The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03.18.02 Council Packet 1- -- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 A Proud Past - A Promising Future Committed to Providing High Quality, Timely and Responsive Service to All Of Our Customers AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2002 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Action Taken 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVEAGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS a) Acknowledge Retirement - Paul Speiker b) Recognize John Powers Appointment to Board Acknowledged Acknowledged 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Openfor Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (3/4/02 Regular) b) Approve Vermillion River Memorandum of Understanding - Engineering c) Approve Sewer Televising Contract - Engineering d) Approve Change Order - 19Sth Street Project - Engineering e) Approve Change Order - City Facilities Project - Engineering f) Approve Off-Sale Beer License - EconoF oods - Administration g) Adopt Resolution - Private Development Project Closeouts - Engineering h) Accept Resignation- Solid Waste - Administration i) Appointment Recommendation - Solid Waste - Administration j) Consider CEEF Funding Request - Administration k) School and Conference - Finance 1) School and Conference - Fire m) School and Conference - Police n) Approve Bills Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved ApIJroved R22-02, R23-02 R24-02 Approved Approved lriformation Received Information Received Information Received Approved . PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Approve Liquor License - Do-Little and See-More Holdings dba Gossips- Administration Approved 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT ------ ~, - 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Appointment to Heritage Preservation Commission - Administration b) January and February 2002 Financial Report - Finance c) Approve Extension of Riverbend Final Plat Submittal - Community Development d) Approve Extension of Wilson Property Final Plat Submittal - Community Development e) Consider Ordinance Amendment - Scoreboard Signage - Community Development f) Charter Communications - Revised Late Fee Implementation - Administration g) Charter Communications - High-Speed Access - Administration h) 2002 Leadership/Strategic Planning Retreat - Administration 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) S1. Michael's Church Property - Administration 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Consider Resolution - 209th Street Feasibility Report - Engineering 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION - City Administrator Performance Evaluation 15. ADJOURN -- --~ Approved Iriformation Receive, Approved Approved Ord 002-471 Information Received Information Rec.eived Iriformation Received Acknowledged Findings City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 A Proud Past - A Promising Future Committed to Providing High Quality, Timely and Responsive Service to All Of Our Customers AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2002 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVEAGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS a) Acknowledge Retirement - Paul Speiker 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Openfor Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (3/4/02 Regular) b) Approve Vennillion River Memorandum of Understanding - Engineering c) Approve Sewer Televising Contract - Engineering d) Approve Change Order - 19Sth Street Project - Engineering e) Approve Change Order - City Facilities Project - Engineering t) Approve Off-Sale Beer License - EconoFoods - Administration g) Adopt Resolution - Private Development Project Closeouts - Engineering h) Accept Resignation - Solid Waste - Administration i) Appointment Recommendation - Solid Waste - Administration j) Consider CEEF Funding Request - Administration k) School and Conference - Finance 1) School and Conference - Fire m) School and Conference - Police n) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Approve Liquor License - Do-Little and See-More Holdings dba Gossips- Administration 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT Action Taken Pages 370-378 Pages 379-393 Pages 394-395 Pages 396-398 Pa~es399-401 Page 402 Pages 403-405 Pages 406-407 Page 408 . Pages 409-410 Page 411 Page 412 Page 413 Page 414 Pa1{e 4:15 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Appointment to Heritage Preservation Commission - Administration b) January and February 2002 Financial Report - Finance c) Approve Extension of Riverbend Final Plat Submittal - Community Development d) Approve Extension of Wilson Property Final Plat Submittal - Community Development e) Consider Ordinance Amendment - Scoreboard Signage - Community Development t) Charter Communications - Revised Late Fee Implementation - Administration g) Charter Communications - High-Speed Access - Administration h) 2002 Leadership/Strategic Planning Retreat - Administration 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) S1. Michael's Church Property - Administration 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Consider Resolution - 209th Street Feasibility Report - Engineering 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION - City Administrator Performance Evaluation 15. ADJOURN 70- COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR March 4, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan Verch Matt Brokl, Acting City Attorney; Ed Shukle, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Manager; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Michael Noonan, John Frank, a.M. Jolley, Earl Teporten, Michelle Leonard, Steve Hofer, Tim and Tyler Stienkeoway 4. APPROv.EAGENDA Councilmember Cordes pulled the Council Minutes as she was absent from the February 19,2002 Council Meeting. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) AS LA Award The Minnesota Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects reviewed the downtown streetscape and awarded Farmington a merit award of landscape design for the downtown streetscape. A banquet will be held in April to present the award. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (2/19/02 Regular) (2/20/02 Special). MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan approving Council Minutes (2/19/02 Regular) (2/20/02 Special). Voting for: Ristow, Soderberg, Strachan. Abstain: Cordes. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: b) Adopted RESOLUTIONS R14-02, R15-02, R16-02 Approving Private Development Closeouts - Engineering c) Approved Senior Center Key Deposit - Parks and Recreation d) Set March 18, 2002 Public Hearing - Liquor License - Administration e) Approved Consulting Services Fiber Optics to Fire Station - Finance 370 Council Minutes (Regular) March 4, 2002 Page 2 f) Adopted RESOLUTION R17-02 Request from Chamber of Commerce - Defer Action of No Smoking in Restaurants and Bars - Administration Adopted RESOLUTION R18-02 Accepting Donation Cataract Fire Relief Association - Finance h) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. g) 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (I'his item was movedforward to accommodate the audience). b) St. Michael's Church Property -Administration Mr. Robert Vogel, Consultant to the Heritage Preservation Commission presented a report from the HPC's last meeting regarding the St. Michael's Church property and other religious properties and historic buildings in Farmington. The City is committed to historic preservation, which it interprets as providing a form of special protection through zoning to significant historic resources. The City is not committed to protecting everything that is old. The primary reason to afford protection to these resources is so they can be used for useful purposes and functional. In the case of the St. Michael's Church property, it has been recognized as a potential heritage landmark. A report prepared in 1998 singled it out as a property worth considering, and it is also specified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. When the church was vacated, the HPC became interested in the future of the property. There was a consensus that it was historic and eligible for some kind of protective coverage under city ordinance. It was unclear as to how it could be used. The HPC recommended the City undertake a reuse study, which is done to assess a particular building. The City administratively did not pursue that, possibly because of traditional shyness of government entities to become involved with religious properties. There was a presumption that filtered to the HPC about the City's official involvement in the disposition of the church property. There were meetings between interested parties and City staff, but there was no real game plan that involved the HPC. It was assumed at some point someone would come forward with a use for the property and at that time the HPC would become involved. Within the last few weeks, the HPC became concerned due to news articles about the sale and redevelopment of the property. The HPC does not think there has been enough discussion at the policy making level about what the impact would be if the church building itself was gone. Also, what will happen to the other church properties in Farmington? The HPC does not see where this has been discussed. There could be a radical change in the property without any public discussion. The HPC does not think all of the reuse alternatives have been examined. It is in the City's interest to take time out to allow for discussion regarding what to do with religious buildings and how important is it that the St. Michael's Church remain standing. There is concern the building could disappear before any of these discussions take place. The HPC is asking for authorization to work with City staff to assemble a task force to look at church related properties, and come up with a vision as to how the City regards them as community assets. And also a time out for demolition to occur on any historic buildings as a temporary measure during discussions. Mayor Ristow asked 19 months ago the HPC looked at this? Mr. Vogel replied the HPC asked the City to authorize the reuse study which would have involved 37/ Council Minutes (Regular) March 4, 2002 Page 3 City administrative staff to do, and possibly outside architectural help. The HPC had identified experts both inside the City and outside who were willing to participate; however a reuse study was not done. Mayor Ristow inquired about buildings 50 years or older. Does that include all buildings, including houses? Mr. Vogel replied yes, the 6-month figure for a moratorium on demolition for these buildings was based on his experience. Mayor Ristow then asked about the reuse of the building. Mr. Vogel replied the building could be used for another church organization, or converted to housing, office space, commercial space, art centers or museums. Councilmember Soderberg asked about a statement in Mr. Vogel's report, "However, by ordinance the HPC must be allowed a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on development projects that may impact a significant historic property - which I interpret to mean any building with preservation value (regardless of its landmark status) within the visual area of potential effects." Councilmember Soderberg asked what the visual area of potential effects includes. Mr. Vogel replied it is the area within the view shed, when standing in a particular spot what do you see. The visual effects on historic properties are just as important as the direct ones. Councilmember Soderberg asked about designating historic landmarks. He felt as long as the landowner is willing to participate, that is something Council would move forward on. Mr. Vogel replied there must be a partnership between the owner and the City with that designation. Councilmember Soderberg then asked regarding the 6-month moratorium for demolition on all buildings 50 years or older, if that would be an ongoing moratorium for all applications or from today's date through 6 months from now. Mr. Vogel replied it would be from today's date. This is an unusual situation because of the City's shyness in getting involved 2 years ago. Councilmember Soderberg stated Mr. Vogel alluded to the shyness in getting involved. Was that a recommendation by the HPC to Council or an administrative recommendation? Mr. Vogel stated it was a recommendation to the Council. The HPC understands what Council receives comes through the staff process. Councilmember Soderberg stated that when there is a Council appointed advisory board that makes a recommendation to Council, he wants to see that recommendation. Some of this could have been avoided if that had taken place. Councilmember Soderberg then asked Father Gene Pouliot regarding the alternate uses of the church. Father Gene was attending on behalf of the parish along with parish trustees, John Frank and Gem Jolley, and administrator Steve Hofer. They are also interested preserving the heritage of Farmington. Father Gene stated during the past 2 1/2 years they have exhausted all means of preserving the church, including discussions with the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota and the Dakota County Community Development Agency. Discussions were also held with other churches, school district, the City of Farmington, arts council, redevelopment investors for multi and single family dwellings, small businesses and a host of property developers. Due to construction of a new church, it is prudent the church entertains any reasonable offer to purchase the property to meet their financial obligations. Without the sale of the entire property, they would not be successful in funding the construction of the new facility. Farmington Development Company was the first to approach them with a 37~ Council Minutes (Regular) March 4, 2002 Page 4 purchase agreement. The church was initially contacted by the company two years ago, and declined further discussion in anticipation of selling to an organization that would retain the existing structure. Although St. Michael's is not in favor of demolition, this may be necessary in order to sell the property. The vast majority of church members they have heard from concur with this direction. Universal catholic church law states the church should be demolished so it does not get into the wrong hands for inappropriate use. The church has preserved several stained glass windows, the statues, the bell, and a number of devotional items. Should demolition occur, the church would be happy to help the HPC in efforts to preserve a historical record of the structure by making their archives available. Councilmember Soderberg asked if the church would have any objection to an arts center or senior use. Father Gene replied that would be acceptable. Councilmember Cordes stated Mr. Vogel said that with preservation in the downtown area, the property owners have taken an interest. The church has exhausted all possibilities. If the property owner is unable to take it on, she does not know how the City can take on that project. Father Gene stated they have tried for 2 1/2 years to save it. Councilmember Strachan stated if the HPC's request is granted, and a study is done, the church's concern is that the building be demolished, and whatever replaces it is consistent with the neighborhood. If it is not demolished the church wants to make sure there are some controls over the use of the church. Councilmember Cordes stated that by placing a 6-month moratorium on demolition how does that affect the sale that is already started? Mr. John Frank stated that would put a significant financial strain on the church. They would like to proceed with the sale of the property. Mayor Ristow asked if there was a contingency with the sale. Mr. Frank replied the only contingency is that the City approves the plans. Mayor Ristow stated that could take more than 6 months. Mr. Frank stated if there is a contingency with a date then they could revisit the date and negotiate. Councilmember Soderberg stated we are discussing preservation vs. demolition. To loose the structure and what it has meant to the community would be a tragic loss. If someone were to come forward and preserve it somehow to a use that would be honoring and right for the community, that person would be perceived as a hero and would be leaving a significant mark on the City. If the building is demolished, the persons involved in that might not be perceived so highly. Preserving the building is greater than a single entity it requires multiple entities. Mayor Ristow was concerned about what kind of disruption it would be for the area. Time is needed to study plans. Councilmember Strachan asked if the time frame were shorter than 6 months, what would that do to the process. Mr. Vogel replied that the 6-month time line reflects more how the moratorium would affect other developments in the community. Councilmember Strachan stated there are three prongs to this issue. The first is to demolish or not to demolish. The second is the preservation of the historic building. The third is linked to the Lutheran church nearby and how all of this affects the neighborhood. If it were a shorter period can we accomplish those goals? Mr. Vogel replied in three months we could complete the study to look at all historic religious properties and identify what role they play and what are the preservation issues, and reuse issues. We 373 Council Minutes (Regular) March 4, 2002 Page 5 could do a reuse assessment of St. Michael's in that time. We could gather the information that a development entity that specializes in those kinds of properties could give you. Once the wrecking ball goes into play, you do not have a second chance. This building has not gotten a second or third chance like the exchange bank building received. The study will be done in whatever amount of time Council allows. What should be looked at quickly is what role could the City have in not just the St. Michael's property but other historic properties. A study could be done in three months and then you could say the City has done its part. Councilmember Strachan stated no one wants to go through the motions without positive results. At the same time we want to have our eyes open as to what the process is and to what is going to be there. The community also needs to be respectful of the church and their plans. Councilmember Cordes stated the Catholic Church made a conscious decision to build a new church knowing full well that building may come down. Would we be having this same discussion if they had decided to add on to the church which would have changed the look of the building. She would like to see the church stay, but it comes down to landowner's rights and privileges. Putting a 6-month moratorium on development in that area, at the end of 6 months are we going to find someone who will preserve the building? The City cannot put money up front to preserve the building. Mayor Ristow asked if the HPC would also be involved in the Lutheran church. Mr. Vogel replied he assumes we would meet with the same group of people involved in this church to make sure we identify all the interested parties and construct some way for them to see the information the staff gathers. Councilmember Cordes asked about the building designated as heritage landmarks. The owners have undertaken all of the preservation without any City involvement. Mr. Vogel stated there were originally five landmarks. The Lyric Theatre building was withdrawn, as the owners, Premier Bank, could not guarantee they would have an interest in preserving it. The bank needs space, not that particular building. There is a way to get the bank what it wants and still have the building for another use. The City won't preserve anything; it is the people that own the buildings. Councilmember Strachan stated the motion before us does not designate the building as a landmark, only that it meets the criteria. Mr. Vogel stated there is one task that is not subject to Council consent and that is the HPC's determination that something meets the criteria. It is Council's decision as to whether to go with the designation or not. Acting City Attorney Matt Brokl stated you have before you a proposal that is two pronged. You have a proposal to look at churches within the City as to historic designation. The moratorium for that purpose would be to study the uses. That is legally doable. The other prong is that you have a specific plan for a specific property with a specific property owner, St. Michael's Church. The City Attorney's office would not be supportive of the Council moving forward and we do not believe it would be a good idea at this time to invoke a moratorium that would affect the St. Michael's property. Again, 19 months ago a moratorium that affected the property would have been appropriate. At this time the property owner has told you they have entered into a contract for the sale of this property. They told you they would be economically impacted by any type of delay. Financially they have an interest and they have a contract. At this time it would 3"7'1 Council Minutes (Regular) March 4, 2002 Page 6 not be the City's intent to interfere with a contract, nor would it be feasible to put a momtorium in place as to that property at this time. As to other properties, it does make sense and also to move forward with a study. Perhaps the City could look at this as a wake up call to other properties in town. Without the consent of the new owner, the developer, this moratorium could have significant impact on the parties to that contract. Therefore, the City Attorney's office could not recommend that you invoke a moratorium that would impact the contract. Councilmember Strachan asked if that could be considered a taking. Mr. Brokl replied yes. Councilmember Soderberg stated that is what troubles him about a momtorium is that it interferes with a contract between two private parties. Mr. Brokl stated the dialogue is very important. The idea behind keeping the church is a good one, if the developer can find an appropriate use. They are further along in the process legally than that at this time. He did not want to bring this up right away because this dialogue is important, but we cannot support a moratorium that affects this property at this time. Councilmember Soderberg stated the reuse study is a good idea. He then asked the church and the developer if St. Michael's would consent to being included in a reuse study for that property without a moratorium? Mayor Ristow then called the developer to the podium. Councilmember Cordes stated to pose that question to the developer and the church, they would have to have private discussions and it is unfair to ask them in a public forum like this. Mr. Garvey, the developer, stated he agreed with Councilmember Cordes and he had no comments. Councilmember Strachan stated the City couldn't get in the way of private contracts. At the same time, you have two sides of a contract who have agreed who are not interested in a moratorium. So the moratorium becomes an issue outside of those two parties. The City would be exposed to a legal liability if the momtorium were placed. We need to talk about the process and method used to get the reuse study done. Our eyes should be open to all historic buildings and making sure what goes into the St. Michael's property is consistent with the neighborhood. Councilmember Soderberg stated as far as the items requested, item I is to issue a finding that St. Michael's Church meets the criteria for designation as a heritage landmark. There is no problem with that finding in that it only works when the landowner wishes to have that designation placed on a building. Item 2 request interested parties to meet to discuss preservation value, this could be done and they have the right to decline. Item 3 the 6-month moratorium is scmtched. Item 4 authorization of a study of the preservation value and reuse of historic buildings would be in order. Councilmember Strachan added a statement to item 2 for the Planning Commission to make sure the plan is consistent with the neighborhood. Councilmember Soderberg stated that is outside of this particular HPC recommendation. The Planning Commission should consider that separately. Mr. Vogel stated that is already made clear in the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Ristow asked if this would eliminate buildings 50 years and older? Attorney Brokl stated he would like to meet with staff over the next two weeks and bring a recommendation to Council as to whether a moratorium might be appropriate to properties in general, not including the St. Michael's property. Ifnothing else, if you authorize a study so that a year from now if another property should come up 3"7.5 Council Minutes (Regular) March 4, 2002 Page 7 you have some idea how to act. Mr. Vogel asked if Council is telling the HPC to not proceed any farther in the process to designate St. Michael's as a heritage landmark. Councilmember Strachan stated we are instructing the HPC not to proceed with designating it as a heritage landmark without the full consent of the owner. Mr. Vogel stated that has been the HPC's practice that is not what the code requires. He did not want the HPC to consider directing him to prepare the nomination documents. He does not want to be in that position or have the HPC in that position. Council is saying it is a matter of policy to not designate it as a landmark, because obviously we do not have support of the owner. Attorney Brokl will prepare a summary of what was discussed and bring it back to the March 18, 2002 Council Meeting. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Consider Resolution - Elm Street Easement Vacation - Community Development The City is seeking to vacate a street easement within the South Suburban First Addition on Lot I, Block I. It is a remnant piece of Elm Street that is no longer needed. The issue came up, as there is a property owner that would like to purchase 10 feet of property along the rear property line. The 10 feet of property encroaches into the City owned street easement. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R19-02 approving vacating a street easement within the South Suburban I st Addition on Lot 1, Block 1. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Consider Resolution - 2002 Sealcoat Project - Engineering The 2002 seal coat project is the ninth project in the City's seal coat program. Several streets in the project area have already been assessed for seal coat costs through their respective development contracts. The remaining streets will be assessed. Costs will be assessed to benefiting property owners per the City's assessment policy. The special assessment policy indicates a 50/50 split between the City and the benefiting properties. The estimated assessment is $65.41 per residential equivalent unit. The total project cost is $101,000. One fax was received which staff is interpreting as an objection to the project which stated, street maintenance is one of the things I am paying for with property tax. Special assessment is wrong. The property owner is Robert and Kathryn Kane, 5815 Upper I 83rd Street W. Councilmember Soderberg stated while seal coating is a function of street maintenance, there are certain properties that do not pay taxes and by doing it this way everybody gets involved in paying for the street maintenance including those that do not pay taxes, but do use the streets. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R20-02 ordering the 2002 seal coat project, approving the plans and specifications and authorizing the advertisement for bids. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 37~ Council Minutes (Regular) March 4, 2002 Page 8 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Resolution - Vermillion Grove 2nd Additional Development Contract- Engineering The 2nd Addition is the final addition of the Vermillion Grove development. Conditions of approval are the standard conditions with one exception as follows: - The developer agrees to construct the sanitary sewer line along the east side of the development that will service various properties along Akin Road adjacent to Vermillion Grove 2nd Addition. The developer will be responsible for 25% of the costs of the sanitary sewer and the City will reimburse the developer for the remaining 75% of the sanitary sewer costs. If the residents along Akin Road do not agree to participate in the sewer project by signing an improvement, assessment and easement agreement by May 1, 2002, the developer will not be required to construct said sewer improvements. The City will have some share in the costs of the line for the Akin Road residents in case any of those lots split. The City cannot assess for more than one lot at this time, so the City will carry the cost for those future lots. Those costs would be assessed in the future if those lots were to split. Councilmember Soderberg stated all of the residents must participate, so one resident could hold the project up. Staff replied that is conceivable and if that should happen, it would be brought to Council and discussed if one resident would hold it up or more than one, and do we put the sewer in and allow for a future connection by the uninterested property. This is the most cost-effective way to provide sewer service to these properties at this time. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R21-02 approving the execution of the Vermillion Grove 2nd Development Contract and authorize its signing contingent upon the above conditions and approval by the Engineering Division. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Set Workshop Date - Ash Street Project - Engineering At the last workshop that was held on the Ash Street project, it was agreed that upon completion of the draft feasibility report, the Township and City would review the report at separate workshops and then subsequently schedule the next joint workshop for further discussions. A workshop was set for March 19,2002 to discuss the draft report for the Ash Street project. 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Strachan: Attended the Senior Center lunch and spoke with the seniors about the City. Planning Coordinator Smick took the seniors on a tour of the City. Missie Kohlbeck does a great job at the Senior Center. He received a copy of a letter from City Administrator Shukle to the legislators thanking them for their hard work in making sure the cities were not punished for good financial planning. Councilmember Soderberg: Talked with the security at the FAA and the barricades on Spruce Street will be taken down approximately April 1. He was approached by a member of the Presbyterian Church and was told their parking lot is being used for skateboarding and asked about skatepark facilities. Councilmember Soderberg informed 3"// Council Minutes (Regular) March 4, 2002 Page 9 him of the plans for the skatepark. The church members asked if the City would be willing to place some low-level equipment in their parking lot so kids would have another place to go. This will be taken to the Parks and Recreation Commission. City Administrator Shukle: The legislature did override the Governor's veto of the budget bill. After that there is still a projected $439 million deficit for the state. Finance Director Roland stated the Governor is pressuring the house and senate to come up with a way to solve this shortfall. After the veto was overridden the $2 billion in statewide cuts became law last Friday. The additional $439 million could be remedied through one time monies which would not solve the problem. They could also look at aid to cities. Staff anticipates they will not do that in the current year. The Governors' original big fix would have eliminated $356,000 of 2002 funding from the City of Farmington had it passed. This would be 4.5% of the City's general fund budget. Without that cut taking place the City has the ability to look at how this will affect us in 2003. City Administrator Shukle stated for the 2003 budget in late May, early June, he would like to meet with Council to establish target goals. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to adjourn at 8:44 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~~/?-7~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant 37<0 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminfrton.mn.us 76 TO: ~, 1. Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Approve Vermillion River Memorandum of Understanding DATE: March 18, 2002 INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION At the January 7, 2002 City Council meeting, the Council reviewed a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) staff prepared to address concerns raised by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in regards to the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion project. Attached is the January 7th memo, which describes the background for the MOU in detail. The MOU has been updated and the final draft is attached for Council's review. Staff has reviewed the final draft and recommends Council adoption ofthe MOU. BUDGET IMPACT None at this time. ACTION REQUESTED Agree by motion, to enter into the attached Vermillion River Storm Water Management Memorandum of Understanding. Respectfully Submitted, ~YA~ Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file 3"/9 lof City of Farmington ~25 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin21:on.mn.us ~(. TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Vermillion River Watershed Issues - MCES Memorandum of Understanding DATE: January 7,2002 INTRODUCTION As Council is aware, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services is in the process of implementing a project that would accomplish the expansion of the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant. As. Council is also aware, based on the surrounding communities current comprehensive plans, the treatment plant will be at capacity sometime around 2005-2006. DISCUSSION A project such as the expansion of a wastewater treatment plant receives intense environmental scrutiny. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), who has the authority to grant the permit to expand the plant, has indicated that the issue of storm water runoff into the Vennillion River needs to be addressed before a permit will be issued. In the discussions that have been held on the project, it has been indicated that the cities that utilize the Empire plant will (at least) need ~~ have storm water ordinances and regulations in effect that meet the criteria of the MPeA's model storm water ordinance, before the MPCA will issue the permit for the plant expansion. All of the cities involved have reviewed their respective storm water plans and ordinances to verify compliance with the MPCA's model ordinance. In Farmington's case, the main component that is absent from the City's ordinances is a shoreland ordinance. In an effort to address the MPCA's concerns, Met Council staffhas suggested that the cities involved enter into a Memorandum Of Understanding (see attached draft) regarding Storm Water Management for the Vermillion River. The Memorandum Of Understanding (MOV) as currently drafted, would indicate a commitment on the part of the cities involved to adopt and implement a storm water management program that is consistent with the draft Vermillion River Watershed Plan, (except for the infiltration requirements, which would be reviewed on a case by case basis for new developments) by June 30,2002. 3C(?O The draft Vermillion River Watershed Plan is a plan, basically consistent with the MPCA's draft \ ordinance, that all the cities could follow in common. When the County finalizes the Watershed plan in the future, all the cities involved will need to adopt the final plan. It is the consensus of the representatives of the cities involved that this type of MOU may provide an expeditious way for the cities as a group to show compliance with the MPCA's wishes regarding the Vermillion River. BUDGET IMPACT None at this time. ACTION REQUESTED 1. Council indication by consensus that a final draft of this type of Memorandum of Understanding would be acceptable for future Council review and potential approval. 2. Authorize staff to initiate the drafting of a shoreland ordinance. Respectfully Submitted, ~111~ Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file .3C?1 VERMILLION RIVER STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is entered into by and among the City of Apple Valley, City of Farmington, City of La keville, City of Rose mount, Empire Township, Dakota County, and the Metropolitan Council, each acting by and through its duly authorized officers. I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Cities of Apple Valley, Farmington, Lakeville, and Rosemount ("Cities") are political subdivisions organized under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Each city has responsibilities related to management of storm water within its respective jurisdiction. 1.2 Empire Township ("Township") is a political subdivision organized under the laws ofthe state of Minnesota. The Township has responsibilities related to management of storm water within its jurisdiction. 1.3 Dakota County ("County") is a political subdivision organized under the laws of the state of Minnesota. The County has assumed responsibility for management of the Vermillion River Watershed within the County. 1.4 . The Metropolitan Council ("Council") is a public corporation and political subdivision of the state of Minnesota organized under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 473. The Council owns and operates the Metropolitan Disposal System ("MDS") in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, has other responsibilities related to planning for growth and development and water resources in the Metropolitan Area, and is committed to the 1 '3<?~ improvement of environmental quality in the Metropolitan Area, The MDS is operated in accordance with permits issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA") under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES"), including a permit issued for the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant (NPDES Permit No. MN0045845) located in Empire Township, Dakota County.. 1.5 The Cities, the Township, the County, and the Council have determined that it is in the best interests of each entity and the environment to enter into this MOD to address the respective roles and responsibilities of the parties with respect to management of storm water in the Vermillion River watershed and intend to establish a mutually beneficial relationship regarding the issue. 1.6 The Cities and Township completed a Summary of City Stormwater Management Information (Attachment A), which compared local program requirements with the MPCA model stormwater ordinance. This showed that local programs include most items in the model ordinance. In addition, the MPCA has reviewed the local Storm Water Management Ordinances/Programs of the City of Apple Valley, the City of Lakeville, the City of Farmington, and Empire Township; and found that they are reasonably consistent with the MPCA model ordinance and nondegradation policies. Particular findings of interest include that: · The Cities and the Township have stormwater discharge rate control restrictions for the 2, 10, and 100-year events at predevelopment discharge rates. · The City ofLakeville has adopted an additional management plan for South Creek, which includes special provisions for preserving this Trout Water including future runotfvolume restrictions and 50-foot stream-side buffers. In 2 .2 <C~ the City of Farmington infiltration is the recommended Best Management Practice for areas draining to cold-water fisheries. Other areas within the Cities and Township do not currently discharge to the designated Trout Waters. However, the Cities and Township are willing to consider appropriate volume controls if and when the designation changes. . The City of Farmington has a Wetland Protection Ordillance that sets buffer widths dependent on wetland quality. In implementation of this ordinance streams are considered riparian wetlands and a 100-foot buffer is required within the designated trout-stream corridor. . All of the Cities and the Township require financial securities from Developers for stormwater controls. The Cities and Township will work directly with MPCA to address remaining issues individually; through the additional studies listed below in 1.8; and the local ordinances, agreements and policies developed in response to the Roles and Responsibilities provided for in Section III of this MOD. City of Rose mount programs were previously reviewed by the MPCA with a favorable nondegradation review finding as part of the Rosemount WWTP Facility Interim Improvements project. 1.7 The Cities, Township, and the Council agree that the draft Vermillion River Watershed Management Plan dated August 1999 ("Draft Plan") represents the most current understanding of the specific management needs for storm water discharged to the Vermillion River, and that implementing the Local Plan provisions of the Draft Plan provide additional assurance of nondegradation. 3 d<?o/ 1.8 The Cities, Township, and the Council recognize that the following efforts currently underway will provide additional information, tools, and regulations for improving storm water management and assuring nondegradation: 1) A volume study by the County which is investigating infiltration and management of runoff volumes in additional to the traditional management of peak runoff rates. 2) Dakota County approval and acceptance, in November of2001, of the Watershed Management Organization (WMO) role under Minnesota Statute 103B. 3) Development of a final Watershed Management Plan by the County under its authority as the WMO. 4) Removal of eflluent discharge to the Vermillion River by the Council. 5) Submittal of Phase II NPDES Stormwater permit applications by applicable municipalities by March 10, 2003; and subsequent implementation. 6) A Local Comprehensive W etlandManagement Plan as provided for in the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Rule 8420.0650, and initiated by the City ofLakeville June 2001 for approximately 600 wetlands within the 2020 MUSA. This planning process includes a wetland function/value assessment and management strategy, and determination of appropriate buffers. 7) A Wetland Inventory and Ordinance study by Empire Township and Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District, which will include an assessment of appropriate ordinances and buffers. 8) A Shoreline Ordinance being developed by the City of Farmington during the early part of 2002. II. PURPOSES 2.1 The Cities and the Township have storm water management responsibilities and have developed and implemented storm water management ordinances and local water plans to address storm water quality and quantity. As a part of growth and development 4 3C65 - -".- "--- ------ within their respective jurisdictions, storm water run-off will occur that has the potential to impact both quality and quantity of water in the Vermillion River. 2.2 The County has assumed the responsibility for management of the Vermillion River Watershed within the county. 2.3 The Council owns the MDS and provides sewer service as necessary to implement the Council's comprehensive plan for collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage in the Metropolitan area. As a result of providing this service, the Council discharges treated wastewater eflluents to area receiving waters, including the Vermillion River. 2.4 The parties recognize that quantity and quality of storm water and treated wastewater eflluent discharged to the Vermillion River must be properly managed in order to protect the river. The parties believe that such management is beneficial to the environment and will protect the river. 2.5 This MOD will address the basic relationship, roles, and responsibilities of the parties with respect to Vermillion River storm water management. The primary purpose of the MOD is to provide a framework for storm water management that assures appropriate processes and mechanisms are in place to manage storm water runoff impacts resulting from growth consistent with the nondegradation policies of the MPCA such that the RosemountlEmpire Service Area wastewater service expansion efforts can proceed. ill. ROLES AND RESPONSmILITIES 3.1 Parties to this MOD agree to the following two basic provisions: 1) To operate consistent with the Draft Plan dated August 1999 on an interim basis, until a final Watershed Management Plan is completed; and 2) to implement the Local Plan provisions 5 3~~ _.._~-~-----_.- - -- of the Draft Plan through enforceable mechanisms such as ordinances, Development Agreements, and policies. The exception is adoption of the infiltration provisions of the Draft Plan. This provision is currently considered too general" and requires completion of the Volume Study to better document feasibility and appropriate conditions on a subwatershed basis. Until the Final Plan is completed and adopted, stormwater infiltration for new development and re-development will be pursued where appropriate using the process detailed in the Stormwater Runoff Control Strategy of the Draft Plan with the following clarifications. This strategy identifies preferred practices including alternative practices where infiltration is not appropriate or practical. The first clarification for this strategy is the 0.5-inch infiltration/retention criterion given in the Draft Plan will be considered a design goal rather than a firm criterion. The second clarification regarding the strategy in the Draft Plan is as follows rather than as written in the Draft Plan which specifies the use of preferred practices tributary to streams upstream ofHwy 52: . For areas tributary to streams and creeks, preferred resource-based Best Management Practices, if appropriate for the project site, include: buffers - bioretention - infiltration - retention ponds - wet/dry detention ponds, and that wet ponds are discouraged in areas draining directly to stream designated by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as Trout Waters and classified as 2A waters by the MPCA. . For areas tributary to lakes, preferred resource based Best Management Practices, if appropriate for the site, include: enhancement and protection 6 3~7 of existing ponds and wetlands - new ponds and practices that trap phosphorus and sediment - bioretention and infiltration practices. The remainder of this section describes the specific roles and responsibilities of each party. 3.2 City of Apple Valley 3.2.1 By June 30,2002, the City of Apple Valley will adopt and implement a Storm Water Management Program that is consistent with the loc;al plan provisions of the Draft Plan as discussed in Section 3.1. 3.2.2 Within two years after adoption of the final Vermillion River Watershed Management Plan by the County, the City of Apple Valley will update its local Stormwater Management plan to be consistent with the final Watershed Management Plan. . , 3.3 City of Farmington 3.3.1 By June 30,2002, the City of Farmington will adopt and implement a Storm Water Management Program that is consistent with the local plan provisions of the Draft Plan as discussed in Section 3.1. 3.3.2 Within two years after adoption of the final Vermillion River Watershed Management plan by the County, the City of Farmington will update its local Stormwater plan to be consistent with the final Watershed Management Plan. 3.4 City of Lakeville 7 3<iM? . 3.4.1 By June 30,2002, the City ofLakeville will adopt and implement a Storm Water Management Program that is consistent with the local plan provisions of the Draft Plan as discussed in Section 3.1. 3.4.2 Within two years after adoption of the final Vermillion River Watershed Management Plan by the County, the City ofLakeville will update its local Stormwater plan to be consistent with the final Watershed Management Plan. 3.5 City of Rosemount 3.5.1 By June 30,2002, the City of Rose mount will adopt and implement a Storm Water Management Program that is consistent with the local plan provisions of the Draft Plan as discussed in Section 3.1. 3.5.2 Within two years after adoption of the final Vermillion River Watershed Management Plan by the County the City of Rose mount will update its local Stormwater plan to be consistent with the Watershed Management Plan. 3.6 Empire Township 3.6.1 By June 30,2002, Empire Township will adopt and implement a Storm Water Management Program that is consistent with the local plan provisions of the Draft Plan as discussed in Section 3.1. 3.6.2 Within two years after adoption of the final Vermillion River Watershed Management Plan by the County, Empire Township will update its local Stormwater plan to be consistent with the Watershed Management Plan. 8 3<(/1 3.7 Dakota County 3.7.1 The County has completed a study that recommends a governance structure for the Vermillion River watershed management organization, whereby Dakota County and Scott County assume this responsibility. The County agrees to enter a joint powers agreement with Scott County by September 30, 2002, to implement this governance structure. 3.7.2 The County has initiated a volume management study of the Vermillion River, which will be completed by September 30,2002. 3.7.3 The County will prepare the final Vermillion River Watershed Management Plan, in conjunction with Scott County, by September 2003, and secure approval of the plan by the State Board of Soil and Water Resources. 3.8 Metropolitan Council 3.8.1 The Council will complete its Facility Plan for providing sewer service to the Empire Service Area by February 2002. The Facility Plan will include provisions for the discontinuation of the routine discharge of treated wastewater eflluent from the Empire Plant to the Vermillion River by December 2005. IV. PRIMARY CONTACTS 4.1 The parties intend that the work under this MOU shall be carried out in the most efficient manner possible. To that end, the parties hereby designate the following individuals who will serve as the primary contacts between the parties. The parties intend that, to the maximum extent possible, all significant communications between the parties shall be made through the primary contacts. The primary contacts are as follows: 9 390 For the City of Apple Valley: Public Works Director For the City of Farmington: Public Works Director/City Engineer For the City of Lakeville: City Engineer For the City of Rosemount: City Engineer For Empire Township: Township Engineer For Dakota County: Director of Physical Development Division For the Metropolitan Council: Assistant General Manager of Wastewater Services Any party may modify its designation of primary contacts by written notice to the other parties. V. GENERAL PROVISIONS 5.1 Each party understands that a failure by the Cities or Township to implement their respective Storm Water Management Program in a manner that protects Vermillion River quality and quantity may result in a denial by the MPCA to issue a sewer extension permit to the Cities or Township for individual development projects. 5.2 The parties shall attempt to secure reasonable funding to allow for the successful completion of the activities described in this MOD. However, the parties expressly acknowledge that the activities under this MOU shall be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. 5.3 Each party pledges to implement the provisions of this MOU and to further the goals and purposes of this MOU, subject to the terms and conditions of this MOU. The parties will attempt to resolve any disputes related to this MOU through discussions. 10 ~'71 5.4 This MOU, including any list of roles and responsibilities, may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the parties. Any such modification must be in writing and executed by duly authorized representatives of the parties. 5.5 This MOU is effective on the date of the last signature. The Cities and Township may withdraw from this MOU by written notice to the other parties when each City or Township has an updated and approved local Stormwater plan consistent with the Final Watershed Management Plan. When all the Cities and Township all have updated and approved local Stormwater plans consistent with the Final Watershed Management Plan the MOU is terminated. 5.6. Nothing in this Memorandum of Understanding will be construed to modify or amend any statutory or legal obligations or requirements of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Memorandum of Understanding to be executed by their duly authorized officers on the dates set forth . below. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Date: By: Its: CITY OF FARMINGTON Date: By: Its: 11 39~ Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: .39.3 CITY OF LAKEVILLE By: Its: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT By: Its: EMPIRE TOWNSHIP By: Its: DAKOTA COUNTY By: Its: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL By: Its: 12 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin21:on.mn.us 76 TO: M C 'I b C' Ad ' , ))~ ayor, OunCI mem ers, lty mlll1strator FROM: Tim Gross, P .E., Assistant City Engineer ~ SUBJECT: Approve Sewer Televising Contract DATE: March 18, 2002 INTRODUCTION Quotations were received for sanitary sewer televising services on Thursday, February 28, 2002. DISCUSSION Visu-sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. submitted the low quote of $24,750. The project consists of televising approximately 25,000 linear feet of sanitary sewer per year for the next 3 years beginning in 2002. In the past, the televising contract included televising and jetting (cleaning) of the sanitary sewer. In 2001, the Public Works Department purchased a vacuum and jetting truck, and will be doing the sanitary sewer jetting. BUDGET IMPACT Funds for this project are available and provided for every year in the City's Budget from the Sewer Fund. ACTION REQUESTED Approve entering into a contract for sanitary sewer televising services by Visu-sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. by motion. Respectfully submitted, ~ Tim Gross, P .E. Assistant City Engineer cc: File ..39Y I/) CD CJ '~ CD en C) c 'jj) 'S; CD G) ~ ... CD ~ CD en ~ ftI ~ C ftI en ii c o 'jj) I/) oS! 't:I e CD .. N,::: ...0 CD ... I CJ ftI N CD CD 0 a::: >01/) c:;-zii -- I/) CD CJ 0 CD CD ... '0' 0 .c...... ~D..D.. N o o N a; N ~ ftI = ... .0 CD LI. ('. 't:I CD 't:I = (j 0 en en en C c: ~ ~ ~ CD ~ E ftI en 0 LO 0 0 - 0 N LO LO ftI 0 ..- r--. N - 0 0 Lei -.i" ci ~ ('I) N N ('I) ~ ~ ~ ~ 1;;:- I~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 C LO LO LO LO ftI N N N N = a S 'It 0 LO 0 0 N ('I) 'O:t ('I) 0 ~ ('I) ('I) 'O:t 1:: 0 0 0 N 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 0 LO 0 0 go C") 0 ('I) ('I) 0 0 'O:t ('I) ('I) 'O:t 'u 0 0 0 0 0 'i: N ~ ~ ~ ~ D.. 0 LO 0 0 - N '2 00 ('I) N 00 0 ('I) ('I) ('I) ('I) ~ 0 0 0 0 0 N ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 'O:t 'O:t 0 0 00 00 0 'O:t 'O:t 00 0 'O:t Z ~ r--. 0 N I I I CD 00 00 N ('I) C N 'O:t LO 'O:t 0 ""t ""t N N .c I I ('I) N ('I) 00 D.. <0 LO <0 ..- r--. m r--. N CD .~ E ..... en ftI ro c: c: Z :J c: 0 1:: Q) - ro u. CJ ftI "E :2 '0 - ro ~ n; c 0 .c c (,,) c: 0 0 i:i: ~ 0::: 0 .= 0 (/) c: Q) c: - '2 0 ro 0 :;::::; Q) ... (5 !!! (f) 0 - c: 8- cIS (/) CJ .c Q) l! (,,) ... c: (,,) 0 .~ - Q) () ro c ~ Q) Q) 0 ~ (/) C3 C/) 0 Q) :J (,,) ... Q) ..... .~ Q) .9 (,,) := :J Q) a.. ... Q) ..... (f) (/) g (/) I ~ Q) :J 1.9 (/) 32 c: a.. :> :> ..- N ('I) 'O:t ..395 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminJrton.mn.us 7d TO: M C '1 b C' Ad . . fl. ayor, ounCl mem ers, Ity mmlstrator FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Approve Change Order - 19Sth Street Project DATE: March 18, 2002 INTRODUCTION Forwarded herewith for Council's consideration is change order #3 for the 195th Street Project. DISCUSSION The attached change order is in the amount of $13,424.60. The change order is due to additional required excavation of unsuitable soils in the roadbed. Council may recall that change order #2 addressed the replacement of the unsuitable soils with granular material. Calculations to determine the amount to be paid for the excavation of the unsuitable materials have been recently finalized, taking into account various credits to the City, resulting in the change order now before Council. BUDGET IMPACT The total amount ofthe change order is $13,424.60. This amount is within the project budget. The original construction budget on the project was $998,900. The revised contract amount with the change order will be $771,743.20. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the attached change order #3 in the amount of $13,424.60. Respectfully Submitted, A/11~ Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file 39~ . fl. Bonestroo e Rosene ~ Anderlik & . \j. Associates 'gineers & Architects Owner: Citv of Farmington, 325 Oak Street. Farmington. MN 55024 Date March 8, 2002 Contractor: Arcon Construction Inc., 43249 Frontage Rd., P. O. Box 159, Harris, MN 55032 Bond No: Bond Company: Cedarleaf, Cedarleaf & Cedarleaf, lne.-MN, 360 W Laroenteur Ave., P. O. Box 64717.: 190-009-683 CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 195TH STREET EXTENSION BRA FILE NO. 141-00-137 Descriotion of Work This Change Order provides for compensation to the Contractor for additional common excavation of unsuitable material. Contract Unit Total No. Item Unit Quantity Price Amount CHANGE ORDER NO.3 Common excavation (CV) CY 4794.5 S2.80 S 13,424.60 Total CHANGE ORDER NO.3: $13,424.60 l~ 100 137CH03.xls .397 Original Contract Amount Previous Change Orders "his Change Order Revised Contract Amount (including this change order) $695,122.37 $63,196.23 $13,424.60 $771,743.20 Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Date: Approved by Contractor: ARC ON CONSTRUCTION INC Approved by Owner: CITY OF FARl\tIINGTON Date Date cc: Owner Contractor Bonding Company Bonestroo & Assoc. 14100137CH03.xls 3'nS" City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminlrton.mn.us 7e fL TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator . FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Approve Change Order - City Facilities Project DATE: March 18,2002 INTRODUCTION Forwarded herewith for Council's review and consideration is Change Order #4 for the City's facilities project. DISCUSSION The attached memo from WOLD Architects outlines the recommended expenditures for change order #4. The most significant cost is for the access manholes and sand traps that are integral to the trench drain system that was approved with the last change order. BUDGET IMPACT The total cost for change order #4 is $50,567.00. The project's contingency fund balance including the expenditure for change order #4 is $ 450,000. ACTION REOUESTED Approve by motion, Change Order # 4 for the City Facilities project in the amount of $50,567.00. Respectfully Submitted, ~m~ Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file 3~9 WglU WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS TO: Lee Mann FROM: John McNamara V DATE: February 5, 2002 305 ST PETEIl STIlEET ST P,\I'!. MN 55)02 651.22"7 "'7"7.3 HX 651.223.56-16 25 Sll(iTII GI{()VE AVE"I'E SI'ITE 500 E I.l; I N. I L 60 I 20 H47.60H.2600 F.\X 847.60H.2654 COMM. :\'0: 00086 \X' \\"\\". \X'() I.!);\ E C () 1\1 M ^ 1'1. v' \\' () I. I ) :\ E C () ,\1 SUBJECT: Farmington North Municipal Campus - Phase I Per discussion with the Core Group on February 28, 2002, the following are recommended contract changes for the North Municipal Campus. The approved costs have been reviewed and represent a fair value for the work performed. Item Description Approved Cost PR # I 0, Item I A smoke exhaust is needed for the holding area $9,80] at the Police Station. This smoke exhaust will allow expansion of the holding area in the future. PR # 12, Item 1 Power operators were requested for the entrance $5,580 into the Police Station. These operators will enhance the accessibility to the building. PR #13, Item 1 Additional access man-holes were added to the $29,013 CMF to allow better access for cleaning equipment. PR # 15, Item 1 The electrical breaker size for the overhead $759 crane needed to be increased in size per coordination with final shop drawings. PR # 16, Item 2 Pricing was requested to add cove lighting to $1,936 the lobby at the Police Station. SI # 18 Cost Modifications were needed for the steel $1,275 supports for the canopy at the CMF based on field conditions. Misc. Cost #] I A hole was drilled in the rooffor future wash- $292 bay equipment. Misc. Cost # I 2 A credit was requested for a decrease in labor ($280) related to SI # 18 above. t/a7 WgLU Memorandum to Lee Mann Page Two Item Description Misc. Cost # 14 Additional wood blocking was required at the roof to accommodate a transition between the concrete plank and the adjacent metal decking. Misc. Cost # 15 To address concerns regarding lost keys by contractor, two construction cylinders were installed at the buildings. Misc. Cost # I 7 A prefabricated roof frame is needed for the smoke exhaust approved in PR # 10. Total Change Order #4 Approved Cost $],574 $213 $404 $50,567 Upon approval by City Council, we will issue Change Order #4 for the project. If you have any questions, please call. cc: Robin Roland, City of Farmington Barry Badinger, E & V Michael Cox Brendon Stuckey Rb/00086/mar02 '/0/ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (65 1) 463~7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us 7F 1, (, TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Approve Off~Sale Beer License - EconoFoods DATE: March 18,2002 INTRODUCTION City Ordinance 3-2-5 states that the Council has the authority to approve Off-Sale Beer licenses. DISCUSSION EconoFoods has submitted an application for an Off-Sale Beer license. The appropriate forms, fees and insurance information have been submitted with the applications. The Police Department has reviewed the forms and approved the applications for issuance. BUDGET IMPACT The fees collected are as proposed in the revenue portion of the budget. ACTION REOUESTED Approve an Off-Sale Beer license for EconoFoods. Respectfully submitted, L~;j~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager t1~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us ?5 TO: M C '1m b C. Adm.. 1:1. ayor, ounCl em ers, lty lmstrator FROM: Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - East Farmington 6th & 7th Additions Project Closeout DATE: March 18, 2002 INTRODUCTION The improvements outlined in the Development Contract for the East Farmington 6th & 7th Additions have been substantially completed. DISCUSSION The East Farmington 6th Addition Development Contract was signed on April 19, 1999 between the City and Sienna Corporation. The completion date for this project was October 31, 2000. The project was substantially completed when minor work order items were addressed during February of 2002. The East Farmington 7th Addition Development Contract was signed on June 19,2000 between the City and Sienna Corporation. The completion date for this project was July 1, 2001. The project was substantially completed when minor work order items were addressed during February of 2002. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REOUESTED Adopt the attached resolutions accepting the street and utility improvements for East Farmington 6th and 7th Additions. ResRectfully Submitted, ot:. rn ~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file <;03 RESOLUTION NO. R -02 ACCEPTING EAST FARMINGTON 6th ADDITION STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 18th day of March, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, pursuant to a Development Contract signed with the City of Farmington on April 19th, 1999, Sienna Corporation of Minnesota has satisfactorily completed the requirements of the developers agreement for East Farmington 6th Addition. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota that the work completed under said agreement is hereby accepted by the City. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 18th day of March, 2002. Mayor day of , 2002. Attested to the City Administrator SEAL yoel RESOLUTION NO. R -02 ACCEPTING EAST FARMINGTON 7th ADDITION STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 18th day of March, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, pursuant to a Development Contract signed with the City of Farmington on June 19th, 2000, Sienna Corporation of Minnesota has satisfactorily completed the requirements of the developers agreement for East Farmington 7th Addition. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota that the work completed under said agreement is hereby accepted by the City. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 18th day of March, 2002. Mayor Attested to the day of ,2002. City Administrator SEAL Y05 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 71; TO: e;c Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator FROM: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Manager SUBJECT: Accept Resignation - Solid Waste Division DATE: March 18, 2002 INTRODUCTION . The City has received notification from Mr. Paul Speiker of his intention to retire from his position as Solid Waste Operator. DISCUSSION The Human Resources office has received notification that Mr. Speiker will retire from his current position on April 15, 2002. He began his employment on September 4, 1973. He has been an excellent employee and has gained the respect of his co-workers. The City has appreciated his commitment to the organization and wishes him well in his future endeavors. ACTION REOUESTED Acknowledge the resignation of Mr. Paul Speiker effective April 15, 2002. Respectfully submitted, 1'/") 4 rA / /;:-'i" '- _ .. :/> 00~Jtf/;r;:;/~A." ~ / Brenda Wendlandt, SPHR Human Resources Manager cc: Personnel File t,lo~ RESOLUTION NO. R_-02 ACCEPTING RESIGNATION - SOLID WASTE DIVISION Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 18th day of March 2002 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City has received notification from Mr. Paul Speiker of his intention to retire from his position as Solid Waste Operator; and, WHEREAS, he began his employment on September 4, 1973; and, WHEREAS, the City has appreciated his commitment to the organization and wishes him well in his future endeavors. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Farmington acknowledges the resignation of Mr. Paul Speiker effective April 15, 2002. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 18th day of March 2002. Mayor Attested to the day of 2002. City Administrator SEAL '107 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463~7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us h' TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~.l FROM: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Manager SUBJECT: Appointment Recommendation - Solid Waste Division DATE: March 18, 2002 INTRODUCTION The recruitment and selection process for the appointment of a full-time Solid Waste Operator has been completed. This appointment fills a vacant position. DISCUSSION After a thorough review of all applicants for the Solid Waste Operator position by the Solid Waste Division and Human Resources Office, a contingent offer of employment has been made to Mr. Jason Place, subject to ratification by the City Council. Mr. Place has been employed in the Parks Maintenance Division since May 2001. Based on his education and experience, Mr. Place meets or exceeds the requirements of the position description and is the best candidate for the position. ACTION REOUESTED Approve the recruitment of Mr. Jason Place to the position of Solid Waste Operator, effective on or about March 25, 2002. Respectfully submitted, .-y-...., / / ! /!;~~ /I~ / 1'~-- t, /..,,,t~~..,- - '>~ :..... <..,.. .~t- i:/-L Brenda Wendlandt Human Resources Manager cc: Personnel File '-Icr6 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.c:i.farmington.mn.us /' :J TO: M C '1 b C' Adm" ~. ayor, OunCl mem ers, Ity mlstrator FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Consider CEEF Funding Request DATE: March 18, 2002 INTRODUCTION CEEF is requesting an annual donation as they have in past years, to defray costs for community activities and celebrations. DISCUSSIONS CEEF represents Castle Rock, Empire, Eureka and Farmington and is an organization of community volunteers dedicated to providing programs, services, and community celebrations. Members from the City of Farmington and the Townships are represented on CEEF along with volunteers from ISD 192, Dakota Fair Board, Farmington Youth Activities, Chamber of Commerce and the Farmington HPC. CEEF's mission is to provide a vehicle for communication and cooperation among the various volunteer organizations whose purpose is to promote and enhance our community. Yearly events are the Easter Egg Hunt, Halloween Walk and Farmington Dew Days. BUDGET IMPACT The 2002 budget includes an amount of $500 for Community activities. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the request from CEEF for an annual donation of $500.00 for community activities. ~=sr~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager '109 . C .lE.lE .IF . Communities Working Together... Castle Rock Empire Eureka Farmington Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Ed, CEEF is an organization of community volunteers dedicated to providing programs, services and community celebrations to enhance the quality of life in the Farmington area. CEEF represents Castle Rock, Empire, Eureka, and Farmington. Members from the City of Farmington and the Townships are represented on the CEEF Committee as well as volunteers from School District 192, Dakota County Fair Board and Farmington Area Chamber. CEEF's mission is to provide a vehicle for communication and cooperation among the various volunteer organizations whose purpose is to promote and enhance our community through education, community celebrations, and revitalization. We believe CEEF improves the quality of life to all Farmington area residents. CEEF's yearly events - the Easter Egg Hunt, Halloween Walk, and Dew Days, are well attended family events. The programs we sponsor affect everyone in the Farmington area. As you well know, these projects require volunteers and money to be successful. CEEF would like to request an annual donation from the City and each of the townships surrounding Farmington. We suggest $500, but would appreciate any amount to help defray expenses. CEEF relies on community donations and free-will offerings. Last year, you helped us with financial support and we ask that you consider helping us again this year. CEEF is dedicated to our mi.ssion and working to enhance the future in the Farmington area. We welcome any suggestions you may have for programs or events. Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely, . ~S;j.~ Kris J. Akin, Chairperson 510 Walnut Street . Farmington, MN 55024 t./ /0 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us 7k Mayor, Council members. City Administratort{.\ TO: FROM: Robin Roland, Finance Director SUBJECT: School & Conference - Finance Department DATE: March 18, 2002 INTRODUCTION Attendance at the Government Finance Officers Association National Conference, held June 16 - 19,2002 in Denver, Colorado is being planned. DISCUSSION This is a national conference for Government Finance Officers and as such, provides a broader view of government finance. Staff last attended the National GFOA conference in 1998. This year's conference events include sessions on Accounting and Financial Reporting, Budgeting and Financial planning, Cash management and Investing, Debt Management and Technology and Digital Government. This conference qualifies as continuing education for professional finance personnel. BUDGET IMPACT The adopted 2002 budget includes funding for this conference. ACTION REQUIRED For information only. ~lfJ Finance Director lIl! City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us 7L TO: f't Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator FROM: Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief SUBJECT: School and Conference - Fire Department DATE: March 18, 2002 INTRODUCTION The Fire Department is planning attendance at four conferences. DISCUSSION Two firefighters will be attending the Minnesota State Fire/EMS/Rescue School at Ridgewater College in Willmar. The conference will be held March 16 - 17,2002. Topics covered include Relief Association Workshop, Fire Ground Management, and Technical Assistance. Three firefighters will be attending the Minnesota State Fire/EMS/Rescue School at Rochester Riverland Community College. The conference will be held April 6-7, 2002. Topics covered include Strategies of Supervision, Emergency Response to Terrorism, and Fire Ground Management. One firefighter will be attending the Minnesota State Fire/EMS/Rescue School at Rochester Technical College - Heintz Center. The conference will be held April 6-7, 2002. Topics covered include Collapse Search and Rescue, Building Construction, and Back Draft Explosions. Four firefighters will be attending the Minnesota State Fire School in Duluth. The conference will be held April 13 - 14,2002. Topics covered include Officer/Administration, Haz- matlTerrorism, and Preventionllnspection. BUDGET IMPACT Approved in the 2002 Budget. ACTION REOUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, &~y~ Ken Kuchera Fire Chief ~ ~/~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us 7h-] TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator ~ r. FROM: Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police SUBJECT: School and Conference DATE: March 18, 2002 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION The Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association will sponsor the 2002 Executive Training Institute in St. Cloud, Minnesota April 15-18. The Training Institute is the largest single training opportunity for police administrators during the year. Topics include a general session on Organizational Management, Impartial Policing, Response to Bio- Terrorism, Response to Active Shooters and many more. It also hosts the largest law enforcement trade show in the upper Midwest. The Police Chief will be attending the training conference April 15-18. BUDGET IMPACT The conference has been included in the 2002 budget. ACTION REQUESTED Information only. l//3 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463~7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ~ ~~~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Service Manager SUBJECT: Approve Liquor License - Do-Little and See-More Holdings, Inc. DATE: March 18, 2002 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to City Ordinance 3-12-6-2, a public hearing must be held to establish an On-Sale Liquor License and an On-Sale Sunday Liquor License. DISCUSSION Mr. Ken LaBeau submitted an application for an On-Sale Liquor License and an On-Sale Sunday Liquor License for Do-Little and See-More Holdings, Inc., located at 313 3rd Street. The required attachments, fees and insurance information have been submitted with the application. Police Chief Siebenaler has reviewed the forms and approved the application. BUDGET IMPACT The fees collected are as proposed in the revenue portion of the budget. ACTION REOUIRED Approve an On-Sale Liquor License and an On-Sale Sunday Liquor License for Do-Little and See-More Holdings, Inc. Respectfully submitted, ~ tJ~~ f Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager '1/5 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us IO~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator f, . FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Appointment to Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: March 18, 2002 INTRODUCTION An application has been received for a vacant seat on the Heritage Preservation Commission. The term of this seat is through January 31, 2003. DISCUSSION After the appointment process in January, there remained a vacant seat on the HPC. An application has now been received to fill that seat. There are no other applications on file. This candidate has not been interviewed by the City Council. The appointment process policy is attached for your review. If Council wishes to interview the new applicant, a meeting date and time could be established prior to the April 1 st or 15th City Council meeting. ACTION REOUIRED Advise staff of the following: · Appoint the applicant to the HPC; or · Should the applicant be interviewed · Set date and time for interviews Respectfully submitted, (~ {j~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager l//~ CITY OF FARMINGTON APPLICATION FOR BOARD OR COMl\1lSSION APPOINTMENT Name Jtt.d<:"e L. J-I. Doo lei Address 3 13 W A I J.!u.f sf . Fari11I'~ioh EmployedBy . ~rW/ J'J+OYl GreeVlhb'-l.se.. Board or Commission you wish to serve on HerJ fa.je Date of Application 3/1 / Z- w- 4-{,.3-72../~ Daytime Phone # H - L../ &13 - 3~S.s- Pre ~rv4.1/oV/ Qualifications (C over pertinent educational background, employment positions an.d other experience on committees, boards, commissions and church organizations. etc.) -HovtOI"" jY'ad. ~5em04-;1. t Itylt -=x::Jzol) / / 3. 7/P jp4 - //5'*cred/h d colllfJe.. /AJUldt includes MiJ1VleSDT4 -Ih~~1 tbtiftje Dat;~cI o~ BI€jeVl~ fey:f-:- Icetr - Dak,o .I!a.{t Served 0 COVVfWl/Tree..-. R-lua1e.. re~e(Jrc.lt On wd/is E..GorYY\Jey aJ1d ea.r'yl1;J1JtJest:dq 5ettleWJ€-Vtt. A14fJte.V1f,c peYlod re.~eaych ~r D4.!<:.of&t Lt.1y ~f ftUiyy()~s. State briefly, your reasons for seeking an appoinnnent to this board or commission my r:a.rY'YJ iY\j ~ home cAeq d; c/ ee4 6' rl~ t'va.a)-e s (vt / 9 s- t,. TAd- l/Y1ak..es Vl1.y home ,py-e-IYlQ!;rport:V1-/oVl I pre-c/vi/ Lu'AV-. r Va.JL1e. ~5 n;5+o(';(~/ -s0Yl ;rfVJ1C~ . r w~ -/tJ h~/p pVdiecf avt-d /YI tevfye-- f tJu r his ftJ r '1' References (list any references you wish that would be familiar with your qualifications for the position). PttlA.. ( 'k-rfe.-n - B U f ivteS$ t) fA.) nt:r Paf Par/reA-l1 - Sen4.-I-or '-f ~ '3 Cj'-/ q f" 1&3'-7z/5 Signature~ ;UJ 0 ~ Date ;/I/Z- ( I <//7 COUNCIL POLICY - 101-05-1997 CITY COMMISSION APPOINTMENT PROCESS Policy Purpose The purpose of this policy is to set forth the procedures to be used in appointing interested citizens to the City Commissions. The appointment of citizens to City advisory commissions and boards shall be made by the City Council on an annual basis to fill all expired terms. The Council shall conduct interviews of all qualified candidates to consider relevant qualifications and interests, and appoint such members as the Council deems in the best interest of the City. Commission seats vacated by resignation and/or removal shall be appointed by fIrst reviewing any applications on file and/or any requests to be appointed by interested citizens having taken notice of an existing vacancy. If no applications are on f1le, the City shall solicit applications for appointment by advertisement in the legal newspaper and other public mediums as appropriate. Appointments to fill seats vacated by resignation and/or removal shall coincide with the normal expiration date of the seat and shall be made as soon as practical. Appointments to fill vacated seats during an unexpired term shall be in accordance with the City Code. r/~ lOb CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY OF REVENUES AS OF JANUARY, 2002 8.33 % Year Complete $ $ % $ % GENERAL FUND Property Taxes 2,600,079 0.00 0 0.00 Licenses/Permits 809,175 98,012 98,012 12.11 84,741 8.97 Fines 75,000 0,0 0 0.00 Intergovernment Revenue 784,517 404 404 0.05 0 0.00 Charges for Service 272,500 8,923 8,923 3.27 1,221 0.50 Miscellaneous 330,500 40 40 0.01 225 0.10 Transfers 344,500 0.00 31,250 8.23 Total General Fund 5,216,271 107,379 107,319 2.:06 117,437 2.45 SPECIAL REVENUE HRA Operating Fund 17,000 0.00 0 0.00 Police Forfeitures Fund 9,050 0.00 0 0.00 Recreation Operating Fund 213,350 2,853 2,853 1.34 5,601 1.76 Park Improvement Fund 117,000 0.00 0 0.00 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Ice Arena 229,900 13,912 13,912 6.05 18,351 8.54 Liquor Operations 2,810,500 151,205 151,205 5.38 165,362 7.02 Sewer 1,224,675 50,400 50,400 4.12 7,557 0.67 Solid Waste 1,216,600 3,556 3,556 0.29 5,048 0.44 Storm Water 320,300 3,536 3,536 1.10 4,167 1.37 Water 1,572,000 128,198 128,198 8.16 44,510 3.13 Total Revenues 9,806,796 461,039 461:,039 4.7 368,033 3.93 '//9 CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES AS OF JANUARY 31, 2002 8.33 % Year Complete GENERAL FUND $ $ % $ % Legislative 87,280 6,407 6,407 7.34 3,677 4.45 Administration 301,991 25,129 25,129 8.32 25,348 8.85 Personnel 296,024 7,623 7,623 2.58 5,603 4.30 MIS 54,433 790 790 1.45 8,188 19.06 Elections 22,115 0.00 0 0.00 Communications 67,309 5,652 5,652 8.40 5,838 10.12 Finance 345,205 18,630 18,630 5.40 16,564 4.85 Planning/Zoning 131,540 9,385 9,385 7.13 9,065 7.00 Building Inspection 244,973 19,068 19,068 7.78 16,510 7.33 Community Development 85,402 5,851 5,851 6.85 5,780 6.50 Police Administration 344,108 21,319 21,319 6.20 14,648 4.71 Patrol Services 937,425 72,723 72,723 7.76 69,870 7.12 Investigation Services 149,194 6,930 6,930 4.64 5,602 6.89 School Liason Offic 63,245 6,378 6,378 10.08 6,160 10.06 Emergency Management 1 ,400 6 6 0.43 17 0.15 Fire 333,888 20,794 20,794 6.23 11,702 3.80 Rescue 37,445 466 466 1.24 3,676 8~91 Engineering . 225,304 14,895 . 14,895 6.61 10,419 4~35 G.I.S. 9,969 0 0.00 10'1 . 0.75 Streets 358,789 18,836 18,836 5.25 23,934 7.52 Snow Removal 83,217 5,254 5,254 6.31 15,277 17.37 Signal Maint 85,600 4,629 4,629 5.41 2,946 3.42 Fleet Maint 116,155 8,279 8,279 7.13 4,421 6.07 Park Maint 192,592 15,584 15,584 8.09 15,452 6.56 Forestry 100,863 742 742 0.74 82 0.12 Building Maint 103,965 6,911 6,911 6.65 6,225 6.01 Recreation Programs 280,965 12,756 12,756 4.54 8,561 5.67 Outdoor Ice 25,875 1,979 1,979 7.65 3,301 16.58 Transfers Out 130,000 0 0.00 9,226 8.33 Total General Fund 5,216,271 317,016 317,016 6.08 308,193 6.57 SPECIAL REVENUE HRA Operating 46,852 0 0.00 8,555 11.70 Police Forfeitures Fund 9,813 1,082 1,082 11.03 0 0.00 Senior Center 103,723 5,308 Swimming Pool 130,635 382 382 0.29 11,007 4.46 Park Improvement Fund 70,000 0 0.00 2,750 3.93 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Ice Arena 262,274 23,221 23,221 8.85 28,049 13.32 Liquor Operations 2,605,229 146,885 146,885 5.64 146,235 6.49 Sewer 894,585 99,635 99,635 11.14 57,784 5.86 Solid Waste 1,220,491 68,113 68,113 5.58 70,077 5.86 Storm Water 175,030 1,431 1,431 0.82 7,201 5.07 Water Utility 470,539 106,083 106,083 22.54 13,880 2.91 Total Expenditures 10,916,876 761,335 761,335 6.97 646,530 6.34 f../ ~CJ CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY OF REVENUES AS OF FEBRUARY, 2002 16.33 % Year Complete GENERAL FUND Property Taxes 2,600,079 0.00 0 0.00 Licenses/Permits 809,175 79,250 177,262 21.91 182,268 19.28 Fines 75,000 0.00 271 0.36 Intergovernment Revenue 784,517 70,945 71,349 9.09 62,427 5.52 Charges for Service 272,500 11,819 20,742 7.61 6,715 2.76 Miscellaneous 330,500 40 0.01 33,619 14.59 Transfers 344,500 0.00 62,500 16.47 Total General Fund 5,216,271 162,014 269,393 5.16 347,800 7.25 SPECIAL REVENUE HRA Operating Fund 17,000 2,240 2,240 13.18 888 0.55 Police Forfeitures Fund 9,050 600 600 6.63 0 0.00 Recreation Operating Fund 213,350 1,311 4,164 1.95 8,372 2.63 Park Improvement Fund 117,000 2,500 2,500 2.14 33,214 18.76 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Ice Arena 229,900 35,207 49,119 21.37 23,664 11.01 Liquor Operations 2,810,500 148,928 300,133 10.68 296,855 12.60 Sewer 1,224,675 50,422 100,822 8.23 7,648 0.68 Solid Waste 1,216,600 469 4,025 0.33 7,965 0.70 Storm Water 320,300 3,536 1.10 8,333 2.73 Water 1,572,000 25,618 153,816 9.78 111,527 7.85 Total Revenues 9,806,796 279,781 890,348 9.08 846,266 9.04 <I c:{ / CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES AS OF FEBRUARY 31, 2002 16.33 % Year Complete GENERAL FUND $ $ $ % $ % Legislative 87,280 4,508 10,915 12.51 8,168 9.89 Administration 301,991 25,862 50,991 16.88 50,155 17.50 Personnel 296,024 5,667 13,290 4.49 19,496 14.97 MIS 54,433 1,049 1,839 3.38 12,153 28.28 Elections 22,115 5 5 0.02 0 0.00 Communications 67,309 2,630 8,282 12.30 9,442 16.37 Finance 345,205 16,077 34,707 10.05 41,804 12.24 Planning/Zoning 131,540 12,406 21,791 16.57 18,577 14.34 Building Inspection 244,973 20,552 39,620 16.17 35,085 15.58 Community Development 85,402 6,002 11,853 13.88 11,636 13.08 Police Administration 344,108 25,182 46,501 13.51 43,484 13.99 Patrol Services 937,425 64,977 137,700 14.69 136,806 13.94 Investigation Services 149,194 6,517 13,447 9.01 12,148 14.93 School Liason Offic 63,245 6,632 13,010 20.57 11,583 18.93 Emergency Management 1 ,400 11 17 1.21 23 0.20 Fire 333,888 9,864 30,658 9.18 23,365 7.60 Rescue 37,445 156 622 1.66 4,143 10.04 Engineering 225,304 13,018 27,913 12.39 22,424 9.36 G.I.S. 9,969 42 42 0.42 130 0.96 Streets 358,789 18,191 37,027 10.32 40,686 12.79 Snow Removal 83,217 8,385 13,639 16.39 31,091 35.34 Signal Maint 85,600 2,931 7,560 8.83 6,913 8.02 Fleet Maint 116,155 10,988 19,267 16.59 8,893 12.20 Park Maint 192,592 15,737 31,321 16.26 31,532 13.39 Forestry 100,863 617 1,359 1.35 196 0.29 Building Maint 103,965 5,007 11,918 11.46 15,118 14.60 Recreation Programs 280,965 21,193 33,949 12.08 17,200 11.39 Outdoor Ice 25,875 2,604 4,583 17.71 5,837 29.32 Transfers Out 130,000 0 0.00 18,452 16.67 Total General Fund 5,216,271 306,810 623,826 11.96 636,540 13.56 SPECIAL REVENUE HRA Operating 46,852 0 0.00 9,624 13.16 Police Forfeitures Fund 9,813 506 1,588 16.18 0 0.00 Senior Center 103,723 7,146 12,454 Swimming Pool 130,635 584 966 0.74 0 0.00 Park Improvement Fund 70,000 0 0.00 3,100 4.43 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Ice Arena 262,274 20,666 43,887 16.73 60,211 28.59 Liquor Operations 2,605,229 142,303 289,188 11.10 285,440 12.68 Sewer 894,585 72,830 172,465 19.28 125,302 12.70 Solid Waste 1,220,491 70,854 138,967 11.39 125,452 10.49 Storm Water 175,030 1,877 3,308 1.89 13,385 9.42 Water Utility 470,539 17,432 123,515 26.25 60,262 12.62 Total Expenditures 10,916,876 631,479 1,392,814 12.76 1,305,931 12.80 $I coo? ~ /Oe.., City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Mewbers, City Administrator i, .~. ~~C Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator FROM: SUBJECT: Request for Time Extension for Filing of Final Plat - Riverbend DATE: March 18,2002 INTRODUCTION/DISCUSSION The Developer, Newland Communities, received approval from the City Council for the Riverbend Preliminary Plat on December 17, 2001. Section 11-2-2 (D) 3 of the City Code requires that upon approval of the preliminary plat by City Council, the Developer shall submit the final plat within 100 days of the approval, unless a time extension is requested by the Developer and submitted in writing and approved by the City Council. Therefore, the Riverbend Final Plat needs to be submitted by March 27,2002 to meet this deadline. However, Newland Communities has submitted a letter to the City dated March 7, 2002 requesting that the City Council grant an 18 month (August 1,2003) time extension to this requirement. The Developer has made this request because of the need for FEMA to approve a Letter of Map Revision to the existing floodplain and the unknown time frame for this approval to occur. ACTION REOUESTED Consider a time extension of 18 months (August 1,2003) for the submittal of the Riverbend Final Plat. . 7:2s~ /~smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: Steve Juetten, Newland Communities 'I c:; 3 . NEWLAND COMMUNITIES NEWLAND MIDWEST 11000 West 78th Street Suite 101 Eden Prairie. MN 55344 952.942'7844 Pax 952'942'8075 March 7, 2002 Lee Smick City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 Re: Riverbend Final Plat Dear Ms. Smick, On December 17,2001, the Riverbend preliminary plat was approved. As discussed in the December 17, 2001 staff report, "No final platting oflots will be allowed in areas currently identified within the floodplain until the Letter of Map Revision is approved by FEMA." Given the additional engineering that was necessary to complete the FEMA application, the application was not submitted until late February. Based on this and the need to wait for FEMA approval prior to starting the final plat and construction plans, Astra Genstar Partnership, L.L.P., requests an eighteen month (until August 1,2003) extension of time for the submittal ofthe Riverbend Final Plat. Given the unknown time line that FEMA works under, the need to wait until FEMA approves the Letter of Map Revision prior to completing the final plans and the physical need to grade the entire Riverbend site at one time, there is becoming a strong likelihood that the proj ect will not occur this year. To properly design, approve and construct a quality development, we do not want to rush the process. It should be noted, that the newly adopted Zoning Code allows one year between preliminary plat and final plat submittal. However, because Riverbend was approved prior to the adoption of the new Zoning Code, an extension of time is necessary now. Thank you for your continued cooperation. As always, call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Newland Communities c;5~ Steven P. Juetten Vice President <./ ;? if lod City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator~ 5. 1 t,ilJ c.... FROM: Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Approve Extension of Wilson Property Pinal Plat Submittal DATE: March 18, 2002 INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION The Developer received approval from the City Council for the Wilson Property Preliminary Plat on June 18, 2001. Section 11-2-2 (D) of the City Code requires that the Developer must submit the final plat within 100 days of the approval of the preliminary plat or the approval shall be considered void, unless a time extension is requested by the Developer and submitted in writing and approved by the City Council. Therefore, the Wilson Property Pinal Plat should have been submitted by September 27,2001. The Developer received a time extension for submittal of the Wilson Property Pinal Plat to July 1,2002 at the October 1, 2001 City Council meeting. The Developer is requesting a second time extension for the submittal of the Wilson Property Final Plat to October 1,2002 as stated in the attached letter. City policy has been to grant a one-time extension for the recording of final plats. The City Council needs to determine if this one-time extension should apply to the submittal of the final plat or a succession of extensions be allowed. The recently approved City Code has been amended to require the submittal of the final plat within 1 year of the approval of the preliminary plat rather than the 100-day submittal requirement. However, the Wilson Property Preliminary Plat falls under the previous Zoning Code guidelines of 100 days. ACTION REQUESTED Consider if a second time extension is allowed for the submittal of the Wilson Property Pinal Plat to October 1, 2002. Respectfully su~ed,~ ~~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: Larry Prank, Arcon Development Don Patton, D.R. Horton </~5 .. ,(12/2002 15:15 1- <j;1) .:.::// ARCON ARCON DEVELOPMENT .... 6514632591 NO. 660 D002 , ';,' ~~iff.~~;~(~.:;t!f~,~''''' , ,.1 I 1......_--..-1.:.-.~-eo.~ ~\ l ,'~.\P~i.)\'~~~" ;t.:~. .: , ,! 't' _~-~/i:~....g~::~J~'J:~!Fl'>.iE'~_, ,"' .' DEVELOPMENT, INC. 7625 METRO BLVD.. SUITE 350. EDINA, MINNESOTA 55439. PHONE 952/835-4981. FAX 952/835-0069 E-m3il: arcon@arcondcvdopmcn.com . www.:1I.CODdc:vdopmcnt.com March 12, 2002 Lee Smio~ pl~nning Coordinator City ofFafmington 325 Oak. Street Farmington, :MN 55024 RE: Wilson Property Dear Lee, Arcon Development, Inc. hereby requests an extension fur Final Plat application for the \Vllson Property in the City of Farmington.. I would request the time period be extended to October 1,2002. The Wilson Property will be Final Platted along with the remainmg single-fumily lots within the Middle Creek development (except Middle Creek Estates) and will be pursued following Preliminary Plat approval fur Middle Creek East. Areon Development, Inc. appreciates Famllngton's assistance in this matter. Sincerely, ~.(/.~ Project Manger Cc: Don Patton, D.R. Horton we DO MORE TH.Aiv DEVE/-OP iAND~... WE CREATE NEIGHBORHOODS DEVELOPERS - PLANNERS - CONTRACTORS t/~t, JOe- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.m.n.us TO: Mayor, Council Members, Administrator t.\. FROM: Llee S~ick, AI~P VJv P anmng Coordmator SUBJECT: Consider Ordinance Amendment Scoreboard Signage DATE: March 18, 2002 INTRODUCTION The City of Farmington proposes to amend Section 4-3-2 (A) and 4-3-3 (C) of the City Code to allow scoreboards with advertising. DISCUSSION Independent School District # 192 approached the City in October of 2001 with the proposal to install scoreboards at their baseball fields at the northeast intersection of Akin Road and CSAH 50 and their softball fields on the High School property at 800 Denmark Avenue. A number of businesses in the City have donated funds to assist in purchasing the scoreboards, therefore, the School District has requested that the businesses be allowed to advertise on the scoreboards. As stated in the letter from the City to the School District dated October 23, 2001 the proposed advertising on the scoreboard is considered a billboard by the City Attorney and would not be allowed under the current sign ordinance (see attached). Because of this ruling, the School District requested that the City amend the sign ordinance to meet the requirements of the scoreboard specifications in a letter dated November 2, 2001 (see attached). The School District proposes to install a 6.5'x 27' scoreboard with advertising located on the front and back of the scoreboard. Four scoreboards will be located on School District property including one at each field for junior varsity and varsity baseball and softball (see attached locations). At the December 12, 2001 Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting the scoreboard issue was discussed to determine if the City Council and Planning Commission would agree to a code amendment to allow the scoreboards to be installed with advertising. The City Council and Planning Commission determined that the scoreboards would be an important improvement to the community and agreed to review an amendment to the sign ordinance. However, they stated that the ordinance amendment should be site specific to Akin Road and CSAH 50 and the High School property at 800 Denmark Avenue and adhere to the scoreboard specifications proposed by the School District. The Planning Commission reviewed the amendments to the sign ordinance at their March 12, 2002 meeting. One minor change was proposed. At the meeting, the School District requested that advertising be allowed on the back of the scoreboards at the softball fields. This request was recommended for approval by the Planning 'I~7 Commission and has been incorporated into Section 4-3-2 (A) under Permitted Signs (see attached ordinance). Upon review of the proposed amendments, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the sign ordinance amendments. ACTION REOUESTED Consider an ordinance to amend Section 4-3-2 (A) Permitted Signs and 4-3-3 (C) Advertising Signs of the City Code. Respectfully submitted, t/f;:~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: Independent School District #192 File SI.,1~ CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4-3 OF THE FARMINGTON CITY CODE CONCERNING SIGNS: BILLBOARDS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 4-3-2 ofthe Farmington City Code is amended to add the following: 18. Athletic Complex Scoreboards: Freestanding signs shall be permitted on public school property as follows: Scoreboards may be located only at the varsity and junior varsity playing fields at the northeast intersection of Akin Road and CSAH 50 and on the parcel at 800 Denmark Avenue. One scoreboard may be erected for each competitive playing field and is restricted to a maximum of 6'6" in height by 27' in length. The maximum height of the scoreboard at installation is 20 feet. The scoreboards at the varsity and junior varsity baseball fields may display non-illuminated advertisement panels located on the bottom perimeter of the front of the scoreboard and shall not exceed 2 feet in height or 27 feet in width. A second non-illuminated advertisement panel may be located on the back of the scoreboard at the top of the scoreboard perimeter and shall not exceed 3 feet in height or 27 feet in width. One business may be advertised on both sides of the scoreboard and shall display the exact same sign. Team logos, names and field location may be located on the front of the scoreboard at the top of the scoreboard perimeter and shall not exceed 2 feet in height and 27 feet in width. Team logos, names and field location may also be located on the back of the scoreboard and shall not exceed 2 feet in height and 27 feet in width. The scoreboards located at 800 Denmark Avenue may display non-illuminated advertisement panels on the bottom perimeter of the scoreboard and may not exceed 2 feet in height or 27 feet in length. Team logos, names and field location may be shown on a panel located on the top perimeter of the scoreboard and may not exceed 2 feet in height or 27 feet in length. A second non- illuminated advertisement panel may be located on the back of the scoreboard at the top of the scoreboard perimeter and shall not exceed 3 feet in height or 27 feet in width. One business may be advertised on the back of the scoreboard. SECTION 2. Section 4-3-3 (c) "Advertising Signs" of the Farmington City Code is amended to add the following: 11. Scoreboards on public school property may include billboards and advertising signs in any district. V~9 SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective within 90 days upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED this _day of Farmington. , 2002, by the City Council of the City of CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Gerald Ristow, Mayor ATTEST: By: City Administrator SEAL By: City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,2002. '/30 4-3-1 4-3-2 WALL SIGN: A sign affixed directly to the exterior wall or screening surface and con- fined within the limits thereof and which project from that surface less than fifteen inches ('5") at all points. \. '< 4-3-2: PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED SIGNS: (A) The following signs are permitted uses subject to the following regulations: 1. Temporary Real Estate Signs: For the purpose of selling, renting or leasing property, one sign may be placed per street frontage within fifteen feet (, 5') of the right-of-way line, on the property to be sold or leased. The size of such sign shall be a maximum of six (6) square feet for residential property and a maximum of thirty two (32) square feet for all other properties. 2. Signs for Promoting and/or Selling a Development Project: For the purpose of selling or promoting a development project of three (3) to thirty (30) acres, three (3) signs not to exceed one hundred ('00) aggregate square feet of adver- tising surface may be erected on the project site. For projects of thirty (30) acres or greater, five (5) signs not to exceed two hundred (200) aggregate square feet of advertising surface may be erected. 3. Street Banners: Street banners advertising a public entertainment or event are permitted if specifically approved by the City Zoning Officer and in loca- tions designated by the Zoning Officer. 4. Beacons: Revolving beacons, beamed lights or similar devices shall be per- mitted in all "B" and "I" Districts provided that they do not so distract automobile traffic as to constitute a safety hazard. 5. Temporary Signs: There shall be no mOre than one temporary sign in any required yard, and there shall be no more than three (3) such signs on any lot, and the total area of such signs shall not exceed twenty five (25) square feet. Temporary signs may be illuminated. 6. Election Signs: Political advertising of public elections are permitted on private property in any zoning district with the expressed consent of the owner or oc- cupant of such property. Such signs may not be posted more than sixty (60) days prior to the election and must be removed by those responsible for the erection of the sign or the property owner within seven (7) days following the election. Such signs must be no larger than sixteen (16) square feet. 7. Window Signs: Permanent signs printed or otherwise displayed from the in- side surface on an individual window shall not exceed two (2) square feet or twenty five percent (25%) of the total window area, whichever is greater. 8. Public Service Information Signs: Shall be allowed by conditional use in all districts either on pylons or on the building face. Such sign area devoted 286 '1.3/ 4-3-2 4-3-2 to this shall be limited to thirty two (32) square feet in area, conform with setback requirements in each district, and may be illuminated subject to timing and information controls stipulated as a condition to the conditional use permit. 9. On-Premises Signs: For the purpose of identifying or advertising a business, person, activity, goods, products or services located on the premises where the sign is installed and maintained, signs shall be regulated as set forth in subsections 4-3-3(B) and (C). 10. Illuminated Signs: Except for temporary signs, illuminated signs shall be allowed in "B" and "I" Districts. Such sign shall be illuminated only by steady, stationary, shielded light sources directed solely at the sign, or internal to it, without causing glare for motorists, pedestrians or neighboring premises as outlined by the section in Chapter 6 of the Zoning Ordinance dealing with exterior lighting. 11. No Trespassing Signs: No trespassing signs and no dumping signs shall not exceed two (2) square feet in area per side and not to exceed four (4) in number per lot in "R" Districts. In "A" and "C" Districts such signs shall not be less than three hundred feet (300') apart. (Ord. 086-173, 2-21-86) 12. Off-Premises Directional Signs: For the purpose of providing off street direction to a residential project described in this subsection (A), or a new venture less than twelve (12) months following occupancy permit, a public, religious or nonprofit institution, or a use which, in the determination of the Planning Commission, incurs substantial hardship from lack of reasonable identification as a result .of its location, a conditional use permit shall be required. Such sign shall not exceed twenty five (25) square feet per face and such sign shall conform to the yard requirements of the zoning district in which it is located. In addition, a directional sign may be permitted for any uses which, in the determination of the Planning Commission, incur substantial hardship from lack of reasonable identification as a result of its location. If said sign is lighted, it shall be illuminated only during those hours when business is in operation or when the model homes or other developments are open for conducting business. (Ord. 093-320, 12-6-93) 13. On-Premises Directional Signs: Where one way access and egress drives are incorporated in a site plan, a sign indicating traffic direction no more than four (4) square feet may be placed at a driveway within five feet (5') of the street right of way. A directional 694 City of Farmington ..., o,.,... -... -' .' .o,....o,. - ..~- .. .-........~...-..........-.-- ....... .... .--~_.....-_:"--_. .. Y3;?- 4-3-2 4-3-2 sign indicating the entrance to a rHo-way driveway may be required where the Zoning Administrator deems it is necessary to safely direct the traveling public. -- ~- '\; " .. 14. Awning Signs: Signs consisting of one line of letters not exceeding nine inches (9") in height may be painted or placed upon the hanging border only of an awning. An identification emblem, insignia, initial or other similar design, -not exceeding eight (8) square feet in area may be painted or placed elsewhere on an awning. 15. Painted Wall Signs: Painted wall signs shall be permitted only on structurally sound and homogeneous surfaces. 16. Church Signs: On-premises freestanding and attached church signs shaH be permitted in any district not to exceed seventy five (75) square feet per side. (Ord. 086-173, 2-21-86) 17. Agricultural District Signs: Permitted and conditional uses within agricultural districts may utilize one sign per site to identify the location of services available and products grown for sale. Such sign shall not exceed thirty (30) square feet. (Ord. 094-331, 4-18-94) (B) The following signs are prohibited as prescribed: 1. Illuminated Signs: Illuminated signs shall not be permitted within the "A", "C" and "R" Districts. 2. Rotating, Moving or Flashing Signs: Rotating, moving or flashing signs shall not be permitted in any district. 3. Traffic Interference: No sign shall be erected that, by reason of position, shape or color would interfere in any way with the proper functioning or purpose of a: traffic sign or signal. 4. Snipe Signs: There shall be no use of snipe signs anywhere within ~eC~. . 5. Roof Signs: Roof signs, roof advertising symbols, roof logos, roof statues or roof sculptures shall not be permitted in any district. No sign shall extend above the roof line. 6. Business and Advertising Signs: Such signs shall not be painted, attached or in any manner affixed to trees, rocks or similar natural surfaces, nor shall such signs be affixed to a fence or utility pole. 694 City of Farmington '/33 4-3-3 4-3-3 provided a written request therefor is filed with the Clerk within ten (10) days after receipt of the I)otice of such denial, suspension or revocation. The Council may grant such permit or confirm any suspension or revocation or reinstate any such permit. The action taken by the Council after a hearing shall be final. (Ord. 095-358, 9-5-95) .~ (C) Advertising Signs: 1095 1. Billboards and other off-premises advertising signs shall be permitted only in I Districts and only where the adjacent street speed limit is fifty (50) miles per hour or higher. 2. A conditional use permit is required for all billboard and other off- premises advertising signs. 3. The maximum sign size shall be three hundred (300) square feet. Billboards may incorporate cutouts protruding beyond the framed perimeter of the sign face, providing the total sign area does not exceed three hundred fifty (350) square feet. 4. The maximum height to the uppermost portion of any advertising device shall be thirty feet (30'). The building setback limitation for the zoning district in which the sign is located shall apply to setbacks for advertising signs. 5. The minimum radius distance between advertising signs shall be one thousand five hundred feet (1,500'). 6. No billboard or other off-premises advertising sign structure shall be constructed within five hundred feet (500') of any park or residential zoning district. 7. No billboard or other off-premises advertising sign shall be located closer to any intersection than five hundred feet (500'). 8. Billboards and other off-premises advertising signs shall be a single support, metal structure, free of supports or guy wires. The metal shall be treated in such a manner as to prevent deterioration. 9. Billboards may be illuminated provided that there are no flashing, intermittent or moving lights; and that beams or rays of light are not directed toward any portion of public streets. City of Farmington '1.3 V 4-3-3 ......./ 4-3-3 10. Billboards and other off-premises advertising signs are permitted in undeveloped land areas. When a plat is approved and improvements are in place, the billboard must be removed from the site. (Ord. 090-228, 2-5-90) 1095 City of Farm.ington ~ . 1. tI..35 Farmington Independent School District 192 Excellence, Integrity, Innovation DOUGLAS BONAR DIRECTOR BUILDINGS & GROUNDS OFFICE 510 WALNUT STREET FARMINGTON, MN 55024-1389 PHONE: (651) 463-5062 FAX: (651) 463-5061 November 2,2001 Ms. Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Re: Scoreboards Dear Ms. Smick: Thank you for your letter dated October 23, 2001. In a cooperative effort to promote recreation in the area, the District, local businesses, and an informal committee of interested citizens have partnered to propose scoreboards be installed at some of our local ball fields. During the course of this enthusiastic effort to provide additional resources, a formal review of ordinances was not conducted. Upon review of the established ordinance, it would be reasonable and prudent to request an audience before the Planning Commission. Our intent would be to work with our local city planners and hopefully establish acceptable revisions that allow this project to continue and preserve the integrity and intent of local law. Could we establish a meeting date to discuss an ordinance amendment and the Planning Commission procedures? ~\ Do las L. Bonar Dire tor of Buildings & Grounds cc: Greg Ohl, Superintendent Mike Buringa, Activities Director John Frank, 913 Westgal Court File t/.3~ JPEG image 721 x541 pixels http://www.tobyerickson.comlclientslcolorsignlimagesff7222 _ BA _ V jrontwide.jpg ..... ....... :::: COLoa"'~1K. ......... ..... IMPORTANT NOTICE: '""" Io.........-,.........~... __ 1_ ......... .,-...,__~It..""",,____ ...., _ -., """" _ -. TMo....... _... _ ----.",~...-......... 1 ofl NO.I<'" ~ Mft r:l:.-. ~-:JW.... .. JIWIIlIQlIf .IIIIQIJQI(-- ~_AL QDII'f'.0t C/3/ 3/11/2002 3:09 PM JPEG image 721 x541 pixels http://www.tobyerickson.com/clientsicolorsignlimages/T7222 _ BA _ V _ back.jpg ..... ....... :::: COLoa............... ......... ..... IMPORTANT NOTICE: TNo 10.....,.-...,....... <rI~.. ~ Inc..""""- .,.-..,__~ It..I....,__.._ ...., _ -,......" _ -. TWo....... _.._ ----.,,~...-...... rIlMW JCIol.l _ ~.- ~~--=- ...1IWlIIlOft . .1IItDIlIf. __ ~_M. ~,.ot 1 of 1 t/3~ 3/11/20023:09 PM - I - k IIJ$4K II jJiJ~F-%tI,~ >~ ... 1/. i! '" . ~ l' .. " .-- ...;.....Y --..;. .~ - --..l '- ~.. ~ tn.; ......... ~ J ,il .r - ~ ... ......... : ~ .\, ~ ..... ~-- ... -- ~ ( II Ii ~-- r f -- rr if:; ~ :r- " ' , t-- " i .~ ~ , \1 ,~~ ...1 ~~ ~' ! - ~~l .-.; .-i r f.;'_ I V .! ..., . ~rr, ::; ~l "-oIi ~- "::I .~ I\X ~. " .~~ r- - f. ~~~ q - .- c " ~ ~ ...J - ~ ~. - ,., \l. ~.,) 0 t-t .5 :2 r .;t ..0 ~ .~ "I 4..l::~ I - .- ",t k #11'11/ ~ fl '137 JPEG image 721x541 pixels http://www.tobyerickson.comlclients/colorsignlimagesff7222 _ BA _N _ front.jpg ..... ....... :=:: CGI.OIl... Sft'I'DII,DC. ......... .... . IMPORTANT NOTICE: TNo 10 a.......-,... oI~........... me.. ~ .,-.-__......-.Illlol....__._ ....., _ -. _.." .. _ ftIo -......-....- ----",,-...,.....,..... fC)./f1If ICM.l lli\T& ~.-. ~-~::=.. ... JIWINOIII. . IIIIl;IJOK .__ ~.vNCIVAI. Q.IlM,.ot 1 of 1 ,/YCJ 3/11/20023:12 PM JPEG image 721x541 pixels http://www.tobyerickson.comlc1ientslcolorsign/imagesff7222 _ BA _ N _ back.jpg IMPORTANT NOTICE: """"Io.~......,~.....-- Iroc........... .......-- -......... ...,.... ---- .....,--,......"...- """'-" -...- ____Gfc:-...-l.... 1 of 1 _scu_ ~._ =:.-~~w .1tWOIOft .~.- ~.......... Q.DIf,.of 7"'7"'/ 3/11/2002 3: 12 PM -- ~.---- r-----:-- : ----; ! ------ J ---I NqRr, tJAff'1 Nf~_ -~- i I '--L- '- 1----' I _ r---; ~---,.-! ! ---,-.- -~-~--;-- ~4~,~- , I , . '. . . ( ,-.....;....- ,----- . __I a~ ~g(~~ ~~ i'fW~ lIQ{t~\;q- -- ~ - ~-- ~v~~(, _ttiJ..fI-r'l-__ ~t!Y---- l.." ___ ___~U:'lL _~. _ - . , --- . J.,.. --------------- - ~~&l~_~ / ~~_~ ~_.__ '- ---- ---I - fI&AJ~ r 50 l/ C/o1 JPEG image 721x541 pixels http://www.tobyerickson.comlclients/colorsignlimageslT7222 _ SB _V .jpg ..... ....... i::: CGIAIa...........1& ......... ..... IMPORTANT NOTICE: ",.... . ......,.-.,........ CaW ... ~ Inc. ......... ......,_ _,........ ...1..... __.._ ...., _ -.,........, _ -. TWo....... _.. _ ____<llltCaW.-,-......... _ JCIU ~ c:i:.1Gt. ... ~. .....::~w ..1IWCNQft .1IIIl:DON . __ a.cIft...,.,..'" QlIIWf P.ot 'It( 3 1 of} 3/11/2002 3: 13 PM JPEG image 721x541 pixels http://www.tobyerickson.com/clientslcolorsignlimageslT7222 _ SB _ N .jpg ..... ....... :=:: 0DI.0ll... fta1DIa,IK. ......... ..... IMPORTAHT NOTICE: TNoo.. ........-,.......... oI~'" __ Inc.......... ..--__ ......-....1.....__.._ .....,_-.,.... ___ 'nIoo........._.._ ----.,,~.--..... 1 of! r<<>.M ~ M1a J:.-. .~=.... . _.. RIAlV<IOft . IIIIl:DQIII _ ___ ~~... CUIlOfP.Qt ,/I./{/ 3/11/20023:13 PM ~---- " ! ~ d' () .. ......\" !!\("'" (' ~~ "'~ ~ ~ ~ -~-~ .. ---~-, _u ----~-io- C\ ,.! . ~~\l('___~ -- ~- . -- ---.--- ~ ~ ~ ~,-~---- ~.t' ,~ __ _ _ '__ t""-- ",- . __ _ ~~ - - .._-~ --- .. __u~_..~ .. I I I I -- f-='-- -p-- V'\ -.---- ~ - --I ~ -~ --..---- ~~c'=" _ .. ~ ~~J r-\I' ~_~_____ _..~~ ~ . ~ - --. - -, \1\ ~~ \'\ ~ -----~- ; -.,.~ - , - , Iii I i II ~__ ~ llIl ~~ ~~\~ ~~ i/i/5 ~ IOF Charter COM MUN ICATIONS. A WIRED WORLD COMPANY,. February 22, 2002 The Honorable Jerry Ristow Mayor City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Re: Notice of Revised Late Fee Implementation Dear Mayor Ristow: This is to advise you that effective May 1, 2002, Charter Communications will be implementing a revised Late Fee pursuant to the Global Class Action Settlement Agreement approved by the Court in Unfried. et al. v. Charter Communications Holdina Company. LLC. et al. Specifically, beginning with bills issued on or after May 1, 2002, the revised Late Fee will be as follows: If it is the subscriber's first late payment after the effective date, the revised Late Fee is three dollars and twenty-five cents ($3.25) imposed approximately one month (Le., 27 to 31 days depending on the month) after a subscriber bill is electronically processed and remains unpaid and an additional fee of one dollar and seventy cents ($1.70) forty-five (45) days after a subscriber bill is electronically processed and remains unpaid. If a subscriber has already been assessed a Late Fee after the effective date, all subsequent Late Fees will be three dollars and twenty-five cents ($3.25) imposed approximately one month (Le. 27 to 31 days depending on the month) after a subscriber bill is electronically processed and remains unpaid and an additional fee of two dollars and seventy cents ($2.70) forty-five (45) days after a subscriber bill is electronically processed and remains unpaid. Consistent with its existing practices, Charter Communications shall mail bills within a reasonable time after the bill is electronically processed. The Late Fee is in addition to other standard fees and charges that Charter Communications may continue to assess, including, but not limited to, charges for the retrieval or non-return of equipment and charges for field collection efforts. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact your local Charter office or me at (314) 543-2410. Sincerely, CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. /J1 (1u; ~ M. Celeste Vossmeyer Vice President - Government Relations MCV:smf Charter Plaza. 12405 Powerscourt Drive. St. Louis. Missouri. 63131-3674 www.charter.com . tel: 314.965.0555 . fax: 314.965.6640 tf~~ /0.:; Charter COM M U N I CATIONS' A WIRED WORLD COMPANY" March 4, 2002 Mr. Ed Shukle, City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024-1358 Dear Mr. Shukle, The time has come! I'm writing to share the exciting news that finally, the purchase of High-Speed Access (HSA) is coming to fruition! This has been long awaited and we are very excited. HSA had been our partner for over 3 years in bringing to marketing the high-speed Internet service over the cable TV line. Some aspects of the relationship were challenging and we appreciate working with you to keep communications open. As of March 1,2002, Charter Communications has acquired High-Speed Access. This acquisition has been anxiously awaited and with it brings us additional challenges and opportunities. First, we are converting those modem customers from the HSA billing system to Charter's bill platform. We will accomplish that phase during the week of March 11, 2002. Previously, our customers had been billed separately for their modem and cable service. Now they will have a combined billed. With that feature, Charter will be able to package the modem and cable together for further savings for our customers. The majority of our customer base in Minnesota is already taking advantage of the packaging and now with the acquisition ofHSA, we will be able to do the same. There are other exciting aspects of this transition as well. Soon, you will begin to see a lot of advertising promoting our ability to "tier" the modem service. We will be offering 3 tiers of this service. Charter Pipeline Platinum will offer residential customers download specds of up to 1.5 MB for $49.95, Charter Pipeline Gold with up to 768 Kbps for $39.95 and Charter Pipeline Silver with up to 256 Kbps for $29.95. Modem rental will be $3.95 per month. We will be supporting the DOCSIS platform, which allows our customers the ability to purchase their own modems at participating retailers such as Best Buy and Circuit City if they so chose. The timing of this transition is dependant on a successful trial period, and we anticipate this happening by the beginning of the 2nd quarter. I am very pleased to be offering these product improvements with our modem service. Weare looking at a very positive 2002 in relation to the modem service and being able to communicate the availability of this and to offer our customers a package with their cable servIce. 16900 Cedar Avenue South. Rosemount, Minnesota' 55068 www.chartercom.com . tel: 952.432.2575 . fax: 952.432.5765 f./ </7 Should you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. My number is (952) 432-2575, ext. 3014. I will keep you updated on the progress. Best regards, Ellen Martin Operations Manager BOlem <I V'i? IOh City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ed Shukle, City Administrator SUBJECT: 2002 Leadership/Strategic Planning Retreat DATE: March 18, 2002 As you know, we have scheduled the 2002 Leadership/Strategic Planning Retreat for Saturday, April 13, 2002, beginning at 8 a.m. at Dakota Electric, 4300 220th Street West, Farmington. The session will be held in a conference room at Dakota Electric. A continental breakfast will be provided as well as lunch. The session will end at approximately 3 p.m. Please arrive around 7:45 a.m. as our session will begin promptly at 8:00 a.m. As a reminder, the purpose of the retreat is: . Organizations need to periodically assess their progress, reestablish direction and enhance team spirit. . The key to a city's effectiveness is how well the City Councilmembers, City Administrator and Management Team communicate and work together. . It's much easier to develop consensus on issues, opportunities and goals in an off- site relaxed environment rather than the formality of the normal work environment. . A leadership/strategic planning retreat is an excellent way to integrate new members onto the leadership team. The following is a tentative agenda for the day: 8:00 - 8:05 Opening Remarks - Mayor and City Administrator 8:05 - 9:30 "Working as a Team - The Challenge of Public Sector Leadership" 9:30 - 9:45 Break 9:45 - 11 :30 "Working as a Team - Providing Direction" 11 :30 - 12:30 Lunch '1t/7 12:30 - 2:00 "Working as a Team - Building Positive Relationships" 2:00 - 3:00 "Working as a Team - Clarifying Roles"/Summary and Wrap-Up Comments Enclosed is some background information about our facilitator, Don Salverda. I believe the workshop will be worthwhile for all participants. If you have any questions regarding the retreat, please contact me. cc: Jim Bell, Parks and Recreation Director Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief Lee Mann, Public Works Director, City Engineer Cindy Muller, Executive Assistant Robin Roland, Finance Director Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Manager Don Salverda, Donald Salverda and Associates l/6eJ DON SALVERDA Don Salverda is President of DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES, a consulting firm that provides services and materials to business and industry, government, and professional organizations, in the areas of team building, strategic planning, leadership, management development, and customer service. He has designed and led team building, strategic planning, leadership, and management retreats and workshops for over fifteen years for a variety of organizations in both the public and private sectors. As a retreat and workshop leader his positive and enthusiastic approach convey his own sense of purpose and belief. He further believes that: 1) People are very busy with limited time; therefore, the process should be practical and highly productive 2) People learn from each other; therefore, the process should be highly participative 3) The process should be educational, enjoyable, and non-threatening Don is highly respected for his leadership ability, his results-oriented style, and his commitment of service to people. Combining an academic background in engineering with over thirty years of practical experience in the private, public, and volunteer sectors in a variety of roles and settings, Don has gained a unique and broad perspective of the challenges facing organizations and individuals. In addition to serving on a number of boards and commissions, he has served as President of the Sales and Marketing Executives of Minneapolis, the Roseville-Falcon Heights Chamber of Commerce, the Association of Minnesota Counties, the Ramsey County League of Local Governments, the North Suburban Community Foundation and the North Suburban Gavel Association. He has also served as President of the Roseville Jaycees and as District Chair of the Indianhead Council of the Boy Scouts of America. He has been elected to public office and served eighteen years on the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners. Don is an active member of the Rotary Club of Roseville and is an avid downhill skier and biker. Donald Salverda & Associates · 2233 N. Hamline Avenue · Roseville, Minnesota 55113 · 651-484-1335 <15/ /~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463~7111 Fax (651) 463~2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: 9) . Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ' FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: St. Michael's Church Property DATE: March 18, 2002 INTRODUCTION Discussion on St. Michael's Church property and other potential historic properties was continued from the March 4, 2002 Council meeting. DISCUSSION After discussion with St. Michael's representatives and utfon advice from Legal Counsel, a decision was made to continue this item to the March 18 agenda. A memorandum dated March 11, 2002 from Matt Brokl, Assistant City Attorney, is attached. Robert Vogel will be present at the meeting to respond to any questions you may have. ACTION REOUESTED The Heritage Preservation Commission is requesting Council to acknowledge and consider the following: 1. That the HPC issued a finding that the St. Michael's church building appears to meet the criteria for designation as a heritage landmark. If the owners are not interested in the designation, the process will not continue. 2. Request all parties with an interest in the property, the City Council and Planning Commission, to participate in an informal meeting to discuss the preservation value of the church property. Consultant Vogel will schedule a meeting and invite all parties involved. 3. Place a 6-month moratorium on demolition/moving permits for all buildings more than 50 years old or until all existing land use controls are in place. 4. Authorize a study of the preservation value and reuse potential of religious buildings and other potential historic properties. Sl5~ Respectfully submitted, c~fj;~ ! Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager '1&3 MEMORANDUM March 11, 2002 TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator FROM: Matt Brokl, Assistant City Attorney RE: S1. Michael's Church Property and Other Potential Historic Properties This memorandum is intended to review the information submitted by Mr. Vogel and discussed at the Council meeting of March 4, 2002. You have previously received a report from Mr. Vogel regarding the preservation ofS1. Michael's Church. Mr. Vogel's memorandum included the following items: 1. The HPC issued a finding that the 81. Michael's church building appears to meet the criteria for designation as a heritage landmark. 2. The HPC requested all parties with an interest in the property, the City Council and Planning Commission, to participate in an informal meeting to discuss the preservation value of the church property. 3. The HPC requested that the City place a 6-month moratorium on demolition/moving permits for all buildings more than 50 years old. 4. The HPC requested that the City authorize a study of the preservation value and reuse potential of religious buildings. Following is our review addressing each issue as specified by the HPC Consultant: 1. The HPC issued a finding that the St. Michael's church building appears to meet the criteria for designation as a heritage landmark. The designation of historic buildings is a difficult task without the approval of the property owner. The owner may be the original owner of the property or a developer or a public group which purchases property in order to preserve a structure. The landmark designation is not intended to be used as a method of stopping or prohibiting the destruction or modification of a structure. The City designation is intended to be an aid in the process of preserving an historic building. The key to effective use of the City's designation is time. With the S1. Michael's church building the lead-time was not taken advantage of and currently the property owners do not appear to be inclined to assist in preserving the building due to financial constraints. If the City believes this is an 'IS l./ important issue for other religious or non-religious structures in the City, then now is the time to begin working with other property owners to make historical designations before re-development is proposed. 2. The HPC requested all parties with an interest in the property, the City Council and Planning Commission, to participate in an informal meeting to discuss the preservation value of the church property. This request applies to all properties with historic value and is a valuable tool when used before and during any development project. As indicated previously, the St. Michael's owners asserted at the Council meeting that they fully explored all alternatives and were not inclined to meet to discuss possible alternatives. Based on the comments of the Council at its last meeting and the possible interest in pursuing one last meeting to discuss this issue among the interested parties, the City and the HPC consultant will attempt to establish a meeting with the parties and report the result of that initiative to the Council. 3. The HPC requested the City place a 6-month moratorium on demolition/moving permits for all buildings more than 50 yean old. Moratoriums are strong tools. A moratorium is intended to be used as a temporary restriction on landowner's rights in order to permit the City to develop long range plans. Moratoriums are not legally appropriate to stop a single specific project under most circumstances. The concept of a ''taking'' from a property owner becomes an issue with moratoriums. The courts in Minnesota have individually ruled that moratoriums will not constitute "takings" resulting in damages being awarded to property owners. However, like most legal rules, there are exceptions based on specific facts, and the U.S. Supreme Court currently has a case under review which could change the current rule. The key to a valid moratorium is that it be enacted as the result of a good faith effort to protect the municipal planning process. Moratoriums are not meant to address specific projects but rather the overall planning process. The courts also look to the following factors and others in determining whether a moratorium is enacted lawfully: 1. Are there land use controls in place for the area? 2. Do existing land use controls permit the proposed use? 3. When did the City obtain information regarding the proposed use? 4. Under the current ordinances, is the project in compliance? 5. Is the existing project the only project specifically affected at this time? 6. Is the moratorium enacted to prevent construction despite such compliance? If land use controls are currently in place, a moratorium is less likely to be appropriate as the City can instead amend its controls in the usual fashion. Additionally, if existing controls permit a use contemplated by a property owner, it is difficult to legally justify a moratorium that prohibits that use. In the St. Michael's church situation, the City had knowledge of potential destruction or re-use of the property over a year ago. l./56 Townhomes are an allowable general use for the property. The S1. Michael's property is the property that would be most impacted by the moratorium and the appearance of the moratorium may have been that of the City trying to stop the project even though the proposed project might ultimately be approved. Testimony from the Church and discussion from the City Council advanced in a direction of tailoring a moratorium specifically based upon its impact on 8t. Michael's church. Additionally, the Church representatives spoke of the immediate harm a moratorium would cause upon the Church and its finances. Given these issues, many of which were mentioned by the Church during their presentation to the Council, I advised against the proposed moratorium as applied to the S1. Michael's property. As an overall proposition, the use of a moratorium to study the many religious properties in the City may be proper if the City determines that its existing land use controls are not adequate. It may be that existing ordinances need further refinement or adjustment. Perhaps it's a matter of interpretation and implementation or enforcement of existing controls. Before adopting a moratorium on this issue the City should consider further review and documentation of the existing need for a moratorium to accomplish the preservation of other buildings. 4. The HPC requested the City authorize a study of the preservation value and reuse potential of religious buildings. The HPC has in place a demolition permit policy for buildings more than 50 years old that provides for a 10-day waiting period to allow recordation by city staff. This allows preservation of documentation and not the building itself. This is a short window of time that does not allow for many options regarding preservation of a structure. Given the special nature of the 8t. Michael's church structure, the issuance of a demolition permit in this case would be subject to appropriate conditions as interpreted by City staff and documentation of historical information from the church and the structure. If the City decides to make a priority of preserving religious buildings, then timing is the key. The St. Michael's church can be included in the study to the extent the property owner consents to participate. Unlike commercial or residential buildings, religious building present rather unique re-use issues. Lead-time is the key with these structures. For example, in Lakeville a church was recently converted to public art space. The process of preserving and re-using this space started 10 years ago when the church began planning for a new facility. The church the city and the public all participated actively in the preservation of the structure over those many years. The advantage in the Lakeville case was the church's desire to see the building preserved and used again even at a financial loss. In contrast, with the 81. Michael's church, the property owner is primarily focused upon the sale of the property for a profit. With a long pre-sale planning process the City of Farmington can identify projects and structures for historical designation and preservation. t/5c' MAR-18-02 02:54 PM GARVEY CONSTRUCTION 6514634850 P.01 '11";' ..~\im ,..,. GARVEY CONSTRUCTION INC. 22098 CANTON COURT FARMINGTON, MN 55024 PHONE # 651 w463.482S FAX ii 651-463-48'0 ";,: DATE 3~-lh' O~ C1-~ o+- fW'f113 JoV) ...::r f..,r- ~ (2...i~ i?J Co I ~ G~rl/t'1 "':\' "'.. " TO AITN FROM MESSAGB I., ,.., NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER ~ SHEBT -.:.:.;.J ..;. . II~' ::~ : .' MAR-18-02 02:55 PM GARVEY CONSTRUCTION 6514634850 FARMINGTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORA nON 22098 CANTON COURT FARMINGTON, MN 55024 PHONE 6'1-463-4825 FAX 6S1-463-48S0 MARCH 18TH, 2002 JERYY RISTOW CITY OF FARMINGTON 325 OAK STREET FARMINGTON, MN 55024 FARMINGTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DOES NOT FEEL THE 2 TO 2 Va MILLION DOLLARS IT WOULD TAKE TO RESTORE THE FORMER ST. MICHEALS CHURCH TO MAKE IT A USABLE BUILDING IS A FINANCIALLY FEESABLE PROJECT. WE FEEL THE BEST USE FOR THE PROPERTY IS TO BUILD SINGLE LEVEL TOWNHOMES, WHICH THERE IS NOT ONLY A DEMAND BUT ALSO A SHORTAGE OF THIS TYPE OF TOWNHOMES. FURTHERMORE THE ONLY CALLS THAT WE HA VB RECEIVED ARE FROM PEOPLE INTERESTED IN PURCHASING A TOWNHOUSE. ~CERELY ~ PETE EL VEST AD COLIN GARVEY P.02 "'~i:IJ!,~~~ ,,;'~ ",' " . ,I" ~,' ,. ...... " . ',: ,'Ii: .. :r ',:; ,'," ",' ," .. ~' .,,':" -.j', :.: . . , ',f' ',. '....'. ::....\ I 'r~,,:'., ':":t . '. :,~ \', ~ .~ . . , ~~I. 'I: Mo.- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminJrton.mn.us ~,). TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: 209th Street Feasibility Report DATE: March 18, 2002 INTRODUCTION Forwarded herewith for Council's consideration is the feasibility report for 209th Street, prepared by Paul Thomas of Pioneer Engineering, the engineer for Tamarack Ridge. The upgrade to the roadway, which includes paving, curb and gutter and storm sewer, needs to be accomplished in concurrence with the Tamarack Ridge Development. Water main improvements are necessaz to serve the development and the existing residential properties along the south side of 209 Street. The properties along the south side of the street will also derive benefit from the street and storm sewer improvements. The details of the proposed construction are contained in the attached report. DISCUSSION As Council may recall, the construction of 209th Street was addressed in the development contracts for the Tamarack Ridge Development (see attached page 1 of development contracts). As the contract states, the developer is responsible for the construction of the street and the developer will be reimbursed for the costs apportioned to the residents along the south side of the street. In the spring of 2000, at a town board meeting, all of the township residents along the south side of the street agreed to be annexed into the City in order to be allowed to hook up to City water. They also agreed at the meeting that they would be paying for their proportionate share of the street and storm sewer improvements. Therefore, it was anticipated that the developer would construct the improvements and be reimbursed for the resident's share of the costs. The residents along the south side of209th Street were annexed into the City in January of2001. In 2001, staff attempted to move the 209th Street project forward by obtaining assessment agreements for the improvement costs from the new residents of Farmington along the south side of 209th Street. Several of the residents did not agree to sign assessment agreements. Consequently, without 100% voluntary participation of the residents along the south side of 209th Street, it is necessary to apportion the costs of the improvements pursuant to M.S. Chapter 429. As such, the project needs to be a City project and follow all the procedures stipulated by M.S. 429. t/67 Pioneer Engineering had already completed the design of 209th Street by the time it became apparent that the project needed to become a City project, therefore it is most cost-effective for Pioneer Engineering to continue to be the engineer for this project. The design and construction of the roadway has been and will continue to be reviewed and approved by City engineering staff. BUDGET IMPACT The total estimated project cost for the 209th Street improvements is $311,000. The costs will be allocated between the developer of Tamarack Ridge and the property owners along the south side of 209th Street. An amount to cover the costs of the construction is available in the developer's surety for the development project. The appraisal will be completed shortly and the proposed assessment roll and project cost apportionment will be available at the neighborhood meeting and the public hearing. As Council is aware, the City cannot assess a property an amount that is greater than the appraised benefit the property receives from the improvements. The costs not assessable to the properties along the south side of the property will be allocated to the developer(s) of Tamarack Ridge. ACTION REOUESTED Adopt the attached resolution accepting the feasibility report, authorizing preparation of plans and specifications and calling for a public hearing. Respectfully Submitted, ~/'J1~ Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file L/5'eo RESOLUTION NO. R -02 ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT, AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT 01-08, 209TH STREET WEST - WATER MAIN, STORM SEWER AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 18th day of March, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, pursuant to the development contracts with Rock Cliff Development, LLC, Farmington Family Housing Limited Partnership and Centex Homes, a preliminary report has been prepared with reference to the following improvement: Proi. No. 01-08 DescriDtion Watermain, Storm Sewer and Street Improvements Location 209th Street West between Chippendale Avenue (County Road 3) and Cantata Avenue West. WHEREAS, this report was received by the Council on March 18th, 2002; and, WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota that: 1. The feasibility report is hereby accepted. 2. The Council will consider the improvement of such streets in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement, less right-of-way costs, of $311,000. 3. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 15th day of April, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7 :00 p.m. and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. 4. Paul Thomas is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 18th day of March, 2002. Attested to the 18th day of March, 2002. Mayor City Administrator SEAL <./.59 DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AGREEMENT dated this 21 sl day of August, 2000, by and between the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation (CITY) and Rock Cliff Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (DEVELOPER). 1. Reauest for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for Tamarack Ridge (also referred to in this Development Contract [CONTRACT or AGREEMENT] as the PLAT). The land is legally described as: All that part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 29, Township 114, Range 19, lying southerly and southeasterly of the centerline of County State Aid Highway No. 66 as now traveled and its westerly extension. Except the West 100.00 feet of the East 133.00 feet of the South Half of the North Half of said Southwest Quarter and also except the West 150.00 feet of the East 183.00 feet of the North Half of the North Half of said Southwest Quarter. Together with: All that part of the South Half of said Southwest Quarter described as follows: Beginning at a point on the West line of said Southwest Quarter, 658.00 feet North of the Southwest comer of said Southwest Quarter, thence running East 1077.00 feet, thence due North 662.00 feet to the North line of said South Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence West 1077.00 feet to the West line of said Southwest Quarter; thence South along said West line to the point of beginning. Except that part thereoflying South of the North line of the South 665.00 feet of said Southwest Quarter. 2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on the condition that: a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. c) Outlot F is dedicated to the City for park purposes k d) The Developer will be responsible for the construction of 209th Street between Trunk Highway 3 and Cantata Avenue in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City. The improvements to 209th Street includes water main construction. The construction of 209th Street will be completed by December 1 st, 2001. The Developer will post a surety for said improvements by April 1 st, 2001. The developer will be reimbursed by the City for the 209th Street improvement costs apportioned to the residents along the south side of209th Street. e) The Developer will be responsible for the construction of Cantata Avenue and 208th Street between Cantata Avenue and Cambodia Avenue in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City. The construction of Cantata Avenue and 208th Street will be completed by December 1st, 2001. The Developer will post a surety for said improvements by April 1 st, 2001. 1 </~o DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AGREEMENT dated this 2nd day of October, 2000, by and between the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation (CITY) and Farmington Family Housing Limited Partnership, a Minnesota Limited Partnership (DEVELOPER). 1. Request for Development Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a development for Farmington Family Housing (also referred to in this Development Contract [CONTRACT or AGREEMENT] as the DEVELOPMENT). The land is legally described as: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, Block 1 of Tamarack Ridge, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. 2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the development on the condition that: a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. c) Outlot F is dedicated to the City for park purposes. Jt d) The developer will be responsible for the construction of 209th Street between Trunk Highway 3 and Cantata Avenue in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City. The improvements to 209th Street include water main construction. The construction of 209th Street will be completed by December 1 st, 2001. The Developer will post a surety for said improvements by April 1st, 2001. The developer will be reimbursed by the City for the 209th Street improvement costs apportioned to the residents along the south side of 209th Street. e) The developer will be responsible for the construction of Cantata Avenue and 208th Street between Cantata Avenue and Cambodia Avenue in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City. The construction of Cantata Avenue and 208th Street will be completed by December 1st, 2001. The Developer will post a surety for said improvements by April 1 st, 2001. 3. Development Plans. The Developer shall develop the development in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Agreement. The plans may be prepared by the Developer, subject to City approval, after entering into this Agreement but before commencement of any work in the development. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, subject to paragraphs 6 and 31 G, the plans shall control. The required plans are: Plan A - Final Plat Plan B - Soil Erosion Control and Grading Plans Plan C - Landscape Plan Plan D - ZoninglDevelopment Map Plan E - Wetlands Mitigation as required by the City Plan F - Final Street and Utility Plans and Specifications 1 ,,/c,/ DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AGREEMENT dated this 21st day of August, 2000, by and between the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation (CITY) and Centex Homes, a Nevada general partnership (DEVELOPER). 1. Request for Development Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a development for Centex Homes (also referred to in this Development Contract [CONTRACT or AGREEMENT] as the DEVELOPMENT). The land is legally described as: Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 Block 2 and Outlot G of Tamarack Ridge, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. 2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the development on the condition that: a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. c) Outlot F is dedicated to the City for park purposes ~d) The developer will be responsible for the construction of 209th Street between Trunk Highway 3 and Cantata Avenue in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City. The improvements to 209th Street include water main construction. The construction of 209th Street will be completed by December 1 st, 2001. The Developer will post a surety for said improvements by April 1 st, 2001. The developer will be reimbursed by the City for the 209th Street improvement costs apportioned to the residents along the south side of 209th Street. e) The developer will be responsible for the construction of Cantata Avenue and 208th Street between Cantata Avenue and Cambodia Avenue in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City. The construction of Cantata Avenue and 208th Street will be completed by December 1 st, 2001. The Developer will post a surety for said improvements by April 1 st, 2001. 3. Development Plans. The Developer shall develop the plat in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Agreement. The plans may be prepared by the Developer, subject to City approval, after entering into this Agreement but before commencement of any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, subject to paragraphs 6 and 31 G, the plans shall control. The required plans are: Plan A - Final Plat Plan B - Soil Erosion Control and Grading Plans Plan C - Landscape Plan Plan D - Zoning/Development Map Plan E - Wetlands Mitigation as required by the City Plan F - Final Street and Utility Plans and Specifications 1 y~ "'**i' * PIONEER ~ engineering *~*. Civil Engineers · Land Planners · Land Surveyors · Landscape Architects March 18, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Fannington, MN 55024 RE: 2091b Street West - Watermain, Storm Sewer and Street Improvements Dear Mayor and City Council: Transmitted herewith for your review is the 209tb Street West Watermain, Storm Sewer and Street Improvements report. The project will provide municipal street, water main and storm sewer for 209111 Street West between Chippendale Avenue (County Road 3) and Cantata Avenue West. We would be happy to discuss this report with the City Council and staff at your convenience. Sincerely, PIONEER ENGINEERING, P.A. %~-~ Paul A. Thomas, P.E I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 0~.~~ Paul A. Thomas, P.E. Date: 3 ~r /(!);J.. Reg. No. /&17 '- 2422 Enterprise Drive. Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 · (651) 681~1914 · Fax 681-9488 625 Highway 10 N.E. · Blaine, Minnesota 55434. (763) 783-1880. Fax 783-1883 y~3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter of TransmittaL........................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction........................................................................................................................ . 3 Discussion......................... ........... .................................................................................. ..... 3 Cost Estimates. ....... ..................... ........................................................................ ...... .......... 5 Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................................... 6 FIGURE 1 - LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2 - TYPICAL SECTION FIGURE 3 - STREET IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE 4 - W A TERMAIN AND STORM SEWER FIGURE 5 - EASEMENTS APPENDIX - DETAILED COST ESTIMATE 209th Street West - Watermain, Storm Sewer and Street Improvements 2 y(p t{ Introduction This report investigates the feasibility of street and utility improvements to serve the properties along 209th Street West between Chippendale Avenue (State Trunk Highway 3) and Cantata Avenue West. The proposed project is approximately 1,000.00 feet in length (See Figure 1 for location map). The upgrade to the roadway is necessary due to the increase in traffic generated by the Tamarack Ridge Development. Water main improvements are necessary to serve the development and the existing residential properties along the south side of 209th Street. The properties along the south side annexed into the City in 2001 in order to hook up to City water service. These properties will also derive benefit from the street and storm sewer improvements. Discussion Background 209th Street West is classified as a residential street. Presently, there are 8 single family residents and one parcel owned by the American Legion along the south side of209th Street West. The parcels on the north side of209th Street West consist of one vacant Commercial parcel, the Farmington Family Housing Development (multi-family area) and a City Park dedicated as part of the Tamarack Ridge Development. Street and Drainage Improvements . The existing 209th Street West is a rural section with drainage ditches on both sides of the roadway. The existing gravel roadway is approximately 24 - feet in width. The existing driveways on the south side of 209th Street West, with the exception of the westernmost driveway, do not have driveway culverts. Storm water runoff from the roadway and front yards appears to percolate into the ground in the roadway ditches. Most of the existing driveways slope away from the roadway and into the front yards. The proposed roadway will be 32' wide, with a bituminous surface and concrete curb and gutter (See Figure 2 and 3 for the proposed street section and street improvements). The proposed roadway grade will be lower than the existing roadway. The existing ditches will be filled and the boulevard front yards will be re-graded to drain to the street. The existing driveways will be reconstructed to slope to the street where possible to comply with City standards. An 8' bituminous path is proposed along the north right of way line on a portion of 209th Street West. Storm sewer and draintile will be installed and directed north to a detention pond constructed with the Tamarack Ridge project (See Figure 4 for the proposed storm sewer improvements). 209th Street West - Watermain, Storm Sewer and Street Improvements 3 </~5 Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Presently, the existing homes on the South side of 209th Street West are served by an existing sanitary sewer in 209th Street West. A sanitary sewer stub will be provided to the vacant property on the south side of 209th Street. The properties on the north side of 209th Street West are served by a sanitary sewer located along the North right-of-way line of209th Street West. This sanitary sewer was installed in the fall of 2000, with the Tamarack Ridge project. The existing Farmington Trunk watermain is located in Chippendale Avenue and Cantata Avenue West. The proposed watermain improvements will connect to these existing trunk water mains and proved service to all properties on 209th Street West. The existing homes on the south side of209th Street currently have private wells for water service. One inch copper service connections will be provided to properties on the south side of 209th Street and 8-inch stubs are proposed for the north side properties (See Figure 4 for the proposed watermain improvements). Right of Way and Easements Right of Way acquisition will not be required. Temporary construction easements will be needed for roadway and utility construction. Temporary construction easements are necessary along the South side for driveway reconstruction, re-grading of front yards and water service construction (See Figure 5 for easement temporary easement locations). 209th Street West - Watermain, Storm Sewer and Street Improvements 4 t.j~& Cost Estimates The total estimated project costs for the proposed improvements are listed below. An itemized cost estimate is located in the appendix. The unit prices for cost estimates are based on 2002 construction costs for similar projects in the City of Farmington. As noted in the summary below, total estimated project cost includes 10% for contingencies and 27% for Engineering, Legal and Administration. Estimated Project Costs Improvement Total Estimated Project Cost Water Main $61,500 Storm Sewer $48,500 Street $189,600 Street Excavation $11,400 Total $311,000 209th Street West - Watermain, Storm Sewer and Street Improvements 5 sI~7 Conclusions and Recommendations The proposed project improvements are feasible and cost-effective from an engineering stand point. The proposed improvements are necessary to provide access and utilities for the adjacent properties. Based on the information contained in this report, it is recommended that: 1. This report be adopted as the guide for the street and utility improvements; 2. The City conduct a legal and fiscal review of the proposed project; and 3. The following tentative schedule be implemented for the project: Acce t feasibilit re ort, schedule ublic hearin Hold nei borhood meetin Hold public hearing, order project, approve plans and s ecifications, authorize advertisement for bids. Acce t bids A ward contract Be . n construction End construction March 18, 2002 Week of A ril8th April 15, 2002 Ma 16,2002 Ma 20, 2002 June 2002 October 2002 209th Street West - Watermain, Storm Sewer and Street Improvements 6 'I~ CO I \ ... j. 'Ii' ,. Scale 0.5 0.5 1 Miles ~ FIGURE 1 -\'** : I=IC~EER * engineering PA * ~ ....... it I.Nlll SIIM'IQIS . aw.. ENGINEERS "T-" ~ l..AHD PlMNERS. I...AHDSCAPE ARCH1B:1S 2422 Ent"",".. Drive Mondota Height.. MN 55120 (612) 681-1914 F'AX:661-90486 625 Hlghwoy 10 H.E. Bloln.. MN 5~ (612) 783-1680 F'AX: 783-1883 209TH STREET LOCATION MAP FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA 1-10-2002 <It, '1 a.J n I") ~ n I") a.J r-. ... \ \' 10 ... LaJ o < It: II( Cl N ~ Z Cl iii LaJ o ~ t;~ ~~ ....... t-Z Wo WI= g:U (J)~ i=~ ~~ 10 ... r-. ~811 ' ~..... V OeJ I ~a.. III It: :J UIt: ~~ LaJ:J It:Cl ~~o 100Z IIlU< bt ~ q lD :E x 1IJ I ~ I- en I to 1"1 .q- <3 .... z o ~ () w en ...J <( () 0- >- ~ >- 0:: 0:: < :J o LaJ LaJ en Z ~ LaJ~ m o enen "'" U It:LaJ ... :J::l!,..,z.I") It: O::JaJOt- ~ UOl")I=O :r: lX~;;;~~ en <~b~e is 1Il0000X::! Z enuzLaJ Z ~~is~~~ o ~ozg-l<U 1= 1ii U 51 ... < It: 1Il< U :J:JCl W CD~~cjOCDLaJ en ",UiDClLaJ:Jt- ""'< < en< t-CD 0 Cl I- ~en;;;It)~~LaJ Q {:::J en~::l!~ ::E I~~~U~~ W ~5i{::d~::l! >'-:J1 .0 <( "'E:.. It:NZ a.. ...CDNaJO...< W -l I- f= I- W W :c (f) N W e::: :::> C) "C u.. Q) c: c: Q) ~ ..... c C L- a a :s 51 ~~ "j ...- :l :8:g .,.. ~~~ a.i ~ a 1.1,; z..~ 14~ g~i ~:t~ :"'- !:c.!. u~ .5.9:g g ,.. 0.......%. al ~ ~i~ N::Ie comO I I ~ ! 5 m? ~ If I! WII ~~ WII .Z.E .. *DaI* -tt -c . *D.lliC *...* l./70 *' ... * ... ic * &Ill * .~fiJ1. ~5'2* ~ m m ~! ~ m ~ ~ .....11 ~ ~ :1 ~ ~ ta Ii 0 ~ ~ \) ~ S! )> t ~ ~ ~ a ~~~ ~~~ ~~.~ ~~~ of~.g: m Q~ r~ I~~ ~Ol_ ~~~ o~o ~;:11I ....,...z"TJ.O >- . >:c::!. ?!- ~ ~Z~ .... 0> '" co ~Ul '" ,- l ~~ '" '" e: '" I I I I I I r- I ~-- I ~-- L__ Il GJ C ;0 fTl eN I I L I I I I r I ~ I I L ---1 I ~: t, 001 Lj I I ~: ~ 1 ~ I I ~ -~ @' ~I 0, __I "0_ -;u o ;g~ Ul", 8 "'-- ;ual I o I :>> -- o ~ -:>>- -< ~: , I ~ ~---: '" I o , ___I 01 'l(f)N ~~ )>-10 -1'>0 ::;:0::;:0<.0 I <..NI Olrv ~fTl-l 10 -fTlI UJo ;(jrv Z-I I I C) _(f) fT1 -I~-I x I I 0-0::;:0 (]) Z::;:ofTl 0 - fTl I :.:E ~~-I GJ -fTl I Z~ ZfTl fTlz I (f)-I 8(f) )> " " ........... i iN I~ i~ ,::0 15 '~ I~ i i ~- -05T!PPENDALE-AVEJ - STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO.3 "===- I' , I ..; , I 1-1--1--1--1--14+ -----.J.++++-+-+-+-t-t-I-I-H I 1 t_~c:::_=>_ ) I I I I I I I I I i ....._~ 11111111/1111 - I ..... 1// ...._, II rI--j--I' / I /)1 I I I I I I I :( I r ~-::- L LLLU_'_U.J_ :', L --- -- ~ :, F= -~ r-------- " -- -,. " IL_ -,I , I L_ --, I ': I I V'1!" I I I I', 'I r- --I I " f' I'&~'U.J..J -- =::J I I,...~,~\S~.:::","\"",,,~ : t= __J I 66' I I I r1 ~ I L _ _.J I 'I ,~ ~J I L _..J I I, ~J.l...;; ~) -, _.J I :, \...__L..:-..:-r---etdJ '_I -j: '" I I r L________ L_ ----L__..r~ I ~___~~~~~~~~------7L--__--------- ~ -- / .....- ///& r--u. I I ((!~/- I - [---+--1 L 1--,. L------l I I I I T I-- I _ J--ri I LL-L. ~ - - -[ - __+_J 911,:: . I r I I I r-r--' r------l I I I I I' 1--. I .IT - J--h v*~-t--L. L__ I I I I I I _II --- I- I I I I I I I I I11I1 LL,. : r--l--;--r-, I-;--;--r-, :: ~ I : : t i L-q! ~ ! d 6':1 P=ll I I ! ~ ~~: II~r~J~~, I I I I I I I 7 I II I l- I l,..L.I l,..L,J L.L.) l,..L.) I l:J. -l;:---L L____L_J_J__L_ -J-J-_L-l--///~}. '-.. ___l.._-l__l__L._ __l__!__L_..l__/ / 'f:':;:, ~ -- ( :( '<'/ ''';'' +=_-_-=-1,...-_-=.--=-=,=..1;==- ---=-)----;=...-=-;==-I-=- ,.....:.,o' "1("'\ '~ Y I I I I I I I I__-'r' \ . TI---~~~-~-T-~- -f~~--~;~ \ \~~,~ '\ I I I- I I I I I I I I 1 I "A \ ,/ I ..p I cp I q P I cp , q \ v , .)o' I r I I I , , ' , I I ')/ I I I I I I , I I I I \./ / I L__J__I__L_.J ,-_j__I__L_.J / I _______ ________~ L ,- OJ. "0 ::0 o "0 o Ul '" o o -i ::0 :>> r= 33' '" z o o ." /...... ~--. '~ ........ '- ......... -- ---- - Q :;:cJ :J> '"0 ::r:: -- (') o c.n o U) (') :J> ~ - o o )!imiHHHmwmimmiii> ~ ].i;iii;i""'"'''''''' -- z "Ij i:'j i:'j >-3 l\) o o ...*. *mll~ * :J..... ,.. .U1D~ * 5" 2* \: 1m ~im.,m ~ ~ ~~ II ~ ~ 5" i ~ (Q l'l ~ 1J ~ ~ l> ~ I ;;I .. ~ ........CIJO\ ........~N ~~~ ~ ~~ -CD:J:-O ~~~ g; o~ r~ I~! ~~- ~<g.a- O(...lO .,..t:'Cl ...,.,..z...,- 0 >- . >~:1. ?!- pl?$ z~ .... "'U> co ~U1 '" I- I ,^ '" 0; itO e CD '1 G) C AJ fTl ~ gllJU)N -J>..o)>---10 Vol I :::0 0 to 1~~:::O---1 co-~I ::::lJ\.)Z ~ GJ)>U) ~ ---1 Z ---1 ~ 00:::0 ~ Z 1'1 o - 1'1 ~ ~~---1 z---1 zl'l 1'1:::0 U) o~ ---1)> )>z ~ ""D :::0 o < 1'1 ~ 1'1 Z ---1 U) ...t::. ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ -~ I :n;g Ol I /'T1 UJ I ~8 ~ Ul ' ---E""-:g /'T1 COo X Vi ::J Z G'l UJ l> ~ --< l> ::0 -< Ul /'T1 ~ ::0 I I> I I I I I I ~ I ~-- I ~ L__ I I L I I I I r I ~ I L_ J.+++++-+-+-+-f-f-f-H-/ I t -1== , .J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~__ ~ ,..- /" I / 1/ I( :1 II II II II ~ II 0 II ~ II z Ii 1.--< II II A L_ I -------------- --------- / ...- I/;/~/" /:=======: r--u (I 1 / JJ--' 1 -r--l--I ( L 1--,- I 1------1 I I I / T 1-____-1 : - J--T-1 I L_L_L _ I j---[- -_1_1711:: ]---1 I r t 1 I 1 r-r--'- I r, ----:::LLJ I I I I LI-------j IT - I 1 v I r-t-- - I L__ I I ~I I I . U__J -I I I-- I I I I II JJ--' I I III U__,- I r-l--'--r-' I I I 1 I I 1-____-1 I I I 1 I I Iv I ILl 9 i F9 ! ~ ~~I I ~ ~~~~~,=]---i 1.,.1..,1 l,...1..,J '-, I 1 I I I-------j , , , , / / L:2 f--~--L - " I I I I I _ / .... U-__.J -~-~--~-+- ~~ " _~__I__L_.1_-- /r,~ ............ ~ / '...::---........... ......-_ I ~-<- --~ ;< ~....._ '..,J 1,--_,-::.=,=..1;::=- ---::.!---;=--::.;::=-l-=-'*-' ). '1(~ ',,^ -, ~ OA~I---':""-J.-~--t-- _~_~__~_.:...__~""" \ ,\', V"', --> r :::: :::: \ \ ,,^' ./) \ \ / I ITi IT1 rri IT1 ~"'0'.', /> / VI IIIIII I1III1 ", v/"{/ I P I t:p I q P I t:p I q. \ ? \ >/ ( // I r I. I I I I I I I I ')/ /~ I I I I I I I I I I I , /" / I : L__J__,__L_.J L_J__,__L_J v // I vL_____________ ---------- ------ _I (CHIPPENDALE AVE) STA TE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO.3 > 11--1--11 L __ __ J > ---1 I ~II 000 ~ '0 ....,::Ez CDI~~ L\~ :l I --< I~O -~-m Zx Vi --< Z C) t- I I l'iO'iil I I ; )".,l""i;~;-1;;;1 !.in rr-----J:l- ,~ I II rj f'j p.Ll1 f~ ',__L::.r---c:9 I I ::::"-_-_1.: = =::!..::; -u ::0 o -u o UJ /'T1 o -r- ,----------------- I 1 I I I vi I o '0 ::E > M ::0 !i: l> Z o ^- N o <D --< I ^4 ::0 /'T1 /'T1 --< v :E1J )>::0 --<0 /'T11J AlO S::Ul )>/'T1 Zo UJ CD, --< Co co- 1J Vl I ~~__I "" - ~ 0 :;: /'T1 -=; -~ '-l r---,--'--r-' I I I I I L I I I I qlP=lIP I I 1 I I I l,...Ll l,...L,l I I I I I I I I ----..--~-__t--t--- _ _ __ _.L _~_ _~_ _ L_ v ^- v v ^ ~ v ~ Ul --< Z G'l 00, v ^ ~ v Ul --< 0 '" _s::_ Ul ~---: fTl ~ ~ I '" o I ---I - - - ~ I 000 '0 :EZ >Z ~~ I ::0--< s::--< >0 41 z~ I ~ Vi :x>- --< z "1j G'l ::r: I ......... (") I U1 (") :x>- L' I t:r1 ......... Z '":I:j t:r1 t:r1 >--'3 1J 1J fTl ::0 Z < 0 0 0 1J 0 0 Vl ." Ul l> /'T1 Z 0 :::j ~ > :;c g -< " <'---- > I I I .....-, I' J r r-' I I- I- 1,_ 1,_ I __ I L_ I L_ I L_. I L_ I L_ I 1-- I L_, , I /"1'111'111111',....., L LLLLLU~~~__L1J.J .., r- -, r-----------, -- -, I I r - -, I I ~- =:J I I r-- _~ I I 1-- _-' I I 1-'_ _.J I I 1-_ _.-I I I 1-._ _.-I I I 1-_ _-I I I L_ --1 I I L_ .J I I L r L___________J - I / 7L-------------------- -u ::0 o -u o Ul /'T1 o UJ --< o ::0 s:: Ul /'T1 ~ :;c , , '" > I == -> ------------------ CANTATA AVENUE WEST -- -------- -- ---- ------ -------------- ---------- o en o ..... o o ::HWiiHiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij) ~ ]lliHH;"""""...... l'J o o ~*... *mlJit * ........ * .cSClf.. * 5"2* ~ ~ m m io ...m z I!' "IJ ~ i 5" ~ . <<1 ~ ~ -0 ;ll !2! )> t Q 2 ~ ~ ~ Ul -mm -~N ~[~ ~~~ ::~ ~ :~~ e~~ COO:;, l~ I[j g~o ;l=' "T1~z.,,- 0 ~ M ~ i~' ~ ~~ <r ~N - 1:;0 e '" 11 C) C AJ l'l Ul -" -" '1 rrl N 9~)>)>O ~ ? ::u U) CD I ~ ~ rrl ---1 JT1o-~I ~NZrrl JT1 C) Z U) ~ -1 ---1 ---1 X OU):AJ ~ Z rrl ~ rrl o ~ ~ ---1 Z Z rrl U) o -1 )> ~ '-.I ~ I I I I I I r I ~-- I r-- L__ I I L I I I I ~ I ~ I L V/I I 1'\ I I \ I \ I I : I ! I ~(I () I \ o I ~ I I ~ I ~ "'~'/-':l;:ih ~ I I C --.-.- J !;; - I "),f i g - II ;u l3 I ~ -- II ~ I I ~I......l.:!. z ~ ~.;. " co, ~ 0 I ~ I ~rt ~ I: ~ I / I ---1 I ~.;.: -oil Oll L I I I N o <0 :r U1 ~ r'l r'l -I ::;: r'l U1 -I , @c.. _~ I \ " I I \ '" I \ I \ ---,0 I ___..J @\ I : -- I I I I \ I \, ---1 @ i ILl -- I I I _ _ --=_~I-l ~ : ~" 0___: I I I ____I Dtu. ...- ."\r= - ~ - - - ~ -J i t t it i i i i iii:-:-:-lj~ ~=;-:-:tii i I /" 1/ rr--I--II /..-~ ~ I I I r~ II I I ,- I I J I ,-- II L -- -- ...I : 1-- ~ I c= " I L_ ~ ~:b~~~~idd~! ~~ III Illr,1 A IILL- l.lll1i fJ II r I (1-' I "_~-=--=-r---r.::d'j '_I I . :::...-_-_1::==~.::; lII\lI /111111 L LLLLI_'- -, --, r----- -...,. --. I -, I -I I =:J I _-1 I __J I _-.J I _-.J I _-.J . .J I r L_____ 1 / -===-=-=-=-=== -=--=--=-== ::':::~7L- - - -- -- --. ~-------------------------------~ ~ I/~/- I r'l 0 "'--n I I 1 ~ I - r-+-1 L I ~ L-----< I~ / I I :to I _Jur--i L_ I ~ (---[ I 10 I () I - r--t-J I I r- I ~ r-----1 I I ~ I .IT - J--!-l ~- I e! L__ : I I I g : I :: I I I ,., I I I I eir--j--'--r-' "'-j--'--r-' I I f- r'l\ I I I I I I I I I I II. rl- I ~L I I I I I I I I I ,..J ~qlP=1IP '=11P=1IP I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r- I,-L1 I,-L,l l,.L,l I,-L,l 17 b.9, t- l____l_J_J__L_ _J_J__L_l_//// ~ t----L-...J--l--L- __l__I__L_..l_-...... /f."y:;; o -<"'</ ' /" ,'/', .-( --j--:--r-T--C; ..........\ , -'"""'i--1--t--+---"\ ~ ' ~T~ ~T~ \'\ '-d I I I I I I , , plcpl'=1 ?\ I I I I I '>- I I I I I , / L_..l__I__L_...I v 1_ _ ---r- -"""T--j- -r-- 1 : I I ~S---j-i-i--l-- tT~ tT~ I I I I I I I plcplq I r I I I I I I I I I I. I L - ~ -=- -=- ~ -=- -=- ~ -=- ~ -=-...1_ ----1-- -- -- - - - - I ~---~------------------------ CANTATA AVENUE WEST , ' " I ~: ~ -----+-- , -----L-._----- () :::cJ >- ""d ::r:: I-< (1 Cf1 (1 >- L' tr:I o CJ1 o .... o o )!iiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiHliii:.w:!) ~./ .:ill?'''''!'''''''''''' z I-rj tr:I i::rj >-3 l\J o o APPENDIX 209th Street West - Watermain, Storm Sewer and Street Improvements '17'1 APPENDIX CITY OF FARMINGTON 209th Street West Water Main, Storm Sewer and Street Improvements Section A - Water Main PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMATED ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE COST 8" DIP Water Main LF 1215 $ 23.00 $ 27,945.00 8" Gate Valve EA 3 $ 770.00 $ 2,310.00 Fittings LB 1170 $ 3.00 $ 3,510.00 1" X1" Corporation Stop EA 9 $ 110.00 $ 990.00 1" Curb Stop and Box EA 9 $ 110.00 $ 990.00 1" Copper Service Pipe LF 480 $ 13.50 $ 6,480.00 Connect to Existing Water Main EA 3 $ 600.00 $ 1,800.00 Total Construction Cost $ 44,025.00 10% Contingency $ 4,402.50 Subtotal $ 48,427.50 27% Engineering, Legal, Administration $ 13,075.43 Total Estimated Cost $ 61,502.93 Section B - Sanitary Sewer & Storm Sewer PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ~~Aiiiiiii~A~__~~_~lii.\f&F~ ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMATED ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE COST 8" PVC SDR - 35 LF 45 $ 24.00 $1,080.00 15" RCP Class 5 LF 53 $ 27.00 $ 1,431.00 18" RCP Class 5 LF 322 $ 29.50 $ 9,499.00 21" RCP Class 5 LF 430 $ 32.50 $ 13,975.00 48" Diameter Catch Basin Manhole EA 3 $ 1,400.00 $ 4,200.00 27" Diameter Catch Basin EA 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 21" Flared End Section EA 1 $ 1,750.00 $ 1,750.00 Connect to Existng Manhole LS 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Rip Rap Class 3 CY 11 $ 72.00 $ 792.00 Total Construction Cost $ 34,727.00 10% Contingency $ 3,472.70 Subtotal $ 38,199.70 27% Engineering, Legal, Administration $ 10,313.92 Total Estimated Cost $ 48,513.62 '-/76 APPENDIX CITY OF FARMINGTON 209th Street West Water Main, Storm Sewer and Street Improvements Section C - Streets PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMATED ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE COST Mobilization LS 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 Subgrade prep SY 4110 $ 0.60 $ 2,466.00 12" granular borrow (CV) CY 1333 $ 15.00 $ 19,995.00 Class 5 aggregate base, 100% crushed SY 3890 $ 4.80 $ 18,672.00 2" bituminous base SY 3185 $ 3.80 $ 12,103.00 1-1/2" bituminous wear SY 3185 $ 3.40 $ 10,829.00 Bituminous material for tack coat GAL 160 $ 2.20 $ 352.00 Adjust Gate Valve EA 3 $ 210.00 $ 630.00 Adjust Catch Basin EA 2 $ 100.00 $ 200.00 Adjust Manhole EA 3 $ 250.00 $ 750.00 Trail Subgrade preparation SY 400 $ 2.00 $ 800.00 2" Bituminous Trail w/4" class 5 SY 360 $ 10.00 $ 3,600.00 4" PVC draintile LF 300 $ 13.00 $ 3,900.00 B618 Concrete Curb and Gutter LF 2000 $ 8.00 $ 16,000.00 Remove and Replace Driveways SY 900 $ 24.00 $ 21,600.00 Backfill Curb and Grade Blvd. LS 1 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 Fill Existing Ditches LF 1 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 Restore Lawns LF 6780 $ 2.20 $ 14,916.00 Remove and Replace Mailboxes SF 8 $ 50.00 $ 400.00 Total Construction Cost $ 135,713.00 10% Contingency $ 13,571.30 Subtotal $ 149,284.30 27% Engineering, Legal, Administration $ 40,306.76 Total Estimated Cost $ 189,591.06 Section 0 - Street Excavation PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMATED ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE COST Common Excavation CY 2700 $ 3.00 $ 8,100.00 Total Construction Cost $ 8,100.00 10% Contingency $ 810.00 Subtotal $ 8,910.00 27% Engineering, Legal, Administration $ 2,405.70 Total Estimated Cost $ 11,315.70 V7~