners to use cemetery staff for decorating their lot instead of a competent person of their choosing. • Rules that could cause monuments, markers, or cornerstones of lots that are in reasonably good condition, to be removed or changed without permission of the owners merely for the purpose of beautifying the cemetery. • Re-platting the cemetery in a way that would change the size of the original lot. A municipal cemetery may set out such regulations by resolution, ordinance, or policy. However, only an ordinance is ultimately enforceable and, therefore, may be more desirable. VII. Cemetery lot agreements and lot owner rights A. Cemetery lot agreements Brown v. Hill, 119 N.E. 977 (Ill. 1918). Anderson v. Acheson, 110 N.W. 335 (Iowa 1907). Rowley v. Laingsburg Cemetery Ass’n, 184 N.W. 480 (Mich. 1921). Erickson v. Sunset Memorial Park Ass’n, 108 N.W.2d 434 (Minn. 1961). Nothing exists in state law that explicitly provides what a cemetery lot owner’s interest is, and Minnesota courts have not resolved the issues. However, courts in Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan have adopted the general rule that the owner possesses only the right of burial in the lot, not absolute title to the land. Courts in Minnesota may agree with these decisions. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 12 RELEVANT LINKS: LMC Model Municipal Cemetery Lot Agreement. Since purchasing a cemetery lot is not absolute title to the land, it is sometimes designated as an easement, privilege, or license. Instead of issuing a traditional cemetery lot deed, cities may want to consider issuing a cemetery lot agreement. A cemetery lot agreement is a license that restricts use of the lot to burial. A deed could connote absolute title to the land and could potentially be troublesome for a city if challenged in court. 1. Cemetery lot transfers and sales Minn. Stat. § 306.15. Minn. Stat. § 306.15(e). The original cemetery lot owner, or his or her heir, may sell or convey his or her unused lot to be used for burial purposes to the cemetery or to another person. An agreement of sale or transfer must be filed with the cemetery. The lot sale or transfer agreement must transfer the lot back to the cemetery. In the case of a sale or transfer to another person, the agreement must also request the cemetery issue a new conveyance of the lot directly to the purchaser. The agreement must also include the purchase price of the lot, which may not exceed the price the cemetery would charge for a similar lot. The agreement must be signed and acknowledged by the lot owner and spouse, if any, and the proposed purchaser. A cemetery may charge a transfer and service fee up to $15 to be paid at the time of filing the agreement. B. Lot owner rights Minn. Stat. § 307.08, subd. 2. Although the lot owner’s right to the lot is only an easement, privilege, or license, an owner is able to sue cemetery owners or strangers for disturbing the lot without consent while the lot is used as a cemetery. Consequently, lot owners have rights against invasion by trespassers or by the cemetery itself. VIII. Merger and transfers of cemeteries Minn. Stat. § 306.027. Mergers between cemeteries of all distinctions, including those owned by a cemetery association or corporation, a municipality, a religious corporation, or of a privately-owned cemetery, are permitted. The terms of the merger are set by the cemeteries’ governing bodies, board of trustees, or owner. The surviving entity is subject to the laws that apply to that particular type of cemetery ownership. Minn. Stat. § 306.027. A merger cannot impair the rights of any third parties, such as lot owners. After the merger, lot owners of the former cemeteries are entitled to the same rights and privileges concerning their lots that were accorded to them under the previous ownership. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 13 RELEVANT LINKS: A. Transfers to a public cemetery association Minn. Stat. § 306.02, subd. 2. Ownership of municipal cemetery land may be transferred by deed, with or without conditions, to a public cemetery association. The transfer agreement should be drafted by the city attorney. As a part of the transaction, the city may enter into a contract or agreement with the cemetery association to provide for the management and maintenance of the cemetery, for the sale of lots or land in the cemetery, and for those other matters concerning the care and control of the cemetery as the city sees necessary. Minn. Stat. § 306.06. In cities where land has been devoted, without restriction, to public cemetery purposes since 1870, the city council may convey the land to a public cemetery association organized to acquire land for cemetery purposes. In these transfers, the city determines the terms of the transfer. B. Transfers to a city Minn. Stat. § 306.025, subd. 1. Minn. Stat. § 306.025, subd. 3. Any public cemetery association owning cemetery lands at least partially located within a city may transfer ownership of the lands, along with other funds and property, to that city. The city may accept the transfer and continue to maintain and operate the cemetery. Any funds received in the transfer will be administered by the city for the same purposes and upon the same trusts for which they were originally established. Before the transfer is made, the city must first adopt a resolution. Minn. Stat. § 412.211. A.G. Op. 870j (June 2, 1959). A city may also be able to accept a transfer of ownership from a public cemetery association located wholly outside of city limits. Since cities are authorized in statute to purchase real or personal property outside of the city for purposes the city requires, it seems likely a transfer of cemetery lands to be used for the burial of city residents would be permissible. Furthermore, the state attorney general has added that a public cemetery association, if established prior to 1906, may transfer its ownership of lands to a city, even if outside city limits. IX. Cemetery abandonment Increasingly, cities are encountering cemeteries that have been abandoned by their incorporating associations or corporations. An abandoned cemetery can quickly become a nuisance when graves and the land are not maintained. The area can become vulnerable to criminal activity. To prevent or mitigate this situation, many cities appropriate funds to maintain the cemetery and ultimately clear the title to gain legal rights to the cemetery. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 14 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 306.246. Minn. Stat. § 410.01. Minn. Stat. § 471.84. Cities are authorized to disburse funds for the general maintenance of an abandoned or neglected cemetery. Likely, statutory cities and fourth-class cities would have to factor any funds disbursed to this cemetery into their overall limit of $10,000 per year for all cemeteries. However, there appears to be no limit on how long a city may provide for an abandoned cemetery, so feasibly a city council could disburse funds indefinitely. A. County takeover Minn. Stat. § 306.243, subds. 1, 4. A.G. Op. 870 (Aug. 6, 1957). Minn. Stat. § 306.246. Minn. Stat. § 306.243, subd. 5. To gain legal title to the cemetery, a city may ask the county to take over the cemetery and maintain it for one year. Counties are given express authority to take over and maintain an abandoned cemetery, whereas cities only have the authority to disburse funds for maintenance. After one year, the county may transfer the cemetery to the city. This is perhaps the least complicated option; however, it relies on the county’s willingness to take on the control of the cemetery. B. Title registration in Torrens system A city may also obtain title to an abandoned cemetery by registering the title under the Torrens system. Torrens law is intended to establish an indefeasible title that is free from any rights or claims not registered with the register of titles. In the case of an abandoned cemetery, it would clear the title. Minn. Stat. § 508.03(6). Registration can be a complex court proceeding, and the city should consult its city attorney for assistance. To register title, a city must pass a resolution to register the title of the cemetery before the clerk and mayor apply on behalf of the city. Minn. Stat. § 508.06. The application must be in writing and approved by the examiner of titles before filing with the district court administrator. Minn. Stat. § 508.11. As soon as possible after filing the application with the court administrator, the city must submit an abstract title of the land described in the application. In some cases, the title examiner may require the city to have a land survey of the cemetery. In such cases, the city is then required to file a plat of the land resulting from the survey with the court administrator. A certified copy of the application is filed with the country recorder and serves as notice of pending action. Minn. Stat. § 508.13. The examiner of titles will then review the application and related documents, identify the legal and factual issues, and prepare a recommendation to the court of the necessary parties to be joined as defendants to adjudicate the matter. A copy of this report is given to the city, and the city must comply with it. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 15 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 508.15. Once all of the requirements of the title examiner’s report are met, the city files a petition for a summons with the court administrator. The court will examine the files and records of the case and issue the summons. Minn. Stat. § 508.16. Minn. Stat. § 508.17. The summons requires defendants (possible parties with interest or claim to the title) to appear and provide an answer to the application of the city within 20 days of service. Additionally, any party claiming an interest in the title, even if they are not listed on the summons, may file an answer in the case. Minn. Stat. § 508.16. The service of the summons must follow the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, and the city is responsible for the cost. The required form of the summons in provided in statute. Minn. Stat. § 508.16. A diligent search for defendants or their heirs must be done. However, if the defendants cannot be found, are unknown, or are not residents of Minnesota, publication of the summons suffices as service. Minn. Stat. § 508.16. The summons must be published at least once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper published and printed in the same county as the application to register the title was filed. Minn. Stat. § 508.16. Additionally, if the title in question has not been registered before, which is likely in the case of a cemetery, the summons must be published in the newspaper. Again, the newspaper must be published and printed in the same county as the application was filed in, and run at least once a week for three consecutive weeks. Minn. Stat. § 508.19. Minn. Stat. § 508.22. Once the time for answering the summons has expired, no person has appeared, and the court is satisfied with proof of the city’s right to the title, the court may issue a decree confirming the title of the applicant and ordering its registration. The decree of registration binds the land to the city and clears the title. The city is thus the legal owner of the cemetery. C. Quiet title action Minn. Stat. § 559.01. The city may also bring an action in court to settle any adverse claims to the land and clear the title. This is sometimes referred to as quiet title action. This process is often complex and the city should consult its city attorney if exercising this option. Minn. Stat. § 559.02. When the city files the claim with the court, the filings must include the title and the names of any persons or heirs that are known or appear of record to have some right, title, estate, interest, or lien on the property. The city must also include the following statement: “Also all other persons unknown claiming any right, title, estate, interest, or lien in the real estate described in the complaint herein.” League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 16 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 559.02. Minn. Stat. § 508.16. Summons for the proceedings must be issued to any and all known persons with a valid interest in the property. The summons is served in person to those who are still living in the state. For those persons who are unknown or cannot be found with a reasonable diligent search, the service of summons may be made by publication in the newspaper. The newspaper must be printed and published in the county where the action was filed and must run at least once a week for three consecutive weeks. Minn. Stat. § 559.02. Prior to publication, the city must file a notice of the pending action with the county recorder. If no person with valid interest or right to the land contests the city’s claim to the cemetery, the court will issue an order quieting all adverse claims to the land. The city then records the order in its records as proof of title to the cemetery. X. Conclusion League of Minnesota Cities Research Service. Minnesota Association of Cemeteries. Cemeteries provide an important service for communities. However, many issues and requirements factor into the establishment, care, and maintenance of a cemetery. For additional information not included in this memo, please contact the League of Minnesota Cities Research Service or the Minnesota Association of Cemeteries. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 17 MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: July 21, 2015 REGULAR ITEM #18 ORDINANCE 08-126 RESOLUTION 2015-60 AGENDA ITEM: Wildflower at Lake Elmo Zoning Map Amendment, Final Plat and Final PUD Plan 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 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: TBD – the City will be asked to review a developer’s agreement concerning the final plat at a future meeting. The agreement will include a detailed accounting of any development costs that will be the responsibility of the City. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a request from Robert Engstrom Company for approval of a zoning map amendment, final plat and final PUD plan for the first phase of the Wildflower at Lake Elmo planned residential development. The final plat includes 60 single-family residential lots, and the related construction plans for the improvements necessary to serve these homes. The City approved the Wildflower Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan on April 7, 2015, which covered approximately 117 acres of land within the Village Planning Area. There are 145 single family City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 18] July 21, 2015 -- page 2 -- residential lots planned within the entire subdivision, and the final plat covers only a portion of the overall total of units that will eventually be platted. The Planning Commission considered this matter at its July 13, 2015 meeting and unanimously recommended approval of the requested zoning map amendment. The suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: “Move to adopt Ordinance 08-126, approving the Zoning Map Amendment for the Wildflower at Lake Elmo planned residential development.” In addition, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Wildflower at Lake Elmo Final Plat and Final PUD Plan subject to 17 conditions of approval. The suggested motions to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: “Move to adopt Resolution No. 2015-60, approving the Final Plat and Final PUD Plan for the Wildflower at Lake Elmo planned residential development.” BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached is the original detailed Staff report that was provided to the Planning Commission regarding the applicant’s request for a zoning map amendment, final plat and final PUD plan. 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 reviewed the final plat application at its July 13, 2015 meeting. At the meeting, a public hearing was held, necessitated by the zoning map amendment and final PUD plan actions. During the public hearing, the Planning Commission received the following testimony: • Richard Smith, 11104 Stillwater Blvd. N., requested that a condition of approval be added to formalize the expectation that no further residential or commercial development would be allowed on outlots planned for open space or conservation. In addition, Mr. Smith noted that there is presently a gap in the connection of his driveway to Blazingstar Lane. He requests that this connection be completed during the phase 1 improvements. Mr. Engstrom did not have any concerns with either request. • Robert Eischen, 11674 Stillwater Blvd. N., asked if the activities included in a private landscape agreement between his family and Robert Engstrom would be completed as part of the phase 1 improvements. Engstrom noted that these plantings and removals would be included in phase 1. Mr. Eischen asked that these activities be included as a condition of approval. Mr. Engstrom did not have a problem accommodating the request. City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 18] July 21, 2015 -- page 3 -- Full detail of the Planning Commission meeting and testimony received can be found in the Draft Planning Commission minutes dated 7/13/15. In reviewing the proposed zoning map amendment, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. With regards to the review of the Wildflower at Lake Elmo Final Plat and Final PUD Plan, the Planning Commission discussed four additional conditions to add to the approval of the application: 1) The Planning Commission recommended a condition to require the applicant to enter into a legally binding agreement to prevent future residential or commercial development on outlots planned for open space or conservation. 2) The Planning Commission recommended a condition to require that the driveway connection for Mr. Smith be completed as part of the phase 1 improvements of Wildflower. 3) The Planning Commission recommended a condition that requires the applicant to complete the private planting agreement with the Eischen family as part of the phase 1 improvements. 4) Finally, the Planning Commission recommended that the Final Plat be revised to incorporate street names that are consistent with the Washington County Street Naming System. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Wildflower Final Plat and Final PUD Plan with 17 conditions of approval. The vote to recommend approval of the Wildflower Final Plat was unanimous (Vote: 6-0). STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, THREATS: Strengths: The proposed final plat is consistent with the approved preliminary plat subject to the conditions being recommended by Staff and the Planning Commission. Weaknesses: Several conditions of approval must be met by the applicant, including revisions to the final construction plans to address comments from the City Engineer. Opportunities: Approval of the plat application allows the development plans for the Wildflower at Lake Elmo planned development to proceed as planned in the Comprehensive Plan. Moving forward with sewered single family growth should allow the City to add additional users to the City’s public sanitary sewer system, helping to finance the City’s investments in sanitary sewer. Threats: None RECOMMENDATION: City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 18] July 21, 2015 -- page 4 -- Based on the aforementioned, the Planning Commission and Staff are recommending that the City Council approve the Wildflower at Lake Elmo Zoning Map Amendment through the following motion: “Move to adopt Ordinance 08-126, approving the Zoning Map Amendment for the Wildflower at Lake Elmo planned residential development.” In addition, the Planning Commission and Staff are recommending that the City Council approve the Wildflower at Lake Elmo Final Plat and Final PUD Plan subject to 17 conditions of approval through the following motion: “Move to adopt Resolution No. 2015-60, approving the Final Plat and Final PUD Plan for the Wildflower at Lake Elmo planned residential development.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance 08-126 2. Resolution 2015-60 3. Staff Report to the Planning Commission, 7/13/15 4. Application Form 5. Project Narrative 6. Contact Information 7. Developer Acknowledgements 8. Neighborhood Park Concept 9. Wildflower Lot Development Summary 10. City Engineer Review Comments – 7/8/15 11. Fire Chief Comments – 7/7/15 12. Final Plat 13. Final Plat Supplemental Plans 14. Final Grading Plans 15. Final Landscape Plans 1 CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08-126 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 154 OF THE LAKE ELMO CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES BY ADOPTIONG A REVISED OFFICIAL ZONING DISTRICT MAP RELATED TO THE WILDFLOWER AT LAKE ELMO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SECTION 1. Zoning Map Amendment. The following property is hereby rezoned from RT – Rural Development Transitional to MDR-PUD – Urban Medium Density Residential – Planned Unit Development and Rural Residential: The North Half of the Southwest Quarter and the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 29, Range 21, Washington County, Minnesota, save and except the following described part thereof: All that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 29, Range 21, Washington County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the center of said Section 12; thence due South along the East line of said Northeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter a distance of 1240.5 feet; thence at right angles due West a distance of 200 feet; thence North 55 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 270 feet; thence due North a distance of 617 feet; thence at right angles due East a distance of 147 feet; thence at right angles due North a distance of 466 feet more or less to the North line of said Northeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter; thence Easterly along the North line of said Northeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter a distance of 274.17 feet to the place of beginning. AND That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 29, Range 21, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, thence West on the North line thereof 35 feet to a point, thence South and parallel to the East line of said quarter section to the North line of Trunk Highway No. 212; thence Northeast on the North line of said Highway to the East line of said quarter section; thence North on the East line of said quarter section to the place of beginning. Excepting therefrom all of the following described real property: The North 330.88 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 29, Range 21, Washington County, Minnesota. Together with Outlots O and P THE FIELDS OF SAINT CROIX 2ND ADDITION according to the plat thereof, Washington County, Minnesota. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo. 2 SECTION 3. Adoption Date. This Ordinance 08-126 was adopted on this 21st day of July 2015, by a vote of ___ Ayes and ___ Nays. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ______________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk This Ordinance 08-126 was published on the ____ day of ___________________, 2015. 1 Resolution 2015-60 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2015-60 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PLAN FOR THE WILDFLOWER AT LAKE ELMO PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Robert Engstrom Companies, 4801 West 81st Street, #101, Bloomington, MN has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (“City”) for a Final Plat and Final PUD Plan for the Wildflower at Lake Elmo planned residential development, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the City approved the Wildflower at Lake Elmo General Concept Plan on June 17, 2014; and WHEREAS, the City approved the Wildflower at Lake Elmo Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan on April 7, 2015; and WHEREAS, the proposed Wildflower at Lake Elmo Final Plat and Final PUD Plan includes 60 single family residential lots within a planned development on two parcels of land (PIDs: 12.029.21.32.0001 and 12.029.21.43.0013) in the Village Planning Area; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held public hearing on July 13, 2015 to consider the Final Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan request; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending approval of the Final Plat and Final PUD Plan subject to XX conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation concerning the Final Plat and Final PUD Plan as part of a memorandum to the City Council for the July 21, 2015 Council Meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Wildflower at Lake Elmo Final Plat and Final PUD Plan at its meeting held on July 21, 2015 and made the following findings of fact: 1) That all the requirements of City Code Section 153.07 related to the Final Plan and Final Plat have been met by the Applicant, with the exceptions noted in the staff report. 2) That the proposed Final Plat for Wildwood consists of the creation of 60 single-family detached residential structures and an open space/nature conservation area. 2 Resolution 2015-60 3) That the Wildflower Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent with the Preliminary Plat and Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on April 7, 2014. 4) That the Wildflower Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area. 5) That the Wildflower Final Plat generally complies with the City’s Urban Medium Density Residential zoning district, with the exceptions as noted in the approved Preliminary PUD Plans. 6) That the Wildflower Final Plat complies with all other applicable zoning requirements, including the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control and other ordinances, except as noted in this report or attachment thereof. 7) That the Wildflower Final Plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance. 8) That the Wildflower Final Plat and Final PUD Plan complies with the City’s Planned Unit Development Ordinance. 9) That the Wildflower Final Plat is consistent with the City’s engineering standards with the exceptions noted by the City Engineer in his review comments to the City dated July 8, 2015 and as otherwise identified in future reviews. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve the Wildflower at Lake Elmo Final Plat and Final PUD Plan subject to the following conditions: 1) The City Attorney shall review all proposed and existing conservation easements within the development area to ensure these easements will not encumber the City from installing and maintaining and the proposed public infrastructure (including storm water pons and related improvements) over the City-owned outlots. 2) The developer shall provide easements for public access to all public trails and sidewalks that are not otherwise constructed within a public right-of-way. Any such easements shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. 3) The developer shall dedicate additional right-of-way associated with the future extension of Prairieview Trail to accommodate the planned storm water improvements include with the first addition public improvements. This right-of-way shall extend to the westernmost limits of Outlot F. 4) The developer shall dedicate additional right-of-way associated with the future extension of Blazingstar Lane to accommodate the planned private driveway that will provide access to the exception parcel located north of Outlot G. The developer shall provide any 3 Resolution 2015-60 easements necessary to ensure that this access may be accommodated once the plat has been recorded. 5) Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, sanitary and storm water management plans, landscape plans, and street and utility construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the recording of the Final Plat. All changes and modifications to the plans requested by the City Engineer in a memorandum dated July 8, 2015 and any future reviews shall be incorporated into these documents before they are approved. 6) All recommended conditions of approval as requested by the City Engineer in his July 8, 2015 comment letter shall be incorporated by reference into the City’s approval of the final plat and PUD plans. 7) Prior to the execution of the Final Plat by City officials, the Developer shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Council that delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of the required improvements for the Wildflower Final Plat and Final Development Plans with financial guarantees therefore. 8) All easements as requested by the City Engineer and Public Works Department shall be documented on the Final Plat prior to the execution of the final plat by City Officials. 9) A Common Interest Agreement concerning management of the common areas of Wildflower and establishing a homeowner’s association shall be submitted in final form to the Community Development Director before a building permit may be issued for any structure within this subdivision. The applicant shall also enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park and open space on the final plat. 10) The developer is encouraged to incorporate elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study into the final design of the community mailboxes within Wildflower. 11) The applicant shall deed Outlots B, C, J, and K to the City upon recording of the final plat. 12) The final landscape plan shall be updated to address the review comments from the City’s landscape architecture consultant. 13) The final construction plans shall be updated to include a trail connection along Lake Elmo Avenue between the existing trail outlet to Lake Elmo Avenue and the boundary between the Wildflower development and the property south of Wildflower. 14) The developer shall establish a legally binding agreement to prevent further residential or commercial development of all outlots planned for open space or conservation uses. 4 Resolution 2015-60 15) The developer shall provide a completed bituminous driveway connection to the Smith property at 11514 Stillwater Boulevard North as part of the improvements associated with Phase 1 of the development. 16) The developer shall complete the planting and removal work at the Eischen property at 11647 Stillwater Boulevard North as described in a private agreement between the developer and Eischen family as part of Phase 1 of the development. 17) The final plat shall be revised to incorporate street names that are consistent with the Washington County Street Naming System. 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 BUSINESS ITEM 4B PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 7/13/15 AGENDA ITEM: 4B – PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2015-21 ITEM: Wildflower Final Plat and Final PUD Plans (Phase 1) SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner Jack Griffin, City Engineer SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request to approve a final plat, final PUD development plans, and related zoning map amendments associated with the first phase of the Wildflower PUD development. The final plat includes 60 single family residential lots that will be located within the western portion of the overall development area. Staff is recommending approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions listed in this report. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Robert Engstrom Companies; 4801 West 81st Street, #101, Bloomington, MN Property Owners: Robert Engstrom Companies; 4801 West 81st Street, #101, Bloomington, MN Location: Part of Sections 12 and 13, Township 29 North, Range 21 West in Lake Elmo, north of 39th Street, west of Lake Elmo Avenue, and south of the northern Village Planning Area boundary line. PID Numbers 13.029.21.32.00001, 12.029.21.34.0001, 13.029.21.21.0001 and 12.029.21.43.0013. Request: Application for Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan approval for the first phase of a residential development to be named Wildflower. The final plat includes 60 single-family residential lots, while the remainder of the site will be platted as outlots for either public dedication, common open space, or to be reserved for future development. Existing Land Use and Zoning: Agriculture, Woods/Natural Vegetation, Wetlands, Open Space. Current Zoning: RT – Rural Transitional. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North – vacant/agricultural land, rural residential – RR zoning; west – agricultural land (future Village residential) – A, RT, and RR zoning; south – offices, business park land – C zoning; east open space/Field of St. Croix II subdivision – RR and OP zoning. Comprehensive Plan: Village Medium Density Residential (3-4 units per acre)/Village Open Space Overlay 2 BUSINESS ITEM 4B History: The property was included in Village Planning Area boundary and municipal sewer service area as defined in the 2013 Village Land Use Plan. The site has historically been used for faming activities, including the growing of agricultural crops. A large portion of the site is located in a FEMA Flood District. The City approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment last year that removed portions of the site from the open space land category. The City also approved a PUD Concept Plan for the property on June 17, 2014, and a preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans on April 7, 2015. Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 7/2/15 60 Day Deadline – 9/1/15 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 10/31/15 Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (MDR) Article 16 – Planned Unit Development Regulations §150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment Control REQUEST DETAILS The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Robert Engstrom Companies for approval of a final plat and final PUD plan associated with the first phase of the Wildflower Planned Unit Development (PUD). The final plat will include the platting of 60 single-family residential lots, of which 22 will be the “garden villa” homes while the remainder will be the general single family homes located north of Wildflower Drive. The final plat includes the platting of a connection to the existing Layton Avenue right-of-way that will be shared between the Wildflower development and the adjacent Village Preserve single family neighborhood. As discussed during the concept and preliminary plat review, the subdivision will include a large amount of open space that will be owned and managed by the homeowner’s association along with a series of City-owned outlots that will serve as storm water infiltration and retention areas. Please note that the attached application materials provided by the applicant include the final plat, final grading, drainage, and erosion control plans for the entire site, a set of supplemental plans that provide a complete set of plans that have been updated from the preliminary plat, and utility and street construction plans for the first phase public improvements. After an initial City review, the developer submitted updated documents for all of the plans listed above with the exception of the construction plans. The City Engineer will need to review a final set of construction plans as a condition of approval. Due to the larger amount of materials already included in the packet, Staff is not including the submitted construction plans with this report (these are available for viewing at City Hall). Since the City’s approval of a preliminary plat, the developer has begun grading the site under a separate grading agreement with the City. The overall grading plans provided with the final plat therefore reflect the work that is currently taking place on the property. The initial construction access to the site has been provided via an existing private driveway from Highway 5, and this access will be eliminated once the new road off of 39th Street is completed. The final plans do show a driveway connection to the Richard Smith property north of Outlot G from the end of Blazingstar Lane as platted in the first addition. A portion of the driveway will be located over what will be the future extension of this road. 3 BUSINESS ITEM 4B In advance of submitting an application for a final plat, the developer worked with the City and other external agencies to address the conditions attached to the City’s approval of the preliminary plat. The end result of this process are the plans that have been labeled “Final Plan Supplemental Plans” that have been deemed compliant with the previous conditions of approval by the City. This includes the revising of several streets to meet the City’s minimum requirements for width and other modifications from the preliminary plans. There are a few minor issues that need to be addressed as noted in the City Engineer’s review memorandum, but none significant enough that they cannot be resolved through revisions to the final development plans or further review by the City Attorney. Staff has provided an update concerning the preliminary plat conditions in the latter sections of this report. The applicant has submitted an updated plat and PUD development plan narrative and related submissions to the City, including a concept park layout for the shared park with the Village Preserve along with a lot profile sheet for the various types of lots that are planned. The overall project follows the preliminary plat very closely, and any modifications have been made in order to address the previous conditions of approval. Given the extensive reviews that have been performed on this development to date, Staff is not going to provide a detailed overview of the project as part of this report but would be happy to provide copies of any previous Staff reports on this matter upon request. The final plat and supplemental plans address other review comments as noted in the following section of this report. As the applicant has worked to address the previous review comments and conditions of approval, there have been some minor modifications to the configuration of some lots within the subdivision to accommodate these revisions. These changes directly address preliminary plat review comments, and more specifically respond to the following: • All roads have been designed to meet the City’s minimum standards for width, both for streets that will have parking and those that will not. • All outlots that will be owned by the City, the developer for future subdivision, and by the homeowner’s association are all clearly labeled on the plans. • The plans now include a sanitary sewer service stub that extends roughly halfway through Outlot H. This stub will be available for a future connection of sewer service to serve existing development to the north and east. • The cul-de-sac widths, street design, and any street corners have been designed to comply with minimum City requirements and to accommodate emergency and public works vehicles. The City’s subdivision ordinance establishes the procedure for obtaining final subdivision approval, in which case a final plat may only be reviewed after the City takes action on a preliminary plat. As long as the final plat is consistent with the preliminary approval, it must be approved by the City. Please note that the City’s approval of the Wildflower Preliminary Plat and Plans did include a series of conditions that must be met by the applicant, which are addressed in the “Review and Analysis” section below. Because the application is for approval of a final PUD plan, the request does require a public hearing to establish the final PUD zoning for the first phase of the development. At this time, Staff is not recommended that the City establish a base zoning district for the development area. The three developers that have agreed to build the needed sanitary sewer connection south of the railroad tracks have yet to formally execute the required agreements to build 4 BUSINESS ITEM 4B this line. Once these agreements have been executed, Staff will prepare the necessary map amendments to support the proposed Wildflower development. One of the conditions of approval notes that no permits (beyond model homes) may be issued until the new zoning for the area becomes effective. Staff has previously recommended a base zoning of MDR – Medium Density Residential for the residential portions of the subdivision and RR – rural residential for the open space and natural preservation areas. Staff has reviewed the final plat and found that it is consistent with the preliminary plat that was approved by the City with the exceptions as noted below and as listed in the City Engineer’s report. These exceptions can be addressed with the submission of revised final plans, and primarily relate to details that need to be worked out before final approval of the construction plans. The City’s Landscape Architect has previously reviewed the landscape plan, and his comments have been used in the preparation of the final plan. Staff is recommending that the landscape plans be subject to final review by a landscape architect to address any plan modifications that are necessitated by the City Engineering comments. Although final construction plans still need to be reviewed and approved by the City, it is expected that any required modification can be accommodated by the developer without changing the final plat, and that these minor revisions may be made before the City releases the final plat for recording. PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES The Wildflower development includes a request for a Planned Unit Development and some related flexibility as permitted under this ordinance. In order to grant a PUD, an applicant is required to demonstrate compliance with the City’s PUD applicant requirements and PUD Objectives. These requirements and objectives were previously detailed with the applicants’ preliminary plan submissions. For the most part, all portions of the development will be consistent with the zoning requirements for the City’s MDR – Medium Density Residential Zoning District, with the exceptions that were discussed during the concept and preliminary plan review and are summarized as follows: Setback MDR Zoning District (Min.) Courtyard Homes (Min.) Front Yard 25 feet 20 feet Interior Side Yard 10 Feet Principal Structure Side / 5 Feet Garage Side Same or 7.5 both sides Corner Side Yard 15 10 Rear Yard 20 feet 20 feet Lot Area 7,000 square feet 5,865 square feet Lot Depth N/A 100 feet Lot Width 50 feet 50 feet Street Widths City Standard Wildflower Alley/Rear Access Not Allowed 18 feet Cul-de-sac City Standard Prairie View Trail Maximum Length 1,000 feet 1,300 feet 5 BUSINESS ITEM 4B All other requirements for the City’s MDR zoning district will apply, including the allowed uses and other site and development standards. Please note that the above table does not include any modifications from the numbers originally proposed by the developer. The purpose of this table is to document the minimum expectation for lots and homes in the development, and is otherwise consistent with the development plans. Other than the extended cul-de-sac length for Prairieview Trail, there have been no exceptions requested for the single family homes outside of the courtyard home area. The overall site plan for the property follows the adopted concept plan very closely, and the final plat and plans are consistent with preliminary plat as well. The following is a general summary of the subdivision design elements that have proposed as part of the Wildflower final plat and plans: Zoning and Site Information: • Existing Zoning: RT – Rural Development Transitional District • Proposed Zoning: MDR – Lot Area; RR – Conservation/Buffer Areas • Total Site Area: 119.28 acres • Total Residential Units: 145 (78 single family, 67 courtyard homes) 60 with Final Plat (38 single family; 22 courtyard) • Proposed Density (Net): 4.0 Units per acre (per developer) Proposed Lot Dimensional Standards (Single Family Lots): • Min. Lot Width: 80 ft. • Lot Depth: 130 ft. (135 ft. typical) • Lot Area: 8,000 sq. ft. (10,298 min.) • Front Yard Setback: 25 ft. • Side Yard Setback: 10 ft. living space; 5 ft. garage • Rear Yard Setback: 20 ft. Proposed Lot Dimensional Standards through Planned Unit Development Process (courtyard homes): • As listed above Proposed Street Standards: • Per development plans with modifications as requested by the City Engineer Proposed Street Standards: • ROW Width – Local 60 ft. (per Subdivision Ordinance) • Street Widths – Local: 28 ft. (per City standard) • Street Widths – Other: 24 ft. (two way with parking one side) 20 ft. (one way with parking) 18ft. (one way with no parking) • Alley/Rear Access 18ft. (proposed PUD standard) The standards listed above are all either in compliance with the applicable requirements from the City’s zoning and subdivision regulations, or are consistent with requested modifications through the proposed planned unit development (PUD). Based on Staff’s review of the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan, the applicant has generally demonstrated compliance with the majority of the applicable codes, and the requested modifications or flexibilities as allowed under the City’s PUD 6 BUSINESS ITEM 4B Ordinance represent a reasonable request given the various design goals the applicant it trying to achieve. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS The preliminary plat and plans for Wildflower were approved with several conditions, which are indicated below along with Staff’s comments on the status of each. Staff is recommending approval of the final plat and plans with conditions intended to address the outstanding issues that will require additional review and/or documentation. In order to assist the Planning Commission with its review, Staff is also including a summary the critical issues that need to be resolved for the subdivision to move forward. Critical Issues Summary: 1) Conservation Easements. The developer is either proposing to implement new conservation easements over the common open space areas within the development, or will be keeping in place the conservation easements that were modified for Outlots J, I, and H. These new easements will need to be drafted and submitted to the City for formal adoption for the new areas, while the older easements must be formally executed and recorded one the final plat is also recorder with the County. There are two issues that Staff is has identified with the proposed or existing easements that must be subject to final review and approval by the City Attorney, including the following: a. One of the preliminary plat conditions requires that a “legally binding agreement to prevent further residential or commercial development of all outlots planned for open space or conservation uses” be established by the developer. The City Attorney will need to review any proposed conservation easements for consistency with this condition. b. The City Engineer has requested clarification that any existing or proposed conservation easements will not prohibit or impeded the City from installing and maintaining the proposed public infrastructure (including storm water ponds, sanitary sewer pipes, and storm water swales) over portions of these outlots. Staff is again asking that the City Attorney review these easement documents to ensure that the final language will not encumber the City in any manner. 2) Trail Construction and Easements. The developer has proposed an extensive system of public trails throughout the development. Prior to acceptance of these trails for public use, the developer will need to construct them to meet City specifications and will need to submit easements granting public use of the trails to the City for approval. The developer is asking that the proposed trail dedication and granting of conservation easement suffice for the park land dedication requirements. Staff is asking to see the final calculations for land and trail dedication in order to accurately account for the equivalent dedication that would have otherwise been provided. 3) Platting of Adjacent Property. The final plat and development plans include improvements that extend into the adjacent Village Preserve development, and specifically, portions of Wildflower Drive, Prairieview Trail, and storm water improvements. Should the Village Preserve Final Plat be recorded prior to Wildflower, this issue will no longer be relevant. Should Engstrom Companies wish to record its plat prior to Village Preserve, the developer will need to, at a minimum, secure the appropriate easements from the current land owner of 7 BUSINESS ITEM 4B the Village Preserve (Gonyea) before the Wildflower final plat may be recorded. The applicant has demonstrated that there is an agreement in place between both parties, and has stated that this is a timing issue that will be satisfactorily resolved between the two developers. 4) General Review Comments. All other recommended conditions of approval relate to final details that must be addressed by the applicant and can be handled prior to release of the final plat for recording. In order to provide the Planning Commission with an update concerning the conditions associated with the preliminary plat and plans for Wildflower, Staff has prepared the following: Preliminary Plat Conditions – With Staff Update Comments (updated information in bold italics): 1) No lots within a FEMA flood zone shall be approved as part of a final plat until such time that the City’s Floodplain Management Map has been amended to remove these lots. As an alternative to amending this map, the developer must provide documentation that all structures will be built above the regulatory flood protection elevation, that any public infrastructure will also meet Floodplain Ordinance requirements, and that the proposed storm water ponds may be constructed within the floodplain area. Comments: This condition will apply to the final plat and all subsequent stages. The Valley Branch Watershed District has indicated that it will undertake a study to amend the FEMA flood delineations to lower the flood levels in this area to match those identified in the Goetschel Pond study. There are no buildable lots depicted on the final plat that are located in a flood district. 2) Prior to any grading activity, the developer shall submit to the City temporary grading easements from the owner of the lots adjacent to Layton Avenue within the Brookman Addition in order to construct the improvements within this right-of-way as documented in the preliminary construction plans. Comments: These easements have been secured and grading has commenced within this area. 3) The developer has requested the inclusion of public art within common areas and public property throughout Wildflower development. Prior to the placement of any art on publicly owned property or public rights-of-way, the developer and City shall enter into an agreement that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for maintenance, upkeep and removal of any public art. No public art shall be lit in a manner that conflicts with the City’s Lighting Ordinance. Comments: This is a condition that will apply to the future placement of public art within the development. To date, the developer has not provided the City with a specific plan or details concerning public art. 4) Prior to the submission of a final plat for any portion of the Wildflower PUD, the developer shall work with the City to determine the appropriate park dedication calculations for the entire development area. Comments: The developer is asking that the City accept the park land, trail, and open space conservation (nature preserve) areas as meeting the spirit and intent of the City’s park land dedication requirements. If the City were to assign a specific amount of land dedication to the plat, the developer would be required to provide at least five acres of parkland. Staff is asking that he developer provide a total calculation for the trail and other park areas to help assess the specific trade-off between park land and common open space. Staff is recommending that the developer not be required to dedicate any additional land, and that the larger nature preserve account for any land dedication shortfall. 8 BUSINESS ITEM 4B 5) The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the commencement of any grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site. Comments: The applicant has entered into a grading agreement with the City and grading work is presently occurring on the site. 6) The utility construction plans shall be updated to incorporate the recommendations of the City Engineer as described in a February 18, 2015 memorandum to the City concerning the appropriate location and size of sewer services through the PUD planning area, including any requested oversizing of these facilities to service adjacent properties, prior to the submission of a final plat. Comments: The supplemental plans included in the final plat submission address the previous review comments. The City Engineer must still review and approve the final, detailed construction plans for the project. 7) The developer shall minimize the number of rain gardens within public rights-of-way consistent with the review comments from the City Engineer. Any such storm water infiltration features shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Comments: All rain gardens as previously proposed have been eliminated from the plans. 8) The preliminary development plans must be revised to comply with City Street standards as referenced in the City Engineer’s review memorandum dated February 18, 2015. Comments: The plans have been updated to meet City standards. 9) The City approves all requests for flexibility from City Zoning and Subdivision requirements with the exception of the street standards noted in the preceding condition. Comments: The revised plans address this condition. 10) The applicant is encouraged to incorporate elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study into the open space areas within the subdivision. Comments: The final plans do not include any specific references to the City’s theming study. This condition was not a mandatory requirement. 11) The preliminary landscape plan shall be updated to address the review comments from the City’s landscape architecture consultant as noted in a review letter dated February 4, 2015. Comments: The City’s consultant has reviewed the preliminary plans and offered comments that have been incorporated into the final plans. Staff is recommending that a landscape architect perform a final review and approval of these plans, and to specifically review any landscape elements that are impacted by the final construction plan review. 12) All center median planting areas as depicted on the preliminary plat and plans shall be owned by the City of Lake Elmo and maintained by the Homeowners Association. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park, trails, or open space on the final plat. Comments: The maintenance agreement will be incorporated into the developer’s agreement. 13) The Final Plat and Plans must address the requested modifications outlined in the City Engineer’s review memorandum dated February 18, 2015. Comments: The final plans have addressed 9 BUSINESS ITEM 4B these comments except as noted by the City Engineer. A final review of the construction plans is pending and is recommended as a condition of approval. 14) Prior to recording the Final Plat for any portion of the area shown in the Preliminary Plat, the Developer shall enter into a Developers Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney that delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of public improvements. Comments: A developer’s agreement will be submitted to the City Council either with or shortly after the final plat is approved. 15) The developer shall provide an easement over or dedicate in a separate outlot all trails to be dedicated for public use. Any such trails shall be considered a park land dedication provide said trails are constructed by the developer with other public improvements within the subdivision. Comments: Staff is asking that the developer provide an overall calculation for the land to be dedicated as trail easements or public park land. The developer must provide easements for these trails in a manner that will be approved by the City Attorney. These easements must be completed before the City will accept the any of the public improvements within Wildflower. 16) The City will not approve a final plat for any portion of Wildflower until such time that the City has approved construction plans and received financial security related to the construction of the public improvement project to connect the 39th Street Sewer to the 30th Street lift station. Comments: The City has approved a development contract for the Eastern Village Trunk Sewer project, and all parties are close to executing this agreement. Because Engstrom Companies has been one of the three private parties that will be funding the trunk sewer project, Staff is recommending that this condition be revised to state that no building permits (including model homes) will be issues within Wildflower until such time that an executed and funded development contract has been submitted to the City. 17) The developer must follow all the rules and regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act, and adhere to the conditions of approval for the Valley Branch Watershed District Permit. Comments: The developers plan have been reviewed and approved by the Watershed District and grading work has commenced on this site in accordance with this permit. 18) The developer shall maintain access to the Smith property (11514 Stillwater Boulevard North) during construction of the first development phase. Said access shall, at a minimum, be capable of supporting emergency management vehicles and be consistent with City access driveway standards. The existing driveway easement shall be vacated prior to the recording of the final plat. Comments: The developer has been maintaining the existing private drive to the Smith residence during the grading work. This condition will continue to apply to the development until such time that the temporary connection to Blazingstar Lane is made. Upon the City’s acceptance of the public improvements within Wildflower, the existing driveway access must be eliminated. 19) The developer shall establish a legally binding agreement to prevent further residential or commercial development of all outlots that are planned for open space or conservation uses within the preliminary plat. Comments: The developer is proposing to place a conservation easement over all open space outlots within the development. The City Attorney should review any such easements for consistency with this condition. 10 BUSINESS ITEM 4B Staff is recommending certain conditions that been specifically identified as part of the final plat review, and that have not otherwise been addressed by the applicant, be addressed as part of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City Council. The City Engineer’s review letter does identify several issues that need to be addressed by the developer in order for the City to deem the final plans complete. Of particular concern to the City Engineer is ensuring that the City has adequate easements or right-of-way in place to support the proposed infrastructure. Staff is recommending that two of the planned rights-of-way be extended (but not otherwise improved) in order to address this matter. Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the final plat and final development plans for phase one with several conditions intended to address the outstanding issues noted above and to further clarify the City’s expectations in order for the developer to proceed with the recording of the final plat. The recommended conditions are as follows: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1) The City Attorney shall review all proposed and existing conservation easements within the development area to ensure these easements will not encumber the City from installing and maintaining and the proposed public infrastructure (including storm water pons and related improvements) over the City-owned outlots. 2) The developer shall provide easements for public access to all public trails and sidewalks that are not otherwise constructed within a public right-of-way. Any such easements shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. 3) The developer shall dedicate additional right-of-way associated with the future extension of Prairieview Trail to accommodate the planned storm water improvements include with the first addition public improvements. This right-of-way shall extend to the westernmost limits of Outlot F. 4) The developer shall dedicate additional right-of-way associated with the future extension of Blazingstar Lane to accommodate the planned private driveway that will provide access to the exception parcel located north of Outlot G. The developer shall provide any easements necessary to ensure that this access may be accommodated once the plat has been recorded. 5) Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, sanitary and storm water management plans, landscape plans, and street and utility construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the recording of the Final Plat. All changes and modifications to the plans requested by the City Engineer in a memorandum dated July 8, 2015 and any future reviews shall be incorporated into these documents before they are approved. 6) All recommended conditions of approval as requested by the City Engineer in his July 8, 2015 comment letter shall be incorporated by reference into the City’s approval of the final plat and PUD plans. 7) Prior to the execution of the Final Plat by City officials, the Developer shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Council 11 BUSINESS ITEM 4B that delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of the required improvements for the Wildflower Final Plat and Final Development Plans with financial guarantees therefore. 8) All easements as requested by the City Engineer and Public Works Department shall be documented on the Final Plat prior to the execution of the final plat by City Officials. 9) A Common Interest Agreement concerning management of the common areas of Wildflower and establishing a homeowner’s association shall be submitted in final form to the Community Development Director before a building permit may be issued for any structure within this subdivision. The applicant shall also enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park and open space on the final plat. 10) The developer is encouraged to incorporate elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study into the final design of the community mailboxes within Wildflower. 11) The applicant shall deed Outlots B, C, J, and K to the City upon recording of the final plat. 12) The final landscape plan shall be updated to address the review comments from the City’s landscape architecture consultant. DRAFT FINDINGS Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the proposed Wildflower Final Plat and Final PUD Plans • That all the requirements of City Code Section 153.07 related to the Final Plan and Final Plat have been met by the Applicant. • That the proposed Final Plat for Wildwood consists of the creation of 60 single-family detached residential structures and an open space/nature conservation area. • That the Wildflower Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent with the Preliminary Plat and Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on April 7, 2014. • That the Wildflower Final Plat and Final PUD Plan is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area. • That the Wildflower Final Plat generally complies with the City’s Urban Medium Density Residential zoning district, with the exceptions as noted in the approved Preliminary PUD Plans. • That the Wildflower Final Plat complies with all other applicable zoning requirements, including the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control and other ordinances, except as noted in this report or attachment thereof. • That the Wildflower Final Plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance. 12 BUSINESS ITEM 4B • That the Wildflower Final Plat and Final PUD Plan complies with the City’s Planned Unit Development Ordinance. • That the Wildflower Final Plat is consistent with the City’s engineering standards with the exceptions noted by the City Engineer in his review comments to the City dated July 8, 2015 and as otherwise identified in future reviews. RECCOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Final Plat and Final Development Plans for Wildflower with the 12 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. Suggested motion: “Move to recommend approval of the requested Zoning Map Amendment for the Wildflower planned development based on the findings of fact listed in the Staff Report.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application Form 2. Project Narrative 3. Contact Information 4. Developer Acknowledgements 5. Neighborhood Park Concept 6. Wildflower Lot Development Summary 7. City Engineer Review Comments – 7/8/15 8. Fire Chief Comments – 7/7/15 9. Final Plat 10. Final Plat Supplemental Plans 11. Final Grading Plans 12. Final Landscape Plans SUGGESTED 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         PAGE 1 of 2  MEMORANDUM         Date: July 8, 2015      To: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Re: Wildflower at Lake Elmo  From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer  Phase 1 Final Plat Review      An engineering review has been completed for the revised Final Plat Supplemental Plans and Wildflower at Lake  Elmo 1st Addition Final Plat. The submittal consisted of the following documentation prepared by Pioneer  Engineering, Inc. and received on July 6, 2015:     Response memorandum dated July 2, 2015.   Final Plat Supplemental Plans dated July 2, 2015.   Revised Final Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plans dated July 2, 2015.   Wildflower at Lake Elmo 1st Addition Final Plat.      STATUS/FINDINGS: An engineering review has been separated for Final Plat conditional approval and Final  Construction Plan approval. Please see the following review comments relating to the Final Plat application.       FINAL PLAT – 1ST ADDITION   Final Plat approval must be contingent upon the Village Preserve Final Plat being recorded with  Washington County to ensure adequate R/W is platted for Prairieview Trail and Wildflower Drive. The  entire street R/W for Prairieview Trail and Wildflower Drive must be platted and recorded at the County,  or executed roadway and utility easements in the City’s standard easement form must be provided to the  City, prior to the start of street and utility construction.   A drainage and utility easement must be provided over Outlot O to accommodate the storm sewer pipe  proposed as part of the Phase 1 construction along Lots 3‐5 and 21‐23, Block 5.   Final Plat approval must be contingent upon a revised Final Plat that includes additional Prairieview R/W  (approx. 140 feet) to include the street R/W necessary to accommodate the Phase 1 storm sewer pipe  being constructed from Pond 3N to the Outlot C storm water pond (Pond 200).   As required, Outlots B, C, J and K are proposed to be dedicated to the City as part of the Plat.   Final Plat approval must be contingent upon Outlot J being dedicated to the City free from any and all  restrictions from third party easements to ensure that the City has no restrictions going forward in  regards to operation, maintenance and replacement of the storm water infrastructure.   Final Plat approval must be contingent upon the Outlot H drainage and utility easement being fully  available to the City for the ongoing ownership, maintenance and replacement of the City sanitary sewer  pipe, free from any restrictions by third party easements.   The Outlot A is shown as HOA owned with a drainage and utility easement over the Outlot. This easement  must be revised as a trail, drainage and utility easement.  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 Outlot F is shown as HOA owned with a drainage and utility easement over the Outlot. This easement  must be revised as a trail, drainage and utility easement.   The Outlot L is shown as HOA owned with a drainage and utility easement over the Outlot. This easement  must be revised as a sidewalk, drainage and utility easement.   The Final Plat must be contingent upon the completion of the Village East Trunk Sanitary Sewer from the  Reid Park Lift Station to the UPRR. The conditional approval should include provisions to not allow  building permits, including model homes, until construction of the Village East Trunk Sanitary Sewer from  the Reid Park Lift Station to the UPRR has commenced, a letter of credit to secure the construction is in  place, and a schedule for completion has been determined.    FINAL PLAT SUPPLEMENTAL PLANS: Final Plat approval must be contingent upon the Final Plat Supplemental  Plans being revised and resubmitted per the following review comments:   Revise Outlot H to include a blanket drainage and utility easement.   Revise Outlot A drainage and utility easement to include trail, drainage and utility easement.   Revise Outlot F drainage and utility easement to include trail, drainage and utility easement.   Revise Outlot L drainage and utility easement to include sidewalk, drainage and utility easement.   FINAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS   No construction, except for grading operations may occur on the site until the applicant has received City  Engineer approval for the final street and utility construction plans and has obtained all applicable permits  for the Subdivision.   The Final Plat shall not be recorded until final construction plan approval is granted.   Final construction plan review comments will be provided separately to assist the applicant with the  completion of Final Construction Plans.     “Proudly Serving Neighbors & Friends” July 7, 2015 Review of the FINAL PLAT AND FINAL PUD PLAN – WILDFLOWER AT LAKE ELMO Following a review of the packet provided, I have concerns related to the following: • February 13, 2015 – “Hydrant placement/spacing. Hydrants need to be placed at intersections to be most advantageous for emergency response and spaced per our requirements, with spacing of hydrants not to exceed 500’”. There are still areas that do not meet our minimum requirement of hydrant spacing not to exceed 500’. This spacing is measured via travel distance, (roadway) between hydrants. Please resubmit drawing showing corrections. • I also have concerns regarding the placement of hydrants along what is currently named WILDFLOWER DRIVE. With hydrants located only on one side of the roadway, it may become necessary for us to shut down this main access road when using these hydrants for fire suppression to the north. • Street naming to remain consistent with current program as adopted by City Council. This matter was addressed in my review letter dated February 13, 2015 and based on the current drawings, this development is not in compliance. • I am concerned with the name of the development being “WILDFLOWER” as we already have a WILDFLOWER SHORES development located on Hwy5 on the West end of Lake Elmo. As with our previous discussion with Council regarding street naming and our goal of avoiding “confusion” for emergency responders, the name similarity could create problems as well. • This item was identified in February and I don’t know if it has been addressed? I have concerns with the turning radius of islands shown, especially the “tear drop” design as this presents problems for us getting several large apparatus into these areas, even more so in the winter. • This item was identified in February and I don’t know if it has been addressed? Road widths must comply with current standards. Narrow roads create problems for us. When there is a structure fire we need to get several apparatus to the scene. There may be alternatives offered up such as “one way” or “no parking”, which experience has shown us that these are easily disregarded and when you factor in narrowing due to snowbanks, this creates difficulty in responding. Sincerely, Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief LAKE ELMO FIRE DEPARTMENT Station #1 3510 Laverne Ave. No. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 651-770-5006 ________________________ Station #2 4259 Jamaca Ave. No. Lake Elmo, MN. 55042 651-779-8882 ________________________