Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.17.06 Council Packet City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promising future. AGENDA PRE-CITY COUNCIL MEETING April!7, 2006 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE AGENDA 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS 4. COUNCIL REVIEW OF AGENDA 5. STAFF COMMENTS 6. ADJOURN PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT Council workshops are conducted as an informal work session, all discussions shall be considered fact-finding, hypothetical and unofficial critical thinking exercises, which do not reflect an official public position. Council work session outcomes should not be construed by the attending public and/or reporting media as the articulation of a formal City policy position. Only official Council action normally taken at a regularly scheduled Council meeting should be considered as a formal expression of the City's position on any given matter. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promising future. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 17, 2006 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS a) Association ofMN Counties Community Service Award Recognition for Dakota Dreamcatcher's 4H Club - Parks and Recreation b) Introduce New Employee - Police Department c) Swearing-In Police Officer - Administration d) Citizen's Police Academy - Sgt. Brian Lindquist e) Proclaim Earth Day - Parks and Recreation f) Proclaim Arbor Day - Parks and Recreation g) Introduce Assistant Chiefs - Fire Department 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (4/3/06 Regular) (4/5/06 Special) b) School and Conference - Police Department c) School and Conference - Police Department d) School and Conference - Police Department e) Disposal of City Property - Bikes - Police Department f) Adopt Resolution - Approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment Concerning Existing and Proposed Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan Map - Parks and Recreation g) Adopt Resolution - Accept Donation Earth! Arbor Day - Parks and Recreation h) Purchase of Organ - Rambling River Center - Parks and Recreation i) Approve Off-Sale Beer License and Tobacco License Transfer - Administration j) Adopt Resolution - Supporting Change in Eminent Domain Legislation Regarding Heritage Landmark Designations - Administration Action Taken Acknowledged Introduced Sworn-In Information Received Proclaimed Proclaimed Introduced Approved Information Received Information Received Information Received Authorized R42-06 R43-06 Information Received Approved R44-06 k) Consider Workshop City Hall Planning - Administration I) School and Conference - Administration m) March 2006 Financial Report - Finance n) School and Conference - Human Resources 0) Approve Memorandum of Understanding - Human Resources p) Appointment Recommendation Community Development - Human Resources q) Approve Easement Acquisition - Spruce Street Extension Project- Engineering r) Approve Wetland Alteration Permits - Riverbend Phase II, Spruce Street Extension Project - Community Development/Engineering s) First Quarter Building Permit Report - Community Development t) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County Regarding Hiring Consultant to Review Recycling Contract- Parks and Recreation b) Consider Olson, Garvey, King and Mock Annexation Petitions - Community Development c) Adopt Resolution - Swanson Acres Preliminary Plat - Community Development d) Adopt Resolution and Ordinance - Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Non-Designated to Commercial and Rezoning from A-I to B-3 Bauer Property - Community Development e) Consider Request for Text Amendment in the IF Zone - Fitness Club- Community Development 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Consider Recommendation Regarding Community Center Referendum - Parks and Recreation b) Tree Preservation Ordinance - Community Development 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE a) Response to Development Questions - Community Development 14. ADJOURN May 2, 2006 Information Received Information Received Information Receive Approved Approved Approved Approved Information Received Approved Died for Lack Of Motion Olson/Mock 5/15/06 King - Jt. Resolution R45-06 R46-06 Ord 006-554 Denied Motion Failed Use Current Ordinance Information Received City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promising future. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 17, 2006 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS / COMMENDATIONS a) Association ofMN Counties Community Service Award Recognition for Dakota Dreamcatcher's 4H Club - Parks and Recreation b) Introduce New Employee - Police Department c) Swearing-In Police Officer - Administration d) Citizen's Police Academy - Sgt. Brian Lindquist e) Proclaim Earth Day - Parks and Recreation f) Proclaim Arbor Day - Parks and Recreation 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (4/3/06 Regular) (4/5/06 Special) b) School and Conference - Police Department c) School and Conference - Police Department d) School and Conference - Police Department e) Disposal of City Property - Bikes - Police Department f) Adopt Resolution - Approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment Concerning . Existing and Proposed Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan Map - Parks and Recreation g) Adopt Resolution - Accept Donation Earth! Arbor Day - Parks and Recreation h) Purchase of Organ - Rambling River Center - Parks and Recreation i) Approve Off-Sale Beer License and Tobacco License Transfer - Administration j) Adopt Resolution - Supporting Change in Eminent Domain Legislation Regarding Heritage Landmark Designations - Administration k) Consider Workshop City Hall Planning - Administration Action Taken Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County Regarding Hiring Consultant to Review Recycling Contract- Parks and Recreation Page 23 b) Consider Olson, Garvey, King and Mock Annexation Petitions - Community Development Page 24 c) Adopt Resolution - Swanson Acres Preliminary Plat - Community Development Page 25 d) Adopt Resolution and Ordinance - Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Non-Designated to Commercial and Rezoning from A-I to B-3 Bauer Property - Community Development Page 26 e) Consider Request for Text Amendment in the IP Zone - Fitness Club- Community Development Page 27 I) School and Conference - Administration m) March 2006 Financial Report - Finance n) School and Conference - Human Resources 0) Approve Memorandum of Understanding - Human Resources p) Appointment Recommendation Community Development - Human Resources q) Approve Easement Acquisition - Spruce Street Extension Project- Engineering r) Approve Wetland Alteration Permits - Riverbend Phase II, Spruce Street Extension Project - Community Development/Engineering s) First Quarter Building Permit Report - Community Development t) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Consider Recommendation Regarding Community Center Referendum - Parks and Recreation b) Tree Preservation Ordinance - Community Development 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE a) Response to Development Questions - Community Development 14. ADJOURN Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 5e.. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, and Acting City Administrator ~ Lena Larson, Public Works Administrative Assistant I~ Proclaim Earth Day FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: April 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION & DISCUSSION The United States has celebrated Earth Day on April 22 since 1970. Earth Day became a global event in 1990. Promoting Earth Day reminds people to rededicate themselves to another year of continuing care of the Earth. In commemoration of Earth Day, the City has several events planned. The 5th Annual Community Pond & Park Cleanup will be held on May 6th and in conjunction with the Pond & Park Cleanup, the City is partnering again this year with Farmington Community Education to bring the 2nd Annual Earth & Arbor Day Celebration to the community. Earth & Arbor Day will be held at Rambling River Park from 11 :30am to I :30pm and will give people an opportunity to learn about how their actions impact the environment. "Rachael Rocks!" will be entertaining the Pond and Park Cleanup volunteers and Earth & Arbor Day attendees from 11 :30am to 12:00noon and the Minnesota Science Museum will be doing a "Water!" assembly program at 12:30pm. There will be ongoing learning stations and exhibits between II :30am and I :3Opm, including; Three Rivers Park District and Raptors from the Richardson Nature Center (sponsored by CEEF), earth ball games, coloring stations, luscious landfill layers, water quality exhibits, and reducing toxicity. The following five consecutive Saturday dates of April 22, 29, May 6, 13 and 20 have been designated for the Curbside Cleanup Day program, which gives Farmington residents the opportunity to recycle and dispose of a number of problem materials. ACTION REQUESTED Proclaim April 22, 2006 to be Earth Day in Farmington. R.1'ectfullY~Ub itted, l /{;t\...O... aA..~ ~~a Larson Public Works Administrative Assistant O~e~the~ayor Parmington, :M.innesota .,t\h ~ .~ ApriIU ~ocfamation ~~.JLS, in 1970, more than twenty mi[fion .Jlmericans joinea together on P.arth (]Jay in a aemonstration of concern for the environment, ana their co[fective action resu[tea in the passage of sweeping new Caws to protect our air, water ana Cana; ana ~~.JLS, rrlie peopfe of Parmington takf great pride in our City's naturae 6eauty ana support a cfean ana safe environment; ana mFE~.JLS, P.arth (]Jay is a national ana international carr to action for a[[ citizens to join in a gfo6a[ effort to save the pCanet; ana ~~.JLS, P.arth (]Jay activities ana events wire eaucate a[[ citizens on the importance of acting in an environmenta[Ey sauna fashion 6y reaucing waste, conserving energy ana water, using efficient transportation, ana aaopting more ecofogica[Ey sauna [ifestyfes; ana ~~.JLS, rrlirough increasea environmental awareness, parmington can meet the cha[fenge of having an ecofogica[Ey healthy community ana a vigorous environment for its citizens; !NOW fJJI!E~P~, (Bp' If[' (]!q{OCL.JlI~P,(]) that the City Council of the City of Parmington aesignate ana procCaim .Jlpri[ 22, 2006 as P.arth (]Jay. In witness wfiereoj I /iave liereunto set my /iand' and' causea tfie seal oj tliis city to 6e a.ffixla. ~ayor (])ate Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, .5-F Arbor Day Proclamation In 1872, J Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees, and the holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska, and Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world, and trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, lower our heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen and provide habitat for wildlife, and trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes, fuel for our fires and countless other wood products, and trees in our city increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our community and trees, wherever they are planted, are a source of joy and spiritual renewal, NOW, THEREFORE, I Mayor of the City of Farmington, do hereby proclaim April 28, 2006 as Further, Dated Arbor Day in the City of Farmington, and I urge all citizens to celebrate Arbor Day and to support efforts to protect our trees and woodlands, and I urge all citizens to plant and care for trees to gladden the heart and promote the well-being of this and future generations. this 17th Day of April in the year 2006 Mayor /t:Z.. COUNCIL MINUTES PRE-MEETING April 3, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Soderberg at 6:30 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson None Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Robin Roland, Acting City AdministratorlFinance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant 2. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS 4. COUNCIL REVIEW OF AGENDA Councilmember Wilson confirmed the Spruce Street project is part of the CIP. Staff explained it is and there is a $950,000 grant. The City will front the costs and do a special assessment back to the developers. It is part of the Development Contract that developer's pay special assessments, however, staff will be looking into abatement for these properties as Council discussed last summer. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked how the Community Service Officer position became vacant. Staff explained the last CSO was promoted to Police Officer. Acting City Administrator explained the supplemental items which include awarding the Spruce Street project and considering a resolution supporting House File 3550. Mayor Soderberg received a letter from Metro Transit. They are having a commuter challenge. There will be a news conference Tuesday at the metrodome at II :00 a.m. This is to encourage citizens to take transit, or walk, or bike to work. 5. STAFF COMMENTS Council Minutes (Pre-Meeting) April 3, 2006 Page 2 6. ADJOURN MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty to adjourn at 6:34 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ;n/7a~ c/ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR April 3, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Soderberg at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Soderberg led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson None Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Robin Roland, Acting City AdministratorlFinance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public W orkslCity Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Dick & Mary Swanson, Mike Morton, Ruthe Batulis, Bill Coleman, Lynda Yon Holtum, Tom Nash, BSA Troop 116 - Joline Neve, Aspen Management 4. APPROVE AGENDA Councilmember Pritzlaffpulled item 7a) Council Minutes 3120106 Regular for an addition to the minutes. Acting City Administrator Roland added supplemental items 9a) Spruce Street Project and item 12a) Consider Resolution Supporting House File 3550. MOTION by McKnight, second by Soderberg to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Introduce New Employee - Parks and Recreation Mr. David Lynch was introduced as the new Facilities Maintenance Worker. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Bill Coleman, Dakota Future, stated they are a county-wide economic development organization. It is a membership organization funded by the private sector. Their mission is to support the creation and maintenance of a world-class social and economic environment in Dakota County. They have two areas of emphasis. First, they want to work with their partners to address big picture issues such as work force and infrastructure, make sure the existing businesses have the assets they need to succeed and that they are an attractive place for prospective businesses. Second, they want to market the county's location for business so that when businesses within the metro or outside are Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 2 looking at sites, Dakota County communities are high on the list for consideration. Their goal for marketing is to attract companies and growth industries that pay high wages. They have spent the first year setting the groundwork for the marketing activity and created a website, DakotaFuture.com. Their main emphasis this year is their industry cluster initiative. They are working with Dakota County businesses in groups. There is a manufacturing initiative, a food energy and chemical group, and a group on information processing. Dakota Future is partnering with Dakota Electric on Economic Development 101. This will be held May 9,2006 from 6:30 - 8:30 p.m. at Dakota Electric. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: b) Adopted RESOLUTION R36-06 Approving Gambling Premises Permit- Administration c) Approved Temporary 3.2 Beer License - Administration d) Received Information Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation e) Received Information School and Conference - Police Department f) Approved Grant Application - Fire Department g) Approved Appointment Recommendation Police - Human Resources h) Authorized Response to Agency Comments - Southeast Area Surface Water Management Plan Update - Engineering i) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. a) Approve Council Minutes (3/20/06 Regular) (3/22/06 Special) Councilmember Pritzlaffwanted to acknowledge Ruthe Batulis was in the audience at the last meeting. He requested a change be made to his comments under Roundtable. The tape will be checked to verify the comments. MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty to approve Council Minutes (3/20106 Regular) (3/22/06 Special). APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - 2006 Mill and Overlay Project - Engineering The project consists of milling and overlaying several residential streets in the Sunnyside and Chateau Manor neighborhoods. The improvements include replacing heaved and cracking curb and gutter and a 1" milling and repaving of the streets. The streets are 40-50 years old. In 2003 the City performed a pavement management study where various levels of maintenance were identified to try to prolong the life of City streets. This included full reconstructs, mill and overlays and seal coat projects. This project was in the CIP in 2005, however, it was delayed so there would not be two projects assessed at the same time due to the Ash Street project. The utility infrastructure in these areas is in satisfactory condition. The mill and overlay should make the streets last another 10 years. A neighborhood meeting was held and two residents attended. They were concerned about the assessments and the need for the project. Staff has received five objections since the meeting concerning the assessments and some feel the project is not necessary. The total project cost is $465,000. The City's Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 3 assessment policy indicates 35% of the curb and gutter and street improvement reconstruction costs would be assessed to benefiting properties. The total amount to be assessed would be $162,750 which would equate to $985 per residential equivalent unit. There are 165 residential equivalent units included in this project and some belong to the City. The remaining $302,250 would be funded out of the road construction and maintenance fund. The benefit appraisal indicates the maximum benefit received by properties would be $2,000 per residential equivalent unit. Councilmember Pritzlaffreceived phone calls from some residents. Initially he thought the streets were smooth and there were no potholes. After attending the neighborhood meeting, it was explained the delaminating is the problem and it is just too old. The seal coat would just be peeled offby the plows. He understood this area was not seal coated in the last cycle. City Engineer Mann stated there have been times when the area was scheduled for seal coat, but it was pulled out ofthe project because it would not be effective. Once there are potholes, the mill and overlay would not be effective and there would have to be a full reconstruct. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked at what point does the infrastructure not become satisfactory? Would it be good 10 years from now or between now and the life of the road would it have to be dug up because of the infrastructure? City Engineer Mann stated there will be a point where a reconstruct will be needed for the road and utilities. The utilities should last another 10 years if not more. There are no significant issues with water main breaks. The sewer tends to drive the issue more. Staff regularly televises the sewer lines and cleans them. At this time there are no significant issues with the sanitary sewer. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked about the amount of gutter and curb to be redone. Staff estimates one third to one half of the curbing has been budgeted. A seal coat will be done three years after the mill and overlay. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated it would be nice to not assess the same people two years in a row. There is a chance that the company that did the work on Ash Street may bid on this project and be able to keep the costs down. Councilmember Pritzlaffwould like to see a gap in assessments for the people that were assessed for Ash Street, but delaying the project could increase the cost. Councilmember Wilson asked if this assessment would be for five or ten years if certified to the taxes. Finance Director Roland noted that will be up to Council and the project will not be bonded. rfit were assessed over ten years, the interest amount paid would be higher. Councilmember McKnight asked about delaminating. City Engineer Mann explained delaminating is when the surface part of the oil that is part of the asphalt comes off and the surface starts to wear off. There have been a couple streets where this has started. Councilmember McKnight asked if it was the entire Sunnyside area that was skipped in the seal coat cycle because of the condition. City Engineer Mann replied that and knowing that the mill and overlay was coming. Councilmember McKnight asked what would happen to the road if it Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 4 was delayed one year. Staff replied deterioration would continue. There is a program in other areas staff wants to get done, so by putting off this project, others would be put off as well. Councilmember McKnight asked if they would be put off or doubled up in one year. Staff noted doubling up is a possibility. Councilmember McKnight stated they should have put in a year gap between projects for the residents. He would consider waiting one year. Councilmember Fogarty noted this is part of the pavement management plan started in 2003. City Engineer Mann stated a project was not in the CIP until 2005. In 2003 it was too late to initiate a project. Councilmember Fogarty noted it is an important plan and it could save the City money over the years. She is hesitant to delay it, but also does not like to see the residents assessed back to back. It is important to keep it on schedule. She was concerned waiting a year might force the residents to pay for a full reconstruct. Mayor Soderberg asked what the infrastructure is made of in this area. City Engineer Mann replied it is clay tile. Most of the clay tile that is getting close to 100 years old is becoming an issue. It depends on which areas of the City it is in. Mayor Soderberg noted the mill and overlay is being done because the base is still satisfactory. Staff is unable to tell if the base will be degraded if the project is delayed one year. City Engineer Mann noted there will be some deterioration. There are a few areas in the project where staff anticipated doing a full mill where the asphalt has gone further. There are a few spots where they will go the full depth. Mayor Soderberg asked if the base continues to deteriorate after a new overlay is done. Staff replied the issue is with the water that gets in. If the mill and overlay and seal coat is on and the water is kept out, the base should last as long as the mill and overlay lasts. A mill and overlay can be done a few times before a full reconstruct is done. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated at the neighborhood meeting staff noted the life of the road will last 10-15 years. He said Assistant City Engineer Gross was saying a much longer length of time. He asked if 10-15 years after the mill and overlay was more for the infrastructure or the road itself. City Engineer Mann stated we may decide 15 years from now another mill and overlay would take care of it. The main goal is to avoid the full reconstruct. This is a new program for the City and staff will be able to tell as time goes on as to the procedure used to keep the road in shape. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated Assistant City Engineer Gross was thinking the road would last 20-25 years. Ifthe infrastructure underneath does not last that long, then it will have to be dug up. The whole road all the way across will be milled. Mr. Pete Gerten, 707 Centennial Circle, stated the curb was new to him. The notice did not say anything about curb replacement. He agreed there is a lot of curb as he has an issue with the curb at the end of his driveway. His street was seal coated in 2003. His cul-de-sac is very noticeable that the seal coating is still on, there are no potholes, no delaminating in the circle. There is nothing wrong Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 5 with the surface. It was seal coated in 2003 and in 1996. He asked why they paid to have it seal coated in 2003 on a 7-year cycle and they are going to grind it off and throw it away. Heritage Way may be a different issue, but Centennial Circle does not need an overlay. He thought they should do some spot work. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the tar. He stated he has not received the bill for Ash Street and was assuming they were waiting until they finished the project. He will get the bill for Ash Street and another one is already stacking up. He needs a new driveway. That has been waiting for 18 years. It will cost $18,000 to replace his concrete driveway, but the assessments are stacking up so that will have to wait. Mayor Soderberg noted Mr. Gerten should have already received the notice for the Ash Street assessment. Mr. Gerten stated they received the notice, but have not received the bill. Finance Director Roland noted that is the bill. The dollar amount is listed at the bottom and it was due to be paid within 30 days of the hearing, which is also on the notice. A separate bill is not sent. Mr. Gerten thought that was the estimated amount and you wait until the project is finished before it is assessed. Staff stated that is when the notice should have been received -last fall. Mr. Gerten asked if the project is finished. Staff stated it is substantially completed. The last wear course goes on in the spring. Mr. Gerten stated he was unaware that it was even billed. He thought that was the estimate. He does not want that on his taxes. The school is already raising the taxes enough. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted at the neighborhood meeting if someone wanted to contact the company that does the project, they could potentially get a deal on getting their driveway done. Mayor Soderberg recalled when the seal coat proj ect was done, there were portions ofthat area that were eliminated from the seal coat project. He asked staff to verify that Centennial Circle was not eliminated. Ifit was not eliminated we may need to re-Iook at the extent of the mill and overlay. If there are certain areas that need to be pulled out, staff will review the situation. As far as the curb work, there may be a drainage issue and that could not be done separately. Mr. Mike Morton, 608 Heritage Way, stated his street was not seal coated in 2003. He has talked with his adjoining neighbors and they do not think their street needs to be done. They live on a long stretch and traffic goes pretty fast. In the summer it is kids on their way to the pool. They do not think they need it improved this year. He also thought the Ash Street notice was an estimated bill. They are looking for some relief. He noted staff said it raises the value twice what the assessment is. Mr. Morton stated their value is going up based on the percentage of the legal limit. It does not have to do with street repair. He is looking for some reliefbetween the levies. He would like to work on the first one before they have another one. People need some time to save. He would like a new driveway, but he could not afford the good deal with getting the street done. He feels it is worth the risk to wait. Let the residents decide. He is sure it needs to be done eventually, but he will take the risk for the relief. Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 6 Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if it was put off a year and the road condition became worse, and it was $500-$600 more does that make sense? Mr. Morton stated he is willing to accept the risk. He would like to see the City get the most they can. He still has a $65 assessment for the seal coat. The 7-year cycle has not been used up. The residents need a break. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated his concern is if they can get the same company that did the work on Ash Street to do this project and keep the costs down. Mr. Morton stated he could use a break even if it is only one year. Ms. Lori Johnston, representing the ownership of the apartment buildings on Centennial Way, asked what is considered an equivalent unit. City Engineer Mann replied the area for an apartment building is divided 10,000 sq. ft. into the area of the apartment buildings and however many units you get dividing that 10,000 in or whatever the minimum lot is, dividing into that. It is not as many units as the apartment has, but it is more than one. It follows how many units would fit in the smallest lot size in that area. Ms. Johnston stated she also looked at the streets and is a firm believer in preventative maintenance, but she did not see the delaminating, a lot of cracking or chipping. She feels some crack sealing could be done and be put back on the seal coating list and buy another five years. Councilmember McKnight asked if the first payment of the Ash Street assessment for Mr. Gerten and Mr. Morton would already be on their tax bills for this year. Mayor Soderberg stated they can pay off the Ash Street assessment this year before December. Finance Director Roland stated they would have to pay it at the county and they will pay a full year's interest through the end of the year. Councilmember McKnight noted they have heard from 10 residents that they are willing to wait a year. It is their risk. He would also be willing to wait a year. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if there would be any benefit to crack sealing and instead of a mill and overlay, do a seal coat and let it go one or two years. City Engineer Mann replied based on the pavement management rates and the inspection by staff, for the most part most of the roads are beyond the seal coat point. He would not recommend spending money on seal coat that is not going to be effective. As far as any other maintenance procedures, that will have to be a call by the Street and Utility Supervisor. Various things have been done in that area for several years. Crack sealing will not address delaminating and other issues. Councilmember Pritzlaffwas looking at keeping the water off the base and this is a potential way of putting it off one or two years. There are a few residents here who are willing to take the risk, but do they speak for everyone else. He didn't want to come back in a year and say the reconstruct costs $1500- $2000. He was looking at some way to help minimize the risk. Staff felt the Street and Utility Supervisor will have to make that call if the project is delayed. If there are things that can be done to help the situation, he will do them. Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 7 Councilmember Wilson stated no one is happy to get their road done, but they are happy when it is done, but no one wants to pay for it. $985 is a good deal compared to $7000 that residents in Hill Dee will be assessed. There is a good probability that the same contractor as Ash Street will bid and have a favorable bid. He would like to see the project move forward. The residents' comments about assessment after assessment are valid. He asked if we can do the project and delay the assessment one year. City Attorney Jamnik replied yes, but state law allows you to defer the first installment payment, but it is with interest. So you are not doing any favors. The first payments are primarily interest and all you are doing is stacking it up. Mayor Soderberg noted the costs to the project to delay it could outweigh any accrued interest if the assessment is delayed. If the assessment were delayed, people could pay it without any interest assessment. City Attorney J amnik stated you levy it, but you defer the first installment payment. It goes to the county right away after 30 days as a deferred assessment. City Attorney Jamnik stated you will be paying the deferred interest amount for the full amount. If the assessment is large enough and the interest is low enough, it may make some financial sense. Finance Director Roland estimated the interest to be at 5.5%. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted the first road off of TH3 is the worst one. Staff noted Centennial Drive is parallel, Heritage Way is perpendicular. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated next year staffwill be looking at doing the west or the north portion for a mill and overlay. He asked ifthere would be a cost savings to have one company do a bigger mill and overlay project all at once. This project could be delayed one year, but next year do the whole area. Staff stated the unknown is what the price of oil will do this year and next year. Acting City Administrator Roland stated this is two years of the mill and overlay project. It was going to start in 2005, but did not. If this project were delayed to 2007 it would actually be three years of the project that would be done. $350,000 was budgeted per project per year. The estimate for this year is significantly less than the $700,000 which was in the CIP. Mayor Soderberg stated the project has been put off already and to put it off any longer we run a greater risk. It is more than just $985. Mr. Pete Gerten stated he would like to see 7 years out of his seal coating. He did not want Council to vote for this without checking into when his road was seal coated. He was told it was good for 7 years when it was done. Councilmember Fogarty was concerned if we do not do it now, it will be much more later. That is tough for the residents, but it is also tough for the City to take. The residents are paying 35% of the project and the City is paying 65%. If the City's expenses are tripled that hurts the whole City and other projects that can be done. When you get behind in pavement management, you will never catch up because the price tag goes up. There have been some great ideas with deferred Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 8 assessments if that is what the residents want. If the project is delayed this year, she would want it doubled up for next year. MOTION by Wilson, second by Fogarty to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Pritzlaffasked if the project is delayed one year, can the whole area be done at once. City Engineer Mann replied staff can do whatever size area Council directs. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if the money budgeted for this year can be carried over to next year for the project. Finance Director Roland felt it should not be a problem. City Engineer Mann stated the next project would be Sunnyside going up to Ash Street. Councilmember Fogarty noted Mr. Gerten stated he paid for a seal coat in 2003. If Council chooses to do this project this year, is there an opportunity to reduce that amount off of the assessment. Finance Director Roland replied the City has credited seal coating in at least one instance. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated if the project is delayed one year he would want to do all the streets whether they were seal coated in 2003 or not so everything is up to a certain date. If we have to give money back on seal coats, that is the way it will be. Councilmember McKnight stated he is not an engineer and he cannot rate streets. He would support waiting a year to avoid the back to back assessments. Mayor Soderberg stated he lives in that area as well. A delay would cost the entire City. It becomes more expensive for the whole City to delay it. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to adopt RESOLUTION R37-06 ordering the 2006 Mill and Overlay Project, authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the project and setting the bid date for the project. Voting for: Soderberg, Fogarty, Pritzlaff, Wilson. Voting against: McKnight. MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT a) Spruce Street Project - Engineering Three bids were received. The low base bid was submitted by Eureka Construction, Inc. in the amount of $2,697,437.46. The alternate I amount for the entrance monuments is $213,415.50. The total of these items is $2,910,852.96. Staff presented the project cost breakdown and comparison to the feasibility report estimate as updated in the CIP. The report included the roadway, bridge, Denmark Avenue and storm sewer. That construction amount was $2,146,064. In the bid received the amount is $2, I 09,259. The bid is slightly below the report estimate. In addition to these four items there was also the street lighting and the wetland mitigation. Those costs are very close to the estimate. Since the feasibility report, there have been some things added to the project. The first was some trunk water main that is $316,376. That item will be financed by the Water Board from the trunk water charges that developers pay. Also included is some roadway streetscape such as median planting, some sidewalk areas, benches, trash receptacles, etc. Also included was the entry monuments. The roadway, streetscape, and alternate I would be funded from the bond proceeds supported by the debt levy. Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 9 Councilmember McKnight was concerned with spending money on the entry monuments with the burden the City is putting on the tax payers. One comment made to him with regard to the entry monuments is that it is not his money and that he needs to consider that when he is making decisions. MOTION by Wilson, second by Fogarty to adopt RESOLUTION R38-06 accepting the Base Bid of Eureka Construction Inc., resulting in a Total Adjusted Base Bid of $2,697,437.46, and awarding the project along with alternate 1. Voting for: Soderberg, Fogarty, Wilson. Voting against: McKnight, Pritzlaff. MOTION CARRIED. 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Parks and Recreation Department Annual Report - Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Director Distad presented the 2005 Annual Report for the Parks and Recreation Department. There are four divisions, recreation, parks maintenance, facility maintenance, and solid waste. Highlights included completing a community center feasibility study, approval was given to further study a community center including looking at potential sites, partnerships and conceptual planning of a community center with more precise cost estimates. Plans for updating various parks were approved. There were 28 scholarships provided to youths who needed assistance to participate in Park and Rec programs. A total of 4,093 youths participated in 50 different recreation programs. 60% of all registrations were completed through an online program. There were 102 programs offered at the Rambling River Center which resulted in 15,812 participants. The annual membership increased to 447 members, which is an all time high. 497 volunteers logged 2,332 hours to provide additional coverage. New fitness equipment was purchased for the Rambling River Center. 91 memberships have been sold to the fitness room. A partnership was created with the Dakota County Dreamcatcher's 4H Club that resulted in more than $13,000 being raised to purchase 150 new chairs, 10 new chair racks, 6 new computers, a new color laser printer and a new leg press for the fitness room. This project won the club two awards one at the state fair and a community service award. The pool had 12,866 swimmers. There was 7,500 tons of garbage hauled. An additional 1,368 tons of garbage was kept out of the landfill through residents' recycling efforts. A cardboard compactor was installed and the City receives revenue for the cardboard. Curbside clean-up day was held in the spring. The Rambling River ballfields were renamed the Feely Fields in honor of the Feely family. Six miles of new paved trails were constructed resulting in 36 total miles of paved trails. New parks were constructed. The Civic Arena was renamed the Schmitz-Maki Arena. There were improvements made to the arena, warming house, and the pool. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) 210th Street Update - Engineering Staff outlined a plan to accomplish the 21 oth Street connection to TH3. It shows the timeline for bringing the Council to use their powers of eminent domain if Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 10 necessary and how the project could be completed by early fall or late summer of 2007. The initiation of quick take does not rule out negotiations continuing or a settlement being reached with Mr. Regan before the powers of eminent domain are exercised at the end of 90 days. The traffic engineer recommended Sunrise Ponds be allowed 80 building permits until August 2007 at which time the road would be complete. After that the remaining building permits can be released. Regarding the finalization ofthe easement acquisition from the Regan property for the southeast service area trunk sanitary sewer project and the 2000 trunk water main project, the City Attorney proposed this be resolved as part ofthe process for the acquisition of 21 oth Street. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted the traffic engineer said 80 building permits would be allowed, what if the road issue is not resolved. City Engineer Mann replied the timeline shows the road issue would be worked out. This would be by eminent domain if necessary. Mayor Soderberg stated this is the timeline Council asked for and it addresses how we will get 210th Street done. Council needs to determine if we are going to allow the properties that are currently in the City on the east side to develop. If we are, 210th Street is an important part of that. He does not like to use eminent domain, but the state gives us that tool for public projects. This is a public project. Council has led the property owners to believe development was ready. We granted MUSA, they are in the City, we completed the systems update which identified we have the capacity to serve them and beyond that. We need to be careful we do not unduly hold the land owners back. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked what it will cost the City to get the right-of-way. City Engineer Mann replied the City currently has an appraiser to look at the property. When the time comes for eminent domain there will be an appraised price for the Council to make their decision. During the legal process there could be some change in the price. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if Mr. Perkins originally owned the property. Staff believed he did. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated so then he sold it and now we will use taxpayer money to buy it back again for the road. He was not thrilled about spending taxpayer money to buy back a road for something someone sold. He also asked about the capacity. If the Perkins, Winkler and Devney properties fully develop, how does this affect a particular developer to the south? How is his capacity affected? Councilmember Pritzlaffwas referring to the golf course property. At one time, it was discussed that if the Winkler, Devney and Perkins property fully develop that this would not affect the capacity for that development. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if this would affect the development or would he be on a different sewer line. He understood from the system update plan that if these properties fully develop, he is on the main interceptor coming down Biscayne. City Engineer Mann replied the Perkins property was already included in the plan from 1996. The Winkler and Devney properties were outside the City's boundary line for serving. During the CR 72 turnback proj ect, we did stub sewer and water to the Devney and Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 11 Winkler properties into 213 th Street in order to be able to serve that, because the Council was bringing those properties in. As far as what capacity is left, at the workshop staff indicated what capacity was left for how many potential units. Depending on how the developments layout, we mayor may not have the capacity to serve all ofthat with the lines we currently have. It depends on the density. Councilmember Pritzlaff saw a request for MUSA for the golf course long before he saw a request for MUSA for the Perkins property. It was not recommended by the MUSA Committee for the golf course, but to say this was looked at before the golf course raises questions for him. City Engineer Mann stated the main tie to public works and MUSA is sewer service. The Perkins property was considered to be planned on being served in the 1996 plan. The Devney and Winkler properties were anticipated to be served, while outside the boundary based on stubbing sewer and water to it in the CR 72 proj ect. Through the system plan update staffhas identified ways to serve everyone. How the sewer capacity is allocated is up to the Council. Staff intends to bring the paperwork for initiating eminent domain to the May I, 2006 meeting. b) Adopt Resolution - Approve Sunrise Ponds Preliminary Plat - Community Development This item was tabled at the last meeting due to the issue with 21 oth Street. There were also some concerns regarding additional park space in the development. Parks and Recreation Director Distad provided an alternative that would increase the park space. He proposed that Outlot B in conjunction with the adjacent lot be parkland with a tot lot. Staff received a drawing from the developer showing the Outlot as a park with a tot lot. The drawing does not include the adjacent lot. Approval ofthe plat is contingent on the following: I. The satisfaction of any Engineering and Planning comments. 2. Obtaining permission from the electric company to have a shared driveway within the electric easement on lots 1,2,3, Block 1. 3. The placement of a tot lot within the park/open space adjacent to the gazebo. 4. The revision of the plat to convert Outlot B and Lot 1, Block 2 into a tot lot if desired or required by the Council. Councilmember Fogarty was comfortable to see the Outlot as a park. She would like the lot to the east included. Councilmember McKnight stated he has struggled with whether he is comfortable using eminent domain. From the beginning he has had a concern with 21 oth Street. He would have liked this to be worked out with the property owner to the west. He is not comfortable taking the property to the west by eminent domain which means he would not be comfortable with moving this project forward. His answer might be different in a year or two when he looks at the entire side, but today he is not comfortable using that ultimate power that he has to take potential land to the west. He cannot support this proj ect. Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 12 Mayor Soderberg stated this project is a pivotal project to development on the east side. Development on the east side means that puts traffic through town. It is also an economic development tool for the business community. Ifwe defeat this project, we are not looking at a year down the road, we are looking at multiple years and that could be detrimental to the downtown business district. It will not make it or break it, but it will help them. He does not believe development will occur for 4-5 years. We have property owners that have spent a great deal of money preparing for development based on actions we have taken. Councilmember Wilson felt like at various times there has been different information about this project, whether it be the road, or the densities, or transportation. He noted Councilmember McKnight identified the transportation concern. We cannot predict what an eminent domain situation might look like, but there is a possible issue out there which could be a substantial burden to taxpayers which he does not believe should be a taxpayer burden period. We need to realize where this development first initiated. It initiated as an R-5 to the Planning Commission in an area which was not envisioned. We only have one opportunity to develop any part of the City. The fact we have deliberated about this as far as density and transportation and he feels he has received different information on that, he does not feel comfortable with where we are at. He does not feel as though he needs to develop the east side from the Council table. He thinks it will take more vision and more thought. We only have one chance to do it. Farmington has been here for a long time and it will be here for a long time to come. One decision which may result in a 3-4 year delay is worth it for the long term success of the City. He is not willing to make a decision he does not feel comfortable with without more plan and more vision for what the big picture will look like. He will not support this. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated there were two Joint CouncillPlanning Commission meetings and feels they got nowhere. They created zone A and B and that has been thrown out, because there was a document that supersedes it, so he feels that was a waste of time. We cannot plan what is not in the City. We should have known that up front that we could not do this east side planning. He likes the project, but does not think one project has to kill a portion of the City. He feels it has come way too quick. Everything has been pushed. One person may want this more than the rest of the City and he cannot go with that. He asked where the storm water pond is on this development. Staff noted the Wausau pond was sized to handle this property. It is not located on the property, but is directly to the west. There is also a ditch that will be required to be widened to handle the storm water. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated this is 17 acres, 110 units and there is no storm water pond required on the development. The pond is adjacent to it. The Tollefson development has 15 acres with only 60 units and it requires a 4 acre storm water pond when there is a large pond next to it. City Engineer Mann stated the Wausau pond will take care of several properties. The Tollefson pond was identified on the surface water management plan map in 1997 as a pond that Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 13 was necessary. This pond has been there. There is an outlet from the storm sewer that comes across TH3 into the ponding area. Both ponds are required to handle the storm water in the area. Councilmember Pritzlaff agreed with the economic portion and having the east side, but he believes this property may be too far north of some of the east development that could occur. With Spruce Street being designed to go across, he felt that is the road we need to focus on to have traffic come into the City. He feels he has had no planning on the project. It is forced and it is not what he wants to see. He asked Mr. Hocking how does it make sense from Council's perspective to spend taxpayer money to buy back a right-of-way that was owned by the person who owns this development. Mr. Richard Hocking, Attorney for Bridgeland Development Company, replied he cannot answer how it makes sense for Councilmember Pritzlaff, he can only answer that for himself. Mr. Hocking stated from the perspective of a real estate attorney and a developer's attorney because the tool of eminent domain is one that has been used for decades and in millions of situations. He has faced no public opposition with this project. That is uncommon. Ifwe let anyone individual decide that no more traffic should go by their home then none of us would be living where we are. When the City has determined that growth is something they want, then the key to that is road systems and utilities. When you cannot get those by cooperation, then that is what the tool of eminent domain is for. It would be wonderful if everyone who owned undeveloped parcels in a particular neighborhood decided to develop at once. You start somewhere and go on from there. They worked off a September transportation report that was not disputed until an updated report was done the day they were approved by the Planning Commission. They have been rezoned, the comp plan has been amended, they have received MUSA, they have relied on that September transportation study, and they have been given every indication that the project works. At the last meeting the only issue was the park and the access to 210th Street. Now there has been a third update to the transportation plan saying 80 building permits would be allowed. The transportation plan still indicates that the Perkins parcel can use 213th Street. It also says 50% of Winkler and 50% of Devney and all of Perkins can use 213th Street on a near term basis. 110 units is 14% of the units the traffic engineer saw as governing the three parcels. Those other two parcels are not here for preliminary plat. The other two parcels are not in zone A, they are. If Council determines they have to have 21 Oth Street in place, and choose not to use eminent domain and put off this parcel, Perkins stays where he is and Mr. Regan comes up with a plan that works, now Mr. Perkins is not going anywhere. It is a domino effect. The determination has to be made whether this is happening or not. If Council's message is that they do not care whether the east side develops for 10 or 15 years, for every property owner along 21 Oth Street to agree at the same time that they will develop, that is the logical extension of what Council is saying. If you start with one, the market forces dictate to the rest of the land owners. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated we live by development pays for roads. He feels this development needs that road to begin with. The owner of the property owned Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 14 that right-of-way and he thinks Mr. Perkins should get the right-of-way through the Regan property. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated Mr. Perkins originally had it, he sold it, and now he wants Council to use taxpayer money to take back a road. He has made two decisions tonight to save taxpayer money and he is not going to make a third one just to throw it all away. It does not make sense to use taxpayer money to make a road when we live by development pays for roads. Mr. Hocking stated the message to the entire east side would be we do not intend to do anything with the east side until someone agrees to build 21 oth Street through the Regan property and somehow acquires the land besides. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he is not saying the entire east side. He said if the City does anything else on the east side he wants Spruce Street to go through to bring people into the City for economic growth. This property does not do that for him. He considers this property to be northeast. This is not the east side. If he says he does not want this development because of the road issue it is not that he does not want to develop the east side. He does not want to develop this with the road issue. Mr. Hocking asked what other parcels on the east side would develop irrespective of whether 210th Street goes out to TH3. Councilmember Wilson asked why should we talk about east side development from the podium. He is challenging Council and making assumptions that he knows are not accurate. The potential approval of MUSA is next on the agenda. Councilmember Wilson does want east side development, but he will not haphazardly do it. That is what it feels like we are doing. This is new turf in terms of an area to be developed. He does not take it lightly and does not view it as a haphazard decision. A fair comment would be there has been some inconsistent information between Council and staff with respect to different parts of this, whether it be density, how to develop, or the priority of different infrastructure. Development on the east side is important, but doing it right is important as well. Councilmember Fogarty stated she is worried the Council may be missing the forest for the trees. They are very focused on the Perkins property, but when she looked at the 21 Oth Street issue it came down to do I or do I not want to allow development on the east side of Farmington. If she wants to allow development on the east side of Farmington, and she will not differentiate between property owners and how far north or how far south, it is the east side of Farmington. It is all economic stimulus. If she wants that to develop, then it requires 21 oth Street. She feels they have to take a comprehensive look at this. There has been a system update and they have made sure the property owners can all be serviced. Weare not choosing whoever runs to the table first gets to develop. Anyone who wants to develop will have that capability. We cannot always plan out 1000 acres of property. For her to say no to 21 Oth Street and no to the Perkins property, which is a very small piece of property, she is more concerned about the larger pieces of property. The Devney and Winkler properties came to Council two years ago and laid out what they wanted. We agreed they had a right to develop that property and asked them to hold on to analyze the entire area. To deny 210th Street going Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 15 through and to deny the Perkins property is also telling Devney and Winkler, who played by the rules for two years, you do not get to develop either. We have given them strong indications that these private property owners will be allowed to develop. It is unfair at this point when they have been so patient to say no. Councilmember McKnight stated he does not consider saying in November that 210th Street is an important issue a last minute issue. This is April. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked Mr. Hocking ifthey are willing to get the right-of- way themselves from Mr. Regan. Mr. Hocking replied acquiring the right-of-way and acquiring the road is just under a million dollars. That is absolutely impossible. He has never heard of such a thing. They are already building collector streets on the north and east sides entirely at the expense of one developer of a 17 -acre parcel which will have a substantial benefit. Winkler and Devney will benefit substantially by his client building two sections of collector streets which will be in place. His client is not asking Winkler or Devney to contribute to that. They have no legal right to make anyone off-site do anything. The economic feasibility of that is so far from reality they cannot even think about it. They have huge expenses with building a section of Cambodia and 21 Oth Street that run along side the plat. Mr. Frank Blundetto, representing Manly Land Development and they have interests in the Devney property, stated 21 Oth Street is important to a lot of people, not anyone single developer. There is a domino effect on the transportation issue in that they are looking forward to contributing to the north-south corridor on Biscayne. They are prepared to start building roads that are on the east side of the City. They have played by the rules and gone through the entire process and answered every question and concern. The golf course is important to them. What happens with them is important to the golf course. There is no right path from a scheduling standpoint. A million dollars is a lot of money for that right-of- way, but we need 21 oth Street. He is not hearing anybody give direction that Council has to use eminent domain. It is available as a tool. There is still opportunity not to use eminent domain. There are other options. Mayor Soderberg stated last fall 21 oth Street was identified as a key road. It is a key road for any development on the east side. Council needs to decide if we are going to seize this opportunity to get this segment of 21 oth Street done, if necessary by eminent domain, in order to allow development on the east side. This is the best opportunity to get it done for the foreseeable future. If it is not done, it could be 3-5 years or beyond. Spruce Street could be more expensive to go across the Prairie Waterway than building this short segment of210th Street. Mr. Blundetto stated when we talked I 12 years ago to Planning and staff we used a plan where we were winding up significant grading at Parkview Ponds. He could have moved equipment from that property onto another property. They were told to hold off and they are still playing by those rules. If Council sees them as an opportunity to continue to build roads to the east or north-south corridors, take advantage of that and let them begin. Find a way to make that happen. Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 16 Councilmember Pritzlaff stated for the developers that will develop adjacent to that, have all the developers - Regan, Perkins, Devney, Winkler, meet to work out the acquisition of the right-of-way and the road. He cannot justify spending a million dollars oftaxpayer money for a road when development pays for roads. Mr. Blundetto stated he is heavily taxed and burdened with building roads as a developer and they willingly do so. If there is a party that is stopping this through exorbitant fees because they want to make a million dollars on something that is worth less than that, that is a difficult thing to burden anyone with. We need to figure out 21 oth Street. Acting City Administrator Roland stated we need to differentiate between what the right-of-way would cost and what the road would cost. If 21 oth Street was built as a City project it would be built as a 429 project and the costs of that road would be assessed back to benefiting properties. A case could be made that benefiting properties would be those to the east of Cambodia or to the south. Perkins is part of that area, but they are building 21 oth Street from Cambodia to the west. It is important we not get carried away with the dollar amounts thrown out. What the right-of-way might cost or what the road might cost, we cannot say at this point. Mr. Hocking stated a million dollars is the cost of a private party acquiring all of the right-of-way and building the entire road. He does not mean to say that is what would be involved with the City. There is also a powerline issue that part of this right-of-way would be involved in, there are assessment procedures, we are talking about two different things with a developer acquiring and building the whole road and the City doing the same thing. Mayor Soderberg stated we have a preliminary plat that was tabled last time because of210th Street, there is a plan on how staff intends to proceed, there was a park issue identified and some corrections made. Council needs to decide whether to approve the preliminary plat. Councilmember McKnight noted staffhas talked with Mr. Regan several times and that negotiations are continuing and options to address his concerns are being explored with him. Community Development Director Carroll stated it is important to note that Mr. Regan is not here tonight. He was provided with a copy of the memo on 21 Oth Street. He and City Engineer Mann have had conversations with Mr. Regan. He has known for a couple of years that the City had an interest in putting a road through this property. He was with Mr. Regan at the EQB meeting where staff said the logical place to put the powerline through was not on the north side of the bus garage property, but on the south side because that is where the City intended to put a road through. Mr. Regan has known that all along. He is a businessman. He understands how eminent domain works. He understands that he would be reasonably compensated for the use of the roadway. If you look down the former railroad right-of-way you will not see any containers stacked there. Mr. Regan is not renting that space out right now. He has Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 17 indicated to staff that he has given Mobile Mini Storage some assurances that he would try to make the space available to them by July 1,2006. He was going to wait until spring to remove the rest of the trees and brush. He will have to build a driveway off of TH3 to get in there. He may have to do some landscaping, or grading, or bring in some fill. He has to make an area for them to park the containers. Community Development Director Carroll asked Mr. Regan why there are not containers there now. Mr. Regan said they were looking for a way to expand their business. At the last EDA meeting, they looked at ways to address that. The first concept did not go very well, but there are other options. Given sufficient time, staff can work out something that will be acceptable. He knows there is a concern with imposing some of these costs on taxpayers, but we have developers on the east side who have been planning for some time to develop. They understand that some share of that cost will be borne by them. Perhaps there is a way to structure it so the entire cost is borne by them. There are a couple things tied up with this. There is a pocket of properties on the east side of TH3 that staff feels is an underutilization of that space. Those properties are never going to sell and will never develop unless there is better roadway access. You will not get a high quality commercial development off Chippendale Court. Part of staff s belief is if we can get this piece of 21 oth Street through the Regan property, once you have a collector with a traffic light at the intersection, it would give impetus for the redevelopment of that entire property. That would be lost if we do not proceed with this. Something else that would be lost is if the Devney and Winkler properties do not develop there are other roadway connections that do not get built either. You lose a chunk of the Biscayne Avenue corridor on the east side of the Devney and Winkler properties. You lose an opportunity to get those two property owners to set aside enough right-of-way for the Met Council interceptor that needs to go through there. If you lose the improvement to Cambodia Avenue on the east side of the Perkins property, you lose an ability to get a stretch of road paved that will go from 213 th Street up to CR66. That is partially paved now. There is a piece ofthe road missing north of Perkins, but if the piece is paved next to the Perkins property, you create opportunities to get other roadway connections. Ifwe do not seize this opportunity, some or all of these opportunities will be lost. Weare focusing not only on the development of the Perkins property, but the incidental benefits that the City would get from all of the development that would occur around there. Staffwill work as creatively as Council will allow to find a solution that works for everyone. Councilmember McKnight asked how influential staff can be. Acting City Administrator Roland replied sometimes what developers do is they wait until the very last moment before they make a deal. That is what eminent domain is doing in this situation. Community Development Director Carroll added they will test Council's resolve. Councilmember McKnight asked Mr. Blundetto if the City made any promises to him on the east side properties he is involved with. Mr. Blundetto replied the direction he received from the leadership has caused him to spend a lot of money here and be patient and play by Council's suggestions. He did not want to say he has been promised anything, because technically he has not Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 18 been. He has been in the business a long time and has dealt with this City for a really long time on different issues. He understood the direction he received as being legitimate and correct. He has acted accordingly and he intends to develop the properties and to contribute further to the community on infrastructure and investment. Councilmember McKnight asked Mr. Blundetto ifhe was willing to sit down with staff and Mr. Regan to discuss this issue. Mr. Blundetto replied absolutely. He is not willing to harm himself because someone is trying to take more than they deserve and he was not implying that. He will not position himself adversely, but he would help this community any way he can. Councilmember McKnight asked Mr. Hocking ifhe was willing to sit down with staff and Mr. Regan and the other property owners to try to work out this issue. Mr. Hocking replied he would. He stated he also represents Mr. Regan. Councilmember McKnight stated he understood Councilmember Fogarty's and the Mayor's comments. His traffic concern issues, etc. from last November still exist today. This does affect the whole east side and it puts him in a tough place. He could vote to approve the preliminary plat to move this forward. Acting City Administrator Roland talked about waiting until the last end, and he appreciated that, but you need to be at the end of that limb to get this done sometimes. He is not promising anything ifhe did that about voting for eminent domain, which could then potentially mean this development out there and all the traffic goes out onto 213th Street which was his concern last time. He has voted no all along to this. Community Development Director Carroll stated staff has envisioned a process that would start with determining what a fair price is for the right-of-way. There are appraisals that are underway right now that will get that information for us. Once the appraiser says what the land is worth, then we have a number to talk with people about. We can figure out if there are other parties that would benefit from the roadway segment. It would put staff in a position to craft an agreement where everyone pays a reasonable amount to get it done and there is no burden on the taxpayer. Everyone agrees development should pay for itself, and we have developers who are prepared to pay their fair share as long as we know what that is. Every one of these developers has been willing to meet with staff whenever we wanted to do that. Councilmember Wilson asked why 21 oth Street is not on the Thoroughfare Plan if it is so vital. Spruce Street is envisioned to go through. It seems this came out of the blue, even though it might have been worked on at a staff level. At least from his perspective it just came out in OctoberlNovember. City Engineer Mann recalled that the Winkler and Devney properties need to have a connection in addition to Spruce Street and in addition to 213th Street. For those properties to fully develop there needs to be a connection like 21 oth Street. Right now 21 oth Street is the only spot where we have that opportunity. As far as why 21 oth Street is not on the Thoroughfare Plan, in 1998 when the 2020 Comp Plan was developed the Regan property and the Perkins property were not in the City. The Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 19 City does not put thoroughfares on the Thoroughfare Plan that are outside the City limits unless they are county roads that have been identified by the county. Since the Perkins and Regan properties have come in, staffhas not looked at that area from a thoroughfare standpoint to do a thoroughfare update. It has been discussed since 1997 that 21 oth Street would ultimately be a roadway. The other issue with Spruce Street is right now it is not open on the west side ofTH3. There are issues with that that in some ways make the issues with 21 oth Street pale in comparison as far as the ability to get that street open across TH3. There is also the issue with the spacing of signals between Elm Street and Spruce Street whereas Willow Street is identified as a potential signal by the state, Spruce Street is up in the air as far as a signal because it is too close to Elm Street. Councilmember Pritzlaff agreed with Mr. Blundetto. He has gone with all of Council's suggestions. He stated he has only heard about this for six months. He does not want to see the project go away, but on the other hand he does not want to let 80 units be developed and then be told he has to use eminent domain. Ifhe can be assured that we either wait longer, he would approve the project but not with eminent domain. He would like to table this until all parties get together and work the issue out so he does not have to use eminent domain, then he does not have a problem with it. Mayor Soderberg noted we are not voting on eminent domain tonight, we are voting on a preliminary plat. The schedule we have is staff will work on it for 30 days and hopefully by May I, 2006 staff will have a resolution. Councilmember McKnight asked Mr. Blundetto and Mr. Hocking to meet with all parties involved and that is a great suggestion. The issue before us is a preliminary plat for Sunrise Ponds. MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adopt RESOLUTION R39-06 approving the Sunrise Ponds Preliminary Plat and PUD Agreement with the contingencies. Councilmember McKnight stated with the transportation issues discussed tonight, the economic development issue, the access issues to the east side and TH3, he will vote for this to give staff and the developers whatever the time frame is by law to get this worked out without eminent domain. He will not take that tool off the table. He is not happy the way this came to Council, but he is giving staff and the developers a chance to get this done and meet the goals this Council has set on this project. Staff and the developers have to get this done. He knows they will try. Get in a room and get it worked out, please. Mr. Peter Knable, engineer for the project, asked about the additional park and tot lot and if Council wanted to include the adjacent lot with Outlot B. Councilmember Fogarty stated if that lot is not included it is still doubling the amount of park space in this development. She would be comfortable not including the lot as long as they build the tot lot. AMENDED MOTION to adopt RESOLUTION R39-06 approving the Sunrise Ponds Preliminary Plat and PUD Agreement and to convert Outlot B to a tot lot and that it will be developed. This will also be added to the resolution. Voting for: Soderberg, Fogarty,eMcKnight. Voting against: Pritzlaff, Wilson. MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 20 c) Consider MUSA Recommendation - Perkins Property - Community Development This item was tabled at the last meeting. The Perkins property was recommended for MUSA by the MUSA Committee and the Planning Commission. MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adopt RESOLUTION R40-06 approving the addition ofthe Perkins property to Farmington's portion of the Met Council's Metropolitan Urban Service Area. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Consider RFP's City Survey - Administration The City solicited proposals to conduct a community survey. Three proposals were received. The last survey was done in 200 I and was a telephone survey. In order to compare results it is recommended to do another telephone survey. CJ Olson Market Research and Anderson, Neibuhr & Assoc submitted proposals for telephone surveys. The cost ofCJ Olson was $13,928 based on 400 surveys and $16,125 based on 500 surveys. Anderson, Niebuhr would charge $34,800 based on 400 surveys. CJ Olson would ask 20-25 questions and Anderson, Niebuhr would ask 60 questions. Both companies would work with staff to design questions, provide a final report and recommendations and a presentation to Council. Staff recommended CJ Olson Market Research and using 500 surveys. The budgeted amount was $20,000. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to approve CJ Olson Market Research for 500 surveys based on 20-25 questions. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Consider RFP's Economic Development Summit Facilitator - Community Development Staff only received one response from Barsness Consulting Services which is well-known in the economic development field. Community Development Director Carroll asked if Council was satisfied with this one response or ifthey would like to receive more. Most of the other firms who were sent RFP's commented on the short turnaround time. There would be several more proposals if they had additional time. There are also a couple more people who would be interested in receiving the RFP. Staff provided a new timeline if Council would like to receive more proposals. The time line suggests a submission deadline of April 12, 2006, however staff would not be opposed to extending the deadline to April 14, 2006. Councilmember Pritzlaffwanted to wait until City Administrator Herlofsky arrives. He wants the new City Administrator to be totally involved with this. Councilmember Pritzlaff is from the Crow Wing County area and has seen the commercial growth there. He would like Administrator Herlofsky's experience and forethought included in this process. He will be here in 28 days and feels he should be in on the start of the process. Mayor Soderberg noted invitations are distributed the week of May 1, when Administrator Herlofsky will be here and the summit will take place the week of May 15 or May 22. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he was also looking at the RFP. Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 21 Councilmember Wilson stated he did not think buying an additional nine days will do a lot for the RFP's. rfwe move down the whole timeframe we are giving those organizations mentioned more time to return their proposals. An additional nine days with the weekend and Easter will not do a lot to receive additional proposals. This is a good proposal, but he is not going to spend taxpayer dollars on just one proposal. He would rather have a few more to look at and be more deliberative. He would rather do it right the first time, rather than feel like we are moving this through quickly. He would like to push the entire timeframe back one month. He asked if the Chamber was contacted when the RFP was sent out. Acting City Administrator Roland stated Ms. Batulis was at the Council Meeting when the RFP was approved. Councilmember Wilson thought it would be a good idea to give the business community a call directly or let them know formally that the Council initiated this type of action and start building those bridges. He understood Ms. Batulis was there. Acting City Administrator Roland stated the RFP's were sent to professional firms who are economic development facilitators. The Chamber is the Chamber of Commerce. They are not a professional firm that would be in line for this. Ms. Batulis was here, we discussed it, we could have called her the next day, but it was submitted to professional firms and through EDAM, which is a statewide organization that has a good deal to do with economic development. Councilmember Wilson was not suggesting that the Chamber has a separate arm for economic development summits. His thought was to start building that communication bridge. Given the initial timeframe we only had seven business days and he was not surprised we only received one back. Councilmember McKnight was fine with option B as proposed by staff. Councilmember Fogarty would have liked to have had more to compare, but all of Council approved the deadline. rf Council chooses to send this back out, she is comfortable with that. She does think this firm should have the opportunity to fine tune their proposal. Staff agreed. Mayor Soderberg stated based on the comments received about the short turnaround, he asked if those firms indicated they could turn around in two weeks? The suggestion to give a longer amount oftime has some merit, but he does not want this to languish forever because then we will be doing an economic summit in November or December. Community Development Director Carroll stated when they were not receiving proposals staff contacted all ofthe firms and asked that they indicate why they did not submit a proposal. Almost all of them indicated the short turnaround time for the RFP and the short span of time from picking the facilitator to actually getting it planned. Under the proposed schedule they would have 11 days. Staff feels several proposals would be received, but if Council wants to move it back, staff agrees with that. Initially it was on a fast track, but if Council wants to slow it down, staff will do that. Councilmember Pritzlaff was not looking at slowing it down, but we might as well do it right and take some time. As a Councilmember he always wants things Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 22 the next day, but in this case the deadline might have been too short. He would like to have Administrator Herlofsky totally involved with this all the way through, including this portion. Mayor Soderberg felt the comments have some merit and would favor having the RFP brought back to the May I agenda and look at the time space to allow the facilitator to understand what we are trying to accomplish and to plan for it. Staff asked if it was acceptable to move the summit into early June. Mayor Soderberg stated he did not want it moved a long time out. City Administrator Herlofsky will be at the May 1 meeting so he will have an opportunity to comment on the RFP's and to participate in the planning of the event and in the event itself. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if staff can send the RFP's to Administrator Herlofsky. Staff noted the Council packets are being sent to him. Community Development Director Carroll suggested having the submission deadline on the Wednesday preceeding the Council meeting, which would allow staff Thursday and Friday to send the proposals to Administrator Herlofsky. Mayor Soderberg noted we want to adjust the schedule to have a good event. Ifwe schedule this and have the business community involved once for a couple of hours, a second time will be harder. We want to respect the business community and do things right for them. 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Consider Resolution Supporting House File 3550 - Administration Staff was contact by Representative Garofalo who presented this legislation to the MN legislature. This is the initiative to appropriate $850,000 to the construction of sewer and water infrastructure to connect the new Farmington High School, wherever it is built, to the City's infrastructure system. The resolution indicates support of this action from the Council. MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adopt RESOLUTION R41-06 supporting passage ofHF 3550. Voting for: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight. Voting against: Pritzlaff, Wilson. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Pritzlaff did not believe in supporting this because it is taxpayer money from all ofMN coming to Farmington to work on infrastructure and he did not feel that is fair to other communities to pay for something we have a levy on. The School Board took it to the voters and they have their money for the school. To give them more from other taxpayers out of the community does not make sense to him. The other issue, is when this was brought up an article in the paper stated the superintendent supported this because it could fund the infrastructure and then more money could be put into the school building itself. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the school was designed, it has a price tag, and give them another $2 million and they will spend it. He was not willing to give that money to let them spend, spend, spend. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Pritzlaff: He gave Council an update from the March 29,2006 Cedar Group meeting. Next week the county will work on the Cedar Avenue traffic study. Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 23 There is a high priority for a $5 million bonding bill to continue work on this project and they anticipate receiving it. The Chairperson noticed the lack of cars at the park and ride on Pilot Knob and asked Councilmember Pritzlaffwhat Farmington has done to promote the 157th Street Station. Councilmember Pritzlaff said it was mentioned at a Council Meeting, it was on the website and he asked two local papers to do an article on it. After asking both papers twice, only the Farmington ThisWeek did an article on it. The committee asked if it could be advertised more. The park and ride opened on December 5,2005. He asked something more be done to promote the 15ih Street station. Councilmember Fogarty understood it was under utilized because of the timing of the routes of the buses that stop there. She was not certain they could do anything to change that. Acting City Administrator Roland suggested it could be put in the upcoming newsletter. Staffwill check ifit is the routings that are the problem, and ifit is they can talk with the Dakota County Transit people about needing a different schedule. Staffwill also make sure it is still on the website. Councilmember Pritzlaff recalled in 2006 they were going to change the routes. He asked if Council was willing to do something extra in the paper to promote it other than an article. Mayor Soderberg suggested starting with the newsletter before they place an ad in the paper. Ifthe paper would do a story, that would be the best thing, otherwise we can use the communication outlets we have. He wanted to hold off on spending advertising dollars. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he has received a few phone calls about an article in the Independent stating City Council reminds itself of annexation policy. He did not think that was all Council's problem. There was a document that was approved on January 15, 2005 and then some other documents came, we had meetings and set zones A and B which negated the first document. This was discussed at the goal setting session. This would not have happened if that first document from 2005 was in the packet for the MUSA meeting. Everything generated from that and it was left out of the packet unintentionally. Councilmember Pritzlaff then asked about the tree preservation presentation. Community Development Director Carroll replied it is still being worked on and asked if Council would like to see it at the next meeting. Councilmember Pritzlaff recalled this happened over a month ago and the last time the City Planner was not here and Council agreed to wait until she returned. Acting City Administrator Roland noted when it went to the Planning Commission there were a number of other issues on the agenda and it was postponed and was not considered by the Planning Commission. It will be on the agenda for their April II, 2006 meeting and it will be at the next Council Meeting. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted last year Council approved having monthly workshops. We have had workshops for certain reasons, but he thought there would be a monthly workshop based on what the Council wants to work on, not just a specific item. He stated the Perkins item could have been discussed at a workshop, rather than at public meetings. Mayor Soderberg replied we have had workshops and they are directed by Council. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the last workshop was the systems update plan. He did not recall being asked if there was anything else Council wanted to discuss. Mayor Soderberg stated if there is something he wants to add to a workshop, he can Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 24 contact staff to amend the agenda. We have covered the things we have asked staff to cover. Councilmember Fogarty noted we have to be reasonable about people's time. The workshops are taking 2-3 hours, you add a couple more agenda items, it becomes unproductive. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he did not want to keep adding them on. We have a workshop set for fiber optic, but do we have one for the month. Councilmembers noted we have had a workshop at least once a month. They may not always fall on the third Wednesday of the month. Acting City Administrator Roland suggested Councilmember Pritzlaff give staff a list of what he wants to be discussed at a workshop, then a workshop could be scheduled to discuss those items. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated we have dealt with the Perkins issue long enough in two public meetings. We could have had some workshops on that. Councilmember Pritzlaffthen brought up the meeting that was to be rescheduled. Acting City Administrator Roland recalled Councilmember McKnight was going to speak with him about that topic. Councilmember Pritzlaff received a lot of phone calls on the article in the Start Tribune regarding the superintendent. Councilmember Pritzlaff offered his comments on the article. He understood what residents were saying when they come to Council and mention the taxes, unfortunately he did not see a lot of them going to the School Board and asking why their taxes are going up. The article also mentioned the superintendent's contract. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted extending his contract gave the taxpayers an indication as to where their money is really going. Tonight he made decisions to save taxpayer dollars and he did that with the City Administrator. More than just the City has to be asked about where tax dollars are going. Councilmember Pritzlaff said it was presented to him last week after the Farmington- Castle Rock meeting that a City staff member had stated to the group that issues were to be worked on over the winter on 225th Street by the developer, as it was not approved last fall because of unresolved issues. Last fall, Council approved Executive Estates with conditions and he believed the developer has met those except for flushing the system by the City which was recently done. Parkview Ponds was done about the same time as far as the flushing portion. The question brought to him was why one development could be flushed at the end of the year, or was it the temperatures? As for what needs to be done per Acting City Administrator Roland's e-mail before building permits are issued seems to have changed the requirements for streets, water, sewer, sidewalkslbike paths. Hometown Development has one house built, no curb, no streets, storm and sewer - cannot see the water in the sewer system, sidewalks are not done and a house is built. Two houses were under construction in Parkview Ponds without streets completed. What is our policy? From the e-mail he saw we had to have streets and a lot of things in. He drove out to Hometown and they are still putting in storm sewer, there are rough grade streets, no asphalt. City Engineer Mann replied staff will respond at the next meeting. Finance Director Roland: Reminded Council of the workshop Wednesday at 5 :30 p.m. followed by an Executive Session. Council Minutes (Regular) April 3, 2006 Page 25 Police Chief Siebenaler: Saturday staff from the Fire, Police and Planning departments were working at the Home and Garden Show. From their perspective the show was very well attended and they were busy all day. A lot of people were showing interest in what is happening in the City. Attendance is growing every year and other businesses were very enthusiastic about what is happening. Next year the Home and Garden Show will be taken over by the NDC and they are very excited about the potential for this show. It is something we can be very proud of and the participation has been a great benefit for the City. Now that spring has arrived, the Police Department will be initiating a couple clean-up programs. In the spring and fall the new CSO will begin enforcement of the junk vehicle ordinance. People will be reminded that their yards and streets and alleys are not a storage place for junk or disabled vehicles. They will also be reminding people of the clean-up of debris in their yards prior to the Solid Waste clean-up day. Mayor Soderberg: He received a letter from Metro Transit and they are inviting the City to be a part of the Commuter Challenge. There will be a news conference tomorrow at the Metrodome to kick off the event. The goal is to encourage citizens to try a form of commuting other than driving to work alone during the months of April, May and June. Tuesday afternoon there will be a DCC Board meeting and then a meet and greet for the candidates for the executive position for the DCC. This will be at the Apple Valley City Hall from 3 - 5 p.m. The HPC needs another member, so he was asking the community if someone has an interest in historic preservation to contact City Hall and fill out an application. He attended the Association of MN Counties program on Wednesday with the Dreamcatcher's 4H Club. They received for the second time in consecutive years the community service award. There was also another 4H Club from Polk County. Both were great proj ects. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adjourn at 10:40 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, /-jy~cL ;n 7 u.L[g.~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES April 5, 2006 Mayor Soderberg called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Audience: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson David Asp, Dakota County IT Department; Becca Vargo Daggett, Institute for Local Self-Reliance; Robin Roland, Acting City AdministratorlFinance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Tim Gross, Assistant City Engineer; Rob Boerboom, IT Specialist; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Jim Erickson, Russ Cox, Todd Oliver, Joanne Johnson, Michelle Leonard Present: Also Present: MOTION by Wilson, second by McKnight to approve the agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. The United States is falling behind in broadband penetration. Broadband is high speed data transmission. It is an always on connection to the internet unlike dial-up. It is not a particular speed. The National Science Foundation talks about it in terms of the ability to use existing applications and to create new applications and content. The FCC refers to high speed as 200 Kbps. That is a little less than four times faster than dial-up. When planning for the future, people are talking in terms of 100 Mbps minimum. With 200 Kbps you can do e-mail and light surfing, with I Mbps you can do streaming audio, listen to the radio, with 4 Mbps you can get one channel of standard TV, with 6 Mbps you can get video conferencing, it takes 20 Mbps to do high definition TV. The U.S. is talking about getting I Mbps to every house. Local government should get involved. The reason has to do with federal issues. The 1996 Telecommunications Act is played out. It was never effectively implemented. Lawsuits were filed to prevent competition. The vision was for the phone lines to become common carriers for high speed internet services. The premise of the act was that phone lines, DSL, would be open to competing service providers who could purchase access to the phone networks at a regulated rate. Rather than investing in upgrading their infrastructure the carriers focused on filing lawsuits to protest the regulations, to try to get the rates raised, and a competitive market never developed. The FCC says the existence of cable and phone creates competition. The role for local government is infrastructure. Government maintains the infrastructure but does not operate it. Farmington has already made the choice to invest in fiber for City purposes. The City should think of connectivity, cost and control. If the City wants to ensure that residents, businesses, schools, and public services have the level of connectivity they need, then the local government will have to get involved. If the City has an interest in keeping down the cost of doing business and minimizing the cost per megabyte, then the local government has to get involved. Local data transmissions are dependent on private companies. There are no restrictions in MN on City governments owning high-speed networks. There is a claim that a publicly owned network would be a monopoly that stifles competition. The idea that this can be done through franchise and regulation overlooks the fact that this is expensive infrastructure and that the incumbents don't have the resources to build this out. You can keep costs down by extending the time line for the return on the investment. The City will not do this on its own. Any undertaking will be a public-private partnership. The question is what is the proper balance? Council Workshop AprilS, 2006 Page 2 Farmington is in a position to lead the country. There are not that many cities that have fiber to the home throughout the entire community. Farmington has an existing publicly owned fiber network as the backbone, and there is new residential and commercial development. The thing to keep in mind is that building a high-speed network gives the City an advantage not just over the other U.S. cities, but it puts Farmington in a position to compete with the rest of the world. By doing it as a publicly-owned network, the City has control over how it is implemented and what the costs are going forward. As far as the economic advantages, it adds to the job growth rate, it adds to the growth in the number of businesses, it means that the businesses in the community are higher technology often meaning higher wages, and it drives up property values. This is a network that the purpose of which is to speed up connections of data within the City. The cost to provide fiber to a home in California, throughout the home, is $3500. Those homes sold for $5,000 - $10,000 more. Loma Linda has an ordinance that requires a new home have this connection. It tends to be a good idea to contract out for the management of the network while owning the infrastructure. To provide this service to older developments would depend on where the backbone is and the cost of getting the backbone that the City has in place. To reach a farm, it would cost a lot of money. Ifit is an older home, it would have fiber up to the outside of the building and just put copper inside to do high definition TV, etc. There is no straight answer right now because the leaps and bounds being made are extraordinary. Once you have the fiber backbone it may very quickly be easier to put a wireless tower connected to the fiber and a wireless connection to the home. This is an investment that has a return. The City would outsource the management of the network, but then collect fees for selling capacity at wholesale to competing service providers. 80% of the cost of putting in the fiber is digging up the ground. In older areas, as streets are dug up it is good to include installing the fiber with the project. Mayor Soderberg felt wireless to existing neighbors is a good interim step until there is a major reconstruct. A disadvantage to having wireless as the objective is that the wireless technology changes quickly. The long-term goal should be to get fiber to each premise. Many other communities are using wireless as an interim step. Mr. David Asp gave background information on Dakota County, the history ofI-Net, discussed the Joint Powers Agreement between Apple Valley, Eagan, Burnsville, the State, Dakota County, and various school districts. He also explained the different sizes of fiber and showed samples of them. In JunelJuly Farmington will be connected to I-Net. Dakota County is the only MN county to be e-commerce ready. The county was able to drop 22 T-llines and saved $160,000 the first year. Currently Farmington as 2 T -1 lines which cost $600/month. The T -I lines would be dropped when connected to I-Net. One T-lline is a connection to Logis and would change to fiber. Council wanted the workshop because of the Vermillion River Crossings development. The Northfield Clinic will have a great need for this. The project was just approved and now is the time to look at running the conduit in that development. The City needs to think about where we want the Farmington economy to be. Farmington becomes a very attractive community by being one of the cities that is not falling behind in this. As far as privacy, data is not any more private with a private access than public access. There was a discussion on how fiber is actually installed in homes. The limiting factor is the connection to the home, not the technology that people can already get in their homes. The City needs to think about public ownership of the infrastructure and a decision needs to be made soon about whether to run the conduit to the Vermillion River Crossings development. Council Workshop April 5, 2006 Page 3 MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adjourn at 7:33 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~~?-r?~ 'Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant //; City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and Councilmembers ~ Acting City Administrator ~ Daniel M. Siebenaler, Police Chief FROM: SUBJECT: School and Conference DATE: April 17,2006 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION As part of an executive training program for Law Enforcement Officials the FBI is offering a Law Enforcement Executive Development Seminar (LEEDS) in St Cloud, May 14-19, 2006. Topics for the seminar include Leadership; Media Issues for the Law Enforcement Executive; Legal Issues for the Law Enforcement Executive; Law Enforcement Ethics and Motivational Techniques for Law Enforcement Leaders. The registration fee for this weeklong course is $395. Accommodations are available separately, at reduced rates, at the Best Western Kelly Inn in St Cloud. BUDGET IMPACT The costs of this seminar are included in the 2006 budget. ACTION REQUESTED Information only. Respectfully submitted, City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7~ FROM: Mayor and Councilmembers!.~ Acting City Administrator ~' Daniel M. Siebenaler, Police Chief TO: SUBJECT: School and Conference DATE: April 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION The Farmington Police Department has appointed Officer Andrew Bellows as its representative to the Dakota County Drug Task Force. As such it will be necessary to provide training associated with that assignment. DISCUSSION Narcotics investigations are a highly specific field of expertise requiring education in laws, court rulings, evidence and process. The source for that training comes through the Minnesota State Association of Narcotics Investigators. Two courses are available in the near future. The first is the Annual Can-Am Conference held in Brainerd. As the title suggests this conference brings together Narcotics Investigators from Canada and the United States for three days of training. The second training session, held at a later date, will be a basic Narcotics Investigations Course held at Camp Dodge, Iowa. Further information will be forwarded as it becomes available. The Police Department will be sending Officer Bellows to the Conference May 24-26, 2006. BUDGET IMPACT The cost of this conference is included in the 2006 budget for the Investigations Division. ACTION REQUESTED Information only. ~!LJ~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7d TO: Mayor and Councilmembers i&! Acting City Administrator ~ Daniel M. Siebenaler, Police Chief FROM: SUBJECT: School and Conference DATE: April 17,2006 INTRODUCTION The Farmington Police Department has appointed Officer Shawn Scovill as its representative to the Dakota County MAAG Team. As such it will be necessary to provide training associated with that assignment. DISCUSSION Tactical responses are a highly specific field of law enforcement expertise requiring education in a broad range of tactical training. A source for that training is available through the Minneapolis Police Department. A five-day Basic SWAT Course is being presented May 22-26. BUDGET IMPACT The cost of this conference is included in the 2006 budget for the Patrol Division. ACTION REQUESTED Information only. Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police 7e City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and Councilmemberw Acting City Administrator ~ Daniel M. Siebenaler, Police Chief FROM: SUBJECT: Disposal of City Property DATE: April 17,2006 INTRODUCTION Over time the Farmington Police Department acquires property through a variety of methods. One of those is in the recovery of lost or stolen bicycles. The inventory of recovered bicycles has again reached a significant number and needs to be reduced. DISCUSSION Every year the police department attempts to locate the owners of recovered bicycles, often without success. In addition to checking local records staff checks reports in neighboring communities before disposing of the bikes. For a number of years in the recent past the City sold these bikes at the annual Dakota County public auction, however two years ago that option ended as bikes were no longer accepted. In 2005 the bikes were donated to the Farmington Parks Department and sold by silent auction at the Peddler in the Park held in May. That event proved successful and provided funds for exercise equipment at the Rambling River Center. Staff is recommending that surplus bikes again be donated to the Farmington Parks and Recreation Department for disposal at the Peddler in the Park silent auction. BUDGET IMPACT In the past, public auctions have netted an average of less than $5.00 per bike. That money was forwarded as income to the general fund. During the silent auction in 2005 the bikes averaged $17.00 apiece with the proceeds donated to the Rambling River Center. ACTION REQUESTED Authorize the sale of 49 surplus bicycles by silent auction during Peddler in the Park on May 13th 2006 and donating auction proceeds to the Rambling River Center. Respectfully submitted, / Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police l-P City of Farmington 325 Oak Stree, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, City Council Members and Interim City Administrator 0/ Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director TO: RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Regarding Existing and Proposed Park, Trail and Open Space Plan Map DATE: April 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION The City of Farmington amended its Comprehensive Plan twice in 2004 in order to update its Existing and Proposed Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan Map (Plan Map). The updates were approved by the City Council so that the location of future parks, trails and open space were identified for future development. DISCUSSION The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) at its September 2005 meeting reviewed the existing Plan Map to determine whether or not it needed to be amended to address trail locations in a development that was being proposed by Bridgeland Development (the Developer) on land known as the Perkins property. At that time the Plan Map did not show any future trails on this parcel due to it being outside the City's boundary. The PRAC felt that there should be trails shown on this property and voted unanimously to recommend to the Planning Commission and to the City Council that the Plan Map be amended to show trails on the Developer's property. The PRAC's Plan Map amendment recommendation was then brought forward to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at its December 13,2005 meeting to receive comments on the proposed amendment to the Plan Map. No one spoke in opposition to the amendment during the public hearing. The City Council subsequently took up this item at its January 3, 2006 meeting. At the meeting, the City Council approved postponing the decision on this item until a later date and until the Perkins Property development issues could be resolved concerning the orderly annexation of the property and approval of MUSA for the property. At its March 6, 2006 meeting, the City Council approved an Orderly Annexation of the Perkins property. At its April 3, 2006 meeting, the City Council approved the granting of MUS A for the Perkins property. Since both the orderly annexation and MUSA designation for the Perkins property have been approved, staff is now bringing this item back to the City Council for approval. Attached are two exhibits. Exhibit A identifies the trail revisions on the larger Plan Map. Exhibit B, calls out better the location of the revisions being made to the trail locations on the Developer's property. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the attached resolution to amend the future trail locations on the Existing and Proposed Park, Trails and Open Space Plan Map as shown in Exhibit A and B. J;?:U;IY!Xlj) Randy Dfud Parks and Recreation Director cc: Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Members RESOLUTION NO. APPROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTCONCERNING EXISTING AND PROPOSED PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN MAP 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 17th day of April, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: seconded the following: Member introduced and Member WHEREAS, due to a future development being proposed it is in the best interest of the City to amend the Existing and Proposed Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan Map (Plan Map) found in Chapter II Parks and Recreation of the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update to show park and trail locations on this property; and, WHEREAS, the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission is recommending approval of the amendment being made to the Plan Map; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing at its December 13,2005 meeting and recommended approving the amendment to be made to the Plan Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Farmington hereby amends the Existing and Proposed Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan Map in Chapter II Parks and Recreation of the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the I ih day of April, 2006. Mayor Attested to the _ day of April, 2006. Interim City Administrator SEAL o o . ~h, \0 .;+ Existing and Proposed Park Trail, and Open Space Plan Map . Created on April 9, 2004 Revised on June 10, 2004 Revised on September 10, 2004 Revised on November 4, 2005 o EXIBIT B o o w.' s Created on April 9, 2004 Revised on June 10, 2004 Revised on September 10, 2004 Revised on November 4, 2005 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 (651) 463-7111 . (651) 463-2359 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ) TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, and Acting City Administrator~ FROM: Missie Kohlbeck ~ Senior Center Coordmator SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Accepting Donation for the Earth! Arbor Day Program - Parks and Recreation Department DATE: April 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION A donation for the Earth!Arbor Day Celebration has been received from CEEF. DISCUSSION CEEF has generously donated $370 to cover the cost of the Three Rivers Park District's Raptor Program in support of the Earth! Arbor Day Celebration. The Raptor Program will be a part of the Earth! Arbor Day Celebration held in Rambling River Park on May 13, 2006. Staff will communicate the City's appreciation on behalf of the Council to CEEF for their support of the Earth! Arbor Day Celebration. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the attached resolution accepting the donation from CEEF. Respectfully Submitted, . ^ V 1"l'~ ~Oh\ttL Missie Kohlbeck Senior Center Coordinator RESOLUTION No. ACCEPTING DONATION OF $370 FROM CEEF 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 17th day of April, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: seconded the following: Member introduced and Member WHEREAS, CEEF has donated $370 towards the Raptor Program at the Earth!Arbor Day Celebration. WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to accept such donations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington hereby accepts the generous donation of$370 from CEEF to be used for the Three Rivers Park District Raptor Demonstration. This resolution adopted by recorded vote ofthe Farmington City Council in open session on the I ih day of April 2006. Mayor Attested to the _ day of April 2006. Acting City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 (651) 463-7111 · (651) 463-2359 www.ci.farmington.mn.us J~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, and Acting City Administratorr Missie Kohlbeck, Senior Center Coordinator'~ Patti Norman, Recreation Supervisor ~ FROM: SUBJECT: Musical Organ Purchase for Rambling River Center DATE: April 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION The Rambling River Center has a number of fundraising events that provides money to purchase equipment and supplies for the Center outside the regular City capital outlay budget. DISCUSSION Fundraising and donation monies provide for equipment and supplies outside of the regular City capitol outlay budget. During the past six months we have been fortunate to have at the RRC an organ from Schmitt Music to use at our activities and programs. Many seniors have enjoyed playing the organ for our luncheons, for pleasure and several more have begun taking lessons through the Center. The organ has been a wonderful way to attract new members to the Rambling River Center, as well as enable some of our current members to once again enjoy their musical talent and skill. Recently, the Rambling River Advisory Board was approached with the idea of possibly purchasing an organ for the Center and they agreed that it would be a good investment for the center. After researching various types of organs, they chose a Schmitt Music Voyager Organ. BUDGET IMPACT The cost of the organ, including tax and shipping, is $436 I. I 8. This amount would come from the RRC fundraising account and there are monies currently within the RRC fundraising account ($5,097.57) to cover this worthwhile piece of equipment. ACTION REQUESTED No approval needed, this item is for informational purposes only. Respectfully Submitted, ~ t''0~)\\y(l Missie Kohlbeck Senior Center Coordinator /..-" (. _...=) . -"--._A "" __. ~ '" G~'_rv....,,-~-----..... -- Patti Norman ""---- Recreation Supervisor City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us //' TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and Acting City Administrator r FROM: Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Approve Off-Sale Beer License and Tobacco License Transfers DATE: April 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION Due to a change in Management, Kwik Trip #693, is requesting the Off-Sale Beer and Tobacco licenses be transferred naming Mr. Jeremy Charles Haack as the current Store Leader of the premIses. DISCUSSION Kwik Trip #693 is located at 217 Elm Street. The appropriate forms and insurance information have been submitted with the applications. The Police Department has reviewed the forms and approved the applications for issuance. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Approve transfer of the Off-Sale Beer and Tobacco licenses to Kwik Trip #693 naming Mr. Jeremy Charles Haack as Store Leader of the premises. Respectfully submitted, v/~~ d. k/zad~ Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7' J TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, Acting City Administrator ~ Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director FROM: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Supporting Change in Eminent Domain Legislation Regarding Heritage Landmark Designations DATE: April 17,2006 INTRODUCTION The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) is requesting the City Council adopt a resolution supporting a change in the eminent domain legislation regarding Heritage Landmark Designations. DISCUSSION The Minnesota House added a provision to HF 2846, the eminent domain reform bill, which would define state and local historic preservation designation as a "taking" and require payment for damages resulting from the designation. The language reads: "Sec7. H17.18451 OTHER REGULATORY TAKINGS A State or local government preservation designation adopted on or after August 1. 2002, that reduced the fair market value of real property or interferes with the owner's use and quiet eniovment of the property, constitutes a regulatory taking for which the owner must be paid iust compensation. The state or local government may repeal or amend the official control or historic preservation designation to eliminate the adverse impact on the property instead of paying damages." The Minnesota Historical Society has concluded that the language would be detrimental to the work ofHPC's and has requested feedback from HPC's and how it would impact local preservation work. The Farmington HPC does not consider a designation a "taking" and would like to see the language taken out of the bill. Farmington Heritage Landmark Designations have always been done with the property owner's consent and with the hope that the designation would actually enhance the value of a property. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution supporting changing the current eminent domain legislation by deleting the proposed language in HF 2846. Respectfully submitted, ." ". /J I / / " ~ ,:c-Y~ t ! ...:4-/1 q a:c~..u.. i/ Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director RESOLUTION NO. R -06 SUPPORTING CHANGE IN H.F. 2846 REGARDING EMINENT DOMAIN LEGISLATION AND HERITAGE LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS 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 17th day of April 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the Minnesota House of Representatives has currently added a provision to HF 2846, the eminent domain reform bill, which would define state and local historic preservation designation as a "taking" and require payment for damages resulting in the designation, and, WHEREAS, final passage of the proposed provision in HF 2846 would be detrimental to the work of the Farmington Heritage Preservation Commission, which reads: Sec 7. r117.18451 OTHER REGULATORY TAKINGS A State or local government preservation designation adopted on or after August I, 2002, that reduced the fair market value of real property or interferes with the owner's use and quiet enioyment of the property, constitutes a regulatory taking for which the owner must be paid iust compensation. The state or local government may repeal or amend the official control or historic preservation designation to eliminate the adverse impact on the property instead of paying damages." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington strongly encourages a change in the language to the current eminent domain legislation by deleting the language in Sec. 7 .r117.18451 OTHER REGULATORY TAKINGS as proposed in HF 2846. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 17th day of April 2006. Mayor Attested to the day of 2006. City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7.111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7/~ TO: Mayor, Council Members FROM: Robin Roland, Acting City Administratorl Finance Director SUBJECT: Consider Workshop - City Hall Planning DATE: April 17,2006 INTRODUCTION As the management team began meeting to discuss the process for designing and building a new City Hall as directed by Council, it became clear that certain issues required consideration and confirmation by the Council before we proceed. DISCUSSION Although the Council saw a presentation from Wold architects at the first meeting in March, the "Guiding principles" which were adopted by previous Councils were not discussed at length or confirmed by this council. A more complete design process schedule and a budget update are also now available. Discussion of these items is essential as we go forward in the planning and building process. The new administrator would also be able to provide his input at this workshop. ACTION REQUIRED Set City Hall Planning Workshop for Wednesday May 3, 2006 at 5 :30 PM. RespectWlly submitted, / //. ;. / / /;/ /.. ./ ;;1-(,.- p'.. .>; ;' C L ' /L.:; ---tf Robin RolanA Acting City AdministratorlFinance Director City of Farmington - New City Hall Schematic Design Wold Architects and Engineers April 11, 2006 City of Farmington Mission "Through Teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promising future." Values Statement 1. Excellence and Quality in the Delivery of Services 2. Fiscal Responsibility 3. Ethics and Integrity 4. Open and Honest Communication 5. Cooperation and Teamwork 6. Visionary Leadership and Planning 7. Positive Relations with the Community 8. Professionalism Facility Guiding Principles 1. City Hall shall be located in downtown. 2. City Hall shall serve as an anchor to the existing downtown and the new Spruce Street Corridor. 3. The building shall allow for future growth of at least 20 years and be expandable. 4. The building shall be multi-level. 5. Preservation and appropriate Farmington Image. · Complementary to downtown. AND/ OR . Set a new standard for downtown. 6. Strengthen the downtown neighborhood. 7. Cost appropriate and sustainable. Commission No.: 042061 City of Farmington - New City Hall Schematic Design Cost Summary Construction Costs (36,000 SF Buildina) Site Development Building Construction Mechanical Electrical Total Construction Cost Proiect Costs (36,000 SF Buildina) Site Acquisition Demolition at 3rd & Spruce Architectural Fees Architectural Reimb. Bid Set Printing Geotechnical Survey Special Testing Furniture Equipment Move Cost Builders Risk Insurance Bonding Construction Contingency Total Project Costs Total Project Cost Potential Additional Proiect Costs Wold Architects and Engineers April 11 , 2006 Costl SF Budget 2006 $ 450,000 $ 4,350,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 600,000 $ 6,600,000 $ 12.50 1st $ 106.00 1st $ 33.50 1st $ 17.00 1st $ 169.00 1st $ 258,000 $ 35,000 $ 414,000 $ 28,000 $ 25,000 $ 12,000 $ 8,000 $ 18,000 $ 400,000 $ 100,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 75,000 $ 660,000 $ 2,063,000 $ 8,663,000 Deduct $ Add $ (533,000) 200,000 Sale ot existing City Hall Streetscapel Round About (Allowance) Commission No. 042061 M E M 0 RAN DUM IlUgLOI TO: Robin Roland St. Paul, MN Elgin,IL FROM: John McNamara Troy, MI DATE: April 11, 2006 Denver, CO COMM. NO: 9999 SUBJECT: New City Hall MINNESOTA OFFICE 305 St. Peter Street Sr. Paul, Minnesota 55102 651.227.7773 Fax 651.223.5646 www.woldae.com Mail@woldae.com The following is a list of suggested meeting agenda topics for Schematic Design and Design Development. Schematic Desi2D (Mav throu2h Julv 2006) Meeting #1 (AprillO, 2006): Core Group . Confirm Project Schedulel Milestones. . Confirm Core Planning Team. · Confirm Project Budget. . DisClission on Do'.vntown Design Principles. . Confirm Guiding Principles. Meeting #2 (April 24, 2006): Core Group · Confirmation of space program from previous study. · Confirmation on relationship diagram from previous study. · Set schedule for user meetings and input. Meeting #3 (May 3, 2006): Council Workshop · Approve Guiding Principles · Approve Project Budget · Approve Project Schedule Meeting #4 (May 8, 2006): Core Group · Agreement on final relationship diagram · Review preliminary bubble diagrams · Building massing Meeting #5 (May 22, 2006): Core Group · Approve bubble diagrams · Approve building massing · Approve site concept plan Meeting #6 (June 12,2006): Core Group · Review preliminary floor plan · Review exterior concept Meeting #7 (June 26, 2006): Core Group · Review draft Schematic Design Book · Schedule meeting with City Council for approval. W 0 L D AND ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS IWgLOI St. Paul, MN Elgin, IL Troy, MI Denver, CO Memorandum to Robin Roland Page 2 Meeting #8 (July 17,2006): City Council . Presentation to Council . Approve Schematic Budget Desien Development (Aueust throueh October 2006) Meeting # 1: . Approve Final Site Diagram . City EnvironmentaV Aesthetic Review . Discuss Building Plan Development Meeting #2: . Approve Building Plan . Discuss Detailed User Group Planning Meetings Meeting #3: . Discuss Exterior Concept Development . City Preliminary Code Review Meeting #4: . Approval of User Group Documents . Approval of Exterior Concept . Agreement on Final Sustainable Strategies Meeting #5: . Discuss Preliminary Building Systems . Discuss Preliminary Mechanical & Electrical Systems . Discuss Design Development Code Approval Meeting #6: . Approval of Final Building Systems . Approval of Final Mechanical & Electrical Systems . Discuss Preliminary Color Selections Meeting #7: . Approval of Final Color/ Material Selections . Approval of Design Development Budget Meeting #8: . Approval of Design Development by City Council cc: Michael Cox Aimee LaLone CK/9999/CI-FarmingtonlcrsplMeeting Schedule WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS City of Farmington - New City Hall Schematic Design Wold Architects and Engineers April 11, 2006 IlUgwl 2006 2007 2008 J F M A M J J A S 0 N 0 J F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M A M J J Schematic Design I,,", YL': ;;,,:~ City Council Approval ...01 .. July 17, 2006 Design Development City Council Approval ...01 .. Oct. 23, 2006 Contract Documents City Council Approval ...01 .. April 2, 2007 Bidding ;1~;, I I City Council Approval .... ... May 7, 2007 ... Construction ~ Design J Construction Documents _ Construction Bidding *Occupancy 7L City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members FROM: Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator/ Finance Director SUBJECT: School & Conference - Administration DATE: April 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION The Minnesota City County Management Association (MCMA) holds its annual conference May 10 - 12,2006 at Cragun's in Brainerd. DISCUSSION The MCMA annual conference is three days of professional presentations on leadership, management and public administration issues. It is an excellent opportunity for continuing education in local government management. Peter will be attending this conference as provided for in his contract and in the City's budget. BUDGET IMPACT The 2006 Budget includes training expenditures to cover the $225 registration fee. Peter will not require lodging for this conference. ACTION REQUIRED For Council's information. Respectfully submitted, /1 7 // ..... ) .. .(... '/./ / /_I/-(~.. . Robin Roland Acting City Administrator/Finance Director 7rY) CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY OF REVENUES MARCH 31, 2006 25.00 % Year Complete flESRc:;F;!'it) .21:l()$ . . .<PF,;~~ESN"J" /200$ < .'lTD . . .2005 % $ % GENERAL FUND Property Taxes Licenses Permits Fines Intergovernment Revenue Charges for Service Investment Interest Miscellaneous Transfers Total General Fund 5,298,201 0.00 0.00 29,600 1,958 13,106 44.28 10,600 36.99 977,156 101,304 245,162 25.09 68,926 6.29 83,100 6,839 13,926 16.76 3,371 4.32 350,000 2,326 71,414 20.40 66,203 21.36 439,000 21,457 32,534 7.41 31,489 8.16 225,000 18,750 56,250 25.00 56,250 25.00 13,500 207 1,138 8.43 6,075 60.75 347 900 28 992 86,975 25.00 59 000 25.00 7 763 457 181 833 520 505 6.70 301,914 4.24 SPECIAL REVENUE HRA Operating Fund 20,000 95,955 101,575 507.88 2,478 12.09 Police Forfeitures Fund 8,000 400 5.00 506 6.29 Park Improvement Fund 296,000 12,249 22,322 7.54 27,605 9.45 Recreation Operating Fund 298,030 2,884 10,144 3.40 7,758 2.57 Ice Arena 252 500 30 608 94,452 37.41 88 999 35.96 874530 141,696 228 893 26.17 127346 55.64 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Liquor Operations 3,803,800 281,156 761,935 20.03 638,725 17.19 Sewer 1,510,000 151,299 260,657 17.26 310,919 20.27 Solid Waste 1,917,000 178,626 409,998 21.39 388,404 22.22 Storm Water 300,000 52,495 90,073 30.02 84,401 35.92 Water 1 745000 126974 323 801 18.56 266313 15.71 9 275 800 790,550 1 846 464 19.91 1 688 762 18.92 Total Revenues 17,913,787 1,114,079 2,595,862 14.49 2,118,022 12.52 CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES MARCH 31, 2006 25.00 % Year Complete :...... I,..., ..~a.. It.. '.0.. ..G..... E.. .T, .,...,..M..',' .....'.l.. 'U..'. ..2R.,OR<O. .E6.. ..N. ..' .T.,'. .,' ... .,' .... <>~~~q~N1' }29o.M ... ~~E;N'1' 1< y. wYTD . . . .<~OO$<YTI)> ...~05} GENERAL FUNO $ $ $ Legislative 68,350 5,601 Administration 491,929 39,157 Elections 19,220 1 Communications 71,211 6,401 Human Resources 215,228 23,616 Information Technology 117,716 20,153 Finance 457,719 57,501 Planning 178,539 18,239 Building Inspection 438,673 45,685 Community Development 180,809 19,127 Police Administration 643,261 65,471 Patrol Services 1,656,674 154,215 Investigation Services 374,145 41,312 Emergency Management 5,200 18 Fire 486,648 36,969 Rescue 44,358 8,569 Engineering 278,815 26,242 G.I.S. 500- Streets 510,576 37,378 Snow Removal 94,263 13,056 Signal Maint 115,600 10,282 Natural Resources 76,632 9,129 Park Maint 443,348 36,694 Building Maint 150,439 9,510 Recreation Programs 436,074 33,458 Transfers Out 207 530 51,882 Total General Fund 7 763 457 769 666 SPECIAL REVENUE HRA Operating Police Forfeitures Fund Park Improvement Fund Senior Center Swimming Pool Ice Arena 40,000 8,000 415,000 158,538 139,492 329 341 1 090 371 97,581 186 36,525 14,273 1,177 39416 189 158 ENTERPRISE FUNOS Liquor Operations Sewer Solid Waste Storm Water Water Utility 3,812,398 1,505,743 2,030,008 335,066 1 432 823 9116038 346,826 109,275 128,494 24,101 74562 683,258 1,642,082 Total Expenditures 17,969,866 24,307 87,060 3 13,059 45,667 30,887 114,357 38,265 88,081 38,905 119,302 329,887 87,388 37 66,605 16,490 64,803 83,356 42,480 20,395 20,017 79,812 27,605 77,997 51.882 1 568,647 102,216 376 78,234 32,274 3,261 81 595 297.956 852,082 292,623 330,849 94,714 149,797 1,720065 3,586,668 % 35.56 17.70 0.00 18.34 21.22 26.24 24.98 21.43 20.08 21.52 18.55 19.91 23.36 0.71 13.69 37.17 23.24 0.00 16.33 45.07 17.64 26.12 18.00 18.35 17.89 25.00 20.21 255.54 4.70 18.85 20.36 2.34 24.78 27.33 22.35 19.43 16.30 28.27 10.45 18.87 19.96 $ 22,886 107,580 16,169 46,797 16,287 108,723 37,286 90,273 21,107 163,939 351,578 62,130 1,075 58,657 9,280 67,018 59 88,199 64,228 20,061 10,675 73,442 27,746 74,563 53 250 1 593 008 4,777 348 38,410 31,228 3,328 88.700 166,791 636,110 265,155 311,398 62,966 121.151 1 396,780 3,156,579 % 34.08 23.62 0.00 22.81 23.97 15.11 26.28 21.42 22.19 13.28 27.15 23.16 22.38 20.67 13.77 21.53 23.56 0.60 18.66 62.40 19.00 18.97 18.04 17.56 19.85 25.00 22.37 11.35 4.32 7.27 21.04 2.33 35.89 14.94 17.86 17.20 17.59 15.71 10.62 16.60 18.96 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7/) TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, and Acting City Administrato~ Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director FROM: SUBJECT: School and Conference - Human Resources DATE: April 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION The annual Upper Midwest Employment Law Institute for Human Resource Professionals and Attorneys will be attended on Monday and Tuesday, May 22 and 23, 2006. DISCUSSION The Employment Law Institute provides Human Resource professionals the opportunity to attend seminars on the latest developments in employment law. The conference is designed to increase the skills and knowledge of the participants by offering continuing education credits to maintain various professional certifications. It is also an opportunity for attendees to participate in peer discussions about the challenges public employers face when dealing with a wide range of complex employment law issues. BUDGET IMPACT The cost of this conference is $595.00 and is provided for in the 2006 budget. ACTION REOUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, ''1 ,.{ '">( ,/-r------- ,-./) i ! - ,',./7 J-."/ /.' /./. { c...... V'-~t ~.k '___"-c~_..J/,-t, \k" "'. \. Brenda Wendlandt, SPHR Human Resources Director cc: file City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 70 TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, and Acting City Administrator ~ FROM: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding - Police Sergeants Association DATE: April 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION This memorandum has been prepared to update Council on the status of the City's memorandum of understanding with the Police Sergeants Association. DISCUSSION The City has had a memorandum of understanding with the Police Sergeants Association that affords them the same terms and conditions of employment as the patrol officers. Essentially, the attached memorandum provides the police sergeants with the same terms and conditions of employment as the patrol officers unless specifically changed in the memorandum of understanding. As you recall, the City reached a collective bargaining agreement with the patrol officers bargaining unit effective January I, 2006. This agreement provides for a two and three quarter percent (2.75%) wage adjustment effective January I for both 2006 and 2007. The agreement also provides for a two percent wage adjustment effective January I, 2008 and an additional two percent wage adjustment effective July I, 2008. The City will continue to contribute a flat rate amount for group insurance provided by the City. This contribution amount will remain at $690.00 per month for 2006 and increase to $720.00 per month for 2007. There will be an insurance re-opener to determine the City contribution for 2008. The term length of this memorandum of understanding coincides with the length of the LELS collective bargaining agreement. BUDGET IMPACT Settlement costs are provided for in the 2006 budget. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the attached memorandum of understanding for the Police Sergeants. Respectfully submitted, ....., .. . i ;;t;/ ".f (-.. ,/ i /1 /- :L,:-/~....."_A--:-.. ..( /.....xC>i.. /w..( .. Brenda Wendlandt, SPHR Human Resources Director cc: file LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF FARMINGTON and FARMINGTON POLICE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION The City of Farmington recognizes the Police Sergeants as a separate collective bargaining unit and as such, this memorandum of agreement renews the agreement with the Sergeants as outlined in the following paragraphs. I. Except as included in this memorandum, the Sergeants are to receive the same terms and conditions for employee as afforded to the Police Officers in the LELS collective bargaining agreement. This has commonly been referred to as a "me too" agreement. 2. The Sergeants, by separate agreement (see attached), agree to participate in the Post Employment Health Savings Plan through the Minnesota State Retirement System. 3. The City provides legal representation for the Sergeants provided there is not any misconduct on the part of the Sergeants. However, if the city decided to make a settlement and the Sergeants did not want to settle, the Sergeants would then have to hire their own representation. 4. The term of this memorandum will coincide with the term of the current LELS collective bargaining agreement (January 1,2006 through December 31,2008). At the end of that term, the Sergeants may either request to renew this memorandum or may request to negotiate their own contract. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on this I th day of April 2006. For The City of Farmington For the Police Sergeants Association LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF FARMINGTON AND FARMINGTON POLICE SERGEANTS Whereas, the City of Farmington and the Farmington Police Sergeants, wish to enter into an agreement regarding a Health Care Savings Plan for the Farmington Police Department Sergeants. And whereas, the City of Farmington and the Farmington Police Department Sergeants agree to the following regarding the implementation of the Health Care Savings Plan: I) The Farmington Police Dept. Sergeants have agreed to the following: 2) Farmington Police Dept. Sergeants whose appointment started during the following dates will have the corresponding amounts deducted from their bi-weekly wages and put into a Health Care Savings Plan agreed to by both the City of Farmington and the Farmington Police Department Sergeants: START DATE On or before 12/31/2004 1/112005 to present date DEDUCTION $ 3 0 per pay period $ 100 per pay period It is agreed that the terms of this Letter of Understanding shall be incorporated into the agreement the City of Farmington and the Farmington Police Department Sergeants have between them. FOR THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ~ - ./1 . · ~tL/f~,~i~-<~ ~-./ ./ ..' City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7p TO: ./~ Mayor, Councilmembers, and Acting City Administrator~ Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director FROM: SUBJECT: Appointment Recommendation - 3/4 Time Building Inspector DATE: April 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION The recruitment and selection process for the appointment of a 3/4 time Building Inspector has been completed. DISCUSSION After a thorough review by the Community Development Department and the Human Resources Office, a contingent offer of employment has been made to Marek Kopec, subject to ratification by the City Council. Mr. Kopec has a RA. in Business and has taken course work for the Building Official Certification. He has several years of experience in construction work and landscaping, and meets the qualifications for this position. BUDGET IMPACT Funding for this position is authorized in the 2006 budget. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the appointment of Mr. Marek Kopec as a 3/4 Time Building Inspector in the Department of Community Development effective on April 18, 2006. Respectfully submitted, .4. . .yf/" I Ii.. / IJ0[(/,- /~LL;l~1Jl L I Brenda Wendlandt, SPHR Human Resources Director cc: file City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us ~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, Acting City Administrator ~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: SUBJECT: Approve Easement Acquisition - Spruce Street Extension project DATE: April 17,2006 INTRODUCTION Staff has completed easement acquisition negotiations with Jim Allen, owner of the property on the south side ofthe Spruce Street extension project. DISCUSSION A permanent roadway easement and temporary construction easement is needed for the extension of Spruce Street on the south side of the road extension. BUDGET IMPACT The total amount negotiated for the easement acquisitions for this property is $8,000.00. This amount is consistent with information received from the City's land appraiser. The detailed property settlement information is available for review at Council's request. ACTION REQUESTED Approve by motion the acquisition of the above referenced easements for the Spruce Street Extension project. Respectfully Submitted, ~frL~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public W orkslCity Engineer cc: file 7r City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members, Acting City Administrator ~ Lee Smick, AICP, City Planner Jennifer Collova, Natural Resource Specialist ~ FROM: SUBJECT: Wetland Alteration Permits - Riverbend Phase Two Development, Spruce Street Extension Project DATE: April 17,2006 INTRODUCTION The Riverbend Final Plat was approved by the City Council on August I, 2005. The Spruce Street Extension Project was awarded by the City Council on April 3, 2006. A wetland alteration permit is required when projects impact waterlwetland resources regulated by local, state and federal agencies implementing the MN Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) of 1991. DISCUSSION Riverbend Phase Two According to the permit application, this project is in the second phase of residential development. This phase will consist of approximately 80 single-family lots. Excavation will impact 26,838 square feet of one Type I "Utilize" wetland. Proposed replacement will be on-site with the construction of a 45,808 square-foot new wetland area (New Wetland Credits) adjacent to North Creek and 26,838 of Public Value Credits from on-site storm water ponding to meet the 2: I requirement. Spruce Street According to the permit application, for this project the construction of a street and bridge crossing the Vermillion River will impact 1.52 acres of Type I floodplain wetland. Replacement will be from the purchase of3.04 acres of wetland credit from private wetland bank account #1144 which is within the same minor watershed. A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) was held on April 7, 2006. The TEP panel discussed these permit applications and forwards a recommendation for approval of both applications. Ben Meyer of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, the City's consultant, has also reviewed the wetland alteration permit applications and recommends approval of the permits (see attached). ACTION REQUESTED I. Approve the Wetland Alteration Permit for Riverbend Phase Two Development with the following conditions: I) Wetland mitigation site monitoring reports are required to be submitted yearly, up to five years as per WCA Rule. 2) Monitoring of avoided wetlands, A, B, C, E, and F, shall be included with the yearly reports. 3) A wetland delineation will be required for these wetlands at the end of the monitoring period. 2. Approve the Wetland Alteration Permit for the Spruce Street Extension with the following condition: No wetland impacts may commence until the applicant receives a copy of the fully signed and executed "Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits," signed by the BWSR wetland bank administrator certifying that the wetland bank credits have been debited. Respectfully Submitted, #~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner Jennifer Collova Natural Resource Specialist cc: file Memo .f1. Bonestroo e Rosene "'till Anderlik & . \I. Associates Engineers & Architects To: Lee Smick and Jen Collova From: Ben Meyer Re: Wetland Conservation Act Recommendations for: Spruce Street Extension and Riverbend Development Date: April 11, 2006 For April 17, 2006 City Council consent agenda: recommendation for Wetland Replacement Plan Applications 1. City of Farmington, Spruce Street Extension Wetland Replacement Plan Application for construction of a street and bridge crossing the Vermillion River that will impact 1.52 acres of Type 1 floodplain wetland. Replacement will be from the purchase of 3.04 acres of wetland credit from private wetland bank account #1144 which is within the same minor watershed. Recommendation: Approval of the Wetland Replacement Plan with conditions. Conditions: 1) No wetland impacts may commence until the applicant receives a copy of the fully signed and executed "Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits," signed by the BWSR wetland bank administrator certifying that the wetland bank credits have been debited. 2. Homes by Chase, Riverbend Development Phase II Wetland Replacement Plan Application for excavation impact of 0.62 acres of Type 1 wetland to construct a stormwater pond. Replacement will be on-site via creation of 1.05 acres of Type 2/3 wetland and 0.62 acres of upland buffer. Recommendation: Approval of the Wetland Replacement Plan with conditions. Conditions: 1) Wetland mitigation site monitoring reports are required to be submitted yearly, up to five years as per WCA Rule. 2) Monitoring of avoided wetlands, A, B, C, E, and F, shall be included with the yearly reports. 3) A wetland delineation will be required for these wetlands at the end of the monitoring period. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. 2335 West Highway 36 . 51. Paul, MN 55113. Phone: 651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311 ~ I 7~J City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmineton, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: ~~ Mayor, Council Members, Acting City Administrator I FROM: Ken Lewis, Building Official SUBJECT: First Quarter 2006 New Construction Report and Population Estimate DATE: April 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION The following report summarizes the new construction permits issued during the first quarter of 2006 and the first quarter population estimate. DISCUSSION First Quarter Building Permit Information: During the first quarter of the 2006 building construction season (January 1st through March 31st), the City issued 38 new single-family detached housing permits and 44 new multi-family permits, for a total of82 new 1st quarter housing permits. Construction valuation for the single-family and multi-family homes totaled $7,828,000 and $6,343,700, respectively. The average building valuation of the single-family homes during the first quarter of 2006 was $206,000, up from $198,439 during the fourth quarter of 2005.The average building valuation of the townhome units during the first quarter of 2006 was $144,175, up from $125,940 during the fourth quarter of 2005. (Note that the valuation averages do not represent the average sale price or average market value of the homes in question, since they do not include the value of the lot or any amenities added to the home that are not part of the building code formula). Year-End Population Estimate: At the beginning of 2003, City staff decided that each quarterly building permit report should also include an updated population estimate for the City of Farmington. After discussing several methods of calculating population, a decision was made to base our population estimates on Certificates of Occupancy rather than upon building permits. Building permit activity is not a "real time" reflection of actual population, given the "lag time" between the issuance of the permit and the actual occupancy of the dwelling unit (i.e., the time required to construct, market and sell the home). Accordingly, staff started with the City population as of April 1,2000 (as determined by the U.s. Census Bureau) and then determined the number of Certificates of Occupancy [C.O.s] issued by the City since that date, The number of C.O.s was multiplied by 2.95, which was (according to the 2000 Census) the average number of occupants per Farmington dwelling unit. The resulting calculations are as follows: 14,728 + 1888 16,616 + 336 16,952 + 525 17,477 + 434 17,911 + 371 18,282 + 260 18,542 + 241 18,783 + 371 19,154 + 200 19,354 + 104 19,458 + 145 19,603 + 62 19,665 + 77 19,742 + 68 19,810 + 157 19,967 Estimated Population as of 1/1/02 = 640 Certificates of Occupancy issued for 2002 X 2. 95 Estimated Population as of 1/1/03 = 114 Certificates of Occupancy issued for the period 1/1/03 to 3/31/03 X 2.95 Estimated Population as of March 31, 2003 = 178 Certificates of Occupancy issued for the period from 4/1/03 to 6/30/03 X 2.95 Estimated Population as of June 30, 2003 = 147 Certificates of Occupancy issued for the period from 7/1/03 to 9/30/03 X 2.95 Estimated Population as of September 30, 2003 = 126 Certificates of Occupancy issued for the period from 10/1/03 to 12/31/03 X 2.95 Estimated Population as of December 31, 2003 = 88 Certificates of Occupancy issued for the period from 1/1/04 to 3/31/04 X 2.95 Estimated Population as of March 31, 2004 = 82 Certificates of Occupancy issued for the period from 4/1/04 to 6/30/04 X 2.95 Estimated Population as of June 30, 2004 = 126 Certificates of Occupancy issued for the period from 7/1/04 to 9/30/04 X 2.95 Estimated Population as of September 30, 2004 = 68 Certificates of Occupancy issued for the period from 10/1/04 to 12/31/04 X 2.95 Estimated Population as of Decem ber 31, 2004 = 35 Certificates of Occupancy issued for the period from 1/1/05 to 3/31/05 X 2.95 Estimated Population as of March 31, 2005 = 49 Certificates of Occupancy issued for the period from 4/1/05 to 6/30/05 X 2.95 Estimated Population as of June 30, 2005 = 21 Certificates of Occupancy issued for the period from 7/1/05 to 9/30/05 X 2.95 Estimated Population as of September 30,2005 = 26 Certificates of Occupancy issued for the period from 10/1/05 to 12/31/05 X 2.95 Estimated population as of December 31,2005 = 23 units brought in by annexation for the period from 10/1/05 to 12/31/05 X 2.95 Estimated population as of December 31,2005 = 53 Certificate of Occupancy issued for the period from 1/1/06 to 3/31/06 X 2.95 Estimated population as of March 31, 2006 ACTION REQUIRED This item is informational in nature. No action is required. Respectfully Submitted, ;t::c1ewri<1 Ken Lewis Building Official en !::: :2 0::: LU 0... C) Z I I g~ I I I. I ~~ I . 0...5 000001 ~OO~N OOOOOION~~V 00000 00000'00000 :: +:; I ~S ~ - " .!!1 Q) ,::: ::l '" '" ::l '" ,,- C '" - - :: 'E Q) CD Zo... ~;. ~ooo~ OONON 1'1 i' - .. ~I 00000 o OT"""OOT""" o 0 0 0 01 00000 < . . . .. oooool..' I m .- " ~ ~ . ~ g: E- o.l!l (J'E :: .... ~~-H rn ~ Q) :2'" (/) .-:= Q) C ~ :Jl '0 f- NOONV ONOON 00000 ..,...-c-("")OL() O<")v~CX) o I . I, I I ! .. <,,)N~ONr,o~mmm v~VN~ ~~N~cx) CX)N<")m<") cx)cx)N<")N """T"""-C-"""~ ..,...T"""T""" L()/\.):, N .. .. I .. .. l ~ ~O~O~ ('\I Lt)("I') 0'>.,.... N CX) N~CX)~g ;::g:~~~ ~ ~ m ~ v ,. ~ ~ ~ ~ v .... CD >- ...J 0::: LU f- 0::: <( :J o 2 ell 1<'1 . ai.!: .. N N 0::: '" ::l ...<")000<") :: 0 Q):I: Z I I I I <")ovo~ .CX)ovo~ co LO CX) LO N .... <") LO N ~ ." CX)~~~~~ .. . 00000 000 L l 00000 00000 o o , 'S '" :2"'" _ C ~~=:.. LO"<tcocou; Z ,g ~II <") co v ~ ~l f-.. :g .~ ::J j :: Q) Z Ncx)~O~ LOCX)LOmN . ,; 00000 0 00000 00000 , ..... 0 0 0 0 0 ':" N 0 0 0 N .. ONOON .. .. .. i .l!l 'c ::J ~I Q) Z .. . ~cx)NO~ co~<")~~ ~cx)NCO~ covV~N T"""~OO~ ~T"""Lt)O'>~!:::::iHi::!V~ON~ ("I')~..,...oo~ 00 COCX)~CX)N~~LOVN v<,,)N~~ ~NNv~ <") I I . rn .. 2 ,::: i..,::: ~ o ~ 0 N _"'C"'C-co _""O-o.cO ~~c;;~~ ~~c;;~~,k- ~ -~ ... m ....1 '0 Q.).= i- too OgJ iij-g-e,s8 .... ~N<,,) v N o o o N ~ >- ~I ~ ~I ~f .= t-,,/~ t- ~ 1-:2= t- 0<")0 v 0 LO 0 co ~~E~g:;:::':;'w~~;g oo~~=g,.,:~:!w~~=g ~N<")vNi ~N<")"<tN ~N<")vN ~N<,,)vN 8 ..,~ I g- ....8 o . ~ I N .. " I NN . t I .. " .; /Ch.. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, Acting City Administrator~ .-r;-)'" Lena Larson, Public Works Administrative Assistant'p FROM: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Approving Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County DATE: April 17,2006 INTRODUCTION Attached is a proposed joint powers agreement between the City of Farmington and Dakota County to conduct a project to enhance recycling in the City of Farmington. DISCUSSION The City's Recycling and Curbside Cleanup Day Services Agreement with Dick's SanitationlLakeville Sanitary expires in December of this year. In recent years there have been some significant developments in the recycling industry (eg. single sort recycling). Dakota County is proposing a Joint Powers Agreement with the City to hire a consultant to perform a process improvement analysis on the City's current recycling contract and to develop a new contract to strengthen recycling activities. BUDGET IMPACT It is anticipated that the total consultant project costs will be approximately $30,000 and Dakota County will reimburse Farmington for consultant project costs in an amount not to exceed $15,000. The City's portion will be funded through the Solid Waste budget. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City to enter into the Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County. Respectfully submitted, , J 'm . C-.v\{)... . ~ <Lena Larsofl"( Public WorkS Administrative Assistant cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R -06 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH DAKOTA COUNTY FOR AN ENHANCED CITYWIDE CURBSIDE RECYCLING CONTRACT 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 ih day of April 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Recycling and Curbside Cleanup Day Services Agreement expIres III December of this year; and, WHEREAS, Dakota County is willing to participate in the cost of a process improvement analysis on the City's recycling system and develop a new contract to strengthen recycling activities in the City of Farmington. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County for an Enhanced Citywide Curbside Recycling Contract, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to execute and forward the Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County for an Enhanced Citywide Curbside Recycling Contract. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 17th day of April 2006. Mayor Attested to the day of ,2006. Acting City Administrator SEAL JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF DAKOTA AND FARMINGTON FOR AN ENHANCED CITYWIDE CURBSIDE RECYCLING CONTRACT his joint powers agreement (Agreement) is made and entered into between the County of Dakota, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (County), and the City of Farmington (Farmington), for purposes of conducting a project to advance waste reduction, recycling, and recovery through an enhanced citywide recycling contract within Farmington, the results of which will be used by both parties. WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 04-528 (November 14, 2004), the Dakota County Board of Commissioners approved the 2005-2024 Regional/Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan (Master Plan); and WHEREAS, the Master Plan strategies including those relating to government leadership and reinvigorating residential recycling are being implemented in 2006; and WHEREAS, the County routinely cooperates with all municipalities, including the City of Farmington (Farmington), on waste reduction and recycling activities through the Community Funding Program; and WHEREAS, Farmington contracts with a hauler for citywide (residential and commercial) collection and transportation of recyclables; and WHEREAS, Farmington's recycling contract will expire in December 2006; and WHEREAS, Farmington will enter into a contract and pay for a solid waste consultant to perform a process improvement analysis on the city's current municipality-wide recycling contract and to develop a new contract to strengthen recycling activities; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the total consultant project costs will be approximately $30,000; and WHEREAS, Dakota County will reimburse Farmington for consultant project costs in an amount not to exceed 15,000; and WHEREAS, Farmington reserves the right not to proceed if the contract amount for consultant services exceeds $30,000; and WHEREAS, the results of the project may be used by other public and private entities to enhance reduction and recycling efforts in waste and/or recycling collection contracts; and WHEREAS, Dakota County and Farmington are both governmental units with authority to enter into a joint powers agreement in accordance with Minn. Stat. ~ 471.59; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is to identify the duties and responsibilities of the County and Farmington related to the Recycling Contract Demonstration Project; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements contained in this Agreement the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 - PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to identify the roles and responsibilities of Farmington and Dakota County to establish a recycling contract demonstration project in Farmington (Recycling Contract Demonstration Project), where Farmington will act as contract manager with an independent contractor performing the Recycling Contract Demonstration Project services, and where the County will reimburse Farmington for consultant services costs for the Recycling Contract Demonstration Project, in amount not to exceed $15,000. ARTICLE 2 - TERM he term of this Agreement, will be from the date of the execution of the parties until the date of the completion or termination of Recycling Contract Demonstration Project services or October 31,2008 whichever occurs last, in accordance with the contract between Farmington and the Contractor for such services. The time frame to complete tasks on the project may be extended by mutual agreement of Farmington and the Contractor without a formal amendment to the to this Agreement. ARTICLE 3 - ROLES & FINANCIAL PAYMENT BY THE PARTIES -armington will enter into a contract with an independent Contractor to perform the Recycling Contract Demonstration roject. Farmington agrees to act as contract manager and fiscal agent for the Recycling Contract Demonstration Project. Farmington and County roles include, but are not limited to: Farminqton Roles and Responsibilities: . Farmington will enter into a contract and pay for consultant project costs with an independent consultant to perform an evaluation of the city's current Curbside Recycling and Cleanup Day Services Contract for curbside collection, transportation of recyclables generated from city owned and operated buildings, residents and businesses in Farmington and other city sponsored recycling activities in the community (e.g., cardboard drop off). Provide a cross-functional team necessary for the Contractor to perform an evaluation of the current citywide Curbside Recycling and Cleanup Day Services contract and other city sponsored recycling activities in the community (e.g., cardboard drop off), develop a new Recycling Contract based on the findings of the evaluation and monitor the success of the Recycling Contract following execution. Incorporate waste reduction, including organic waste diversion as goals of the project, as appropriate. Consider restructuring current waste management systems and relationships with contractors to achieve waste reduction, recycling, and cost reduction goals through the recycling contract. Provide the County copies of project data, reports and results at no cost to the County. . . . . . Provide opportunities for and allow the County to participate in project milestones, including but not limited to providing recommendations on evaluation findings, contract Request for Proposals development, and consultant and recycling contract development. Providing an opportunity for the County to participate in project meetings, including at least one meeting with Farmington and the Contractor following successful execution of a recycling contract to discuss opportunities, challenges and barriers of the project. Sharing the results of the process with the County for purposes of disseminating the information to other public and private entities and participate in this information dissemination. . . . Monitoring recycling contract impacts for a minimum of 1-year following execution of contract and share this information with the County. . Retain authority for final decisions on project activities, and share decision-making processes and findings with the County in the event that Contractor and County recommendations are not incorporated. Dakota County Roles and Responsibilities: . Participate in Farmington's cross-functional team, as appropriate and provide recommendations in milestone events such as providing recommendations on evaluation findings, consultant and recycling contract development and attend meetings. The County will provide recommendations in a timely manner, as mutually agreed upon by Farmington and the County. . Promote Recycling Contract Demonstration project findings to other public and private entities, as appropriate. Reimburse Farmington Contractor costs, in an amount not to exceed $15,000 following successful execution of the independent contractor Recycling Contract or before December 31, 2006, whichever is later. . ARTICLE 4 - LIABLE FOR OWN ACTS Each party to this Agreement shall be liable for the acts of their own agents, volunteers or employees and the results lereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party, its agents, volunteers or mployees. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to permit stacking of benefits or joint and several liabilities. It is understood and agreed that the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 466, and other applicable laws govern liability arising from the parties' acts or omissions. Each Party warrants that they are able to comply with the aforementioned indemnity requirements through an insurance or self-insurance program and that each has minimum coverage consistent with the liability limits contained in Minn. Stat. Ch. 466. ARTICLE 5 - TERMINATION - armington reserves the right not to proceed if the contract amount for consultant services exceeds $30,000. Either party lay terminate this Agreement for cause upon 30 days written notice to the other party. ARTICLE 6 - AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES The following named persons are designated the authorized representatives of parties for purposes of this Agreement. These persons have authority to bind the party they represent and to consent to modifications, except that, the authorized representatives shall have only the authority specifically or generally granted by their respective governing boards. Notification required to be provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided to the following named persons and addresses unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, or in a modification of this Agreement. To Farmington: Peter Herlofsky City Administrator Farmington City Hall Farmington, MN 55024 To the County: Gregory J. Konat, Director Physical Development Division 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN 55124 Telephone: 952-891-7034 I addition, notification to the County regarding breach or termination shall be provided to the office of the Dakota County ttorney, 1560 Highway 55, Hastings, Minnesota 55033. ARTICLE 7 - LIAISONS To assist the parties in the day-to-day performance of this Agreement and to develop service, ensure compliance and provide ongoing consultation, a liaison shall be designated by the County and Farmington. The parties shall keep each other continually informed, in writing, of any change in the designated liaison. At the time of execution of this Agreement, the following persons are the designated liaisons: County Liaison: Lori Frekot Telephone: 952-891-7002 Email Address:loriJrekot@co.dakota.mn.us Farmington Liaison: Lena Larson Telephone: 651-463-1622 Email address:LLarson@CI.FARMINGTON.MN.US ARTICLE 8 - OWNERSHIP OF WORK PRODUCT Both the County and Farmington may use the work products of the Contract between Farmington and the independent Contractor for use, as each deem appropriate. ARTICLE 9 - MODIFICATIONS Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing, signed by authorized representatives of parties. ARTICLE 10 - SEVERABILITY The provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed severable. If any part of this Agreement is rendered void, invalid, or nenforceable, such rendering shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement unless the art or parts that are void, invalid or otherwise unenforceable shall substantially impair the value of the entire Agreement with respect to either party. ARTICLE 11 - MERGER This Agreement is the final expression of the agreement of the parties and the complete and exclusive statement of the terms agreed upon, and shall supersede all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. There are no representations, warranties, or stipulations, either oral or written, not contained in this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Contract on the date(s) indicated below. COUNTY OF DAKOTA Date of Signature By Gregory J. Konat, Director Physical Development Division APPROVAL AS TO FORM Assistant County Attorney Date ounty Board Resolution No. 06-143 City of Farmington (I represent and warrant that I am authorized by law to execute this Agreement and legally bind the City of Farmington.) Date of Signature By [print name] [title] City of Farmington K:K06-93 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us lOb TO: Mayor, City Council and Acting City AdministratorW FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: King Annexation Petition (1.94 acres) Olson/Garvey Annexation Petitions (53.89,53.90 and 54.04 acres) Mock Annexation Petition (2.5 acres) DATE: April 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION The City Council recently indicated a desire to have any pending annexation petitions placed on a Council agenda for discussion. DISCUSSION The City Council and the City's Management Team (i.e., the Acting City Administrator and the Department Directors) participated in a goal-setting meeting on Friday, March 10, 2006. Annexation was one of the many topics that were discussed at that time. During the discussion of annexation-related issues, the City Council members indicated that they would like to have any pending annexation petitions placed on the agenda for consideration at a future City Council meeting. The Council also indicated that any affected township(s) should be notified of the Council's intention to discuss such petitions at an upcoming meeting. Notice to Affected Townships An annexation petition (attached) involving one parcel of property in Empire Township is currently pending. The 1.94-acre parcel in question is owned by David and Gina King. The Chair of the Empire Town Board has been advised of the City Council's intention to discuss the King matter at the April 17 City Council meeting. (Annexation-related issues involving Empire Township and the City of Farmington have, for the last few years, typically been discussed by a joint six-member appointed body before they have been presented to the Township or the City for formal action. This appointed group is known as the Empire-Farmington Planning Advisory Committee, or "EF-PAC." The next scheduled meeting of the EF-PAC will be on May 24, 2006.) Annexation-related issues involving Castle Rock Township and the City of Farmington have recently been discussed by a joint six-member appointed body known as the "Farmington-Castle Rock Discussion Group." At a Discussion Group meeting that was held on March 28,2006, the three Castle Rock Township representatives on the Discussion Group were notified of the City Council's intention to discuss pending annexation petitions at an upcoming meeting. A copy of this Memo was also given to the Castle Rock Representatives at a subsequent Discussion Group meeting on April 12, 2006. The two pending Castle Rock Township annexation petitions are as follows: 1. A parcel consisting of approximately 161.83 acres owned by Bryce and Carole Olson. Colin Garvey has indicated that he has a contractual right to purchase the parcel from the owners. The Olsons and Mr. Garvey have provided the City with a drawing (attached) that divides the parcel into three sections, each of which is under the statutory 60-acre "ceiling" on annexations by ordinance. They have submitted separate annexation petitions (attached) for each of the three parcels. 2. A 2.5 acre parcel owned by Terry and Linda Mock (see attached petition and map). In summary, the affected townships have been notified of the City Council's plan to discuss the attached annexation petitions at the Council's meeting on April 17, 2006, as requested by the City Council. Provosed Annexation Involving Empire Townshiv (Kinf! vroverty) The proposed annexation of the King property has been discussed at several prior EF-PAC meetings. The Empire Township representatives on the EF-P AC have indicated that they are not opposed to the proposed annexation. The proposed annexation has also been discussed at several meetings of the Empire Town Board, including one that I attended. The Town Board has indicated that it is not opposed to the annexation. The City Attorney has been asked to prepare a draft of a Joint Resolution regarding the orderly annexation of the property. The current plan is to put the Joint Resolution on the agenda for a City Council meeting as soon as it is clear that (a) the property owner is aware of the costs that will be involved in connecting to City sewer and water, and (b) the property owner is willing to incur such expenses, and (c) providing City services to the property will be feasible (it currently appears that providing services to the King property will be contingent upon the configuration and installation of utility services on the recently-annexed Sauber property, which is located directly across CSAH 66 from the King property) . Proposed Annexations Involvinf! Castle Rock Townshiv (Olson/Garvev vrovertv. Mock provertv) The proposed annexations involving the Olson/Garvey property and the Mock property were not previously submitted to the City Council for formal action, for reasons that included the following: I. During the 2004 MUSA review process, neither the MUSA Review Committee nor the Planning Commission recommended that the Olson/Garvey property be added to the City's MUSA area. 2. The MUSA Phasing Plan that the City Council adopted on November 15, 2004 did not add the Olson/Garvey property to the City's MUSA area, nor did it indicate that MUSA would be granted immediately upon annexation of the property. 3. There were, and still are, unresolved questions regarding whether, when and how City water and sewer can or will be extended to serve the properties in question. Although drafts of system plan updates for the southeast region have been completed, the updates have not yet been formally considered by or approved by the City Council. 4. Informal and ongoing discussions have been taking place between Farmington and Castle Rock Township representatives regarding the possibility of entering into a long-term Orderly Annexation Agreement. City Council members have been actively involved in such discussions since their inception. City staff members have been under the impression that the City Council (or at least a majority thereof) did not want to formally consider or take action on any proposed annexation by ordinance and/or any contested annexation until it could be determined whether an Orderly Annexation Agreement could be achieved. Guidance from the City Council regarding its preferred handling of pending and future annexation petitions is desired. ACTION REQUESTED Discuss and provide direction to City staff. cc: Bryce and Carole Olson Colin Garvey Terry and Linda Mock Empire Township Castle Rock Township David and Gina King PETITION FOR ANNEXATION In the Matter of the Petition by bi\lJ \C~ 4 C';'j(\/':->, ~\ no, /"s/ - 'f1o0 '- (,,3 '87 .J Property Owner(s) for annexation of land to the City of Farmington pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 414 To: The City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota Copies to: Dakota County Board of Commissioners 1590 West Highway 55 Hastings, MN 55033 Minnesota Planning Municipal Boundary Adjustments 658 Cedar Street, Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Town Board of El"'"l'\.p\ re Township By signature hereunder, petitioner(s) affirm that he/she (they) is (are): --1L- the sole property owner(s) of the area proposed for annexation; or _ all of the property owners of the area proposed for annexation; or _ a majority of the property owners of the area proposed for annexation. It is hereby requested that the City of Farmington annex the property herein described and now located in the Town of r~p~ r-E , Dakota County, Minnesota: (Provide the legal description of the property, parcels of property of area proposed for annexation; provide attachments containing the legal description if it is too long for inclusion in this space. Where petition is filed by residents or property owner(s): 1) list the number of petitioners required by statute to commence this annexation proceeding: 5 2) list the number of petitioners who have signed the petition: fA C:\Documents and Settings\lsmick\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1 \docs- #I01424-v2-Annexation Petition revised form.DOC - - 9. The property is platted. Note: Before your property can be annexed, Minnesota Law requires that a public hearing be held preceded by at least 30 days written notice by certified mail to the Town or Towns in which the property is located and to all landowners within and contiguous to the area proposed for annexation. The costs incurred by the City in identifying the persons to whom this notice is to be mailed and the mailing list itself will be charged to the petitioners and must be paid before the mailing goes out. The following documents/items must be attached with the Petition: 1. Verification of ownership by a current commitment for title insurance, owners' and encumbrancers' report, etc; 2. Certificate verifying the Petition was served on all parties required under Minn. Stat. Ch. 414; 3. Filing fee required under Minn. R. 6000.3400; 4. Map of the annexation area required pursuant to 6000.0800 (c); 5. City application fee. Dated: \i\f"\\ C~'- ,?. \ , 20 6 b Signature(s) ofPetitioner(s) A . 0 ... /. / . ....'in. ('~'f '111. ~J .--) ../ ( r....\..../ . ,'! \ ,r /\ ",-,'\ Unc.-:----- -J (- \....... /. C:\Documents and Settings\1smick\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKl \docs- #101424-v2-Annexation Petition revised form.DOC ~ Form No. 109-M-Personal Represent";,es's Deed (Rev 9.781 'Individual Personal Representative to Individual(s) ~} Minnesot2. Undorm ConveF;ncing Sloinks Miller.D~'JiS Co. r...1lnneaoCIIS F ( . ~ No delinquent taxes; certificate of real estate value receiyed; and transfer entered on ,19_ County Auditor by Deputy STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $_ Date: October 29 ,19~ (reserved for recording data) FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION , Randy Julian , Grantor, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Vivian C. Julian D~cedent, single~ married 0 at the time of death, hereby convey's to David M. King , Grantee(s), real property in Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of the Northwest Quarter (NWl/4), Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One hundred fourteen (114), Range Nineteen (19), one thousand sixty and four tenths (1060.4) feet East of the Southwest comer of said Northwest Quarter (NWl/4); thence East along the South line of said Northwest" Quarter (NWl/4) to its intersection with the centerline of Vermillion Road (S.A.R.' No.6) a distance of four hundred seventy-seven and seventy-three hundredths (477.73) feet; thence Northeasterly along the centerlin~ of ~aid.Vermillion,Roa4..to- its intersection with a line parallel with and one hundredfif.tY (150) feet 'N' ~hh ot,t4e:' South line of said Northwest Quarter (NW1I4); thence WeSt along said liIie'parallel . with and one hundred fifty (150) feet North of the S6uth fueofs'aldNorthwest Quarter (NWl/4), a distance of six hundred twenty-six and ninety-three hundredths (626.93) feet to a point one hundred:fifty (150) feet North of and perpendicular to the point of beginning, thence South one hundred fifty (150) feet to the point of beginning, Dakota County, Minnesota, subject to S.A.R. No.6, according to the Government Survey thereof a Do. viol King Property 3245 VerMillion River Tro.il o o D KING PROPERTY c===J CITY BOUNDARY 1 , PETITION FOR ANNEXATION In the Matter of the Petition by Bn..J C (' +- CCLro(-C o ISdJ") Property Owner(s) for annexation ofland to the City of Farmington pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 414 To: The City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota Copies to: Dakota County Board of Commissioners 1590 West Highway 55 Hastings, MN 55033 Minnesota Planning Municipal Boundary Adjustments 658 Cedar Street, Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Town Board of CCt-s+Le \ZaGL Township By signature hereunder, petitioner(s) affirm that he/she (they) is (are): / the sole property owner(s) of the area proposed for annexation; or _ all ofthe property owners of the area proposed for annexation; or a majority ofthe property owners of the area proposed for annexation. It is her~by requested that the Cit;y./of Farmington annex the property ~erein describe? and now located III the Town of C~S1l(, (2..0 dL~ , Dakota County, MInnesota: (ProvIde the legal description of the property, parcels of property of area proposed for annexation; provide attachments containing the legal description if it is too long for inclusion in this space. Where petition is filed by residents or property owner(s): 1) list the number of Detitioners required by statute to commence this annexation proceeding: \ . 2) list the number of petitioners who have signed the petition: \ C:\Documents and Settings\1smick\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKI \docs- #101424-v2-Annexation Petition revised form.DOC - - - Where the petition is filed by a municipality or town, identify the action taken by the goveming body: Resolution Number: Date: Ordinance Number: Date: Notice of Intent Date: The area of the property proposed for annexation: (Note: The size of the property will determine the manner and timing of the process for considering this Petition.) Less than 40 acres _ More than 40 acres but less than or equal to 60 acres More than 60 acres More than 200 acres v" Less than 200 acres As to the property proposed for annexation, annexation is sought because the property is: 1. 2. 3. v 4. - Owned by the City of Farmington Completely surround by land within the Farmington City limits. Abutting the City of Farmington on the N (S) W €)circle one) boundary. The area to be annexed is 60 acres or less, AND the area to be annexed is not now served by public sewer facilities and public sewer facilities are not otherwise available. (Applicable only if all property owners join in the petition) 5. After August 1, 1995, it has been approved by preliminary or final plat for residential development lots averaging 21,780 square feet or less in area and is land within two miles of the boundary of the City of Farmington 6. Not abutting the City of Farmington, but is within an existing orderly annexation area and all property owners join in the petition. 7. 40 acres in size or less and at least sixty percent (60%) ofthe property abuts the City of Farmington. 8. The property is not located within an area presently under consideration by the City of Farmington or the Municipal Board for boundary adjustment. C:\Documents and Settings\1smick\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKl \docs- #101424-v2-Annexation Petition revised form.DOC - - 9. The property is platted. Note: Before your property can be annexed, Mim1esota Law requires that a public hearing be held preceded by at least 30 days written notice by certified mail to the Town or Towns in which the property is located and to all landowners within and contiguous to the area proposed for annexation. The costs incurred by the City in identifying the persons to whom this notice is to be mailed and the mailing list itself will be charged to the petitioners and must be paid before the mailing goes out. The following documents/items must be attached with the Petition: 1. Verification of ownership by a current commitment for title insurance, owners' and encumbrancers' report, etc; 2. Certificate verifying the Petition was served on all parties required under Minn. Stat. Ch. 414; 3. Filing fee required under Minn. R. 6000.3400; 4. Map of the annexation area required pursuant to 6000.0800 (c); 5. City application fee. Dated: AWo1/L~ 2-b ,20 oct ...-----:;? Signature(s) ofPetitioner(s) ~,~~ ~Q~ C:\Documents and Settings\1smick\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1 \docs- #1 01424-v2-Annexation _Petition Jevised_form.DOC . '1 .. s !~. ~ i ~-~ ~J . ilt "8 it t. Ft ~! Iii -Ii i ,,~ ~ }~- . ill Ii I Ii ~~J LH /Z 'I ~-d .s . dl ~ ~it . - j! ~ · a . pi. liii I I ~i ."'1 ~ !i o li~ ~ ~il ~ ~.! ~ ~~8f ~ - ~h I !ri I i~l ~ ~~ i' ~_b dl ~~ ~~.I ~~6~ ~ "ll ig~~ .~~~ ~. 0 IJ I ~I ~ '", Ii !,: ~: <.> GJB ~~ ..<'{~ 11. HillM'IllSY3HlWH 3IiI. ~ JNl"1 J.SV] M .8t,r&.QO N U:1:""" i I 3 L II' ~ ~ 'ioN .!. ; j2: :; i ; ~~ 11- ! ~ ,N 91:'1:991: M .9t,U.OO N aauM'lO LSY3HUIOfIf 3Hl :E) l3!:I OO'ttLllS3ll\ 3Hl. IJ 3NIllSYJ III -'~ W~ <.> Ii ~b 11. ;11 3 ' ~;~i ~I: I:; ffi~I~ Iii ~~~ll :: ~~~~ " ~~ ~~n99l ... .9~,U.OO N ewno JSVJKLY)N ]HI. ..rJ 1BiOO~U3ll.~.IO~1S\'i <( GJi ~! <(~ 11. III I I et"L99Z. M .9L,U.oo N lGU:I't'f1:).l.SY3HUI)NRJOlHn.lS3l u ; ~ . I ... 'U> : ~ ~~ I ~ ;~~:. i !;; ~ilg~ I! 11'1 I ~ a I~d ~ I:~~ ~ U> ~ : ,. i L I ; I! I I II I -I ~I ~U '" :;: en ~< ~b "en OW OZ "'z ~:i en <( o .J <en ~~ o~ ....9, ",,,, 00 ",en 0.... ",0 '" ! i ~ H~ EO.. 0'''' t~i ...... ~.. ~ ~~I<- ~ ! ~ ~ ~~ (/)(/) il ~, al ~ln ~i ~ffi ~ I z I w ~ ill .), lfi {'ii I, (It' at 'n fu HI J I I J I J , I' In. . t i S ~ ~In~~ PETITION FOR ANNEXATION In the Matter of the Petition by fTi=~if avzd [,'/tdtt- /J-tC1C-~ ( Property Owner(s) for annexation ofland to the City of Farmington pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 414 To: The City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota Copies to: Dakota County Board of Commissioners 1590 West Highway 55 Hastings, MN 55033 Minnesota Planning Municipal Boundary Adjustments 658 Cedar Street, Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Town Board of 6s-f/e-- t&cl: Township By signature hereunder, petitioner(s) affirm that he/she (they) is (are): X the sole property owner(s) of the area proposed for annexation; or _ all of the property owners of the area proposed for annexation; or a majority of the property owners of the area proposed for annexation. It is hereby requested that the City of Farmington annex the property herein described and now located in the Town of dt5He t!6c k-1CU)~l~d.u'p, Dakota County, Minnesota: (Provide the legal description of the property, parcels of property of area proposed for annexation; provide att~<?lunents containing the legal description if it is too long, for inclusion in this space. . F 5..u:.-'lcn 5 T~w 11'3 !'?~A/G-E '3 2.5 tT?~~y>. 1Vt/,- 5 113 /~~ _3i.f(P~Z-(o Fr 0 '.' .s~ j/."-f Or NW '1+ t:=X E /c7/(:,. b2- il /'HE;eE of Where petItIOn IS filed by reSIdents or property owner(s): 1) list the number of petitioners required by statute to commence this annexation proceeding: 2) list the number of petitioners who have signed the petition: C:\Documents and Settings\1smick\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1 \docs- #101424-v2-Annexation Petition revised form.DOC - - - Where the petition is filed by a municipality or town, identify the action taken by the governing body: Resolution Number: Date: Ordinance Number: Date: Notice ofIntent Date: The area of the property proposed for annexation: (Note: The size of the property will determine the manner and timing of the process for considering this Petition.) X Less than 40 acres _ More than 40 acres but less than or equal to 60 acres More than 60 acres More than 200 acres Less than 200 acres As to the property proposed for annexation, annexation is sought because the property is: 1. Owned by the City of Farmil1gton 2. Completely surround by land within the Farmington City limits. Abutting the City of Farmington on the N S W E (circle one) boundary. 3. 4. X/ The area to be annexed is 60 acres or less, AND the area to be annexed is not now served by public sewer facilities and public sewer facilities are not otherwise available. (Applicable only if all property owners join in the petition) 5. After August 1, 1995, it has been approved by preliminary or final plat for residential development lots averaging 21,780 square feet or less in area and is land within two miles of the boundary of the City of Fannington 6. _ Not abutting the City of Farmington, but is within an existing orderly annexation area and all property owners join in the petition. 7. ,x' 40 acres in size or less and at least sixty percent (60%) of the property abuts the City of Farmington. 8. The property is not located within an area presently under consideration by the City of Farmington or the Municipal Board for boundary adjustment. C:\Documents and Settings\1smick\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1 \docs- #101424-v2-Annexation Petition revised form.DOC 9. The property is platted. Note: Before your property can be annexed, Minnesota Law requires that a public hearing be held preceded by at least 30 days written notice by certified mail to the Town or Towns in which the property is located and to all landowners within and contiguous to the area proposed for annexation. The costs incurred by the City in identifying the persons to whom this notice is to be mailed and the mailing list itself will be charged to the petitioners and must be paid before the mailing goes out. The following documents/items must be attached with the Petition: 1. Verification of ownership by a current commitment for title insurance, owners' and encumbrancers' report, etc; 2. Certificate verifying the Petition was served on all parties required under Minn. Stat. Ch. 4l4; 3. Filing fee required under Minn. R. 6000.3400; 4. Map ofthe annexation area required pursuant to 6000.0800 (c); 5. City application fee. Dated: ,;2. - ;;./- ,20 {)5 . Signature( s) of Petitioner( s) (--U.1~i) ~ (..~~ C:\Documents and Settings\1smick\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKl \docs- #101424-v2-Annexation Petition revised form. DOC LLU ~ L.LJ I I I "-- -'~ v '--' {~l " I CAS /'....4.~ ~ ~~ c~ eo,m ~ ,-/ t" (j ~ j;f s 0 I - / =R~ r: J t:> , ;- ~~<: 6 ID~ EXHIBIT "B" /- - ,,.\ - It: / )~ TERRY AND LINDA MOCK c ANNEXATION ..J ~j -~~ Z Z w 1~ 0- ~ L-- 1 - I , - ,- - - .:'" ~ .' ~ -! . ~ 1 I ....... .... ~ J 1 - L".~ ~ ,,, I I I I o \~ ~-~ ...( . o MUSA Allocation Adopted on November 15, 2004 o c::I Existing MUSA IilII MUSA Approved In 2004 .. MUSA Approved Contingent upon Annexation ~ MUSA Allocated In 2006 .. MUSA Allocated In 2009 ~ MUSA Allocated In 2012 p-. MUSA Allocated upon Removal from Ag Preserve - .... School Use Only .. MUSA Allocated upon Plat Approval .. Not Recommended for MUSA at this time. ~ MUSA Approved (Orderly Annexation Area) c::I /lIJ Preserve until 2012 - MUSA not Rec. at this time c::I /lIJ Preserve until 2013 - MUSA not Rec. at his time .. /lIJ Preserve - No current expiration date ~ _ _ Future 195th Street Extension WT E Detailed VieW of#14 -- Future 208th Street Extension o s 0,5 Mles o 0.5 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us JOe TO: Wl./~ (, Mayor, Council Members, \ Acting City Administrator FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Swanson Acres Preliminary Plat DATE: April 17,2006 INTRODUCTION Double E Development, LLC., Mark Emond and Jamie Elvestad, has submitted a Preliminary Plat for the property located on the west side of Akin Road and north of Middle Creek Estates (Exhibit 1). The current address of the property is 20441 Akin Road. Exhibit 2 shows an aerial view of the property. DISCUSSION The developers are proposing seven single-family lots on 3.52 acres (153,378 square feet) in the R-l Zoning District (Exhibit 3). Excluding the pond (15,754 square feet) and arterial road right- of-way (Akin Road; 42,760 square feet) results in 94,864 net developable square feet or 2.18 net acres, resulting in a net density of 3.2 units per acre. The 3.2 units/acre exceeds the Metropolitan Council's requirement regarding densities at 3.0 units/acre and above. The Developer's Narrative discusses the project in more detail (Exhibit 4). Planning Commission Review - April]], 2006 The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Swanson Acres Preliminary Plat with the following contingencies: 1. The satisfaction of any engineering requirements including the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities. 2. The evergreen trees need to be changed to deciduous trees surrounding the pond. 3. The satisfaction of the Heritage Preservation Commission's requirements. 4. A demolition permit will need to be applied for by the developer to demolish the existing home on the property. Existing Conditions The existing site topography shows a 48-foot fall from the west side of the property to the east side of the property, creating an 11.8 % slope. The property is almost completely wooded (Exhibit 2). Wetlands or floodplains do not exist on the property. An existing home is located on the property; however, the developer proposes to demolish the structure before construction begins. A demolition permit will need to be applied for by the developer. Proposed Lot Sizes and Widths The lot is located in the R-l Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of75 feet. The lot sizes and widths are proposed as follows: Lot Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot Size 13,424 sf 17,820 sf 10,839 sf 16,594 sf 10,050 sf 10,004 sf 16,133 sf Lot Widths 96 feet 75 feet 75 feet 76 feet 76.7 feet 75 feet 89 feet All of the lots sizes and widths meet the minimum standards of the R-l Zoning District. Proposed Housing The proposed housing construction will include one full-basement, one full-basement with a walk-out and the remaining five lots will be full-basement splits with look-outs. Parks & Recreation The Parks & Recreation Director has determined that the developers will be required to submit cash-in-lieu for park dedication requirements because the development is less that 5 acres in size and contains only seven lots. Randy Distad, Parks & Recreation Director, has attached a letter stating this information (Exhibit 5). A trail currently exists on the east side of Akin Road. There are no adjacent existing trails or sidewalks located on the west side of Akin Road, therefore, the developers will not be required to install a sidewalk or trail on the west side of Akin Road. Transportation The preliminary plat shows seven lots arranged around a 235-foot long cul-de-sac that will connect to Akin Road. The cul-de-sac length meets the requirements of the City Code. The cul- de-sac roadway width is proposed at 32 feet measured from face of curb to face of curb within a 60-foot wide right-of-way. An 8% slope is proposed for the roadway at its highest point, leveling 2 off at the entrance to Akin Road at 2.9%. The developers are proposing a 60-foot wide radius to the cul-de-sac, which meets City requirements. Landscape Plan The Developer is proposing to install boulevard trees at 40-foot on center to comply with the City Code (Exhibit 6). Additional trees are proposed surrounding the pond; however, the species needs to be revised from evergreen trees to deciduous trees. Because of the need for the City to maintain the pond, deciduous trees make equipment maneuvering easier than evergreen trees. The deciduous trees need to be located on the top of the slope. The Developer will need to make these revisions. Engineering Review A water main and sanitary sewer line currently exist on the west side of Akin Road, providing readily available access to these utilities (Exhibit 7). A storm water pond is proposed at the north end of the site adjacent to Akin Road in order to infiltrate surface water runoff from the existing drainage ditch along the west side of Akin Road. An arched culvert currently exists under Akin Road and will be utilized for both surface water runoff and drainage from the pond (Exhibit 8). Retaining walls are proposed on the south and west property lines (Exhibit 9). The south walls are proposed at heights up to 4 feet and the west walls are proposed at heights up to 10 feet. An additional retaining wall is proposed for the east side of Lot 1 at a height up to 10 feet. Any retaining wall over 4 feet in height needs to be structurally engineered. Due to the grading cut into the slope for house construction, the developer is proposing to install a chain link fence on the south and west property lines adjacent to the retaining walls. A 4-foot tall black vinyl chain link fence needs to be installed on the Swanson Property adjacent to the cemetery's shared property line. Middle Creek Historic Cemetery - Heritage Landmark As noted on the preliminary plat (Exhibit 3), the City of Farmington owns a cemetery at the southwest corner of Swanson Acres. The Middle Creek Historic Cemetery was approved as a City Landmark on February 18, 2003 by the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). Per Section 2-11-5 ofthe City Code, the following is required: D) Development Projects: Every application for a preliminary or final plat, variance or conditional use permit in relation to a significant historic property in the City shall be reviewed by the HPC and their recommendation shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration in making their recommendation to the City Council. In determining whether or not a project will have an adverse effect upon a significant historic property, the HPC shall consider the following factors: 1. Whether the development will substantially alter the appearance of an historic building, site, structure, object or district so as to remove the features which distinguish the historic property as a heritage landmark; and 3 2. Whether the use of the property will destroy, disturb or endanger a known or suspected archeological feature. The HPC reviewed the development at a special meeting on April 4, 2006 to determine if the "development will substantially alter the appearance of an historic site". The City's Heritage Preservation Consultant, Bob Vogel, identified four issues that should be contingencies to the approval ofthe Swanson Acres Preliminary Plat. The issues are as follows: 1. Mr. Vogel needs to be notified by the developer when grading near the cemetery commences. He needs to monitor the grading on site to insure that the cemetery is protected and if any possible burial sites on the Swanson Property are discovered that grading is stopped immediately. 2. If work is not being done near the cemetery, the area should be flagged in order to protect it from any construction activity. 3. A 4-foot tall black vinyl chain link fence is installed on the Swanson Property adjacent to the cemetery's shared property line. 4. A 10-foot buffer setback will be required between the cemetery's property line and the retaining wall and no work will be allowed within the buffer. The HPC determined that the Swanson development would not visually intrude on the cemetery and the chain link fence would buffer the historic cemetery. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution approving Swanson Acres Preliminary Plat contingent upon the following: 1. The satisfaction of any engineering requirements including the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities. 2. The satisfaction of the Planning Division concerning the tree variety surrounding the pond. 3. The satisfaction of the HPC requirements as stated above. 4. A demolition permit will need to be applied for by the developer to demolish the existing home on the property. Respectfully submitt /;/-, rj;:t2" " I/,. /' , " Lee Smick, AICP City Planner cc: Double E Development, LLC. File 4 RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT SWANSON ACRES 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 ih day of April, 2006 at 7 :00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the preliminary plat of Swanson Acres is now before the Council for review and approval; and WHEREAS, a public hearing of the Planning Commission was held on the 11 th day of April, 2006 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 reviewed and recommended City Council approval of the preliminary plat at its meeting held on the 11 th day of April, 2006; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the preliminary plat on April 17,2006; WHEREAS, the City Engineer has rendered an opinion that the proposed plat can be feasibly served by municipal service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED that the above preliminary plat be approved with the following conditions: 1. The satisfaction of any engineering requirements including the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities. 2. The satisfaction of the Planning Division concerning the tree variety surrounding the pond. 3. The satisfaction of the HPC requirements as stated above. 4. A demolition permit will need to be applied for by the developer to demolish the existing home on the property. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 17th day of April, 2006. Mayor Attested to the _ day of 2006. Acting City Administrator ~ FES 2 Ll City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmimnon.mn.us II PLAT REVIEW APPLICATION II Applicant: Oou\;\(2 e ~"elop'M,€IV+ LtC Telephone: (6n..) 4'70-5/00 Address: ZOS34 !3,.S('G..\1Ne Ave Fc:r."M'N5+~<U nN Street / City State Owner: Sa.n f' a. 50 A.pp \; CQ."'0+ Telephone: LJ Fax: ~ 4b<:t-SIOO -:;; So?:. l( Zip Code Fax: LJ Address: Street City State Zip Code Location of Property: 20 t..j t./ J Address AK;^-J KoQd Lt) Current Zoning District K' - \ Current Land Use \ \fa.c.a.~-t 5.1=. 'r-lo\..)se 'S;"-.l~\e -9o....-\:\y \01-$ Description of Project: \ rI.. ? ('Q \J e. 1""\ C2 v + "> -\!o r 7 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (please attach) o Names, Addresses and Phone numbers of all Owners o Names, Addresses and Phone numbers of Land SurveyorlEngineer o Area Bounded By Description o Total Gross Area PLAT REVIEW OPTION Preliminary & Final Plat: o Together J!l In Sequence , Pre Plat Adrninistr:;9,ve -?e $ '32-D Pre Plat Surety $ ( 0 (. ,Bpaid 11 paid d _.~ - \ G-- C ~-c-/ ~ature of Property Owner .~ J;;tJOG IDe c ' (""7"_ -j l:~~ Planning division: "~~ SITE MAP PROPERTY 10 NUMBER: 14-02500-010-03 2005 ESTIMATED MARKET VALUES (PAYABLE 2006) F DOUBLE E DEVELOPMENT LLC 20534 BISCAYNE AVE W FARMINGTON MN 55024 153,506 TOTAL SQ FT 3,52 TOTAL ACRES 14,432 ROAD RJW SQ FT LOT SIZE NER: LAND: BUILDING: TOTAL: 69,900 99,000 168,900 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 20441 AKIN RD W FARMINGTON MN 55024 SCHOOL DISTRICT: 192 LOCATION SW1/4 NE 1/4 SECTION 25-114-20 PAYABLE 2005 TAXES PAYABLE 2006 HOMESTEAD STATUS: NON HOMESTEAD NET TAX: SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS: TOTAL TAX & SA: 1,457.72 842.26 2,299.98 WATERSHED DISTRICT VERMilLION RIVER PAYABLE 2006 ASMNT USAGE:RESIDENTIAl LAST QUALIFIED SALE: DATE: AMOUNT: ~~ ~' .1 ' /~. '/ . Ut: q 'J.tJt/'II AIJ/ ~ &,rILIIJ'Y / 2005 BUILDING INFORMATION (PAYABLE 2006) TYPE S.FAMRES YEAR BUilT 1955 ARCH/STYLE 1,1/4 STRY FOUNDATION SQ FT 1076 FINISHED SQ FT 1268 BEDROOMS 2 BATHS 1 FRAME WOOD GARAGE SQ FT 400 OTHER GARAGE MISC BlDG \ h; ~~. .~r--i' r- ., rC ;,"':V ' I' /"', I'! ! ,^~, / 1'.41"'- 0- "'/'".1 \', ,,, \ )'-' ,t({ . ,eV-- /1\ A'Py , I (- Copyright 2006, Dakota County - PLAT NAME: SECTION 25 TWN 114 RANGE 20 TAX DESCRIPTION: PT OF NE 1/4 COM AT INT S LINE & HGWY #19 NW ON RD 490 FT W 300 FT S 380 FT E 540 FT TO BEG 003660 2511420 N i timensions rounded to nearest foot. This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one, This drawing is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, and state offices and other sources, affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only, Dakota County is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are found, please contact Dakota County Survey and Land Information Department. Map Date: February 10, 2006 Parcels Updated: 11/17/2005 Aerial Photography: 2004 I I, I '~I ~;:';' ' ,J er: .~I ~ 7" : ',1\ '-' ~... I ' ,-"" '- ,-" '- '" , __..._J " "- ""...J '\ 00'09< ' '"- ~~~~~"- ,,1 '" J.<L,~OOS 1-"$ i '- ;> I I ' I I \ (_~_ -..!J]tl '\. ~- 1" ,),1.~\" \' '~J "- , ,/ J" " \ "" ,1., \ I I I "'- \ " " 'I ),' , , u, ~ -::-- --:::' ' ,-: 1) _____ ~-~ \ . _ , ,~~ ~ ,~- III /' J ~:~ 7 _" 'r, ' ............ ~,,'}I p - - - / " ,,'~ :T--- ~ ~ '- /F ..- -j-, _ l' ',- '/?( ~ -:::.. - --i - ,/ _Ll 1 \ r'--:: ~'1~ I--~-/ I ~ .::::-I...L ----Y / ~ ' I - -- I I ( ,/ / .-- '-.... on - I \' .~: ............ L__ / I ............ I i:_) _/- "- 'I n1 / ~ a / I ~ 1 I I -- ~ ~j~ ;1!IIIi1ill! ~ ~3~H~~~.~~B ; Ii : ~ ~ ~ : .n.;..~o:....",: ~ 1/! .,' )") ~ =~ ~ Ii ~ j; I, ,. L -' ;;: >- w o I U Z W OJ o z o CL ~ ~ gi~ m .. 0 ::~:!: M~ ~.~ ~~; N~' ~~~ ~;~ ~~i z ~~~ Q ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ z~~ ~ ~~~ ...J ~~g C3 ~~~ ~ ni ); ~~ 00 .. l! :n:" H H n n .< ...~...- ....-" /' ./' ./' ./' m \ \ ........... _ -;' 1 .............. /t/ ' '-..... " c:/ / V / ) ~ ~ o ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ID o 0 ~ ~ t ~ ~~~~t~~~ ~ Ui ~;~~~~~~.:i: ~ ~ ~~~;~~~~i a ~ : ~~~:;~: <t5 : ~ g S99999~9~~ ~ ~ Oll:'; ~ $ o u '" o:l t;' ~ ~t;'t;' ,.- ~ 01; is ~~~ ~ 'Z;>'>' 15 ~~~ Co i ,~ ~ ~ ~ 9 g f! 1ij ~ ~ ~ I 1; !<t ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 11)8 % - ~e ~ ck ~~ i ~ 99 - ~ ~~ ~ ~ jt ~ * ~~, .= '\ @!~~ I ~~sj 1 -~~~ _~ z ~~g8 I 11; ~~ ~~ ('0 90. ~ I i ~ ~I "I "I ~ I // , . ,.-!< ~9-. '].':1 O}.~, o...:'b\ \ ~1~':I\o...(J'\ 't\"\ \ /' J?'/ :_~ ''0....''. \ ,~;:,/;- - ---.-::.- -=.\ \ \ <i"--",,r /,/ _ _ \. 0 "" --> /,/---~ /" ~ 7// -::.~~:~________~\ \ en V f "'" -;:""... ~ / ~--------" \ \ .......-:./ //-"\] 1,1 47./ /' ./ \ '\ l ..... I \ )0 ./ /' /" ~ pl~ /' \ 10-- ,..0.1:< I I <[ \ i ~~// I >-- ,,-1/ / / dO \.:.1 (' / I ~ \.' I \ , \ I --... I " I "' l-. \,~........,.'::>---1 '~y ~ '--,,--; ~-:::Y2'-:::: - ./ ~;&- -r-~?'~( :-{~ .._~/' "",-~ ~.:.: ~- ~I (" ,I J I --J- j"',q.'..- 'I ".- i,~........ ~ j ......... I .~' ~ .~ ~ ~ (fj R ~ ~ ! I. ~i I : ~.8! " .1.' ~ II ;!~ ': I:' i ::J -' ,..: Q ~ ~ :::;; < ~ 11. "' ~ 9 ~ s ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ W ~ ~ e L.tJ u. -' III ::::l o I z ....... ~ ~ ";0 ~ ~~ a~ i ~. , !fiQ ~ 5~ I ~~ 0 " i cc ~ Wcc- \II \II c.. 3 eZ ~ 0 -~j ,~(!)~ '" O.~.. " ~-.. .' ~XffI61.' ~ . 1 . . '.~ " 0 . . -( , .~ -. - ',,~,:d E 00"3 - ...., ... .. c..B <( '" ..0 B I=: '" 0 0..= I=: ~ 0,-= ..:= :.a '" 0 d~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ I ~~~ w,,~ ~~~ g~~ ffi ~ ~ g ~ ; o ~ NOl" 8 po,. ~g ~~ ~ ~~ h ~ ~~ ~: ~~ ~ 0: ~. ~~ ~;;j ~ ~~;;: ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 /" ~ .-/ \ , Q , ,-, ~ ~ I' J : =>;;: '__..J ~~--==1= __., ; ~ -- j ~ : ~ ~ 1 ~ < I 00, o "L-J i I 1m <Wlf)~ ~~~~ ~9;~ <=lowO ::~~ . tJ~~5S ~:~fZQ. ~35!~~ ~~~g5 " ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ I 0 ~ . ~ w 'j ! ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ! \ ti !<~ ~ t;' m: \ g - z ~ . ~~ ~ ~ w ~~ I \ ;1 ~ I 0 , ~ 99 ~ ~ ~ I " ~~ ~ 00 .~ z';: B .. ~I ~ffi \ \ \ \ ~w\ \ o~~ \ ~i~ \" "< 5~~ "~ \Q< \ \ \ o ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~~ ~ci: ~~ ~5 ~ ~ ~J / / / '<, '" '" " "'- ~,~ ~I 0) ~l3 ii "'-.."'-.. ~ €"~ ." ~~~ ~~: ;J ~ ~ \ \ V )/ '^ z o " ~ ! , z . ~ ~ ~ g ck I" ~~ g z / / z ~ :~-: ~~: . is "'-'y ::i i /~'~H!l,I;i~ /,,~" (' 1~;Y: /\ / '-'\ /' / /Y-\h /' '^ '^/' \2\ ~\\ I g ~ " z :~g ~~8 ~~g ~d .~ ' ~.~ "~~ ;~~ ~5~!i/ . ~ ~ 0 .. Ouz Q ~; b: ~ti~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ Cl w~.... "'50 ~ ~o!; co: o"'~ W ~~ 0. ~o ~m I -=====::.\ ! -- -"",. \ \!j \ ~\ ~-~~U i:~JB ~~ ::: '2;" : I I ~ '>1 i I en '" ~ alt;' W ot;'r U1 N . ,. e> 1:1 I I ~ ~~~ 5 ~~~ III t::UlIi! o;! ~~~ ~1tI~ <0" ~~~ '~ ~~ ~~ " ~" . ,:~~:, ------------ -~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ . 3-d: ~....' '" ~ 3 ~ g to ! ~ " J ;;;. '" \ \ Ir I~ x ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ I Q'" I I ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ , " '...1.1 lZl .....r:o:I o~ Q:t) c< oZ .S 0 E:U1 ~~ Q.i:= U1 ---\ " ' ,~, ..:1: =:> :~~ C_; \ <.> ::l J~ w~~ 3"" Vi ~~~ o , ~" ~ .~ ~ ~~ 0.. w z g 8". ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ w ~~ ~ ~ ID i g 1- " 1'...1.1 I~~~ _c '-.. !Hi ~ ~ ~ ~a: I~() ~~:.: . -(~i I ~I ;.~ ~I ~I- :~-' · ~ < i ~ ~ I I, I K ~ 1 l!i g II! t:; ~i:~~ mj - - 'd ' I ;.::;, ~:..~ ,_/ i:: · · I dl~ .. I I ~ ~ . 8~ I ~ 3~~ ~ ~~~ ~ 9.11:: " ' l~j I iil ~~ "'~ ffi15 gffi ~~ ~~ 8 t~~ ~ .1 V m, Zw -~ (!) .~ z~~ -Z- ~g:~ \II~ ~ g c:!_ 0 - o (!)V J c2.. "- > 'i"~ .:t ~.;..: '~'~ ~ i ~ : - I ~-- n ~ ~~~ ~~! ':;~ "'7 :~~ ;:5 ~:.: WDN "lY s6VIM.Dj(J\s6",p.rDJd\pD3r>ln'(\.~ ... VW\s;uo/d\puOuJ3\ hMP'.1Y'/d 1"H7~d NOIY3\J x ~ ; . " '....."'^ ;::i'~~- I~;\-lf"~~ ': i ~ \ l5 ! '-'1 i l,,". " : \ "1 I ,._,,?_:.-~.'.:...-::;'" t).,) \ ~~p' :'j h \'"'\':0 L ROBE ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. CONSUL liNG ENG;NEERS~ PLANNERS and LAND SURVEYORS ~ t'~ r/ i ..;' ; , if l 1000 EAST 146th STREET, BURNSVILLE, MN 55337 (952) 432-3000 February 23, 2006 RE: Preliminary Plat Submittal for Swanson Acres, (Double E Development) Lee Smick 325 Oak Street Farmington, Mn 55024 Dear Lee, Double E Development has decided to submit an application for preliminary plat approval. While we have received no written comments from the Planning Commision's discussion about the sketch plan on February 14th, we understand the concerns to be: A. the amount and height of the retaining wall and the fact that it must be engineered B. the lack of a fence at the top of the retaining wall for protection and C. The high volume of tree removal proposed. The amount of retaining wall and tree removal is a function of the grading needed to provide the buildable lots for the project. The existing topography indicates about 42 feet in elevation difference from the west edge of the site down to Akin Road. Utilizing a maximum road grade of 8% up from Akin Road, we are still unable to get high enough to eliminate retaining walls and save trees. We are showing a fence to be placed on the top of the walls for safety reasons. The developer understands all walls in excess of 4 feet in height must be engineered. The developer intends to provide this information with the final plat submittal when all the engineering construction drawings will be submitted. The developer has considered the project carefully and the 7 lots proposed are needed to make the project feasible. In fact they had to carefully reconsider the project when they realized 8 lots was impossible. With the pond, only 7 conforming lots could be obtained. During our phone conversation on or about January 27th, you had indicated there were comments from your engineering department and that they would be put in a memo and the memo would be sent to me. When I called you the day after the Planning Commission, you said you would check with Engineering and have them get the memo to me. Neither the developer nor I have received the memo yet. You did give me the Erik Peters memo regarding drainage and pond issues dated February 1 st. His memo was based on the sketch plan that was originally submitted on or about December 22, 2004. Since then per your verbal comments, the pond has been slightly reconfigured. This reconfiguration was shown on the sketch plan that went to Planning Commission. -2- February 23, 2006 Per City Code 11-2-2 (as found at your website), we are submitting 15 copies of the preliminary plat plans, 5 copies of the hydrology calculations and a list of property owners located with 350 feet of the subject property. The developer will be submitting the required fee as well. We believe we have provided all the required information per City Code 11-3-2 (as found at your website). It is our understanding that items listed under section D are to be provided when deemed necessary by City Staff. Please let us know if any of these items are needed. Thank you for considering our preliminary plat submittal. We realize this is a challenging site. We looking forward to working with you and the Engineering staff. The developer and I would be willing to meet to discuss any issues you may have. Sincerely, - .---/~ Probe Engineering Co., Inc. 1000 E. 146th Street Ste. 240 Burnsville, Mn 55337 cc: Mark Emond ~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ciJarmington.mn.us ..-.....,'~' J.~ ~7 TO: Farmington Planning Commission FROM: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director RE: Comments on Swanson Acres Preliminary Plat DATE: March 2, 2006 BACKGROUND Staff has reviewed the Swanson Acres Preliminary Plat (Plat). DISCUSSION It doesn't appear that the development needs to have any trails or sidewalks since there are not any adjacent existing trails or sidewalks to connect to. Since the development is less than five acres and contains only seven lots, staff feels that there isn't a need to require land to be dedicated for a park. This development will be within the half mile radius of both Pine Knoll Park and Middle Creek Park, which is the standard that the City follows residential development. The City should instead take cash-in-lieu ofland to be dedicated for a park. It is important for the developer to know that they will need to complete an appraisal on the property in order to determine the cash-in-lieu value for the park dedication requirement. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to the Planning Commission that the Preliminary Plat for Swanson Acres development be approved with no trails or sidewalks being required and that the City should take cash in lieu of land in order to satisfy the park dedication requirement. /rz~l1)J1J' Randy Distad Parks and Recreation Director "'e> = ~ iJ ;3 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ....- / /' /' '<(" " " "---------- ~ / .. // ~\ r /I--",,~ r- \ \ Y I /. ) -------( "'" / 'v' " '---- '----" " I j~ 0 4; " ~=~ ~~& ~ifi III d II IIllI! ;11 i ~ " ~ II i ~ ~ if ~ ~!... 0 r :. { l: 11 ~ III ; ~ i ~ ~ fi:U,!i ~ ;I E:; ~ ~ li~ II t l ~ 1 UH n iHHHHH ~ i 0.5 ~ .. E ~ i 8" .. g ~ & li:E ~ i!1~ ; ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ &~ Do , "~ o U) <l>P>:l g.~ 00 li)4l "ti C:z .30 eU) .~ ~ .t u) ~ a.. z o ~ z ~ <.> :::l >-" ~ ~ ~~ l1.w, g 5 s. w ~ z ~ ~ i w 2~ ~ ~ III ::> o Cl ~ I ~ ~ :Q" ~~ ~c 150 ~ffi ~~ ~(L I ~ "' ~ . ~ v ~, Z8 -~ \!l ',; z>~ -z- ~g:~ \11 \11 ~ 8 d:!~ 0 - O\!lv J 0:.. -~"'-... .-")\""-"~\- ~ cr ~ ~ ';' :J ~ '" illlliL ~~~~g~~~o ~g3333~ ; ; :; i ,: I!....:... ) I i~ LJ) , r.o 7 c:: ~(f.l Q.~ ~ -C-U :-:::-o::x: :5z C-O o(f.l .~ ~ :::~ ~(f.l Q. ~o i ~~ ~ ~ 11~~~:e '" // // ~,~ / ~+ A; / ~~~ <>"d>'\ /~. ,0",' 0.. W , /" .~ q~~q'lO;~ \q'ir 0 ~ % / ~/ ~ ~~~ /:4 \ ~~~ ' 0;; 0 /", Cl ;; ~ :.... w. \;11,"- \ . w ~ ~ '.:e~~,"'\ \/ i ~ \ \ '\ 1 \ \ : \ I I I /'\ -/-- ( I ---~~ I" z ~ I ~ i ; I "- Q ~~ m3 ~ ~~ ~ ~ffi ~ I <=z . ~ as ~ 8D.. U CD r--- ~ ~~J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~g:3 \11~ ~ 0 ~ ~-o~ ~ ~ g~v J L________Q:.. I _~=1IVI fJNOIGWlOW\.......l_"';\.-_l........""'\P"-"'i'I~\~ ,....... ~ .1J~.8 0 !lo ~ l!\ ! ~ ~ h;l; ~; q~H ij hd. l::!i! II: ~ ~.~ IJU h \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ " 0" ~'<o ~" ~~ -< ~~ .. / / \ taw // ------------ ';v---< .{ :~"1':., ------ z... )/ ,::(" \ ------ -::'>1 :~'_:-' ------ ~ c~:>) f-- '-....... "'--- / ,',c:' /' ~ '---J - -:, '/ /"- ~ <,,:,- / ""'", < e-= ~ ~ -' :;0: >- w o I U Z W CD o Z o Q. ./" / ..-/ ..-/ / " / ----< '----- \ r" \ ,I) I, ' ,~J d ~A 2 !~ ..:,( ~ . " - ~ .-- !~ d ~ = r" ,I) ~l-y ~ /- i ~ ~ , 0 8 ~ , 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 z 0 0 0 0 z W " " " '-" ~ 5 5 w -' ~ I ~ I I I I ~ ~ I 1 i -9 I @ II ~0 j I 1 I ) I ~ .0 ~I '. ~ ~~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~~h~ . a EH~~ ~ . ~ ~ i " 0 0 is u < [53 " ill ~ , ~" w Oz 0 ~t:t;: ZW g If) .. 3~ '-" ~ .1 2 Z ~~~ ~~ Ci z" I!J ...J ~:~ ~'i :5 ill ~~~ ;5S ~z on z- <;5 w~ ,< "w "", o~ on 'Z ~ ~~ "" on on ~ ~ :;: N ~ ~ ~ 0 :i2' z "'- 0 < u~ u_ ~~5 " ~o 0 >- 0'" ZW g~~ ~ ,u ~~ W 0" 5E ~~~ 1= Wu :5 Won -" t.L.e5 W Q, o on ~ o W ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ \ \ ~t \ ~ 106 \ ~~~6 .~w~ \ ~w~~ \~~.ij ~ \~...zu V.:A' ~ ~ 1"'- ( \ e ~ c.c . i..... i _ _=-- '" '- ~' ' lil III ---.......... '\. I 1_...1 .....,.--~ '- " "- >e-.L '" " '" "- . - '" '-J' 6-L '" "" 1 '" ....~~ ---------,'>) I ll.J "- ":-^"^\ I I GO'. 't. .'" \ \ ' OQ'Oel: \\ i l' ' ~""- \ \ I __J \3S""~~_I)} I '\ ~ / \ j "'\ \ \~'-"'t~~r-' : - ,-~),-~ lj( "/J ~.-f \ _ /'----...... ~ - - '" Il.- P .-'- - ~:t,' -/ -.... "-- -.... -.... -. ---I L.i~ ~ - -i - .: - - J CD -=t' ______ ...... --,i!JJ~~ 1- - /-=, r~ ~ ----=-1 ...\-; ~ I ,-- - - J /' 0 .::: --- I / / I /'~ "tf ------ / ------~ / I / ~p~DMJ1O~\-'!d\P"""'3\.......-o\~II'\'\.:J. '----- '----- /-/' '-...... .....~ ,1 I -1 :~"',1~! ~ I l' _~,/ / '----- ~',:,> :~-,:; '----- ~;' ',I ........................ "'-... ~ ....... '----- 'y- I ) --< \ I-- / ^, ,'"l, , c:::~.S' ........ I c/ / ,{? /'-- "-/ <}- / I , .' -~- I, I '~J I, I ,~J c: o O::rJ) r:.:l tn~ .S t) "b< e ~Z c-g .~ ~ .f: ~ "::::rJ) ~ 0... ~~.~' ~ . , i !' { ~- <> <> '" !;l ~ ,.: r:Jw :::;;;:; l1.w '38 ~~ o~ w:;; . w e -' 0 III I :::> 0 '" ~ i ';0 ~~ ~5 ~ffi 5z ~~ ~ i ~ ~ I u~ ~!:i \!) .~ ~~~ :ij g: ~ U1~ ~ 8 c::l-o=' ri~v J ~ , .~ <-,.,,,,'" ~ ~ n ..::1:: '~ D ~~-0 -'= ::l ~ EN ~. -0.. ~~ ~~~H!" i "'.':5 : ~; c .~ n d - <; u 0 ~ t _ ~ ~ '" u 00__ E :: ~_uLoo..U'-C_~o~~~~g.c"O:,_,~o'_.~ 'C::_o="o,U..u '1"~E'~ h '. - Eoo ~~ !~g_ f H! ;~_:;'..co;__~':..lo_ ' _." .~ , _., _ 'J::::o i; ldimi 11 t; :._li . ", it am.. . . !i ~ I ". ! .! I m~; n !ls (o;'u!~il : i m loio.! l/,.uo;'_.!.o:; "~o>o : !_jO=L;j~:~_ : ! Ii mn H ;..-'0 II! I !H ~:. -<: -g ] ~ ~ 1'0" i~_'~'~6_ U i.::.~. is__ ~ 0 0 u-_ !~ ~] i. t~ """. i ! II dili ~ !I!!I! !1!; J!j: I !!liJll111 j ! 11 mil ii ~ml!! II ; 111m u :G!g~:gwg'1:a J:l5.. :<( : <Ii r..: ffi:5u.l:1I'l N"; ~ u - ~~ o '0 , 0_ oce;@ ~~ ~B3 ~5 ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ t ~~i ~g ~e E~ ;i ~g!~ ~~ ~:S !Q~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ 6~ ~i ~;::i ~ir Vl5i:: g3; >:n ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ h ~~~~~F.~.. ~ . . a C)>::: ~ ~:;:~ :;;> ~ ~ i ;;~ !um i 5 2 ~ a ~~S ~~~WO~ ~~ ~g~ ~ ~~~ ~~F8~~ ~ ~ ~8~ ~ ~;~ ~~;;~~~ . H ~~~~. ~~~ ~~~~g~i ~: ~~g ~ ~ ~8;: ~~~~~gQ ~ ~ ~w~ ~ ~ ...~~ ~~~~~<<i! a ~ G~~ ~ ~ ~B~ ~@~~~~~ ~ il ~~~ ~::: ~;~ ~:~~~~~ ~ i ~~~:~ ~~~ H~m~ ~ ~ ~5ln ~.o:: ~ '-' ~ g , "~,, ~ Z :::!~ <ll.,. eo~ ~ ~hi o <~ ~~ ~~ _ 0", 1= t:ia o~ ~CI: o~ ~~ ~=:J g ~~ U8 ~~ ~a ~< ~~ ~ ~~ ~ h ~" ~~ ~~ ~; ~ ~~ i ~~ ~ ~~ g~ ~~ G~ u .~ ~ g~< l;~ ~. .~. ~~ b~ ~~~ h h ~~h; ~e~5 ~?i~~,... lL~ ....7ll'l ~6 ~oc~ ;'i~~"i ~~ o~" ~~ ~ ~lg1 ~~~~ ~~~5~gu~< ~~" ~ 5~~ D3~ ~3E ~:l~ 1m ~3~ tJ ~~~ ~Il.C lnll.C ~ll. lD ~Q.< VI ~ ,.., . \Il ~ ~ ~~ it z ::::'0 .200 ~~ ~ 00 5~~~C..gWN ::l ~t;? ~~'!'t5~Fo ~ ~S~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~'" ~~~~ ~~~~~ ;~<! ~~~ ~~l:5:5 ~~~~~a~; li:~ti ~~6~ iiiu~~~~~~ ~@~ ~~g~ ~g~~~~iii~ ~8~ ~~~~ m~~~h ~e~ ~m ~~~~~~~~ ~fu' <U<II) N !; ,1 ~! .. i! '. ~1! h l~!ll ~. < I:!, :d! Lf ~~ " ~ ~ ~~ : ~~ "'EE ;~!indi HHi~ g~ it ~ u" i ill 15 0 < Or 0 N~~ ~~ ~ ~;g~ z zo u ~ 0 .."" gg~ " tiiiE ~ :i::i~ ._~ ~_I""\'rI ~F""'J)OlS"W.aa\.""",p""W}\~..."",\d..p; ~ , ""') /--'V I I ____1\ /0,,1 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members, dffi./ Acting City Administrator 'VJ Lee Smick, AICP II f?- City Planner r--- FROM: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution and Ordinance - Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Non- Designated to Commercial and Rezoning from A-I to B-3 Bauer Property DATE: April 17,2006 INTRODUCTION The City of Farmington annexed the property located at 22068 Canton Court (Exhibit A) on June 20, 2005. With the approval of the annexation, MUSA was also extended to the property. The property is currently zoned A-I and is not designated within the City's Comprehensive Plan, therefore, staff is proposing to amend the Comprehensive Plan from Non-Designated to Commercial and Rezone the property from A-I (Agriculture) to B-3 (Heavy Business). Plannin2: Commission Review - April!!. 2006 The Planning Commission reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning at its meeting on April 11, 2006. Because of its location adjacent to the Farmington Business Park, the Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the amendment from Non-Designated to Commercial and the rezoning from A-I (Agriculture) to B-3 (Heavy Business). Tracy Bauer Property - Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone The property was approved for annexation and allocated MUSA on June 20,2005. The property consists of 2.34 acres and is currently being used as a counter top manufacturing business (Exhibit B). This type of use would meet the B-3 zoning district requirements (Exhibit C). Additionally, the Farmington Business Park located to the south and west of the Bauer property was recently zoned B-3 PUD. ACTION REQUESTED The City Council should consider the following two actions: 1. Adopt a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan from Non-Designated to Commercial for the property located at 22068 Canton Court contingent upon the following: A. Subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. 2. Adopt an ordinance rezoning the properties located at 22068 Canton Court from A-I (Agriculture) to B-3 (Heavy Business). Respectfully Submitted, J td...l...//..~~. l / I / ,"".., " -.- Lee Smick, AICP City Planner RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING THE 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22068 CANTON COURT FROM NON-DESIGNATED TO COMMERCIAL 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 ih day of April, 2006 at 7 :00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: introduced and Member _ seconded the following: Member WHEREAS, the City of Farmington has initiated a Comprehensive Land Use amendment for the property located at 22068 Canton Court from Non-Designated to Commercial, and WHEREAS; the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the 11 th day of April, 2006 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 accepted public comments at the public hearing and recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property located at 22068 Canton Court from Non-Designated to Commercial. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Farmington hereby amends the 2020 Comprehensive Plan for the property located at 22068 Canton Court from Non- Designated to Commercial contingent upon the following: A. Subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 1 ih day of April, 2006. Mayor Attested to the _ day of April, 2006. Acting City Administrator CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. An Ordinance Amending Title 10 of the Farmington City Code, the Farmington Zoning Ordinance, rezoning the Bauer Property located at 22068 Canton Court from A-I (Agriculture) to B-3 (Heavy Business) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 10-5-1 of the Farmington City Code is amended by rezoning the Bauer Property located at 22068 Canton Court legally described on the attached Exhibit A from A-I (Agriculture) to B-3 (Heavy Business). SECTION 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Farmington, adopted under Section 10-5- 1 of the Farmington City Code, shall be republished to show the aforesaid zoning. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage. Adopted this _ day of , 2006, by the City Council of the City of Farmington. SEAL CITY OF FARMINGTON MAYOR ATTEST: ACTING CITY ADMINISTRATOR Approved as to form the _ day of ,2006. CITY ATTORNEY Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,2006. EXHIBIT A PIN of parcel subject to this joint resolution: 07-00500-041-35 Legal description of property subject to immediate annexation: The South 275.00 feet of the North 825.00 feet of the East 400.00 feet of the NE X of the NW X of Section 5, Township 113, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota 113970 I o to >< w o D ~ r' i ! j , i €AMH ~ \\ 5:l ~~ " ~ \n~ __"_ _.," -""'-_:':_''r-:~:_'-<__:~::-:-:.'.1-: '. -.__>~_:_:c.. _ -:-;-~u~ :-:::;- :,'":-'.::".J o o /1 z+ ~ Q) >> 0. 1::: 0 Q) ..... 0.0.. o 0. c:- O:: :E ro en "0 c C c .9 5: :J OJ 0 0 .!::: I- co E ~ ~ Co g l5 LL 0::: OJ o~:5 >>ii5 en ~ ro .x OOw DO I . . ~:~ ._ ". t~) ... , .":!'-'" 1...tt...~...J'l!' .-i.'i~'1. 'c"!. "t'~ .- ~~Z . I ~ .., ... L'~:.'~~ _~ \=l .,.tr,~,' 1'-'" ~~;~:' ~t)~_. _ ~;/.'.:~-tiJ. :),.i.t::";:/~~.~~ ," . O~".i. .-1 ~' , ' ", ./ -1~ ex. g, t+ ,~, .. { 1< lo.t~. ,x '10-5-15: B-3 HEAVY BUSINESS DISTRICT: Page 1 of2 10-5-15: B-3 HEAVY BUSINESS DISTRICT: ex,C (A) Purpose: The B-3 heavy business district is a transitional district designed to provide space for certain existing commercial and industrial uses which are compatible together but are more intense and therefore incompatible with uses identified in the B-1, B-2 and B-4 districts. (B)Bulk And Density Standards: 1. Minimum Standards: Lot area 5,000 square feet Lot width 50 feet Front yard setback 0 feet Side yard setback 6 feet Rear yard setback 6 feet Minimum side and rear yard abutting any residential district Off street parking and access drives 10 feet Public and semipublic buildings 35 feet Recreational, entertainment, commercial and industrial uses 50 feet Height (maximum) 45 feet Maximum lot coverage of all structures 35 percent All standards are minimum requirements unless noted. (C)Uses: 1. Permitted: Animal clinics. Auto repair, minor. Auto sales. Commercial services. Convenience store without gas. Mechanical sales, service and repair. Offices. http://66.113.195.234/MN/Farmington/13005000000015000.htm 4/4/2006 . 10-5-15: B-3 HEAVY BUSINESS DISTRICT: Page 2 of2 Public buildings. Restaurants, class I, traditional. Retail facilities, greater than 3,000 square feet. Sexually oriented businesses - accessory. Supply yards. Truck terminals. Wholesale businesses. 2. Conditional: Auto repair, major. Car washes. Convenience store with gas. Greenhouses and nurseries, commercial. Group daycare center, commercial. Home and trailer sales/display. Manufacturing facilities. Ministorage units. Outdoor sales. Petroleum bulk storage. Public utility buildings. Solar energy systems. 3. Accessory: Parking lots. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002; amd. per fax dated 8-6-2002) http://66.113.195.234/MN/Farmington/13005000000015000.htm 4/4/2006 )0. ..J City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, City Council Members V1J.~ J Interim City Administrator - %, FROM: Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Text Amendment to Section 10-5-21 of the City Code to allow a fitness club in the IP zoning district DATE: April 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION Larry and Michael Conroy, representing AnyTime Fitness, have requested a text amendment to Section 10-5-21 ofthe City Code to allow a fitness/exercise club in the IP, (Industrial Park), zoning district. Currently, the proposed use is neither a permitted nor a conditional use in the IP zoning district. The applicant has expressed a desire to locate his business, AnyTime Fitness, within a portion of the Vinge Tile Building located at the northwest corner of Eaton Avenue and C.S.A.H. 50 in the Industrial Park. Please note the letter (Exhibit A) submitted by the applicant requesting the aforementioned text amendment. Attached to this memorandum as Exhibit B is a copy of Section 10-5-21 of the City Code listing the permitted and conditional uses within the IP zoning district. History Both the Planning Commission and the City's Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA), now EDA, have previously discussed the possibility of allowing a fitness/exercise facility in the IP zoning district. Attached as Exhibits C and D are copies of the minutes from the HRA meeting on May 9, 2005, and the Planning Commission meeting on May 10, 2005, respectively. These were the meetings at which this particular topic was discussed. The indication that staff received from both the HRA and Planning Commission at these meetings is that a fitness/exercise facility is not the highest and best use of industrial property and should not be allowed in the IP zoning district. Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 11, 2006 and took testimony on this matter. Based on the previous discussions staff had with both the City's HRA and Planning Commission, staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission was to determine that a fitness/exercise facility is not an appropriate use in the IP zoning district and to recommend denial of the proposed text amendment. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend denial of the text amendment requested by Michael and Larry Conroy to allow a fitness/exercise facility in the IP zoning district. ACTION REQUESTED Deny the request to amend Section 10-5-21 of the City Code to allow a fitness/exercise facility in the IP zoning district. Respectfully Submitted, ~ '_'(J 7 &7'-1 Cv~\.; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner Cc: Michael and Larry Conroy, AnyTime Fitness CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10-5-21 (IP Industrial Park District) TO CONDITION ALL Y ALLOW A FITNESS/EXERCISE CLUB IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONING DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 10-5-21 of the Farmington City Code is amended as follows (new text is underlined): 10-5-21: (C) Uses 2. Conditional: Fitness / Exercise Club Enacted and ordained on the _ day of April, 2006. SEAL CITY OF FARMINGTON MAYOR ATTEST: INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR Approved as to form the _ day of , 2006. CITY ATTORNEY Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,2006. Rpr 06 2006 6:20RM RERL ESTRTE MRSTERS 651-209-0887 p.2 EX 11/8// ~1 REQUEST FOR THE CITY OF FARMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: March 27,2006 Subject: Text Alnendment to the zoning code requirements for the city's dosWWed IP (Industrial Park) that would allow a Heatb/Fitness club to lease and operate within the vin,ge rUe building. Roquested Action: Mr. Michael P. Conroy and LawreQte J. Comey &re requesting that the City of Fanniogton planning Com.IJlission ~view and tab in considendon cb,,~i"K the IP zoning requiremenm thHt will permit us to open an AnyTime Fime" hea11h club In the Vioge Tile building locamd at2120S Eaton Avcn~. Supporting Infonnation: The V!ng~ Tile: building is located at the main entrance of the IP district and the parkiJIg lot entrance is just a short distBDce off of Cty Rd ~O, which means tbNo will not be lID. iDcrcast; of traffic flow throughout the IP district In addition, the location make, it not only very convenient for the employees ofw Industrial pa.rk. but is located for easy acccss to all FarmingtoD'S residents and workers. AnyTime Fitness bBJI a atate of the art Be(:urlty system tbatmooitors inside and ou1side llfthe building 24 hour& B. day and allows on.ly members to enter tho facllJty. ThCll'e are over .300 AnyTime Fitness clubs natioaally with no evjdence that these clubs bring on odditional problems. Requested Information: Mike and Larry Conroy would appreciate &edback from the plllJllling cOmmiSSloD for any additional information that b nc~dcd to lIB!ist in the commissionll' consideration ofthi5 requost for changing the IP ~ requir41merrts. Thank you for YOOf time llDd considCll1rtion, Michael P. Conroy 651-470-6761 LAKEVILLE@ANYITMEFITNBSS.COM Lawrence J. Conroy 651-442-3030 CONROY. LralCOMCAST.NEI /. ., 10-5-21: IP INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT: Page 1 of2 {'XIII/J;T /3 10-5-21: IP INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT: (A)Purpose: The IP industrial park district allows for existing industrial uses within the city and promotes high quality architectural, landscaping and site plan development standards for new industrial development in order to increase the city's tax base and provide employment opportunities. (B)Bulk And Density Standards: 1. Minimum Standards: Lot area Lot width Front yard setback Side yard setback Rear yard setback Minimum side and rear yard abutting any residential district Off street parking and access drives 10 feet Public and semipublic buildings 35 feet Recreational, entertainment, commercial 50 feet and industrial uses 40,000 square feet 150 feet 50 feet 25 feet 25 feet Height (maximum) 45 feet Maximum lot coverage of all structures 35 percent All standards are minimum requirements unless noted. (C)Uses: 1. Permitted: Light manufacturing facilities. Office showroom. Office warehouse. Research facilities. Warehousing facilities. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002; amd. Ord. 003-498, 9-15-2003) 2. Conditional: http://66.113.195.234/MN/Farrnington/13005000000021000.htm 4/11/2006 10-5-21: IP INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT: Page 2 of2 Bus terminal. Child daycare facilities, commercial. Manufacturing facilities. Public utility buildings. Truck terminal. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002; amd. Ord. 003-498, 9-15-2003; Ord. 005-530, 5-16-2005) 3. Accessory: Parking lots. 4. Interim: Mineral extraction. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002; amd. Ord. 003-498, 9-15-2003) http://66.113.195.234/MN/Farmington/13005000000021000.htm 4/11/2006 HRA Minutes May 9,2005 Page 2 .~ 5. !-':, ,F"; c....... I suggested moving the vehicles to the enced-in area. The building is divided down the middle so staff suggested c osing the doors to the other half of the building. MOTION by Fogarty, secon by Starkman to authorize the Rambling River Days Committee to use the Blah building for the petting zoo and the open space at 3rd and Spruce for the discuss events, and the McVicker lot, subject to whatever review or approval the City ttomey would like to engage in with regard to the liability issues. APIF, M ION CARRIED. Unfinished Business a. Industrial Park - Vinge Tile & Stone It was discussed at a previous meeting whether Mr. Vinge could put up a sign on his adjacent lot "Will Build to Suit." The HRA agreed to this. Now staff noticed a leasing sign on his own building. Mr. Vinge was considering expanding into granite-like counter tops. They started on this, but it did not work out. He will postpone his fabrication work and that allowed for extra space in his building. He has received three calls, one from a karate school, and a fitness center. Staff informed him those were not industrial park type uses. Staff wondered ifhaving a fitness club in one third of the building would be compatible with his manufacturing business such as parking, traffic flow, noise, etc. Mr. Vinge's contractor has assured him they can build walls that will insulate the sound. Mr. Vinge is prepared to expand his parking lot to allow for parking for patrons. Staff told him their initial reaction was there might be some resistance to the concept of that significant a change in that type of use. Staff suggested waiting 1-3 weeks for more inquiries of industrial type uses. Councilmember Fogarty did not feel a fitness center belongs in the industrial park. She did not like the extended hours as that lends itself to other possible problems. Staff felt the interest Mr. Vinge has received is due to two things. One, the building is not done, but it will be a good looking building and will attract a lot of attention. Mr. Vinge will receive calls from people because the building does not look industrial. Second, Mr. Vinge is tapping into a reservoir of space needed. The other commercial and retail structures we need are not on line yet. People are so desperate for space, they will consider putting a business in an industrial park even though the business is not industrial. Mr. Vinge will refer calls for retail businesses to Community Development Director Carroll to put them in touch with Mr. Allendorf for the Spruce Street area or Mr. Wartman for City Center. Member Starkman agreed we are going to have more commercial space for these types of businesses. He asked if Mr. Vinge wanted to have the fitness center or karate school, would the HRA need to change the bylaws of the industrial park to allow this or could Mr. Vinge do this based on the current laws. Staff replied we would have to do a text amendment to the'zoning code. A list of pernlitted and conditional businesses was distributed. The City Planner heard today that the school district has been talking to the owners of the Pettis building regarding using it for special education classes. The school has done some initial drafting of construction plans for the finishing-off of HRA Minutes May 9, 2005 Page 3 that space. Staff has informed the school that use is not permitted or conditional. Staff did not know if the school was prepared to abandon those plans or if they will ask the HRA, Planning Commission and Council to change the code to allow those types of businesses. Staff received a call from Mr. Jeff Pettis asking if this would be allowed. Chair Arey stated he would not consider this type of use. Maybe the fitness center, but he does not like it and the same with the karate class. The special education definitely does not belong there. Councilmember Fogarty stated she would like to see the fitness center and the karate class across the highway in the Spruce Street area. Staff noted Mr. Allendorfwill construct a building when he has one 50% leased. Staff felt it was human nature for people to have trouble envisioning a business when there is nothing there. That is why they go for existing buildings. Member Starkman felt it was important to keep the industrial park within the permitted and conditional uses. Staff stated we are lucky there are some structures about to be built. If the school is willing to work with the City on alternate sites for their special education classes, there is a new commercial building going in on the east side ofHwy 3, just south of CSAH 66. There will be a Round Bank on the comer and south of that will be a retail center. That would be an appropriate place for classes or a fitness center. There is also Mr. Wartman's building in City Center. Staff suggested directing those businesses to these areas and wait for more industrial businesses for the Vinge building. Chair Arey noted there is a school for the deaf in South St. Paul in an industrial park. Councilmember Fogarty stated she did not want to be the parent of a child learning in an industrial park. Chair Arey agreed. Staff noted whenever you have kids in an industrial park you have the prospect they will be in the parking lot and a truck will be backing up so there are safety issues. Parents are not used to the type of traffic you see in an industrial park. There are fork lifts on the road and semi's parked along the side, etc. We have an opportunity to avoid some of these conflicts by not being too liberal. Staffwill convey to the school district and Mr. Vinge that the consensus ofthe HRA was that Mr. Vinge should focus his attention on industrial uses for the time being and the school should look for a less industrial location for it's special education classes. b. Downtown Area - McVicker Lo Staffhas started work on identifyi the costs the City and the HRA had with regard to the acquisition of the lot so e know what to do with the money. Staff has not talked with the County to det ine how much time the state will need to do their work. At some point they n d to prepare a deed to the HRA that would be recorded that would have the less estrictive language. Once that has been recorded and the HRA owns the pr erty again, we can move forward to set up a closing date with Four Star Land D velopment. (j{ r f Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2005 Page 17 people into downtown. Commissioner B ker also agreed. Commissioner Johnson asked for some examples ofwh e signs are being placed now. The third issue is garage sale signs. T y are allowed by code, but cannot be placed in the right-of-way and there ar size limitations. Staff wanted to know if the Commission was satisfied with th current size of 2 sq. ft. Commissioner Larson asked what the ordinance is fi a home business. Staff replied the same size. Commissioners suggested the s e size as a small election sign, which they thought was 18" x 24". Chair Rotty agr d 2 sq. ft. is small. This could be placed on the May 24 agenda. Chair Rotty aske how it is being enforced now. Community Development Director Carro replied when people come to a Council meeting and ask for permission to put up a sign three times the size authorized by the code, ifthe Council does not change he code or authorize the use of the signs, and if they are displayed, staffhas an 0 ligation to pick them up. When it is such a departure from the code, that is whe staff enforces it. Staff does not have the time to enforce each size. Commissio er Larson suggested placing a notice in the next newsletter. Commissioner Johnso stated the size is an issue, but we also do not want them in the right-of-way. Chai Rotty noted garage sale signs are placed where traffic will see them. The last sign issue, staff has had instan es of commercial businesses creating signs the size of campaign signs and pu ing them in the right-of-way or along public roads. They are just pure comm cial advertising. Currently this is prohibited by the code. One business 0 er said this is good visibility and needs to let people know where the business is. If staff allows this for one, it has to be allowed for all. There is no category to a ow this. Staff asked if the Commission wanted to consider creating a category fo signage along public roads for commercial businesses or should they be rohibited. Commissioner Larson suggested making them have A-frame si s. Commissioner Barker felt they were opening a can of worms and there would be one business after another. Commissioner Larson does not want to te a business in town that is trying to prosper that they cannot promote themselv . The original concept for the A- frame sign was that it would be placed on t e sidewalk in front of the business. Now that we are discussing A-frame signs ffpremises it would be directional with an arrow pointing to the business. Th commercial signs are less directional and more promotional. There are businesse n Hwy 50 in Castle Rock that place signs on Pilot Knob Road and Hwy 3. That is the distinction. It is purely promotional, not directional. Chair Rotty wo ld not agree with promotional signs. Staff could place this on an agenda fo a future Council workshop. ?f:: d) Text Amendment - Classrooms in the Industrial Park Within the last couple days staffhas received two requests from businesses that wanted to go into the Industrial Park that are non-industrial in nature. Vinge Tile and Stone has a building under construction in the Industrial Park. A leasing sign has been placed on the building. He received one call from someone that wanted 6,000 sq. ft. for an exercise facility. He also received a call from a martial arts Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2005 Page 18 academy. Neither of those are uses authorized under the IF zoning district. At a prior meeting there was another building in the Industrial Park that was a potential site for a church. The consensus was that since this is not a permitted or conditional use, it should not be allowed as a rental in the building. Yesterday stafflearned that ISD 192 was looking at the possibility of putting classrooms into a building in the industrial park. The building suggested was the new one to the north ofthe Controlled Air building, owned by the Pettis family. Staffhas indicated to the school that it is not a permitted or conditional use in the Industrial Park. It is not just a zoning matter. During the discussions regarding the daycare, it was brought out that when the park was created in 1996 there was a set of restrictive covenants. This was before there were provisions in the code. The covenants specified what types of businesses can and cannot be in the industrial park. That list does not include educational facilities. To put classrooms in there would be in violation of the covenants and in violation of the zoning code. Even if the code were changed, changing the covenants would require the approval of the other business owners. They built their businesses based on the covenants. Staff asked the BRA for their thoughts at the meeting last night. They indicated they did not see this use as being appropriate. They were not interested in the exercise business or the classrooms in the industrial park. The HRA directed staff to talk with Vinge Tile and Stone and if they want to keep the leasing sign out, they should wait to see if someone with an industrial use comes forward. As far as the school, they would be transported by bus and there would be no recreation outside. The BRA was concerned about the code and the covenants and opening the door wide to non-industrial uses when there will be other opportunities for rental space in town in the near future. The Special Education Director for ISD 192, stated when they spoke with Cerron Industries and asked if the property could be zoned for the school, they indicated it probably could be. They have been looking for an appropriate space. They need an off-site location for students with emotional behavioral disabilities that do not function well in a typical school building. They are currently renting a space through the New Heights Christian Church, but the space is not adequate. There would not be more than 20 students in the first year. They need a space by September 1,2005. Commissioner Larson asked ifthe school had talked with New Heights about remodeling their classrooms. The Special Education Director replied it is their classrooms for their Sunday school, so they do not need to match the layout the school needs. Commissioner Johnson stated he will not vote to put any classrooms in the Industrial Park. He allowed the daycare because there were businesses there that would utilize that. He would not vote in favor of any type of school in the Industrial Park. Commissioner Barker agreed. He understood the need, but the Industrial Park is the wrong location. Commissioner Larson also agreed. Community Development Director Carroll suggested there are three locations in commercial zones. If they look at a B-1 or B-2 zone, currently this type of Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2005 Page 19 educational use is not allowed. Mr. Wartman has a building under construction in City Center, just to the right of Pellicci Hardware. The City will be leasing half of the main floor for a liquor store. There will be rental space to the north of the building and also the upper level. Staff has heard the owner ofthe building at the comer of Third and Elm Street, intends to rehabilitate the back of the building for retail uses facing Third Street. Staff was not aware of the timetable or the size of the area. The zoning would need to be changed. The third option is a building in Tamarack. Some communities try to incorporate educational opportunities into a business environment. Staff will look at that if the Commission feels it is better than an industrial park setting. The school needs about 3,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Johnson stated his concern would be for the business owners. He did not know what affect this would have on the businesses. The school replied the Idea School is just behind the library and this is the same type of school. They have been there for 10 years and there is not a big issue. These are middle to high school age kids. They do have some issues, but it is not taken out on the buildings around them. The building in City Center would be an ideal location because it is centered downtown so they can access the library and they can walk to things they need to do. Commissioner Larson asked about the condition ofthe upstairs ofthe Exchange Bank Building. Staff replied it is unfinished. The school was looking for a space where they could get in by September 1, 2005 and have 3,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Larson asked if the liquor store close by would bother them. The school replied no, it is a business just like anything else. Chair Rotty stated the timing is unfortunate. There are a lot of obstacles with the Industrial Park. Past experience says businesses in the Industrial Park do not like non-industrial businesses out there. Chair Rotty felt they were at the point to asking is there another location and would it work. He suggested the school work with staff to obtain an appropriate location. There are too many hurdles to recommend this to the Council. Staff will provide the school with names and phone numbers of options. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~~.~ )r1~ ~thia Muller Executive Assistant Approved City of Farrrlington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us March 16, 2006 Larry Conroy Any Time Fitness Club 20190 Heritage Drive Lakeville, MN 55044 RE: Proposed Zoning Amendment - 21205 Eaton Avenue, Farmington, MN Dear Mr. Conroy: This letter is in response to your emailed request to have the Fannington Planlling Commission review a text amendment to allow an exercise facility in the IP (Industrial Park) zoning district, more specifically, within the Vinge Tile building. As you mayor may not be aware, an exercise facility is neither a pennitted or conditional use in the IP zoning district. A text amendment would be necessary for such a use to be located at the address listed above. If you wish to proceed with a text amendment, City staff would need to obtain a written request indicating what type of text amendment you are requesting. Staff did not include your previous request on the March 14th Planning Commission agenda as a text amendment request was not submitted two weeks in advance of the scheduled meeting. A text amendment request needs to be submitted two weeks in advance of the meeting as a public hearing notice must be prepared and published within the local paper at least ten days prior to the meeting. The next scheduled Planlling Commission meeting is April 11, 2006, therefore, the written request would have to be submitted no later than 4:30 pm on March 27, 2006. If you decide to proceed with this request, City staff will recommend against the text amendment you will more than likely be seeking. Both the Planning Commission and the City's HRA have previously discussed the possibility of allowing an exercise facility in the IP zoning district. I have attached copies of the minutes from the HRA meeting on May 9,2005, and the Planlling Commission meeting on May 10, 2005 on which this topic was discussed. The indication that staff received from both the HRA and Planning Commission at these meetings (please see attached minutes) is that an exercise facility should not be allowed in IP zoning district. If you have any questions regarding the information provided within this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (651) 463-1822. Sincerely, ~ -- I 0/. Q Ton~PPler~~ta~City Planner Cc: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director Lee Smick, City Planner Enclosures / /a., City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, Council members and Interim City Administrator r Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director TO: RE: Consider Community Center Referendum DATE: April 17, 2006 BACKGROUND Previously in April 2003, the City Council approved a request from the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) to assemble a Recreational Facilities Task Force. In February 2004, a Recreational Facilities Needs Study Report was completed that identified three key recommendations for the City Council to consider moving forward with. One of the key recommendations was to complete a community center study. Subsequently in August 2004, the City Council approved moving forward with completing a Community Center Feasibility Study and hired Ballard King to assist the City with this process. On May 2,2005, the City Council accepted the Community Center Feasibility Study's Final Report and directed staff to research the costs of working with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates (BRAA) staff to do a further study of a community center. On May 16, 2005 the City Council approved the hiring of BRAA to move forward with further studying a community center. Specifically the continued study of a community center was to address the following: 1. To develop a more detailed construction budget and preliminary design and site plan addressing the program spaces in a community center that have been identified in the CCFS Final Report. 2. Explore potential sites and then prioritize these sites. 3. Explore and facilitate potential partnership with different entities and make a recommendation concerning any possible partnerships. On February 21,2006, a summary report was given to the City Council that addressed the location, provided a site plan, contained an estimated construction budget based on a community center conceptual phased plan and provided information about partnerships. The summary report was subsequently approved at the same meeting. On March 10, 2006, the City Council held a work retreat and goal setting session with staff. At the meeting, the community center was discussed along with other City projects. At the meeting, the City Council favored having the PRAC forward a recommendation to the City Council concerning whether or not a community center referendum should occur. At its March and April 2006 meetings, the PRAC discussed a community center referendum and voted to recommend to the City Council that it move forward with authorizing a community center referendum to occur at the November 2006 election. BUDGET IMPACT Robin Roland, Interim City Administrator/Finance Director provided and reviewed the financial impact of a community center referendum with the PRAC at its April 2006 meeting. Attached in Exhibit A is the financial information that was presented and discussed with PRAC members. ACTION REQUESTED The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission is requesting that the City Council, by motion, approve moving forward with a referendum for a community center for the November 2006 election by directing staff to prepare for City Councils approval a resolution containing ballot language for a community center referendum. :?7~fUIIY ~ fJ:r Df:tad Parks and Recreation Director cc: Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Members <J:" -+- ~ ',~ ~ w '" 10 .5 co 1ii '0 UJ fIl ~ Gl .. c 0:: .: >< :!: ~ ~S .s .g Cl '" C '" .e .>l ... '" co .~ LL ~ O~ :c C32! CI)~ o:::~ LLI~ .J~ o J:: LJJ: .. E .!: "'Cf/j~ (i5~1.l) Q5.~ ~ ~~f5 ~~~ ~~f9 ~i!~ It) o o N "' .2! l;i Vl <Ii 'C C o III c '" E '" > o a .5 c g .. ~ :c o ~ '" c '" Cl .!!! ~ '" C '" .. Vl 00 00 00 ~~ NN ~~ '" '0 C o <Xl '0 :g "E ~ ~~ ::]9 .. 0 Q,f- ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ i?i~~ in e C> Q) - (1).~~:E~ ~.Q~-2 cnoo$?.E ~ gO ri o~ ~~ ~fl 'C - .. @~ _ U> c- 8~ .~ ~ Oll g~g o co. o~ g~~ en ' , co ~ - 'C C ::l LL. " o 13 2 in " o in II '" a; :E tic: Q) ::l 'e' ~ -cQ.<u') .~ ~ ~ ~ ~'8.~i a 0 & ~ '" '" .. ~ CJ .: )( .. .... .. ::l C C <( 'C ~ .. ~ "' UJ '" ::l iij > -a; -e: .. :;: rac ,E.~~ .~ ~ ~ Q,Q. o o o o o It) .,. ~ ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 M ~ M ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o o o o ... .,. ~ t; ~ ~ ~ to to ~ lri r--: N ~ M ~ ~ 000 m v M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ I.l) ; C"') O'l N r- c.o '"=': N N N ~ ;;; ~ ~ ai o o o o o C"l .,. ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ g ~ t! ~ g : ~ ;; v ~ CO) ~ ~ ~ ~ ::; to ~ W ~ N W M ~ ~ 0 00 ~ ~ M to ~ to M 00 ai ~ ai O'l ~ ~ N O'l m co ~ w m I.l) ~ ~ CO) N ~ 0 O'l O'l O'l ~ o o o o It) N .,. ~ g ~ ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I.l) M ro w ro 0 ~ N ~ ci M N 0 ci ci ~ to 00 to N M 00 ~ ~ N O'l ~ ~ I.l) ~ ~ v ~ M ~ N 0 O'l co co co co r- r- o o o It)" :: .,. ~ c.o ~ ~ ffi N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 w lri N ci to N ro M N -", ~ ~ M ~ ~co O'l M N ~ 0 ~ O'l O'l O'l co r- r- c.o If) M co V (0 (0 It') N N ci r--: cO Lri N (0 Ln I.l) I.l) It) o o o. .,. I.l) N co r- CO) co 0 N I.l) c.o C"') ~ N V v I.l) co ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 ci 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci 0 0 0 0 0 ci 0 ci '" > -:;; :;:0:: 0:: ~ .... en ?fe. ?fe. cf.. cf.. #. '#. #. cf.. ~ ?1- '#. ~ cf.. ~ ~ cf.. ~ ~ eft. ~ #. o N ~ ~ M ~ 0 N ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ M ~ M m ~ N ~ m N M ~ M W ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;; :; :; ;; ~ ~ :; :; :; o '" ~ ~ E S ~ ~ s ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r; ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ooooooooooooooooooooo ~~~oci~cici~ci~~~~~~~~~cioci g: ~ '" '" > .. ~ ~ .: > :;: 0:: ~ M N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ m m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~Nmw~o~ri~orim m~mmmmm ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gg~i~gffig~g~gg~~~g~gggg ~~~~~~~~~~ri~~~ri~~~~~~~ ... "" "" co to. N~ ~ !:' .... .5 ~ ~ re '" on N .... ~ :;; (0 ';-..iri '" co 0 to. I.(). I.O~ (0 (0 co C"l ~o ... ... 1.0. Ui. '"' "" 0 ffi ~ g cim~ co .... en ..q ~. M~ ~ ~ N ... It) .... ~ c,; ,..: '"' "" '" ~. to. <O~ ~ ~ ::g 0 ~ 1.0 M i.O ,.... r--- gffi:t~ M. '''It. ~ to. <0. ~ ~ ~ ~ om.crial ~. N. ~. gj ~ ~ iij 0 15 0 .- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~oa:icrimcIict;-..i"';a:icDN ~ ~N~~~.~~~.~~ro.~~~ '"' "" 0 ffi ~ g oarcIi co .... en i.O~ ~ M~ N ;;; ,..... M 1.0 (0 ,..: ...; ~. ri N N to 0 to. co. i.O. i.O~ ;;; co co '"' cOo ... ... i.O. ~. iij '" ~ 4. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g cim"':ciroo"':a:iriNci"':ciNri"':~a:ici m ~_, co ~ M N m r--- M ~ I.() 0 I.() ~ ~ M r--- to 00 0 M ~ ~~~~..q..q~~..q~~~~~~~~ fg ~ t"). w. 'C U> C ~ o ~ III .: ~ 0 0 goo 0 goo 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ g ~~~~~~;~~~~~g~~~~~~gg to en en w w CfJ CfJ w r--- r--- r--- ~ (0 I.() ~ ~ M M N 'C t c '" o -:;; III a:: ~~~~~EE~~ESE~E~~~~~~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 i.O to r--- CfJ ~ 0 N M ~ i.O to ,..... ~ m 0 N M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j;j 'C Q. C 'il ~ .E It g g g g g g g g g g g g 000 08 000 80 80 000 000 >2 00000 0 0 0 0 0 000 gggggggggggggggggggg NNNM"lt~(O""'OjCJ')~eno.o~o~ N."!.N ~ g g ~ 0 ; ~ ; ; ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~f::!f::!~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "' ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ " " " " " ~ ~ ~ t) .!!! .. "0 '" (,,) )- g g 5 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N ~ N N N N N ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ >. ~ > .. '" '" -,)- ,.... ro m 0 N M ~ ~ ~ ,.... w m 0 N ~ ~ ~ w ~ g g goo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N "" '" '" '" o 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ... "" en on '"' co o '"' ... "" '" on '"' co o '"' "" N ,..: .... ai N "" '" ,..: <0 Ol N c;- c Q) C> ~ 8 "" '" "E '" .... ,~ ~ [s U> '" '" U> ~ .. ::> '" ~ ~ oj .aN "e ~ .2E ~~ t50ln ~ ~ (l) !i~ "Ci) z ~ C :;:'-0 o ~ " n s. ::. 2 -00 ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ .E ~ ~ ~ -g In ~ 13 ~ ~ EO:: .q: o o o o N cD ~ .~ (/) " Q ~ "- '" ~ m () ::; "- ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ u iil ~ ... ~ E w ~ ~ l} Ii. 12-16 4. + ;.a ,~ -.l... WJ oCt l- e U'J w z z :E z e l- e> z :E 0:: oCt LI. LI. e >- !:: () 00 00 I"- ...... co'cf. 0 I CON N 1.0 1"-00 () 001"- 1.01.0 0'> ' (]) .0 9 I"- I"- 001"- 0 0'> "<t COC"l C"l ...... 1.0. "'" o 1.0 1.0 C"l coo 00 N 1.0 C"l N I"- NO "'" 1.0 (J);;F.. 0 I 00 I"- NO ...... C"l () 1"-."'" A. C"l. I"- ' (]) .0 0 ON 1.0 1.0 0'> I I"-N C"l"," 00 ...... C'J..CO C"l00 "'". C"l C"l 0'> r--: ~- 1.0 C"l ...... I: o :; C'Cl ... CIl "C 1Il I: o U I: I: 0 o .iii ~ .!!! E E ... E .E 0 .!: () >01: > 0 (1); - C'Cl "C CIl I: ... C'Cl ~ .!: 0:: ~~ C'Cl,:t: E ; :cc.. CIl ... c.E CO o I () (]) o I ...... C"l 1.0 o U (]) o I ...... C"l 00 0 00"'" C'J..I"- CO N CO"'" I"-.N 0'> 0 N...... 000 CO I"- 0'>."'" C"lN N ...... OO.N 1.0 l"- N 'cf. o ...... + @ 00 o o N ;z (]) o ~ (]) (]) ::J:O Cii Cl1 > ,52 a>Q. ~ 0. m Cl1 E15 '0- (]) 0"C cf!.cu gz N 00 _ 00 E~ .... .E Q. (]) () x (]) 00 Cii ::J t5 ~ (]) ::J Cii > a> ~ Cl1 :2: 15 (]) o ,!: Cl .... Cl1 E ~ '~ 13 LL (]) (]) 'e- go.. Cl1 Cl1 ~I C >0 Om :=: :2:~ . 0 C '0- o 00 :';::;-0 Cl1 c U5~ ~ 00 ,- (]) 0"0 0...2 (]) () ;:; .f:: c ,g o Cl1 00 c "C (]) C () o 00 .01"- 000 (])O "ON ::J (]) UJ::. ,!: I- 15N (])=I:I: "0 c ~ ,Q mE , 52 (f) Q.(]) c.. .:: <(LL 15 (]) "0 Cl1 Cl (]) ....J ","C"l 00 NO ociLri' COO'> CO...... cD T""- NO'> 00 C"l0 cricri "'"0'> 000 L()~ a a a a- a C"l (0- ..... "-= Q) (: Q) () .c "c => E E o () ..8 Q) => -0 :a Q) -0 Q) :0 co ,!2 0. 0.. co ..8 Q) 00 co ~ () ,S ~ (: ~ o Q 00- o o N o/S I"- o o C"l ,!: Q) 00 00 Q) Cl1 'S: ~.S! g1i Q) ?f!."'O 0"0 Q) rJ) .: Q) ::J E g ::J .... ~.8 Cl1 Q) ;:::J >"0 Q) C ....J 0 xt Cl1 0 1-0. ~cf!. o C"l C"l ' . LO C"l ...... I"- "'". 1.0 C"l 0'> N o LO I"- "'" .l!l 00 00 C 0 o () ~ro Ci3 B g.~ ~ (i) 00 0. Cl1 0 Q) 0 t;~ ,!: 00 .... Cl1 .E (]) Q) B :0 ,!: ~~ Cl1 Cl1 >- Cl1 c >-~ ~ Q; ....J 0. co a a C"l ,S OJ c:: 't=: c:: '0, Q) .Q ~ cu => c:: c:: co a a a c:> a C"l "-= ~ c:: Q) () .c 'c => E E o () ..8 Q) => -0 :a Q) -0 Q) :0 co () 0. 0.. co ..8 Q) CI) co ~ () ,S cu (: Q) o Q CD a a N 2; ;;: 1/6 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members, \4-~ Acting City Administrator '\)) FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Tree Preservation Ordinance DATE: April 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION Under the direction of the City Council, the Planning Commission discussed the merits of revising the City's existing Tree Preservation Ordinance at its April 11, 2006 meeting. Staff presented information to the Council on January 17, 2006 and February 6,2006. DISCUSSION At the meeting on April 11 t\ the Planning Commission determined that it was "too late" to save the large stands of trees that once were prominent in Farmington. The Planning Commission's qualification noted that the Tree Inventory Map (Exhibit 3 in the attached Planning Commission memo) showed only four locations in the City where "Best Tree Stands" were identified. The Planning Commission listed the following reasons for not pursuing revisions to the existing Tree Preservation Ordinance: 1. The City should continue to rely on developers to protect tree stands on their properties because it is in their best interest to retain as many trees as possible to increase the aesthetic value of home sites. 2. The limited number of quality trees stands remaining in the City, because of the tree loss within the last ten years of development. 3. Property owners should be allowed their property rights. 4. Community leaders and staff should continue to encourage developers to retain as many trees as feasible, as is already required under the Tree Preservation Ordinance, which provides that developers shall: "demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the cutting of trees on the site". The Planning Commission was made aware that tree stands will continue to be protected in locations such as steep slopes, wetlands, and floodways. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission recommended by a 5-0 vote, that the existing Tree Preservation Ordinance should not be revised, for the reasons set forth above. RespeGyfully Submitted, 1 //'/ (~ r7 ~i~ , City Planner City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: . )!\ I"~ II ~.) \....-. Planning Commission 1" FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Consider Tree Preservation Standards DATE: April 11, 2006 INTRODUCTION On March 14, 2006, the Planning Commission directed staff to present the Tree Preservation memo to the Commission on April 11, 2006. Attached below is the staff report that was prepared for the March 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. March 14, 2006 Under the direction of the City Council, Planning staff recently made two presentations to the City Council regarding the possibility of revising the existing Tree Preservation Ordinance. Staff presented information to the Council on January 17th (Exhibit 1) and February 6th (Exhibit 2). At the February 6th meeting, the Council directed staff to discuss possible revisions to the Tree Preservation Ordinance with the Planning Commission on March 14, 2006. DISCUSSION The current ordinance (Exhibit A in the Council memo packets) could be considered somewhat "lenient" with regard to the preservation of trees. It includes only very general guidance, such as "demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the cutting of trees on the site" for example. Per the direction of Planning Commission Chair Dirk Rotty, staff has attached the memos, minutes, and items from the two aforementioned City Council meetings for the Commissioner's review. As indicated in the attached minutes from the February 6th meeting, the City Council agreed not to impose a tree ordinance on existing, developed, privately-owned residential properties, but they did see the merit in possibly imposing new tree preservation requirements regarding new developments. They directed staff to conduct a tree inventory to determine where prominent tree stands exist and to prepare a map of those locations for the possible creation of an overlay zone to protect the trees. City staff has identified certain stands of trees for possible protection (Exhibit 3). The map identifies tree stands on public and private property, along with wetland, floodplain, and steep slope areas. The proposed overlay zones to protect the tree stands would prevent private property owners from removing the trees before development occurs on their properties. The threshold question is "What is the opinion of the Commission concerning an overlay zone approach to protecting trees?" A related enforcement question is "What type of penalty should occur if the property owner removes the trees?" The other direction to staff from the City Council was to keep in mind the property rights of owners. Certainly, this issue becomes difficult when tree stands are located on private property. The Planning staff desires the Commissioners' input on this topic. Possible Tree Ordinance Lan2ua2e During the past few months, the Planning Division has researched a number of surrounding communities' tree preservation ordinances. These communities included: Chanhassen, Shorewood, Lakeville, Eagan, Burnsville, Maple Grove, Eden Prairie, Inver Grove Heights, and Oakdale. During the research it became apparent that there are many different approaches to the creation of a tree preservation ordinance, as indicated by the attached 11"x 17" matrix (identified as Exhibit C in the Council memo packets). Questions about the potential content of a revised ordinance include the following: 1. What type of development activity requires tree preservation? Concept Plan, Preliminary Plat, etc. 2. What areas of trees are exempt from the ordinance? 3. What diameter size should be protected? Hardwood - 8" or greater, softwood - 12" or greater, coniferous - 8' or taller. 4. Should the developer provide a survey of significant trees before any development occurs on the property? 5. Should the ordinance include a tree removal threshold? 6. Should the ordinance language provide the developer an incentive for savmg trees? 7. Should a surety be required from the developer? 8. Should there be replacement tree standards? Staff is hoping that the Planning Commissioners will provide valuable direction in order to incorporate possible revisions to the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Aerial photos will be included in the staff presentation. ACTION REQUESTED Review the attached documents presented to the City Council and provide comments and directions to City staff regarding revisions to the tree preservation ordinance. Respectfull zg;. Lee Smick, AICP City Planner ~ ",.--\" I , '\. 1....,../ / Council Minutes (Regular) January 17, 2006 Page 5 P' sewer work will be done. The re-meandering of the creek will be done in 2008. Part of it will have to be done when the bridge is built. The county will decide whether to enter into an agreement the end of January. The road should be open for traffic in 2007. Ms. Krista Flemming, Newland Communities, stated the staffhas been very helpful in working through this process. She agreed with the report and the cost estimates. They are moving forward toward a concept plan. She sees the bridge aesthetics as being integral. There is a certain allowance of money for bridge aesthetics. Newland will be looking at this to see ifthere is a benefit to enhancing the bridge further. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to adopt RESOLUTION R9-06 accepting the feasibility report for the 195th Street extension to TH3 project. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Consider Tree Preservation Standards - Community Development There is currently a tree preservation ordinance in the City code which is general in nature and hard to enforce. Council has indicated an interest in enhancing the ordinance. Staff asked for more direction on two issues. The first issue is coverage. Should it be only for new large development proposals in undeveloped areas, or should it include this plus existing residential homes where home owners would have to apply for a permit to remove a tree. Mayor Soderberg noted the second option goes to land owner property rights. He is not in favor of land owners obtaining permission for removal of existing trees. Councilmember McKnight asked if tree preservation is a problem right now. Staff stated it depends on your perspective. Some are concerned about trees that have already been removed and those that could be removed. Councilmember McKnight has not received any comments that this is an issue where we need to enhance the ordinance. Councilmember Pritzlaff also was not in favor of the second option. The big picture is looking at residential and commercial development where trees are taken down. He asked ifthere was any language requiring developers to replace a certain amount of trees. Staff noted a developer submits a landscape plan with how many trees are on the lot and how many will be removed. There is an expectation that they will be replaced. Councilmember Wilson would like to see more specification for the first option. He would like developers to design their plans around the natural amenities. He would like to see specific replacement type ratio for new developments where significant amounts of trees will be removed. He does not support requiring a private home owner to obtain a permit to remove a tree, except where boulevard trees are concerned as they are required by the City. Staff felt there was not a strong interest in looking at tree removal on privately- owned, already developed residential properties. Community Development Director Carroll asked if there was any value in looking at acreage limitations. Council Minutes (Regular) January 17, 2006 Page 6 Mayor Soderberg stated as far as acreages, the land owners are responsible land owners. If they choose to clear cut a piece of woods, it is theirs. They should not have to get a permit. With regard to developments, developers will want to save as many trees as possible. They are required to put in trees as part oflandscaping. He would agree with looking at that if something needs to be tuned up. He is reluctant to make it more oppressive. Staff noted there is always the possibility of land being sold to a developer who is less responsible. If a developer wants to remove trees to make more developable land, is that something Council will accept. Mayor Soderberg asked how much forested area is left. Staffwould have to do an aerial view to determine this. There is a fair amount of expense to do a tree inventory. Councilmember Pritzlaffwas concerned about a developer removing trees and how it affects neighboring properties. Staff agreed this is a problem they are running into. Developers are required to plant boulevard trees. As far as trees on the lots, the home owner may want trees placed differently than the developer. Mayor Soderberg noted staff has spent a considerable amount of time on this. He is not interested in doing a tree inventory and would like to receive comments from Councilmember Fogarty. He directed staff to bring this back to the next meeting to obtain her comments or comments from developers. ~Staff should not do any additional work until that time. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Pritzlaffto table this item to the February 6,2006 Council meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Reconsider Liquor License Suspension - B&B Pizza - Police Department During the January 3,2006 meeting, there was a public hearing regarding liquor license violations. During the hearing for B&B Pizza, Mr. Dave Eldridge stated he was the new owner and he had bought out the partners. He pleaded for leniency as a new owner. The Council granted that request. Information discovered the next day while reviewing the application, shows that while Mr. Eldridge is a new partner, he is not the sole owner, and one of the original partners remains with the business. As staffwas under the impression that Mr. Eldridge was the sole owner, staff felt Council may also have been under that misperception. Ifthat is the case, and Council wants to reconsider the penalties amended at the last meeting, then Council should set a new public hearing. If Council understood that Mr. Eldridge was a partner and not a sole owner, then no action is necessary. Councilmembers understood Mr. Eldridge became a new sole owner and misrepresented himself. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to reconsider the public hearing for B&B Pizza liquor license violation. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by McKnight, second by Wilson to set a public hearing for February 6, 2006. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Adopt Resolutions - Minor Boundary Adjustments Abutting Executive Estates - City Attorney This is a minor boundary adjustment for the area abutting Executive Estates. There was an error in the legal description in the annexation. There is a joint resolution for approving the annexation and resolution for the detachment of f3'{'1 2- Council Minutes (Regular) February 6, 2006 Page 9 guidelines. The City may impose a penalty up to $2,000 or 60 days suspension or a combination of those two. Staff recommended that violations remain consistent with the past but become more rigorous as the violations accumulate to the point where a fourth violation in a period of four years or less would result in the revocation of a liquor license. This ordinance allows Council to review the severity of the violation and make a judgment as to what an appropriate penalty would be. This proposed ordinance has been sent to all liquor license holders. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson adopting ORDINANCE 006-549 adopting presumptive civil penalties for on-sale liquor licensees that violate state laws or City ordinances. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Consider Tree Preservation Standards - Community Development A tree preservation ordinance was approved in 2002 after the Vermillion Grove development was completed. Staff presented a map showing the number of trees lost in that development. We protect our wetlands, our steep slopes, our drainage ways, our rivers, etc. Why don't we protect our forested areas? Staff is bringing this forward as a maintenance review for this ordinance. Staff reviewed the current ordinance. Staff is suggesting looking at custom-graded lots and do a tree inventory or an overlay zone. If Council is interested in a tree preservation ordinance, staff would go back to the Planning Commission and start writing the ordinance. Staff asked if the ordinance should be limited to new development or new development and existing development including privately-owned residential properties. The next issue is should the ordinance be triggered by the submission of any new development application or a property owner's or developer's desire to remove any trees identified by a previously-conducted tree inventory or protected by a related overlay zone. Mr. Leon Orr also sent an e-mail giving his views regarding a tree preservation ordinance. Councilmember Fogarty felt the ordinance should be limited to new development. If a tree inventory can be done quickly she would be in favor of it. Police Chief Siebenaler felt large areas of trees could be identified in an afternoon. Councilmember Fogarty liked the idea of custom lots. Mayor Soderberg asked if there was a way of mandating the developers do custom lots. He was struggling with what is the compelling government interest in regulating trees. They are a renewable resource. In public areas he felt we should do all we can to maintain forests, but he was struggling with private land. Councilmember Wilson supported looking at new residential properties and would like to communicate the benefit oftrees to existing property owners. He would also support doing a quick tree inventory. Councilmember Pritzlaffwas in favor of enforcing this for new development and doing a tree inventory. He would like to look at developable acres before they come up for development. Mr. John Kapustka, 19482 Evening Star Way, agreed we need to do everything we can to preserve our trees. The irony of the names of developments - Vermillion Grove - and they de-forest it. In Charleswood the trees were gutted. Along Akin Road another area of trees was leveled. We cannot let this keep Council Minutes (Regular) February 6, 2006 Page 10 1 happening. We have people on staff who have the knowledge and the passion and we would be remiss if we did not let them set the course and bring people along and educate them. It is better to err on the side of preservation than throwaway our heritage. Let's err on the side of saving the trees. It takes a long time to replace something that is blown down in a storm. You do not get that same canopy back in ten years. You can tell how old the neighborhoods are by how old the trees are. In every new neighborhood they de-forest it and it does not look like the rest of town. Police Chief Siebenaler stated this is something he has a deep and abiding interest in. The Mayor had asked where is the compelling government reason to interfere with the rights of a property owner. There are certain things that transcend the rights of any individual property owner. We would not allow a property owner to create a toxic waste dump on his own property, because he will not be the property owner forever. In areas of wildlife management we would not allow a person to completely fish out a stream that is on their land. We would not allow a property owner to clean out the trout in the Vermillion River that passes through their property. There are areas in this City that are subject to imminent development that are home to stands of oak trees for 160 years. Those trees transcend the right of any individual property owner and we have an obligation to preserve that kind of heritage as long as we possibly can. Development will occur, but doesn't a City have an obligation to look out for all of its residents, current and future, instead of a transient developer moving through. There are areas available to plant a stand of black walnut trees for future harvesting. Three or four generations later a decision may be made to harvest them. In order to do that someone has to protect it in the meantime, otherwise it is just sawdust. There are limited resources left in the City subject to this kind of preservation. Councilmember Pritzlaffnoted with the Mattson Farms development there were trees there that were not very large, but now there is a pond with no trees around it. He wants more than boulevard trees to replace what was taken down. Councilmember McKnight agreed with Mayor Soderberg and also had a concern with property rights. When writing the ordinance, staff will keep property rights in mind. c) Snow Removal Policy - Sidewalks on Ash Street - Engineering Staffhas attempted to contact all the property owners along Ash Street regarding the proposed snow removal policy. Staff has not been able to contact two owners, but have received positive responses from 10 owners and ofthose have obtained four signed easements. Staff will continue to try to contact the last two owners and will continue to work on obtaining signed easements. The existing policy will be enforced until all 12 easements are signed. d) City Administrator Update - City Attorney City Attorney J amnik had hoped he would have a draft agreement for Council. After several weeks of negotiations we remain apart on several substantive terms tl ....~ ~ .. . . ~~ l.,? ~~ "I:' '..j) ~~. ~ n. [.1 :'::1 ~ . I?" I ~~-=-- lo....... ~~' ~ '-- D Floodplain - Wetland - Privately Owned - Public Property X Best Tree Stands . , ~ '\.....b TREE INVENTORY '\ ~ " '. ~. ill ~ .. I '" J F 0 tr~ T ~-. ~~.~:.. ; . '-"'H <' ffil:ffi ~ ~ - ~ tJ II /, I '~i . '0 \ , ~ ,. . ~ ~~t ~ , . ... ~ 0 JI J1 . . \ . _I,ln- ~~~f ~C~ ~v ~ ~ "\I~I ~ ~]I a. NJX\ IlBiM o. ~'\ '7''4[1: .,~ ""~ .... i fii1~'ll'" . ~ n .\ :;;.D...;~,~ I }- :\ N 9 ~O' .. \\\ .~ 'In\ ~ 'J r. BlllIlEIl'J ; ~ - I . \!!! ~~II= I!!! ~.~iI~ J I I~ ___"... ) 0 ~ ~ ,. I~~"\ ~(" . ~UJ' '.~_ ~ ;~. 1\ V ~.~ l rn-,.., . r Ift:l3 ~ ~... ~ ""'!! I .::: I . . . ~~ ~~iJ r. 0 mII~ *~. f---;- '~~ r:." '; ~ ~ ~ .-, W -= ..... . ~ ITr lOW.. '0 u,~ ~ L-~:\ . "1\ · ,,", ~ r \., '" ~ Q' ''<ll n=u::j:l ~ ... .... ~ ~ I ED "m " ~ J - lImB . .l t'Imlml!I 00"" 0000"" oom;; m- .T. ... . ~ ,- lJ . 1 A Map Created March 10, 2006 I Miles o ~ ~ J ( I . ;/ //.' f ~~ c.... (:; City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members, Acting City Administrator \ I ! ~-l Jt, _ ~ \ . FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Consider Tree Preservation Standards DATE: January 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION During the October 17, 2005 City Council meeting, Council Members expressed concerns regarding the number of trees being removed in recent development projects and the current requirements for the replacement of trees lost during construction. At that time Council Members directed City staff to review the current tree preservation ordinance. DISCUSSION The current tree preservation ordinance (Exhibit A) was prepared by Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. and was approved on February 19, 2002. This ordinance was put into place at the request of the City Council, after a number of trees were removed from the Vermillion Grove development. The current ordinance could be considered somewhat "lenient" with regard to the preservation of trees. It includes only very general guidance, such as "demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the cutting of trees on the site" for example. This language was utilized during the planning stages of the Charleswood Crossing project in order to retain as many trees as possible in the development; however, as indicated by Exhibit B, the large number of trees lost clarifies the need for enhanced tree preservation standards and related protective measures. During the past few months, the Planning Division has researched a number of surrounding communities' tree preservation ordinances. These communities included: Chanhassen, Shorewood, Lakeville, Eagan, Burnsville, Maple Grove, Eden Prairie, Inver Grove Heights, and Oakdale. During the research it became apparent that there are many different approaches to the creation of a tree preservation ordinance, as indicated by the attached matrix (Exhibit C). While reviewing the ordinances, it became apparent that any given City's philosophy could be determined by the answer to this question regarding tree preservation: "What type of action or activity should be regulated by a tree preservation ordinance?" The answer to this question indicates the intended scope of the ordinance. It sets the tone and determines how much regulation the community desires to assert over the protection and/or preservation of its forest resources. City staff and the Planning Commission desire the City Council's input and guidance with regard to two critical, threshold-level policy decisions that will establish the parameters for a new [revised] tree preservation ordinance. The two issues in question are as follows: Issue # 1 ( Coverage) Should the revised tree preservation ordinance A) be limited to new residential, commercial, public, institutional, and industrial projects only, OR B) be drafted in a manner that covers the projects listed above and also all existing, developed, privately-owned residential properties? "Option A" projects would include the platting of subdivisions, site grading, commercial and industrial projects, non-residential projects in residential zones, and site improvements on public property. "Option B" would additionally require a homeowner to apply for a permit to remove a tree from the homeowner's property, unless there was an applicable exemption or exception. Issue # 2 (Triggering Mechanism) Should the protective provisions of the revised tree preservation ordinance be triggered by A) the submission of any new development-related plan or application, OR B) a property owner's or developer's desire or intention to remove any tree(s) identified by a previously-conducted tree inventory or protected by a related overlay zone? "Option A" submittals could include sketch plans, site plans, building permit applications for commercial and industrial projects, plans for non-residential projects in residential zones, or applications for rezoning or for Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The tree inventory envisioned under "Option B" would identify existing trees in the City and specify areas of priority for preservation of tree resources. The inventory could include the identification and location of the types of vegetation (i.e., cover types) which occur in the community; locate the particularly large ami/or historic trees; and profile existing trees including species and size distributions to determine preservation priorities. An inventory-related map could identify areas likely to be adversely affected by development activities, before any such activity occurs. An "overlay zone" could be created to (a) prohibit the removal of trees until such time as a tree inventory could be completed and/or (b) protect specific forested areas after the completion of the inventory. The tree inventory could be prepared by staff utilizing the City's GIS system and aerial photos. Staff could also utilize the knowledge of long-time staff and residents to determine the locations of expansive stands of trees and/or historic trees. Planning Division Research The attached matrix and figures (Exhibit C) summarize a portion of the research that has recently been conducted by the Planning Division regarding this topic. These items have been attached for informational purposes only. Weare not proposing or requesting that the City Council discuss them at Tuesday night's meeting. They are being provided at this time primarily to illustrate the potential complexity of some of the operational details of a more rigorous tree preservation ordinance. The Council's comments on the two major policy decisions addressed above will enable City staff to refine such details for further discussion with the Planning Commission, after which this topic will once again be placed on the City Council's agenda for additional consideration and comment. ACTION REQUESTED 1. Provide comments and direction to City staff regarding the two major policy issues addressed in this memo. 2. Direct staff to discuss proposed revisions to the current tree preservation ordinance with the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 14,2006. 3. Provide the City Council with an update on the revision process for the tree preservation ordinance at its meeting on February 21,2006. Respectfully Submitted, ." ,..,--~ " ;f. //40)o1't'A/~? {/~ ~/--> Lee Smick, AICP City Planner 10-6-11: TREE PRESERVATION: Exhibit A (A) Intent: It is the intent of the city of Farmington to preserve wooded areas throughout the city and with respect to future site development, to retain, as far as practicable, substantial existing tree cover. (8) Credit For Existing Trees: Credit for the retention of existing trees which are of acceptable species, size and location may be given to satisfy the minimum number requirements set forth in this chapter. (C) Wooded Area Restrictions: The following restrictions shall apply to all development occurring in wooded areas: 1. Structures shall be located in such a manner that the maximum number of trees shall be preserved. 2. Prior to granting of a final plat, development plan, or building permit, it shall be the duty of the person seeking the permit to demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the cutting of trees on the site. 3. Forestation, reforestation or landscaping shall utilize a variety of tree species as identified in this chapter. 4. Development including grading and contouring shall take place in such a manner that the root zone aeration stability of existing trees shall not be affected. Trees to be preserved shall be staked as provided in this chapter. Notwithstanding the above, the removal of trees seriously damaged by storms, or other natural causes, shall not be prohibited. (Ord. 002-469,2-19-2002) //6 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members, Acting City Administrator -lrYV \V.~ x ' / l~' FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Consider Tree Preservation Standards DATE: February 6, 2006 INTRODUCTION The proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance was reviewed by the City Council at its January 17, 2006 meeting. Council Members suggested that the proposed ordinance be discussed when all members are present at the February 6,2006 meeting. Update for Februarv 6. 2006 Meetin2: During the January 17th City Council meeting, questions were asked about the City's tree replacement requirements when trees are removed by developers within a project. At present, the only tree replacement requirement in the City Code is in the Landscape Ordinance under Section 10-6-10 (L) captioned "Tree Replacement in Construction Zones". This code (Figure 2) requires that trees identified by the developer in a protection zone should be replaced if they die within a period of 18 months. This insures that protected trees that die because of construction activities will be replaced. The replacement ratio for construction zone trees is a ratio of 1: 1 with a replacement tree diameter of 2 inches. The Landscape Ordinance currently requires the developer to install trees on City boulevards at 1 tree for every 40 linear feet, and if warranted, for parking lots when installed and/or buffer areas when incompatible land uses abut one another. These trees are required to be installed at 2 inches in diameter. Although such boulevard and screening trees help offset the impact of trees that are lost during site grading, they are not technically counted as "replacement trees" unless they are installed in an area that the developer had identified (in advance) as a protection zone. If any trees are damaged or die within the protection zone during construction and within 18 months thereafter, then the boulevard trees could be counted as replacement trees. For example, in projects such as Charleswood Crossing, (see attached plan), the trees installed by the developer within the boulevard were not technically considered "replacement trees" for the trees lost in the red zones on the plan, since the developer did not specify a protection zone on the plan. This is an example of an instance where a developer could have designed a project that embraced the existing trees surrounding future house pads, such as in the cul-de-sac on the south side of the project. Ifthe current tree preservation ordinance required a tree removal threshold rather than "retaining, as far as practicable, a substantial tree cover", additional trees may have been retained in the red zones through the building practice of "custom grading" each house pad rather than removing all trees inside the grading limits proposed by the developer. Incidentally, the current tree preservation ordinance does give credit to a developer who saves existing trees (at 4 inches in diameter for deciduous trees and 5 vertical feet or more in height for coniferous trees). The credited tree that meets the before-mentioned requirements would be substituted for a required boulevard or buffer tree, possibly reducing the number of trees to be installed by the developer. In summary, a more proactive Tree Preservation Ordinance would require the developer to locate and protect significant trees upfront, at the planning stage level in the development process, thereby insuring that significant trees or stands of significant trees were protected. Any tree that died within the protected zone within an 18 month period would then be replaced through the construction zone tree replacement ordinance. Information Previous Iv Provided for Januarv 17. 2006 Meetin2:: The current tree preservation ordinance (Exhibit A) was prepared by Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. and was approved on February 19, 2002. This ordinance was put into place at the request of the City Council, after a number of trees were removed from the Vermillion Grove development. The current ordinance could be considered somewhat "lenient" with regard to the preservation of trees. It includes only very general guidance, such as "demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the cutting of trees on the site" for example. This language was utilized during the planning stages of the Charleswood Crossing project in order to retain as many trees as possible in the development; however, as indicated by Exhibit B, the large number of trees lost clarifies the need for enhanced tree preservation standards and related protective measures. During the past few months, the Planning Division has researched a number of surrounding communities' tree preservation ordinances. These communities included: Chanhassen, Shorewood, Lakeville, Eagan, Burnsville, Maple Grove, Eden Prairie, Inver Grove Heights, and Oakdale. During the research it became apparent that there are many different approaches to the creation of a tree preservation ordinance, as indicated by the attached matrix (Exhibit C). While reviewing the ordinances, it became apparent that any given City's philosophy could be determined by the answer to this question regarding tree preservation: "What type of action or activity should be regulated by a tree preservation ordinance?" The answer to this question indicates the intended scope of the ordinance. It sets the tone and determines how much regulation the community desires to assert over the protection ami/or preservation of its forest resources. City staff and the Planning Commission desire the City Council's input and guidance with regard to two critical, threshold-level policy decisions that will establish the parameters for a new [revised] tree preservation ordinance. The two issues in question are as follows: Issue #1 (Coverage) Should the revised tree preservation ordinance A) be limited to new residential, commercial, public, institutional, and industrial projects only, OR B) be drafted in a manner that covers the projects listed above and also all existing, developed, privately-owned residential properties? "Option A" projects would include the platting of subdivisions, site grading, commercial and industrial projects, non-residential projects in residential zones, and site improvements on public property. "Option B" would additionally require a homeowner to apply for a permit to remove a tree from the homeowner's property, unless there was an applicable exemption or exception. Issue # 2 (Triggering Mechanism) Should the protective provisions of the revised tree preservation ordinance be triggered by A) the submission of any new development-related plan or application, OR B) a property owner's or developer's desire or intention to remove any tree(s) identified by a previously-conducted tree inventory or protected by a related overlay zone? "Option A" submittals could include sketch plans, site plans, building permit applications for commercial and industrial projects, plans for non-residential projects in residential zones, or applications for rezoning or for Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The tree inventory envisioned under "Option B" would identify existing trees in the City and specify areas of priority for preservation of tree resources. The inventory could include the identification and location of the types of vegetation (i.e., cover types) which occur in the community; locate the particularly large and/or historic trees; and profile existing trees including species and size distributions to determine preservation priorities. An inventory-related map could identify areas likely to be adversely affected by development activities, before any such activity occurs. An "overlay zone" could be created to (a) prohibit the removal of trees until such time as a tree inventory could be completed and/or (b) protect specific forested areas after the completion of the inventory. The tree inventory could be prepared by staff utilizing the City's GIS system and aerial photos. Staff could also utilize the knowledge of long-time staff and residents to determine the locations of expansive stands of trees and/or historic trees. Planning Division Research The attached matrix and figures (Exhibit C) summarize a portion of the research that has recently been conducted by the Planning Division regarding this topic. These items have been attached for informational purposes only. We are not proposing or requesting that the City Council discuss them at Monday night's meeting. They are being provided at this time primarily to illustrate the potential complexity of some of the operational details of a more rigorous tree preservation ordinance. The Council's comments on the two major policy decisions addressed above will enable City staff to refine such details for further discussion with the Planning Commission, after which this topic will once again be placed on the City Council's agenda for additional consideration and comment. ACTION REQUESTED 1. Provide comments and direction to City staff regarding the two major policy issues addressed in this memo. 2. Direct staff to discuss proposed revisions to the current tree preservation ordinance with the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 14,2006. 3. Provide the City Council with an update on the revision process for the tree preservation ordinance at its meeting on February 21,2006. Respectfully Submitted, /.--:::1 ~.O~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner 10-6-11: TREE PRESERVATION: Exhibit A (A) Intent: It is the intent of the city of Farmington to preserve wooded areas throughout the city and with respect to future site development, to retain, as far as practicable, substantial existing tree cover. (8) Credit For Existing Trees: Credit for the retention of existing trees which are of acceptable species, size and location may be given to satisfy the minimum number requirements set forth in this chapter. (C) Wooded Area Restrictions: The following restrictions shall apply to all development occurring in wooded areas: 1. Structures shall be located in such a manner that the maximum number of trees shall be preserved. 2. Prior to granting of a final plat, development plan, or building permit, it shall be the duty of the person seeking the permit to demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the cutting of trees on the site. 3. Forestation, reforestation or landscaping shall utilize a variety of tree species as identified in this chapter. 4. Development including grading and contouring shall take place in such a manner that the root zone aeration stability of existing trees shall not be affected. Trees to be preserved shall be staked as provided in this chapter. Notwithstanding the above, the removal of trees seriously damaged by storms, or other natural causes, shall not be prohibited. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002) ~ ~iw ~~ ~~ l 0 -;;-- ~~i ;~~ ~~i " ~ i~i~ ~~~~ ~g ~ ~ ~ ~i ; :j sa ~ ~ ~~ I ~~~iillil!111 ~ ; N~l Cl! ! .o,g eee~e~ i' ffi ' " ~<= . n~nlUUnUnn 'B.!l ~ ..a _ -i! .... ~ g ~ l:l1n!~ mil )( .~ ~ :;a0l ~& ~ . ii l l . .::: Ooll H \ U ~ ~ ~ 'm 4 "tl 0 obO J ~.S CI.I CI.I Q,I CI.I t I ~~ u B ~ ~ ~ o -' ;;;! !iU ~ ~!;~ .D~II;II j~ fE ' w ~~ ~ ~ 5! ~8h o u j:Q .., '!"'l ~ ~ o /J 1 o -6 l'/f~b/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;t. ... ~ ~ ~ '.p \I \!'l \'i \~ \-::-')' , tSl .m~ Ul W ~ a!i J: ~J >< 11 w~ ...~ z w u j 1 .1:' 11]j ill ~I II. I r!l ! t-> ~ .~ ,11 ' ,1. ftl a hi I i i:f ~ 1 ~ j 1 -g In !l;; 3: ul It ~ .ls:l~~IOIZ'O &avllUG,tlllllllli'''.."l1l1\DOZ\... (j) C .., (0 -< <=r~"'U (0 0- ::!. ~ 3 Q en -. r""'1'" c:=::o :< (0 0 _.0.0 < -:J (Ooen -+, (C =;- o C C .., Ol 0 ~Qlg 0:J:J -CDOl ~(OO - - cc s: <. ""0);::;': o _"< ::E -. -. ::T Ol c5(Oen en eo ~ (0 -0 (0 Ol-- enOl,,< o 0 -. :J (0 en en 3 (0 ~ 0")0l30Ol::E~::;; -. 3 0 ::E n. ;::;: Ol Ol ~ _. :J :J <' 2: :J :J ::T ~. s: ~ a: :J CD "< (03eno(OOlo.O enCOl_en Ol::: Ol 3 -S:0l-g en::T g 0. Ol (0 ~ ::!. -0 (0 < -. Ql -0 0 8.. Ol ~ (0 Ol_.., 0 ~(O _ 3 -'0 -'0 (0 ::T(O 0-0 !!l.-8.en (0;;<0(0(0-,,_.., :J~-~o.CO::T(O -" "< c: (0 .0 !!l. 0 :..;. 3 :So 3 - c c - - 0 Ol :::;. ..,1\.)::Ec::T:J:J(O Qt S' ;::;: ~ 0 s: fF a. cco::T..,genoo "'::TOl(O 0l0l Ol (0 :J -0 ~ _-0 0- g- en Ol or 2 co S' (0 .3-ooo"'cc'" .......(0-0 (0 !:!:o-o ~ " "'-OO-Ol <<5. ~ ~ ::T :J 3 Ol S' . c(O(OO-o:J(O ~Cilo.<=r:::CDeno. 0.<=r~::T!:!:60 Ol(Oen(Ooc'" -(0 en:J-<=r ::E;::;:oo.(O Ol::T;::;:(O_o.(O -0 Ol ::T. - -. en o < -. - ::T (0 -. S. :J ::T (0 ~cc 0")(0 . . . ro (Oen )> :!1=.. 0 0 2' (j) ~ 0 Ol (j) ~ -::T..,c-" :Jc-" ~()-o:J S:~:J'" No-o.ro 0 ~ 0 ~ cc (0 cc en' ~ 0 (0 _ _ 0 (0 ::E 0 Ol .., (0 ::T "< "'0 "'0 ~ "< 0 3 0."'3 Ol-~ 0.0l Ol (0 eo 0-30l ~ (0(0 ~0-:J3"'en () :J -0 ~ ~ Ol "< 0. 0 en (0 Ol_- cO c.., -o~eno:J-oc.o:< -eno,...,(Oc-:Jc(Oen:J;::;: .., -. (0 " 3 .., Ol - Ol .0 - "< (0 - Ol en:J -. .., a. 0-- (O(Oo--o(O(O-en(O,c 0 en.oo(O:J..,_-,,_..,Ol~.., . 55 ~ 0- ::~ ~ CJ1 g !!l. ro (0 <=r _.oroo..,o_(O_o.(O -CD:J(O..,(O~oo(Oo(O o _ 0. en -"'0 _ _ ~:J .., -"-o-::T-oc: (0 1\.)(0_ (OOl_<;~O-"'O .., 0_01\.)-::T- C{lo~ 2'(O::ToCJ1en(O~ CF- - 0 3 3 (0 9:: -0 <<5. 0 (0 o Q . -. (0 (0 Ol (0 :J - 3 _(00 en:Jen:J"':::;;Ol _0.0 ::T-!:!:o.o.c)"-(O ::T -. 0 S' - 3 -. Ol 0. :J (0 -- cc ro Ol 0l:J 05. - <0 Ol(O- 3-3 Qt~ :Jen~ ~::E(O ~Ol 0.()0 ~gco en "'0 0 0 -. a. .., 8. ::T or ~ ~ ~ or S' - ~ 0 ::T:JO ~ S' 0 a. ::T cc .., C :J 0. (0 .., .., (0 < CD' ~ '--- -l-l ::T .., .., (0 (0 (0 3-::0 o (0 0::3 o < Qt eo9:~ -g~(O -. c)" - ro_::T o.'",...ro . ...., en (O::T "<0 0- :Jo. 0.0 ::E- ::TQ. -'(0 o Ol ::T.., .., S. ~cc 0_ .., 0 (0 .., ~(O Ol Ol !:!:() O::T :J N en 0 ::T:J Ol -. _:J -cc 0- (0 . . "U-l orro :J (0 "'U .., (0 en (0 :< !!l. o' :J !!!. ~ <=r ~ !!!. )> <g o.m o<g~ :::;;_en"'Oo :::;;Ol o. ::T - en o. :J Ol(Oo(OOlOl ~3go.~~ _(0 0._ rot\)(J>(t)@:i" (OenOl<(O< en~~~en(O _(Oo.OOl:J oen -o:Jo 0--0 ~ 3 0.-:< (0 0 0. ~ s: -. en-o..,_(O:J ~ ~ ~ Q :::;. ~ (O(OO-OOl ~o.<g.o!:!: -(o.Ol:J o 0.0l !:!:cc "'OO:JOOl 0:J0.:J= __eneno (0 ::T ::T -. - n.(Oo~s: .....Ol::E::T(O ~roen(O }llS: (0 z o :J (0 s:s:o.;::;: (0 Ol (0 en .....<::T o_(OOl s.~o= e. ..., -0 0- :J(03(O ccOl(O_ O...,:J::T -(0-(0 <=r :J ~ a. (OOOlC (0 _:J.:7 en (0. -.. o Ol 0 0 :Jen"'- _fro-S: ~CD~(O en 0 9:~ -. .., :J ,~ co "'0 cc <il ..., 0 ....... c -0 :J ,,0.(0 -.(0'" en ~:J3(O '-+;:+CD -"Ol_" -;::;:0 S' ~ o.CC ::J ro Ol 0l3_ !:!: 0 S. <:J0l ~~- _..,-0 00l- .....Ol (0 .- (j) (0 (0 Ol - m o ::T (0 0. o -0 - o. :J en ~~ OCC o :J a.:::;; -0' Ol Ol :J :J fF- -l .., (0 (0 en o .., 9.5' co"< ::!. ::T Ol (0 e~ "'::T 0. "< 55" =;- 3 (0 (0 (0 IDS: .., Ol en- N.3 (0 (0 o (0 .., - en ::T_ (0 ::T <<5' (0 ::T0l :-'""'0 -0 ..., o < (0 a. z o :J (0 ::oom ~ a. ~ ~.~.3 ro :J -g 3 () 0 (0 (0 :J :J en - - en 0 3 o-l Ol .., c (0 en (0 (0 en en en ;""'(0 ::!! 6' CCc . en ..=~ a. Ol 3 Ol cc (0 a. 0- "< en - o 3 .en o .., o ~ (0 .., :J Ol 2" .., Qt " 1-0 I'" -l.......(O -l . . OOlorO(O::To-"'::T eo:J:J()3(O~~(Oo.~(j):Co.(O(Oo en 0.. !!l. 0 ~ 0:: -. ~ -." -. .., - _en -<~_:J~OlOOOlOl(Oo.(O (O@-lO(oOl:J(00l3:J~"'30l~~ ~"'O::T:J~:J~. :J~ct~~(OCD. 0. (0(00 en.,en(O..,ooco..,OlC -0 - -l ::T -. 0 ::T .., go.O ,en 0 )>orroroo~oOOeno.o.~Ol-gVi O:J-o(O::EQl!!l.::E.., 0...,,..., ::T - en -. en ,,... II (0 '" ,,... 0" _:J ::T _. :J Ol ~ en 0 "-' 0 W "-' Ol - (0 0 ...., - - :J - .., co -. 0 .., :J (0 (0 0 ::T 2 ::T (0 - a. -. (0 -. 3 a. 0~3-(OOo(O!!l.oco.!!l.CD'(O::E :+en (O(O--=(O..,05(O"'OlO r _ ~ n. ~. ~ ~ 3 ~ 3 Vi c .., 0 en 0 Ol 0 _ o' en (0 0;::;: 0 en Vi ~ a. :J 0- - :J !:!:. -0 en .., II II _ S........ o.(Oro3c3~~0l (0-" rocc~ g' -0 ~ (0 _ eo (0 ~ S' ~ ~ (0 -" 0 ""'l ro Ol ro ~o.o ::TOO 31\.)(0 <; -0 en en (0 en -. - (0 I'T'I -. -0 (0 Ol ::T C en. 3 (0 -. OJ V..J (O:J- ,,<..,Qt..,_(O~o. ca:c:c OlO(O o(O-(Oo-=:o- ~ en::T- ."'o.o-en ~o,,< .:-!"QQ c(03 ~ (0 en 0- - < () I ::!. en . Z -< en ::T (0 en (0 0 (0 (0 :J -. ::E ~ ::TQten::T3:J mroeo (O:J= enOlo-OlQt(Oen ;::;:0l0l coo.a (0 ::0 ::E 0- < - :J - ::T - CD -. 05. ::E -:<(O:J(O~o-en2 "<~.., ~3- 3''''' en (0 () -,' ~",o- '!::!. 0 ::T Ol en !:!:.., ~ W 0 0l~:J0:J::T 0 (0 ~CDx .:J(O-::Eo.o :J (0 .., ro ~ :J ::E 0 ~ S' Q QQ.. ? .., ....... " <<5' ~ o ~ o' :J ~~ ro ~ 0 a 31 :J0~g.0-@0l o.-g Ol (0 (0 e.:J ~..,@o..,o:J OJ-<3::(O:J(O -0. ro30~ (O-l(O(Oo-en )>::T~en~Qt_ ..,(0--0.-0 o -0 eo 0 (0-. ::T_",~c:Xo. ;::;: Ol W ...., :So en' (0 (O:Jen(Os:!:!:~ () :J "'0 en ::;':J -. -- (00 Ol ~(O-<, Z(O-O ~ S:en(O Co.o 0. (0 <<5. Ol'" "'enen-.o:J ~-(Oeno:::;;9: ~ 0 0. N. :J -. :J "< 0- -0 (0 en@(O 3(0 . <=r:J= Ol-oo-enc-3 :J .., (0 -0 0 <=r -. . (0"'0 (0 !:!: (0 en o -0 - Q. 0 (0 .. "'OlOl(O:Jenen " .., :J en N .. -. O(OCD.OOlN ..,o.o.OJ:J=SD (00- :J(Oenen en "< 0 0." -'-0 co :J 3 (0 (0 .., Ol _ 0 ~. 0 . "'T1::T 0 (0 _ -. (D (0 Ol Ol o. (0 CQ. g ~ ~ _en en :Jeo-Ol co 0 en <=r ~ ..., ...." ....... CD (0 OlO(O a. = en -" 5 s. g- :c -::T()~ 0- (0 -. 0. (0 <<5' g- ::E O::TOO o:-'"cO :J en 0. !!!. g' II a. g-x-"~ ro(O~a: o.O::oC -~ OJg o. :cen g 8 0 II 00="'00 -. 0 cc . <g:Jroo :::;;::EOlOJ o' g CD :c 0l0.70 ~. (J'" <=r~0Cf! m o.~m en::E(O- . -..., (0 =0.., o C I ::Een(j) <=r1l0 (Oco~ (0 -::E en 0 0 en .., 0 ::T30. Qto -'::' 0-; ~~ :J (0 Ol en ~8. ~<=r (0 (0 en :J o - Ol -0 -0 o' Ol S[ (0 o - ::T (0 -;-; .., .., (0 (0 (0 (0 en en -- ::T ::T !!l.!!l. Ol"'O eo ~ 0.(0 ~. ~r Ol 3 en (0 ~9: Ol co a. Ol :J (0 (0 .., o ct Ol :J a. en Ol CD' - '-:=:: ::0 (0 ::E o .., 0. o C .., .., (0 :J - or :J cc C Ol (0 .(0 0- C - 3 Ol 5' m S' en - Ol :J 0. Ol .., 0. en (j) () o -0 (0 o - 0"'0 -c 0'" ..,-0 0.0 -.en :J (0 ~ Ol o :J (00. S- CD :J - )> "'0 ~ o. Ol - o. :J <=r~ (O::T (0 Ol "'0 - .., - (0"< en-o (0 (0 :< 0 Ol- !:!:o. o (0 :J < .", (0 a -0 3 (0 :J - O(j) a.~ s.en Ole :J~ @::T .(0 o Ol (jj o 0- (0 Ol () ::T CD' < (0 a. s: ..., o c (0 ::T - ::T (0 Ol n. <. ~ .., (0 .0 C :::;. (0 en ,,::!! -.:J ~Q?. ':="'0 or .- ~ro~:J Olen(Oco o-oen:J !:!:(O(O~ @n.:<;::;: 0--(0 CD 0 ::E en. -2'0s: ~ 2"8..(0 g eo (0 S. -en 0._ Ol -.Ol (0 aro..,;a 05' a. m 0 -(Oen- (O<-s: ~. ~ =f (0 en 0 0 !:!:"'O C (J :J3cc;::;: (0 (0 ::T "< <=r:J00 (0:+5.;; (0__ OO::T~ o .., (0 3 < ~ 0-. (0 Ol -.:J ~ S.-< CS ........ Ol 0 ::!!0l:J:J (0 en 0.- :""iii'::E0 .............., ;:::+: 0l::T en o (0 < (0 o "'0 3 (0 :J - "'U or :J o .., OJ c 0:: S. cc "'U (0 3 - . . . . . ~ 3. 5 8. ~ g' :J -0 :J <=r.g 0- c Ol s:: 0 s:: !!!.. ro S- g. 0< ~ m (0 a. Olo-cal ~. ~ ~..g co. Q o ~<::- :J(O:J '" Ol (0 !!!. 0 "< en. :J Q. _ .., (0 0 W -0 3 g- :J :i" o. -0 Ol ~. 0 ~.en (0 ~ (O(O...,::J :J..,enen:J:J:JOl(O(O :J~o- (0 Ol -:J'" "'U - !:!: :J ::T 0 en (0"'0 "'0 ::T 0. 0 "'0 or en Q?. ..!, (0 ~ ~ en -0 5- (0 !!!. 0 :JO-o(O~Ol 0"'=330-0 :J .., en ,~ :J 0 0 0l:J (0 ~ 0 _..0 a. -0 -0 Ol -.. .., ""'c -0 0. C -. "'::!. Ol X :J -0 .:7 (0 -. 0 Ol :J -. - .., -.. g: ~ ~ ro ro ~. - 0. 3 ~. 0 < 0."< 05.0.3 a. (0 -0 C :J ~. Q?. "'0 -. - =t' 0 (0 9: ::!. 3 ::E 0. C ..,:J-oO< Ol<<en=(O~ .g ro 0 ~ Qt en ~ !!l. C ~ $. . (0 en "'0 0 0 -Ol!!!. (0 ~ - en S. .., -. (0 - - - OJ (0 c 0 - 0. ~ .., _ 0- "< Ol -. ::T OJ .., ':<; ~ "< !!!. eo CD S. ~ ~ Ol ;; (0 G')!:!:-.g-(O Ol_eno-2:o~ QlQt~,,<o ~eo CD9Ieo(O o.N3w:J en (0 Olen~Ol S'g 0 a.0l c en 3 S.~ (O(O<enen en-g 0 (0- "'0 -. Q?. -. S. Oi () c . ~ (0 (j) ::0 (0 ::;. -. :J en_ -. 0 (0 - ~ (0 - ..... -. 3co:::3CP Olen 0 Ol~ "'O-Ol S[0l - 2:- .rr m053 (O~ g ~ 0-= (0 (0 :J "< gS:418.~ - 00 -,..., g c $. ::T 0 <C ca !!!. (0 <C ~ 0 () :J s: -:J 0 N' (O::T03(O en(O-30l ;::;: -0 -. C :J (0 ro ~ ~.o. ~ ~ -<~ :<!:!: (0 !!l. ~ ~ o.en :< :Je (0 8.~ ~ 0 ~ ro en' 'S. m!!l. g cr en <. <c ::I S' (0 :J III en a. Ol CD ~ C ~~ ~ o 0 ..., _ "'0 (0 o 3 en CD ~ g Ol _ .., .., @ en C :J a. (0 .., .., (0 < CD. ~ C :J 0. (0 .., .., (0 < CD. ~ "'Co .., ., 00. < -. -.::1 III III -. ::I o ("l ::I CD ?O...., (1) "'1 :5. ?E V:J >-0 8."'1 .. (1) ......V:J ~ ~ s::: ~ ~ g. ~o Q No.. oS' ~~ () (1) ?O (1) V:J (1) e; () ::r' m X "'C Di" ::I III .... Cr ::I o .... "'C ., o < (ii' Cr ::I (") c ., ., CD ::I .... (") ;:;: '< (") o 0. CD "'C o .... CD ::I .... ~ ;:0 CD ("l o 3 3 CD ::I 0. D! .... Cr ::I ~ ~ =- s: .... ..... Cl - )> "'0 "'0 co 00 en <: c,- ![ o' :J en 0-:;:3 0la.0l)> ~ iii. co:g ~:g a. ~ 00 CO -. CO CO CO (") :J 00 !!!. 0) Q. OO)-O-en "'0 a. :J CO :J CO -' aco,<a.oa.o <0 ....._O):J -. .., 0) 0 ..... ..... 0 ~.,.....a,....,.. ~,........... O~_~CO~Ol :Jcoo OJ N en 0 0-(")0 OJo sa. 3 a: 3' ~ ~ :2. -. a. -- a. "" :J ~~co(") 3.<0 en o' :J 0 a 0 0 ("):Jo-C:)>-=R 00'<~a.)>C=j" a. _ 0) =~. a. co co 00 :J. 55 c' .., . :J'< )>.....en 3 '<"'0<3.....30) 00 .., -. co '< noQ..:Jco~ .....<O).....:J'-' .., iii' ~ 3 !""" co ~~rg~)> :::;. 0 en 0- co -~co a. ~ W(J) I CO ~co 0) ,,:=:: _.0) <on ~ 01 co - a. (J) co n ..... o. :J en ~ o I W I ~ ~ o I W I ~ .0 ~ o I W I ~ W ~ o I ;:0;:0 co co .n"'O c:- _.0) .., n co co 3 3 co co :J :J cn::j .., co co (")-o$: gg.~ enco~ q"Q.o c: _. a. n 0 en ~:Jo 00- :J c: .., S' <0 CD -0 ~ !!!. -i ~ CD ~<g ~ 00 en n _' nCO~::!'!a. ~~~~~ . .....CO:JCO o' CD ::: (5 :J -. CD "'0 -o~co~ or 0. 0) ~ :J0l:J= .....coa.- oa.eno- 0- _.co '" 0 <0 .., '" :J :J co en ..... ::!i.n O)~nc: < co 00 :::;. ~-ia~ OCD~"'" .., co 0 0 en 0.., ~ a. co o -"'0 ~ ~or :J a. n en co ~ N"'O )> ga"'O co.....- en ~ ~ a. ~-. c:O:J ..,:Ja. S' 0) 0' <O:JO) na.~ o ..... :J :J ~<O en co..... ....._~ 2 0 co nn..... .....0)'< o. ~"'O :Joco . :J 0 0- ;:::3 ~O) co..... co "'0 ::!. .., 0) 0- .....c: co en Q.co co a. a._ o .., 8" 0- co m0)300)C"'O~3n-oO)~O)co""'en-enm c~<- 0 _-..,eno.....:J_~. ~30<~~0)0)0l a-coo.....xon- n-:J~~~:J:J'<icoa._c:Olff@E~en ~ :2. :;: .., ~:J co '< 0- q" n :;: co :J Q: 3 <0 9: 0- S- co3enocoO)a.acoc:~~~a.~O)co:Jco<o enc:O)_en",oO).....O)Q.<_-co~.....o<O ..... 0)3..........O)coen~",o~co:J~xcoco-co~.., 0- Ol~en~",oco~:J&~ !a.~COOl~m 09:.., en 0 0)"'" 0 :J..,:J-o-~.n~coen < 0) 0)"0 0 a..., CD <"'0 n 3 O:J,< en c: ~n ~ 3 ~ a Q. 0 ..... co co ~ S. 00 n <0 ...... -C. ~ co ~ ~cooo"'Oa-aena.~<og(5~~)>30a.a. co..... coco~""''''o-a. en,~ co.., co - ~ a. CXl ~ co ,<' en:J co ...... S. 3 :J '" ~ < :J .., ~ '< co .n ~ en .., co -. ..... 0 0 co 0)0'. ~3-c: .....)>O)~.....oo!!t:J- "'03<0 ~-~3~00)~~~=00~0)-3'O)CO co "'N~C:~:J:JCOcocoo-~""'o= :J"'O)oo 0)--enn.....a.a.N3CO:J~:J0)c:a.0)=..... cO ~ 5' ~ 0 ~ ~ ..... g 0) 3 ~ ..... g 3 3 g n o' C') "'~O)co:J 0l0_.~ O)..,o:J"'O :Jo:J;:;: 00 ~enO) ~:J<Ol:JCO~ ..,Olen:J..... '< a. co :J ~ q" ;::l!"'Q. '-' <0 co -. a. co '-' 0 0 ...... en ~ co en 00 Olc: CO:J co a enco_.....~ q"0l C') . 3"'Onn"'<o'" 0"00)5 "OO)COiir3c:..... 0 - co "'0 co ~ n"O ~ ::!l a S' ..... :;: CD ..... Q. -en 0 n 00 Q. "T1 ^' .., ..... 0 0 - 00 n ..... co co 0) co 0-. < ~.., CD cO' "" 0 ~ :J 3 0) -. co co a. a. :J en 3 0) co 0 co . ~<coo"O:J~~~.....0.....~"O:J:J3:J..... NCD~q"-~ena._~~:J~~o~a.COOlo ~~~m~~~o~~ag~.u~~~agg amen:g~~~3~coa.~~:~~~en 0) ~~Oa.CDNCO~~~or-~"Oa.~O) ~~co_a.co-O)oO)"'OncoO)- en< "0 0) ~ - ..... -. en en c: :J - _.:J - :J _ CO o<-.....~co c:.....en~:Jn-<o a. -. S. :J ~ CO CD ...... CO <0 S. 0- 0 a<o mCO en ~ !fI <0 co_ (J) co CO 0) ..... 00 n ~ co a. o "'0 ..... o' :J en ,,(J) -. CO ~co ~~ 0) n ~ co a. (J) CO n ..... o. :J - "T1 cO. ~ ~ o I m I ~ o - r - o - :;: co N o :J S' <0 (") o a. co $: c 0) :J S. a. ..... co 0) .., S' .., co 5' < co (D' n ~ c: .., .., co :J ..... n 0 a. co .., CO .n c: :::;. CO 3 co :J ..... ~ -0;:0 .., co m ::;. CO en =< co 00 ~ ~o o .., :Ja. 05' ..,<0 a. 0) S':J 0)00 :J S. n n ~E a. CO S. "'0 .., o "0 o en CO a. -i .., co CO - iJO .., ., o Q. < -. _. ::::J (/I III -. ::::J o n :::I CD :;:ci~ (1) ""I S.~ en "'d 8.""1 .. (1) en <"";(1) S ~ .... a ~ g' - pQ No.. oS' a:;~ n (1) :;:ci (1) en (1) ~ (") i:l'" m X "0 Ci ::::J III - cr ::::J o - iJ ., o < iii' cr ::::J (") c ., ., CD ::::J - iJ o - CD ::::J - ~ o "0 - 0' ::::J (/I :;:0 CD n o 3 3 CD :::I Q. III - 0' :::I trl ~ =- .... C" .... .... (j - 10-6-11: TREE PRESERVATION: Fig. 1 (A) Intent: It is the intent of the city of Farmington to preserve wooded areas throughout the city and with respect to future site development, to retain, as far as practicable, substantial existing tree cover. (B) Credit For Existing Trees: Credit for the retention of existing trees which are of acceptable species, size and location may be given to satisfy the minimum number requirements set forth in this chapter. (C) Wooded Area Restrictions: The following restrictions shall apply to all development occurring in wooded areas: 1. Structures shall be located in such a manner that the maximum number of trees shall be preserved. 2. Prior to granting of a final plat, development plan, or building permit, it shall be the duty of the person seeking the permit to demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the cutting of trees on the site. 3. Forestation, reforestation or landscaping shall utilize a variety of tree species as identified in this chapter. 4. Development including grading and contouring shall take place in such a manner that the root zone aeration stability of existing trees shall not be affected. Trees to be preserved shall be staked as provided in this chapter. Notwithstanding the above, the removal of trees seriously damaged by storms, or other natural causes, shall not be prohibited. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002) 10-6-10: LANDSCAPING: Fig. 2 (L)Tree Protection In Construction Zones: 1. Specifications: Existing trees and vegetation that are to be saved shall be protected from all construction activities, including earthwork operations, movement and storage of equipment, and materials and dumping of toxic materials. A minimum protection zone shall be established by the installation of temporary fencing around existing vegetation to be preserved, placing the fencing no closer to the trees than their drip lines, and this information shown and noted on the plans. Protective fencing shall be maintained throughout the construction period. Alternative protection measures may be approved by the zoning officer. Construction details which indicate special techniques that will be employed to save trees are required for all existing trees for which credit is desired. Existing trees will be counted as fulfilling the landscaping requirements of this section. Trees counted shall be all existing deciduous trees with a trunk size of four inches (4") or larger, measured at four and one- half feet (4 1/2') above the ground and all existing evergreen trees measuring five (5) vertical feet or more in height. 2. Replacement: If any of the trees required to be retained or trees planted as part of the landscaping plan should die within a period of eighteen (18) months after completion of the activities associated with construction of the site, the owner of the property must replace the trees within six (6) months at a ratio of one to one (1:1) with an approved tree having a minimum diameter of two inches (2") measured at a point six inches (6") above the natural grade. Shrubbery or other plantings which die within eighteen (18) months of completion of the activities shall be replaced in kind within six (6) months. Fig. 3 Tree Removal Threshold Options OPTION 1 Column I Zoning District 1. A 2. E-1 and E-2 3. R-1A, R1-B, R-IC and R-2 4. R-3A, R-3B, R-3C and R-3D 5. B-1, B-2, and P 6. B-3, B-4, I-I and 1-2 Column II Threshold 25% 25% 30% 40% 50% 60% OPTION 2 Tree removal allowance. Specimen tree, significant tree and significant woodland removal shall be in accordance with the city-approved tree preservation plan and in no case shall the amount of removal exceed the following percentages: (a) Single lot development. (1) Single-unit residential, 20 percent. (2) Commercial and multiunit residential, 30 percent. (b) Multi-lot development. (1) Single-phase development process. (aa) Single unit residential, 40 percent. (bb) Commercial and multiunit residential, 47.5 percent. (2) Two-phase development. (aa) Initial site development, 25 percent. (bb) Individual lot development. a. Single unit residential, 20 percent. b. Commercial or multi-unit residential, 30 percent 2. Exception. When practical difficulties or practical hardships result from strict compliance with the provisions of the paragraph, the city may permit significant tree, specimen tree, and significant woodland removal in excess of the allowable limits. In the event such exception is granted, a reforestation plan or a cash mitigation will be implemented. The city shall determine which form of mitigation shall be utilized. OPTION 3 Tree preservation standards A. Existing trees must be preserved. The total tree diameter on site is the total diameter of all trees on the site, minus the diameter of trees that are listed in Section 33.630.030, Exempt from these Regulations. The applicant must choose one ofthe following options. Significant trees are listed in Table 630-1: 1. Option 1: Preserve at least 35% of total tree diameter on the site; 2. Option 2: Preserve at least 50% of the significant trees on the site and at least 30 % of the total tree diameter on the site; 3. Option 3: Preserve at least 75% of the significant trees on the site and at least 25% of the total tree diameter on the site; 4. Option 4: Preserve all of the significant trees on the site and at least 20 percent of the total tree diameter on the site; or 5. Option 5: If the site is larger than one acre, preserve at least 35% of the total tree canopy area on the site. Fig.4 Tree Replacement Options OPTION 1 Tree Removed (diameter) Replaced Tree Requirement (diameter) 8" deciduous 12" deciduous 6' coniferous 12' coniferous 2 - 3" deciduous or 2 - 6' coniferous 3 - 3" deciduous or 3 - 6' coniferous 1 - 6' coniferous 2 - 6' coniferous OPTION 2 Base Line Canopy Coverage per acre - The canopy coverage existing at time development application is submitted. Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 28% High Density Residential 35% Medium Density Residential 40% Low Density Residential 55% Large Lot Development 68% If base line canopy coverage is not met at time of application, developer needs to plant trees to meet above percentages. One tree = 1,089 sf. Trees installed at 2 lIz inch caliper. No less than 20% of trees shall be conifers. Conifers installed at 6 feet in height with average conifers planted at 7 feet in height. OPTION 3 1. Tree Replacement Provisions A. Schedule Size of Tree Damaged or Destroyed Number of Replacement Trees Category Category Category A B C Coniferous, 12 to 24 feet high 1 2 4 Coniferous, 24 feet or higher 2 4 8 Hardwood Deciduous, 6 to 20 inches 1 2 4 diameter Hardwood Deciduous, 21 to 30 inches 2 4 8 diameter Softwood Deciduous, 20 to 30 inches I 2 4 diameter Softwood Deciduous, greater than 30 inches 2 4 8 diameter B. Significant Woodland Replacement. Where replacement of a significant woodland is required, the Applicant shall be responsible for furnishing and installing one (1) Category A replacement tree or two (2) Category B replacement trees or four (4) Category C replacement trees for every 125 square feet of significant woodland damaged or destroyed, or any increment thereof. C. Size of Replacement Trees. 1) Category A trees shall be no less than the following sizes: a) Deciduous trees, not less than four (4) caliper inches. b) Coniferous trees, not less than twelve (12) feet in height. 2) Category B trees shall be no less than the following sizes: a) Deciduous trees, not less than two and one-half (2 ~) caliper inches. b) Coniferous trees, not less than six (6) feet in height. 3) Category C trees shall be no less than the following sizes: a) Deciduous trees, not less than one and one-half (1 ~) caliper inches. b) Coniferous trees, not less than four (4) feet in height. D. Species Requirement. Where ten (10) or more replacement trees are required, not more than fifty (50) percent of the replacement trees shall be of the same species of tree without the approval of the City. f~. ~ . ,: - LL,- t.;., Fig. 5 AppealsNiolations 10-3-4: APPEALS: An appeal from a ruling of the zoning officer may be taken by the property owner or agent within thirty (30) days after the order utilizing the following procedure: (A) The property owner or agent shall file with the zoning officer a notice of appeal stating the specific grounds upon which the appeal is made. (B) The zoning officer shall transmit the appeal to the board of adjustment for study and recommendation at its next regular meeting. (C) The board of adjustment shall make its decision within sixty (60) days and a copy of the motion shall be mailed to the applicant by the zoning officer. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002) 10-3-10: APPEALS TO CITY COUNCIL: A party may appeal a decision of the zoning board of adjustment when issues of fact, procedure or other finding made by the board are in dispute. Appeals must be filed with the city within ten (10) days of the final decision ofthe board of adjustment. Building permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed with the planning department. If permits have been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction and/or usage shall cease until the city council has made a final determination of the appeal. The city council shall conduct a hearing within sixty (60) days after the receipt by city staff of the appeal from an action by the board of adjustment. As provided in subsection 10-3-7(C) of this chapter, notice of the hearing shall be mailed to property owners adjacent to the subject property disregarding public rights of way. Any person may appear and testify at the hearing either in person or by duly authorized agent or attorney. A fee to be established by resolution of the city council shall be paid by the appellant at the time the notice of appeal is filed. (Ord. 002-469,2- 19-2002) 10-3-13: ENFORCEMENT PENALTIES: Any violation of this title may be enjoined by the city council through proper legal channels and any person who violates this title shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof be punished to the maximum as provided by law. Each day a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. (Ord. 002-469,2-19- 2002) 10-3-14: ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES: In case any building, structure or land is, or is proposed to be, erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, converted, maintained or used in violation of this title, the city council, in addition to other remedies, may institute in the name of the city, any appropriate action or proceeding to prevent, restrain, correct or abate such building structure or land, or to prevent, in or about such premises, any act, conduct, business or use constituting a violation. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002) '-. ()-'~ ~ Page 1 of2 Lee Smick From: Leon Orr [Ieon.orr@charter.net] Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 2:55 PM To: Kevan Soderberg (Council); Steve Wilson; David Pritzlaff; David McKnight; Christy J. Fogarty [External Email Account] Cc: Lee Smick Subject: Tree Preservation Council One of your current subject is consideration of tree preservation in developments. I would like to offer the following comments: I believe that Farmington needs a reasonable tree preservation ordinance/policy. One that protects as many mature trees of desirable species as possible whild also considering landowner rights. Both can be met. My first suggestion, which may have already been done, is to get copies of othar area cities ordinances/policies on this subject and take good ideas out for us. The ordinance/policy should contain incentives and penalties for developers. It is easy to observe that developers like to "create" as many walkout lots as possible because they bring more money and lend themselves to more desirable home designs for families. This is easy to accomplish in an area like that now being developed south of 195th street. More difficult on wooded properties. One of the more interesting and effective developments that I have ever observed was SUMMIT OAKS north of Co. 42 at the Apple Valley/Bumsville border. They cut in the roads and boulevards but left the lots "as is" and then each house was allowed to determine how to save the trees by designing the house to fit the lot and avoid tree destruction AND to take advantage of the trees that could be saved. This is a good option to requiring a developer to grade the entire site and shape the lots. It works good on treed areas. When we built Farmington Lutheran Church we went to extreme measures to save every tree possible. I know that this was easier than creating a large number of small lots but the same effort should be made to save mature trees of a desirable species, i.e. oak, maple, ash, etc. There was some discussion about removing trees BEFORE applying for development. As an example of dealing with that I would tell you how St. Croix County Wisconsin deals with that. When applying for a subdivision it must be certified that NO land grading, site prepartion, REMOVAL OF TREES, alteration of drainageways water features, etc.......has taken place in the preceeding YEAR. This reasonably preserves landowner rights but prevents intentional actions in advance of subdivision requests to avoid known policies of 2/6/2006 Page 2 of2 the city during development planning/approval. Leon W. Orr 19161 Echo Lane Farmington, MN 55024 651-463-8739 Cell 651-334-7574 leon.orr@charter.net 2/6/2006 /3CL. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, Acting City Administrator ~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer Kevin Carroll, Director of Community Development FROM: SUBJECT: Development Building Permit Policies DATE: April 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION At the April 3, 2006 City Council meeting during Roundtable, staff was asked: What is the policy regarding the issuance of building permits in new developments? DISCUSSION The policy(s) regarding building permit issuance in new developments are outlined in the development contracts for the proj ects. Depending on the development and the unique circumstances that each development has, the standard language may be modified as approved by the City Council. The standard language that is included in the City's development contracts with developers regarding building permit issuance is as follows: Standard Contract Lam!uaf!e 6. Required Public Improvements and Assessments. All bike trails and sidewalks to be constructed as part of the development must be completed before building permits will be issued. 34. Miscellaneous. D. Building permits shall not be issued prior to completion of site grading, submittal of as-built grading plan, public and private utility installation, curb and gutter, installation of erosion control devices, installation of permanent street signs and wetland buffer and natural area signs, paving with a bituminous surface, retaining walls if any, site seeding, mulching, disk anchoring and submittal of a surveyor's certificate denoting all appropriate monuments have been installed. Only construction of noncombustible materials shall be allowed until the water system is operational. If permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents or third parties. Normal procedure requires that streets needed for access to approved uses shall be paved with a bituminous surface before building permits may be issued. However, the City Engineer is authorized to waive this Building Permit Procedures April 17, 2006 Page 2 requirement when weather related circumstances prevent completion of street projects before the end of the construction season. The Developer is responsible for maintaining said streets in a condition that will assure the access of emergency vehicles at all times when such a waiver is granted. Following is the development contract language that was included in the development contract for Executive Estates. The development contract for Executive Estates was approved by the City Council on October 3,2005. Executive Estates 6. Required Public Improvements. All bike trails and sidewalks to be constructed as part of the development must be completed before building permits will be issued. 22Sth Street must be paved from TH3 through Cambrian Way before building permits will be issued consistent with paragraph 34D. 34. Miscellaneous. D. Building permits shall not be issued prior to completion of site grading, submittal of as-built grading plan, public and private utility installation, curb and gutter, installation of erosion control devices, installation of permanent street signs and wetland buffer and natural area signs, paving with a bituminous surface, retaining walls if any, site seeding, mulching, disk anchoring and submittal of a surveyor's certificate denoting all appropriate monuments have been installed. Only construction of noncombustible materials shall be allowed until the water system is operational. If permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents or third parties. Normal procedure requires that streets needed for access to approved uses shall be paved with a bituminous surface before building permits may be issued. However, the City Engineer is authorized to waive this requirement when weather related circumstances prevent completion of street projects before the end of the construction season. The Developer is responsible for maintaining said streets in a condition that will assure the access of emergency vehicles at all times when such a waiver is granted. Following is the development contract language that was included in the development contract for Parkview Ponds. The development contract for Parkview Ponds was approved by the City Council on May 16, 2005. Parkview Ponds 6. Required Public Improvements. All bike trails and sidewalks to be constructed as part of the development must be completed before building permits will be issued. 34. Miscellaneous. D. Building permits shall not be issued prior to completion of site grading, submittal of as-built grading plan, public and private utility installation, curb and gutter, installation of erosion control Building Permit Procedures April 17, 2006 Page 3 devices, installation of permanent street signs and wetland buffer and natural area signs, paving with a bituminous surface, retaining walls if any, site seeding, mulching, disk anchoring and submittal of a surveyor's certificate denoting all appropriate monuments have been installed. Only construction of noncombustible materials shall be allowed until the water system is operational. If permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents or third parties. Normal procedure requires that streets needed for access to approved uses shall be paved with a bituminous surface before building permits may be issued. However, the City Engineer is authorized to waive this requirement when weather related circumstances prevent completion of street projects before the end of the construction season. The Developer is responsible for maintaining said streets in a condition that will assure the access of emergency vehicles at all times when such a waiver is granted. Building permits may be issued prior to the completion of public improvements for Lots 1-6, of Block 1 for the purposes of constructing model homes. The Developers engineer shall verify the foundation grades and submit verification of compliance with the approved grading plans in writing to the City prior to commencement of building construction. No certificate of occupancy will be issued for these lots until the completion of improvements as outlined in this agreement. All work shall cease on these lots during the installation of curb and gutter, sidewalk and bituminous paving. High early concrete shall be used for all concrete work fronting these lots. No construction or deliveries may occur for the lots under construction for 1 week following concrete curb and gutter and sidewalk installation to allow for adequate curing. The watermain and fire hydrant stubbed to provide fire protection for these models per Exhibit "E" shall be tested per the City of Farmington's Engineering Guidelines before permits shall be issued. The developer shall adhere to the letter and map attached as Exhibits "0" and "E" respectively. The Developer assumes all liability to cure any issues that arise from the issuance of building permits before street construction is completed. Following is the development contract language that was included in the development contract for Hometown Addition. The development contract for Hometown Addition was approved by the City Council on September 19, 2005. Hometown Addition 6. Required Public Improvements. All bike trails and sidewalks to be constructed as part of the development must be completed before building permits will be issued. 34. Miscellaneous. D. Building permits shall not be issued prior to completion of site grading, submittal of as-built grading plan, public and private utility installation, curb and gutter, installation of erosion control devices, installation of permanent street signs and wetland buffer and natural area signs, paving with a bituminous surface, retaining walls if any, site seeding, mulching, disk anchoring and submittal of a surveyor's certificate denoting all appropriate monuments have been installed. Only construction of noncombustible materials shall be allowed until the water system is operational. If permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, Building Permit Procedures April 17, 2006 Page 4 the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents or third parties. Normal procedure requires that streets needed for access to approved uses shall be paved with a bituminous surface before building permits may be issued. However, the City Engineer is authorized to waive this requirement when weather related circumstances prevent completion of street projects before the end of the construction season. The Developer is responsible for maintaining said streets in a condition that will assure the access of emergency vehicles at all times when such a waiver is granted. Building permits for the developments referenced above have been issued in accordance with their respective development contracts, with the exception that additional consideration has been given in the case of Executive Estates. Since issues with Castle Rock Township have impacted the timing of completing 225th Street, staff has been working with the developer of Executive Estates since late 2005 to identify an access solution that would allow permits to be issued before 225th Street is complete. In the case of the Hometown Development, one permit has been issued on a lot that was an existing lot that had a previous home on it, adjacent to 209th Street, which is paved. Sewer and water services for this lot were existing from 209th Street. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED For Council's information. Respectfully Submitted, ~YJ1~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer .~/ ~- 'iv~ Director of Community Development cc: file City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin1rton.mn.us TO: Mayor, City Council and Acting City Administrator FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Schedule for 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Process DATE: April 17, 2006 A City Council member inquired last week about the timetable for updating the City's existing Comprehensive Plan. The following information is provided in response to that request: 1. The Metropolitan Council will require all cities in the 7-county metropolitan area to update their existing comprehensive plans by September of 2008. 2. City staff members have had preliminary conversations with one another, and with Bonestroo representatives, regarding general time frames for completing the planning-related and engineering-related components of the 2008 Update. The current plan is to continue, during the next few months, the discussions that have already begun regarding topics such as the preferred sequencing of events, the role of consultants, the projected cost(s) ofthe required technical work, and the inter-relationships between the planning!1and use issues and the . . . engmeenng Issues. 3. Staff members anticipate that a City Council workshop, or possibly a joint City CouncillPlanning Commission workshop, will be needed in the Fall of 2006 to discuss recommendations from staff regarding the format of (and schedule for) the 2008 Update process. By that time, more information will presumably be available regarding currently unresolved high school siting issues, which will have a significant impact on the preliminary 2008 Update discussions regarding long-term land use and zoning issues. 4. Staff members further anticipate that the vast majority of the actual work on the 2008 Update will be conducted by City staff and City consultants during 2007, with the overall goal of having the City Council adopt a draft of the 2008 Update by the end of2007. 5. The first six months of 2008 would then be devoted to public informational meetings on the draft of the 2008 Update and meetings with other potentially affected jurisdictions (Lakeville, adjacent townships, etc.), which would allow enough time for the City Council to approve whatever final modifications might be required in order to submit the final 2008 Update to the Metropolitan Council well in advance of the September 2008 deadline. 6. The work that has already been done on the system plan updates for the southeast region, and the work that is about to be done with regard to the geographic components ofthe Economic Development Plan, may enable the City to expedite the general schedule set forth above. Values Statement Excellence and Quality in the Delivery of Services We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional and cost-effective manner. Fiscal Responsibility We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. Ethics and Integrity We believe that ethics and integrity are the foundation blocks of public trust and confidence and that all meaningful relationships are built on these values. Open and Honest Communication We believe that open and honest communication is essential for an informed and involved citizenry and to foster a positive working environment for employees. Cooperation and Teamwork We believe that the public is best served when departments and employees work cooperatively as a team rather than at cross purposes. Visionary Leadership and Planning We believe that the very essence of leadership is to be visionary and to plan for the future. Positive Relations with the Community We believe that positive relations with the community and public we serve leads to positive, involved, and active citizens. Professionalism We believe that continuous improvement is the mark of professionalism and are committed to applying this principle to the services we offer and the development of our employees. R55CKSUM LOG23000VO CITY OF FARMINGTON 4/13/200610:38:12 Council Check Summary Page - COUNCIL MEETING ON APRIL 17, 2006 4/3/2006 - 4/16/2006 Vendor Business Unit Object Amount 41MPRINT ICE ARENA MN SALES TAX DUE 51.51- ICE ARENA OPERATIONS EXPENSE PROGRAMMING EXPENSE 843.96 792.45 ADAMSON INDUSTRIES CORP CAPITAL ACQUISITION MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 113.75 11375 AFFINITY PLUS FEDERAL CREDIT U EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND CREDIT UNION PAYABLE 2,650.00 2,650.00 AFLAC EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,180.00 3,180.00 ALCORN BEVERAGE CO. INC. DOWNTOWN LIQUOR REV & EXP COST OF GOODS SOLD 11,835.60 PILOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE COST OF GOODS SOLD 11,460.65 23,296.25 ALEX AIR APPARATUS INC FIRE CAPITAL PROJECTS MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 18,000.00 18,000.00 ALLlANT MECHANICAL POLICE ADMINISTRATION EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 304.50 BUILDING MAINT SERVICES EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 455.76 SEWER OPERATIONS EXPENSE EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 569.70 SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 569.70 STORM WATER UTILITY OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 113.94 WATER UTILITY EXPENSE EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 569.70 2,583.30 ALLSTATE SALES & LEASING CORP. SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS VEHICLES 97,196.00 97,196.00 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING I SPRUCE ST EXTENSION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 994.30 994.30 AMERICAN PAYMENT CENTERS SEWER OPERATIONS EXPENSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19.11 SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19.11 STORM WATER UTILITY OPERATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19.11 WATER UTILITY EXPENSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19.11 76.44 AN COM COMMUNICATIONS INC CAPITAL ACQUISITION MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 401.00 '-J 401.00 '1... R55CKSUM LOG23000VO CITY OF FARMINGTON 4/13/200610:38:12 Council Check Summary Page - 2 4/3/2006 - 4/16/2006 Vendor Business Unit Object Amount ANDERSENINC,EARLF STREET MAINTENANCE SIGNS & STRIPPING MATERIALS 93.13 93.13 ANTENNA PLUS LLC CAPITAL ACQUISITION MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 344.06 344.06 APPLE VALLEY FORD PATROL SERVICES VEHICLE REPAIR SERVICE 362.55 362,55 ARCTIC GLACIER ICE DOWNTOWN LIQUOR REV & EXP COST OF GOODS SOLD 138.75 PILOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE COST OF GOODS SOLD 247.45 386.20 BARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND MN SALES TAX DUE 41.67- MEADOWv'IEW PARK OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 682.67 641.00 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC PARK MAINTENANCE OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 1,009.09 ICE ARENA OPERATIONS EXPENSE EQUIP SUPPLIES & PARTS 57.00 1,066.09 BELLBOY CORPORATION DOWNTOWN LIQUOR REV & EXP COST OF GOODS SOLD 994.22 DOWNTOWN LIQUOR REV & EXP OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 156.59 PILOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE COST OF GOODS SOLD 1,404.49 PILOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 181.60 2,736.90 BELLOWS, ANDY PATROL SERVICES MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 40.50 40.50 BELZER'S CHEV/DODGElKIA, JEFF STREET MAINTENANCE VEHICLE SUPPLIES & PARTS 10.51 10.51 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 46.73 EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND COFFEE FUND 140.17 186.90 BJ PRODUCTIONS DOWNTOWN LIQUOR REV & EXP UNIFORMS & CLOTHING 61.00 PILOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE UNIFORMS & CLOTHING 61.00 122.00 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO Vendor BOERBOOM, ROB E10RIIIF, IAMII= BRAUN PUMP & CONTROLS BSN/PASSONS/GSC/CONLlN SPORTS BURNSVILLE, CITY OF CATCO PARTS SERVICE CHANT, BRANDON CHIEFS TOWING INC CINTAS-754 CITY OF FARMINGTON 4/13/200610:38:12 Council Check Summary Page - 3 4/3/2006 - 4/16/2006 Business Unit Object Amount INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 89,68 FIRE CAPITAL PROJECTS MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 56.42 WATER UTILITY EXPENSE EQUIP SUPPLIES & PARTS 31.40 177.50 r.I=IIII=RAI I=lIl11n RI=VI=IIIIII=1': RFCRFA TIOIII FEES - GENERAL 5000 50.00 SEWER OPERATIONS EXPENSE EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 1,768.42 1,768.42 GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET MN SALES TAX DUE 45.50- PARK MAINTENANCE OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 745.50 PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND MN SALES TAX DUE 4.55- TAMARACK PARK OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 74.51 769.96 PATROL SERVICES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,099.44 FIRE SERVICES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 549.73 1,649.17 SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS VEHICLE SUPPLIES & PARTS 195.43 FLEET OPERATIONS VEHICLE SUPPLIES & PARTS 767.97 963.40 GENERAL FUND REVENUES RECREATION FEES - GENERAL 450.00 450.00 SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS VEHICLE SUPPLIES & PARTS 265.00 265.00 POLICE ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 156.44 STREET MAINTENANCE UNIFORMS & CLOTHING 135.53 PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORMS & CLOTHING 282.58 BUILDING MAINT SERVICES UNIFORMS & CLOTHING 58.26 BUILDING MAINT SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 75.08 SEWER OPERATIONS EXPENSE UNIFORMS & CLOTHING 135.53 SEWER OPERATIONS EXPENSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 93.88 SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS UNIFORMS & CLOTHING 426.25 SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 93.88 STORM WATER UTILITY OPERATIONS UNIFORMS & CLOTHING 135.53 STORM WATER UTILITY OPERATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 18.76 R55CKSUM lOG23000VO CITY OF FARMINGTON 4/13/200610:38:12 Council Check Summary Page - 4 4/3/2006 - 4/16/2006 Vendor Business Unit Object Amount WATER UTILITY EXPENSE UNIFORMS & CLOTHING 135.53 WATER UTILITY EXPENSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 93.88 FLEET OPERATIONS VEHICLE SUPPLIES & PARTS 271.16 FLEET OPERATIONS UNIFORMS & CLOTHING 84.15 2,196.44 CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT llC DOWNTOWN LIQUOR REV & EXP BUilDING RENTAL 10,468.77 10,468.77 CMI MAILING & MARKETING SVS SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 422.31 422.31 CNH CAPITAL STREET MAINTENANCE RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT 393.42 PARK MAINTENANCE EQUIP SUPPLIES & PARTS 200.58 PARK MAINTENANCE RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT 417.05 1,011.05 COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES DOWNTOWN LIQUOR REV & EXP COST OF GOODS SOLD 695.68 PilOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE COST OF GOODS SOLD 1,255.20 1,950.88 COllEGE CITY BEVERAGE INC DOWNTOWN LIQUOR REV & EXP COST OF GOODS SOLD 10,676.40 PilOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE COST OF GOODS SOLD 8,178.50 18,854.90 COLLINS, JEFF & CHRISTY SEWER OPERATIONS REVENUE ENTERPRISE SALES 107.24 107.24 CONOCOPHllLlPS FLEET STREET MAINTENANCE FUEL 48.73 48.73 CULLIGAN ULTRAPURE INDUSTRIES DOWNTOWN LIQUOR REV & EXP OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 42.90 PilOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 2.20 45.10 DAKOTA COUNTY LICENSE CENTER PATROL SERVICES VEHICLE LICENSES, TAXES, FEES 319.00 PARK MAINTENANCE VEHICLE LICENSES, TAXES, FEES 39.50 358.50 DAKOTA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION HlllDEE RECONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,000.00 4,000.00 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO CITY OF FARMINGTON 4/13/2006 10:38:12 Council Check Summary Page - 5 4/3/2006 - 4/16/2006 Vendor Business Unit Object Amount DARLEY & CO, W.S. FIRE SERVICES EQUIP SUPPLIES & PARTS 87.97 FIRE SERVICES VEHICLE SUPPLIES & PARTS 179.11 267.08 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO DOIIIINTOIIIIN LIQUOR REV & EXP COST OF GOODS SOLD 570.10 PII OTKNOR IIQIIOR RFVFNIIF COST OF GOODS SOLD 415937 4,729.47 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 75.00 75.00 DICK'S SANITATION INC SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 21,693.03 21,693.03 EIDE BAILLY LLP GENERAL ACCOUNTING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,984.00 HRAlECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,821.00 ICE ARENA OPERATIONS EXPENSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 691.00 DOIIIINTOIIIIN LIQUOR REV & EXP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 493.50 PILOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 493.50 SEWER OPERATIONS EXPENSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 839.00 SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 839.00 WATER UTILITY EXPENSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 839.00 11,000.00 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS INC PATROL SERVICES OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 74.25 74.25 ESRI INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 2,322.20 2,322.20 EXTREME BEVERAGE LLC DOIIIINTOIIIIN LIQUOR REV & EXP COST OF GOODS SOLD 600.00 PILOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE COST OF GOODS SOLD 256.00 856.00 FARMINGTON CLINIC FIRE SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 640.00 640.00 FARMINGTON EMPLOYEE CLUB EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND EMPLOYEE CLUB 50.00 50.00 FARMINGTON PRINTING INC ADMINISTRATION OUTSIDE PRINTING 47.93 ENGINEERING SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIES 13.31 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO CITY OF FARMINGTON 4/13/200610:38:12 Council Check Summary Page - 6 4/3/2006 - 4/16/2006 Vendor Business Unit Object Amount SENIOR CENTER PROGRAMS OUTSIDE PRINTING 79.88 SEWER OPERATIONS EXPENSE OUTSIDE PRINTING 493.33 SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS OUTSIDE PRINTING 493.33 WATER UTILITY EXPENSE OUTSIDE PRINTING 493.34 1,621.12 FARMINGTON, CITY OF HUMAN RESOURCES MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 11.34 BUILDING INSPECTIONS OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 6.39 BUILDING INSPECTIONS TRAINING & SUBSISTANCE 32.00 PATROL SERVICES TRAINING & SUBSISTANCE 14.13 INVESTIGATION SERVICES TRAINING & SUBSISTANCE 12.10 FIRE SERVICES FUELS & LUBRICANTS 7.75 PARK MAINTENANCE OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 9.00 SENIOR CENTER PROGRAMS POSTAGE 15.00 107.71 FASTENAL COMPANY FIRE CAPITAL PROJECTS MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 75.40 75.40 FERRELL GAS PRODUCTS CO ICE ARENA OPERATIONS EXPENSE FUEL 95.06 95.06 FIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALTIES INC CAPITAL ACQUISITION OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 35,313.30 35,313.30 FIRE MARSHALS ASSN OF MN FIRE SERVICES SUBSCRIPTIONS & DUES 35.00 35.00 FIREHOUSE FIRE SERVICES SUBSCRIPTIONS & DUES 30.00 30.00 FORCE AMERICA SNOW REMOVAL SERVICES VEHICLE SUPPLIES & PARTS 139.31 SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS VEHICLE SUPPLIES & PARTS 94.23 233.54 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS-ACCESS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TELEPHONE 337.23 POLICE ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 143.05 FIRE SERVICES TELEPHONE 143.06 623.34 GALLES CORPORATION FIRE CAPITAL PROJECTS OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 1,092.11 1,092.11 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO CITY OF FARMINGTON 4/13/200610:38:12 Council Check Summary Page - 7 4/3/2006 - 4/16/2006 Vendor Business Unit Object Amount GANG, PATRICK & ANGELA SEWER OPERATIONS REVENUE ENTERPRISE SALES 53.46 53.46 GEISE, TRACY EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 1,005.00 1 005 00 GODFREY'S CUSTOM SIGNS PARK MAINTENANCE OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 23.43 23.43 GRAINGER INC SNOW REMOVAL SERVICES VEHICLE SUPPLIES & PARTS 101.22 101.22 GRIGGS COOPER & CO DOWNTOWN LIQUOR REV & EXP COST OF GOODS SOLD 10,983.97 PILOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE COST OF GOODS SOLD 16,074.93 27,058.90 HAGEN, T.E. ICE ARENA OPERATIONS EXPENSE PROGRAMMING EXPENSE 44.50 44.50 HA'M<INS INC WATER UTILITY EXPENSE CHEMICALS 9,240.18 9,240.18 HEALTH PARTNERS EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 6,509.04 6,509.04 HOHENSTEINS INC DOWNTOWN LIQUOR REV & EXP COST OF GOODS SOLD 550.00 PILOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE COST OF GOODS SOLD 567.25 1,117.25 HOME DEPOT BUILDING MAl NT SERVICES BUILDING REPAIR SERVICE 307.79 307.79 HORIZON CPO SEMINARS SWIMMING POOL OPERATIONS TRAINING & SUBSISTANCE 450.00 450.00 HYDRO METERING TECHNOLOGY WATER UTILITY EXPENSE EQUIP SUPPLIES & PARTS 13,546.80 13,546.80 ICERINK SUPPLY CO ICE ARENA OPERATIONS EXPENSE EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 127.16 127.16 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO CITY OF FARMINGTON 4/13/2006 10:38:12 Council Check Summary Page - 8 4/3/2006 - 4/16/2006 Vendor Business Unit Object Amount ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND ICMA PAYABLE 5,026.92 5,026.92 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS ADMINISTRATION EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 223.32 223.32 INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR CAPITAL ACQUISITION MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 6,278.00 6,278.00 ITL PATCH COMPANY INC PATROL SERVICES UNIFORMS & CLOTHING 520.63 520,63 JACOBSON ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS 208th ST WEST PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 26,526.87 26,526.87 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPAN DOWNTOWN LIQUOR REV & EXP COST OF GOODS SOLD 5,563.19 PILOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE COST OF GOODS SOLD 8,631.46 14,194.65 KALLEVIG, DUANE SENIOR CENTER PROGRAMS PROGRAMMING EXPENSE 18.32 18.32 KEEPRSINC POLICE ADMINISTRATION UNIFORMS & CLOTHING 105.90 PATROL SERVICES UNIFORMS & CLOTHING 182.75 288.65 KINDSETH, MARK FIRE SERVICES TRAINING & SUBSISTANCE 230.43 FIRE SERVICES MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 64.97 295.40 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND LELS DUES PAYABLE 240.50 240.50 LEXISNEXIS INVESTIGATION SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 150.00 150.00 LINDQUIST, BRIAN POLICE ADMINISTRATION OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 126.25 126.25 LINDSTROM, RONALD FIRE SERVICES TRAINING & SUBSISTANCE 20.00 20.00 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO CITY OF FARMINGTON 4/13/2006 10:38:12 Council Check Summary Page - 9 4/3/2006 - 4/16/2006 Vendor Business Unit Object Amount LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC SNOW REMOVAL SERVICES VEHICLE SUPPLIES & PARTS 542.62 542.62 LONE OAK COMPANIES INC SEWER OPERATIONS EXPENSE POSTAGE 150.00 SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS POSTAGE 150.00 ~T()RM WATFR IITIIITY ()PFRATI()N~ POSTAGF 15000 WATER UTILITY EXPENSE POSTAGE 150.00 600.00 LUND MARTIN CONSTRUCTION INC FIRE CAPITAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS 35,005.00 35,005.00 M S FOSTER & ASSOCIATES INC SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS VEHICLE SUPPLIES & PARTS 487.96 487.96 M. AMUNDSON LLP DOWNTOWN LIQUOR REV & EXP COST OF GOODS SOLD 835.34 PILOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE COST OF GOODS SOLD 271.21 1,106.55 MARK VII DISTRIBUTORS INC DOWNTOWN LIQUOR REV & EXP COST OF GOODS SOLD 4,410.05 PILOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE COST OF GOODS SOLD 6,637.19 11,047.24 MAXIMUM VOLTAGE PATROL SERVICES EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 142.95 STREET MAINTENANCE VEHICLE SUPPLIES & PARTS 67.04 209.99 MCNEARNEY HOMES, ROBERT ESCROW FUND DEPOSITS PAYABLE 2,000.00 2,000.00 MEDICA EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 42,825.04 42,825.04 MERRILL EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET MN SALES TAX DUE 18.77- PARK MAINTENANCE OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 307.52 288.75 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY PARK MAINTENANCE OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 1,889.68 1,889.68 METRO FIRE FIRE SERVICES EQUIP SUPPLIES & PARTS 40.07 40.07 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO CITY OF FARMINGTON 4/13/200610:38:12 Council Check Summary Page - 10 4/3/2006 - 4/16/2006 Vendor Business Unit Object Amount METROCALL INC POLICE ADMINISTRATION CELLULAR PHONES 15.73 SEWER OPERATIONS EXPENSE CELLULAR PHONES 1.87 WATER UTILITY EXPENSE CELLULAR PHONES 1.87 19.47 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SEWER OPERATIONS REVENUE SAC CHARGE RETAINER 47.569,50 47,569.50 MEYER, DAN FIRE SERVICES TRAINING & SUBSISTANCE 16.00 16.00 MIDWEST PLAYSCAPES INC FAIR HILLS PARK OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 729.55 PINE KNOLL PARK OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 729.50 1,459.05 MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPARTMENT PATROL SERVICES TRAINING & SUBSISTANCE 300.00 300.00 MINNESOTA AFSCME COUNCIL #5 EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND AFSCME UNION DUES PAYABLE 653.27 653.27 MINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOCIATION EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND MBA PAYABLE 108.34 108.34 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYS EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND HEALTH CARE SAVINGS PLAN 1,828.30 1,828.30 MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTE EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND CHILD SUPPORT PAYABLE 1,985.20 1,985.20 MN DEPT OF REVENUE EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND GARNISHMENT PAYABLE 268.63 268.63 MN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION FIRE SERVICES UNIFORMS & CLOTHING 254.05 FIRE SERVICES SUBSCRIPTIONS & DUES 220.00 FIRE SERVICES TRAINING & SUBSISTANCE 105.00 579.05 MOODY COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND CHILD SUPPORT PAYABLE 175.00 175.00 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO CITY OF FARMINGTON 4/13/200610:38:12 Council Check Summary Page - 11 4/3/2006 - 4/16/2006 Vendor Business Unit Object Amount MURPHY, JAMES PATROL SERVICES TRAINING & SUBSISTANCE 40.17 PATROL SERVICES MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 60.06 100.23 MUZAK - NORTH CENTRAL DOWNTOWN LIQUOR REV & EXP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 56.98 PII OT KNOR IIQIIOR RFVFNIIF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5703 114.01 NATIONAL CAMERA & VIDEO WATER UTILITY EXPENSE OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 479.13 479.13 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS ADMINISTRATION CELLULAR PHONES 116.35 HUMAN RESOURCES CELLULAR PHONES 54.43 BUILDING INSPECTIONS CELLULAR PHONES 147.14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CELLULAR PHONES 42.82 PATROL SERVICES CELLULAR PHONES 626.08 FIRE SERVICES CELLULAR PHONES 217.72 ENGINEERING SERVICES CELLULAR PHONES 201.59 PARK MAINTENANCE CELLULAR PHONES 224.01 BUILDING MAINT SERVICES CELLULAR PHONES 113.92 RECREATION PROGRAM SERVICES CELLULAR PHONES 179.44 SENIOR CENTER PROGRAMS CELLULAR PHONES 20.57 DOWNTOWN LIQUOR REV & EXP CELLULAR PHONES 38.29 SEWER OPERATIONS EXPENSE CELLULAR PHONES 116.93 SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS CELLULAR PHONES 239.85 WATER UTILITY EXPENSE CELLULAR PHONES 116.94 FLEET OPERATIONS CELLULAR PHONES 54.43 2,510.51 NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY PATROL SERVICES EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 35.78 SNOW REMOVAL SERVICES VEHICLE SUPPLIES & PARTS 39.51 CAPITAL ACQUISITION VEHICLES 2,860.80 CAPITAL ACQUISITION MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 3,008.40 5,944.49 NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT CO SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 28.10 28.10 NORTHERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY IN SEWER OPERATIONS EXPENSE EQUIP SUPPLIES & PARTS 2.028.83 WATER UTILITY EXPENSE EQUIP SUPPLIES & PARTS 2,028.82 4,057.65 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO CITY OF FARMINGTON 4/13/200610:38:12 Council Check Summary Page - 12 4/3/2006 - 4/16/2006 Vendor Business Unit Object Amount NORTHLAND BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC INVESTIGATION SERVICES EQUIP SUPPLIES & PARTS 145.28 145.28 NORTHLAND CHEMICAL CORP BUILDING MAl NT SERVICES CLEANING SUPPLIES 139.30 139.30 OFFICEMAX - A BOISE COMPANY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,806.65 ADMINISTRATION EQUIP SUPPLIES & PARTS 159.73 FIRE CAPITAL PROJECTS MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 149.09 2,115.47 ORKIN EXTERMINATING BUILDING MAl NT SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 88.98 SEWER OPERATIONS EXPENSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20.97 SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20.97 STORM WATER UTILITY OPERATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4.19 WATER UTILITY EXPENSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20.97 156.08 PAUSTIS WINE CO. DOWNTO'Mol LIQUOR REV & EXP COST OF GOODS SOLD 351.00 PILOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE COST OF GOODS SOLD 725,00 1,076.00 PELLlCCI HARDWARE & RENTAL POLICE ADMINISTRATION OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 3.50 FIRE SERVICES EQUIP SUPPLIES & PARTS 5.31 FIRE SERVICES VEHICLE SUPPLIES & PARTS 35.08 FIRE SERVICES BUILDING SUPPLIES & PARTS 165.98 STREET MAINTENANCE OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 3.50 SEWER OPERATIONS EXPENSE OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 58.55 SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 41.30 313.22 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC DOWNTO'Mol LIQUOR REV & EXP COST OF GOODS SOLD 2,776.38 PILOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE COST OF GOODS SOLD 4,372.38 7,148.76 PINE BEND LANDFILL INC SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14,707.36 14,707.36 PLASTIC RESOURCE INC DOWNTO'Mol LIQUOR REV & EXP OTHER 822.00 822.00 POLFUS IMPLEMENT INC. PARK MAINTENANCE EQUIP SUPPLIES & PARTS 463.65 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO CITY OF FARMINGTON 4/13/200610:38:12 Council Check Summary Page - 13 4/3/2006 - 4/16/2006 Vendor Business Unit Object Amount PARK MAINTENANCE OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 53.20 PARK MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 852.00 1.368.85 POSTMASTER SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS POSTAGE 2.042.18 '04'18 PREECE. BEVERLY RECREATION PROGRAM SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 72.00 72.00 PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO OF AME EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 2.310.36 2.310.36 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT AS EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND PERA PAYABLE 10.891.95 EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND PERA 13.327.16 24.219.11 QUALITY VIIlNE AND SPIRITS CO DOWNTOWN LIQUOR REV & EXP COST OF GOODS SOLD 2.196.00 PILOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE COST OF GOODS SOLD 2.431.72 4.627.72 R & R SPECIAL TIES OF VIIlSCONSIN . ICE ARENA OPERATIONS EXPENSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 48.00 48.00 R J SAYERS DISTRIBUTING SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 64.33 64.33 R&R CLEANING CONTRACTORS INC. DOWNTOWN LIQUOR REV & EXP BUILDING REPAIR SERVICE 28.79 PILOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE BUILDING REPAIR SERVICE 36.93 65.72 REED BUSINESS INFORMATION SPRUCE ST EXTENSION LEGAL NOTICES PUBLICATIONS 610.56 610.56 RENEGADES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAMS PROGRAMMING EXPENSE 140.00 140.00 RENNER & SONS. E H WELL #8 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS 42.910.78 42.910.78 RMI-C-DIVISON OF ROTONICS MFG SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS EQUIP SUPPLIES & PARTS 9.132.00 9,132.00 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO CITY OF FARMINGTON 4/13/2006 10:38:12 Council Check Summary Page - 14 4/3/2006 - 4/16/2006 Vendor Business Unit Object Amount ROC INC FIRE SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 216.20 BUILDING MAINT SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,883.14 SENIOR CENTER PROGRAMS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 858.39 SEWER OPERATIONS EXPENSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 214.60 SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 214.60 STORM WATER UTILITY OPERATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 42.91 WATER UTILITY EXPENSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 214.60 3,644.44 RUTHERFORD, GARY PATROL SERVICES MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 142.40 142.40 SAUBER PLUMBING & HEATING CO. WATER UTILITY EXPENSE EQUIP SUPPLIES & PARTS 4,257.50 4,257.50 SAUTER, BOB EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 885.00 885.00 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO. INC. BUILDING MAINT SERVICES OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 349.79 349.79 SCHRADER'S LAW ENFORCEMENT SUP BUILDING INSPECTIONS EQUIP SUPPLIES & PARTS 19.12 19.12 SCHULZ ELECTRIC INC PILOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 384.99 384.99 SCHWANZ, TINA HRNECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRAINING & SUBSISTANCE 29.26 29.26 SCOVILL, SHAWN PATROL SERVICES UNIFORMS & CLOTHING 576.22 576.22 SPARKY'S FIRE PROTECTION POLICE ADMINISTRATION EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 146.50 FIRE SERVICES BUILDING SUPPLIES & PARTS 149.13 BUILDING MAINT SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 212.41 SENIOR CENTER PROGRAMS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 39.00 ICE ARENA OPERATIONS EXPENSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 178.00 SEWER OPERATIONS EXPENSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 89.27 SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 89.27 STORM WATER UTILITY OPERATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 17.85 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO CITY OF FARMINGTON 4/13/200610:38:12 Council Check Summary Page - 15 4/3/2006 - 4/16/2006 Vendor Business Unit Object Amount WATER UTILITY EXPENSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 89.27 1,010.70 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC - 00 PATROL SERVICES FUEL 1,514.80 FIRE SERVICES FUEL 86.46 !,;TRFFT MAINTFNANCF FIJFI 531 92 PARK MAINTENANCE FUEL 313.95 SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS FUEL 46.58 FLEET OPERATIONS FUEL 50.99 2,544.70 SPRINT PATROL SERVICES CELLULAR PHONES 404.29 404.29 ST CROIX RECREATION CO INC EVERGREEN KNOLL PARK OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 805.84 RAMBLING RIVER PARK OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 201.47 MEADOIIWIEW PARK OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 201.47 1,208.78 STARK, RICKIE STORM WATER UTILITY OPERATIONS OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 760.00 760.00 STREICHER'S PATROL SERVICES UNIFORMS & CLOTHING 1,938.18 INVESTIGATION SERVICES UNIFORMS & CLOTHING 725.00 2,663.18 SUNDANTZ CREATIONS POLICE ADMINISTRATION UNIFORMS & CLOTHING 139.50 139.50 SUPERIOR PRODUCTS MFG CO CAPITAL ACQUISITION MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 2,661.44 2,661.44 TECH ELECTRIC OF MINNESOTA BUILDING MAINT SERVICES EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 34.88 SEWER OPERATIONS EXPENSE EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 43.60 SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 43.60 STORM WATER UTILITY OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 8.72 WATER UTILITY EXPENSE EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE 43.60 174.40 THRAEN, TERRY FIRE SERVICES TRAINING & SUBSISTANCE 227.16 FIRE SERVICES MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 71.18 298.34 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO CITY OF FARMINGTON 4/13/200610:38:12 Council Check Summary Page - 16 4/3/2006 - 4/16/2006 Vendor Business Unit Object Amount TKDA INC WATER UTILITY EXPENSE EQUIP SUPPLIES & PARTS 274.92 274.92 TOTAL CONTROL SYSTEMS INC MAIN STREET OTHER CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,280.70 1,280.70 TOTAL MEDIA INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET MN SALES TAX DUE 7.43- INVESTIGATION SERVICES OTHER SUPPLIES & PARTS 205.33 197.90 TOTAL TOOL SUPPLY INC FLEET OPERATIONS MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 292.88 292.88 TOWN'S EDGE CAR CARE FIRE SERVICES VEHICLE SUPPLIES & PARTS 48.00 48.00 TRUCOLOR STUDIO POLICE ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 210.87 210.87 UNION SECURITY INSURANCE COMPA EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 932.33 932.33 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE POLICE ADMINISTRATION POSTAGE 9.25 SEWER OPERATIONS EXPENSE POSTAGE 79.48 88.73 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE COMMUNICATIONS POSTAGE 2,000.00 2,000.00 US CAVALRY PATROL SERVICES UNIFORMS & CLOTHING 5o.s3 50.63 VERIZON WIRELESS FIRE SERVICES CELLULAR PHONES 15.36 15.36 VOGEL, ROBERT C BOARDS & COMMISSIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 600.00 600.00 WACKER, MARILYN PATROL SERVICES UNIFORMS & CLOTHING 80.00 80.00 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO Vendor WENDLANDT,BRENDA Business Unit HUMAN RESOURCES WINE MERCHANTS DOWNTOWN LIQUOR REV & EXP PILOT KNOB LIQUOR REVENUE WlNGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC STREET MAINTENANCE SODERBERG FOGARTY MCKNIGHT PRITZLAFF ~ WILSON CITY OF FARMINGTON Council Check Summary 4/3/2006 - 4/16/2006 Object MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT COST OF GOODS SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD VEHICLE TIRES VEHICLE SUPPLIES & PARTS Report Totals Amount 268.56 268.56 556.56 2,520.10 3 076 66 1,289.18 1,289.18 4/13/200610:38:12 Page - 17 105.50 105.50 706,698.73