HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-16 City Council Meeting Packet
NOTICE OF MEETING
City Council Meeting
Tuesday, January 19, 2016 7:00 P.M.
City of Lake Elmo | 3800 Laverne Avenue North
Agenda
A. Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance
B. Approval of Agenda
C. Approval of Minutes
1. November 17, 2015; December 1, 2015; December 15, 2015
D. Public Comments/Inquiries
E. Presentations
Lake Elmo Library Presentation
F. Consent Agenda
2. Approve Payment of Disbursements
3. Accept December 2015 Assessors Report
4. Accept December 2015 Building Department Report
5. Eagle Point Boulevard Street Improvements – Pay Request No. 5
6. 39th Street: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements – Change Order No. 5
7. 39th Street: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements – Compensating Change Order No. 6
8. 39th Street: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements – Pay Request No. 8 (FINAL)
9. Village Trunk Utility Improvements – Approve Reduction of Security #1
10. East Metro Water Resource Education Program (EMWREP) – Renew Shared Resource Education Program
Agreement
11. Approve Driveway Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement
12. Approve Northland Securities Proforma Services
13. Approve TKDA Cost of Service Study for Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities
14. Approve 2016 Meeting Schedule
G. Regular Agenda
15. Hidden Meadows Plat Extension
16. Sign Variance 8650 Hudson Boulevard
17. Ordinance Amendment to Exempt Essential Services from PF-Public or Semi Public Zoning District
18. Zoning Map Amendment to Rezone a Parcel from Rural Residential to Public or Semi Public Zoning District
19. Inwood Trunk Watermain Improvements – Approve Plans and Specifications; Authorize Ad for Bids
20. Inwood Water Tower (No. 4) – Approve Plans and Specifications; Authorize Ad for Bids
21. Library Board Appointments
22. Bureau of Mediation Services Process
23. Council Role in Hiring Process
H. Council Reports
I. Staff Reports and Announcements
J. Adjourn
Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible
Manner While Preserving the City’s Open Space Character
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 2015
CALL TO ORDER
Called to order at 7:10 pm.
PRESENT: Mayor Mike Pearson and Council Members Julie Fliflet,
Anne Smith, Justin Bloyer, and Jill Lundgren.
Staff present: Interim Administrator Schroeder, City Attorney Snyder,
City Engineer Griffin, Finance Director Bendel, City Planner Wensman
and City Clerk Johnson.
Interim Administrator Schroeder read a statement explaining the role of
the Parliamentarian. Chief Administrative Law Judge Pust introduced
herself and reviewed guidelines and decorum policies for the meeting.
PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO ADD
ITEM J: ROLE OF PARLIAMENTARIAN TO THE AGENDA.
MOTION PASSED 4 – 1. (Bloyer – Nay)
Item 10 was removed from the Agenda. Items 7 and 9 were moved to
the Regular Agenda for discussion after item 13.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Mayor Pearson, moved TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 5 –
0.
ACCEPT MINUTES
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Mayor Pearson, moved TO
APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 4, 2015 MINUTES AS AMENDED.
MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Pearson: Met with staff, Bureau of Mediation Services, LMC
and Judge Pust to discuss the Parliamentarian process; met with staff to
prepare for a water sewer consultant RFP; met with County officials on
a variety of matters; held a Visit with the Mayor; attended the Oakdale
Lake Elmo Prayer Breakfast; attended the Public Safety Committee
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 2015
Page 2 of 10
meeting; attended the Parks Commission meeting; fielded concerns from
residents regarding the impact of development in various neighborhoods,
noting no complaints have been received from downtown property
owners; took calls regarding financial discussion and asked Interim
Administrator Schroeder to comment on that during his staff report.
Councilmember Fliflet: Met with LMC and BMS; held a Finance
Committee meeting where they worked on water rate reduction and
2016 Budget; held an HR Committee meeting and fielded resident
concerns.
Councilmember Smith: Attended Finance Committee and postponed
other reports due to time considerations.
Councilmember Lundgren: Spoke with Bureau of Mediation;
discussed milfoil in lakes with residents, attended HR Committee
meeting; attended Oakdale Lake Elmo Prayer Breakfast; thanked Public
Works staff for picking up two dead deer in her neighborhood; discussed
Inwood area flooding with resident and staff.
Councilmember Bloyer: Emailed with Fields residents, emails from
residents regarding the Parliamentarian.
Judge Pust explained that she was serving as Parliamentarian on behalf
of the Office of Administrative Hearings and reported that the City will
be billed by the OAH at a rate of $120 per hour as approved by the
Minnesota Management and Budget Department.
PUBLIC COMMENTS/INQUIRIES
Matt Eder and Becky Goble spoke on behalf of their dad, Jerome Eder,
at 3415 Lake Elmo Avenue North concerning the construction of a storm
water holding pond adjacent to his property and related safety concerns.
Wally Nelson, 4582 Lilac Lane North, stressed the need for civility
among the City Council Members and called for removal of the censure
of Councilmember Bloyer.
PRESENTATIONS
None
FINANCE CONSENT AGENDA
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 2015
Page 3 of 10
2. Approve Payment of Disbursements
3. Accept Financial Report Dated October 31, 2015
4. Accept Building Report Dated October 31, 2015
5. Accept Assessors Report Dated October 31, 2015
6. Approve Eagle Point Blvd. Street Improvements Pay Request No.
3
Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved
TO APPROVE THE FINANCE CONSENT AGENDA AS
PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED 5-0.
OTHER CONSENT AGENDA
8. Water Tower No. 4 – Approve Preliminary Design
Recommendations
Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Fliflet, moved TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION
PASSED 5-0.
ITEM 11: CLARIFICATION OF MANNING AVENUE
REDESIGN AND FUNDING OPTIONS
Interim Administrator Schroeder provided background information on
the Washington County plan to realign Manning Avenue and the design
option chosen by the City Council. Councilmember Fliflet added that
she requested this discussion to provide clarification for the public to
address misconceptions.
Jack Rowenhorst, 11676 Little Bluestem, stated that as a new driver he
is concerned about safety and thinks option C would be much safer.
Lisa Rowenhorst, 11676 Little Bluestem, spoke against the C2 design
chosen by the City Council and asked the Council to reconsider option C
for safety reasons.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 2015
Page 4 of 10
Mary Pat Cumming, 11857 44th Street Lane North, reported that
approximately 200 people in the neighborhood have met and asked that
their voices be heard in support of option C.
Cindy Silkworth, 4418 Lily Avenue North, stated the County, staff and
Planning Commission recommended concept C and requested the City
Council reconsider concept C.
Karen Schwartz, 11772 44th Street Lane North, expressed concerns
about safety and asked that Highway 5 remain open in both directions
until the north-south road is built.
John Hodler, 11834 44th Street Lane North, stated that not building the
north-south road is a big problem for Fields of St. Croix residents and
requested the Council reconsider option C.
Marcy Eischen, 11674 Stillwater Boulevard, spoke in favor of the dead
end option on behalf of herself and neighbors Dupuis and Jacobsen.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren,
moved TO CLARIFY MANNING AVENUE REDESIGN APPROVAL
OF CONCEPT C2 THAT WAS PASSED AT THE SEPTEMBER 15
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, TO READ THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ACCEPTS CONCEPT C2, BUT THA THE EXACT
TIMING, PLACEMENT, DESIGN AND FUNDING FOR THE
NORTH/SOUTH CONNECTION ROAD WILL BE DETERMINED
AT A LATER TIME THROUGH THOUGHTFUL PLANNING, AND
THAT OLD HIGHWAY 5 WILL NOT BE CUL DE SAC’D UNTIL
THIS NORTH/SOUTH CONNECTION IS BUILT. MOTION
PASSED 3 – 2. (Pearson, Bloyer – Nay)
Councilmember Bloyer stated concerns about safety and uncertainty that
the costly north-south road would be safer than option C. Mayor
Pearson referred to a Washington County report on stop lights and stated
the C2 option is not safer.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 2015
Page 5 of 10
Councilmember Fliflet directed staff to begin planning a workshop with
residents to gather their feedback. Councilmember Bloyer stated that the
landowner should be contacted to inquire about purchasing land for the
north-south road. Mayor Pearson stated that the north-south road is an
improvement but without the landowner present it will be difficult to
make progress.
ITEM 9: DOWNTOWN PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS –
APPROVE DESIGN REVISIONS FOR UPPER 33RD STREET
AND LIBRARY PARKING LOT
City Engineer Griffin provided an overview of the proposed revisions on
Upper 33rd Street and noted concerns expressed by a business owner.
Steve Johnson, 2945 Lake Elmo Avenue, stated that he has some
concerns but feels the proposed design is reasonable and works well for
the Fire Department.
Councilmember Bloyer, seconded by Councilmember Fliflet, moved
TO APPROVE THE UPPER 33RD STREET STRIPING REVISIONS
FOR THE PHASE I DOWNTOWN STREET, DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS. MOTION PASSED 4 – 1. (Pearson –
Nay)
Mayor Pearson stated that removing five parking spaces downtown
needs additional research and discussion.
City Engineer Griffin reviewed the proposed parking lot improvements
for the Library, noting that the Library Board would also be reviewing
the proposal. Griffin stated that the project contractor is offering
favorable pricing through adding this project on to the downtown
project.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO
APPROVE THE LIBRARY PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS TO
BE CONSTRUCTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PHASE I
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 2015
Page 6 of 10
DOWNTOWN STREET, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS. MOTION PASSED 4 – 1. (Bloyer – Nay)
Councilmember Bloyer stated that the City should pay for this
improvement for a City building and added that the City Council has not
seen the Library budget.
ITEM 12: SEARCH FIRM FOR CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Interim Administrator Schroeder explained that the term of his contract
is July 2016 to January 2016 and presented a list of search firms that
could be employed to conduct a search for a permanent City
Administrator. Schroeder stated that Springsted provided an estimated
cost of $15,000 to $20,000 depending upon the scope of services.
Discussion held concerning options for conducting a search with and
without a search firm.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren,
moved TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT A SEARCH FIRM AND
INSTRUCT THE CITY CLERK TO POST THE POSITION ON THE
LMC AND ICMA WEBSITES.
Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Fliflet, moved TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD SUBJECT TO HIRING OF A
PROFESSIONAL FIRM TO CONDUCT BACKGROUND CHECKS.
MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
Councilmember Bloyer stated that he won’t support the motion, as he
feels the City could extend Mr. Schroeder’s contract and that
Councilmembers shouldn’t be involved in vetting applicants. Mayor
Pearson suggested seeking professionals within the City to assist with
reviewing applicants.
PRIMARY MOTION PASSED 3 – 2. (Pearson, Bloyer – Nay)
City Attorney Snyder recommended that the process should be moved
along and suggested staff prepare an advertisement for approve at the
next Council meeting.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 2015
Page 7 of 10
ITEM 13: HIGH PRIORITY FOR HIGHWAY 5/COUNTY ROAD
14
Interim Administrator Schroeder explained that Councilmembers have
expressed a need for a traffic light at the intersection of Highway 5 and
50th Street.
Jim Ogren, 11790 Little Bluestem, stated that a stop light will also be
needed at the intersection of Highway 5 and Manning and suggested
they could both be installed at the same time.
Councilmember Fliflet stated that the 50th Street intersection should be a
high priority for 2016 and not wait for the new road alignment.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved
THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WOULD LIKE BY MATTER
OF RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE
INTERSECTION OF NEW CSAH 15 AND 50TH STREET AND
MAKE IT KNOWN THAT THE CITY WOULD LIKE THIS TO BE
THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY FOR THE COUNTY FOR THIS
STRETCH OF ROADWAY RECENTLY TURNED OVER TO THE
COUNTY FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA PREVIOUSLY
KNOWN AS STATE HIGHWAY 5.
Councilmember Bloyer stated that this intersection does not meet
County standards for a traffic light. Mayor Pearson asked about facts
and rankings from the County’s report on intersections and stated that all
intersections should be assessed before committing to upgrading one.
Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Bloyer, moved TO
TABLE THIS ISSUE TO A WORKSHOP. MOTION FAILED 2 – 3.
(Fliflet, Lundgren, Smith – Nay)
PRIMARY MOTION PASSED 3 – 1 – 1. (Pearson – Nay, Bloyer –
Present)
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 2015
Page 8 of 10
Mayor Pearson clarified that he is not opposed to a traffic light at the
50th Street intersection but wants to look at all intersections first.
Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO
DIRECT STAFF TO ARRANGE A WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS
INTERSECTION SAFETY CITY WIDE. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
ITEM 7: APPROVE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PAYOFF FOR
KLEIS PROPERTY
Finance Director Bendel reviewed the request from the property owner
for a reduced payoff amount for special assessments levied in 1995 on a
parcel that is in the Green Acres program. City Attorney Snyder
explained the Green Acres program and noted that if the City Council
chooses to modify the assessment it should be done by uniform
resolution or an ordinance change.
Peter Kastler, 9130 55th Street North, stated he is the grandson of the
original owners and that his grandparents did not have any
documentation regarding this assessment or the interest that is due. Mr.
Kastler noted that the assessment payoff isn’t due until the property is
taken out of Green Acres but he would agree to pay it off early at the
reduced amount as a benefit to both parties.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO
ACCEPT THE PAYOFF OFFER OF $6,879.55 FROM MR.
KASTLER/KLEIS FAMILY TO PAY IN FULL THE
OUTSTANDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS RELATED TO THE
1995 STREET OVERLAY PROJECT. MOTION PASSED 3 – 2.
(Pearson, Bloyer – Nay)
Councilmember Bloyer stated that he understands the situation but feels
the City needs to adhere to the laws and have thought out policies in
place. Mayor Pearson added that he is concerned about setting
precedence with this reduction but has empathy for the property owners.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 2015
Page 9 of 10
STAFF REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Interim City Administrator Schroeder: Attended the Public Safety
Committee meeting, Parks Commission meeting, met with developers,
worked on legal and engineering concerns, attended the Finance
Committee meeting, provided the Mayor’s Handbook to the City
Council at the recommendation of the League of MN Cities. Reported
that the Finance Committee discussed the proforma and recommends
hiring Northland Securities to develop and take over the proforma.
Schroeder stated that the assessment figures change daily as the City
develops and funds are collected, therefore staff would not spend any
additional time on updating the current model and will focus on
transitioning to a third party vendor. The Finance Committee will
continue to discuss how to develop the proforma at the next meeting.
Councilmember Bloyer, seconded by Mayor Pearson, moved THAT
THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND FINANCE DIRECTOR
PROVIDE EXPLANATION TO RESIDENTS AS TO THE
WHEREABOUTS OF $6.5 MILLION IN ASSESSMENTS.
MOTION FAILED 2 – 3. (Fliflet, Lundgren, Smith – Nay)
Councilmember Fliflet stated she would not support the motion and
preferred to support the recommendation of the Administrator to not put
further effort into the current model and move on to a new proforma.
City Clerk Johnson: Reported that an offer has been extended to a
candidate for the Office Administrative Assistant position.
Finance Director Bendel: Finalized recommended changes to the 2016
General Fund Budget at Finance Committee Meeting, fielding calls and
questions on assessments, all Lennar outstanding assessments will be
paid soon, started year end closeout in preparation for the audit.
City Attorney Snyder: No report.
Community Development Wensman: No report
City Engineer Griffin: Working on projects for next year and the
engineering department is very busy with current construction projects.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 2015
Page 10 of 10
ROLE OF PARLIAMENTARIAN
Judge Pust asked for City Council input on the Parliamentarian and
stated it was an honor to be invited. Councilmembers indicated that it
was helpful to have a Parliamentarian run the meeting.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren,
moved TO CONTINUE THE SERVICES OF THE
PARLIAMENTARIAN UNTIL THE SERVICES ARE NO LONGER
NEEDEDAND TO DIRECT STAFF TO SECURE A
REPLACEMENT PARLIAMENTARIAN IF NEEDED. MOTION
PASSED 3 – 1 – 1. (Pearson – Abstain, Bloyer – Nay)
Meeting adjourned at 11:16 pm.
LAKE ELMO CITY
COUNCIL
ATTEST:
-
______________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
_______________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: January 19, 2016
CONSENT
ITEM #2 MOTION
AGENDA ITEM: Approve Disbursements in the amount of $982,463.98
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: $982,463.98 SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council
is asked to approve disbursements in the amount of $982,463.98. No specific motion is needed
as this is recommended to be part of the Consent Agenda.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: NA
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 2]
January 19, 2016
-- 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 $ 13,098.98 Payroll Taxes to IRS & MN Dept of Revenue 01/07/16
ACH $ 6,243.95 Payroll Retirement to PERA 01/07/16
DD6885-DD6910 $ 31,342.60 Payroll Dated (Direct Deposits) 01/07/16
43814-43895 $ 360,123.45 Accounts Payable 01/19/16
ACH $ 64,381.25 Bond Payment, 2009A, 01/15/16
ACH $ 73,185.00 Bond Payment, 2013A, 01/15/16
ACH $ 434,088.75 Bond Payment, 2014A, 01/15/16
TOTAL $ 982,463.98
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
$982,463.98.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Accounts Payable – check registers
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: January 19, 2016
CONSENT
ITEM #3
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 December 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 – 11
Sales collected and viewed – 17
Taxpayer inquiries – 7 Miscellaneous inquiries - 3 Inspections – Residential – 83; Commercial – 0
Building permit reviews – 33
Pictures taken – 93
Other work performed included:
• Monthly meeting with County residential and commercial supervisors
• Input of all inspection and permit work
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item #3]
January 19, 2016
-- page 2 --
• 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 December 2015 monthly assessor report.
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: January 19, 2016
CONSENT
ITEM 4
MOTION
AGENDA ITEM: New Single Family Home Permit Report
SUBMITTED BY: Rick Chase, Building Official
THROUGH: Rick Chase, Building Official
REVIEWED BY: Clark Schroeder, City Administrator
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .............................................................. City Administrator
- Report/Presentation…………………………………………City Administrator
- Questions from Council to Staff .............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion ..................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is
asked to accept the monthly new single family home permit report through December, 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 142 41 36
Total valuation $47,150,401 $19,968,275 $16,966,169
Average home value 332,000 487,000 471,282
Total Valuation YTD 52,514,158 30,340,315 20,939,966
One new home rebuilt in 2015 due to fire.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends the City Council
accept the December, 2015 monthly new home building permit report.
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: January 19, 2016
CONSENT ITEM # 6
AGENDA ITEM: 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements - Change
Order No. 5
SUBMITTED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Agenda):
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Public Input, if Appropriate………………………………….Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering.
FISCAL IMPACT: $2,436.00.
This change order increases the contract amount for the project by $2,436.00 bringing the revised
construction contract to $2,077,958.80.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving, as part of the consent agenda,
Change Order No. 5 for the 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements, thereby
increasing the contract amount by $2,436.00. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for the action is as follows:
“Move to approve Change Order No. 5 for the 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements thereby increasing the contract amount by $2,436.00.”
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 6]
January 19, 2016
-- page 2 --
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
This change order is being processed at the request of the City to remove and replace concrete curb and gutter as a part of the 39th Street project. The toe of approximately 80-feet of curb was damaged over the
course of winter from winter maintenance operations. This type of damage is typical along new street
construction when the wear course is placed the following season, leaving a concrete edge exposed to plows. This construction technique is typical and occasionally will result in some curb replacement being
required. The replacement cost is lower than the cost to place a protective bituminous ramp.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council consider, as part of the consent agenda, approving
Change Order No. 5 for the 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements, thereby
increasing the contract amount by $2,436.00. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended
motion for the action is as follows:
“Move to approve Change Order No. 5 for the 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer
Improvements thereby increasing the contract amount by $2,436.00.”
ATTACHMENT(S):
1.Change Order No. 5
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: January 19, 2016
CONSENT
ITEM # 7
AGENDA ITEM: 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements –
Compensating Change Order No. 6
SUBMITTED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Agenda):
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Public Input, if Appropriate………………………………….Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering.
FISCAL IMPACT: Decrease of $91,829.54 to the final construction contract amount.
This change order reconciles the estimated and actual quantities installed on the project and
decreases the final contract amount by $91,829.54. The final construction contract amount is
$1,986,129.26.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving, as part of the consent agenda,
Compensating Change Order No. 6 for 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements to reconcile the estimated and actual quantities installed on the project. If
removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for the action is as follows:
“Move to approve Compensating Change Order No. 6 for the 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements thereby decreasing the final contract amount by $91,829.54.”
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 7]
January 19, 2016
-- page 2 --
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Geislinger & Sons, Inc. was awarded a construction contract on August 26, 2014 to complete the
39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements. The contractor has completed the work in accordance with the contract, plans and specifications; and with approval of this change order the contract amount will be adjusted to reflect quantities actually installed as a part of the
project.
The overall decrease in the current contract amount for this change order is $91,829.54 as detailed on the attached itemization. The primary areas of decreased pay items include restoration required to complete the improvements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council consider, as part of the Consent Agenda, approving Compensating Change Order No. 6 for the 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer
Improvements thereby decreasing the final contract amount by $91,829.54. If removed from the
consent agenda, the recommended motion for this action is as follows:
“Move to approve Compensating Change Order No. 6 for the 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements thereby decreasing the final contract amount by $91,829.54.”
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Compensating Change Order No. 6
COMPENSATING CHANGE ORDER NO. 6
39TH ST N: STREET AND SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
PROJECT NO. 2014.131
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT NET CHANGE AMOUNT
1 LF 62 $125.00 $7,750.00 153.0 $19,125.00 91.00 $11,375.00
2 LF 1,025 $87.00 $89,175.00 1,054.0 $91,698.00 29.00 $2,523.00
3 LF 315 $89.00 $28,035.00 284.0 $25,276.00 ‐31.00 ‐$2,759.00
4 LF 500 $92.00 $46,000.00 495.0 $45,540.00 ‐5.00 ‐$460.00
5 LF 630 $94.00 $59,220.00 632.0 $59,408.00 2.00 $188.00
6 LF 100 $40.00 $4,000.00 100.0 $4,000.00 0.00 $0.00
7 LF 120 $45.00 $5,400.00 120.0 $5,400.00 0.00 $0.00
8 LF 100 $525.00 $52,500.00 100.0 $52,500.00 0.00 $0.00
9 LF 120 $535.00 $64,200.00 120.0 $64,200.00 0.00 $0.00
10 LF 1,400 $0.10 $140.00 118.0 $11.80 ‐1,282.00 ‐$128.20
11 LF 2,850 $2.00 $5,700.00 2,850.0 $5,700.00 0.00 $0.00
12 EA 12 $3,000.00 $36,000.00 12.0 $36,000.00 0.00 $0.00
13 LF 140 $125.00 $17,500.00 117.7 $14,712.50 ‐22.30 ‐$2,787.50
14 EA 6 $400.00 $2,400.00 6.0 $2,400.00 0.00 $0.00
15 EA 4 $460.00 $1,840.00 6.0 $2,760.00 2.00 $920.00
16 LF 85 $35.00 $2,975.00 118.0 $4,130.00 33.00 $1,155.00
17 LF 400 $32.00 $12,800.00 389.0 $12,448.00 ‐11.00 ‐$352.00
18 LS 1 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 1.0 $4,500.00 0.00 $0.00
19 LS 1 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 1.0 $4,500.00 0.00 $0.00
20 EA 7 $450.00 $3,150.00 7.0 $3,150.00 0.00 $0.00
21 HR 5 $500.00 $2,500.00 0.0 $0.00 ‐5.00 ‐$2,500.00
$450,285.00 $457,459.30 $7,174.30
1 LS 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 1.0 $1,500.00 0 $0.00
2 EA 3 $900.00 $2,700.00 1.0 $900.00 ‐2 ‐$1,800.00
3 EA 1 $950.00 $950.00 1.0 $950.00 0 $0.00
4 EA 1 $2,600.00 $2,600.00 0.0 $0.00 ‐1 ‐$2,600.00
5 EA 3 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 0.0 $0.00 ‐3 ‐$4,500.00
6 EA 4 $3,400.00 $13,600.00 4.0 $13,600.00 0 $0.00
7 EA 11 $3,900.00 $42,900.00 10.0 $39,000.00 ‐1 ‐$3,900.00
8 EA 5 $760.00 $3,800.00 3.0 $2,280.00 ‐2 ‐$1,520.00
9 LF 70 $46.00 $3,220.00 30.5 $1,403.00 ‐40 ‐$1,817.00
10 LF 30 $53.00 $1,590.00 88.0 $4,664.00 58 $3,074.00
11 EA 4 $1,450.00 $5,800.00 1.0 $1,450.00 ‐3 ‐$4,350.00
12 EA 5 $4,000.00 $20,000.00 3.0 $12,000.00 ‐2 ‐$8,000.00
13 LF 2 $260.00 $520.00 0.0 $0.00 ‐2 ‐$520.00
14 LF 1 $600.00 $600.00 0.0 $0.00 ‐1 ‐$600.00
15 LB 100 $10.00 $1,000.00 94.0 $940.00 ‐6 ‐$60.00
$105,280.00 $78,687.00 ‐$26,593.00
1 LF 910 $10.00 $9,100.00 902.0 $9,020.00 ‐8 ‐$80.00
2 EA 8 $400.00 $3,200.00 8.0 $3,200.00 0 $0.00
3 EA 7 $450.00 $3,150.00 7.0 $3,150.00 0 $0.00
4 LF 70 $40.00 $2,800.00 70.0 $2,800.00 0 $0.00
5 LF 891 $42.00 $37,422.00 891.0 $37,422.00 0 $0.00
6 LF 236 $45.00 $10,620.00 236.0 $10,620.00 0 $0.00
7 LF 369 $62.00 $22,878.00 369.0 $22,878.00 0 $0.00
8 EA 2 $900.00 $1,800.00 2.0 $1,800.00 0 $0.00
9 EA 2 $1,050.00 $2,100.00 2.0 $2,100.00 0 $0.00
10 EA 1 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 1.0 $1,400.00 0 $0.00
11 CY 8 $115.00 $920.00 12.0 $1,380.00 4 $460.00
12 EA 3 $2,100.00 $6,300.00 3.0 $6,300.00 0 $0.00
13 EA 5 $2,500.00 $12,500.00 5.0 $12,500.00 0 $0.00
14 EA 2 $3,600.00 $7,200.00 2.0 $7,200.00 0 $0.00
15 EA 1 $4,350.00 $4,350.00 1.0 $4,350.00 0 $0.00
16 EA 1 $125.00 $125.00 1.0 $125.00 0 $0.00
17 EA 1 $150.00 $150.00 1.0 $150.00 0 $0.00
18 EA 1 $225.00 $225.00 1.0 $225.00 0 $0.00
19 EA 12 $175.00 $2,100.00 3.0 $525.00 ‐9 ‐$1,575.00
20 SY 30 $30.00 $900.00 24.0 $720.00 ‐6 ‐$180.00
21 CY 420 $10.00 $4,200.00 420.0 $4,200.00 0 $0.00
22 CY 675 $10.00 $6,750.00 0.0 $0.00 ‐675 ‐$6,750.00
23 SY 1600 $2.75 $4,400.00 0.0 $0.00 ‐1,600 ‐$4,400.00
$144,590.00 $132,065.00 ‐$12,525.00
1 LS 1 $90,000.00 $90,000.00 1.00 $90,000.00 0.00 $0.00
2 LS 1 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 1.00 $9,000.00 0.00 $0.00
PART 4 ‐ STREET IMPROVEMENTS
MOBILIZATION
TRAFFIC CONTROL
INLET PROTECTION
INSULATION
POND EXCAVATION (P)
INFILTRATION SWALE EXCAVATION (P)
SEED MIX 330 AND HYDROMULCH
SUBTOTAL ‐ PART 3
4' DIA CATCH BASIN/MANHOLE
5' DIA CATCH BASIN/MANHOLE
5' DIA CATCH BASIN/MANHOLE W/ SUMP
BULKHEAD 15" RCP STORM SEWER
BULKHEAD 18" RCP STORM SEWER
BULKHEAD 36" RCP STORM SEWER
24" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 4
12" RCP FLARED END SECTION INCL TRASH GUARD
18" RCP FLARED END SECTION INCL TRASH GUARD
24" RCP FLARED END SECTION INCL TRASH GUARD
RIP RAP, CLASS 3
2'X3' CATCH BASIN
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING STORM SEWER
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLE
POTHOLE EXISTING WATER MAIN
12" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 5
15" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 5
18" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 5
HYDRANT
VALVE BOX EXTENSION
HYDRANT EXTENSION
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
SUBTOTAL ‐ PART 2
PART 3 ‐ STORM SEWER
REMOVE AND REPLACE 6" GATE VALVE & BOX
REMOVE AND REPLACE 8" GATE VALVE & BOX
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING HYDRANT
6" DIP CL. 52 WATER MAIN
8" DIP CL. 52 WATER MAIN
6" GATE VALVE AND BOX
PART 2 ‐ WATERMAIN
TEMPORARY WATER SYSTEM
CONNECT TO EXISTING 6" WATER MAIN
CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" WATER MAIN
CUT IN 8" X 8" TEE
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING GATE VALVE & BOX
PRECAST CONCRETE JERSEY BARRIERS AT HIGHWAY 5 JACKING PITS
PRECAST CONCRETE JERSEY BARRIERS AT HIGHWAY 17 JACKING PITS
CROSS EXISTING WATER SERVICE
EXPLORATORY DIGGING
SUBTOTAL ‐ PART 1
4' DIAMETER SANITARY SEWER MH
4' DIAMETER EXCESS MANHOLE DEPTH
10"X6" PVC WYE, SDR 26
12"X6" PVC WYE, SDR 26
6" PVC SCH 40 SANITARY SEWER RISER
6" PVC SCH 40 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
10" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, IN CASING
12" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, IN CASING
20" STEEL CASING PIPE (JACK/AUGERED)
24" STEEL CASING PIPE (JACK/AUGERED)
PIPE FOUNDATION ROCK
TELEVISING
PART 1 ‐ SANITARY SEWER
8" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 20' ‐ 25' DEEP
10" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 15' ‐ 20' DEEP
10" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 20' ‐ 25' DEEP
12" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 15' ‐ 20' DEEP
12" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 20' ‐ 25' DEEP
ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM UNIT
CONTRACT TOTAL TO DATE COMPENSATING CO #6
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT NET CHANGE AMOUNT
ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM UNIT
CONTRACT TOTAL TO DATE COMPENSATING CO #6
3 EA 3 $1,200.00 $3,600.00 1.00 $1,200.00 ‐2.00 ‐$2,400.00
4 LS 1 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 1.00 $4,500.00 0.00 $0.00
5 LS 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 1.00 $2,000.00 0.00 $0.00
6 TN 60 $30.00 $1,800.00 60.00 $1,800.00 0.00 $0.00
7 HR 10 $125.00 $1,250.00 10.00 $1,250.00 0.00 $0.00
8 LS 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 1.00 $1,500.00 0.00 $0.00
9 LF 290 $6.00 $1,740.00 290.00 $1,740.00 0.00 $0.00
10 SY 9160 $2.00 $18,320.00 9,487.00 $18,974.00 327.00 $654.00
11 SY 335 $4.00 $1,340.00 300.00 $1,200.00 ‐35.00 ‐$140.00
12 EA 4 $300.00 $1,200.00 0.00 $0.00 ‐4.00 ‐$1,200.00
13 EA 8 $200.00 $1,600.00 0.00 $0.00 ‐8.00 ‐$1,600.00
14 EA 1 $250.00 $250.00 0.00 $0.00 ‐1.00 ‐$250.00
15 LS 1 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 0.00 $0.00 ‐1.00 ‐$7,500.00
16 LF 200 $3.00 $600.00 200.00 $600.00 0.00 $0.00
17 CY 7750 $9.00 $69,750.00 7,750.00 $69,750.00 0.00 $0.00
18 CY 340 $12.00 $4,080.00 216.00 $2,592.00 ‐124.00 ‐$1,488.00
19 RS 24.34 $465.00 $11,318.10 24.34 $11,318.10 0.00 $0.00
20 LF 1000 $12.00 $12,000.00 980.00 $11,760.00 ‐20.00 ‐$240.00
21 TN 6380 $10.50 $66,990.00 6,379.98 $66,989.79 ‐0.02 ‐$0.21
22 CY 4090 $10.00 $40,900.00 4,485.00 $44,850.00 395.00 $3,950.00
23 TN 800 $66.50 $53,200.00 785.36 $52,226.44 ‐14.64 ‐$973.56
24 TN 1335 $57.75 $77,096.25 1,290.50 $74,526.38 ‐44.50 ‐$2,569.88
25 GAL 565 $2.00 $1,130.00 325.00 $650.00 ‐240.00 ‐$480.00
26 EA 12 $450.00 $5,400.00 0.00 $0.00 ‐12.00 ‐$5,400.00
27 EA 20 $250.00 $5,000.00 0.00 $0.00 ‐20.00 ‐$5,000.00
28 LF 4310 $10.77 $46,418.70 4,465.00 $48,088.05 155.00 $1,669.35
29 LF 105 $14.80 $1,554.00 43.00 $636.40 ‐62.00 ‐$917.60
30 EA 12 $420.00 $5,040.00 12.00 $5,040.00 0.00 $0.00
31 SF 13110 $3.50 $45,885.00 12,840.00 $44,940.00 ‐270.00 ‐$945.00
32 SY 340 $70.00 $23,800.00 339.00 $23,730.00 ‐1.00 ‐$70.00
33 SY 35 $50.00 $1,750.00 60.00 $3,000.00 25.00 $1,250.00
34 SF 168 $42.00 $7,056.00 160.00 $6,720.00 ‐8.00 ‐$336.00
35 SY 105 $50.00 $5,250.00 160.00 $8,000.00 55.00 $2,750.00
36 TN 270 $65.00 $17,550.00 264.91 $17,219.15 ‐5.09 ‐$330.85
37 SY 5000 $4.25 $21,250.00 4,295.00 $18,253.75 ‐705.00 ‐$2,996.25
38 CY 500 $35.00 $17,500.00 783.00 $27,405.00 283.00 $9,905.00
39 SY 2000 $3.25 $6,500.00 646.00 $2,099.50 ‐1,354.00 ‐$4,400.50
40 SY 5500 $2.15 $11,825.00 3,806.00 $8,182.90 ‐1,694.00 ‐$3,642.10
41 LF 1000 $1.95 $1,950.00 0.00 $0.00 ‐1,000.00 ‐$1,950.00
42 LF 30 $22.50 $675.00 0.00 $0.00 ‐30.00 ‐$675.00
43 LF 200 $5.75 $1,150.00 30.00 $172.50 ‐170.00 ‐$977.50
44 HR 15 $125.00 $1,875.00 0.00 $0.00 ‐15.00 ‐$1,875.00
45 SF 6 $45.00 $281.25 0.00 $0.00 ‐6.25 ‐$281.25
46 LF 2270 $1.50 $3,405.00 2,274.00 $3,411.00 4.00 $6.00
47 LF 110 $0.75 $82.50 100.00 $75.00 ‐10.00 ‐$7.50
48 EA 1 $845.00 $845.00 1.00 $845.00 0.00 $0.00
$714,706.80 $686,244.96 ‐$28,461.84
1 LS 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 1.0 $4,000.00 0 $0.00
2 LF 20 $10.00 $200.00 0.0 $0.00 ‐20 ‐$200.00
3 TN 200 $20.00 $4,000.00 0.0 $0.00 ‐200 ‐$4,000.00
4 LF 20 $45.00 $900.00 0.0 $0.00 ‐20 ‐$900.00
5 EA 2 $480.00 $960.00 0.0 $0.00 ‐2 ‐$960.00
6 LF 625 $94.00 $58,750.00 625.0 $58,750.00 0 $0.00
7 LF 1255 $96.00 $120,480.00 1,255.0 $120,480.00 0 $0.00
8 LF 164 $40.00 $6,560.00 164.0 $6,560.00 0 $0.00
9 LF 20 $76.00 $1,520.00 20.0 $1,520.00 0 $0.00
10 LF 164 $565.00 $92,660.00 60.0 $33,900.00 ‐104 ‐$58,760.00
11 LF 1000 $0.01 $10.00 0.0 $0.00 ‐1,000 ‐$10.00
12 LF 2061 $2.00 $4,122.00 2,061.0 $4,122.00 0 $0.00
13 EA 8 $3,200.00 $25,600.00 8.0 $25,600.00 0 $0.00
14 LF 115 $125.00 $14,375.00 109.2 $13,650.00 ‐6 ‐$725.00
15 AC 5 $1,200.00 $6,000.00 0.0 $0.00 ‐5 ‐$6,000.00
16 LF 300 $1.95 $585.00 0.0 $0.00 ‐300 ‐$585.00
17 SY 1500 $3.25 $4,875.00 0.0 $0.00 ‐1,500 ‐$4,875.00
$345,597.00 $268,582.00 ‐$77,015.00
TOTALS ‐ BASE CONTRACT $1,760,458.80 $1,623,038.26 ‐$137,420.54
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
CO1‐1 EA ‐2.0 $900.00 ‐$1,800.00 0.0 $0.00 2 $1,800.00
CO1‐2 EA 2.0 $950.00 $1,900.00 2.0 $1,900.00 0 $0.00
CO1‐3 EA 1.0 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 1.0 $1,600.00 0 $0.00
CO1‐4 EA ‐1.0 $2,600.00 ‐$2,600.00 0.0 $0.00 1 $2,600.00
CO1‐5 LF 875.0 $6.00 $5,250.00 884.0 $5,304.00 9 $54.00
CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" WATER MAIN
CONNECT TO EXISTING 16" WATER MAIN
CUT IN 8" X 8" TEE
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING 8" WATER MAIN
SOIL DECOMPACTION
SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED
SEED AND BLANKET
SUBTOTAL ‐ ALTERNATE NO. 1
CONNECT TO EXISTING 6" WATER MAIN
14" PVC SANITARY SEWER, C905 DR 25, 20' ‐ 25' DEEP
28" STEEL CASING PIPE (JACK/AUGERED)
PIPE FOUNDATION ROCK
TELEVISING
4' DIAMETER SANITARY SEWER MH
4' DIAMETER EXCESS MANHOLE DEPTH
PATCH GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
18" CMP DRIVEWAY CULVERT
18" CMP FLARED END SECTION
15" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 15' ‐ 20' DEEP
15" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 20' ‐ 25' DEEP
14" PVC SANITARY SEWER, C905 DR 25, IN CASING
RIGHT TURN ARROW, TAPE
SUBTOTAL ‐ PART 4
ALTERNATE NO. 1 ‐ SANITARY SEWER SOUTH OF TH 5
CLEAR AND GRUB TREES AND BRUSH
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING STORM SEWER
SILT FENCE, TYPE FLOATING
DITCH CHECK ‐ BIOROLL
STREET SWEEPING
SIGN PANELS, TYPE C
4" DOUBLE SOLID YELLOW LINE, EPOXY
4" SOLID WHITE LINE, EPOXY
TYPE SP 9.5 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE MIXTURE ‐ TRAIL (2,B) [SPWEA230B]
SODDING
IMPORT AND PLACE TOPSOIL BORROW (CV)
SEED & EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
SEED & HYDROMULCH
SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED
CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAMP
5" CONCRETE SIDEWALK
8" COMMERCIAL CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT (HIGH EARLY)
6" CONCRETE FLUME
TRUNCATED DOME PANELS
BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
TYPE SP 12.5 BITUMINOUS NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) [SPNWB230B]
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
ADJUST MH CASTING ‐ STEEL RING (2015)
ADJUST VALVE BOX (2015)
B624 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
B612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
SUBGRADE CORRECTION (EV)
SUBGRADE PREPARATION
4" PERFORATED PVC DRAIN TILE WITH AGGREGATE AND WRAP
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (P)
TYPE SP 9.5 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) [SPWEA230B] (2015)
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING LIGHT BASE
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL SIGN
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAIL DROPBOX
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL RETAINING WALL
SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
COMMON EXCAVATION (P)
TEMPORARY ACCESS AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
TEMPORARY ACCESS MAINTENANCE
REMOVE TEMPORARY ACCESS
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (DRIVEWAYS)
TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
CLEAR AND GRUB TREES AND BRUSH
TEMPORARY ACCESS GRADING
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT NET CHANGE AMOUNT
ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM UNIT
CONTRACT TOTAL TO DATE COMPENSATING CO #6
CO1‐6 EA 1.0 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 1.0 $1,500.00 0 $0.00
CO1‐7 LF 875.0 $69.00 $60,375.00 875.0 $60,375.00 0 $0.00
CO1‐8 EA 2.0 $1,700.00 $3,400.00 2.0 $3,400.00 0 $0.00
CO1‐9 EA 2.0 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 2.0 $6,000.00 0 $0.00
CO1‐10 LB 2,680.0 $10.00 $26,800.00 2,525.0 $25,250.00 ‐155 ‐$1,550.00
CO1‐11 LF 10.0 $53.00 $530.00 9.0 $477.00 ‐1 ‐$53.00
CO1‐12 LF 90.0 $178.00 $16,020.00 0.0 $0.00 ‐90 ‐$16,020.00
TOTALS ‐ CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 $118,975.00 $105,806.00 ‐$13,169.00
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
CO2‐1 LS 1.0 $3,825.00 $3,825.00 1.0 $3,825.00 0 $0.00
CO2‐2 SY 9,940.0 $1.85 $18,389.00 9,940.0 $18,389.00 0 $0.00
TOTALS ‐ CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 $22,214.00 $22,214.00 $0.00
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3
CO3‐1 LS 1.0 $19,435.00 $19,435.00 1.0 $19,435.00 0 $0.00
TOTALS ‐ CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 $19,435.00 $19,435.00 $0.00
CHANGE ORDER NO. 4
CO4‐1 LF 164.0 $1,300.00 $213,200.00 164.0 $213,200.00 0 $0.00
CO4‐2 LF ‐104.0 $565.00 ‐$58,760.00 0.0 $0.00 104 $58,760.00
TOTALS ‐ CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 $154,440.00 $213,200.00 $58,760.00
CHANGE ORDER NO. 5
CO5‐1 LF 80.0 $30.45 $2,436.00 80.0 $2,436.00 0 $0.00
TOTALS ‐ CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 $2,436.00 $2,436.00 $0.00
TOTALS ‐ DIFFERENCE IN CONTRACT AND ACTUAL WORK COMPLETE $2,077,958.80 $1,986,129.26 ‐$91,829.54
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
30‐INCH CASING PIPE ‐ PIPE HAMMER
48‐INCH CASING PIPE
DEDUCT 28‐INCH CASING PIPE (NOT INSTALLED)
CONCRETE CURB REPLACEMENT
8" GATE VALVE AND BOX
16" BUTTERFLY VALVE AND BOX
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
8" DIP CL. 52 WATER MAIN
10" HDPE DR 11 WATERMAIN INSTALLED BY DIRECTIONAL DRILL
MANHOLE CORE DRILL
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING GATE VALVE & BOX
16" DIP CL. 51 WATER MAIN
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: January 19, 2016
CONSENT
ITEM # 8
AGENDA ITEM: 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements – Pay Request
No. 8 (Final)
SUBMITTED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS if removed from the Consent Agenda):
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Public Input, if Appropriate………………………………….Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. Final payment is proposed in accordance with the approved Contract and change orders
for the project.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving Pay Request No. 8 (Final) for
the 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements project. The work has been
reviewed by the Engineer and is fully completed in accordance with the Contract and
Specifications and Change Orders. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended
motion for the action is as follows:
“Move to approve Pay Request No. 8 (Final) to Geislinger & Sons Inc. in the amount of
$112,643.57 for the 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements”.
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 8]
January 19, 2016
-- page 2 --
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Geislinger & Sons Inc., the Contractor for the project, has completed the 39th Street North: Street
and Sanitary Sewer Improvements in accordance with the construction contract awarded by the
council on August 26, 2014. The Project Engineer has prepared a Certificate of Completion
indicating that all work is completed including all punchlist items and is recommending the
acceptance of the improvements and release of final retainage. Project acceptance will initiate the
one-year warranty period for the improvements. The one-year warranty will begin on January 19,
2016 and will extend through January 18, 2017.
The final total project costs came in $29,063 over budget or about 1.3% over. This is a favorable
result given that we experienced a $154,440 change order due to the sewer crossing difficulties at
the UP railroad. At the time of that change order, staff reported that the project would likely
come in at $111,325 over budget.
Final payment will be made to the Contractor, including the release of all retained funds, upon
receipt from the Contractor of all lien waivers, consent of surety, and IC-134 forms.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council consider approving, as part of the Consent Agenda,
Pay Request No. 8 (Final) for the 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements
project. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for the action is as
follows:
“Move to approve Pay Request No. 8 (Final) to Geislinger & Sons Inc. in the amount of
$112,643.57, for the 39th Street North: Street and Sanitary Sewer Improvements”.
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Certificate of Completion.
2. Partial Pay Estimate No. 8 (Final).
PARTIAL PAY ESTIMATE NO. 8 (Final)
39TH ST N: STREET AND SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
PROJECT NO. 2014.131
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT
1 LF 62 $125.00 $7,750.00 0 $0.00 153.00 $19,125.00
2 LF 1,025 $87.00 $89,175.00 0 $0.00 1,054.00 $91,698.00
3 LF 315 $89.00 $28,035.00 0 $0.00 284 $25,276.00
4 LF 500 $92.00 $46,000.00 0 $0.00 495 $45,540.00
5 LF 630 $94.00 $59,220.00 0 $0.00 632 $59,408.00
6 LF 100 $40.00 $4,000.00 0 $0.00 100 $4,000.00
7 LF 120 $45.00 $5,400.00 0 $0.00 120 $5,400.00
8 LF 100 $525.00 $52,500.00 0 $0.00 100 $52,500.00
9 LF 120 $535.00 $64,200.00 0 $0.00 120 $64,200.00
10 LF 1,400 $0.10 $140.00 0 $0.00 118 $11.80
11 LF 2,850 $2.00 $5,700.00 2,850 $5,700.00 2,850 $5,700.00
12 EA 12 $3,000.00 $36,000.00 0 $0.00 12 $36,000.00
13 LF 140 $125.00 $17,500.00 0 $0.00 117.7 $14,712.50
14 EA 6 $400.00 $2,400.00 0 $0.00 6 $2,400.00
15 EA 4 $460.00 $1,840.00 0 $0.00 6 $2,760.00
16 LF 85 $35.00 $2,975.00 0 $0.00 118 $4,130.00
17 LF 400 $32.00 $12,800.00 0 $0.00 389 $12,448.00
18 LS 1 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 0 $0.00 1 $4,500.00
19 LS 1 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 0 $0.00 1 $4,500.00
20 EA 7 $450.00 $3,150.00 0 $0.00 7 $3,150.00
21 HR 5 $500.00 $2,500.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
$450,285.00 $5,700.00 $457,459.30
1 LS 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 0 $0.00 1 $1,500.00
2 EA 3 $900.00 $2,700.00 0 $0.00 1 $900.00
3 EA 1 $950.00 $950.00 0 $0.00 1 $950.00
4 EA 1 $2,600.00 $2,600.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
5 EA 3 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
6 EA 4 $3,400.00 $13,600.00 0 $0.00 4 $13,600.00
7 EA 11 $3,900.00 $42,900.00 0 $0.00 10 $39,000.00
8 EA 5 $760.00 $3,800.00 0 $0.00 3 $2,280.00
9 LF 70 $46.00 $3,220.00 0 $0.00 30.5 $1,403.00
10 LF 30 $53.00 $1,590.00 0 $0.00 88 $4,664.00
11 EA 4 $1,450.00 $5,800.00 0 $0.00 1 $1,450.00
12 EA 5 $4,000.00 $20,000.00 0 $0.00 3 $12,000.00
13 LF 2 $260.00 $520.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
14 LF 1 $600.00 $600.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
15 LB 100 $10.00 $1,000.00 0 $0.00 94 $940.00
$105,280.00 $0.00 $78,687.00
1 LF 910 $10.00 $9,100.00 0 $0.00 902 $9,020.00
2 EA 8 $400.00 $3,200.00 0 $0.00 8 $3,200.00
3 EA 7 $450.00 $3,150.00 0 $0.00 7 $3,150.00
4 LF 70 $40.00 $2,800.00 0 $0.00 70 $2,800.00
5 LF 891 $42.00 $37,422.00 0 $0.00 891 $37,422.00
6 LF 236 $45.00 $10,620.00 0 $0.00 236 $10,620.00
7 LF 369 $62.00 $22,878.00 0 $0.00 369 $22,878.00
8 EA 2 $900.00 $1,800.00 0 $0.00 2 $1,800.00
9 EA 2 $1,050.00 $2,100.00 0 $0.00 2 $2,100.00
10 EA 1 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 0 $0.00 1 $1,400.00
11 CY 8 $115.00 $920.00 0 $0.00 12 $1,380.00
12 EA 3 $2,100.00 $6,300.00 0 $0.00 3 $6,300.00
13 EA 5 $2,500.00 $12,500.00 0 $0.00 5 $12,500.00
14 EA 2 $3,600.00 $7,200.00 0 $0.00 2 $7,200.00
15 EA 1 $4,350.00 $4,350.00 0 $0.00 1 $4,350.00
16 EA 1 $125.00 $125.00 0 $0.00 1 $125.00
17 EA 1 $150.00 $150.00 0 $0.00 1 $150.00
18 EA 1 $225.00 $225.00 0 $0.00 1 $225.00
19 EA 12 $175.00 $2,100.00 0 $0.00 3 $525.00
20 SY 30 $30.00 $900.00 0 $0.00 24 $720.00
21 CY 420 $10.00 $4,200.00 0 $0.00 420 $4,200.00
22 CY 675 $10.00 $6,750.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
23 SY 1600 $2.75 $4,400.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
$144,590.00 $0.00 $132,065.00
1 LS 1 $90,000.00 $90,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $90,000.00
2 LS 1 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $9,000.00
SUBTOTAL ‐ PART 2
PART 3 ‐ STORM SEWER
5' DIA CATCH BASIN/MANHOLE
5' DIA CATCH BASIN/MANHOLE W/ SUMP
BULKHEAD 15" RCP STORM SEWER
BULKHEAD 18" RCP STORM SEWER
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING STORM SEWER
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLE
POTHOLE EXISTING WATER MAIN
12" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 5
15" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 5
18" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 5
24" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 4
12" RCP FLARED END SECTION INCL TRASH GUARD
18" RCP FLARED END SECTION INCL TRASH GUARD
24" RCP FLARED END SECTION INCL TRASH GUARD
RIP RAP, CLASS 3
2'X3' CATCH BASIN
4' DIA CATCH BASIN/MANHOLE
BULKHEAD 36" RCP STORM SEWER
INLET PROTECTION
INSULATION
POND EXCAVATION (P)
SUBTOTAL ‐ PART 3
PART 4 ‐ STREET IMPROVEMENTS
TRAFFIC CONTROL
INFILTRATION SWALE EXCAVATION (P)
SEED MIX 330 AND HYDROMULCH
MOBILIZATION
VALVE BOX EXTENSION
HYDRANT EXTENSION
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
PART 1 ‐ SANITARY SEWER
8" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 20' ‐ 25' DEEP
10" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 15' ‐ 20' DEEP
10" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 20' ‐ 25' DEEP
CUT IN 8" X 8" TEE
12" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, IN CASING
20" STEEL CASING PIPE (JACK/AUGERED)
24" STEEL CASING PIPE (JACK/AUGERED)
PIPE FOUNDATION ROCK
TELEVISING
4' DIAMETER SANITARY SEWER MH
4' DIAMETER EXCESS MANHOLE DEPTH
10"X6" PVC WYE, SDR 26
12"X6" PVC WYE, SDR 26
6" PVC SCH 40 SANITARY SEWER RISER
6" PVC SCH 40 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
PRECAST CONCRETE JERSEY BARRIERS AT HIGHWAY 5 JACKING PITS
PRECAST CONCRETE JERSEY BARRIERS AT HIGHWAY 17 JACKING PITS
CROSS EXISTING WATER SERVICE
6" GATE VALVE AND BOX
HYDRANT
ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM UNIT
CONTRACT THIS PERIOD TOTAL TO DATE
8" DIP CL. 52 WATER MAIN
12" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 15' ‐ 20' DEEP
12" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 20' ‐ 25' DEEP
10" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, IN CASING
EXPLORATORY DIGGING
SUBTOTAL ‐ PART 1
PART 2 ‐ WATERMAIN
TEMPORARY WATER SYSTEM
CONNECT TO EXISTING 6" WATER MAIN
REMOVE AND REPLACE 8" GATE VALVE & BOX
6" DIP CL. 52 WATER MAIN
CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" WATER MAIN
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING GATE VALVE & BOX
REMOVE AND REPLACE 6" GATE VALVE & BOX
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING HYDRANT
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT
ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM UNIT
CONTRACT THIS PERIOD TOTAL TO DATE
3 EA 3 $1,200.00 $3,600.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $1,200.00
4 LS 1 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $4,500.00
5 LS 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $2,000.00
6 TN 60 $30.00 $1,800.00 0.00 $0.00 60.00 $1,800.00
7 HR 10 $125.00 $1,250.00 0.00 $0.00 10.00 $1,250.00
8 LS 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $1,500.00
9 LF 290 $6.00 $1,740.00 0.00 $0.00 290.00 $1,740.00
10 SY 9160 $2.00 $18,320.00 0.00 $0.00 9,487.00 $18,974.00
11 SY 335 $4.00 $1,340.00 0.00 $0.00 300.00 $1,200.00
12 EA 4 $300.00 $1,200.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
13 EA 8 $200.00 $1,600.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
14 EA 1 $250.00 $250.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
15 LS 1 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
16 LF 200 $3.00 $600.00 0.00 $0.00 200.00 $600.00
17 CY 7750 $9.00 $69,750.00 0.00 $0.00 7,750.00 $69,750.00
18 CY 340 $12.00 $4,080.00 0.00 $0.00 216.00 $2,592.00
19 RS 24.34 $465.00 $11,318.10 0.00 $0.00 24.34 $11,318.10
20 LF 1000 $12.00 $12,000.00 0.00 $0.00 980.00 $11,760.00
21 TN 6380 $10.50 $66,990.00 0.00 $0.00 6,379.98 $66,989.79
22 CY 4090 $10.00 $40,900.00 0.00 $0.00 4,485.00 $44,850.00
23 TN 800 $66.50 $53,200.00 0.00 $0.00 785.36 $52,226.44
24 TN 1335 $57.75 $77,096.25 0.00 $0.00 1,290.50 $74,526.38
25 GAL 565 $2.00 $1,130.00 0.00 $0.00 325.00 $650.00
26 EA 12 $450.00 $5,400.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
27 EA 20 $250.00 $5,000.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
28 LF 4310 $10.77 $46,418.70 0.00 $0.00 4,465.00 $48,088.05
29 LF 105 $14.80 $1,554.00 0.00 $0.00 43.00 $636.40
30 EA 12 $420.00 $5,040.00 0.00 $0.00 12.00 $5,040.00
31 SF 13110 $3.50 $45,885.00 0.00 $0.00 12,840.00 $44,940.00
32 SY 340 $70.00 $23,800.00 8.00 $560.00 339.00 $23,730.00
33 SY 35 $50.00 $1,750.00 0.00 $0.00 60.00 $3,000.00
34 SF 168 $42.00 $7,056.00 0.00 $0.00 160.00 $6,720.00
35 SY 105 $50.00 $5,250.00 0.00 $0.00 160.00 $8,000.00
36 TN 270 $65.00 $17,550.00 0.00 $0.00 264.91 $17,219.15
37 SY 5000 $4.25 $21,250.00 132.00 $561.00 4,295.00 $18,253.75
38 CY 500 $35.00 $17,500.00 0.00 $0.00 783.00 $27,405.00
39 SY 2000 $3.25 $6,500.00 0.00 $0.00 646.00 $2,099.50
40 SY 5500 $2.15 $11,825.00 307.00 $660.05 3,806.00 $8,182.90
41 LF 1000 $1.95 $1,950.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
42 LF 30 $22.50 $675.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
43 LF 200 $5.75 $1,150.00 0.00 $0.00 30.00 $172.50
44 HR 15 $125.00 $1,875.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
45 SF 6 $45.00 $281.25 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
46 LF 2270 $1.50 $3,405.00 0.00 $0.00 2,274.00 $3,411.00
47 LF 110 $0.75 $82.50 0.00 $0.00 100.00 $75.00
48 EA 1 $845.00 $845.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $845.00
$714,706.80 $1,781.05 $686,244.96
1 LS 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 0 $0.00 1 $4,000.00
2 LF 20 $10.00 $200.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
3 TN 200 $20.00 $4,000.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
4 LF 20 $45.00 $900.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
5 EA 2 $480.00 $960.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
6 LF 625 $94.00 $58,750.00 0 $0.00 625 $58,750.00
7 LF 1255 $96.00 $120,480.00 0 $0.00 1,255 $120,480.00
8 LF 164 $40.00 $6,560.00 0 $0.00 164 $6,560.00
9 LF 20 $76.00 $1,520.00 0 $0.00 20 $1,520.00
10 LF 164 $565.00 $92,660.00 0 $0.00 60 $33,900.00
11 LF 1000 $0.01 $10.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
12 LF 2061 $2.00 $4,122.00 2,061 $4,122.00 2,061 $4,122.00
13 EA 8 $3,200.00 $25,600.00 0 $0.00 8 $25,600.00
14 LF 115 $125.00 $14,375.00 0 $0.00 109.2 $13,650.00
15 AC 5 $1,200.00 $6,000.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
16 LF 300 $1.95 $585.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
17 SY 1500 $3.25 $4,875.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
$345,597.00 $4,122.00 $268,582.00
TOTALS ‐ BASE CONTRACT $1,760,458.80 $11,603.05 $1,623,038.26
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
CO1‐1 EA ‐2.0 $900.00 ‐$1,800.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
CO1‐2 EA 2.0 $950.00 $1,900.00 0 $0.00 2 $1,900.00
CO1‐3 EA 1.0 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 0 $0.00 1 $1,600.00
CO1‐4 EA ‐1.0 $2,600.00 ‐$2,600.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
CO1‐5 LF 875.0 $6.00 $5,250.00 0 $0.00 884 $5,304.00
SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED
SILT FENCE, TYPE FLOATING
DITCH CHECK ‐ BIOROLL
4" SOLID WHITE LINE, EPOXY
15" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 15' ‐ 20' DEEP
STREET SWEEPING
SIGN PANELS, TYPE C
TYPE SP 9.5 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE MIXTURE ‐ TRAIL (2,B) [SPW
SODDING
IMPORT AND PLACE TOPSOIL BORROW (CV)
SEED & EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
SEED & HYDROMULCH
8" COMMERCIAL CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT (HIGH EARLY)
6" CONCRETE FLUME
TRUNCATED DOME PANELS
BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
ADJUST MH CASTING ‐ STEEL RING (2015)
ADJUST VALVE BOX (2015)
B624 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
B612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAMP
TYPE SP 9.5 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) [SPWEA230B
TYPE SP 12.5 BITUMINOUS NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) [SPNW
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
COMMON EXCAVATION (P)
SUBGRADE CORRECTION (EV)
SUBGRADE PREPARATION
4" PERFORATED PVC DRAIN TILE WITH AGGREGATE AND WRAP
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAIL DROPBOX
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL RETAINING WALL
TEMPORARY ACCESS AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
TEMPORARY ACCESS MAINTENANCE
REMOVE TEMPORARY ACCESS
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (P)
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL SIGN
TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
CLEAR AND GRUB TREES AND BRUSH
TEMPORARY ACCESS GRADING
4" DOUBLE SOLID YELLOW LINE, EPOXY
RIGHT TURN ARROW, TAPE
SUBTOTAL ‐ PART 4
SUBTOTAL ‐ ALTERNATE NO. 1
18" CMP DRIVEWAY CULVERT
ALTERNATE NO. 1 ‐ SANITARY SEWER SOUTH OF TH 5
CLEAR AND GRUB TREES AND BRUSH
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING STORM SEWER
PATCH GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED
15" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 26, 20' ‐ 25' DEEP
14" PVC SANITARY SEWER, C905 DR 25, IN CASING
14" PVC SANITARY SEWER, C905 DR 25, 20' ‐ 25' DEEP
28" STEEL CASING PIPE (JACK/AUGERED)
PIPE FOUNDATION ROCK
TELEVISING
4' DIAMETER SANITARY SEWER MH
4' DIAMETER EXCESS MANHOLE DEPTH
SOIL DECOMPACTION
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (DRIVEWAY
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING LIGHT BASE
5" CONCRETE SIDEWALK
18" CMP FLARED END SECTION
SEED AND BLANKET
CONNECT TO EXISTING 16" WATER MAIN
CUT IN 8" X 8" TEE
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING 8" WATER MAIN
CONNECT TO EXISTING 6" WATER MAIN
CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" WATER MAIN
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT
ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM UNIT
CONTRACT THIS PERIOD TOTAL TO DATE
CO1‐6 EA 1.0 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 0 $0.00 1 $1,500.00
CO1‐7 LF 875.0 $69.00 $60,375.00 0 $0.00 875 $60,375.00
CO1‐8 EA 2.0 $1,700.00 $3,400.00 0 $0.00 2 $3,400.00
CO1‐9 EA 2.0 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 0 $0.00 2 $6,000.00
CO1‐10 LB 2,680.0 $10.00 $26,800.00 0 $0.00 2,525 $25,250.00
CO1‐11 LF 10.0 $53.00 $530.00 0 $0.00 9 $477.00
CO1‐12 LF 90.0 $178.00 $16,020.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
TOTALS ‐ CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 $118,975.00 $0.00 $105,806.00
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
CO2‐1 LS 1.0 $3,825.00 $3,825.00 0 $0.00 1 $3,825.00
CO2‐2 SY 9,940.0 $1.85 $18,389.00 0 $0.00 9,940 $18,389.00
TOTALS ‐ CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 $22,214.00 $0.00 $22,214.00
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3
CO3‐1 LS 1.0 $19,435.00 $19,435.00 0 $0.00 1 $19,435.00
TOTALS ‐ CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 $19,435.00 $0.00 $19,435.00
CHANGE ORDER NO. 4
CO4‐1 LF 164.0 $1,300.00 $213,200.00 0 $0.00 164 $213,200.00
CO4‐2 LF ‐104.0 $565.00 ‐$58,760.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
TOTALS ‐ CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 $154,440.00 $0.00 $213,200.00
CHANGE ORDER NO. 5
CO5‐1 LF 80.0 $30.45 $2,436.00 80 $2,436.00 80 $2,436.00
TOTALS ‐ CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 $2,436.00 $2,436.00 $2,436.00
COMPENSATING CHANGE ORDER NO. 6
CO6‐1 LS 1.0 ‐$91,829.54 ‐$91,829.54 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
TOTALS ‐ COMPENSATING CHANGE ORDER NO. 6 ‐$91,829.54 $0.00 $0.00
TOTALS ‐ REVISED CONTRACT $1,986,129.26 $14,039.05 $1,986,129.26
CONCRETE CURB REPLACEMENT
COMPENSATING CHANGE ORDER
10" HDPE DR 11 WATERMAIN INSTALLED BY DIRECTIONAL DRILL
8" GATE VALVE AND BOX
16" BUTTERFLY VALVE AND BOX
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
8" DIP CL. 52 WATER MAIN
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING GATE VALVE & BOX
16" DIP CL. 51 WATER MAIN
30‐INCH CASING PIPE ‐ PIPE HAMMER
48‐INCH CASING PIPE
DEDUCT 28‐INCH CASING PIPE (NOT INSTALLED)
MANHOLE CORE DRILL
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: January 19, 2016
CONSENT
ITEM # 9
AGENDA ITEM: Village East Trunk Utility Improvements – Approve Security Reduction.
SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Stephen Wensman, City Planner
Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS if removed from the Consent Agenda):
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Public Input, if Appropriate………………………………….Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering.
FISCAL IMPACT:
It is the City’s goal to retain at all times during the subdivision improvements a security amount that is
adequate to ensure completion of all elements of the improvements as protection to the City tax payers
against the potential of developer default. With this reduction the remaining security amount held by the City will be $381,003.50 which remains sufficient to complete the remaining improvements.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving a reduction in the security amount for the developer installed Village East Trunk Utility Improvements.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The developer installed Village East Trunk Utility Improvements have been substantially completed
consisting of the installation of trunk sanitary sewer and trunk watermain. In accordance with Section 28.A of the Development Agreement, up to 50% of the original security, or $381,003.50 may be released
when: “(1) all utilities have been installed, all testing has been successfully completed, and the utilities are considered ready for use by the City Engineer; and (2) completion of the Improvements is done to the
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 9]
January 19, 2016
-- page 2 --
satisfaction of the City and evidence of such is provided to the City in writing and satisfactory evidence of
payment, such as lien waivers are provided.”
Engineering has reviewed the status of the improvements and has received lien waivers demonstrating
contractor payments have been made in at least the amounts to be released. This review has found that the
conditions identified in Section 28.A of the Development Agreement have been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve, as part of the Consent Agenda, a reduction in the
security amount for the developer installed Village East Trunk Utility Improvements. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for the action is as follows:
“Move to approve a reduction of the Letter of Credit for the developer installed Village East Trunk Utility Improvements from $762,007 down to $381,003.50.”
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Engineer’s Letter Recommending Security Reduction #1 for the Village East Trunk Utility
Improvements. 2. Developer's Letter Requesting Reduction of Security for the Village East Trunk Utility
Improvements.
3. Contractor’s Lien Waiver.
3800 Laverne Avenue North • Lake Elmo • Minnesota 55042
Phone: (651) 747-3900 • Fax: (651) 747-3901 • www.lakeelmo.org
January 12, 2016
Craig Allen, Chief Manager
Gonyea Company
10850 Old County Road 15, Suite 200
Plymouth, MN 55441
Re: Village East Trunk Utility Improvements
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 310
Dear Mr. Allen:
We have reviewed and processed your request dated December 15, 2015 for a reduction in the security
for the Village East Trunk Utility Improvements in Lake Elmo, MN. At this time the Irrevocable Letter of
Credit No. 310 may be reduced to $381,003.50. Please process the security reduction through the Lake
Elmo City Clerk.
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please call me 651.300.4264.
Sincerely,
John (Jack) W. Griffin, P.E.
City Engineer
cc: Clark Shroeder, Interim City Administrator
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
Stephen Wensman, City Planner
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Mr. Jack Griffin
City Engineer
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Jack:
This email is to request 50%, Or $381,003,50 0fthe security provided for the Eastem Village Trunk
Sewer and Watermain Line" All utilities have been insta11ed and a11 testing has been successfully
COmPleted. Lien Wavers are attached,
園図星
Craig A11en
Chief Manager
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: January 19, 2016
CONSENT
ITEM # 10
AGENDA ITEM: East Metro Water Resource Education Program (EMWREP) – Renew
Shared Water Resource Education Program Agreement
SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Julie Johnson, City Clerk
Cathy Bendel, Finance Director
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Agenda):
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Public Input, if Appropriate………………………………….Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering.
FISCAL IMPACT: $2,500.00. Increased from $2,225 for the 2013-2015 Agreement.
The EMWREP contribution is funded through the Surface Water-Storm Water Enterprise Fund (603).
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving, as part of the consent agenda, the
agreement with Washington County Conservation District to participate in the East Metro Water
Resource Education Program (EMWREP) with an annual contribution amount of $2,500.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Partnership with EMWREP substantially meets Lake Elmo’s education and outreach permit requirements
as a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) City.
Background: The East Metro Water Resource Education Program (EMWREP) is a partnership that was
formed in 2006 to develop and implement a comprehensive water resource education and outreach
program for the east metro area of St. Paul, MN. Current EMWREP partners include Brown’s Creek,
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 10]
January 19, 2016
-- page 2 --
Carnelian-Marine-St Croix, Comfort-Lake Forest Lake, Rice Creek, Ramsey-Washington Metro, South
Washington, and Valley Branch Watershed Districts, Middle St. Croix Watershed Management
Organization, the cities of Cottage Grove, Dellwood, Forest Lake, Lake Elmo, Stillwater, Willernie, and
Woodbury, West Lakeland Township, Washington County and the Washington Conservation District.
Purpose: The purpose of the shared education program is to provide education about the impacts of non-
point source pollution on local lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands and groundwater resources and to engage
people in projects that will help to protect and improve water quality in the region. In addition to
educating the public, EMWREP also provides training for city, county and watershed staff and local
elected officials.
Partnership Structure: EMWREP is guided by a steering committee comprised of representatives from
each of the 18 partner organizations. The committee generally meets twice a year to provide
recommendations on the program budget and activities. During 2013, EMWREP staff included Angie
Hong, full-time education specialist and coordinator for the program, Jenn Radtke, half-time education
assistant, and Wendy Griffin, a Washington Conservation District natural resource specialist who
provided 170 hours of support for rural education activities. The EMWREP coordinator sends a quarterly
e-newsletter to all partners’ staff, council members and board members, and communicates one-on-one
with individual partners on projects throughout the year. The EMWREP education plan is revised every
two to three years to accommodate changing priorities and new target audiences.
In addition, the EMWREP coordinator prepares an annual report on program activities and provides
outreach data and statistics for partners’ MS4 Permit reports. All EMWREP reports, plans, and education
updates are available on-line at www.mnwcd.org/emwrep.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the agreement with Washington County
Conservation District to participate in the East Metro Water Resource Education Program (EMWREP)
with an annual contribution amount of $2,500. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended
motion for the action is as follows:
“Move to approve the Agreement with Washington County Conservation District to participate in the
East Metro Water Resource Education Program with an annual contribution amount of $2,500.”
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. 2016-2018 EMWREP Agreement with Washington County Conservation District.
__________________________________________________________________________________
2016-2018 Shared Water Resource Education Program Agreement
Contract Number: 16-EMWREP
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
WASHINGTON CONSERVATION DISTRICT
AND MEMBERS OF THE 2016-2018
EAST METRO WATER RESOURCE EDUCATION PROGRAM
A. PARTIES
This Agreement is made and entered into by Washington Conservation District, hereinafter referred to as HOST,
and members of the East Metro Water Resource Education Program, hereinafter referred to individually as a
PARTNER. A PARTNER is defined as an entity that executes this agreement, and this Agreement provides for
the withdrawal or addition of PARTNERS to the East Metro Water Resource Education Program. Eligible
PARTNERS include watershed organizations and municipalities partially or wholly within Washington County.
B. PURPOSE
WHEREAS, the PARTNER and the HOST have a common objective of educating the citizens of the Twin
Cities east metro area about water resource, stormwater, and groundwater management in order to improve
water quality; and
WHEREAS, the PARTNER has identified a need for education assistance; and
WHEREAS, 8 watershed organizations in Washington County have education components in their respective
watershed management plans; and
WHEREAS, 25 communities, including multiple watersheds and the County, in Washington County are
required to obtain a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA), which requires nonpoint source pollution education; and
WHEREAS, the PARTNER agrees it is in its best interest to define its respective responsibilities and
obligations; and
WHEREAS, the PARTNER agrees that collaborative efforts are needed to more effectively and efficiently
deliver water resource education and meet MS4 permit education requirements; and
WHEREAS, the PARTNER requests assistance from the HOST to implement the policies specified in MINN.
STAT. §§ 103A.206; and
WHEREAS, the HOST is authorized to enter agreements to provide such assistance pursuant to MINN. STAT.
§§ 103C.331, SUBD. 3 and 7.
NOW, THEREFORE, the PARTNER agrees as follows:
C. TERM OF CONTRACT
The term of this agreement shall be from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018 unless extended or terminated
earlier as provided herein.
D. MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE
In accordance to the program goals of collaboration and partnership, entities may become a PARTNER by
signing the Signature Page at the end of this Agreement. A new PARTNER shall apply to the HOST and sign a
separate contract and its signature page shall be attached to the original document. The HOST will coordinate
with each PARTNER, update the project budget, and distribute it to each PARTNER.
__________________________________________________________________________________
2016-2018 Shared Water Resource Education Program Agreement
Each PARTNER will assign a member to the Steering Committee of the East Metro Water Resource Education
Program. This Committee will assist the Shared Water Resource Educator and HOST to prepare the Annual
Workplan, Annual Budget, and Annual Report. A Membership Summary will be included in the Annual Report
prepared by the HOST.
E. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The HOST will perform for the PARTNER the services and furnish and deliver work products generally
described in Exhibit A, attached and made part of this agreement. Services for a specific PARTNER will be
defined in the Annual Workplan developed as described in Exhibit A. PARTNER-specific services will
constitute approximately 15% of the total Annual Workplan. Eighty-five (85) percent of the total Annual
Workplan will be committed to shared, multi-jurisdictional benefit educational activities.
F. COST
In full consideration for services under this agreement, the PARTNER shall provide its portion of the annual
costs to the HOST in accordance with the executed Signature Page at the end of this Agreement. The total
annual budget for the program is as shown in Exhibit B with contributions outlined in Paragraph G. If all
PARTNER contributions total less than the Total Budget, educational material expenses not otherwise paid for
will not be incurred. PARTNER’s annual contribution may be increased from the amount stated in the
Signature Page at the end of the Agreement only with approval of PARTNER’s governing body.
In the case that overall contributions of funding from all of the PARTNERS exceeds the budget in Exhibit B by
less than 20%, the excess contributions will be used to fund additional educational materials or support staff.
Once the revised overall funding contribution from all of the PARTNERS exceeds the budget in Exhibit B by
20%, the PARTNERS have the option of having their proportional amount of the excess budget refunded or can
direct the funds to be used for EMWREP activities.
G. FUNDING STRUCTURE
Each PARTNER is suggested to contribute annually in accordance with the following funding structure:
County: $12,250/year
Small Watershed Districts (Taxable Market Value < $1 Billion): $12,250/year
Medium Watershed Districts (TMV $1-5 Billion): $18,500/year
Large Watershed Districts (TMV >$5 Billion): $24,000/year
Watershed Management Organizations: $6,000/year
Large MS4 Cities: $2,500/year (Population > 5,000)
Small MS4 Cities: $650/year (Population < 5,000)
In-kind matches from existing educational staff from within partner organizations are also encouraged. The
WCD shall provide $12,250 of in-kind match to the program per year. As shown in Exhibit B, PARTNER
contributions will be reviewed and adjusted on an annual basis, as needed.
H. PAYMENTS
1. The services in Exhibit A provided by the HOST will be billed in accordance to Exhibit B. Invoices
will be sent on a quarterly basis and will summarize the work performed. Invoices are payable
within 60 days.
2. Office supplies, in-house reproduction expenses, and transportation are included in the overhead
noted above. Out source reproduction, special bulk mailings and other direct costs beyond the
actual current budget as established in accordance with the Annual Workplan (the combined
__________________________________________________________________________________
2016-2018 Shared Water Resource Education Program Agreement
contributions of each PARTNER) noted in Paragraph F are to be reimbursed at actual cost with
prior approval from the PARTNERs.
I. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY- CIVIL RIGHTS
During the performance of this Agreement, the HOST agrees to the following: No person shall, on the grounds
of race, color, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, public assistance, criminal record, creed or national
origin, be excluded from full employment rights in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to
discrimination under any program, service, or activity under the provisions of and all applicable federal and state
laws against discrimination including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
J. STANDARDS
The HOST shall comply with all applicable Federal and State statutes and regulations as well as local
ordinances now in effect or hereafter adopted. Failure to meet the requirements of the above may be cause for
cancellation of this contract effective the date of receipt of the Notice of Cancellation.
K. DATA PRIVACY
All data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated, or used for any purpose in the course of the
HOST’s performance of the Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act,
Minnesota 1984, Section 13.01, et seq. or any other applicable state statutes and state rules adopted to
implement the Act, as well as state statutes and federal regulations on data privacy. The HOST agrees to abide
by these statutes, rules and regulations and as they may be amended.
L. AUDITS, REPORTS, AND MONITORING PROCEDURES
The HOST will:
1. Maintain records that reflect all revenues, cost incurred and services provided in the performance of
the Agreement.
2. Agree that the County, the State Auditor, or legislative authority, or any of their duly authorized
representatives at any time during normal business hours, and as often as they may deem reasonably
necessary, shall have access to the rights to examine audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books,
documents, papers, records, etc., and accounting procedures and practices of the HOST which are
relevant to the contract. The annual audit conducted for the Washington Conservation District that
includes EMWREP activities.
M. INDEMNITY
No party to this Agreement agrees to be responsible for the acts or omissions of another, its agents, officials,
contractors or employees within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes section 471.59, subdivision 1a. Each
PARTNER and HOST will hold harmless, defend and indemnify all other parties to this Agreement, their
officers, board members, employees and agents for any and all damage, liability, cost or claim (including
reasonable attorneys’ fees) to the extent it is the result of its negligent act or of another action or inaction that is
the basis for its liability in law or equity. The PARTNER agrees to provide proof of contractual liability
insurance upon request. This paragraph does not constitute a waiver or otherwise diminish, any statutory or
common law defense, immunity or limit on liability any PARTNER or HOST may enjoy as against any third
party.
N. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
__________________________________________________________________________________
2016-2018 Shared Water Resource Education Program Agreement
It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or
establishing the relationship of co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the HOST as the agent,
representative, or employee of PARTNER organization for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. The
HOST is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this
Agreement.
The HOST represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing services
under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of the HOST or other person, while engaged in the performance of
any work or services required by the HOST under this Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship with
the PARTNER and shall not be considered employees of the PARTNER.
O. MODIFICATIONS
Any material alteration or variation shall be reduced to writing as an amendment and signed by the parties. Any
alteration, modification, or variation deemed not to be material by written agreement of the HOST and the
PARTNER shall not require written approval. Contract extensions will be handled as a material alteration.
P. MERGER
It is understood and agreed that the entire agreement of the parties is contained here, except as modified during
the term of the Agreement by a writing under Paragraph O above concerning a non-material change, and that
this contract supersedes oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to this subject matter. All
items referred to in this contract are incorporated or attached and deemed to be part of the contract.
Q. TERMINATION
This Agreement will commence when executed by HOST and all PARTNERS and will continue until
terminated. The Agreement will commence with respect to each additional PARTNER on that PARTNER’S
execution of a signature page acceding to the terms of the Agreement. This Agreement will terminate
immediately upon completion of the activities enumerated herein and the program duration expires. Any party
to this Agreement may withdraw participation on an agreement-year basis with 60 days written notice to HOST
prior to the annual anniversary date of the Agreement, with the actual termination date falling on the anniversary
date. Pro-rated contributions will be returned to the terminated or terminating PARTNER. The HOST will
promptly notify all PARTNERS of any PARTNER’s termination. Termination by any one PARTNER will not
constitute the termination of this Agreement. If HOST determines that PARTNER termination has resulted in
inadequate funds to deliver the work products generally described in Exhibit A, the HOST will terminate the
Agreement effective the anniversary date unless adequate funds can be procured. Termination by the HOST
will constitute termination of this Agreement in whole and pro-rated contributions will be returned to each
PARTNER.
R. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
All property of the HOST or a PARTNER used, acquired or created in the performance of work under this
Agreement, including documents and records of any kind, shall remain the property of the HOST and the
PARTNER providing the property. The HOST and PARTNERS shall jointly own and each party has the
individual right to use, sell, license, publish, or otherwise disseminate any product developed in whole or in part
during the performance of work under this Agreement. Durable goods purchased by the HOST, such as office
equipment and computers, shall remain the property of the HOST.
__________________________________________________________________________________
2016-2018 Shared Water Resource Education Program Agreement
CONTRACT BETWEEN
WASHINGTON CONSERVATION DISTRICT
AND MEMBERS OF THE
EAST METRO WATER RESOURCE EDUCATION PROGRAM
HOST: Washington Conservation District
PARTNER: City of Lake Elmo
Annual Contribution Amount: $2,500
Contract start date: January 1, 2016
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this agreement by their duly authorized officers.
APPROVED:
PARTNER HOST
BY: ____________________________________ BY:_____________________________________
Board Chair Date
____________________________________
Title
BY: ____________________________________ BY:_____________________________________
WCD Manager Date
____________________________________
Title
Approval as to form and execution:
_________________________________________
Date
__________________________________________________________________________________
2016-2018 Shared Water Resource Education Program Agreement
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
EAST METRO WATER RESOURCE EDUCATION PROGRAM
HOST responsibilities:
1. Hire, employ and supervise the Water Resource Educator/s that will successfully serve the education
needs as prescribed herein.
2. Obtain financial reimbursement from each PARTNER as prescribed in this agreement.
3. Work in good faith to achieve the goals identified in this agreement.
4. Maintain a strict accounting of all financial transactions.
5. Develop and disseminate annual summaries of accomplishments and budgetary analysis to partners of
the East Metro Water Resource Education Program.
6. Provide office space, office furniture, computer, transportation, and phone. Equipment purchased by the
HOST will remain the property of the HOST following the term of this agreement.
PARTNER responsibilities:
1. Provide a single representative to the Steering Committee of the East Metro Water Resource Education
Program. This person shall actively participate in the Steering Committee and assist in employee
selection, Annual Workplan Development, and other tasks as needed.
2. Provide funds for the East Metro Water Resource Education Program described herein.
3. Provide appropriate and timely feedback to the HOST manager regarding the performance of the Water
Resource Educator/s.
4. Share equipment, staff, and educational resources to facilitate Education Program planning and
implementation.
5. As initiated by the HOST, discuss the progress of the Water Resource Educator/s and agree to take any
action that is appropriate to ensure the successful fulfillment of project objectives.
6. Work with the Water Resource Educator/s to ensure that services are being used to address high
priorities at the local level.
Water Resource Educator/s responsibilities:
1. Prepare, coordinate, and revise East Metro Water Resource Education Program Plan annually with the
Steering Committee of the East Metro Water Resource Education Program.
2. Review and advise watershed district PARTNERS annually on educational aspects of their watershed
district plans.
3. Develop annual plan of work with the Steering Committee of the East Metro Water Resource Education
Program. Workplan will reference Washington County MS4 education programs and watershed district
PARTNERS education plans.
4. Implement annual work plan, including planning, implementing, evaluating, and reporting on such
anticipated activities as presentations, workshops, in-field training, demonstration projects, and
published materials.
5. Pursue grants and other funding sources to enhance the East Metro Water Resource Education Program.
6. Coordinate with “Watershed Partners” and other entities conducting water resource education efforts to
minimize overlap and maximize effectiveness.
7. Maintain educational information for web-based East Metro Water Resource Education Program.
8. Presents papers as appropriate at professional meetings within Minnesota.
9. Prepare annual education report (which meets MS4 requirements) and conduct shared MS4 annual
meetings for participating East Metro Water Resource Education Program members
__________________________________________________________________________________
2016-2018 Shared Water Resource Education Program Agreement
EXHIBIT B
BUDGET
Shared Water Resource Education Program - Washington Conservation District Annual Budget
Staff Support
(2400 hours/year)
Materials Total
$134,500 $6,000 $140,500
MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE AND FUNDING CONTRIBUTIONS*
* PARTNER contributions will be reviewed and adjusted on an annual basis, as needed and in accordance with
the terms of the Agreement.
PARTNER Annual
Contribution
SWWD $24,000
VBWD $18,500
BCWD $18,500
CLFLWD $18,500
CMSCWD $12,250
RWMWD $12,250
RCWD $2,500
Washington
County $12,250
MSCWMO $6,000
Cottage Grove $2,500
Forest Lake $2,500
Lake Elmo $2,500
Stillwater $2,500
Dellwood $650
Willernie $650
West Lakeland
Twp $650
Woodbury $2,500
Grant $650
Newport $650
TOTAL $140,500
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: January 19, 2016
CONSENT
ITEM # 11
AGENDA ITEM: Driveway Encroachment & Maintenance Agreement
SUBMITTED BY: Joan Ziertman, Planning Program Assistant
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Stephen Wensman, City Planner
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from consent agenda):
- Introduction of Item ..................................................................................... Staff
- Report/Presentation………………………................................................Staff
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECCOMENDER: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Driveway
Encroachment and Maintenance agreement for Jeerasak Poophakumanart at PID
#24.029.21.13.0004.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to
authorize as part of tonight’s consent agenda, the execution of a driveway encroachment and maintenance agreement. The City has received a request to install a driveway within an unimproved portion of the public right-of-way owned by the City. Homeowner and City intend
that Homeowner shall be responsible for maintaining, repairing and replacing the Private
Driveway.
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the driveway encroachment and maintenance agreement as part of the Consent Agenda. If the City Council removes the item
from the Consent Agenda, the recommended action can be completed through the following
motion:
City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item]
January 5, 2016
-- page 2 --
“Move to approve the driveway encroachment and maintenance agreement for Jeerasak
Poophakumpanart to install a driveway within an unimproved portion of the public right-of-
way owned by the City.”
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: The Driveway Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement that
has been submitted for Council consideration is for a driveway and has been reviewed by
planning and engineering staff. The proposed driveway meets all city code requirements and Staff would have otherwise authorized construction of the driveway if it did not encroach into
the unimproved portion of the public right-of-way owned by the City.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT):
Strengths: The Driveway encroachment and maintenance agreement is a legal document that all property owners seeking to install driveways within unimproved portions of
public right-of-way owned by the City are required to sign. The document, among other
things, indemnifies the city from responsibility if damage occurs to the improvement or if
it needs to be removed at some point in the future.
Weaknesses: None
Opportunities: None
Threats: None
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the aforementioned, Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the driveway encroachment and maintenance agreement as part of the Consent Agenda. If the City Council
removes the item from the Consent Agenda, the recommended action can be completed through
the following motion:
“Move to approve the driveway encroachment and maintenance agreement for Jeerasak Poophakumpanart to install a driveway within an unimproved portion of the public right-of-way owned by the City.”
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: January 19, 2016
REGULAR
ITEM #13
AGENDA ITEM: Financial Planning Services Agreement-Northland Services
SUBMITTED BY: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Finance Director Bendel, Finance Committee, Northland Securities
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: Interim City Administrator
IMPACT: Not to exceed $3,000 for base model and $160/hr for quarter (estimated at less
than 4 hours per quarter) - unbudgeted expense
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
This item was initially presented to the City Council for consideration on December 15, 2015. At that
time the item was tabled by the City Council with a request to add the item to the 1/12/16 workshop and
have the workshop be a joint meeting with the Finance Committee to have further discussion on this
topic. The workshop was held and all questions were discussed related to this item.
It is recommended that Northland Services be hired to take over the pro forma projection model
as they have done similar work like this for the City in the past.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT):
In 2012, the City of Lake Elmo entered into a contract with Northland Securities to provide
Financial Planning Services/Analysis, specific to the Enterprise Funds. A detailed report was
prepared and presented to the Lake Elmo City Council on February 28, 2013.
Since that time, a new model has been developed that has become unmanageable and
cumbersome.
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item #13]
January 19, 2016
-- page 2 --
Hiring Northland will allow the City to return to a more simplified approach for analyzing the
Enterprise Funds. Northland will develop and present a report to the Finance Committee and
City Council and provide subsequent quarterly updates.
Strengths An independent analysis will provide the Council with a clear picture of
the impact to the funds and free up staff time. It will remove the distraction and burden that his
has put on staff.
Weaknesses The City will have less detailed info and lose flexibility for interim
updates.
Opportunities Northland is very familiar with Lake Elmo and the planned growth to date
and envisioned for the future, thereby being best situated to provide advice to the Finance
Committee and City Council.
Threats None identified.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve entering into a Financial Planning
Agreement between the City of Lake Elmo and Northland Securities for an amount not to exceed
$3,000 for generating a pro-forma model for the Enterprise Funds and $160 per hour for
subsequent quarterly updates.
“Move to approve hiring Northland Securities Inc. to provide Financial Analysis Services to
the City of Lake Elmo for an amount not to exceed $3,000.00 for generating a pro-forma
model for the Enterprise Funds and $160.00 per hour for subsequent quarterly updates”.
ATTACHMENT:
None
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: January 19, 2016
REGULAR
ITEM #14
AGENDA ITEM: Cost of Service Study for Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities – Approve
Authorization for TKDA.
SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director Mike Bouthilet, Public Works
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .........................................................................................City Staff
- Report/Presentation………………………………………… .........................City Staff
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Public Input, if Appropriate………………………………….Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Administration/Finance/Engineering.
FISCAL IMPACT: $13,900 to be funded 50% through the Water Enterprise Fund and 50% through the
Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
This item was initially presented to the City Council for consideration on December 15, 2015. At that
time the item was tabled by the City Council with a request to add the item to the 1/12/16 workshop and
have the workshop be a joint meeting with the Finance Committee to have further discussion on this topic. The workshop was held and all questions were discussed related to this item.
The City Council is respectfully requested to approve the Cost of Service Study for the Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities Task Order with TDKA. The recommended motion for the action is as follows:
“Move to approve the Cost of Service Study for the Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities Task Order with TDKA in an amount not to exceed $13,900.”
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item #14]
January 19, 2016
-- page 2 --
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
City staff has contacted and met with Bernie Bullert from TKDA, an experienced utility manager, to
prepare a Cost of Service Study for the water and sanitary sewer utilities. In particular, the goal of the
study will be to better understand the cost of service for each utility so that a system of rates and charges can be confidently reviewed and developed to best meet the Utility’s funding requirements, addressing
conservation, and that are fair and equitable. The work includes a review of the City’s water and sanitary sewer operational costs based on best practices, capital costs, and depreciation costs projected for 2016-2025. The report findings may then be used by the City Finance Department for the purpose of projecting
cash flows, bonding needs and evaluating user rates and charges. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the Cost of Service Study for the Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities Task Order with TDKA. The recommended motion for the action is as follows:
“Move to approve the Cost of Service Study for the Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities Task Order with TDKA in an amount not to exceed $13,900.”
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. None.
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: January 19, 2016
CONSENT
ITEM # 14
AGENDA ITEM: 2016 Meeting Calendar SUBMITTED BY: Julie Johnson, City Clerk
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Julie Johnson, City Clerk
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the consent agenda):
- 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: Staff
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is respectfully requested to approve the proposed 2016 City Meeting Calendar or amend as necessary. If
removed from the Consent Agenda, the recommended motion is as follows:
“Move to approve the proposed 2016 Meeting Calendar.”
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: Adopting a meeting calendar serves as the official notice for the year of
all upcoming meetings; thereby, satisfying legal requirements and increasing transparency to the
general public. Due to elections, holidays and political caucuses, City Council workshops and Parks
Commission meetings have been moved in January, February, March, August and November. If
approved, the meeting calendar will be posted at City Hall and on the City’s website.
RECOMMENDATION: If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion is as
follows:
“Move to approve the proposed 2016 Meeting Calendar.”
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed 2016 Calendar of regular meetings and workshops
City Council Meetings are held at 7:00 p.m. & Workshops are held at 6:30 p.m.
Planning Commission Meetings are held at 7:00 p.m.
Parks Commission Meetings are held at 6:30 p.m. All meetings are held in the Council Chambers unless otherwise noted
2016 REGULAR MEETING DATES
January 5 City Council July 5 City Council January 11 January 12 January 19 January 20 January 25 February 2 February 8 February 9 February 16 February 17 February 22 March 2 March 8 March 14 March 15 March 21 March 28 April 5 April 11 April 12 April 19 April 18 April 25 May 3 May 9 May 10 May 16 May 17 May 23 June 7 June 13 June 14 June 20 June 21 June 27
Planning Commission City Council Workshop City Council Parks Commission Planning Commission City Council Planning Commission City Council Workshop City Council Parks Commission Planning Commission City Council City Council Workshop Planning Commission City Council Parks Commission Planning Commission City Council Planning Commission City Council Workshop City Council Parks Commission Planning Commission City Council Planning Commission City Council Workshop Parks Commission City Council Planning Commission City Council Planning Commission City Council Workshop Parks Commission City Council Planning Commission
July 11 July 12 July 18 July 19 July 25 August 2 August 8 August 15 August 16 August 22 August 23 September 6 September 12 September 13 September 19 September 20 September 26 October 4 October 10 October 11 October 17 October 18 October 24 November 1 November 14 November 15 November 21 November 22 November 28 December 6 December 12 December 13 December 19 December 20
Planning Commission City Council Workshop Parks Commission City Council Planning Commission City Council Planning Commission Parks Commission City Council Planning Commission City Council Workshop City Council Planning Commission City Council Workshop Parks Commission City Council Planning Commission City Council Planning Commission City Council Workshop Parks Commission City Council Planning Commission City Council Planning Commission City Council Parks Commission City Council Workshop Planning Commission City Council Planning Commission City Council Workshop Parks Commission City Council
1
MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: 1/19/2016
REGULAR #15
MOTION
AGENDA ITEM: Request from Rockpoint Church to Extend Final Plat Submission
Deadline for Hidden Meadows 2nd Addition
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, City Planner
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Joan Ziertman
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council is being asked to consider a request to extend the final plat deadline for Hidden
Meadows 2nd Addition which will ultimately establish the residential portion of the OP
development south of Rockpoint Church. The preliminary plat for Hidden Meadows 2nd Addition
was approved by the City in 2006 and the City Code requires that a final plat be submitted within
180 days of the preliminary plat approval. In this case, the Council did approve three separate extensions to this deadline of one year, five years, and six months respectfully, and the current
deadline expired on August 2, 2013.
The Church is requesting the extension at this time because it is presently in discussion with a
potential developer to purchase the property. The church is requesting another 3 year extension to
allow time for a potential buyer of the plat to close the sale of the property, and to find an alternate buyer if the property does not sell. According to the church, the potential buyer intends to develop
the property as it was originally approved.
Staff recommends the Council either approve or deny the request for a final plat extension for
Hidden Meadows 2nd Addition. If the Council wishes to deny the request, then the motion is:
“Move to deny the request from Rockpoint Church to extend the deadline to submit a final plat
related to Hidden Meadows 2nd Addition for a period of three years until January 5, 2019.”
If the Council wishes to support the request, then the alternate suggested motions are as follows:
“Move to approve the request from Rockpoint Church to extend the deadline to submit a final
plat related to Hidden Meadows 2nd Addition for a period of three years until January 5, 2019.
2
REVIEW:
According to City Code, the Plat is void. The Plat expired on August 2, 2013. The council’s past
motion precluded any further extensions unless the easement was granted for the planned water line. The easement was executed by the Church on 1/12/16.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Staff report from the previous extension request included the following information, which is
still valid at this point in time:
The City Attorney and the developer’s attorney created a temporary easement agreementthat provides the City with the desired protection of the open space areas until such time
that a final plat is approved.
The City Attorney confirmed that there is no cap on the length of time for a final platextension. Council has the ability to extend a final plat for as many years as deemednecessary.
Ultimately, the extension of the final plat is in the City’s best interest as easements are in
place to protect the future dedicated open space areas until the final plat is approved.
Additionally, granting the requested extension provides a financial incentive to thedeveloper to follow through with the residential development in the future once market
conditions are right.
Outlots A & B, which make up the land to be developed into the OP subdivision, are not
tax exempt.
By city code, outlots are not useable as building sites. Therefore, utilization of either outlot
A or B for any purpose other than open space could not occur without City approval.
Not granting an extension will result in the developer losing preliminary plat approval,
which in turn makes pursuing other development opportunities an option, but costing theowner.
If the requested extension is not approved the developer will need to submit a new preliminary plat
in order to pursue any development on the effected property. Note that the City will still have
easements over the open space areas if this occurs in the interim period, but the incentive to follow
through with the desired residential development will have diminished.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends the Council either approve or deny the request for a final plat extension for
Hidden Meadows 2nd Addition. If the Council wishes to deny the request, then the motion is:
“Move to deny the request from Rockpoint Church to extend the deadline to submit a final plat
related to Hidden Meadows 2nd Addition for a period of three years until January 5, 2019.”
If the Council wishes to support the request, then the alternate suggested motions are as follows:
“Move to approve the request from Rockpoint Church to extend the deadline to submit a final
plat related to Hidden Meadows 2nd Addition for a period of three years until January 5, 2019.
3
ATTACHMENTS:
Hidden Meadows 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat.Resolution 2016 - __ Denying the 4th Extension of Hidden Meadows 2nd Addition.Resolution 2016 - __ Approving the 4th Extension of Hidden Meadows 2nd Addition.
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .............................................................. City Administrator
- Report/Presentation…………………………………………Planning Director
- 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
1
Resolution 2016-__
CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-__
A RESOLUTION APPROVING
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, on July 25th, 2005, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission reviewed and
recommended approval of an amended OP Concept Plan for Deer Glen subject to certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2005, and September 6, 2005, the Lake Elmo City Council
reviewed the recommendations of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission along with revised OP
concept plans for Deer Glen; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2005, the Lake Elmo City Council approved resolution
2005-102 which approved the amended OP Concept Plan of Deer Glen; and
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2005, the Lake Emo City Council approved an amendment to the conditional use permit for Rockpoint Church, Resolution 2005-029, to reflect the amended OP Concept Plan dated September 6, 2005; and
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2005, the Lake Elmo City Council approved an
amendment to the preliminary plat formerly approved by Council Resolution 2005-030 to reflect the amended OP Concept plan dated September 6, 2005; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2006, the Lake Elmo City Council approved the final plat for
Hidden Meadows 1st Addition, previously referred to as Deer Glen; and
WHEREAS, the developers agreement for Hidden Meadows 1st Addition required future
platting of the residential portion of the approved plan; and
WHEREAS, on January 2, 2007 the Lake Elmo City Council approved a one year
extension to the deadline for the final plat submittal for the residential portion of the approved plan, thereby extending the final plat deadline to January 2, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2007, the Lake Elmo City Council approved Resolution
2007-97 granting a five year extension to the final plat submittal deadline to January 2, 2013;
and WHEREAS, on January 15, 2013, the Lake Elmo City Council approved a six month
extension to the final plat submittal deadline to August 2, 2013 with the understanding that future
2
Resolution 2016-__
extension will be considered after the dedication of a utility easement across the Church’s property consistent with the location of a planned 16” water line; and
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2013, the Hidden Meadows 2nd Addition Plat became void for
failure to extend the plat in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, on November 24, 2015, Rockpoint Church applied for a three year
extension to the final plat submittal to allow a perspective buyer time to close on the purchase of
the development property or to find an alternate buyer if the property does not sell; and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2016, Rockpoint Church executed for recording a utility easement across its property consistent with the location of a planned 16” water line as requested
by the City Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve the request for a 3 year plat extension for Hidden Meadows 2nd Addition.
This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo on this 19th day of
January, 2016.
____________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST:
____________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
1
Resolution 2016-__
CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-__
A RESOLUTION TO DENY
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, on July 25th, 2005, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission reviewed and
recommended approval of an amended OP Concept Plan for Deer Glen subject to certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2005, and September 6, 2005, the Lake Elmo City Council
reviewed the recommendations of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission along with revised OP
concept plans for Deer Glen; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2005, the Lake Elmo City Council approved resolution
2005-102 which approved the amended OP Concept Plan of Deer Glen; and
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2005, the Lake Emo City Council approved an amendment to the conditional use permit for Rockpoint Church, Resolution 2005-029, to reflect the amended OP Concept Plan dated September 6, 2005; and
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2005, the Lake Elmo City Council approved an
amendment to the preliminary plat formerly approved by Council Resolution 2005-030 to reflect the amended OP Concept plan dated September 6, 2005; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2006, the Lake Elmo City Council approved the final plat for
Hidden Meadows 1st Addition, previously referred to as Deer Glen; and
WHEREAS, the developers agreement for Hidden Meadows 1st Addition required future
platting of the residential portion of the approved plan; and
WHEREAS, on January 2, 2007 the Lake Elmo City Council approved a one year
extension to the deadline for the final plat submittal for the residential portion of the approved plan, thereby extending the final plat deadline to January 2, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2007, the Lake Elmo City Council approved Resolution
2007-97 granting a five year extension to the final plat submittal deadline to January 2, 2013;
and WHEREAS, on January 15, 2013, the Lake Elmo City Council approved a six month
extension to the final plat submittal deadline to August 2, 2013 with the understanding that future
2
Resolution 2016-__
extension will be considered after the dedication of a utility easement across the Church’s property consistent with the location of a planned 16” water line; and
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2013, the Hidden Meadows 2nd Addition Plat became void for
failure to extend the plat in a timely manner; WHEREAS, on November 24, 2015, Rockpoint Church applied for a three year
extension to the final plat submittal to allow a perspective buyer time to close on the purchase of
the development property or to find an alternate buyer if the property does not sell; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby deny the request for a 3 year plat extension for Hidden Meadows 2nd Addition.
This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo on this 19th day of
January, 2016.
____________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST:
____________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: 1/19/2016
REGULAR #16
MOTION
AGENDA ITEM: High Pointe Sign Variance – IRET Properties, 8650 Hudson Blvd
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Joan Ziertman
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .................................................................................................... Staff - Report/Presentation .................................................................................................... Staff
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................................ Mayor Facilitates
- Public Input, if Appropriate ................................................................... Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion .............................................................................. Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ..................................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................................. Mayor Facilitates
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending the City Council to approve a variance
request from IRET properties for a 5 foot height and 4 foot width variance from the Eagle Point
Business Park Exterior Sign Design Agreement to allow a 35‐foot high, 16‐foot wide pylon sign with
the following motion:
“Move to adopt Resolution 2016-05 approving the 5 foot height and 4 foot width variance
request at 8650 Hudson Blvd. to allow for a 35-foot high, 16-foot wide pylon sign at the High
Pointe Medical Campus.
BACKGROUND AND STAFF REPORT:
The Eagle Point Business Park Planned Unit Development was platted in 1999 with the Eagle Point
Business Park Exterior Sign Design Agreement which identified the zoning standards for the
development, including signage. Based on the Agreement, pylon signs are allowed and can have a
width of 12’ and a height of 25’, or 30’ depending on the interpretation. To complicate matters,
sometime in the past Planning Staff prepared a written summary of the Eagle Point standards and
determined that sign height was to be determined on a case‐by‐case basis. The applicant is seeking
the sign to improve visibility for its multiple medical tenants.
In order to approve a variance, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with 4 required
findings:
1)Practical Difficulties
2)Unique Circumstances
3)Character of the Locality
4)Adjacent Properties and Traffic
Staff reviewed the application and determined that the variance request met the 4 required
findings. Additional detail about this review can be found in the Staff Report to the Planning
Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the proposed variance on January 11,
2016. During the public hearing, no testimony was received and no other written comments were
submitted to staff. The Planning Commission discussed the need for the sign, issues related to
wayfinding, sign lighting, potential future driveway and site development, and the sign’s potential
effect on cut‐through traffic in Park Dental’s parking lot. After discussion of the proposed pylon sign
and the requested variance, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance
request (Vote: ___) based on the findings in the staff report for this item. Further detail of the
Planning Commission discussion can be found in the draft Planning Commission minutes.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending the City Council to approve a variance
request from IRET properties for a 5 foot height and 4 foot width variance from the Eagle Point
Business Park Exterior Sign Design Agreement to allow a 35‐foot high, 16‐foot wide pylon sign with
the following motion:
“Move to adopt Resolution 2016-05 approving the 5 foot height and 4 foot width variance
request at 8650 Hudson Blvd. to allow for a 35-foot high, 16-foot wide pylon sign at the High
Pointe Medical Campus.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Resolution 2016‐__
Draft Planning Commission Minutes 1/11/16
Planning Commission Staff Report 1/11/16
Applicant’s Written Statement
Exhibits C–H to Written Statement
Site Survey
Adjacent Pylon photos
Letters of Support
Eagle Point Development Standards
Resolution No. 2016-05 1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO 2016-05
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 5 FOOT HEIGHT AND 4 FOOT WIDTH VARIANCE TO
ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 35-FOOT TALL 16-FOOT WIDE PYLON SIGN AT
8650 HUDSON BLVD.
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, IRET Properties, on behalf of High Pointe Health Campus has submitted
an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the "City") for a 5 foot height and 4 foot width variance
to allow for a permanent 35 foot high, 16 foot wide pylon sign at the High Pointe Health
Campus, 8650 Hudson Boulevard,
WHEREAS, notice has been published , mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo
Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.109; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter
on January 11, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and
recommendation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated January 19, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its January 19, 2016 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the
City Council makes the following:
FINDINGS
1)That the procedures for obtaining said Variance are found in the Lake Elmo
Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.109.
2)That all the submission requirement s of said Section 154.109 have been met by
the Applicant.
3)That the proposed variance includes the following components:
a)A 5 foot height and 4 foot width variance to allow for a permanent 35 foot high,
16 foot wide pylon sign at the High Pointe Health Campus, 8650 Hudson
Boulevard.
4)That the Variance will be located on property at 8650 Hudson Boulevard, WashingtonCounty, Minnesota with the following PID: 33.029.21.44.0007.
5)That the strict enforcement of Zoning Ordinance would cause practical difficulties and
that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
Resolution No. 2016-05 2
permitted. Specific Findings: Increasing the allowed height from 30-foot to 35-foot and
the width from 12-foot to 16-foot for a pylon sign represents a reasonable use of the
property. The property is zoned Business Park and is surrounded by other commercial
uses. A larger nonconforming pylon sign exists adjacent to the site. Visibility to the site is
difficult and identification of the multiple tenants is also reasonable. The variance is in
keeping with the intent of the City’s sign ordinance: to foster high quality commercial
and industrial development and to enhance economic development of existing businesses
and industries by promoting reasonable, orderly, attractive and effective signs that meet
the need for business identification, advertising and communication. Staff determines
that this criterion is met.
6)The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner. Specific Findings: The site, lot layout, and the poor visibility from Hudson
Boulevard and Interstate 94 are unique and not circumstances created by the landowner.
The Crossroads Collision and Park Dental buildings sit in front of the High Point Health
facility limiting visibility. The facility sits to the rear of the site, the flat buildable area,
leaving little physical presence on the Hudson Boulevard frontage. The restrictive sign
design guidelines were created by the developer and approved by the City of Lake Elmo,
not the current land owner/applicant. Staff determines that this criterion is met.
7)The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the
property in question is located. Specific Findings: The location of the property and
surrounding properties are within the Business Park, or are Commercial zoning. There
exists one other pylon sign within the locality, and others beyond that are larger and are
noncompliant with the City’s sign ordinance. The Eagle Point Business Park Agreement
does allow a pylon sign. Staff determines that this criterion is met.
8)The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property
adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion of the public
streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Specific
Findings: The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to any
properties adjacent to the proposed pylon sign site. The proposed pylon sign is located on
an undeveloped portion of the applicant’s lot. The presence of the sign will not present
additional congestion on public streets, or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood. Staff determines that this criterion is met.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Based on the foregoing, the Applicant's application for a Variance is granted.
Passed and duly adopted this 19th day of January, 2016 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
________________________________
Mayor Mike Pearson
Resolution No. 2016-__ 3
ATTEST:
______________________________
_Julie JohnsonCity Clerk
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________
IRET Properties a subsidiary of Investors Real Estate Trust • 10050 Crosstown Circle, Suite 105 • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3349
Phone: 952.401.4831 • Fax: 952.401.7058 • Email:dgrant@iret.com • www.iret.com • NYSE Symbol: IRET
December 1, 2015
Mr. Stephen Wensman
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
Re: Land Use Application – Variance; High Pointe Medical Campus
Dear Mr. Wensman:
Enclosed please find the following:
1.Land Use Application – Variance
a.Exhibit A to application – property location and legal description
b.Exhibit B to application – detailed reason for request, with Exhibits
c.Exhibit C to application – practical difficulties related to application
2.Non-refundable fee in the amount of $750.00 for processing the application
3.Written Statements (a-i as defined in the application) with the Exhibits A-H attached
4.Verification of ownership; title insurance commitment from Stewart Title
5.Certified list of property owners located within 350’ of the property and certified by a licensed
abstractor; provided by Commercial Partners Title
6.Property survey:
a.Ten (10) 11x17 copies
b.One (1) full size copy
Please contact me if you have any questions about this application.
Sincerely,
Dawn Grant, CCIM, CPM, RPA
Director of Commercial Asset Management
Enclosures
Cc: Mayor Pearson
Exhibit A to Land Use Application/Variance
High Pointe Health Campus
IRET Properties, a North Dakota Limited Partnership
Address:
8650 Hudson Boulevard, Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
PID:
33.029.21.44.0007
Legal Description:
All that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 29 North,
Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commence at the Southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes
40 seconds West, along the East line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 435.61 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING; continue thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 40 seconds West, along said
East line, a distance of 483.26 feet, thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance
of 683.24 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 423.69 feet;
thence Westerly 123.88 feet along the arc of a non-tangential curve concave to the South whose
radius is 230.00 feet and whose chord bears South 83 degrees 51 minutes 07 seconds West; thence
South 68 degrees 24 minutes 49 seconds West a distance of 102.81 feet to a point on the Northerly
right of way line of Hudson Blvd.; thence Southeasterly, along said Northerly right of way a distance
of 421.73 feet along the arc of a non-tangential curve concave to the Northeast whose radius is
768.51 feet and whose chord bears South 52 degrees 53 minutes 56 seconds East; thence North 00
degrees 00 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of 176.36 feet; thence North 89 degrees 35 minutes
53 seconds East a distance of 175.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 40 seconds East a
distance of 223.25 feet to a point on the Northerly right of way line of Hudson Blvd.; thence
Southeasterly, along said Northerly right of way line a distance of 53.13 feet along the arc of a non-
tangential curve concave to the North, whose radius is 768.51 feet and whose chord bears South 84
degrees 06 minutes 58 seconds East; continue thence South 86 degrees 05 minutes 47 seconds East
a distance of 141.01 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of
301.88 feet; thence North 89 degrees 35 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 200.00 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING and there terminating.
Exhibit B to Land Use Application/Variance
High Pointe Health Campus
IRET Properties, a North Dakota Limited Partnership
Detailed Reason for Request:
Applicant is making this application for a variance to allow for the installation of a pylon sign at
the southernmost portion of the property previously described, along Hudson Boulevard,
approximately as shown on Exhibit B-1 attached hereto.
High Pointe Medical Campus is part of the Eagle Point Business Park PUD exterior sign design
which provides for a pylon sign of approximately 30’ in height and 12’ in width. Applicant is
requesting a variance from this approximate height and width requirement to a pylon sign of
35’ in height and 16’ in width, at a value of approximately $100,450.00. A drawing is attached
as Exhibit B-2 and a photograph depicting the proposed location is attached as Exhibit B-3.
Approximate location of sign
Exhibit B-1 - Location of sign on property
Exhibit B-2: Drawing of sign
Exhibit B-3: photoshop location of sign
Exhibit C to Land Use Application/Variance
High Pointe Health Campus
IRET Properties, a North Dakota Limited Partnership
Practical Difficulties related to this application
High Pointe Medical Campus was developed originally as part of a larger health care campus.
The current building is the initial medical building completed without other properties having
been developed as originally proposed. It has poor visibility and access. The patients of the
clinics/surgery center in the building have difficulty locating the building. Further, the lack of
visibility of the building from the frontage road and I-94 provides for no marketing opportunity
for the clinics/surgery center. These factors have also impeded leasing of the vacancies in the
building while trying to compete with the locations in the City of Woodbury just across the
freeway. Signage is being proposed in order to provide visibility to compete in the current
marketplace.
The current sign design plan for the Eagle Point Business Park PUD Agreement provides for a
pylon sign of approximately 30’ in height and 12’ in width. This is not feasible given the
topography of the site and would not achieve the kind of height required to be visible from the
frontage road, but more importantly from I-94. In order to accommodate the existing tenants
and an additional prospective tenant, the width also needs to increase so that the names are
appropriately legible from a distance.
Therefore a variance is being requested to increase the height by 16.5% to 35’ and the width by
33% to 16’.
Written Statements to Land Use Application/Variance
High Pointe Health Campus
IRET Properties, a North Dakota Limited Partnership
a) A list of all current property owners
IRET Properties, a North Dakota Limited Partnership, a limited
partnership under the laws of North Dakota
b) A listing of following site data: legal description of property, parcel identification number(s), parcel
size (in acres and square feet), existing use of land and current zoning
Legal description: see attached Exhibit A to Written Statements
Parcel identification number(s): 33.029.21.44.0007
Parcel size (acres and square feet): 10.464 acres and 455,831 square feet
Existing use of land: 3-story brick medical office building with parking lot and vacant land
Current zoning district: BP – Business Park/Light Manufacturing per City of Lake Elmo
Zoning Map; see attached Exhibit B to Written Statements
c) State the provisions(s) of the Lake Elmo City Code for which you seek a variance
Variance being considered according to the provisions of §154.017. Variance from the
approved Eagle Pointe Business Park PUD, which is in essence the zoning district. A variance is
from the negotiated sign regulations in the PUD Agreement. Please refer to a letter from the
City of Lake Elmo (Mr. Kyle Klatt) attached to Exhibit C to Written Statements.
d) A specific written description of the proposal and how it varies from the applicable provisions of Lake
Elmo Code
The Eagle Point Business Park PUD exterior sign design provides for a tenant pylon sign, at
approximately 30’ in height and 12’ in width. Due to topography of the site and to achieve the
amount of panels needed for High Pointe Medical Campus, a pylon sign of 35’ in height and 16’
in width is being proposed. Please refer to Exhibits B-2 and B-3 attached detailed reason for
request as part of this land use application.
e) A narrative regarding any pre-application discussions with staff, and an explanation of how the issue
was addressed leading up to the application for a variance
Dawn Grant of IRET Properties and Steve Hirtz of Nordquist Signs met with Nick Johnson of the
City of Lake Elmo Planning Department on January 14, 2015 to discuss the possibility of
increasing the size of a pylon sign along Hudson Boulevard, which would be a variance from the
negotiated sign regulations in the Eagle Point Business Park PUD Agreement that governs the
High Pointe Medical Campus (HPMC). In meeting with Mr. Johnson was provided a proposed
sign drawing (at 35’ in height and 18’ in width) and Dawn Grant discussed hardship of visibility
and competition of the City of Woodbury’s more visible properties for patients of the HPMC
tenants. Mr. Johnson agreed to take it under advisement. On January 15, 2015, Mr. Johnson
stated that our initial request was a 16% variance in height, but more than a 50% variance in
width and requested a revision to our initial drawing. We provided a revised drawing on January
30, 2015, attempting to work within the PUD’s approximate approved height and width of 30’
and 12’ respectively, while trying to achieve what the property needs, and therefore created a
revised drawing of 38’ in height and 16’ wide, a 27% and 33% variance respectively. Mr. Johnson
asked that a lower height sign was considered and a revised drawing was submitted for 35’ in
height. On February 9, 2015, Mr. Johnson indicated that he would meet with other staff and
provide feedback. On February 20, 2015, after meeting with other staff members, Mr. Johnson
provided in an e-mail that “the 35' feet in height will work. In addition, the proposed width
should also work. Please note that this interpretation is based on the approved Eagle Point
Business Park Sign Plan which allows for approximately 30 feet in heights and approximately 12
feet in width”. In response to this e-mail, Dawn Grant indicated that IRET would meet with the
tenants of the building and inquired if a permit application was the next step. Mr. Johnson
responded by e-mail that applying for a permit application would be the next step. This
sequence of e-mails is attached as Exhibit D to Written Statements. In light of this approval from
Mr. Johnson through mid-July, IRET worked with existing and prospective tenants to ascertain
locations on the proposed sign. On July 23, 2015, Nordquist Sign (Steve Hirtz) applied for the
permit application as was documented in the February 20, 2015 e-mail from Mr. Johnson. After
not hearing a response (both e-mail and voice mail) for several days, Steve Hirtz contacted the
City of Lake Elmo on August 3, 2015 and was notified that Mr. Johnson was no longer employed
there and Steve Hirtz was assigned to Kyle Klatt as the new planning department representative.
Steve Hirtz resent the permit application, along with the e-mail correspondence from Mr.
Johnson that provided approval subject to the permit application, and after waiting for several
weeks, Dawn Grant contacted Mr. Klatt as to the status on August 25, 2015 of the permit
application. On September 2, 2015, Mr. Klatt denied the sign permit application and provided
a formal letter (attached as Exhibit E to Written Statements) and an e-mail correspondence with
options for pursuing alternative signage options (attached as Exhibit F to Written Statements).
Dawn Grant contacted Mayor Pearson to discuss the situation of the length of time for
responses and asked the City of Lake Elmo to honor the original approval by Mr. Johnson.
Apparently after internal discussions, the denial was not going to change and September 23,
2015, Mr. Klatt again denied the permit application and required that either a variance
application or zoning appeal should be applied for. In several e-mail and voice mails following
this e-mail from Mr. Klatt, Dawn Grant asked Mr. Klatt for guidance on which of the applications
was more applicable. After no response, sometime in October, Dawn Grant contacted Mayor
Pearson again as to not being able to get a response from Mr. Klatt and was informed that Mr.
Klatt was leaving the City of Lake Elmo in early November. Dawn Grant was then given the name
of Ben Gozola, a temporary planning staff member to work with on the process. Mr. Gozola
deferred the question to Steve Wensman, a new planner who would start on November 2, 2015.
Mr. Gozola and Mr. Wensman discussed the issue and on November 6, 2015, Mr. Wensman
answered the question of which application process was more applicable and asked that a
variance application be filed.
f) Explain why the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of
circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration
The property was developed originally as part of a larger health care campus. The current
building is the initial medical building completed without other properties developed and
therefore has poor visibility and access. The patients of the clinics/surgery center in the building
have difficulty locating the building. Further, the lack of visibility of the building from the
frontage road and more importantly from I-94, provides for no marketing opportunity for the
clinics/surgery center. These factors have also impeded leasing of the vacancies in the building,
with the 45,721 square foot building standing at 24.5% vacant which is far under the market for
medical office buildings in the surrounding market. The signage proposed would provide the
visibility that is necessary in order to compete effectively. A minimum of four panels is required
for current tenants, leaving one available for prospective tenant of the remaining vacancy. In
order to provide identity of the campus, as well as readable sign panels for each tenant while
being able to see the sign visibly from both the frontage road and I-94, the 35’ proposed is
necessary. In preparing for the initial meeting, both Dawn Grant and Steve Hirtz spent a great
deal of time ascertaining the right height in order to achieve the level of visibility necessary
(otherwise the sign at a lower height would simply not achieve what is necessary). It is the
opinion of the applicant that the viability of the building and tenant’s future success in the City
of Lake Elmo depends in part on the pylon sign approval. Two of the major tenants in the
building (High Pointe Surgery Center and Twin Cities Orthopedics) have provided letters of
support and justification for the pylon sign. Please find these letters attached Exhibit G and H
to the Written Statements.
g) Explain why the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created
by the landowner
High Pointe Medical Campus (HPMC) is not in the heart of the local medical community; which
is located mostly in Woodbury. The City of Woodbury has been and continues to be the
strongest competition to the City of Lake Elmo. Many prospective tenants have not considered
HPMC because it has a Lake Elmo address. Even though less than a mile from Woodbury and as
accessible from I-94, tenants such as an independent pediatrics clinic were in the market for
space and chose not to consider HPMC because it was not in the City of Woodbury. To further
exacerbate the current market conditions, there are new medical office buildings and two new
surgery centers announced in the City of Woodbury (Tria Orthopedics and Summit Orthopedics).
One of HPMC’s major tenants is St. Croix Orthopaedics, a division of Twin Cities Orthopedics,
who want to grow their presence and compete head on, are planning on providing urgent care
services in 2016, but feel strongly that without signage visibility, they cannot effectively
compete. HPMC’s largest tenant, High Pointe Surgery Center serves not just the local
community but throughout the Twin Cities and greater Minnesota. One of the main issues facing
their continued success is visibility and patient access. IRET Properties currently has two
prospects to lease the remaining vacancy and increase the viability of HPMC, who have both
indicated they will not consider HPMC without the approved pylon sign.
h) Justify that granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood
The proposed sign is tasteful and the only thing in question is the height and width of the sign.
Given the proposed location, it provides visibility from I-94 and the frontage road without
impeding the neighborhood. The installation of the proposed sign has no different affect than
an existing pylon sign on the neighboring property to the west. Please refer to the proposed
location photo attached to the detailed reason for request exhibit of this land use application.
i) Justify that granting of the variance will not impair adequate light and air to adjacent properties and
that it will not substantially increase the congestion of public streets or substantially diminish or impair
property values in the neighborhood
The proposed sign at 35’ in height and 16’ in width will not cause any impairment to light and
air, and will not cause congestion. Please refer to the proposed location photo attached to the
detailed reason for request exhibit of this land use application. The property values of the
neighboring properties with existing signage available on the frontage road, will not be
diminished in value; it cannot have an affect on what already exists. The only probably affect
on property values would be an increase in value of HPMC when fully occupied and the
possibility of an addition to the existing building if additional tenants are achieved or existing
tenants expand.
Exhibit A to Written Statements – Legal Description
Land Use Application/Variance
High Pointe Health Campus
IRET Properties, a North Dakota Limited Partnership
All that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 29
North, Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commence at the Southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 00
minutes 40 seconds West, along the East line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of
435.61 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; continue thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 40
seconds West, along said East line, a distance of 483.26 feet, thence North 90 degrees 00
minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 683.24 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00
seconds East a distance of 423.69 feet; thence Westerly 123.88 feet along the arc of a non-
tangential curve concave to the South whose radius is 230.00 feet and whose chord bears
South 83 degrees 51 minutes 07 seconds West; thence South 68 degrees 24 minutes 49
seconds West a distance of 102.81 feet to a point on the Northerly right of way line of
Hudson Blvd.; thence Southeasterly, along said Northerly right of way a distance of 421.73
feet along the arc of a non-tangential curve concave to the Northeast whose radius is 768.51
feet and whose chord bears South 52 degrees 53 minutes 56 seconds East; thence North 00
degrees 00 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of 176.36 feet; thence North 89 degrees 35
minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 175.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 40
seconds East a distance of 223.25 feet to a point on the Northerly right of way line of
Hudson Blvd.; thence Southeasterly, along said Northerly right of way line a distance of
53.13 feet along the arc of a non-tangential curve concave to the North, whose radius is
768.51 feet and whose chord bears South 84 degrees 06 minutes 58 seconds East; continue
thence South 86 degrees 05 minutes 47 seconds East a distance of 141.01 feet; thence
North 00 degrees 00 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of 301.88 feet; thence North 89
degrees 35 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 200.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING
and there terminating.
4751
2525
1786
1515
1876
11455
10880
901
8281
8251
2298
4564
3501
5500
9941
10321
11455
10380
9130
9075
10105
456
10190
616
11530
11332
9524
5235
3150
11421
9579
2641
8280
8940
9109
901 820
9591
2500
8989
11490
8775
10386
9434
5193
2490
520
10112
11351
4670
8770
4452
10711
9200
11975
5275
10193
11980
4370
9140
3045
3855
54155435
10240
5825
1412
9940
8465
9070
11211
4212
11260
8866
2685
8555
9057
5200
4950
4890
9825
5295
5900
5699
10830
81558135
8989
12058
9765
5250
5222
3503
5761
11351
8650
1304
10550
5749
11260
3360
5230
4890
5545
4755
10472
4890
4690
5255
4455
2450
3691
3870
9999
4620
5471
4596
8955 9255
3467
5135
5040
9200 9220
5190
8975
5429
8970
1069910579 107591063910519
8740
10231
4779
4525
928
872
814
760
704
10133
11330
8291
8268
3000
10755
10350
9696
12202
10732
10875
750
11491
11658
11050
10830
11311
11255
11514
10689
5220
3655
11817
11180
11165
4384
11347
9495
11240
9524
9585
9535
655
8243
11980
8400
11678
8243
781
5615
10120
8470
9447
9765
10824
11465
723
2901
855
10323
5416
8450
11989
8633
4424
9393
5414
2244
687
9440
8633
11790
921
2895
8006
3082
8141
9425
3681
8552
11144
11530
11459
5427
9242
5760
5300
5230
8420
5170
5110
9265
8271
975
5577
8530
4454
3536
5660
8430
5630
4375
4477
5050
5240
11580
5055
5272
8171
1532
8863
8810
11415
9345
2270
2767
5638
5080
8707
8042
4989
3036
5750
3077
11361
8737
8565
9155
1543
4550
9844
11530
10550
9759
9480
876
5247
9521
9498
3303
561
8519
9494
3733
10092
859
8515
820
9605
8449
8080
812
790
755
873
8420
914
2678
8550
9800
832
483
3554
4201
577
8321
883
2906
747
3817
521
5014
8319
868
8411
2890
3560
11011
5257
3455
8394
2656
772
2813
697
772
617
820
785
854
968
724
858
881867
371
650 665
331
3812
418
887
875
488
568
605
877
974
429
871
770
220
694
829
5629
978
3505
84578367
585
9876
5673
10841
8879
5011
9250
3880
3520
9830
8281
2811
9605
2749
9260
5367 9655
8996
9389
5290
4415
2696
8028
9855
3548
5337
9380
5274
9636
9652
3280
8884
11825
9747
5715
8800
2580
5791
8255
9784
11676
3592
9571
3669
3663
5170
2269
9692
2618
8364
9580
9612
8620
8226
9393
9618
9965
9481
9873
9120
2528
2798
3793
2737
2760
8468
2119
3432
2677
9744
5277
11325
8284
9323
8241
3443
8120
8165
9395
9568
9163
10021
8382
3200
5611
9250
9343
8154
10015
8611
9386
8215
5424
2296
5855
9961
9400
3080
1535
9391
8414
9715
8151
8410
3435
9387
2699
9486
9798
9719
8454
8125
8180
2850
9768
9275
9710
4990
9251
989098349670 9940
9875
9543
9895
9179
9896
3424
9106
9805
2038
2769
9800
2841
3584
9314
8119
9073
8680
8134
5324
3033
2655
9455
9034
3572
1509
4026
9123
8074
8311
8340
8219
8047
8206
8271
9515
9576 9589
8260
8263
8276
9023
9945
9170
8335
8330
1521
9960
9855
8585
5307
8945
802
11343
11030
5771
4990
4910
9125
5385
4955
8010
5131
8727
10735
8170
9377
5833
1080
2835
9220
1155011550
11550
5277
11991
8255
8950
8881
5247
8717
5404
9320
8241
3407
2715
3408
8244
8247
8211
8388
3948
8401
4855
9355
9360
5710
5180
11371
8500
8665
9955
8234
8603
5270
2876
8880
5217
404
84905875
9906
2040
1304
5685
4768
2626
8367
9095
5412
5187
8375
5034
3825
8190
5110
4995
5217
10375
9280
2895
9280
5070
9302
10950
8810
2925
8060
2960
7760
8896
2525
5090
1199
2543
9333
8001
9363
3141
8230
2069
9203
5422
11674
5400
9018
5350
8820
5110
2816
5730
2224
1875
8790
5737
9581
8344
8478
7805
9243
8419
5445
11233
4860
3075
8301
2961
5730
1095
5757
5130
8254
5777
5025
7821
10774
7803
8341
8030
11048
2443
11295
8070
10376
2930
4940
4960
8310
5267
8225
8282
5230
9525
9303
5885
4880
4060
9295
8455
10819
5193
8010
10903
10010
5745
11685
8485
9030
3060
11546
2850
8800
9520
9078
8260
4405
5750
8030
8870
5150
1067
4850
5171
8409 8586
5690
4870
9385
10664
9287
8331
9250
10802
8351
2430
9400
10728
1025
2189
10833
8371
8110
5055
2393
11240
8391
8644
10847
4955
10746
4980
8268
2455
4865
5158
5120
4850
5072
2965
5150
1020
2470
5226
8352
1957
1140
1028
1080
2055
2450
2320
3473
9191
4854
2796
8050
9517
8899
8040
1019
8469
8100
2935
1069
1115
8982
7990
1177
1145
1123
2856
8898
9160
5080
2621
8483
5124
2655
8867
9523
2450
8916
8965
1073
1027
8938
1093
9220
2410
3819
8962
2101
10922
5227
4596
2245
10875
5040
5060
8170
10963
8390
5890
4515
84158139832183098171826183758229
83908370
10931
8320
5237
8572
5170
4960
8415
2461
9123
5747
10858
5211
8211
5701
9112
5020
8549
2333
10791
8980
5151
5790
10024
50557816
5420
8611
7761
2289
11171
11040
9055
4823
5487
5130
1696
9280
2225
11202
11345
7824
11108
5201
5410
8509
2470
8170
10071
8142
2267
5025
8292
275
5853
9498
10763
9682
4388
4926
3759
8167
7920
5750
5850
5770
5200
2227
5790
5171
10368
9706
8573
5500
3161
11047
8021
4346
2345
5810
4260
2491
10895
11063
8331
8011
3077
8001
8030
2440
5736
2479
2311
9901
2445
5171
4070
8180
5080
2395
9240
4009
11395
10072
9219
11355
9404
10830 10886
3047
1683
2175
11230
4275
11075
11150
8475
11075
11365
11190
8627
2935
9754
8140
5121
5043
4071
9098
11109
3765
3914
3797
5810
11320
8110
11115
4091
10674
9757
10684
11110
8080
5230
5960 5933
11350
11227
8690
8050
8050
3095
5235
11350
11385
8509
2229
11066
11066
11375
11314
11420
11270
11140
11277
11320
11407
8989
2201
5815
3712
8470 8603
10825
4996
5920
3303
9445
7680
8274
5151
3337
5459
5085
4748
5111
5830
9189
10380
9436
3065
8930
5787
2750
9040
4732
8860
8330
8193
31509181
10079
8890
3476
3440
9032
5665
9497
5065
8670
7730
7872
8350
5831
9986
8815
812580958065 8215815581858045
4171
5165
4061
8370
7840
5231
3100
3070
11210
8265
9654
8390
7931
8000
2194
4855
5850
37203889
7856
4110
7832
9811
7982
11950
5261
5111
5321
5620
2315
9717
5091
5291
5693
3052
5870
2773
5775
3704
9550
8245
5724
4150
5260
2204
1446
9915
8567
8243
1985
2793
2340
2914
9615
4100
2899
7818
8850
5131
4635
2380
5071
8510
8845
4966
9275
4140
5710
9402
4131
8875
5440
2337
2684
2700
4030
9954
7962
8203
2632
2041
2075
8687
5811
7864
8021
8239
8809
4497
10353
2662
7741
2329
4190
9634
8555
5361
2415
8625
78985451
5290
8312 8350
5460
8548
2360
8100
9861
8815
8309
2965
8270
2110
8360
4277
4280
4280
87498405
5480
8775
7848
4260
7740
5431
5051
2706
4276
8529
7780
4220
7930
5771
8040
5791
5751
5680
7808
2120
5655
4141
5640
5730
7920
2902
2958
5597
8727
9229
9788
4181
2672
4235
4033
2867
9676
8771
3929
2874
2790
5675
1584
2846
2718
8790
2933
1525
4240
2823
2390
2722
2174
9125
2359
2735
4255
9621
4070
1615
9732
4285
9149
1849
9524
9799
18051827
8860
1757
1529
2257
8247
9829
1627
1709
1535
2301
1684
1743
1539
4215
1517
4120
1779 1727
1583
1513
8996
1681
1663
16971694
1756
1668
1636
1654
1680
9548
4111
4077
9766
1645
9155
5010
2818
9828
9350
1873
8780
4260
8770
1567
4255
4240
9771
2134
9602 9796
4275
9884
9737
3909
55355531
8539
9476
4944
3415
5819
9498
9885
9576
2811
8121
8110
8085
8080 8196
8173
8160
4180
4101
5093
8465
8290
9340
9927
8332
5701
2575
9730
9611
9485
8245
5418
5725
9141
9590
8498
9399
4118
9148
8556
3160
8511
11392
9437
3936
8120
8702
8619
2931
5197
8416
8546
9530
10977
8264
8164
3610
9605
8517
5734
9601
9929
3023
4990
9957
10042
2819 2958
11280
11612
3351
8271
3286
3025
12460
9902
4849
4348
9703
41328255
9662
9843
4305
9620
9799
4146
9726
9492
9605
9818
2923
4220
2955
3014
4964
8224
8286
11430
8294
4075
9915
3982
11658
4711
9985
4982
8804
5647
9768
4258
1589
2927
11443
1525
9819
8955
8961
97299650
5677
8282
10356
4575
2939
8879 8929
8838
8839 8969
89288890 89688808
5658
2998
4508
8382
8012
8160
1668
43274345
4941
10325
5659
2805
2877 27692978
5760
8344
3960
8455
11040
7851
5810
4404
5711
9406
10149
4758
9606
2984
11328
4863
5782
2928
9186
8278
8536
8910
4167
9740
8533
11909
11051
4385
3078
11933
5840
11152
5671
2911
8220
11880
11619
4446
5765
8148
4633
11140
9949
9477
8431
2739
4177
8015
4465
4092
9776
2907
8600
2932
11828
4460
4589
2971
8528
4629
5736
1550
1594
1578
1650
1620
1634
1571
4830
8320
1545
2936
2972
8011
2915
5712
5682
10950
9829
5747
12176
9971
8883
48848120
9997
4938
10278
2987
4265
2950
5769
2995
5683
2966
4967
4847
5688
8460
5650
4577
4651
8066
2943
2962
4819
2919
5805
4875
11923
5670
4905
2646
5729
2796
2942
4703
3326
2965
4330
2959
11715
2949
2951
4677
4731
2721
9831
2979
10316
2976
10289
8623
8991
4563
4605 4594
11035
4582
8080
45744566
5820
10985
4539
11610
4911
4550
11256
4558
11130
11194
9447
4677
4689
8001
11730
1326
2970
10115
3655
4103
3435
11075
8450
8555
8834 8862
11592
8831 8861
8605
10029
8510
1625
8080
2950
8801
4179
11543
1643
3268
10064
33083284
8570
2965
8695
4769
2770
8549
3287
10080
3735
3549
4535
8061
10097
4611
11025
9442
2975
3923
4207
8722
8674
9051
8554
3910
11928
9043
11753
4037
10085
4365
10342
3328
3849
11881
3109
3890
4127
8748
4891
4233
4488
8258
10225
11125
11862
10144
4602
2988
9057
1665
4151
11834
4931
4881
4995
11253
10263
8051
3405
9109
4515
3597
10961
2918
8772
11197
11830 11839
11809
3271
10206
9170
10231
3563
10125
3623
10095
10191
10159
2751
10178
9836
8725
4485
3351
3850
8718
3010
4835
4963
3533
3567
36073597
3551
3440
3509
3490
3464
3263
3296
8110
3030
5206
7934
3981
3081
8780
4009
3876
44184442
4370
3582
9429
4466
4394
4853
4971
8650
34153412
8687
8644
7817
8623
8108
8195
2915
3053
8775
4192
8715
2995
2940
2904
2759
4174
8048
4387
4415
8076
8785
4365
2986
4389
4634
9519
11220
4463
4439
2990
9161
3508
852028752895
9409
4500
8728
3240
3570
2809
2959
2909
7959
3309
4336
11761 118291185711714
12100
3127
4390
2991
3603
2769
3625
295529392921
27832797
2903
28172837
28912871
2971
2764
3105
2968
293229162898
2866
27782790
28322814
2935
43724354
2731
27732793
36643646
3686
8521
3624
3131 3124312431513127
36503647
11550
11550 115501155011550
11228
5250
52105190
5230
5170
9379
9383
9381
11434
7980 8020
2795
10654
8735
8312
10644
8311
2151
5429
7960
2377
9905
5439
5470
8374
5419
1120011200
1120011200 11200
11200
11200 11200
8109
4455
5449
9060
8200
2383
8802
3409
5460
8260
8640
8081
11860
8320 8989
9090
8292
5221
9038
8830
8855
5480
8920
8755
2389
8925
2410
8838
8237
7970
9401
5450
11920
8028
8840
2141
8835
8340
8579
11060
10867
8645
8784
7910
8895
9046
8875
4720
8650
2131
5409
5440
8240
2121
9714
8419
5430
8855
5420
8905
8780
2111
8249 8830
5040
5471
8785
8720
8182
88108696
89098949
5695
82958323
8841 88778909 89598935
8811
8260
8171
2932
8131
9095
8280
7550752075807610
8895
8980
1570
11511
9700 9856
8628
8750
8592
83008241
9440
4580
4886
8251
8162
82338061
3890
3778
2197
8599
8281
8012
8618
3862
10380
86438659
8609
10823
8355
9620
9077
7831
4473
10059
8018
9427
8903
9417
9377
94079397
8866
11530
3736
4731
4575
8200
10824
3834
11223
4555
11079
2211
9357
10483
5784
3756
8583
9330
11977
4421
8766
4187
2748
11588
4351
10174
11053
3385
8032
11299
9593
9441
9066
8540
4168
7978
9079
4251
11912
2770
8024
3806
4199
4791
9984
9480
11291
9745
8680
42279958
8206
1796
4759
9936
2992
2660
5802
2820
2795
4068
4143
4937
4335
4155
10032
4190
8738
9918
8690
7955
9302
10037
2855
11570
3899
11653
10057
8896
8014
8718
3918
2753
10914
3947
11622
2805
3693
4545
3373
10902
9322
9880
10997
3829
11091
10168
8123
8919
5038
8032
11649
11150
8052
8033
3944
11769
616
8384
11628
11711
10011
3773
11693 11771
10069
11544 11796
11888
11647
11751
4005
11703
9337
10997
8716
10926
8114
10380
8290
3871
79517949
11787
8404
11797 1183311671
11806
11609
8043
5068
10915
11815
11184
11120
10966
3074
9065
1173210911
11326
10100
10938
11726
1097810994
11126
11364
102201015010138
11050
11106
10118
4565
11286
1172711679
11784
11762
7990
5096
4083
11234
11256
3881
10030
10941
10073
10114
11212
1168611704
11357
11686
10929
11051
4044
11284
3857
9867
11598
11680
9461
8464
11736
2964
11766
2986
12114
11259 11333
11320
4002
4044
4028
9359
9033
5058
9858
5064
4057
11306
4644
5188
11377
5067
3081
7945
4033
11520
3481
4076
11703
1021210194
4805
5073
11018
5128
52385222
2952
3998
2944
8652
9885
8111
8567
3327
8242
9849
5168
11279
11681
9831
4212
5090
5076
9233
5072
4236
11015
4020
41564138
5052504850825086
1135611316
41024120
29782972 2930
5085
5288
5279
5257
5308
5041
50735079
5067
505750495063
5264
8656
9317
5150
8655
8742
3250
11656
11657 11820
8186
11060
9179
11307
8709
9224
8084
11326
11055
11541
8633
8428
11644
5337
11258
5042
11127
85708544 8668864886208510
11240
8004
11227 11397
11199
7972
33303316
3331
8643
8648
8402
8098
82828308
11320
5035
8364 2989
11179
12020
12072
12108
9287
5038
8914
89098891
8938 37408894
8939
9090
9055
91109038
9089
9130
91159165
9060
9597
3276
8488
8657
9853
754
12038
11910
11816
9150
4610
11120
10390
10891
3012
48614873
4943
4815
49794987
4955
4827
3063
11646
1124711267
8298
8639 8685
3004
1188811676
2994
5083
11792
5173
8515
5097
11794
8009
11992
11681
1175011772
12088
8190
5043
11676
9198
3511
3084
11108
709
10919
10940
11033
9199
9397
11217
11205
8130
3094
5079
3091
35103504
10865
5055
9133
8181
8603
9025
3360
736
325811008
3348
712
5087
3291
11090
12056
8580
565
4622
11306
9917
11334
3153
2915
510
682 743765
10925
8511
5231
11079
721
8980
783
5265
623
3442
3281
3311
4676
3338
5203
9393
11220
5091
2929
528
9366
10240
3645
5383
4668
8199
9838
4654
109419260
11057
12122
5294
8056
12418
597
10917
11020
5061
547012136
8910
5291
648618602
12154 1217212190
9369
9856
10975
31153112
10961
584
2945
10949
9902
3343
9901
8098
10929
9822
3479
9872
513
5403
5323
9755
3099
9888
9703
32173203
3308
3235
9905
12208
5310
9733
544512167
568546
9910
9077
1107511074
11105
11225 1129511269
3253
3265
9837
5429
10376
12502
10902
10907
5366
9768
9051
5328 5388
3631
10906
9918
9240
9049
3390
12211
9771
1120011212 112921123011272
11227
9785
12023
540812115
990497869918
11072
5346
3537
12226 12300
9202
9750
10920
8051
3673
1244612476
1228812260
4698
12311
12187
9924
9823
8017
12195
11094
4690
12067
9913
12455
12153 12245
12371
10899
12181
12432
220
3459
11180
9797
12312
3585
3466
12383
12276
1240412532
12324
12362
3380
8080 12203 12337
11082
3693
3520
12340
3524
9871
12386
8085
3590
3546
3394
8036
1039010390
11178
361736043603
3417
3515
1242512425
8027
2860
8038
12415
12445
3880
11002
11104
8111
11123
1243512435
8034
89358945
8975
8925
8971 8981898589318941
86738669
1175011720
1182011850117701179011810
862586218677
865786538665
11140
11830
11760 11840
86338687
30103030
8991
8951
8995
8953
10TH ST N
HUDSON BLVD MANNING AVE NLAKE ELMO AVE NINWOOD AVE NSTILLWATER BLVD N
34TH ST N
50TH ST N
KEATS AVE N15TH ST NIDEAL AVE N20TH ST N
LAKE JANE TRL N
30TH ST N
53RD ST N
27THSTN JAMACA AVE N55TH ST
N
JANE RD N
47TH ST N
DEMONTRE V ILLETRLN5 7 T HST N
59TH ST N
51STSTS
3 1 S T S TN43RD ST N
LEGION AVE N39TH ST N
38TH ST N
42ND ST N
O
LS
ONLAKETRLNKIMBRO AVE N33RD ST N
24TH ST N
26TH ST N
32ND S
T
N
J U LEPAVENLILY AVE NC IM ARRO NIVY AVE NHI
L
L
T
OP
A
V
E
N
21ST ST N STILLWATER LN N
IRISAVE
N
MANNINGTRLN45TH ST N
9TH ST NIVORY AVE N12TH ST N
JASM IN E A VENJEWELAVEN
56TH ST N
LEGION LNN
35TH STN
KELVIN AVE N37TH ST N
36TH ST N JAMACABLVDNLINDENAVENKLONDIKEAVEN LINDENTRLN
JA
N
E
C
T
N
IMPERIALAVEN55TH ST
ISLE AVE N
22ND ST N
40
T
H
S
T
N
TAPESTRYTRL
28TH ST N KIRKWOOD AVE N3RDSTRE E T P L N
H
Y
TRAILAVENLILAC LN NTA PESTRYRDJEROME AVE NKINDREDWAY
1 4 T HSTNHIGHLANDSTR LN
EAGLEPOINTBLVDJANE CIR NJONQUILTRL NJASPER AVE NLAYTON AVE NJAMACA CT N
JULEPCTN
LEEW
ARD
AV
E
NJONQUIL
AVE
N
LILAC PL N
IRISH CT NHIGH
LANDS
CT
NJULEP WAYLILAC WAY N
IVORY CTINNSDALE AVE N11TH ST N
TAPESTRY GRV
10THSTREETLNN22ND CT N INNSDALE AVE NLAYTONAVENSTILLWATER BLVD N ISLE AVE NJAMACA AVE N53RD ST N
KEATS AVE NKEATS AVE NLILY AVE NMANNINGAVENHIGHLAN D S T R L N
10TH ST N JULEPAVEN
LAKE ELMO AVE N57TH ST N
50TH ST N
59THST N
39TH ST N
Lake Elmo
Lake Jane
Eagle Point Lake
Lake DeMontreville
Lake Olson
Sunfish Lake
Horseshoe Lake
Downs Lake
Goose Lake
Rose Lake
Clear Lake
Armstrong Lake
Sources: Washington County & Metro GIS5-11-2015
5
Official Zoning Map
Data Disclaimer:This map is not a boundary surveyand is not intended to be used as such.The City of Lake Elmo assumes noliability for the completeness of this mapor responsibility for any associated direct,indirect, or consequential damages that may result from its use or misuse.
Shoreland District
Municipal Boundary
ZONING DISTRICTSA
BP
C
CC
GB
LC
LC-PUD
LDR
OP
PF
R2-PUD
RE
RR
RS
RT
LDR-PUD
MDR
MDR-PUD
Exhibit B to Written Statements - Land Use Application - IRET Properties
Exhibit C to Written Statment
Land Use Variance
Application
IRET Properties
Exhibit D to Written Statements
Land Use Application
IRET Properties
Exhibit E to Written Statment
Land Use Variance
Application
IRET Properties
From:Kyle Klatt
To:Steve M. Hirtz
Cc:Dawn Grant - IRET; mikepearson1965@yahoo.com; Clark Schroeder
Subject:RE: High Pointe Medical Campus - pylon sign
Date:Wednesday, September 02, 2015 4:08:26 PM
Attachments:SKMBT_C25315090214530.pdfEagle Point Development Standards - Reduced.pdf
Steve:
Attached is the City's formal response letter to the sign permit application for High Pointe Medical Campus. I am
also attaching the full set of development standards for the Eagle Point Business Park that are on file in our office
for your consideration.
I was able to contact Nick Johnson to discuss his previous correspondence with you concerning this matter. While
he and I were in agreement on the potential interpretation and application of the illustrative drawing included in the
Eagle Point Business Park Development Standards, neither of us caught the written standards specific to signs when
this initial review was performed. I apologize for the earlier direction you were given, but at this point, I need to
take into account all pertinent information as part of our formal sign permit review. The attached letter documents
the specific reasons for the denial of the permit request.
Based on the City's decision regarding this matter, you have the following options in order to continue perusing
alterative signage options for this site:
- Revise the plans to conform to the sign height standard of 25 feet.
- Appeal the interpretation of the Eagle Point Business Park Development Standards to the City's Board of
Adjustment and Appeals (which is the City Council)
- Request a variance to allow a higher sign than allowed under the City's Zoning Ordinance; or
- Apply for an amendment to the Eagle Point Business Park PUD to allow a sign that is higher than allowed under
the development standards or to change the maximum sign height throughout the business park.
If you wish to pursue any of these options or if you have any general questions about the City's review, please
contact me.
Kyle Klatt
Community Development Director
City of Lake Elmo
(651) 747-3911
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve M. Hirtz [mailto:SteveH@nordquistsign.com]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 9:07 AM
To: Kyle Klatt <KKlatt@lakeelmo.org>
Cc: 'Dawn Grant - IRET' <DGrant@iret.com>
Subject: RE: High Pointe Medical Campus - pylon sign
Hello Kyle -
I am checking in to see if there is need for additional information from us and if there is an updated on our submittal.
Thanks,
Steve
Exhibit F to Written Statements
Land Use Variance Application
IRET Properties
Exhibit G to Written Statements
Land Use Application
IRET Properties
Exhibit H to Written
Statements Land Use Variance
Application IRET Properties
INFORMATION
The Title Insurance Commitment is a legal contract between you and the Company. It is issued to show the basis
on which we will issue a Title Insurance Policy to you. The Policy will insure you against certain risks to the land title,
subject to the limitations shown in the Policy.
The Company will give you a sample of the Policy form, if you ask.
The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is $2,000,000 or less
shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or you as the exclusive remedy of the parties. You may review
a copy of the arbitration rules at <http://www.alta.org/>.
The Commitment is based on the land title as of the Commitment Date. Any changes in the land title or the transaction
may affect the Commitment and the Policy.
The Commitment is subject to its Requirements, Exceptions and Conditions.
THIS INFORMATION IS NOT PART OF THE TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT. YOU SHOULD READ THE
COMMITMENT VERY CAREFULLY.
All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company
shall be addressed to it at P.O. Box 2029, Houston, Texas 77252.
Page 1
Verification of Ownership
Land Use Application
IRET Properties
TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT
Issued by
AGREEMENT TO ISSUE POLICY
We agree to issue policy to you according to the terms of the Commitment. When we show the policy amount
and your name as the proposed insured in Schedule A, this Commitment becomes effective as of the
Commitment Date shown in Schedule A.
If the Requirements shown in this Commitment have not been met within six months after the Commitment
Date, our obligation under this Commitment will end. Also, our obligation under this Commitment will end
when the Policy is issued and then our obligation to you will be under the Policy.
Our obligation under this Commitment is limited by the following:
The Provisions in Schedule A.
The Requirements in Schedule B-I.
The Exceptions in Schedule B-II.
The Conditions on Page 2.
This Commitment is not valid without SCHEDULE A and Sections I and II of SCHEDULE B.
This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by a validating officer or authorized signatory.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be
hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A.
Countersigned:
Authorized Countersignature
Stewart Title of Minnesota, Inc.
Company
Bloomington,Minnesota
City, State
ALTA Plain Language Commitment (6/17/06)
245 ALTA Plain Language Commitment (6/17/06)
CONDITIONS
1. DEFINITIONS
(a) “Mortgage” means mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument. (b) “Public Records” means title records that
give constructive notice of matters affecting your title according to the state statutes where your land is located.
2. LATER DEFECTS
The Exceptions in Schedule B – Section II may be amended to show any defects, liens or encumbrances that appear for
the first time in the public records or are created or attach between the Commitment Date and the date on which all of the
Requirements (a) and (c) of Schedule B – Section I are met. We shall have no liability to you because of this amendment.
3. EXISTING DEFECTS
If any defects, liens or encumbrances existing at Commitment date are not shown in Schedule B, we may amend
Schedule B to show them. If we do amend Schedule B to show these defects, liens or encumbrances, we shall be liable
to you according to Paragraph 4 below unless you knew of this information and did not tell us about it in writing.
4. LIMITATION OF OUR LIABILITY
Our only obligation is to issue to you the Policy referred to in this Commitment, when you have met its Requirements. If
we have any liability to you for any loss you incur because of an error in this Commitment, our liability will be limited to your
actual loss caused by your relying on this Commitment when you acted in good faith to:
Comply with the Requirements shown in Schedule B – Section I
or
Eliminate with our written consent any Exceptions shown in Schedule B – Section II.
We shall not be liable for more than the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A of this Commitment and our liability is subject
to the terms of the Policy form to be issued to you.
5. CLAIMS MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT
Any claim, whether or not based on negligence, which you may have against us concerning the title to the land must be
based on this Commitment and is subject to its terms.
Page 2
ESTABLISHED 1893
INCORPORATED 1908
A NAME
RECOGNIZED NATIONALLY
AS BEING
SYNONYMOUS WITH
QUALITY
P.O. Box 2029
Houston, Texas 77252
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
AGREEMENT TO ISSUE POLICY 1
SCHEDULE A
1. Commitment date
2. Policies to be Issued, Amounts and
Proposed Insureds
3. Interest in the Land and Owner
4. Description of the Land
SCHEDULE B-I – REQUIREMENTS
SCHEDULE B-II – EXCEPTIONS
CONDITIONS 2
ALTA Commitment Schedule A
SCHEDULE A
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
Commitment Page 5 of 9
Customer Reference #: 955743
Order Number: 153273
1. Effective Date: January 4, 2012 at 7:00 A.M.
2. Policy or Policies to be issued:Amount of Insurance
(a) ALTA Owner’s 2006
Proposed Insured: NONE
(b)ALTA Loan 2006 $5,400,000.00
Proposed Insured: TCF Bank, its successors and/or assigns
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is
fee simple and is at the effective date hereof vested in:
IRET Properties, a North Dakota Limited Partnership, a limited partnership under the laws of North
Dakota
4. The land referred to in this Commitment is located in the County of Washington, State of Minnesota,
and described as follows:
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A
ALTA Commitment Schedule A
SCHEDULE A
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
Commitment Page 6 of 9
EXHIBIT A
All that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 29 North, Range
21 West, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commence at the Southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 40
seconds West, along the East line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 435.61 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING; continue thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 40 seconds West, along said East line, a
distance of 483.26 feet, thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 683.24 feet;
thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 423.69 feet; thence Westerly 123.88
feet along the arc of a non-tangential curve concave to the South whose radius is 230.00 feet and whose
chord bears South 83 degrees 51 minutes 07 seconds West; thence South 68 degrees 24 minutes 49
seconds West a distance of 102.81 feet to a point on the Northerly right of way line of Hudson Blvd.;
thence Southeasterly, along said Northerly right of way a distance of 421.73 feet along the arc of a non-
tangential curve concave to the Northeast whose radius is 768.51 feet and whose chord bears South 52
degrees 53 minutes 56 seconds East; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of
176.36 feet; thence North 89 degrees 35 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 175.00 feet; thence South
00 degrees 00 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 223.25 feet to a point on the Northerly right of way
line of Hudson Blvd.; thence Southeasterly, along said Northerly right of way line a distance of 53.13
feet along the arc of a non-tangential curve concave to the North, whose radius is 768.51 feet and whose
chord bears South 84 degrees 06 minutes 58 seconds East; continue thence South 86 degrees 05 minutes
47 seconds East a distance of 141.01 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 40 seconds West a
distance of 301.88 feet; thence North 89 degrees 35 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 200.00 feet to
the POINT OF BEGINNING and there terminating.
Being Torrens property. Certificate No.: 60591
ALTA Commitment Schedule B Section I
SCHEDULE B – Section I
Requirements
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
Commitment Page 7 of 9
Order Number: 153273
THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT, EXAMINATION, REPORT, OR REPRESENTATION OF
FACT OR TITLE AND DOES NOT CREATE AND SHALL NOT BE THE BASIS OF ANY CLAIM FOR
NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION OR OTHER TORT CLAIM OR ACTION. THE
SOLE LIABILITY OF COMPANY AND ITS TITLE INSURANCE AGENT SHALL ARISE UNDER AND
BE GOVERNED BY PARAGRAPH THREE (3) OF THE CONDITIONS.
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
1.A properly executed and recordable mortgage from IRET Properties, a North Dakota Limited
Partnership, a limited partnership under the laws of North Dakota, to TCF Bank.
2. Affidavit Regarding Borrower(s) executed by IRET Properties, a North Dakota Limited Partnership,
a limited partnership under the laws of North Dakota.
3. The company requires the following to be satisfied, subordinated or partially released:
Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement in the original principal amount of
$8,100,000.00, dated 11-8-1998, filed 12-17-1998, as Document No. 1075768, between East Metro
Medical Building, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, mortgagor, and The Variable
Annuity Life Insurance Company, a Texas corporation, mortgagee.
Amended by Consent, Assumption, Loan Modification, Amendment to Mortgage, Security
Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement and Indemnification Agreement dated 7-30-2004, filed
10-5-2004, as Document No. 1150298; mortgage assumed by IRET Properties, a North Dakota
Limited Partnership, a limited partnership under the laws of North Dakota.
4. The company requires the following to be satisfied, subordinated or partially released:
Absolute Assignment of Leases and Rents dated 12-8-1998, filed 12-17-1998, as Document No.
1075769, between East Metro Medical Building, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company,
assignor, and The Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company, a Texas corporation, assignee.
Amended by Consent, Assumption, Loan Modification, Amendment to Mortgage, Security
Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement and Indemnification Agreement dated 7-30-2004, filed
10-5-2004, as Document No. 1150298; assignment assumed by IRET Properties, a North Dakota
Limited Partnership, a limited partnership under the laws of North Dakota.
ALTA Commitment Schedule B Section II
SCHEDULE B – Section II
Exceptions
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
Commitment Page 8 of 9
Order Number: 153273
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed
of to the satisfaction of the Company:
1. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the
public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed
insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
commitment.
2. Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records.
3. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a
correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public
records.
5.Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed
by law and not shown by the public records.
6.Rights or claims of tenants, as tenants only, in possession under unrecorded leases.
7. Taxes for the year 2011 in the amount of $346,110.00. They are paid in full. Base Tax amount
$343,323.63.
PIN: 33.029.21.44.0007. Non-Homestead
There are no delinquent taxes of record.
8. Special and pending assessments, if any.
Note: An assessment search has been requested and the results of that search will follow by revision.
9. Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 82-31, filed 9-29-1981, as Document
No. 58129.
10. Terms and conditions of Partial Final Certificate dated 10-9-1987, filed 11-12-1987, as Document
No. 85987.
11. Terms and conditions of Declaration of Protective Covenants dated 12-1-1997, filed 12-19-1997, as
Document No. 1065503.
12. Terms and conditions of Easement Agreement dated 12-10-1997, filed 12-31-1997, as Document No.
1065505.
ALTA Commitment Schedule B Section II
SCHEDULE B – Section II
Exceptions
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
Commitment Page 9 of 9
13. Terms and conditions of East Metro Healthcare Center Cooperation Agreement dated 12-2-1997,
filed 12-31-1997, as Document No. 1065506.
14. Terms and conditions of Memorandum of Cooperation Agreement dated 12-10-1997, filed 12-31-
1997, as Document No. 1065507.
15. Terms and conditions of Grant of Permanent Easement dated 12-10-1997, filed 12-31-1997, as
Document No. 1065509.
16. Terms and conditions of Easement and Agreement dated 8-30-2004, filed 10-6-2004, as Document
No. 1150352.
Lake Elmo City Hall 651-747-3900 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Development Standards for Eagle Point Business Park 300.12 subd. (1)(B) and 300.12(2). No Business Park structure shall exceed 60’ in height. Parapet walls shall not exceed more than 4’ above the height permitted of the building. 300.13 subd (6)(A)(3) Parking spaces shall be 9’ X 18’ at the developments north of Hudson Blvd and 10’ X 20’ South of Hudson Blvd, with the exception of the hotel and restaurant which needs to be 9’ X 18’ spacing. Parking spaces for the handicapped shall be minimum of 12’ X 20’. 20% of the spaces in an office development can be compact car size 8’ X 16”. The size of parking space may be altered upon approval of Zoning Administrator. 300.13 subd. (6)(B)(6)(D) The primary landscaping materials shall be shade trees with shrubs, hedges, etc., used only to complement trees, not as the sole means of landscaping. Landscaping and irrigation will be done on a project by project basis. If landscaping within the NSP easement is disturbed, it needs to be replaced by NSP, or the property owner. Berming and landscaping must be approved within one year of City Council approval. Permitted Uses: Banks, medical clinics, offices, schools (business, professional and private trade), office showrooms. Conditional Uses: Business services, conference centers, health clubs, hotels and motels, day care centers, limited retail, medical, dental and research labs, recording studios, restaurants and cafeterias, theaters, teleconferencing transmission facilities, veterinary clinics, and hotel. Minimum Lot Area: 2.0 acres. Lots less than 2.0 acres might be approved on a project by project basis through a conditional use permit. Minimum Lot Frontage: 200’ with the exception of 50’ pm a cul-de-sac. Lot Width/Depth Ratio: 1/3.5 Minimum Building Setbacks: 50’ for the front and street frontage, and 10’ for side and rear frontage. When abutting residential uses, the current ordinance requirement will apply. Minimum Parking Setbacks: Front: 20’, Side: 10’, Side(street): 20’, Rear: 10’ Minimum Building Foundation Size: 10,000 s.f.
Parking Ratio: One space for each 250 s.f. of office building area or one space per two employees, whichever is greater. One space per 2,000 s.f of storage, warehouse and 1 space per 1,000 s.f. of showroom. Pathways: 8’ wide pathways as part of the City’s trail system and the City will maintain. Storm Water Control: Storm water management requirements should be averaged over the PUD area as a whole. The tributary setback will be 30’ from the tributary setback, and the parking setback will be 10’ from the tributary setback. Lighting Height: 30’ maximum Sign Height: Businesses can have signage on the building and a monument sign at the property’s entrance, and that a pylon sign must be approved on a case by case basis by the City. Pond Maintenance: Recommend the creation of a District to take care of pond maintenance.
City of Lake Elmo Certificate of Grading Review Sheet
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5b – PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 1/11/15
AGENDA ITEM: 5b – PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2015-40
ITEM: Sign Variance – IRET Properties, 8650 Hudson Blvd
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Joan Ziertman
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing to consider a request from IRET properties for a variance to allow a 35-foot high, 16-foot wide pylon sign. The maximum pylon sign height for the subject property according to the Eagle Point Business Park Exterior Sign Design
Agreement is 30-foot high and 12-foot wide. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the variance request based on the findings listed in the Staff Report with the
following motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the 5 foot height and 4 foot width variance request at 8650
Hudson Blvd. to allow for a 35-foot high, 16-foot wide pylon sign at the High Pointe Medical
Campus based on the findings identified in the Staff Report.”
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: IRET Properties, 10050 Crosstown Circle, Suite 105, Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Property Owners: IRET Properties, 1400 31st Ave SW, Suite 60, Minot ND 58702
Location: 8650 Hudson Blvd, Lake Elmo
PID Number: 33.029.21.44.0007
Request: Variance – 5’ height and 4’ width variance from the pylon sign regulations of the
Eagle Point Business Park Exterior Sign Design Agreement
Existing Land Use: Medical Facilities
Existing Zoning: BP – Business Park
Surrounding Land Use: Medical Offices, Auto Body Repair, Offices
Surrounding Zoning: BP – Business Park
Comprehensive Plan: Business Park
Proposed Zoning: No Change
History: The subject property was platted as part of the Eagle Point Business Park
Planned Unit Development.
2
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM __ – PUBLIC HEARING
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 12/1/15
60 Day Deadline – 1/30/16
Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 3/30/16
Applicable Regulations: Eagle Park Business Park PUD Agreement
154.109 – Variances (Administration and Enforcement)
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from IRET Properties for a variance to allow a pylon sign that exceeds the maximum height and width allowed under the Eagle Park Business Park PUD
Agreement. Under the Agreement, the maximum height and width for a pylon sign in this location
would be 30-foot high and 12 foot wide feet. The applicant is requesting a 5-foot height and 4-foot width variance from the PUD Agreement to allow a 35-foot high and 16-foot wide pylon.
The applicant has provided a written statement to the City indicating the reason for the variance
request. The written statement includes a narrative addressing how the proposed variance meets the
four required findings to grant a variance under the City’s Zoning Code and State Statute.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located in the southeastern corner of the Eagle Point Business Park, east of Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) and Eagle Point Boulevard. The attached Exhibit B highlights the location of the parcel and its proposed pylon sign location. The parcel was platted as part of the Eagle
Point Business Park and is 10.46 acres in size. The subject property and surrounding properties are
zoned BP – Business Park. In terms of land use, the surrounding properties are mostly comprised of offices and other commercial uses with the exception of a collision shop.
In terms of the physical characteristics of the property, the site is irregularly shaped with frontage on
Hudson Boulevard, but with two other businesses, the Park Dental and Crossroads Collision carved
into their Hudson Boulevard frontage. The High Point Health building is a 3-story brick building that
sits up high toward the rear of the lot with the parking to its east side and entrance at the southeast corner of the building. The entrance drive curves behind the Crossroads Collision to Hudson Boulevard. The proposed pylon locations is on a vacant/undeveloped portion of the frontage between
the Crossroads Collision and Park Dental. The location is the best location for providing visibility
from Interstate 94, as it is the portion of the site where Hudson Boulevard runs parallel to the
Interstate. Other signs for the High Point Medical Facility include a large wall sign that faces south and a small monument sign where the entrance drive meets Hudson Boulevard. The building is a
multi-tenant building and site lacks signs depicting building tenants.
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES
In reviewing the applicable codes and planning considerations that apply to the subject property,
Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the following as it reviews this request:
The Eagle Point Business PUD Agreement. According to the sign design regulations in the agreement, the text references a 25-foot height, whereas the text below the graphic depiction
3
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM __ – PUBLIC HEARING
of the pylon sign states, “approximately 30’ high x 12’ wide. Furthermore, the staff prepared
summary of the Eagle Point Development Standards states:
“Sign Height: Businesses can have signage on the building and a monument sign at the
property’s entrance, and that a pylon sign must be approved on a case by case basis by
the City.”
The only other pylon sign in the “locality” is a non-conforming pylon sign for Crossroads
Collision. Further down the road to the east is one other pylon signs for Lamperts Lumber
which is a much larger non-conforming sign.
Site Topography/Visibility. As noted in the application, the building was one of the first to be constructed in the Eagle Point Business Park, and as other buildings have been constructed, some along the frontage, it has become increasingly difficult to find the
businesses in the facility. Visibility is poor from Hudson Road and even more so from
Interstate 94.
Regulatory Ambiguity. As noted earlier, the Eagle Park Business Park PUD Agreement is somewhat ambiguous. The written text associated with the signs references a 25-foot height, whereas the graphic uses the term, “approximately 30-foot”. To further complicate the
matter, a staff’s summary of the agreement states, “case by case” for pylon signs. This
ambiguity has caused internal interpretation issues. When first presented with this proposal,
Nick Johnson, the City Planner, stated that in an email to the applicant that the 35-foot pylon sign height, “will work”. Later, when Nick left the city, Kyle Klatt, the Development Director, denied the application. Based on the denial, present staff requested that applicant
apply for a variance.
Regulatory Delays. This process started on January 14, 2015 with an initial discussion with
Nick Johnson the former City Planner. A formal sign permit application was made on July 23, 2015 which was denied by the Development Director on September 2, 2015. On November 6, 2015, the applicant discussed the process with the new City Planner and a
variance application was submitted on December 1, 2015.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake
Elmo City Code Section 154.017 before an exception or modification to city code requirements can be granted. These criteria are listed below, along with comments from Staff regarding applicability of these criteria to the applicant’s request.
1) Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board
of Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such
actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definition of practical
difficulties - “Practical difficulties” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means
that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control.
Under this standard, the City would need to find that the placement of the proposed accessory
structure in the proposed location is a reasonable use of the property.
4
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM __ – PUBLIC HEARING
FINDINGS: Increasing the allowed height from 30-foot to 35-foot and the width from 12-foot to 16-
foot for a pylon sign represents a reasonable use of the property. The property is zoned Business
Park and is surrounded by other commercial uses. A larger nonconforming pylon sign exists
adjacent to the site. Visibility to the site is difficult and identification of the multiple tenants is also
reasonable. The variance is in keeping with the intent of the City’s sign ordinance: to foster high
quality commercial and industrial development and to enhance economic development of existing
businesses and industries by promoting reasonable, orderly, attractive and effective signs that meet
the need for business identification, advertising and communication. Staff determines that this
criterion is met.
2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner.
In order to demonstrate compliance with this standard, the Planning Commission would need to identify those aspects of the applicant’s property that would not pertain to other properties within the same zoning classification.
FINDINGS: The site, lot layout, and the poor visibility from Hudson Boulevard and Interstate 94
are unique and not circumstances created by the landowner. The Crossroads Collision and Park
Dental buildings sit in front of the High Point Health facility limiting visibility. The facility sits to the
rear of the site, the flat buildable area, leaving little physical presence on the Hudson Boulevard
frontage. The restrictive sign design guidelines were created by the developer and approved by the
City of Lake Elmo, not the current land owner/applicant. Staff determines that this criterion is met.
3) Character of locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located.
Propose findings for this criterion are as follows:
FINDINGS. The location of the property and surrounding properties are within the Business Park,
or are Commercial zoning. There exists one other pylon sign within the locality, and others beyond
that are larger and are noncompliant with the City’s sign ordinance. The Eagle Point Business Park
Agreement does allow a pylon sign. Staff determines that this criterion is met.
4) Adjacent Properties and Traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the
congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
Propose findings for this criterion are as follows:
FINDINGS. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to any
properties adjacent to the proposed pylon sign site. The proposed pylon sign is located on an
undeveloped portion of the applicant’s lot. The presence of the sign will not present additional
congestion on public streets, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood. Staff determines that this criterion is met.
Please note that the applicant has also provided a set of findings as part of the attached narrative and
supporting documentation included with the application.
Considering the potential findings of fact as suggested in the preceding section, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request based on the findings noted in items 1-4 above.
5
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM __ – PUBLIC HEARING
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request
submitted by IRET Properties given that the request meets the four criteria for a variance.
The suggested motion for taking action on the Staff recommendation is as follows:
“Move to recommend approval of the 5 foot height and 4 foot width variance request at 8650
Hudson Blvd. to allow for a 35-foot high, 16-foot wide pylon sign at the High Pointe Medical
Campus based on the findings identified in the Staff Report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Written Statement
2. Exhibits C–H to Written Statement 3. Site Survey 4. Adjacent Pylon photos
5. Letters of Support
6. Eagle Point Development Standards
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
MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: 1/19/2016
REGULAR #17
MOTION
AGENDA ITEM: PF-Public or Semi-Public Zoning District Text Amendment
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .................................................................................................... Staff
- Report/Presentation .................................................................................................... Staff
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................................ Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate ................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion .............................................................................. Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ..................................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................................. Mayor Facilitates
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City of Lake Elmo is requesting a zoning text amendment exempting essential services from
certain dimensional and buffer requirements of the PF - Public or Semi-Public Zoning District. Staff and the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the zoning text amendment pertaining to essential services in the PF – Public or Semi-Public District with the
following motion:
“Move to approve Ordinance 08-__exempting essential services from certain dimensional and buffer
requirements of the PF – Public or Semi-Public Zoning District”.
BACKGROUND AND STAFF REPORT:
The City of Lake Elmo negotiated the sale of property for the 75 foot x 90 foot, .16 acre, Inwood
Booster Station to be located adjacent to CSAH 13 (Inwood Avenue). A 15 foot setback from the
current roadway easement is being preserved for future County right-of-way as required in the
County’s Comprehensive Plan, leaving a 75 foot x 75 foot parcel upon which to site the booster
station. Public facilities, such as the Booster Station, should be zoned PF–Public or Semi-Public as guided in the Comprehensive Plan. The newly created .16 acre lot does not meet the dimensional
requirements of the PF Zoning District.
On January 11, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider exempting
essential services from certain dimensional and buffer requirements of the PF–Public or Semi
Public Zoning District. At the public hearing, two residents spoke: Mr. Vejtruba, 8457 26th St. N,
and Mr. Eberhard, the former land owner that negotiated with the city of the sale of the .16 acre parcel. Both residents asked questions of the planning commission, but neither opposed the
ordinance amendment. The Planning Commission discussion was related to the need for the text
amendment, and the need to maintain landscaping and screening with the exemption, architectural
standards, and noise. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the zoning text amendment adding text related to setbacks, screening and noise.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Inwood Booster Station is part of a 3.5 million dollar public project. The City has invested 18
months of staff time, $45,000 in site acquisition, plus engineering and design of the facility.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the zoning text amendment pertaining to essential services in the PF – Public or Semi-Public District with the following motion:
“Move to approve Ordinance 08-__exempting essential services from certain dimensional and buffer
requirements of the PF – Public or Semi-Public Zoning District”.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Planning Commission 1/11/2016 Planning Report
Draft Ordinance Amendment 08-__
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5c/d – ACTION ITEM
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 01/11/16
AGENDA ITEM: 5c/d – PUBLIC HEARING CASE #2015-45
City of Lake Elmo Planning Department
PF Zoning District Text Amendment – Rezoning to PF Zoning District
To: Planning Commission
From: Stephen Wensman, City Planner
Meeting Date: January 11, 2016
Applicant: City of Lake Elmo
Legal Address:
All that part of the North 75.00 feet of the East 150.00 feet of the North ½ of the
SW ¼ of Section 21, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Washington County,
Minnesota, which lies westerly of the west line of Parcel 3 of the WASHINGTON COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 98 – C.S.A.H. 13, according to the recorded plat thereof.
PID# 21.029.21.31.0002
Owner: City of Lake Elmo
Comprehensive
Plan: Public or Semi Public
Summary and Request:
Application
Summary:
Recommendation:
The City of Lake Elmo is requesting a zoning text amendment to exempt essential
services from the dimensional and buffer requirements of the PF - Public or Semi-
Public Zoning District. In addition, the city is requesting the rezoning of the Inwood
Booster Station property from Rural Residential to PF – Public or Semi-Public
Zoning District.
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the zoning text amendment to exempt essential services from the dimensional and
buffer requirements of the PF - Public or Semi-Public Zoning District, and
recommend approval of the rezoning of the Inwood Booster Station property,
PID# 21.029.21.31.0002, from Rural Residential to PF – Public or Semi-Public Zoning District with the following motions:
1) Move to approve a zoning text amendment exempting essential services
from the dimensional and buffer requirements of the PF - Public or
Semi-Public Zoning District.
2
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5c/d – ACTION ITEM
2) Move to approve a rezoning of Inwood Booster Station property from RR-
Rural Residential to PF- Public and Semi-Public Zoning District.
Attachments:
Location Map
Draft Ordinance Amendment 97-__
Property Exhibit.
Zoning Text Amendment and Rezoning
Review: The City of Lake Elmo negotiated the sale of property for the 75 foot x 90 foot, .16 acre, Inwood Booster Station to be located adjacent to CSAH 13 (Inwood Avenue). A
15 foot setback from the current roadway easement is being preserved for future
County right-of-way as required in the County’s Comprehensive Plan, leaving a 75
foot x 75 foot parcel upon which to site the booster station. The Inwood Booster
Station is an essential part of the city’s water distribution system. By definition, public utilities are considered an essential service in the City Code of Ordinances:
§ 154.012, Subd. B, 11
ESSENTIAL SERVICES. Underground or overhead gas, electric, steam, or water
distribution systems; collection, communication, supply, or disposal system,
including poles, wires, mains, drains, sewers, pipes, conduits, cables, fire alarm
boxes, police call boxes, traffic signals, hydrants, or other similar equipment and
accessories, but not including buildings or transmission services.
Essential services are a permitted use in all zoning districts, however, the City’s
comprehensive plan guides publicly owned facilities, such as essential services to the PF Zoning District.
§ 154.203 ESSENTIAL SERVICES.
Essential services as defined by this Ordinance are permitted in any district, provided
that a site plan for any new or expanded service facility is filed with the Planning
Department. The City Council may require site plan review of large facilities, upon the
recommendation of the Planning Director.
The original parcel and the newly created parcel for the Inwood Booster Station are
presently zoned RR-Rural Residential. The new Inwood Booster Station parcel should be zoned PF – Public or Semi-Public as guided in the city’s comprehensive plan.
Upon review of the proposed rezoning to PF – Public or Semi-Public, it became
apparent that the new parcel was non-conforming with the PF Zoning District
dimensional, and buffer requirements. The requirements are important for most land uses, however, essential services are generally incidental and subordinate to the
surrounding land uses, whatever they may be. In addition, it serves the welfare of the
public to have the least amount of property in public ownership while serving the
3
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5c/d – ACTION ITEM
essential needs of the public. For this reason, the City is requesting the amendment to
exempt essential services from the district’s dimensional, and buffer requirements of
the PF Zoning District.
The PF District requirements are as follows:
Minimum Lot Width: 100 feet
Minimum Lot Depth: 150 feet
Setbacks from property lines: 50 feet
Buffer Requirement: 50 feet
As part of the purchase agreement, the city has the right to provide landscaping within
the first 15 feet to the south and west of the parcel, upon permission for right of entry by the seller. The City is planning to provide a landscape screening of the Inwood
Booster Station parcel.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the zoning text
amendment and zoning map amendment with the following motions:
3) Move to approve a zoning text amendment exempting essential services from
the dimensional and buffer requirements of the PF - Public or Semi-Public
Zoning District.
4) Move to approve a rezoning of Inwood Booster Station property from RR-
Rural Residential to PF- Public and Semi-Public Zoning District.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 97-___
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 154.600 OF THE LAKE ELMO CITY CODE
TO EXEMPT ESSENTIAL SERVICES FROM THE PF- PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC
DIMENSIONAL AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS
The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 154.600 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
ARTICLE I. PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC DISTRICTS
§ 154.600 PF – PUBLIC AND QUASI-PUBLIC OPEN SPACE.
A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of the PF Zoning District is to allow uses and
structures that are incidental and subordinate to the overall land uses permitted in the city.
While allowing certain uses within the city, general performance standards have been
established. This is intended to assure maintenance and preservation of the established rural character of the city by preserving agricultural land, woodlands, corridors, and other
significant natural features, and provide buffering between PF and residential or other
uses.
B. Uses Allowed by Conditional Use Permit. In addition to the specific standards and
criteria which may be cited below for respective uses, each application shall be evaluated based on the standards and criteria set forth in §§ 154.015 through 154.021 of this code.
Uses allowed herein that are in existence within the city at the effective date of this
chapter may continue the use as a permitted use. The following uses are conditionally
permitted in the PF Zoning District:
1.Cemeteries, provided that:
a.Direct access is provided to a public street classified by the Comprehensive
Plan as major collector or arterial; and
b.No mausoleum, crematorium, or other structure is permitted, except a 1-story
tool or storage shed of 160 square feet floor maximum floor area.
2.Places of worship, provided that:
a.Direct access is provided to a public street classified by the Comprehensive
Plan as major collector or arterial;
b.No use may exceed 235 gallons wastewater generation per day per net acre of
land;
c. No on-site sewer system shall be designed to handle more than 5,000 gallons per day;
d. Exterior athletic fields shall not include spectator seating, public address
facilities or lighting; and
e. No freestanding broadcast or telecast antennas are permitted. No broadcast dish or antenna shall extend more than 6 feet above or beyond the principal structure.
3. Facilities for local, county and state government, provided that:
a. Direct access is provided to a public street classified by the Comprehensive
Plan as major collector or arterial;
b. The use and location is consistent with the community facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan; and
c. No use may exceed a ratio of 3.0 SAC units per 3.5 acres or 235 gallons per
day per net acre of land based on design capacity of all facilities, whichever is
more restrictive
4. Libraries and museums (public and private), provided that:
a. No use may exceed a ratio of 3.0 SAC units per 3.5 acres or 235 gallons per
day per net acre of land based on design capacity of all facilities, whichever is
more restrictive;
b. For private facilities, a plan is provided, together with a declaration and covenants to run with the title to the land, that prescribes perpetual maintenance, insurance and ownership responsibilities for all facilities and
land area; and
c. Direct access is provided to a public street classified by the Comprehensive
Plan as a major collector or arterial.
5. Public and private schools (except licensed day care), provided that:
a. No use may exceed a ratio of 3.0 SAC units per 3.5 acres or 235 gallons per
day per net acre of land based on design capacity of all facilities, whichever is
more restrictive; and
b. Direct access is provided to a public street classified by the Comprehensive Plan as a major collector or arterial.
6. Historic sites and interpretive centers, provided that:
a. Direct access is provided to a public street classified by the Comprehensive
Plan as a major collector or arterial; and
b. No use may exceed a ratio of 3.0 SAC units per 3.5 acres or 235 gallons per day per net acre of land based on design capacity of all facilities, whichever is
more restrictive.
C. Uses Allowed by Interim Use Permit. The keeping of horses in conjunction with
churches provided that:
1. The keeping of horses does not constitute a feedlot per Minn. Rules.
2. The property is directly adjacent to only Agricultural (A) and Rural Residential
(RR) zoned properties that are not developed as open space preservation
subdivisions. Roadways shall be considered an adequate buffer.
3. Evidence is provided to show adherence to all livestock and horse regulations in city code.
D. Accessory Uses and Structures. Uses and structures, which are clearly incidental and
subordinate to the principal permitted uses and structures. All exterior materials of
accessory structures must be the same as those of the principal structure.
E. Minimum district requirements.
1. District requirements in PF Zoning District.
District Requirements in PF Zoning Districta
With Structure Without Structure
Maximum Parcel Area 20 N.A.
Lot Width – Minimum: 100 Feet N.A.
Lot Depth – Minimum: 150 Feet N.A.
Primary Structure Setback from Property Line
Front – Minimum: 50 Feet N.A.
Side (Interior) – Minimum: 50 Feet N.A.
Side (Corner) – Minimum: 50 Feet N.A.
Rear – Minimum: 50 Feet N.A.
Accessory Structure Setback from Property Line
Front – Minimum: 50 Feet N.A.
Side (Interior) – Minimum: 50 Feet N.A.
Side (Corner) – Minimum: 50 Feet N.A.
Rear – Minimum: 50 Feet N.A.
Principal Structure Height - 50 Feet – Structure Side Walls Not N.A.
Maximum to Exceed 3.5 feet
Accessory Structure Height -
Maximum
35 Feet – Structure Side Walls Not
to Exceed 18 Feet N.A.
Unoccupied Structure Above
the Highest Point of the Roof 25 Feet -
Septic Drainfield Regulations See §§51.002 through §§51.008 See §§51.002 through §§51.008
Signage See §§154.212 See §§154.212
a. Essential services shall be exempt from the minimum district requirements of
the PF Zoning District.
2. Maximum lot area, buffer width and impervious coverage shall be in compliance
with the following table:
Maximum Parcel Areaa Buffer Width (Feet) Maximum Impervious Site
Coverage
0 to 5 acres 50 39.5%
5.1 to 10 acres 100 38%
10.1 to 20 acres 150 35%
a. Essential services shall be exempt from the buffering requirements of the PF
Zoning District.
F. Performance standards.
1. Generally
a. Architectural Standards
i. It is the purpose and intent of the city, by the adoption of the
performance standards of this division (F), to ensure commercial
buildings constructed within the city are of a high quality of exterior appearance, consistent with the terms of Non-Residential Development Policy #5 of the 2000-2010 Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. It is the
finding of the city that a limited selection of primary exterior surfacing
materials meets this standard of quality.
ii. It is the further finding of the city that several specific exterior surfacing materials are appropriate, and of sufficient quality, to be utilized only as accent materials in varying percentages. The
variations of percentage of specific accent materials relates to a finding by the city as to the relative quality and rural character of those
respective accent materials.
b. Architectural and Site Plan Submittals. New building proposals shall include
architectural and site plans prepared by registered architect and shall show the following as a minimum:
i. Elevations of all sides of the buildings;
ii. Type and color of exterior building materials;
iii. Typical general floor plans;
iv. Dimensions of all structures; and
v. Location of trash containers, heating, cooling and ventilation equipment and systems.
c. Applicability – structure additions and renovation.
i. Additions to existing structures resulting in an increase of gross floor
area of the structure of less than 100%; and/or installation of replacement exterior surfacing any portion of an existing structure shall be exempt from the standards of this subdivision where it is
found that the new or replacement exterior surfacing proposed is
identical to that of the existing structure.
ii. Where additions to an existing structure result in an increase in the gross floor area of the existing structure of 100% or greater, the entire structure (existing structure and structure addition) shall be subject to
the standard of this subdivision.
d. Performance standards – primary exterior surfacing.
i. The primary exterior surfacing of structures shall be limited to natural brick, stone, or glass. Artificial or thin veneer brick or stone less than nominal 4 inches thick shall not qualify as complying with this
performance standard
ii. Primary exterior surface shall be defined as not less than 70% of the
sum of the area of all exterior walls of a structure nominally perpendicular to the ground. All parapet or mansard surfaces
extending above the ceiling height of the structure shall be considered
exterior surface for the purposes of this division. Windows and glass
doors shall be considered a primary surface, but the sum area of this
glass shall be deducted from the wall area for purposes of the 70% primary/30% accent formulas of this section. Doors of any type of
material, except glass, shall not be considered a primary exterior
surface.
iii. Each wall of the structure shall be calculated separately and,
individually comply with the 70/30 formula.
e. Performance Standard – Exterior Surfacing Accents. Not more than 30% of the exterior wall surfacing, as defined by division (F)(1)(d) above may be of
the following listed accent materials, but no single accent material, except
natural wood, may comprise more than 20% of the total of all accent
materials; and no combustible materials shall be used:
i. Cedar, redwood, wood siding
ii. Cement fiber board;
iii. Standing seam metal;
iv. Architectural metal;
v. Stucco;
vi. Poured in place concrete (excluding “tilt-up” panels);
vii. Architectural metal panels; and
(Am. Ord. 97-172, passed 6-20-2006)
viii. Porcelain or ceramic tile.
f. Performance Standards – Accessory Structures. All accessory structures shall comply with the exterior surfacing requirements specified by this division.
g. Performance Standard – HVAC Units and Exterior Appurtenances. All
exterior equipment, HVAC and trash/recycling and dock areas shall be
screened from view of the public with the primary exterior materials used on the principal structure
h. Performance Standard – Visible Roofing Materials. Any roofing materials
that are visible from ground level shall be standing seam metal, fire-treated
cedar shakes, ceramic tile, clay tile, concrete, or slate.
i. Applicability – New Construction. The standards of this division (F)(1) shall be applicable to all structures and buildings constructed in the city, on and after the effective date of this division. The performance standards of this
division shall not be in any manner minimized by subsequent planned unit
development plans or agreement.
(Am. Ord. 97-168, passed 5-2-2006)
2. Parking. Each site shall be provided with off-street automobile parking as
follows:
a. Places of Worship. One space for each permanent and temporary 4 seats
based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall. Facilities as may be provided in conjunction with such buildings and uses shall be subject to
additional requirements that are imposed by the city code.
b. Facilities for Local, County and State Government. One space for each 250
square feet of office area. Facilities as may be provided in conjunction with
such buildings and uses shall be subject to additional requirements that are imposed by the city code.
c. School, Elementary and Junior High (public or private). Three spaces for
each class room.
d. School, High School (public or private). One space for each 2 students.
e. Historic Sites and Interpretive Centers, libraries, and museums (public or
private). One space for each 300 square feet of floor area.
3. Landscaping. All yard area shall either be landscaped green areas or open and
left in a natural state. Yards to be landscaped shall be landscaped attractively
with lawn, trees, and shrubs in accordance with a plan prepared by a landscape architect. Areas left in a natural state shall be kept free of litter, debris, and noxious weeds. Yards adjoining any residential zone shall contain a buffer area
consisting of berming, landscaping, and/or fencing for the purpose of screening
noise, sight, sound, and glare.
4. Buffering. Where areas abut residential districts, a buffer area and setback in compliance with this division (F) is required. The buffer requirement shall be applicable to any interior parcel property line, and not applied to property lines
abutting improved public streets. No public/private streets or driveways, or off-
street parking facilities may be located in the buffer area. The buffer area shall be
completely defined and designed, and approved by the city prior to all final city approvals for construction on site. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or commencement of any improvements on site, the owner shall provide the city
with a financial security for a minimum of 24 months unless a shorter term of
security is specifically approved by the City Council, approved by the City
Attorney, to assure construction of the buffer area. All landscaping shall comply with § 151.070.
5. Signage. All signs shall comply with § 151.121 of this Code.
6. Lighting. All lighting shall comply with §§ 150.035 through 150.038.
7. Traffic. All applications for a building permit responsive to the requirements of
this section shall include a detailed report, certified by a registered engineer, demonstrating the extent of and quantitative impact on public roads from
forecasted traffic of the use, based on ITE average daily and peak hour/event
traffic. Forecasted traffic generation within the design capacity of an impacted
public street, as determined by the City Engineer, shall be the primary
determinant for approval of the site plan.
(Am. Ord. 97-62, passed 9-5-2000; Am. Ord. 97-192, passed 6-19-2007; Am. Ord. 97-204,
passed 12-11-2007)
Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official
newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo.
Adoption Date
This Ordinance No. _____ was adopted on this 19 day of January, 2016, by a vote of _ Ayes and _ Nays.
_________________________________
Mayor Mike Pearson
ATTEST:
_________________________________ Clark Schroeder
Interim Administrator
This Ordinance No. __-___ was published on the ___ day of ____, 2016.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: 1/19/2016
REGULAR #18
MOTION
AGENDA ITEM: Rezone Inwood Booster Station to PF Zoning District
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .................................................................................................... Staff
- Report/Presentation .................................................................................................... Staff
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................................ Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate ................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion .............................................................................. Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ..................................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................................. Mayor Facilitates
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City of Lake Elmo is requesting the rezoning of the Inwood Booster Station property, PID#
21.029.21.31.0002 from Rural Residential to PF – Public or Semi-Public Zoning District with the following motion:
“Move to approve Ordinance 08 - __ approving a Zoning Map Amendment to
rezone the Inwood Booster Station property, PID# 21.029.21.31.0002 from RR
-Rural Residential to PF – Public or Semi Public”.
BACKGROUND AND STAFF REPORT:
The City of Lake Elmo negotiated the sale of property for the 75 foot x 90 foot, .16 acre, Inwood
Booster Station to be located adjacent to CSAH 13 (Inwood Avenue). A 15 foot setback from the
current roadway easement is being preserved for future County right-of-way as required in the
County’s Comprehensive Plan, leaving a 75 foot x 75 foot parcel upon which to site the booster station. Public facilities, such as the Booster Station, should be zoned PF–Public or Semi-Public as guided in the Comprehensive Plan.
On January 11, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to rezone the parcel from
RR - Rural Residential to PF – Public or Semi Public. At the public hearing, two residents spoke:
Mr. Vejtruba, 8457 26th St. N, and Mr. Eberhard, the former land owner that negotiated with the city of the sale of the .16 acre parcel. Both residents asked questions of the planning commission,
but neither opposed the rezoning. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Inwood Booster Station is part of a 3.5 million dollar public project. The City has invested 18
months of staff time, $45,000 in site acquisition, plus engineering and design of the facility.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City of Lake Elmo is requesting the rezoning of the Inwood Booster Station property, PID# 21.029.21.31.0002 from Rural Residential to PF – Public or Semi-Public Zoning District with the
following motion:
“Move to approve Ordinance 08 - __ approving a Zoning Map Amendment to
rezone the Inwood Booster Station property, PID# 21.029.21.31.0002 from RR
-Rural Residential to PF – Public or Semi Public”.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Planning Commission 1/11/2016 Planning Report
Inwood Booster Station Exhibit
Location Map
T T T T TTTTT T
WT T
W>>>>>>>>EXHIBIT LEXHIBIT L09880003WASHINGTON COUNTY, MNCITY OF LAKE ELMOINWOOD BOOSTER STATIONPLOT DATE:NO.DATEREVISIONSHEETFILE NO.12/18/15, P:\9800s\9880s\9880\09880003\CADD\C3D\9880003 Design.dwgBYRegistration No.DateENGINEERDATEREGNO............CESLAJ.09880003CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO.:PROJECT DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:AS SHOWNF.B. :...612-548-3132 1-866-452-9454 Fax: 763-786-457460 Plato Boulevard East St. Paul, MN 55107Web Address: www.msa-ps.com06$3URIHVVLRQDO6HUYLFHV,QF020510PROPERTY LINEAPPROX. 1006.0@ ROAD EDGEINWOOD AVENUE NORTH 15' DRIVE @ 5.35% SLOPE8' x 16'GENERATOR PAD15.00'75.00'20.44'54.56'75'75'39.33'25.33'15' CONSTRUCTIONEASEMENTFFE=1010'10151015
10111009
1008
1007
1006100510061
0
0
7 SURFACE INLETSTRUCTUREFLARED END SECTIONDISCHARGE TO EX. DITCH1010101410141013101210115' x 5'TRANSFORMER PAD48" MAXRETAINING WALL101210131014101010091009
22.00'
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5c/d – ACTION ITEM
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 01/11/16
AGENDA ITEM: 5c/d – PUBLIC HEARING CASE #2015-45
City of Lake Elmo Planning Department
PF Zoning District Text Amendment – Rezoning to PF Zoning District
To: Planning Commission
From: Stephen Wensman, City Planner
Meeting Date: January 11, 2016
Applicant: City of Lake Elmo
Legal Address: All that part of the North 75.00 feet of the East 150.00 feet of the North ½ of the
SW ¼ of Section 21, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Washington County,
Minnesota, which lies westerly of the west line of Parcel 3 of the WASHINGTON COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 98 – C.S.A.H. 13, according to the recorded plat thereof.
PID# 21.029.21.31.0002
Owner: City of Lake Elmo
Comprehensive
Plan: Public or Semi Public
Summary and Request:
Application
Summary:
Recommendation:
The City of Lake Elmo is requesting a zoning text amendment to exempt essential
services from the dimensional and buffer requirements of the PF - Public or Semi-
Public Zoning District. In addition, the city is requesting the rezoning of the Inwood
Booster Station property from Rural Residential to PF – Public or Semi-Public
Zoning District.
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the zoning text amendment to exempt essential services from the dimensional and
buffer requirements of the PF - Public or Semi-Public Zoning District, and
recommend approval of the rezoning of the Inwood Booster Station property,
PID# 21.029.21.31.0002, from Rural Residential to PF – Public or Semi-Public Zoning District with the following motions:
1)Move to approve a zoning text amendment exempting essential services
from the dimensional and buffer requirements of the PF - Public or
Semi-Public Zoning District.
2
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5c/d – ACTION ITEM
2) Move to approve a rezoning of Inwood Booster Station property from RR-
Rural Residential to PF- Public and Semi-Public Zoning District.
Attachments:
Location Map
Draft Ordinance Amendment 97-__
Property Exhibit.
Zoning Text Amendment and Rezoning
Review: The City of Lake Elmo negotiated the sale of property for the 75 foot x 90 foot, .16 acre, Inwood Booster Station to be located adjacent to CSAH 13 (Inwood Avenue). A
15 foot setback from the current roadway easement is being preserved for future
County right-of-way as required in the County’s Comprehensive Plan, leaving a 75
foot x 75 foot parcel upon which to site the booster station. The Inwood Booster
Station is an essential part of the city’s water distribution system. By definition, public utilities are considered an essential service in the City Code of Ordinances:
§ 154.012, Subd. B, 11
ESSENTIAL SERVICES. Underground or overhead gas, electric, steam, or water
distribution systems; collection, communication, supply, or disposal system,
including poles, wires, mains, drains, sewers, pipes, conduits, cables, fire alarm
boxes, police call boxes, traffic signals, hydrants, or other similar equipment and
accessories, but not including buildings or transmission services.
Essential services are a permitted use in all zoning districts, however, the City’s
comprehensive plan guides publicly owned facilities, such as essential services to the PF Zoning District.
§ 154.203 ESSENTIAL SERVICES.
Essential services as defined by this Ordinance are permitted in any district, provided
that a site plan for any new or expanded service facility is filed with the Planning
Department. The City Council may require site plan review of large facilities, upon the
recommendation of the Planning Director.
The original parcel and the newly created parcel for the Inwood Booster Station are
presently zoned RR-Rural Residential. The new Inwood Booster Station parcel should be zoned PF – Public or Semi-Public as guided in the city’s comprehensive plan.
Upon review of the proposed rezoning to PF – Public or Semi-Public, it became
apparent that the new parcel was non-conforming with the PF Zoning District
dimensional, and buffer requirements. The requirements are important for most land uses, however, essential services are generally incidental and subordinate to the
surrounding land uses, whatever they may be. In addition, it serves the welfare of the
public to have the least amount of property in public ownership while serving the
3
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5c/d – ACTION ITEM
essential needs of the public. For this reason, the City is requesting the amendment to
exempt essential services from the district’s dimensional, and buffer requirements of
the PF Zoning District.
The PF District requirements are as follows:
Minimum Lot Width: 100 feet
Minimum Lot Depth: 150 feet
Setbacks from property lines: 50 feet
Buffer Requirement: 50 feet
As part of the purchase agreement, the city has the right to provide landscaping within
the first 15 feet to the south and west of the parcel, upon permission for right of entry by the seller. The City is planning to provide a landscape screening of the Inwood
Booster Station parcel.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the zoning text
amendment and zoning map amendment with the following motions:
3) Move to approve a zoning text amendment exempting essential services from
the dimensional and buffer requirements of the PF - Public or Semi-Public
Zoning District.
4) Move to approve a rezoning of Inwood Booster Station property from RR-
Rural Residential to PF- Public and Semi-Public Zoning District.
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: January 19, 2016
REGULAR
ITEM # 19
AGENDA ITEM: Inwood Trunk Watermain Improvements– Approve Plans and Specifications,
Calling Hearing on Improvement, and Order Advertisement for Bids
SUBMITTED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Mike Bouthilet, Public Works
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .................................................................................. City Engineer
- Report/Presentation .................................................................................. City Engineer
- Questions from Council to Staff ......................................................... Mayor Facilitates
- Public Input, if Appropriate .............................................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. The total estimated cost for the Inwood Trunk Watermain Improvements is $2,000,000. The project is
being completed in conjunction with the Inwood Water Booster Station Improvement which will be bid as a separate construction package. The project is scheduled to be paid through a combination of the City’s
Water Enterprise Fund, bonding and MN-DEED Water System Grant.
Approval of this resolution does not commit the council to the project costs. Once contractor bids are
received, the actual construction costs will be known and the council will be asked to consider entering
into a contract to complete the work. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving the plans and specifications, calling
hearing on improvement, and ordering the advertisement for bids for the Inwood Trunk Watermain Improvements. The recommended motion for this action is as follows:
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 19]
January 19, 2016
-- page 2 --
“Move to approve Resolution No. 2016-04, approving the plans and specifications, calling hearing on
improvement and ordering the advertisement for bids for the Inwood Trunk Watermain Improvements.”
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In accordance with the 2016 Capital Improvement Plan, the city is extending trunk watermain along Inwood Avenue to deliver city water service to support growth and development along the I-94 corridor. This project serves the new developments between Keats Avenue and Inwood Avenue which includes
Savona (Lennar), Boulder Ponds (Excellsior), Hammes Estates, Inwood PUD (Hans Hagen), and the existing properties within the Eagle Point Business Park.
On January 21, 2014, the council authorized the preparation of plans and specifications for the Inwood Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvements. Then on April 15, 2014 the project was put on hold and the bid date delayed until such a time that the City Administrator could secure the MN-DEED Water System
Grant. The project funding has now been secured and the design consultant, MSA Professional Services, Inc., has updated the construction documents for the improvements to be constructed in 2016.
Plans and Specifications have been completed for the Inwood Trunk Watermain Improvements. The Engineer’s opinion of total project cost is 2,000,000. The improvements include:
• Extension of a 16-inch diameter trunk watermain along Inwood Avenue from 26th Street North to
Eagle Point Boulevard, connecting to the existing water system in the Eagle Point Business Park.
• At the direction of the city council, the project does not include water service to the Parkview
Estates neighborhood.
• Installation of 2 service stubs to existing properties along Inwood Avenue to provide property owners the opportunity to connect to municipal water.
• Traffic control, erosion control, cleanup and restoration.
A feasibility report for this project was adopted by council on December 3, 2013. The report identified an
opportunity to provide water service to residents in the Parkview Estates neighborhood. A public hearing for improvements was held on January 21, 2014 at which time the council heard from property owners in
the neighborhood that they were not interested in City Water. At the conclusion of the hearing, Council directed staff to remove this scope from the proposed improvements.
Two properties along Inwood Avenue have been identified to be assessed a $5,800 lateral benefit assessment since the trunk watermain will be placed adjacent to their residence. It is Staff’s recommendation to call a hearing for improvements to follow the assessment proceedings identified in
State Statute 429. Of these two properties, one assessment will be waived per the land purchase agreement for the Booster Station site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the plans and specifications, call a hearing on the
improvements, and order the advertisement for bids for the Inwood Trunk Watermain Improvements. The recommended motion for this action is as follows:
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 19]
January 19, 2016
-- page 3 --
“Move to approve Resolution No. 2016-04, approving the plans and specifications, calling hearing on improvement, and ordering the advertisement for bids for the Inwood Trunk Watermain
Improvements.” ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Resolution 2016-04 Approving Plans and Specifications, Calling Hearing on Improvement, and
Ordering Advertisement for Bids
2. Location Map.
3. Project Schedule.
4. Notice of Improvement Hearing Publication
5. Inwood Trunk Watermain Improvements Plans and Specification (available for review at City
Hall).
Resolution No. 2016-04 1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2016-04
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS,
CALLING HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT, AND ORDERING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE
INWOOD TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council authorization, adopted on August 6, 2013, a
feasibility report was prepared by FOCUS Engineering, Inc. for a booster station and
improvements of trunk watermain facilities along Inwood Avenue N, from 26th Street to Eagle Point Business Park in order to provide access to the municipal water system; and
WHEREAS, the feasibility report recommends that connection service stubs be installed
to properties located adjacent to the watermain improvements and recommends that a portion of
the cost of the improvements be assessed pursuant to the City’s Special Assessment Policy and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the feasibility report provides information regarding whether the proposed
improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible; whether it should best be made as
proposed or in connection with some other improvement; the estimated cost of the improvements as recommended; and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments
for affected parcels; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was previously held on these proposed improvements on
January 21, 2014 at which the City Council provided direction to eliminate the scope of improvements identified in the report to extend water service into Parkview Estates; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the City Council on the 21st day of
January 2014, the City Engineer, together with MSA Professional Services, Inc. has prepared
plans and specifications for the Inwood Trunk Watermain Improvements and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval; and
WHEREAS, the public improvement hearing must be re-held since more than 12 months
have passed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED,
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file at Lake Elmo City Hall, and
made a part hereof, are hereby approved.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and posted online with Quest Construction Data Network (QuestCDN.com) an advertisement for
bids upon the making of such improvements under such approved plans and
specifications. The advertisement shall be published for at least 21 days, shall specify the
Resolution No. 2016-04 2
work to be done, and shall state that sealed bids provided to the City Clerk prior to the
specified bid date and time and accompanied by a bid bond or cashier’s check made
payable to the City of Lake Elmo in an amount not less than 5% of the amount of such
bid will be considered. 3. That the City Council will consider the improvements in accordance with the report and
the assessments of the abutting properties for all or a portion of the cost of the
improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429 at an estimated total project
cost of $2,000,000.
4. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvements on the 1st day of March, 2016, in the council chambers of the City Hall at or approximately after 7:00 P.M. and
the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as
required by law.
ADOPTED BY THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ON THE NINETEENTH DAY OF
JANUARY 2016.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By: __________________________
Mike Pearson
Mayor (Seal)
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julie Johnson
City Clerk
PROJECT SCHEDULE
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
INWOOD TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT NO. 2014.130
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
January 2016
August 6, 2013 Council orders preparation of a Feasibility Report.
December 3, 2013 Presentation of Feasibility Report. Council accepts Report and calls Hearing.
January 21, 2014 Public Improvement Hearing. Council Orders the Improvement for the Inwood Trunk
Watermain Improvments and the preparation of Plans and Specifications.
April 15, 2014 Council approves Plans and Specifications and orders Advertisement for Bids at the
direction of the City Administrator.
Project was delayed due to delay in receipt of MN-DEED Water System Grant. Per State Statute,
contractor bids must be received for the project within one-year of ordering the improvement.
Therefore a new Public Improvement Hearing must be held.
January 19, 2016 Council approves Plans and Specifications; orders Ad for Bids; and calls Hearing.
February 18, 2016 Receive Contractor Bids.
March 1, 2016 Public Improvement Hearing. Council Orders the Improvement for the Inwood Trunk
Watermain Improvments. Council accepts bids and awards contract.
April 7, 2016 Conduct Pre-construction meeting and issue Notice to Proceed.
August 26, 2016 Substantial Completion (watermain online and operational).
September 30, 2016 Final Completion (punch list and final paperwork).
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
NOTICE OF HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT
INWOOD AVENUE TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Lake Elmo will meet in the council
chambers of the city hall at or approximately after 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, March 1, 2016,
to consider the making of the following improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 429.011 to 429.111;
The improvement will consist of extending the water system approximately 2.1
miles south along Inwood Avenue beginning at 26th Street North and ending at
Eagle Point Boulevard. This improvement will provide municipal water service to
developing properties in the southwest part of the City. Individual service stubs
will be installed to properties with existing homes that are located adjacent to the watermain improvements. Fire hydrants will be installed along the corridor,
providing increased fire suppression capabilities in the extended service area.
The area proposed to be assessed for these improvements include the properties with
existing residences and located along Inwood Avenue directly abutting the location of the proposed watermain improvements. The estimated total cost of the improvements is
$2,000,000. A reasonable estimate of the impact of the assessment will be available at the
hearing. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvements
will be heard at this meeting.
DATED: January 19, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
Mike Pearson, Mayor
(Published in the Oakdale-Lake Elmo Review on January 27, 2016 and February 3, 2016)
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: January 19, 2016
REGULAR ITEM # 20
AGENDA ITEM: Inwood Water Tower (No. 4) – Approve Plans and Specifications and Order
Advertisement for Bids
SUBMITTED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .................................................................................. City Engineer
- Report/Presentation .................................................................................. City Engineer
- Questions from Council to Staff ......................................................... Mayor Facilitates
- Public Input, if Appropriate .............................................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
The total estimated project cost for the Inwood Water Tower (No. 4) Improvement is $3,200,000. The improvements are scheduled for construction in 2016 as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
The Inwood Water Tower (No. 4) will be partially funded using MN-DEED Grant funds and partially funded through the issuance of general obligation bonds with bond payments made from the water
enterprise fund.
Approval of this resolution does not commit the council to the project costs. Once contractor bids are
received, the actual construction costs will be known and the council will be asked to consider entering
into a contract to complete the work.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving the plans and specifications and ordering
the advertisement for bids for the Inwood Water Tower (No. 4). The recommended motion for this action is as follows:
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 20]
January 19, 2016
-- page 2 --
“Move to approve Resolution No. 2016-03, approving the plans and specifications and ordering the
advertisement for bids for the Inwood Water Tower (No. 4).”
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Inwood Water Tower (No. 4) is an elevated storage tank that will provide water supply and fire
suppression storage for the City’s high pressure zone in the southwest portion of the City. The facility will be construction on a 1.5 acre lot located along Inwood Avenue approximately half-way between 10th Street and 15th Street. This site was purchased by the City in 2015.
The City retained the engineering design consultant (SEH) to complete a preliminary design evaluation for the Inwood Water Tower (No. 4), including recommendations for storage volume requirements and to
evaluate the capital and life cycle costs for the two most common elevated tank styles. Following the direction of the Council on November 11, 2015 the final design was prepared for a 1.0 Million Gallon (MG) Composite Elevated Water Storage Tank. The composite style tank matches Water Tower No. 2
near the Public Works building.
Plans and Specifications have been completed for the Inwood Water Tower (No. 4) Improvements. The
design engineer’s post design total estimated project cost is $3,200,000. The improvements will be partially funded using MN-DEED Grant funds and partially funded through the issuance of general
obligation bonds with bond payments made from the water enterprise fund.
Mezzanine spaces are often added in elevated storage tanks to provide space for telecommunication
companies to locate their equipment interior to the tank. Inclusion of the mezzanine would potentially eliminate the need for telecommunication companies to install buildings on the grounds exterior to the tower if they seek the ability to install an antenna on the tank. The project has been designed to include
the mezzanine space as an alternate bid for the Council to consider. The construction cost is estimated to add $130,000 on top of the $3,200,000 number presented in this report. Staff will present more information regarding this amenity at the meeting for Council discussion.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the plans and specifications and order the advertisement for bids for the Inwood Water Tower (No. 4). The recommended motion for this action is as follows:
“Move to approve Resolution No. 2016-03, approving the plans and specifications and ordering the advertisement for bids for the Inwood Water Tower (No. 4).”
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Resolution 2016-03 Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids
2.Location Map.
3.Project Schedule.
4.Inwood Water Tower (No. 4) Plans and Specification (available for review at City Hall).
Resolution No. 2016-03 1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-03
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND
ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE
INWOOD WATER TOWER (NO. 4) IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, on October 6, 2015 the City Council directed the City Engineer, together
with SEH, Inc. to prepare plans and specifications for the Inwood Water Tower (No. 4) Improvements, and
WHEREAS, plans and specifications for the Inwood Water Tower (No. 4)
Improvements have been prepared for a 1,000,000 million gallon composite style water tower to
be located on property recently purchased by the City along Inwood Avenue, between 10th Street and 15th Street.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED,
1.Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file at Lake Elmo City Hall, andmade a part hereof, are hereby approved.2.The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and posted
online with Quest Construction Data Network (QuestCDN.com) an advertisement for
bids upon the making of such improvements under such approved plans and
specifications. The advertisement shall be published for at least 21 days, shall specify thework to be done, and shall state that sealed bids provided to the City Clerk prior to thespecified bid date and time and accompanied by a bid bond or cashier’s check made
payable to the City of Lake Elmo in an amount not less than 5% of the amount of such
bid will be considered.
ADOPTED BY THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ON THE NINETEENTH DAY OF
JANUARY 2016. CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By: __________________________
Mike Pearson Mayor (Seal)
ATTEST:
________________________________ Julie Johnson
City Clerk
80 foot R/W
1.5 acres
PROJECT SCHEDULE
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
INWOOD WATER TOWER (NO. 4)
PROJECT NO. 2015.130
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
JANUARY 2016
October 6, 2015 Council approves consultant selection.
November 17, 2015 Preliminary Design. Council accepts preliminary design recommendations (water
tower style, materials, and site plan).
January 19, 2016 Council approves Plans and Specifications and orders Advertisement for Bids.
February 18, 2016 Receive Contractor Bids.
March 1, 2016 Council accepts Bids and awards Contract.
April 7, 2016 Conduct Pre-construction meeting and issue Notice to Proceed.
October 1, 2017 Substantial Completion (water tower online and operational).
November 3, 2017 Final Completion (punch list and final paperwork).
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
-- page 1 --
DATE: January 19, 2016
REGULAR
ITEM # 21
AGENDA ITEM: Library Board Appointments
SUBMITTED BY: Julie Johnson, City Clerk
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Nate Deprey, Library Director; Clark Schroeder
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .............................................................. City Administrator
- Report/Presentation…………………………………………City Administrator
- Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates
- Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates
FISCAL IMPACT: None
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The terms of Library Board Members Steve
DeLapp and Sarah Linder expired December 31, 2015. Both have indicated that they would like to be reappointed to the Board, and Alternate Margot Seileni would like to be appointed as a full Board Member. Additionally, Tom DeGree has applied to fill a vacancy that currently exists on
the Board.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: The Library Board took action at its January 13th meeting to eliminate the alternate positions and increase the Board from 7 members to 9 members. If the Council chooses to reappoint Steve DeLapp and Sarah Linder and appoint Margot Seileni and
Tom DeGree, the Board will have 8 Members and one vacancy. The newly appointed and
reappointed Members would serve three year terms that would expire December 31, 2018.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT):
Strengths Appointing volunteers to fill vacancies on the Library Board ensures a
quorum will be available at the meetings
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item]
January 19, 2016
-- page 2 --
Weaknesses There are no identified weaknesses.
Opportunities Filling current vacancies on the Library Board
Threats There are no identified threats.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends filling vacancies on the Library Board with the
following motion:
“Motion to reappoint Steve DeLapp and Sarah Linder to the Library Board and
appoint Margot Seileni and Tom Degree to the Library Board.” Additionally, staff recommends Council direct staff to post the vacant Library Board position on
the City website and FRESH weekly email.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: 1/19/16
REGULAR
ITEM #: 22
MOTION
AGENDA ITEM: Bureau of Mediation Services process
SUBMITTED BY: Mike Pearson
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder
REVIEWED BY: Clark Schroeder
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .................................................................................................... Staff - Report/Presentation .................................................................................................... Staff - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................................ Mayor Facilitates
- Public Input, if Appropriate ................................................................... Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion .............................................................................. Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ..................................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................................. Mayor Facilitates
PUBLIC POLICY : Possible meeting management policies could be made
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
Unanimous vote by Council to engage in mediation services with the Bureau of Mediation
Services (BMS) to improve the working dynamic of the city council.
BACKGROUND AND STAFF REPORT: In early August, the League of Minnesota Cities
(LMC) was contacted to help mediate what was felt at the time as a decrease in working relations
amongst council members. The LMC suggested the city work with the BMS to explore common
ground amongst the council members and decrease conflict. The LMC and the BMS were
invited to discuss and mediate council concerns. A number of meetings were held both with full
council and a sub-set of council members, BMS staff and LMC staff. These meetings dealt with
subject matter such as agenda setting, meeting decorum, council roles/lanes versus staff. At
some point the BMS felt that progress was stalled and they withdrew from the process. They are
willing to come back to the city council when there is full support from all council members to
develop compromise on an issue which council is currently divided on.
RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the City Administrator that City Council
invite the BMS back to provide mediation services for the purpose of improving meeting
management/interaction and agenda setting.
Motion: “The Lake Elmo City Council officially requests and invites the LMC and / or the BMS to continue working with the Council and city staff in an effort to improve the working
dynamics of same; specifically, to help council resolve the issue of City Council
meeting interaction and setting agendas.”
MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: 1/19/16
REGULAR
ITEM #: 23
MOTION
AGENDA ITEM: Council Role In Recommending Employees For Hire To Council
SUBMITTED BY: Clark Schroeder
THROUGH: Clark Schroeder
REVIEWED BY: Clark Schroeder
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction of Item .................................................................................................... Staff - Report/Presentation .................................................................................................... Staff - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................................ Mayor Facilitates
- Public Input, if Appropriate ................................................................... Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion .............................................................................. Mayor & City Council
- Discussion ..................................................................................... Mayor & City Council
- Action on Motion .................................................................................. Mayor Facilitates
PUBLIC POLICY STATEMENT: Council has the option to set policy regarding Council role
in recommending employees to City Council for hire
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff Recommend that with the exception of the City Administrator position, city staff interview
and recommend for employment new hires to city council
BACKGROUND AND STAFF REPORT:
Lake Elmo’s City Administrator ordinance states the following.
§ 31.29 PERSONNEL.
(A) Acts as personnel officer, and is responsible for implementation of city personnel policies with the authority to effectively recommend employment, discipline, or removal of city employees for Council action;
It is the opinion of the writer, this ordinance authorizes the City Administrator and his/her staff
to recommend for employment all new hires. The involvement of Council Members in advising
staff after they have sat in on interviews creates undue pressure on the Administrator to
recommend to the City Council what the City Council Members have already recommended.
The city should operate in a fashion so that Council Members all have the same information at
the same time when asked to make policy decisions. Having individual Council Members
interview with applicants creates an imbalance of information and knowledge between council
members. If council members wish to interview and make recommendations for hire to the City
Council, all City Council Members should be invited in the interest of equality.
RECOMMENDATION:
Move to: “With the exception of the City Administrator position, interviewing and
recommending candidates for employment to the City Council should be made by city staff.”
ATTACHMENT(S): None