Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.15.03 Council Minutes COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR December 15,2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg None Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Dan Siebenaler, Interim City Administrator/Police Chief; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Tim Gross, Assistant City Engineer; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Randy Oswald, Michelle Meschke, Tim Burke, Sherri Buss, Michelle Schmidt, Lynne Halterman, Mike Buringa, Sid Inman 4. APPROVE AGENDA Councilmember Cordes pulled item 7a) Council Minutes (12/1/03 Regular) (12/3/03 Special) to abstain. Councilmember Fitch and Mayor Ristow pulled item 7k) page 2 for discussion. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to approve Council Minutes (12/1/03 Regular) (12/3/03 Special). Voting for: Ristow, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg. Abstain: Cordes. MOTION CARRIED. k) Councilmember Fitch had a question regarding the $5,000 payment to Mr. Francis Blaha. Finance Director Roland explained the HRA has approved negotiations with Mr. Blaha regarding his property on Spruce Street. The negotiations resulted in an Option Agreement which is currently under consideration. There was another $5,000 check cut last month. Both ofthese checks are being held, as they are part of the negotiations with Council Minutes (Regular) December 15,2003 Page 2 the Option Agreement. The checks were cut so they would be available upon the signing of the Agreement. Councilmember Fitch asked about the details of the Option Agreement and if we lose the $10,000 if we decide not to purchase the property. Community Development Director Carroll replied originally staff suggested an Option Agreement to minimize the city's financial exposure in the event Council decided not to go ahead with purchasing the property. That was rejected by the other party. Staff then worked on a Contract for Deed whereby there would be $5,000 down and then another lump sum payment of $25,000 60 days after that. That would have been a total of $30,000 within the first 60 days. This was patterned after an agreement Mr. Blaha was working on with another party, which fell through. The party that owns the property talked to the attorney about the Contract for Deed and the attorney said the Option Agreement made more sense. Staff reverted back to the Option Agreement. The terms were changed to get away from the $25,000 payment. It was changed whereby the seller would get $10,000 at the time the Option Agreement was entered into. The city would then have 60 days to buy the property at a specified price. If we did not want to exercise that option within 60 days, we could pay an additional $5,000 and have an additional 30 days to make a decision. We would be paying within the first 60 days a maximum of $10,000 as opposed to the $30,000. Staff believes this structure is advantageous to the city and the HRA. The HRA has agreed to this arrangement. Mayor Ristow asked if this was the HRA's money. Finance Director Roland replied that is correct, it is HRA money. It is identified on the list of bills as HRA Special Revenue Account. It will also show up on the HRA' s list of bills. The HRA will ultimately approve the agreement. Mayor Ristow asked if this was still contingent on the closing of the two properties in the industrial park. Community Development Director Carroll replied it was his understanding that Council indicated a desire to finance the Blaha transaction with HRA funds. In the event that a couple pending HRA transactions fall through, there may be some question as to whether we would want to go ahead with this acquisition. That is the reason we structured it as an option so we are not committed to pay the entire amount until we know we have the funds available. MOTION by Fitch, second by Soderberg to approve the bills. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fitch to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: b) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Police c) Adopted RESOLUTION R90-03 and R91-03 Approving 2004 Tax Levy and Budget - Finance d) Received Information Heritage Preservation Commission 2003 Annual Report - Administration e) Adopted RESOLUTION R92-03 2004 Non-Bargaining COLA Agreement- Human Resources f) Adopted RESOLUTION R93-03 Approved Clerical, Technical, Professional Contract - Human Resources g) Adopted RESOLUTION R94-03 Approved Maintenance Contract - Human Resources h) Adopted RESOLUTION R95-03 Approved LELS Contract - Human Resources Council Minutes (Regular) December 15,2003 Page 3 i) Approved Agreement County Hauler Financial Incentive Payment and State Processing Payment - Parks and Recreation j) Adopted RESOLUTION R96-03 Approved Heritage Preservation Commission Consultant Contract - Administration k) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Ordinance - Approving 2004 Fee Schedule - Administration Staff presented proposed changes to the 2003 Fee Schedule for 2004. The fees are equitable to other communities. There were only minor changes to the schedule. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Fitch adopting ORDINANCE 003-504 establishing 2004 charges and fees for licenses and permits effective January 1,2004. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Sales of $2,150,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds series 2003B and $600,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds Series 2003C - Finance (Supplemental) The bonds were sold today. Regarding the $2,150,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds there were 7 bidders. Legg, Mason, Wood, Walker was the low bidder with an interest rate of2.0541%. This saved $184,600. This reduced the amount of the bond issue. The other bond issue was for $600,000 worth of G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds. These are to refund the TIP bonds of 1993. The interest rate came in at 4.74%. There were five bids. The low bidder was Cronin and Company. This resulted in a savings of$53,814. Mr. Sid Inman, of Ehlers & Associates, stated Moody's has returned the city's A3 bond rating. Moody's also stated the city continues to be in such strong financial consideration, they will consider another upgrade the next time. This was a rather unusual comment, which he has not heard in 25 years. The total savings to the city was $238,000 of interest over the life of the bonds. Mr. Inman stated Ehler's recommends approval of the low bidders. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes, adopting RESOLUTION R97-03 awarding the sale of$2,150,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds of2004A to Legg, Mason, Wood, Walker. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Fitch adopting RESOLUTION R98-03 awarding the sale of $600,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds of2004B to Cronin & Company. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) December 15, 2003 Page 4 b) SeedlGenstar AUAR Responses to Comments - Community Development Staff is nearing the end of the environmental work for the SeedlGenstar property. Ms. Sherri Buss, ofBonestroo, has been coordinating the work on the AUAR. There were a small number of comments received on the AUAR, many were informational. The largest number of comments related to the transportation issue, and the fact that the number of trips in this development, at full development, will exceed the capacity ofHwy 3. That is acknowledged in the AUAR. Most of the comments were asking the city to work with MnDOT, Empire Township, and other agencies to plan for east-west routes to take some of the traffic offHwy 3. Other comments were specific design issues. A small number of comments were related to North Creek and to the wetlands along the creek. They were requesting the city have increased requirements for wetland buffers and other requirements for the wetlands. This cannot be done without going beyond the city's wetland ordinance. North Creek is not in the designated trout stream area. As there is a very wide floodplain in the area, the wetlands will be getting more protection than normal. The wetland policy would not be changed for this development. The responses to comments will be mailed to the agencies. They have 10 working days to raise any objections. At the end ofthe 10 days, the city is free to adopt the final AUAR. Councilmember Fogarty asked ifthere was a chance North Creek could be given the trout stream designation. If that would happen, how much would change for this development? Ms. Buss felt it was unlikely this would happen as the designation was just changed last December. Councilmember Fitch noted they suggested from 160th Street to where it connects south of Main Street, that Hwy 3 should be four lanes. It said there is no plan for that, and asked if they were saying the city would have to pay for that. Ms. Buss replied the Traffic Engineer thinks they want the city to pay for the studies. By the time the project goes north of Farmington the impact of the development falls off compared to everything else and it is not fair to ask the city and the developer to pay for the studies or the roadway impacts that far north. It is not due to the development. It is due to other things going on in the county and in Empire Township. Councilmember Fitch then noted they tried to say the city was responsible for their water runoff. Ms. Buss replied only from one side ofthe roadway. The east side of the roadway is Empire Township's responsibility. Mayor Ristow noted this project started in 1997. At that time Ms. Leslie Vermillion, ofMnDOT, showed entrances along a frontage road and to coordinate that with Empire Township and the county. Ms. Buss stated that is why the AUAR recommended two or three access points to Hwy 3. The transportation will require a lot of coordination between everyone. Mayor Ristow noted the continuation of 195th Street to the east will be important. Ms. Buss felt that is one of the first things to be developed in coordination with the county. Council Minutes (Regular) December 15, 2003 Page 5 MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty accepting responses to comments and directing staff to mail the comments to the agencies for their 10-day review. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Approve Meadowview Park Master Plan - Parks and Recreation This item was tabled at the November 17 and December 1, 2003 Council Meetings. Since then, staffhas received an e-mail from Mr. Brian Watson, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, regarding questions on the boardwalk going through the wetland. Parks and Recreation Director Distad met with Mr. Watson and discussed the project. After seeing the photos and the design of the project, he provided further comments. Mayor Ristow stated Mr. Watson was previously concerned with whether there was any grade to the boardwalk or the use of concrete. The boardwalk would be elevated above the high water mark. Councilmember Soderberg noted Mr. Watson stated it was his opinion water quality and wetland habitat issues would not be adversely impacted under any of the trail design scenarios as long as an elevated boardwalk is implemented and consideration is given to future high water levels. Staff stated Mr. Watson had also spoken with the residents and the residents have an alternative plan. Mr. Watson was ok with any of the plans as long as his concerns are addressed during the construction of the boardwalk. Ms. Michelle Meschke, 19984 Evensong Avenue, stated she has stressed that if they had not been mislead by the developer, the builder, and the city, she would not be standing before the Council and Parks and Recreation Commission. She would have been able, when she purchased her lot, to make an informed decision on whether or not she wanted to buy that particular lot, whether she wanted to buy a lot in Charleswood at all, or whether she wanted to live in Farmington at all given the preservation of the wetland issue, and the resident concern issue. The only thing she could not have foreseen was the cost of the boardwalk, so she could not have taken that into consideration. That is the main problem. There are lots of reasons, particularly the cost, why a boardwalk should not be built. She thanked the Council, because this is the first time someone has wanted to work with them, not being on their side, but listening and trying to come up with a plan that is amenable to everyone. If it were up to her, she would not want any boardwalk in this wetland. In talking with Councilmembers, there is a concern for the southerly access. They are not trying to keep people out of the park. There are trails designed to go to the park. Granted they are further away and not as convenient as a boardwalk through the wetlands would be. Given that is the Council's main concern, the residents tried to come up with a plan that addressed everyone's concern. They proposed the boardwalk comes out into the cul-de-sac between the townhomes on Langford Lane. This moves the boardwalk away from the resident's backyards who were told there would never be anything in their backyards, were never shown a map, even when asked, that there was going to be a trail in their backyard. They have seen the Genstar map showing the trail which was already in. They thought that was as far as the trail would go, or Council Minutes (Regular) December 15, 2003 Page 6 Genstar would have gone all the way with it. Now there are some maps floating around they have never seen, showing the trail behind their backyards. If she had seen a proposal that was going to be directly on her property before she bought her lot, she would not have bought her lot. She would have thought long and hard if this proposal had come back because of what they paid for their lots and the buffer that has been taken from their lots even though they pay taxes on it. The residents tried to come up with something they thought would be amenable to everyone. By moving it over to Langford Land, which comes out into the townhomes, they took it away from the backyards of residents where there is no buffer. No protection, they are wide out into the open, everyone can see into their backyards. By the townhomes, there is tree cover. She cannot even see the townhomes in the winter with the leaves off the trees from her home. It gives a southerly access. Because people in the townhomes seemed to raise the most concern about needing a southerly access, the residents thought moving it over toward the townhomes would give them better access. The residents also thought it might be a shorter distance, thereby lowering the cost of the boardwalk. There was a proposal at the last Council meeting, that the cost could be reduced by the use of the MN Conservation Corp. Another resource was the Koch Refinery grants they give for environmental projects such as this. That number was 1/3 ofthe cost. Now that number has been represented to some citizens as the actual cost and that raised a concern with her because she has not seen a signed contract that says they are going to do it, she has not seen a signed contract that says this will be the cost. Even if we do submit an application, there is no guarantee that it will be granted. If it is granted, there is no guarantee that the cost will be 1/3. To her cost is still an issue, because there is no guarantee the cost will be 1/3 and so financial responsibility is still an issue that is on the table. Unless she sees a contract, which she understands they cannot until it is approved for $77,000 that is a huge issue for her. Other concerns were that keeping the boardwalk where it is now, as proposed, if bikers come across the boardwalk, they will zip down to 200th and keep going across 200th onto what is proposed as an ongoing boardwalk on the other side. That is a concern to her, because she knows kids are not going to stop. With dumping the boardwalk onto a cul-de-sac there is no traffic. They will have to come down that cul-de-sac lane and hook up to 200th Street and have a better view of the street and the through traffic. Their proposal also addresses Council's concerns for looping. Ms. Meschke stated one Councilmember expressed a desire for looping. Moving the boardwalk would also address that concern. She stated the residents tried to address everyone's concerns. She now understands Langford Lane is run and maintained by the association. She did not know if permission was need, or how they go about getting permission, but felt that is something that needed to be researched. Another issue was whether or not the elevation leading up to Langford Land would allow handicap access. Again, that is an issue that needs to be researched. If you want to do something, you can find a way to do something. Another issue is that technically this trail would connect Council Minutes (Regular) December 15, 2003 Page 7 to a trail that does not yet exist. One alternative is that if they can get the Conservation Corp involved, and the cost of the boardwalk is 1/3, there will be quite a bit of money left over. She was going to propose that we could pave a partial trail from the park to the boardwalk. It would not be prudent to go all the way to Pilot Knob Road, given we do not know if Pilot Knob Road will be made a 4-1ane, we do not know how the future development will impact that part of the trail. She tried to come up with alternatives to the concerns that have been raised. The residents would be amenable to this alternative plan if the research could be done on it to find out if those issues and concerns are feasible. As far as the other changes, she felt most people would agree that the viewing platform is unnecessary. If we have a boardwalk, that is a huge platform. It is redundant, and a cost that does not need to be there. The cost was $7200. More picnic tables and grills could be used for the $7200. The third change they proposed was to make a loop around the wetland island to avoid backtracking. Surrounding the perimeter might be safer, and there would not be a need to clear as much. That is completely open, if people do not want the loop around the island, that is fine. That was on the original Genstar map. They tried to come up with an alternative that is amenable to everyone and meets everyone's concerns. She encouraged Council to not adopt the park plan as proposed and send it back for further research on the boardwalk issue. She did not know if they can approve part of the plan, and put part of it on hold. If that is possible, she would recommend that. However, the park cannot be built tomorrow, it is winter. We need to get this right, and take our time to come up with a solution that is amenable to everyone. Depending on constraints she encouraged Council to turn this plan down and send it back to the Parks and Recreation Commission for further research on the issues they raised and the alternative plan. Mayor Ristow asked if the area down to the open ballfield is fine, just the realignment of the trail to the cul-de-sac is needed. Ms. Meschke replied yes. Councilmember Fitch recalled it is standard procedure when Council approves a final plat that the trail system is on a final plan. Was this or was it not on the final plat? Councilmember Soderberg spoke with former Parks and Recreation Director Jim Bell, and his comment was that there was some dispute between him and the developer. Originally they wanted the trail to come from the end of the island out to the cul-de-sac where Ms. Meschke and other residents live. Had they done that they would have lost an entire building lot. The two mutually agreed somewhere along the way the Master Plan for the park itself would include a trail to the south. That is why it did not get put on that particular phase of the plat. It was put on the Comprehensive Plan and was identified before the developer went in there, so the developer was aware of it, but chose not to disclose the trail. Councilmember Fitch stated it is incumbent upon the city, if that is one of our requirements, to put the trail on the plat. He personally did not see an excuse for not having that done. Addressing the residents concerns, he hoped that the city would take steps to make sure in future developments that this is not overlooked. Ifwe come to a standstill with the developer, he would rather Council Minutes (Regular) December 15,2003 Page 8 make sure the thing is done right, rather than say we will address it at some point in the future. That does not do anyone any good and puts future Council's in a precarious position which is unfair to future people that have to deal with these issues. Regarding the expense of the boardwalk, he was concerned with the expense of maintenance. Keeping up wood, treated or not, is not an easy task. Has that been given any thought? Mayor Ristow stated regarding this not being platted, he spoke with Mr. Juetten and asked ifhe could explain how this was laid out and ifhe could recall where the trail was to go. Mr. Juetten explained it was to go down to the ballpark and to CSAH 31. Mayor Ristow said Mr. Juetten stated there was never any indication of the trail going to any of the properties along Evensong Avenue or the cul-de- sac. Mayor Ristow asked Mr. Juetten why the trail was not put in. Mr. Juetten told him it was through park dedication fees. Ms. Meschke stated the residents did get a Genstar map from Parks and Recreation Director Distad which had the trails highlighted and it showed exactly what Mayor Ristow described. It also showed a trail going around the wetland island which still has not been put in. There was supposed to be a trail that branched off and came out to Evensong below Evensong Court. An easement was never filed. Councilmember Soderberg stated regarding the proposal through Langford Lane, that is a private street and would have to cross private property which would involve obtaining a right-of-way, which can get expensive and cumbersome. With regard to making sure developers inform people, as he spoke with a number of people in Charleswood, there was a lot of miscommunication, not only about the boardwalk or the trail, but the wetland buffer, sidewalks, etc. Ms. Meschke came up with the idea of having some sort ofa disclosure. Since developers seem to be dropping the ball on disclosing certain things in developments, can the city require a disclosure so each homebuyer is informed and the city would have some record. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated in the past the city has required the developer to display maps of the surrounding area and the plat in their model homes. Councilmember Fitch stated the map is supposed to be a final plat. It would not have done any good in this case, because we did not force the developer to delineate the trail on the final plat. Whether we think someone was mislead or not, if we did not make it a condition on the final plat, then there was no responsibility of the developer to put it on a final plat map, because it was not required at the time. Councilmember Fitch felt we dropped the ball somewhere and being part of the city, we are responsible for part of this, of the bad communication and miscommunication about what should have been done along there. He would like to look at the long term cost and maintenance and let's work with the citizens. He felt we had to bear some of the brunt because we did not force the developer to do the things we are telling him right now he should be doing. He cannot disclose what the city is not telling him should be there. Council Minutes (Regular) December 15,2003 Page 9 Councilmember Soderberg noted the issue with kids crossing 200th Street, we have the same issue along other trails. Mayor Ristow recalled in the area of 190th Street, residents wanted stop signs at intersections because of the children. Councilmember Fogarty stated signage was put up, it was striped, and is very visible now. Councilmember Fitch stated we have established crosswalks on quite a few of the cross streets. The problem is we still have drivers that are not aware of the law with crosswalks. Councilmember Soderberg stated with regard to the cost of the boardwalk, that was a flag for him, and he was given comfort in that regard with Parks and Recreation Director Distad's comments and contact with the MN Conservation Corps. He would certainly be amenable to making the boardwalk a contingency on keeping the cost contained. Obtaining definite numbers on maintenance costs is a valid concern. The concern of throwing a boardwalk in there at $77,000 is ludicrous when that is a significant portion of the entire budget for the park. Councilmember Fogarty stated the alternative of putting it onto Langford Land permanently ends the trail connection. It cannot go through to anything. As far as putting children out onto streets, that for sure does. Ms. Meschke stated on Evensong Avenue, the trail that currently comes out dumps right onto a very, very busy street and there are no sidewalks. On Langford Lane, it is a cul-de-sac, there is no through traffic. 200th Street is even worse. Mayor Ristow stated when he and Mr. Watson met with different residents, his point was the shortest distance across the wetland would be best for a boardwalk. Mr. Tim Burke, 20087 Heathrow Way, stated it is interesting about the cost and keeping it under control, he agreed we do need to do that. If you build it far enough way, then cost is not an issue for some folks. There has been some talk about tabling this issue again tonight, and he hoped that would not happen. He felt Council had all the information they need to make the decision about the Master Plan. Weare talking about the Master Plan and the information and what is best for Farmington going forward. We cannot go back and fix what happened before and have the developers be more forthright with people or make sure that what city employees told homeowners that they were correct or understood properly. That is water under the bridge. Right now we have a park we are trying to get designed and built in a timely fashion that makes the most sense based on what the situation is today. If we have issues about disclosure whether it is from developers or how city employees talk to prospective homebuyers that is a separate issue. That is a policy issue for the city. Let's not get that mixed up with the Master Plan issue which is before the Council tonight. The plan is as good as we are going to get. The one thing we may agree on is the viewing platform. He could see the platform going away and saving that $7200. In terms of Council and Parks and Recreation Commission and staff listening to homeowner's concerns, he felt they have done that. The original plan was to build a path right behind the homes along Evensong Avenue. After hearing the concerns of the homeowners, that was taken out and the boardwalk put in, several hundred feet away from those homes. So the concerns were heard and were acted on. The Mayor's concerns with Mr. Watson were prior to the understanding that he had Council Minutes (Regular) December 15, 2003 Page 10 about how the boardwalk would be constructed and that it would be above the high water level rather than creating any kind of a disturbance. His memo makes it clear he does not have a problem with the plan as it is presented in the Master Plan. Mr. Burke felt the right thing to do is to listen to the Parks and Recreation Commission, staff and consultants who have considered these matters and have brought to you the best plan based upon the situation we have today. An economical boardwalk, a functional recreation area for picnicking, sports, etc. A plan that fits into the larger development plan for trails and parks in the city and that also opens the possibility for an enlarged park from a new dedication from the development coming to the east in the next year or two. Mr. Burke urged Council to pass the plan as is and to do it tonight so plans can go forward. He understood if the boardwalk is done, the MN Conservation Corps prefers to do that in cold weather where they make the least disturbance on the ground. If it can be done this winter, time does become an issue, or it gets put off until the next winter and we do not have a useful parkland until 2005. He urged Council to vote on the plan tonight and approve the Master Plan endorsed by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Ms. Lynn Halterman, 19988 Export Trail, stated they do not back up to the wetlands, but with the proposed plan they have no access to it. They have to go through the neighbor's yards to get to the wetlands or to the boardwalk. She would prefer Council put this off until they have all the information. They have lived there for two years and have not had a park. What is one more year? If we need to take time to make a right decision and get all the information, that is more important. She encouraged Council not to rush into anything. Mr. Randy Oswald, 19282 Evenston Drive, stated Council has been given quite a few proposals in the last few weeks. One of the things the Parks and Recreation Commission looked at was the materials for the boardwalk. There are new materials, such as composite materials. They moved in 2 !h years ago, and found out the farmer behind him owns 16 feet of what he thought was his lot. The farmer has been kind enough not to plow right up to his lot line and the residents have mowed and kept the grass nice. He heard the trail was not shown on the plat drawings. He recalled the trail is shown on the 2020 Comp Plan. The Parks and Recreation Commission looked at this as being city property. They tried to accommodate the residents by moving it away from their property. Even though there are no trees, it is a space buffer. One thing that has bothered him, is the poor access to the park. When the development to the east comes in, there will be some street front access. As far as taking time to make a decision and getting all the information, the Parks and Recreation Commission have obtained information and also Council. He urged Council to accept the plan as presented. He could see the platform going away. He has heard the figures of$77,000 and $28,000. The plan has to be approved and then we can move forward and finalize those things. Do we put it out onto Langford Lane? As has been mentioned costs go up. You are dumping it onto a private street. The plan for 200th Street is to have a trailhead there. What makes sense? He understood the resident's feelings that Council Minutes (Regular) December 15, 2003 Page 11 live to the north and their need for not wanting it there. He understood the ball was dropped. He also understood they have to make a decision, whether it be yes or no, but urged Council to make the decision tonight. Ms. Michelle Schmidt, 19969 Evensong Avenue, stated they keep getting accused of bringing up the $77,000 and that it is the highest cost. That is the number the residents were given on the spreadsheet directly from the city. The residents did not pull $77,000 out of the air. They did not have a bunch of numbers they were given an option from. That was on the spreadsheet when this was first proposed. Regarding the $27,000 from the MN Conservation Corps, she spoke with Mr. Adam Robbins of the MN Conservation Corps. She said he could not give her any numbers. He said so much depends on the exact type of the boardwalk, the structure, and the length. Without having a plan in front of him, he could not give her an educated guess of the cost. She was not sure where the $27,000 came in or why it is being thrown around as the current cost. The MN Conservation Corps would not confirm that with her, and she stated maybe that is because she is a private citizen and not a part of the city. Even ifit is proposed at $77,000 she did not know ifit would actually come in at $27,000 there are so many variables into the cost. Regarding Mr. Oswald's comments and the residents being given an opportunity, Ms. Schmidt stated the Parks and Recreation Commission did not move the boardwalk. That was because of the first open forum meeting and residents expressed their concern and it was moved. It was tabled at the first Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. When it was brought up to be voted on, a major change occurred with the viewing platform overlooking all of our backyards and we were not allowed to comment on it. It was voted through. She commended the Council on allowing residents to speak, taking the time to hear all sides, working with them and trying to find a fair compromise. Mr. Mike Buringa, 406 14th Street, and a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, stated they are ready to let the system work it's magic. It is hurtful to hear these residents say this is the first time they have been heard. If that is the case, he wasted three hours of his time that night listening to their concerns, tabling the motion, going back and doing the homework making sure that some of these concepts of being mislead were addressed. We did show a map that was printed from 1998 that showed the trail going through the development. The difference between the misunderstanding of what the city is being accused of and what the developer is being accused of is the idea of construction. There will be no construction behind our place. In the big picture they looked at construction as houses, and they were right. It did not take into consideration the construction of trails, etc. especially with a park back there. The Parks and Recreation Commission does not want this back. We have done our homework and are giving Council the best recommendation that is there. This is a good plan. The reason it is so strongly endorsed is the simple fact that in the Master Plan of the connection this is the fastest, shortest and most economical way to keep this trail system going. As Councilmembers of the City of Farmington, he felt it was their job to look at the big picture, not just the small picture. If this was happening Council Minutes (Regular) December 15,2003 Page 12 anywhere else, he did not think we would have this battle cry. When he looks at the backyards of some of the homes, he wonders where the water from their pools goes. If they are so concerned about the environment, he hoped they go through the proper channel in draining the pools without just pulling the plug and the chlorinated pool water ends up in the swamp land. The battle cry has changed a little, and he has heard every aspect of it. The Parks and Recreation Commission is well-informed and has given Council the best recommendation. Mayor Ristow asked if the trail was proposed on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied it is on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The exact location of trails can change depending on how the development was built. Councilmember Cordes stated it does show a trailing running north and south. Councilmember Soderberg stated conceptually it showed it on the west side of the wetlands. Mayor Ristow stated he is trying to come to a happy consensus and there has been good information from all the residents. It is their park and their neighborhood. The community will share it once there is access off of Pilot Knob. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated he spoke with Mr. Adam Robbins of the MN Conservation Corps and he could not give him a hard and fast number as far as what it will exactly cost. He gave Council some handouts with costs of the boardwalk as far as construction, and maintenance costs of other boardwalks. The consultant estimated the cost at $77,000 including labor and materials. Staff reworked the numbers for materials only based on using the MN Conservation Corps. The numbers for materials were for recycled plastic. They would not have to be treated and should last in excess of 20 years. Paved trails would cost more to maintain than the boardwalk due to crack sealing and seal coating every 6-8 years. The posts that go into the ground are galvanized and made to withstand the effects of water. The recycled plastic materials and galvanized posts would cost $27,000. Based on the linear footage, type of materials, and the width an estimate for labor would be 1400 - 1700 hours with an estimated cost of $24,500 - $30,000. Adding that to the $27,000, the total estimated cost would be $51,500- $57,000. Regarding long-term maintenance, Bonestroo has put in a boardwalk with composite decking. If you use green treated every 10-15 years it will need some kind of a sealer to make it last longer. They used galvanized posts which can last 20-30 years. As far as the decking, dependability and how long it will last, they did not have any estimate, it could last forever because the water will not affect it. The decking would be the composite material. The railings and joists underneath are green treated. Regarding dropping the ball and not having it on the preliminary plat, the next item on the agenda is the Trail Master Plan. This will identify where future trails go so this issue will not come up again. When the developer comes in, staff can show the map and say this is where the trails go. Work your development around the trails. The trails will go in at the time of development, not after. Mayor Council Minutes (Regular) December 15,2003 Page 13 Ristow stated he has not seen too many that were not installed during development. Councilmember Soderberg stated this is all part of growing pains. There has been more than one issue in Charleswood that has been corrected already. It is good to have their involvement to get those issues corrected. He has visited 30 residents in that area the last few weeks. The overwhelming majority want a connection at 200th Street. In fact the overwhelming majority would like to see the trail go along the west side of the wetland. Their concern was the disturbance of the wetland and the wildlife. Councilmember Soderberg stated when he explained they were trying to have minimal impact on the wetland with a boardwalk they recognized that as a reasonable compromise given the fact the residents did not want the trail in their backyard. That is good government by taking input from everyone and coming to a reasonable compromise. He felt the information received is a reasonable compromise and fits well with the city's plan. The Parks and Recreation Commission did a good job in giving Council a recommendation. He would support the project as is, and could live without the viewing platform. He would like to add a provision that the boardwalk would be approved only if the MN Conservation Corps can install it and contain the cost. If they cannot, or the cost becomes out of line, he would be inclined to take another look at the boardwalk. The balance of the park plan itself is something he has heard a lot of comments about from residents asking when are we going to get a park. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated he talked with Mr. Juetten, the developer who owns the land to the east and north and discussed an arrangement for emergency vehicles to reach the park through that property. Mr. Juetten was open to working something out that would allow that to happen. If it does, the park could be built in 2004 and have it available sometime next summer. Councilmember Fogarty noted the viewing platform looks to the east and to the south. How does it not look to the west? Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied it was drawn to shown that we were trying to not have it look to the west, where people could look into the backs of houses. There is also a hook on the island for connecting the boardwalk so it was hidden from the west side of the wetland. Councilmember Cordes stated she believes a southerly access is needed to the park. It would be unfair not to look into what the residents have proposed, moving the boardwalk to Langford Lane. She did not know how the access would be or if a ramp would be needed to create the handicap access. It may be too costly, but it would be an injustice not to look at it. It gives the southerly access she would prefer to have, not necessarily in a good area, but it would be unfair not to look at it. She did not think a viewing platform was necessary. It is unfortunate things were not identified when they should have been when this was platted and submitted. She could not give an answer tonight whether nor not to approve it. Council Minutes (Regular) December 15, 2003 Page 14 Mayor Ristow stated the concern is to get to the ballfield and asked if that portion could be approved. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied construction would not start until Mayor June, so we do have some time. The ballfield area can be accessed from the north or the trail off Everest Path. Staff can work with the developer to get the equipment across his land to construct the park. The issue would be there is no connection from the south to get to the park from that area. Councilmember Cordes stated they cannot start anything until the snow is gone. Even if the northerly portion is approved, there is still two months to approve everything and have it done at one time. Parks and Recreation Director Distad would prefer to have the entire Master Plan for the park approved at one time. Staff can bring back more estimates for the resident's proposal. Councilmember Soderberg stated while Langford Lane is a compromise, we still have easement and right-of-way costs. Staff will try to have more information for the January 5, 2004 Council meeting. Mayor Ristow stated nothing can be done about the past. The Parks and Recreation Commission has put a lot of time and effort into the project. Residents have asked for a workable solution. It is their park and their neighborhood. He would like to see every option looked at, as we are not under any time constraints. He asked if any easement would be needed to access a private road. Attorney Jamnik replied an easement would be needed from the homeowners association in order to access through the lots and through the cul- de-sac along either the east or west side ofthe cul-de-sac. We may have to broaden the area that is dedicated as a private street and get a specified easement for that. Councilmember Fitch asked if the city would have any liability going through a private street if granted an easement. Attorney Jamnik replied not any more than any road or other trail. Councilmember Fitch asked what if someone is hurt on the private owner's part of the street or the city's part of the street. Attorney Jamnik stated that would have to be discussed by the homeowner's association when deciding whether to grant an easement. Councilmember Fitch stated talking about redundancy, there will be a trail along Pilot Knob and % of a block away along Langford there would be another trail. For that short distance it would not make financial sense to make a boardwalk. Weare putting two trails next to each other and it defeats the purpose of the south connection. Councilmember Cordes stated the road angles off so the next area to access Pilot Knob is quite a ways south. It is redundant for maybe 800 ft. Councilmember Fogarty stated she would approve it as is and would also approve it removing the platform. She does not like the Langford Lane connection because it permanently ends the trail. She has heard many complaints from other developments that the trails do not go anywhere, they just end. At some point it will be redundant, and the other location is not. We end all our options with Langford Lane. Councilmember Soderberg felt it will be difficult to get an easement from the homeowner's association because it is a private street. Mayor Ristow stated staff Council Minutes (Regular) December 15, 2003 Page 15 is willing to look at that, and then we have looked at all the options. Councilmember Cordes stated she firmly believes we need a southerly access. Not to explore all options is unfair to the residents and Council. It may come back that it is not feasible due to the grade for handicap access. When the residents built their houses, it was identified as nothing would be built in their backyards and felt Council owed it to the residents to explore all options. Councilmember Fitch stated he has had a different experience than Councilmember Soderberg and he did not know why some people tell certain Councilmembers they are all for it. He has had three to one say please do not do this. It could be different people contact different Councilmembers. Councilmember Fogarty asked ifhe has gone out and talked to residents. Councilmember Fitch replied no, they have called or e-mailed him. He thinks the city dropped the ball somewhere and would like to have some sort of compromise. He asked if Council could agree that once we look at this option, we have exhausted all options, and we vote one way or the other. Mayor Ristow agreed Council could vote then. Mr. Tim Burke stated the proposal from the homeowners was to use the trail built towards Pilot Knob and have a short spur to Langford. He did not think that served very much. He would propose building a trail through the middle of the island and go from the southern end of the island to Langford. If Langford were useable, that does not solve their problem. They want it as far away as possible. With regard to the townhome association, you would be dealing with the management company who would have to come to the association itself. We would be getting lawyers involved on both sides, and you would not have an answer the first meeting in January. Councilmember Fitch pointed out the residents did have a loop around the island and having a trail coming off the exposure would not be much greater because the trail would go to the southeast. Councilmember Cordes stated taking the trail from the southerly tip of the island to Langford Lane, you are adding several hundred feet to the boardwalk which would increase the cost. Mayor Ristow asked if we cannot go to Langford, can it go around the trees and connect to 200th Street? Staff replied we would have to look at the high water mark behind the townhomes. Staff will look into the cost. There would also be a trail in the front and the back of the townhomes. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Ristow to table this item and item 11 b) Approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Trail Master Plan to January 5, 2004. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) City Administrator Search Selection A consensus was reached at a workshop held earlier to appoint Mr. David Urbia to the City Administrator position. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes authorizing Mr. Brull to begin negotiations regarding a contract with Mr. Urbia. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) December 15, 2003 Page 16 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Fogarty: Stated this is the end of her first year on the Council and she wanted to thank staff and residents for their help and patience. She wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a safe New Year. Councilmember Soderberg: Regarding the wetland buffer in Charleswood, he asked if the residents can plant trees in the wetland buffer to provide screening. Assistant City Engineer Gross stated the wetland buffer at the back of the lots on 200tb Street is owned by the residents. Restrictions for the wetland buffer are outlined in the ordinance. They are allowed to plant trees within the wetland buffer because it is their property even though they are not allowed to maintain or build structures within the wetland buffer. Maintain means landscaping, landscape edging, etc. Trees can be planted without any plan approval. Councilmember Soderberg stated he spoke with City Planner Smick asking if she could check what the affects would be to move the buffer further off their properties and what the impacts might be. Whether that has a devastating impact to the ordinance or the wetland itself. The ordinance was redone so there would no longer be wetland buffer on private property. In the Charleswood addition, the buffer is across private property. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated that allowed the developer to increase the number of lots, because it increased the developable area. This can be reviewed as a possibility, but it was done at the desire of the developer to increase the number oflots. Councilmember Soderberg understood and it has created some problems. He was asking if there was anything that could be done to correct the situation for these homeowners. If it has a devastating impact to the ordinance or wetlands, then he is content to leave it as is. He was privileged to attend Toys for Town, both the presentation by the high school and the wrapping and distribution of gifts. Anyone who has not helped has missed a blessing. It is a thrill to be involved and to see the high school putting their creative genius together and coming up with over $4,000 for Toys for Town. Each group did a little bit. He wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Councilmember Fitch: Toys for Town is a great thing and to see the smile on the people's faces when you walk in is truly a good thing. He thanked Council for coming to an important 5-0 decision tonight and it shows we are pulling in the same direction. We have a chance to do this all over again next year. It has been an enjoyable year and trying. Staffhas done an excellent job in carrying on. He appreciated staff's patience and understanding. He wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler: Toys for Town served 165 children in 64 families. This is an increase of over 25% from last year. This means this community has pulled together to support that many more families than in the past. He asked a number of adult volunteers to stay for the presentation at the high school because it is important Council Minutes (Regular) December 15,2003 Page 17 to understand the good that is being done in this city. Weare very quick to recognize when young people do things wrong and paint them with the same brush. When in fact the majority of the kids in town do wonderful services and wonderful things for the city. The students at Farmington High School raised $2,996 in cash over a period of one week. In addition they collected $1200 worth of toys. They had a good time doing it. On behalf of Toys for Town and the rest of the community, he thanked all the volunteers and donors that helped with collecting toys, money, wrapping gifts and organizing everything. This is a huge effort that involves a lot of people. It takes a community to do that. No individual, no group can do it by themselves. This is truly a demonstration of how a community pulls together to do something wonderful. Finance Director Roland: Added the gentleman who has spearheaded Toys for Town for the last number of years is right, you cannot do it alone, but it has been a personal project, a personal love, a personal dedication. Although he is too humble to say anything about it, she felt it was appropriate to recognize that none of this would start or end without Dan Siebenaler and he deserves the community's appreciation for that. Mayor Ristow stated he would agree and also his wife and son. They have been a great contributor. Different questions were asked of his family and they said this is our Christmas. Every word of it is true. It is from Dan's heart and his family and the rest of the community that was there. Community Development Director Carroll: Gave an update on the Met Council grant application process. The city has a grant application pending to assist with the future Spruce Street commercial area. The city received a favorable recommendation at step 3. The committee met again today, and recommended the Met Council approve the application. There is a meeting on Wednesday, where a final decision will be made. The grant amount is for $955,000 which will assist with extending Spruce Street across Denmark, building the bridge and making a connection into the area. There were at least six applicants that had point totals greater than Farmington's and we received a positive funding recommendation and they did not. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler had a great deal to do with that. Community Development Director Carroll stated he wanted to do something out of the ordinary in his presentation and Dan told him to do what he thought was best. For other presentations there were a developer and an elected official present. We were the only city that applied that had two elected officials there, the Interim City Administrator, the Finance Director, Park and Rec Director, and the President of the Chamber of Commerce. That had to have an impact on the Met Council to see these people there and supporting the grant application. Finance Director Roland and Parks and Recreation Director Distad were on vacation that day and took vacation time to come to St. Paul and show their support for the grant application. He thanked his colleagues for assisting with that and the Spruce Street Task Force. We would not have gotten the grant without their work and if not for Council's adoption of the Master Plan. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated Community Development Director Carroll is underestimating the amount of work he has put into this, the effort and the drive he has put into this project. He has poured his heart into this, put in time at home, pulled Council Minutes (Regular) December 15,2003 Page 18 literally all-nighters. On Saturday he drove packets of information to St. Paul so they could be distributed to members of the committee before the meeting today. He has taken his own time at all times of the day and night and weekends to make sure this had the best chance of succeeding. Addressing the Council, he stated on behalf of this staff and the city this is the best Christmas present you are going to get this year. $955,000 that does not have to come from the taxpayers. Merry Christmas. Parks and Recreation Director Distad: He will be attending a meeting with Dakota County to discuss a regional park, three miles east of downtown Farmington in Empire Township. The park would be 800-1200 acres and have access off the Vermillion River which could potentially be a trail connection from Farmington to the regional park. If the county does a Master Plan this would allow them to access Met Council money to purchase the land. Mayor Ristow: Wished everyone Happy Holidays. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 9:45 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~~/~ P7~e-~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant