The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06.07.99 Council Packet COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR June 7, 1999 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVEAGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (5/17/99) (Regular) b) Release of Development Contract - Lot 1, Block 1, Dakota County Estates 9th Addition c) School and Conference - Fire Department d) Mt. Dew Days - Fee Waiver Request e ) Year 2000 Compliance Report - Update f) Adopt Resolution - Approve Gambling Permit - American Legion g) Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation h) Retroactive Approval Temporary 3.2 Beer License - Farmington Independent Fastpitch Team i) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Hwy 3 Frontage Road and Willow Street Improvements 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Ordinance - Interim Use Zoning Code Amendment b) Adopt Resolution - Approval of Final Plat Cameron Woods Subdivision c) Adopt Ordinance - Amend Existing Wetland Ordinance d) 1998 Annual Financial Report - Presentation 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) State Building Code Chapter 1306 - Review and Disposition b) Authorize Public Facilities Task Force 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Review Comments - Southern Dakota County Cities and Townships Comprehensive Plan Update Action Taken ;;;;;-- 13. COUNCILROUNDTABLE a) TH3 Median Issues - Update b) State Legislative Delegation Meeting - Set Date (Verbal) c) Litigation Issue 14. ADJOURN /a- COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR May 17, 1999 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: Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan, Verch None City Administrator Erar, Attorney Joel Jamnik, City Management Team 4. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . I i 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Heritage Preservation Awards HPC awards were presented to Patricia Murphy, Steve Krech, and the Tim Carr family recognizing them for "Protecting the Irreplaceable" in Farmington. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS a) Mr. Kevin Mahlsted - Rambling River Ball Field Fencing Request Mr. Mahlsted requested fencing along the foul lines on field #3 at the Rambling River Fields. After consideration by the Parks and Recreation Commission, staff has received quotations from fencing companies. The fence will be installed by Fenc-Co at a cost of$1,560.00, which will come from the Park Improvement funds. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (5/3/99) (Regular) and (4/24/99) (Special) b) Approved CEEF Donation c) Approved Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation Department d) Approved Addendum Recycling Agreement e) Received Status Report - 300 1st Street f) Approved bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS Council Minutes (Regular) May 17, 1999 Page 2 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT a) Adopt Resolution - County Road 72 Project (Supplemental) Arcon Construction Company submitted the low bid in the amount of $721,725.70. The total estimated project cost including contingencies and legal, engineering and administrative costs is $1,010,000. Dakota County will be funding a portion of the costs of the improvements as part of the tumback agreement with the City. The remaining costs will be funded through the City funding mechanisms. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to adopt RESOLUTION R52-99 accepting the base bid of Arcon Construction Company Inc and awarding the contract. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Adopt Resolution - Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Upgrade (Supplemental) Redstone Construction Company submitted the low bid in the amount of $409,933.28. The estimated project cost including contingency and legal, engineering and administrative costs is $570,000. The estimated project cost will be funded from the Storm Water fund. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adopt RESOLUTION R53-99 accepting the base bid of Redstone Construction Company Inc. and awarding the contract. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Charter Communications - Cable TV Rate Increase Staff received communications from Charter Communications informing the City of a cable rate increase effective June 1, 1999. In terms of municipal rate regulatory powers, the City has been advised that Charter Communications has the authority under federal law to raise rates under a prescribed rate calculation formula. As such, the City has very limited regulatory oversight as it applies to cable rate increases. Mr. Rob Roeder, Charter Communications, stated the rate increase was not a result of the sale of Marcus Cable to Charter Communications, or the Franchise Agreement. b) Adopt Resolution - Charleswood Development Contract The Development Contract for Charleswood 2nd Addition has been drafted in accordance with the approval and conditions placed on the approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat. MOTION by Strachan, second by Verch to approve the execution of the Development Contract and adopt RESOLUTION R54-99 authorizing its signing contingent upon the conditions and approval by the Engineering Division. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution - Downtown Streetscape/Sliplining Project At the April 5, 1999 City Council meeting, the City Council ordered the improvements for the Downtown Streetscape and Sliplining project and authorized the preparation of plans and specifications. At the public hearing, the Council determined that the scope of the streetscape project would include up to 50% pavers in the sidewalk design, the alley between 2nd and 3rd Street is to be Council Minutes (Regular) May 17, 1999 Page 3 included in the project, and the neckouts and a City logo are to be included in the project. Paving alternatives 1 and 4 were preferred, the herringbone pattern for the pavers is preferred, tree grates are preferred over open planters for the trees. The Victor Stanley "Classic Design" bench and the "Grand Central" bench were preferred, banners should be included, and flowers should be included in above ground planters. The sliplining project consists of rehabilitating the existing cla; sewer pipes on 3rd Street between Spruce and Elm, and on Oak Street between 2n and 4th. The rehabilitation of the sewer pipes will address significant structural and infiltration problems. The total estimated project cost for the Downtown Streetscape project is $865,000. Funding for this project would come from a General Obligation Improvement Bond. As such, 35% of the project costs would be assessed to benefiting properties over a 15-year period. The City will fund the remaining 65% of the project costs from Road and Bridge funds. The total estimated project cost for the Downtown Sliplining project is $194,000. Assessments for both projects will be based on front footage or equivalent unit methodology. This will be determined at the assessment hearing. Regarding trees, staff is looking at planting smaller trees that will not bother the buildings or where the roots will not raise the concrete. Maintenance of the logo was a concern. The cost of a cast iron medalion in the intersection would be $15,000. The cost of2 - 4-foot meda1ions placed in the neckouts would be $10,000. The Engineering Department was instructed to consider adding underground wiring for the possible addition of a centrally located clock that could be added as a separate project sometime in the future. MOTION by Verch, second by Soderberg to adopt RESOLUTION R55-99 approving the plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for the Downtown Streetscape and Sliplining project, and to select alternative 4 with a herringbone pattern, the Victor Stanley Classic bench, and grates for the trees. Council decided against the logo. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) State Hwy 3 Frontage Road and Willow Street Improvements - Authorize Use of Eminent Domain At the May 3, 1999 City Council meeting, the Council accepted the feasibility report, authorized plans and specifications and called for a public hearing for the Trunk Highway 3 and Willow Street east frontage road improvement project. The frontage road project will require that the City acquire right-of-way from two adjacent property owners, Wausau Lumber and Neil Perkins. In order to allow that the right-of-way can be acquired in the time frame necessary to commence construction of this project this construction season, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to initiate eminent domain proceedings if necessary. MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to adopt RESOLUTION R56-99 Council Minutes (Regular) May 17, 1999 Page 4 approving condemnation of property for public uses. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Adopt Ordinance - Interim Use Amendment The interim use ordinance will provide the City an alternative to the existing permitted and conditional uses within the zoning code. If a proposed interim use meets all five requirements under section "A" of the proposed ordinance the Planning Commission can approve the permit based on any subject contingencies, including length of time, as to be date specific, of the use. The Council does have the option in the future to strike any interim uses from the zoning code as deemed necessary, such action may result in any existing interim use to become a non- conforming use. When an interim use is approved it does set a precedent for other businesses to apply for an interim use permit in that same zoning district. An interim use permit allows a business to continue for a limited amount of time. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to adopt ORDINANCE 099-431 approving the amendment to Title 10, Chapter 8 of the Farmington City Code. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Holiday Lighting and Decorations - Status Report The Street and Utility Division has indicated that the Holiday Lighting used in the Downtown is in poor operating condition and considered unsafe relative to electrical conduit. According to the City Attorney, the use of public funds for the purchase of new or replacement decorations is generally discouraged when associated with any overt symbols of Christianity or Judaism, or any other specific religious belief system. In light of the fact that the City has not directly participated in purchasing holiday decorations, it would be appropriate to refer this issue to an outside community group. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to refer this issue to the Chamber of Commerce. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE a) Survey Information - Fish House Storage This issue was discussed during Council roundtable at the May 3, 1999 Council meeting. Staff conducted a survey of other area cities regarding regulations of fish houses. Apple Valley and Rosemount treat fish houses the same as accessory buildings or storage sheds. Bumsville treats fish houses the same way they handle campers and RV's. Council did not feel the number of complaints constituted a problem that would call for an ordinance amendment. If problems persist, it will be brought back to Council. b) MnDOT Notification - State Hwy 3 The issue of motorists driving over the easterly median from the easterly frontage road north of Budget Mart to access Trunk Highway 3 was brought to staff for review. Staff has contacted MnDOT and MnDOT staff has indicated that they would be willing to meet with City staff to discuss possible solutions to the Council Minutes (Regular) May 17, 1999 Page 5 problem in the next week or two. Council requested staff to investigate a more immediate solution as this is a safety issue. Staff will look into the situation. Parks and Recreation Director Bell: Clean-up day was held May 15, 1999 and went well. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to adjourn at 8:58 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, 7~~Z;~ ;h-/~~g;'; Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 76 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrator~ David L. Olson Community Development Director FROM: SUBJECT: Release of Property from Development Contract DATE: June 7, 1999 INTRODUCTION The property located at Lot 1, Block 1, Dakota County Estates 9th Addition is in the process of being sold. As part ofthe examination of the title for the property, it is being requested that the property be released from the obligations of the Development Contracts for Dakota County Estates 3rd, 4th, 7th, and 9th Additions. DISCUSSION Typically when individual lots are sold in new developments, title companies do not require a formal release of the Development Agreement for each lot. However recently with the sale of commercial and multi-family lots, this request is being made on a more frequent basis. As the attached release indicates, special assessments pending on the lot are not being released and any other regulations or city fees to develop the lot are not being waived. The City previously approved a similar request for an adjacent lot. BUDGET IMPACT None ACTION REQUESTED Approve the attached Release of Development Contract for Lot 1, Block 1, Dakota County Estates 9th Addition. Res~:~!f~.llY S~b:~~:~r"~ ._//:;:::;:7 ~// .' ./;:~~_ d~--'-/ ~ --- uavid L. Olson Community Development Director cc: Ernie Darflinger RELEASE OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT PARTIAL RELEASE of Development Contract granted this day of , 1999, by the CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation ('City'). RECITALS 1. The City of Farmington and John A. Benedict and Associates, a corporation, Evergreen Investments, Inc. (John Benedict) and Jack Benedict and Associates, Inc. entered into Development Contract for the plats of Dakota County Estates Second and Third Addition dated April 7, 1986 and recorded July 16, 1986 as Document No. 733612, and Dakota County Estates 7th Addition dated May 29, 1992 and recorded November 5, 1992, as Document No. 1078278, and Dakota County Estates 9th Addition dated September 9, 1994, and recorded on May 31, 1995, as Document No. 1281106 and Public Improvement and Special Assessment Agreement recorded as Document No. 733611. 2. The City has been requested to grant a release for the following lots: Lot One (1), Block One (1), Dakota County Estates 9th Addition. 3. The Development Contracts and Public Improvement and Special Assessment Agreement authorize the City to release lots from said Contracts and Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Farmington: 1. With the exception of any special assessments that are currently either levied or pending, the foregoing lot is released from the foregoing Development Agreements and Assessment Agreement. 2. This Release does not waive any other city regulations or fees required to develop the lot hereby released from the Development Contracts. CITY OF FARMINGTON BY: Gerald R~stow, Mayor AND John F. Erar, City Administrator 1 .- STATE OF MINNESO TA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1999, by Gerald Ristow and by John F. Erar, the Mayor and City Administrator, respectively, of the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by the City Council. Notary Public DRAFTED BY: Ernest J. Darflinger #21155 Attorney at Law 311 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Telephone (651) 463-7151 eforms.cl.bndct.dev-aqr-reles 2 I_I \ 1\ 'i' , \, "-4..-4 -4 , l/ .....1.....1 .J _,_ .. I " " I , .. .. '. -, r . :"' .j, . \, i ..1 1 _1- .. ... " ... .... ~. , . . 1.J..1 --p , .-- . . . LJ.J -T- _J._ . j-- I , L.1_ ,-, ,_" .. ... " , .... ... ,-- , . . I..L.I I " '" I ,-- I .--, --1 rl~~~. 0: ,....... ... ,,-.. . .~ C:~::'J: I ..' . . 1- t IV 1- .., ~ lD, lD1 a.' ~ !'4 0 ri _0 N t'ld <>>- co CIJ t') t') C'i ~ ~ ~ I N .~ ",~. - . !"I to tot. p 'J...:;.: 8( ~ .< ~ z -- ~~ ~o ~~~ ~: - 0 ,., ., '0 ,.,..; p m'1 81 CIJ \ ' ir' ~ iJ . .\ ~I ~ ~lD :J Coo g~ 01') ~ %/ ~t1 ~~/ I ho~ , '" .. I cn~ N.... I~ co !:> II) ~I fi) lD...I:f P :et:' . 8""[.' % . , , I II' lD L a:::: '" .. ~ <( ~ ~o.. t: p r ",8 o CIt z o ,.j % , N ,., N~ 8 IGJ Z () 0::: <( 0... " . c-' , ....' . ,.. _., . . . I ... J.. :~ :~ tV\ J. :) H3ddii .. . ~OI _01 t')-: CltVl z ,-- . ~8 r;~ Z l1J III ~.gz:.(~.69 rr- <>> ,., ...... .....J. W' o t') ai 0> ,.... ., . . .. III ~-- 3 .sUS:'S9 N 3: .... . . z ILl % ~ -3 :iU9.68N '" III Z ~ i, , I \ ~ \ 7\ OZI I I I I I I II I ...., .,Q . 'Ii .-;1- I . , I I ozl ~ ~Hd C1iU !!oc( .....-:- ~-- ,~" .t'''''' . .~.... M' 'Ill......., U" ,-, ,_" .. , _:L ..... ........'..... ,-, 1._.1 \ \ ,-- I , ~ ,-, '_I , j-- ,-, 1.-.1 ,-, 1.-.1 .:': 'Of' '''' , , ,.. '" I I I . 1..1.1 I j-- ... ~- ... I j-- --po '" .-- ==) I ,-, ,_" ,.. I '_", I I I I ~ ... .:' .. , ( I , , I I \. , r.l I. \' ", ,\ (\'. l\c.) I II, ""' '. I \ - f~~~r'- rr- I I ~Tf~W;') ~~~~ , , , ... ... _e. --' --. ..=::. .. ... .., -- ..' -:-: -,. -,. ... ,.. _.J ... '.' :2: I.. ... , I I I I I I City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us 7c.. TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrato~ FROM: Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief SUBJECT: School and Conference - Fire Department DATE: June 7, 1999 INTRODUCTION The Fire Department is planning the attendance of Mike Wise at the EMT Basic Course at Inver Hills Community College, June 7 - August 12, 1999. DISCUSSION All members of the Fire Department are required to be certified at the first responder level. The benefits to our members and the department are beneficial when our members select to become EMT certified. BUDGET IMPACT Funding is provided in the 1999 Budget. ACTION REOUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, ?-- KocL___ Ken Kuchera Fire Chief 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'iJl.- James Bell, Director Parks and Recreation FROM: SUBJECT: Approve Permits for Mountain Dew Days DATE: June 7, 1999 INTRODUCTION Permits are needed for the Mountain Dew Days Celebration. DISCUSSION The Mountain Dew Days Committee is requesting that the City Council waive the fees for the permits required for the annual celebration. Council has approved the waiver of fees in past years. Attached is a list of the events which require permits and their fees. BUDGET IMPACT The total cost of waiving these permit fees for the 1999 Celebration is $2,820.00. These fees were not budgeted for as revenues in the 1999 budget. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the waiver of permit fees, as noted in the attached fees list. Respectfully submitted, ~"'--~~ James Bell . Parks and Recreation Director 1999 MOUNTAIN DEW DAYS FESTIVAL PERMITS The following is a listing of events, sponsors, locations and the established fees for each event which requires a permit. Temporary Exhibitions - Ord. 3-17-4 -1999 Fee = $15.00 per Event Kids Activities Art Show Bed Races Kids Fun Dew Run Kiddie Parade Horseshoe Contest Bike Tour Pet Show Grand Parade Medallion Hunt Bike Rides Silent Auction Trout Tank Chalk Drawing Street Dance Car Show Bubble Gum Blowing Eagles DVAC Parks and Recreation Farmington Jaycees Parks and Recreation Festival Committee Eagles Club Historical Society Festival Committee Festival Committee Festival Committee B&B Pizza O'Mally's Dakota County Sportsmen Parks and Recreation Fire Department Festival Committee Heikkila Studios 3rd Street Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Around Town Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown 18 Events x $15.00 = $270.00 Transient Merchant - Ord. 3-18-1 - 1999 Fee = $50.00 per Quarter Concession Concession Concession Concession Concession Concession Concession Concession Balloons Crafts Sletten's Brad Schroeder (3) Medley Concessions Woody's Popcorn Wagon Thoroughbred Carpets Taco Dick's Chamber Youth Hockey Matt Milner Sales Craft Vendors (40) Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Downtown Third Street Arena 51 Vendors x $50.00 = $2,550 Temporary 3.2 On-Sale License Beer Garden Fire Department Downtown Total Cost of Permit Fees for 1999 Celebration = $2,820 MINNESOTA LIQUOR LIABILITY ASSIGNED RISK PLAN Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association Pioneer P.O. Box 1760 St. Paul, MN 55101-0760 (612) 222-0484 OR 1-800-552-0013 C E R T I F I CAT E 0 FIN SUR A N C E FOR L I QUO R L I A B I LIT Y C 0 V ERA G E This certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder. The certificate does not amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the contract listed below. Policy Number: LL99-7611 Contract Holder and Address: FARMINGTON FIRE DEPT. ASSN Contract period: 12:01 A.M. 06/25/99 12:01 A.M. 06/27/99 TO 325 OAK ST. FARMINGTON , MN 55024 Scheduled Premises:VACANT LOT DOWNTOWN FARMINGTON This is to certify that the Contract of Coverage described herein has been issued the Contract Holder named above and is in force at this time. Notwithstanding any requirement, term or condition of any Contract or other document with respect to which this Certificate may be issued or may pertain to the coverage afforded by the Contract described herein is subject to all terms, exclusions and conditions of such Contract. TYPE OF COVERAGE Bodily Injury $ $ $ $ $ $ Property Damage Loss of Means of Support Annual Aggregate LIMITS OF LIABILITY 50,000 each person 100,000 each occurrence 10,000 each occurrence 50,000 each person 100,000 each occurrence 300,000 annually Should the above Contract be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the Plan will mail 60 days written notice to the below named Certificate Holder, however, in the event the cancellation is for non payment of premium, the plan will mail a 10 day written notice. Certificate Holder Name & Address: CITY OF FARMINGTON 325 OAK ST. FARMINGTON MN 55024 Agents Name & Address: FIRST NATIONAL INS. 3~' OAK ST. 1INGTON MN 55024 06/16/99 Date~ u1jj/1 L ~~presenta({ve City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7e o TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Year 2000 Compliance Report - Update DATE: June 7,1999 INTRODUCTION Council was last provided with a Year 2000 Status Report on November 2, 1998. Since that time, the City has taken a number of steps to address Year 2000 compliance concerns. This report serves to identify key efforts taken by the City to ensure that department operations and services remain unaffected by potential Y2k disruptions. DISCUSSION Attached, please find information relative to the City's Year 2000 efforts in the areas of department operations and activities, public utilities, vendor contacts, public communications and multi- jurisdictional local government planning efforts. City Departments All City departments have inventoried and reviewed their respective service operations relative to Year 2000 (Y2k) compliance factors. In addition, staff is in the process of developing and finalizing Year 2000 contingency plans. Subject to this review, City staff is confident that any Year 2000 service disruptions will be minimal and can be dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner. While the City cannot provide an absolute guarantee that service disruptions will not occur, it is anticipated that any potential disruptions associated with Y2k will be minimal and correctable within a short period of time. Factors associated with the guaranteed provision of service operations are dependent upon uninterrupted power supplies being available to the City. Public Utilities City staff has met with and/or received communications from Dakota Electric Cooperative and Northern States Power (NSP). The City has been assured that both these companies, from an electrical distribution system standpoint, will be Year 2000 compliant prior to the end of this calendar year. In terms of power distribution, Dakota Electric has indicated that they have completed all their Y2k testing and found no problems with their power distribution system. However, it should be emphasized that power generation systems are not under the control of Dakota Electric, as they are part of the Mayor and Council Members Year 2000 Compliance Report - Update June 7, 1999 Page 2 of2 national "power grid" system. According to Dakota Electric and NSP, testing of power grid systems by major power suppliers are underway and should be compliant by the end of this year. Vendor Dependent Systems The City has contacted all known and/or recognized municipal vendors and received compliance statements from approximately 90 percent of those contacted. According to these vendors, their systems do not present any significant Y2k threats in terms of integral service failures due to date system failures. For example, lift station control systems and pumps should continue to function. My office has also contacted service-related businesses, health care facilities, public transportation system representatives, financial institutions, and other community service providers. It would appear, based on responses received to date, that vendor systems the City relies upon should function normally. Public Communications The City has made a concerted effort to aggressively publicize Y2k information to the general public. These efforts include articles in the City newsletter and now includes an Internet Resource page at (www.ci.farmington.mn.us/Y2000Info/Y2KGuide.htm).This site is linked to the City's web site and includes links to the state of Minnesota, the American Red Cross, Dakota Electric and NSP, and other useful Y2k sites. The City will continue to publish articles on Y2k in the City newsletter throughout the remainder of the year. A future focus of Y2k articles will be on building systems, public preparedness and household planning. Multi-Jurisdictional Informational Meetings City staff has attended numerous meetings with Dakota County and other cities on Y2k contingency planning issues. Contingency planning will include addressing local shelter issues, staffing, and responding to public safety scenarios should service disruptions occur. Of the many Y2k issues reviewed, the greatest challenge to local governments will be dealing with potential public panic situations associated with service disruptions. Communication efforts will focus on keeping public reaction to potential Y2k service disruptions tempered and controlled. Organizationally, staff has met to coordinate community contingency planning efforts for the Police, Fire, Public Works, Parks and Recreation and Administration departments. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. My office will continue to update Council on Y2k compliance matters throughout the remainder of the year. 7t7Znritted, f~F. Erar 6/2/99 Year 2000 Compliance Response Manufacturer Received Y2K Compliant? Dakota County HRA Y 7/31/99 Dakota County Administrator Y In Process City of Lakeville Y In Process Marcus Cable N ? Northern States Power Y 1998-1999 Peoples Natural Gas Y Dec 99 Dakota Electric Association Y Y ALF Ambulance Y Y Trinity Hospital Y Ongoing Juran & Moody Y June 1999 1" National Bank of Farmington Y Y LOGIS Y Y Dain Rauscher Y Ongoing Salomon Smith Barney Y Y U.S. West Y Ongoing Frontier Communications Y 2-mr qtr 1999 Metropolitan Council Y Ongoing Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Y Ongoing Ikon Y Y UHL Company Inc. Y Upgrades Recommended Schwab- V ollhaber- Lubratt Inc Y Ongoing Aqua Logic Y Y Pierce Cash Register Y Y Waldor Pump Y Y Braun Pump & Controls Y 7/31/99 Smith Loveless Y Y Healy Ruff Y Y BEC Corp Y Y Hydromatic Controls & Pump Y Y Gateway 2000 Y Y Duane Nelson Company Y Y Electro Watchman Inc Y Y Farmington Plumbing and Heating Y Y AA Equipment Y y Ziegler Y y Prepared by Cindy Muller, Executive Assistant The function of Emergency Preparedness is to plan for a continuation or restoration of critical functions in the event of an emergency that disrupts those services to the public at large. While some aspects may seem very obvious, no critical function may be overlooked. Y2K Considering the time of year and the day of the week for 01-01-00 we begin planning by describing all functions critical to maintaining life. Air No aspect of Y2K should result in suffocation ( as in building collapse or bomb blast) where air supply becomes critical. Substantial Oxygen supplies are maintained for medical emergencIes. Shelter No known or remotely suspected threat to this category from Y2K. Next we look at those items that will eventually be needed but are not immediately life threatening. Food There is no reason to believe food supplies will be affected by Y2K. Delivery systems and/or hoarding offood supplies may slow down the system but, considering the weekend nature of the event, it should not dramatically affect the overall provision of food. Water Water supplies are dependent on electricity for well pumps but in the event of an electrical failure the system typically holds enough water to supply the City for I to 2 days in Mid-Winter. This is sufficient time to provide generators to well sites if needed. Water distribution is provided by tower pressure and gravity flow. Clothing While emergency clothing sources must be considered in routine emergency preparedness planning there is no aspect of Y2K that should have such an emergency effect, as in tornado or bomb blast scenarios. The next level of priority involves utilities. In some cases, or to some degree, these can affect other areas. Electricity The most wide spread affect of any utility would be the loss of electricity. This loss would affect heating systems, light, transportation, water and sewer. Electrical providers in Farmington are NSP and Dakota Electric. In a recent meeting with both ofthose organizations they stated that their sources are triply redundant in Nuclear, Hydro and Coal generation. In addition, they are capable of producing many times the amount of electricity needed on any normal winter day. Literally 2/3 of their system could fail and still be invisible to the consumer. NSP in particular states that they have checked over 20,000,000 lines of computer code. Approximately 3% of that system is date sensitive. Of that 3% less than 1 % affects delivery systems, the rest is embedded in administrative services. The reason electrical systems will continue to function is that the delivery system is old. It relies on mechanical switches. Even in those instances where embedded chip technology assists delivery, the mechanical switches are still in place and allow for manual override. In any event, both NSP and Dakota Electric state they are now Y2K compliant. Systems testing has been conducted and is ongoing. Gas Natural Gas supplies should not be affected by Y2K. Reserve supplies are adequate for the long term. Once again, the delivery systems for natural gas are largely mechanical systems of pipes and valves. The major suppliers of natural gas to our area are People's and Minnegasco. Both state they ., are well ahead of schedule in checking code for date sensitive or embedded chip technology. Those embedded chips, again generally affect administrative functions or new radio read metering systems. They do not affect the actual delivery of product to the consumer. Sewer Metropolitan sewers are a mechanical system relying largely on gravity flow. Treatment Plants are reliant on electricity but have back up generators in place. Worst case scenario would be bypass pumping directly into the Vermillion River. Local sewer systems are mostly gravity flow however the system does have a number of Lift Stations that rely on electricity. In the event of a Grid Failure (full electrical failure of all generation and delivery systems) the local lift stations are being fitted with generator hookups. The worst case scenario would be sewer backups. This could be minimized by turning off water supplies that ultimately flow the sewer system. Emergency communications Emergency communications are those which affect Public Safety. Police, Fire and Ambulance services. Emergency Services rely on telephone (Land line or Cellular) and radio systems. While these systems are dependent on electric supply, all radio systems are equipped with generator backup systems. In the worst case scenario a total electrical system failure combined with a telephone system failure, the third system, radios, will be available. E-911 is not "Mission Critical", only a complete telephone system failure would prohibit contacting emergency services by phone. In the event of a total system failure the response would be to staff the Police Department for "walk-in" service. Transportation systems Transportation systems include highway systems (along with traffic lights), Vehicles and fuel supplies. Two of these areas are dependent on electrical supply. Traffic lights and gas pumps. In the event of a complete system failure fuel pumps will not function. Although that scenario is not anticipated, a small supply of gasoline could be stored for emergency use. In the event of a complete electrical failure, all or some of the traffic lights would cease to function. In that event it would be necessary to provide temporary stop signs at those intersections currently controlled by lights. Two way control would be implemented with signs. Some traffic lights do contain embedded chips to monitor time and use of Opticom technology. In the event of a partial or embedded chip failure the lights are designed to default to a four way flashing red mode. This would not require an emergency type response. The lowest level of priority are conveniences. These systems are not considered Public Emergencies and are not the responsibility of local government. Business function. Entertainment. Interpersonal communication. Non-essential travel. The only convenience function that may cause disruption is the telephone system. In the event of a public panic or even concerned parenting, telephone systems may become overloaded and callers would not get a dial tone. This is not a function of Y2K. It is the function of an overloaded telephone system. One representative anticipated 01-01-00 to be the "Mother of all Mothers Days", implying that every parent will try to contact all of their children at the same time. This type of reaction will result in system overload. Callers who don't get an immediate dial tone are held in line until the next available service line becomes available. Mil Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1993 Telephone (612) 330-5500 Wednesday, May 05,1999 John F. Erar City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear John F. Erar: Thank you for your interest in the NSP Year 2000 Project. Because the Y2K problem is of such widespread concern, NSP is receiving hundreds of inquiries and surveys from businesses, municipalities, and other organizations. The enclosed information provides up-to-date answers to our customers' most commonly asked Y2K questions. We hope that this information answers the questions we received from your 11/12/1998 correspondence. If you have further questions, please contact your NSP sales representative. We at NSP know the electric and gas services we provide are vital to public safety, commerce and comfort. We take this responsibility very seriously. NSP assembled a highly experienced team in 1996 to work on its enterprise-wide Year 2000 Program. The program covers not only NSP's 2,000+ computer applications consisting of about 75,000 programs totaling more than 30 million lines of code, but also the thousands of hardware and embedded systems components in use throughout the organization. We have more than 400 personnel working on the Year 2000 Project. In this packet you'll find more specific information about the resources and methodology that we've committed to this process. We are working closely with other utilities, as well as the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool regional group, and national groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute, the North American Electric Reliability Council and the Electric Power Research Institute, and others, to assure that our methods and findings meet the highest standards of these organizations. Weare also working with the Minnesota Office of Technology to provide you useful Y2K information. We have enclosed their information on how Y2K impacts your business and family. Our timeline, which is outlined in detail in the enclosed material, includes remediation of all mission critical systems by July 1, 1999. We are also developing contingency plans so we can respond quickly to unexpected events. While we can never provide blanket guarantees of uninterrupted service, we believe the risk of a loss of electric or gas service due to Y2K problems will be no greater than your risk of service disruption on any other winter day. In addition to the information enclosed, we invite you to visit our web site, www.nspco.com. where you will find timely infOlmation on the NSP Y2K Project. Sincerely, D tu.J 1: (L~lt~..l- Paul E. Anders, Jr. Vice President and CIO NSP Y2K Readiness Disclosure o John Erar,Farmington, City Admini... 0' Joe ~:;iIIer,Dakota Electric Associa... ~ 651-460-7511 I1i1 Y2k testing ~ 5/11/994:33 PM ~ 2/3 ~~rtlWBc ASSOCIATION ----- A u)UCn.wr", E.l,.,rgy~Panner ~T.)( - 4300 22dh Street West Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7134 1-800-874-3409 Fax (651) 463-6256 A Locally Owned, Nonprofit Electric Utility PRESS RELEASE (no. 11/99) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Joe Miller Telephone: (651) 463-6178 Media Hotline: (612) 987-5427 Fax: (651) 460-7511 Dakota Electric finds no Y2k problems during testing FARMINGTON, Minn. (May 11, 1999) - Dakota Electric Association announced today that testing has been completed on its substation "mission critical" hardware and software components and not a single piece of equipment was shown to create any electricity delivery problems. Testing of "non-mission critical" eq uipment also turned up no Y2k errors that will hamper the cooperative's ability to deliver power after January 1,2000. Dakota Electric formed a Y2k Task Force in early 1998 to address the possible problems associated with the Y2k bug. The task force has taken systematic steps, including inventorying, assessing, identifYing, fixing and testing all hardware and software, to provide continued electric reliability into the year 2000. Items defined as mission critical by Dakota Electric's Y2k Task Force are those pieces of hardware and software that have a date function and need to operate in order to deliver reliable energy into the new year. Date rollover testing was performed over a six week period on various types of equipment including capacitor bank controls, protective relay microprocessors, voltage regulators and more. -more- [J John Erar,Farmington, City Admini... o Joe M1Iler,Dakota Electric Associa... ~ 651-460-7511 ~ Y2k testing ~ 5/11/994:33 PM ~ 1/3 ~~ELE "e ASSOCIATION A Touchstone Energy""Partner .~ ....... -- FAX News Release To: John Erar, - Farmington, City Administrator From: Joe Miller, Dakota Electric Association Fax Phone Number: 651-460-7511 Date: Tue, May 11, 1999 . 4:32 PM Transmitting (3) pages, including cover sheet. If there is difficulty with this transmission, please call: 651-463-6178 Note: Just thought you might be interested in this" good news." [] ,John Erar,Farmington, City Admini... [] Joe jt.iller, Dakota Electric Associa... ~ 651-460-7511 I1il Y2k testing (!Xv 5/11/99 4:33 PM ~ 3/3 Dakota Electric 11/99 page 2 "All the equipment that we identified as critical for the delivery of power had already been reported by all vendors as being Y2k ready," Jack Melby, Y2k Project Manager said. "These tests were an added verification for us, and we are pleased to report no problems were discovered with power delivery." One non-mission critical piece ofhardware was found to have a date reporting error, but the unit was not affected in its ability to perform its job. This reporting problem was already discovered by the manufacturer, and they are working to repair the minor problem. Dakota Electric has also done substantial work on internal business systems that are not critical for the delivery of power, but nonetheless important to the business. Most systems, including billing, purchasing, general ledger, have already been upgraded and are Y2k ready. "We have been diligent in our efforts to address any Y2k problems and are ahead of our timeline to have everything completed before the end of August," Melby said. Dakota Electric continues work on the Y2k project by performing other non-mission critical testing as well as system upgrades and contingency planning. All of the effort and money spent to address Y2k related problems make the company confident that no problems should be experienced with its electric distribution system. While no guarantees can ever be made because of the nature of the power delivery business, the chance for an outage on January 1, 2000 should be no greater than any other day of the year. Dakota Electric, organized in 1937, is a customer-owned, non-profit electric utility that serves more than 81,000 customers throughout Dakota County and portions of Goodhue, Rice and Scott counties. Dakota Electric is a Touchstone Energy Partner. -end- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ?F TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~ FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Gambling Premise Permit DATE: June 7, 1999 INTRODUCTION The American Legion Post No. 189 is requesting a Gambling Premise Permit at 10 N. 8th Street. DISCUSSION Pursuant to State Statute and pertinent City Code, an organization must first obtain a resolution from the City, granting permission for gambling to occur at a specific location. The American Legion is requesting approval to conduct gambling activity at 10 North 8th Street. The appropriate application and fees have been received and the application has been reviewed by the City Attorney. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUIRED Adopt the attached Council Resolution approving a Premise Permit at 10 North 8th Street. Respectfully submitted, jJ~ iJ~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager RESOLUTION NO. R -99 APPROVING A MINNESOT A LAWFUL GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR AMERICAN LEGION POST 189 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 7th day of June, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, pursuant to M.S. 349.213, the State of Minnesota Gambling Board may not issue or renew a Gambling Premise Permit unless the City Council adopts a Resolution approving said permit; and WHEREAS, American Legion Post 189, has submitted an Application for a Gambling Premise Permit to be conducted at 10 North 8th Street, for Council consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Farmington City Council that the Gambling Premise Permit for American Legion Post 189 to be conducted at 10 North 8th Street, is hereby approved. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 7th day of June, 1999. Mayor Attested to the 7th day of June, 1999. City Administrator SEAL 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 Administrato~ FROM: James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation Department DATE: June 7, 1999 INTRODUCTION The Parks and Recreation Commission ( P ARAC ) has reviewed the playground equipment needs for Daisy Knoll Park in the Nelson Hills Farm Addition. DISCUSSION The P ARAC has determined the play equipment needed at Daisy Knoll Park. The Commission is recommending that the park structure and related equipment be purchased. The following quotations were received: Company I. St. Croix Recreation 2. Reese Recreation Play Structure / Related Eauipment $24,979.38 $26,044.38 BUDGET IMPACT The budgeted dollars for the play equipment will come from Liquor Store profits and Park Improvement Funds as outlined in the 1999 Budget and C.I.P. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ James Bell Parks and Recreation Director equipnh City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7h TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Retroactive Approval - Temporary 3.2 Beer License - Farmington Independent Fastpitch Softball Team DATE: June 7, 1999 INTRODUCTION The Farmington Independent Fastpitch Team is requesting a Temporary 3.2 on-sale license. This action requires City Council approval. DISCUSSION The Farmington Independent Fastpitch Softball Team is requesting to hold a Softball Tournament at Rambling River Fields from June 4, 1999 to June 6, 1999. The dates of the tournament are before the Council meeting but given the long history of this teams sponsorship of their tournament, staffhas, in accordance with City Code guidelines, approved the application. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the retroactive issuance of the license. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REOUESTED Ratify the retroactive issuance of a Temporary 3.2 On-Sale License to the Farmington Independent Fastpitch Softball Team for June 4-6, 1999. Respectfully submitted, ~q:~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us 15a-, TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator 1ff- FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Highway 3 and Willow Street East Frontage Road Improvements DATE: June 7, 1999 INTRODUCTION At the May 3, 1999 City Council meeting, the City Council accepted the feasibility report, authorized the preparation of plans and specifications and called for a public hearing for the Trunk Highway 3 and Willow Street east frontage road improvement project. At the May 17 City Council meeting, Council authorized staff to proceed with eminent domain proceedings, if necessary, to acquire the necessary right-of-way for the project. DISCUSSION Staff has not yet received appraisal information on the value of the proposed improvements to the subject property (Wausau) that would be assessed for a portion of the costs for this project. While not required by law, it has become standard practice for the City on a special assessment project to provide estimated assessment amounts at the public hearing for the project. The estimated assessment amounts presented to Council are supported by the appraisal, per the City's special assessment policy. Since the appraisal is not complete, it is recommended that the public hearing for this project be continued to the July 6, 1999 City Council meeting. Council may wish to hear public comment at this meeting. BUDGET IMPACT The estimated project cost for the two options, not including costs for right-of-way acquisition are outlined in the table below. Estimated Project Costs Option 1 Option 2 $95,000 $132,500 MnDOT has included this project in their Municipal Agreement Program and has indicated that the State would fund $75,000 of the construction costs and $6,000 of the construction engineering and inspection costs. As outlined in previous Council communications, the adjacent property owners that are currently in the City will fund the remaining project costs. ACTION REOUESTED Continue the public hearing for the Trunk Highway 3 and Willow Street east frontage road improvement project to the July 6th City Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, ~YVl~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us lo~ TO: Mayor and Council Members, City Administratow~ ~ Michael Schultz, Associate Planner 0 FROM: SUBJECT: Interim Use Amendment - Automobile Repair: Minor DATE: June 7, 1999 INTRODUCTION JDS Properties has made application for an interim use within the B-4 (Neighborhood Business) zoning district. The interim use application was approved by the Planning Commission at the May 25, 1999 meeting and is contingent upon City Council approval of a text amendment to the Zoning Code. DISCUSSION The Interim Use Ordinance was approved by the Planning Commission at the May 11, 1999 meeting and forwarded on to the City Council where it was unanimously approved at the May 17, 1999 Council meeting. The process of the Interim Use permit requires a text amendment be approved by the City Council for that particular zoning district. Once the text amendment is approved, other applications can be made for the same use within other B-4 zoned properties. The text amendment being requested is for "Automobile Repair: Minor" within the B-4 (Neighborhood Business) zoning district. Currently the only existing B-4 district is located at 821 Third Street, the subject property of this requested amendment. The Interim Use permit approved by Planning Commission for Airlake Ford contained the following conditions: a. Permit will be valid for 3 years at which time the operation will cease or applicant will reapply; b. Hours of operation will be limited from Monday-Friday from 7 A.M. to 5 P.M. and Saturday from 8 A.M. to 12 P.M.; c. No priming or painting is permitted on the premises; d. No outdoor parking of repaired vehicles; e. No outdoor storage of parts unless enclosed (staff is working with property owners on erecting an enclosure) f. Garage doors will be permitted to be open in which staff will monitor any complaints of noise; g. Facility will not expand beyond the existing square footage of 5,000 square feet; h. That the property owner place Class 5 rock in rear (along garage area); It should be mentioned that the City Council is not required to approve the actual Interim Use permit or the conditions attached to it, but rather approve the text amendment adding this particular use as an Interim Use in the B-4 zoning district. The Council at the May 17th meeting did suggest placing a "sunset" date on any text amendment to coincide with the period of time approved for the Interim Use. In this particular case, the Planning Commission approved the Interim Use for Air Lake Ford to three (3) years. BUDGET IMPACT None ACTION REOUESTED Council adoption of the attached ordinance amending the B-4 (Neighborhood Business) district adding "Automobile Repair: Minor" as an Interim Use. This amendment contains a sunset provision to coincide with the term of the Interim Use permit, which is three years. Michael Schultz Associate Planner cc: JDS Properties Dan Blanch CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. An Ordinance Amending Title 10, Chapter 3 of the City Code adding "Automobile Repair: Minor" as an Interim Use under the B-4 (Neighborhood Business) District. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: 1. WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, at a public hearing held on May 25, 1999, approved "Automobile Repair: Minor" as an interim use in a B-4 (Neighborhood Business) district; and 2. WHEREAS, the City Council approved the petition to amend the text in the Farmington City Code to include under the B-4 (Neighborhood Business) district "Automobile Repair: Minor" as an Interim Use on the 7th day of June, 1999. 3. WHEREAS, the City Council established a sunset date of three (3) years from the date of adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Farmington hereby amends the City Zoning Ordinance under the B-4 (Neighborhood Business) district to include under Interim Use "Automobile Repair: Minor". Enacted and ordained on the _ day of June, 1999. SEAL CITY OF FARMINGTON MAYOR ATTEST: CITY ADMINISTRATOR Approved as to form the _ day of , 1999. CITY ATTORNEY City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: City Planning Commission f'v(} Michael Schultz, Associate Planner ? FROM: SUBJECT: Interim Use Permit - Automobile Repair within B-4 Zoning District DATE: May 25,1999 INTRODUCTION Arlender Nordvik and IDS Properties have made application for an interim use permit to locate an automobile repair facility within the B-4 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district: . Because this application sets precedence in the B-4 District it will require a text amendment to the Zoning Code, which will need City Council approval. Planninl! Division Review Applicant: IDS Properties 12245 Safari Path Apple Valley, MN 55124 Property Location! Address: 821 3rd Street Legal Description: Lots 19,20,21 and 22 Park Addition Attachments: 1. ZoningILocation Map 2. Interim Use Ordinance 3. Ordinance 099-423 - Amending Title 10 of the Zoning Code - B-4 (Neighborhood Business) District Pennitted and Conditional Uses 4. Ordinance 099-425 Rezoning property located at 821 3rd Street 5. Lee Smick letter dated January -12, 1999 6. May 17, 1999 City Council Minutes (draft) Existing Zoning: B-4 (Neighborhood Business) Current Land Use: Office/Commercial (mixed use) Surrounding Zoning: Medium Density residential surrounding entire property. Surrounding Land Use: Commercial to the north (Blocks Auto) and south (White Funeral Home), Residential to the east and west. Comprehensive Plan: Commercial DISCUSSION The Interim Use Ordinance was approved by the Planning Commission at the May 11, 1999 meeting and forwarded on to the City Council where it was unanimously approved at the May 17, 1999 Council meeting. The building owners, IDS Properties, have applied for an interim use permit to allow Airlake Ford body shop to be legally located within the facility and zoning district. This is the initial application for an interim use permit within the B-4 (Neighborhood Business) zoning district; this will require City Council approval of a text amendment to the Zoning Code. If the text amendment is approved by the City Council, the Planning Commission would have to consider the loc~tion of other automobile repair facilities within any B-4 zoning district if other applications are made. The Planning Commission would be permitted to place any contingencies they deem necessary, including time guidelines, to the property. During the process of having the property rezoned to B-4 (Neighborhood Business), the property owners and tenants of the building held a neighborhood meeting with residents on January 7, 1999 to discuss the use of the building. The residents appeared not to object the Airlake Ford body shop as long as certain conditions were met (see Lee Smick's January 12, 1999 memo to the Planning Commission). A suggestion was made about placing a time restriction on the business that would allow the business to stay and permit enough time to locate an alternate site where the use was permitted. The Zoning Code text amendment creating the B-4 (Neighborhood Business) Zoning District was approved by City Council on March 1, 1999. The Council rezoned the property to B-4 (Neighborhood Business) at the same March 1st meeting. However this new zoning district did not include automobile repair as a permitted or conditional use because of concerns that that type of land use should be located near residential neighborhoods. The office building currently has four tenants at this time, Airlake Ford, as the fifth tenant, utilizes the garage/warehouse area in the building as an auto repair shop and has been in the location since last year as an illegal non-conforming use. The Planning Division became aware of the auto repair operation in October of 1998 and required that the property owners apply for a rezoning of the property to assist in making the office building/auto repair shop a conforming use. INTERIM USE PROCESS/FACTS Because this is the initial application to an ordinance that was only just recently adopted, the process in which this application will be guided is given along with facts. Process la. Application is made for initial interim use 1 b. Staff forwards application to Planning Commission. 2. Planning Commission determines if use is appropriate for that particular zoning district. 3a. Commission acts to approve, deny or approve with conditions the permit application. 3b. Ifthe application requires a text amendment to the Zoning Code, the application is acted on by the Commission and a recommendation is forwarded to the City Council. 4. City Council considers Planning Commission recommendation, 4/Sthsvote is required to amend the Zoning Code. 5. Approved Interim Use Permit is filed with Dakota County Recorder. Facts . The Commission may attach any contingencies deemed necessary to the application, including a time restriction which is identifiable (i.e. calendar dates) and at which time the use must cease. Any conditions of the permit not met by the applicant will result in termination of the permit. . The applicant may re-app1y for an interim use permit at the time of expiration of the previous permit. . A property may be rezoned during an interim use period that may make the use non-conforming. . The Planning Commission and/or City Council may reverse any text amendment to the Zoning Code during an interim use period making the use non-conforming. . Appeals will be forwarded directly to the City Council where a 4/Sths decision is needed to affirm or overturn the decision of the Planning Commission. . All Interim Use applications will be reviewed following the requirements outlined-in Section 10- 8-5 of the Zoning Code. Approval of any Interim Use Permit will have to be contingent on City Council approval of the text amendment for each initial interim use. ACTION REOUESTED Staff would recommend that the Commission, if considering approval of this request, place the following types of conditions: 1. Length of operation/Expiration of permit (i.e. Staff would recommend a period of time not to exceed the proposed five year lease extension being considered for this business) 2. Time of operation (i.e. Mon. through Fri. - 7 A.M. to 5 P.M., Saturdays 8 A.M. to Noon) 3. Extent of operations (i.e. no priming or painting) 4. Limitations on outdoor parking of repaired vehicles (i.e. repaired vehicles may be parked on site after repair for no more than 72 hours) 5. Exterior storage of parts (i.e. no exterior storage of parts or enclosure required) 6. Limitations on noise/open doors (i.e. garage doors must be kept closed during certain hours) 7. Facility expansion (i.e. the operation be limited to the square footage it currently occupies) ~1I Subm" Michael Schultz Associate Planner cc: IDS Properties Dan Blanch, Airlake Ford file Q. ftS :IE c o -- ..... as u o ...I ..... CI) e ..... en ~ (II) 0.:- N CO ~ c: QI I ~ i ~.Iii c ~ ~Ill:J ~ III llllllQlUlal 0.. 0 ?;o ~QlCQlIll'O~ '0 - iii~ _~S~cOC -0 ~-Cb- i !~~~~~~~~~ ~f~iiil 2:''0 .a::J al al ~ >-'1: ~'O C C ~c 3~'O~ ~~~~~~~QlE~O 'O::J U6Q1Q1>-~ll!'O'O I:cO::J '0 5~illl~~~C~9COO~~~~~~~ o . ~ 01.5 ~ QI QI <3 .2 .2 ~ '0 0.. 0 ~ .21~ m~_-~~_~~~~~_~~~_~_ ~~O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O~~<<WalmalU~~~~o..~~~~ <~IIII_I_1II1 ~ Z+0 ~ .. I' .. H' M ~ I~ C! ..I .... 7]<(T "'1 ~\\\!,;.;{, .' ,'~.::~' .; c,. D ill .,d,.; .... .. " '.' [II[]] t ~ .' n lS H1S '. '.'. .' = ~. f-.., r- .... ." tii >-- - ~ ~ 0 .' , :E ",I, ; .' " ". ...., ...,....... lS Hlt II . ~ F en w I, , I ." -I , ,.C i< Q. ...... . :~~ - ;. ~ .,... " .,. I., .:-. < i' ; \X ......,... , '. " I~, ....... ,'. " lS a~t ~ ~ []]] - .... ~ f ~ 1- ~ :"''1 en , &>' :I: 0 ..... w []]TI 11 , ~ w ..' .' ,.". ..... e m ""', ... , ~ .,', , " .. lS aN~ t$ .~ ~ I l- I-- tI'.) ....' .,.., t=T M '--- '-'--. "" ~ I "- Nl :,.".::-- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-1111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmlneton.mn.us lOb TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrato~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator FROM: SUBJECT: Cameron Woods Cooperative Final PlatlFinal PUD DATE: June 7, 1999 INTRODUCTION Cameron Woods consists of an 84-unit senior cooperative housing facility located on the west side of Pilot Knob Road, north of the Nelson Hills Farm development, east of the recently approved Pine Ridge Forest development and south of the Terra Addition development. The preliminary plat was approved by the Planning Commission on December 8, 1998 and by the City Council on December 21, 1998. The final plat was recently approved by the Planning Commission on May 25, 1999 contingent on engineering requirements and the resolution of the connection of Euclid Street on the north and south in the Development Contract. DISCUSSION The proposed development consists of two, 3-story, 42-unit buildings on 13.7 acres. The gross dwelling units per acre are 84 units/13.7 acres calculating to 6.0 units/acre in an R-2 PUD district. Lots 1 and 2 show front yard setbacks of twenty feet and side and rear setbacks of ten feet, complying with the R-2 PUD zoning district. Lots 3 and 4 are remaining acreages surrounding the buildings. These lots provide a blanket easement for the utility requirements. The parkland area and acreage dedicated to the City are located in Outlots A and B respectively. Outlots C and D include the two stormwater ponds required on the site. Outlot A complies with the requirements for Parkland Dedication fees, while Outlot B will be gifted to the City by Jack Benedict. The revised site plan shows 50 feet to the building measured from the property line of the Terra Addition to the north and 90 feet from the Pilot Knob right-of-way to the building foundation on the east side ofthe site. The 50-foot setback line from the Terra Addition property does meet the initial requirements of the Cameron Woods Townhomes project that was required by the Planning Commission in the spring of 1998. The buildings also meet the 50-foot building setback line along a minor arterial road (Pilot Knob Road) measured from the planned right-of-way line inward as required in Section 10-4-1 (J) of the City Code. The following are contingencies to the approval of the Cameron Woods Cooperative Final Plat approval: 1. Approval of the Final Plat is contingent on compliance with engineering requirements. 2. The connection of Euclid Street to the north and south of the proposed development will need to be addressed in the Development Contract. ACTION REOUESTED Council adoption of a resolution approving the Cameron Woods Cooperative Final PlatlFinal PUD Plan contingent upon the above requirements. Respectfully submitted, ~JdJ LJe Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: Wensco, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING FINAL PLAT CAMERON WOODS SENIOR LIVING COOPERATIVE 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 7th day of June, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the fmal plat of Cameron Woods Senior Living Cooperative is now before the Council for review and approval; and WHEREAS, a public hearing of the Planning Commission was held on the 25th day of May, 1999 after notice of the same was published in the official newspaper of the City and proper notice sent to surrounding property owners; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended favorable action by the Council with certain conditions after receiving and evaluating comments from various parties; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has rendered an opinion that the proposed plat can be feasibly served by municipal service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above fmal plat be approved with the following stipulations: 1. Final Plat approval at the City Council will be contingent on the preparation and execution of the Development Contract and approval of the construction plans. 2. The Developer enters into the Development Contract. 3. The Developer provides necessary security in accordance with the terms of the Contract. 4. The Development Contract requires the connection of Euclid Street to existing streets on the north in the Terra Addition and the south in the Nelson Hills 3rd Addition. 5. The Developer agrees to furnish the City one (1) reproducible and one (1) eight and one-half inch by eleven inch (8 W' x I I") reproducible copy of the filed plat in accordance with Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 3 (E) of the City Code. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 7thday of June, 1999. Mayor Attested to the _ day of June, 1999. City Administrator MAY 20 '99 08:32AM MELCHERT BLOCK ASSOC------ ,. ~ D I h Ii 1 I .. I t. ~I!l 11,1 Ii :!!11i Ii!! I, .11i d I' '.. il ~m d ~. (" IIsIl "Ill~ !J~ ~ . !~I JI.. \ ' . _ . .t>1Jlll:''i...r,. : 'II .",)'..~ ....- ~ ..t". . "F~~", ..-....... . "'I". :' I : .. ~,~~ \ ~; \ l'''=::.~ ~ .. .; ~; :'-"'-'~I . I ~ H I Ilk ;.1 t -1..----1 . 'll I I I (I i :..;: "', I .~, I (t). ,I .,,\ -", - ,. , ,:: I ' I ~ i I ] '! L_....._._.J. __..__ '--.... .....- :g. o i' z 0-. -." &II: W :I ~.. U '. I fi II: I ~II ! I~i i ~I e ill a .; ~ I I .-1._ I ._1_ --L ! - '1 I ((}~jOJJ f/()N.V If)71d! It ,n''S':; ....... .........00II '~ . . '--..r= . -..., I ~ . -~I~lr- a. " .... - - P.2 i ~ ~ ~I :~; ~ Itr i I~ b!~ ; mDi 'Ill" 'II "II 01' ., ............ I ltII ~!IltI 1M " (CIYDI IIOfGIIOW) ,. 'InTO ) JS~' ..... ~wl r- -- _6__.-__.~..-&_._A-"'"", A_a--a-..- II~ . - ~ /-___... Iii " , '_.... I I '-...._ \ \ '" " ~. . il.: ", 'to.: ~~~ l', :, ~ ~~i:' bioi Sf! " f~ .- -, I Ii-' ~~ ~;1 ~a i!l ~~. lSl: !. :"; i ," k! --.:.. -.. :', ;;', .... ,\", . :.;~ _._.....~ \.,~ nj!~L'P ;:-tHt. i . ,. I ! I I r1 "I I \ liil hi ,". I II ! Iii i~ _. .'. -1_ I.~ , r.&r:~.I\'=.r:stil"':J\~"''''1 \ k......, K1nM'!IIl1J l/I'M ,......... .......... [/ ,I. III .. 9 S o .-- -\ , '. 4l; \ : I i \ II : I 5 ! I 1. _.-1 L- .. 9 .. :J o __u' .-- .,_OM ~,\ 'ld: ;: \\ .' w:- " ..'. '.~ ":,1" t, .!:.' L~ /.:/,' J. :'::':i.':.'.'.: .:;{H/i!!' .'iN':,'! . I /'/:/'~.:' (J:"':':;'~"''::' 4':'~ ;~i . . ''I !':; !J', ,- --.. -. ::/!^' ..:'.~ " I t, ."-::'~::::::,',, .!!".''':: .ltIJ".} -- - 1,_..- \ = I I hi I I::: I' .~. m\ , L._ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /O~ TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrator1~ FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: Proposed Wetland Protection Ordinance Amendment DATE: June 7, 1999 INTRODUCTION In 1998, the City Council authorized retaining the firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates (BRAA) to assist the City in the preparation of an update to the City's Wetland Ordinance as well as completing a field inventory and classification of all existing wetlands. DISCUSSION The work on this project commenced in the summer of 1998. In addition to numerous meetings with City staff, Soil and Water Conservation District staff, and BRAA, there were numerous meetings with representatives of the Builders Association of the Twin Cities (BATC). The majority of the issues and concerns ofBATC have been addressed in the proposed ordinance amendment. The attached Executive Summary prepared by the Planning Coordinator gives an overview of the purpose, the benefits of the ordinance update, and the process that was utilized. The primary motivations in updating the ordinance were the need to update the setback and buffer yard requirements for areas adjacent to wetlands and the need to classify existing wetlands by floral diversity and storm water susceptibility. The previous ordinance treated all wetlands the same regardless of these factors. Ms. Sherri Buss of BRAA will be present at the June 7, 1999 Council meeting to give a brief overview on the proposed ordinance amendments. BUDGET IMP ACT None ACTION REOUESTED Council adoption of the attached wetland protection ordinance amendment as proposed. o~L David L. Olson Community Development Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ct.farmlngton.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members City Administrator ~ FROM: Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Amend Title 10, Chapter 9 - Wetland Protection Ordinance DATE: June 7, 1999 INTRODUCTION Wetlands serve a variety of beneficial functions. Wetlands maintain water quality, reduce flooding and erosion, provide food and habitat for wildlife, provide open space and are an integral part of the City's environment. However, wetlands vary significantly in the degree that they have been altered. Wetlands within the City exhibit great variations in their plant diversity, quality of wildlife and fishery habitat, degree and fluctuation in response to storms, the extent to which their shorelines have been altered or eroded and their relative value in protecting water quality. Therefore, it has been determined that it is necessary and beneficial to classify wetlands based upon their functions and values. In review, preserving wetlands has been determined to be in the best interest of the general health and welfare of the City in order to achieve a no net loss of wetlands within the community. In accomplishing these objectives, the City has proposed the attached revisions to the current wetland ordinance. The need to update existing setback requirements between the wetland edge and proposed building construction and the need to categorize the City's wetlands through floral diversity and storm water susceptibility to determine the importance of the wetland to the City's ecosystem are two important reasons for revising the ordinance. The Purpose and Implementation section of the ordinance is also attached to provide detailed information concerning the purpose of the ordinance and how these objectives will be accomplished. DISCUSSION The process involved in revising the wetland ordinance was extensive. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates were contracted to draft the revisions, identify and classify the wetlands in the field and make presentations throughout the approval process. The review of the revisions was performed by City staff, Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) and members of the Builders' Association of the Twin Cities (BATC). BATC reviewed drafts at two separate meetings and their comments to the current draft dated January 12, 1999 are defined in bold face type in the document. The SWCD assisted the City in identifying and classifying the wetlands through field surveys. The information gathered in the field was then reviewed with the SWCD for accuracy in the classifications. As evidenced by the number of groups participating in this revision process, City staff attempted to insure that all stakeholders in the development and environmental communities had the opportunity to comment on the proposed wetland ordinance. One of the identifiable needs for revising the ordinance dealt with the setback requirements for buffer areas between the wetland edge and a building in the current ordinance (see attached). In Section 10-9-6 (C) 3 of the existing ordinance, all buildings, except accessory buildings shall be setback at least one hundred (100) feet from a wetland. This requirement was observed as too excessive, considering wetlands vary in environmental value. The current ordinance does not allow for flexibility in setback requirements depending on the nature of the adjacent wetland. A more manageable requirement would categorize wetlands by functionality, value of the ecosystem and whether the wetland had been altered and would require various setback lengths from wetlands depending on the type of wetland adjacent to a development. Therefore, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates and the Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation District performed a wetland field study in the summer of 1998 and the research was generated into a wetland classification report. The wetlands were classified into four separate categories depending on its floral diversity, storm water susceptibility and the alteration of the wetland. The four categories include Protect, Manage 1, Manage 2 and Utilize. Protect wetlands exist in an unaltered state and have special and unusual qualities that require a high level of protection. A minimum buffer of 7S feet from a "protect" wetland is required to insure protection of the wetland. A minimum buffer of 100 feet is required when a "protect" wetland is within a designated trout stream corridor. Manage 1 wetlands have moderate floral diversity and are slightly to moderately susceptible to storm water and snowmelt impacts. A minimum buffer 000 feet is required for protection. Manage 2 wetlands have been altered by human activities and is usually found within a park or greenway. A minimum buffer of20 feet is required to protect this wetland. Utilize wetlands have been significantly altered and degraded by urban or agricultural land uses and no buffer is required for this wetland. By classifying the wetlands within the community, the City has gained the opportunity of insuring a no net loss of wetlands. It can also prevent construction-related degradation through the location of the wetlands. The classification of wetlands will also assist developers in preparing developments that are sensitive to the natural environment, especially the large amount of wetland located in the City. REOUESTED ACTION Adopt the proposed wetland protection ordinance amendment as presented. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: Builders' Association of the Twin Cities Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation District Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates 10-9-2 PURPOSE AND IMPLEMENTATION (A) Through the adoption and enforcement of this Ordinance, the City shall promote the general health, safety, and welfare of its residents by both conserving and protecting wetlands, and requiring sound management practices and mitigation when development occurs in the vicinity of wetlands. Through the implementation of this subdivision, the City seeks to accomplish the following purposes. 1. To satisfy the requirements of the WCA as it may be amended and, thereby, achieve no net loss of wetlands within the City; 2. To balance the needs to preserve and protect natural resources and systems with both the rights of private property owners and the need to support the efficient use of developable land within the City; 3. To preserve the natural character of the landscape through the maintenance of wetland ecosystems; 4. To promote water quality by maintaining the ability of wetlands to recharge ground water and receive the discharge of ground water, to retain sediment and toxicants and filter and strip nutrients from surface water runoff before it discharges into community lakes and streams, thus avoiding the contamination and eutrophication of these water features; 5. To provide wildlife habitat and thereby support the maintenance of diversity of both plant and animal species within the City. 6. To prevent property damage and the losses associated with flood conditions, and reduce erosion problems; 7. To enhance and preserve the natural drainage ways; and 8. To reduce the need for piped storm water improvements. (B) To accomplish these purposes, the City will: 1. Conduct an inventory of all wetlands within the City; 2. Develop a system of classification for wetlands within the City and classify the City's wetlands based upon their relative values related to floral diversity, wildlife habitat, water quality protection, fishery habitat, and aesthetic benefits. 3. Prepare and maintain a comprehensive set of official maps identifying the location and classification of all wetlands within the City. 4. Establish wetland regulations that are coordinated with flood plain and shoreland protection regulations. 5. Require sound management practices to protect, conserve, maintain, enhance, and improve the quality of wetlands within the community. 6. Enforce standards for the alteration of wetlands when alteration is allowed, including standards and procedures for the mitigation of the loss of wetland areas and their functions and values, when alteration or destruction occurs. 7. Obtain protective easements over or acqUIre fee title to wetlands as appropriate. 8. Develop and maintain a program to educate the public about the numerous benefits and features that wetlands provide and the adverse effects of improperly managed urban development on wetlands. 06/15/99 17:08 FAX 651 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNl~SON III 002 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 099-433, AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 9 OF TIlE FARMJNGTON CITY CODE, THE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, on June 7,1999, Ordinance No. 099-433 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that, because of the lengthy nature of Ordinance No. 099-433. the City Council has directed that a title and summary be prepared for publication. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the general purpose of the ordinance is to conserve and protect wetlands in the City of Farmington by regulating wetlands and the land uses surrounding them. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the title of Title la, Chapter 9. as approved by the City Council is as follows: WETLANDS PROTECTION ORDINANCE NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that.the swnmary of Ordinance No. 099-433 is as follows: SECTION 1. COUNCn.. FINDINGS AND INTENT This section describes the variety of beneficial functions that wetlands provide, recognizes that wetlands vary in the degree to which they have been altered. recognizes the need to protect wetlands from further construction-related degradation, and recognizes the need for buffer areas. This section also incorporates by reference the Minnesota Wetland ConselVation Act. SECTION 2. PURPOSE AND IMPLE:MENTATION This section sets forth the purposes sought to be accomplished through the adoption and enforcement of this ordinance, and provides the manner in which the City will accomplish these purposes. SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS This section defmes the language used in the ordinance. 73332 06/15/99 17:08 FAX 651 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNlITSON III 003 . . SECTION 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS This section provides that any applicant for a subdivision approval or a grading) mining and excavation pennit allowing wetland-disturbing activities, after June 7, 1999 will be subject to the ordinance. This section specifies the land to which the ordinance applies. This section establishes the procedures for locating and classifying wetlands and changes to any wetland classification. In addition, this section establishes four wetland classifications: Protect, Manage 1, Manage 2, and Utilize. SECTION S. GENERAL STANDARDS This section provides standards applicable to all lands within and/or abutting a wetland which includes setback requirements, building elevation standards, prohibitions on structure location, and reference to the MPCA's Best Management Practices. SECTION 6. NO NET LOSS AND WETLAND ALTERATION This section states the intent of the ordinance to avoid alteration and destruction of wetlands and requirements for wetland replacement. In addition, this section addresses activities requiring a wetland alteration permit and standards to be followed upon issuance of a wetland alteration permit. SECTION 7. WETLAND BUFFER AREAS This section provides that a buffer area must be maintained abutting all wetlands for lots of record created after June 7, 1999 and sets forth. the standards for maintenance of buffer areas. SECTION 8. WETLAND AND BUEEER AREA MITIGATION This section sets forth the requirements for wetland or buffer area mitigation. SECTION 9. APPLICATION AND ISSUANCE OF PERMIT This section establishes application procedures for wetland alteration permits. SECTION 10. EXEMPTIONS This section sets forth activities exempted from this ordinance and requires a certificate of exemption. SECTION 11. VARIANCES This section allows for variances and identifies the procedures for obtaining a variance. SECTION 12. PREVIOUS ORDINANCE This section amends the Farmington City Code by deleting Sections 1-10, Title 10, Chapter 9 in their entirety. 73332 -2- 06/15/99 17:09 FAX 651 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNlTTSON 141004 A printed copy of the entire ordinance is available for inspection by any person during the City's regular office hours and at the City Hall during regularly scheduled City Council meetings. APPROVED for publication by the City Council of the City of Farmington this _ day of .1999. CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Gerald Ristow. Mayor ATTEST: Approved as to form the _ day of , 1999. City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of , 1999. 73332 -3- SECTIONS: 10-9- 1: 10-9- 2: 10-9- 3: 10-9- 4: 10-9- 5: 10-9- 6: 10-9- 7: 10-9- 8: 10-9- 9: 10-9-10: 10-9-11 : 10-9-12: 10-9-1: ~\ \-[1-99 CHAPTER 9 WETLANDS PROTECTION ORDINANCE Council Findings and Intent Purposes and Implementation Definitions General Provisions General Standards No Net Loss and Wetland Alteration Wetland Buffer Areas Wetland and Buffer Area Mitigation Application and Issuance of Permit Exemptions Variances Previous Ordinance COUNCIL FINDINGS AND INTENT (A) The Council finds that wetlands serve a variety of beneficial functions. 'Wetlands maintain water quality, reduce flooding and erosion, provide food and habitat for wildlife, provide open space, and are an integral part of the City's environment. Wetlands are important physical, educational, ecological, aesthetic, recreational and economic assets to the City. They are critical to the City's storm water management and other aspects of health, safety and general welfare. Regulating wetlands and the land uses around them are therefore in the public interest. (B) The City has also found that wetlands vary significantly in the degree that they have been altered. Wetlands within the City exhibit great variations in their plant diversity, quality of wildlife and fishery habitat, degree of fluctuation in response to storms, the extent to which their shorelines have been altered or eroded, and their relative value in protecting water quality. Therefore, the City has determined that it is necessary and beneficial to classify wetlands based upon their functions and values. The City has also found that it is in the best interest of the general health and welfare of the City to achieve no net loss of wetlands within the community. (C) The City recognizes that a substantial amount of wetland degradation results from sedimentation and nutrient loading related to construction projects. Therefore, the City finds it necessary to require measures to prevent such construction-related degradation. (D) In addition to having regulations that affect the physical impacts within wetland areas, the City also finds that it is necessary to regulate the use of lands surrounding wetlands. Buffer areas (as defined in this Ordinance), are necessary and beneficial to maintaining the health and functions of wetlands. These areas of land surrounding wetlands protect their shorelines from erosion, while filtering sediment, chemicals and other nutrients before storm water discharges into the wetland. Buffer areas are also beneficial in providing habitat for wildlife. (E) This ordinance incorporates by reference the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 {Minn. Stat. 103G.221 et seq. (herein after referred to as the WCA)} and any future amendments adopted by the legislature. The City has determined that some activities are exempted from the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 103G.2241. Any activities exempted from the provisions of the WCA are also exempted from the requirements of this Ordinance, insofar as they relate to the WCA. All wetlands, including those governed by the Department of Natural Resources, are covered by the other provisions of this Ordinance. Also, there are circumstances under which the strict enforcement of these regulations may be unreasonable and in circumstances that meet the criteria established in Section 10- 9-10 and 10-9-11 of this code, departures from the strict application of these standards may be permitted. 10-9-2 PURPOSE AND IMPLEMENT A TION (A) Through the adoption and enforcement of this Ordinance, the City shall promote the general health, safety, and welfare of its residents by both conserving and protecting wetlands, and requiring sound management practices and mitigation when development occurs in the vicinity of wetlands. Through the implementation of this subdivision, the City seeks to accomplish the following purposes: 1. To satisfy the requirements of the WCA as it may be amended and, thereby, achieve no net loss of wetlands within the City; 2. To balance the needs to preserve and protect natural resources and systems with both the rights of private property owners and the need to support the efficient use of developable land within the City; 3. To preserve the natural character of the landscape through the maintenance of wetland ecosystems; 4. To promote water quality by maintaining the ability of wetlands to recharge ground water and receive the discharge of ground water, to retain sediment and toxicants and filter and strip nutrients from surface water 2 runoff before it discharges into community lakes and streams, thus avoiding the contamination and eutrophication of these water features; 5. To provide wildlife habitat and thereby support the maintenance of diversity of both plant and animal species within the City. 6. To prevent property damage and the losses associated with flood conditions, and reduce erosion problems; 7. To enhance and preserve the natural drainage ways; and 8. To reduce the need for piped storm water improvements. (B) To accomplish these purposes, the City will: 1. Conduct a functions and values inventory of all wetlands within the City; 2. Develop a Wetland Management Classification System within the City and classify the City's wetlands based upon their relative values related to floral diversity/integrity, wildlife habitat, water quality protection, fishery habitat, and aesthetic benefits. 3. Prepare, maintain, and periodically update a comprehensive set of official maps identifying the location and classification of all wetlands within the City. 4. Establish wetland regulations that are coordinated with flood plain and shoreland protection regulations. 5. Require sound management practices to protect, conserve, maintain, enhance, and improve the quality of wetlands within the community. 6. Enforce standards for the alteration of wetlands when alteration is allowed, including standards and procedures for the mitigation of the loss of wetland areas and their functions and values, when alteration or destruction occurs. 7. Obtain protective easements over or acquire fee title to wetlands as appropriate. 8. Develop and maintain a program to educate the public about the numerous benefits and features that wetlands provide and the adverse effects of improperly managed urban development on wetlands. 3 10-9-3 : DEFINITIONS ALTERATION: AVERAGE BUFFER WIDTH: BUFFER AREA: BUILDING SETBACK: COMMUNITY: DIMENTIONAL REQUIREMENTS: DRAINAGE WAY: Human-induced actions that adversely impact the existing condition of a wetland or wetland buffer area, including, grading, filling, dredging, dumping; cutting, pruning, topping, and clearing native vegetation; and discharging pollutants (except stormwater). Alteration does not include walking, passive recreation, fishing, farming, planting that enhances native vegetation, or other similar activities allowed under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act.. The average width of a buffer area within a single development, lot or phase. An unmown, undisturbed, or re-established vegetated area adjacent to a wetland that is an integral part of protecting the wetland ecosystem through filtering pollutants and providing adjacent habitat. The distance between the building line and the property line or, in the case of a shoreland yard, the ordinary high water level, or in the case of a lot containing all or a portion of a wetland, the nearest edge of the wetland buffer area. In reference to plants, an interacting assemblage of plant populations sharing a given habitat. A minimum/maximum setback yard requirement or structure height or size established in the Municipal Code. (1) Any natural, altered or artificial water course which has definable beds and banks capable of conducting confined runoff from adjacent lands. Water course beds not clearly defined shall be delineated to include that area which would be inundated by runoff resulting from a twenty four (24) hour rainfall having a recurrence interval of once in five (5) years. (2) An altered water course is that which has been affected by man-made changes in straightening, deepening, narrowing or widening the original channel. (3) An artificial water course is that which has been artificially constructed by man where there was no previous 4 natural water course. The limits of the water course bed are confined to that area which would be inundated by runoff resulting from a twenty four (24) hour rainfall having a recurrence interval of once in five (5) years. ENHANCE: To heighten the value of wetlands or wetland buffers with respect to the purposes of this Chapter. FUNCTIONAL VALUE INDEX: A number value from 0.1 to 1.0 given to a functional value for a wetland. MANAGE: To control the use of wetland resources consistent with the purposes of this Chapter. Management of wetlands includes conservation, maintenance and enhancement. STRUCTURE: That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts jointed together in some definite manner. VEGETATION, NATIVE: The pre-settlement group of plant species native to the the local region, that were not introduced as a result of European settlement or subsequent human introduction. WETLAND: Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. Consistent with the WCA, wetlands are to be identified and delineated using the methodology set forth in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Interagency Task Force on Wetland Delineation, 1987). For purposes of this definition, wetlands must have three of the following attributes: (1) A predominance of hydric soils; (2) Inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence ofhydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions; (3) Under normal circumstances support a prevalence of such vegetation. This definition does not include wetlands created from uplands either: (1) for storm water storage and management purposes or (2) by actions not intended to create the 5 wetland and approved, permitted, funded or overseen by a public entity. WETLAND EDGE: The line delineating the outer edge of a wetland. This line shall be established by using the 1987 Corps of Em!:ineers (COE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). WETLAND FUNCTIONS: The natural processes performed by wetlands, including functions that are important in providing wildlife and fishery habitat, facilitating food chain production, providing habitat for nesting, rearing, and resting sites for aquatic, terrestrial or avian species, maintaining the availability and quality of water, such as purifying water, acting as a recharge and discharge area for groundwater aquifers and moderating surface water and storm water flows, improving storm water quality, providing aesthetic benefits, and well as performing other functions, including but not limited to those set out in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations at 33 C.F.R. Section 320.4(b )(2)(1988). (NOTE: in the definitions that follow, the methodology and criteria for evaluation of floral diversity/integrity are based on those detailed in the Minnesota Routine Assessment Met/wdfor Evaluating Wetland Functions (Version 1.0), Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, September, 1998; and criteria for susceptibility to storm water impacts are based on recommendations in Storm Water and Wetlands: Planning and Evaluation Guidelines for Addressing Potential Impacts of Urban Storm Water and Snow-Melt Runoff on Wetlands, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, June, 1997.) The functional value for Floral Diversity/Integrity determined from MnRAM is based on dividing wetlands into wetland communities (i.e. wet meadow, shallow marsh, flood plain forest, etc.) and providing a ranking of Exceptional Quality, High Quality, Moderate Quality and Low Quality to all major wetland communities within a wetland. The major communities of a wetland also determine storm Water Susceptibility. The Storm Water and Wetland: Planning and Evaluation Guidelines for Addressing Storm 6 Water and Snow-Melt Runoff Impacts to Wetlands evaluates wetland communities, and places wetland communities into the categories of Highly Susceptible, Moderately Susceptible, Slightly Susceptible, and Least Susceptible to storm water and snow-melt runoff. The wetland inventory conducted as part of this ordinance placed the wetland communities of the wetlands into the categories for Floral Diversity/Integrity and Storm Water and Snow-melt susceptibility. A Functional Value Index, which is based on a scale of 0.1 to 1.0 with 0.1 being the lowest ranking and 1.0 being the highest ranking, was provided for each category as shown below. Functional Value Index 1.0 0.75 0.5 0.1 Functional Value Index 1.0 0.75 0.5 0.1 Each wetland was given a ranking based on the functional value for each of the major wetland communities or community within the wetland. The overall ranking for the wetland is based on a weighted average that incorporates the area of the wetland community (%) and the Functional Value Index (0.0 - 1.0) for the wetland community within the wetland. All wetlands located within a park or Greenway Corridor (as shown on the Wetland Management Plan Map) will not have a Wetland Management Classification lower than Manage 2. The overall wetland functional index range for Floral Diversity/Integrity and Storm Water Susceptibility and the associated Wetland Management Classifications are shown in Table 1. Table 2 shows how final Wetland 7 Management Classifications were determined for an example wetland. Table 1. Overall Wetland Functional Index Range for Floral Diversity/Integrity and Storm Water Susceptibility and. the associated Wetland Management Classification. Floral Diversity /Integrity Wetland Management & Storm Water Classification Susceptibility Functional Index (Range) 1.0 - 0.60 Protect 0.59 - 0.5 Manage 1 0.49 - 0.3 Manage 2 Less then 0.3 Utilize Table 2. Example Showing how Final Wetland Management Classifications were Determined. Wetland Community Storm Water %comrnunity Storm Water %community * Storm Water ID Susceptibility Susceptibility Index Susceptibility Value A V-W7.2 Deep Marsh Slightly 0.3 0.5 . 0.15 A V-W7.2 Shallow Marsh Moderately 0.6 0.75 0.45 A V-W7.2 Reed Canary Least 0.1 0.1 0.01 Monotype Total: 0.61 Wetland Community Floral %comrnunity Floral %comrnunity * Floral ID Diversity/ Diversity/Integrity Diversity/Integrity Value Integrity Index AV-W7.2 Deep Marsh Moderate 0.3 0.75 0.225 AV-W7.2 Shallow Marsh Moderate 0.6 0.75 0.45 AV-W7.2 Reed Canary Low 0.1 0.10 0.01 Monotype Total: 0.685 Storm Water Susceptibility has a functional index of 0.61 and Floral Diversity/Integrity has a functional index of 0.685. They fall within the range of protect (See Table 1). WETLANDS, PROTECT: These wetlands exist in a largely unaltered state and have special and unusual qualities that call for a high level of protection. These wetlands may provide habitat for rare, threatened and/or endangered plant and 8 animal species present; and/or have moderate to exceptional floral diversity/integrity and moderate to high susceptibility to stonn water and snowmelt; and/or arc wiLhin the designated lruuL-liLr~wIJ corridor id~lItified on the City's Wetland and Waterbody Classification Map. WETLANDS, MANAGE I: These wetlands have plant communities that arc in a largely unaltered state. The vegetative communities of these wetlands are characteri7:ed by moderate floral diversity and are slightly to moderately susceptible to stonn-water and snowmelt impacts. WETLANDS. MANAGE 2: These wellands have usually been altered by human activities. These wetlands have low to medium tloral diversity and wildlife habitat components. These wetlands are slightly susceptible to impacts from storm water. Tn addition, if a wetland has characteris~cs of a utilized basin but is located within a park or grecnway corridor (as shown on the Wetland and Waterbouy Classification Map) it was put in this management classification. WETLANDS. UTILTZE: These wetlands have been significantly altered and d~gmuw through past disturbauces. They may be hju1uLl:tl. WiUl u1h:rw hydlO1o~y 11'0111 urban or ~~riculturallalld u~c~. These wetlands have low floral diversity. and for the most part are not connected to other ecosystems. These wetlands are the least susceptible to impacts fi-Olll stann water. 10-9-4 GENERAL PROVISIONS (A) This ordinance shall apply to any applicant for Ii subdivision approval. or a grading excavation, or mining pennit to allow wetland-disturbing activities after June 7, 1999 (date of ordinance). No subdivision approvaJ, or grading excavation, or mining permit to allow wetland disturbing activities shall be issued unLit approval of the wetland replacement plan application or a certificate of exemption has been obtained in strict conformance with the provisions of this chapLer and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. This chapter applies to all land, public or private, located within the City of Farmington. (B) When any provision of any ordinance conflicts with tlllS chapter, that which provides more protection to the wetland or wetland buffer shall apply unless specifically provided othelWise in this chapter; provided, such exceptions shall not conflict with state regulations, such as the State Shore land Program. 9 (C). This ordinance shall apply to all land containing wetlands and land within the setback and buffer areas required by this ordinance. Wetlands shall be subject to the requirements established herein, as well as restrictions and requirements established by other applicable Federal, State, and City ordinances and regulations. These wetland protection regulations shall not be construed to allow anything otherwise prohibited in the zoning district where the wetland area is located. (D) A wetland is land that meets the definition of "wetlands" set forth in this Ordinance. Wetlands have been identified and the Wetland Management Classification as established by the officially adopted City maps shall be prima facie evidence of the location and classification of a wetland. The official maps shall be developed and maintained by the Community Development Department. The presence or absence of a wetland on the official maps does not represent a definitive determination as to whether a jurisdictional wetland is or is not present. Wetlands that are identified during site specific delineation activities but do not appear on the official wetland maps are still subject to the provisions of the Ordinance. It will be the responsibility of an applicant to delineate the exact wetland boundary. All delineations must be reviewed by the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District. The Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District will make recommendations to the City. The City Council has delegated delineation review authority to its staff. The City will classify wetlands based on the criteria discussed under Section 10-9-3. The applicant shall get final delineation approval from the City. Applicants seeking a change in wetland classification must submit to the city a completed MnRAM Version 1.0 form. The Technical Evaluation Panel will review the request for change. The Technical Evaluation Panel will make a recommendation to the City regarding the change in classification. (E) This subdivision is applicable to wetlands that are determined to be Jurisdictional Wetlands, based on delineation procedures of the Wetland Conservation Act. (F) This subdivision establishes four wetland classifications as defined in the Definitions section of this Ordinance: Protect, Manage 1, Manage 2, and Utilize. 10-9-5: GENERAL STANDARDS (A) The following standards apply to all lands within and/or abutting a wetland: 1. Septic and soil absorption systems must be setback a minimum of 100 feet from the City approved boundary of the wetland. 10 2. Building elevation standards shall conform with the standards of the Farmington Surface Water Management Plan. 3. Structures intended to provide access across a wetland shall be prohibited unless a permit is obtained in conformance with State Regulations. 4. The MPCA's Best Management Practices shall be followed to avoid erosion and sedimentation during construction processes. 10-9-6: NO NET LOSS AND WETLAND AL TERA TION (A) It is the intent of this ordinance to avoid the alteration and destruction of wetlands. When wetlands or their buffer areas are altered or destroyed, mitigation must be provided to recreate the functions and values of the lost wetland and/or buffer area. To achieve no net loss of wetland, except as authorized by a wetland alteration permit issued by the City, a person may not drain, grade, fill, remove healthy native vegetation, or otherwise alter or destroy a wetland of any size or type. Any alteration to a wetland, permitted by a wetland alteration permit, must be fully mitigated so that there is no net loss of wetlands. (B) Where it is found that avoidance of direct impact on a wetland is not feasible, wetland replacement shall be done as per agency (Corps of Engineers, Department of Natural Resources, and City [WCA] standards.. Replacement wetlands shall be located within the City, if feasible; if a suitable location is not available preference shall be given to areas within the major watershed where the alteration is occurring. If no location is available within the watershed area, a replacement location should be found within Dakota County. (C) Drainage, grading, filling, removal of healthy native vegetation, or otherwise altering or destroying a wetland of any size or type requires a wetland alteration permit. Other activities in a wetland requiring a wetland alteration permit include, but are not limited to 1. Construction of new streets and utilities 2. Installation of boardwalks. (D) When a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing filling in a wetland, the following standards shall be followed: 1. Filling must be consistent with the Farmington Surface Water Management Plan. 11 2. Filling in wetland areas will be required to be mitigated in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance and the Wetland Conservation Act. (E) When a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing dredging, excavating or grading in a wetland, the following standards shall be followed: 1. The dredging will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of the wetland. 2. It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation. Exceptions may be allowed in basins dominated by invasive exotic species such as Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). 3. It shall not adversely change water flow. 4. The size of the dredged area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action. 5. Disposal of the dredged material is prohibited within the wetland area unless it is part of an approved wetland replacement plan. 6. Disposal of any dredged material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures. 7. Dredging in any wetland area is prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning. 8. Dredging in wetland areas will be required to be mitigated in accordance with requirements of this Ordinance if the activity results in a loss of functional wetland. Dredging to create water quality improvement basins may be allowed by the city where reasonable alternatives are not available or where the wetland is of low quality and designated for this purpose by the Farmington Surface Water Management Plan. (F) STORMW A TER RUNOFF When a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing storm water runoff to discharge directly into a wetland, the permit will include requirements established by the Farmington Surface Water Management Plan. These requirements establish 12 a maximum High Water Level bounce and allowable phosphorus loadings based on the City's wetland classification system. (G) An applicant for a wetland alteration permit shall adhere to the following principles in descending order of priority: 1. Avoid the direct or indirect impact of the activity that may destroy or diminish the wetland: 2. Minimize the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its implementation: 3. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland function and its implementation: 4. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the activity; and 5. Replacing unavoidable impacts to the wetlands by restoring or creating substitute wetland areas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules 8420.0530 to 8420.0630. (H) A wetland alteration permit shall not be issued unless the proposed development complies within the provisions of the Mitigation Section of this article, as well as the standards, intent, and purpose of this article. 10-9-7 WETLAND BUFFER AREAS (A) For lots of record created after (date of ordinance adoption), a buffer area shall be maintained abutting all wetlands. Buffer area vegetation shall be established and maintained in accordance to the following requirements: (See illustration 10-9-7) (B) Buffer area vegetation shall be considered adequate when the buffer has a continuous, dense layer of perennial grasses, flowers, trees and/or shrubs that have been undisturbed for at least 10 consecutive years. Vegetation shall be considered unacceptable if: 1. it is composed of noxious weeds; or 2. topography or sparse vegetation tends to channelize the flow of surface water; or 3. for some other reason the vegetation is unlikely to retain nutrients and sediment. 13 13\A~MoNlAME}lr lAJr tANS / Ho t'v\ E. I / J!L ';~v"ON lO-9- 1-. 1?(/q::~f'erz- k(2.e.k?) :I:lMJ~~D ~D eoAG IO/~ ~ M,INlrMAM . . ~L. . .. . - . ~G~~ lO:-9--:r (410. ~\A,ffeL FeGtL\ rz.€D IN t\E:N 1l'LA'\ l,.., p~ W~D ep~e: lO-q-T(L.). Nt) ~ ~ ~(la) \At\€N 1flIt1 1... otL 12-0 frO U(l-t>~ \fJ~ (wovu...D ~\~ IdJ ~ -n {) N f\1... -:f1U,..u-J 6, ) . .- .. (C) Where buffer areas, or a portion thereof, are not vegetated or have been cultivated or otherwise disturbed within 10 years of the permit application, such areas shall be re-planted and maintained according to each of the following standards: 1. Buffer areas shall be planted with a seed mix containing 100 percent perennial native plant species, except for a one-time planting of annual nurse or cover crop such as oats or rye. 2. The seed mix to be used shall consist of at least 15 pounds pure live seed (PLS) per acre of native grass seed and 1 pound PLS per acre of native forbs. Native grass and native forb mixes shall contain no fewer than four (4) and five (5) species respectively. 3. The annual nurse or cover crop shall be applied at a rate of 20 pounds per acre. 4. Native shrubs may be substituted for forbs. Such shrubs may be bare root stock and shall be planted at a rate of 60 plants per acre. Shrubs shall be distributed so as to provide a natural appearance and shall not be planted in rows. 5. Buffer area plantings along the Vermillion River corridor or other areas of trout stream habitat shall follow planting guidelines included in the Farmington Surface Water Management Plan. (Approved tree species are list on Figure 4-5 in the Farmington Surface Water Management Plan.) 6. Native grasses and forbs shall be planted by a qualified contractor by using a drill designed for native grass seeding or by broadcasting or hydroseeding at Minnesota Department of Transportation rates (1995 MNDOT Standard Specifications for Construction). 7. No fertilizer shall be used in establishing new buffer areas. 8. All seeded areas shall be mulched immediately with clean straw at a rate of 1.5 tons per acre. Much shall be anchored with a disk or tackifier. 9. Buffer areas (both natural and created) shall be protected by erosion control measures as determined by the City. These must be employed during construction until permanent ground cover is established to prevent siltation of the buffer area and wetland. 10. A walking trail may be established within a wetland buffer area. The trail should be constructed to minimize erosion. An undisturbed area of vegetative buffer at least 10 feet in width should remain between the trail and the wetland edge. (See illustration 10-9-7 (C) 10) 14 11. Applicants may obtain from the City a set of standard seeding and planting specifications for buffer areas which meet all the City requirements. (D) Buffer areas shall be identified by permanent monumentation acceptable to the City. In residential subdivisions, a monument is required for each lot. In other situations, a monument is required for each three hundred (300) feet of wetland edge. (E) The clearing and removal of vegetation in the buffer area is prohibited, except for selective clearing and pruning of individual trees and shrubs which are dead, diseased, noxious weeds, or hazards. (F) Where acceptable to adjacent properties, owners are encouraged to leave dead trees and branches in the buffer area, because they are part of the native natural environment and provide necessary habitat to many birds and native wildlife. (0) All buffer areas are measured from the wetland edge as marked in the field. (H) The following buffer area sizes are minimum requirements: Wetland tvve: Protect Manaf!e 1 Manaf!e 2 Utilize Average Buffer Width 75 ft. 50 ft. 25 ft. 0 ft. 100 ft. - "protect" wetlands in the designated trout stream corridor Minimum Buffer 75 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. Oft. Structure Setback from Outer Edge Of Buffer 10ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. Oft. (I) Any wetland restored, relocated, replaced or enhanced because of wetland alterations should have at least the minimum buffer area required for the class of the wetland involved. (J) The City may recommend buffer area averaging in instances where it will provide resource protection to wetland or to valuable adjacent upland habitat, or allow for reasonable use of property as described in Section 4, provided that the total buffer area on-site contained in the buffer remains the same. (K) For roadways, trails, and driveways, or portions thereof, that are routed across wetlands and are subject to WCA replacement requirements, no buffer areas shall 15 be required. Public trails that are routed through wetlands for specific interpretive purposes shall also be exempted from this requirement. (See illustration 10-9-7L) (L) If the area of the buffer has a preconstruction slope of 12 percent or greater, the buffer shall be at the maximum width for the applicant's wetland classification. The use of a meandering buffer area to maintain a natural appearance is encouraged but not required in areas of flat topography. 10-9-8 WETLAND AND BUFFER AREA MITIGATION. (A) Where wetland alteration is approved and mitigation is required, mitigation must result in equal or improved wetland function and value. Mitigation plans must address water quality improvement, and maintenance of pre-existing hydrological balance and wildlife habitat. The wetland function and value will include improvement of water quality, maintaining hydrological balance, and provision of wildlife habitat. Mitigation will be performed at ratios required by the Wetland Conservation Act to achieve replacement of the wetland function and value. (B) The following criteria shall be required for wetland or buffer area mitigation. 1. Wetland mitigation will be performed at a ratio required by the Wetland Conservation Act. Buffers will be required to be replaced on the fill slope. When a wetland is completely filled, the buffer area requirement associated with the classification of the wetland that was filled will be required for the replacement wetland, unless replacement is occurring adjacent to a wetland with a higher classification. In this case, the buffer area requirement for the higher wetland classification will apply. 2. Mitigation should always result in equal or improved wetland function and value. The wetland function and value will include improvement of water quality, maintaining hydrological ba.lance, and provision of wildlife habitat. 3. Mitigation shall provide a buffer area as set forth in this Ordinance. 4. Mitigation shall maintain or enhance the wetland hydrological balance through the following: (a) Restoration of partially drained wetlands (b) Creation of new wetlands. (c) Restoration of buffer area functions. 16 5. Mitigation shall provide for pretreatment of water prior to entry to the wetland to improve water quality if required by the Farmingon Surface Water Management Plan. 6. Mitigation involving the buffer area shall provide landscaping for nesting and food for wildlife habitat. The buffer area landscape shall provide for wildlife cover and utilize a diversity of native flora (i.e., trees, shrubs, grasses, herbaceous plants) to encourage wildlife diversity. 7 . Wetland and buffer area mitigation should be undertaken on site. If this is not feasible, mitigation should occur locally within the subwatershed. If this is not possible, mitigation should occur outside the subwatershed, elsewhere in the City. Ifmitigation cannot be accomplished on site, or if the City deems it necessary to perform mitigation off-site, the applicant shall be responsible for contributing into the City's Wetland Restoration Fund (described in the Farmington Surface Water Management Plan). The contribution will be based on the city's cost to create the new wetland. This includes, but is not limited to, the cost of land, design, engineering, legal, and construction activities needed to create the new wetland. The mitigation performed off-site shall meet the requirements of this ordinance. 8. Wetland and buffer area plantings that are completed for mitigation shall meet the standards for plantings specified in section 10-9-7. 10-9-9 APPLICATION AND ISSUANCE OF PERMIT. (A) The applicant for a wetland alteration permit shall furnish the information required by the City including, but not limited to, a site plan, topographic data, hydrological data, and habitat evaluation procedures for the review of a wetland alteration permit application. The community development director shall use discretion regarding the level and complexity of information required to review the request. (B) A wetland alteration permit shall not be issued without having been first reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council following the review and hearing procedures set forth for conditional use permits and the additional requirement of Minnesota Rules 8420.0230. The applicant shall have the burden of proving that the proposed use or activity complies with the purposes, intent, and other provisions of this article. The Council may establish reasonable conditions which are specifically set forth in the permit to ensure compliance with requirements 17 contained in this article. Such conditions may limit the size, kind, or character of the proposed work, require the construction of other structures, require replacement of vegetation and wetland function and vlaue; establish required monitoring procedures and maintenance activity; state the work over time; require the alteration of the site design to ensure buffering; require the provision of a performance security. (C) The Farmington City Council shall appoint a person to serve on a technical evaluation panel. The person must be a technical professional with expertise in water resources management. Other members of the technical evaluation panel shall include designated staff from the Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District, and Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. Membership of the technical evaluation panel is specified in the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Decisions under this ordinance must not be made until after receiving the determination of the technical evaluation panel regarding wetland public values, location, size, and/or type if the City Council, the landowner, or a member of the technical evaluation panel asks for such determinations. The City Council may seek and consider recommendations, if any, made by the technical evaluation panel in making replacement plan decisions. (D) Decisions made under this ordinance may be appealed to the City's designated Technical Evaluation Panel. Staff costs to the City associated with the appeal shall be borne by the Applicant. (E) Decisions made under this ordinance may also be appealed to the Board of Water and Soil Resources under Minnesota Rules 8420.0250, after administrative appeal rights under the official controls have been exhausted. 10-9-10 EXEMPTIONS Activities exempted by Minnesota Rules 8420.0120 shall be exempted from the provisions of this article. However, certificates of exemption must be obtained from the City prior to starting work. 10-9-11 VARIANCES Variances from the requirements of this article may be granted in accordance with the variance provisions of this chapter as regulated by Article 10-86 of this Code, so long as the variances do not violate the Wetland Conservation Act or its Rules. 10-9-12 PREVIOUS ORDINANCE. 18 Chapter 9 of the Farmington City Code is amended by deleting Sections 10-9-1 through 10-9-10 in their entirety. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this City of Farmington. of , 1997 by the City Council of the 19 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /Oel FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ Robin Roland, Finance Director TO: SUBJECT: 1998 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report DATE: June 7, 1999 INTRODUCTION The independent audit of the December 31, 1998 financial records was completed on March 31, 1999. Subsequently, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report has been issued and the City's auditors, Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. have issued their opinion on that report. In addition, they have provided a Management Report on the City of Farmington for year end 1998. Both documents are included with this memo. DISCUSSION On March 1, 1999, a preliminary review of the City's General Fund for 12/31/98 was presented. Final audited numbers indicate an increase of $273,060; bringing the fund balance total to $737,541. As noted in the auditor's management letter, this represents 20% of the annual expenditures of the City with a preferred target of 25% to 40% of annual expenditures. In 1998, actual General Fund revenues exceeded budgeted revenues by $38,733 and actual expenditures were $8,772 more than budgeted. The difference in budgeted to actual expenditures is due to an accounting adjustment of $12,673 for compensated absences in the General Fund in response to a management suggestion made by the auditors after the 1997 audit. The Water Utility, Sewer Operations, Solid Waste and Liquor and Arena Funds all showed increases to their 1998 retained earnings. Solid revenues and expenses within budget in 1998 continued to give these funds a strong base for future operations. Although the Arena Fund showed an operating loss due to depreciation costs, contributed revenue in the form of grants and donations brought the fund back to a positive retained earnings status this year. ACTION REQUIRED For information only. Dave Hinnekamp from Kern, DeWenter, Viere will be present at the meeting to participate in the presentation and answer any questions Council may have. ~~/ Finance Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us I~ TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City AdministratorF-- FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: State Building Code Chapter 1306 - Review and Disposition DATE: June 7, 1999 INTRODUCTION This issue deals with the optional building code provision that was adopted by the City Council in 1996 dealing with fire protection system (sprinkler) systems. A City Council Workshop held on May 11, 1999 provided an opportunity for Council to carefully assess whether Chapter 1306 should be retained, amended, or repealed from the City Code. DISCUSSION The advantages and disadvantages of having this requirement in the City were addressed in Council memo dated April 19, 1999. All of these issues were discussed at the City Council workshop on May 11th which included the participation by Jon Nisja of the State Fire Marshal's Office. It was the consensus at this workshop that the Council had three options relative to this previously adopted optional building code provision which requires the installation of sprinkler systems in certain new, expanded, or remodeled commercial buildings containing 2000 square feet or more. These options include: 1) Retaining the current requirements; 2) Repealing the current requirements entirely; 3) Adopting 8a of Chapter 1306 which triggers the need for sprinkler systems at 5000 square feet rather than the current 2000 square feet. Option 1 - Retainin~ Chapter 1306 This is the preferred option of the Fire Department as expressed by Fire Chief Kuchera. It was discussed, and the City has received a letter from the Minnesota Fire Chiefs Association that Chapter 1306 is proposed to be re-written to allow more flexibility and choices at the local level as to the level of built-in fire protection needed in individual communities. According to the information received, it is anticipated that the revision of this Chapter would be completed in one year. If this option is chosen, the City would still need to address a number of code issues associated with sprinkling requirements that were listed in the April 19, 1999 staff report. ODtion 2 - Repealine Chapter 1306 This option would result in the City enforcing the more standard building code and fire code provisions as they pertain to commercial new construction as well as additions and remodeling. This is the option that a number of our neighboring cities have chosen including Lakeville, Apple Valley, Eagan, and Savage to name a few. While this option would require more interpretation and analysis on the part of Code Enforcement staff, it would allow for options or alternatives that are not currently available under Chapter 1306. Option 3 - AdoDtine: Chapter 1306 8a This option represents somewhat of a compromise between Options 1 and 2 in that it does not repeal this requirement altogether but rather raises the threshold to 5000 square feet before it would be triggered. This option was previously selected by the City of Rosemount. This would allow smaller addition and remodeling projects to take place without triggering the requirement for sprinkler system installations either in the addition or remodeled area or the remaining portion of the building. BUDGET IMP ACT None ACTION REOUESTED Approve one of the following: 1. Indicate a consensus to retain the current ordinance adopting Chapter 1306 2. Adopt the attached ordinance repealing Chapter 1306. 3. Adopt the attached ordinance adopting Chapter 1306 8a. Respect ~. submitt,~' ..~. ... _;>. . .7 // %". ... " c/'. ,.,-" :er ~ /// ~ c.-- ........ avid L. Olson Community Development Director cc: Fire Chief Ken Kuchera Richard Deeg, Fire Marshal CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. An Ordinance Amending the City Building Code Relating to the Adoption of the Minnesota State Building Code. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I: Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 2 of the Farmington City Code is hereby amended by adding (underlined) and deleting (~) as follows: 4-1-2: Adoption of Optional Provisions: The City adopts by reference the following appendices, standards and supplements referenced in the Minnesota State Building Code: A) Appendix 15 of the Uniform Building Code B) MiRResota Rale, 13Qe, Sfleeial Fire PreteetieR Systems with OfltieR g (GrElHfl 1\4, S, Elr F 0eel:lpaReies '.yitR 2QQQ er mere grass sE(aare feet. Enacted and ordained on the _ day of June, 1999. SEAL CITY OF FARMINGTON MAYOR ATTEST: CITY ADMINISTRATOR Approved as to form the _ day of ,1999. CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. An Ordinance Amending the City Building Code Relating to the Adoption of the Minnesota State Building Code. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I: Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 2 of the Farmington City Code is hereby amended by adding (underlined) and deleting (~) as follows: 4-1-2: Adoption of Optional Provisions: The City adopts by reference the following appendices, standards and supplements referenced in the Minnesota State Building Code: A) Appendix 15 of the Uniform Building Code B) Minnesota Rule, 1306, Special Fire Protection Systems with Option 8~ (Group M, S, or F occupancies with ;WOO 5000 or more gross square feet of floor area or three or more stories in heighh Enacted and ordained on the _ day of June, 1999. SEAL CITY OF FARMINGTON MAYOR ATTEST: CITY ADMINISTRATOR Approved as to form the _ day of ,1999. CITY ATTORNEY May 10, 1999 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City ofFannington 325 Oak St. Farmington, Mn 55024 Dear Council Members, I write to you to dispute the Deea.d M.T the r.ity'~ adoI"tion ofthe State Building Fire code 1306. Sprinkler systems required to help get people out of a building, and not allow the fire to spread to adjacent properties. Is it necessary on single and 2 story buildings in Farmington? While fire officials often state that "statistics show how lives are savecl," statistics from multistory, high occupancy models are applied to projects regardless of size and height. Small, single story additions do not take developments into the area of protection required for high rises. The State BuildiDg code 904.2.2 allows us to build our existing building without a sprinkler system. The code also allows us to provide a 4 hour separation that creates two buildings with our proposed addition. Under 1306 we are prevented from doing either without an expense. messy and terrible inconvenience to our existing tenants. This concern has put our addition plans on hold for the new Chinese Restaurant and adjoining retail space we had pJanned to build this spring. Does 1306 really protect the public any more than already allowed in 904.2.2? One and two story buildings, such as Farmington has, to me does not present the dangers that high rise properties do and which statistics have been based upon. I would argue that section 1306 only deters :future expansion and further development within Farmington. I would hope the City Council could amend or reverse it's current position with the adoption of Section 1306 from it's 1996 decision. Sincerely, Thomas B. Wartman Farmington City Center Vltl-r M'~' 'II~. ~T. - .Ol~ V'I"lr 'E(~ "DEPABTMEIT 1"11 ~ vr ~ ~ X ~n...;o.J "" ......,~ _:l~~ ~ ~......,~ ~ Established 1880 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 DATE: MAY 25, 1999 TO: JOHN ERAR, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN KUCHERA, FIRE CHIEF SUBJECT: MINNESOTA RULE 1306 - .SPECIAL FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS The workshop session May 11, 1999 included a presentation from Jon Nisja, Bureau Chief with the State Fire Marshals Office. His presentation included discussion on the merits, advantages, disadvantages and examples of utilizing early detection devices in place of sprinklers when hardships exist. In addition to the above, he shared with us that the Minnesota State Fire Chiefs Association (MSFCA), State Fire Marshals Division and State Bldg. Codes and Standards Division have formed a combined committee to rewrite this optional amendment. As requested by Council, I contacted the Chair of the MSFCA Code Committe, Steve Zaccard. I have attached the letter I recieved from him dated May 14, 1999. His letter indicates the new Rule 1306 to be available for adoption in about one year. Hopefully, this letter and the attached will answer the questions that developed on May 11, 1999 regarding how long a period of time are we looking at befoie revisions are developed. Don1t hesitate to contact me with any questions. R:::c~tted, ~ Kuchera, Fire Chief cc: Mayor & Council FFD Board of Directors Richard Deeg, Fire Marshal Jon Nisja, Bureau Chief, State Fire Marshals Office _Steve Zacc~rd, Chair, MSFCA Code Committe Nyle Zikmund, Legislative Committe ChaIr "",sldent DONALD LATCH. Chief Hastings Fire D"rartmllnt 15 West 51h St reet '1stlngs. MN 55033 Editor, Minnesota Fire Chief ANN WARUNG HC 86 Box 3600 Merrifield. MN 56465 Vi"" President ,'I:rr SWANSON. Chle! I)n',oI1 l nkrtfll nr.. nnf)nrtmAnt Ihult.. 01, nOk 1='1 Ilf1holll.ftkftA, MN f\:tl~01 Executive Secretary- Treasurer JAMES K. HElM 10983 So. Jackson Drive Solon Sr..lnlJ'. WI 54873 lnnn. 74~.OOII Chairman, Board of Directors JERRY ROSENDAHL, Chief Owalonna Fire Department 107 W. Main Slreet Owatonna. MN 55060 May 14, 1999 Fire Chief Ken Kuchera Fannington Fire Department 325 Oak St. Fannington, MN 55024 RE: Minnesota Rule 1306 - "Special Fire Protection Systems" Dear Chief Kuchera: The Code Committee of the Minnesota State Fire Chiefs Association will now be tasked to partner with the State Fire Marshal Division and the state Building Codes and Standards Division to rewrite this optional State Building Code amendment. I anticipate a new Rule 1306 to be available for local adoption in about one year. The Rule as it is written is subject to misinterpretation and misapplication. Also, it doesn't give municipalities enough flexibility and choice in determining what level of built-in fire protection they need so they can rely less on more expensive public fire protection. Our association initially introduced this measure as a bill to the 1999 Legislature. It soon became evident that the Legislature would rather we did this through the administrative rulemaking process. Our Code Committee represents a cross-section of fire chiefs, fire marshals, and building officials who will work hard with state officials to come up with a better rule that more communities will enact, and that fewer communities will want to repeal. Thank you. Sincerely, r....f..,J S~~ MSFCA Code Committee cc: Code Committee Members Nyle Zikmund, Legislative Committee Chair /e:Ja.., City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrat<Ji:lt, FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: Review of Chapter 1306 of the State Building Code / Special Fire Protection Systems DATE: April 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION The City Council adopted an ordinance in May of 1996 entitled Minnesota Rule 1306 which specifies requirements for the installation of special fire protection systems, (sprinkler systems) in new, or expanded buildings containing 2000 square feet or more of certain types of occupancy. The following discussion is an effort to summarize the effect or impact of enforcement of this ordinance. DISCUSSION The attached ordinance that was adopted in 1996 included adoption of revisions of the general Minnesota State Building Code and also included adoption of optional provisions included in Minnesota Rule (MR) 1306. MR 1306 Version 8 deals with Special Fire Protection Systems for Groups M, S, or F occupancies with 2,000 or more gross square feet (copy enclosed). A description of the M (Mercantile), S (Storage), and F (Factory) type occupancies is also included. According to one State Building Code official, the intent of this optional provision is to provide a means for communities with extended or prolonged fire response times to have buildings protected with on-site fire protection systems. The primary purpose of MR 1306 is to require that sprinkler systems be installed in new buildings, buildings with expanded floor area, and buildings which have changes in occupancy that are 2000 square feet or greater within the three occupancy categories listed above. The other aspect of this special optional provIsIon is that in the case of expanded buildings or a building in which the occupancy category is changed, it retroactively applies to the existing portion of the existing building that is not being changed. MR 1306 is intended to require existing buildings with M, S, and F occupancies to be retrofitted with automatic sprinkler systems. The counterpoint to this issue, however, is that this provision can act as a disincentive to building owners who desire to expand or upgrade their existing buildings because of the costs associated with retrofitting existing buildings with sprinkler systems. In the past year there have been several proposed projects in Farmington that were impacted by this requirement. To date, none of these proposed expansions have occurred. Staff conversations with building owners and developers suggest that MR 1306 is a significant cost consideration and one of a number of important factors to be considered in facility expansions and renovations. Staff has prepared a survey of other cities in the area to determine how many other cities have adopted this optional provision. A comparison of the requirements of Minnesota Rule 1306 and standard State Building Code and Fire Code requirements has also been completed (attached). Finally, Community Development, Administration, and Fire Department staff have met several times to discuss the issues associated with MR 1306. The following analysis cites the advantages and disadvantages ofMR 1306. Advantages . Theoretically the intent of MR 1306 would result in eXIstmg commercial and industrial buildings eventually having sprinkler systems installed. . MR 1306 should result in reduced property losses caused by fire in sprinklered buildings when extended fire response times are experienced. . Should decrease the potential fire loss of existing buildings that are expanded or enlarged, or changed in occupancy by requiring retrofitted sprinkler systems. . Defers or delays the need for a full-time Fire Department as the City continually expands. . Reduces the potential for loss of life or injury to occupants and Fire Department personnel when existing or expanded buildings are sprinklered. . Reduced Fire Insurance premiums for the Building Owner . Reduces the overall cost of fire protection. . Simplifies Building Code and Fire Code enforcement. Disadvantages . MR 1306 can act as a disincentive to purchase and/or invest in the redevelopment of existing buildings that result in changes in building occupancies and/or expansion of existing commercial and industrial buildings in the City when other neighboring communities do not have similar requirements. . MR 1306 could result in the developer or building owner choosing to construct a free standing building, alongside the existing building, to circumvent the requirement of having to retrofit the existing facility. This option is already being considered by building owner to avoid MR 1306 requirements. . Relative to the potential circumvention of MR 1306, is public policy served through the avoidance of the City Code objectives. . It can result in remodeling or change of occupancies taking place without obtaining the necessary permits because of the special sprinkler requirements that will be triggered as a result. . It eliminates the ability of the building owner to consider other options such as the installation of additional hydrants and fire lanes around the perimeter of the building or the installation of standpipes in certain portions of the building rather than sprinklers throughout the building. In some cases a building owner may choose to install sprinklers rather than some of these other options, however, currently there are no options to the building owner but to install sprinklers. Without MR 1306, building owners will be subject to the aforementioned options/requirements. . Finally, if buildings are not redeveloped resulting in changed occupancies or expanded because of the requirement to install sprinklers, they may possibly be allowed to deteriorate in condition and/or decline in value. In that instance, not only has the original objective of the ordinance not been met, but the economic base of the City may be negatively impacted and the individual buildings possibly become greater fire risks. BUDGET IMP ACT None ACTION REOUESTED If the Council wishes to have a more in-depth discussion of this issue, it is recommended that a Council Workshop be scheduled. Two possible dates that are recommended would be Tuesday, May 11, 1999 or Tuesday, May 25, 1999. Respectfully submitted, U :2:~ David L. Olson Community Development Director cc: Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief . CBAP"1'ER 13 06 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE SPECIAL FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS 1306.0100 SPECIAL FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS (OPTIONAL). ~':.:~~ ,"-." .~' 1306.0100 SPECIAL FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS (OPTIONAL). Subpart 1. General. This part authorizes optional provisions for the installation of on-premises fire suppression systems in new buildings, buildings increased in floor area, and buildings which have the occupancy classification changed. Subp. 2. Municipal option. The sprinkler system requirements~subpart 3 may be adopted with the selection of either item ~or item "8a" based on local fire suppression capabilities, but without further change by a municipality which has adopted the code. When adopted, the requirements are applicable throughout the municipality for new buildings, buildings increased in floor area, and buildings which will have the occupancy classification changed. Subp. 3. Requirements. Automatic sprinkler systems must be installed and maintained in operable condition in buildings in the occupancy classifications listed in items 1 through 11. For purposes of this chapter, area separation walls do not establish separate buildings. The square footage requirements stated in the following items establish the threshold where the provisions apply; in the case of mixed occupancies the threshold number of the most restrictive occupancy applies to the entire building, except for minor additions that do not increase the occupant load or significantly increase the fire load. 1. Group A-l occupancies. 2. Group A-2 occupancies with an occupant load of 300 or more. 3. Group A-2.1 occupancies. 4. Group A-3 occupancies with an accumulative occupant load of 300 or more. 5. Group S-3 service stations with 3,000 or more gross square feet of floor area, not including canopies. 6. Group S-3 parking garages with 5,000 or more gross square feet of floor area. 7. Group B offices and postsecondary classrooms with 8,500 or more gross feet of floor area or three or more stories in hei~t . ~ Group M mercantile, S storage, or F factory occupancies with 2,000 or more gross square feet of floor area or three or more stories in height. 8a. Group M mercantile, S storage, or F factory occupancies with 5,000 or more gross square feet of floor area or three or more stories in height. 9. Group E-l and E-2 occupancies with 8,500 or more gross ) 132 ~ square feet of floor area or two or more stories in height. 10. Group E-3 occupancies with an occupant load of 30 or more. 11. Group R-l apartment houses, hotels, and motels with 8,500 or more gross square feet of floor area or with dwelling units or guest rooms on three or more floors. Subp. 4. Standard. Automatic sprinkler systems must comply with the applicable standard referenced in UBe Section 904. When a public water supply is not available, an alternate on-site source of water supply which meets with the approval of the building official and fire chief shall be provided. Subp. 5. Substitute construction. The installation of an automatic sprinkler system as required by this chapter does not preclude the substitution of one-hour fire-resistive construction as permitted in UBe Section 508. SA: MS s 16B.6l HIST: 19 SR 1340 NOTE: This part is effective March 19. 1995. .33 e-.,. .~....-,.. .~._:..:Io. -:oi~ _0 ':~'_"'~~' ~~~. . .,~~.-; ..;....~ '.'~._ P!-f~.....~,,~~$."'''r~~J1't.r.~: i'Y.-"!"~:-'.7':':;;;;~';'" ..:...."":-':"~..:.:.:~:--."';. ~ :'~~:~~~~~~'t~~:. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmh.llfon.mn.us Minnesota Building Code Chapter 1306 Survey - Fire Protection Systems City Did You Adopt Chapter Version 8 or 8a? 1306? Lakeville No Rosemount Yes 8a Prior Lake Yes 8 Apple Valley No Chaska Yes 8 Eagan No Inver Grove Hts Yes 8 Mendota Heights Yes 8 Savage No F aribault No Vadnais Heights Proposed - Yes 8 (Council not approved) Farmington Yes 8 8 - Group M mercantile, S storage, or F factory occupancies with 2,000 or more square feet of floor area or three or more stories in height. 8a - Group M mercantile, S storage, or F factory occupancies with 5,000 or more square feet of floor area or three or more stories in height. Created on 03/02/99 2:00 PMI:\build\Chapter 1306 Survey. doc MN STATE FIRE MARSHAL Fax:612-215-0541 Apr 20 '99 16:50 P.Ol . MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Capitol Security Driver & Vehil;le Services Emergency Management! Emergency Response Commission te Fire rshal/ PI~_.lne Safety State Patrol Traffic Safety State Fire Marshal Division 444 Cedar Street, Suite 145, St. Paul. Minnesota 55101.5145 Phone: 651/215-0500 FAX: 651.215.0525 TrY: 651/282-6555 Internet: http://www.dps.stare.mn.us ~o;~o ~o-Jtq,~ ) ~~1'1 STATE BUIT..DING CODE - CHAPTER 1306 Specilu Fire Suppression Systems (Optional) 'v 1. What Does it Do?: . Lowers the threshold for sprinkler protection in new buildulgs and additions to existing buildings. II. Why was it Developed?: . It was originally developed for rapidly developing and re-developing suburban communities desiring a method to control their future fire loss and related costs. III. Why is it Necessary?: . The State Building Code (SBC) is a "mini-ma.x" code meaning that municipalities that adopt it are not allowed to change the requirements (i.e. cannot anlend it at a local level to make it more or less restrictive). . Chapter 1306 (formerly called "Appendix E") was originally developed by fire chiefs who desired additional controls over future fIre loss. TIus is accomplished by placing the burden for fire protection on the developing property owners (Le. sprinklering the property) as opposed to the taxpayers (build more fire stations, recruit and hire more firefighters, buy more expensive apparatus, etc.). IV. Advantages of Chapter 1306: . The municipality has greater control over future fIre protection costs. This is particularly crucial for rapidly developing (or 'touter ring") communities. . Prevents the erosion oftbe tax base - 60% of the businesses destroyed by fire do not rebuild on the same site. . Examples offue protection costs: · Fire depmiment costs, . Mtlnicipal infrastructure (especially water supplies for hydrants), · Insurance rates, . Business interruption. V. Disadvantages of Chapter 1306: . Some communities feel that the impact to existing businesses undergoing additions is negative, . Some developers object to cost (sprinklers cost $1.25 - $3.00/sq. ft. for new construction), . Some municipalities that have adopted have been accused of being "anti~ development" . EOLJAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER MN STRTE FIRE MRRSHRL Fax:612-215-0541 Rpr 20 '99 16:51 P.02 I. Does the Adoption of Chapter 1306 Mean That There is, Any thing Wrong with the Municipal Fire Department?: . Absolutely not! However, this is an argument that some detractors use who do not like Chapter 1306. The State Fire Marshal believes that fire departments that advocate Chapter 1306 are among the best and most progressive departments as they are attempting to be pro-active as opposed to being reactive. . Most fire departments are set up and equipped to handle fires in residential and small comnlercial occupancies. Fires in larger commercial, business and industrial occupancies are beyond their capability to fight from an offensive strategy. I 'I , . MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Capitol Security Driver & Vehicle Services Emergency Management! Emergency Response Commission State Fire Marshal! Pipeline Safety State Patrol Traffic Safety State Fire Marshal Division 444 Cedar Street, Suite 145, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-5145 Phone: 651/215-0500 FAX: 651.215.0525 TTY: 651/282-6555 Internet: http://www.dps.state.mn.us May 4, 1999 Mr. Richard Deeg Fire Marshal City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 RE: State Building Code - Chapter 1306 Dear Mr. Deeg, I am writing in response to your request for information concerning the adoption of the State Building Code - Chapter 1306 (Optional Fire Suppression Systems). I am sorry to hear that the City of Farmington is considering reducing or eliminating these provisions; in my personal and professional opinion, this is a step backwards in terms of fire and life safety. The State Fire Marshal Division does, however, recognize and respect that the delivery of fire service is a local issue. I am writing to relate some of the issues that I have been involved with regarding Chapter 1306. Many of my previous experiences have been similar, ifnot identical, to the issues you are experiencing in Farmington. HISTORYIBACKGROUND OF CHAPTER 1306: These provisions were originally developed in the early 1980s as a way to address fire protection concerns in rapidly developing outer-ring suburbs and redeveloping inner suburbs. The original intent was to reduce the thresholds of the State Building Code (SBC) that required automatic fire sprinkler systems. I have talked to the original author and drafter of these provisions, former Richfield Fire Chief Patrick Coughlin. The desire was to get fire sprinklers installed in buildings being newly constructed and those undergoing a major change or renovation. Over the years, the requirements have changed somewhat as the building code has expanded its sprinkler requirements. The primary intent of these provisions have not changed: to allow municipalities the control over the delivery of fire protection services in their jurisdiction. DELIVERY OF FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES: As you know, little, if any, state resources go toward the delivery of local fire protection services. Municipal fire protection is almost exclusively funded from property taxes. As such, the expense for firefighting operations are spread out over the entire municipality. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Richard Deeg May 4, 1999 page 2 Commercial, industrial, business and retail occupancies, however, pose a much greater risk and demand for firefighting services. These types of occupancies require additional firefighting equipment (such as aerial fire apparatus) and enhanced response capabilities (i.e. typically more firefighters) than would be needed to protect the typical single family home. When these types of occupancies do not assume the responsibility for protecting their properties, the risk, exposure and costs are spread out across the community at large. INDIRECT COSTS OF FIRE PROTECTION: In addition to the direct fire loss due to a fire incident involving larger, commercial-type structures, there are a number of indirect costs associated with fire and fire protection. We have already discussed the cost of fire service delivery by the fire department. When buildings are not sprinklered, there are greater municipal infrastructure costs. These are typically reflected in the need for larger water mains, greater fire flows, and increased emergency access road sizes. Buildings that are not sprinklered are used as deficiencies when calculating fire insurance rates for a community. Sprinklered buildings are excluded from these calculations. If multiple buildings are not sprinkler- protected, the fire insurance rate class may be adjusted. This results in all property owners paying higher insurance premiums. Although this would have relatively minor impact to a homeowner (probably less than $20.00 a year increase), it has a substantial impact on commercial fire rates. Commercial fire insurance rates are typically based on "x-amount" per $1,000 of property protected. The increase is then assessed against all insured properties in the community. BUSINESS INTERRUPTIONILOSS OF TAX BASE: In many commercial fires, the business interruption has greater impact than the actual fire damage. During clean up and restoration, the business may have to cease business operations and lay-off employees. These have direct and indirect fiscal impacts on other businesses and residents. Historically, 60% of the businesses that sustain a major fire never re-open on that site. Typically they rebuild elsewhere or cease business operations. This can have a major fiscal impact also through a loss of employees residing in the community and abandonedlblighted properties. Sprinklered businesses rarely sustain the types of major fire damage seen in businesses that are not sprinklered. Fires in sprinklered businesses have little, if any impact on the community. Fire loss in sprinklered properties is typically less than 10% of the fire damage in unsprinklered properties. CONSTRUCTIONIDEVELOPMENT COSTS: The installation of fire sprinkler systems can lessen the cost of construction and development. The State Building Codes allows buildings to be built of greater size when sprinklered. In addition, buildings can often reduce the fire-rating on the type of construction used. The state fire code allows for reduction in water main sizes and fire flows for sprinklered buildings. In addition, fire apparatus access roads can be minimized or eliminated. Typical sprinkler installation costs are approximately $1.50 - 2.50 per square foot. Being able to reduce fire- rated construction costs may save $5.00 - 10.00 per square foot. HOW COMMUNITIES CAN LESSEN THE IMP ACT OF CHAPTER 1306: There are a number of ways that communities are allowed to lessen the impact to the property owner. As with any fire or building code requirement, the code official is afforded a great deal of latitude in establishing time- frames for compliance. Sprinkler installations can be "phased-in" over time. In addition, the municipality is Mr. Richard Deeg May 4, 1999 page 3 allowed to pay for the cost of fire protection installation and assess the cost back to the property over years (see Minn. Stat. S 429.031, subd. 3). In addition, a municipality could consider granting a variance from the sprinkler requirements if the imposition of these requirements would pose a demonstrated hardship to the property. Variances would have to be considered on a "case-by-case" basis for each specific property; it would not be proper to issue a "blanket" variance for all businesses or situations. It is also believed that Tax-Increment Financing (TIF) moneys can be used to correct sub-standard conditions. COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS: Although a simple solution to the dilemma raised would be to repeal the adoption of Chapter 1306, this decision should be assessed carefully to determine the total impact on fire protection to the community. There are a number of metro-area communities that have adopted Chapter 1306 and do not seem to have major difficulties with it. Every community desires to attract new businesses and to minimize the cost of regulation on potentially new businesses. Community and economic development directors often appreciate the importance of attracting businesses that will be good corporate "citizens" and permanently maintain their place of business in the community without causing an excessive "drain" on municipal services. The imposition of fire protection provisions and the goals of community development are not mutually exclusive. I suggest or recommend that the City of Farmington consider some of the options outlined as alternatives to repealing the optional fire suppression ordinance. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. If you have any questions or need additional information, I can be contacted at (651) 215-0506. Sincerely, ~~ Jon Nisja, Bureau Chief Inspections and Code Development cc: Mr. Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us lib TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Authorizing a Public Facilities Planning Task Force DATE: June 7, 1999 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Council direction at the recent Council Goal-Setting Workshop, staff was directed to pursue the creation of a City Task Force to study and formulate recommendations to the City Council on the need for new public facilities. DISCUSSION In support of accomplishing this Council goal-setting objective, the following task force framework is presented to Council for review and action. Task Force Composition It was discussed that the membership of this Task Force should be large enough to provide for community involvement, but small enough to facilitate effective decision-making and productive outcomes. Representation is proposed as follows: · Citizen-at-Iarge (1) · Business Representative (1) . Council (1) . City Commissions (HRA -1, Planning -1, Parks and Recreation -1) . School District Board or Staff Representative (1) . City Administrator (1) . Ex-Officio staff members comprised of department directors from Community Development -1, Finance -1, Police -1, Fire -1, Parks and Recreation -1, Public Works-I. It is anticipated that Task Force members would select a Task Force Chair to guide and facilitate the discussions of the group. Ex-Officio members would contribute to the deliberations of the task force by providing requested information and supporting group discussions as appropriate. Scope of Task Force Review The scope of task force review is proposed to include an analysis of facility space needs and review of the following public facilities. . Central Maintenance Facility . Police Facility . Fire Satellite Station . Ballfield Complex . City Hall Offices Task Force Objectives It is proposed that the following objectives be placed under the authority of the Facilities Planning Task Force to support the development of a final advisory recommendation on public facilities to the City Council. . Review the Condition and Space Needs Requirements of existing facilities . Determine the need for new facilities based on operational data, deficiencies in existing facilities and community need factors . Review space need requirements for new facilities . Review and/or recommend proposed locations for new facilities . Recommend the construction prioritization of new facilities . Recommend the methodes) to financially underwrite the cost of new facilities . Develop a preliminary forecast on future (7+ years or more) public facility needs ACTION REQUESTED Council action is respectfully requested relative to: 1) Authorize the creation of the Task Force for the purpose of studying the need for new public facilities and generating an advisory recommendation to the City Council on facility needs. 2) Approve the composition of the Task Force and authorizing the solicitation/advertisement of members for appointment to the Facilities Planning Task Force. 3) Approve the Scope of Task Force Review as identified above. 4) Approve Task Force Objectives as identified above. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us Io?a.., TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrato~Jt David L. Olson Community Development Director FROM: SUBJECT: Review of Southern Dakota County Townships and Cities Composite Comprehensive Plan Update DATE: June?, 1999 INTRODUCTION The City recently received a final draft of the composite comprehensive plan update for 18 townships and cities in southern Dakota County. The following is a summary of staffs review of this proposed composite plan. DISCUSSION Attached is a review of the draft Composite Plan as prepared by Planning Coordinator, Lee Smick. While the plan has been prepared for 18 cities and townships in Southern Dakota County, the areas of greatest concern include the three townships of Castle Rock, Empire and Eureka. The following is a brief overview of the changes proposed for each of these three townships. Castle Rock The primary change for Castle Rock is the issue that was addressed by the City Council last year. This change involved the expansion of the commercial land use designation from TH 3 and Fountain Valley Golf Course approximately Y4 mile further south. This change was identified as a clarification by Castle Rock and was approved by the Met Council. This has resulted in the development of the Castle Rock Industrial Park. The majority of the remainder of the Township is proposed to remain designated as Agricultural with a permitted residential density of 1 unit per 40 acres. Eureka Township There are virtually no changes proposed for Eureka Township and the entire township is proposed to remain designated as Agriculture with a permitted density of 1 unit per 40 acres. It should be noted that the Met Council inadvertently identified approximately one half of the township in the Regional Blueprint as rural residential with a density of I residential unit per 10 acres. The Town Board opted not to incorporate this into their Comprehensive Plan Update. This action illustrated the Township's commitment to remain a primarily agricultural township and should be acknowledged. Empire Township Empire Township identifies an additional area of approximately 300 acres designated as a "Sewered Area." This area is primarily north and east of the existing Empire Glen. Empire Township is also one of four townships and cities that are preparing a more detailed plan for their township. This plan will hopefully address in greater detail the proposed expansion of their existing "Sewered Area." It should also be noted that forecasted household and population increases included in the Composite Plan do not include the increases that would result from this "Sewered Area" from developing at somewhere between 2-3 units per acre. This was apparently an oversight and will be modified in the Composite Plan. Empire Township has scheduled a public hearing on their more detailed Comprehensive Plan update for Tuesday, June 15, 1999. After the completion of this hearing, it is anticipated that the City will receive a copy of this more detailed plan and will have 60 days to comment. Staff will bring this information to the City Council once it is received. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED There are no significant changes proposed for Castle Rock or Eureka Townships. Since Empire Township will be submitting a more detailed plan later this month, it is recommended that comments regarding their proposed Comprehensive Plan be delayed until the City has had an opportunity to review the more detailed plan. However, it is recommended that this memo along with the attached memo from the Planning Coordinator be forwarded to the Secretary of the Dakota County Township Officers Association. R~#L~ ~~on Community Development Director cc: Judy Kimmes, Secretary, Dakota County Township Officers Association City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ct.farmlnuton.mn.us TO: Dave Olson, Community Development Director FROM: Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Review of the Southern Dakota County Townships and Cities Composite Comprehensive Plan Update DATE: May 26,1999 The following is a review of the Southern Dakota County Townships and Cities Composite Comprehensive Plan Update submitted by Resource Strategies Corporation on May 17, 1999: 1. A public hearing for this comprehensive plan update will be held on June 7, 1999. The City of Farmington received the draft on May 19, 1999. Per the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, all adjacent jurisdictions are allowed a 60-day review and comment period. Thus the Met Council will not be able to act on this plan until after the 60-day review and comment period has expired. 2. Fact: More extensive comprehensive plan updates are expected from the following jurisdictions: City of Coates, Empire Township, Nininger Township and the City of Vermillion. 3. Population and Household Projections: From 2000-2020, Empire Township shows a population increase of 90 people and 50 additional households, calculating a household size of 1.8. The household size is below the typical 2.8 persons per household criteria, however, the consulting firm that prepared the Composite Plan indicated that they are using the Met Council's population and household forecasts. The household size for Castle Rock Township is 0.9 persons per household adding 100 people and 90 households between 2000-2020. Eureka Township shows 1.5 persons per household, adding 150 people and 100 households in the same period. 4. Fact: The plan states that "residential development consists primarily of scattered rural residences on lots ranging from one to five acres in size." Smaller lots may be platted where sewer is available (Empire Township, City of Vermillion). Agricultural land allows densities not to exceed one unit per forty acres. 5. The site assessment criteria on page 8-9 discusses the process of identifying permanent agricultural lands by every section of land in the southern part of Dakota County. The higher the score, the stronger the case for preserving lands for permanent agricultural use in that section. Page 9 states that "other areas indicated as less likely for long term agricultural protection are located on the fringes of incorporated cities (Hastings, Farmington, Northfield, Lakeville), or have other non- agricultural/urban uses located in the section (parkland). Figure 2 identifies the permanent agriculture land identification process within every section of the southern Dakota County area. The land north of Empire Glen in Empire Township is classified as number 9 suggesting the need to preserve the acreage as a permanent agricultural use. However, in Figure 7 showing the 2020 Development Guide Plan, the plan illustrates this area as sewered. Figure 2 shows the Seed/Genstar annexation area with a criteria score of 5 and Figure 7 shows the area as agricultural with a density of 1 unit per 40 acres. The newly approved orderly annexation agreement should be reflected on this figure. Similarly, the area shown south of Farmington in the Castle Rock Township is identified with a criteria score of 7 in Figure 2, suggesting permanent agricultural uses, however, in Figure 7, this area is shown as rural residential providing a density of 1 unit per 10 acres. 6. On page 15, the plan states that to this point, no cities or townships in southern Dakota County have adopted a management program for onsite sewage treatment that includes notification and enforcement of inspection or pumping every three years, as required by MPCA Chapter 7080." A plan with the County to administer this program should be determined and an update to this comprehensive plan showing the resolution of this requirement should be sent to all adjacent jurisdictions to insure that this program will be implemented. 7. The City of Farmington is in agreement with CR 72 being turned-back to local jurisdictions as stated on page 41. The turn-back of CR 72 will be instituted from TH 3 to CR 81. 8. Table #2 and #4 show the following land use acreage changes: Land Use Existing Land Use Acres Proposed Land Use Acres Change in Acres Agricultural 206,196 199,691 -6,505 Residential 9,747.6 12,562 2,814.4 Comm./Ind. 586 540 -46 Public/Inst. 4,755 1,666 -3,089 Parks 3,055 3,511 456 Additional information is needed on the changes in acreage of each land use category in order to identify where these changes are taking place. Additional issues may come up with the submittal of a more detailed comprehensive plan update for Empire Township. Please let me know if you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /.3a- TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: State Trunk Highway 3 Median Issues - Update DATE: June 7, 1999 INTRODUCTION At the May 3, 1999 City Council meeting, the issue of motorists driving over the easterly median from the easterly frontage road north of Budget Mart to access Trunk Highway 3 was brought to staff for review. Since this is a safety issue, Council directed staff to contact MnDOT to inform them of the situation and request a resolution to the problem. DISCUSSION Staff has met with MnDOT regarding the median issues along State Trunk Highway 3. Representatives from MnDOT have indicated that, as a temporary measure, they are willing to install additional posts along the median to help prevent motorists from driving over the median. They anticipate accomplishing this work in the next two to three weeks. In addition, MnDOT has indicated a willingness to explore more permanent solutions to this problem. Any permanent solutions could be part of a more comprehensive plan for the frontage roads along Trunk Highway 3 in Farmington. Staff will be setting up a meeting with the various divisions at MnDOT to discuss the frontage road issues. After the initial meeting, staff will bring any proposed permanent solutions back to Council for further discussion. BUDGET IMPACT None at this time. ACTION REOUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, ~J11~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file