Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.01.99 Council Packet COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR March 1, 1999 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVEAGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Citizen Service Recognition 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (2/16/99) (Regular) b) Adopt Resolution - Gambling Premises Permit c) Adopt Resolution - Set Public Hearing Date - Downtown Streetscape d) Adopt Resolution - Set Public Hearing Date - Sliplining Project e) Authorize Grant Application - Public Works Department f) School and Conference Request - Fire Department g) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - 1999 Sealcoat Project 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICA TIONS a) 1999 Tax Capacity Rate - Final b) 1998 Fiscal Review c) 2000 Budget Financial Goals d) Adopt Ordinance - B-4 Zoning District e) Adopt Ordinance - Amending Zoning Definitions f) Adopt Ordinance - Rezone Property - 821 3rd Street g) Adopt Resolution - Amending the Comprehensive Plan - 821 3rd Street h) Capital Outlay Request - Department of Public Works 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update - Accept Policies b) Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Upgrade - Feasibility Report _2. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN Action Taken ?a COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR February 16, 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 Andrea Poehler, City Management Team 4. APPROVE A GENDA MOTION by Strachan, second by Cordes to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Coreen Hoeft, Congressman Luther's Office - Train Whistles Ms. Hoeft gave a presentation regarding train whistles. She cited the Swift Act which states train whistles must be sounded at crossings except where there is no significant risk to people. She gave examples of some supplemental safety devices which now exist. Council was informed that Union Pacific is not complying with St. Paul's whistle ban. Mr. Henry Iwerks inquired if the Council met with the railroad, was an agreement reached and why was the railroad not complying? Ms. Hoeft replied the City did not get the agreement it wanted. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Henry Iwerks, 1105 Sunnyside Drive, stated he did not want to embarrass anyone on the Council although it involves a Councilmember. Someone came to his door at noon on a Sunday, running for Council. The first question asked was, what do you think about the new City Administrator? And Mr. Iwerks asked is that an issue? And he said yes, it sure seems to be. Mr. Iwerks asked if it was coming from City Hall, and the candidate agreed. He stated Council needs to be careful of what they fall for and hear. He noted the last item on the agenda, and stated it was politics to place this item last. He said any corporation has rules or by-laws and these rules need to be followed. Regarding committees, he read in the last Farmington Update about the need to fill vacancies on the Council Minutes (Regular) February 16, 1999 Page 2 committees. He stated these members do not make policies, they make recommendations to Council. a) John Engrav - Stop Sign Concern At the February 1, 1999 Council Meeting, a request was made for a stop sign on Elm Street between Burger King and City Center. Staff sent a response to the citizen. 7. CONSENT AGENDA Item 7a) Council Minutes of February 1, 1999 were pulled to reflect Mayor Ristow had abstained from voting on approving the Minutes of January 19, 1999 as he was absent from that meeting. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to amend the February 1, 1999 Council Minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg to approve the consent Agenda as follows: b) Adopted ORDINANCE 099-422 amending City Code - Heritage Preservation Commission c) Adopted RESOLUTION R12-99 capital outlay purchase - Parks and Recreation Department d) Approved school and conference request - Fire Department e) Approved bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - County Road 72 Project The Council accepted the feasibility report for improvements to County Road 72 at the June 15, 1998 City Council meeting. The project has two parts; a reconstruction part and a new construction part. The reconstruction part encompasses the existing roadway from Trunk Highway 3 to the easterly Hospital property line. The proposed improvements for this section include reconstruction of the roadway, installation of storm sewer, installation of sanitary sewer and installation of water services. The new construction part is in the area of the existing gravel roadway located between the easterly Hospital property line and the easterly City limits. The proposed improvements include roadway construction along with storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main and related costs. Assessments to benefiting properties were discussed. Councilmember Strachan inquired as to if the trees along the bike path could be avoided. Staff will do everything they can to avoid the trees. A meeting will be held to address residents concerns. Councilmember Cordes asked if it is possible to eliminate the sidewalk and move the bike path to the South side of the road and just have one path? Staff replied that is an option. However, the hospital has residents that utilize the sidewalk. Staff is also trying to be consistent with East Farmington. Councilmember Cordes asked if the $1,050 SAC charge would be included in the assessments or an upfront charge. Staff replied it is a one time charge paid upfront. Mayor Ristow inquired as to hardship cases. Attorney Poehler replied Minnesota state law has provisions for hardship cases. Council Minutes (Regular) February 16, 1999 Page 3 Mr. Brad Bauer, 3273 213th Street, was concerned with road elevations. The road is higher than the foundation of the house with a ditch in between. He wanted to make sure the road did not drain toward the house. He was also concerned about the bike trails in the right of way. He wanted to know what is the right of way from the center of the road. Staff replied it is 33 feet from the center line of the road on the north side of the road. He also supported a sidewalk on the south side of the road. During the design phase, he would like to have good notice of neighborhood meetings. Staff replied they will meet with each individual property owner to make sure their needs are met during the design phase. Ms. Jill Franke, 3359 213th Street, stated progress will happen, but at the expense of the residents. The city is dealing with the contractor sufficing their needs. In her opinion the contractor should pay for the whole road, and the residents pay for the sewer hook up. She doesn't believe if she sells her house, she will get an extra $9,300. She was also concerned about the bike trail. If there is a sidewalk on the south side, why do we need a bike trail on the north side? She was also concerned about losing trees in the front yard. Councilmember Strachan asked if it was possible to put the bike trail adjacent to the road. Staff replied that would involve widening the road, which would involve more cost. Staff replied the benefit to the property has been determined by the appraiser. The Mayor replied the appraisals were done by Precision Appraisers. Ms. Elaine Schultz, 3403 213th Street, asked if the road would be turned over to the City and if the road work, sewer, and bike trail were being pushed by Bristol Square and East Farmington? Would the road be done with just the current residents and not including the new construction sites? Staff replied when a developer comes in, he will need to build a road for the development. At this time we have an opportunity for the county to turn the entire road back and pay for a portion of the costs. For several years the county has indicated a desire to turn the road over to the City. This road could stay as it is today. However, we have an opportunity to have county funds help us reconstruct the road. Ms. Schultz asked what is the purpose of the 3 manholes on the north side, which they were told they would hook up to. She stated Mr. Kaldunski had told residents these manholes were to hook up residents. Staff replied it appears there was an option, however no documentation is available saying the residents were promised this and it is difficult to address previous decisions. Ms. Schultz also stated this would not increase the value of her home by $9,300. She believes the sidewalk should be on the south side because the senior high rise people could use the sidewalk. The Mayor stated the $9,300 is not just for the road, it is also for the storm and sanitary sewer. The County is paying 55% of the road cost upfront. Ms. Schultz questioned the location of the bike trail on the north side. Staff replied the trail will run along the properties on the north side and cross the road, meeting with the proposed trail along the Prairie Waterway. Council Minutes (Regular) February 16, 1999 Page 4 Ms. Franke stated when an earlier survey was done, the houses were moved west to east. The current survey has moved everything east to west. She questioned the accuracy of the survey. The survey shows their house sits on the property line. Staff replied this is not a boundary survey. Mr. Henry Iwerks, 1105 Sunnyside Drive, stated it was implied that a certain appraiser was licensed. It is his understanding that all appraisers are licensed. There are three different types oflicenses. Was the appraiser used put out on bid? The Mayor replied the appraiser has been used in the past and he came in the lowest. Staff replied the appraiser has been used many times by the HRA and the City and is certified under state requirements. Mr. Bauer asked if the bike trail was included in the $9,300 assessment. Staff replied yes. He then asked if the width of the new road would be the same as it is now. Staff replied yes. He asked ifthe City will maintain the bike trail? Staff replied they will need to check with the Parks Department. MOTION by Strachan, second by Cordes to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Strachan felt this is a necessary project and we have a half a million dollars available from the County that will not be here forever. The project will never be cheaper. We need to find a way to work with the residents and Park and Recreation to have the sidewalk on the south side. Councilmember Soderberg also agreed the project is necessary. The County's participation is a strong motivation to move forward. The Mayor asked if the County was mandating the City to have the bike path? Staff replied no. Councilmember Cordes asked what is the time frame for reconstruction? Staff replied it depends on the actual amount of traffic. Possibly within five years. She then asked if this portion of the road were not completed, could the storm sewer be put in the portion being done by the developer? Staff replied that could be done. Councilmember Cordes was in favor of looking at eliminating the bike trail. The Mayor stated the project is listed in the County CIP. If the project does go away, we could end up with the same concerns as Ash Street. Once, it is gone, it is not an easy task to bring it back. If the City cannot show benefit, the City cannot charge more. At the completion of the project, there is an assessment hearing and at that time anyone can request a hearing contesting the assessment. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg to adopt RESOLUTION R13-99 ordering the project and authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications and specifying the bike trail as an alternate. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT a) City Towing Contract Award The City has advertised a Request for Proposals for towing services in compliance with statutory requirements. No complete proposals were submitted, so the RFP was re-advertised with a deadline of February 5, 1999. The City received three proposals. One proposal was submitted in full from Starr Auto. The rates reflect Council Minutes (Regular) February 16, 1999 Page 5 a 280% increase in fees. Council can either accept the bid from Starr Auto for a three year period or reject the bid and re-advertise. Councilmember Cordes stated when it was proposed to re-advertise, she specifically asked if a certain towing company would be able to obtain their conditional use permit. All indication was that they would have time to do it and the deadline was set. Starr Auto has met the requirements and Councilmember Cordes felt Council needed to approve them. Councilmember Strachan asked if there was an out clause as far as response time. Staff replied the contract has a 30-day out clause if performance proves unsatisfactory. MOTION by Cordes, second by Verch to approve the contract with Starr Auto and to notify Dakota County Towing of the City's intent to terminate the current contract. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 12. NEW BUSINESS This item was moved up to accommodate the audience. a) Defer Action on Personnel Appointment A memo was presented to Council formally requesting that Council defer personnel action on the re-appointment of Fire Chief Kuchera until March 1, 1999. In review of this matter with the City Attorney, Council will also need to consider performance data, disciplinary actions and other related personnel information in situations where a personnel recommendation is not forthcoming. In this specific situation, Administration is not prepared to provide Council with a recommendation until a formal review of Mr. Kuchera's personnel data is performed by Council. Councilmember Cordes read a statement she prepared. She suggested the Fire Chief and the Human Resources Coordinator work together to develop a job description and specific recommendations on any other mutual issues and expectations. Once developed, this would be forwarded to the City Administrator for comments and recommendations. After it is finalized, it would be forwarded to the City Council for a resolution of support. She recommended appointment be deferred until this is developed. Councilmember Strachan said any issues such as reporting and evaluations can be worked through. He would like to see this resolved in a positive way. Councilmember Soderberg received a number of phone calls, studied the City Code, researched state statutes, by-laws and had a discussion with the City Attorney. Until such time as he has evidence the Chief is not performing his duties, he will support him. The recommendation on March 1, 1999 could be positive or negative. He supports Councilmember Cordes' proposal. Councilmember Verch stated how long has the volunteer fire department been here and there is no job description for the Chief? He thought there would have been something. Councilmember Soderberg stated there are job descriptions scattered throughout the documents he researched. Councilmember Cordes' proposal is to put all of these into one item. She stated her theory is there have been some questions as to how the Fire Chiefs position intermingles with the City Administration. Her goal is to define not only how he operates as a Fire Chief relating to the Fire Department, but also how he operates as a department head and the policies and procedures that should be expected of the position. Councilmember Strachan would like to clearly define expectations Council Minutes (Regular) February 16, 1999 Page 6 of all involved, look at problems that existed before and how to address them so the Chief knows what is expected. Staff stated it would hope to have this completed by March 1, 1999. In terms of the deferment action, Council would still be provided with the confidential data in terms of the Administrative recommendation. The Mayor felt if Council approves Councilmember Cordes' recommendation, there is no need to review personnel data. Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief, stated hopefully preparing a job description will not eliminate the by-laws and constitution. Councilmember Cordes stated it is not her intent to change the Fire Department by-laws. It may require some amendments to the section pertaining to the Chiefs position. Chief Kuchera then asked if ratification ofthe position would follow? Council stated that is their understanding. He didn't feel this could be accomplished by March 1, 1999. Staff stated the recommendation could be deferred until the job description is completed. Chief Kuchera then inquired as to the executive session public hearing. He understood he has a right to request a public hearing. Attorney Poehler stated the session would be closed if the discussion involves confidential data. Staff stated the job description and recommendation would be in one meeting. Chief Kuchera asked how this will affect his right to a public hearing. If it still remains the City Administrator's recommendation that he not be re- instated, will he still be entitled to a public hearing. Attorney Poehler replied he can make that request at any time. Staff stated there is currently no recommendation being made at this time, only to defer the recommendation. Chief Kuchera stated the Fire Department supported him with a 29-7 vote of approval. He received a phone call on February 10, 1999 and was told by the City Administrator he would not be recommending his reappointment as Fire Chief. City Administrator Erar indicated he would not be supporting the recommendation for this meeting. Chief Kuchera asked if he would be provided copies of documentation given to Council. The Mayor replied he would. Councilmember Cordes stated she feels her recommendation will work and at this point she is not interested in receiving any personal data pertaining to the Fire Chiefs position. Councilmember Strachan stated he wants a way to balance the concerns of all involved and does not want to see any personnel data until the job description is completed. Mark Fischbach, 5348 182nd Street, asked if there is room in the procedure for Council interaction? There are a lot of sensitive issues brought to the Board of Directors by the fire fighters that they feel are important and need answers from the people that they elect. Councilmember Strachan suggested those are things that need to be discussed between the Fire Chief and the Human Resources Coordinator. Councilmember Cordes stated there are avenues he can approach the Council. Mr. Fischbach stated that is why they are here now. Fire fighters have been notified everything has to go through the City Administrator's office to communicate with Council. Councilmember Strachan stated it does, as Council holds the City Administrator responsible. Council Minutes (Regular) February 16, 1999 Page 7 Mr. Henry Iwerks, 1105 Sunnyside Drive, stated he received a copy of the by- laws. He was surprised Council is talking about ajob description. He felt ajob description is already in the by-laws. Councilmember Soderberg stated this is also listed in the constitution and the City Code. The purpose of the job description is to get these items into one document. Mr. Iwerks noted the by-laws were adopted on December 14, 1998 and approved by the Council on December 21, 1998. He doesn't understand how the City Administrator enters into this. Councilmember Soderberg stated the Fire Chief is a department head and reports to the City Administrator. There has been some friction and the purpose is to resolve this. Attorney Poehler stated the by-laws serve a specific function which is the interworkings of the Fire Department. There are different layers of rules that apply to the Fire Department. One is the by-laws. Above that is the City Code and the City Code provides for the interworkings between the Fire Department, the Administration and the Council. It is the City Code that requires the Fire Department must report to the City Administrator. Mr. Marv Wier, 808 3rd Street, he heard the question as to how the City Administrator fits in to the picture of making a recommendation. The function of the Administrator is to make recommendations to the Council. Ms. Michelle Kindseth, 3475 232nd Street, asked that when the job description is being developed, it be taken into account, not only does the Fire Chief represent the Fire Department to the City, but the Fire Chief also has to represent the fire fighters themselves. Mr. Ron Royce, 1206 Fairview Lane, stated there has been a recommendation from the Administrator not to accept Ken Kuchera's appointment. Where is the rights of the fire fighter? They voted for Ken Kuchera as Fire Chief. What happens to their recommendation? Councilmember Strachan stated Council is trying to balance management issues in the City with the fire fighters wishes. Mr. Joe Asher, 1700 W 220th Street, asked if Castle Rock should have input regarding the recommendation of Fire Chief as Castle Rock is also served by Farmington. Councilmember Strachan stated it is ultimately Farmington's Fire Chief. Mr. Tim Pietsch, 612 Centennial Drive, stated the Fire Department has a Board of Directors, they hold meetings, and make recommendations to the Chief. The Chief reports to the City Administrator. There may have been some disagreements in the past, that may not have been personal issues with the Chief, but came from the Board of Directors. Mr. Gordon Wichterman, asked if Council is postponing ratification of an election? Council replied yes. Are we ratifying an election or ratifying ajob Council Minutes (Regular) February 16, 1999 Page 8 10. . description? Councilmember Cordes stated Council is not ratifying anything. Council is proposing a recommendation. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to defer appointment of the Fire Chiefs position until such time as appropriate with the development of a job description stating specific recommendations on mutual issues and expectations. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to ratify appointment of Bob Curtis as Assistant Fire Chief and Troy Corrigan as Secretary/Treasurer. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Verch stated as Ken Kuchera was elected Fire Chief by the fire fighters, what difference does it make if we approve the appointment tonight or in three months? Administrator Erar stated the proposal by Councilmember Cordes will determine in great measure the final Administrative recommendation for ratifying final appointment of the Chief. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Lakeville Comprehensive Plan Review - Supplemental A meeting was held with Lakeville City staff on February 10, 1999 to discuss the proposed Lakeville 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Lakeville opposes an extension of CR 46 westward from County Road 5 into Scott County. They support the County Highway 42 Corridor Study recommendation that the possible location for the next principal arterial south of County Road 42 be either the 185th Street or County Road 70 corridor be studied in more detail. Farmington staff would agree with Lakeville's suggestion that the County move up the Central Area Corridor Study from 2000 to 1999 and the County should coordinate with both Lakeville and Farmington to determine the most appropriate east-west arterial roadway locations. These discussions would also have to include Empire Township and possibly Scott County. Lakeville proposes to realign 192nd Street with 195th Street to facilitate east/west traffic in the central area of Lakeville. Lakeville proposes the improvements ofI-35 and CSAH 70 interchange, bridge and frontage road. Staff recommended that the City submit a letter to the Metropolitan Council indicating that the City of Lakeville limit its wastewater flows to the Empire Plant to the levels contained in the Preferred Projected Flows as prepared by the Met Council and also to indicate that Farmington desires to work closely with Lakeville, Empire Township, and Dakota County to identify the most appropriate east-west transportation corridors that would extend through Farmington and to coordinate development with ISD 192. MOTION by Strachan (an employee of the City of Lakeville), second by Soderberg authorizing a letter to the Metropolitan Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) February 16, 1999 Page 9 b. Comprehensive Plan 2020 Update - Discussion The proposed 2020 Land Use Plan and Policy Statements were presented as discussion items with the City Council to determine the future land uses and policies to meet the visions of the City of Farmington. At the February 1, 1999 Council Meeting, several possible minor changes were discussed by the Council regarding the proposed plan. These possible changes included the location of an industrial land use designation in the northwest comer of the North East District on the west side of the CP rail line and the relocation of medium-density residential along Denmark Avenue and a possible commercial designation at the comer of Denmark Avenue and Ash Street on the Neilan property. The Planning Commission stated that any type of industrial use located next to a rail line would typically be heavy industrial and would not be compatible with the proposed location in the northwest comer of the North East District. The Planning Commission reviewed the recommendations concerning the Neilan property and agrees with the City Council to show medium-density residential along Denmark Avenue and low/medium-density residential on the west side of the property. Mrs. Neilan asked if this area is rezoned for townhouses? Staff replied the Land Use Plan does not change zoning. It will be brought to Council AprilS, 1999 for final adoption. c. Authorize Encumbrance 2000 A need has been identified to purchase two additional plow trucks in fiscal year 2000 and one additional vehicle in 2001. In addition, the need to properly plan for a proposed fire pumper in budget year 2000 suggests that this effort should begin in the later half of 1999 to develop vehicle and equipment specifications. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Verch to authorize a capital outlay encumbrance for fiscal year 2000 in the amount of $200,200. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Feasibility Report Addendum - Downtown Streetscaping A report was presented to Council regarding the neckout and City logo options for the Downtown Streetscape project. The addition of neckouts at the intersection of Oak and Third Street would expand the sidewalk in that area and provide an opportunity to create a downtown focal point. The installation of the City logo in the intersection is feasible from an engineering standpoint. Staff has concerns, however, regarding the maintenance that such a logo might require. MOTION by Verch, second by Soderberg to consider the neckout and City logo options as presented and direct staff to include these options in the Downtown Streetscape project. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) February 16, 1999 Page 10 b) Adopt Resolution - Downtown Sliplining Project Feasibility Report The project consists of rehabilitating the existing clay sewer pipes on Third Street between Spruce and Elm and on Oak Street between Second and Fourth. The total estimated project cost is $194,000. Under the City's Special Assessment policy, 35% of the costs of reconstruction of sanitary sewer is assessed to the benefiting properties and the City funds the remaining 65% of the costs. The benefiting properties' share of the total costs is $67,900. The City's share of the costs is $126,100 and would be funded through the Sanitary Sewer fund. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adopt RESOLUTION R14-99 accepting the feasibility report for this project. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE City Administrator Erar: Council has a copy of the Castle Rock Township response to schedule a meeting to discuss the Joint Powers Agreement and Feasibility Study. A Council Workshop was scheduled for March 9, 1999, with March 10, 1999 or March 23, 1999 as back-up dates. The City is within four weeks of receiving an approved franchise agreement for communications. Mayor Ristow: He received a letter from North Trail Elementary 1 st graders and will be visiting the school March 2, 1999. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to adjourn at 11 :20 p.m.. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, 7~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us lj TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~ FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Gambling Event Permit - St. Michaels Church DATE: March 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION St. Michael's Church is requesting a Gambling Event Permit for their annual spring fundraiser dinner to be held at the American Legion Club. DISCUSSION Per State Statute 349.166 and pertinent City Code, a Gambling Permit must be issued by the City for this type of event. An application has been received, along with the appropriate fees and their request to waive the 60 day waiting period. The City Attorney has reviewed the application and the attached resolution approving the request. BUDGET IMPACT Gambling fees are included in the revenue portion of the 1999 budget. ACTION ReQUESTED Approve the attached Resolution granting a Gambling Event Permit to St. Michael's Church at the American Legion, 10 North 8th Street, on Monday May 3, 1999, and waive the 60 clay waiting period. Respectfully submitted, cJ4UJ- ,~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager RESOLUTION NO. R_-99 APPROVING A MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR ST. MICHAEL'S CHURCH 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 1 st day of March 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, St. Michael's Church has submitted an ap~lication for a Gambling Event Permit to be conducted at the American Legion Club, 10 North 8t Street, for Council consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Farmington City Council that the Gambling Event Permit for St. Michael's Church to be conducted at the American Legion Club, 10 North 8th Street is hereby approved. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 1 st day of March 1999. Mayor Attested to the 1 st day of March 1999. SEAL City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us k TO: Mayor, Councihnembers, City Administrator M~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Set Public Hearing Date - Downtown Streetscape project DATE: March 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION The feasibility report for the Downtown Streetscape project has been accepted and pursuant to M.S. 429, a public hearing for the improvement needs to be scheduled. DISCUSSION The neighborhood meetings and appraisals for this project will be completed in March. The issues brought forward by the affected property owners and the results of the appraisal will be presented and addressed at the public hearing. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution setting the public hearing date for the Downtown Streetscape project for AprilS, 1999. Respectfully submitted, ?;;t>>1~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file RESOLUTION NO. -99 CALLING HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO 98-04, 98-05 DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE PROJECT 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 181 day of March, 1999 at 7 :00 P.M. The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution 119-98 a report has been made by the City's Engineer and was received by the Council on November 16,1998 ,with reference to the following improvement; Proiect No. 98-04 98-05 Description Downtown Sidewalk Improvements Downtown Decorative Lighting Location 3rd Street between Elm and Spruce Streets, Oak Streets between 2nd and 4th Streets and the sidewalk connection between 2nd and 3rd Streets. and; WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost effective, and feasible. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: I. The Council will consider the improvement of such streets, sidewalks and utilities in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $864,500. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 5th day of April, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:00 P.M. and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvements as required by law. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 18t day of March, 1999 Mayor Attested to the 18t Day of March, 1999. City Administrator/Clerk (SEAL) City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7d TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~ ~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Set Public Hearing Date - Downtown Sanitary Sewer Sliplining Project DATE: March 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION The feasibility report for the Downtown Sanitary Sewer Sliplining project has been accepted and pursuant to M.S. 429, a public hearing for the improvement needs to be scheduled. DISCUSSION The neighborhood meetings and appraisals for this project will be completed in March. The issues brought forward by the affected property owners and the results of the appraisal will be presented and addressed at the public hearing. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution setting the public hearing date for the Downtown Sanitary Sewer Sliplining project for April 5, 1999. Respectfully submitted, ~m~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file RESOLUTION NO. -99 CALLING HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 99-13 SLIPLINING OF DOWNTOWN SANITARY SEWERS 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 I st day of March, 1999 at 7 :00 P.M. The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution 14-99 a report has been made by the City's Consulting Engineer and was received by the Council on February 16, 1999, with reference to the following improvement; Proiect No. 99-13 Description Downtown Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Location Oak Street (from 2nd to 4th Street) Third Street (from Spruce to Elm Street) ;and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost effective, and feasible. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. The Council will consider the improvement of such utilities in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of$194,000. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 5th day of April, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:00 P.M. and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 1 st day of March, 1999 Mayor Attested to the 1st Day of March, 1999. City Administrator/Clerk (SEAL) City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /e. TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: SUBJECT: Authorize Grant Application - Prairie Waterway DATE: March 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources IS offering partnership grants for Natural Resource projects. DISCUSSION The Prairie Waterway is an excellent candidate for this grant. It is proposed that the City perform a prescribed bum of the Prairie Waterway area. A prescribed bum will help to remove the weeds and promote the growth of the native grasses and flowers that were seeded at the time of construction of the Prairie Waterway. This procedure would be considered a "habitat enhancement" and as such would be eligible for the DNR funds. If the City does indeed move forward with this project, the public will be informed of the process and its benefits. In addition, it is proposed that educational signage provided by the DNR be installed at various points along the trail within the Prairie Waterway system. The application deadline for this grant is March 31, 1999. BUDGET IMPACT The grant is in the form of matching funds. It is estimated that the proposed work and signage would cost approximately $5000. The DNR would participate in $2500 of the cost and the City would need to fund the remaining $2500 through the storm sewer fund and/or in kind services. ACTION REOUESTED Authorize staff by motion to apply for the DNR Natural Resource project grant. Respectfully submitted, ~m~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road 51. Paul. Minnesota 55] 55-40~O Matching Grants for Natural Resource Projects November 1998 Your regional Department of Natural Resources office is now accepting applications for the Conservation Partners and the Environmental Partnerships grant programs. Both programs provide matching grants to private organizations, school districts, and local governments to improve our natural resources. This package has all of the materials you need to apply for a grant. We have enclosed an application form and more information about the programs including a list of example projects. You .are welcome to call the Department of Natural Resources grant coordinator in your area and discuss your application. You will find their names and phone numbers on the back of the application form You are also invited to one of our grant information meetings in January 1999. A schedule showing locations and times is enclosed. Since 1996, we have awarded 222 grants throughout the state using $1.5 million appropriated by the Legislature. These programs are not funded at this time, but additional funding may be approved by the Legislature in the upcoming session. Beginning the application process now provides more time to complete your project if additional funding is approved. The Legislature will also consider recommendations to increase the maximum grant amounts from $10,000 to $20,000. Applications will be accepted for the larger grant amounts with the understanding that if the grant limits are not raised projects will need to be adjusted. The application deadline is March 31, 1999 DNR Information: 612-296-6157. 1-800-766-6000 . TrY: 612-296-5484. 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opponuniry Employer Who Values Diversity ft Prinred on Recycled Paper Con raining a '- ~ Minimum of 10% Posl-Consumer Waste Conservation Partners Grant Program Information Sheet - 1999 Application Cycle Program purpose How it works Eligible applicants Eligible projects Grant amount Local match Grant awards Project period To Apply Information October 26. 1998 To encourage the enhancement of fish, wildlife, and native plant habitats and research and surveys of fish and wildlife directly related to specific habitat improvement projects through cooperation by private organizations and local governments. Provides grants to private organizations and local units of government for up to 50% of the cost of enhancing or improving fish, wildlife, and native plant habitats, and conducting research and surveys of fish and v.ildlife. Private organizations, counties, cities, townships, and school districts. Eligible projects fall into two categories: 1) Habitat Enhancement, and 2) Research/Surveys. Habitat Enhancement projects include but are not limited to: restoration of natural plant communities; reforestation; protection of wetlands; establishing native plant buffer strips along streams and lakes; protection of water quality; and abatement of soil erosion. Research/Survey projects include but are not limited to: monitoring environmental indicators; surveying plant and animal populations; evaluating enhancement projects; and researching methods to conserve or enhance fish, wildlife and native plant habitat. These research/survey projects must be directly related to specific habitat improvement projects. A maximum of 50% of the total eligible project costs not to exceed a maximum grant of $10,000 per project. The :MN Legislature may increase the maximum grant to $20,000. Applications requesting up to $20,000 will be conditionally accepted. The minimum grant amount is $1,000. Costs must be incurred and paid for before reimbursement can be made. Applicants must be able to fund at least 50% of the total project through non-state contributions of cash, materials, or in-kind services. The Department of Natural Resources will review and rank proposals during the summer of 1999. Grant awards will be announced in the fall of 1999. Funded projects must begin promptly after an agreement between the State and the applicant has been signed. The project must be completed by December 31, 2001. Completed applications are due ~y March 31, 1999 to be eligible for this ftmding cycle. To receive an application or for more information, contact the regional DNR grant manager for your area shown on the back of this page. WEB SITE: www.dnr.state.mn.us l:\PLN\OR\APPrNFO\CPF ACT.WPD . 7-F City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: FROM: SUBJECT: School and Conference - Fire Department DATE: March 1,1999 INTRODUCTION The Fire Department is planning the attendance of volunteer fire fighters at the Minnesota State Fire Schools in St. Cloud and Duluth on March 20-21, 1999 and March 27-28, 1999. DISCUSSION Attendees for the Minnesota State Fire School in St. Cloud are Jeff Jacobson and Gary Lawrence. The course topic is Water Supply - Rural. Those attending the Duluth school include: Brad Parker, Todd Kindseth, Troy Corrigan, Terry Verch and Bob Ellingsworth. Courses to be taken include: Managing Comp Tactical Operations - Decision On Scene Fire Investigation - ARFF Site Fire Cause DeterminationlInvestigation Leadership I - Strategy for Company Success BUDGET IMPACT Cost including travel, registration, room and meals is $400 for the St. Cloud School and $1 ~230 for the Duluth School. Funding for this training is provided in the 1999 Budget. ACTION REOUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, I~ K~_p-- Ken Kuchera Fire Chief ~CL 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 ~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: SUBJECT: 1999 Seal Coat Project Hearing DATE: March 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION At the February 1, 1999 City Council meeting, the Council accepted the feasibility report and scheduled a public hearing for March 1, 1999, on the 1999 Seal Coat project. DISCUSSION The 1999 Seal Coat project is the sixth phase in the 7-year cycle seal coat program established by the City of Farmington in 1994. Streets in Deer Meadows 1 st Addition and Deer Meadows 2nd Addition will all be seal coated for the first time with this year's project. Dakota County Estates 1 st Addition and several downtown streets and parking lots have not been seal coated in over seven years and are proposed to be included in the project this year (see attached map in report). The downtown areas include: Oak Street between Division and 2nd Street, Spruce Street between Denmark/CSAH 31 and 2nd Street, Walnut Street between Division and 5th Street, Locust Street west of 3rd Street, Maple Street between 1st and 4th, Beech Street between 2nd and 3rd, Hickory Street between 2nd and 3rd, Division Street south of CSAH SO/Elm Street, 1st Street north of Ash Street/CR. 74, Honeysuckle Lane, 2nd Street between Ash Street/CR. 74 and Walnut, 3rd Street between Ash Street/CR. 74 and Walnut, and 4th Street between Maple and Walnut. The parking lots include the Rambling River ball fields parking lot off of Denmark, the Ice Arena parking lot and the Fire Station parking lot. BUDGET IMPACT The 1999 Seal Coat Project is included in the 1999 Capital Improvement Plan. Several streets in the project area have already been assessed seal coating costs through their respective development contracts. The property owners benefiting from the improvements to the remaining streets would be assessed for the project costs pursuant to Minnesota Statute 429 and the City's Special Assessment Policy. The remainder of the costs would be funded through the Road and Bridge Fund. The total estimated project cost for the 1999 Seal Coat project is $81,000. The Council indicated at the time of the presentation of the feasibility report their intent to assess the benefiting property owners 50% of the project costs (not to exceed $60.48 per residential unit) as is consistent with the City's Special Assessment Policy. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution ordering the project, approving the plans and specifications and authorizing the advertisement for bids. Respectfully submitted, ';t: m ~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R -99 ORDERING PROJECT, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS PROJECT 99-12,1999 SEAL COAT PROJECT 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 I st day of March 1999 at 7:00 P.M. The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 1st day of February 1999, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed 1999 Seal Coat Project. WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks' published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 1st day of March 1999, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, 1. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution adopted the 1st day of February 1999. 3. Plans and specifications prepared by Lee M. Mann, P .E., engineer for such improvement, are hereby approved and shall be filed with the City Clerk. 4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the Farmington Independent and the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for two weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be opened for consideration by the Council at 2:00 PM on the 1st day of April 1999 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the Clerk for 5% of the amount of each bid. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the I st day of March 1999. Mayor Attested to the day of ,1999. SEAL City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us I~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator (;ji FROM: Robin Roland, Finance Director SUBJECT: 1999 Tax Capacity Rate - Final DATE: March 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION Dakota County has finalized the City of Farmington's tax capacity rate for 1999. DISCUSSION At the Truth in Taxation hearing on December 1, 1998, staff presented the 1999 Tax Levy information and advised Council that the Tax Capacity Rate for 1999, based on the most current information from the County at that time, would be 32.6%. As we have discussed previously, the County's numbers do fluctuate and we must wait until after their numbers are finalized at year end to know the true tax rate. In the course of reviewing the County's year end reports, staff determined that a Tax Increment Financing District had been omitted from all previous County estimates of 1999 Tax Capacity Value. As this valuation is part of the formula used to determine the tax rate, the omission had significant ramifications. When the County was informed of their omission, they corrected it immediately and issued a "Revised Final" Tax Capacity Rate of 33.06%. The revised rate is still a reduction of half a percentage point from the 1998 tax capacity rate of 33.6%. Staff has spoken at length with the County Assessors Office, to express our displeasure with this oversight and to determine ways for both the City and the County to prevent its occurrence in the future. BUDGET IMPACT The City's Tax Levy amount has not changed and therefore, revenues will be received in accordance with the 1999 Adopted Budget. ACTION REQUIRED For Council's information. RespectfUIIYS#J ~ Finance Director City of Farmington. Minnesota Property Tax Levy General Fund Levy Certified 1997 1,072,754 Certified 1998 1 , 111,008 1999 Adopted 1,141,465 Debt Service Funds Supplemental Levy 42,608 105,509 Against City Property 361,696 361,239 349,491 Equipment Certificates 150,455 146,153 95,000 *Total Debt Service 512,151 550,000 550,000 Capital Project Levy Fire Levy 45,000 45,000 50,000 Total Capital Projects Total City Levy 1,629,905 1,706,008 1,741,465 HRA Levy TOTAL LEVY 1,629,905 1,706,008 1,741,465 Tax Capacity Rate 34.903% 33.640% 33.066% **Adjusted Tax Capacity Value $ 4,669,808 $ 5,071,397 $ 5,266,619 *1999 Debt Service Levy is based on City's Debt Management Study. ** Adjusted Value determined by deducting Fiscal Disparities and Tax Increment estimates. Determination of Proposed 1999 Tax Capacity Rate Fiscal Disparities Dist. (1) $ 1,169,673 X 1998 Tax Capacity Rate of equals $ 393,476 in Fiscal Disparities Distribution the City of Farmington will recieve in 1999 33.640% Farmington requested levy for 1999 is 1999 2,529,924 1998 2,496,208 $ 1997 2,351,293 Minus Fiscal Disparties Distribution 393,478 395,272 $ 329,393 Minus HACA\LPA Credit 394,981 394,928 $ 391,995 Minus Equalization Aid $ Equals Levy to Collect (2) $ 1,741,465 $ 1,706,008 $ 1,629,905 (3) 6,376,496 6,073,948 $ 5,535,693 (4) 364,356 359,203 326,102 (5) 745,521 643,348 539,783 $ 5,266,619 $ 5,071,397 $ 4,669,808 1,741,465 (adj. Levy) divided by $ 5,266,619 $ 5,071,397 33.0661 % 33.640% 34.903% 1999 Net Tax Capacity Value Less Local contribution to Fiscal Disparities Less Amount to Tax Increment Amount used to determine Tax Capacity Rate 1998 Tax Capacity Rate will then be (adj. tax capacity value) equals: (1)According to County Property Tax Division. (2)State mandated Levy Limit $2,522,919. (3) Estimated 1999 GTCV as of Dakota County November 1, 1998 . (4) According to Dakota County November 1, 1998. (5) According to Dakota County November 1, 1998. REVISED2I23/99 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 101; TO: FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ Robin Roland, Finance Director SUBJECT: 1998 Preliminary Fiscal Review DATE: March 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION Preliminary review of 1998 General Fund Revenues and Expenditures has been completed. A copy of the Budget to Actual comparison is attached to this memo. 1997 audited figures are included to give the City Council a basis for comparison. DISCUSSION In November of 1998, the City Council adopted a resolution revising the 1998 Budget to more accurately reflect the expected revenues and expenditures. These budget numbers are reflected in the attached comparison. Council should note that these numbers are preliminary and subject to independent audit. Revenues for 1998 exceeded budget by $40,277, due to sources which were not included in the revised budget of November. These sources included the balance of the 1997 CDBG funding for the Senior Center and ADA improvements to City Hall, additional interest earnings and fine revenues. Expenditures for 1998 were under budget by $17,454 or 0.5%. Due to allocation of resources between activities within a department, certain activity expenditures might be over budget while others might be under budget. Ultimately, however, total expenditures must be within approved budgetary guidelines. Variances from the revised budget include: unforeseen postage costs and increased legal fees for cable franchise agreement negotiations in the Administration department, additional overtime and professional services in the Police Department, costs of revising the comprehensive plan in the Community Development department (which are offset by matching additional grant revenues) and significantly reduced costs in Public Works due to the lack of snow to plow. BUDGET IMPACT This preliminary review indicates an increase to the General Fund Balance of $314,830 as compared to a budgeted increase of $257,099. This increase will bring our Fund Balance to 20% of our Operating Expenditures for the coming year. This represents a significant increase from prior years and is consistent with Council guidelines of improving the level of General Fund reserves. ACTION REQUIRED For Council's information. Respectfully submitted, ~P/~ Robin Roland Finance Director CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1998 These numbers are preliminary and unaudited. 1!:I!II:!II!II:!!!I'III!II:IIIIIIIIII::':i!!!I!:llli'l11!1"::.ill.::.llllill:I':":~::~::::.:::::::::.i!!i!iii!.::....:li:.. :::::)::::::)):::::::::::~:::m::~:~~~~~~)tt~f\m:m:"~I))::::)::::):::m:::::::::m:m:m:::m::::::):::m:\:~: .................... ..... ..... .........................................1111(..................... .'. .'. ......................................... ......................................... ....................................... ~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:;:;:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:;:;:~:~:;:;:;:~:;:;:;:~:~:}~:r::. .:. . . . ..; ..::~:~:~:~:;:;:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:;:~:~:~:~:r~:~:~:~:~;~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~;~:~:~:~: :mmmeuQS!9.t:m:: :m::)))?f:Tli:f::::::~:::~:::r~:::y.ARt4J~..J;t~~ .........su.O$.~nr... ...............MtOr................ ....VAm.ANClf. ..... . .............. ............. . .. ..... ... . ................ ... ............... ..... ;:;:;:;:;:......:...:...:........:.::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;::.:::.::.:',.;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::;::.:........:..:..:......:..:...::;: REVENUES Property Taxes $ 1,553,130 $ 1,536,668 $ (16,462) $ 1,447,147 $ 1,446,427 $ (720) Licenses/Permits 669,215 661 ,465 (7,750) 583,835 545,696 (38,139) Fines 40,000 45,253 5,253 50,000 54,618 4,618 Intergovernment Revenue 1,097,075 1,115,138 18,063 900,664 928,781 28,117 Charges for Service 234,896 216,362 (18,534) 381,566 327,527 (54,039) Interest 20,000 39,659 19,659 20,000 21,025 1,025 Miscellaneous 49,000 89,048 40,048 50,790 121,880 71,090 Transfers 236,000 236,000 - 99,603 105,136 5,533 Total Revenues 3,899,316 3,939,593 40,277 3,533,605 3,551,090 17 ,485 EXPENDITURES Administration 469,706 475,538 5,832 460,465 444,745 (15,720) Finance 274,930 274,778 ( 152) 275,208 269,032 (6,176) Community Development 327,602 345,648 18,046 274,658 279,885 5,227 Police 924,913 934,001 9,088 840,258 874,251 33,993 Fire 281,531 275,338 (6,193) 208,939 206,035 (2,904) Public Works 689,980 656,807 (33,173) 666,153 655,139 (11,014) Parks & Recreation 659,555 648,653 (10,902) 757,768 710,960 (46,808) Subtotal 3,628,217 3,610,763 (17,454) 3,483,449 3,440,047 (43,402) Transfer - Fire Relief 45,000 45,000 - Transfer - Arena Operations 14,000 14,000 - - Total Expenditures 3,642,217 3,624,763 (17,454) 3,528,449 3,485,047 (43,402) Excess of Revenues over (under) Expenditures 257,099 314,830 57,731 5,156 66,043 60,887 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /Oc, TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: 2000 Budget Financial Goals DATE: March 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION At the beginning of each fiscal year, Council reviews and adopts budget goals that will be used by staff to develop a balanced budget document for the following fiscal year. DISCUSSION The City's budgeting process and accounting format was developed in 1996 to enhance the City' s underlying financial reporting capabilities and budgetary control systems. A brief review of the budgeting process is described below. . Primary department activities and functions are accounted for and budgeted within separate cost centers. Accordingly, all costs such as personnel, charges and services, supplies, and capital outlay associated with a primary department service activity are budgeted within a specific "Cost Center" . This allows for greater reporting detail; a better understanding of what the activity actually does; the ability to perform cost/benefit analyses; and allows for independent review of what a specific city function or activity actually costs the City to operate. . The budgeting process actively includes department heads, line supervisors and activity managers in developing and preparing their specific budget requests. Accordingly, this also means greater participation by involved supervisory staff, enhanced understanding of budget requests and direct accountability in fiscal expenditures by City departments. Moreover, this process empowers employees in the budgeting process, allows staff to share their insights into how work processes can be performed more efficiently and cost effectively, and holds staff accountable for budgetary expenditures and meeting work activity goals. . The level of analysis and budget detail in this budgeting system is based on specific department activities using workloads and performance measures as key indicators of what is accomplished throughout the calendar year. . The administrator and department heads review budget requests using a "management team" process. Supervisors and activity managers designated by their department head present their individual budget requests to the management team for review. At this stage, all department requests are considered, reviewed, and prioritized by the management team to achieve a balanced budget document for presentation to Council. . Finally, the Council will be presented with a proposed, balanced budget document. This proposed, balanced budget will be submitted to Council for review, modification and adoption. Mayor and Councilmembers 2000 Budget Financial Goals Page 2 This budget process has provided the City with a more sophisticated, intelligible and accountable financial document. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) national budget award recognizing excellence in fiscal reporting recently underscored the success this budgeting approach has had on effectively managing City finances. Proposed 2000 Budget Financial Goals The following guidelines are proposed for Council consideration and adoption. These guidelines will establish the budgetary framework that staff will observe in developing the 2000 Budget. 1) A commitment to maintain the local tax capacity rate at the same level as in the previous fiscal year, while providing for the cost-effective delivery of public services to a rapidly growing residential population. 2) A fiscal goal that works toward establishing the General Fund fund balance for working capital at no less than 25% of planned 2000 General Fund expenditures. 3) A commitment to maintain the 2000 debt levy at no more than 25% of the total levy. 4) A comprehensive review of the condition of capital equipment to ensure that the most cost-effective replacement schedule is followed. 5) A team approach that encourages strategic planning to meet immediate and long-term operational, infrastructure and facility needs. 6) A management philosophy that actively supports the implementation of Council policies and goals, and recognizes the need to be responsive to changing community conditions/concerns. ACTION REQUESTED Council adoption of 2000 Financial Goals as presented. Respectfully s~bmitted, hn F. Erar City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 100/ TO: Mayor and Council Members, City Administrator (}p Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator v4~ FROM: SUBJECT: Amend Section 10-2-3, 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 of the Farmington City Code- B-4 Neighborhood Business District DATE: March 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION The B-4 Neighborhood Business District is being presented as an additional zoning district to the Zoning Code. The new district is intended to provide a setting for low and medium-density housing combined with complementary and supporting business land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. DISCUSSION On February 9, 1999, the Planning Commission approved the amendment to Section 10-2-3, 10- 3-1 and 10-3-2 of the Farmington City Code to provide a new zoning district titled B-4 - Neighborhood Business. The amendment includes a purpose statement in Section 10-2-3 of the Code for the B-4 District and proposes permitted and conditional uses in Sections 10-3-1 and 10- 3-2. The proposed amendments were presented to the City Council on January 19, 1999 in order to receive feedback concerning the drafting of the new zoning district titled B-4 Neighborhood Business. The main purpose of the district is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that provide a variety of housing choices, that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community. Any new development within this district shall be arranged to form part of an individual neighborhood. The Neighborhood Business District may be located within the core of a neighborhood with adequate access to the business center or on the periphery of residential neighborhoods along collector streets or streets of a higher classification. At the January 19, 1999 City Council meeting, the Council commented on two items including the size of delivery trucks to the business properties within the neighborhood and recommended either relocating the neighborhood services from a permitted use to a conditional use or designating certain neighborhood services as conditional uses that are not as compatible as other services. At the Planning Commission meeting on February 9, 1999, the Commission and staff determined that it was more beneficial to the ordinance to restrict the type of truck rather than the size of the truck to serve businesses in this district. Staff had recommended the maximum size for a delivery truck to a business site in this district to be 23,000 gross vehicle weight. However, at the meeting it was determined that the type of truck to be allowed in the district made the ordinance more easily understandable. Therefore, the Planning Commission and City staff recommends that only "straight trucks" are allowed within the B-4 district and no jointed trucks or semi-tractor trailer trucks be allowed because of their excessive size. Secondly, the Planning Commission understands the concerns of the Council, however, the Commission and staff have determined that the permitted neighborhood uses are compatible with residential neighborhoods. By designating the permitted uses as conditional uses, every new business that falls in this category would need a conditional use permit, causing delays for potential business owners. Therefore, the Planning Commission and staff continue to recommend that neighborhood services remain as permitted uses. The attached ordinance includes a purpose statement in Section 10-2-3 of the Code for the B-4 District and proposes permitted and conditional uses in Sections 10-3-1 and 10-3-2. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the attached text amendment for adding the B-4 Zoning District to the Zoning Code. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the amendment of Section 10-2-3, 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 of the Farmington City Code to provide a new zoning district titled B-4 - Neighborhood Business. The amendment includes a purpose statement in Section 10-2-3 of the Code for the B-4 District and proposes permitted and conditional uses in Sections 10-3-1 and 10-3-2. SZ-~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. An Ordinance Amending Title 10 of the Farmington City Code, The Farmington Zoning Ordinance concerning the B-4 Neighborhood Business District and by including permitted and conditional uses for the B-4 Neighborhood Business District. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I: Title 10 shall be amended by adding (underlined) and deleting (~) as follows: 10-2-3: ZONING DISTRICTS, PURPOSE: B-4 Neighborhood Business District is intended to provide a setting for low and medium-density housing combined with complementary and supporting business land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. SECTION II: Section 10-3-1 is amended by adding (J) B-4 Neighborhood Business and by adding as a permitted use the following: 1. Personal & Professional Services (not exceeding 3,000 square feet of gross floor area) 2. Personal Health & Beauty Services (not exceeding 3,000 square feet of gross floor area) 3. Non-Profit/Public Buildings 4. Day Care Facilities 5. Residential Care Facility 6. Neighborhood Services (not to exceed 3,000 square feet in gross floor area) SECTION III: Section 10-3-1 is amended as follows: (J) (K) I-I Light Industrial District (K,) (M) C-l Conservation District SECTION IV: Section 10-3-2 is amended by adding (J) B-4 Neighborhood Business and by adding as a conditional use the following: 1. Personal & Professional Services (exceeding 3.000 square feet in gross floor area) 3. Restaurants (no drive-through services. limited to 3.000 square feet of gross floor area. no alcohol sales) 4. Funeral Homes S. Animal Clinics (No kenneling allowed) 6. Parking Lots 7. Multi-Familv Dwellings 8. Churches 9. Schools 10. Light Manufacturing and Assemblv (uses to utilize straight trucks only. no iointed or semi-tractor trailer trucks allowed) II. Clinics SECTION V: Section 10-3-2 is amended as follows: (J) (K) I-I Light Industrial District (&) (M) C-l Conservation District SECTION VI: After adoption, signing and attestation, this ordinance shall be published one time in the official newspaper of the City and shall be in effect on and after the day following such publication. Enacted and ordained on the _ day of March, 1999. SEAL CITY OF FARMINGTON MAYOR ATTEST: CITY ADMINISTRATOR Approved as to form the _ day of ,1998. CITY ATTORNEY Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,1998. 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 Lee Smick, AICP f\ 0 Planning Coordinator j)'-T FROM: SUBJECT: Amend Section 10-2-3, 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 ofthe Farmington City Code- B-4 Neighborhood Business District DATE: February 9, 1999 INTRODUCTION The Planning Division proposes to amend Section 10-2-3, 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 of the Farmington City Code to provide a new zoning district titled B-4 - Neighborhood Business. The amendment includes a purpose statement in Section 10-2-3 of the Code for the B-4 District and proposes permitted and conditional uses in Sections 10-3-1 and 10-3-2. DISCUSSION On January 12, 1999, the Planning Commission directed the Planning staff to present the proposed amendments to the City Council to receive feedback concerning the development of a new zoning district titled B-4 Neighborhood Business. The neighborhood business district is intended to provide a setting for low and medium-density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the district is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that provide a variety of housing choices, that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community. Any new development within this district shall be arranged to form part of an individual neighborhood. The Neighborhood Business District may be located within the core of a neighborhood with adequate access to the business center or on the periphery of residential neighborhoods along collector streets or streets of a higher classification. The Planning staff presented the proposed district to the City Council at their January 19, 1999 meeting and the memo from the meeting is attached. The Planning Commission may recall that a number of residents were concerned with the uses existing in the facility at 821 Third Street as well as the type of uses that may be allowed in the facility under the B-4 permitted and conditional uses. A neighborhood meeting was held at the facility on January 7, 1999 and comments from the meeting are included in the attached Planning Commission memo dated January 12, 1999. Commentsfrom the City Council on January 19,1999 The comments from the City Council at their January 19, 1999 meeting include the following: 1. The City Council was concerned with the size of trucks delivering material to the neighborhood businesses and directed staff to review types of trucks that would be most compatible in this district. Staff response: City staff determined that the size of a standard UPS truck at 23,000 gross vehicle weight should be the maximum size of truck allowed in the district. This size and type of truck is typical in neighborhood districts and provides the rationale for this detennination. 2. A resident was concerned with the dry-cleaning business as a pennitted use in the district because of the use of highly volatile chemicals used in the service and was also concerned with the high volume of traffic associated with this type of use. Staff Response: City staff responded that dry-cleaning services are regulated by the state and/or federal government and the traffic issues fall under the parking requirements of the City Code. 3. The City Council recommended either moving the neighborhood services from a pennitted use to a conditional use or designating certain neighborhood services as conditional uses that are not as compatible as other services. (Example: Conditional Use - dry-cleaning). Staff Response: City staff understands the concerns of the Council, however, staff has detennined that the pennitted neighborhood uses are compatible with residential neighborhoods. By designating the pennitted uses as conditional uses, every new business that falls in this category would need a conditional use permit, causing delays for potential business owners. Therefore, City staff continues to recommend that neighborhood services remain as pennitted uses. Attached infonnation includes the pennitted and conditional uses for the B-4 District and definitions pertaining to the new district. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the attached text amendment for adding the B-4 Zoning District to the Zoning Code. ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends the amendment of Section 10-2-3, 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 of the Fannington City Code to provide a new zoning district titled B-4 - Neighborhood Business. The amendment includes a purpose statement in Section 10-2-3 of the Code for the B-4 District and proposes pennitted and conditional uses in Sections 10-3-1 and 10-3-2. Upon approval, staff recommends forwarding the amendment to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator fOe City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and Council Members, L// City Administrator [)U'/ p~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator FROM: SUBJECT: Amend Title 10 of the Farmington Zoning Ordinance - Definitions, Amend 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 - Permitted and Conditional Uses DATE: March 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION The B-4 Neighborhood Business District requires a number of revisions to the definitions section of the City Code in Title lOin order to provide for new uses and revisions to existing uses. The proposed amendment also provides for changes to Section 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 concerning uses allowed as permitted or conditional uses under the B-1 and B-2 zoning districts. DISCUSSION On February 9, 1999, the Planning Commission approved the amendment to Title 10 of the Farmington Zoning Ordinance in Section 10-1-4 concerning the definitions of "Day Care Facilities," "Residential Care Facilities" and "Personal and Professional Services." The amendment also includes changes to 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 pertaining to "Hospitals and Clinics" as permitted uses and certain "Residential Care Facilities" as conditional uses in the B-1 and B-2 district. These revisions reflect the proposed B-4 Neighborhood Business District requirements for permitted and conditional uses. Additional definitions pertaining to the B-4 Zoning District such as "Neighborhood Services," Personal Health and Beauty Services, "Light Manufacturing and Assembly" and "straight trucks" will come before the City Council at a later date. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the proposed amendments. City staff recommends that these text amendments be approved upon approval of the B-4 Neighborhood Business District. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached ordinance approving the amendment to Title 10 of the Farmington City Code, Zoning Ordinance, concerning the definitions of Day Care Facilities, Residential Care Facility, and Personal and Professional Services and the amendment in Section 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 by including Hospitals and Clinics as permitted uses and certain Residential Care Facilities as conditional uses in the B-1 and B-2 Districts and forward this recommendation to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA An Ordinance Amending Title 10 of the Farmington City Code, the Farmington Zoning Ordinance, Concerning Day Care Facilities, Residential Care Facilities, and Personal and Professional Services and by Including Clinics as Permitted Uses and Certain Residential Care Facilities as Conditional Uses in the B-1 and B-2 Districts THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON SECTION I. The definition of "Day Care Facility" in section 10-1-4 of the Farmington City Code is amended to read as follows: DAY CARE FACILITY: Any state or county licensed facility, public or private, which for gain or otherwise regularly provides care of a child in a residence outside the child's own home for periods ofless than twenty-four (24) hours per day. SECTION II. The definition of "Residential Care Facility" in Section 10-1-4 of the Farmington City Code is amended to read as follows: RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY Any state or county licensed facility, public or private, which provides care for children or the aged or infirm, or for those who may be disables, and included licensed programs defined under Minn. Stat. ~ 245A.02, Subds. 10 and 14. SECTION III. Section 10-1-4 ofthe Farmington City Code is amended by adding a definition for "Personal and Professional Services" to read as follows: PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: Nonretail services involving predominantly the handling of information or the performance of administrative services which may include services provided both on-site and off-site on a walk- in or appointment basis, such as counseling or indirect or non- personal service such as real-estate, travel agencies, financial agencies, insurance offices and professional services which include, but are not limited to: legal, psychology, and accounting servIces. SECTION 4. Section 10-3-2 (G) of the Farmington City Code is amended by adding as a permitted use the following: Clinics SECTION 5. Section 10-3-2 (G) of the Farmington City Code is amended by adding as a conditional use the following: Residential care facilities serving more than 6 persons. SECTION 6. Section 10-3-2 (H) of the Farmington City Code is amended by adding as a permitted use the following: Clinics SECTION 7. Section 10-3-2 (H) of the Farmington City Code is amended by adding as a conditional use the following: Residential care facilities serving more than 6 persons. SECTION 8. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage. Enacted and ordained on the _ day of March, 1999. SEAL CITY OF FARMINGTON MAYOR ATTEST: CITY ADMINISTRATOR Approved as to form the _ day of , 1998. CITY ATTORNEY Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,1998. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street. Farmington. MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmtn~ton.mn.us FROM: City Planning Commission . Lee Smick, AICP /'\ f) Planning CoordinatorV TO: SUBJECT: Amend Title 10 of the Fannington Zoning Ordinance DATE: December 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION The Planning Division proposes to amend Title 10 of the Fannington Zoning Ordinance in Section 10-1-4 concerning the definitions of "Day Care Facilities", "Residential Care Facilities" and "Personal and Professional Services" and by including "Clinics" as permitted uses and certain "Residential Care Facilities" as conditional uses in the B-1 and B-2 districts. DISCUSSION Upon examination of the permitted and conditional uses within the B-1 and B-2 zoning districts, it became apparent to the Planning Division that certain definitions required revisions due to unreasonable language in the text and other definitions needed to be included in the Zoning Code and/or shown as a permitted or conditional use in the B-1 and B-2 districts. The Planning Division and the City Attorney have worked together in providing revisions to the definitions and explanations for those revisions along with including new uses under Chapter 3 of Title 10: Permitted and Conditional Uses. Dav Care Facilitv In the existing day care facility definition (see attached), the text states that the facility be licensed and provide for one or more persons with care, training, supervision, habilitation, rehabilitation or developmental guidance on a regular basis for periods less than twenty-four hours per day. The existing definition continues to state that the facility may include family day care homes, group family day care homes, 'day care centers, day nurseries, nursery schools, daytime activity centers and day treatment centers. Under permitted and conditional uses in the zoning code (see attached), day care facilities are permitted in all residential zones depending on the number of persons served. The faciiity is a conditional use in the B-1 district when the program serves sixteen or more persons. The Planning Division's concern with the day care facility definition was that the text was all- inclusive, allowing care for children and day treatment centers combined in the same definition. . Typically childcare is seen as the care of children from the ages of infants to teenagers and engages the children in learning and physical activities. Day treatment facilities typically provide training, supervision, rehabilitation and/or developmental guidance of persons from teenagers to adults. The treatments may be for drug or alcohol abuse, gambling or other addictions. The planning division has detennined that the day treatment facility should be removed from the day care facility definition because the existing text is 1) all-inclusive and these uses should be separated and 2) the day treatment center is not compatible in a residential district due to the various needs of persons served through the facility. The planning division proposes to relocate the day treatment use to the business district which provides for service uses and will be discussed below. Therefore, the proposed defmition change has been amended to address the care of a child in a residence outside of the child's home for periods ofless than twenty-four hours. The proposal is to relocate the day treatment facility to the personal and professional service definition where the service is a conditional use in the B-1 district and a pennitted use in the B-2 districts. Residential Care Facility While reviewing the day treatment definition, the Planning Division and City Attorney examined the residential care facility and detennined that the language concerning "equipment for surgical care, treatment of disease or injury and does not include maternity care or the treatment of mental illness" should be struck from the definition (see attached). In place of this language, the City Attorney proposes to insert requirements defined under Minnesota Statutes 24SA.02, Subdivisions 10 and 14. The language for "continuous care" was also struck to meet the above State statute requirements. Residential care facilities are pennitted uses in R-l, R-2 and R-4 districts that serve 6 or fewer persons and pennitted uses in the R-3 district with 7 through 16 persons served. The planning division has detennined that residential care facilities serving more than 6 persons is a compatible use in the B-1 and B-2 district under certain conditions and proposes to include the residential care facility as a conditional use in the B-1 and B-2 districts. Personal and Professional Services Under Section 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 for pennitted and conditional uses in the zoning code, personal and professional services are a conditional use in the B-1 district and a pennitted use in the B-2 district. Personal and professional services typically includes non-retail services involving the handling of infonnation or the perfonnance of administrative services such as counseling, real estate, travel agencies, financial agencies, insurance offices and professional services such as legal, psychology and accounting services. In Section 10-1-4 under definitions, personal and professional services are not included. The planning division has detennined that this definition is necessary in order to incorporate a number of services not listed in the existing pennitted and conditional use section. Therefore, the proposed definition for personal and professional services has been added to this amendment. By adding this amendment, day treatment facilities will become a conditional use in the B-1 district and a pennitted use in the B-2 district. These types of services along with the ones listed above that have not been addressed in the ordinance will provide compatible uses in each respective business zone due to the services expected in business districts. Hospitals and Clinics Upon reviewing day treatment facilities, it was observed that hospitals and clinics are conditional uses in the R-l, R-2 and R-3 districts (see attached). The planning division has determined that this limits the location of hospitals and clinics and does not allow this service to be a permitted use in any district. Hospitals and clinics are frequently located in business districts because they provide the type of services that are business/office/service oriented. Therefore, the planning division proposes to include hospitals and clinics as a permitted use in the B-1 and B-2 districts. The above amendments will assist in clarifying definitions and providing definitions that do not currently exist in the zoning code. The amendments also make logical choices in locating certain uses where they are compatible with other uses in the district. As mentioned before, the City Attorney has drafted and approved the proposed amendments and forwards this infonnation to the Planning Commission. ACTION REOUESTED Approve the amendments to Title 10 of the Fannington City Code, Zoning Ordinance, concerning the definitions of day care facilities, residential care facility and personal and professional services and by including hospitals and clinics as permitted uses and certain residential care facilities as conditional uses in the B-1 and B-2 Districts and forward this recommendation to the City Council. Sincerely, @~~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator 1 0-1-4 CONDOMINIUM UNIT: COVERAGE: DAY CARE FACILITY: DENSITY: DISTRIBUTION CENTER: DRIVE-IN ESTABLISHMENT: 1 0-1 -4 A portion of a condominium, whether or not contained solely or partially within a building, designated for separate ownership, the boundaries of which are described pursuant to MSA section 515A.2-11 O. That portion of a lot covered by the principal and accessory use structures. (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986) Any State or County licensed facility, public or private, which regularly provides one or more persons with care, training, supervision, habilitation, rehabilitation, or developmental guidance on a regular basis, for periods of less than twenty four (24) hours per day, in a place other than the person's home. Day care facilities include family day care homes, group family day care homes, day care centers, day nurseries, nursery schools, daytime activity centers and day treatment programs. (Ord. 091-246,5-20-1991) The number of dwelling units per acre allowable in each district as established in Table 1, Section 10-4-2 of this Title. (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986) Any establishment which provides for the distribution of goods or tangible personal property, excluding retail sales. (Ord. 097-398, 7-7-1997) An establishment which accommodates the patron's automobile from which the occupants 398 City of Farmington 1 0-1 -4 RESEARCH FACILITY: RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY: RESTAURANT: SEGREGATED CONDOMINIUM: SIGN: SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM: SPECIAL RECYCLING ACTIVITY: 1 0-1 -4 Any establishment where research and development are conducted related to activities such as the manufacturing of production of tangible personal property, including medical, technical and scientific research. (Ord. 097-398, 7-7-1997) Any State or County licensed facility, public or private, which provides continuous care for children or the aged or infirm, or for those who may be disabled. Such a home does not contain equipment for surgical care, treatment of disease or injury and does not include maternity care or the treatment of mental illness. (Ord. 091-246,5-20-1991) A sit down facility offering food on permanent reusable tableware and dishes. A restaurant may offer a high or moderately priced menu and could belong to national chain operations. Their service may include a limited takeout menu. The average turnover rate per customer is about one hour. The condominium consists of a single lot or group of lots within a plat. Any name identification, display, illustration, insignia or device which is publicly displayed and which is used to direct attention to a product, person, business, institution or place. Collectors which provide at least fifty percent (50%) of annual space heating needs and at least ninety percent (90%) of hot water heating needs when the solar index registers seventy (70). (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986) Recycling activity associated with nonprofit community organization events or fund raisers which have obtained a special recycling activity permit pursuant to Section 7-1-3 of this Code. Each nonprofit organization shall be limited to 398 City of Farmington 10-3-1 CHAPTER 3 10-3-2 PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES SECTION: 10-3-1 : 10-3-2: Permitted Uses Conditional Uses 10-3-1 : PERMITTED USES: The permitted uses for each district are listed below. Accessory uses and essential services are also permitted. (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 088-205, 8-15-1988) 10-3-2: CONDITIONAL USES: The Planning Commission may authorize conditional uses as specified below, which will not be detrimental to the integrity of the districts if all the conditions and provisions of Chapter 8 of this Title are met. (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 088-205, 8-15-1988) Permitted Uses (A) A-l Agricultural District 1. Agriculture 2. Single-family dwellings 3. Public parks and playgrounds 4. Golf courses 5. Stables and riding academies 6. Drainage and irrigation systems 7. Specialized animal raising 8. Greenhouses and nurseries 9. Travel trailer and boat storage 10. Truck gardening 11. Se~sonal produce stands City 0; Farmington Conditional Uses 1. Two-family dwellings 2. Agricultural service 3. Commercial recreation uses 4. Water recreation and storage 5. Public buildings 6. Public utility buildings 7. Kennels 8. Solar energy systems 9. Cemeteries 10. Mineral extraction 11. Equipment and mainte- nance storage 12. Feedlot 597 10-3-2 Permitted Uses 10-3-2 Conditional Uses 12. Day care center 13. Accessory apartments 14. Public and parochial schools 15. Churches 16. Towers (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 088-205, 8-15-1988; Ord. 093-298. 2-16-1993; Ord. 096-383, 11-18-1996) 1. Two-family dwellings 2. Agricultural service 3. Commercial recreation uses 4. Water recreation and storage 5. Public buildings 6. Public utility buildings 7. Kennels 8. Solar energy systems 9. Cemeteries 10. Mineral extraction 11. Equipment and mainte- nance storage 12. Feedlot 13. Accessory apartments 14. Public and parochial schools 15. Churches 16. Towers (Ord. 086-1n, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 088-205, 8-15-1988; Ord. 093-298,2-16-1993: Ord. 096-383, 11-18-1996) (B) A-2 Agricultural Preserve District 1. Agriculture 2. Single-family dwellings 3. Public parks and playgrounds 4. Golf courses 5. Stables and riding academies 6. Drainage and irrigation systems 7. Specialized animal raising 8. Greenhouses and nurseries 9. Travel trailer and boat storage 10. Truck gardening 11. Seasonal produce stands 12. Day care center (C) R-l Low Density District 1. Agriculture 2. Single-family dwelling 3. Public parkS and playgrounds 4. Golf courses 5. Accessory storage buildings 6. Residential care facility serving 6 or fewer persons 597 1. Cemeteries 2. Nursing homes 3. Nonprofit recreational uses 4. Day care facility serving more than 14 persons 5. Hospitals and clinics 6. Public utility. buildings 7. Public buildings City of Farmington 10-3-2 Permitted Uses 10-3-2 Conditional Uses 8. Water recreation and water storage 9. Solar energy systems 10. Double and multiple-family dwellings 11. Planned unit developments 12. Greenhouses and nurseries 13. Townhouses - quad homes 14. Condominiums 15. Accessory apartments 16. Public and parochial schools 17. Churches 18. Congregate care facilities 19. Towers (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 088-198, 2-1-1988; Ord. 091-246. 5-20-1991; Ord. 093-298. 2-16-1993; Ord. 094-335. 8-1-1994; Ord. 096-378. 8-19-1996; Ord. 096-383.11-18-1996) 7. Day care facility serving 14 or fewer persons (D) R-2 Medium Density District 1. Agriculture 2. Single-family dwellings 3. Public parks and playgrounds 4. Accessory storage buildings 5. Residential care facility serving 6 or fewer persons 6. Day care facility serving 14 or fewer persons 1. Two-family dwellings 2. Multiple-family dwellings 3. Day care facility serving more than 14 persons 4. Solar energy systems 5. Planned unit developments 6. Boarding house 7. Water recreation and water storage 8. Hospitals and clinics 9. Nursing homes 10. Public utility buildings 11. Public buildings 12. Funeral homes 13. Cemeteries 14. Greenhouses 15. Townhouses - quad homes 16. Condominiums 17. Accessory apartments 18. Dental laboratories 19. Public and parochial schools City of Farmington 597 10-3-2 Permitted Uses 10-3-2 Conditional Uses 20. Churches 21. Congregate care facilities 22. Towers (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 088-198. 2-1-1988; Ord. 091-246. 5-20-1991; Ord. 093-298. 2-16-1993; Ord. 094-335. 8-1-1994; Ord. 096-378. 8-19-1996: Ord. 096-383. 11-18-1996) (E) R-3 High Density District 1. Single-family dwellings 2. Two-family dwellings 3. Day care facility serving more than 16 persons 4. Planned unit developments 5. Public utility buildings 6. Public buildings 7. Solar energy systems 8. Hospitals and clinics 9. Nursing homes 10. Clubs 11. Accessory apartments 12. Public and parochial schools 13. Churches 14. Funeral homes 15. Congregate care facilities (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 091-246. 5-20-1991; Ord. 093-298. 2-16-1993; Ord. 094-335, 8-1-1994) 1. Multiple-family dwellings 2. Townhouses - quad homes 3. Public parks and playgrounds 4. Accessory storage buildings 5. Residential care facilities serving 7 through 16 persons 6. Day care facility serving 13 through 16 persons (F) R-4 Mixed Code District 1. Single-family dwellings (UBC) 2. Public parks and playgrounds 3. Accessory storage buildings 4. Residential care facility serving 6 or fewer persons 5. Payc~lr~ .facility serving 14 or fewer persons 597 .. }...,. 1. Two-family dwellings 2. Multiple-family dwellings 3. Planned unit developments 4. Townhouses - quad homes 5. Solar energy systems 6. Accessory apartments 7. Public utility buildings 8. Public buildings 9. Day care facility serving more than 16 persons. . 10. Public and parochial schools 11. Churches City of Farmington -'_. f 4 10-3-2 10-3-2 (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 088-198, 2-1-1988; Ord. 091-246. 5-20-1991; Ord. 092-284. 9-21-1992; Ord. 093-298. 2-16-1993; Ord. 096-378. 8-19-1996) . (G) B-1 Limited Business District 1. Water recreation and water storage 2. Public buildings 3. Public utility buildings 4. Farm implement sales. service. repair 5. Offices 6. Wholesale business 7. Supply yards 8. Fast food establishments 9. Theaters 10. Mini storage units 11. Outdoor sales 12. Personal and professional services 13. Car wash 14. Solar energy systems 15. Day care facility serving more than 16 persons 16. Recreational assembly places 17. Auction houses (Ord. 086-177. 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 090-227, 2-5-1990; Ord. 091-246,5-20-1991; Ord. 095-345, 1-3-1995) 1. Retail business . 2. Auto sales. service. repair 3. Restaurants 4. Hotels and motels 5. Animal clinics 6. Commercial recreation 7. Recreational equipment sales, service and repair 8. Motor fuel stations, major 9. Clubs, health clubs 10. Home and trailer sales and displays 11. Parking lots (H) 8-2 General Business District 1. Retail business 2. Restaurants 3. Offices 4. Personal and professional service 5. Public buildings 6. Auto sales, service and repair 7. Commercial schools 8. Commercial recreation 9. Animal clinics 10. Clubs - health clubs 1. Water recreation and water storage 2. Research laboratories 3. Public utility buildings 4. Solar energy systems 5. Multiple-family dwellings 6. Wholesale business 7. Supply yards 8. Funeral homes 9. Elderly and handicapped housing City of Farm.ington 597 10-3-2 Permitted Uses 11. Home and trailer sales and display 12. Parking lots 13. Recreation and equipment sales. service and repair (Ord. 088-177, 3-17-1988; 091-248,5-20-1991) 10-3-2 Conditional Uses 10. Churches 11. Light manufacturing 12. Outdoor sales 13. Fast food establishments 14. Farm implement sales. service and repair 15. Equipment and storage yards 16. Research and testing laboratories 17. Mini storage units 18. Motor fuel stations - minor 19. Hotels and motels 20. Recreational assembly places amd. Ord. 088-198, 2-1-1988; Ord. (I) B-3 Heavy Business District 1. Mechanical sales, service . 1. Public utility buildings and repair 2. Offices 2. Commercial services 3. Water recreation and water 3. Animal clinics storage . . . 4. Wholesale business 4. Home and trailer sales ~ 5. Supply yards and displays 6. Warehousing 5. Manufacturing 7. Light manufacturing 6. Petroleum bulk storage 8. Research and testing labs 7. Mini storage units 9. Parking lots 8. Equipment and storage 10. Public buildings yards 11. Auto sales, service, repair 9. Outdoor sales 12. Motor fuel stations, major 10. Retail business 11. Restaurants 12. Fast food establishments '-._..- .~. ~. 13. Solar energy systems (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1988) (J) 1-1 Light Industrial District 1. Research and testing labs 1. Manufacturing 2. Offices 2. Water recreation and water 3. Supply yards storage 597 City 0; Farmington City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /0;> TO: Mayor and Council Members, ~ City Administrator [JP Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator . FROM: SUBJECT: Application to Rezone 821 Third Street from R-2 (Medium-Density Residential) to B-4 (Neighborhood Business) DATE: March I, 1999 INTRODUCTION The application to amend the Comprehensive Plan and the application to rezone the property at 821 Third Street may be reviewed simultaneously with separate actions for each application. DISCUSSION Arlendar Nordvik/JDS Properties is requesting to rezone the property at 821 Third Street consisting of 41,047 square feet from the existing R-2 (Medium-Density Residential) to B-4 (Neighborhood Business). The original rezoning request was brought before the Planning Commission on December 8, 1998 and was continued to the January 12, 1999 (see attached memos) in order for residents to visit the site with the property owners. This request was to rezone the property from R-2 (Low-Density Residential) to B-2 (General Business). However, the petition was withdrawn due to the proposed creation of a new B-4 (Neighborhood Business) district. The B-4 (Neighborhood Business) District has been developed to address existing and proposed sites throughout the City that require a zoning category that is compatible with surrounding residential uses while providing services to the neighborhoods through business related activities. The Planning Commission approved the rezoning of the property at 821 Third Street on February 9, 1999. The petition to rezone the property from R-2 (Medium-Density Residential) to B-4 (Neighborhood Business) is contingent on the approval to amend the Comprehensive Plan from Low-Density Residential to Business and the addition of the B-4 (Neighborhood Business) District in Section 10-2-3, 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 of the Farmington City Code. ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the attached ordinance rezoning the property at 821 Third Street from R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to B-4 (Neighborhood Business) contingent upon the following: 1. Approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan from Low-Density Residential to Business; and 2. Approval of the amendment to Section 10-2-3, 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 of the Farmington City Code to add a B-4 (Neighborhood Business) District to the zoning designations; and 3. Contingent on the application of a building permit for any unauthorized construction within the building; and; 4. Subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. Respectfully Submitted, ~ ~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: JDS Properties CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. An Ordinance Rezoning the Arlendar Nordvik/JDS Properties property from R-2 to B-4. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council approved a petition to rezone the Arlendar Nordvik/JDS Properties property on the 1'1 day of March, 1999 from R-2 to B-4; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a public hearing held on February 9, 1999, recommended approval of the rezoning from R-2 to B-4 contingent on the following: 1. Approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan from Low-Density Residential to Business; and 2. Approval of the amendment to Section 10-2-3, 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 of the Farmington City Code to add a B-4 (Neighborhood Business) District to the zoning designations; and 3. Contingent on the application of a building permit for any unauthorized construction within the building; and; 4. Subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Farmington hereby amends the City Zoning Ordinance rezoning the Arlendar Nordvik/JDS Properties property from R-2 to B-4. Enacted and ordained on the _ day of March, 1999. SEAL CITY OF FARMINGTON MAYOR ATTEST: CITY ADMINISTRATOR Approved as to form the _ day of ,1999. CITY ATTORNEY Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,1999. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ct.farmin~on.mn.us TO: City Planning Commission (( ) Lee Smick, AICP nd-/ Planning Coordinator Y FROM: SUBJECT: Application to Rezone 821 Third Street from R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to B-2 (General Business) DATE: January 12, 1999 lNTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION The application to rezone the property at 821 Third Street consisting of 41,047 square feet from the existing R-2 - Medium Density Residential to B-2 General Business was reviewed at the December 8, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. As stated in the prior staff memo to amend the Comprehensive Plan for 821 Third Street, City staff recommends the following: 1. Consideration of the establishment of a new neighborhood business district as a text amendment to the Zoning Code and that the property at 821 Third Street be considered for rezoning to this new classification. 2. Since the Airlake Ford space has continually been used as a vehicle repair shop since the early 1960's when Dakota Electric constructed the building, there will be no change in the original non-conforming use for a vehicle repair shop. Therefore, it is recommended that the application to rezone the property from R-2 - Medium Density Residential to B-2 General Business be withdrawn and the owners apply to rezone the property to the new neighborhood business district upon approval of the district by City Council. The City Attorney has reviewed and approves the staff recommendation. ACTION REQUESTED City staff recommends the public hearing to rezone the property at 821 Third Street from R-2 - Medium Density Residential to B-2 General Business be closed. Action should be continued for rezoning the property to the new neighborhood business district. a:lJ:~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 fax (651) 463-2591 www.ct.farmineton.mn.us TO: City Planning Commission Lee Smick, AICP odJ Planning Coordinator FROM: SUBJECT: Application to Rezone 821 Third Street from R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to B-2 (General Business) DATE: December 8, 1998 PlanniDl! Division Review Applicant: IDS Properties 12245 Safari Path Apple Valley, MN 55124 Attachments: 1. Rezone Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Conditional and Permitted Uses 4. Fire Marshall's letter Location of Property: The property is located on the west side of Third Street at 821 Third Street. Size of Property: 41,047 square feet Comprehensive Plan: Subject to amendment application. Current Land Use: Auto repair shop/office building Current Uses in Building: Auto repair shop Veterinary Lab Overflow mail service Insurance office Cooperative Power office Suggested Zoning Change: Rezone the property from R-2 Medium Density Residential to B-2 General Business. Proposed Development: The owner proposes to rent the office facility to Journey Counseling Seryices and continue to rent the facility to the existing tenants. Area Currently Bounded By: Single-family residential to the east and west, auto repair shop to the north and a funeral home to the south. Additional Comments: IDS Properties is requesting to rezone the property at 821 Third Street consisting of 41,047 square feet from the existing R-2 - Medium Density Residential to B-2 General Business. The property at 821 Third Street has been known as the Farmington Professional Building since the early 1960's. Dakota County Electric Cooperative constructed an addition to the existing building in 1962 and added a radio tower in 1963 to the site. A second story addition was added to the building by Dakota County Electric Cooperative in 1965 and an abandoned underground fuel tank was removed in 1990. The building was then remodeled in 1991 to make room for Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). The SWCD moved out of the building in early 1998 to their present location at 4100 220th Street West in Farmington. The office building has four tenants at this time. Airlake Ford, as the fifth tenant, utilizes the warehouse area in the building as an auto repair shop and has been in this location since last year as a non-conforming use, without the knowledge of the Planning Division. The Planning Division recently 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. Independent School District 192 was interested in developing a classroom on the first floor of the building in August of 1998, however, renovation costs for handicap accessibility and the meeting of fire code regulations became too costly for the School District and they withdrew their conditional use request. At present, the site is zoned R-2 medium density and does not allow office use or auto repair business to remain in this location. Since the building has been located in this neighborhood since the early 1960's, the Planning Division determined that the area should be rezoned to B-2 General Business so the building may be used for business purposes. At the present time, the building cannot be utilized for any business-related use as a result of its current zoning and all of the uses in the building are in violation of the zoning code. The Planning Division's arguments to rezone the property to B-2 General Business consist of the following: 1. The building has resided in the neighborhood since the early 1960's and has had both Dakota Electric and Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation District as tenants while being zoned R-2. In this case, the neighborhood is aware that an office complex is located adjacent to their single-family homes. 2. The building structure is sound and the space is extensive to allow for the attraction of office/commercial space close to the downtown area. 3. The Airlake Ford auto repair shop could continue to run its operation ~n an enclosed space as long as the operation remains indoors. The building which currently houses Block's Auto Service, to the north of the Farmington Professional Building, was also built in the early 1960's and provided retail space as well as an auto repair shop. These activities were considered non-conforming uses grandfathered in 1976. It appears that Block's Auto Service started its business in approximately 1993, most likely because of the previously allowed grandfathering of the non-conforming use. Therefore, an auto repair shop has resided in this neighborhood since at least the early 1960's. Since the neighborhood is aware of the auto repair businesses in the area, the Planning Division has determined that continuance of the Airlake Ford operation could commence. However, Airlake Ford would like to expand its operations to include the painting of cars, which requires an exhaust system and other crucial items to be added to the warehouse. The attached letter by the Fire Marshall illustrates the requirements for Airlake Ford to meet and the company has stated that they will meet these requirements. City staff notes that it is important for the auto repair business to insure that they remain as compatible with the surrounding residential area as possible which may include enclosing the entire operation within the confines of the warehouse. The Fire Marshall reviewed the building on December 2, 1998 and discovered that the Veterinary Lab tenant has expanded its office space and constructed walls without a building permit. The owners of the property have been notified and state that they will apply for a building permit as soon as possible. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed rezoning and has approved the zoning change from R-2 to B-2 considering that the office and warehouse building have been in the location for a long period of time and the building is virtually unusable for business or warehouse uses because of the current R-2 zone. The Planning Division has not discovered any information stating that the building was grandfathered at any time in this process, so staff has determined that the only choice to make the building useful is to rezone the property to B-2. However, the new information concerning the construction within the building without a permit may need to be finalized before the rezoning is reviewed and/or approved. Requested Action: Staff recommends forwarding an approval to the City Council to rezone the property at 821 Third Street from R-2 Medium Density - Single Family Residential to B-2 General Business contingent on the application of a building permit for any unauthorized construction within the building and subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator U5 ~~ ~ - I c: o ~~ ~..J a:: z+ ~[[ ~[[ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /0; TO: . fP/rFG' Mayor and CouncIl Members, City Administrator vf Lee Smick, AICP .f) Planning Coordinator FROM: DATE: March I, 1999 RE: Application to Amend the Comprehensive Plan - 821 Third Street INTRODUCTION The application to amend the Comprehensive Plan and the application to rezone the property at 821 Third Street may be reviewed simultaneously with separate actions for each application. DISCUSSION Arlendar Nordvik/JDS Properties is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property at 821 Third Street consisting of 41,047 square feet from the existing Low-Density Residential to Business. The property is currently surrounded by single-family residential to the east and west, and business to the north and south. The property currently houses an auto body repair shop, mail distribution business, insurance office, veterinary lab and a counseling office. The building is known as the Farmington Professional Building. The comprehensive plan amendment was first brought before the Planning Commission on December 8, 1998 to amend the property from Low-Density Residential to Business. After discussions at several subsequent meetings of the Planning Commission and City Council (see attached memos), it was determined that a new district be developed to address existing and proposed sites throughout the City that require a zoning category that is compatible with surrounding residential uses while providing services to the neighborhoods through business related activities. The Planning Commission approved the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the property at 821 Third Street on February 9, 1999. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment to revise the Low-Density Residential designation to Business is contingent on the approval of the addition of the B-4 Neighborhood Business District in Section 10-2-3, 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 of the Farmington City Code. ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the attached resolution approving the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the property at 821 Third Street from Low-Density Residential to Business contingent upon the following: 1. Approval of the amendment to Section 10-2-3, 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 of the Farmington City Code to add a Neighborhood Business District to the zoning designations, and; 2. Subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. Respectfully Submitted, ~ s;:.~ l. Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: IDS Properties RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ARLENDAR NORDVIK/JDS PROPERTIES - 821 THIRD STREET 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 I st day of March, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, a public hearing to review the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Arlendar Nordvik/JDS Properties property was held on the 9th of February, 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 Planning Commission, at a public hearing held on February 9, 1999, recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property at 821 Third Street from Low-Density Residential to Business contingent on the following: 1. Approval of the amendment to Section 10-2-3, 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 of the Farmington City Code to add a Neighborhood Business District to the zoning designations, and; 2. Subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Farmington hereby amends the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Arlendar Nordvik/JDS Properties property from Low-Density Residential to Business. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the I st day of March, 1999. Mayor Attested to the _ day of March, 1999. City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street. Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cI.larmlnB-fon.mn.us TO: City Planning Commission Lee Smick, AICP /Y V Planning Coordinator~ FROM: SUBJECT: Application to Amend the Comprehensive Plan - 821 Third Street DATE: January 12, 1998 INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION The application to amend the Comprehensive Plan at 821 Third Street was reviewed at the December 8, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. The owners requested that the Comprehensive Plan be amended from Low Density Residential to Business for the 41,047 square foot property. At the meeting, a number of residents from the adjacent neighborhood had concerns with the Airlake Ford body shop presently operating within the bay area of the building. The concerns included noises associated with the repair of automobiles as well as the outside storage of cars and parts. Other concerns from the residents included the alleged dumping of noxious pollutants on an adjoining resident's property. At the request of the Planning Commission, the property owners held a meeting at the site on January 7, 1999. The owners, tenants of the building and residents were in attendance to discuss the use of the building. Results from this meeting include the following: 1. The residents did not object to the Airlake Ford body shop as long as the 'owners require the tenant to keep the garage door closed throughout business hours, limit the business hours, not allow for outdoor storage of cars or parts, only allow for the priming of cars - no painting of cars would be allowed and eliminating any noise associated with the body shop operations. 2. The residents did not object to the veterinary lab in the building as long as no outdoor mixing of powders is done on the site or dumping of materials on the lot and no semi- tractor trailer trucks be allowed in the alley area. 3. The property owners verbally agreed to continue to share the parking lot with White's Funeral Home to the south. Since the property"owners agreed to the above contingencies, the residents were satisfied with the uses existing in the building. Therefore, City staff is making the following recommendations for the property at 821 Third Street: I. Consideration of the establishment of a new neighborhood business district as a text amendment to the Zoning Code and that the property at 821 Third Street be considered for rezoning to this new classification. 2. Since the Airlake Ford space has continually been used as a vehicle repair shop since the early 1960's when Dakota Electric constructed the building, there will be no change in the original non-conforming use for a vehicle repair shop. Therefore, it is recommended that the application to amend the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density Residential to Business should be withdrawn and the owners apply for a conditional use permit for a change of a non-conforming use as cited in Section 10-6-1 of the City Code. The City Attorney has reviewed and approves the staff recommendation. ACTION REOUESTED City staff recommends the public hearing for the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for the property at 821 Third Street from Low Density Residential to Business be closed. Action on the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan should continue to be considered with the rezoning to the new neighborhood business district. Respectfully Submitted, ~kQ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington. MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 fax (651) 463-2591 www.ct.farminifon.mn.us TO: City Planning Commission FROM: Lee Smick, AICP II f) Planning Coordinator~ DATE: December 8, 1998 RE: Application to Amend the Comprehensive Plan - 821 Third Street Plannioe Division Review Applicant: IDS Properties 12245 Safari Path. Apple Valley, MN 55124 Attachments: I. Location Map 2. Comprehensive Plan Location of Property: The property is located on the west side of Third Street at 821 Third Street. Size of Property: 41,047 square feet Comprehensive Plan: Subject to amendment application. Current Land Use: Auto repair shop/vacant office building Proposed Amendment: Amend the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density Residential to Business. Proposed Development: The owner proposes to rent the office facility to Journey Counseling Services and continue to rent the facility to Airlake Ford for their auto repair/body shop. Area Currently Bounded By: Single-family residential to the east and west, auto repair shop to the north and a funeral home to the south. Additional Comments: IDS Properties is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property at 821 Third Street consisting of 41,047 square feet from the existing Low Density Residential to Business. The property at 821 Third Street has been known as the Farmington Professional Building since the early 1960's. Dakota County Electric Cooperative constructed an addition to the existing building in 1962 and added a radio tower in 1963 to the site. A second story addition was added to the building by Dakota County Electric Cooperative in 1965 and an abandoned underground fuel tank was removed in 1990. The building was then remodeled in 1991 to make room for Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). The SWCD moved out of the building in early 1998 to their present location at 4100 220th Street West in Farmington. The property in this neighborhood has been an office/warehouse site for over thirty years. Since the neighborhood is familiar with the building on the site for a long period of time, the Planning Division determined that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to reflect the office/warehouse building. The building is sound and would be a valuable addition for both office and commercial uses. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and has approved the amendment considering that the office/warehouse building have been in the location for a long period of time. Requested Action: City staff recommends forwarding a recommendation to the City Council to amend the Comprehensive Plan for the property at 821 Third Street from Low Density Residential Business subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator a. c: co CO~ - Q..c: o 0).- >..... ._ CO tJ) U c: 0 Q)~ ..c..... wen - ,,:).-0 E I- 0("') t)~ C\I co .~ . ,.. Ii ." 5 ,U' .... "0 1>8 c:: <~.fi 15~ a !loe; I> ""iJj f~!l. Q) .. ~ ii '3 .. ~ C liiUl .- ~ .lf~l~s~i~!i~~ ~ ~~5~l~8r]~~!~~12~ ~>~DIIIIDIDIODI ~ ~ C .11 .. :i c '" C 'c C .. ii: .~ I) >- .., " i G ~ z*. ~ m ~~ ~tiH1illB F?1E ~ m ~~ ~ : tEhlliR ~BU.. 15 H1S ~~ B~ ~tuIffi 1S H1v ;1 i ~i~[Bi~1 , @IITIIlI ~rnmrrrn ~T...TIITD~ ~DJJJTI[J · i~IIiIErnJ~ . . 1~aN~ I~ ~ I ':0 i ::l 1 en I \ I I i ~~~~ ~,''',~'''''..... ~ . ...... ,." ..:o;<~"'-,,-, .~. -.< ._ _...".....--..".. 4 ..8.' ....~_ __ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us JOA TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator pt(~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Capital Outlay request - Public Works Department DATE: March 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION Attached herewith is a description from the City's consulting engineer of the equipment and the costs involved with replacing the City's lift station alarm system. DISCUSSION The City's current sanitary sewer lift station alarm system is outdated. Parts to repair the system are becoming increasingly more difficult or impossible to obtain. The Water Board has recently decided to move forward with building a pump house for Well #5. As a part of that project, the Water Board has decided to install a new Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) system for the water system. Staff proposes that the sanitary sewer lift station alarm system be replaced at the same time with the same type of system. Including the SCADA system for the lift stations with the Water Board's project should result in more favorable bids for the equipment than if the system for the lift stations were bid as a separate project. There are multiple advantages provided by this type of system. Firstly, the City will no longer need to contract with Trans Alarm. The SCADA system will automatically monitor the lift stations and page the on-call staff in the event of an alarm. The City paid approximately $1,400 in 1998 for the services provided by Trans Alarm. Secondly, the current alarm system is actuated by four different events in the lift stations. The current system combines all of these events into a common alarm. In contrast, with the SCADA system, the on-call staff will know immediately at the time of the page, which event has triggered the lift station alarm. In addition, the SCADA system is controlled through a personal computer. The SCADA software allows real time monitoring of the equipment and allows for data acquisition, which currently requires visiting each lift station in person, to be accomplished remotely by the computer. This data can then be used to generate various reports as needed. BUDGET IMPACT The total estimated project cost to replace the current sewer lift station alarm system with a SCADA system is $190,000. This equipment replacement would be funded out of the Sanitary Sewer fund and it would not be necessary to bond for the improvement. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the replacement of the City's sewer lift station alarm system. Respectfully submitted, ~J'J?~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R -99 AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF SPECIFICATIONS AND ADVERTISING FOR BIDS FOR A SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION ALARM SYSTEM 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 1 st day of March, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, The Water Board has determined that it is necessary to replace the water system alarm system and after due consideration has decided to purchase a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system; and WHEREAS, The Water Board has previously authorized and directed City staff to prepare specifications and advertise for bids for said SCADA system for the water system; and WHEREAS, City staff recommends replacement of the current sanitary sewer lift station alarm system with a SCADA system in conjunction with the acquisition of a SCADA system for the water system. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. City staff is hereby authorized and directed to prepare specifications for a Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Alarm System and advertise for bids for the specified equipment. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 1st day of March, 1999. Attested to the day of , 1999. Mayor SEAL City Administrator/Clerk ~ - 1\11 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderlik and Associates. Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo. PE. . Joseph C. Anderlik. PE. . Marvin lo Sorvala. PE. . Richard E. Turner. PE. . Glenn R. Cook. PE. . Robert G. Schunicht. PE. . Jerry A. Bourdon. PE. . Robert W. Rosene. PE. and Susan M. Eberlin. c.PA.. Senior Consultants Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford. PE. . Keith A. Gordon. PE. . Robert R. Pfefferle. PE. . Richard W. Foster. PE. . David O. Loskota. PE. . Robert C. Russek. A.I.A. . Mark A. Hanson. PE. . Michael T. Rautmann. PE. . Ted K.Field. PE. . Kenneth P Anderson. PE. . Mark R. Rolfs. PE. . Sidney P WIlliamson. PE.. loS. . Robert F. Kotsmith . Agnes M. Ring' Michael P Rau. PE. . Allan Rick Schmidt. PE. Offices: St. Paul. Rochester. Willmar and St. Cloud. MN . Milwaukee. WI Engineers & Architects Website: www.bonestroQ.com February 24, 1999 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Re: Telemetry Equipment Replacement Sanitary Sewer Lift Stations Our File No. 141-98-807 Dear Mayor and Council: Enclosed for your review is our letter on the replacement of the sanitary sewer lift station telemetry equipment for the City of Farmington. This letter describes the equipment necessary to replace the existing sanitary sewer alarm system in all of the City's sanitary sewer lift stations. These improvements are necessary to address operational and component replacement issues associated with the existing outdated alarm system. Cost estimates for the proposed equipment are included in the letter. We would be pleased to discuss this report further with the City Council or City staff at any mutually convenient time. Respectfully submitted, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311 SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION SCADA Introduction From a SCADA standpoint, Farmington's sanitary sewer system consists of eight lift stations located around the City. Each site would require a remote terminal unit (RTU) to collect data and communicate with the master location. The Master Telemetry Unit would be located at City Hall for now, and would be relocated to the future Maintenance Facility when that becomes part of the system. Master Telemetry Unit 1. The Master Telemetry Unit consists mainly of a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC). The PLC is responsible for monitoring the sanitary sewer system automatically. It will communicate with each remote site. A PLC is chosen as the control device for the system because of its reliability and because it can be setup as non-proprietary. PLC's are manufactured by many different companies and sold by many vendors. Maintenance calls can be handled by any technician familiar with the common language used by PLC manufacturers. 2. A personal computer is used as the main interface with the SCADA system. From the computer, the operating staff can view all data being collected at the remote sites such as pump running conditions, alarm conditions, and run times. 3. The tool that allows the computer to communicate with the Master Telemetry Unit is the supervisory control software. This type of software is also manufactured by many companies. Examples of software used in the SCADA applications include Wonderware, Fix and RS View. This software is usually programmed using the City map as the main screen. The main screen will show all of sites which contain a RTU. From the main screen, any site can be chosen, and a different screen will appear which graphically represents that site. All data collected from that site can be monitored. 4. The SCADA software is also a powerful tool for trending. Screens can be formed to show operating conditions over a period of time. The lift station pump run times could be trended over a week's time, or any time period. This could show which days had the highest flow, times of the day that the pump ran the longest and how long a pump runs for or is cycled. Trending screens can be setup and manipulated for any data that is collected. 5. Because the SCADA software has the ability to share data with other Windows based applications, such as Microsoft Access and Excel, these tools can be used to automatically create any reports that the City would like to see. 6. There are two options to consider when choosing a SCADA software package. The first is the number of computers that the software will be installed on. Installing the software on one computer is the most common application and requires only one software package to be K:\141\14198807\sanitary SCADA report. doc purchased. However, some cities find it convenient to have a separate computer in each office which can monitor the system. To accomplish this, a separate software package must be purchased for each computer. The second option that must be considered is if a "runtime" or "development" package is desired. A "runtime" package does not allow the owner to make changes to the programming. If changes are desired after it is initially programmed by the integrator, an integrator must be hired to make the desired changes. If the City feels that they would like to have the ability to change how screens are setup, or will want to program future sites on their own, a "development" package should be considered. The "development" package can cost one and a half to two times the cost of the "runtime" package. 7. Another option to monitor the SCADA system from elsewhere than the main computer is using remote access software. Examples of remote access software are PcAnywhere, Laplink and Reachout. These allow a remote computer, such as a laptop, to dial in over the telephone lines and take control ofthe main SCADA computer. Using this software allows only one computer to monitor the system at one time. 8. Alarm management software, such as SCADAlarm, can communicate with the SCADA software to alert operators via telephone of any problems in the system. Because the communication between the SCADA software and the alarm management software is not through hardwired connections, an almost unlimited number of different alarm messages can be created. 9. Maintenance software can also be added to help keep track of when equipment was last maintained, and through data collected from the SCADA system (such as runtimes), when a piece of equipment is due for maintenance. 10. The operating system required to install the SCADA software is Windows 95 or NT. Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Access are also needed for data storage and manipulation. Remote Sites I. Each remote site (lift station) will require a RTU. The controller in each RTU will be a PLC similar to the PLC in the Master Telemetry Unit. Each RTU will collect the data from its site and will give the data to the master when called upon to do so. A PLC is also a very powerful tool and can be used for control at each site if the existing controls are due to be replaced. Communication Media 1. The use of radio to communicate between each site is recommended. Radio allows high speed, very reliable communication considering a clear path is present. The radio equipment is also owned by the City, requiring no monthly fees other than maintenance. Acceptable frequencies are extremely difficult to obtain by the FCC. If radio is an acceptable form of communication by the City, a frequency search and coordination study should be accomplished to determine if a frequency is available. One alternative to not being able to K:I141114198807\sanitary SCADA report.doc obtain a licensed frequency is spread spectrum radios. These are radios that operate over a programmable frequency range and do not require a license. System Completion 1. Implementing a SCADA system will take approximately nine months from the date of Award. 2. Following is a list of typical telemetered points and equipment used. Each item is explained and reasons that BRAA feels are important items to telemeter or important equipment in furnishing the SCADA system. 3. An explanation of each telemetered point is as follows: A. Power Fail- This point will be obtained from a "power fail" relay provided in the new RTD. The existing control power circuit will power the RTD. An uninterruptible power supply (UPS) will be provided in the RTU to maintain operation of the RTU, enabling it to transmit the power fail alarm. The UPS also provides other benefits such as surge protection and power conditioning. Each power fail will be recorded as an event. If the power fail duration exceeds an adjustable time delay (i.e. 0 to 5 minutes) the SCADA system will initiate an alarm. B. Phase Fail- This point will only be active in stations with 3 phase electric services. Stations with existing phase monitors will have this point active. This alarm will be a future point for 3 phase stations without phase monitors. C. High Wet Well Level- This point will only be active in stations that have wet well level monitoring in addition to float switches. D. Hie:h / High Wet Well Level- This point will come from existing high level alarm float switches. E. Low Wet Well Level - This point will come from an existing low level alarm float switch. If this is unavailable the point will be a future input. F. Drv Well Flood - This point will only be active in the two wet well / dry well type stations. The point will come from dry well flood alarm float switches. If a wet well / dry well station does not have a flood alarm one could be added. G. Drv Well Low Temperature - This point will only be active in the two wet well / dry well type stations. The point will come from dry well low temperature alarm thermostats. If a wet well / dry well station does not have a low temperature alarm thermostats one could be added. H. Securitv - This point will come from a limit switch on the door of the control panel for submersible stations and from the dry well access tube for wet well K:\141114198807\sanitary SCADA report. doc / dry well stations. If a station does not have a security alarm limit switch one could be added. The SCADA system will record this event as a station entry / exit during normal business hours. After hours and on weekends the SCADA system will initiate an alarm. 1. Pumn Fail - The point will come from relays and motor starter auxiliary contacts to provide an alarm if the pump is called for and it's starter does not engage, i.e. if it's circuit breaker or overloads trip. J. Pumn Over Temnerature - This point will only be active in submersible stations. The point will come from over-temperature sensors built into the submersible motors (some submersible motors may not have this feature). K. Pump Seal Fail- This point will only be active in submersible stations. The point will come from motor chamber and / or seal chamber moisture sensors built into the submersible motors (some submersible motors may not have this feature). L. Pump Over Run - A set point will be provided in the telemetry RTV's PLC to provide an alarm if the motor runs longer during one cycle than the selected time, i.e. due to plugging. This point can be configured as an alarm that will require immediate action, or it can be configured as just an event that may trigger a preventive maintenance routine or planned site inspection. Note, the operator may choose to disable this alarm in some stations. M. La!! Pumn On - An alarm will be initiated if the lag pump in a duplex station is started. Note, the operator may choose to disable this alarm in some stations. This point can be configured as an alarm, which will require immediate action, or it can be configured as just an event that may trigger a preventive maintenance routine or planned site inspection. Note, the operator may choose to disable this alarm in some stations. N. Pumn Start Counter - The telemetry R TV's PLC will count the number of pump starts for each pump and accumulate the total in its memory. This number will be downloaded to the master each time the master calls the RTV. This point can be used as preventive maintenance tool and can be an indicator of malfunctioning pump alternator or level controls. O. Pumn Runtime - The telemetry R TV's PLC will accumulate the runtime for each pump. This number will be downloaded to the master each time the master calls the R TV. P. Flow Total - Since there are no flow meters, flow totals will not be accumulated at the lift stations. Flow totals may be calculated at the master based on pump run times and manually entered pumping rates for each pump. K:\141114198807\sanitary SCADA report. doc TYPICAL COMPUTER SYSTEM HARDWARE Personal Computer(s) - An allowance will be specified to purchase the most up to date computer and printers at the point when the integrator begins programming. If purchased today: 450MHZ Pentium II, 256 MB of RAM, 17.2GB or larger hard drive, 15 to 21" monitors, with ports, modems, keyboard, mouse, etc. as needed. System can use one or more computers. Multiple computers allow "Hot-Backup" of each other. Typically, we specify the actual control logic and telemetry polling functions to be part of the telemetry master which would be a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC). If this is done, your SCADA system can run even if your personal computer is down thus reducing the need or justification for 2 computers. Report Printer - Laser or Inkjet type. Color is nice for printouts such as trends, where you're trying to show trends of more than one value. 11 x 17 capability is also nice but not necessary, adds some cost. Alarm / Event Printer - Low cost dot matrix or possibly Inkjet. Un interruptible Power Supply - The UPS is used to provide standby (battery) power for the SCADA system during power outages. Options include extended battery backup time; software to load onto the computer which allows the computer to monitor the UPS and it's batteries, etc. Extended battery time is nice but adds extra cost quickly. Portable computer(s) - These could be used by "On Call" operators or other City personnel to monitor the system remotely. Backup Data Storae:e - This would be a recordable CD, optical disk or some other form of data storage. These media (tape, disk, etc.) can be stored in a facility other than where the SCADA computer is located. K:\141\14198807\sanitary SCADA report. doc TYPICAL COMPUTER SYSTEM SOFTWARE Real-Time Operator Interface Software - Provides real time graphic display and control, trending and alarm management. Low end price range represents software packages with limited point capability, little or no reporting and historical data logging capability. High end price range have very large point capabilities (i.e. 32,000), full historical data logging, trending and report capabilities and are development packages which means they can be used to add screens or modify existing screens in the future. Report Software - Provides management of historical data for reports, spreadsheets, etc. This can actually be part of the real-time operator interface software or a separate package depending on which software vendor is chosen. Maintenance Management Software - Provides equipment management, preventive maintenance scheduling, work order management, inventory management, etc. This also can actually be part of the real-time operator interface software or a separate package depending on which software vendor is chosen. Alarm Manae:ement / Dialine: Software - Allows the computer to be used as a very flexible dialer with nearly unlimited alarm point capability. Also allows remote query of the status of each point in the system and remote control; all over a standard touch-tone telephone. Example of this software would be SCADAlarm. This software could be added in the future if desired. Remote Access Software - Provides "On Call" operators or other City personnel the ability to monitor the system remotely via a portable computer. Examples of this software would be PcAnywhere and LapLink. PLC Proe:rammine: Software - Allows the operator to change or add to the PLC program. Usually in "Ladder Logic" format. When a ladder logic program is printed out, it actually looks similar to a control schematic. Price ranges widely from manufacturer to manufacturer. This software is not needed unless you plan to get very in depth with the PLCs. Would require additional training. Typically we would not recommend this up front. Can be purchased later if the need and interest develop. K:\141\14198807\sanitary SCADA report. doc TYPICAL HARDWARE AT THE LIFT STATIONS Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) - Hardware used to communicate with the master telemetry unit at the Public Works Building. We typically specify a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) based unit. The PLC would be Allen-Bradley, Modicon, GE or similar. Less expensive RTUs are available. Some of them are good equipment; however, we feel there is a distinct advantage to get equipment from large manufacturers such as Allen-Bradley, Modicon, GE, etc. Many control system integrators work on this equipment and it is typically sold by multiple distributors in the metro area. Another advantage ofthe PLC based units is that the PLC can also be used to perform local control logic functions at the lift station in the event the existing controller needs replacing. Radio for RTU - Radio should be considered as the communication media between the remote sites and the master. Flood Alarm - Would be needed for the two dry well / wet well can-type stations. Low Temperature Alarm - Would be needed for the two dry well / wet well can-type stations. Security Alarm - Would be used at the panel doors for submersible stations and on the shaft tube cover at the dry well / wet well can-type stations. K:I141114198807\sanitary SCADA report. doc Cost Estimate A cost estimate was prepared for the installation of the base equipment discussed in this letter. A summary of this estimate is shown in the following tabulation: Item Lift Station SCADA System Contingencies (10%) Total Estimated Construction Engineering, Legal, Admin. etc (27%) Total Estimated Cost Estimated Cost $135,000.00 $13500.00 $148,000.00 $40,000.00 $188,500.00 K:I141114198807\sanitary SCADA report.doc I/o.- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and Council Mem~e7' City Administrator tl::o/~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator FROM: SUBJECT: 2020 Comprehensive Plan Policy Statements DATE: March I, 1999 INTRODUCTION The City Council continued the review of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Policy Statements to the March I, 1999 meeting due to time constraints at the February 16, 1999 meeting. Therefore, staff will present the policies and ask for any comments or recommendations from the Council at the March I, 1999 meeting. As a reminder, please bring your policy statements to the March IS, 1999 meeting. The staff memo dated February 16, 1999 explains the background of the policy statements and what the City of Farmington desires in the vision of its community. Staff recommends the acceptance of the policy statements. City staff respectfully requests that Council review the policy statements and provide comments and recommendations as appropriate. ACTION REQUESTED Acceptance of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Policy Statements by the City Council to be included in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update. If Council desires additional review time, a motion to defer approval of the policy statements until March IS, 1999 is requested. //~;y submitted, Vr~~ C< Lee Smick, A~~~;~) Planning Coordinator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 106 TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator ~ FROM: Lee Smick, AICP f'v D Planning Coordinator V SUBJECT: 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update - Discussion DATE: February 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION The proposed 2020 Land Use Plan and Policy Statements are being presented as discussion items with the City Council to determine the future land uses and policies to meet the visions of the City of Farmington. DISCUSSION 2020 Land Use Plan The proposed 2020 Land Use Plan was presented to the City Council on February 1, 1999. At the meeting, several possible minor changes were discussed by the Council regarding the proposed plan. These possible changes included the location of an industrial land use designation in the northwest corner of the North East District on the west side of the CP rail line and the relocation of medium-density residential along Denmark Avenue and a possible commercial designation at the corner of Denmark Avenue and Ash Street on the Neilan property. The Planning Commission reviewed these recommendations at their February 9, 1999 meeting (see the attached memo to the Planning Commission dated February 9, 1999). The Planning Commission made the following comments concernmg the recommendations made by the City Council: 1. The Planning Commission stated that any type of industrial use located next to a rail line would typically be heavy industrial and would not be compatible with the proposed location in the northwest corner of the North East District. The Planning Commission proposes that rail line service for industrial uses continue to be reviewed south of Dakota Electric and St. Michael's Catholic Church. 2. The Planning Commission reviewed the recommendations concerning the Neilan property and agrees with the City Council to show medium-density residential along Denmark A venue and low/medium-density residential on the west side of the property . The Planning Commission stated that the commercial land use shown at the intersection of Denmark A venue and Ash Street would not be consistent with a prior commitment to the downtown business owners concerning the development of commercial areas on the fringes of the downtown area. The commitment to not allow small commercial areas on the fringes of the downtown area (especially to the west) that would take business away from the downtown was reached at a Visioning Retreat held at the Senior Center in March of 1996. Representatives from the City Council, Planning Commission and other Commissions as well as the downtown business owners were in attendance at this meeting. Therefore, the Planning Commission feels it is important to continue to uphold the agreement to not allow commercial areas on the fringes of the downtown area and recommends that the commercial area be deleted from the 2020 Land Use Plan. The Planning Division has made revisions to the 2020 Land Use Plan to reflect the Planning Commission's recommendations as shown on the attached plan. The Planning Division has also completed revisions to the plan in order to meet the Livable Communities Act. Final land use calculations have been made and are illustrated in the attached table. 2020 Comprehensive Plan Policy Statements The proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan Policy Statements were sent to you on Monday, February 8, 1999 for your review prior to the City Council meeting on February 16, 1999. Staff will present the policies and ask for any comments or recommendations from the Council. As a reminder, please bring your policy statements to the February 16, 1999 meeting. Staff recommends the acceptance of the policy statements, however, if Council wishes to have additional time or make further comments, a request for acceptance of the policy statements may take place at the March 1, 1999 City Council meeting. The policy statements are derived from the information formulated at the Visioning Sessions held in July of 1998. The policy statements propose a definite course or method of action selected to guide and determine the present and future decisions concerning development of the community. The policies will be utilized as a "yardstick" against which proposed ordinances and programs can be measured. The policies deal with land use, natural resources, housing and staged development. In an overall review of the policies, several issues or themes remain constant. The City of Farmington wants quality controlled growth, the maintenance of the small town character, the concept of a central area for community connection, the need to provide available land for housing, further development of business and industrial uses, the need to provide housing for all income levels, the need to preserve the working farms while creating a natural buffer and the need to preserve natural resources and river corridors. City staff respectfully requests that Council review the policy statements and provide comments and recommendations as appropriate. ACTION REOUESTED The City Council is requested to act upon two separate motions concerning the proposed 2020 Land Use Plan and Policy Statements. The actions include the following: 1. Accept the 2020 Land Use Plan to be included in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update upon review of the Planning Commission recommendations. 2. Accept the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Policy Statements by the City Council to be included in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update. If Council desires additional review time, a motion to defer approval of the policy statements until March 1, 1999 is requested. Respectfully submitted, ~C4 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 TO: City Planning Commission FROM: Lee Smick, AICP /l /J Planning Coordinato!.P SUBJECT: 2020 Land Use Plan DATE: February 9, 1999 INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION The City Council reviewed the 2020 Land Use Plan and the recommendations by the Planning Commission concerning the proposed land use plan on February 1, 1999. The attached memo dated February 1, 1999 to the City Council addresses the land use plan in six different districts in order to discuss proposed land uses within the separate districts in detail. Also attached is the most current proposed 2020 Land Use Plan for your review. The comments and recommendations by the City Council are as follows: 1. Utilize the North Branch floodway to act as a buffer to the west, the rail access and the proposed CSAH 60 roadway to designate an industrial park at the northwest comer of District 2 on the Seed/Genstar property. City Council Rationale: Location has roadway and rail line access and the North Branch floodway provides a buffer area from the houses towards the west. 2. Relocate the medium density land use designation along Denmark Avenue on the Neilan property and designate a neighborhood commercial district at the comer of Denmark A venue and Ash Street. City Council Rationale: Medium density located across from the Farmington High School would not be seen as detrimental to the area. The number of senior housing needs is on the rise and seniors because of the close proximity to the downtown could utilize areas such as this.' The location of a dense housing development keeps large amounts of people downtown. Finally, the commercial area at the intersection of Denmark A venue and Ash Street provides convenient services in walking distance from the housing development. The Planning Division has made changes to the 2020 Land Use Map as well in order to meet the Livable Communities Act. Medium density residential areas have been removed because the percent of multi-family housing stock compared to the total housing stock in the City is well above the City's 32-36% goal. Staff is revising the land use numbers to make a more accurate prediction on potential housing types in the future. ACTION REQUESTED This is presented as a discussion item and any recommendations from the Planning Commission will be presented at the February 16, 1999 City Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, ?~ /....../ ., a~, , , Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator 2020 Land Use Totals/Existing Land Uses Land Use Total Acres Percent of Total Business 104.42 1.18% Business Park 176.26 1.99% Environmentally Sensitive 1470.88 16.57% High Density 86.51 0.97% Industrial 329.59 3.71% Low Density 1953.7 22.01 % Low/Medium Density 397.46 4.48% Medium Density 369 4.16% Public Park/Open Space 446.73 5.03% Public/Semi-public 275.49 3.10% Restricted Development 312.67 3.52% ROW 720 8.11% Urban Reserve 2232.29 25.15% 8875 100% Source: City of Farmington Existing Land Use Total Acres Percent of Total Agriculture 1120 14.20% Agriculture Preserve 1275 16.17% Existing Commercial 36 0.46% Vacant Commercial 25 0.32% Existing Industrial 189 2.40% Vacant Industrial 330 4.18% Existing Low Density 1016 12.88% Vacant Low Density 800 10.14% Existing High Density 41 0.52% Vacant High Density 182 2.31% Rural Estate 168 2.13% Natural Open SpacelWater 1315 16.68% Park Space 430 5.45% Public/Semi-Public 304 3.85% ROW/Misc. 655 8.31% 7886 100.00% Note: 989 acres exist in the Genstar annexation petition (950 acres of property139 acres of existing ROW) February 11, 1999 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us IIi:; TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator #' FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Upgrade - Feasibility Report DATE: March 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION Attached is the feasibility report for the Prairie Creek Storm Sewer upgrade project. The proposed project consists of reconstructing portions of the storm sewer system and related items in the Prairie Creek 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Additions. DISCUSSION In response to a citizen petition and subsequent analysis of the storm sewer system in the Prairie Creek Development, the City Council has requested this report to determine the feasibility of upgrading the existing storm sewer system in the Prairie Creek Development. The analysis (dated 9/10/98) indicated that the storm sewer system in the 3rd and 4th Additions of Prairie Creek as designed and constructed by the developer does not meet the City's design standards. The improvements proposed would improve areas with poor drainage and bring the storm sewer system up to City standards. There are three parts to the proposed improvements outlined in the report. The first part includes the reconstruction of the storm sewer system in the 3rd and 4th Additions that will bring the subject storm sewer system up to City standards. The second part includes optional improvements in the 4th Addition. These optional improvements are identified because they would further reduce backyard ponding; however, these improvements would be over and above those necessary for the storm sewer system to meet the 5-year design standard ofthe City. The cost/benefit ratio of this option is high and discussion and consideration of this option will be necessary at the Council meeting. The third part involves the upgrade of the outlet to Pond A V-P1.8 [as identified in the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) page - 80 paragraph 3, attached]. The homes adjacent to this pond currently have no freeboard protection from the lOa-year high water level of the pond. This pond is currently connected to Lake Julia by two ~ fh.k....... . .~ Embers Avenue. To provide one-foot of freeboard protection, as required by the City's SWMP, additional culverts need to be installed in order to lower the current 100-year high water level of the pond. BUDGET IMPACT The total estimated project cost of the recommended options is $566,000. The project costs would be funded from the Storm Water fund. The Finance director has indicated that the fund balance in the Storm Water fund is sufficient to underwrite the cost of these improvements and the City would not need to bond for the improvements. The Storm Water fund is composed of funds collected from Storm Water Utility charges and Storm Water Area charges. The Storm Water utility was instituted to fund maintenance and construction of storm sewers. The costs for the proposed improvements to the outlet for Pond A V-P1.8 are included in the City's Surface Water Management Plan and therefore are funded through the Storm Water Area charges. Due to the nature of the circumstances that have necessitated this project, staff will continue to explore all cost recovery options. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution accepting the feasibility report and authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the Prairie Creek Storm Sewer upgrade project. Respectfully submitted, ';1:rn~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R -99 ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT, AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS PROJECT 99-10 PRAIRIE CREEK STORM SEWER UPGRADE Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting ofthe City Council of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Cchambers of said City on the 1 st day of March, 1999 at 7 :00 PM. The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council approval of the 1999 Capital Improvement Plan, the City Engineer has prepared a preliminary report with reference to the following improvement: Project No. 99-10 Descrintion Prairie Creek Storm Sewer, Street and Sanitary Sewer improvements Location Prairie Creek 2nd, 3rd and 4th Additions ; and WHEREAS, this report was received by the City Council on March 1, 1999; and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary and feasible. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota that: 1. The feasibility report is hereby accepted. 2. Glenn Cook is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall prepare plans and specification for the making of such improvement. This resolution adopted by recorded vote ofthe Farmington City Council in open session on the 1st day of March, 1999. Attested to the day of ,1999. Mayor SEAL City Administrator/Clerk I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The 1996 SWMP for Lakeville proposes a peak 100-year flow rate for the North Creek into the Apple Valley District of approximately 1,033 cfs at ultimate development. The existing peak flow rate from Lakeville into the Apple Valley District is approximately 1,280 cfs. Hydrographs for existing and proposed conditions were provided by the City of Lakeville. The runoff hydrographs modeled an SCS Type II, 24-hour, 1oo-year storm event. A summary of some of the special concerns within this major drainage district is presented below: Existing pond A V-P1.2 currently drains into pond A V-P1.3. A V-P1.3 does not have the storage capacity for the A V-P1.2 discharge. Pond A V-P1.2's outflow is proposed to be routed south to an existing 54" storm sewer just east of the intersection of Pilot Knob Road and Upper 182nd Street West. Existing pond A V-P1.8 outlets through 2-24" culverts. The homes surrounding this pond are in danger of flooding. The current HWL of this pond is 913 t and the walkout elevation for many of the nearby residences is 913 t. The overland emergency spillway is the nearby road at 914 t. To lower the toO-year HWL to 912', four additional 24" culverts are necessary underneath Embers Avenue. Proposed pond A V -P2.2 is located next to a wetland classified as Protect. The vegetation in this wetland is very sensitive to inundation. The pond is sited on another wetland classified as Utilize which is bordered on three sides by the Protect wetland. The intent of the pond outlet (several spillways) is to diffuse the input of water into the Protect wetland rather than through one discharge point. East of the wetland, along the section line, a proposed channel will collect water flowing through the wetland and direct runoff east to North Creek. When development occurs west of the pond, the site and proposed pond should be evaluated in more detail. Proposed pond A V-P2.5 will be created when 195th Street is extended west to T.H. 3 in Empire Township. Under existing conditions, the culverts proposed to pass flow under 19Sth Street (2- 12'x5' and 2-totx 5' box culverts) will pool water to 903.5' during a 1oo-year storm event. Under ultimate developed conditions with upstream rate controls in Lakevillet the HWL will drop to 903'. Farmington SWMP 80 ~ - 1\11 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Bonesrroo, Rosene. Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo. PE. . Joseph C Anderlik. PE. . Marvin L. Sorvala. PE. . Richard E. Turner. PE. . Glenn R. Cook. P.E. . Robert G. Schunicht, P.E. . Jerry A. Bourdon, PE. . Robert W. Rosene, PE. and Susan M. Eberlin. CPA.. Senior Consultants Associate Principals: Howard A Sanford, PE. . Keith A Gordon. PE. . Robert R. Pfefferle. PE. . Richard W. Foster, PE. . David O. loskota. PE. . Robert C Russek, AI.A . Mark A Hanson, PE. . Michael T. Rautmann, PE. . Ted K.Field. PE. . Kenneth P Anderson, PE. . Mark R. Rolfs, PE. . Sidney P Williamson, PE.. L.S. . Robert F. Kotsmith . ,Agnes M. Ring. Michael P Rau, PE. . Allan Rick Schmidt, PE. Offices: SI. Paul. Rochester, Willmar and St. Cloud. MN . Milwaukee. WI Engineers & Architects Website: www.bonestrOO.com February 24, 1999 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Re: Feasibility Report Prairie Creek Storm Sewer'Reconstruction Our File No. 141-98-813 Dear Mayor and Council: Enclosed for your review is our Report on the Prairie Creek storm sewer and utility improvements for the Prairie Creek Additions in the City of Farmington. This report describes storm and sanitary sewer improvements necessary to improve the drainage system and diminish the existing flooding potential for several citizens of Farmington living in the Prairie Creek Development. The improvements proposed in this report are in response to specific concerns of residents or address issues identified in the 1997 Surface Water Management Plan. The improvements proposed will bring the existing storm sewer system into compliance with the City's standards. Cost estimates for the proposed improvements are presented in the Appendices. We would be pleased to discuss this report further with the City Councilor City staff at any mutually convenient time. Respectfully submitted, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. U~?k Erik G. Peters I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a du1y Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. /~/./~ ,..... '/ C7Y. '.Y!.h1 Glenn R. Cook, P .E. Date: February 24th. 1999 ~~L Reg. No. 9451 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311 Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal Table of Contents Introduction Discussion Cost Estimates Project Financing Conclusions and Recommendations Appendix A - Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Cost Estimates Project Cost Tracking Sheet Page No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 9. 10. 11. Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study 2 Introduction On July 20, 1998, the City received a petition from several residents in the Prairie Creek Development requesting that the City resolve the storm water drainage problems that they were experiencing. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to research the issues. A Council workshop was held on September 16 and the findings of the staff s research were presented. Based on the analysis performed by the City's consulting engineer dated September 10, 1999, the storm sewer system in the Prairie Creek 3rd and 4th Additions does not meet the City's design standards. The City Council has requested this report to determine the feasibility of upgrading the existing storm sewer system in the Prairie Creek Development to improve areas with poor drainage and bring the storm sewer system up to City standards. The Prairie Creek Development is located east of Pilot Knob Road and adjacent to Lake Julia on its western and southern shore (see Figure 1). Most of the surface drainage from the Prairie Creek Development drains into Lake Julia through storm sewer. The very southern portions of the 3rd and 4th Additions drain to the southeast to a small water quality pond located along the edge of an existing field. This pond currently outlets to the east via overland drainage. In the future, when the development to the east occurs, the outlet of his pond will be improved to include an outlet structure consistent with City standards. This report describes the storm sewer improvements along with modifications necessary to affected water main, sanitary, and gas utilities required to improve the existing drainage system. The proposed storm sewer improvements and modifications to the sanitary sewer system are shown on Figures 3 through 6. Optional improvements are shown on Figure 7. Cost estimates for the proposed improvements are presented in this report. Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study 3 Discussion Background Several residents in the Prairie Creek Development have indicated that they have problems with the drainage on their properties. Runoff collecting in backyards of residences has lead to complaints of chronically wet backyards, standing water and for one resident, near flooding. The drainage issues became especially acute during a significant rainstorm on Saturday, June 27th, 1998 where the near flooding of a residence on 18765 Embers Avenue occurred. The residents at 18765 Embers Avenue placed sandbags around the back of their home to prevent storm water runoff from entering their walkout basement during this storm event. The State Climatologist Office recorded in Farmington 3.11 inches of rainfall on June 27th and 0.92 inches of rainfall on June 28th. Rainfall is measured at 5:00 PM each day, so rainfall occurring between 5:00 PM and 12:00AM is included as part of the next day. This storm event corresponds to a return frequency between 5 to 10 years (3.6 to 4.2 inches of rainfall respectively) based on a 24- hour period and data from the U.S. Weather Bureau. The design standard for storm sewer design within the City is a 5-year design. The 5-year design criteria is conditioned on the provision of emergency overflow drainage. The design standard for ponding design within the City is a 100-year return frequency (6-inches of rainfall in 24-hours). A petition by the residents of 18765 Embers Avenue and neighbors along the same block resulted in the City Council requesting a review of the storm sewer system within Prairie Creek 3rd and 4th Additions. The review (dated 9/10/98) resulted in the finding that the majority of the storm sewer system does not meet the design standards of the City. Four factors have been identified that contribute to the poor drainage in the study area (see Figure 2): 1) Overland drainage with grades less than 1 % combined with excessive travel distances to storm sewer. This situation is particularly evident along the backlots of lots on the west side of Embers Avenue. 2) Storm sewer that is under capacity resulting in frequent surcharging (pressurized flow) of storm sewer pipe and backwater that further reduces the capacity of upstream storm sewer. This situation is particularly evident in the storm sewer system beginning at the intersection of Embers Avenue and Embry Avenue and running down Embers Avenue and 187th Street before discharging into Lake Julia. 3) Lack of adequate emergency overflow swales at critical locations in order to prevent the ponding of runoff in undesirable areas. The backlot of 18765 Embers Avenue is an example where an adequate emergency overflow is lacking. 4) Ponds that have not been designed to function per City standards in regards to ponding high water levels and the potential for flooding. Examples include the backlot area between the cul-de-sac of Embry Avenue and 187th Street in the 4th Addition and the backlot of 18765 Embers Avenue in the 3rd Addition. Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study 4 This report also addresses an issue in Prairie Creek 2nd Addition. Farmington's 1997 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) previously identified several residences within Prairie Creek 1 st and 2nd Additions that lie adjacent to Pond AV-P1.8 (see Figure 2) as being in danger of flooding. The adjacent homes currently have no freeboard protection from the 1 DO-year high water level of the pond (see page 80, paragraph 3, SWMP). This pond is currently connected to Lake Julia by two culverts under Embers Avenue. The modeled 1 DO-year high water level of the pond with the existing culverts is 913' and the walkout elevation for many of the nearby homes is 913'. The emergency overflow elevation at Embers Avenue is 914'. To provide one-foot of freeboard protection, as required by the City's S WMP, the 100- year high water level of the pond will need to be 912'. Additional culverts need to be installed in order to lower the 100-year high water level ofthe pond to an elevation of 912'. The need to improve the outlet of Pond A V-P1.8 is supported by the observed behavior of the pond during the June 27th storm event. The high water level of the pond resulting from the storm was approximately 911.5' based on the observed debris ring around the pond. Storm Sewer Improvements for Prairie Creek 3rd Addition Most of the storm sewer within the Prairie Creek 3rd Addition is proposed to be replaced or supplemented with additional pipe to increase the available pipe capacity, improve surface drainage and reduce undesirable runoff ponding potential. There are two separate storm sewer systems within the 3rd Addition. One system runs down Embry A venue to Embers Avenue and north to Lake Julia. The other system begins between two lots at the intersection of Embers Avenue and Eaglewood Trail and drains to a small water quality pond in the southeast comer of the Prairie Creek 4th Addition. Storm Sewer Improvements from the Intersections of Embers Avenue and Embry Ave North to Lake Julia. To improve the drainage situation beginning at the intersection of Embers Avenue and Embry Avenues the following improvements are proposed. Along Embers Avenue, between the intersections with Embry Avenue and 18'fh Street, a dual storm sewer system is proposed (see Figure 3). The existing catch basins at the intersection of Embers Avenue and Embry Avenue are proposed to be replaced and flow directed into an new 24" arch storm sewer pipe to run along the eastern edge of Embers Ave. The existing 6" PVC line that intercepts the backlot drainage between Embry Avenue and 187th Street on the west side of Embers Avenue will be replaced with a larger 15" pipe. The flow diversion will allow the existing 24" storm sewer pipe running along the western edge of Embers Avenue to meet the City's 5-year design standard. The two dual systems will reconnect at the NE intersection of 187th Street and Embers A venue. Arched pipe is needed along several portions of the proposed design in order to achieve adequate pipe cover and provide the needed pipe capacity in spite of grade constraints due to several shallow sanitary sewer pipes in the area. From the location where the dual systems will be combined, a new storm sewer pipe system is proposed to run east along 187th Street a few hundred feet before turning north, crossing under a 8" high pressure gas main, and discharging into Lake Julia. Based on the very limited information available regarding the location of the gas main at this time, it is anticipated that the 8" gas main will not need to be relocated. Once the ground thaws, the exact location of the gas main will need to be Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study 5 determined. The existing storm sewer pipe system at the intersection of 187th Street and Embers A venue, which directs flow through a 24" pipe east along 187th Street and into the 4th Addition, will be abandoned. Abandoning the pipe is necessary because the proposed system will be lower than the existing system. Storm Sewer Improvements from 18765 Embers Avenue south to the Pond South of Eaglewood Trail. To improve the drainage beginning at the backyard of 18765 Embers Avenue and extending south along the back property line of adjacent residences, the following improvements are proposed (see Figure 4). The existing storm sewer system will be completely replaced with larger pipe beginning at the existing pond south of Eaglewood Trail and extend beyond its existing terminus north to the backyard of 18765 Embers Avenue, the lot currently experiencing the most severe drainage problems. The new storm sewer pipe along the back property line oflots 18905through lot 18765 will have catch basins to intercept and collect backyard runoff from the adjacent properties. The new storm sewer pipe will end in a flared end section at the back of lot 18765. Some grading of portions of the backlots will be necessary to direct drainage to the catch basins. Five lots have backyard fences located on drainage easements that the residents will need to remove prior to construction. The invert elevation of the storm sewer pipe discharging into the water quality pond will be lowered approximately 1.5 feet. The construction of the pond is incomplete at this time with the outlet of the pond being overland flow to the east. When development to the east of Prairie Creek 4th Addition occurs, the constructed outlet for the pond will be set at the new invert elevation of the incoming storm sewer. Temporary grading of the overland outlet will be necessary to provide drainage for the pond and encourage infiltration of runoff leaving the pond into the ground. Costs associated with grading a temporary overland outlet are included in this report. The backyard oflot 18765 Embers currently drains out through a 12" pipe toward Embry Avenue. The problems with this situation are due to three factors: I) Backwater effects from undersized storm sewer system at the intersection of Embry and Embers Avenues reducing the available capacity of the 12" pipe to drain the backyard. 2) The top of the existing 12" pipe is slightly less than 1 foot below the walkout elevation oflot 18765, so that whenever the pipe is close to flowing full, the water level is less than a foot below the walkout elevation. 3) Lack of an emergency overflow that would allow the storm water runoff to flow away from the home before the runoff would enter the home. With the installation of the improvements as proposed the flooding potential for 18765 Embers will be reduced to the extent possible in the following manner. 1) The storm sewer system at the intersection of Embry and Embers Avenues will be upgraded with a dual system as discussed above, reducing the severe backwater effects currently in existence for the present 12" outlet. 2) The invert elevation of the 15" diameter flared end section associated with the new pipe running along the back property line will be approximately 1.5 feet lower than the invert of the existing 12" pipe that drains toward Embry Avenue and become the primary drainage outlet for the backyard. The new pipe will have a capacity in excess of the City's 5-year design standard. 3) The existing 12" pipe will become an emergency overflow. Based on the computer model, these three improvements would serve to provide 1 DO-year flood protection for 18765 Embers. Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study 6 . To mask the elevation differential between the invert on the new 15" pipe and the existing grade of the backyard on lot 18765, the cost to place a few moisture tolerant shrubs (Red-osier dogwood, High brush cranberry, etc.) and a small modular block retaining wall around the flared end is included in this report. Storm Sewer Improvements for Prairie Creek 4th Addition To reduce the frequency when water ponds behind the lots between 187th Street and Embers Ave cul- de-sac, the following improvements are proposed. The existing 15" diameter storm sewer pipe draining the backyards does not meet City design standards and is proposed to be replaced with a 24" diameter pipe that is also set at a slightly lower elevation (Figure 5). Ponding due to backwater effects from pressurized flow in the existing storm sewer along 187th Street will also be reduced with the proposed work in the 3rd Addition. Despite the proposed improvements, water will still pond in the backyards from time to time, but on a less frequent basis. This is a situation where the drainage system can be brought up to City standards, but the resulting end product will be less desirable than it would have been if the system had been designed differently to begin with. The presence of a high-pressure gas main along the north side of 187th Street and the prohibitive cost to relocate the pipe prevents lowering the replacement pipe the desired depth. Another cause for ponding that cannot be eliminated is the potential for Lake Julia water surface levels to rise during large storm events to the point where water will back up and out the storm sewer system and pond in the backyards. The homes in this area do have the required one-foot freeboard above the 100-year high water level of Lake Julia. If the aesthetics in this area remain a concern, replacing the turf grass in the affected area with a shrub garden is a potential, low cost consideration. Optional Improvements Further improvements may be made to reduce the frequency of ponding in this area. The improvements and associated costs are included in this report but are not recommended for immediate implementation due to their higher cost/benefit ratio. It is recommended that the effect of the proposed improvements be observed and a later decision made regarding whether further improvements are deemed necessary. These improvements would be over and above those necessary for the storm sewer system to meet the 5-year design standard of the City. There are two options for further improvements (see Figure 6). The first option is to divert the drainage of the existing upstream pond to the south and into the replacement storm sewer system along Eaglewood Trail. The second improvement option is an expansion of the first where runoff from Embry Avenue cul-de-sac would be diverted into the upstream pond south of the cul-de-sac. Both options would require lowering the normal water level of the pond approximately 1 foot. Lowering the established normal water level of a pond is generally viewed negatively by adjacent residents. The benefits of both options would be to achieve a further reduction in the frequency of backlot ponding in this area. Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study 7 Outlet Improvements for SWMP Pond A V-P1.8 Two 24" diameter culverts under Embers Avenue act as the current outlet for Pond A V -Pl.8 (see Figure 2). To lower the 100-year high water level of the pond to 912' and provide a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard protection for residences adjacent to the pond, five additional 24" diameter culverts will need to cross under Embers Avenue (see Figure 7). The downstream inverts of the two existing 24" culverts will be lowered 2.75 feet to match the normal water level of Lake Julia (905.85') and the invert ofthe adjacent 60" diameter flared end section. Sanitary Sewer Improvements The existing 12" PVC sanitary sewer line along Eaglewood Trail between the intersections with Embers Avenue and Easton Avenue (existing sanitary manholes MH-9.3 and MH-15.4 respectively) will need to be lowered to accommodate the crossing of the replacement storm sewer pipe over the new sanitary line (see Figure 4). The existing sanitary sewer manhole (MH-9.3) in the intersection of Eagle wood Trail and Embers Avenue will need to be replaced with a drop manhole that will direct all incoming flow into the sewer under Eaglewood Trail. Currently MH-9.3 contains a metal baffle system to direct flow to continue north along Embers Avenue rather than direct flow into the sewer along Eaglewood Trail per the City's Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan. The baffle system was installed as a temporary measure to due to the lack of a flow monitoring station on the Eaglewood Trail sanitary sewer line. Existing MH-15.4 in the intersection of Eaglewood Trail and Easton Avenue is a drop manhole. The drop will be reduced approximately 2 feet to accommodate the lowering of the sanitary sewer line under Eaglewood Trail. The improvements to the outlet of Pond A V-P1.8 will necessitate that a section of the existing 15" vitrified clay sanitary sewer pipe along Embers Avenue be replaced with 16" ductile iron pipe (see Figure 7). The shallow, brittle clay pipe will likely not sustain the construction activities associated with improving the outlet of Pond A V-P1.8. Several sections of sanitary sewer pipe in the Prairie Creek 3rd and 4th Additions are presently or will be oversized once the storm sewer reconstruction work is completed. The oversized lines will tend to collect debris due to small sewage flows that will be inadequate to maintain self cleaning flow velocities. The existing 12" PVC line along 187th Street east of Embers Ave that only serves 4 homes in the 4th Addition is one area of concern. The 12"/15" diameter VC pipe along Embers Avenue between Eaglewood Trail and Embry Avenue will become susceptible to debris buildup once flow at the intersection of Embers Avenue and Eaglewood Trail is diverted to the east as part of the Prairie Creek storm sewer reconstruction. It is recommended that the City of Farmington annually clean these sections of pipe to remove any accumulation of debris within the pipe. Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study 8 Cost Estimates The project costs for these improvements are outlined in this section. Estimated construction costs have been provided for storm sewer and associated utility improvements. The itemized cost estimates are provided in the appendix. Cost estimates for this report are based on 1998 construction costs and can be related to the February, 1999 ENR Construction Cost Index of5992. A summary of the estimated costs for the proposed improvements is presented below. The costs presented include 10% for contingencies and 27% for engineering, legal and administration. Estimated Project Costs Item Estimated Cost Prairie Creek 3rd Storm Sewer Improvements $404,200 Prairie Creek 4th Storm Sewer Improvements $54,300 Miscellaneous costs $7,000 Subtotal $465,500 Optional 4th Addition Storm Sewer Improvements $79,000 Miscellaneous costs $3,000 Subtotal $82,000 Outlet Improvements for SWMP Pond A V-P1.8 $99,700 Miscellaneous costs $500 Subtotal $100,200 TOTAL RECOMMENDED OPTIONS $565,700 TOTAL ALL OPTIONS $647,700 Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study 9 Project Financing The total estimated project cost for the recommended options is $566,000. The project costs are proposed to be funded from the Storm Water fund. The Finance director has indicated that the fund balance in the Storm Water fund is sufficient to underwrite the cost of these improvements and the City would not need to bond for the improvements. The Storm Water fund is composed of funds collected from Storm Water Utility charges and Storm Water Area charges. The Storm Water utility was instituted to fund maintenance and construction of storm sewers. The costs for the proposed improvements to the outlet for Pond A V-P1.8 are included in the City's Surface Water Management Plan and therefore are funded through the Storm Water Area charges. Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study 10 Conclusions and Recommendations The proposed improvements described in this report are feasible as they relate to general engineering principals and construction procedures. The improvements are necessary to bring the subject storm sewer system up to City standards. The feasibility of the project as a whole is subject to the fmancial review. Based on the information contained in this report, it is recommended that: I. That this Report be adopted as the guide for Prairie Creek storm sewer upgrade improvements. 2. That the City conduct a legal and fiscal review of the proposed project. 3. The following schedule be implemented for the project: Receive Feasibility Report/Order Plans and Specifications March 1, 1999 Hold neighborhood meeting Week of March 22, 1999 Approve plans and specifications/Authorize advertisement for April 5, 1999 bids Accept Bids/Award Contract May 3, 1999 Begin Construction June 1, 1999 Complete Construction September 31, 1999 Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study 11 Appendix ~.- ~mU ~=[3 1 A . I ~ LJ IT. I ( t I ~ OJ ~ I \ 'L PR( JECT LO~ \TION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IL CI:lJNT'I' RD. :so ~ 4- ~ ~ \\ 11[J:j I ~ ~i ( ~ ~ n ~II.~ ~ I ~ r ~.ffHffiHI] ~ I~ L~ o Jl'fE F~"'" ~ \ ~ _" d~ L. L ,~ .. CDM"'" I'll ~~_L0 ) _ T ..JIr ~ '--l'! :;;;J.:.- ~ ~ II .L11nIf ~ \U:- ~ II1L I "'= 1 J ~-uhtnll II IffiIII ~::,:r P ~~ ~ ~ ~.= ~~=r r' Ju I ill: I ~ ~L ~" '-'IV ~'-' [ "~ ,.....,.., LV ~ t I -.J U _n -It Tn .fii' ~ 7~ ,-,..J G r:: Ii Cl1Yr7rMMtN:i1l """"''''''..." fttnt IT-- vtST fr-r-, U I I m I ~~ b n ...-:/ L ~~ ~ 'J d ~V ;i ~I LOCATION PLAN r ~ 1fT -lrr . ~~ -- o 1500 3000 ~ Scale in feet \ . fl. Bonestroo ~ Rosene G Anderlik & ,\I, Associates Engineers & Architects FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA FIGURE 1 PRAIRIE CREEK STORM SEWER RECONSTRUCTION FEASIBILllY STUDY \DWG\ 14198813R01.DWG 2/22/1999 141-98-813 /' o :::;: C) /' .p. <.D m (Xl IN o r ::a 1'-.1 o -> 2) o o :s: :s: .p. I <.D m I co IN N -....... N N -....... to <.D --0 ::::0 )> ::::0 I'l o ::::0 fTl I'l ^ Ul -i o ::::0 ~ Ul I'l :;E I'l ::::0 ::::0 I'l o o z Ul -i ::::0 C o -i o Z '1 fTl )> Ul rn I -i -< Ul -i C o -< Ti! '" ,ii" ~'/.. , (L '----Z'%' · (j) i ! ., ". .,. *' . . 0--1 1 I,; ,/ <' -.:~1,r' ""'0--" /'>.. ...< &, .. ! ~/.. 0' AJ " (5'..,',(" ./ If i--.-,,- .. '. <:),. / AC{j, ;s;: '" .. 'i.. I , .,."'" "- 'j;.>" ./. ,/ .' .....S;;!,: ;.' .... ",..' <'). .' (j) '. ,\,,,, \ (> .'" r-- '. 'I, ,_ i 'I ; ~ ,''1 1.>," fTl ' <.: ^' '1J' .._, '- . - ,?,' . ~ ./;. ", ' ", .~, I- ; "," "_"', ' . '! ;' ~::,.....,.', . \ 0- ..:'. ". ". ". ,:,' 16' /' . r-n . '. I ~ J .,,' / ' --,.."" ..' .." ,,' ". ;U ,.... ,. .! ,'1'-" ,-.-...-.... !:: i-(--~""::\::':'::'>~\\-"" .".;-..,," '. ". "'" / . .. ," . ". '.' ! "'"'' ___..j' '.:1' '" '/,,' " ; 0 ..... '. / . .' .?'" ., ". ;;::"" , . O. '. .. (j) , . . ", ./ ~, ,", ' ! : ,'iii CO' : 'r), , !" ':) " '.... '" //A'c'" -< ,., ..' '. ,"'" : " .lP"> ,"""'\'" ! 0'. ./ /.""."..,."".,. ~iZ ,,/i /~.. / --..1+.. ! 1/ D?:-"-!'1&D%~_i - _.~,> :~,;~;,,!!,,/!;ji,li,,:ii:; ;s;: , , . . A ,.." 1'.1)> I \. .""0.,,, .....s".' ,,'" ".,,,,,,,,, "" ".'" " "", ,". . 'j ':--. . I ,\:', / .. ! ~ : '. ' ----1 ", , , , , " ' - /, -"j .,/ ,: ..'j ,'..J I I fTl X (/) --1 Z GJ '1 )> ::::0 ~ Z GJ -i o Z " I ~""'~:,>-- ' 11\ ~~..., iil )>)>;tJ OJ ... ., ~ ~::J 0 0 .. OQ,Ul-' ' )> CD CD -J " , rt Q.:l.::J rn .., ::; OJ -.CD 1'"1" ~ ii' @'^ ., " a <n s<<> g /' ,.' " "- ., '.. i ~ z Z I'l Ul o -i )> " " <' .,. oj . " , .._v~ s ... " -~..~_. '1 ci C ::::0 I'l N ! i \ m-1 i , \ I ; ......____ I _.. :~. q ,"1 ........ ..... j. j ~'~ i H- . . ~1 ,.1 rl...- .... s -.... r:""'t..- i i -u '... \ . '6' : . i.. ~ ",' "\IJ. m_" _JI ! I: ~""-:" {t.....~.._J ..._ rIL "0 I ,fT1 .. ,^ .\ ' i ,t- ~--1 ..~ "i" <'I I, 0. -"''''''''''' r ' , p s ~"f. ...-......--1:, i 0 <'<, ,.........-g... - ~~. ' I ....,mm_ ; II : Vi ~ ..,", ' . '" 1'1-! . -"_ r [ is' ... 1( "- .'. .f'" ~ "/ " '" 'oj I '<, ~'~ . ~ @'" / - .~...- - ~. ~~.. ....-2 : ~ IS U> I, / -/ I. ./ --'-'~ ! i l I i ! I '0 .../ /.... I .., "-. -..} i "I .~ L __ i 'l- ..........~ I ! ~ 0 i' 5' oj i ~ ; ~ -2s j !--_._~ i -? ~! I ~ CD I . fTl ! :_......~.i! <'.> .)> i, <i ---.....- .....p:t..1 <' ! "'.i .... : I ,.,,\ i.- I Jo <'" <'.. / /)~r '''--UT,M.- =~ -- ..~-~ /Il 1.li87thr,STR:~."E'-"T-'" i l!' -r <'" r- ,z It I I <'.> I: !' .1 H:--..' ' <'~,' Ii"~"~ ..--l I <'s , f ~ '. I ' ; II "', I-! i i i [,I ". I ."-t-. . I , I ~ ! J' - -----..1--- ! I iT ./ I Ii ! ", <,' ! I if i ". I ./ / 'I"~ I',' <'.. ',-.... ", ' ../ / Jo i I _ ~..~...J''''.4 ,~"'-'--'-'l' """'" / ' oj, ~ oj "~I i .___ ""_.'. ! i '" <' , "I'_~""'" ,"<"'C'"' , I.' i'H.. --"[M':~-B'~'f-~:':"":-"~-"'~"~'~~~"~-"-''' f'! _..__J ; iii · y" .". '" ''''. ".." ". : [Ie-" AVF':~:;">" "., " '. i ,'I - ---l "0.:' ~. ,I --'--."~ :'" )'1 II', :. i <: > ;" , "I · ~! ' ...,,,...../ i \I,i--' · ;" ~ I ::! .... .. , iii' ,,_J j 0 '" i i 111__ "," -'-'."'...:.... 'oJ~" '. 'b'~ iii, ."'" '. .' 0... I ilL ," \ ,,"7":' g"/ Ii 1\[ -' ....,.. ...l\_. /., "........ '. ....:,"':,.. .' .,," .", .' ,'- . . : H,l_ -.....- J ' ii' ',\ ./. ,,//:' .... I ill . ..j' \/ i .... ,,~.../ " ../. i \I~l. · v'" \\>:.." \:<. . ....... ". ....:::>' '\..<:.... ...":::.:.:...... '. I 1,1-..., . ' .. .... '. . . ..' . Ii' --- I "..---::<': ./,' i....J i Iii.! "I .>,<".., ,,'/' \ [1,1"'''- '. '. '. .-' , '" ,,'..', ,'( ,..-" : L · /} "/D~ · , \11- . .. .' ~/. '!'. i Iii . i";'/..-,,.t' , \i, !iJ',I,:-- .. ./ ,. ..'0 /'..... . '0 I "'" /~-.( , '" I" ',. ,..... :\\\-:,-1/ ./~>/ "/~ l.iilEA~L=E~.~-2Q.._.....-.' - - 'oj' j......... / 'W ~ I h__./ _.. ....._, ......'. ..~ r _m.__.:;~~:': "::'" "..::,.:1..;1'/' ~ ~ h ~ "'~ '. '. .:'''' g ~ ^ ~ .,:,'.. ". zo <' .. '." " C") C 0 .... "'>. )> ...., . .,' )> .," ...., A) M .J / fTl )>0 (f)fTl ~ ~ I Z o ., '<, , ~... .... .....<:::.." "" .... <oj <<' -tt ....-U AJ<" P >.'~.., 0".. AJ fT1 ['Tl ^ ." " "'0 J, oJs )~ ,-+", :J ". '.> fTl s:: fTl ;;u GJ fTl Z n -< o ~ ;;u ...., r o ~ (f) CfTl zx 0- fTl(f) A):::::J Z nC") )>(f) "U--t )>0 QA) ~s:: (f) fTl ~ ;;u I)l <0 , '" o ,---' i ", s i ..-i1 i 1..- i oj [...---........----... i 1-- .... i .~. .' , . . . -' ,,", / ~ / -? '.. '" J ~ e, F .\ U o < fTl ;;u r )> Z o o A) ~ z )> C") fTl "U A) o rn r fTl s.: ./ ""D 'TJ "U 0 ::::0 )> ;0 :E ::::0 C) )> )> ./ ::::0 ~ ;0 ~ fIl Z (!) C) I'l co (") -l co 0 ~ ::::0 0 VI Z ;0 fIl ~ ;0 0 VI fIl I'l CJ ^ ~ I'l :E Z ^ C) (f) -l Z 0 fIl 0-l ::::0 (f) ~ ~ 0 Q. (f) ~ )> fIl 0 :E 0 fIl --I ::::0 ::::0 0 fIl Z (") (") 0 I'l 0 s:: Z ~ s:: (f) CD -l I'l ::::0 ~ C ;0 ~ (") (f) I -l (!) co 0 ~ I co Z ~ I'l VI 'TJ Z fIl C )> (f) I'l OJ (/) N r "- --I N =< 0 N "- ;0 (!) (!) (f) ~ -l C (f) 0 -< I'l :E I'l ;0 ~ 'lJ ;0 0 < I'l ~ I'l Z --I (f) / ~ .) i , , , , , , , , , , ..... , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on ~ I,:t: (II :c. , , , , , , I , , p Q) :::0 C/) ~ Pi .) ~ s (" ~ '" 'e. c. )7 .!) 6 .> -----~---------- o . ---:l:I--_____ (") 187th S REET -I- .?c9 .?.> .?6 ~ .)/ ~r <ll f! I II "01 1:-< I'" , I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I .? i 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 .) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o I I '0 I I I I L ~ \ I . L-~_.,...J r o \ ~ r--' R I I I I~ s c9 / \ I I < \ I II I I ! \ " "'-. "'-. I I I -- I I i~=~ ~ )>)> it! OJ Ul::JOO !lP U) a. U) ::J )10 Ommm n .., ::J '" ;:I -._..... VI :r OJ -..11 r1' - r1' "0 .., Ii m a Ulf'O 0 /' o :E (;) /' .J>. ..... lO OJ (Xl Vol ;;0 o :l'" o :E (;) () o ~ ~ .J>. I lO (Xl I OJ ..... Vol N ........ N N ........ lO lO ;g ~ )> ;0 ;0 s:: fTl Z C) () --l ;0 0 fTl Z fTl- A (f) -l o ;0 s:: (f) fTl ::E fTl ;0 ;0 fTl () o Z (f) --l ;0 C () --l o Z ...,., fIl )> (f) CD r ~ (f) -l C o -< s:: Z Z fTl (f) o ~ u ;0 )> ;0 rrl o ;0 rrl rrl ^ VJ ..., Q. )> o o --I o Z rrl )> C) r rrl :E o o o --I ;0 )> r (f). --I o ;0 s:: (f) rrl :E rrl ;0 s:: -0 ;0 o < rrl s:: rrl Z --I (f) ...,., C) c I ;0 fTl l<' 0 D if ..p.. 5' a g; / 8 i~C~ Cil )>)>;;0 c:J II' ~s.~O )> OCDCD:J M O.::L:Jm :::r OJ -. CD I""t' ;:t I""t'~ - lD CD . a- U) S'O g -<> -<>.> -<>6' -<>,9 J'o J'o J'; 1 I -..1 -<> J' ,9 ;0 ~ L-~_"...J ~ r-'" I I s (; ~ .> (; .> s 6' ,9 ;0 ;; ; I I I t \ \ \ \ I I lJ) i! :J: ..? J' 1JC) 0;0 Zl> 00 ITI o C;;:j ~;:: 1"'11J ~/~~ ;ii ;0 r l> Z o ~ s "C - -1 ~ ~ \ , \ , \ \ . \ , \ , \ \ , \ Lu ~ "C -1 ~ I I I I I , I , , , , I ' I' I' ! ,I " " , ' I ' I \ \ , I , , , , , , , , , , , , I I , I I I I ~ /.....1'.....' " , , I \ I i \ I ' \ I \ ' \ I ' \ , \ I \ I I CBMH- .4 \ ,e OO+.L +-it- r --. I I 'll --I I I I I I I I ---, I I ~ ~ ~ ~ SThtH-44 24" HOPE +-- 00+ ~ ~ --1 :4> I I -__J ~ f I I I . 1- t'l- I I I I : I I ~ \ \ \ \ I 1 I 't) fa " , \ I \ \ 8 , to \ \ I I \ \ .--------------f-- -----&- I PRAIRIE CREEK STORM SEWER \ "" .... , \ ._.J ~ 4th ADDITION .~~ IMPROVEMENTS "" o 50 .......... 100 .f1. Bonestroo ~ Rosene G Anderlik & '\J' Associates Engineers & Architects Scale in feet FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA FIGURE 5 PRAIRIE CREEK STORM SEWER RECONSTRUCTION FEASIBILlIY STUDY \OWG\ 14198813R05.0WG 2/22/99 141-98-813 ./ o ::E C) ./ -l'> ~ 1.0 (Xl (Xl VJ ;:0 o '-I o ::E C) -u ~ "1J ;0 ::::0 )> ;0 )> ~ ;0 - ::::0 rr1 Z GJ rr1 (") -l ;0 0 (") fTl Z ::::0 rr1 rr1 ^ ~ rr1 - (f) z ^ -l Z 0 rr1 ~ ;0 (f) r+ ~ 0 :r (f) ~ )> rr1 0 :E 0 rr1 ;0 -; ;0 0 fTl Z (") 0 0 z -0 (f) -; -l ;0 0 c Z (") )> -l r 0 z (/) -; .,.., 0 fTl )> ::::0 (f) ~ CD r (/) ~ rr1 :E (f) rr1 -l ::::0 c 0 ~ -< "1J ::::0 0 < rr1 ~ rr1 Z -; (/) N ........ N N ........ 1.0 1.0 (") o i!:: i!:: -l'> I 1.0 (Xl I (Xl ~ VJ K' 0 .,.., jj S' GJ [ C ;0 fTl m i~C~ m )>)>;:tJ OJ U):::J00 131 ~o.~:::J > nCD_CD n -.:!.....U) '3 OJ:;:: CD tT r; tT ~ "0 111 CD a U)~ 0 I / o '" o 8 LAKE JULIA --- --- --- --- --- ---- ------ ------ -- ---------- .---, I _.J .3'1 .3s ''1 , I 's '> I \ .J \...--- o _-4 r I I 'C1 , , -1 \ \ _.J 4 9 ~ 11 U 10 I- ELK IVER TR. 3 10 13 13 11 12 SWMP POND A V P1.8 5 4 186th STRE T 6 I ; I-L.. . l__../ . SWMP POND AV-P1.8 OUTLET IMPROVEMENTS o 50 ~ Scale in feet 100 . . fl. Bonestroo .. Rosene II Anderlik & 1 \.11 Associates Engineers &; Architects FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA FIGURE 7 PRAIRIE CREEK STORM SEWER RECONSTRUCTION FEASIBILllY STUDY \DWG\ 14198813R06.DWG 141-98-813 2/22/99 Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study Prairie Creek 3rd Addition Estimated Unit Price Item Unit Quantity $ Total $ Part 1 - Storm Sewer Mobilization LS 1 5,800.0 5,800 Remove catch basin EA 3 200.0 600 Remove storm sewer manhole EA 9 300.0 2,700 Remove 12" RCP storm sewer pipe LF 182 8.0 1 ,456 Remove 15" RCP storm sewer pipe LF 53 8.0 424 Remove 18" RCP storm sewer pipe LF 95 8.5 808 Remove 24" RCP storm sewer pipe LF 48 9.0 432 Salvage 21" RCP storm sewer pipe LF 289 8.5 2,457 Salvage 21" RCP flared end section EA 1 150.0 150 Verify and cross 8" high pressure gas main EA 1 2,500.0 2,500 15" HOPE storm sewer LF 310 15.0 4,650 18" HOPE storm sewer LF 530 17.5 9,275 24" HOPE storm sewer LF 150 24.5 3,675 30" HOPE storm sewer LF 100 34.0 3,400 36" HOPE storm sewer LF 150 45.0 6,750 12" RCP storm sewer, Class 5, 0'-8' deep LF 70 21.0 1,470 15" RCP storm sewer, Class 5, 0'-8' deep LF 40 21.0 840 15" RCP tied joint storm sewer, Class 5, 0'-8' deep LF 25 23.5 588 21" RCP storm sewer, Class 4,0'-8' deep LF 16 27.5 440 21" RC LR Bend, Class 4 EA 4 360.0 1 ,440 27" RCP storm sewer, Class 3, 0'-8' deep LF 275 35.0 9,625 30" RCP storm sewer, Class 3, 0'-8' deep LF 145 40.0 5,800 30" RCP tied joint storm sewer, Class 3, 0'-8' deep LF 25 42.0 1,050 36" RCP storm sewer, Class 3, 0'-8' deep LF 75 50.0 3,750 36" RC LR Bend, Class 4 EA 6 800.0 4,800 36" RCP tied joint storm sewer, Class 3, 0'-8' deep LF 25 65.0 1,625 18" RCP arch storm sewer, Class 4, 0'-8' deep LF 110 40.0 4,400 24" RCP arch storm sewer, CI 4, 0'-8' deep LF 320 49.0 15,680 Improved pipe foundation per 6" depth LF 2380 1.0 2,380 15" RCP flared end section w/trash guard EA 1 800.0 800 30" RCP flared end section w/trash guard EA 1 1,600.0 1,600 36" RCP flared end section w/trash guard EA 1 1,850.0 1,850 4' dia storm sewer CBMH, inc R-4342 cstg and HOPE adj rings EA 7 1,200.0 8,400 2' x 3' CB, incl R-3067 -V cstg and cone adj rings EA 3 1,000.0 3,000 4' dia storm sewer CBMH, inc R-3067-V, cstg and cone adj rings EA 4 1,400.0 5,600 Farmington Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study PC 3rd-1 Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study Prairie Creek 3rd Addition Estimated Unit Price Item Unit Quantity $ Total $ 5' dia storm sewer CBMH, inc R-3067-V, cstg and conc adj rings EA 2 2,000.0 4,000 4' diameter storm sewer MH EA 3 1,375.0 4,125 5' diameter storm sewer MH EA 4 1,750.0 7,000 6' diameter storm sewer MH EA 2 2,200.0 4,400 Construct MH over existing pipe EA 1 1,350.0 1,350 Class III random riprap CY 45 60.0 2,700 4" PVC drain tile LF 980 9.0 8,820 Connect drain tile to storm structure EA 20 150.0 3,000 Common excavation (P) CY 875 3.0 2,625 Segmental retaining wall SF 50 20.0 1,000 Redosier Dogwood, 2 gallon, B&B EA 4 75.0 300 Sodding, Highland SY 5240 3.0 15,720 Topsoil borrow (LV) CY 440 8.0 3,520 Seeding, incl seed, mulch and disk anchor AC 0.4 1,500.0 600 Transplant Tree (backlots) Tree 6 200.0 1,200 Silt fence, regular LF 500 2.8 1 ,400 Part 2 - Sanitary Sewer Remove 12" PVC sanitary sewer pipe LF 250 5.0 1,250 12" PVC sanitary sewer, SDR 35,0'-8' deep LF 250 36.0 9,000 Dewatering LS 1 1,300.0 1,300 4' diameter sanitary MH, incl. R-1642-B cstg. & HDPE adj. Rings EA 2 1,600.0 3,200 12" outside drop inlet pipe EA 2 1,000.0 2,000 Bypass flow around MH to be replaced LS 1 5,000.0 5,000 Core drill connection to existing manhole EA 1 550.0 550 Improved pipe foundation per 6" depth LF 250 1.0 250 Insulate sanitary sewer, 2" thick SF 200 2.5 500 Closed circuit TV inspection LF 250 2.5 625 Part 3 - Streets Traffic control LS 1 2,000.0 2,000 Sawing bituminous pavement LF 870 3.0 2,610 Remove bituminous pavement SY 4500 2.5 11,250 Remove concrete curb and gutter LF 1020 3.0 3,060 Remove concrete sidewalk SF 330 2.0 660 Transplant Tree (boulevards) Tree 14 200.0 2,800 Farmington Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study PC 3rd-2 Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study Prairie Creek 3rd Addition Item Estimated Unit Quantity CY 1000 CY 100 CY 100 TN 1980 TN 495 TN 375 GAL 230 LF 1020 EA 6 SF 330 EA 4 EA 12 EA 16 HR 5 CY 80 SY 925 Common excavation (P) Subgrade correction (EV) Granular borrow (CV) Aggregate base, Class 5 Bituminous Base Course, Type 31 BBB 50000 Bituminous wear course, Type 41 WEB 50055 (1999) Bituminous material for tack coat 0424 surmountable concrete curb and gutter Pedestrian curb ramp incl. 4" agg. base 4" concrete sidewalk Adjust existing MH frame and rings Adjust existing valve box Inlet protection of catch basin Street Sweeper Topsoil borrow (LV) Sodding, Highland SUBTOTAL 10% CONTINGENCIES SUBTOTAL 27% ENGINEERING, LEGAL, & ADMINISTRATION TOTAL ESTIMATED COST Farmington Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study Unit Price $ 5.0 5.0 8.0 7.0 24.5 26.0 2.5 8.5 235.0 5.0 250.0 150.0 50.0 80.0 8.0 2.5 $ $ $ $ $ Total $ 5,000 500 800 13,860 12,128 9,750 575 8,670 1,410 1,650 1,000 1,800 800 400 640 2,313 289,324 28,932 318,256 85,929 404,185 PC 3rd-3 Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study Prairie Creek 4th Addition Estimated Unit Price No. Item Unit Quantity $ Total $ Part 1 - Storm Sewer 1 Mobilization LS 1 1,000.0 1,000 2 Remove catch basin EA 2 200.0 400 3 Remove storm sewer manhole EA 1 300.0 300 4 Remove 15" RCP storm sewer pipe LF 180 8.0 1 ,440 5 Remove 18" RCP storm sewer pipe LF 40 8.5 340 6 Salvage 24" RCP storm sewer pipe LF 100 9.0 900 7 Salvage 24" RCP flared end section EA 1 200.0 200 8 Verify and cross 8" high pressure gas main EA 1 2,500.0 2,500 9 24" HDPE storm sewer LF 180 24.5 4,410 10 27" RCP storm sewer, Class 3, 0'-8' deep LF 110 35.0 3,850 11 Improved pipe foundation per 6" depth LF 290 1.0 290 12 27" RCP flared end section wi trash guard EA 1 1,550.0 1,550 13 4' dia storm sewer CBMH, inc R-4342 cstg and HDPE adj rings EA 1 1,200.0 1,200 14 5' dia storm sewer CBMH, inc R-3067-V, cstg and cone adj rings EA 2 2,000.0 4,000 15 5' diameter storm sewer MH EA 1 1,750.0 1,750 16 Class III random riprap CY 15 60.0 900 17 4" PVC drain tile LF 80 9.0 720 18 Connect drain tile to storm structure EA 4 150.0 600 19 Sodding, Highland SY 1020 3.0 3,060 20 Topsoil borrow (LV) CY 90 8.0 720 21 Transplant Tree (backlots) Tree 2 200.0 400 22 Silt fence, regular LF 300 2.8 840 Part 3 - Streets 23 Traffic control LS 1 1,000.0 1,000 24 Sawing bituminous pavement LF 85 3.0 255 25 Remove bituminous pavement SY 210 2.5 525 26 Remove concrete curb and gutter LF 80 3.0 240 27 Transplant Tree (boulevards) Tree 3 200.0 600 28 Common excavation (P) CY 50 5.0 250 29 Subgrade correction (EV) CY 15 5.0 75 30 Granular borrow (CV) CY 15 8.0 120 31 Aggregate base, Class 5 TN 95 7.0 665 32 Bituminous Base Course, Type 31 BBB 50000 TN 25 24.5 613 Farmington Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study PC 4th-1 Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study Prairie Creek 4th Addition No. Item Unit 33 Bituminous wear course, Type 41 WEB 50055 (1999) 34 Bituminous material for tack coat 35 D424 surmountable concrete curb and gutter 36 Inlet protection of catch basin 37 Street Sweeper 38 Seeding, incl seed, fertilizer, and wood fiber blanket 39 Topsoil borrow (LV) 40 Sodding, Highland SUBTOTAL 10% CONTINGENCIES SUBTOTAL 27% ENGINEERING, LEGAL, & ADMINISTRATION TOTAL ESTIMATED COST TN GAL LF EA HR SY CY SY Farmington Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study Estimated Quantity 20 20 80 2 2 370 20 180 Unit Price $ 26.0 2.5 8.5 50.0 80.0 2.8 8.0 2.5 $ $ $ $ $ Total $ 520 50 680 100 160 1,018 160 450 38,850 3,885 42,735 11,538 54,273 PC 4th-2 Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study Prairie Creek 4th Addition Optional Storm Sewer Reconstruction Improvements Estimated Unit No. Item Unit Quantity Price $ Total $ Part 1 - Storm Sewer 1 Mobilization LS I 1,200.0 1,200 2 Remove storm sewer manhole EA 2 300.0 600 3 Remove 12" RCP storm sewer pipe LF 230 8.0 1,840 4 Remove 15" RCP storm sewer pipe LF 36 8.0 288 5 Remove 18" RCP storm sewer pipe LF 8 8.5 68 6 Salvage 12" RCP flared end section EA 2 150.0 300 7 Salvage & reinstall 15" RCP flared end section EA 1 250.0 250 8 12" HDPE storm sewer LF 170 14.5 2,465 9 15" HDPE storm sewer LF 660 15.0 9,900 10 12" RCP storm sewer, Class 5, 0'-8' deep LF 30 21.0 630 11 12" RCP tied joint storm sewer, Class 5,0'-8' deep LF 24 23.5 564 12 15" RCP storm sewer, Class 5, 0'-8' deep LF 70 21.0 1,470 13 15" RCP tied joint storm sewer, Class 5,0'-8' deep LF 170 23.5 3,995 14 Improved pipe foundation per 6" depth LF 1125 1.0 1,125 15 Bulkhead pipe EA 2 100.0 200 16 15" RCP flared end section w/trash guard EA 6 800.0 4,800 17 Skimmer structure EA 1 1,300.0 1,300 18 4' dia storm sewer CBMH, inc R-3067-V, cstg and cone adj rings EA 2 1,400.0 2,800 19 4' diameter storm sewer MH EA 1 1,375.0 1,375 20 Class II random riprap CY 60 50.0 3,000 21 4" PVC drain tile LF 80 9.0 720 22 Connect drain tile to storm structure EA 4 150.0 600 23 Common excavation (P) CY 200 3.0 600 24 Sodding, Highland SY 2900 3.0 8,700 25 Topsoil borrow (LV) CY 250 8.0 2,000 26 Transplant Tree (backlots) Tree 5 200.0 1,000 27 Silt fence, regular LF 300 2.8 840 Part 3 - Streets 28 Traffic control LS 1 1,000.0 1,000 29 Sawing bituminous pavement LF 60 3.0 180 30 Remove bituminous pavement SY 120 2.5 300 31 Remove concrete curb and gutter LF 40 3.0 120 32 Transplant Tree (boulevards) Tree 1 200.0 200 Farmington Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study PC 4th Option-1 Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study Prairie Creek 4th Addition Optional Storm Sewer Reconstruction Improvements Estimated Unit No. Item Unit Quantity Price $ Total $ 33 Common excavation (P) CY 30 5.0 150 34 Subgrade correction (EV) CY 8 5.0 38 35 Granular borrow (CV) CY 8 8.0 60 36 Aggregate base, Class 5 TN 55 7.0 385 37 Bituminous Base Course, Type 31 BBB 50000 TN 15 24.5 368 38 Bituminous wear course, Type 41 WEB 50055 (1999) TN 10 26.0 260 39 Bituminous material for tack coat GAL 10 2.5 25 40 0424 surmountable concrete curb and gutter LF 40 8.5 340 41 Inlet protection of catch basin EA 2 50.0 100 42 Street Sweeper HR 1 80.0 80 43 Topsoil borrow (LV) CY 10 8.0 80 44 Sodding, Highland SY 100 2.5 250 SUBTOTAL $ 56,565 10% CONTINGENCIES $ 5,657 SUBTOTAL $ 62,222 27% ENGINEERING, LEGAL, & ADMINISTRATION $ 16,800 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 79,021 Farmington Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study PC 4th Option-2 Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study SWMP Pond AV-P1.8 Outlet Improvements Estimated Unit No. Item Unit Quantity Price $ Total $ Part 1 - Storm Sewer 1 Mobilization LS I 1600.0 1,600 2 Remove catch basin EA I 200.0 200 3 Salvage & reinstall 24" RCP storm sewer pipe LF 80 20.0 1,600 4 Salvage & reinstall 24" RCP flared end section EA 2 200.0 400 5 24" RCP storm sewer, Class 4, 0'-8' deep LF 450 27.0 12,150 6 24" RC LR Bend, Class 4 EA 12 400.0 4,800 7 Improved pipe foundation per 6" depth LF 550 1.0 550 8 24" RCP flared end section w/trash guard EA 10 1350.0 13,500 9 4' dia storm sewer CBMH, inc R-3067-V, cstg and cone adj rings EA 1 1400.0 1 ,400 10 Class II random riprap CY 100 50.0 5,000 11 4" PVC drain tile LF 80 9.0 720 12 Connect drain tile to storm structure EA 4 150.0 600 13 Common excavation (P) CY 90 3.0 270 14 Segmental retaining wall SF 200 20.0 4,000 15 Topsoil borrow (LV) CY 60 8.0 480 16 Seeding, incl seed, fertilizer, and wood fiber blanket SY 630 2.8 1,733 17 Silt fence, regular LF 200 2.8 560 Part 2 - Sanitary Sewer 18 Remove 15" VC sanitary sewer pipe LF 50 5.0 250 19 16" DIP sanitary sewer, Class 52,0'-8' deep LF 50 50.0 2,500 20 Connect existing 15" VC pipe to 16" DI pipe EA 2 250.0 500 21 Bypass sanitary flow around pipe to be replaced LS 1 5000.0 5,000 22 Improved pipe foundation per 6" depth LF 50 1.0 50 23 Insulate sanitary sewer, 2" thick SF 160 2.5 400 24 Closed circuit TV inspection LF 290 2.5 725 Part 3 - Streets 25 Traffic control LS I 2000.0 2,000 26 Sawing bituminous pavement LF 85 3.0 255 27 Remove bituminous pavement SY 380 2.5 950 28 Remove concrete curb and gutter LF 140 3.0 420 29 Remove concrete sidewalk SF 350 2.0 700 30 Transplant Tree (boulevards) Tree 3 200.0 600 31 Common excavation (P) CY 90 5.0 450 Farmington Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study AV-P1.8-1 Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study SWMP Pond AV-P1.8 Outlet Improvements Estimated Unit No. Item Unit Quantity Price $ Total $ 32 Subgrade correction (EV) CY 9 5.0 45 33 Granular borrow (CV) CY 9 8.0 72 34 Aggregate base, Class 5 TN 170 7.0 1,190 35 Bituminous Base Course, Type 31 BBB 50000 TN 35 24.5 858 36 Bituminous wear course, Type 41 WEB 50055 (1999) TN 35 26.0 910 37 Bituminous material for tack coat GAL 20 2.5 50 38 0424 surmountable concrete curb and gutter LF 140 8.5 1,190 39 4" concrete sidewalk SF 350 5.0 1,750 40 Inlet protection of catch basin EA 2 50.0 100 41 Street Sweeper HR 1 80.0 80 42 Topsoil borrow (LV) CY 20 8.0 160 43 Sodding, Highland SY 240 2.5 600 SUBTOTAL $ 71,367 10% CONTINGENCIES $ 7,137 SUBTOTAL $ 78,504 27% ENGINEERING, LEGAL, & ADMINISTRATION $ 21,196 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 99,700 Farmington Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Reconstruction Feasibility Study AV-P1.8-2 Preliminary Project Cost Tracking 2/24/998:20 Project - Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Upgrade Description of Project - Reconstruct storm sewer in Prairie Creek development Project No.- 99-10 llems Date Name of Company Cost 1. Construction Costs 3rd Addition $ 289,324.00 4th Addition $ 38,850.00 4th Addition Option $ 56,565.00 Pond AV-P1.8 connection $ 71,367.00 Total Construction Costs $ 456.106.00 2. Contingencies (10 '!o) $ 45,610.60 (Contingences and Total Construction Costs) Subtotal = $ 501,716.60 3. Engineering, Legal, Administration (27%) $ 135.463.48 (Total of Items 1-3) Subtotal = $ 637,180.08 4. Soil Borings $ Subtotal = $ 5. Survey Work Estimate $ Subtotal = $ 6. Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Estimate $ Subtotal = $ 7. Permits (list) Subtotal = $ 8. Change Orders $ Subtotal = $ 9. Environmental Studies, testing and monitoring $ Subtotal = $ 10. Testing Services Estimate 3rd Addition $ 1,250.00 4th Addition $ 750.00 4th Addition Option $ 500.00 Pond A V-P1.8 connection $ 500.00 Subtotal = $ 3,000.00 11. Easement/Right of Way Acquisition 3rd Addition $ 4,000.00 4th Addition Option $ 2.500.00 Subtotal = $ 6,500.00 12. Demolition/moving Subtotal = $ 13. Outside Consultants $ $ Subtotal = $ 14. SWCD - plats mainly - development cost NA Subtotal = $ 15. Street & Utility crew costs 20 Hours @ $50 per hour $ 1,000.00 $ $ Subtotal = $ 1,000.00 ITotal Estimated Project Cost = $ 647,680.08 I